Blackpills That Changed You Forever

The bible is real and everyone is willfuly decieved.

First fag pill of the thread. Congrations.

That's pink. Hidden.

That people are scum, and deserve to be wiped out.

We are a fungus
Originally

humans/humanity is a rather basic version of sentient life and we will inevitably be eclipsed by something else if we don't become something different

The black mold!

Join gay niggers

discord.
gg/uqBj5y

Size matters a lot when you are small or big.

Attached: 012_1480701516592.jpg (650x850, 169K)

Girls quite literally do not feel love the same way we do. Their brains are different. This isn't an insult it's a fact. They don't feel that "Wow I love him, I care about him, I want to make him happy" feeling, they literally don't feel it, they feel a "Wow, he's a good catch, I want him to be the one to take care of me" feeling

Well, a mother can feel the former. However, it's paternal, and no other woman will have that kind of unrelenting love for you.

Everyone only cares about their own self interest
Every interaction is a transaction
'True altruism' doesn't exist

If you see a starving beggar, you give him money because you want to eliminate the uncomfortable feeling of guilt which will weigh on your conscience. You also get an ego boost or a warm fuzzy feeling, convincing yourself that you are a 'nice person'.

If you are a soldier and you want to sacrifice yourself for the glory of the nation, you are getting an emotional reward in that moment (glory, feelings for your nation) which drives your decision. The emotional reward overwrites your fear of death.

A mother will sacrifice anything for her child, because the mother will feel immense pain if the child comes to harm, and she wants to eliminate the pain. Love is an effective mechanism for allowing humans to propagate and protect their progeny.

These all happen subconsciously. People often don't realize the mechanisms that drive their actions. It's all emotions. It's all meant to help you survive to reproduce and spread your genes. Sex is the ultimate biological imperative.

I think you mean maternal.

true altruism can exist, but you have to orient your life towards being altruistic towards everyone. it doesn't really exist for regular people. it's like how the DnD druid personality type doesn't exist irl, but someone with the personality could possibly exist.

You're right. I'm tired.

No, look at my examples

Sure, there are people that are giving and altruistic, what I meant was that their motivations are all driven by trying to satisfy their own emotional needs (helping others because they feel worthless otherwise, because it makes them feel nice and have a purpose, because they are very prone to feeling guilty and helping others alleviates this guilt)

Of course externally this doesn't matter, but some people can't see the part I bracketed including the altruistic people themselves, they think they're doing it from the 'goodness of the human heart' or whatever but their behavior is driven from subconscious emotional triggers. They want to think its from 'the goodness of the human heart' because it feeds their narrative of being a 'good person'.

God is real. He created the material realm. He and his hideous reflection are the only evil. The devil is real. He is the Adversary. He bares the light to salvation beyond the realm of material travesties. He is the Sun of the Alien god. His gift in Eden is humanities only hope for salvation.

Attached: images (8).jpg (201x251, 5K)

I don't think we know enough about the brain in general to make such claims tbqh

your examples are of people who don't orient their lives towards being altruistic. true altruism can't exist in people who are self-motivated. the average person can't be altruistic, but you stated that it outright can't exist which is wrong. a person who orients his life towards others alone with minimal care for self (basic living necessities) can practice altruism without self-motivation.

What if you have look, height AND autism?

>Transactional analysis
>Nietzsche
>Aristotle
You've summarized what these propose.

o cool I've never read them
What should I start with?

>realize you are below average in size
>start buying into the whole penis extender shit that 8 inches are the norm
>get really depressed
>learn that the average is actually pretty decent for most women, with slightly above average being perceived as the best
>want to feel relieved about it but it doesn't really help either way because still below average
Why does it have to be this way, why do I have to be an outlier and an outlier on the wrong end of the spectrum to boot

Attached: 1522482080338.gif (148x111, 264K)

>black pills

The lot of you should be shipped off to reddit you fucking faggots these are some weak ass black pills that all revolve around being selfish

Attached: 1523011453400s.jpg (120x124, 3K)

I used to come to this conclusion as well but the cocaine experiments with rats made me a bit sceptical of the premise

By all means, let's see one of your 'strong' black pills, user.

Attached: original.gif (500x217, 336K)

It's a lie, unless you're a woman.

I don't think there are strong black pills because the reality tends to be pretty boring and concluding with 'we don't really know'.

> a person who orients his life towards others alone with minimal care for self (basic living necessities) can practice altruism without self-motivation

I get what you're saying, we just have different definitions of altruism. In your example, the guy practices 'altruism without self-motivation' because he gets something out of it (the emotional reward for helping other people, alleviate the guilt he feels for being a burden on society or whatever emotional reason). If he did not get anything out of it, there would be no reason he would choose this particular lifestyle over another, such as a hedonistic one. It's because his value systems are different from the hedonist, that's why he lives in such a way. It's still motivated by an internally generated force.

I guess its a matter of semantics then.

What I meant by 'true altruism' is something that's completely 'selfless', motivated by a force beyond the person's self/ego. But ALL acts are inherently self-motivated.

>Isn't this obvious?

It's not to many people. Many people don't realize the subconscious emotional forces that drive their decisions

Everything you do matters. To you. Everything is eternal. Each moment a universe that will never cease to exist. This means you can be trapped in eternal pain or eternal bliss by your own consciousness. Being a NEET is the ultimate form of existence because it voids you from creating potential soul traps.

In truth there are no black pills because everything can be override with will power.

The only black pill that exists is that your whole life is centered around an experiment to see if natural life can become "God" but "God" can be defined in many ways.

I'm not good with wording my own personal philosophy but I consider this a black pill and it's more constructive personal quest rather than trying to get le upboats

I don't get what the experiment had to do with my premise

It's about drug addiction isn't it, I don't see the link

I dunno, I started to google those statements because I remember someone talking about a mathematician-turned-psychologist who claimed exactly what you said - everything we do is a selfish deed at its core, limited only by the natural order of action - consequence.
And while it makes sense, I don't think it's a general rule. There are people who suffer their whole lives because they took someone's life (i.e in war or in self-defense) for example. Even if their choice to take a life is publicly acknowledged to be a sound one, these people are still traumatized by it and regret it.

It's about reward circuits. Cocaine is a very potent drug to give you all the rewards that you could possibly need in an instant, however rats only do cocaine when they're not leading happy rat lives. That implies that even rats have some sort of understanding that there's something deeper than just the pleasure of the moment, I think

even with your definition, I think that people can waiver into and out of a state of true altruism given proper circumstances. if a person separates himself from the internally generated forces through some means for a time and the opportunity for being altruistic is present, then he can act as a person without self interest in completing the action if the action starts and is completed within the period of time. true altruism would then require a lack of awareness, but it would be possible to be accomplished by a person.

This is...blackpill? It's New Age hippie shit combined with a bit of Nietzsche's Ubermensch, twisted so that it justifies a parasite lifestyle.

Attached: 18982738.gif (220x217, 415K)

>"we don't really know"
That reminds me; nobody will ever understand you. You will never truly understand anything else.

>mathematician-turned-psychologist

If you could remember anything about this I would love to know who it is. I came up with this observation myself and would love to read what he says about the topic

> There are people who suffer their whole lives because they took someone's life (i.e in war or in self-defense) for example. Even if their choice to take a life is publicly acknowledged to be a sound one, these people are still traumatized by it and regret it.

I don't see how this invalidates my claim. Them feeling regret doesn't make the action 'truly altruistic'. It's possible to have simultaneous conflicting emotional impulses at any given moment. (eg. I love my wife but I hate her right now because she just pissed me off) Humans just follow the strongest one. Again its still internally generated.

Fuck outta here normie I gave it a shot that's the first black pill I ever created and it's better than any posted here you faggot!

This is a board for NEETs get the fuck out of here wagie you're not allowed to browse while at work!

Attached: download (7).jpg (188x269, 9K)

>double dubs to boot
You just shat on him, lmao.

if two generally equal people are placed into an identical situation and the situation is completed in more or less the same way, then if both are told to explain the situation the explanations should be near identical.

Neet on suicide watch

Attached: 45117417-8725-4F80-A0E1-2BF2B7CE0024.jpg (399x385, 44K)

>I think that people can waiver into and out of a state of true altruism given proper circumstances. If a person separates himself from the internally generated forces through some means for a time and the opportunity for being altruistic is present, then he can act as a person without self interest in completing the action if the action starts and is completed within the period of time.

This makes sense in theory, but could you provide a realistic example of this? What circumstance could possibly exist where this becomes valid.
I thought about this before actually. I was thinking something like some kind of brain-altering drug or procedure that short circuit's the brain's emotional decision making centres. But even then, the person had to agree to the procedure or had to make an emotional decision to engage in the procedure in the first place. So again its like that 'can god make a stone so heavy he cannot lift it' thing.

STOP FUCKING SAME FAGGING AND COMPLIMENTING YOUR OWN POSTS YOU FUCKING REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I fucked your wife wagie

Attached: download (6).jpg (228x221, 9K)

we have no information about the nature of their subjective internal states that led to their explanations or perceptions of the situation in the first place.

i.e. how do i know that the 'red' i'm seeing is the same as the 'red' you're seeing.

I think you're understanding my premise incorrectly. I'm not arguing that people are making emotional decisions in the pleasure of the moment or based on emotions they're feeling at a particular point of time, but that the reasons they make decisions are entirely INTERNAL, there is no external force driving it.

>REEEE I SHIT IN BUCKETS!!!

Ben stop Chinaposting on Jow Forums.

I think it's more of a cognitive dissonance. You are raised your whole life with the idea that life is sacred and that you mustn't take a life ever, but put in the position where one of the most important values of life has to be broken.
Try Travis Hirschi and his control theory. That's the closest I got to those.

>reads reddit tier philosophy books so he can use them in conversation on a image board

guess you were just born to be kinda of cuckish? sucks but this shit happens y'know?

we're both calling it red and reacting to it in the same fashion, so the understanding is the same regardless of the possible specific interpretation. all humans without sensory impairment have the same sensory interpretation structures.

Thanks for this. I just read a brief summary on wiki and so far his conclusion of 'humans are selfish beings, who make decisions based on which choice will give the greatest benefit' doesn't invalidate my premise. I'll read more though

You won't even understand yourself. It's pretty evident that any effort to rationalize your actions after you already did them don't necessarily conclude with why you actually did it.

nigger i just lost brain cells reading that, please refrain from sharing your thoughts

>Jow Forums has no topic
Bitch.

Attached: 1435539109391.jpg (889x1126, 285K)

>all humans without sensory impairment have the same sensory interpretation structures

How can you prove this?

>regardless of the possible specific interpretation

If you agree that there is a possibility where the subjective interpretation differs between two people, then the OP's claim of
> That reminds me; nobody will ever understand you. You will never truly understand anything else.

seems like it would be valid to me.

>sucks but this shit happens y'know?
Yes, but this neither really means anything nor is it helping. I mean if I were into cuckshit I probably wouldn't mind but I'm not, I think cukoldry is a fetish or lifestlye that's inherently self-destructive. That and it's entirely alien and disgusting to me, like scat play or whatever

Literary theory was politically radicalized in the 1960s. You can see the issues at stake most clearly in the contrast between the writings of the New Critics (1920-1955), and of the leftists (1960-present).

What you'll find in the writings of the New Critics such as TS Eliot, Ezra Pound, Austin Tate, John Crowe Ransom, and Cleanth Brooks, is that the leftists were not (as they claimed) correcting the New Criitics; they simply erased their arguments from history, filled the empty spot with lies and slander, and went back to doing what people had been doing before the New Critics, which was writing about the social and historical context of literary works. The key issue was that the New Critics wanted people to make *value judgements*. They wanted to find some way of saying that some literature was better than other literature. The critics before and after them wanted to avoid having to do that.

What's this got to do with anything? The movement in the 1960s was motivated by a desire for social justice--to study works by women, minorities, and workers, and use literature for social change. The problem was that all those people had been de-valued by the literary canon.

The solution, people like Derrida, Foucault, Eagleton, and Fish said or implied, was *not to make judgements*.

This is why literary theory is now overrun with stupid theories. Like Marxism. I spent the last 2 weeks studying Marxist theory for class. I'm sorry, but it's stupid. It is empirically false. It's time to say "Oops, this was wrong", and try something different. But that would be making a judgement.

Or like the stupid ideas of Stanley Fish, who says the words of a novel are unimportant; everything is in the mind of the reader. Or Vincent Leitch, who says not to worry about misrepresenting the New Critics, because you make progress by overturning your elders, not by understanding them. Or the general consensus that we can't know anything about the real world.

Unironically the 80/20 rule.

I don't even try anymore, and my past failures make sense now.

Attached: 1471525960723.png (1000x998, 134K)

This world is rotting, only Christ can save us now

you never had any to begin with you fucking kike

Attached: aug.jpg (225x225, 4K)

>pretending to be edgy black piller
>post most basic red pill shit
nigger are you even trying to troll?

Or George Steiner, who wonders how science works when everyone *knows* we can't know anything about the real world, and concludes that God continually intervenes to make it appear that scientific theories are correct. Literary theorists are competing with each other to see who can say th emost stupid thing and get it repeated.

Unfortunately, progressivism in the US became tangled up with all this. We want to distribute social valuables (money, jobs, status, influence, safety, rights) "fairly", but this leaves many unanswered questions, such as how to trade off "fair" with other social goods, or what "fair" means. If a member of group A is 3000 times as likely to try to smuggle a bomb onto an airplane as a member of group B, what trade-off should we make between "fair" and "safe"? If members of group A are, on average, more interested in jobs that provide status and money, while members of group B are more interested in jobs that give satisfaction, how do we measure pay equity? Progressives sidestepped these questions by adopting post-modern philosophy to argue that we shouldn't even ask such questions, we should simply distribute everything proportionately among all groups. But this is based on arguments that you *must not make judgements* and you *must not admit there is an external reality* which is not socially constructed. All differences in outcome, we're supposed to believe, are socially constructed, and can be socially deconstructed.

i have height and look, but cannot do shit because of strong autism-o

Everything contradicts. This is the only absolute truth. Each observation is true, yet false. Nothing is truly understood, only infinitely estimated by the observer.

Attached: 1523254518616.jpg (887x686, 76K)

>basic red pill shit
Jow Forums isn't what it used to be. Most of the normalfags from reddit lurking here now would deny it

>2018
>reading books
>implying i learn about this only for image boards
Nigga all I need to do is google what I don't know and spend a total of like, an hour on Youtube to understand the basics of philosophical concepts. If I can do it, so can a parasite like you. This way you won't say dumb shit and people won't ridicule you.

Wew this is some /x/ level drivel

>>Everyone only cares about their own self interest
No. Plenty of people live in the fantasy world of ideology and religion.
Also this isnt as nasty as it sounds. Humans are able to use reason to cooperate and help each other reach their ends. Only criminals lack this faculty which is why they end up where they do.

this nigga know what's up

I'd rather discover life for myself than rely on some kike that died 100 years ago getting ass fucked by his nigger slaves

What I said wasn't dumb it was amateur philosphy, give me another ten years and you'll be quoting my names along with they other kikes you fucking maggot

I don't give a fuck if you "ridicule" me you little bitch I'm not a soft little boy that's going to cry cause a fucking wagie that's selling his life to the eternal jew called me names on a kike board

I literally made that shit up in 2 seconds and it's more interesting than anything you could come up with on your own you fucking brainlet go fucking kill yourself

damn straight nigger.

You're taking the statement out of context
Read my entire post as well as the responses.

Self-interest isn't inherently harmful, user. It just means that if you don't have any internal reason for doing something, you won't. People generally do good and nice things because it makes you feel good.
Imagine loving and caring for someone would make you feel miserable all the time, nobody would do it.

I agree with you. I don't know why you think I dont.
I did read it.

Calm down, user. You're embarassing yourself.

Attached: 3695589.gif (200x200, 43K)

Keep butthurting, parasite.

Attached: c83d40374205266d5b60aa931.png (249x321, 99K)

>Everything contradicts. This is the only absolute truth. Each observation is true, yet false. Nothing is truly understood, only infinitely estimated by the observer.

I don't understand because you're contradicting yourself.

>No. Plenty of people live in the fantasy world of ideology and religion.

I thought you disagreed because of this. Anyhow, the fantasy world of ideology and religion is also an internally generated emotional framework if you think about it

You denied that people act solely on self-interest, though. Cooperation, reasoning and all that (or lack thereof) isn't what makes someone a criminal because criminals are also able to use these things to be more successful, see organized crime.
What makes you a criminal is a lack of inhibitions.

Therefore, it validates and balances itself.

I never said it wasn't.
It's just something that many people spend their whole lives not understanding, they genuinely don't realize that there is NOTHING beyond the fundamental internal emotional forces that drive their behaviors. Imo this causes a lot of needless suffering, people getting duped, e.g. soldiers being manipulated to fight wars for power-hungry politicians and think they're doing it 'for the good of their country'. It's knowledge that people at the top don't want you to know, because they can't control you otherwise.

You're just as much of a parasite as me you just have a inflated self worth

Oh no user kun I'm sorry I don't into words I'm much better at settling disputes with my blade. *Unsheathes Katana*

Attached: images (10).jpg (263x191, 9K)

*"it" being my understanding of this philosophy.

why does that matter?

orig

You'll be happy to hear that this is wrong user. Definitely wrong.

Except it's not. You'll realise it sooner or later, user.

I think it's just that most people don't understand the premise, because if you give a homeless person 20 buckaroos they're "obviously" doing it for the homeless person and not for themselves. You really have to get into some heavy abstract thinking here.

criminals arent successful
they suck the life out of the societies they exist in like a tumor. all of them go down with the host once they suck all the life out of it.
Our base instincts see anti-social behavior as successful because lesser species often get caught in a genetic arms race where only dominant survive. While we still have the instinct, we can mostly override it so we can have a productive society that allows us all to grow.

It doesn't. As my understanding goes, nothing matters. It's futile to explain it any further, given that your understanding will not be my understanding, but an understanding derived through interpretation, anyways.

Attached: 4600857.gif (500x333, 495K)

>criminals arent successful
they suck the life out of the societies they exist in like a tumor. all of them go down with the host once they suck all the life out of it.
As long as the host doesn't die, they're fine though. And they are not actively trying to kill the host.
>Our base instincts see anti-social behavior as successful because lesser species often get caught in a genetic arms race where only dominant survive. While we still have the instinct, we can mostly override it so we can have a productive society that allows us all to grow.
actually, not really. It's even speculated that our evolution was driven by the wish to escape tyranny, hence the egalitarian societies of early humans vs. the oppressive and tyrannical hierarchies that most other apes have.