420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
transphobia by Isabella Danningstick - Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:48:12 EST ID:D27gVweR No.208297 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1501174092415.jpg -(15352B / 14.99KB, 532x320) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 15352
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.
155 posts and 17 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Ebenezer Clannerfot - Sun, 20 May 2018 19:19:13 EST ID:Cqjy7Wuw No.209217 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Trans, gays and other are same thing DEGENERACY
Shit Drocklewuck - Sun, 20 May 2018 19:58:10 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209218 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1526860690097.jpg -(36913B / 36.05KB, 684x384) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Do you even know what degeneracy means?
Rebecca Nonnersack - Mon, 21 May 2018 03:37:40 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209219 Ignore Report Quick Reply
When you thonk about it, homosexuality and transgenderism is the least degenerate of all things... because you cannot degenerate the next generation when you don't procreate... :thinking:
Charlotte Ficklewut - Mon, 21 May 2018 12:39:32 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209220 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I know you mean this as a joke, but in all seriousness LGBT people contribute greatly to the production of the next generation. Not only in that many LGBT people have or raise children, but also by creating and advancing art and culture.

If Ebenezer up there really wants to know what causes degeneracy, it's generacy. We keep making too many people, and because of that, the quality of life for each subsequent generation will become less and less however far we drift from the actual carrying capacity of our current mode of production.

If you want degeneracy to stop either a.) stop having kids b.) invent a more efficient mode of production or c.) find a new planet to colonize.
Priscilla Gagglemit - Mon, 21 May 2018 12:56:11 EST ID:4+oWREai No.209221 Ignore Report Quick Reply
No, that's too hard to do. We have to be mean to them because Steven Crowder and Jordan Peterson said they are no-no's.

Compassion by Alice Pimmledale - Wed, 29 Nov 2017 19:54:41 EST ID:f7VKYGuq No.208552 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1512003281885.jpg -(157533B / 153.84KB, 780x800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 157533
Rejecting any and all forms of transgenderism is an act of compassion.

If a person announces they are going to kill themselves, the compassionate action is NOT to allow them to continue. The compassionate action is to prevent them and help them no longer humor that idea. The same for trans individuals. Hormones are a direct assault on one's genetics. That is a slow form a suicide.
Mental illness is to be treated and compassionately guided.
73 posts and 8 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Esther Lightwater - Fri, 11 May 2018 00:33:16 EST ID:ogjfl7YN No.209202 Ignore Report Quick Reply

I don't think anyone's said that statistics don't correlate.
Oliver Hollerwad - Thu, 17 May 2018 14:39:58 EST ID:4+oWREai No.209213 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Way to miss the point.
Hedda Choffingdale - Thu, 17 May 2018 17:23:17 EST ID:pLi6jhVd No.209214 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>nazi retard who posts redpanels
Nobody believes you give a shit about transgender people. If your logic was correct trans people in the most transphobic nations would have better outcomes, but they don't, they suffer violence and discrimination at increased rates because it's fucking obvious that's what your attitude leads to OP. It takes absolutely no empathy to call someone mentally ill as a way of writing off their experiences.
Doris Gissleman - Thu, 17 May 2018 21:45:44 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209215 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Everytime the mods remove or lock the current /pol/ shit thread on /b/, these cocksucking faggot the future immigrants revive this thread again.

Really makes you think, doesn't it? Fucking closet fags. The whole lotta those alt-right neonazi wankers.
Molly Drusslechare - Fri, 18 May 2018 11:27:35 EST ID:V8N/5kWg No.209216 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Fucking closet fags. The whole lotta those alt-right neonazi wankers.
Yeah it's no secret anymore just how much of the far right mindset is motivated by sexual pathology.

Trannies, gays, cuckoldry, interracial sex, BBC, incels, MGTOW, PUAs, alpha/beta mentality, obsessing over testosterone levels, fear that soybeans will steal your masculinity, arguing about the age of consent, obsessing over little anime girls, pedo pizza party conspiracies...

It sure is ""suspicious"" how so much of the political animus of these people seems to always come back to weird sexual hangups.

Better alternative by Factually a Motherfucker - Tue, 08 May 2018 21:23:25 EST ID:Irsa/pK4 No.209180 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1525829005146.jpg -(19154B / 18.71KB, 189x267) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 19154
Its evident that anyone who initiates themselves into contemporary United States politics will effectively have no self-agency at all. Notice how Bernard Sanders was brought down and how the obstensively bright Elizabeth Warren is simply ignored and it goes without saying the Republican party is a perverse cabal.

So how can anyone be expected to have confidence in new leadership branded by either group when these impressionable, and desperate, folks must submit to party lines without deviation?

There remains nothing inspiring at all to be witnessed in contemporary United States politics. I have the impression whatever faceless dipshits either party would round up for the next cycle effectively have zero testicles.

My point is, they’re coming for us again, so what exactly gives them any credit whatsoever c o m p a r e d t o a new party, possibly a coalition of defectors, who would be capable of ushering in some delicious innovation?

I presume its been attempted before, even so given the current state of things, they have simply not done it right.
12 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nell Fanridge - Fri, 11 May 2018 07:37:03 EST ID:Irsa/pK4 No.209204 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The general aim of the Republican party is to make a caricature of the 1950’s wholesome WASP family patriarchy lifestyle the dominant paradigm. They consider the tropes of that era the pinnacle of civilization. They want families that go to church, believe in that, and the kids (daughters especially) to shut the fuck up and listen to daddy.

The 1950’s typeshit they want to revive and cherish as the authentic paradigm of United States culture. . . will never be a reality again. Moreover the ideas we carry about it today are based on falsity (commercials, movies). It would be a mistake to regress the United States to a parody of the ostensive golden age of being a white -North American.

The Republican party wants the public to be satisfied with these illusions. Meanwhile technological, social, agricultural progress is sacrificed to buy yet more useless weapons.
Hamilton Hullertidge - Sat, 12 May 2018 09:04:33 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209207 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Oh sod right the fuck off you retard. There is no more need for the rightwing family man christian farmer. Whatever he produces, the university educated green house farmer can produce in tenfold with less greenhouse emissions. And the technology doesn't stop. The faster the midwest runs in an empty wasteland the better. Just grow everything locally in high tech superfarms.
Thomas Blambleham - Sat, 12 May 2018 14:36:58 EST ID:Irsa/pK4 No.209208 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1526150218750.jpg -(69380B / 67.75KB, 500x454) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
You may be correct though many people need food right now.

Government subsidies can establish agricultural practices like you have described.

Indeed we wont need hillbilly farmers anymore if greenhouse projects are established. In fact, such farms may become public institutions.

However, its necessary to have people take care of and raise the crops. If the general public is so inclined, there may be no difficulty finding people willing to participate.
Phineas Summerfeg - Sat, 12 May 2018 22:14:11 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209209 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1526177651067.jpg -(151037B / 147.50KB, 1080x578) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
So many of the problems we have in the world today wouldn't exist if we had superior technology. Many of the things we fervently debate are made completely irrelevant by certain technologies, and most people don't seem to deny this point. So my question is, why don't people just focus on increasing the rate of technological progress as the most expedient political philosophy in general?
For example, why debate endlessly between capitalism and communism when we all know that post-scarcity manufacturing would make both obsolete and most people seem to agree it is possible and imminent?

It's like being fervently committed to a side in horses vs mules for moving carriages when you already know Benz is in the workshop putting together the first automobile. Why isn't everyone able to see the writing on the wall, say 'fuck horses AND mules' and go see if Benz needs a hand?
Esther Hengerhidge - Sun, 13 May 2018 02:39:34 EST ID:Irsa/pK4 No.209211 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1526193574041.jpg -(251521B / 245.63KB, 914x1280) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
You are correct. However we must consider the consequences of such progress.
For one, we must consider the finitude of certain resources. Oil us an example of a soon to be extinct resource. So what then of essentials like food?

This is why comprehensive studies and reviews are necessary of topography, seasons, and weather patterns. The public may participate if they can. Communal farming can be made possible on a grand scale with technological advancement, and our common man can be employed at such farms to maintain, grow, and harvest. However, this would require subsidies, which is undeniably possible provided the public is enabled and Monsanto does not interfere.

Are we at a turning point? by Archie Turveywill - Sun, 29 Apr 2018 17:50:52 EST ID:4YtPS+TM No.209151 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1525038652283.jpg -(72194B / 70.50KB, 633x758) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 72194
8 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Edwin Fuckingwill - Wed, 09 May 2018 01:01:23 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209182 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>why should anyone accept the standards imposed from afar
Anyone who actually cares about what standards are imposed on their children's education generally has the means to see that they are taught by whatever standard they prefer. The reason public education is the way it is is because most parents simply can't be assed to educate their children at all unless the state hands it to them on a silver platter. What you're pointing out as a problem isn't a problem because we don't know how to fix it, but because no one cares enough to fix it.
Phineas Wittingfuck - Wed, 09 May 2018 01:52:22 EST ID:Irsa/pK4 No.209185 Ignore Report Quick Reply
well the state fails to teach children no to pollute the earth, a consequence of capitalism, which keeps people from teaching their kids themselves because of jobs. and the tendency toward standardization. and for being unable to encourage children to be anything beyond the lowest-common-denominator of human being that is the basis of mass exploitation of populations and the earth.
Edwin Fuckingwill - Wed, 09 May 2018 15:10:35 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209186 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>the state fails to teach children no to pollute the earth,
Well, obviously, because the state is capitalist so it's in its best interest to indoctrinate little drones who will say anything to defend that system (like that poster about Max Stirner on the front page.)

My point being that clearly you can't trust the state to educate your children on anything other than what serves the state, so it's incumbent on anyone who recognizes the problems with the global status quo to take charge of educating their own children themselves.
Phineas Wittingfuck - Wed, 09 May 2018 15:47:58 EST ID:Irsa/pK4 No.209190 Ignore Report Quick Reply
yeah dude, and if kids have more time to run around in general then they will definitely stil be able to find and meet other kids and form friendships.

when kids are herded together, it reduces the incentive to be sociable, hence technology addiction and all thr stupid habits that go with it.

A number of the coolest motherfuckers in history were home schooled. Kierkegaard for example grew up learning from his dad just looking and walking around Copenhagen.
Betsy Chankinhood - Sat, 12 May 2018 22:32:55 EST ID:9Tl5h2ty No.209210 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Also the worst of the inept assholes tend to be homeschooled. If your parents are cool and they homeschool you, then fine, but if they are assholes and homeschool you, you dont get the chance of being that one kid in the family who left the westboro baptist church.

Stirner on labor by Hamilton Grandway - Wed, 02 May 2018 09:41:48 EST ID:EQAAY6X6 No.209163 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1525268508445.jpg -(23124B / 22.58KB, 214x283) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 23124
Stirner knows literally nothing about labor or laborers. His ideas are juvenile. He thinks laborers are more powerful than businessmen/entrepreneurs. He’s wrong. The two are essentially equal in power, because the one cannot exist without the other. People like Stirner grossly under-estimate the intelligence of the entrepreneur and grossly over-estimate the simplicity of the laborer. I been in labor my entire life; seen tons of guys spend even 25 years straight happily laboring for good pay, because they’re simple and conservative and are much more focused on getting paid and going home to their families than becoming some sort of businessman or critical-thinker. These conservative family-oriented laborers are literally our backbone, and they always require leaders to guide them.
7 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Lydia Drublingfudging - Thu, 10 May 2018 06:08:26 EST ID:K9K8Pnvb No.209195 Ignore Report Quick Reply
honestly if you don't have kids or a spouse, or own a home, or have debts form investments such as mortgages, you can't understand how the common laborer thinks, literally.

If you don't have any stake in the game, you will never, ever, understand the game.
Fucking Barringsedging - Thu, 10 May 2018 10:53:33 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209196 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1525964013261.jpg -(26253B / 25.64KB, 450x347) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Your entire argument is based on the idea that you know the minds of these people so well you would know what they would think and do even if their life circumstances were totally different. Did you ever stop to think that what you imagine to be their minds is a self serving fantasy that YOUR mind created?

You're also really blustery and vitriolic. Why are you so agitated by the suggestion that your laborers might be just as capable as you and merely have different luck? Is it because that suggestion undermines your entire world view where you are justified in behaving this way? (I think it might!)

>>your replies. If you actually knew the minds of laborers, you'd reply with more wisdom and less assumptions.
It's you who are full of assumptions. You're basically assuming that your individual case applies to all cases and that your perception of the 'goodness' of what you do for your laborers is shared equally by your laborers and all laborers. This is how I know you are full of shit, or either very bad at detecting people lying to your face. Again, you don't know me, or what I have done, you don't know my relation to labor at all, and the fact that you IMMEDIATELY go to an ad hominem route shows me what kind of intellectual level you are at. (read: I can tell you are just as dumb as about 50% of the laborers I know, which is why I know you didn't ascend to your position because you are simply smarter than them.)

>>Life ain't fair
I say you are unfairly advantaging yourself over your workers, and your immediate reply is 'life ain't fair?' So you're saying 'because other people take advantage of my workers, I am also at liberty to take advantage of my workers, but this isn't really taking advantage of them because 'life ain't fair.'' I can't believe you actually have so simplistic a thought process.

>>You're deflecting. Nothing we talked about was focused on social positioning.
It's not deflecting at all mate. Whether or not you end up being a laborer or an owner of the means of production is 100% related to social positioning. Your claim is that everyone who is a laborer is a laborer because they have a mind of a laborer. I claim that's false because social mobility is low (which is apparently a concept you don't understand the meaning of, I will explain after the next yellowtext) most people who are laborers are laborers because their parents were laborers, because they come from regions where labor is the only viable form of work, or were unable to afford the educational opportunities that would move them out of their position and into your position of being an owner. Except for rich people who think going and picking berries in the scorching sun is like a vacation, any sensible laborer should want a desk job over a manual job. So there must be some explanation for how they ended up where they are, and it's not 'they all just want to be laborers so it's ok to do whatever you want to them!'
In short if your argument rests solely on 'I know the minds of laborers and so anything I say is right and what everyone else says is wrong' you aren't really having a philosophical debate, you aren't even forming a cogent argument, you're just reiterating an anecdotal story.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Fucking Barringsedging - Thu, 10 May 2018 10:54:12 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209197 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>create an entire business from the ground up which requires not only knowing your market intimately but also knowing how to create and run a business whether its selling a product or service
And how did you know all that stuff, friend? Were you maybe educated at some kind of institution? Did you maybe have some friends and social networks that were able to clue you in to this information? Can you not see how that kind of social capital directly translates to financial capital, and that you didn't get it because you are somehow better, purer, or smarter, but simply more lucky?
>>then you have to constantly risk your financial future as you endure the failures you inevitably face while your laborers literally risk nothing
Again, how could they risk anything? They have no financial assets, no capital power, in the first place, no capital power. (They of course are risking the lives of their dependent family and themselves by living hand to mouth, dependent on gracious owners like you to let the crumbs fall from their table, but let's ignore that for now.) The very fact that you did have something to risk over them, and could continue to risk things in the ups and downs of owning a business demonstrates that your position as their gentle leader came about not because of your guile and gumption but because you happened to win the social lottery.
>>get paid a heft sum to do some of the work you, yourself, put together.
And you get paid more. You are literally whining about your workers doing the work you assign them to do. I guess in your mind they should work for nothing and you should get all the money because, after all, they have the 'mind of a laborer' and couldn't even if tell you were shafting them, right?

>>Do you know how hard it is to teach a laborer to use technology that isn't a phone?
This is where I think you don't actually know any laborers at all and what you really mean is 'do you know how hard it is to teach an undocumented immigrant who doesn't speak english how to use technology?' A lot of labor today uses very advanced technology. Much of the labor that's done world wide is in the service of creatin…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Fucking Woffingmare - Fri, 11 May 2018 18:58:07 EST ID:/tjfruPD No.209206 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1526079487561.jpg -(265764B / 259.54KB, 1193x680) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209194 >>209196
I think the capability to do managerial tasks and to do general labor is within most people's reach if they have the opportunity to learn. Coworkers point out bad decisions by management amidst comments about their life and their other interests. At my current job there are younger coworkers who are more capable at using technology than the older supervisors and managers, and faster at it. For awhile a fellow coworker was helping with scheduling before he got fired for not being serious enough, and he was better at scheduling than any of the supervisors currently (after he learned how). We got a new manager recently who was hired from outside the company and they've made tons of mistakes concerning scheduling. Because of their inexperience (but better credentials and a degree) they've made it much more difficult for us laborers, who have to work harder because there are fewer people to work the line on a busy day, and by scheduling too many people on slow days they lose money for the company, or keep the place open when we should have closed (or vice-versa).

There's alot of small changes that could be done to improve how things work.. at work, but since the supervisors and managers rarely step in and do the actual work, they're not aware of the potential changes, and often aren't open to input from the laborers who do have the direct experience. No, all they know is what they see when they are around for a short-while, and what the numbers on spreadsheets and pie-charts say. That kind of information could easily be made available to the general worker, many of whom would draw similar or better conclusions about the correct course of actions. Its like abstract theory versus practical action, when instead the process should be reciprocally informing each other, theory informing action and action informing theory. As is there is a division of labor along pretty much class lines when managerial and laborer tasks could be shared.

There's probably a different level of involvement by owners of small-businesses compared to corporations and such. It seems owners of larger-businesses are left to speculation on the stock market and hire someone else to mana…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Walter Peddledudge - Tue, 15 May 2018 17:37:12 EST ID:Q0mLuuoM No.209212 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Op can i see dtudies on how the laborer is literally our backbone. Nb gor shitpost i vould not resist.

COLLEGE by James Smallshaw - Fri, 13 Apr 2018 16:34:14 EST ID:YBVc1XtN No.209081 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1523651654247.jpg -(642101B / 627.05KB, 1000x667) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 642101
The US is fucking its economy by putting students in debt to get useless educations.

I don't believe college is worthless, and I even think there's value in the arts and humanities. HOWEVER, at least 3/4 of the colleges in the US are bad or in low standing, so if you get anything other than a technical degree from those schools, it's literally useless.

For example, 8/24 colleges in Colorado have degrees of any value, and 20/84 colleges in Massachusetts are worthwhile.

The United States should only keep open the quarter of its schools that provide valuable degrees in the arts or humanities. The other 3/4 should be shut down, or converted to either technical or trade schools.
James Smallshaw - Fri, 13 Apr 2018 16:43:06 EST ID:YBVc1XtN No.209082 Ignore Report Quick Reply
EDIT: I would actually move the number for MA up to 27
Phineas Dipperway - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:10:18 EST ID:T1mjyx/4 No.209122 Ignore Report Quick Reply
yeah see german speaking regions there they found a solution, but the ppl in some sense are quite unfree. On the plus side, this system will allow for this "liberal" of self made men inovating shit
Phoebe Turveyhall - Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:12:53 EST ID:SGCbMw+u No.209145 Ignore Report Quick Reply
OP my college was 7K a year and in my field the graduates had an average income of 50K annually in their first year post graduation with a bachelors.

It’s like I tell everyone; if you’re going to college to learn about something you’re interested in that isn’t extremely valuable, like Accounting or Management, then you’re just wasting your time. But also, everyone should go to Community College to get their electives out of the way in the cheap.
Dr. Katz !KqgSR25gAQ - Mon, 30 Apr 2018 04:02:16 EST ID:I3P3lRo5 No.209160 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Community colleges are a great place to start, but often pose problems for racial/ethnic minorities.
If someone is going to study a non-STEM field then they have to expect to attend graduate school. There's no way around it unless a person is going to college for other reasons.
Edward Mollytedge - Thu, 03 May 2018 09:55:24 EST ID:MdrXzUYs No.209170 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1525355724417.jpg -(76981B / 75.18KB, 500x449) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
The pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge is a noble cause.

That said we have a serious problem in America where most jobs require a college degree and still don't pay a living wage. Even in the stem field there are plenty of shit pay jobs. And if everyone just switched over to a stem major tomorrow all that would do is run down the wages of stem jobs. That's why silicon valley is pushing coding education so hard, because once everyone learns the basics of coding in middle school, suddenly it's not that unique of a skill.

Education should be free, anyone who works a full week should earn a living wage and rent should be illegal.

Politic Board by Jack Choffingman - Sun, 04 Mar 2018 10:10:22 EST ID:pq+VuhoO No.208893 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1520176222269.jpg -(17989B / 17.57KB, 470x264) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 17989
Havent been on here in years? Anyone know what happened to /pol/?
36 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nathaniel Shakelock - Sun, 15 Apr 2018 15:41:48 EST ID:/tjfruPD No.209092 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1523821308846.jpg -(177684B / 173.52KB, 500x708) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
But the thing that I saw in your face
No power can disinherit:
No bomb that ever burst
Shatters the crystal spirit.

Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil War in the POUM militia (Workers' Party of Marxist Unification) and wrote a book about it: Homage to Catalonia. He joined POUM out of coincidence and later said he'd rather have joined the anarchist militias if he'd known the contexts of the political conflict going on behind the battle lines. Orwell's beliefs can be described as libertarian socialist, as he partly, but didn't fully subscribe to an anarchist programme which is generally the rejection of the State and parliamentarianism, the utilization of direct action, and the advocacy of co-operative and federal organization.

In the first half of the 1930s Orwell had a negative view of anarchist beliefs, from Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow:
>for he complained that for an ‘ordinary man, a crank meant a Socialist and a Socialist meant a crank’: ‘One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words “Socialism” and “Communism” draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, “Nature Cure” quack, pacifist and feminist in England.’ While few anarchists would have been all, still fewer would have satisfied none of these despised categories. He told the working-class Jack Common, now co-editor of the Adelphi, in 1936 that so many of the socialist bourgeoisie ‘are the sort of eunuch type with a vegetarian smell who go about spreading sweetness and light and have at the back of their minds a vision of the working class all TT [teetotal], well washed behind the ears, readers of Edward Carpenter or some other pious sodomite and talking with BBC accents’. Orwell’s distaste for homosexuals was an abiding characteristic, with him castigating in private ‘the pansy left’, the ‘fashionable pansies’, Auden and Spender, being singled out for especial contempt. Yet he insisted, as usual unpredictable and unfailingly contradictory, that he had ‘always been very pro-Wilde’.

In 1936 he collected material on the condition of unemployed for the book: The Road to Wigan Pier, which proved revelatory for him, and when he began to believe in and support socialism as the only possible course for any decent person to work towards.

>The fundamentals of Orwell’s socialism were justice, liberty and decency.
For him socialism meant ‘justice and common decency’, a decency inherent in the culture of the traditional working-class community. He believed that ‘the only thing for which we can combine is the underlying ideal of Socialism; justice and liberty’ [sic]; and concluded: ‘All that is needed is to hammer two facts home into the public consciousness. One, that the interests of all exploited people are the same; the other, that Socialism is compatible with common decency.’
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Shit Drunkinlock - Sun, 22 Apr 2018 15:16:14 EST ID:jOEOiK80 No.209140 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1524424574515.jpg -(27392B / 26.75KB, 593x399) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Now I'm starting to notice that /pss/ on the other hand is a lot worse.

I know I can't be sure of a cause-effect relationship here but I say we put /pol/ back for good measure and see what happens. Fiends can take one for the team.
Phoebe Turveyhall - Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:06:29 EST ID:SGCbMw+u No.209142 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yeah cus a bunch of retards from /pol/ came here. Like /pol/ was literally where we quarantined the commies and politically active/politically retarded children, but then Spunky just haaaaad to start secretly banning literally every right-wing poster on /pol/ like a fascist dick, and then some of them went crying to 4-chin saying ‘hey let’s go to 420chan pol and troll these alt-left fascists that keep banning right-wing thought’ and then /pol/ became the worst cesspool it’s ever been and was deleted. And now the entire 420chan now has to deal with the faggots usually contained in /pol/ and they’re going to /pss/ and /b/ and shit.
Hugh Sushshit - Wed, 02 May 2018 16:36:09 EST ID:4+oWREai No.209166 Ignore Report Quick Reply
What really happened was people that go to sad-chan found this website and simply posted the vile they tend to post elsewhere. That vile isn't welcome here, so the bans were more than justified. The posts, over 90% of the time, went into the quackery and race baiting garbage you'd expect from orange-chan.

So because we had a political board with the same exact tagname from orange-chan, it often tended towards attracting their ilk and then they would spill over to the rest of the site. It was attracting alt-right/lite nutjobs; They didn't like getting banned so they took out their grief on the rest of the site.
Charles Pellersodging - Wed, 02 May 2018 17:09:26 EST ID:kon48sdM No.209167 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yeah, as has been said many times ITT, faggots from the future and cripplechan mistakenly believe that all chan's will put up with their shit.

Most people don't actually have the kind of cognitive dissonance required to waste hours on end watching anime, playing video games and beating it to traps and tentacle porn while at the same time believing they have some moral conservative high ground.

I never let it get to me though. It's awful rich being called a "degenerate" for being bi and doing drugs by someone who never went to college, lives with their parents at age 25, masturbates 5 times a day and pisses in bottles.

"In a real fourth Reich you'll be the first to go" and all that.

dont hurt me by Doris Dissleshaw - Wed, 11 Apr 2018 19:13:03 EST ID:cR5+dCK2 No.209072 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1523488383497.jpg -(8916B / 8.71KB, 480x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 8916
what is love?

I am kind of stuck with what I interpreted as a Nietzschean conception of Love. So basically in terms of determinate desire and full mutual power over the other.

Where am exploring right now but its hard to find anything is the phenomenology of love. What also would be interesting is a kind of history of love where one could see how malleable the conception is
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Esther Cheddlestone - Tue, 17 Apr 2018 19:20:38 EST ID:+qAOjSrT No.209113 Ignore Report Quick Reply
what is emotion?

electrochemical responses to neuronal and hormonal stimuli? energy in the chakras? a little of both? going for things which can be tested scientifically, logically, or neither?
Phineas Dipperway - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:03:13 EST ID:T1mjyx/4 No.209120 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Problem of intentionality might be revlevant here. Of course, if you wanna explore any thing you will have to start why the fudamnetals those are usually laid down by some metaphysical grounding. You cant say hormonal or neurological stimuli cuz that shit would merely be inductive

Lets take for example gazing at a girl, or when in love wanting to do everything for her giving yourself to her. Why does this happen with no to little thought. What is the connection between desire, "belief" and action? idk
Phineas Dipperway - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:07:15 EST ID:T1mjyx/4 No.209121 Ignore Report Quick Reply
there so many way to approach that shit. When I said power over the other its kind of one determines the others identity and ditto. how this happens no clue.

Think anybody this deep into philosophy to answer such a question is either anti social, dilluted by self imposed philosophcial dogma or doesnt think its worth exploring cuz its derivable from implicit statments from other philosophers
Phoebe Turveyhall - Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:20:02 EST ID:SGCbMw+u No.209148 Ignore Report Quick Reply
OP, I think the issue with love is I think a lot of people love wrong. Plain and simple. They’re too stupid and too trapped within societal expectation to love properly. Hell, the vast majority of people who ‘loved’ me in my life all loved out of fear and selfishness. I didn’t care for it. Love stemming from fear and selfishness is disgusting. I only take part in love that stems from passion and altruism. And I’ve never been happier or more romantically/sexually active. And yes, I have multiple partners. I don’t care, and neither do they, because we’re not afraid nor selfish toward one another.
Cornelius Subblepet - Sun, 29 Apr 2018 22:03:49 EST ID:brei4qhw No.209153 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I think we could pare down the scope of debate if you would specify what kind of love we are talking about. As I'm sure you know the Greeks had several words for love;
are we talking about eros? Erotic, sexual love? (It seems so from the general discussion)
are we talking about philiae? Companionate love?
Or are we talking about love in a more abstract, universal sense? Like agape?

The only thing the different feelings have in common is the quality of the emotion they bring up, so to really analyze their causes and effects I think we need to specify particular types.

Am I wrong to be pissed off about reductionism in rhetoric? by Albert Pickville - Mon, 09 Apr 2018 22:17:38 EST ID:VhdWon+z No.209054 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1523326658031.png -(249250B / 243.41KB, 500x491) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 249250
Can- can I just through this out here while I'm baked enough to do so.

Am I an asshole for getting legitimately intellectually pissed off when I see some fucking reductionist bullshit either in Political news or otherwise?

I ultimately understand that from a "ethical" standpoint I should let people believe "that which they wish to" but when it's so fucking stupid and either morally or factually too simplistic or out of context or talking cross purposes or using logical fallacies or literally any god dam thing any rational person can think of.

Am I WRONG for getting actually "annoyed" on an intellectual level, not a personal one? I've studied, I'm read, I'm in college, I've suffered the bullshit of academia, I've been in this since BEFORE 2016. So- am- am I wrong to be insulted?
3 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Phyllis Decklebanks - Thu, 12 Apr 2018 05:56:24 EST ID:cR5+dCK2 No.209077 Ignore Report Quick Reply
if you are so well read you should know by now ppl and the world around them
Samuel Pisslebudge - Sun, 15 Apr 2018 13:29:39 EST ID:hbTtukSa No.209088 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Were you ever gonna explain what's wrong with "reductionism" ??
Henry Blorringway - Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:09:57 EST ID:KdSY7mf7 No.209103 Ignore Report Quick Reply
OP means 'sophistry' when he says 'reductionism.' He does explain what's wrong with sophists, which everyone should already know.
Jack Nattingsutch - Mon, 16 Apr 2018 21:41:38 EST ID:VhdWon+z No.209105 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I did.

Ish. Sophistry- as I understand it, implies that the argument is plausible. I have no issues with arguments that can be described as "incomplete" what I do, more specifically, have issues with are arguments which begin with an overly simplistic understanding of the subject matter (read: literally anything) and then proceed through the argument.
Phoebe Turveyhall - Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:15:09 EST ID:SGCbMw+u No.209146 Ignore Report Quick Reply
OP, the less info and the less complexity used to argue something, the less logical it is. Reductionism always leads to greater illogic, always. Ever heard of Occam’s Razor? It’s ugly and everyone abuses it to win arguments.

God should be VAC b& by Phoebe Siddleman - Tue, 06 Feb 2018 12:54:26 EST ID:xc7CY0zb No.208664 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1517939666716.jpg -(152017B / 148.45KB, 1920x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 152017
God is a concept that defies logic and language.
28 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
David Sublingfield - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 15:22:42 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209129 Ignore Report Quick Reply
What is there philosophical about "take care of your home, food and drink, then chase dreams"? It's just... a sensible easy way to live life? There's no search for fucking knowledge and deep logical thinking necessary needed to reach the concept that life is just about staying alive, and then doing what fulfils you.

Am I missing something here or are you like heavily religious or some shit? Because I don't really see your problem.
Emma Goggleville - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:42:46 EST ID:fqkrV/cz No.209130 Ignore Report Quick Reply
There is everything philosophical about it. You are making a value claim about the goodness of home, food, and drink, you're making an ethical claim that what you 'ought' to do is take care of these things, you are implying a policy claim to understand what 'taking care of' such things entails, and you're making a metaphysical claim that dreams are worthwhile things to chase and that chasing them is somehow beneficial. Now

A.) you didn't come up with those ideas on your own, so its disingenuous for you to claim that you have no reason to ask other people about fundamental questions like 'what am I supposed to do?' The very concepts of 'home' and 'dreams' is something that you learned about in school or from society, not invented on your own.

B.) your very objection to my claim (you said no one says 'what am I supposed to do?' and therefore all metaphysical questions and answers are unnecessary) ignores the fact that what I said was an illustrative analogy and not to be taken literally. In order for you to manufacture the answer to that question ('just ensure your primary blah blah...') you had to ask *yourself* 'what am I supposed to do?' And to come up with that answer you had to reference metaphysical theories about value and build them up into a system of ethics, because the answer to that question is necessarily of the form 'you ought to do [blank]' and therefore you need philosophy, specifically metaphysics and ethics, to answer it, since science by definition can't supply those things.

What you are missing here is that you are invalidating an entire branch of human study because you seem to have a knee-jerk emotional bias towards it. Does that make sense to you now, broken down that basically, or are you going to find some new semantic sleight of hand?
William Hebbletid - Thu, 19 Apr 2018 07:53:10 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209131 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>alue claim about the goodness of home, food, and drink

No you fucking retard. That's not a value claim. That's simply a physical necessity of your biological existence. You need a safe clean place to sleep, clean yourself and expel waste for your health, and you need food and drink to continue your existence. There is nothing to discuss on those points, they are cold hard biological facts.
You can go say "yeah but let's discuss the value claim on food and drink and sleep, but that's fucking bullshit because without it you fucking die a horrible death.

You have got a point on the second one, but it's only a slight point. Following dreams does require some philosophical thought on value, meaning etc. in a universe that lacks these. But you still don't need religion for any of those.
Lydia Hecklekick - Thu, 19 Apr 2018 11:33:28 EST ID:bz58Upde No.209132 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Jesus why do you have to be so vitriolic. Here's my advice to you; stop doing a bunch of coke before you log onto /pss./ Pack exactly one marijuana, put it to your lips, ignite, and inhale before you post again.

>>That's not a value claim.
Yes, it is. I'm sorry this degenerated into Philo 101 but actually it's you who should be sorry so not really. It might be an extremely basic value claim that almost everyone would readily assent to without any argument, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a value claim. Did you never learn to analyze which parts of a philosophical statement are claims? (Have you never even been in an actual philosophy class? It's ok I won't tell.) If I were a nihilist, I would argue that it is an unwarranted leap to claim that you can ascribe 'goodness' to things that are intrinsically meaningless and only lengthen the amount of time you suffer before dying. And if those statements weren't philosophical value claims and I said that, you would literally have no recourse to defend your opinion. So you better damn well hope they are value claims!

If you want to follow this idea to a deeper level (and I don't mean you, because you will sperg out on some minor misplaced turn of phrase and never actually engage the substance of my comments, but I mean anyone else who may be reading) you could say that sentient (not sapient) life itself must make a value claim even in order to maintain biological existence. What I mean is, a cell maintains homeostasis completely instinctually...instinctual isn't even the right word as it doesn't really have discrete behaviors, it just exists and its various organelles operate. So it does not need to have the opinion that it is 'good' for it to continue eating to survive.
But, as soon as something has a brain stem big enough to coordinate complex behaviors and select between them, every living organism on earth must, at a fundamental, pre-verbal level, assent to the idea that it's daily quest for food is 'good'; it's neuronal pathways balance and coordinate desires and output from different brain regions to select the food seeking behavior over others.…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Phoebe Turveyhall - Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:09:50 EST ID:SGCbMw+u No.209144 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>OP thinks humans are rational
There’s the giant hole in your argument, OP. Humans just believe whatever the fuck they want to believe.

Has Rationalism Failed? Do we need to rediscover the idea of Truth? by Hugh Megglefirk - Sat, 21 Apr 2018 05:34:22 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.209138 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1524303262008.jpg -(20998B / 20.51KB, 494x604) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 20998
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 ID:DVMFurmR No.209139 Ignore Report Quick 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 ID:SGCbMw+u No.209143 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This is why you always need to accept change and accept that science continually changes and pretty much always will.

Philosophers by Doris Blillycocke - Fri, 13 Apr 2018 13:06:00 EST ID:jxB3eYCC No.209080 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1523639160033.jpg -(92333B / 90.17KB, 750x833) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 92333
Straight up, I’m sick of people quoting the same few philosophers 24/7. Like I’m in several debate groups and right now the only thing they’re willing to talk about is Stirner as if he’s the only good philosopher. I came in with some Gaddafi quotes and ideas and nobody has any interest in that, because nobody popular references Gaddafi or his philosophical work. Sup with that? You guys got any obscure philosophers you love?
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Frederick Domblekat - Sun, 15 Apr 2018 01:56:06 EST ID:tVsefzYq No.209084 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>philosophy is all about engaging with the works
>refuses to engage with works he wont read
Phoebe Mammlenodging - Sun, 15 Apr 2018 08:29:48 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209087 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You didn't read what I wrote, you fucking idiot. Obscure philosophers only have the works they wrote. Famous philosophers have works they wrote, and works OTHER philosophers wrote reacting to their work.

Obscure philosophers don't add anything to the constant synthesis of philosophy. To put it in Fichte-ian terms.
Nathaniel Shakelock - Sun, 15 Apr 2018 13:39:29 EST ID:/tjfruPD No.209090 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1523813969846.jpg -(145595B / 142.18KB, 960x735) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
John Cowper Powys seems pretty neat. Such as The Complex Vision (although I've barely delved into it) https://archive.org/details/complexvision00powy . Also works about Phenomenology, particularly from Merleau-Ponty https://archive.org/details/TheStructureOfBehaviour, but is that really that obscure though? I was introduced to Phenomenology through The Spell of the Sensuous https://archive.org/details/AbramTheSpellOfTheSensuousPerceptionAndLanguageInAMoreThanHumanWorld, an ecological philosophical book. Some of those ideas are opening up into a kinda new field of study and practice of ecopsychology, which has some philosophical underpinnings.

Obscure to most. What you're ignoring is that dialogue did occur between thinkers of that time and within niche fields, influencing others even outside that dialogue. Besides, popularity doesn't determine validity.
Augustus Bimmerkerk - Sun, 15 Apr 2018 17:48:34 EST ID:MOGdYtlU No.209093 Ignore Report Quick Reply
you can make the add it....
Phoebe Turveyhall - Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:02:54 EST ID:SGCbMw+u No.209141 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Lol wow dude, you’re actually arguing against reading philosophy that isn’t mainstream, and you’ve even got stupid reasoning backing it up.
Good job. You’re one of the idiots who constantly repeat the same bullshit as everyone else with no ability to think freely.

Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.