/lit/ - Literature

Benzos really ruined this mans mind

>>19815971
maybe the libtards are right about this guy

>>19816106
How is this wrong?

>>19816118
it's not that it's wrong, per se, it's that he doesn't actually make a point. it's just rambiling.

Sounds very post modern.

>>19815971
Is this an actual quote? I can't believe this is an "intellectual".

>>19816118
well, he mix something with everything because that something is too big and can affect everything

>>19816137
Do you actually not understand the point he's making?

>>19815971
he also said that hebrew literature is the foundation of truth so actually he’s based

>>19815971
This dude's brain is just not working properly anymore.

>>19816231
What's your counter to his point? Why is climate change the appropriate term?

>>19816208
no, and if you can't explain it to me i'm assuming you're as much of a pseud as he is

>>19816208
nope and neither do you

>>19816208
it's intelligible but it's also fucking retarded

>>19816208
I don't, explains it

>>19816231
>“Climate” and “everything” are the same word, and that’s what bothers me about the climate change types. It’s like, this is something that bothers me about it, technically. It’s like, climate is about everything. Okay. But your models aren’t based on everything. Your models are based on a set number of variables. So that means you’ve reduced the variables, which are everything, to that set. Well how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation, if it’s about everything? That’s not just a criticism, that’s like, if it’s about everything, your models aren’t right. Because your models do not and cannot model everything.

"bro you can't theorise from available evidence bro you have you to directly access the noumenon or your models are invalid bro"

face it the man's a dimwit

>>19815971
>“Climate” and “everything” are the same word

>>19816137
>>19816208
Well, he's factually wrong, concretely. I have never said that Peterson is a retard, because he's wrong, but that whole gibberish smoothie is just pure wrong.

Climate Science has specifically pinpointed increased retention of specific wavelengths of infrared light refraction in the exact wavelength that corresponds with the vibration energy of Carbon Dioxide.

Multiple independent scientific bodies in EU and US have correlated an increase in CO2 ppm with that same heat increase, regardless of increasing or decreasing heat energy from the sun per year (fluctuates).

When he starts railing in about, "Climate is everything, well I mean how do you know?" He's basically equalizing himself with Rogan.

>I am clueless in this topic
>They're all wrong
>I don't understand
>It's everyone else who's the fools

>>19816352
I find it hard to believe in the "climate crisis" because it's just such a convenient excuse for the elite to implement their plan of depopulation, eugenics, digital control, and world government that they've desired for decades.
Also, most scientific research is horseshit. They admit that it themselves (pic related). So when you say "look at studies" your studies are likely bullshit.

>>19816394
>I find it hard to believe in the "climate crisis" because it's just such a convenient excuse for the elite to implement their plan of depopulation, eugenics, digital control, and world government that they've desired for decades.
All of that shit is highly based though. Read Plato and Malthus.

>>19816352
yeah, I didn't mean that I even agree with his position, it's just that the problem with this argument is its presentation first and foremost. once he says this with any degree of coherence, then I will call his point retarded

>>19816394
it is always fun to interact with people who don't understand the basics of thermodynamics

>>19816433
Greasy reddit reply, anon. I'm not even that anon. You ooze snide cum through the screen, I'd headbutt you if I could

>>19816352
When the ozone crisis was discovered, it was quickly addressed. So if it's a CO2 crisis, or a warming crisis, why is it called a climate crisis instead? How does the broad name help over the specific name?

>>19816394
I have a strong distaste for globalized governments and all that but my immediate assumption for people who think the climate will never collapse is that they have barely spent any time thinking about it at all.
Even if you assume that all published climate science is 100% bunk, what do you think happens when we take trillions of tons of inert carbon from under the earth and burn it? Do you think there are no consequences to filling the entire planet with pesticides, microplastics, and birth control hormones?
I don't blame anybody for arguing against retarded liberals thinking they can carbon tax their way to saving the earth but if your conclusion is that liberals being retarded means the earth will be fine, you are significantly dumber than even them.

>>19815971
https://youtu.be/BA1ia70-oj8

The temperature in Europe back in the days of the Roman empire was 1-4c higher than it is right now.

>>19816394
You're so brainwashed dude. It's so easy for the anti-intellectuals to appeal to the rabble with buzzwords like, "The elitists" "One world government" etc.

Ask yourself why the bulk of independent scientists from different countries, even non-allied countries would all reach the same conclusion? Resonate on that with an open mind, not like a retard. Honestly ask yourself why educated people, from virtually every technologically advanced country in the world, agrees on a phenomena... but it's a hoax.

The Sun can't be in the center of the universe.
>most scientific research is bullshit
Except for the 99.999% that you're totally cool with. And that all of civilized society exists because of. Germ Theory, Electricity, Computers...

Look, its not like there going to be mile high tsunamis or magnitude 10 earquakes, but a 3°C rise in average temp by 2100 will legitimately create permanent worldwide damage. Humans will just have to adapt but it will cost decades of man labor (whatever that cost looks like in 50 years, no dollar figure makes sense in the face of long time frame monetary policy). We're talking having to rebuild hundreds of large cities.

People might manipulate the truth to make money, that's a tale as old as time. But "These assholes are trying to make money off green energy" is not the same as "All science is wrong, return to the forests."

It's not bullshit man. They got to you. The ignorant.

>>19816507
Who are these hook-nosed kikes rambling about conversations they half-remember with people they won't even name?

>>19816521
>Resonate on that

>>19816521
nicely done anon

>>19816485
It took almost 50 years after conclusive, irrefutable evidence of Lead poisoning was published and shown before congress to Nad leaded gasoline, because money makes the rules.

The ozone problem costs a few corporations and the government some cash.

Now imagine I tell America, "Hey guys, we're gonna have to eat about 5/7 of the meat were currently eating, and subsidize a lot of carbon capture & algae energy technology, stop burning coal, and walk places.

> THEY WANT US ALL TO BE TRANSGENDER VEGANS
No, we just want you to buy local meat instead of
> THEY WANT TO BAN CARS
No, we just want to have non combustible engine alternatives as opposed to everyone
> THE LIBERULS WANT A 95% TAX RATE ITS WHITE HOLOCAUST
No, we just want to remove oil subsidies and move them over to

You get the idea.

>>19816551
So is it a C02 crisis, a warming crisis, or a climate crisis?

unbelievable how much this guy makes all of 4chan seethe

>>19816570
4chan is always seething.

>>19816352
Woo zippity boo bop look at all my jargon clearly I know more than anyone

>>19816106
Yeah that’s the man thing. I had a genius friend in high school who got addicted to benzos he went from honors college credit classes to going to the bad kid school and barely graduating in a year. It just got worse and worse after that. 7 years later he got sober and said he finally could feel the missing parts of his mind, like benzos literially made him a fool. He follows Christ now, Christ can heal him

>>19815971
holy fuck what kind of argumentation is that. I'm not a full blown analytic philosophy asshole but someone needs to read a logic textbook. jesus. and you know what I'm tired of people that can't clearly and rationally come up with an argument and define their terms. I've got a buddy of mine who thinks he knows his shit but he can't form a coherent argument to save his life.

"the climate" does not refer to "everything". "everything" includes "the climate", but "the climate" does not include "everything".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt9K6kmpx44
>It isn’t that the Bible is true, it’s that the Bible is the precondition for the manifestation of truth. Which makes it way more true than just true... And I think this is not only literally the case, factually, I think it can’t be any other way.
Genius

>>19816603
Have you read Aristotle's Rhetoric?

>>19816614
No, what is your point? is Petersen doing good "rhetoric"?

>>19816557
Do you think about anything you type before you hit post? Or are you just a contrarian for the sake of trolling? Please follow me here, because it's the last post. I'll break it down in a way that a handicapped child, or someone with your mental capacity, can easily absorb the info.

>1950-2022 humans release a lot of CO2 from burning gasoline
>burning gasoline is chemistry. Makes CO2
Thus CO2
>1950-2022 no matter how much or how little of the sun's energy reaches us, more heat, in the exact infrared wavelengths that CO2 reflects, stays in Earth
> Heaty heat come in, heaty heat leave
> MORE high energy gas is like an invisible blanket at night-night time
> Heaty heat come in, LESS heaty heat leave
Thus warming
>Earth is made of many ecosystems
>Ecosystem is like a place, with many animals and plants, and people
>In a "ecosystem" when you rapidly supply more heaty heat, it can hurt it
>Ecosystem says ouch! Many plants die
>The ocean is an eco system
>More CO2 and more heat makes the ocean do a magical thing
>Magically, the ocean is more acidic, and the fishies and whales and coral say Ouch!
> the air is an Ecosystem, when there is more heat, storms are worse, do more damage.
> the arctic is an ecosystem, more heat means less ice, and ocean levels go up, like a bathtub!
Thus climate

>>19816633
Dialectics aren't fit for public or general deliberation. Notably, you're previous post isn't dialectically structured, but is rhetorically structured.

>>19816521
>Ask yourself why the bulk of independent scientists from different countries, even non-allied countries would all reach the same conclusion? Resonate on that with an open mind, not like a retard. Honestly ask yourself why educated people, from virtually every technologically advanced country in the world, agrees on a phenomena... but it's a hoax.
"Bro all the experts agree on geocentrism and yet you're appealing to these dumb heliocentrists like Galileo who are in the minority" -- you in the 1500s.
>Except for the 99.999% that you're totally cool with. And that all of civilized society exists because of. Germ Theory, Electricity, Computers...
I said most scientific research is bullshit and I showed you an article published in a science journal where they admit it themselves. That does not mean I reject all science; it means I reject most of it. Most technological advancement is the work of engineers not scientists. Scientists inflate their reputation by associating themselves with these engineers.
>Look, its not like there going to be mile high tsunamis or magnitude 10 earquakes, but a 3°C rise in average temp by 2100 will legitimately create permanent worldwide damage.
LOOK BRO THE BOOGEYMAN IS COMING YOU HAVE TO STERILISE YOURSELF, EAT BUGS, AND LIVE IN A COOMER POD OR ELSE HE'LL GET YOU. How many of these "predictions" come out false?

>>19816577
Literally which word did you not understand.

Like which one word were you just like, "Wow look at this guy's big words?"

Was it "pinpoint"? Was that the one? "Vibration"? I'm sorry it's just that re-reading that post I can't find any intimidating words that would hurt your self-esteem.

"Wavelength"?

>>19816635
Nuclear war threatens the existence of life on earth. Did we call it the Cuban Climate Crisis or the Cuban Missile Crisis?

/lit/ is discovering that a person who knows a lot about one subject, may not actually know everything.

And what's even more interesting to me, is the preference of this board to hold up and judge conversation being said in a relaxed, off the cuff environment, as if it were some great work that is required reading for an educational course. If you're criticizing these two for speaking blithely, I'm afraid that's because you're unable to understand why these people are so beloved. These are just two ordinary people trying to make sense of the world, yet we have a mob of crusaders eager to burn them at the stake for it. I wouldn't want that to happen to me. Meanwhile this person's true work is cast aside because it actually requires a fair bit of time to study. Gossip is fun because you can fool yourself into believing it's important work.

But these people are public figures you counter, and should be held accountable for what they say? Fair enough. But I don't think this board could even agree on what authority that responsibility should be placed. Let people make their own judgements.

>>19816667
Crisis de Octubre, you moron.

>>19816655
well.. checked. I'm unironically trying to learn from you here. Why is my previous post not "dialectically structured", but it is "rhetorically structured"? I don't even know what you mean when you say "dialectically structured" and "rhetorically structured". dialectics has to do with truth.. rhethoric has to do with persuasion, yes?. and yet if that's the case why is my previous post not "dialectically structured"? surely it's true that

>"the climate" does not refer to "everything". "everything" includes "the climate", but "the climate" does not include "everything".

is a true statement.. yes? maybe I need to open up the logic textbook

>>19816658
Stealing my exact argument on geocentrism from my original post is hardly a rebuttal.

The post you linked is one. There are about 1,000 more with actual quantitative data that say NASA is correct. Don't strawman.

Scientists and Engineers are 2 halves of the same coin. You can't have one without the other, smart guy.

And your 3rd point is just buzzwords. So of my 3 points you came back with zero rebuttals. You look dumb. Please be SELF critical.

>>19816658
>posts article saying most scientific research is bullshit
>article from scientists
oh no anon...

>>19816667
This is an impressively dumb post. The kind of dumb that I wish I could understand, where I am genuinely baffled at how your mind could've so colossally misfired that you thought this was a clever thing to say.

>>19816684
In your post, aims to persuade, and does not offer a true syllogism. Rather, you aim at Ethos by belittling the opposition.

>>19816667
Are you high?

>>19815971
Whos that in the picture?

>>19816705
>>19816700
>>19816682
What don't you understand?

>>19816577
Aww, did the big words give you a headache and make you feel stupid? Perhaps /b/ would be more your speed?

>>19816699
Yeah the guy applied science's own methods to scientific papers and found that the majority of them are horseshit. When someone smugly cites a scientific paper just know it's likely that the results are false. And, interestingly, one of the factors the author cited as influencing the falsity of these papers is "when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice." What could that apply to more than climate change? If you even so much as suggest that it doesn't exist, you will be fired immediately. Why would scientists want to prove that it's fake then?

>>19816726
>Talking about a climate issue
>Asking why it's called a climate crisis

Then you

>completely random historical conflict
>Why isn't that crisis called a Climate Crisis? Hmmmmm?

Lmao anon the AIDS epidemic in the 80s was called the AIDS epidemic. Why not the AIDS climate epidemic? Hmmm? Explain that one science man.

Why is something that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with climate science not titled "Climate Issue"

I audibly laughed out loud at your post.

Why was the Vietnam War not called the Vietnam Climate Crisis lol

Whether he's right or wrong about climate change, I'm against anyone who doesn't think Nuclear Power is the answer.
Those windmills are a fucking shame. I had never once considered what was done with them once something goes wrong with one of them, whether it becomes unusable because a stupid screw snaps or the blade warps or any number of things that can go wrong with so many moving parts in a massive machine. Because they never bring it up. They just bury the blades like every other piece of trash, except it was expensive, made with toxic parts, and didn't put out enough energy to cover the costs of the footprint it leaves behind.

You guys are such are autists, or at minimum you are letting your hate boners for Peterson get in the way of your ability to think critically. Peterson is talking to Joe Rogan here; he's not presenting a scientific paper. If you listen to excerpt in context you'll find that he's simply using the word "everything" here to denote the all pervasiveness of the problem of climate change, and thus the ease with which it can be used as a warrent for totalitarian measures--that's it.

JP goes over OPs head. What's new. sage.

>>19816750
That's the whole point of this thread. Using appropriate terms for the problem at hand to inform people, not to get them into an irrational state of mind. Are you high?

>>19816742
You're right anon, fuck the entire scientific community at large because their margins of error.

Clearly the entire global scientific network in all areas, including those from all industrially advanced nations, regardless of alliance, treaty, or government have all agreed to support this false, non credible science at great expense, and all in the last 10 years.

God, how could we have missed it? The last 10 years in a row have been the 10 warmest years objectively ever, simultaneously the CO2 ppm has risen by increasing amounts per year, and that's the conspiracy they're throwing at us to distract us.

But you won't be fooled anon. You have that one article from that one guy who says sometimes stuff is wrong.

>>19816750
Nuclear warfare certainly threatens the climate. Does AIDS?

>>19815971
if JP wasn't a pseud he'd know that my man Tim Morton wrote a book about this very topic almost a decade ago.

>>19816772
>C L I M A T E
>C H A N G E

The appropriate term for the problem at hand, in regards to, the global... change... of climate.

How fucking lost did you have to be to end up in 1960's Cuba for the Bay of Pigs?

>>19816797
LMAO semantics but I appreciate the Supreme technicality.

I guess Don't Look Up really was about Climate Change then, huh?

>>19816521
example of pseud rebuttal
>>19816505
example of learned man rebuttal

>>19816742
Why do you people, even the same reddit cunts you're arguing against, talk about science like it's some giant filing cabinet containing all knowledge on earth? Do you have any idea how retarded it is to state that all science is false because of one paper?
This is like going to /k/, posting a youtube video of somebody fucking up an AR-15 until it fails, and then saying that clearly most guns are incapable of firing bullets.

>>19816778
They can't even decide if sugar is good for you or not and you expect them to know all this stuff about the end of the world? You're coping when you say "margins of error" and "sometimes stuff is wrong" -- the article proves that MOST SCIENTIFIC IS BALONEY. Most.
You should travel back in time and scold Galileo for refusing to accept the CONSENSUS of geocentrism.

>>19816830
I literally posted the article you can read it yourself. It's not one paper. It's most papers that get published. Most papers that get published by scientists are horseshit. MOST SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IS BULLSHIT. Get it through your head you illiterate twat. God this website makes me bad mannered.

>>19816856
>you can read it yourself
Can you?

>>19816809
And Peterson's point, was that they include many things that don't have anything to do with climate.

>>19816846
>>19816856
You have a bizarre relationship with this reified idea of authority in the form of "Published Research Articles." Did you believe 100% of them until the one you posted completely shattered your worldview? It's written incredibly vaguely.
I want you to take a few minutes and ask yourself what kind of implications there would be if most scientific research was just completely wrong. Are we mistaken about the fact that airplanes can fly? Is it a mere coincidence that the transistors we build and don't understand at all still do what they're supposed to do?

Weather scientist here:
lmao. But it's okay that Peterson doesn't understand weather models, we'll still forecast the weather for him.

>>19816929
Are you a weather scientist or a Cuban Missile Scientist?

>>19816938
I don't understand the reference. I've worked in forecasting and weather modeling.

>>19816137
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/ the-intellectual-we-deserve

>>19816570
It's envy, they wish they could make millions babbling on about stuff they have no clue about like he does.

>>19816986
Have you worked with models that include entire nations changing their food web and the effects it would have on economies, physical and mental health and everything.

>>19817004
lmao no that shit doesn't affect the weather. My biggest challenge right now is clouds, those fuckers.

>>19817039
Yes, but Peterson was talking about climate models that are not including everything.

>>19816938
After going back and reading the thread I get it now.

>>19817090
I'm actually not going to stick around and get deeply involved in this thread's argument. I will say that "climate" scientists are the scummiest grifters in science right now, even worse than drug researchers. Climate models consistently fail to make correct predictions and I hate that they're fucking with historical record data sets to make it look like their models are correct. Thank god for satellites so that my weather models can work properly without their interference.

"Resonate" (lol) on the definition of climate, and how it relates to the weather. Ruminate on how utterly retarded it is to lump all the various climates of the planet as a "global climate" and whine about it changing, as though it hasn't always been changing. Reflect on the temperature swings everywhere on earth experiences every 24 hours and the "predicted" temperature change in 2100. And finally reconsider the efficacy of modern heating and air conditioning systems.

Now if someone wants to tell me the secret to accurately modelling clouds I'll suck your dick five times.

>>19816474
dood, thermo's first law says why anon is wrong, even when it doesn't prove any climate change
>t. engineer

I like how none of you fags arguing with each other take in to account that Industrial, urban and agricultural Society can’t continue AT ALL if we’re to stop destroying the planet. Humans are simultaneously too retarded and too smart for their own good. Yes I AM smarter than everyone else, by the way, and I fucked your mother last night.

>>19816551
>We want you to fundamentally change your way of life in a way that will lead to massive economic loss and significant decreases in your standard of living.
>You understand that a tonne of people to lose their jobs while drastically increasing the cost of living?
>Moron! Paying more for a car won't affect me personally and I live in a city--it's entirely different than banning! You're so racist! Transgender rights are human rights bigot!
Why are leftists so retarded?

>>19817209
>b-but muh standards of living
What are you even doing on this board, you filthy consoomerist NPC? Did your scripts glitch or something?

>>19817209
oh no i can’t have a fifth hamburger and walmarts will close

OH SAY CAN YOU SHART

>>19816350
Yes just like justice and piety is

>>19816820
It's a semantic debate--is climate crisis a useful designation or not? Peterson argues that climate is such a broad term so as to include all our world's ills, and therefore justifies all manner of actions which are almost entirely unrelated from what is presented as the underlying issue. Your position is that because CO2 causes warming, and warming affects the entire climate, then it is right to call it a climate crisis rather than a CO2 crisis. But if a crisis is to be understood in consideration of the largest scale of it's possible harm, then why is it laughable to consider the threat of nuclear war a climate crisis also?

Burgers cause climate change = Everything
Globalism and free trade causes climate change (mcdonald's, trains, ships, airplanes CO2) = not climate change!
You eating a locally sourced burger = climate change

>>19816231
This. He always sounded like a simpleton but was never close to the levels of retardation he's been hitting in the past couple of years

>>19817209
Waaaah waaaah muh leftists muh leftists
The Nazis would have sent all climate deniers to camp

>>19816929
Books on weather and climate that dont fixate on climate change? Something to give the average person a practical knowledge. Everytime I search for a good book on tje topic I get loads of popsci climate change and the like to sift through and if you try and work it to give you books which dont go into climate change than it swing to the other extreme.

>>19816899
1) Physics is basically mathematics, which is not a science. I respect physics; I do not respect the empirical sciences, especially medicine and psychology. You can't lump physics in with the empirical sciences because it's more of an a-priori discipline.
2) Computer science reduces to mathematics too.
3) Engineers create airplanes and electrical circuits, not scientists. These engineers, to the degree they are influenced by "scientists", are influenced by natural philosophers (physicists) and mathematicians, not scientists. It is only through associating themselves with the work of engineers that scientists have managed to become the most influential class in society.
4) None of your cope changes the fact that most published scientific research is completely wrong.

>>19817535
Have you read Aristotle's Prior Analytics?

>>19817541
Why?

>>19817535
Kek wtf. On the one hand you say you disrespect empirical science, and then you’re sucking off computer scientists and engineers

>>19817549
The principles of any art or science (in the traditional sense of the terms) are derived either from higher principles, or from induction. But there are no higher principles than First Principles. Therefore First Principles are established by induction. But inductions are constructed by gathering all the instances of some quality so as to gather the principle by the inversion of a syllogism. Therefore, though First Principles appear self-evident, they are actually based on experience of the class of things from which the principles are derived.

>>19816118
he's not wrong. it's a good point. but they went on a random ass tangent seconds into the podcast

>how do you prepare for podcasts anyway?
>I read books, im reading this climate change book -- it's crazy
>Well, that's 'cause there's no such thing as climate, right?

He’s right.

>>19817209
>We want you to fundamentally change your way of life in a way that will lead to massive economic loss and significant decreases in your standard of living.
>You understand that a tonne of people to lose their jobs while drastically increasing the cost of living?
I don't know man. We seem to already be getting that shit regardless.

>>19816809
Nigga please the good doctor Peterson is literally saying “climate” is a shitty term because it’s too broad, and to better tackle issues a more specific term should be used. That is TAYRT’s point, as well. I don’t even think anyone is denying “climate change’s” existence.

>>19817572
Induction can never produce necessary truths. Take two objects and place them beside another two objects one million times and you will get four objects each time. This does not prove that 2+2=4 any more than the sun rising one million mornings proves with mathematical certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.

>>19815971
>So that means you’ve reduced the variables, which are everything, to that set. Well how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation, if it’s about everything? That’s not just a criticism, that’s like, if it’s about everything, your models aren’t right. Because your models do not and cannot model everything.
How can we even know how a steam engine works if we can't even model the behavior of a single water molecule?

>>19816106
fpbp

>>19817471
>>19817594
You are interpreting Peterson’s point much too charitably. He is not saying ‘climate’ is a slightly inappropriate term and that they should change it to something else for linguistic reasons, he is saying climate science is epistemologically flawed because, in his words, climate is synonymous with everything, and it is impossible to model everything

>>19817595
Mathematics isn't a First Principle. Quantity is a quality of an object.

>>19817600
To demonstrate your point, could you define climate such that he's wrong?

>>19817623
climate
/ˈklʌJmət/
noun
noun: climate; plural noun: climates
the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
"our cold, wet climate"
Definitions from Oxford Languages

>>19817611
>Quantity is a quality of an object.
Not really sure what this means. The number 2 is not equivalent to two objects.

>>19817225
>>19817229
Just because you Europeans still live in the medieval ages doesn't mean the rest of us want to.

>>19817513
Pic
>>19817590
That isn't going to change as long as midwits think raising questions about climate policy means you're a racist nazi transphobe. I guess those retards proved "climate" really is about "everything." I'll take his ramblings over their screeching.

>>19817535
>Physics is not an empirical science
You have no idea what you're talking about and are only embarassing yourself.

>>19817646
How does this prove him wrong?

>>19815971
Extremely high IQ. Jordan Peterson is so based.

>>19817646

>>19816177
Sounds like Louis Althusser/Paul Virilio desu. The ultimate irony.