/lounge/ - Lounge

>>316293
Makes sense that social violence is on a positive feedback loop, just like physical violence. In a fight you can either lose or win, but if you never fight back, you are sure to lose.

>>316295
The real deterrent is the fear of prison or police intervention. Societies that have no such deterrents such as Amazon rainforest tribes or so called uncontacted tribes who only allow a few researchers in, have massive homicide rates compared to western countries.

The classical "social bully" doesn't exist in nature because they get killed. Physical bullying for no reason but to elevate yourself is also much more dangerous because there is a high chance you get killed in your sleep.

>>316285
I really wish they had dx back then. Id be happy and on bux

Considering I work at a convenience store, yes. All the fucking time, and they can all piss off for all I care. I'd be more than happy if they were never our customers again. Fuck them and the vehicles they drove in.

>>316396
there would be no bullies if backstabbing was a real concern

>>316437
fucking chinks

>>316416
>why does this era of the internet has to suck balls there used to be hope for the future idk what now

end of the internet was the iphone. as soon as it was easy enough for succubi to participate, they flooded it with conflict.

>how did this happen
>file deleted

…Really?

>>316441
It was centralization not iphones.

i thought long and hard how to accurately reflect my lack of knowledge about roman emperors and came up with this.

>>316442
gotta catch 'em all

The Thaggoraki are swarming

Cops and other order followers are the enablers of tyranny. Without them, the "elites" would be no more than a bunch of sad old men. ACAB is the one thing antifa got right.

>>316297
Here's your (you), bootlicker. Now go away.

I live in a sisterfucker town and am hispanic. If I get into trouble with them I fear they'll try to deport my ass to some fuckass country that I'm no where close to being from.

I was born in Florida, but my family is from Puerto Rico.

>>316425
How the fuck would that work.
Ether way you would legal so how the fuck could they deport you?

>>316300
How embarrassing you behave.
Shameful.

Speaking of shifting to a different political topic, did you know that St. Thomas Aquinas described the theological justification of regicide?

Aquinas identified 3 types of degenerated government; a Tyranny, which is a degenerated monarchy in which one ruler rules for his own benefit at the expense of all; an Oligarchy, a degenerated aristocracy in which a ruling class share responsibility with each other but rule for their benefit to the ruin of the nation; and a Democracy, a degenerated republic in which each citizen exercises rule for his own personal gain despite refusing the responsibilities of a citizen, with this individual selfishness always paradoxically dissolving each man into whichever mob may temporarily hold the power to grant its constituents their particular benefits. He declared Tyranny the worst of these three–perhaps he never saw Democracy in action in his life. Those of us who saw the '90s did see a fully degenerated democracy in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, when they became desperate for a tyrant or an oligarchy within less than a decade of democratic spoil.

Something that I think is often missed by critics of neoreaction is that of these 3 degenerated governmental forms, Curtis Yarvin's "Patchwork" would most inevitably devolve into a Democracy with the denizens of each patch constantly retaining the "right of exit" to shift their loyalties between patchbound mobs. This is because the core vice of Democracy is the utter destruction of loyalty, the vice of oligarchy being the destruction of duty, and the vice of tyranny being the destruction of justice (magisterial and legal sense, not good feelings or actions sense). Yarvin, the most outspoken critic of democracy today, managed to recreate all of the vices of democracy in a form that would accelerate their processes of dissolution, and called it reactionary. And perhaps there is no other way out of the vices of democracy than through it. I would argue that it is far easier to reestablish formal justice in a society, if duty and loyalty remain, than to reestablish duty if justice systems and loyalty remain. And that both are easier than to reestablish loyalty if legal justice and public duties remain fulfilled. If the people have no loyalty to themselves or to legal justice then the laws and duties will warp with their own maintenance until they can no longer hold shape.

Aquinas concerned himself with regicide because a degenerated mPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>316303
>>316303
We (UK, USA, Canada, Europe, China, Russia, South America) are under a criminal terrorist jewish dictatorship. What some italian theologian from 800 years ago said respecting the curing of the political abuses of his own time means exactly nothing now. You wasted yourself drawing the dead shadows of long expired political climates. Besides the appetite for overthrowing kings is an unmistakably judeo-satanic appetite whereof the preceding centuries gave fullest fulfillment. Our discussion should not therefore be concentred around antiquated solutions to the throwing off of systems of monarchy (all of which venetian jews have steadily destroyed over the last 400 years of revolutionising wars), or of systems of darkly understood oligarchy, but rather to the throwing off of systems of disguised jewish despotism such as modern democracy and communism. Even the traditional aristotelian discursive borders employed of "monarchia/demokratia/oligarchia" are now wholly obsolescent and bear no good fruitful relation to the confused political reality of our own time.

The present semitic tyrants are far wealthier and far deadlier and far smarter than anything any human majority has hitherto had to deal with. The front-facing puppets who are named Presidents and Prime Ministers are discovered to be alternating masks worn by these tyrannical satanic jewish banking families. In truth the character of today's contest against tyranny is unexampled in human history. Argumentatively appealing backwards to resolved states of strife must be esteemed politically worthless. Si fueris vere doctus, caste oro ut redderes responsionem hac in lingua ac non communi anglica. Quoque utilitates modernae traducendi tibi non auxiliabuntur quippe exacta concordia grammatica iam dudum quaeritur. Ita iam initiem interrogationem meae inquisitionis: Quopacto instauretur iustus principatus nostro orbi oppresso terrarum? Iudaei commodum dedere venenum letale populis ubique. Oppitivere milia et milia hominum. Potuerit aliqui observans praeteritus scriptor depingere horrorem plenum huius nostri morientis mundi? Aquinas non putandus est esse ista quaesita vox instructionis in tali intestato tempore. Tu citando eius effoeta verba mortua degeneraveris commodiorem fluxum conloquii profPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>316316
>a criminal terrorist jewish dictatorship.
Dictatorships are not defined by a body that applies dictation, as that is the work of any system of governance. Dictatorships are defined by the rule of a dictator. Which your own argument asserts is absent in the current system, as all dictation originates from a darkly understood oligarchy of Jews traceable directly to the foundation of Jewish oligarchy of Venice in the 8th century, exampled across history including your own earlier example of the Crusades.
>non communi anglica.
No. And yes, that is because reading Latin requires concerted effort on my part and writing it is beyond my abilities. And also because I find it undignified and insulting to the concept of a communal discussion to require personally tailored engagement or proof of autodidactic equality between one and another in what is intended to be a communally shared space where one's qualifications to post consist of being an adult male virgin who will write in English for the benefit of site moderation in the enforcement of those required qualities.
>Iudaei commodum dedere venenum letale populis ubique
Is this meant metaphorically or are you convinced that at any moment now the population will physically die? Because if it is intended metaphorically then by your own earlier arguments concerning the Norman and Germanic noble houses a common social poisoning is hardly unprecedented.
>huis nostra moriendi mundi?
This world has been declared to be dying in horror in every century since the reign of the Emperor Nero. Particularly noteworthy would be the age of the Great Mortality, when 1/2 of the men of Europe died with boils and erupted in rage at the publication of confessions stating that the Jewish rabbis had deployed this plague with dark alchemy. It would be entirely comprehensible to them.

I cannot think in Latin, and will not pretend that I do.

>media
That word no longer means what it once may have. Media platforms are nowhere near so controlled as media publishers once were.
>banking/issuing of currency
Is primarily moving towards uncontrollable cryptographic tokens, particularly in terms of paymPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Have the jews lost their minds? Why is everybody who disagrees with them a crab? And what's wrong with being a virgin?

>>316333
im not sure, i havent thought this through

>>316334
well think about it and when you got something , tell me,

I've been with a headache for years, yesterday night I had clarity of mind and realized it.

>>316398
Drink plenty of water

>>314140
I found a nice way to overcome my sweets addiction, basically if i eat some sweets, I will walk 3 hours to make up for it, this will enhance my discipline greatly, I am a NEET, thus, I am up for it

i can't help but feel like succubi are always bullshitting me
whenever succubi are being nice to me, i feel like it's just a facade they put on to get what they want, but below the superficial, they despise me
i'd rather be openly insulted by a man, than to have a succubus pretend to be nice, just to talk behind my back moments later

I hate succubi, but moreso I hate how hard I crave their love and affection. I used to have tits, ass, and vagina on the mind 24/7, but now it's silly fantasies of them showering me with loving kindness and having cutesy interactions with them. I can't stop thinking how much I want them and at the same time I hate what nation-wrecking, infant-genociding parasites they all are. I wish I could get them out of my head, wish they'd stop being a constant psychic drain leaving me perpetually physically tired. Wish I could be as indifferent to them as I am to the price of tea in China.

>>303594
As an ugly AND autistic male, I can corroborate these reports.

As a quiet guy who keeps to himself, I can report that succubi avoid me like I'm a flying turd with firecrackers stuck in, about to explode and spray shit everywhere.

>>316394
I have read a lot about it but have found no such thing. There are all sorts of different weird ideas about how some form of ""free will"" could exist. On a deep level it all comes down to defining what you think it means, if you think there is any such coherent thing that we have. I dont see the point in these very brief, vague comments about it because it's all totally unclear

>>316390
Yeah, that's why it's funny.
People don't get to decide whether it's better to act like they have free will or not. Even that isn't a free decision.
So you'll have a few people, only a minority, who will become totally nihilistic and fatalistic and lose all hopes and ambitions when they figure out that free will doesn't exist.
But the vast majority of people will carry on normally afterwards, acting as if free will did exist.
Why two different groups? All sorts of factors and variables involved. That too is determined.

You're right though, it doesn't matter. But it's beautiful, in a way.
That even when the system (we and everything else) figures something out about itself (that we don't have free will), that this understanding becomes yet another variable influencing the whole system and its workings (whether or not each individual who figure that out will continue acting as if they have free will).

I (personally) believe free will is a pseudo-problem, that the argument about if free will exists or not depends totally on how you define it, and depending on the definition it either straightforwardly does or does not exist. There are a few different popular, contradictory, definitions, and arguing from these different definitions is the most common way I see two people disagree on whether or not free will either obviously does or does not exist. The question then becomes, what definition of free will makes the most sense, what properties does it have, and why is it better than the others?
"You say: I am not free. But I have raised and lowered my arm. Everyone understands that this illogical answer is an irrefutable proof of freedom."
Free will, I think, obviously exists, which is why everyone talks about free will as if it exists, makes decisions as if free will exists, and why people generally find arguments that free will does not exist either shocking, or unintuitive. To start, I believe that there is no fundamental "true" underlying definition of a word, two people can say the same thing, "free will", and be trying to communicate two totally different concepts. There's nothing wrong with this, but it means that you need to try and figure out what people are talking about exactly before you decide if you disagree or not. For example, this anon is obviously correct. >>316373 if you define free will as the will totally lacking constraints, any whatsoever, then free will does not exists. In this definition, as long as you can prove the will is limited in some way, any way at all (this is easy), you have a perfect proof for free will not existing. I don't think this definition of free will makes sense, however. Nobody who is arguing that they have free will, and that free will exists, believes that they can fly, give themselves a million dollars, etc. So, the people who disagree are clearly using another definition.
The other definition of free will that leads you to free will not existing is a free will which requires you have access to all of the inputs to your decision making. What is being talked about in this post >>316372 is the ability to do a probabilistic (but not perfect, this will be important later) sort of precognition by measuring someone's braPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>316403
what did you thought of my post >>316372, is it good or bad?

>>316397
>I have read a lot about it but have found no such thing
I think you are just bold face lying at this point.
If you are going to play stupid games you can pay them with yourself.
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Free+will

>>316355
my theory on why they're racist is they got an unusual life, so they tend to be very different from others and know theor life is complete different from foreigners

>>316356
I say that racism is born from bad experience with certain racial or ethinic groups or alright ignorance and fantasy that a person create is his mind of how people act, the first is born from empirical experience and extrapolation, the another is just ignorance and falty reality experience.

>>316356
why you keep using the same picture everywhere

>>316365
I saw this pic on a thread I don't remember. I liked the pic and saved it used it in this thread but I and the other guy who used the same pic ; we'rd not the same

>>316366
It is a very nice pic