/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18928372]

ITT: Brainlet-core

[Anonymous No.18928379]

you can be anti-idpol without resorting to being retarded come on now

[Anonymous No.18928394]

unironically 1984

>>18928372
>>18928379
Lindsay writes some okay stuff but is stuck in 2015 Feminists-Get DESTROYED compilations. The Dave Rubin of PHDs.

[Anonymous No.18928398]

Cant go a second without some queer thinking reading this makes them sophisticated and worldly

[Anonymous No.18928407]

>>18928398
>Das Kapital is the most cited book in the social sciences published before 1950
bleak

[Anonymous No.18928421]

Are there any modern anti-woke authors who aren't just trying to do an IDW grift circuit? Genuinely asking because all the ones I see cited by /lit/ are on Rogan like twice lmao

[Anonymous No.18928436]

>>18928421
Not really because wokeness is a logical outcome of a belief in human equality shared by anyone who would call themselves "anti-woke" (unironically right-wing people would just say they're right-wing, or race-realist etc.)

[Anonymous No.18928471]

>>18928407
What would you rather have cited?

[Anonymous No.18928475]

>>18928471
the Bible.

[Anonymous No.18928500]

>>18928436
>wokeness is a logical outcome of a belief in human equality
It probably depends on how broadly you define wokeness. Maybe less so if you have a lindsay-esque analysis of it where even milquetoast neolib shit is "woke" like just saying rich people should be taxed more, we should expand medicare, etc.

>>18928475
lmao

[Anonymous No.18928504]

>>18928372
One of the best things about this book is the reviews. Seriously, there's a bunch of people blaming Amazon for the low print quality without realizing they have nothing to do with it and it's actually the cult they're buying into that wants more money--so it prints it's shit as cheaply as it can.

[Anonymous No.18928508]

>>18928379
my god I knew he was like a joe rogan guy but i didn't know he was this bad christ

[Anonymous No.18928518]

>>18928500
I would define it as "A radical concern for victim groups driven by a belief in human equality, where we define a victim group to be a member of some ascriptive category that is not a male of European descent with more or less normal mental function." This is a bit long-winded but will cover all the bases - it's a generalization of the Civil Rights Movement to include other generalized races like women, transexuals, etc.

[Anonymous No.18928525]

>>18928372

[Anonymous No.18928547]

>>18928379
Never read but I remember seeing anons hyping up this book before it came out like it was going to make critical theory into the new phrenology. Wonder where they went.

[Anonymous No.18928555]

>>18928379
>moral philosophy
>ethics

[Anonymous No.18928559]

>>18928475
based Biblical sociologist

[Anonymous No.18928645]

>>18928372

[Anonymous No.18928670]

>>18928525
bait

[Anonymous No.18928691]

>>18928670
Brainlet

[Anonymous No.18928731]

>>18928379
>changing the trolley problem to have the single person on the track be related to you
Cringe.

[Anonymous No.18928739]

>>18928379
I'll bite. I'm not familiar with the book in OP, but reading this paragraph alone, I agree with it on principle. Why should I disagree with it?

[Anonymous No.18928877]

>>18928731
The only correct answer to the trolley problem is that morals as such don't exist. Not sure why academics are still grappling with this when they're supposedly the top intellects of humanity. Even curry eaters from 2000 years ago were smarter when they developed the dharma.

[Anonymous No.18929278]

>>18928645
>le Jewish Global Conspiracy

[Anonymous No.18929300]

>>18928877
lmao pseud. dharma just means law.

[Anonymous No.18929389]

>>18928504
The book I bought from the Nation of Islam explaining how the Jews are the root of all problems wasn’t printed on shit

[Anonymous No.18929459]

>>18929278
>>le
>blue pilled
Normie redditor leftist confirmed

[Anonymous No.18929604]

>>18929300
That's not what dharma means. There is no word for word translation.

[Anonymous No.18929609]

>>18929278
>le gaslight
is it 2015 again? I didnt think you still tried to use this tactic here

[Anonymous No.18929626]

>>18928372
The problem with the woke Left is actually that it is *not* postmodernist and has *not* absorbed the lessons of Foucault, Baudrillard, Rorty, etc.

[Anonymous No.18929628]

>>18929459
But leftists hate reddit

[Anonymous No.18929629]

>>18928645
Horkheimer never said that

[Anonymous No.18929684]

>>18928877
>The Curry problem: A brahmin is tied to the tracks and a train is approaching. There is a switch-track, but on that rail 20 dalits are tied down. What do you do?

[Anonymous No.18929716]

>>18928379
>>18928508
Sure it reads like an absolute midwit wrote it but I don't see how this is really that bad. You can find passages that are even more pseudish in the works of Paglia or Foucault if you wanted.

[Anonymous No.18929912]

>>18928471
There are some people from the period like Comte, Spencer or Weber that definitely were more sensible, and while someone like Pareto or Michels would theoretically have 75 less years to accumulate quotations, they never really generated as much clout as Marx did either, despite the fact that their views were usually more of a social science than anything Marx has ever written. If it was philosophy or economy(is economy classified as social science?), then arguing for or against some aspects of Marx surely was one of the focal points of the period between 1850 and 1950 but his sociology is just childish and stupid. If you're looking for Inspirations from outside of social sciences then Darwin is far more promising source than Marx,so the only reason why would it warrant any discussion is because you're a declared communist and want this childishness to be a thing, and the academics are natural comminists for variety of reasons.

[Anonymous No.18929997]

>>18929604
Your place in this life is to make retarded posts

[Anonymous No.18930171]

>>18929912
Darwin is a promising source? Are you like studying in a local library pretending you're in college? You are very far off the mark in terms of sociology.

[Anonymous No.18930178]

>>18929997
Your place in life is to not understand words.

[Anonymous No.18930183]

>>18930171
Darwin is a better source than Marx, yes. He's still only a source, so a Darwinian sociology still has yet to be properly developed in a scholarly context.

[Anonymous No.18930184]

>>18930178
What a good obedient boy, sticking to your path

[Anonymous No.18930199]

>>18930184
At least I have a path

[Anonymous No.18930232]

>>18930171
Darwin is more promising and underutilized than Marx is as far as academic sociology goes. Obviously not so hot nowadays because evolutionary science has moved on, but in times of Marx he surely was, since biology seems to be better basis for trying to understand society than deductive philosophy and future telling. The potential was never really explored though.
As I've said ultimately it boils down to the fact that social sciences were dominated by socialists/communists which is why once the inertia of romantic nationalism went off and academics around the world just defaulted to marxism and its later derivations as that was the thing that got you places, a process that ended in like 1970's which is why there were very few innovations since, and the ones that did show up were ignored or shunned away(evo psych being good example). Now it'll be just quoting Foucault, Derrida and testing frameworks made by other academics in the past based on their works forever, hopefully turning academia into legacy institution in the process, the popularity of marx before 1950 was just an evidence of that process taking its course.

[Anonymous No.18930397]

>>18930183
Okay but developing Darwinian sociology is really not on the table. liberal non-marxist Quantitative sociology dominates everywhere and I just don't see anyone going back

[Anonymous No.18930421]

>>18930232
Sociology and social science was a response to Marxism and mostly a refutation at that, even from weber and Durkheim and especially by the 40s and 50s. The Marxism from the 60s, 60 years now old is almost gone. Even Derrida say Yale (only in English department s around the USA died in like 1991 as important). There was a tiny recent resurface of Marxist sociology maybe because of Burawoy or the 2008 crash, but it's a very weak field a decade later. You're probably better off looking at census data if you want be a social scientist in 2021

[Anonymous No.18930442]

>>18930397
I personally think Darwinian sociology would end up with just as many holes and problematic subjectivities as classical sociological schools. It's just an interesting new perspective that can shed new light on phenomena, still without entirely dominating the scene (like so-called "Social Darwinism" would like to do). In these types of sciences, if you can even call them that, a greater perspective is the best you can ask for in terms of objectivity, rather than sticking to narrow premises.

[Anonymous No.18930453]

>>18930397
>Darwinian sociology
https://www.ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle/
A pretty good attempt was made in the corporate world.

[Anonymous No.18931773]

>>18928379
Being anti idpol is to deny the basic humanity of marginalized folx and to implicitly support white supremacist terrorism white silence is violence

[Anonymous No.18931792]

>>18931773
based komrade

[Anonymous No.18931950]

>>18928379
My theory is that the mentality of both sjw leftists and people like lindsay can be explained by the fact most of them tend to be former new atheists. New atheism came out of the war on terror and it is very related be to neoconservatism,as a response to the late 20th century crisis of authority. On one hand there is science and true liberal values and on the other there are the terrorists and the social constructionist postmodern relativists who cover up for them by denying science and objective moral values. There is no really any positive substance to any of it or any consciousness of society.


"Sjws" are less the proverbial critical theory driven postmodern neomarxists but moreso war on terror era new atheists with identitarian sugarcoating. ie. People who are convinced of the objective "scientific" reality of all these psychiatric and biopolitical categories the repressive hypothesis and paternalist models of authority. They have fully internalized the war on terror framework, instead now white people are the real terrorists and one has to be on the watch for 'radicalization'. Its just a way to and control stupid people into voting for the democratic party or buying YA novels and tv shows with 'lgbt representation' or exploit the lumpenproletariat by convincing them the fact they are prostituting themselves actually makes them liberated individuals. These people inspire pity more than anything

[Anonymous No.18931985]

>>18928372
Ah yes, What is some science or theory i can read which can help me check my privilege and learn more about the awful plight the diverse and vibrant culture of these warm body politically correct victimhood unit NPCs purpose engineered biopolitical clientele for the democratic party hr departments and big pharma, i mean these most noble and progressive of creatures? How can i be a better ally?

[Anonymous No.18933887]

>>18931773
Idpol is the source of marginalization, and whites are affected today more than anyone.

[Anonymous No.18934080]

>>18929629

[Anonymous No.18935255]

>>18928645
lmao some of the most retarded shit i've read on this website in over a decade

[Anonymous No.18935265]

>>18928379
PYSCHOLOGISM
PYSCHOLOGISM
PSYCHOLOGISM


AAAAHHHHH FUCK

[Anonymous No.18935297]

>>18928645
Kalegri was literally a pan-European Nationalist and conservative. In general all politicians who are associated with him are associated with him because they too have some interest in freeing Europe from American Hegemony just as he did. You're fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.18935304]

>>18931950
hear hear

[Anonymous No.18935305]

>>18933887
Any look at the lgbthiv/aids crowd and youll conclude they arent nearly marginalized enough

[Anonymous No.18935320]

>>18928739
Psychology and sociology is a bunch of bunkum and the author is a retard who thinks social sciences can ever be mathematically modeled like physics is. It's the core problem of the enlightenment all over again. Moral philosophy precedes psychology and sociology, and you can see this by the fact that they push trannyism so hard despite having no actual evidence to back up their assertions, they do so because they believe supporting trannies is the moral thing to do.

[Anonymous No.18935338]

>>18928379
/thread
>>18928372
Go back to plebbit, retard.

[Anonymous No.18935362]

>>18931950
>My theory is that the mentality of both sjw leftists and people like lindsay can be explained by the fact most of them tend to be former new atheists.
This is true - many contemporary internet political factions have their origins in the New Atheist split into what would become Social Justice politics and the e-Right following Elevatorgate.

>New atheism came out of the war on terror and it is very related be to neoconservatism,as a response to the late 20th century crisis of authority.
New Atheism was a reaction to the Bush administration first and foremost. The concern with "social constructivist postmodern relativists" would come later as half of New Atheism split off into SJW politics when the (Fourth) Great Awakening started around 2013, said people now form our current Moral Majority coalition.

>"Sjws" are less the proverbial critical theory driven postmodern neomarxists but moreso war on terror era new atheists with identitarian sugarcoating. ie. People who are convinced of the objective "scientific" reality of all these psychiatric and biopolitical categories the repressive hypothesis and paternalist models of authority. They have fully internalized the war on terror framework, instead now white people are the real terrorists and one has to be on the watch for 'radicalization'. Its just a way to and control stupid people into voting for the democratic party or buying YA novels and tv shows with 'lgbt representation' or exploit the lumpenproletariat by convincing them the fact they are prostituting themselves actually makes them liberated individuals.
SJW politics is more of a reaction to the Obama adminsitration's failure to deliver racial equality c. 2013, they are closer to disappointed Millerites. It would become clear at this point that more radical measures were necessary to achieve equality and protect victimized groups.

[Anonymous No.18935426]

>>18935320
The push for trannies is coming from sillicon valley transhumanist types and rich freaks who get off to it. In 2012 the obama campaign were desperate for a new civil rights movement that could help them move votes. People are desperate for a sense of identity. If you have seen the people who tend to become trans they often suffer from autism or other mental disorders and are easily manipulated into this mass ideology. Because their identity is based on scientific authority they are ready made regime loyalists. Retarded slabs of flesh fit only for the knackers i mean if you troon them up you can at least get them to buy rainbow colored knicknacks vote blue every time.

[Anonymous No.18935458]

>>18935362
>SJW politics is more of a reaction to the Obama adminsitration's failure to deliver racial equality c. 2013, they are closer to disappointed Millerites. It would become clear at this point that more radical measures were necessary to achieve equality and protect victimized groups.

I mean kind of cringe to sincerily believe and be so invested in a mass ideology to manipulate the plebs its designed by think tanks and corporations.ill play along with the daily george floyd prideblm memorial parade and its twerking troupe of boy catamites just as the qanon capitol siege appreciate the artistry of the CIA mindfuckers who were kind enough to entertain us with such varied setpieces. But the sincere believers wheter try hard white lefties or buckbroken PeeOhCees cant help but inspire pity.

[Anonymous No.18935465]

>>18935426
Of course i support trans rights if it keeps them from spreading tjose cursed autism genes

[Anonymous No.18935472]

>>18935426
This is true but it's not incompatible with what I said. The problem is that liberalism can't put up any reasonable defense against this kind of insanity because the core conceit of liberalism is that if your own actions don't directly impinge on anyone else you should have the freedom to do them. So while it's obvious for anyone who still holds to the idea of a common good that must be defended that Trannyism is a corrosive and corruptive force, classical liberals on the other hand are essentially forced by their own political beliefs to concede that people have the right to troon out, and even go so far as David French who claims it to be a "blessing of liberty".

So there's no evidence that transgenderism is an actual thing (beyond physically verifiable cases of hermaphrodism) but liberals must defend it because to do otherwise would be unreasonably limiting the "freedom" of trannies despite they're not a real class of people and the fact their derangement directly harms the functioning of society.

[Anonymous No.18935531]

>>18935362
New atheism was pushed by john brockmann network epstein's harvard people and various zionist think tanks their role was to erode christian culture and drum up support for war in the middle east amongst liberals. You see many of these characters who just happen to be disproportionately jewish them pop up again around these new radical centrists. While the 'breadtubers' who came out of skeptic youtube provide bread and circuses to the mentally ill lgbt lumpenproletariat.

[Anonymous No.18935563]

>>18928475
based

[Anonymous No.18935571]

>>18928436
Nobody really believes in human equality. Its the old american tradition of manipulating the masses with sentimentalist kitsch moral panics and contrived religious sentiment. You have a woke sideshow and an anti woke sideshow.

[Anonymous No.18935580]

>>18935531
>New atheism was pushed by john brockmann network epstein's harvard people and various zionist think tanks their role was to erode christian culture and drum up support for war in the middle east amongst liberals.
Christianity in the US was functionally dead before New Atheism anyway, I don't think it accomplished much on this front on the long run. Everywhere in former Christendom is now like <10% Christian in reality. Everything I remember from that period on the Internet was that it was overwhelmingly a reaction to Christianity in the Bush administration. I don't think it worked very well at increasing support for Middle Eastern wars among liberal normies, really - ideas like "feminist wars" are also not exactly unprecedented in Anglo-American political discourse.

>>18935472
I think you're approaching the metaphysics of Transexuality in the American state cult wrong - they're generalized black people, not Individuals whose rights we can't infringe upon. They are the latest victim group in the Civil Rights Extended Universe and indicative of the change in liberalism from "securing individual rights" towards "protecting victimized minority groups from the majority".

[Anonymous No.18935582]

>>18929626
Only correct post

[Anonymous No.18935583]

>>18935571
Either State officials believe it or pretend to believe it and want everyone else to - they are more or less equivalent and neither is good.

[Anonymous No.18935602]

>>18935580
Also important part is how the locus of legitimation of liberalism has changed free white citizens are inconvenient they complain too much while the nigger is a passive subject of therapeutic managerial authority you can do anything with niggers and say its for their own good and conductive to their own enmancipation. Liberalism is really a perverse version of southern paternalism, the old slave masters instilled in their slaves the virtue of hard work and religion while the liberal slave masters realized that its more profitable to have their slaves to prostitute themselves and shoot up heroin and be in a constant state of agitation. The alternative right appeals to whites who fear being degraded into niggerdom. While others like trannies actively embrace it.

[Anonymous No.18935605]

>>18935580
I mean there's two differing sides. There's the Marxist side that views all social dynamics through the lens of "oppressor class" vs "oppressed class" e.g white people vs colored people, straight people vs gay people, cis people vs trans people, etc, etc. Then there's the liberal side that unwittingly plays into the Marxist narrative because the idea that there can ever be an "oppressor" class that is unduly limiting the freedoms of a certain subclass of people is anathema to them.

So you have the Marxists slowly pushing further and further and the liberals knowing something is wrong but unable to articulate why it's wrong within their own political paradigm because liberalism simply doesn't allow for the kind of collectivist thinking that would reveal the problems with trying to ensure that every single subgroup is equal in all ways,

[Anonymous No.18935624]

>>18935605
The sjws are hardly radical marxists its not the grand dream of liberation of the 20th century. (The old USSR and present day china, relatively orderly states without any such nonsense ). The american left want the catharsis that comes with chimping out on twitter they want psychiatric medication and more fat queer niggers on tv essentially they are the last men sheepish snivelling and ready to die

[Anonymous No.18935652]

>>18928372

[Anonymous No.18935656]

>>18935624
Yeah maybe Nietzsche was completely wrong and there is no such thing as the Superman. Maybe recognizing there is an inbuilt cosmic order to things and living in accordance with this order is the only way to overcome nihilism.

[Anonymous No.18935658]

>>18935605
I don't think this history is quite right - you already had American Liberals developing a "minoritarian" political identity identity back in the early 1900s. Nor do I think they have any trouble with collectivist thought.

[Anonymous No.18935690]

>>18928372
imagine having to team up with someone to write a book, the shame of it.

[Anonymous No.18935701]

>>18928739
The problem is the vague appeal to science without any explanation as to how it solves these basic ethical dilemmas. I don't see how psychology or sociology can tell us whether it's better to save 1 person you know vs. 5 five you don't. Psychology might help explain why you'd make the choice you do, but it doesn't really tell us which is better. It's very in vogue today to reduce everything to sociology/psychology as though knowing a lot about how different social groups/cultures would respond to ethical dilemmas gets us any closer to solving them. How exactly can these sciences solve these ethical dilemmas and why does the lack of a satisfying answer indicate a failure of philosophy?

[Anonymous No.18935707]

>>18928372
Are those authors jews?

[Anonymous No.18935712]

>>18935701
Listen we can agree dying sucks, right? So dying is objectively morally bad. From there the conclusion should be obvious. All moral philosophy is just basic intuition.

[Anonymous No.18935733]

>>18935712
Holy shit, I never thought of it that way before.

[Anonymous No.18935755]

>>18935733
The fact Sam Harris legit believes that you can take a fact like "people hate pain" and being able to extrapolate from that universal moral laws for all circumstances is the funniest shit.

[Anonymous No.18935764]

>>18935472
>So there's no evidence that transgenderism is an actual thing (beyond physically verifiable cases of hermaphrodism) but liberals must defend it because to do otherwise would be unreasonably limiting the "freedom" of trannies despite they're not a real class of people
What does it even mean for anything to be a delusion? Even say it is delusional, whatever that means, I don't see why I should care enough to restrict other people's delusional beliefs. As far I can see I haven't seen some massive public crisis being caused by the existence of transgender people. If anything the historical record suggests that people who view themselves as belonging to a different gender is a phenomenon that has existed throughout history under many different names, so I see no reason to view it as any more delusional than any other societal phenomenon. And what specifically is the societal danger provoked by their existence? I can't say I've ever experienced any negative effect from transgender people existing.

[Anonymous No.18935777]

>>18935755
Well, technically speaking you can extrapolate universal laws from anything that isn't self-defeating (a la categorical imperative). The problem is that even if they aren't self-defeating, they tend to have practical results for life which are not ideal or that the "common sense" finds something wrong with.

[Anonymous No.18935793]

>>18935764
Having them in your schools teaching your sons they're probably actually a girl if they play with Barbies isn't a negative effect? The influence they have on society is negative and goes against the integrity of the family unit and the common good. The mere admission that biological sex is fixed at birth and directly connected to gender expression is itself a negative consequence of humouring trannies.

[Anonymous No.18935825]

>>18928372
Honestly if you ignore the generic worn-out defenses of liberalism, it's not a bad book. But it's not great either.

[Anonymous No.18935832]

>>18935793
>Having them in your schools teaching your sons they're probably actually a girl if they play with Barbies isn't a negative effect?
They are like 1% of society. And I doubt transgender teachers would be teaching transgenderism any more than hesterosexual teachers teach heterosexualism. They might say it's okay to be transgender which I see no problem with. You still haven't specified what the societal harm is beyond it making you feel uncomfortable.

[Anonymous No.18935858]

>>18935832
>They are like 1% of society.
So are fags but they have a disproportionate influence on society. If trannies don't teach your children then their progressive liberal sympathisers will. They will be brainwashed whether you like it or not.

>You still haven't specified what the societal harm is beyond it
Hey if you think faggots throwing dollar bills at 12 year olds contorting them into sexual poses is actually good and normal and isn't societal harm then you're not going to see eye to eye with me who considers that kind of degeneracy harm in and of itself.

[Anonymous No.18935861]

>>18928645
This is a great example or brainlet-core, I don't know what anons are mad about

[Anonymous No.18935885]

>>18928471
Leviathan.

[Anonymous No.18935886]

>>18935832
I understand their deviant psychology way to well from years of being on 4chan and also the way the propaganda and social engineering agenda works severely traumatizing material there. I actually 'get off' at making them squirm

[Anonymous No.18935895]

>>18935858
>Hey if you think faggots throwing dollar bills at 12 year olds contorting them into sexual poses is actually good and normal and isn't societal harm then you're not going to see eye to eye with me who considers that kind of degeneracy harm in and of itself.
Having anal sex with other consenting adult guys is not the same as grooming 12 year olds.

[Anonymous No.18935905]

>>18935712
>Listen we can agree dying sucks, right?
The jihadists would like to have word.

[Anonymous No.18935910]

>>18935895
It actually is because the perversion comes from the same impulse to subvert and disobey the natural order of creation. A well ordered society mirrors a well ordered soul and you can't have a well ordered soul if your rational soul is held in submission to your primal urges to stick your dick in another mans ass to achieve sexual release. The intellective soul knows the purpose of procreation and you shouldn't act in a way you know goes against your overall wellbeing, just as you eat your vegetables even if they're not as delicious as chocolate because you know a well balanced diet is more conducive to your long term well being than just stuffing your face with whatever you appetite demands of you.

Either you get it or you don't get it. It's the difference between a mature Platonic worldview and an immature materialist "we're all just animals bro" worldview.

[Anonymous No.18935919]

>>18935905
Listen, we can agree that Allah and his 72 virgins don't exist, right? So Allah is objectively non-existent. From there the conclusion should be obvious. All atheism is just basic intuition.

[Anonymous No.18935950]

>>18935895
But all the men who are having gay anal sex or becoming trannies ended up that way from being groomed or watching gaypornography back when they were 12

[Anonymous No.18935954]

>>18935919
Even if Allah doesn't exist whose to say my enjoyment from thinking about the fantasy in the act of death is less real than the pain others experience in death.

[Anonymous No.18935986]

>>18935910
This isn't a real argument. A dick in an ass or a vagina who gives a fuck. You have nothing better than wordplay In what specific way is sticking a penis in an ass harmful inherently harmful to your well being? Using your analogy to chocolate, I can point to very specific properties of chocolate or fast food that tangibly harm the human body. You have not named a tangible harm from homosexuality other than vague words like harmony or well being.

[Anonymous No.18936000]

>>18935986
>what specific way is sticking a penis in an ass harmful inherently harmful to your well being?
It gives you AIDS

[Anonymous No.18936019]

>>18935764
The issue is that it's been legitimized in a way to tangle/receive protection under civil rights law.

Your 13 year old seeks out gender reassignment surgery and they've found a doctor that concludes they're a good candidate. You disagree; what do you think happens?

[Anonymous No.18936024]

>>18935986
>I can point to very specific properties of chocolate or fast food that tangibly harm the human body
And I can point to specific properties of anal and homosexual sex which harm the human body. Namely the increased risk of STDs through anal sex, the high chance of rectal prolapse, the inherent fetishistic element of homosexuality which naturally leads to more and more depraved acts in order to satisfy the participants (basically homosexual sex is entirely about pleasure and depravity, with no rational justification). This can progress to pedophilia as well, which is corroborated by statistics. These are the purely physical and psychological aspects, and do not even factor into what the other anon just said about harmony of the soul, which is even more important. In the case of chocolate, even if it were not physically bad for you in terms of sugar content, it would still be bad to overindulge, because overindulgence is a disordering of the soul. The appetitive element has gained control over the rational and spirited element, which leads to a worse life in general, even though there may be no obvious physical mechanism for such a progression. It's the same thing with gambling addictions. There's no obvious physical problem with a gambler, but the addiction destroys their life and wellbeing.
>other than vague words like harmony or well being.
These aren't vague at all. Your idea of these being vague says more about yourself, in that you've probably never experienced them. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must not speak.

[Anonymous No.18936236]

>>18936000
Sure it can but you can get various stds from hetero sex too.

[Anonymous No.18936256]

>>18936236
Much less common though. Homosexual men account for 90% of all syphilis cases. Heterosexual STDs are more like genital herpes than things that will outright kill or debilitate you like the common homosexual STDs

[Anonymous No.18936280]

>>18936024
>Namely the increased risk of STDs through anal sex
Yes there is always a risk of std having sex. Probably higher if you have many partners too, but let's say it's two guys who are married & monogamous.
>There's no obvious physical problem with a gambler, but the addiction
The question in dispute is whether being gay is itself harmful. I wont disagree that something addictive is harmful consideri g that addiction is defined as a harmful activity, I just dont think being attracted to guys is any more an addiction than the inverse. You can give examples of bad consequences of over indulging in gay sex but that in no way proves your point. All it proves is that over indulgence is bad.
>The appetitive element has gained control over the rational and spirited element,
First time reading Plato I take it.

[Anonymous No.18936302]

>>18936280
>The question in dispute is whether being gay is itself harmful.
This is called begging the question. You've already tried to sneakily set the terms of engagement to demonstrate whether a given action causes "harm" to be immoral however obviously I don't agree that any given action needs to cause measurable harm to be immoral because I'm not a consequentialist. A lie can be immoral even if it causes no harm whatsoever. The morality of an action therefore has no link to whether it's consequences are good or bad the morality of an action is intrinsic and whether it follows the natural law, the inbuilt Logos of reality.

Being gay is irrational animalistic behavior that seeks to sastisfy carnal desire even when the rational mind knows it goes against the telos of the human body. That is what makes it immoral, not any consequences that may derive (though certainly the result of going against Logos is always ultimately bad for the individual and society)

[Anonymous No.18936330]

>>18929278
>>18929629
>>18935255
>>18935297
>>18935861
all this kosher seething, top kek

[Anonymous No.18936357]

>>18936302
>called begging the question
I know what it means faggot & its exactly what you've been doing all this time with your weasel words like harmony--assuming that the activity you're arguing against constitutes something disharmonious without providing any evidence other than your word choice.
>Being gay is irrational animalistic behavior that seeks to sastisfy carnal desire
Just more empty assertions and empty words. Eating ice cream is an irrational animalistic activity. Scratching my back is an irrational animalistic activity. The true logos of man is to never scratch his back. You're a tiresome bore and you will never experience the pleasure of another man let alone a woman.

[Anonymous No.18937272]

>>18928645
What's ironic about this post is the "understanding left-wing bullshit" part was literally written by the author of the brainlet text in the OP

[Anonymous No.18937342]

What do we think of Lindsay's claim that Hegel is the father of the "woke religion"?

https://newdiscourses.com/2021/05/hegel-wokeness-and-the-dialectical-faith-of-leftism/

[Anonymous No.18937387]

>>18937342
Just listened to his 4 hour long podcast episode on it and he makes some compelling arguments. The book OP posted seems pretty midwit but the podcast went quite in depth.

[Anonymous No.18937433]

>>18928421
John McWhorter

[Anonymous No.18937558]

>>18937387
have you actually read hegel?

[Anonymous No.18937596]

>>18937342
That sounds right. Leftism found its genesis in the Young Hegelians and their attack on the Prussian state by attempting to undermine the basis of religion. They attempted to forge a new narrative that had the "progress" of mankind moving further toward an atheistic, mechanistic and socialistic view of the world and away from a religious, communal, feudalistic view of the world.

Which is a shame because Hegel himself believed that Christianity was absolutely necessary and fundamental to a correct view of the world. Hegels philosophy is a complete system in itself you can't just pick out the parts you dislikes, otherwise you unravel the entire thing.

[Anonymous No.18937636]

>>18937596
>Leftism found its genesis in the Young Hegelians
Young Hegelians were a continuation of French Revolutionary currents, retard. It's basically French Freemasonry sublimated into progressive, evolutionary philosophical currents. The Young Hegelians were just continuing the Masonic revolutionary trend into Germany and beyond.

[Anonymous No.18937851]

>>18928739
They assume that "legitimate psychological and sociological research" can exist in a vacuum without ethics or philosophy.

Anybody who isn't a total brainlet understands that psychology functions as a means of social control, where behaviors are labeled "abnormal", "pathological", or "maladaptive" because they come into conflict with certain social norms. It therefore must aim at some good. So what is good? Psychology, in and of itself, cannot answer this question without relying on ethics.

Psychology can make descriptive assertions about human behavior, human cognition, the brain, etc. all day long. But any prescriptions coming from "psychology" must justify themselves on the basis of certain ethical (i.e., philosophical) principles or not at all.