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
Racism by Rebecca Greenwill - Fri, 13 Jan 2017 01:52:29 EST ID:RJGzRrNh No.207576 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1484290349984.gif -(7478B / 7.30KB, 300x225) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 7478
Posting here because social sciences.

What really determines if someone is racist?
Earlier today i was walking to collect my mail and throw my rubbish in the bin when i passed some black kids a boy and a girl, we smiled and nodded at each other but about half way to the letterbox i felt an unease and immeditly thought that these kids were going to rob me, they didnt, but i cant ignore that thought. Am i racist? would i have thought that if they were white, maybe if they were tatted up white kids who seemed like they had a drug problem.

So what is racism? Was i being a racist?
36 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Matilda Brookville - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:15:43 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.208053 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>"They" rob.
>"They" murder.
Replace 'they' with 'black people' and add in 'at the highest frequency of all races in the USA' and you're finally on your way to the truth.

>I'd recommend Dali
Who? And for what?

Bruh, I'm a philosopher, but your reply that I'm looking at looks like nothing but a bunch of randomly churned out statements, almost none of which have anything to do with my initial statement.

I take it you're trying to say, in so many words, that you consider my justification of extra-precaution around black people to come from paranoia. Well, paranoia isn't based in facts, where as my opinions on black people are. Step out of academic philosophy and step into real philosophy, where not everything can be boiled down to ideological gray areas and we use facts to weigh in on opinions.

>The "National Youth Gang Survey Analysis" (2011) state that of gang members, 46% are Hispanic/Latino, 35% are black, 11.5% are white, and 7% are other race/ethnicity.[46]
>According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in the year 2008 black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery. Black youths were overrepresented in all offense categories except DUI, liquor laws and drunkenness.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Matilda Brookville - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:19:34 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.208054 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I should probably point this out because you guys probably don't understand, but, I'm in no way racist. Knowing the truth about race is important, race isn't something to be disregarded, but you won't find me acting racist towards anyone, but I know my science and I know my sociology and I base my opinions in facts. I know where I'm safe and I know where I'm not safe. And let me tell you, race plays a big part in this, even though wealth plays an even bigger part. Go live somewhere where your race isn't the majority, which is how I've spent the majority of my life, and you'll learn the truths about what racism looks like, on both sides. And let me tell you, both sides are justified, and both sides are guilty.
Isabella Dasslefock - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 15:33:29 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.208055 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1493062409853.png -(54935B / 53.65KB, 1004x437) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
That picture is from a book length report on juvenile justice by the National Research Council, in a chapter on racial disparity.
This chart doesn't touch on the different proportions of each group within the population, and that's not even the salient point to take out of it. Here is another chart from the same chapter in which the crime rates have been indexed per capita. You're claiming that blacks and whites having a nearly equal arrest rate means blacks just inherently commit 4x as crimes, since they are 1/4th as populous. But this index shows, for example, that the arrest rate for minorities (since these data compile all minorities together) is at most .5 higher, which is 0.25x higher according to their index, not 4x.
But ignoring that, this chart has much more interesting information to tell us. Note how the arrest rates are almost in parity, but the more severe the consequences (moving up the scale from delinquency referrals to long-term detention) the more likely the offender is black. Why should it be that whites commit crimes at a greater rate than all minorities (even being the majority of the population) have their cases adjudicated at almost double the rate, yet get put in long term detention less?
It seems like you are the one who is not understanding this data. Whites and blacks commit crimes at comparable rates, but blacks are given much more severe consequences for it -- which makes it harder for them to get by in society, which gives them no alternative but to turn to crime, which fosters a climate of crime, which means children will also be raised in an environment where it's harder for them to integrate into society. You don't think the net sum of that, applied to your entire race, across decades, will generate a 0.25x disparity in criminality? You bet your ass it would, and it would still have nothing to do with genetics.

If you really want to claim you're not racist, then lets see you put up or shut up. You claim that blacks are more violent because of genetics. Ok, lets just take for granted that that's true for a moment. If that's the case, then black crime is a medical problem that could e…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Matilda Brookville - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 15:43:32 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.208056 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>If you really want to claim you're not racist, then lets see you put up or shut up. You claim that blacks are more violent because of genetics.
Good. I can prove that easily, right now.

> Is it not our responsibility to do exactly this, if what you claim is true? If we were to do this over night, do you imagine a lot of the problems that force minorities into crime would disappear at the same time? If they didn't, then what makes you think it was genetics in the first place?
I imagine yes, if we were to intervene in people's genes, we could make much better humans. I mean, it's not unknown that humans with high levels of Monoamine Oxidase A never succeed even close to the rate of humans who have low levels of Monoamine Oxidase A. Notice that Asians have the lowest amount; fun fact, asians in the USA actually get shat on by affirmative action because they are literally more successful than white people in terms of growth. I mean, in Japan last year like only 100 people were killed by gunshot. You get 100 people killed by Gunshot in Chicago, alone, every few weeks, and we're talking about an all-black area here, pretty much, at least in regards to crime. Mind you, Japan has a population of 180 million, so it's not like we're talking peanuts here.

That being said, I mean if in this day and age someone were to suggest that all black people be genetically modified to fix them, there'd be a massive backlash and the option wouldn't even be considered possible, it would just be thrown under the rug as 'utter racist nonsense with no basis in real science'. Truly, genetic intervention could drastically improve the conditions of every race, yet I have no doubt we will not see that even suggested in our lifetime.

Also....why do you keep referencing some book from 2001?
I mean this link from the US department of Justice (with much more recent findings and longer trends) sheds plenty of light on this subject.
Isabella Dasslefock - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 16:10:27 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.208057 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Simply changing expression of Monoamine Oxidase will be totally insufficient. If you turned down expression of it across the board, not only would certain foods like aged cheeses become toxic, but we would also become more intrinsically susceptible to our own neurotransmitters; we would be tripping all the time.
Also, if you're suggesting that the over-abundance of MAO is the cause of failure in blacks, then why does only 5% of the population have the 2R variant? What about the other 95%?

>>in Japan only 100 people were killed by gunshot
Because, by and large, owning a firearm is illegal in Japan. But we are now at the point of discussing the benefits of gun control, so I suspect you will walk back that angle entirely.

Still, if you want to alter the expression of a gene because you think it will make people less violent, you have to apply it across the board. If you don't make it about race, then it's not racist. That was the purpose of my thought experiment; to reveal whether or not you were interested in actually dealing with the problem, or simply wanted to denigrate a group of people. You also didn't respond to my suggestion that eliminating a gene will do nothing to erase poverty or institutional bias against people.

>>...why do you keep referencing some book from 2001?

frankfurt school by Priscilla Gaddlefat - Sun, 05 Mar 2017 19:09:16 EST ID:ypqGZf3j No.207836 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1488758956835.jpg -(76895B / 75.09KB, 776x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 76895
is it safe to say that no one who believes in "cultural marxism" and points to the frankfurt school as some spooky bohemian grove type of thing where a bunch of jews gathered to decide the fate of the world has actually read this thing?
46 posts and 9 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nicholas Worthingridge - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 10:14:51 EST ID:CMVbW7K1 No.207908 Ignore Report Quick Reply
postmodernism is a broad umbrella term for various theories.
One place to start is Ferdinand de Saussur, his semiotic triangle and structuralism. Its important to remember that postmodern philosophy, or perhaps better said, philosophy in the postmodern era proceeds from the point that we are unable to ever really know or really contact anything truly, which is a departure from modernism which held that truth was attainable through modern methods (rationality, science etc).
But there are many other starting points. You could even start with Marx or Nietzsche or looking at Art. Also you could start getting a basic grasp of some of the concepts used within postmodernist philosophy such as deconstruction (Derrida) which is more or less the same thing as deterritorialisation (Deleuze). People can spend years studying this stuff, its not something you learn fully by reading one book or another, even with a basic understanding alot of the stuff can seem confusing.

you could also look for a lecture on youtube, fe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we6cwmzhbBE.
Charles Cranninghall - Sun, 16 Apr 2017 19:18:45 EST ID:o0cEH16h No.208030 Ignore Report Quick Reply
hi just passing through hate to pick you out but i noticed a few things you said

a) some "philosophy in the postmodern era proceeds from the point that we are unable to ever really..." etc., but much of it does no such thing. you should know better than to let such metanarratives slip ;) the best postmodernism (imo) opens us to our communion with truth, which is to say, existence. the very idea of 'contact' stems from a modern model of truth and implies a separation, a separation only assumed by modernist rationalism (and its ideological antecedents, ie Christianity) in the first place.

b) while you're right to mention the 'Enlightenment' definition of truth integral to modernism, postmodern philosophy largely consists of the expansion of the horizon of truth, creating and elaborating a variety of kinds of truth/power/virtue.

c) deconstruction is not more or less the same thing as deterritorialisation. it's an interesting thing to claim though

d) there're lots of good things you wrote in that post like how you capitalized Art and suggested Nietzsche as an in. also that people who study this stuff can get confused. good lectures on youtube, etc.

i think postmodernism as a concept, much like existentialism, is an arbitrary category that allows people to think they understand more than they do. how very modern of us.
Charlotte Brillydeck - Wed, 19 Apr 2017 07:54:39 EST ID:CMVbW7K1 No.208035 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Your points are not wrong but i'm confused as they seem to come from a postmodernist perspective and at the end you say its an ' arbitrary category'.
I was previously explaining postmodernism as it is usually explained: as constrasting to modernism.

>deconstruction is not more or less the same thing as deterritorialisation. it's an interesting thing to claim though
I understand both terms to mean decoupling elements of a system or organisation. Deconstructing a whole or taking something out of the territory it is located in.
George Trotman - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:13:51 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.208050 Ignore Report Quick Reply
the way you could wed your two posts, is through understanding both while completing different as statement, achieve the same affect.

A new definition of truth in charles post, that is understood from our position as humans. And your statement of never truly being able to know.

One is positing that after that position, we find what truth really is, and one is suggesting we come to grips that we never really know so that opens us up to what we actually are expressing after that.

But it's to allieve the same anxiety in time.

Ironically nietzche also once said something about every statement eating itself. So he plays into those thoughts as well.

And philosophers are recursive like ancient budhists so they go over a category in perpetuity
George Trotman - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:44:08 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.208051 Ignore Report Quick Reply
that is deconstruction, but also it involves the idea of making an authorless text, and taking aboutness out for a literal ride, in a text.

For instance and example, you are able to abstract something without having to see or know it by confines that would be restraining, but in removing those constraints or what has been built that would logically suggest a next step. You take that "aboutness" into the deconstruction.

So kind of like how you were able to define post modernism in contrast to modernism.

You can deconstruct something, like poetry by taking it into free verse. Without the natural confines, or restraints that meter the form, through inhibition, give it it's creativity and atom like collisions that result in the matter. You can do that as if you were free from it, or you can do this as if in the act every step of that "aboutness" every step of where that "aboutness" would be there is a reflection on this. Or the actual expression of that meter or form, in a state of history itself. Or history as understood as "aging", "acclerated."

Think of captain beefheart as a deconstruction on american music, both blues and pop in the sixties. He started as someone very good at singing music in a blues style. He was very good at rhythem, and what people are accustomed to hearing.

Then he made songs that at every expectation of the ear(of that "aboutness"), and what it is and has previously heard, at that step seems to defy it and elude expectation and elude form.

Yet when studied the rhythm is completly there and is highly advanced. So then you see in his body of work from when he was traditional to when he moved out of that bounding, an accelration or changing of the the thing that was deconstructed. As if it was doing the changing.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

If Muslims were White by Charles Hoffingshaw - Tue, 04 Apr 2017 09:40:56 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207974 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1491313256272.jpg -(65536B / 64.00KB, 645x484) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 65536
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?
41 posts and 7 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Shit Cliffinglore - Sun, 16 Apr 2017 07:01:43 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.208028 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Genetics is about more than just colours on a map mate.

The genes that give Chinese their pale skin are the same genes that give French their pale skin. Because the Chinese and the French have common ancestry in the mammoth hunters that migrated from Africa, through the Fertile Cresent upwards into Siberia, with one group going East, and another going West, a couple thousand years later, having formed cultures in Europe and the other in Asia.
Eugene Bunfield - Sun, 16 Apr 2017 15:33:55 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.208029 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1492371235902.jpg -(25465B / 24.87KB, 540x231) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>genetics is about more than colors on a map
Those colors represent the distribution of y-DNA haplogroups, which basically traces the path of male ancestry. Are you going to say THAT has nothing to do with genetics?
>>The genes that give Chinese their pale skin are the same genes that give French their pale skin.
Actually, that's not entirely accurate either. 6 genes control the expression of melanin in human skin, and are what lead to the variants of melanin that produce 'yellow-brown' or 'red-brown' types. So for example while both Europeans and Asians to a high degree share KITLG and ASIP genes and this contributes to part of their shared coloration, the SLC and TYR genes are found to be highly unique to the coloration of Europeans. However both KITLG and ASIP can also be found to a high degree in African populations, so it's likely that this was an inherent genetic variant that began to be selected for once humans left Africa, rather than a new mutation or a gene that crossed over from one of the other proto-human populations.

>>Because the Chinese and the French have common ancestry in the mammoth hunters that migrated from Africa
This is actually debatable. Of course all humans have some descendants which migrated out of Africa. However, we are only beginning to understand the role which interaction between humans and the other hominids that lived in the regions they were colonizing affected the human genome.
It is possible that the humans which migrated to Europe and mixed with Neanderthals then partially migrated to Asia, however, probably not farther than the sub continent, since we begin to see a proportionally higher mix of human with Denisovan proto-human DNA at that point. It's also probable that a lot of African populations went straight to Asia to mix with Denisovans, bypassing Europe and Neanderthals altogether. Obviously there exist individuals that are hybrids of all three, but this was relatively rare until recent history as genetic geneological studies have revealed.
Pic related, the darker green side of the spectrum is populations heavily mixed with Nean…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Doris Gevingshit - Tue, 18 Apr 2017 05:07:45 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.208031 Ignore Report Quick Reply
No shit a lot of Asians went straight to Asia. You had three major migrations. The first one being the Papuans etc. who appear very African. Then the South-Asians, who have the typical Asian facial expressions, but have brown skin. And later, the North-Asians migrated.
Henry Gebbershaw - Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:31:21 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.208032 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well no argument here since you are just reiterating what I said. Since you seem to be conceding my point and have offered no arguments as to why, despite all of this, all other races are 'the same' but Africans are 'different' I assume you have finally accepted that's not the case, and we can finally put false equivalencies to rest and return to the point of the OP.
Frederick Gummerwotch - Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:33:53 EST ID:ESoyfdMt No.208033 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Islam is not a race, it is a religion. Islam needs reform but no one can talk about it without regressive leftists shouting, "Islamaphobia!"

Game of Thrones by Walter Shakewill - Mon, 03 Apr 2017 10:02:01 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207967 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1491228121844.jpg -(824344B / 805.02KB, 1400x700) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 824344
Let's talk about a subject everyone can understand; Game of Thrones.
Who your favorite GoT characters are, in my opinion, says a lot about who you are as a person.

Of course, my favorite character by far is Cersei Lannister. She truly deserves the Iron Throne. I originally loved Robert Baratheon, Ed Stark and Drogo, but they all died on me very quickly. Now, after all 6 seasons, I have to say that Cersei is truly an amazing character. I also loved Ramsay Bolton very much, as he was the sort of Hannibal Lecter of Westeros. His antics often ended with me proclaiming aloud, 'Oh Ramsay.'
Walter Shakewill - Mon, 03 Apr 2017 10:05:26 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207968 Ignore Report Quick Reply
To tackle this subject from a philosophical point of view, I guess it's just impressive to see how much willpower Cersei has. Cersei is definitely a fearless hedonist with more emotional strength than any of the other characters. She never makes half-hearted moves, and she never tells the truth. Truly, she is a warrior woman like Robert Barathion, only Robert was a warrior on the battlefield while Cersei is a warrior at politics, a titan behind closed-doors.
Walter Donningforth - Mon, 10 Apr 2017 18:38:31 EST ID:KvXjjDsO No.208006 Ignore Report Quick Reply
My favorite philosophical meaning is between Ned stark and vaerys before ned stark's eventual beheading. Where vaerys tries to explain his understanding of this as preternaturally related to his time in a theatrical troupe. And how he understands power and the realm the same way.
Ian Blythestock - Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:42:27 EST ID:Z08uqMmD No.208011 Ignore Report Quick Reply
My favorite character is Tyrion. I guess I find him relateable since I'm more of a behind the scenes type of leader, but he's pragmatic, a tactician, and takes the lead when he has to make difficult decisions for what he believes is the correct reasons.

Cersei is definitely a boss and a half and I have alot of respect for her "no half-measures" approach.

I liked Jon Snow alot in the books, but I feel like he's not been done justice in the show. He's a warrior baptized in fire, never groomed for leadership but assumed it because he was needed, rejecting tradition in favor of survival.

I guess that's what truly connects all of them for me, they were unassuming, thrust into great trials that challenged their lives, and rose above the adversity more powerful and defiant in the face of death.

They are all true survivors.

Danaerys is too emotional for me with her decision making. Which contradicts me support of Jon Snow since he ruined his well entrenched position vs the Bolton's to save his brother, but it's his brother ya know? I mean, I can let that slide. It'd be hard to watch a little sibling be massacred in front of you and doing nothing about it.

Meditation by Phoebe Goodforth - Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:45:31 EST ID:/XQxUE3u No.204775 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1453218331804.jpg -(552057B / 539.12KB, 1920x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 552057
Hey guys I'm just starting to learn how to meditate. So far I can go up to 3 minutes and after that I can't focus any longer. But, I'd say I'm starting off good.

How many of you here meditate on a daily basis? In what way does it help you? What is your favorite type of meditation?

I'm learning sleep meditation and zen. I want to broaden my horizons and love myself again. With this meditation I hope to achieve a higher level of being and be able to like myself and have a positive outlook on life.
121 posts and 12 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Cornelius Fugglewill - Sun, 26 Mar 2017 16:00:40 EST ID:pQdbKKB2 No.207946 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Have any of you ever been to a Buddhist temple to learn the true art of meditation and Buddhism? I've been thinking about going and staying there for as long as I possibly can and learn a lot of philosophical teachings. For those who have done it, what's your experience?
Matilda Brasslemotch - Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:09:09 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207947 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well, it depends on what you mean by "Buddhist temple." If you mean any of the number of Buddhist centers throughout the world that exist specifically for outreach and to act as community centers, these are probably great places for you to go and learn, although in a lot of cases you cannot stay there.

If you're thinking of going to the Himalayas to bug native monks to unscramble your western psyche with months of vigorous mental discipline,Karate Kid style...either be prepared to be seen right through, or pay through the nose for someone to ignore how they see right through.
William Grandcocke - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 00:42:01 EST ID:TZEgBuHq No.207948 Ignore Report Quick Reply

I haven't done it myself, but I would say that you should meditate and try to find a place locally and talk to them and learn with them and practice with them if you're interested in such things. I think reading the sutras has value too but that might not do much for you if you aren't approaching it from within the tradition. This is assuming you haven't done this already. If you have, then you should know someone who you can talk to about these things who would be more equipped to talk about these things.
Cyril Lightdock - Mon, 10 Apr 2017 02:11:10 EST ID:A8KcvEdU No.208002 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1491804670421.jpg -(30332B / 29.62KB, 620x430) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Not Buddhism but I visited the local mosque for the second time ever. Theres something about praying to Allah, with a group of other gentlemen, that set it apart from meditating alone
Jack Trotfield - Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:51:11 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.208005 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1491857471626.png -(25856B / 25.25KB, 325x244) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Anger masturbation by Ebenezer Hendlekig - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 00:56:11 EST ID:9xHHmrI5 No.207907 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1489899371727.jpg -(473997B / 462.89KB, 1170x620) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 473997
It seems like most people these days aren't looking to engage in what is classically considered a "discussion" or even a "debate". People have become so entrenched ideologically that it makes discussion and exchange of ideas all but impossible.

I don't think it's nostalgic to say that the rhetoric of this period is more polarized than it was a 5 years or even a decade ago at least in the context of American politics. When people have a difference of opinion there is no discussion there is only the reinforcement of preconceived notions and the stroking of the anger boner. People have come to enjoy the righteous anger they feel when their lighting up someone who has the "wrong" political opinion.

This sort of thing happened in the past but it was mint everyone doing it to each other all the time. Everything has devolved to the point where it's a nonstop rage masturbation fest on both sides. No one wants to learn, no one wants to admit that they might be wrong, no one wants to actually solve any problems. They just want to be right and someone else be wrong, we've all become addicted to the feeling of being righteously angry at the people we believe are "wrong".
42 posts and 8 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Alice Duckdock - Tue, 04 Apr 2017 16:08:55 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207980 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>So that makes him alt-right?
I'll say it again more clearly so you can understand: I am not making a claim about Peterson's subscription to alt-right beliefs. I am making the claim that alt-right adherents subscribe to Peterson's views because they are ideologically sympathetic. Do you get now how those are two different things? He no like alt-right, alt-right like him. Like how not all web feet are duck, but all duck are web feet. Got it?

>>explain how it is a mis-framing
Debates about whether or not certain kinds of speech ought to have legal ramifications are frequently drowned out by cries of censorship, which is basically Peterson's tactic, he's just more long-winded about it. They all rest on this idea that one should be allowed to say anything, even if saying that thing has disastrous consequences, because the converse, to compel someone to say or not say something, is a more disastrous consequence ethically.

For one this conflates the concepts of belief and speech. We already regulate and compel behavior, and speech is just one kind of behavior, and can influence behavior much more strongly than mere actions can. For the same reason there are certain places and times it is both inappropriate and illegal to shout 'fire!' because that 'speech' directly results in a behavior that harms other people in a legally answerable way, so too are there many other kinds of speech that have direct consequences which someone ought to be legally liable for.

The thought is not being censored or controlled, the idea is not being suppressed from being communicated, it's being suppressed in context where it generates a behavior that ultimately leads to a criminal or civil violation. This is kind of a common sense fact about every day life, that you can't just go around saying whatever and expect there to be no consequences from it, but it's so subtle and nuanced that academics like Peterson or people in general with an agenda against PC attitudes can just stomp all over the nuance by just harping about free speech. It's a bit of a childish tactic because Peterson is well-read enough to know that the debate is more complex than th…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Basil Clemmleshaw - Wed, 05 Apr 2017 15:24:05 EST ID:jYcEvk8u No.207988 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Okay, well that's essentially a pointless thing to say, and it doesn't answer the question you were responding to. It didn't explain what he does, nor did it explain the majority of his supporters who have nothing to do with the alt-right at all, as much as some may want to plug their ears and go "la la la" and pretend that only people they can label as bigots support him. I'm sure Bernie Sanders got some support from Communists and the like, should we go after him for that or is that something only a dipshit on Fox News would do? You can probably find shitty people of one form or another who will attach themselves to just about anything. It means nothing.

>They all rest on this idea that one should be allowed to say anything, even if saying that thing has disastrous consequences, because the converse, to compel someone to say or not say something, is a more disastrous consequence ethically.

Anything? No, I've never seen any evidence that he has any issue with the already existing limitations, such as incitements to violence or genocide or saying something in a theater that will cause a stampede. Most people who support free speech generally feel the same way I imagine. The important thing is that if you ARE going to infringe on free speech, it should be for an extremely good reason, and certainly not for the sake of enforcing some sort of political agenda.

>For one this conflates the concepts of belief and speech. We already regulate and compel behavior, and speech is just one kind of behavior

It isn't just one kind of behavior at all. Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of western civilization and liberal democracy. Without it everything else collapses, because we use our freedom of speech to talk things through and search for truth and the best course of action. If you're no longer allowed to hash something out because the state has said something is verbotton, you're fucked. And the state itself won't even be operating as well as it could because it isn't taking into consideration any disagreements or issues that may exist surrounding the fundamental presuppositions that they've decided to restrict speech about (such as the faulty assumptions built into Bill C-16).

>For the same reason there are certain places and times it is both inappropriate and illegal to shout 'fire!' because that 'speech' directly results in a behavior that harms other people in a legally answerable way, so too are there many other kinds of speech that have direct consequences which someone ought to be legally liable for.

>it's being suppressed in context where it generates a behavior that ultimately leads to a criminal or civil violation.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Henry Hannerhall - Wed, 05 Apr 2017 16:03:40 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207991 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>it doesn't answer the question you were responding to
I was answering a question about 'the motivations of him and his ilk.' I offered my opinion on the latter and directly stated I have no knowledge of the former, but you just then decided to tear into me about what HE believed. Did you maybe just realize you thought you were arguing about something that no one was actually arguing with you about? I also never made the case that everyone who supports his ideas was alt-right, I just mentioned them as a large group of his followers, but apparently you took my mere mentioning of them (when their endorsement of him, FOR WHAT LITTLE IT MATTERS, is a recorded fact) as a call to crusade.

To make this even clearer for you, I'm not saying it's good or bad that he has any connection to the alt-right, whatsoever. That's just fine, and my opinion on him does not rest on who else agrees with him or supports him -- those were just surrounding facts about his case. I disagree with his thinking based on it's own merits, irrespective of what other people think about his thinking.

>>never seen any evidence that he has any issue with the already existing limitations, such as incitements to violence or genocide
>>If you're no longer allowed to hash something out because the state has said something is verbotton, you're fucked
What if the political agenda you want to hash out is an incitement to genocide? We've already reached the contradiction point of this argument right there.
If it's true that there are consequences for the things you say, and some of those things lead to violence or genocide, and those things are illegal, then the state has already said hashing out certain things is verboten. So are we fucked? No.

>> he takes issue with Bill C-16. But you don't even begin to broach that subject
I wasn't even trying to get into that with you, but since you insist, Peterson's objection to C-16 is either an accidental or deliberate misunderstanding of the law. He claims that not using people's preferred pronouns would make him a hate criminal, but that's nowhere within the C-16 law, and legal experts who have been asked about it have explicitly stated that he is mis-characterizing both the intent and the actual policy established by the law.
Most of his complaints stem from the fact that he is an employee of the government, dispensing government-funded education. In that sense his speech is very much not free -- it must be within the guidelines established for him as an employee by his employer. So much of his argument is chafing against that, and would not apply to a non-government employee or non-educator.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Martin Brissleman - Fri, 07 Apr 2017 00:16:59 EST ID:CMVbW7K1 No.207995 Ignore Report Quick Reply
hey, here's a tip: http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/hicks-ep-full.pdf As I said, it's where Peterson gets all his ideas about postmodernism from. It's also a work of propaganda in my eyes.

Marx was a very important figure for almost all of philosophy to follow, as important as Kant, Nietzsche, Freud who were also important to postmodernists. However Marxism is a Modernist ideology, postmodernism is a departure from modernism and thus also from marxism. Again, you would know this if you had the faintest clue about what youre talking about.

There are two main components of an ideology:
>Goals: how society should work
>Methods: the most appropriate ways to achieve the ideal arrangement
Postmodernists prescribe neither. Described in the article as an 'ideological mood' it is cynical and skeptical towards any kind of total theory of society, it is fragmented, decentered and by no means coherent enough to constitute an ideology.

> If you don't see the connections you simply aren't looking hard enough.
This is a game you are playing, you are trying to construct a picture of postmodernism. Now matter how hard you or Peterson or any other reactionary zealot tries you will not convince me of your picture. And I can do the same right back at you
>If you dont see the connections between Peterson (biological essentialism, traditionalism, phobic attitude to socialism, reactionary ideals) and FASCISM well then you just arent looking hard enough.

easy, isnt it?
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Martha Sombledid - Fri, 07 Apr 2017 16:06:51 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207999 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Marx was a very important figure for almost all of philosophy to follow, as important as Kant, Nietzsche, Freud who were also important to postmodernists. However Marxism is a Modernist ideology, postmodernism is a departure from modernism and thus also from marxism.

This. You'd think those retarded alt-right the future immigrant faggots would understand the basic fact that post-modern philosophy by nature is philosophically opposed to any and all modernist schools of thinking.

Zoroastrianism by Hannah Haddlestone - Sun, 15 Jan 2017 03:26:24 EST ID:Vz5f1vq5 No.207599 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1484468784066.gif -(617831B / 603.35KB, 320x240) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 617831
Yo /pss/,

What do you recommend I read if I want to know more about Zoroastrianism? Specifically orthodox but I'm open to any good material on the subject. My limitedresearch so far keeps telling me that the original holy texts are all written in a language that doesn't really translate well, so unlike other religions I can't just go and read their holy book because I've had trouble understanding which texts are the equivalent of canon. I want to get a deeper understanding than just what's in the wikipedia article, Help a dude out?
5 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Ghengis Dong - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:53:26 EST ID:taL6BOqF No.207949 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490626406387.jpg -(197616B / 192.98KB, 800x1204) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>would you mind giving us a brief history of that outline?
I can try, but be warned, I'm no historian.

As far as I can tell, there isn't an authoritative dating for their first appearances, but historians in antiquity usually attributed the first written gathas to around 1000BC to the prophet Zartosht (Zoroaster).

According the the scriptures, Zoroaster presented his writings to his patron Vishtaspa around 1000BC, the teachings were put in to practice there and the writings preserved until the conquest of Alexander the Great when the religion was suppressed and its texts looted/burned. However portions of the texts appear in Greek-made translations at this time (around 4-3rd Century BC) and there was a great diffusion of these writings throughout the Hellenic world.

After this period, there was a revivalist movement beginning under King Valaxš of Arsacid Persia, and the old-Avesta, as historians call it, was completed under Shapur II during the Sasanian Empire, around the 4th century.

Zoroastrianism was the state-religion of the Sasanian Empire so this is where the teachings acquired their orthodoxy. The accounts of the scholars of this period on the origins of the texts are unreliable and based on legend. The only dating of the gathas is done by linguistic analysis, so it's extremely unclear. According to the article I posted: "Until the advent of the Sasanians, and even under their regime, Iran was a country in which written documents were conspicuously rare... It is clear that the writers of the Pahlavi books shared our ignorance of the prehistory of the Avesta. However, we can concede that it does preserve the memory (though in legendary form) of a real break in the religious tradition, or of its splitting into sects, as a result of the absence of a unifying political power after the Greek conquest"

After the Sasanian empire until the rise of Islam not a lot is known:

"Of the history of the Avestan texts from the collapse of the Sasanian empire and the oldest manuscripts in our possession little is known. We know that the Muslim conquest and the dispersal of the Mazdean communities caused a weakening of the religious tradition and a decline of the liturgical elocution, which caused damage to the written transmission of the Avesta. Also, examination of the manuscripts reveals mistakes which prove that all of them derive from a single common ancestor, which K. Hoffmann (Aufsätze II, p. 515) calls the “base manuscript” and places in the ninth to tenth century A.D."
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Simon Dreddletirk - Tue, 28 Mar 2017 05:26:09 EST ID:GoJD6tHg No.207950 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Please do. Did you get all that info from the site you linked?
Ghengis Dong - Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:20:08 EST ID:mQSzo9rp No.207952 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490761208047.jpg -(16427B / 16.04KB, 236x238) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>Did you get all that info from the site you linked?

Yup. But when I read over my post, I notice a couple necessary revisions and poorly worded parts which irk the shit out of me:

"Old Avesta" is not a historical term, but commonly refers to the original Gathas.

Our oldest manuscripts that reference them come from Hellenic Era scholars.

During the Arsacid, Seleucid ,and Parthian Empires (reign varied throughout the region, but roughly 3rd century BC to 3rd century AD), long periods of foreign rule and strife led to movements which attempted to reclaim/revive the heritage of the Achaemenid Empire (pre-Hellenic Persia) and its holy texts (the gathas).

The Sasanian Empire rising in the 3rd century AD would enforce a strict codified form of the religion which venerated these texts, the gathas, still preserved in archaic old -Persian from centuries prior (sometimes referred to itself as the old-Avesta).

In addition they would compile the bulk of the "Yasna", hymns and rituals deemed canon, which includes practices developed in the later Parthian period (hence why it differs linguistically and has been informally referred to as the "young-avesta")
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Ghengis Dong - Mon, 03 Apr 2017 14:46:48 EST ID:taL6BOqF No.207969 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1491245208202.jpg -(11210B / 10.95KB, 267x188) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Kay I'll begin with an examination of the original gathas:

In these verses Zoroaster gives devotion to Ahura-Mazda. The supreme being. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ahura-mazda

"Some of the words spoken of Ahura Mazdā (aka: Ohrmuzd) in the Avesta have echoes in Vedic celebrations of Mitra and Varuṇa. In one evidently archaic verse (Y. 41.3) his worshippers say to him, “We establish Thee as the god possessing good supernatural power (maya-), zealous, accompanied by aša,” while in the Gāthās Zoroaster hails him as “all-seeing” (Y. 45.4) and “seeing afar” (Y. 33.13), the one “whom none deceives” (Y. 43.6). The prophet also speaks of him as “clad in hardest stone” i.e. the sky (Y. 30.5), although he also uses terms which suggest an anthropomorphic concept, in keeping with general Indo-Iranian religious tradition, e.g. “the tongue of Thy mouth” (Y. 31.3, cf. Y. 28.11), “the hand with which Thou holdest. . .” (Y. 43.4). Zoroaster gave a wholly new dimension to his worship, however, by hailing him as the one uncreated God (Y. 30.3, 45.2), wholly wise, benevolent and good, Creator as well as upholder of aša

aša is Truth and is the highest virtue. It is counterposed by "drug" (sometimes "druj") the Lie. All evil stems from deception. Just as Mazda is the uncreated manifestation of truth and virtue he has an uncreated counterpart or 'twin' in the form of Angra Mainyu (aka: Ahriman).

"This is the Hostile Spirit, Angra Mainyu. Zoroastrian tradition (e.g., Bundahišn 1.3) states plainly what is adumbrated in the Gāthās, that Ahura Mazdā became the Creator (Av. Dadvah, Dātār, Pahl. Dādār)—this being his constant appellation—to destroy Angra Mainyu, and so to achieve a universe that was wholly good. In one Gathic verse he is said to have achieved creation by his “thought” (Y. 31.11), but elsewhere his instrument is said to have been his Holy or Bounteous Spirit, Spənta Mainyu"

The first of Ahura Mazdā’s creative acts was to emanate the six great Beings known from the tradition as the Aməša Spəntas ("ahuras" or Spirits in the original gathas). These along with Spənta Mainyu make 7 divine entities but it's not strictly speaking polytheistic

"The relationship of Ahura Mazdā to the six Aməša Spəntas is again a subtle one, and its closeness is expressed metaphorically by the prophet when he calls Ahura Mazdā the father of Aša and of Vohu Manah... but it is conveyed even more vividly by his addressing Ahura Mazdā now [sic] as “Thou,” now (when he conceives of him together with one or more of the Aməša Spəntas)
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Ghengis Dong - Mon, 03 Apr 2017 17:04:31 EST ID:taL6BOqF No.207971 Ignore Report Quick Reply
sorry for so many problems with the characters/accents. When the thread is expanded it reads as normal.


Philosophical anime by Simon Blackshaw - Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:44:49 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.205314 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1457981089298.jpg -(7241B / 7.07KB, 300x168) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 7241
Anybody got any philosophically deep anime recommendations?
43 posts and 8 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Augustus Sarrynuck - Wed, 15 Feb 2017 23:46:50 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.207730 Ignore Report Quick Reply
That's one way to see it, another way to see it is that Goku relates to people through struggle.

Yes that's a very broad metaphor. But it's very specifically highlighted by patterns of loss that articulate a broader story, that Dragonball not citing a philosophy but making one.

You can think about it as the exact opposite of candide. Goku's naiviety is not proven wrong, but rather transforms itself along and others along the way. While in turn others transform it.

You can think of it as directly related to journey to the west and hanuman and rama's myth. I can't comment on it specifically but Monkey represents the mind ape and the mountain he is in represents his heart or his home, while his journey or the monk in this case bulma represents compassion or his heart in the world.

It's like everything the mind has gone through. The metaphor in battle of the gods was essentially. Goku is not the opposite of the "monsters" he faces. Similar to Journey to the west, he is also the other. That's why he talks to them uniquely. They usually end up joining the calvacade or journey. That there is something to do while we are here that isn't self destructive.

Even when Goku fights Buu, he recognizes that. When Uub comes back that represents that full circle journey. In a sense Goku's the point in spirtuality that accomplishes in regardless of what is written in stone.

He is intensely focused on Vegeta and Uub out of love. In a deep sense he is trying to convince them of that.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Charlotte Serrybire - Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:07:37 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207732 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> An adult, even one knowledgeable on philosophy, could watch a philosophically dense anime and still get nothing out of it
Sure, but that's not likely to happen.

>At the same time they could interpret a more childish show that isn't explicitly philosophical through a philosophical lens that produces a result that's much more complex and nuanced than what they began with or what they could've gotten from the other show.
I suppose so, but it's not terribly philosophical the way shonen anime clearly adheres to a singular thread of philosophy through the course of hundreds of episodes.

I mean you're talking idealisms and not realisms here. You're not wrong, but still, immature anime is extremely one-sided in terms of philosophy, and is actually pretty extremely dogmatic and all the characters and the plot just follow along this dogma.

Like, here's a real-world example. Immature anime is like talking about communism and only ever mentioning the idealistic and good qualities of communism, where as a mature anime is like talking about communism and not only talking about its merits but also it's flaws and its real-world historic application. Be as idealistic about learning as you want, one piece of content is filled with information while the other is filled with a singular strand of thought stretched out 100 episodes.

>In a very meaningful sense, the philosophy they draw out of the show is something that exists within them.
Idk man, that's like saying that philosophy drawn out of a philosophy book is something that exists within the reader. I'd argue that it's new to them and it's being handed/shown to them. Same goes for philosophical anime.

>Star Wars
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Blackie-Chan - Wed, 15 Mar 2017 05:07:40 EST ID:P5jbTK9T No.207878 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1489568860003.gif -(1967831B / 1.88MB, 500x281) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Why has nobody posted about Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann?

It has Plato's Cave parallels, the Will to Power, an Ubermensch AND an Ubermensch successor, morally ambiguous decisions, inspiring and hot-blooded speeches, awesome art, music, and characters.
Its a show that is almost impossible to NOT be inspired by due to its insistence that determination, fighting spirit, and love can win against any threat and break and bonds that humans may have.
What's not to like?
Lydia Sinkintane - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:51:48 EST ID:upgdBNHk No.207889 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1489690308193.jpg -(103698B / 101.27KB, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Revy doesn't care about anything. She's a nihilist.

"Oh, that must be exhausting."
Walter Shakewill - Mon, 03 Apr 2017 09:58:36 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207966 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Gurren Lagann was quite a tale. It had many twists and turns, many true moral dilemmas. It was very well-done. Truly, Kill La Kill pales in comparison to TTGL in terms of philosophy, but Kill La Kill was fun in it's own way; the director was really showing off his animation and just having fun satiring the shonen community. Truly a show for stoners.

I recently re-watched Shin Sekai Yori (From the New World). What a fantastic show. What makes it especially fantastic is that the protagonist slowly learns the true nature of her village, the last bastion of civilization, is a totalitarian/fascist community, and at first she fights against this, thinking her society wrong for slaying innocents and such, yet as she grows and experiences more of the chaotic nature of life, she eventually realizes that this totalitarian/fascist way of life is truly the only way to survive. This anime truly flips morality on it's head and shows that what we consider just and right is merely reflective of how humanity is doing, and that as humanity declines, so must our rights as individuals in favor of the majority, because civilization must survive over the individual.

And then you've got fucking movies like Snow Piercer where, when faced with a dilemma between old-school morality and the utter survival of the human race, the hero chooses old-school morality and damns humanity to death merely for not living up to his standards of justice. In choosing between one young and innocent boy sacrificing himself to a life of torture for the sake of keeping society alive, the protagonist opts to save the boy and allow humanity as a whole to crumble and die.

Lacan and the Otaku Culture by Ryoichi - Sun, 02 Apr 2017 05:39:00 EST ID:1EiSvWRE No.207959 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1491125940249.png -(765197B / 747.26KB, 800x456) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 765197
Greetings /pss/

I've got an upcoming thesis that requires a Lacanian psychoanals on the Otaku culture, to be specific on the emerging of Online Mobile Games (Mobage) trends. How could they become popular, how could the users willing to spend thousands of kachings on it, and how it become a subculture not only in Japan but also in other countries.

I'm still a noob in Lacan, while I'm also learning it myself, can you help me on where to start or a good route to understand it enough to use it as an analysis tool?

Thanks inb4
Barnaby Dartridge - Sun, 02 Apr 2017 17:56:47 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207962 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>Decides to write his master's thesis on Lacan and Otaku culture and how it affects micro-transaction games
You just picked three different kinds of awful and put them into a blender there. There wasn't anything less loony-bin inducing you could have chosen?
Priscilla Sibbernore - Sun, 02 Apr 2017 21:53:56 EST ID:wBXidaFY No.207964 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Object small a is a furry animated dog dick and their reclusion and anxiety is the result of failure of desire
Walter Shakewill - Mon, 03 Apr 2017 09:01:40 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207965 Ignore Report Quick Reply
We sure do get a lot of students on this board.

"Ethics" by Polly Cezzlestock - Fri, 10 Mar 2017 18:49:27 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.207869 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1489189767598.jpg -(494515B / 482.92KB, 1152x1600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 494515
So, CRISPR is coming into its own. If you don't know about this new gene-engineering technique, then check this link:


Essentially it's a rehash of a natural system found in protists that's now used to make targeted and precise edits in any genome the user wants. It's revolutionizing genetical biology world-wide, but the research into its obvious health implications is stymied by so called ethics in most of the first world.

So I'd like to discuss ethics and science. I'm just not talking about CRISPR, but general modern miracles of science that's hampered by old-world thinking like surrogacy, embryonic stem-cell research or replacement of mitochondria in fertilized cells Which can heal an inherited, rare and lethal decease but is outlawed in most of the world because courts decided the resulting child ends up with "three parents", even though the child only share mitochondrial DNA with the donor.

Now obviously I'm on the liberal side of the debate here, but I wanna know what /pss/ think about these new technologies. Should we play "god" in order to save/improve lives, or is there a thin red line Humanity shouldn't cross? Are these ethical concerns really grounds for outlawing certain possible techniques, or are these ethics remnants of a world where life was the realm of religion?
Frederick Chezzlewick - Sat, 11 Mar 2017 15:20:44 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207871 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Ignoring personal experiences due to a nephew dying at the age of 7 from a genetic disease, fucking hell yeah we need to play God.

We will need all the tools we can get to ensure that humanity will survive the coming 10,000 years and won't end up as a bunch of fossils.
Cyril Gadgekeg - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:13:33 EST ID:4+oWREai No.207900 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Speaking as one that was born with a unique and extremely rare disease, yes. Yes, let's "play god". It's one thing to only give this tech to the elites so they can change their DNA to make them into supreme geniuses and everyone else becomes a slave caste.

It's another thing to cure disease. Imagine reversing down syndrome and these one's can actually lead a life of greater potential.

Only people that disagree with such a thing are religious goobers and or people that have no idea what it's like to live with an illness.

David Pakman recently with Matthew Liao on this very subject: http://philtech.io/class-blog/2016/11/the-crispr-future-might-be-a-little-blurred/ (not the interview. it's currently for members atm. )

The idea of being cured yet having religious morons taking that cure away from me and others infuriates me. It's like those moral turds that go against assisted suicide when someone is dying from terminal cancer. Who are these people? Where did they get their nerve?

Fuck your ethics! Give me the goods, doc!
Nathaniel Trotstock - Sat, 01 Apr 2017 12:34:27 EST ID:USA6SDn7 No.207956 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Being afraid of "playing god" is for people haunted by spooks.

CRISPR everyone up, fam.

Family by Caroline Nossleshaw - Wed, 08 Mar 2017 10:30:15 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207850 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1488987015842.jpg -(47743B / 46.62KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 47743
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?
7 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Frederick Driblingtack - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 09:32:06 EST ID:TZEgBuHq No.207927 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>What's up with family?

Without your family you wouldn't exist or you'd be dead, assuming you weren't rescued by some third party

>What's up with heritage?

Your culture is what your ancestors have been building for years and years, and there's a lot of value that comes with the cultures we're lucky enough to inherit. You're basically asking what the value of culture is. Heritage is accumulated culture across time and generations.

>These things mean literally nothing to me, yet I notice so many people championing these things. Why do they do this?

Because they know that without the human beings in their inner circle, which in most cases has the family at the center, and their culture, they would be swimming in an ocean of chaos and death that they wouldn't be able to deal with at all. The alternative is being born in the wilderness alone and freezing to death immediately or being eaten by something.

>I don't understand the point in being proud of your heritage

Your ancestors produced societies (and survived successfully pre-agriculture, which is in some ways even more remarkable) that allowed their genes to propagate over hundreds of years, which is pretty much a miracle in its unlikelihood, not to mention all the benefits of culture that you benefit from. Without these things you wouldn't have a history, which would mean you wouldn't have any foundation to build the future on, you wouldn't have art, you wouldn't be able to read these words or have any conception of what words are, etc.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Sidney Bimmlestitch - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:49:00 EST ID:p5PWfvYz No.207931 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>you are the product of thousands of years of natural selection.
Natural selection isn't a process . Its closer to the lack of a process. Its fairer to say "you are whats left over after thousands of years of natural selection."
Not trying to be a dick just autism
Frederick Driblingtack - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:57:38 EST ID:TZEgBuHq No.207932 Ignore Report Quick Reply

I see what you're saying I think. Basically life just threw a bunch of shit at the wall and we're what stuck because it worked well enough.
David Pickdock - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:04:27 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207933 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's still a process. Process doesn't necessarily imply intention or thought. The reactions of chemistry are described as processes, and occur as an entropic breakdown in the same way that evolution does, yet are still fantastically complex and multi-staged enough to be described as 'processes.'

Not trying to be a dick but just autisming harder.
Isabella Brucklespear - Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:00:54 EST ID:uRNFOzYS No.207954 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I disagree with you too, but not for David's reasons. I think that natural selection can seem like "a lack of a process" in that randomness has a huge effect on it, however on an evolutionary scale, myriad traits have substantial effects on the results of selection. Not trying to be a dick just aiming for max autis

What do you think of a real life vigilante? by Polly Bundock - Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:50:01 EST ID:MTaj+oHu No.207586 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1484365801125.png -(216720B / 211.64KB, 500x281) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 216720
First of all this vigilante would have 100% evidence proving the person he killed was a horrible person. Like pimps taking advantage of children, gang members who's destroying youth and robberies, large drug dealers(not weed), rapists, serious frauds who ruined lives...

Basically anyone with lack of respect for life.

This vigilante would not be one of those "I believe this guy is guilty so I'm going to kill him" vigilantes, but one that abides by facts and evidence. Or let's say there's 100% evidence of a murder or rape but ended up walking free and plans on killing/raping again?

Now don't get me wrong I'm against murder, but sometimes there must be an exception.

Would vigilante justice be justified?

Share your thoughts.
39 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Cedric Binkinson - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 10:43:58 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207840 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Either America has a police problem, they have a crime problem, or both.
Meh, it's neither. The USA doesn't have a police brutality problem, nor does it have a crime problem. Both police brutality and crime exist in the USA, but the truth of the matter is the USA is an extremely safe and just country where you'll rarely if ever run into issues with either the police or criminals, unless of course you live in a low-income area, in which case you'll deal with both. Stay out of the bottom 10% and you'll be problem-free.

All that stuff in the news about police brutality is bullshit. I spent an entire year researching every police brutality incident I saw in liberal news, and I realized and verified that every story was false, except for like 2. Like, there was a case of a flash-bang grenade frying a baby. That's undoubtedly brutality. But then I'd see countless cases of the cops man-handling a violent black perp and all the blacks would scream BRUTALITY! or a video would surface of a black man escaping resisting arrest and then getting shot, and BLM and so on and so forth would screech BRUTALITY!

Long story short, do the research on any given police brutality case and there's a 90% chance the victim was asking for it.

But there were also some mishaps. For instance, at one point, the cops gunned down a little kid, and no one got in trouble. Why? Well, the kid was aiming an airsoft AK47 at the police when he was shot, and the AK47 was modified to look real, as in all the safety features, like the orange nozzel, were taken away from the gun to make it look like a real AK. Mind you, the person who reported the child said that the gun appeared fake, however the dispatcher never mentioned the 'looked fake' part to the police being dispatched so they were told, 'Black kid is running around with a gun' and they gunned him down on sight pretty much because he aimed the gun at the police. That's just unfortunate is what that is, but I mean again, the fake gun in the incident was modified to appear real, which is illegal and extremly stupid.
Graham Fonnerfuck - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 12:09:25 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207842 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> I spent an entire year researching every police brutality incident I saw in liberal news

Oh really? You convinced me. Some random the future immigrant must know his shit so much better than actual staticians and sociologists.
Alice Charringwater - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 18:10:38 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207845 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You're also making the pretty gross assumption that every single incident of 'police brutality' was reported and made it into the national media enough for you to be able to turn up information about it with a google search. For your argument to be credible, I would need evidence that you have investigated and run statistical analyses on all complaints about police conduct in every jurisdiction in the country. And you didn't, so that angle holds no water.
Rebecca Hammerworth - Wed, 08 Mar 2017 16:09:34 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.207853 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>The USA doesn't have a police brutality problem, nor does it have a crime problem.

Can you say that with a straight face?

>Both police brutality and crime exist in the USA, but the truth of the matter is the USA is an extremely safe and just country where you'll rarely if ever run into issues with either the police or criminals, unless of course you live in a low-income area, in which case you'll deal with both. Stay out of the bottom 10% and you'll be problem-free.

I know the US is really patchy like that, we got places comparable to the Nordics in civility and wealth and also real rundown places where the US state's rule don't really extend. Averaged statistically however the US perform poorly compared to general European countries when it comes to murder, cop brutality and etc. Also poorly on a number of unrelated statistics like child mortality wtf

As a first-world country it's in the low percentile. That's a fact. Not to mention systematic racism which is rampant in the backwaters and some city centers.

>Long story short, do the research on any given police brutality case and there's a 90% chance the victim was asking for it.
>the victim was asking for it.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Nell Shakewater - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 05:06:38 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.207938 Ignore Report Quick Reply
people percieve things by a ceaseless narrative that denies other ceasless narratives.

They take advantage of subjects in public, that look different, seem different, or feel alienated.

Some people have enough public will power, to be confident and never taken advantage of.

Others do not, and when asked rhetorical "deductive" devices, that assume guilt. Human beings often find themselves asking why, especially when they typically get that as a predictive pattern.

It's done because cops often rotate based on the worst ideas of lowest common denominator suggestions that are often complaint based.

Imagine working. Now imagine you keep getting intrepreted a certain way. Then people talk, you are now having to look out and live by a certain reaction that is public. When you become at peace in a heidegarian sense with the idea of your own death, and you are in a place of minimal consequence you can break that treatment after many occasions.

Eventually the number of occasions outweighs the tendency of that public push.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

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.