/ot/ - Off-topic

>>19041
Thanks, I remember trying to convince sti to shut down 4chon by explaining he was running an Israeli honeypot by creating an army of anti-semites (consisting of teen boys with autism and other mental disorders) which would spam mainstream sites with "KIKE!" thereby alienating anyone sane and give the ADL a reason to exist and reinvigorate them with donations. Sti closed the site less than a day later. Frankly a few years too late to save a lot of nuts who had their lives ruined by /new/, like that 21year old manchild Smiley or that Rockerz88 guy from the UK who wound up in prison for murder.

>>19045
>seisatsu and ferus had a gay orgy with a tranny
Wait, what?

>>19042
I haven't actually been there, and I'm not really interested either.

>>19046
It's even more complicated and outlandish than it sounds and most of the documents are still classified. Try not to think about it too much.

>>19045
Thanks for posting that
I'd love to have seen the Imageboard Terrorist's commentary, that sounds like a hoot. all that other shit was about various namefags and I don't remember any of them being very creative or interesting people, but that one guy trying to remain anonymous and still sticking out like a sore thumb sounds amusing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpzaxeZjpiQ (eva)

Sakura Sakura https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHPeF1MAUK4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SPLEPdEBuo
This is really nice.

>>19052
The argument was that people can't be selfish becuase they are social. I pointed out that those two things aren't mutually exclusive becuase people are social out of their own interest to a large extent.
>your whole point is
That's not my point, and it's not what this thread is about. People do occasionally do random things out of empathy for others. I never said they didn't. This thread isn't about whether human nature is evil or whatever, it's about what human nature is and how easy it is for people to act against it.

>>19056
well heres a problem
Can't we say anything humans often do is human nature? Like how would we even build a definition that could set the framework to determine what is and isn't.
Whenever people on the internet argue about "human nature" they all seem to have wildly differing ideas of what it is and how "humans really work"
Hmmmm… I suppose the best way I could think of defining it would be thing we do without thinking about it, like things without a premeditated analysis of WHY we are doing it, when the only thinking spared is for HOW to do it..
Hmmmm no perhaps thats a bad way to define it, idk

>>19057
>Can't we say anything humans often do is human nature?
No. There's patterns. That's how you set the framework. What is constant? Look at smoking. That's both not something humans inherently do or need to do. People do have the tendency to become addicted to things that make them feel good, but the ability to resist temptation is something anybody can consistently do if they have enough self-discipline. It's in a person's best interest to avoid giving in to temptation(controlling your emotions, not abusing drugs, not procrastinating). Whether or not a tendency to be addicted is part of human nature is subjective I guess. Even then you could consider the motivation behind addiction to fall under prioritizing self-interest(which could mean feeling pleasure). It's probably one of the more extreme forms that that behavior takes.

Look at something like Communism. Human nature will not allow for a system in which each part exists to service the whole and every part is treated equally. People want more for more work. Why should doctors be given the same as factory workers? Why try to make something good if I get nothing more out of it? Why should I try at all if it makes no difference to me? Not only that, but people in, "organizational positions", will always make sure that they're more comfortable than everybody else. Some people who are passionate enough can circumvent this, but not millions of people squirming around and trying to push themselves to the top of the pile over the course of decades. It violates human nature.

I don't really know if it's harder to train self-discipline or train true selflessness. The latter is just totally irrational to me. Maybe i'm projecting, but I don't think anybody is capable of wrapping their heads around why that's something you should aspire to.

Do you see any holes in my list?

>>19059
I suppose you could say cultural norms are what goes against human nature or rather controls and regulates it in a way, it determines the ideas of right and wrong.

>>19060
Yeah, but even cultural norms are a product of human nature to an extent. Every culture, no matter how isolated, has some things in common. Social classes, formal/informal conduct, clans, familial power structures, religion. Following rules set in place by other people is also part of prioritizing self-interest.
I guess curiosity and classifying are another part of human nature.

Meat's meat and a man's gotta eat.

>>19010
I think as long as they knew that this pig was food from the beginning he wouldn't care. Kids learn what is right from their enviroments, so if false seperations - e.g. "That's not a pig, that's pork", "that's not a girl, that's my sister", "I'm not like them, I won't die" etcetera - are forged early then they stay (on an emotional level rather than a logical one).

>>19011
A man's gotta eat, but is meat the right treat? Don't answer that, wrong thread.

>>19010
Is arguing even allowed or are the mods going to stop the conversation because we are challenging each other's opinions?

>>19050
Yes it is, faggot. This isn't stormfront and it isn't reddit. If you've got something to say, spill it.

>>19050
Read the rules. You can argue with someone at will but if you drift too far into insults, general rudeness, arguing for the sake of arguing and summerfaggotry you'll generally get the end of the hammer.
Also, please don't steer this thread into some meta offtopic talk, go to /sugg/ if you have complaints that Pretzel is a nazi.

>>19022
Social interactions=//=Society

Just that makes your whole tryhard dishonest wall of text worthless.

I was talking about social interactions and treating them as such, as in how capable you are of interactions, societal problems, politics and which race commits more crimes is a completely different thing.

You changed your script by talking about why the crime rates matter, and accuse me of doing the same thing, do you want to be racist that badly?

This isn't the place for that, whatever you do, please struggle a lot, try very hard, in the end of the day that is the truth and won't change, you still lose friendo.

>>19023
Alright you seem to be having some difficulties following this conversation. I'll walk you through it.
You implied it wasn't acceptable to be racist since it would be having the same level of reasoning for social interaction as a donkey.
Then I showed you that it is not only acceptable, but a good thing since it can statistically save your life due to current day crime statistics.
Then you started to try to move the goalpost and focus the debate on whether I was refering to society, social situations or whatever.
Then you had a mental breakdown and kept ignoring everything else and declared every other argument worthless because in your little brain you're pretending it still was unclear whether I was refering to social interations, society, or whatever. As if that was relevant to the debate of the validity of racism as a whole.
Keep up the strawman.

>>19024
Alright, you know what? In Sei's honor, you win, this is the kind of arguments we shouold be avoiding, try to be racist here and see how that goes.

>>19025
I'm already being racist and it's fine, nigger.
You must be the autistic animeposter ITT that was arguing with OP.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

Lock this thread please. The creation of this thread was already pointless as it is (and it's on the wrong board), I haven't seen OP reply in a while & these pointless unhealthy arguments that end in nothing good are spawning up despite the original reasoning behind these threads presumably being solved under the new owner. Yes, the board has gotten some tumors there and there but chemo was thankfully applied, end of the story. Just please don't spread more stuff when the issue was already discussed and (solved).

>>18948
It's bad because it's a fucking pointless restriction. Restrictions should only fucking exist to fucking preserve site integrity, not protect people's delicate fucking sensibilities.

>>18949 maidnaut is a girl i've seen her vagina

>>18949
I wonder if there's a specific thread that might be pissing them off. HMMMMMM
>>>/yndd/2151

pulchritudinous: physically beautiful

uboachan

The fact that gormy and gormless mean the same thing has always baffled me.

How can having and not having gorm be the same?

>>18756
>Towed
>Mowed
>Bowed
>Showed
Nah.

>>18832
More importantly: what is gorm?

>>18929
>lock this thread
go away leddit

>>18930
Lurk more.

>>18931
youre a faggot

>>18932
Lurk more

chemo this place

I rather like certain types of minimalism. Not in the corporate, airbnb type lifeless design, but instead in that there is less to worry about. Certain minimalist aesthetics help my mind feel less cluttered, and enable me to live life in a way that is more focused. I think a lot of minimalism is very contrived and uninteresting. However, minimalism can be calculated and intricate and have a positive effect. Consider traditional Japanese housing: I feel it forces one to focus more on life itself. This isn't Lain, but I know a lot of the same users intersect here. Isn't GNU/Linux ricing (a weird example) an example of minimalism and focus? You can have minimalist aesthetics that facilitate feng shui that present as much information as you want. It lies in how that information is presented.

>>18863
>Isn't GNU/Linux ricing (a weird example) an example of minimalism and focus?
I guess arranging girls and terminal emulators is kind of like zen gardening.

>>18852
>Just look at what they did to YouTube.
why are you only mentioning youtube? there are plenty more examples of what minimalist design has done. also, thoughts on circle profile pics? it's a common theme going with the minimalist style, and it's only going to expand

>>18865
>thoughts on circle profile pics?
Really reeks of faggotry. Square is objectively superior to circle in displaying images and space, and if someone wants to use a for-circle profile image, they can always just go on paint and draw a circle border around it. Options matter.

>>18866
Yeah, nobody cares about options anymore. It's all about forcing their shitty aesthetic down people's throat. That really reflects on their entire mentality if you ask me. The first thing that put me off from vid.me wase the circle profiles. When youtube rolled out their newest, superfluous design change, I actually used adblock to neuter the site just to make it less of an eye sore. The first thing I got rid of was the new subscribe button. I only mentioned that one example because I use it the most.
>>18863
Again, I can't really think of any positive examples. Traditional Japanese interior design is simplistic and purposefully avoids decadence and unnecessary complications, but it still has a unique style and feel to it that goes beyond that. Japanese houses look quaint and cozy to me. It looks like home, unlike what describes itself as minimalist, which does not go beyond being as plain as possible. Really it's apples and oranges. Japanese houses having a lot of color in them is the most obvious difference. Soothing beige and vibrant orange and brown.