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

File (max. 4)
Return to
  • 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
146 kB, 1500 × 1500
No. 53554 Kontra
95 kB, 668 × 900
Just passing by to set the mood

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
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
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
No I meant existence of it in general. I hadn't realized scratch offs existed throughout EU.
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
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
At least come back sometime! Seems like this board is dying a bit.

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
>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
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
Go where people are, talk to them.
No. 53581
Where are they?
My path every single day:
Work, gym, home.

Do you suggest approaching people in public or on the bus? Because that's cringe.
No. 53582
94 kB, 1200 × 1192
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
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
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
I told them my testosterone level was 472
No. 53589
Was that too high or low for them?
No. 53590
I.. I don't know. You'll have to see for yourselves.
No. 53596
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
What kind of board is Mintboard?

t. lazy
No. 53604
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
What prevents you from using soap?
Also, you inspired me to make something.
No. 53620 Kontra
23 kB, 372 × 339
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
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
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
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
>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
>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.

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
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
>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
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
Floida man does good, saves animals from...large assembly of other Florida men. So...we're still, on balance...bad. Darn it.
No. 53638
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
The US is a developing nation so it doesn't surprise me.
No. 53642
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
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
"Japanese cartoons".
Done, retard.

American and european cartoons are also different, that's why we just specify the country of origin.
No. 53645
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
>booo hoo I'm too stupid to write full sentences, words are hard

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
>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
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".

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
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.

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

>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.

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
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.

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.

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
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
>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
>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
>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
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
>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
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
I used soap the first time but then wondered if it was really necessary.
No. 53678
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
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
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
>not impregnating her
>what are you doing with your life
No. 53682
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
>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
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
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?

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.

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
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
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
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
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.

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
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?

It's still cold there? It's fuggin hot here.
No. 53705 Kontra
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.

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
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.

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
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
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
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
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
>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
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
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
No. 53716
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.

No. 53739 Kontra
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
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 :(

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
There is already a computer thread, you know?
No. 53765
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
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
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
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
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.


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.