Sorry I'm a little confused over the idpol stance this board has...

class war divide between rich and poor.

Identity politics divides between rich, poor, white, black, brown, muslim, jew, christian, male, female, asian, latino, handicapped, vegan, meat eater, ethnic group, etc

Now, ask yourself, which one is easier to divide and conquer if you are a rich person?

Alternatively class war is itself confused and heterogenous in its manifestations, determined by concrete historical circumstances and necessarily obscuring the antagonism between the proletariat and the capitalist class as well as working itself out through antagonistic, competitive relationships within each of those respective classes.

Pure class antagonisms will be a result, not pre-given. They will be constructed through a combination of particular interests brought into strict relief by the revolutionary process.

You reactionary anti-idpol fucks don't know how to get from here to there. This shit is basic orthodoxy.

Shut up faggot. Literally no one is denying that contradictions and oppression outside of class exists. We should prioritize workers liberation over everything while there is still class oppression. Because the rainbow intersectional every-oppression-is-equal approach has been doing jack shit to advance the left.

420chan Holla Forums is left wing.
Well, it was before it got swarmed by Holla Forumsyp trash.

I am banned from 420chan for ban evasion even though i dont remember ever being banned din the first place

Dunno, mane.
We need leftist posters there, though. A few are holding out against the retardation. Maybe get on their IRC if you want?

I click on the irc and it just takes me to black page that says "welcome to my webspace"

...

Weird.
Proxy?
Just evade the ban you never got.

retards.club/

too bad kirtainer is a massive faggot that supported zoe quinn and all her reactionary bullshit

no thanks

Most of these people have no fucking clue what they're talking about so don't take them that seriously.

...

leftypol like to think they are some special, special form of leftism and are nothing like those nasty SJWs who trigger the rest of the site.

Most people don't even know what liberal feminism or how to tell it apart, so it's not really worth arguing about half the time. You're going to get a bunch of confused people yelling you the same point after deconstructing it.

Identity politics distracts from class. The problem isn't considering identity as a factor but all these identity politics that elevate identity to be the be all and end all. So to these identity politics you can't criticize a bourgeoisie Jew because that their Jewish identity automatically makes them "oppressed." The same thing with a black bourgeoisie or something else like that. A SJW would defend a black female bourgeoisie against a poor white male because they are a 'fucking white male' or some such shit. It distracts from class.

True for some parts. However you ignore that whites are usually the bourgeoisie, and especially in the past, benefited from the acts and laws of post civil war America to get to the position above others, solidifying race into class in a way other countries might not. With the exception of countries like South Africa.

Terrible file names and quote mining. Awful argument stop.

You mean like the original, true leftism that has absolutely nothing to do with liberal SJWism?

...

There were always black slavers that enslaved other blacks and engaged in the slave trade to trade them to whites for guns, money, etc. Then there were black capitalists after the abolition of slavery. At the same time there were poor whites as well as a minority of them that were bourgeoisie. The essence of our proposal is this:

Class > identity

This is not a problem I ever brought up nor was it one I ever denied. You know exactly what I'm saying.

And? And? And?

Ill read ahistorical humanist bullshit. Whites were poor but many families had a clear advantage over all others for their blood money from colonial time. On top of this African Americans were held back economically to form a much larger underclass

Class without further analysis as to problem is liberal, it should die.

Naive liberal bullshit.

Yes, like the true original leftism of the 19th century which is the ideological grandfather of the SJWism of today.

...

kek

You know I said "The problem isn't considering identity as a factor"? That is the opposite of "without further analysis."

So basically you are supporting identity politics. According to you anything that isn't identity politics and which elevates identity is "naive liberal bullshit" but that is the opposite of what is true.

Caring this much about identity politics is in essence identity politics. It's going to be brought up in class analysis whether you enjoy its presence or not. There's a clear distinction what is and is not genuine.

...

It is naive liberal bullshit to simplify things that way. Also do not say kek, it's rather annoying to me.

Triggered

Its in the name "social justice" warriors. Most of them in practice serve the modern social market synthesis just like you do here, but when they try to conceive of any kind of opinions beyond Disney movies and fast food outlets; its left-wing. But show me an Austrian Economics-spouting SJW and i'll stand corrected.

Doesn't disprove the fact SJW theory is just same old dull Marxism applied to gender/race. Nor that leftypol dislike it primarily in a sad, sad attempt to attract the Holla Forums userbase.

If you say sjw this many times you might develop a brain tumor.

They say it divides the proletariat to turn among themselves or just distracted from the class war and if it they get what they want before then it has them have more faith in capitalism for example forced gender pay quotas.

Personally although it is true some issues are just non issues and some of the ones that are can be resolved or weakened with getting rid of the capitalist system, I don't think it is all caused by capitalism nor should it just be entirely ignored if it is a legit issue. I think if it can be solved with socialism or communism then just tell them that. If it can't don't ignore them entirely, at least show you care even if you dont have a solution or dont want to take a position on it. It is a childish mindset to think all problems are caused by just one thing. I hate over simplifications.

Read a book nigger.
Read Zizek

You would know, being cancer.

Chemo feels like cancer sometimes, but it's not.

I think we're all agreed that you're cancer. Let's move on.

You forgot to ask me if I thought I was cancer, which is honestly really rude of you to do.

This place would be better without flags I think sometimes.

Read 'A peoples history of the united states'

...

No then we'd have no easy way of easily ignoring the Anfem. At least now we can actively track the cancer as it spreads across the board.

In my experience there are two poles:
"No war, but the class war": any and all forms of identity politics need to be rooted out and pose a genuine threat to the proletariat and the Revolution.

"Revolution first": there is value in intersectional analysis, but it should not take attention away from the Revolution.

In both cases the Revolution is the bottom line and intentionality, at best, a side concern. From what I've read people overwhelmingly support equality, even if they don't agree with intersectionality readings or "bourg" feminism. (This in contrast to an acute and palpable opposition to fascism in all its forms.)

Anyone not caught within this gradient is an extremist in respect to the board median. There are some; the general consensus seems to be that, as long as they still support the Revolution, they are a comrade but need a good de-spooking.

This cancer is friends with the mods dipshit

Who's friend with the mods? You? I highly doubt that.

...

That's not a good thing.
It also doesn't give you authority or precedence.

If anything, it looks like a bit of a tit. Focus on yer theory instead.

Kek yeah right and my dad works at the NSA and he says if you don't stop shitposting they'll take your internet away.

You're right I'm mostly just friends with n1x. The anarcho chat is usually better ;)

It all makes sense now.

...

It all makes sense now. Nobody gives a shit if you're friends with that loser. We use to have threads just make fun of him in the past.

i thought i was the most cancerous poster on Holla Forums

Space owes me a few favors. So I think it's perfectly fine if I say I'm friends with him too. The only person I'm not on good terms with is AW_ and he's autistic I think.

Kill yourself.

Nah

That's supposed to -challenge- the notion that class antagonisms induce all identity oppression?

Leftism today is all about hating white males and saying everything is 'racist sexist homophobic'. Capitalism is a big problem and idpol consistently distracts from that. Take BLM for instance. The role of the police in modern capitalist society is to suppress the working class and enforce capitalist laws on the population. In theory most of the population is oppressed by that and we would unite across racial lines to stop it. BLM thinks the issue is police racism against blacks, despite studies now showing that the police are in fact not biased against blacks (they don't shoot them as often) and the fact that more whites are killed by police than blacks. When you bring that up to BLM, they freak out and call you a racist and dismiss the importance of white life (see Carl the Cuck and Aids Skillrex). Despite the obvious fact that idpol is not socialism, it has a further downside: it encourages the spread of white identity and right-wing populism. You have nonsense deeply triggering and problematic articles, like NPR writing about the history of Michael Brown and that the officer who shot him resembled white slavers, therefore racism. Or Michael Dyson who penned a recent article saying that whites are born insensitive to the plights of blacks. They outright call the majority of the American population, whites, racists. The white working class sees this, and correctly knowing that the deeply triggering and problematic left doesn't like them, sides with right-wing populists like Trump who offers to protect their jobs. Remember that the white working class fights for scraps just like illegal immigrants and legal non-whites. That's why you see white working class areas that voted for S█████ in the dem primary supporting Trump, they know that Clinton and the SJW [email protected]/* */ Chicano power doesn't give a fuck about them. When you have bipartisan support for articles like this (dailycaller.com/2016/03/12/national-review-writer-working-class-communities-deserve-to-die/)
you know that idpol is not real socialism. I am non-white and I have sympathies with Marxism, but the current deeply triggering and problematic neoliberal left is going to be the death of me because they radicalize the white population and will use them as stormtroopers against my racial group.

Nah n1x has you beat by a country mile.

This isn't r/socialism/ being friendly with a mod on the IRC doesn't give you authority to shitpost all over the board.

You're right. But I do it anyways because you clearly mostly don't give a shit a solid fuck about the content the board is catered too usually.

Yeah I'm sorry I don't understand you. I don't give a shit about what exactly?

Don't act bitter. That's even more annoying.

It happens to all of them after we refuse to buy into their idpol bullshit.

Well, blacks do get killed etc more often per capita. It's unfortunate that they're often very ethnocentric. That's a problem we need to overcome. Overall, I agree and see where you're coming from.
A conservative publication. The elite hate ordinary people of any ethnic background, but they can be much more blatant about hatred for white working-class people. Their hatred for poor non-whites has to qualified and coded.

Who's acting bitter?

You when you said you shipost because you're upset instead of for keks.

but He blessed you with dubs, my sister!

PRAISE BE KEK

PLEASE stop with that AWFUL word! You all know it absolutely triggers me to the bone YET YOU STILL CONTINUE TO USE IT!

Fuck kek

KEK
E
K

Oh good, you're here again to tell people that they don't read enough and that you're the sole arbiter of what is and isn't feminism.

Protip: Whatever you call "radical feminism" is idpol.

IDpol is our only path to salvation

It's the economy, stupid - Bill Clinton

...

Even if OP is a troll, whoever drew it wasn't. These people are insane.

hey can ya fuck off
Idpol

Well actually where OWS went wrong is where punks and others came in thinking it was a generalized counterculture thing because the bank shit was way over their heads, which then caused the idpol stuff.

There's Revleft but it's full of tankies from what I've heard.

...

Jesus Christ, you know absolutely nothing about anthropology. Crack a fucking book open for once.

That's like saying a group of secular individuals who follow the same ideology in religion and do exactly the same things but for secular reasons are not following the same ideology in essence.

When you see a foreigner who's a Muslim, or someone else encouraging their religious conformity, always ask yourself: What would I do if this was about an American Christian? What would I feel if I were a foreigner, probably from a nation that legally punishes atheism with death, watching this subhuman jangle their chains with joy?

Remember that until the Cold War, MENA were making great strides toward secularism, freeing their cultures from the yoke of religion in the same way Europe had already done. Anyone who intentionally stands against that today is beyond sympathy or redemption.

wtf are you even trying to say right now

I don't believe in the "yoke of religion" in general. I think that's a very stupid concept. On the other hand, religious belief as a material result of nationalism needs to be abolished.

And fuck off with that "subhuman" bullshit.

You don't believe that fervent, unquestionable belief in something unprovable or blatantly false could distort peoples' actions? You don't think it played a major role in retarding the development of civilization wherever it came to the fore in politics or culture?

What else do you call someone who relinquishes their capacity for reasoned thought? The intellectual freedom granted by their humanity?

Go back to ratheism, or alternatively develop an actual interest into the biggest question of human existence. Your call.

pls read bookchin

or literally any religious anthropologist

I'm pretty fucking intellectually free, mate. Freer than you, I'd guess, because I've heard of things called "nuanced perspectives about issues that affect the entirety of human existence". You should look into that.

the more an intelligent person learns about religion the less likely they are to believe it

I know a lot more about religion than you, friend.

you know a lot about myths, congratulations? perhaps you could have used your time to study something more useful and actually *real*, like a scientific field

Questions are fine, special pleading for "answers" pulled out of a hat aren't.

Tell me about how devout religion fueled the philosophical inquiry of the Classical era, or the rise of Catholicism aided its continuation, or the denunciation of rationalist Mu`tazilites within Islam helped their scientific golden age weather Mongol assaults.

did you read the fucking post above mine?

If this is your level of analysis it's no wonder you're a ratheist. Tell me more about your Great Man theory bullshit, or about how the discoverers of genetics and the Big Bang weren't Catholics, or how - Jesus Christ, I can't believe I even need to write this - the Mongols conquered Iberia.

Just out of interest, how would rationalism have prevented the cultural collapse of the Mongol Conquests?

what about it?

Religion is unprovable and the catholic church was shit.

The ratheist idiot (apparently not you) said that people who know more about religion are less inclined to believe in it. For that proposition to be disprovable, knowing more about religion than him is presumably relevant - so I said I knew more about religion than him (which is true) and contradicted his claim.

You - quaking in your boots about GOSH, my worldview might require examining - freaked out and said that knowing about religion was stupid.

I asked if you could read. It seems like a pretty natural conclusion to me.

Why do you think it needs to be provable?

The Mongol conquests shattered the caliphate, but they hardly exterminated the Middle East. Superstition taking advantage of wagon-circling behavior after a catastrophe wasn't something that had to happen, and greatly harmed Arab culture as a result. The same tragedy repeated itself with the inward-turning of the Ottomans during their gradual downfall.

Regarding Iberia, aside from its geographical remoteness against the rest of the Mediterranean, the animosity between Christians and Muslims in medieval Spain is greatly exaggerated, with "Christian" heroes like Charlemagne actually having been opportunistic mercenaries who switched between "sides" that consisted more of feudal slapfights than any great clash of religions. If not for the ideological decay of Islam in the period, it could've heralded a syncretic new crossculture of rationalism, much like what the Greeks created in Egypt.

I'd like you to recommend me a book about this topic. I'd be really interested as to what you read about Islam.

It doesn't need to be. But I see far more harm done from it's nationalist associations than good. Just because Copernicus or somewhat else held Y ideological belief does not mean that belief is inherently good. It's a bizarre nationalist superstition and was rarely used on wide scale for its intended purpose. The Catholic church stagnated intellectual development for 1000 years.

Yeah, almost every good thing done by a religious person has been a step in the direction of secularization.

I'm not a fan of national religion (or organized religion in general). But writing off religion, in the ratheist way, as exclusively an impediment to human progress is just stupid.

Exclusively? No. Has it generally been? Yes. The dogmatism that comes with organized religion is incompatible(imo) with leftism. Just like a capitalist, most organized religions have actively worked to subvert the society in order so that they will obey the natural hierarchy(submitting to god)

I wouldn't write it off completely but as there are definitely some good ethical teachings in most religions(in varying degrees), but I would much prefer a secular society.

I'm of jewish ancestry and orthodox judaism has to have some of the stupidest religious laws I've ever see.

A secularist society doesn't necessarily mean an atheist/fanatic materialist society (and one of those would be so boring; luckily human nature means it'll never happen). Religion isn't just a code of ethics or a logical proposition; it's a vehicle for beauty that people can't do without.

Très 1970s

Look carefully, and you'll notice that pretty much everything worth saving "from" religion actually originated in secular culture. Religion is like lifestylist entryism in radical leftist circles, it seizes anything appealing to wrap itself in, as camouflage for its actual payload of parasitic authoritarianism.

I would expect nothing else of an atheist.

How could I have missed that mysticism originated in secular culture? My God! Everything I've read (that means to examine a book, btw) must have been wrong! An internet atheist told me so!

...

I guess you process the human nature is naturally spiritual mentality? Anyway I disagree with that notion but I don't see a point in arguing about "Human nayyshure". A secular society means not having religion govern the lives of individuals.

I personally believe in a higher power but I don't think of it as a transcendent anthropomorphic deity and find that notion ludicrous and moronic.

Is that all you have for what is worth saving? Almost every stride made in Western Christendom that was innovative was a step towards abandoning religion altogether. There is almost nothing that started as religious dogmatism that was worth saving. All advancements made in the Church were heretical at first and then became the norm.

you knowing more about religion and (presumably) believing in it doesn't invalidate the claim

even intelligent people hold some faulty beliefs here and there

Again, showing that you know nothing about mysticism whatsoever. I'm guessing that's because you shit on the Internet all day.

Whatever, I guess we in the agnostic master race just gets to live a much, much more fulfilling life than yours. Your loss.

What are these great "innovative" strides towards atheism?

Also, what is an "advancement" in the context of organized religion? I'm really intrigued.

In any case, you seem to be arguing right over my head. I just said I wasn't interested in organized religion.

Actually I didn't mean to put idpol there

That explains a lot

I'm actually an agnostic. I just think naive materialism is a heap of shit.

In any case, knowing more about religion definitely invalidates the claim that "the more someone knows about religion the less they believe in it". Aquinas will never not be based.

That explains a hell of a lot.

All seen as heretical and are now key parts of secular culture.

I'm an agnostic btw. But I don't adhere to any religious document and would not want that adherence in my society.

religious fate and the nominal realm* for Ockham.

I don't think that exactly moves anything closer to atheism. It can move it closer to secularism, sure (although that's pretty much a material process, independent of ideals), and puts religion more on the rationalist turf. But rationalism isn't inherently atheistic, and I think honestly religious and materialist ideas are on a pretty even playing field in terms of rationality.

Which is why I'm an anti-rationalist, so whatever.

...

It did move it closer to secularism. Ironically, the Lutherism movement with it's emphasis on self papacy or whatever opened up the door for people to ask questions regarding the dogmatism of religion despite being a dogmatic movement itself. Atheist is just taking secularism to it's logical extreme.

You're seriously missing the point. I'm agreeing that they could, ideologically, have promoted secularism (although the actual cause of secularization is material, not ideal), but secularism =/= atheism.

I honestly wonder if most self-styled "agnostics" that pretend not to be atheists understand what they mean when they say they "refuse to reject the supernatural without evidence", as though such a bizarre "can't prove a negative" standard applies in any other field of human inquiry.

For instance, just because there isn't enough evidence to absolutely reject nessie, bigfoot, fairies, or whatever (even if there's enough to rule out every positive claim their proponents make), does that mean these people would describe themselves as "agnostic" toward such animals?

The default position of most people toward most theoretical claims is skepticism, the results of dominant scientific theories are worth thinking about not because they haven't been disproved, but because they positive claims that have withstood all attacks so far.

Basically rationalism doesn't convince me at all.

And in any case, the big thing you're missing is that the God proposed by theists is immaterial, as opposed to any of the cryptids you mention, so the empirical standards of "evidence" simply can't apply. That's not very hard to get.

There is no way to disprove a higher power who is not of this world. If god exist as he is said to, we wouldn't find him in this world.

This. Logical positivism is a joke.

What's the point, though? It's like arguing over alignment or planar travel in AD&D, while it might be amusing or intellectually stimulating, but it's also inherently pointless, and… Well, immaterial.

Only for the highly restrictive (not to mention more modern and secular than many theists admit) definition of the clockwork universe God. And such masturbatory goofiness is hardly confined to theology.

Because glorious anti-rationalists acknowledge that the human experience cannot be broken down into empirical propositions. A whole raft of existential and ethical implications come from that, but hell, it's 6 AM and you can make your own.

And I don't see why an immaterial God has to be pantheistic. Why couldn't He have an actual interaction with us?

But we're just blobs of meat, so far as any affirmative statement can say. There is no greater meaning that can be proven.

Because if He interacted with the universe and its inhabitants in any way, at any time, he's interventionist, and therefore loses all his Matrix/Plato's cave superpowers against positivist inquiry and refutation.

1. Answer: why does something need to be provable to be valid?

2: Prove that answer.

1. Because anything which can't be proven is no more valid a use of time nor effort than arguing about THAC0 or Vancian casting

2. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

1. So you're saying only things that can be useful can be true? That seems pretty anti-rationalist to me, bro.

2. You asserted, without evidence, that only things that can be proven are valid. You then reformulated that assertion, without evidence. What are you doing?

1. I'm saying that there are an infinite number of wrong or irrelevant ideas that can withstand use only as amusement, and a finite number of ideas that can withstand serious scrutiny, and as such demand serious consideration.

2. Both assertions mean the same thing. Specifically, that any claims about forces or entities that act on the universe are also claims for the existence of detectable evidence prompting such claims.

1. So you are arguing that religion is actually wrong, rather than not useful. A critique of logical positivism is all you need, then. That's so easy.

2. Let's say I assert "I feel angry". Is that provable?

Bitching about idpol while putting on a name and forcing it out there you served in the military and how people should respect you for it.

1. "wrong or irrelevant"

2. In the strict sense? Yes, demeanor, body language, skin flush, bloodflow, hormone levels, EEG readings, and such will readily illustrate it. In the general sense? If you fail to act on your anger, and nobody is around to notice external signs of it, it doesn't matter, and can be brushed off out of hand.

Counter argument here- string theory helps us understand why e=mc^2, the makeup of energy moreso than matter, and helps us boil existence down to a binary arrangement of "here" and "not here"- vacuum and strings in their many arrangements. It also brings together quantum and traditional physics. It's not awfully useful but it's useful.

Sorry - I'm going to have to go back to a question you dodged.

Maxim: Everything which cannot be proven is either wrong or irrelevant.

Challenge: Prove this maxim.

This is why we don't take your opinion seriously.

Maybe I've been out of the (quantum) loop, but last I heard, none of this was unique to string theory. So they haven't really contributed any findings.

Going out on a limb, without contributing any new or testable findings, if string theory did nothing more than offer a more elegant or practically efficient model with which to conceptualize preexisting results, that alone would justify the amount of effort that has been poured into it. But I haven't even heard of that.

There is a finite amount of attention that people can spread between various ideas. In order to focus on any one subject over its infinite competitors for attention, an argument is made for any given idea, implicit in the act of mentioning that idea. Failure to justify this implicit argument, then, is an admission of defeat and your own pointless disruptiveness.

For instance, when arguing about the ennui of aging and death, raising the issue of telomeres or evolution makes sense, because they are unquestionably at the core of the issue and have the potential for alleviating it; raising the issue of human psychology or society, too, makes sense, because they allow room for grappling with something currently insurmountable from a broader perspective. Raising the issue of the the supernatural, on the other hand, is no more relevant than pulling out your DMG and arguing about the metaphysics of Faerûn.

I personally don't like idpol, beacouse it is worldview for rich white liberals, with too much time to spent. Bourgeois version of "the left".

Let's say I don't think your version of "progress" is interesting or relevant. What then?

When you drive home the fact you're a cop or a serviceman you're not doing it for no reason. Nobody makes their area of expertise known on the internet for no reason, especially those branches.

It's identity. I have less reason to respect it since it was a choice to begin with.

You speak for the mental midgets?

Then I've presumably provided you the evidence and rationalization with which to disprove my argument and justifiably dismiss my proposal.

Cops and servicemen are crucially involved in the back-and-forth of the class war, giving them unique insight into its nature, and are jobs that would exist in part regardless of class struggle. 3rd-wave feminism is a classless lumpen ideology unrelated to anything other than its own perpetuation.

No, you're arguing from a weird moralistic stance; you're saying God is irrelevant because we should be focusing on other things. I prefer to focus on God, however. So, does your argument not apply to me?

If it does, why are those morals objective?

M-Theory is probably the best candidate for a theory of everything right now. It approaches the previous Type I, IIA, IIB, and Heterotic SO(32) and E8xE8 theories as its limiting cases and presents a vast generalization.

Obviously we want a physical theory that implies QM, QFT or a similarly predictive theory of electromagnetism, strong and weak forces and GR or similar (a theory of "quantum gravity" which explains the four fundamental forces.) Establishing that our desired theory implies these is somewhat easier, finding "what that would imply" in the sense of meaning what testable, falsifiable predictions it makes is a major task for theoreticians.

Sure, it's not purely relevant to theory, but it is more substantial than idpol in the sense of being identity-as-what-you-do rather than identity-as-who-you-are-by-accident.
I respect him for it. I don't support the military's role or function and I in contrast to Hitchens don't think the various objective gains in human rights justify the essentially imperialist character and objectives of US intervention, but individual soldiers themselves join up because they want to help others or achieve some sort of personal growth. Not to mention many come from lower income homes and see it as a bridge to job training, practical skills and professional development. Soldiers have immense untapped revolutionary potential if they can only cast off bourgeois nationalism.

If he were pushing military ideology on us, you might have a point.

Anarchist whose reasoning capabilities aren't crippled by their pet projects

It's not so much a moralistic stance as a pragmatic one. Why would you want to focus on God (not the biblical, interventionist, scientifically debunked one; but instead the philosophically constructed noninterventionist clockwork universe thought experiment one)? What do you gain over doing anything else? What is the point?

Interesting, but I remain unconvinced that any variant of string theory has either cleared the way for anything novel, nor simplified thinking about any existing tasks.

That depends. Aside from tremendous amounts of humanitarian aid and policework done by the US military, it extends to other agencies like the Peace Corps and some branches of the State Department, even beyond the US to similar entities like the UN and World Bank. All of these were founded in (small but prominent) part on lofty principles by people worthy of admiration.

To be sure, genuine well-meaning idealists have usually been marginalized from leadership, with transnational neocon/neolib profiteers and conquerors in charge almost all the time across every branch and agency, but they still exist. I suspect, unfortunately, that redeeming these entities will probably require destroying and replacing them (as is currently underway with the EU, for instance.)

Because I believe - note that I have an entirely different moral system to you - that the best way to enjoy my life is to contemplate the spiritual. Do you have any response? Or does that just take down your entire ethics-epistemology complex?

Like I said earlier, such ideas are—at best—fit only for personal amusement, along the lines of RPG edition wars. In contrast, provable ideas are in a different class, one which demands universal attention over less arguable ideas because of their objective practical ramifications.

I don't care about maximal practicality. So I guess your epistemology is utterly wrong.

It isn't even about practicality, it's about the difference between practicality and sentiment. Think of it this way:

I enjoy digging into minutæ of fictional campaign modules, you enjoy digging into minutæ of mythical metaphysics. Neither of these are positions which require any argument deeper than "it's fun", and neither extends in importance beyond either of us as individuals.

Digging into high energy physics and cosmogeny, questions like the big bang/crunch, etc… presents insights into the fundamental nature of our existence, various tantalizing possibilities of near-term improvements to our material conditions, and may ultimately decide the continued survival of our civilization. These are universal in nature, and (barring extremely nihilistic forms of solipsism) apply equally to both of us, regardless of our preferences.

Ignoring all the rest - because it can be answered in the same way - why should I care about the fundamental nature of my existence?

For the same reason you continue to draw breath, get out of bed every day, and leave your mark upon the world around you: Because it asserts your existence as a thinking being.

Not yet it certainly hasn't. It's something of a joke among physicists. "String theory is more religion than science," they'll say, referring to its serious and enduring lack of testable predictions and the blind "faith" of those holding out for them, waiting for Godot as it were.

Simplicity certainly isn't the point here, though. The quantum theory is pretty abstruse. Functional analysis historically developed to serve its needs (you can think of it as studying "functions that take other functions as inputs" or "infinitely big matrices" if you don't have a math background, but its heavily laden in abstraction, rigorous proof.) You need a large amount of technical competence to work with it relative to the Bohr model, but you can actually explain things like the paramagnetism of oxygen (this is usually addressed in undergrad pchem.)

The real asset of a theory, however, is predicting things that ``haven't happened yet.`` The electronic structure of organic molecules and the computational techniques we use to approximate them are a serious asset to modern rational drug discovery/design. What major applications string theory may reveal remain to be seen, but kindle the imagination.

That's exactly why I contemplate the spiritual, though.

Thanks user.

Feminist mad because someone has real experience and advice to contribute to the movement, not just speculation and angst that her vagina should somehow make her a special snowflake.

Unless you want to end up going violent then you have not much to contribute and not much of a point to pointing out your service to the very country you supposedly hate.

Explain to me why anyone should give a fuck you're in the military and shouldn't hate you for it.

Go ahead and hate me if you want, why should I give a fuck? You're obviously the only one here who doesn't get it, and I'm very very ok with that.

That sounds dangerously close to solipsism, since it's disconnected from any direct analysis of the universe or your place in it.

The question should be why should we hate him? He's a leftist now and he joined the military because he was vulnerable and had no where else to turn too. It's not like he makes excuses for American Imperialism or anything.

ex soldiers are okay as leftists as long as they agree to self flagulate enough, r-right?

What is the 'Anarcho chat'?

Soldiers are sometimes useful, depending on their sympathies, intent, and mission. Turd-wave feminazis are always inherently useless.

By your dumb cunt logic Georgy Zhukov should have been sent to a gulag.

I'm against caste systems and hierarchy. So yeah, no Idpol. Thanks.