Holy shit...

[Anonymous No.20017261]

OK I have to admit this blew my mind. Is he right, /lit/.com/forums?

[Anonymous No.20017265]

>>20017261
isn't this the guy that gets owned by college students on twitter on policies? he drew a cartoon once too i remember

[Anonymous No.20017276]

>>20017261
Word has it that he is still seething about Shelley.

[Anonymous No.20017277]

Search up empathising-systemising theory

[Anonymous No.20017285]

>>20017261
is this foucault?

[Anonymous No.20017289]

>>20017261
non-fiction is for midwits

[Anonymous No.20017292]

i should read more nonfiction desu

[Anonymous No.20017297]

>>20017285
Yes this was an image from a lecture he gave to a group of 12 year old Tunisian boys.

[Anonymous No.20017311]

>>20017261
You only have to work in STEM to realise how far off the mark this theory is. Most of the people on my Physics degree were liberal and read shitty fantasy/sci fi novels

[Anonymous No.20017315]

>>20017311
hey faggot

if they are libtards

and read fiction

that proves his point

!!

[Anonymous No.20017344]

>>20017315
No, because he attributes right-wing thinking to the brain rewiring itself towards a 'STEM' understanding of the world. Despite the fact that these are people who spend all day thinking about Physics, they clearly don't share these views. It's a false dichotomy

[Anonymous No.20017348]

>>20017289
unironically. imagine the non-fiction equivalent of GR. doesn't exist. can't.

[Anonymous No.20017398]

>>20017261
You know what will be more interesting and hilarious, how he's going to walk back from this hypothesis in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary
>I didn't say that all STEM majors read non-fiction, but if you read a text book, that's non-fiction, so statistically they've read a textbook. I never said that all STEM majors read is non-fiction. So what did I really say that was wrong?
>I've gotten a lot of heat for saying sucking your best friend's cock isn't gay. And I agree, sucking cocks can be gay. Sometimes. But not all the time, like if you had to suck a dick at gunpoint, you wouldn't be doing it because you're gay. So not all blow jobs are gay. Now if you were sucking your best friend's cock, that wouldn't necessarily be a sexual gesture but a gesture of friendship. It is a platonic blowjob. You're not cruising for meaningless sex, that is someone you know, and sometimes you do favors for friends that you don't enjoy like drive to the airport. So you could just be giving him a blow job out of friendship which wouldn't indicate a homosexual desire. You know just because you drive someone to the airport doesn't mean you are sexually attracted to them. So is sucking your best friend's cock really gay then?
Aside from the fact he would already know that Conservatives skew more towards monocausal/simple causality, fear based messaging, more sense of personal agency and influence, and see government as a patriarchal family; while Progressives skew more towards complex causality, optimism based messaging, less sense of personal agency more "society is the problem", and see government more as a tutor or a teacher than a family.
Wait a minute... did I just describe the stereotypes of men and women? Hmmmm

[Anonymous No.20017435]

>>20017261
No.

Left wing thought is rooted in utopianism and the concept that legitimate authority derives from the masses of humanity.

Right wing thought is rooted in realism and the concept that legitimate authority derives from a source transcendent to the material world.

For the man of the right the world is a certain way and it is mans role to shape his society and behaviors to the way the world exists and live harmoniously within it. For the man of the left the world can be a certain way and should be shaped and moulded to suit mans inclinations and to dominate it.

[Anonymous No.20017437]

>>20017344
>>20017348
>if you don't support literally infinite Somalis immigrating to your specific hometown and entire country forever ad for all time, you are an irredeemable nazi, racist, 80 IQ retard with no grasp of science or politics or reality and you deserve to lose your job also
Wow great point guys, I can see the libtard light now. This board really is high iq!

[Anonymous No.20017453]

>>20017437
meds

[Anonymous No.20017455]

>>20017289
Yeah I'm sure YA is useful in something like political science

[Anonymous No.20017460]

>>20017453
Not him, which part is wrong? What is the level of Somali immigration you are allowed to openly disagree with on an Ivy League campus without sacrificing social status, connections, future prospects?

Please be specific with a number. What is the cap on mass Somali immigration you are allowed to endorse in polite society?

[Anonymous No.20017469]

>>20017398
>Aside from the fact he would already know that Conservatives skew more towards monocausal/simple causality, fear based messaging, more sense of personal agency and influence, and see government as a patriarchal family; while Progressives skew more towards complex causality, optimism based messaging, less sense of personal agency more "society is the problem", and see government more as a tutor or a teacher than a family.
This, the reality is almost the exact opposite of what he purports.

[Anonymous No.20017470]

>>20017460
The part where he was told 'I disagree that STEM-based thinking correlates with right-wing political views' and responded by shouting at the angry leftist in his head about Somalis

[Anonymous No.20017482]

>>20017470
Just answer the question.

[Anonymous No.20017497]

>>20017261
Only in America could they boil down all political opinion to two parties that aren’t even all that far apart on the political spectrum. America’s political culture is far more extreme and divided than the actual differences of opinion with regards to public policy. You faggots are killing each other over tiny variations that are all still very much within the Overton window.

[Anonymous No.20017502]

>>20017497
Do you agree that if you don't fully endorse infinite Somali immigration you are a nazi?

[Anonymous No.20017509]

>>20017398
Your analysis seems off. Conservatives don't view government as a family they view is as an administrative apparatus which should remain out of the personal lives of the communities it governs as much as practicable. It's the left that view government as a surrogate parent that should provide the necessities of life and intrude on the everyday life of the citizens in such a way to regulate their morality. The right says a shop owner not hiring a black man is a personal decision the government should have no say in, the left say it's discrimination which the government should legally prosecute.

Conservatism is inherently based on subsidiarity while progressivism is focused on concentrating as much power in possible in an all encompassing welfare state that redistributes wealth in such a way to provide for the basic needs of all citizens and mediating the relationships between them in such a way that all groups are treated equally.

[Anonymous No.20017513]

>>20017502
I’m not American so I’m afraid I tend not to think about things in such polarised terms. Shades of grey exist

[Anonymous No.20017516]

>>20017398
Though I want to point out that complexity isnt automatically good, in case you assume it is.

[Anonymous No.20017518]

>>20017513
What cap on Somali immigration is allowed to be endorsed in your country and by politicians etc? Please be specific. Tell me what your politicians say

[Anonymous No.20017521]

>>20017509
>Your analysis seems off. Conservatives don't view government as a family they view is as an administrative apparatus which should remain out of the personal lives of the communities it governs as much as practicable. It's the left that view government as a surrogate parent that should provide the necessities of life and intrude on the everyday life of the citizens in such a way to regulate their morality
Thats the problem about not reading about political history, the left have taken the place that Christian conservatives had in the 19th century, while the right are basically the liberals of that period.

[Anonymous No.20017524]

>>20017518
I refuse to take concrete positions on the internet. I would much rather simply pretend to be above whatever politicised discussion is taking place out of a crippling fear of being called out for being retarded

[Anonymous No.20017529]

>if you drink coffee you're a liberal
>if you drink tea you're a conservative
Why are am*ricans like this

[Anonymous No.20017532]

>>20017529
Hi, go ahead and explain how much Somali immigration should be limited.

[Anonymous No.20017539]

>>20017261
The only two genuine factors to tell if someone is likely rightwing is if they are either high testosterone or their educational world is geared towards the classics.

Neither lefty yuppies reading contemporary lit, nor stem majors reading grimm belong to that category, their worldview is build out of propaganda, to either see beyong the propaganda, one needs to go back in time.

[Anonymous No.20017544]

>>20017539
>rightwing views are cool and intelligent and super masculine
>but left-wing views are all conditioned by dumb propaganda
The irony of your absolute lack of neutrality is lost on you, isn’t it?

[Anonymous No.20017546]

>>20017532
it should be limited by the expense of our ammunition

[Anonymous No.20017548]

>>20017521
It's hard to project back too far because the genesis of the modern right and left comes from the French Revolution where the "right" were monarchists and the "left" were republicans. I should be careful here because I don't want to give the impression that I support Reagan type libertarianism, because I don't and I would struggle to call the modern American right "conservative" in any real way. That having been said even though monarchism seems like it would be ultra authoritarian the reality is that most people simply lived their lives without any real influence from the reigning monarch. As long as they paid their taxes each community was free to govern themselves as they saw fit, within reason of course. This isn't the modern libertarian view, but it's the view that issues that can be solved on a local community level should be solved on a local community level.

[Anonymous No.20017561]

>>20017482
You’re allowed to oppose immigration and multiculturalism, you’ll just be pulled up by a professor and told it’s not correct. I did it in my thesis and my supervisor tried to send me articles on why some aspects of liberal bourgeois society should be protected. I didn’t lose anything from it, and he just wanted me to read what he sent (I didn’t).

[Anonymous No.20017562]

>>20017261
It's true that English majors vote democrats because humanities are full of propaganda. Rest of it? Most great writers and poets were conservative, but GOP and Democrat are both judaized.

[Anonymous No.20017566]

>>20017544
Why would he be neutral when the truth is one? Right-wing is a legitimate view, left-wing is not. There's no need to force a false equivalence to make you feel better about your lack of thinking.

[Anonymous No.20017569]

>>20017566
The idea that republicans are free from propaganda is itself indoctrination into Republican propaganda. You’re never more trapped within ideology than when you think you’ve escaped it. Insisting on anything else just makes you look retarded and naiive

[Anonymous No.20017570]

>>20017569
>The idea that republicans are free from propaganda
Cool no one said that, learn to read.

[Anonymous No.20017571]

>>20017569
Holy… have you watched the Pervert’s Guide to Cinema?

[Anonymous No.20017574]

>>20017570
If the right-wing view is “true” and the left wing “false”, then by definition right-wing propaganda doesn’t exist- it is simply spreading its truth. It’s not my fault you’re too retarded to see the logical inferences that your line of thinking leads to.

[Anonymous No.20017579]

>>20017569
>Oh you're right wing...So you're a Republican then?
Guess again

[Anonymous No.20017584]

>>20017574
>If the right-wing view is “true” and the left wing “false”, then by definition right-wing propaganda doesn’t exist- it is simply spreading its truth.
Just stop posting

[Anonymous No.20017590]

>>20017579
Rephrase every use of “republican” in my post with “right-wing” and the point still stands. Taking issue with what I’m calling you is pointless nitpicking. (I’m sure being called Republican makes you very upset, sorry for hurting your fee fees)

[Anonymous No.20017593]

>>20017524
It’s okay fren I hope u have a good day

[Anonymous No.20017597]

>>20017590
Saying you're "trapped within ideology" doesn't mean anything. The only thing that matters is how you can justify that ideology, either through debate and reasoning, or by use of force. What is true is true but the structure of society depends on charisma and guile.

[Anonymous No.20017612]

>>20017597
>The only thing that matters is how you can justify that ideology
>what is true is true
Pick one. The only thing that matters is how you can post-hoc rationalise that ideology, there is no greater truth outside of atomic facts because said facts are always collated in service of the lie we tell ourselves to explain why the world is how it is and how it should be (that’s politics).

[Anonymous No.20017617]

>>20017509
>Conservatives don't view government as a family
I didn't say that so of course it looks off, they see it through patriarchy. The analogically may see the President is the 'father of the country' in some sense
>which should remain out of the personal lives of the communities it governs as much as practicable
That's libertarianism isn't it? Conservatism is basically 'dad says we shouldn't'... where you can often replace 'dad' with 'god' or 'the way we've done things'
Again, these are just skews, these are not universal rules, they aren't even majority rules. Which is why Adam's attempt to create these dichotomies is fucking stupid in the first place. But as >>20017469 anon notes, what little there is Adams is still wrong about
>>20017516
I don't know why you would get that idea. If anything I was trying to imply 'complexity of causality' is a female trait that causes indecisiveness. Since women skew towards Progressive, which of course would explain a lot
>What do you want for dinner
>Aww, I don't know...
Why the fuck does it have to be so complex?

[Anonymous No.20017668]

>>20017617
>Conservatism is basically 'dad says we shouldn't'... where you can often replace 'dad' with 'god' or 'the way we've done things'
That's such a facile view of conservative politics. Conservatism has a high respect for custom and tradition yes but it's not "basically dad says we shouldn't". It's the appreciation of tradition as accumulated cultural wisdom and the position that you shouldn't unnecessarily question that wisdom without very good cause. Because culture can only be built up over centuries, it can be destroyed within a generation and never be recovered. The most pertinent example is monogamous heterosexual marriages are a staple within almost every advanced society, now is that because of "the patriarchy" or because there's actually a very good underlying reason for society to be structured around monogamous heterosexual couples raising their children? The leftist would say it's arbitrary and open to critique, the conservative would say the tradition itself has value and should not be critiqued because it serves a valuable, if not obvious, purpose in the continuation of culture and society.

[Anonymous No.20017682]

>>20017261
I read both?

[Anonymous No.20017686]

>>20017261
The jab eroded his mind.

[Anonymous No.20017687]

>>20017668
>Conservatism has a high respect for custom and tradition yes but it's not "basically dad says we shouldn't".
Skews towards. In a random samples of Conservatives and Progressives you will get more Conservatives espousing patriarchal analogies than Progressives. That doesn't mean all, or the majority espouse those, or that you won't find them at all in the other group.
What's fucking weird is that Adams is saying that conservatives skew towards 'systems thinking' which there is a lot of research that contradicts that. So not only is he stupidly trying to fit two broad and diverse populations into boxes, the assumptions he's making about them are the worst possible ones.

[Anonymous No.20017688]

>>20017668
> It's the appreciation of tradition as accumulated cultural wisdom
You could argue that this is just a recurring sequence of “my dad told me that my dad’s dad told me that my dad’s dad’s dad’s told me that” ad infinitum. there is obviously value in tradition, but that doesn’t mean the criticism that conservatism is highly stubborn and resistant to change isn’t valid. it’s that kind of logic which leads to parents needlessly circumcising their children, or doing other stupid shit that they default to because tradition allows them to act on autopilot.

[Anonymous No.20017714]

>>20017261
>leftists
>empathy
>fantasize about annihilating people who disagree with them

[Anonymous No.20017731]

>>20017688
You can't split what is just mere custom and what's essentially societal evolution required for the smooth functioning of society. That's the issue at stake. What is mere convention and what is tried and tested social development required for it to function? How do you separate the two? The issue is that the critical theorist starts with the assumption that everything fits into category 1 and it's obviously apparent that more than a few things they've claimed are oppressive social structures built into society by cultural inertia were actually pretty important in practice.

Deconstructing society by critiquing every custom and institution is one thing, trying to build it back up so that it actually works and doesn't fall to pieces because you've just destroyed the cultural inheritance of your entire society and destroyed its authority is quite another.

[Anonymous No.20017739]

this is an interesting idea but everyone's just pooping in the thread and focusing on the political implications of the idea. i won't contribute either though because i'm lazy.

[Anonymous No.20017756]

>>20017731
>What is mere convention and what is tried and tested social development required for it to function? How do you separate the two?
Only way to find out is by breaking it, unfortunately. Heidegger would posit that you only become truly aware of a task in all its intricacies when the tool shatters in your hands.

That is, until our ability to simulate virtual realities becomes advanced enough that we could test these potential collapses without risk of actual collapse. Then again, covid, WWIII… maybe we’re already in a simulation and being subjected to these tests without even realising it.

[Anonymous No.20017776]

Here's some political psychology

[Anonymous No.20017874]

>>20017756
Fuck off leftism doesn't matter. The ideas don't matter. Your books don't. The only thing that matters is you want infinite Somalis in every country in the world and nothing else. That is all your ideology will amount to. And once that happens no one will ever read your other ideas again.

[Anonymous No.20017877]

>>20017261
More or less. STEM kids don't read and it's fucking hilarious

[Anonymous No.20017883]

>>20017562
Now post the unedited one

[Anonymous No.20017889]

>>20017874
>this one thing I don't like nullifies your entire ideology!

lol calm down racist

[Anonymous No.20017903]

>>20017889
That one thing will end civilization though. So...

[Anonymous No.20017905]

>>20017889
Do you want infinite Somalis in your neighborhood? Are you willing to move to a somalo neighborhood? Why or why not?

[Anonymous No.20017915]

>>20017348
>GR
whats that?

[Anonymous No.20017936]

>>20017905
The people who shill for immigration never live around them. This has always been the case.

[Anonymous No.20017940]

>>20017936
Why doesn't that automatically negate their ideology then?

[Anonymous No.20017998]

>>20017903
For chuds

[Anonymous No.20018002]

>>20017940
>this strawman I made up invalidates you

gem

[Anonymous No.20018027]

>>20017544
>The irony of your absolute lack of neutrality is lost on you, isn’t it?
Why would I be neutral, its a fact, get someone who either build houses for a living or someone who knows Roman history, good chance the first will vote populist and the second something conservative or classical liberal, but they will be rightwing.

[Anonymous No.20018032]

>>20017548
Outside of France its not, the Dutch where republicans, the Anglo's had the whigs and tories.

[Anonymous No.20018034]

>>20017874
Where did I ever say I or Heidegger was a leftist lmao? All you have is your retarded immigration talking point which betrays just how ingrained you are in a particular framework. Your worldview is so calcified and unchanging, even the slightest knock would cause it to shatter into a million pieces. I bet I could even do it with a single feigned punch, I wouldn’t even need to touch you.

[Anonymous No.20018035]

>>20017569
>The idea that republicans are free from propaganda is itself indoctrination into Republican propaganda.
Do you honestly think everyone here is a mainstream American? I am sure you do.....

[Anonymous No.20018039]

>>20017574
>then by definition right-wing propaganda doesn’t exist
sigh... propaganda isnt automatically false, or the only way of communicating, please show us more proof that everything your read is completely temporary.

[Anonymous No.20018042]

>>20018035
If it’s not Republican propaganda then is some other form of propaganda, the specific ideology is irrelevant. Humans need metanarratives and consensus in order to establish and maintain a functioning society. But how those metanarratives are used to establish the intricacies of a particular society has no bearing on whether the narrative is true or not (in fact it is necessarily false in order for society to work). See my post >>20017612

[Anonymous No.20018044]

>>20018034
>Where did I ever say I or Heidegger was a leftist lmao?
He never claimed that you did.

[Anonymous No.20018047]

>>20018042
dam, again, propaganda can be true and not every form of communication is propaganda, a sermon isnt, neither is the commercial, but both can persuade people.

[Anonymous No.20018048]

>>20018039
> propaganda isnt automatically false
That’s an inference you’ve made that I never actually said. Propaganda can be true, atomic facts can be true, etc etc, but all of these are in service of an ideology which is ALWAYS too reductive and simplified to be true. It is a necessary lie that ensures society continues to function. I’m Batman.

[Anonymous No.20018051]

>>20018044
See
>>20017874
> leftism doesn't matter. The ideas don't matter. Your books don't.
The only specific ideas taken from
Other thinkers I mentioned in the post I replied to belong to Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.20018054]

>>20018048
>but all of these are in service of an ideology which is ALWAYS too reductive and simplified to be true
If I started a propaganda campaign to add more Iodine to salt and bread, then this is an ideologically and not a sensible medical precation to end medical defects in the population?

[Anonymous No.20018056]

>>20018027
> its a fact
It’s a framework. Learn the difference.

[Anonymous No.20018058]

>>20018051
Your ideas, not Heidegger, for all we know you dont understand Heidegger and just quote him fashionably.

[Anonymous No.20018060]

>>20017915
You need to leave

[Anonymous No.20018061]

Putin's biggest crime is generating so many Ukraine posts on /pol/ that autists like this Somali spammer spill over into /lit/

[Anonymous No.20018063]

>>20018056
>It’s a framework. Learn the difference.
Tell me, whats the difference, I mean the concept of da right is somewhat artifical, but you cant deny that strong men and conservative educated fall into one camp and yuppie types and nerdo's fall in camp two.

[Anonymous No.20018066]

>>20018054
Is it ethical to put things in people’s food without their permission? Do you like having fluoride in your tap water? And further, does everyone agree that it is desirable to end medical defects in the population? This Goldman Sachs employee thinks otherwise:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/curing-disease-not-a-sustainable-business-model-goldman-sachs-analysts-say/?amp=1

Btw, I’m not making an ethical judgement one way or another on this issue, I’m merely highlighting that no everyone will agree.

[Anonymous No.20018074]

>>20018066
>Is it ethical to put things in people’s food without their permission?
Obviously, since its the norm to allow supermarkets to sell products that meet certain medical standards.

Now, I dont appreciate onions, but since the law demands all ingredients are mentioned, I am free to buy bread without onions or glucose.

[Anonymous No.20018076]

>>20017261
>fiction
>empathy
No, to be honest I greatly enjoy the work of Sade, and the gothic, decadent and naturalistic movements because the protagonists always suffer, and I love it.

[Anonymous No.20018077]

WHY ARE THE LEFTISTS PRETENDING THEY DONT WANT INFINITE SOMALIS???

Reminder that infinite Somalis is the only acceptable position in every western country, a position invented and encouraged and still supported by leftists. Yet suddenly itt they dodge this issue and pretend it's not true.

Why lie? Why not own up to it?

[Anonymous No.20018085]

>>20018058
>for all we know you dont understand Heidegger
>for all we know
So you’ve never read heidgger and don’t know the importance of the tool to his philosophy? Oh that’s right, you are a tool. Nevermind.

>>20018063
A fact is something you can state unequivocally to be true. Something like “it is raining on my head”. The conditions for truth are satisfied if it is currently raining on the speaker’s head.

A framework is a collation of atomic facts that says something much more general about the world. It cannot be true because it also cannot be false- it is an accumulation of experiences and knowledge that colours the world in a certain way. The experiences and knowledge contained by it might be true, but a framework cannot be true because it cannot be false either.

[Anonymous No.20018091]

>>20017437
Why wouldn't you support that though? unless of course, you were racist...

[Anonymous No.20018093]

>>20017617
Not a single part of that conception was correct.

[Anonymous No.20018094]

>>20018074
> Obviously
If it was obvious you wouldn’t have so many people protesting fluoride or vaccine mandates. “It’s good for you because the government says so” is a very shaky justification.

[Anonymous No.20018097]

>>20017261
I majored in English and I'm basically a nazi. Most stemfags I know voted Biden and have fat, toxic, leftists girlfriends who murmor BLM talking points into their ears. I kind of understand the point being made here but the fact is that rightism has long standing ties with romanticism and anti rationalist thought.

[Anonymous No.20018098]

>>20018077
Just take your meds and it will be fine

[Anonymous No.20018102]

>>20018085
>So you’ve never read heidgger and don’t know the importance of the tool to his philosophy? Oh that’s right, you are a tool. Nevermind.
Yes....

I have no problem with that, because I am not a stereotypical leftist who is afraid other people think he is stupid.....

>A framework

If I did statistical research and I where to discover that people who consider themselves rightwing are either physically stronger, or are culturally conservative, then it would be a fact, not a framework.

Now, I may have gotten that knowledge through experience and not through research, but that still doesnt mean its not a fact.

[Anonymous No.20018103]

>>20018077
Not only are the Somalis living rent free in your neighbourhood, they’re also living rent free in your head lmao

[Anonymous No.20018111]

>>20017261
Scott Adams is a Gamma. Mostly everything that he says is worthless.

[Anonymous No.20018112]

>>20018102
> If I did statistical research and I where to discover that people who consider themselves rightwing are either physically stronger, or are culturally conservative, then it would be a fact, not a framework
In that instance the fact (or rather, statistical likelihood) would be “people on the right tend to be stronger or more conservative”. The fact would not be “all rightwing views are true”.

[Anonymous No.20018113]

>>20017261
Fuck, I use to really like Dilbert...

[Anonymous No.20018114]

>>20018094
>“It’s good for you because the government says so” is a very shaky justification.
Never claimed this, there are obviously thousands of ingredients put in our food that nobody disagrees with, its therefor only the case that in some instances putting ingredients in food is ethically questionable.

[Anonymous No.20018116]

>>20017756
If I were to smash a hammer into countless warped pieces, chances are nobody would know what it was ever even intended to do in the first place.

[Anonymous No.20018119]

>>20018112
>In that instance the fact (or rather, statistical likelihood) would be “people on the right tend to be stronger or more conservative”. The fact would not be “all rightwing views are true”.
That depends, if basis of truth requires either physical health or a deep understanding of history, then by very definition rightwing views would hold truth.

[Anonymous No.20018121]

>>20018114
> in some instances
That’s the key concession. Which is why it isn’t “obvious” as you said. If there are exceptions, then it cannot be an objective statement.

[Anonymous No.20018123]

>>20018121
>That’s the key concession. Which is why it isn’t “obvious” as you said. If there are exceptions, then it cannot be an objective statement
No, because all knowledge is build on exceptions, by denying this you make it impossible for something to work in the real world.

[Anonymous No.20018133]

>>20018116
If you did that I would imagine you probably need therapy (as do many radical “burn it down” leftists).

>>20018119
> if basis of truth requires either physical health
It doesn’t, truth can only be satisfied by very strict linguistic or grammatical constraints.

>a deep understanding of history
This is just submitting to a metanarrative that explains the formation of the modern world in a way that is digestible, rather than simply being incomprehensible white noise.

> by very definition rightwing views would hold truth
Rightwing views can contain elements of truth. But a rightwing view cannot BE Truth (capital T) itself. Neither can a left wing view. This is the key point that I think you’re completely missing here.

[Anonymous No.20018139]

>>20018123
> by denying this you make it impossible for something to work in the real world
No, I’m simply showing it to be impossible that everything can be explained objectively. Things still work even if we don’t have concrete explanations for them.

[Anonymous No.20018144]

>>20018133
>It doesn’t, truth can only be satisfied by very strict linguistic or grammatical constraints.
Which are the product of an intelligent and healthy mind, obviously nobody can function when they lack these basics.

>This is just submitting to a metanarrative that explains the formation of the modern world in a way that is digestible, rather than simply being incomprehensible white noise.
Where do I say that?

>>20018133
>But a rightwing view cannot BE Truth (capital T) itself.
No, it forms the groundwork of truth, the basis, you can not reach a true position from a leftwing position, because the leftist is not mentally or physically sound.

[Anonymous No.20018146]

>>20018139
>>20018133
So... how many Somalis does the leftist world view import if it's not infinite?

[Anonymous No.20018148]

Isn't the Dilbert guy terrified of covid and tries to do mental gymnastics cope on twitter about how despite being wrong about covid he was totally right?

[Anonymous No.20018151]

>>20018139
>No, I’m simply showing it to be impossible that everything can be explained objectively.
I am not even doing that, I am arguing from a purely organic and historical perspective.

[Anonymous No.20018156]

>>20018146
>So... how many Somalis does the leftist world view import if it's not infinite?
How can the left import an infinite amount of somali's when the holes of all white woman are finite.

[Anonymous No.20018177]

>>20018103
Kek

[Anonymous No.20018182]

>>20018144
> Which are the product of an intelligent and healthy mind
Do computers have intelligent and healthy minds? Do they even need minds with which to compute the truth content of statements? Do they have bodies that require regular exercise to keep them functioning in tip-top shape?

> Where do I say that?
You didn’t, I did. It’s hubristic to think you can have any broad overview/deep understanding of history that doesn’t make massive leaps in inferential logic, or boils down complex systems to easily intelligible narratives. If you think you can fully understand it, I’m afraid it isn’t going to be totally objectively true.

> because the leftist is not mentally or physically sound.
This is circular reasoning. You should go for a jog, I don’t think your brain is working at full capacity.

[Anonymous No.20018188]

>>20018151
> I am arguing from a purely organic and historical perspective
“Perspective” being the key word here. Frameworks are always open to revision. Paradigms are always open to shifts. All we have is closer approximations, finer gradients of truth.

[Anonymous No.20018196]

>>20018182
>Do computers have intelligent and healthy minds? Do they even need minds with which to compute the truth content of statements? Do they have bodies that require regular exercise to keep them functioning in tip-top shape?
A computer is not a healthy human society, build on knowledge gained through trial and error and passed down for generations.

If your arguments starts to sound like ungrounded science fiction, perhaps you are doing it wrong.

>If you think you can fully understand it, I’m afraid it isn’t going to be totally objectively true.

Understanding something is not knowing all the details, but understanding the laws or logic behind them.

>This is circular reasoning. You should go for a jog, I don’t think your brain is working at full capacity.

Alright, lets give you a basic example, somali's, they are stupid, feral, have weird haped heads etc, why would any sane person allow them to enter a nation?

So yes, lefties are insane.

[Anonymous No.20018201]

>>20018188
>All we have is closer approximations, finer gradients of truth.
No, thats all you have, we, the people, have a living and organic community, big difference.

[Anonymous No.20018206]

>leftism debunked by simply mentioning the infinite somali conundrum
You hate to see it, but damn

[Anonymous No.20018217]

Why don't leftists like to live next to Somali immigrants despite wanting them to move here? Just explain that and I'll become a marxist

[Anonymous No.20018233]

>>20018196
> A computer is not a healthy human society, build on knowledge gained through trial and error and passed down for generations.
Yeah but I’m super cool and talking about society 2.0. You haven’t heard of society 2.0? It’s where all that knowledge is stored on a database, and that trial and error nonsense is simulated using the database as the model so we can run experiments without any of the risk.
>computer, load up celery man please.

>understanding the laws or logic behind them.
Okay then, name 5 immutable laws of history.

As for the last part, I refuse to engage with the Somali bullshit because I’ve had that retard badgering me trying to derail discussion throughout the thread and I just don’t care for it.

[Anonymous No.20018242]

>>20018201
> we, the people
Would you just look at the size of those ideological baggages! All the violence and terrible actions undertaken on behalf of the people! Mommy gib milkies! Hubba hubba!

[Anonymous No.20018253]

>>20018233
>Yeah but I’m super cool and talking about society 2.0. You haven’t heard of society 2.0? It’s where all that knowledge is stored on a database, and that trial and error nonsense is simulated using the database as the model so we can run experiments without any of the risk.
In other words, a scifi novel.

>Okay then, name 5 immutable laws of history.
Not a leftist, dont have to pretend I understand everything.

[Anonymous No.20018259]

>>20018242
>All the violence and terrible actions undertaken on behalf of the people!
Evil doesnt exist, sin doesnt exist, there is no kharma, there is no god judging use.

[Anonymous No.20018272]

>>20018253
> In other words, a scifi novel.
It’s only science fiction until it’s not. We already have computers that can process the truth content of statements, even if the tech isn’t all there yet, it’s improving fast. Regardless, my hypothetical was to show you why you can have effective information processing without the need for the anthropocentric concept of “health”. It doesn’t have to be real to undermine your point. Remember, truth content is mediated by the satisfaction of specific linguistic constraints.

>Not a leftist, dont have to pretend I understand everything.
Holy back-pedalling, Batman! You’re telling me you understand the laws of history in one moment, and then saying you don’t understand them in another? Make your mind up buddy!

>>20018259
Im sorry you feel that way. Nihilism is a terribly dangerous hole to get yourself into. Hope you can find god fren

[Anonymous No.20018276]

>>20018060
stop being a neckbeard faggot and tell me

[Anonymous No.20018281]

>>20018272
>It’s only science fiction until it’s not.
Literally believing in dragons.

>>20018272
>You’re telling me you understand the laws of history in one moment,
I dont, I am the strong guy, not the scholar.

>>20018272
>Im sorry you feel that way. Nihilism is a terribly dangerous hole to get yourself into. Hope you can find god fren
yup, and another fantasy figure to prop things up. Yup, laws of history are silly, but you think you know God.

[Anonymous No.20018337]

>>20018281
This post isn’t even worth replying to. It’s clear you’ve given up on the discussion and are coping with bitter one-line retorts that do nothing to expand on the discussion we’ve had so far. You are unironically regressing into a Somali-tier intellect with seething, resentful emotions. Shame, I was really enjoying our discussion up until this point.

[Anonymous No.20018348]

>>20018276
Gravitys poopoo rainbow
It's a meme book, on par with f gardner

[Anonymous No.20018372]

Love for classics and ancient, medieval to modern philosophy is conservative but not necessarily the american idea of being a conservative or "GOP". Love for contemporary stuff or trendy and usually lowbrow media is very yuppie liberal. Younger generations have 0 respect for aesthetics in art and architecture.

[Anonymous No.20018851]

>>20017435
>For the man of the left the world can be a certain way and should be shaped and moulded to suit mans inclinations and to dominate it.

isn't that lit. fiction? you can't change the ''world'' to suit your inclinations and dominate it... By world I assume reality. Because you can obviously change certain things, but to change the ''world'' that is the hueman's perception of it, from what it really is, is to lie to yourself. And lying on the magnitude of changing reality is retarded. Also why illude people into a reality that doesn't exist, just because certain people (think/feel/believe[these people don't really think so believe/feel is more appropriate]) that the world would be better for them if it was the way they envision.

Also it is not within our means to change the human nature(yet).Until then people will be racist, men will be jealous and women will be women.

The point is, leftism the way it is now is peak bugman hueman experience

[Anonymous No.20018897]

>>20017562
based image

[Anonymous No.20018927]

>>20017874
not the anon you were responding to, but what is up with you and somali immigrants? why are you so obsessed?

[Anonymous No.20018959]

>>20018077
>WHY ARE THE LEFTISTS PRETENDING THEY DONT WANT INFINITE SOMALIS???
cause they don't. neither people on the left or right want this. you are just being deluded

[Anonymous No.20019176]

>>20017437
Are you actually retarded?

[Anonymous No.20019184]

>>20017261
Most Stemoids are barely literate, just as humanities students can't do basic math. As a TA I can literally pinpoint peoples majors based on their essays alone.

[Anonymous No.20019188]

>>20017688
is conservatism really about tradition?

Have you red Thinking, fast and slow? The author divides the human brain into two systems. System 1 and System 2. The 1 is basically our instinct, it is the first thing that comes to mind. The world's shortest ''IQ test'' relies on our preference of using system 1 ''instinct'' to get us to answer questions quickly without ''thinking''(using system 2).which ends up with us failing the test. The questions aren't hard at all if you think about them. Now this makes it seem as if system 2 is the superior one and system 1 inferior. Yet that is not true. Each system works in its own domain and does what it is best at. And it has been this way ever since. We use system 1 all the time and system 2 rarely.

Now, the leftist they use thinking to arrive at their conclusions. '' We shouldn't be racist because it makes other people feel bad. And when I feel bad I don't like it.''. This is where system 2 thinking fails. System 2 or ''Thinking'' itself considers itself to be better than system 1 because it sorta is. But it often gets overconfident on it's conclusions. Conclusions which it itself makes. Conclusions to problems which are way beyond what it is capable of computing. That's why we have instinct or system 1. We don't have huge amounts of processing power to find out the solution to the race problem. But we don't need to do that. We can just increase the length of our processing instead of increasing the processing speed. And we did just that. Using billions years of evolution we have arrived to the conclusion and that conclusion was ''programed'' into us over time through trial and error. So now when you look at a person and immediately decide on certain things you can be sure that you are making those decisions with accuracy that has been refined over millennia.

tldr: conservatives base their decisions on infinite amount of knowledge while the other party bases theirs on 15 minutes of ''thinking'' they did once.

[Anonymous No.20019192]

STEM majors are manchildren who love genre fiction, English majors may be pretty silly but they at least read classic literature, which covers things like history and philosophy.

[Anonymous No.20019701]

>>20018959
You're coping. We both know you would never express putting a limit on Somali immigration in any public setting. And of you do, it would be grounds for having your life ruined. By leftists. Show me a leftist politician in any western country who has advocated putting a limit on non-white immigration in the past 3 years. Any limit at all.

[Anonymous No.20019719]

>>20017261
I'm studying astrophysics and I read (mostly) fiction

[Anonymous No.20019728]

>>20019719
SCIENCE fiction?

[Anonymous No.20019737]

>>20017261
Non-fiction is a misnomer; it's all fictionalised.

[Anonymous No.20019744]

>>20019192
got a D in pre algebra cope

[Anonymous No.20019758]

I never understood why read a fiction book. Go see a movie or play a game because its the same shit

[Anonymous No.20019782]

>>20017940
People who advocate immigration are generally established elites in urban areas. They encounter immigrants but they don't have to compete with them for jobs and urban settings are compartmentalized communities (meaning they're sheltered from negative economic aspects and their idea of it is basically having more take-out options and saree shopping for their brown friend from college's wedding).

[Anonymous No.20019949]

>>20019728
No

[Anonymous No.20019998]

>>20019949
You're a rare breed.

[Anonymous No.20020003]

>>20017261
I'm in STEM, I lean conservative but I prefer fiction and poetry. What now?

[Anonymous No.20020006]

>>20017261
He's a boomer internet addict. He's probably OP of this thread. He doesn't do it for the money, but instead for that sweet dopamine hit of fake internet controversy.

[Anonymous No.20020037]

>>20019701
Not him and this is not specifically non-white immigration but
>During the 2016 Democratic primary campaign, when Vox editor Ezra Klein suggested open borders policies to Bernie Sanders, the senator famously showed his vintage when he replied, “Open borders? No. That’s a Koch brothers proposal.”1 This momentarily confused the official narrative, and Sanders was quickly accused of “sounding like Donald Trump.”

[Anonymous No.20020065]

>>20017261
ESL here, why does he call it GOP and not Republican? When is it correct to use one over the other?

[Anonymous No.20020129]

>>20020037
Yeah and Bernie went back on that in 2020, so that's not exactly a point in your favor. He literally wasn't allowed to say that 4 years later and run for president.

[Anonymous No.20020137]

>>20017546
KEK

[Anonymous No.20020281]

>>20020065
It's the same thing. I guess GOP is the party and Republicans are the party members.

[Anonymous No.20020315]

>>20019758

[Anonymous No.20020425]

>>20017437
What does this have to do with his post?

[Anonymous No.20020858]

>>20017289
non-fiction tier post desu

[Anonymous No.20021300]

>>20020425
Why are you so obsessed with making sure infinite Somalis immigrate?

[Anonymous No.20021331]

>>20017261


marxists only read non-fiction
based on my observations

[Anonymous No.20021332]

>>20017261
>empathy
>democrat
Pick one and only one. Since when has advocating for the sacrificial murder of society's most vulnerable, the unborn, by the person most entrusted to take care of them, their own mother, been anything less than evil.
Inb4 republican, free yourselves from the shackles of this jew false political dichotomy they are both the same party. Return to traditional Catholicism, return to monarchy brothers and we will purge evil from our lands.

[Anonymous No.20021343]

the right-wing reads the bible and that's fiction

[Anonymous No.20021408]

>>20021300
I want zero Somalis to immigrate here. This has nothing to do with his post

[Anonymous No.20021599]

>>20018348
holy shit he was gatekeeping about gravitys rainbow? what a pretentious faggot

[Anonymous No.20021713]

>>20017261

Right wing dipshit trying to pretend right wing people aren't just failures blaming everyone different from them for losing at life. kek

[Anonymous No.20022055]

>>20021332
>REPLACE DEMONS WITH OTHER DEMONS
Literally schizophrenic behavior

[Anonymous No.20022294]

>>20021332
>christlarping
Is it 2018 again? Why are 4chan-dwelling degenerates still pretending to be righteous moral arbiters? You’re a piece of shit like the rest of us and you wouldn’t be posting here if you weren’t.

[Anonymous No.20023038]

>>20019188
>TL;DR
You’re right, I didnt read your needlessly excessive blogpost. I’m not interested in reading the thoughts of someone who is unable to disentangle their personal politics from their sense of objectivity; nor am I interested in reading anything that projects their own political framework into a book that has little to do with political frameworks. Nor do I care about your post-hoc rationalisations for why rightwing thought is right and leftwing thought is wrong.

[Anonymous No.20023197]

>gatekeeping

[Anonymous No.20023291]

>>20019744
text bot

[Anonymous No.20023301]

>>20021331
Leftists are almost the only people I know (apart from myself) who read non-fiction.

[Anonymous No.20023549]

>>20017687
>Skews towards. In a random samples of Conservatives and Progressives you will get more Conservatives espousing patriarchal analogies than Progressives

Maybe they have father figure analogies because they grew up with a father in the home. I don't understand why its common to think there is no deficit in a single parent home. Its hard to raise a child you would want 2 people around to do this. Single motherhood is celebrated by the left as some slave morality badge of honor. A father is supposed to work and acquire all the material wealth necessary while getting support from his wife on all other matters. When we talk about women trying to raise kids, they suddenly don't need any of this support. We then try to supplement that support with government and child support. Ending up with a defacto polyamorous society. These society's leave more men childless and without mates because the men at the top take on more wives. Getting several women is expensive only men at the top can afford this. What happens when your society is filled with incels? It's not good for anyone.

[Anonymous No.20023592]

>>20023549
forgot my picrel

[Anonymous No.20025024]

>>20022055
Begone rabbi shekleberg stop projecting your own ashkenazi schizophrenia on others
>>20022294
>pretending
Brother when you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior there is no more pretending. This is how we "make it" and brothers if you become a traditional Catholic we are all going to make it, even for "pieces of shit" like us.

[Anonymous No.20025035]

>>20025024
We all know it's yourself that you're trying to convince

[Anonymous No.20025178]

>>20025035
This. He's so pathetic.

[Anonymous No.20025184]

>>20017289
To understand fiction you must first confront reality.

[Anonymous No.20025706]

>>20017261
What is this baldcel coping about? STEMtards are all democrat just as arts fags are.

[Anonymous No.20026014]

>>20025024
> if you become a traditional Catholic we are all going to make it
This week it’s traditional Catholicism, next week it’ll be esoteric Mormonism. You people have had more conversions than hot dinners. I see the same thing happening with political ideologies too, people treat it like cosplay. Embarrassing. Just keep your faith and politics to yourself like sane people so you don’t get called out for being something completely different everytime they ask.

[Anonymous No.20026067]

>>20023549
>Maybe they have father figure analogies because they grew up with a father in the home
Most people do though. I think you're reading way way too much stuff into this. The point is that Adams is trying to slice the population into two clean categories, but even the marginally distinctive stuff he's getting wrong.

[Anonymous No.20026134]

>>20017455
>all fiction is ya tier
It’s really non-fiction that is usually written for mongoloids, just avoid popular fiction and you will become big brain

[Anonymous No.20026144]

>>20017261
>He doesn't even know that there's other non-fiction than stem

[Anonymous No.20026148]

>>20017532
It should be weighed by benefits, I don’t consider most immigration as beneficial at all so we should only take the educated and productive members of any society.
If Somalia or some other nation were being invaded and there were refugees because of it, I’d just take whoever was educated or trained in some profession which was useful.
However there are no such thing in Somalia so there should be no immigration from there to my country.

Cheers lads

[Anonymous No.20026572]

>>20017289
This is only true for non-fiction written post-1300s and fiction written pre-WW2 (with a few select outliers.