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


420chan is Getting Overhauled - Changelog/Bug Report/Request Thread (Updated March 22)
I truly hate to ask, by Gentlemen; - Fri, 08 Mar 2019 19:32:45 EST ID:24rhF4zL No.209617 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1552091565098.jpg -(121108B / 118.27KB, 800x530) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 121108
but what is the difference between a whistleblower and a snitch?
7 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Cornelius Biddlefetch - Sat, 23 Mar 2019 21:27:03 EST ID:Pr3KJWoH No.209632 Ignore Report Quick Reply

no its not. i echoed his concept of unknowingly vs. knowingly doing bad things
Jenny Cendlehutch - Sun, 24 Mar 2019 01:01:29 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209633 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Not a he and also no, that is what I said. Actually a little better than I said it because I forgot to mention the thing about how the whistleblower themselves might not know the organization they were going into is actually bad in the first place, not just what people in general think about it (although with a lot of high profile ones like with the US gov/mil you have to think they knew the nature of the organization somewhat going in, which is what shifts the whistleblower/snitch needle.)
Fanny Clayshaw - Sun, 24 Mar 2019 11:10:53 EST ID:OaolgcgK No.209634 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Alright then

12 rules for life by Esther Ficklelit - Mon, 15 Oct 2018 01:34:22 EST ID:kbqhsVlv No.209498 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1539581662436.jpg -(13754B / 13.43KB, 650x365) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 13754
what a joke. How the fuck does this guy get a way with it? Somehow he got smilies, litteral colon-close-bracket's - :) - past the editor and in the forward he is cited as "one of the world's most influential public thinkers". A housemate happened to leave this book lying around so I started reading it but fuck me it's trash. The first chapter which goes on at waffling lengths about lobsters and other animals can be summarised as "don't let people fuck you over".
Is there something i'm missing here?
27 posts and 10 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Frederick Shittingville - Tue, 19 Mar 2019 02:20:17 EST ID:Pl6rJWm9 No.209627 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Never paid him much attention but he is very pervasive and the way algorithms work in this day and age means watching 1 JRE podcast will lead to 100 incel MRA MGTOW video recommendations on youtube. It is sickening and blatantly obvious how people get so easily radicalized now but whatever.

I don't agree with his weird relationship he contrives with IQ and life success and enjoyment. Apparently having a high IQ means you'll have a happy and successful life. I disagree with both from my experience. Maybe he has stats but I've never seen them nor has he discussed them in what I've seen. More intelligence leads to great or macro depression in my experience. IQ-poor types get far more emotional it seems and may have further extremes of unhappiness but it seems readily evident; the smarter one is, the more likely they will be a life-long depressive. Success is also meaningless in his context because he seems to apply it to job placement as if being in a neuroscience field makes you more successful than a landscaper.

That is the most off putting thing I've seen from him and it is about the only thing I've seen from him. For him to also be a clinical psychologist, I think he does his works a disservice by appealing to god so much as well. I don't think you have to be an atheist but his religious beliefs seem to influence his work far too much. I've noticed he likes to make the connection between living a meaningful life and being spiritual on some level. He just generally seems to be big on self-help psychology and I think that field in general comes with a lot of horseshit.

>I also don't like any appeals to god or higher authority in general.
Phyllis Dambleman - Wed, 20 Mar 2019 08:20:56 EST ID:OaolgcgK No.209628 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1553084456368.jpg -(61498B / 60.06KB, 1200x628) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
lol he's selling lobster themed clothes now
Reuben Brookwill - Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:30:10 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209629 Ignore Report Quick Reply
See, lobsters have like, serotonin, so I'm supposed to be an asshole.

You ever feel like society is the problem? by Thomas Pisslewell - Thu, 27 Sep 2018 19:04:23 EST ID:pdpqZQMH No.209470 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1538089463189.jpg -(282780B / 276.15KB, 2000x1125) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 282780
not some aspect of it, but civilization itself? Has anything since prior to the advent of agriculture had a net positive effect on society? agriculture lead to division of labor, class, and status. People were happier when they were still nomadic.

I know we can't go back, because we are addicted now, but can we at least admit civilization was a mistake?
27 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Sophie Bardhood - Mon, 18 Mar 2019 07:11:38 EST ID:zVvj/HXI No.209624 Ignore Report Quick Reply
OP is on the track to a right idea, but taken a disastrous turn towards confusion. Was pre-agricultural life more idyllic? Yes, in one crucial sense: without a surplus to appropriate, no one can claim control over the relations of production, and therefore the subjugation of one to another is impossible. When human wants are few, the labor required to satisfy them is little. Contrary to Hobbesian mythmaking, people spent much of their day in idleness. Marshall Sahlins carefully and convincingly demonstrated this; people like >>209607 are repeating empty canards.

Nonetheless, it is impossible and dangerous fantasy to imagine reversing the development of productive forces. The new society must be built on the ashes of the old—this mode of production will be superseded by a higher one.
Jenny Wendleford - Mon, 18 Mar 2019 12:10:58 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209625 Ignore Report Quick Reply
One problem though.

We have evidence of lower classes and upper classes in neolithic times. So even when everyone was being a hunter-gatherer, there were people that had, and people that had not.

Fucking stone age Briton 1%'s were decorating their clothing with shells that can only be found in fucking Africa. How did they get that? Trade. What is a logical consequence of trade? People that have it all, and people that have nothing.

Farming just upped the ante.
Cornelius Blatherfuck - Mon, 18 Mar 2019 19:29:53 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209626 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>lmao I can't be arsed to read the posts I respond to so I just assume they're pro capitalist. This is proof somehow that I just don't want to stir the pot over the same political bullshit as every troll that comes through here...
I'm not a capitalist. Re-read my post and step to me again muthafuka.
I think the point mainly is that farming exacerbated the problem to the point it became intractable, not that there isn't some germ of capitalistic notions even in hunter-gatherer societies. Really, as soon as technology was invented classes were invented at the same stroke, because some people knew how to make the tools and others needed them (and some depended on scarce or distant natural resources, like shells.) But there was still relatively high class mobility, and the classes were very poorly defined. Anyone could learn to make a bow just by watching the bow maker; there wasn't some trade guild or certificate, other than maybe 'Ugs family make bow. You no Ug, you no make bow.' There was no consortium controlling access to bow-wood trees, and there certainly weren't camps of bow makers toiling to mass produce bows in subhuman conditions for no compensation. You would need agricultural surpluses to feed such an operation.

I think you two are mostly saying the same thing, but here's the illuminating wrinkle:
>>without a surplus to appropriate, no one can claim control over the relations of production
Even in H&G societies, there are occasionally situations where large surpluses can arise -- they just can't be planned for like with agriculture, which was its primary utility. For example, certain coastal communities were able to develop extreme seafood surpluses just based on particular local or seasonal conditions (and we have the middens to prove it.)

Humans are crafty, and even without much prompting or training in lording what they have over those who have not, they can figure out how to turn a slight advantage into a slightly bigger one, and on and on. A community with excess shells from seafood can sell them to inlanders, who think them magical, in exchange for an unequal amount of inlander's stone t…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

Infinity by John Pockford - Thu, 25 Oct 2018 22:14:35 EST ID:2HazwbDc No.209524 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1540520075608.png -(148592B / 145.11KB, 1003x915) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 148592
When you think of infinity do you think of a loop, or do you think of an endless unbounded happening, like pi, for example.
If things are, as they seem, infinite(i suppose thats an assumption) do you think it loops back into itself or stretches on forever.

Pic unrelated, but we should probably start a revolution pretty soon.
13 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Albert Peddlefuck - Thu, 01 Nov 2018 07:28:59 EST ID:VBH3q3ZR No.209547 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1541071739706.gif -(927295B / 905.56KB, 800x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Another good one. Both animated btw.
Phineas Fibblepot - Fri, 01 Mar 2019 14:05:38 EST ID:H+sUTPI+ No.209612 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well if we're talking about infinite time, I think of it as boundless and continually growing or proceeding. If you mean like an infinite life cycle, I think of it as a loop. It would suck if time actually looped.
Phyllis Deblingsark - Fri, 01 Mar 2019 15:50:10 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209614 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>> It would suck if time actually looped.
If time proceeds infinitely, then it must also loop infinitely. Since time is just a description of the changes of space, and the number of possible transformations a space can experience is finite (since space is quantized and the speed of light limits the volume of particles which can interact in the lifetime of the universe) then given infinite time, space will experience identical transformations of its space (loops) an infinite number of times during that duration (for a mathematical analogy, consider that any random sequence of numbers, of arbitrary length, appears an infinite number of times in the remainder of pi, but always with different numbers and amounts of numbers between.)
But since time is a measurement of transformations of space, and even with infinite time we see that all transformations and sequences of transformations recur, has time actually progressed at all? If it is only a measurement of change, and in the final count no change occurs (or all changes that happen eventually undo themselves; the sum of the calculation is always zero) then is time really measuring anything at all, or is it more a perceptual illusion, a way for the finite to try to interface with infinity?

My point being to suggest that saying time flows in an infinite line and saying it flows in an infinite loop both result in the same conclusion, that time does not flow at all; a paradox.

Favorite Philosophers? by Emma Dashsteck - Fri, 01 Mar 2019 14:52:39 EST ID:KGYHppHw No.209613 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1551469959744.jpg -(288762B / 281.99KB, 1600x1067) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 288762
Tough question i suppose.

Don't have a favorite myself, but i really like Max Cafard and his expansion of the Situationist's concept of psychological exploration called a Derive, into Surregional Exploration. His other essays skirting many philosophers and critiquing them was a nice introduction to all of these concepts I was ignorant of at the time.

Anyways, what's your favorite philosophy or philosopher?

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.
133 posts and 15 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Thomas Dunderlotch - Sat, 15 Sep 2018 01:28:53 EST ID:w+O1EhEW No.209448 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Thank you for your input. I never thought of it like that. I'll take note of that.
Martin Hovingputch - Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:32:32 EST ID:P0o8ahaw No.209493 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Anyone here meditate?
Betsy Feddleman - Thu, 21 Feb 2019 09:07:36 EST ID:P0o8ahaw No.209610 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Just started meditating again. I'm going to do this everyday and keep up with it, never missing a day of meditation. I'm doing this for my own benefit and so I can grow as a person, mentally, emotionally and spiritually.

/pss/ing away the days by Polly Segglepudge - Wed, 25 Jul 2018 18:05:45 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209417 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1532556345180.jpg -(37418B / 36.54KB, 600x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 37418
Why is it that the only two modes on /pss/ are:
>>Being blown out the ass by endless streams of tranny and helicopter ride baiting


>>Dead fucking silence

Are ennui and schadenfreude of such outsized value in our decadent collapsing imagewest that the only reason we can be arsed to slap our keyboards is if it hurts another miserable inhabitard? feelslikebatmantheanimatedseries
8 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Graham Wondletotch - Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:45:44 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209603 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>no, instead, you’re taught to see the world exactly how someone like Descartes would see the world.

What kind of shit minors did you follow if you just got formed into a Descartes 2.0?
Lillian Mablingnun - Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:02:00 EST ID:EAaZgnMX No.209606 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You make a decent point, and I absolutely take into account what you are saying, but your point really doesn't contradict my point, as I was talking about everyone debating, not just professionals/masters on the subjects being debated. And you know why I'm more interested in everyone and not just the professionals? Because everyone has power, everyone has a vote in things like Democracy, everyone matters, not just the most genius.

>Because no one knows everything, clearly no one can have an intellectual debate.
No, but they can at the very least pull together most of what humanity knows on a subject, in terms of scientific data or historical data, before espousing their strong opinions. As an example, let's say something has occured hundreds of times in history with varying outcomes, yet someone pulls one or two examples of a time a certain outcome occurred, and then they make a broad sweeping statement, like 'this always leads to that! Look at my real examples! This is fact and logic!'

>Genuine intellectual discourse does occur!
Yeah, it does, at the very highest level, like two CERN scientists having a discussion. But the common man? The arm-chair intellectual, aka like 99% of people arguing on the internet? Zero intellectual conversations in their entire lifetime of making opinionated posts, probably.

See, this is one of the very examples I was talking about; you have one take on the idea, and you've got this whole big opinion based on it. You did everything in your power to make a point, but that point is based on very few intellectual points; the idea that intellectual discourse happens somewhere, and the idea that there are possibly infinite unknown unknowns. But did you stop and think about anything I just said? If you did, your answer sure doesn't show it. Like, right now we're not even having an intellectual discourse, you're just trying to disprove my statement, and you found 2 tiny ideas you decided to hurl in that direction.
Nigel Pickfuck - Thu, 28 Feb 2019 20:37:43 EST ID:em8IEj9O No.209611 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>right now we're not even having an intellectual discourse, you're just trying to disprove my statement
This is a common happening on chans in general I think. I think 420chan has the unique benefit of drugs occasionally pushing people out of those patterns, if that makes any sense.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuck by Polly Pockson - Mon, 08 Oct 2018 00:29:08 EST ID:4G6UWnoK No.209484 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1538972948176.gif -(405203B / 395.71KB, 499x370) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 405203
>Brother has personality disorder
>Diagnosed bipolar but it's definitely antisocial (sociopath), and probably narcissistic too.
>He's owed me money for like four years now. Spends every extra cent he gets on super strong weed and video games.
>Excuse is he's so depressed. He convinced his doctor to give him a high dose of antidepressants which make his manic symptoms worse and more frequent.
>Anytime an issue is brought up he'll go to any lengths to justify his position on the matter. He'll stand there and talk at full volume at you, for hours of you let him, until you admit defeat or do something to piss him off enough for him to leave you alone. He doesn't take advice from anyone. Weed, depending on the strain, just makes him more excited/agitated.
>He just came home raving about his newest idea he won't go through with, acting like he's on meth.

He's only gotten worse over the years. I know the solution is to move away (but I'd feel a little bad because I'm pretty much his only friend). I'm mostly just venting here. I guess if anyone else has any ideas that would be cool.
15 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Hamilton Choffinghirk - Fri, 09 Nov 2018 20:27:06 EST ID:VBH3q3ZR No.209567 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>My god you have gotten huffy over this haven't you?
I'm just slightly pissy that you're claiming to be an expert and not explaining anything. I'm asking because I genuinely find this stuff interesting and I want to figure out if I should believe you or not. It's all good man

>I can see how it might if you don't understand the way technical terms are being used
It's a problem with sources. They are being used wrongly in the first place and I'm just trying to figure out what is the right way to use them. Pretty much any article/diagram that isn't an actual scientific study seems full of shit because they all say something different about the subject and tend to contradict eachother. I don't know if there is a proper website or textbook or something to go by without going to university, but there were literally several websites and infographics with completely wrong information according to you. Wikipedia would have honestly been a better source than trying to read all this wannabe psychology clickbait.

> It's worth noting that psychologists don't really use the terms psychopath or sociopath for this reason
Is it possible that these concepts are not only confusing but just not properly defined in the first place? I wouldn't use them either and I like what you said about psychosis and neurosis. Like I said in my original post I think a lot of these "disorders" are BS , at least in the way they are commonly used, and a lot of "professionals" using the terms don't seem to have any real insight into issue which it seems like we're both trying to do here.

>When the distinction between psychopathy and sociopathy was coined by George Partridge...
The rest of your post is the kind of answers I was hoping to get. Thank you. I might have more to say later but you've given me stuff to look into.
Betsy Brookham - Sat, 10 Nov 2018 19:16:20 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209568 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Thanks mate, was really just trying to steer you toward a more proper understanding of the material you were trying to engage. I realize if I had just said what I said without mentioning the spoiler, it would have gone over easier because everyone is inherently hostile to claims of expert knowledge online, even if it happens to be true.

>>Wikipedia would have honestly been a better source
Wikipedia is actually good and its sad how often it is dunked on now. If anyone is ever doubting the quality of a wiki article, check out the discussion page. If its a constant edit war (like a lot of the psychology entries are) the odds are its a pretty good article. Stay far away from shit like Psychology Today and its clones which are full of 'eat pray love' feel-good bullshit. Also be highly suspicious of people claiming 'if you have this...this means that', when you see fake psychologists they will act like they can tell the weather from if you were grumpy two weeks ago, whereas real psychologists are very circumspect, like proper scientists...'there seems to be a slight correlation...statistically this could match our theoretical construct...but more study is needed and x y z are ways this material could be misinterpreted' kinda stuff. Its hard, but the more time you spend studying the literature of any science the easier time you will have telling the real stuff from pretenders...almost universally the latter claims it can tell you more about everything, the former claims it can tell you very little about a specific thing.

>>Is it possible that these concepts are not only confusing but just not properly defined in the first place
Positively that's the reason. They were never properly defined, and when psychologists tried to rigorously define them, they found they couldn't, because they aren't distinct psychological phenomena but colloquially defined clusters of other phenomena. They're really more of a social or legal concept, like the notion of 'criminally insane' which, of course, is a legal, not scientific idea.

>> I might have more to say later but you've given me stuff to look into.
Good luck!
Samuel Turveyhood - Sun, 25 Nov 2018 07:07:24 EST ID:UsYodcqs No.209591 Ignore Report Quick Reply
His personality is what antidepressants do to people at high doses.

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.
201 posts and 26 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Graham Pockspear - Mon, 29 Oct 2018 01:21:26 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209538 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>No, that's what some genderfluid people do.
No, that's an oversimplification and a false dichotomy. Genderfluidity is encompassed under the heading of transgenderism.

>>Transgender people usually stick to one gender and want to be treated as one gender, which was my point.
People have gotten pretty loosy goosy with the definitions in the past couple of years, but technically, that's a transsexual person, not a transgender person (the former being a subset of the latter.)

>> even invent something completely new using the pieces of the ruin that once was this thing called gender, you haven't transcended it
But, again, this is what transgender people (using the big tent definition) do. Ever heard of two-spirits? Ever heard of third gender? How about ever read any actual transgender theory by transgender authors expanding on the ways gender non-conformity disrupts the general concept of gender roles? You have an extremely narrow perspective on the situation, and are then surprised that the people you are dealing with have a narrow view. No, you actually aren't interacting with the other perspective at all, you just have no idea what they actually think, and are arguing with a strawman constructed of your own limited experience.

More to the point, things that are constructs have real effect. That's why it's important to utilize constructs, even if you'd rather not -- deliberate refusal to even be aware of their consequences is potentially fatal, in a literal sense in this case. It's all well and good to say 'I'm a third gender that transcends all definitions and categorizations!' but at the end of the day, there are two bathroom stalls to choose from, and two sections in the clothing store. The construct does not cease to exist by your recognition of it as a construct, and thus you must continue to interact with it, although hopefully with a deeper understanding.

Just like, again, you can be totally over the concept of your nation's power and authority being absolute, and that won't in any way prevent them from exerting that power over you if you attempt to ignore it.

>>People believing these constructs are real have tangible effects
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Priscilla Honnerstone - Mon, 19 Nov 2018 22:44:24 EST ID:RdQJt0Bn No.209588 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Hedda Huffingkine - Sun, 03 Mar 2019 15:47:05 EST ID:7ttMOOCu No.209615 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Smile and nod.

"Nothing can be changed except ourselves" by Cedric Wablingnare - Sun, 04 Nov 2018 13:01:29 EST ID:LdHLS4vG No.209555 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1541354489548.jpg -(20956B / 20.46KB, 355x355) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 20956
As someone who's wanted to change the world, let's talk about the subject. Is it a valid statement? Why or why not?
6 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Matilda Sinkinwell - Fri, 16 Nov 2018 05:04:32 EST ID:VBH3q3ZR No.209574 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You can change both yourself and society. Do you not have a brain, arms, legs, mouth, and hands?. Who/what do you want to change and why? To achieve this does this require you to change yourself first, or to change society first, or only one of these? These tidy little motivational quotes annoy the fuck out of me and require specific context to have any use whatsoever.

What is your fucking goal? What are the steps required to get there? Mystics like to turn common sense into fucking rocket science.

I would generally agree however that most people who want to change the world are not remotely ready to make a difference until they evolve as people. You must empower yourself before you can have the power to change things, and you must fully recognize what it is that you want to change.
Sophie Crorrywell - Mon, 19 Nov 2018 03:30:23 EST ID:XqsBUz5h No.209584 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The world will change only if you change yourself.
Just take it easy and accept that shit is as it is, and you won't chanve the world, however by changing yourself the world will change around you.
Sophie Crorrywell - Mon, 19 Nov 2018 03:36:58 EST ID:XqsBUz5h No.209585 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1542616618532.jpg -(491776B / 480.25KB, 2048x1536) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I think a lot of us here are in that boat mate, but don't forget that people felt lije that before with probably better reasons. Shit might get wild for a while but you shouldn't give in to the darkness. Be carefull with media, they show the world in a very negative state and are thus co-responsible for feeding anger and despair into the hearts and minds of the people. My guess is to try and educate people and to have open and calm conversations, but i'm saying this who has become quite the social hermit lately.


Americans hate everything besides cars by Caroline Sarryforth - Mon, 28 May 2018 13:04:17 EST ID:AwbVlekG No.209223 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1527527057350.jpg -(100681B / 98.32KB, 648x920) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 100681
Why are Americans so convinced that mass transit is a conspiracy?
If anything, there’s a pretty plain conspiracy to fund cars over every other mode of transportation.
54 posts and 9 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Graham Honkintirk - Sat, 17 Nov 2018 15:18:26 EST ID:ZGNH5R/T No.209581 Ignore Report Quick Reply
We'd probably still be using trains if the auto industry didn't leverage tax dollars against them. With trains, the train folk pay for the trains, the tracks, the fuel, the insurance, the policing, the repairs and upkeep.

With automobiles, we pay for the cars, the roads, the police, the insurance, the fuel, and then extra shit through toll booths and tax subsidies.
Ian Grimfoot - Sat, 17 Nov 2018 18:33:39 EST ID:EoUIC8nL No.209582 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I’m not exaggerating. This is the most uninformed post I’ve ever seen.
Ian Grimfoot - Sat, 17 Nov 2018 18:35:59 EST ID:EoUIC8nL No.209583 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Sweden is more sparsely populated than the US.
China is building a giant awesome high speed rail network.

Fortunately we have private high speed rail companies here. If republicans ever stop blocking them we will get a high speed rail network. It’ll be a mix of public and private lines.

Richard branson just bought the one in Florida and there expanding to orlando.

Psychology by Fimi - Fri, 16 Nov 2018 08:38:44 EST ID:pMfGENvq No.209575 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1542375524876.png -(48854B / 47.71KB, 454x478) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 48854
Hey! Could anyone take this 5-10 minute survey to aid me with research for my thesis? It’s quite interesting, easy to complete and completely anonymous! I will be posting results when I have all of the participants that I need! All nationalities welcome! Thanks in advance!

2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Matilda Sinkinwell - Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:00:17 EST ID:VBH3q3ZR No.209578 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Also good job posting your survey to sites full of trolls such as forchan genius
Matilda Sinkinwell - Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:33:53 EST ID:VBH3q3ZR No.209579 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Lol. I started to fill in the craziest answers possible and I realized this thing is literally trying to label me a school shooter. I didn't submit
Graham Honkintirk - Sat, 17 Nov 2018 15:15:11 EST ID:ZGNH5R/T No.209580 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1701 year old Denobulan Trisexual cogenitor gender reporting in. I just drew Guitar Hero charts for my answers.

Youtube Philosophy by Phoebe Chicklehod - Sun, 30 Sep 2018 22:33:32 EST ID:zh7QJYof No.209476 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1538361212768.png -(313519B / 306.17KB, 600x372) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 313519
Lately I've been looking at video essays on youtube. It's a pretty fun genre and it's useful for taking a break from reading all the time. Have you got any interesting youtube channels about philosophy? I would rather that it wasn't divulgation (like Kant's philosophy in 3 minutes or something like that) but rather something original, though soundly philosophically grounded.

Contrapoints - Marxist trans girl, who's sort of anti-rationalist. She studied philosophy and neurosciences. Pretty fun stuff.

Zero Books - Publisher of Mark Fisher, among others. Really critical of Peterson, and really into Vaporwave. Lots of popular cultural critique.

stallion Philosophy - Still has really few videos, but they are fun and well researched. Cultural critique and capitalist realism. Their last video on World music is really good.
Thomas Gangerworth - Tue, 09 Oct 2018 18:05:35 EST ID:kbqhsVlv No.209488 Ignore Report Quick Reply
not necessarily video essays but if you like the above three you'll probably like this one too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6dZvcECIrk Sissyphus Redeemed. He doesn't seem to post videos anymore but the channel is still there and he is a very smart guy -and not in that joe rogan sophist way.

there's also Destiny https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC554eY5jNUfDq3yDOJYirOQ who unlike SR^ is a complete layman but very aware of it and admits it often, nonetheless he is also a smart guy. Again it's not essays so much, just debates, talking to retarded alt-right.

Three Arrows https://www.youtube.com/feed/subscriptions/UCCT8a7d6S6RJUivBgNRsiYg and Shaun https://www.youtube.com/feed/subscriptions/UCJ6o36XL0CpYb6U5dNBiXHQ are both more proper essay style youtubers but are more about politics than philosophy. Still worth looking at tho. Also HBomberguy https://www.youtube.com/feed/subscriptions/UClt01z1wHHT7c5lKcU8pxRQ which is more focussed on gaming but very entertaining and also responds to the alt right.

thats pretty much all i got
Hedda Goodfuck - Tue, 16 Oct 2018 22:57:21 EST ID:ehCGSF3V No.209502 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Angie Speaks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qkU-evkvMo&t=0s
Peter Coffin is really good too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT2iU9pAI_Y&t=1300s
stallion Philosophy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJfurfb5_kw&t=0s

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

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

In my mind this is an elegant solution to many of the social issues plaguing America. It would get around the affirmative action boogeyman an…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Hugh Girringhall - Mon, 27 Aug 2018 19:55:51 EST ID:tvXthEG2 No.209433 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Wealthy people live in areas near their job. They don't want to move because they can't get paid 100k a yr in the podunk working as a walmart greeter.

Also, this is silly because a lot of colleges in the US are very small. If college was based on 'pure merit' but only based on relative merit, then if they only accept 4k students a year and there are 50k schools in the nation, you're back to where we started.

Putting that aside. IMO two things will happen.
  1. people retire early (ya rite...)
  2. People just find loopholes in your plans, described below

They will simply invent a new school to put their kids in. This can be a private school (probably the easiest to do) or a public one (much harder, but possible) to lower the pool and backdoor around your social engineering plans. This would encourage a lot of balkanization of school systems around wealthy parts of the country, increasing costs.
Thomas Pisslewell - Thu, 27 Sep 2018 19:27:41 EST ID:pdpqZQMH No.209472 Ignore Report Quick Reply
but then you wouldn't be accepting the best qualified students.
Hannah Goodford - Tue, 09 Oct 2018 01:48:35 EST ID:VhdWon+z No.209487 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1539064115058.jpg -(80717B / 78.83KB, 926x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>admission to colleges be based purely on merit, but with a twist: you are compared only to the others at your own school to determine if you qualify for admission to a college rather than comparing you to the whole nation.

Why not just drop the requirement in general and go off the GPA requirements of the school you are applying to. Why should they give a shit about what you "are" in comparison to the rest of your "group."

>your test scores/grades would still be too low to get into the top schools traditionally, under the new system, you would get admission because compared to your peers you did the best and therefore deserve to be in a top school.

The quality of schools is different, not only from state to state but from school to school. The furthest it seems you could push this would be some kind of standardized grading system for the nation. That is to say, you cannot keep adding artificial shit.

> If one school has bad teachers or not enough funding, why should the students suffer? They should be judged against those who had an equal playing field, ie those in their own school rather than those who may have gone to some fancy private school with personal tutors and lots of fancy programs and who had advantages they couldn't access.

The shouldn't suffer the consequences that is true. But that doesn't mean that those that do have the resources should suffer a loss either. Life isn't fair and the best we can do is continue to eliminate those gaps in offerings, textbooks, desks, teachers etc. That's more of a funding thing however.

>Your second paragraph.

It seems to me that you want to create an incentive to get people to relocate in order to get their kids into terrible schools so that they can stand out more and get better chances of getting into school? That's rather strange I think. Would that just make the kids who don't stand out have less chance to succeed? Or learn?
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.