Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Harm Reduction Notes for the COVID-19 Pandemic

am I a naturalist

View Thread Reply
- Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:17:05 EST xomjeV0u No.210013
File: 1584069425281.jpg -(276773B / 270.29KB, 1072x1618) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. am I a naturalist
I don't think the modern world is natural since we've been detrimental to nature through drowning it in plastics, 5g causing cancer, animals going extinct every day etc. does that make me a hardcore naturalist?
5 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Shitting Settingdale - Sat, 28 Mar 2020 18:05:42 EST p+7ufF1/ No.210029 Reply
Cool, I did try googling the studies on 4G and birds but I think I'm using the right search terms, can you point me at them?

Absence of evidence is indeed not evidence of absence which you're right about. But you can say the same about 5G not being proven safe.
Frederick Nickleridge - Sun, 05 Apr 2020 05:15:53 EST I6irGQRy No.210031 Reply
I want someone to explain to me HOW exactly it's dangerous, in comcrete terms, because I hate industrial society as much as the next person so I've researched it and all you can find are studies proposing there could be some potentially concerning properties we should be aware of and research further, news articles sensationalizing likely insignificant findings like they always do and then conflicting theories by cranks and loons who extrapolate wildly based on the misrepresented findings of these misrepresented studies.
Nigel Benderpitch - Wed, 08 Apr 2020 05:36:10 EST fGHDtkRk No.210037 Reply

Great video that actually came out today that debunks the 5G thing pretty well. A lot of it, like any conspiracy theory, comes down to people misunderstanding terms and running with it because it's what they want to believe anyway

Tl;dw people hear electromagnetic radiation and microwaves and get spooked, not realizing that it's basically light, light is just the visible.psrt of the electromagnetic spectrum. Microwaves are actually longer than visible light and generally the shorter the wave length the more inherently damaging the wave can be. The real key is power behind the waves. Which is why your microwave cooks food while your router which uses microwaves at the same exact frequency, doesn't. 5G is very low power.

Also the bird thing is obviously because they're tuned into Earths magnetic field to know where to go, humans have no such ability

why is this graph?

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 07 Apr 2020 07:01:42 EST fGHDtkRk No.210034
File: 1586257302955.jpg -(89341B / 87.25KB, 610x610) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. why is this graph?
I saw this on Wikipedia just now. It's being used to exppain an incredibly simple concept. It's comparing inferior goods (for which the demand goes down as income goes up) with normal goods (for which the demand goes up as income goes up).

That's it.

What purpose does something like this serve then? Anyone who could make sense of this graph could easily grasp something so simple without any illustration at all. It seems far more obfuscatory than anything.
James Doppercocke - Tue, 07 Apr 2020 12:56:03 EST p+7ufF1/ No.210036 Reply
It's actually economics.

The graph itself doesn't illustrate much until you add values or supply curves. It's mostly to help people visualise how it looks.

Yeah if I wanted to explain inferior goods to someone I wouldn't use a graph. If I wanted to start analysing more implications like the relationship between producer and consumer surplus with inferior goods as income changes I'd probably produce the graph so I could work out what formula to apply.

A lot of numbers in economics are only relative to the frame they're in which is a problem, but it does let you test theories and help come up with better economic decisions.

The Decline of The West

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:21:07 EST fk7xMmwU No.207331
File: 1480432867070.jpg -(37129B / 36.26KB, 263x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. The Decline of The West
I'm in the process of reading pic related and I've been interested in the idea that the West is in terminal decline and will soon collapse for a while now and I'm fairly convinced that The West is basically done. What do you guys think?
56 posts and 7 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Molly Sessleworth - Wed, 25 Mar 2020 21:27:41 EST JyDTI0YA No.210025 Reply
All I find from "science is religion" types are attempts to insert batshit crazy shit in as a substitute. YECs, ancient aliens, and crystal healing flubber. The scientific method may not be perfect but it's a damn sight more than anything the rest of y'all got.
Frederick Nickleridge - Sun, 05 Apr 2020 05:59:15 EST I6irGQRy No.210032 Reply
What science ought to be and what it actually is are two very different things though. I think you're right that ideally we would all recognize that the understanding of the world which we can gain through scientific inquiry is inherently limited, but many people don't because the fallibility of science isn't touched on nearly as often as how much better it makes us as a people now that we do science instead of praying and how much smarter we are than all those idiots who lived before us and/or not in the west.

I think the point they're trying to make is that in modernity science has largely taken the place of religion, but it's not equipped to do so. Science concerns questions of the finite whereas faith concerns questions of the infinite, and their methods of inquiry are not fundamentally compatible. So, for instance, instead of looking at statistics merely as a way to inform our decision making, some implicitly see it as a form of divination. They take comfort in the idea one can predict the future, in the exact same way one would from consulting an oracle. They know that doing the latter would be "ignorant" and "superstitious" but still they long for the comfort of certainty and so whether they realise it or not they're projecting this desire into their understanding of the limits of science.
Frederick Nickleridge - Sun, 05 Apr 2020 06:15:03 EST I6irGQRy No.210033 Reply
> All I find from "science is religion" types are attempts to insert batshit crazy shit in as a substitute

I think there's clearly a distinct difference between saying "science is a religion, therefore my religious beliefs are just as objective" and saying "science is a religion, therefore could be just as wrong as any other religion (in some areas) and we should be wary of that as we move forward with it as still basically the best way we know for gaining certain types of knowledge"

Has Rationalism Failed? Do we need to rediscover the idea of Truth?

View Thread Reply
- Sat, 21 Apr 2018 05:34:22 EST Nwy2IF3I No.209138
File: 1524303262008.jpg -(20998B / 20.51KB, 494x604) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Has Rationalism Failed? Do we need to rediscover the idea of Truth?
I want to talk about the concept of knowledge and truth and how we approach its understanding. I am not convinced that logic and reason can serve as the only tools for understanding truth. Here is an example using atoms I have provided to make my point more clear.
>500 BCE Leucippis develops a theory on atomism. It is the idea that everything is composed of indivisible elements called atoms.
>Early 1800s Dalton develops his own atomic theory, where he specifically says “Atoms cannot be subdivided, created or destroyed”
>1879 – 1918 Many scientists such as William Crookes discover “subatomic particles” such as protons and electrons, which are smaller than atoms.
>1964 Gell-Mann and Zweig both develop the Quark model showing that hadrons (such as protons) are made of quarks, which are smaller than subatomic particles.
We run into a bit of a problem here. Either we conclude that Leucippis and Dalton are wrong because things are made of smaller things than atoms and atoms can be subdivided. Or we can conclude that Gell-mann and Zweig actually discovered atoms, to be consistent with Dalton’s definition, and we need to rename what atoms used to be called, since Daltons atom was something that could be subdivided. But maybe we might discover something smaller than quarks and where does this end? Then we need to either rename what an atom is yet again or call it the sub-sub-sub-atomic particle.
All of this means that truth is constantly unfolding and reshaping itself. Even now, if we define anything we might end up realizing it wasn’t what it seemed to be at the time and there is a whole new deeper area on the topic to explore. Maybe rationalism has failed to grasp the nature of truth reshaping itself, so all arguments rationalism creates become undone every time a new phenomenon is discovered.
Alice Greenshaw - Sat, 21 Apr 2018 11:39:01 EST DVMFurmR No.209139 Reply
While I agree with the general sentiment that there is more to truth than rationality alone, I think the particular problem you bring up (that the meaning of scientific terms gets constantly redefined) isn't a serious blow against rationality. It's just an admission of the fallibility of human language.

'Atom' is from the Greek 'A' meaning non or anti, and 'Temos' meaning cut. 'Atom' just means 'uncuttable.' So does that mean the things we call atoms aren't really atoms since they are clearly cuttable? No, not at all. 'Atom' is merely a symbol for a human concept, and the fact that the same symbol has been used to describe completely different ideas is unremarkable (especially considering Dalton's use of the term was an intentional callback to Leucippus' idea.)

When Leucippus posited the atom, he was right in one sense -- reality is made of indivisible elements. He was just wrong about their exact nature (they are strings, apparently, not what we call 'atoms.')
When Dalton posited his atom, he was right in some slightly more specific sense -- the world is composed of the atomic elements. He was just wrong about the fact that they were properly described as 'atoms' since they were indeed divisible.
And so on. With each generations the meaning of a scientific terms may expand or contract, but this is precisely because it is just a symbol humans use as a short hand to communicate ideas about an underlying reality.

There may be more fundamental limits to our ability to use rationality to understand the world, but I don't think the fact that humans are pretty careless with their use of symbols is one of them.
Phoebe Turveyhall - Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:08:20 EST SGCbMw+u No.209143 Reply
This is why you always need to accept change and accept that science continually changes and pretty much always will.
Betsy Mannershit - Fri, 03 Apr 2020 20:00:06 EST DyLRrmZc No.210030 Reply

How do subatomic particles hurt atomism by the definition. The universe is still composed of atoms and those atoms are composed of even smaller atoms called quarks. Quarks still = indivisible elements and if we got to a an even smaller level, whatever neologism we give it will = indivisible elements.

Am I racist?

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 27 Oct 2019 02:43:08 EST cze3kJZ7 No.209815
File: 1572158588896.jpg -(252850B / 246.92KB, 1400x787) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Am I racist?
>I do not go out at night because i am afraid of being murdered by black guys.
>I do not go out at the day time because i am afraid of being murdered by white guys
19 posts and 3 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Albert Fipperfoot - Thu, 09 Jan 2020 02:43:48 EST 5i0oN1r1 No.209911 Reply
blacks are camouflaged in the darkness and whites are camouflaged in the light? why not just go to asia or south america then?


View Thread Reply
- Sat, 14 Mar 2020 05:37:08 EST 0E4NAkki No.210015
File: 1584178628446.png -(1904191B / 1.82MB, 1374x746) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. school
The American school system is set up to create mindless worker bees. Modern schooling as we know it started in about 1860 with the start of the industrial revolution in America. At that time a lot of people where moving from rural areas of the USA to urban centers to work in factories. Our schooling was based on the Prussian style of public education. What was the Prussian style of public education set up to do? Create soldiers, obedient people who could follow directions. Horace mann, the person responsible for bring this school system to America once famously said “the state is the father of children” The main purpose of any form of public education is to create some social concision between people to have better functioning society. This is fine and dandy but it all went tits up over time. The public schools where set up to train you to wake up go to a building and work. That's it. Your entire scholastic achievements are based on how good you are at working, Working. Working, and working some more. It also served the adults by giving them time away from children so that THEY could work in factories. There are no rewords for not conforming unless of course your not conforming happens to serve the end goal of making workers better. It is easy to think that this was done to be evil or to keep a dumb and complacent populace on its knees. But for the most part this is not the case. It was done out of compassion and incrementally. To spare there children and prepare them for whats to come. A job pushing paper or stacking shit, and to have better social order.

This has had the unfortunate consequence of creating a sheep like group of people that need to wait for permission to say or think ANYTHING, they even need permission to wait. It starts with conforming to the rules of school the bells, the formality's the bureaucratic posses, and formal punishments and rewards. This continues unto college; college is estenatly a totally masochistic exprance. You pay for the privilege to pay some more, Yet you have no say in how you or it is run. You may have not EVEN considered that you SHOULD have a say. Instead You have the “privilege” to pay out the nose for the a institution that doesn't serve you no matter how much the say they do. Your a dollar bill, you are a box stacker, a cog in a greater machine that can not be allowed to chose its own classes, or determine its own conditions of success. they know better trust them.

Who is “they” by they way? Well in this situation they are a bureaucratic mess of professional educators who are over feed idolized dweebs. Who know advanced mathematics or perhaps something less practical and more pompous like political science. But don't know shit about the common porr mans experience which they champion. They are a pretentious cult of nerds who think way to highly of themselves because they have never had there shit pushed in. While the best among them (and this isn't saying much) may be able to intellectually realize and admit these facts. They still lack the clarity and true knowing that comes with having your shit pushed in, by the horrific daily occurrences that happen to the working class. with very few exceptions this is the case in every university in the western world; and the fact of the matter is THEY DO NOT KNOW BETTER, and deep down they know they don't.
Nathaniel Brepperfuck - Sat, 14 Mar 2020 05:38:39 EST 0E4NAkki No.210016 Reply
When we are young we are privileged by living in comfortable ignorance. We believe are parents truly know everything. That are teachers and elected officials know better then us. We always assume they know what they are doing. At some point during adulthood (hopefully) we realize that this is not the case, and that adults are essetaly grown up children flying by the seat of there pants. In every middle and upper level management office, and on every teachers night stand, in America there are stacks and stacks of books written on how to be a good boss filled with the same hack truisms. It is a 800 million dollar industry that preys on the sinking feeling every non psychotic leader has ever had. The feeling that says “holy fuck I don't have a goddamn clue what the fuck im doing, and I responsible for these kids/Employees?”

So in conclusion is it any wonder why these institutions produce some of the most repugnant socially conservative “liberal” 20 yearolds on earth? Of course these faggots love socialism, of course they are the ones who think the government can take care of them. THEY are the ones who bought into the established system the most! They did there homework, they followed the rules and order for over a decade, during there most formative years. THAT IS WHY THEY SUCCSIDED IN COLLEGE. Where as the actual working class losers and degenerate fucked ups couldn't conform, and thus ended up with a mindset that confuses these rich kids still to this day. Its a complete fucking mystery to them how a poor person could ever vote for trump. So they go with the most simple answer. that they are just dumb rubes who don't know any better. They are left thinking 'Don t they know that “they” know better? Haven't they been sufficiently programmed? Have they not learned to love the structure and order of office life? ' In reality the poor they see themselves championing see them as a adult child normie cog filling his roll in the established order of things. while the poor guy just wants to not pay 1/4 of his money to the government and be left alone. they wont leave him alone, they want all his money because daddy government knows better, and will fix everything. Never stopping to consider all the social structures originally set up to serve industry and the bourgeoisie itself that created your moronic mindset. COMMUNISM IS NOT THE NATRUAL RESULT OF CAPITALISM ITS THE RESULT OF INDUSTRILAZATION. You have been taught all your life to be incompetent, and irresponsible, to rely on those above you for things that are “not your responsibility.” communism is the logical end goal of a industrialized society trained to value production over people. So Its not a surprise at all that this obsession over industry and creating workers would eventually lead to communism. Because the idea of you being anything other then a worker unit, would become less likely with each passing generation of highly specialized workers. That's why they are so disgusted by the idea of the individual, they where sufficiently convinced that it shouldn't exist. Its also worth noting that, before this inevitable and unnatural result of industrialization the idea of communism could of never been considered as anything other then robbery by every other civilization before that. The necessary social training was not put in place. It also strikes me to think that Karl Marx himself was probably among the first victims of the Prussian style public schooling system, that eventually lead to his deranged philosophy. But bare in mind, once the comie revolution really starts to kick off. It wont be funny anymore, because the truth of what your saying as they sit at there coffee shops sucking down 12 dollar cups of joe, is a lot of death. What will they do with all the people who disagree with them I wonder? Government is government and all government is force, its never going to be the solution. So learn to love liberty, individual sovereignty and realize that if the government is fucked its NOT the Jews, its NOT the rich, its YOU! this is a democracy and you have to be a player. Otherwise people will play for you, and communism is disgusting willful capitulation to the fact, that you'd much rather be told and tell others what they can an cannot do. But the sad result is really the end result is Instead of getting stomped on by companies you will be getting stomped on by a unified infinitely more powerful force. The government.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

The Existence of Whiteness and White People

View Thread Reply
- Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:46:29 EST UIYk/9cB No.208391
File: 1503121589960.png -(210781B / 205.84KB, 354x409) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. The Existence of Whiteness and White People
It should be obvious here that this is relevant to the events that occurred in Charlottesville, VA. I'm also assuming that the majority of people here consider themselves white, so it's also relevant in that regard. Also, it might be obvious that I'm not writing from the perspective of a white person. But I think it's worth asking anyway.

My questions are thus: in what way(s) do white people exist? And why does an ethnonationalist project (like the Nazi's, KKK, perhaps the alt-right) depend on a white identity?

Is white a race? An ethnicity? A skin tone? A set of cultural acts?

It seems to me that white people don't really exist for three reasons. One, you can easily substitute a "white" identity with an ethnic one. That is, you can identify yourself as Irish, Scandinavian, German, etc. I think that here, to identify yourself as white is a category mistake.

Second reason is a pragmatic one. Why should we insist on a white identity when so many other identities are better? Why can't you identify as a Starcraft 2 player, a metalhead, a juggalo, a frequent masturbator, etc.? I imagine that telling people that you're white has no reflection as to what you actually do or are. There's no need to hold on to a white identity when there are plenty that more accurately describe your being or group (and ethnicity is included here). Whiteness, in other words, is just an empty signifier.

The third reason is political and relates to the point about whiteness being an empty signifier. I think that it's because whiteness is an empty signifier that groups like the Nazis or the KKK are able to utilize and capitalize on it. Because it is an empty signifier, you can use it to mean whatever you want to mean. You can use the concept of "whiteness" against certain minorities (like the Jews in the case of Nazi Germany, like Mexicans in contemporary US).

This is why, I think, the left and the liberals failed horribly in the last election. The emphasis on the tolerance of minority groups and the fact that there is white privilege and therefore white people need to atone for their sin of being white has produced a political climate where people who identify as white become more radical and more extremist.

Hence it's no wonder that there was the rise of the alt-right and Donald Trump who were able to appeal to those who identified as white, since it was liberals are quick to demand that white people repent for their whiteness. Whiteness here is a trap that you can't get out of, because there's literally nothing you can do about being white except be guilty about it. And those who don't want to feel guilty about it are going to find ways to redeem that identity, such as the case in the alt-right. Now I'm not saying that a project toward greater equality should be abandoned, but I think that in order to get out of the liberal guilt trap of being white, it would be necessary to abandon a white identity.

tl;dr white people don't really exist and reinforcing this identity will only garner more extremist groups like the alt-right
14 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Archie Gurrystare - Thu, 12 Mar 2020 03:41:57 EST cUbk/tCb No.210012 Reply
Johann Friedrich Blumenbach published his classification of races in 1779. So yeah, that's about 200 years and change. Closer to 250. Nowhere in the classical texts does anyone say "there are 5 races. White is one of them, and white is the best because whites come from adam and eve who were space aliens that lived in the caucus mountains."
Rebecca Beshridge - Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:26:51 EST p+7ufF1/ No.210014 Reply
The problem with racial identity isn't that it exists but that people ascribe values to it that they shouldn't. They treat individuals with the generalisations that work on groups and they don't look for the root cause of group trends when they can simply blame race.

That said actualy physical race isn't quite as simple as you think. There are a few traits but no specific genes that make someone a race. Race itself is a generalisation, so in that sense it's subjective. A lot of people are clear cut but it can get murky around the edges. Race as a concept is pretty common but then we've had all sorts of obsolete ideas which have become irrelevant as we have advanced.


>your mind, body, and spirit will always tied directly to your genes
Making it obvious that racism is a form of woo then? Your mind is the sum of your genes, memes and environmental/circumstantial/historical physical factors, your body is that but without the memes. Take two twins, bash one so hard they're a human vegetable. Their mind is now different, their body will change over time as it gets different nutrition, exercise and exposure to other things as the body can no longer move itself.

What even is spirit?
Basil Trotforth - Sun, 22 Mar 2020 02:39:57 EST fGHDtkRk No.210019 Reply
1584859197819.jpg -(125235B / 122.30KB, 614x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
it took me way too long to realize you were replying to that other dude through me because his posts were deleted lmao

Which is good, because like I said in my other post, this isn't an "open market place of ideas" here


Gen Z and the future of social liberties

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 29 Dec 2019 20:33:43 EST fGHDtkRk No.209898
File: 1577669623343.jpg -(32233B / 31.48KB, 612x612) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Gen Z and the future of social liberties

I just thought this was interesting and completely contradicts the prevailing notion I see in some places that our generation is somehow more "right-leaning" or "conservative" than millenials. I think there is this weird tiny but vocal clique among extremely online Gen-Zers (which is a relatively small clique in and of itself) that are people at various stages of falling down the alt-right pipeline. Call it the "PewDiePipeline" if you really want to piss these people off, because he's a spotless victim of the ebil newspapers that have the audacity to report the things he says and does

But mentioning that, it is a little concerning that one of the most popular personalities on one of the most popular platforms among generation Z is a guy that keeps coming closer and closer to flirting with outright, unironic, fascism. That said, I don't think most of his kid fan base gives a shit, they just want to see the funny screaming swedish man, but they might internalize enough of what he says that they start to believe the garbage he peddles. He unironically told his 50 million subscribers to read 12 Rules for Life lmao, oh and there's the whole wearing an iron cross on a video where you announce you're rescinding a donation to an anti-hate organization, and the whole "death to all Jews" but it's actually a really funny joke xd, and following people like Stefan Molyneux and Millenial Woes on Twitter, and defending Jon Tron, and a bunch of other gaffs).

But I mean, his fans and YouTube reply guys in general are let's say not the most socially successful among us. So I really don't know how much influence the things they believe has on the real world.

And at the same time, more liberal personalities are coming to the forefront on a website that has historically had an undeniably reactionary user base. And despite the inherent contradictions of it, most of the "right-wing" Gen-zers still don't give a shit about race, gender or gender identity, sexuality, because they were brought up in a way where none of these things were even presented as contentious issues, shitty attack helicopter jokes not withstanding

So, are the kids alright?

Being 22 I am one, albeit on the older end that mostly rejects the title (personally I love my generation, and identify far more with them than millenials) but i have a very carefully selected social circle so i can't possibly have an unbiased opinion, most of the people I know are on the far Left, I just encircled myself with like-minded people because there's no reason not to in this day and age, but I try to get a feel for what people think as a whole, because that ultimately affects my human rights as a (currently) protected minority
13 posts and 3 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Edwin Trotdock - Sat, 29 Feb 2020 19:01:29 EST fGHDtkRk No.209977 Reply
the trajectory indicated by the study I posted and almost all other public opinion survey's would seem to imply the opposite, even if some of the respondents are only saying what they know they're "supposed to", think about that for a second, how powerful of an impulse that is that people feel compelled to lie on anonymous surveys, there is no way not to internalize that to some extent, and the kids being brought up today are being brought up in such a way that this isn't seen as a contentious issue, there is no alternative narrative, you're seen as standing in opposition to objective reality, which you are

people are waking up alright, be honest with yourself, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows :)
Sidney Dronkinham - Sat, 29 Feb 2020 22:22:11 EST 8gq7GAVV No.209986 Reply
1583032931910.png -(364562B / 356.02KB, 1360x1888) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
You need to fuck off back to the future, cocksucking faggot.
Albert Blatherbury - Thu, 12 Mar 2020 03:22:33 EST fGHDtkRk No.210010 Reply
>it's not too late for you

You're right it's not, it is for you though fortunately


View Thread Reply
- Wed, 08 Mar 2017 10:30:15 EST 54PBc7Id No.207850
File: 1488987015842.jpg -(47743B / 46.62KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Family
What's up with family? What's up with heritage?
These things mean literally nothing to me, yet I notice so many people championing these things. Why do they do this?
Family is a group of people you share genetics with, who you have no choice of selecting, and heritage is people/events that have happened long in the past that you may be connected to genetically.
I don't understand the point in being proud of your heritage; you had nothing to do with it. I don't understand the point of being proud of your family; they're not you, nor are they people you've chosen to have in your life. And I don't understand the point of loving people simply because you share a genetic bond; there's nothing special about my genetics or anyone's genetics, really.

So what's up with this stuff? Why is it so significant to people?
16 posts and 2 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
John Bardstock - Wed, 04 Mar 2020 00:15:33 EST fGHDtkRk No.210002 Reply
>because it helps us to know the history of a place and the people who live there

why does that matter though?
Fanny Blytheford - Wed, 04 Mar 2020 05:45:48 EST IkYNq9wW No.210003 Reply
There is the property thing which I mentioned earlier. In many parts of the world, property is inherited, passed on from elders to their descendents. On a more personal level, understanding the family tree can also provide insights into our immediate family members and ourselves. My grandmother is a refugee of the Korean war, and is very clearly living with some extreme PTSD leftover from surviving that situation. She passed on a lot of that trauma to my father by abusing him psychologically, gaslighting, abandoning, etc. Now he's bringing that into my life, and I am trying to end the cycle. Basically the present situation is far easier for me to navigate, since I know who my mum and dad's parents are, as such gives me insights into their unresolved childhood traumas.

As for my ancestors further back, they are the world to me. Literally. When the body breaks down, it doesnt just evaporate out of existence, it gets carried off into the air land and sea by natural forces. I hear them in the roaring waves, the sound of lightning. Death is just a parlor trick. We are always connected.
Graham Snodforth - Wed, 11 Mar 2020 14:20:26 EST p+7ufF1/ No.210004 Reply
>property is inherited, passed on from elders to their descendents
There's people who think that people having a huge advantage in life because hundreds of years ago someone said "this is mine" or killed some people to get shit while in your country people can't afford food and shelter while working full time is a bad thing though.

Taking credit or pride in things you didn't do is dumb. Family does give you a nice sense of history, how you ended up here I agree. But nationalism is stupid. Once it was tribes, then city states. But the truth is when you get past cultural baggage we're all pretty similar. National history is rarely complete and what we get is actually often incomplete to the point it's misleading. Even in the US where it's pretty short and relatively recent and well recorded you don't get the whole story. And then you either cover a poorly recorded history of the Americans or Europeans history which is a mess of different things going on.

Knowing a story about how my country suddenly an empire somehow lots of resources slaves and the industrial revolution happened first is nice but it doesn't actually affect the reality of what so many people did. If we just say "it's the stories that matter" we erase the actions of people. But yet everyone has contributed, even if it's just by being there and doing their thing and thus allowing something else to happen, society has always been a complicated system made of more parts than we can comprehend. Our continuum isn't history, it's the results of our actions. When I die I would like to be remembered, but I'd like to think I had a net positive effect on the world and that reverberated, even if subtle tiny ways for years. And a lot of people did that for us but they were nobody the seamstress and no one the factory worker or they were MP on some constituency no one remembers but voted to change the law along with a bunch of others or they died stalling fascism for a good 70 years ish.

If Muslims were White

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 04 Apr 2017 09:40:56 EST 54PBc7Id No.207974
File: 1491313256272.jpg -(65536B / 64.00KB, 645x484) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. If Muslims were White
100% serious question, this is about how society responds to race.

How would the conversation about Muslims change if they weren't mostly brown, but instead mostly white?
Like, what if the 9/11 guys were white, and all these people fighting in the ME were white, all the people bombing India and Malaysia were white, all the people who were banned by Trump were white? What if the people wearing Burqas that were being banned were all white?
How would people react? What would they say?
53 posts and 9 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Esther Chonderwell - Sun, 01 Mar 2020 03:27:47 EST kBvj4hT4 No.209996 Reply
Oh, I forgot some

"east africa"

"the gulf"

"the red sea"
Oliver Fenkinnadging - Sun, 01 Mar 2020 04:14:14 EST JyDTI0YA No.209997 Reply
you ever considered going back to a place where you can discuss your muh racial realism to your heart's content?

like a site called 4___n.org?
Martin Billingwater - Sun, 01 Mar 2020 09:09:52 EST gPDHtM8c No.209998 Reply
To put it simply: Jews pretty much became white and integrated into society but it didn't really improve their situation.


View Thread Reply
- Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:48:12 EST D27gVweR No.208297
File: 1501174092415.jpg -(15352B / 14.99KB, 532x320) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. transphobia
Why is there so much more visceral hatred of trans people than gay or bi people? I've noticed this for a while but comment sections of recent news articles really brought it to light. I keep seeing over and over again people saying stuff like "I don't mind gays but trans people are mentally ill blahblah SJWs something something free speech" and people making a million "logical" excuses as to why trans people shouldn't have certain rights that don't really make sense and do nothing to really hide their irrational contempt but why is that really? Is it just because trans people are more noticeable? Less physically appealing generally to most people? "Icky"? I feel like anti-SJW crusaders have made this the hill they want to die on and it doesn't make a lot of sense considering the amount of trans people in their own community is vastly higher than average.

Also while I don't think it matters to save us some posts on this incredibly slow board I'm neither trans nor gay and I don't really get on the liberal outrage train very often I'm just a mostly neutral, vaguely left-leaning party.
233 posts and 30 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Edwin Trotdock - Sun, 01 Mar 2020 00:11:08 EST fGHDtkRk No.209991 Reply
1583039468849.jpg -(151683B / 148.13KB, 828x1024) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
i really doubt that guy fundamentally disagrees with you deep down, no matter how much black dick he claims to choke on

the only argument I can imagine he'd come up with is how there's a much longer cultural history of male homosexuality in """duh west""", even though that's 1. not true 2. no objective reason to privilege Western culture, as nebulous and undefinable thing as that is, over any other cultures, almost all of which have some history of acceptance for a "third gender" before exposure to the Christ cult, which can easily be understood as a response to the same basic biological truths that motivate men to transition to women (which objectively exist, take a look at any one of the number of studies verifying a biological origin of gender identity, that on average trans peoples' brain structures more closely resemble the brain structure of the gender they identify as

to be honest, i can't imagine what it's like to associate with people who fantasize about killing you as soon as they get the chance in the next night of long knives, the cognitive dissonance has to be crippling

>first they came for the cuties
Oliver Fenkinnadging - Sun, 01 Mar 2020 01:47:30 EST JyDTI0YA No.209993 Reply
they don't, that's the point. the new right will pretend to accept gays/mixed race people/furries/etc for as long as it's politically advantageous and then they'll be thrown to the furnace.
Doris Chossleman - Sun, 01 Mar 2020 03:10:35 EST lwznW1gZ No.209994 Reply

Always thought it was hilarious when milo was doxed that it came out one of his passwords was "longknives" something, like how are you so stupid that you KNOW about that, approve of it enough to make it your password, and NOT think it will happen to you, a gay racemixing paedophile?

postmodernism / post structuralism

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 23 Feb 2020 18:13:38 EST 3DvIxtfG No.209965
File: 1582499618605.jpg -(490248B / 478.76KB, 625x403) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. postmodernism / post structuralism
hello. I am mostly a theology and aesthetics person but I am getting deeper into modern philosophy and have a few questions.

A) why are most (all?) of the post modern and post structuralist philosophers I'm looking into viewed as marxist or as part of the larger domain of Marxism? I can't really make the connection between their ideas and Marx.

B) if I was interested in the connection between post-modernism / post structuralism and theology or aesthetics (obviously different fields), is there anything I should make sure I don't miss?

I'd appreciate any insight here a ton. honestly any youtube stuff would be great because i can watch or listen to videos while working but have to cram in reading which gets difficult.
1 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Sidney Dronkinham - Sat, 29 Feb 2020 22:24:13 EST 8gq7GAVV No.209988 Reply
Marxism is the core of any contemporary philosophy, since even anti-marxist philosophy is shaped in such an extreme degree by marxist philosophy, it ends up a part of it.

Basically, Marx is so good at his job, EVERY contemporary philosophy has to run by him. Like Plato for antiquity philosophy.
Edwin Trotdock - Sun, 01 Mar 2020 00:14:47 EST fGHDtkRk No.209992 Reply
post-modernism largely rejects dialectical materialism, it's as influenced by Marx as it is by Plato, that is to say, clearly to some extent, but by no means is it a continuation of Marxism

With anti black racism on the rise in europe

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 09 Feb 2020 13:59:35 EST S2IQKx6v No.209948
File: 1581274775830.jpg -(131883B / 128.79KB, 1200x800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. With anti black racism on the rise in europe
What's next?
User is currently banned from all boards 1 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
James Tootman - Sat, 29 Feb 2020 18:54:29 EST fGHDtkRk No.209976 Reply
1583020469451.png -(386420B / 377.36KB, 500x466) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
how does it feel to know that no matter how mad you get online nothing will change this trajectory and that in 100 years people like you will be a bad memory?
Esther Chonderwell - Sat, 29 Feb 2020 22:20:26 EST kBvj4hT4 No.209984 Reply
Racists, uncle thomas. Racists.
Edwin Trotdock - Sat, 29 Feb 2020 23:57:49 EST fGHDtkRk No.209990 Reply
>racist, transphobic homosexual with a thing for people of color

milo is that you

Free College In The USA

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 20 Aug 2018 19:28:10 EST qum7+esS No.209429
File: 1534807690961.jpg -(9043B / 8.83KB, 259x194) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Free College In The USA
What if you could make college free and then make admission to colleges be based purely on merit, but with a twist: you are compared only to the others at your own school to determine if you qualify for admission to a college rather than comparing you to the whole nation. Say you get the top scores and grades on your tests in your high school, but for national averages, your test scores/grades would still be too low to get into the top schools traditionally, under the new system, you would get admission because compared to your peers you did the best and therefore deserve to be in a top school. If one school has bad teachers or not enough funding, why should the students suffer? They should be judged against those who had an equal playing field, ie those in their own school rather than those who may have gone to some fancy private school with personal tutors and lots of fancy programs and who had advantages they couldn't access.

Now imagine what would happen if you did this. Suddenly all the schools packed with great students would empty out as the parents took their kids to poorly performing schools so they had a better chance at college admission. People act like segregation and school integration is an issue America dealt with in the past, but we didn't really deal with it at all. We did a little, got things moving in the right direction, then basically stopped trying and claimed we fixed the problem while the communities we live in remain highly segregated which keeps racial minorities trapped in poverty as wealthy whites never interact with them and therefore never hire them to do anything for them and spend money at their businesses. Furthermore, people can gain a bunch of value simply by having the value of their house go up because their neighborhood improves. They sit there and do nothing, but other people move into the neighborhood and start fixing pot holes and weeding the sidewalks and mowing the lawns and painting stuff and hiring security and installing floodlights, and suddenly they have more money because the value of their houses goes up.

In my mind this is an elegant solution to many of the social issues plaguing America. It would get around the affirmative action boogeyman and install a system that people can understand as being fair while having the effect of making it easier for people in underfunded and underperforming districts to get into the top schools and incentivize parents to move from over-performing school districts to underperforming districts which could help reverse the negative effects of white flight on inner city minority communities.
3 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Betsy Blovingstodging - Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:28:44 EST 6EHvdHby No.209960 Reply
>Now imagine what would happen if you did this

mismatch would happen to an even greater scale then what we're already seeing with affirmative action. students will continue to drop out do to mismatch. minorities will suffer even worse than they already under well meaning but flawed affirmative action.

the problem isn't access to elite universities, there are plenty of great affordable universities out there.
minorities don't need 'compete' with yuppies whoes grades are more dependant on their parents donations than academic performance.

the mindset that these universities are somehow better because spoiled yuppies attend is the problem.

do you know Ivy status is sports characterization not an academic one?

furthur more it's not just attendance of overpriced yuppie universites thats the problem but the college system in general. if you really want change we need to go back to when it was perfectly reasonable to get a job/apprenticeship right out of highschool learn by doing not by sitting in some classroom.
George Peshbire - Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:53:31 EST 97spaKrr No.209962 Reply
>whoes grades are more dependant on their parents donations than academic performance.
Things like diet and environment can affect grades too.

I mean I get OP here it's better than affirmative action in a lot of ways but really you want to cure the problem instead of just putting hacks in to conceal it. Why should some schools be that much worse? That's not something you can easily fix and it'll take time but it's also the REAL solution.
Edwin Trotdock - Sat, 29 Feb 2020 19:04:11 EST fGHDtkRk No.209978 Reply
1583021051849.jpg -(10967B / 10.71KB, 252x255) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>You can literally just read books

why don't you practice what you preach?

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.