/hell/ - internet death cult

He who escaped the shepherd should beware the wolves lurking in the forest.

>>5522
The shepherd eats mutton.

>>5501
Can you expand on that? I'm not sure, I get your message.

>>5525
you realize you're responding to crossboard spam?

>>5526
No, I only lurk here.

>>5303
That'd hurt your spine, I would never.

>>5304
laaaame
>>5303
I'll gladly take you up on that offer, seems cute

Hello.

>>5521
heyo, kinda weird ass way to wave at someone but sure close enough

Maybe if I learn to love my problems, they'll leave me as well.

>>5493
This is a great idea.

>>5493
that actually works

>>5493
Enjoy Your Worries, You May Never Have Them Again

I just divert my attention to good qualities someone has, try to understand why they have the qualities I think are bad and question if it is actually bad or if Im in the wrong. Otherwise I try to just ignore them.

>>5507
You're saying that since a society with a religious superstructure contains people whose participation varies, the society in fact does not have a religious superstructure as some people wouldn't perceive themselves as part of one.

The concept of gender roles beyond pure biological processes was always just a social construction. Awareness of this lead to different interpretations of these same roles or adding new roles as a reaction to these established ideas trying to shape them to their own desires instead of trying to outright destroy the concepts, but these too were just social constructs. These sort of things don't really matter. It can from an evolutionary perspective make sense why different forms of gender presentation arose in order to find a potential mate but these visual signals stopped being reliable indicators of anything if they ever were due to how someone dresses on an ordinary basis has no meaning to your personal relationship with that person. Traditions are fine if they are done more in spirit of fun and bring people together not divide them apart or oppress their ability to have a sense of self beyond generic labelling and stereotypes which does no one a favor. People should be able to choose if they want to participate and in what they want to participate in,

In the state of things at the moment where I live where people are aware of varying attitudes around gender to the point that consideration is common, it's more or less a disruption of order in a sense that's to my view luckily very measurable.

Social order is a sort of substrate of our existence as social, idea oriented beings. It can be manipulated for good or evil or to certain effects that can be further so defined. Personally my own view of my male gender I've never thought too much or cared about but that's not to say I'm special or that I'm even more or less male than the average guy around me.

It doesn't occur to me so to speak, this notion, very much naturally so far it seems. Maybe that's natural to me. It's something inconsequential as far as my own identity goes I think. To the point maybe I'd be comfortable using my own name ideally as pronouns, or calling myself an it. As far as whether social change can be a bad thing, I think so.

Luckily in my life, I'm not very bothered by how things are going and I tend to like to be good to others so maybe I'm in a good spot

Pic unrelated

Pre-script: I'm not saying that any of this is good or bad, wrong or right, it's just how I see it is.
Pos-pre-script: I'm just a stupid person on the internet, have never studied this stuff, only car parts.

>In the past, we lived in an enchanted world that was gendered
>We no longer live in a gendered world where we have a clear purpose and direction.
Some truths but not all of it. We still live in a world that is mostly binarily divided by male/female too.
Just as kid is very different from adult and there is a grey area in the middle, a lot of modern concepts in societies have very defined terms specific by a long time but allow some in between to exist, that seemed to appear only now in modern times. Another quick example, slavery, there were slaves in the world who were freer than we were today and "free people" of the past that had way less options and power to change stuff than us.
Of course gender is not the same as maturity or occupation, just using some examples of societal concepts that have long existed in all societies.

One big detail is that most multigender existence and conformation exists mostly and it seems almost exclusively online, in the real world it's still controversial and even shunned by a lot of different cultures.
For what I have seen it only exists only in very big cities with a population number in millions and have a global homogenization.
My point is, a lot of modern aspects of society only can bloom naturally in modern metropolis.

It's natural to people try to conform to what they adapts best, sometimes they find in place where someone can be a femtrans asexual fluid femboy, sometimes they have no option but to go to a traditional Korean girls only school and then have an arranged marriage and have kids.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

i wanna poke that belly.

yes

koruri has escaped containment

Many would love to be invaded by certain forces.

So many are tired and only certain spirits will wake them.

>>5421
>People want stuff. There's not enough stuff.
That's where you're wrong janitor-kun

There is a 'Zen' way to affluence. If there's not enough stuff, we should limit our wants and live within our means to enjoy a simple but affluent living. But it seems many politicians are obsessed with ideas like productivity and growth and think that we can meet infinite human needs through increasing industrial productivity which necessitates more extensive exploitation of people and nature. This is futile because finite resources can never meet inexhaustible desires. I've only ever read Sahlins and know very little about economics beside him so I CTRL + V'd his shtick here.

>>5410
I don't think Engels is a good fit here. You can't really understand Marx without understanding who he was having conversations with intellectually. I guess for political economy, you'd need to read Adam Smith, and for his social theories you should look at Hegel's philosophy of history and his political theory as well as Darwin's Origin of the Species. Marx was a huge Darwin fanboy. Even sent him a signed copy of Capital.

>>5421
Since we have a economy thread, can't we have a religious studies and theology thread too? What about an anthropology and archaeology thread? Ethnomusicology?

Infinite verities of economies exist.
An economy is a goal.
Such as the goal of the ever increasing quality of a specific collective..

Quality naturally increases unless a barrier emerges and then an economy problem solves.

Some goals never end and that’s the goal.
Goodness gets ever goodder.

Hmm, I will try to respond without reading much of the replies ITT, perhaps I will repeat something but oh well. Also feel free to skip, it's NOT particularly smart or educated in any way hehe.

>Is economics a bunch of lies?
Not quite. But it IS tied into politics heavily and is based on a bunch of political beliefs. Classical economics is based on beliefs of a certain social group hehe.
Now, I think there are at least two ways of looking at economics and both are employed but at times people think economics is only one of them:
- according to the first, economics is akin to managing a factory: good and services come 'round according to a set of predetermined rules - or perhaps there are no rigid rules but the "economy" concerns itself mostly/only with the "functioning" aspect, i.e. to build a car, one needs a long list of prerequisites to be met, both in personnel qualities and the goods provided - why a car should be made is out of the question tbh (generally it's answered as "we need a device to move something from point A to point B" I guess)
Perhaps I'm bad at explaining this, but the point is we leave human motivations from doing anything out of the picture and just focus on managing goods and services. It is certainly reductionist but it's powerful in a sense if you don't master it, you actually cannot get anything done. So, when people say "let's fix the economy" I think a lot of think think like that, let's restore the functioning of the exchange machine. That "definition" of economics is free from any politics but we cannot make a functioning economy without bringing humans into picture.
(TBH perhaps I'm conflating economics and technology a bit but I am myself not sure if one can easily separate the two)
- so, according to the second, economics is humans doing favors to each other. We realize we cannot fulfill our needs by ourselves, so we use others to do our bidding, quid pro quo. So, economy is the art of making deals and related stuff. Also, economics is the way to control others, control society, economies are complex machines of social nature. Therefore it's heavily political. In fact, "favor for a favor" and "mutual exchange" are definitely not the only principles to run society by. Likewise, humans are vile and do things to distort the "fair" picture by doing clearly "unfair" things.
So with that in mind, economics is inseparable from humans which do not necessarily evePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

The body was too long

Now onto some other points
>It has been said the economists definition of rational behavior as behavior consistent with their own models, with all other behavior dubbed irrational
I think there are other ways to approach economics other than "modelling an ideal society" like classical people did, though I haven't studied them really. But yea, I would agree that whatever they teach at schools outside of heavily specialized ones seems to be kinda horrendous. I would agree that political ideologies should NOT dictate economics.
Further down you describe classical liberal economics would be my guess. Yeahhhh, there have been corrections to that, people mostly do not run "pure" liberal economies these days, but the liberal ideology is an insanely tenacious one and things like neoliberalism exist, too.
>Similarly, Trobriand islanders used to travel great distances to trade seemingly useless and valueless objects Why?
TBH I don't know why but yea, I would agree that humans are generally not rational beings. In fact, rationality is a human invention, I don't think there was any civilization other than the European/Mediterranean one which would be so stuck up at pursuing the truth. I think most civs just follow the hedonistic route, more or less. Trying to answer that question though, maybe it's the journey that matters to them more than the end goal w
>Even the whole inc*l trend was caused by people trying to apply economics to sex and relationships and its created a whole horde of delusional people
To be fair, to me incel stuff doesn't seem to be *that* out of touch with reality. As far as I know, there were certain periods of history during which certain societies all across the globe… basically treated women as livestock aka slaves and a [valuable] commodity - so, women could be traded like goods, deprived of agency and certainly be an object of economies. It is really as simple as that. So, some men want to revive it heh - I know I don't hehe. I assume the "delusion" ascribed to incels is that they can find a loving soul that way - yeaaaa, let's just say they are not necessarily looking for one, they just want a woman to fuck and dominate or something.
>Are there any good economists?
The ones concerning themselves with human nature as opposed to delusional modelling. The ones Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

ive been a neet with no job for over 20 years, i win.