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

/townhall/ - Townhall

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


File: 1559435267262.png (905.05 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Mayor,_Let's_get_galloping….png) ImgOps Google

Welcome to /townhall/! This is an anonymous-only board for debates, dialectics, and discussions of a serious nature.

As the topics discussed on this board may deal with sensitive or controversial subject matter, we expect a higher standard of conduct than elsewhere on the site, and will enforce the board's rules with a greater degree of strictness. Inability or unwillingness to follow the rules will result in a /townhall/-only ban.


1) All posts in a given thread must contribute constructively to the conversation, whether agreeing or disagreeing. Off-topic, contentless, inflammatory, or hostile posts will be deleted and result in a ban.

1a) Derails that occur as a natural result of discussion progressing from the original subject will generally not be interfered with; however, if these hinder discussion of the original topic, making a new thread is preferred.

1b) Part of contributing constructively is understanding and addressing the reasoning behind an opposing view. While this can be a tedious task and will generally not be officially enforced, please make an effort to at the very least avoid "talking past" someone when presented with a counterargument. Simply doubling down on your initial point does not advance a discussion.

1c) Be as willing to "lose" as you are to "win", and above all else, be willing to learn and understand. You will not get the most out of this board if your only goal is to persuade, and you will not even be effective at that unless you understand what you are arguing against.

2) Ad hominems and other uncivil behavior will not be tolerated. You may have a significant personal stake in some subjects discussed here, and it is normal to be frustrated when someone cannot relate; however, lashing out is not an effective way to engender sympathy for your position, and will not advance the conversation in a constructive way. Even if you find someone's argument morally abhorrent, there are constructive ways to express this.

2a) Attempting to deliberately provoke an uncivil reaction is prohibited, even if it is done within the letter of the law.

2b) Snark and other forms of mockery are strongly discouraged and may result in warnings or bans.

2c) "Strawmanning" an "opponent" deliberately will be regarded as uncivil conduct and will be dealt with accordingly. This will not apply to genuine misunderstandings.

3) While we do not claim to be arbiters of absolute moral or empirical truth and aim to moderate this board in a fair and even-handed, politically agnostic manner, the following extreme positions are considered "off-limits" regardless of how they are put forward, including attempts to "hint" or dogwhistle:

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1716550828969.jpg (18.81 KB, 600x400, 3:2, 16CHIEFS-KICKER-SPEECH-mgf….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

<Women are less intelligent than men. That means that women should have jobs that require much less mentally, such as working at home. This also protects men.>

Are all of these claims coming from many American football players the past few days correct? Are they wrong? What factual evidence exists to support these young athletic men's views, if any? Do you think that they're just being silly?
7 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


If I recall correctly, women sit more in the middle of the curve of intelligence, whereas men make up the extreme ends.
So the stupidest people are oft men, as well as the smartest.


File: 1716668074156.png (849.62 KB, 1079x1272, 1079:1272, Screenshot_20240525-161119.png) ImgOps Google

Yeah, that IQ gap is rather small.
Only major difference is in spatial reasoning.

>I would look at the second but 'X' works weirdly on my phone
Here's a screenshot of the tweet and the link:


I could believe that.

Oh. I see.


File: 1716502500982.jpg (264.41 KB, 1352x886, 676:443, 1-s2.0-S0924224418306058-f….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Should fraudulently adulterating food be punishable by death?
10 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


The NAP is not an inherent part of capitalism at all. Capitalists taking people's private properly for their own and otherwise using the authority of the state to crush rivals while also forcing consumers to purchase their products via state edicts is a routine part of modern life. And that's capitalism in action. A Big Brother government funneling power into the pockets of capitalists is capitalism behaving in a routine way.

If you advocate for a mixed economy that abandons pure capitalism such that fraud is banned and other ethical rules are established and strictly enforced, then that's fine, but you should accept that you're either a socialist or somebody who wants a halfway point involving diluted socialism. Be honest. NAP ethics and other moral standards being applied at gunpoint to hurt capitalists doing capitalism is going to be a rough battle if you want to fight it.


Alright so, one we aren't the same person.
Two, I made no claims how a system should be structured or what I want.
Three, my point was your notion of capitalism, or I suppose "pure capitalism" in your words, being impossible or I guess now "a rough battle," nice motte and bailey btw, is a defeatist notion that only further entrench the current power structures.
Four, no where did I mention the use of violence or force. I am not naive enough to purport that violence is not often the only tool that people are left, or feel left with, in the face of our current structure. That said we have the tools and means to make meaningful change and to downplay the work of the people that are fighting for what I would assume is a would you want to live in is repugnant.
My issue with your statement is I've heard it a million times from people, but anyone that holds that notion is just some theory drunk regurgitation.

If you think all hope is lost you lack a spine. If you think things can't change you lack a spine. I hope you advocate for the change you want irl. I really do, because normally those that accept your proposition cloister themselves away and try and drag others into the bog you are in.

Final response to this as the thread is completely derailed.


>Capitalists taking people's private properly for their own and otherwise using the authority of the state to crush rivals
Uh, no. Not at all. What?

Capitalism is an economic system of trade between individuals.
It's purely an economic system.
It can, and has, existed inside most any state. Hell, even communism, despite their claims, had capitalism running through. Some stuff was nationalized, but there were always private enterprises still trading some items.

State authority is not required for capitalism.


File: 1715857040726.jpg (325.57 KB, 1200x768, 25:16, Untitled.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

So the American election is this year.

You got a Douche on one side a and Turd on the other.

But out of the two of them who do you honestly think is going to win?
31 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


You've got it exactly backwards.

American Christians are the ones screaming their lungs out about how absolutely everybody who isn't them is hated by God and must burn in a lake of fire after death, so, for example, all of the young Jewish children who passed away in the Holocaust are covered in flames as we speak. If you don't accept Jesus Christ as your savior in the most narrow and strict way obeying certain edicts, then it's the forever badplace for you. No way out. No peace. No compassion. No nothing.

In contrast, if you're, say, a traditional Jewish-American citizen then you believe that all fundamentally righteous people of all religious backgrounds have peace and comfort after death.


Pretty sure it's the far left chanting 'death to all jews' these days.
And they're not really all that big on Christianity.


Conflating what groups like the NIFB say and painting every denomination found in the States as that is wrong.
I get you have religious trauma, but you need to stop this nonsense.


File: 1716017984282.png (11.88 KB, 1131x724, 1131:724, e271028f4841337f6878bd04a1….png) ImgOps Google

Let's assume for the sake of argument that a "national divorce" is happening in the U.S. such that narrow racial and religious separation becomes a matter of ironclad law. You have to pick and choose which areas belong to Christians versus Jews, white people versus black people, Asian people versus Hispanic people, and so on.

How would you draw the map? What group gets what lands? And what motivates your lines?
13 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1716444735679.png (66.83 KB, 1131x724, 1131:724, mapdivi.png) ImgOps Google


This is how I would draw the map, for no particular reason other than this is the way it seems to me that it ought to look.


File: 1716445621210.png (78.22 KB, 1131x724, 1131:724, mapdivi2.png) ImgOps Google


Whoops. I almost forgot about the Native Americans. That's better.


The color choices are interesting, although I don't understand them.


File: 1716449653487.jpg (1.63 MB, 2000x1672, 250:209, YOO This dude giving me a ….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Absolute monarchys and benevolent dictatorships are the best ways for a country to function

This is what I unironically believe and I won't elaborate
4 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


I would posit that this is why the Great Houses of Battletech work.
The size and scale of the universe makes communication in both a timely and reasonably coherent manner impossible, when it comes to larger states.
So, nobility, simply vying for their territories' interests, came about in place of typical fares as democratic elections.

The Cameron dynasty is relied on for maintaining the Star League as a whole, and did so successfully for quite a significant chunk of time. Their role in large part was to balance the other houses, maintaining the League against the special interests, ideology, and ethnic conflict of each of these territories. Conversely, for each of them, they represented their people. And within their territories, they had planetary families, oft with ties to the Great Houses themselves, vying for the interests of their people.

Is the system perfect? No. Of course not.
No system is, however.
 But it does maintain a semblance of stability, for a reason.
Mind, I'm a Taurian. Fuck the innies, Kerensky was a war criminal.


> So, democracy replaced absolute monarchy because of increased morality through Christianity, as well as increased knowledge for each individual
To be honest, the greatest death blow to monarchies also decided to lob off the heads of Church leaders.

>  because as populations get larger and people live longer, their individual needs become more diverse.
This is the challenge for current politics.
You can please some people some of the time, you can't please all people all of the time.
A "benevolent" dictator will still have to make choices and will have to make choices that will hurt a lot of people with none of the negative consequences.
Good for some parts of society, but that really sucks when you are the one to be executed for the common good.


Sic Semper Tyrannis.

The right to violate the rights of the people belongs to the people. An absolute monarchy, vanguard party, a benevolent dictatorship is mass negligence. Suddenly the failures of the people can be pushed onto one person, or even a small group.


I believe that it's incredibly helpful when looking at violent conflict to just sit down and listen to what a given solider "on leave" claims, letting them advocate even if you don't necessarily agree with or even understand that person!

Does anybody else agree? If so, would they be willing to post here similar videos interviewing soldiers from China, France, Germany, Russia, or any counties known for big armies? I'm looking to learn! Please share even if you personally dislike the soldiers' opinions!

Any other media covering the question of "What is my life as a solider, really?" is welcome too!


I would have exceptional doubt as to that individual's credibility.

As a general rule, soldiers aren't allowed to just speak willy nilly about a conflict, after all.
At bear minimum, they'd risk repercussions when they return to duty.
If not being branded a traitor and incarcerated, should their dialogue not reflect the state's position.

This type of thing reaks of propaganda, to me.


File: 1714563627650.png (281.5 KB, 1079x1152, 1079:1152, Screenshot_20240501-073240.png) ImgOps Google

What will come of the pro-Hamas agitators who are unlawfully harassing and intimidating Jewish students?
39 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


idk. but "people are people," as it says in the song.


File: 1715622656081.png (801.83 KB, 1080x1045, 216:209, Screenshot_20240513-134548.png) ImgOps Google

Hmm, not sure what to make of this.  I guess both sides have some bad people.


File: 1716329785301.png (671.65 KB, 1080x1323, 40:49, Screenshot_20240521-181209.png) ImgOps Google


File: 1715601891784.png (169.55 KB, 575x444, 575:444, Smells-Like-AI-Generated-U….png) ImgOps Google

Have you ever tried to express what you think about modern politics in some kind of creative piece, no matter how silly, experimental, inconsistent, or whatever else you might've thought it seems in retrospect?

Like do you think you can represent your viewpoints in a concrete way? I guess we can try that here? Maybe?
8 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1715893673666.png (3.4 MB, 1335x1263, 445:421, zxczc.png) ImgOps Google

Good for you.


>No need to be a condescending asshole.



I've painted various things, drawn various things on paper, and also doodled various things electronically.

This clearly means that my wingo-wango is much bigger than yours.



File: 1715802972038.gif (3.9 MB, 320x512, 5:8, greekgrills(suggestivenoto….gif) ImgOps Google

Males with high compassion tend to have high intelligence. Females with high compassion tend to have low intelligence. Personally, I want a high compassion idiot girlfriend. Have you made this observation aswell? Do you speculate a reason for it?
6 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1715874972098.png (568.9 KB, 1080x1414, 540:707, Screenshot_20240428-190700.png) ImgOps Google

>Females with high compassion tend to have low intelligence.
I'd say that high-IQ white women tend to have have *misplaced* compassion rather than *low* compassion.  This is because, in whites, high IQ is correlated with being politically left-leaning.  Leftist politicians in Germany go so far as to defend their own rapists (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3675154/Left-wing-German-politician-raped-migrants-admits-LIED-police-attackers-nationality-did-not-want-encourage-racism.html).  Meanwhile, AWFLs in the US clutch their pearls when people like Daniel Penny protect people from dangerous criminals.


Yeah, but I'd say what you call "Misplaced compassion" is what I call virtue signalling or compulsion to submit. Compassion is when you act well to someone, due to the thought of their emotion. Conformity is when you act well to someone, due to the thought of what others will think.


If you've an extremely reduced amount of empathy compared to most men, as well as a far weaker sense of empathy compared to most men, then women will find this unattractive. Because it's inherently unattractive. If you're a gay or bi man looking for partners, then this problem would also exist.

I'm not sure how to explain to conservatives and libertarians that you should have a great deal of empathy and ethics inherently because your fellow citizens who live by you deserve the same rights as you, because this is more or less a psychological thing. A result of brain chemistry and other such things. If seeing your next door neighbor suffering or even dying in public doesn't trigger an emotional response because they're not a family member of yours or such, and strangers being strangers you simply don't care, then so be it. Just know that many people have different emotions.


File: 1693696732533.png (942.63 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, large.png) ImgOps Google

Racial equality is assertion that racial differences are cosmetic and not substantive in terms one's abilities, character, or rights.  Is this general idea good, bad, or offensive in your opinion?  Is there any reason to try to be racially egalitarian (or I suppose to try to be less if your opinion is that racial equality is unwise)?
21 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Can you imagine banning someone over their opinion?


yeah, they are pretty much cosmetic. this was established long ago, and everyone should have learned about it in high school.


Racism is healthy. Racism is natural. Racism is what separates man from plant. Has a plant ever called you a nigger? Exhibit A.

 No.13130[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1713307188519.jpg (117.69 KB, 720x950, 72:95, Olivia.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

So when is it gonna end?
86 posts and 23 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


You're underestimating how well GPT-4 works.  Yeah, it makes mistakes, but it is especially good at simple things like "How do people on the internet use the term 'social justice'?".

Oh, you haven't heard of that before?  Here is a web page that goes into it:


>it is especially good at simple things like "How do people on the internet use the term 'social justice'?".
It isn't actually good at that. It's good at making what sounds like a reasonable answer to the question.

LLMs aren't actually intelligent, no matter how sophisticated or advanced they are. Despite making a good answer, ChatGPT doesn't know what "justice" means conceptually in the same way a human would understand the term. ChatGPT just knows that words like "justice" is often used with words like "equality" and "fairness" but it doesn't actually know what those concepts mean. ChatGPT is really cool and fun, it just isn't a knowledge source.


>It isn't actually good at that.
What failures have you seen on GPT-4 here?

>LLMs aren't actually intelligent, no matter how sophisticated or advanced they are.
GPT-4 certainly isn't human-level AGI, but I'd say it certainly has intelligence to some degree.  

>ChatGPT just knows that words like "justice" is often used with words like "equality" and "fairness" but it doesn't actually know what those concepts mean.
I disagree with that.  What's a prompt that demonstrates GPT-4 failing to understand what the concepts mean?


File: 1715197697756.png (237.87 KB, 779x720, 779:720, betta-2753067_960_720.png) ImgOps Google


So, a 14 year old girl is taken by her "boyfriend" to a secluded place and is repeatedly gangraped by a group of his friends, where ages go from 11 to 16.
The culprits recorded the rape and were bold enough to share videos over social media.

I have to wonder, what drives people to do this?
Why is it that young people are so eager to share or even rent out their girlfriend to their mates?
Or be so unabashed to share offensive material over social media?

I don't get young people anymore.

> image unrelated, because I don't want to put a silly image on this
5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



yeah, but a lot of people are pretty bad at that. they need to gain experience first, and mathematics would help to objectify the measurements



>people want to have sex

i always hear this but i question how true it is. do people really want to have sex? highly questionable.

as for your second point, possibly somewhat or mostly true, but would need citations and data to make the point clearer


In almost all circumstances of minors exercising extreme behavior, even to the point of what seems like sociopathy, I think that scientific analysis has generally shown that the young criminals have tended to be mirroring physical and/or psychological abuse that they've been victims of. And what happens is basically a kind of evolution. Or perhaps even literally exact reenactments of what has happened to them previously (only with somebody else chosen to be the victim instead of themselves). This is, however, difficult to explain as an abstract concept.

To pick a specific example that's concrete, look at German dictator and one of the influential figures in modern history: let's talk about Adolf Hitler.

As a child, Hitler received constant maltreatment from a strict, callous, and domineering father in the context of growing up in a very regimented and authoritarian society in which the personal morals that we in 21st Century America view as positive (such as universal health care and freedom of speech) were back then negatives. Being told over and over again that you're a worthless piece of flesh by family took its toll. However, young Hitler had his caring, compassionate mother who totally believed in moral idealism in the Catholic Christian sense as a counterweight.

And then his mother died in an extremely painful and nightmarish fashion of cancer, again with him being a small child unable to rationally comprehend the situation.

It's been documented by historians that adult Hitler actively modeled his life as the opposite of his mother. She was soft-spoken and reflective. He was loud and dominant. She put others before herself and had a religious philosophy based on moral tradition. Hitler thought that he was a demi-god with spiritual abilities and a special destiny, requiring others to serve him. She wasn't focused on her appearance and such. He was focused on machismo and being tough. And so on.

As profoundly weird as it is to express sympathy for Hitler, of all people, it appears pretty clear-cut to historians that the psychological break-up of his mind at directly witnessing the torture and death of his mother caused him in later years to relive and reenact that exact situation by personally causing torture and death of others that he knew. He was a victim. And then he became a bully. The circle closed, so to speak.

While I don't know if this specific criminal case parallels Hitler's journey, the Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.11640[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1669604376674.jpeg (184.53 KB, 1080x1052, 270:263, FiZuEeBWYAE9CJe.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Is it true that woke propaganda is being pushed in public education? And if so, what should be done about it?  I would say that the morals taught in public school should be those that are widely supported by ordinary Americans.  Public schools shouldn't really endorse one side of a politically contentious issue.

I remember a decade or two ago, it was far-right Christian fundamentalists who were trying to prevent the teaching of science of human evolution in public schools.  Nowadays, i guess it's the woke far left.
118 posts and 35 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1715023023180.jpg (239.83 KB, 950x1404, 475:702, Harle and Starky.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I've never heard of someone being discriminated against due to apathy. That sounds counter productive for a lack of a better word. Greed can lead to discrimination of different classes; as can poverty.

>Like, opposition to disability accommodations can be rooted in devaluing disabled people as being a 'drain' on society (itself rooted in a narrow-minded evaluation of a person's value).
Are you suggesting that if someone owns an establishment and doesn't have disability accommodations that they have a discrimination against disabled people? I tend to disagree.

That said, as someone who is incredibly empathetic and compassionate; my heart does go out to the disabled and I think more places should be accommodating.


File: 1715027142179.jpg (332.27 KB, 1352x1235, 104:95, Screenshot_20210301-190906….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


My point is that the view that disabled people are a drain and thus shouldn't be accommodated for is not rooted in hatred as much as it is greed because accommodations cost money. Granted, it's not a very intelligent position but it appeals to the instinct towards loss prevention and a short-sightedness towards what income they can make long-term by accommodating the disabled.

>>>13352 (You)
>I've never heard of someone being discriminated against due to apathy. That sounds counter productive for a lack of a better word.

You're right, it is counterproductive, it's a narrow minded view.

Discrimination doesn't have to be tied to any specific emotions, it can be rooted in prejudice alone, in the sense of the etymology of the word, pre-judgement, judging without sufficient information, it doesn't have to involve any emotion what so ever, or even be concious.

Like if someone building a multi-level mall and not installing elevators alongside escalators because escalators alone is cheaper than elevators with escalators or even elevators alone. Effectively, that space discriminates against people who cannot physically use the escalators to access the shops on the second floor, probably one rooted in simple lack of consideration rather than flat out hatred of the disabled. This not only limits access to shopping, but potential employment too.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1715106073339.jpg (708.63 KB, 1075x1518, 1075:1518, Gurugarere.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Actually, I think I know exactly what is going on and why your message is muddled and confusing.

Here are two separate definition from Oxford:

[Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability.
"victims of racial discrimination"
Similar: prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness
unfairness, inequity, favoritism, one-sidedness, chauvinism, partisanship, sexism, racism, racialism, anti-Semitism, heterosexism, ageism, classism, ableism, apartheid
Opposite: impartiality
recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
"discrimination between right and wrong"]

You are combining the two completely separate definitions into one. You are correct. You don't have to have emotional attachments to discriminate, however when we're talking about groups of people it is almost impossible not to attach some sort of feeling towards it. The first definition is tied to avoidance, aggression, or revulsion/disgust. The only time I can really think of where you wouldn't is if you are simply stating facts. (This weapon type is superior because it's stats are superior.)
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1698829158349.jpg (20.37 KB, 305x165, 61:33, Spongebob.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

A lot of the debates on the Israeli-x-Palestine conflict that has recently flared up in a violent way has brought back old academic and popular culture debates on settlers, on colonialism, on the formation of nation-states, and on the idea of legitimacy in the creation of countries as legal entities.

A major issue is that of what makes a territory a "homeland". What makes an area an inherent place designed to be occupied by a certain race, certain religion, and certain ethnicity to the exclusion at worst or detriment at best of other categories of people. It's a sticky issue.

For example, "Palestine" as a territory is popularly thought of as a homeland for Muslim Arab peoples based on Islamic rule through Arabic culture that would either not have Christians, Jews, atheists, et al or would subject them to second-class citizen status in those lands.

In the U.S., the argument is made that this a white European based Christian nation made as a homeland for those peoples to which other groups (such as Muslims, or Black people, or transgender individuals who aren't Christian) are mere guests or such.

>What are your thoughts?

In my opinion, the concept of a "homeland" is not an ethically or legally viable one. Anybody living in a territory ought to have clear-cut civil rights such as the right to bear arms and freedom of speech regardless of their social group status w.r.t. their religion or whatever else. Nonetheless, I would call a "homeland" a practically and rationally viable concept. Historically, it can make sense to view a patch of land as having significant meaning to certain groups with that being given social respect that doesn't involve coercing anybody to do anything. For instance, the national parks associated with English colonial shipping in America ought to preserve educational information, such as protecting buildings for tourists, without this meaning that "being English" as an ethnicity is somehow targeted for political meaning.

P.S. I don't want to use a sad photo of Israelis or Palestinians being hurt or anything related as the OP, so have SpongeBob, I guess.
15 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I also think it's fucking stupid that other countries have to get involved.

Let nature take its course.

It's from my immortal


Yes, but I still like the other idea about Hagrid.


fyi i bombed farah last week
sucks to suck

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