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

Search /dis/ threads

Password  (for post and file deletion)

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/

32 posts omitted. (View thread)
>> No. 78189
File 140669796034.jpg - (37.72KB , 463x278 , spoiler.jpg )
Those were golden days.

Oh, also, nice trips

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 141088809030.jpg - (72.64KB , 511x512 , photo.jpg )
78284 No. 78284 [View]
I found this awesome YouTube Channel called The League of Pet Shoppers. They talk about Littlest Pet Shop.
>> No. 78285
OOPS I post it in the the wrong page. Please ignore this

File 140134101581.png - (91.44KB , 279x243 , Thoughtful.png )
77891 No. 77891 [View]
[#Discussion] [#Question]

In the wake of the UCSB shooting, I'm seeing a lot of internet arguments and blog posts about male entitlement. Indeed, shooting people because you can't get laid is an incredibly stupid thing to do, and Elliot Rodger was an enormously entitled, misogynist twat.

That said, there is a flipside to the issue of "male entitlement"; namely, the notion that if a man is not getting laid, then he has failed as a man. Guilty and stupid though he was, Elliot Rodger did face bullying as a result of his virginity, as do many others. In popular culture, "success" for a man is typically defined as "getting the girl". If a boy has sex with a girl and she takes his virginity, it is said that she "made him a man", as if the mark of a man is whether or not he has had sex. Movies like The 40-Year-Old Virgin portray men who have reached middle age without having sex as childish losers. If a guy is going off to college, he's more likely to hear "don't get anyone pregnant!" than anything else, as if the reason one goes to college is more to have sex than to get an education. If popular culture is to be believed, the most important thing in a man's life is sex.

Why do you think this is? Is this an effect of male entitlement? A cause? A byproduct of survival instinct? And finally, is a male virgin a loser?

Last edited at Wed, May 28th, 2014 22:27

57 posts omitted. (View thread)
>> No. 78280
What I don't understand is why we feel there is a clear bias for one side and against the other in reporting victims. Of course men can be victims - turn on the local news in any metropolis area and you'll find plenty. Mostly victims of other men's violence.

>The point is that, when women are victims, it's a national headline and a gendered crime.
sometimes... and sometimes men make headlines too

>When men are victims, it's either ignored or mocked.
sometimes... and sometimes women are ignored or mocked too
Are you certain that the perceived bias isn't simply a result of a real world victimization property? Or that women as victims don't do better in the ratings than men in the same situations? I have to say, that in the context of popular media, being upset that men aren't portrayed as victims as much as women seems awful petty if women really do represent the larger victim base: until we get to areas where that lack of attention is detrimental to society or the law somehow.

Ultimately I'm not sure how we're supposed to weigh a bias towards portraying victims as victims as either positive or negative. It seems awful to reiterate victimization to the public and highlight one gender, even perpetuating that concept to the public. If the bias is a positive or in favor bias, what good is it doing exactly and what has it done?
>> No. 78281
Bias in favor of women when it comes to reporting crimes.

>Are you certain that the perceived bias isn't simply a result of a real world victimization property? Or that women as victims don't do better in the ratings than men in the same situations? I have to say, that in the context of popular media, being upset that men aren't portrayed as victims as much as women seems awful petty if women really do represent the larger victim base: until we get to areas where that lack of attention is detrimental to society or the law somehow.

The problem is that women don't represent the larger victim base; the overwhelming majority of muder victims are male, the majority of assault victims are male, assaults on males are on average more serious, the majority of robbery victims are male...etc.
>> No. 78282
>The problem is that women don't represent the larger victim base; the overwhelming majority of muder victims are male
and news reporting doesn't reflect this? are you watching your local news channels and reading the local paper and women are being over represented and men not reported on when it comes to murder in your area?

This is highly unusual in my experience. You can generally tune in to the local news upon waking up and find a story about a man or men committing violence against other men with some ease. And if you open the newspaper I'm sure you'll find snippets about people being murdered, shot at, etc.

>the majority of assault victims are male, assaults on males are on average more serious

and how often does simple assault make it to the headlines? "Bar altercation ends up with one man punched, other man escorted out of bar and told to get out of here before they call police." This doesn't sell papers or hook viewers. This is run of the mill violence of men against men - Unless its particularly heinous, I don't recall seeing much at all reported about assaults - generally its not newsworthy material otherwise.

>the majority of robbery victims are male...etc.

File 140944148441.jpg - (8.36KB , 204x247 , images (1).jpg )
78254 No. 78254 [View]

In a macroeconomic sense, what is an unreasonable share of income for Capital to take? 15%? 30%? 50%? 100%?
1 post omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 78268
File 141000986490.png - (18.98KB , 397x398 , Howl at the moon.png )
I will also assume we're speaking of income tax. And in a macroeconomic sense? Hmm...

I suppose, like most things,it depends a lot on what your goals are. In Rose's case, his goals seem to be to give the government as much money as possible without making citizens upset, with some caveats.

But what if your goals are actually wealth redistribution? Then 100% is acceptable, even though some citizens would be very upset by this.

What if your goal is to create a competitive market or reward large corporations? Then a much smaller tax would be required, if any would be acceptable at all. In such a case, you might actually prefer that literally everything be privately funded.

Or perhaps you think that there are a few minimum things you need done and you need a base amount of cash to keep political systems flowing. Then you might not have a set tax, but instead tax everyone based on how much the state has spent that year, divided by each individual's percentage of total income.

There's just so many ways this can be looked at that even talking in terms of macroeconomics you probably can't definitively decide on any one route. I don't think there's any one way to say "Yes, this is good."
>> No. 78277
I'm sorry, I don't mean of tax, but of the total income for people in a nation. A 100% take for capital's share of income would then be reflected by slavery: the laborers dont get paid, the person who owns everything gets all the money. Typically they own the people as well in a case like that.

That capital deserves a share of income for being capital is a core essence - perhaps even the core concept - of capitalism.

Historically, 30% give or take a small amount has been pretty popular in capitalist societies. Give or take. In recent times, though, with a favoritism of the rich (read: the true capitalist actors, the big-C Capitalists - the people who own the capital) we are seeing in the U.S. something close to 50%. 50% of the nations income goes to those who own the capital. The rest goes to workers, essentially.

You're right about tax being a complicated issue. If I recall, most taxes we have now were not even practiced a couple hundred years ago. I think most of what they used then was property tax.

>> No. 78279
File 141017845144.jpg - (20.20KB , 440x474 , 280237__safe_oc_meme_edit_team+fortress+2_ice+pack_demopan.jpg )

Oh, oh, I getcha. That makes way more sense. I'm not sure why I wasn't figuring it out the first time through.

So in this case, 100% would be slavery, like you said, and 0% would be communism (of some skin or color).

So now, given that, in a macroeconomic sense, what is an unreasonable share? This time, rather than political goals, what are the goals of economics in general? Some might say that the goal of economics is merely to predict the flow of resources, but if people can talk about "good" or "bad" economies, than there are things that we can measure to rate "success".

Just snatching a glance at the wikipedia's definition of "economy", you can see a few of the things they measure, and generally you want those things to be high. Pretty simple stuff. It also notes that "intellectual property" is something that people didn't used to pay much attention to. With good reason, mind, since IP wasn't very prominent before. It has only become a more powerful force in very recent history. Important to note here is that this strong upward trend is still in effect, and I feel like that effect will only increase as time goes on. The original economic strengths of resources and labor are slowly falling behind as we convert more and more of the earth into what we need rather than just dirt. Efficiency of technology and lack of raw resources are moving jobs, profit, and economic benefit in general out of those markets and into these new ones that don't require anything but ingenuity and imagination.

So it seems, to me, like a strong economy relies on that section of the market, but that leads us to a conundrum. That market doesn't depend much on capital at all. A lot of people can create media from next to nothing. And good media, too, not crappy stuff. They make things that are profitable and popular. Contrarily, it is often the big major names that put tons of money into capital and production costs th

File 140994599676.png - (257.62KB , 482x578 , discordhmmm.png )
78263 No. 78263 [View]
Since all those celebrity photos leaked, I've been struggling with some moral questions as far as what is considered "blaming the victim". I don't think it was right that someone hacked their iphone clouds, but I'm wondering how much personal responsibility someone has to keep those types of photos private, if that's what they want. It would seem, to me, the internet is a dangerous place to store photos of a sensitive nature, but some people may be ignorant of how secure their information is. A friend of mine compared it to "storing photos in an abandoned safe on a busy sidewalk", that anyone can try and open. Is it fair to say that someone should try to keep those photos in a safer place to lower the risk of exposure? Is it possible to avoid blaming the victim, but at the same time point out risky behavior that makes you a target?
>> No. 78266
File 140999883997.png - (177.65KB , 800x886 , Greenhousing.png )
>Is it fair to say that someone should try to keep those photos in a safer place to lower the risk of exposure?
I'd say so. It's just common sense to give a recommendation like that. Nothing wrong in saying it. Of course, it would be weird to fine celebrities for having photos stored in non-public cloud storage.

In the end, none of our data is really 100% secure. No matter where you put stuff, it can always be accessed somehow. Locks only exist to keep honest people honest, and in this case the lock just wasn't big enough for the job. You can't say that it was the people who took the pictures' fault, since almost no matter where they stored them it would have been possible for them to get leaked somehow. Probably, the best advice you can give anyone is just not to have nude photos lying around period. Nothing but trouble, they are.
>> No. 78269
File 141001836726.png - (30.34KB , 200x303 , Five dollars.png )
This is a really touchy subject for some people because a mishandling of the situation can cause major problems. It was always a problem for me growing up, actually, because I was often the "victim" of my brother's antics, be they theft, harassment, or otherwise, but anytime I would attempt to call my parents to take care of the kid and keep him from causing problems, I would inevitably get blamed for "leaving myself open" and my parents would continue to take no action against my brother. Strangely, when I started solving the problems by crushing my brothers spine my brother was not blamed for being a poor combatant.

Ultimately, though, both parties really are at fault, in a sense. What's important is not whose fault it is, but whether or not a "legal" crime has been committed. Stealing someone's car is always theft and the criminal should (probably) always be punished accordingly. This does not mean that you do not need to lock your car doors or secure your car in a garage or keep your keys on you so criminals don't gain easy access. Doing so would be a "natural" crime.

See, "legal" laws are something we make up to protect each other from ourselves, from things we can catch so that they don't continue acting, and sometimes even undo the damage that has been cause. "Natural" laws, on the other hand, are things that exist regardless of what we say about them. We cannot (or, at least, should not) punish anyone or anything that breaks these laws, because nature itself will apply consequences to any misbehavior as necessray.

Imagine a different scenario entirely here, wherein someone left their food in the back of the fridge for four months. Now it's all moldy and inedible. Whose fault is that? Well...the mold, obviously, and theoretically the mold should be held responsible in a court of law. The fact remains, though, that if the victim had not forgotten about their food (broken a natural law) this would not have happened in the f
>> No. 78278
File 141016462878.png - (195.39KB , 801x954 , discordquiteso.png )
These are great answers.
I really don't know what else to add.

Last edited at Mon, Sep 8th, 2014 01:24

File 140751305650.jpg - (32.18KB , 651x475 , meditation_zen_do.jpg )
78197 No. 78197 [View]

Does anyone else here practice meditation?

Does it help you?

What forms or methods of meditation do you use?
1 post omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 78220
I do from time to time.

I like to meditate in nature. I also like to meditate at home alone usually naked or in my boxers and try to bring natural elements into the house, typically the wind.

There are parts of your body the wind never touches, but it could, and sensationally it can be very intense to feel the wind curl around the small of your back or along your upper thighs.

>Does it help you?
Sure. I use it as a tool to pump my intuition or reflect on things I learned or need to think about. It works very well for these things. So well I cannot describe some of the things I've discovered because we simply don't have the language for it. So if you ask, be prepared to get an answer that is more metaphor than substance.

I mostly use mindfulness but sometimes I like to play with thought constructs.
>> No. 78264
Sadly, not really

Sometimes you just have to take a break and... relax vehemently

I use my nervous system in a specific manner that feels like it recharges or reboots my mood, been doing that all the time
I think it is what eastern people call life energy and do those park dances with

Last edited at Fri, Sep 5th, 2014 23:28

>> No. 78265
What you are describing can be compared to dreaming versus wakefulness....
You need to thoroughly asess your being in both states to be a 'balanced' mind or whatever

File 140944041551.png - (81.75KB , 252x252 , 992dba58-a2ec-4dcf-bf39-14bf2862abc3.png )
78253 No. 78253 [View]

What are the differences and relationship between Gender Identities & Gender Roles?

As well, within the context of the transgendered?
>> No. 78256
File 140947440806.jpg - (852.77KB , 1584x2046 , image.jpg )
That's a good question.

And I have no idea.

... I suppose that a gender identity is not a real thing if you're talking about anything outside of transgendered people. If you don't take trannies to be a factor, there wouldn't be a need for the term "gender identity".
Taking transgenders into consideration- gender identity seems more to me like something relating to the physical feelings and mechanical parts of a gender, like hormone issues, emotional feelings and things that are chemically defined by gender.
Gender roles are based on social laws, and most often shallow traits in people. I think. It shouldn't have any weight in a transgendered person's questioning of their gender. It's just social dogma.
>> No. 78258

Trannies is a derogatory twrm, please use the terms Trans or Transgender in the future.

As for the differences, from what was explained to me by a friend a gender role is essentially a forced position put on to you by society, as in a male should be a construction workereven when he would rather be a nurse. A gender identity is essentially who you want to be seen as. Some people are male others female regardless of the parts and then there are some who are both (binary neutral).

As a sidenote, never ask someone what they were born as, ask them what pronouns to use or what sex(s) they identify with. Most folks had to wade through extremely damaging psychological trauma just to be who they are, don't disregard it by asking who they were.
>> No. 78259
>I suppose that a gender identity is not a real thing if you're talking about anything outside of transgendered people.

how about people who do not identify with a gender identity or identify as not having one?

I'm shooting in the dark right here, but I had read something to the tone that gender roles arise from gender identities a person has. That makes sense. In practice they aren't the same thing per-say but are a related dynamic.

But it doesn't entirely satisfy against my suspicion that the gender identity is actually also the concept of gender roles that a person imprints.

Its just one possibility but I haven't been comfortable enough with what I understand to rule it out - that perhaps gender roles socially imprinted can create gender identity issues in at least some people.


File 140358540711.png - (292.24KB , 533x761 , 13.png )
78073 No. 78073 [View]

A few months ago, in a chat I used to frequent, I mentioned that I'm a masculist. The response to that... was not pleasant. It came from pretty much complete ignorance of the topic, and by the time the other person realized their ignorance, I was too frustrated to properly educate them.

I'd like to correct that. There's a lot of misinformation about masculism out there, so I thought I might be able to help educate you.

So go ahead. Ask me anything. You can even ask me accusatory questions and I'll answer them. Just so long as it's an actual question, I'll answer it. Keep in mind, however, that if you want me to be specific, you're going to have to put a little effort and open-mindedness into your questions. So you are allowed to ask, "Isn't masculism misogynistic?" However, the only answer you're likely to get is, "Nope."

Also don't be surprised if it takes me a couple of days to answer. I sometimes forget to check Ponychan and it seems that my watched threads aren't working properly, so there's that issue, too.

But if you're patient, feel free to ask away!
27 posts omitted. (View thread)
>> No. 78246
File 140872545913.png - (311.93KB , 683x664 , 532.png )

Honestly, I was going to say that I don't think masculism has an official stance on transmen, but when you think about it, masculism is a lot like feminism in that it's rather disorganized (moreso, in fact, because of the tendency of feminism to exert social pressure on women that disagree on stances like abortion or dual income families). Masculist writings and sites do seem to be in support of transsexuals, while AVfM has a few different articles on the matter. One I read showed strong support for transsexuals while condemning "trans-activists" for the path the movement has taken. Another is by a FtM transsexual. This doesn't say a whole lot, however. A number of comments on these articles express how often the men and women that frequent AVfM run into feminist transgender individuals and how it seems like an abusive relationship, given feminism's subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) stance on it. The same could be said for the MRM and masculism. From what I've seen, masculists and MRAs are generally in support of those that are transgender and transsexual, even if they don't really understand it.

I'll admit that this is an area where I'm not as well-versed as I would have hoped. All I can say is that there seems to be support, but I can't say for sure because, honestly, there could be something I'm just not seeing. I just haven't been that focused on that area enough, but there also isn't a whole lot of focus with masculism when it comes to trans rights; there just seems to be subtle acceptance.

And now I've spent a few hours on this because I got lost in links and I need to get more stuff done today and I'm still lost in links. So much for my reply to Graham.

Last edited at Fri, Aug 22nd, 2014 10:10

>> No. 78249
What does masculism think about gender differences?
How do you feel on idealology of sex as a whole?

That's all I can come up with right now.
>> No. 78257
>First of all, I'd like to know how you'd go about proving that outside of cultural norms (such as the cultural norm that men should seek sex, for example), and then how you'd go and remove negative cultural norms from that group.

I wanted to answer this.

The cultural norms bit is quite complicated, isn't it? And its very detail oriented - at that level of detail I don't think we can make easy estimations of a superior sex.

So lets roll it back a bit.

Why not observe the world around us?

What are males, exactly? What are females? When we observe other species we find a complex array of organisms which trend towards a very similar pattern of male utility to that species.

File 140789379424.jpg - (41.25KB , 460x307 , image.jpg )
78198 No. 78198 [View]
This subject is one that has greatly frustrated me:

Why does this exist? Why must it exist? What point is there in it existing? Is it something to be Prohibited? For this only brings heart ache and ignorance of friendship between boys and girls.
It also brings unneeded drama, and is a weight that many do not need on their shoulders.

Can someone please explain to me all of this?

This comes from me, a 15 year old, who has no dating/girlfriend experience, but has heard much advice and is an outsider looking in on the events known as dating
17 posts omitted. (View thread)
>> No. 78244
If you want some advice, take it from a man whose been through what you're going through: the stench of desperation is unattractive.

generally women want to be with someone who is confident and sure of themselves. If you go around broadcasting that you need a relationship with someone, anyone, right now, does that make a girl feel like her a relationship with you would be special? Or would that be something anyone willing to pay attention to you could have?

Make yourself stop wanting it so bad, and it's a lot more likely that something will come to you. No one wants to be in a relationship with someone who needs to beg for affection.
>> No. 78247
>I have tried to start, but I got rejected a lot as all.
Why are you even asking these question, then? The answer seems pretty obvious.
>> No. 78248
I'm 17, male, and heterosexual and sometimes I feel pretty lonely. I've never had a girlfriend, although I really want one. However, I feel that a lot of teenage friendships are pretty gender segregated because of dating and I don't think it necessarily has to be that way. in my Freshman Sophomore and Junior years, I made an effort to not sit at gender segregated lunch tables which tend to be that way because people find it easier to befriend a gender that they aren't attracted to. As a result I have plenty of friends of both genders as a senior(I say both for simplicity even though I picture gender as a spectrum, not a binary). I've been going on dates with girls, but haven't had a real relationship. That being said I have confidence I will meet someone I truly love. My philosophy is to not let gender stand in the way of friendship and even if you don't have a partner yet, it will happen if you want one.

No. 78199 [View]

So. I've come to a realization: I don't necessarily dislike cloppers, and I don't necessarily think clopping is bad. What exactly does that mean? Maybe someone will write it underneath this...

First thing's first, there are two words that need to be removed from the discussion: "Weird," and "disgusting."

"Cloppers are weird."

Of course cloppers are weird. Weired doesn't signify any moral judgement, it simply means "different from the majority." Bronies in general are considered "weird" by society, and I don't think many of you would say that makes Bronydom immoral.

"Clopping is disgusting."
1 post omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 78208
Honestly, who cares about what you do as long as you keep it to yourself like you said.

The only rules I have when it comes to calibrateing are
-If no one is getting harmed, its a-ok
-Never calibrate to characters I like
>> No. 78215
As long as they're not making what they're masturbating to public knowledge or hurting anyone or anything in any way shape or form, then I have no problem with these people.

If they are doing these things then, to be 100% honest, they deserve to be labeled a 'horse fucker'.

>Never masturbate to characters I like.
>implying your personal favorite character is exempt from this sexualization.

Well, I have news for you: there's going to be someone masturbating to a character you like out there. Always. That's something you have to deal with.

Last edited at Fri, Aug 15th, 2014 11:51

>> No. 78216
I know, its more of a personal rule.

No. 78162 [View]
Youtube embed play button
  So the guy who sings this has been convicted of "

Attempted rape of a child under 13
Sexual assault of a child under 13
Taking, making, or possessing indecent images of children
Possessing an extreme pornographic image involving a sex act on an animal"

How does that make you feel?

20 posts omitted. (View thread)
>> No. 78184
If anybody asks me about my political beliefs, I would usually say I'm a democratic socialist and leave it at that.

Though, admittedly I do have some left-libertarian beliefs.

I also think Obama was the lesser of two evils during the 2012 election in my opinion.
>> No. 78186

I don't care for the music, it's the acts themselves.

Having been raped in junior high, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I know most people are especially keen on Raping the Rapist as though it's some form of justice, and that always fucks with me.

I just don't want him to hurt anyone else. I just want him stopped. Not raped, not tortured, not beaten or killed, just stopped. Exiling him from the rest of society for a decade, without any further action taken against him? That's stopped enough.

Uh, this has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with this guy being a remorsless sociopath manipulating his fans into letting him rape their children.
>> No. 78194
File 140703839502.jpg - (23.62KB , 361x269 , 1405792612607.jpg )
Didn't the extreme pornographic image involving a sex act on an animal also involved a kid as well?

Now that's undeniably fucked up, come on people.

File 139087702249.jpg - (10.53KB , 200x245 , Justice_Holmes.jpg )
76893 No. 76893 [View]

Would the world be a better place if people with low IQs were not allowed to reproduce?

Edit: Note that this question does not ask if society should prevent people with lows IQs from reproducing.

Last edited at Mon, Jan 27th, 2014 19:56

49 posts omitted. (View thread)
>> No. 78145
I looked over this web site:

...it seems to be a standard white-power/white supremacist ideological web site. Everything about the site, and the person running it, is in full agreement with all of the premises and statements of white supremicists. However, it clothes itself in intellectualism, quotes from fancy scientific and historical figures (most of which nobody has really heard of), but repeatedly maintains, in a ivory tower and "intelligent" seeming way, the most extreme eugenicist, white supremicist intellectual positions. It sneakily uses terms like "equality" here and there to seem nice, but it is ultimately attacking the concept. If this approach validated ideas, then we could assume Marxism or Freudism was also flawless because Marxists and staunch Freudians do the exact same thing. It is not so.

The term "occidental" is as outdated and archiac and ridiculous as the term "orient". It refers to western white people, but most people don't realize this. Every aspect of the creator and maintainer of this blog, everything he says and does, is essential supporting white supremacy and attacking diversity, egalitarianism and the idea of social progress.

If you are a rightist or conservative I strongly urge you to reconsider knee-jerkingly supporting the guys positions. There is nothing about being a businessman that says you have to take on social conservative, racist (racialist, occidentalist, white supremicist) ideas. There is no real solid reason to support the similar ideas of Fox News and its main ideologue, Austrialian rober-barron Rupert Murdoch. You can think independantly, you can hire nonwhite people who are skilled and capable and weigh the perceived risks vs the good it will do in the long run. You can try hard to convince the poor, whatever their color, that education and reason are the positive path. It is not the time to give up on humanity and go to the path of war, impoverishment, discrimination and genocide that is ultimately offered by the Occidentalist behind his intellectual-soun
>> No. 78185
File 140650576133.jpg - (84.04KB , 800x600 , 1378583800250.jpg )
A better question would be: does I.Q. really matter?
>> No. 78190
There would be just less dumb people, I don't think it would improve the world, how about lazy people..

I don't think you can kill lazyness for everyone, though.

File 140589858400.png - (1.45MB , 1280x720 , Arya-arya-stark-31146929-1280-720.png )
78137 No. 78137 [View]
I don't understand trannys who try to fuck girls. I know this one tranny who does that and if he wants to fuck girls, why does he pretend to be one? There are so many less lesbians. Is it just a lesbian fetishist type thing? I don't get it.
4 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 78142
Ugh, what the hay, now that it's on /dis/ where it belongs, might as well reply.

The thing is, I've seen it a million times before. You're just feigning ignorance for dramatic effect.
I mean, "tranny"? Seriously?
Even a little kid understands that that is a purposely inflammatory word. You only say it if you are trying to start a fight.
Likewise, if you're been on the internet at all, you understand correct gender politics. You understand that transexualism and sexual orientation are two separate things, you know that you should be calling that person "she" and not "he". You know all of this.
Yet you carry on, flying in the face of common decency. Presumably just for kicks, though far be it for me to assume anything about your personal morals. Maybe you actually believe what you're saying, who knows.
If so, you could at least approach the subject with tact, and respect for the parties concerned. And lack of slurs.
>> No. 78143
>thread using the word "tranny" and saying that trans women are pretending to be girls
>moved to board for serious discussion
mods pls
>> No. 78155
Its not uncommon, the mods move a thread like this to /dis/ to be handled 'srsly' and essentially kill its original intent.

/dis/ might be a graveyard of sorts but the mods are well aware we can bury a thread here too

File 140317018734.png - (1.50MB , 975x800 , 1403059131270.png )
78063 No. 78063 [View]

I don't really know why I've come back here. But I have a question for you all.
Is the fandom getting worse or not? Is it possible it only seems like this because of the attention given to the negative actions of the group? Has it always been this way?
On a side note, I hate the very "vocal" memebers of any group, for, in my opinion, they are the reason most people outside of said group dislike it in it's entirety.
Pic unrelated.
2 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 78079
File 140360296888.png - (386.66KB , 823x544 , Dean 4.png )
Summer always makes the fandom seem worse; actually I think it doesn't change very much at all, but without fresh new episodes for people to go crazy over they notice the less desirable aspects of the fandom more.

Whatever. It's an internet fandom, not a magical community. That's why I don't call myself a 'brony'; I think it's a silly label that says nothing about who I am. Also because calling myself a 'brony' inherently links me with all the assholes and sickos who also call themselves bronies (I'm not saying they are a majority at all, but as you say, they're vocal) so I don't.
>> No. 78146
File 140609302710.jpg - (14.01KB , 88x88 , 1.jpg )
Worse, better and every synonym only exist in the mind. Something truly cannot become worse, or better because those are perceptions and not qualities.
>> No. 78152
It;s the off-season right now. It always appears worse during that time, because we're all starved for new content. There's only so much non-show content can do to keep us satisfied.

Once the show comes back, it won't seem so bad.

Delete post []
Report post

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