[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1576805633655.png (250.42 KB, 1200x734, 600:367, progress.png) ImgOps Google

**** I would like to make it clear that trolls or mentally ill people(with the exception of OP...lol) are NOT allowed in this thread. Thank You****
Could ultrasound treat benign disease and cancers?

From high-intensity focused ultrasound(HIFU) to Histotripsy, these advanced revolutionary technologies/techniques could one day be the future of treatment for people with tumors, cancers or simply....just to control bleeding. Fortunately, sufficient evidence exists on the efficacy of these treatments. Histotripsy is one type of an emerging and revolutionary technique, which is a non-invasive ultrasonic approach to the treatment of benign disease and cancers. Histotripsy is an experimental focused ultrasound technology where acoustic energy generated by an extracorporeal transducer is focused on a target volume inside the body. Conceptually histotripsy is more similar to shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) than to high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). Histotripsy was initially conceived and developed at the University of Michigan; so much of the refinement and pre-clinical translation has originated from these laboratories. More recently, other groups have begun to experiment with histotripsy both along technical and translational lines of research which serves to validate the concept of histotripsy and further enrich the potential therapeutic value of this new technology.

Reputable sources:

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Interesting subject, but probably more appropriate for/ townhall/


File: 1576806064923.png (105.57 KB, 486x343, 486:343, AH!.png) ImgOps Google

>probably more appropriate for / townhall/



I don't mean there is anything wrong with it. Just seems like a thread more appropriate for townhall.

I dunno, just my impression.


File: 1576456226767.jpeg (35.73 KB, 260x195, 4:3, D07EB141-0359-49E8-B934-A….jpeg) ImgOps Google

Are you in favour of National Service, if so how would you set it up?

(Everything in this post is only relevant to able bodied people. Disabled people, either physically or mentally, or those that can otherwise not work, due to age, or other circumstances are excluded. These people would if anything receive better treatment than they currently do under my system.)

Personally if I was setting up a National Service program I’d make singing up a mandatory requirement of gaining any kind of welfare. People would have the choice not to work, but that might mean starvation.

I think the unemployment issue and welfare issue could simply be solved by conscripting the unemployed (excluding students) into labour. They would largely clean the streets, or do any other odd jobs that need done in the public services, if the government ran of odd jobs they could just sell their labour to a private company. I wouldn’t call it forced labour because they have a choice in the matter, both of choosing wether to join National Conscription, and ideally even what job they may want, but if they refuse and are an able bodied adult they’d be left with absolutely no government help.

On top of improving virtually every aspect of our public services, this would keep the streets clean, cut unemployment down to record low numbers, not only lay off a massive tax burden on the government, but probably increase the GDP, and of course give the underclass a meaning, beyond reality TV and fast food.

I really don’t see any downsides, other than that a handful of lazy people will starve.
26 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Im gonna have to go with there is no single right answer.  Each kind of structure has inherent issues all of which begin where i objected to the OP:  someone has to decide who is being lazy.  Theres inherent inequality, bias, injustice and opportunity for fraud and graft in any of them so whether they can be effective depends more on implementation than general definition.

To me, something that you can reach for without someone else presiding in judgment over you, has a chance, whatever it is.



I think the UBI looks nice here, since you specifically do not require anyone to determine who is "being lazy".  You're just allowed to be lazy and reap some benefits.  Meanwhile, people who want to get back into the workforce after a tragedy have some cushion they can use to bounce back, and people who never left the workplace also have some extra cash.  Seemingly, there are no opportunies for injustice or bias here, though there's always a chance something else crops up.


Ubi has been debated in this country as though its an imaginary thing thats never been done.

I have people like you on the internet to thank for being aware that the whole world isn't the US minus everything good.

Someone irl countered my suggestion that UBI could be good here by pointing out that it would only drive up rents which has some merit, but i dont think it would do so outside the already-gentrified housing markets, and would absolutely cushion whole-town collapses like from plant closures.

Further it would directly tie the government balance sheets to jobs in much more inescapable ways than tax revenue, which is about the only factor that makes the politicians care at all.

Im convinced UBI can be a really good thing if done well.


File: 1575956850969.png (56.84 KB, 202x185, 202:185, william-binney_2_orig.png) ImgOps Google

Former heads of the CIA and MI6 are involved. Project Echelon and Mkultra are tied to V2K

William Binney's career with the NSA spanned more than 30 years, and in that time, he acquired the title of Technical Leader for intelligence. After September 11, 2001, he was astounded that the agency didn't stop the attacks. He started exposing waste and corruption, through proper legal channels, and faced illegal retaliation as a result. However, he maintained his integrity and was vindicated. Now many refer to him as the original Snowden. In recent years, Binney has engaged in activism in support of the countless victims being tortured with electromagnetic weapons. He began supporting these targeted individuals when he gave a speech at the 2015 Covert Harassment Conference. More recently, in late-2016, Binney along with his former NSA colleague J. Kirk Wiebe, announced on the Triumph Over Targeting webcast that they were launching scientific surveys to supplement the overwhelming evidence relating to these crimes against humanity. He helps targeted individuals understand the bigger picture behind the subjugation of at least tens of thousands of Americans with electromagnetic weapons. He states that it’s about subverting democracy to expand the budgets & power of criminal cliques within the military-industrial complex a.k.a. the Deep State.

If anyone is interested in V2K technologies.. see the links above.
3 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1575957463570.png (860.21 KB, 731x1024, 731:1024, science.png) ImgOps Google

Thank you for moving this to townhall instead of deleting it.


File: 1576713831720.png (23.75 KB, 300x177, 100:59, thumb_reaction-my-little-p….png) ImgOps Google

I cant find the nice hat and bracelets you gave me.


>the tooth will set you free


Let's discuss the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact plan (here nicknamed "NaPoVoInterCo") discussed in this video.

Do you think this plan is a viable solution to the current problems with the electoral college? Would you support this plan if it were put into effect? Why or why not.
33 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>But I don't see any strong reason to disturb the status quo that we presently have.

A racially biased system that puts into power the person who the majority of people didn't vote for has no strong reason to be changed?

I think the opposite is true. There's no strong reason to keep things the same!



There's really only two options from changing to popular vote.  

The first is nothing happens.  Likely, because it's only been an issue for five elections in the history of the country, and in none of those was the difference more than a technicality.  It's been neck in neck for all of them.

The only other possibility is urban centers wresting control of everything from rural minorities, the thing the electoral college is meant to prevent.  It's possible that the popular vote is only close right now because candidates are forced to acknowledge rural areas, something that could effectively be dropped if their votes weren't inflated by the EC.


>problems with electoral college

What problems?  You mean what it is intended for, which is clearly stated by James Madison as preventing democracy.

Perhaps the problem with it is that we are told lies as to why it exists.


File: 1575027720604.png (274.24 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, ddd.png) ImgOps Google

I guess I'm a bit confused on this.  While I understand we get assigned [adjective] [animal] names and are to use them to refer to people in these threads, I've found people can still make pretty good guesses about which name I would have were I posting in the pony tab of this site, enough that if I ever tried to hide my identity beyond using the animal names, I mostly gave up.  So the first question, is it our duty to confuse others about who we are, or is it more just that there be a level of uncertainty of identity, I guess, not present when people use the website's hash function?

And if we are to be purposefully cryptic, how, exactly?  Or maybe some tips.

Perhaps we could devise some kind of standard language protocol so no personal idiosyncrasies were identifiable.  Seems like it could quickly become a lot of work, though.
15 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I also doubt that they can be abstracted away from the individual, but most people should have the good manners to realize that an attempt to do so has been attempted.


Well, there's a value to manners.  And there's a value to authenticity.  I believe in following systems, I don't believe in disrespect.  If the system is to present as an undifferentiated poster I must respect that system or go away, there is no middle ground.  I guess I'll think on it awhile, perhaps it's not a good fit for me.


File: 1576704732484.jpeg (37.5 KB, 450x450, 1:1, 317c3e75-7f5f-4b44-9366-3….jpeg) ImgOps Google

Hey look, here you are.

Is absolute.  NO ONE can know.  Its SECRET.

To me its simply disorienting.  I have difficulty with the concept of speaking anonymously, as communication handshake protocol begins with identifying the self and the audience and without that im not sure who i am in a conversation, or who im talking to.
I dont come to this board very often as a result.


File: 1576351193839.jpg (19.76 KB, 449x599, 449:599, 7526c91414be62981d78287a5f….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

In light of a recent conversation in the LGBT thread, I wanted to pose this question.

What is strength?

A lot of people seem to think of things such as stoicism and apathy to be forms of strength. "I didn't show my pain, or I just didn't care in the first place. I won't show myself being vulnerable". "That other person was easier to hurt than me, that makes them weak". I think it comes from idealization of individualism, that these same people think of being a strong individual to being the basis for 'strength'.

And I can see how that is an appealing way to frame things. It feels like it checks the right boxes intuitively. But is that really right way to look at strength from a human perspective? We are not very traditional animals. Being an individual in the truest sense, being on your own, was pretty much a death sentence for a human. Even the modern human who decides to leave society to live on their own in the wilderness likely didn't make any of the gear they take or the home they live in, but even if they did they are bolstered by the survivalist knowledge that humans before them discovered. They are only as strong as the species as a whole was able to make them. Ostracization is the ultimate form of punishment, and people still use it today when they cut off other people from their network. Loneliness can actually kill a person, even when your other needs are provided for.

So what I'd like to postulate here is that what many of us consider "strength" (what I'll refer to as individualist strength) is in fact a weakness to humans and what those same people consider a weakness is in fact our strength.

Think of it like this, was the species ever as strong as a lion or a gorilla? Could we take them on one on one without the assistance of allies or tools? Pretty much never. We were a weaker species, and that became our strength. We had to compensate for it, by becoming a collective and becoming smarter. Right? In this sense, being weak was our strength. We overcame every other species by being weak as individuals.

Even empathy and emotional frailty I would consider strengths of our species. These qualities bring us closer together, making tighter knit communities. That increases collaboration which is our strong suit. Totally lacking in empathy, both emotional and cognitive empathy, I might argue is the greatest weakness a human can have. This is what gets you ejected fromPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
13 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Stoicism is in my opinion, a positive strength to have that everyone can look to and strive towards as an ideal. This does not mean looking down on those who have less emotional resilience as weak. It simply means they are less practiced, as we all are starting out.

Stoicism is not refusing to show emotions at all, or claiming to lack them entirely. It is having the capacity to choose to show the emotion. It is choosing to show levity and happiness in the company of friends, it is choosing to remain civil with someone who has enraged you, it is choosing to work despite grief to manage a loved one's funeral arrangements and leave grieving until a more appropriate time and place.

It is recognition and management of one's own emotional flaws.

Stoicism should, if anything, enhance one's empathy through a greater understanding of emotions and the stimuli surrounding emotions and recognizing them in others as in oneself.


As an addendum, dismissing someone as "weak" because they are upset by something is not an indication of strength. It is arrogance, a flaw.


Strength is the ability to overcome resistance.

The nature of the resistance can be anything.  Even capitulation can be strength depending on circumstances.  At any rate its in the eye of the beholder and not subject to strict criteria.

Edit:  oh hell no im not a "happy" dragon.  I object!


File: 1572905099067.jpg (185.55 KB, 850x1200, 17:24, 1569495123913.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Should incest be illegal?  If two step-siblings are raised apart and only discover that they're blood-related after they get married, should the government sua sponte annul their marriage and threaten them with prison if they procreate with each other?

I guess the government has a significant interest in keeping the gene pool healthy, but then shouldn't it also forbid reproduction in similarly risky situations, such as serious inheritable conditions such as Down syndrome?
47 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1575059137388.jpg (104.03 KB, 800x1066, 400:533, kyubey-girl-1428998570205.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>It also doesn't change the fact that downs can't be bred out unless the entire process of meiosis can be rebuilt.
Yes, of course.  My point was just a minor quibble about the claim of Down's syndrome not being heritable.  If you look at chromosomally healthy people, heredity doesn't play a role in whether offspring are affected, but if you look at people who do have Down's syndrome, it is very much heritable.

>"desired traits" cannot be defined in terms of an absolute value
>it's not possible to define "desirable traits" that would actually have a universal Instrumental and strategic value in all ecosystems
I completely agree.  When I said "desired", I meant it quite literally, as in, there are (hypothetically) specific people who desire certain traits.  There some traits that selective breeding can alter.  Those alterations might be "good" according to one metric or "bad" according to another metric.


>I completely agree.  When I said "desired", I meant it quite literally, as in, there are (hypothetically) specific people who desire certain traits.  There some traits that selective breeding can alter.  Those alterations might be "good" according to one metric or "bad" according to another metric.

But that's not a base assumption that informed the eugenics movement which did consider one set of desired traits to be absolute.

Despite the facts about "fitness" in the terms of natural selection


>But that's not a base assumption that informed the eugenics movement which did consider one set of desired traits to be absolute.
OK, well I don't know much about the historical eugenics movement.  I was just going by the dictionary definition of "eugenics", which seems to be roughly "selective breeding applied to humans".


File: 1574922872176.png (62.84 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 60404D91-366F-4F7D-9BB9-77….png) ImgOps Google

I told Ella that I’d explain my views. This probably isn’t the format they wanted and I don’t know if it’s a /townhall/ appropriate format, but I want to make this before I’m banned (self inflicted) for the week.

The first video explains a lot of my views and outlook, not only in terms of what I believe, but why and the emotion behind it. Although I personally believe that accelerationism is the only option, it’s a major risk and it could completely backfire, but I see it as the equivalent of cutting off an infected limb. There’s a high chance that you’ll die very quickly of blood loss and you’ll be permanently disabled, but if you don’t remove it you’ll definitely die from the poison limb itself, as it infects the rest of your body. This is why I’m voting Labour, because I think, I’m hoping that Labour will crash the economy which will lead to either a coup or a civil war, which is better than the alternative of dying slow, if we die we do it with at least some honour, and there’s always the chance that we may win, and if we end up dying slow anyway (I think a civil war is inevitable at this point, it’s a matter of when, not it for me at this point, but it’s possible that it may not occur. My guess is that it will all kick off in about 10-15 years from now.


Just in case anyone doesn’t know, the Labour Party is full of actual Communists, not Bernie Sanders tier “Democratic Socialists,” but actual Communists. John McDonnell’s, the guy who’ll be in charge of the countries economy as the Chancellor of The Exchequer when Labour wins, and I think they will almost definitely win a slim majority at least, unironically calls himself a Marxist, and another main figure in the Party, Diane Abbott said, and I quote “Mao did more good than harm.”

Please watch this video. It’s a good summary of the Labour Party, in their own words.


John McDonnell quote.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
19 posts and 11 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>I’m personally anti-Capitalism, but I’d deconstruct it from a right wing perspective. For example starting with the premise I’d argue that it’s innately a materialistic and soulless worldview and that society should instead revolve around the people and culture of said society, not any specific ideology or economic system.

I think you agree with Marx far more than you realize.

>Economics should be seen as a means to an end, (that end being the prosperity of the people of said society) not an in of itself.

Again, agreeing with Marx more than you realize.

>Economics should be seen as a means to an end, (that end being the prosperity of the people of said society) not an in of itself. Free movement of goods is beneficial to the economy, but it hurts the people because it ships jobs overseas and often leads to the degradation of entire industries, or towns or cites that were once a major manufacturing hub, drugs and the free trade of similar substances (including many that are currently legal) are good for the economy, but they hurt the people, public services such as free healthcare, public schools, public transportation, etc hurt the economy, but they benefit the people. Every decision taken by the state should be taken with one question in mind “does this benefit the people as a whole,” I couldn’t care less if it damages the economy, if it benefits the people to a greater extent than the economic harm affects them negatively then it should be taken without hesitation. The economy is a tool, not a religious icon.

Again, more fundamental agreement with Marx here.

>I don’t think that makes me a Marxist. And yeah I agree that other forms of Communism exist aside from Marxism, but I don’t think you can have Marxist system that isn’t Communist.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1574971154445.jpg (32.18 KB, 350x450, 7:9, nph-4.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Well thank you for making the thread Mint, but I think I didn't communicate clearly earlier. also sorry if the thread made you anxious, reading through it, it looks like it did

When I asked for your views on things earlier, I was trying to ask for your views on race, and why you hold those views. I wanted to understand why you think some races are better than others, and what got you to those conclusions.

If that isn't something you can talk about on the chan, just let me know. Maybe we can swap discords or something at some point.

Either way you put some work into making this thread, so I will watch the videos you posted.


File: 1574974576485.jpeg (150.74 KB, 859x900, 859:900, 58B9CE04-773F-422A-8425-A….jpeg) ImgOps Google

I’m in a self inflicted ban because for some reason Moony can’t ban me properly, but I don’t think he’d mind me sharing my Discord. Mint horse#9976

Also thank you!

Same to you, I can’t respond for another week.


File: 1574804032100.png (12 KB, 1200x1200, 1:1, 1200px-Emoticon_Smile_Face….png) ImgOps Google


It's the onion, but I think it is very poignant. How do you feel about the way we communicate our tone to each other over text based mediums?

It feels a little dumb and arbitrary, that we must use certain punctuation or even emoji/emoticon lest we come off as distant and cold to some people. I remember when "lol" first became a thing, I thought it was the stupidest, most unintelligent way to communicate with another. But nowadays, I use plenty of lols because it no longer just means "laughing out loud", it is a way of setting the tone of your dialog. It is a tool, just as much as c: and ^_^ and ! are. Frankly, sometimes I am feeling a little like a stone-hearted ice witch and I still pepper in my tone modifiers so as to give a good impression of myself.

Do these things even have meaning anymore if they don't really have to reflect how you truly feel? Do they bring real value, or are we just collectively tone policing ourselves arbitrarily? Do you think that is just how our written language has evolved naturally, nothing special about it?

What do you think? ^_^
3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Perhaps you should practice not hiding how you feel.

Our initial gut reaction feelings to things are not wrong, it's how we deal with those feelings that's important. Like I may hate someone, absolutely despise them, but not act on the hate and try to kill them.


I guess you haven't met a talented enough faker. Or maybe you have and you don't even realize it.

It's besides my point anyway, lots of people may not be great at reading others, or might be too anxious about trying to check in on them if they aren't sure.

I actually am pretty good about being open about the way I feel! I find that I struggle more with seeing other people be open about the way they are feeling. Almost everyone I know responds to "how are you/how was your weekend" type questions with the shortest of responses. That's probably off topic though, that's less about language and more about people not being that open or talkative.

So anyway, like I was trying to emphasize with the onion article, I think we tone police ourselves a bit too much. Does "Hey, I had a great time last night, nice to get together. We should do it again sometime." feel off to you? Would you question the sincerity of it (if you didn't know them for always being that unemphatic)? So what is a person who is feeling meh but not wanting to put themselves in the spotlight going to do? They'll probably say "Hey, I had a great time last night, nice to get together! We should do it again sometime! ^_^"

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what I'm complaining about in this thread. I just feel like we all make our interactions more complicated and confusing sometimes. But maybe it's just me c:


Much of internet communication is strange and non-verbal. You can just post a picture or a meme and express a feeling or desire. It makes me wonder if this is a facet of how humans communicate or something new.


File: 1574483915078.jpg (82.85 KB, 478x653, 478:653, house-face-92.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I saw this posted elsewhere on the Internet, and I thought it might spur a good discussion:
I think it would be interesting to make a "voluntary prison" where anyone can go inside and receive free recreational drugs, meals and housing, but they have to have a clean pee test to get out.

If people want to lay around doing clean heroin, watching TV and hanging out with other addicts, give them a safe space to do so with minimal drain on the rest of society. Attach a minimum wage waiver so manufacturers could set up low skill jobs within, and addicts can save up for when they want to leave. Concentrate drug treatment, health, social and educational programs for economies of scale. Tie dose dispensation to biometric data to prevent people from receiving OD-levels of drugs, but allow them to slowly ratchet up if they wish to do so as tolerance builds. I'd imagine this could achieve a net-savings in cost of anti-drug programs and policing, and could be funded by cities which want to export their derelict addicts.

It would be an ugly business, but I think with proper considerations it could be more empathetic than current drug policy.
Do you agree?  Disagree?  Have any different-but-related ideas?
11 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1574674126735.png (609.05 KB, 971x579, 971:579, 2200067.png) ImgOps Google

Well, if we admit individuals must not be allowed to become addicted, and that some or many drugs are addictive, then OP's idea must be bad for contributing to or allowing addiction.  I'll admit I don't know much about meth, so if people who know more say it's additive, so be it, then I guess we should discourage people from using it.  OK.  Well, when I can do it without being a troll, anyway.


I feel that's fair. We should try to prevent people from becoming addicted, and we should help those who are addicted quit. OP's idea does neither of these things. It just gives addicted people a place away from society where they can continue to damage their bodies and minds until eventually they die.


If it allows for any profit motive at all, we're going to end up incentivizing these companies to get people hooked on drugs. If they can't leave, it seems these organizations could do whatever they want to them unless there's regular government audits or open doors for journalists to come and go as they please, just something to check on the people inside.

I don't know, i think there's too many ways for this to go horribly, horribly wrong.


File: 1574198755779.jpg (63.63 KB, 640x796, 160:199, d480d603d39083f65300d4532e….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Did memes on 4chan help propel Donald Trump to the presidency?
13 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


>so anyone Hillary could have potentially appointed could not be any worse unless they too were accused rapists.
Huh?  That doesn't follow at all.  Someone's sexual misbehavior in high school doesn't do a good job of predicting how well one would discharge the duties of the Supreme Court.  Someone who committed rape 30 years ago could very will be rehabilitated now.  Justice Kavanaugh is a steller jurist and definitely does a better job than would a someone selected randomly from the set of all lawyers in the US.

>The things Trump promised ARE real. The two things can't be compared.
I don't understand what you're saying.  What I did in 2016 was to estimate the expected value of electing Trump and the expected value of electing Hillary.


>Someone who committed rape 30 years ago could very will be rehabilitated now.

Woah, that's a whole other can of worms to open in this thread. I don't agree at all, but it's not what we are talking about.

>I don't understand what you're saying.

I'm saying that promises to do something should carry more weight than fabricated hypotheticals. Me saying "I'm going to rob a bank" is more an indication of future events than if I buy a ski-mask, which could allow me to hide my identity, which could allow me to rob a bank.


I think they did.  And in fact, I think they contributed to other recent election results, and perhaps even more distant election results.  Almost every election is ultimately a challenge to create a wavy ripple of popularity by spreading ideas through the electorate.  By definition, those are memes, whether they're pictures spread by Russian bot accounts or just articles in the opinion sections of newspapers.


File: 1574075415274.png (1.65 MB, 1000x1492, 250:373, fs_queen.png) ImgOps Google

While we can imagine some forgotten past, before states, before kings, before even tribal elders, when early man (woman, and child) lived in small communities too sparse and isolated to be much but politically flat; socially egalitarian one to another, as time passed, people of the Bible, people of the first historian Herodotus, people of the modern, complicated world became subjects to (occasionally agents of) systems of institutional power and authority.  What are we to make of these hierarchies?  How are we to respond to powerful forces in our lives and the lives of others?
15 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Hmm...your view, if I try to restate it, is that authorities are rooted in fear, they continue by keeping that fear in people's mind.  Probably usually fear of a dangerous other.  Immigrants, minorities, underclass.  Because fear is their fuel, they have little interest in remedying the root of this fear, and so they are ineffective at anything but self-preservation, and therefore do not relate to a human need for safety and security.  Further, encouraging people to respect authority rather than look to their own -- perhaps more adaptable and sensible -- moral compass keeps humans childish in submission to their Mother State, but a false mother, even who only tells scary stories.

It does seem that way sometimes.  The government of my country seems to stoke fears of immigrants.  Well, that's a political thing to say, I guess.  Some would say, the governments reveals the accurate state of things.

>absolute morality
For a respectful human, I think the only absolute is that their individual moral sense must give way to authority when an authority exists.  Once they've given up their individual prerogative, they have no right to ask the authority be unchanging, and few are.

>that the authorities we invent necessarily have greater access to moral truths than any of us do

If they didn't, I don't see how they could be just.  People would be advised to trust their own heart and resist authority when it commanded otherwise, or resist authority in general because it may presume to command otherwise.

>come to expect the backlash and destruction of authority figures to be a fundamental part of the cycle of chinese history

In the longer term, yes.  If you could use the eventual disolusion of authority as an argument against their validity, then it'd be hard to say any was valid.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


>Hmm...your view, if I try to restate it, is that authorities are rooted in fear, they continue by keeping that fear in people's mind.  Probably usually fear of a dangerous other.  Immigrants, minorities, underclass.  Because fear is their fuel, they have little interest in remedying the root of this fear, and so they are ineffective at anything but self-preservation, and therefore do not relate to a human need for safety and security.  Further, encouraging people to respect authority rather than look to their own -- perhaps more adaptable and sensible -- moral compass keeps humans childish in submission to their Mother State, but a false mother, even who only tells scary stories.

Mostly, a lot of injustices are self sustaining cycles.

>Some would say, the governments reveals the accurate state of things.

Again self-deception. It appeals to the needs of those who fear others.

>For a respectful human, I think the only absolute is that their individual moral sense must give way to authority when an authority exists.  Once they've given up their individual prerogative, they have no right to ask the authority be unchanging, and few are.

How do you justify that?
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


>does it consider the nuance of pragmatic justification for an authority as simply  division of labor
Well, that's fine.  Most hierarchies I know have justifications, either religious or pragmatic.

>basic lack of omniscience is a sufficient explanation
I don't know about that.  The evil of authorities has become clear to you, and I doubt you claim to be omniscient.

>You are far from the first person to believe that their unique traits set them at odds with other people to the point they begin to believe that they are not human themselves

Oh, I've come across others.  I imagine there are many ways to deviate.  I know you disagree, but when I think of humans -- human nature, I guess -- I think of creatures who are justly served by human authorities.  I do not think I have always been...justly served...by authorities, so I can not, for myself, 100% respect them.  But disrespecting authorities is a dangerous path (in the right circumstances, deadly), I would not tempt others down that road, unless they really need it.

>Most humans can't agree on what that constitutes

Well, if I believed that human nature could not be known or agreed on, I wouldn't be able to figure how humans could create authorities that could be relied to act in ways morally appropriate for masses of humans.  I know that's your thinking -- authorities can't know humans nature well enough to know what is morally appropriate -- and it's all consistent.


Interesting video to discuss.
48 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Funding for art is a weird one, since it's naturally going to stifle art i think. Art should expand in all kinds of different directions, and i think funding for the arts could actually restrict art by encouraging artists to stay within convention in order to be considered art/artists and receive funding.

This depends on who is making ghe judgement call on what gets funded.

Ultimately, the point behind funding of the arts is the recognition that market forces can be just as constraining on artist and creativity as the need to appeal to the market discourages risk taking.

Thus, funding for arts that would be more expensive than just like, painting (such as film for instance) is there as a relief from this fundamental creativity stifling pressure that comes from the market itself.

Take for instance a movie like Paris is Burning. A documentary about late 1980s ballroom culture. It was a documentary funded by a government endowment for the arts about the LGBT competitive fashion competitions that were particularly popular with LGBT kids of color. Many of whom were deeply impoverished.

That documentary would go on to have a permanent place in the national film registry 25 years later, but in 1987, who would have funded that privately? Who exactly was the documentary for ? Who would have been the key demographic for that?

It's considered an important and influential documentary that chronicled an underground culture in America at the time and exposed an important perspective. And at the time no investors would have been interested in the project because the (assumed) audience for it would be too small for any private investors to care. The film didn't have any audience until it hot critically praised and won some film festival awards, and that was when it found a consumer base, after the film was already made, the audience that wanted to see it were not largely LGBT, but people interested in an interesting and well made documentary about LGBT culture amongst young LGBT people of color. Plus, it made the topic more commercially viable amongst documentary consumers.

That's essentially what government funding of the arts is supposed to do. It encourages innovation in a market where the interesPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


I certainly like the idea, the market certainly doesn't always reward art or creativity, the prevalence and of the isekai genera in anime is a pretty good case study for that idea, but the details of it are somewhat baffling to me. Who decides who gets funding and who doesn't? Untimately there's some sort of authority deciding who to fund, right? They're deciding what counts. Seems odd to me that there should be an authority like that for art.



I think it would be a matter of whether or not the artist can successfully argue to a committee about their application for a grant that they would not, realistically, receive funding from an investor or private patron.

 No.4038[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1573418512579.jpg (287.01 KB, 880x660, 4:3, unusual-hybrid-animals-31.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>pic not related, I just needed something

Inspired by the Gender Roles thread:

So at my current state in perspective, as a straight cis person, I do not personally want to date a trans person because I feel like it would be living a bit of a lie and stringing them along because I have an ultimate goal in mind of having a family, and I am rather straight.

However, I don't want to be completely close-minded and would like some input as to your thoughts on this, especially if you are trans yourself, and if you think ultimately this would be a cruel thing to do to someone?
105 posts and 25 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>nor would I if I could.

Yeah this is getting ridiculously transphobic.


Thread is locked while we discuss a report that just came in.


While Proud Parrot and Fancy Dog disagree, and on a topic that Fancy Dog may hold very personally, we've decided that doesn't mean any rules were broken.  /townhall/ is a forum at least partially for discussing morality, which inevitably means that people with different ideas of right and wrong are going to show up and share their thoughts on the matter.

In this case, the discussion is about when to reveal yourself as trans to a potential romantic partner, and no answer you could give to that question is without pros and cons.  The discussion seems very legitimate.


File: 1573951240914.jpg (310.5 KB, 834x778, 417:389, f_22.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I would like your opinions on this:

>Kellogg's company suddenly closed in my country a year ago
>Government seized the company because
>They running the plant and producing brands like Corn Flakes without consent of Kellogg's
>Kellogg's mad & nobody cares
>Extra points: Printing mild pro-socialist political proganda on the same box with Kellogg's mascots.

Are getting away with it?
It seems so
2 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1574034284626.png (288.23 KB, 640x360, 16:9, 640px-Parasol_and_Notewort….png) ImgOps Google

Such things aren't uncommon in moments of political tension. It mostly amounts to an outstanding lawsuit that gets dropped when relations stabilize and an unusual experience to share for the people who lived through it.

Copying the branding is a little more unusual since it makes export complicated but I've still heard similar stories. Pardon me if I don't know the specifics.


File: 1574044240477.png (115.26 KB, 500x519, 500:519, f_38.png) ImgOps Google


I guess


>if Kellogg is gearing up to take legal action against them, which they are in the right to do so.

It seems Kellogg is already trying to.

However, the crazy thing is that it will probably be fruitless...


> It mostly amounts to an outstanding lawsuit that gets dropped when relations stabilize and an unusual experience to share for the people who lived through it.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


Kellogg might demand damages, but that might be less costly to the company to pay Kellogg the damages rather than completely cease production and sale of cereal for however long it takes to re-negotiate.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]