[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 123 KB, 640x638, optimized-marquis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17219807 No.17219807 [Reply] [Original]

Why does he get a pass from leftists?

>> No.17219886

>>17219807

Because he is literally a founder of left wing politics, in the time and place which gives the political orientation its namesake.

>> No.17219892

>>17219807
Because leftists love degenerates

>> No.17219900

because he was a pedophile

>> No.17219908

>>17219807
because he was an aristocrat that larped as a revolutionary whenever the moment called for ithe optics. just like them.

>> No.17219909

>>17219807
Because he wanted the same thing as leftists: a society with no taboos and no morality to chain people down

>> No.17219915

>>17219807
Marquis de Based

>> No.17219923

>>17219886
>>17219892
>>17219900
>>17219908
>>17219909
all these

>> No.17219927

>>17219807
he liked incest, homosexuality and pedophilia

>> No.17219992

>>17219927
Basically 4chan

>> No.17220114

>>17219807
I wouldn’t say he does. The default position is that he was a misogynistic pedophile with no significant contributions to either philosophy or literature.

Anybody trying to take any other position is definitely dissenting from that.

The most famous leftist defence of Sade, Simone de Beauvoir’s “Must we burn Sade?” is titled that for a reason. It’s because she’s reacting to a political environment where he is understood to be paradigmatic of the misogynistic male writer who writes women as objects for men’s pleasure. Nearly all left wing defence of Sade relates in some way to that single essay by Beauvoir, so that’s the thing to read if you want to understand more.

Also in the anti-Sade camp is Adorno and Horkheimer who treat Sade as emblematic of the enlightenment era invention of instrumental reason, and directly place him in a genealogy of thought that leads to the Holocaust.

In Lacan’s “Kant avec Sade” he uses Sade as the villain that he is condemning Kant to be in league with. People forget that that is clearly Lacan’s position because they mostly read him through Zizek’s essay where he tries to instead elevate Sade as an ethical paradigm, but it’s also obvious Zizek is doing this *because* it’s perverse and controversial.

>> No.17220129

>>17219807
because he was based

>> No.17220130

>>17220114
Finally an informed opinion

>> No.17220139

>>17219807
He took the piss on everyone. Left or right, it doesn't matter, it's control vs the urge to destroy, and either way you are taking it up the ass and eating shit

>> No.17220142

>>17219886
>>17219892
>>17219900
>>17219908
>>17219909
none of these
>>17219915
>>17220129
these

>> No.17220167

>>17220114

>Sade led to the Holocaust

So what you're saying is that Sade was a good man.

>> No.17220168

>>17220142
nice argument

>> No.17220171

test

>> No.17220189

>>17219807
Because they haven't read him

>> No.17220220

>>17219807
De Sade is an abomination. Who gives him a pass?

>> No.17220239

>>17219886
>gives the political orientation its namesake
Is there a French origin to term "left-wing"?

>> No.17220258

>>17220239
>Is there a French origin to term "left-wing"?
L2History

>> No.17220350

>>17219886
He's a proto-Maistrean actually

>> No.17220367

>>17220258
That's not an aunswer

>> No.17220437

Where do I start with him?

>> No.17220965

>>17220437
by turning 360 degrees and walking away

>> No.17220987

>>17220239
Yes. Those who sat on the left were republicans those who sat on the right were monarchists. It's where the origin of the term leftwing and rightwing originated.

>> No.17221243

27 posts and only one worth reading, good thread

>> No.17221286

>>17221243
which one

>> No.17221636

>>17220987
Neat, thanks for the tidbit!

>> No.17221820

>>17221286
this one
>>17220171

>> No.17222549
File: 123 KB, 907x1360, 614uCb6q-fL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17222549

Juliet (Histoire de Juliette, ou les prospérités du vice) is absolutely fucking amazing.
It's probably proto-feminist even.
I went from boners to boners, to questioning my morals, to wanting to escape the hell he was depicting and converting to Christianity ASAP.
What a damn literature experience unlike any other out there.
The funny thing is that his ideal won, or is winning right now, but no one even dares to read him or take him seriously because he's just that subversive still in 2021.
No one ever credits him while he was already shaping our Godless future with carnal humans wandering the Earth, with each and every one of us using each other for our needs and pleasure. With our own desires trampling everything in our way.
Though most commenters who've read Sade either think he was simply a philosopher, or an early critic of capitalism because of the absurdity of the sex scenes. (Pasolini etc...)
After reading him closely, I believe him dead serious. No one writes things to spend most of his life in jail. He was serious, his thoughts on nature were his own, he believed everything he wrote. That's why he wrote it, that's why he sacrificed most of life, being locked away from society. He also murdered and tortured prostitutes, and corrupted the mind of a religious woman. He was a sick man, but man... those damn writings. Demonic and human at the same time.

>> No.17222639

>>17219807
He doesn’t.

>>17219992
Funny how fourchin is very rightwing and into all that.

>> No.17222724

>>17222549
>(Juliette) It's probably proto-feminist even.
>The funny thing is that his ideal won, or is winning right now
I haven't read Juliette (too lazy to commit, I have the pdf downloaded), but I would say both of these points are wrong.
Sade's view seems to be that an atheist who abandons religion should also abandon morals and should treat them as mere social conventtions to be trasspassed at will when they conflict to one's self interest. This point of view is certainly not winning right now. Although the West (and even the rest of the world now) becomes increasingly less religious, the consensus among Atheists both in Academia and among common people is that moral duties are biding.
I also don't see how Sade's writing is proto-feminist unless this is meant in very specific and limited sense. Some of his heroines may be self reliant and not conform to traditional gender norms, but feminism requires some kind of moral framework that unequivocally condemns certain treatments of women within society. Endorsing rape and murder doesn't make you a feminist if you think women can do it too.

>> No.17222741

>>17222724
I think this is a good take.
From my reading of Sade, it does seem that he at least didnt try to have his cake and eat it too. He recognized with his abandonment of religion also came the justification of a lot of what is right, and claiming other thi ngs like "human nature" as kinda being an ephemeral cope without a belief in a moral orientation point like a god.

>> No.17222783

>>17222741
I guess I don't really think morality is necessarily tied to religion. Traditional morality may be, but the abandonment of religion can be taken in different directions. You can abandon religious morality and not replace it with anything or you can replace it with a secular system. Sade opted for the former, but the later also seems a live option.

>> No.17222796

>>17222639
>incest
Traditional amongst aristocrats and rednecks

>homosexuality
The Greeks placed high honor on the loving, nurturing relationship possible between a man and a boy

>pedophilia
The state increases to the AOC was driven by feminist activists, conservatives have always been fine with child marriage and still actively allow it to this day

>> No.17222829

>>17222796
>Incest
>Traditional

Read medieval history.

>> No.17222838

>>17222783
I mean, I dont disagree. When I said
>moral orientation point like a god.
I had particular emphases on the "like". from my reading Sade went the extreme route and didnt just abandon religion, but pretty much any abstract moral principle. from my veiw, sade didnt see god simply as the christian deity, but divine and implicite systemization. For Sade, following an aggregated consensus like that of human rights is one in the same as believing in a god. Not that you couldnt do so mind you, or do so as a going passive agreement with the rest of society until you feel like you want to situationally break it instead of trying to justify whatever you want atm as conforming to a moral.

>> No.17222918

>>17220437
The first edition of Justine and his early short stories -> second edition of Justine, The Crimes of Love, Juliette -> everything else (i.e. Aline and Valcour, Secret history of Isabelle of Bavaria) -> The 120 Days of Sodom

>> No.17222959

>>17219807
>Because he is literally a founder of left wing politics, in the time and place which gives the political orientation its namesake.
>>17219892
>Because leftists love degenerates
>>17219900
>because he was a pedophile

...Am I dumb? Or are you guys talking about different Marquis'? The 'founder of left wing politics' is de Lafayette, no?

I'm triggered by people who start threads without full context either in the filename or the post itself. Like we get it, you're assuming we all recognize the picture and know who you're talking about etc etc. It would save a lot of headache, and also save yourself from being needlessly pretentious. Thanks.

>> No.17222975

>>17222959
>The 'founder of left wing politics' is de Lafayette
jej no. Hes maybe the founder of moderate liberals, but he was too, well moderate (in terms of the national convention) to be out and out the founder of left wing politics

>> No.17222982
File: 31 KB, 550x503, 1590240675228.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17222982

Can’t believe there are so many people on /lit/ who moan about Mann being a pederast or Sade being a “degenerate” and so on and so on. Notice how the most depraved corners of the internet are always the most thoroughly infected with moralists! You will, without doubt, find the strongest outbursts of offended moral feeling on /d/ and /y/ and /aco/ and all the other boards and threads catering to savage and delinquent tastes. The man in the pornographic state of mind, the most subjective and dictatorial state of mind, wants to impose his own preferences upon others, whether they be sensual or aesthetic or political—sexual arousal engenders a rapacious intellect. Shotacons and lolicons are particularly guilty of this. They delude themselves into thinking that because they worship rarefied, hyper-idealised, non-threatening simulacra of innocence and cuteness that they actually value those things more than other people and, what’s more, they develop such unrealistic standards that their attitude toward things that fail to meet the mark becomes patently genocidal. The weeaboo would blot out all 3D life if he could. Now this might sound based, and it might be if it occurred on any conscious level, as a deliberately chosen evil. But the fact is that the typical resident of 4chan is unconsciously conditioned by the board culture to engage in a 24-hour doublethink that allows him to indulge in amorality and hedonism and cruelty and yet also to (completely self-seriously, without the faintest trace of irony) in the very same moment stand on his soapbox and lecture others about their degeneracy; to wail about how fags or trannies or libtards or poltards—or whatever transitory stimulus happens to be causing him (self-inflicted) psychic pain at the moment—are THE one ill responsible for the coming collapse of civilisation. It is a kind of ethical schizophrenia. And it is extremely annoying and extremely tiring. A clone army of immoral moralfags. Who could’ve thought! This is the real nihilist, this is the miserable species of future man Nietzsche warned us about. In terms of unscrupulousness, the conscious egoist cannot hope to surpass the hypocrite!—Of course, you say, this is just human nature. Yes, indeed, but never has it been so potent, so highly concentrated... a maximum of degeneracy and a maximum of Puritanism in the very same creature, duplicated thousands of times, churned out in their digital hundreds. Quite the achievement!

>> No.17222993

>>17222724
You should read Juliet (also because it's great) and because you'd get the other picture of what I'm refering to, especially to his views on Nature and his morality. To him there is no other morality than what nature gave you: Your ability to orgasm and your own lust.
Of course we always have to remember that he wrote this as being a bourgeois himself, right in the middle of the Revolution in France. (Many of his argumentation is directly taken from Diderot.)
So Sade was writing from the point of view of a lustful nobleman in 18th century France.
Today, we're in a globalized 21st century in which most the first world countries is now in an age of peace, an age of bourgeoisie, where we can become sexually deviant. Our Western society has become that "rich person in a castle with servants that we can interchange and abuse at will."

Juliet,is proto-feminism in the modern leftist sense and definition that he wrote a confident, sado-masochistic female "strong" character in such early times in fiction. I agree on the rest though.
But I strongly disagree on this:
>Sade's view seems to be that an atheist who abandons religion should also abandon morals and should treat them as mere social conventtions to be trasspassed at will when they conflict to one's self interest. This point of view is certainly not winning right now.
Really? Do you know many in your social circle living their lives being morally just? Not even mentioning virtue, (who even thinks today in terms of "virtue" ?!). For instance, I don't care about the "virtue signaling leftists" that's just a power grab strategy. Leftist morals is an illusion, a mere talking point as they are often the most intolerant, the most psychopathic, the most gruesome, they abandoned God and they're only left with their own definition of morals (thanks Nietzsche) and their own rotten brains.
Our present society is Sadian in the way that pornography is rampant everywhere, and people only seek to use each other for their special interests. Because that's our social environment now. Why do we even let women abort nowadays? Is that moral? Sade wrote it. Why do we let some freaks chop their dicks? Is that really a moral progress? And so on.
Look, even, in a non-sexual way, people are more distant to each other, barely talk nor socialize anymore etc.as we simply use others to fuel our own egos, desires and needs without making any sacrifices in return.
From social media, to Tinder, to money grabbing strategies, to the end of the nuclear family (also present in Sade...) to sexual debauchery ...
Today children, are a few clicks away from watching sexual orgies live and you tell me Sade is not winning?
It's not only that we live in an overly sexual society that makes it Sadian, it's that we also have no consideration for others. Even our elites are absolutely (this makes me want to recommend a great read which is Andrzej Łobaczewski and his political ponerology) tyrannical and Sadian.

>> No.17222997

>>17222838
Yeah. I think his view might also be related with the 17th century replacement of a teleological model of nature with a mechanistic one, where nature is seen as governed by blind purposess causes. I know Sade had read Spinoza, and Spinoza makes the point that traditional virtue ethics goes out of the window once we reject teleology. But while Spinoza proposed that we should still uphold a certain moral code for prudential reasons (society needs *some* rules to limit conflicts of interest) for Sade that meant that you can break the moral code provided that you can get away with it.
Of course although virtue ethics arguably depends on teleology this isn't the only option. You can be a deontologist or a consequentialist, and keep objective morality without the Aristotelian metaphysics.

>> No.17223018

>>17222982
Sade was an indefensible degenerate by any possible measure. So was Mann with his lustful comments about his own kids. There is no way to reasonably defend these people. Let them remain in the annals of history to be remembered as what they were: sick fucks who happened to be talented.

>> No.17223035

>>17222959
Anyone who claims to know the 'founder of left wing politics' is either a liar or just retarded. Leftism has a lot of disparate threads -- you could say Rousseau, Alexander von Humboldt, Robert Owen, Saint-Simon, More, or a number of other people 'originated' left politics.

Leftism has a ton of different currents which borrow many elements from each of the above, along with ideas from other more 'right-wing' thinkers like Hegel, Smith or Ricardo (in the case of Marx), Duhring, Proudhon, Stirner, just to start.

>> No.17223049

>>17222997
I think we are pretty much on the same page. the “get away with it” part I think is especially relivent for sade, since he didnt go about murdering people on the streets all too often. And i dont even mean that as an insult, to some level we all do it i think, he in some way is just being more honest about it.

I also mostly agree on your teleology point, though i have to say i think honest consequentialism all to often in practive becomes full on free will and forgets to respect the principle of its nature.

>> No.17223053

>>17222993
Strongly disagree with this analysis of Juliet. I actually think the Marquis was a very conflicted, tortured and mentally ill person, but one with a very powerful sense of morality, which he defined his personal life in staunch opposition to.

I view Juliet as a (much) stronger version of a cautionary tale, whose purpose is to inculcate a belief in God (in the sense of an abstract superrational (in the Hofstadterian sense) moral entity capable of making that moral decision which enables and promotes the freedom of all agents at any time) , and to force the issue of either the acceptance or rejection of such a God.

Another book that attempts something similar is the 4th part of 2666 by Bolano (though the 3rd part of that book is the one with the more overt references to Juliet).

>> No.17223097

>>17222993
>Juliet,is proto-feminism in the modern leftist sense and definition that he wrote a confident, sado-masochistic female "strong" character in such early times in fiction. I agree on the rest though.
I guess as long as we emphasize the "proto" aspect I shouldn't have too much issue with it. But I still think his ideal is profoundly anti-feminist.
>Really? Do you know many in your social circle living their lives being morally just? Not even mentioning virtue, (who even thinks today in terms of "virtue" ?!). For instance, I don't care about the "virtue signaling leftists" that's just a power grab strategy. Leftist morals is an illusion, a mere talking point as they are often the most intolerant, the most psychopathic, the most gruesome, they abandoned God and they're only left with their own definition of morals (thanks Nietzsche) and their own rotten brains.
I think we have to make a distinction here between something being "immoral" from the point of view of an adopted moral system and being "amoralist" in the sense of rejecting any moral system. For example what you call "The Leftists" are not amoralists. They have very strong opinions on what is right and wrong. Of course it is still possible that they are misguided, in which case they would still be immoral.
So if your position is that the modern society is Sadean in the sense of not believing in *any* kind of moral code I would say this is clearly mistaken. The increasing polarization of political discourse is partly due to a sharp conflict between different moral systems.
On the other hand if your point is that whatever their moral convictions, modern society is morally decadent in the sense of being largely immoral, that would be an entirely different argument on which I haven't said anything so far (although we probably substantially disagree on that too),

>> No.17223172

>>17219807
Because leftist desires never end, are never satisfied wanting more and more as he demonstrated in his works.

>> No.17223190

>>17222549
I am a Catholic, but I have to hand it to him. Juliette is arguable the most revolutionary book of all time. Perfect work and is the religion of today and nobody knows it.

"The funny thing is that his ideal won, or is winning right now, but no one even dares to read him or take him seriously because he's just that subversive still in 2021"

I laugh so hard at this, all facts. God bless this godless world.

murder? I dont believe that to be true, in fact I think he was disgusted by it irl.

>> No.17223320

>>17223097
If we define modernity as a rejection of God, and an anon said, "transgression" of social conventions, which is what Sade's writings was all about in his time, or what Freudians would call later the "killing of the Father" (in other words, the desconstruction of our Western values, of our own heritage) then our society is, in my opinion, definitely Sadean today. It's interesting to note that Sloterdijk also came to this conclusion. (That the West is defined by an anti-culture, an anti-Tradition.)
But because the spirit of the Revolution, embodied by Sade and the others, is still present to this day: It has no end. We always have to push for more, if we are defined by transgression of all the taboos, of all of our urges, then today, we are closer and closer to completely break morality altogether, and as you said, become progressively immoral as a result, because of the cultural subversion and inversion. Amorality would simply plunge the world into anarchic chaos, so we're not getting there still, but we're bending the rules forevermore.
Sure, "leftists" have their own moral system, only they are misguided because they aren't looking for any objective truths and I would go as far as saying that they're purely moved by nihilism, by the void in their Beings. We even regress below Descartes in terms of reason because now, the only individual "wish for" has become their dominant core thinking. So we now bend our reality to suit their own brain struggles. (This is what I believe the pursuit of the non-existent equality and human rights has led us towards.)
Example: It only took Ellen Page to say publicly that she was Elliot Page all along for society to comply and adopt the new definition of that person.
Our world is a giant sexual decadent orgy, where the elites are able to interchange anyone of us at will. Same in the economy, same in the culture, same in "diversity", same in the sexual market ...
Only, Sade IS NOW the elite. He was a subversive in his time, sure, but today he has become an authoritative figure. Although no one, for obvious reasons, claims himself to be influenced by him. De facto, our world is 1) Godless 2) Overly sexual 3) Immoral (in Sade's writings it is a positive) 4) The invidivual's own "desires" is everything while the collective good is non-existent. etc.
It's sort of an unconscious manifestation. Sade was a visionnary. We can think that either critiqued the finality of it, and of capitalism, like many scholars believe, but I've never been convinced by this argument since he was a sick and dangerous man that needed to be locked away. I mean, the Marquis wasn't like a Nabokov or anything, he wasn't letting his own little thoughts create literature, he lived his debauchery in the flesh. Maybe people, because they're afraid of evil, and damn evil that man was, rather believe that he was simply philosophizing, or writing "cautionary tales", instead of looking in the abyss of his own mind.
Anyway, good debate guys!

>> No.17223372

>>17223320
>If we define modernity as a rejection of God, and an anon said, "transgression" of social conventions, which is what Sade's writings was all about in his time, or what Freudians would call later the "killing of the Father" (in other words, the desconstruction of our Western values, of our own heritage) then our society is, in my opinion, definitely Sadean today. It's interesting to note that Sloterdijk also came to this conclusion. (That the West is defined by an anti-culture, an anti-Tradition.)
The West is not defined by an "anti-Tradition". It has a long tradition that extends all the way to antiquity through the early modern period and the middle ages.
>Sure, "leftists" have their own moral system, only they are misguided because they aren't looking for any objective truths and I would go as far as saying that they're purely moved by nihilism, by the void in their Beings.
They are. Most Leftists are moral realists. You just have a different moral system than the one you favor. You are making the same fallacy over and over, you infer from the fact that they are sexually liberal that they don't believe in any moral restraints whatsoever. They do have a moral system, it's just that they don't have the puritan sexual ethics traditionalists have.

>> No.17223468

>>17223372
>it's just that they don't have the puritan sexual ethics traditionalists have.
Not him. I'd argue they DO have a "puritan" sexual ethics of sorts. No, I'm not claiming they follow the same sexual rules but I'm pointing their tendency to publicly shame their enemies as a way of punishment. If you don't believe me read The Scarlet Letter and pay close attention to their scaffold and their system of social banishment (read Cancel culture) for the people who perform "wrong" acts (eg: homophobia).

>> No.17223509

>>17223468
I mostly agree, it's just not the point I am making.

>> No.17223723

>>17220130
>>17220114
Leftists love sade, just listen to all the civil servants on radio france.

>> No.17223812

>>17222838
sounds rather Nietzschean, did he ever mention Sade?

>> No.17223961

>>17222918
You forget Philosophy in the Boudoir, which I'd read probably before Juliette. I wouldn't place 120 Days last though, as if it's either some final boss or something not to be read at all; sure, one shouldn't start with it, but just knowing that it's an unfinished draft (it's one of his first 'works', too, together with the Dialogue between a Priest and a Dying Man) to be taken up again in a grand project such as Juliette, it'd be okay to read it somewhere in the middle, on the side.

>>17222993
>>17222997
I think (also following Klossowski, who may not be the truest commenter to the historical Sade, but captures his spirit well nevertheless) that Sade hoped to see in the Revolution a chance for absolute 'freedom', in the sense of the abolition of all norms (of God, all laws, morals), just the perpetual motion of Nature (or even without any laws of Nature). But instead, the revolutionary leaders, and the masses and bourgeois, set up a new secular morality, leading to liberal-democratic depoliticization, etc. On the one hand, like with Nietzsche, one can say, Sure, they don't believe any more, these rational atheists, but they still have morals, they still believe in truth, etc.
Yet on the other hand, while immediately it appeared Sade had failed, there might be, as the other anon thinks, a Sadean truth in today's society, despite Sade himself. That behind the shallow masks of morality there is a blind quantification and exchanging of bodies, a sexualization of everyone, everyone becoming "living currency" (as Klossowski imagined), and this being slowly justified or accepted (whether it needs this or not) by the common man (or woman, or man-to-become-'woman'). The paradox, perhaps not for Sade, but for many exceptional individuals in his wake - Baudelaire, Nietzsche, Bataille, Blanchot - is that while they might've shared some views with Sade, they would not like current-day society, not out of some humanism, but out of their feeling debased now (mere writers, these spiritual aristocrats are not the real elite, and if the real (or hidden) elite are Sadean masters, one would complain they're not doing it right, there's no aristocratic soul to it - but perhaps they're doing it even better, even worse...). Only out of an active nihilism would they accept today's social acceleration, but for a conception of something positive, be this that of wasteful transgression while respecting the taboos of the sacred, or specifically a new aristocratic life.

>> No.17223989

>>17222982
Quite the statement from someone clearly filled with so much vitriol and resentment
I feel like you're not being completely forthcoming with your assessment of this website

>> No.17224015

Which leftists does he get a pass from ?

If anything he gets a pass from liberals and it's because he's basically the shadow of liberalism.

Liberalism wants rules and orderly liberty, but since it's all about liberty fundamentally it necessarily will conjure up people like de Sade who don't care about rules and order.

>> No.17224324

>>17223961
>Yet on the other hand, while immediately it appeared Sade had failed, there might be, as the other anon thinks, a Sadean truth in today's society, despite Sade himself. That behind the shallow masks of morality there is a blind quantification and exchanging of bodies, a sexualization of everyone, everyone becoming "living currency" (as Klossowski imagined), and this being slowly justified or accepted (whether it needs this or not) by the common man (or woman, or man-to-become-'woman').
I don't know what this means. But if the idea is that contemporary society is morally corrupt because of widespread liberal views regarding sexuality, I actually take the opposite view. I think that sexual orientations are themselves morally neutral, and the Natural Law conception of ethics is mistaken.

>> No.17224454

Sorry for being an ignorant brainlet, but I heard that de Sado's philosophy kind of encourages a person to be a dark triad sociopath and do only evil/amoral deeds to people. Is that true?

>> No.17225686

it’s unclear what you mean by “get a pass from” or “leftists,” but in any case you should read zizek’s kant and sade: the ideal couple

>> No.17225710

>>17219807
he is a bit artsy and dangerous, associated with bdsm so the sexual cred, and his philosophy represents freedom, liberty, enlightenment ideas and so on

>> No.17226134

>>17224324
Not so much sexual orientation as the increased commodification/commercialization of sex spreading to all parts of society: everyone has his price, all part of a vast sexual economy.

>> No.17227460

Bvmp

>> No.17227498

leftists stand for nothing except sexual excess. their entire life revolves around sexual pathology defining every facet of their existence. they're all effectively women in that regard, and like women, have incredibly strong rape fantasies. basically, leftists want nothing more than to be the rape slave of some depraved aristocrat. it's the ultimate leftist fantasy.

>> No.17227686

>>17227498
exactly this except right wingers instead of leftists

>> No.17228234

I feel like a retard for having to ask but what exactly is the difference between leftism and liberalism? Wikipedia at least makes it sound like they're both just broad groups of ideas that push for more equality. Is liberalism more specifically also about stronger social freedom?

>> No.17229005

>>17219807
Which leftists? The class struggle oriented ones, or the identity politics oriented ones?
I know which one you prefer.

>> No.17229017

>>17227686
Cringe.

>> No.17229026

>>17219807
His books are so fucking over the top violent they're actually hilarious instead of disturbing. If I remember right there's a bit in Juliette/Justine where some big Russian guy literally eats women after he fucks them lol

>> No.17230194

>>17227498
No.

>> No.17230371

>>17220114
>and directly place him in a genealogy of thought that leads to the Holocaust.
As someone who doesn't know much about him, in what way does instrumental reason lead to the Holocaust?

>> No.17230738

>>17223035
Never read Hegel, but I know some of his titles and I have a vague memory of a friend telling me about The Phenomenology of Spirit, which he hated. What about his thinking is 'right-wing'?

>> No.17231457

>>17227498
Thank you for the based post, papillon.

>> No.17231540

>>17229026
Minski!

>> No.17232751
File: 24 KB, 220x330, 220px-50ShadesofGreyCoverArt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17232751

>>17227498
Would you say this book is a spiritual successor to de Sade's work?

>> No.17232757

>>17232751
pretty tame by comparison

>> No.17232876

>>17222982
>people who are hypocrites and people who are weak-willed have ethical schizoprehina
the absolute state of this lad

>> No.17233328

>>17220142
bugman leftard spotted

>> No.17233356

>>17232751
too vanilla
and it lacks the philosophical discourse