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


Country Portfolios....Canada and U.S.A.

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:40:31 EST TriMJvI1 No.208602
File: 1515595231668.gif -(662767B / 647.23KB, 2717x2342) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Country Portfolios....Canada and U.S.A.
The world's second largest country by surface but relatively small in terms of population, Canada punches above its weight in economic terms.

A federation of former British colonies, Canada follows the British pattern of parliamentary democracy, and the UK monarch is head of state. Ties with the US are now vital, especially in terms of trade, but Canada often goes its own way.

Both English and French enjoy official status, and mainly French-speaking Quebec - where pressure for full sovereignty has abated in recent years - has wide-ranging cultural autonomy. Indigenous peoples make up around 4% of the population.

Canada is one of world's top trading nations - and one of its richest. Alongside a dominant service sector, Canada also has vast oil reserves and is a major exporter of energy, food and minerals.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-16841111

The USA is the world's foremost economic and military power, with global interests and an unmatched global reach.

America's gross domestic product accounts for close to a quarter of the world total, and its military budget is reckoned to be almost as much as the rest of the world's defence spending put together.

The country is also a major source of entertainment: American TV, Hollywood films, jazz, blues, rock and rap music are primary ingredients in global popular culture.

The United States originated in a revolution which separated it from the British Crown. The constitution, drafted in 1787, established a federal system with a division of powers which has remained unchanged in form since its inception.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-16761057
6 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Augustus Cupperstadge - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 18:03:40 EST tBJp2aGG No.208701 Reply
>>208693

Take an amnesiac person and drop them in downtown Toronto. Ask them what country they think they're in.
>>
Jenny Mottingsatch - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 21:02:07 EST Kpl02ca1 No.208704 Reply
>>208701
Your myopia is staggering.
If you dropped a Canadian in Toronto...they would probably correctly guess they are in Canada. What kind of evidence do they have access to? I mean, if you dropped any random english speaking person in the middle of Sydney they might guess they are in New York, but they also might guess London. If the person in Toronto could see the combination of English and French signage, they would have better odds of being right than most other major english speaking cities.

The amnesiac in question would presume it is whatever major city whatever history or world culture they remember and are familiar with. Otherwise, you would seem to be asking us to assume that the default, memory-less human consciousness is American, which is absurd. What's the point of this silly thought experiment?
>>
Phoebe Chonningtine - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 21:04:11 EST 8gq7GAVV No.208705 Reply
>>208701
People might not guess they're in Canada, but they will FOR SURE accurately guess they're NOT in the USA.

The USA always has that unique USA look. That "This is a rich country but the infrastructure looks worse than fucking South Africa." look.

Racism

View Thread Reply
- Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:12:18 EST KAVbWdaM No.208576
File: 1514448738873.jpg -(13119B / 12.81KB, 480x336) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Racism
Simple question. And I am looking for more insight into the line of thinking based on upbringing, and community ideals.

Why is it acceptable to call someone white, or black,l. But is taboo to call someone red or yellow?

Is it as simple as social conditioning? Or does it play a deeper part in the group psychology?
5 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Nathaniel Wimmlelat - Tue, 09 Jan 2018 13:46:07 EST ZS66X4xy No.208594 Reply
>>208591
Please read posts before you get all butthurt over them.
>>aren't accurate to what the entire world's views
In my post I said:
This version of the term dichotomy you describe is specifically a north american issue
Moreover you claim:
>>This is obviously just your personal views
>>You also seem to assume that the only people who's opinions matter are white
Fuck. You. You don't know me man, how dare you tell me what my opinions are?
I was providing historical context for the history of the terms for color, and specifically the way they're used in NA. 'Black' means 'aboriginal' in Australia, but you don't get huffy about that? If you can't hear someone dispassionately describe the history of racism without automatically assuming the person talking about it is racist, you're either incredibly simple minded or a closet racist yourself.
It's obviously not the case that the people to whom these terms were applied opinion doesn't matter. Of course their opinion matters, but it's not germane to the question of the OP, which is why did the terms come to be seen as they are? Answering that question requires us to specify that the use of those english color terms to signify races is nearly a wholly white invention, which makes those terms etic demonyms, so an emic understanding of them is both irrelevant and confusing to comprehending their origin. Ergo, duh Natives had names for white people, but you can guarantee among them wasn't the english word 'white' (unless they were talking to English people.) When used in today's society, sure english speaking people will use white to refer to white people because that's the norm (that white people established) -- but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't carry the same connotation of offensiveness that red or yellow do, which is again, OPs point. Otherwise, why would there have been the need for invention of different english slurs for whites, like cracker, honky, howlie, etc? Do you see how my post addresses OP's question, while your post just gets huffy and defensive about how that can't be the explanation, and does nothing to provide it's own theory?

In summary, you need to check yourself before you wreck yourself. Attacking someone who ostensibly you agree with just because you don't like the content of the information they're giving out (or because you failed to read the whole context of the post as stated within it and then go off assuming 'hey, you didn't put this in it's real context you racist bastard!') is a great way to demonstrate whether or not you're an asshole, and a great way to lose allies in an argument.
>>
Jarvis Cravinglick - Wed, 10 Jan 2018 08:40:25 EST 8gq7GAVV No.208601 Reply
>>208597
Fun fact, I was discussing this with a gay guy at some party and some random guy walked past us and gave the gay guy shit for saying "faggot" within the context of the conversation.
It was just so absurd.
>>
Shit Blipperfun - Fri, 26 Jan 2018 23:11:59 EST 9zW8Ti/l No.208633 Reply
>Is it as simple as social conditioning? Or does it play a deeper part in the group psychology?

In the grand scheme of things, it's simply social conditioning. Group identity is made by the use of certain terms, and the rules of these terms can be pretty esoteric. In Australia for instance, it's almost encouraged for people to use the most insulting terms possible for their friends. Of course, people outside the friendship group using such terms would be considered insulting, but by the same token being overly formal would be considered an insult on it's own. Every culture has these implicit and explicit rules regarding social etiquette.

>Why is it acceptable to call someone white, or black,l. But is taboo to call someone red or yellow?

Specifically about these terms, like someone else said, that's an American way of doing things. "Red" and "yellow" were pretty common until the 60s/70s as I understand it. The terms became taboo for the same reason they were used. They connote otherness, illegitimacy, whereas "whiteness" (and, in black communities, "blackness") connotes authenticity.

There's actually a really good book called "Appropriating Blackness" that explains how the black community started to strictly police it's own ideas of "blackness" and exclude members of it's own community (especially gay people) on the grounds that they were undermining that group identity.

My thought: What did the greats get WRONG?

View Thread Reply
- Thu, 28 Sep 2017 04:13:02 EST tKRmy9hF No.208440
File: 1506586382687.jpg -(727321B / 710.27KB, 1200x1759) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. My thought: What did the greats get WRONG?
Everyone remembers the greats for what they got right. But what about their follys? I was just about to start googling when I thought this might make a good thread. I'm more of a philosophy fanboy and am not well read. I hope we have some philosophy wizards here who can enlighten everyone about this.

My reasoning, I want these men to be humanized. I want myself and others to be able to see them as men with faults and contradictions and not unapproachable gods.
5 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Lydia Trotbanks - Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:16:30 EST PwzxhROR No.208580 Reply
>>208458

Where does Plato say the 'forms' can be mathematically defined? Is there a source for this? Because if so, then the people who should rule the 'polis' are not philosophers (those who are best at perceiving or gaining some 'Truth'), but instead, mathematicians. A field of study I don't think the greeks even considered as existing in 500BC
>>
Priscilla Bashfoot - Sun, 31 Dec 2017 14:01:52 EST XUUNgMgt No.208582 Reply
>>208535

Modern mathematicians that have a naive knowledge of philosophy. Once you begin learning about logic and foundations, you encounter many non standard models of arithmetic. The easy way to think of it is a mathematical multiverse in the same way people talk of the possibility of physical multiverses. Why are the physical laws what they are? Similarly, one could ask why is this what the natural numbers are if there are other things that match its description and structure?

Statements in mathematics should only be considered as true when this claim is restricted to a single mathematical structure. There are many different mathematical structures with different properties, and no one of them has any inherent claim to be the "real" mathematical universe. There are claimants to the title of mathematical universe, for instance the class of all sets V, but it can always be expanded and doesn't contain all objects encountered in mathematics.

If we have no conception of what the real mathematical universe is, what can we say about what is out there?

humor me please on what you would do to help someone

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:03:52 EST Pl+UfWe9 No.208521
File: 1510322632042.gif -(1554544B / 1.48MB, 500x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. humor me please on what you would do to help someone
Paradox of logic and spirituality and the dichotomy of self


He's on a path that cant be reversed and we can't force a river to bend, it has to flow to its natural whims. As this
cycle he has is about to end, we have to find the catalyst that hold together his psyche in an unhealthy manner. This is his defense mechanism of equal parts dismissive and destructive, meaning when he feels threatened he tries to defuse and disassociate the meaning of the consequences of his actions that is conditioning him in a negative way.

This defensive mechanism is the thing that has tricked him that he can survive like this, in perpetual self-destruction
affecting the people around him. The pain of losing what HE think he has lost and the loves and passions associated is
what is keeping him from the final catharsis and becoming his true self. Cody is in a sense reversed his negative and positive selves(which are in every way equal, one and the same and also the greater sum of their parts as a whole) to their positions.

I picture codys energy and form that is as inverted being yet thats is just as much as cody as the all badass parts of
cody, because his natural instinct (again this is all an initial summation) is to protect the things and emotions and passions he values the most. Like a black hole or as an abyss I described earlier or a living organism of emotion that has form and is formless. This energy around him that is controlling his actions to accept the wrong kind of energy
that festers and feds this almost parasite that rejects everything and everyone

Its appearent this feeling/form/energy has become more and more tangible in a sense that it has spread to you guys

Its almost like you cant see any positive thing anymore in him and youre too exhausted to deal with anymore.
He's trying to bury it deeper(His good self) into the center of this abyss and its area of effect is spreading.


For me, being someone who has just recently come into this collective and my initial observations/interactions; When it
comes to cody. I see the light in there, its deep in there in that haze but in there.
The only way to bring that light back is to help channel our positive energies to feed this energy that is 'protecting'
him.

This could mean a varity of things/solutions really and I have one initial idea that popped in my head instantly imo.

Its simple really; We dive to the center of all that abyss together. And with what previously brought us together in the first
place, the music. If as a collective, we are serious about getting out there and fight for love and peace we have to put aside our individual selves and share and become one by nurturing that fleeting beauty within us that we keep chasing after
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Cyril Bivinghare - Tue, 05 Dec 2017 16:17:29 EST Sm7nPCsL No.208560 Reply
I think you are thinking the correct way but not necessarily the correct thoughts, because you sound like you are on to something, but I don't know who cody is.
>>
Jenny Draddledale - Mon, 25 Dec 2017 00:24:43 EST hGJqk5Sv No.208572 Reply
Cody wants to lick your booty hole

What is even evil?

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:54:17 EST YXMsMuFM No.208438
File: 1506549257864.png -(69205B / 67.58KB, 292x191) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. What is even evil?
So there's this discussion I've been having on /b/ about belief, and it naturally evolved to banter about the nature of evil.

So I'm pretty much a relativist, because firstly I think humanity embodies both sides of the dichotomy as a fact of nature i.e. how we're made and how we perceive the world, and secondly because I believe there's no meaning beyond what humans the ones humans apply to the universe.

Yet I do find myself agreeing to being on the "good" side.

Why is this?
16 posts and 5 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Martin Clagglebury - Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:04:56 EST /iCKvJxT No.208541 Reply
>>208438
First, establish what is commonly accepted as "good" and "evil".
The most popular human forms of evil have been established throughout the ages.
Murder, rape, thievery, lying, wrath, and hatred.
The most popular forms of good have also been established.
Charity, honor, truth, kindness, modesty and love.
These are highly prototypical expressions of what "good" and "evil" are.
Now the question, why do you believe yourself to be on the "good side"?
Is good and evil something we are born with? Something inherent in a soul? If a soul is a real thing?
Or are we products of environment? Would you be the same person if you were born and raised in a slum like downtown detroit? Would you be the same if you were raised by only one of your parents?
If an african american man was born in a nice suburb, would he still sell crack? #roasted
And how much does culture affect? Do the movies and stories you were told as a child and even now affect your perception, affect your morals? And when you finally do realize that your set of beliefs are manufactured by external stimuli, you will see yourself as nothing more than a collection of experiences and impulse responses, knee jerks that tweak your perceptions and affect how you understand and respond to future experiences. Seeing beyond the veil of subjectivity you discover that no objective truth is observable and that you are the ultimate judge of reality.
Enter the wild, wild, west. A cowboy riding a horse, a gun on his hip. He has written and signed his own constitution, of what is just, just for him. What is right and what is wrong when he stick his gun in your mouth? Will you die for a philosophy? As far as the cowboy sees its survival of the quickest..
So why are you "good"? Because life has been good to you? Because your life has shown you goodness so it exists within you? You obviously didn't make the choice to be good on a basis of logical axioms or you wouldn't asking why your good..And when you see through your own bullshit perhaps then you will discover what you really are. Nosce te ipsum.
>>
Cedric Beggleshit - Fri, 08 Dec 2017 21:15:18 EST NMygqr00 No.208561 Reply
>>208438
Hard relativism assumes that all moral values are relative... you answered your own question
>>
Betsy Brookbury - Sun, 10 Dec 2017 16:24:39 EST Sm7nPCsL No.208562 Reply
>>208561

Is then the notion that morals should be relative, is that notion relative? Is absolute morality permissible in relative morality?

Should i feel guilty for hating homophobes?

View Thread Reply
- Sat, 18 Nov 2017 07:26:05 EST qJ30WOYM No.208540
File: 1511007965459.png -(78814B / 76.97KB, 1280x509) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Should i feel guilty for hating homophobes?
I live in Australia and we found out on wednesday that Homophobes are now in the minority in Australia. Should i feel guilty for hating them? because they are a minority i am legitimately confused on how i should feel toward them.
6 posts and 3 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Reuben Dibblechere - Sun, 26 Nov 2017 21:11:41 EST z/FiZpQC No.208549 Reply
1511748701792.jpg -(62952B / 61.48KB, 397x293) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208540
Hate is too much. There is no need to hate them.

But there is no need to sympathize with them, either. Fuck em.
>>
Basil Pittbury - Mon, 27 Nov 2017 15:03:29 EST 1kfT+DW9 No.208550 Reply
1511813009041.jpg -(144646B / 141.26KB, 1024x611) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I've been struggling with where the line is drawn, I use to believe that people are fundamentally good and society has a place for everyone.

This last year + has really changed how I view my fellow man. I was a pacifist for well over a decade and now I see that as completely naive.

If you're a bigot or anti-worker the least I can do is hate you.
>>
Martha Ponkinfitch - Tue, 28 Nov 2017 18:24:12 EST YXMsMuFM No.208551 Reply
1511911452385.jpg -(47698B / 46.58KB, 580x525) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208550

>If you're a bigot or anti-worker the least I can do is hate you.

Dude just chill. We're all imperfect humans.

Hate is such a powerful thing. Disagree, deny, resist or revolt sure. Hate though, nah dude that is for lesser men.

>This last year + has really changed how I view my fellow man. I was a pacifist for well over a decade and now I see that as completely naive.

Take care not to flip entirely. A lot of people with strong opinions tend to do this, maybe because having strong opinions is more integral to them than having the "correct" opinions.
Just chill, remember this Earth is at first man vs man, not idea vs. idea.
If you don't accept the world as-is, a complicated mess of a place hell even in your personal life, you gonna have a hard and bad time.

Do you think important people of the past, who weren't important in their time

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 22 Oct 2017 16:31:33 EST tKRmy9hF No.208470
File: 1508704293015.jpg -(31320B / 30.59KB, 928x510) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Do you think important people of the past, who weren't important in their time
ever thought themselves fools for writing it all down?

I mean we have all these books, written long before the telegraph or even the printing press. We have records, documents, journals, short stories tales and fables. Do you think the people writing these seemingly frivolous and pointless logs containing their dreams hopes opinions plans debts and whimsies, ever thought to themselves the way we today do, "What's the point of writing a book? What's the point of keeping a journal? I'm a nobody. It doesn't matter. I'll never be famous. I'm going to play videogames/watch tv/movies/jerk off/do yard work/eat food.". Except minus the modern stuff they obviously didn't have, replace with old timey equivalents.

My point is, i've been mulling it over and I don't think they thought in those terms. They didn't have kardasians, they didn't have instant porn on tap. When they got bored, they contemplated life, they wrote things down. Not in aetherial online forums. They wrote them down in a way that they would be kept and organized. Not lost and scattered to the winds of the internet. They probably didn't expect anyone to read their crap (i'm talking about normal people who later became known through their journals and works, not people who were doing multigenerational work at the time and expected their shit to be read down the line.) and didn't care either. It was for them.

What I'm also getting at is that we're rarely doing it "for me" anymore. Like everyone I know is doing things so they can...SHOW it to the world. So they can, get some kind of sliver of fame. I don't understand it. Fame is stupid. Self fulfilment is what matters, you'll find that out after you get fans. It even will grate on you, because you will hate them for loving you, because you don't love yourself...it angers you that they see something that you don't consider to exist. It bothers you that they get to love you, but you don't get to love yourself.

Idk. I think tech is fucking us up badly. Socially. It's getting fucking creepy. Like really, really fucking creepy. Kids have their faces in their phones all the time now and I always thought it was bullshit when adults would say that growing up but now...it's creepy, like I said. I'm only 27. And shit is getting fucking weird

Was just thinking all this while journaling for the first time in years. I've been putting my phone in a drawer recently...idk why. It creeps me the fuck out. When I can visually see it, it grips me. I can't explain it and it just creeps me out badly. When it's not physically on me, or visible, I feel differently. My anxiety goes the fuck away. I have had crippling anxiety for the last 4 fucking years (when I got my first smartphone...) and have had no idea why, or what changed me. These shit's are fucking creepy. I pretty much use my pc again when needed now. Feels much more normal. I don't even use it often. Mostly for movies/tv, but I only watch maybe a few shows a day, whereas with the phone, I was watching dozens of yt videos and random distracting horse shit. Something about the touchscreen...it grabs your monkey brain harder. Another note, I can't use pc on acid or shrooms, but I can use a touchscreen fine. It's fucking bizarre.

Anyway, this turned into kind of a rant/ramble but it started as a simple thought. I was wondering what the differences were between us and them after having the initial contemplation on what their intention was for their personal journalings. As a form of personal entertainment and remembrance at a later date, or as a means to be "remembered in history somehow" as I personally have fantasies about as a "modern man".

TL;DR
An open discussion about humanity pre and post technological revolution.

Posted in /b/ but here might be better. Also, why the fuck do we not have a Philosophy board?
3 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Matilda Clucklestone - Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:08:15 EST Iw2FXFb1 No.208533 Reply
1510646895885.jpg -(141136B / 137.83KB, 437x606) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208476
For example China had ten ages in their mythology that spans back beyond what is known. Of what little history remains the dating is dramatically inaccurate. Anyways, the reason that is is because all the sages were killed and the books chronologing those eras were burned.

If you go back farther, history was remembered through storytellers, poets, and bards or whatever. The stories were fluid, altered over time, and varied per teller, until they were written. The story of Beowulf being the most obvious example. That tale was told countless times taking on different meanings while the core premise probably remained. Its continuous development occurring in spoken form becomes stunted in writing. From the novel a movie, diluted for the worse, to inspired variations like the 13th Warrior, its re-presented in another medium. Scroll credits.

The storytellers of the distant past who kept humanity's lessons and history alive across many generations are unknown. Certainly there is power in being the keeper of culture, its flame, but it was about what they told, not who they were. A select few people can make movies, many can write, everyone can tell stories.
>>
Fuck Diffingridge - Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:15:20 EST oX3f4KlI No.208534 Reply
The internet as a historical document will outlast every notebook journal diary or folio in existence.
>>
Eliza Gemmerwell - Sat, 18 Nov 2017 06:57:53 EST qJ30WOYM No.208539 Reply
>>208534

and yet finding anything of worth is like finding a certain needle in a pile of needles.

Atavism?

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 06 Dec 2016 15:26:13 EST Y5UP2WQL No.207410
File: 1481055973605.jpg -(8587B / 8.39KB, 200x246) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Atavism?
Does anyone else have a bad reaction to the mentally handicapped? Am I literally hitler?
43 posts and 4 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Samuel Shittinglock - Mon, 06 Nov 2017 15:19:22 EST nX761Sq0 No.208503 Reply
>>208500
>all animals took their rights, or they didn't get them.
No, animals operated without rights. A lion catching a gazelle isn't the lion taking a right. Rights are societal constructs. They exist only as much as a society is willing to uphold them.

>There isn't a legal system in place to stop you from being killed
Just because I can't stop a murderer with an explanation of my rights doesn't mean that they don't exist. The capacity for a right to be violated doesn't prove its nonexistence.
>>
Priscilla Pennernerk - Tue, 07 Nov 2017 14:30:14 EST wRqF/W2w No.208504 Reply
ITT: People conflate arguing about semantics with ethical debate.

Spoiler: The fuck does it matter how we describe these things? Isn't what really matters (and the point of the thread) what we should or shouldn't do viz. other people (i.e. ethical debate) rather than what we do or don't call our ideas about what to do? Rights, capacities, justification...all just human meat-sounds to cover up our incomprehension of how we ought to behave or what even reality is...mistaking semantics for epistemology or ethics, a very primitive kind of misunderstanding...
>>
Fuck Diffingridge - Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:24:27 EST oX3f4KlI No.208537 Reply
>>208503
Belief in biological rights is a sure sign of a social darwinist.

Political Science

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 23 Aug 2017 13:37:19 EST vmu9ElA5 No.208397
File: 1503509839765.jpg -(62058B / 60.60KB, 640x631) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Political Science
Any Political Science majors?
Why is there so much theory in the course? Does it have any relevance in real life, or is it just academics being academics?
2 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Dr. M !gWLn19/oKs - Fri, 01 Sep 2017 21:54:41 EST mXz0pukj No.208414 Reply
>>208397
Yes, my undergrad was PoliSci.

You need the theory to genuinely understand political concepts.

No disrespect, but clearly you're the quantitative type. That's great and all, but what knowledge base will you draw on that's not a machine?

Understanding the theories and concepts about why things are structured and occur the way they do help with intuitive thought process and making estimated guesses.

The vast knowledge accumulated from, say, Poli Sci (we take IR as well)+History minor+ Religious studies minor is amazing. You really understand how politics works from a ridiculous amount of perspectives and vantage points.

But I'm a bias academic so. The way I see it is, if you took my approach + maintained the quantitative, you're somebody who actually understands them, yet is able to transform that into quantitative data and legitimize Political Science as a "science".
>>
Edwin Gacklewell - Tue, 05 Sep 2017 21:19:32 EST cmOR3FR3 No.208417 Reply
I knew two guys with polisci degrees. One got a really good D.C. Job with the republicans then his mental illness made him just check out and his parents basically pay for him to be a homebody.

The other guy worked a low level job at google until some think tank hired him.

So the "usefulness" of the degree,like many others, is determined by how well you network.
>>
Phineas Winkindale - Sun, 24 Sep 2017 02:21:57 EST XypP1lD0 No.208436 Reply
>>208399
Ehh I am inclined to disagree with that. I'm not sure what you mean by studies, but I'm taking it to mean political studies? Theory as done in modern academic settings does move. pretty slowly due to what you mentioned, but I'm not sure how it would restrict anything.

Like a lot of ideas established in the US Constitution owe a lot to the works of John Locke. I don't think it would be restrictive to read his theories. For a more modern and influential political scientist, John Rawls' A Theory of Justice was inspired by Hume's skepticism and Kant's deonotlogical ethics.

As far as data goes, I'm finding it hard to understand why you think that an interpretation of data is distinct from theory. Isn't theory just another way of saying interpretation?

On Psychedelics

View Thread Reply
!oj3475yHBQ - Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:31:38 EST hX9kQ/Yg No.208372
File: 1502584298520.jpg -(27351B / 26.71KB, 706x436) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. On Psychedelics
Mental disorders ultimately take the form of repression reinforced by the ego, manifesting in the minor form as anxiety/depression and in the major as harmful abnormal behavior mounting in insanity. This is something already well known to modern psychology, but the approach of many is to judge which repressions are good verses those that are bad, and so the patient also judges which aspect of his/her repression is good/bad. This process “works” but is inefficient and ultimately only serves to reinforce the cause of the repression in the first-place, the ego.

The quickest, most human way of destroying repression and healing the psyche is to destroy the ego, this is because once the ego is destroyed one can face the complete form of emotion being repressed within the individual without said individuals' ego getting in the way... but as it turns out the medicine is also the poison. We face ego-death everyday, but only those who really face themselves know what ego-death is. Ego-death occurs when we give ourselves up to something completely, the two most common forms being produced from love and sex... anyone who has experienced ego death in these contexts know they've experienced something more than what is considered normal, a mind which is shared by all humanity that evokes both spiritual and religious awe and is ultimately analogous with love. The choices we face also force ego-death upon us, but in a lesser form, and it is how we face these choices, which either promote health and dissolve the ego, or repress our emotions and cause the ego to grow.

When ego-death is faced this causes a surge of emotion that produces anxiety in an individual that can either be acted on by fleeing from it, which builds the ego and causes repression, or by accepting it, which produces positive emotions. When someone acts by fleeing there is positive emotion only after the action chosen changes the situation, and so the ego becomes convinced that it made the "right" choice in context of a "wrong" one. However because the ego gets in the way of one resolving the full emotional content of which the anxiety has been generated from, the feelings and significance of the event which caused the anxiety is repressed, only to surface the next time another situation arises which causes anxiety. When an individual who has accepted their emotions act, they do so not from fleeing from discomfort, but because reason demands it, and with the full knowledge of how they feel, which is already resolved.

Our entire society is structured on this unhealthy egotistic justification, a good example being someone I know whose go-to example of what caused him to be successful is that of running from his fear of failure in university. Fear can be a powerful motivator, but should be faced, not to be let in as a driving force in ones life. Because his model for doing what needed to be done was running from anxiety and fear, all of his actions were seen as justified because they all revolved around the positive reinforcement of his escape.

The primitive state of "Eden" is a description of a society which knew this, where individuals "grew up" so to speak by way of shamanic initiation into the adulthood of human mind experienced upon accepting ego-death, but somewhere along the line people stopped basing their decisions on what they felt, and starting acting on what they thought they felt was right or wrong, which only caused us to fall into the trap of the self-perpetuating machine of ego forced upon mankind by the rules handed down within cult-ture.

Now we get into the real matter here, because true ego death is actually readily available in the form of psychedelics like MDMA, Psilocybin, LSD and DMT. But humanity is still collectively working through what it means to have access to these drugs, and frankly many individuals have become so infatuated with their ego that they could do themselves serious harm by taking them, yet the honest truth is that many major celebrities, politicians, businessmen, probably even your parents have done psychedelics and experienced ego death. These people know the validity of the experience, and they know that this state of mind is comparable with what they feel off the drugs, within moments that they truly sacrifice themselves for the thing they love.

How drugs are viewed by culture is symptomatic of humanities collective anxiety and repression of itself. Think of …
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
3 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
The Fool !oj3475yHBQ - Sun, 13 Aug 2017 17:49:49 EST hX9kQ/Yg No.208380 Reply
>>208379
Random thought, I would be really interested to see what Camus' reaction to LSD would have been.
>>
Reuben Gorrywill - Thu, 17 Aug 2017 09:48:23 EST +oDzYIVl No.208386 Reply
>>208379
Well being able to acquire them some day would be nice it especially helps with philosophy and learning difficulties.
>>
Shit Trothall - Tue, 22 Aug 2017 08:18:34 EST 8gq7GAVV No.208396 Reply
>>208372
>Mental disorders ultimately take the form of repression reinforced by the ego, manifesting in the minor form as anxiety/depression and in the major as harmful abnormal behavior mounting in insanity.

What the fuck? Mental disorders are abnormal thoughts, brought about by chemical inbalances or radically disturbing events unfolding around the unfortunate sufferer.

There's nothing about fucking egos. What the fuck you on about nigga.

the why of progress

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 23 Jun 2017 19:16:36 EST jDHD98qF No.208255
File: 1498259796903.jpg -(241449B / 235.79KB, 787x931) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. the why of progress
Also following the Anger Masturbations post about having a civil coversation, I'm going to ask a relatively simple question.

And it's this; we can all agree the state of the world is pretty chaotic, at least for a lot of people relative to five or ten years ago. This is clearly reflected in the politics of our times. No matter how bad things get and no matter how many people in response stop and say 'okay now is the time to really get serious and fix things, before there's no going back', things keep moving forward. The question I have is why. Why is it that the idea that things are wrong right now, and they were right in the past-- so universal, while any proposals to change things back are always controversial?

My biggest suspicion is the loud minority that destroys most civil conversations and keeps progress from being made. But surely if enough of the majority were trying they're best to do it, they should be able to carry on a conversation even despite a bit of trolling going on. So it also can be that people just aren't trying they're best, that they don't really care and they're distracted enough by the stresses of their lives to try to fix the world. Or maybe even the majority doesn't really care.

Or maybe, and this is the most interesting to me, this is all just an inevitability. There are technological revolutions going on that act on the human race as almost a sort of 'puberty', and it's insane to thing humans _would_ be able to keep on top of this. If this were the case, then what's going on sucks but it's fine, because people will learn to live with one another and things will even out.

Of course there's also the view that a certain portion of the population have just been so screwed over that they don't just not give a shit, they wanna burn everything down. They may not cognizantly be planning the end of the world, but they go 'eh fuck it maybe I will vote for X extreme referendum, one the one hand it might end well but even better it might end in the end of the world'. I've met a few people like that.

Maybe it's everyone? But the world is always complicated. Or maybe it's no one.. and this is the way it's always been. I dunno. I bet there isn't any real single answer for us to figure out.. but I wanna know what you guys think.
4 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Fanny Gandershit - Wed, 09 Aug 2017 11:41:48 EST +oDzYIVl No.208355 Reply
>>208351
it's often just as much code for "i did have to work back then" and "they don't have to work now"
>>
Samuel Bunham - Thu, 10 Aug 2017 13:02:01 EST +oDzYIVl No.208362 Reply
>>208358
it's depressing but important. Because it's harmful rhetoric sometimes it's the beginning of people giving back to society. The past and memory is as much a mystery and at times even harder to take emotionally as/than the mysteries of space and time. It's the beginning of a human trial that can lead you into what you would call and elder in society. Dealing with the feelings of change flux and even angst and alienation can just lead you into an appreciation of the different generations as an discomfort.

Trans and Homophobia in Black Culture

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 02 Aug 2017 11:24:03 EST KAjNPewV No.208321
File: 1501687443715.jpg -(107275B / 104.76KB, 960x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Trans and Homophobia in Black Culture
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia_in_ethnic_minority_communities

Recently, a black comedian made public statements claiming he would physically assault a woman if he "found out it was a guy". An article was posted in a FB group about the incident, so I asked if he had tried to use his blackness as an excuse for his transphobia. I caught lots of shit for being a racist but it's a known fact that homophobia and transphobia are prevalent in ethnic minority cultures, even in the U.S. Why is it okay for minorities to be homophobic and why can't anyone call attention to this problem without being called racist?
2 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Angus Wizzlemidge - Wed, 02 Aug 2017 14:11:39 EST CQFMNQ4/ No.208324 Reply
/pss/ is turning into /pol/.

I also don't think black people are afraid of gays or cuties so phobia doesn't make sense.

Additionally, I think there is a higher prevalence in black for homosexuality. I could be wrong on that but I think there are studies claiming somewhere around 7-10% of black males exhibiting homosexual traits or at the least bisexual tendencies. Again, I don't have that(those) study though. There is also a significantly higher likelihood for American blacks to be impoverished and or poor. Poverty is well known to be linked to herd mentality and bigoted tendencies. Along with hyperbolic ideas on what people should or shouldn't be. It doesn't take long to be around poor people to see that they all think people should be this or that and that they are very opinionated. Poor males will almost always think in terms of masculinity and other such shit. Being gay is for weak faggots etc. So homosexuality is persecuted in poor, black, males. Just as homosexuality is downtrodden by poor, white, males. The key here being poor and male obviously.


>Speaking from personal experience, there seem to be more gay black males but only slightly and don't even make gay jokes around black men who are from the ghetto or very poor. They get up in arms over anything homosex for whatever reason. "Thou Doth Protest Too Much" perhaps?

I guess it is a generalization or stereotype but poor people seem to have the biggest issue with homosexuality, just like poor people are more likely to be stupid, have a ton of kids, commit crimes, end up in prison, do drugs, be an addict, and be religious. I'm sure that will piss plenty of people off. Who are likely poor. Race doesn't really seem to matter as much aside from perhaps a potential higher rate of homosexuality in blacks.
>>
Angus Wizzlemidge - Wed, 02 Aug 2017 14:21:28 EST CQFMNQ4/ No.208325 Reply
Double post, kill me now amirite?

I dunno about where you live but if black people say faggot or chastise gays, they get the same level of punishment as white people or anyone else. At least in places where it matters. I don't rail on any comedian for anything unless they are unfunny. No jokes should be barred. It is comedy, I don't take anything a comedian says as rule of law or seriously. They are just trying to make you laugh. People who get pissed over a joke or a comedian are not people I associate with regardless.

Among friends, informal situation, etc nobody gets "punished" for homosexual slurs or "hate speech." Even if it gets posted online, only high profile people get shat on. Regular 9-5 black people, white people, etc aren't going to get punished by society for saying faggot or whatever. In the workplace, it is the same story for everyone, termination. In school it is the same story for everyone, expulsion. In public office, it is the same story for everyone, removed.

This whole double standard shit is retarded. Nobody gets preferential treatment anymore unless you have an army of lawyers to cover your ass. A rich black person can call white people the devil and his army of lawyers will cover him. A rich white person can scream jolly african-americans into a megaphone from a skyscraper and his army of lawyers will cover him. This is all such a joke and bread and circus for stupid people. The US and the world have much greater issues than the current level of racism/hatespeech/whatever we have. The (bigotry issues) has been quelled enough now that other fires need to be put out.

>But retards love an Us vs. Them riot.
>>
Matilda Senderhutch - Mon, 07 Aug 2017 08:24:59 EST 8gq7GAVV No.208345 Reply
1502108699070.gif -(40395B / 39.45KB, 159x90) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Black people tend to be kneedeep in the retarded Jesus Christ desert demon worshipping death cult bullshit. You know, that idiotic religion imported from Judea.

Religion ruins everything. Save the planet. Kill Christians. 666 speed metal for lyfe /thread

Racism

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 13 Jan 2017 01:52:29 EST RJGzRrNh No.207576
File: 1484290349984.gif -(7478B / 7.30KB, 300x225) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Racism
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?
77 posts and 14 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Hugh Denningpotch - Tue, 18 Jul 2017 12:05:08 EST 0mGiprQj No.208280 Reply
>>208260
Let me say this to you, Flicker. If you've got what it takes to discuss race without throwing insults, I'll happily discuss it with you. We can discuss the definitions of the words, the way society feels about these words, genetics, memetics, whatever. I'd like that.
>>
Cedric Clorringspear - Thu, 03 Aug 2017 17:35:56 EST cc26aplb No.208327 Reply
>>207579
Wouldn't it just be easier to say that everyone is racist?
>>
Wesley Guddlesure - Sun, 06 Aug 2017 04:55:32 EST 4FAq+MEK No.208342 Reply
>>208327

But then how can he fool himself into thinking he's not as censorious and intolerant as the people he's attacking?

jolly african-american

Banned View Thread Reply
- Sun, 02 Jul 2017 17:29:16 EST 9uFbRE+4 No.208264
File: 1499030956380.jpg -(23365B / 22.82KB, 220x220) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. jolly african-american
when will it be socially acceptable for a white person to say jolly african-american? And why is it THAT offensive to begin with? We give the power to words. I get that nowadays we're still relatively fresh out of Jim Crowe and things race relations are still kind of tense but surely eventually there will come a time somewhere down the line where we finally have perfect equality, will the word still be offensive? What about when we all look about the same a thousand years from now, will it still be offensive THEN?

I'm not trying to be edgy here, even though I personally think it's stupid to let sound waves cause so much trauma, I don't say the word around people I know it will offend (at this point mostly everyone). I'm just really curious when it will stop.

Also do you think we'll keep inventing new words to be offended by or will we finally get passed this?
6 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Sophie Banderway - Wed, 02 Aug 2017 05:37:58 EST 9MuVP7BI No.208319 Reply
This is my opinion.

Western society should not tolerate or permit reactionary violence.

If you call someone a name and he lays you out he accepts the consequences this might bring. BUT IT'S HIS RESPONSIBILITY as an individual to own up for his actions and therefore he should be at fault for not showing the restrain that an Asian person would show.

If you called an Asian person a name and he lashed out at you, you would probably tell him to calm down, and if he attacked you, that's the action he decided to take as an individual.

It's so bad because black people are conditioned socially and white civilization is too often in agreement. If a black person is called a word, he MUST use violence, and well, the other guy deserves it.

I understand the history of the word, that's not an excuse for violence, which should be viewed as a disproportionate reaction that has no place in a civilized society.

Have the strength to call him a pussy white boy with a small dick & walk away and if he continues to challenge you, beat him until he learns what respect it - that is proportional, and it's what real men do.
>>
Angus Wizzlemidge - Wed, 02 Aug 2017 09:01:20 EST CQFMNQ4/ No.208320 Reply
I think it is childish to get pissed off over a word and intent is everything.

To me, jolly african-american is basically comparable as big stinky doo-doo head. It is just a word and I'm not going to get pissed off over it. Now if someone is shouting racial slurs and acting they are going to fight then it is a threat. But just using the word isn't bad. I also hate how people are so uptight about racial slurs. It seems to me that they are always quick to say motherfucker, cunt, cock etc without a mere flinch and that isn't "polite" either. So it doesn't make any sense, so humans.

It may be condescending but only little and insecure people get their panties in a bunch over a sound you make with your vocal chords. Pens and swords do a million times more damage.
>>
Augustus Blackdock - Sat, 20 Jan 2018 16:10:50 EST RH79YvEw No.208617 Reply
>>208320
What intent could you possibly have using the word that isn't racist, aside from the obvious examples (quotes or song lyrics). White people who just really wanna use the word without being vindicated, probably don't have very real problems. Notice how they trivialize the meanings of words in attempt to downplay the seriousness of real life, where racism is much more than a word

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