No.14043
>>14042>HEY GUISE LOOK AT ME I AM SO SMART! AND THEREFORE I DON'T DISCUSS IQ! BECAUSE I AM SO INCREDIBLY SMART!Next we should discuss self-perception vs. reality and its role in fart-huffing behavior.
No.14044 KONTRA
>>14043Reminds me of Alice Braithwaite Goodyshoes. (Susanne Klickerklacker in German)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-W5CHa1vkwhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn08MrTJQvsHumor makes it bearable.
No.14045
Today I went to the doctor. It took longer than I expected, because I had like 3 pensioners before me who all needed blood drawn and it took 20-25 minutes for each of them to find a suitable vein.
I felt really fucking tired after receiving treatment so when I got home I fell asleep after lunch and some reading in the garden.
My packages from China are in the country, because the fascist bastards at the toll office decided to charge me for them some extra. But the books themselves got here remarkably fast! Which is a good thing. Even if I just wasted some of the food money on it I just received.
I also found a "Mittelhochdeutsches Taschenwörterbuch" for sale and I really wanted to get it but I will restrain my soul's desire for more material goods. (Which is why I will check it out from the library just to flip through it.)
I still feel like I have had some divine spark extinguished and I need to regain it somehow.
No.14047
>>14046Is that so? Tell a joke.
No.14048
>>14038It's the opposite. Monogamy existed for thousands of years while sexual revolution (as well as sexual inequality) came to being the same time as post-industrial society. On east Islam allowed polygamy but it's still no more than four wives for one man.
>>14039Today's bickering is not "linguistic prescriptivism", wait your turn.
>>14040Whites are less likely to be incels than minorities. For ricecels or carrycels it's much harder. Once I was told by a girl: "Yes, I have 100 matches, but half of them are hachiks anyway".
No.14049
>>14048>Whites are less likely to be incels than minorities.What about short men? I mean things like "uhm, yeah, if you were just 10cm taller...".
No.14051
>>14050Mirrors are not particularly funny. I am starting to suspect you are lying.
No.14053
>>14052>blood boilerHuh? This is pretty hilarious.
No.14054 KONTRA
>>14052The female orgasm is a suffragette myth.
No.14056 KONTRA
>>14055Actually most Hydraulic societies were heavily redistributist. Polanyi and Wittfogel wrote about this.
Marxism-Leninism is the modern expression of the Eurasian spirit.
No.14057 KONTRA
Yesterday when I was in the library I ran English paragraphs for my project proposal through chatgpt prompting for grammar and style. Somebody a row in front of me was probably doing the same copying text from a document and running it through chatgpt
It's quite handy to do so I have to admit. It probably works like asking a native with average text knowledge to do the same task.
No.14058
>>14056Monarchies are also heavily redistributist.
Capitalism is heavily redistributist.
Silly hun.
No.14059
>>14057Give a human chatgp, and it will proofread for a day.
Teach a human english, and it will never have to proofread anymore.
No.14060
>>14048> Monogamy existed for thousands of yearsnot rly. maybe since agriculture, in judeo-christian civilizations
even then, a cursory glance at the human genetic code would reveal than majority of males historically never procreated.
you think hypergamy is bad, try polygamy
No.14061
>>14060>not rly. maybe since agricultureAgriculture has existed for thousands of years, so you directly agreed with him.
Also, old Temüüdschin was probably a special case. What percentage of mongolian men can trace their lineage back to him? At least 25?
No.14063
>>14059>Teach a human english, and it will never have to proofread anymore.I'm not a native so better safe than sorry.
Almost all responses were like this
>Your sentence is grammatically correct, but for a bit more style, you might consider>Your sentence is clear and grammatically correct. For a slight refinement in style, you might consider>Your statement is clear, but for a slight refinement and improved flow, you might considerAnd yes, they come in handy, to make the English a bit more "native sounding".
No.14064
>>14061Well I assumed that "thousands of years" was used as a hyperbole, in the meaning of "myriad" where it just means "a lot" and not the actual etymological number.
Because "thousands of years" is barely anything in the history of our species, so it'd make for a very weak argument for the supposed "normality" of our recent social order, to pick such a tiny slice of an already highly anomalous period of human history.
No.14065
>>14063I still don't see how this can't be alleviated by reading more english literature.
Do you think your german style of writing comes from nothing?
And obviously it also depends on what the AI was trained on in the first place. If it was trained on english language online sources I'd rather not use any of it, lest you sound like some clickbait online "journalist".
Also, if you don't plan on actually discussing your oevre with actual native speakers, nobody will care anyway, so why bother? Better spend your time on improving your reasoning and content-related aspects of the thesis.
No.14069
>>14065>I still don't see how this can't be alleviated by reading more english literature.Sure, but I won't read a pile of English literature just to bolster the style of the proposal so it sounds more like a native speaker. That is something for when I will actually know I will go abroad.
>And obviously it also depends on what the AI was trained on in the first placeI think I can judge if I like the suggestions or not. What the AI has been trained on is not relevant in that regard. I did not blindly change everything the AI had suggested. I'm quite good at passive English and have a feeling for what is adequate.
>Better spend your time on improving your reasoning and content-related aspects of the thesis.I spent most of my time doing this. It's just a polishing operation that took an hour or so.
>if you don't plan on actually discussing your oevre with actual native speakerNative speakers will read it, hence I'm doing the checks. I could also talk to somebody at my university who is fluent in English but I reckon chatgpt is fine for orthography, grammar and style, at least for this kind of document. It's really about getting some simple suggestions on enhancing readability by cutting down on unnecessary constructions for example or exchanging a word here and there that was missing in my active vocabulary but aids in the precision of what I wanted to bring across anyway.
No.14070
>>14064> to pick such a tiny slice of an already highly anomalous period of human history.Define "highly anomalous". Such a premise only works under the assumption that human development is linear. If we instead assume an exponential development starting from near 0, then it's obvious that there would be a long time where basically fuckall would happen with a lot of stuff then happening in a very short time.
No.14071
>>14070You would still have to pick a point to designate as "the normal state of things"
No.14072
>>14071And which point would that be?
No.14073
>>14060> maybe since agricultureWas it different before agriculture? Source?
Anyway, you say that thousands of years are a short period, but sexual revolution is just a few decades old. And it was built on lies. See:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Mead> Her reports detailing the attitudes towards sex in South Pacific and Southeast Asian traditional cultures influenced the 1960s sexual revolution> Margaret Mead showed that Samoan girls do not observe virginity, easily enter into premarital sexual relations, society is extremely tolerant of this, and the people of Samoa, as a result, live in harmony and happiness. Unlike repressive America. Consequently, the type of cultural behavior of young American women is not at all a natural state of affairs, but is an externally imposed restriction and must be abolished.> In reality, as it suddenly turned out, in Samoa there was a society where losing virginity before marriage was considered a severe taboo, much more than in the Puritan communities of Europe. They simply killed for this.> 50 years have passed and Mead's "research" has been thrown into the trash. Because the book did its job. And the fact that a stupid scumbag, a liar and a scum for many decades swaggered over real scientists, publicly insulted them and “kicked them out of the profession” is the cost of production.> The log was removed softly. After death, she was presented as a sweet simpleton who was “jokingly misinformed by girls from high Samoan society.” Like, the girlfriends were playing a prank. No.14075
>>14071Dude, it's you who started talking about "normal equilibrium". And now you demand others to define normalcy.
Moreover, your initial argument was about 1:1 ratio being artifact of post-industrial society, let's note that you're shifting the goal to "it's just a few thousands years old".
No.14076 KONTRA
>>14073The discussion of her Samoa book in the wikipedia article reads quite differently.
No.14077 KONTRA
Yes write to me 3am saying how much you miss me and treat me as if we’ve never met when I ask you if your day was good the day after.
Shit I’m broken down. I’m just tired with this fucking life. That was a shitty move from her and I’m in a shitty mood. I miss her and now we got to the phase where she treats me like shit.
No.14078
Satan is the author of confusion
No.14079
>>14075I proposed normality to be defined as the state in which the species spent the most time, he proposed a weird logarithmic approach. Both claims to normality need to be justified, but I find mine to be more common sensical.
Monogamy has been around as a practice for thousands of years, but not everywhere in the world, and not even everywhere in even the societies that had it. Existing is not the same as being pervasive. Furthermore, monogamy and 1:1 relationship ratio is not the same thing: You can have monogamous relationships, but still not every male in society gets to BREED. For example, mongamy can be serial, where one person has 1 partner AT A TIME. Besides, in almost all societies there's a distinction between a wife, and concubine, the latter technically aren't entitled to any claims, because there was no marriage contract / ceremony.
Most men historically didn't BREED, simple as.
>>14061>Also, old Temüüdschin was probably a special caseworth noting that polygamy was normal practice in turkic societies for "thousands of years", how many wives you had depended on your wealth. Up to 7 wives was allowed. Which means there was a shitload of men who didn't have wives. Probably died in raids and tribal conflicts and shit.
No.14080 KONTRA
>>14077Advice: consider blocking her. There is very little chance of anything good coming out of this. It was good while it lasted, but it is over now. Try to learn from the experience. Try to find someone else soon.
No.14081
>>14077Still having contact usually does nothing good with your mood. I'm puzzled why so many people do it nonetheless.
No.14082 KONTRA
>>14028>farmer protestsFarmers dumped manure and wood onto a federal highway and people crashed into it. They willingly endangered people's lives. They are lucky nobody died and yet applauded the damage to private property. Fucking agrarian terrorists. The taxpayer will be debited with the lawsuits.
No.14083 KONTRA
>>14082Can't tell if ironic. In general, your sentiment is obviously correct, but it seems "the taxpayer" sides with the farmers.
A-OK: blocking motorways with wood and manure, causing potentially accidents, as long as it is to ensure the income of at a ~1% minority who, on average, makes over 100k a year.
Not A-OK: blocking traffic in a city for a few minutes to protest against the burning of fossil fuel and the resulting catastrophic climate change.
People can relate to short-term egotism and identify themselves with farmers. Beautiful society we have there, luckily, it won't last much longer.
No.14084
>>14083>potentially accidentsThey caused accidents and people were injured. Could have easily killed somebody I guess.
No.14085 KONTRA
>>14083Ok: Outrage by people who produce the food the people in Not Ok eat
Not Ok: Richkid and neet attention whores who don't actually do anything being the attention whores they are
Yet you still act like people actually oppose their cause and not their hypocrisy.
No.14087
>>14084>could have killed someoneThen the green party would be to blame. The fat pig Ricarda Lang is to blame, obviously. If someone I know dies in an accident, I'll take revenge and hang her!
No.14088 KONTRA
>>14086>reddit link>whataboutismChecks out
If the climate idiots weren't such idiots they would try and get some kind of alliance with the farmers. Climate is an important factor in farming, after all, isn't it? But that would mean they'd have to actually associate with those evil, dirty nazi rednecks. And it would mean less attention for the attention whores, which would be deadly for them.
No.14089
Fucking H-ampel farmers. How stupid of an imbecile do you have to be to just loiter a high-speed road with obstacles in the night? What if a bus with children from a Klassenfahrt would have crashed into the piles? Just so that they can cash in more money profits into their fat farmer pockets. They don't even produce food but mainly animal food and for export reasons, they sell food grown on German soil to foreigners. Farmers jeopardize German autarky with their greedy money-stained fingers. Money does not stink but farmer's business activities do, worse than a pajeet and people in the countryside even like that smell, uncivilized degenerates ruin it for everybody.
No.14090
My prayers and solidarit goes to the cleaners who have to wipe the street of the farmers mess. Farmers like to smear their shit on public roads but leave it for poor people to clean it up. Disgusting pigs, they have been masted by the German government all the time and now that they have to slim down they act up. Don't they know that sliming down and lean business is healthy for the economy? I guess you can expect nothing intelligent from these inbreed German Anatolians.
No.14091
>>14089>Just so that they can cash in more money profits into their fat farmer pocketsMy teacher would have been proud of my rhetorical strength :DDD this alliteration is making Goethe look like an amateur
No.14092 KONTRA
>>14088>whataboutism>reddit link10/10 for adressing the point.
Farmer opened a thread on r/finance, complaining about his poverty.
To sum up the post: 2 million on the balance sheet, 164k after-tax profits.
Then protesting because you will lose <3k a year in tax-credits. This is your typical farmer.
Their chief-complained is that they think they are very special (you, too, think they are very special) and should be given preferential treatment. Tax-credits, subventions, no regulations, free reign with everything. Spread as much manure as they want, when they want, for example, nitrate values in drinking water be fucked. That's what all those assholes with a few hectares and hundreds of pigs want.
If faremrs were given a free reign, they'd ruin the entire country in years for profit.
>if the climate idiots>mimimi the climate idiotsBlocked intersections in cities. Did not endanger traffic by spreading manure on the autobahn
>Climate is an important factor in farming, after all, isn't it?Stop making dishonest arguments by pretending you give a fuck.
No.14094 KONTRA
>>14090>shitat least it's not glue, right?
No.14095 KONTRA
>>14092I talked about richkid climate idiots, I never said anything about whether (some) farmers are turbocapitalists or not, but that was not the point. And some post on reddit is hardly proof for anything. I only read the title anyway because it told me thst comments had been deleted, and I refuse to allow all scripts to see what some asshole on reddit writes.
But you being the dishonest prick you are of course had to go all in with, yes, whataboutism.
>b-but muh rich farmers!!!1The thing people like you don't understand is that you are only playing into the hands of the big companies. Provided the link you posted is indeed legit, these kind of farmers are not the majority, but they will rise in share when the smaller ones are dying, and then everything will be consolidated into a few large conglomerates. And you are supporting that. And why? I don't know, hatred for life maybe.
No.14099
>>14095>and then everything will be consolidated into a few large conglomerates.Let me guess, the AFD will revert capitalism and not lick the floor clean with their tongues to roll out a red carpet for entrepreneurs who produce wealth for this country. Why are people like you allowed to vote, you don't know what is good for capital and thus the country.
No.14136
>>14105Imagine being such a petty asshole that you jump to the new thread to carry on with your bullshit instead of using the perfectly fine old thread.
You should become a gluer, you have that certain attention whoring attitude.
Didn't read your post btw.