How do you cope with all the bullshit in society? It seems like

>>18363060

Shit, I made it to the second paragraph and I already was done with your pretentiousness.

I can't hear your opinions because you are so full of yourself it's a turn off. Even if you were right, I wouldn't hold a conversation with you.

Hope that gives you a starting point for your problem.

File: 1471479436624.gif (1MB, 367x330px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 367x330px

>>18363060

You seem like a very unpleasant person with a lot of dumb, red-pilled opinions. I don't think society has much to do with the fact that its just not fun to talk to you.

It was too long for me to read

>>18363075
well thats unfortunate. OP made some salient points. you should try arguing instead of disregarding.
>>18363079
same.
>>18363083
same.

idk OP at some point you gotta just stop giving a shit and work you create your own little slice of reality that works for you.

>>18363075
also you have nothing to go off of for OP being full of themselves because you haven't even begun to attempt to refute their points. that's like if I say, "why don't people understand that froyo isn't the same as icecream" and then you say I'm pretentious for positing that and you won't engage. see what I'm getting at? OP posited some thoughts, you have no idea if they're a pretentious ass and the only way to know that is if you present salient arguments and they just lose their shit like that thunderfoot guy.

>>18363121
>well thats unfortunate. OP made some salient points. you should try arguing instead of disregarding.

Tip for life: First impression matters. Talk like a 15 yo that thinks the Joker is the thing ever, get treated like a kid with no life experience. I know for a fact that if you say this outside of an academic paper or a movie monologue, then you are just trying to hard

>You can't point out that philosophers merely try to monopolise the ability to make unfalsifiable statements.

Sorry, but that's the thing. If you really feel talking like that is "fine", then you clearly don't talk to people all that much. How informed can you opinion be if you sound 15 AND just proved you barely talk to other people? Again, maybe you are right, but you are making no effort to actually reach me. Why should I make the effort for you if you own't do it for me?

>>18363130
that said, OP, some of that shit is just life, always has been life, always will be life, changes very little over time. being angry once in awhile or frustrated about it is normal but frankly if you're angry about it all the time you got problems that you need to sort.

>>18363121

>OP made some salient points

No, he didn't. At all. He just rattled off a bunch of jaded, anecdotal observations and tired old /r9k/ propaganda. Perhaps if more people disregarded his delusions he might get tired of being mocked and rejected and pull his head out of his ass.

He's pissed off because people don't want to talk to him about his extensive victim complex. He's an asshole. Sounds about right.

>>18363132
I'm not OP anon. there's a reason I referenced to OP in the third person lol

>>18363130
>you have no idea if they're a pretentious ass

Yes I know. I read what he writes.

>>18363136
>You're called dumb if you say you find any famous and old books boring. You're not allowed to call out the incoherence and subjectivity of literary theory. You can't point out that philosophers merely try to monopolise the ability to make unfalsifiable statements. You can't point out any subjectivity at all or else you'll be abused for pointing out the appealing to authority nature or the arbitrariness of accepted axioms.
literally the state of the psychological and social sciences professions right now. theres studies you can look up on both sides of the argument. I'm just a dude trying to trick captcha into thinking road signs are cars, I'm not putting effort into OP's thoughts enough to go find sources. people that can't or wont' engage anything they don't like and resort to ad hom just annoy me.

You can't point out that women live lives on easy mode (easy sex and relationships, all sorts of additional educational and professional help). You can't say that 20 % of men get 80 % of the sex and that being introverted or ugly as a male is a social death sentence. We have tinder / dating site data screaming that 80 % of men are on the social shitheap but still you can't say a thing.
I mean he provided a source, idk how valid it is but there's one there. I don't agree with him but there's an argument there. I just don't care enough to argue with him. not gonna ad hom him though.

Society has moved to the point where expertise comes in thousands of varieties (e.g., mathematician, bricklayer, football player) yet bullshitting is the only fungible skill. Pseudo intellectuals pretend that reading about, for example, football will give you an understanding of football. As if the words are all you need and the experience of playing it means nothing. The words are nothing.
experience vs knowledge argument. been raging for fucking decades.

salient points.

>>18363138
no you know he's got views you don't like.

>>18363150
ugh, my formatting is horrendous there.

>You're called dumb if you say you find any famous and old books boring. You're not allowed to call out the incoherence and subjectivity of literary theory. You can't point out that philosophers merely try to monopolise the ability to make unfalsifiable statements. You can't point out any subjectivity at all or else you'll be abused for pointing out the appealing to authority nature or the arbitrariness of accepted axioms.
literally the state of the psychological and social sciences professions right now. theres studies you can look up on both sides of the argument. I'm just a dude trying to trick captcha into thinking road signs are cars, I'm not putting effort into OP's thoughts enough to go find sources. people that can't or wont' engage anything they don't like and resort to ad hom just annoy me.

>You can't point out that women live lives on easy mode (easy sex and relationships, all sorts of additional educational and professional help). You can't say that 20 % of men get 80 % of the sex and that being introverted or ugly as a male is a social death sentence. We have tinder / dating site data screaming that 80 % of men are on the social shitheap but still you can't say a thing.
I mean he provided a source, idk how valid it is but there's one there. I don't agree with him but there's an argument there. I just don't care enough to argue with him. not gonna ad hom him though.

>Society has moved to the point where expertise comes in thousands of varieties (e.g., mathematician, bricklayer, football player) yet bullshitting is the only fungible skill. Pseudo intellectuals pretend that reading about, for example, football will give you an understanding of football. As if the words are all you need and the experience of playing it means nothing. The words are nothing.
experience vs knowledge argument. been raging for fucking decades.

salient points.

File: 1396339560135.gif (629KB, 295x221px) Image search: [Google]

629KB, 295x221px

>>18363130

>you haven't even begun to attempt to refute their points

What points are you talking about? He made no points. He just made a bunch of generalizations about society based on his personal experiences while providing nothing resembling tangible proof to support it.

>"why don't people understand that froyo isn't the same as icecream"

That is a dumb analogy. The difference between froyo and ice cream is a scientifically verifiable and objective difference. OP's anecdotical ramblings about how women live life on easy mode and bullshitting is the only fungible skill is nothing but opinions based on his personal observations.

You can't make a claim based on anecdotal evidence, provide no tangible proof, and then demand that people provide you evidence for why you're wrong.

Someone doesn't just get to spew a bunch of opinions and unverifiable psuedoscience then cross his arms and say "prove me wrong." That isn't how debate works. That isn't how logic works.

If OP wants to provide some kind of logical argument then we can provide a logical answer. Until then, it is not our responsibility to hold his hand through the process of communicating ideas like an adult and observing life through an objective lens then be blamed when his shitty, entitled attitude is mocked and rejected.

>>18363152

>no you know he's got views you don't like.

Its 2017 and its now acceptable to frame your idiotic rambling as "opposing views". When someone doesn't like what an idiot you're being you can just claim you have "opposing views" and you no longer have to take responsibility for the shitty things that come out of your mouth.

>>18363152

No, that's the thing. I don't know what "famous and old books" he doesn't like. I don't know who he is trying to explain "literary theory" to. I don't know which "philosophers" he is talking about (Is Jaden Smith one of them? Who knows.)

I don't know his opinions. I just know he writes like a pompous ass. That's the only thing I'm sure about.

>>18363137

I know you are not OP. But you think what he says is valid and well articulated, don't you?

Read my post again. If you think he "made some salient points" then you are as childish as him.

>>18363060
Personally I keep my head down and avoid people. 80 or 90 percent of people are evil selfish fuckers. The best you can do is find hobbies you enjoy and try to focus on whatever good people you befriend.

You aren't alone though. Even hyper intelligent rich people are alcoholics or off themselves quite a bit.

>>18363158
>>18363157
not my fault your not on the same page with the realities involved. there is actual studies going on in all of these areas. maybe OP should have posted them, but maybe that work isn't worth it unless people engage without just going straight to ad hom cause they don't like what he says.

like I said, I don't give a shit about his arguments. my argument is that you shouldn't go straight to ad hom. I'm just making posts and fucking up google's captcha system.
>>18363161
>>18363157
you can also look at this. these are real points covered by real research. OP didn't present it right but this is not personal opinions of OP.

>>18363166
>you are as childish as him
friendly reminder that ad hom still... is not an argument.

>>18363168
>OP didn't present it right

That's the point. OP talks like a dumb asshole. Until he gets his shit together and he makes an effort to reach people, we will continue to dismiss him. It's not society's job to understand you. It's your job to make yourself understood.

>>18363171

Mmmm... I didn't point out why he was being a child in the first post. The post that says: "If you think OP is how people talk, then the problem is that you don't know how to talk."

Feel free to dispute my argument, though. So far you didn't even tried.

>>18363175

>>18363171

Shit, typo. "I DID point out"

Okay..I can kinda understand where you're coming from but you can't control people man. It's sorta like a hivemind I think, everyone kinda acts the same(in semi groups if you wanna get a little technical), but that doesn't mean that there aren't good people out there. Far and few between as that may be, why are stressing about it in the first palce? Hahaha, just worry about yourself. And be the change you want to see the world, you wanna be different than do that.

>>18363175
>>18363175
>"If you think OP is how people talk, then the problem is that you don't know how to talk."
there is no post ITT that says that. backpedaling and changing your argument immediately means you concede the point.

as far as that argument goes, everyone talks differently and we are on a mongolian venting board so things are real different here.

don't forget to fuck with your captcha too. when it wants cars give it signs. vice versa.

>>18363186
*high five* now that's a comment.

>"I see where you're coming from but, [here's my stance]"

>>18363188
>First impression matters. Talk like a 15 yo that thinks the Joker is the thing ever, get treated like a kid with no life experience. I know for a fact that if you say this outside of an academic paper or a movie monologue, then you are just trying to hard

What does this mean to you? I want to know what my point was on that post, because clearly I'm "backpedaling" and I made another point earlier.

Can you tell me what my first point was?

>>18363196
idk, its kinda hard due to the grammar. something about talking about the joker (which OP didn't do) invalidating OP's points; and not being able to have serious discussion outside of an academic paper or movie monologue.

I think your first point was ad hom as well.

File: 1472008001457.gif (1MB, 300x167px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x167px

>>18363168

>there is actual studies going on in all of these areas

If someone asks me to substantiate my claim in a debate, walking to the mic and saying "studies exist to support my claim" is not a valid form of proof. When making a claim the burden is on you to prove you're correct, not on everyone else to prove you wrong.

Criticizing people for not being aware of whatever objective reality you've managed to create for yourself is also not any valid or convincing method of communication.

Using confirmation bias to collect the studies and statistics that prove the things you already believe to be true and ignoring any contradictory evidence isn't scientific process, its glorified propaganda.

>my argument is that you shouldn't go straight to ad hom

Why not? I don't know why dignifying a petulant child's hissy fit with some kind of thoughtful, constructive answer is somehow considered the proper way to engage people. Why am I, the responder, obligated to meet this benchmark of intellectualism when the argument I'm responding to is tantamount to an aspergers meltdown?

If you want to have a structure debate, then have one; don't spew a bunch of toxic, unsubstantiated bullshit with the grace and thoughtfulness of a 12 year old child and then insult people for not treating it with the respect of a PhD dissertation.

>>18363211
>I think your first point was ad hom as well.

Then you don't get what "Ad Hominem" means.

>not being able to have serious discussion

Again, if you say this:

>You can't point out that philosophers merely try to monopolise the ability to make unfalsifiable statements.

You are not being serious, you are being pretentious. Also, don't think I'm so dumb as to not see you are OP. At least show some respect. OP disappears and some random Anon picks up his fight? Give us a break. Put some effort into things, dude. That's another reason why people don't take you seriously.

>>18363216
I'm not OP. I'm under no burden of proof. I'm essentially shitposting at ad hom posters out of boredom and to fuck with captcha.

there are studies, I'm not your info broker lol.

If you want to have a structure debate, then have one; don't spew a bunch of toxic, unsubstantiated bullshit with the grace and thoughtfulness of a 12 year old child and then insult people for not treating it with the respect of a PhD dissertation.
again, I'm not OP, and ad hom still is not an argument. it hasn't changed in the last 5 minutes lol.

>>18363219
>OP disappears and some random Anon picks up his fight
rofl. I didn't on multiple of his points.

this is why boards without IDs are fucking cancer lol.

>>18363228

Sure, sure. OP made a thread, and just left. Glad to see you care so much about his image and about how people talk to him. Such nice, selfless people are hard to come by nowadays.

>>18363233
no I care about your ability to talk to people

>>18363236

Thanks! You are so nice. Talking about ability to talk to people: OP should learn to present his ideas. No one will take him seriously like this.

>>18363225

Ok I get it, you just keep saying "ad hom" over and over because you think slapping the label of a logical fallacy onto an argument is some kind of substitute for actually responding using your brain. You're a troll who has Wikipedia bookmarked on your browser. Got it.

>>18363243
nicer than all the people insulting me when I'm not even OP lmao.

>>18363248
no, when you insult the person speaking instead of what they are saying that's ad hom. it makes anything you say shit by association. like all of what you just said, shit, because you implied that I'm a troll with wikipedia bookmarked.

I keep saying ad hom cause you keep doing it. it's really very common unfortunately. as much as you think that its unfortunate that
>Its 2017 and its now acceptable to frame your idiotic rambling as "opposing views"
I think it's unfortunate that insults are commonly considered arguments.

>>18363253

Yeah, you are not OP. Please, stop insulting our intelligence like that. Again, show respect if you want respect.

>>18363264

Isn't calling us "ad hom posters" and ad hom argument? Or that post wasn't yours, too?

This one I mean: >>18363225

>>18363264
also fuck, I gave captcha legit answers. one more.

want to know something more interesting that this entire thread? there's actually a pretty intelligent AI running captcha, training the AI analyzing data for google. it will literally give you captchas that are harder for you to lie on if it thinks you're giving it false information.

>>18363268
>Yeah, you are not OP
ah then we agree.
>>18363270
no, it's factually correct. you are posting ad hom arguments.

>>18363279
>no, it's factually correct. you are posting ad hom arguments.

And OP is talking like a whinny kid, that's why we call him a whinny kid. Why is that WE are the Ad Hom bunch when we call him what he is, but YOU are the logical one when you call us what we are?

>>18363286
because calling him a whinny kid is a subjective observation and calling you an ad hom poster is an objective one. I'm operating on a definition that is widely agreed upon since ancient times as a violation of the rules (if you will) of civil discourse. you are operating on your emotions.

>>18363296
also whiny. the word is "whiny".

>>18363296
>you are operating on your emotions.

What is a "whinny kid"? People here (and in OP's life) seem to agree on what he is. Is it more likely that we are all wrong or just that you (and OP) are in the wrong here?

If people had to agree on what "Ad Hominem" is, then we can agree on what "Whinny Kid" is, don't you think?

>>18363297

Sorry, English is my second language and this computer doesn't spellcheck in English. I'll make a few mistakes.

>>18363300
>and in OP's life
you don't have a basis to make that claim.

also, I don't know how I'm in the wrong for calling out ad hom statements and experimenting with the captcha AI lol. I don't even agree with half of OP's points.

and no we can't agree on what "whiny kid" means cause I don't agree with your version of whiny kid already. it also wouldn't change the fact that calling someone a whiny kid is still ad hom lmao.

>>18363319

If you are a "whiny kid", then it's not Ad Hominem. It's a factual statement.

>>18363333
it's still an insult. the nature doesn't change just because you have an agreed upon definition of it lol. it would still be ad hom. but while we're in fantasy land, what if I had a spaceship, wouldn't that be cool?

File: WindyTautFinwhale.webm (920KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

920KB, 640x360px

OP, try to remember that these people are pretentious and arrogant because they're insecure and weak.

We've been fed a bunch of lies and most of us continue to be fed a bunch of lies on a regular basis. It's the fabric of society.

Just try to help out however you can. Most people aren't ready for huge bombshells like you're dropping, but sometimes you can spoonfeed them applesauce with the tiniest bits of cinnamon mixed in.

I personally have made it into a perverted kind of humor that no one understands. It probably really annoys my workmates, but laughing is important.

File: 1431891720343.jpg (214KB, 345x336px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 345x336px

>>18363132
You sound like a woman.

>>18363405
still ad hom.

the really weird thing is i get the feeling there's someone feeling really smug right now going "i bet he doesn't say ad hom when I turn my trip on and insult the people disagreeing with op.

I could be completely wrong.

>>18363360
>it's still an insult.

Here's the thing, last time: If I told you "OP esta siendo un forro. Vos no podes defenderlo así", would you understand me?

I don't think so. Because I'm not using the right language. Tone and word choice is part of the skill you need to communicate your message. If you (or OP) don't want to learn to speak in a way that will be heard, then sorry, but you don't get to complain.

As I said, the world doesn't need to make an effort to understand you. You have to make yourself understood.

Is that Ad Hominem too?

>>18363462
yeah but you've understood me perfectly, I am not in the same group as OP. I don't understand why I keep getting lumped in lol. at this point I'm just having fun with the thread because I'm in a shitposting mood. I'm entirely capable of communicating. I'm also way more skilled at debating than this thread would suggest. I just don't care enough about this thread.

but for the first time, you have made a comment that succinctly makes, and demonstrates your point and doesn't sully it with ad hom.

OP there's your answer for this whole thread and the real lesson to be learned here.

beautiful, we've revealed the deeper truth behind this thread through the power of shitposting everyone. there is nothing more 4chan.

>you can't be a mentally ill bigot in public without someone looking at you funny
yea no shit.

>>18363060
i feel like reddit is the best way to express your biased opinion

>>18363060
I want you to screenshot this post then read it 5 years from now.

You will be amazed by how dumb and whiny you sound.

>>18363060
>You can't point out that women live lives on easy mode
Oh come on....do you really believe this?

If you want to be a girl so badly they do surgery for it these days, but I honestly believe any man who thinks they have it worse than women (in terms of anything) is a giant manchild.

Being a man has historically been the better option in any culture on earth ever.

>>18363060
it sounds like the world needs to drop unis and get tech schools

File: 1493349194804.jpg (24KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x400px

>>18363429
>this level of paranoia
Yeeeep, that's a woman.

>>18363060
Well OP, I could relate to the first line of your thread and was getting ready to agree, until you unloaded that fedora garbage that followed.