bla bla bla sexism bla bla bla HN

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5391667

>>80
I think we were talking about a female. Patti Smith?

>>81
No, about Adria Richards the filthy jewess who suck nigger cocks.

OP here.

This is fucking hilarious, again.

This is my favorite sexism scandal since the whole upskirt/pantyshot/misaka debacle.

>>59
The level of homosexual faggotry in that thread is so obscene that I became physically uncomfortable.

>>84
You got a boner?

I MAD THAT I CAN'T STICK MY MEAT STICK INTO A MEAT HOLE AND EJACULATE PROTEIN WHICH RELEASES DOPAMINE AND SERATONIN IN THE MEAT CONTAINED IN MY SKULL!

>>86
That's called "dumbing down". Instead of all the edgy atheists these days who don't believe in anything, I'm the opposite: I'm a pantheist and I believe everything is one huge cosmic consciousness. Makes things have more pretty colors and smells.

>>87
Reductionist here.
Let the light bounce off the pixels that indicate my post number, and proceed to check 'em.

>>88
Light doesn't bounce off black pixels.

>>87
I perfer "dubbing down". Instead of all the edgy athiests nihilists who don't believe in anything, I'm the opposite; I'm a dubsthiest, and I believe everything is one huge set of repeating digits. Makes things have more pretty GETs and checks.

I wrote all that and >>88 stole my dubs.

>>88-89
Neither of you understand how LCDs work.

>>87,90
s/atheists/agnostic atheists

fixd that for you niggers
you can't be just purely "agnostic" or purely "atheist"
you can however be Master Race Gnostic Deist

>>88
Since you're a reductionist, explain what you think about entropy. According to modern physics time is just another dimension, and not ticks of some cellular automaton. So why does entropy increase relative to time, and why do we perceive time in that particular direction? What do you think of all the string theory shit? 11 dimensions etc?

My personal belief is that entropy does not in fact increase relative to time, but to an observer. But then again my opinion doesn't matter to you since I believe in obscure things like consciousness and love.

>>93
But then again my opinion doesn't matter to you since I believe in obscure things like consciousness and love.
Do you believe in them as being separated from our physical reality or simply being ideas implemented in terms of physical things (i.e. the brain)?

>>93
it's all just one big fart, man

>>94
The latter, but I like to pretend they are separate from physical reality. I especially like the act of observation affecting things; not like how it is obvious that to observe something you have to hit it with a photon, but that the act of observation can transcend even time. I also want to pretend it is possible to send (non-random) information via quantum entanglement or instantaneous gravity, since my brain could be linked to some alien's brain a billion lightyears away.

>>96
The latter, but I like to pretend they are separate from physical reality.
I'm the same yet I consider myself a reductionist. I mean, obviously if nothing has intrinsic meaning, it's one's responsibility to give things meaning.

I also want to pretend it is possible to send (non-random) information via quantum entanglement or instantaneous gravity, since my brain could be linked to some alien's brain a billion lightyears away.
Someone's definitely been watching too much Star Trek.

>>97
Someone's definitely been watching too much Star Trek.
I have never watched Star Trek.
it's one's responsibility to give things meaning.
I don't give things meaning, but extract them from my environment. In fact I try to not give things meaning because then I am slaved to my own thought patterns; I try to think in "objective" terms even though I know/believe that even objectivity is subjective.

>>98
Why do you assume that the meanings that people in your environment give to things are correct? Don't you know that most people are fucking retards?

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/ LEL

>>99
Why do you assume that the meanings that people in your environment give to things are correct?
Go with the flow etc. (Actually I don't, but I think the environment cannot be a creation of my brain since it is always insisting so.)

Don't you know that most people are fucking retards?
But I am even more retarded. If not, then I am a complete waste of intelligence. Damn, I am starting to get enlightened here! I used to think the universe is a waste, not me, since it couldn't cook up anything better than this particular sack of shit I am, but now I must understand that even in Arcadia death is present - am I deep in the rabbit hole yet?

>>101
(Actually I don't, but I think the environment cannot be a creation of my brain since it is always insisting so.)
We're not arguing about whether the environment exists, we're arguing as to how you should react to it. What I'm saying is that you should recognize that you are a separate, individual physical entity with the capacity to reason, and that you should be very sceptical of whatever the environment tells you. Not because the environment might not exist (for some definition of "existing", at least), but because the information that you have (and gain) as a physical entity is very very scarce (since you cannot be in several places at the same time and because you can only process a very limited amount of data per unit time), and it's very easy for your brain to play tricks on you and arrive at the wrong conclusions due to not having enough data points or simply by statistical coincidence. And when it comes to giving meanings to things, there is absolutely no reason you should trust another's judgement more than your own; after all, the act itself is inherently a private and subjective one.

If not, then I am a complete waste of intelligence.
We all are. Every single human who has had to die is a waste of intelligence. Sometimes when I read a wikipedia article about a mathematician and I glance at their date of death, it just makes me really sad.

>>102
You seem to give too much weight to your assumption that I define my thoughts from other people rather than simply the environment, i.e. nature. Usually if it works I consider it to be correct.

you should be very sceptical of whatever the environment tells you
But my very reasoning is heavily influenced by my experiences. If I am always right and everyone/everything is wrong, then I must live in a world of wrong. Who would want that? I'd rather believe everything is love, even if pretty fucking bitter-sweet or kinky love.

We all are. Every single human who has had to die is a waste of intelligence. Sometimes when I read a wikipedia article about a mathematician and I glance at their date of death, it just makes me really sad.
To be honest I expected some insult. 4chan must be in a good mood today.

>>103
This is world4ch, silly!

>>104
I'm such a baka.

>>103
You seem to give too much weight to your assumption that I define my thoughts from other people rather than simply the environment, i.e. nature.
Okay, then I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Could you explain and maybe give a concrete example?

But my very reasoning is heavily influenced by my experiences.
I'm having mixed feelings about this. I'll split it into two quotes and deal with each accordingly.

But my very logical/mathematical reasoning is heavily influenced by my experiences.
Well, you were taught logical thinking, formally or not. Or maybe you're a genius and you reinvented it all by yourself. Either way, you can start off from a very small set of logical axioms which you can accept as "obviously" true, then work your way up from there towards statistics and other ways to interpret and analyze reality. My point is, you can convince yourself that any result obtained in this manner, given that the assumptions it uses are true, is also true, and this process does not depend on your later experiences (unless they consist of a sharp blow to the head).

But my very underlying assumptions [which I manipulate via some more-or-less formal logical rules] is heavily influenced by my experiences.
That is absolutely correct. Even the best reasoner in the world will come to the wrong conclusion if they start with one wrong assumption. This is why I said that it's very important to carefully pick your assumptions and "be difficult" about the things you are willing to accept as facts or (more alarmingly, since it can be used to manipulate people) meanings for things.

If I am always right and everyone/everything is wrong, then I must live in a world of wrong.
It is unlikely that literally everyone is wrong (given that there are 7bil people on the planet), but you could safely state that most of them are extremely wrong on at least one thing.

Who would want that?
If that's the way the world is, you have to accept it and go on from there.

I'd rather believe everything is love, even if pretty fucking bitter-sweet or kinky love.
I'm not sure I understand. But I'm pretty sure it's not mutually exclusive to accepting that most things and people are wrong.

>>106
Well, you were taught logical thinking, formally or not. Or maybe you're a genius and you reinvented it all by yourself.
I don't think our definitions of "logical thinking" match. I definitely was not "taught" logical thinking unless by logical thinking you mean things like "what is a Taylor series" or "what is long division".
Either way, you can start off from a very small set of logical axioms which you can accept as "obviously" true, then work your way up from there towards statistics and other ways to interpret and analyze reality.
I kind of get it but my logic could still very well be illogical. For example I believe a micro-scale self-contradiction can cause a system to be less self-contradicting on a macro scale, and vice versa. But this is all just masturbation of course.
If that's the way the world is, you have to accept it and go on from there.
What if it's not? If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
I'm not sure I understand. But I'm pretty sure it's not mutually exclusive to accepting that most things and people are wrong.
Oh, to clarify, I don't like to differentiate from the outside world. As a kid I used to have a strong independent ego, but now it has sort of melted and dissolved. I like agreeing with people, I like "being one" with the world. But that could be the wrong way to think.

>>107
I don't think our definitions of "logical thinking" match. I definitely was not "taught" logical thinking unless by logical thinking you mean things like "what is a Taylor series" or "what is long division".
No, man, I'm talking about this shit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic that stands at the foundation of stuff like Taylor series and long division.

I kind of get it but my logic could still very well be illogical. For example I believe a micro-scale self-contradiction can cause a system to be less self-contradicting on a macro scale, and vice versa. But this is all just masturbation of course.
A system can't be contradictory. It just means one of your assumptions or your analysis of it is erroneous, and that causes you to perceive it as contradictory. I might not be understanding what you're saying, so please expand on this and possibly give an example.

What if it's not? If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
I'm pretty sure you're supposed to change the theory and/or stare harder at the facts.

I like agreeing with people, I like "being one" with the world. But that could be the wrong way to think.
People are fucking retarded, I really recommend against agreeing with them easily.

>>108
No, man, I'm talking about this shit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic that stands at the foundation of stuff like Taylor series and long division.
Logic is scary, because it causes things you did not know to exist. Also, you learn of patterns that live in the essence of information/existence/whatever. It could just be my perception of these things that scares me, though.

A system can't be contradictory. It just means one of your assumptions or your analysis of it is erroneous, and that causes you to perceive it as contradictory. I might not be understanding what you're saying, so please expand on this and possibly give an example.
Think of evolution. Things try to destroy each other, yet it leads to things that survive better. There are other things like prisoner's dilemma.
This is a stupid one but whatever: In an episode of Index, Touma and Stiyl were disrupting each other while trying to fight an enemy, but that fact caused the enemy to lose because she could not predict what they were doing.

>>109
I think the word you are looking for is "ironic", not contradictory.

>>110
FUCK YOU I HATE YOU GFDSG DF GFDSGSDF STOP MOCKIG ME FAGSHIT GAD GFGSF GJSDFGDF DIE IN A FIRE

>>111
FUCK YOU I HATE YOU GFDSG DF GFDSGSDF STOP MOCKIG ME FAGSHIT GAD GFGSF GJSDFGDF DIE IN A FIRE

>>112
fucking autist

>>112
le sussman face

>>114
oh no you didn't. YOU FUCKING DIDN'T.

LISP          LISPLISPLISP    LISPLISPLISP    LISPLISPLISP
LISP              LISP        LISP            LISP    LISP
LISP              LISP        LISP            LISP    LISP
LISP              LISP        LISPLISPLISP    LISPLISPLISP
LISP              LISP                LISP    LISP
LISP              LISP                LISP    LISP
LISPLISPLISP  LISPLISPLISP    LISPLISPLISP    LISP

Yummy : http://www.memecenter.com/fun/2319167/living-with-hipstergirl-and-gamergirl

>>17
LOL tonight I was supposed to sleep over at my GF's parents but she sent me home because I had sharts in my pants!