/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9893517
Because it gives me definitive proof that there are exactly 92 genders

Bill nye the political science guy

Bill Nye the holistic science guy.

>>9893517
>people protest for evidence-based policy solutions to a problem half the country flatly denies
>they're the bad guys though because that one engineer with the teevee show used gender and sex as distinct concepts and said secondary sex characteristics vary continuously once
sage

>>9894197
YEAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH, FUCKING SCIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENCE! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

>>9894225
what is your objection to science? do you just dislike it because it exposes your hilariously stupid thought process?

>>9894225
Popsci is stupid and gives complacent simpletons the illusion of understanding without any real effort, sure, but that has nothing to do with whether we ought to agitate for rational, evidence-based policy.
Most people will never be scientists, but most people ought to recognize that science can and should inform policy. They can do that without being performative IFLS-types, and that attitude used to be the norm.

>>9894247
Retweet

Why do the communists support science so much when they're into their 3000th page of Capital by Marx and never bothered to start reading even basic chemistry.

>>9893517
>Why do you FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE, /sci/?
Transgenic Söy

>>9894383
Marxism is science, anon

memes aside it sets humans apart from animals and any contribution i make to our pool of knowledge gives my continued existence some slight validation

>>9893517
I hate science. I'm only going into STEM for the money.

>>9893517
potential

>>9894383
But anon, I'm a chemist and a communist

>>9894442
Also this

>>9894197
That's not why I hate Nye
This is why:
https://youtu.be/yZo1GhaTVuk

>>9894442
lol.
Dialectic method is the virgin analysis. Perpetually determined to wallow in self-destruction, bringing everyone else down with them.
Structural cause and effect positivism is the true chad. Confident in establishing propositions and guidance based on direct, fundamental principles.

>>9895054
also not a science.

>>9895054
>Dialectic method
>Structural cause and effect

Hey...thats just an Anti-Thesis is disguise!

I really don't, honestly. I only like it because of the intellectual challenge it provides.

Am I the only one?

>>9895080
hey! i can select anything out of existence as an antithesis! my theory works!
anyone who disagrees is just resisting treatment.

>>9895054
Dialectical materialism is like topology, "structural cause and effect positivism" is like a spherical cow moving in a flat plane. The latter tells you a lot of useful information in the very few cases it actually applies, the former is quite general but works on a scope where you can't reach the same level of exacting detail without some additional structure/assumptions.

>>9895080
>>9895098
>i don't know what dialectics are or how they're used

>>9895124
>i don't ACTUALLY know what dialectics is.

Dialectics is what happens when you let freud dominate a field - full of chakra balancing and the use of vague definitions that you change on a whim. Constantly droning on and on about how people's "fundamental" aspects boil down to their relationship with their mother and father. Structural cause and effect sees an event happening, sees an effect, relates that to cause and effect then actually tries to solve the problem.
Dialectics is what happens when you let homeopathy dominate medicine - a field far too concerned over the dynamic between patient/doctor. Desperately using vague definitions to describe "fundamental" problems people are dealing with. Never actually solving any problem, and potentially progressing issues into dire situations - but hey, it can't hurt right?
Structural cause and effect, modern medicine sees an issue, finds what effects that issue, then corrects that issue. It has no time for any type of "dynamic" between patient/doctor. People have issues, and it's there to solve them.

>>9894383
Develop some nice CN- pills and sweet dreams.

>>9893517
I love computer games! And not dying from dysentery! Or polio!

>>9895160
You haven't stated what you mean by "dialectical," established that these things are indeed "dialectical" and where, or shown how being "dialectical" is what makes these things not work.
All you've done is give two examples of non-evidence-based healthcare practices we can all reject, and then vaguely insinuate there's something "dialectical" about them. This whole post is a confused mess.

>freudian psychoanalysis and homeopathy are dialectical theories because, regardless of their actual methodological foundations, at some point if you try to practice them you end up referencing the fact that the patient had/has a relationship with another person and might assert it had/has an impact on something
Is this what you're trying to say?
(You should instead look on the level of intellectual foundations and justification/insight/rationale for the basic logic and methodology you use to analyze something, because there is no "practice of dialectics")
As an example, natural selection is a dialectical theory because it's based around:
-the state of a system (cumulative heritable factors of one or more populations)
-changing
-over time
-in response to the various opposing forces on the current state of the system (selective pressures)
-in a direction set up by those opposing forces
-towards/around certain equilibria/attractors determined by where those opposing forces "balance" each other
That's it. It's not some zany jewish black magic, it's merely a way of imagining nonphysical systems and phenomena as somewhat akin to dynamical systems, except perhaps fuzzier and with a stochastic element. In fact, you should probably just substitute "dynamical system" everywhere you see "dialectic."

>>9895160
>Structural cause and effect sees an event happening, sees an effect, relates that to cause and effect then actually tries to solve the problem.
Can you be a bit more specific here? I'd love to know what "structural cause and effect psychoanalysis" would look like, because this describes freud as well. You know, what with how we can describe basically all human attempts to understand and modify anything at all, effective or ineffective, as a process of observing something, coming up with an explanation, and then trying to fix it.

>>9895321
>"structural cause and effect psychoanalysis" would look like, because this describes freud as well
No. absolutely not. Frued uses a dialectic method focused on id ego and superego. He argues these forces need to be aligned with each other (in your unconscious, which passes into consciousness - i.e. the concept of how you view the world driving your actions), in order to express yourself in a healthy manner via your consciousness. The fundamental driving concept dictating the "flow" between these forces was created via how you were raised and what your relationship was with your mother and father. The goal, therefor, is to get them to be copacetic with each other. Any conflict will result in some outburst or unhealthy psychological effect in the world.
This idea was ridiculed by BF Skinner (a behavioral psychologist) for wallowing on inconsequential bullshit like mother and father relationships, and not actually trying to solve the issues. Look up "Little Hans". Behavioral psychology mocked the ever living shit out of it.

>>9895344
>the goal is to align id, ego and superego in order to solve the issues
>not actually trying to solve the issues
delicious
>behavioral psychology disagrees with freud
ok

Yeah the point was that you have to be behind about 20 layers of naive realism to think "sees an event happening, sees an effect, relates that to cause and effect then actually tries to solve the problem" is a valid or useful way to describe a methodology

>>9895306
The dialectic method is created based on the foundation that you cannot attain real knowledge out in the world with your senses. Fundamentally, those who use the dialectic method are so skeptical, they view all data changing due to modern conceptual frameworks of the world - Aristotle viewed physics differently than we do now.
Early individuals, who focused on the dialectic method, fundamentally believed that there were basal material forces dictating all of our actions, and these forces get expressed through the way in which we conceptually view the world.
With marx, looking at historical revolutions, thought the base foundation lied with two hypothetical camps: the bourgeois and the proletariat. These battles, over time, are an expression of a "flow" associated to the proletariat conquering the bourgeois then later becoming the bourgeois themselves. Thus, if you wish to have harmony in the world, we need to see the flow equalized - so he concluded all methods of production should be equalized and economics revolving around surplus are doomed to fail (also based on other forces competing with each other such as use value and exchange value). All of this is vague nonsense and if you try to protest, he would simply say that the reason why you are resisting is because of your material foundations (which magically he could tap into).

On the other hand, we have the cause and effect model we use in science today. We create a theory which is based on what we have currently observed, grab data (which we take as given - i.e. not passed through some bullshit concept filter), then evaluate that data with our theory. If what spits out is accurate to what we observe in reality, we accept this theory and move on to potential further testing.
You are absolutely wrong to think that the dialectic method follows a positivist approach.
A person like marx was not a positivist - he did not follow cause and effect or a structural model.

>>9895378
>20 layers of naive realism
says the guy who would advocate for some of the biggest load of bullshit out there right now.
I agree, in the social sciences, dialectic process does have its place since we cannot perfectly define human behavior through a structural model. However, on the topics that we CAN use math to describe systems (with a foundation in data collection), we will use it. It's fundamentally why Lord Keynes is so well-renowned. He brought economics out of "well its, like, your opinion man" into the world of mathematics. A statistical foundation within his work showed us that economies could potentially be manipulated for the benefit of society, via taxes and subsidies.
Even Lord Keynes thought Marx was a loony, and so does everyone else to this day.

>>9895391
>The dialectic method is created based on the foundation that you cannot attain real knowledge out in the world with your senses. Fundamentally, those who use the dialectic method are so skeptical, they view all data changing due to modern conceptual frameworks of the world
This is absolutely wrong. What you're describing is called postmodernism.
>Early individuals, who focused on the dialectic method, fundamentally believed that there were basal material forces dictating all of our actions, and these forces get expressed through the way in which we conceptually view the world.
This is also absolutely wrong. Dialectics in the sense we're talking about came from Hegelian idealism which had nothing at all to do with material, but rather developed a sort of historical logic not rooted in the real conditions of history or society. It was Marx that "turned Hegel on his head" by salvaging the logic of change over time in response to opposing pressures and connecting it to those real conditions to give a genuinely materialist ontology of man as a social being.
>With marx, looking at historical revolutions, thought the base foundation lied with two hypothetical camps: the bourgeois and the proletariat.
The bourgeoisie and proletariat only existed under capitalism, so no. He thought the BASIS was the material production and reproduction of everyday life, around which we must enter into definite production relations. Which is true, since the former is the precondition for survival and the latter (division of labor) is the precondition for production beyond subsistence and civilization. In this sense production and production relations are fundamental to society, and so the rational incentives derived from one's position within them (namely, whether you "own" or "rent" the means of production, and whether through that you have your labor expropriated or expropriate others' labor) are fundamental to that mode of production.

>>9895391
Class is your objective relation to the means of production, not a hypothetical quantity. Bourgeois and proletarian are the two major classes that exist under capitalism. In the past we've had other examples - lord and serf (one extorts the other of a portion of his labor,) master and slave (ditto,) etc
>the proletariat becoming the bourgeois themselves
I swear, this line's gotta be coming from some /pol/ pastebin
>Thus, if you wish to have harmony in the world, we need to see the flow equalized - so he concluded all methods of production should be equalized
Again, absolutely wrong. Have you ever even read Marx? He didn't say "equalize production," whatever the fuck that means. He said that a society whose basis revolves around the continual expropriation of a quantity of labor from one class by another class is unstable because the rational self-interests of the two classes are opposed, as an inherent property of the system, and the instability will eventually resolve itself either in the overthrow of one class by the other or their mutual ruin (and thus what the system fundamentally is will change, see above.) Marx was remarkably short on "ought" statements, because having an analysis that's independent of any moral position is a strength
>and economics revolving around surplus are doomed to fail
Surplus l a b o r, buddy. As in the quantity of expropriated labor. Not "surplus" as in "wow, i turned wood into a chair and now it's worth more!" And not "fail" like "it doesn't work!" but fail as in the fundamental instability above
>(also based on other forces competing with each other such as use value and exchange value).
They're not "competing forces."
>All of this is vague nonsense
>material foundations
It's extremely clear, concrete and objective if you just sit down and fucking learn it, especially against the german idealists and philosophy in general. Material conditions aren't magic and they don't make you disagree with Marx.

Bill Bye the "I know jackshit about philosophy but gonna talk about it anyway" guy

>>9893517
Science fucking sucks.
Analyzing the results can be fun, though; but the actual work can suck a dick. Only popsci rcdditors who've never worked in fields, clinics, or labs would think otherwise.

>>9895471
>Class is your objective relation to the means of production, not a hypothetical quantity.
>quantity
I never said they were. You are putting words in my mouth, just as you are marx.
They are a hypothetical construct to try and explain the historical conflicts within the world.
It's overly reductive and simplistic to view the world today, if you actually took some time to study modern economics, you would understand why.
>I swear, this line's gotta be coming from some /pol/ pastebin
This is the natural flow as you stated here:

>overthrow of one class by the other or their mutual ruin

>Again, absolutely wrong. Have you ever even read Marx?
Yes, and i recognize Hegelian thesis - antithesis-synthsis
Marx goes on as to try and say he believed he inverted Hegelian style, but he really didn't.
>He didn't say "equalize production,"
Yes he did. The fundamental nature of the dialectic process is to reach a synthesis. This synthesis is to equalize the method of production - that what makes us productive needs to be the same for everyone.
He FURTHER reinforces this with his common quote:
>In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.

>an inherent property of the system
profit motive, of which he knew only the fundamentals about.
>and thus what the system fundamentally is will change, see above
The bourgeois becomes the proletariat due to the profit motive continuing to be reinforced.

>independent of any moral position is a strength
No it's not. This is not a case of whether or not normative statements. Instead what we get are people like you who don't recognize it's vague nature.

>>9895471
>Surplus l a b o r, buddy. As in the quantity of expropriated labor.
>Not "surplus" as in "wow, i turned wood into a chair and now it's worth more!"
Actually no it applies to "chairs" as well.
He comments on the problems behind use value and exchange value. Insofar as he believes its hard for us to distinguish what the exchange value actually represents and the labor that goes behind it. (which is bullshit)
>They're not "competing forces."
>>the rational self-interests of the two classes are opposed

>It's extremely clear, concrete and objective
If you think marx has anything intelligent to say on the topic of economics, you need to pick up a modern econ book. He HAS something intelligent to say about society and culture in general.
In any case, you clearly haven't any idea what you're talking about. I don't fault you though, Marx was incredibly vague, and even he would say "i'm not a marxist."

>>9895507
>becomes the proletariat
vise versa*

>>9895399
Thank you my niggaz. Well put.

>>9895507
>They are a hypothetical construct to try and explain the historical conflicts within the world.
They're your objective relation to the means of production
>It's overly reductive and simplistic to view the world today, if you actually took some time to study modern economics, you would understand why.
Class isn't where you fall along the continuous gradation of wealth. It's not the number of zeroes in your bank account. It's whether you hold enough of the means of production that you can subsist entirely off extracting the labor of others, or must sell your own labor to survive. It's your objective relation to the means of production.
>This is the natural flow as you stated here:
>overthrow of one class by the other or their mutual ruin
Yeah, just like how the bourgeoisie, proletariat, and peasantry overthrew the landed nobility and became the landed nobility? You dense motherfucker
>Yes, and i recognize Hegelian thesis - antithesis-synthsis
Hegelian dialectics aren't "thesis-antithesis-synthesis." Literally the popsci of philosophy. see >>9895306
>he believed he inverted Hegelian style, but he really didn't
Marx is an inversion of Hegel in the sense that materialism is literally the opposite of idealism lmfao
You don't even know what is being claimed
>This synthesis is to equalize the method of production
No, the """synthesis""" is
>>overthrow of one class by the other or their mutual ruin
i.e. the end of an idle class of rentiers stealing labor + workers owning the means of production and enjoying the fruits of their own labor.

>mines a quote talking about the condition of life in the hypothetical society "where labor has ceased to be a means of life but instead life's prime want" because of "the all around increase of the productive forces" (automation, effective post scarcity) to argue the tired Marx-literally-wants-everybody-the-same strawman

You're just having a laugh at this point. You don't have a basic grasp on the subject matter at hand

>>9895604
>It's whether you hold enough of the means of production
I know exactly this. And if you look at the solow-swan model, this is the exact. same. goal.
Class is not a hypothetical which references people. It references the ownership of the means of production. Everyone is productive, through the tools they use to employ that productive nature. Marx wants to equalize this production.
So does the solow-swan model.
>Yeah, just like how the bourgeoisie, proletariat, and peasantry overthrew the landed nobility and became the landed nobility?
Yes. Revolution occurs, the ownership of the means of production is replaced, new bourgeois and proletariat are born and the cycle repeats or destroys itself. Under Marx's view, the reason why this repeats is due to the profit motive, associated to the means of production, persisting between revolutions.
>Hegelian dialectics aren't "thesis-antithesis-synthesis."
Yes it fundamentally is a thinking process of thesis - antithesis - into synthesis. It is a fundamental idea associated to hegelian philosophy, since those who follow hegel think epistomology is unattainable since it's affected by cultural norms. They believe you cannot objectively separate yourself from your science because cultural norms will always come into play. It stems from ideas of Kant and his philosophy against reason (in an attempt to have some room for faith in god). Hegel ran with it and said all knowledge is unattainable through a rational point-of-view, since everything passes through a concept filter.
>see >>9895306
What that anon was talking about was Natural/Social Darwinism. On a certain level, this is all true.
This is why "Marx" is used in the social sciences.
"Division of labor" (gender norms, for example) needs to be equalized for society to not feel isolated and alone.
But again, to take a giant leap from social Darwinism to people not having the rational capability to socially manage a marketplace is a HUGE leap.

>>9895604
>Marx is an inversion of Hegel in the sense that materialism is literally the opposite of idealism lmfao
No. It has nothing to do with idealism or materialism. He has not inverted his methodology.
>mines a quote
His words. Not mine, anon. If it's "wrong", its not my fault he's vague and idealistic of the communistic society.

>>9895696
>So does the solow-swan model.
and I know what you're going to say, "Well why don't we see that equalization within the developing world today? Ahah! marx was right!" And that answer is complicated, and cannot be boiled down to a simplistic view of a class struggle.

Not only do you need to collect capital (means of production) to grow (from the, correct, capitalistic perspective), but technological growth also has a factor (a MASSIVE factor much larger than capital accumulation) to economic growth.
Marxists have attempted to synthesize tech growth into their models (Analytical Marxism), but it's a pathetic abomination.
The prevailing idea in modern econ is by paul romer and his ideas of positive externalities associated to human capital (which is part of tech growth).
If all of the human capital is in California for Hollywood, chances are if you're an actor from Montana, you'll move to California instead of act in Montana. His remedy is to open up trade and encourage more free trade.

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/%7Epromer/Endogenous.pdf

>>9895696
>Marx is an inversion of Hegel in the sense that materialism is literally the opposite of idealism lmfao
No. It has nothing to do with idealism or materialism. Both individuals are materialistic. He has not inverted his methodology.
>mines a quote
His words. Not mine, anon. If it's "wrong", its not my fault he's vague and idealistic of the communistic society.

>>9893517
most people don't like science, they like science videos

>>9893517
Nobody in that picture is a scientist. Just Reddit tier wannabees

>>9894197
No they are the bad guys because they push pseudo science mixed with far left politics.

>>9894673
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtJFb_P2j48

>>9893517
I love science because it makes right wingers assblasted. There is no more fun than watching their struggle while they are traing to prove that your sex(genitals you’re born with and the chromosomes you have.) and your gender( your social and legal status, and set of expectations from society, about what behaviors, characteristics, and thoughts you should have) somehow are the same phenomrenon.

>>9895926
Know this is bait but still:
Your gender(and thus the social expectations that come with it) are a direct consequence of your sexl. Your bone structure, your hair growth, your genitals all exist to give possible partners a clue of what sex you are and if procreation is possible or not.

>>9895941
Yeah. I shouldn't wear dress because of my bone structure.

>>9893517
Because it proves brainlets wrong.

>>9895926
Science proves trannies are mentally ill and gender is nonsense that was created recently. Sex and gender are linked but at the end if the day sex is what matters.

Being pretty trans is anti science.

>>9895947
No just your chromosomes and social norms.

>>9895907
>pseudo science
bold claim
How about some credible evidence to back that up

>>9895954
>mentally ill
This is an unscientific term. And, you know:

https://www.out.com/news-opinion/2018/6/19/world-health-organization-no-longer-classifies-being-transgender-mental-illness

:-)

>>9893517
I like science only when it supports my prejudices.

>>9895490

>fields, clinics, or labs

Mmmmmm I'm a theoretician and my life is pretty fucking rad, pleb.

>>9895947
No one is saying that you can't wear a dress. I'm just saying that you can't wear a dress and demand that people call you a girl despite your bone structure and dick.

>>9896028
I don't understand how does this relate to the protests against drawing a distinction between terms sex and gender. If you are saying that I shouldn't demand people to call me "girl" if I don't fit into their definition of the word "girl", then it is just a question of courtesy.

>>9896098
It's a courtesy I just don't want to give. If your body screams boy but you say girl(or any of the 36 things inbetween) I'm not gonna award you for it. If you tell yourself that you are something you don't automatically become that thing.

>>9895967
>implying i care about some political institute opinions

next time what will you say? that a goddamn faggot is a perfectly sane human?

>>9895696
>Everyone is productive, through the tools they use to employ that productive nature.
Yes, though 99.8% of people must "rent" means of production to produce as they do, and .1% don't need to produce anything at all because they extract rents from the former group
>Marx wants to equalize this production.
It would be insane to take this to mean anything other than equalize their -class position- in production, i.e. property rights based on occupancy and use, workers' ownership of the means of production.
If class structure is fundamental to society while everything else is window dressing (and you are free to disagree with that, of course) you wouldn't need some autistic absolute equality where everybody is literally the same in every walk of life. Only as regards a class structure where one is not stealing the labor of the other.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm

>new bourgeois and proletariat are born and the cycle repeats or destroys itself.
Cringe
The bourgeoisie and proletariat are specific classes specific to capitalism. They do not refer generally to any ruling/subservient classes under prior modes of production such as feudalism and slave society.

>a thinking process of thesis - antithesis - into synthesis.
p o p s c i
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic
>Fichte introduced into German philosophy the three-step of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, using these three terms. Schelling took up this terminology. Hegel did not. He never once used these three terms together to designate three stages in an argument or account in any of his books. And they do not help us understand his Phenomenology, his Logic, or his philosophy of history; they impede any open-minded comprehension of what he does by forcing it into a scheme which was available to him and which he deliberately spurned [...] The mechanical formalism [...] Hegel derides expressly and at some length in the preface to the Phenomenology

>>9896107
Okay but there are literal girls who look very masculine and you would be an incredible sort of asshole to tell them they're a man.

>>9895696
>They believe you cannot objectively separate yourself from your science because cultural norms will always come into play.
The German idealists (Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Hegel, etc) believed this. Marx came out of that historical context and expressly rejected this idea (see: The German Ideology - Marx and Engels)
You might be confused because the SJWs say bullshit like "knowledge is a social construct" and people like Peterson want desperately to align them with Marx, but social constructivism is simply not a Marxist idea.

>What that anon was talking about was Natural/Social Darwinism.
It's an illustration of how Darwin thought about the origin of species dialectically. We now know these rather nebulous "heritable factors" are actually material (genes.) So evolution is dialectical materialism

>"Division of labor" (gender norms, for example) needs to be equalized for society to not feel isolated and alone.
Division of labor is the fundamental aspect of civilization. It is what allows us to produce beyond subsistence, and build and operate complex machinery and then automate it to improve our productive capacity in the first place. It's specialization.
It's not something to be abolished. Getting rid of it won't solve anything, according to Marx.
Gender norms really aren't a division of labor either, though they might include one (domestic vs occupational duties, in the 50s and before.) I'm not interesting in "abolishing gender norms" and Marx wouldn't be today either.

>rational capability to socially manage a marketplace is a HUGE leap.
Planned economics is not one and the same thing as Marxist analysis of capitalism. Nothing at all in Marx implies central planning (though Cockshott has made some huge strides in that avenue, others like Wolff are more in line with market socialism.

>>9895720
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
smhtbhfam

>>9894197
t. doesn't know the scientific literature on gender
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dklVypazQsA

I fucking love science / big bang theory /science fuck yeah - culture are the same people who

1. Deny science daily
2. Have never read a science book
3. Never entered university or achieved got a degree

I fucking despise these people

>>9895966
there's one
>>9896151

i've never met someone in STEM who actually cares about black spaceman or bill nye, it's always shit-for-brains education majors or liberal arts students screeching about "intersectionality" and "representation".

read pic related

>>9896204
Laymen will always be laymen, plain and simple. People believe whatever dogma they're fed. I'd rather it be loosely based on actual science than on religion.

>>9896204
Sounds like far right politics and snake oil tbqh

>>9895926
Genetics determine the cognitive abilities of the races.

>>9893517

>when you become a sellout to politically correct beliefs

wasted talent

>>9894197
>evidence-based policy

>>9893517
>why do you FUCKING LOVE CONCRETE, ancient romans?
>why do you FUCKING LOVE DIRT-PACKING YOUR HUT WALLS, primitive mud dwellers?
>why do you FUCKING LOVE ELECTRICITY, modern humans?
>why do you FUCKING LOVE MASTURBATING 13-year-old boys?

>>9893529
kek'd hard

>>9893517
for the babes

I fucking hate science.