/lit/ - Literature

I mean seriously when did we become this? Was it the 60's?

A liberal's idea of paradise is a world in which a black transgender lesbian can hire servants for his adopted Chinese daughters to pull their chariots (made from organic, GMO-free hemp, of course). As long as those servants are equally distributed in terms of race, sexuality, and gender.

>>6170343
Ikr

I'm even kind of tinfoil hat-y about identity politics and all the liberal nonsense of the past few years. I think it was fueled by the media to give the impression that we were making leftwards advancements during the crisis.

>>6170262
>We need to bring back Lenin.

bump

>>6170262
god, she's so hot

>>6170387
sounds like a good thing.

>>6170262
Back to /pol/.

>>6170543
well it ain't

>>6170262

>pretending that identity-based politics challenge the economic and social order

they do

>>6170591
why?

>>6170603
they don't

>>6170616

they do

>>6170603
Qu'est ce que burden of proof

>>6170632

>our current structure can easily go on with women, ethnic minorities and LGBT people at the top

i think we know where the burden lies

>>6170635
Are you implying that women, minorities etc are too incompetent to sustain the current system?

>>6170649

the 'current system' doesn't allow for women and minorities to hold power in the dominant modes of discourse

if this were to change, the 'current system' would also be radically altered, which is why feminist epistemology and 'social justice warriors' are, in fact, challenging the prevailing social order and its dictates

>>6170666

within the dominant modes*

>>6170603
It seems to be a prevailing notion among feminists (the left-wing ones I speak to, at least) that patriarchy is something like the lifeblood of capitalism and you can't attack one without attacking the other, but that seems pretty ahistorical to me. Not only there's the longevity of gender inequality when compared to the relatively recent advent of capitalism, but there's also the fact that we probably owe wage labour and industrial mass society for even offering women the possibility of breaking free from the patriarchal family mold.

Let's face it, it's a movement that is entirely consistent with the prevailing ideology. Sexism is a legacy of the time, not a necessity of the current order. The "left" should be focusing on the social and economic order itself and the things that come as consequence of it, instead we're only dealing with subjects that liberals could easily deal with themselves.

>>6170666
go away satan, you can't fool me

>>6170666
>if this were to change, the 'current system' would also be radically altered

A century of nearly constant social advancements on the women/minorities question while we approach pre-war levels of inequality again seem to prove otherwise

>>6170673

>we probably owe wage labour and industrial mass society for even offering women the possibility of breaking free from the patriarchal family mold.

in some sense feminism as a reaction to capitalist ideology is certainly a tenable way of looking at the issue, but i fail to see how this gives credit to industrialized mass society as a positive measure of social health

We flowrished millions of years without feminism. Why should we change now ?
People almost everywhere are equal by law and when this becomes valid everywhere the problems should be settled. The rest lays in competence.

>>6170697

spoken like a young white male

>>6170696
feminism isn't a reaction to capitalist ideology, it's a product of capitalist ideology

>>6170691

i'm pretty sure gender issues and economic issues are separate but contingent problematics

what are you saying? women are doing too well while the economy is shit?

>>6170700
What is wrong with being a young white male?

>>6170697
Because equal opportunity is not enough for them, some people are still better than others and thus more likely to succeed.
Feminists won't rest until we live in a totalitarian state that would put Stalin to shame.

>>6170721
>Feminists won't rest until we live in a totalitarian state that would put Stalin to shame.
how's your sexless life treating you, ever knew what it's like being taller than 1.5m?

>>6170703
I wouldn't say "product" either. It's more like part of a constant return to a previous arrangement now that the institutions that made this arrangement obsolete are obsolete themselves, largely due to capitalism.

>>6170703

so is every discourse, unilaterally, since the advent of capitalism

desiring agents produce objects of desire within the confines of the prevailing social order

feminism and the dialectical negation of feminism are equally products of capitalist ideology

>>6170735
who are your favourite authors? you seem to know some stuff

>>6170703
Yes and no. It was made possible by capitalistic world, since women needed to be part of the workforce, but in the process they were made somewhat financially independent, which is what gave them the perfect conditions to demand social equality.

>>6170753

i know nothing, i've got baking soda

beckett, kafka, pynchon, pkd
derrida, deleuze, foucault,

>>6170753
dfw, george rr martin, john green

>>6170707
>i'm pretty sure gender issues and economic issues are separate but contingent problematics

They are but the ideological imperatives of a certain economic arrangement can easily survive into a new age as relicts of an older order, given that it takes centuries before the complete homogenization of values is achieved and the way we transmit our values (family unit, church, etc) mean that the new generation can only "reform" the values of the previous one. We don't start anew at every step of the bloodline.

So for me it's a mistake to necessarily assume a synergic relationship between every aspect of our collective philosophy and our economy. Take the christian religion for example, its values are entirely at odds with the society the Industrial Revolution created, but it stills exist and will continue to for centuries, yet that doesn't mean that when you attack it you're striking that society at any significant level.

>what are you saying? women are doing too well while the economy is shit?

I wouldn't put it as simply as "the economy is shit". How well it's doing isn't the problem, I'm talking about its qualitative nature.

>>6170772

i pretty much agree with you
historical contingency is fucked and people need to realize that social forces are problematic as fuck

>>6170725
>how's your sexless life treating you

Women are vile, anon. They have poison juices inside of them. Stay pure, anon. Don't let them contaminate you with their juices.

>>6170761
This is good bait.

>Taking feminism seriously

I hope you don't do this, comrades.

of course soon my boss, manager, CEO and so forth will be a black lesbian or a woman, or transgendered, or sit in a wheelchair.

Some people will call this progress. It will be 0 progress for me.

Capitalism uses identity politics to legitimize itself.

I think this is just an annoying growing pain that already has too much momentum behind it to be stopped. Soon women will realize that their lesbian peruvian CEO is just as bad as their white male CEO, then we can move on to more progress. Some sort of dialectic will occur and we'll slowly have something better. (no CEO, maybe liberals will try each racialized or oppressed group and find out that none of them make good CEOs and then realize it was CEO that was the problem in the first place)

>>6170790
Why shouldn't we take feminism seriously?

>>6170785
thanks, I try

>>6170266
Everyon blames the 68ers which I don't necessarily get. Seems more like the 80s yuppies are to blame.

>>6170790
feminism is important only in that we have to avoid the fuckup labour unions did in the past (not including female 'gendered' work in their group of proletariats)

feminism can show us that retail workers, call centres, nurses, and all 'female' work are proletariat just as like steel makers.

>>6170790
Feminism is the new order destroying the old, so it's like the secular movement: agree with its basic premises and move on, don't invest too much time and effort in it.

>>6170800
You should take women having equal rights seriously. That's not what mainstream feminism is however. Mainstream feminism is a trend where educated liberals try to show that they're "with it," substituting economic reform with feel-good false empowerment. Of course a major darling of the mainstream feminists would be a millionaire Hollywood actress who is dating a monarch.

>>6170828

>equal rights

you should just stay out of the conversation

>>6170800
It's run by mental patients.

>>6170832

It's run? Who is on the board of directors? Where is the main office?

>>6170828
you are fucking retarded if you think those tumblr activists are feminists.

>>6170845
I think the kinds of articles about feminist causes that appear on mainstream liberal news sites represent mainstream feminism.

What else would they be?

>We wish to document, explain, and support any activism that is part of the greater social justice movement, e.g., feminism, the LGBT movement, anti-fascism, the civil rights movement, the queer movement, no borders and migrant solidarity movements, the trans movement, the fat acceptance movement, the body positive movement, and so on.

http://sjwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page#.VOfxe_nF9VU

>>6170851
>i hate islam, blacks and gays becasue i'm a atheist
>atheism is so fucking stupid and hateful oh my god!!

>>6170725
I am 185 cm, not bad looking, had girlfriends and sex and so on.
I still despise feminism and women who identify with that creed. You talk of being thought of as more than just a sexual object, but as soon as someone opposes your ideology you accuse them of not having sexual success.

>>6170836
>It's run? Who is on thle board of directors? Where is the main office?
Exactly. Like I said - mental patients.

>>6170862
what?

>>6170864

so you're autistic as well as humorless

you must be a catch

>>6170863
>I am 185 cm,

You mean 6'1", Estevez.

>>6170870
just because you hide your hate behind a banner doesn't make you a feminist.

>>6170872
>you must be a catch
See, here we go again.

>You shouldn't be nice to women and expect sex
>You are not nice to women so you must not get sex

>>6170880

both of those are decidedly true

Feminism, not tumblr feminism, but the actual bare idea of women being equal to men, is self-defeating and really just naïve.

It essentially subordinates the concept of femininity by implying it as a failed version of masculinity. Of course this IS absolutely true from a male perspective, and this is exactly why feminism is a product of patriarchic logic. If you look at it from a female perspective (which is discursively impossible as language and discourse itself are inherently masculine, but if we remember from Wittgenstein discourse ≠ reality, merely its coincident delineation), you will see that femininity, stay at home concubine sheltered protected femininity, is 'already' good enough, and that it does not need to become anything else than what it has already, historically been.

People derive ideas like the oppression of women out of history without bothering to think if it's actually just supposed to be that way, and that calling it 'oppression' really makes as much sense as calling your mattress 'oppressed by its sheets'.

/validity of feminism

>>6170885
epic post /b/ro

>>6170880
>mfw I've come to detest women and yet *somehow* manage to sustain a long term sexual relationship with one of them

It's not that hard, women are fucking stupid, self-aggrandizing people in general.

>>6170880
A lot of feminists tend to argue by asserting their opponents must be unsuccessful based on dominant social expectations. It's quite a thing to behold.

>>6170882
Niceness is neither necessary or sufficient.

>>6170872
You must be a mental patient.

>>6170885

>femininity, stay at home concubine sheltered protected femininity, is 'already' good enough, and that it does not need to become anything else than what it has already, historically been.

unless you're a woman who wants to be anything but a concubine

kill yourself

>>6170889
Good comeback you really fucked my shit up by divulging to everyone without javascript that I may or may not go onto /b/ once in a while

>>6170861
I'm torn on this. As a woman, I do suffer a lot from harassment, and it sucks, and I like that feminism is working against that. On the other hand, I think by working about things like "the pay gap", feminism is legitimizing an oppressive institution by saying the issue is that there aren't enough female oppressors, and it's pretty clear that feminism is doing well with capitalism because you have all the people at the top vocally supporting it now. If feminism were revolutionary, it would not be supported by the ruling class, full stop.

>>6170900
>that I may or may not go onto /b/ once in a while

>>6170893
Feminists are the most hypocritical bunch I have ever come across.

>>6170895

exactly.
niceness has little to do with sexuality
are you a virgin?

>>6170899
The desire that more and more women are acquiring to be anything other than classically feminine (and so too with the desire for men to be anything other than classically masculine) is sociologically and mechanistically predetermined and therefore a completely moot point.

>>6170908

do you know what the term praxis is? cycles of history? why the social order comes into being in the fashion it does?

you're literally saying is=ought just because it's easy to do so

>>6170905
No I am >>6170863
This whole anti feminism = ugly manlet virgin thing is pretty amusing.

>>6170893
Mostly pro-feminist here but this is definitely true

>>6170908
>moot

>>6170920

i call people faggots and retards all day on /lit/ but i still support feminism, the insults and the social praxis are not exactly related, i just think people who don't agree with me are stupid in general
sorry ;)

>>6170920
But anti feminists use the same sorts of argument.

>>6170929
You're a lackey for middle class princesses.

>>6170901
>As a woman, I do suffer a lot from harassment, and it sucks

Here's the thing about the issue of "street harassment," which is a microcosm of a lot of mainstream feminism.

Actually, it DOES suck.

Plenty of aspects of being a woman suck.
Plenty of aspects of being a man suck.

A lot of pro-feminist men hear about street harassment and think "wow women do have it rough." But street harassment is one side of the coin that is the difference between the genders.

Women get more attention they don't want.
Men get less attention they don't want.

BUT:
Women get more attention they do want.
Men get less attention they do want.

Being a woman and being a man are different experience. The pros and cons are different. People should respect that women don't want to be crudely talked at while they walk down the street. But women are the sought-after sex so they're going to get that kind of attention sometimes. Unfortunate? Sure. But there are plenty of aspects of being a woman that are fortunate vs. being a man.

A big problem with a lot of the more sensationalist SJWs is they can't just, really, GET OVER IT. It's important to realize some things are unfortunate, some thing suck, but they're not THAT BAD.

>>6170930
>literally calling it an argument
bruh

>>6170914
the is/ought fallacy is just that, a fallacy. A sufficient error. Not a necessary one. Just because something is fallacious does not mean it is wrong. All a fallacy is is a warning which says 'hey, this takes the form of sufficient reasoning, not necessary reasoning, therefore you have to look at the actual scenario to determine whether or not it is sufficient for that particular case, because you cannot rest upon the assumption involved in necessity, because there is no necessity here'.

So yes, there is some degree of is/ought there, but that does not automatically make it any less correct.

The social order comes into being in the fashion that it does because the social order is naturalistic. Left wing types will forever have an arbitrary aspect of their reasoning because they never take the idea of social construction to its logical conclusion, which is that nothing is 'socially constructed' in a pejorative sense. All social constructions (which are unconscious; i.e. gender was indisputably not a conscious social construction so much as it was an unconscious one) must ultimately derive from the natural (cf. chaotic) aspect of nature.

>>6170930
How so?
>>6170929
I assume this is satire.

>>6170935
>A big problem with a lot of the more sensationalist SJWs is they can't just, really, GET OVER IT
that, and they don't accept that men have problems too.

>>6170945
>How so?
>feminists are just hairy landwhales who are upset because they don't get enough attention
>male feminists are just emasculated virgin whiteknights groveling over sex

>>6170946
I think they know men have problems, they just want men to solve their problems for them, not the reverse.

>>6170955
Can't say I have ever claimed the first one. The second one might have an element of truth to it.

>>6170901
>>6170935
Patriarchy already solved the problem of street harassment. It's called keeping the women at home. You look at for instance laws in the middle east about women not being able to go out without a chaperone and think of them as crazy when there is actually very good reasoning behind them.

Western society is just distorted and fucked up and asymmetrical and we've essentially forced reality to abide by our own delusions, which only makes it weak at its core and bound to naturally break sooner than later. We've gone so far with this pussy-compulsion that we've gone out of our way to let women have their cake and eat it too AND we've deluded them into thinking that this is the way it ought to be. There are tomes of books from the ancient world written about this exact folly and how it will be the end of us. But we just keep ignoring it acting like we're better than wisdom from ages past.

Reap what you sow you guys.

>>6170938

>The social order comes into being in the fashion that it does because the social order is naturalistic

>All social constructions [sic] must ultimately derive from the natural (cf. chaotic) aspect of nature.

>nature
>telos, god

http://hydra.humanities.uci.edu/derrida/sign-play.html

>>6170973
>doesn't think social construction is a proper term because his tumblr blogs always use the abbreviated 'construct'.
>links me to derrida
Fucking oh my God yawn tier up in this coat hanger rn.

>>6170979

read the article

what do you think 'nature' is, outside of semiotic discourse?

>>6170969
No ancient society ever gave women the degree of self determination they have at present. The collapse the west is facing as a result will make the dark ages look like a picnic.
It was fun while it lasted gentleman.

>>6170987
Reality. A permanent substance who's existence is contingent solely upon speaking for itself. A self defining object from which all else naturally emanates. The proper anthropomorphism of which would be God.

Derrida et al. is just what happens when you start with the assumption of no God and then try to explain nature. Of course you will end with ideas like teleology being absurd. It's like saying waterfalls can't actually exist because you refuse to start with a mountain; you only engage that which is visible, the water, not the underlying thing which shapes it into what it is (the mountain, hence making it from a mere river into a bona fide waterfall). In other words, Derrida was just stupid. Not to mention really really sloppy where he was right.

>>6170962
Couldn't there likewise be an element of truth in anti feminists being resentful males who can't get laid?

>>6171006
No because feminism is already autistic. If autism is a negative then it cancels itself out. The opposing male may seem resentful but in reality his resent is more based on rationality than it is on emotion. The emotions are post hoc, a result only of the reasoning, whereas with feminism they are pre hoc, that is, the reasoning is a result of the emotions.

But do feminists sometimes do a fucking great job of reducing the image of some of these naïve, helpless, 'nothing but the truth' types of guys into autistic beta virgins? Yes, absolutely. It's about as easy for them as it is to kick the shit out of a baby.

But is such an act of passive aggressive violence not ultimately a cry for help? Yes. As a man, I can admit that feminism is my fault. We let this happen guys. It's because of our weakness as modern men. We robbed women of their natural economy, took advantage of them and their natural grace, and this is how it's returned to us.

>>6171006
The problem is you are assuming anyone who expresses anti-feminist sentiment is a resentful male due to an inability to get laid. There are some no doubt, but your eagerness to paint everyone with the same brush is simply a tool to silence your male opponents. You assume that sex is the highest commodity in the minds of men and you attempt to hit them where it hurts.

>>6170969
This assumes that men inherently belong in a position of power from which to decide where women 'go', or that it's our responsibility to 'protect' women from harm rather than just not harming them or letting other men harm them to begin with. This, I feel, is probably at least an indirect cause of the current rape culture situation; Women leave the bubbles of modesty and subservience that a male-dominated society imposed on them, they become victims of violence/rape/abuse/harassment/so on, and bystanders point out the ways in which she's left the bubble (her clothes, behavior, etc.) as justification for the harm that's done to her. Hence we tell women all these things they should do and precautions they should take to avoid getting raped, rather than simply telling men not to rape women in the first place.

>>6171006
Is there more or less truth to this than to the proposition that pro-feminist males are supplicants hoping to get laid?

>>6171029
>This assumes that men inherently belong in a position of power from which to decide where women 'go', or that it's our responsibility to 'protect' women
It doesn't just assumes this, it highlights it as a necessary truth.

Society can truly be no other way. If you think so your thought has been neutralised in some sort of theoretical vacuum and is not faithful to reality.

>Women leave the bubbles of modesty and subservience that a male-dominated society imposed on them,
This is exactly what I mean by arbitrary aspect of left reasoning. You fail to take this thread to its logical conclusion, because it would bring you exactly where, for the sake of your ideology, yo cannot go: direct to the realisation that this is not just some socially construction pattern, (although naturally that is part of it, what is 'in between'), but nothing other than nature itself. The natural aspect of nature, not the chaotic one.

It's simply a non-starter to claim that society could function in any other way. It's just arbitrarily petitioning an exception to a rule and acting like the fact of the exception isn't already contained in the rule itself.

>>6171026
I agree that we have responsibility for what feminism and modern women have become. I am aware that women are self serving individuals and yet most of the time I find myself going out of the way to help women out of a sense of chivalry. It is completely irrational but it feels rather natural. I need to work on turning off the empathy I have for women, other males need to do likewise, only then will women find true self sufficiency.

>>6171055
What the fuck are you talking about? That's the opposite of what I'm saying. Women are not inherently self-serving individuals. Treating them as such is to murder society. But that's not even what I was talking about. Women don't need to be self-serving individuals to be the (not necessarily equivalent) counterpart of men. We have abused the aspects of femininity like grace and love and this is what has resulted in their rejoinder of feminism.

Women finding 'true self-sufficiency' is tantamount to society caving in on itself.

>>6171040
As a male feminist I'd say the bullshit levels of those two statements are about equal. They're insults, verbal underhand blows, cheap shots, a.k.a. not really meant as legitimate logical arguments and thus the person who makes them is generally not thinking about their truthfulness, only about their ability to provoke/offend.

>>6171029
Patriarchy has always attempted to protect women from rape. The price women paid was a lack of sexual "identity". They were seen as pure hearted, lacking many of the desires of men. Women now want to be seen as sexual beings but they don't want the baggage that comes with that.

>>6171068
All individuals are self serving. Traditional femininity was an ideal that modern women are incapable of living up to.

>>6171069
Fair enough. Many feminists hold one but not the other to be the case.

>>6170760
sipping the kool aid deep i see

>>6171080
Not all individual people are individuals. Only men.

>>6171103

you've gotta know how it tastes if you're gonna know it at all

>>6171046
It doesn't just assumes this, it highlights it as a necessary truth. Society can truly be no other way.

What the hell are you talking about? If you're seriously trying to imply that there's some sort of factual basis for the notion that men /belong/ in a position of power over women, then I'm gonna need some shit to back that up, and it needs to be better than 'because the anatomy and the men built physically stronger and women childbearer and hormones etc etc etc'.

>You fail to take this thread to its logical conclusion,

I'm not talking about this thread. I couldn't give less of a shit about this thread. This thread exists only in a digital bubble which will pop the instant it's deleted, taking all the information here with it. I'm talking about the way in which human society has developed into a power imbalance so deeply ingrained in our lives that it's accepted as an infallible truth by all, based on nothing but some anatomical and psychological distinctions of the human body that we're gonna have to throw out the window anyway if we want to ascend up the ladder of civilization and civilized society (just as we've already done on a smaller scale with hair color and right-handed vs. left-handed)

Has anyone ever considered that poor people, women, minorities, fags, etc. are inferior to white men because they are naturally weaker? And thus deserve to be inferior?

Just came up with it today, r8/10

>>6171075
>implying that we, as men who have never once in history been systematically on the receiving end of such baggage, would know what amount of baggage is appropriate for women to have to deal with and what amount is just women wanting shortcuts

>>6170889
It's certainly less of a shitpost than yours.

>>6171135
>racial theories
>>>/pol/

>>6171119
No it has nothing to do with any sort of physical effect. It's pure logic. Pure principle. The problem is you can't grasp that far back. You have no concept of principle. Your mind just isn't there yet, at that level. Which is exactly why a little philosophy inspires a man towards atheism and a lot inspires him back to his indigenous theism. A little philosophy will make a person liberal, exhausting the western canon will solidify him as a conservative.

>>6171137
If they want to be sexual beings then they have to accept that others will see them that way. That is what I meant by baggage.

There is not a single thing women can do as well as men. Even the greatest chefs are men.

>>6170800

We should in fact, because feminism is among the most dangerous ideologies to emerge in the history of the Western world.

>>6170969
>we solved the problem of street harassment by marrying a woman off before she was an adult and giving her husband legal right to rape her and force her to bear his children
Brilliant solution.

>>6171174

>he thinks he can lick pussy as good as a woman

>>6171184
>husband
>raping his wife
>forcing his wife to bear his children

You are everything that is currently wrong with this world.

>>6171181

top cuck

anti-fems are hilariously insecure
go read The End of Men or something and cry to an MRA chatroom if you need to

>>6170935
Harassment is pretty bad. I have to consciously look away from guys because if I accidentally make eye contact, that might be seen as an invitation. And if I flirt with a guy but then find out he's autistic, there's a good chance he won't give up and will keep bugging me over and over and over if he has my fb, and god help me if he has my number.

>>6171187
>Dyke thinks all the pussy licking in the world can make up for a good hard dicking

>>6171184

>>6171187

The greatest pussy lickers are all men

>>6171188

>women are property

straight to the gulag with the young gentleman

>>6171188
But that was the case. Rape laws explicitly stated that the woman couldn't be married to the man, and of course abortion was illegal.

>>6171184
Edgy

>>6171202
>women are property means anything unobvious or necessarily pejorative
Enjoy your inherently and necessarily patriarchal, self-defeating line of reasoning

>>6171196
TITS

OR

GTFO

>>6171195

cretins like you don't even understand what feminism is

>>6171202

>implying the overwhelming majority of marriages in the west are not love-matched made at the discretion of women

>>6171202
>straight to the gulag with the young gentleman
Ah the feminist shows its true colour at last.

>>6171196
Shouldn't you put up with it and check that autism free privilege?

>>6170677
TRULY underrated post

>>6171228
I can caricature your ideology too, but I don't.

>>6170874

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WeAllLiveInAmerica

>>6171210
>>implying the overwhelming majority of marriages in the west are not love-matched made at the discretion of women
Yeah, after women changed their legal and social position to where they aren't stuck in the home, whereas the "be stuck in the home" was seen as the solution to the current (lessor) issues.

>>6171196
>yfw you realise that this hyperactivity on the part of men to constantly badger women on the streets exists only because of feminism and its effects on men in society (whether you agree with it or not).

Also calling a guy who is probably just stubborn 'autistic' is pretty stupid and self-serving. In this society men have to put their egos out on the line like never before which will either turn them into sociopaths or obsessive 'autists' given they are just an average guy with average looks. When a man gets rejected by a woman it basically an unavoidably shatters his whole self-worth. It's just not the same thing for women because you don't have to 'put yourself out there' naturally in the same way as do men. You'll never understand, and that's okay, but don't look at it through a female perspective when you try to understand it, because you will never see it or experience it how we do, rather, just admit you will never understand in the first place and don't ever try to at all.

Guys will deny the self-worth thing furiously but that's only because they're already either bifurcated into the sociopath/autist stage.

>>6171262

>this hyperactivity on the part of men to constantly badger women on the streets exists only because of feminism

will the ride ever end?
where the fuck is Slavoj and Judy B

>>6171261

>there are no stay at home mothers/wives in the west anymore
>or if there are they are all victims of the patriarchy

why do you hate the family unit so much anon?

>>6171262
>Also calling a guy who is probably just stubborn 'autistic' is pretty stupid and self-serving.
Leaving several messages on on my phone a day is autistic

>>6171272

Honestly I doubt you are worth seven messages a day. If some autistic person is badgering you it is because you yourself are autistic and have attracted others of your species.

>>6171271
>Thus when monogamous marriage first makes its appearance in history, it is not as the reconciliation of man and woman, still less as the highest form of such a reconciliation. Quite the contrary. Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other; it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period. In an old unpublished manuscript, written by Marx and myself in 1846, I find the words: “The first division of labor is that between man and woman for the propagation of children.” And today I can add: The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.
-Engels

>>6171272

bitch please.

I'm a straight guy and I get hit on by gay dudes nonstop, but you don't hear me making a long winded speech over it.

It's not just a female issue, so don't think it makes you special.

http://www.clickhole.com/r/1847fsd

>>6171272
No it is not. You only call it autistic through the modern social lens because if you were to call it what it actually was, 'stubborn', in other words, take into account not just your own feelings, but the guy's feelings too, it would immediately preclude you from having any sort of point to begin with.

Calling him autistic is just a simple way of dehumanising him so you don't have to deal with the reality that you are not recognising his feelings as equal to your own.

But the whole scenario wouldn't even exist without feminism. Feminism creates all of its own problems.

>>6171276

>Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other

I will agree with that, provided you grant that it is the women who are using marriage to subjugate the men.

>To marry means to halve one's rights and double one's duties.

>>6171279
If only a fraction of males were straight, then you'd have a point.

There's way too little focus on Emma in this thread.

>>6171288

I'm sure only a very pathetic fraction of men are attracted to you, honey. So it's about equal

>>6171298
she's objectively ugly

she looks like a little boy

>>6171302

bulldyke please, fuck off back to your femishit thread

Imagine a world with only white males

No white women needed because of cloning

JUST IMAGINE

>>6171307

but anon, who would suck benis?

>>6171306
>calling me a bulldyke when what I said represents the desire of a grown man
try harder

>>6171306

I am straight man and I can confirm she is a 7/10 at best

>>6171255
>I can't think of a witty retort
Come on love, give it a shot, I promise not to get triggered.

Also, Why would a female with issues about autists come to an anime board populated by them?
>>6171284
underrated post.

>>6171312

Sex robots.

>>6171314

>implying beauty is not masculine in nature
>implying female beauty is anything other than what has transferred from beautiful males to unremarkable females in the transition from pagan antiquity to the contemporary monotheistic world

>>6171312

>>6171317
She appeals to certain men who grew up watching harry potter and think she is a real life hermione or something.

>>6171284
Gatddamn son.

You lookin' fine son.

Let me have a look at that sweet ass of yours. That's what I need. Firm, tight cheeks, son.

What? You're refusing my suit? Why are you not taking me feelings as equal to your own in my suit? Your denying me reciprocation is an insult to my feelings.

I just want some of that sweet ass, son.

>>6170262
I love you emma

>>6171317
Every woman looks very nice with the right amount of makeup on. Hell, without a lot of makeup, you can make a dude look qt

>>6171338
>with a lot of makeup
Pic related, btw

>>6171334
LondoN?

>>6170760
>lumping kafka with foucault and pkd
what wrong with u?

>>6170800
Most feminists I've met have believed in a sort of dogmatic total gender equality. While it's obvious that the sexes are more alike than dissimilar, it's just obviously untrue to say that men and women are mentally completely the same.

Of course, doesn't mean that I don't support equal rights for everyone. I just find the idea of men and women being the same as rather off-putting—so I'd prefer to call myself an egalitarian, or just a humanist.

>>6170262

>Prince Harry
>Monarch

the only thing he's in charge of is selling tabloids

>>6171334
Homosexuality isn't interchangeable with heterosexuality. Try again.

>>6171317
Shut your mouth and go jack off to one of your Shrek women

>>6170901
I agree that the idea that women should be just as oppressive as men is somewhat farcical.

>>6171333
Didn't watch Harry Potter growing up and Watson's fit.

>>6171360
Am I not a man? Why would you deny the equality of my feelings?

>>6171338
Perfect, not to mention those fantastic legs you can't see here

>>6171365
Because homosexuality is nothing more than a lesser, degraded form of heterosexuality. Whereas that's untrue, at least from a feminist perspective, of a man's feelings from a woman's.

>>6170935
>"suck it up"

Isn't the whole reason western civilization is so based is that it never succumbed to this?

Is it really so impossible to make things better?

>>6170649
yes

>>6171377
Then if I were to attain dominance over you and by physical will have you submit, would you accept?

>>6171392
Male dominance is logical, not physical. The physical aspect of our dominance is only a side-effect of the logical aspect, a byproduct.

>>6171080
>impossible ideals ought to be discarded
I think that there are problems with recent western "traditional" femininity, but giving up all goals is not a solution.

>>6171119
>This thread exists only in a digital bubble which will pop the instant it's deleted, taking all the information here with it.
these threads are archived for eternity, bro

>>6171398
Then we'll cut to the chase and say I am in a position of dominance over you. I have triumphed.

Will you accept?

>>6171392
Homosexuality is sexist by nature, not being attracted to women just because they have vaginas instead of a penis is discrimination.

>>6171181
name one person who has been killed by feminism

(not andy warhol)

>>6171406
Yes.

>>6171411
What is abortion

>>6171406
Why would I?

You can't assume dominance, as that's a priori self-defeating of that alleged dominance, and neither is it really the point here in the first place.

>>6171411
>(not andy warhol)
Why even point this out?

>>6171411
Sartre.

Western Socialist Parties.

>>6171415

>>6171411
Something doesn't have to be physically harmful in order to be either generally harmful or particularly wrong.

Post more Emma please.

>>6171147
You are literally so full of shit that the shit is overflowing and dousing me in secondhand shit. You are literally lowering my IQ even lower than it supposedly already is via secondhand bullshit. Philosophical exposure is no substitute for an educated argument actually based in facts. This can be a philosophical matter or a logical matter, but to pretend they are one in the same is just completely fucking ridiculous.

>>6171428

>>6171419
But clearly, as you have pointed out, the logical truth of male dominance is expressed in its real existence. Dominance in fact is the ground by which we grasp logical truth. If a man ever finds himself in a position of dominance over another man, it should follow that the latter should submit, because the existence of that dominance in fact merely confirms its logical truth before the fact.

Back to the real topic:
Harry, you lucky fucking dog.

>>6171437
Not going to lie, pretty underwhelming.

>>6171201
>this is what straight men actually believe.

>>6171423

>>6171437
Oh shit that donk

>>6171440
If you were a living puppet you too would get thrown some tasty treats.

>>6171426
what's the harm, then?

>>6171433
Except it's actually logical exposure in question here.

Facts are just compensations of logic. Where there is logic, facts are superfluous.

You are so offended by it because it is truth, and truth to you is alien.

>>6171442

maybe this is more to your liking

>muh test

>>6171411
And it's a real fucking shame, too.

Someone oughta put one between the eyes of this guy >>6171458.

>>6171454
The degradation of social economy.

'Inflation', if you will.

>>6171464
It was not the size, but the shape.

>>6171468
not meming when I ask: what is social economy?

>>6171458
So you would agree with me here: >>6171439

>>6171465

Go ahead, start a sex war with men. That will surely end well for you.

>>6171464
this is more like solar system fitness.

considering their are multiple gravitational bodies.

>>6171481
No one needs that. I just want to put one in between the eyes of that particular odious individual.

>>6171475
It speaks for itself. The economics of sociality, but (obviously) not the sociality of the economy.

>>6171478
You're making fun of the way I write so I didn't respond but no, your entire point is flawed because you cannot assume dominance. That in fact defeats the purpose of its own expression.

>>6171481
The sex war would be waged on the behalf of women by the legions of white knights.

>>6171262
>When a man gets rejected by a woman it basically an unavoidably shatters his whole self-worth

No, this should basically stop happening after high school. You need to grow up a bit or seek counseling if you're over 17 and still experience this.
When women 'reject' you, you should basically consider it a favor. Do you really want to date someone who is just giving you a chance out of a sense politeness, or do you want someone who unambiguously and enthusiastically likes you? If you're mad you didn't get any pussy, get some money and buy a prostitute. That's what they're there for.

>>6171490
I'm sorry, I still don't understand. Is that like repaying your friends, and IOUs, and stuff?

Can someone just start spamming pictures of Emma, please?

>>6171496
You are astronomically stupid.

>>6171490
Has a man been in a position of dominance over another man? Can you not conceive of a situation in which a man is in a position of dominance over you?

>>6171497

why not

>>6171458
OK bro Whatever you say Bro

>>6171423
>>6171445

Fuck, when you think of just how much feminist pussy sartre got. . .

I can't even fucking believe, he fucked like 40 feminist girls who all knew each other and they were all cool with it.

Say what you want, but that man caught a wave and rode it, and the name of that wave was the second great wave of free pussy.

>>6171495
You are exactly the person who I predicted would respond. The one I in fact mentioned at the end of my post. You are the sociopathic one.

>>6171502
It is unconceivable once it involves the actuality of my own personal life, because in that case it would assume itself and therefore defeat its own expression.

>>6171495
It does not need to shatter his whole self worth, but it will certainly have some impact on his sexual self worth.

>>6171518
So only other men can be dominated, You, Man, cannot be.

>>6171501
Well help me out, then!

>>6171511
De Bouvier pimped her students out to him to get ahead in academia.

>>6170262
>2015
>not rooting for the home team

Capitalism forever, baby.

>>6171521
My initial point which both of you seem to be ignoring, is that if it does not shatter your self worth, you have simply compensated into sociopathy or decohered into autism. If you remain intact, in this sociological climate, you WILL have your whole self-worth shattered... because if you don't, like I just said, you're simply not putting yourself out there fully.

>>6171525
Please help yourself out. Social economy. Think about the concept of economy. Not 'the economy', but the concept of economy in general. Physical economy. Conservation. If I pour half of a full glass of water into another glass I will end with two half-full glasses of water. Now apply that abstract idea of economy to the idea of sociality, which is likewise the general concept of what it means to be social specifically amongst society.

>>6171524
No, other particular men cannot be assumed to be dominated either. Only men in general. It is not a question of me myself from other men, but of men in particular to men in general. And that has nothing to do with domination so much as it has everything to do with the conception of a logical hypothetical.

There's no basis in reality for a Marxist economy so what's your gripe?

>>6171544
If it is not a question of a particular men to other particular men, then you must believe that it is the dominance of men in general over women in general. Must a woman submit to any man, not him as a particular man, but as one of men in general?

>>6171544
Self worth is based on a myriad of things. Rejection is well and good when you have unlimited time, resources and potential but you don't. Too much rejection will destroy an individual.

>>6170885
>Of course this IS absolutely true
no it is not, not at all. I agree with your point of feminism of being self defeating. But says that femininity is inherently a failed version of masculinity is just naive. The feminine and masculine complement each other, they do not compete.

>>6170262
reminder that the femen are founded by men in order to mock the real feminists

>>6171561
Yes.

>>6171582
Then why is the suffering of the man particular if he is rejected? Clearly the woman is rejecting men in general.

>>6171574
>Too much rejection will destroy an individual.
Exactly. Your point is what?

>>6171576
I guarantee you that you are observing this from a mixed perspective. Yes the feminine and the masculine complement each other, but from a purely masculine perspective, females are simply failed men. Literally biologically (and perhaps logically) failed men. But, again, the male perspective is not all there is in reality.

>>6171553
Oh baby that sick nasty bait it too good.

Marxism is a critique of the political economy of Capitalism, its structural and power relations, alienation, commiditization, and general Macro-economics (Marx is very similar to Keynes in his Macro-economics, although more dated and incorrect about things). There is no such thing as a 'Marxist economy' because Marxism is a method of analysis.

Modern Feminists are also not Marxists, Socialists, Communists or anything of the sort, they are useful tools of Capitalism who are just another commodity market who spend their time making up imaginary or irrelevant problems ('patriarchy' 'ableism').

>>6171590
The woman is rejecting a particular man. That has nothing to do with the fact that men in general are dominant over women.

Schopenhauer please go.

>>6171464
Oh hey, I've seen that porn video.

>>6171595
>Your point is what?
It is rational to attempt to minimise rejection while maximising success. However the more rejections you experience future success becomes less likely.

>>6171497

A classic.

>>6171626
You're conflating the rational with the sufficient or the economical. It is not 'rational' to minimise rejection/maximise success... rather it is economical to do so.

Rationality is something different. Rationality is accepting defeat where it has occurred, not avoiding it. And although it could be argued that economy or sufficiency is a higher degree of rationality than rationality than itself, rationality is still rationality, and the point that they are different still fundamentally applies.

>>6171633
Do you think Potter tapped that?

>>6171637
>
Rationality is something different. Rationality is accepting defeat where it has occurred, not avoiding it. And although it could be argued that economy or sufficiency is a higher degree of rationality than rationality than itself, rationality is still rationality, and the point that they are different still fundamentally applies.
What are you smoking?

>>6171029
We tell men not to rape though. Patriarchy is leftist Illuminati.

>>6171650
It must be Schopenhauer's penis or something.

>>6171633
Goddamn, she's like beyond-this-world hot.

>>6171650
>What are you smoking?
Truth.

>>6171656
Shill harder

>>6171658
I think you got sold some duds.

>>6171668
Okay fag stay mad.

It is really sad to see that /lit/ is full of feminists.

>>6171512
Fine, how's putting your self worth on the line every time your interested in a girl working out for you? It has nothing to do with being an autist or a sociopath, but wanting to be with people who actually like you. Which do you think is healthier, being crushed by some random girl who didn't like you anyway, or loosing your interest in girls that don't like you?

>>6170262
Frankly, I'd be disappointed if she was getting the D from anything under royalty. She can go royalty, demi-God, God, but anything below will be undeserving of her.

>>6171675
Nothing is healthy about making a 'healthier' decision in a dying society. But it's not like I practise what I preach. I'm completely sociopathic when it comes to women and do avoid people who don't like me like the plague before they even are aware of it.

>>6171674
*tips fedora*

>>6171307
It's amazing what progress has done for us that Utopia is looking like a smaller and smaller division of a homogeneous society.

>>6171664
The only thing I am shilling is the truth.

>>6171675
You are a sociopath so I don't expect you to understand, but it is possible to feel great affection for someone regardless of their own romantic desires.

>>6171046

Bullshit unjustified metaphysics.
unjustified
metaphysics.

>>6171687
Fedora tippers tend to be in the patrician guard of white knights.

>>6171687
>*tips fedora*
Exactly

>>6171706
Nope. Fedora tippers tend to be bitter neckbeard misogynist virgins.

>>6171706
praetorian guard*
Fuck.

>>6171685
>Nothing is healthy about making a 'healthier' decision in a dying society.
What are you on about m8? Regardless of the state of society, I think we both already agree that fawning over people with no interest in you is emotionally damaging, and it's better to try to get past that stage in your life. I don't know why you seem to feel that's this negative dark thing.

>>6171196
autistic individuals are individuals first and foremost, at least keep your prejudices to yourself if you cannot help thinking that they are subhumans.

>>6171714
Because he will not be denied! He is man! His supreme will is a priori fact, pure logical truth that is expressed in this material reality by the complete dominance of man!

>>6171711
See >>6171026

>>6171732
Yes, that seems to be an excellent example of a bitter neckbeard misogynist virgin and fedora tipper.

>>6171732
It's amazing that someone could say "I'm responsible for feminism" and not be facetious. How can you type this without instantly cringing?

>>6170603

If by challenge you mean weigh down and inhibit then yes.

Jesus, sometimes I wish the slaughterbench of history was an actual slaughterbench, 'cause when these misogynistic Schopenhauer guys go out I want them to be cut out.

>>6171750
Well it's true. Who gave women the vote? Women define themselves in relation to men, as we have seen a decline in the quality of men we have seen a decline in the quality of women.

>>6171645

This would seem to imply otherwise:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRmH-caZqBg

>>6171773
Why do they upset you so much?

>We need to bring back Lenin

>>6171785
Upset isn't the word. Triumph is. Triumph is history's way of telling you that all that came before is now invalid.

And, believe me, we are winning--not you.

>>6171783
Fucking btfo

>>6171795
>And, believe me, we are winning--not you
Who are "we"?
I am not a schopey fan or a misogynist.

>>6170721

This is all that's wrong with feminism. They stepped past equality and push for equity instead.

Cunts should just lay off tbh.

The sad thing is they hurt themselves the most. You want to step in and help them but they're the most uppity and self assured people on the planet, the odds of a young white male sparking some sense in them is unimaginable. Guess we just have to kick up our heels and watch them suffer.

At least we can always fall back on Asian girls and sex bots. Girls have nothing without a man tbh.

The feminists want to keep inequalities favoring women and to destroy the ones favoring men.

>>6171795
We? Schopenhauer's fans aren't misogynists, they are generally fans of his other work, not one like five page essay. His main work is huge, his two essays on the freedom of the will and on the basis of morals are both amazing.

Furthermore Feminists aren't winning anything, your nonsense isn't welcome in actual left wing organizations advocating worker control of industry and class struggle. Feminism is a self defeating ideology that can only exist so long as Capitalists exist to pander to the problems you make up when you're bored and feel like complaining about dirty CIS scum or whatever you do in your free time. Dustbin of history tier ideology.

>>6171833
>they are generally fans of his other work, not one like five page essay.
Maybe off the web. Not here.

>>6170908
So you are arguing that desires are socially constructed whilst invoking an essentialist category of femininity? How?

>>6171833
>advocating worker control of industry

There are Marxists in Western society in motherfucking 2015. TWENTY-FIFTEEN.

We need a purge.

Bull dyke's, Muslims and Marxists.

It wouldn't even be hard to get rid of them, it's not like there's even a competent soul amongst all three groups.

>>6171849

best just to watch the apes babble, friend

>>6171833
Marxists use feminists to push their political agenda. Feminists are ironically used as tools.

>>6171844
No, I can assure you nobody cares about his mediocre essay on women and only quote it out of context on /v/ and here to rile up retards like you. He has very very good actual work published and is the most clear and concise German thinker of his era.

>>6171833
>dopey Schopey fan
>considers himself for working class revolution
>this much of a vulgar economistic pleb
>this much of a moralistic idealist
>actually part of the "left" that is this patriarchal

Back to basics with you.

Or you might as well go full Horowitz, you're already most of the way there. The left doesn't need you.

>>6171854

Of course they are. Women aren't capable of analytical thinking. When you see women marching trying to push some agenda, you know they're just repeating what's been whispered in their ear. They're literally incapable of being anything other than a puppet. It's just unfortunate that in this case the puppeteer is malevolent and they've turned their backs on the ones who treated them so well for so long.

>>6171858
Watching the left turn on itself is a beautiful thing, like hot women making out.

>>6171857
I've seen numerous threads about it here.

>>6171854
Wrong. Feminists and Identity Politics yuppies are a blight that organized Communist and Socialist parties hate working with. They are of no use to anyone.

Do you know what happened with OWS? All the organizers left bexause every meeting was broken up with petty arguing and people clamoring for irrelevant nonsense like diverse race representation. The CPUSA and SPUSA both picked up their things and sodded off because people got sick of it. Its the same thing in Europe.

>>6171870

No it's not. What should be an economic counterbalance is instead a worthless shitstorm that pushes crap that's harmful to our society.

>>6171870

I'm a radical far-leftist and I agree

>>6171858
>Patriarchy
>Real
>2015

Im triggered.

>>6171875

This is true but feminism is just an offshoot of Marxism. I hope you come to realize that all Commuturds are as retarded and blindly zealous as feminists.

You're on the path of enlightenment now m8. Don't stop.

>>6171875
>actually thinking SPUSA and CPUSA are worth anything

>>6171867
Come on that is bullshit. I am an anti feminist, but surely you can admit some women are capable of analytic thought? There may be less of them then there are men, but that does not condemn all women.
Most women are spineless semen guzzling whores, but you could say similarly disparaging things about some men.

>>6171882

do you know what either of those words mean?

>>6171877
That is your problem lefty.

>>6171896

You have to admit there's economic merit to certain leftist ideals when countries like Norway are thriving so much.

>>6171888

True but they're an easily discounted minority.

>>6171887
They were the ones who actually organized everything in the early stages of OWS when it had half a shot at doing anything, so yes, they are useful. Same thing with the various Internationalist movements (sans the DSA).
Once they left the entire thing immediately devolved into shitflinging.

>>6171883
Except Feminism hijacks a couple of vaguely Marxist terms without their theoretical underpinnings and applies that to social relations without actually saying anything useful about them. It isn't an offshoot of Marxism, it isn't Marxist anything, because it isn't a materialist critique. It shares nothing with real analysis.

>>6171894
They don't mean anything. They're spoiler: spooks.

>>6171875
This is why socialism has been resigned to the trash can of history. How will you pretentious red hipsters ever overthrow the current system without popular support?
You won't

Why do you even care about this woman's opinion on politics and shit? What credentials does she have? Any idea will seem stupid if you consider twenty year old movie stars as it's poster child.

>>6171908
Feminism is the logical end of socialism. You can't say you want radical egalitarianism without the whole package: every nutcase who thinks they're an oppressed group.

>>6171908

They both use a boogeyman to erase responsibility for the failed lives of losers and seek to enslave the small percentage of people who actually drive society, aka educated, upper middle class, working age white males.

>>6171905
I would say there are no economic merits to leftism.

>>6171921
She is Emma Watson m8

>>6171928

What about things like public education which drive inter-class movement and meritocracy?

>>6171916
Socialism, defined as worker control of industry, doesn't require any violent overthrow of anything. Workers can collectively own their workplaces and compete in markets very effectively in broadly Keynesian social democratic style states like most of Europe and even the United States. My electric company is cooperatively owned, for example.

What we really need is more support for leasing venture capital for things like coops and a stronger emphasis on participatory economics from first world left wing parties, not revolution.

>>6171908
Jesus Christ, if the end if your so-called "materialist critique" is the backhanded dismissal of feminism, you need to go back to basics.

Protip: the working class ain't just dudes.

>>6171956

No but men who are the ones who will inevitably pay for everything and prop the system up on their backs.

Sure it looks pretty appealing when the entire system is you being given shit, but it's practically slavery of people who are intelligent and competent. Why do people support a system that antagonizes literally the most important people in your society when it's been proven trash no less than a half dozen times in a row?

>>6171951
This is officially pleb-tier "socialism", petite-bourgeois utopian scum.

>>6171956
Pro-tip whether or not you are female is irrelevant because worker rights does not have to consider gender beyond adequate aid for things like pregnancy. In all other respects the State cannot help the position of women in the workforce because it cannot eliminate things like personal hiring bias against women in, say, heavy industry.

I mean honestly, what are you people even complaining about half the time? What do you hope to fix that requires your special snowflake movement?

>>6171987

Bottom: worthless prawns

Top: people of value

Marxism: waaaaah more intelligent and hard working and valuable are more rewarded for their more valuable work while I'm just a worthless and easily replaceable cashier. Why don't they pay me millions of dollars? I have a philosophy degree and retarded, half baked political opinions and everything!!

>>6171987
Because Market Socialism actually exists and works it gets to be bourgeois and utopian?

Tell me more about how we get to the lower phase of Communism without workers collectively owning their workplaces in developed Capitalist countries senpai.

>>6172004

They want equity man. They can actually influence hiring bias in any industry by inputting hiring quotas. And that's what they're pushing for.

>>6171272
How does that inconvenience you? Are you printing them out?

>>6172078

Have to complain about something m8.

Women today have no real problems in their life. Thus feminism and "patriarchy". It's the perfect out for a girl who knows she's been handed everything in life but still failed to accomplish anything noteworthy.

>>6171870
>Watching the left turn on itself is a beautiful thing,

The incredible amount of historical and political ignorance you display with this remark make it so undeserving of the smarmy attitude that accompanied it

"The left" is literally characterized by the idea of rejecting to a degree present and past institutions, laws and customs and fill the void with new ones. To expect consensus to arise from it is like expecting that if you give people pen and paper everyone will draw the same thing.

By our very nature we're "turning on ourselves" constantly. I'm sorry if this is not compatible to the idea of a homogenous mass of college students out to get you that you might have in mind, but trust me, no matter what amount of "infighting" you witness it's just business as usual.

>>6171852
Well don't you you just sound like the erudite architect of a new society that we need

>>6172008
>Bottom: worthless prawns

>Top: people of value

Just like feudalism was on point, am I right?

I mean, all the dirty peasants are down bellow and the people with the wigs are up there. What could possibly be wrong with this arrangement??

>I have a philosophy degree and retarded, half baked political opinions and everything!!

Oh the wit in this one is just mindblowing

>>6172178
In theory they both have glaring problems and it's hard to gauge the two but empirically Feudalism was by far the more successful of the two.

>>6171908
>OWS
it was from beginning to end, c;early there is nothing to be proud of

>>6172012
Market socialism is bourgeois and utopian because it believes that class conflict can be resolved through the continuity of private property and by essentially "reigning in" capital for the sake of the public good, through participation in a capitalist political framework.

We get to the lower phase of communism by fostering communal values and developing norms in the struggle against capitalism, and by appropriating the forces of production after they have been consolidated into a small collection of monopolistic organizations. Y'know, like Marx said.

>>6171875
This guy is so on point it's surreal.

And most of the times, these people are in terms of theory and analysis completely in a different page with the rest of us. They don't really have any of the theoretical apparatus that characterizes left-wing activism, their political conscience is an offshot of terrible american social analisis, like Intersectionality. I find it hilarious when I see conservatives trying to make a connection between ID movements and Marxism while I'm thinking "oh if only"

>>6172259

Wrong. You crabs are all the same tbh.

>>6172264
In the sense that concerns you (that is, wheter or not we stand against the values you stand for) yes, probably yes

>>6172272

I idealize a society that isn't complete dog shit so yes.

>>6170797
I've read several articles where they made studies on firms with female bosses, and the women working there still complained because they taught their female boss would be kind and sweet and helping and not a boss of authority.

Being an average looking, and in shape male, in 30 years when Emma Watson is 55 and I'm also 55, there is a very high chance I will look much much better than she does. Even though I'm just a normal person.

what a time to be alive