/32/ - Psychopolitics

>>1819

>there were maybe 2 or 3 /intl/ users tops

There were about 15 of regular posters judging by presence in saturday movie streams.

I find the whole event intriguing to observe, at least; it shows how gullible average poster is to information from authority. The whole thing of course translates into real life as well...

>>1823

On the other hand this constitutes slander, and the average poster could simply be using the authority's word as an excuse.

I don't follow drama between boards at all, and only check a few boards. If what you say is true... thats sad

I stay out of drama so I have no idea what happened, but wouldn't the OP be an ironic example of "mass manipulation" in itself? who is to say the post is 100% true? where can one go to even confirm this sort of information? I'm not saying he's lying, I really don't know. but how much information that we consume can we really say is without doubt an unbiased first hand source? and even if it was first hand, how much can we confirm to be truth? I understand the OP is referring to a leadership and subordinate dynamic, but I hope my point will still be clear.

manipulation happens, to an extent, within every communication shared by two or more individuals. most people would choose to "frame a narrative" in their favor, sometimes not even 100% consciously. there is so much to interpersonal communication that is often overlooked by individuals, and without even thinking most people "fill in the cracks", per say. words and phrases conjure up images in a person's mind. it's practically magick if you think about it.. neuro linguistic programming and the like. with enough knowledge of an individual's thoughts, feelings, behaviors, experiences, etc. one can very easily manipulate a person through word choice alone, forget adding in emphasis, gestures, tonality, touch, facial expressions, etc.

something as simple as "golden arches" can conjure up numerous smells, tastes, sounds, feelings, etc. in a person's mind. "I was robbed" and "I was mugged" are two very similar phrases and arguably can be referencing the same exact event, but they conjure up (at least for me) very different mental imagery. someone who was mugged was surely robbed, but simply being stolen from does not mean a person was "violently mugged". I could be pick pocketed and declare "I was mugged once" and garner sympathy from my audience even if no literal violence occurred.

I know it's not the best example but I hope I got my point across at least somewhat. language, while serving it's purpose, is fundamentally flawed. very intelligent people can easily convey their thoughts to others in an easy to consume fashion, but even they are limited by words. and if all of the words in existence weren't enough, they're further limited by words their audience understands. I wish I was one of those people bPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1829

>I'm glad to have found this board

I'm glad you did. We need people like you.

So I assume you're basically doing what the MRAs who sold 'male tear' mugs to feminists are doing? Donate the profits to MRA organizations?

>>1765

Did they really do that? I can't find a reliable source on that.

>>1147

Oh, the irony is intense.

>300-500 words

OP is clearly in high school.

>on how I can see examples of the following in our world today

Write 300-500 words on why you see no examples in modern society, and call your teacher a conspiracy theorist. They want you to blame the 'dumb' majority for the problems of the oligarchy. That's what everyone else does, because it makes them feel special.

>·The idea that science and technology can be used to control people.

"Science and technology are forces of invention that have only furthered communications. They filter out propaganda, by equalizing all voices and slowly progressing them towards the same volume. Before the internet, only the more monetarily endowed of people would be able to have their voice heard, and their opinions shown to a worldwide audience. Before the television, only people capable of packing newspapers onto ships, moving them across the oceans of the world would be able to have their ideas heard by other people. Now, we can transmit ideas on a whim, and they can affect people."

>·How *propaganda* can be used to control people.

"People can only be convinced of truths and untruths based on their own free will. Propaganda can not be used effectively anymore, as everyone is capable of putting their ideas on display in a way that is accessible to the majority of people. Propaganda is drowned out by the majority who is able to speak freely. Misleading information is dying out, as anything published through common telecommunications now has to be thought of as a lie until proven true, due to anyones ability to speak on it. Everyone has an opportunity to question and oppose the ideas put forth by propaganda, and everyone makes it mandatory through the belief that everyone on the internet is a liar."

>·How money, advertising and *propaganda* can manipulate voters.

I'd like to know what country you're in, but if it's a democratic republic, aPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

So like trying to diverge user clicks to a certain place, or something more malicious?

>>1709

Intentionally designing an interface badly/withholding information from the user in order to dope the user into buying/signing up for something they don't actually want, yes.

What is the function of Design in general?

Be it buildings, automobiles, appliances or websites, designers choose the shape, size, disposition, number and location of components in order to achieve maximum safety, effectiveness and aesthetic value. These three qualities, in that order, come from the roman book “De Architectura”, which states that “a structure must exhibit the three qualities of firmitas, utilitas, venustas”, meaning it should be firm (solid, safe, stable), useful (it should serve its function) and beautiful. The order is a logical one, since a beautiful object that does not serve its function is useless, and one that does at great risk to the user is not worth using. Allow me exemplify:

A hammer is a simple tool used for beating things (usually nails) with great force. If it had a flexible handle, like a Morningstar, it would allow the user to exert more force with the same effort, but with significantly greater risk. The current design is safe enough without sacrificing force generation or precision. If we were to make a beautiful hammer out of porcelain, it would be aesthetically pleasing, but ultimately useless as a tool. It could serve as a decoration piece, but it wouldn’t be a hammer anymore, it would be a piece of art, and the beauty would serve the new function (which would be simply to be beautiful).

The designer must work to achieve these three qualities, in this order. In the case web design, the page must be safe in the sense that it does not allow for the infection of the user by malware (something relatively simple); it must present the information it needs to present in a clear and accessible way, being the exposure of information the basic function of websites; and it should be aesthetically pleasing, so that the user is not turned off from using it or his eyes grow tired fast.

In the same way that a physician must care for the physical well-being of the patient, the web designer must make sure that the information on the website is easy to locate and access. To do otherwise would be incompetence. To do otherwise purposely would be unethical, in the same way as planned obsolescence of physical equipment.

As for actions such as incPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1709

Putting the 'buy now' button in the upper left hand corner, big green download buttons that redirect to a download the user didn't expect, and even paying an extra fee for something you don't need if you don't uncheck a box.

I think that knowledgeable posters may be most inclined to contribute in speculative or collaborative threads, ones where users are called to share their opinion.

That's an interesting question, because every attempt to answer it so far has been counterproductive authoritarian nonsense.

What we need is informative highly qualified posters to answer about what makes them come to, and respond to, an online community.

Freedom is probably a big thing. I'm most likely to come to a website I can experience new and interesting information at. I'm most likely to stop visiting a website that has the same information rehashed endlessly.

A board like /n/ or /pol/ is limited by the news cycle, but this board is only content limited by the amount of intelligent and interesting opinions we can attract.

A reduction in quality may actually provide an increase later as setting a good standard may put off good posters who recognise their failings like the peasants outside Stirner's milk-shop.

>How is "quality" defined on an imageboard (or in a discussion medium in general)?

Quality has a subjective aspect to it, as readers often associate a text's quality with its compatibility with their world views. For example, a fascist might say a very well-worded and sourced blog post is of low quality because it talks about Marx in a positive light. If we look at the matter in this way, quality is not only a factor of the material, bot something that varies according to the reader.

We might want to look for universal quality indicators. I certainly think of a few:

First and foremost, clarity of message. If a post is worded in such a way as to prevent easy comprehension it is necessarily of bad quality. I am not referring to texts where the poster uses unusual vocabulary or discusses obscure topics, but to failures to transmit information in a way that can be understood without a double meaning or with an obscure one.

Correct use of grammar and spelling are (as I see it) important even when looked at independently from the first factor. They indicate that the poster cares about abiding by the rules of communication, knows them, and considers the place of posting (be it the thread or board) worthy of the effort to abide by them. Despite being more of an indicator of the poster's quality, it is also related to the post.

Profanity should be considered an indicator of a lack of quality. One might argue that there are situations/threads where the use of profanity is acceptable (and sometimes encouraged); the way I see it, being in such a thread is likely already an indicator of low quality in itself, unless the poster is trying to rescue a thread that has descended into a flame war or such.

Needless aggression should also be shunned. To seek or fuel conflict, especially on the internet, denotes a tremendous lack of perspective on the part of the poster. Even if "the other guy started it", appealing to needless confrontation achieves nothing except entertain small-minded spectators. By remaining calm and polite one indicates one's superior control over themselves.

Politeness, as mentioned, can probably also be taken into account.

Formatting that is aesthetically displePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1757

>As you see, most of these actually refer to the quality of the poster rather than the quality of the post itself; the two are likely very closely related.

Exactly, the people are the primary determinant of the quality of a community, not the technology and rules of the online space it resides in. A quality community is one that manages to attract and maintain a group of decent and intelligent individuals who encourage each other to contribute content to the community.

>>1733

The term nihilism in the modern context is too vague and misrepresenting for the layman to understand the significance in psychology and today's identity trends. Yes, nihilism is nullification of values, ideals, and societal norms like many of the dictionaries and liberal text books will tell us, but what is the psychology behind this desire to brake away from the cultural norm? That's what we are trying to discover when dealing with nihilism as a psychological function.

Why does nihilist deny values. The answer is simple, but because of it's simplicity it's ignored, ridiculed, and overlooked. Especially from those that are pathologically nihilist themselves. They don't want to be exposed and their feelings and rational being judged.

To come into understanding, we should look this through a nihilist archetypes. First let's talk about a transsexual LBGT-activist. He is nihilists, he denies nature by denying his own manhood. He denies nature, objectivity and the observably obvious, for the implementation of his own ego, his desired identity. For transexual LBGT activist his political, sexual, and social identity has emerged into one. His whole existence, his self-worth, his ego is about this sexual transformation, and the moral status it gives him. To be the underdog. Yet, when he got it done, it wasn't what he wanted. A fear creeps in to him, when the value of life around him hasn't changed. What if what was done is not what I really wanted. See, the nihilist rejects nature.

Transexual LBGT-activist has done a irreversible cursory on to his body. He can't come to terms with this realization. He doesn't want to admit that he fucked up. He will try to compensate by explaining it away. He will try to accuse the society, parents and nature as a whole. He will try to say that biology is just a social construct, to explain to himself that he didn't fuck up.

Transexual LBGT-activist will try to convince himself that sex is just a noum, a categorization. He plays word games of sex and gender. He will deny that sex is biological construct, even thoPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1734

What ever kind of a nihilist is, all the same mental gymnastics happen in all nihilists. There are four different factors within the pathology of nihilism.

1) They reject objectivity. When nothing is objective, then subjective standards can be held the highest standard. This creates delusion of all sort. He wants to be the final judge of reality. Nihilist love subjectivity. We could even say nihilism is subjectivity, and extreme form of individual relativism. Where even reality is made to bend into subjective wants and needs.

2) The driving force for a nihilist is hedonism. Hedonism doesn't always mean physical and bodily satisfaction, but mental satisfaction over social status and acceptance. For nihilist the mental satisfaction is seductive. Because of this seduction, he will deny everything that rejects his standards and his seductive reward. It's this seduction of mental and bodily hedonism, which makes nihilistic memes spread. Liberalism, sexual liberation, gay rights are all seductive identities.

3) The last thing nihilist do is use wordplay to justify reality. In feminism and transsexual dialogue they use sex and gender, as a separate thing, so they could reject biology. Antiracist liberals use wordplay to downplay the term race. They try to determine race as a social construct, and not a biological one. They use worldplay to justify their believes, values and identity to themselves and to others.

4) Victim complex is there to protect the nihilist. If anyone questions his definitions, his wordplay, his subjectivity, or tries to understand where he gets his pleasure from, they are rejected as haters, fascist, nazis. They will shut their ears, and try to label those that don't share their values. They make themselves a victim and anyone who tries to wake them up is oppressor.

>>1734

>>1735

So, now that we explained the pathology of nihilists can we understand how human psyche works. It also gives us an understanding how to manipulate people, and how modern society manipulates people using nihilistic values, morals, dogma.

These dogmatic memes that nihilist like to use are words that declare or describe absolutes. It's function is all or nothing.

I give you guys an example.

We all have heard the philosophical claim that "there is nothing unnatural, everything is natural, as all things and phenomenon that exists are happening in material world". With this standard of "natural" anything is natural. It's all or nothing. Everything is natural, or everything is unnatural. Nihilist want to define nature like this, so they can use nature as an argument to justify their degeneracy and their unnatural activities and beliefs.

"Everything is natural" of course is a fallacy. These people will claim that car, nuclear plant, light pulp, or airplane are natural. They are natural in 21th century, but in the context of natural history they are a blink of anomaly. See, the word natural has to have a context, in which it is referred. They even claim homosexuality or transsexuals are natural. In nature these thing don't usually occur, thus they are unnatural.

Natural and unnatural are both adjectives, designed to describe if something is usual or unusual. Natural is a descriptive word. The word "natural" is describing occurrence. Is phenomenon occurring repeatedly. When phenomenon is in line with the expectation of occurrence, then it's natural. In nature everything goes in cycles. Years, planets, water, life, everything. Everything in nature has a rhythm, a pattern, a way it occurs, and natural is a way to say it's occurring like it suppose to. If something changes, and disturbs the occurring pattern, then it means that something unnatural has occurred.

There is a tangible desire to want to be allowed to feel good in our society. Whatever means by which this can be soothed to the individual is but a side effect of the inherant need for approval and completion by the average man

One important factor is socioeconomic coercion

What's interesting about moots situation with 4chan is that it proved what many had suspected and that's that silicon valley despite being a byproduct of the military industrial complex its becoming an overtly liberal place where having the wrong set of ideas can ruin your business.

Of course this is all superficial since these liberal investors still do things that go against they philosophy like not giving a damn about workers, the increasing wealth gap and evading taxes with offshore schemes. But they are liberal where it counts: while talking and when making donations

It's obvious that moot got investments

for his terrible ideas as long as he turned extreme liberal and surrendered the keys to 4chan.

This thus is socioeconomic coercion since moot didn't really care about being accepted but about finally making a profit. After all his site predates even Myspace

bump

Basic Survival 101:

https://archive.fo/4LV5q

http://www.stevequayle.com/index.php?s=221

56 Long-Term Survival Foods and Supplies at the Grocery Store:

https://archive.is/XPy07

http://www.allselfsustained.com/56-long-term-survival-foods-and-supplies-at-the-grocery-store/

55 Preparedness Items:

https://archive.is/q15kx

https://archive.is/EBIjv

http://www.prepperfortress.com/55-preparedness-items/

When SHTF These 100 Items Will Disappear First (STOCK UP NOW!):

https://archive.is/ARfiL

http://www.shtfplan.com/emergency-preparedness/when-shtf-these-100-items-will-disappear-first_06032010

40 Items to Barter in a Post-Collapse World:

https://archive.is/f4XWk

http://www.backdooPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

bumping in light of S4T's doc mentioning captology

>Can we qualify these tactics as "fair game"?

Hard yes. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say "we should start pitching heroine during Dora The Explorer," I do believe that advertising as it stands is perfectly fine. Ideally, and I try to do what I can, people will grow to know and understand advertising "tricks." Then either the advertiser comes up with new tricks or fades away. It's healthy for people and business.

>But what about the people taken by the ads?

No one criticizes a lion as immoral for tackling the slowest gazelle. I'm from the Land of the Commercial and Home of the Big Mac, so I have lived both sides of the coin. I'm not bitter that everyone who used the cologne I did was so much better-looking than me, after all, it was my choice to buy it anyway. I could have not given them money if I wanted to.

>Should manufacturers be restricted to showcasing the characteristics of the products and services in the most impartial way possible?

That is a very interesting question. It would boost consumer confidence, but at the same time, consumer numbers would decline.

Let's use a chicken shack, KFC or something, for example. Let's say They are forced to display their "food" as-is in all their advertising campaigns. They don't have to disclose their "secret spices" or reveal their employee working and living conditions. Just whenever they take a picture of their mashed potatoes, it's gotta be a spoonful of runny, watery slop that's still cold and powdery in the middle.

Their installed userbase, the people that go there regularly anyway, won't stop going. But they won't get new customers, they'd stagnate, and die.

On the other hand, Would PETA be forced to stop showing pictures of nasty chicken farms in honduras or whatever and start showing pictures of pictures of chicken farms where the chickens are reasonably healthy and happy - a little bored and fat, but otherwise in fair-to-good health, the state of the average american chicken farm owned by the 4 major chicken suppliers?

I feel more transparency would be good, but forcing any group to use something other than their "show horse," the best possible reprePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

A better question would be: what's the alternative?

One extreme would be to force the companies to display (or make available) the complete composition and process of the manufacture of their products or the execution of their services. That would be extremely unpractical; the consumers would not bother analyzing the information available to them, and assuming all companies had very similar processes (which they do) the choice would be guided by practical matters, such as price and availability, or subjective ones, like packaging and scent.

A second approach would not prevent lies by omission, such as in the first case, but would prevent fabrications and lies. This would be a proposition similar to that of >>1708 and the mashed potatoes. Simply prohibiting the distribution of misleading or false information (visually or textually). I disagree when the anon said that this would discourage new costumers, since every company would be forced to act in this way, anyone who wanted to eat fried chicken (or consume any product or service) would choose between equally mediocre displays. Unless everyone stopped going out for food, the businesses would survive.

Ideally these restrictions would also include prohibition of the use of poorly defined and sometimes subjective terms like "natural", "healthy", "fresh", "made with love" and so on.

The comparison between companies and individuals made by >>1711 is valid, but also not completely accurate.

Humans have a natural tendency to seek approval by their peers, and fear ostracism as much as death. Taking action to prevent making a bad impression is not just expected, it's natural. Companies, on the other hand, obviously do not have natural tendencies, and while their marketing efforts may be a matter of survival for them it differs int he sense that when you put on your best act on a job interview you continue to work trying to maintain that initial impression after you are hired. Traditional advertising tends to set expectations that cannot be met.

Idk, having worked on a product in the past I can say that life would have been much simpler for me if there were no ads

But people is stupid they don't do any research not even before they buy a car (a fucking car ffs!) so even if your product is awesome without ads nobody is gook ng to know it exists

That seems like a very nice board, thank you for linking it here. Board advertisement is allowed, but if too many threads are created just for that I will have to impose some regulations.

If you have any questions about board ownership and management, or would just like to discuss those topics privately with me, feel free to send me an e-mail.

>>1603

Alright, thank you very much.

>>1603

Still, if you want you can get in the board and post something, I mean, if you want.

The video raises several interesting points, related to both PR in general and blogging as a political tool.

I would say that the main message comes when he is talking about the democratic presidential campaign of 2004, and mentions how the Democratic Party had greater funds, resources, and (in his opinion) much better proposals, but still lost. This defeat happened because they did not know how to make use of their resources, choosing to stick to obsolete methods, such as door-to-door visits and constant calls. Their political consultants had a fear of change, and a candidate's success (in other elections as well) tended to be inversely proportional to how much the stuck to the scrip given to them by the party. What this tells us is several things:

Firstly, money and resources are no guarantee for a political (or ideological) campaign. If you don't have a good strategy you can spend boatloads of money in ares where you traditionally have the majority and still loose.

Secondly, the models that worked for the past can't be relied on forever. The idea being sold, the demographics, the political scenario and of course the opponent's tactics evolve with time. If one does not follow those changes, they become obsolete.

Thirdly, the notion that despite having the best ideas and proposals you can still loose. That is because modern humans (especially online) have a severe difficulty putting ourselves in the other person's shoes. Of course we think our ideas are right, we wouldn't subscribe to them otherwise, but why should the others accept them? To use banners of our famous board as an example: they understand the importance of sexual responsibility and abstinence from drugs, but why should the average young man or women accept these ideals? How can they make them more appealing than having constant sex with different partners and getting high? What kind of argument will have an effect? Certainly not ones based on universal morality and long-term collective consequences, such as the ones the people on that board tend to use.

Regarding the specifics of the progressive movement, the speakers exposed their past difficulty in recruiting talent to innovate. I don't see that as being the case anymore. One of the speakers mentions that hePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1694

>Other points worth mentioning are his statement that "polls mean very little", which we already know, since focus groups have always given better results;

I read an article today that's relevant: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2015/05/pollsters-as-pundits .

>Polls lend a scientific aura to claims about religion, delivering truth with mathematical certainty. He wants to train us to be more skeptical: “When preachers cite polls as reasons why we should do this or that, shouldn’t we wonder about this form of argument? When we hear American religion characterized in particular ways because of polls, we should ask what exactly ‘American religion' is, whose religion it refers to, and whether certain aspects of it are being emphasized while others are neglected.”

This is in a religious context, obviously, but I think it can be generalized out and applied more generally. The truth seeking organs of our societal are not impartial or neutral (As anyone here could tell you.), and the case could be made that it's impossible for it to be any other way.

>>1538

http://8ch.net/32/res/1171.html

How do you legalize any phenomenon, from euthanasia to cannibalism?

Evgueni Gorzhaltsán

In today's society of tolerance, which has no fixed ideal and as a result, no clear division between good and evil, there is a technique to change the attitude toward popular concepts considered totally unacceptable.

This technique, called "The Overton Window" and consists of a specific sequence of actions to achieve the desired result, "may be more effective than the nuclear charge as a weapon to destroy human communities," writes columnist Evgueni Gorzhaltsán.

In his article in the Adme portal puts the radical example of how to turn acceptable the idea of ​​legalizing step by step, from the stage is considered a disgusting and unthinkable action, completely oblivious to public moral cannibalism, to become a reality accepted by mass consciousness and the law. This is not achieved by washing direct brain but in more sophisticated techniques are effective due to its coherent and consistent implementation without society realize the process, create Gorzhaltsán.

First stage: the unthinkable to radical

Obviously, now the question of legalization of cannibalism is at the lowest level of acceptance in the "window of opportunity" Overton, because society considers as absurd and unthinkable phenomenon taboo.

To change that perception, can, relying on freedom of expression, refer the matter to the scientific field, as for scientists there is normally no taboo subjects. Therefore, we may conclude, for example, an ethnological symposium on exotic rituals of the tribes of Polynesia and discuss the history of the topic and get authoritative statements about cannibalism, ensuring the transition from negative and intransigent attitude society to a more positive attitude.

Simultaneously, create a radical group of cannibals, although there is only on the Internet, you will surely be noticed and quoted by numerous media. As a result of the first stage of Overton, taboo subject disappears and starts unacceptable discussed.

Second stage: from radical than acceptable at this stage, follow quoting scientists, aPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1558

Fourth stage: from the sensible to the popular

The media, with the help of known and political people, and speak openly about the anthropophily. This phenomenon begins to appear in movies, popular lyrics and videos. At this stage, begins to also function technique which involves the promotion of references to prominent historical figures who practiced anthropophily.

To justify the legalization advocates phenomenon can resort to the humanization of criminals by creating a positive image of them saying, for example, that they are the victims, because life forced them to practice anthropophily.

Fifth stage: from the popular to the political

This category accounts and start preparing legislation to legalize phenomenon. Lobbyists are consolidated in power and supposedly published surveys confirm a high percentage of supporters of legalization of cannibalism in society. In the public consciousness a new dogma states: "The prohibition of eating people is prohibited."

This is a typical technique of liberalism that works due to tolerance as a pretext for the Prohibition of taboos. During the last stage of "moving window" Overton from the popular to politics, society has already ruptured, then the rules of human existence have changed or been destroyed by adopting new laws.

Gorzhaltsán concludes that the concept of "windows of opportunities", first described by Joseph Overton, can be extrapolated to any phenomenon and is particularly easy to implement in a tolerant society in which the so-called freedom of speech has become dehumanization and where before our eyes one after another all limits that protect society from the abyss of self-destruction are eliminated.

The beauty of google translate

How to memify this info to spread this knowledge?

>>1617

I'm using dissatisfaction in a technical sense, very distinct from sheer stress.

It's the absence and sense of more which gets you asking the questions. It's the atmosphere you breathe and the medium of your thoughts.

I'm telling you to take the basic, which motivates you, and found yourself in it and ways of weaponising it to reach the greatest efficacy. Instead of seeking a form to fill that void which you'll try to use as a kind of stable life-raft to throw in with.

I'm working off the probably correct assumption that you have a very particular kind of neural setup.

Health, sure. But having that as an issue to work on doesn't stop you searching into particular topics and testing the answers you produce to them. Keeping a mind concerned with things other than just health should probably be considered an aspect of health. I've been mired in health problems, like you have. At some point you need to keep the best-bet solutions running below the radar, not as a conscious obsession.

That's especially true given that your mind seems mercurial and active and unlikely to be a good foundation for a stable solution.

My solution isn't really a solution, either. It's just a basic cognitive starting point to developing paths through life.

Finally: you may think you won't be taken in. But that doesn't mean you'll have the correct setup and drive to reach the objects of attention and mode of consideration where reality comes into clear view. You could be unaffiliated and still have your mind filled with dumb stuff and dumb polarities you compare to one another and see as the landscape of possibility and relevance.

>>1618

>I'm using dissatisfaction in a technical sense, very distinct from sheer stress.

>I'm telling you to take the basic, which motivates you, and found yourself in it and ways of weaponising it to reach the greatest efficacy.

I don't know how to do that. I'm not sure I can do anything with dissatisfaction that's not bundled with negative things like stress and hatred.

>>1622

Maybe you need a therapist more than you need this board.

>>1630

hasn't worked so far.