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


Discord Now Fully Linked With 420chan IRC

Virtue signalling the internet and why does it happen like this?

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 07 Dec 2016 02:26:20 EST 2IPvcf8v No.207417
File: 1481095580362.gif -(2675344B / 2.55MB, 200x170) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Virtue signalling the internet and why does it happen like this?
There's been a lot more of people inserting politics into everything the last few years on the internet. And I don't care where you stand on the spectrum, right wing/ left wing whatever, its that this seems to find its way to every little corner now. With the election going on, you could expect a serious amount of shit flinging on various corners of the internet. That's normal. What isn't normal is how politicizised, how idealism central/focused every little corner of everything is getting lately.

There's become a contingent of people floating aroud the internet who immediately signal to their virtue whenever confronted with anything that they don't like. Its either gas them or, some new age political jargon with a bunch of made up word (they both suck) . Why is this young generation so focused on inserting politics into everything? I know idealism being a part of everything isn't something entirely new, but the way that its going on the internet now is a lot diffrent than things where going 10 years ago. People seem more likely to ally themselves with extremes instead of just tolerating and moving along. How did the internet become so much more socially concerned in the last ten years?

What can be done to combat virtue signalling? I feel like its poor form, but it seems to be getting more popular with people on both sides of the isle. Why does everyone seem to be getting more and more extreme in the last couple years (just take a look at something stupid like facebook or the youtube comments section, shits getting more virulent). ? In 2000 the internet was so damned exciting chat rooms and forums In 2006 I could talk to cool people about anything and laugh about stuff. In 2016 people quickly espoused their values to me repeatedly. Where did it all happen ?
29 posts and 3 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Cedric Bindlefone - Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:08:35 EST 0aDGMcny No.207494 Reply
But OP's question was what is it about this time that makes it different? Yes, there have been times of greater or lesser political involvement in the past, and sure, by definition the fact that there's radicalization means the center has been abandoned. But why? How did the center get broken? What caused people to gravitate toward more extreme ideology? Surely you're not suggesting that communication technology has no effect on how or what people communicate?
Fucking Fickledock - Tue, 20 Dec 2016 23:26:07 EST AzrYc36y No.207495 Reply
> trying to make them more inclusive by relying on rabid internet hate mobs who have nothing better to do than whine when a gay person is depicted in a game or a woman is depicted with realistic proportions.

This is a bit of a disingenuous take of their side, even though I agree the anti-censorship can get too overzealous.

It's a really blurry issue, but what it comes down to is that anybody should have the right to do what they want with their creative works, even if it means doing things I don't agree to, including self-censorship. If it's something that came from the government, then yeah, I'd be opposed to it. But a lot of these sort of decisions are just business people doing what they think will make them the most money without ruffling feathers of whatever region they're trying to sell. I think a lot of these decisions are pretty superfluous since anybody who is offended by Mika's ass will most likely not play something like Street Fighter that is known for its over-the-top characters. But usually these decisions don't affect the gameplay itself. I'm aware of the Fire Emblem Fates situation but I never played that so I don't know.

There is a good point to be argued about this sort of thing and whether or not self-censorship is truly censorship if they are not being pressured by government, and whether or not attempting to appeal to regional cultures by changing a creative product can be considered censorship even if it's done with the consent of the creators, but it's a nuanced one that can't be found when people on all sides are shouting over each other.

Is it really censorship, or just plain old pandering?
Phyllis Poffingwater - Sun, 25 Dec 2016 00:02:19 EST iAquTtgI No.207505 Reply
Nothing has ever happened to a game dev online that were actually making real games.


View Thread Reply
- Sun, 09 Oct 2016 04:49:29 EST 2PqYhULY No.206995
File: 1476002969182.jpg -(51829B / 50.61KB, 1200x739) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Privilege
In my sociology class last week, we all lined up and took steps forward or back based on whether or not our answer to a question was privileged or not. I took the most steps forward, being a tall white male of middle class origin.
What do you think of this exercise? Has your privilege ever been checked?
102 posts and 10 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Thomas Crunkinstire - Thu, 15 Dec 2016 22:23:53 EST 0aDGMcny No.207462 Reply
I don't think there is an end-game to politics and society, in general. I think any seemingly stable-state social structure is just biding its time to death. That merely to the point of saying there is no objective standard for saying when we are done futzing with society. Like you point out, even after a great advancement, eventually everyone settles down to seeing what is as the status quo and coming up with new things to gripe about. So every kind of societal process, whether it's managing oppression and privilege, cultural attitudes, political attitudes, whatever, will always be constantly in a state of flux, because even if it reaches what on the surface might be a stable state, human nature will cause it to destabilize again into new polarities.

So there is no end game. We will always be dealing with all the shit we are dealing with now, much like how the shit we are dealing with now is just a fancy re-hash of the same shit we have always been dealing with. But, that doesn't mean we can stop working on it (it is that suffering that drives us forward as you mention, which we carry within ourselves as much as comes at us from outside) or that we have to agree on what is a good final state to work toward some state.

We will never all agree on a single standard of life as good, that's blatantly impossible, but even so we can't throw up our hands and give up the social experiment. This is not just applying to charity, but to all kinds of social change.

Lastly, on the subject of the 'minimum bar' of standard of life, I don't think it's such an unusual concept that as technology advances, and the total of possible goods people can experience increases, the median and therefore also the minimum amount of necessary goods shifted with it. In Ancient Greece a bed was considered a luxury item. Fifteen years ago cell phones were considered luxury items, and now they are considered a necessity. That's just a feature of technological advancement, you can't get away from the rising bar, and it has nothing to do with people becoming unreasonable in their demands and everything to do with technology's impact on society.
In ancient greece, a bolt of cloth and jar of olives may well have qualified as a basic income. 100 years ago, having a place to sleep, food, decent clothing, and a few personal grooming and cooking accessories would've been considered meeting basic needs. 1000 years from now, being an immortal cyborg god with your own self-replicating spaceship that can at least get you to the outer colonies will be considered a modest level of existence. That's just how it goes mang, it doesn't mean, nor will it get us out of, constantly having to struggle over these issues.
Shit Gimmerwell - Fri, 23 Dec 2016 04:50:49 EST U1j3ZEZp No.207498 Reply
I liked it better when it was called guilt-tripping
I wonder what'll happen when they realize it's fruitless. Riots?
Shit Gecklekit - Fri, 13 Jan 2017 06:49:37 EST XOqZWzTC No.207577 Reply
I bet all the girls in class thought about having your baby that day. Seriously.

John Dewey / Ulrich Beck parallels

View Thread Reply
- Thu, 15 Dec 2016 00:29:41 EST ftwgE2AJ No.207457
File: 1481779781569.jpg -(46103B / 45.02KB, 593x240) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. John Dewey / Ulrich Beck parallels
TL;DR: Links or suggestions for quick resources I can use to compare John Dewey to Ulrich Beck

So, basically, I have been a lazy piece of shit and now I have about a day and a half to finish this assignment on similarities and differences between John Dewey's pragmatism and Ulrich Beck's Theory of Reflexive Modernisation, of about 15 pages, and all I have so far is the introduction and a bunch of notes. So I would very much appreciate some input, or resources with the same subject that I can work with.

I did Google around a bit, and I found some interesting papers like a Lecture given by Beck at Harvard University, where he mentioned Dewey several times (didn't read it yet though), and a paper by Bruno Latour, where he mainly compares his theory to Beck's, and only mentions Dewey in passing.
Thomas Crunkinstire - Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:39:40 EST 0aDGMcny No.207459 Reply
/pss/ is not going to do your paper for you, and I doubt anyone here has specific enough knowledge on the similarities between these two you're trying to look at to really help you out anyway.
Read the sources you already have and start making shit up, at 15 pages in a day and a half you don't have time to wait around for people to come up with stuff here.


View Thread Reply
- Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:10:42 EST 54PBc7Id No.207192
File: 1478891442579.jpg -(467182B / 456.23KB, 1180x842) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Election
Philosophize about the Trump/Clinton election and the future of the USA.

I want to hear pros/cons, I want to hear different ways of viewing this, I want to hear pretty much anything that isn't fucking petty ass rhetoric from CNN or FOX.
49 posts and 5 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Lillian Duckhall - Mon, 05 Dec 2016 22:11:03 EST Id5quEqH No.207401 Reply
1480993863606.jpg -(52118B / 50.90KB, 394x460) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Honestly, centrists can easily be more dangerous in my opinion because they basically soften people to the more radical ideas of the farther end of the spectrum that they otherwise would not accept. In a lot of ways the Nazis and the Bolsheviks were both centrist with respect to their own political environments. While the Nazis are sometimes categorized as right wing, this is only because they were anti-communist. The Bolsheviks too made a little changes to the original communist program to accommodate for less far left elements within society.

Often times, it is rarely the radicals on either side who take power or keep power for very long because their ideologies by literal definition are fringe and hard for the average person to accept or get accustomed to. It is usually those groups or leaders who can appeal to most if not all the competing elements of a given society, marginalizing radical minorities and bringing in people who are sitting on the fence and skeptical towards all views or attracted to select aspects of them all that they can't reasonably choose one.

If a society is thus sick in that spiritual sense, than the centrists, rather than embodying the best of traits, can easily embody the worst traits of their societies and become accepted only because they appeal to the least common denominator. This is more dangerous especially in democracies where there's no institutional buffer of "higher culture" or "higher values" that can potentially cancel out the more dark and twisted desires of the masses.
Angus Denderteck - Wed, 07 Dec 2016 19:43:00 EST fk7xMmwU No.207425 Reply
Right-wing populism is not centrist. There is no value in centrism, depending on what way you are defining it; it either muddies the water by bringing people together under an overly broad, simplified label purely due to the fact that they are not Stalinists and neo-nazis despite how different their views are (which seems to be the way you are using the term) or it is a term that propagates horseshoe theory, glorifies a lack of strong principles and embraces compromise and "bi-partisanship".

Not being a stormfag does not make one centrist and not being a commie doesn't make one centrist. The current movement going on in Europe and America is not centrist; it is right-wing. There is nothing wrong with not being centrist.
Hamilton Clillystock - Thu, 08 Dec 2016 15:08:04 EST 2IPvcf8v No.207427 Reply
Well it took me a few to read through this whole thread, pretty enjoyable. Especially the stuff about trans humanism. I know that people are going to disagree with me on this, but I think that the importance of the president is getting massively oversold here. The things that trumps election mean? (Just some basic ones).

The american people are focused more on jobs, more on wealth, more on a basic identity. Its easy to oversell this sort of thing, cause the fringe of people who connect with some basic nationalism centric ideas can be out there. But what trump promised was more directly in relationship to people. That's why he won. Talking about job, national identity, that's a lot more over aching than hillarys ideas that she'd just be a better statesman. And while the mainstream media tried to sell that narrative hard, it didn't quite hit home. The msms influence is gone.

Now I know there's some definite panic. And I'd like to try and dissuade that. The basic value of democracy is that it allows things to swing, back and forth. The push goes from americas place in the world to its problems at home, from liberal to conservative. Nothing major and horrible is going to come out of this, its all just the shifting back in one direction for awhile. The us has headed in the direction of a more left leaning/ global agenda for awhile, now it'll be more nationalistic/right leaning for awhile. Its all part of the beauty of the system. And this doesn't mean collapse, quite the contrary it means that the ebb and flow is continuing to work, that's the point.

As easy as it is to say you live in times of major collapse, its quite unlikely. With global institutions like the un, the vested intrests of big companies, there's a lot of things to prop up the current system in place. And while there's going to be a bubble somewhere far off in the future that bursts? It's not going to be the dramatic catastrophic sort of thing, not for a long time. And not quite in your lifetime. By the time that even things like climate change start to get serious enough, the technology level to combat these things may likely advance enough to handle them. You live in a world of big money, big tech, and it dosen't benefit the people at the top to let it collapse, money and power and influence are endless motivators. So in the end lets try and keep the predictions from getting too negative. But good thread and this derailed into a whole direction I wasn't expecting.

Privileging of Psychology

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:20:15 EST 7Jz0O/c2 No.207076
File: 1476793215427.jpg -(213604B / 208.60KB, 1600x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Privileging of Psychology
I dislike how much my friends rely on therapy and medication- how they privilege psychological narratives (by that i mean cognitive-behavioural therapy, trait theory, behaviourism, all the things a therapist might use to fit an existing construct over your behaviour and treat it accordingly) over alternative narratives of mental and emotional health. It always feels like such a touchy subject also, like somebody might be offended if i criticise the help they are getting- "i deserve happiness as much as everyone else" - and they just buy into and allow themselves to be psychologised and accept the dominant narrative because they want help.

I don't mean alternative like new-age oil treatment and hippie festivals or whatever, just different ways of looking at "mental health", whether they are sociological or philosophical perspectives or whatever else that i feel make a stronger argument.
15 posts and 3 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Simon Mabbleville - Mon, 05 Dec 2016 17:59:57 EST 0aDGMcny No.207400 Reply
>>. I think the government should have never even fucking attempted universal health care and instead simply tried to actually solve our health care problems by finding a way to actually incentivize health care providers to look into keeping people health
That's a nice sentiment, but I don't know if it could ever pan out in reality. It would be basically asking the medical industry to subsidize the health of the whole nation. There's no profit in keeping people healthy, while there's lot of profit in keeping people sick, so unless the medical industry was run as a not-for-profit or the government gave insurance companies some kind of kick-back when people stay healthy, there would be no motive for them to do this.
Nell Duckleforth - Tue, 06 Dec 2016 11:26:06 EST 54PBc7Id No.207408 Reply
That's exactly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about bonus money being given to insurance companies and doctors who work together to keep a massive amount of people perfectly healthy. I'm talking about fines directed at insurance companies and medical practices that can't help/fix problems with health that aren't like genetic. I'm talking about incentives being given to pharmaceuticals that pressure pharmaceuticals to not have many people depending on them regularly.

I think that sort of set-up could have done a world of good compared to Obamacare, which didn't really do anything besides increase insurance costs everywhere while also insuring an additional like 1 million people. Obama keeps claiming 20 million but the fact of the matter is those people were going to buy insurance whether or not Obamacare existed. Obama sure likes to play with numbers so that he looks more impressive. One of the main reasons I'm so disenfranchised with the Democrats as a whole is because they always fall back on numbers to defend their actions, but when you look into the numbers you realize they're literally all fake.
Cornelius Blecklenudge - Tue, 06 Dec 2016 16:01:49 EST 0aDGMcny No.207412 Reply
Well, if that could actually be enacted, it would be great. Good luck getting them to go along with it though, and I wonder how much higher the final price tag would be.

A lot of people got insurance who wouldn't have otherwise, I know quite a few personally, and that's only looking at the universal mandate. Things like the provisions of pre-existing conditions (which, thankfully, is immune in the Senate) actually were the most significant thing and did a world of good.
Context: my gf couldn't get insurance before ACA because of a pre-existing condition. Because the condition is so rare, the drug for it costs 20K a dose, once per month, and without it eventually she would die. ACA allowed her to get insurance and now (most) of that cost is covered. If ACA were to go wholesale, including the pre-existing condition provision, she would be again looking forward to death sometime in her 20s)

Media, Representation, and the Role of Entertainment

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 22 Nov 2016 22:07:59 EST TCWxLxYH No.207297
File: 1479870479124.jpg -(21638B / 21.13KB, 275x223) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Media, Representation, and the Role of Entertainment
I think this is the right board for this.

As someone who is from a minority group, I am always bothered about how the discourse of how my own group is represented in any media. It always felt like it was too simplified. I understand the basics of it--wanting more minority characters in roles and to not be tokenized. But as someone who could be considered an outcast of their own group I always looked at it in a different way. I couldn't honestly say that someone like a black character on a popular primetime show could be representative of me. I can't even say they are a representative of a group. We may share some things like how we look, but that's really it. It kinda bothered me that it seemed like how representation is discussed seems more on how a person looks.

But then I was doing some writing and then realized something. What if all this talk about representation isn't about a person or even a group, or even a group's ideals. But it's more about validating the group's supposed ideals?

So to get back to entertainment. What is entertainment's role to the people? Is it to challenge them? Is it to validate their ideals? Does anybody know what I'm actually talking about, because I don't think I am.
4 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Thomas Misslewire - Wed, 23 Nov 2016 19:27:02 EST iAquTtgI No.207306 Reply
I didn't say anything about forcing people to do anything. And how is it politicizing?
Frederick Bledgedure - Wed, 23 Nov 2016 23:19:40 EST 0aDGMcny No.207307 Reply
You said 'just cast white guys' as in 'only cast white guys' which means don't hire from the pool of people who are qualified, but hire from the pool of white guys. Since that's not what happens naturally, if you wanted that to happen, that's forcing it.
>>how is it politicizing?
You already introduced the notion that to not include 'just white guys' was 'politicizing everything' and the inverse must be political if that's political, so you tell me?

Eastern & Oriental Philosophy

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 05 Sep 2016 18:51:55 EST di4PvVP1 No.206706
File: 1473115915971.png -(4451174B / 4.24MB, 1500x1907) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Eastern & Oriental Philosophy
Anyone got any good recommendations on Eastern/Oriental philosophers & works??
56 posts and 3 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Priscilla Blazzlehitch - Sun, 27 Nov 2016 00:14:37 EST kxpuHo+8 No.207319 Reply
Holy crap this thread, only read 1/4 of the way down, but damn guys, damn... Arguments are fun right?

At the risk of inciting another argument, I'd recommend Siddhartha by hermann hesse. Simple outline of a guy's path to enlightenment.

Geez though guys, why we always arguing?
Lillian Fecklenadge - Sun, 27 Nov 2016 02:05:59 EST 0aDGMcny No.207320 Reply
Shitting Foddlechine - Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:14:08 EST 54PBc7Id No.207323 Reply
>a guy
That guy's Buddha, dude, lol.

But yes, Siddhartha's story is an epic one.

Secret Societies

View Thread Reply
- Thu, 03 Nov 2016 00:35:55 EST jjNLJE8u No.207142
File: 1478147755506.png -(381662B / 372.72KB, 1024x682) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Secret Societies
I just wanted to talk about what you guys thought about secret societies. Can a large shadow organization be stable and running as well as still stay out of sight from the public eye
39 posts and 2 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Archie Dezzlehood - Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:56:15 EST 0aDGMcny No.207276 Reply
Before the haters come in and shut down the MGS circlejerk: personally MGS4 is my favorite game in terms of the plot, it is the pinnacle of the over-wrought hyper-convoluted Japanese-style storytelling that propelled MGS to the stratosphere. MGS5 is undeniably a superior game in terms of all gameplay mechanics...but the story is genuinely weak sauce, and a large part of that is that it's literally about ~30% of the complete game, reworked to look like it's finished. If you're up on this stuff I'm sure you know all about the Kojima/Konami fallout, it honestly had a lot to do with both of them reacting from their own perspective to seismic shifts in the game industry but wanting to go different directions (mainly the emergence of freemium and service based games.) As a dev myself I appreciate what Kojima must have gone through -- but at the same time I'm pretty pissed that he had more time, more money, and a bigger team on MGS5 than MGS4, but wasn't able to give it a coherent story or even a complete gameplay arc, yet was able to fill it with useless shit like a 4 part audio mini-series on hamburgers. Yet I'm still out there hunting soldiers for my Mother Base like a...Boss ;)

As for the MGS2 philosophy bits, yeah the first time you play it as the 4th wall breaks down you really don't have any idea whats going on, but it's actually amazingly well structured. I think this kind of 'reality breakdown' sequence is something that Japanese media does uniquely well (Evangelion and Lain are indeed the ultimate examples of this, we must be cut from the same media cloth) and, since we're in the secret societies thread, I will say that all three draw heavily on Qabalistic inspiration to inform these sequences. And yeah, the stuff about information control, managing the internet, memes, is totally prophetic for today (although even back then futurists saw it coming, I mean if you want to know about today Gibson's Neuromancer will still tell you pretty much everything you want to know) in fact it was kind of directly prophetic -- they had to change the New York attack sequence in between the time they finished it and the time they released it, because 9/11 happened. Same with MGS4, set in 2014 and released in 2008 -- in 2008 it seemed like the wars were coming to an end, a Democratic and anti-war victory seemed like a sure thing, and yet Snake accurately projected a world of endless conflict where borders and nations are no longer relevant and powerful forces are engaged in faceless, meaningless proxy battles.
So we have always assumed that the MGS2 ex-president George Sears -- Solidus, who is also a clone of Big Boss -- was the stand-in for Bush, and the black president Johnson you have to save is clearly Obama. But given the new things we know about Big Boss and his plan first to create the Patriots and then destroy them indirectly from within...is president Sears more like Trump? Is Trump Big Boss' clone? *vomits*
Jarvis Clemmerfield - Thu, 24 Nov 2016 07:51:40 EST Ry/UiP1R No.207310 Reply
The only thing a secret society needs to function is for all the interests of the member's of the society to align. Also, there needn't be a large, unified society where everyone is a member and everyone conspires together and shares in some master plan for the same practical effects as a conspiratorial secret society. It just happens on a smaller scale. Because the groups of people involved are small and interconnected (think billionaires) there is a high amount of interconnectivity within the entire group. An idea can be floated that takes ahold of the entire group and/or is debated within the group without any sort of formal meetings. The ideas simply spread in the normal virus-like way they do. The only difference is that they all have similar self interests and upbrings, and there are much less of them so the group is more unified than the general public. They are also in a position of great power within our society and actually do have the means to influence the country, unlike normal people.

I think Caroline might have been on to something with her cabal theory >>207150 because certainly these groups would be like little social circles of the immensely wealthy and powerful and there would be some competition between them even though their interests too align.

Basically conspiracies exist they're just much less ordered and formal than most people imagine them to be.
Oliver Dombleson - Fri, 25 Nov 2016 18:20:34 EST aEaeNBh+ No.207318 Reply
You're skipping over the effect that all kinds of small little conspiracies have on each other.


Why do you think that so often (anonymous) whistleblowers leak information on organisations? Conflicts of interest.

Spirituality vs Religion

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 17 Aug 2016 17:52:45 EST G4Ws+Vkw No.206541
File: 1471470765273.jpg -(150556B / 147.03KB, 1072x804) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Spirituality vs Religion
Was having a good conversation with my buddy the other night. I asked him if he thought that he was spiritual and he replied "yes because im very religious."

I explained that you don't have to be religious to be spiritual because they operate autonomously. Like you can meditate and not be religious.

So he asked me what being spiritual means. So here I am /pss/, what is spirituality?
12 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Fucking Dessleville - Mon, 24 Oct 2016 03:04:11 EST bIcAhZ7O No.207109 Reply
Religion is the practical application of spirituality.
Ligio means to connect, or to link with. Re-ligio. To reconnect with that Supreme Personality. Due to the age we are in, the standards of what religion is has fallen. There is only one religion, and that is pure Love of God.

This world is comprised of the five elements, namely earth wind fire water and ether. Everything within the material universe is a transformation of these elements, but this only creates a gross, or physical substance. By no means is this actual spiritual substance. Actual spiritual understanding is beyond the perception of our material senses (sight, smell, touch, taste, hearing) and beyond the more subtle senses (mind, intelligence, and false ego). The Absolute Reality can't be achieved by mental speculation or knowledge. Only be devotional service, known as Bhakti-yoga can God be known.
James Blivingham - Tue, 22 Nov 2016 02:13:37 EST 7yzzAWz2 No.207289 Reply
spirituality is connection with something greater than you (God or higher being/force)
religion is an organized connection with something greater than you (God or higher being/force)
philosophies contributing to the creator of everything; different ways of connecting to that creator
Martha Collermetch - Tue, 22 Nov 2016 15:44:28 EST aEaeNBh+ No.207292 Reply
>This world is comprised of the five elements

Actually, this world is mainly composed out of iron, oxygen, silicon, magnesium, sulfur, nickel, calcium, aluminium and some other random stuff.


View Thread Reply
- Mon, 29 Aug 2016 22:41:17 EST MkqaTAMB No.206655
File: 1472524877831.jpg -(77757B / 75.93KB, 640x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Transweirdia
Hey, so I'm 25 and I tolerate and appreciate transgender people, but it's still kind of weird to me. For example, I saw a girl I went to highschool with post about her young child,

>>[Child] asked me today if she's a girl or a boy. I told her she gets to pick. I said I'm a girl, and daddy is a boy, but [friend] 's mommy [name3] is both. She asked if [friend] was a boy, and I told her I think he is right now, but lots of people change their minds later, so he may decide to be a girl eventually. She decided she wants to be like [name3] and be both.

So I'm like, OK, good for them - how does that make my life worse in any way? They and [name3] went on to clarify the distinction between sex and gender. I wouldn't say I'm transphobic; yet, at the same time, it's just weird feeling. Like, sex changes have occurred since the 1950s and trans people have existed possibly forever, but it still feels a little tumblr-y to me when I read stuff like this. It makes me cringe a little, reflexively. Does anyone else feel this way? Will it go away with time and exposure to trans life?

Also, it just feels odd to me that there are soooo many trans people coming out these days - but aren't they like, less than 2% of the population? (in the USA or world? not sure) I guess it just SEEMS like a lot because they aren't as afraid anymore.
78 posts and 10 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Shitting Fessletot - Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:58:21 EST 0aDGMcny No.207244 Reply
"Actually I feel like weaboos often exaggerate the cultural stereotypes of Japanese people."
"Actually I feel like wiggers often exaggerate the cultural stereotypes of black people."
"Actually I feel like immigrants often exaggerate the cultural stereotypes of indigenous people."
Actually I feel like [any group that has to learn a culture to enter it] often exaggerates [the characteristics of that culture] while they are trying to learn them just like when you were a kid and exaggerated how cool you thought transforming robots were because it was new to you and you were still trying to get a hang of it. You don't still get as worked up about transforming robots now do you? (do you?)
Alice Hoppertene - Tue, 15 Nov 2016 07:41:27 EST 54PBc7Id No.207246 Reply
As someone who's friends with a lot of trans people, I agree that they exaggerate gender stereotypes and take gender more seriously than other people. The thing is, when they're young they think gender is like this big deal and that since they don't conform to the gender they're born into they rationalize it as that they were supposed to be the other gender, like they feel like they're supposed to be the sex of the gender stereotypes they most closely align with. Like, they want to be treated like the other people in the gender they most closely align with, is how it seems to me, and so they try to look like girls or even get operated on to be a girl. I find that a significant portion of trans people settle into their real gender once they're an adult, but then there are others that just feel sick of being the gender they are by the time they're an adult.
Reuben Hangerbury - Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:41:41 EST Ry/UiP1R No.207272 Reply
This is what I think too and I was asked to leave my University's mandated diversity requirement class (related to gender studies of course) because I kept questioning the professor's assertions that biology has nothing to do with gender roles. It all seemed so ridiculous to me.


View Thread Reply
- Sat, 05 Nov 2016 11:55:46 EST shmK6ute No.207158
File: 1478361346821.jpg -(13427B / 13.11KB, 299x300) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. /pss/
Where everyone thinks they're better than everyone else and every thread devolves into a pissing contest of who knows more.

Protip: Take some drugs, and no matter how retarded you think the other guy sounds, don't be a dick. Reasoned discourse is a collaborative effort. Whether we succeed or fail, we do so together.
12 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Charlotte Lightshaw - Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:23:02 EST 54PBc7Id No.207195 Reply
>I hate people who contribute to this board with philosophies I consider too fantastic to be realistic.
At least they fucking contribute.
Hedda Girryhall - Fri, 11 Nov 2016 19:30:20 EST FSAozKjO No.207217 Reply


It's just drivel, whichever way you meant that word

And yeah can we talk about actual philosophy now
Archie Simbleman - Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:05:24 EST 4do4rcf2 No.207275 Reply
tfw OP ironically feels he's too good for discussion nb

Since there isn't any meaning to life

View Thread Reply
- Sat, 08 Oct 2016 07:19:30 EST 6RZMk6jO No.206985
File: 1475925570684.jpg -(23129B / 22.59KB, 500x427) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Since there isn't any meaning to life
which gives any subjective meaning equal justification, does that mean that no life has been lived without meaning?

The only justification I can give for the statement of life not having any meaning is: the objective biological meaning of life doesn't support any spiritual, philosophical nor religious meanings.
11 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Polly Smallspear - Sat, 29 Oct 2016 09:22:06 EST nrMZmil1 No.207132 Reply
"Meaning" is something we abstract from value-experience often with certain social-cultural categorizations. Value-experience will always exist as that's what being is. It's not just that that means each person has their own meaning or whatever though - experience is fundamentally an interaction with an environment and gets its value in large part from it i.e. it's relational.
Isabella Tootspear - Mon, 31 Oct 2016 06:36:01 EST aEaeNBh+ No.207134 Reply
The whole point of that post was to inject some modern perspective onto ancient thinking.
Sidney Honeydale - Wed, 02 Nov 2016 18:47:53 EST BKJX7E+7 No.207140 Reply
1478126873183.jpg -(37272B / 36.40KB, 350x321) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

>The only justification I can give for the statement of life not having any meaning is: the objective biological meaning of life doesn't support any spiritual, philosophical nor religious meanings.

Spiritual and religious meaning can easily be discarded in a universe your question predispose.

So in a world were humans came to be as is, without any guy-in-the-sky or some mystical shittery going on, all that matters is your own view of things right?

Meaning is something which you're gonna have to deal with regardless of the nature of the universe, because you're human. You have a relationship with everything that you perceive, including your life. Now if you were to regard your existence as 'meaningless' that would still require you to make a judgment on value or rather meaning, which means no matter how nihilistic your sorry ass is, you're still gonna have to judge it; meaning it still fucking exist in your monkey brain.

I don't know, I didn't quite get my point across here I think. I mean that to say that 'life has no meaning' means that you have an understanding of meaning and you have decided that your own life means nothing compared to that understanding of 'meaning'.

As fucking owner of an ape-brain, that way of thinking is ridiculous as all that matters is what you experience from that ape-perspective. Do you like to get drunk? Do you like the way the light reflects on the autumn leaves? Do you still wanna see where this absurd existence of yours ends? No? Then why haven't you off'd yourself? Unless, your life has meaning after all and you're just an edgy fag.

coping with being dumb

View Thread Reply
!NkmH2xeNp2 - Thu, 13 Oct 2016 03:31:08 EST j3mZet9D No.207020
File: 1476343868025.jpg -(192752B / 188.23KB, 1024x619) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. coping with being dumb
F's from gradeschool until 8th grade when I dropped out. Never learned anything. Kids were mean. I took a psychological exam/IQ test last year and I scored 102. Not the online ones, but the kind a psychologist gives. Takes half a day. I don't have any trade skills.

I just wonder what I am. What I am good for. I like to think about the world, like what is going on, what is the truth. We live like people in a TV show, I know that much. About society. It is really deep, like hard for me or you or anyone to think outside of. Thinking outside of the box is not possible if you don't know what's the box and what's not. But I can't talk about it. People start talking about what I love to think about and they just go over my head. I don't get to share or understand. I can only think about it in my head, and I can't relate to anything anyone says. I think it is philosophy, but I'm dumb.

I feel like a lonely rock sitting in a brain that wants to jump off a bridge. I take meds so I don't kill myself but I want to anyway. I wish someone would hold me.
11 posts and 4 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Phyllis Sucklehood - Mon, 24 Oct 2016 03:31:02 EST dUlpdtml No.207110 Reply
I am so depressed after reading about learned helplessness. It means that I programmed myself to be this way and it is my fault that after understanding it, I do nothing to better myself.

I don't want to live anymore, I don't have anyone anyway and I have been so lonely. Learned helplessness is another way of saying that everything is my fault, and it's all true.
Thomas Fasslehall - Thu, 27 Oct 2016 23:27:04 EST hvs4h/ox No.207127 Reply
Well if you were to be aware of the ability to notice something that you knew existed in theory but at this point in your "autobiographical record of flotating consciousness" or what is above you in your opinion as your life, but seemed to not neccesarily hostily but in some way seemed out of access to you.

Like every time you started it you felt a sense of fatigue. That is learned helpessness.

It isn't your fault, it's admitting that the way we learn is faulty. That could be depressing, but in it's own cartwright it's helplessness gets you to admit belief.

You are in a position that is a negative, but the cause of concern is that in learning this should not be, based on a predestination we see in the cartography of the day we enter school.

Or a positive optimism of learning. Why is that in learning, because learning's flaw is also it's potential. The outlet of learning you have learned helplessness is the meta. The metacognitive position of seeing thoughts, thinking about thoughts. When you see that in a structure you see that belief. That's when you know it hasn't been your fault.

It came because you were learning. Have you ever been belief. Chances are as a young child you swallowed a great deal of heart crushing through amazing resilency. That came to be expected in all the social circles around you and you carried yourself nursing your optimism somewhere far away from the place you were learning. And acted in the way you were expected to act.

All that learning because you were in school, came through behavior. Because you had to behave, there wasn't any time to step out of that and try to learn the way you were hoping to. Because that in theory is disruptive, not that in theory not doing that when you had the opportunity would be your fault either.

Because essentially learned helplessness comes from the faculty of trust that admits "learning" is trusting someone or something to tell you about it. Opening yourself up. Assuming the positive in essence, but before it was even an assumption.

When you approach it with the right attitude and are problematized in theory, and you become aware that by acting in this manner or that in a perception or "social set"(let's just say something around you that as a young child you may have not agreed with that didn't treat you well) you get through the class in a way that is accepted even if it's in the stigmatism you are uncomfortable with you feel the learned helplessness. You only get out of that by going metacognitive as an adult, that is only in theory because of an assumption about meeting a great teacher in adulthood. So you can see in thought how they treated this person that was you, in a condition and his or her thoughts within that.

You are experiencing it because everytime you do the activity the memory of all the other times is coming with it, because it is a hurdle you are going up against.

But in learning you didn't control you technically absorbed what you were immersed in. If you were a critical adult you might say, do not let another define you, do not let a person define what is success, do not let what is defined as a failure define your success towards your goal.

But as a child you went in under the guideline of "lets find out what is defined as this" to be on your best behavior was for you to let somebody or some text define something to you. That is because in theory that is not that bad, that is essentially being able to look at a globe and experience the world. But when it happens it's possible that there is a crowd of students who all seemed to run up to the globe before you and the teacher notices them. And you don't rush up to look at the globe.

But you are still opening up, so what is defined to you is an interuption of that process. Instead of feeling terra you feel terror. Because in that position some unassuming child may taunt you or if you ask kindly "can i see the globe or can i have my turn" (turns being of course part of the very fabric of reality) they can say "NO!"

In essence what happened to you were variations of a theme on opportunity, that isn't put into our textbooks because it's a "problem"(vocabulary saved for philosophy when we admit we don't understand what we have been teaching in all the fail safe ways we assume it to be to reach the concept of fact to have certainty) we have not figured out.

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Thomas Fasslehall - Thu, 27 Oct 2016 23:28:11 EST hvs4h/ox No.207128 Reply
It's not your fault, but what you are seeking is not that vindication, but the end to the nagging. Something that a coach would say is self defeatism. But a teacher might describe as something that exists in psychology itself. Because we are in philosophy in order to assert this, i may have to explain something else. So you see the philosophies are not so kind to a person who has experienced this yet, they have a unique way of relating or finding a person in this condition, because it's about seeking knowing. You have to realize the uncertainty, and self conciousness, eventually is controlled by a locus in you, but yet one that is external.

Perhaps if i were to offer advice i would do all the continuing before reconciling that contradiction. Because philosophy wants to discuss this in a manner through provacation, which will exacerbate it.

If you are in this state you will assume you are all the people that are cast as a subject of critque, especially in the associations that involve in or out groups. Or the ones who are good and the ones who are not.

You in reality have to keep doing it, in order to understand the semi vague and intense significance of what is being lets say "hurt" in you. And that what is often being anchored as controlling it, is in reality disrupting you.

The way people talk about the economy, the world, race, class will make you feel to one side or the other because the opinion is critical. The real assertion is that you are actually what determines it.

But not many people are going to be able to communicate to you, that you are the only thing that is real, without experiencing the same classic sense of regret.

Because that assertion was made often after the kind of cynicism you are experiencing.

But its because before learned helplessness occurs, before the stigmatism you are free.

You are not disconnected or threatened by dichotemies of individual and collective.

And in reality when you are good you are one. you are high, you are bliss, you are thrilled, you are addicted, you are superlative, you are all those things we might say later in life.

The problem is in this position the very last thing that seems to be true in your emotional reinforcement(which is where you are having the difficulty) is true.

Just keep doing it, because then afterwards where you are thinking happy thoughts you won't experience sad ones, when you are thinking of an answer you won't hear internal heckling, and when you are pulling a meaning you won't hear instant criticism of scolding or an imagined other losing it's patience. You will find that association back as soon as the belief in ones self starts to take place.

Going to philosophy for that is a risky proposition because the self is often what is in question.

ancient symbols are anathema toLGBT people?

View Thread Reply
!Y5l541i8x. - Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:08:37 EST bl/5SlpY No.207084
File: 1476839317485.jpg -(85394B / 83.39KB, 416x448) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. ancient symbols are anathema toLGBT people?
the duality of man and woman, the penis and vagina and ying and yang. but now we know those symbols were wrong and transgendered and gay people existed all along. how do they fit into our system? are we living in a false system of man and woman and is LGBT breaking barriers (explains the worldwide resistance), basically forcing people give up their comfortale BUT FALSE way of life?
Hamilton Pezzlegold - Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:30:01 EST 0aDGMcny No.207089 Reply
The male and female when in esoteric symbols are themselves just symbols of the polar, positive and negative aspects of reality, the active and the passive, the light and the dark, etc. The connection to biological sex is coincidental, and of course LGBT people still participate in and can celebrate the polar quality of reality.

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