Generational speach is not strictly 'generational', at least not just biopolitical. It refers also (and mostly) to the material conditions that came to be historically associated with those cohorts. That is why its relevant to distinguish between Gen Xers and Xillenials, and again between Xillenials and Millenials. While they are part of the same generational years, the material and formative conditions of their youth and early adulthood were significantly altered by their position in regards to the technological media revolution. I dont know why or how, but mass media's reach has become so great that it is now culturally relevant to distinguish between those who grew up in the golden years of the Simpsons and those who had to submit their brains to the filth of Family Guy's later seasons as a preteen.

So, no, 'blacks' werent specifically boomers. Or perhaps more accurately, black folks had conditions that were so specific to them that while they marked their times significantly, they didn't become a major engine of change as Boomers, or as part of the Boomer pathos, but rather as black folks. Boomers coopted (and continue to do so ever since) the language and history of the Black social mouvement because it conveniently fits their purpose and timeline.

As for hippies being cool, no, that is exactly my point. Hippies werent cool. Just about every single good impulse they had was actually fuelled by a barely conceiled libidinal forces. If they really wanted to set up viable alternatives to the capitalist lifestyle, their communes would at some point managed to set a working command economy with a functional yet fair distribution of labour, not the vectors for chlamydia infection that they pretty all ended up being. THAT is why the 'sexual revolution' basically consisted of lots of unsafe sex followed the acceptation of both the pharmaceutical corporate hold on sexuality, and this modern sexual lifestyle ethos which weirdly allows you to both have lots of uncommited sex AND yet doesnt constitute an obstacle to the capitalist need for productive and reproductive power. Because it was all about getting laid. "Yeah, ok, gays and lesbians can and probably should get laid too, so I guess we should fight for that too, but that'll come a bit after. Wait, what's a "in-ter-sex"...?". Once the social powers acknowledged that the sexual revolution had indeed happened and that they would divert their benevolent attention and open a market for it, hippies had no care in the world for pushing forward the sexual revolution agenda. That is also why its been left to the Zoomers to continue this agenda toward true sexual liberation. Sadly, Gen Xers and my generation were actually for the most part fooled into thinking the work had been done.

Obviously individuals are to be judged differently then mouvements. Kim Stanley Robinson, for example, is very often clearly guilty of being at the keyboard while horny. He's still a top tier hippie and a total bro.

"Mind" is a concept which no longer belongs in philosophical discussions about the nature of biological behavioural and informational organisation. The appropriate context for further developpment is cognitive sciences, which includes a fair bit of philosophy and potential for philosophical inquiry, but which also requires that we review the previous paradigm of Philosophy of Mind and remove from it any abusive reification (which happened to be the major engine for previous attempts at Psychology, which was then just a branch of Philosophy like Ethics or Logic). "Mind" is such a reification.

When you talk about "mind" in a non pop-psychology context, you must be very precise about what you mean. For many philosophers, mind refers only to our internal discourse, which is then imbued with quasi-mystical properties because it is then expected to answer for all the other properties and powers of the 'classical' concept of mind, such as emotivity and will. But of course any amount of research in current cognitive science papers will show that internal discourse can be entirely reduced to subvocalization, which is just another iteration of our brains potential for predictive virtualization. What you hear yourself think is already after the fact, and its one subvocalization selected amongst dozen others which you never 'hear yourself' think. And it doesnt have any 'active cognition' potential, thats probably the most important ; when you hear yourself thinking, you arent thinking, its all been done before, all you are doing cognitively is running a simulation of what it would sound like to say it, so as to perform as well as possible when you do have to say it.

All of this points to, imho, the realization that language or thought is not the human miracle we make it to be. Philosophers have historically failed to understand the nature of cognition and language, and thus its always been almost impossible to understand why or how something that doesnt speak would have thoughts. Reducing thoughts to subvocalization however shows that, if the point of it is performance, then thats not predicated on the need for linguistic organisation. A cat probably has a certain value by which he can evaluate if his or her behaviour helps her reach her goal, and thus predictive virtualization would be useful to him or her. The human miracle in regards to language is not that we have it at all, its that we have managed to free it from its cognitive shackles, so to speak, and that we've made ourselves into being that basically can always freely engage in acts of subvocalization. Our thoughts arent specifically and immediately predicated by the end purpose of subvocalization, which is just to make sure we dont say embarrassing things or stutter.

Jesus fucking christ, are you really going to claim that Boomers solved racism in America? Yeah, try and claim the Million Man march for the boomers, just to see how black folks react to that one... In the meantime you still left us a world in which hospitals increasingly adopt the practice of charging 39.95 for the service of allowing parents to hold their newborns.

Any self-respecting and self-aware boomer would admit firsthand that he and his generations failed the social revolution that HAD to happen after the 50s.

I really dont think you could have chosen a better piece to showcase your outdatedness. :up:

Sorry things got too real for your geriatric ass... :kiss:

True, no one is innocent. The end result of all Boomer politics is the proliferation of gated communities guarded by AR-15 toting private police. The difference between reactionnary and woke Boomer politics is weither or not those communities will have all-inclusive bathrooms, will allow transgender and women in their private police, and weither or not recycling is popular.

Welcome to Hellworld!

- "I was a great capitalist drone all my life, I reproduced my labour value and I accumulated wealth. How dare you imply I am not an excellent individual and that my lifestyle is inherently directed by the death drive of society?"

Spoken like someone who still thinks he wasnt all along part of the problem.

Seriously, you need to ask yourself what motivates this 'at-all-cost" defensiveness you have against feminism. Protest in developped countries don't have to limit themselves to the context of those countries. Support protests like this happens all the time.

And one day a year doesnt steal much attention from other social issues. If americans, for example, never tackle or seem to protest much the conditions of gross inequality they find themselves in, its not because feminismis stealing the spotlight, but because americans have been fed pro-capitalist propaganda for the last century at least.

Boomers ARE the worst, tho. It is 100% true an undeniable that boomers got themselves the very best situation of any population in history, enjoyed themselves as much as they could (and are still going) while preserving a complete lack of self-awereness in how they were fucking up the world. And then they become old fucking bourgeois who either double-down on the supermodernism shit, or take a turn and become the most affected, pretend-woke griefers there is.

- "WHY are you leaving the lights on, Akanthinos?"
- "Why do you feel you have the right to even make a sound about environmental consciousness after a lifetime carreer in house construction?"

Gen Xers are also terrible, but like everyone after the Boomers, they can claim that this is caused by the trauma of being raised by such incompetent asswipes. Xillenials (79-86) are probably the best positionned not to become complete waste of skins. They grew up in a world where tech didnt prevale everywhere yet, so their childhood was still "normal", but it came about as they came into adolescence and early adulthood, so they arent left in the dust like most boomers.

Millenials and Zs are going to end the world. And they'll enjoy it. Half of the fucking movies targeted at that audience are about kids unapologetically murdering their classmates and posting it on instagram for views. It doesnt even have the veneer of comedy and absurdity that came with shit like Going Postal or Hobo with a Shotgun. Just fucking Suicide-girls lookalike (because you also need to be titillated as you watch brains get splattered) playing Mean Girls but with AR-15, with the tag line "why are you butthurt? Its just a movie, lol!".

Could you point out in that Wiki article what you find so sinister? There is litterally nothing wrong displayed there.

As for the opposition being strongest, you just showed your colours. Feminism is not in opposition to the male population. I am a male and there is no quantifiable meaningful loss of power for me in face of the feminist agenda's progress. Because I never espoused any form of ideology that gave me value over women based on my gender (thats not me claiming I was always woke, btw, that is purely conditional on me being raised in a family of mostly women intellectuals).

Feminism is in opposition to the ideology (if you can even call it that) of patriarchal control and to the structural conditions of women's biopolitical serfdom. You can only be in opposition to it because you positionned yourself to be so.

Correctedness is a value. "Being politically correct" is behaving in accordance with the values which constitute being politically correct. While it may also be used as a fallacy, it is not inconsistent, or meaningless. The very simple proof of that being that when someone accuses you of being politically incorrect, you rarely are at a complete loss as to what they are refering to.

Its one thing to realize the potential of identity politics to be coopted by institutionnal powers so as to pit it against other progressive forces. Its another to advance some half-hidden slippery-slope fallacy without providing any indication whatsoever that such cooption is taking place.

And to note, this criticism of potential opposition between progressive forces and identity-based politics is at its very weakest when it is leveled against feminism, because feminism is the identity-based politic that reaches the largest population group. Any improvement on women's conditions is a potential improvement of about half the population. Only full-on class warfare manages to get better reach.

Ok, so if I get this right, whites a getting cucked because we can no longer be sure that when we look at our neighbour if he is from good European breeding stock? :confused:

Replace OP's title by 'the foolishness of being polite'. Contemplate how ridiculous the very direction of this discussion becomes once it is exposed how it hinges not only on a strawman, but on the very strategy of obfuscating this strawman by the anti-pc crowd.

Because when normal, well adjusted people talk about political correctness in real life situations outside of fucking reddit and /pol/, they mean being polite. Being polite, at its very essence, IS political correctness, the first one, because being polite precisely meant to adopt the pratices of the city in which you find yourself. Its being correct in the polis you find yourself in.

So you wanna take the hill and fight to the death over what others perceive to be simply adjustements in being polite. To you, that insistence on nothing more than a standard for benign social interactions is an attack on the National spirit and the natural order.

You are wasting your time, and other people's brainpower. Anyone who decides to die on the battlefield of political correctness, even step on it seriously, is being incredibly wasteful of the time they have to spend on this earth, one side or the other. Because you are equally plebean if you think that political correctness is a moral awakening. Being polite is good, its great, and makes everything a lot easier and more pleasant, but it doesn't make you a good person.

I dont understand why this is even the direction of this discussion. There has obviously never been an 'ideal population amount', or even a real need to discuss it, because such an amount would be in constant revision simply due to the progress in 'applicable' social domains like municipal planning, infrastructure developments, politics, trade.

The capitalist's reality is that more population = more workforce, and so there will never be, within that framework, a space left to discuss biopolitics in the manner that you wish.

However, the ethno-nationalist's reality is all about that shit! So rejoice!, you can still hope to grow this mindworm further if only you are ready to accept to be an outright outspoken xenophobe calling for full-on supermodernism. You just have to be ready to lose all that potential Koch Bros money for your car-ride ranting podcast. Its a small price to pay to get the right to scream "Fourteen Words!!!" in your local mall. /s

Fair enough. I guess the old TPF always lacked containment boards. :confused:

There was a lounge when I left. It wasn't as if it was a /hum/ sub that would make even the dirtbag left feel like maybe they've been immature long enough and should start looking for a job with a good 401k.

Holy fuck what the shit happened to TPF in the 6 months I took off.

Does a point have a start? Does a line, a surface or a volume have one?

Only things which are 'embedded' in time can be said to have a start. Because we are trapped into temporality, everything appears to have a start for us.

Bertanlaffy already defined all these concepts in the GST. What you call integration is already a requirement of systematisation.

System: An organized entity made up of interrelated and interdependent parts.
Boundaries: Barriers that define a system and distinguish it from other systems in the environment.
Homeostasis: The tendency of a system to be resilient towards external factors and maintain its key characteristics.
Adaptation: The tendency of a self-adapting system to make the internal changes needed to protect itself and keep fulfilling its purpose.
Reciprocal Transactions: Circular or cyclical interactions that systems engage in such that they influence one another.
Feedback Loop: The process by which systems self-correct based on reactions from other systems in the environment.
Throughput: Rate of energy transfer between the system and its environment during the time it is functioning.
Microsystem: The system closest to the client.
Mesosystem: Relationships among the systems in an environment.
Exosystem: A relationship between two systems that has an indirect effect on a third system.
Macrosystem: A larger system that influences clients, such as policies, administration of entitlement programs, and culture.
Chronosystem: A system composed of significant life events that can affect adaptation.

Inb4 "Where are mental images located?"

Lets say that you have one of those self-driving cars. In your onboard computer, there is a neural network looking for signal lights and differentiate them from green, yellow and red. Asking where are mental images located is a lot like asking where, in the onboard computer, is located the green, yellow and red lights. You could say they arent there, because you could break apart the car and would never find these specific lights. You could also correctly say that they are, in a way, there as distributed values across multiple nodes of the network.

Because of this ambiguity, which rest solely on the inadequacy of 'locality' when it comes to processed information, unbridled idealism is still a popular outlook in Philosophy of Mind, and this despite 70 years of cognitive sciences.

- Mind is the generative order of mental objects.

Thats a bit like saying language is the generative domain of linguistic objects, or that liquids are the generative order of nearly incompressible fluids that espouse thr shape of their containers. Not only does it says next to nothing about the specific ontological class constituted by the objects selected, it tend to reify the category formed by these objects.

Which is why you still speak of 'Mind' as if it was a scrutable object with a definite ontological status. You started by reifying the sum of the cognitive processes as 'mind' instead of finding a commonality between those processes.

-But if the religion was consistent wouldn't it be less likely for members to doubt because of contradictory claims?

Religious belief doesnt work like other sets of beliefs, where each proposition will be weighted against the whole to rate the overall set consistency, and then compare different sets before adopting them.

Story time : i grew up in a Catholic school, and my class was interviewed for a french religious TV show about 20 years ago. The theme of the show was how young people were living their faith. When asked on camera if I was religious, I said no, because there was no basis for prefering Catholicism over Islam or Hinduism. Its a dumb gamble you have to make your choice on way too early, and have to wait until after you died to figure out if you werent wrong or taken for a fool. My fellow student all laughed at how stupid they tought my answer was, and my nun teacher really wasnt happy with me.

Point of the story is, 'lacking faith' is just refusing, or not understanding that specificity of sets of religious beleifs to not worry about internal or external consistency. And you can lack faith in more than just religious beleifs, since not only religion fuels on faith. Bright kids dont believe in Santa for very long, if they do at all. And Santa makes a whole lot more fucking sense than Scientology. But what differentiate the bright kids from the pleb kids is not that they realize Santa's story doesnt make any fucking sense, but that his story is not magically exempt from having to make some sense.

-- These types of questions are what I mean when I say most miss out on 99.9% of what Scientology is. As a religion Scientology is more consistent than any evolved religion because it was created by one person.

Religion isnt about consistency, tho. It is never going to be consistent, really, because by nature an overarching sets of ordering beliefs about the world is going to be as diverse and rich as the culture which created it. Its about meaning creation. When a Christian says the soul comes from God, he assert a link between his essence and that of the Divine Creator. When you say a soul is the soul of an alien who died 76 million years ago... that means nothing. Say what you will about Christianity, Judaism or Islam, but they generally do effectively sets meaningful behavioural guidelines to vast populations, and still have those cultures either maintain themselves or thrives.

If you look around on this forum, you'll find plenty of evidence that people can say stuff pretty consistently, and yet only ever say stuff that doesnt make any sense.

Remember, 'an open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded'.

This is pretty fucked up, @proto & @Rank Amateur. Attacking Ford's credibility is something that even Fox News mostly deemed to be "stooping too low". That should give you pause.

Under which legislature is a 1 million year contract unvoidable by default? Where I'm from, terms which are clearly impossible to fulfill, or which creates a clear form of inquity between the parties render the contract void from the start. And I'm sure its the same for most Common Law legislatures.

Doesn't it fills you with shame, having to realize you believed in such undiluted bullcrap for any amount of time? I mean, the core tenets of scientology are about as realistic as the interdimensional snake people conspiracy... but you hardly ever find someone who accepted interdimensional snake people to be real that doesn't have clear cognitive issues, such as schizophrenia. Obviously, there is a whole marketing aspect to cult indoctrination that means you arent fully responsible for accepting those beliefs, and this doubly so for a kid that was raised into the cult, but still, werent there times, often even, when you thought, "wow, this shit reads like bad sci-fi"?

Not specifically on the subject, but just to mention that Torquemada was Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition. While Pope Sixtus IV granted the right, it was entirely run at the pleasure of the various Crowns. This is important if you want to understand why it was possible for Montesquieu, a proud Catholic, to call Torquemada a bloodthirsty savage and republish the very texts for which the Grand Inquisitor had burnt people to the stake for, and not have to worry the slightest.

Maybe your idea of "real Christians" are liberal "Christians". Real Christians certainly believe their faith is factual. — Ram

Apparently the Church is not made of "real Christians".

Raised as one, in all-males boarding schools with nuns and all!
Faith never took root, tho.

The Trinity is a Sacred Mystery. Almost every Catholic in existence would agree that it doesn't make much sense. But we also would not bust a vein over it, since it was always rather well articulated that the Divine Persons are relational.

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church offers a definitive dogma of the Trinity, a dogma that has been
handed down throughout the centuries of Christianity. Three doctrines or teachings express the reality
of the dogma of the Trinity: (1) the Trinity is One, (2) the divine persons are really distinct from one
another, and (3) the divine persons exist relative to one another.
The Trinity Is One. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “We do not confess three Gods,
but one God in three Persons, the ‘consubstantial Trinity.’ The Divine Persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: ‘The Father is that which the Son
is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e., by nature
one God.’ In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215): ‘Each of the persons is that supreme
reality, viz., the divine substance, essence, or nature.’”xii Therefore, the Trinity is one God: “The Father
is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God,” as stated in the Athanasius Creed (ca. AD 350).
The three Persons are all co-eternal and co-equal and are all uncreated and omnipotent."

- https://www.smp.org/dynamicmedia/files/aceafa5e6fa80c7efe142f4750d0798c/TX001181_1-Background-The_Trinity.pdf

A Catholic highschool party attended by a total of 5 individuals.

Who could crack this sphere of complete opacity? Not the FBI, no no! :sweat:

Such is life. — Ram

Perhaps, but such is not philosophy. You are expected to offer argumentation to support your beliefs.

Go through the material. They explain it better than I can. Are people interested in examination and research and the truth or no? — Ram

No, this is a discussion forum, not a XYZtube platform. Show me you did the work and that there's something to engage before I bother to do so, otherwise it's just flamebait.

Children are all born in Islam??? What kind of totalitarian mindset on meth claims the child of other people for his own? :down:

If there is a reasonable attack against the modern doctrine of consubstantial Trinity in the mess that is the OP, I cannot see it.

He was drunk and jumped a girl - that's according to the girl. It's not very nice, and these days it's a serious crime, though not so much then. — tim wood

A bunch of 17 years old guys tackling down a 14 year old girl and feeling her up against her will would have been either assault or aggravated assault even in the 80s.

Which is what the FBI should be doing, not the Senate... :angry:

Going back to the way we learn math, it strikes me that while the general way we are introduced to this type of cognition depends on gestures, as means of spatial designation and delimitation, as well as on language to slide us toward abstraction, neither of those domains recovers the essence of mathematical reasonning. The understanding of 1+1=2 depends on an initial suspension of actuality on the operational side, followed by a recovery of this actuality through a projection of this operation on an abstracted world which we pretend is a proper translation of ours.

I would suggest that if gesture is primordial here, in this context, its because it is a form of informational mapping. The educational gestures behind 1+1=2 serves the purpose of establishing boundaries and then lifting them, putting emphasis on the sequential aspectof the event so as to give the impression of operationality, while the language serves the purpose of obfuscating the fact that none of this is actually happening in reality.

Last word he said, to his trainer,

"See you tomorrow, be good. I love you!"

:cry: