If you want to discuss something seriously, /dis/ is your place

Search /dis/ threads

Password  (for post and file deletion)

Apr 17PonychanX version 2 has been released. [Thread]

File 134374763462.png - (228.93KB , 1662x1225 )
62070 No. 62070 Stickied [View]

Greetings and Introductions!

(Written and edited with community input by Strangelove!Doctory2, all credit to them!)

Hello everypony and welcome to /dis/, Ponychan's discussion board. Here you'll find threads ranging from controversial topics such as politics, scientific development and religion, to more lax threads meant to share opinions without being overly formal. As you may imagine, given the freedom to discuss these topics, some ponies may inadvertently say or do things that hinder fruitful discussion and bring about unnecessary conflict. Due to this, we have created a set of guidelines that should be followed. Please make sure to read them before posting, as to avoid any misconceptions or confusion.

Please keep in mind this is not /chat/. Although there's no need to write textwalls (unless you want), try to write more than a sentence or two in your posts, and keep in mind you may have to wait hours for a response. Remember all global rules apply to /dis/, and general respect and courtesy is appreciated in this board no matter your opinions or the opinions of others.

Without further ado, here are the rules of /dis/:

You, Ponychan, and Posting in /dis/

29 posts omitted. (View thread)
>> No. 71753
File 136194425732.jpg - (294.34KB , 761x751 , tumblr_mgkjt2I5kq1ru0x8do6_1280.jpg )

I think what's up is I can't use the quick reply box. If I toggle the basic box up then I get tags, but if I use the thing I normally use for everything I do not get tags. Just a PonychanX problem, I guess.

File 134378547129.jpg - (4.84KB , 96x100 , ChairfaceChippendalebybezz.jpg )
62209 No. 62209 Stickied [View] [Last 50 posts]
I've long talked about or thrown about this idea in various forms. I wanted to make a place where we could come up with topic ideas for dis and generate them at regular intervals if they seem to have high potential (however you want to define potential).

We have some new structure proposed for /dis/ and its up to us to attempt the new system. This is also a way for us to work on doing threads according to that system and populating /dis/ with those threads.

My brain has been coming up with some great ideas today with other things in my life, and I think I might be able to continue the same mood after I get back from a little social outing/live dubstep event. In the meantime lets hear constructive ideas for thread topics in /dis/ and lets try to decide on one or more for maybe thurs or fri by vote.

Lets take until then to revise and brainstorm on some good ideas for /dis/ topics that will be entirely worthy of being saved to the archives!!
84 posts omitted. (View thread)
>> No. 76069
Anyone else think it would be cool to be able to post video to /dis/ ?

I mean, I love lectures. I love to share them, but, I don't think many people have the patience to listen and watch something maybe 15-60 minutes long.

But I think /dis/ might have a few more of those people than other places.

File 139673876433.jpg - (655.44KB , 1238x929 , your-argument-is-invalid-because-potato.jpg )
77667 No. 77667 [View]
The first thing that I'd like to note here is that what I am referring to as "pseudoscience" here is not directly aimed at pseudoscientific per se, but at something that is broader yet narrower.
Pseudoscience, in my book, should be understood as wild claims, either untestable, made up, or in any way neglecting the basics of scientific method of investigation. Fighting against claims that pseudoscientific phenomena should be treated equally with phenomena backed up with actual evidence would make sense for many, but in this discussion I want to address only the ideas which should be considered dangerous when it comes to pseudoscientific propaganda and/or data manipulation.

There are obvious branches of pseudoscience that are very common, often cringeworthy, such as UFOlogy, creationism or astrology, but they are usually mostly or even completely harmless. We can argue with people supporting them for fun, but personally I don't see anything directly wrong in believing in such stuff.
Things get complicated when beliefs in myths can indeed be harmful for the believers and their environment, both indirectly and directly.
Anti-vaccination movements, which basically kill people and significantly lower herd immunity
Anti-GMO propaganda, which greatly contributes to hunger in 3rd world countries.
Organic farming activists, whose ideology leads to less efficient and thus unecological growth,
Natural medicine organizations, which lead people away from drugs that help them with health problems
The list can go on.
But it is not my goal to make the list of harmful ideas. My goal is to find a good way to get through to people who follow such ideas. We could laugh in their faces and feel superior, but that would change nothing. The biggest problem is that pseudoscientific solutions usually are supported by huge lists of miracles provided by the idea X, which seem very compelling. Plus, they usually attack the established solutions as outdated, toxic and otherwise evil (usually the arguments regard government and pharmaceutical conspiracies). On the other hand, we have the solutions brought by science. Backed up by observations, rigorously tested and proven
8 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 77716
That said, the problem is that many of these types of people simply choose to believe in what they do or have an agenda behind it, and no amount of "facts" or "data" or "truth" will sway them otherwise.
>> No. 77717
Yeah, learning the types of logical fallacies is very important and useful. Though I also noticed that they usually just make the opponent angry. Those who consider inviting pseudoscience into logical reasoning tend to think of themselves as "open-minded" and putting them into the logical fallacy basket gets them piiiiiiissed.
>> No. 77719
The irony, of course, is that pseudoscience is actually less open-minded than regular science.

File 139661733671.jpg - (15.96KB , 182x277 , superiorfoes.jpg )
77656 No. 77656 [View]

Lately I have been thinking a lot about comic books. I read them an awful lot and find them to be fairly enjoyable. Recently I was looking up elective classes I could take for the Summer and Fall semesters at my university. I came to discover that (what probably wouldn't be a shocking revelation) there was no class on the subject of reading and/or analyzing comic books and graphic novels. The university offers several literature based classes ranging from several periods of time and styles of writing. Why is it that the comic book industry is undersold when it comes being considered a work of literature? I feel that they have just the same stake in the matter as any other book or short story you would find in a literature class that is worth analysis on. Books like Watchmen, V for Vendetta, The Dark Knight Returns, and many other comic book series and graphic novels contain literary themes that put them on par with things like Catcher in the Rye or the Iliad.

What is your opinion on the matter /dis/? Should comic books be doctored in to class syllabuses and school curriculum, or do they fall short in some way to make them of a lesser medium?
6 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 77700
File 139727046622.jpg - (32.47KB , 300x388 , 16361.jpg )
They are two very different ways to present a story. I do think a class on the subject would be nice though, if nothing more than to give people who are unfamiliar with comics a new found appreciation for it. There are a lot of good books out there that everyone should at least try to read to see if they'd like to get into it.
>> No. 77714
File 139767029409.jpg - (238.73KB , 576x849 , moeb.jpg )
I think the problem is when we think of comics, we immediately think of Marvel/DC and capes. And although there are good, well-written or "deep" cape comics, many are simple stories meant to entertain children and manchildren.

We tend to ignore works such as Hellboy or Sandman, or the entirety of European comics (Moebius is the only one I actually know, though).
>> No. 77718
Oh man I've always wanted to read The Incal. It's really expensive on Amazon though.

I can see that as a valid point. There is still sort of that stigma of comics being for kids. I think superhero stuff is really, at least now a days, more about just entertaining everyone and telling a nice story.

File 139579971381.png - (133.90KB , 513x509 , leuer swissmodelalign.png )
77629 No. 77629 [View]

Hi /dis/, I'm a biosciences major, soon to graduate, and recently I've been thinking a lot about the ethical implications of biotechnology, and I am curious to hear what you may have to say on the matter.

Basically the issue arises when I think about our manipulation of micro-organisms. Let me elaborate. Very often the goal of biotechnology is to manipulate organisms to produce a compound or process which is beneficial to humanity. This is accomplished in a variety of ways, including forced mutation of the original organism. This can involve exposure of the organism to intense UV radiation, or other potent carcinogens. In this process millions of micro-organisms can be produced and killed before a desirable one is found. And then very often the desirable organism is only capable of surviving in the extreme conditions presented to it by intensive production.

Here my quandary arises. We use such techniques on various bacteria, fungi, and even some plants to obtain what we want or need. But if similar methods were ever applied to macroscopic animals, I imagine the outcry would be extreme and immediate. Why is this? How can we subject some organisms to intensive selective processes, rendering them mutated and unsuitable for survival in natural conditions, but at the same time vehemently reject the biological exploitation of macroscopic animals?
3 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 77636
>Why is this? How can we subject some organisms to intensive selective processes, rendering them mutated and unsuitable for survival in natural conditions, but at the same time vehemently reject the biological exploitation of macroscopic animals?
Don't really know. I find such a concept to be in fundamental violation of the principles of ethics. Not the culling, but the rendering unable to survive without reliance on humans providing for them part. But as Flutterguy said, ethics is based on morals and different groups value different things.

> I think there are no popular philosophies in the world that view microorganisms as worthy of ethical consideration and no popular religions in the world that say anything about microorganisms whatsoever.
Perhaps this is being overly pedantic, but yeast (and by extension bread and alcohol), infections, mold, rot, cheese, fertile soil, and manure/compost were all commonly mentioned in religious texts and oral traditions all across the world.

Jainism also views bacteria as worthy of ethical consideration, as does Shinto and Tengriism (in the form of living bacterial cultures, not that they knew of individual microorganisms existing in ancient times). But in those latter two, like in my own views, death is not considered an important factor in ethical considerations. Whereas in Jainism death of bacteria is supposed to be taken into account. For example the proscriptions against eating root crops and fermented beverages, because in the cultivation and preparation of both many bacteria unnessessarily die.
>> No. 77707

Most people have a very poorly developed system of values.

This leads to them valuing something, like a dog, over something like a microbe, with no idea why or any reason to back up their feelings. The 'value' of the dog comes from positive emotional responses, because it's cute and fuzzy, while the microbe only evokes negative emotions or none at all, so it has no 'value'.

This is a very American problem.

As America's system of values, once founded on Christianity, has been attacked we haven't replaced it with anything. Not humanism, which would give leeway on sub-human organisms, or karma, which would prohibit harming anything, or existential nihilism, which would let you do whatever, because nothing matters.

If you don't have the problems others do with the exploitation of macroscopic animals, it's because you don't value them as much, or you value their use to humans more. Be careful, though; if you don't have a reason behind your values, you one day might end up curious as to why people disapprove of exploiting humans. After all, from one point of view we're only macroscopic animals. Why shouldn't the fortunate exploit the disadvantaged?
>> No. 77712
File 139751409187.png - (43.89KB , 355x411 , catbug.png )
No matter how much we would want to define and quantify the line between ethical and unethical, sooner or later it will boil down to where a certain person draws it according to their beliefs.
Personally, I tend to look at the issue from two points of view: the consciuosness level and the personal relations.

As much as it is hard to quantify consciousness of a creature (IQ is one of the measurements, but it's hardly sufficient), we can, more or less, estimate it bassed on mutual relations. Microorganisms are not conscious, plants are not conscious, insects not really yet, then we have small animals, bigger mammals etc. And the ethical restrictions should be, IMO, proportional to this. This may seem cynical to some people, but I consider it to be the most logical approach.

Personal relations, on the other hand, can mess all this up. Of course if you have a pet rabbit, you'd rather shoot a wild dog to protect it. I grow some plants on my windowsill, and they matter to me more than many animals I don't "personally know". My heart would probably broke if someone cut down the huge birch that grows next to my house.

I am a PhD student in biochemical engineering. I work with fungi, and I grow and destroy their biomass by kilograms. If I was to mourn over all of those microorganisms I have killed with cold blood, I would go nuts.

>But if similar methods were ever applied to macroscopic animals, I imagine the outcry would be extreme and immediate
Well, there are cases like this, and not single ones. Bovine genome manipulations in order to turn them into living bioreactors have been carried out. Besides, what about eugenics? We have been doing this for centuries, to alter genomes of, for example, dog, cow, chicken, etc. by selective breeding.

File 139679686760.jpg - (272.79KB , 2048x1839 , 1596941_276582455827421_541299454_o.jpg )
77676 No. 77676 [View]

I'd like to take a moment to make a thread where I will be attacking modern agriculture. Its an interesting thing I think needs to be done - as some of you know I"m rather passionate about growing and growing food, but many of you don't really know - and probably don't want to know (and in the states, its now illegal for you to film so that you could show others and they could know certain things) there are many degrees of separation we have between ourselves and the food we eat.

We simply can afford not to care, not to be aware, and not to be prompted to learn. Yet, there are major problems with how our western style of mechanized, aggressive monoculture farming using patented seeds is far from a good or optimal model, its actually a model that is incapable of being sustained. Beyond that it has serious repercussions we know about and quite a few we don't - this is further not aided when our US politicians allow for the companies that own their GMO patents to push their products into the market before being thoroughly tested.

Or worse, test them, find they are utter failures and invite worst pests than they are engineered to fortify against, and then pawn them off on developing nations using their culture's icons and gods and goddesses as marketing partners.

Our modern agriculture systems across the globe reflect a great many methods of getting things done - however, the monoculture, GMO 'roundup resistant', push-it-to-the-max-profit-margin approach we commonly use is likely in the process of creating its own demise.

Hereafter I will call our methods of farming 'conventional' for simplicity.
Conventional food is less nutritious than it ever has been. This lack of nutrition in our food is a result of two things - one is soil depletion, as vast monocultures have no real way of replenishing their own soil, and as the lack of important organisms that would help circulate and make bioavailable the nutrients plants need, the food they produce is less healthy and the plants are less healthy, meaning they need more pesticides too.
7 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 77706

I hope this works; I'm new to /chan style boards, and the past few hours have been extremely unusual and deeply disorienting.

I thought I'd throw in a few things I came up with while reading your discussion. I may never be back, because I'm not sure I like this style of board, but maybe you will find it interesting.

I spent the summer working with an incredibly intelligent organic farmer in the mountains of Kentucky. I think organic farming, although maybe not where we need to be, is at least a good step in the right direction. Here are a few reasons why.

1. It's more sustainable.

My boss used natural fertilizer, and paid very close attention to his soil. He had years of experience in what he was doing, and he taught me a lot about how he grew plants from the ground up; the idea being that he worked with the soil first, so he could sustain production. He rotated crops, and we killed all our weeds with hoes or mulch, of one sort or another. It worked surprisingly well. I don't know how common this sort of approach is; my sample size is one. But his farm was producing better crops each year. I doubt that's true for everyone.
>> No. 77708
thanks for sharing your experience! it's very heartening to hear of such a well-run and successful organic venture, and i truly hope that such practices can become more widespread in this country.

however, in terms of scale, i don't really see such operations displacing industrialized monoculture anytime soon, if ever. especially for crops like corn and soybeans, the demand, not just for food but as additives, fuel sources, and other biochemical applications, the demand is just so gigantic right now, there's really no way organic, local operations could conceivably keep up.

as to GMOs, while certainly the most visible alterations are pesticide resistance, because they get all the media coverage and controversy, many more aspects of the organism are being modified as well. gmo crops have been modified to increase yield, nutritional content, disease resistance, their ability to stay in good condition during transport, and numerous others. it's still a young and burgeoning field, and the full scope of it's applications hasn't been fully realized yet.
>> No. 77710
>>77708 Hey, lookit that! Bookmarking the thread worked! Still not sure if I 'like' /chan boards, but they're interesting, at least.

Yeah,I agree. Food as a fuel is a wonderful idea, and small-scale farming isn't yet going to compete with that. And since we're not actually eating it, I'd say GMO the crap outta it. As I said, the idea is great; I'm just not convinced we really understand the ramifications yet. Only one way to learn, though.

Still, it seems to me that with most technology, there are trends, and one I've noticed over lots of different systems is that they start decentralized, move first towards centralization, and then, when the tech gets better, away again. Take computers; they moved towards mainframes, and then away. Transport, with trains and the highways. The public schools, and the homeschool movement. I'm convinced the internet will do the same, as network topology gets more advanced. You could almost draw a similar analogy for democracy, although what defines a 'working' government is difficult; no country has lasted forever. Yet. Decentralized networks of *anything* have significant advantages over centralized networks; if they can fulfill the required objectives, they're more stable and redundant, and often cheaper. When the tech reaches the point to where it can compete, I think small-scale is the direction we will move; in lots and lots of things.

The internet will, and already is, driving this. We're still figuring out how to fit this giant of communication into our culture, and we're not nearly done yet; VR is coming, and the percentage of people connected is still pretty small. But on centralization; artisan craftsmanship of many things was harmed by the centralization represented by 'big box' stores. Not saying this is bad, mind you. However, some people really do value artisans, and the internet has brought some of that back; by connecting people more closely, marketplaces like Etsy and Ebay have made handcrafting more profit

No. 77646 [View]
Do you think castration is a good punishment for male rapists? What would be a good punishment for female rapists?
5 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 77661
An eye for an eye and the world goes blind.

There's a euphemism somewhere in there...
>> No. 77692
File 139714495608.png - (330.00KB , 602x544 , Dean 7.png )
Castrating a rapist is like chopping off a thief's hands. Bit too medieval, dude. Unnecessary.
>> No. 77705
Absolutely not!

That is just brutal and unnecessary.

Last edited at Sun, Apr 13th, 2014 20:28

File 139632204169.jpg - (96.50KB , 800x1000 , maudafternoon.jpg )
77638 No. 77638 [View]

Let's talk about those things I put in the Subject. Immortality is Royal Night Guard's waifu, and I believe he's said more than once that he "intends to live forever".

So let's ask everyone some interesting questions, and I can pretend I'm not just asking RNG.

-Would you want to be immortal?
-Why do you want to be immortal?
-Why don't you want to be immortal?
-Do you believe immortality is even possible?
-What do you think of death?
12 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 77699
File 139724977615.png - (25.78KB , 157x157 , 154 t.png )
>I have to admit, I find RNG's fear of death a subject of fascination - and i don't mean to sound belittling to you, Cdirus. You're a respectable mind to me. I just find people and their bits and pieces central to them to be interesting.
I'll take it as flattering rather than belittling :3

>I wonder if his anxiety about death might be lessened through psychedelic assisted therapy? . . . However, I don't think he wants to 'deal' with it
I've thought about this before. I know a psychoanalyst whose research interests are in the beneficial application of psychoactive substances. But yes, I think it is not always a good thing to remove someone's fear. And perhaps neither is it good to be too quick to try and solve problems with medication or substances.

>I wonder if this want, this fear, stems from a linear-view of life? As in 'once you're alive you're alive until your're dead, thats it'. Thats an acceptable current view.
Of course. I don't want to stop existing and it seems at least very plausible that that's what death means. Death is something to be feared and the best choice is to take whatever constructive actions you can to avoid dying.

>I just wonder if it isn't something more cyclical. Nature doesn't produce too many linear dead ends it seems. Things get recycled . . .
I think you have this backwards. When you die the parts that made you up will likely decompose and nature will recycle them into something new, but that something will not be a new, healthy you. Humans are the ones who rebuild the original from recycled parts.
>> No. 77701
I would love to be immortal. I am pretty discontent with the state of technology and society as of now. Though at the same time I want to live for the sake of self preservation. To that end I would prefer immortality to be a privilege granted to me and a select few others.To me, immortality is not a question of possibility. It's a matter of when and how hard is going to be to achieve and maintain. There is no reason why a human could not live forever one day, or for at least as long as the universe exists.
>> No. 77703
>-Would you want to be immortal?
If I am alive and the option is available I would create an avatar. Can kind of already do it with current data collection methods, if I had access to what 'some others' had access to I'd have much clearer picture of me.

>-Why do you want to be immortal?
Because it is an option, though I'd have some issue struggling to justify why I should BE immortal to myself: I ultimately see the reality of things is that we should have cyborgs and avatars of ourselves within a few decades. People are going to do it. Things are going to get strange because our society isn't set up to handle immortal people, moreso dynasties of finance and ownership. If these people become immortal... I worry. They should be contained as holograms. They then can have their wishes of power and control in a controlled environment.

>-Why don't you want to be immortal?
I would feel left out of the cycle of death. Is there something more? Do I dissipate into the ether? Is dying its own life experience and there is a way nature has to recycle me back into the stream when its my turn or sort me into a different medium beyond my matter when I die? Who knows. I don't know.

>-Do you believe immortality is even possible?
Its more than possible its pending.

File 139677995574.jpg - (26.88KB , 460x329 , hAC6CA7DC.jpg )
77668 No. 77668 [View]

I hate these people. I seriously want them to get ran over, all at once, as a group, by a bus full of nuns.

The pain from banging my head against their walls of stupidity is getting too much. Not sure if I can continue to throw their insipid theories back in their faces, only to have them peal them off of said gesicht, rinse them out and toss the damn things back at me.

Why do we allow this special kind of stupid to propagate? Why can't we just put the poor things down easy?

In the interest of further discussion, how do you deal with these kinds of people when you run into them?
Have you ever successful convinced someone of just how wrong they are?
How does one combat ignorance when that ignorance uses "Ignore" and it's super effective?
5 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 77674
NWO is upon us.
We have all been already chipped with RFID.
>> No. 77677
I believe the one about drones being able to home in on and track/fire tracking missiles at cell phones though. That seems like a fucking legit use of a military drone that you just would be crazy not to implement.
>> No. 77688
Jews run the world.

File 139389505117.jpg - (26.31KB , 230x340 , 46756-33701.jpg )
77479 No. 77479 [View]
Hey Graham!

I saw this and I thought it might be something you would be interested in.

In today’s talk, Christopher Ryan, the co-author of Sex at Dawn with Cacilda Jethá, takes a deeper look at the standard narrative of human sexual evolution we’ve long upheld: men provide women with goods and services in exchange for women’s sexual fidelity. According to this model, Ryan points out, the war between the sexes is built into our DNA.

But based on their research, Ryan and Jethá have quite a few bones to pick with this narrative. Ryan explains that our sexual patterns are an outgrowth of agricultural models—which accounts for only about five percent of human history. For the other 95 percent, human sexuality was “a way of establishing and maintaining the complex flexible social systems, networks, that our ancestors were very good at.” In hunter-gatherer societies, there were overlapping sexual relationships between members of a community—a more fluid system than the Victorian model we’re wedded to today. In fact, several contemporary societies around the world argue against the sexual myth we’ve built up, too.

“My hope is that a more accurate updated understanding of human sexuality will lead us to have greater tolerance for ourselves, for each other, greater respect for unconventional relationship configurations like same-sex marriage or polyamorous unions, and that we’ll finally put to rest the idea that men have some innate instinctive right to monitor and control women’s sexual behavior,” Ryan says. “And we’ll see that it’s not only gay people that have to come out of the closet: we all have closets we have to come out of.”
13 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 77653
I don't wnat to put that responsibility on you for some reason as it was me who didn't have the time.

I recently just got let go though.

I have time now just have to ease back into the lifestyle of being free again.
>> No. 77658

Yes. yes I have a lot. Here are the things I suppose in no particular order would happen and I have at least some vague notion of why each of these would happen.

a very large shift toward world peace, egalitarianism, significant drops in violence, stronger communities, and concepts where 'groups' of people consider themselves the parents (or responsible as parents) of children, bigger families, less homelessness, and an intensely more empathic society
>> No. 77659

I think we maybe misunderstood?

You asked why I posted the blog you posted right?

It was just a pure mistake. We have common interests. I actually had skimmed this earlier, so referenced it in my memory, looked it up, and shared it because it was relevant.

It was just a bit more relevant than I had realized *lol*

File 139541050968.jpg - (28.70KB , 604x233 , image.jpg )
77620 No. 77620 [View]

I want to become a dolphin.

>in another life
2 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 77623
File 139545008474.gif - (768.69KB , 400x247 , GIognFP.gif )
If anything I could be other than a human, it would be a dolphin
>> No. 77628
File 139571820622.gif - (13.53KB , 501x585 , jewfeel.gif )
>you will never be a dolphin
>> No. 77637
File 139625489153.jpg - (220.41KB , 960x744 , rapecave.jpg )
>rape niggas all day
>people think you're adorable and still want to swim alongside you
shit that's the fucking life right there.

File 139484786417.jpg - (36.30KB , 705x763 , twiwhatt.jpg )
77593 No. 77593 [View]

This thread isn't about stand up comedians, because they joke about everything and it's hard to discuss sensibly. I'm talking about jokes on kids' TV or in family movies. It seems that things like two men accidentally ending up in romantic/sexual positions, or men being "dressed like women", are played for humor. I'm sure there are instances of racism and many other things, but I'm just pointing out what I noticed most/bothered me personally.

I was watching "Cheaper by the Dozen 2" because it was on Nickelodeon and I have nothing better to do, and there's a scene where an adult man leaning on another's shoulder is considered unusual and disruptive to a theater-going audience. It's not like the movie is about realistic interactions in socially stressful situations or anything, so it was played for humor.

There are other examples, but that's the most recent I could think of. I admit to being a fairly weak person, but has anyone else noticed that, or been bothered by it? It just seems so out of place in movies that generally have themes of friendship, understanding, or togetherness.
8 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 77605
File 139507126304.png - (20.78KB , 150x136 , twilight_sparkle_at_the_spa_by_pikamander2-d4vh8f9.png )
Do you have an example of the sort of witticism that you are thinking about? As I mentioned in my post above I think that a lot of humor has the purpose of reducing tension. But that does not mean that this is all that humor does.

I also agree that there should be a sensitivity to how the joke works. Not all humorous portrayals involve a tension that is insensitive, serious or discriminatory. There should be some sort of reason at all levels.


>How is it odd for a straight man to do effeminate things? Why is effeminacy in men considered something only gay people have?
Culture. We are trained to think that certain things are appropriate for defined groups of humans. The groups can be defined by race, sex, belief, politics and many other things. Why Jews restricted to specific businesses in some parts of history? Why can't women show their hair in many countries? Why were some groups of citizens allowed to opt out of the required military service in Israel until recently?

For as many ways that we can divide ourselves into groups, we can probably attach different emotional sentiments to those groups and find characteristics, roles, and other things to use to create differentiations based on those emotions. So right now we have a bunch of arbitrary sets of behaviors assigned to gender and sex and if you muck with that there are lots of people willing to take that personally, and laugh at a joke that uses those personal feelings.
>> No. 77625
File 139554023753.png - (618.70KB , 997x492 , maudrock.png )

You seem to be referring to insecurity. These specific things that people laugh about can make them discomforted/insecure (which causes tension), right?
>> No. 77634
File 139593653133.png - (91.69KB , 773x747 , emotion.png )
>You seem to be referring to insecurity. These specific things that people laugh about can make them discomforted/insecure (which causes tension), right?

Maybe? Insecurity causes tension. But are they really synonyms here? I'm being serious because I'm still thinking about all of this myself. One of my favorite mental images when it comes to humor and it's use here is actually a scene from Braveheart when the The Battle of Stirling is taking place. The Scottish are facing off with the English and they start mooning the English. When I think about that scene I have to ask myself, what is humor doing there in a functional sense?

What does showing your ass to a opposing force do on an emotional level? It replaces fear (a source of tension) from my perspective, but perhaps this perspective can be mad more precise. Tension can probably be caused by all the negative emotions, but how humor relates to them is likely different.
*Tension from violated gender norms (Disgust? Loathing? Embarrassment?)
*Tension from a sense of military opposition? (Fear? Terror? Apprehension?)
*What forms of humor deal with anger?

I'm sure there is plenty of room to think about this issue and I've only thought about it as much as I can.

File 139519598537.jpg - (5.24KB , 294x171 , index.jpg )
77614 No. 77614 [View]
How to run for public office
1 run with the Tea Party Conservative Republicans 2 study the issues 3 run for office 4 hire Jon Stewart of The Daily Show to endorse your opponent. 5 win a landslide victory
1 post omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 77617
idiot op
>> No. 77618
File 139519744441.jpg - (61.03KB , 640x512 , confidence-mouse-trap-cheese-demotivational-posters-1392170018.jpg )
I fully endorse OP's strategy

Pic related
>> No. 77626
File 139555308915.jpg - (9.63KB , 259x194 , images2.jpg )
listen here u lil shit

File 139234404239.jpg - (138.74KB , 900x600 , 647.jpg )
77260 No. 77260 [View]
How does one deal with overwhelming misanthropy?
I'm not the religious type, but I'm convinced that when religion condemned the nature of man it was more right than anyone in history ever was and the more I learn about humanity the more I am disgusted with it.
I cannot describe to you how revolted I am by it and how much hate and loathing I have in me for it; words do not suffice. I know desiring the end humanity is nothing strange, but I hold them in such contempt and so unworthy of existence that it's starting to make me unbalanced.
I used to be able to at least see individual people as individual people, but now I'm starting to see even family members as degenerate consequence of their genes as everyone else and just as unworthy of existence as them.
31 posts omitted. (View thread)
>> No. 77612
File 139508184307.png - (25.78KB , 157x157 , 154 t.png )
>This is again, a confusion of teleological meaning and value.
>. . .those side effects which had once helped us to replicate, desire and fear in particuliar, have jammed and no longer function for the reasons they were selected since they have been removed from their niche. They are meaningless now.
>>And this is nessessarily thus an evil . . .
Right, well I think we already know how any discussion of meaning and value between us is going to go.

>Memetics is just as subjective to the principles of evolution as biological processes are! That's what makes it memetics in the first place.
There is a grander set of principles which cover both biological features and psychological ideas, behaviours, etc. but 'evolution' usually refers to just the biological. I assume that's what the OP is talking about.

>Humans are no smarter or powerful than natural selection. Is a computer smart? Yet the plastic case that surrounds this computer, you would not also call this smart, would you? It does nothing, because it is the motherboard and electronics which do the thinking. Yet you would certainly not call an isolated wire which would otherwise form a piece of this motherboard intelligent, would you? It is not the components you are describing as intelligent, but the process, the change in information between input and output.
No, in this metaphor humanity would be the microprocessor, or at least a microprocessor embedded in the whole. If the process of natural selection ceased to function humanity would still be smart and powerful, moreso than natural selection itself.
>> No. 77613
The word 'goal' describes an aspect of awareness. evolution cannot realize it is being thwarted and actively take steps zgainst that, like a person or group of people can.
>> No. 77619
>The word 'goal' describes an aspect of awareness. evolution cannot realize it is being thwarted and actively take steps zgainst that, like a person or group of people can.
Human awareness does not exist as a quality distinct from that of the input into any process, be it merely running water, mathematic equations, or a single cell.

Qualia, conscioussness, and the self exist only as illusions.

Any input into a reaction nessessarily produces an output of some sort else it wouldn't be part of the process. Evolution is not a thing that reacts, it is the reaction to something. And any process that promotes homeostasis of which evolution is one is taking steps to neutralise events that would cease it.

Regardless of that, it is clear that we are not using the same meaning of the word goal.

>Right, well I think we already know how any discussion of meaning and value between us is going to go.

File 139263983756.jpg - (64.36KB , 700x311 , bechdel-test-e1384150631581.jpg )
77291 No. 77291 [View]

Colin Stokes poses us a question in this TED video at 9:09.

He is asking of a statistic he quotes about sexual assailants, and then of society in general in regards to what we might be getting from media and movies from a very young age
>"Are they(we) absorbing the story that a male hero's job is to defeat the villain with violence and then collect the reward - who is a woman who has no friends and doesn't speak?"

What do you think?

Last edited at Mon, Feb 17th, 2014 05:24

24 posts omitted. (View thread)
>> No. 77577
it bothers me a little the difference between

"Conventional conflicts"
"Unconventional conflicts"

If 'conventional conflicts' include things like killing, violence.... isn't this just a tad bit backwards? I worry impressionable people and impressionable ages may be picking this up as part of their growing up process.

That conventional conflicts involve guns, bombs, maybe an army invasion, lots of death, and finally killing your opponent in order to be rewarded with a woman.

We have so many other ways to address conflicts! But its like a broken record with media.
>> No. 77607
File 139507373534.png - (23.37KB , 134x150 , twilight_sparkle_vector_by_piranhaplant1-d4euua3.png )
>I think a point that was overlooked in this thread is that, while male protagonists are more common, female protagonists are more likely to feature in these unconventional conflicts.

I can agree with this. I don't really "blame" history for what it was and it did involve a long period of time with particular portrayals being emphasized. So independent of what we might be trying to do in our groups today knowing what wend on before is always a good idea.

So yeah I can see that women would have been featured in different sorts of conflicts from physical combat despite the presence of women warriors in history. But I'm not sure that "unconventional" is the best way of looking at it. Non-physical certainly. It's just that other sorts of conflict are also a conventional part of our stories. Domestic conflict, political conflict, economic conflict for example.

Do you have some examples in mind? I would be interested in seeing them.

I don't know about "primal division", but I agree that throughout our evolution there will be some places where there has been a social difference in what the males and females do (and our evolution is informed by our history). I also agree that the limitations of child-bearing have left something of a mark on the genders where there is a feature that clearly takes "sides" in terms of a biological female (but the dimensions of these"marks" are under debate and study).
>> No. 77616

"What do you think?"

I think he's one of the those dicks that think mass media exist solely as their personal soapbox to spread their ideology.

Delete post []
Report post

Previous [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]