/siberia/ - Off-topic

>>727742
Whenever any political figure "commits suicide" you should assume they were murdered by default.

>>727746
That’s true

When I was a kid I thought TV episodes were made over the course of 7 days like South Park

>>727717
you thought it worked like sports seasons. that kinda makes sense actually.

>>727581
I wonder if it's a new phenomenon, because most of the airtime used to be filled with re-runs, so there is no way anyone thought they were live.

>>727730
Yeah well not with cartoons, I have no idea that I thought some cartoonist could draw Gumball so many times in so little days without they’re hand falling off.

>>727581
Obviously fake but I wouldn't be surprised if 10% of the population believes it.

>>727734
>In order to keep capitalism you have to weaponize bigotry. For example in order to get lumpens on board to oppose welfare they would say “Black people will get it!”
There was this US president who said something about that not so long ago.

>>727735
Pre-Reagan Presidents back then were so strange because they were all objectively bad people (LBJ literally did the Vietnam war) but they would say something based every once in a while.

It warms my nazi heart

>>727415
Bro, I can't. Please tell me you are memeing.
The earnest nature of your post - I can't do it man.

>>727400
Change is change, they all evolved the same amount.

>>727260
why would humans allow something they consciously create every aspect of the capability of doing that?

It was cool in sci fi but I never see it happening

we will win this thing when we invent portable EMT granades or fields that disable machines, just chuck em at the robots and watch them instantly die.

we might all get radiation poisoning but it will be worth it.

>>727415
would you say animals that exhibit protocultural habits and tool use learned socially instead of by innate instinct fit the criteria for intellectual and technological reproduction?

>>727722
You just don't like small talk. Art is just language, developmentally and in practice.

>>727724
>implying ychs and "o"cs and funneh relatable low effort comics arent SEO-powered bullshit
are you genuinely mentally challenged bruh

even the prompt of AI slop has to be typed by a real person

>>727721
>>727724
It's soo obvious when phil undergrads join a discussion. Literally nobody even uses these definitions.

>>727725
But they're still communicative, even if on the level of "how's the weather today."

Also I don't get why you're putting the concept of OCs there. Literally just the concept of non-fanart.

>>727726
I've never even been to philidelphia, meds.
Also this is what I'm drawing from, not anything from college: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Lowenfeld

>>727706
He did but all of his direct descendants died too and he outlived all of them, kek..

>>727706
So in a way, he was incelled by life.

Although being the son of a boat captain I doubt he was all that literate, so maybe he couldn't have recorded his life.

>>727707
Thats sad.

>>727719
Sadness is the default.

>>727649
>'happiness' is a much more broad concept than 'opiate receptors recieving'
I never claimed that that's all happiness was.
>plenty of people experience unhappiness and existential despair while on drugs
Which is a form of suffering they experience on top of the pleasure from the drugs, which brings their total net valence level down. I don't see how that's supposed to refute the general framework of utilitarianism.

>>727173
Normal people don't own a television

>>727674
The whole world isn't just zoomers.

>>727674
>the average person doesnt pay/pirate/borrow at least one streaming service
>what is youtube/tiktok/instagram
lol you must be one seriously out of touch with reality autist

>>727668
bro you posted a comic about people plugging themselves into lotus eater boxes, implying anyone who wouldn't do the same is just coping. i am not arguing against 'utilitarianism', merely disagreeing with you on what 'utility' can be defined as. i think infomed consent, for example, or believing you have a purpose in life, are important for human well-being moreso than physical pleasure.

>>726679
Kinda true. The story haa transition elements. Beast to human.

>>727670
cute

Darling in the Franxx would be SO much better if main character Watanabe Generico was a girl instead.

You should've put some lust inducing explicit images.

bump

>>721140
Volume 4 update >>>/anime/29402

>>724365
Update for V4 Part II stream >>>/anime/29428

It is dumb I have to make this image, but fr.
Monarchist legitimatists…
>No, it's illegitimate!
I don't care for Bourbonists, Orléanist, or Bonapartists.
These dynasties are all long gone.
It was injustice for the Romanovs to be killed, but Nature is also cruel. Empires rise and fall. These monarchies weren't going to last forever; naturally, like with any lifeform, you'd persist and seek to maintain its longevity as much as possible (when it is a truly living regime).
Yet if it been more than 2+ generations and over 100+ years, time to bury the axe and quit.
It would be better to expect to establish a new bloodline or dynasty at this point.
Defecting to
>muh constitution
Isn't going to bring these old dynasties back, and that might as well be the Law of Nature as far as any regimes go (however decent you think they might be, their ruin is inevitable).
After a certain point, after 2+ generations of able-bodied fighters or intrigue for 100+ years, that is more than generous amount of time to seriously take a restoration effort (I know of no restoration happening after 70+ years max, so 100+ years is a generous amount of time as far as I know).
The most stupid part is these same exact people are just as eager to overthrow any said monarch in life as they are to most stupidly and most stubbornly insist upon clinging to and restoring a monarchy or dynasty in death… (If only they were as loyal when they were alive (you know, when loyalty to a regime actually truly matters) rather than when they were finally dead, but go figure).

repost

bump

It is kind of dumb I have to make this image, but fr.
Monarchist legitimatists are dumb.
>No, it's illegitimate!
I don't care for Bourbonists, Orléanist, or Bonapartists.
These dynasties are all long gone.
It was injustice for the Romanovs to be killed, but Nature is also cruel. Empires rise and fall. These monarchies weren't going to last forever; naturally, like with any lifeform, you'd persist and seek to maintain its longevity as much as possible (when it is a truly living regime).
Yet if it been more than 2+ generations and over 100+ years, time to bury the axe and quit.
It would be better to expect to establish a new bloodline or dynasty at this point.
Defecting to
>muh constitution
Isn't going to bring these old dynasties back, and that might as well be the Law of Nature as far as any regimes go (however decent you think they might be, their ruin is inevitable).
After a certain point, after 2+ generations of able-bodied fighters or intrigue for 100+ years, that is more than generous amount of time to seriously take a restoration effort (I know of no restoration happening after 70+ years max, so 100+ years is a generous amount of time as far as I know).
The most stupid part is these same exact people are just as eager to overthrow any said monarch in life as they are to most stupidly and most stubbornly insist upon clinging to and restoring a monarchy or dynasty in death… (If only they were as loyal when they were alive (you know, when loyalty to a regime actually truly matters) rather than when they were finally dead, but go figure).

I will never understand why people who reject monarchy still make the pretense of constitutional monarchy. Far from rejecting monarchy, they become like most monarchists in general (because most are constitutional monarchists). I'd rather see people who reject monarchy move on a leader or dictator figure.
It is the lamest, most trite hoary, uninspired old Victorian 19th century anachronistic fad of Monarchy imaginable.
It isn't as if mixed constitutionalism is an innovation. I'd agree it has been the default mode throughout the Middle Ages and so on, and like Jean Bodin says since the days of Aristotle and even before Aristotle to the time of Herodotus.
I understand the appeal to universal suffrage, but even the politicians people vote for nobody settles to have as a mere figurehead – rather they expect genuine leadership and governance. This prospect mustn't block off the Sun or the longing for leadership.
I guess because Hegel liked "constitutional monarchy" but again it was a fad of the Victorian era and to be frank a very insipid fad that never really engaged with monarchy.
I anticipate when people settle for constitutional monarchy, it is their own disbelief in the institution of monarchy itself: when people truly believe, the sky is the limit and they anticipate they can move mountains with the rulers. It is a lack of confidence in institutional Christianity and High Churchism and a also a lack of confidence in the idea of royalty in general, that makes people republicans for royalty (not trusting them to ride a horse) and rather the most avid monarchists for their great statesmen instead, treating them as prophets. That is all. (Not that people were ever shy to embrace an Absolutism of their own; that was never the case). It is just that embracing constitutional monarchy means rejecting monarchical preeminence entirely.
I cannot wait for the hegemony of this idea constitutional monarchy to face its next setback or be challenged again, but for now it continues to pervade.
Out of all the socialists I have encountered (& in contempt of the Windsorite r/monarchosocialism), I have to express that Ferdinand Lassalle is the only Western socialist who has seen the light and had the balls to renounce mixed constitutionalism (in spite of denouncing absolutism throughout his political career like in his speech No Compromise which details his contempt for pseudo-constitutionalism which he took as a victPost too long. Click here to view the full text.