cancel reply
Posting mode: Reply


Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
name e-mail subject pw(deletion)
Post and go
Bump thread?

  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Javascript must be enabled for all of our addons to work.
  • Come chat and see that we're all a bit crazy on IRC!
  • Do not post any artwork from sexyfur.com and/or
    Jeremy Bernal. This is now a bannable offense.
Flockmod!

File: transphobic.JPG - (143.55 KB, 933x857) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
146998 No.3470531

Can someone give me a rundown on the Inkbunny exodus? I've been reading a lot of journals lately about how everyone is leaving due to the site owner being transphobic. From what I can gather, this image (https://inkbunny.net/submissionview.php?id=1414461) was posted, followed by this guy (https://inkbunny.net/Skunket) protesting to have it removed, and the site owner said no. So now everyone is leaving?

No.3470533
File: please stop crying.png - (7.32 KB, 307x314) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
7493

Bingo.
Whooda thunk babyfurs would act like actual babies?

No.3470534

That artist drew cub snuff. You really care what they think?

No.3470541
File: mac2.jpg - (34.61 KB, 360x481) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
35442

>>3470533

No.3470542

Shi/Hir/Xin/Bazonga special snowflakes leaving Inkbunny because they can't censor speech there is hardly a bad thing.

They already have Tumblr.

No.3470544

Good.
More incest and taboo for those who remain.

No.3470564

I'd prefer the company of a real pedophile over a tranny every day...

No.3470567

Where the fuck else are they going to go? Cub is banned on all the other furry platforms.

No.3470571

I don't see the problem. When i was growing up,it was only 2 genders. I wonder how those SJW crybabies are liking trump. He will bring America back to the way it used to be.

No.3470592

>>3470564
same, pedos just look like they're bitter, with a tranny you never know when the fucking retards are going to grab a knife and jump you.

No.3470598

>>3470531

inkwhat? is that still a thing?

No.3470604
File: captcha-sure.gif - (3.63 KB, 102x32) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
3722

I don't know, GR just runs the site like all projects of his.
Everyone can read about it and presumably agreed to follow his lead when he took over IB.

And this fucking pronouns shit again, oh fuck me how retarded can people be.

It's pretty much the same when people complain about faggoqueer and squabbles. You stick up with it by staying there and supporting what they do.

Don't like it? Leave! I don't get it.

No.3470605

Right then, buckle up buckaroos cus I'm gonna tell a story. A story about a fellow named Roarey Raccoon.

Roarey was one of the more likable British artists due to his nice style, sense of humour, variety, and he wasn't as dramaprone as others like Muzz. He was depressive in a sense but it helped some of his work. He did official art for a lot of Confuzzled's promotional material, and despite living off commission money, disability and having to look after an ill mother, he was an alright guy. He lived with his boyfriend who's a charming fursuiter, too.

Roarey's art seemed to take a turn for the cubby side of things, and he did a fair bunch of cub porn until FA's cub ban, which enraged him and made him do a bunch of vent art/journals. He also pushes this whole 'gosh i'm so great cus i'm an atheist' thing. Some time later, Roarey's bf has enough and leaves, whether this is is due to Roarey's shaky reputation as a not-so-secret cub artist I have no clue. Roarey also gets found out sticking up for Tweaker, a guy whose deets got leaked over fucking a toddler. His art basically shifts to character-as-mouthpiece vent art.

Roarey's popularity drops, word gets spread. After the Ariana Grande bombing in Manchester his cousin gets hurt at, Roarey decides fuck the left, i'm being a full on rightie, and I'm going to be as edgy and controversial as possible. Cue a lot of anti-Islam tweets, enraging people like Artdecade and all the other politics furs, and everything culminating in the gender unicorn pic.

The gender unicorn pic raises holy hell among trans/ally users on FA, Roarey replies to comments without much intelligence, preferring to show off how 'redpilled' he is and how all those transgenders have mental health issues. The hoo-ha causes him to be suspended from FA. Inkbunny however doesn't give a fuck, Greenreaper being his usual autistic self and responding to people who have a problem with the image with 'I thought it was amusing!" People leave as a result.

That's about the whole of it so far.

No.3470611
File: Ratbudda.png - (35.93 KB, 627x640) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
36795

>>3470605
he blocked me from IB because i said trannies are mentally ill, that pretty much confirms what you're saying, he's doing it for attention and not because he's actually redpilled about, well, basic biological facts. He's a first, when furfags want attention, they make a fucking sparkledog, but roarey took it to the next tier, since politics are "trendy" now, he picked the option that logically gets the most hate on a site full of mentally ill furry perverts.

oh my god, it just hit me, he's creating the NEXT LEVEL of trans, he's transpolitical! he's a nazi trapped in the body of a mentally ill lefty... or a mentally ill lefty trapped in the body of a nazi? or maybe just a contrarian attention whore trapped in the body of a mentally ill furfaggot. Yeah, that sounds more like it.

either way the shitstorm was hilarious. none of my 100+ watched artists really cares so i can keep getting my sweet furry cunny without trouble, the trannies can fuck off.

No.3470614
File: 12718143_1366147836869743_8522819387972952965_n.png - (451.30 KB, 720x621) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
462136

>>3470611

It just seems ironic that someone who draws and discusses cub torture/snuff porn would be the most vocal about banning stuff that they don't like. Doesn't Inkbunny already have a block feature for just this issue?

No.3470634

more /pol/ tears form accepting trash who can't accept the world isn't all bigoted Christian

>I wonder how those SJW crybabies are liking trump. He will bring America back to the way it used to be.

You mean the incompetent fuck-up who just attacked white supremacist groups today? Worst president in history? I get it you think the "glory days" are back when we had slavery and no women voting, because you're autistic. Grow a pair and stop crying because the world isn't what you want, you inbred fuck.

Besides, everyone knows the pedos are all right wing now- Trump was friends with several pedos and Milo is proud to have been molested. Chris Hansen is a leftist anyway.

No.3470661
File: re b8.jpg - (513.35 KB, 1146x1148) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
525670

>>3470634
put your name and trip back on Cobalt

No.3470740

>>3470661
his name is leukemia, cobalt is a different brand of retard

No.3470917

>>3470611

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raP-rhMA88M

No.3471166

basically RoareyRaccoon was being an autist and conflating gender and sex to low-tier flamebait. People got riled up and cried to the mods to censure Roarey who clearly has already been punished enough with the stick of ignorance, so they were like "nah it's free speech" and some people got pissy because safe space.

Yeah, I would say it's a safe space, but typically you don't touch the poop when dumb people start trying to be an agitator like this. I was livid when _____ started trying to rile up an SJW mob on IB but GreenReaper came to this board to put that down so at least he's consistent about defending "contributors".

No one on my watch list is leaving and I'm unaware of anyone I give a hoot about doing so tbh. But feel free to list off any artists you guys are gonna miss so I can know who found this egregious enough to try and find a home for their junk somewhere else

No.3471167

>>3471166

>conflating gender and sex

They're synonymous to those who aren't mentally ill.

No.3471168

>>3470564
of course, because you'd be among your own

No.3471201
>mentally ill

If you believe a man in the clouds created everything, that term describes you

No.3471207

>>3471201

You're assuming, I'd bet the dude is even atheist.

Let's be real, less than 3% of the pop is trans or a 5 on the homosexuality scale. That is a deviance. That is not operating normally.

Are you going to tell me a backfiring car is mechanically sound just because it still rolls down the street?

No.3471216
File: hacker.jpg - (3375.61 KB, 2794x1759) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
3456621

>>3471166

Who is _____?

No.3471218

>>3471207
less than 0.1% is actually trans, with brain changes to cause that. The 3% you quote are either schizophrenia taking form of confusion of own gender identity, or just trying to be trendy.

Actual biological transsexuals are about as rare as actual natural-born hermaphrodites. But the current fashion convinced a lot of individuals with various identity disorders that they might be trans.

No.3471224
File: LAPD.gif - (41.87 KB, 320x900) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
42878

We're also keeping an eye on Inkbunny, its owner and staff seems to be VERY tolerant in regard of "freedom of speech" They are hard to contact, no IRC channel or direct contact with the staff members.
Inkbunny will have to get in line or disappear.

No.3471230

>>3471224

>its owner and staff seems to be VERY tolerant in regard of "freedom of speech"

If by "freedom of speech" you mean pedo shit. For anything else, they seem to be about the same as FA. You must have missed this from the link in the OP.

>Inkbunny staff have decided the discussion in response to this image has become far too heated, so they have locked the comments section and deleted some comments, of mine and others, that went too far.

Fuckin' weak sauce.

No.3471236

>>3471230
I will not pretend freedom of speech covers hatespeak. I don't use freedom of speech to spread hateful comments or offensive remarks.
If someone find my content problematic, I remove it, and apologize.
I understand.

No.3471262

>>3470531
Do you have a list of all the artists who have actually left? None of the ones I watch appear to have jump in on this "exodus". At least none of the ones I regularly watch.

No.3471273

Skunket is a well known whiny, crybaby, attention whore and has been for years. No artist of any merit has left over this to my knowledge.

No.3471419

I wonder where will all the cub lovers go now. All the other furry sites have banned cub.

No.3471451

>>3471419

>> I wonder where will all the cub lovers go now. All the other furry sites have banned cub.

I http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8829889/
wonder http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1328436/
too http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2935395/
it's http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3862742/
not http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2447260/
like http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4306440/
they http://www.furaffinity.net/view/12641928/
wouldn't http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3426996/
be http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8280767/
spotted http://www.furaffinity.net/view/20237188/
instantly.

You know, with a simple search: "cub" and checking adult. The admins would have a really simple job of deleting the cub porn art and it'd be gone in a matter of hours at worse.

No.3471461

Trans people are a fucking nuisance. I'm so sick of them causing so much trouble lately...

No.3471475

>>3471216

a bird. They seem to have learned their lesson and appear more peaceful now, especially considering this recent drama, so I'll leave their name out of it because de-escalation and avoiding creating a mob should be supported.

No.3471490

>>3471166
Are you an ally, or defending a fash's right to spread ignorance about gender identity?

No.3471494

>>3471461
I must stop spreading blind hate on the internet about subjects I cannot comprehend, under anonymity. This makes me a stupid asshole.

No.3471495

>>3471490
"Gender identity" is bullshit. People are born either male or female. No one is born with a female brain in a male body or with a male brain in a female body. If you can't accept the gender you were born with, you are mentally ill. This is a matter of accepting reality. This has nothing to do with religion or fascism.

No.3471497

>>3471495
I will study before echoing the opinion of ignorant, right-wing fascists.

I acknowledge my words will hurt psychologically fragile people, this is my intention and I am wrong.

What I learned in science class about sex in the 1980s is no longer valid in the 21st century, thanks to recent discoveries, in pair with the evolution of our society.

I will refrain from using this argument, respect and protect transgender, and non-binary people.

No.3471500

>>3471495

>No one is born with a female brain in a male body or with a male brain in a female body.

Now, to be honest, gender dysphoria does exist, but very few people experience genuine, actual gender dysphoria. Most trans people supposedly experiencing it are either delusional or suffer from some other mental illness; a lot of trans people who fully transition end up disatisfied or in worst case scenario, commit suicide.

No.3471501

>>3471500

https://thinkprogress.org/no-high-suicide-rates-do-not-demonstrate-that-transgender-people-are-mentally-ill-5074c09a5827/

The weird part is how black transgenders do not have such suicide rates as WHITE transgenders.
I guess whites are not that used to get discrimination.

No.3471503
File: leonardo_butthatsnothingofmybusiness.png - (891.59 KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
912991

>>3471495

http://www.webmd.com/brain/features/how-male-female-brains-differ#1

No.3471508

>>3471500
I won't get my science facts from 4chan or Breitbart. I understand psychology is the most complex science.

I will stop be a fascist asshole calling nonbinary, non-cis people as mentally ill.

No.3471538

>>3471495

Yup. I feel that they were not raised right.

When i was growing up,boys weren't supposed to play with dolls,and if you did. You got scolding.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/05/planned-parenthood-to-preschoolers-genitals-dont-make-you-a-boy-or-girl/

Pull your kids out of public schools and homeschool.

No.3471549

>>3471501
There's nothing weird. The article points out the truth, but makes the complete opposite conclusions about it. Observe:

> Given transgender women are more likely to be profiled and targeted for discrimination, this suggests that the suicide attempt rate is not connected to the transgender identity itself, but to how people are treated for being transgender — a conclusion born out by other studies.

Notice how they don't aknowledge in any ways that men who transition to women rarely pass as women - they end up like freaks. Now is that the fault of the society to not appreciate people who deliberately turn themselves into freaks and then expect to get treated like nothing's the matter??

Oh, they do aknowledge it:

> perhaps most importantly, the further along individuals were in their transitions — i.e. the closer they were to having a body and outward identity that matched their internal gender identity — the less likely they were to attempt suicide.

I.e the more you're able to pass as the other gender, the less likely you're to suicide, although the risk is still significantly higher than the general population. The risk for women to men is lower mostly because they take on male roles which means toughening up, whereas the male to female transgenders often do it because they think living life as a woman is easier i.e. they want to play princess and when they fail to transition properly they off themselves.

No.3471554
File: voltaire-quote-i-disapprove-of-what-you-say-but-i-will-defend-to-the-d.jpg - (73.98 KB, 700x700) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
75751

The ones who seem fine with violating the person's freedom of speech are forgetting freedom of speech is for both sides of every argument

No.3471556

Trannies are like someone dressing up like a clown and then demanding you not laugh at them or be disturbed by them

No.3471558

>>3471538

>citing Breitbart as legitimate news source

You lost me there.

No.3471566

>>3471554
Voltaire didn't live up to the 19th century to see his freedom of speech being subverted into social justice propaganda by indoctrination through repetition and appeals to moderation (aka. "truth is in the middle")

Should one stand to death to defend another person's freedom to lie and decieve?

No.3471588

>>3471556
People who claim to hear God's voice are mentally ill, what with the whole "hearing voices" thing, yet we're supposed to treat them with respect? We get it, you're a bigot but you're a pussy too afraid to admit it so you use justifications and loose definitions to cover up how you're a bitch.

It's like Milo saying a bunch of anti-woman pro-white shit then going all "I'm gay and have a black boyfriend! The liberals hate me because I'm a fag! I can't be a racist, I suck black cock!" Blowing black men doesn't mean he doesn't regard them as inferior. Being a fag kike doens't render him uimmune to being disagreed with.

You little shits play these mind games to hide what you are. Your balls are the size of raisins and you have no backbones or integrity. You deserve to die but you're so subhuman you cost less than the bullet that would end you. Fucking pathetic. No wonder you lost WW2 and are barely able to hold on while your kike president uses you to make money. Go fuck a black guy and pretend you're winning the race war, because it's all you're good at, asshole.

No.3471591

>>3471588

I'm glad that your anti-theism made you more stupid. It's gonna be that way until you change your path..

No.3471601

>>3471588
Jesus, trannies really are deranged.

No.3471607

>>3471538
I just read this with a redneck accent.

No.3471676

>>3470605
The tweaker part was a ruse though.
Police even confiscated Tweaker's shit and found nothing of the "logs" or "evidence" that were posted. Didn't even try pursuing an arrest.
Guy who fabricated it all ended up being a known pedo and obsessive autist himself with some old bad blood for the dude.

Don't know enough to argue about the rest though.

No.3471680

>>3471601

>muh feelings are hurt

yeah I can tell, bitch.

No.3471682

>>3471676

>Guy who fabricated it all ended up being a known pedo and obsessive autist himself with some old bad blood for the dude.

That sounds like something Monglor would do. He is an asspie retard with a lengthy history of calling artists he hates pedophiles and trying to fabricate evidence to smear their reputation (Scifijackrabbit and Slugbox for example), while being a pedo in denial himself as he used to like and reblog lolicon and cub porn on his old Tumblr.

No.3471683

>>3471682

Dont you mean Irrational Kangaroo?
He already got "popularity" for doing that shit.

No.3471690

>>3471683

IK isn't a pedo though, just a midget with Napoleon complex whose preferred targets seemed to be fursuiters.

What >>3471676 described fits Monglor's modus operandi.

No.3471711

>>3471680
Are you talking about yourself? With that kind of freak out, you must be.

No.3471791
>religious people are asspained that people who aren't religious do things their shitty little book disapproves of

Glad I saved a copy of this, it's true, painfully true.

Even if your little shit book were real, you're not allowed to judge anyone- only your god can judge. By acting as judge, jury & executioner before your god you are violating his will. But the truth is you're a bigot and religion is an excuse to be so.

Once again, the only good heavy metal band pwns your sorry little fraudulent bit of text that's nothing more than an excuse for you to be a douchebag. Nah, that's not all its good for, it also scares he masses so a select few can control you like sheep. That's why Christians are referred to as "lambs".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2IgcqdIdr0

No.3471797
File: religion.jpg - (116.35 KB, 793x642) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
119138

fuck you very much, broken captcha system because ch00b is too retarded to put in a better one, always loses the image when I have to refresh it for expiring.

Reminder that this image is 100% factual and that pisses off the special snowflake godboys it calls the fuck out.

No.3471802

>>3471791
>>3471797

So are you going to kill yourself now cause you don't have a vagina or something?

No.3471994

>>3471797

ikr.

Ch00b, fix the captcha. it's too hard to read

No.3471995

>>3471682

Wasn't IK the one who tried to shut E621 down?

No.3472036
File: tumblr_inline_mkl6s7sALI1qz4rgp.jpg - (101.03 KB, 500x333) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
103453

>>3471995

Why would anyone want to shut down e621?

No.3472063

>>3472036
porn is great, but the userbase is atrocious. so if you're so autistic you can't stop yourself from scrolling down on a picture, I can see how one would feel the porn isn't worth the users and wish to nuke the thing from orbit.

No.3472065
File: 1462980358012.jpg - (60.95 KB, 599x900) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
62411

>>3472063

So... Don't read the comments? Destroying e621 because you don't like people discussing furry porn? The fuck kind of logic is that?

No.3472066

>>3472065

>Don't read the comments?

don't read the comments? do you even know what fandom you're in?

No.3472124
File: pp&sons.jpg - (131.45 KB, 1350x868) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
134603
No.3472125
File: panky.jpg - (144.46 KB, 1200x1600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
147932
No.3472126
File: panky&chatta.jpg - (178.36 KB, 1356x1046) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
182636
No.3472127
File: comb&mirrorset.jpg - (205.71 KB, 1082x1550) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
210643
No.3472166
File: pankys_padded_problem_by_blazeheartpanther-d73iymo.jpg - (16.72 KB, 235x350) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
17122
No.3472167
File: 1984-vintage-PINK-PANTHER-SONS-Red-Plastic-_57.jpg - (215.68 KB, 1600x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
220853
No.3472178

>>3471218
The trend comes at the expense of drugs with a lot of serious health side effects, so these fools are paying quite a price to join the latest fad. I understand the medical community wants a quick buck right now, but it'll be interesting to watch what will happen 5, 10, or 20 years down the line.

No.3472181

>>3471500
Hey, problem solved!

No.3472189

fuck you in your stupid fucking dead ass face, eat my shit, die. none of this shit matters.

No.3472361
File: sex is gender.jpg - (40.17 KB, 540x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
41129

ops, here come the facts: John Hopkins University announced that transgenders, even after they transition, still commit suicide at rates 20% higher than the rest of the population. And why? Because, Hopkins says, TRANSGENDERISM IS A MENTAL ILLNESS. And accommodating a mental illness DOES NOT CURE IT.

John Hopkins is an almost unassailable icon of medical research, so no, it's not a Bible-based political group.

www.dsm5.org/documents/gender%20dysphoria%20fact%20sheet.pdf

thinkprogress.org/johns-hopkins-transgender-surgery-5c9c428184c1

John Hopkins was the first place to start offering SRS and after they realized that it worsened outcomes they (as good doctors do) stopped performing it and stopped treating it as a valid medical procedure. They were pressured a few months ago into performing it again by the typical intersectionalty SJW cult of mental illness despite it's lack of medical benefits. They targeted the very people that were trying to objectively help them and are basically forcing society through Marxist critique to "support" this thing now.

The funny thing is no peer reviewed meta-studies recommend humoring their mental illness (at the psychological or physical level with surgery/hormones). Those who opt for SRS have massively negative outcomes, it's treated as a last Hail Mary for ticking time bomb suicide cases. When these people try and research this thing they always turn towards one of their mentally ill hug box echo chamber tranny organizations and their associated propaganda. These people need to see a handful of doctors including a psych over many years for a reason... it's a last resort and the medical community pretty much writes them off if they insist on mutilating themselves after that, they are lost causes. They would rather get their "facts" from "social scientists" than actual doctors, they obviously learned nothing from the Sokol Affair.

How these people manage to divert public funding in places like the UK and Canada while salvageable people are dying on wait lists for actual medical needs is amazing. This is also ignoring the fact that studies range them at 22-28% having HIV. All have severe concomitant mental issues. Their suicide rates are increasing despite "acceptance" of this thing in Western countries. Just about every statistic you can think of goes against this thing and they will still double down on it from some tranny think tank.

And yet...
B. F. Skinner developed a philosophy of science that he called radical behaviorism, and asserted that children's mind is tabula rasa, the child can be taught to be any gender and will just accept it.
The theory was later proven bullshit, but not before a number of operations of sex change was performed on infants with underdeveloped genitals, "to spare them problems in adult life". Boys bought with micropenis would be turned into girls, and brought up as girls.
Since, up to the 'subjects' 11th or so birthday this all went without a hitch, the children developing in new genders just fine, the study was announced a success and - mostly forgotten.

Until someone traced them down some 20 years later. Almost all of them were found to have went through a gender change surgery, back to original, completely independently. And about all were found to lead their life in original genders just fine, no typical social/personal problems associated with post-op transgenders. Simply, the theory worked until adolescence kicked in, and then gender encoded in brain structure surfaced.

Still, schizophrenia is vastly more common than the transgender mutation. And schizoprhenics get all kinds of weird ideas, involving their own sexual identity too.

So I don't doubt vast majority of Hopkins' treatment were simply delusional. Of course the operation won't help in these cases. Of course anti-schizophrenia medication will. It's just two different medical conditions with totally different causes but almost identical symptoms - and one of these conditions much more common than the other.. We need better diagnostic procedures to distinguish them, and adapt proper treatment to the actual cause. And we need SJWs to shut their whore mouths and trying to turn a dangerous medical condition into a socially acceptable norm.

No.3472363

>>3472361 cept the issues lie in the fact that most suicide because they are not mentally ready. if they can't accept themselves before and after which is one of the reasons professionals give you 2 years of living as period before prescribing.

i am able to accept the results cause i have to if im serious about going through with it. btw even i believe most trans are just batshit insane petty children.

No.3472374

and nothing of value was lost. fuck off yank shitters, I want to fap to kemoshotas in peace

No.3472397
File: 1502559496355.png - (431.37 KB, 640x478) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
441727

>>3472374

>I want to fap to kemoshotas in peace
No.3472437
>Simply, the theory worked until adolescence kicked in, and then gender encoded in brain structure surfaced.

So, male and female humans are in fact sexually dimorphic, which includes brain structure. Meaning someone could be born with a brain structure predisposed to resolving in a pattern opposite from their physical sex characteristics. There either are male and female brains, or there aren't male and female brains. But we can't cherry pick facts both both possibilities to circumstantially support the side of the argument we happen to like.

No.3472451

>>3472437

Trannies are delusional, that's really all it comes down to.

No.3472455

>>3472363
I like how you read nothing but the first line.

No.3472458

>>3472437

I love this false dichotomy. Did you know that human brains and dog brains are also physically and fundamentally different? So in order for you to agree with that you have to accept the possibility that a human could be born with a dog brain, or a dog born with a human brain!

No.3472485

Christ, why doesn't anyone speak in actual scientific terms?
Genetically you either get XY or XX. When the fetus is developing it is more or less female until the Y genes kick in and the body starts producing testosterone. Actually it produces estrogen as well as the other hormones at different levels but it's the testosterone that causes the formation of the penis for example. Females kind of keep the original form though it's more complicated than that.
Physiologically gender continues to develop up through puberty through the combined actions of genes and hormones. Everyone has different hormone levels so people will tend to have slight differences.
Culturally we delineate between male and female in the west. In some cultures children are considered neuter or even female until undergoing manhood or womanhood ceremonies. In some cultures there are more than one gender, and different gender roles.
I'm tired of people on the left saying that gender is anything you want it to be. It isn't. It's based on your genes, your hormones, and your culture. You can only change one of those, you'd better actually have something wrong with you before altering your natural makeup. People can't just be flung out there and lied to like this, their biology still plays a role and it becomes discriminatory to deny that and try to disallow some sort of positive gender modeling for children instead of making them grow up not knowing who they really are, or hating themselves, because the only thing they have to go on are distorted images of unattainable beauty designed to make adults buy shit.
I'm tired of people on the right saying that gender is strictly male or female. It isn't. Western capitalism goes to great lengths to 'sell' to men and women and create that dichotomy, but in reality gender in america is largely undefined, we don't have strict cultural rituals, just vague consumerism, so people are largely free to choose what kind of man or woman they want to be. When you also have traditional gender roles being destroyed and the conversion of society to a largely service based, egalitarian model where gender differences aren't really that important (everyone works together on an equal playing field in all specializations), it's almost a lost cause to try to cling to a conservative view of male and female that doesn't exist any more. Masculinity is in an extreme crisis, it's become unfit to the modern world and taken over by aggressive, noisy little shits and loudmouths with huge insecurities, and championed by fat ass lazy cowards who sit behind computers all day complaining like women about being mistreated and probably couldn't get laid to save their life. Your biological sex might be unchangeable but gender actually is culturally imprinted and defined. That isn't to say it's untethered but there's got to be a middle ground called 'reality' where people choose their gender roles.
In reality both sides are arguing for binary gender roles -- this whole transexual thing is largely about men becoming women or letting boys act like girls, going to the extreme measure of altering your body and contravening your natural endocrine system to fit into one or the other role. I don't get it.
Iran forces gay people to transition, they sanction it. It's a conservative act. Why do liberals defend it?
It doesn't make sense to me. None of this stupid horseshit makes sense to me. I'm sick of hearing about it. I don't care about trans people one way or the other, I do care about gender in this country being turned into a shitshow, but do we have any sort of critical discourse on that? No it's just grandpa knows better vs. delusional freaks, arguing in a backwards framework.

No.3472497

>>3472437

>Meaning someone could be born with a brain structure predisposed to resolving in a pattern opposite from their physical sex characteristics.

That would imply a chimera of sorts, where the genes in the brain are different from the genes in the rest of the body to explain why the brain didn't develop according to plan.

They happen, but they're rare as hens' teeth. On the population level, there should be only some odd hundred of these people alive - provided the fetus doesn't auto-abort because of the mismatch.

No.3472501

>>3472497 you are talking about a species with the brain power to make illnesses seem literally all in your thought process and curable through simply positive living such as depression its possible to cure yourself of the problem.

simply willing things with adamant resolve can make the brain do seemingly miraculous things but they are natural effects of willpower. our consciousness is stronger than we think we just need to unlock the mind that's all it is really.

No.3472507

>>3472485

>Christ, why doesn't anyone speak in actual scientific terms?

Science is still taboo for the americans. A lot of those problems and shittalking come from there. You can't really argue with them in that way. You are with us or not, that how americans wants. Retarded I know that how they are.

No.3472512

>>3472485

>Your biological sex might be unchangeable but gender actually is culturally imprinted and defined.

When people are free as individuals to do whatever they feel best, traditional male/female gender roles naturally emerge as the dominant culture. It's only the leftist who argues that culture is arbitrary - without realizing that culture is intrinsically linked to evolution and the traits of the individuals that the society consists of.

It's just another leftover of Lysenkoism which was the belief that organisms take on traits from the interaction with their immediate surroundings, which can be changed arbitrarily to mold the organism.

No.3472555
File: Tarakanovich-532926-Slytherin_Luna.jpg - (563.63 KB, 1295x1797) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
577162

>>3472485

>Your biological sex might be unchangeable but gender actually is culturally imprinted and defined.

But wouldn't that also make it unchangeable? Society and culture doesn't just point at some one and go, "That is now female" after it's been male for 30 years.

Transsexualism is a purely selfish construct of a delusional mind that should be treated with the same level of respect as someone who demands we all act like they are a dragon trapped in a human body, a Wizard from Harry Potter, or someone who is the reincarnation of Elvis.

I know they think these things are true, but we shouldn't support their mental illness.

No.3472557
File: DHrvmNaW0AAtyic.jpg - (111.66 KB, 703x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
114337

>>3472555

Wait, I forgot to add: Unless they are hot.

No.3472581

>>3472555 if they are capable of childbirth/procreation is that not enough to be female at least until genetic engineering becomes legal we could then finalize the deal when that happens you will be eating those words about illness when they can pass on genes

No.3472606
File: Tarakanovich-499590-Guild_wars_2_-_Sylvari.jpg - (640.91 KB, 1100x1507) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
656290

>>3472581

It's hard to tell what point you are making because your grammar is so horrible. Are you saying being female should be defined by the ability to reproduce?

No.3472607

>>3472581

that is a pipe dream among pipe dreams.

No.3472616

>>3472607 take a look online before you dismiss it theres loads of medical weirdness, im sure you can google for yourself.

No.3472629

>>3472616
i don't have to look for anything, i'm merely dismissing a claim as a pipe dream.

they should have posted evidence to support their claims instead.

No.3472679

>>3472606

>Are you saying being female should be defined by the ability to reproduce?

That is what defines a 'female' sexually
What defines a person on the other hand is something else

No.3472764

Children know there is something fucked up about transgender people.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/23/kindergarten-trans-discussion-daughter-came-home-crying-shaking-afraid-turn-boy/

No.3472769
File: 1313287__safe_artist-colon-ponygoddess_edit_silver+spoon_captain+obvious_idw_prancy+drew_truth.png - (249.71 KB, 468x398) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
255701

>>3472764
Forcing young children to adhere to a trans and gay agenda, and irrational sexuality, is a form of pedophilia.

Anyone promoting it ought to be executed, if you lived in a normal society.
Yes the society you live in is sick, you should do something Anon. It won't last like this forever, if you don't start, others will start it for you and you won't like the outcome.

Also, I like her vagina. it's cute when they're bumpy like this.

No.3472780

oh boo hoo a child cried. tell the parents its their fault their kid cried about it. if parents are not smart enough to teach kids facts early on its their fault we have dumb children this shouldn't nor would not be a discussion if parent stopped coddling their kids with barriers.

No.3472781

>>3472769 you are sick for wanting children to grow up stupid. tell me, do you fear children deciding to seek sex? well coddling them is a good way for those fears to become reality.

stop coddling kids you sick degenerate.

No.3472804

>>3472781 yeah but isn't kindergarten a little early? There's a time and a place for this kind of thing.

No.3472808

>>3472764

>thefederalist

lol nice cuckservative clickbait

No.3472823

Religious dumbasses believe sex is only for reproduction and that having it outside of marriage for other reasons is sinful.

Unless they decide to do it anyway but oh well god will forgive them every time they don't do as they are told to do so big deal.

Religious people are mentally ill hypocrites who should be phased out, not running things. They are unfit to be in charge.

No.3472825

>>3470531
That image is fucking gr8, saved furever.

No.3472843

>>3472823

>Religious dumbasses believe sex is only for reproduction

The reason why all religions try to control sex is because it's a fundamental human instinct to moderate reproduction - either to increase your own numbers to conquer an enemy, or to decrease population growth to avoid a malthusian catastrophe when you're winning.

As contraception was unavailable or unreliable, or the people just couldn't understand what's wrong with having babies, a norm of chastity had to evolve among the more successful societies. The others had free sex, bred like rabbits, and ate themselves to death.

What you're doing there is a fallacy: just because religions are against promiscuity doesn't mean promiscuity is a good idea. When your cultural norms allow promiscuity, the evolutionary pressure shifts from k-selection to r-selection and you get a ton of welfare queens pumping out ghetto babies, and your society collapses.

No.3472844

>>3472823
Or to put it in other terms:

The aversion to free sex, the control of who you're allowed to fuck and when, that you observe in religions is what keeps us from devolving into the idiocracy state.

The strong cultural and social pressure against bastards and people who have children out of wedlock is an evolutionary pressure against opportunistic genes which attempt to propagate themselves against the greater interest of the rest of the species.

When this culture breaks down, when argue that marriage or the equivalent institutions of sexual control don't matter anymore, the people start to increase in numbers uncontrollably to the point of poverty. The increase in numbers is naturally stopped by the inavailability of more resources. The people are forced back to k-selection but it will only happen when most people are already poor to the point of starvation.

When the people also start to argue for minimum living standards regardless of social status, the stupidest people start to increase the most on the goodwill of others and this leads to the inevitable destruction of society, because by the time the malthusian catastrophe hits everyone's too stupid to realize what's going on.

No.3472849

>>3472844

Well, all of this sounds wonderful, but how does homosexuality fit in to this logic? It seems to me that at best, allowing homosexuality would therefore be furthering the goals of society by not creating false, socially-pressured male/female pairings, and at worst, it wouldn't be having any negative effect towards the goal (those who wouldn't breed anyways, continue not breeding).

No.3472859

>>3472844

> the control of who you're allowed to fuck and when, that you observe in religions is what keeps us from devolving into the idiocracy state.

Explain southener "christians" and "mormons" favouring fucking their cousins/brothers/sisters.

No.3472860

>>3472849 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfNKFvHtA3g

No.3472891

>>3472512
Yes, usually male/female genders develop but the severity of that dichotomy in America is due to product advertisement and politics, artificially boosted views of either gender that don't reflect reality. There are different gender organizations in different cultures, what's considered male and female, the addition of neuter or eunich classes, treatment of lower class or slaves (something else that 'traditionally rises' in human societies) as female or neuter, feminine male caretakers, East Asian attitudes on transgender people.

America used to be a frontier nation, so its gender roles tended to break down in the face of starvation and indian attacks. Everyone had to be masculine. The switch to 'domesticating' women came after the war to get them out of the factories, because women are actually better made to work in factories and the soldiers returning home needed to go back to work. This massive propaganda campaign redfined women as subservient consumers.

Fast forward 50-100 years where the country is not a frontier anymore in any sense, is overpopulated, has automated factories, works largely as service, and relies on consumerism, and the fact is that what the country wants is for everyone to be domesticated and subservient consumers, concerned with their appearance and wanting everything done for them by a lower class, which are neuter. This is why the trans thing is being pushed, why it's all based on destroying masculinity and promoting nonreporoductive relationships. American society's gender system that the republicans are pushing is, like everything else, a figment of the imagination of the 50s. They wouldn't give such a damn if it wasn't being threatened in a very real way by basic reality.

What I can't understand is why no one on the left sees the danger of this transformation and is willing to make any sort of cultural criticism, so that all you hear instead is the constant whining and phony nostalgia from the right using either religious or just flat out ignorant viewpoints of 'traditionalism to justify what they're seeing, while promoting the same strict gender binary that alienates and pushes people away from that binary in the first place.

No.3472893

>>3472891 if seeing or knowing something exists bothers you you have serious issues because these things are not harming you yet you scream bloody murder over such things like a spoiled child. violence is all we got against the establishment because its impossible to change the opinion of the selfish and daft.

No.3472899

>>3472859

>Explain southener "christians" and "mormons" favouring fucking their cousins/brothers/sisters.

What does that have to do with it? They fuck what's available, and being all related to one another because there's nobody else living in the boonies makes it kinda necessary.

>>3472849

>how does homosexuality fit in to this logic?

Society is like an amoeba - it doesn't really get the finer points of any rule because it lacks a central thinking brain. Unless the rules are simple and universal, they kinda break down. Gay people don't get special rights, because that would be a double standard where keeping one standard is difficult enough.

Plus, homosexuals still spread STDs, and promiscuity causes unnecessary drama and friction in the community.

No.3472902

>>3472891

>What I can't understand is why no one on the left sees the danger of this transformation and is willing to make any sort of cultural criticism

That's because the left is trying to help society paint itself into a corner. The left is relying on the myth that they'll get their turn inevitably as every other system of society fails for its own irrationality. Leftism, socialism, according to the dogmas developed by Marx & pals maintain that the conclusion of all history is that the left wins because they're the only rational option that can work; "rational" as defined by the left itself of course.

For that reason, when the left observes a flaw or a weak point in the free society, they start to poke at it and agitate it into a bigger and bigger problem to "show" how "irrational" the system is and why it should be replaced with leftism - under the theory that the sooner the people realize what huge injustice the system is, the sooner they'll revolt it and replace it with leftism. If that involves making up a few fake issues and overlooking false narratives, well, can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

The left allows themselves to mislead the public in that sense, because they assume themselves enlightened about what's everyone's best interest even if everyone disagrees.

No.3472921
File: great form.gif - (496.98 KB, 434x347) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
508906

>>3472902

>to "show" how "irrational" the system is and why it should be replaced with leftism

Because Communism has never really been tried. We're the generation that will get it right and lead the world into a utopia of multiculturalism and tolerance.

No.3472924

trannies leaving inkbunny en-mass can't be a bad thing

No.3472925
File: 1501696207374.jpg - (46.60 KB, 805x638) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
47716

>>3472924

They never actually left, par the course. Turns out it was a bunch of tumblrinas trying to turn Inkbunny into a safe space drama magnet, and when the administration told them to fuck off they realized nobody else wanted to deal with those mentally damaged pedophile freaks.

That Skunket fellow draws cub snuff. You'd think someone in a glass house such as his wouldn't throw rocks, yet here we are.

No.3472992

>>3472921

> lead the world into a utopia of multiculturalism and tolerance.

The left is multicultural because it is internationalist. Quite early on, the communists realized that a command economy simply cannot compete directly with the capitalist mode of production. Thereby, communism in one country is impossible because it's surrounded by more powerful, more efficient, more flexible capitalist nations which will simply overtake it to the point that the people don't want to live under communism. Hence why there must be a world revolution; communism must spread to all countries. That's why the Soviet Union started jackbooting all over Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, Vietnam... and the cold war started.

It's one of the best examples of leftist doublethink. You see, one of the arguments for capitalism is, "who cares if the rich are rich if everyone's reasonably well off. You're not dying on the streets and every year things are getting better, right?", Wrong, according to the leftist because this inequality is a misallocation of resources that leads to inefficiency and poverty for the masses: things are going down because of capitalism and it could all be done better with a bit of rational planning. This is the argument why it's in the rational self-interest of the people to throw the capitalist bourgeoisie pigs out and have a communist revolution.

So, the communist mode of production is superior, yet in practice it is outperformed by capitalism on every metric, admitted even by the leftists themselves. The leftist theory makes a crash-landing, but because it is self-definitely rational it must still be right, it has to be right, and by applying a bit of Marxist-Leninist dialectics to the case we can find that both are true at the same time: communism is both strong and weak, depending on whether you want to justify invading other countries to save them from the capitalists, or to astroturf up a revoution in someone else's country.

No.3473015

IB is a pedo haven anyway, it's already a fucking shithole of - nah, I'm wrong, the furry fandom is a haven of pedo shit to start with, IB just flaunts it more.

But the trannies are worse than the pedos!

No.3473036

>>3472992
How does one guy controlling 99% of the wealth in capitalism help the society in general?
Hint it doesnt.

So Capitalism in its pures form doesn't work either.
They all go into a bubble until a revolution happens when the rest of the population is forced into an unsustainable position.

No.3473041

>>3473036

It'd help society in general if they were in the hands of someone unafraid to invest significantly in the future instead of primarily the self, such as, say, Elon Musk. However, there are few truely ultra-rich that are nearly that philanthropic.

No.3473047

>>3472921

Because Communism has never really been tried. We're the generation that will get it right and lead the world into a utopia of multiculturalism and tolerance.

The naivety here is astounding. I imagine all the other times a country has adopted Communism, they've sounded pretty damn much the same, and maybe even said the same phrase, up to the utopia part. They always envision a slightly different "utopia" for themselves. And most of them have quickly fallen flat, regardless.

Note that I didn't say all. Of the Communist attempts thus far, Romania was among the most successful. Yet even that ended in bloody upheaval by the people, resulting in a widely celebrated fall of communist dictatorship only surpassed by Russia & East Germany's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution

No one with a sensible head on their shoulders would dare replace Democracy or a Democratic Republic with a system that in every major case hasn't been in place more than a couple of decades before things start seriously going to shit. It always happens partially because the influx of money becomes seriously stunted, and they always go broke in the end. How the fuck does that appeal to anyone? And no one's going to trust a bunch of inexperienced college-age Che-wannabes with that kind of power, responsibility, and faith that they'll make things better. Even Antifa shouldn't place that kind of faith in themselves or their friends.

After all, even Che Guevara had his Castro.

No.3473052

>>3473047

The italicized "really" should've given away the sarcasm. You're preaching to the choir.

No.3473053

>>3473052

Ahh fuck. Getting harder to tell these days. The trolling potential with this stuff is strong, yet it seems those who legitimately parrot this stuff with conviction outnumber the trolls. I shoulda spotted the sign, guess I need more sleep. Sorry for the misfire.

No.3473085

Isn't N. Korea communist?

No.3473087

>>3473036

>How does one guy controlling 99% of the wealth
>So Capitalism in its pures form doesn't work either.

That's not capitalism. If one guy owns practically everything, the market does not exist. In all countries where the wealth disparity grows so large that a single family ends up owning significant portions of the economy - which is only possible through collusion with an autocratic state in the first place- the economy shrinks and breaks down into lawlessness.

See for example, modern day Russia where less than 100 people own 1/3 of everything, and the United States where government spending is just shy of 50% of the whole GDP, so whoever controls the government controls the market.

The left would like to call both examples "capitalism", but in both cases it's the powerful central state that is behind all the issues.

No.3473088

>>3473041
Elon Musk isn't a philanthropist - he's a charlatan. He's simply running his mouth to make money.

No.3473090

>>3473085
North Korea is "Juche", which is a form of god-emperor leader cult a'la Josif Stalin.

So yes, it is basically communism, as communism tends towards elitism and then within the elite, leader worship.

No.3473122

>>3473090

Communism has never worked

No.3473125
File: fdd7881d56f37f5d8f21c2d7e3f890ac.jpg - (251.26 KB, 1009x1280) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
257289

>>3473122
yet!

No.3473126

>>3473088

I don't know. Charlatans don't one-up NASA

No.3473156

>>3473087

>That's not capitalism.

oh sweet innocent child.

Under total savage capitalism with no rules. Bubbles and almost total monopolies are common.

Nothing to do with government figures.
As a matter of fact.. weak government figures is what causes these (see AT&T).

No.3473171

>>3473126

>I don't know. Charlatans don't one-up NASA

Musk didn't "one-up" NASA, he got handed NASA technology and money through NASA to play rocketman.

>>3473156

>Under total savage capitalism with no rules.

I see you still don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

No.3473181

>>3473171
In opposition to all the other good old boys being handled money by nasa to craft barrels of pork, and fire 70's equivalent designed rockets of course. Powder keg boosters that you have to slice to transport anyone ? Caused just a few dead astronauts, nothing to call home about.

Elon musk landed back a booster, none of the good old boy did it before, nor would they want to, cheaper space rockets mean less margin.

No.3473186

>>3473181

>In opposition to all the other good old boys being handled money by nasa to craft barrels of pork

In addition to. Musk is the P.T. Barnum guy who sells a half-baked idea, something which he cannot really pull off, as something twice its size to ride the crest of the hype curve. As he eventually fails to meet the promises and projections, he has already moved on to another project and another product to distract the public of his shortcoming. The fanboys and the media handle the rest by conveniently forgetting what he originally promised, out of some misplaced hope that he will fullfill all their dreams.

>Elon musk landed back a booster, none of the good old boy did it before, nor would they want to,

That's because it doesn't make any sense. The recycling mechanism wastes most of the payload capacity; the more of the rocket you bring back, the less it can lift. Musk's rocket has not yet proven cheaper because it has to be recycled dozens of times to make up the loss of capacity, and it's doubtful it will ever be reliable enough to do that.

> cheaper space rockets mean less margin.

Cheaper space rockets means more demand for orbital flights, means more business and more money. The problem is that there isn't much to do in space for as long as you can only send small payloads into low earth orbit - which is all you get with Musk's rockets because they waste fuel for the return trip.

No.3473187

The main problem that's going to bite Musk in the ass is that space rockets are made out of aluminium and magnesium alloys for lightness, which have no fatigue limit.

The fatigue limit is the maximum vibration or stress that can be applied to a structure without causing cracks to spread in the metal. Without a fatigue limit, the failure of a part is inevitable - the less you shake it the longer it will last, but it will fail. Other crafts made out of similiar alloys such as airplanes undergo periodic overhauls to find the cracks and replace the parts before they cause accidents.

A rocket launch is such a violent event that if there's a pre-existing flaw, it will not wait for a second inspection - one launch for a rocket is like a million miles for a 747 so it's obvious to see why you can't tolerate even the smallest faults in the airframe. That is why whenever you recycle a rocket, it has to be inspected inch-by-inch with x-rays, ultrasound, magnetic sensors, and the affected parts replaced. This takes as much if not more time and money than just building a new airframe and scrapping the old one.

Besides, recycling boosters isn't exactly new. The Space Shuttle SRBs were parachuted down into the ocean, picked up by boats, refurbished and re-used. They were made of steel - safe to recycle, heavier to launch.

No.3473190
File: 1451540370496.png - (246.21 KB, 1136x717) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
252124

>>3473186

>there isn't much to do in space

There will be when robotics and AI reach a point that we can ship automated mining colonies to asteroids and low gravity bodies. Assuming, of course, we don't blow ourselves up before we reach that point.

I give it 50 years max before we develop AI capable of such a feat.

No.3473207

>>3473190

>I give it 50 years max before we develop AI capable of such a feat.

Approximately 50 years ago a computer science professor gave his students a summer task of developing a program that would allow a computer to see and understand pictures.

Still hasn't happened. AI is a pipedream because nobody understands how minds and intelligence work. It's cargo cult science because they argue that in the absence of such knowledge, replicating the appearance of intelligence is intelligence. Hence, all they've been doing all along is just more and more complex automata that all fail along the same lines, with no progress. With every step in complexity, what was thought to be intelligent is proven to be resolvable by adding simple brute force. Passing all such tests is like carving the Grand Canyon - just dripping water will do, as long as you have enough of it. Lacking suitable problems for testing intelligence the "AI" researchers finally decide they've found the definition of intelligence and that AI exists.

Then they deploy it, and it will fail.

No.3473231
File: Power_Of_Prayer.png - (185.50 KB, 455x293) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
189947

>>3473207

That's mostly bullshit. A.I. can recognize faces, paintings, and most images. They can't recognize abstract art as abstract. They always attempt to identify the images as real things. But for every practical purpose they can recognize 99% of every image that will ever be used for anything practical.

https://www.wired.com/2015/01/simple-pictures-state-art-ai-still-cant-recognize/

No.3473275

>>3473231

>That's mostly bullshit. A.I. can recognize faces, paintings, and most images.

An AI doesn't "recognize" anything. Current computer vision programs work on statistical correlations to guess probabilities that a picture contains X. They're horriby inefficient and uncertain, and prone to error.

See for example:
http://www.geeky-gadgets.com/defaced-street-signs-can-fool-self-driving-cars-08-08-2017/
Computer vision mistakes a stop sign for a speed sign with a little masking tape stuck on it.

https://phys.org/news/2008-01-vision-good-thought.html
Vision algorithm tests are stacked in favor of the computer.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.1897

>Deep Neural Networks are Easily Fooled: High Confidence Predictions for Unrecognizable Images
> A recent study revealed that changing an image (e.g. of a lion) in a way imperceptible to humans can cause a DNN to label the image as something else entirely (e.g. mislabeling a lion a library). Here we show a related result: it is easy to produce images that are completely unrecognizable to humans, but that state-of-the-art DNNs believe to be recognizable objects with 99.99% confidence

And so-on. That's the problem with "AI". We don't know what "recognizing" means, so how can we build a computer that recognizes stuff? How do we know it's really doing it instead of just training the algorithm to appear like it's doing it.

Alan Turing pointed out that the question of machine intelligence is meaningless, and he also pointed out that with time we would relax the meaning of words such as "intelligence" to the point that we would start talking about machines that "understand" or "know" without any actual understanding and knowledge. That produces an illusion because the machines didn't change - we did. The machines are still dumb as ever, only more complex and complicated - it's we who choose to believe that they are intelligent. Employing these machines is like letting go of the steering wheel and thinking Jesus is driving your car because it's still going straight along the road - for now.

No.3473276

>>3473231

>But for every practical purpose they can recognize 99% of every image that will ever be used for anything practical.

Practical computer vision algorithms for real-time analysis are about 80% accurate. Regardless of that, even 99% is not enough to e.g. reliably drive a car, because relying on such a system is like having a manic schitzophrenic behind the wheel. You never know what they will hallucinate.

Current AI cannot make the difference between a shadow and a pothole on the asphalt. That's why all the robot cars are using sonars and radars to detect obstacles.

No.3473277
File: advers1.jpg - (79.23 KB, 710x516) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
81131

Or this:

http://www.i-programmer.info/news/105-artificial-intelligence/10629-a-single-perturbation-can-fool-deep-learning.html

>you can work out a small valued image, a perturbation, that when added to an existing correctly classified image will cause it to be misclassified even though a human can see no difference.
>researchers at EPFL’s Signal Processing Laboratory discovered that not only was it possible to compute an adversarial image for a particular image and a particular network, you could find a single perturbation that was in a sense universal. What this means it that you can precompute a perturbation, add it to an image and you can be fairly certain that any AI on the receiving end will get it wrong no matter what their architecture.

Add a bit of noise, AI fails.

No.3473278

>>3473207

I guess you forgot.. you know...
the monstrous development of storage capacity and processing speed.
Not to mention the addition of processors specifically for AI learning algorithms.

Your stupid argument is saying "lol, Verne had the idea of sending a man to the moon.. yet noone could".
Guess what happened?
Technology evolved and people landed on the fucking moon!

No.3473279

>>3473171

>I see you still don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Irony, because its you who has no fucking clue.
I guess the brainwashing against anything remotely close to social triggers you.

Just like how for some idiots in the US who have been brainwashed for years.. anything to the left of the most extreme right is suddenly "communism".

No.3473280
File: screenshot-2016-10-14-123734png.jpg - (64.91 KB, 1200x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
66471

>>3473276

>Current AI cannot make the difference between a shadow and a pothole on the asphalt. That's why all the robot cars are using sonars and radars to detect obstacles.

So... it's not a problem at all then..?? Why are you so butt hurt about it? Autos are already driving better than humans. It's only a matter of time before humans won't be allowed to drive any more. Especially if idiots keep using cars as weapons. Your car won't even come with a steering wheel by the time our grandkids are old enough to drive.

No.3473300

>>3473297
It is a problem.

Do you know why ships have to turn off their radar beams when they approach a port? So they wouldn't blast other ships' recievers to deaf. Now imagine a busy intersection with a hundred cars all blasting ultrasound and microwave noise everywhere around them. It's not going to work, and the radar systems are blind in other ways, such as being unable to see through rain, having terrible resolution, can't read traffic signs, or see a puddle which doesn't reflect the signal.

They're using them simply because the computer vision systems are truly terrible, while the radars and lidars are merely "unoptimal" - meaning that they will kill you if you trust them enough to take a nap behind the wheel.

>Autos are already driving better than humans.

They are not. Self-driving vehicles are blind, deaf, beyond stupid machines that compare with the intelligence of an earthworm, and that's not hyperbole. They simply don't have the computing power to truly navigate the roads, so they're relying on very simple pre-programmed cues like "follow the red dots ahead of you" because that's all they can manage to program.

People will die as they introduce more of these cars on the roads.

No.3473303

>>3473279

>Irony, because its you who has no fucking clue.

Look who's talking, mr. "no rules capitalism". How would it even be possible for someone to own everything in a capitalism? Who would he trade with? Himself? You're operating on a leftist strawman version of the free market.

Monopolies occur where competition is physically impossible, not because of capitalism itself. The problems of capitalism stem from state action, such as defining a corporation as a legal person with rights and property: cronyism and corruption through the government which has no right or business in these matters in the first place.

No.3473309
>Monopolies occur where competition is physically impossible, not because of capitalism itself. The problems of capitalism stem from state action

This doesn't strike me as remotely true.

Example, the De Beers diamond monopoly during the 20th century. This paragraph on Wikipedia describes the corporation's primary actions, none of which appear to involve the state, with the focused aim of exclusive control over the global diamond supply.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers#Diamond_monopoly

No.3473312

>>3473309

> with the focused aim of exclusive control over the global diamond supply.

And, did they succeed?

>De Beers' market share of rough diamonds fell from as high as 90% in the 1980s to 33% in 2013

No. People may try to form cartels, monopolies, and abuse their market position but they will fail sooner or later because such predatory actions as buying your competitors products off the market cost a fuckton of money. It's only possible to maintain such schemes for any considerable length of time if you have the government on your side.

Let me give you a counter-example.
http://hackaday.com/2017/06/22/ask-hackaday-sawstop-bastion-of-safety-or-patent-troll/

The Sawstop is a company that holds patents over table saws that include a mechanism for detecting a hand and instantly retracting the blade out of the way. Problem is, their mechanism self-destructs on triggering and costs a lot of money. However, they own a patent so wide in scope that nobody else can make a better cheaper one - thanks to the corrupt patent system that allows blue sky patents which merely outline "any method which..." etc. Bosch tried to make one that didn't self-destruct, and got sued out of the market. For anyone trying to make these kind of safety saws, SawStop is asking for unreasonable royalties per unit sold.

However, that is not the worst of it: SawStop is trying to make the SawStop system mandatory in schools' workshops in some states through the educational boards, by threatening them with liability lawsuits if they didn't use safety saws, and is lobbying for legislation to make it a federal safety requirement. How convenient is that? You got a monopoly on something that everyone has to buy. Thanks Big Government!

Without an over-reaching patent system and a government that wants to nanny people, the schools could simply tell them to piss off and buy it cheaper off of someone else.

No.3473313
>>And, did they succeed? No.

The monopoly was held for about one full century.
Really dude? It eventually ended, so it didn't work?
A century long monopoly isn't indicative of a problem that needs to be fixed?

>thanks to the corrupt patent system
>lobbying for legislation to make it a federal safety requirement

Is this directed at me? I didn't disagree that corporations abuse the government to their own ends. I disagreed on the point that capitalism only has problems because of government involvement.

No.3473318

>>3473303

>Monopolies occur where competition is physically impossible, not because of capitalism itself.

Monopolies are the end goal of capitalism is to crush all competition, enslave your workers, and produce the most low quality product for the least cost.

Capitalism is a system that is immoral by it's nature.

No.3473379

>>3473303

Already proved you wrong with examples such as AT&T. get the head out of your ass.
Funnily that government is what forced these kind of companies to split to allow competition opportunities.

Comcast is also a fine example of doing dirty work to maintain their status quo.

But yeah, keep dreaming of your magical all solving capitalist state.

No.3473381

>>3473379

And as 3b said.

Capitalism still requires a government figure to keep them in check.
If not we'd get something akin of a government made entirely of the company interests.
Where they off (as in assassinate) anyone who stands in their way.

Becoming pretty much a "civilized" Narc cartel.

No.3473402

>>3473379

>Already proved you wrong with examples such as AT&T.

Already told you, infrastructure like AT&T and Comcast are natural monopolies, because building a parallel infrastructure of the same type is too costly for competitors. That's got nothing to do with capitalism, and in any case, the government splitting a natural monopoly up into "Baby bells" and fixing the prices does jack shit about the situation - it's just band-aid to an axe wound because the monopoly continues under the guise of these new "independent" companies.

>>3473318

>Monopolies are the end goal of capitalism

There is no end goal for capitalism. Capitalism happens after other systems fail and people return to business as usual.

>is to crush all competition

By being better than them, which is a good thing. No point in wasting effort trying to compete with the best. The thing about free competition is, that monopolies only stand if nobody can compete, in price, in quality, or by being bedfellows with the lawmakers.

>enslave your workers, and produce the most low quality product for the least cost.

On the contrary, its the communist who does that. In a free market, if you pay shit wages you get shit workers who make shit products and your competition overtakes you. See the point about monopolies.

No.3473404

>>3473381

>Capitalism still requires a government figure to keep them in check.

What it requires is law, not some hitleresque figure to make the trains run on time.

>If not we'd get something akin of a government made entirely of the company interests.

It's entirely impossible to prevent a government from being corrupted by cronyism anyhow, because the government and the leftist class is self-serving as it is. People who position themselves as "vanguard" of the society are doing so not because of a sense of justice and duty, but because it pays them money. They are political capitalists.

Only, the damage they can cause is far greater because they wield the power to change the law. Hence the constitution, which is supposed to keep the government in check but doesn't because they're walking all over it.

No.3473405

>>3473379

>But yeah, keep dreaming of your magical all solving capitalist state.

Much like democracy, capitalism is the worst system of economy, except for all the others.

In an imperfect world, no perfect system can exist. The question is simply, which of them fails the least, and leftism has failure built right into its very premises because it operates on the dogmas of Marxism which are anti-reality and anti-reason.

No.3473406
>In an imperfect world, no perfect system can exist. The question is simply, which of them fails the least, and leftism has failure built right into its very premises because it operates on the dogmas of Marxism which are anti-reality and anti-reason.

Yeah, if you're leftist, that means you hate captialism and want to replace it, and are the political equivalent of a drunk driver wearing a blindfold. If people weren't so stupid, everybody would be right-leaning nghhh this makes my dick feel so damn gooddd. How close are you to cumming too?

No.3473407

Belgium went 589 days without a government recently, almost two years, and everything went fine.

The whole of leftism too is based on the premise that once you reach the ideal state, the state withers away as pointless and needless because the people will govern themselves. For the practical leftist, this cannot be, because it would mean they're out of a job policing and managing everything and would have to do something useful instead - so they cannot actually perform their intended function and drive their own agenda to its conclusion.

So, the leftist government becomes, without fail, the arsonist fireman who sets up his own accidents to play the hero. While the capitalist class thrives in peace and prosperity and prefers a stable society, the leftist class strives in perpetual conflict to have a purpose.

No.3473408
File: trickledown.jpg - (60.72 KB, 801x912) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
62179

>>3473404

>It's entirely impossible to prevent a government from being corrupted by cronyism anyhow...

Except that was reality before the Clintons... Before the Clintons there were laws that prohibited legalized bribery. Now it's a free market and look how well that's working out for everyone! We literally have a millionaire President with a cabinet full of CEO millionaires.

No.3473409

>>3473406

>If people weren't so stupid, everybody would be right-leaning

Not at all. The leftist aren't dumb - although many are still naive - but self-serving. There's nothing stupid about that.

No.3473410
File: men-laughing.jpg - (67.33 KB, 699x463) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
68942

>>3473408

>Except that was reality before the Clintons...

Oh you poor child...

No.3473411
File: Kamala_Harris_Facts.png - (486.84 KB, 552x576) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
498527

>>3473405

>no perfect system can exist

Slight correction: No SINGLE perfect system can exist.

We need Capitalism for some things, socialism for other things. Hell, right now we are using slave labor in America to feed the corporate machines we just call it "The Private Prison system."

No.3473412

>>3473411

>Slight correction: No SINGLE perfect system can exist.

No, no perfect system can exist. Period.

Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemantics
The most important point is that systems never perform their intended function. The only system that works is a no-system.

No.3473413

>>3473408

You can rob the rich. You can stop the rich from remaining rich. You can destroy the rich.

Remember though, that pile of loot you take from their corpse will not last forever... and they you will be poor again.

Communism and socialism never start on their own, they come along later in a society's timeline as parasites and inevitably you are left with Venezuela.

No.3473414

I can't find a PDF of the book online right now, but here's a snippet:

>The word "Solution" is only a fancy term for the Response of System A (ourselves) to System B (the Problem). And its a misleading word, because it implies something that can be done once and for all. But System B is sure to Kick Back in response to our Response, and then we must respond once again.
>Systems are seductive. They promise to do a hard job faster, better, and more easily than you could do it by yourself. But if you set up a system, you are likely to find your time and effort now being consumed in the care and feeding of the system itself. New problems are created by its very presence. Once set up, it won't go away; it grows and encroaches. It begins to do strange and wonderful things and breaks down in ways you never thought possible. It kicks back, gets in the way and opposes its own proper function. Your own perspective becomes distorted by being in the system. You become anxious and push on it to make it work. Eventually you come to believe that the misbegotten product it so grudgingly delivers is what you really wanted all the time. At that point, encroachment has become complete. You have become absorbed. You are now a Systems-person.

Leftism is such a system; it defines a problem and then sets out to solve it, and then fails at it. Capitalism is a no-system; it exists of itself when nothing special is done about it. Technically speaking though, capitalism is also leftism as it was born out of the same anti-royalist and pro-social-freedom movement but the authoritarian left hijacked the term and started calling everyone else capitalists and fascists, forever defining the left as the party that wants to be the king instead of the king but can never admit it.

No.3473415
File: DIh26zHXkAEeeXO.jpg - (180.05 KB, 1080x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
184370

>>3473410
Oct. 11, 1996
National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996, makes it so that states no longer have jurisdiction over securities fraud cases. It's becomes purely federal matter under the jurisdiction of a small group of corporatist judges.

Nov. 12, 1999
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Repeals Glass-Steagall Act.
It was a crap act that didn't offer much protection but at least it stopped banks from gambling with depositor money. Bill Clinton put an end to that. This law effectively deleted the prohibition on commercial banks owning investment banks and vice-versa.

July 30, 2002
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 Expedites Access to Insider Trading Information.
Before Sarbanes-Oxley, access to insider trading information was mediocre... Insider trading must now be filed electronically through the EDGAR system within 2 days of the transaction. Sounds great like a big step forward except that congress had access to that system before anyone else so they could line up to make the same trades, which were legal now because they weren’t "Secret information" any more before the public even knew anything was happening.

Dec. 2004
Study Reveals Senators have 12% edge in stock trades over normal people prompting an inquiry. The insider trading was interrupted and the white house got pissed.

2005-2008
Securities Exchange Commission enforcement resources decline, stripped away more and more every year until they have to institute a hiring freeze then start letting people go.

Obama finished what Bill started

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/177496734/how-congress-quietly-overhauled-its-insider-trading-law

Before the Clintons and Obama, the top congressman's net worth went up 40% every year while in office. Now, the average increase in net worth in the Top 20 was 422% a year. Neo-Liberalism pays well if you're psychopath enough to go along with it.

No.3473417
File: Visit_You_Local_Library.jpg - (1306.69 KB, 3200x2400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
1338049

>>3473413

>socialism never start on their own, they come along later in a society's timeline as parasites and inevitably you are left with Venezuela.

Except for all the other nations that it works very well in. You keep using that one example and we know socialism had nothing to do with the collapse. It was building an economy based on one, single asset (OIL) that caused the collapse when the prices of oil went down.

No.3473418

>>3473414
Yes, found a copy:

http://www.bussigel.com/systemsforplay/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Systemantics.pdf

>>3473415
You're pulling a red herring and answering a question that wasn't asked. You claimed that the government wasn't corrupt before the Clintons came along. None of what you quote proves your claim.

No.3473419

>>3473417

>Except for all the other nations that it works very well in.

Like what? Sweden? Being overrun by welfare tourists is "doing well"? Norway, which is Europe's Saudi-Arabia with oil money up to their ears to the point that they simply don't know what to do with it? Finland, which is struggling under a decade of economic depression and public overspending? The PIIGS where politicians kept buying votes by overly generous handouts and are now being bailed out by the EU with taxpayer money?

What exactly is your example of a socialism that is working because of socialism? Remember, don't fall into the trap of mistaking correlation for causation. As John Gall points out:

>Manager's Mirage.
>The belief that some event (usually called an "outcome") was actually caused by the operation of the System. For example: The Public School System is believed by some to be responsible for the literary works of Faulkner, Hemingway, and Arthur Miller, since it taught them to write.
No.3473425
File: Open_borders_of_Equestria.jpeg - (422.81 KB, 2500x1537) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
432953

>>3473419

>Sweden? Being overrun by welfare tourists is "doing well"?

People escaping war by moving to a new country are now tourists? Look, yes, an influx of poor people are going to create temporary problems just like they did in America but when those people settle in and start to work they will build the economy.

I know this is mind-blowing to you, but if poor people starting to earn money with jobs they spend that money and create demand then the economy grows and it creates more jobs.

A lot of these refugees will end up going into construction because Sweden already had a housing shortage but they lacked the worker base to address it. Why do you think they are being so open and welcoming? They need the bodies.

Shockingly, the government considered all of this before opening their borders without needing an arm chair philosopher like you to approve their plans because they seem to be doing pretty darn well.

No.3473426
File: Socialist_Ponies.jpg - (179.15 KB, 453x378) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
183449

>>3473425
Forgot a link for source:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/economic-performance-and-forecasts/economic-performance-country/sweden/economic-forecast-sweden_en

No.3473427

Oh, and also remember that the idea of the welfare state doesn't belong to the socialists or communist, but to the capitalists.

The idea itself probably belongs to some ancient society, and it's been pinned down to Islamic caliphates by historians, but the modern welfare state actually started by conservatives and the fascists in late 19th century Europe as a means to fend off communism, and as such the idea of the welfare state was actually opposed by the left as it was standing in the way of their world domination.

In Germany the first welfare state was set up by Chancellor Bismarck in 1880.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#History_of_welfare_states
As Robert Paxton notes:

>"All the modern twentieth-century European dictatorships of the right, both fascist and authoritarian, were welfare states", he writes. "They all provided medical care, pensions, affordable housing, and mass transport as a matter of course, in order to maintain productivity, national unity, and social peace."
>Continental European Marxists opposed piecemeal welfare measures as likely to dilute worker militancy without changing anything fundamental about the distribution of wealth and power. It was only after World War II, when they abandoned Marxism (in 1959 in West Germany, for example), that continental European socialist parties and unions fully accepted the welfare state as their ultimate goal.
>In Britain, the foundations for the welfare state originated with the Liberal Party under governments headed by prime ministers H. H. Asquith and David Lloyd George. British liberals supported a capitalist economy and in the nineteenth-century had principally been concerned with issues of free trade (see Classical liberalism)

Which again goes to point out that the left isn't about the interest of the people, but about themselves. They're making the same trade as the fascists: support me and I will make the trains run on time. Only the rhetoric is different: social justice instead of the right of the mighty. The left will happily go against and oppose any progress if it isn't progressing towards their own hegemony.

The capitalist prefers a stable society to do business in, which means the capitalist finds it necessary to make concessions about the distribution of wealth and the general welfare of the population. It is a matter of practicality that nobody gets ultimate power in society, and why it's impossible by capitalism alone to reach a state where somebody would own 99% of everything. Such a society would be on a hair trigger to violent revolution, and in any case the capitalist would have to "eat his own dog food" because they would own all the means of production so the poor quality of products would simply reflect on themselves. The capitalist, in so far as they are relying on the free market to gain and maintain their wealth, will not destroy the market.

No.3473428

>>3473425

>People escaping war by moving to a new country are now tourists?

Most of these people are not refugees, but Moroccans, Iranians, Turkish etc. who come in pretending to be refugees, fail to report to refugee centers and instead smuggle themselves illegally across the continent to the countries which offer the best welfare benefits. The number of these people was so large at one point that Sweden actually put them on trains and instructed the police not to check their papers, so they could ride the train to Finland instead.

See for example the latest terrorism incident in Finland where a Moroccan kid was refused asylum because he lied about his identity, so he went stabby stabby on a public market killing two and injuring eight.

No.3473430

>>3473425

> Look, yes, an influx of poor people are going to create temporary problems just like they did in America but when those people settle in and start to work they will build the economy.

The difference is that Sweden doesn't have a whole continent of land stolen from the natives to give to the settlers, to send them away and out of sight.

>I know this is mind-blowing to you, but if poor people starting to earn money with jobs they spend that money and create demand then the economy grows and it creates more jobs.

The immigrants are very poorly employed, with close to 90% unemployment rates, and the money they spend is simply taken out of the rest of the economy which means poverty for the rest - but more power to the socialist state which stands in the middle of this cash flow and directly benefits from importing new dependent voters.

No.3473432

>>3473430

>The immigrants are very poorly employed, with close to 90% unemployment rates...

Source? Because I don't think that's true. Most people want to work. Hell, I think of the average human as a potato with legs and even I want to go out and be among them because we are social creatures and working together builds good social bonds. Also the people who work tend to be better people. Why would you not want to work if you can work?

No.3473433

>>3473425

>A lot of these refugees will end up going into construction because Sweden already had a housing shortage but they lacked the worker base to address it.

A housing shortage caused by a large influx of immigrants, few of which are actually put to work on it, and all of it being paid by Swedish taxpayers to benefit the socialist government and their cronies in the construction industry.

Of course the government took that into account. They think an average tax burden of 57% isn't enough (compare e.g UK with 36%) and want a bigger slice of the economy for themselves so the population would be absolutely dependent on the actions of the government and wouldn't try to act against it. The leftist elite, being insulated from the common man by instituting a de-facto command economy, is throwing everyone else under the bus to cement their own power.

No.3473434
File: Learn_Before_You_Speak.jpg - (41.40 KB, 216x250) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
42389

>>3473432
Wait, never mind. I just looked it up myself.

>90% unemployment rate...

Wrong. for those from outside the EU, 22.5% are unemployed.
The biggest gap for unemployment seems to be education and training which are easy problems to fix.

https://www.economist.com/news/finance-economics/21709511-too-few-refugees-not-too-many-are-working-europe-refugees-sweden-are

No.3473435

>>3473432

>Source? Because I don't think that's true. Most people want to work.

If you were given the welfare benefits in Sweden, would you work instead?

https://capx.co/swedish-welfare-model-traps-immigrants-in-poverty/

>Swedish welfare model traps immigrants in poverty
>Dagens Nyheter can show that at least four out of ten refugees ten years after arrival are supported by welfare. The paper acknowledges that this is likely an underestimation, since some municipalities have not sent the paperwork required to match individuals to welfare receipts.
>The combination of generous benefits, high taxes and rigid labour regulations reduce the incentives and possibilities to find work. Entrapment in welfare dependency is therefore extensive, in particular amongst immigrants. Studies have previously shown that even highly educated groups of foreign descent struggle to become self-dependent in countries such as Norway and Sweden. Many working age individuals from immigrant backgrounds are either in open unemployment, or in hidden unemployment through programs such as early retirement.
>http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-20/cost-asylum-more-50-swedens-unemployed-are-foreigners
>The Cost Of Asylum: More Than 50% Of Sweden's Unemployed Are Foreigners
>This share will likely continue to grow as only about 25 percent of refugees that have arrived over the past eight years have a full-time job

Sweden is now close to 20% immigrants. The economy is going up thanks to good trade relations with the EU and the good sense to not join the single currency which works as a natural trade barrier, so the population is threatening to grow prosperous and independent of the socialists. So what do the socialists do? Import more poor voters - create problems for themselves to solve.

No.3473436

>>3473434

>Wrong. for those from outside the EU, 22.5% are unemployed.

Wrong, and fake statistics. See >>3473435

> only about 25 percent of refugees that have arrived over the past eight years have a full-time job

The government is sweeping the unemployed immigrants away from statistics by putting them on government programs, early retirement, or having them in "supported jobs", or hiring them directly in public jobs such as working as interpreters for other immigrants instead of being productive labor force in the economy.

Handouts by any other name are still handouts, and paid for by the taxpayers.

No.3473439
File: 20160420_SWE_0.jpg - (20.91 KB, 600x368) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
21409

>>3473434

>education and training which are easy problems to fix.

You wish, and in any case, training the immigrants is only going to displace native swedes off the jobs market and cause social unrest which will bite the government's ass, so they'd rather keep the immigrants on benefits in perpetuity.

They're extra people that have no place in the society because the number of people is growing faster than the economy.

No.3473443

>>3473434
Also remember that if the government puts an immigrant into school, say some 2-year language and habilitation program, they get to write the person off the labor pool and so the are not technically unemployed, although they are on benefits and their future job prospects are still poor as ever.

No.3473464
>The leftist aren't dumb - although many are still naive - but self-serving. There's nothing stupid about that.

Please. The way you talk, leftism is wholly bad, right is wholly good, and the world would be better without Left. Is that pretty accurate? If so, wouldn't that make being a leftist pretty stupid? How much better would the world be without Left, in your eyes?

>The most important point is that systems never perform their intended function. The only system that works is a no-system.

"Cars will never go forward." You can see how what you're saying sounds like this, right? I think you must be meaning something else? Plus, these five lines back that up -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemantics#Elementary_systems_functions

>Leftism is such a system; it defines a problem and then sets out to solve it, and then fails at it.

This seems to leave out the fact that sometimes it succeeds, and at various degrees - as any system has the potential of doing.

I feel like "Left" and "Right" are a distraction from the fact that the act of identifying problems and building solutions are a very important process to the entire human race, not just leftists. And yes, this process requires failure - it's not simple. The bit at the start of that Systemantics page you linked does make sense to me:

"The primary precept of treatise is that large complex systems are extremely difficult to design correctly despite best intentions and so care must be taken to design smaller less complex systems and to do so with incremental functionality based on close and continual touch with user needs and measures of effectiveness."

This implies that with time, care, and repeated failure, you can work your way up into something that's better. Difficult does not mean impossible. But the way you talk seems to imply that such systems aren't even worth trying to build at all - that's just the impression I get. As if the problems we identify are necessary evil, and we're simply too incapable.

No.3473499

>>3473464

>Please. The way you talk, leftism is wholly bad, right is wholly good

Not really. What I'm saying is that the left consists of the well-meaning but naive "problems solvers" who set out to fix other peoples lives for them without asking whether they want to be saved, by unilaterally defining everyone else as "us" without asking them whether they want to belong to your posse. The left also include the self-aggrandizing and stupid wannabe political heroes like 3B who parrot the talking points to pretend to be contributing to the "good cause", and also the self-serving parasites which take advantage of the naive and inevitably overtake the system and corrupt it. It's a case of the adage, "the path to hell is paved with good intentions".

The right on the other hand, assuming we're talking of what could be called libertarianism, isn't "good" as such but simply the observation that you should leave well enough be. The best is the wost enemy of the good, etc.

>Cars will never go forward." You can see how what you're saying sounds like this, right?

If you look at cars on the point of systemantics, the point of a car is to be cheap, fast and efficient at transporting people and goods, yet today most people pay incredible sums of money to sit in a gridlock breathing exhaust fumes every day. Is the car a success or not? The point of "anergy" applies here: solving one problem creates another problem of equal or greater magnitude, and complex solutions generate more problems than they solve - so it's a question of which problem(s) you find more tolerable.

>This seems to leave out the fact that sometimes it succeeds, and at various degrees - as any system has the potential of doing.

See above.

>I feel like "Left" and "Right" are a distraction from the fact that the act of identifying problems and building solutions are a very important process to the entire human race, not just leftists.

Left and Right are actually different approaches to the question. The left is the systematic approach which claims that problems can be identified and remedied in a rational manner (see the point about how systems devolve into hallucinations), while the right is again the point of view that usually problems solve themselves if they even existed in the first place. What is a problem to you is not necessarily a problem to me.

>This implies that with time, care, and repeated failure, you can work your way up into something that's better.

See Karl Popper and Enemies of the open society; he points out that instead of revolutions and periodic overhauls, like the left tends to do because they want to implement a system to solve everything, we should employ piecemeal democratic and reversible changes that can be proven to work or discarded at any time. I.e not an overarching system, but an evolution through trial and error from the simple to the complex.

However, this is not good enough for the leftist because he thinks that he has the right idea about what exactly is wrong, and how to solve it, and he has a plan to do it right - it only requires that you change everything at once.

No.3473504

>>3473464
You should really read the book - it's only about 100 pages long; I provided a link to a copy in >>3473418

Quote:

The "Problem" Problem.

For the practicing Systems-manager, the great pitfall
lies in the realm of Problems and Problem-solving. Systems can do rnany things, but one thing they empathically cannot do is to Solve Problems. This is because Problem solving is not a Systems-function, and there is no satisfactory Systems-approximation to the solution of a Problem. A System represents someone's solution to a problem. The System does not solve the problem. Yet, whenever a particular problem is large enough and puzzling enough to be considered a Capital-P Problem, men rush in to solve it by means of a System.

Once a problem is recognized as a Problem, it undergoes a subtle metamorphosis. Experts in the "Problem" area proceed to elaborate its complexity. They design systems to attack it. This approach guarantees failure, at least for all but the most pedestrian tasks. A system that is sufficiently large, complex, and abitious can reduce output far below "random" levels. Thus, a federal Program to conquer cancer may tie up all the competent researchers in the field, leaving the problem to be solved by someone else, typically a graduate student from the University of Tasmania doing a little recreational entomology on his vacation.

(...)

The work of change agents is made enormously more delicate and uncertain by the fact that the mere presence of a change agent (recognizable as such) has about the same effect on an organization as an efficiency expert seen strolling across the factory floor with stopwatch in hand: it promptly induces bizarre and unpredictable alterations in the behavior of the system. Because of this effect anyone who identifies himself publicly as a change agent automatically convicts himself of incompetence. Changes will certainly occur as a result, but they are not likely to be the changes desired.

(Note: compare this with eastern confucian philosophies where a good leader is said to act in ways that the people can say "we did this of ourselves")

No.3473522

>>3473499

I'm taking some serious time reading this and trying to figure out how to counter-argue, because a lot of this does make sense, I do like how you think & write! For the most part, hahah. I think the very first thing I need to reply to is this:

>You should really read the book - it's only about 100 pages long;

Yeah, it does seem like I'd need to read this to better get what you mean on a lot of this. At least for now, I'll throw out my current thoughts for fun!

>solving one problem creates another problem of equal or greater magnitude, and complex solutions generate more problems than they solve - so it's a question of which problem(s) you find more tolerable.

I think it's a very good idea to look at things in gray areas like that, rather than a flat "success/fail" type of thing. And I think, certainly there must be examples of systems that really do result in a clear net plus, right?

It seems too likely to me - in day-to-day lives, we can identify small problems and try to find small alterations in our actions and words to get better outcomes than before. It's hard to understand how this can't also extend to more complex problems - even if they're more difficult, and people really do mess them up more often than not. Get up and try again, try another route! Keep thinking!

Because of this, does it at least make sense why "as we discover and build solutions, everything just gets increasingly worse" seems a bit wild to me? Everything in our world and society around us seems built on this as a foundation, in constantly improving and problem solving. It's why we're not currently sleeping in teepees, fending ourselves from growly toothy things with pointy sticks.

Sadly I'm not really intimate enough with any systems to have 100% confidence in giving examples for ones that create a net positive, but if I took some guesses, I'd say that sewage & water treatment systems probably fit that bill? Machines and tools that let farmers produce more food? And probably various forms of natural energy generation like windmills and solar. I wish I was more capable of arguing firmly on that point though, because I do know that most complex systems today still have lots of room for improvement, or are degrading over time, especially any closely tied to big money.

>"problems solvers" who set out to fix other peoples lives for them without asking whether they want to be saved
>What is a problem to you is not necessarily a problem to me.

Yes, there are too many examples of law sticking into places where it really doesn't belong. Also, leftist stances trying solve a problem that obviously only makes things worse. I consider myself heavily leftist and I agree with that.

But I also see that people sometimes stay inactive when there is a proven solution at hand, and to me, that is equally bad. Or even failing to powerfully/scientifically determine the best course of action to take, even if that action is nothing - sticking with a general rule on complex problems doesn't make sense to me.

I really wish that our processes in government for discovering and solving problems more closely followed the scientific method somehow. Same with making the absolute most of our tax dollars, that kind of thing. Not that I know how!

>However, this is not good enough for the leftist because he thinks that he has the right idea about what exactly is wrong, and how to solve it, and he has a plan to do it right - it only requires that you change everything at once.

I think it gets really easy to make incorrect statements about people when you're speaking in such broad terms. Again, I consider myself leftist, and what you mentioned sounds fantastic to me. It's more scientific!

It's just difficult because when people are suffering and feel like they have no control, ie - "The government is by us and for us, right? Isn't this supposed to be our channel to deal with this? But we're absolutely powerless!" Then you end up with what you said: revolutions and overhauls. And angry people are not scientific, slow and careful as a general rule.

No.3473594

>>3473522

>It's hard to understand how this can't also extend to more complex problems

You have to consider that larger, more complex systems become impossible to evaluate because their effects extend beyond your ability to measure them. The book gives an example of Charlemagne who was a good and just king, and wanted to be fair to his sons so he split his kingdom and gave each one a kingdom - creating France, Germany, and through various twists and turns of history, both world wars.

Also, as Albert Einstein pointed out:

>"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."

Meaning that any time we stick to a system, we start to accumulate problems that cannot be solved by the means of that system, and it helps nothing to swap the system for another because the process just starts anew.

That's why the most stable monarchies are by kings who reign but do not rule, and in democracies the economy tends to go up when the government is idle.

>It's just difficult because when people are suffering and feel like they have no control

It's exactly the feeling that you need to take control, that people start to do things - anything - out of a feeling that something needs to be done even if just in case, that creates all the problems that they're trying to fix.

No.3473598
File: US-Government-Spending-GDP.png - (10.35 KB, 390x250) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
10600

>>3473522

> Again, I consider myself leftist, and what you mentioned sounds fantastic to me. It's more scientific!

And it's also a systematic approach. Consider that evolutionary systems run stuck into local maxima and then go extinct because they can't back out anymore. Things have to get worse before they get better, but in a piecemeal democratic process this is impossible because the public will not give up their gained benefits no matter how good the reason, which amplifies the fact that the system itself tends to grow of itself. That is why public spending is on a permanent upwards trend.

So in one sense Marx was right, but he had the wrong reasons; we will get to "socialism" eventually, after the state has gobbled up the entire market and ran it to the ground. At this rate it takes about another hundred years or so, and then the private market practically doesn't exist because you can't do any business without collusion with the government - and the cleptocracy we identify today with capitalism has taken a full turnaround and we'll be blaming the state instead.

No.3473602

There's one caveat with the no-systems approach though.

When you tell people they should try not to do anything, they turn around and try to do nothing, try to ignore issues and hold back action, which is just another system of response.

The point is not to stick. When you are like that, you may enact socialist policies without being a socialist. It's like, the best, most tolerable Christians tend to be those who have never read the Bible in full and rarely been to a church to hear a sermon. Those who seriously subscribe to the idea are the most obtuse, incomprehensible and irrational people you can imagine unless you happen to share their exact point of view.

No.3473611
>You have to consider that larger, more complex systems become impossible to evaluate because their effects extend beyond your ability to measure them.

I still think "impossible" is kind of a strong word - impossible at first yes, but... We're not completely blind, either, especially given time. I know our current government isn't ideal at all for this either, but I like to imagine it could be done better someday.

>Also, as Albert Einstein pointed out: "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."

I can't speak for Al, but it's funny because I like to interpret that statement in a way to fit my line of thinking too. What I mentioned before about when you fail, you try again from another angle. Keep trying unconventional things, to learn how well they work, see what happens! Outside the box n' stuff. And I do know that sort of thing was big for Einstein, but I have no idea what the context is for that specific quote anyway.

>It's exactly the feeling that you need to take control, that people start to do things - anything - out of a feeling that something needs to be done even if just in case, that creates all the problems that they're trying to fix.

This is one spot I think we have a pretty wide gap in thinking. I don't think "just in case" creates revolutions (and if it does, it is terribly wrong - far-left social justice issues are like this, to me) - I'm thinking more along the lines of people who feel that their situation, their problems, have grown so monumental and so ignored that they either fight or they get trampled. These matters do justify revolution, imo. The current issue of automated production only benefiting the ultra-rich & the related "lack of work problem" is very much swelling in this direction, in my opinion.

>in democracies the economy tends to go up when the government is idle.
>That is why public spending is on a permanent upwards trend.

While "idle" feels like an extreme word to me, I do agree that the government should be lean. Even without knowing exactly how it measures the benefits of its actions & tweaks its systems & law, it's pretty obvious that it's being wasteful as hell, yeah. I figure that's probably a crazy complicated subject that needs some kind of heavy education that I don't know about, hahah.~ But for fun, I like to imagine that someday, it'll be easier for people to see the direct results of their tax dollars in every way - and have very strong, scientific data about the pros and cons from everything their government does - then use that info to help tweak the government further. Really vague, but.. As opposed to now, where everyone feels completely disassociated... It's a fun fantasy anyway.

No.3473616

>>3473611

>I still think "impossible" is kind of a strong word - impossible at first yes, but... We're not completely blind, either, especially given time.

Define "we".

>What I mentioned before about when you fail, you try again from another angle.

That depends on whether you are able to detect your own failure, and whether you are able to then steer the system. The book introduces a concept called the coefficient of fiction which is the degree in which a system and the people within the system are isolated from reality by the hallucinations caused by the system itself. E.g. the neoliberal theory of economy measures success in the growth of GDP, which grows when you inject more money into the economy, which isn't necessarily producing any more value and in reality it is simply a waste of resources to run all the "services" that simply introduce more middle men between producers and consumers.

>I don't think "just in case" creates revolutions

No, but it sets the groundwork for problems which do. For example, "we should start listening to people's phone conversations just in case they are terrorists", which then in part enables the devolution of the society into a police state.

>then use that info to help tweak the government further

Careful. You're describing a feedback loop. Negative feedback in a system tends to oppose its own function, and positive feedback creates instability. What the book says of the matter:

>Alternating positive and negative feedback produces a special form of stability represented by endless oscillation between two polar states or conditions. In human systems, the phenomenon is perhaps best exemplified by certain committees whose recommendations slowly oscillate between two polar alternatives, usually over a period of some years. The period of the cycle has been found, on close examination, to be just longer than the time required for the advocates of Program "A" to graduate, retire, or otherwise leave the scene of action, being replaced by a new generation whose tendency is (having been exposed to the effects of Program "A") to demand Program "B". After some months or years of Program "B", a new generation of postulants is ripe to begin agitations to restore Program "A".

See the march of "left, right, left" in US politics.

No.3473623

>>3473611
I'm going to introduce you to a little bit of systems control theory.

You may have heard of it already; there exists a feedback scheme called Proportional-Integral-Derivative control. It starts from the assumption that you have some event that you can measure, and a set point where you wish it to be regardless of what may disturb it. The scheme starts by observing what the state of the system is and subtracting that from your set value to come up with what's called the error value - this is the measure of how far off you are from where you want to be.

Now, starting with the Proportional part, the idea is to multiply the error value with a constant P such that if the error value is negative, meaning "you've gone too far", the resulting control value is negative meaning "go back". Increasing the constant P makes the system respond more vigorously, such as "Women are earning half as much as men, so from now on every new woman hired must recieve 2x salary.", and that will over time increase the average salary of hired women to the point where they reach parity with men. Now you might already notice the problem - when the error value reaches zero and new hires are getting equal pay, as the lower paid women retire the average salary overtakes that of men and your attempt at control overshoots. If the value of P is too high, you get oscillations that get worse and worse, but, if the value of P is too low, you never reach parity. If it's just right, then you may overshoot a little, and then undershoot a little, skeeting around some but eventually you'll find a happy middle ground where the system stays where you want it to stay regardless of the environmental pressure upon it.

Now, the trouble is, if the changes to the system are very slow, then Proportional control just goes bang-bang from one extreme to another. You have to use very low values of P to avoid oscillation and you don't get anything done because your efforts will be so miniscule it's like trying to steer an ocean liner by farting into the wind. That's where the Integral part comes in: it takes into account how long the disrepancy or error has persisted and increases the effort proportionally to that, which has the effect of changing your factor of "amplification". As the system remembers its past it also increases effort if the desired change doesn't seem to be happening. Choosing P and I correctly for your system gets you there and keeps you there quite reliably. However, the Integral term is always backwards looking - it's living in the past and takes considerable time to realize what's happened, and it bears grudges where old disturbances that no longer exist are still driving the system away from its goal.

Then finally there's the Derivative term - it measures the rate of change of your error value and decreases effort if it's changing too fast, so it stabilizes the system by observing when things might be getting out of hand. It's the conservative term. In a sense, it's like saying "we shouldn't try to hit the target right away because we can't just slam the gas and steer hard - that would break stuff - so let's start off carefully and aim for something lower". It deals with both changes in the set value, and changes in the system state so that when some calamity hits your system, or you change opinion about where it should be heading, the result isn't instant panic and hysteria.

Now, each of these values has to be chosen by observing how the control system behaves - they have to be tuned, and there is no system to tune the system, except by applying the same concept back on itself recursively, so you're tuning your tuning your tuning your tuning... and you can't just settle down to some values because your overall system and its environment is changing as well, so while some values may be suitable today, another values are required tomorrow.

And all that is still forgetting that the values you measure and the error you compute is subject to noise and uncertainty - ignorance of reality. Another problem is that your control system disregards its own future: when your goals move around, the system follows behind as if dragged by a rubber band so you have to think one step ahead. You need a system for setting up the set points by having a model of reality that predicts what your system will do if you give it a particular goal, assuming you know exactly what your system is and what the future will bring, including your own future opinions about what the system should be doing based on your experience of what it actually did.

And how do you come up with that? The dirty secret of control systems engineering is that you can't - your system will never work exactly as desired, and there will always be cases that you couldn't predict. You can spend your life coming up with all the troubles you want to avoid and still there will be more.

Fortunately, for machine systems that work in limited tasks, you can specify and outline their roles carefully and whatever falls out that scope is ignored. For social engineering however, everything is up for grabs - because the people too evolve with the system and nothing stays constant for too long, and eventually someone figures out how your system to tune your system can be influenced and uses the knowledge to de-tune it for their own advantage, necessitating you to come up with a system to deal with system-breakers, and system breaker breaker breaker breakers...

No.3473649
File: Radical_Trouble_Makers.png - (250.72 KB, 589x334) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
256733

>>3473499

>political heroes like 3B who parrot the talking points to pretend to be contributing to the "good cause", and also the self-serving parasites which take advantage of the naive and inevitably overtake the system and corrupt it.

You've almost wrote a 2000 word essay worth of posts to say, "I'm a giant pussy who is afraid of change."

No.3473650

>>3473649

>extreamists
>a evil

Seriously, how hard is it to spend 3 seconds to proofread your crap?

No.3473665
File: 8194101-330-282.jpg - (16.31 KB, 330x282) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
16703

>>3473649

>"Give"
No.3473706

>>3473649

>You've almost wrote a 2000 word essay worth of posts to say, "I'm a giant pussy who is afraid of change."

You've spent the last 10 years shitposting here almost every day, round the clock, week after week, just to say, "I have absolutely no idea of what I'm talking about".

If you understood any of what I wrote, it means that change happens regardless and usually despite of your efforts. You think you're in control - you're not.

No.3473718

>>3473665

i mean, it's not inaccurate. steal from the rich, give to the poor.

No.3473719
>I'm going to introduce you to a little bit of systems control theory.

This sounds really similar to something I've worked on!! I'm a hobbyist programmer, and I had an air pressure sensor with a lot of noise in it. I wanted to be able to control the air pressure with a pump, but it was difficult - I had to find the average through the noise, but this average lagged behind a couple seconds. This hurt two-fold, both because I was making changes based on this old data & because I could only see the results of my own changes through this old data. It invariably meant that it could only do so much - if something went really wild, it took a very long time for it to get the air pressure back in the right place.

Nothing I could try could possibly compare to just getting a better sensor, but I was lucky enough that things worked well enough for me as they were. Though yeah, I can definitely imagine how systems involving people would be a huge step up in complexity.

I think where I get kind of caught up is... When you give examples of problems with systems, I have a hard time moving those problems out of the "expected & handled" bin, and into the "systems won't work at all in this case". It's a blurry line for me - After I post this I'm gonna go back and re-read some of your posts, because I'm positive you've been trying at that a lot, hahah. My brain is a little saturated now, and I need to try and focus/filter things down a bit like that!

And I have a thought that might help, where our ideas might line up well. When you mentioned that you like "piecemeal democratic and reversible changes that can be proven to work or discarded at any time," I really liked that too, because when things aren't working, you need an escape valve - the government shouldn't be like a stupid freight train barrelling forward without any brakes, and it definitely feels like one right now. So, when I mentioned I like the fantasy of having strong, transparent data about the pros and cons from everything our government is doing, and giving people a channel to tweak the government based on that data - that's piecemeal, democratic, reversible changes, right? I think? Maybe the feedback loops aren't so scary because if things go wrong, there's a means to easily bail out entirely. Are we thinking of similar things here?

No.3473759

>>3473719

>Maybe the feedback loops aren't so scary because if things go wrong, there's a means to easily bail out entirely.

Well, think of it this way. When your thing goes wrong, you may set off a (civil) war, or just kill a few million people by accident. See the guy who invented tetraethyl lead for gasoline additive, and after that turned out pretty bad he went on to invent safer less toxic refridgerants and came up with CFCs, which ended up being used as cheap and safe propellants for spray bottles, which caused the ozone hole, which again killed a millions of people to skin cancer. I shit you not. People tried to warn, but to no avail - until it was too late.

I quote the Dhammapada:

63. A fool who knows his foolishness is wise at least to that extent, but a fool who thinks himself wise is a fool indeed.

69. So long as an evil deed has not ripened, the fool thinks it as sweet as honey. But when the evil deed ripens, the fool comes to grief.

71. Truly, an evil deed committed does not immediately bear fruit, like milk that does not turn sour all at once. But smoldering, it follows the fool like fire covered by ashes.

72. To his own ruin the fool gains knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness.

No.3473760

>>3473719
Also, this video explains perfectly the difficulty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZe5J8SVCYQ

No.3473781
>When your thing goes wrong, you may set off a (civil) war, or just kill a few million people by accident. See the guy who invented tetraethyl lead for gasoline additive
>People tried to warn, but to no avail - until it was too late.

So in this example, we (by "we" I mean the government & country, because they are of the people, by the people, for the people) we allowed the lead gas people to sell their product. And that was obviously a very bad thing. So how could we have stopped that?
We either prevent people from inventing things, or we do a better job listening to those warnings & do a better job making sure that what people sell is safe. Am I missing any options here?
As far as I can tell, you seem to be arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to design these complex things at all. I've probably got that wrong, but it's all I can deduce. And it really does seem extreme and strange right now - especially with this example in particular, because unless I'm thinking of the wrong thing, the leaded-gas people knew the dangers, but threatened whistleblowers & used misleading, false science to push their agenda. An authoritative figure needed to take action.

>Also, this video explains perfectly the difficulty

It's hard to take this one seriously - I mean, it seems like somebody decided to take some computer code and reinterpret it into english. Any code sounds this absurd when you read it out loud. Biology and computer systems have countless self-correcting systems that work much like this - when your body gets too hot, it sweats. When your home gets too hot, the AC turns on.

Because sometimes people aren't careful enough designing complex systems, or are unwilling to drop them when they should, or their oversight isn't ideal - is the argument that we should consider them an absolute folly to build? Especially when our world is saturated in adored, functioning systems? I just don't get it at all, you're kind of losing me here.

No.3473850

>>3473781

>we (by "we" I mean the government & country, because they are of the people, by the people, for the people) we allowed the lead gas people to sell their product.

Exactly there you outlined the major issue. The lead-gas people are included in the "we the people" who are allowing themselves to add lead to gasoline. The people don't actually think as one, they don't all know the same things, they don't all believe the same things, and if you think you're the one special individual who knows the best then you are the fool. Furthermore, you're making the assumption that the government actually is "of the people, for the people" which is rarely if ever the case, and even if it is the results can still be horrible. See for example, Hitler was voted into power.

>Especially when our world is saturated in adored, functioning systems?

As judged by whom and by what metric?

The point is that running a society is totally unlike running a factory or building a car. Going back to what the leftist is trying to do; it is going to be total folly because the people themselves, including the special problem solvers who are trying to control things don't actually know what they want, how they're going to get there, and what's going to happen, or what is happening at all. Nobody is in control, not really, but you can still do a great deal of harm by attempting to engineer society to something "better" (better according to whom?) like the left is always trying to do.

If you want to do good, do good, knowing that your efforts will turn bad at some level. Don't set up a system of government to do good, because that will turn bad immediately. Don't stick to any means or methods but apply what comes necessary, and you have a hope of getting through with the least amount of friction.

No.3473851

>>3473781

>unless I'm thinking of the wrong thing, the leaded-gas people knew the dangers, but threatened whistleblowers & used misleading, false science to push their agenda.
>An authoritative figure needed to take action.

There was outcry almost immediately after introducing lead into gasoline, with people dying on exposure to the TEL chemical, but the authoritative figure, the US Public Health Service concluded that the concentrations present in actual gasoline were too low for concern and that there were no effective alternatives anyhow, so it should not be banned. The misleading science, lawsuits and propaganda came later when the evidence started to mount that this was not the case, that the lead was accumulating and becoming a problem everywhere.

All the people, all the structures of authority and expertise, the whole system put to study the effects of lead failed to note the problem or became too involved with the actual business of selling leaded gasoline that they could not argue against it. The public likewise was no wiser because they were relying on these experts.

The proof that lead was a problem came from outside of the system, from a geologist who tried to study the age of earth by radioactive decay which eventually produces lead, but found that all his samples were tainted by lead coming off of gasoline.

These days there's a similiar issue with recreational firearms use, with lead dust getting everywhere from shooting ranges, carried around by people's clothes to the point that many are actually suffering from lead poisoning - but as you suggest that people should ban lead in ammunition, guess what happens? They accuse you of being a gun-grabber because for some reason there's a myth that lead-free bullets count as armor-piercing and would be illegal.

It will take decades to get rid of that problem. Of course you could apply an "authoritative figure" to get it done, and cause another Trump or worse to happen as a bounce-back effect for all the toes you have to step on.

No.3473891
>The point is that running a society is totally unlike running a factory or building a car.

Know that I agree completely with this. I'm less familiar with social things as I am with technical things, and so I can only imagine how much easier it is for things to go wrong in a government than in a computer or car - what you mentioned before about system breakers and such.

That said, in the context of the leaded gas example, I still don't understand how you'd deal with it. I know you feel it shouldn't have happened - so what would you have done? That's basically the TL;DR for the majority of this post, hahah.

>Exactly there you outlined the major issue. The lead-gas people are included in the "we the people" who are allowing themselves to add lead to gasoline.

Fortunately, this is expected (even if unfortunate and messy): the government is set up from start to end to deal with disagreements among people. Three branches of government, courts, etc. In this case, it's the leaded gas people versus the entire population of air-breathing people. So then you ask:

>you can still do a great deal of harm by attempting to engineer society to something "better" (better according to whom?)

According to you, just now; leaded gas and CFCs were obviously bad for the public at large. Am I wrong? The system meant to protect us from this sort of thing failed, and so I offered two options: Improve the system, or disallow inventions. You could also suggest other alternatives. The option you selected was:

>As judged by whom and by what metric?
>it is going to be total folly
>Don't stick to any means or methods but apply what comes necessary, and you have a hope of getting through with the least amount of friction.

I'm having to do a bit of interpreting here because this is where you get a bit fuzzy for me. But it seems like you're saying that either there should've been no oversight for the lead-gas people (which gets us the same unfortunate result), or their product should have been flat denied on the grounds that "designed systems are bad," or that leaded gas should've been a special case that received special attention. Right now, none of these seem realistic to me. Please, please correct me here.

>If you want to do good, do good, knowing that your efforts will turn bad at some level. Don't set up a system of government to do good, because that will turn bad immediately.

In the context of the lead-gas example, how do you "do good" here without acting as an authoritative figure? Who else can protect the general public aside from the general public itself? And how do they do that without experts?

Now onward onto my own idealist fantasy! I adore the idea that the public itself might someday have more accurate understanding of global scientific knowledge, better resistance to misinformation, and as a result, better ability to govern and form law. In my eyes, we're doing horribly on all of that.

No.3473908

>>3473891

>I still don't understand how you'd deal with it. I know you feel it shouldn't have happened - so what would you have done?

The question is both what I would have done, and what would I have done.

Knowing then what I know now, I would have collected the evidence, knowing where to look for it, and shown unambiguously what a bad thing it was to put lead in gasoline. However, having had done that in the late 20's early 30's I might have retarded combustion engine development because lead is very useful in driving high compression airplane engines, and so lost the allies the second world war.

Having actually been living then and not now, I would have probably done exactly what everyone else and ignored the whole issue. In thinking about these matters, we project our present selves in hindsight to past events and onto other people, and notice that we would have been wiser, which then turns into the illusion that we are wise in the present regarding events that are yet to come because at least we wouldn't be making that same "mistake" again. As Karl Popper pointed out: history is not a scientific experiment - it's a one-time event that you cannot repeat and thus it serves you no aid in predicting the future. You cannot draw laws out of it, because the conditions in which those apparent regularities existed no longer apply, and your undestanding of the events is necessarily selective - like again calling the early ban of leaded gasoline a success, and stopping the count just before we lose WW2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Poverty_of_Historicism

> Popper defines historicism as: “an approach to the social sciences which assumes that historical prediction is their principal aim…”.[3] “The belief… that it is the task of the social sciences to lay bare the law of evolution of society in order to foretell its future… might be described as the central Historicist doctrine.”.
>Negative practical effects of implementing historicist ideas
>i) Unintended consequences: the implementation of Historicist programs such as Marxism often means a fundamental change to society. Due to the complexity of social interaction this results in lots of unintended consequences (i.e. it tends not to work properly). Equally it becomes impossible to tease out the cause of any given effect so nothing is learnt from the experiment / revolution.[20]
>ii) Lack of information: large scale social experiments cannot increase our knowledge of the social process because as power is centralised to enable theories to put into practice, dissent must be repressed, and so it is harder and harder to find out what people really think, and so whether the utopian experiment is working properly. This assumes that a dictator in such a position could be benevolent and not corrupted by the accumulation of power, which may be doubted.[21]

The important point:

> It is logically impossible to know the future course of history when that course depends in part on the future growth of scientific knowledge (which is unknowable in advance).
No.3473917

>>3473891

>Right now, none of these seem realistic to me. Please, please correct me here.
>In the context of the lead-gas example, how do you "do good" here without acting as an authoritative figure?

That is the fundamental paradox. This is a point that cannot be directly explained, because in order to undestand it you must change your point of view. Otherwise none of the explainations make any sense.

Let me put it this way: do you think you have a choice? This is like case five of Mumonkan, where a monk is hanging from a tree from his teeth, and below comes another fellow who asks "Why did the Bodhidharma come from the west?" (I.e. what's it all about?). If the monk answers, he dies, and if he doesn't he betrays his own duty. So what do you do?

No.3473927

>>3473891

>In this case, it's the leaded gas people versus the entire population of air-breathing people.

This is the case with all matters and all peoples. Every case has a winner and a loser, otherwise the case - as it would make no difference, good or bad - wouldn't come about.

Now, whose preference takes precedence and why? If you take a systematic answer like, "the majority's" (utilitarian), then you must also concede for where this would create a moral paradox, such as the proposition that we should enslave a small portion of the population to do all work in order for the majority to have an easy life.

So you see, those who do good always pick sides to decide what is good, and in sticking to their choice become the worst kind of evil there is: a saint.

No.3473945

I'm a bit short on time at the moment, so I can't absorb all of this properly right now, I will later - and this post is written quickly.

>Knowing then what I know now, I would have collected the evidence, knowing where to look for it, and shown unambiguously what a bad thing it was to put lead in gasoline.
>Having actually been living then and not now, I would have probably done exactly what everyone else and ignored the whole issue.

I realized this does make sense, hindsight is 20/20 - I goofed, and realize I should've been asking only what you would've done in -response- to the leaded gas thing. I know you're also answering this question as well too to some extent too, but I should've been clearer!

>and so lost the allies the second world war.

A thought hit me - is this worth worrying about at all? Or more accurately, is there a reason to believe that you'll get more unexpected negative effects instead of positive ones? Especially because some negative effects will themselves have solutions - which might mean that there's a net positive here... (Apologies if you already explained this and I forgot)

>This is a point that cannot be directly explained, because in order to undestand it you must change your point of view. Otherwise none of the explainations make any sense.

...Ehhhhh, hahah - I hope you understand why that's difficult for me to swallow. At least from my current point of view, I'm being asked to take something on faith, and that's a big red flag for me.

>Now, whose preference takes precedence and why? If you take a systematic answer like, "the majority's" (utilitarian)

I dunno, I feel like you can follow a course of logic to aim for a specific outcome. Off the top of my head, people should be allowed complete freedom up to the point that our society agrees is a step too far. That's a very dynamic system that allows change, and it seems very simple and sensible to me - far more than just picking a side by default.

No.3474063

>>3473945

>A thought hit me - is this worth worrying about at all? Or more accurately, is there a reason to believe that you'll get more unexpected negative effects instead of positive ones?

To the first question: ultimately no, unless you want to. To the second; you can't know. What you can know is that for every thing there will eventually be an end. Trying to win all the time is simply an exercise in futility, like trying to arrange all the items in a room so everything is pointing up and nothing is pointing down.

>At least from my current point of view, I'm being asked to take something on faith, and that's a big red flag for me.

If you can't adopt other points of view, then you're stuck repeating the same mistakes without realizing that you are the cause of your own issues. The difference is taking a monistic point of view: the things you believe to be separate are one, and you can't separate the good from the bad. When you make the distinction you will find both the good and the bad, like for example when the SJW asks you to "check your privilege". The issue they're pointing at comes into being when you internalize their subjective reality. The difficulty in explaining this is to get people to jump out of their own minds and see things from the point of view of all minds - as far as humanly possible - such that you can not only understand but feel why somebody would put lead in gasoline despite knowing (or not, or denying) that it's killing everyone. That's when you see the hollowness of all systems.

You are then free to follow any of them, or none. Before that you're not free, but bound to whatever happens to be imposed on you by other causes and conditions.

>I dunno, I feel like you can follow a course of logic to aim for a specific outcome.

Logic gives you the outcome of a system, but the system is not reality like the map is not the country.

No.3474078

>>3473945

>is this worth worrying about at all?

More on this point. Isn't it worth worrying about? What about all the people you leave behind? Where's your human compassion for them? At what point do you say "Fuck you, got mine!"?

So you see, when you set out to save the world, what you really should be doing is to invent a time machine to destroy the little rat that would evolve into homo sapiens sapiens - unless you admit that you're only out to save yourself. But then what would that make you? No better than the guy who puts lead in gasoline knowing he will be long dead before shit hits the fan.


Delete Post []
Password