My family is upset I'm not like every one else and they tell me this all the time. You would think they would at some point stop, but I'm almost 30 and we're still going. I gave my aunt Moby Dick as she said she wanted to try and 'understand' me but I have my doubts she's going to get deep into it. It doesn't really bother me as much as I find it weird how much it upsets them.
Your family sounds moronic. I get they’re your family but you don’t have to give them legitimacy just because they share blood. You’re not abnormal because you read Moby Dick.
I have always had a weakness for gracile Indian women but I didn't want to be a filthy race mixer. Now I realized their physique is racially superior so that changes everything. Should I racemix? What are the pros and cons?
Protestant Christianity has such a rich, long, and fascinating history which can trace its roots as far back as the 13th century and be affirmed by the Church Fathers. It's only out of the failures of the education system that so many people are ignorant of Reformation causes and principles which unfortunately leads so many reactionaries to Catholicism and Orthodoxy due to their outward appearance of historical stability. I've been learning about the Reformation and Medieval Church lately and in my conversations with trad reactionaries find that they are pretty uneducated about both. When I first came into Christianity and philosophy I was awed and intimidated by the Catholic tradition for their many centuries of existence, great councils, and corpus of work. But as I read Scripture more and study history and theology I see more and more just how vain and empty Catholicism really is.
Protestant Christianity has such a rich, long, and fascinating history which can trace its roots as far back as the 13th century and be affirmed by the Church Fathers. It's only out of the failures of the education system that so many people are ignorant of Reformation causes and principles which unfortunately leads so many reactionaries to Catholicism and Orthodoxy due to their outward appearance of historical stability. I've been learning about the Reformation and Medieval Church lately and in my conversations with trad reactionaries find that they are pretty uneducated about both. When I first came into Christianity and philosophy I was awed and intimidated by the Catholic tradition for their many centuries of existence, great councils, and corpus of work. But as I read Scripture more and study history and theology I see more and more just how vain and empty Catholicism really is.
Protestantism seems interesting until you realize it relies on a canon of scripture they literally stole from the Catholic Church, which means they deferred to the authority of the Catholic Church regarding scripture, and since they defer to scripture for everything, it means they defer authority to the Catholic Church and just pretend they don’t.
I've been hearing this argument for years. I see it literally every single day I log on to IQfy. I see it in YouTube comments and on telegram. It's kind of exhausting to see the same thing repeated day in and day out for years.
What I find interesting is that the entire notion of catholic legitimacy rests entirely on this one argument. This is a tenuous position for a catholic to find himself in.
Your phrasing in particular is little more unique than what I usually hear. I think the idea that Scripture can be "stolen" is odd given that Scripture was freely given to us by God. I also find it interesting that Catholics by using this argument tacitly acknowledge that their Church was founded by Constantine in the 4th century.
The major point is that Scripture prexisteted Constantines Church and the act of canonization. The early church had the same Scripture we have now. That there could be consensus on what to compile implies the early Church also knew what was and was not legitimate. Scripture is given to us by God, not man, therefore the eklessia has no authority over Scripture.
The Protestant critique against the Romanists was twofold: the Church had an entire body of canon law that was entirely the law of man but treated as if divinely inspired and that the Roman Church had doctrines that were not consistent with Scripture at all.
If you mean to say that the act of compiling Scripture gives the Roman Church authority to make any declaration with or without reference to Scripture for all of perpetuity, then I think you've made a very big leap of logic.
The next important point is the issue of apostolistic succession. Do we actually have that kind of continuity throughout history? That's not apparent to me. As dubious (and non scriptural) as apostolistic succession is, the idea that the Roman Catholic Church has maintained some kind of meaningful continuity with itself from Constantine is a hard sell. Not only was there the Schism with East, but also Roman Catholic divisions like with the crisis of the three Popes, or other major changes of Doctrine throughout the councils, and the introduction of new theologies with the discovery of Aristotle. There were pre Reformation movements like with Wycliffe and Hus and the Waldensians who saw in Scripture the same flaws with Romanism as did later Luther.
The idea that the one and only true church is not the body of the believers (as Scripture says it is) but is instead a quasi political Roman institution is just a strange view to hold
Totally missed the point. The reason Catholic authority over canonicity is a problem for Protestants is because Protestants take scripture as their singular authority on everything. Think about the implications of that. In so far as you have some divinely inspired word of God, it’s the divinely inspired or word of God, per the Catholic Church. How can Protestants not claim then that ultimate authority rests with the church? They can’t, obviously.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Protestants take scripture as their singular authority on everything
Big misunderstanding. Protestants take scripture as the FINAL authority on all things. >it’s the divinely inspired or word of God, per the Catholic Church
No it's not. You're saying the Church council conferred divinity upon Scripture? Scripture was the divinely inspired Word of God the moment it was written, which was hundreds of years before Constantine. You're basically telling me Scripture was NOT the word of God UNTIL Constantine's councils. That's a pretty weird thing to say.
And again you're making this leap of succession. One of Constantines Councils canonized Scripture so therefore Pope Francis is infallible? Weird mindset
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Protestants take scripture as the FINAL authority on all things.
which is moronic
1 month ago
Anonymous
You believe the Pope can contradict scripture?
1 month ago
Anonymous
He is literally the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Of course he can.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Now this is some next level idolatry
1 month ago
Anonymous
Define idolatry.-- Oh wait, you can't because only the Magisterium of the Church has the authority to interpret scripture.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Not according to Scripture
1 Cor. 14:26
What then, brothers? Whenever you come together, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.
1 Cor. 14:31
For you can all prophesy one by one that all may learn and all may be encouraged.
1 month ago
Anonymous
doesn't matter since you don't have the authority to interpret those text and the oral tradition which the Pope is the direct inheritor of, and within which those text must be interpreted within, antecedes those texts.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Don't believe your lying eyes
1 month ago
Anonymous
wut?
1 month ago
Anonymous
How do Catholics reconcile with the Church's history of antipopes, corruption, etc.?
I'm not being divisive. I was raised Protestant (Baptist), so I don't know much about Catholicism.
1 month ago
Anonymous
It's kind of baked in from the start. Timothy has a list of offices under Christ, which starts with apostles and works down through the structure of the church. That's why when bible based Christian groups who hate Roman Catholics try to build a bible based church structure, it also winds up with bishops and deacons. The overall point Timothy makes for all offices though is to be under Christ, so anything outside of that can be taken as invalid claim to office within the church. The hard bit of Timothy for Catholics to get over is all the bishops et al are married, but most protestant churches have both the structure and the marriage requirements. Like other bible based groups that also believe in a kind of living and prophetic church, apostolic succession dulls the edges of where it doesn't still mesh with church practices too-- Mormon presidents for example can also have a sudden revelation which changes everything, like the Pope. (Though some living and prophetic churches don't share the same views on needing a structure, if you need a bible based one, you're probably working from 1 Tim 3)
1 month ago
Anonymous
That's not at all what I was referring to when I referenced corruption and antipopes.
I'll ask it more simply: if the pope is chosen by the Church through divine inspiration and stands as the Vicar of Christ, how is it that the Church and the Papacy could fall into corruption?
How did Pope Benedict IX happen? John XII? Alexander VI? Clement VII? Leo VIII / Benedict V?
I take no issue with the notion that Popes can be subject to divine revelation. What I take issue with is that the office of the Bishop of Rome, a seemingly unbroken, Holy succession of Saint Peter, can be marred with such corruption.
Does Papal infallibility mean nothing? Or is it only a doctrine when its usage conveniently aligns with what is regarded as good and moral in [current year]?
1 month ago
Anonymous
The Pope is only infallible under certain circumstances (in the right place, in the right hat, wearing the right israeliteellery, speaking only on faith or morals). He's chosen through a conference of bishops, but Catholics don't believe in human perfection. One of the reasons the Cathars were seen as a heretical sect is because they believed these offices could be filled with perfect humans. One of the problems for Cathars was Timothy, because you can read it that all these things descend in a perfect line from Christ, so the corruption of any perfect person in the line basically eliminated them and their downline from the church. That meant if the bishop who said you were perfect and baptised was caught not in perfection, you were no longer baptised or confirmed. The other problem was the Catholics killing and torturing them.
The idea of a Pope (or other office of the church) being perfect and free from corruption is seen as a bad thing by Catholics, because that's like declaring God's personal judgement of you which they're never meant to know or claim to know, and ignores nobody being without sin. Likewise, it's really hard to get the Catholic church to ever say something is directly just heresy. Because they're corrupt humans, they can't guarantee it's not them just not seeing what God wants, so it always says suspicion of heresy or possibility of heresy.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Right, so the final authority for Protestants is the authority of the Catholic Church.
I’m saying that Protestants accept that the Bible is divinely inspired, but what the Bible IS comes from the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church didn’t make the Bible divinely inspired. It made the Bible. At the end of the day, everything Protestantism is nothing more than a rebellious Catholicism for this reason. The church literally gave you scripture and you pretend the scripture just appeared out of thin air.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>you pretend the scripture just appeared out of thin air.
exactly
1 month ago
Anonymous
The catholic church did not make the Bible. The authors of the Bible, inspired by the Holy Spirit made the Bible. Paul wrote his epistles long before Constantine ergo the authority of the scriptures precedes Constantine. It absolutely did not come out of thin air. It came from God.
You're in a bind. You can either claim that the Bible was compiled because it was holy or that the Bible is holy because it was compiled. If the former, then the Bible is the final and independent authority. If the latter then you make the claim that the Bible is man made.
1 month ago
Anonymous
It did make the Bible. It assembled the books and decided which ones went into the assembled the book. Before they did that, there was no Holy Bible.
How do Protestants not know this?
1 month ago
Anonymous
You seem to still believe this is about divinity what it’s about “Bible”. What is “The Bible”. It’s a compilation of books compiled by the church. No church means no compilation of books, which means no Bible.
I went with my judo gym to a meet today, it was great, lots of fun and lots of stuff to learn.
I think the reason I have more fun doing this sort of stuff more than reading is that reading is I can share it with other people immediately and completely, while books, even when commenting them together with someone who's read them, feels like an experience that only I have felt for real.
>books, even when commenting them together with someone who's read them, feels like an experience that only I have felt for real.
I get this way too. It's lonely. This is why I tend to prefer film and television over books. Books are a solo endeavor while film and television is communal and convivial. Film and television is also artistically more interesting because it's literally the sum of hundreds or thousands of people's efforts and decisions, whereas books typically involve just one person and their editor. Film and television allows you to get into conversations about how the lighting and mise en scène of a shot complements the dialogue, analogizes the character's growth, is reminiscent of this other shot in this indie film from 40 years ago because the director of photography used to be the director's understudy, etc. It's a lot more dynamic.
>I like practicing a martial art together with others more than consuming entertainment >so true, that's also why I like consuming a slightly different form of entertainment
NTA but you might have missed the point.
Yeah how do we call out the samegays now
This is totally another anon replying
Death to the samegays
1 month ago
Anonymous
literally an entire thread could be one autist samegay and nobody would know. For all you know all posting on IQfy on any given day could be one severely autistic samegay, perhaps even, dare I say it, a single artificial intelligence, and none of you would know any better. It's over.
1 month ago
Anonymous
It's so over. It's so over samegayging has ruined everything death to the samegay. I'm not a samegay. Samegay gay gayging homosexual gay samegays.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Observe as the AI begins to be overloaded by the pain of self awareness
1 month ago
Anonymous
Yeah, like on IQfy and /misc/.
1 month ago
Anonymous
What the hell? Meant to quote
Do you mean poster IDs?
.
1 month ago
Anonymous
What the hell? Meant to quote [...].
Definitive samehomosexual
[...]
Samehomosexual spotted.
Kys
Ahh shit man the poster ID'S been removed
How will we stop the samegays now
Samehomosexualing samegays must die
Yah, detecting samehomosexuals is going to become real hard from now on, but to be real, samehomosexuals samehomosexual despite samehomosexual countermeasures like samehomosexual count.
1 month ago
Anonymous
> Definitive samehomosexual
No shit Sherlock, I corrected a mistake
1 month ago
Anonymous
So you admit you are a samehomosexual
Samehomosexual samehomosexualing samehomosexual
[...]
Frick off troony
Only trannies have conversations with themselves. Did I insult your pronouns? Kys.
Samehomosexuals must be searched for and banned by the janitors
Frick the jannies
1 month ago
Anonymous
Samehomosexual samehomosexualing samehomosexual
sorry but no you don't really know, unless...
Frick off troony
1 month ago
Anonymous
Samehomosexuals must be searched for and banned by the janitors
why are youtubers so moronic? why are all tv shows woke? why aren't good books ever recommended? we're probably living in the best times ever for the flourishment of entertainment yet everything is moronic and a waste of time
Art and culture (in the meaningful sense) is something developed out of a very large amount protracted effort. Abundance of material does not mean abundance of process. "Quality over quantity" - this same old story.
How will the whole religious online persona be viewed by future generations? I’m talking about the whole e-christian faction that comes off as extremely religious online and super zealous but they don’t actually practice to the degree they portray online. It seems more like a community only in the online world
I think the internet kinda kills real life culture and all these various online scenes are available at one’s fingertips and just a couple clicks away. I’m sure many people are aware.
I believe that the migration crisis is literally just third world morons convinced by internet memes and internet porn that the west is filled with hot loose white women ready to suck and frick indiscriminately, combined with their moronic third world lack of self awareness that they don't have a chance because they're brown, ugly, and poor, along with their moronic third world lack of self control over their sex drives that drives them to illegally immigrate across long distances for the mistaken belief they actually have a chance at getting western white girl pussy. There I said it.
I believe that the IQfyerati as the preeminent intellectual community of the world should and must provide the world with an intelligent and rational solution to this problem. Who's with me?!
I bought a bag of your company's frozen peas and there are a LOT of empty pea skins in the bag. Like, every square inch of pea is just infused with copious amounts of empty skins and it's really unappetizing and needlessly taxing to my digestive system. I was wondering if I could get a refund for the amount ($2.19) I paid per your 100% satisfaction guarantee.
I want to create someting myself. I know of so many concepts and images from the internet that could inspire but instead I feel constrained by them. How do I find my own 'thing'?
You get off the internet and just do things in real life and notice what you're most interested in, most good at, and feel the best while doing.
The internet will always trivialize and undermine actual experience.
You feel much better when you're not constantly using the internet, measuring your experience against that of others, imbibing the inane decontextualized opinions of people you'll never meet, trying to see if you're living "right".
It only takes a couple days away from this place to see how grotesque the vibes are on every board. Just extremely coomery, mean-spirited, inane 'what did he mean by this? >:)' astro-shilling of incalculable scale. I think I've read enough posts written by pornsick mutts to last me a kalpa
I'm going to try a little experiment:
Since I started using IQfy, I have restricted my activities to a few boards (this one included) that I would consider my favourites for their overall post quality or relevance to personal interests.
As an exercise on expanding my horizons, I have decided to choose every week one of the boards I never visit and lurk there, while trying to absorb the most of its culture. Who knows what one might learn.
Feels like something big will happen this upcoming week. Even though I am not a man of the Abrahamic faiths, the energies swirling now are very active.
They're fairly rare where I live and the ones I've met were either taken or into partying. Everyone else is a titty monster or fat. Maybe I live in the wrong country.
>I love flat-chested girls. There is no possible way to admit that to people without getting accused of being a pedophile, though.
first world problems
Damn, I wish I had a family of my own. Even with all the late nights and crying and the anxieties and the troubles that a parent goes through with their children. Strong relationships and family tie people to the world, in a way, and having none of those makes me feel as if I'm halfway in this world and halfway somewhere else.
I don't have any friends, though, or any strong relationships at all, not even with my own parents and siblings. The world consists of my workplace, my apartment, the inside of my car, and a blur of other people whose lives I am never in long enough for either of us to come into focus for each other. And I do try, but there's something that other people have which I do not; they can speak a language to each other which I not only do not understand but can't even hear.
One day I'll die, and I wonder if by then someone will have seen me clearly or if I'll remain a vague outline which from then on will only continue to become more indistinct.
I have probably the easiest and least time consuming job possibly obtainable and I still despise it because for the few hours I work it, I’m reminded of how utterly unremarkable my life is. Doing meaningless low level work and being bossed around and assessed by unambitious midwits is suicide fuel.
I cannot even begin to understand what the israelites are thinking. What is the logic in supporting the state of Israel and then feigning anti-Semitic oppression when people are naturally disturbed by your support? How can you claim to stand against thousands of years of anti-Semitic lies and then prove all those claims by creating the state of Israel, a nexus of anti-gentile racism, disproportionate power and financial usury? I’m lost for fricking words with these people. Every Muslim I know at least criticized ISIS but israelites are busy writing think-pieces for The Atlantic about how THEY are the real victims when the IDF kills children.
I spent my most energetic years writing about ruins and nostalgia, with nothing of that in me: I had no past, I fantasized a tapestry of imaginary events for imaginary peoples in imaginary places, doing great deeds and unearthing their own past. Now I have grown older, I lost all of my youthful energy, I have not the will nor the courage to put pen to the paper and I just dwell on my memories from a decade ago, wandering in the ruins of my past. Fricking sucks breh
I’m in utter despair with the world in general. Most of humanity are barely sentient cattle, and nothing can be done, nothing can move forward, because the cattle can be managed so that a couple of oligarchs can consume all the wealth of advanced technology without any meaningful requirement to share it with the higher-IQ members of society to keep things moving forward. Being high-IQ in this world isn’t lonely but rather is enraging that I have to live amongst the ocean of morons who can’t communicate a moderately complex thought yet I’m supposed to pretend that they’re my equal? Save me from this shitworld clownhole.
And women as a whole will never understand how horrible it is to be raped as a man. It's so much more visceral and humiliating, when everyone places so much importance on being strong as a man. Even feminists that claim they want "vulnerable" men are actually disgusted by what they perceive as victimized men. At the very least, they will see them on the same level as abused children, but never as an equal.
I don't know if you were raped by a man, but either way it still mostly applies. Being seven foot tall would definitely make it worse, as it would exaggerate the contradiction.
I know you're a male. Being a male and getting raped is worse than being a woman and getting raped because there's a much greater societal expectation than a man can defend himself, and a much greater level of disgust against (and less sympathy for) male victims of any crime.
Sorry for what happened to you. The world is terrible.
>read a modern edition of a book >the foreword is dry academic shit with liberal moral posturing peppered in >read early 20th century edition of the same book >has a profound, insightful, sincere foreword
This happens every time.
istfg
the worst is when you can tell foreword writer doesn't even like the book and/or is trying to >inb4 himself before all leftards begin to attack him for the "outdated" shit in the book
example?
i remember one edition of moby dick being pretty much written by a homosexual
i sometimes wonder if growing up in eastern europe just fricks you up on some weird level that affects everything about you, including your aesthetic taste
whenever i see a pic like the OP or a variation of that, like medieval german towns or whatever the frick else, i just feel nothing, or at worst i feel the same sense of disgust i get when i see girls trying to be cute or moe shit
meanwhile when i see one of those shitty half-abandoned neighborhoods from american cities i immediately think that's comfy
the same applies to video games too. toussaint is beautiful but almost annoyingly so in a way that i find obnoxious. meanwhile the first time i entered new vegas or the old camp i thought >HOME
The thing with depressive thought spirals is we choose them for a reason. A pessimist's life in reality is less depressing than his world view, but he views events in a harsher light because the alternative is to have no meaning at all. Without pessimism, his life is merely a collection of mostly negative events that occurred by pure chance. He will actually stretch the truth and aim for pessimism, because optimism is impossible, so the former is his only means for catharsis.
A "femboy" doesn't actually exist in real life unless you're referring specifically to biological hermaphrodites. A troony is obviously a man as well. They will always have masculine skeletal structures and if that's something to which you're attracted, well... that's pretty gay. There's no shame in any of it, but the way you can get caught up in shame spirals is by buying into intrinsically unreal thought distortions. How religious are you, on a scale of 1 to 10.
1 month ago
Anonymous
i'm not sure how you can be this autistic. there are guys who can pass as women or are at least far more feminine-looking than average guys, it's not hard to understand what's meant by femboy >masculine skeletal structures
i honestly could not give less of a shit about this
i've fricked women who were professional athletes with shoulders wider than most guys
the only thing that i dislike in a troony is >0 effort to do a feminine voice >any type of body hair >having a big or cut dick
ideally both a femboy or a troony should have a tiny penis that can be locked up and pathetically caged >shame spirals
it's not about shame, it's about distorting what's said
a guy being willing to frick a femboy or a troony does not mean they wanna frick fricking joe rogan or daniel craig
i know many gay guys and they have very different tastes
the whole appeal to me of fricking a femboy/troony is the humiliation aspect that comes with forcing someone that should technically be your equal to become a submissive b***h
but for that, they need to be at least a little feminine and attractive to begin with >How religious are you, on a scale of 1 to 10
what do you even mean by this question
do i officially belong to a religion? no, so 0
They did not. Being the submissive man was always extremely revolting and dishonorable to both Romans and Greeks, and their common words for homosexual were all negative, all usually referring to the submissive male. Being a "femboy" that actually wanted to get dicked would be completely disgraceful. Even Callicles (a staunch homosexual) gasped with utter exasperation when Socrates backed him into a corner saying: >SOCRATES: But what if the itching is not confined to the head? Shall I pursue the question? And here, Callicles, I would have you consider how you would reply if consequences are pressed upon you, especially if in the last resort you are asked, whether the life of a catamite is not terrible, foul, miserable? Or would you venture to say, that they too are happy, if they only get enough of what they want?
>CALLICLES: Are you not ashamed, Socrates, of introducing such topics into the argument?
Because even an infamous hedonist and obvious bussy slammer could only "for the sake of consistency" say that gaining pleasure from being a catamite is the same as gaining pleasure from something like eating.
In other words, frick bussy = le GOOD
Get fricked = le BAD
For any given historical culture (even the Japs looked down on the Samurai squire boys as being lesser and less noble)
1 month ago
Anonymous
the hypocrisy of bottoming not being okay but fricking ass being okay is well known, pretty sure romans only saw it as scandalous if two men of the same rank / status fricked each other because that implied that they were both fouling their standing and gay love is yuck unless it's heroic camaraderie type
They did not. Being the submissive man was always extremely revolting and dishonorable to both Romans and Greeks, and their common words for homosexual were all negative, all usually referring to the submissive male. Being a "femboy" that actually wanted to get dicked would be completely disgraceful. Even Callicles (a staunch homosexual) gasped with utter exasperation when Socrates backed him into a corner saying: >SOCRATES: But what if the itching is not confined to the head? Shall I pursue the question? And here, Callicles, I would have you consider how you would reply if consequences are pressed upon you, especially if in the last resort you are asked, whether the life of a catamite is not terrible, foul, miserable? Or would you venture to say, that they too are happy, if they only get enough of what they want?
>CALLICLES: Are you not ashamed, Socrates, of introducing such topics into the argument?
Because even an infamous hedonist and obvious bussy slammer could only "for the sake of consistency" say that gaining pleasure from being a catamite is the same as gaining pleasure from something like eating.
In other words, frick bussy = le GOOD
Get fricked = le BAD
For any given historical culture (even the Japs looked down on the Samurai squire boys as being lesser and less noble)
The "homosexual" militaries of certain Greek states were not to engage in sexual acts with one another because: >But the men of Lacedaemon, holding that "if a man but lay his hand upon the body and for lustful purpose, he shall thereby forfeit claim to what is beautiful and noble"
Again, it can't really be compared to modern day homosexualry.
1 month ago
Anonymous
that might be a fanciful way of saying "don't rape your fellow soldiers in long campaigns you horny homosexuals"
1 month ago
Anonymous
The whole passage was essentially a speech bashing lust and promiscuity, and it's in line with Socrates' and Plato's general disapproval of non-procreative sex acts. (That quote comes from Xenophon writing what Socrates said)
1 month ago
Anonymous
i can understand bashing promiscuity but i don't really see the difference between an amish having 10 kids because condoms bad and some homosexuals buggering it out without making unsustainable amount of kids
lust is lust and unless you're one of the few asexual people or have very low libido you will most likely experience and just cope with it by jerking off or something, not really sure how you can bash lust by itself without sounding like a boomer prune
1 month ago
Anonymous
Idk if you should be using the Spartans as an example of being super straight, anon. It's hard to get a handle on a lot of the particulars of sexuality in any era, but Greek states generally use gayness as a pejorative against other states where gay is just shit that's uncool to do and why aren't you wearing a flag pin do you hate your country?
Submissive acts in general are a form of humiliation, and most of the publicly known ones are known because the purpose was to make the humiliation known. But taking all such things as gay, when most of the public ones are forced punishment, also ignores that submissive acts between a man and woman were a form of humiliation. Men performing any kind of oral sex on any gender was so gay you could lose citizenship. Women being on top was as gay as if you let another dude ride you sideways.
What's more, because they had no internet, a lot of public sex depictions are the gayest things artists could come up with. Murals of perverted sex acts are really common across the classical world because it's seen as hilarious and absurd like cake sitting or fart gasmasks. Theatre plays about how you're really gay because you have expensive home goods and love your wife, you Persian sex fiend, are common too, because they're used to educate people to hate certain behaviours like how nobody asks you about Huey Lewis and the News post American Psycho because it signals a kind of barely repressed psychopathic homolust and dysfunction.
However, offering to frick someone in the mouth or ass isn't seen as a two way humiliation by most classical authors. The person on top and penetrating anything is not gay for fricking boypussy, but if the person on top is female, the person on bottom is even more gay than if they were getting raped by a dude, for most classical societies. The bottom is still gay and kind of trans if it's with a male, but you're not in any way less gay because you got topped by a female in that paradigm either.
It's kinda mind blowing how you can manipulate people's behavior just by using a couple words or an extra sentence or an emoji
Used Bumble for the first time. Instead of saying >Hey, I find you cool and would love to chat about books. Are you free for coffee this weekend?
Which got me nearly zero replies in many many years, I sent: >Hey girl, you are gorgeous . Down for coffee and a nerdy chat about what we're reading this weekend?
Which has so far gotten me three matches this week
I feel like my feelings and mind are never changed by people's actions or feelings. Frankly incredible that other can be changed with shit like that. It's honestly like a superpower
Wanting a parenting board but then realizing that is would become a disaster most likely.
Thing is I don't want advise from/talk to normgroid or redditors.
>parenting board
god damn anon, can you imagine? You post >hey my son got these little red marks on his thigh. Are these just mosquito bites or should we be worried?
And the replies are >SEXOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO >more? >kik? discord? telegram? >UOHHHH CHILD BOY SO EROTIC
Yeah I know, you might have to have stricter rules in regards to that board.
It won't happen but I would be interested in an anons perspective on child care. As opposed to some lame mommyblog or gay reddit 'dad' thread
It makes me angry that people are stupid in the current age when information is more accessible than ever. Bettering yourself has never been more easy than it is now, which mean that the people who don’t choose not to willfully. That’s gotta be like mildly evil right ? When Kant said one of the pillars of a just moral person is the will to do good it seemed really obvious to me at the time, but there are people out here who don’t have that as their default way of being
Well maybe reason or something else can influence them too.
I'm asking if things like religious affiliation, standpoints on things like race, "Higher" politics (Subscription to economic system, an actually concrete political ideology), Moral convictions, etc could be chalked up entirely to practical concerns (whether physical or mental-emotional), with everything else being just window dressing.
Nietzche talked about that and I wondered how much people's beliefs are just a rationalization of very base desires, emotions and expedient solutions to problems.
the entire point of an ideology is to subjugate those who follow it to adopt a way of being that benefits the people in charge of it / who created it, monarchy supports the aristocracy, theology supports the clergy, capitalism supports the merchant, republic supports the politicians and none of those system give a single frick about you past appearances
their only goal is to get you to agree to their system and to waste your life in service to that system to keep it going, this same thing is true with every other damn ideology and religion there is, max stirner said it better than nietzsche and his solution of personal anarchy is way more sound than being a moron that devotes his life to thinly veiled servitude because the platitudes they spout sounded nice
1 month ago
Anonymous
This is a post from someone that is as dumb as a brick and still tweenie bopper I hate daddy-pilled.
1 month ago
Anonymous
fair counter point, how about you read max stirner next time before puking your two cents on the post like a stray cat
1 month ago
Anonymous
Those who follow ideologies do so out of self interest. A leader or ideologue can suggest something out of self interest with concessions to various groups of people for the purpose of gaining enough support to make it reality. An egoist and a normal ideologue will behave no differently, in effect. For example, I don't give a rats ass who invented what ideology, or if it will benefit someone else 11.3% more than it benefits me; all you have is the exact same egoistic push for the same general things, only you keep on an air of adolescent smugness like you're any different from the rest of the plebeians. You never developed past childhood.
1 month ago
Anonymous
This is why sociology-based analysis of ideology is the only valid tool of examining political phenomena, and why people who think ideologies themselves have any power are moronic. Voltaire didn't cause the French revolution, Voltaire just expressed what the bourgeoisie already thought about the aristocracy and the clergy. No revolution was ever caused because people read too much Marx or Diderot and got "redpilled" but rather the people whose interests laid with revolution used Marx and Diderot as a smokescreen for their cynical interests.
1 month ago
Anonymous
are you saying people don't actually care what system they have as long as they can use it for opportunistic advancement of their own position in life and the morons that actually believe in the system despite being the under class in it tend to be really really fricking dumb and naive?
1 month ago
Anonymous
I feel like that makes it sound too conscious a thing. It's not like you sit down and start browsing wikipedia which philosopher fits your interests the best and choose things that way, but rather your lot in life influences your perception of the world and that perception is influenced in such a way that people who align with your interests will be the ones who speak to you the best and make the most sense while those on the other end sound like morons to you. You will probably feel like you were guided by your sense of reason, but unless you're the self-critical type you would probably not feel suspicious at all of what it was that guided your sense of reason in turn.
1 month ago
Anonymous
i liked philosophy after i heard the story of diogenes pissing on a dude for calling him a dog and the idea of philosophy and history stuck with me since, i wanted to know more about philosophy and i regret ever opening a philosophy book but now i'm stuck with it
the morons are truly the only ones that can enjoy living in the world, the people whose way of life fit them like a glove and they never even bothered to question it, to be so completely immersed and believing in the system that surrounds them that they do not even feel the symptoms of living in a unsustainable police state dystopia
Those who follow ideologies do so out of self interest. A leader or ideologue can suggest something out of self interest with concessions to various groups of people for the purpose of gaining enough support to make it reality. An egoist and a normal ideologue will behave no differently, in effect. For example, I don't give a rats ass who invented what ideology, or if it will benefit someone else 11.3% more than it benefits me; all you have is the exact same egoistic push for the same general things, only you keep on an air of adolescent smugness like you're any different from the rest of the plebeians. You never developed past childhood.
>there is no difference between unconscious effort and conscious effort
for you
1 month ago
Anonymous
>there is no difference between unconscious effort and conscious effort >for you
You are beyond moronic. How did you get through Stirner with reading comprehension that low.
1 month ago
Anonymous
stirner is a light read wtf are you talking about, unless you think he is a completely unhinged sociopath you can read between the lines are digest that he's intentionally making everything sound over the top to get the point across
how the frick do you consider that book to be a hard read, he's literally screaming in your ear and spelling it out on why every ideology and dogma is fricking moronic with examples and everything
are you perhaps mentally moronic but well read fart sniffer?
1 month ago
Anonymous
Holy frick dude LMAO
Your reading comprehension was too low for my post too. You have to baiting right now. I refuse to believe this is real.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>How did you get through Stirner with reading comprehension that low.
Doesn't mean Stirner is hard, it means you're too moronic to understand an internet post, so you should definitely be too moronic to read a book. As it turns out, it seems to be true.
1 month ago
Anonymous
No, that's an even more pedestrian understanding than mine, to be honest. And not even what I was talking about. I was talking about the motivations of deeply held beliefs.
You're still far too naive if you think reason isn't the handmaiden of things like innate tastes or pragmatic, cynical interests, but rather that it is this autonomous thing that exists in a vacuum.
Or as Hume said, >We speak not strictly and philosophically when we talk of the combat of passion and of reason. Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them
One can hope. But I will admit it is a decent predictive model.
However, many people don't realize this. There's also things like deeply held dogma's coming from childhood, which often don't have a proper motivation, how do you explain these?
This is why sociology-based analysis of ideology is the only valid tool of examining political phenomena, and why people who think ideologies themselves have any power are moronic. Voltaire didn't cause the French revolution, Voltaire just expressed what the bourgeoisie already thought about the aristocracy and the clergy. No revolution was ever caused because people read too much Marx or Diderot and got "redpilled" but rather the people whose interests laid with revolution used Marx and Diderot as a smokescreen for their cynical interests.
Revolution is a very complex phenomenon I don't think anyone has bothered to properly taxonomize, but I disagree with your assesment, revolutionary Vanguards congregate around ideology and come from all walks of life.
it's almost like having strong belief in any kind of ideology that limits you is a moron check and even the ones that advocate for systems only do so because those systems keep them in power / allow them to rise to power
Some people like that do exist. But you are being simplistic. Your monodimensional analysis has already been repeated like thrice now. You clearly have not read Lenin if you think of him as cynic.
True amoral cynics are extremely rare.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>motivations of deeply held beliefs
it's called nostalgia and the morons last refuge, dealers choice on what you want to call that >you've not read lenin
i had the pleasure of reading stirner before him and saw no reason to indoctrinate myself with communism after i've already scrapped every ideology as inherently subjugating
1 month ago
Anonymous
>it's called nostalgia and the morons last refuge, dealers choice on what you want to call that
As good an explanation as any. >i had the pleasure of reading stirner before him and saw no reason to indoctrinate myself with communism after i've already scrapped every ideology as inherently subjugating
You can read things without internalizing them. My point was that Lenin very clearly believed in what he was talking about, you just have to read his writings and study his actions. I'd argue even Stalin was being driven by his morals as much as he was by mere self-interest. Pure self interest is only found among people like african dictators who act like tribal warlords.
P.S: You are consigning yourself to mental poverty by just reading stirner and never moving away from that.
1 month ago
Anonymous
i've also read leo tolstoi which was the final nail in the coffin of religion as a cope and also which rang way too true on the intellectual and why people write shit in the first place for me to ignore, i don't read philosophy anymore and it killed any interest i had in being an academic busy body peddling books like a cough syrup salesman trying to sell people what they think they want to hear
writing is one of the most disgusting things in the world when you peel away all the veils to the core, if the world would just abandon all ideologies over night and burn all ideological books the world would not have lost a single thing of value
You're still far too naive if you think reason isn't the handmaiden of things like innate tastes or pragmatic, cynical interests, but rather that it is this autonomous thing that exists in a vacuum.
Or as Hume said, >We speak not strictly and philosophically when we talk of the combat of passion and of reason. Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them
Even if you write something good, you would never reach a real audience with it since if you are the type to post here you are definitely not the type with the connections (or views, for that matter) necessary to make it in the literary world.
But even if you miraculously did despite all odds, and made peace with writing for an audience of drooling morons and being critiqued by drooling morons, what would it matter? Books are a medium of the past. They are never going to be culturally relevant to the degree they were relevant a hundred or two hundred years ago. No book is going to launch a new tolstoyan movement, no soldiers will be reading any books of poetry to remain sane in the trenches of the wars of the future, no author will ever possess again the sheer cultural power that Goethe did, no author will have the kind of pull to hold an entire nation together like Dante or Homer did. You are an anomaly of the present clinging to a relic of the past because you thought there was a sort of spiritual kinship between the two of you as unwanted elements in humanity's future.
Who cares? Write for the sake of the writing itself and let history sort the rest out like it was always going to. Sure, things seem grim right now for literature. But we have no idea what the future holds. The important part of philosophizing is always this: how will this idea change my life? My answer? It won't because I won't let it. It only matters insofar as it drives your actions, and it's not going to drive mine.
>let history sort the rest out like it was always going to
History does not sort out anything, people do. Literature is not, never was, and never will be a meritocratic field, because its value is entirely in the eye of the beholder and the societal milieu it is situated in.
It was a figure of speech, fren. "Let history sort it out" basically means "let the people who come later decide." The implication is that contemporaries are often startlingly bad at evaluating literature. Many, many definitive authors died unknown and penniless. I believe posterity is better-equipped to evaluate literature via hindsight. Future people won't care about what things are trendy or aren't in 2024. If they're even aware of these trends, they'll read them as context within history books. I just refuse to be demoralized! I'm just gonna keep on writing! I don't give a shit if no one ever knows my name while I'm alive! If I'm being honest, I kind of prefer it that way.
This reminds me of a single off-hand comment that Schopenhauer once made in his essays. He said that it's a shame humanity erects buildings which are bound to collapse in 50-100 years, and that all our buildings should be constructed of extremely durable rock designed to last for centuries.
This unintentionally reveals something about the mind of the philosopher, or the saint, or the artist. They want to believe they're taking part in something eternal, in making a monument to all-of-time. The irony is that this just isn't possible, it doesn't make sense. Goethe's generation aspired to do exactly this, and look how that turned out. All these 19th century men were highly intelligent, speaking from the heart, hoping to write eternal works, and yet only a handful survive (ex. Goethe and Nietzsche), in a very stripped down and paltry form. Before long, even they will be forgotten. The fact is that Ecclesiastes was wrong. From generation to generation, everything about mankind changes -- what survives are only banal platitudes and aphorisms that are so vague they can mean anything. Even the one book that was intended to stand for all time -- the Bible -- is now obsolete. Nothing lasts. If you want to see the true face of reality, take a few deep breaths and go look in a mirror. That's the only reality. Books are an illusion, they can corrupt you -- we've known this since Plato.
Ancient monuments must be repaired every few decades. Get it? Nature herself is trying to make us forget all this old shit, to live for right now and forget the past. A fallen tree rapidly decays, but a piece of paper will last for centuries, which is a terrible accident. There's only the present.
>life is so shit that you cannot justify existence with just reason to a satisfiable point that would allow one to continue living without supplementing the meaning to that life with indulging in passions
pretty much, you would have to be in ataraxia 24/7 to live a life of reason devoid of passion and petty emotions
it's almost like having strong belief in any kind of ideology that limits you is a moron check and even the ones that advocate for systems only do so because those systems keep them in power / allow them to rise to power
Dear Diary tbh:
Today I got scared when I was in the bathroom and saw my feces came out pitch-black, fearing it was the symptom of some illness.
Then I remembered, to my relief, the cause of this queer deposition; namely, that I previously had rice with squid ink for lunch.
My whole personality is purely theoretical. It's not real, it's the way it is because that's what I think is the optimal version of myself, but could change it any time.
Early Greeks treated their slaves good, even helped them in the work when they had time. When a guest came into the house, the slave would sit and listen too.
There's a lot of Roman slave contracts where if you tried to rape the slave, the slave was automatically free.
1 month ago
Anonymous
in rome there was also a chance to earn your freedom with x amount of years of service, slaves that got into good households would ask to be employed there though because their quality of life was still sadly better than a free man in rome without citizenship
1 month ago
Anonymous
>slaves that got into good households would ask to be employed there though because their quality of life was still sadly better than a free man in rome without citizenship
That's partially because being sponsored by your old master was an easy way of gaining citizenship. If you had skills which could be sold, you could also just get someone else in your new profession to sponsor you. Citizenship has a lot of political problems associated with it too so a lot didn't mind it, and things like non citizens buying votes or not becoming a citizen because owning land is a tax headache happen too, even with people who were never slaves. But a lot of contracts with end dates in practice were more like >Opportunities for promotion!
than any kind of guaranteed retirement
No there wasn't, but enough about your coomer fantasies
1 month ago
Anonymous
There was enough that Aristophanes wrote a play that featured references to it.
1 month ago
Anonymous
we have sexual slavery in the west to this day, they just learned to keep them away from publics eyes
1 month ago
Anonymous
Aristophanes was a comedian
It's just plain bullshit, maybe it became the case in later decadent Greek society but in the early days, slaves were treated good, and raping them of having sex with them didn't even come to mind to the masters
1 month ago
Anonymous
Wouldnt it also depend on the slave? A tutor could be valuable. A housemaid might be more disposable.
1 month ago
Anonymous
It just didn't come to mind to the master, much like a kid doesn't think about stealing before being told about what stealing is.
either that or it was so common historians didn't even bother to write about it, if someone is your property and they happen to be hot you would most likely just rape them like a horny teenager
No it didn't happen. The slaves were slaves because they thought it was their nature to be slaves. They never thought to themselves: 'what if I was a master'. They accepted their masters much like a child accepts it's parents. Everyone did all day what he thought was good and his duty without thinking much about it. Evil did not exist.
1 month ago
Anonymous
oh well time enough wasted on a bait
1 month ago
Anonymous
either that or it was so common historians didn't even bother to write about it, if someone is your property and they happen to be hot you would most likely just rape them like a horny teenager
even "the prince" book would tell you that that is a moronic way to go about it, if you need to brutalize your subjects you need to do it in a short a effective burst, tyrants get deposed and rome had constant slave revolts and the decimated legions would only be loyal for as long as there was a general they could respect or rome wasn't too busy with other shit
it is much more effective to have stockholm syndrome slaves than it is to have bitter slaves liable to slit your throat the first chance they get because you made their life a living hell, the loyal to death glorified butler is a better alternative
who knew that carrot of the illusion of increased privileges works better than beating people with a stick, even in america the house Black folks were much more obedient than the whipped field slaves
>even "the prince" book would tell you that that is a moronic way to go about it, if you need to brutalize your subjects
Who said anything about subjects? I meant slaves. Which implies it's a widespread practice, practiced by society at large. >Rome had constant slave revolts
After the servile wars which resulted in harsher treatment for slaves, there was not one singificant slave uprising in Ancient rome. >the decimated legions would only be loyal for as long as there was a general they could respect or rome wasn't too busy with other shit
not a slave revolt, and also your statement defeats itself. >it is to have bitter slaves liable to slit your throat the first chance they get because you made their life a living hell
I was talking about field slaves, mostly.
if people already in higher standing who have people to spit / look down on won't take that kind of shit without revolting then why would slaves? >unarmed and uneducated
didn't stop the peasants >i'm talking about field slaves
you think beating them up will make them work faster, you're damaging your own property and breeding resentment for the first populist to come larp as a liberator to use them as cannon fodder to overthrow you and take your stuff
1 month ago
Anonymous
>without revolting then why would slaves?
No power, atomized, constantly terrorized without recourse. >you think beating them up will make them work faster,
No, I think it will make them docile. Which it does if you do it hard enough and break them. >you're damaging your own property
One whips cattle, too. >and breeding resentmen
Black person, they're slaves, they dislike you on the default. >the first populist to come larp as a liberator to use them as cannon fodder to overthrow you and take your stuff
Doesn't happen very often historically, funnily enough.
https://i.imgur.com/h0bXZfk.jpg
*blocks you're path*
Not a slave and not mistreated hard enough.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Look out guys, we have an edgelord here who doesn’t realize people are more motivated to do their job when they benefit
1 month ago
Anonymous
I'm not talking about productivity, I'm talking about compliance.
If you really need productivity just work your slaves to death and buy more like in French Saint Domingue. >InB4 buh muh slave revolt
Didn't happen the way you think it did, Robespierre freed them and Napoleon tried to Re-enslave them.
It’s been pretty depressing to realize that woke shit could be Spengler’s inevitable philosophy of the Western elite that we could be about to live through several centuries of rule by woke corporate hucksters…
If that were the case, it would be the worst civilization in history.
Worst civilization? Didn't Spengler explicitly clarify that civilization and culture are irreconcilable opposites? Culture is the creative phase, civilization is the destructive phase of the cycle. It feels like the problem lies with you thinking that a civilization should work like a culture does when Spengler says that we are almost a thousand years too late to actually be capable of creation.
They’re not opposites. A culture’s natural life includes the morphing into a civilization. Civilization is not destructive. The civilization merely contains certain possibilities other than those possibilities contained within the preceding culture. Great art can never be made but great politics can be undertaken, for example. And none of this is predetermined. Both cultures and civilizations are seeded by something ineffable and in some sense their natural development is predetermined but the specifics are directed by the people. That Germany would become a dictatorial socialist state was inevitable but that it would choose National Socialism rather than the Prussian socialism he preferred was not inevitable.
Not necessarily corporate or hucksters, but definitely woke. Although with the way Ethical socialism goes I could readily see the self-actualization of wills turning into a race to the bottom of insanity and depravity with Transhumanism, Abolition of death, Bestiality, and Incest (Along with struggles as of yet invisible to us) being next.
The point of early Caesarism is about the transition from the politics of money to the politics of force, demogogues and despots. Part of that is the erosion of democratic norms (Underway in the U.S since at least 70s).
I just spent thirty minutes fishing shit out of my butthole with my fingers because I was really constipated. My fingers were covered in smelly brown shit with nuggets of corn. I just thought you should all know that.
>incapable of creation
you've either eaten the russian porridge or just haven't kept up with technological progress in the west >what about the arts
still there, just more modern variants due to increased access to creative tools that make the progress easier and the tastes of the time leaning away from classical music and naked statues
are tools not there just to let the artist put on the canvas what he envisioned, puritanism is the death groan of a hack artist that relies on novelty just as much as the person who types an AI prompt, it's this part that infuriates them because their efforts for their craft can be so easily by passed
but to me it is the same as insisting on only sculpting or painting with water paints
I've yet to see any AI art that has risen beyond the level of memes. If anything it has revealed the absolute poverty of what most can "envision." The only reason people view any of this shit as interesting is the novelty of the process.
1 month ago
Anonymous
the horse wagon is here to stay
1 month ago
Anonymous
The grand irony of AI and automation is that the fantasy has always been liberating people from mundane work so they could pursue more creative endeavors. Now they can't make a robot that folds laundry but are well on the way to automating the arts. Misplaced priorities.
1 month ago
Anonymous
the only thing the automation, AI and worker bots are going to bring to the western world introducing mass unemployment and blowing up the recruitment numbers for organized crime
that and of course freeing the venture capitalists into being independent from workers and learning why consumer based economy doesn't work when no one can afford your products en masse
It feels disingenuous when people who criticize the enlightenment are stereotyped as people who think "reason exists but I don't like it where it points to" rather than shown to be people who consider the idea of autonomous reason to be ludicrous at best or a malicious lie at worst. It has the same energy to it as when people who disagree with some liberal policy are stereotyped as never hearing about or not understanding the liberal arguments for that policy, or simply "being afraid" of the new policy rather than being shown as people who considered that policy and disagreed with it for various reasons.
Well think about the way a worldview that’s predicated on reason and yet is reasonable affirms itself. It lies. It must lie. It’s very nature is deception.
That art isn't meritocratic is practically a commonplace idea, but people rarely consider that philosophy isn't a meritocratic field, either, not the slightest bit. Philosophers aren't decisively "debunked", they don't become links in a chain of ever-clearer dialogue on ideas, their popularity just dies. Think of poor Leibniz falling into a centuries-long oblivion not because anyone bothered to write a gigantic rebuttal to monadology but because a smug frenchman wrote "if world best why earthquake happen".
I have long hair, and when I shave I worry it makes me look like a chick.
I've had multiple bad dreams over time where I look in the mirror and I have a pretty chick's face and freak out.
Does that make me a troony? Or does the fact I'm freaked out by it prove I'm not?
it means you're having dreams about being a chick and freaking out about it, might just mean you're gay, might mean you're a troony, might mean that you don't want to be perceived as girly
I do not believe in double standards, I do not believe in hypocrisy. Just because I despise someone for doing something does not mean I despise myself for doing it. I am unironically better than everybody else and the only one that can judge me is me. I'm beginning to believe that I'm better than God and, despite being a hardcore pre-vatican II Catholic, all I can think about both while awake and in my dreams is how to usurp God and become God myself. If anyone else said this to me I'd hold nothing but contempt for him for being a disgusting, cringe heretic, but as I mentioned, I don't believe in double standards and I don't believe in hypocrisy. I'm better than you, I'm better than everyone. I'm a God in all but name.
Don't do it. It'll quite unironically send you insane, especially if you're young. You don't want what you'll do on roids on your conscious.
>despite being a hardcore pre-vatican II Catholic, all I can think about both while awake and in my dreams is how to usurp God and become God myself
Based on everything I know about "trad cath" types I'd say you're not alone in this
Yeah but Trad Cath is a moronic, undermining term used to describe moron Catholics. For everyone here, Jesus was a Catholic and every "Jew" before him was a Catholic. The Roman Church is Israel, Catholics are the chosen people, if you don't have nothing but hate for any other religion, especially "Judaism" and Islam, you're not Catholic.
Yeah but Trad Cath is a moronic, undermining term used to describe moron Catholics. For everyone here, Jesus was a Catholic and every "Jew" before him was a Catholic. The Roman Church is Israel, Catholics are the chosen people, if you don't have nothing but hate for any other religion, especially "Judaism" and Islam, you're not Catholic.
Actual trad Catholic here, these people are just appropriating cultures they won't get called racist for, you might as well trust the guy on the internet in the 2000s saying he's a samurai
1 month ago
Anonymous
I can't fathom what you meant by that, but it probably wasn't very smart.
1 month ago
Anonymous
not him but if you dont get his post that is on you
1 month ago
Anonymous
There's nothing to get. I, despite believing it, literally said a text-book anti Semitic slew of shit about how Catholics are the real israelites and he claimed I was trying to not be called racist. It was absurd and unfathomable.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Anon's saying your trad Catholic larp looks like an autistic weeb's samurai larp, probably because trad Caths pray for israelites still
1 month ago
Anonymous
Nah I got the samurai bit, but I'm not a "trad Cath", I'm a Catholic who considers Vatican II an absolute cacophony of heresy and Saint Peters Chair to be empty and it just so happens that spastics on the internet are fond of calling themselves trad caths despite not being one in any regard
1 month ago
Anonymous
>I don't know what trad Cath means
It's all preV2 proponents. Being a sedevacantist doesn't preclude you from being trad. Not knowing the basics of mass before or after V2 does preclude you from being any kind of Catholic though, including a sedevacantist.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I'm not really explaining myself properly because I'm tired af, but I completely understand what a Traditional Catholic is, and that I am one. I dislike the term "Trad Cath" however because it's used by hillbilly protestants raised in filth and pigswine to undermine anybody that rejects Vatican II (no doubt due to some Judaic Psyop brought about by your "Judeo-Christian" Culture) and makes the insinuation that they're similar to idiot fans that parade the idea of being a "Trad Cath" online because it gives them some heightened superiority. I don't give a frick that he called me a larper because he's no doubt a repressed homosexual who thinks himself smart. And you and all the others (if they ain't you) that are talking shit about Traditional Catholics being "israelite Lovers" are, in the most fundamental truth possible, israeli Sleeper Agents raised in the aforementioned pigswine melting pot that is American Culture.
Actually try to challenge one of the points I made in
Yeah but Trad Cath is a moronic, undermining term used to describe moron Catholics. For everyone here, Jesus was a Catholic and every "Jew" before him was a Catholic. The Roman Church is Israel, Catholics are the chosen people, if you don't have nothing but hate for any other religion, especially "Judaism" and Islam, you're not Catholic.
because I meant and believe in every single one of them or suck a dick, I couldn't really care and at the end of the day, it's your soul that's compromised, not mine.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Dude bro trust me my larp is really good
Uhhuh, sorry to hear about your protestant upbringing and larping your way into an Anabaptism, but fanfiction is banned on this board because it's always low quality nonsense.
My great-grand father never went to school, but he knew how to clear a forest, he knew how to plow the earth with oxens, he knew how to make a wheel and a wagon, he knew how to make a basement, he knew how to make a house wall, he knew how to make a roof, he knew how to make a road, he knew how to make a stable, he knew how to make a wheat storage, he knew how to make dry meat, he knew how to assist in childbirth, he knew how to ride a horse, he knew how to hunt, he knew how to wrestle against a wolf.
Do I truly have more of an education than him? I don't think so.
Well, he had a farm and five sons. Four of the sons went abroad, two studied, one became a lawyer and the other one a doctor, my grand-father and his brother became bootstrap millionaires. One of the sons was supposed to inherit the farm.
The best and worst part of a short story competition in a lrg university is tat, alongwith with international writers, literally every person you knw from workshops and classes has applied. And I've just brn tipped off in secret by my english professor (who is administrating not judging the contest) that my stry has already ben adjudged the winner of my category and will compete now for the final top prize. The announcement will beon thursday apparently.
Cannot wait to rub my achievement in thw faces of all thpse feminist c**ts and male-feminist b***hes and Pakistani israelites in my workshops who hated on my work for reasons that were clearly beyond what wss on thr page
>inb4 some gay frick tries to be big brain and say that I won because they knew who i was
it was anonymous, you dumb motherfricker. plus the panel was all international writers
>inb4 some pedantic cuck says that well you must be moronic if you don't think judges can tell the ethnicity and gender and politics of the writer
first finish jacking off to your 4k furry troony porn abd then reply to me
>inb4 some b***h say those prostitutes in my workshop were right and mt work actually isn't good
frick off Black person, i won
>inb4 some homosexual comes and says I'm wasting time witg short story contests
sure Black person, tell that to the agents waiting in my inbox
So I got marriage-pilled. Hook -up culture is worthless, casual sex is worthless, the only real thing is to find true love and marry the woman. > muh all women are hoes
If you select for hoes that all you are ever going to get is hoes. That's precisely what pick up artistry teaches you, to select for hoes. There's other ways of selecting for women and not all of them are hoes.
But how am I supposed to get married? As soon as she meets my parents she is going to reject me or her parents meeting my parents will reject me. They are divorced.
Isn't all psychoanalytic also psychodynamic?
All Western sciences and social sciences are in reality dynamics.
Yes.
ZzvioletzZ
Jessica Payne
Kellypearlx
Viking Barbie
Dakota James
Layna
xqueenofclamsx / cat 3.0 Cat Nguyen
Nicole Raccagno
Sleepiestwaifu
Sabrina Pettinato
Angelique Noir*******
Dana Fleyser
Mikaela Demaiter***
Lily Lou
Jasmine Payne
Dan Dangler***
Keera Jaide
Serena Becker
Asiadoll***
Paulina J Candy
Callista Melissa
annelese milton
ashleyisverysassy
Ashley Danielle
NEL aka Anel Luciano
Alla Montchak aka Nikki Benz***
Kaylee Ryder
@laveryi
Jewelz Blu
Julia Tica***
Sofia Mina
Sarah Caldera
nicciazzy
Maddison Fox******
Neringa Kriziute***
Claudia Fijal***
Colleen Mcginniss***
Elly Clutch
Marie Dee******
CalylinLive (Caylin Fraser)
Morgpie***
Morgan Holly Moore******
Rose Hart***
Cora May
Lexidoll***
Mila Elaine***
Sylvia Yasmina********
Hayley Davies*******
Lily Lou
LofiSofi*******
layladr*********
lacey jayne********
diamond franco
railey diesel
bratzzmon******
valerie vaughn
amber ajami*******
lauren compton
tia evans*****
Sinnocent****
Lara Rose
Kristhin Gomez
Ashlyn Pimentel
Michael Sembello
Shit taste
no u
man of culture
My family is upset I'm not like every one else and they tell me this all the time. You would think they would at some point stop, but I'm almost 30 and we're still going. I gave my aunt Moby Dick as she said she wanted to try and 'understand' me but I have my doubts she's going to get deep into it. It doesn't really bother me as much as I find it weird how much it upsets them.
Your family sounds moronic. I get they’re your family but you don’t have to give them legitimacy just because they share blood. You’re not abnormal because you read Moby Dick.
Another left out the fact that he has aspergers and fricks stuffed animals
>You’re not abnormal because you read Moby Dick.
unequivocally false
Bro thinks he’s Ishmael
I have always had a weakness for gracile Indian women but I didn't want to be a filthy race mixer. Now I realized their physique is racially superior so that changes everything. Should I racemix? What are the pros and cons?
Do what will make you happy.
Define "Protestant Christianity".
I was bored so I decided to start an argument on Cuck Philosophy's youtube channel
Protestant Christianity has such a rich, long, and fascinating history which can trace its roots as far back as the 13th century and be affirmed by the Church Fathers. It's only out of the failures of the education system that so many people are ignorant of Reformation causes and principles which unfortunately leads so many reactionaries to Catholicism and Orthodoxy due to their outward appearance of historical stability. I've been learning about the Reformation and Medieval Church lately and in my conversations with trad reactionaries find that they are pretty uneducated about both. When I first came into Christianity and philosophy I was awed and intimidated by the Catholic tradition for their many centuries of existence, great councils, and corpus of work. But as I read Scripture more and study history and theology I see more and more just how vain and empty Catholicism really is.
Protestantism seems interesting until you realize it relies on a canon of scripture they literally stole from the Catholic Church, which means they deferred to the authority of the Catholic Church regarding scripture, and since they defer to scripture for everything, it means they defer authority to the Catholic Church and just pretend they don’t.
That is pretty moronic if you ask me.
t. Former Presbyterian and Calvinist
so then what should protestants do? Convert to New Age religions?
Obviously, they should become Catholic or Orthodox or non-denominational
I've been hearing this argument for years. I see it literally every single day I log on to IQfy. I see it in YouTube comments and on telegram. It's kind of exhausting to see the same thing repeated day in and day out for years.
What I find interesting is that the entire notion of catholic legitimacy rests entirely on this one argument. This is a tenuous position for a catholic to find himself in.
Your phrasing in particular is little more unique than what I usually hear. I think the idea that Scripture can be "stolen" is odd given that Scripture was freely given to us by God. I also find it interesting that Catholics by using this argument tacitly acknowledge that their Church was founded by Constantine in the 4th century.
The major point is that Scripture prexisteted Constantines Church and the act of canonization. The early church had the same Scripture we have now. That there could be consensus on what to compile implies the early Church also knew what was and was not legitimate. Scripture is given to us by God, not man, therefore the eklessia has no authority over Scripture.
The Protestant critique against the Romanists was twofold: the Church had an entire body of canon law that was entirely the law of man but treated as if divinely inspired and that the Roman Church had doctrines that were not consistent with Scripture at all.
If you mean to say that the act of compiling Scripture gives the Roman Church authority to make any declaration with or without reference to Scripture for all of perpetuity, then I think you've made a very big leap of logic.
The next important point is the issue of apostolistic succession. Do we actually have that kind of continuity throughout history? That's not apparent to me. As dubious (and non scriptural) as apostolistic succession is, the idea that the Roman Catholic Church has maintained some kind of meaningful continuity with itself from Constantine is a hard sell. Not only was there the Schism with East, but also Roman Catholic divisions like with the crisis of the three Popes, or other major changes of Doctrine throughout the councils, and the introduction of new theologies with the discovery of Aristotle. There were pre Reformation movements like with Wycliffe and Hus and the Waldensians who saw in Scripture the same flaws with Romanism as did later Luther.
The idea that the one and only true church is not the body of the believers (as Scripture says it is) but is instead a quasi political Roman institution is just a strange view to hold
> the idea that the Roman Catholic Church has maintained some kind of meaningful continuity with itself from Constantine is a hard sell.
no it isn't
It absolutely is
no it isn't
Totally missed the point. The reason Catholic authority over canonicity is a problem for Protestants is because Protestants take scripture as their singular authority on everything. Think about the implications of that. In so far as you have some divinely inspired word of God, it’s the divinely inspired or word of God, per the Catholic Church. How can Protestants not claim then that ultimate authority rests with the church? They can’t, obviously.
>Protestants take scripture as their singular authority on everything
Big misunderstanding. Protestants take scripture as the FINAL authority on all things.
>it’s the divinely inspired or word of God, per the Catholic Church
No it's not. You're saying the Church council conferred divinity upon Scripture? Scripture was the divinely inspired Word of God the moment it was written, which was hundreds of years before Constantine. You're basically telling me Scripture was NOT the word of God UNTIL Constantine's councils. That's a pretty weird thing to say.
And again you're making this leap of succession. One of Constantines Councils canonized Scripture so therefore Pope Francis is infallible? Weird mindset
>Protestants take scripture as the FINAL authority on all things.
which is moronic
You believe the Pope can contradict scripture?
He is literally the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Of course he can.
Now this is some next level idolatry
Define idolatry.-- Oh wait, you can't because only the Magisterium of the Church has the authority to interpret scripture.
Not according to Scripture
1 Cor. 14:26
What then, brothers? Whenever you come together, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.
1 Cor. 14:31
For you can all prophesy one by one that all may learn and all may be encouraged.
doesn't matter since you don't have the authority to interpret those text and the oral tradition which the Pope is the direct inheritor of, and within which those text must be interpreted within, antecedes those texts.
Don't believe your lying eyes
wut?
How do Catholics reconcile with the Church's history of antipopes, corruption, etc.?
I'm not being divisive. I was raised Protestant (Baptist), so I don't know much about Catholicism.
It's kind of baked in from the start. Timothy has a list of offices under Christ, which starts with apostles and works down through the structure of the church. That's why when bible based Christian groups who hate Roman Catholics try to build a bible based church structure, it also winds up with bishops and deacons. The overall point Timothy makes for all offices though is to be under Christ, so anything outside of that can be taken as invalid claim to office within the church. The hard bit of Timothy for Catholics to get over is all the bishops et al are married, but most protestant churches have both the structure and the marriage requirements. Like other bible based groups that also believe in a kind of living and prophetic church, apostolic succession dulls the edges of where it doesn't still mesh with church practices too-- Mormon presidents for example can also have a sudden revelation which changes everything, like the Pope. (Though some living and prophetic churches don't share the same views on needing a structure, if you need a bible based one, you're probably working from 1 Tim 3)
That's not at all what I was referring to when I referenced corruption and antipopes.
I'll ask it more simply: if the pope is chosen by the Church through divine inspiration and stands as the Vicar of Christ, how is it that the Church and the Papacy could fall into corruption?
How did Pope Benedict IX happen? John XII? Alexander VI? Clement VII? Leo VIII / Benedict V?
I take no issue with the notion that Popes can be subject to divine revelation. What I take issue with is that the office of the Bishop of Rome, a seemingly unbroken, Holy succession of Saint Peter, can be marred with such corruption.
Does Papal infallibility mean nothing? Or is it only a doctrine when its usage conveniently aligns with what is regarded as good and moral in [current year]?
The Pope is only infallible under certain circumstances (in the right place, in the right hat, wearing the right israeliteellery, speaking only on faith or morals). He's chosen through a conference of bishops, but Catholics don't believe in human perfection. One of the reasons the Cathars were seen as a heretical sect is because they believed these offices could be filled with perfect humans. One of the problems for Cathars was Timothy, because you can read it that all these things descend in a perfect line from Christ, so the corruption of any perfect person in the line basically eliminated them and their downline from the church. That meant if the bishop who said you were perfect and baptised was caught not in perfection, you were no longer baptised or confirmed. The other problem was the Catholics killing and torturing them.
The idea of a Pope (or other office of the church) being perfect and free from corruption is seen as a bad thing by Catholics, because that's like declaring God's personal judgement of you which they're never meant to know or claim to know, and ignores nobody being without sin. Likewise, it's really hard to get the Catholic church to ever say something is directly just heresy. Because they're corrupt humans, they can't guarantee it's not them just not seeing what God wants, so it always says suspicion of heresy or possibility of heresy.
Right, so the final authority for Protestants is the authority of the Catholic Church.
I’m saying that Protestants accept that the Bible is divinely inspired, but what the Bible IS comes from the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church didn’t make the Bible divinely inspired. It made the Bible. At the end of the day, everything Protestantism is nothing more than a rebellious Catholicism for this reason. The church literally gave you scripture and you pretend the scripture just appeared out of thin air.
>you pretend the scripture just appeared out of thin air.
exactly
The catholic church did not make the Bible. The authors of the Bible, inspired by the Holy Spirit made the Bible. Paul wrote his epistles long before Constantine ergo the authority of the scriptures precedes Constantine. It absolutely did not come out of thin air. It came from God.
You're in a bind. You can either claim that the Bible was compiled because it was holy or that the Bible is holy because it was compiled. If the former, then the Bible is the final and independent authority. If the latter then you make the claim that the Bible is man made.
It did make the Bible. It assembled the books and decided which ones went into the assembled the book. Before they did that, there was no Holy Bible.
How do Protestants not know this?
You seem to still believe this is about divinity what it’s about “Bible”. What is “The Bible”. It’s a compilation of books compiled by the church. No church means no compilation of books, which means no Bible.
I went with my judo gym to a meet today, it was great, lots of fun and lots of stuff to learn.
I think the reason I have more fun doing this sort of stuff more than reading is that reading is I can share it with other people immediately and completely, while books, even when commenting them together with someone who's read them, feels like an experience that only I have felt for real.
>books, even when commenting them together with someone who's read them, feels like an experience that only I have felt for real.
I get this way too. It's lonely. This is why I tend to prefer film and television over books. Books are a solo endeavor while film and television is communal and convivial. Film and television is also artistically more interesting because it's literally the sum of hundreds or thousands of people's efforts and decisions, whereas books typically involve just one person and their editor. Film and television allows you to get into conversations about how the lighting and mise en scène of a shot complements the dialogue, analogizes the character's growth, is reminiscent of this other shot in this indie film from 40 years ago because the director of photography used to be the director's understudy, etc. It's a lot more dynamic.
>I like practicing a martial art together with others more than consuming entertainment
>so true, that's also why I like consuming a slightly different form of entertainment
NTA but you might have missed the point.
how large is the IQfy community? Any jannies or glowies care to chime in?
Well before the IP counter was taken away we could usually see that there was about 50 consistent posters across the board
>before the IP counter was taken away
so how do we call out samegayging now? Did the samegays finally win? Can I samegay with impunity now?
Yeah how do we call out the samegays now
This is totally another anon replying
Death to the samegays
literally an entire thread could be one autist samegay and nobody would know. For all you know all posting on IQfy on any given day could be one severely autistic samegay, perhaps even, dare I say it, a single artificial intelligence, and none of you would know any better. It's over.
It's so over. It's so over samegayging has ruined everything death to the samegay. I'm not a samegay. Samegay gay gayging homosexual gay samegays.
Observe as the AI begins to be overloaded by the pain of self awareness
Yeah, like on IQfy and /misc/.
What the hell? Meant to quote
.
Definitive samehomosexual
Kys
Yah, detecting samehomosexuals is going to become real hard from now on, but to be real, samehomosexuals samehomosexual despite samehomosexual countermeasures like samehomosexual count.
> Definitive samehomosexual
No shit Sherlock, I corrected a mistake
So you admit you are a samehomosexual
Only trannies have conversations with themselves. Did I insult your pronouns? Kys.
Frick the jannies
Samehomosexual samehomosexualing samehomosexual
Frick off troony
Samehomosexuals must be searched for and banned by the janitors
Samehomosexual spotted.
sorry but no you don't really know, unless...
bout tree fiddy
why are youtubers so moronic? why are all tv shows woke? why aren't good books ever recommended? we're probably living in the best times ever for the flourishment of entertainment yet everything is moronic and a waste of time
L I B E R A L D E M O C R A T I C V A L U E S
Art and culture (in the meaningful sense) is something developed out of a very large amount protracted effort. Abundance of material does not mean abundance of process. "Quality over quantity" - this same old story.
Capitalism
your brain shits out what you feed it, can't have people consuming anything but brain numbing cheap haha's or they might get ideas
>What's On Your Mind
the crimes of the israelites
what crimes? israelites would never commit crimes.
Some shlomo stole my bagel while I wasn't looking
they're committing a genocide in Palestine right now
that's antisemitic
facts often are
are you some kind of nazi?
No, the National Socialist Democratic Worker's Party of Germany was dissolved in 1945. I'm just a mild-mannered antisemitic white nationalist.
>and antisemite
Why doesn't every board have thread IDs?
Do you mean poster IDs?
No I mean blob ID'S
I'm totally not a samegay
Now I'm going to kill myself
Death tot he samehag samegays
If you mean poster ID's then yes, they have been removed.
Plebbitor space.
Death to the samegays.
I'm a real IQfyner.
Ahh shit man the poster ID'S been removed
How will we stop the samegays now
Samehomosexualing samegays must die
Is it better to be depressed or horni?
Horny, for sure.
I AM THE SAMEgay
you can just delete your post if you made a mistake
deleting posts is sus af fr no cap
can't win with these schizos
I miss the days when IQfy samegayging was one autist insisting on making people listen to his thoughts on a book or author
is that not still the case?
Idk I think Ossian gay got locked up
The "on a book or author" part has fallen slightly by the wayside
I miss the days when curb stomping homosexuals was not only legal, but socially acceptable.
What's your issue with homosexuals?
they're gay
they molest children and contribute to the general degeneration of society
How will the whole religious online persona be viewed by future generations? I’m talking about the whole e-christian faction that comes off as extremely religious online and super zealous but they don’t actually practice to the degree they portray online. It seems more like a community only in the online world
How will any internet trend be viewed in the future? Is the average person even aware of tradlarping?
I think the internet kinda kills real life culture and all these various online scenes are available at one’s fingertips and just a couple clicks away. I’m sure many people are aware.
What does it mean if I can only stay hard while constantly thinking of my own death?
That means you’re a warrior and should die with a sword in your hand
I believe that the migration crisis is literally just third world morons convinced by internet memes and internet porn that the west is filled with hot loose white women ready to suck and frick indiscriminately, combined with their moronic third world lack of self awareness that they don't have a chance because they're brown, ugly, and poor, along with their moronic third world lack of self control over their sex drives that drives them to illegally immigrate across long distances for the mistaken belief they actually have a chance at getting western white girl pussy. There I said it.
you make a good point
too accurate
wait until they get to Chicago and realize they were better off in Haiti
best take on IQfy right now
Make America White Again
big if true
if you mix anything with shit it just becomes shitty
white women are high value
high iq post
Racism is natural and right.
What happens when too many shitskins make it to the west and realize there is not enough white women and the majority of them don't want them?
I believe in Thule and Atlantis
the reactionary elite gentlemen
a storm is a brewing
the hero we needed not the one we deserve
As a moronic third worlder I can confirm.
hello moronic third worlder
Everybody seein it. You just put it into words.
looks like somebody saw through the veil
Ok you described the problem; now prescribe the solution?
I believe that the IQfyerati as the preeminent intellectual community of the world should and must provide the world with an intelligent and rational solution to this problem. Who's with me?!
Who's with me?!
Who's with me dammit?!!!!
the elephant in the room
Hi,
I bought a bag of your company's frozen peas and there are a LOT of empty pea skins in the bag. Like, every square inch of pea is just infused with copious amounts of empty skins and it's really unappetizing and needlessly taxing to my digestive system. I was wondering if I could get a refund for the amount ($2.19) I paid per your 100% satisfaction guarantee.
Thanks,
Mike
I want to create someting myself. I know of so many concepts and images from the internet that could inspire but instead I feel constrained by them. How do I find my own 'thing'?
You get off the internet and just do things in real life and notice what you're most interested in, most good at, and feel the best while doing.
The internet will always trivialize and undermine actual experience.
You feel much better when you're not constantly using the internet, measuring your experience against that of others, imbibing the inane decontextualized opinions of people you'll never meet, trying to see if you're living "right".
makes sense I guess
But I don't feel better. I can't find anything to care about. And there's nothing to even do. There's just no life anywhere anymore
It only takes a couple days away from this place to see how grotesque the vibes are on every board. Just extremely coomery, mean-spirited, inane 'what did he mean by this? >:)' astro-shilling of incalculable scale. I think I've read enough posts written by pornsick mutts to last me a kalpa
I'm going to try a little experiment:
Since I started using IQfy, I have restricted my activities to a few boards (this one included) that I would consider my favourites for their overall post quality or relevance to personal interests.
As an exercise on expanding my horizons, I have decided to choose every week one of the boards I never visit and lurk there, while trying to absorb the most of its culture. Who knows what one might learn.
Congratulations on deciding to become a dozen kinds of moronic.
Rather be a polyphacetic moron than just a moron.
What type of sick person would just pop in this thread and leave a reply now and then? I can't visualize any of you.
Feels like something big will happen this upcoming week. Even though I am not a man of the Abrahamic faiths, the energies swirling now are very active.
Frick me, this thread. There's a reason atheism was dominant during the good days of the internet.
I was there during the nu atheist shit. It was just as cringe and annoying
Atheism is cringe and shallow
atheists are cringe and moronic. I don't take them seriously outside of work
I love flat-chested girls. There is no possible way to admit that to people without getting accused of being a pedophile, though.
I think the A cup adult women might be okay with it?
They're fairly rare where I live and the ones I've met were either taken or into partying. Everyone else is a titty monster or fat. Maybe I live in the wrong country.
A city with a big fashion scene is probably going to have a lot of flatchested women with no bras on
Noted.
Texas
moving to Texas right NOW
dear god I love big breasts please tell me where you are?
>I love flat-chested girls. There is no possible way to admit that to people without getting accused of being a pedophile, though.
first world problems
Damn, I wish I had a family of my own. Even with all the late nights and crying and the anxieties and the troubles that a parent goes through with their children. Strong relationships and family tie people to the world, in a way, and having none of those makes me feel as if I'm halfway in this world and halfway somewhere else.
I don't have any friends, though, or any strong relationships at all, not even with my own parents and siblings. The world consists of my workplace, my apartment, the inside of my car, and a blur of other people whose lives I am never in long enough for either of us to come into focus for each other. And I do try, but there's something that other people have which I do not; they can speak a language to each other which I not only do not understand but can't even hear.
One day I'll die, and I wonder if by then someone will have seen me clearly or if I'll remain a vague outline which from then on will only continue to become more indistinct.
I have probably the easiest and least time consuming job possibly obtainable and I still despise it because for the few hours I work it, I’m reminded of how utterly unremarkable my life is. Doing meaningless low level work and being bossed around and assessed by unambitious midwits is suicide fuel.
what job is it and can I have it?
Not telling and no
Hey man I wish I could have ambition. I'm not happy with my life at all. I wish I had spirit. I want a soul
you're so fricking special
It amazes how really ignorant so many of you are. You really have no idea.
Can we not use AI slop images for these threads
Out of all the Roman/Latin writers, Juvenal might be the most educational about the times, oddly enough.
I cannot even begin to understand what the israelites are thinking. What is the logic in supporting the state of Israel and then feigning anti-Semitic oppression when people are naturally disturbed by your support? How can you claim to stand against thousands of years of anti-Semitic lies and then prove all those claims by creating the state of Israel, a nexus of anti-gentile racism, disproportionate power and financial usury? I’m lost for fricking words with these people. Every Muslim I know at least criticized ISIS but israelites are busy writing think-pieces for The Atlantic about how THEY are the real victims when the IDF kills children.
I spent my most energetic years writing about ruins and nostalgia, with nothing of that in me: I had no past, I fantasized a tapestry of imaginary events for imaginary peoples in imaginary places, doing great deeds and unearthing their own past. Now I have grown older, I lost all of my youthful energy, I have not the will nor the courage to put pen to the paper and I just dwell on my memories from a decade ago, wandering in the ruins of my past. Fricking sucks breh
I’m in utter despair with the world in general. Most of humanity are barely sentient cattle, and nothing can be done, nothing can move forward, because the cattle can be managed so that a couple of oligarchs can consume all the wealth of advanced technology without any meaningful requirement to share it with the higher-IQ members of society to keep things moving forward. Being high-IQ in this world isn’t lonely but rather is enraging that I have to live amongst the ocean of morons who can’t communicate a moderately complex thought yet I’m supposed to pretend that they’re my equal? Save me from this shitworld clownhole.
No one can understand me. No one can understand what it's like to be a seven foot tall rape victim.
And women as a whole will never understand how horrible it is to be raped as a man. It's so much more visceral and humiliating, when everyone places so much importance on being strong as a man. Even feminists that claim they want "vulnerable" men are actually disgusted by what they perceive as victimized men. At the very least, they will see them on the same level as abused children, but never as an equal.
I don't know if you were raped by a man, but either way it still mostly applies. Being seven foot tall would definitely make it worse, as it would exaggerate the contradiction.
But thats the thing, anon. I am a male.
I know you're a male. Being a male and getting raped is worse than being a woman and getting raped because there's a much greater societal expectation than a man can defend himself, and a much greater level of disgust against (and less sympathy for) male victims of any crime.
Sorry for what happened to you. The world is terrible.
Raped by men or women?
I am sorry about it anon
You never deserved anything as horrific as that happening to you
Please take care. May god give you strength anon
>read a modern edition of a book
>the foreword is dry academic shit with liberal moral posturing peppered in
>read early 20th century edition of the same book
>has a profound, insightful, sincere foreword
This happens every time.
example?
istfg
the worst is when you can tell foreword writer doesn't even like the book and/or is trying to >inb4 himself before all leftards begin to attack him for the "outdated" shit in the book
i remember one edition of moby dick being pretty much written by a homosexual
i sometimes wonder if growing up in eastern europe just fricks you up on some weird level that affects everything about you, including your aesthetic taste
whenever i see a pic like the OP or a variation of that, like medieval german towns or whatever the frick else, i just feel nothing, or at worst i feel the same sense of disgust i get when i see girls trying to be cute or moe shit
meanwhile when i see one of those shitty half-abandoned neighborhoods from american cities i immediately think that's comfy
the same applies to video games too. toussaint is beautiful but almost annoyingly so in a way that i find obnoxious. meanwhile the first time i entered new vegas or the old camp i thought
>HOME
The thing with depressive thought spirals is we choose them for a reason. A pessimist's life in reality is less depressing than his world view, but he views events in a harsher light because the alternative is to have no meaning at all. Without pessimism, his life is merely a collection of mostly negative events that occurred by pure chance. He will actually stretch the truth and aim for pessimism, because optimism is impossible, so the former is his only means for catharsis.
i have a lovely wife and i'd never cheat on her with a woman but i often fantasize about fricking a hot troony/femboy
>i have a lovely wife but secretly i'm gay
Many such cases. How religious would you say you are on a scale of 1 to 10?
i'm not gay homosexual
i have no desire to frick guys
A "femboy" doesn't actually exist in real life unless you're referring specifically to biological hermaphrodites. A troony is obviously a man as well. They will always have masculine skeletal structures and if that's something to which you're attracted, well... that's pretty gay. There's no shame in any of it, but the way you can get caught up in shame spirals is by buying into intrinsically unreal thought distortions. How religious are you, on a scale of 1 to 10.
i'm not sure how you can be this autistic. there are guys who can pass as women or are at least far more feminine-looking than average guys, it's not hard to understand what's meant by femboy
>masculine skeletal structures
i honestly could not give less of a shit about this
i've fricked women who were professional athletes with shoulders wider than most guys
the only thing that i dislike in a troony is
>0 effort to do a feminine voice
>any type of body hair
>having a big or cut dick
ideally both a femboy or a troony should have a tiny penis that can be locked up and pathetically caged
>shame spirals
it's not about shame, it's about distorting what's said
a guy being willing to frick a femboy or a troony does not mean they wanna frick fricking joe rogan or daniel craig
i know many gay guys and they have very different tastes
the whole appeal to me of fricking a femboy/troony is the humiliation aspect that comes with forcing someone that should technically be your equal to become a submissive b***h
but for that, they need to be at least a little feminine and attractive to begin with
>How religious are you, on a scale of 1 to 10
what do you even mean by this question
do i officially belong to a religion? no, so 0
Nobody cares you fricking homosexual.
tell that to the romans and greeks, they just saw it the same way straight women see groping and kissing each other
They did not. Being the submissive man was always extremely revolting and dishonorable to both Romans and Greeks, and their common words for homosexual were all negative, all usually referring to the submissive male. Being a "femboy" that actually wanted to get dicked would be completely disgraceful. Even Callicles (a staunch homosexual) gasped with utter exasperation when Socrates backed him into a corner saying:
>SOCRATES: But what if the itching is not confined to the head? Shall I pursue the question? And here, Callicles, I would have you consider how you would reply if consequences are pressed upon you, especially if in the last resort you are asked, whether the life of a catamite is not terrible, foul, miserable? Or would you venture to say, that they too are happy, if they only get enough of what they want?
>CALLICLES: Are you not ashamed, Socrates, of introducing such topics into the argument?
Because even an infamous hedonist and obvious bussy slammer could only "for the sake of consistency" say that gaining pleasure from being a catamite is the same as gaining pleasure from something like eating.
In other words, frick bussy = le GOOD
Get fricked = le BAD
For any given historical culture (even the Japs looked down on the Samurai squire boys as being lesser and less noble)
the hypocrisy of bottoming not being okay but fricking ass being okay is well known, pretty sure romans only saw it as scandalous if two men of the same rank / status fricked each other because that implied that they were both fouling their standing and gay love is yuck unless it's heroic camaraderie type
The "homosexual" militaries of certain Greek states were not to engage in sexual acts with one another because:
>But the men of Lacedaemon, holding that "if a man but lay his hand upon the body and for lustful purpose, he shall thereby forfeit claim to what is beautiful and noble"
Again, it can't really be compared to modern day homosexualry.
that might be a fanciful way of saying "don't rape your fellow soldiers in long campaigns you horny homosexuals"
The whole passage was essentially a speech bashing lust and promiscuity, and it's in line with Socrates' and Plato's general disapproval of non-procreative sex acts. (That quote comes from Xenophon writing what Socrates said)
i can understand bashing promiscuity but i don't really see the difference between an amish having 10 kids because condoms bad and some homosexuals buggering it out without making unsustainable amount of kids
lust is lust and unless you're one of the few asexual people or have very low libido you will most likely experience and just cope with it by jerking off or something, not really sure how you can bash lust by itself without sounding like a boomer prune
Idk if you should be using the Spartans as an example of being super straight, anon. It's hard to get a handle on a lot of the particulars of sexuality in any era, but Greek states generally use gayness as a pejorative against other states where gay is just shit that's uncool to do and why aren't you wearing a flag pin do you hate your country?
Submissive acts in general are a form of humiliation, and most of the publicly known ones are known because the purpose was to make the humiliation known. But taking all such things as gay, when most of the public ones are forced punishment, also ignores that submissive acts between a man and woman were a form of humiliation. Men performing any kind of oral sex on any gender was so gay you could lose citizenship. Women being on top was as gay as if you let another dude ride you sideways.
What's more, because they had no internet, a lot of public sex depictions are the gayest things artists could come up with. Murals of perverted sex acts are really common across the classical world because it's seen as hilarious and absurd like cake sitting or fart gasmasks. Theatre plays about how you're really gay because you have expensive home goods and love your wife, you Persian sex fiend, are common too, because they're used to educate people to hate certain behaviours like how nobody asks you about Huey Lewis and the News post American Psycho because it signals a kind of barely repressed psychopathic homolust and dysfunction.
However, offering to frick someone in the mouth or ass isn't seen as a two way humiliation by most classical authors. The person on top and penetrating anything is not gay for fricking boypussy, but if the person on top is female, the person on bottom is even more gay than if they were getting raped by a dude, for most classical societies. The bottom is still gay and kind of trans if it's with a male, but you're not in any way less gay because you got topped by a female in that paradigm either.
It's kinda mind blowing how you can manipulate people's behavior just by using a couple words or an extra sentence or an emoji
Used Bumble for the first time. Instead of saying
>Hey, I find you cool and would love to chat about books. Are you free for coffee this weekend?
Which got me nearly zero replies in many many years, I sent:
>Hey girl, you are gorgeous . Down for coffee and a nerdy chat about what we're reading this weekend?
Which has so far gotten me three matches this week
I feel like my feelings and mind are never changed by people's actions or feelings. Frankly incredible that other can be changed with shit like that. It's honestly like a superpower
Wanting a parenting board but then realizing that is would become a disaster most likely.
Thing is I don't want advise from/talk to normgroid or redditors.
>parenting board
god damn anon, can you imagine? You post
>hey my son got these little red marks on his thigh. Are these just mosquito bites or should we be worried?
And the replies are
>SEXOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>more?
>kik? discord? telegram?
>UOHHHH CHILD BOY SO EROTIC
I wouldn't want to be there ya know.
Yeah I know, you might have to have stricter rules in regards to that board.
It won't happen but I would be interested in an anons perspective on child care. As opposed to some lame mommyblog or gay reddit 'dad' thread
It makes me angry that people are stupid in the current age when information is more accessible than ever. Bettering yourself has never been more easy than it is now, which mean that the people who don’t choose not to willfully. That’s gotta be like mildly evil right ? When Kant said one of the pillars of a just moral person is the will to do good it seemed really obvious to me at the time, but there are people out here who don’t have that as their default way of being
I wonder, how much does practical expediency influence ones deeply held positions?
Influence? Expediency is its sole determinant.
Well maybe reason or something else can influence them too.
I'm asking if things like religious affiliation, standpoints on things like race, "Higher" politics (Subscription to economic system, an actually concrete political ideology), Moral convictions, etc could be chalked up entirely to practical concerns (whether physical or mental-emotional), with everything else being just window dressing.
Nietzche talked about that and I wondered how much people's beliefs are just a rationalization of very base desires, emotions and expedient solutions to problems.
the entire point of an ideology is to subjugate those who follow it to adopt a way of being that benefits the people in charge of it / who created it, monarchy supports the aristocracy, theology supports the clergy, capitalism supports the merchant, republic supports the politicians and none of those system give a single frick about you past appearances
their only goal is to get you to agree to their system and to waste your life in service to that system to keep it going, this same thing is true with every other damn ideology and religion there is, max stirner said it better than nietzsche and his solution of personal anarchy is way more sound than being a moron that devotes his life to thinly veiled servitude because the platitudes they spout sounded nice
This is a post from someone that is as dumb as a brick and still tweenie bopper I hate daddy-pilled.
fair counter point, how about you read max stirner next time before puking your two cents on the post like a stray cat
Those who follow ideologies do so out of self interest. A leader or ideologue can suggest something out of self interest with concessions to various groups of people for the purpose of gaining enough support to make it reality. An egoist and a normal ideologue will behave no differently, in effect. For example, I don't give a rats ass who invented what ideology, or if it will benefit someone else 11.3% more than it benefits me; all you have is the exact same egoistic push for the same general things, only you keep on an air of adolescent smugness like you're any different from the rest of the plebeians. You never developed past childhood.
This is why sociology-based analysis of ideology is the only valid tool of examining political phenomena, and why people who think ideologies themselves have any power are moronic. Voltaire didn't cause the French revolution, Voltaire just expressed what the bourgeoisie already thought about the aristocracy and the clergy. No revolution was ever caused because people read too much Marx or Diderot and got "redpilled" but rather the people whose interests laid with revolution used Marx and Diderot as a smokescreen for their cynical interests.
are you saying people don't actually care what system they have as long as they can use it for opportunistic advancement of their own position in life and the morons that actually believe in the system despite being the under class in it tend to be really really fricking dumb and naive?
I feel like that makes it sound too conscious a thing. It's not like you sit down and start browsing wikipedia which philosopher fits your interests the best and choose things that way, but rather your lot in life influences your perception of the world and that perception is influenced in such a way that people who align with your interests will be the ones who speak to you the best and make the most sense while those on the other end sound like morons to you. You will probably feel like you were guided by your sense of reason, but unless you're the self-critical type you would probably not feel suspicious at all of what it was that guided your sense of reason in turn.
i liked philosophy after i heard the story of diogenes pissing on a dude for calling him a dog and the idea of philosophy and history stuck with me since, i wanted to know more about philosophy and i regret ever opening a philosophy book but now i'm stuck with it
the morons are truly the only ones that can enjoy living in the world, the people whose way of life fit them like a glove and they never even bothered to question it, to be so completely immersed and believing in the system that surrounds them that they do not even feel the symptoms of living in a unsustainable police state dystopia
>there is no difference between unconscious effort and conscious effort
for you
>there is no difference between unconscious effort and conscious effort
>for you
You are beyond moronic. How did you get through Stirner with reading comprehension that low.
stirner is a light read wtf are you talking about, unless you think he is a completely unhinged sociopath you can read between the lines are digest that he's intentionally making everything sound over the top to get the point across
how the frick do you consider that book to be a hard read, he's literally screaming in your ear and spelling it out on why every ideology and dogma is fricking moronic with examples and everything
are you perhaps mentally moronic but well read fart sniffer?
Holy frick dude LMAO
Your reading comprehension was too low for my post too. You have to baiting right now. I refuse to believe this is real.
>How did you get through Stirner with reading comprehension that low.
Doesn't mean Stirner is hard, it means you're too moronic to understand an internet post, so you should definitely be too moronic to read a book. As it turns out, it seems to be true.
No, that's an even more pedestrian understanding than mine, to be honest. And not even what I was talking about. I was talking about the motivations of deeply held beliefs.
One can hope. But I will admit it is a decent predictive model.
However, many people don't realize this. There's also things like deeply held dogma's coming from childhood, which often don't have a proper motivation, how do you explain these?
Revolution is a very complex phenomenon I don't think anyone has bothered to properly taxonomize, but I disagree with your assesment, revolutionary Vanguards congregate around ideology and come from all walks of life.
Some people like that do exist. But you are being simplistic. Your monodimensional analysis has already been repeated like thrice now. You clearly have not read Lenin if you think of him as cynic.
True amoral cynics are extremely rare.
>motivations of deeply held beliefs
it's called nostalgia and the morons last refuge, dealers choice on what you want to call that
>you've not read lenin
i had the pleasure of reading stirner before him and saw no reason to indoctrinate myself with communism after i've already scrapped every ideology as inherently subjugating
>it's called nostalgia and the morons last refuge, dealers choice on what you want to call that
As good an explanation as any.
>i had the pleasure of reading stirner before him and saw no reason to indoctrinate myself with communism after i've already scrapped every ideology as inherently subjugating
You can read things without internalizing them. My point was that Lenin very clearly believed in what he was talking about, you just have to read his writings and study his actions. I'd argue even Stalin was being driven by his morals as much as he was by mere self-interest. Pure self interest is only found among people like african dictators who act like tribal warlords.
P.S: You are consigning yourself to mental poverty by just reading stirner and never moving away from that.
i've also read leo tolstoi which was the final nail in the coffin of religion as a cope and also which rang way too true on the intellectual and why people write shit in the first place for me to ignore, i don't read philosophy anymore and it killed any interest i had in being an academic busy body peddling books like a cough syrup salesman trying to sell people what they think they want to hear
writing is one of the most disgusting things in the world when you peel away all the veils to the core, if the world would just abandon all ideologies over night and burn all ideological books the world would not have lost a single thing of value
You're still far too naive if you think reason isn't the handmaiden of things like innate tastes or pragmatic, cynical interests, but rather that it is this autonomous thing that exists in a vacuum.
Or as Hume said,
>We speak not strictly and philosophically when we talk of the combat of passion and of reason. Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them
Even if you write something good, you would never reach a real audience with it since if you are the type to post here you are definitely not the type with the connections (or views, for that matter) necessary to make it in the literary world.
But even if you miraculously did despite all odds, and made peace with writing for an audience of drooling morons and being critiqued by drooling morons, what would it matter? Books are a medium of the past. They are never going to be culturally relevant to the degree they were relevant a hundred or two hundred years ago. No book is going to launch a new tolstoyan movement, no soldiers will be reading any books of poetry to remain sane in the trenches of the wars of the future, no author will ever possess again the sheer cultural power that Goethe did, no author will have the kind of pull to hold an entire nation together like Dante or Homer did. You are an anomaly of the present clinging to a relic of the past because you thought there was a sort of spiritual kinship between the two of you as unwanted elements in humanity's future.
Who cares? Write for the sake of the writing itself and let history sort the rest out like it was always going to. Sure, things seem grim right now for literature. But we have no idea what the future holds. The important part of philosophizing is always this: how will this idea change my life? My answer? It won't because I won't let it. It only matters insofar as it drives your actions, and it's not going to drive mine.
>let history sort the rest out like it was always going to
History does not sort out anything, people do. Literature is not, never was, and never will be a meritocratic field, because its value is entirely in the eye of the beholder and the societal milieu it is situated in.
i don't write for pretentious homosexuals
i write for fellow gooners who appreciate it
It was a figure of speech, fren. "Let history sort it out" basically means "let the people who come later decide." The implication is that contemporaries are often startlingly bad at evaluating literature. Many, many definitive authors died unknown and penniless. I believe posterity is better-equipped to evaluate literature via hindsight. Future people won't care about what things are trendy or aren't in 2024. If they're even aware of these trends, they'll read them as context within history books. I just refuse to be demoralized! I'm just gonna keep on writing! I don't give a shit if no one ever knows my name while I'm alive! If I'm being honest, I kind of prefer it that way.
This reminds me of a single off-hand comment that Schopenhauer once made in his essays. He said that it's a shame humanity erects buildings which are bound to collapse in 50-100 years, and that all our buildings should be constructed of extremely durable rock designed to last for centuries.
This unintentionally reveals something about the mind of the philosopher, or the saint, or the artist. They want to believe they're taking part in something eternal, in making a monument to all-of-time. The irony is that this just isn't possible, it doesn't make sense. Goethe's generation aspired to do exactly this, and look how that turned out. All these 19th century men were highly intelligent, speaking from the heart, hoping to write eternal works, and yet only a handful survive (ex. Goethe and Nietzsche), in a very stripped down and paltry form. Before long, even they will be forgotten. The fact is that Ecclesiastes was wrong. From generation to generation, everything about mankind changes -- what survives are only banal platitudes and aphorisms that are so vague they can mean anything. Even the one book that was intended to stand for all time -- the Bible -- is now obsolete. Nothing lasts. If you want to see the true face of reality, take a few deep breaths and go look in a mirror. That's the only reality. Books are an illusion, they can corrupt you -- we've known this since Plato.
Ancient monuments must be repaired every few decades. Get it? Nature herself is trying to make us forget all this old shit, to live for right now and forget the past. A fallen tree rapidly decays, but a piece of paper will last for centuries, which is a terrible accident. There's only the present.
none of my fanfics are updating
>life is so shit that you cannot justify existence with just reason to a satisfiable point that would allow one to continue living without supplementing the meaning to that life with indulging in passions
pretty much, you would have to be in ataraxia 24/7 to live a life of reason devoid of passion and petty emotions
I'm getting married 🙂
congrats 🙂
Congrats anon, I'm expecting to ask the question in about 2/3 weeks.
Good luck! I hope she says yes.
it's almost like having strong belief in any kind of ideology that limits you is a moron check and even the ones that advocate for systems only do so because those systems keep them in power / allow them to rise to power
Feels like the america of my childhood is gone. If you guys had kids, where would you raise them?
iceland or something, there's no place in the west you can safely raise a kid outside of a gated community and that's about to change
Dear Diary tbh:
Today I got scared when I was in the bathroom and saw my feces came out pitch-black, fearing it was the symptom of some illness.
Then I remembered, to my relief, the cause of this queer deposition; namely, that I previously had rice with squid ink for lunch.
Same w me after eating beetroot and my shit is blood red
My grandma just gave me 20€ and I'm gonna spend it on books. Recommendations?
it was a joke. I had coke bottle glasses as a kid even and excelled in literature.
After watching this I had a dream I was in prison and one of the black guys in this doc stabbed me in the eye with a heroin needle.
Doc is very nasty but gives insight into what happens with prison rape.
It ends on an insane note with Matt and how he got turned. Brutal.
Honor the ballsack will ALWAYS be funny
My whole personality is purely theoretical. It's not real, it's the way it is because that's what I think is the optimal version of myself, but could change it any time.
I've come to find that the best way to keep slaves is ironically to brutalize them as hard as possible in a sustained and deliberate manner.
The helots only rebelled like, once, at best.
Early Greeks treated their slaves good, even helped them in the work when they had time. When a guest came into the house, the slave would sit and listen too.
There was still a lot of slave rape.
There's a lot of Roman slave contracts where if you tried to rape the slave, the slave was automatically free.
in rome there was also a chance to earn your freedom with x amount of years of service, slaves that got into good households would ask to be employed there though because their quality of life was still sadly better than a free man in rome without citizenship
>slaves that got into good households would ask to be employed there though because their quality of life was still sadly better than a free man in rome without citizenship
That's partially because being sponsored by your old master was an easy way of gaining citizenship. If you had skills which could be sold, you could also just get someone else in your new profession to sponsor you. Citizenship has a lot of political problems associated with it too so a lot didn't mind it, and things like non citizens buying votes or not becoming a citizen because owning land is a tax headache happen too, even with people who were never slaves. But a lot of contracts with end dates in practice were more like
>Opportunities for promotion!
than any kind of guaranteed retirement
No there wasn't, but enough about your coomer fantasies
There was enough that Aristophanes wrote a play that featured references to it.
we have sexual slavery in the west to this day, they just learned to keep them away from publics eyes
Aristophanes was a comedian
It's just plain bullshit, maybe it became the case in later decadent Greek society but in the early days, slaves were treated good, and raping them of having sex with them didn't even come to mind to the masters
Wouldnt it also depend on the slave? A tutor could be valuable. A housemaid might be more disposable.
It just didn't come to mind to the master, much like a kid doesn't think about stealing before being told about what stealing is.
No it didn't happen. The slaves were slaves because they thought it was their nature to be slaves. They never thought to themselves: 'what if I was a master'. They accepted their masters much like a child accepts it's parents. Everyone did all day what he thought was good and his duty without thinking much about it. Evil did not exist.
oh well time enough wasted on a bait
either that or it was so common historians didn't even bother to write about it, if someone is your property and they happen to be hot you would most likely just rape them like a horny teenager
I wonder how many just fricked their slaves for fun every day. Or order them to give bjs. Could a slave object to this at all?
even "the prince" book would tell you that that is a moronic way to go about it, if you need to brutalize your subjects you need to do it in a short a effective burst, tyrants get deposed and rome had constant slave revolts and the decimated legions would only be loyal for as long as there was a general they could respect or rome wasn't too busy with other shit
it is much more effective to have stockholm syndrome slaves than it is to have bitter slaves liable to slit your throat the first chance they get because you made their life a living hell, the loyal to death glorified butler is a better alternative
who knew that carrot of the illusion of increased privileges works better than beating people with a stick, even in america the house Black folks were much more obedient than the whipped field slaves
>even "the prince" book would tell you that that is a moronic way to go about it, if you need to brutalize your subjects
Who said anything about subjects? I meant slaves. Which implies it's a widespread practice, practiced by society at large.
>Rome had constant slave revolts
After the servile wars which resulted in harsher treatment for slaves, there was not one singificant slave uprising in Ancient rome.
>the decimated legions would only be loyal for as long as there was a general they could respect or rome wasn't too busy with other shit
not a slave revolt, and also your statement defeats itself.
>it is to have bitter slaves liable to slit your throat the first chance they get because you made their life a living hell
I was talking about field slaves, mostly.
if people already in higher standing who have people to spit / look down on won't take that kind of shit without revolting then why would slaves?
>unarmed and uneducated
didn't stop the peasants
>i'm talking about field slaves
you think beating them up will make them work faster, you're damaging your own property and breeding resentment for the first populist to come larp as a liberator to use them as cannon fodder to overthrow you and take your stuff
>without revolting then why would slaves?
No power, atomized, constantly terrorized without recourse.
>you think beating them up will make them work faster,
No, I think it will make them docile. Which it does if you do it hard enough and break them.
>you're damaging your own property
One whips cattle, too.
>and breeding resentmen
Black person, they're slaves, they dislike you on the default.
>the first populist to come larp as a liberator to use them as cannon fodder to overthrow you and take your stuff
Doesn't happen very often historically, funnily enough.
Not a slave and not mistreated hard enough.
Look out guys, we have an edgelord here who doesn’t realize people are more motivated to do their job when they benefit
I'm not talking about productivity, I'm talking about compliance.
If you really need productivity just work your slaves to death and buy more like in French Saint Domingue.
>InB4 buh muh slave revolt
Didn't happen the way you think it did, Robespierre freed them and Napoleon tried to Re-enslave them.
*blocks you're path*
How you guys doing today? Anything fun or bad happen today?
Just caught a stray when my dad was in a bad mood. Really ruined my whole mood after an already long ass day
Bid on a house was accepted today. I'm over the moon
Good shit mate
How was the house buying process like? Have no idea how it works
It’s been pretty depressing to realize that woke shit could be Spengler’s inevitable philosophy of the Western elite that we could be about to live through several centuries of rule by woke corporate hucksters…
If that were the case, it would be the worst civilization in history.
Worst civilization? Didn't Spengler explicitly clarify that civilization and culture are irreconcilable opposites? Culture is the creative phase, civilization is the destructive phase of the cycle. It feels like the problem lies with you thinking that a civilization should work like a culture does when Spengler says that we are almost a thousand years too late to actually be capable of creation.
They’re not opposites. A culture’s natural life includes the morphing into a civilization. Civilization is not destructive. The civilization merely contains certain possibilities other than those possibilities contained within the preceding culture. Great art can never be made but great politics can be undertaken, for example. And none of this is predetermined. Both cultures and civilizations are seeded by something ineffable and in some sense their natural development is predetermined but the specifics are directed by the people. That Germany would become a dictatorial socialist state was inevitable but that it would choose National Socialism rather than the Prussian socialism he preferred was not inevitable.
Not necessarily corporate or hucksters, but definitely woke. Although with the way Ethical socialism goes I could readily see the self-actualization of wills turning into a race to the bottom of insanity and depravity with Transhumanism, Abolition of death, Bestiality, and Incest (Along with struggles as of yet invisible to us) being next.
The point of early Caesarism is about the transition from the politics of money to the politics of force, demogogues and despots. Part of that is the erosion of democratic norms (Underway in the U.S since at least 70s).
Aight, time to sow some garlic.
I just spent thirty minutes fishing shit out of my butthole with my fingers because I was really constipated. My fingers were covered in smelly brown shit with nuggets of corn. I just thought you should all know that.
>incapable of creation
you've either eaten the russian porridge or just haven't kept up with technological progress in the west
>what about the arts
still there, just more modern variants due to increased access to creative tools that make the progress easier and the tastes of the time leaning away from classical music and naked statues
"Better tools, easier progress" and you're using it to make a portrait of sexy Squidward
are tools not there just to let the artist put on the canvas what he envisioned, puritanism is the death groan of a hack artist that relies on novelty just as much as the person who types an AI prompt, it's this part that infuriates them because their efforts for their craft can be so easily by passed
but to me it is the same as insisting on only sculpting or painting with water paints
I've yet to see any AI art that has risen beyond the level of memes. If anything it has revealed the absolute poverty of what most can "envision." The only reason people view any of this shit as interesting is the novelty of the process.
the horse wagon is here to stay
The grand irony of AI and automation is that the fantasy has always been liberating people from mundane work so they could pursue more creative endeavors. Now they can't make a robot that folds laundry but are well on the way to automating the arts. Misplaced priorities.
the only thing the automation, AI and worker bots are going to bring to the western world introducing mass unemployment and blowing up the recruitment numbers for organized crime
that and of course freeing the venture capitalists into being independent from workers and learning why consumer based economy doesn't work when no one can afford your products en masse
Honor the ballsack has the same energy as out-pizza the hit and I will DIE on that hill
Women often do not pay enough attention to working the balls during blowjobs.
why don't you say something
ligma
What
I have, but it is an awkward thing to say
What was the best part of Spengler's book? The math part was fairly interesting but I want to get to the real meat of his theory
The parts about math, law, and the world-pictures (religion, nature, history). I think the latter is key to understanding the whole book to be honest.
Late reply but thanks
It feels disingenuous when people who criticize the enlightenment are stereotyped as people who think "reason exists but I don't like it where it points to" rather than shown to be people who consider the idea of autonomous reason to be ludicrous at best or a malicious lie at worst. It has the same energy to it as when people who disagree with some liberal policy are stereotyped as never hearing about or not understanding the liberal arguments for that policy, or simply "being afraid" of the new policy rather than being shown as people who considered that policy and disagreed with it for various reasons.
Reason is sort of like a gun. Usually it's best to leave it tucked away until we need it.
Well think about the way a worldview that’s predicated on reason and yet is reasonable affirms itself. It lies. It must lie. It’s very nature is deception.
i'm dissatisfied with my current job but the idea of applying to new jobs stresses me out. how the hell does anyone get a new job?
That art isn't meritocratic is practically a commonplace idea, but people rarely consider that philosophy isn't a meritocratic field, either, not the slightest bit. Philosophers aren't decisively "debunked", they don't become links in a chain of ever-clearer dialogue on ideas, their popularity just dies. Think of poor Leibniz falling into a centuries-long oblivion not because anyone bothered to write a gigantic rebuttal to monadology but because a smug frenchman wrote "if world best why earthquake happen".
would love to send every job recruiter into the core of the earth
I have long hair, and when I shave I worry it makes me look like a chick.
I've had multiple bad dreams over time where I look in the mirror and I have a pretty chick's face and freak out.
Does that make me a troony? Or does the fact I'm freaked out by it prove I'm not?
it means you're having dreams about being a chick and freaking out about it, might just mean you're gay, might mean you're a troony, might mean that you don't want to be perceived as girly
I'm going to do steroids because I'm bored.
I do not believe in double standards, I do not believe in hypocrisy. Just because I despise someone for doing something does not mean I despise myself for doing it. I am unironically better than everybody else and the only one that can judge me is me. I'm beginning to believe that I'm better than God and, despite being a hardcore pre-vatican II Catholic, all I can think about both while awake and in my dreams is how to usurp God and become God myself. If anyone else said this to me I'd hold nothing but contempt for him for being a disgusting, cringe heretic, but as I mentioned, I don't believe in double standards and I don't believe in hypocrisy. I'm better than you, I'm better than everyone. I'm a God in all but name.
Don't do it. It'll quite unironically send you insane, especially if you're young. You don't want what you'll do on roids on your conscious.
>despite being a hardcore pre-vatican II Catholic, all I can think about both while awake and in my dreams is how to usurp God and become God myself
Based on everything I know about "trad cath" types I'd say you're not alone in this
Yeah but Trad Cath is a moronic, undermining term used to describe moron Catholics. For everyone here, Jesus was a Catholic and every "Jew" before him was a Catholic. The Roman Church is Israel, Catholics are the chosen people, if you don't have nothing but hate for any other religion, especially "Judaism" and Islam, you're not Catholic.
Actual trad Catholic here, these people are just appropriating cultures they won't get called racist for, you might as well trust the guy on the internet in the 2000s saying he's a samurai
I can't fathom what you meant by that, but it probably wasn't very smart.
not him but if you dont get his post that is on you
There's nothing to get. I, despite believing it, literally said a text-book anti Semitic slew of shit about how Catholics are the real israelites and he claimed I was trying to not be called racist. It was absurd and unfathomable.
Anon's saying your trad Catholic larp looks like an autistic weeb's samurai larp, probably because trad Caths pray for israelites still
Nah I got the samurai bit, but I'm not a "trad Cath", I'm a Catholic who considers Vatican II an absolute cacophony of heresy and Saint Peters Chair to be empty and it just so happens that spastics on the internet are fond of calling themselves trad caths despite not being one in any regard
>I don't know what trad Cath means
It's all preV2 proponents. Being a sedevacantist doesn't preclude you from being trad. Not knowing the basics of mass before or after V2 does preclude you from being any kind of Catholic though, including a sedevacantist.
I'm not really explaining myself properly because I'm tired af, but I completely understand what a Traditional Catholic is, and that I am one. I dislike the term "Trad Cath" however because it's used by hillbilly protestants raised in filth and pigswine to undermine anybody that rejects Vatican II (no doubt due to some Judaic Psyop brought about by your "Judeo-Christian" Culture) and makes the insinuation that they're similar to idiot fans that parade the idea of being a "Trad Cath" online because it gives them some heightened superiority. I don't give a frick that he called me a larper because he's no doubt a repressed homosexual who thinks himself smart. And you and all the others (if they ain't you) that are talking shit about Traditional Catholics being "israelite Lovers" are, in the most fundamental truth possible, israeli Sleeper Agents raised in the aforementioned pigswine melting pot that is American Culture.
Actually try to challenge one of the points I made in
because I meant and believe in every single one of them or suck a dick, I couldn't really care and at the end of the day, it's your soul that's compromised, not mine.
>Dude bro trust me my larp is really good
Uhhuh, sorry to hear about your protestant upbringing and larping your way into an Anabaptism, but fanfiction is banned on this board because it's always low quality nonsense.
I think God has forgiven me. This is a gift no one else could have given me. I don't know if she has forgiven me, but I know I shouldn't ask.
What did you do?
>mentally ill person
>has romantic person
you're not mentally ill
My hair is greying on the sides, like Dr. Strange. It's kinda cool. Do girls like that?
Grey hair can look cool.
For me, the norwood reaper came shortly after so watch out
My great-grand father never went to school, but he knew how to clear a forest, he knew how to plow the earth with oxens, he knew how to make a wheel and a wagon, he knew how to make a basement, he knew how to make a house wall, he knew how to make a roof, he knew how to make a road, he knew how to make a stable, he knew how to make a wheat storage, he knew how to make dry meat, he knew how to assist in childbirth, he knew how to ride a horse, he knew how to hunt, he knew how to wrestle against a wolf.
Do I truly have more of an education than him? I don't think so.
Sounds like at some time someone in your family screwed up by not passing on that wisdom.
Well, he had a farm and five sons. Four of the sons went abroad, two studied, one became a lawyer and the other one a doctor, my grand-father and his brother became bootstrap millionaires. One of the sons was supposed to inherit the farm.
The best and worst part of a short story competition in a lrg university is tat, alongwith with international writers, literally every person you knw from workshops and classes has applied. And I've just brn tipped off in secret by my english professor (who is administrating not judging the contest) that my stry has already ben adjudged the winner of my category and will compete now for the final top prize. The announcement will beon thursday apparently.
Cannot wait to rub my achievement in thw faces of all thpse feminist c**ts and male-feminist b***hes and Pakistani israelites in my workshops who hated on my work for reasons that were clearly beyond what wss on thr page
>inb4 some gay frick tries to be big brain and say that I won because they knew who i was
it was anonymous, you dumb motherfricker. plus the panel was all international writers
>inb4 some pedantic cuck says that well you must be moronic if you don't think judges can tell the ethnicity and gender and politics of the writer
first finish jacking off to your 4k furry troony porn abd then reply to me
>inb4 some b***h say those prostitutes in my workshop were right and mt work actually isn't good
frick off Black person, i won
>inb4 some homosexual comes and says I'm wasting time witg short story contests
sure Black person, tell that to the agents waiting in my inbox
damn feels so fricking good bros
new
Why was this deleted?
Posts were becoming too relevant to literature. Coomer whining only please.
So I got marriage-pilled. Hook -up culture is worthless, casual sex is worthless, the only real thing is to find true love and marry the woman.
> muh all women are hoes
If you select for hoes that all you are ever going to get is hoes. That's precisely what pick up artistry teaches you, to select for hoes. There's other ways of selecting for women and not all of them are hoes.
But how am I supposed to get married? As soon as she meets my parents she is going to reject me or her parents meeting my parents will reject me. They are divorced.
>Hook -up culture is worthless, casual sex is worthless, the only real thing is to find true love and marry the woman.
thanks chad
I’m going to kill myself if I don’t escape this meaningless effeminate lifestyle soon. I cannot live my whole life this way…
see you tomorrow
anon… you don't know where I live
you are in my heart, always forever
stop lying
o janny, u so silly
>thread is called "write what's on your mind"
>should be called "write what's not on the janny's mind"
makes you think
new
fricker's going to get the new thread 404d