/siberia/ - Off-topic

>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?

cat
I'm a kitty cat
and I meow meow meow
and I meow meow meow

>>784254
I take the gaz chamber

>>784253
>Eastern lastname.
In my experience, dutch woman are the most manly looking. Estonian women are among the most feminine of the barbarian tribes.

>>784254
I'll fist her. Don't care. Dirty Sanchez, redwings. I'll do it all.

My dick doesn't have an ideology. However my brain does and blasting a kid in the womb of a political enemy is so fucking hot.

hatefuck would be legendary
imagine, the cold nights, the hunger with which you devour her forbidden fruit
she kicking you with the boots and whip she carried everywhere
your cuckquean jewish waifu watching in disbelief
that last look before she chops your dick off and shoots you dead

>>784075
>Fantasy peaked with Tolkien, because Tolkien didn't intend to create a genre, but simply to create a mythology for the anglo-saxons
You're acting like there aren't legions of well-off writers, that publish their own sprawling worldbuilding materials.

>most of the next fantasy writers haven't even read Beowulf, the Odyssey or the Illiad, without any reading, no great story can be written.
If these works were what specifically lead to the creation of Tolkien's books and others, that are revered by their respective genres, the things that were compelling about their ancient predecessors should still be found within them. There is nothing to suggest understanding the works of Tolkien couldn't lead to someone writing fiction of equal quality, except some misguided notion of historical or societal purity.

>muh talent
Like any creative work, a book is often not well received particularly for the authors writing skills or sometimes even in spite of them, for example it is widely agreed that Isaac Asimov's prose is relatively lackluster. The variation in craft also makes it hard to pinpoint what "good writing" exactly means, except by superficial metrics like vocabulary or on an argumentative case-by-case basis.

I think your view of the past is biased through curation, not only the fact only the most highly regarded of past works are preserved, also the incessant splintering of literature into micro-genres ( compare "magical realism" > sth-"punk" > "mechsploitation"; ao3 trends are now genres). It is genuinely hard to find the worthwhile stuff, not only because genre authors are incentivized to optimize for output. Yet in almost every genre, there is something compelling, which makes people think, and for each piece of low-quality dreg, there is a better book it draws from and may be a better book inspired by it in the future.

>>784085
>You're acting like there aren't legions of well-off writers, that publish their own sprawling worldbuilding materials.
Tolkien didn't write "worldbuilding materials" he wrote a mythology, it's a very different, there is no spiritual or religious meaning in worldbuilding, unlike in what Tolkien wrote.
>If these works were what specifically lead to the creation of Tolkien's books and others, that are revered by their respective genres, the things that were compelling about their ancient predecessors should still be found within them.
Tolkien took some things from traditional texts and gave up others, you can't recreate the ancient texts from Tolkien's Fantasy as a genre is a attempt to recreate myths for the modern day, how can one do this if they haven't read the ancient ones ? At the Very least the Homeric ones.

>Like any creative work, a book is often not well received particularly for the authors writing skills or sometimes even in spite of them, for example it is widely agreed that Isaac Asimov's prose is relatively lackluster.
Asimov, had some litteraraty value despite his prose. I don't think we can say the same for most writers nowadays.

>The variation in craft also makes it hard to pinpoint what "good writing" exactly means, except by superficial metrics like vocabulary or on an argumentative case-by-case basis.
Sure, but you can have a general sense of it, to take the lowest of the dredge, I don't think ai writing is any good for exemple. Formulaic sloppy writing like the ones most popular nowadays is similar.

>I think your view of the past is biased through curation, not only the fact only the most highly regarded of past works are preserved, also the incessant splintering of literature into micro-genres ( compare "magical realism" > sth-"punk" > "mechsploitation"; ao3 trends are now genres). It is genuinely hard to find the worthwhile stuff, not only because genre authors are incentivized to optimize for output. Yet in almost every genre, there is something compelling, which makes people think, and for each piece of low-quality dreg, there is a better book it draws from and may be a better book inspired by it in the future.
My point mPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>784090
>Wheras in the XIXth century, the most popular pieces of litterature were still fairly good, the Count of Monte Cristo is once again a great exemple, it was read by fairly poor people and it's a genuinly great work of art that is incredibly better then anything published nowadays.
If poor people did read as much as you're suggesting, i agree somewhat. However i do still think you're overestimating the quality of 19th century literature. For one, what might be challenging to a reader of the modern age might have seemed far more leisurely to contemporaries, who had direct access to most of the linguistic and cultural context. Consider also the literature of the romantic movement, which was highly philosophical and artfully written, yet vapid and substanceless so much so, that Hegel hated it with a passion (and i do as well). I recognize the value that older works have in impact alone, yet i maintain most of our attention should be directed towards contemporary authors, since their curation remains a pending task.

>>784065
>>784074
>LitRPG
This one really gets to me.

Firstly, I feel like fantasy lives or dies on the authenticity of its world and you're deliberately going for fucking video game bullshit.

Secondly, there actually have been novel series based around a group of friends sitting down and playing an RPG together. It's just that they tried to take their RPG experience and translate it into something that feels like an authentic fantasy world.

>>784217
Well the second level of fantasy worldbuilding is the "cram everything I remotely like in"