/siberia/ - Off-topic

>>784508
Sweet, another trap questions thread
1.59 seconds
2.one of them pay with a 15 plastic chip for all of them?
3.at least 125 pages, at most 648 pages
4.cut down in half 3 times in a row by having the pan match each time, pick 3 groups of the remaining 3 pounds stack
5.71 days, dismissing the last night.
6.monday, the first friday is on the 3th
7.if the table itself is not considered a box, and we don't have to count all the squares made by groups of smaller square, I think it's around 1011 squares (using pythagoras theorem), i you do have to count all those instances, I have no idea how you calculate that sorry
8.delete the first two sets of 1234,then the next 12.
9.yes, assuming he is born the last day of december and we are january 1st.
10.if the premise is correct, yes, on the other hand, cats should not posses weather predictive capacities.
11.I don't get it.
12.the professor is a woman and her husband is talking with her dad ?
13.don't know
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>784546
Sorry, I did not mean to insult anyone with these questions, I just wanted others to have fun solving them too….

Most of your answers are correct, I would like to hear your reasoning for questions 3, 6, 15
Some hints for you:
*2 is partialy correct, think about how they would pay her back.*
*instead of thinking about pythagoras for 7, think in terms of rows and columns.*
*for 10, which event causes which? the sneeze the rain or the rain the sneeze?*
*14: not necessary, think about what if only 2 were soiled?*
*15: you put equal amounts of milk into tea and vice versa, so…?*

No, don't care about 🦶
Mine are also fycked up

One time I had a fling with a guy who had a claw growing out of the top of his foot. I just pretended it wasn't there.

The beauty of lust is that it gives you high tolerance for physiognomic flaws

Pretty feet are non-negotiable

If they are 6/10 with feet like that, I assume the rest of their body must be angelic otherwise the maths doesn't add up.

>>783675
Do you have any evidence for the last point? I know it was repeated by lolbergs and contards trying to claim Orwell for themselves despite him being a Dems of, as well as that charlatan of Logo_Daedalus to sound clever, but he never substantiated it. If anything, it seems Orwell opposed to any reading on 1984 as being about the British empire at all: https://jacobin.com/2023/03/orwell-hayek-nineteen-eighty-four-totalitarianism-capitalism-socialism

In a letter to Francis A Henson, Orwell writes: https://lesamisdebartleby.wordpress.com/2020/11/13/george-orwell-lettre-a-francis-a-henson/

> The purpose of my latest novel is not to attack socialism or the British Labour Party (which I support), but to denounce the risks of a centralized economy and of which communism and fascism have already partly set an example. I don't believe that the type of society I describe must necessarily happen, but I believe (taking into account, of course, the fact that this book is a satire) that something similar could happen. I also believe that totalitarian ideas have penetrated the mentality of intellectuals everywhere, and I wanted to push these ideas to their logical consequences. I placed this book in Great Britain to show that English-speaking peoples are not by nature better than others, and that totalitarianism, if not fought, can triumph anywhere.

It's trotsky sympathist propaganda

>>783644
It's vegetarian propaganda according to Orwell himself

>However, the actual details of the story did not come to me for some time until one day (I was then living in a small village) I saw a little boy, perhaps ten years old, driving a huge cart-horse along a narrow path, whipping it whenever it tried to turn. It struck me that if only such animals became aware of their strength we should have no power over them, and that men exploit animals in much the same way as the rich exploit the proletariat.

>I proceeded to analyse Marx's theory from the animals’ point of view. To them it was dear that the concept of a class struggle between humans was pure illusion, since whenever it was necessary to exploit animals, all humans united against them: the true struggle is between animals and humans.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/orwell/1947/kolghosp-tvaryn.htm

No, it's Trot propaganda

Whatever George actually intended the book to be a critique of is meaningless, it has only ever been used as liberal propaganda therefore it is liberal propaganda

>autism
>better

Choose one
I’m tired of people glorifying autism as some misunderstood superpower.
Have you ever worked in special Ed?
Or lived with someone who has autism?

Autism > Dementia
Autism > Psychopathy

i don't think he would have been president to begin with if he had the 'tism, that's the truth

>>784469
This.
Elon Musk is in his fifties and has autism.
He doesn't have the macabre repertoire as Trump yet he will never be president because everyone thinks he's an awkward loser

>Sensory issues
>”safe foods”
>Doesn’t understand social cues (raping children is wrong)
>Odd speech patterns
He is already autistic

>>784389
You would probably blow your dick off on accident

>>784381
Maybe shoot off the comical size ammo in the woods then leave it there, pretty sure that thing ain't street legal

>>784381
try to shoot down gubermint aircraft what fly round my house

marry & make a household full of little AK74-U with her

Nippleon is western tho. France is western.

>>784461
He’s not a leftist though

>Napoleon defender
I feel like we have this thread once a month.
But either way I disagree with the notion that Napoleon "did more to destroy the forces of imperialism than any western leftist" because he crushed the democratic French revolution by making himself a Dictator then an Emperor, also what he tried to do to Haiti was pure evil. Although with the exception of Haiti he was historically progressive outside of France because he did ended feudalism in a lot of countries.

>>784173
I believe red is the first color, blue is second and yellow third

what is the uranium and anthrax for though

>1 teaspoon Uranium-235
can i substitute Uranium-235 for Americium-241

>>784172
Flavor

Bake at 420° F for 4 hours

>>783443
I haven't been on leftypol in 2 days >>783050 literally says "nta" in their post, though they summarized most of my points anyway. I won't bother responding to this diatribe for 2 reasons
1) You obviously have an angle and I have neither the time nor the fucks to give what (You) - an internet anon with an internalized American Exceptionalist view of this, thinks about Russia, its role in the war and world politics. I would rather touch grass and live life, as I have been doing.
2) This is a meme shitposting thread as I was quite clear in the title. I made it so as to NOT flood the main board with content of varied levels of quality and worth. You wanna debate Russia in the Ukrainian war seriously? Go to the leftypol ukraine war thread and post your grievances there. I or someone else may answer.
Either way I'm done and have been since before you replied again. You wana count that as a "win" or something go ahead, I don't care, I'm just here to clean my harddrive of worthless media I don't need.

>>783923
>You wana count that as a "win" or something
Okay, done. That's a forfeit.

>>784141
Good for you.

bump

>>776242
Like it or not, yes, that's what monarchy is.
Some constitutional monarchists will tout that a king does not rule alone—I personally deny that, even if there are assemblies or council… the chief definition of monarchy is one alone rules, and that fundamental law of monarchy is expressed through sovereignty in which form or constitution of a state or republic is defined primarily by one person's majesty or preeminence and some family alone stands out–and if not, then it's another form of state/republic such as a democracy or oligarchy where some other kind of government has the primacy… but we don't accept a mixed constitutional or the concordant notion of political pluralism like Aristotle's. As Hobbes says, the chief difference between the mixed constitutionalist and absolutist view is that rather it isn't the concord of many men, but the union–and the integrity of the republic is its sovereignty as the fundamental law, pertaining to three forms–and while there might be a confluence of members / elements of democracy or aristocracy, the purity of the primary form of state is maintained, be it a monarchy, oligarchy, or democracy, like Bodin defends and traces back to Herodotus (*and denies Plato acknowledged it in the Aristotle or Polybius established mixed constitutionalist ideals). That is the nuance–and while it seems anachronistic, I cannot really take monarchy any other way because mixed constitutionalism dilutes and renders monarchy irrelevant to begin with… so I personally still maintain the opinion of Bodin or Hobbes in the year 2026 tbh. I wouldn't have it any other way, even if it is not very fashionable, lol

I personally do not accept the mixed constitutionalist view when it comes to monarchy for numerous reasons. Like Jean Bodin says it makes a monarch into no more than a mean magistrate and overall tends to favor elective monarchy since it stresses concord and rule by turns/rotational government since monarchy is but one lesser estate among other heads… to have it as one part monarchy, one part oligarchy, one part democracy considers monarchy merely as a mere part in relation to the state and not the majesty or sovereignty of the whole state… like Jean Bodin says the outcome usually is plain democracy like mixing paint together… and I hate t it because then there is no definitive form of state and no pretense to say the state no longer is a monarchy… which is important to me because Mixed constitutionalists just don't care about the 3 forms of the herodotus debate and that particular quality… same I'd say even for Plato who might say in Laws that it's merely the rule of a faction to maintain a particular form of state… but rather appeal to good policy/law or aristocracy/good government in general… but I am not really content with what some traditionalists or integralists or conservatives have in mind with just any vague notion of good government– so like Bodin I'm not for confounding the forms… and I don't take it for the partiality of a faction, but as Hobbes says the civil soul. So I definitely maintain a definite kind of sovereignty as is customary for absolute monarchists and dates back to Herodotus…
Mixed constitutionalism is a declaration of war against all notions of monarchical preeminence and majesty to me.
That is all I have to say there and why I am the way I am.

The general policy I have in mind is particularly like I outlined with Corgism, lol, a cult of personality–with the customs of absolute monarchists–I can't vibe with esotericists/metaphysicians/integralists/mixed constitutionalists because they aspire to just any vague idea of good government/aristocracy, what I have in mind is a unique form of familialism/cult of personality, very specific, and it feels droll/lifeless to me to not stress this quality.

We need a new thread.

REQUEST
Will janitors archive this thread for me at siberia archive?