>All of humanities greatest achievements have been done by engineers, physicists, and mathematicians.Tell me again why our society shouldn't be a technocracy.
>>11852037Because scientists are notoriously bad at interacting with, and subsequently leading, people?
>>11852037Because that's an entirely subjective statement, and most people disagree.
>>11852041>putting a man on the moon the sum achievement of engineers, physicists, and mathematicians isn't one of the greatest achievements of humanity.>>11852040that's an entirely subjective statement, and most people disagree.
>>11852037Because most people aren't engineers, physicists, or mathematicians and they're not going to let the engineers, physicists, and mathematicians have control.
>>11852037Many of the worst things in human history have also been done by scientists
>>11852037most of the human changing inventions are caused by wars, scientists are afraid of konfrontation and wouldn’t start wars... ergo there wouldn’t be inventions
>>11852052How has putting a man on the moon improved life for people on Earth again? Scientists need money to do their shit.
>>11852037Technocracy is a term used for a form of government, it does not refer to societal mechanics.Also technology and science, as everything, is a tool to reach an objective so first you have to define a target, this implies identifying a need, which then points to things people want and people might not want a technocratic government for a wide variety of reasons. You could argue that some government areas should be technocratic and, in some cases, they already try to be (health ministers are doctors, finance ministers are economists, etc) but I am unsure about the ability of a purely technocratical government to represent and fulfill the needs of the majority of the people.
>>11852037you realize that getting people to work together doesn't strictly fall under any of those categories and is ultimately just as important for the success of our species?
Simple. Because experts are usually retards. For example, Humanities should say Humanity's.
>>11852040That's just a stupid meme made by coping normies. Scientists usually work in teams and have to organize themselves. Unlike say, a model.
>>11852037Yeah lets have nazi scientists who brought us into the modern age lead our government.What could possibly go wrong.
>>11853074>Unlike say, a modelThat is true. I know some autistic gigachad who only goes outside to pose for photos to get money and then stays in his cave the rest of the day
>>11853073>Humanities should say Humanity's.Why?
>>11852037Humanity's greatest achievements have all been done by artists. Maths and sciences are fun, but a world without art and culture is a very sterile, alienating one. Technological progress is not an end in itself.
>>11852037Because having my individual rights, life and property guaranteed is more important than your police state fantasy."Absolute power corrupts absolutely"-- Lord Acton
>>11853319This.>>11852037Because engineers, physicists, and scientists are the bitches on the bottom of the totem pole who exist in order to make artists, athletes, and businessmen have comfier lives.DO NOT confuse it. Engicucks, physishits, and mathemafaggitans are BOTTOM BARREL BITCHES whos only existence is to make society slightly comfier so the real human beings can live better lives. Once it's fully automated and the computers take over, all engineers, physicists, and mathematicians wont exist anymore, but athletes, artists, and such will continue to exist forever. The pinnacle of humans is not, never was, and never will be a loser nerd pencil necked engineer. That you believe this shows you're not actually smart
>>11852037It already is. You just don't know
>bbb bub ubu but humans have free will and souls!
>>11853453Free will exists but IDK about souls.Greentexting to mock an imaginary opponent doesn't serve as an argument.
>>11853456>Free willHard no
>>11853456Everytime I doubt my intellectual capability, I remember there are educated people who still believe in free will. I feel better about myself afterwards. Thank you for existing so you can help out in rooting out my insecurities.
>>11853476>>11853493Schizos who don't believe in free will should be drugged and immobilized into VR pods and used to generate green energy like in the fucking Matrix.
>>11853532>Being a hard determinist makes you a schizoOk I guess
>>11852040That is what the psychopaths say.
>>11853539How could it not, by definition?And that's not even the point. There's nothing inherently dangerous about being a schizo, but if you (sincerely) deny free will, you're a clear and present danger to yourself and everyone else.
>>11853410This is actually a really good take. “””intellectuals””” are 99/100 unfit for normal social circles and thus are confined to working on things instead of people. Contrary to this boards popular belief, normies are not miserable creatures. They enjoy the simple pleasures of being around other humans and there is nothing wrong with this. It’s innately primal and we only began producing autistic retards once our brain started to get too big. The real black pill is that our brain is a parasite and it’s holding our species back from attaining true happiness.
>>11853559Why? why does believing in hard determinism make me a schizo? Also I just want to say that I'm not the one schizo posting about free will on this board.
>>11853539>>11853580If you still believe in hard determinism, you're a schizo. The past ~10 years of QM research has completely eliminated determinism. Particles bounce around inherently randomly there is no "underlying determinism" to it.
>>11853580I'm going by the common definition of schizo, that your brain is running two or more conflicting operating systems at the same time. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to take executive control of your own voluntary muscles.
>>11853544Ever notice how all leaders are psychopaths and no scientists are leaders? Leading is en emotional skill. Psychopaths are the olympic all stars of emotion, scientists don't even qualify for a try-out.
>>11853559an indeterminate universe does not imply free will, schizo.
>>11853665The fuck are you talking about, schizo? I said nothing at all about "an indeterminate universe."
>>11853656off the top of my head>Xi Jinping >Thatcher>Merkelwere all chemists originally, Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineerif I were to google I could probably give you other names
>>11853745>Xi Jinping >Thatcher>Merkel>not psychopathsuhhh
>>11853086Because humanities is incorrect. Humanities is a word that means academic fields like philosophy, history and so on.Humanity's is the correct term, because they are achievements belonging to humanity.If the supposed intellectual elite technocrats of /sci/ can barely understand the difference then just think how much damage they could do if they were in charge of society instead of merely being in charge shitposting.
>>11852037Science can’t answer all questions necessary to govern. Scientific method is very strict on what can and can’t be answered with science.For example, you can’t run a reproducible experiment to determine that OP’s dogma is a boner for generic scientific rhetoric. You just have to arrive at it from reason and experience.
>>11852103At the order of politicians
>>11853819>achievements belonging to humanityeuler and newton are aliens
>>11853819also if you followed any basic linguistic foundations, then the use of a word is the definition. that’s how dictionaries operate. but even outside of that context, youre also wrong.“Humanities” comes the subject of study. The laws of physics are existant outside of people. Not humanity.Literature is the study of human expression via writing. Humanity.Then you add an -ies for plural.
>>11853702you replied to someone who talked about being a hard determinist. Hmm where might it have been implied I wonder?
Because scientists and engineers are head in the clouds thinkers who get distracted and lack the ability to see the bigger picture?Have you even talked to a scientist leading their field? They're so out of touch its almost funny. Society would be doomed
>>11853912Imagine this guy deciding how to run your town and the policy on schools for your children.Laughable.You know those teenagers who think they know it all and are like "if only our generation were running the world instead of these BOOMERS. Climate change would be solved world hunger would be ended, there'd be no poverty or big corporations or greed"Teenagers live in a sheltered world where they are the smartest kid in class, it's like scientists in their sheltered academia world.Obviously some of them therefore think they'd do a better job running the world, but if that's the case why don't any of them get elected world leaders? Aside from the odd exception like Angela Merkel or Margaret Thatcher there are hardly any. But I thought politics was comically easy and beneath you? Surely you'd excel at getting these idiots to vote for you since you're so much smarter.Politics is complicated, and the people who excel at it are A) Charismatic and a great people person, great at mediating and listening to multiple experts at once and putting their narrow-minded advice into the wider context, and B) Spend all day moderating between experts and taking the brunt of decisions in front of the general public and living or dying by the public's response. Politicians are basically the middle managers who do nothing but interface other people all day long, that scientists fucking loathe by the way.If scientists were in charge they'd lock down absolutely everything to avoid the maximum number of corona deaths. They'd ignore the economists and sociologists telling them permanent lockdown will cause 10x the deaths over corona over the next 2 decades because "lol economy isn't a real science I'm smarter, obviously staying home saves lives duh martial law no one leaves the house for the next 6 months"
>>11852037>People are still replying to my bait postWow, /sci/ is really easy to bait
>>11854322>Imagine this guy deciding how to run your town and the policy on schools for your children.I'm lost on this part but agree with the last 2/3
>>11853584Ah yes, the brainlet argument of "random means free will". Even if the universe is random, this in no way implies free will, it's even more in favor of no free will.
>>11854476If people took every post at face value, then there'd be even less good content on this site.There's a morsel of good topic in it for people to read into it.
>>11853584You just exposed that you no nothing about hard determinism and the arguments made in favor for it.
>>11852052may not have happened without a charismatic hype man in the white house(or it may not have happened without a perfectionist film director, take your /x/ pick)
>>11853332It's better for people in the pods. They can't get hurt and never think bad thoughts you see.
>>11852040leading people is a science
>>11854270>where might it have been impliedProbably in the "hard determinist" half of your brain, you fucking schizo.Meanwhile the other half of your brain still chooses to type plebery into the internet
Go fuck off to China and knock yourself out Chang.
>>11855094>>11855109Not the guy you're replying to, but I'm always happy to shit on "no free will" arguments. If you don't agree that you have free will, why should we allow you to walk around in public or even in private? You're a danger to yourself and everyone else.
>>11855224PSImagine harvesting organs and flooding the west with meth and synthetics, then staring at that frail micro dick and thinking you've already won.You've been setup Chang. As have your traitors. You were givin a chance to become part of the global community. And you shat out a virus, infected the minds and veins of our youth with poison. Sold trash products.You've awoken older forces. Hidden hands and emotions. I thank you for that. I thank you. The plot twist is chang. The world does unite. But its you that we unite against.
Because then it would be literally only white people and a few Asians running everything and people wouldn’t stand for it.
>>11852037The first half of the xx century was the result of technocracies. It ended in a nuclear war.Life is art politics culture and humanities. Science is the bitch of those who's only reason is to do as told.
>scientists are good at things that are within their highly specific and insular fields>therefore they should be in charge.Most people in STEM fields haven't a fucking clue about how societies function or what it takes to run something. That's why they are always lackeys. White collar boys in the back while the born leaders are out in front pulling everyone along.>Oh I got bullied in school but I'm good at maths so I should be respected and given powerThat's what this post is.
>>11855306The first half of the twentieth century was not the result of technocracies. It was the result of political theory, economics with a few key philosophical thinkers sprinkled into the mix. Make no mistake, science in the 20th century was simply a tool used by the political powers of the world to try enforce their agendas onto the world. Scientists made the atomic bomb because they were fucking told to, and that's the best argument against scientists ever being in positions of power. They do what they're told, they are never the visionary personality cults leading the way.
>>11855318basically this, all science and art is financed and directed by patrons.
>>11852037Yes that's China, where society is viewed as an engineering problem
>>11853332Those who join us need give up only half of their humanity--the illogical, ill-tempered, and disordered half, commonly thought of as 'right-brain' functioning. In exchange, the 'left-brain' capacities are increased to undreamed potential. The tendency of Biologicals to cling instead to their individual personalities can only be attributed to archaic evolutionary tendencies.
>>11852037Because when it was tried, it was immediately hijacked by the USSR, and as a result all the experts were communists. The resulting stigma is present even now.
>>11853570Nobody has ever said they were miserable people. They just said they're retarded and their contributions to society are trash. I think everyone is in agreement that smart people are generally miserable.
Whoever is the best in finance should lead the country I think.
>>11852037Because even a technocracy would require some sort of value-system to ultimately guide what projects should be prioritized and how to exactly interpret the results of given projects. Adopting such a value-system would render the technocracy part secondary in all cases, and this will happen even if attempts are made to avoid that pitfall. You cannot avoid establishing a value-system independent of the scientific method or STEM babbling.
>>11855860What are you talking about? When was it tried?
>>11852037they're betas who can't lead
>>11855213I’m no determinist.Prove that a non deterministic system implies free will.
>>11855231this is no argument, but an opinion.You have to show that a human has free will by providing an agent for decision making that is independent of genetics and sensory input.
>>11855094I would argue the “even more in favor”. Determinism implies that free will is impossible, the fallacy is equating “no determinism implies free” will to “free will implies non determinism”.
>>11855899better let people prioritize and decide who haven’t spent more than 5 seconds thinking about the matter, right?
wrong, all the most important concepts were introduced by humanists, such as Locke or Montesquieu. It SHOULD STAY like this, STEMfags are glorified tradesmen and need to remain so.
>>11855094You must believe in free will. You have no choice.
>>11856433so... experts on their representative fields should have more political power regarding these fields? Seems like you just discovered technocracy. It doesn’t propose that engineers run healthcare, that would be counterproductive and inefficient.
>>11856403>You have to show that a human has free willHuh? I have no way of knowing whether you have free will or not. Why would I argue that?What I do know is that if YOU deny that you have free will, you're a danger to yourself and everyone else, and should be humanely sedated and snapped into a VR pod to generate green energy for the rest of us in exchange for letting you live.>>11856396>Prove that a non deterministic system implies free will.Dude, we can't even determine the supremum of a Specker sequence. Why would non determinism imply free will?
>>11856457I deny that anyone has free will because there is no viable mechanism for it. And instead of providing one you go and spoil Matrix.You argue we have free will solely based on determinism. Don’t act like I’m the one who came up with your retarded shit.
>>11856470>You argue we have free will solely based on determinism.The fuck are you talking about?>Don’t act like I’m the one who came up with your retarded shit.No, you're the dumbfuck who pulled "determinism" out of your ass. Quote where I ever did, or take the L, retard.>I deny that anyone has free will because there is no viable mechanism for it.Doesn't matter. If YOU deny that you have it, you're a clear and present danger to yourself and everyone else.
>>11852037>why our society shouldn't be a technocracy.Because Karen would pose as an Energy expert after reading a phamplet made by GE about their superior wind turbines. Then we'd have no electricity for the coming years until someone assassinates her.
>>11853332and that's why you're inferior to AI and should be replaced. because of your illogical decision of putting your "individual rights" over the greater survival of the species.
If these nerds are so smart, why ISN'T our society a technocracy?
>>11856497determinism is what this whole shitty chain is about.If you don’t deny that you have free will, you believe that you do. So what do you think is the agent or mechanism that drives your free will?And not having free will doesn’t pose a danger, one is always bound by societal and moral constraints.
Being educated on science doesn't make you a good leader or decision maker.A well rounded leader should be knowledgeable in multiple fields being science, history, culture, economics and philosophy ideally.But even then politics is mostly a question of character. That said the current election based system is pretty awful and caters to the dirty emotionnal plebs. Ideally only male citizen who served and/or pay taxes should be allowed to vote.
No, only military leaders should rule. But scientists should be well respected advisors to them. Like the Indian system where the educated class are higher than the warriors in the caste system but the warriors rule
>>11856701>determinism is what this whole shitty chain is aboutLol, no. You're the one who keeps bringing it up. I've never mentioned it once, other than to reject the argument you're trying to have with yourself.Free will is an antecedent to human rights. It's driven by social contract. If you deny that you have free will, you're disavowing agency over your actions, which at best gives you the moral and legal standing of a domestic ape.>And not having free will doesn’t pose a danger, one is always bound by societal and moral constraints.How are you "bound" if not by assumption of free will?
>>11856737Based.The trifunctional division of society (priest/warrior/tradesman) is the natural state of human civilization.Scientists must rise to priesthood and help the warrior class overrule the merchant class which took control of society.
>>11855094>Ah yes, the brainlet argument of "random means free will".I literally never said that you presumption low IQ dunning kruger dumbfuck faggot.I said that "thereis no determinism", I said nothing about free will.
>>11856740moral thought is still valid, even if it’s predetermined by genetics and environment. I’d feel horrible if was to hurt someone. I don’t need free will for that. Legislature is still valid to set this environment.You haven’t provided a mechanism or agent. You said that not having free will would lead to a jurisdictional dilemma, which I agree with, mostly because you can’t attribute any guilt for criminal behavior and lock people up to condition others. But this is no statement about its existence and especially no evidence.
>>11856765>moral thought is still valid, even if it’s predetermined by genetics and environment.Valid, but not binding.>haven’t provided a mechanism or agent. You said that not having free willAlmost. Not not having free will, but not assuming free will. The assumption is the mechanism. There's no meaningful difference between having free will and acting on the assumption that you do.
>>11856801morals aren’t binding with free will, either.practically, with our brains and the complexity of our physical environment, there is no real difference. Fundamentally, though we are bound by physics. The way our lives go is not in our hands.
>>11856855>Fundamentally, though we are bound by physics.True, but that's a limit, not an interdiction.
>>11853656>Psychopaths are the olympic all stars of emotion, scientists don't even qualify for a try-out.One of my greatest moments was when I was the prosecutor's witness against my former psychopathic boss, going down for fraud.t.Scientist.
>>11853079Sounds like an ideal life. How does he stay in shape?
>>11855231>>11856403I think it's less "no free will" and more that free will doesn't exist in a vacuum. The idea that the mind is not a product of the body is foolish.
>>11856744>>11856737Isn't that sort of what the romans did?
>>11858056Sure, I'll agree with that. There's no meaningful difference between not having free will and not being able to act on it.
>>11852037Technocracy means rule by experts, not that technologists should rule.
>>11856544On the contrary, since most Human beings are terrible, awful people, putting checks on the power an individual ruler can accumulate actually ensures the survival and betterment of the species.
>>11852037the technocrats would be preoccupied by governing so innovations would stall.We should however invest MUCH more in (future) innovators
>>11852037Agreed. Scientists, engineers, physicists, and mathematicians have the most to contribute to society, therefore they should have the most to say. The world's normies must be dragged kicking and screaming into a new age of transhumanist utopia if the best of humanity is to survive past age 80.
>>11852037In my experience, the most skilled and creative thinkers are not those with the highest degrees. Typically undergraduate and master's degree holders (or those with additional non-academic certifications beyond a 4 year degree) are the best at creative thinking, and developing unique ideas. Compare this to many PhD holders, who are at their best when nodding their heads at a convention, and you see where people should look to for leadership; it isn't the academics of the world. These are often the virtues I look for in terms of a leader, however Technocracy often promotes academic achievements over leadership. As a result, I can't honestly say that I can directly equate academic success to leadership potential. I've worked in a number of environments, with the educated elite, blue collar types, and everyone in between. What I can tell you is that the best leaders - those who in 30 seconds can make you listen to anything they say - are the ones who are relatable, and choose to show by example over credentials. Developing a Techno-Caste of highly educated individuals is going to cause a rift between those who aren't skilled in academia and those who have extreme potential in other pursuits.tl;dr Sometimes dumb dumbs have their shit together, sometimes scientists suck.
>>11853045Here's your answer.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIX4jCZDN_Q&feature=emb_title
>>11853410One massive cope from a business major or fine arts major who couldn't hack it in first-year calculus. You're not in Beta Delta Phi anymore, the real world doesn't have a worthwhile place for your "people skills" anymore. Learn to code or GTFO.
>>11852052>All of humanities greatest achievements>Names single achievementWhat about the pyramids or the great wall of China? Obviously it is the workers unions that should be running our society!
>>11860280Slaves (workers' unions) wouldn't know how to build pyramids or walls if it wasn't for the accumulated knowledge of the priestly class (intellectuals).
>>11853078Again, the perceived "evil" of their work falls back to the institution that employed them in the first place. The act of carrying out the science they did in the first place isn't evil, however it was weaponized and used by a government with disregard for human preservation. A scientific environment purely for agendaless progress can be considered the ultimate good.
>>11853319Not to discount that artists have played a role in enriching our species' collective experience, but as far as practicality and the ability to ensure survival go, technology comes first. Technology and humanity evolved together to a point where the fear of waking up dead tomorrow at the jaws of a predator was effectively eliminated, and as a result, humans had more time and energy to put towards art in the first place. Technology is a prerequisite for art, but art is not a prerequisite for technology.An existence without either would truly be bleak though
>>11855908Around the time of the New Deal. It has also been tried in the USSR (initiated by Lenin), but ended quickly after Stalin massacred them all.
>>11853656>psychopathsMost scientists fall in that range.>sociopathsMost politicians fall in that range.Psycho-Sociopath: Most Emperors fall in this range.
>>11852040This is just a hopeless coping mechanism (a psychological defense).Imagine that your friend is more intelligent, hard-working, and disciplined than you.What can you do? You lose to him in every sport, game, science, reading, whatever.You come up with a piece of imagination. You claim that your "emotional" or "social" skills are better than his.
>>11862728But, anon you are a coping faggot and lying
Scientists should rule but many scientists are not true experimentalists. They are autistic theoretician-metaphysicians like stringlets.
>>11862689You seem to forget that psychopath and sociopath is an actual weakness of the mind.Here are some critical weaknesses shown by psychopaths, traits that ever NEVER good in any context>impulsivity>inability to understand human emotions>excess self-esteem (inability to measure own's worth correctly)>violence
>>11862737Which is why when combined psychopathy and sociopathy have traits either calibrate well together or go completely insane.
>>11852037You haven’t spent more than 2 hours studying the structure of governments.Quick, explain the difference between industrial structure policy and industrial organization policy.Name the advantages and disadvantages of a Weber style bureaucratic office drafting legislation and policy vs legislation origin from a parliament, list several historical examples and their outcomes.. Explain how to have an effective bureaucracy without it becoming power corrupted or bloated while attracting top talent, list several historical examples and counter examples.List historical examples of when tariff and government low cost loans helped an industry and a when they hurt it.Just admit you have no idea how things work.
Technocracies already exist.China's a technocracy. They put scientists and engineers in positions of power.In contrast, most western politicians are lawyers.https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/04/chinas-overrated-technocrats-stem-engineering-xi-jinping/
>>11862914> China's a technocracy. They put scientists and engineers in positions of power.Your source says the opposite of what you Claim, try reading past the introduction
The current scum of the earth, apart from joggers, are politicians.- no scientific knowledge or achievements, just humanities retards- either no compassion or too much compassion- only have power in mind- caused the greatest wars and famines of our time- easily corrupted by money- enable the worst in their followers and use them like toolsFuck politics.
>>11862805All of this shit, only to have a pathetic TWO (2) party election in the end.
>>11862937Are you the op?>no achievements Wrong.>fuck politicsIf you are the op, I want you to realize a Technocracy would not get rid of politics. Even universities run by the professors have politics with all the mud and slander and power tripping
>>11862945No he isn't me, I've stopped posting a while back. Besides my starting post I think I only have like 3 posts in this thread.
>>11862942Just because American democracy is shit doesn't mean there aren't better democracies with true multiparty systems out there, out of the 100 or so countries that are electoral democracies.In fact two party systems are quite rare, most democracies are three party systems.
>>11863484“Winner take all” election systems always end up with a two party system, you see multi party systems in places with plurality represetion and under parliamentary systems
>>11852037Documents can be forged... which makes technocracy impossible.Prove me wrong.
>>11866595That’s a pretty Russian view of society
>>11868545OP here I posted this as bait, I only have like 3 posts in this entire thread
>socratic argument>guilty until proven innocent>slavery is wrong>the free marketHmmmm...
>>11868766I fucked up.Innocent until proven guilty. Well, that is if it is not a female who accuses you of anything.
>>11852037It.'s very simple. People are afraid of what they don't understand. They don't understand us. They like to make fun of us and redicule us because they are afraid of us. The unknown. If they could us they would've killed us all at the first sign of showing superior intelligence. That's the other reason they fear AI. Everything that is better at the game (in this case it is capitalism) we all play and every player that has better chances should be made fun of, emasculated, castrated with onions and made a wagie slave.
>>11852040I think any person picked at random is a better fit to lead than the stone cold psychopaths that do.
>>11852037because the industrial revolution was a mistake
>>11859933>>11869393>butthurt bottom bitch engicucksIt's literally true, copers.STEM majors and scientists are not any more intelligent than any other field, whilst having less power and prestige than other fields.This is reality.
>>11870485>STEM majors and scientists are not any more intelligent than any other fieldThe facts don't support that claim, although I can understand that, as a business major or a liberal arts major, you may have some aversion to facts.https://thumbnails-visually.netdna-ssl.com/what-does-your-college-major-say-about-your-iq_51d0a27d3bf7f_w1500.pnghttps://media.thetab.com/blogs.dir/91/files/2017/04/iq-majors.jpghttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/b5-HySXwZ_TR3MRSoq9gT0yppApuaXgn8xU6_aNf1XFrCdVnxdjkBHiCO5Shh6cfdrqe-OE5exIXllruornUcUII1tDapPapPAw07AYQ4VazLMa39qY33Tu6sBkKH69ZP-IWuQal7Ahttps://thoughtcatalog.com/christine-stockton/2014/06/infographic-the-more-female-dominated-a-college-major-is-the-lower-the-average-iq/https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e4f6e555d97fdd45bc70fde996cf6506.webp>whilst having less power and prestige than other fields.Anyone who cares more about prestige in the eyes of others than about producing, achieving, or advancing the frontiers of human knowledge is not a human being worth a damn. I'd laugh in the faces of hordes of business bros, art professors, and English majors who hork down chicken wings and cheer for sportsball games on the weekends if I wasn't too busy trying to plumb the secrets of reality itself. >This is reality.Reality begs to differ, loser.
>>11852037Imagine being this much of a cultural plebian