Sports writer kills himself, leaves behind website describing how and why

TrollfaceDeux · Sep 12, 2013

I don't read his shit on "Capitalism" since I am 100% confident that it is just another regurgitated Michael Moore bullshit. It's good to be right.

Famm · Sep 12, 2013

TrollfaceDeux · Sep 12, 2013

I'd like to imagine my happiness as playing FFXIV:ARR all day long and be around my family for the rest of my life.

fanaskin · Sep 12, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
Have you ever wonderedwhypeople "don't give a shit about their fellow man"? It's because we're conditioned to compete with each other for a piece of the pie. We see that the most powerful people in our societies got there by only looking out for themselves, so we figure it's pointless for us, on an individual level, to do otherwise. See, profit doesn't have to corrupt "the vast majority of people". It only has to corrupt the most powerful and influential. From them we are trained "not to give a shit about our fellow man". Capitalism isn't reflecting our inherent laziness and selfishness, it's shaping it.

read some history books, before capitalism it was the same shit different day and it will be after it as well. some of your posts are super wild radical wide eyed idealism, but reality is different, i'm sorry reality is different but it is. Also not only that but it's been shown that savy and brutal politicians take advantage of people with that mindset and use it to hurt people for personal gain, hence why it's dangerous to have 0 skepticism about the intentions of your fellow man.

TrollfaceDeux · Sep 12, 2013

Don't blame him, bro. He didn't have sex with history yet. I mean I literally fucked my book with my dick. I got better perspective afterward.

interesting fact: rap and street dancing has it's origin from Africa.

ZyyzYzzy · Sep 12, 2013

Nah he shouldnt read history or bang his books. He needs to just live with some history books for a few months to understand them.

Tuco · Sep 12, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
Have you ever wonderedwhypeople "don't give a shit about their fellow man"? It's because we're conditioned to compete with each other for a piece of the pie.

Correct. Conditioned by millions of years of evolution where the strongest got a piece of the pie. And by pie I mean your sister's cunnie.

TrollfaceDeux · Sep 12, 2013

Dumar, is this human nature?

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/36/15268.full

Women are generally more risk averse than men. We investigated whether between- and within-gender variation in financial risk aversion was accounted for by variation in salivary concentrations of testosterone and in markers of prenatal testosterone exposure in a sample of >500 MBA students. Higher levels of circulating testosterone were associated with lower risk aversion among women, but not among men. At comparably low concentrations of salivary testosterone, however, the gender difference in risk aversion disappeared, suggesting that testosterone has nonlinear effects on risk aversion regardless of gender. A similar relationship between risk aversion and testosterone was also found using markers of prenatal testosterone exposure. Finally, both testosterone levels and risk aversion predicted career choices after graduation: Individuals high in testosterone and low in risk aversion were more likely to choose risky careers in finance. These results suggest that testosterone has both organizational and activational effects on risk-sensitive financial decisions and long-term career choices.

chthonic-anemos · Sep 12, 2013

Tanoomba · Sep 12, 2013

fanaskin_sl said:
read some history books, before capitalism it was the same shit different day and it will be after it as well. some of your posts are super wild radical wide eyed idealism, but reality is different, i'm sorry reality is different but it is. Also not only that but it's been shown that savy and brutal politicians take advantage of people with that mindset and use it to hurt people for personal gain, hence why it's dangerous to have 0 skepticism about the intentions of your fellow man.

"Same shit, different day?" According to Lithose, we are less barbaric than we've ever been before. We've been consistently ascending the ladder of civility and acting in ways that benefit mankind. All I'm saying is we're ready for the next step. All you're saying is "That's just the way things are." Sorry, man, but that's a pants-shittingly retarded way to look at life and/or society. "Reality is different"? That is a shit statement that means nothing. It really, really does. And politicians take advantage ofwhateverway the people think. That's their job. That's one of the reasons we need to hold politicians more accountable. How do we do that? Get money out of the equation. How do we do that? NEXT FUCKING STEP.

Trollface_sl said:
Don't blame him, bro. He didn't have sex with history yet. I mean I literally fucked my book with my dick. I got better perspective afterward.

interesting fact: rap and street dancing has it's origin from Africa.

Maybe you thought this was funny the first time. It wasn't, but maybe you thought it was. The second time it was even less so. Now it's just getting embarrassing. Is it that hard for you to accept that missing out on life experiences make you less able to understand those experiences? 'Cause that's what I was saying. Drop it.

Tuco_sl said:
Correct. Conditioned by millions of years of evolution where the strongest got a piece of the pie.

Sure, fine. But there's no need for "survival of the fittest" any more. There hasn't been for a while. Unlike wild animals, we are perfectly capable of metacognition. We can analyze and understand our own ways of thinking and acting. We are not slaves to our base instincts. This is why rape is illegal. The only reason we're still competing with each other is because we CHOOSE to follow the system that forces us to do so. Or, to be more specific, those with the most power and money made that choice for us and convinced us that it's really what we all want anyway.

Tuco · Sep 12, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
there's no need for "survival of the fittest" any more.

TrollfaceDeux · Sep 12, 2013

Why did geeks and nerds become popular?

What was formally outcast of the popularity, largely from female, has now become popular to all genders and races? Why?

Money and Power.

ZyyzYzzy · Sep 12, 2013

I don't know how one can blame a construction of mankind itself be it an economic system, religion, etc...on the behavior of man. Clearly there is a strong correlation between how such things are constructed and the inherent nature of man.

In essence rickshaw tanoomba for shit posting.

Lithose · Sep 12, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
"Same shit, different day?" According to Lithose, we are less barbaric than we've ever been before. We've been consistently ascending the ladder of civility and acting in ways that benefit mankind. All I'm saying is we're ready for the next step. All you're saying is "That's just the way things are."

Tan. Have you ever stopped to think about this possibility: That Capitalism is a system which increases production based upon exploiting negative human qualities, such as greed and self interest. And it'sbecauseCapitalism exploits these qualities rather than suppress them, which previous systems used violence to do (For the lower classes), that we have greater production. And because we have greater production, there is less scarcity, and we are less prone to barbarity. Think about it, for a moment, in previous systems--every time greed/self interest wasnotsuppressedthrough the threat of violence, say, among the aristocracy, it ended up spiraling out of control. Capitalism doesn't attempt to suppress it, it attempts toharnessit, for all social classes (And no, it doesn't always work, but it works BETTER than anything previously--I could also write about how it works "better" for X class and how the elite exploit it, but this is a short, rough overview).

In other words, it's just as possible to say people are as shitty as ever, but the systems we have in place are better at spinning that shit into gold, as it is to say that people have gotten progressively more moral and ethical. If you look at any society that attempted to take these systems out, systems that direct greed and self interest into production, then you'll see it almost always devolves into another form of power collection that is overall far more reliant on violence for it's control and far less effective at spurring production (Even if innovation remains nominal).

The fact is, YOU are not smart enough to know whether your truth, or the above truth is correct. Neither am I. No one is. Some people have made some very educated guesses at it and that's why you see a lot of divergence in political-economic thought. But the fact remains, one system has proven to actually work, and increase most of the quality of life assessments we can measure--and that's Capitalism. You say there is a "next step", and I really hope there is, I really do, but there is very little evidence of it. The only thing we can point to, right now, is the success of more social elements in some Capitalist societies. Which leads me to believe there might be a next step, that maybe Marx was right, but his time scale was off by about 300 years.

I, personally, don't think humanity will make it to the next step until we achieve true post scarcity. And that's going to require fully mechanized labor, far more advanced resource synthesis techniques or some kind of singularity so we can have robot bodies. Until then? I do not, absolutely in no way, see a future built on the precepts that Marx thought existed below the greed/desire that Capitalism supposedly instills--I think that greed/desire is just there, and Capitalism simply utilizes it for production. And yeah, Capitalism might amplify them--but again, when we tried to suppress them? It didn't work out well (Historically or in modernity).

TrollfaceDeux · Sep 12, 2013

My model for future still stands.

hodj · Sep 12, 2013

A post scarcity Singularity driven society would not be communism in terms of government or economics.

It would be a technocracy. (not Technocracy as in run by technology, but technocracy as in run by elites with highly specialized educations and training relative to maintaining the AI algorithms that run the body politic in such a system) economically the model would probably be a blend social system, because everyone with half a brain knows any one economic theory is a joke, and all are deeply flawed (Lol at rational decision makers from Adam Smith and labor value theory from Marx)

Also lol at an English as a 2nd language teacher trying to talk about biology as if he understands anything about it, especially what the term fitness means in the context of evolutionary principles.

Here, Tanoomba, you fucking tard, let me help you get pointed in the right direction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)

Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central idea in evolutionary theory. It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes the ability to both survive and reproduce, and is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by an average individual of the specified genotype or phenotype. If differences between alleles of a given gene affect fitness, then the frequencies of the alleles will change over generations; the alleles with higher fitness become more common. This process is called natural selection.

An individual's fitness is manifested through its phenotype. The phenotype is affected by the developmental environment as well as by genes, and the fitness of a given phenotype can be different in different environments. The fitnesses of different individuals with the same genotype are therefore not necessarily equal. However, since the fitness of the genotype is an averaged quantity, it will reflect the reproductive outcomes of all individuals with that genotype in a given environment or set of environments.

Inclusive fitness differs from individual fitness by including the ability of an allele in one individual to promote the survival and/or reproduction of other individuals that share that allele, in preference to individuals with a different allele. One mechanism of inclusive fitness is kin selection.

Fitness is a propensity

Fitness is often defined as a propensity or probability, rather than the actual number of offspring. For example, according to Maynard Smith, "Fitness is a property, not of an individual, but of a class of individuals - for example homozygous for allele A at a particular locus. Thus the phrase 'expected number of offspring' means the average number, not the number produced by some one individual. If the first human infant with a gene for levitation were struck by lightning in its pram, this would not prove the new genotype to have low fitness, but only that the particular child was unlucky." [1] Equivalently, "the fitness of the individual - having an array x of phenotypes - is the probability, s(x), that the individual will be included among the group selected as parents of the next generation."[2]

Fitness in biological contexts means more capable of surviving to reproduction. You're an idiot if you think we can ever escape a reality that is defined by fitness and the survival of those species which most closely fit their environment. Just because you're fit for one environment doesn't mean you are fit to another one. The idea that "we don't need this key fundamental principle of biological evolution" because an English as a 2nd language teacher wants to play soap box contratian in another thread is of course as laughable as bothering to read or take anything else Tanoomba says seriously.

Now, I have to go back to studying.

But seriously. See the avatar, rickshaw Tanoomba for rampant stupidity.

Tuco · Sep 12, 2013

Hey there's no reason to bring a man's profession into this. Either he's right or he's wrong, and he's not making an argument from his own authority.

khalid · Sep 12, 2013

Attacking his degree is kind of silly, it isn't like he is putting himself out there as an authority based on his teaching. Am I not allowed to talk about this stuff either?

Also, in case I am not allowed to talk about this subject unless I can link it to a field closer to mine,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_function

A fitness function is a particular type of objective function that is used to summarise, as a single figure of merit, how close a given design solution is to achieving the set aims.
In particular, in the fields of genetic programming and genetic algorithms, each design solution is represented as a string of numbers (referred to as a chromosome). After each round of testing, or simulation, the idea is to delete the 'n' worst design solutions, and to breed 'n' new ones from the best design solutions. Each design solution, therefore, needs to be awarded a figure of merit, to indicate how close it came to meeting the overall specification, and this is generated by applying the fitness function to the test, or simulation, results obtained from that solution.

The Ancient_sl · Sep 12, 2013

It's especially ironic coming from the guy who was saying "I shouldn't have to read Marx to comment on it"

TrollfaceDeux · Sep 12, 2013

it is not the messenger. it is the message. it is dumb. if the message had any substance, we'd be saying "hey dude, why are you still in that degree? kind of under-performing." if the message had no substance and is purely guessing game, asserted based on zero facts, "holy shit, you are out of your element. go fuck some tree."

Sports writer kills himself, leaves behind website describing how and why

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

Ahn'Qiraj Raider

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

Well known agitator

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

RIP USA

I got Tuco'd!

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

bitchute.com/video/EvyOjOORbg5l/

ジョーディーすれいやー

I got Tuco'd!

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

RIP USA

Buzzfeed Editor

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

Vox Populi Jihadi

I got Tuco'd!

Unelected Mod

shitlord

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer