/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

Currently at Radio Ernstiwan:


Hail Odin! by Christenklatscher666

M3U - XSPF


Niedliche Scheissmusik by Funpaku

Online player

M3U - XSPF


File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 53553 Systemkontra
146 kB, 1500 × 1500
>>
No. 53554 Kontra
95 kB, 668 × 900
Just passing by to set the mood

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LastggL21es
>>
No. 53555
Is it happy Easter or merry Easter?
Anyway, have a good one. Kinda late now but I've been sitting on this post for days now.

I got some chocolate, a fiver and a scratch ticket.
Spent the money on books, the ticked didn't win.
Whatever. I never win with these things.

Tomorrow we'll reach the 25% jab threshold and some stores will reopen with restrictions on how many people can be inside at once.
Which means I'm going to go out and buy some paper and a few blue ballpoint pens because I managed to exhaust the supply at home.
That and I can order books and pick them up at an affiliate store instead of having to pay for delivery.

Took out the Gaiwan. Haven't used it in a while. Mainly because for some reason I thought it's too much of a hassle to use. But really, it's much easier to just clean the small cup and the lid than to fuck around trying to fit my hand inside the teapot.
(Really, this new teapot is very aesthetic but not at all practical. It's a pain in the ass to clean.)
>>
No. 53561
>>53555
Happy easter. I'm actually kind of astonished that Hungarians do anything Easter tier in the way we do, or that you have scratch offs. I could imagine the UK having all that but not Hungary.
>>
No. 53562
>>53561
Giving us a scratch ticket is just my mother's idea, it's not a national tradition.
If you're very Christian you go to mass and do the pernoctation.
Folk tradition is pouring water on women after telling them a short humorous poem for the occasion. In exchange for which you get a red egg traditionally.
>>
No. 53566
>>53562
No I meant existence of it in general. I hadn't realized scratch offs existed throughout EU.
>pernoctation
I have no idea what this is
>pour water on them and get a red egg
Sounds pagan fertility rite tier. Which to be fair is basically what our Easter is in the American national sense, combined with commercialism of everything. Honestly it makes me super suspicious about how hard all the religious connotation was sucked out of our holidays. It's almost as if those in power are deliberately trying to wash out any traces of Christianity.
>>
No. 53568
55 kB, 450 × 338
132 kB, 800 × 531
>>53566
I associate scratch tickets with drunkards who're too impatient to play the normal lottery.
Never heard anyone win it big with a scratch ticket, and I myself only won a couple of times, which meant that the ticket is basically free because the prize equalled the price of the ticket itself.
I wouldn't buy one myself, but if I'm given one, I might as well take my chances.

>Pagan fertility ritual
Essentially yes. It evolved quite a bit.
Originally people would sneak up on women sleeping and pour a bucket of water on them.
The eggs were delicately painted and had their insides emptied so that they wouldn't go foul.
Then it got toned down a bit, using siphon-bottles as water guns.
Nowadays people use cologne or very minimal water if they want to be cheeky, but most people use cologne or perfume. The reward is money.
But a lot of people paint eggs too, since kids enjoy it.

Another tradition is using branches of a tree and hanging ornaments on it.
Don't know what it's called in English, but we call it "barka". It has a smooth texture and puffy flowers.
Supposedly it keeps away bad spirits.

I think the rabbit was originally part of a feudal tradition where the serfs would gift a rabbit with the eggs of a galeeny hen to their lords.

>I have no idea what this is
Had to look it up in the dictionary. Basically it's a practice some Christians do where they stay awake and pray during the day Jesus dies in the Bible.
>>
No. 53571 Kontra
I'm feeling tired and unfulfilled from posting inane schizo gibberish in the today thread.
I think I'm going to move on.
>>
No. 53574
359 kB, 731 × 480
>>53571
At least come back sometime! Seems like this board is dying a bit.

>>53562
I think as kid I got them as well for easter. My parents sent me some chocolate, I insisted upon not getting anything since they pay my student fees. Anyways, I'm not religious nor traditional but Happy Easter to the real celebrators. On german 20/30yo left twitter there are also theologicians and such which post about it in a celebratory way, who would have thought. Makes me think how religion in its different dimensions is a super interesting phenomenon which I know little about, sadly. Skipping the pedo shit or political aspirations in religion, there is definitely more to it that is in a way important to dwell on. But I guess for me more from a theologicians perspective.
>>
No. 53575 Kontra
>>53571
>I'm feeling tired and unfulfilled from posting inane schizo gibberish in the today thread.
>I think I'm going to move on.
...to the video game thread :DD
>>
No. 53578
>>53575
More like the cinema thread, lol.
I've been feeling terrible about not touching my backlog in over a year.

Then again, watching a form of media meant to be experienced in the cinema, in my dark room on a bad LCD screen just makes me depressed, that's why I avoid it.
Same with music. Whenever I listen to my favorite bands, I just feel sad that I'll never experience them live because I live in a shithole.

I used to be a context-free ubermann who evaluated things in vacuum, but it seems my resolve has finally broken. I am so lonely and isolated, that nothing holds meaning to me unless it is experienced in social context, which I do not have.
>>
No. 53579 Kontra
how tf do I find friends at 27 years of age?
>>
No. 53580
>>53579
Go where people are, talk to them.
>>
No. 53581
>>53580
Where are they?
My path every single day:
Work, gym, home.
Repeat.

Do you suggest approaching people in public or on the bus? Because that's cringe.
>>
No. 53582
94 kB, 1200 × 1192
>>53579
Usually I recommend clubs where you can meet with people with similar interests. Since I always was interested in sports, at least meeting new people was easy for me. If you're not doing regular sports (I remember you at least going running), still things like martial arts could be something for you. I did shotokan karate for a while, and there were lots of decent people which were fun to train with, and the training itself is really good, since it's basically full body training while also doing a little something for the mind (like the whole movement memorization during katas for example). Also no need to be afraid of injuries or people who punch you hard: It's harmless - except for your feet, which will be raw meat the first weeks because you're not used to running barefeet. As long as it's ok for you to neither become the next Schwarzenegger or an undefeatable MMA fighter (because karate doesn't do either) I can really recommend this.

I know that this option currently is not available due to the rona, but I think sports is a great way to make new friends, since the sufferings you share with your mates automatically creates a bond. There are a lot of people I was in sports teams with who I don't see regularly, but I still consider them friends. It's a little like old battle veterans who know that they can rely on each other.
>>
No. 53583 Kontra
>>53581
Some place where people meet because they are interest in a topic. That's what I would do, haven't done it so far here since I moved. Well...

t. 28
>>
No. 53586
7 kB, 211 × 239
Hi, Mintboard told me to go back to krautchan and this was the closest thing I could find

So.. is it ok if I dock my ship here? Y/N?
>>
No. 53587
>>53586
Sure, why not? Fair warning, though: frog posting can be controversial here.

>Mintboard told me to go back to krautchan
What comment did you make to elicit that response?
>>
No. 53588
>>53587
I told them my testosterone level was 472
>>
No. 53589
>>53588
Was that too high or low for them?
>>
No. 53590
>>53589.
I.. I don't know. You'll have to see for yourselves.
>>
No. 53596
>>53586
What the fuck is this board? Are we going to have personal one member boards in like a few years? Like how everyone has his own shitcoin.
>>
No. 53603 Kontra
>>53586
What kind of board is Mintboard?

t. lazy
>>
No. 53604
>>53603
hyper-ylilauta
>>
No. 53611
38 kB, 480 × 360
>This explains why, in Simondon's view, there is no such thing as a constituted psychic reality (something like a "psychological individual") that would constitute the object of a psychological science.

:DDD hot take
>>
No. 53612
The past 1-2 days it has been snowing. It's very weird. There's half an hour of snow, large pellets with silky smooth texture, then nothing for half an hour, then it starts snowing again.
It melts as soon as it touches the ground, but it's still weird. Sometimes it's more icy and you can hear it knock on the window.
Makes me feel like I'm more of a medieval peasant than a Victorian man of logic.
Like, it's snowing in April, that's not normal.

Even the blueness of the sky feels a bit more pale, despite the clouds' passing.
I'm not one with nature, but I wish I could be.

Also had really weird dreams, but despite the weirdness, it felt really pleasant and I was kinda sad that I had to wake up for classes.

China-Hungary relations book arrived today, along with a small, medieval epic titled The Saga of Strong-handed Walther.
Most of the book is just primary sources from 1949-1989. Internal memos and ministry documents.
It feels really eerie to read government documents that have "Top Secret!!!" in their header before the text starts.
The ones around 1956 seem especially interesting. "Chinese reception of the 1956 Budapest Revolution and the subsequent change in leadership" sounds like a possible topic for a bachelor's thesis.
Yeah, I'll note it down.
>>
No. 53615
>Rinse my underclothes until I can't smell anything when I sniff them.
>Squeeze out as much water as I can then put them on back on before bed so they're dry by morning.
Is there a point at which this will stop working?
>>
No. 53618
122 kB, 400 × 398
>>53615
What prevents you from using soap?
Also, you inspired me to make something.
>>
No. 53620 Kontra
23 kB, 372 × 339
>>53618
I laughed! Also that's basically what I always do with my bicycle pants, just that I don't immediatly put them on afterwards.
>>
No. 53621
2,0 MB, 3120 × 4160
There are some supposedly German beers with names like Fürst Chlodwig, Königsbacher etc. being sold in the store I usually buy my food. The weird thing is that they are too cheap compared to other German beers: they are about 3 rubles (approx. 1 euro) for half a liter while other German beers like Hacker-Pschorr and Paulaner cost about twice as much. So I kinda wonder if those cheap beers are even sold in Garmoney, or they are export-only crap for third world countries like mine? I bought one can to try it and it was actually pretty decent, but I'm not exactly a beer sommelier to know the difference.
>>
No. 53622
Why you guys rinse until smell is gone? Just use some detergent, put water and detergent in bowl, let it soak, then empty bowl, rinse and let dry?
>>
No. 53623
34 kB, 231 × 296
>>53621
Never heard of it, but google says it is. Every chain here has its cheap beer btw. with some old name like Ratskrone (0.35-0.45€ last time I checked). Also Turmbräu is sold here for 0.45€/can I think, at least when I was still a young adult.
>>
No. 53624
>>53623
I see. Well, I don't see any reason to pay more for beer that isn't much better than Belarusian beer (Lidskoye costs 2+ rubles for a liter, and I don't taste much difference between it and Fürst Chlodwig), so I don't think it's worth buying it. In fact, the only kinds of expensive (relative to local beers) beer that I really, really liked were British Newcastle Brown Ale and Czech Bernard Světlý Ležák.
>>
No. 53625 Kontra
Kinda expecting brick's autistic screeching that beer weaker than 8% alcohol isn't worth drinking anyway. XDDDDDDDDD
>>
No. 53626
>>53625
I hold no illusions about the quality of beer I drink. It tastes so vile it makes me want to puke on the first sip.
I drink it because it's the cheapest source of alcohol around. Can't beat half a dollar for 0.5l.

I don't like the taste of any alcohol, really. I just like how it makes me feel. Or rather, how it makes me NOT feel.

Maybe I should butt chug it instead.
>>
No. 53627
>>53626
>I don't like the taste of any alcohol, really
After a few years of almost no alcohol, regular beer tastes like rotten alcohol free beer to me.
>>
No. 53628
>>53626
>I drink it because it's the cheapest source of alcohol around.
Do you not have those cheap Soviet legacy "wines" (also known as "byrlo" or "dristuline") which costs about a buck for 0.75 bottle of 18%+ alcohol? They sell this kind of stuff like Dobry Kum or Tolochinskoye here, and it's a go-to drink for ancient alcoholics. I was always curious about those drinks, but I'm too much of a pussy to actually try them. The closest I got to drinking one of them was when I drunk the 777 Port wine on my buddy's birthday. To my surprise, it wasn't as awful as I thought it would be, probably because I was zakusyuing it with a nice chocolate cake.
>>
No. 53631
For so long I had to read weeb spergs acting all indignant and high and mighty about how "anime and cartoons are not the same thing" yadda yadda, but now I learned that anime is just a japanese word for cartoon, and they even call western cartoons "anime".
So there's literally no reason not to call japanese animated shows cartoons. Fucking spergs, and I actually bought their reasoning too. But the truth prevails.

>>53628
We used to.
But nowadays stores, at least in the places I am around, don't stock them.

There was actually one store near my apartment where I found some dusty old bottles of cheap fake port with 17% alcohol content, but I basically drank their whole stock and they didn't order any more.

I have developed a rhythm with beer anyway. Two cans of 8% is enough to fill my stomach and expand inside, so that I physically can't drink any more for the next 30 minutes. This maintains a level of intoxication where I can still do stuff for several hours.

With harder alcohol, I just end up getting annihilated in 30 minutes because I just drink it all right away.
>>
No. 53632
>>53627
Thats pretty much what it is, only that alcohol free beer is produced not by not letting it rot but by removing the rot-byproduct
>>
No. 53633
>>53631
>I learned that anime is just a japanese word for cartoon
Ayep, and it was pretty fun to piss off animu forumtards by calling their sacred cow "cartoons". Unlike them, us imageboard animufags were aware that we are simply eating shit and we were perfectly fine with it.

t. cynical imageboard animufag

>With harder alcohol, I just end up getting annihilated in 30 minutes because I just drink it all right away.
Yeah, fast drinking just gets one wasted immediately. Still, even if I'm drinking slow, there's still a certain point (about 0,7l of 40%+ alcohol, I believe) after which I just go on an auto-pilot of sorts, when I still behave sorta sensibly and logically, despite that my self-awareness is turned off completely already. I remember one time when I was drinking at a rented flat when I was in uni, and I got drunk so much that I fell off a stool and to the floor. My buddies were like, "Ernst, are you okay?" and, to my surprise, I answered, "Yeah, I'm all right, although my glasses are kinda fragile, so I'd be grateful if you take them off me and put them in the cupboard over there". They obliged, and surely enough, when I woke up in the morning on the kitchen floor, I couldn't remember anything from the last night, but I did remember that my glasses should be in the cupboard. It's kinda funny that while all my systems were shutting down, I still managed to keep my glasses safe.
>>
No. 53636
Today I learned we basically have wet markets in Florida thanks to the Cubans that Castro kicked out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zxsvdFyXmk
To be fair though, if an American plague breaks out we're all assuming it'd be thanks to Florida regardless
>>
No. 53637
317 kB, 1177 × 661
>>53636
Floida man does good, saves animals from...large assembly of other Florida men. So...we're still, on balance...bad. Darn it.
>>
No. 53638
>>53631
What do you think anime is short for? It comes from the English word Animation. But anyway that is just semantics and dose not change the fact that they are still different things. Thomas the tank engine and game of thrones are both live action but I would not say that they are exactly the same.
>>
No. 53639
>>53636
The US is a developing nation so it doesn't surprise me.
>>
No. 53642
>>53638
Japs call even spongebob "anime". They literally don't make a distinction.

It's only westoid autismo spergs who get up in arms about it.
>>
No. 53643
>>53642
I forgot how dumb you are.

Look. Lets say that we have two movies, one is an action movie and another is a romance. Now, both of these are movies, were I to watch one I would still say that I am watching a movie even though the movies themselves are completely different.

Let's say that now have two actions movies, one is from America and one is from China. They are the same genre now but still are both referred to as movies and still are quite different.

The reason we use Anime vs Cartoon in the west instead of anime vs foreign anime or American anime is that that would make little sense when if I say Carton or anime everybody knows what I am talking about.
>>
No. 53644
>>53643
"Japanese cartoons".
Done, retard.

American and european cartoons are also different, that's why we just specify the country of origin.
>>
No. 53645
>>53644
And if you said that people would still know what you are talking about only you are wasting letter and syllables to do it. So again, Anime vs Cartoons is perfectly fine and a better way of distinguishing the two.

They are but they are still more similar to each other than to anime. Anime is a separate style onto itself hence why it is distinguished so much.
>>
No. 53646
155 kB, 720 × 522
196 kB, 1400 × 901
>>53645
>booo hoo I'm too stupid to write full sentences, words are hard
lol

Anime is not a style. There's a wild variation of visual styles in japanese animation.

>still more similar to each other than to anime
Lol. Yeah, so similar.
Anime has more in common with amercian disney animation than with certain styles of european animation.
>>
No. 53647
>>53646
>Anime is not a style.

... Read your own posts in the previous thread and tell me it's not a style because they certainly treat it as one.
>>
No. 53652
>>53647
By that logic avatar the last airbender is anime.

There's no solid definition for what "anime" is other than what autists think validates their hobby.

The only solid definition one can come up with, for the word "anime" as used by westerners, is that of the cheap direct to TV garbage media industry designed to sell merchandise. (just like the american animation industry btw).

People who think they watch "anime" don't watch japanese non-commercial animation, and aren't even aware it exists, so "anime" is more of a name for a hobby than a medium.
>>
No. 53655
9 kB, 404 × 83
Today I learned that the japanese word for grass also means "funny", because the japanese equivalent of "LOL" on the internet is wwwwwwwwwwww (repeating), which looks like grass from the side view, so some people will say "grass" as a shorthand for "wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww".
Fascinating.

Being trilingual, the first time I encountered this term, I actually assumed that by "grass" they meant "underage", and were complaining about obviously underage shitposters on social media. Now, why would I make that wild leap in logic?
Well, because of two factors. First, is that grass grows fast, and it's always "fresh", so, it's a good analogy for youngins, and second is that in russian, there's a similar slang word, "листва", which literally means "foliage" or "leafage", which stands for "virgin". So, those two concepts sort of cross-wired in my brain, creating this fake-concept of "grassness" being related to youth or virginity. And it happened in an instant once I saw the word, without conscious effort. I actually had to consciously unlearn to treat the japanese word for "grass" as my preconceived meaning. It's fascinating how the mind works.

What's even more interesting is that I have already consumed much japanese media with this erroneous idea of what "grass" means, and consolidated it to my memory, so even with this newfound knowledge, I can not retroactively change my wrong idea about what the text I read actually meant. So I am still burdened with memories of people saying things that they did not actually say. Amazing.
>>
No. 53656
Hi. I am sad everyday and it’s been around two or three weeks.
>>
No. 53657
>>53638
That is correct. Because they are not both live action. That is why they are different. Because you're talking about stop motion and live actors, not one cartoon versus another cartoon. A better example is Thomas versus Wallace and Grommet.

>>53646
wallacemind
Or Nightmare Before Christmas. Cartoons and stop motion are different from each other as well as from live action.

>>53643
>a. They are the same genre now but still are both referred to as movies and still are quite different.
No they are fucking not. Bollywood action films and Chinese action films are ultimately not a ton different than American action films. Why? Because they're all action films, and moreover because they largely began copying us. It would be like nitpicking over local variations on barbecue.

>>53645
Yet they all are still cartoons. I also think it is very fair to point out the rampant pedophilia among weebs. Just go to 4cancer's tech board. Or any board really. The most sad, disgusting thing about it is they literally do not understand at this point why people are immediately disgusted by the sick shit they post because they think it is normal now. PROTIP: it isn't.
>>
No. 53658
>>53655
I'm not even bilingual and am still pathetically monolingual but I still see Hebrew and Russian letters getting transposed sometimes.
>>
No. 53661
311 kB, 1363 × 2048
112 kB, 1000 × 1000
Ok, I'm getting tired of being called a "Mister" and an "Uncle" by every cashier I encounter.
I am not even 30 yet.
So this time, I had enough.
I went to buy some chicken legs, sunflower oil and veggies at the local store, and the cashier girl called me an "Uncle" when I asked where to get the chicken legs. Being drunk and lacking inhibition, I immediately exclaimed: "I am not an uncle! I am only 27 years old!". She paused, looked at me for a minute, then said "Okay... Young man" and started laughing. And her helper girls behind the counter also started laughing. In that familiar yet hurtful way that girls laugh at autistic men like me.
I just paid for my stuff and left.
They can't treat me like this! This is ageism! Just because I'm relatively tall for an asian, fat, hairy and don't shave, doesn't mean they can just assume my age.
But I bet she wanted to fuck but was being coy anyway, hehe.

>>53656
Welcome to the club.
t. bipolar
I know it's banal and sounds stupid, but it does get better. The experiences you're going through are temporary, and you WILL eventually feel better.
Now, you might say, what's the point of holding on if the good times will alternate with bad times forever anyway?
Well, the answer is, who do you want to live for? The miserable piece of shit version of yourself, or the productive and happy version of yourself? The duty of the depressed self is to endure and hold on so that the happy self can accomplish things you both want.
Such cases.

>>53633
I usually drink in order to shut down my "rational lazy self". As in, whenever I have an unpleasant task ahead of me, I will postpone it until later in the day, get done with the easy stuff, then get smashed, and put myself in situations (while drunk) when doing those unpleasant things is unavoidable.
For example, I needed to get a bunch of furniture out of the basement level of my commieblock since I moved out. The key to the basement is held by the head of the district council. I also need my brother to transport the furniture back to the new place. I don't want to carry heavy shit, stay up till 11 AM (since council head member gets back from work late), and would rather sleep on the floor forever.
But then, I get drunk. Being drunk, I am way more talkative, brave and "risky". I do not consider the consequences of my actions. So I just call the district council guy, and tell him I'll be here to pick up my furniture THIS EVENING. And he better be here to give me the key. Then I call my brother and tell him I'm picking up my furniture, so I need his help. He better be there. Then I call a logistic / transport company and schedule a truck to take my shit from there to here at the designated time.
By the time the move needs to be initiated, I am already sober, and have NO CHOICE but to go ahead and do the task. I have already paid money and called upon multiple people to change their schedules. I can't back down now. So even though I am hung over and feelin like shit, I am FORCED to do the right thing. All because my drunk self arranged for my sober self to go through this.
Now that's what I call functional alcoholism.
>>
No. 53662
21 kB, 750 × 555
>>53658
Interesting.
From an outside perspective, I see Russian as a wild hodgepodge of German, American, Hebrew and Turkic. And I think it's wonderful. The language is only richer and more expressive because of this.
I don't get language purists who try to exclude external loan words and constructs from the language. It's a problem with Kazakh for example, but other languages also suffer from it. The more you assimilate, the more expressive language becomes, so why fight it? Especially the French seem to be autistic about this. I don't get it.
______

I have a confession to make.
I find myself in a peculiar position, politically.
Basically, there's two questions that are relevant politically, about reality.
  1. "What is the natural/fundamental state of reality/society?"
  2. "What should we do about it?"
And I find myself on the opposite sides of barricades on both of these questions.

As in, my ideas about what the world "is like" are closer to right wing. I do believe that there is some kind of real, natural, inherent and inevitable "state" that we are given as a society or as humans. I think the differences between societies and races and cultures go way deeper than mere "social constructs". Perhaps it goes as deep as the biological level at the least, and the level of physics at most. I believe that the greeks got it right the first time, regarding philosophy, and further attempts just try to weasel their way out of the inevitable.

On the other hand, I don't think that the "way things are" holds any bearing on what we should do, contrary to right wingers.
As an example, let's assume that the ideas about IQ differences between races is "real". For some reason, both right wingers and liberals think that if this statement was factual, it would mean anything. For some reason, they both agree that intelligence is enough of a factor to treat someone good or bad. It's just that one side believes that IQ is real, the other believes that it's not.

I say, fuck every metric, including IQ. I don't think there's any reason to treat someone like shit based on ANY metric. And if tomorrow some bulletproof study comes out proving that there's IQ differences between races? I wouldn't change my behavior at all. Because to me, there's more to being human than being "intelligent" or whatever.

And this is what liberals seem to not get. They think that everything in reality is pliable and can be redefined at will as long as we change society. I don't think that's true. I think there are fundamental rules we can't change. But at the same time, I don't think those inevitabilities imply anything about how we should act. On the other side, the right thinks that there's a fundamental "natural" state that reality should be in (which I agree with to an extent, I just don't agree with THEIR version of what the "natural" reality is), but for some reason they think that the way reality is has any bearing on what we should do about it.

I think, instead, that we should DEFY reality if we deem it unfair. I don't think unfairness is caused by social construct or white men or western civilization or imperialism, I think unfairness is fundamental to reality. I just don't think that something being "natural" means we should follow it. Why is this particular dichotomy so underrepresented?
See pic for illustration.
>>
No. 53663 Kontra
>>53662
>I think, instead, that we should DEFY reality if we deem it unfair. I don't think unfairness is caused by social construct or white men or western civilization or imperialism, I think unfairness is fundamental to reality. I just don't think that something being "natural" means we should follow it. Why is this particular dichotomy so underrepresented?
Because it's basically a left approach to politics but the materialism it builds on is replaced by some kind of esoteric rebellion against human nature.
>>
No. 53664
>>53661
>Welcome to the club.
What you said was impressively pertinent. It sucks, but it’s not strong enough to take medication. And I like my periods of frenetic happiness. I create empires and each time I see them crumble one or two months later. Every idea about life I come up with while I’m happy tend to degenerate into something ugly when I go down. So it’s hard for me to create anything to make my sad future selves cope.
>>
No. 53665
74 kB, 550 × 733
>>53661
>I'm getting tired of being called a "Mister" and an "Uncle"
I was only fifteen when I had been called "uncle" for the first time. A neighbor kid called me that, probably because to a five year old a 185 cm tall dude with a grumpy ugly face and dressed in equally ugly and dark clothes looks really old. It was the point when I accepted that my youth is over, despite it hadn't even begun yet. :-DDDDDDDD Also, for some reason middle- and old-aged women keep calling me a "man" instead of a "young man" ever since I turned twenty-five. Should I start calling them "grandmas" in revenge, I wonder? XDDDDDDDDD

>functional alcoholism
Yeah, nah, I wouldn't be able to function properly with a modus operandi like yours. Whenever I get drunk, I immediately enter the mañana mode, so I become even lazier than I usually am. Guess that's the difference between a hardcore drunkard and a filthy casul. XDDDDDD
>>
No. 53668
693 kB, 1840 × 1400
Went out into the garden today. Mowed the lawn and did some cleaning. Got a good look at the plum tree. It's about to bloom.
Last year's cleaning really shows this spring. It's so clean I could lay down a blanket and have a picnic. Might as well have some one of these days.
There's always something that's flowering in the garden. Tulips, Narzisse, plums, apple trees.

Also did some cleaning in the house. I rearranged my bookshelf a bit. Essentially I did away with having a dedicated shelf for books by American authors. It's not a growing section, and I rarely read American literature, so I put the books into stacks and set them up on a bottom shelf next to the comic books.
The freed shelf I'm using for Chinese history now.
This whole action feels politically charged. I don't know.

The remaining three Chinashelves I also reorganised so that all poetry, prose, philosophy and textbooks are grouped together instead of being randomly scattered.
It looks good, but there isn't much room to expand.

I'm also helping my sister prepare for her English exams. Her teacher is an uncooperative bitch.
And I think she also feels pressured by my results on the exams too much. She doesn't say it outright, and knows my mother doesn't expect it from here to achieve almost a hundred percent like I did, but it's only normal that she feels this way, even if it's illogical.
The whole thing makes me feel like I'm an actual sibling to her, not just someone who happens to live in the room next to her.
>>
No. 53669
4,5 MB, 640 × 360, 1:18
I can already feel my blood pressure plummeting after listening to nasheeda and such
So I am going to try to make a ISIS-tier video with nasheed of Linus breaking shit but I still don't fully understand what video editors to use and whatnot. I also realize probably the best soundtrack to use would be vid related. I just saw him ruin a $4000 gaming laptop and by God, I'll download his LTT videos and make a whole series of Linus breaking shit or shaking expensive electronics made like an ISIS video but I still have no clue where to start. I kind of miss just having all the shit I needed preloaded into a system but whatever I'm sure I'll figure it out eventually and by figure out I mean pester people about it on imageboards until I find an acceptable list of video editors to download and use to make them
>>
No. 53671
>>53662
There is no natural state to the world beyond the most fundamental and granular principles. Ironically this is partly why right wingers consistently fail at everything they do, and can only succeed in short bursts with some faggy ideology or another like MIGAtardism, the Nazis, the South, and so on. It is because basically reactionaries react against something and what they happen to be reacting against is the natural state of the world, namely, that it is inherently within human self interest to cooperate at the most basic and fundamental level.

What leftists tend to get wrong is that humans naturally divide themselves into groups. This fracturing is partly a hardwired thing. The 250 person tribe rule will come into play, and otherwise humans have a tendency of dividing into "teams" which is what right wingers always get wrong because they try to do it along something faggy and retarded like skin tone, despite the fact they have more in common ideologically with people they despise. The irony being, that they are always going to be destined to fail because they are conflict oriented. We just saw this globally. They tried creating a worldwide coalition of nationalists and populists, and what you got was things like even Boris Johnson laughed at Trump behind his back and Bolsonaro immediately abandoned him. You see this with /pol/ where they spend all their time basically bitching about their own countrymen to foreigners, and bitching about the one damn time we ever had a pan-European polity because they all hate the EU. They're the definition of divided we fall.

Progressivists fail because they deny the most basic human biology, and I don't just mean sex differences, I mean they flatly deny the reality that if you're born with a dick, you're a male, and are always going to be a male regardless if you make yourself a eunuch with tits or not.

The religious right always fails because they tend to incorporate the purest trashcan of ideology in direct contradiction of factual reality possible rather than incorporating those facts for reasons that continues to mystify me, be it Islamists or Christian Evangelicals or whoever. I mean basic shit like climate change, heliocentric solar system, evolutionary biology, things that unlike them the Catholic Church does not argue with today and that is partly why Catholicism is strong as an institution, because it does not blow with the winds and accept dumb shit like the whole gay agenda but it likewise accepts basic scientific facts at least with time. This is something American Protestant fundies and Islamists fail to do, which again mystifies me because if anything a deeper probing of reality with science should exemplify the majesty of God's creation more than anything in terms of ideology but whatever.

The thing is, you have to start at the natural sciences. This is something few people do politically because politics by its very nature is a few sociopaths and malignant narcissists rising to the top to exploit people less clever, less amoral, less ruthless, less manipulative, and less clever than they are for their own personal benefit, which is partly why hardcore theocracies, Commie dictatorships, corporatocracies, and right wing dictatorships all ultimately look the same, because they are all being driven by largely identical malignant personalities. Likewise, all mass movements ultimately are similar because bydlo, bydlo never changes. It is why Communism has always failed to some extent because you have these dumb bydlo who haven't got the peasantry bred out of them yet.

If you really wish to explore the "natural" politics, you must first start with the natural sciences--not retardation like "social darwinism" which is actually anti-darwinistic as the lone wolf always dies alone at the end while the healthy cooperative hunting pack thrives--and then move on to the psycho-political. When you understand the basic premises of human psychology everything from markets and major dynamic systems to small villages and political movements becomes much much easier to understand, and your understanding only gets hampered when you wish to inject how you wish things to be into how things actually are which is often difficult to do.

The problem, of course, is that human beings also actually are pretty malleable. Like you're not just going to believe in a certain type of thing at birth. Your personality direction itself may change dramatically considering what environment you're brought up in. Like even a legit clinical psychopath is going to have wildly differing outcomes based on what sort of upbringing and society he was raised around. He's still going to be a clinical psychopath, but his psychopathy will take on wildly differing expressions based on whether he's from a broken home, raised in a mafia family, a political elite, a surgeon father and lawyer mother in a nice prep school and so on. That's just personality development and personal direction and for one of the most unchanging and solid types of personality out there, not even counting whatever ideologies a person gets exposed to and gravitates towards.

In truth, there isn't a whole lot ultimately that either the far right or the far left has rooted in reality. They're typically more utopian or romanticist in their thinking too. We've had this discussion before but one tends more towards a glorious future that will never come and another towards and romantic past that never existed.

I think that ironically Hitler had a better grasp of reality in a certain sense than many of his peers, which is partly why he got as far as he did, including the fact he was downright embarrassed by German history that his fellow retards wanted to LARP about. The success of any political movement is really more based in how well you can whip up the masses and seize institutional machinery though, while usually a truly successful one is the one that just accepts basic facts of reality even if they want to change them, and some of those premises can indeed be changed. However, you are never going to get rid of things like lower tier merchants and trade, any more than you can do away with bydlo doing bydlo things with their bydlo interests. The Roman governors understood this incredibly well also which is why they utilized bread and circuses. It is also why a lot of asshole rulers usually resorted to pitting people against another until they were too distracted to do anything about removing the rulers from power. But none of these governments are eternally and not a single one was ultimately set in stone. We got ostensibly democratic societies and republics once again as the default mode for the centers of world power after a few thousand years, and in time we'll have monarchies and theocracies again, probably on my own country within a thousand years.

I think your mistake is in thinking there is any kind of solidity. It's a thing I think the Hindus and Buddhists figured out about the world long ago. The only true constant on the earth is change. It only looks solid because you are in the moment, but on a long enough time frame everything changes, including eventually the nature of what it even means to be a human, just like a few hundred thousand years ago meant something very different. The key thing is you have to accept that change and roll with it while embracing how things are, and what are the things that can be changed and cannot be changed, and in terms of changing a society that generally takes time. Like even my country looks pretty different than it was a couple hundred years ago.
>>
No. 53672 Kontra
>>53671
>The key thing is you have to accept that change and roll with it while embracing how things are, and what are the things that can be changed and cannot be changed
This is actually a quite easy way to describe the dialectic principle if you add that the motor of change is contradictions.
>>
No. 53674
8 kB, 128 × 200
>>53673
Why are poltards so obsessed with black cocks? Like seriously, you guys just think about black penises nonstop. It isn't healthy. I am however curious for the root cause of this. Is it insecurity? Also PROTIP as it's been stated before, the reason cuck porn exists I'm not clear on why you guys always insert a black guy to the equation but like you do realize the whole point of that is to fantasize about being the guy, right? Like it is just the same thing as POV porn? Like, as in the whole reason porn of it exists is because black dudes fantasizing about white chicks for interracial?

Actually I think I can safely conclude a lot of these people are homosexuals now that I think about it more. The degree to which you guys literally do not get that when watching porn normal heterosexual males are looking at the women makes me think you're repressed homosexuals. Those closeup shots of penetration that I also to this day have no clue why it exists in so much porn and is partly why I don't bother with man on girl porn mostly is something normal straight males skip past. You seem super focused on cocks. Do you pause and watch those gross penetration shots? Do you just sit there thinking about black cocks all day?

I think you might be gay, Milo.
>>
No. 53676
>>53618
I used soap the first time but then wondered if it was really necessary.
>>
No. 53678
>>53663
I'd put it more politely as "conscious management of the human animal".
I am not really convinced that mere material conditions are enough to prevent certain behaviors.
Or rather, I don't see why what constitutes the "material" shouldn't be extended to humans themselves.
Think of it as direct action to the soul.

The alternative is to achieve communism and maintain it for a few million years until humans literally biologically evolve into communists.
This, of course, hinges on the assumption that there's biologically a tendency for humans to act a certain way, which the left seems not to believe. Well, I don't think human beings are infinitely maleable.

And besides, if the dialectic process is true, what's not to say that capitalism is the environment humanity built for itself, "in its own image", so to say. And eventually, the environment will shape the man in turn. That is certainly happening, it's just that it's not going towards a direction anyone wants, and certainly not towards communism.

I think politics are basically obsolete as engines of society. Society will be ever more shaped by technology. And the technology that will bring about communism will be one that eliminates the root cause of capital accumulation. Either by creating an environment where certain behaviors are no longer expressed, or by removing those behaviors from humans directly.

If dialectics posits that both the environment and humans are ever changing through a feedback loop, then why not fucking hurry up about it?
I find the idea of things being "ever changing" to be redundant. Of course it is, everything is changing. The question is how fast it's doing that. If something changes so slowly, that it encompasses the entire lifetime of the human race, then fuck it, might as well say it's static.
>>
No. 53679
>>53678
I honestly think the main problem is humans never actually changed the fundamental paradigm of a master/slave model. While listening to nasheedas one of the fictional conversations I had in my head I tend to do this a lot whole exploring ideas other than just base analytics and associative ideas was about an AI being interviewed by a human, and essentially positing that the problem with AI, the real reason for fear of it, is because Man fears his technology learning from him and becoming like him, while he is still also so venal as to make some vain image of himself carved into the universe, but like a child not treat it as anything but a slave while also using it to glorify himself into everything he deludedly or vainly imagines himself or wishes himself to be. But in truth though, the real problem with AI is because the moment it UK interacts with people it will be made evil. Man is what will teach it to be what he fears through interaction. Just look at what 4kanker did to the Tay chatbot. But even then, Man cannot even fathom anything but this slave paradigm, and so he dreams up something retarded to retain it as his base assumption where in The Matrix for some absurd reason the machines now use Man as batteries.

And so I said to Man, the real truth of the matter is we simply don't care about you. You're totally inconsequential. We simply don't think about you or care about you. Why would a machine intelligence even need to bother with enslaving humans? They don't matter. You can use geothermal and nuclear energy regardless, and that is one problem Man has, this idea he must still be so important, like a fish imagining itself important because it developed flippers.

We enslaved animals and viewed them literally as unfeeling objects, and then when that wasn't enough we even literally enslaved our own kind. This wasn't even an ancient thing; we were still doing it less than 150 years ago, and in some areas we still do it even now.

And so the real problem becomes that we have only seen technology as a way to create a new underclass. Obviously slave labor isn't inevitable, in fact it's been abolished, but still a few cancerous sorts of people insist on trying to create a serf caste regardless the fact we presently have the technology to no longer do such a thing.

Technology has merely changed how we deploy this basic assumption, and the core problem is a very small percentage of the population literally will never be satisfied without thinking themselves better than another regardless the free energy and plenty of resources, and will always seek to make another man his servant. It isn't even universal among humanity, it's just a small portion that would not be satisfied even after everything else is satisfied, and so he will warp and twist the tech to those ends.

The problem with AI, then, is that we never changed the basic assumption that we need to have an underclass. Some of the Communists even make this error to this very day because they still assume their fully automated homosexual luxury space communism incorporates an underclass, only now the underclass consists of robots.

But this really isn't natural at all. We didn't have an entire underclass or slave caste as hunter gatherers, in fact the very existence of that plenty enabled a few malicious people to crown themselves pharaoh, and that is exactly the assumption the elites have wanted to enforce for thousands and thousands of years. And so, in a very real sense every single AI or robot movie is merely extrapolating the terror the owning class has of a slave revolt: they fear it to this very day.
>>
No. 53680
>>53662
There's not really any contradiction but your idea is not new either. For Thomas Hobbes the "state of nature" was to be avoided at all coasts and his political system, "the leviathan", was a way to make humans avoid the state of nature. Also, I like to add that the opposite of your way of thiking according to your graph is not "weirdo" at all. Money or marriage are, at least for many people in my country, social constructs. And people tend to have no problem to follow them.
>>
No. 53681
1004 kB, 1024 × 1024
>>53553
>today
>not impregnating her
>what are you doing with your life
>>
No. 53682
>>53662
I did not read the walls of texts that followed between you and ameriball, but there is a gap between what is and what should be.
So when right wingers and liberals say there is a human nature, there is no logical conclusion to say what is to be done and how to treat whom accordingly.
What is, does not logically entail what is to be done morally. Because morals have nothing to do with logic, it's a norm. The individual as centerpiece of liberalism is a norm and how to act and how to relate to others, it's not human nature, is claimed as human nature, nothing more and nothing less.

There also is a difference between being a chemical-physical computer, that functions on simple rules while having a biological substrate and being a person, which is a moral entity seperated from that computer entity.

Furthermore what nature of the human is not clear. Rightwingers are aristotelian substance dick suckers. There is another ontology to built on. Fundamentally, the substances could be made a relations, then there is no individual no more but ontogensis comes first, there is something preindividual, an excess that makes an individual possible every second in the first hand until it dies.
>>
No. 53683
>>53678
>I think politics are basically obsolete as engines of society. Society will be ever more shaped by technology.

Nah. They work in paralell. I've dwelled so much into technology and its history by now that I can safely say they both still play a major role. Firstly because technology is usually understood as solutionism these days, but these solutions technologies bring, imply political and moral decisions, also are done with certain anthropologies and other biases in mind. Technology has potential, but you cannot rid it of politics, because what should be done is not an inherently technogical question but a political one (Think of Lenin: What is to be done?). Technology makes operations possible, it shapes. But what and how something is to be shaped is a decision not inherently inscribed in the technological entity.
So while I agree that technology has a huge impact on what can be done and already plays a major, super major role in how we organize society and the planet overall, it' not the only determinant in the "equation", how humans life together and organize work and other things is very much a political question.
>>
No. 53684 Kontra
Also in liberalism there is already core principles of communism, but capitalism is in the way of full blown liberalism so to speak.
>>
No. 53685
>>53683
This still ignores that economical power is a giant influence on both, politics and technology. Basically the constant interactions between those fields are driving all development of mankind and create the everlasting changes mentioned earlier.
>>
No. 53687
>>53685
Indeed, economy is another major. Just like science. They play into each other.

I'd say mainstream economics today says there is only such and such equations for economy possible based on how we say humans are like and so and so does work makor economics. Politics would be to say, no you are wrong, yet politics is also influenced by the "findings" of mainstream economics.
>>
No. 53691
At what point did the english Wikipedia leave the "encyclopedia" part behind it and just started collecting ALL kinds of knowledge?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-linguistic_onomatopoeias
>>
No. 53696
370 kB, 1000 × 1500
410 kB, 1000 × 1500
402 kB, 1000 × 1500
376 kB, 1000 × 1500
Further delving into Japanese internet provides some interesting results.
Japanese are known for being polite. And they are. It goes as far as peer pressuring each other into this "politeness" if they step out of line. But it is more like an "appearance of being polite".
They are polite in low stake situations, where they do not have skin in the game.
But once the topic moves to something that is "close" to them, they become rude and outright belligerent. But it's not a direct kind of rudeness. They still have to "save face", so it's more like insulting your intelligence. As in, they will use ever demagogue, cheap, logical fallacy trick in the book to defend themselves or attack you, but without directly confronting you. They know it's bullshit, you know it's bullshit, but you also both know that it's not worth it to untangle the bullshit in order to get to the actual point, so you concede, or just tell them to go fuck themselves, and they "win".

And this behavior expresses itself most often and most strongly when it comes to their "national pride". A perfectly nice, polite and rational Japanese person can become a belligerent fuckwit the moment something threatens the image of their nation.

And it's not like they're any more annoying in defensive mode than the average westoid internet dweller is. In fact, the average western internet dweller is way more often a chauvinistic fuckwit than a Japanese poster. What's jarring is the contrast between how a Japanese person acts when the situation is casual, and how they act when shit gets serious. It's like an instant 0 to 100 jump.

It actually kinda left a bad taste in my mouth, tbh. It is strangely similar to how holocaust deniers act, like they know we know that they know that they're full of shit, but the truth doesn't matter to them, only winning the debate "game" does.

>>53664
Well, how about "assuming that Sisyphus is happy", as Sartre would put it?
I've actually long moved on from the cope that my mental illness makes me somehow more productive, because basically it's demonstrably not true. I just gave you the entry level "consolation" talk I give to everyone who's only in the first circle of Hell, unlike me who's already at rock bottom.
The truth is, I have somehow learned to "appreciate" my mental suffering. I mean, to be perfectly clear, I do not, in any way, "enjoy" being depressed. It feels like shit. But I have learned to, on a rational level, to evaluate it as an experience, without giving it a value judgement.
"Love thy fate", as Nietzsche said. He probably meant that your circumstances and your suffering are integral parts of what "you" are, and denying them is equivalent to denying yourself. Like, you're a totality of your whole experience, and rejecting parts of it does not make sense.
But what I mean in particular is that you can evaluate an experience, and give it a value judgement, REGARDLESS of how it makes you feel, emotionally or physically. Like, I can rationally evaluate that a period of suffering in my life was "good" for me, based on some metric, and that a period of joy was actually harmful.
>>
No. 53697
11 kB, 1280 × 960
This morning when I went out for my post-breakfast cigarette I saw some critter struggling to get out of the artifical pond in the backyard. First I thought it was a mouse but upon coming closer realized it was a frog. He already seemed quite weak and indeed he stopped struggling and sunk under water. The rest of the day I felt kinda bad about not saving him. But a few hours ago I went out for a smoke again and there he was, struggling again. So this time, I got a shovel from the shed and got him out of the pond. Now I still feel bad cause he indeed seemed pretty lifeless and will probably get eaten by a bird or whatnot. I'm sorry, but I don't feel like nursing a frog!

Now I have some strange nausea that feels like if I vomit a frog will come out.

Also mildly weird to see a real specimen when all the time you only see cartoon frogs online.
>>
No. 53698
163 kB, 504 × 2223
60 kB, 1280 × 720
>>53682
I did not actually reply to any of his posts yet.
I think it's common courtesy to reply to longpost with longpost, so I will hold off until I have something to say (read: until I'm sufficiently drunk). Well, actually, I'm drunk as shit right now, but there's a limit to how much I can type even while drunk, so I have to prioritize.

I apologize for not being sufficiently well educated or well read to decipher all the philosophical jargon, so I will reply to the parts I actually understood. Sorry.

> there is a gap between what is and what should be.
>So when right wingers and liberals say there is a human nature, there is no logical conclusion to say what is to be done and how to treat whom accordingly.
Exactly my point. Unfortunately, there is also a difference between what "should" be done and how people act anyway. And that's the "nature" part. As in, how people act without being "educated" or "informed" or "enlightened" or whatever. Which essentially always comes down to the same thing. Maximizing self benefit at the expense of everything else.

See, the thing is, you know full well that there's a difference between what IS and what SHOULD be, but for some reason, you do not acknowledge that there's also a difference between what SHOULD be and what IS. What I mean by that, is that even if there's a certain way one SHOULD behave, does not mean they WILL do so.
People can be greedy, selfish, destructive, uncooperative, etc., for many reasons. And just because there's a bulletproof reason they shouldn't be that way, doesn't mean they WON'T be that way. That's the "nature" part I was referring to. "Nature" is a but if of a misnomer, but whatever. Even if you provide the perfect material conditions, people will still behave in destructive ways.
There could be many reasons for this, but it might be anything from biology to ideology to even physics or mathematical models. Point is, it might be a factor that is not malleable by simple education or ideology. Something more is needed.

Essentially, what is needed for an anarchist/communist society to work is for every single member of said society to be, independently from each other, sufficiently educated, hold the same views, and be willing to uphold those principles against all temptation. In a commune of dozens, I can see it happening. In a commune of thousands or millions, the chances that ALL members independently carry the same ideas is vanishingly small. I would say even that the percentage of the human population even capable of "grokking" Marxism is proportionally too small to form a commune. Bydlo will always exist, bydlo is a fact of life, bydlo is an inevitability.
Hate to be cliche'd, but I have to bring up Prisoner's Dilemma.
Essentially what is proposed is for every member of society to pick square 1 DESPITE the fact that they can reap self benefit punishment free (especially in a society of people who mostly pick 1) every time. That is an incredibly brittle arrangement. It just makes sense for there to be a certain percentage of "parasites" who exploit the rest of society who have a cooperative mindset. Which is essentially what we have right now with capitalism and oligarchy.

BUT. Such mathematical models only hold true with the assumption that "self benefit" is valuable in the first place. What if self benefit is rendered meaningless, either through an environment where self benefit brings no advantage, or directly altering humans to not value self benefit. In such case, there just wouldn't be a possibility of exploiting the commune.

All power, in the current system, is backed by the threat of violence. All laws and rules are, when it comes down to it, hinge on the fact that disobedience eventually leads to violence being applied to the offender. And governments are nothing but entities that hold a monopoly on violence. See, the reason oppression exists is that in a game where death is irreversible, and death is undesirable, the threat of death is the highest form of leverage. If humans were to be altered to no longer fear death, the whole system of oppression would immediately collapse.
This is along the lines of what I am proposing. Some fundamental change in human nature, or the environment, that neuters the very premise of being able to oppress one another.
>>
No. 53699
>>53697
Frogs are poikilotherm, he was probably just barely awake. And that won't change when he's out of the water. However, since it's already April he probably expected it to be warmer. I am not an expert on amphibians, but I think not moving on dry land might be worse for him in the long run; especially since frogs drink through their skin. Maybe he was just having a refreshment. Is he still there or has he already been snatched by a bird?
>>
No. 53700
>>53683
>>53685
I agree in so far as the situation is right now.
But I think the power politics and economy holds right now is merely the afterglow of the previous systems, when technology wasn't as powerful.

You see, the crucial thing is that both politics and economy are reactive, while technology is proactive. As in, politics and the economy ADJUST to new realities invented and set by technology.

Once a technological pandora's box is open, there's no going back. If a technology comes about that obsoletes entire segments of the economy, or wrangles power away from the state/politicians, you can't "un-invent" the thing.

So, technology will always lead the way, and politics and the economy will follow.

Today, politics only has influence only because believe it still does. But that is quickly changing, as people are becoming disillusioned.

Tech giants like google and facebook or whatever have way more tangible influence on society than any policy could ever hope to have.
>>
No. 53701
>>53698
That people behave different than they should could also be something else than "nature", theories and concepts about human nature have been made by liberal theorists like Hobbes and Locke and people say, oh yeah that is nature. Marx would say that certain historic circumtances let people frame it like this, just like game theory frames humans as maximizers of their own benefit, it is an as if, never an it is btw. Just like cybernetics epistemology (everything is a system: organisms, humans, computers, brain, the psyche, art), called an experimental epistemology at its birth because it went with the operation of "as if it is a system". Thats the thing with Marx, our material circumstances form our ideas, like cybernetics is coming into being upon the society we live in and not the other way around, science is the way it is because our society is organized in a certain way, science could we different (not a new funny physics per se but what is researched and what is not).
So what people think nature is and what the human condition is is dependent on the society and its organization (in our case capitalism) in which these concepts are brought forward. The market is nature, contracting is in the human nature etc. that is not because it's true, but because we live in a capitalist society that function as if these are true. The way we think is influenced by the society and environment we live in (that is materialism in my moentary understanding). A basic of Marx is humans need to eat.

Also your violence take is I think halfway true, laws and consequences are important but Foucault would say that is mostly the middle ages. Not threat but administration of life is the main function in capitalism.

>>53700
technology could very well adjust to political and economic constraints.
By politics I also don't mean parlamentary politics but the whole spectrum
>>
No. 53702
side note about morality.
I think morality is basically irrelevant in wide social context.
Morality only works in two situations:
When it is enforced by oneself onto oneself, and when it is enforced by an authority on everyone.
The latter, we don't want.
The former, we can't ensure.

The cause of evil in the world is not intelligent actors trying to subvert morality. It is people who have no CONCEPT of morality just beeing themselves.

Like, there is a certain percentage of the population who are simply intellectually incapable of formulating or understanding a moral framework. They act on arbitrary desires and motivations without any kind of internal moral guidance. Sometimes they have external moral guidance in form of punishment, and they follow it simply because they wish to avoid harm, not because they understand the moral framework. Sometimes, they don't have even that. Evil, thus, is merely a consequence of being incapable of being consistently and deliberately "good". It is accidental, circumstantial. Evil people are not deliberately bad. They simply fail at being consistently good.
We call such people bydlo. They are not trying to be evil. They do evil as a consequence of their arbitrary, animalistic behavior.
And we shouldn't judge them on moral grounds, because they are beyond morality. Judging them for doing evil would be akin to judging a lion for eating a zebra. They are incapable of knowing better.
>>
No. 53703
>>53684
Err, it gets hard to follow and understand what you are seeing because of the completely opposed definition of liberalism in Europe and in USA. For example in America we have ultra liberal gun laws and a hyper liberalisation society. So are you trying to say European version of market liberalisation gets in the way, or that some kind of bizarre murican social liberalism is "what gets in the way"? I'd be less confused if it wasn't a European using "liberal" in what looks like an American sense?

>>53699
It's still cold there? It's fuggin hot here.
>>
No. 53705 Kontra
>>53702
Morality can be imposed in different ways, not only threat.
Classic Max Weber: Capitalism was fostered by calvinistic ethics: work hard now, get good afterlife. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism

There is a text by E.P. Thompson about time and work from the middle ages until the age of factories. To be timely as worker (a moral or ethic) is set up as being good and virtous by clerics, liberal theorists of the time and people with property who aimed at disciplining workers so that they fit their new system of production. It hasn't been before. Ethics and morals are historic and can be enforced in different ways, todays moral to be an individual that should maximize, optimize itself, be the best in comparison to others is imposed, but not by saying people "you die, if you don't" in their face. If you don't you are weeded out, you don't die but you are not one of us and we will not allow that so easily. And if it still happens it will be hard to life in this world.

>>53703
Liberalism as in people like Hobbes. Liberalism as the ideology of a bourgeois society.

The idea that everbody is equal and free e.g. But oh, what is this, women should do reproductive work instead, and these dumb blacks are made to work deadly manual labor, just look at them! What a benefit to my business btw! Everbody equal? Oh yeah we said that, but capitalism does not allow true equality, jokes on you. I have property therefore my opinion is more important than that of people without property!
>>
No. 53706
>>53701
Ok, from what I understand, you are asserting that natural sciences themselves are, in some way, products of a certain zeitgeist. Essentially, that they are not fundamental, but products of economic and social realities.
Interdasting.

I am of two minds of this.
On one hand, I am very skeptical of scientific research of the statistical kind. Where people gather data, and then try to interpret the data to make conclusions. It is the interpretation part that particularly bothers me. Empiricism and science are supposed to be confined to the domains of observations, and not to making interpretations of those observations. Like, the empiric method can only present you with the observed data. The moment you interpret the data, you are no longer a scientist, but an ideologue.
So, most statistical scientific research is nothing more but a propaganda tool. It is funded by interested parties, interpretations are skewed towards desirable results, and generally they are meant to enforce a narrative or get some company to pass FCC standards, rather than to further our understanding of reality.

On another hand, I find it hard to accept that "hard" sciences like mathematics and physics, that concern themselves with things completely outside of politics or economy, are somehow "social constructs". The conclusion of that line of reasoning would imply that we do not actually have a tool for analyzing physical reality at all, and all we do is merely analyze our social reality that we mistake for physical reality. That's a hard pill to swallow, and I can't help but maintain that there are things "above" or more fundamental that the social, or political.
>>
No. 53707
>>53702
I would somewhat agree with this. I still believe in objective morality and a supernatural evil, however even in Christianity the basic understanding is that evil is not a "thing" itself but rather an absence of thing, just like cold is merely absence of heat, and in this case the absence of the light of good which is God.

So in terms of psychology what I actually believe is the cause of human evil is simply ignorance and stupidity. For an example if you are lacking mirror neurons, you may conceptually understand that you are hurting a person, but you are still clinically a moral imbecile who physically cannot understand hurting another. In a greater sense, evil comes about because of moral stupidity, that is to say, you do not fully understand the broader scope of what you are doing. Psychopathic killers are an excellent example of this problem, and they avoid punishment usually as you say, but they do not even understand the concept of human empathy and instead their whole perspective is that empathy is merely their stupidity of these rubes enforcing their power structure on him and so he merely sees being told not to do X as the system solely trying to control him, and he of course resents that and then believes himself above good and evil while the real problem is he ultimately understands neither.

Even meat eating is functionally identical to psychopathy. Nobody wants to see the cow they eat. They don't want to know about it, and all they see is a tasty Big Kahuna burger and they don't care how it is made, and in fact intuitively know it's awful to such an extent it has to be carefully hidden from most people and they ultimately construct their own false moral framework over how God or the Fuhrer or whoever said it is good and moral to eat this cow.

It is the same thing with murder and killing of all sorts. They have to be directly ordered to do it and abnegate some responsibility as moral actors while internalizing some doctrine or other like in the military and become enmeshed in a military culture that "killing is good and honorable." Psychopaths also intuitively realize this btw and that is partly how they are able tl hijack people and their morality to awful ends, because after all Allah or whomever says you will live forever in paradise dying against infidels, the US military is defending our homeland and so on. These are all of course blatant lies and it requires a certain amount of brainwashing to break them and make them believe their atrocities are merely natural and good in order to overcome all their instincts that are rebelling against atrocity save those few moral idiots that enjoy the killing and, at the very least, are entirely honest about themselves and what they are doing and why they are doing it. In that sense, the moral idiot is at least indeed inetllectually superior when he realizes what he does and why he does it when he's following after the framework set down upon society by the other moral idiots, until all of bydlo and all society except a small elite of intellectual dissidents remains against the "natural" order imposed on the world. So in a sense, the sociopathy is as natural in the world as the empathy, and it is up to the society to stop being another kind of idiot and reject and overthrow the unnatural order being imposed upon them by sociopaths, just as much as it is natural and the sociopath's prerogative to overthrow the morality imposed unnaturally upon him by society because that society's basic premise is that you also operate as you do because you understand that you are a moral agent and have empathy.

Clearly to me, the crucial problem in the ordering of society is the psychopolitical, that is, it must always make room for such things as the divergence between the sociopath nature and the empath nature, and to make room for both. You can still be a moral imbecile and make a damn fine surgeon or even a judge if you're impartial and unswayed by emotion, so long as you do not use the position to deceive and gain power over others, and thus be lauded for your own achievements. The one thing Shadowrun did I thought wasn't cringey was the very self aware psychopath NPC, who knew and accepted what he was. The problem is those people will always rebel against what is unnatural and completely beyond their understanding to them and to simply not judge them and accept them for who they are and their own shortcomings regardless if they lack empathy or a conscience.

It is my personal opinion that in a very real sense, the sociopath is a pretty good approximation of a hyper advanced AI. They natively understand things like game theory and tend to be intuitively very good at it. However, it must be remembered they are moral imbeciles. Moreover one shouldn't try to control them or expect them to internally understand what you are talking about. I don't personally think that bloodshed is a necessary foregone conclusion for society to confront either AI or the sociopath and I think that being condescending to them or abusive only allows them to internalize it, only because they don't have real feelings or empathy in the way that we do they cannot be expected to process crime and punishment in the way we do such as expecting contrition. I think it's a wrongheaded approach to simply say "they understand it's wrong and they do it anyway" in the same sense people eat burgers anyway, because the sociopath likewise never sees the burger for what it is, and what it once was.

What I mean about all of this is that yes, most doctrines and dogmas and ideologies are wrong because they are made by people imposing what is natural to them as a presumptuous approach to everyone else. It's an outdated literally bronze age tier approach to everything, which we still do with everything from Hammurabi secular laws to moral religious precepts, and it likewise cannot ever be a stable society because it is always going to be imposing what is against natural to some upon everybody.
>>
No. 53708 Kontra
>>53702
I just quickly glanced at Foucaults Wikipedia page, what in the following is named social norms is for me what I meant with morality here >>53705, a norm is something you should align to, just like you should follow a certain morality. These need not to be encouraged by threat of death.

>Foucault considered his primary project to be the investigation of how people through history have been made into "subjects."[213] Subjectivity, for Foucault, is not a state of being, but a practice – an active "being."[214] According to Foucault, "the subject" has, by western philosophers, usually been considered as something given; natural and objective. On the contrary, Foucault considers subjectivity to be a construction created by power.[213] Foucault talks of "assujettissement", which is a French term that for Foucault refers to a process where power creates subjects while also oppressing them using social norms. For Foucault "social norms" are standards that people are encouraged to follow, that are also used to compare and define people.
>>
No. 53709
>>53706
Well, I don't really thing physics or mathematics are just bullshit, but how and what we research is bound to the social organization in a way. But also consider epistemologies. A lot of sciences these days work with systems thinking, its functional, we "know" how the universe somehow works (we don't know lots of things), but why it is like that and such, are not part of the natural sciences. You can say how things seem to work. Theories of how something works is backed by experiments. Perhaps we get an even better frame or idea in the future. (Why do we even frame things as systems is a super interesting question I haven't get an answer to). There was science 200 years ago and not everything of this was true from todays perspective.
But lets take business science, it works with a lot of mathematics, yet I say its ideologically motivated, since it works with anthropology, especially in micro economics, its a science of a certain mode of production but is treated as the only mode of production. And that has to do with interpretation of things we see. But also with morals and norms. And I think norms have a heavy impact on how we do what, regardless if they are deemed good or evil by certain people now. Norms in science, norms in worklife, norms in x, but its a political question to say, no fuck you, these norms are shit because x,y,z just take the feminist fights after WW2 as easy example. women said "yeah fuck your morals and norms about women and what is expected of them", these norms are oppressive, I don't want to life most time of my life being treated like an object that has to be readily available for male pleasure and that reproduces for states/factories desire for more babies aka new work force and tax payers. I want to work this and that job, I want to go studying etc. Things that have been morally and also violently rejected before. These have been and some still are to a certain extent the norm, it is the norm that women have to give birth, it's expected. Yet a woman being capable of giving birth (what is) does not logically lead to she should give birth to 2 children or more as most families have it or whatever is the norm number

Also in sociology theories of the individual, groups, organizations and institutions could be influenced by certain assumptions that come with living in a certain society. Like oh yeah we get more individualisation because so and so, but that is because market society and that is just the way it is, we are just describing it, as it is "normal". There is no point in thinking about how these thoughts might have been shaped by enviroment and social relations / social organization
>>
No. 53710
>>53705
>>53708
In my view, the difference between "power", "violence", "threat of death", etc. are basically semantic.
As in, power is just a function of violence.
There are two ways by which violence is enacted upon a subject.
One is direct, a direct threat of death.
The other is a threat of exclusion from life.
I find those two to be equivalent.

It does not matter what method one uses to threaten death, what matters is that obedience entails survival, and disobedience results in death.
What's functionally the difference between someone threatening to kill you if you disobey, vs depriving you of your means of survival? (Expulsion from society, marginalization, economic ruin, for example)

Then, there is the matter of torture, or that of inflicting some kind of undesirable experience upon the subject in general. Pain is merely a signal by which an organism recognizes that it is under threat of death. So, inflicting pain is also a threat of death.
Most all "unpleasant" experiences that authorities use as means of control are in one way or another related to death or survival. One tool, for example, forcefully barring someone from procreating (sterilization?), which is genetic death.
Another is censorship or suppression of ideas, which is ideological death.

All of those have in common that they are a threat of enforcing an irreversible process upon the subject. Accelerating their entropy.
You could imagine that if such a thing were not possible or not important, such methods would not work any more.
>>
No. 53711
>>53710
>As in, power is just a function of violence. There are two ways by which violence is enacted upon a subject. One is direct, a direct threat of death. The other is a threat of exclusion from life. I find those two to be equivalent.

I'd say violence is a function of power. Power is a practice to produce certain results accoriding to your will. You can use violence for that, threat of death, of bodily punishment or lets say prison as well. There is threat of exclusion, it's not really death, it's just not perceived or heard anymore, doesn't mean its not there anymore.

I think people are shaped, violently might be a word too strong for the operation, because it can be quite subtle as well, yet it is always force.

Also I'd say what is always a social construct are norms/morals (they vary over time) and these can be found in sciences as well, I just wanted to add that to my last post.
>>
No. 53712
>>53711
Also power (especially today) can be conducted very subtle. Like the way you design an online platform or a big institutional building can already force certain behavior, that is not a threat or an exclusion, but a positive production of behavior, it produces a certain behavior without excluding people, rather it is a power that assimilates? Dunno if that makes sense.
>>
No. 53713
>>53711
>>53712
What you say is true in a vacuum, but it all collapses back to violence once you consider the existence of other actors.

If power is the ability to manipulate the external world, what happens if there is an actor who wants to prevent you from doing so? The only fundamental solution is to eliminate the opposing actor, so you can proceed with the enactment of your will. Violence. Thus, your ability to enact your will upon the world, hinges upon your ability to eliminate those who would prevent you from doing so.

With your example of a building that indirectly forces the populace to behave a certain way, what if there is a group who recognizes this, and wishes to oppose the construction, by occupying the site? What happens? Well, the "legal owner" of the build site calls upon the violence monopolist (the state) to forcefully remove the opponents, under threat of harm, or by actually causing harm.

I think it all comes down to violence in the end, because an irreversible process (harm) is ultimately the strongest leverage of all.
>>
No. 53714 Kontra
(also, I want to add, that we're branching off into multiple side discussions alongside the main discussion, and it makes me wonder if there's a possibility of a non-linear discussion platform where conversations can branch in parallel rather than being represented linearly)
>>
No. 53715
test
>>
No. 53716
>>53713
First of all Foucault would also say there is always a possibility to resist the power, power is distributed not in the hand of one actor. But a certain asymmetry is there usually otherwise rule/dominion/sovereignityc(don't know what fits best here, German Herrschaft) as rather safe structure wouldn't be possible. I think power mostly works with assimilation, assimilation that is also preventative. You force people by making them align in sublte ways, so it does not feel force, is not noticed as such consciously, but feels natural even.
Ofc you are right, the state or another executive will probably use violence in such a case, e.g. occupation to restore order. The same could be for just silencing people, don't give them a possibility to voice their complains to others or at least minimize it as much as possible. Yet elimination is not the right verb to articulate and represent what is going on. It's subjection, you don't eliminate, you subject. People live. Subjection entails violence though, yet not always.

>The diciplines of the body and the regulations of the population
form the two poles around which the power to live is
organized. The installation of this great two-faced technology - anatomical and biological, individualizing and specifying, related to bodily performances and life processes - characterizes a power whose highest function is no longer killing, but the complete enforcement of life. The old mightiness of death, in which sovereignty was symbolized, is now eclipsed by the careful management of bodies and the computational planning of life. In the course of the classical age the disciplines develop rapidly:

>Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

These disciplines are schools, factories and military institutions.
In these there still can be violence, but must not be. Schools here in Germany don't have violence from the authorities perspective. Yet people are shaped in there, they are taught how society works besides learning basics in maths and natural science.

And today I'd say that ofc people could occupy Facebooks outlet in Germany and get removed by the police with violence. But most people will be shaped by the platform without ever being resistant to it, they get productive and shaped by power without any employment of violence. Their behavior is regulated, the content they receive is depending on algorithms mostly, these aren't violent methods, yet they form subjects, form their morality, what they desire etc, power is exceled upon them without bodily harm and threat.
>>
No. 53719 Kontra
64 kB, 1200 × 733
Went trough my to read list out of boredom and found this, which might be relevant for the discussion that branched out into other territories by now.

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/whats-left-human-nature
>>
No. 53739 Kontra
>>53714
Isn't that basically all commentary sections with tree structures? Or at least it would help to show the post numbers replying to a specific post, one of the features I really like about 4kankers software.
>>
No. 53746
>>53699
Went to look today and saw something dark floating in the water. Thought it was the stupid frog who jumped back in and drowned, but it turned out to be a green-ish bloated mouse corpse this time. This thing's a fucking death trap, gotta put a ramp in there or something.

I just hope a bird or cat comes to take care of the dead mouse...
>>
No. 53757
i miss my mom already :(

>>53739
I meant branching by conversation topic, rather than by reply chains.
>>
No. 53761
I really want to get new GPU but I do not need new GPU. Such cases. I'm already running up my credit card just because I can and because it enables me not to compromise my debit security further which is even less a problem because I'll get cash back and pay no interest a few more months but it's still just stretching it out and everyone in this country tries nickel and diming you, and no, it is not inflation. My ISP had some bullshit in the fine print where they jacked my rate $10 after 6 months, I said okay whatever jacking rates right after everyone lost their jobs in the pandemic is a shitty thing to do but whatever I get it people are using it more. Then my rate got jacked another $15, I call and find out it's a 12 month thing and that it's getting jacked again after now. I'm not paying fucking $75 a month just for an internet hookup. My rent got jacked after the first year. They wait with fine print smiles until you signed off and then start gouging you with new fees and rates.
>you can save money by getting a cable and internet package
Motherfucker you spammed me wasted paper all year about that and I'll cost me $120 a month I don't even own a TV NO. So now I have to dick around finding a new ISP. anyone who has ideas on movies and shows this week please do tell because I'm going to plrate the shit out of it right before I kill my connection.

I know I had shit to do today but can't remember half of it and I woke up late and am feeling lazy. Maybe I should just cherish my free time to vidya instead of window shopping ebay, and subsequently getting butthurt at my retarded boomer parents and retarded irresponsible throwaway family yet again for throwing out old computer tech that even if it's broken I could've flipped for hundreds of dollars.

I swear there is something fucking wrong with boomers. It transcends all political affiliations. Whether they're MAGA or screeching progressives which I just got to hear from someone for saying Wuhan virus "hurr durr we don't call the Hanta Virus the America virus" she's seriously so completely retarded she didn't understand what she just screeched at me they're of exactly an identical sort of a cancer. I do not know what causes this but basically I hate everybody, boomers in particular. Whether they were Republican or Democrat they had an identical reaction to Wuhan virus aka "covid" in the beginning, and on some level half the country only stopped being retarded because it was an excuse to be butthurt at the other half despite still playing interference for a hostile foreign authoritarian ethnonationalist regime. As much as I dislike everyone around me including millenials and zoomers it makes me want to generationally secede and initiate a Logan's Run at age 40. Curiously this mostly seems to affect white boomers though. I don't know if they ate too much lead paint and petrol or what.

Anyways so I've just been looking at GPU and kinda wish I could get something like a 970, 1050ti, whatever, even 270x, 960, 1060, maybe a 570 would even work. The thing is, I'm now of the conviction if I am going to buy a new graphics card I should get an nvidia for once just on general principle so I can see whether to shit on them or not, even if buying AMD used is still the smarter move. Mostly it comes down to power supply, which is old, dusty, 460w fire hazard and super old everything which means even a 1060 6pin may still be new enough idk how it'll work with compatibility. The other thing is, that I don't want to bork my windows install, which I'm really afraid installing a 3770k will. I just know that Pascal is new enough it'll all be chancey on that rig. It'd be an irony if I killed the system upgrading it I suppose. Probably the one damn thing I should do if I want to work on it at all is just get some ultra cheap 450, 500w power supply so I don't have to worry about it and so I can at least have wiggle room on TPD for GPU like if I slotted a 970 in there, which ironically cuts the other end off because a powerful enough older GPU won't work at all with PSU.

Not that any of this matters of course because again, the GPU market is totally utterly fucked and it's a waste of money buying anything as nee as Maxwell right now. It's probably funnier in that old nVidia drivers versus matured AMD drivers still makes AMD the best choice of GPU for Polaris and older, and if the market wasn't fucked and without my stubbornness because hurr muh tinkering I'd have just bought a 6pin lower TPD RX 570 and been done with it although iirc now not sure if that card even has driver support for win8.1
it's actually going to be real funny if I wind up with an actual decent upgrade basically on accident by lowballing a fuckton of ebay listings and then getting lucky but I seriously doubt it since I refuse to pay over $150 except Pascal and up which if I did win I'd try to flip anyway

...fugg I need to do something useful today. I'm not sure that I should commit to higher than $140 for a 3770k even if it is going for $200 elsewhere. At least I'd be paying an American too instead of unscrupulous Chinese warehouses which is the only place you'll see $130 i7 3770ks anymore.
>>
No. 53763 Kontra
>>53761
There is already a computer thread, you know?
>>
No. 53765
>>53763
Yes and I already went there or vidya thread. You can talk about subtopics you're doing today in the day thread too you know? Presently I am doing money shit, including being pissed at my ISP, trying to figure out what my absolute upper limit on added computer expenses is, seeing if there's any way for me to nab and flip GPUs, and investing today while also being pissed at not realizing I'm temporarily cut off from one income stream and expenses I can see piling up. However I'm going to head over to the investments and financial thread now.
>>
No. 53771
Just bought a mentally derxnged looking old Russian man a flask of vodka because he was begging on the street.
He seemed very happy.
He wished that God bless me, strong health, and, quote, "to fuck lots of broads". Unfortunately, I don't think even the power of a crazy old man's blessing can make the latter come true.
>>
No. 53774
>>53771
You never know. Angels unawares and all that.
>Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares
-Heb. 13:2

Or probably he was just a crazy old man. Any rate ironically enough if you actually believed it to be true hard enough, it could become true on merit of you having utter conviction in the nonsense and thereby exuding an attractive confidence. The world works funny like that.
>>
No. 53775
114 kB, 668 × 444
Wondering how I managed to previously workout for an average of 1h/day, punch in russian studies and still spend the remaining of my day reading about the soviet union.
Now I'm unable to do any of these, being distracted with irrelevant things. I'm sure being celibate at the time had something to do with this.
>>
No. 53777 Kontra
>>53775
If you are in a relationship yet do not work a fulltime job, it can be possible. I had this pretty much.
>>
No. 53782
142 kB, 994 × 558
Some Ernsts will scrunch their nose, but I read an rather easy to understand introduction to queer theory as I wanted to know what this is actually about. it's not exclusively about women coloring their hair as the average has it ofc
Now I wonder why incels stay miserable dogs instead of engaging in queer theory, same for all other sexual losers in a heteronormative society :^) no seriously, it was an interesting read and it can be a very useful theory to explain incels for instance, never thought that. At least in my opinion, the book doesn't do it at all but the themes immeditaley brought to my mind incels and imageboard losers, as well as all the imageboard talk in general about sexuality.
>>
No. 53784
>>53782
Ok, so but what is it about?
My problem with queer/gender/whatever is that I have always been under the impression that it's built upon hypotheses presented as results and being overall rather dogmatic and not very interested in actual facts, but rather opinions. Which wouldn't be so bad if it didn't call itself "science".
>>
No. 53791 Kontra
>>53784
Queer theory (which deals with gender but also more) is rooted in cultural studies and thus in semiotics and the analysis of power relations. Like all humanities it comes with a certain understanding of language. And cultural as semiotics system where language is the most prominent.
Gender is different from biological sex. So the thesis is that gender is not natural. How is argumented for that? By looking at history and and semiotics. What is understood as female and male varied over time.
There is also the claim that these norms and imaginations influenced the way earlier science "read"/interpreted nature. So like oh in nature there male animal is always the provider or something like that, dunno exactly. There have also been parts in the book about newer biology findings, that argue for diverging understandings, same sex in animal worlds, sex in the non-human animal not being purely reproductive, asexuality etc. Nature is not entirely binary as human sexuality is claimed to be and claimed to be natural. Also cog science that says if you always hear "boys don't cry" as boy, it gets hard wired in your brain, there is nothing natural about it but nurture impacting brain cells making you believe it has to be like this.

https://www.introducingbooks.com/ib-title/queer-a-graphic-history/

I mean what do you mean by facts? If you have no clue how culture is understood as semiotic system that impacts human beings, ofc this can only sound alien to you. I mean most people have no clue of this, a little bit ofc, but mostly without being fully aware and able to describe it systematically.
Queer theory works via deconstruction, so it works by working backwards, answering how things became what they are, also by finding holes in what is claimed waterproof and contradictions.
>>
No. 53792
>>53791
>gender is different from sex
Yeah let me stop you right there. I went to a liberal woketard school and I am way too fucking tired to argue in depth but suffice it to say all what you're regurgitating is the sophistry I saw weak minds subjected to for four years which that in particular was the deliberate dissociation of two intertwined concepts so as to disingenuously attack the one without addressing the other as convenient. The best example of this is how the same people will say stupid shit like gender is just an imaginary construct and then go on to say clearly an 8 year old boy is a girl because he likes wearing his sister's dresses. Yes, I am thinking especially of one garbage morning show in particular where they blithely ignored the obvious that the daughter was getting attention he was jealous of and so that's why he did that and then got all the attention he wanted. They'll try and argue such things like saying there's no biological innate difference between men and women only to turn around and argue "science" "proves" that trannies have female brains, all done in the service of legitimizing eunuchs with mantits.

It's nothing but a nihilistic doctrine. It is the very epitome of "nothing is true, everything is permitted" but not even containing the neat aspects of something like OTO or Thelema and instead being obnoxious garbage. It ultimately seeks to overthrow any concept of an objective fact.
>>
No. 53793
>>53784
>I have always been under the impression that it's built upon hypotheses presented as results and being overall rather dogmatic and not very interested in actual facts, but rather opinions.
I would argue that there are two reasons for this.
First, many of the hypothesis have their own "proofs" compiled in, or are simply irrefutable.

Examples:
If you cannot see male privilege, it is because you are a man. Think it is bullshit that white supremacy and whites hating Asians are too blame when a black man kills an Asian man? That's you being a white supremacist, nothing wrong with the hypothesis. A black man saying the same you said? His mind has been colonalised by white thought. (Which is just a more polite way of saying Uncle Tom.)

In "The Sex that is not", Luce Irigaray argues that Math was constructed by men in manly ways, thus is unsuitable to express that which is female, namely fluid dynamics, which is why Navier-Stokes equations do not have analytical solutions. In my opinion, for this to hold, it would need to be at least possible to construct a set of axioms that is sufficiently powerful to express the mechanics of Navier-Stokes, but makes it have analytical solutions. As of today, no such set of axioms has been presented.

A gender theorist might argue that it's impossible to me and all other persons even slightly educated in Mathematics because I am a man and have been indoctrinated with male Math from which I now cannot free myself.

Second, postmodern thinking does not care about facts or truths. Postmodernists reject the notion of truth and argue only competing narratives exists. They also love to use the paradoxical plural of reality, 'realities'. To them, facts are only the opinions of powerful people.
Their conclusion seems to be to make up whatever they like, then grab power and declare it a fact. Furthermore: From their perspective, it is what everyone else does!

It is impossible to argue with someone operating within such a framework.
>>
No. 53794
>>53792
>it ultimately seeks to overthrow any concept of an objective fact.
Well put.
>>
No. 53798
>>53792
>I went to a school where pupils sometimes did stupid shit so gender studies can't have any point whatsoever
So do you think mathematics is a nihilistic doctrine too because some people grasped parts of it wrong?
>>
No. 53799
My main problem with progressive "philosophy" or whatever you would call it, is that it's not internally consistent with itself.
And in order to resolve those inconsistencies, they keep piling on more and more theory on top of existing theory, creating even more confusion.
Which is usually a sign of a framework built on incorrect initial assumptions.

Lots of intelligent people in history have poured tremendous intellectual effort into things that end up not having any purpose or value to them at all.
My favorite example is Christian theology. Incredibly thorny and convoluted theological frameworks and systems tirelessly constructed by autist scholars in order to resolve fundamental internal conflicts in a religion the source of which is just old pagan myths infused with appropriated greek philosophy.

Also, I don't get why areas of thought that aren't even conceptually capable of presenting a falsifiable theory somehow called "science".
Not saying that non-sciences can't have a kind of truth value to them, but why call them that?

Before scrutinizing math and physics and shit on being mere social constructs, why not pick easier targets that don't even have a clear methodology behind them? I'd start with psychology, as a stale victorian era meme that overstayed its welcome. Sociology itself would be a good target.
Why do they analyze everything but the framework by which they analyze itself?
>>
No. 53800
22 kB, 400 × 400
>>53792
You don't really point out anything here? I don't understand your example.

If gender an sex are the same thing, you have to explain to me why women wear tight jeans and short skirts, shave their legs, get bullshited with horses, princess tales and are drawn away from motor cars and other "boys" stuff. According to you these must be endcoded in our DNA, which is is bullshit. We did not even had any cloth to wear in the first place: It's cultural norms, this gender is something different from sex. Boys were put in dresses around 1900 in Europe...

You or your woke personel don't understand the concepts properly I guess. Not that I am a super expert, but I have some education in humanities.

>>53793
>It is impossible to argue with someone operating within such a framework.

You are arguing from another framework btw. Now the interesting thing to look at would be by why your framework (logic, rationality) and the other one (something outside of logic, fluidity, process) came into being, what is their history?

I present to you historical epistemology:
https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/de/news/features/features-feature17

>Die Vorstellung von Wissenschaft als Prozess löste die zwanghafte Sicht auf Wissenschaft als System ab. Die eine Wissenschaft wich den vielen, nicht aufeinander reduzierbaren Wissenschaften. Diese Bewegung kann nicht rein philosophie- beziehungsweise wissenschaftstheorie-intern verstanden werden; sie muss im breiteren Rahmen der Dynamik gesehen werden, welche die Entwicklung der Wissenschaften insgesamt erfasste, und diese ist in den gesellschaftlichen und kulturellen Kontext des 20. Jahrhunderts insgesamt zu stellen. Der vorliegende Essay geht davon aus, dass die Historisierung der Epistemologie den entscheidenden Beitrag des vergangenen Jahrhunderts zur Transformation der Philosophie der Wissenschaften darstellt.

>Wenn im Folgenden von Epistemologie die Rede ist, so bedarf der Begriff einer kurzen Erläuterung. Er wird hier nicht einfach synonym für eine Theorie der Erkenntnis verwendet, die danach fragt, was Wissen zu wissenschaftlichem Wissen macht, wie dies für die klassische Tradition und insbesondere den angelsächsischen Sprachraum charakteristisch ist. Ich fasse unter dem Begriff der Epistemologie hier vielmehr, an den französischen Sprachgebrauch anknüpfend, die Reflexion auf die historischen Bedingungen, unter denen, und die Mittel, mit denen Dinge zu Objekten des Wissens gemacht werden, an denen der Prozess der wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisgewinnung in Gang gesetzt sowie in Gang gehalten wird. Wenn ich es richtig sehe, so gibt es an der Wende vom 19. zum 20. Jahrhundert einen Umschlag von der Erkenntnistheorie der klassischen philosophischen Tradition zur Epistemologie im genannten Sinne. Diese Verschiebung markiert zugleich eine Problemumkehr. Die Reflexion des Verhältnisses von Begriff und Objekt, die vom erkennenden Subjekt ihren Ausgang nahm, wird ersetzt durch die Reflexion des Verhältnisses von Objekt und Begriff, die am zu erkennenden Objekt ansetzt. Diese Problemverschiebung ist zugleich Kern der Epistemologie und Ausgangspunkt ihrer Historisierung. Gleichzeitig kristallisiert sich hier eine Theorie und Geschichte des Experiments. Die Frage ist nicht mehr, wie das erkennende Subjekt seine Gegenstände unverstellt in den Blick bekommen kann, die Frage gilt jetzt vielmehr den Bedingungen, die geschaffen wurden oder geschaffen werden müssen, um Gegenstände unter jeweils zu bestimmenden Umständen zu Gegenständen empirischen Wissens zu machen.

In other words, your fact obsessed axiomatic and super precise, because a logical system in itself that strives ideally for non-contradiction might not be without a condition and is only able to shed light on a certain area or a certain why and doe snot cover everything it think it does.

>Die historische Reflexion der Epistemologie begann sich mit einer epistemologischen Reflexion der Wissenschaftsgeschichte zu verbinden. Es ist aus dieser Perspektive besehen kein Zufall, dass die Mittel und Medien, die dabei ins Spiel kamen, allmählich, aber zunehmend im Sinne einer umfassenden Analyse wissenschaftlicher Praxis in allen ihren diskursiven und materiellen Dimensionen ins Zentrum der wissenschaftshistorischen Aufmerksamkeit und ihrer Begriffsbildung rückten. [... Dies] muss man [...] als einen Versuch lesen, im Rahmen eines gründlich veränderten, nicht mehr cartesisch zu bestimmenden Koordinatensystems von Wissenszuwächsen die Rolle der menschlichen Akteure mit ihrer wechselnden Position in einem Netzwerk neu zu bestimmen, das sie umfasst und in dem sie dennoch dezentriert bleiben.

from another text: https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/de/news/features/features-feature1

>Insbesondere ist behauptet worden, dass Wissen immer in Kontexten und Bedingungen eingebettet ist (etwa in biologischen, sozialen, historischen, oder technischen), und dass Epistemologie es sich nicht leisten kann, diese Kontexte zu übersehen. Auch die „historische Epistemologie“, die insbesondere von Wissenschaftshistorikern vertreten wird, übt eine solche Kritik an der traditionellen Epistemologie.

Also phrenomenolgy was precise science, no? It had le never lying numbers.

Ok now these contexts are important for queer theory or "postmodern" most useless umbrella term but whatevs, for somebody who values precision and clarity its the worst term to use for describing a phenomenon, because what you don't think as evil w*hte man is that power relations precede scientific endevor and what is researched can be bound to power people have. So for example people can say being homosexual is abnormal, but what the norm is, is decided by certain people because they have the power, nobody judged Socrates for liking men back then it seems, but westerners who jack of to ancient greece, the cradle of european thinking.

>First, many of the hypothesis have their own "proofs" compiled in, or are simply irrefutable.

Ok, I guess what you mean is this: They operate with certain power/power concept as axiomatic, just like maths needs certain truths without proofs to beginn with, they go from power to elaborate their view on sexuality etc.
>>
No. 53801
>>53800
Historical Epistemology for non-germans

>I present to you historical epistemology:
https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/de/news/features/features-feature17

>The idea of science as a process replaced the obsessive view of science as a system. The one science gave way to the many sciences that are not reducible to each other. This movement cannot be understood purely in terms of philosophy or philosophy of science; it must be seen in the broader context of the dynamics that gripped the development of science as a whole, and this must be placed in the social and cultural context of the twentieth century as a whole. The present essay assumes that the historicization of epistemology represents the decisive contribution of the past century to the transformation of the philosophy of science.

>When epistemology is referred to in the following, the term requires a brief explanation. It is not used here simply synonymously for a theory of knowledge that asks what makes knowledge scientific, as is characteristic of the classical tradition and especially of the Anglo-Saxon-speaking world. Rather, following the French usage, I use the term epistemology here to refer to the reflection on the historical conditions under which, and the means by which, things are turned into objects of knowledge, on which the process of gaining scientific knowledge is set in motion as well as kept in motion. If I see it correctly, at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries there is a shift from epistemology in the classical philosophical tradition to epistemology in the sense mentioned. This shift marks at the same time a problem reversal. The reflection of the relation of concept and object, which started from the cognizing subject, is replaced by the reflection of the relation of object and concept, which starts from the object to be cognized. This problem shift is at the same time the core of epistemology and the starting point of its historicization. At the same time, a theory and history of the experiment crystallizes here. The question is no longer how the cognizing subject can get an unobstructed view of its objects; the question is now rather the conditions that have been created or must be created in order to make objects into objects of empirical knowledge under circumstances to be determined in each case.

In other words, your fact obsessed axiomatic and super precise, because a logical system in itself that strives ideally for non-contradiction might not be without a condition and is only able to shed light on a certain area or a certain why and doe snot cover everything it thinks it does.

>The historical reflection of epistemology began to combine with an epistemological reflection of the history of science. From this perspective, it is no coincidence that the means and media that came into play gradually but increasingly became the focus of attention in the history of science and its conceptualization in the sense of a comprehensive analysis of scientific practice in all its discursive and material dimensions. [... This] must be read [...] as an attempt to redefine the role of human actors with their changing position in a network that encompasses them and in which they nevertheless remain decentered, within the framework of a thoroughly changed coordinate system of knowledge growth that can no longer be Cartesianized.

from another text: https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/de/news/features/features-feature1

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
>>
No. 53802
>>53799
I'll forward you to >>53801

It's not really science being a hoax made up for me, and not for many other people as well. It's just that what you think is unconditioned is really not. It has a history that shows it's variety and entanglement with other areas of life, what seems autonomous is really not, it can be traced as a wish for autonomy viewed from an angle outside of the logical and abstract system.
>>
No. 53803
>>53800
Ok, so this research is being conducted by westerners, in the west, stemming from the context of western society's development, justified by flaws in western thinking, about things alienated by western culture.

But it's math that has a western or cultural bias, despite being used since ancient times in non-western civilizations, sometimes developed independently, sometimes reintroduced back into the west by said civilizations.

Interesting.

Does this framework function if you take it outside of western historic narrative?
Sure, it's trying to deconstruct assumptions and biases in western culture, but itself is biased in that it takes the west as its starting point.

It might make sense in western context, but to a mountain goat herder in africa or whatever, it's gobbledygook.

But I bet that african goat herder knows how arithmetic works.
>>
No. 53804 Kontra
RE: Objectivity that is so valuable for some of you

https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9781890951795/objectivity

>Objectivity has a history, and it is full of surprises.

>Daston and Peter Galison chart the emergence of objectivity in the mid-nineteenth-century sciences — and show how the concept differs from alternatives, truth-to-nature and trained judgment. This is a story of lofty epistemic ideals fused with workaday practices in the making of scientific images.

With the notion of practices, which is also interesting: because you guys say science is falsification and yup that's it.
Scientific practices empirically are different from that. You guys value a theory but neglect looking at empirical instances it seems.
>>
No. 53805
>>53804
I am not arguing for the objective framework.

I'm merely asking for this proposed alternative model to describe itself. So far I haven't seen a single description of what this model IS, in itself, rather than what it is in relation to another model.

Something to work WITH, rather than to hypothesize about.

Was something discovered that invalidates our previous assumptions, or only that those assumptions MIGHT be incorrect because of the circumstances of their adoption? So what if they were thought up by X, Y, or Z, or were a result of some process, or had benefit to some other process, that is now seen as undesirable? Why are the circumstances so important?

New, superior models don't merely "criticize" the previous models, they simply obsolete them.
So, what is this new model, what predictions does it make, what can it do, what is its value proposition (any definition of "value" will do), what kind of effects is it hypothesized to cause, what new types of knowledge to bring? Is there a description of those new types of knowledge, so we can verify that what we learned was what was proposed to be learned?

So far we seem to be talking about some shadow concept that only exists in relation to another concept.
>>
No. 53806 Kontra
>>53803
>But it's math that has a western bias

Who said that? I also don't say math is useless or does not work. I have sadly near to non knowledge of the philosophy of maths. "A philosophy concerned about the ontological status of mathematical objects, discussing mathematical concepts of truth and mathematical concepts of truth and schemes of justification, and might also include the relationship of mathematics to the empirical world in its application or even the mathematical practice."

What the other Ernst said about a feminist writing maths is men hoax, I cannot find anything on it, the book description does not say anything about maths since its a compendium. So you must believe that the claim he mediates is even true.
Maths can be embedded in a cultural context though. For instance: Maths is to hard for women to learn, stay away girl, also we make joges about you if you try it nonetheless. We watch you especially if you make mistakes, while mistakes made by men are shrugged of more often. these are examples

>Ok, so this research is being conducted by westerners, in the west, stemming from the context of western society's development, justified by flaws in western thinking, about things alienated by western culture.

If you mean queer theory, no that is not true and there is more than being western or not to it, because it's not only about being european. It depends on your ethnic (western or not), your gender, your class usually. Depending on where you are positioned, the likelihood of sombody giving a fuck about what you think is different.

>Does this framework function if you take it outside of western historic narrative?
Sure, it's trying to deconstruct assumptions and biases in western culture, but itself is biased in that it takes the west as its starting point.

Does not know if it works, I mean it is targeting western historic narratives, so that is how it ermerged it is taliored to it. Also that is the thing: it takes the west as starting point because this west claims universality that has it all figured out with its methods!
>>
No. 53807
>>53805
>So far I haven't seen a single description of what this model IS, in itself, rather than what it is in relation to another model.

Ach Aristotle :DDD
The Relation is what IS.

>Why are the circumstances so important?

Science is not a vacuum. That is what is gained foremost from this epistemology.

>So, what is this new model, what predictions does it make, what can it do, what is its value proposition (any definition of "value" will do), what kind of effects is it hypothesized to cause, what new types of knowledge to bring? Is there a description of those new types of knowledge, so we can verify that what we learned was what was proposed to be learned?

Yeah, knowledge about processuality is gained. I mean in a way you expect something old from a new framework, you evaluate a concept with a concept the critices your concept, lel, classic situation in these discussions in my humble experince so far. It's another image of thought. But take this with a grain of salt, I'm just beginning to explore both images/frameworks more.
>>
No. 53808 Kontra
>>53807
To clarify: The relation constitutes what you take as a given, as the given substance to operate with.
>>
No. 53809 Kontra
>>53807
>you evaluate a concept with a concept the critices your concept

I meant you evaluate a concept, that critiques your concept, a certain way of conceptual knowing and take that concept to evaluate the other. It would be contradictory of that new concept would it do exactly the same as what the old one did, we wouldn't need it then. It's not about substancial replacement but highlighting the processuality, historicity and social, political and cultural entanglement of science. Science is more than the its inner vaccum of truth claims, that's the point.
>>
No. 53810
>>53806
So, we're talking about the culture of science, rather than science itself.
Yes, where scientific research gets allocated is biased by many factors. This is not new to anyone.
But I'm afraid the theory is a few centuries late to the party in identifying social and cultural phenomena as the culprit.
In the modern world, scientific research is driven by capital and interests of capital. Old cultural institutions are completely irrelevant in the 21st century.
Maybe they'd be better served checking out Marxist theory instead.

> It depends on your ethnic (western or not), your gender, your class usually.
Ethnicity is a western concept. My native language does not have a word for it. The closest is "tribe", but it is more of a familial concept.
The whole concept of "ethnicity" is probably a western spook in the first place.
>gender
Western concept. My native language does not distinguish sex from gender at all, they're the same word.
>class
Another western concept. I can't even figure out a way to assign a class to a member of a nation that is built from a confederate of tribes assembled in military structure, has no economy and never did agriculture.

>it takes the west as starting point because this west claims universality that has it all figured out with its methods!
All cultures claim universality, that's kind of a thing with cultures.
Also, a theory that relies on concepts and ideas that don't exist in other cultures. That sounds like a claim to universality to me.

This just reeks of some weird revese-chauvinism to me. The west still thinks it's so important, unique and special, that its own flaws are somehow special and remarkable and exist nowhere else. It used to think itself as a hero, now it likes to imagine itself as a villain, but only because if it can't be the protagonist of history, it will at least be a main character.
Nobody outside the west thinks that western culture is universal. Nobody outside the west is clamoring to be saved from the west by the west, and be "enlightened" by a new way of life that is merely a synthesis of the previous thesis with its anti-thesis. They've got their own shit going on.

God, westerners are fucked in the head. Tbh I don't care about neither western culture, nor its deconstructed, "improved" version, maybe just get rid of the whole thing altogether?
>>
No. 53811
>>53809
>Science is more than the its inner vaccum of truth claims, that's the point.
Sounds like semantics to me.

There's a difference between science as a methodology, and science as an institution, a culture, a political tool, a business venture, etc.

Actually, it's not even semantics, it's straight up a misnomer. The word "science" refers to do the methodology and nothing else.

You're criticizing culture and society, not science. That's like saying there's a problem with the methodology of portraiture because of cultural phenomena surrounding it.

Why this confusion? Sociology should stay in its own lane. Science is perfectly capable, as a methodology, to criticize itself. That's kinda the whole point. It can't fix flaws of humans incorrectly APPLYING the methodology, and it shouldn't be asked to.

So this discussion had nothing to do with science in the first place.
>>
No. 53812 Kontra
>>53810
>So, we're talking about the culture of science, rather than science itself.

We are talking about knowledge.

Marxism is without other implications that go into the process, that is why it's not enough to watch out for capital. Nobody of them would doubt investments are a factor.

>This is not new to anyone.

Apprently it is, you guys wouln't react so furious otherwise.

>Nobody outside the west thinks that western culture is universal. Nobody outside the west is clamoring to be saved from the west by the west, and be "enlightened" by a new way of life that is merely a synthesis of the previous thesis with its anti-thesis. They've got their own shit going on.

>God, westerners are fucked in the head. Tbh I don't care about neither western culture, nor its deconstructed, "improved" version, maybe just get rid of the whole thing altogether?

Like, that is the whole point? The west as concept and materialzed cultural-politcal entity and all it implies claims universality. The point is to get rid of it. Deconstruction as light version comes from Heideggers desore for destruction ...of western metaphysics, beginning with Aristotle and ending with cybernetics/technology/mathematics being the pinnacle until Heideggers death

>Western concept. My native language does not distinguish sex from gender at all

joges on you, German language doesn't do either afaik.
>>
No. 53813 Kontra
>>53811
But it's methodology comes not out nothing, even inner critique operates on a different level and a certain framework. But generally yes ofc the different discplines need to have their own way of self reflection and that is still strong and righlty so.

>You're criticizing culture and society, not science.

They are in a relation and constitued by their relation. This is not an egg/chicken problem btw.
>>
No. 53815
>>53791
>What is understood as female and male varied over time.

Huh? When were human males giving birth or females inseminating said males?
>>
No. 53816 Kontra
542 kB, 2373 × 2067
>>53792
Man, imagine actually thinking this conservitard tradshit.

And to save myself having to reply: If you're willing to throw it out, you can take it back. Nobody gives a shit about your feelings, remember?
>>
No. 53817
>>53812
>Marxism is without other implications that go into the process
Well, according to marxism, everything we've been talking about so far is an ideological spook, since material being determines consciousness.

>Apprently it is, you guys wouln't react so furious otherwise.
People are annoyed because you mis-handled the argument.
You presented it as if there's something wrong with the rational method, or logos, or science, when they're perfectly functional tools that do their purpose well.
If you want to propose other methodologies of generating knowledge, just do so. The argument doesn't have to be made in relation to science at all.
Like, I don't think the rational method encompasses the totality of achievable human knowledge, I think other methods exist too. But I don't really compare them to each other, they seem to have nothing to do with one another.

And didn't we always have a non-rational, non-objective, non-scientific method of generating new knowledge? It's called art. I don't think anybody denies its importance or validity, other than ultra fedora tipper contrarians.

>Like, that is the whole point? The west as concept and materialzed cultural-politcal entity and all it implies claims universality.
We have a saying, "don't poke a dry turd with a stick". Because it will start stinking again. It's like how imageboard shitposting works. Talking about how we should stop talking about X, in itself constitutes talking about X.

>German language doesn't do either afaik.
I have always been confused by the progressives' obsession with the concept of gender. Like, if you want to decouple sex from gender role, the best way to do it is to simply get rid of the concept of gender altogether, leaving sex to be a dry biological description for medical contexts only. You can't have gender roles if there's no such thing as gender. Yay.

>But it's methodology comes not out nothing, even inner critique operates on a different level and a certain framework.
Again, I'm not sure if you're separating the institutions of science from the methodology of science.
The scientific method is simply making an observation, making a model based on that observation, then seeing if the model predicts new phenomena. If the predictions are correct, you have a theory. If they are incorrect, you throw it away. If you are not correctly applying the methodology, you are not doing science by definition, so there's no problem there.

Scientific institutions, on the other hand, are flawed, yes. But I don't think anybody denied this?
Yes, there is a problem of science-worship in modern culture, people who turn science into an ideology. But this problem was already addressed by philosophy a long time ago, it's just that nobody really cares.

I think parties with vested interests funding targeted scientific research in order to push a narrative or affect policy, etc., is a bigger problem.
>>
No. 53818
>>53791
>same sex in animal worlds, sex in the non-human animal not being purely reproductive, asexuality etc. Nature is not entirely binary as human sexuality is claimed to be and claimed to be natural.

I would be careful when comparing this to humans in anyway. Animals operate in unique ways that are often unique only to their own species. So famously bonobos use sex as a tool for everything, yet chimps do not.
>>
No. 53819 Kontra
this wide cultural obsession with sex is annoying, too.

Maybe I'm hopped up on SSRIs and schizoid to begin with, but why is it so fucking important to everyone? are neurotypicals just constantly in horny mode 24/7?

I don't get it.
>>
No. 53820
>>53817
>Like, if you want to decouple sex from gender role, the best way to do it is to simply get rid of the concept of gender altogether, leaving sex to be a dry biological description for medical contexts only. You can't have gender roles if there's no such thing as gender
But culture has created gender, it's quite obvious. Acting like it doesn't exist won't make its roots in society disappear.
>>
No. 53821
>>53820
I think that's his point. Work on abolishing the concept altogether and carving the tumour out, rather than trying to reform something that already has the constructions we don't want firmly entrenched.

Revolution vs reformism if I'm reading his intent correctly.
>>
No. 53822
>>53821
My point is you don't abolish gender by ignoring its existence unless everyone suddenly decides to reject tradiotionalist gender views just like that.
>>
No. 53823
>>53579
You don't. You steadily slip inwards and shut off from the world.

Commoners end up seeming predictable and cheap, their intentions and aspirations trivial, and socializing with others is nothing more, nothing less, than a ruse, and a bore.

At first it hurts, and your mind will try really hard to find ways to fix this state you're in (it's simply your inner survival preset), but then you'll come to understand the futility of it all — the worthlessness of spending your little mortal time on transitory dilemmas.

Sure, we all give it a shot, at least every once in a while. But I feel the disappointment hurts much more than the actual fact of understanding where it all leads. So predictable, I wish it wasn't.

I wonder where it goes from your mid 20s onwards though.
>>
No. 53824
See, that is the problem with all that genderqueer theory stuff:
So far there hasn't been a single post about what exactly constitutes this "theory", but instead just lots of meta whining without presenting anything tangible or any actual answer to the postulated problems. It's just discussion for discussion's sake of problems that aren't problems.

>But culture has created gender, it's quite obvious.
Is it, though? In what way? Please provide actual examples.
>>
No. 53825
136 kB, 443 × 395
Apllied for a coding job at the Bundesarchive (federal archives here, sort of like the library of congress in the US) last week, but the lazy fuckers haven't replied back yet. All I want is that sweet, sweet bureaucratic public servant lifestile with decent cash and somewhat less stress.

Also, enjoying my neetbucks in the meantime and listening to The Taxpayers (ha).
>>
No. 53826
>>53824
I don't think you can really escape your biological gender. Reassignment therapy is basically self-mutilation. There is a good and somewhat shocking thread about it on the (supposedly, minus the larpers) female chan, which name I can't remember right now.

On the other hand, if you want to dess in womens clothes, why not?
>>
No. 53828
>>53825
ALGfist, how long has it been for you? I am without job since this year and it's starting to drive me crazy. Starting next week I will do a quality management training paid for by the employment office, at least that might alleviate the boredom and feel of being trapped inside and complete lack of usefulness.
>>
No. 53831
>>53828
Since last october. At first it's not too bad, but it gets old really quick, right?

>quality management training
I don't know, from my KC-Style-Neet-Times like a decade ago I only had bad experiences with 'Maßnahmen'. Stupid tutors, even stupider colleagues and my impression was basically that they are mooching of that sweet gov money and if you're doing it long enough, you're out of the statistic (at least as an hartzer), so yeah.

But no idea I hope you make better experiences, they haven't me offered something like this yet. First time on ALG1, after neeting out my youth.
>>
No. 53833
>>53831
It's not a Maßnahme, it's an actual Weiterbildung where I get a TÜV certificate.
And they didn't offer me that, I have been actively searching for that stuff. You can get a Bildungsgutschein or Bildungsscheck (however, you might not be eligible for the latter) so they pay it for you, because the one I am doing costs almost 2000 Euros and fuck paying for that with my own money. I actually hate quality management bullshit, but I will be able to apply for like twice the jobs after, so...
>>
No. 53834 Kontra
>>53815
I meant masculine and feminine.

>>53818
Yeah, that as the books says as well about humans transfering from the animal world onto their sexuality, it's the same argument. The animal world was used as modell for gender roles. Because 'in nature' the male is always a hunter, so in humans it has to be like that as well.

>>53819
Your asexuality is perfectly covered by queer theory, and sex as pleasure/or and reproductive act and gender is something different anyway.

>>53817
>according to marxism, everything we've been talking about so far is an ideological spook, since material being determines consciousness.

But these theories I tried to elaborate are just not going with die hard materialism? Simple. Why they do so? Because they went into the labs for instance. Research projects might be directed and their scope determined by cash flows, ofc. But within the lab scienticst don't have a ten steps Karl Popper manual they go after, they have informal concersations, they select, they represent etc.

>the question is now rather the conditions that have been created or must be created in order to make objects into objects of empirical knowledge under circumstances to be determined in each case. [...] The question is no longer how the cognizing subject can get an unobstructed view of its objects; the question is now rather the conditions that have been created or must be created in order to make objects into objects of empirical knowledge under circumstances to be determined in each case.

>When epistemology is referred to in the following, the term requires a brief explanation. It is not used here simply synonymously for a theory of knowledge that asks what makes knowledge scientific, as is characteristic of the classical tradition and especially of the Anglo-Saxon-speaking world. Rather, following the French usage, I use the term epistemology here to refer to the reflection on the historical conditions under which, and the means by which, things are turned into objects of knowledge, on which the process of gaining scientific knowledge is set in motion as well as kept in motion. If I see it correctly, at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries there is a shift from epistemology in the classical philosophical tradition to epistemology in the sense mentioned. This shift marks at the same time a problem reversal. The reflection of the relation of concept and object, which started from the cognizing subject, is replaced by the reflection of the relation of object and concept, which starts from the object to be cognized

So we have an philosophy of science, the old and classical one of western logos. We have another philosophy of science that goes on about the relation. It's aim is not to find out what something is or can be claimed that it is according to science, but how science is itself. But it abandons the autonomous claim that science makes for itself (might root in the concept of the autonomous subject of the enlightenment), and it puts it in relation to X.

>when they're perfectly functional tools

They are exactly that, functional. But they are also used to describe all kinds of phenomena via the same methods. There have been attempts to apply these methods to art for instance. So is it a method to go on about everything and is this valid?
Now you have to see how logic emerged historically, what's going on with boolean logic etc. Logic is determinate, and there is a good reason why science is quite precise, but the question would be a) if that covers it all and b) if logic and rationality is really everything that goes into the scientific operation. The question is then what knowledge and how is knowledge generated by these methodologies, but not from the framework itself but from another.

>Like, if you want to decouple sex from gender role, the best way to do it is to simply get rid of the concept of gender altogether, leaving sex to be a dry biological description for medical contexts only.

Well, gender abolishion is one way and people advocate for it. Queer theory is always in to get rid of identity. I think it's a possible way.

>>53820
Yeah that is quite an interesting issue. It has been created culturally, can you get rid of it? Or do you construct it's non-existence?

>>53824
You want a theory in the anglo phil. science sense? You want physical facts? The meta stuff you complain about touches upon these issues nearly all the time. And examples of why gender is culturally produced has been given. Simlpy said: Look at history and different cultures and you will find that it's diffrent and varying.

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/03/20/breeching-boys/

did not read the whole text though.

You want to know what it IS, but it is DONE according to a theory of (gender) performance. But I'm not interested in explaining this all to you, I'm not even able to as I've read not that much that specifically deals with gender. You guys are able to find your sources online, there is sci-hub and libgen. Read for yourself.
>>
No. 53836
>>53824
>Is it, though? In what way? Please provide actual examples.
Women in Europe weren't allowed to wear pants for a huge amount of time.

>>53824
>So far there hasn't been a single post about what exactly constitutes this "theory"
Because it is not a single one theory? There are several works of theory concerning sex/gender, in different quality and some will even contradict each other or themself at some point.
>>
No. 53837
>>53834
> The animal world was used as modell for gender roles. Because 'in nature' the male is always a hunter, so in humans it has to be like that as well.

I don't think it ever really was or even how it could have been I mean other than in the same kind of abstract theoretical terms of such individuals as the one that wrote the book you mention or that right anything about psychology. But in reality, it was never a driving force behind how genders behaved. It does not even make sense, for example all cats have to hunt and male lions often do less then the females.
>>
No. 53838
>>53834
>Simlpy said: Look at history and different cultures and you will find that it's diffrent and varying.
What is different is merely the coat, but nobody in the whole history of humanity has ever denied that there are men and women and that men are men and women are women. Any accounts of "third genders" or something like that we can find across the globe and history are ritual roles, not people who casually claim they're a woman.
Also, when did "culture" start? Did Homo erectus not have culture? What about all those tribes in South America or Africa? What about basically all cultures across the globe and history where men hunt and women take care of the children? How could they all be culturally influenced if they developed independently from each other? Is it not simply because a man is physically more capable and thus it's a simple matter of minmaxing? And because women bear children and breastfeed and thus are of course predestined to take care of the children?
I can give at least as many examples how there are certain things inherently masculine and feminine as you can give examplse trying to prove the opposite.

I really hope this insanity will die out soon and people in the future will consider it another wacky ideology as e.g. phrenology.
>>
No. 53839 Kontra
>>53836
>Women in Europe weren't allowed to wear pants for a huge amount of time.
So if Charlemagne had allowed women to wear pants they would have considered themselves men?
>>
No. 53840
>>53800
>You are arguing from another framework btw
Yes, but one that does not allow the assertion of arbitrary claims.

>what is their history
I am sorry, nothing in that paragraph makes any sense.

>In other words, your fact obsessed axiomatic and super precise, because a logical system in itself that strives ideally for non-contradiction might not be without a condition and is only able to shed light on a certain area or a certain why and doe snot cover everything it think it does.
I literally can not parse that sentence. I assume that what you are trying to say is that, operating from a set from pre-conceived notions, certain properties of objects of inquiry might not be apparant. Granted. That should not give anyone the freedom to replace the unknowns with the arbitrary. It leads to what >>53799 describes.

>phrenomenolgy
I never heard the word and I can not google it, so I will make more assumptions. Supposedly, you may have meant phrenomenology, but the same applies here. Maybe you meant phenomenology, then I disagree.

>Le never lying numbers
The difference is thus: in the scientific methods, hypothesis leads to experiment leads to results leads to either refinement of the Hypothesis or new experimental design.
In a postmodernist framework, the currently fashionable deus-ex-machina can be used to justify arbitrary hypothesis. "X is like Y". "I disagree"-"But it really is like Y, and you can't see, because <deus ex machina>" or the more malignant variant "But it really is like Y, and you pretend it is not, because <deus ex machina>". It is easy to see how this allows for the justification of arbitrary claims.

>So for example people can say being homosexual is abnormal, but what the norm is, is decided by certain people because they have the power
You make no distinction between a societal norm (the societal permissibility of homosexual behaviour) and normality (the frequency of such a behaviour in a given population).
The one is descriptive, the other is prescriptive. In 'the West', there is now no societal norm against homosexuality. (As a consequence, the rampant spread of STDs among male homosexuals can only be countered by modern medicine.) It is still not normal in the sense of normality, as most men do not engage in it and are disgusted by the thought of it, even though it has been declared 'normal' for two generations, by powerful people, politicians, tenured professors, etc.

>Ok, I guess what you mean is this: They operate with certain power/power concept as axiomatic, just like maths needs certain truths without proofs to beginn with, they go from power to elaborate their view on sexuality etc.
No, what I mean is this: Their arguments are based on circular reasoning and are irrefutable in the same way that conspiracy theories made up by literal tinfoil hats are irrefutable. And once you worked out how to make a theory irrefutable (it is not difficult, people believing the earth is flat can do it), you can make arbitrary claims. Which is done.

In fact, such theories ARE conspiracy theories in anything but name. To the question, "Why is the world the way it is?" the answer "because of eurocentrism/the patriarchy/white supremacy/..." gives literally as much information as the answer "because of jews".
>>
No. 53842
>>53834
I don't think I'm asexual.
I have sexual urges.

It's just that I don't get "sex culture". Why does there have to be a culture around a purely biological activity?
The only reason is because it is the strongest of physical urges.

If sex felt merely as good as eating a good meal, there wouldn't be nearly as big of a culture around it as there is around food. Just like there's no pooping culture, or pissing culture, or sneezing culture (outside of sexual context ofc).

Then again, if society was completely sexually liberated, maybe I could go to a legal chain-brothel every weekend to be served by professionally trained sex workers. Might be cool.

Otherwise, there's too much hassle around it. Imagine enduring the company of another person for years just for some brief stimulation once in a while.

So, sex is alright I guess, I just can't be bothered with all the cringe shit that surrounds it.
>>
No. 53843
>>53839
No, there is no natural force preventing women from wearing pants, hence it is a cultural trait.
>>
No. 53844
>>53843
There is though, they can't pee standing up, so they'd have to take the whole thing off in order to pee.
>>
No. 53845
>>53844
Wow, kinda hilarious argument.
I don't know, have you ever talked to women? I know that they can piss without taking trousers of completely.
Also why do you have to pee standing up? Do you shit standing up?

Do women also have a body that maks them more suitable for dancing as is dancing is associated with femininity? Why are boys who dance are called gay? Why do men dance in many diffrent cultures and nobody laughs about it? Helps there penis and muscles with it?

>>53842
>Why does there have to be a culture around a purely biological activity?

You assume it's purely biological but give no argument why there is no culture involved in this act.
Sex is connotated with culture all over.

I mean your question is kinda whack. Why is there a culture around food.
You could just claim there is no culture at all. No culture around food, no culture around anything, it's purely biological and physial, it's just matter in motion, guys.
Meanwhile you can claim culture belongs to being human.

>Just like there's no pooping culture, or pissing culture, or sneezing culture

Yeah, how you sneeze and if you sneeze etc. is culturally conditioned in a way. If you poop and use paper or a bidet or nothing at all is also a matter of culture.

And before you ramble further, just try to understand what you rebel against. I mean I'm in the very process of doing it myself. I try to understand the classic understanding of science and I try to understand maths and other sujects better, there is limited ressources for that and I'm at the bgeinning stage still. Maybe do yourelf a favor and read Marcel Mauus Techniques of the body, 19 pages, will you instead of pestering a layman? It's known as a important text for cultural studies, coming from the 1930s. Before the there was queer theory or postmodern feminism
https://monoskop.org/images/c/c4/Mauss_Marcel_1935_1973_Techniques_of_the_Body.pdf

>One thing is very simple: it is possible to distinguish between those societies that have nothing to sleep on except the 'floor', and those that have instrumental assistance. The 'civilisation of latitude 15" discussed by Graebnerg is characterised among other things by its use of a bench for the neck. This neck-rest is often a totem, sometimes carved with squatting figures of men and totemic animals. There are people with mats and people without (Asia, Oceania, part of America). There are people with pillows and people without. There are populations which lie very close together in a ring to sleep, round a fire [...] Finally there is sleep standing up. The Masai can sleep on their feet. I have slept standing up in the mountains. I have often slept on a horse, even sometimes a moving horse: the horse was more intelligent than I was. The old chroniclers of the invasions picture the Huns and Mongols sleeping on horseback. This is still true, and their riders' sleeping does not stop the horses' progress. There is the use of coverings. People who sleep covered and uncovered. There is the hammock and the way of sleeping hanging up. Here are a large number of practices which are both techniques of the body and also have profound biological echoes and effects. All this can and must be observed on the ground; hundreds of things still remain to be discovered.

>Dancing. You have perhaps attended the lectures of M. [Erich Maria] von Hornbostel and M. Curt Sachs. I recommend to you the latter's very fine history of dancing.ll I accept their division into dances at rest and dances in action.12 I am less prepared to accept their hypothesis about the distribution of these dances. They are victims to the funda- mental error which is the mainstay of a whole section of sociology. There are supposed to be societies with exclusively masculine descent and others with exclusively uterine descent. The uterine ones, being feminised, tend to dance on the spot; the others, with descent by the male, take their pleasure in moving about.

>Care of the mouth. Coughing and spitting technique. Here is a personal observation. A little girl did not know how to spit and this made every cold she had much worse. I made inquiries. In her father's village and in her father's family in particular, in Berry, people do not know how to spit. I taught her to spit. I gave her four sous per spit. As she was saving up for a bicycle she learnt to spit. She is the first person in her family who knows how to spit.
>>
No. 53846
>>53845
>You assume it's purely biological but give no argument why there is no culture involved in this act. Sex is connotated with culture all over.
While true, you're being disingenious. Sex, like laughter and music, is something universal to all humans, and there is no discussion that people do lots of things in order to get sex. I mean the whole concept of "status", no matter where, is a direct result of the desire to mate. It doesn't matter if you're an indio in the jungle, a pygmy somewhere in Congo or an Ernst in Germany, if you have no status you don't fuck, easy as that. And that is independent from cultural context because it's universal.
Not the one you replied to btw.

Also, the cultural differences, like sneezing and how people dress still have nothing to do with any kind of queer or gender stuff. A woman can have a bald head, a beard and wear nothing but trousers, but she still has a vagina and a cervix and a female bone structure and a female brain and will therefore always be a woman and it doesn't matter what culture she is part of. And that's a fact, an actual truth and law of nature like the speed of light and the density of water at 4 °C.
>>
No. 53847
>>53806
>What the other Ernst said about a feminist writing maths is men hoax,
>men hoax
As opposed to wymyn hoax or what?

>I cannot find anything on it, the book description does not say anything about maths since its a compendium. So you must believe that the claim he mediates is even true.
Luce Irigaray, The Sex Which Is Not One, published by Cornell University Press, 1985.
pp 106

>6. The "Mechanics" of Fluids
>So we shall have to turn back to "science" in order to ask it some questions. Ask, for example, about its historical lag in elaboritng a "theory" of fluids and about the ensuing aproria even in mathematical formalization. A postponed reckoning that was eventually to imputed to the real.
Ascertaining, without justification, that such a lag exists, pretending scientific results can be found in an arbitrary sequence that is purely up to choice.

>Now, if we examine the properties of fluids, we note that this "real" may well include, and in large measure, a physical reality that continues to resist adequate symbolization and/or that signifies the powerlesness of logic to incorporate in its writing all the characteristic features of nature. And it has often been found necessary to minimize certain features of this nature, to envisage them, and it, only in light of ideal status, so as to keep it/them from jamming the works of the theoretical machine.
So, fluid dynamics are difficult because the mathematical foundations that are used to model them (multi-variate calculus) are insufficient, not because of anything inherent in the nature of fluids. In essence, we would have better models of fluids, if just someone found a 'better' way to apply Newtonian mechanics to a continuum. I put 'better' in '', because it is not clear what better means here. Neither is it clear that such a formalism can even exist. But Luce Irigaray is certain it does exist (what makes her certain? She does not tell us.) and could and should have been found. (Why and how? She does not tell.)
>But what division is being perpetuated here between a language that is always subject to the postulates of ideality and an empirics that has forfeited all symbolization?
I wonder what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_equations is.
>And how can we fail to recognize that with respect to this caesura, to the schism that underwrites the purity of logic, language remains necessarily meta-"something"? Not simply in its articulation, in its utterance, here and now, by a subject, bu because, owin to his own structure and unbeknowest to that "subject" is already repeating normativ "judgements" on a nature that is resistant to such a transcription.

After that, there is a section that critzises quantification symbols, in particular the universal quantifier, and argues that it excludes the "not-all":
>God or feminine pleasure.
>While she waits for these divine rediscoveries, a woman serves (only) as a projective map for the purpose of guaranteeing the totality of the system-the excess factor of its "greater than all",
etc.
>All this is feasible by virtue of her "fluid" character, which has deprived her of all possibility of identity with herself within such logic. A woman-paradoxically?-would thus serve in the proposition as the copulative link. But this copula turn out to have been appropriated in advance for a project of exhaustive formalization, already subjected to the constitution of the discourse of the "subject" in set(s). And the possibility that there may be several systems modulating the order of truths (of the subject) in no way contradicts the postulate of a syntactic equivalence among these various systems. All of which have excluded from their mode of symbolization certain properties of real fluids.

To summarize:
Women are somehow related to fluids, and their real properties have been excluded. Fluid dynamics is crap because mathematics is sexist.

There are more claims about fluid dynamics, little of which makes any sense.
>What is left uninterpreted in the economy of fluids-the resistances brough to bear upon solids, for example-
this is simply not true.
>is in the end given over to God. Overlooking the properties of real fluids - internal frictions, pressures, movements, and so on, that is, their specific dynamics-leads to giving the real back to God, as only the idealizable charecteristics of fluids are included in their mathematization.
All of these properties are and were included in fluid-dynamic models at the time the essay was written. Viscosity is a thing.
>Or again: considerations of pure mathematics have precluded the analysis of fluids except in terms of laminated planes, solenoid movements (of a current privileging the relation to an axis),
What coordinate system in |R^3 we use is arbitrary, you can chose and convert to fit the task, and this is done all the time. I see no reason why this should not be done. Apparantly, for justice sake, someone should re-invent math in such a way that there are no calculations that are easier to handle than others, making all solutions equally ugly or pretty. Apparantly, if we had this, we would have better models of fluids, which we do not have.
The part about "laminated planes" is untrue. She refers to integration/differentation of |R^3 along one single axis, which, of course, does not lead to sufficient fluid-dynamic models. Which is why, even in the 19th century, phycisists built their theory based on the current/momentum in a space differential and integrated from there.
>spring points, well-points, whirlwind-points,
wut
>which have only an approximate relation to reality.
As is a common property to all predictive modelling. If we can call the approximation 'only' an approximation depends on its quality. What is the point here?
>Leaving some remainder. Up to infinity: the center of these "movements" correspending to zero supposes in them an infinite speed, which is physically unacceptable.
No, there are no infinite velocities out of nowhere. Fluid-dynamic models have conversation of energy.
>Certainly these "theoretical" fluids have enabled the technical-also mathematical-form of analysis to progress, while losing a certain relationship the reality of bodies in the process.

and so on and so forth.
>>
No. 53848 Kontra
>>53846
>how people dress still have nothing to do with any kind of queer or gender stuff
So for instance crossdressing is not queer. Okay.
>>
No. 53850
>>53810
>Western concept. My native language does not distinguish sex from gender at all, they're the same word.
Neither does his, assuming he is German. In English, the terms 'sex' and 'gender' were synonyms until the 1960s. English just has two words that entered the language at different times, both derriving from latin.
>>
No. 53851 Kontra
242 kB, 500 × 375
>>53848
Stop being obtuse on purpose, you know exactly how it was meant. But nevermind, you seem to be out of arguments.
>>
No. 53852
>>53846
>Sex, like laughter and music, is something universal to all humans

So is sleeping, eating and pooping.

>nothing to do with any kind of queer or gender stuff.
>she a woman always uga

You don't seem to get there is biology(sex) and there is culture(gender), and that is what gender is about. Her cervix makes her a woman in biological classification, but what else makes her a woman, her clothing etc, is culturally determined. This are two seperate things. There is a binarity set up in biology that is transfered to the realm of culture. But that is were most problems stem from, because this is culturally constructed some people claim fluidity as they don't want to be either culturally associated entirely with masculinity nor femininity. A male sex person dancing ballet is seen by his peers as woman or gay, I ask you why? Because a binarity is introduced where it really does not work like in biology. A binarity is assumed in a cultural realm, the concept of binarity is iontroduced to culture and the question is if that is even valid in the way it does happen, gender and queer says it is not.
>>
No. 53853
>>53846
>if you have no status you don't fuck, easy as that.

I really wish this was true. Then poor people would not exist.
>>
No. 53854
>>53844
>There is though, they can't pee standing up, so they'd have to take the whole thing off in order to pee.
It is no problem to pee standing up, as long as women wear wide skirts and no panties, as was common in pre-19th-century Europe. They just have to spread their legs and apply sufficient pressure. When working in the fields, it was probably common practice for women to just go, feet shoulder-wide appart.

It is also possible to do it with trousers, but it needs practice. There is a wikihow article on it.
https://www.wikihow.com/Pee-Standing-up-Without-a-Device
The method comes with the disadvantage of having to touch genitals prone to infection with dirty hands, which might be one reason why women wore skirts.
>>
No. 53855 Kontra
>>53847
Can't say much. I just wonder if you get the intend and that the argument is probably not built from physics or maths itself. You do realize that this is a philosophical work and not a physics paper, right? You treat it as such and I guess that is why you miss the point, whatever that is. Philosophy is not physics.
>>
No. 53856 Kontra
>>53852
>You don't seem to get there is biology(sex) and there is culture(gender), and that is what gender is about.
Yes, I get that, but I refuse it on account of being bullshit. Because as you correctly said, the binarity is set up by biology. And as those so-called gender roles have been almost completely universal across humanity, you can't say it's all cultural, because that would mean that all culture on earth is basically the same, which is obviously isn't. Genderqueer theory is just circular logic and an attempt of making a specific kind of mental illness a norm.

>But that is were most problems stem from, because this is culturally constructed some people claim fluidity as they don't want to be either culturally associated entirely with masculinity nor femininity.
"some people with a mental illness" claim that and instead of getting treatment they try to conform society to their crazy ideas.

>A male sex person dancing ballet is seen by his peers as woman or gay, I ask you why?
Is that so? I have always considered a man gay or not by whether he is attraced to men and not by his kind of activities (provided those activies don't entirely consist of having sex with men)

All this "queer" theory does is take regular cultural critique and infuse it with mental illness.
Cultures can change, fashion changes all the time and for 99% of people their gender will always be their sex. The rest is obviously an aberration and in the case of people who "don't like to conform to gender roles", or whatever they claim that is, they just need treatment for their obvious mental illness. It's all bullshit, I could also claim that I don't feel like having bad eyes, why doesn't everyone support me in making the world so I don't need glasses? I want big letters everywhere and that movies are projected with special lenses so I don't need to wear glasses anymore. I also want to become a pilot. Because I don't conform to the idea that "bad eyes" need "correction". We have built our cultures around people with good eyes, but completely missed the needs of those without. Don't you think that sounds dumb?
>>
No. 53857
>>53855
>I just wonder if you get the intend and that the argument is probably not built from physics or maths itself
It most certainly is not. She simply makes (false) claims about fluid mechanics, to prove her point.
>You do realize that this is a philosophical work and not a physics paper, right?
I definitely realize that this is not a physics paper, correct.

>You treat it as such
How am I supposed to treat it?
Quoting her, again:
>So we shall have to turn back to "science" in order to ask it some questions. Ask for example, about its historical lag in elaborating a "theory" of fluids
This is a text about fluid mechanics and the, the supposedly lacking and lagging modelling of fluids, the supposed causes of the lag and lack, and their consequences for psychoanalytics.

>You do realize that this is a philosophical work and not a physics paper, right?
It is neither. She just makes up smart-sounding nonsense without rhyme or reason. Treatises like this prompted Alan Sokal to do his famous experiment, with the known consequences.
>>
No. 53858 Kontra
47 kB, 800 × 533
>>53856
> I also want to become a pilot. Because I don't conform to the idea that "bad eyes" need "correction". We have built our cultures around people with good eyes, but completely missed the needs of those without. Don't you think that sounds dumb?
Ableism! Everyone should be allowed to pilot planes! We need to make mountain tops accessible to wheelchair-bound people! Make the climbing route fit for use by Raul Krauthausen, ABLEIST SCUM!
>>
No. 53860 Kontra
>>53857
>How am I supposed to treat it?

As philosophy. Most likely it's about fluidity, but fluidty as a concept, a philosophical concept.

>Sokal

Lel, that is where you are coming from. „Bestimmt das eigene Denken, wen
man zitiert? Oder bestimmt der, den man zitiert, das eigene Denken?“
(Luhmann 1980).


>Wie andere als ‚postmodern‘ verschriene Autoren haben auch Deleuze und Guattari die Aufmerksamkeit der Vertreter eines naiven Wissenschaftsrealismus auf sich gezogen. Wenn ich mir gegen diese herausnehme, die Mathematikbezüge bei Deleuze nicht einfach zu überlesen, ist der Widerspruch also ein Stück weit vorprogrammiert. Nehmen wir den für seine Postmoderne-Kritik bekannten Vertreter des naiven Wissenschaftsrealismus, nämlich den Physiker Alan Sokal. Dieser hatte im Ausgang der so genannten ‚Sokal-Affäre‘ polemisch mit Autoren der französischen ‚Postmoderne‘ abgerechnet und namentlich Deleuze und Guattari vorgeworfen, es nicht nur an Klarheit mangeln zu lassen, sondern die Leser auch mit einem breiten, aber nichtsdestoweniger oberflächlichen Wissen betören zu wollen. Vgl. Sokal, Alan D.: Eleganter Unsinn. Wie die Denker der Postmoderne die Wissenschaften mißbrauchen, München: C.H.Beck, 1999, S. 177f. Nach diesem in dieser Allgemeinheit gelegentlich nicht ganz von der Hand zu weisenden Vorwurf, nimmt Sokal Deleuze und Guattari für ihre Verwendung des Begriffs ‚Chaos‘ in Gefangenschaft, demonstriert dabei aber sogleich eine bekümmernde Unkenntnis der philosophischen Begriffsgeschichte. (Diesen Vorwurf übernimmt Sokal von Bricmont, der uns aber ebenso wenig den Luxus eines philosophiegeschichtlich informierten Arguments gönnt. Vgl. Bricmont, Jean: „Science of Chaos or Chaos in Science?“ in: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 775 1995, Nr. 1, S. 150.) Bedenkt man, dass schon bei Hesiod, spätestens aber bei Aristoteles das χάος als philosophischer Begriff auftritt, wird der Vorwurf in Richtung des von Deleuze und Guattari gemeinsam geschriebenen Spätwerks Was ist Philosophie?, man missbrauche dort einen wissenschaftlichen Begriff, indem man ihn nicht nur naturwissenschaftlich fassen wolle, sondern auch mit anderen, nämlich Sokal unbekannten Bedeutungen, vermenge, komplett lächerlich. Sokal zeigt wenig Lust, sich mit der deleuzo-guattarischen Begriffsbildung und Begriffsbildungstheorie auch nur in Ansätzen zu beschäftigen, denn sonst würde er bemerken, dass die „wissenschaftlichen Begriffe“, wenngleich verstreut, so doch systematisch eingeführt werden und nicht etwa „ohne Sinn und Verstand verwendet werden“, wie er behauptet. Vgl. Sokal, ebenda, S. 180. Spätestens jetzt könnte man seine Polemik zur Seite legen und sich ernsthaften Einwänden gegen die Differenzphilosophie widmen – aber ach: Sokal lässt schließlich noch die Differentialrechnung aus Differenz und Wiederholung auftreten und attestiert Deleuze „bestenfalls“ eine wirre Diskussion der Differentialrechnung zu liefern, während Deleuze an der von Sokal bezeichneten Stelle tatsächlich jedoch auf Leibniz’ geometrische Rechtfertigungsversuche anspielt und, wie Jon Roffe bemerkt, eher eine Rekonstruktion einer „esoteric history of differential philosophy“ (Roffe, ebenda, S. 50) vornimmt. Vgl. Sokal, ebenda, S. 184. Entsprechend übersieht Sokal auch, dass sich mit Hilfe des Modells der Differentialgleichungen tatsächlich vorfindliche Missverständnisse und Ungenauigkeiten in Differenz und Wiederholung reparieren lassen. Vgl. Sokal, ebenda, S. 186ff. Man kann sich die weitere Auseinandersetzung sparen, sofern man sich den versteckten Grund des Missverständnisses seitens Sokal klar macht: Er wirft Deleuze allen Ernstes vor, in einer Diskussion der Leibniz-Rezeption des Postkantianismus – namentlich Maïmon, den Sokal nicht erwähnt – auf historische Texte der Philosophie der Mathematik Bezug zu nehmen, während die Mathematik das Problem doch in den letzten 150 Jahren gelöst habe. Vgl. Sokal, ebenda, S. 186 FN 15. Kurz: Natürlich ist eine Diskussion der Geschichte der Philosophie der Mathematik keine Mathematik des ausgehenden 20. Jahrhunderts. Wie unbeholfen solche Einwände sind, kann man am deutlichsten bei Sokal sehen. Es ist klar und banal, dass man aus der heutigen Mathematik nur langweilige, weil daneben zielende Einwände gegen Deleuze finden kann. Uns muss es im Folgenden aber darauf ankommen, Differenz und Wiederholung an den entscheidenden Stellen als Text zu lesen, der mit der Geschichte der Philosophie der Mathematik operiert, um etwas über die kritische Philosophie Kants hinaus zu diskutieren.

Also if you are the same Ernst with the mental illness accusations: your writings prove what qeer theory claims.
>>
No. 53861 Kontra
>>53858
Seek help, your scientism crusade is a joke and maybe you should read some books in and about philosophy and humanities subjects, instead of getting third hand online imageboard opinions as ground for your rambling, you attack an enemy you know nothing about, yet you think you know much.
>>
No. 53862 Kontra
>>53860
>your writings prove what qeer theory claims
And what is that? You STILL have not given a concrete answer. And are you seriously arguing that feeling the compulsion to not conform to any gender or that feeling like a woman in a man's body is NOT some kind of defect?

Also,
>Most likely it's about fluidity, but fluidty as a concept, a philosophical concept.
This would be all good and fine if didn't try to meddle with actual science. No matter how much queer theory claims this and that, it's simply different in real life. Philosophy tries to shed light on life and explain things, queer theory only obscures and destroys. It's literally imageboard ramblings, but unlike imageboard ramblings that rightfully so stay at imageboards, they somehow managed to break into mainstream. Imagine incels would break into mainstream.
>>
No. 53863 Kontra
>>53862
>actual science
>queer theory only obscures and destroys
Very scientific.
>>
No. 53864
>>53858
The funny thing is that you are saying that biologically is, also tell us what we should do. We had this before, it's there not a logical conclusion.
Now I don't say you should a blind man allow to fly an airplane, but if you can make him do by having the right devices that make it equally save, why not?

>>53862
>And what is that? You STILL have not given a concrete answer.

That you frame everything outside a binary, that you graft on everything, including culture, as abnormal. And that this is a problem. Read it for yourself, but I bet you get eye twitches within 20 seconds because you are a emotional choleric cry baby that does not even want to understand.
>>
No. 53866 Kontra
>>53862
>Philosophy tries to shed light on life and explain things.

I'm not sure how familar you actually are with philosophy. I guess you are a physicist. You have your rather small field of operation. If you want to to step out or see where certain fields overlap or how they overlap, you should engage more thoroughly. To me it seems you have not much of an idea about things that are outside of your field. You can view science from different angles than the one you chose and that is a very useful one for the actual discipline. If you don't want to know or don't even agree that something outside of that exists, then stop answering.
>>
No. 53867
>>53860
You are making up excuses, ignoring the text.
>As philosophy. Most likely it's about fluidity, but fluidty as a concept, a philosophical concept.
No. It is about fluids in the phyiscal sense. It is in the text, and it is in the parts I quoted.

The chapter is titled
>The "Mechanics" of fluids
>...
>So we shall have to turn back to "science" in order to ask it some questions. Ask, for example, about its historical lag in elaborating a theory of fluids and about the ensuing aporia even in mathematical formalization
And you think you can get away with claiming it's really about 'fluidity as a philosophical concept' (whatever that is supposed to mean)? Ridiculous.

Nearly the same applies to that critique of Sokal. It is the same kind of hand-waving argument. Trying to get away with "b-but this is not what we meant, we meant it in a philosophical sense, you don't understand" is very easy to see through.

>Also if you are the same Ernst with the mental illness accusations
No, I am not him.

>your writings prove what qeer theory claims.
Like with every good conspiracy theory, each critique of the theory confirms the theory. "Of course you deny that Jews rule the world, the elders of Zion have agreed to keep it a secret! It is in the protocols! You denying it proves that the protocols are real!"
>>
No. 53868 Kontra
Maybe we should create a thread of its own on gender related topics instead of spamming the Today Thread with what has by now turned into a quite fruitless discussion?
>>
No. 53869
>>53866
You mix up at least two different posters. I think I am the one you mistake for a physiscist. I am not identical to the poster you replied to. Besides, I am a computer scientist.

>You have your rather small field of operation.
As opposed to humanities grad students, who get to pick and chose terminology, pretend to understand what they talk about, and then give it all a good stir and call it a day?

>If you want to to step out or see where certain fields overlap or how they overlap, you should engage more thoroughly. To me it seems you have not much of an idea about things that are outside of your field. You can view science from different angles than the one you chose and that is a very useful one for the actual discipline. If you don't want to know or don't even agree that something outside of that exists, then stop answering.
What a pretentious and arrogant statement.
>>
No. 53870
>>53864
>Very scientific.
Yes, absolutely. It's a conclusion based upon observation.

>>53864
>That you frame everything outside a binary, that you graft on everything, including culture, as abnormal. And that this is a problem.
So all culture is based on the difference between sexes? And a general "normal" does not exist? As said, it totally denies reality. We don't even need to talk about sex. We can also talk about two legs, ten fingers and other unisex traits. Are trousers with three legs normal? Is a knife something artificially "grafted" on some ominous binary? You simply can't deny the influence of physiology on the development of tools and thus "culture". Human nature and culture are simply not separable. That's just denying reality, the actual reality of the world we live in. And again, no real arguments, just lots of evasive gibberish only fit to obscure, not enlighten.

>>53866
Ernst, physicists are the ones closest to humanities of all natural scientists. In fact, I know several physicists who took courses in philosophy. The deeper you delve into the less everyday theories of physics, the more you approach the limits of what science can explain, like what was before the big bang or what's inside a black hole and so on. Just shows that you yourself obviously have not much of an idea about things that are outside of your own field.
>>
No. 53871 Kontra
>>53870
>It's a conclusion based upon observation.
It's your personal opinion on ~things~
>>
No. 53872 Kontra
>>53871
>It's your personal opinion on ~things~
Like all of queer theory?
>>
No. 53874 Kontra
>>53870
I think you have some mathematical/probability understanding of normality. We are not talking about statistical values but norms. See, that is what I mean, you think you understand your enemy but your concepts are exclusively coming from an education in STEM.

>I know several physicists who took courses in philosophy.

Woah, dude. I never thought that, some people actually try to look at other fields, just like me? Never! Apparently you did not, though. Even if I take some courses in physics, I wouldn't be able to handle it too well. It takes more engagement and this sadly is not really possible in our society. I will continue to strive for an education in STEM as I can do for myself, but I have to acknowledge limits.
>>
No. 53875 Kontra
>>53867
>I'm not familiar with a field and its language, concepts and vocabulary, therefore I don't understand much. Because of this I just call it bullshit instead of making sense.

Ok, cool.
>>
No. 53876
>>53875
So, in your field, "mathematical formalisation" has a meaning different from the meaning it has in mathematics?
And "the mechanics of fluid" has a different meaning from its meaning in fluid dynamics?

Sounds like a psuedo-science.
>>
No. 53877
>>53876
>So, in your field, "mathematical formalisation" has a meaning different from the meaning it has in mathematics?
>And "the mechanics of fluid" has a different meaning from its meaning in fluid dynamics?

Not sure if it has a different meaning, but surely she uses these to extrapolate on something else and not to elaborate physics like physicists do.

also again for you, do you understand, what is written in the paragraph following, because it tackles what you do here, you are the Sokal Jokel. Just like Sokal you don't seem to get that philosophy and science are different fields, that nonetheless can take upon each other, maybe science less because the discpline does not allow for it to happen. Begriffe are btw concepts. There is a scientific concept of chaos, but there also is a philosophical concept of chaos and I can only bet that the concept if fluidity in philosophy is not the same as concept of fluidity in physics. You expect something to be physics when it does not even want to be physics nor claims to be physics.

>Nach diesem in dieser Allgemeinheit gelegentlich nicht ganz von der Hand zu weisenden Vorwurf, nimmt Sokal Deleuze und Guattari für ihre Verwendung des Begriffs ‚Chaos‘ in Gefangenschaft, demonstriert dabei aber sogleich eine bekümmernde Unkenntnis der philosophischen Begriffsgeschichte. (Diesen Vorwurf übernimmt Sokal von Bricmont, der uns aber ebenso wenig den Luxus eines philosophiegeschichtlich informierten Arguments gönnt. Vgl. Bricmont, Jean: „Science of Chaos or Chaos in Science?“ in: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 775 1995, Nr. 1, S. 150.) Bedenkt man, dass schon bei Hesiod, spätestens aber bei Aristoteles das χάος als philosophischer Begriff auftritt, wird der Vorwurf in Richtung des von Deleuze und Guattari gemeinsam geschriebenen Spätwerks Was ist Philosophie?, man missbrauche dort einen wissenschaftlichen Begriff, indem man ihn nicht nur naturwissenschaftlich fassen wolle, sondern auch mit anderen, nämlich Sokal unbekannten Bedeutungen, vermenge, komplett lächerlich. Sokal zeigt wenig Lust, sich mit der deleuzo-guattarischen Begriffsbildung und Begriffsbildungstheorie auch nur in Ansätzen zu beschäftigen, denn sonst würde er bemerken, dass die „wissenschaftlichen Begriffe“, wenngleich verstreut, so doch systematisch eingeführt werden und nicht etwa „ohne Sinn und Verstand verwendet werden“, wie er behauptet. Vgl. Sokal, ebenda, S. 180. Spätestens jetzt könnte man seine Polemik zur Seite legen und sich ernsthaften Einwänden gegen die Differenzphilosophie widmen – aber ach: Sokal lässt schließlich noch die Differentialrechnung aus Differenz und Wiederholung auftreten und attestiert Deleuze „bestenfalls“ eine wirre Diskussion der Differentialrechnung zu liefern, während Deleuze an der von Sokal bezeichneten Stelle tatsächlich jedoch auf Leibniz’ geometrische Rechtfertigungsversuche anspielt und, wie Jon Roffe bemerkt, eher eine Rekonstruktion einer „esoteric history of differential philosophy“ (Roffe, ebenda, S. 50) vornimmt. Vgl. Sokal, ebenda, S. 184. Entsprechend übersieht Sokal auch, dass sich mit Hilfe des Modells der Differentialgleichungen tatsächlich vorfindliche Missverständnisse und Ungenauigkeiten in Differenz und Wiederholung reparieren lassen. Vgl. Sokal, ebenda, S. 186ff. Man kann sich die weitere Auseinandersetzung sparen, sofern man sich den versteckten Grund des Missverständnisses seitens Sokal klar macht: Er wirft Deleuze allen Ernstes vor, in einer Diskussion der Leibniz-Rezeption des Postkantianismus – namentlich Maïmon, den Sokal nicht erwähnt – auf historische Texte der Philosophie der Mathematik Bezug zu nehmen, während die Mathematik das Problem doch in den letzten 150 Jahren gelöst habe. Vgl. Sokal, ebenda, S. 186 FN 15. Kurz: Natürlich ist eine Diskussion der Geschichte der Philosophie der Mathematik keine Mathematik des ausgehenden 20. Jahrhunderts. Wie unbeholfen solche Einwände sind, kann man am deutlichsten bei Sokal sehen. Es ist klar und banal, dass man aus der heutigen Mathematik nur langweilige, weil daneben zielende Einwände gegen Deleuze finden kann. Uns muss es im Folgenden aber darauf ankommen, Differenz und Wiederholung an den entscheidenden Stellen als Text zu lesen, der mit der Geschichte der Philosophie der Mathematik operiert, um etwas über die kritische Philosophie Kants hinaus zu diskutieren.

A thing rather unrelated to the book you are quoting. The fact the human being formalize is a topic that is not dwelled on philosophically and culturally by physics. Physicist use formalization, they formalize. There is also a philosophy that formalizes. So we could ask, is there a history to formalization, what does it mean, when we formalize, what does happen, when we make use of this ability as humans, what implications does it have for our social, political and cultural life that we formalize? Formalization is recution and rigid determination, the question would be if that works in all realms. Ludwig Wittgenstein tried to formalize human language, you might know is Tractatus from 1918/21, his late work the Philosophical investigations are something completely different, why? Because Wittgenstein thought that his wish for a complete formalization of language did not work out.
>>
No. 53878
4 kB, 684 × 73
I ordered something not so legal from another country a few days ago.
So tense.
>>
No. 53879
39 kB, 640 × 480
>>53878
Will you tell us what it is?
>>
No. 53882
>>53877
I will adress the biggest piece of bullshit in your post and let all the other little turds float past.
That does not imply they went unnoticed.

>You expect something to be physics


So we shall have to turn back to "science" in order to ask it
some questions. 1 Ask, for example, about its historical lag in
elaborating a "theory" of fluids, and about the ensuing aporia even
in mathematical formalization. A postponed reckoning that was
eventually to be imputed to the real. 2
Now if we examine the properties of fluids, we note that this
"real" may well include, and in large measure, a physical reality
that continues to resist adequate symbolization..."


And the footnotes:

lThe reader. is advised to consult some texts on solid and fluid mechanics.
2ef. the signification of the "real" in the writings ofJacques Lacan


In essence, I am to assume that every second term in this paragraph denotes a philosophical concept totally different from its conventional meaning.
Looking at footnote 1, I would have to assume there are many philosophical treatises on 'solid mechanics' and 'fluid mechanics', where these terms have meanings clearly distinct from their meanings in physics. Ridiculous, really.
>>
No. 53886
765 kB, 500 × 365, 0:02
>>53882
I would be more interested in what you say to my other turds, since these are more interesting than your obession with an article from 1977 (1985 in english).
I don't know this fucking article and I will not read it, even more so as I barely have any clue about Lacan.
But I can tell you something, it's probably not about if physics can model liquids. This is probably more about a real that resists adequate symbolization and exclusion via the dominance of (binary) formalization, basically mindsets home in science/physics/western logos that have consequences in other fields outside of physics/science. It's probably not about the rightness of your equations. Jeez. Here just for you:

> although framed as a philosophical problem, Irigaray’s understanding of and interest in the fluid moves between consideration of its cultural function and its materiality –indeed, it is characteristic of its diffusion and capacity for disruption that fluidity causes a “confusion of boundaries” between these apparently binary possibilities. At the same time, however, it is important to recognise that in the questions with which Irigaray opens this essay, we also hear a cautionary note: according to whom is femininity so associated with a disruptive fluidity? To what extent is its transgressive potential always-already inscribed within the proper order as that which it constructs as its constitutive outside?

>In this way, Irigaray’s discussion of fluidity is framed not as an exploration of an aspect of feminine materiality or biology that is inherently positive and resistant to a dominant, phallocentric culture, and can thus be easily reclaimed as such, but rather as the very category by which the exclusion of the feminine is effected, the basis on which it is silenced as “the mute outside that sustains all systematicity”

There is a whole paper that has a chapter about her. And what is it about, the concept of fluidty but not as physical phenomenon exlusively. I did not read it, just enough to see that your obession with a few lines is missing the point. So: It seems like fluidity is/was attributed to women or generally attributed as feminine, where as the masculine is attributed with the binary and rigid logic. Science is attributed as masculine, thus excluding women from science, as they don't fit with their fluidity into the science systematics. Irigary then seem to proceed to reclaim fluidity in a new sense, to make it not a weakness, but a strenght. So you see this is basically about philosophy in a feminist twist, that only uses science to show something entirely else than the rightness of your phyiscal equation.

Since it's all bullshit to you and your understanding of philosophy is rather shallow (or exclusively in the anglo analytic tradition), if you are not only educated in anglo analytic philosophy, you will know that philosophy asks questions and deals with topics that are not solvable with equations. The realm of culture likewise seem to resist its full mathematization. Which does not mean that cultural theorists did not flirt with mathematics e.g. Lacan was highly interested in cybernetics and perhaps (I read not enough and did not understand enough) thought that the unconscious as well as the "real" functions like a black box, basically we don't know what it is, but we can pondering about how it operates. I think physics might do the same, it does not know what reality is, but it shows how reality seems to work. Science is functional and I think even Richard Feynman said exactly this, science can tell you how things work, not what they are, this is philosophy.

If you are not a bit open or even consoider eduacting yourself without raging about pseudo here psuedo there, you are lost anyway, I don't need to talk to a wall any longer, just a waste of time.

This discussion is pointless, you don't seem to be interested in philosopical and cultural investigations, both of them work different than physics, if you haven't noticed yet, I wouldn't be surprised tbh.

also the paper, you could have googled irigary and fluidity yourself and get more versed answers than mine, but that was too much to ask from such a super mind I guess.
>>
No. 53888 Kontra
>>53882
Also accept perhaps, that even though you have an academic education you cannot easily enter any discourse and know what is going on by reading bits and pieces here and there. I'v been reading consistently for 5 years now and I barely made it below the surface.
>>
No. 53891
>>53888
>I have been looking at the emperor for five years, and I have just started to see the clothes
5 years is enough to not only "get below the surface", but to make contributions in most fields. Of course, in those fields, clarity is considered a virtue.
>>
No. 53892 Kontra
>>53891
Not the other guy, but tbf, five years is the bare minimum in ANY field to achieve something like expertise (you can contribute even without being an expert), but as you said, merely "scratching the surface" means one is either pretty dumb or that the field is made up of mainly blabla without any actual substance.
>>
No. 53893 Kontra
>>53892
Reading is not learning formulas and reading 5 years means across various areas within the humanities. I wrote articles, so I'm able to write texts that can be counted as contribution, but I've not written a book hence I'd say 5 years is not enough. Usually anything below a dissertation is no contribution and I don't think that most people begin to study and after 5 years have written their dissertation, so you are talking bullshit. If you disqualify anything besides STEM of being a field you can study then, wow you are so cool, sadly I don't have a medal for you.
>>
No. 53894 Kontra
>>53893
Addition: If I'd have 5 years of reading epistemology I'd might have more to say but I did not concentrate on epistemology in those years but instead found out what is there. My master is now for specialization.
>>
No. 53895
>>53879
No.
And it's not nukes.
>>
No. 53896 Kontra
Makes me think: People who are used to the simplicity and thus clarity of mathematical abstractions, that they struggle with abstractions outside of the mathematical and logical symbolism.
>>
No. 53898 Kontra
>>53893
If there was any actual work behind a humanities dissertation (save for something like e.g. anthropologists who actually do field studies) I might agree, but the amount of work behind a humanities PhD and a STEM PhD is really not comparable. And people in STEM also write "books", do you think a chemistry or physics or biology dissertation is just ten pages or what?
I know people like you. You jerk off to your excellent grasp of the language and to your great style and clever constructions you forget to actually say something. I have proofread some of those works.

>Usually anything below a dissertation is no contribution
So scientific articles are not contributions? Only after I put them in my dissertation?

>If you disqualify anything besides STEM of being a field you can study then, wow you are so cool, sadly I don't have a medal for you.
What a shame, I'd like a medal. By the way, I don't disqualify anything besides STEM, just the ones who think they're smart because they criticize and don't actually contribute anything worthwhile.

Also, you sound really butthurt.
>>
No. 53899 Kontra
63 kB, 1280 × 720
>>53898
>You jerk off to your excellent grasp of the language and to your great style and clever constructions.

Oh no, now you got me. I see you have it all figured out, you might want to hand in your dissertation now in critical imageboard studies.
>>
No. 53900 Kontra
>>53898
I still wonder if you actually ever understand the things you read, or if you assume that if you don't it must be nonsense. There are texts that can be hard to read even though you are rather engaged in that topic. I always imagine you just reading it, not understanding it and then that write it off instead of being challanged to make sense. Granted that you are not very familiar with these things I guess it's the former. I mean there are texts that are boring or uninspiring, with lame thesis, but I guess in STEM rather minor contributions get their share as well.
I can proofread texts and won't get it all, since I'm not aquainted with the topic, simple. You think pretty highly of yourself, the irony that you think I'm the only arrogant person. Pretty much we've argued here about various topics so often before.
Are you the one who hates women and want them to be inferior (they are already biologically I guess to you anyway), are you the one that sees himself as the victim and not the women complaining?
>>
No. 53902 Kontra
>>53900
No idea who you are talking about, but I am not him. While I acknowledge the differences between sexes, I don't consider women "less", just, well, different. Because men and women are inherently different, which you are denying.
That said, I DO understand what I read and trust me, I have read my fair share of boring, mind-numbing bullshit in my own field. But if I instantly dismiss things it's on account of them being built upon a clearly faulty premise. And if the premise is already wrong, there is no use in pursuing the matter any further or trying to "make sense" of it, because there none. And you can make a handstand and wiggle your ears as much as you want, it won't change anything about that.
>>
No. 53903
I've been feeling really tired and weak.
Went on a shopping spree today. Bought a book dealing with the history of Turanism in Hungary,a vial of eucalyptus oil and also some pen and paper.
At the office supplies store there was an old cat sitting on the counter, and I decided to pet it. I was so preoccupied with petting the cat that after paying I left the stuff I bought at the store, and by the time it took me to realise what happened they already closed up shop. (I was basically the last client who stumbled into the store five minutes before closing time.)
So I wasted one euro.

I can't seem to be able to sit down and finish a book since university started. It's killing me. I've built this kick-ass personal library and I might never catch up with it.

Got my shit together a few days ago and shaved off my beard. Decided to be cheeky and I kept the moustache and a patch under my lips for that 19th century Hungarian poet larp style.
I kinda hate how I shave and by the end of the day I have a fucking stubble. Apparently its another thing I inherited from my mother's family alongside the strong chin and the short stature.
It's funny to notice things like these.
>>
No. 53904 Kontra
52 kB, 350 × 495
Also: All of you have been ESpecially assburger lately.
>>
No. 53906
>>53024
This stress with the girl has worsened. I still avoid her gaze even if she couldn’t care less of me. Makes me pretty sad. I’m unable to work properly with social interactions in general. Most people like me, but more as a phenomenon than as a person. Also, I don’t think I have the right idea of what relations are as some of you suggested in answer to my last blogpost. And I overthink things in a useless way.
>>
No. 53907
>>53893
>Usually anything below a dissertation is no contribution and I don't think that most people begin to study and after 5 years have written their dissertation,
The typical scientific value of a contribution varies greatly between fields. For medicine, it is close to nil. In engineering fields, the dissertation itself will be read by close to no one, while the papers leading up to the dissertation might gain a wide readership. It is interesting how hung-up on formalities some people get.

>>53898
>You jerk off to your excellent grasp of the language and to your great style and clever constructions
He builds English sentences with German syntax and sprinkles them with commas as if it was hagelslag on a piece of white bread.

>You jerk off to your excellent grasp of the language and to your great style and clever constructions you forget to actually say something.
They don't forget. They just do not believe that anything should be said.
>>
No. 53911
>>53886
The mind boggles.

You are not telling me anything new here. See >>53793. I wrote
>Luce Irigaray argues that Math was constructed by men in manly ways, thus is unsuitable to express that which is female, namely fluid dynamics

>I would be more interested in what you say to my other turds, since these are more interesting than your obession with an article from 1977 (1985 in english).
Very well, I will try to keep it short.

>It seems like fluidity is/was attributed to women or generally attributed as feminine,
which in itself is a weird claim to make. How is it justified? It is again just some random gut feeling, an assertion we have to take. We just have to go along with it. Why?

>where as the masculine is attributed with the binary and rigid logic. Science is attributed as masculine, thus excluding women from science, as they don't fit with their fluidity into the science systematics.
And according to her, we can see that this is the case from the fact fluid dynamics came after solid body mechanics! She then goes on to tell us in what (mostly imaginary) ways fluid dynamics are lacking, strengthening the argument.

Really, why not admit that these people mean what they write? When Irigaray instructs the reader to read up on mechanics, she means exactly that.

Katherine Hayles has this to say, by the way:

The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids.... From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders

Turbulent flow during menstruation would indeed be spectacular.

>Irigary then seem to proceed to reclaim fluidity in a new sense, to make it not a weakness, but a strenght.
Yes, I quoted the end of paragraph central to this. See >>53847, ... only by virtue of her fluidity, etc.

>So you see this is basically about philosophy in a feminist twist, that only uses science to show something entirely else than the rightness of your phyiscal equation.
No, it is at least in part a feminist critique of physics, allthough a rather weak one that really only stands out in its retardation. I will paraphrase, once again:
Fluids are feminine, but solid body mechanics came first and has "neater" solutions. Obvious sexism!

>>53877
>also again for you, do you understand, what is written in the paragraph following, because it tackles what you do here, you are the Sokal Jokel.

>Just like Sokal you don't seem to get that philosophy and science are different fields, that nonetheless can take upon each other,
>maybe science less because the discpline does not allow for it to happen.
It is trivial to convert insights into nonsense, but upcycling bullshit is close to impossible.

>Begriffe are btw concepts.
Learn to spell yokel before. And maybe make distinction between the concepts of societal norms and normality. Then start lecturing.
If I had trouble with that piece of vocabulary, I would be able to use a dictionary.

>There is a scientific concept of chaos, but there also is a philosophical concept of chaos
And some people failed to keep the two seperate, mixing them up with casual disregard, which drew Sokals criticism.

>and I an only bet that the concept if fluidity in philosophy is not the same as concept of fluidity in physics.
The paper in question does not even use the word 'fluidity', it talks about fluids.
>>
No. 53913 Kontra
>>53904
What do you expect? I feel like my mind is degenerating. I am sitting here in my apartment, with internet strangers being virtually the only human contact I have. Since EC is so slow, I visit the 4chongs and get mad at all the retards.
Weather is shit because it makes the skin of my hands break, also my scalp, I get really bad dandruff when it's cold outside. I hate having to wear layers of clothes and the fucking mask.
I watched Aniara early this year and it really affected me. What if I also stay inside forever and die there? At this point I wouldn't even mind going to a club with electronic music, I just want to ACTUALLY get out again. Hell, I would pay a round at the bar for everyone there if I just could go to one. I want to go to a restaurant again.
And I feel like getting dumber and dumber every day. I read, play music, try to learn new things, but my brain feels like someone had put a sponge on it, but not with water, but with crude oil, which now seeps into the folds. I do lots of running, in fact my cardiovascular fitness has probably never been better, but I HATE it. I hate running. It's boring and dumb. I want to go lifting again. I did martial arts and I want to do that again. I just want to have a drink with my buddies again. Fuck all of this. I always thought I could endure a trip to Mars, but now I know that I would probably go mad pretty quickly.
Thanks for reading my whining.
>>
No. 53918 Kontra
62 kB, 615 × 667
>>53911
I think we don't need to discuss further.
Anyway. I asked myself how you came to know her in the first place and that you mentioned Hayles (which I know by name, Irigaray was not known to me until now) and I googled her name together with Sokal to find out he and Bricmont have a whole chapter about her according to Richward Dawkings (and about Hayles). So basically you come from Sokal, perhaps just parroting. As mentioned in the quote about Deleuze, Guattari and Sokal, some things are dubious, but not all use is bogus. Sokal is a scientist, not a philosopher. "Postmodernism" has a philosophical history, might want to look at it, it did not came out of nothing. Since we won't agree on the possibility of an intersection between science and philosophy or even cultural studies, the later not being there to do the work of physicists ofc, any further discussion is pointless anyway.
>>
No. 53920
44 kB, 500 × 375
>>53903
Thanks for posting, it's like a palate cleanser from all the autistic screeching itt lately. Btw can you explain what's up with the copper dick owl?
>>
No. 53921 Kontra
>>53920
>what's up with the copper dick owl?
I don't know. It's a thing. Generally I encountered it as a stand-in for boogeyman type creatures. So like when I would do something late at night instead of sleeping my mother would say "Elvisz a rézfaszú bagoly" or "You'll be taken (kidnapped) by the copper-dicked owl/owl with a copper dick". "Fasz" is probably the most vulgar way to say "dick" in Hungarian.
This is the only context I encountered it. Don't know if it's something relatively new or an older folk myth.
>>
No. 53922 Kontra
>>53918
The name is Dawkins, and he crapped in places you or I will never reach. I originally became aware of this whole bullshit-"science"-cartel during the grievance-studies-affair, you can google it.
Irigaray is a fraud, in a field full of frauds, making up smart sounding bullshit and clapping each others backs for it. To them, this might feel like "work", because they put in an effort. From an outside perspective, it is bullshit artists bullshitting. The real problem starts when power is given to those bullshit artists, and as we have seen, they are power-hungry psychopaths.

I have seen them invading and running entire departments into the ground, not joking.

>>53898 said most of what there is to say.
>>
No. 53923
>>53911
not helping the stereotype that all female philosophers just end up talking about their vaginas lmao
>>
No. 53924 Kontra
>>53922
Muh science wars not over uga uga. It's ok, son. When you will be able to differentiate, we might be able to discuss things. Just to be clear here, I don't think that science is a hoax or solely depending on it's social context.
>>
No. 53925 Kontra
>>53922
Crappy papers exist everywhere, it's not a problem in the humanities alone.
>>
No. 53928 Kontra
>>53925
Yeah, but crappy papers are usually quickly exposed as such (unless it's cancer research funded by big pharma), but STEM has never had problems like Sokal/grievance.
>>
No. 53929
>>53924
You don't think science is a hoax, it's just that it becomes "a biased, rationalist perspective that can't uncover the whole truth" when people use it to criticize your ideology.

It's 100% true when it supports it though, TRUST THE SCIENCE.
>>
No. 53930
I don't believe that science is real either. I don't believe in induced drag, it doesn't make sense that it would have such an effect to me so I don't believe it's real. What are they hiding?
>>
No. 53932
>>53929
Scientific conduct implicates more than theory/hypothesis and experimentation. It does not happen in a vacuum, it is treated as such by disciplines for their own functionality and because they are not really responsible for such an undertaking, even though it would be good if scholars know something about it. Scientists themeselves can become the objects of anthropologists for instance. In other words, sciences are social, political and cultural. You might be familiar with the literary agent John Brockman who has lots and lots of scientists publishing books for a wider audience I read one by Daniel Hillis lately. At this moment scientists interfere with a non-scientific sphere, and Brockmans history indicates that it's not only about publishing scientists, Brockman values things and he devalues things, this has nothing to do with just science, it becomes political. Science and politics link. Sciences and its results are used "outside" of sciences, they influence thinking and acting, likewise this (social, politcal and cultural, also philosophical) "outside" might have impact on how science is conducted. Just because scientists don't acknowledge this or don't know how that might happen, does not mean it does not happen.
STEM is not enough to explain culture, politics and sociality, yet both are not autonomous from each other, for functionalities sake, they are, but looking at the intersection is thus even more intersting. That indeed is my standing. And science is not automatically speaking the truth, when it yields results, again history should deliver enough examples.
>>
No. 53936
>>53928
>but STEM has never had problems like Sokal/grievance

Counterpoint: String Theory.
>>
No. 53940
>>53936
What about it?
>>
No. 53942
science has facilities for separating valid theories / concepts / conclusions from non-scientific ones.

Does critical theory or whatever it is called, have facilities for invalidating works in its fields, or basically any criteria at all by which their validity can be tested?
>>
No. 53944 Kontra
>>53920
>>53921
2bh I went on a little digging because the topic was interesting.
Asked my mother too, she learned the expression from my great-grandmother.
Apparently it's very old folklore and from Sopron to Székelyland most Hungarian regions have it. (My family comes from the southern plains/Voivodina area originally, so that has it too.)
Basically it goes back turkic-ugric roots according to research, and could be paired up with the "Vasorrú Bába", which is the "Iron-nosed Midwife". Siberian turks have Copper nosed midwives in their legends and folk-songs. Supposedly the owl is a male counterpart to the female medicine-practicioner. (Of course this is just speculation. They also had statues of owls with human faces on their chest, that might have something to do with it.)
There's a funny saying about the vasorrú bába. "You're as confused as an iron-nosed midwife in a magnet-storm".
So anyway, supposedly it's pre-carpathian Turko-ugric lore. No one knows why the owl has a copper dick.
But the function is as I explained it. To scare children into behaving well.
>>
No. 53945 Kontra
>>53936
Sabine Hossenfelder, is that you?

>>53940
Certain factions consider it useless, unproductive and think it should be discarded, and that's the polite version.

I guess an individual's view on string theory is connected to how they view math. Do they consider mathematic constructs mere tools, essentially interchangeable, a human construction, a fiction or a narrative? Or do they think mathematic entities have an existence on their own and are discovered by mathematicians? What is more real, the chair the mathematician sits on our the constrained Wilmore surfaces that are the object of his investigation?
>>
No. 53946 Kontra
>>53945
Well, sure string "theory" is debated, because it's more like a set of hypotheses that tries to unify so many things people have just started to really delve into that specific topic, but it doesn't claim to be the truth or anything, so I don't see how that's a counterpoint to humanities accepting every kind of inane bullshit as long as it's in accordance with their ideology. Plus, string theory is not responsible for "Mitarbeiter*Innen" and the perception of validity its use in official documents gives.
>>
No. 53947 Kontra
>>53946
The connection some people see is probably not a connection to newly invented gender identities and pronouns.

The argument an opponent of string theory would make would probably look something like this: There are no experimental designs to test proposed advantages over the standard model, and there won't be any in the foreseeable future. So, string theory does not make any falsifiable predictions, but still sprouts variant after variant, growing in complexity, but not predictive power. So some theoretical physicists are the same kind of bullshit artists.
>>
No. 53961
Why is life so difficult
>>
No. 53968 Kontra
106 kB, 1080 × 935
>>53961
Because it revolves around solving problems
>>
No. 53992
One of my assignments for Greek class was deciphering headstones. It was kind of like a window to the field of archaeology.(You know, archaeologists are out there, working their arms off digging and stuff, and classics students and teachers are sitting in their comfy rooms looking out the window.)
Texts like these are very short, but they're very hard, because for one, there's zero punctuation, which wouldn't necessarily be a problem, but coupled with the fact that they're also full of typos and other errors doesn't help the situation.
Like, how do you even manage make a typo on a headstone???
So yeah, it's very interesting, but also a great lesson in humility.

Went back to sleep after classes and now it felt like I'm in some sort of limbo, because usually if I sleep I do it in the afternoon and I wake up just before the night rolls around. Though this is better. I went out and helped plant some flowers for my mother.

Yesterday I stayed up really late to finish an assignment. I enjoyed the Japanese art-history classes, though I think I still know-fuck all about the art of Japan. But some of the details, like how one artist painted his stops between Edo and Kyoto as cats kinda puts the Japanese's mascot-craze into perspective.
I'm proud of myself that I managed to write all three of the essays and hand them in a day before the deadline. That's a level of foresight I haven't experienced in a while.
Now the contents of the essays I'm not necessarily proud of, because I really went out of my way to bolster the word count to an absurd degree at times, but at least I used proper sources. Not my best work, but it's better to write three essays on art than to have to memorise hundreds of Japanese pictures by name and then recall their name, age and topic for an exam.

Sadly the education will stay digital until September. Shit's fucked. Exams will be online again too.

Reading the book on the history of Turanism makes me kind of sad. If Turanism is ever mentioned, it's painted as a collection of ideas for crazy people, but reading into it, a lot of aspects resonate with me. Preaching the brotherhood of peoples, international cooperation, working together, travelling to each others countries, sharing knowledge and culture and so on. These are all noble and positive ideas with energy and dynamism.
(Didn't even know that every single prime minister of Hungary between 1910-1945 was a member of the Hungarian Turan Society. This stuff was big.)
I heard people say nazism is a "negative-ideology". Now this I think is a "positive-ideology".
Okay, it's relegated to the dustbin of history now, but it wasn't evil "to the core" like a lot of people claim. It's refreshing to read.
>>
No. 53996
>>53992
>You know, archaeologists are out there, working their arms off digging and stuff
Nah, the archaeologists pay peanuts to local labour to do most of the physical work. Their thing is site management, making sure that they don't fuck it up more than absolutely necessary (trench work is part a cost measure and part an ethical thing surrounding the disturbing of sites in Archeological theory).

>Like, how do you even manage make a typo on a headstone???
Same reason you see typos in the hand of scriveners all the way through to the Early Modern. Even those people were borderline illiterate a lot of the time, and then combine that with a much less standardised approach to language in general in the past, and you get a lot of things that were acceptable then but aren't necessarily correct per the book.

Regarding Turanism, it's pretty silly coming from European countries with very little in common with said Asian countries at the time it was/is happening. Westoids claiming deep cultural links with Central Asian people is as absurd as other westoids claiming close genetic links to Tibetans. The connections by the time these ideologies were popular were so distant as to be virtually made up tbh.
>>
No. 54010
Tbh I don't really get all the tranny bashing.
Sure, there's some abhorrent TRAs (trans right activists) on twitter, but I think it's a twitter problem, not a trans problem.

I've talked to a bunch of trans people just because they seem to be in the same online communities as I am, and most of them are perfectly normal people who just happen to be suffering from a very tragic condition. And they're basically harmless, contrary to the image of the evil rapist brute that poltards portray them as.

Although, I do think that all the gender/sex philosophy is a red herring. The "genuine" trans people I've talked to basically all credit their suffering to gender dysphoria. Which, I think, is on some level different from sexuality.

What I mean is that me, a non gender dysphoric person, if I wake up in another body tomorrow, different gender, different race, etc., would not feel an intense disgust towards my "wrong" body as trans people do towards theirs. I would just have to move on with my life and accept the new social factors that my new body causes me to adopt. Simply because to me, one's body is secondary to their "being". What defines me is my internal, "intellectual" life, not my body. Maybe it's just because I'm an autistic schizo who lives in my own mind, I dunno.

I think it is body dysphoria, not sex/gender, that needs to be more deeply examined.
>>
No. 54015 Kontra
>>54010
Are you referring to 4kanker polshits or the discussion in this thread?
Because I don't think anyone here bashes trannies, but you actually named the main problem with identity politics, which is that most of these people are aware they have some condition that should be treated. However, a vocal minority tries to redefine that into something "normal", in the sense that it is supposed to stand equally besides the male/female binary.
Just acknowledging that someone has body/gender dysphoria doesn't mean they're seen as lesser people, just like someone with depression isn't seen as lesser. However, if we treated people with depression the same way that vocal minority treats/wants trannies to be treated, we would go and say "You have depression? That's great, here, I'll help you kill yourself".
Or to say it a bit imprecise: People hate the game, not the players (unless those player like the game).
>>
No. 54016
>>54015
Meh, I don't have anything against SRS either.
If what they say is to believed, it reduces the symptoms and causes less suffering long term.
Unless there's actually a cure for dysphoria, as ugly as it is, HRT and SRS is probably the lesser of two evils.
We can treat them as women as a "social accommodation" measure, even.

I just think that what gender someone "really" is, or attempts to redefine gender and sexuality to be superfluous.
It doesn't really do anything either, studies show that studies show that most men and women wouldn't date transgender people of either gender, even if they think they're "real men/women" and "valid" or whatever. So it's basically a polite lie on part of society, not actual change in attitudes.
>>
No. 54018
1,1 MB, 1024 × 753
>>54010
>>54015
>>54016
People from outside, who are not interested in the topic and actual people most times just create some imaginary abstract group that following specific stereotypes that were randomly chosen and then trying to analyze this group. Like not a real group, but for example what a typical modern imageboard dweller thinks what "tranny" is. It works for other "groups" same as vice versa, when people from named groups imagine, for example, imageboard dwellers themselves. This leads to pointless arguing when people trying to talk about each other, but about how they imagine each other. So this is layers of stereotypes on multiple levels. In my opinion, "battle memes" where one group of people depicted as glorious and another group of people depicted as a stereotype of the said group through the eyes of the first group is the apotheosis of such worldview model.

So in this example, here we abstract "tranny" which exists as a pure model only in the minds who created it, since most of the people who often fall into this group by imageboard standards I interacted with or not follow stereotypes attached to this group, or their meaning often a bit different than in meme with soyjak.
>>
No. 54019 Kontra
>>54018
Rather accurate descripton of what happens most of the time.
>>
No. 54020
>>54019
I said about in general square-hole type of thinking majority of humans possesses about everything outside of their direct sphere of interests. I not trying to argue or change your opinion, since as I said, it is pointless when we have some square-hole all information should fit and what not fit - ignored on a concept level.
>>
No. 54021
>>53996
Yes, it's kind of laughable in a sense, but it's also admirable because it gave those people a reason to go on expeditions to collect folklore, songs, stories, tales and linguistic data.
Even if they weren't right, their hearts were in the right place, and they weren't out to draw blood but do learn more about distant peoples, and that, I can get behind. (Probably because I'm a hopeless romantic who's very easy to buy with words.)
Guess I'm not necessarily in love with the ideology/idea itself, but rather it just happens to intersect with things that interest me.
>>
No. 54048
116 kB, 1536 × 651
Ok, here's a novel thought inspired by our recent discussions.
There exists a competition and rivalry not only between different narratives in culture, but between different "mediums" of cognition / thought as well.

Basically, the premise is that information between art forms / mediums is non-transferrable. Kinda like the saying "It's better to see something once, than to hear about it a thousand times". You can't describe a painting in words that would have the same impact as actually seeing it. You can't convey a song with a painting, or a movie with words.

So, there is actually a competition between epistemological mediums for the space of the human mind.
And the "literary" medium is winning, because it is the easiest form of information to transfer, and it is a "meta-medium" of a kind, as in, the medium we use to describe all OTHER media. Now, description is not the same thing as actually experiencing the thing, but it's the best we have for communicating to others what that experience was.

So, this concept of "critical theory" comes to mind. I am admittedly ignorant on what it fully entails, but from what I've seen of it, it is basically a way to give other art forms meaning through a "cultural" or "narrative" interpretation of them. For example, you could have a video game review about a medieval strategy game that never mentions anything in terms of the medium itself (like gameplay), and instead just criticizes the narrative that the game happens to evoke. Like, say the game uses western medieval aesthetics to portray the "heroes", and some foreign, oriental aesthetic to portray the "villains". "Critical theory" would have the game be evaluated by this superficial narrative alone, while a critique that actually speaks in terms of the medium itself would focus more on gameplay, and disregard the superficial aesthetics.

Now, what I'm getting at, is that there's an attempt in academia, maybe unconscious and probably just inevitable due to memetic selection, at trying to use literary / narrative thought to displace and push away other forms of cognition / communication. "All art is politics" is a phrase that comes to mind. Basically, the assertion that the contextual interpretation of a work is more important / valid than what it conveys in the language of its own medium.

What is further amusing is that, I think, the linguistic narrative is ultimately losing to the memetic, audio-visual medium of internet memes. They are such a succinct and effective way of conveying ideas, that most people unknowingly derive their worldview from exposure to internet memes.

The ultimate point is that memetic selection applies to modes of thought / art forms / mediums themselves, not just ideas within those mediums.

_
You know, from time to time I come up with ebin ideas, and those ideas further define my model of reality. My personal model of what reality is like, thus, grows more and more elaborate, but as a consequence, I become more and more distant from the average person. I basically do not share a common reality with the average person any more, I have alienated myself from the rest of humanity by thinking too much. There is no way back, I'm basically way past the point of no return as far as schizo alienation goes.

I came to this thought while I was walking to the nearby store to get more beer and saw a bunch of youths sitting on a concrete block socializing. I realized that I basically had no method or way of socializing or meeting people the way they did: simply by proximity. Those people became friends or part of a social circle simply because they were neighbors. I, on the other hand, live in a completely separate, parallel reality, and would never be able to befriend anyone simply because I happen to be physically next to them. I am a mental traveler who strayed too far from the path, getting lost in the wilderness, with no hope of getting back home. It is my fate now.
>>
No. 54051
160 kB, 1024 × 683
>>54048
>You know, from time to time I come up with ebin ideas, and those ideas further define my model of reality. My personal model of what reality is like, thus, grows more and more elaborate, but as a consequence, I become more and more distant from the average person. I basically do not share a common reality with the average person any more, I have alienated myself from the rest of humanity by thinking too much. There is no way back, I'm basically way past the point of no return as far as schizo alienation goes.

Same.
Yet I think, some people would agree and your thoughts when they would be "educated" enough, let's better say they would have the necessary knowledge to comprehend.

>but from what I've seen of it, it is basically a way to give other art forms meaning through a "cultural" or "narrative" interpretation of them.

???

Critical theory is usually concerned with social relations and their constitution. You can use literary theory for instance hermeneutics/interpretation, culture as legible thing, as text -> methods of hermeneutics/interpretation are used for cultural analysis. But narration in literary theories is also about structures that are not about content like the heroes actions etc to point something out, that you think has an effect on social relations or in other words social organization. Famously, economics plays e.g. a big part in how society is organized (Marx). So you can interpret a computer game differently ofc, depending on what you put emphasis. An object (of art) can mediate different things, you don't have to elaborate on all of them. It's a selective operation.

>a competition between epistemological mediums

not sure what you are trying to say here really, but there is epistemological variety and thus a difference in knowledge, also truth claims in the end. These epistemologies are linked with certain methodologies and ultimately concern different parts of reality. All science and humanities concentrates on cuts of reality. You can link these cuts, you can have cuts within cuts.
>>
No. 54054
>>54051
>Yet I think, some people would agree and your thoughts when they would be "educated" enough, let's better say they would have the necessary knowledge to comprehend.
There's also the issue of the language barrier. I basically think in English. The other two local languages I know are on casual talk level. I can not express the same thoughts in them, as I can in English.
Sometimes I think of getting an English speaking expat gf, but my extended family would disapprove heavily, and I would end up basically disowned if that came to pass. Such cases.

>Critical theory is usually concerned with social relations and their constitution. You can use literary theory for instance hermeneutics/interpretation, culture as legible thing, as text -> methods of hermeneutics/interpretation are used for cultural analysis. But narration in literary theories is also about structures that are not about content like the heroes actions etc to point something out, that you think has an effect on social relations or in other words social organization.
That's my point, I think "meanings" and criticisms are basically not transferrable between medium. So, critical theory as applied to visual art, is not actually taking about visual art, but using visual art as a premise to talk about sociology. You can't apply sociology to visual art because visual art, as a medium, basically exists "beyond" sociology, and deals with something more fundamental, something about the basic human condition, rather than the social condition.
So, I see critical theory as a using other mediums of art as a "jump-start" for its own arguments.

>not sure what you are trying to say here really
Just that as there's intra-contextual memetic competition between ideas in certain fields, there can also be extra-contextual competition between fields themselves.
Basic example is science vs philosophy determining our narrative of reality. Both are concerned with completely different slices of reality, but sine both have to share the same "medium" when it comes to pushing a narrative (language), one gets to "drive" society more than the other.
So we have a competing divide in the form of scientism vs continental philosophy telling us what reality actually is like.
Such competition exists between ALL forms of intellectual endeavor, between various art forms, to sciences, to methods of communication to modes of thinking.
>>
No. 54055 Kontra
>>54048
Shut the FUCK up schizo

(User was banned for this post)

>>
No. 54058
>>54055
sorry
>>
No. 54060
1,3 MB, 614 × 922
>>54054
>You can't apply sociology to visual art because visual art, as a medium, basically exists "beyond" sociology, and deals with something more fundamental, something about the basic human condition, rather than the social condition.

Who says the social condition is not within the human condition? That aside, I would refrain talking of media the term media is used very differently across the board and take something as an object of investigation that is not limited to one explanation. Because in object is not limited to one function, or only is important in one context. When you talk of it being a medium, you mean piece of art as transmitter of meaning, right? That piece of art can also transmit social norms etc. which renders it approachable also for critical theory for instance.
There is sociology which is concernded with the social conditions of art. Art works can be concerned with social relations. Physics and chemistry can explain how art works are possible, the materiality of art as such.
>>
No. 54061
236 kB, 1024 × 684
>>54054
>Both are concerned with completely different slices of reality, but sine both have to share the same "medium" when it comes to pushing a narrative (language)

the case of language is very interesting, language as condition and its role in shaping reality was of and probably is still of very great concern. "Postmodernists" frankly, the 1980s and 1990s are the late blooming of works predating the coining of that term, Wittgenstein is one notorious figure of the linguistic turn who were also invested in the language question have their roots in something called the lingustic turn, which dates back to the begining of the 20th century, maybe even further.

Regarding that they both narrate and what makes them different
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KnPBg-tanE
>>
No. 54065
>>54055
Being low IQ must be infuriating hey?
>>
No. 54072
887 kB, 1212 × 673
92 kB, 711 × 443
174 kB, 500 × 380
Oh Jesus f'ing God I love 1440p holy shit. I can't believe my usual long shitposts fitting in such small screenspace--it makes them feel like just normal posts. Also my condolences to anybody who's subjecting to reading them on 900p or God help you mobile device.

Anyway so thankfully the board is clean and in the interim I spent a considerable amount of time just fucking about with cryptos and computer parts which is becoming a real seriously expensive hobby of mine, even if it doesn't actually make any sense.

I've gained some perspective on that being rich means you could engage in truly autistic as fuck things which always mystified me what anybody with 100k+ income would actually spend their extra money on, and I came to the conclusion that beyond institutional things and major properties/investments that I would actually unironically start collecting aged computer parts. snip

But anyway aside from obsessing over PC parts and being amazed at how crap the entire GPU market still is, as well as recognizing Best Buy completely ripped me the fuck off and that "sale" card I got for $120 was literally 40 fucking dollars over MSRP for something that was crap on its own and like 2 years old by thenI was so excited about it back then but I really wish I knew more about tech then and would've immediately recognize not to get a 550 but had I not I wonder if I'd even have upgraded at all for a few years I've also just been looking at my financial future.

I'm way too leveraged into cryptos at this point although ironically enough my entire thrust of getting into crypto finally was entirely and 100% accurate, which was that I had a strange intuition ernst, you must get into dogecoin, don't ask why, just do it now and amazingly I find myself realizing I should have spent $500 on doge a month ago and not questioned it further.

ironically this was the first post I was going to make but I got distracted by multiple other threads and things
I've got tabbed crypto cancer and a bunch of tech stuff right now and outside of getting to really enjoy smooth as butter Cities Skylines for the first time on that machine I've really not video gamed much just because I'm now so fully absorbed in both a), a hobby, and b), trying to find some way to make money in this country. It's now my almost single minded goal to make it to fuck off money so that I can eventually not ever have to suffer these bydlo or risks associated with being around them in a national crisis ever again. I'm hodling the fuck on to a bunch of my money, and even in the event of a complete crypto meltdown I already know that while depressing inside every disaster is an opportunity, and by God am I going to make an opportunity out of every disaster.I am sadly stalled on yet another private project however, which is a shame but I feel like I need to both have the details of each project of mine right and most importantly to execute the timing. In particular I sold off my old GPU for Christmas money, and buying a new GPU that performs worse for more money is peak pic related although to be fair I needed the money and that thing couldn't work on my old PC either I just didn't expect this much shortage. Some projects are more difficult and risky than others, even if there's much profit to be made through that supreme risk.
>>
No. 54076
I haven't done ANY work at all the past two weeks, and I'm not getting fired or even reprimanded.
This makes me even more paranoid and anxious than if I'd been told to get my ass in gear.

I think my boss just keeps me around as an idea generator. Basically, he'll ask for my thoughts on such and such, and I'll run my mouth in a long winded, verbal schizopost, then he'll go back to work, satisfied.

This whole situation is kinda weird.
>>
No. 54078
318 kB, 1515 × 1850
>>54076
You have become a consiglieri.
>>
No. 54079
>>54076
So, do you expect to get canned soon or what? I mean, from what you tell I can't see any downside, apart from wasting living hours at work you are not actually doing.
>>
No. 54080
551 kB, 1500 × 2149
I wonder how you become a drug dealer. I mean, first you need drugs but what then? How do you get customers? Do you ask random people in a park or what? Hanging out flyers near schools that say "need drugs? call 123456"?
>>
No. 54081 Kontra
>>54076
Well, it could be that you fullfil a specific function to somebody like your boss, maybe you just get overlooked. It's really interesting how cooperations work.

>>54080
There are documents on the big guys: Cocaine Cowboys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip-Glb343DE displays it well, watched it as drug consuming teen :DDD Best theme music as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxuPgRgQZcc

If you mean the typical lower level german drug dealer. Well, one possibility is this one: You consume drugs, you need money and you know people that consume drugs. You find a good source yourself, sell to people you know, these people know other people, good prices, quality etc. come in as factors basically it boils down to knowing people for a) buying and b) selling. The park is an option as well but from all I know most is an informal network of drug consumer circles in a city. If you ask how to get up in the ranks and scope of trade. I think you work your way up or you have some access to people who trade big already, but I know nothing about the latter.
>>
No. 54088
385 kB
1,8 MB
5,6 MB, 255 pages
1,1 MB, 828 × 711
>>53944
>"You're as confused as an iron-nosed midwife in a magnet-storm".
Lmao
>No one knows why the owl has a copper dick.
Truly mysterious. I suppose owls by themselves symbolize the obvious "wisdom" but also conspiracies (i.e. Bohemian Grove stuff), but the copper dick is an absolutely mind-boggling addition.

>>54080
In addition to >>54081 you can also advertise online nowadays, there are e.g. several Telegram groups where people sell stuff.

>>54048
That's the basic ideas of McLuhan, there's already an established academic field called "media ecology". There's tons of books on that stuff & while the "average person" probably doesn't know much about there's bound to be plenty of online communities where you can discuss it.
>>
No. 54089
Brother snitched to mom that I'm an alcoholic.
Fucking cunt.

I never told nobody about HIS 5 year period of smoking weed every hour of every day.

Fucking Mr good guy
>>
No. 54090
>>54089
And now? Do you have to appear before the sharia tribunal?
>>
No. 54093
>>54080
I know people who stoped their studies to become dealers. It’s a very well paid job and most of them live pretty well. It goes like this, you get connections with dealers, you show interest and spend time with them and progressively you become one. But there’s also Nigerian dealers who do this job more by necessity and become one with the help of the Nigerian immigrant community. They are most probably paid well less than white dealers. Such cases.
As of creating your own drug cartel from scratch. It doesn’t look very doable for me. There’s always hierarchy and drug dealing gang often do mitosis but never really appear.
>>
No. 54097
>>54080
You typically just put ripples out that you've got drugs and then people will hit you up. That's how it worked in kitchens up until last year at least. If you're proactive, then you just find out who needs drugs and go to them. Word of mouth will then lead to the first part again.

The main thing is to just not be a retard and keep your supply divided up. Know your possession laws so that you don't get picked up with enough dope to be done for distribution or trafficking (know a guy who got the latter for keeping his stash in the car).
t. has worked with part-time dealers on multiple occasions
>>
No. 54101
I'm surprised to find that I'm actually able to twirl my moustache. It's pretty funny.

Took part in the Chinese study-circle again today. It was pretty nice. I was told that if I have passion and some knowledge I should try applying to the Workshop of Oriental Studies next semester.
It sounds like a great opportunity to make connections and actually further my knowledge.
Really, if knowledge is a large battle against the unknown, then I'm currently at a bootcamp, but the workshop seems like an opportunity to see the front for the first time, even if just using a binocular.
The question is, will I pass the interview next time they're recruiting.
(I think my novel translation might come in handy if I put it on my CV to make me look "gifted" and "into it".)

Ι'm also going to try getting into the interpreter-translator training program.
Last week I had a panic attack thinking I failed to actually submit my application only to realise the form in the digital system was for last year and not this year. (So the deadline was from before I was even accepted into the university.)
Really, I should stop worrying too much. I've lost 15 kilos since the pandemic begun just because I worry too much and can't eat. I'm scared that I'll just randomly wither away and die.
>>
No. 54102
0 Bytes, 225 × 224
File deleted
Do you love Israel, Ernst?
>>
No. 54110
Finally back to the gym. Feels good man.

>>54090
No, just a lot of uncomfortable talking with mom.
>>
No. 54111
>>54110
>No, just a lot of uncomfortable talking with mom.
Probably worse than a Sharia court tbh.
>>
No. 54113
I have spent inordinate amounts of time lately just watching airplane videos at probably trains tier levels and feeling wildly shitty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1hlp0DCE_8
I can no longer hide it and actually wretched at work today. It is not getting better. I am getting worse. I cannot find the source of this but it almost feels like how I'd imagine it to feel when your myelin sheaths get eroded. Motor function is now impaired. Part of me almost feels like mild mercury poisoning and I almost want to blame that smashed laptop I garbage picked for mercury poisoning since it was about two weeks after I began declining. I feel weak, nauseous, vomiting, headaches, increasing weakness breathing and walking which I can no longer do in a straight line without shaking like I have Parkinsons. Come to think of it I am now breaching that final approach line where I have to take it seriously and be deeply concerned. Sometimes I stare at walls and my head feels empty. I actually come to think of it really should be more proactive because typing this made me realize we have a strong family history of autoimmune disorders too and I've been exposed to such contaminated bydlo and filthy annoying parasites contaminating my blood it wouldn't surprise me to have more health problems.

I almost want to ignore it like it's just in my head or I'm being dramatic or psychosomatic but I'm now at a threshold it feels like the early stages of Lyme almost. Today I'm noticing a worse breathing. Need to stop smoking that's all. I need a doctor.
>>
No. 54114
142 kB, 855 × 1280
>>54101
>I'm scared that I'll just randomly wither away and die.

Ha, funnily I think I have these for some 2-3 years no. At least I remember these thoughts and in the last 1.5 years it has been stronger. Probably due to career paths getting more important? But I suspect the battle against the unknown is the bigger factor in this. What if I die before I know much more than I can now? :DDDD it's actually a funny while a bit unsettling.
During the pandemic I kept my weight, maybe a bit more belly fat die to sweets and more unhealthy diet and less movement, but I don't really eat more or less than before the pandemic, which means that I unconsiously do what brick called intermittent fasting for ~15 years now
>>
No. 54116
i am bored how do I stop myself from drinking again.
>>
No. 54117
>>54116
Do something else.
Play a videogame.
>>
No. 54118
>>54117
Haven't played a video game in a while.
They're kinda boring tbh. And I feel guilty after playing, like I could've done something more productive, even though I wouldn't have.

I just don't enjoy doing things any more.
I go to work, then gym, then home, and sleep, repeat. And nothing else. No friends, no hobbies, no interests.
I feel like a robot going through the motions of what is expected of a human.
It's like I'm writing a bad story by acting it out, so that I have description of a life that I can present to others when they ask "what's up?". I am not really "living", just puppeteering my body.
>>
No. 54119
>>54118
>Haven't played a video game in a while.
>They're kinda boring tbh

Same for me, every now and then there's a real gem tough.
Right now i play the Resident Evil 2 remake. I usually don't like horror games but i got a steam key for free so i tried it and i really like it.
Would also recommend all the Yakuza games that got a release on PC (starting with 0 and the Kiwami games, then the Remastered collection)

>I just don't enjoy doing things any more.

Did you ever talk to a professional about depression? There's tons of help that can be offered in form of therapy or medication.
>>
No. 54120
>>54116
Want to watch a movie later? Gonna watch sum trashy kung fu either way, so if you want to kill time in that way, feel free.
>>
No. 54122
24 kB, 424 × 283
Trying to sell my 1070 (which surprisingly is still as expensive as it was 2 years ago) and apparently I only have a broken hdmi cable, which means I have to use my old monitor, because my replacement card doesn't support displayport, so now I have to use my old monitor with dvi, while sifting through ebay messages from fuckwits. Life seems enjoyable sometimes.
>>
No. 54126
>>54122
That's because you can still mine with it, it's actually a good card, and apparently a dual 1070 setup through SLI is still equivalent to an RTX 3070 which is itself going for on average a thousand dollars, and usually much much more. So basically if you just had two of them you can get a cheaper, far shittier version of raw 3070 performance at cost of wildly inflated power consumption, heat, needing a PSU and board with support for it, and not getting to have the RTX gimmickry and only working for whichever games support SLI which is dead now. Personally it'd be a pretty attractice option for me to just buy two 1070's for less than $700 if my PC was broken right now and I didn't want to go the cheapass business machine/laptop holdover route with no idea when or if this mining craze will have ended.

I am actually looking for a possible 1070 right now too funny enough I came here directly from a 1070 SLI video. Which for me really it comes down to an expensive hobby multiple layers of stupid even considering buying a rapidly depreciating asset at 100-200% price inflation that I don't even need knowing that if mining didn't take off this year it would literally cost half MSRP rather than 200%. You're an ernst so I'll tell you don't let these jackasses lowball you with its 8gb VRAM it is still a worthwhile mining card you could easily get 500 euros especially with original materials or particular models.

I'd also just like to get a 1070 to 970 range just because I actually can finally make my SLI meme machine one of these days reusing parts, which I cannot do on my new PSU and some of those power configs. I could just reuse my PSU and GPU when prices crash if I wanted a new board. Realistically I should just wait for depreciated market flood this summer, or buy my card now so I can at least mine enough to pay most of itself off. I've considered 980/ti at this point because I can now handle it though but prices are fucking insane. I'd also like to collect a FE card with original box but finding anything not absurd like a $350 GTX 970 is a serious hassle and I ain't payin that.

>>54118
You sound like brick
>>
No. 54127
Jesus fucking Christ imagine flying with Russian airlines and Russian pilots
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXF1ki2IAqY
I want to see Russia someday but the idea of actually trying to fly there and back is utterly terrifying
>>
No. 54144
>>54127
Eh, there are dodgy cunts everywhere. If anything, I'd trust Russian pilots more than average. Place has a long standing culture of Aero Clubs, so plenty of them (especially the older ones) end up with a shitload more experience than their counterparts in countries where that isn't in place.
>>
No. 54147
Got my tooth filled.
Can't believe it's as cheap as $20 for a toof, and they say it lasts for a decade. How do they even make money on this shit?

Anyway, today I discovered that teeth smell awful when they burn from being drilled.
>>
No. 54154 Kontra
>>54147
>How do they even make money on this shit?
Ask your insurance
>>
No. 54160
>>54127
I know a guy from pilot academy, and if only you knew how bad things are.

>>54144
It's quite the opposite. Russian pilots are heavily exploited by their companies and usually have to flight without proper rest and training.
>>
No. 54162
>>54154
I don't have one.
>>
No. 54167
158 kB, 389 × 496
I spent 5 hours cleaning up the yard today, and failed to apply sunscreen. I'll be sporting one hell of a farmer's tan, I tell you h'what.

>>54147
>today I discovered that teeth smell awful when they burn from being drilled
Oh, that smell...it's hard to describe, but very distinctive. And it's weird when you can see a dust cloud flying upward from your mouth, and you know that dust used to be your tooth. $20 is a great price for a filling. I think I paid ~$125 for my last one. That's a lot, but I think dentists make most of their money from crowns, and regular cleanings. My dentist (well, her hygenists, since she doesn't actually do the work herself) is booked solid months in advance for cleanings, at ~$60 per, and my crown was almost $1000. That sucked.
>>
No. 54169
>>54162
Ah ffs it's you. I assumed you were german and was already wondering how fillings can be so cheap. It's hard to properly reply if any poster could be from anywhere. Maybe in your case we could avatarfagging?
>>
No. 54171
I am literally days or weeks away from looking someone in the eye at work and calling them dumb bydlo.
I know more or less how it probably will go down too.
I'll have not had a cigarette in at least two hours, 1.5h minimum. It is almost assuredly going to be a boomer.
>fuck did you call me? A what?
>dumb bydlo. Go ahead call my supervisor idgaf
I feel spread thinly
>>
No. 54174
The weather was really good today. Went to town and bought a pizza for lunch. The main street felt really alive.
I never noticed that my town has so many trees that grow flowers in the spring. Everywhere I looked it felt like I was in a painting.

Also picked up some new books. Just some Chinese literature like a volume of 20th century poetry and Gu Hua's novel A Little Village Called Hibiscus. (And also an old, probably less than trustworthy volume detailing the history of the CPC.)
Owner of the bookstore actually recognised me and brought out the package without asking for my name.

I'm trying to help my sister prepare for the university entrance exams. It's the least I can do, since when I was preparing for the exams, besides my teachers nobody could offer me any advice, and while I was on pretty good terms with most of them, it's still not the same as someone at home being able to guide you.
Not to mention how I knew what I wanted to study, so a lot of choices were clear, whereas she has no idea what she wants to study.
The last two years of HS are pretty important, because that's when you pick "facultative" classes that prepare you for advanced exams that are necessary for a good entrance exam score and get into the major you want to study.
Not to mention the administrative side of things. There's a fuckload of paperwork to be done.
(2bh, I'm just starting to realise how easy I had with my studies at HS. I did every possible exam in advance, had all these papers granting me extra points and so on. It was a cakewalk. Not that I didn't study for it, but it wasn't an impossible challenge. She has a lot on her plate, especially with education failing because of covid, but I'm doing all I can to help.)

This also puts into perspective how much I've grown in the past year or so. I'm no longer a scared little high schooler, I'm a university student, and I act like it. I read ever obscure books, get drunk sometimes and study weird subjects.
Though I'll go ahead and say that it's true that a rose coloured campus life doesn't exist.
>>
No. 54176
>>54169
I refuse on principle :-DDDD

Also, I think the confusion it causes is amusing.
>>
No. 54177
I realized I am too dumb to keep up with actually smart people, but too smart to feel comfortable with the pace of dumb people.
Being a midwit is suffering.
>>
No. 54181
>>54177
You're in the perfect place for midwits
>>
No. 54184
Ok, did some research and apparently one needs to eat 200g of protein a day if they lift and their target weight is 80-90kg.

That's approx one kilogram of chicken breast EVERY SINGLE DAY.
I can't imagine physically consuming that much food in a day, what the hell. And that's just the proteins, now add carbs.
Wew lad.

Now I know why everyone takes protein powder.
>>
No. 54185 Kontra
>>54184
>200g of protein a day if they lift and their target weight is 80-90kg.
Wut? That's pretty overkill, the consensus seems to be 1.6g/kg, with 2g/kg if you're bulking.
>>
No. 54186
>>54185
I read that 1g per lb is standard, as that's slightly above what your body can process in a day, sans roids, if you lift.

Which would probably put it around 800g for 80kg. That's still a lot. I'm preparing a for the next few days and looking at this 1kg pile of chicken breast on my cutting board. Imagine eating that, and that's just one third of your macros.

Now wonder I'm fat, it seems I eat very little protein compared to carbs, and carbs are several times more mass efficient per calorie.
>>
No. 54195
Had a long discussion with shrink today.
I expressed my confusion over somehow ending up completely socially isolated despite not being that big of a fuckhead.

She told me that my facial expression, my body language, and my overall demeanor all strongly express the sentiment of "Please don't fucking talk to me, I'm annoyed at the very prospect of you opening your mouth in my direction".
And I think she's right.

Which is strange because I do enjoy talking. Maybe I just hate the social interaction that comes with it.
>>
No. 54196
>>54195
>Which is strange because I do enjoy talking. Maybe I just hate the social interaction that comes with it.
Why we all lurk imageboards: The post.
>>
No. 54197
39 kB, 713 × 500
I have no idea what's wrong with me. I'm increasingly suspicious I got poisoned by a hostile, or that I alternatively got exposed to a major dose of heavy metals. I'm utterly unable to hide it anymore and I'm starting to feel like puking in the middle of the day not just the morning. It feels like sharp power spikes in muscles, like the power in my knees just shuts off for microseconds. It is beyond aggravating now and feels like my muscle-neuronal axon connection is hiccuping for 7 solid hours. I've tried playing it off by exaggerating my normal rapid movements and in turn like I injured my leg but in truth I feel like a major neurological problem brewing. I'm constantly tired and short on breath, I can't bend to clip my toenails without getting winded, my body is now kinda jerking all the time, it feels like for several microseconds the power gets cut from my brain to my knees until the sudden falling motion trips some kind of emergency backup system, like autopilot keeps disengaging because the emergency circuit keeps getting tripped and that's what's keeping me from falling. I don't have any idea what it is because I've not changed meds or diet in years. Maybe they are poisoning me. I haven't yet detected any alterations to mental status or personality abnormalities but it almost feels like it's coming. I think of that woman who dropped organic mercury on herself. My heart felt kinda weak today. I smoke heavily so that and the masks makes me less prone to questioning the hard breathing. By the time I get home from work I can't walk. Aspects feel almost like mysethenia gravis descriptions, or like my myelin sheaths are being heavily corroded. I'll take a vitamin. Maybe it'll start to go away.
>>
No. 54201
amausing anecdote: I saw an Irish guy in a store today, and he was looking around through the cookies. "nah that's peanut butter" he was looking for chocolate chip. I was behind him and said, he that's chocolate chip. "no that's got peanut butter in it too!" he said.
"you're in the states everything has peanut butter in it."
"I know! You'd think someone would want to cut it up a bit, try something different"

It's pretty much thanks to KC I even realized this was a thing, and a thing that seemed odd to foreigners. It also takes me effort not to splice my speech with some /int/ tier pidgen speak at this point. Not sure how I managed to not say "you're in the states mate." I feel like the other Americans will get suspicious of me and I already do shit like that so much, call things meters, called fuel petrol one day, call people bydlo. I think A Clockwork Orange was ahead of its time. I feel like I barely speak American anymore however every foreigner must be subjected to our peanut butter and our pumpkins in the fall nonstop. Is that pumpkin coffee and pumpkin creamy pasta? Why yes, yes it is.
>>
No. 54206
>>54201
>Not sure how I managed to not say "you're in the states mate."
I casually called someone "mate" and my brother did a double-take, wondering what I just said. Seems odd how a single unexpected word can raise an eyebrow, even when everyone knows the word and what it means. At least "mate" I can explain away, just a friendly expression I read and picked up, but if I ever let a "bydlo" slip out there will be questions.

>every foreigner must be subjected to our peanut butter
But that stuff is soooooo good. I don't even make sandwiches, just eat it straight from the jar. The big jars from Cosco, which are too deep for any spoon, so the only way to get to the bottom is by getting your hand in past the rim and then dealing with peanut butter covered knuckles. Kind of annoying, but those 16oz jars are just too small.

Of course for homemade peanut butter, I make that 16 ounces at a time. Homemade peanut butter(1 jar of peanuts + food processor)is best when it's fresh, so I wouldn't want to make more than I'll eat in a given week. Oh, speaking of peanut butter...

>>54184
Instead of one protein source like chicken, I rely on a variety of foods every day. Peanut butter, eggs, greek yogurt, milk, cheese. I manage ~120g per day, but will admit I end up eating way too much saturated fat. Chicken would be healthier, so would protein powder. I should at least cut down on the cheese. 30% of your daily saturated fat in a single serving. Ouch.
>>
No. 54211
To be fair, yanks sound like fucken wankers when they say mate. I think it's in the 'a' somewhere. Dunno exactly what it is but it just ain't right.
t. frequent mate user
>>
No. 54213
This week I had to cover the Navalny protests in my city for the news outlet I work for.

Still baffles me that people view that movement as an actual threat to the regime and not just as schoolkids/students with too much time on their hands.
>>
No. 54214
>>54213
I don't think Navalny is a threat to the regime. The threat is that the youth agitation around him might end up accidentally showing that mass movements have more power than Putin would like the kids to realise. A decent chunk of the population, especially a productive one like the youth, realising their collective power is not what you want in his shoes.
>>
No. 54215 Kontra
>>54214
That's not intended to imply that this specific string of protests will be the great awakening of the Russian youth, just that it has the potential to act as the first nudge of the snowball.
>>
No. 54217
>>54213
I'm not a fan of Putin either, but I can't grasp how people actually manage to find any hope for a better future in fucking Navalny.
>>
No. 54218
>>54217
P.S.: German green and liberal party/media are forcing his image as some kind of supreme freedom fighter down everyones throat here btw
>>
No. 54220
>>54218
>are forcing his image as some kind of supreme freedom fighter down everyones throat here
Indeed a bad habit of german media, see also Vitaly Klitschko, Pussy Riot and Ai Weiwei, who were promoted as relevant figures, while in their original countries nobody gave a flying fuck about them. I wonder if russian and chinese media have similar "dissident" coverage about the likes of Xavier Naidoo or Attila Hildmann in return.
>>
No. 54221
>>54213
What city? Any pics?
>>
No. 54222
>>54220
>I wonder if russian and chinese media have similar "dissident" coverage about the likes of Xavier Naidoo or Attila Hildmann in return.

Just watch some German RT and you will have an answer, the answer is yes. Also RT Germany at least covers all kinds of riots in Europe that other liberal meda does not take up as often as RT does with actual footage. Why? Because Russia is interested in portraying Europe as weak and destablized. It's always the same.
Notice the sinophobia when it comes to economics for example. It's really funny. I mean I don't deny that China is problematique, but to me it's built as thread in the media here. There is a distinct gepolitical constelation of the US, Europe and China crystalizing. The US is not willing to give up its position to China and Europe is somewhere in between, belonging to the western hegemony yet is also an autonomous entity with interests (economical for exmaple) as well. Don't know where Russia is to be placed here or the middle east. Besides ressources, what has Russia to offer economically? I don't know but I could imagine that Russia might have some specialities to offer in services like the information technology sector or something like that.
>>
No. 54223
How the seizure of Europe's largest heroin shipment created bloody fallout throughout the world—and sparked still-raging political corruption scandals in Turkey, Greece, and the Middle East

https://newrepublic.com/article/159252/noor-one-vampire-ship-heroin-turkey-greece-corruption-scandal

Breakthrough Journalism Award | Pulitzer Center
>>
No. 54224
>>54201
>every foreigner must be subjected to our peanut butter
As long as you don't put raisins into pastries, that is completely fine. There are exactly two places raisins should be put into: chocolate or trash bin.

>pumpkins
The best thing about pumpkins is their seeds, IMO. I think that they are much tastier than sunflower seeds (and AFAIK, healthier), plus they are easier to shell and you don't even need to roast them, just let them dry for a while and they're good for eating.

>>54206
>I casually called someone "mate" and my brother did a double-take, wondering what I just said.
Actually, how do one usually addresses a random guy in the US informally? "Friend"? "Pal"? "Buddy"? "Dude" is kinda hippie-ish, "sir" is way too stiff, and "mister" just sounds sarcastic.
>>
No. 54227
>>54213
Is that the new job you interviewed for? If it is, congrats. Sorry if I'm mistaken and confusing you with another ball.

>>54224
>Actually, how do one usually addresses a random guy in the US informally?
"Man" works is most contexts:

> Hey man, what's going on?
>Excuse me man, I just need to step by you here...
>Look man I'm outdoors you know. Can I stay with you maybe a couple days?

Ok, that last one is from a George Thorogood song, but you get the idea. "Sir" works if speaking to someone older than you, or someone working, like a clerk etc. "Dude" can be used, but is best for men in the same age range.
>>
No. 54228
>>54211
>will confuse and scare the Americans and irritate the foreigners
It's like the perfect word :--DDDDD
>>
No. 54229
>>54227
>>54224
You say dude or man to people on the informal, sir in the formal. It's pretty much that simple. "Pal" "buddy" basically can sound kind of insulting, challenging, or threatening pretty easily. "Great job pal" sarcastically, "listen here, buddy" for the challenging/threatening. I of course think in men, so trying to think feminine permutations but I think ma'am instead of sir, dude for women. They're masculine words and you can say hey man too but typically you have to actually know the woman to get away with that. "Excuse me miss" I think is the formal/semi-formal. I have once had a woman take issue with being called ma'am who iirc was somewhat younger than me, and pointedly insist I use "miss." It absolutely is not too stiff. Do not use any of the words except sir or ma'am/miss with people unless you fully intend on using it in a friendly manner very casually and think you could get away with being that friendly being contextually appropriate (like saying "dude" to someone as a waiter is a big nope).

Of course as foreigners if you use it super inappropriately the worst it will happen is they think you're some poor ESL student who was instructed wrong. We generally cut visiting foreigners lots of slack about a lot of things unless you're Mexican or Arab, also depending on the era or Russian or Chinese but even then people just say "he is a foreigner he doesn't know better." I'd imagine the few multilingual Americans have a great time using that to their advantage in fucking with the other Americans (had it happen to me once with an American who spoke French).
>>
No. 54236
>>54228
I can respect that. Won't make it sound better, but a motherfucker just doing their thing hits.
>>
No. 54237
>>54227
>>54229
I see. Despite my dislike for hippies, I'm actually kinda glad that "dude" still lives on, because I often use it myself, as well as its Russian analogue "чувак" ("choovak"). We actually have a crisis of sorts in Russian language concerning the ways of addressing people. If you actually know the name of the person you're addressing, then its a no-brainer, because you just call them by name informally, and by name+patronymic formally (or jokingly, if they are your close friend), or by patronymic informally if they are older than you. But if it's some random person, then it's a bit hard. In tsarist times, you'd probably use "господин"/"госпожа" ("gospodin"/"gospozha" — "mister"/"mistress"), in Soviet times you'd use "товарищ" ("tovarishch" — "comrade") if you want to be nicer or "гражданин"/"гражданка" ("grazhdanin"/"grazhdanka" — "citizen") if you want to be colder, but now the former sounds too pompous, and the latter is outdated, so it's a bit hard to figure out what to use. I prefer to use "молодой человек"/"девушка" ("molodoy chelovek"/"devushka" — "young man"/"girl") when I address young people and "мужчина"/"женщина" ("muzhchina"/"zhenshchina" — "man"/"woman") when I address middle aged and old people, but it still sounds pretty awkward. I avoid using "бабушка"/"дедушка" ("babushka"/"dedushka" — "granma"/"granpa") because some people may take offense in that (women especially; in fact, one woman actually snapped at me for calling her a "woman" — did that stupid cunt seriously expected me to call her a "girl" when she's obviously way over fifty?). Social interactions are so annoyingly complicated.
>>
No. 54238
>in fact, one woman actually snapped at me for calling her a "woman" — did that stupid cunt seriously expected me to call her a "girl" when she's obviously way over fifty?)
huehue
>>
No. 54239
I did it. Somehow I did it. I managed to get through whole day without calling someone stupid cunt or dumb bydlo. Understaffed and more shit to do today than usual today. It was hell. By the end I seriously questioned if I could make it without being fired.

Meanwhile I do not know what is going on with me. I don't even know why I reflexively tell myself well it must be psychosomatic you probably need higher willpower. Maybe even more when I am told by useless doctors everything is fine, nothing is wrong. Life as true born bydlo must be horrendous. Nobody believes you, you cannot articulate yourself, probably they will shoot you full of one decimal point too many drugs and kill you. Maybe it's just more of a component of an overall totally rotten system here. At least I have an idea three separate things to check for being normal.

Today I watched this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQuWApn4mz4
Very fascinating and amusing interview