/edu/ - Education

>>4859
You could watch the movie. It's dazzling trash.
I'll tl;dr:

First part of the story is Pi being all "omg, does god exist, does it not????" meeting with absolute retards to discuss this matter. A big revealing moment is when Pi goes to the zoo and sees "the worlds most dangerous animal", and it's a mirror, ie humans.

Second part of the book, Pi has a fantastic journey stranded in the Ocean with animals. There's a lion too. The lion is dangerous and eats animals Pi likes.

Third part of the book: Pi is rescued and it is revealed that the animals were actually humans, but Pi needed to COPE and made them animals. The description of what actually went down is extremely vulgar and disgusting.

The final kicker and "ah-ha!" insight moment is when the audience is asked if they prefer the better story (the one with animals and the lion in the middle of the ocean), or the real story (that the animals represented real humans, and the lion was a cook that was insane). The analogy is that "the better story" is pledging fealty to pedophiliac bloodthirsty reactionary religion while "the real story" is atheism, which we are supposed to think as viscerally disgusting (the worst animal is the human, and the insane cannibalistic cook's actions are basically atheism).

When I read it in highscool, there were a bunch of people who said they preferred "the better story". I was a staunch atheist back then. I saw that as an extremely grotesque acceptance that their belief in religion is literally COPE because they would rather not believe in "the real story". For a moment, I was considering the possibility that the book was written by an atheist to expose the religious as retards through 1D chess. But after a lot of classmates chose "the better story" and after analysis I realized it was filled with retarded arguments "supporting" atheism in the first part, I realized it was a retarded COPE of the highest caliber. I was an idiot back then, I can only imagine what other bullshit I'd find if I read it today.

>>4919
>First part of the story is Pi being all "omg, does god exist, does it not????"
His final conclusion about this was some nonsense about simultaneously following Hinduism Islam and Christianity.

For nonfiction there is Talking to My Daughter About the Economy by Yanis Varoufakis. Good read for teens about, well, the economy.

>>4858
>At 13-14yo I'd have my kids reading PKD, Vonnegut and Joseph Heller. Stuff that's a) a good medium between popular fiction and "serious" fiction and b) not outright leftist, but subversive (anti-war, anti-authority, etc).

This is why you will fail as a parent. You’re imposing your preferences onto your kids.

Also I hate that giving higher level books to kids is considered “challenging “ them. It’s not challenging them, that’s just giving them more nuanced reading material.

Also YA literature isn’t bad within itself. It’s just that YA is wrongfully represented by trashy romance that’s no different from its middle aged adult counterparts

>>4906
Kids already make fanfiction AUs with dystopian themes

Does anyone have a PDF of George Jackson's Blood in my Eye?
Requesting

>>7940
found it

If I want to read Mao, what should I read? I only know about the little red book.

Guys redpill me on the cambodian genocide, is this like tianmen square or did communists really genocide a bunch of citizens:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide

pls seed lol

Can this be a request thread too? I recently became aware of a book that came out last year which I suspect is an enormously important resource for defeating "muh Frankfurt School" brainworms online. But I can't seem to find it anywhere! There's nothing on libgen or Anna's Archive. Can anyone help?

>>8040
Whoops, can't embed and post an image in the same post. Here's the book.

>>8040
>>8041
Aha, a kind soul finally uploaded a copy. Please share, this seems like an important book for lefty history.

>>5185
Using anki to learn it now
https://taiwancenter.taiwan-world.net/material/basic
https://ctext.org/

Are you that brownanon that's obsessed with white skin?

I think you should better spend your eugenic efforts on elimination of autism

>>7911
read lysenko and fuck off

>>7989
Again, you may as well whine and bitch and moan over Photoshopped slop.
“Artistic integrity” died with the invention of photography and computerized manual editing

>>5280
>Goes on eating drinking and smoking like a pig
Jarvis, pull up the Bauer's act of petite bourgeois adventurism that was immediately supported by the absolutely thrashed Marx and Liebknecht from the historical materialism classic "On the piss question".

Typically geniuses are more likely to drink and be crazy just saying

>>7995
It’s fucked up how society romanticizes that.

>>5294
Hegel just paraphrased the Bible

>>8031
Annas archive is better, can you post a screenshot of yours? Tor doesn't load

Annas archive is prettier, but this works too
https://www.torproject.org/

Thanks for sharing this, I've had trouble with alcohol before and this is really interesting

>>4759
According to the study green eyes are light like blue eyes so they'd also have higher rates of alcoholism

this sounds like bro science tbh

>>4940
It probably is.
Or rather their style of explanation is “bro science”

>>8020
The funny thing about Wittgenstein is that he spent his later life saying "I didn't get it right" and everyone moved to say he solved philosophy then and there. It's crazy really.

I could never wrap my head around the person who is that quick to give over their brain to a thought leader. It's not that I'm some defiant personality that has to be argumentative. I'd love it if someone had all of the answers. Every time someone presents this system where they have all of the answers, it is the most flabbergastingly stupid shit. It's never a system that pertains to the world I see every day and have to live with. It's not even an indicator of what a total system would be. It's just "the system is never wrong" and a demand for slavish devotion to it. That way of thinking has been around in some form since forever and it's never worked. It's also been known since ancient times that this "total system" doesn't work for the same reasons I can figure out on my own.

Really though I don't understand the obsession with making knowledge trivial and reducing it to self-serving koans and sayings. I get why there are people who do this, but the world has always presented to me as a very large assortment of premises, all of which point to an underlying reality that has nothing to do with what I know or any linguistic conceit. The way of thinking that can mandate that we're obligated to respect the "total system" is very new, but the root causes of this disease are very ancient. The longer it goes on, the more insufferable it will be and the more it will throw lies at everyone to make them accept it.

As far as I know, no credible philosopher in history invokes the "total system" and insists it's true no matter what. Even someone as disgusting as Heidegger has his line of reasoning regarding the world and the power of making such statements. The German ideologues knowingly lie and believe that the essential act of lying invokes power. It's never worked for them, but it is a system that perpetuates itself and answers certain questions about the world. It can be done where the universe is viewed as a totality and that totality is functionally a clockwork (even if you're not allowed to say it's a clockwork, but all "totalities" necessarily imply a clockwork universe).

>>8021
As a black man having to grow up with an overbearing Christian mom, I feel you.


Most people don’t really believe in God or whatever their political orientation states they are.

They just merely hope.

One thing I’ve learned is that things that have direct evidence for its effectiveness is never forced on people.
It’s always the things that have no direct evidence of effectiveness that’s forced.

Society dictates that religious adults are justified in forcing their beliefs into children.

Society also seems to shrug off the amount of sexual and platonically physical abuse that happens in religiopolitical institutions.

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

>>8022

That's how education works - by forcing children to accept a lie, even a noble lie. The educator always considers giving the truth with clear evidence to be "cheating" because the point of education is to filter and make the student "work for it". As much as possible, the educator wants to decided arbitrarily who passes and fails, and "corrects history" until those who aren't supposed to succeed fail. Every system of education in history does this because education inherently serves some political function and has nothing to do with learning or the truth.
In the past, there was a baseline level of truth-telling that was necessary for society to continue. Workers needed to know how to till the land without being told again, and the same is true of any labor. In practice, no one in management is particularly concerned with merit or even a productive result of the labor. To a manager, the most important thing is that the ordering of society does not essentially change. The manager prefers that the current managers stay where they are or promote, but even more important than individual want is the managerial system remaining intact. Even at the expense of the collective interests of society or the interests of individuals, "the system is never wrong" because that was the way it has always been so far as the dominant ideas care. In the past, honesty was maintained by a lot of inertia working against the managerial system and by the necessities of their societies, since they had to fight actual wars eventaully or they faced individual famine if their farms weren't genuinely productive. The problem is primarily managerial rather than a religious problem or pure and simple greed of the proprietors. Proprietors may want to see the poor starve and extract more rent, but without the overbearing managerialism throughout the whole society, that can't be realized or morally enforced within the working class and institutions. The proprietors would have to resort to force to make people pay rent, and this assumes the proprietors define the point of their existence as rent-extraction which a proprietor may not want to do. Managers on the other hand are only incentivized to remain managers no matter what. The managers do not have a large stake in property, and what stake they have is almost never a personal one that translates to owning a long-term firm. The managers movePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>8023
>With "God" a lot of those who claim belief do not know what they are saying. So many are convinced God is their friend or looking out for them in some way, and that is not at all how it works.

This personalization of God is rife in Judie-Christianity especially in the west.
It’s obnoxious.

Is no wonder why churches are filled to the brim with semi-reformed degenerates, midlife crisis victims, and plain old underachievers.

>>374
That’s ironically how many books and movies become classics.
Relatability.

>>2431
>It's pretty obvious that people just really, really hate living in cities
I disagree. People hate living in shitty cities.

>number of 18-29 y.o. people

What did OP mean by this as a factor?

>>2469
This.

There are cities that people love living in.
Also, if you think cities are bad, boonies are just as bad.
No amenities available, no sane people around for miles, only activities are drinking and shooting, etc.

>>2427
>These were the role-less individuals who added a physical aspect to their social isolation. They were mostly male, and despite awful takes from smoothbrains, this too is related to social roles. It's an inescapable fact that the female role in reproduction is incomparably longer and more intense than the male one and thus the female population has a "reserve pool" of social roles, resulting in fewer of them becoming beautiful ones.

You’re assuming that women are all beautiful and/or remain attractive.
You’re forgetting that female elders often end up alone.

If you look at numbers for long enough you find correlations based on nothing in particular. None of this is real though. The motives for war throughout history are simple: those who instigate them risk nothing, because all costs for the war are borne by the oppressed. It's a win-win for the instigators, and so they will do so whenever they can mobilize an army that presents a serious threat. The soldiers are paid, and the performance of war deters most invasions by pre-empting them.

There is never any serious "elite infighting". The chief purpose of war is to exhaust the lives and resources of the general public, so that they may be kept in a state of despair and the existence of large, centralized state is made "necessary". If not for this, then people of all nations, regardless of their past, will look at their situation, look to each other, and see that nothing will ever be accomplished by these wars except the aggrandizement of people who should not be encouraged. There would, at the least, be a declaration of universal peace and severe punishment of all instigators and transgressors who create these things. In the long term, the peoples involved, whatever the nature of their polities, will see a global authority as the best outcome. These peoples will never be "one state" or "one nation", or one thing managed in the manner of a city-state or any state we have yet known; but for all intents and purposes, the policy of these entities would be set in accord with the needs of the global apparatus, because the value of maintaining that peace would be far greater than any ambition of one of the polities to dominate the others. The regime of "Plan War" throughout history accomplishes the same ends, but keeps the people exhausted with an ever-present fear of invasion. The world of peace relies on good will and trust to not ruin what would be a clearly beneficial condition for all of the polities involved. The world of war is functionally the world of peace for the aristocracy; by instigating these wars, with whatever excuses are needed to produce them, the aristocracy secures its own existence, which was always reliant on incessant instigation and setting the other orders of society against each other.

If you see history as aristocracy designed it, then of course all of the actions of that aristocracy are naturalized. They are at once wholly Nature (and "above Nature", a higher nature than the actual nature we know), and are the sole exemptPost too long. Click here to view the full text.