/lit/ - Literature

>>7438476
Start with the Greeks.

My choice, in order of appearance:

Safo
St. Therese
Mary Wollstonecraft
Rosa Luxemburg
Simone de Beauvoir

>>7438498
>all white cisgender women

for god's sake anon, it's 2015!

>>7438516

I know. I don't know much about contemporary feminism apart from Butler and Preciado, wich i don't dismiss at all.
But from Wollstonecraft and Luxemburg i like the way in wich they don't struggle with identity but with the position of woman from a social perspective (wich i am inclined to see as a richer way of analyzing).
I would also say Angela Davis and Ulrike Meinhof. But, again, the only non cisgender feminist writer i know is Preciado.

Would you recommend me a few more?

>>7438498
>Rosa Luxemburg
>Beauvoir

ewww

>>7438476
Ursula Le Guin and Margaret Atwood are probably my favorite feminist authors. I have heard good things about Simone de Beauvoir, haven't got a chance to read them though.

>>7438476
>How do I get into feminism?

Just get a lobotomy!

>>7438763
lol upvoted

>>7438476
White Privilege by Paula S. Rothenburg

I'd prefer you just kill yourself though

>>7438476
Read Paglia and Sommers.

>>7438838
Let me guess: /v/?

>>7438559
>a sincere and polite answer to a shitpost
It's almost heartwarming.

>>7438476
Dworkin and MacKinnon, specially Intercourse and their collaborations on pornography

>>7438559
>they don't struggle with identity but with the position of woman from a social perspective
What do you mean exactly, especially the "from a social perspective" part? Do you mean their position regarding power in society? Because identity is also very much part of that.

Irigaray, Harroway, Butler for contemporary. Woolf has not been mentioned int his thread yet, for historic.

>>7438838
who else here /gamergate/ ?

>>7439678
>>>/8gag/

>"I'm not a feminist because I want equal rights for everyone, both men and women"

>>7438516
>challenging ableism
Is that supposed to be a drawing of a retard? kek

>>7439985
>posting le ad hominem hat

>>7440047
>I can't tell the difference between mocking a position and debating it.

>>7440047
>I dont know what ad hominem means
>I save pictures of a manlet libertarian memester on my iphone
>>>/pol/

>>7438476
Feminist Msogonist.

Monsivais

>>7438838
This.

>>7438476
How is this even a thread? Go back to reedit, scum. Feminism is a vacuous, fictitious concept propagated by ignorant sluts and white knights.

>>7438476
Why not just flagellate yourself while watching your GF get rammed by three guy?
It's best to start things at their ultimate end

>>7440523
No, you are reddit.

>>7440684
anti-feminists = reddit?
Jesus Christ what happened to 4chan

>>7440697
reddit can be as MRA/neckbeard/retarded as 4chin

>>7440697
>hurr why does /lit/ refuse to take a side in our playground squabbles

spooked

>>7440025
>ableism is about the physically disabled to

>>7441582
*too

>be a woman or kek
>read Lysistrata
>cry out "OH WE WOMEN ARE THE POOREST CREATURES"
>finish the graduate program
>analyse The Female Quixote
>cry out "OH POOR ARABELLA, WE WOMEN ARE SO PURE"
>finish PhD
>lecture
>fuck student's brain
Totally profit.

>>7438838
Sommers isn't a feminist. She just adopts the label to deflect criticism.

>>7441596
>WE WOMEN ARE SO PURE

You can't even make a good strawman.

>>7439678
This is no place for niGGers, m8.

>>7440657
I don't get it, both my girlfriend and I are pretty well read on feminist theory and we have a great sex life.

>>7441774
For real,the female purity thing is just about as archaicly patriarchical as you can get.

>>7443451
It makes them feel better if they imagine you in a certain way. Don't break the illusion or their fragile worldview might shatter.

>>7438498

very good list, go with this, OP

luxemburg is my personal fav

clara zetkin is pretty cool, too

>>7440697
>>7440523
>>7440384
>>7438838

>>>/tumblr/
>>>/reddit/
>>>/lgbt/

>>7440051

feminism, antifeminism, gender equality, LGBT rights are hedonistic secular movements that ignore the fact that God created Men and Women as part of a complementary whole. The problem with these, as with all false human-made ideologies, is that they seek for meaning outside of God. Liberalism seeks fulfilment in an ultimately vacuous ideal of individual freedom.I actually find myself agreeing more with radical feminists like Dworkin and macKinnon regarding pornography and fornication, but their critique is ultimately nihilistic because it lacks a positive (ie. Christian) drive, instead getting stuck in the morass of ressentiment and post-marxian materialism.

>>7443523

OC

>>7443528

more

>>7443523
>I would just like to interject my ideology into this thread that has nothing to do with it
thanks friend now please return

>>7443540
Christianity is not an ideology or a religion, exactly the opposite in fact, it's a personal relationship with God. If the world hadn't turned it's back on the Gospel we wouldn't be having any of these problems.

>>7443528
>>7443531
Why are you sharing this with us? Why do you think we're interested in your screenshots of internet comments that are neither related to the thread's topic nor entertaining?

Define feminism

>>7443593
One long collective period

>>7443593
the radical idea that women are people

>>7443604
that's not a radical idea at all, that's a whack idea yo

>>7438476
Ficciones, el Aleph, Las Batallas en el Desierto, Sorrows of Young Werther, El llano en Llamas, The Consolations Of Philosophy.

>>7443593
A bunch of angry image-conscious cunts who mispronounce "humanism"

>>7443593
another humanistic ideology that fails because it is centered on man (or in this case, woman) and not God

>>7443593
A series of political movements, characterized via waves with their roots in giving women legal equality.

Children of /lit/, the further you get from your roots and original purpose the more lost and possibly retarded you get. Applies to everything. individuals and groups, work, politics, socially. if the purpose of you reading was to be enlightened by your books, stop reading trash to impress plebs.

3rd wave feminism has not made any real legal or true headway. you find in these political movements that the farther from the original goal they get, the more wild or ideological they get. hence "Marxist feminism is the only feminism"

>>7438476

Why would you want to? Feminism is just a minuscule movement that wants special privileges. All issues regarding inequality can be fixed by a leftist socialist revolution and it all has to do with economics and abolishing capitalism. Identity politics = divide and conquer tactic propagated by the elite to weaken the left.

Feminists, tumblrites, SJW's, modern neo liberals, and people with 10 different genders who want their own special safe space bathroom need to be sent to the gulags.

>>7443593

The definition of feminism is "can't pronounce egalitarianism"

>>7443873
>3rd wave feminism has not made any real legal or true headway
lmao. the idea of trans rights is literally the birthchild, a painful and ugly one with cancerous TERFs in the mix, of third wave feminism and queer theory. sex workers rights, legal reform for rape cases, etc etc.

>>7443915
What is the state of trans rights in the US?

>>7443919
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States

>>7443562
YOU TELL THEM BROTHER!

>>7443915
because John Money, the father of queer theory really did David Reimer a solid.

the legal reform of rape cases in the united states is literally the destruction of innocent until proven guilty.

Congratulations, I hate to sound like /pol/ here but, you're a degenerate.

>>7443915

>cancerous TERFs

Seeing online covens of socially aware middle class white queers using the term "TERF" is always really funny to me because there is nothing "radical" about thinking trannies are not real women.

>>7443972
read Butler's Undoing Gender on that case.

what are you talking about? that is still the presumption. it's removed the ability to victim-blame.

>>7443986
Not much funnier than socially unaware middle class white queens who try to be edgy on the Internet.

>>7444063
Currently reading IJ and swann's way. I have no time to read it. although I accept differing viewpoints, I don't have the time to read something completely new starting now.

are you going to ignore the entire "listen and believe" initiative?

>>7444079
what does a gamergate meme have to do with legal reform in rape cases?

>>7444095
It's an example of what 3rd wavers actually think and want.

what does "Undoing Gender" say about David Reimer's suicide, and childhood sexual abuse and trauma via one of the "top gender experts"

>>7444063

>Not much funnier than socially unaware middle class white queens who try to be edgy on the Internet.

Funny how it's only as benign as "trying to be edgy" when you're butthurt and trying to play it cool, whereas the broader narrative is about how those "edgy" people are invalidating whole existences and literally killing trans people with their ideas and opinions.

Crying about TERFs is really irrelevant when most of the world hates you desu.

if gender is a social construct then how can someone be transgender

>>7444108
I still fail to see what a campaign about online harassment has to do with legal reform in rape cases? And I also fail to see what is wrong with trying to counter the narrative that all women lie about online harassment. It's pretty common, do you have any female friends?

It talks about the need for self-determination in ones gender, which the child didn't have, instead of taking an essentialist view vis-a-viz transformative surgery.

>>7444197
my feelings are important

OP it is concerning that you would ask which aspect of feministic theory to delve into when you haven't even considered whether or not feminism in general is worth paying attention to. It betrays a severe lack of background in philosophy as well as an impulsion to jump onto whatever seems to be trendy at the moment, according to other people, not yourself.
>>7443854
This is very insightful. Feminism in a big way is just a reiteration of 18th century humanism of the enlightenment. That's a very thoughtful way to understand it. Like humanism ultimately failed and now society takes a step back, reformulates its bases, and comes up with feminism. It highlights very well the futility of the general enterprise of humanism from its very beginning.

>>7443832
>cunts

I have a funny feeling you're a misogynist.

>>7443986
Transphobia: the one issue where irrelevant, flanner-wearing lesbian separatists can unify with balding Christian conservatives in their impotent rage.

>>7444197
Because they identify with a socially constructed role that society forbids or discourages them from being part of.

>>7443832
>>7443902

Most people and movements that identify as humanist/egalitarian also support feminism, people like you just get butthurt that men aren't the center of attention in every discussion.

>>7444671
Humanism and egalitarianism are the opposite of having men, or women, which is the point, at the centre of attention.

But both are just as wrong as feminism because discourse is an inherently masculine thing. To have anybody but men at the centre of its attention is necessarily to pervert it.

>>7438516
Sappho was a gay woman from the mediterranean you fucking moron

>>7444928
She was also white and 'cisgender' you spastic.

>>7438476
Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer is a major founding text of feminism.

>>7444874
>Humanism and egalitarianism are the opposite of having men, or women, which is the point, at the centre of attention.

This is a nice way to reverse victim and offender. Women-centric attention exists because women-specific inequality exists. You're just asserting that the status quo is currently equal and any attempt to challenge it is the "real" sexism, which serves to silence any criticism of inequality.

>But both are just as wrong as feminism because discourse is an inherently masculine thing. To have anybody but men at the centre of its attention is necessarily to pervert it.

This sentence reveals that you just adopt humanism and egalitarianism as facades to silence discussions of women's issues. Your use of the word "pervert" is just hollow emotive language to accompany this. If discourse was "inherently masculine" - a spooky notion itself - feminism wouldn't have existed in the first place.

>>7445084
Women-specific inequality comes into existence through an unnatural state of affairs.

For instance, women being sexually harassed at their place of work: women shouldn't even have careers in the first place.

Women being raped: women shouldn't even go out in public on their own in the first place.

Obviously that brings things back to a really 'primitive' state of affairs but what you can't do if you don't want to live in that state of affairs is complain.

Women have 0 right to complain about rape or workplace harassment or whatever else because they bring those things on themselves by engaging in activities which women shouldn't be doing in the first place.

Find that offensive that women then would have what seems to be so little 'freedom'? Guess what, the answer is something you tell 'privileged nerdy white fucbois' everyday on tumblr, the world isn't a fair place.

It is infinitely better to err on the side of caution and live in an ideal and conservative world than to attempt to transcend the laws of nature and end up destroying society irreparably.

The reason why the average person does not take 'social justice' or 'inequality' seriously is because they understand that these apparent 'problematics' only come into existence in a theoretical vacuum. In reality their 'problematicity' resolves instantaneously.

>This sentence reveals that you just adopt humanism and egalitarianism as facades to silence discussions of women's issues
Except I reject both things. The world is not an inherently humanistic or egalitarian place in any modern stretch of either term and it is not actually a good thing to attempt to make it so. It actually ends up to be pernicious. Again, this notion that there exists a class of 'women's issues' is a mirage: a state of affairs which only ever comes to appear when the underlying status quo is somehow perverted.

And when I use the word perverted I don't mean it in an emotive way. I mean it in the literal sense of 'to thoroughly turn (something into something else)'.

>>7445216
>Women-specific inequality comes into existence through an unnatural state of affairs.

A termite mount is the natural creation of termites. Humans were created by evolution, and all physical and ideological constructs we make are natural. Calling feminism unnatural when it has come to such prominence expresses nothing but "I don't like thing". Not that it matters what you like, because your extreme sexism is a tiny minority even among conservatives as to be totally powerless.

>For instance, women being sexually harassed at their place of work: women shouldn't even have careers in the first place.

People who think harassment is acceptable in an environment that should be focused on group cohesion and productivity are the ones who shouldn't be in the workplace. Although "should" is admittedly subjective sentiment, this is both the direction society is heading and how I desire it to be.

>Women being raped: women shouldn't even go out in public on their own in the first place.

This statement further shows your ignorance. Other than obvious victim-blaming, as it is rapists and not women that should be isolated from the public, the vast majority of rapes are committed by close friends, family members or acquaintances in private settings. You're not even correct on a descriptive level, let alone your prescriptions.

>Guess what, the answer is something you tell 'privileged nerdy white fucbois' everyday on tumblr, the world isn't a fair place.

Feminism is part of the world, if you don't like its progression, you're the one who has to adopt to the state of affairs m8.

>It is infinitely better to err on the side of caution and live in an ideal and conservative world than to attempt to transcend the laws of nature and end up destroying society irreparably.

Only prescriptive "laws" can be broken, but your language attempts to conflate socially enforced behavior with descriptive regularity in describing natural things.

>The reason why the average person does not take 'social justice' or 'inequality' seriously

4chan is quite insular, and this echo chamber has deluded you into thinking that any common sentiment here is popular. Sites like Facebook, Tumblr and Reddit that you deride (although Reddit is hardly feminist) are incredibly popular. There's a reason ideologies like anti-feminism are largely confined to anonymous discussion. A transparent attempt on your part to identify as "the common man".

>The world is not an inherently humanistic or egalitarian

The world is prone to change, especially by human hands.

>And when I use the word perverted I don't mean it in an emotive way. I mean it in the literal sense of 'to thoroughly turn (something into something else)'.

Yes you do. "Perverted" has adopted connotations of negative change, much like "accident" was once a neutral chance happening. This is why you selected the word, consciously or unconsciously.

>>7444671

Piss off with your identity politics you dumb cunt, you are a detriment to the left. See >>7443891

Now fuck off and go back to falsely accusing people of rape.

>>7445374
not the person you're responding to, but do you have any idea how you come off? you sound like a faggot, and your ideology and analysis are shit

>>7445420
>durrrr u sound like a fag xD
>ur shit

I'm visibly shaken. How can I possibly respond to such a comprehensive rebuttal of my arguments. I spoke in a tone you didn't like, and that discredits everything I said. At last, I finally see that this is the rationality and logic that feminists lack.

>>7445411
Maybe cripplechan would suit you better?

>>7438476
I unironically love Judith Butler's work about gender. She seems like a really cool person, too. Then again she's not really a feminist and more of a deconstructivist, feminists just use her argumentations.
It's a great read though and from what I see still a big thing for feminists or should be.

>>7440702
Reddit fell for the feminist meme much harder than 4chan because there're way more pussies on Reddit.

>>7443604
I fucking loathe how smarmy this response is.

>>7444671
>every discussion is at it's center actually about gender

This is the problem right there. Your post is a brilliant example of what so called feminists actually believe and why so much of the feminist debate and argumentation today is simply deluded.

>>7444645
>>7444645
Nah he's female so he can say cunt and nothing he does is wrong, like niggers and faggots

>>7445469
Good to see that gay black men like you also visit this site.

>>7445465
Yeah this really

>>7444645
maybe he's Australian

>>7445374
I appreciate you going through my post in a piecemeal fashion. I believe if we exchange back and forth long enough like this you'll begin to see the truth in my beliefs.

>Humans were created by evolution, and all physical and ideological constructs we make are natural.
There are two arguments which exist that show this idea to be unfounded. First is the logical, which is that the notion that all P from Q is therefore Q, all things from nature are therefore natural. If this were true, one must then admit that nothing is 'unnatural'. Even if you wished to do this, you couldn't, as there are many things in the world which are clearly unnatural.

The second argument is evolutionary. All that which comes from wood is of wood. All that which is born from a horse is a horse, and etc. In nature, it appears to be the going rate that everything which is created by one thing is also of or within that thing. Thus all that which is created by nature is natural. Human beings on the other hand create that which is without them. So there is ambiguity here as to whether or not your termite analogy may be applied reductively to human beings. It is not to deny that we are animals in some sense, that is largely irrelevant, but to assert that we are also more than animals. Human beings. The bare fact that you are discussing (anything at all) with me right now goes directly in the face of this mechanism put forth in brute nature. Your argument I find, then, is self-refuting.

>Calling feminism unnatural when it has come to such prominence expresses nothing but "I don't like thing".
This is very poor. Why is it that I don't like feminism? That has a possible answer. I don't like it because it's unnatural. When you say I think it's unnatural because I dislike it, that steps out of the natural flow of conclusion. It leaves my distaste for it as arbitrary and unaccounted for. And there may well exist arbitrary distaste in the world, but Occam's razor would have it that I do not call it unnatural because I dislike it, but rather that I dislike it because it is unnatural.

It is the unnaturalness which can be arbitrary. The unnaturalness which needs no explanation, as nature is clearly just the default, and then unnaturalness is simply that which is not the default.

It just so happens that feminism and all that it alludes to concerning gender, sexuality, and society, is not the default. Therefore it is unnatural. And also understandably distasteful.

>>7444063
>the accused should not have the right to face their accuser

Fascists Get Out

>>7445374

>Not that it matters what you like, because your extreme sexism is a tiny minority even among conservatives as to be totally powerless.
I find this is mistaken on the grounds that I am only explicating something which is embedded very deeply into the fabric of nature, reality, and society. The explicit form may be uncommon, but the implicit form is pervasive. And you people even have a name for it. You call it 'Patriarchy' or 'rape culture'. Forgetting that it is the thing which in fact holds everything together at a primordial level.

>People who think harassment is acceptable in an environment that should be focused on group cohesion and productivity are the ones who shouldn't be in the workplace.
That's very simplistic. Group cohesion and productivity are inherently masculine phenomena. To claim either thing is to refute yourself.

>Although "should" is admittedly subjective sentiment, this is both the direction society is heading and how I desire it to be.
There is little subjective about what 'should' be. There is a great difference in opinion, but this is because many people are simply wrong. Their wrongness does not render the matter as 'subjective'.

You desire society to delve deeper into this way because you have a spirit of destruction and greed.

>Other than obvious victim-blaming,
The concept of 'victim blaming' is wishful thinking. It pretends reality is not reality but a type of virtual world in which all begins equally.

>as it is rapists and not women that should be isolated from the public
This is infeasible. Rapists are not born, they choose to become rapists. Women on the other hand do not choose to become women, they are women by innate chromosomal default. This would require seeking out all of the men who have raped women, which is, as a rule, fallible, as opposed to seeking out all women, which is, as a rule, infallible.

>>7445216
Are you a muslim? You sure sound like one, faggot, just so you know.

>>7445374

>the vast majority of rapes are committed by close friends, family members or acquaintances in private settings.
Do you have statistical evidence of this aside from your word? Not necessarily that I deny it (though I don't really think it is true). I just would like to refresh my memory as to the actual recorded statistical data.

Rape is physically violent sexual coercion. Emotionally coerced sex is not rape. If a woman does not physically reject the likewise physical advance, she has not been raped. This is difficult to accept because it leaves a gap or makes ambiguous an aspect of women's consent. Though this is not an inherent problem, but an issue to do with the fact that women are in such positions so as to be sexually advanced upon by men they do not favour in the first place. In the Patriarchy, a woman is protected from this by her husband and the males in her family. To furnish a woman with anymore say in the matter would be to detract from that of mens'. The notion of consent fallaciously assumes that the ground is in the first place equal in which both people can 'have their say'. This is reality we are living in, not a virtual world. It is not.

>Only prescriptive "laws" can be broken, but your language attempts to conflate socially enforced behavior with descriptive regularity in describing natural things.
This is truly strange. You seem to have confused prescription for description. Actually, this is a common underestimation and very probably the singular reason why you have a liberal point of view rather than a conservative one. The cognitive maturity required in grasping the depth of the notion of prescription (as opposed to the inherent shallowness of description) is absent in your thought, and that is what is obscuring your world, making the impoverished liberalistic perspective more palatable. In very much the same way that someone who is hungry might opt for fast food rather than a wholesome, healthy meal.

Prescriptive laws cannot be broken. Only descriptive 'laws' can. This is because a law only ever is descriptive where the information is lacking to deduce it as prescriptive. Prescription is deductive, whereas description is inductive. Deduction is a priori infallible. Induction on the other hand is very well fallible.

>>7445374
>4chan is quite insular, ... ....
On the surface level you are correct. Though the true reason why arguments which deconstruct feminism are largely confined to anonymous channels is because the consciousness is infinitesimal compared to the unconsciousness, and the unconsciousness is better conveyed through the means of anonymity. And in the sense of the unconsciousness, my beliefs are indeed very relative to 'the common man'.

>The world is prone to change, especially by human hands.
This is false. The world changes only towards the absolute. The relative changes to which you allude are not true changes, only the appearances of change.

True change does not come about through conscious intervention. The more conscious a change or creation, the lesser its reality.

>Yes you do. "Perverted" has adopted connotations of negative change, much like "accident" was once a neutral chance happening. This is why you selected the word, consciously or unconsciously.
I'm aware of the negative connotation, obviously, but I'm using the denotative sense in spite of that, indeed as a statement in itself. Keep up.

>>7445374
>Arguing with ISIS

Anon..

>>7445422
He's right. You sound sound like a fag that got buttfucked with a jalapeno.

Your populist argument is weak. Feminism operates by taking identity hostage. If you aren't a pious feminist you can expect people to call you a rapist, which is life-destroying. 4chan is anonymous so you hear all the shit that can't be said in the normisphere without huge backlash.

Far more people are anti-feminist than you imagine.

I'm not even particularly against the message you all just sound like such smarmy cunts I can't stand you

>>7445488
In the sense that I sound 'brown' or conservative?

I ask because I know that you don't know.

>>7445501
In the sense that you sound like a religious conservative fascist

>>7445504
>>7445504
So what

>>7445504
Why call me a muslim then?

Why not a Christian or a Jew?

>>7445216
>women shouldn't even go out in public on their own in the first place.
So you want this to be what, the tenth century or something?
You are a fucking cancer to this society, are you actually aware of that? And like >>7445488 pointed out you have more in common with a muslim extremist than a citizen of a western country.
Fucking conservative reactionaries. Go back to where the fuck you came from. I'll take what you call decadence over your suppressive idea of a society any time, because I call it fucking freedom. Go die in a cave surrounded by the religious ideas of your choice, you illiterate.

>>7445513
You're hysterical lady

Go play w yr vibrator you'll feel better

>>7438476
>How to I get into feminism? What

Grow a vagina.

>>7445513
Muslims believe in violence and deception. I believe in the opposite of both things. That is what makes the West superior to the Middle East. To believe in the opposite of both things.

You are weak though. Your pet-idea of 'freedom' is just compensation for weakness. For a disinterest in intellectualism.

Funny how I can write what I have written here and you have the nerve to call me illiterate. To spite me like that. So petty and representative of everything which makes you wrong.


Listen, I wish the world could be a fantasy land too. Where we could have 'freedom' and that wouldn't rob from something else. But physical reality is conserved. And ideological and social reality is also. Ignoring that only drives you deeper into irreparability. That's not a direction I can ethically bring myself to pursue.

And only because there is no pursuit, only descent. The entire difference between the way you think and the way I think is will.

>>7445511
Funnily enough the guy in the left looks like a nazi politician and the guy in the middle looks like a political dissident straight from Auschwitz. Try harder or -in case you were serious with this pathetic pic- use your brain once in a while.

>>7445519
Great comeback. Wouldn't have expected more.
What are the last three books you read?

>>7445528
Lol you're still mad, go toss yourself off hun you need it

>>7445513
how can you be so against what is natural?

>>7445525
The difference between the way you and I think is that I recognize the value of the ideal of freedom and dislike the idea of a totalitarian system. Your policy only leads to control and to the fear that there won't be somebody more radical than yourself in power at some point.

>>7445535
Using soap or brushing your teeth isn't natural, is it? What's your stance on that?

>>7445525
Maybe you should go off the web and live in a cottage or something.
Are you scared of vaccines and robotics too by any chance?

>>7445543
Like I said, what you call freedom isn't actually freedom. Freedom is the capability to obey a just law. What you're calling freedom is the 'freedom' to fall down the downward spiral. It's not freedom at all. Not even close.

The policies I endorse lead to control, yes. In the positive sense. And that is their raison d'être to begin with. A conservative society is stable. A liberalistic one is not.

Stability is a primordial good. Stability is necessarily better than instability. Conservatism, fundamentally, is necessarily better than liberalism.

Oh and using soap or brushing your teeth doesn't need to be natural.

Gender roles and sexuality do.

>>7445535
you mean living in a cave?

>>7445551
I'm terrified of the irresponsible use of technology. Because it's something that could very easily end humanity very abruptly.

Technology is an inherently conservative enterprise, on the other hand.

Abuse of it however seems to be inherently liberal.

>>7445556
>A conservative society is stable. A liberalistic one is not.
>He believes the world is static

Are you actually that stupid?

>>7445556
>Oh and using soap or brushing your teeth doesn't need to be natural.
>Gender roles and sexuality do.

How so? And where do you draw the line?

>>7445556
>stability > chaos

I could give two tugs of a rat dick for feminism or whatever, but this is wrong.

Each needs the other in harmony. If all were utterly stable, existence would be as a diamond grid: unchanging unmoving stagnancy. Pure chaos goes beyond the limits of imagination, but is equally hostile to humanity as pure order.

Life requires both in measure.

is anyone even reading this thread

>>7445556
>A conservative society is stable. A liberalistic one is not.
>A liberalistic society
You sound like you have no idea how the world works. I think it's time to stop posting.

>>7445566
The more static your world is, the more your language means something.

>>7445573
The line is drawn between that which is intrinsic and that which is extrinsic.

Using soap or brushing your teeth or going to an office job in a skyscraper are all extrinsic things.

Gender and sexuality are intrinsic.

>>7445574
This is already assumed in what I said. Of course the world needs exceptional chaos here and there to loosen things up a bit. But we're speaking about which principle we should espouse in general. And it's clear that stability is that such principle on the sheerly tautological basis alone that one can have chaos in stability but one cannot have stability in chaos.

>>7445584
I think it's time to get a brain moran!

>>7445482

Nice off topic clusterfuck you started there, asshole. Plus you sound like an idiot of the second degree.

>>7445499
>Your populist argument is weak.

You fundamentally misunderstand my argument if you think it's based on argument ad populum and not the power inherent in large numbers.

>Feminism operates by taking identity hostage.

And they say leftists use vague obscurantist language. Sheesh.

>If you aren't a pious feminist you can expect people to call you a rapist, which is life-destroying

I think it's safe to call the person I was responding to a rape apologist, since he literally said women deserve it for being in public.

>4chan is anonymous so you hear all the shit that can't be said in the normisphere without huge backlash. Far more people are anti-feminist than you imagine.

Yes, but why isn't 4chan the normisphere itself? Use your head, dipshit.

>I'm not even particularly against the message you all just sound like such smarmy cunts I can't stand you

More arguments based purely on tone. I don't give a fuck, I'm glad the way I speak makes you frustrated, you angry little sophist.

>>7445513
I would respond to this, but there is nothing to respond to since it's just ideology talk without actual points made.
>>7445584
Actually his points are very legalistic in nature. I believe he is a fellow law student/lawyer.

>>7445590
I sound smart.

>>7445586
Give us an example each of what you hold a conservative and a 'liberalistic' society then, asshole

>>7445586
>The more static your world is, the more your language means something.

Language is hardly static. It evolves just like society.

>>7445593
>implying the other guy's points aren't just as ideologically loaded
Fuck off with your funny memes, friend

>>7445594
No you don't

>>7438775
"Upvoted"

>>7445592
I'm not a rape apologist and you have no room to label me as such.

I believe physically coercive violent rape is a very real and important issue. But any sort of rape less than that is simply not rape. That doesn't make me a rape apologist, it makes me the opposite, somebody who wishes to preserve the more meaningful side of the definition of the notion.

It isn't that women 'deserve' it for being in public. It's just that women are incredibly stupid, as much as it makes sense to call a woman stupid, for thinking they're somehow entitled to defying the basic and immutable law of the land.

If I walk into a slum late at night with nice clothes on people are going to steal from me. I have something valuable. Saying that women can go wherever they please and not expect to get raped is equivalent to saying that women are not valuable or that reality does not apply.

You're a dumb person. When are you really going to get a full sense of that?

>>7445604
>>7445604
Stupidity of one does not excuse the stupidity of other.
He also makes some kind of a point through flawed reasoning, but a thought that goes beyond check your privilege shitlord. I don't necessarily agree with him on many points, but it's at least something one can respond to.

>>7445597
A conservative society is one which only advances and changes when the advancement is logically progressive and the change is necessary.

A liberalistic society attempts to short-circuit both rules.

>>7445599
Nothing about language changes but the most superficial aspects of it. We're essentially speaking the same exact language as did humans 100,000 years ago.

>>7445604
Don't worry, I do.

>>7445606
>Accepting there is a slum in your country
>Not clearing out the slum and educate and socialize it's inhabitants

>>7445617
Okay this is the critical point here, this is what's backwards about your belief system.

You do not attack problems from the bottom up.

It's just not the way it works.

There, you're no longer a feminist. It's impossible for you to be a feminist now because the truth has just scarred your eyes for all eternity.

There's no going back. The logical incoherence of feminism is etched into your mind.

>>7445614
>A conservative society is one which only advances and changes when the advancement is logically progressive and the change is necessary.
Concrete example for this by any chance?

>A liberalistic society attempts to short-circuit both rules.
Concrete example for this by any chance?

>Don't worry, I do.
>Don't worry, I do sound smart.

>>7445627
I never said I was a feminist, faggot. Work on your reading comprehension.

>>7445586
>chaos, stability

This is a perspective trick you're pulling. I can easily reframe any stability as existing as an island or pocket in a vast ocean of greater chaos which has merely not yet happened to disrupt it's temporary pattern.

More to the point, this is like arguing which pole of the magnet is ontologically fundamental. They are mutually arising because they are one and the same phenomena, seen from different perspectives.

>>7445482
>If this were true, one must then admit that nothing is 'unnatural'.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm getting at. Nature is literally a meme.

>there are many things in the world which are clearly unnatural.

There are no things in the world which are clearly unnatural.

> It is not to deny that we are animals in some sense, that is largely irrelevant, but to assert that we are also more than animals. Human beings.

We're not "more than animals". You're just dressing up figurative language and metaphors in denial of reality. Intelligence is valued because of its ability to reflect upon itself, but this does not necessarily make it a beneficial trait for long term survival more than any other trait. Indeed, the human race might face less existential threats if we were a little stupider. Many species of bacteria will almost certainly outlast us.

>The bare fact that you are discussing (anything at all) with me right now goes directly in the face of this mechanism put forth in brute nature

The ability to communicate is quite valuable for biological fitness. It's not against nature whatsoever.

>And there may well exist arbitrary distaste in the world, but Occam's razor would have it that I do not call it unnatural because I dislike it, but rather that I dislike it because it is unnatural.

An unfounded conclusion that does is not inferred logically from your premises.

>The unnaturalness which needs no explanation

It does, nigger, and you're failing to provide it.

You're using circular reasoning here, with a very long-winded stream of verbiage to try and disguise it

> I dislike it because it is unnatural.
>nature is clearly just the default
>unnaturalness is simply that which is not the default
>It just so happens that feminism.... is not the default
>Therefore it is unnatural. And also understandably distasteful.

>>7445525
>Muslims believe in violence and deception. I believe in the opposite of both things. That is what makes the West superior to the Middle East. To believe in the opposite of both things.

>>7445592
Because 4chan is anonymous you can't hold my reputation hostage, Mr McCarthy. That's why it's not normisphere, fuckwit slanderous cunt

>>7445614
>A conservative society is one which only advances and changes when the advancement is logically progressive

And what might logical progression be then? I call ideology on that point of yours. Maybe the logical progression is exponential growth and humanity is just a larva for the mega intellect of an artificial super intelligence and is on a logically progressing natural course with all it's innovations.. Maybe you just fail to see that because you don't have enough information, monkey-man

>>7445614
>logically progressive
In hindsight every technological innovation is the result of a logical progression, faggot. Your point doesn't make any sense.

>>7445614
>which only advances and changes when the advancement is logically progressive and the change is necessary
And who decides that? And who in history has ever had the power to fight the light of progressive thought and the growing and unfolding human ingenuity?

>>7438516
This comic is so problematic.

>trans inclusive.
Oh wow so you show some fugly zer? As if transpeople can't look fabulous.

>anti racist
And they show this with muslims! As if a relgion with over a BILLION people only appeals to one race!

>Pro choice
AND SO THEY SHOW A SINGLE BLACK TEEN? Unbelievable, when I thought it couldn't get worse.

>>7445669
God you're a fucking dweeb.

>>7445678
The best part of feminism is when it eats itself

>>7441764
>>7438838

Seems convenient to become a feminist 5 or so decades ago just so that she could deflect criticism when it came up later on.

>>7443873
More or less the most accurate so far. Although I suppose 3rd wave has a legal basis, except that instead of wanting legal parity they want to have special rights so that they can achieve what they perceive to be social equality. Thus, you see people advocating for taking away the presumption of innocence in sexual assault cases and stuff like that.

>>7445526
Under appreciated. Kek m8

͏

>>7445662
There's like no actual truth to that though. Nobody thinks that. People will adopt the assumption of a logical progression in order to effect academia like chronology and so forth. But nobody actually believes there's any sort of strict progression between a printing press and a computer.

>>7445722
True, I agree. I only meant to point out that it is seen that way.

>>7445747
*can be seen that way

Sorry, ought to lay off the old sauce a bit, me thinks

>>7445425
>>7445425

No idea what that is

>>7444671
>>>/tumblr/

>>7445606
>Saying that women can go wherever they please and not expect to get raped

So you consider your country and the society you live in as a whole as some kind of god given slum then?

>>7445606
>That doesn't make me a rape apologist, it makes me the opposite, somebody who wishes to preserve the more meaningful side of the definition of the notion.

I didn't mention any other notion of rape, so this is a complete strawman on your part, you heroic champion against misogyny.

>It isn't that women 'deserve' it for being in public
>thinking they're somehow entitled to defying the basic and immutable law of the land

You treat the rapist like a natural force without agency so you can put the blame entirely on the victim. This is why you're a rape apologist. Victims being outside does not cause them to be raped, you also neglected my point earlier that most rapes aren't committed by strangers in public settings. It's neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for being raped, but the choice of the rapist is both. The fact that you denied the existence of consent before isn't exactly doing you favors, either.

>If I walk into a slum late at night with nice clothes on people are going to steal from me

And this is still the fault of the thief, no matter how "stupid" the victim is. Avoiding slums will not protect you from theft, people can steal from you in your own home, just like rapists can violate victims in their own home. Your attempt to portray these crimes as happening purely in a public setting is just a disingenuous stereotype to further your victim blaming narrative.

>I have something valuable. Saying that women can go wherever they please and not expect to get raped is equivalent to saying that women are not valuable or that reality does not apply.

There is a difference between valuing someone as plunder, and valuing them as a human being with dignity, and it's quite clear from this sentence that you "value" women the same way a rapist does, even though you're probably not one. Expecting women to take such ridiculous measures to impede their own freedom of movement as never going outside alone is not gentle advice, nor is it on the same level as restricting flashy accessories, it's basically telling them to stay at home like good little household contents, lest they be raped at every street corner by human rape-machines and screamed at for every possible detail that can be contrived as being their fault by obnoxious wannabe-Saudis like yourself.

>>7445646
Nobody is calling you a rapist except yourself, Mr Projection, and suffering social ostracism for your extreme political views isn't the same as slander. You're not entitled to have people like you, and if they think you're creepy for acting like all rape accusations are fake when the vast majority are estimated to not even be reported to the police, that's not slander either.

>>7445465
Not what I said. Saying the two communities usually overlap isn't the same as saying all social oppression stems from patriarchy. That's a radical feminist narrative, and it's not common to liberal feminists who see patriarchy as a subset of gender roles, and gender roles as a subset of broader social oppression termed "kyriarchy". In fact, it's not even common to Marxist and Anarchist feminists, who typically see patriarchy as a specific expression of class or the state, respectively. Black and LGBT people within social justice have also frequently voiced their opinion on the aforementioned notion being offensive, you can google it yourself, because you evidently weren't trying very hard.

>>7444108
>what does "Undoing Gender" say about David Reimer's suicide, and childhood sexual abuse and trauma via one of the "top gender experts"

Never heard of this person until just now. My circumcision was botched (I can still urinate but I feel almost nothing in my penis, feel no sexual pleasure and can't get a full on erection) and part of me has wished that I was reassigned as female at birth, but that probably just would have created even more problems.

>>7446087
>I didn't mention any other notion of rape
I believe it is implied in the way you speak of rape. As you said, rape is not always committed by strangers or in public settings. Leaving out either condition would seem to make the circumstance of the rape less violent, less physically coercive. That relativised notion of rape is what I was responding in contrast to.

>You treat the rapist like a natural force without agency so you can put the blame entirely on the victim.
Well that's exactly my point. This is also why I'm not considering Chad with Jane in a room at a houseparty while he drunkenly has his way with her against her meagre and mumbling 'no... stop... no..' will rape. Rape, when it is estranged and violent, is exactly the type of phenomenon where agency, or more specifically, rational agency, is not a big piece of the puzzle. These men rape women because they lack precisely that.

This is why many people do not take feminism seriously. When you speak of a serial rapist as an 'agent' it becomes clear how sheltered you are from the reality in which animalistic desires possess sovereignty. You simply have no clue of it. You view the world and people in it as a fundamentally rational place, where people are fundamentally reasonable. But reasonability and sensibility are exceptions to the rule.

So no, I am in fact not a rape apologist for highlighting the fact that rape is a reality.

Also I didn't deny the existence of consent. I said it was an incoherent concept when used in any sort of absolute way. It has its uses, relative uses, for the minutiae of law, but for the bigger picture, it's not inapplicable but un-applicable.

>>7446087
>And this is still the fault of the thief, no matter how "stupid" the victim is.
Again with this. In a completely like Platonically ideal world sure. On paper sure. But we live in reality. It's sort of like how you could take every famous or important person in the world and reduce their achievements to mental illnesses or overcompensations for personality disorders. It's absurd to do such a thing, regardless of how true it may actually be. It gets to a point where it just doesn't matter if Isaac Newton had Aspergers and that explains his genius. He's Isaac Newton. His genius and legacy trump any sort of psychiatric reduction which could be made about him.

In that way blame becomes a nonissue. What matters only is that it occurred. So it's not a matter of reversing the 'blame' and saying 'it's prescriptively this woman's fault for dressing this way'. It's simply outside of that altogether. It's that, this woman did a stupid thing by going out in a bad neighbourhood getting piss drunk dressing provocatively and something terrible happened to her while she was walking home afterwards.

It's not the bottom up idea of who is to blame, but the top down perspective of how could this have realistically been mitigated?

Rape isn't an easy issue to solve. You aren't going to stop men raping by telling them not to or imprisoning any of them you can get your hands on. That's just not the way it works. If anything that's just going to suppress these men more causing them to rape more and more aggressively. It's a fluid issue and you don't grab ahold of it like you would a stone.

Also your point about it occurring anywhere is a nonstarter. In a city there is a natural centralisation of poverty and crime. When poverty and crime start leaking into the better more suburbanised areas of the city, that doesn't mean anything other than the entire city is going to shit.

>There is a difference between valuing someone as plunder, and valuing them as a human being with dignity
Those are simply two different ways of valuing something. Women are not meant to be valued in that 'dignified' manner more so than they're meant to be valued in that cherishing manner which you pejoratively refer to as like plunder. That dignification is not some ideal thing, either. It has its pro and its con. Men have a huge burden of responsibility that is simply completely alien to women. And no we do not want your helping hand. It just doesn't work that way. Feminists think the grass is greener on the other side and honestly it's just so childish. They view the male state as this ideal promise land type of thing and completely ignore or reject or forget the fact that the female state also has graciousness. Just in a different way. Being valued as an object is just as good as being valued as a subject, so long as it's female and male respectively we're speaking of.

>>7446087

>Expecting women to take such ridiculous measures to impede their own freedom of movement as never going outside alone is not gentle advice
It is absolutely extreme relative to the current social status quo, but that doesn't mean it doesn't ultimately have a great truth to it.

Your contention of the limitation of the freedom of female movement is a nonstarter because women wouldn't desire movement or 'freedom' if they embraced their female nature.

It's only when female nature and genuine womanhood becomes socially disassociated (by feminism no less, the great irony of it all) is it that women come into this desire for freedom and rights.

In other words, I understand it may come off as extreme, but that's only because it's an actual quite temperate response to what is actually an extreme underlying condition.

The problem is you aren't educated enough to really have a grasp on the extremity of your current situation living in the modern world. You view things like technology as completely banal when for 99% of human history, such objects would be dismissed as utterly fantastic. That has its consequences on the human psyche. Remember, everything is conserved.

>obnoxious wannabe-Saudis like yourself.
Only thing obnoxious here is this remark. Betrays too much of your unintelligence to equate what is simply conservatism to something as specific as Saudi Islamic social politics.

Also
>>7445646
Wasn't me. For the record.

>>7445680
>implying that refutes my point.

Feminism is marxist cancer.

Prove me wrong: You can't.

>>7445614
Still waiting for you to answer to those posts that replied to you here, faggot

>>7445614
Still waiting for concrete examples of those fantastic concepts of 'societies' you pitched here...

>>7446595
I didn't reply to 2/4 because those were stupid.

And why would I give concrete examples? What use are they exactly? It's only the general idea which matters.

>>7445654
Nice point. He's a technophobe though. Funny how many of those faggots are posting on 4chan by now

>>7446609
Convenient excuse if the "general idea" is horseshit that doesn't function.

>>7446612
See
>>7445561
And fuck off.

>>7446612
faggot detected

>>7446609
You mean you replied to none of them, fuckface

>>7446627
Great point. :^)

>>7446621
The general idea of conservatism is just to mimic nature in all the areas where it works rather than doesn't. Nothing more or less.

The general idea of liberalism is to attempt to go beyond nature and God through humanism.

There is no 'doesn't function'. This isn't your intro sociology class where we write essays about why communism isn't practicable. God typical /lit/ to sound like a first year uni student off his ADHD meds.

>>7446629
I replied to 2 out of the 4 that replied to me.

Replied:
>>7445662
>>7445669

Didn't reply:
>>7445634
>>7445654

>>7446648
>implying nature isn't progress and trial and error.
>implying to attempt to go "beyond nature" isn't natural

>>7446653

>>7445680
>replying with an insult and ignoring the point is replying
I didn't know I was adressing a shitposter

>>7438476
Wasn't Lydia Lunch (OP's picrel) the proto-Sasha Grey? She played in those artsy porn flicks (Richard Kern, etc.), but then turned to music and art.

>>7446653
Reply to this, caveman >>7445654

>>7438476
Johnnie Tillman (a female)

>>7446287
>As you said, rape is not always committed by strangers or in public settings. Leaving out either condition would seem to make the circumstance of the rape less violent, less physically coercive.

Rape by a friend or acquaintance can be just as coercive as rape by a stranger. You're basing this off nothing but caricatures in your head.

>When you speak of a serial rapist as an 'agent' it becomes clear how sheltered you are from the reality in which animalistic desires possess sovereignty. You simply have no clue of it.

You were the one blabbing on about how humans are "above animals". I merely support consistency. You put all of your emphasis on women's stupidity for being raped, but I didn't hear a squeak out of you in condemning the impulsiveness of a rapist.

>So no, I am in fact not a rape apologist for highlighting the fact that rape is a reality.

There's a difference between acknowledging reality and embracing horrific behaviors while blaming the victim, which is exactly what you're doing.

>Also I didn't deny the existence of consent. I said it was an incoherent concept when used in any sort of absolute way. It has its uses, relative uses, for the minutiae of law, but for the bigger picture, it's not inapplicable but un-applicable.

Trying to muddy the waters of consent is exactly what rape apologism is about. If clear consent isn't given, it's not informed consent.

>Again with this. In a completely like Platonically ideal world sure. On paper sure. But we live in reality

More reworded ways of saying "I'm right and you're wrong lalalala". This isn't an argument.

>It gets to a point where it just doesn't matter if Isaac Newton had Aspergers and that explains his genius. He's Isaac Newton. His genius and legacy trump any sort of psychiatric reduction which could be made about him.

Complete red herring.

>It's not the bottom up idea of who is to blame, but the top down perspective of how could this have realistically been mitigated?

Yes, and as I mentioned before, being in public is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to cause rape, but the choice to rape is.

>Rape isn't an easy issue to solve. You aren't going to stop men raping by telling them not to or imprisoning any of them you can get your hands on. That's just not the way it works.

Instilling moral values in would-be offenders is pretty much the single most effective way to stop crime.

>If anything that's just going to suppress these men more causing them to rape more and more aggressively

Rape isn't caused by sexual deficiency, but the lack of moral principles and empathy in restraining one's urges - just like theft is primarily caused by poor moral values and not poverty. I'm sure there are many married men who get sex along with promiscuous male university students who still rape. You're endorsing the same lack of empathy and victim blaming that underlies the mentality of many rapists.

>>7446293
>Women are not meant to be valued in that 'dignified' manner more so than they're meant to be valued in that cherishing manner which you pejoratively refer to as like plunder.

Rape isn't cherishing anyone, and the fact that you'd refer to it in such a positive manner is why I know you're a rape apologist.

>That dignification is not some ideal thing, either. It has its pro and its con.

Literally making excuses for abuse here.

>Men have a huge burden of responsibility that is simply completely alien to women. And no we do not want your helping hand. It just doesn't work that way.

I'm a man, although I can see why such dichotomous thinking of yours makes it hard for you to comprehend why I'd have empathy for woman.

>Feminists think the grass is greener on the other side and honestly it's just so childish.

It's quite evident by how furiously anti-feminists defend the status quo.

>Being valued as an object is just as good as being valued as a subject, so long as it's female and male respectively we're speaking of.

Plenty of women have been killed or killed themselves due to living under the thumb of abusive men with such attitudes.

>It is absolutely extreme relative to the current social status quo, but that doesn't mean it doesn't ultimately have a great truth to it.

No, it lacks truth because of your unfounded assumptions, logical fallacies and circular reasoning I mentioned earlier, which you conveniently refused to address.

>Your contention of the limitation of the freedom of female movement is a nonstarter because women wouldn't desire movement or 'freedom' if they embraced their female nature.

Again, your definition of nature is circular and means nothing, it's just a construction to serve your ideological agenda. >>7445644

>The problem is you aren't educated enough to really have a grasp on the extremity of your current situation living in the modern world.

More variations of "you are dumb". Character assassination seems to be something your arguments depend heavily on.

>In other words, I understand it may come off as extreme, but that's only because it's an actual quite temperate response to what is actually an extreme underlying condition.

You are extreme, and likewise you make excuses for extreme violence.

>Remember, everything is conserved.

This is some new-age level vague bullshit.

>Betrays too much of your unintelligence to equate what is simply conservatism to something as specific as Saudi Islamic social politics.

You are both simple and conservative, but you are by no means a "simple conservative".

>Wasn't me. For the record.

I'm aware.

>>7445526
tru

>>7445561
>Technology is an inherently conservative enterprise
I disagree. The very definition, necessity and process of innovation defies conservative conception.

Ultimately it is simple. Coservativism, in the individual, is merely the less than more unconscious fear of death. Which, ironically, is what it breeds and brings about just as much as any other ideology on a political stage if not more -because here it tries to limit scientific progress that could benefit the whole of humanity (as a species), more than a conservative exclusive* system could realize.


*because that's what conservativism is really about: exclusion.

>>7445586
>one can have chaos in stability but one cannot have stability in chaos

But that is all we have: Small islands of what we call 'stability' in a sea of chaos.
'Stability' in itself is an illusion. Nothing is stable. Everything vibrates and is intrinsically chaotic. Everything.

>>7447105
You're not really explaining any point here. You're more or less just grading this anons intellect like its a term paper, and not quite making any point of your own.

>>7449113
Are you capable of reading at all?

>>7447105
>Rape by a friend or acquaintance can be just as coercive as rape by a stranger. You're basing this off nothing but caricatures in your head.
It is not. It can be, yes, but what is merely possible is not what is reality. The reality is that there is a positive correlative relationship between violence and physical coercion and public, unfamiliar circumstances, while there is a negative correlative relationship between violence and physical coercion and private, familiar circumstances.

Those 'caricatures' in my head are entities of common sense. Something which, to be honest with you, seems you lack in grave quantities.

>You were the one blabbing on about how humans are "above animals".
I didn't say we were (all) above animals. I said being a human is being more than just an animal. This also makes it so that the choice whether or not to be human is on the person himself. That's also funnily enough whence things such as rationality and agency are derived.

>You put all of your emphasis on women's stupidity for being raped,
The point was actually that I put no emphasis on the woman's stupidity. That's how she's not really to 'blame' for being raped, that she did a stupid thing but that stupid thing didn't inculpate her.

There is no 'consistency' to be had there because men and women are not equal. In the sense that the stupidity and carelessness or thoughtlessness of a woman is not in any way the same thing as the impulsion and blind sexual aggression of a rapist.

One is having too little of something and the other is having too much.

>There's a difference between acknowledging reality and embracing horrific behaviors while blaming the victim, which is exactly what you're doing.
Except I'm straight up telling you that the entire concept of direct blame doesn't even enter into it.

When people 'blame' a woman for being raped they don't mean it in the sense that she's some terrible person who deserves to have been raped. They mean it in the sense of self-sufficiency where if you don't look out for yourself and make the right decisions in an inherently unsafe world, then you are stupid, you are 'to blame'. It's not personal at all. That's a distinction people like you are incapable of making. Concerning the way people communicate with each other at that highly general, social level.

>Trying to muddy the waters of consent is exactly what rape apologism is about. If clear consent isn't given, it's not informed consent.
I'm rejecting the idea of consent entirely though. I don't care about 'informed consent'. Consent in general is an insufficiently powerful concept to deal with the logic of absolute cases like these.

>More reworded ways of saying "I'm right and you're wrong lalalala". This isn't an argument.
That makes sense that you would see the difference between theory and practice as tautological and completely empty. Because your mind is stuck in the vacuum state of theory and that's exactly why you think and believe the things you do. You have no sense of practicality.

But how would a person inform you of that? Simply telling you that you lack that sense, the very sense responsible for furnishing the truthfulness of these arguments, when bringing up that you lack that sense wouldn't therefore make sense either?

>Complete red herring.
You think it's a red herring because you failed to see how it related to what was said.

You know I have to ask, you surely reread your posts before or after you post them, has it never occurred to you that your entire manner of argumentation has a very strong undertone of self-defeatism?

Personally if I could never let myself use the words 'complete red herring' before stopping to really check and see if what I'm calling a 'complete red herring' is really just something that's a bit over my head, that I can't be arsed to give a proper response to.

It's a bit irresponsible that is.

>Yes, and as I mentioned before, being in public is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to cause rape, but the choice to rape is.
It is a necessary condition to cause rape in an idealised form of the world. So your point is worthless.

Also you ignored what was said. About how it's not a matter of who is to blame, but of how, realistically, could the rape have been prevented.

>Instilling moral values in would-be offenders is pretty much the single most effective way to stop crime.
Absolutely not. You really are irreparable naïve. The whole reason why offenders are offenders is because they are not capable, for one reason or another, of grasping the requisite ethical concepts which would disengage them from the possibility of committing rape.

The only way in which that is actually not true is from the sociological lens. And in that sociological lens, 'instilling moral values' is exactly religion.

Funny how things which have existed for thousands of years have already put a decisive end to your so-called problems yet you reject them even more harshly than you would the men who commit these crimes. You are a massive hypocrite. I think you should know that.

>Rape isn't caused by sexual deficiency
It absolutely is caused by deficiency of sexual resources and nothing else whatsoever.

Men do not rape because they 'lack moral principles or empathy in restraining one's urges', rather, they 'lack moral principles or empathy in restraining one's urges' because they experience a deficiency of sexual resource.

>just like theft is primarily caused by poor moral values and not poverty.
And poverty is the cause of poor moral values. Lack of resource.

>I'm sure there are many married men who get sex along with promiscuous male university students who still rape.
Wait what?

>You're endorsing the same lack of empathy and victim blaming that underlies the mentality of many rapists.
Empathy isn't important in this context. Laws are not made because of 'empathy', they are made because of logic. Empathy anyway is just a short-hand for logic, for people who aren't intelligent enough to understand it.

Though I don't claim empathy isn't and shouldn't be the norm.

>>7447147

>Rape isn't cherishing anyone, and the fact that you'd refer to it in such a positive manner is why I know you're a rape apologist.
I never said nor implied that rape was cherishing someone.

>Literally making excuses for abuse here.
You're having a hard time doing anything but frivolously dismissing my points because they're too hard for you to respond to. No, that is not an excuse, the idea that the grass is not greener on the other side in this case is just a basic truth that people like you really, really need to hear.

>I'm a man, although I can see why such dichotomous thinking of yours makes it hard for you to comprehend why I'd have empathy for woman.
What you are is a failed man. Your 'empathy' is completely out of place. Women don't actually want it either. That's the funny thing. You're a huge self-righteous prick for all of the wrong reasons and you will have relationship problems for the rest of your natural life because you have this inflated sense of significance that you place on women. It's nothing profound. Your espousal of feminism. That's just you being a failure.

You are sensationally confusing your plummet into hell for ascension.

>It's quite evident by how furiously anti-feminists defend the status quo.
So what's your point? That because we are vehement about this as people that we just need to 'chillax smoke a bowl and get laid bro'? Or something to that impotent effect? You drool when you sleep, don't you?

>Plenty of women have been killed or killed themselves due to living under the thumb of abusive men with such attitudes.
Yeah and death is literally the default for men so you don't have a point there mate. Death is unrelated to that altogether. It's just something which happens. Read Malthus.

>>7447147

>No, it lacks truth because of your unfounded assumptions, logical fallacies and circular reasoning I mentioned earlier, which you conveniently refused to address.
Lay the alleged items out for me plain and simple and I will address them. I haven't refused to address anything. I address more than you. I go through your post in its entirety and you pick and choose like a little girl in a candy shop.

>Again, your definition of nature is circular and means nothing, it's just a construction to serve your ideological agenda.
Yet it's what society emerged from. Let's see, which is the ideological construction, traditional gender roles which have been around since the dawn of mankind, or feminism, which emerged roughly two centuries ago in it's most absolutely bare, prototypic form.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.


>More variations of "you are dumb". Character assassination seems to be something your arguments depend heavily on.
Me calling you uneducated is simply saying you did not go to a good university or that you got a degree in something irrelevant, or that you did not proceed to go to grad school. That doesn't mean 'omg ur dum!!'.

>You are extreme, and likewise you make excuses for extreme violence.
Read what you responded to here again.

>This is some new-age level vague bullshit.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
>new-age
>vague
Yeah okay.

>You are both simple and conservative, but you are by no means a "simple conservative".
I am simply conservative.

>>7449059
>necessity and process of innovation defies conservative conception.
No.

>Coservativism, in the individual, is merely the less than more unconscious fear of death.
Yes. Death is something which is to be feared. Those who say otherwise exist in an ocean of lies and are indeed more afraid of death than those who accept its fearfulness.

Rather, the conservative respects death, and the liberal fears it.

>because here it tries to limit scientific progress that could benefit the whole of humanity (as a species)
You don't know that this type of scientific progress which you speak of benefits humanity as a whole in the long term. You have made the assumption that it does because you are short-sighted and blindly equate what you feel now with what you will feel in the future. In nature, that is largely true, if I am eating an orange it will not suddenly turn into a dead disease-ridden rat. Technology is the opposite of this, however, and this is exactly why you do not mess around with it. You don't play with fire.


>*because that's what conservativism is really about: exclusion.
Exclusion relative to whom, or what? That point falls apart pretty quickly once you actually examine what it's supposed to mean.

>>7449074
This is false. The small island is what is. The 'sea of chaos' simply is what is not.

'Vibration' is an artefact of mathematical convenience. In case you were wondering no we are not made up of literally vibrating strings. It's mathematical metaphor.

>>7449436
>>7449444
>>7449445
>>7449448
>>7449454
>>7449476

I don't even know what this argument is about but seriously who writes this much on 4chan

>>7449534

wew lad

>>7445695
She's not a feminist in the exact same way neoliberals aren't liberal

>>7449534
Welcome to post-/his/ /lit/.

>>7449534
Honestly, just a guy who's a lot smarter than you.

>>7449534
That took me around 15 minutes to write, while screening stocks and drinking morning coffee. Don't be bitter you that you just don't have it in you.

>>7449641
rekt

Does Judith Butler really not believe in penises?

>>7449534
people who actually contribute.

So glad they made /his/ and quarantined this rubbish here

>>7438476
Just stay away from Anita Sarkeesian or Minaj, or most modern feminists.

Yeah you can also look at some black feminism, but it probably won't be much different other than adding race troubles into the bag. Maybe try it for some diversity but otherwise it's not an essential for the study.

>>7450512
>black feminism
>black anything ever

>>7443604

And that men are somehow not

I knew I shouldn't have entered this thred

ITT: Blue haired roasties btfo

>>7451159
Not really.

>>7451159
ITT: people being mad online at grills

>>7445465
+1

>>7438838
Both of these women are badass.

>>7443593

Gibs me dat: womynz' edition.

>>7451664
Yeah! And I love Internet Aristocrat and Sargon of Akkad too! xD

>>7443604
This is what a tween princess in the first world looks like.

>>7451675
Tween princesses in the first world look like comments on 4chan?

ITT: a clever conservative crushes /lit/'s drooling band of pseudo-intellectuals

>>7451168
ITT: shitposting

>>7449074


'Chaos' in itself is an illusion. Nothing is chaotic. Everything is deterministic and intrinsically orderly. Everything.

>>7449291

I see agree with >>7449113, it isn't a matter of "he not reading good". You really bungled that last reply and any semblance of substance of your own.

>>7449534
The upper crest of /lit/ that actually have something worthwhile to contribute.

If you come here for idle chatter, then it is in the best interest of /lit/ that you just lurk silently.

>>7451868
It doesn't work that way in this case, anon. You can only say what you just did if you say that unpredictability and the state of constant change everything is in is order. Thanks for playing and trying to be clever, but try harder.

>>7451818
>implying

Here's your (you)

>>7449476
>The 'sea of chaos' simply is what is not.
Wow. What part of the bible belt do you come from?

>>7449476
I'm just going to pretend I never read all this idiotic shit.
You are the reason sane people drink. I hope you die soon. I'd be worried that you put offspring into this world, but judging by the ludicrous bullshit you put out, I'm fairly certain you don't have a social life or at least non that is in any form relevant to the world.
I hope your misery is over soon and you die of a heart attack or something.
Best regards
anon

>>7449436
>>7449444
>>7449445
>>7449448
>>7449454
>>7449476
God I wish I could electrocute people instantly when they go off topic like you raging niggers

>>7449476
>Yes. Death is something which is to be feared. Those who say otherwise exist in an ocean of lies and are indeed more afraid of death than those who accept its fearfulness.

Irreproachable.

>>7449476
>Yes. Death is something which is to be feared. Those who say otherwise exist in an ocean of lies and are indeed more afraid of death than those who accept its fearfulness.

Pathetic.

>>7452140
Lrn English skrub

>>7449476
>implying one has to fear death

Is /lit/ really that intellectually limited?

>>7449476
>the conservative respects death, and the liberal fears it
Source: Your ass.

You are easily the biggest clown I've seen here all week. And I browse this site a lot.

>>7441774
curse you fallacy man! cuuuuuuuuuuuurse youuuuuuuuuuuuuu!

>>7445513
This post reminds me of my girlfriend yelling at me.

>>7452178
Funny thing about his ideology is that you can just replace conservative and liberal with any other pair of antagonists you want to propagate:
>the Nazi respects death, and the Jew fears it
>the Russian respects death, and the American fears it
>the Apache respects death, and the white man fears it
And so fucking on..
Pro tip: Everyone who pulls arguments like that about his ideological believes is a lost cause who couldn't change his world view anymore even if he had to.

>>7445513

>tenth century
>women shouldn't even go out in public on their own

Unless you're talking about Africa, you have to go back further than that.

how is this fucking thread still going

>>7452215
An idiot with mental health issues and too much time at his hands keeps everyone at the edge of their seats

>>7452222
This is such a succinct definition of so many threads on this website.

>>7452222
When all you can do is disparage me it's clear you are incapable of keeping up and you resort to insults as a way to redirect yourself from that embarrassing fact.

>>7444645
australian as, bro

>>7452623
Well the energy and persistence you put into an off topic discussion like this characterizes you fairly well (on top of your absurd notions about politics, liberalism and women that would have an ISIS fundamentalist take a pen and take notes).
If you claim that women shouldn't go outside alone, then you are simply a hilarious freak. That's it.
And also here's the thing with -again- most ideological 'discussion'. It simply goes on and on. I don't really have the time nor the motivation to talk to a crazy guy who is as much up his own ass as you are and who isn't in the slightest interested in changing his perception of things anymore. I think the discussion you'd like is in some bible circle.

>>7445525
>Muslims believe in violence and deception. I believe in the opposite of both things. That is what makes the West superior to the Middle East. To believe in the opposite of both things.

>>7445511
BTFO
T
F
O

>>7452623
Do you think that if you have the last word in an argument you win it? Because that isn't how it works, friend

>>7438476

http://radfem.org/dworkin

Start with Woman Hating.

Your life will never be the same.

>>7453274
>it took 250 fucking posts for someone to post this

/lit/ is dead. Just /pol/ 2.0 like most boards now.

Do actually read some fucking Dworkin, people.

>>7452222
/thread

>>7453274
cover for letters from a warzone makes me laugh every time.

>>7453357
Dworkin is funny as fuck.

>>7453380
Actually just noticed that's a lot funnier in context.