File: 1480791169103.jpg (8.4 KB, 239x210, 1480683554625.jpg)
File: 1480815470648.jpg (31.77 KB, 558x480, 1380665814064.jpg)
>>627>tfw you're probably not that intelligent>tfw you hate yourself and are so experienced with self-abuse that you trick yourself into working REALLY hard as a form of self-abuse>tfw the self-abuse works out financially in your favor, but you are still lonely
I'm an overachiever, but it doesn't matter.
File: 1483491206129.png (25.5 KB, 160x232, 1451944897096.png)
I'm not that intelligent, but I know I could do so well if I actually did shit. But I dunno. Motivation isn't quite the word I'm looking for. I know what kind of job I really want, I know what I need to do to get there, but I feel like an oil lamp that's out of oil…
File: 1486325791193.png (378.36 KB, 800x1000, 1485635232039.png)
>have no money and can't make it farther than living in a cheap apartment and working an awful job
You always have your pleasures to sacrifice. Your free time is the most valuable one. You know that saying time is money? Well, with a couple years of smart investment your free time can be exchanged for cold, hard, fucking cash, which makes the free time you have later much much more enjoyable.
File: 1487826005446.png (563.62 KB, 801x773, everything sucks.png)
>actually went to a "challenge center" in elementary school
>had an old science teacher give me the look of shame when they seen me stocking shelves
>smoke weed erryday to deal
That's fucking disgusting if he gave you a dirty look because he saw you working a labor job
>low skilled government employee looking down on someone working hard
I'm sure he deals with his own struggles, but I hate when people take their defined vision of success and try to apply it to others.
Don't smoke too much to
He just thinks you haven't reached your potential, and he's disappointed.
It's fine to settle into a lower-class job instead of something more difficult that you can do, but don't pretend it's some respectable choice to give up and settle, especially when you could have made it further. He has every right to be disappointed, since he expected better from you, and you did not live up to his entirely reasonable expectations.
File: 1487891805917.jpg (1.96 MB, 2337x2745, mendo breath.JPG)
>>694>>696>my teacher was a female
eh, i dont blame her for looking down on me at that time. last time i went to college i gave the chem program an honest try but im not good at calculus so its on hold. hell, when i graduated h.s. it was during the start of 'everyone able to go to college should'. they sold it as this magic institution that you came out of making real money. then it all went to hell and were here now
as for some good feels:>no kids>no ex wife>this killer cali chronic
You realize that given different situations and outcomes of those situations, that sometimes people don't just "Choose to settle in easy-mode"
Maybe in anon's case, he was lazy, but I would never pretend to know what some dude working at a grocery store has gone through that has led him to that position.
If he had the ability to work well in advanced courses, then the default assumption is that he settled when he didn't pursue advanced career choices. It is more likely than any big personal problems that would truly prevent him from moving forward. >>697
Yes, colleges are typically not very good investments, anymore. I have a trade.
And I consider having no kids a bad feel.
whats your age anon?…there's still time, maybe>>702
[spoiler]no one likes quitters[/spoiler]
>>707>I'm not particularly attractive, I'm boring, I don't even make very good money. I'm just a loser.
thats every good reason to get high, and its your life
do it for science
Former alcoholic here, coming from a long line of alcoholics.
You know it's weird, growing up, I thought I would never take a drink, (much less becoming addicted) I was so disgusted by my dad/grandpa's behavior.
I really saw how much of a genetic issue it can be, the first time I ever got drunk at a party, I was hooked. I fell back on it every night. Those were two, torturous years.
I've been sober for a year, and I recognize that if I want it to stay that away, I have to never even take so much as a sip of beer again. I know what it will lead to.
File: 1488203968934.png (87.19 KB, 300x316, gCkocL1.png)
This. I used to have problems with caffeine too, so I stop drinking too much coffee, I'm fine now, I don't feel like addict to caffeine anymore. I hate drugs too, my brother used to be a nice guy, but now he ruined his life for being a junkie, I'm just so tired of seeing him 'getting high' every single day. He doesn't have respect any longer, for anything.
Media has brainwashed him too much and he doesn't want help.
He haven't spoken to me since I tell him that Marijuana is just a drug, and must be prohibited also tell him that abstract art doesn't mean anything at all, and doesn't should be considered like art, I told him that he shouldn't become an artist, Instead, he should do something better with his life beside ""art"" and drugs. That's what I said to him.
Drugs, not even once.
I don't think drugs should be prohibited, even though they're bad and I do none. That'd be to take away someones freedom to ruin his own life. Who are you to take away freedom from anyone?
Some abstract art is beautiful. Certainly not all of it, but some of it is.
Also, I prefer art without meaning anyway: some of the best art is that way, like paintings of trees, animals, and landscapes. Art for art's sake is the best purpose of art. To force symbolism and meaning on people makes art inferior, because in that case, art becomes a tool rather than something to be enjoyed.
File: 1488248247212.png (864.77 KB, 1920x1080, 1482324103045.png)
Bah… I'm not taking the freedom from anyone. I'm just trying to help my own brother, his life is ruined by now, He tried to kill himself 2 times now, im not taking his fucking freedom i'm just trying to help him like a brother should do, nobody wants too see his own brother suffer, or ending his own life. I bet you haven't any brothers, it's really painful, faggot.
About painting, I really enjoy plenty styles of paint, but always hated abstract art. Anyway if you like it, it's okay. I really don't mind.
Abstract art isn't art for art's sake, though, it's art for the sake of being "deep."
Art for art's sake is pictures of beauty, inspired by actual things or thoughts, most often.
Also, I sort of agree on the drugs, but I also don't believe that people can be trusted to know better.
I personally don't see the value in a lot of abstract art, but I guess to a lot of people art is the expression of the human mind and soul through a concrete medium, not necessarily a thing of beauty.
If a piece of abstract art makes me think in a way that I wouldn't have otherwise, then I will appreciate it.
Los Angeles fag here. I spent my high school years visiting LACMA (which has AWESOME traditional art as well), MOCA, etc. repeatedly around the time I was in high school and was pretty heavy into art…and being very detailed in my works myself, I *really* hated the whole "blobs of paint on canvas" thing for a long time.
Then, after years, I came to realize something very important: In the same way that romeo-and-juliet stories are overdone and horrible, there was once a time - when it was first created - when it was literally the most original thing in the world.
Jackson Pollock (among many others, but he is likely the most recognizable name) had a *legitimately* original idea - and it was pretty self-aware (which I will touch on later)
The idea was that art is just paint on a canvas. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing.
Our minds recombine the paint into images depicting emotions, scenery, etc., anyway.
YES, this idea had been written about in philosophy. YES it had been said by many an armchair art critic. YES, science had already explained to us how the optic nerves and blha blah blah NO, it had not ever been expressed by a PAINTER in the form of a PAINTING. Does this make sense? Tragedy can be written about, tragedy can be depicted in a photograph, and EACH has its own unique aspects.
This is where contemporary art is truly born: This idea, when expressed in the form of a *painting* and a painting *specifically* opens up a new line of questioning - and this is the question: "What does this painting mean to me?"
This *interaction* with painting had never been done before - where it was acceptable to disagree with somebody - fundamentally - about what was meant to be expressed. For example, some think the Mona Lisa is smiling, others think she is a freemason reptilian whore of Babylon. Likewise, some may see a painting of a single oak tree and think "What a peaceful day" while others might think, "How lonely, to be the only tree on the hill" but *most* would agree that the Mona Lisa was a woman sitting in a chair, *most* would agree that the painting of a tree is in fact representing a tree, and *ALL* would agree that the Mona Lisa and the oak portrait are, in fact, paintings!
With Jackson Pollock, the *differences* between people's interpretations are SO great that some people *don't even consider them to be paintings or art at all!!!* And this is the essence of it!
Yes! Countless brain-dead mentally sterile lemmings have since vomited this once-delicious morsel only to eat it again, then shit it out, then eat the shit and make even more rancid shit, and on and on down the psychic drain that is plagiarism and artistic incompetence.
But, for a few brilliant moments, that idea was new and very challenging! My interpretation of art has gone from "painting, drawing," etc., to "something created which makes me think."
File: 1488375460594.jpg (115.65 KB, 564x846, 1488206130706.jpg)
Yes!, I'm the worst monster on the earth, trying to help my brother to not kill himself and stop using drugs… such horrific actions, I should putted In jail right now for being an oppressor of theses rights (that you probably read about on tumbrl), the right of ruining his life for being an idiot and the right of killing himself for being an idiot… whoa…
You probably find the idea of suicide relatable, don't you?
Unlike the crap you believe about murdering and suicide, being able to help a person, in this case a relative, doing nothing is even worse. By this point I'm pretty sure you don't have any brothers, but being able, you wouldn't help them?
If you say not, for the liberal crap you believe, you are truly a retard.
People really need support, special for their families and their closets relatives to overcome their vices. they never decided to ruin their lives, when they realize, their lives were already ruined.
Life isn't that hard, back then people really had bad times, but people back then doesn't committed suicide like now, They somehow overcame their bad times, and did something better with their life, had children, had families, businesses, etc.
The whole idea of kill himself just because life doesn't come up like you expected, or because your life is sad, is stupid, is just a crap millennials believes. Terminal patients end their lives because living like that is too hard to bear, but being totally functional, with no diseases, young and bright and with a future why you would end your life?.
Anyway, yeah you're right, I'm a oppressor monster taking such a precious rights for my brother. So yeah, stop answering to me.
You got me there, but have been increasing since the early 2000shttps://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/databriefs/201-250/db241_fig2.png>>726>>727
I never thought in that way, you're right, i'm probably overreacting, maybe I've too hard on him.About the art stuff, I said because he used to have better aspirations, I didn't wanted to derail that much the thread >>728I'm not sure if you are the same poster but you ruined your point here.
Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread even more so Let's finish here. You made your point.
>>729>You got me there, but have been increasing since the early 2000s
Yes. When people realise life is bad, they end life. That's why people with high IQs are more likely to commit suicide, as they are more likely to realise how much life sucks.
As always, there are exceptions, but this is a correlation that has been reported multiple times.
If you truly loved your brother, you'd help him do what he wants to do with his life. Instead, you show that you want to stop him from doing what he wants to do.
Fair enough (also that last guy wasn't me)
And hey, I don't know your perspective, maybe I wouldn't like your bro either, I just didn't like the implications of some things I read.
Good discussing with you. I'm now going to post happy images.
File: 1488382771421.jpg (100.61 KB, 660x613, 1461213985936.jpg)
This is happy
I agree that people who want to kill themselves should just do it, but I also think that anyone who would be unhappy at the suicide should try their hardest to stop them. Life is completely terrible and impossible to fix for such a tiny minority, even of those who do end themselves, that "you're prolonging their pain" isn't really an argument. They may be in pain, but it is possible for that pain to stop, while their life continues.
I'm suicidal, myself, but even I realize that I have potential to fix myself. It's my own irrational mind that leads me to be depressed.
Pot will ruin his life. Of course he doesn't want his brother to ruin his life.
It may bring temporary pleasure, but it's just a financial drain and legal risk that further emphasises the difference between the joy of the high and the depression of the low, leading to thinking that their depression is much worse than it actually is, which makes it actually worse.
Being even more depressed when you're not high isn't worth being happy when you are high, especially when it costs so much and is illegal.
Also, it hurts your lungs like smoking tabacco does, so it leads to cancer.
Why should you not prioritize those with DNA closer to your own above those with DNA further from your own? It's a natural instinct. It's a healthy instinct. And it's certainly a good instinct, as it benefits most people to have closer ties by default.
Your "above it all" attitude is silly. Oh, you're just so above human instinct, huh? But that's a flawed ideology. Anything that goes against human instinct is a flawed ideology, as it assumes that more than a few nutjobs can rise above their instincts, which is wrong. It expects too much of people, which is why it fails.
File: 1488391126968.jpeg (12.98 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpeg)
derailing angry thread where no opinions will be changed with good things :)
Lofty sure is silly isn't he? He means well though
>>734>that "you're prolonging their pain" isn't really an argument
It is an argument, and a good one too. To force someone to live is selfish and sadistic.>but it is possible for that pain to stop, while their life continues
In some situations, yes. In many situations, no, not at all. Or at least, by not at all, I mean this. When someone says "it's possible for you to go to the moon" yes, it is possible. But it's incredibly unlikely.>I'm suicidal, myself, but even I realize that I have potential to fix myself. It's my own irrational mind that leads me to be depressed.
Actually, depression is usually caused by seeing the world the way it actually is. Society prefers optimism over realism.>>736>Why should you not prioritize those with DNA closer to your own above those with DNA further from your own?
Why? Because some people prefer making rational and logical decisions.>It's a natural instinct. It's a healthy instinct. And it's certainly a good instinct
Appeals to nature don't work unless you substantiate them. Human can overcome all instincts.>it benefits most people to have closer ties by default
No, it hurts most people. Remember, most people aren't related to you.>Anything that goes against human instinct is a flawed ideology, as it assumes that more than a few nutjobs can rise above their instincts, which is wrong. It expects too much of people, which is why it fails.
What a defeatist. Why live? If you're that much of an untermensch, go kill yourself and raise the world's average IQ by doing so. Not everyone is a double digit IQ caveman like you are.
Pandering to the lowest common denominator is disgusting and is a way of looking backwards rather than forwards.
>>740>>that "you're prolonging their pain" isn't really an argument>It is an argument, and a good one too. To force someone to live is selfish and sadistic.
But what about Anon's pain over losing his brother? >>but it is possible for that pain to stop, while their life continues>In some situations, yes. In many situations, no, not at all. Or at least, by not at all, I mean this. When someone says "it's possible for you to go to the moon" yes, it is possible. But it's incredibly unlikely.
That's not realism, that's pessimism. It's chemicals in your brain that make you think that things can't get better, while it wouldn't actually be that hard for them to. They probably won't get better, but that's because you're tricked yourself into giving up hope that they could, and so, have stopped trying. >>I'm suicidal, myself, but even I realize that I have potential to fix myself. It's my own irrational mind that leads me to be depressed.>Actually, depression is usually caused by seeing the world the way it actually is. Society prefers optimism over realism.
Pessimism over optimism isn't much better. Remember: all pessimists think that they're optimists.
>>740>>Why should you not prioritize those with DNA closer to your own above those with DNA further from your own?>Why? Because some people prefer making rational and logical decisions.
Is it not a logical desision to prefer your own genetic lineage, which makes your line more likely to continue? One of Mankinds primary purposes is to have children whohave children who have children, and on and on. If you don't want your line to continue, you're defective. >>It's a natural instinct. It's a healthy instinct. And it's certainly a good instinct>Appeals to nature don't work unless you substantiate them. Human can overcome all instincts.
But most people won't, and never will. It's foolish to base an iseology on something that can never happen. Do you not laugh at kids who say that "everyone should just stop fighting?" People won't stop, so it's hopeless to hope for that to happen, even if it's a world which you would prefer. >>it benefits most people to have closer ties by default>No, it hurts most people. Remember, most people aren't related to you.
Our preference for family brings related people together, it doesn't push unrelated people apart. If we didn't have this concept of family, you wouldn't be closer to people who aren't related to you, you'd just be further apart from those who are. >>Anything that goes against human instinct is a flawed ideology, as it assumes that more than a few nutjobs can rise above their instincts, which is wrong. It expects too much of people, which is why it fails.
>What a defeatist. Why live? If you're that much of an untermensch, go kill yourself and raise the world's average IQ by doing so. Not everyone is a double digit IQ caveman like you are.
No, I'm an actual realist. It's ridiculous that you call me a defeatist after your bullshit up there.
>Pandering to the lowest common denominator is disgusting and is a way of looking backwards rather than forwards.
Pandering to the lowest common denominator is smart, since they make up the bulk of all people. It's not a coincidence that Hollywood makes the big bucks, even when most of the movies aren't really "high art."
You may look for "enlightenment," but don't ever expect for your ideology to ever be successful, because most people will always disagree with it. And, often, that's not bad.
Most of our instincts are that way because people who had them lived longer and fucked more. They were successful, by the only definition nearly everyone can agree upon. Prioritizing your tribe is a good idea, because, if you don't, someone else will, and then, your tribe will no longer exist. If you don't want to exist, and are so sure of how you've got it all right, and how life is unbearably terrible, just fucking kill yourself, you worthless faggot.
File: 1490806634324.gif (570.36 KB, 500x278, fading out.gif)
The comedown's part of the buzz
File: 1491936834885.jpg (16.25 KB, 433x351, clippy_paper.jpg)
I don't really know. I was smart enough that I didn't ever have to try at school, and I am getting away with minimal effort at university. The only thing is that I'm not smart enough to ever do anything with it.
I am also incredibly lazy - I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. Let other people work up a sweat running around trying to get places, I'm perfectly happy just being.
Could be my contentedness with my general lack of effort is that I feel that I could do things if I tried. It could be entirely false however; what if I tried and found that I wasn't up to it? I wouldn't want that to happen, so maybe that's why I don't try. At the same time, however, I don't particularly feel afraid of failing.
Food for thought.
Here's the thing though. At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, I have everything I need. I have enough money to buy food, pay my rent, pay my bills. I don't really care that my apartment is small, or that I don't have a nice car or hemmed mink. The only reason I could think to improve my standing would be to provide for my children, which I don't have and I don't think I ever will. If I only have to look out for myself, and I have the basics down, why try harder? This is how I feel at the moment anyway. I am aware that I might change my tune later, which is the whole reason I'm even at university at all. If I decide I want the semi detached and the BMW I have a base to start from.
Uni is free at your country, I assume?
It could also be the case that once you have your degree, should you do nothing with it, that a future employer would take a look at your resume and think, "Hmm. He says he is interested in X topic, let's see what his actions are to support that….sat and did nothing for 10 years, I see." Next application.
FYI, good companies do not want to hire unmotivated people. Assuming the spring harvest will be there for you when you want it, or worse, when you need it, is what the cartoon was addressing. You may have the degree, but the position may not be available, and the technology and teachings may have changed.
Consumerism != not wanting to work a service level job at 65 years old being unable to retire
What do you mean?
I would argue it's the complete opposite - he didn't grow up in a nice environment, and he is breaking his back to get out of it. I (as I am now) wouldn't think that the reward is worth it.
As far as I'm concerned, believing that every potential hour of your life has as much potential for enjoyment as any other hour of your life is the real low standard in this discussion.
2 hours spent lurking (which I love, don't get me wrong - this is just for an example's sake) vs. 2 hours spent on a small ship sailing through the fjords of Norway in the spring while on a vacation - smelling the ocean air, looking up at the mountainous walls all around you, and coming across the occassional quaint settlement where generation after generation has lived out their lives in total peace.
So saying "Sitting in my room is as good as it's going to get" seems like a really wasteful thing to say, as far as I can tell. The only way you're going to get that amazing 2 hour fjord experience is by working for say 10 hours.
"10 hours of work sounds terrible!" you say. Well, what if I said that I have a job where I am a troubleshooter - I have to use my intuition to figure out what's wrong with these incredible machines, and make them work again. That is incredibly mentally stimulating, personally and financially rewarding, and makes me, I feel, a better person *for myself*, so even then, it wasn't a waste.
>>800>The only way you're going to get that amazing 2 hour fjord experience is by working for say 10 hours.
Except that's where you're wrong. Here you claim that money is necessary to go to a fjord. A much more satisfying way to go to a fjord is with a sailing ship you built yourself with your own hands. Or perhaps to dismantle capitalism with your own hands and go on a cruise after.
Either way, doing things yourself is more satisfying than paying for things to happen.
Because I live in America, I can get to the fjord much much faster by working than by training myself in woodcraft, ship building, and becoming a master sailor the likes of which could sail across the open ocean.
The flexibility/freedom afforded to me by paying for it with money also enables me to do things other than sailing, should I choose. Had I dedicated my life to becoming a sailor and shipbuilder, my experiences would be limited to the oceans.
But instead, a couple years after visiting the fjord, I can take a helicopter ride over the ruins of Peru, and I don't have to walk to Peru, either - I could drive, fly, or take a cruise - and I'd have earned every cent of the money used to pay for them. The fjord may then seem less significant at that point, due to the variety of exotic experiences I would have had. However, it is my responsibility alone to maintain my mindset, and this is just part of the human condition. We are designed to find the second slice of cake less delicious than the first, and to find the eighth slice of cake altogether repulsive. Dismantling capitalism would remove all of the cake altogether.
I don't want to get into a heated debate on this board. If you are the same person who just said that doing things on your own is rewarding, and now you are advocating an anarchist, communist, or socialist society, you are out of touch with humanity and human motivation. Not enough people will go to school for 10 years to become a brain surgeon in exchange for wages equal to that of a janitor to meet the societal demand (medical need) for brain surgeons.
No, I do not believe everyone who is poor wants to be. However, do I believe that mental illness, whether self-inflicted with drug use, or as a result of maladjustment, keeps many people in that state longer than they would be were they emotionally healthy. This does not blame them for their predicament, it merely delineates what society is able to do for people, and what it is not. If doing things independently is the only truly rewarding way to live life, then communist or socialist societies would truly be a hell on earth.