/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13002269]

>This is because, in private, Engels criticized male homosexuality and related it to ancient Greek pederasty,[2] saying that "[the ancient Greeks] fell into the abominable practice of sodomy [original German Knabenliebe, meaning "boylove" or pederasty] and degraded alike their gods and themselves with the myth of Ganymede";[3] Engels also said that the pro-pederast movement "cannot fail to triumph. Guerre aux cons, paix aus trous-de-cul [war on the cunts, peace to the arse-holes] will now be the slogan".[4] Engels also referred to Karl Boruttau as a Schwanzschwulen (faggotty prick) in private.[5]

>The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality volume two is unequivocal on Marx and Engels view of homosexuality, stating that, "There can be little doubt that, as far as they thought of the matter at all, Marx and Engels were personally homo-phobic, as shown by an acerbic 1869 exchange of letter on Jean-Baptiste von Schweitzer, a German socialist rival. Schweitzer had been arrested in a park on a morals charge and not only did Marx and Engels refuse to join a committee defending him, they resorted to the cheapest form of bathroom humor in their private comments about the affair."[6]


Why can't you criticize homosexuals and women in modern leftist circles?

[Anonymous No.13002274]

>>13002269
>Why can't you criticize homosexuals and women in modern leftist circles?
Not a question about literature.

[Anonymous No.13002275]

>>13002269
>war on the cunts, peace to the arse-holes

[Anonymous No.13002294]

>>13002269
Because democracy is based on the Greek system, which is bookended by Solon and Aeschines.
Solon cried in court to have his favourite whore relieved of charges she would have been found guilty of, despite Asspia being one of the few women in Attica who would have the speaking and legal backing to argue her case well.
Aeschines argued for the removal of Timarchus' citizenship for hubris (the stain of being a child sex victim, lowering one's status to that of a female partner and therefore not citizenship material), despite Timarchus being the only lawyer likely to uphold the virtue of the law, and entirely because Timarchus was about to charge Aeschines with taking bribes from Macedon who would go on to conquer the known world.
Leftism and democracy might say that is for the rights of all and that it defends women and children, but the truth is that since it's inception it has been about securing special favours for immoral women and denying rights to moral women, children, and men, laying blame at the feet of those with principles and diverting blame from those who cannot uphold the principles they falsely claim to protect.
It's why modern democracy would prefer to defend wicked women and corrupt men still, despite the risks to the future of its population or statehood.

[Anonymous No.13002312]

>>13002269
Homosexuals are the sexual avant-garde used to dismantle the moral order of the Christian west. By making deviancy a biological instead of a moral issue they weaponize the concept of person liberty against the social order.

You can't criticize females because leftism is in large part a female movement as they are far more inclined to seek a provider and see the primary moral role of the state in giving care.

[Anonymous No.13002328]

>>13002269
Theres nothing to criticize because you cant choose to be a homosexual nor a woman. Modern leftists realized this, as well as the majority of the developed world, and stopped giving a fuck.
>inb4 but what about muh jokes muh PC police
No one cares. Say faggot and cunt all you want.

[Anonymous No.13002329]

>>13002269
>saying that "[the ancient Greeks] fell into the abominable practice of sodomy [original German Knabenliebe, meaning "boylove" or pederasty] degraded alike their gods and themselves with the myth of Ganymede";[3]

Here's what the article this cites actually said:
>Friedrich Engels never wrote those words.
>However, the most widely circulated English version was published in 1942 in a translation by Alick West and Dona Torr, prominent members of the British Communist Party. That’s the version that contains the words quoted in the review. In a section discussing the ancient Greeks:
>Surprisingly, the West-Torr edition appears not to have been translated from Engels’ original German text, but, according to the copyright page, “from the fourth Russian edition, Moscow, 1934.”
>Volume 26 of the Marx-Engels Collected Works (MECW), published in 1990, translates the phrase as “the perversion of boy-love.” A better translation would be “repugnant boy-love,” but the MECW text is far truer to the original German than the West-Torr version. So Engels was criticizing the Greeks not for homosexuality, but for pederasty—the sexual abuse of children.
>That interpretation is strengthened by Engels’ reference to “the myth of Ganymede”

[Anonymous No.13002334]

>>13002294
Do you mean Pericles and Aspasia instead of Solon and Asspia?

[Anonymous No.13002339]

>>13002328
Your view of the left is dated. Now everyone can become a woman or a homosexual at any moment. Which of course is in deep conflict with the earlier ideology.

[Anonymous No.13002347]

>>13002334
I do, good catch.

[Anonymous No.13002358]

>>13002339
>become a woman
Only sort of. People are still very uncomfortable with tranners and they are a tiny minority.
>become a homosexual
Feeling sexual attraction to the same sex, even if it arises later in life, is never a choice. Even idiots who think they chose it just had some latent attractions. Sexologists have been studying this for a while and the literature is clear and the data strong.
I can't see how an economic ideology has to include or exclude women or homosexuals, and early marxist movements generally accepted both.

[Anonymous No.13002362]

>>13002358
Homosexuality used bar you from union membership and communist membership.

[Anonymous No.13002385]

>>13002362
I said early marxists. That happened later. Communists legalized homosexuality early on in most places and advocated for the rights of women and sexual minorities.

[Anonymous No.13002396]

>>13002347
>>13002334
>>13002329
Thanks for the infos, any more ways to learn what you guys know?

[Anonymous No.13002402]

>>13002396
Reading. This is a literature forum after all.

[Anonymous No.13002421]

>>13002402
Yeah, what I meant is some good books and original texts? How do I reach Spengler's levels of erudition?

[Anonymous No.13002435]

>>13002358
It's not transsexuals pushing this they're just being used as the new avant-garde and the terfs are losing.
Homosexuality isn't that clear as it encompasses a multitude of phenomena and even if it were it doesn't tell us anything about whether it should be socially accepted. Something being without choice isn't an argument. You could say that a murderer had no choice as he was abused in early childhood or whatever. Morality is constructed around a behaviour being of benefit to society. Homosexuals die young, breed diseases and usually do not participate in perpetuating the community, which is a massive loss. Earlier this was forced and could well be the correct social reaction, even for the individual involved. It's not like you could make studies on that, we're just going with what feels nice and nice always means total license. If this leads to total social depravity, a live of meaninglessness and mass death through disease than that's a-ok.

[Anonymous No.13002457]

>>13002269
why can't you be intolerant around people who support egalitarianism?

[Anonymous No.13002465]

>>13002269
Marx and Engels weren't dogmatic on such things, taking weird offhand comments and such as if that was a theoretically rigorous proposition is nonsense. They didn't have access to modern research on ancient pederasty and were going on popular misunderstanding. Their views weren't inherently "homophobic" but only insofar as that was reasonable at the time. For example research before the 1950s found homosexuals were highly likely to be psychopathic because they were sampling from the prison population. In light of recent more broad based research we know that's false. That's how science works.

[Anonymous No.13002466]

>>13002435
Yes but murderers cause harm to others. Homosexuals do not. Their numbers are so low as to have little to no effect on rates of childbirth, and they do perpetuate the community by doing all the other things that it requires. Homosexuals grow your food, fight in your military, teach at your colleges, cook at your restaurants, and, in an outsize contribution, create art, literature, and technology. The disease argument is ridiculous. Homosexuals pass HIV to other homosexuals. Not only that, but safe sex and medication has vastly reduced the numbers of new cases. We will likely see a cure for HIV in our lifetime, if not the end of the disease.
Accepting homosexuals doesnt have to mean "social depravity." They can live healathy, happy lives with their communities. We can swap out repression for a broader range of acceptable lifestyles without making anyone's life worse. Why not do that, instead of trying to revive the unreasonable standards of the past? People interested in a "traditional" lifestyle can have that, and homosexuals can have theirs.

[Anonymous No.13002471]

>>13002457
Marxism is explicitly anti-egalitarian.

[Anonymous No.13002473]

Still waiting for proof of a gene or genes that make you gay (or even straight for that matter) what is the actual natural cause of homosexuality?

[Anonymous No.13002511]

>>13002457
You're saying that as if your terms aren't ideologically loaded. Can we be intolerant of pedophilia, or would that violate the tenets of egalitarianism? Can we criticize individual laziness, or is that a phenotypic expression and has to be valued as such? If two groups exist it is almost impossible that they on average incorporate sentiments and behaviours - So doensn't it follow that one group would be more 'moral' or 'educated' as you understand it than another? Couldn't we criticize the 'inferior' group, or would that again be a terrible crime against egalitarianism?

[Anonymous No.13002512]

>>13002466
All your statements are opposed to empirical evidences, other than being naive and individualistic
>worse. Why not do that, instead of trying to revive the unreasonable standards of the past?
Why should we allow them to live and not torture them to death, set them on fire etc?

[Anonymous No.13002517]

>>13002511
It's supposed to say 'the same sentiments and behaviours'

[Anonymous No.13002536]

>>13002473
Apparently some dna tester found a gay gene. It makes females more caring about their appearance and as such is carried over, in males it makes them desire cock for whatever reason. But that doesn't mean that only one type of gay exists. We know for example of increased childhood abuse in gays. If we screen for genetic gays we'll propably find strong correlation between abuse and a type of homosexuality. There also has to be homosexuality as a fetish. Since if you can fall in love with a car or whatever then certainly you can fall in love with the male form through early childhood association.

[Anonymous No.13002552]

>>13002466
Whoever you're arguing with wouldn't accept that. You're just claiming social activity isn't contagious or have any unintended effects. That's empirically questionable.

>>13002511
"Tolerance" and "egalitarianism" have little to do with each other. Tolerance requires understanding so it doesn't mean support for paedophilia or laziness per se but not irrational hatred. Egalitarianism isn't a method or mode of thought but an actual state of affairs where people are substantively equal in a certain regard.

[Anonymous No.13002562]

>>13002471
is it?

[Anonymous No.13002570]

>>13002511
in my opinion we should be tolerant of paedophilia and especially laziness.

[Anonymous No.13002580]

>>13002536
>We know for example of increased childhood abuse in gays. If we screen for genetic gays we'll propably find strong correlation between abuse and a type of homosexuality. There also has to be homosexuality as a fetish. Since if you can fall in love with a car or whatever then certainly you can fall in love with the male form through early childhood association.
You don't know that. Even if you can cite a study it just means gays are more likely to claim to be than heterosexuals. It could be a case of false memories. If you like to think about sucking cock you can project it backwards. Girls are "sexually abused" at substantially higher rates then boys by men. I wouldn't give as much credence to social conditioning as genetics then you want to.

[Anonymous No.13002585]

>>13002536
Brainlet
>>13002473
I was writing a long reply to you but my browser crashed and I don't have enough time to write it all again. To keep it short: they never found a gay gwne and it makes no sense. homosexuality is more a symptom than a disease per se, and can be both present since birth due to problem in the uterus and learned. In the first case it can be prevented, in the second case it can be cured and prevented with modern medicine. All empirical evidences support this

[Anonymous No.13002586]

>>13002562
Yes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIhIM-jge2c

[Anonymous No.13002611]

>>13002585
Ah, so you're just pulling bullshi out of thin air and playing word games to justify your homophobia. I thought you were serious for a moment. Thanks for the laugh.
>All empirical evidences support this
Kek

[Anonymous No.13002621]

>>13002466
>Yes but murderers cause harm to others. Homosexuals do not
.
This is questionable and a libertarian argument. I'm talking about morality proper. Nothing the average gay does for society can replace reproduction. Think just in purely economic terms; an average European over his lifetime produces utility worth millions of dollars. And whatever cooking and painting the invididual gay does is just that: individual. The potentiality of billions of future lives in his genetic line is cut off, which in itself is a great crime (hence be fruitful and multiply). I'm not talking about burning gays or whatever what I'm talking about is letting society interact freely and not politcally force an exemption of groups from moral judgement. But it doesn't matter anyway; since that whole morality thing is just so passé gays will be exterminated from the gene pool through the development of new technologies. It's just an interesting discussion.

[Anonymous No.13002654]

>>13002611
Homophobia means nothing. Made up modern word

[Anonymous No.13002688]

>>13002621
>questionable
Question it, please. I want to hear this argument.
>muh future value
Undervaluing what other people produce is very convenient, isnt it? Whats your beef with individuality?
>billions of future lives cut off
Not having children in not a crime.
>not force an exemption from moral judgement
>"my argument may be shit but at least i have the right to say it, right? Why cant i be homophobic in public and not get a bad reaction?"
Yeah this sure was "interesting". Figure out what exactly is your problem with gays other than "ew...icky" and then come back.

[Anonymous No.13002700]

>>13002654
And yet you know exactly what I mean when i say it.

[Anonymous No.13002762]

>>13002385
Only it didn't, since even Marxists that split at the second Internationale had proscriptions against homosexuality, which mainline communism also maintained. It's not like both Leninist Marixsm and Trotskiites decided independently to come up with the same thing at the 4th.

[Anonymous No.13002815]

>>13002688
You're too silly in your comprehension and assumptions to motivate me to put effort in constructing the arguments and as I said it's an irrelevant topic as far as it concerns homosexuals, your ideology has already sealed their fate - without soul and sin homosexuality is just a birth defect.

[Anonymous No.13002816]

>>13002586
anything not from someone who doesn't talk like a goblin with a midlands accent

[Anonymous No.13002822]

>>13002586
anything not from someone who talks like a goblin with a midlands accent

[Anonymous No.13002825]

>>13002269
>>The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality volume two

[Anonymous No.13002827]

>>13002269
>and not only did Marx and Engels refuse to join a committee defending him, they resorted to the cheapest form of bathroom humor in their private comments about the affair
sounds pretty based

[Anonymous No.13002848]

>>13002552
tolerance only requires passivity, except some weird forms of tolerance that require weird actions like forcing people to bake cakes

[Anonymous No.13002859]

>>13002700
i only know you are trying to project power by using it

[Anonymous No.13002919]

>>13002859
>>13002654
>>13002700
It's obviously a political construct but I think it does describe an underlying reality which is biological. Just like we have a disgust reflex for sex within the family. To pathologize this instinct seems pathological in itself and to call it a 'phobia' is ridiculous. That's just looking at the male social fear of being seen as weak and feminine and projecting it onto another issue.

[Anonymous No.13003060]

>>13002269
>Schwanzschwulen (faggotty prick)
it literally means dickfaggot

[Anonymous No.13003065]

Butterfly is my lesbian :3

She can be a lesbian all she wants but she and I both know for some reason she wants my cock.

She is thinking about it right now. The fact that it could destroy her credibility if she is caught masturbating makes it even better for her. It's why she posted while she did it last time.

Also, I won't be posting tonight so please don't post butterfly. :3

[Anonymous No.13003087]

>>13003065
Plus just think of all the people hopping on your train and you're choosing to get wet for me :3 Just makes it 1000000000000x better

Just consider Zizek browsing himself, making a post or two trying to win your fancy by being a modern NeoMarxist.

But you don't care, you're choosing to get horny to me.

Folks, right now at this very second, butterfly is dropping whatever she's doing at work and going to the bathroom to masturbate to me :3

[Anonymous No.13003127]

>>13002465
embarrassing cope

[Anonymous No.13003149]

Engels said Germany had a moral obligation to reannex Alsace-Lorraine and to subjugate the Slavs while Marx hated Jews and called Lassalle a Jewish nigger. These two were as far removed from modern day leftists as possible.

[Anonymous No.13003164]

lol

[Anonymous No.13003267]

Can someone actually provide a coherent and rational explanation for hating on homos?
>muh buttsex!!
So? Are you 8 years old or what? People have different preferences.
>muh diseases!!
Only sluts get diseases. Monogamous married men who do not cheat won't get diseases. It's not biologically possible unless the disease is airborne, then everyone are equally fucked.
>muh social construct!!
Whether if homosexuality is biological or "lifestyle" literally doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.13003288]

>>13003267
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LY3_tC_thc

[Anonymous No.13003314]

>Find out Marx and Engels were woke on identity politics
>/pol/ becomes marxist in less than a day

[Anonymous No.13003330]

>>13002473
Thinking that is an easy task to identify genes that cause homosexuality is proof of complete scientific illiteracy

[Anonymous No.13003360]

>>13002269
Same reason why you couldn't endorse homosexuality in those times. Cultural norms change. Why would you want to "criticise" homosexuality anyway? How are you, your family, or the broader society harmed by two guys sticking their dicks into each other's rectums?

[Anonymous No.13003362]

>>13003288
What's your point? It's the behavior associated with sexuality, not the sexuality itself that impacts the transmission of diseases. There are STDs that heterosexuals transmit at greater rates than homosexuals and vice versa.

[Anonymous No.13003366]

>>13003314
aren't they nazbol already?

[Anonymous No.13003388]

>>13003360
Homosexuals are a burden on the welfare state. (I'm pulling this out of thin air, but it might be true! :3)