/lit/ - Literature

>>22552210
ha well, you think 'they/theys' applies in other languages? Grammar is not a western construct you realize, if you us the yoruba word for 'they' or the latin word for 'they' you're always going to be describing multiples.

It takes a profoundly cloistered mentality to 1) not realize this implicitly and 2) not care when corrected.

fucking priest.

and we have cloistered coxcombs too
who retire to fuck with language because they have nothing better to do

>>22540311
>>22537411
good post, my foot.

Alright, how do you tell the difference between this:
>natural science: reasoned statements about objective reality
and this:
>Modern "science": materialistic measurement fetishism that presupposes the world is an empty immanent plane of meaningless shapes, yet also makes all kinds of hidden assumptions about transcendent norms ("laws" of nature) and entities ("space," "time") in order for the immanent plane to function

I mean that 'any' observation is an observation of material things, be it directly or indirectly, and that nothing can be derived from something that is not 'material'. Silly word right there which leads you to a dumb concept of some kind of separation between science and the necessary proofs that the science comes from.

.... of course what (your position) is really annoyed by is dogmatism; where the word 'science' is used to lend authority to things that have not really been derived from unbiased inquiry; a corporation pays a professor to do a study on acne he submits it the the various journals and it creates a market for the corporations new acne gel, etc., which is the modern equivalent of theologians writing theology.

Has anybody recently, or historically, written about things like "racism and sexism" existing as covers for capitalism? Or is this a new idea?

I mean that, for example: the claim that racism was/is the cause of slavery when the cause of slavery was clearly capitalism and that, therefore, the "false causes" are championed 'by' capitalists as the pursuit of the false causes is no threat at all to the underlying consequences of capitalism.

Historically this would have been simple from the position of ordinary people, 1) not benefiting at all from and, 2) losing work to slave labor (be it domestic, overseas production, in all forms), it would have been entirely self-evident.

However from the 1850's to the 1950's+, following the end of slavery and the suppression of workers in the 1900's and then after the 1950's the "great red scare", there was the greatest of efforts to associate slavery with racialism that ran concurrently with a publishing ban against communistic materials, which were any/all cases against capitalism, of which a serious examination of slavery would have obviously been one of the strongest arguments against capitalism - it having no other cause.

In the earlier history of ordinary people being displaced in this fashion by slaves outright and then by chattel and then by overseas dirt-cheap production it could even be argued accurately that this process is and remains the cause of things labelled as 'racism', the people losing their high wages or losing work altogether would have to possess a great deal of self-restraint to not shout angrily at the people replacing them, for instance, but where the narrative of racism begins it begins as a regimented propaganda which deflects away from the true cause.

Following the rabbithole of "racism and sexism" is inactionable as it never addresses the true cause; e.g. pioneering for a world where Jim and Mungo hold hands and dance happily does nothing to actually make it so as Jim is and was all the time very angry that Mungo is a "scab" - to use the correct picket-line term - and that the enmity is solely an singularly due to the economic conditions that forces them into competition for a monetary income and that the lowest bidder; whilst himself taken advantage of, will be preferential to an employer who is looking to incur the cheapest possible costs in the pursuit of short term gains; notice that this is where the narrative of racism arises:

1) the cause is evident with even a momentary glance,
2) the cause is recast as if Jim "hates Mungo for being a Chinaman"


And when thinking about this I am always kind of bemused that the so-called Left never did very much with this argument in a publishing or even a real political sense,

...or .. I suppose I am asking here ... did they and has it just been suppressed or swept under the carpet?