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


- 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.
Samuel Summlestock - Fri, 11 Nov 2016 15:17:10 EST 0aDGMcny No.207197 Reply
Here's a philosophy for you: we dun fucked up.
Charlotte Lightshaw - Fri, 11 Nov 2016 15:45:15 EST 54PBc7Id No.207198 Reply
That's not a philosophy, that's a statement. If you state 'we dun fucked up' you should have a proof attached to it.
Samuel Summlestock - Fri, 11 Nov 2016 15:53:45 EST 0aDGMcny No.207200 Reply
Not much for jokes or sarcasm huh? You must be a riot at parties.
Charlotte Lightshaw - Fri, 11 Nov 2016 16:03:24 EST 54PBc7Id No.207203 Reply
I'm not here for jokes or sarcasm. When I go to parties, I joke. When I wax philosophy, I don't joke.
Charlotte Lightshaw - Fri, 11 Nov 2016 16:05:30 EST 54PBc7Id No.207204 Reply
But I am a riot at parties. I'm the guy who always shows up with a ton of booze and weed for everyone to enjoy with me. I brought this massive pipe to a party in West Philly the other day; you could fit about 2 grams of herb in this thing's bowl crevice. God damn did I get a lot of people blazed and I got a ton of free beers from them.
Samuel Summlestock - Fri, 11 Nov 2016 17:16:27 EST 0aDGMcny No.207211 Reply
That's cool bro, I think you would have come across better though if you had just made your own joke about it -- or ignored it and made a non-joke reply to OP -- instead of getting super cereal about it.

You want some actual philosophizing? Technology has inadvertently created a propaganda machine so perfect that the meeting of minds in a common reality upon which democracy depends is hardly possible anymore. The reason we began public education was precisely to create a 'commons' intellectually so all citizens would have a stake in defending it. The future of democracy depends on the dismantlement of the 'hugbox' which facilitates the fundamental breakdown of the communication upon which society depends. Since the dismantlement of hugboxes is impossible because of the nature of technology, democracy as it currently exists is most likely doomed. Ergo: we dun fucked up.
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Sat, 12 Nov 2016 02:19:25 EST vano1wpA No.207219 Reply
1478935165830.jpg -(63942B / 62.44KB, 600x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
The American empire had already begun crumbling long before this election cycle started. Clinton could only have extended its lifespan, not reversed the decline. Trump will hasten the end, and with it, the death of global neoliberalism.

Brexit and Trump are just the foreshocks of the fascism and ethnonationalism which will become politically dominant in rich nations: in a few decades, huge portions of the Global South become effectively uninhabitable and hundreds of millions of starving brown people will flee north.

We were going to be fucked anyway. Climate change means that human civilization will likely not survive the 21st century. The acceleration of our destruction is a small mercy.
James Hellykun - Sat, 12 Nov 2016 07:35:18 EST hr36UbOO No.207221 Reply
>This is correct.

Tick tock niggas. Shit gets real in less than 20 years.
Augustus Tillingforth - Sat, 12 Nov 2016 07:39:46 EST aEaeNBh+ No.207222 Reply
You're being retarded. The UK and the USA are special in that they have huge swaths of uneducated voters.

It started there and it ends there.

You're right about the risks of climate change though. The way we humans live today, will mean humanity will be extinct in 10,000 up to 100,000 years, if you consider that we're heading to a nice mass extinction killing off all animal life bigger than a dog.
Archie Turveyforth - Sat, 12 Nov 2016 10:06:35 EST BKJX7E+7 No.207223 Reply

Humans are like fucking cockroaches. Evidently we can live permanently on practically any land mass in the world, and that's even without metalworking. We've survived countless natural disasters and man-made disasters. There's still civilians holding out in Aleppo for example. The Easter-Islanders survived their collapse, even though they cut down every single tree on their island.

It's not the human race that's in danger, it's our civilization.
Graham Brubberhudge - Sat, 12 Nov 2016 14:51:52 EST iAquTtgI No.207225 Reply
If Hillary would of won we'd all be forced to be feminists.

Trump will restore America back to a time when all lives mattered. The economy is going to be so good.
Reuben Collersteg - Sat, 12 Nov 2016 16:58:04 EST 0aDGMcny No.207226 Reply
>>when all lives mattered
Unless you're Mexican, or Muslim, or LGBT, or a journalist, or female.
>>the economy is going to be so good
If you're already rich.
Also, this is pretty much a /pol/ post. I mean the thread itself is pretty much on a razors edge of deserving to just be shut down with comments of 'take it to /pol/' but at least the other posters tried to take it in a wide view philosophical direction. This is just rhetoric.
Graham Brubberhudge - Sat, 12 Nov 2016 17:11:24 EST iAquTtgI No.207228 Reply
Trump will bring an end to Marx's philosophy in American government. And bring back the philosophy of the constitution.

>Unless you're Mexican, or Muslim, or LGBT, or a journalist, or female.
They don't know it, they might not even know it when it happens, but philosophically speaking, things will get so good for them too.
Reuben Collersteg - Sat, 12 Nov 2016 17:14:36 EST 0aDGMcny No.207229 Reply
Pure rhetoric, with nary a point, justification, or even irony. I don't care if you want to support Trump, but philosophize at least instead of just doubling down on 'hrr he's gonna make it great, you don't even know how great he's going to make it, because reasons!'
Graham Brubberhudge - Sat, 12 Nov 2016 17:56:17 EST iAquTtgI No.207230 Reply
>philosophize at least

I did.
>Marx's philosophy
>philosophy of the constitution
>philosophically speaking
Archie Turveyforth - Sat, 12 Nov 2016 17:59:04 EST BKJX7E+7 No.207231 Reply
1478991544149.jpg -(18404B / 17.97KB, 500x399) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
You thought The Wall was about keeping the latinos out?


It's all about jobs.

Trump won because he sold himself as the jobs-guy. When shit comes down to it, every fucking election is about personal financial security. If you don't think so you're a fucking idiot, people vote for their own egotistical means.

Last time you Americans voted for hope, but Obama didn't give you exactly what you wanted right?

The wealth gap only widened guys. The middle class got shafted as every modern American president has done. Then along comes a guy who talk about fucking with the establishment and forcing jobs back to your continent.

No shit Trump won. Seriously, after Comey did you expect any less? How the fuck can an identity politician win over a fucking demagogue when half your fucking voting mass are doubting their own and their children's future?
Basil Fannerfuck - Sat, 12 Nov 2016 19:13:42 EST 0aDGMcny No.207232 Reply
Using the word 'philosophy' is not the same as articulating a point. smh.

You're right. I don't know how brain dead HRC's campaign had to be to decide to double down on negative identity based messaging in the final weeks. Releasing a jobs plan would've been a slam dunk.

I thought of something genuinely related to the history of philosophy worth bringing up. At this point any sane observer is going to assent to the statement 'the western political world has entered a phase of far right nationalism.' So by definition, is Godwin's law suspended for the duration, or does it still have merit? Discuss, if you like.
James Hodgedet - Mon, 14 Nov 2016 07:09:22 EST aEaeNBh+ No.207233 Reply
>Trump will bring an end to Marx's philosophy in American government.

You don't even know what philosophy means, fucking retarded faggot.

Shut the fuck up you faggot, and leave this board. Fuck off back to circlejerk or the future. Where you belong.

Pretty much. If it had been Bernie vs. Trump, Trump would have lost big time.
James Hodgedet - Mon, 14 Nov 2016 07:12:05 EST aEaeNBh+ No.207234 Reply
>At this point any sane observer is going to assent to the statement 'the western political world has entered a phase of far right nationalism.'

Only in a few countries. Here in the Netherlands the far right nationalist parties are getting trashed hard due to brexit waking people up about the value of being in the EU, just typical right wing party chaos and infighting causing a splintering of the right wing vote and the rise of a 50+ party that specifically targets the elderly, stealing away even more right wing votes.

A lot of "far" right wing voters are just old uneducated people. They don't care about muslims or immigrants, they just want someone to ensure their pensions and healthcare etc.
Shitting Fessletot - Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:03:17 EST 0aDGMcny No.207239 Reply
>>only in a few countries
Yeah you're right that was my American conditioning of seeing myself at the center of the world acting up. It's hard not to despair when your country is occupied by such forces though, even if you're aware there is still good out there (even if we could go there, they want nothing to do with us and are taking an especial pleasure in watching our suffering i.e. Canada) Anyway glad to hear Brexit woke some people up in NL, hold the line against the dying of the light noble Dutchman *salute*
Alice Hoppertene - Tue, 15 Nov 2016 08:11:17 EST 54PBc7Id No.207249 Reply
Now that is some solid philosophizing. I'd like to hear more on these propaganda machines.

>human civilization will not survive the 21st century cus climate change.
I don't believe you for a second. You should provide proof of that, Flicker.
And even if the Earth becomes uninhabitable, which is something humans can't do to the Earth short of causing a Nuclear fallout, who's to say in 1000 years from now the human race isn't already extinct because it has evolved into a superior race of machines? Not kidding. A day may come where humans start becoming mechanized to get around the hardships of living/the decay of natural cells, and before you know it, the last human will be uploading their mind into something much better than human.

>Unless you're Mexican, or Muslim, or LGBT, or a journalist, or female.
If you think that the USA will become worse for Mexicans, Muslims, LGBTs, journalists and women due to a Trump presidency, I expect you to prove it, because most of us just don't see that happening. That's rhetoric of a liberal nature. That's propaganda.
Phyllis Suddlenore - Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:42:54 EST 0aDGMcny No.207253 Reply
>>I'd like to hear more on these propaganda machines
It's really nothing more complicated than the algorithm in your social media that makes a determination, based on your past usage history, of whether to begin funnelling you stories it has categorized as 'right-wing' or 'left-wing.' As you click more and more stories in one category, it shifts it's internal value of what it thinks you are further, and thus you begin seeing even more and more extremely biased stories. You can turn this setting off in some (Facefuck) but few are even aware it exists and assume the news they are getting is the only truth, which is why when it comes time to debate with someone who has different beliefs, they can't even agree on what the facts are and any actual discourse is reduced to name-calling. This hasn't been true for almost the entire history of democracy, when people of all political persuasions had to rely on the same common, national media sources for information. Like I pointed out, public education was created specifically because the government realized democracy shackled its fate to the whims and therefore the intellect of the masses and so it had a vested interest in keeping everyone on the same page, engaged in the same reality. I don't really know if there's a way out of this quagmire while the human condition is what it is(but see what I said to the other point you raised below.)

>>human civ will not survive --> I don't believe you for a second
People in general don't know what's going to happen with climate change, so when people make extreme claims like that you should take it for granted they are talking about worse case scenarios to shock you into action. On the whole, I agree that humans are a tenacious bunch and don't go down easily no matter what you do to them.
>>then you bring up transhumanism stuff which gets me really excited because that's like my thing, man
Well I think the advent of super-sapient AI and the birth of the cyborg will probably happen in this century, well before 1000 years from now. In fact I think that most of our effort mitigating climate change will amount to hardly a percentage point; the only way we will stop climate change is through post-singularity technologies, perhaps under the advice of an AI.
>>humans will be extinct
But not this. Just because humans evolved doesn't mean we killed off all the apes. Just because we invented electricity doesn't mean there aren't still Amish and uncontacted people living in the jungle. There will always be bio-humans who wish to remain bio-humans and keep doing dumb bio-human things, and they will largely live in peace with cyborgs and AIs, just like we largely live in peace with Amish and apes.

>>Prove things will become worse
You can't prove something that will happen in the future, but you can make projections based on the past and what people have said. The number of hate-crimes against particularly Muslims and immigrants has reached a higher level than it did even after 9/11:
And while Trump's position on anything is pretty much suspect since he has articulated both sides of virtually every issue you care to mention, his VP certainly has very clear, hardline positions on LGBT rights and has put that into legislative force in his own state, and those he would put into his cabinet, as well as those now in power in Congress, have the same kind of track record. So if we're making the argument that his rhetoric counts for nothing, then we still have to look at the track records of those who he appoints to power as aspects of his emerging track record. That's not propaganda, those are just facts.
Cornelius Wacklefick - Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:21:03 EST aEaeNBh+ No.207259 Reply

That's not going to happen except for a small subculture.

The future is genetics. Biomechanical engineering.
Edwin Brookfuck - Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:08:33 EST 99s04+oS No.207260 Reply
I'm calling yo out OP for a poorly-disguised /pol/ thread on my /ego/
Hedda Hoffingbit - Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:50:48 EST 54PBc7Id No.207262 Reply
I don't know why people like you talk about genetics and biomechanical engineering. Who the fuck needs that when you can just insert your mind or your brain straight into a robot that can withstand any climate and not need air or sustenance except maybe sunlight or some shit?

Politics and Philosophy go hand in hand. This is political philosophy, nucca. It ain't politics talk. People on /pol/ don't take philosophy seriously.
Graham Huffingnere - Wed, 16 Nov 2016 18:14:03 EST 0aDGMcny No.207268 Reply
>>not going to happen except for a small subculture
Why? Eventually survival of the fittest takes hold, if we're long-term. A mechanical organism can be superior in every characteristic to a biological one no matter how enhanced.
Now, long before it becomes a very serious issue there will be molecular nanotechnology, so the distinction between mechanical and biological sub-systems will be blurred on the microscopic level. That would be a biomechanical contender from a fitness perspective, but merely modifying our genes won't let us getting out of the trap of being constrained to the possible states of proteins in terms of what we can do.

I'm also happy if I can attrition this secret /pol/ thread into a secret /future/ thread. Go /future/!
Hedda Fommleville - Thu, 17 Nov 2016 06:56:27 EST iAquTtgI No.207269 Reply
Art of the deal is the best philosophy book.
Molly Hunderwock - Thu, 17 Nov 2016 11:45:10 EST xA39R98b No.207270 Reply
>Eventually survival of the fittest takes hold, if we're long-term. A mechanical organism can be superior in every characteristic to a biological one no matter how enhanced.
Yeah and the only question is whether chicks want you to fuck them with your mechanized dick
Archie Miffingfoot - Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:02:01 EST /4mrk1ki No.207271 Reply
Why not? I have a variety of compatible plugs for her port, each capable of a pleasurable code injection and certified virus-free.
Isabella Hallymet - Thu, 17 Nov 2016 19:01:29 EST 0aDGMcny No.207277 Reply
I know you're joking, but it has to make sense to be funny. Robots don't reproduce by fucking human girls, ah-duh?
Lydia Dongerpen - Fri, 18 Nov 2016 06:21:45 EST aEaeNBh+ No.207278 Reply

A biomechanical organism is far superior to a mechanical organism, since a biomechanical organism can just eat and produce its own replacement parts.

There are already animals in nature that use crystals and metals in their body structure, so the idea that a mechanical organism would be superior to a biomechanical organism is utterly retarded.

Nevermind that a mechanical organism can't enjoy sex, good food or drugs.

And everyone knows that sex, good food and drugs is the only reason why our prehistoric ancestors didn't kill themselves immediately after becoming self-aware.
Phineas Fambletuck - Fri, 18 Nov 2016 10:20:09 EST 54PBc7Id No.207279 Reply
Nothing about biomechanics is superior to mechanics. Making everything biological is just stupid.
Machines can self-repair. Machines can reproduce. Machines can feel things like drugs while also being able to get to homeostasis instantaneously. Or at least, that's what a lot of people expect of machinery in the next 1000 years.
But also, what the fuck?
>There are already animals in nature that use crystals and metals in their body structure, so the idea that a mechanical organism would be superior to a biomechanical organism is utterly retarded.
Nigga you think that the minerals in my bones and the crystaline structure of my teeth are proof that biomechanics are superior to mechanics? I'd give that argument a 0/10.
Phyllis Perryville - Fri, 18 Nov 2016 17:07:13 EST xA39R98b No.207280 Reply
1479506833702.jpg -(347443B / 339.30KB, 1024x1536) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Yes it was a joke, but I was serious.
Besides you switched your stories it all went from
>cyborgs are gonna be just a small subculture
>cyborgs are gonna be the mainstream way of life
>robots rule the earth and build themselves

There's a definite distinction between cyborgs and robots. One's underlying existential essence is biological sentience and is after all a person, other one is purely mechanical and it's hypothetical consciousness is virtual, based off of programming.
The question whether you'll seduce some pussy with your cyborg dick applied to cyborgs, not robots. If that's not how you imagine the future cyborg society reproduces, then how? Sure there's a lot of ways to do it, like straight up kidnapping females and just use them for their ability to grow humans for whatever biological organs you want for the next cyborgs, breed females and males like cows or just clone the organs for the next cyborg generation and so on, but is that really what you think future human society reduces down to? Will the cloned brains even be human?

Besides, the question is packed with philosophical substance. What makes you think people will wanna give up things that makes us feel human for mechanical body, that potentially has no feeling to it. If we won't be able to feel physical pain (which I'm sure would be one of the promises of mechanized body), we won't be able to feel pleasure. I imagine the only dudes willing would be ones like pic related - who are already so far out there, lost interest in pussy and hope for humanity. We have capabilities to turn this planet into big spicy radioactive piece of space debris. I think the other ones would rather use that than having to give up their human body for hydraulic limbs and pumps to stay awake.
And if the soulless cyborgs wanna use the radioactive lifeless planet that'll be left of that hypothethical push from humans to cyborgs, then let them enjoy that and have fun, I wouldn't really give a fuck.
Isabella Hallymet - Fri, 18 Nov 2016 18:11:55 EST 0aDGMcny No.207281 Reply
How did this discussion become even more of a headache than talking about the election? *groans*

You clearly don't know much about the state of technological research viz robotics and AI, so I can't fault you for having this general knowledge understanding of robotics, but you shouldn't act like you know more about it than people who do. We aren't talking about Robbie the Robot here, ok?
I already reminded you that future robotics will likely include molecular nanotechnology as a component. An artificial organism that has molecular nanotechnology as part or whole of it's substrate would be capable of eating (in fact, it could do things with what it ate that your body can't, like actually break down molecules into elements more basic than your body can and reconstitute them into any other kind of molecule, all without the need for enzymatic catalyzation) and would also be capable of synthesizing it's own replacement parts internally.
Biological systems are just mechanical systems that have been engineered by natural selection, which means they are almost all sub-optimal purely from a physicalistic, biomechanics perspective. So I don't see how you can make the argument that a biological system is superior to a mechanical one when a biological system is merely a particular, only moderately optimizable, mechanical system.
There are no animals that are composed of metals or crystals, mostly they are used as incidental components in metabolic reactions. Even the most resilient biological materials are only a fraction as strong as some of our artificial materials. If I can step on one organism and squish it, and another no matter what steps on it will never get squished, I think it's clear which one is superior from a survival perspective.

>>Nevermind that a mechanical organism can't enjoy sex, good food or drugs
This is just anthropocentrism, plain and simple. A sentient AI would be capable of experiencing all the pleasures a human could if properly constructed. You are just a robot made out of meat and shit, what do you think makes you so special that you can experience these things but other entities can't?

I didn't switch my story. You have confused posters from different sides of the argument. Jesus fucking Christ.

I think your statement trying to draw a distinction between biological sentience and 'hypothetical consciousness' is pure anthropocentrism. What is unique about the human organism that somehow makes the awareness its brain produces different or better than other intelligent media that might be self-aware?

>your statement applies to cyborgs, not robots
No, my statement applied to robots, which is why I said robots. Robots won't reproduce by fucking humans, they won't reproduce by fucking at all, unless two robots decide to share schematics while they're drawing up a robot they're working on together.

>>in the future, cyborgs will reproduce by fucking
Unlikely, I mean if they wanted to they could, but it would be horribly inefficient. Reproduction will probably have to be kept to a minimum for biological organisms because of their much higher energy costs until we are actively colonizing space. Artificial reproductive technologies will be very popular for bio-humans, since they will be able to program genes that best help their children compete with cyborgs and AI. People will still fuck, just for fun, but actually creating a new sentience by baking it in a human's womb will probably eventually confine to rustic subcultures.

The whole abducting women for organs thing sounds like a pretty fucked up fantasy, but that's all it is, fantasy. Any civilization at this level of technology would be able to grow any biological structures, organs or otherwise, it needed from scratch. The role of bio-humans will be to be supported by the cyborgs and AI in the same way that we now support the existence of the Amish and apes in zoos. They are not prey, they are quaint throwbacks who we try to keep happy and do our best to let them continue to behave the way they otherwise would.

Your final paragraph is based on a misunderstanding of evolution and a misunderstanding of robotics. An australopithecus might well ask why we wanted to become upright and learn to use tools, when surviving in nature and being free of responsibility is what makes life as a hominid enjoyable. The answer is that evolution doesn't care about what we like, think, or feel. It only cares about what has the best chance for survival. Either most people(i.e. Homo sapiens, the organism) will continue to go with the wave of evolution, and thus have to enhance themselves to keep up, or most people will choose to remain the way they are, and the wave of evolution will leave the human species behind, as it did to every one of our ancestors. This isn't a choice we make about if we want to do it or not, it's a choice we make about whether we want to participate or become museum pieces.

>>a robot/cyborg wouldn't feel physical pain
Pain is an instrumental sense to an organism. We already have sensors capable of detecting pain for use in the disabled. A cyborg or advanced robot would necessarily have a sensory input for damage, it would just have conscious control over the intensity of the signal and its connection to an emotional response. We actually do the same thing in response to pain, we just don't have much direct control over it because our brains are analog, rather than digital, computers.

>>a robot/cyborg wouldn't feel pleasure
Pleasure is also an instrumental sense to an organism that developed in natural selection for a good reason and wouldn't be thrown out. By having a sense of the good and the pleasant, we are spurned to change the world. Without a sense of the good and an experience of pleasure, all progress would cease. Cyborgs would have this by default, and we would engineer this sense in AI if we wanted it to have any hope of actually acting rather than reacting. It's just another bit of programming that we have in our heads in the form of neural networks, that we merely have to replicate in the form of silicon networks.

>>hydraulic limbs and pumps
Ok clearly everything you know about futurism comes from bad sci-fi, so just stop. A cybernetic organism or robot based on molecular nanotechnology could be so functionally and aesthetically identical to a human that actually (as people commenting on Westworld have recently noted) even with the medical scanning technology we have now, we have no way of determining that we *aren't* this kind of robot ourselves (obviously we aren't if we use common sense, but we have no empirical way of proving this isn't the case currently.)

>>the only way humans can evolve into cyborgs is by nuking the planet
Please stop watching shitty post-apocalyptic movies and using that as the sole basis for your knowledge about the future of humanity. Why is everything about death, destruction, and subjugation? Isn't there such a thing as reasonable progress and careful growth? You make me wish the cyborgs would hurry up and nuke this place with that kind of attitude. Maybe we should try to make things better instead of just assuming everything will go to shit? You know that what you believe creates reality, so by believing all this pessimistic garbage, you're having a hand in creating it, right?
Martha Collermetch - Tue, 22 Nov 2016 15:51:00 EST aEaeNBh+ No.207293 Reply
>I already reminded you that future robotics will likely include molecular nanotechnology as a component.

That kind of technology is far away, from our point in history. But yeah, on such a timescale I do agree with you. Although, it seems likely that by then, technology has advanced so far, that whatever that lifeform is, does no longer fit in our current descriptions of "biological" or "mechanical" life.

In the near future, we will more likely see biomechanical implants than straight up cyborgs. No one except a couple freaks will be cutting their limbs off so they can go all Gunther Hermann "The maintenance man knows I like orange!".
Fanny Drimmleheck - Tue, 22 Nov 2016 17:29:31 EST 0aDGMcny No.207294 Reply
Well in response to your comments on timescale, I would refer you to the general banter on /wc/ and to the broader thought in the futurist community. Technological progress happens on a logarithmic scale even though from any given point in history it appears to occur linearly. The things you think are far off are closer than you can imagine. Nanotechnology has already made tremendous strides; we have nanomachines that can dispense drugs directly to the cells they're needed to, nanomachines that can 'walk' in a molecular way, even a new nanotechnology for capturing carbon straight out of the atmosphere and turning it into usable fuel. People thought the kinds of computers we have today were centuries off just a few decades ago.
Edward Ducklecocke - Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:41:25 EST fk7xMmwU No.207332 Reply
I don't know how philosophical this is but this is a fantastic sign. The West (especially Europe) have been sick with self-hatred for so long and this represents a definitive rejection of it.

Trump is essentially the American version of what is going on in Europe right now: The so-called far-right is gaining so much ground.. The people of the West are rejecting critical theory, self-hatred, nihilism and are rebelling against an elite, leftist establishment that has been destroying their nations, their culture and their entity for decades.

If the west keeps going down the road that it has since WW2 (perhaps before, I'm just trying to be concise), it will be gone within 50 years. Its people will be replaced, its institutions will collapse and its philosophy, its art and its literature will be largely forgotten as Europe turns into Eurabia and America devolves into the obvious mess that it's heading towards. Trump is not as well-spoken or as intelligent or as coherent as his European counterparts such as Geert Wilders or Marine Le Pen, but he is still necessary.

This is not a complete solution; Europe and America will still be steeped in nihilism, materialism and leftism. Identitarianism and the European new right is a great step in the right direction, and Trump (to some extent) represents that. We are still heading towards collapse but this might postpone it a long while.
Oliver Goshhone - Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:00:28 EST d4DXKOh3 No.207335 Reply
Are you fucking retarded? You don't even know what nihilism is.

Get the fuck out of here. Get back when you understand some basic philosophy you retarded cunt.
Wesley Cennerstutch - Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:44:06 EST 54PBc7Id No.207336 Reply
>Are you fucking retarded? You don't even know what nihilism is. Literally fuck everything you just said and don't expect me to respond to it intelligently because it ended with you fucking saying the First World is steeped in nihilism.

Thanks for contributing.
Oliver Goshhone - Tue, 29 Nov 2016 16:48:31 EST d4DXKOh3 No.207337 Reply
If someone just barges in talking bullshit and pretending to be a tryhard, I'm not going to be polite. Edward Ducklecocke is a fucking retarded faggot and should straight up fuck off.
Edward Ducklecocke - Tue, 29 Nov 2016 16:59:25 EST fk7xMmwU No.207338 Reply
1480456765070.jpg -(112881B / 110.24KB, 718x628) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Since the only thing i mentioned about nihilism is the fact that it is pervasive throughout Europe and you think i don't understand nihilism based on that, it seems like you are saying that nihilism isn't something that Europe is filled with. You are fucking retarded.
Ian Sapperson - Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:04:08 EST uC//e/jO No.207342 Reply
1480511048402.jpg -(12818B / 12.52KB, 259x194) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
The far right is a greater threat to Europe than any Arab threat you sickening fantasists invent. Death to all fascists.
Thomas Honeyshit - Wed, 30 Nov 2016 14:47:37 EST d4DXKOh3 No.207344 Reply
You clearly don't know what nihilism is when you say Europe is filled with it.

Europe had nihilists running around when fascists and communists were running around. Learn some philosophy before you open your retarded the future immigrant mouth.
Jack Goodfoot - Mon, 05 Dec 2016 09:00:53 EST fk7xMmwU No.207391 Reply
It's ok that you don't understand politics or philosophy. Don't worry about it mate.
Charlotte Siddlehall - Mon, 05 Dec 2016 09:47:49 EST 54PBc7Id No.207393 Reply
The centrist movement (which is never mentioned or imagined) going on throughout the USA will be the key to fixing our current far-left problems in the country, a key to finally putting to rest the communist-fascist 'liberals' who have endless feelings and zero rationality. Trump is one of us centrists. He appeals to the right significantly more than the left because the Left believe he is fascist-far-right due to ceaseless propaganda they've been witnessing for years while the Right believe him to be anti-Obama, anti-PC, anti-ultra-liberal, pro-border-control, pro-peace, etc, which they see as the answer to what Obama and the liberals have been conducting for the last 8 years.

Nobody except libtards care about the far-right. The far-right is but a tiny group in the USA that is very vocal.

Actually, I take that back. They're hardly vocal at all. The problem is that every little thing they say is echoed 100x through the liberal media in order to further the narrative that there are many far-right-wingers when in reality there are but a few. And then they go one step further by pretending that central and right-wing movements are far-right simply by overlooking their left/centrist stances and only obsessing over their right-wing stances. And in central and right-wing groups, you're going to get plenty of right-wing stances, like enforcing borders and opposing socialist rhetoric.
Charlotte Siddlehall - Mon, 05 Dec 2016 09:51:45 EST 54PBc7Id No.207394 Reply
Case and point; while Trump and the majority of his supporters valiantly preach and practice debate over fighting and peace over violence, the very few supporters who do preach violence and fighting are the ones positioned on the front pages of liberal news outlets. And then fanatical liberals create fake accounts and fake pictures/videos/screenshots of 'Trump supporters' and spread that shit like wildfire through social media.

There's a storm of propaganda gripping the USA, but luckily those of us from the left/center/right who realize just how much bullshit there is out there can usually band together in agreement that these things and the bullshit they produce is cancerous to society, and we all stand unified against it, yet our own peers and allies are already die-hard pawns who resent and oppose us for our stances, they regard us as 'enemies' because that's what their propaganda tells them to do.
Simon Mabbleville - Mon, 05 Dec 2016 17:56:44 EST 0aDGMcny No.207399 Reply
Well that's the problem with propaganda. No body likes it, but everyone uses it, and especially if you aren't willing to debate an issue over the accepted facts, you're left with no recourse but to deny those facts and thus start creating propaganda.
Propaganda is probably an intractable property of a civilization made of subjective entities. Unless everyone was omniscient, it will always be the case that most of the things that happen you won't be able to experience first hand and will thus have to rely on believing someone else's account, and as long as your belief or disbelief has tangible consequences for someone else, there will be an incentive to get you to believe or disbelieve things independently of what is actually true.
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.

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