/b/ - Random

>>325449
it's more of a comparison to incels than a personal comfort

>>325462
We all just want to be loved and accepted. Too real…

>>325434
it won't be real

>>325470
??? i'm naturally attracted to women

>>325734
I have an excel spreadsheet full of hundreds of words I read that I didn't know or that I think sound nice. Recent additions:

Rankle
Sodality
Élan
Diffidence
Tawdry

>>325735
I find it's easier to remember if you think about their etymology. E.g. undulate has "und—" as the root, which means wave iirc. It's related to words like inundate and, more obviously, undulant. Not related to ululate at all, but looks similar.

Riverine and forestine, both adjectives for river and forest respectively incase it wasn't obvious

Americans think living in a socialist police state is normal, but freedom is not some textbook theory.

There are still some Americans alive today who will tell you that freedom is better.

>>325776
But you know what is a textbook theory?
"Fabula and syuzhet". Per wikipedia:
>In narratology, fabula refers to the chronological sequence of events within the world of a narrative and syuzhet equates to the sequence of events as they are presented to the reader. Vladimir Propp and Viktor Shklovsky originated the terminology as part of the Russian Formalism movement in the early 20th century. Narratologists have described fabula as "the raw material of a story", and syuzhet as "the way a story is organized.
The see-also section gave me another new word, "lisible".
>Lisible is a word from the French for 'legible' used to denote a text that requires no true participation from its audience. It was coined by the French literary critic Roland Barthes in his book S/Z and expanded from his essay "The Death of the Author". Barthes contrasts texte lisible, denoting a closed work, with texte scriptible, a text open to interpretation. In Barthes's opinion, lisible works provide no challenge to the reader's preconceived notions and thus are inferior to scriptible works, exemplified by modernist literature. Barthes contends that lisible works still emphasize the importance of the author, whereas for scriptible texts "the reader is the very space in which are inscribed, without any being lost, all the citations a writing consists of; the unity of a text is not in its origin, it is in its destination

The elites don't need you.

All the infrastructure has been built and the globalists will soon have robots.

Alright, I found a gardening thread on /diy/. Some of these people use electronics for their potted plants, which I find interesting!
I wish it had an elaborate op faq like the electronics general. Maybe if I get really bored one day I could try making one.

I also randomly kinda thought, didn't people settle by the rivers for the purposes of irrigation. What if I connected pots to like a 3rd long pot filled with water. How would this work.

>>325119
>>325020
So yuge now. By the way there was one more saple separated from the rest but it’s gone now for some reason
Etc etc

Also they are crowded as fuck which I'm not sure what to do about yet. I'm afraid of trying to transplant them, but I will have to wait another month if I want to cut them and replant. I'll think about it.

>>325773
The plant goddess has returned. Praise be! Greens looking INCREDIBLE, Queen!

>>325773
cute plants. i hope they grow to be big and strong!

This image is an entirely inaccurate description of how it feels to visualise images, especially for the literal-minded (such as those with a certain disorder common on imageboards). Also, it seems like a great way to totally mislead aphantasiacs about the experience of mental imaging and lead them to believe that others literally create hallucinations lucid-dream style.
I don't necessarily blame the artist for this just because it is a difficult thing by nature to translate into a real image, but I don't think this is the only possible way either.
If you interpret the scale as metaphorical, then I am something like a 2. Decent but not, like, eidetic, which is what I guess 1 is supposed to represent.

I genuinely believe this whole idea is a meme gullible moids took seriously

>>325918
?????? are you retarded, or?

>>325943
No I’m a genius

>>325948
The minds eye specifically is real. But this specific op image sparked a bunch of bro science retarded hierarchy shit just like the npc inner dialogue meme.
Which is to say when I close my eyes I do see up to 5 with minds eye but up to 2 with my literal eyes.

Oreos are demonic:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/J6ff1rr5_Iw

Oreos are good. I eat them every now and then.

>>315754
…huh?

A monkey.

Like andrew hussie mashed up with the final boss of dragon quest 2. It wasn't adequate

buff bear kemomimi

a lady with long hair, wavy and down to her ankles

offer a reward, ez

>>325762
What kind of reward? What if he thought my friend would not give it to him afterwards

>>325763
she should know her nigel well enough to concoct a personalised and effective bribe

>>325753
I don't understand this video and post. How do you get your boyfriend to wear an outfit you like, well why not just ask him? Is there like a punchline or some other meaningful subtext in the video or is that literally just it?

>>221872
that’s just tone policing

https://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait

i'm a meat-eater thanks to cognitive dissonance and a lack of self control

>>325759
try psychedelics

>>325764
which

>>325766
DMT

If you want a legal one https://karmaiq.com/

Studies show it boosts empathy long term

>>325755
Can you imagine spending so much time out of your life stressing over weight? What a sad existence

once, it was harder to gain weight, so it was seen as desirable. now, it's easier to gain weight because intensive workout routines require time, a good diet which can be expensive, and the right circumstances overall with work + other life commitments. nit-picking your body to achieve all of the listed things is a much more accessible fixation for women with money, intensified by access to a surgeon and liposuction. so, it's rarer. it becomes in fashion, because having a good enough situation to workout and eat well is a sign of wealth. the rich like to do anything that makes them distinct from the poor. that's why "homely" women, lower class, are depicted as fatter and less refined in film stereotypes, more sunken in. wider, larger tits. excessive, like they have no finetuning or self control. curvy women are associated with being bangmaids too.
it's a general lack of proper appreciation for the real female form basically. people want "better" versions, not real life

>>317992
I have been reading internet pages since about 2006 when Wikipedia was the big novelty and most chans were in their developmental stage
There was some seriously funny and seriously screwed up stuff altogether
Those strange memes, Advice Animals, Tubgirl, 2 girls 1 cup, Mr. Hands, all that sexually offensive stuff, creepy stuff, copypastas
A serious case of a stalker in California who was causing pretty serious trouble to various women and who got arrested various times
Another guy in California who got arrested after making threats to an online dictionary website
Underage stuff appreciators who had their own wiki and chat rooms
The whole 5 guys burger and fries thing with the Gamergate
The Nungesser-Sulkowicz story
Strange times
You could argue about the enshittification of the internet but overall I think things have improved, even if they're more boring now

Back in the day we used to post desu habeeb it

>>318011
Foul Bachelorette Frog

>>317992
Social media used to be just who you followed and that's it. Maybe you'd be suggested friends of friends but generally you only saw what you subscribed to. Uploading photos was already slow, not to mention videos, so people expressed themselves differently and having a lot of photos of yourself on your profile was weird. Nowadays seeing people upload videos about random topics and inserting their faces at any cost is so strange to me. Even on youtube you couldn't upload videos longer than a few minutes. So the content was overall more light-hearted and random.
Prior to social media, people just had their own websites and you had to manually visit them one by one and leave comments in a guest book. So basically the concept of virality was not really there. If you had a few thousand followers that was already a LOT.

The internet was a specific place you went to and left. A lot of people just had 1 family computer they shared and took turns using and in my early days you even had to pay per minute of internet access. Without smartphone internet, it was much easier to leave the internet behind and do other stuff and it was harder to get addicted. People couldn't take photos of you at school or in the street because rarely did anyone bring a digital camera with them. Editing photos was hard and required special software and skills so the photos you saw were either way more authentic or they were shooped to such hilarious degrees you could tell from a mile away. Automatic filters or even video filters did simply not exist. Privacy was a much bigger concern, I already mentioned that people had much fewer photos of themselves online, but before Facebook it was unimaginable to put your full government name on the internet. So you'd have your nickname and an avatar and the large-scale exposure and harassment that's normal now was basically impossible.

i find myself questioning what it's like for other people to inhabit their own heads, sometimes. not even the brain, not primarily, but the head. the feeling of focusing attention inside of it. because i don't really feel "in" my brain, but it's the only spot i can approximate myself being. i feel this somethingness, but this nothingness
how does life happen and come into other people? as in how it's processed. i'm nosey to know how far people go with integrating information into themselves, too, because nothing seems to permeate throughout me as it comes in. i rarely feel "one with" my crying, for example. i assume i'm indifferent overall
do people sense their head area as fuzzy? vague, foggy, rounded? or sharp, driven by clarity, jumpy, loud, listening? my head seems casual, low
i'm spitting nonsense atp but, i want to keep going. how many people have their attention, themselves, mostly in their hands? i think i'm somewhere at the crown of my skull, then i sense just above my glabella and onto my forehead. around that area
is existing inside ones own body vastly different for everyone, or generally similar? you'd imagine most people are in the top of their body, but what if someone's in their chest