/lit/ - Literature

>>8109363
why not make this a lit humour thread

>>8109821
also dumping i guess

>>8109824

>>8109839

>>8109841

>>8109848
hold up theres already a lit humour thread

>>8109850
so whats the point of this thread

>>8109850
Well make this one dedicated to trolley problems.

>>8109858
trolley problems are a subset of lit humour

>>8109860
hence this thread is redundant

Let's try something a little more realistic.

>>8109866
also trolley problems arent even funny

>>8109871
hey, im the only one posting trolley problems around here!

can someone explain this trolley shit to me. I don't get it.

>>8109875
there aint room in this thread for two dumpers, punk

>>8109860
I came up with a logically congruent caveat which trumps the lever-holders position, but I won't post it and risk us all getting sent to >>>/his/

>>8109879
a common thought-experiment in ethics. 1. consider a train about to kill 6 people, would you turn the track to kill 1 person.
some people say no, murder is inherently wrong or due to some other reason. often though people say yes (utilitarianism) but then...

>>8109887
2. if there was a fat man on a bridge overlooking the track, would you push him off to stop the train (philosophers cant into physics) most people say no, showing the intuitive difference between a passive action like pulling a trigger and an active action like pushing someone

>>8109884
just post it, interested to hear it. i dont get why /his/ was made in the first place. it wasnt like /lit/ was getting to much traffic

>>8109363
I want that fucking dragon egg.

>>8109898
do you want me to carry on dumping? ive got more memes from /sci/, /lit/ and /his/

>>8109893
but doesn't it make sense to kill less people if it's going to kill someone no matter what

>>8109871
is this the track for murti turacku durifto?

>>8109902
>carry on
plox

>>8109363
please tell me it stops before it hurts the cuttlefish?

>>8109923
just got back

>>8109942
btw i mainly have trolley problems. its my favourite joke

>>8109942
Can't I just kill the fat man and let love take its course?

>>8109947
can people start dumping all their lit humour?

>>8109948
what if Mrs A is actually in love with the fat man

>>8109957
everyone dump their /humour/!

>>8109965
mainly trolley problems but all /lit/ humour. if you have really funny /sci/ or /his/ humour go for it

>>8109957
I assumed Mr and Mrs A would die in a murder-suicide any how, I don't see how this affects the outcome of love?

>>8109970
or even if its not funny because lets be honest, none of these are that funny

>>8109970
holy shit i think that part of me that laughed just died

>>8109904
only if you have a UTILITARIAN philosophy. depending on how much ethical philosophy you know, ill elaborate. DEONTOLOGICAL philosophy (esp. Kant) would say no

>>8109980
revive it before you see this one

>>8109990
this one's a bit textual. sorry to break the mold.

>>8109983
cont.

does the man on the track not have a right to life? is it merely a numbers game? what are rights? what give the lever-puller the right to force him to sacrifice his own life?

>>8109999
im going to go soon. ive got exams to revise for

>>8110002
more /sci/ based humour

>>8110002
>exams
LC?

>>8110008
ill finish trolley problems today, if the threads still up i might dump other stuff

>>8110002
I'd pull the lever as quickly as possible. Humans are amazingly egocentric creatures, so I don't trust the other two to not pull the lever.

>>8110009
i dont know what that stands for so probably not. im doing my a levels (uk pre uni exams) in 2 weeks

>>8110013
do you mean you also are egocentric? or do you judge others by their actions and you by your intentions? they may have the same thought process

>>8110020
they're quite important basically. more important than stupid memes

>>8110024
GUYS DUMP YOUR SHIT! perform your categorical imperative

>>8110024
Yes, I mean I'm egocentric too (because I am a human). And I predict the they will have the same thought process. So that problem is like an easy Family Feud question, whoever presses the button first will win.

>>8110030
of course, im kants agent of highest moral worth: the sorrowful philanthropist. dumping memes not for the pleasure it gives me, but out of duty

>>8110031
hypothetically, if they didnt have levers, would you still pull?

>>8110043
1/3 chance of you dying, or 100% chance the other two die?

>>8110020
hah, one country over. LC is the Irish version of the A levels or le bac etc. what are you aiming for?

>>8110038
This is the one I like the most, by far

>>8110049
this ride's almost up, boys

>>8110043
If I didn't pull one person would still die?
Then yes, I would pull it. Of course, this is a hypothetical universe where I'm not majorly depressed and feel like I have a purpose in life.

Dank off the presses

>>8110043
I wouldn't pull even knowing they have levers. Look at their shirts! They obviously cannot make life choices and it would be a massacre; leave it at five dead as the bloodsplatter will meld well with mine.

>>8110050
doing maths, chemistry, further maths and philosophy. need A* in maths, and A*AA in the other three for my 1st choice offer

The only answer in order to be fair to everyone.

>>8110053
its positively absurd

>>8110063
do you feel like pic related

>>8110068
as much as i love your dankness in dumping these, go study aldehydes or some shit m8

>>8110083
im almost done. and my chem book is open as i post so im """""""""""""""""""""""""""""revising""""""""""""""""""""""""""

>>8110082
Very similar, except I have a laptop with an Internet connection and the cloud of self-disappointment that I don't use that Internet connection to learn stuff but rather shitpost.

>>8109363
thats all folks. when i come back tomorrow im expecting a lot more. maybe some OC if you can afford microsoft paint

>>8109848
Can this be solved like the prison dilemma? I'm not much into game theory but I'm assuming the equilibrium is reached if no one pulls the lever?

>>8109860
>tfw made this three years ago

>>8109848
save your train

>>8110043
I like this one.

Here's a new one: If you are lost hiking the appalachian trail and you have stayed put for a week without rescue, should you remain where you are or make a move?

>>8109893
But pulling a trigger is not pasive at all, what the fuck.

>>8109848
Shouldn't there be fewer people on the main track for this to even be a question?

Genuinely curious, how many morally categorically distinct trolley problems exist?

>>8110158
Find a creek follow it until you find civilization, duh

>>8110187
that's a paper I would very much like to read desu

>>8110165
Heт

The only version that matters.

>>8110324

>You cannot kill yourself
That is true hell

>>8110158
If you're lost anywhere you should keep walking. The amount of distance you'd cover in several days before you die of starvation means you're almost certain to find some town, unless you're in the middle of absolute nowhere

>>8110158
>>>/out/

>>8109957
Dont be silly, nobody can love fat men

>>8110285
Underrated post

>>8110197
>>8110187
countably infinite:
let x denote the cardinality of the set of morally distinct trolley problems, T
the proof consists of two parts, firstly to show that x <= aleph0, secondly to show that x >= aleph0.

the first theorem is trivial. let L denote the language of trolley problems. L contains a finite number of symbols. a trolley problem is well-defined if it can be encoded in the language L in a finite number of symbols. Hence x <= set of all finite sequences generated by a finite set. hence x<= Aleph-0.

the second proof is as follows:
consider the set of trolley problems of the following form, denoted as R(x,y), were x and y are non-negative integers.

let P={ R(x,y) : x,y in N}

clearly cardinality of P = cardinality of N^2 = aleph 0 as there exists a bijection of R(x,y) onto 2-tuple x,y.

clearly P is a subset of T.

therefore x>=aleph 0.

thus completes the proof that there are a countable number of morally distinct trolley problems. QED

>>8110410

congratulations, you said nothing

kys

>>8110410
Jesus fucking Christ that was painful to read. Your word-salad is such conspicuous gibberish that it surprises me that you actually thought you'd fool somebody.

Back to Proofs 101 and axiomatic set theory class.

>>8110108
>solved like the prison dilemma?
The prison dilemma can't be solved, hence it's a dilemma. This follows the rules of the prison dillemma though, the 'best option' is when both pull the lever, but pulling the lever is also the riskiest, so neither of them pulling the lever is safest. This comes at the price of killing nearly everyone in the field when the other guy decides to trust you though. At least you survive.

>>8110108
>>8109848
>>8110123
>>8110165
>>8110248

okay guys i solved the nash-equilibrium equations.

>>8110456
>>8110108
>>8109848
>>8110123
>>8110165
>>8110248

>>8110410
Wrong, I can well-order a set of any cardinality, so I can put any cardinal number of people on either branch, so we can see that the number of possible trolley problems is greater than k \times k = k for any infinite cardinal k.

>>8110410

>>8110455
see:
>>8110456 and >>8110463

if you both valued other peoples life as much as you valued your own, you would both pull

>>8110410
why so many words to say that aleph_0 x aleph_0 = aleph_0 ?

Also, the problems you're suggesting probably aren't all morally distinct. They can be reduced to 3 cases.

4/10, try harder to when attempting to impress with maths next time

>>8110436
which of that is gibberish? if you arent familiar with the words then that isnt my problem, chump. also its supposed to be satirical but the terminology is correct.

>>8110464
yeah, but you couldnt define the number of people on each track. the set of definable numbers is countable. the trolley problem must be defined

>>8110473
Yes obviously, but I don't think most people value other peoples lives as much as their own. That's where survival 'instinct' comes in. And if one of them does and one of them doesn't it becomes he worst option.

>>8110483
1. it was supposed to be a bit of a joke, sorry pal
2. wdum about aleph0 x aleph0 = aleph0? i literally just say card(N^2)=aleph0. thats it.

i just spend a couple of lines showing that card(P)=card(N^2) and P \subset T.

3. 3 cases? wdum

>>8110285
Should have switched the child and gorilla

>>8110502
clearly y/w and z/x > 0, for surely if we place n people of one track and and oneself on the other, you would sacrifice for sufficently large n.

>>8110074
Does anyone have multi dat boi drifting?

I just downloaded a shitload of pics

thanks

>>8110410
Your second proof is incorrect because it begs the question wrt x and y belonging to N. Any set that has a "x belongs to N" condition already implies that its cardinality is aleph-0, so you're assuming "morally distinct trolley problems" is infinite right off the bat (quite like having "God exists!" as one of your premises where you're proving that God exists) when instead you need to prove it.

>>8109997
wew lad

>>8110527
yw

I REALLY LIKE THIS MEME

>>8110285
Nice

>>8110541
but i can form any morally distinct trolley problem by placing x people on one track and y on the other, whenever x,y in N.

or if you think R(kx,ky) is morally identical to R(x,y) then P = card(Q) = aleph0

can everyone stop being autistic about set theory and carry on posting memes?

>>8110508
Let x be the number of people on the default track, and let y be the number of people on the switch track.
The cases:
(i) x > y
(ii) x < y
(iii) x = y
are all morally distinct. I'm not sure whether the actual numbers make any difference, morally.
I'll possibly grant you one further distinction; replace (iii) with:
(iiia) x = y = 0
(iiib) x = y =/= 0
since it seems to me that one could feasibly consider these cases to be distinct.

>>8110572
> he doesn't realise set theory is a meme

>>8110623
Isn't this whole question hopelessly ill-defined given that interpreting the expression "morally distinct" will itself depend on one's moral outlook?

>>8110285
Wrong way around. The active choice was to kill the gorilla. Post a fix and I'll gladly save it

>>8110464
>I can well-order a set of any cardinality
>he fell for the axiom of choice meme
wéw lad

>>8110567
You can do whatever you wish, of course you can, but there are finitely many people on Earth. It is unwarranted to assume otherwise. It just doesn't hold.

> if you think R(kx,ky) is morally identical to R(x,y)
But that's just bizarre to formalize a trolley problem by a binary relation. Either a trolley problem is an atomistic individual or it is a mathematical structure, involving those chained to the train tracks, the one deciding whether or not to pull the lever, the train, etc. And it irks me greatly that you're using "R(x, y)" and not simply "R", if what you're referring to is the set of all <x, y> that are members of R.

Thank you for the dump, good luck to those who are going to have exams.

>>8110667
>quoting a faggot

>>8110636
exactly, but i was making a mock-proof to entertain everyone. but you always get the "b-b-b-ut that joke isnt technically correct, here's the correct version. see, know the joke's correct its funny haha your welcome"

>>8110636
Sure, but I was trying to get a handle on what people's moral cookbooks have in common and where they differ. I think we can agree that all sensible moral cookbooks find the cases (i), (ii), and (iii) morally distinct, and I can imagine sensible cookbooks that differentiate between (iiia) and (iiib).
But I don't think Anyone's moral cookbook differentiates between the cases:
1. 1000001 people on left track, 1000000 on the right
2. 1000002 people on left track, 1000001 on the right
so I don't think we can call these morally distinct
My point is that a lot of the possibilities the previous poster talks about can be collapsed into morally equivalent dilemmas, and I don't think it's obvious that there are infinitely many.

>>8110410
But anon, every trolley problem reduces to Nim

>>8110696
righty.
1. this is a satire thread. it was supposed to be a joke. if youre just discussing it for the sake of discussion, fair enough, but do realise that i wasnt presenting an academic proof that there are countably infinite trolley problems.

2. R(x,y) is not a relationship, its trolley problem of the form: "there are x people on a track about to be killed by an oncoming train. do you switch a lever, saving x, but killing y on the other track". maybe i shouldnt have used R as this is often used as an arbitary relation, but i certainly did define it perfectly well.

3. Note also im not saying that any trolley problem can be reduced to the form R(x,y), but merely that any trolley problem of the form R(x,y) is a morally distinction trolley problem.
the trolley problems you've seen dumped in this thread are examples of trolley problems not reducible to R(x,y). but the set of trolley problems contains all of the form R(x,y).

4. what i say is that even if you say that R(x,y) is not morally distinction from R(kx,ky) because its the same ratio, and hence it is identical to you are merely repeating the same decision k times, then the set of morally distinction problems of the form R(x,y) is the cardinality of rational numbers (aleph0).

>>8110658
>>8110514
did my best

>>8110110
Good job, its my favorite

>>8110735
btw i am previous poster.
1. this is a satire thread. it was supposed to be a joke. if youre just discussing it for the sake of discussion, fair enough, but do realise that i wasnt presenting an academic proof that there are countably infinite trolley problems.

2. whether or not the trolley problems are differentiated morally does not matter. remember the original trolley problems are the classic Lever and Fat Man on the Bridge.

the idea is that whilst they are both 1 vs 6 some people morally differentiate them (active vs passive act). even if you did NOT morally differentiate them, you would still say though that they were different dilemma's (morally)

>>8109947
Of course I switch tracks. That way, almost surely nobody dies at all.

>>8109363
woops forgot this one

>>8110049
You hack, this one isn't actually a trolley problem. They can defeat the utilitarian calculus by imagining themselves to be happy.

>>8110790
The only rational solution desu
Geddit? Geddit?

Man I didn't know the /sci/ exodus was this big

>>8110043
>imposing ethics on others

Bad

OP is bad for imposing these ethics on us, by us reading we are affected by them

>>8110872
you cant be /lit/ without being /sci/ and vice versa

>>8109880
Yes. Assuming an equal chance of being anyone involved, I'm less likely to be killed if the lever is pulled.

>>8110873
Not inherently. But the next guy's dilemma rises purely out of your actions, and "you don't understand how they think" means you have to account for literal retards and/or SJWs choosing between five white men and one trans PoC. The question becomes one of how responsible you are for their actions and when one can be said to have no moral agency.

>>8110065
The Immortal guy feels pain?

i tried

>>8110938
what's the name for this? it's like object permanence or something, when you're talking about the metaphysical object

>>8110943
no, object permanence is a hypothesized milestone in the development of infants.

you're thinking of the ship of theseus

>>8110786
1. jokes aren't as much fun as grinding something down until all the fun's gone
2. If I don't differentiate them morally, then sure they could still be morally different dilemmas. If no one distinguishes them morally, then I don't think they are morally different. Certainly the classics of lever and fat man are morally distinguishable, but I don't think all the different R(x,y) you describe are morally distinguishable, and I don't think it's obvious that we can morally distinguish infinitely many dilemmas.

>>8110952
also known as trigger's broom
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUl6PooveJE

>>8110953
>1. jokes aren't as much fun as grinding something down until all the fun's gone
truly words to live by :p

surely you're being a bit subjective. what does it matter if people find thing morally equivalent? the morality is a fundamental property of the situation. dont tell me your a filthy projectivist.

and also trolley problems need not be restricted by finite limits such as x+y+1<=7*10^9, for its a hypothetical

Well /lit/?

>>8109898
>i dont get why /his/ was made in the first place. it wasnt like /lit/ was getting to much traffic
You weren't here then when fucking liberal arts cunts were fucking up the board with their philosophy threads. and the nihilist and christposters were running rampant.

Thank god it was made, because you wouldn't have been able to have this conversation atm. Threads started to move /v/ fast.

>>8111050
trunks for life

>>8111097
do the big guys not recur?

>>8111074
>>8111050
>not wearing briefs and boxers
It's like you are plebs or something

>>8111065
i've been on /lit/ reasonably regularly for ~3 years. i have no idea how bad it was before that, but certainly when /his/ was created it wasnt that bad. if i remember correctly, they had a /christ/ general for the christ-postered. and tbcompletelyh i prefered the christposters and the stirnerposters than the current /pol/ influx. try make one decent thread about feminist literature or mention a book written by a minority ethnic or a women. either /pol/ wasnt here 6 months ago or i just didnt notice it.

im not all doom and gloom. there still are decent literature threads here

>>8111121
/his/ is reddit containment board, which is good for /lit/
>and tbcompletelyh i prefered the christposters and the stirnerposters than the current /pol/ influx.
Either you're legitimately retarded or an actual underage newfag.

>>8111108
They do. For you.

>>8111136
>/pol/ influx
I think the /lit/erati are just becoming more skeptical of /idpol/ and postmodern ideology in general. We had reactionary literature threads years ago

>>8111142
>>8111108
>nobody cared who I was till I got on the tracks

>>8111136
>Either you're legitimately retarded or an actual underage newfag.
look, i know i cant expect actual civility but at least pretend. i just miss lefty /lit/ that's all.

>>8111162
not being racist/sexist isnt the same as postmodernism

>>8111177
>not being racist/sexist isnt the same as postmodernism
True, but conflating any and all sound intellectual disagreement with your rabid ideology with racism and sexism is.

>>8111191
>True, but conflating any and all sound intellectual disagreement with your rabid ideology with racism and sexism is.
No it's not.

I made one of these with bane and cia a couple years ago but I don't have it anymore... did anyone save it?

>>8111200
but it is. if you think something is racist/sexist, tell the person reasonably and logically why you think it is, instead of just shouting them down with buzzwords

>>8110973
I don't get this one.

>>8111191
m80, the top thread in the catalog is an article about trump.
you have this monstrosity: >>8106084

note, the premise is fine. in fact, im trying to branch out into more right-wing lit, but /pol/ destroyed that thread.

>>8111245
>m80, the top thread in the catalog is an article about trump.
so? what's so bad about trump? sure he's a bit xenophobic, but does it really matter that much?
>inb4 ARE YOU KIDDING ME
>inb4 b-b-but he's literally hitler/fascist

>>8111050
>be me
>be innalockerroom
>notice I'm the only one with tighty whities
>start changing in the corner and keep my head down out of embarrassment
>suddenly laughter behind me
>turn around
>group of homoerotic gymbros
>"nice undies, you still have your mom buy them for you?"
>"what is this, middle school?"
>start to explain
>"n-no, see, acquiescing to a certain preventable evil, discomfort or indignity through inaction is not the same as perpetrating or accepting it through ones own actions, lest this create an imperative -"
>at this juncture I am distracted by a tug at my waistband and a sharp pain in my buttcrack
>this dude hikes them up to my midback and starts bicep curling me in the air
>"yeah, whatever you say, fucken nerd."
>they steal my clothes, high-five and head out to the field
>mfw virtue and ethical purity protect me from embarrassment on the long walk home
>mfw I regret nothing

>>8111050
Briefs are literally children underwear.

>>8111050
Boxer brief master race

>>8111234
hmm. do you know what that image references.
>>8111260
anyway, idk. if i was more clued up about current affairs i might be /pol/. its just that most of the media i consume is from a time when people were pretty conservative/sexist/colonialist so maybe im reacting against something that doesnt exist. its a bit cheap to point out aggressive progressive leftists and say "this is why i hate jews and women and why black people are subhuman ect". /pol/ just reeks of bitterness to me. i dont want to sound like a Guardian-reading Corbyn-supporter (though tbcompletelyh i am) because i am open to all views. its just that the "kill kikes, WE WUZ, cuck.. ect" rhetoric is as damaging to right-wing lit discussion as it is to left.

also though, Trump is literally a shitty human being. i have literally no idea why working-class white men like someone who gives literally 0 shits about them. but i suppose thats the absolute chaos that is american political ideology. (two party systems=two ideology system) (can someone please explain to me what the difference is between left and right any more?)
im not saying he's hitler but if those are the views he's willing to say, what do you think he actually believes about hispanics/women/muslims ect? how can you excuse the muslim statement? i dont like to attribute to malice what can be better explained by ignorance, but if its ignorance then thats even worse for a presidential candidate.

im just so confused about what im going to hate more, when trump comes here on the 24th or the +100 guardian articles about it. where did this left/right shit even come from? what do pro-social-mobility high-welfare totalitarians sit any more? ive seen SJW's call zizek a fascist and someone today called orwell right wing. fml

>>8111259
>>8111234
>>8111162
>>8111136 ?
Just don't pollute the thread(s). It is neither about feminism nor about politics. While we do want reasonable and logic argumentation, we do not want to discuss these topics here.
Calling people retarded or rabid is not reasonable, unless you're shitposting.

>>8111234
i thought post modernism was the one what said a qt trap is more woman than an ugly chick?

>>8111294
calling people rabid and retarded is perfectly acceptable, polemic is still literature. you want this place to be some hug box and rhetoric only ever hugboxes the useful idiots.

>>8111285
about a month ago, milo yiannopoulos held a panel at new hampshire university. some fat woman was there "protesting", and she just went absolutely berserk at one point (pic related), screaming SJW buzzwords. she was quite literally a walking stereotype. /pol/ had a field day with it and turned her into a meme, calling her "trigglypuff". my other picture was from one of the threads made about it the day of.

>>8109997
this is best

>>8111339
oh right fair enough. are these people common? ive never seen stuff like this happen in real life, but i hear 4chan complain about it quite a lot. im not saying it doesnt, genuinely asking where this is common

>>8111357
american college/university campuses

>>8109998
why is this the first one that's actually hard

>>8111378
well now that we can do dick transplants, the choice is obvious

>>8111339
trigglypuff is a great nickname. i don't care /pol/'s probably being mouthfucked by his male, Appalachian, methhead, but definitely white, cousin right now, commend him next time you're passing.
>>8111357
i think it's just the old problem of some immature women and men whining, only now they have a more cohesive vocabulary. not him btw, just i know most of the set arguments originated in america and i believe they follow a form that was there already.
it's kind of like when swedish women talk about satanism and paedophilia's links today, it sounds exactly like early 90s talk show tv from the US. these things filter out and i think the internet at large is taking over the i don't have anywhere to be at 11am slot from talk shows. and so we have people who really believe they're living in a more raepy society, like we had people who believed we were overrun with demons in the 80s who were all out to rape anyone who went into daycare instead of staying home to keep someone company at 11am and maybe serve drinks.
the real question is why are we producing so many immature adults that they become fanatics, not what kind of fanatics they become.
polite sage because i have no trolley problem image for this

>>8111372
are you sure its as widespread as you believe? bare in mind that the majority of what academics say has no effect on the mass population. are you not worried that /pol/ is being anti-anti-racist before the anti-racists have displaced the racists?

>>8111378
the expression on the guys face, if i had to guess

>>8111405
>are you sure its as widespread as you believe?
the internet certainly makes it seem so. i see these controversies every other day where something harmless gets shut down by PC culture over some inane bullshit. and it's infuriating.

>>8111285
>where did this left/right shit even come from? what do pro-social-mobility high-welfare totalitarians sit any more? ive seen SJW's call zizek a fascist and someone today called orwell right wing. fml
pic related. It's a device of class rule meant to cyclically divert discontent and opposition.

My issue with intersectionality is how it postulates all these structures independent of, and not caused by, class rule and coercive material relations. Which then "intersect" not only non--additively but non-monotonically to produce paradoxical effects (historically the lesbian experience vs the gay male experience, esp. in the nazi state) and handwave away issues such as the disporoportionate homophobic and transphobic attitudes among blacks and latinos, "hypermasculine" honor cultures and genuine patriarchial rape cultures under Islam. And then retroactively invents its own evidence (gender wage gap) and denies other pieces of evidence in order to create a wholly false narrative of oppression that couldn't possibly be explained by materialism and class rule.

It's really the liberal version of the rightist /idpol/ we've seen historically: your low wages are the fault of immigrants who force you into competition by being exploited for lower wages and worse working conditions, or the foreigners having factories and jobs outsorced to them for cheaper than at home, rather than the contradictions of global, free-moving capital and local, geographically constrained labor. Except now it's men and whites keeping women and PoC down.
Howard Zinn's peoples' history of the us does an excellent job of explaining how all these cases of historical identity oppression came from class rule, from even before the advent of pan-whiteness as a concept. David North's book on postmodernism and the pseudo-left is a fairly academic defense of the materialist view against contemporary assaults

/pol/ has a lot of good ideas. Anti-globalism, economic nationalism, support for Assad over the islamists, opposition to mass immigration/importation of cultures hostile to secular liberal deocratic values, etc. are all worthy realpolitik goals for where we are right now. But at the same time, they're at best short term solutions built on spooks that treat symptoms and not causes. The only real way forward in perpetuity is a revolutionary movement of the working class. But an alliance of convenience is quite appropriate, and can help hold them accountable to their rhetoric of cultural libertarianism over their desire to purge "degeneracy" when and if they do take power.

>>8111427
/leftypol/ pls go

but in all seriousness you do have some very good points

>>8111427
Good stuff.

PULL THE FUCKING LEVER

>>8111427
what i meant was the correlation of seemingly irrelevant beliefs. e.g. between "do you support gay marriage?" and "do you believe in anthropic global warming?"

and changing ideology which i thought was the definition of right/left dichotomy.
for example, Donald Trump is against free trade and wants to increase regulation. """""progresssive""""" leftists attack freedom of speech ect.

why is it that almost the entirety of the american population agree fit in only two sets of beliefs? what does gun regulation have to do with gay marriage or global warming or the wage gap or immigration policy or the price of fish. why does the left love islam and the right hate arabs when this is the opposite of what i would expect? is it just right -> patriotic -> 9/11 mania -> islamophobia -> leftist counteract -> embrace islam? how can you explain gay marriage and global warming and gun control and immigration policy and welfare and war on drugs ect.

i have a rudementry theory that the reason america has two parties isnt because they only have two sets of ideologies but the reverse, that the very fact that america (and increasing true in uk) a two party system is the cause of their incoherent ideology

>>8111427
>Which then "intersect" not only non--additively but non-monotonically to produce paradoxical effects
also can you explain this

>>8111503
this desu

>>8111503
The purpose of the two-party system is to maintain elite rule. Divide and conquer. It's really that simple.

>>8109983
as a utilitarian I believe its always more ethical to let more people die, the reason being is that if 5 are killed to one that's 5 less people taking up space resources and jobs 5 jobs go on the market. If 5 people die that potentially improves the lives of 25+ people considering the average size of the modern family, and there will no doubt be some manner of remuneration to the families of the slain by the trolley company. barring emotional baggage its a net win all around to just let 5 people die hell strangling the 6th person makes it a net win for an even larger group.

>>8111523
Also the constant classifications. Age/sex/gender identity/sexuality/class/ethnicity/disability/so on and so on. Activists and their opponents are so focused on hating each other that to reach a compromise on anything would be nearly impossible. Meanwhile, state power increases.

>>8111259
he's a turbopleb. That's my biggest issue with him, He's the human equivalent of McDonalds. I don't really think he's a racist at all, I just think he's willing to exploit the racist sentiment within America

>>8111573
>stays here
>pleb
Pick one

whit nao?

>>8111587
jesus that's why wide angle lenses are only for crime scenes

>>8111528
This. Humans aren't exactly an endangered species. It's not like we're running out.

>>8111523
>>8111571
is it really a conspiracy? by who? my main problem with conspiracy-based ideology (not saying its inherently false, conspiracy does happen, though im skeptical of this grand ideology based conspiracy rather than the petty corruption) is that is requires the "elite" to be ideologically-free, self-serving collective. but i cant accept without good reason that the elite do not also have the same ideology as everyone else. trump DOES believe what he says. the koch brothers believe what they say. with the exception of hilary clinton, most elite do actually have ideology, psychology, egos, squabbles, misconceptions ect.

its like the marxist theory of religion as some conspiracy to oppress the masses. the elite are just as religious as the poor.

>>8111503
>the correlation of seemingly irrelevant beliefs
The truth is they have nothing to do with each other. The pseudo-left and cuck right are absolutely plagued by internal inconsistencies and lack of a real unifying framework. Certain policy positions stick together mostly due to misplaced feelings of group loyalty, engineered by the poles of class rule Zizek mentions. Beyond that, cognitive dissonance involved in asserting your more important views will swing someone to tacitly accept a party's stance on the issues they feel ambivalent towards.

>>8111508
Sure. If you postulate racism, sexism etc. as independent structures of society you implicitly accept they act independently. That the whole of your identity is oppressed as the sum of its parts. This is patently untrue, and rather than concede it's completely the product of class relations we are treated to "intersectionality" as a vague catch-all idea for why we should still accept these as independent constructs with no material basis. As for monotonicity, it's an extremely lenient assumption to make within this framework that being part of a second "oppressed group" will never make you less oppressed overall than being part of the first one alone. That this is empirically untrue is a major weakness of social justice theory as it stands, and rather than address this rot at its foundations they break into thundering choruses of "that's because systems of privilege INTERSECT!" It's intellectual dishonesty at its finest

>>8111587
tacky. this is what a hillbilly would do if he was rich

>>8111594
DONT SHOOT THE GORILLA

>>8111596
I think it goes something like this
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKkRDMil0bw

>>8111596
>conspiracy
It doesn't in any way require conspiracy. This is a conceptual aid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greedy_algorithm
Class relations and class rule are not the product of wilful idealistic notions of taking and holding power but the long-term aggregate of individual capitalists or another ruling class (and the proletariat) making short-term decisions in their own best interests.
The formation of drug cartels and their day to day operations are not conspiratorial in character but come from their use of violence in many individual cases to suppress competition on the free market and seize a monopoly on force to advance this end. They are states in the anarchist sense. Bear in mind this overt violence is favored because the "legitimate" bourgeois government does not recognize them as a "legitimate" business. If they did, they would have their projection of force aggregated and socialized through the state apparatus like every other industry. Because it's easier and more effective.
This also hampers the prospects of their growers, chemists and security forces to a free labor market, but the protection and compensation they get outweighs this in the short term in the sense of a frog put a slowly heating pot of water.

>>8111616
but thats a fiction. everyone is influenced by propaganda. everyone believes in ideology.

>>8111707
have you talked to marketing? HR can hook you up with a lunch, but you'll need to leave a credit card number in the name field.

>>8111707
>>8111616
The true irony of the scene is his utopian vision of the future and neglect of the contradictions and breakdown of capitalism is itself pure ideology.

What's to say everyone gets a share? What is to secure benevolent productivity in common for this universal holding company? Is there any material guarantee of freedom from chattel slavery in fact?

>>8111746
have you read catch 22? milo is a great example of what you seem to be getting at. the definition of benevolent for both milo and the network guy isn't "humans are happier".

>>8111260
LMFAO
Dank story breh

>>8111267
This

>>8110919
I assume so, also I assume the trolly running him over won't be derailed or knock his body off of the track.

It's a choice between dooming an immortal being to an eternity of pain, or killing 5 mortals who would die anyways.

Can't you just pull the lever right when the trolley is rolling through the part of the rails that changes direction, so as to destabilize the cart, pulling it out of either path?

>>8111878
i would argue the opposite- boxers are for kids. once the nads start to hang a bit you need the extra support of at least boxer-briefs if not straight up briefs

>>8111938
That's even worse

new trolly problem
track 1: silverback gorilla
>incredibly rare
>future of his species partly depends on him
>moderately intelligent
>prone to emotional and social outbursts we barely understand

track two: human child
>tens of thousands churned out daily
>we already have too many of them
>probably had it coming
>will grow up to never read books, vote for shitty politicians, and cuck your wife possible

>>8111528
>>8111594
owtheedge.jaypeg

>>8111602
Why do you postulate all discriminations as the product of class relations? Doesn't discarding intersectionality make it harder to analyse how for example racism can be utilized for profit (as it happens in colonization) or how gender roles are vital to keep up the bourgeois family? (Honest question, I want to hear arguments for class relations being the only real mechanism of opression)

>>8109848
don't pull switch and you survive 100% of the time except you might kill 8 people which is fine, you are more important friendo.

>>8111339
I literally cannot believe we are taking Milo Yiannopoulus seriously in /lit/. He is the least /lit/ person ever. He's a walking empty hollow shell, made of self-love and shitty aesthetics. The only thing more pathetic than him is the gang of fawning /pol/acks and /v/irgins he's duped into worshipping him and spending their money on his terrible swag.

>>8113325
ur'e a keke

>>8111605
which is exactly why the hillbillies like him so much

>>8109848
Anyone who responds the this with anything but not pulling the lever, and even thinks about pulling the lever is non-human in the sense of preserving self-interest.

>>8113364
see >>8110456 and >>8110463
a stable nash equilibrium exists when b=y/(2w+y) where b=probability you pull lever, y=the value your opponent has for his own life, w=the value your opponent has for a strangers life.

note that b tends to 1 as y/w tends to infinity. that is to say, the more selfish you know your opponent is, the more likely you will be to not pull. interestingly though, your probability of pulling the lever does not depend on the values you place on your own life or on strangers

I have an idea for one but I cna't be bothred to photoshop it. Have on the top track (that the trolley is heading towards) 1 person tied up. On the bottom have 1, a gap, then 2, a gap, then 3, etc.

The punchline is that you should pull the lever to move the train to the bottom because in the end it will run over only -1/12 people.

>>8113417
caption: kill one person or birth 1/12

>>8109999
>>>8109983 #
>cont.
>does the man on the track not have a right to life? is it merely a numbers game? what are rights? what give the lever-puller the right to force him to sacrifice his own life?

A wild Micheal J. Sandal appears

>>8113609
michael sandal is a dog fucker. trust me, i know him personally. he keeps on trying to bribe me to let him fuck my dogs.

>>8111285

4chan's pol has gone to shit.

Pol used to be right wing to the point where they'd hate on natsoc and ancaps for being dirty leftists.

Modern pol is just an altright circlejerk.

They have legitimate grievances, but instrad of getting their shit together like k, diy, out, and fit, they just want to bitch about it all day

>>8111357
>>8111372

Arts departments are chock full of them.

Engineering, Math, Medical, etc departments are honestly more well read and capable logicians/rhetoriticians than arts departments these days.

>>8111605

>>8113993

>>8113970
>Engineering, Math, Medical, etc departments are honestly more well read
im in maths and tbch most of the students i know read dawkins and game of thrones stuff. the concept of the renassaince well-read Leibniz-like scientist is over im afraid

>>8114000
i would suck trumps dick just to taste his daughter

Guy who isn't from /lit/ at all here, what's the problem?

Flip the switch in the way that kills the most feminists.
If both would kill an equal amount, flip the switch to kill the most immigrants.
If both would kill an equal amount, flip the switch to kill the most fat people.
If both would kill an equal amount, flip the switch to kill the least number of people you give two fucks about.

If none of those apply, then either way is fine.

>>8114246
i dont save those pictures of edgy teens but just imagine i posted one

>>8111587
That is atrociously pleb, m8

>>8113325
Nobody's taking him seriously though?

>>8111656
This.

>>8114246
this is the worst post I've ever read on /lit/

>>8114301
Then my work here is done.

>>8114301
>>8114302
Oh, and join All Out!

>>8110063
>If I didn't pull one person would still die?
it would be extremely painful

>>8114239

Huh, most people in my eng department read voraciously.

>>8113993
>All that money
>Can't get his heir a real lion
>Or at least a stuffed one

Have I done a good thing, /lit/?

>>8113993
> plebs actually think this is a desirable way to live

>>8111503
At its most basic level the winner takes all system inherent in single member districts (which the United States employs) trends towards two party systems. This is unviable in areas as diverse as the US and results in people with distinct but similar ideologies clumping together to form larger parties so that they haves some chance in hell of getting an office (You can consider the Republican party to be composed of the libertarian, religious, and the business interest party to put it extremely basically). Don't think of the democrats and republicans as being single distinct parties but as two collections of dozens of parties which change according to geography and class. Think of primaries as being elections to see which party represents the agglomeration .

>>8115552
but why is it there the almost perfect correlation between seemingly unrelated beliefs? if the two party system was merely an alliance between different sets of ideologies, then that wouldnt explain the fact that there actually ARE two sets of ideologies. even worse than the correlatative ideologies, even not ideological beliefs are correlated. e.g. gay marriage, free tuition, welfare, immigration, gun control, feminism, islamophobia, palestine-isreal, patriotism, religion, evolution, global warming, anti-vaccinationism ect

>>8113219
>Doesn't discarding intersectionality make it harder to analyse how for example racism can be utilized for profit (as it happens in colonization)
Quite the opposite. When you convincingly argue that racism, gender roles, etc. are emergent properties of - and in service to the devices of - class rule, you gain two things: objective insight into how and why they emerged and developed over time, and a coherent blueprint that predicts how to fix them. Two things which the postmodern way of looking at it sorely lacks in its fumbles with "privilege" and things like supposed invisible mass white self-organization to benefit any and all whites at the expense of nonwhites (which nonetheless manages to exclude countless poor whites and uses a ~100 year old notion of "whiteness" that apparently came out of the ether) motivated not by any sort of objective material consideration but by the ideological demons and domination pathology of our race.
It's just not, scientifically speaking, a predictive model. Questions of evidence and falsifiability are categorically ignored from top to bottom. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XTXiN-Nc9Y )
Ignore the "lights up the same part of the brain as heroin" pseudoscience, evidence-free insistence on a particular neurological mechanism and the way he calls out an economic comparison as "apples to oranges" immediately before presenting his own data unscaled to purchasing power and just focus on the well-placed critique of the SJW argument structure.

>Why do you postulate all discriminations as the product of class relations?
It's not so much a postulate as a natural conclusion of taking the materialist stance over the idealist. I do believe the materialist view and marxist historiography have a large amount of empirical support and have been exceedingly vindicated both by history and scientific progress, but that's a matter for more academic works.
Intuitively speaking though, racist ideas do not exist ex nihilo and need to come from somewhere. Intersectionality will beg the question and have you believe you are inherently and unavoidably racist because you've been "socialized" that way while leaving out the issue of how the agents that socialized you themselves became racist, or just passing the buck down to the next agent. The trick is to attach the origin of these ideas to concrete, observable, objective things. The economic nationalism advocated by Trump (restrict immigration, restrict outsourcing) should be the clearest contemporary example as public policy one step removed from the means of production. It's not racist so much as it is nationalist, which is a product of the contradictions of capitalism in much the same way.

>>8115654
A lot of that has to do with the fact that the major parties will snatch up any issue that they think will get them voters. If enough people hated broccoli then the democrats would start championing themselves as the anti broccoli party while the republicans would fight in the other direction to pull in pro-broccoli voters even though neither of them should logically give a shit. This is also why new parties crash and burn so often. They bring up their own pet issue and a party sees them as a new voter base and changes the party line in order to absorb them.

>>8115654
answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM

>>8109942
LOL, kill brown people.

>>8115855

quoted for truth. Lakoff is the man

Also, DW-NOMINATE found decent quantitative evidence that there is mainly only the one dominant axis of political varation (left-right/socialism-capitalism/etc).

Multi-track drifting.

>>8117305
i like it, sell it to a movie studio for an obscene amount of money

>>8115775
This seems like a narrow-minded approach to me; just because the power differential from capital eventually reduces to a measurable number doesn't mean the power differential from race or gender ceases to exist.

I think the clearest example of this is the chauvinism, sexism, and racism in virtually all early communist writing. It's naive to think that the USSR would have even paid lip service to racial equality had they not needed to smear the USA somehow. So it seems clear to me that there's a difference on a personal level between understanding communism and understanding, say, feminism. Combine this with Dworkin's argument that biological reality is oppressive itself and this view becomes even more naive.

Nothing in political science is remotely close to a predictive model, but there's certainly a large amount of research on intergroup conflict, ingroup/outgroup dynamics, and similar. All of that science seems to align with a non-class-reductionist view of oppression.

And so:

>Intersectionality will beg the question and have you believe you are inherently and unavoidably racist because you've been "socialized" that way while leaving out the issue of how the agents that socialized you themselves became racist, or just passing the buck down to the next agent

For one, this is certainly a straw man because the actual SJW message isn't "you are white and therefore evil, kill yourself," it's "you are white and benefit from this existing oppressive social structure; use your access to resources to help us destroy it." For another, basic group psychology explains race socialization. It's worth noting that cognitively, similar and dissimilar are frequent heuristics for liking and disliking; this and names for the groups are all you need to end up in Robber's Cove.

One thing I like about this is that it is much less intentional on the part of any individual human; my impression of the class-reductionist view on this is that racism is created by the capitalist class, but this intentionality is an additional explanatory burden on top of the cognitive scaffolding required for intergroup conflict, and if racism is seeded rather than a natural conclusion of intergroup conflict.

I hear your frustration with this tendency in the left though, and as someone whose political education predated tumblr, it irks me as well that these ideas have become so weaponized and divorced from their intentions. The point of the concept of privilege is to make people aware of the weapons they have and can share, not to shame people into silence. The reason why the people I knew who educated me bothered with it was because they thought a white male could be a comrade in their struggle. Now we're sandwiched between two rapidly polarizing groups that are both pushing towards more hierarchy, more control, one with rightist language and the other with language bastardized from the mouths of my comrades.

>>8110885
did they f(u)q

>>8110456
I want to learn to read this, calculating probabilities sound fun.

>>8117736
Nash Equilibrium.

basically for any "game", there exists at least one strategy for both players, such that neither can increase their expected outcome. this assumes both are infinitely intellegent mathematicians, so that if strategy X was optimal for A, B would also know what A would act on X, and acts accordingly vice versa.

of course consider a single game of rock-paper-scissors. the "stategies" are "play rock", "play scissors", "play paper". if one of these was optimal for A, then B would know this and play to win, but then A knows what B will play and so can change his strategy to win - showing that these is no PURE strategy. the answer is to imagine a MIXED strategy, which is in equilibrium when both act with 1/3 probability for each action, expected outcome = 0. any deviation from this would mean you loose more than 1/2 the games.

some trolley problems you want to be predictable, because you and your opponent want each other to do the same thing. i.e. in the example above, if you are both sane then you you would want to both pull or both dont.

however if your opponent was a known suicidal murderer, you want to both do the same action, but he wants you both to do the opposite action. hence your optimal strategy cant be certainly pull or certainly dont. like in rock paper scissors, you want to be a bit unpredictable.

with simultaneous equations, you find just how unpredictable you should be.

>>8109850
Wtf is even happening here. Does pushing the fat guy stop the trolley, or is it just if you want to kill the fat guy as well or not

Superior version

>>8115775
>Questions of evidence and falsifiability are categorically ignored from top to bottom. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XTXiN-Nc9Y [Embed] )
i often notice that the level of rigour one demands of ones opponent often exceeds the standards one holds for oneself. he demands the video blogs to be "scientifically falsiable theories" and asks for the sociological terms to be defined "in a scientificly measurable way" ect. then goes on to compare apparent income to real income and dismiss their arguments with flashing memes on my screen.

what does it mean if i actual agree with most of what those black ladies were saying in that video? i DO think the concept of the american dream perpetuates a competitive capitalism that increases workload and oppression. she didnt even mention race. and i DO think that "colour blindness" ignores the very real fact that black americans are hugely disadvantaged economically (though her "you have to be blind to something so your not really blind" rhetoric was retarded on so many levels).
he keeps pointing out that these terms are not defined. but he cant prove that merely by showing a video of the terms in which they are not defined. both of those videos from black ladies looks like speechs in a setting where people would be familiar with all the terminology. and when he blames the economic stuggles of minority ethnics on extramarital children god hold me.
if this video is the paragon for SJW counterarguments then that merely reinforces my belief that they use the same sophistry they decry in SJW's : -misuse of statistics, -vagely defined concepts, -strawmanning.
also when he makes a joke about the second women "ignoring male beauty standards, or all beauty standards for that matter haha" or something like that, i cant help but remember the sort of bitter sexists who make these videos are.

>>8115784
youre missing my point. im not talking about the manifestos of the actual parties. im talking about the actual beliefs correlations of the population.
i.e. other democratic voters will all suddenly hate brocolli.

>>8110463
>>8110456

undergrad detected

the trivial solution is not pulling the lever, since you are guaranteed to survive

>>8117938
>not generalising to an arbitary level of alturism or murderous/suicidal tendencies

Good thread, we got memes, discussion and underwear comparison going smoothly.

>>8110541
Afaik ( there may be some fringe crazy out there that gives another option) you must either
1. Beg the question and assume infinity (and therefore infinities) and be in the Gödel-Neumann-other dude framework
2. You use the ZFC framework. The layman way of putting it is you rephrase the problem in a way you don't mention and thus assume an infinity.

>>8118061
My point wasn't about set theory since I have no problems with set-theoretical infinity-talk, rather that I can't see how the cardinality of the set of all morally distinct problems is infinite if the set of all human beings is finite.

But assuming infinity as an axiom is good enough for me and I wouldn't call it begging the question since, after all, it is an axiom.

>>8110456
>>8110463
>Can do the maths
>Can't rotate his photos

JUST

>>8118077
I think the pic was a joke. I thought the claim for the infinity TPs is that there is a Language of TPs that can generate an infinite number of TPs.

>>8118083
Well a language in itself is a syntactical object and isn't all that interesting if you're not arguing for semantics too

And the set of all TPs wasn't necessarily equal to Aleph0: Remember, x was <= Aleph0, not x = Aleph0.

But yeah, he didn't even have to construct a language for this because he could simply take the number of people on Earth and compute its factorial or how many configurations there are in total, even though for my liking I'd like my TP to be a mathematical structure and not an atomistic thing.

>>8109952
>killing 5/12 of a person
easy choice

If you like prisoner's dilemma style problems check out The Dark Forest (recent sf novel). In particular there's a scene where 5 spaceships are marooned from earth going to another star, but none of them have the supplies to survive independently (replacement parts for thousands of years, fuel etc). So whoever kills the other guys faster and takes their supplies wins. It's interesting how this process has repeated through history leaving the most vicious genes alive and leaving all the moral crusaders cucked.

>>8109999
There's another formulation with young or old people (young people have more potential) or important world leaders and plebs.

So for example on one track is Macaulay Culkin as a child tied up and on the other are a gang of house breaker pedos that were intending to rape the tied up MC but fell into one of his traps.

>>8117872
It's an actual variation of the trolley case, in which pushing the fat man onto the track causes him to stop the trolley. Philosofucks use this to investigate wether there is an ethical difference in sacrifing someone by pushing them or by pulling a lever.

>>8118168
There is a SF short story by Clarke I think where a spaceship's oxygen machine gets hit by a meteor and its two occupants realise they only have enough oxygen left for one person.

>>8118191
Typical fat shaming culture that he needs to be fat. Why not just a very tall man? Could have the same body mass as a short fat man.

>>8118206
0/8

>>8118191
A lot of the trolley problem stuff is to look at natural ethics (or whatever it's called), like where you find out in general what people's gut responses are to certain ethical dilemmas.

Another one is do you kill one healthy person to put his organs into 5 others that will die without an organ transplant. Or should a doctor in an emergency spend more time with someone more seriously injured who is more likely to die than 5 people who need medical attention but are less critical.

>>8118202
>>8118168
My old ethics lecturer used to go on about Niven a lot. So Draconian punishments, Theseus style organ replacements, (fuck you Gove) and suspended animation.

>>8118213
>Another one is do you kill one healthy person to put his organs into 5 others that will die without an organ transplant

I think there's a YA series based around that.

>>8118107
>Remember, x was <= Aleph0, not x = Aleph0.
I actually don't agree with that but I have to look into it more. I think this is probs something from recursively enumerable language stuff

Even if you have finite people, you can have an infinite number of props or maybe an infinite number of descriptors. If we talk about potential future people too we can increase the number involved in the problem.

>>8118242
>>8118107
>>8118083
1. remember that i was only making a joke proof
2. yeah i was using the enumerable language stuff. essentially, the set of finite sentences is finite, and normal definition of definibility is that it is uniquely identified by a finite sentence, so there are countable number of definable constructs (in computer science/ logic, there are countably infinite definable real numbers, despite there being an uncountable number of real numbers).

2. the reason x>=aleph0 is that the set of trolley problems contains all trolley problems with x people on one side and y people on the other, of which there are card(N^2)=aleph0.

>>8118271
>the reason x>=aleph0 is that the set of trolley problems contains all trolley problems with x people on one side and y people on the other, of which there are card(N^2)=aleph0.
Ah. So it's morally distinct by number. Noice.

I wonder now if it's possible tho to generate like infinite infinitely long ethical dilemmas madlib style and then do a cantor diagonal deal on it.

>>>>>8111111

>>8118364
>I wonder now if it's possible tho to generate like infinite infinitely long ethical dilemmas madlib style and then do a cantor diagonal deal on it.
for what purpose? once you know x<=aleph0 and x>=aleph0 then you know that x=aleph0

>>8118704
>for what purpose?
Then Trolley Problems are uncountably infinite.

>>8118724
aleph0 is the cardinality of the natural numbers, countably infinite

>>8118943
Yes, which is not the cardinality of the real numbers as shown by Cantor's Diagonal wossname.

>>8118996
...hence if card(TP)=aleph0 then its not uncountably infinite...

>>8109875
This one's clever.

>>8109848
pull lever, jump on train, never be heard from again.