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


Discord Now Fully Linked With 420chan IRC

Ancient Chinese story

View Thread Reply
- Thu, 15 Dec 2016 16:46:46 EST 0bScNOuz No.207458
File: 1481838406401.jpg -(65585B / 64.05KB, 400x534) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Ancient Chinese story
Hey /pss/. I don't really venture into the social sciences too much so I'm not sure if this would be better suited for /his/ or not. In any case, a friend of mine who was a student of Eastern philosophy recently died. I have since then been trying to tack down a story he once told me. It was about an ancient philosopher who I think was Chinese. The story had the philosopher lying in a ditch when a person comes along and offers to help him. The philosopher made some clever remark and refused the man's help. I believe he said something about no one being able to help him but himself, or maybe he just liked the ditch or some other nonsense.

Does anyone on /pss/ know a possible source for this story or the name of the philosopher? I have tried multiple search engines and quieries to no avail.
1 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Thomas Pockstock - Sun, 18 Dec 2016 13:43:02 EST iAquTtgI No.207473 Reply
There's one about two monks who help a lady across a river and the lady doesn't say thank you, so later that day the young monk is like fuck that bitch and the old monk says "I carried her across the river, you've been carrying her all day."
>>
Hannah Feblingfit - Mon, 19 Dec 2016 16:58:22 EST rKFvzvQa No.207490 Reply
It may be a variation on one of those common stories. I was just wondering since I'm sure my friend said a particular name when he told it and I wanted to be able to look up the original text it came from. Thanks for taking a look at this.
>>
Eugene Pendlemut - Thu, 12 Jan 2017 06:05:50 EST Jv6wkL6u No.207573 Reply
pretty sure that the story OP is talking about is a zen koan, though I can't remember the specific koan in question.

Google "The Gateless Gate" and "Shobogenzo" and get reading, it'll be floating around somewhere on the internet.

NDE

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 04 Jan 2017 15:30:31 EST 54PBc7Id No.207543
File: 1483561831832.jpg -(24899B / 24.32KB, 492x250) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. NDE
So I've had a few NDE's, one of which was ongoing for months and months while the others were instantaneous. It was really the one that went on for months that had the most drastic impact by far.

But anyway, I noticed that I actually line up with all of these symptoms of NDE.
Anyone else here a fellow NDE'er?
http://iands.org/aftereffects-of-near-death-states.html
6 posts and 3 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Charlotte Bluddlegold - Sat, 07 Jan 2017 15:48:51 EST BKJX7E+7 No.207562 Reply
>>207556

>If consciousness is infinite and immortal, it is in your body's best interest, and is an emergent evolutionary phenomenon, for you to have no knowledge of this.

Yet there's plenty of religions that argue that we indeed have an immortal consciousness in the form of a soul. Believers "know" this to be true, and indeed act like it as well.

So there'd be a real issue here with your argument if we're gonna take the evolution of mind into context here.

My argument was that NDEs exist as a behavioral strategy to survive in the event that your old behaviors leads to your near-death. Sure, not a strong point and I can think of many counter-arguments, both evolutionary and philosophical, against it.

But yours is that the body itself has some mechanisms to prevent us from realizing our supposed immortal nature. This is in my view even worse, for example wouldn't our bodies prevent the development of spiritual religion as a consequence?
>>
Cornelius Gottingridge - Sat, 07 Jan 2017 17:49:58 EST 2GsJcMxc No.207563 Reply
>>207562
No, there are evolutionary benefits to believing in spiritual things without knowing them in the same way we know the feeling of gravity pushing our bodies down. it can help reduce anxiety and fear, and give one a sense of purpose to believe in spiritual things.

It's just like temperature. If we get too hot, we die, but with no heat we also die. There is an ideal amount of heat.

In the same way, there is an ideal amount of spiritual knowledge - a vague intuition, backed by belief. If the body allowed us to have too much spiritual knowledge it would threaten the body's survival, and if it allowed none, not even an unformed intuition of meaning, then its survival would also be threatened by nihilism which would lead to suicide of excessive risk-taking.

In fact, because religion and spirituality have evolved, we could say that it's in the body's interest to allow us to have partial, vague, obfuscated intuitions of immortality, while restricting clear knowledge of it.

I'm in a rush and I'm not alone right now, so this might not be as well formulated as it could have been.
>>
Jarvis Greencocke - Sat, 07 Jan 2017 21:57:39 EST Z08uqMmD No.207564 Reply
I'm a little drunk so I couldn't read the whole thing, but I've almost died several times; not from physiological trauma, but from a more instantaneous variety.

I show alot of the outcomes, including a lack of fear of death, although a healty fear of dying stays with me; I don't think dying will be pleasant though the aftermath will be fine.

The most pronounced NDE that I had involved rolling in a car. I was uninjured, but was able to see my relative importance in this world. Watching the traffic on the highway pass by my totalled car, it showed me how insignificant I am to this world. The world just kept on moving past my world changing event. It made me cry at first, huddled up in a blanket I scavenged from my trunk, on the side of the highway. I'm not sure why I cried, maybe just coming to terms with how insignificant I am.

Well that's what I took from it.

"Loving" children

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 03 Jan 2017 01:35:16 EST Id5quEqH No.207537
File: 1483425316822.jpg -(150914B / 147.38KB, 1520x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. "Loving" children
Sup /pss/, I gotta question. Usually when people think of pedophiles or hebephiles, people with a sexual attraction to the young and/or underage. the image we have is some sleezy pervert who exploits and manipulates children for his own sexual gratification. But do you think it's possible for a grown man or woman to genuinely experience what we would call "love" in the less familiar sense for someone who is underage and how underage and how far apart would the two parties have to be for it to be considered unreasonable?

Basically, what I'm asking is do you think it's possible for a person to be sexually attracted not so much to children, but to a particular child in such a way that it could legitimately be seen as love in the general sense as we understand it. And if that were the case, should society be willing to make a qualitative difference between that twenty or thirty something individual who engages in an otherwise monogamous affair with a thirteen year old boy or girl because he or she feels that they are "in love" with them, between him/her and say someone else who just has a queer sort of fetish for fucking thirteen year olds because "thirteen year olds are sexy"?
>>
Emma Gessletit - Tue, 03 Jan 2017 09:03:42 EST cU67cn3z No.207538 Reply
>>207537
I think such a thing is possible, but doesn't address the main argument against pedos, which is that children are innocent and can't make decisions, etc.

I think I would be okay with such a case if the feeling was mutual and nothing sexual happened until everyone was the legal age for consent (which should probably be 16).

I remember this rabbi pedo who had gay crushes on a number of the little jew boys, but he never acted on his feelings because he cared about them in a genuine way and didn't just want to fuck. Iirc, he told people about his feelings on his death bed, and that he didn't act on them.
>>
Matilda Buzzway - Tue, 03 Jan 2017 21:03:25 EST Id5quEqH No.207542 Reply
>>207538
>but doesn't address the main argument against pedos, which is that children are innocent and can't make decisions, etc.
>I think I would be okay with such a case if the feeling was mutual and nothing sexual happened until everyone was the legal age for consent (which should probably be 16).

I think most people would just say that a guy in his late 20's who falls madly in love with a 12 year old girl or a 30 something year old woman falling head over heels and writing love poetry for a 14 year old boy have mental problems. If the underage boy or girl also believed they had similar feelings, most people would probably tell them they're too young to understand.
>>
Angus Billingstone - Fri, 06 Jan 2017 20:07:08 EST 5FY/Jbq3 No.207555 Reply
>>207542
Yeah I agree lol. Only in strict situations (like post-apocalypse etc) could I sanction such a thing, and even then I can't imagine how intimate (non-sexual) romance could arise when an undeveloped brain is involved.

Castro

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:21:03 EST 54PBc7Id No.207325
File: 1480346463510.jpg -(73500B / 71.78KB, 800x892) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Castro
Let's wax philosophical about Fidel Castro. The guy just died, but he was a living legend. Many loved him, many hated him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro

I think it would be awesome if we could discuss something like this in-depth. Like, if any of you are familiar with Castro, you should tell us how you feel about Castro and why. I don't want people coming in and being like, 'Oh he was just a cunt dictator' or 'Oh he was a hero', I want you guys to actually reference things Castro has done when you mention your opinion of him. Like, I think it'd be great if we could talk about the specifics of his presidency and rebellion.
8 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
the flicker (Seinesgleichen geschieht) !FwnV7hV52I - Sun, 25 Dec 2016 01:18:50 EST DDgF44Bp No.207506 Reply
>>207450
>Pinochet
That's the crux of the whole thing, isn't it? Pinochet assumed power in a US-backed coup. For more than a century, the US did things like occupy Latin American countries, back right-wing death squads, oust democratically elected socialist leaders, and alone, Castro's Cuba successfully resisted. The amount of resources that the CIA invested in toppling the government of a tiny, irrelevant nation is almost as mind-boggling as the fact that they failed. Castro held onto power despite the ruinous economic damage of US sanctions and hundreds of coup and assassination plots. For that I must admire him.
>>
John Fanson - Sun, 25 Dec 2016 14:12:40 EST vzTBl2h4 No.207507 Reply
>>207325
He was just a cunt dictator, but I can't deny that he was also a hero.
>>
Charles Pibberhedge - Fri, 30 Dec 2016 11:05:50 EST 54PBc7Id No.207525 Reply
I read some clickbait article today, '15 reasons why Che Guevara wasn't a hero.'
I thought it was hilarious. Just goes to show how fucking ridiculous people are.

I call them ridiculous because they considered Che a hero to begin with. Why would anyone consider a South American/African Communist warlord a hero? Oh, that's right, because his face is on a fucking t-shirt and he was an enemy of the USA.

These same retards think Fidel wasn't the hero. Why don't people know anything about history? Is history class in school pointless?

Sigismund Schlomo Freud

View Thread Reply
- Sat, 17 Dec 2016 03:48:34 EST 5RTvrSPf No.207468
File: 1481964514674.png -(13424B / 13.11KB, 683x198) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Sigismund Schlomo Freud
What can /pss/ tell a layman about Mr. Froids?
8 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Phoebe Semmlestog - Mon, 26 Dec 2016 22:50:56 EST DLzNkYBL No.207509 Reply
>>207503
Mainly that every kind of volitional behavior and particularly subconscious impulses arise from sublimated or not so sublimated sexual/libidinal desires. Even phenomena so abstract as culture itself arise from the need to constrict and control the drive to obtain what one desires, and that these emerge from the sexual impulse because this is the only 'abstract' drive unlike the need for food, sleep, etc.
It's much more detailed than that, but that's the gist.
>>
Walter Brerringcocke - Tue, 27 Dec 2016 05:04:53 EST fRXySuYb No.207513 Reply
>>207509
Sounds sort of like circular logic. I'm not necessarily arguing against it or that he is wrong but it seems like Solipsism, cool idea to think about but it isn't falsifiable so how can it be proven?

I could relate the fact that I walk slightly different from everyone else to sex if I wanted to get really contrived. I dunno mayne. Not saying it is wrong at all, I think he is on to something but how can it be a good hypothesis if it relies on the subconscious or a part of the brain that we can't access in an objective and scientific manner?
>>
Phoebe Semmlestog - Tue, 27 Dec 2016 13:29:32 EST DLzNkYBL No.207514 Reply
>>207513
I don't see how it's circular at all. A circular argument requires the conclusion to be contained within the premise.
The fact that you walk differently from others IS due to re-directed libidinal impulses, under Freud's theory (unless it's a physical condition.) Your attempt to actualize your ego by behaving in a different way from your peers is a way of signaling your uniqueness to mates -- that one is actually pretty cut and dry.

Moreover, the subconscious is in no way unamenable to empirical ('objective and scientific') analysis. The subconscious is merely the part of the mind which is held at a level of attention so low that it doesn't enter into our executive process, which is a relatively small neural network. All subconscious brain activity occurs with the exact same kind of neuronal activity that conscious activity does, and in fact occurs in a vastly larger degree, so it is as directly susceptible to empirical investigation as everything else about the brain/mind.

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
>>207493
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
>>207481
> 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
>>207492
Nothing has ever happened to a game dev online that were actually making real games.

Privilege

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
>>207456
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.

Election

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.
>>207393

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
>>207393
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
>>207392
>>. 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
>>207400
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
>>207408
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
>>207304
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
>>207306
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
>>207319
HOW DARE YOU RECOMMEND SIDDHARTHA ASDFEGIGHIEWGRRE~!!!1!
jk
>>
Shitting Foddlechine - Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:14:08 EST 54PBc7Id No.207323 Reply
>>207319
>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
>>207273
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
>>207155
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
>>207310
You're skipping over the effect that all kinds of small little conspiracies have on each other.

Infighting.

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
>>206541
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
>>207109
>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.

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