Hrm, I'll have to put that monitor to something of entertainment rather than psuedo-politic one of these days.

AMV

A - anime
M - maybe you should kys yourself, weeb
V- video

Xav with the thread ender

(Actually, it's more Sargon's fault.. I ended up catching one where he mentioned Team Rocket specifically.. I think it was during his spat with politics.)

its always his fault

@Pinkstoo gypsy magic? Pinkie's a Romanian then?

https://youtu.be/xAnv4dz14Sw

it's a bit ironic to use colored pencils in the thumbnail, given that you need all of them to color pictures properly

Ford is speaking facts

he isn't speaking "facts", he's linking a video that beats a dead horse

but if you mix those colors into one blob

you get black

You don't get anything

which is a color

and people mix colors with color pencils

are you stupid?

mix one or two

or three

but what if you mix all of them?

depending on how many you have

then you get black

silly

you don't mix the whole box just to get black?

you really wanna die on this hill, huh?

kind of petty, ngl

im just saying

also, mixing all of them would be anti-diversity, silly

you only get one color then 😉

so wouldn't keeping the colors separated be pro diversity?

😉

yessir

but, technically speaking, you'd only start with three primaries

so you'd want to mix some a few times to get different shades

but in nature, there are different pigments besides just three primaries

which are blends of the three primaries

and, once again

you are choosing to die on the most petty hill possible

if the world was just red green and blue

it would be be pretty bad

would it not?

sorry I had that word in my head lol

the lack of self-awareness in your argument is a bit astounding

I'll just leave it at that

explain

Hi

What's the current topic?

@Rusty Begin one, and it will be current by default

that you're a nigger

faggot

defend your position

@Coolitic This is the debate channel, memes are elsewhere

faggot

I am debating memes

get shit on retard

<:BIGBRAIN:501101491428392991>

https://youtu.be/xpAvcGcEc0k

uh oh

I triggered tyche

That reminded me of this

Is this the right place to talk about nonsense regarding the left and their antics? Or is this more like actual debates?

@Rusty Don't worry, noone here is even capable of an "actual debate".

*Sad*

more like actual debates, but with less structure

so ppl'll pop in and out

Pop in n out of your mom

Lol

Roasted

Where did you pull this joke from, 2010?

Dick goes in, dick goes out. You cannot explain that. Never a miscommunication.

https://youtu.be/NT-FG4VnpCI

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/battleground-7-in-10-say-us-on-the-edge-of-civil-war

> Battleground: 7 in 10 say US ‘on the edge of civil war’

that's a straight up lie

go read the article and its sources

On edge of civil war? Hey, USA might have been on civil war for ten years already, and they just didn't know it.

Regards, totally-not-bald Tim.

I mean, post this shit, and complain about people joking about him being bald:

"I-i-i-i-it's not like I'm bald i-i-i-it's because I look so different without beanie. I want to keep my hair a secret so people cannot recognize me without the beanie. I don't like getting doxxed."

Although needs more stuttering.

Tim is weird. He stutters in pre-recorded videos but practically not at all during live streams which everyone would assume are more stressful (and stress being the typical trigger for stutters).

Might be intentionally crafted, then

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lIY7c5L2SHw

A "nice" work of... well, let's call it "art" that connect everything to Alt-Right:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g

Thunderf00t, PDP, The Quartering, everyone is there.

Any critique of left is nazi, any worry about leftist SJW encroachment to online groups is nazi, any statement to remain apolitical is a tool of nazis.

Also classical liberalism and moderates are a gateway to Alt-Rightr.

And the usual kafka trapping of "fear of emasculation" which is used as an argument from lefties (pro-feminist or antifa) because ... well, you either admit your need to be emasculated (become a cuck) or fear it (which is weakness).

And fear itself is emasculating so you're emasculated anyway, the goal of cultural leftism.

God these people piss me off

That's a lot of strawman in one video

Start the beheadings

Let God sort them out

i like how

the guy starts the video

stating generic culture stuff

and says 'white guy shit'

black people dont play video games, watch star wars, anime, and likes comics?

asian people neither?

women neither?

pretty fucking racist to assume those things are 'standard white guy'

Muh predominant race in Hollywood!

im radicalized already

It's funny cos just a few days ago someone said these same content creators cause de-radicalization
https://www.dailywire.com/news/study-data-suggests-conservative-content-leads-to-de-radicalization-not-radicalization

And even some more controversial ones

But I guess whatever fits the narrative must be pushed, even if it requires jamming an oversized triangle into a circle

is anyone here in the know about wireless headsets?

You'll have to spend at least 80 euros/100 dollars for a good one that's gonna last.

My opinion: don't get one

It will stress you the fuck out

Goal should be to disconnect as much as possible from social media, and increase the number of person to person connections

If you wear an earpiece the whole time, you'll feel obliged to use it, thus increasing your online presence instead of real life

Eh, it depends on your own self-discipline and what your day-to-day looks like to be fair.

self-discipline is a myth

Either you're born with the discipline or you're not

If not, you gotta remove temptations from your environment

Either that or you replace them with new temptations

That's why all people eventually fall back into their old behavior

The discipline lies within not exposing yourself to the temptation in the first place, cause if you do you'll lose

Unless like I said you're not inherently inclined to fall for it in the first palce

Many people would benefit from this line of reasoning, but psychologists are too stupid to understand this simple truth

Or too ideologically driven by their love for absolute unrestricted lifestyles

Removal of temptation is no longer discipline

Example: Removal of oneself from the battlefield is not discipline over your emotions; keeping a level head in battle *is* discipline over your emotions.

discipline is doing what you dont want to do, as if it was

power is being able to do something, and making the choice to do it or not

wisdom is the ability to decide which is better outcome

and diligence is doing as good a job as you can do regardless of circumstance

Ergo, buying a wireless headset provides options otherwise not found. Thus, it is exercising self-discipline to not always deploy them.

The myth is that discipline can be trained without outside factors

Which is what I see as self-discipline

Self-discipline would be the ability to stop oneself from buying ice cream when the craving exists
An internal factor that can stop ourselves would be that we understand it's bad, therefore we don't buy it
But the truth is, people buy it anyway despite knowing this

And the reason is that we need to feed our cravings somewhere, sometimes

That desire gets stronger over time the less we feed it

So the desire moves elsewhere to other (replacement) desires

We can't stop

There's only craving management, which would be for example changing it into a less harmful desire. Or removing the source of craving altogether.

Discipline plays no role in that management, we simply follow our desire if we want that

In contrast, an *outside* factor to train away our lack of discipline would be for example a person, or circumstances, that stop us

As mentioned earlier, removing the source of craving altogether, so we don't need to show "discipline"

Or parents grounding a child

Discipline implies that we have control over our desires. But the desires persist, they go away not by our choosing

Discipline doesn't imply that

Discipline is control gained through force
Self-discipline is control gained through self-force
There's no discipline required when there are no antagonistic or chaotic forces pulling or pushing away from the target behavior

So since discipline implies (requires) control, self-discipline is the controlled behavior (higher order) in the face of uncontrolled behavior (lower order)

Overcoming one's desires through control, that's one of the main examples of self-discipline

Self-discipline is therefore two things in one: a higher internal order; and the presence of an antagonistic desire that pulls one away from that order

Also, we require greater discipline with growing desire. Desire is either innate or learned, self-discipline must also be innate or learned.
Some people think that self-discipline is innate, others think it's learned, or can be learned.
I believe self-disciplined is not learned and can't be learned. There's only a tradeoff - I can fulfill my desire right now, or I can have a greater reward later.

The ability to delay gratification is something that comes with higher IQ, as has been well researched. Therefore I believe self-discipline is as innate as IQ is (i.e. mostly).

>I believe self-discipline cannot be learned
Based on what

Based on my observations, like for example the fact that IQ predicts self-discipline

One could even argue that self-discipline is a subset of IQ

I'm willing to accept one argument though if there's enough evidence backing it up

That self-discipline can increase with certain life changes, just like IQ

However, I would still hold that it's largely innate

And to go back to the start, why I believe self-discipline to be a myth. Basically it's a term that has changed its meaning over time. In everyday use people tend to think that they have failed when they show a lack of discipline. But I think it's inevitable that they do, and it becomes increasingly inevitable the harder they make it for themselves (e.g. surrounding themselves with temptations)

So therefore I don't consider it a personal failure when people show a lack of restraint, I consider it a demonstration of their true nature.

Why is this important? Because it would mean that we should always assume that the same behavior that people show one time will most likely continue.

At least in regards to things that they enjoy doing

definitively not true

what are diets if not self disicpline

look at all these soy boys who never had a father who are vegens

Most people diet temporarily, not permanently

I believe the reason for this is because they keep surrounding themselves with temptations (or other people do this for them)

I believe control increases with the level of (im)possibility

And basically nothing else

Therefore a temptation like alcohol must be removed entirely from an alcoholic

Even the possibility of attaining a bottle of beer will likely lead to relapse

Most people manage to not shit their pants on a daily basistoo

Can you show me the people who are tempted to shit their pants?

For me it'd be a nightmare, as I assume is the case for most people

Even babies have an aversion to it, way before they have the neccessary control

i was never really taught disscipline cuz my dad died, and im much more disciplined than my brother who's older than me who had much more time with him than me

ive taken efforts to do it

not great at it, but im doing it better than before

I think you've simply learned to apply your mental abilities to a higher degree

It is known that self-discipline increases with age, and then at a very old age it often diminishes again

Of course you have to learn to apply your intelligence first if you want to be self-disciplined, there is after all something called crystalized intelligence

But do tell me, if you were suddenly surrounded by all the wrong temptations that you avoid nowadays

If all that was in your presence every day all day

How certain are you that you would be able to resist?

I can segway this into a very dark and grim and hugely important topic by the way

The problem of growing pedophile acceptance

I believe they should not ever be trusted, regardless of how much self-restraint they temporarily demonstrate

Why? Because inside their minds they're still predators, and nothing will ever change that.

I'm not convinced that free will is neccessarily a real thing.

I rather believe in the demonstration of patterns of behavior

The stronger patterns must always be considered before all others. That's what every statistician would tell you.

https://youtu.be/gK_0Yo-0r08

>Degenerates dying
Natural selection, my dear sir.
>Modern conservatives
Oxymoronic.
>Englishmen drinking so much they poison their organs and shave decades off of their lifespans
Wouldn't mind were it not for the fact they'll be receiving organ-donations.
>Breeding-abortion fetish
Made me physically gag

I can understand why people would consider shootings.

PJW: "conservativism is the new punk rock".

I cringe, always.

Conservativism will never be "punk rock" (i.e fighting against status quo).

Conservativism is **BY DEFINITION** the status quo.

Which is why conservativism is no longer against gay marriage or pro-stoning adulterers and gays.

Usually Conservative = old school liberal, although not by definition.

Because in some countries, conservative can be anti-theocracy (where islamofascism is taking over) or pro-communism (in ex-Soviet Bloc countries where past structures are being replaced with free markets).

I think PJW finally abandoned that with this video lol

How so?

He's mad af that conservatism now conserves nothing

which tells me he's taking the traditionalism pill

Yeah, which is ridiculous for a person who never experienced traditionalism.

Traditionalism is the utopia based on a perceived fictional past.

Like, he may complain about alcohol consumption but imagine the great success that was alcohol prohibition.

(And I ain't even strawmanning, there's huge chunks of traditionalists/Alt-Right who want criminalization of alcohol, porn and whateverthefuck they consider "degeneracy".

It's just a catch-all, just like left's "problematic".)

I prefer Sowell's definition from *Conflict of Visions* Sure if you're a 12th century conservative you believe all sorts of retarded things. It would be crazy to expect a modern conservative to believe in the Terracentric Universe. It is more defined in *how* we observe and relate to the world we currently live in. Chesterton's fence means we should *show caution* before changing things not that things should never change.

Like I watched an interview with Charles Murray talking about *Coming Apart* and he explained why the social cohesion was stronger in the 50s but he also said, "If you had a time machine to take me back there you would have to drag me kicking and screaming into it."

I kinda loathe the conservative "virtue" of prudency, and "being cautious". Because it's non-ending resistance. It was that against gay marriage, and it is that against drug decriminalization **DESPITE** positive results from other places where they've done it and have many years of results, and all the history **PRIOR** to criminalization due to non-scientific hysteria and political interests.

Conservatives drag on things *beyond* mere cautiousness. If they were cautious, they would want to see evidence, but would admit reality when evidence is shown. But instead they go into all the loops of "it worked then, now is now", "it works there, we are here", which by definition means that lack of harm of a social change can never be proven, until it's done now and locally... and they're **STILL** against it.

Conservatives are **BY DEFINITION** pushing the brake pedal, regardless if proposed change is backed by reality or not. In times, they are in the right (when progressive forces go out of control and pseudo-scientific or totally self-destructive, which I think is the time we live in **currently**). At other times, they are purely a drag on the society being the penultimate boomers of society who understand nothing and want to prohibit everything they didn't experience in their own youth.

"We should all be playing with cone cows" level of nostalgia.

oof

Okay, so then if Traditionalism is impotent nostalgia and conservatism doesn't define it right because it's brake-pedaling

What, pray tell, is the term we should use for those who want to safeguard *traditional values?*

And avoid repugnant behaviors?

But you cannot see the future and you cannot know why what works or what the unintended consequences are. A great example of this is divorce. The conservative position was that marriage had worked for generations and we shouldn't change. There were no arguments against because we had no examples of what 'might happen'

Well you run the experiment and we got to see what could happen.

@spooky ducc Well, again you invoke "traditional values". Please define them.

Hatred of going against God?

Hatred against atheists, calling them all communists or Satanists? (And not in the LaVeyan sense but in the Satan worshiping sense.)

I think "traditionalism" is correct term for promoters of "traditional values".

If there's a problem with traditionalism promoting a fake historical utopia, that same problem is present in their perception of "traditional values".

Because "traditional values" are rather vague idea.

uh, no. Believing in the family as the smallest unit of society, a microcosm of all other grander social structures.
Believing the individual is not entitled to inane liberties just because they think it's a good idea at the time or doesn't cause immediate damages.

Believing that having moral fragmentation is a toxin that tears people apart, and that people need to agree on the fundamentals of right and wrong to participate in society

So instead of "traditional values", just "family values" and individualism?

No, not really individualism

How is that traditionalist or conservative?

Individualism helped get us here

Oh, I didn't properly read it to the end.

Okay, so then enlighten me, whiic, since you seem to not know what traditional values are upon the utterance of the term and so thoroughly doubt the concept of tradition as being nothing more than impotent nostalgia.

Does modernity have problems? What are they, and how do we stop them?

Sure. Problems exist.

I don't have a short answer to offer. Even the list of problems is quite extensive.

if you tell me that every era had it's problems i'm going to batter you with a 9 iron tbqh

because that's such a truism it's not even amusing

Well, every era did have it's problems. That's just a fact, although not an excuse to correct current era's malfuctions.

not an excuse to *not* correct?

I think the current era is quite run off the track. The solution isn't going back, but choosing another direction entirely.

And that could be something along the lines of emphasizing responsibility over entitlement, but also among live and let live among people who are not threatening you. Basically libertarian values.

With a sprinkle of social responsibility because "atomized individual" doesn't work.

And fact-based child-raising.

So going back but leaving God behind

<:thunk:462282216467333140>

Which pretty much aligns it traditional "family values" (if you don't include "hate gays" under it, since it has nothing to do with how to manage a family, it's just moralizing).

Aannnnnd there's your credibility gone in a puff of smoke

No, it abso-fucking-lutely is about family management.

I would not say "go back" since East-Europe: back = socialism.

that's not going back far enough tbh

if that's the case

OK, so my puff of smoke is the need to hate gays.

<:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>