Hey, /pol/, how's it going? A person is smart. People are

You're also stupid by calling /pol/ stupid

>>115060556
Of course I'm stupid as well; I just don't think /pol/ is exclusive in their stupidity. Groupthink is highly prevalent here.

>>115059643
What is the practical meaning of your statement, Mr. Edgelord?

Because as far as I'm aware, people unite in groups so that they may cooperate. As a result, they increase their desired qualities proportionally to the number of the people involved, including the intellect.

File: uhhh.gif (495KB, 500x317px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 500x317px

>>115059643
You are really stupid for thinking that smart persons or people exist.
Everyone is stupid, no exceptions.
The only difference is that stupidity varies with some individuals or groups, some are less stupid and some are even more stupid.
It's impossible NOT to be stupid.

File: 329m0g30f32.gif (496KB, 500x384px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 500x384px

>>115061383
I think the virtue of any social philosophy further collapses when it becomes the ideology of a group, partially due to the effect of Chinese Whispers, but also in fault of adopting the "sense of otherness". This is all the soil you need to plant the opportunity for thought policing, thought reverberation, and thought distortion. Inevitably cognitive dissonance.

>>115061582
Then allow me to speak in your format.
A person is stupid. People are particularly stupid.
>Anon is the type of person that says heat doesn't exist in casual setting.

File: 7776.jpg (11KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 320x240px

>>115061879
I literally have no idea what you just said.

>>115062109
So give this a read, I guess. Now imagine it as if it weren't a game.
It's an anecdote, but I'm sure you've seen people misinterpret shit before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers

You browse this board, right. Here's its current foundation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)

If you join a group based on some social theory, you've begun to attack that philosophy from the inside. You will be misinterpreted, this will frustrate you, you will contribute to its display as a pantomime, and eventually your group will become so distant from the original philosophy that the group's absurdity will ensure its own death (either by dissolvement or wartime defeat). And then the original philosophy will be associated to this failure and become burdened by a historically criticized reputation.

>>115061879
So? It's just an opinion of a person who for one reason or the other dislikes society/collectivism.

What is the practical application of this opinion, and is there any? One would think that being smart is better than being stupid. But it appears that it is the people that create all significant advances, and the very ideas are validated by their acceptance by the people.

>>115063210
>What is the practical application of this opinion, and is there any?
Don't hand your loyalty to a group. Be skeptical indiscriminately.
Then you will be "less stupid" than you would be if you were some kind of partisan loyalist.
Most importantly, don't believe everything you hear — especially not everything you think.

File: really makes me think.gif (731KB, 498x346px) Image search: [Google]

731KB, 498x346px

>>115062744
Even if this place was set up with the intention of making right wing ideals seem unappealing, sort of like a political sockpuppet that (((they))) use to paint as the "enemy" does it... uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
ahhhhhhhhhhhhh
yuuuuuuuuuuu
what were we talking about?

>>115063583
Left wing, right wing, it's all destructive when it's the only basis you have on how to see the world.

File: index.jpg (11KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 225x225px

>>115063687
But I'm apolitical.
I just shitpost here out of boredom.

Wow check mate I am really thinking now

>>115059643
This thread is stupid

File: 458923.gif (1MB, 500x480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x480px

>>115064504
>>115064808
Top tek, of course.

>>115064396
Then congratulations, you're not /pol/, you're an individual.

>>115059643
Are you a fucking woman?

>>115066070
Do you like your ad hominem with sugar and cream?

>>115066741
You're either a woman or a poofter.