/lit/ - Literature

>>3500872

Not if you start with that kind of attitude toward them. A discussion requires both parties to actually conciser the other's side and it sounds as if you aren't nearly ready to do that.

>post-modernists


What?

>>3500887
Dude he's secretly asking how to get a date
Talk to them about No One Knows My Name Nuttin' gets the clothes off like one-upping eager undergraduates in the dark arts of white self hate and shame

>1) by not being a retard yourself
>2) stop getting mad at other people's opinions, you'll live longer.

>>3500872
No, because they don't feel as though anyone is entitled to any opinions but their own, and arguing with them will get you only a shitstorm of insults(such as 'bigot' and 'racist') and a bunch of violent emotion, seeing as how pathos wins any argument with ease because it makes you look like the oppressed freedom fighter while the logical person looks like a cold asshole.

Basically, SJWs pretend the first world is something it isn't to bring emotion into their desperate, pointless lives, since we've been fed for so long stories of increasingly-mounting intensity and ridiculousness (see: Hunger Games, soap operas, various animes, etc.) that, to seek an even more retardedly emotional experience as a reprieve from a calm life of logic and sensibleness, they make up a false reality for so long that they become a part of it themselves.

TL;DR - SJWs lie incessantly because they're bored by their worthless lives.

By not going to tumblr and not talking to people you consider stupid/people who consider that you're stupid

>>3500905
I'll bite, what's an SJW?

Never thought /lit/, of all places, would be infested with this much social justice buttmad

>>3500914
A Social Justice Warrior. The 'post-modernists' the OP is talking about.

>>3500914
social justice warriors

leftist critique on identity politics of why it is ultimately bourgeois and conservative.

>To penetrate the mind of an imbecile one sometimes does better to send a ball than an idea.

>>3500900
This

>>3500872
for one, find a better term than post-modernists. it's misrepresentative for both sides. if anything, the tumblr people you're talking about are outside of postmodernism or are working against it.

>>3500914
go to your university's most popular feminist club's facebook page. you'll find the, and my god are they insufferable.

>>3500872
Did they mean
>because my white privilege doesn't negate gender-based oppression
or am I missing something?

>>3500905

The problem with this is that SJW's are much of the time correct in what they want.

Separating the person from the opinion is something that many, many people, including SJW's have a hard time doing.

Example: "You're racist" vs "what you said was racist". The person who said the racist statement may simply have never considered it could be construed that way.

Just as SJW's may be quick to call someone a bigot etc, it's just as faulty to say they have "desperate, pointless lives". It's not addressing what they said, it's attacking them as people.

>>3500936
how do i work for postmodernism? it sounds like something I want to be doing.

>>Is it possible to have an intelligent discussion with someone of their kind?

No. Don't waste your time.

That is not what post-modernism means.

>>3500905
>>3500872
samefag

>>3500942
Likewise anything you say about their thought process will be taken as a personal attack

PROTIP: DO NOT ENGAGE

This cultural self-loathing is a natural progression to maturity. Some manifest earlier by being adolescent rebels or other antisocial subculture. But usually the adolescent remains naive until ready access to information shatters their worldview, leading to a cognitive meltdown.

It is up to the person if they mature enough to objectively analyze and accept realpolitik, or to impotently rage against the society which enabled their naive and comfortable adolescence.

Engaging at this formative stage gives unwarranted validation to what is basically a naive and rehashed realization that we all have when entering adulthood, akin to engaging a child on whether boys are poopyheads and girls have cooties.

Wtf do they mean "gender based oppression doesn't negate my white privilege"? That sentence makes no sense to the point they are trying to make. Fuck feminists are stupid

>>3500872
>How do I deal with post-modernists (IE: 'privilege' tumblr spouting retards)?
Marx, and plenty of him. (You'll need to read Lukacs).

>>3500957
They'll diss you as a marxist-chauvinist even faster than it takes to write the captcha

>>3500956
I'm pretty sure they just flipped them by accident.

The only valid response is "yea sure thing baby" and then fuck them.

>>3500958
Which demonstrates their servicing of bourgeois ideology and its necessary negation of human freedom. qed via pomo hypocrisy.

>>3500956
They just say

>we are victims but we also want to be seen as nice guys by admitting that other people may have it worse

>>3500942
Fair enough. However, that is my personal opinion on them.

But no, you can't carry on a conversation with them, because any disagreement is instantly met with anger and insults. That is seriously just how it is with them, and they're will to do anything, including lie, to prove their points.

>>3500946
lol

>>3500872

>I may be a woman but at least I'm not a nigger

>>3500964
it's not "any disagreement" -- it's a response to how you choose to present your argument i.e. in a condescending and smug manner

>>3500927
This guy beat me to my point though.

re:
>>3500962
>>3500958

>>3500931

This is the only post I can approve here.

>>3500965

>>3500964
yeah - I find when talking theory or politics with respectable groups (neo-marxists etc ;) if there is a disagreement you work it out. If there is a disagreement witj SJW they'll start calling everyone a bigot. hence the ''did you check your privilege today' jokes

>>3500980
maybe it's because those people are being bigots

>>3500966
No, that's not true. I really don't know how better to say that, but it just isn't. SJWs will react violently to opposition, no matter what form it takes - be it angry, joking, logical, or whatever, SJWs will attack it with everything they have and feel justified in their emotions because they're 'oppressed'.

>>3500981

>being called a bigot by someone with a dogmatic, kneejerk worldview
>dems irony

>>3500964
>>you can't carry on a conversation with them, because any disagreement is instantly met with anger and insults.

Not at all. Conciser that personal judgment of others is a very passe thing to do amongst SJW. Consequently, arguments need to be constructed carefully to avoid a judgmental overtone. If an argument can be construed to be a personal judgement people of the SJW persuasion will be quick to anger simply because they deal with that sort of thing all the time.

SJW's anger actually has solid rational roots. Always remember the mechanistic point of view: everything happens for a reason.

>>3500980
Exactly.

>>3500984
'angry' receives an angry response. 'joking' is at the expense of the other person or taking a serious issue lightly. 'logical' is usually not logical at all and is smug and condescending. again, it's the manner in which you choose to present your argument to people. i can tell you now you get the same responses from any group of people. it's not limited to SJWs

>>3500985
what are you talking about, skip?

>>3500981
Its because they're infected with the dominant ideology of liberalism, they're liberal reactionaries running under a progressive guise, much like Napoleon III. Pomo feminism demonstrates just how dead the bourgeois project of human liberation through capitalism is.

Their theorists are bourgeois.
Their ideology is individualism.
Their social practice is begging the state for a reconfiguration of the enlightenment individual as the bourgeois female.

It is actually quite pathetic. From Voltaire to this. How low have you sunk Fukuyama?

>>3500997
are you stuck in the 80s?

>>3500990
I may be mistook but I think most of their roots come from dogmatic beliefs, not rational conclusions

>>3501005
>mistaken*

>>3501005
most people's are

>>3500956
If they're a women, it means that they still have white privilege even though they're a women and are discriminated against as such.

personal judgement of others is passe in name only. they didn't just transcend judgement part way through undergrad.

perhaps the other reason they are slightly annoying is they seem to conflate their ivory tower platitudes they learned in a class with actual action. bakesale on campus doesn't count as action. This is just in my experience, perhaps SJWs in your areas do shit.

>>3501008
Probably, but hating people because they're sure they're being oppressed by them and their privileges just by default doesn't sound 'solidly rational'

>>3501005
>>I may be mistook but I think most of their roots come from dogmatic beliefs, not rational conclusions

So do you honestly believe that you, yourself do not also harbor similar beliefs, simply of a different vein?

>>3501016
which tends to explain why it doesn't actually occur

>>3500992
Except that that's not true. I once called someone out for saying that white men are not exempt from difficulty, and she called me pressed and pathetic. Just because I said white men can be upset.

>>3500990
Any argument is a personal one with SJWs, because they take personal offense at anything they can. I have not seen a logical argument ever made by a SJW, and I'm not joking. I have seen blatant lies, angry complaints, and condescending remarks, but never a real argument that was without lying or emotion. Part of this is because of the very subjects they talk about - many SJWs are trans or LGBT or women, and they take social justice very seriously because of that. But since many social justice arguments are based solely in lies, it's hard to even have a real discussion with them.

>>3501020
See >>3501016

"Their ideology is individualism."

this. keep track of how infected they are by neo-liberalism. altho ideology of dominant class is dom ideology ... so they were bound to fall into the trap

>mon visage quand SJWs and Nike commercials say exactly the same things in late capitalism,

>>3500999
Given that bourgeois politics got stuck in 1969, I'll take the 80s as an advance. Pro-tip: lesbian feminists discovered this foetid swamp of identity politics in the late 1970s. It was just as annoying the first time around.

>>3501022
Go look at the misandry tag on tumblr.

>>3501023
gonna need more context and information than that to convince me, slick

>>3501027
My sneakers are my expression of personal identity and freedom. Are you dismissing my sneakers? Check your cobblers.

>>3501031
that's a really bad way of trying to prove what you're saying

I need someone to link to me the critique anon mentioned earlier

I understand what you're saying, but I can't fully grasp it

>>3501023

Do you not see you're irrationally judging them?

>>3501024

My meaning was the reasons behind their reactions are rationally knowable, not that SJW's reactions are based on wholly rational reasons.

>>3501035
It's the best way to explain it. There are many people who believe they are being oppressed by men, so they hate them. I think that fits into 'hating people because they're sure they're being oppressed by them'.

>>3501033
I'm not quite sure about the thing I said to which you're replying, but I'm going to assume it was the first one. Some person put on her blog a little picture of an empty jar, and under it was written 'tears cried by cis white males'. I told her that it was insulting that my emotions were trivialized simply because of my race and gender, qualities with which I was born and had no choice in choosing, and she called me, I quote, 'pressed and pathetic'.

>>3501049
no it's not. do you assume that all people tagging their tumblr posts with 'misandry' are a sjw or that all sjws post on tumblr with that tag?

>>3501049
or even that people may be misandrist because they feel they are oppressed?

>>3500872
Those aren't postmodernists, shithead.

facebook, twitter, and tumblr as forms of mass media have changed the way we relate and communicate with each other. The internet was supposed to liberate us all - but becuae of the form the medium took, facebook, twitter, tumblr etc, it only leads to SJWism. desert of the realwahatver

Rorty, Derrida, Lacan, Foucault, Lyotard, Deleuze, and all the sorts to characterize Postmodernism didn't themselves have much to do with feminism.

And Postmodern feminists did set things out to become the shit you see on Tumblr, but they're still pretty removed. Hell, Kristeva was pretty critical of the miasma in identity politics.

>>3501045
It's not that irrational - although I am, I will admit, being unfair in assuming that every single SJW is like that, every single SJW I've seen is like that. The things they say regarding social justice don't make sense, their opinions are based in fallacy, and the proof for their statements is untrue. They believe rape is touching the inside of someone's thigh. I dislike them personally, yes, but don't take this last argument as a result of that. But many traditional social justice beliefs can be described by what I said.

>>3501049
>I told her that it was insulting that my emotions were trivialized simply because of my race and gender

you really don't see how someone could think you were being condescending from that? even just the act of a cis white male responding at all seems problematic

>>3501057
>>3501056

Many SJWs are misandrist and many misandrists are SJWs - just because not all SJWs are misandrists and not all misandrists are SJWs doesn't mean there isn't a lot of overlap between the two groups.

>>3501063
ask them if they think your opinions don't make sense/are fallacious/rooted in falsehoods and you'll be in for a mind-blowing realisation about human interaction

>>3501065
I don't see how that's condescending, no. Could you elaborate?

>>3501065
"even just the act of a cis white male responding at all seems problematic"
lol this troll nailed being SJW. key buzzword to learn - problematic

>>3501069
i have no reason to believe you. you're walking dangerously close to assuming the initial point

>tumblr whores
>postmodernists

you're going to need to update your terms if you think postmodernism is defined as ''privilege' spouting tumblr retards'

>>3501071
what was your exact quote?

it's a blog so link me

>>3501065
I don't see how that's condescending, no. Could you elaborate?

>>3501070
Well, alright. But assuming both sides of an argument are correct makes no sense. I believe that I am correct, and that they are incorrect. I know that they think my opinions are based in falsehood, but I'm quite certain that they are not. At the same time, I am quite certain that SJWs' opinions are based in falsehood.

http://libcom.org/library/identity-politics-anti-politics-critical-perspective

>>3501077
They both indicate the end point of bourgeois ideology.

They are both thoroughly mired in individualism, even as they claim not to be.

Both commence from the point of a liberatory project only to retreat into a harsh and vicious state and market discipline of the proletariat as the actually existing subjectivity with revolutionary potential.

They're also both seated within a discursivity analysis of modern individualism.

So yeah, tumblr feminists look pretty fucking post-modernist to me. The fact that they don't speak French and are comprehensible aren't points against them.

>>3501085
they believe they are correct and that you are incorrect. they know that you think their opinions are based on falsehood, but they're quite certain that they're not. at the same time, they are quite certain that yours are based in falsehood.

Fuck those ideas are really hard to read

That's what I get for speaking a language that doesn't even use the same alphabet as you guys ;_;

>>3501089
tumblr jsut replaced reading magazines and cutting out pictures and putting them up on the bedroom wall. which may also be postmodern

>>3501098
SJW - the internet is racist because you're unable to understand us.

>>3501099
Not particularly, see Society of the Spectacle.

>>3501093
Yes, but their ideas explain fundamentally less of the world than, say, contemporary Anarchism-Marxism. Their ideas have more internal contradictions than contemporary A-M. Their ideas have fewer (as in no) viable research projects whereas A-M has a number (Fordism versus post-Fordist precarity, say). Their ideas also cast the majority of humanity into a pit of serving the bourgeois as wage slaves, where as post-1968 Marxism and Anarchism displays a method for actual human self-liberation in history.

So from a basic HPS "theory of scientific revolutions" perspective, tumblr feminism is a bad project and a dead end.

>>3501093
I know that already. The difference is, I can't convince them that they are wrong in my opinion, and I don't really want to put in the effort because I'm certain it would be a difficult task. I'm not going to say that what I say is 100% true, but I stand by my opinion and I am quite certain that it is the correct one - just as they do. Pretty much, everything you said on that subject points to 'they have opinions that are not your opinions and if you tell them you disagree with them, they will say they disagree with you'.

>>3501076
Well, go on the misandry tag on tumblr, go on a blog, and see if the blogger blogs social justice, and there's your answer. You don't really expect me to go find you a specific example, do you? I don't actually care enough about this internet argument to do that.

>>3501113
nigga debord didn't know about the internet when he wrote that. you really think that book can demonstrate the difference between the two mediums?

I love how almost all the criticisms of feminism here either consider it the pastime of insane and lonely women.

>>3501113
what?

the name of their ideas don't start with an A therefor they are better.

>So from a basic HPS "theory of scientific revolutions" perspective

what is the relevance of this perspective?

>>3501085
>>But assuming both sides of an argument are correct makes no sense.

Why don't you try assuming that both sides are incorrect. That way your mind will be freed from ego and every conversation is an opportunity to learn more about your fellow human beings.

Students always fancy themselves to be the master. The master knows he will never be more than a student.

The SJW's are trying to communicate something, it's best to fully understand it test their ideas against the world before dismissing them.

>>3501085
>>But assuming both sides of an argument are correct makes no sense.

Why don't you try assuming that both sides are incorrect. That way your mind will be freed from ego and every conversation is an opportunity to learn more about your fellow human beings.

Students always fancy themselves to be the master. The master knows he will never be more than a student.

The SJW's are trying to communicate something, it's best to fully understand and test their ideas against the world before dismissing them.

>>3501089
eh, fair enough i suppose. but their brand is so much less productive

>>3501118
We're discussing American bourgeois college tumblr feminism. Not the rape crisis centre strategy in Australian in the 1980s. Or _The power of women and the subversion of the community._ We are discussing women whose ideas are as irrelevant as Derrida's, except in the area of "what not to do."

>>3501115
>The difference is

no that is no difference.

>'they have opinions that are not your opinions and if you tell them you disagree with them, they will say they disagree with you'.

yes

>go on the misandry tag on tumblr

so you are assuming the initial point. i expect you to not operate on fallacies when you're trying to paint the opposition as irrational

>>3501123
no way, tumblr users are thoroughly modernist

>>3501121
HPS allows for the comparative evaluation of incommensurable scientific programmes.

>>3501133
that doesn't explain the relevance

People who make these threads, and I'm saying this as a point of analysis not to be passive aggressive, are on the same playing field as signboard tumblr SJWs.

There's a lot to be said about that whole tumblr culture, but dedicating all of this needless animosity toward it is within the same domain as the culture itself. Basically, if you're reading it, it's for you.

>>3501119
I did, and I believe that the other side is incorrect. I have not seen evidence to support that women are oppressed in the United States. I have not seen evidence that white people have easier lives than people who aren't white. I have not seen evidence proving that straight/cis people have a substantial advantage over LGBT people. In fact, I have seen much evidence to the contrary. Therefore, I believe that I am correct and that SJWs are incorrect.

>>3501143
maybe your idea of 'oppression', 'easier life' and 'substantial advantage' is different to theirs.

i'd be interested in seeing your evidence

>>3501138
Someone claimed that tumblr feminists could escape merely by claiming that their perspective, and the perspective of their critics are incommensurable. I refuted this by demonstrating that a major critique of identity politics, the Marxist-Anarchist one, supplies according to an HPS evaluation of the comparative fructiveness of the research projects, a project that is more fruitful.

The tree of tumblr feminism is barren. The tree of at least one of its critics bears sweet fruit in abundance.

Its a demolition of the subjectivist "but all our opinions are equal" argument. They're not—tumblr feminists' opinions are shit.

>>3501143
Actually, the Australian ABS provides evidence of this. LGBT earn lower per education level than Straights. This is largely due to working class poofs, dykes and trannies earning horrifically low lifetime incomes.

>>3501143
>I believe that I am correct

Have you ever tried believing you are not?

>>3501147
>tumblr feminists' opinions are shit.

this is the main point of your argument and i've been waiting for you to qualify this with some sort of evidence or explanation or something. i have no idea what this HPS nonsense is about

>>3501143
You think LGBT have an advantage in running for positions of power? Do women have an advantage on Wall Street? Follow the money and the real power and see if your argument holds up.

>>3501159
Kuhn's structure of scientific revolutions, see post >>3501113
It is a standard evaluation of counterposed belief systems in "science" broadly considered as systematised human knowledge.

Also feed your ignorance on the history and philosophy of science (HPS): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

tumblr is not this big a deal /lit/

>>3501128
Fine then, an example to prove I am not simply assuming the point.

These are screenshots from the blog of misterjmasters. The first, from her blog, proving that she is a social justice blogger. The second, from a post she made, tagged 'misandrist 4 lyfe', which I will assume means she is a misandrist.

Are you happy?

>>3501163
so sjw opinions are shit because they're not supporting viable scientific programs? how is that relevant?

really what is your point

>>3501167
if your argument was to prove that a single sjw was a misandrist then yes i would be happy but that's not your argument

>>3501167
please note the guy's comment she is responding to and refer back to this post

>>3500992

>>3501163
Did you write an essay on this recently and now you're trying to shoehorn your arguments into this paradigm in an attempt to seem insightful?

>>3501146
Personal experience, mostly, and a variety of other things - more evidence than SJWs can bring to the table. I don't really care enough to link you to them all.

>>3501156
Fair enough. But, I never saw an SJW say anything like that, despite much time being spent perusing the social justice tag in order to understand their opinions.

>>3501157
I did, and that led me to the conclusion that I was correct. That is what I was describing in the post.

>>3501162
I don't think LGBT have an advantage, but I don't think they have a disadvantage, either. I myself am homosexual, but any opinions I have politically aren't denied simply because of my sexuality - in fact, they never have been.

>>3501169
If SJW want to make claims about reality, that's a scientific claim, right? What reality is subject to science—a process of structured knowledge, right?

SJW's methods of discovering what reality is are fundamentally flawed. They are internally contradictory. Their aim at human bondage. They don't provide for new research areas. They fail to adequately explain areas of reality readily explained by other programs.

Superior research programs exist that explain the same social reality, such as post-wages for housework Marxism, or class struggle feminism

Superior research programs exist that actually explain reality. This is the point. SJW are wrong because they fail to explain bits of reality readily explained by other superior methods of explaining reality.

We don't use a "plum pudding" model of the electric structure of the atom any more, because we have both the shells and orbitals models.

>>3501182
Ad hominem, how effective.

>>3501173
I'm not going to go on every blog on tumblr to see if the person who owns it is both a misandrist and an SJW. I went to enough effort to get you one example, and I'm not going to go to more.

>>3501186
>I don't think LGBT have an advantage, but I don't think they have a disadvantage, either. I myself am homosexual, but any opinions I have politically aren't denied simply because of my sexuality - in fact, they never have been.

I asked specifically about an advantage in powerful positions (where advantage really matters), not powerless things like your political opinion.

>>3501186
Yeah, because SJW don't care about social reality such as lifetime earnings analysis of the class position of LGBT people. The SJW analysis in fact denies the centrality of wage labour to oppression. LGBT are deeply oppressed in this society, but tumblr feminism can't explain it.

>>3501197
Well, most people are not homosexuals, so I don't think that just because there are more heterosexuals in power, homosexuals are oppressed.

>>3501186
in your male experience you find that women aren't oppressed? hmm ok

>>3501206
And there are more women than men yet they are incredibly underrepresented in positions of power.

>>3501189
>They are internally contradictory. Their aim at human bondage. They don't provide for new research areas. They fail to adequately explain areas of reality readily explained by other programs.

oh do they

>you're wrong

>>3501206
So to your knowledge there's never been a "they're gay!!!!11" scandal with someone running for political office or in political office?

>>3501193
I'm not attempting to make an argument. It's a genuine question.

>>3501194
so then you don't have evidence that they're all misdandrists. how did you come to this conclusion initially?

>>3501214
>And there are more women than men yet they are incredibly underrepresented in positions of power.

Maybe if the bitches got off their fat asses and voted, there would be a fair representation.

That's sort of how democracy works.

But if you can't be bothered to vote, you shouldn't bitch about the outcome.

>>3501212
As demonstrated above, the critique of identity politics has been numerously put.

Your tu quoque is trite as fuck when it has been asked and answered over and again.

>>3501217
Many /lit/ arguments end up as either epistemology shitting contests, or comparative evaluations of incommensurable research programmes. It helps to have read enough history and philosophy of science to play the game. Also my real world discipline regularly fends of sallies of post-modernists, so I've done my time refuting this end stage of liberalism bullshit.

>>3501225
what? you actually need women running for office in order to vote for them. also you don't vote in leaders of business

>>3501214
maybe that's because men are more........powerful?

that's how the world turns

>>3501227
saying their rooted in individualism isn't much of a critique. could you be more specific? or actually explain how such a revelation dismisses them?

>>3501210
Yes.

>>3501213
Oh, I'm sure there has been, but I don't believe it's substantial enough to prevent someone from getting into their desired office.

>>3501214
Well, there's nothing stopping them. I once saw a video of several rednecks proclaiming their great support of Sarah Palin, men and women, and not a single word of her being a female was uttered. These were the types of people who would be the most chauvinistic of all, you'd think - but they didn't care. All they cared about was Sarah Palin's opinions.

>>3501233
this is the most fallacious argument in the thread so far

>>3501237
>Yes.

how legitimate

>>3501219
I didn't say they're all misandrists. I said lots of them were. You don't need to make things up to win at arguments on the internet.

>>3501247
i'm having trouble believing that you're serious

>>3501238
oh boy you can't be serious

>>3501244
you didn't answer my question. how did you come to this conclusion initially?

bonus question: could there be the possibility that your confirmation bias is in play?

>>3501235
Have you bothered to read any of the marxist critiques of liberalism or post-modernism? The problem is history. Individualism as a research methodology can't estimate the long term movement of social orders—it can't evaluate social change over time.

Individualism is achronistic—it denies the time and change in societies. As such, tumblr feminism can't estimate, predict or anticipate the end of oppression.

Further, individualism's end point is the failure of the post-modern research project to detect the grounds for the enhancement of human freedom in line with the Enlightenment. The contradiction between the enlightenment's promise of human freedom, and post-modernism's discovery that 19th century findings in terms of utilitarianism (impossible) and epistemology (impossible) thereby mean for a liberal that social change to benefit the individual is impossible subverts the possibility of an individualistic research programme.

Tumblr feminisms can't detect oppression (their main claim) because of their individualism and falling into post-modern epistemology, they can't say what human freedom looks like, or doesn't look like, and they have no way to detect social change.

There's no social justice possible from an analysis of society as individual rights.

>>3501225
It should be clear that "positions of power" is not at all strictly in reference to politics. Politics is mostly powerless. Where are all of the women and LGBT's on Wall Street? Why are all lobbyists men?

Do you even know what post-modernism is, champ?

Or are you just using ten-dollar words to try and look smart?

>>3501253
i am seriously so serious

>>3501249
are you kidding? they just don't want to be hounded by men for simply existing somewhere within their vicinity.

i think your critique misses the point entirely.

>>3501248
I came to this conclusion because I saw lots of SJWs on tumblr blogging about misandry. In answer to your second question, yes, it is possible, just like it's certainly possible bias on your part is in play.

>>3501238
>>3501253
>>3501259

>samefag

>>3501264
maybe you don't see the non-misandrist sjws because you're too busy looking at the posts tagged 'misandrist'

>>3501262
>they just don't want to be hounded by men for simply existing somewhere within their vicinity.

I'm deadly serious. I have no sympathy for a bourgeois scum who wants to run a corporation, or live off of a trust fund; or who has internalised this as the correct way to live. I have no sympathy for their collation of oppressions like flowers to be worn to the funeral of the possibility of human freedom. These ladies are the first scum to cross a picket line. They're not my comrades, and their ideology destroys solidarity and democracy.

I'm sick of trying to throw off the shackles of wage slavery while being hounded by bourgeois feminists who are offended that the working class still exists and that more than half of that class are women.

>>3501269
I looked at the social justice tag too, as I stated before.

>>3501267
all the samefag accusations are getting old

>>3501276
ok

>>3501279
so you are only limited to tagged posts and tumblr users

>>3501284
>>3501279
i mean hey you could be right but your research methods are definitely flawed and your experience limited

>>3501284
>>3501287

Well, look, I'm really tired of arguing with you, since all you seem to care about is pointing out the flaws of my arguments while not actually presenting any of your own. Incessant nitpicking about nonissues gets really tiring after a while, especially when the nitpickers' comments consist only of 'give proof' and then 'your proof is insufficient'. That said, I'm going to stop arguing with you.

>>3501249
>>3501276
That was nice, I learned a bit

>>3501252
I was misinformed about that

All this tumblr check your privilege social justice twaddle is the finest example of slave morality.

>>3500956
They say stupid shit like this without really realizing it. Tumblr is a breeding ground for idiots like this. I'm guessing humans just like feeling shame. These Tumblr Femnazis/RadFems/Beardlegs are no different than hardcore Catholics.

>>3501276
They won't stop until its only men in working class.

>>3501321
Well, tumblr feminists step on the heads of workers, female and male. Generally, bosses try to use working class women to subvert solidarity. In the past, when women earnt far far less than men, women were more timid workers. This is changing (and where it changed in the past, militant women were strong—plenty of women only unions were more militant than the men's unions).

So despite bosses trying to bring in cheap female labour to smash working class living standards, women workers constantly show solidarity with male workers. The problem is the bourgeoisie in general, bourgeois feminists are just a symptom.

At least that's my take. And I test my ideas against history and struggle, and change them when I'm wrong.

>>3501276

I'm sorry the wall fell.

>>3501356
I'm not. While Solidarity were right, it was a "Leader / Led" movement, not a democratic one. The last democratic movements in central Europe, '68 and '56, were crushed. The wall was a greater buttress of capitalism in the East than it was in the West.

Just like 1989 in China—another failed revolution for socialism against bolshevism.

And this still means nothing about social change in capitalism. To paraphrase Mandel (a man I generally disagree with about practical politics), feudalism lasted more than a thousand years, it took the capitalists more than a thousand years to break tithes and corvee tax. Maybe we can do it faster and better than they did.

>>3501353
Well i'd like to know what the bourgeoisie have to do with it?

And a friend of mine pointed something out - Socialism allows these RadFem types. Look at Sweden - they're trying to make it illegal for men to urinate standing up.

>>3501364
Look at the Libtards' analysis of Sweden's level of economic freedom for corporations and capitalist investment. Sweden has a welfare state, but capital can do pretty much what it likes in Sweden.

Also value circulates in Sweden—shareholder value is maximised. That ain't workers control.

Sweden's feminism is a perfect example of rights based individual feminism—it is identity politics at its purest.

The bourgeoisie are pretty central to societies with capital as the dominant economic form, given that they control capital flows.

>>3501249
typical marxist, mixing condescension with impossible-to-parse setences

>dat UK spelling
>mfw

>>3501372
I'm sorry you're functionally illiterate, but you aren't my coworker and you aren't in my union, and this is a discussion of ideology not immediate class struggle, so I feel no need to make my thought easy to parse for a nationalist clapistani I don't know from Jill.

>>3501371
For fucks sake, you don't have to be a cunt.

None of what you have said justifies trying to prevent someone /from being a male/.

Libtard? Honestly? Brilliant deduction, Holmes.

>>3501382
>>3501382
http://www.heritage.org/index/country/sweden
>Sweden’s economic freedom score is 72.9, making its economy the 18th freest in the 2013 Index. Its score has increased by 1.2 points since last year due to improvements in the management of government spending, monetary freedom, and freedom from corruption. Sweden is ranked 9th out of 43 countries in the Europe region, and its overall score is above the world and regional averages.
>About The Index
>When institutions protect the liberty of individuals, greater prosperity results for all.

>Economist Adam Smith formed this theory in his influential work, The Wealth of Nations, in 1776. In 2013, his theory is measured – and proven – in the Index of Economic Freedom, an annual guide published by The Wall Street Journal and The Heritage Foundation, Washington's No. 1 think tank.

Libtard is an adequate depiction of this movement's attempts to destroy workers control.

I've never justified demasculinisation, I'm pointing out that demasculinisation comes precisely from the same liberal politics that libertarianism comes—rights conceptions of the individual in enlightenment modernity. Swedish feminists are the same as Swedish capitalists.

>>3501389
So how do you propose one avoids such an event?

>>3501396
Work with feminists focused on the workplace. Politely refuse privilege checking by noting your class and insinuating about the class position of those asking you to check your privilege, while actually giving them rope to hang themselves, "As a worker, as part of the largest oppressed group in society that is more than 50% women, I agree that we should seriously listen to women workers' perspectives. However, your concept of "privilege" is an absurd identity politics inherited from the bosses. I want to listen to you if you're a fellow worker."

And be soft about it. If you can be softer than they are, you usually win. You make them look like the middle class wankers they usually are.

>>3501379
>in my union

you mean worker cult?

>>3501422
I do have a question regarding the working class and women/men. Women on average make more in a service job, and have a higher chance of being hired for jobs that interact with other folk. Do you find this unfair for working class? Should women be fighting to protect that?

I never mentioned my concept of 'privilege'.

>>3501429
>"As a worker, as part of… I want to listen to you if you're a fellow worker."
Was an example of how to deal with "privilege checkers" in movement politics. I wasn't remonstrating with you.

Some women earn more in some service work than some men. If you look at "service work" as non-primary production, non-manufacturing, then men still earn more than women largely due to engineers, academics, lawyers, accountants, etc.

In terms of "menial service" some women earn more than men, but we can use studies of men versus women by level of education in service as an example that men earn more than women at equivalent socially recognised "status."

There is an anomaly in service sector in that the 10 years or less high school male earns less than the 10 years or less high school female in service. I'd put this down to men's preferential access to criminal work, and the discriminatory practice of unemployment and gaol on men's lifetimes in this segment of the class.

Should women be fighting to protect that? Of course not. It has a massive negative impact on these women by both:
a) making most-probable male partners earn less, be unemployed more, and less capable of forming long term social unions (highly correlated to income and poverty)
b) absolutely reducing the pool of such males for coupling due to early death

(This is assuming Kinsey rates of exclusive or predominant heterosexuality amongst women).

Wage flattening is an ideal demand for unions across a sector. Capital tries this on naturally (look at wage flattening in Australian higher education and secondary teaching over a 50 year frame, as these each became proletarianised).

Wage flattening is a hard demand to put to beneficiaries of capital inflicted wage differentials though. Arguing for "as much as we can by strength" and then accepting differential flattening is more productive. In fact, one could argue that female wage equality is coming about via wage flattening.

>>3501458
>remonstrating
Fair enough. Thank you for your time/answers.

>>3501468
No worries, happy thinking and reading, and I look forward to living together with you in freedom.

>gaol