Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Subject
Comment
[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
File

Sandwich


420chan is Getting Overhauled - Changelog/Bug Report/Request Thread (Updated July 26)

is accounting really a social scence

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 28 Apr 2019 18:50:49 EST 6J+MJ1Xf No.209659
File: 1556491849921.jpg -(13584B / 13.27KB, 225x225) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. is accounting really a social scence
what u thik bro
>>
Nathaniel Serryfoot - Tue, 30 Apr 2019 15:32:31 EST +nIjK/tT No.209662 Reply
>>209659
No of course not but it doesn't belong on any one board currently. You could probably post topics on accountancy in several places depending on the details.
>topics about accounting standards, laws, audit, fraud that sort of shit would fit on our law board surely?
>topics about numbers not adding up or possibly some of the metrics, measurements maybe even t accounts might belong on our maths board though they'd be pretty pedestrian, maybe even our tutorials board if you wanted advice on how to solve a certain problem or process a certain action but that'd probably never get picked up
>topics about ethics and more more philosophical stuff (there isn't much to it, but accounts also means stories or sources and that definitely applies to some accounts, they record what happened in certain terms and how it was interpreted.)

If you can guess I'm an accountant. It's not a social science but I think some topics fit here less awfully than others.

I have a degree in economics which is a social science though. It includes decisions concerning resource allocation and the latter is also an element in some parts of accounting. Though accounting is more about supplying the info than actually making the decision.

If we had a business board most of the above would fit there. Economics might, but people see it as about money whereas it's about the best solution to an impossible problem. Resource allocation and that will involve a lot of ethics, subjective values and pseudo philosophy too.
>>
Jack Wepperson - Wed, 01 May 2019 03:56:47 EST agUXn1jU No.209663 Reply
>>209659
Accounting is a social science. The best accountants know how to account correctly and society itself turns a blind eye based on social aspects of culture. Accounting for beer in Roman times is like accounting for business dinners today

Share your thoughts on death

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 24 Apr 2019 14:28:02 EST nhtcgMTU No.209653
File: 1556130482679.jpg -(194445B / 189.89KB, 737x367) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Share your thoughts on death
I think the longer you live, the better your afterlife is. On top of the afterlife being reserved for very special souls. (didn't mean special in terms of being pure-of-heart and sin-free)
1 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Ian Honeystock - Fri, 26 Apr 2019 10:24:19 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209656 Reply
1556288659932.jpg -(173018B / 168.96KB, 555x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Everything comes out of nothing. Everything goes back into nothing. Nothing cannot be destroyed, and contains everything, and will forever. In infinite time, everything that ever could be will be again and again endlessly. But there is nothing but pure chaos in the arrangement. The order only emerges from the vastness of randomness and causality. That's 'samsara.'

There are signs there may be more than that, and I think most afterlife beliefs are our feeble attempts to understand shadows beyond the edge of human understanding, and perhaps the nature of our 4 dimensional perception of reality. I think there may be fully logical and 'natural' explanations for phenomena such as instances of accurate past life recall in children and accounts of hauntings. There's strong evidence that life naturally evolved mechanisms for manipulating electromagnetic and quantum fields, in ways we have virtually no understanding of. I think the possibility is open that we naturally evolved a 'observer state emergency ejection system' and that the apparent experience of traveling through afterlives and experiencing reincarnation is just stories we invented to explain what was happening. I think this corresponds with your idea, OP, that the longer lived or more 'special' your soul is, the better your after-life. The more complex your observer state is, the more entrained to your brain pattern the electromagnetic fields are, the better chance you might have at skipping your observer state over to some fetus just achieving proto-consciousness. The implication, unfortunately, is if humans do indeed have some sort of naturally occurring reincarnation mechanism that only works through wonky electromagnetic waves and quantum trickery and not some sort of higher-dimensional or metaphysical principle, then we are probably eradicating it with the increasingly high energy electromagnetic radiation we flood the planet with. Alternatively, 'supernatural' phenomena could be the result of impressions in time caused by some imperfection in our understanding of time or causality, or the result of influences from other adjacent world-lines. The possibilities are many, the answers are few, the debate is fierce, and it will probably be that way until the end of time.

Luckily, in any case we would still have the perennial-samsara after-life, we can assure ourselves of that from first principles fairly succinctly, but again, that's chaos, with no memory of what came before. It's another life, but this life would be utterly gone until you happened upon it again after an unimaginably large number of others.

Of course, there could also be nothing-nothing, forever. Its hard to see how, since nothing-nothing is how we got here in the first place, but, if so, the answer matters even less, so the possibility needs no further investigation.

I also have my own spiritual ideas about the after-life, but as they rest on top of some of the philosophical ideas here, I don't need to bring them up except here for full disclosure's sake.
Best afterlife: just become a robot and invent the afterlife for yourself through intense computation, or die trying.
>>
Cyril Parrygold - Sat, 27 Apr 2019 01:10:57 EST NsFksadU No.209657 Reply
>>209653
The more you interact with people in the physical world, the more you can come back as a ghost and haunt them after you die. If that's what you're into.

Critical thinking and Logical fallacy cards

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 27 Mar 2019 08:26:30 EST 55/SlMlx No.209635
File: 1553689590542.jpg -(190903B / 186.43KB, 750x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Critical thinking and Logical fallacy cards
Sorry for posting a reaquest here. But I was wondering if sombody could post a scan of some (or all) of the deck of critical thinking logical fallacy cards from https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/. (I'm from Straya and the P+H is over $40 and well, fuck that.
Also, Please tell me about your favourite logical falacy and give examples of times where you've seen it.
1 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Isabella Hipperfit - Thu, 28 Mar 2019 16:36:42 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209637 Reply
You know that you can just download a pdf of all the cards straight from their own website, right? They ask for a donation but you can just give them nothing and still download it.

12 rules for life

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 15 Oct 2018 01:34:22 EST kbqhsVlv No.209498
File: 1539581662436.jpg -(13754B / 13.43KB, 650x365) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 12 rules for life
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 View Thread to read.
>>
Frederick Shittingville - Tue, 19 Mar 2019 02:20:17 EST Pl6rJWm9 No.209627 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 pimp 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 OaolgcgK No.209628 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 2LwLwSlz No.209629 Reply
>>209628
See, lobsters have like, serotonin, so I'm supposed to be an asshole.

You ever feel like society is the problem?

View Thread Reply
- Thu, 27 Sep 2018 19:04:23 EST pdpqZQMH No.209470
File: 1538089463189.jpg -(282780B / 276.15KB, 2000x1125) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. You ever feel like society is the problem?
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 View Thread to read.
>>
Sophie Bardhood - Mon, 18 Mar 2019 07:11:38 EST zVvj/HXI No.209624 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 8gq7GAVV No.209625 Reply
>>209624
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 2LwLwSlz No.209626 Reply
>>209616
>>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.
>>209625
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 tools, which lets them rule over the other coastal communities who didn't figure out trade.

The point being that the tension between communalistic and oligarchic is as old as humanity, it's nascent within the human psyche as an expression of the tension between selfishness and altruism, but that doesn't negate the fact that specific technologies we have developed and ideas we adhere too have progressively made the problem worse and blown that inherent psychic tension up to global, cataclysmic proportions.

/pss/ing away the days

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

or

>>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 View Thread to read.
>>
Graham Wondletotch - Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:45:44 EST 8gq7GAVV No.209603 Reply
>>209601
>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 EAaZgnMX No.209606 Reply
>>209602
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 em8IEj9O No.209611 Reply
>>209606
>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

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 08 Oct 2018 00:29:08 EST 4G6UWnoK No.209484
File: 1538972948176.gif -(405203B / 395.71KB, 499x370) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuck
>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 View Thread to read.
>>
Hamilton Choffinghirk - Fri, 09 Nov 2018 20:27:06 EST VBH3q3ZR No.209567 Reply
>>209566
>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 2LwLwSlz No.209568 Reply
>>209567
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 UsYodcqs No.209591 Reply
His personality is what antidepressants do to people at high doses.

transphobia

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

Also while I don't think it matters to save us some posts on this incredibly slow board I'm neither trans nor gay and I don't really get on the liberal outrage train very often I'm just a mostly neutral, vaguely left-leaning party.
197 posts and 26 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Ian Ginningfoot - Sun, 28 Oct 2018 18:51:11 EST ejXS6pHc No.209536 Reply
>>209527
>This is what transgender people do

No, that's what some genderfluid people do. Transgender people usually stick to one gender and want to be treated as one gender, which was my point. If you can't freely switch between one gender and another, or even invent something completely new using the pieces of the ruin that once was this thing called gender, you haven't transcended it, simple as that. Transgenderism in fact reinforces genders as something more, that they are more than something we made up, precisely because transgender people care about sticking to one or the other. And when they say "I transitioned and that proves I transcended genders" they sound exactly like a muslim saying "I converted to christianity and that proves I transcended religion". If this person would then even go as far as saying "religions are just social constructs", how would you take their word if not as absolute bullshit? As a thing someone pretending to be above it while they actually aren't would say? Until you can't help but have a belief, you haven't transcended shit, you're just parroting the words of someone who actually did.

>Constructs have tangible effects all the time, that's not cognitive dissonance, that's reality.

People's actions have tangible effects, not constructs. People believing these constructs are real have tangible effects. You're just removing people's responsibilities for believing in these concepts and doing something because of these beliefs from the picture - and then blaming the concepts.

Until you haven't learned to fake believing in something whenever it suits you, only to immediately discard it when it doesn't, you haven't really taken control of the belief, rather the opposite has happened. When you've made that step, THEN you can say "x is just a concept" and mean it. Until that moment, you're just a helpless believer, lying to yourself about your condition.
>>
Graham Pockspear - Mon, 29 Oct 2018 01:21:26 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209538 Reply
>>209536
>>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
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people!" Man you sure showed me... (I know what I just said was way too subtle, so please, misconstrue it and I will belabor the point for you.)

>>and then blaming the concepts.
I'm not blaming concepts, I'm establishing a causal connection. Without the concept, the people wouldn't take the action.

Look man, as your post goes on and on it becomes increasingly clear you're just shadow boxing with yourself. What the hell are you even saying man? If you knew what transgender people were actually like rather than what you imagined based on reading internet propaganda, you would recognize that your 'great insight' that you seem to think smashes the whole concept is actually the very first point within queer gender theory. And its true that most transgender people don't have a strong grasp of the theoretical underpinnings of the concept, but you're trying to pull back the curtain on the wizard, so this is what you get. Consciously or not, the act of being transgender (in any of its varieties) is disruptive to gender as a binary, static construct, and recodifies it in a more abstract way. This is a transitional period itself to a point where the construct will vanish more or less into a very vestigial state. Just because people cannot instantly remove the construct doesn't mean it's not a construct.

Finally, you seem to misunderstand the concept of transcendence. Transcendence does not necessarily imply that you no longer participate in a thing, just that it no longer dominates you. People who do not believe gender is a construct but an absolute external reality are dominated by it. People who participate in the construct only under their own terms still participate in it, but aren't dominated by it.

Getting right down to the hard tack of it, your whole argument seems to be that these imaginary trans you're arguing with have a different definition of transcendence than you. Have you considered, maybe, that definitions are also bullshit human constructs?

I feel like I'm talking in circles because your basic argument is so non-sensical there's no logical …
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

"Nothing can be changed except ourselves"

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 04 Nov 2018 13:01:29 EST LdHLS4vG No.209555
File: 1541354489548.jpg -(20956B / 20.46KB, 355x355) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. "Nothing can be changed except ourselves"
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 View Thread to read.
>>
Matilda Sinkinwell - Fri, 16 Nov 2018 05:04:32 EST VBH3q3ZR No.209574 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 XqsBUz5h No.209584 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 XqsBUz5h No.209585 Reply
1542616618532.jpg -(491776B / 480.25KB, 2048x1536) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209572
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.

YOU AND ME BABY WE'RE NOTHING BUT MAMMALS SO LETS DO IT LIKE THEY DO ON THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL[%/]

Psychology

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 16 Nov 2018 08:38:44 EST pMfGENvq No.209575
File: 1542375524876.png -(48854B / 47.71KB, 454x478) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Psychology
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!

https://docs.google.com/forms/u/1/d/1ml9H-dmG4jOI31EOEIPBH5b00PLxAgvXKP5iJXyR-TM
2 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Matilda Sinkinwell - Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:00:17 EST VBH3q3ZR No.209578 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 VBH3q3ZR No.209579 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 ZGNH5R/T No.209580 Reply
>>209575
1701 year old Denobulan Trisexual cogenitor gender reporting in. I just drew Guitar Hero charts for my answers.

Youtube Philosophy

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 30 Sep 2018 22:33:32 EST zh7QJYof No.209476
File: 1538361212768.png -(313519B / 306.17KB, 600x372) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Youtube Philosophy
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.
https://www.youtube.com/user/ContraPoints

Zero Books - Publisher of Mark Fisher, among others. Really critical of Peterson, and really into Vaporwave. Lots of popular cultural critique.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyoQK-mZXr2ws4C0nXGCH1w

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.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSkzHxIcfoEr69MWBdo0ppg/videos
>>
Thomas Gangerworth - Tue, 09 Oct 2018 18:05:35 EST kbqhsVlv No.209488 Reply
>>209476
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

Free College In The USA

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

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

In my mind this is an elegant solution to many of the social issues plaguing America. It would get around the affirmative action boogeyman and install a system that people can understand as being fair while having the effect of making it easier for people in underfunded and underperforming districts to get into the top schools and incentivize parents to move from over-performing school districts to underperforming districts which could help reverse the negative effects of white flight on inner city minority communities.
>>
Hugh Girringhall - Mon, 27 Aug 2018 19:55:51 EST tvXthEG2 No.209433 Reply
>>209429
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 pdpqZQMH No.209472 Reply
but then you wouldn't be accepting the best qualified students.
>>
Hannah Goodford - Tue, 09 Oct 2018 01:48:35 EST VhdWon+z No.209487 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?

In addition, I don't know why you feel that race is a component of this? There are a great many poor white schools that wouldn't be anymore "integrated" if rich affluent white people took their kids there.

With respect to the perceived economic advantages 1. I don't think your system provides enough incentive to physically relocate. 2. I think that the advantages would be short term assuming that the parents of these students leave once the student has completed their studies to X level.

>In my mind this is an elegant solution to many of the social issues plaguing America. It would get around the affirmative action boogeyman and install a system that people can understand as being fair while having the effect of making it easier for people in underfunded and underperforming districts to get into the top schools and incentivize parents to move from over-performing school districts to underperforming districts which could help reverse the negative effects of white flight on inner city minority communities.

I'm not compelled by your sentiments thus far. Affirmative Action can have it's drawbacks for students, that's true, but otherwise it's a policy matter, not some social battleground, at least as far as I'm concerned.

IF you want to take about an alternative take on education I think we need to completely overhaul how- basically- knowledge is disseminated in society. I don't mean to sound highfalutin but I think that the available options for learning should grow in proportion to the amount of mediums available to spread it.

Abstract discussion thread

View Thread Reply
- Thu, 12 Jul 2018 02:01:21 EST QfvuJGLY No.209398
File: 1531375281147.png -(422798B / 412.89KB, 1440x2692) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Abstract discussion thread
My brain is the same as your brain except for the fact that your brain functions entirely unlike mine even though assuming we both fit the parameters for having a "normally" formed brain and posses a healthy neural structure that is supposed to control certain aspects of our psychology and physiology in the same matter.
2 posts and 2 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Clara Gecklegold - Mon, 03 Sep 2018 01:27:32 EST 4y8q/jLM No.209437 Reply
Neurons form and bridge different connections in arrangements based on your experiences. No brain is ever the same as any other brain because Neuron development is completely unique.
>>
Fucking Webbersat - Sun, 23 Sep 2018 04:56:59 EST gwPZwf6j No.209454 Reply
1537693019202.png -(134677B / 131.52KB, 512x382) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
It's about inhibition and stimulation of neurons firing. Long term potentiation, different neurotransmitters and what have you. I've only got a schoolboy understanding of it.

>>209402
I think thinking in categories is useful, I'm not sure what alternatives there are to that.... like a thought resembling a hypercomplex geometry (if that's what it can be called) because it never has context or appropriation to anything else, just summarily everything in such a way that there is never intersection between anything and no parallels because new things that are analogous to (but always changeable whenever an issue of context or relation to anything else arises, such as) matrix dimensions, number theories and logic/non-logic maxims are created to avoid any kind of abstraction, inductions, deductions or ordinate comparisons to take place.
>>
William Fendlemore - Sun, 23 Sep 2018 20:35:19 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209455 Reply
>>209454
>>I'm not sure what alternatives there are to that
Of course, because your mind operates using the concept of categories, the fish cannot see the water. It may be unavoidable for human minds, or it may be unavoidable for minds in general, to utilize categories. Really, they are an expansion of the concept of sets. But what is dangerous is assuming that the categories are real or are things in and of themselves. Almost all of the debates of early philosophy can be stemmed to a confusion about whether or not the categories exist or are real in themselves.

But in the same way that set theory demonstrates no set of axioms can completely describe itself, when we realize the categories are sets, we realize they can't actually be the thing they themselves purport to be; the defining rule encompassing all types of a thing. They are the mirages of the mental landscape, and I think society would be better off if we learned to treat them as such.

Stirner on labor

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 02 May 2018 09:41:48 EST EQAAY6X6 No.209163
File: 1525268508445.jpg -(23124B / 22.58KB, 214x283) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Stirner on labor
Stirner knows literally nothing about labor or laborers. His ideas are juvenile. He thinks laborers are more powerful than businessmen/entrepreneurs. He’s wrong. The two are essentially equal in power, because the one cannot exist without the other. People like Stirner grossly under-estimate the intelligence of the entrepreneur and grossly over-estimate the simplicity of the laborer. I been in labor my entire life; seen tons of guys spend even 25 years straight happily laboring for good pay, because they’re simple and conservative and are much more focused on getting paid and going home to their families than becoming some sort of businessman or critical-thinker. These conservative family-oriented laborers are literally our backbone, and they always require leaders to guide them.
26 posts and 9 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Hedda Middlestone - Mon, 20 Aug 2018 21:49:56 EST HEpzpYWB No.209430 Reply
1534816196956.jpg -(20075B / 19.60KB, 300x423) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209163
Rofl, slaves cant exist without their masters, sick observation op.
>>
Cornelius Blackville - Mon, 17 Sep 2018 13:53:39 EST P7YKYyI5 No.209452 Reply
Stirner is bad, Anarchy is bad, read Bordiga you leftoid peasants.
>>
Beatrice Gavingdadge - Sun, 23 Sep 2018 01:35:06 EST KGYHppHw No.209453 Reply
1537680906545.jpg -(512459B / 500.45KB, 750x1124) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209452 What's bad about Stirner and while you're at it (please), what's so special about Bordiga eh?

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