throwaway652368

I've never seen a math journal that requires academic credentials or affiliation to submit a paper, and I've published several math papers without an academic affiliation. You can put your employer as your affiliation or even "Independent Researcher". The hard part is writing the papers themselves. Getting a paper in a decent math journal as an outsider is rare, not because the journals ban or are biased against outsiders, but just because it's rare for an outsider to write a decent math paper.

As you know, Korea has compulsory military service for men, but not for women. This would be a fantastic place for gender equality activists to make their voice heard and rally for greater gender equality, it's strange that they seem to be unconcerned with this sort of thing.

Because it doesn't harm anyone. If censorship laws are all that's preventing genocide, it's not like people are going to go, "Well, we'd love to genocide that other group, but these pesky censorship laws, I guess we'll have to find something else to do..."

Anyway, your argument, whether intentionally or not, is a kind of motte-and-bailey fallacy. You accuse 4chan of allowing "absolutely reprehensible political views". In many circles, that description would include views like "Women shouldn't be allowed to play in men's sports" or "Young children shouldn't be allowed to have sex-change surgery". That's the "bailey". But rather than defend that, you fall back to the "motte" of things like conspiracy to commit murder. In some peoples' views, abortion is murder, should we censor talk encouraging abortion? Of course not; that would be me countering your motte-and-bailey with my own motte-and-bailey.

The fact is, private companies shouldn't be allowed to choose what we can talk about. We DO have people allowed to choose that; they're called legislators, and if you dislike the things people are saying on some website, you should take that up with your legislators, not with the website.

I've never seen conspiracy to commit murder of individual people on 4chan. That would violate U.S. law and thus is banned from the site. There are retarded posts about genociding whole groups of people, but while that's totally retarded, it shouldn't be censored, no more than it should be illegal to propose blowing up the sun.

Why do people think 4chan is unmoderated? It is moderated, spamming an unrelated board with gore or porn will certainly get you banned, and illegal porn will get you banned and reported to federal agencies. It's unmoderated in the sense that you're allowed to say things that are against the status quo, but that's a good thing.

>absolutely reprehensible political views

Also known as thoughtcrime

The Shining is one of the most heavily analyzed films of all time, for good reason. It's not just some random Michael Bay flick. It's really almost unbelievable how deep the rabbit hole goes, so no, it's not surprising in the very least that people would spend time on a detail like this. If people 100 years ago weren't doing this kind of thing with films, it's because they didn't have access to films the way we do today, if The Shining was around 100 years ago and people had home computers they could play it on and could download it easily over the internet, you can be sure people would be analyzing it like crazy back then too.

See, this is why the housing problem is so difficult to solve. You think you're being virtuous or something by sticking up for the poor oppressed. Why don't you be even more virtuous and move yourself to Skid Row since all those poor people are really so mild and quiet and misunderstood. All you're really doing is ensuring that this problem continues indefinitely. You're the same kind of person who insisted men should be allowed to use womens bathrooms and thus ushered in Trump 2.0, hope the good-boy-points you got for that were worth it.

Right, so that sort of thing needs to be part of whatever proposed solution to the housing problem. This will of course raise building costs etc., and the regulations will need to have teeth so people can't just build apartments out of cardboard and paint them concrete-color. Also, that concrete will need to be really thick to ward out subwoofer noises. Maybe you could get around this by banning subwoofers.

Of course there are exceptions, but on average, wealthy people are way way better when it comes to these kinds of things. Especially wealthy people who get that way by keeping themselves busy with productive labor. The upstairs neighbor doesn't need a $5000 stereo system to make your life a living hell, they can do that perfectly efficiently with a $30 subwoofer.

Another factor everyone is missing because it's politically incorrect to talk about:

There needs to be a way to avoid loud inconsiderate neighbors. Currently, this is done in practice by choosing an area where loud inconsiderate people are priced out. Until there's another way to do it, there will always be a demand for such areas.

Increasing supply of housing is great on paper. But imagine you're a productive citizen who gets up early, works hard, and goes to bed early. Housing prices get reduced to where anyone can afford to live anywhere? By definition, suddenly ANYONE can become your neighbor, including folks who will play loud music at all hours of the night, keep loud dogs, etc. And sure, that might violate noise laws. Good luck getting those enforced, if the laws aren't changed to have teeth!!

When dreaming up solutions to housing problems, ask yourself: "Would this solution allow a bum to move near to Bill Gates?" If the answer is yes, then your idea will not work. "Would this solution allow a bunch of high school dropouts to live alongside highly-paid software engineers doing work crucial for the economy?" If the answer is yes, your idea will have unforeseen bad consequences.