For discussion of politics, religion, and other content not fitting the rest of the site
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 380)
Message
BB Code
File
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PDF, PNG, TXT
  • Maximum file size allowed is 11742 KB.
  • Images greater than 260x260 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 446 unique user posts.
  • board catalog

File 151125413161.jpg - (109.84KB , 1280x720 , [aniKoi] Yuusha ni Narenakatta Ore wa Shibushibu S.jpg )
380 No. 380 [Edit]
What are some thing you believe that most people wouldn't agree with, or would possibly get upset about if you told them how you really feel about it?
Expand all images
>> No. 381 [Edit]
Chivalry should have died when feminism was born. That's not to say feminism shouldn't have been aborted with an old rusty coat hanger.
>> No. 388 [Edit]
File 151132629220.jpg - (113.98KB , 400x400 , 76e2784b2b0eee9aa7ad4264d63cb68bb992da41.jpg )
388
I think women have life much easier than men do. They do have a couple of things harder than men do but their difficulties don't outweigh the things that come easy for them.

I don't know how popular or unpopular this opinion is but I think that it's not wrong to stop kids from being bullied because I feel like kids getting bullied is what can lead to school shootings in the first place if it doesn't lead to them growing up severely crippled in some way be it in terms of emotional competence or lack of self-esteem. I read a study once about hardship actually making it harder for you to deal with problems the future brings but I don't have the exact source in which case this one may have to do:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201008/what-doesnt-kill-you-makes-you-weaker
This is relevant to what I'm talking about because they might not have been able to deal with those things in the past and then they get denied self-esteem and inner strength at a time when it most needed to develop. They are essentially cut off from a vital resource early on in their life and as they go on it becomes harder for them to get that resource.
Sometimes the child does not go on to become miserable but instead becomes violent, in certain cases this violence is controlled or it is not. Some strive to learn how to fight and have their anger directed, this is a case of "getting stronger" but other times their anger is uncontrolled for various reasons. Those could be what cause some kids to lash out at everybody in that school. For these kids imagine this scenario: a man keeps kicking a dog he found at one point. The dog, usually calm, wants the man to stop but finds no way to do so by any other means than violence so he bites the man. I would imagine it is the same way for humans. "Asking doesn't work? Use force."

Frozen yogurt is better than ice cream. It's not as unhealthy and the texture is smoother and softer. The only problem is the price but it tastes so good.

I don't like chocolate ice cream, it leaves a bad aftertaste all the time and for much of my childhood I preferred vanilla over chocolate. Also I didn't like strawberry because there were always strawberry bits in there and I don't like the texture.

Comedy is dying. Memes are becoming increasingly common, are very effective, and seem like a much better alternative to having to make up your own jokes and actually be clever until you pay attention to the fact that it really is just the same joke over and over sometimes done differently but it's all way too similar to other instances of it that it's not worth calling it a joke, not in my opinion. I don't know if comedians are using it now but I dread the day when they do.

I like music without lyrics better, I think it allows the imagination to wander and can be good for promoting creativity.

I know it isn't unpopular here on TC but I do think 2D women look better than 3D women. Aside from the face usually looking prettier, they don't have to wear makeup for any reason and actually look worse with it on, their faces are usually perfectly proportional, and their bodies don't have wrinkles up until a much later age. Older women still look good later on in 2D.

Also I just think makeup makes women look uglier altogether, it looks so artificial and ugly to see unnatural colors on people's faces and drawn on eyebrows with eyelashes that look like they double as fans. Moderation, dang it.

That's all of the unpopular opinions I can think of for now. I don't know how many of these are unpopular because I don't get out much anymore and haven't for a while.
Why are we posting our unpopular/controversial opinions on /tat/ though? I don't really look forward to arguing about petty opinions. Can't we post about it on /ot/ where we can take it easy?
>> No. 389 [Edit]
>>388
Amen to all of that brother.
>> No. 390 [Edit]
>Why are we posting our unpopular/controversial opinions on /tat/ though?
Maybe so that no one gets annoyed by any opinions they might find too controversial.
>I don't really look forward to arguing about petty opinions.
It's not like you ever need to reply to anyone replying to you. Just saying.
>> No. 391 [Edit]
>>388
>I don't really look forward to arguing about petty opinions
I think that's the point of the board.
>> No. 392 [Edit]
File 151138265811.jpg - (361.61KB , 750x750 , b6f171125643d00578053f0311324ea7a911bb6b.jpg )
392
>>391
I know that, which is why I asked if it couldn't just be posted to /ot/ where we don't have to debate.
>> No. 403 [Edit]
File 151355321676.jpg - (28.54KB , 450x331 , 8noyvfmt5z301.jpg )
403
anime > western animation excluding feature films.
People like to bash on anime endlessly but it's at least nice to look at while some cartoons don't even do that.Anime has a lot of worn out tropes but it's not like cartoons are never guilty of this either and to bash on one thing for it's flaws while what you're pretending is superior has the same flaws and even more is just silliness.
>> No. 404 [Edit]
File 151356652168.jpg - (372.43KB , 2500x1000 , 1343177989521.jpg )
404
>>403
I think just about anyone who has actually bothered to give anime a chance knows this to be true. Why else would so much anime be creeping into western media? Western made animation mostly comes in three flavors. capshit, poorly drawn low brow """adult""" comedies, and even more poorly drawn mindless kids garbage. I'm not a fan of capshit cartoons, but at least they seem to put in 'some' effort into the art and animation of those.
It's decent reflection of American culture where in most everything is crude and ugly but over bloated and convinced of it's (misplaced) superiority, there's very little creativity and even less originality. Meanwhile the only fields it excels at is excessive strength and power.
But no one really respects the medium so that's the best you can hope for. Meanwhile anime has a large range of genres from light hearted to soul crushing stories. Art that can range from crude and ugly, to stunning and beautiful.
As far as I know they don't even make cartoons anymore. Last I saw and heard it was almost nothing but 3dcgi now with just a few long running exceptions.
>> No. 414 [Edit]
>>403
>it's not like cartoons are never guilty of this either and to bash on one thing for it's flaws while what you're pretending is superior has the same flaws and even more is just silliness.

Indeed. It's amazing how fast people are to jump on the hate bandwagon.
'Young people get the foolish idea that what is new for them must be new for everybody else too. No matter how unconventional they get, they're just repeating what others before them have done.' - Yukio Mishima
>> No. 415 [Edit]
Loss of life isn't inherently bad, it only depends on the situation. Also, human life is not inherently important and can only matter from the subjective viewpoint of people who care about specific individuals that they know. It seems pretty obvious to me but so many people have this idea that life is the main priority of all humans, regardless of the quality of their life or whatever other factors may come in to play.
>> No. 416 [Edit]
Settling is a behavior that should be actively discouraged. If everyone learned to be happy with what they had, then no one would ever try to change or improve anything and the interesting things in the world like technology and knowledge would stagnant and be ruined. Being insatiable makes you a respectable human.
>> No. 419 [Edit]
>>416
Striving and content don't have to be mutually exclusive.
>> No. 427 [Edit]
>>416
I think there's a balance that needs to be found but I come from the opposite perspective as for how hard society should push their people. I dislike how strongly pushed the sentiment of "follow your dream" is. Especially regarding art. I dislike the push that your job is your identity and not having a concrete single aspiration and fulfilling it is treated like something morally wrong. My ambition is art. Not because the world needs art but because no matter how hard I tried I couldnt keep up. I was a shitty student but I was better than average at art so I thought pursuing that was the best chance I had at being better than average at anything. At being able to give back anything to society. It was all I had. So I've spent a lot of my early adulthood in self loathing because I couldn't make it. All I had. All I was. I tried my hardest and I wasnt good enough so I had this general life feeling of being a morally corrupt person because I was born myself and couldnt overcome that. Now sure these problems are more from how mush you pressure that ambition yeah? But it's only during my summer break that I realized how much better my life is as a neet. What it feels like to study out of genuine curiosity. To detox from all the adderal and sleeping pills I relied on to have a chance at being worth shit. To have the time to start doing exercise, doing art projects I actually care about, becoming informed about the world. My goal has simply become finding a decent job I dont have to work a lot to support that lifestyle and slowly keep working at improving it at my own pace. Since I become more productive in my free time this doesnt sound too much like a disagreement except it means accepting that Im never going to hit it big. It means finding a life style I can be generally "content" with. Personally I think drive doesnt need to be enforced by a culture because generally the desire to help and improve is an inherent human quality to most people. It's when we push ambition for the sake of ambition that we've started working just to justify our existence and our reasons for working become so muddy were not actually doing anything but putting effort into hurting ourselves.
Now this is just projection out of a desire to relate to your viewpoint so correct me if Im wrong, but you sound like your perspective is of someone who defaults to doing nothing when they have free time but it makes you depressed and self loathing so you have to push yourself with self imposed obligations to give your life meaning. Therefore it is for every individuals own benefit that a society should discourage complacency.
I come from a perspective of continuously setting my ambitions too high, failing, pushing myself towards self destructive acts, bitterness towards everyone and contemplating suicide. All necause Im scared I'll only be some "normie". Because growing up and finding an average job and living an average life is "pitiful". It would mean I'm not the "main character". But life has only felt worth living once I gradually started forgiving myself and seeing value in the possibility I could one day "settle down". Life has inherent value. As you long as you're being a good person and take care of yourself a person should be allowed to savor their life and achievements.
I could go on a lot about this sort of thing because even though there needs to be a balance as not to spoil our culture, I strongly believe there is way too much shame put in a making a modest living. I get scared when I think of how easy it is for a large organizations to manipulate ambition for the sake of ambition to make wage slaves and soldiers until it becomes the norm and we expect it of people to prove their worth through them.
Continuous ambition is an important part of the human spirit but I believe most people carry that enough that enforcing it too strictly into our culture only serves to break all drive more often than achieving greatness.
>> No. 438 [Edit]
I feel like I'm probably the only anime fan out there who dislikes Shaft. It seems like it's cool to hate on DEEN for making a few mediocre anime, or kyoani just for making 'Free' when people used to treat them like the kings of anime. On the other hand everyone seems to love Shaft and will defend them to the death as a studio that can do no wrong. I usually 'try' to avoid expressing any negative opinions about the studio because it usually leads to arguments but that's what this thread is for right?
While I admit I have enjoyed some of their stuff in the past, and they've got some undeniably good music, fact remains I hate two of their biggest franchises, they ruined one of my favorite anime by proxy, and I find their edgy punk goth whatever style obnoxious. Maybe if I was still in my own edgy 16 year old phrase I might like them more, I don't know. They seem to love incorporating cut outs of real world objects in most of their anime, and I think it looks ugly when they do. Not a fan of the power point text play stuff either, or lazy set designs passed off as intentionally minimalistic. Akiyuki Shinbou's style can be extremely hit or miss (Cossette no Shouzou for example was frustrating to sit through due to it's obnoxious style of animation, while Gen Urobuchi meanwhile is someone who's work I rather avoid since he seems to be a one trick pony who's trick is one I don't particularly like in the first place, both of them being key elements of Shaft.
>> No. 439 [Edit]
File 151672080522.jpg - (97.12KB , 750x394 , Motonosumi-inari-Jinja.jpg )
439
>>438
They started out as a very poor animation studio.
Their style reflects their roots, of minimalism by necessity (from being poor), which also reflects, in part, Japanese aestetics as a whole (id est: wabi-sabi).

KyoAni fans were never fans of Shaft, and vice versa. They are opposite ends of the spectrum.
>> No. 440 [Edit]
>>438
I think the problems are your personal outlook and where you're looking validation of your opinions. Hating KyoAni for making Free is just retarded because you can just not watch it and the issue is over. Hating Deen for some anime considered a disservice to their source material is more warranted, but still, as a studio they have dozens of classics and have participate on dozens more. Their positives vastly outweight whatever negatives. So hating on the studio itself is childish (in these cases, at least).
>On the other hand everyone seems to love Shaft
You wouldn't know if you look online. Lots of people hate Shaft for the same type of things that are relegated to subjective tastes.
>they ruined one of my favorite anime by proxy
That's on you, not them. If they release an anime series that ruined another (I assume disconnected) just because of your feelings, then they're not the ones to blame. If they ruined one of your favourite anime because retroactively changed something important about it (e.g. a sequel) then that's different, but you mentioned it being by proxy.
>I find their edgy punk goth whatever style obnoxious
>Maybe if I was still in my own edgy 16 year old phase
You're allowed to dislike Shaft and call out their flaws if you give relatively objective criticism like you just did (e.g. "incorporating cut outs of real world objects") but then you devalue your exposed opinion by adding things like the quoted sentence which is immature because you're assuming you need to be edgy and young to enjoy one or another art style. The first step to end silly "Studio Wars" is to acknowledge people have different tastes -and- that there are things that can be regarded as objectively bad regardless of whether people like it or not, like bad writing, pacing, edition, animation, etc.
>while Gen Urobuchi
>key elements of Shaft
What do you mean? Urobutcher has only done one series with Shaft. He has not been involved in anything with them besides Madoka.
>>439
>KyoAni fans were never fans of Shaft, and vice versa. They are opposite ends of the spectrum.
Speak for yourself. I like both studios and have enjoyed everything I've seen from both, and so does a lot of people. Very few (vocal) people are engaged in these moronic studio pissing contests.
>> No. 443 [Edit]
>>440
I'm sorry if not knowing the proper term for that style of theirs came across like an insult. I'm also sorry if I blurred the line between subjective personal opinions and objective criticism. That wasn't my intention. I really don't know what you would call the style they so often use as someone who has little interest in anything like it. punk/emo/goth is honestly the closest I can come up with. If you know a more appropriate (and less offensive?) term, I'm all ears.
I assumed from my first sentence it would be clear I knew this was only my own personal unpopular opinion. That I realize people like Shaft and their style, but that it's not for me. I'm not telling people to boycott them or telling you you shouldn't enjoy their works, or anything of that sort. I'm just saying I don't like them and why I don't like them. Much like the minimalistic style I mentioned which I know is very popular these days but that is not for me. The point was also that no one cares if you have a negative opinion about any other studio, but if you don't like Shaft people will be all over you about it. As shown for example by the relatively fast responses that post got on a partly hidden board on a half dead site. -not that there's anything wrong with that.- Just an observation. But again, sorry if that's wrong. I don't really hang out on other imageboards much so I wouldn't know if this wasn't actually true. Just the impression I got.


>you're assuming you need to be edgy and young to enjoy one or another art style.
Not at all. I realize people of all ages in a range of demographics like their works, I'm just saying that if I myself was still that age I might have liked their works better.

>That's on you, not them.
Yup, I'm well aware of that.

>What do you mean?
My mistake, I thought he had more of a hand in their works.



Obligatory (apparently) disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in this post in no way reflect the opinions of any person other than maker of this post (from here out refereed to as the "poster") and are not intended to influence or manipulate the thoughts and opinion of other readers. Readers of this post are entitled to their own opinion on the contents of this post, with or without coloration to poster's stance or opinions on the mater in question. By responding to Poster, the reader there for acknowledges and agrees to these terms.

>> No. 444 [Edit]
>>443
>I assumed from my first sentence it would be clear I knew this was only my own personal unpopular opinion.
I think you misunderstood my post as a defence against your views. I wrote it in regards to the OP text. You mentioned that you feel like you're alone in disliking Shaft. My post is about why most people would agree with you (in disliking shaft), and why people would not get upset if you revealed how you feel about such Studio. The issue is the crowd, hence "where you're looking validation of your opinions". Reasonable people who like Shaft will understand if you don't like Shaft because of art style choices, but reasonable people will also roll their eyes when you expose your opinion in a way that is deriding, because it would make them think (perhaps unjustly) that it's likely your observations are shallow, otherwise you'd have gone through enough reflection of the flaws you found to properly explain what bothers you.

No need to be so apologetic either. The disclaimer makes me feel like I made a mistake in replying because I ended up hurting your feelings or made you feel attack, despite that you chose to write this in /tat/ instead of /an/. You'd make it worse if you address this paragraph, so I hope you won't.
>> No. 470 [Edit]
Madoka Magica is unredeemable trash and only got popular for its shock factor, for someone who watched it outside of its original airing period while knowing that it was going to take a "dark" turn there is nothing interesting about it since the story is badly paced and the characters are boring and hard to care about. Steins;Gate is mediocre and extremely overrated.

Homosexuality is a mental disorder and we may had have found some form of therapy to cure it if it wasn't for the forced social acceptance of it, similar to what we're seeing happen with gender dysphoria at the present date.

Humans are morally obliged to commit genocide if a certain etnic group is unable to archieve anything but destroying the hard work of all other groups of people.
As the population of Africa will reach 3 billion in this half of the century alone and they do nothing but procreate while living off donations of other people and are quick to illegally immigrate to western countries where they fall into crime, the only option to fix the future problems they will cause is to at least end the donations so nature can do its thing and a large chunk of the population will starve off until they are in the hundreds or thousands at best which is how its supposed to be given the shitty climate of their continent.
Jews on the other hand should actually be killed off with violence, even when they manage to archieve impressive feats in academic fields such as physics they always use their status, money and in some cases their own creations to cause further suffering on all non-jewish people as they have done since the destruction of the second temple.
>> No. 471 [Edit]
>>470
>Homosexuality is a mental disorder
I was originally vehemently against homosexuality on a "they need to disappear" mindset, but then I turned around when I saw enough scientific research. Since almost a year ago, after seeing how poorly done most research is, and how much preference agenda-aligning research is focused on I feel it's an abnormality that should be permitted as long as it doesn't encroach into education and society as a crutch. Apparently, though, the overwhelming vocal majority of homosexuals and allies seem to be hell-bent on infecting society from its most shallow to its most profound parts with their now-manifested corruptive ideology. I'm sure there are decent, (comparatively) moral gays out there, but they might as well be a drop of water in this current sea of depravity.
>> No. 472 [Edit]
>>470
I watched it out of it's airing period as well but I liked it.
It goes into things like the Red String of Fate and Eternal Recursion.
>> No. 473 [Edit]
>>470
>>471
Aside from cultural acceptance and agendas, I think the current state of western women has pushed more men to homosexuality. It's especially noticeable in the anime scene where women are in short supply and the ones who are available are revolting whorish ham beasts. Meanwhile many males in the scene are happy to become "traps" who look and act more feminine than your average women ever would, while also talking part in activities modern women find demeaning and offensive such as cooking and cleaning. I've known a few online buddies personally who turned bisexual or gay, and I suspect traps/3DPD to be what pushed them over the edge.
>> No. 474 [Edit]
>>472
Saw both Madoka and Steins;Gate way outside of their airing period as well, while being very biased against the former (due to a lot of people telling me it was awful + seeing a lot of disgusting individuals online having it as a favourite anime) and very biased in favour of the latter (one of the favourite anime of someone who help me get fully leave my anime hiatus period behind). I thought bought were masterpieces in different ways. I can acknowledge that what Madoka did right, it did it flawlessly, and what it did wrong, were minor issues for me (character development pacing and shock value); I didn't actually liked nor enjoyed Madoka particularly and probably won't watch it ever again, but I'm "grateful" to it for teaching me to never pre-judge an anime based on its fan base. Steins;Gate on the other hand is one of my favourites, but I do see how and why people deem it overrated, but I thoroughly disagree.
>>473
>I think the current state of western women has pushed more men to homosexuality.
I don't think that's true per se as a baseline as much as agenda pushing homosexuality as a healthier lifestyle (e.g. "No drama, bro!") while homosexual couples have a vastly higher percentage of physical, sexual and emotional abuse. I think it's mainly an issue of attention and loneliness, where attention-starved people with low self-esteem, lack of experience and/or knowledge, and histrionic personalities seek whatever will make them feel comfortable, at which point what you mentioned becomes partly true (gay men, desperate by nature, will invariably seem like more approachable targets). I think it's likely another cause is broken homes, single motherhood, and lack of male role models.
>It's especially noticeable in the anime scene
I think that has more to do with the medium rather than the whole. Anime is a (not as much anymore) niche community, and a lot of women (and men) gravitate to it for attention, the same way with any other medium. But, because this niche tends to be filled with less sociable people, it seems like a safer, less-judgemental, and maybe even more economical option than other venues like trying to be a sports fan or go into physical hobbies like vehicles, travelling, hiking, etc. Therefore, the type of women and men (outside of the ones with a legitimate and honest interest in anime) that will be commonplace will, imho, be most likely the ones that failed miserably at the default paths, and will put themselves in a positions where they can maximize the attention and benefits they get from others, hence why a lot of "nerdy" women and (like you mentioned) "traps" will virtue signal and quickly adapt to whatever is currently popular at an impressive degree.

Have you noticed how most people that unexpectedly (or suddenly) became gay, bisexual, transgender, etc. tend to seem irreparably damaged? At least since 2010s, I've never met someone online who had an alternate sexuality who was also not basically broken and/or dead inside.
>> No. 478 [Edit]
>>473
It does seem like the increased faggotry in the western world is a reaction to men just not being able to keep up with modern women. Have you ever heard about the mouse utopia experiment? I recommend you reading a bit about it, the mouses were forced to live in a "society" which reflected that of ours and both males and females gradually became homosexual due to the risks that were attached to mating with mouses of the opposite sex simply not being worth it in their eyes.
>>474
Could you perhaps explain why you think Steins;Gate is so great in your opinion? I have only seen praise online for it so far and have never seen anyone really criticise it so I really feel alone in disliking it strongly. Here's my stance on it:
One of the main issues with the show to me is the characters, who are insanely annoying. The MC behaves like a chuuni and while it was probably the writer's intention to make him come off as an eccentric "geek", it really just made it painful to watch any scene with him in it. His behaviour was quite unrealistic for someone his age.
Another main issue is that while I did like the second half, the first half was quite boring and it had nothing in it to make me keep watching. The only reason why I kept watching those first episodes was because it was Steins;Gate, it's famous and I wanted to see why the hell people liked it so much but the show itself had nothing going for it. I have seen the first episode serveral times yet I dropped it constantly half the way through because it was just difficult to get through it.
Then there was the ending which seemed badly paced to me, I would have preferred if the whole ordeal with Kurisu had been given a few more episodes.
While many online claim it to be one of the, if not, the best sci-fi anime of all time, in truth it's really just a bad harem show which tries to come off as deep by using somewhat obscure scientific terms which the writer had probably read a few google search results of and barely understood himself.
>> No. 479 [Edit]
>>478
>men just not being able to keep up with modern women
Men are perfectly able to, just unwilling. Marriages and families are very much still commonplace, it's just that entertainment and access to it has made life much more fun and comfortable than it has ever been, so socialization and its annoying micromanagement mini-games are taking a back seat.
>have never seen anyone really criticise it so I really feel alone
I'll assume you don't frequent any other imageboards because tons of people think S;G is overrated and cliched, specially women who argue the whole scenario is built with the basis of dating sim (which I don't fully disagree with).
>The MC behaves like a chuuni
This is explained in the series. [SPOILERS]Okabe acts as a eccentric mad scientist for the sake of Mayuri, who is stated and shown to be depressive due to her childhood trauma(s), and as a deterrent of her (apparent) potential suicidal tendencies.
>His behaviour was quite unrealistic for someone his age.
Now I'll assume you connect to the internet on a 32 kbit/sec modem from a remote 1-person island because I can't believe you have never met anyone over 18 (Okabe's age in S;G) who acts like a weirdo or even role plays for fun, specially online, where it seems people that act that way are practically in every single online community. And it's not just men.
>it was just difficult to get through it.
You're allowed to dislike what others seem to enjoy. If it's not for you, that's the end of it. I don't get sports / e-sports / space operas fandom and find them boring and lame, yet a massive amount of people love these, and that's fine.
>many online claim it to be one of the, if not, the best sci-fi anime of all time
More than sci-fi, it's the anime (or even just media in general) that has used time travel with the most respect to the physics and (relatively) realistic consequences, by far. So people that prefer hard science fiction rather than its mixed genres (adventure, space opera, mecha, cyberpunk, etc.) end up finding something that can't be seen anywhere else, specially when it aired. Now there are a few things that have done it similarly.
>by using somewhat obscure scientific terms
I'll make one last assumption and believe you are not acquainted with neither science fiction in general, nor an avid reader of technological advances outside of end users, specially since 1995, regarding computing and physics. Otherwise, you wouldn't make such a tiresome and ignorant comment. No offence meant.

To sum it up, you seem to hate on an anime that apparently was obviously not made for neither your interests nor your sensibilities (feel free to correct me), and if so, then there's nothing wrong with disliking it. But there's a difference between saying "I didn't like S;G" and "S;G is absolute overrated garbage" because there are dozens, if not hundreds, of walls of texts and essays deconstructing the entirety of the show and why it's deemed so good, all of which you can easily find by googling, if you're really interested in learning about what the series did right, rather than validating your opinion.
>> No. 480 [Edit]
>>479
>Men are perfectly able to, just unwilling
Yeah because they don't want to risk getting divorced and then being forced to pay alimentation for the rest of their life while lonely and poor and being played off as the "bad guy" by their mother to their children. Which is pretty much the same as not being able to because why the hell would you want to live like that? It's just not worth it.
>spoiler
That one scene where he talks about her being a hostage doesn't really excuse all the other retarded behaviour nor is it really a proper explanation since it's only shown once and never brought up again.
>I can't believe you have never met anyone over 18 (Okabe's age in S;G) who acts like a weirdo or even role plays for fun
I'm glad I haven't. If you're one of these people then you're sadly my first annoying encounter with this sort of person.
>And it's not just men
Why are you so obsessed with mentioning the differences between men and women? This is the third time in your post already, keep the subject to anime please. I'd like to keep identity politics and hobbies seperated.
>it's the anime (or even just media in general) that has used time travel with the most respect to the physics and (relatively) realistic consequences
That's just because there barely exist any anime about time travel. When there's barely anything to compare it to it's easy to say it's the best one. When you stop looking at it from a comparison angle and just see it as it is though you'll realise that it's really not that realistic. I mean, the trap guy becoming a woman has no influence at all on them becoming friends when him being a trap was an essential part of their first interaction? They didn't even bother changing his/her memories of this first encounter, it's just exactly the same. It's also never explained why some characters still have their memories of other timelines while other don't and why some remember things more clearly, it just convenient for the writer.
>Otherwise, you wouldn't make such a tiresome and ignorant comment
Aaaand thanks for proving you're extremely biased and can't look at this from another perspective nor can you properly refute any of my points, you don't at all explain why I was wrong at that last point, you're just going straight for the ad hominem.
>> No. 481 [Edit]
>>480
>nor is it really a proper explanation
Hmmm, maybe it's a language barrier thing or lack of attention. It seemed crystal clear to me why he acts the part of a mad scientiest.
>keep the subject to anime please
I was talking about anime, which I assume you have watched practically none of, at this point, if you have never encountered this stereotype.
>If you're one of these people
I'd say you'd qualify if you're the same anon who puts quotes when replying to others, like in that political stance thread.
>It's also never explained why some characters still have their memories of other timelines
They explained it several times. No wonder you can't see past your vitriol if you don't even pay attention. Unsurprising though.
>you're just going straight for the ad hominem
I didn't insult you though. An opinion can be ignorant and tiresome without the commenter being so overall. The irony is that you proved yourself to be the very same thing you described: extremely biased and obtuse. Why would I write a detailed sequence of posts to explain you the series, when you'll end up replying whatever you deem convenient to keep your position, specially when you can easily find that information already written online? You want me to spoonfeed you for no other purpose that to appeal to your own ego. And I never said you were wrong, because what you like or not is subjective based on your own personality and experience. Moreover, I even emphasized that there wasn't anything wrong with you disliking the series, but at this point you're just reading what you want to fabricate an excuse not to move from your standing.
>> No. 484 [Edit]
>>380
I'm against divorce.
Even if it might be for the "best" of both parties.
Even if it's an abusive relationship.
I don't believe that divorce is an answer. It's just running away, and it kill all the good things that might come out of marriage.

Marriage is a bounding for eternity, or at least for the rest of your life. Like life, it is doomed to have very harsh and dark times. Some things will be irreversible. You can't undo all the bad things that happened to you, nor could you undo all the bad things within a marriage. You can't runaway from your life, why should you be able to runaway from your marriage ?

I get their are special situations and exceptions. I get all of that. But I still hold my point.
Even my parents divorced, and I have a horrible relationship with my dad, to the point that I am closer to my step-dad. I completely understand my mom's reasons for divorce, and respect them. It even looks I am better off with my parents divorced. But still, I (or anyone) can predict what would have happened if there wasn't a divorce, how things would have evolved.
>> No. 485 [Edit]
File 152380085195.gif - (1.05MB , 500x280 , Night Crew.gif )
485
My unpopular opinion: /tat/, /lol/, and /mp3/ should be combined to increase the chances of users coming into contact with one another, and replying to each other.

also, fuck England. Gott strafe.
>> No. 487 [Edit]
>>485
That's an odd combo. I can see /tat/ and /lol/ together for a general shitposting board, but why /mp3/?
>> No. 499 [Edit]
>>487
No reason, really. I was just sabotaging my point with stupid humor.
>> No. 511 [Edit]
File 152617194363.jpg - (4.16MB , 491x375 , The-Male-and-Female-Brain.jpg )
511
Eugenics, apply it, Separate the wheat from the chaff.

>>474
>>473
>the current state of western women has pushed more men to homosexuality.
The current state of western women has pushed more men to reclusiveness seems more correct to me.

It might be part of it for feminine men, perhaps some porn fetishes helps self-indoctrinate themselves to lean more that way and traps in anime doesn't help either. From what I've read I think it's more the effect of declining testosterone (around the world but more so in western countries) and increasing estrogen which makes them born gay e.g. gay brains are similarly shaped as females instead of straight males. Something should be done about this.

Picture related can be opened as archive, it has the two books shown on the image.
>> No. 513 [Edit]
There's no such thing as being gay. People of the same sex who love each other confuse romantic love with platonic love, the latter of which is perfectly normal. Attraction to the same sex is a product of extreme perversion, which is separate.
>> No. 518 [Edit]
>>513
I fully agree with you, except on the "extreme perversion". I believer that to qualify as depraved, you have to be conscious of what you're doing being morally wrong, yet I have noticed (specially in the last 3-4 years) that there's a lot of brainwashing agenda going on trying to "convert" people into it by normalizing it in all forms as an ideal lifestyle. Point being that for some people, being gay is just "all they know" and get out of that prison without help. I guess the same rings true for all outcomes of degeneracy in general.
>> No. 528 [Edit]
>>518
Yeah, I suppose that's possible considering something like "affluenza" is a term that exists as well.
>> No. 532 [Edit]
Fahrenheit is a better measurement of temperature, in any use outside of scientific fields/math/etc. or where anything needs precise measurement. For regular use when describing weather or temperatures that don't have to be precise or specific, fahrenheit is best. It happens to be in a perfect range (0-100) of almost all temperatures we have to deal with on a daily basis and makes sense particularly with weather. I don't care as much about the other units of measure, but I do like fahrenheit.
>> No. 537 [Edit]
>>532
I couldn't disagree more, it's a dumb, obsolete and outright useless measurement. Celsius makes perfect sense: At 0°C water freezes at average pressure and at 100°C it boils. You just think that way because you use it. Literally everyone else in the world except for literal-shithole Liberia regards it as pointless.
>> No. 631 [Edit]
1. I believe that all life should stop reproducing, including animals and insects
2. I have a favorable view of North Korea
3. Not all cults are inherently bad
4. The South should have won the American Civil war

That's all I can think of for now. Feel free to respond, I like discussion.
>> No. 633 [Edit]
>>631
Why? To all of this.
>> No. 645 [Edit]
>>537
>>532
I don't think either of these are controversial or unpopular when proposed in the country which uses said system.

Now, have someone in France argue with other Frenchmen that pounds and Fahrenheit are the better standard, and then we have an unpopular opinion.
>> No. 646 [Edit]
The conception of a globalist, uniformed, omnipotent, clandestine organization or movement against the things you and/or your loved ones value or hold dear is a fiction, which only appears obvious due to a simplification of the end result of a myriad of interconnected power structures, most of which are completely indifferent to you or what you stand for if it does not translate into profit/power for them, or work against their profit/power.

Whenever I've bothered to dig into the motivations, inspirations, and mentalities of those who push for stuff against my interests, it is usually the case that there are a myriad institutions with differing goals and ideals, which may be competing with one another, or operating at different levels of organization, who end up countering my wishes or ideals to achieve their institution's internal goals. They're only synchronous so far as human nature results in predictable responses to certain situations and stimuli.
>> No. 647 [Edit]
>>646
>They're only synchronous so far as human nature results in predictable responses to certain situations and stimuli.
The main argument poltards have is that the behavior of Jews is different and results in a predictable negative outcome for them. Some think it's supernatural, while others think it's genetic. There isn't any empirical evidence to suggest this is true. Nobody has done a behavioral genetic analysis of Jews.
>> No. 666 [Edit]
>>438
I concur. Many fawn over their animation style but to me it looks lazy and sloppy, often lacking backgrounds with minimalistic text-laden slideshows passed off as avant-garde art. I don't doubt that it probably did take a lot of effort, but when watching the constant jump-cuts break my attention and interposing real-world objects takes you into the uncanny valley and breaks immersion.

Leaving aside the issue of artwork, I find that most SHAFT adaptations have a common trend of meandering dialogue with agonizing pacing that ruins any change of enjoyment. Just comparing two works by the same author: Joshiraku and Sayonara Zetsubou, the former was adapted by JC Staff and the latter was done by Shaft. While the style of humor should be analogous, the latter was entirely unwatchable due to the usual Shaft antics. I also think they ruined the Hidamari Sketch adaption for the same reasons, and when considering how much I have enjoyed every other Kirara adaption, I find that to be a huge loss.
>> No. 668 [Edit]
>>633
1. Nature requires human suffering to survive, so it would only be logical that we stop this meat grinder we call life.
2. I think a lot of what we see about North Korea is merely western propaganda. North Korea holds democratic elections, is innovating quite well despite being an isolated country, and they are not the trigger happy monsters that the American media tries to portray them as. They have a right to a strong military and to own nukes to defend their country. And as far as Kim Jong Un being careless in his threats, America isn't innocent in that respect either *cough* Donald Trump *cough*.
3. There are plenty of smaller cults out there that were formed merely for the idea of community and a sense of belonging. Yes, some of them end disastrously like The Manson Family or Jonestown, but others are just a bunch of hippies that smoke weed all day believe in some batshit interpretation of life. (not saying I would join one though. I'm not that stupid.)
4. My views on that have changed.

Hope this helps.
>> No. 669 [Edit]
>>668
1.Why? Suffering isn't required, it's inevitable. I'd argue that the good things in life make it worth it. Why is suffering such a "bad" thing to you? Other people should be free to suffer as much as they want if it doesn't affect me.
2.How many North Korean life bloggers do you see? How many do you see on message boards? The only information we have on daily life there is either North Korean propaganda or "western propoganda". That's a red flag. There's no point in America painting this wonderful utopia in a bad light.
>North Korea holds democratic elections,
Which are toooootally not rigged(are definitely rigged). It's not like their populace isn't allowed to leave, isn't allowed to communicate with the outside world, isn't allowed to say whatever they want about their leaders and other things we take for granted. I'm sure they just happened to have a dynastic succession of power in a completely democratic system with real opposition and everything.
>is innovating quite well
Is reliant on China and almost certainly full of severely technologically backwards villagers.
Right now you criticized Trump. Try moving to china and doing the same to their prime minister. Yeah, I'm sure North Koreans are actually more democratic and have Akihabara-like streets and doujin circles. America is just hiding it.
3.I wouldn't call it a cult if it doesn't have a strong hierarchy and us vs them mentality.
>> No. 672 [Edit]
The idea of sexual crimes is ridiculous. With the exception of violent, physically harmful, forced rape, no sexual crimes are valid or should be acknowledged as a criminal justice issue. Yes, that includes statutory rape. Why you ask? I just don't think sex in general is that important or that monumental of a deal for less than perfect situations involving it to really matter. Sex is really not something so powerful that an uncomfortable or unpleasant situation with it should be considered a crime or anything meaningful. Unless someone actually beats you, or causes meaningful physical harm, it shouldn't be the problem of the justice system or the community at large. In fact I'd say if something sexual wouldn't fall under assault and battery when judged by those standards, it shouldn't be acknowledged at all. People take sexuality way to seriously in every aspect nowadays, from what you prefer to how comfortable it was for you to do it.
>> No. 673 [Edit]
>>672
What about STD, unintended pregnancy, or emotional/mental scaring to the victim and or their partner?
>> No. 674 [Edit]
>>673
>STD
Happens anyway and regardless of whether or not the sex was wanted
>unintended pregnancy
Well one person at least intended it :^)
>emotional/mental scaring to the victim and or their partner?
A total meme, most women enjoy rape on some level seeing as it is what they evolved to deal with.
>> No. 675 [Edit]
File 156672533272.gif - (955.34KB , 624x656 , 1564528989560.gif )
675
Democracy is a lie. A small village would not need democracy, but a constitution kept alive, dictated to the village, by elders who were leading members of the local community, parents and grandparents who lived in the very town they managed. Any collective large enough to require democracy shouldn't exist in the first place. It's just a sham to convince people they aren't being taken advantage of.
>> No. 676 [Edit]
>>674
A man doesn't have to try hard to pin a woman down without causing large bodily harm. I wouldn't want an ugly, fat, woman to force themself on me and I think that sentiment extends to women. People should have the right to choose what happens to their body, whether that's getting a tattoo, or getting injected with anything, or anything else. Why is bodily harm such a big deal to you? Wounds heal right? Why does it even matter if you kill them? We're all going to die sooner or later. What's the big deal? Your standards are arbitrary while mine are objective. Their body, their decision. That's universal. What if your wife was raped?
>What they evolved to deal with it.
Have any evidence of that?

Post edited on 25th Aug 2019, 7:56am
>> No. 678 [Edit]
>>676
See I just don't see what the big deal is. You talk about it under the assumption your counter-arguments have some weight to me, but all I see is an underlying assumption that all humans think rape is bad. Personally, I would never have a wife, and if I did get raped, well, I'll survive. Why is killing wrong if rape isn't? Well hey, I never said killing WAS wrong.
>> No. 679 [Edit]
>>678
Theft, assault, murder, rape. Most people think these things are bad and would like to avoid them. That's one of the primary foundations of society and you not thinking they're a big deal doesn't make it ridiculous. You just don't value society. Nobody's forcing you to, but you are benefeiting from it. If I could choose between living with people who value the same things as me or living with people who don't, I'll pick the former.
>> No. 680 [Edit]
I don't see the pressing need to move "upwards" in terms of jobs. Even though many people will jokingly acknowledge the "rat race" that is society, they'll still nonetheless jockey for promotions or so on. What's wrong with just having a bare-minimum job that provides enough to live a modest life? If you live only for yourself, you don't really need much to live comfortably (especially if you abandon physical materialism).
>> No. 681 [Edit]
>>680
>If you live only for yourself
A lot of people don't.
>you don't really need much to live comfortably
Money gives options and freedom. The default option is always shit in America. Maybe in Europe, especially places like Switzerland, that's not the case, wealthy places with a small population and socialist policies, but it is in the US. Everything is ugly and dirty and low-quality unless you have money and can pay to isolate yourself from the peasants. That's how it is, even if most politicians wont admit it.
>> No. 682 [Edit]
>>681
>Maybe in Europe
Actually it's worse here. The nice places are very rare exceptions, and absolutely unreachable for plebeians like me.
>> No. 683 [Edit]
>>682
The typical food(even in poorer countries), public transit, and general architectural style seemed a lot nicer from what I've saw. Have you ever seen New York's subway?
>> No. 713 [Edit]
Trying to preserve endangered species is (mostly) a waste. Sure, killing animals for stupid reasons (like using their body parts as snake-oil "medicines") should be opposed, but extinction of species has been a fact of life on Earth for millions of years before humans even existed, and outside of the fools who think something like Jurassic Park would be the coolest thing ever, we don't miss them. If they can't compete or coexist in the current ecosystem, human activity included, tough shit to 'em.
>> No. 714 [Edit]
File 157211764838.jpg - (164.38KB , 850x478 , __original_drawn_by_watermother2004__sample-32419c.jpg )
714
>>713
>human activity included
Letting coral reefs or bees go extinct would be extremely stupid. There's such things as keystone species, where if they go extinct, many other things are fucked. Human activity isn't something most animals can compete with just like an ice age isn't. The difference is we have control over our own activity. Trying to not fuck everything up goes further than not making snake oil or fur coats. Unless you want everybody who doesn't die to eat insects and drink filtered piss, that's just how it is. Trying to save something like pandas though is a waste of resources.
>> No. 715 [Edit]
>>714
If they die, they die. If humans can survive without them, fuck em.
>> No. 717 [Edit]
>>715
There's more to life than survival. A lot, if not most people would also die.

Post edited on 26th Oct 2019, 2:25pm
>> No. 724 [Edit]
"Poor people just can't budget"
1. I'm not saying poor people are always poor because of things out of their control and
2. I'm not saying all rich people are like this, but
3. a big subgroup of people who say 'poor people need to budget' often lack any budgeting skills themselves and the only thing preventing them from poverty is the fact they're rich.
>> No. 725 [Edit]
>>724
Agreed. It's common knowledge that it takes money to make money. As such it can be very hard to make your way up when you have little to work with. I've had a lot of exposure to both ends of the spectrum and yes, the poor do have bad spending habits while doing stupid things but so do the rich like you said. For every poor moron who blows all his money on alcohol, cigarettes, and lotto tickets, there's a rich person who spends ludicrous amounts of money on luxuries and entertainments they don't need, such as cars, art, fine dinning, vacations, and more. I've known people living paycheck to paycheck with less than $10 to their name at times, and I've known rich people who spend more than $300 a day just on food.
>> No. 726 [Edit]
>>724
People that are bad financing their money are or become poor so yes more poor people cant budget than non poor people.
>> No. 727 [Edit]
>>726
To be fair, it can be hard to budget what you don't have and being poor in some ways can be more expensive than being well off.
>> No. 728 [Edit]
>>727
>being poor in some ways can be more expensive than being well off.
It's a lot harder to buy in bulk if you're poor.
>> No. 731 [Edit]
>>724
Well I find that they can't, I'm always amazed by it. I live among poor people and am poor myself but I find I am always financially better of than they are even when they make more, and this is with wasting money on anime merch and the like. They also rarely manage to save anything.
>> No. 732 [Edit]
>>675
It requires a community larger than a village to live in any degree of security or comfort, other wise you are living in Africa pretty much.

I agree about democracy being stupid though.
>> No. 763 [Edit]
Women live life on super easy mode, and the institutionalized patriarchy is what made the system work.

Women in a post-sexual-revolution, post-gender-equality, clown-world society get all of the perks and benefits of being a woman, plus the affirmative-action, plus the white-knight chivalry ingrained in society, a red carpet rolled out everywhere. There are more women in college, more men kill themselves than women, a woman if she is ugly or fat can still have guys lined up to fuck her with a swipe on the phone, still have people telling her she is perfect and beautiful the way she is and deserves Mr.Right, if a girl if plain or average in the face she can cake on makeup like 95% of women do, they still expect men to take care of them and treat them like princesses even after all of the equity. I dont see any women slaving in shitty construction jobs or stepping on IEDs, do you? Divorce is over 50 percent, and women always get the kids and alimony/child support. Prisons are full of men. Women get the easy-street pussy-pass equity at every opportunity but a man is still expected to suck it up and be a man and deal with it.

It doesnt work, its not gonna work. Women get every boost in the world but get angry they are stuck with relationship options are with so called low-value-men. Every woman wants to be strong independent and dont-need-no-man pussy-power, and still want a man who makes more money than them and has his life together AND is taller than her in heels and good looking and always happy-confident 100% of the time and is always ready to listen to her problems and watch The Notebook with her.

These sluts think if they just cake on some makeup and get some beta orbiters on Instagram that means theyre entitled to a Mr.Perfect Mr.Right. They think their twisted self-absorbed vain world-view is representative of the real world just because theyre women and have lived their whole lives having smoke blown up their asses.

Sorry ladies I am not prince-charming Mr.Right, if you aint down with that- DX got two words for ya...

Its lonely cat lady or betabux provider, the awful part about it is that women KNOW this but still complain. Being a man fucking sucks hard, why do you think there are so many trannies? We truly live in a dystopia.
>> No. 764 [Edit]
>>763
Boring post. Even if all of it was true, I still wouldn't want to be a women. Besides, whether woman are favored by society or not, personality wise, the average man is no better. The average person is an obnoxious, dull, self-absorbed cunt. It's easy to think women are the problem when you never have to deal with average men. Lots of them can't even bother to flush the toliet or lift the seat when they're pissing.
>> No. 765 [Edit]
>>764
Dont get me wrong, I hate men too, but women are worse. Men being assholes does not disprove anything I said.
>> No. 766 [Edit]
>>765
At least on the bus they take less room(assuming they're not fat).
>> No. 787 [Edit]
It depends a lot on what kind of contingent you are talking about, because everything is relative. However, I think you meant "popularity" and "unpopularity" on the largest scale possible.

1. I approve suicide.
2. I do not think most popular anime like SAO, DitF is good. Moreover, I am sure that the rule of 300+ titles is utter nonsense. This is probably just trolling, but I still decided to mention this stupid statement. From my point of view, it makes sense to watch a maximum of 20 titles and end your "communication" with the anime industry.
3. Avoiding wage slavery is not bad for me.
4. I hate children very much. Blunt pieces of protein.
5. I do not believe in overpopulation. There is enough space on our planet, as well as resources.
6. I consider the relationship with tulpa as meaningful and important as it is with a real person.
7. I do not believe in God.
>> No. 789 [Edit]
1.okay
2.
>it makes sense to watch a maximum of 20 titles
It doesn't to me. That's not how hobbies should work. Watch what you feel like as much as you like. I don't keep track of my number like it's a point system.
3.confusingly worded, but okay
4.agreed
5.less people is better though
6.that says more about real people than tulpas
7.okay

Post edited on 11th Mar 2020, 9:53am
>> No. 790 [Edit]
>>789
>less people is better though
Why?
>> No. 791 [Edit]
>>790
Lots of reasons. I don't like people. Even if there's "enough" land and resources on earth, infrastructure may not be able to keep up, especially in shit holes. As automation becomes more and more prevalent, there will be less of place in society for low-skilled workers, the majority of workers. Rather than wasting time, energy, and money to support everyone, or going through the strife of a massive shift in economic system, less people with less need of workers is smoother. Oh, and I don't like people.
>> No. 792 [Edit]
File 158397143749.png - (257.81KB , 1247x1754 , born-in-2010-how-much-metals-and-energy-is-left.png )
792
>>787
>1. I approve suicide.

Indifferent.

>2. I do not think most popular anime like SAO, DitF is good. Moreover, I am sure that the rule of 300+ titles is utter nonsense. This is probably just trolling, but I still decided to mention this stupid statement. From my point of view, it makes sense to watch a maximum of 20 titles and end your "communication" with the anime industry.

I have never even heard of that and the last part does not make sense either.

>3. Avoiding wage slavery is not bad for me.

Agree.

>4. I hate children very much. Blunt pieces of protein.

Agree but I like them more than adults, they are less polluted by society than adults.

>5. I do not believe in overpopulation. There is enough space on our planet, as well as resources.

There isn't. Not in the long term anyway. There is also the massive environmental impact that our population is having.

>6. I consider the relationship with tulpa as meaningful and important as it is with a real person.

Tulpas are self induced schizophrenia.

>7. I do not believe in God.

I agree but that's a fairly popular opinion.
>> No. 793 [Edit]
File 158401741410.png - (243.87KB , 423x525 , 247.png )
793
>>792
>they are less polluted by society than adults.
Not their achievement. They didn't do anything for it, they just existed as unicellular.
>There isn't.
I was wrong.
>Tulpas are self induced schizophrenia.
Not even a little bit. Schizophrenia is genetically determined and cannot be caused by psychological practices, no matter how hard you try. If you don't have the schizophrenia gene, then even if you were to experience terrifying stress that should trigger the disease, the maximum that you could get is PTSD or depression.
>that's a fairly popular opinion.
According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population). 7%, anon. And this despite the fact that atheists were mixed with agnostics.
>> No. 794 [Edit]
>>793
>Not their achievement. They didn't do anything for it, they just existed as unicellular.

It doesn't matter, the fact still stands.

>Schizophrenia is genetically determined

False, it is well known that it can be caused by external factors. The current thinking is that people are genetically prone to it, not that it is genetic. But even were that true, tulpas would still fall into that as an expression of schizophrenia, it would just mean that only those with a genetic disposition would fall victim to it.

>there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population)

It would depend on where they studied. I meant it's a popular opinion on the internet, particularly on image boards. The majority of the world is made up of third worlders and most of them are religious. Even in the developed world, much of the population is made up of old people, who are again, often religious.
>> No. 795 [Edit]
>>794
>it can be caused by external factors.
And it may be caused because there is a dormant schizophrenia in your DNA. If it is not there, then there is nothing to talk about.
>tulpas would still fall into that as an expression of schizophrenia
You say that because you do not fully understand what a tulpa is. This is not a hallucination, it is just a fictional being in your mind that you have been thinking about for a long time and to which you have a very strong attachment. You will not see it in front of you, because thoughts can not be materialized. Schizophrenia has nothing to do with it.
>I meant it's a popular opinion on the internet, particularly on image boards.
I do not think your little observations have any statistical significance. You have not done any research or meta-research, you are just judging by your incomplete experience. It is easy to put you in an awkward position by asking you questions such as what boards did you sit on; how many people did you interview; how many of them have changed their minds; have you made at least one chart? And do not forget about the survivorship bias.
>> No. 796 [Edit]
>>795

>And it may be caused because there is a dormant schizophrenia in your DNA.

Well it's not the currently held belief in the medical community. Currently they believe certain people are more vulnerable to it based on genetics but that it's not wholly a genetic issue. Even the genetic component is based on the fact that having family members who have it will raise ones chance of having it as well. However, that in itself may not wholly b genetic. People tend to live in similar environments that there relatives, a good example would be drug use(a known contributor to schizophrenia), people who grew up with parents that do drugs tend to have a higher chance of doing drugs themselves.


>This is not a hallucination, it is just a fictional being in your mind that you have been thinking about for a long time and to which you have a very strong attachment.

Well that isn't a tulpa then, a tulpa is a hullucination. It's a being you created in your head and believe to be real, you believe that you have created it. It's not just something you have been thinking about.

>I do not think your little observations have any statistical significance. You have not done any research or meta-research, you are just judging by your incomplete experience.

I could say the same to you. Not calling you new or anything but it's a very popular opinion thrown about on image boards all the time. I am very surprised that you have not come across it and come across it often at that.
>> No. 797 [Edit]
>>796
>Well that isn't a tulpa then
Your problem is that you do not understand that this concept has transformed over time and has moved away from mysticism. I will not even say that paranormal phenomena are impossible, so the definition of tulpa will have to be changed. This is an imaginary friend, not a hallucination, or something that appeared right in front of you because of your power of thought.
>It's a being you created in your head
>you believe that you have created it.
Indeed.
>and believe to be real
Depends on what is meant by the real.
>It's not just something you have been thinking about.
You misinterpreted my words. I said that you thought about it for a long time and were attached to it emotionally.
>I could say the same to you.
*Sigh*
Unlike you, I did not make questionable claims about the prevalence of atheism on imageboards, and when I spoke about the percentage of atheists in the world, I at least referred to a real research.
>> No. 838 [Edit]
The Earth is (locally) flat. It's not false or controversial, but most people don't understand what ``locally'' means, so they think I'm wrong.
>> No. 839 [Edit]
>>838
Kansas it flatter than a pancake, Deleware is even flatter. People are stupid as hell all over.
>> No. 840 [Edit]
>>839
It's locally flat even where rough terrain.
>> No. 841 [Edit]
>>840
Like, on a small enough scale? How does that work?
>> No. 842 [Edit]
I didn't like the second season of GiTS SAC that much. The refugee thing didn't really interest me and felt like a departure from the more avant-garde conflicts that could only exist in a sci-fi setting.
>> No. 843 [Edit]
>>842
I think most people vastly prefer S1 over S2.
>> No. 844 [Edit]
>>839
>Kansas it flatter than a pancake
thats your controversial opinion? ur really going out on a limb with that one, captain courageous
>> No. 845 [Edit]
>>844
u shud lern 2 red conteckts
>> No. 846 [Edit]
>>838
>>841
I think what he means is that basically if at every point you consider a very small section of the earth centered at that point, it is locally isomorphic to a flat plane (topological isomorphism, confusingly called a homeomorphism). So yes even on rough terrain it is still locally flat, you just have to choose a point and a small radius surrounding it.

Most mathematicians (or students who've taken some undergraduate level math courses, not necessarily topology in particular) should readily understand it by the definition of a manifold.
>> No. 847 [Edit]
>>846
I have not done multivariable calculus yet. Is sounds like a 3-d derivative or something.

Post edited on 30th Apr 2020, 2:45pm
>> No. 848 [Edit]
>>847
>Is sounds like a 3-d derivative or something.
Are you referring to a manifold? Or just the idea of being "locally flat?"

In either case, there's no calculus involved. It's just the idea that if you consider a very small section of some curvy surface it essentially looks flat. I.e. if you imagine you're an ant walking on a globe, from your perspective the thing essentially looks flat because the curvature is at a much larger scale than you are. A manifold is just a fancier way of extending this idea to higher dimensions.
>> No. 849 [Edit]
>>848
>Are you referring to a manifold? Or just the idea of being "locally flat?"
Locally flat. It reminds me of that because of the whole concept of limits and whatnot. On a manifold(or any curved surface?), a small enough area would be flat just like on a curved line, a small enough interval is a straight line. Are they comparable?

Post edited on 30th Apr 2020, 4:28pm
>> No. 850 [Edit]
>>849
I'm not well-enough versed in higher level math to give a concrete answer, but I personally place them in a similar mental category: they're vaguely related in that for both limits or manifolds, what you're concerned with is the "local" (as opposed to global) properties of the object in question. Although I think a difference is what that "object" in question is – for limits it's functions, whereas with manifolds it's surfaces.

Confusingly enough, if you give some additional structure to your manifold (where you define that coordinate map from each piece of that manifold to that locally flat plane – Wikipedia has the nice phrasing of "formalizing the notion of "patching together pieces of a space to make a manifold" – and then make sure that each of these maps transitions nicely from one to another, resulting in a "smooth" manifold), you can do a sort of "generalized" calculus on these manifolds where you have generalized notions of things like surface integrals. There's the famous book by Spivak, "Calculus on Manifolds" which is about this, but that's beyond my grasp right now.

I tried to search a bit but I couldn't find any direct mention of limits in the context of these manifolds; I think they're just implicitly assumed to exist as a necessary condition (convergence within the space, and all that) for you to be able to do calculus.
>> No. 851 [Edit]
>>850
>"patching together pieces of a space to make a manifold" – and then make sure that each of these maps transitions nicely from one to another, resulting in a "smooth" manifold
Sounds like polygons in computer graphics. With enough you get what looks like a smooth curve, but isn't actually because you'd need an infinite amount for it to be perfect. Does that mean perfect manifolds don't actually exist?
>> No. 852 [Edit]
>>851
>perfect manifolds don't actually exist?
In the real world? Probably not. But it exists as an abstraction in mathematics (just as "perfect" circles don't exist in the real-world either, but we still talk about them).

Interestingly that brings back the question of whether the Earth is in fact a manifold. It's well-modeled by one on a macroscopic scale, but in the strictest sense things start to break down at microscopic levels (since if you go small enough you get random quantum fluctuations or something; it doesn't even make sense to talk about it as a "solid" entity at that level). So maybe if you wanted to be uber-pedantic you'd have to say "The Earth on a macroscopic-scale is (locally) flat" (or equivalently adjust how you define "flat" to only encompass macroscopic properties).
>> No. 853 [Edit]
>>852
Doesn't that mean every surface is locally flat in the real world?
>> No. 854 [Edit]
>>853
Yes, I'd say so (on a macroscopic scale at least), since the only violations I can think of at the moment are the pathological examples where you start entering the sub-molecular realm (if you had a really really fine tipped needle where the head of the needle was a few atoms across – I don't know if this exists – then you couldn't really say it was flat even though it's something that could potentially exist in the real world). But I think it's probably safe to say that every real world solid object you encounter is locally flat.
>> No. 855 [Edit]
I don't think evangelion is all that depressing. The endings of both the tv series and end of evangelion were pretty upbeat and throughout the tv anime there was comedy sprinkled throughout most of it. Its message is pretty self-affirming too. Texhnolyze is what's depressing.

Post edited on 5th May 2020, 1:40pm
>> No. 856 [Edit]
>>854
Some types of glass make edges almost that sharp when fractured. Some specialist microscopes use parts with tips ending in single atoms.
>> No. 858 [Edit]
I believe that you will refuse to explain to me why 'foe' stands for 'eastward'.
>> No. 859 [Edit]
File 159095770412.png - (29.16KB , 320x327 , 1ef.png )
859
White people are the cause of everything wrong with the internet (and perhaps the world in general).
>> No. 860 [Edit]
>>859
Whites went to space yesterday. Blacks were busy stealing TV's and torching shops while claiming to be the oppressed ones.
>> No. 861 [Edit]
>>859
True, we should never have left Africa. Now you have tribes enslaving and cannibalizing pygmies, raping babies and God knows what else.
>> No. 862 [Edit]
>>859
I wouldn't want it any other way.
>> No. 866 [Edit]
>>859
Jewish "whites"
>> No. 922 [Edit]
Whores deserve no respect ever.
I guess this is a very controversial opinion these days.
>> No. 923 [Edit]
File 159977670838.jpg - (250.47KB , 850x1511 , sample_8902488fd5f9909523c2537e7012271c.jpg )
923
Nearly all humans are ugly and stupid. This applies to all populations. I hate people who don't understand that. I hate people who don't realize that something better than humans can and should exist and replace humans. I hate people who have humanistic values, whether they apply to all humans or a sub-section of it. It's fucking repulsive.
>> No. 924 [Edit]
>>923
The way I see it. Humans are stupid, but a human is smart.
>> No. 925 [Edit]
>>923
Yes but smart and attractive humans do exist. Often it's not a problem with humans but with societies.
>> No. 926 [Edit]
>>925
Society's problems are caused by peoples' problems and maladjustment to technology. Thinking this can be compensated for through culture and strict laws is a dead end doomed for failure.

Post edited on 10th Sep 2020, 9:02pm
>> No. 928 [Edit]
>>923
> I hate people who don't realize that something better than humans can and should exist and replace humans
A variant of this that maddens me is when people claim that it's our "duty" to further the species, essentially implying that it's not only inconceivable that humans should be allowed to go extinct but moreover imperative that we propagate ourselves to the furthest reaches of the universe. Part of this is undoubtedly their self-preservation/propagation instinct (that is the basis for life), but it seems quite strange how people who champion humanity's cognition and lack of submission to base instinct suddenly wax poetically about propagation as "life's goal" when it comes to these topics.
>> No. 929 [Edit]
>>928
Humanism is marketed as an alternative to religion that's still feel-good. All of their beliefs are based on what makes them feel good, so they'll flip between being individualistic to collectivist depending on the topic. They'd never accept something they think would be bad for them in some way.

Post edited on 11th Sep 2020, 1:30pm
>> No. 930 [Edit]
>>926
Strict laws and culture are how they used to combat it and it actually worked for the most part.
>> No. 931 [Edit]
>>930
No it didn't. It worked well enough to keep society from collapsing, but there was always unecessary strife on a large and small scale. Technology was also not as advanced, so people were less maladjusted.
>> No. 932 [Edit]
>>931
I think we are both thinking of different things, I am thinking of morals and such and you seem to be thinking of conflict and we are getting completely off track regardless.

But anyway, getting back on track. People were more attractive in the past as many of the things that make people unattractive were not issues. Obesity was not a problem nor were other issues that sugar can cause, piercings, tattoos, hideous clothings and dyed hair were not problems, ruining your skin through sun damage was not fashionable and even facial structure was different as they ate more robust meals, part of the reason why Asians tend to have awful teeth is because they live predominately on soft mushy stuff like rice.

Intelligence is harder to define and argue for and it may not even be true. The problem is that with the way the world and technology are we are becoming more and more subjected to the masses which are stupid rather than people that are not as people that are not idiots do not tend to spend all their time voicing opinion online or even at all, so I could point to erudite scholars of the past but they were not the norm and the bulk of past societies probably was as dumb.

Society can guide people but it doesn't change the fact that dumb people are dumb, it's why poor people stay poor, because they are idiots and then they go and have dumb children that stay poor as well. Even in societies with free education where they easily could better themselves they do not, because they are poor and stupid and they deserve to be poor because they are stupid.
>> No. 933 [Edit]
>>932
>ruining your skin through sun damage was not fashionable
Are you talking about commoners or nobility? Commoners didn't have the luxury of staying inside to protect their skin and tended to age very quickly. Even nobility had unhealthy preferences in the past like corsets or obesity as a sign of wealth. Average people now have access to beauty products that are actually healthy and more accurate information on what constitutes a healthy diet and lifestyle, but that hasn't solved the issue. Most people also aren't good looking even if they live an optimal lifestyle.
>we are becoming more and more subjected to the masses which are stupid
What's your point then? I was talking about the masses to begin with. A lot of nobles lost their property and fortune after feudalism stopped supporting their lifestyle because they were incapable of adapting and finding other sources of wealth. Meanwhile, some commoners managed to become wealthy. Those nobles weren't inherently superior to begin with. People and society exist now because they were good enough to not die, but that doesn't mean they're good or that they'll continue to get-by.
>> No. 934 [Edit]
>>933
Depends on how common and what era and location.

Nothing wrong with corsets and obesity was not a sign of wealth, well I guess it depends on where but in the west it's always been something made fun off.

Beauty products don't make you beautiful in fact they do the opposite, you cake your face in garbage and you get a face full of acne. Even wearing make up makes people look awful, all you need to do is wash your face and that is it. Also it is said that sugar can contribute to poor skin as well.

People always knew what constitutes a healthy diet and lifestyle. It's not rocket science. Sure the exact details of it may be up for debate even know but the basics of it are don't eat to much and do some excersise.

Many people will not be good looking but they will be better looking than they are know and there are people with the potential to be good looking that will then be good looking.

>A lot of nobles lost their property and fortune after feudalism stopped supporting their lifestyle because they were incapable of adapting and finding other sources of wealth

A great many did not actually. Many entrepreneurs were nobles, most scientists were nobles, most politicians were nobles, most officers were nobles etc.

>Meanwhile, some commoners managed to become wealthy.

Some did, on both sides some will always break the mold. But who was it that was delegated to the slum? Who were the people destroying textile machinery because it threatened there jobs? And then who was it that was buying all the farm land as it became privatised and what were the peasants that used to farm the land to do then?
>> No. 935 [Edit]
>>934
>Nothing wrong with corsets
Organs aren't meant to be squeezed together and displaced to form an extreme hour-glass shape.
>obesity was not a sign of wealth
17th century paintings feature a lot of chubby women at least. Look at Ruben's Venus.
>Beauty products don't make you beautiful
Beauty products include facial wash, exfoliators, moisturizers, collagen supplements and fancy shampoos and soap. At worst, these aren't harmful. Noble women used to use skin bleach with mercury or lead and ammonia in them. They also swallowed arsenic wafers.
>People always knew what constitutes a healthy diet and lifestyle
Nobles in the middle ages didn't eat a lot of vegetables, fresh fruits or dairy products and cared more about food presentation than nutrition, which is why they suffered from skin disease and bad teeth. Egyptian nobles consumed too much sodium, didn't exercise much and suffered from blocked arteries.

While not all nobles lost their wealth, I don't think they were inherently superior to commoners in the first place. A single person who gained a title and land through luck or ability would uplift their relatives even though those relatives weren't necessarily anything special. Feudalism wasn't a meritocracy.
>> No. 936 [Edit]
>>935
Most the time that didn't happen. Much of the stuff you hear is hugely exaggerated.

You know what obesity is right? I don't even know if you would call that plump, let alone overweight let alone obese.

Nothing wrong with exfoliating but caking on makeup is bad for you and that is common, and again, much of what you mention is exaggerated and even so, they didn't know as much about chemicals as we do know.

Nobles in the middle ages were built like rugby players with an average height of 6 foot tall. Even now vegetables are a controversial topic with people adamantly stating they are not needed. And they did eat dairy and vegetables just meat was seen as a priority. Their teeth and skin were fine, most archaeological finds actually point to good teeth and they also did practice dental hygiene.

Yes Egyptian nobles ate awfully I agree there, they actually had a largely grain based diet (like their people).


Talent raises talent, idiots raise idiots.
>> No. 942 [Edit]
>>936
>Nobles in the middle ages were built like rugby players with an average height of 6 foot tall.
One of the first things I noticed about medieval architecture here is how small the doors are, except for the deliberately oversized ones. They really feel inconveniently small and people like me are called "midgets" and "manlets" these days.
>> No. 944 [Edit]
>>942
That's not really dependent on height but more on design and people back then just getting over it. Even peasants were still a bit shorter but they would be considered average height now.

It's harder to make a door large in a stone structure, you risk effecting the structural integrity by doing so particularly in a defensive structure(not to mention that having a small door in a defensive structure is a good thing as it makes it harder for an attacker to get through and easier to defend).
>> No. 947 [Edit]
>>944
No, I don't think so.
>> No. 948 [Edit]
>>947
It's not really a matter of what you think... The height of medieval people is well documented. It's not something that's hard to find out, you just measure skeletons.

Also, small doors actually don't cause the inconvenience you would assume. I used to live in a store house of an old(well not old relative to what we are talking about) farmhouse that had a very small door. In not long you forget it's even a thing.
>> No. 956 [Edit]
Azerbaijan is in the right.
>> No. 965 [Edit]
The confederate flag is OK, but not because of what it represents but because it looks cool
>> No. 976 [Edit]
Hiring an "escort" is a dumb decision and suggesting it to people is awful advice.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1822349/posts
>> No. 988 [Edit]
Right-wing internet people pretty much always say whatever is convenient for them and ignore whatever isn't. They pretend to have principles, but they only act like they care about them situtationally. Many for example claim to value freedom of speech and no censorship and all of that shit. Really they only care about stuff they like being censored. They don't value free expression for its own sake and glady censor things they deem "degenerate". Liberals do this too, but the stuff they claim to value doesn't appeal to me in the first place, so it doesn't annoy me.

From bitchute, super free speech youtube alternative's guidelines:
>Any material that is sexually explicit, portraying sexual acts or showing sexual arousal is not permitted and will not be tolerated on the platform. If this describes your content, especially if it is of yourself, then do not post it on BitChute.

From UGETube, another free speech paradise video site's guidelines:
>Nudity or Sexual Content – We have a strict, no nudity policy. We report crimes to law enforcement.
>Grossly offensive or content that contains visuals which sole purpose is to “shock” or “disturb” may be removed. We do not encourage vulgar language.

Youtube is less restricted when it comes to these things, so where's that wild west, free for all that actually comes from freedom of expression? I definitely don't get that feeling when visting any of these "free" alternative sites.

Post edited on 4th Dec 2020, 5:49am
>> No. 989 [Edit]
>>988
The offline ones are like that too. I'm related to a few. They're extremely hypocritical. They convince themselves that everyone wants what they want, those who don't are evil. If things go their way it's justice, if they don't it's corruption. They lack the mental maturity to objective view conflicting arguments and form an opinion based on logic, separated from personal opinions and faction allegiances.
Of course to be fair I think a lot of left extremists can be like this too, which is why I don't take sides.
>> No. 990 [Edit]
>>988
I don't think Youtube allows nudity either and they demonetize people that swear too much. I actually don't mind as it's not really a freedom of speech issue, nudity is not freedom of speech. Even swearing is not freedom of speech, swearing is not an idea or a value or a fact. Removing swearing or nudity does not remove any argument or idea one could possibly have, even banning a nudist from making a video of himself nude does not censor his view, he would still be clear to state it and argue for it just not to act on it in that environment.

If you want porn I'm sure it can be found elsewhere.
>> No. 991 [Edit]
>>990
Youtube doesn't claim to be gun hoe about freedom. Nudity and swearing are expressions, they are also concepts. Freedom of speech is usually treated as synonymous with freedom of expression, but maybe there's some differences between the two. Lauding freedom of speech, but rejecting freedom of expression seems like a pointless position and nothing to be proud of to me. Pornography shouldn't be taken so lightly.
>> No. 992 [Edit]
>>991
So freedom of speech should include the freedom to defecate in public or murder whoever you like? That's freedom of expression too right?

There is a difference between being allowed to advocate for something and being allowed to do it.
>> No. 993 [Edit]
File 160717945990.jpg - (331.06KB , 960x1280 , 09da454a0983185bc6183028e3dc0926.jpg )
993
>>992
I see this dumb argument repeated all the time. The problem is that people express themself in a simplistic, self-serving way. What they shouldn't do is call themself free speech warriors or whatever and instead explain exactly what they care about in a way that's not a self-serving simplification. I wouldn't call myself a free speech advocate, but I do think people should be able to draw whatever they want and distribute it. That doesn't objectively and directly harm anybody or society beyond the value of the freedom. Posting a nude video of yourself on the internet is much the same.

If bitchute marketed itself as youtube with no politically biased censorship, that would be one thing. Instead they say they provide creators with "a service that they can use to flourish and express their ideas freely". Except those ideas don't include anything sexual. An animator couldn't make something sexual and post it there without breaking the rules. Platforms like bitchute end up being a boring, impotent enviroment for people to complain about a limited subject matter ad neaseum.
>> No. 994 [Edit]
>>993
You are talking about freedom of artistic expression not freedom of speech, again too different things but even then freedom of expression has a time and place.

Harm exists on a spectrum, you may feel that it doesn't cause harm but posting a carton image of a child doing incredibly inappropriate things with a dog would cause harm to the sensibilities of an 80 year old woman in the same way the defecating in public does not physically cause harm to you but you would find your sensibilities harmed and like wise having hardcore porn airing at 7am on a school morning right after a childrens cartoon would not go down well either. Even in a word with freedom of expression there would still be a time and a place for everything, a website or TV station can advocate freedom of speech but that does not mean they have to or even should allow porn.

Again, freedom of speech is not freedom of expression, it does not allow you to do whatever you like, it just allows you to argue for doing whatever you like.
>> No. 995 [Edit]
>>994
Defecating in public is a health hazard and somebody would have to clean it up. Most websites also aren't public spaces. They're run by private citizens, people can choose to enter them, and most are nonessential. Avoiding a website causes no meaningful inconvenience. A website where people can only argue for free expression is not a free expression site and they should not advertise themselves as such. I'm not a free expression advocate and I never claimed to be. Plus, none of them allow people to advocate for violence. You're missing my point.

Post edited on 5th Dec 2020, 11:07am
>> No. 996 [Edit]
>>995
People can choose to enter them butt somebody wanting to visit a website based on freedom of speech is not actually going to want to use one based on freedom of expression, this 80 year old grandma clearly isn't going to want too so you would end up with the views and opinions only of the people willing to put up with and be associated with that. It would not be a place for freedom of speech and the flow of ideas but would become a place for perverts and porn. Porn has no place in the flw of ideas and the ability for people to excersise freedom of speech.
>> No. 997 [Edit]
File 160721884719.jpg - (87.59KB , 850x708 , sample_f5ff4fc763ed68ce0ad0a11837bb2559.jpg )
997
>>996
>somebody wanting to visit a website based on freedom of speech is not actually going to want to use one based on freedom of expression
Imageboards would say otherwise. Also see Diogenes.

>Porn has no place in the flw of ideas and the ability for people to excercise freedom of speech.
Wrong. You've proved my initial point. Those websites are for self-satisfied people to circle jerk about their political viewpoints and how much they love "freedom" without actually accepting and exercising said freedom. I doubt too many 80 year old grannies use bitchute anyway. Based on your dismissal of porn, I can only guess that you're just another person who doesn't actually value people's ability to create and distribute it. If you don't outright hate porn, I bet you look down on it.

Post edited on 5th Dec 2020, 5:49pm
>> No. 998 [Edit]
>>997
Well image-boards tend to be used by certain kinds of people as the majority are put off by them which is my point. And even then they have rules.

It's not wrong. Porn itself is not an idea or information or anything like that any more than defecating in public is. Again, it's the right to do something vs the right to argue for being allowed to do something.

Funnily enough I actually don't have a problem with porn, I just think it has a place and that place has nothing to do with freedom of speech or services like bitchute. Sure, people should have the right to create whatever they want but that doesn't mean they should have the right to have it published wherever they like particularly when it is something that many would not want to see. Things like that should be published on dedicated platforms.
>> No. 999 [Edit]
>>998
People should communicate their values and ideas through their actions. If they don't, their values are superficial. Only arguing for something is useless. A website which allows porn has a million times more value in expressing the idea that porn should be allowed than one where it is not allowed regardless of anything else. It's like you're completely blind to what I've been saying. I guess you can't teach a blind man to see. There's no point in repeating myself any more.

Post edited on 5th Dec 2020, 7:04pm
>> No. 1000 [Edit]
>>999
Well that gets back to defecation and murder now doesn't it?

>A website which allows porn has a million times more value in expressing the idea that porn should be allowed

Because porn is allowed. It's not illegal to post it on the internet. Yet again going to murder, expressing the idea that murder should be legal by murdering is clearly not a good idea. In that case the idea would be to voice the opinion that it should be legal and argue why you think that is. I am not saying porn should be illegal, far from it, I am saying it has a place but that place is not on a site for freedom of speech, porn in and of itself has nothing to do with that.

Post edited on 5th Dec 2020, 7:38pm
>> No. 1001 [Edit]
>>1000
>It's not illegal to post it on the internet.
Loli is illegal in plenty of countries.
>voice the opinion that it should be legal and argue why you think that is
Useless.

The next time you try arguing with me, write greentext like that right away so I know to ignore you.

Post edited on 5th Dec 2020, 7:54pm
>> No. 1002 [Edit]
>>1001
And being able to post it on a site like bit chute will not help now will it? It will just have bitchute get in legal issues, get blocked by certain countries and make normal people avoid it, it certainly is not going to make the countries that have made it illegal make it legal. Yes arguing for it is unlikely to change anything but freedom of speech has nothing to do with whether an argument is going to cause a change only that you are allowed to make the argument in the first place.

I knew it was you from the first post but I decided to humour you anyway in the hope you may see some kind of sense at some point about something and not just have your own personal wants dictate everything you think and say. I guess I am too kind for my own good.
>> No. 1003 [Edit]
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
>Although the First Amendment refers specifically to the freedoms of speech and press, it in fact encompasses a wide range of expression beyond publications and the spoken word. All art forms — including plays, music, dance, film, literature, poetry and the visual arts — enjoy considerable First Amendment protection.
>The Court concluded that movies are an important vehicle for public opinion despite “the fact that they are designed to entertain as well as inform.” Quoting its 1948 opinion in Winters v. New York, the Court noted “the line between the informing and the entertaining is too elusive for the protection of that basic right (a free press). Everyone is familiar with instances of propaganda through fiction. What is one man’s amusement teaches another’s doctrine.”
>Clark also noted public concerns that movies may “possess a greater capacity for evil, particularly among the youth of the community,” but said this could not justify private restraint.
>In A Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" v. Attorney General of Massachusetts (1966), the Supreme Court considered a state effort to have a sexually explicit book declared obscene and therefore banned under state law. Not so fast, the justices told the Bay State. Even a "patently offensive" pornographic work, the Court held, is still protected by the First Amendment.
>Like it or not, the debate about porn is always a debate about free speech. The hands of every would-be government censor are still bound by the First Amendment.
Nobody can objectively say whether something expresses an idea or not. If the government censoring porn is a violation of the first amendment which protects "freedom of speech", a website that doesn't allow porn cannot be said to posssess that same principle.

Post edited on 6th Dec 2020, 4:55am
>> No. 1012 [Edit]
I think applying modern values to historical situations is ridiculous, and you shouldn't even assume that modern liberal values are even the best way of looking at the world. And by modern liberal values, I mean the entire worldview that came out of the American and french revolutions and everything that resulted in the destruction of the monarchy in europe. For example, it is believed Thomas Jefferson took a slave mistress after his wife died, and had several children with her. It does not appear that she was poorly treated and their children were freed as he was good on his word. Now modern social scientists take great issue with this, because the power imbalance of him being her owner and her being a slave makes it be default rape according to their power dynamics theory. The idea that every relationship will be equal is a ridiculous oversimplification of human behavior, and furthermore completely ignores any possible benefits that someone in a lesser position might have received from this interaction. Now my mind is so far removed from their worldview that I just don't even consider it a bad scenario at all. The fact that she was apparently treated well is good enough for me, really. I guess my unbringing got fucked up because I read a lot of stuff about ancient times and I never grew sensitized to the things that happened in their times to any degree that might bother me. Sexual relationships are just a tiny part of this larger problem, there's also the whole freedom of voting, democracy, common rule, and other things which are more fads of the time than they are any ultimate moral aspiration, in my mind. Far more grievous to me is the killing that took place during the socialists revolts and the anti-church killings in republican spain. But I suppose the modern social scientist will view these as an acceptable loss for the destruction of the established elites.
>> No. 1013 [Edit]
>>994
Artistic expression is the same thing as freedom of speech. Books with no pictures can be erotic, they can be downright porngraphic (or maybe pornoliterary if you prefer). At what point does the arrangement of words or the vessel used to portray any idea in a non-physical context stop being freedom of speech? When it offends YOUR sensibilities? And I don't want to hear the argument that expression is a slippery slope, this idea that you can't draw definite lines is silly. In reality the differences between things are not set on an evenly space sliding scale, there are definite transitional points even if there is a flow from one thing to another. The same can be seen in race, people pretend that it's like a perfectly organized color palette, but most people fit into a pretty well defined group with a few outliers in-between and in the landmasses where two demographics converge. There are far less mulattos than germanic-Anglo-scandanavian whites, or african blacks. The same goes with freedom of speech and expression, there's still a very easily defined difference between something being portrayed in a fictional scenario and actually committing an act. It's pretty clear what the difference between actually doing something to a human and portraying it is. Just because it's disgusting doesn't make it anymore real. This idea that we will be free from all that we dislike in a perfect world is just a utopia. Freedom of speech/expression, however, is very attainable when people get their heads of their asses.
>> No. 1014 [Edit]
I regard Edward Teller very highly and believe he was not given even a fraction of the credit he deserved. He broke boundaries of science that as of yet are still unsurpassed or not even come close to from a pure energy perspective, and he is disparaged for what? For endangering a few thousand human lives? His work was worth more than a billion human lives, and if it had been allowed to go to it's fullest he may well have been worth more than any human of earth. He was doubted at every turn and must have felt this sorely, especially when he knew hydrogen bombs would work and basically had to invent them in isolation and with zero funding because the rest of the people working on it either didn't have the foresight to see their possibility or feared them.
>> No. 1015 [Edit]
>>1014
It's probably because he pissed off oppenheimer and oppenheimer convinced the "cabal" of scientists in his influence (which considering the caliber of the manhattan project was essentially every influential mind at that time) to overshadow Teller.
>> No. 1016 [Edit]
File 160902794839.png - (577.42KB , 1560x768 , 1608935270357 (1).png )
1016
This just won't end, does the west has unlimited funds for woke shit like this? I can't believe this horrid looking crap is praised by almost everyone when honestly Anime surpasses it in every conceivable aspect, this level of shilling is ridiculous.
>> No. 1017 [Edit]
>>1016
Pixar had more creativity before they got bought by Disney (that CG short of the lamp is probably their best work). Now everything they put out is anodyne. Although their research (disney research) is still of pretty good caliber and well regarded in academic circles. E.g. they publish a lot to siggraph; although since I'm not too familiar with this field I don't know whether their results are actually usable and re-implemented independently.
>> No. 1018 [Edit]
>>1016
Disney has money to burn. Not that they like burning money but I firmly believe they believe what they're doing is the safest and most profitable course of action that everyone wants to see.

I don't really have anything to back this up, but if you think about it...
First off; SJWs are a very vocal and opinionated minority who manage to make the opposite appear true. I believe the average person doesn't care about or want SJW content, they just aren't going to make a fuss about it and will instead just avoid said content. The real world box office numbers for woke movies support the "go woke go broke" idea.
When doing test screenings, market testing, and online polls, you're going to attract opinionated people who want to express those opinions, and when SJWs tend to be those types of people, you get feedback that doesn't accurately represent what people want.

Secondly; Various entertainment industries, with Hollywood being no exception, seem to be gaining a lot of popularity with younger SJW types who want to push their agendas via the writing they do for games, movies, and even localization of anime. From what I've seen, a lot of brainwashed tumbler kids fresh out of college seem drawn to these carriers that enable them to spread their oh so important opinions, and these industries not knowing any better are enabling them, if not out right encouraging this based off their corrupted market research as mentioned in my first point.

Third; reviewers are sheep and shills, they follow popular threads because their careers depend on being popular. They also depend on material to review, if they piss off a company they might no longer gain early access to it's media. A company won't want people to think their products are garbage, so they'll 'encourage' reviewers to give more favorable reviews. User reviews aren't much better, they come from people who follow popular threads too and can easily have their opinions influenced by others.

In short, I don't think it's an agenda on the companies end. I believe it's bad data leading to bad decisions, and people thinking the emperor's new cloths look great.
>> No. 1019 [Edit]
File 160904177534.jpg - (288.18KB , 936x796 , lol14.jpg )
1019
>>1018
Does it really?, seems to me Disney is biting more than it can chew, with 'rona keeping it's extremely costly parks closed and movies not releasing theatrically seems they have a lot's of assets but a very small profit margin if any at all, digital streaming will not support all what it has been lost in a year, if they make shit after shit like Mulan for example they are only digging their graves.
>> No. 1020 [Edit]
>>1019
If you look at their stock prices, they're doing pretty well. They're actually doing better than they were before the march market crash. They don't need the parks, Their media is their bread and butter, and Disney+ is killing it right now thanks to rona. Thanks to over seas markets, even their flops can be very financially successful movies. 9 out of 10 people hating something and not wanting to buy it stops becoming a problem when it becomes 9 million out of 10 million people in a world with 7+ billion people. You've still got hundreds of millions of people eating their shit up, even if they're not the majority.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like what they're doing, in fact I don't like Disney one bit. As for the image, yes the image on the right is butt ugly and hideous. It's made for a culture that has very quickly changed to shun beauty (as we see it) in favor of reliability. Westerners don't like characters who are pretty and cute because it makes them feel bad about being fat and ugly. Westerners are too lazy and spoiled to even try to care about their appearance, and too emotionally stunted to handle any criticism about it. They don't want anything good to aspire to or emulate, They only want to shove junk food in their ugly bloated faces and see people on the screen do the same so they can feel normal. They're also too brain dead to realize what they're doing to themselves both in body and mind.

God I fucking hate this country.
>> No. 1021 [Edit]
File 160911909435.jpg - (137.85KB , 700x915 , 14421440.jpg )
1021
>>1020
>Westerners don't like characters who are pretty and cute because it makes them feel bad about being fat and ugly. Westerners are too lazy and spoiled to even try to care about their appearance, and too emotionally stunted to handle any criticism about it.
Japanese people are way thinner and dress better, but besides that they aren't particulary good looking on average. I've seen pictures of highschool students and it wasn't pleasant. Super thin eyes, square faces and yellow skin aren't a rarity. That doesn't stop them from drawing good looking characters, so there's more to it than what you're saying.

Post edited on 27th Dec 2020, 5:31pm
>> No. 1022 [Edit]
>>1020
Western cartoons were never attractive, it has nothing to do with 'reliability'. It's just a difference in design philosophy, western cartoons were always caricatures of things rather than what Japan would create which was an ideal of beauty.
>> No. 1038 [Edit]
This isn't so much a controversial opinion, as it is just me not getting something. I've been reading about MacArthurs relief, and I just can't wrap my head around it. The writer of the book is a pretty big Truman fan and the way he's phrasing it, the reader is supposed to agree with the decision yet I'm having trouble understanding what MacArthur is supposed to have done wrong. Is it just plain writers bias or am I suffering an intellectual breakdown? Because the only thing MacArthur seems to have gotten a little too crazy in was suggesting to use nuclear fallout to contaminate the river between china and Korea.
>> No. 1039 [Edit]
The social market economy and the nordic model are absolutely not the end-game of "development" of countries nor even is the concept of "development" in that sense valid in the first place. There is this rather alarming view in europe that their model of economic regulation and social inequality compensation is the ideal, and that all countries should strive towards it. That those who don't, should be made to, and those who resist are wrong and evil. Maybe in the context of 20th century europe, they are centrist, but in the context of the history of the world they are very fringe. I do not like the fact that there even exist parties in my country that want to move us towards the social market economy or some limited aspects of the nordic model, I know from discussing with Europeans that they REALLY believe that their model of government and social regulation is the ideal, the norm, and their patronizing attitude and shock towards the United States and other countries for culturally resisting it really gets under my skin. I mean, the people I was talking too used so much actual socialist rhetoric "income inequality is inhumane, capitalism is bad, social welfare should be the default and enforced" that I wonder if I'm just talking to people who are considered far-left in the E.U. and that they badly misrepresented the consensus due to either malice or genuine ignorance. If not, WW2 really mind-broke them.
>> No. 1040 [Edit]
>>1039
Socialism works when you have a small, hard-working, law-abiding, intelligent population. Eurofags are only mistaken in their delusional belief that everybody can meet these criteria.

Post edited on 16th Jan 2021, 12:18pm
>> No. 1041 [Edit]
>>1040
Socialism existing in the first place is a defacto state of having failed. The nordic model is also not compatible with every, or most, cultures, even within europe. It requires that every single citizen be prepared for a level of self-sacrifice that would require a ludicrous level of trust and homogeneity, to the point that an ethnostate wouldn't be good enough to ensure that it functions anything other than just barely. If even a small percentage of your population thinks "nah, it's not for me", then you've got a problem. It's also just against the nature of humans to defer their ambitions and all but the most insignificant of self-interest for the sake of maintaining a fragile state. Even if you could make it work to a degree beyond just functional, why would you want to? If you're actually competent, you're going to want to be able to make your own decisions about what you do with your money, your property, or your time, and that is going to far outweigh any desire for a safety net. The only workaround is to condition people from birth to see that and only that way of life as the ideal.
>> No. 1042 [Edit]
File 16108886878.jpg - (206.14KB , 850x508 , sample_4f9bd07e5931bb6e891e60e0d3b56bd6.jpg )
1042
>>1041
>Even if you could make it work to a degree beyond just functional, why would you want to?
I only said it would work. I personally wouldn't care much about making my own decisions if I had nice things around me. Clean streets. Pretty architecture. Trees and flowers. Good food. Excellent public transit. A sense of belonging. Everybody should have this kind of lifestyle. There shouldn't be any homeless people. They shouldn't exist.
>> No. 1043 [Edit]
>>1042
We just have to figure out how to compress ourselves into 2D beings.
>> No. 1044 [Edit]
>>1042
I like being the agent of my own decisions, even if that means being poor. I was homeless for a good while once in my late teens and early twenties, living out of my car, and I think I actually enjoyed it a little bit. I don't care much for nice things if they're only available to me if I get along. I've seen the income and tax brackets for the Netherlands, they say they like it there too but someone who makes 25,000 a year gets only like 5000 less after taxes as someone who "makes" 50,000. Guess I'd rather die standing on my own feet, as stupid as it sounds coming from an autistic loser. I'm just not very good at the whole cooperating thing, pretty much the only time I'll behave and follow the general culture is on imageboards. And even then I have a hard time staying in line, I have a hard time not going off on some unwarranted rant or making posts that run the risk of attracting the wrong crowd. To me a state where everything was provided and I made no decisions on the basis that I had to always stay in line would be hell. When you're the owner of your own personal power (power in this sense being a loose term for any kind of resources, energy, or force you control), you don't need to stay in line. I like the idea of only answering to myself, and I'm not saying I'm some dumbass libertarian, I'm saying I'll try to keep some handle on my own power no matter the system I'm in. A system where it isn't possible to be the owner and decider of your own power is worth less to me than a single crackhead.
>> No. 1045 [Edit]
>>1044
Well, you said yourself that you're "defective". You can't help that. I don't think you see what I see. Things could be so beautiful and simple if people were only better.
>> No. 1046 [Edit]
>>1040
I think both socialism and extreme-libertarianism (anarcho-capitalism?) work only in the presence of that "small, hard-working, law-abiding, intelligent population" you mentioned. But then such a population would be fine almost under any system of law. With a more realistic heterogeneous population where bad-actors abound and people are not merely rational agents but will gladly compromise in the long-term for short-term gains, both systems fall apart. Socialism for the reasons already discussed in this thread, and anarcho-capitalism for the reason that the majority of people are brainless and easily manipulated by advertising so that market forces – the primary (and only?) element ensuring fairness in a pure libertarian society – are irrelevant. In a rational world Facebook would be long out of business due to its shady practices and data-mining; and yet people simply don't care, and in fact facebook (along with other similar companies) grow stronger each year buying out more and more of their competitors.
>> No. 1047 [Edit]
>>1045
I think I know what you see. I think I even understand why you see it. I'm not saying it's not appealing from a certain perspective, and I'm well aware that many people genuinely understand the system that realistically would be created and that those people believe that this would be anywhere from a utopia to just a nice and simple and secure way of life that accounts for the people who otherwise would fall through the cracks, and provides a limited yet secure life. What I'm trying to tell you is that not enough of it lines up with my moral values for me to also value it. I'm also not an anarcho-capitalist, or even a libertarian, don't get me wrong. But primarily I think government taxation should go towards actual public projects like roads, bridges, etc, and that government regulation in business should only be as far as preventing monopolies and rooting out clear abuse where it lies- not managing the salaries from the seat of the federal power or providing a vessel for unions to hold the country hostage. I think also that the benefits of having a fallback in case you "fail" are outweighed by the cons of having heavily increased government monitoring of your life and a limited use of the funds that are made available. If someone is down on their luck, their family should help them out. If their family can't or won't, if they're too mentally ill or old too work, then in that case the government should try and find a way to help them. But at the end of the day I think someones life is their own responsibility and it's up to them to solve their problems. I'm also aware that for a lot of people, their lives have problems they didn't create and didn't ask for. I'm one of those people to a degree. But at the end of the day there IS no one else who can really decide what you will do, there is no one else to make something happen that you want to happen. It may be grim, but only what you have in your power is really in your power. If that is limited, it is still the only thing you can rely on. Assistance from everything and everyone else should be treated as good luck and a rarity at best. Not for the sake of others, but for yourself, you are the only person you can control. It's why I'm an advocate for owning weapons, not because I believe that I DESERVE the right to own weapons, but because I know that if I want certain outcomes, I need personal power. Anarchy will never be achieved. It's not something that you should even wish for. I just believe in self-responsibility, and that entails not being stuck out in the cold by an uncaring world, what it really means is using your own power to achieve the results you want. That may not be much, you may not have much power. But in the end, what else can you control except for that which is in your power? Then, if you desire an outcome, it is unreasonable to not look to your own power to do it, because no one and nothing else is for certain.
>> No. 1052 [Edit]
>>1039
They also topping the list when it comes to things like the human development index so it can easily be shown to work.

>>1041
>If even a small percentage of your population thinks "nah, it's not for me", then you've got a problem.

Why? These states have law and order and strong systems of welfare, so what could a few people deciding that actually do? Be unemployed and on welfare?
>> No. 1053 [Edit]
>>1052
The "human development index" was pretty much tailor made to make "development" reflect the social market economy though.
>what could a few people deciding that actually do?
I guess you've never lived near the projects before. And to me it sounds like you're advocating for a strong police state to make sure no one objects strongly to socialist policies, which is pretty funny when you think about it. And pretty realistic too.

Either way I just don't see what's so appealing about welfare, especially considering the staggering tax rates. Not that American corporate capitalism is much better, but if I had to choose between them at least corporate capitalism gives you the option of not being tied into the system and society quite as much. I mean who is the welfare state for besides the poor? I'm not poor, so I don't want it. Anyone who isn't poor or shortsighted isn't going to want it.
>> No. 1054 [Edit]
>>1053
It's not, it's based on life expectancy, education and average income.

And what will the people in these projects do? Actually less than they would in the US as in this case they will have a strong welfare system to keep them off the streets. I'm not saying they will not cause crime but the motivation for it is lessened.

A strong police force is necessary regardless, I mean just look at the US, you have nut jobs causing chaos on both sides of the spectrum and huge amounts of crime caused by the poor that would not be such an issue in a welfare state. I would argue a strong police force is more necessary in the US than in Socialist states(and that they a stronger one too).

Personally the benefit of welfare to me is not having to work. High income tax is a problem but it scales with income anyway, yes you get taxed 50% of your income over 100k here, so yes it would be bad if that was the case and I was making that much but I would hardly be in the poor house because of it.

>but if I had to choose between them at least corporate capitalism gives you the option of not being tied into the system and society quite as much.

Does it though? I can be and I am completely removed from society. If you have to work then you are going to be tied to society and the rules of that society, you are going to have to behave in a manner that lets you keep that job, you are going to have to follow the norms of society. I don't have to play that game at all.
>> No. 1055 [Edit]
vim is overrated as a text editor, let alone coming close to the functionality of an ide. People who mindlessly champion vim have never spent much time using a modern editor; if they spent as much time fully learning its keybindings as they likely did learning vim, they would likely be as efficient in navigating around as they are in vim. Not to mention that people often leave out the bazillion janky extensions that you need to add in order to have a decent experience.

That said, I will say that among terminal-only text editors it is very good; but unless you've ssh'd into a headless machine I see no reason why you'd want to avoid the plethora of other good gui editors.
>> No. 1056 [Edit]
>>1054
But in your case you only are free to do whatever you want as long was what you want coincides with what society wants. For example in a lot of welfare systems you can be disqualified if you possess a certain amount of property or do certain things. If the money is yours, if it is really under your power, then it can't be "disqualified" from you without using force. Maybe you don't really care to own property, and don't really have any ambitions beyond relaxing. That's fine, for you, but I do have some ambitions and I have certain things I want to do that I can't do in the kind of country northern europe tends to produce. If I was in the ntherlands right now, my income would fall in the bracket high enough that I would be paying over 50% in taxes, accounting for exchange rates. As it is I can easily afford to live where I live and save up quite a good bit as well, and I'll be using that money to buy some property in about 7 years. But if I took home what I would get in the netherlands I wouldn't be able to afford to even live within reasonable driving distance of my job. I don't value being a wageslave anymore than you do, but to me I see this as a way of earning my freedom. Once I'm done, and I have carefully planned this, I'll be as free as you can be on this earth. That's worth more than living on the good graces of the state to me. That's the real reason I don't want a social welfare state. You might be unburdened and you might be relaxed, but you've given up a considerable amount of power over your own life. I don't care whether it's right or wrong or logical or not, that's just something I simply won't do. It's not even a matter of asking for permission for the power over my own life, if I can hold that power then I won't let it go. I can't understand people who do otherwise.
>> No. 1057 [Edit]
>>1056
>But in your case you only are free to do whatever you want as long was what you want coincides with what society wants.

The same could be argued of working as well, although as mentioned before it applies to working to a greater degree. Society has no expectations of unemployed people that is the point(well some nations and systems might ask that you seek employment but they may not even enforce that). If society stopped valuing the industry you are employed in, if your employer stopped valuing you, if the industry became automated, if the industry moved overseas, if you were not PC enough for the industry or any other thing could end your employment and it's all at the whim of the economy and society. What could society the whims of society do to effect the unemployed? Short of a revolution in which case you have bigger problems, not much.

>For example in a lot of welfare systems you can be disqualified if you possess a certain amount of property or do certain things.

True, but that amount of money here is $500,000 and that does not include the value of your own house that you live in, so it's not like you are being forced into poverty to be on welfare and even if the limit was $10,000 you could still live freely just not save up money.


>Once I'm done, and I have carefully planned this, I'll be as free as you can be on this earth. That's worth more than living on the good graces of the state to me.

Yes but you have to be a slave to do it. And also you still are living on the good grace of the state and economy. The economy could crash and force you to work again, your investments could become devalued or depending on the nation you are in the government could enact some plan that requisitions assets or made assets worth less or some other shenanigans like that. Sure it is unlikely that the government will do that but it is equally unlikely that the government will cut welfare, it is more likely that the economy will crash(well that is guaranteed, how bad it does it, what sectors are severely effected and how soon it recovers are what matters).

Having said all of this. I can see where you are coming from and I would like to live off of my own investments too. I don't like the idea of living off the charity of the government or others in general. But it's just not worth the time and effort of working to accrue enough to retire off to do it for me. I would be wasting a good portion of my life just for the feeling that I am living on my own wealth.
>> No. 1058 [Edit]
>>1057
See I do understand where you are coming from and I agree to an extent and I even thought of the possibility of welfare myself, but there are things I actually want to do with my money, not just sit around on it. But I have a bunch of projects in mind that will require money.
>True, but that amount of money here is $500,000 and that does not include the value of your own house that you live in, so it's not like you are being forced into poverty to be on welfare and even if the limit was $10,000 you could still live freely just not save up money.
Here it's $2,000, I think.
>> No. 1101 [Edit]
I despise transsexualism. It's not only an obnoxious ideology, but actively harmful. I suppose it's been there for a few years now, but I've noticed it a lot more recently.

There's a lot of things about it that are awful. The 'sex/gender is a spectrum' horseshit, infinite pronouns that all make no sense to encompass every 'gender', the cult-like mentality where if you dare criticize or say that maybe mutilating yourself and taking hormone supplements for years just to delude yourself into thinking you've become the opposite sex is a good idea.
But most of all, it's the people who egg them on into 'transitioning'. The people who convince them that anyone saying 'no' is just a filthy nasty bigot who shouldn't be listened to. The people who reinforce this mentality instead of caring for them and convincing them to seek some sort of therapy to stop feeling like they're some sort of freak for being born with certain sexual organs. I don't know how you can possibly tell someone considering this sort of thing that it'd be a good idea for them. "Yes, you should definetly take months/years worth of supplements, consider mutilating your genitals, and ignore anyone who tells you otherwise. And above all, make sure you're prideful about the fact that you're essentially doing sterile self-harm."

And maybe these people can end up passing off as men or women. People have done that without any sort of attempt at sex change at all. But when that high wears off, when they age, when their minds inevitably change about the whole thing, when the voices that've been egging you on for those years of your life suddenly quiet, when it inevitably becomes obvious that all they've been doing their whole lives is just an advanced form of cross-dressing, then what are they going to have? Their going to have their damaged bodies, living with nothing but pain.

And then they'll either kill themselves, or live the rest of their lives in regret. Many already have killed themselves, or have had it become apparent to them the damage they've irreversibly done to themselves in the chase of trying to find their 'true identity', when they should've just been seeking therapy. Even worse if they were just doing it for some fetishy bullshit.

I've also seen other things that remind me too much of this hopefully very temporary phenomenon. Among them are 'headmates', aka people pretending to be schizophrenic, which probably isn't healthy to do for prolonged periods of time but probably isn't as harmful as transsexualism, and people who've intentionally made themselves incontinent out of what I assume is sexual desire. I'm not 100% sure.
>> No. 1107 [Edit]
File 161371887149.png - (387.01KB , 589x1200 , nun 1.png )
1107
My hatred for women has slowly been expanding into the 2d world. People act like 2d is pure and can do no harm but then yanderes exist, yangires exist, manipulative girls exist, gyaru sluts exist, you have entire genres in Japanese media centered around doing some kind of terrible thing if not a series of terrible things. I don't know how people can tell me I'm the dumb one and 2d is objectively better when plenty of characters do the same things real women do. Maybe it isn't as common but they still do it and quite often. Obviously I notice the good ones but I notice the bad ones too and I feel like I'm one of few who does. I want to be wrong but I'm not the type of person to forget things I hate so easily.
>> No. 1109 [Edit]
>>1107
There are terrible 2D girls just like in 3D, the difference is that the best 2D girls are always something that doesn't have an equally good 3D counterpart. These characters aren't necessarily perfect people either, its more that they have some specific quality that 3D just entirely lack. Like being emotionally disciplined, or valuing loyalty enough to make a real effort. Not that 3D don't value loyalty at all, but they can be swayed by some pretty easy shit just because their emotional receptors are always on.
>> No. 1110 [Edit]
>>1107
2D is whatever you want it to be.
>> No. 1111 [Edit]
>>1101
Don't care. Trying to help some people is pointless. I also like its potentially destructive effect on 3d woman.
>> No. 1112 [Edit]
File 161383478192.jpg - (1.47MB , 1039x1492 , Fate Sabre 159.jpg )
1112
Monarchless states are the bane of the world and nearly all of the worlds problems can be attributed to them.
>> No. 1113 [Edit]
I prefer tits to ass. I've always loved boobs
>> No. 1114 [Edit]
File 161394405876.jpg - (14.22KB , 191x185 , huh.jpg )
1114
>>1113
That's not even an unpopular opinion. Everyone with a working sex drive likes boobs, usually more than ass.
>> No. 1115 [Edit]
>>1114
>usually more than ass
confusingly enough
>> No. 1116 [Edit]
>>1114
Maybe he comes from the middle east or wales(though that's sheep not asses I guess).
>> No. 1117 [Edit]
>>1114
I don't know, I've always preferred ass as a rule. I can't stand the dumb obese nigger shit or twerking being shoved everywhere, but a properly shaped ass just really does it for me.
>> No. 1118 [Edit]
File 161454697477.png - (3.30MB , 3500x2485 , 81ed8556479e66e39eb12f0910bc0de0.png )
1118
I can only assume this will open a can of worms but I don't like hentai. Obviously I do read some and even enjoy it but I never feel good about it after the fact, my mind just feels weird and I feel like I end up coming close to having forgotten some of the things I just read after I go on a long hentai reading session. Some of the fetishes I personally feel are horrible and other times downright retarded. Hentai ends up feeling like a step into the darkest corners of people's heads to show just how depraved characters and the artist can be. None of this would be so bad if I didn't have to spend so much time looking for my fetish that unfortunately is very obscure so there isn't much on that. It's also annoying to me how people sometimes simp for their favorite fetish, it's silly and annoying.

Post edited on 28th Feb 2021, 1:19pm
>> No. 1119 [Edit]
>>1118
Feeling guilty or ashamed of your sexuality isn't an unpopular opinion pretty much anywhere if you're a guy. What's unpopular is being a shameless, unapologetic sexual deviant.

Post edited on 28th Feb 2021, 1:51pm
>> No. 1120 [Edit]
>>1118
I have noticed a lot of people into 2D seem to feel distressed about hentai and their fetishes. Just try to relax and have fun.
>> No. 1121 [Edit]
>>1118
Theres always a worse fetish that makes you feel normal, also theres no reason to discuss hentai/fetishes.
Just try not to overthink it.
>> No. 1122 [Edit]
>>1118
If it makes you feel any better, most hentai actually is fairly vanilla or close to it. The really bad and disturbing ones are a minority.
>> No. 1240 [Edit]
Border patrol and the coast guard seem underappreciated. Nobody really talks about them much, they don't get free stuff, and nobody is that offended if you say something bad about them. The military is always praised for "protecting us", but don't they have less of a role in that than the ones who actually defend borders?
>> No. 1241 [Edit]
The #StopAsianHate thing feels like a cheap attempt to piggyback on BLM but the situation is obviously different, even if I disagree with BLM there is a point there. SAH feels like a mix of cause junkies and perhaps the CCP because of a lot of their stuff is about anti Chinese sentiment in the west but there is a reason for that other than racism
>> No. 1242 [Edit]
File 161695905483.jpg - (466.91KB , 850x1202 , sample_6b5d202d986d82f6a6d84fad00da53d9.jpg )
1242
While I don't think medical science and biomedical engineering has advanced to point where surgeons can actually change a person's sex, I've gotten to kind of liking the whole trans thing because it's destructive to woman. If anybody can be a woman, being a woman has no significance. There would be nothing special about them, and women's special status is something I resent.

What I don't get is why this view isn't more popular on imageboards. A lot of people here have their issues with women, but also hate the trans thing, something which is harmful to them. What's the logic behind that? They do talk a lot about the harmful effects it has, but I guess I don't really care. Maybe my malice and lack of empathy has gone full circle?

Post edited on 28th Mar 2021, 12:24pm
>> No. 1243 [Edit]
I actually don't hate women any more than I hate men in fact I hate men more. Sure there are terrible women(and that seems to be what the imageboard crowd fixate on) but there are terrible men too, I would say they are both bad but with the difference being that women are less inclined to be driven by base impulse unlike men and that they on average swear less and do other revolting things less.

People complain about women losing their feminine graces and this is true to a large degree but then men have lost what it was to be a man as well so it's a moot point. The majority of both of them have degraded.

>>1242
It's an immature train of thought, it could lead to other problems later on as well so it's good that people are not following it. If you are following this thought pattern that because a group hates something then even though you hate it too you are now going to like it it opens up a whole new can of worms and never ends, you will basically start likening things solely because x doesn't like them and disliking things solely because x does. So not only are you having your thoughts dictated to by the group but in an even more unhealthy manner.
>> No. 1244 [Edit]
File 161698506930.jpg - (95.00KB , 850x638 , sample_98ff3bc418e2ab2c825359bb98ca2d6b.jpg )
1244
>>1243
I dislike both too, but women more so because they're more different from me and get preferential treatment in many areas. I wouldn't say they're any less driven by "base instinct"; I would say the opposite actually.

I don't care about feminine graces. I dislike feminine thinking and behavior as a whole and would like women to be far more masculine and unemotional in the way they think and act.

>because a group hates something then even though you hate it too
It's not about "because they hate it", it's about it being harmful to them. Trans people don't effect me personally, so I couldn't care less about them outside of this. I don't think I ever hated them, I just reject their ideas about sex.
>> No. 1245 [Edit]
>>1244
I don't know, modern man is fairly different from me as well.

>I wouldn't say they're any less driven by "base instinct"; I would say the opposite actually.

Well if you look at pretty much any metric they aren't. According to studies from both Japan and the west men are twice as likely to cheat as women are, men are also far more likely to end up in prison and the vast majority of people there are in it for base reason of one kind or another there is also a humongous industry built on the lust of men. The common response to the porn industry point is 'well of course women can do 'it' whenever they like' but this is part of the problem with the mentality of the imageboard folk, they are not actually comparing like to like. They are comparing attractive females to themselves when they should be comparing attractive females to attractive males and themselves to ugly and obese women. Could an obese woman walk up to a male model and get it from him? Hell no. There should be a porn industry as big or bigger for women than there is for men but this simply is not the case and even what porn is made for women is completely different than what is made for men, the most popular female pornography was a book.

Women think differently than men do and that is the other issue with imageboard folk, they assume that women think like they do and have the same desires. This is completely false.

I don't actually think it could be harmful to them, harmful to what about them exactly? You mentioned a special status but again, it's something that imageboard folk exaggerate. In fact if they have a special status it's because men like them are giving it to them in the first place.

Post edited on 28th Mar 2021, 7:59pm
>> No. 1246 [Edit]
>>1245
Do me a favor and quote people in your first reply to them so I don't waste my time responding to you.
>> No. 1247 [Edit]
>>1243
>with the difference being that women are less inclined to be driven by base impulse unlike men and that they on average swear less and do other revolting things less.
Is this a humor skit? Women may, arguably, be driven less by sex. But base impulses like emotional logic drive women to a much greater extent than men. I don't think I've met a woman who doesn't heavily weigh emotional reasons over logical reasons when making decisions, even practical decisions like where to work, rent, what living standards they can afford. Your description of women sounds like a fantasized and flanderized version of women based on old idealized versions of women that were never true in any era. If nothing else, women are fucking retarded more so than men, as stupid as men get women are able to surpass all expectations. t. 4 sisters
>> No. 1248 [Edit]
Companies should not be allowed to move labor overseas under any circumstances, or if they do they should be required to re-locate their legal basing to whatever countries they now use, and a heavy tariff should be imposed on companies that have left their home country. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the government punishing businesses that have chosen to become foreign entities to their nation. In fact, no government should be considered with the welfare of anyone but their own citizens. A company that is no longer of the country should be treated as an outside force to be dealt with as an outsider.
>> No. 1249 [Edit]
>>1248
With the way the world works, these businesses would rather cut themselves off from the US than stay if they felt too much pressure. You'd have to physically restrict the travel of company heads to force them to stay.
>> No. 1250 [Edit]
>>1247
It's fairly evident. I will agree they are more emotional on average though, they are more emotional yes but less driven by base impulse as weird as that sounds. Although maybes it's not so strange, being driven by base impulse does not necessarily imply that you are driven by emotion or vice versa. You could be cold and logical in your pursuit of s*x for example yet still have that be the driving force in your life, likewise you could be driven by emotion to find it repulsive and so actually avoid it.

I've got sisters too.
>> No. 1251 [Edit]
>>1248
Automation is going to take many jobs anyway so even manufacturing internally won't help in the long run. Automation might bring manufacturing back to first world nations anyway(it is to a degree already, see Tesla and Lucid Motors), if the factory is running on a skeleton crew anyway then having it be in a first world nation doesn't change much.
>> No. 1252 [Edit]
>>1249
I'm not talking strictly about the U.S. As for restricting company heads, that's definitely an option. Why shouldn't a country restrict the travel of people who are going to actively harm it? It's probably worse in the long run to let companies move overseas than it is to let, say, some international spy or criminal escape to asylum. If it's okay to detain military traitors, it should be more than okay to detain economic traitors too. International businesses shouldn't be tolerated by any sane nation until we're at a point where global cooperation and peace between nations is ensured. Don't take this as me being obsessed with hyper-nationalism or anything of the sort. I don't have any interest in hunting down anti-patriots or some silly shit. I just think that from a purely realpolitik point of view, letting businesses leave your country is worse than almost anything else. Because it takes away the most important part of sovereignty, your ability to have a self contained economy. The U.S. could not win a war of industrial attrition like WW2 again, no matter how advanced it's tech is.
>> No. 1253 [Edit]
>>1250
Emotion itself is the basest of impulses. Women run on almost nothing but emotion. Also, while men may think and act about sex more, women have far less self control when they do confront it. Maybe you were lucky and had nice sisters and they all had nice friends, but I heard enough horror stories from my loose lipped siblings and their friends (that they bragged about too) to make me never want to even be acquaintances with a 3D woman. Men are base, crude, and usually lack much self control, but at least most of them from my experience have some level of self-awareness about their behavior. Women think their shit don't stink.
>> No. 1254 [Edit]
Why do people say that race "doesn't exist"? I see people say things like it has no genetic basis, but things like blonde hair, blue eyes, pale skin, height, nose shape, jaw shape, skull shape, eye shape, general build, teeth health, toenail health, diet, etc. can all be predicted genetically and are genetically inheritable, making up distinct groups that can be readily told apart on both visual, and genetic levels. I will not get into intelligence, because it's hard to determine how much is culture and how much is genetic. Now, I admit I'm not a biologist, and I'm aware that simply producing fertile offspring is enough to conclusively determine that all humans are at least within the same species, most likely all very close to each other genetically as well. However, to say that race is not genetic or that it cannot be distinguished genetically is just a blatant flasehood. Sure, we might consider those distinctions surface level and superficial, but they are distinctions nonetheless. At the very least, you can define groups based on those superficial traits that can be told apart genetically, and in fact we can tell from DNA samples which specific part of a continent you came from. Race gets a little more muddy the further you go back, but within the last at least 2000 years or so, there can be made distinctions between several obvious races of human.

To say that "race" is unscientific, when the distinctions used by people to determine race are indeed genetic and have served well to make distinctions for the purposes of determining ethnic background, is just silly. Science is a tool to describe reality objectively and nothing less, and objectively, the distinctions we call races exist on a genetic level. To argue that it's not exactly the same as a breed or a sub-species is moving the goalpost. So why CAN'T we use the term race to describe those genetic differences and the different pools of people found within them?
>> No. 1255 [Edit]
File 161728655717.jpg - (555.21KB , 1000x709 , f7102edb53a8363974dbba4085a4a53c.jpg )
1255
>>1254
Firstly, species itself isn't actually "real" in that it's a taxonomical concept we invented for our own convenience. What divides one species from another, is a list of arbitrary criteria with lots of edge cases. It works well enough, but the difference between living organisms is more like a gradient than sharply divided lines. The same goes for race, even more so since we're the same "species". It's easier to categorize people by race geographically than genetically.

Race is the idea that humans can be categorized, which was usually done using the most obvious phenotypical differences. If you wanted to do it genetically, it's hard to pick actual criteria for dividing races. People would have to come up with something and agree upon it. Genetically, people lie on a gradient of variations of genes/traits, number of copies of specific genes, gene regulation, epigentics, and other stuff I can't list since I'm not an expert by any means.

If you were to just look at Africa, you could say there's hundreds of different races living there, and nobody would be able to correct you since the criteria separating races hasn't been formalized.
>> No. 1256 [Edit]
>>1255
While you're correct that there are a lot of border cases, and I would have mentioned the gradient nature of it if I was writing a longer post, there are still more of people in a definable category than not. Genetically defining race would certainly be a challenge, but I'm sure if you took a sample of every group in the world from, say, 400 years ago, you would see definable gradient "edges" where it shifts from one to another very rapidly, which would serve as a useful distinction of "race". Besides, even the edge cases as they exist today are more of a trick of the logical part of the mind that desires "perfect" truth, or distinction, or division or whatever. The reality is that the fact that most people can be classed into one broad race is good enough. There are also natural land barriers that separate a lot of populations on more definite grounds, like for example the Sahara, or the Mediterranean, or the Caucasus. Edge cases tend to be the exception rather than the rule. It feels like saying that definable colors don't exist because the color wheel is really a gradient, but specific "strong" zones have been picked out because it's convenient for determining and describing color. We do the same for most species anyway considering that if you go back 100million years out ancestors were all rodents or something like that, you have to choose a border somewhere. Usually that border was chosen as regions where language shifts quickly, as that indicates a cultural border and thus, before the age of mass transport, most likely a racial one.
>> No. 1257 [Edit]
>>1252
The economies of most nations benefit heavily from global trade and doing that kind of thing is a sure way to stop that. Foreighn investment in the US would quickly dry up and it would only encourage companies to leave or never set up there to begin with. Nobody is going to want to do business in a country that is liable to arrest them if they try to move overseas and people won't invest in a company that is forced to pay more for labour and is thus less competitive.

>>1253
Maybe. Though I would not say they have less control, men are famous for not having self control in that way and also most women actually don't get much enjoyment if any from s*x.

You are relying on anecdotes. Even so, do you have 4 brothers as well and do they bring their friends over? You would find they talk about the same if not worse only you probably have a bias in that you are dealing more with women and not men(and a small and related group at that, background would play a lot in this and as they are all related and all have the same upbringing they would all act in a similar manner and associate with like-minded people).

>>1255
It wouldn't be that hard, we already have haplotypes and we already do use them to categorise.
>> No. 1258 [Edit]
File 161729392655.jpg - (98.47KB , 850x961 , sample_4e7b03892b3c97a272b25c7b5b09dd02.jpg )
1258
>>1256
>there are still more of people in a definable category than not
No, because the categories themselves haven't been defined yet. People can't belong to nonexistent categories. I'm not saying it's impossible, but you're putting the cart in front of the horse. There also has to be a clear purpose to categorization in the first place, like there is with species, sex and the color wheel. That purpose plays a role in defining the categories to begin with. The only purpose in formalizing race is political, which nobody agrees upon. Even in medicine, if you want to take genetics into account when giving a person tailored drugs or something, it's better to be as specific to the individual as possible than take their "race" into account.

Post edited on 1st Apr 2021, 9:20am
>> No. 1266 [Edit]
File 161955012836.png - (29.04KB , 1031x756 , pole.png )
1266
I think this is how it works.
>> No. 1267 [Edit]
>>1266
Mostly, not to say that there are no rich women. Some CEOs are women and Gina Rinehart is the richest person in Australia, the richest person in the Netherlands is also a woman.
>> No. 1311 [Edit]
Make sure not to out yourself as a filthy white person, especially not as one of those disgusting Irish. They're all evil, murderous imperialists. There's very good and legitimate reason to hate white people and white stuff. Totally reasonable, can't blame anybody for it. In fact, they should think that. So if you're white, never talk about it, imply you're white or get offended when somebody rightfully mentions how evil the white scum are.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Post edited on 4th May 2021, 7:01pm
>> No. 1312 [Edit]
>>1311
Rather unpopular indeed.
Most would understand what you mean when you say someone is jewing you or that someone is acting like a nigger.
What would "acting like a white person" imply?
I'll concede that acting irish does sound a bit offensive.
>> No. 1313 [Edit]
>>1312
>What would "acting like a white person" imply?
Lots of things now. Self-centered, hypocritical, self-righteous, entitled, uptight, self-aggrandizing, fanatical, impotent, dorky. Plenty of leftists use white as an insult, or synonym for bad things now too.
Numberchan pigs and stormfags treat jews like leftists treat whites, and they can't even see that.
>> No. 1314 [Edit]
>>1313
Oh you are right, those circles do exist.
>Numberchan pigs and stormfags treat jews like leftists treat whites
I don't know about otherchanners and stormfags specifically, but I'd assume racist groups are exclusionary unlike the leftists that claim to be for inclusion, so it's not really an incosistent position.
>> No. 1322 [Edit]
>>1312
It doesn't matter if people understand it or not. It's still quite rude and doesn't need to be said. I don;t even know why people do it so often, it only leaves a negative impression on the average person.

>>1313
And so is swearing at people like you did.


You are both idiots.
>> No. 1325 [Edit]
>>1322
Well your post was also quite rude and definitely didn't need to be said.
But more relevantly, the average person wouldn't have a negative impression on it if it wasn't for a couple centuries worth of propaganda towards a global citizenry, which I find to be far more disgusting than any slur.

Post edited on 6th May 2021, 8:50am
>> No. 1326 [Edit]
>>1325
It did need to be said to say that you are both being idiots.

Of course it's going to it's racist. Whether or not it's even based on truth does not mater and I think that is where the right stumbles often.

The right is supposed to be logic based. Supposed to. But attacks based on race like that are not logical but emotional. Logically even if a race was clinically proven to be inferior you would view it in a humane way. It would not be their fault and you have to accept it and actually work with them and be understanding of them. There should not be slurs based on race even if it was based in truth. The best way to actually put forth a race based ideology would be to devoid yourself from emotion as much as possible and never resort to insults or anything that could be seen as coming from hate. Then instead of somebody thinking 'oh, he's bulling them and belittling them, he really hates them' they may think 'oh he actually cares for them and what he is saying is done in the hope of benefiting society as a whole including them'.
>> No. 1327 [Edit]
>>1325
Imperialism was an early form of globalism. Is it reasonable for those "affected" to be mad about that and hate anybody remotely related to its instigators? Should said vaguely related people feel guilty about it and be apologetic too? High horses need their legs cut off.
>> No. 1328 [Edit]
>>1327
What's to feel guilty about? We never should have left or at least we left far too soon.
>> No. 1329 [Edit]
>>1328
Forcing people in a foreign land to work for you is considered a morally bad thing to do. Those on the receiving end sure seemed to get upset about it too. People tend to like their freedom and independence. Globalism and imperialism both take that away from people, so saying one is disgusting and the other isn't is a double standard.
>> No. 1330 [Edit]
Being anti-white should be a death sentence. Lawfully or otherwise.
>> No. 1331 [Edit]
>>1326
It's good to know that you think you have an authority on what needs to be said, that's a particularly bad type of insanity.
Slurs don't generally come out of hate, animosity or any desire to attack anyone, not before different peoples are forced to interact together, they come out of a difference and healthy discernment. Something like "I got gypped" is not to insult the romani, it's more of a warning towards your own people, that yes you are likely to be swindled if you interact with that specific culture, and making this language taboo maye even be straight up dangerous
>they may think 'oh he actually cares for them and what he is saying is done in the hope of benefiting society as a whole including them'.
Would never happen. People wouldn't believe "Hey I wish you the best but we need to live separately", specially not people that would fare far worse on their own.
>>1327
Yes, globalism is a hideous evolution of imperialism which was already pretty bad.
>anybody remotely related to its instigators?
You'd have to define remotely related, obviously the more specific the better. But I wouldn't blame anyone on a previous colony saying "fuck the british", specially if said group continues to push for the mega-imperialism that is globalism.
>> No. 1332 [Edit]
>>1331
>Something like "I got gypped" is not to insult the romani
Even if the person who "gypped" you isn't romani?
>I wouldn't blame anyone on a previous colony saying "fuck the british"
Should the british feel guilty? Should they be apologetic and "understanding" of others' irrational hatred for all of them?

Post edited on 6th May 2021, 11:08am
>> No. 1333 [Edit]
>>1332
>Even if the person who "gypped" you isn't romani?
Yeah.
>Should the british feel guilty? Should they be apologetic and "understanding" of others' irrational hatred for all of them?
No. Well, understanding yes, but not guilty or apologetic. No one wants to insult the random brit with that, it's just pointing out those that have caused the issue. Of course, without technology the only people you could point out are those brits that are affecting you, since you are not interacting with the random brit in britain.
Taking into account technology though, a random brit would have to be fairly stupid and self-centered to feel offended at a native american saying "fuck the brits", knowing well why it is that he is saying it.
>> No. 1334 [Edit]
>>1333
>Yeah
?
>it's just pointing out those that have caused the issue
For what purpose? Venting? "Warning their people" so they'll also dislike said group?
>knowing well why it is that he is saying it
Because they're unfair and angry? Why else randomly bring it up?

Post edited on 6th May 2021, 11:49am
>> No. 1335 [Edit]
>>1334
>Because they're unfair and angry?
Because of the colonization, I feel like you are not paying attention.
>?
>Why else randomly bring it up?
Because language forms through experience and not through the methodical sterilization of vocabulary so that no one will get offended?
>> No. 1336 [Edit]
>>1335
>Because of the colonization, I feel like you are not paying attention.
I think it's an arbitrary form of justice to blame varied groups of people instead of actions. "Fuck colonization", "fuck imperialists" or "fuck globalism" gets the point across more clearly and fairly than "fuck the british". Oh, by the way, fuck germans, they're the worst. Don't get mad though.
>> No. 1338 [Edit]
>>1336
>I think it's an arbitrary form of justice to blame varied groups of people instead of actions
Again, I think you'd need to be fairly self centered to catch offense at anything thrown at a group you belong to.
>Fuck colonization", "fuck imperialists" or "fuck globalism" gets the point across more clearly and fairly than "fuck the british".
Yet it is sterile, unnatural, and generally ignores the elephant in the room. It is less clear.
>Oh, by the way, fuck germans, they're the worst. Don't get mad though.
I won't, who cares what a jew thinks, lol.
No, but seriously if someone was calling their job environment cold and humorless by calling it "too german" or something, what kind of idiot german would get offended at that?
>> No. 1339 [Edit]
>>1338
>I think you'd need to be fairly self centered to catch offense at anything thrown at a group you belong to.
I think you'd need to be self-centered to throw something at a group without considering the alienating effect of that.
>who cares what a jew thinks
Apparently a lot of people if Jews control the whole world like one-dimensional pricks think.
>> No. 1340 [Edit]
>>1339
>considering the alienating effect of that
You'd need to be working from a globalized mindset in order to care about alienation in the first place no?
>Jews control the whole world like one-dimensional pricks think.
Jews do have a disproportionate amount of influence in a whole lot of parts of the world.
That's another topic though, I'm sorry for the jab. I'm genuinely curious, are you also offended at something like hysteria? Because a male could present such typically female behaviours, do you think it's unfair to women since the word refers to the uterus?
>> No. 1341 [Edit]
>>1340
>You'd need to be working from a globalized mindset in order to care about alienation in the first place no?
No, because I'm lonely and lack a sense of belonging in my life.
>I'm genuinely curious, are you also offended at something like hysteria?
I don't really care anymore. I shouldn't have reacted in the first place.
>> No. 1343 [Edit]
>>1341
>and lack a sense of belonging in my life.
Well yeah, don't take flak for the jews if you don't even feel belonging to being jewish, definitely a bad idea.
Well it was fun.
>> No. 1345 [Edit]
>>1311
>>1313
There's not a single negative trait associated with being White.
There's not a single positive trait associated with being nonwhite.
13 do 52.
>> No. 1346 [Edit]
>>1345
Asians don't exist.
>> No. 1347 [Edit]
I don't know how unpopular this is on an imageboard, but euthanasia for the mentally disabled should be legal and encouraged, if not mandatory.
>> No. 1348 [Edit]
>>1347
How would you define a mental disability? A lot of people on imageboards have some mental abnormality or another.
>> No. 1349 [Edit]
>>1348
I'm talking more along the lines of downs stuff, you know, non-verbal, unable to learn, deformed. That's not as much of a grey zone, I'm not talking about aspergers here.
>> No. 1350 [Edit]
>>1349
It'd be better to screen for that during a pregnancy than euthanize somebody who's already been born. Somebody cares about them and I doubt they'd like your idea very much.
>> No. 1351 [Edit]
>>1350
Sometimes it doesn't show up until later, but yeah abortion is better. I think the "people that care for them" thing is mostly cultural. A lot of people caring for them will say some dark stuff if you catch them in an honest moment.
>> No. 1352 [Edit]
>>1351
>I think the "people that care for them" thing is mostly cultural. A lot of people caring for them will say some dark stuff if you catch them in an honest moment.
In such a moment, a caretaker might admit that their life would be better if such a crippled dependent weren't alive, but that would be merely stating a hypothetical: talking and doing are two very different things.

View catalog

Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason  


[Home] [Manage]



[ Rules ] [ an / foe / ma / mp3 / vg / vn ] [ cr / fig / navi ] [ mai / ot / so / tat ] [ arc / ddl / irc / lol / ns / pic ] [ home ]