ROFL thread with a "ROFL" in title - Page 1334

On January 21 2018 21:14 dnagardi wrote: Can someone explain that pic pls

You don't know what the red pill signifies? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill

The person who made the drawing believes that these are the people who "make you see reality for what it is", so if you don't know who they are or don't care for them, you are basically a deluded sheep.

On January 16 2018 09:11 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 15 2018 02:52 Loco wrote: /dead who is the black guy?

Thomas Sowell. The world needs more of him

Or you know.. they were just having fun

On January 22 2018 17:22 Spitfiree wrote: Or you know.. they were just having fun

lol i know right?

Yeah cuz it's not like there is a cult following around these people or anything. Much more likely that someone would spend a lot of time drawing them with an important symbol at the center which doesn't really mean what it shows, it's just 'for fun'. I guess we could look at the creator's twitter page if we want to make an educated guess...

On January 23 2018 02:28 Loco wrote: Yeah cuz it's not like there is a cult following around these people or anything. Much more likely that someone would spend a lot of time drawing them with an important symbol at the center which doesn't really mean what it shows, it's just 'for fun'. I guess we could look at the creator's twitter page if we want to make an educated guess...

says the man who thinks gender studies is a more serious science than evolutionary biology

Sorry, I said that? Mind reminding me with a quote? I think your recollection of our discussion on evolutionary psychology is really off here. The last we talked about evolutionary biology you were actually preaching an outdated evolutionary model. I didn't hear from you after I indicated that to you.

Btw, lol, I hope others don't fail to appreciate your comment in the light of the context here. That's a clear and unmissable "I'm redpilled and you're blue pilled" message. "Poor Loco's still asleep, he doesn't know da trooth about biology."

couldnt keep the discussion going because I had eye surgery, but I remember the discussion pretty well, also congratulations on going full retard on that last line my friend

Well, it looks like we both have a vested interest in believing that our memory and interpretation of that exchange is accurate. Good thing here is that you don't need to remember -- you can use the search function and post your evidence. It's an explicit accusation and it should be easy to substantiate with a quote.

"Going full retard" is you making a post in anger before reflecting on what you're going to say and using mockery as a replacement for argument. Your post condescendingly puts forth the proposition that I'm rather ignorant of evolutionary biology and I've been deceived to believe gender studies is a more legitimate field of study (not that I understand why one would insist on comparing their legitimacy). That implies that you know much more than I do about these subjects and that I am blind to it (otherwise how could you know?). If that's not unambiguously a redpill vs blue pill mentality, then I don't know what is.

The proposition itself is quite strange, considering the fact that I've shown that your claim about gender studies being entirely pointless/corrupt was, at worst, extremely dogmatic and at best, excusably ignorant. You even conceded the point, albeit only in a manner that your ego found acceptable (this after I had pushed you multiple times to explain why the Wikipedia page treats it as a legitimate field). It's also strange that you would make an implicit statement that you know more than I do about evolutionary biology when it's the second time now that you've avoided dealing with the fact that I have corrected you on your misunderstanding of basic evolutionary theory and human behavior.

I guess it's easily explained by the thought that you felt insulted that I would poke fun at a meme that includes people you respect and so you thought disrespecting me was a fair thing to do in return. I think it wasn't a proportional response though, unless you actually really think that these people are at forefront of ideas currently, lifting the veil of maya?

Its not anger at all lol, if I had to attach a feeling to my statement I would pick would be intellectual disssapointment, and lol under those lines then any disagreement can be put in the "im red pilled you are deluded" box, like right now, I guess you are redpilled and I'm fooled by these people.

I didn't imply I know more about you than evolutionary biology, I have no fucking clue how much you know obviously, It's strange I have to point these things to you, ironically you are doing exactly what you accuse me of, putting words in my mouth, also you havente corrected me in shit about evolutionary biology, I have no idea what the fuck are you talking about, go dig some quotes I guess, the thing we agreed on is that it is a complex issue and you believe its more nurture when I believe its more nature to summarize.

No I didnt disrepect you because I respect those people, I disrespected you because you have become disgustingly snobby, its funny you mentioned ego, and I think you are literally the preson with the biggest ego I know, you fell for the good ol' sage's ego trap and you are so deep in it you dont even see it.

I don't think I've changed much at all as a person over time. Only my interests and knowledge-base have changed significantly. In fact you were already making this "sage ego trap" argument ten years ago. I think you've always liked throwing that around because it's such a facile thing to do and it can't be disproven. It also sounds meta so that's cool right? My ego has always been a big deal to you. Similarly, I think you're still the same, but mostly still with the same talking points as well unfortunately. I think you would do well to reflect on this as part of a dynamic process between personalities, it's interrelational, not something static and inherent in a person. You don't know how I behave with others who aren't antagonistic like you are.

All I can say is that I've never heard that criticism in my personal life from either family or friends. I'm considered an extremely good listener and a very fair person. My father is someone who has suffered all his life from delusions of grandeur due to early childhood trauma, he has been compensating for a hurt ego all his life and one of my main goals was always to never become like him and to get to the bottom of everything and refuse to lie to myself no matter how much it hurts my feelings. Considering where I am at now and how I have continuously improved over time to the point where I have no seriously destructive habits left, I would say that I have many reasons to believe I have been largely successful. When people are not honest with themselves they destroy themselves and those around them. I'm also brutally aware of how little I know because every fucking day I spend hours reading people who know an enormous amount more than me. I spend 5-10 minutes reading a single page in a book sometimes. I have to read it over and over again because I'm just not that smart and I'm trying to get as much as possible out of it.

You're projecting with the snobbism accusation. You're the one who made a baseless accusation in a patronizing way here. I hadn't done anything to you or anyone here. You think it's a snobbish thing to react negatively to the pretentious content of someone whose entire intellectual life is ruled by conservative culture war talking heads. Really? Clearly you just can't get over the fact that I don't take these people seriously because I have an alternative which you seem to lack. That's too bad for you, but honestly it's your problem if you can't get over it. It's your ego that's feeling threatened, don't blame me for actually caring enough to get a proper intellectual education outside of the cesspool that is social media filter bubbles.

Again, you have this false impression that I'm just being prejudiced. I'm not criticizing anything out of a knee-jerk reaction, I take my time to make up my mind about things that I'm not educated about. In this case I've looked carefully at both sides of the debate and I've seen the errors and the impact of what is being preached by this crowd (and also the errors of the other side, but they don't have the kind of cult of personality and juvenile red pill stuff there at least). One instance of that impact was you posting that gender role documentary defending bio-essentialism (along with the snobbish comment that idiots believe in non-essentialism). I had to push you on this and force you to read a study which you thought made your point when it didn't.

Normal disagreements are not anything like dogmatic certainty without the ability to examine one's presuppositions. You can be emotionally invested in your opinions but also rigorous enough to study things carefully and always open to change your mind. That's not something you see out of redpillers, the whole thing is an echo chamber and they have zero interest in serious philosophical discourse. You can criticize blatant dogmatism and closed-mindedness without risking to fall prey to it.

I did correct you. You claimed that competition was the only constructive drive in nature. I linked you to clear evidence of the opposite. We can debate this any time if you are up to it (in a different thread). It's weird though, how do you reconcile your belief that people's egos should be small, yet according to you there is nothing else to life other than competition, i.e. egos competing with one another? Shouldn't you admire people with gigantic egos? Aren't they alpha? Or do you just pick and choose which ones are justified in having a gigantic ego depending on what is it they do and whether you fancy it or not?

By the way, this really bothers me for some reason. You are not a stupid person, so I have to entertain the thought that I'm wrong, but I sincerely can't see how someone can reasonably interpret this as anything other than a "I'm actually more knowledgeable about [biological] science than you" statement:

"says the man who thinks gender studies is a more serious science than evolutionary biology"

You say that I'm actually "putting words in your mouth". That baffles me. I'm saying that it's implied. I'd love to hear what other people think about this. How is this not meant to hurt my credibility as someone who is very interested in biology and not meant to bolster Baal's? What are the other interpretations that I fail to see? Obviously, from Baal's perspective, if I knew as much as him (or more), I couldn't be doing the mistake that he attributes to me here, no? But when he affirms this in such a strong way with that belittling tone, there doesn't seem to be any space for me possibly being as knowledgeable as he is on the subject.... I don't get it.

i remember baal saying something very out of date about evolutionary psychology , something you can only really say if you've never studied evolutionary psychology, at all. or at least not in the past 100 years. I chose not to comment because i knew loco would point it out anyway. Now he has pointed it out twice.

My discussions with Loco in 2017:

@ loco's pic.

there is a cult following around those 'philosophers', im only familiar with 3 of them but they are basically servants of power- or at least sowell and harris are. not sure about peterson. their beleifs are ideologically aligned to the powerful, so they get more media time, scholarships, than everyone else, ect. It is very easy to align your beleifs with them in turn if you don't want to challenge yourself at all. Harris is very uneducated on foreign policy, but claims to be the opposite. more importantly he lacks critical thinking skills on that topic. i don't like him. I dont know who bottom right is.

this is the ROFL thread

On January 23 2018 12:04 Stroggoz wrote: @ loco's pic. there is a cult following around those 'philosophers', im only familiar with 3 of them but they are basically servants of power- or at least sowell and harris are. not sure about peterson. their beleifs are ideologically aligned to the powerful, so they get more media time, scholarships, than everyone else, ect. It is very easy to align your beleifs with them in turn if you don't want to challenge yourself at all. Harris is very uneducated on foreign policy, but claims to be the opposite. more importantly he lacks critical thinking skills on that topic. i don't like him. I dont know who bottom right is.

None of them are philosophers. Harris is the only one who studied it but he only has a BA and he's a laughing stock in academia for refusing to engage with the philosophical literature on key issues (he also thinks he has solved the is-ought problem and his attempt is incredibly bad). Even Dennett called him out on his unwillingness/laziness and they're good friends. Is there something specific that Harris is actually educated about? I heard he basically bought his neuroscience PhD and never did any real research.

"servants of power" is one way to put it. That actually made Joe Rogan pop up in my mind. Surprised he didn't find his way on this picture.

On January 23 2018 11:03 Loco wrote: By the way, this really bothers me for some reason. You are not a stupid person, so I have to entertain the thought that I'm wrong, but I sincerely can't see how someone can reasonably interpret this as anything other than a "I'm actually more knowledgeable about [biological] science than you" statement: "says the man who thinks gender studies is a more serious science than evolutionary biology" You say that I'm actually "putting words in your mouth". That baffles me. I'm saying that it's implied. I'd love to hear what other people think about this. How is this not meant to hurt my credibility as someone who is very interested in biology and not meant to bolster Baal's? What are the other interpretations that I fail to see? Obviously, from Baal's perspective, if I knew as much as him (or more), I couldn't be doing the mistake that he attributes to me here, no? But when he affirms this in such a strong way with that belittling tone, there doesn't seem to be any space for me possibly being as knowledgeable as he is on the subject.... I don't get it.

Baal can take that belittling tone with anyone and from my perspective has many times throughout the history of LP. He is right a lot of the time but not all of the time. I don't know much about evolutionary biology and much of evolutionary psychology seemed like a jopke to me so I can't really comment further.

On January 23 2018 14:07 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On January 23 2018 12:04 Stroggoz wrote: @ loco's pic. there is a cult following around those 'philosophers', im only familiar with 3 of them but they are basically servants of power- or at least sowell and harris are. not sure about peterson. their beleifs are ideologically aligned to the powerful, so they get more media time, scholarships, than everyone else, ect. It is very easy to align your beleifs with them in turn if you don't want to challenge yourself at all. Harris is very uneducated on foreign policy, but claims to be the opposite. more importantly he lacks critical thinking skills on that topic. i don't like him. I dont know who bottom right is. None of them are philosophers. Harris is the only one who studied it but he only has a BA and he's a laughing stock in academia for refusing to engage with the philosophical literature on key issues (he also thinks he has solved the is-ought problem and his attempt is incredibly bad). Even Dennett called him out on his unwillingness/laziness and they're good friends. Is there something specific that Harris is actually educated about? I heard he basically bought his neuroscience PhD and never did any real research. "servants of power" is one way to put it. That actually made Joe Rogan pop up in my mind. Surprised he didn't find his way on this picture.

i put speech marks around the word 'philosophers', as in they think of themselves as philosophers but no one else in academia does (they are ridiculed by ur average 1st year grad student). I don't really respect academic philosophy either though, for the most part.