Any Forums, drinks on me

Hello user,
I've recently been troubled by non-falsifiability. It seems that every political ideology begins by defining a closed system through which the world is interpreted and then invariably re-achieves the core tenants of the ideology through its own closed ended analysis. Under freudianism anything that is against the orthodoxy must indicate "repression", under fourth wave feminism, opposition to feminism is male fragility or internalised misogyny. Once these closed forms of argument have been established it becomes impossible to construct a refutation of the premise; to the marxists everything is a class struggle, to the conservative right it's always a lack of adherence to tradition, to the libertarians it's the government's fault, to Any Forums it's ethnicity, gender and sexuality and to more modern left wing groups it's also ethnicity, gender and sexuality, but different ones.
I begin to wonder that if the choice of system of analysis is constructed such that there is only ever one possible outcome that isn't it just a case of what type of analysis you have applied to the problem, and that this prior choice just reflects the beliefs of the person looking at the issue. Is this where Hegelian phenomenology leads us; to systems of Truth that are by design non falsifiable, and then into Derrida's stripping of context until the Real and the Rational have completely disappeared and we as a society can no longer distinguish belief from reality.

can i have ice coffee?

the dutch get to have all the fun again while Germany is still cucked beyond comprehension. the sheer amount of liberal braincancer and vaxxies is crippling. it's like living in the bowles of a rotten corpse.

Attached: 1599043667785.png (636x773, 274.18K)

No user, I'm in my mid 30s.

>I live in the country next to nature

Then try learning to enjoy it. Maybe bring a book with you. Change your environment.

If you're not enjoying anything, Any Forums is not the place to be.

Attached: 1343996513153.gif (33x34, 438)

Deep. But i think there are self-evident truths that both create and conform an omniscient logical truth. For example, if I said "there is no truth" then that would imply that the statement itself is false... which means there IS (a) truth. We can at least know that in one-step, without infinite recursion. An ism like this is probably why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe, id imagine. If you care to apply this knowledge inductively, without recursion, then we can establish somewhere, someone has a true (correct) political ideology. There has to be one, logically.

its time to make your own videos jerry, go gore some kabab shop owner

Attached: 1657771533324.gif (516x388, 1.73M)

Worthless suggestions, next time I should add a IQ requirement

alles wird gut, hansel

Not necessarily, by Godel's theorems we see that any universal logical systems are either complete or consistent, which predicates that the formulation of a political ideology with a finite description in any language is necessarily complete (describes what to do in every situation) but inconsistent (statements can be evaluated into multiple resolutions), or incomplete (cannot describe what to do in every situation). In many ways totalitarian systems describe the former (for example Sharia), while democratic or case based systems (for example, legal precedence) with open ended decision apparatuses describe the latter.

Rather my problem relates to the question of not whether there is *a* truth, but whether the tools that we're using to search for any truth are designed to only reflect the truths that were put into their creation; Marxism could provide a nuanced critique of the relationship between wealth and Tik-Tok, but it cannot be used to show that hierarchy may be in some cases necessary. The formulation of arguments such as original sin, implicit or unconscious bias, class consciousness and similar are constructed such that there is no possibility that the subject of the analysis is ever not guilty; and I wonder whether similar structures exist in all political systems as a necessity of the propagation of the system of belief. And if all systems are like this then analysis is identical to condemnation, and the choice of analysis predetermines the conclusion.

Given your own definitions of enjoyment vary, at best randoms on the internet can only suggest things randomly in the hopes that some neurons spike and release a small amount of dopamine. On the flip side as a non-zoomer I would expect you to have taken responsibility for your own happiness. That said.
Team sports in your community; exercise brings dopamine, teams working together bond together, beers, socialisation, fraternisation and building yourself alongside others.

>Godel's theorems we see that any universal logical systems are either complete or consistent
Well then I guess i just disproved Godels theorems. My idiology is less government. My solution to pedophilia for example is mind your own god dam business.

That isn't a universal system of logic. Would recommend some reading on the provability of axiomatic theories.

I think i will, i can hardly afford it, but then again i can hardly afford anything else either. Alcohol is a bad friend, but he's a friend still. And objectively, with the great satan outside, this is best and most just time in the human history to drink.

It's going to get so fucking bad bros. We're all gonna get fucking fleeced and fucked RAW.

>That isn't a universal system of logic
Sure it is. Its action reaction... try to interfere in peoples lives with your politics... you will meet resistance. Try to change the direction of something... you will meet resistance. It applies to all matter and energy as well as it applies to people. Just admit you lost bro. You are too well read and not quick enough to the point.

>Alcohol
Reminds me i forgot to pour my last drink already inoutted into my BAC spreadsheet. Thanks for the reminder.

I have to meet up with my ex next week to get my security deposit back because the check has her name on it. The week following would have been our 5 year anniversary, and the day I was going to propose, if she hadn’t cheated. I’m going to make it as quick a meeting as possible, but the fact we have to meet at all has thrown my mind into disarray. No contact in months, since parting ways, and while I’ve moved on I will always look backwards because I never received the closure I needed- the reason why she did it. She had given me some stupid line about never being there, I had just started a new job that was 70hr/week so I could start making payments on the ring and save for a new place for us to move. I gave her everything, and she took it all. She would browse over my shoulder while I posted sneed and called people niggers here, she’d gleefully cry out “Pepe!” any time she saw a frogpost, now she’s a ghost haunting my waking dreams and I am becoming the recluse I was before her. Struggle makes the man, but what does it mean when struggle is all you’ve done? I cherish the years of happiness I had but I wish she’d never helped facilitate them because the ache, the ache just won’t dull. Wagmi eventually.