I am an accelerationist hegelian emanationist kierkegaardian infp

>who the fuck actually cares though?

Attached: 1542288491443.jpg (480x539, 41K)

who are you quoting?
Also dialectics are a "spook" but "scientific basis" isn't? I like the cherry picking.

Also Nietzsche was an accelerationist par excellence. Do you even amor fati bro?

hey... none-a that

Attached: lAAAAAAAAme.png (514x91, 13K)

Something between Stalinism and Buddhism with influences of Terrence McKenna.

Attached: xXLw63G.png (610x597, 429K)

I'm a freethinking atheist determinist eliminative materialist transhumanist skeptic.

im just a loser who shitposts on s4s

Your fortune: Average Luck

byeeeeeeee rebecca!

Attached: giphy.gif (245x190, 1.52M)

i am

Attached: 06a.jpg (500x500, 76K)

I'm retarded aswell

thanks for that 100 iq post
I'm just saying that the inherent artificiality of human society isn't exactly a hidden secret, if anything it should be the starting point for any rational adult. Choosing which social construct you wish to propagate is part of having a concrete sense of identity as a mature human, regardless of their relative validity.
How you go about doing so is more important than why, in my opinion

concepts are spooks
senses are fallible
cogito ergo sum
if you desire to co-exist with society you will need golden rule
if you desire tranquility all you need is zen
the more you build on top of it the further from it you get
empty your cup and understand it
the veils drop and you know
then you continue to do what you want with clarity
youtu.be/QOAsxHlggmk

Your fortune: （　´_ゝ`）ﾌｰﾝ

Attached: 1555476270511.gif (276x271, 525K)

Nietzsche was anything but a commie "accelerationist". He advocated for moral change firstly, his politics take up almost none of his writing, except myriad criticisms of bolsheviks and democrats and classical liberals. And scientific method vs dialectics geee how exactly are they different again? Basic principles nigger. It is a brainlet narrative model of background vs foreground that reduces issues to one or the other, and (surprise) is not taught in experimental design nor stat.

Extremely based

And that process should be scientific and laced with skepticism towards non scientific and narrative theories. There is nothing based about admitting that there is no solid factual basis to your beliefs, and then instead of dropping your beliefs, or at least your enthusiasm for your beliefs, choosing to relax your standards for truth. In fact? That's cringe.

That's a dude, isn't it

Amor fati and his criticism of the "truth" are points of contention for me, as you could tell by me saying eternal recurrence is memey, but they were the equivalent of psychological counseling, not an actual criticism of objective reality and the advocacy of people to just accept their ideology on faith alone

Yes. and that's based.

yikes

lole

intp

strong-agnostic nonspecific theist -- i don't believe in any specific religion, and in fact i hold it's inherently impossible to know whether a god does or does not exist, but i still believe in a benevolent higher power, just in general

intuitionistic / sentimentalist utilitarian -- i believe what's right is no more and no less than what's best for everyone, but i also believe the best way to discern what's right for everyone is to look into our hearts, rather than consult any objective measure; such measures will always fail to take every possibility into account, and our human senses of justice achieve better results than any imperfect objective measure; hypothetically, if there were a perfect objective measure of how any given action would affect everyone, i hold it would be superior to the collective force of our moral intuitions, but i also hold that, as it so happens, such a measure doesn't exist

economic authoritarian left / social libertarian left -- i believe we've given a free market model a fair enough chance and it's proven to lead to nothing but corporate corruption and economic injustice, and it's clear now that laws enforcing fair trade are necessary; also i disagree with racism and sexism etc but i also think instead of illegalizing them it would be great if we could all just get along and the correct way to enforce that is not through laws but through changes in culture

regressive environmentalist -- i unironically believe the environmental collapse we face today is the inevitable consequence of human scientific and technological progress; i believe the sacrifice we must make to fully restore environmental balance is nothing less than to forfeit all technology, except perhaps the most crucial e.g medicine, and voluntarily return to nomadic lives of danger and scarcity, as we were always meant to live, but with the addition of international anti-progress laws enforcing such a lifestyle

sh*tboster -- i bost....LOLe

NIGGERS

i could have guessed.

>but i still believe in a benevolent higher power, just in general
No evidence? A priori there is no reason to add god or benevolence into the equation

>sentimentalism
Yikes. Literally unscientific bullshit. You shouldn't just trust your intuition about public policy and morality. You need to consider implications and attempt to measure outcomes.
>for everyone
Does that include animals? It should. In any case you need to consider the impact that your policies have on the future distribution of people whom you will have to be concerned for. If you don't, you end up creating a massive parasitic class that reproduces just as fast as you can support them. You should integrate evolutionary change and aristotelian virtue ethics if you really care about the subjective good of living things--you should aim to produce more happy people than depressed retards a priori.

>lead to nothing but corporate corruption and economic injustice
And also lifting billions out of poverty and objectively improving everyone's standard of living. Muh inequality is literally just greed and jealous ressentiment converted into moral language. I have no problem with redistributionism but people who are successful in the free market are successful on their own merits. Communism on the other hand rewards raw poltical power and punishes efficiency like the kulaks.

>muh anarcho primitivism
Lmao. So we should just forfeit all of our power to do good to literal savage animald who don't give a shit about the environment, nor do they behave morally nor in the best interest of all living beings. Also Anrheopogenic global warming is not well evidenced. Obviously humans have contributed to it, but the degree to which we do is completely up for debate.

NIGGERS

Based

>people who are successful in the free market are successful on their own merits

yikes, are you serious? Have you forgotten about the problem of inheritance and the tendency of resources to concentrate in an ever smaller number of hands over time as per Pareto, eventually leading to monopolisation and the collapse of any semblance of competition and efficiency? Any free market eventually turns into an authoritarian power-fest, that's kind of the point of the word "free", as in "free" to consolidate power and prevent others from becoming a nuisance/threat.
The "success on one's own merits" attribute only applies to the first generation of the inevitable dynasties which rise (and then eventually fall in the inevitable revolutions that follow). There's your parasitic class.

>Communism on the other hand rewards raw poltical power and punishes efficiency like the kulaks.

Ah, yes, I forgot how wonderfully efficient the agriculture of the Russian Empire was when the "kulaks" were in charge of the countryside. The standards of living in the country were so very high and certainly did not create any kind of social unrest that could fuel a revolution of some kind... no sir

Part of your merit is indeed your genetic inheritance. That being saod in the USA poor people are positively discriminated for in the education system and anyone who is partocularly smart has only themself and their shitty parents to blame if they can't become successful. It's hardly an authoritarian power fest when the largest company has less than 0.1% of the total GDP

>serfdom is capitalism
>hurrr so are failed socialist states in Africa
>so is the USSR and North Korea
Yeah. Not into playing semantics. By free market/capitalism I mean a free economy with contract enforcement, property rights, and labor and rent regulations like "you can't own slaves", as well as a lack of corrupt practices on the part of government officials like demanding $100 or I'll prosecute you, as is common in India and Africa

>The "success on one's own merits" attribute only applies to the first generation of the inevitable dynasties which rise (and then eventually fall in the inevitable revolutions that follow). There's your parasitic class.
Absolute commie propaganda. Literally anyone with IQ > 90 who isn't a drug addict or mental patient can go to public school, get good grades, get FAFSA grants for their education or trade school, and join the global top 1% of income earners. The fact that they don't do this as frequently as you would predict (ie a random walk) if economic class were random and non meritocratic is evidence that poor people are poor because they are genetic and cultural trash and actually deserve to be poor. That being said 56% of adults in the US join the top 10% for at least one year in their life, and 93% of the top 1% is only in the top 1% for one year.

Please stop using hard word

I don't know what they mean and I'm here to laugh

Attached: 1494633354671.png (657x527, 31K)

>By free market/capitalism I mean a free economy with contract enforcement, property rights, and labor and rent regulations like "you can't own slaves"

If it has regulations, then it's not "free", is it. Why bother adding that vague, empty epithet if you're going to discard it in the next phrase? Why not call it "market with some arbitrarily minimal number of regulations", which is what you actually mean, despite vouching that you're not playing a semantics game?

>Literally anyone with IQ > 90 who isn't a drug addict or mental patient can go to public school, get good grades, get FAFSA grants for their education or trade school, and join the global top 1% of income earners.

Ah, yes. All those "public schools" that the "free market" is known for. Public schools are simply a staple of the free market, as are Federal Grants, how could I forget. And also thanks for reminding me of the indubitable fact that the global top 1% includes everyone with a >90 IQ who got good grades in public school.

>The fact that they don't do this as frequently as you would predict (ie a random walk) if economic class were random and non meritocratic is evidence that poor people are poor because they are genetic and cultural trash and actually deserve to be poor.

The validity of that conclusion would depend on your premises being true, which you haven't provided any evidence for. You literally just stated "anyone who gets good grades in public school should be able to get in the top 1%" with no evidence, and then you proceeded to say that since that doesn't actually happen in real life, then "this reason I'm also going to assert without evidence or argumentation must be the explanation". That's an ad hoc fallacy for an initially fallacious argument you yourself made, which is quite an impressive level of dishonesty.
I would also like to know the precise definition of "genetic and cultural trash" because those are pretty vague terms.

Ok. Nice to meet you.

>public schools, a staple of capitalism
I am just showing that the US is meritocratic. And in fact, a staple of countries with high economic freedom (Australia, Switzerland, Norway) is indeed a welfare state.

>it is not "free", is it?
Well by your insinuation a truly free market would mean no property rights and no contract enforcement and no regulations, which is obviously not what anyone means when they praise the "free market". The main aspect in which it is free, is that the people can freely associate and freely make economic agreements and freely choose how to spend their money, as compared with your turbo autistic commie paradise in which """"democracy"""" or a politburo make most of those choices. The "ideal" amount of regulations varies considerably from opinion to opinion, but it is not arbitrary, it is based on an evaluation of the facts and principles.

You do realize that the median American is in the top 1% of income earners globally, right? That number is $32,000. I feel like most of communism's allure is the greed for living like a practically aristocratic .01%er and believing anything short of that, even if you objectively have a better life than 99% of other humans, is vacuous because wahhh muh inequality.

>ad hoc, circular logic
I was guilty of a bit of that by not defending the point that the US education and employment system is meritocratic in the first place. Here: IQ predicts workplace performance better than education. It also predicts test scores and college acceptance better than income. IQ isn't perfect because you can be a genius but have no motivation, but the fact that such an imperfect measure alone predicts life outcomes better than your parent's income should say a lot about how meritocratic the US is. Also while there are conceivable flynn effects for poor people, the vast majority have to do with plain stupidity on the part of the parents: feeding them $5 happy meal instead of $2 beans and veggies.

There is also an incredible correlation between adult IQ and income, and while flynn effects due to being poor might make a single standard deviation gap suspect, there is no way that they can account for 70 points difference.

pumpkinperson.com/2016/02/11/the-incredible-correlation-between-iq-income/

I wouldn't argue against the fact that the US is more meritocratic than a lot of places and that that is a good thing and is a virtue of that which you call a free market. The only point I took issue with was the idea that free markets are always totally meritocratic. I didn't mean to refer to the US or any country specifically, just the concept of a free market in general.

>which is obviously not what anyone means when they praise the "free market".
Well, libertarians do, but they're retarded, so I'll give you that one.

>is that the people can freely associate and freely make economic agreements and freely choose how to spend their money
...within the confines of existing regulations, of course. Free to choose from among the options available within those.

>as compared with your turbo autistic commie paradise in which """"democracy"""" or a politburo make most of those choices
...or an automated computer system (which part of the Soviet elite was working on in the 60s under Academician Glushkov, called OGAS, which was eventually denied funding because the politburo didn't want to give away its power). But the politburo is irrelevant here anyway, because the Soviet economy got too complex for the command system to function by the 1960s anyway, and was already functioning as a de facto market economy after the 1965 Kosygin-Liberman reforms. (The Soviet economic "plans" were drawn up post hoc to fit the actual market stats after they were measured in order to keep up appearances of being a communist command economy).

I get the point you're trying to make. "Merit" and "meritocracy" refers to results, regardless of whether the factors that contribute to those results are inherited or not (i.e. regardless of whether they refer to skills trainable through effort or simply natural talent).
I've got nothing against that.

However, economic success depends not just on IQ, but also to a large part on the worldviews and attitudes towards the world in general (and money and financial matters in particular) that are instilled into a person throughout his formative years and education. And education is not the same across the entire education system. The way different schools instill attitudes and approaches to money in young people is different. That relates to the "motivation" factor you mentioned, but in actual fact it's more a matter of frameworks and approaches. Thinking is a trainable skill.

>Well, libertarians do, but they're retarded, so I'll give you that one.
Nope. Libertarian speaking. That would be an caps. Libertarians are statists who believe in contract enforcement, environmental regulations, not hyper punitive law enforcement (including immigration law), taxes on rent and other market failures, etc. Most libertarians are just too used to being utterly an-cap at the margin, seeing as how the progressive bureaucratic state has become so massive. Libertarians prefer Swedish regulations to American because the endless and punitive US laws and statutes constitute a huge barrier to entry, and a huge, unearned competitive benefit to anyone who can afford a lawyer.

>"Merit" and "meritocracy" refers to results, regardless of whether the factors that contribute to those results are inherited or not (i.e. regardless of whether they refer to skills trainable through effort or simply natural talent).
I would phrase it more like "the ability to achieve results" but yeah. Life isn't fair, and trying to make it so by giving losers even bigger concessions makes it shittier by allowing higher poor genetic material birth rates, which is market failure #1 imo, that poor people have so many more children than rich people. Not only does this accelerate income inequality, it makes humans as a whole objectively less intelligent, less productive, less mentally healthy people over time. Some amount of murder (like abortion) is a good thing to prevent suffering humans from being born.

Science people who use it to try to leverage themselves over those who aren't are a really nasty bunch. however, scientists who dedicate their livelihoods in pursuit of expanding a field in service of the ideal of wanting to provide a more accessible means to grasping the divinity of phenomena are the true GOATs

Attached: Screen_Shot_2019-05-24_at_6.45.36_PM.png (412x526, 422K)

I think it is righteous to be indignant at relevant truth claims made by pseudoscientists and religion

Oh ok

thebaffler.com/salvos/whats-the-point-if-we-cant-have-fun

libcom.org/files/blooms.pdf

Recommended reading material from YOURS TRULY

Attached: 57374676_347608152560862_5423625587865893132_n.jpg (448x448, 65K)

I went to McDonalds for lunch today and my coworker asked me to get him some grub and gave me money for it, I paid for his food and gave him back his money, told him its ok. He was taken aback. Throughout the rest of the day he was more amicable with me than usual and actively engaged me. I felt so close to him.

There are a few vice reporters I consider to be totally honest journalists. I really admire them a lot. If I wasn't gonna be a cyberpunk bartender I'd be a vice reporter being a globetrotter shedding light on the nooks & crannies that are lost upon most.

Love is the acknowledgement of one's soul, and the soul is your subconscious.

The soul is just the electrical current running through your body which animates it. There's nothing spiritual or otherworldly about it. It's just electricity. Love is just a word we use to justify being terrible to each other.

necrospam

that only applies to traditional forums where threads never die
and it's hardly necrospam to reply to a thread that was last replied to 3 hours ago

> the electrical current running through your body which animates it.

you're talking about the astral body (aka mummial body or salt body).

>Terrence McKenna
You know how I know you're a boomer?
>based mushroom man

im panromantic demisexual

sAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAge

Epic

Join my chat btw (pls don't ban me Ekat, ALTERNATIVE, Yournamehere, swagbro, I know you are reading this.. thanks! love you guys. xx)

/gmFyRAQ

Attached: 1543697273697.png (576x576, 205K)

what pokemon is that i havent discovered it yet

fucking DRYYYYY you're DRYYYYYY

except baffler's kewl :]
i bookmarked it independently of u
months ago
:))
know bout it b*tch

cringe as fuck guaranteed hasnt read any of the names rattled off

autismic