I think this sums up the situation nicely.
No it doesn't't.
>being this butthurt by /pol/
Hey if it helps you with the obvious insecurities you have to think people of pol are idiots and neet losers then do as you please. But next time try to actually listen to the arguments instead of trying to create a meme to attempt to refute them and their opinion.
>>24063972
Sorry I triggered you, Rommel.
>>24063972
implying you wouldn't let Hitler shove his big erect Nazi dick down your throat, its obvious
>>24063972
Not the op, but most /pol/ posters respond with personal attacks, emotional rhetoric, and smug memeposting over any actual argument, more often than not.
>>24064172
what's an actual argument?
Let's say I was a polfag and I hated non-whites and didn't want to live them. What would the argument be?
>>24064130
>creates a whole thread bashing pol on a different board with a failed meme
>replies to my comment angrily with another meme, and says I'm the one triggered
>>24064136
No. That's just you.
>>24064172
May, that's just you leftists. It's not that hard to understands pol's beliefs it just takes common sense an d a open mind. But U.S crime statistics from the FBI and other sources are ignored by people like you because of your cognitive dissonance. You at like op, you are insecure in your beliefs that you gave created a delusion that pol doesn't know what theyre saying, they are just losers and rednecks right?
>>24064218
are you asking me to make your argument?
>>24064254
>leftists
>you must be close minded and lacking common sense
>obviously you're deluded
Case in point, this guy.
>>24064292
what argument?? I(the hypothetical polfag) hate non-whites and don't want to live with them. me and my fellow polfags band together and want to live in our all white nation.
done. which part of this is an argument? it is a statement of intention.
>>24064254
honestly no one even cares about any of that here we just want you to stay in your own lane, /mlp/ can do it, why cant you?
>>24064333
I was responding to the:
>What would the argument be?
part of your last post.
>>24064254
It'll be okay, Heinrich.
>>24064292
Do you even know what leftists means?
>>24064351
what is this actual argument you keep talking about?
seems to me like it's all hot air to make you sound fancy.
>>24064358
Yeah, but from what I understand how /pol/ people tend to use it, it's just a broad catchall to include anyone who doesn't readily agree with them.
>>24064376
>what is this actual argument you keep talking about?
It's not a specific one per se, I just noticed that when /pol/ tends to get in one, they prefer those tactics over the rational discussion nearly everyone on every side claims to like.
>hot air to make you sound fancy
Sure thing
>>24064347
I want you and most of the people here to go back to where you came. You've been here a few months tops because this board use to be a redpilled pol like board. Take all the cancerous black people threads with you. You are not like the majority on this board, you ruin the social cohesion and connections others have on this board with each other. You are like the Normie, the reason everyone wants Normie's to leave because they are different and can not relate or connect to us but will just change the oats like you have.
>>24064414
>the rational disussion
okay synnonym game.
what rational discussion? isn't I don't want to live with people I hate pretty rational in the conventional sense.
>>24064418
What's wrong, f@m? I know what will help, WATCH ME WHIP! NOW WATCH ME NAE NAE! (Can you do it?)
>>24064418
Fuck off back to Gaia online
>>24063798
butthurt craft beer-making cultural marxist kekold detected
>>24064455
>what rational discussion?
You really want an example, don't you?
>isn't I don't want to live with people I hate pretty rational in the conventional sense
well, hatred tends to be a prime example of irrational behavior, so...
>>24064418
ive been here since 2009, my political stance depends on what the topic is, im not far right or far left, are you the guy thats been trying to turn this board into pol-lite the past few days? We have our own board identiy here just fuck off desu god I hate you pol fags
>>24064418
>4chan is my personal hugbox
lol get a load of this newfag guys.
>>24064510
>a prime example of irrational behavior, so
What is irrational about hatred?
>>24063798
How the fuck does /pol/ still trigger people so fucking badly, people have been calling eachother niggers and being racist as fuck on 4chan forever, and "kek" is practically just a synonym for "beta" at this point,
If they make an actual argument, prove them wrong, if they just memepost, ignore them.
Seriously.
>>24064486
So butthurt about the image describing your reality you just had to respond with your trip.
Butthurt kekold detected
>>24064526
>Hatred (or hate) is a deep and emotional extreme dislike
>emotional extreme dislike
>>24064543
I love this filter desu senpai
>>24064553
What is irrational about it? You're completely free to frame your point here, if only you had one.
>>24064516
>>24064479
>>24064523
Those dank memes amirite r/4chan
>>24064523
>using desu meme
>calls me a newfag and says I'm cancerous
>>24064582
>what is irrational about an extreme emotional response?
You're going to make me hold your hand through this, aren't you?
Sounds like you need me to hold your hand through it.
>>24064655
Sure. Go ahead and explain, I'll wait.
>>24064616
I fucking love reddit
>>24064616
Typical conversation with a 17 year old /v/edditor/pol/tard
>shitposting is really serious guys we have to use memes to uncover the jewish conspiracy
>MUH REDDIT
>I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE 2014 BUT I KNOW HOW TO IDENTIFY REDDITORS THEY ARE EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T MINDLESSLY REGURGITATE /POL/ MEMES
You guys are entertaining but you really need to step up your shitposting.
Take a hint from the Ausbros. Australians are the top shitposters on /pol/ right now generating quality content.
>>24064661
> a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and "mechanical". If these minimum requirements are not satisfied i.e. if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal emotions, feelings, instincts or culturally specific, moral codes and norms, then the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias.
You can argue that no human can successfully be 100% rational, but you're doing a pisspoor job of it when you actively encourage emotional decision making by actively hating others. Hence, irrational.
>>24064753
Why are you quoting some shit?
You do know what rational means, don't you?You weren't just using it as a buzz word, were you?
Why would hating others be more irrational than loving others?
>>24064753
According to your definition there is literally no activity that is rational because every decision anyone ever makes is influenced by personal emotions and culturally specific moral codes and norms.
If you don't believe that to be the case you are a fucking autist who doesn't understand human nature.
>>24064782
>Why are you quoting some shit?
Because it's relevant to what you're being pedantic about
>You do know what rational means, don't you?You weren't just using it as a buzz word, were you?
Just explained what it meant, and gave a relevant citation as to exactly why hatred is irrational.
>Why would hating others be more irrational than loving others?
Where did I ever say loving others is rational?
>>24064797
That is true, which you would understand if you actually read my post. Nobody can be 100% rational, but you can work towards being as rational as possible. Actively engendering strong, overriding emotions like hate is going in the opposite direction.
>>24064540
stay kucked and locked in your cock cage
>>24064853
So in your opinion, when a mother takes care of her child, because she loves it, she is being irrational?
>>24064853
>you can work towards not being a human being
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
There is no way to make decisions in an "objective" or "rational" manner.
Sure, you can try to pretend to be fucking spock to make yourself feel more intelligent about the decisions you make but at the end of the day those evaluations and decisions you make will be based upon your environmental conditioning and emotional dispositions so wouldn't it be better to just accept those things for what they are and try to be self aware about them than pretend to turn yourself into a "rational" robot without having any idea about what is motivating you to make your decisions whatsoever?
>>24064883
The emotions related to child-rearing tend to be pretty irrational, but are for an evolutionarily sound purposes.
>>24064928
Now you seem to confuse rational with self-serving.
There is nothing irrational about hating or loving anyone, you don't know what the word means and so you use it completely out of it's context.
>>24064916
>you can work towards not being a human being
Because that's what I said, and obviously not a poorly constructed strawman you're tossing around to avoid addressing what I'm actually saying.
>I don't understand what you are trying to say.
What I'm trying to say is that you're right that people cannot be purely rational beings. What is possible though, is to strive towards rationality, to try and limit the behaviors that lead to irrational thought so you can be as objective and logical as possible. If you're actively encouraging those problematic behaviors, you're straying away from that goal.
>wouldn't it be better to just accept those things for what they are and try to be self aware about them
Being rational would require that you be self aware about them, in order to ensure they cloud your judgment as little as possible, and you can identify when they are. Having no idea about what is motivating your decisions is a perfect recipe for irrational behavior.
>>24065028
I think I see what you are saying now.
I don't believe in buddhism/releasing yourself from all desire though so I still don't agree with what you're saying.
Have fun being a nihilist though, check ya later anon.
>>24064982
>you seem to be confusing rational with self serving
Not necessarily. Even if you're intended goal is for the best outcome for the child, the emotional quagmire people describe as love can lead to pretty irrational decision making.
>here is nothing irrational about hating or loving anyone, you don't know what the word means and so you use it completely out of it's context.
There is, and I just explained why. You can keep sticking your head in the sand as to why extreme emotional decision making is irrational, it doesn't change the reality of the matter.
What situation?
>>24065071
>I don't believe in buddhism/releasing yourself from all desire though so I still don't agree with what you're saying.
I don't think that's entirely possible, or necessary. You just need to be aware of how those influence your decision making if you plan on being rational.
>nihilist
u wot
>>24065090
>Even if you're intended goal is for the best outcome for the child, the emotional quagmire people describe as love can lead to pretty irrational decision making.
>woman unable to form emotional bond(love) with her child
>woman leave child alone
>child gets eaten by wolves
>There is, and I just explained why
No. You quoted something. Seemingly unable to use your own words to explain why. Too bad you also didn't understand your own quote.
>a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts.
Now an emotion can skew your perception, and lead you to favor an irrational conclusion or line of reasoning, but feeling emotion itself can never be rational or irrational. It is an action of the subconscious "mind".
>I have woken up to the patriarchy ever since a cislord oppressor told me my gender studies degree is worthless
>Rape
>RAPE
>You are literally being RAPED right now
>Rape
>I won't let patriarchal white cis males rape me
>All slut-shamers are rapists and privileged shitlords
>Rape
>RAPE
>RAPE
>Rape
>Me and my sisters played GTA5 for 30 hours to uncover a patriarchal bias
>I'm not a damsel in distress who wants to be saved by a tall strong hero
>Rape
>RAPE
>Problematic RAPE
>I only have those 8 erotic rape fanfiction stories saved on my computer to wake up my sisters to the patriarchy
>RAPE
>>24065179
>woman unable to form emotional bond(love) with her child
>woman leave child alone
>child gets eaten by wolves
No idea what you're trying to prove with this statement, or how it's meant to disprove what I just posted. Irrational decision making leading to a preferable outcome doesn't make the decision making any less irrational.
>woman is pregnant
>finds out child has irreversible, severe condition that will severely reduce quality of life
>refuses to abort
>child lives a life of extreme suffering and pain
>refusal to abort was irrational
Just one quick example how that irrational behavior doesn't necessarily work in the best objective interests of the child
>No. You quoted something. Seemingly unable to use your own words to explain why. Too bad you also didn't understand your own quote.
I did use my own words, which you, as usual, denied and got pedantic over. Allowing one's emotions, esp. strong ones like love and hate, to influence your decision making leads to irrational behavior. I cited that quote to demonstrate why. You're just in a cycle of repeated denial at this point.
>Now an emotion can skew your perception, and lead you to favor an irrational conclusion or line of reasoning, but feeling emotion itself can never be rational or irrational. It is an action of the subconscious "mind".
Feeling emotion isn't necessarily irrational, but acting on them is, and when you make your political decisions based on a strong emotion like hate, and defend that thought process, you're engaging in irrational behavior.
>>24065372
>I cited that quote to demonstrate why.
Your own words: You can argue that no human can successfully be 100% rational
Meaningless babble. The quote was your entire "point", only you didn't actually understand it.
>>Allowing one's emotions, esp. strong ones like love and hate, to influence your decision making leads to irrational behavior.
You have a strong subconscious aversion to danger. This leads you to think ahead to avoid getting into dangerous situations. Such as, having no food, having no place to sleep, wandering into an unfriendly neighbourhood.
Now this behavior can only be seen as rational or irrational, when accompanied by a specific objective, for example, to stay out of danger.
On it's own it is neither rational or irrational, it simply is behavior.
Now if you are afriad of dying, you may choose to support an irrational conclusion or line of reasoning that would give you comfort from your fear. It could be the belief that it is possible to survive forever, it could be the belief in a "life after death".
These are the scenarios your quote pertains to.
>>24065697
>You can argue that no human can successfully be 100% rational
Yes, and if you're striving for rationality, actively supporting strong emotional highs like hatred is the worst way to go about it.
>meaningless babble
Not really. You can refuse to address a statement, but that doesn't make it meaningless; it just makes you unwilling to confront the meaning.
>On it's own it is neither rational or irrational, it simply is behavior.
Not really, the aversion itself is neutral, but the behavior can be decidedly rational or irrational. As demonstrated in earlier posts.
>>24065234
>Me and my sisters played GTA5 for 30 hours to uncover a patriarchal bias
It's funny because no doubt some tumblrina has done that
>>24065754
>Not really. You can refuse to address a statement,
Because it is meaningless. What the fuck does it matter what I can argue? I didn't ask about that.
What is a percentage of rationality? How are you calculating it?
It's 100% bullshit is what it is.
>but the behavior can be decidedly rational or irrational
Only when accompanied by a specific objective.
>>24065803
>What is a percentage of rationality? How are you calculating it?
>things only count if they can be precisely quantified
Nothing is purely rational. That however, does not make certain things more rational than others. Even if it isn't pure black and white, that doesn't mean the differences in the shades of grey are meaningless, that is a fallacy.
>Only when accompanied by a specific objective.
Exactly.
>>24066054
>Nothing is purely rational.
What is part rational then?
>Even if it isn't pure black and white, that doesn't mean the differences in the shades of grey are meaningless, that is a fallacy.
Seems like completele nonsense to me.
>Exactly.
What made you change your mind from "Not really" ?
>>24066139
>what is part rational then?
Literally all people. Pure rationality is an ideal. Already explained that the mitigating bias', experiences, emotions, etc present in people prevent anyone from being 100% rational. Being aware of all those factors, and working to minimize their effects can lead to being 'more' rational. On the other hand, actively supporting hate, emotional decision making and the like will go in the opposite direction: to being increasingly irrational.
>Seems like completele nonsense to me.
most people who rely on absolutes and can't understand nuance would think so.
>what made you change your mind
I didn't change my mind; I always thought that the evident rationality, or lack thereof, of a behavior is determined by the pre-identified objective. You'd have no frame of reference otherwise.
>>24066291
>Already explained that the mitigating bias', experiences, emotions, etc present in people prevent anyone from being 100% rational.
I'm curious as to what exactly you think rational means. You seem to use it in a very vague fashion, care to define it rational?
>most people who rely on absolutes and can't understand nuance would think so.
You think I am unable to understand grey? Just what are you babbling about?
>I didn't change my mind;
Then I can only assume you didn't read my post. Because what you just responded to with "exactly" is what you responded to in my other post with "not really".
