/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6775373]

What does /lit/ think about this book?

[Anonymous No.6775377]

>>6775373
Leftists are really, really, really stupid.

[Anonymous No.6775381]

>>6775373
>Laurie Penny
No thanks.

[Anonymous No.6775388]

>>6775377
>>6775381

If Laurie Penny and Russel Brand are the face of leftist critiques then I think it is time for post-leftism

PS checked those 7s

[Anonymous No.6775396]

From an amazon review:

>Things don't get off to a great start when the author declares, on the very first page, that:
>"...one in five women in Britain and America is a victim of rape"

I was going to say it's shit but I won't. I only think "BRAVO LAURIE" for making money from this sort of stuff.

Personally I'm just a believer in the sluthate pill. It corresponds very well with reality.

[Anonymous No.6775405]

>>6775377
>laurie penny
>leftist

[Anonymous No.6775409]

>>6775388
Check em 88

[Anonymous No.6775412]

>>6775405
.... then what the fuck is she?

[Anonymous No.6775418]

>>6775412
a liberal

[Anonymous No.6775426]

>>6775418
Difference being!

[Anonymous No.6775453]

>>6775418
No no no, she's a straight up communist.

[Anonymous No.6775472]

>>6775412
She's terrible, is what she is. Her writing is just bad. I don't even care about her politics one way or the other, she just has no talent.

[Anonymous No.6775485]

>>6775453
A communist who supports the liberal democrat party? I mean the fucking Labour party is to left wing for her.

[Anonymous No.6775525]

>>6775388
post-leftism is a thing since the 80s

[Anonymous No.6775551]

>>6775412
She's the person who has a cause that benefits her (feminism) and tries to use established institutions as a vehicle for her ideas.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV7Zlk6GYas

[Anonymous No.6775564]

>>6775485
Commies are opportunists. Any way to get power they'll take.

>>6775551
Yea, she's a leftist, like I said before.

[Anonymous No.6775565]

>>6775551

>people do stuff that benefits them

Woah there m80, don't go saying plebeian things like that. Cloud it in obscure language, add on 500 leaps of faith and logical fallacies, and then use it to sum up the state of the entire world's culture at the present moment. Only then can we take you seriously.

[Anonymous No.6775570]

>>6775388
>88

[Anonymous No.6775572]

I really don't know why only we on the Left tolerate people like her.

Feminists start as feminists, and then they work their way into movements that can help them materialize their ideas. They have no interest in helping the movement itself, they only want to use its power to achieve their goals.

Typically they don't succeed: There's a feminism for christian, for muslims, for buddhists, for libertarians, for nationalists, for capitalists, for conservatives, for anarchists, etc. but in all of these, they're insignificant. Only the socialist Left allows itself to be shamed into supporting these people.

[Anonymous No.6775582]

>>6775572
Its not like its anything new. Feminism is just Marxism for women.

[Anonymous No.6775585]

>>6775551
Why is she dressed like Sgt. Pepper-era Paul McCartney?

[Anonymous No.6775596]

>>6775582
If you have no idea of what both these of terms mean, sure, they look basically the same.

[Anonymous No.6775602]

>>6775585
Probably because she's genuinely retarded. I follow her on twitter and every time I see one of her tweets I want to punch through screen and choke her profile pic

[Anonymous No.6775617]

>>6775596
Why do leftists always pull this shit? That I only disagree because I don't understand. I understand the left all too well.

Seriously though, there needs to be a term for this tactic.

[Anonymous No.6775618]

>>6775602
Why do you follow her on Twitter then?

[Anonymous No.6775630]

>>6775617
is there a term for the tactic where you just say "this is what they always do!"?

anyway the post you responded to initially listed a bunch of 'feminists' in christianity, buddhism, capitalism, anarchism... and your response just says that feminism is just marxism. did you even read the post you responded to? or did you just want to share your shitty thoughts in a thread that seemed kind of relevant because it mentioned feminism at least once?

[Anonymous No.6775671]

>>6775617

You can disagree with feminism and Marxism as much as you want, I just don't think there's any reason to assume this means you're knowledgeable in any either since this reminds a lot more of the rhetoric employed by people who think Hillary Clinton is a marxist than that of anyone who has spent his time studying the subjects, critically or not.

Rationalise it as much as you want, but this is how you come off, and if you're going to speak in sound bites I'm going to respond to you in sound bites.

[Anonymous No.6775683]

>>6775618
I think it's fair to say that as hateable as she is is she is part of the "left-wing network" so I try to keep in touch just so I don't miss anything. Same reason I follow 50% of the people I follow to be honest

[Anonymous No.6775715]

>>6775630
Its like an automatic response. Any valid criticism is always met with accusations of misunderstandings, or narrowing the debate by saying on strict leftist definitions must be used. Every single fucking time.

Yes I read the post I was replying too, if your head wasn't so far up your ass you'd see I was 100% agreeing with said post. Just like how Feminism forces itself into everything, so does Marxism. Its nothing new, Feminism is just a different sort of Marxism, of course they would share similar tactics.

This thread is about Laurie Penny, who is a both a radical feminist and a communist. I'm staying exactly on topic.

[Anonymous No.6775729]

>>6775715
You're not making a valid criticism, you're just writing "X is like Y!" like a child would. None of your criticism presupposes the most basic understanding of the subject, and you can literally just scratch "feminism" and "marxism" and replace it with anything else.

You're just being childish and silly, you're angry at things that are beyond your grasp.

[Anonymous No.6775733]

>>6775671
I'm not speaking in sound bites. My criticism of Marxism and the left in general is quite in depth. Just assuming I don't know what I'm talking about, is EXACTLY THE POINT I WAS MAKING. Leftists think that criticism can only come from a position of ignorance. That only the unenlightened might disagree.

I'm sure at some point Clinton was a Marxist. Either of them. I mean, she was a feminist that went to college, just duh she was a Marxist at some point.

[Anonymous No.6775744]

>>6775715
>or narrowing the debate by saying on strict leftist definitions must be used. Every single fucking time.

it's a tactic called 'having a conversation'. if you weren't so dead set on occupying one side of some ridiculous dichotomy you'd notice anti-feminists doing the same thing. you'd also notice them saying "this is what leftists always do" all the time as well, which is a 'tactic' that isn't any better

>valid criticism

don't flatter yourself

>Just like how Feminism forces itself into everything, so does Marxism.

so there are marxist capitalists? if feminism forces itself into capitalism, surely marxism has forced itself into capitalism as well? think your shit through man

[Anonymous No.6775762]

>>6775729
In that they both force themselves into other subjects, Feminism and Marxism are very similar. I mean, I could find you many a Marxist that would argue that all Feminists are Marxists, or should call themselves Marxists, and also find many a Feminism that would say the same about Marxism. Gail Dines comes to mind, Ms. Penny would probably argue the same thing.

Again, you're just proving my point. Assuming criticism can only come from a position of ignorance. And, also, in this case, assuming my statement is the entirety of my argument. I would imagine many on both the left and right believe someone like Ms. Penny as below them, not really deserving of complex thought. So yea, I didn't really feel like typing out my whole grand theory about how Feminism is just the Marxist take over of gender issues, on 4chan. Its not my job to educate you.

[Anonymous No.6775765]

Laurie Penny getting BTFO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj9dA6E3fJw

She's also partially jewish.

[Anonymous No.6775770]

>>6775733

It seems very characteristic of someone like you to meet the accusation of being ignorant a lot and instead of assuming you might be the one in the wrong, you think everyone else is.

If I went to the economics department of an university and said something like "yeah maaan, capitalism sucks!" I'd be laughed out of the building, with good reason. You don't just get to scream about how bad you think -isms are and expect respect.

Trust me, it's very easy to tell when someone has a enough knowledge of a subject to formulate a proper criticism or opinion and when they're not.

[Anonymous No.6775792]

>>6775412
a bourgeoisie

[Anonymous No.6775796]

>>6775762
>Again, you're just proving my point. Assuming criticism can only come from a position of ignorance.

When I stop seeing ignorance I'll stop assuming this.

>Its not my job to educate you.

And somehow, you think it's ours to educate you.

[Anonymous No.6775803]

>>6775733
>I'm sure at some point Clinton was a Marxist. Either of them. I mean, she was a feminist that went to college, just duh she was a Marxist at some point.

lol

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6775808]

>>6775733
>I'm sure at some point Clinton was a Marxist
Hillery? I hear she campaigned for Goldwater.

>>6775765
Oh quit it traipsing this crap out.

[Anonymous No.6775812]

>>6775744
Making an argument from authority (ie "you don't understand the subject") is "'having a conversation'"? What kind of warped, autistic authoritarian conversations are you having? I'm not trying to narrow the discussion, I'll never tell someone they don't understand the subject, even if they do not. I'm not occupying any side of any dichotomy, the dichotomy is forced on me and makes me call myself an antifeminist. I say that about leftists, because in 100% of the conversations I'd had with them, self identified leftists, they will retreat to those arguments. Either, all criticism comes from ignorance alone, or only strict adherence to leftist definitions should be used. Every single fucking time.

Yea, I haven't even presented my criticism yet. And seeing how stereotypical the response has been, I probably won't.

Of course there are Marxist capitalists. Marx and Engles were both capitalists, lol. You people aren't even trying to think.

[Anonymous No.6775830]

>>6775812
>Yea, I haven't even presented my criticism yet. And seeing how stereotypical the response has been, I probably won't.

do you guys feel like he's just buying time until he finds the right online material to write something?

[Anonymous No.6775839]

>>6775812
Are you retarded?
>marx and engels were both capitalists
Everyone is subjected to the dominating paradigm regardless of their rejection or acceptance of it.

[Anonymous No.6775849]

>>6775765
that guy is drunk as hell making a fool of himself

[Anonymous No.6775904]

>>6775770
I was never calling anyone ignorant. Really, at this point, my correctness about the original point has little to do with discuss. Its more about, how leftists deal with criticism. Which is always in the same way.

I don't know about that. If I said that in a university in North Korea, they certainly would agree with that statement.

Its amazing that you could decipher my knowledge of a subject after only one sentence! That's almost a superpower.

>>6775792
She's a proletariat in almost every sense of the word.

>>6775796
Nothing I've said so far is incorrect. And you missed my sjw joke, silly willy.

>>6775803
I would think that every college feminist studies Marx at some point. Its not like Aids, anyone can fall in and out of it.

[Anonymous No.6775908]

>>6775830
I'm not lol.

>>6775839
So???? You asked from Marxist capitalists, and I gave you two great example. Stalin and Mao were both Marxist capitalists, right?

[Anonymous No.6775916]

>>6775908
Living in capitalist society does not mean capitalist. What asshole of the internet did you even come from?

[Anonymous No.6775926]

>>6775916
A capitalist is one, by Marx's definition, that derives their income by selling the product of the labor of others, getting income from the labor of others, now actually working themselves. Sooooooooooooooooo, Marx and Engels. I'm from 4chan, where are you from?

[Anonymous No.6775954]

>>6775926
>Marx and Engels
>having control of the means of production

[Anonymous No.6775975]

>>6775812
at the risk of narrowing the conversation (obviously something we want to avoid because it's better just to offer detached commentary on the various things we happened to read on 4chan, including our personal interpretations of philosophical and ideological terms) i'm not convinced 100% of the leftists you've engaged have literally identified themselves as such, i.e. say "i am a leftist and i think (this)"

>they will retreat to those arguments

maybe they have a point. maybe you don't understand what you're talking about. even if you do understand, what's the point in 'retreating' to the argument "you guys always do this :( " like that is supposed to reassert your dominance in the conversation. isn't that just another way of establishing the same 'authority' you claim leftists are arguing from? the difference being you're not actually making an argument

>leftist definitions

the guy you responded to didn't even clarify if he meant leftist definitions or not. maybe if he actually self-identified as a leftist you'd have a better case

>Yea, I haven't even presented my criticism yet

but you're saying that this 'tactic' is in a response to 'valid criticisms', so you're suggesting you had a valid criticism in the first place for some 'self-identifying' 'leftist' (both not apparent at all) to begin with his 'tactic'

>I probably won't.

do you think that these 'leftists' haven't seen your level of criticism before? your lazy intellectual fraudulence in refusing to actually use terms accurately? maybe that's why they adopt these 'tactics' -- because the criticisms aren't 'valid' at all and it's the same old shit they're tired of seeing

>You people

is this you being 'forced into a dichotomy'? note that i haven't self-identified as a leftist

[Anonymous No.6775976]

>>6775849
top kek

She clearly got destroyed. She calls him out being a money-hoarder, then he points out that she's such a money-grubbing, un-british whore that she would ask a non-profit for money.

Juden detected

[Anonymous No.6775978]

>>6775954
Engels was an industrialist. He and his family owned factories in England and Germany. Engels and Marx were both bourgeoisie.

Its like, you don't even know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.6775990]

>>6775978
i'm not sure this is a sufficient case of 'marxists working their way into things (capitalism)' -- looks more like marxists working their way out of things

[Anonymous No.6776219]

>>6775975
100% of the leftists I've had discussions with self identify as thus, because other wise I would not group them together so. 100% of the lumberjacks I've talked with with are lumberjacks. 0% of the lifeguards I've talked to are lumberjacks. No true lumberjack.

Maybe. I'm not trying to dominate anything. Its not like this phenomenon only happens to me. I see it all the time, to any sort of criticism, even from other leftists. And yes, in this discussion I haven't made an argument yet. The the very first reply was "you don't understand" rather than "this is why you're wrong..." is of a bigger interest to me, compared to this Laurie Penny insect. Though I'm sure Ms. Penny uses the same tactics.

I'm not talking about in this thread itself. The definitions argument happens in my discussions else where. An example being, I might say something (abridged of course) like "well here is exactly why communism is all its forms would functions exactly like the state" and the reply almost always is (when there is a reply, lol) "well no, communism is defined as stateless". Do you see what I'm saying, now? Arguments from authority aren't real arguments.

If I could connect you with these people I've had discussions with (you might be one! who knows) I would. You can make your no true Scotsmen arguments to them, not me.

Again, I haven't really made any criticism yet. You're just making assumptions. At this point I'm more interested in the assumptions than the arguments themselves. Leftists seem to be more interested in how to defend their arguments, than how to construction solid arguments in the first place. ie, "you're just a man" "you're an MRA" "you get all your knowledge from Fox News" and lets not forget the billion flavors of privilege and the checking that they require.

If you're not a leftist, then my statement of "You people" doesn't not apply to you. But so far, in all my political discussion, even the most hardcore right wing, Neonazi redpiller, MRA fascist whatever, has never retreated to the simplistic condescending tone as leftists, of all sorts, do.

>>6775990
When presented with the true, that challenges your victim narrative, you just start blathering. I would be lying if I said I was surprised.

[Anonymous No.6776249]

>>6776219
go back to reddit, SJW

[Anonymous No.6776263]

>>6776249
I'm the complete and total opposite of an SJW. I'm a patrician.

[Anonymous No.6776269]

>>6776263
then you belong on reddit. onlysjw plebs here

[Anonymous No.6776314]

>>6776219
>100% of the leftists I've had discussions with self identify as thus

really? because you're just assuming the guy you accused of using leftist tactics was a leftist even though he didn't self-identify as anything.

>I'm not trying to dominate anything
you're trying to dismiss 'leftists' as a whole for using some sort of tactic. of course you're trying

>The the very first reply was "you don't understand"
this is the very tactic you're describing that comes in response to 'valid criticisms'. the implication is that the post they're responding to ("feminism is like marxism") was a valid criticism. it's not, and it seemed to contradict the post you were actually responding to even though you thought you were in agreement.

>communism is all its forms
you can't throw around terms like "all its forms" and then expect it to apply to stateless communism, then get mad when people tell you you don't know what you're talking about. and i'l say it again, maybe they're right

>Arguments from authority aren't real arguments.
neither are arguments that don't use working definitions. you can't say 'communism' in one sentence and have it mean something different to the 'communism' you use in another sentence, for example

>You can make your no true Scotsmen arguments to them
is that what you call me trying to say 'you may have a confirmation bias'? i mean come on you seem to think only leftist ideologies try to work themselves into other ideologies

>You're just making assumptions.
no, i'm following the logic of your posts

>Leftists seem
it's common to all people who don't want to engage in argument. leftists aren't the only people who do this. i mentioned this a while ago

>When presented with the true, that challenges your victim narrative, you just start blathering

no idea what this has to do with anything. would you care to actually reply to the argument in the post you responded to? or would you rather adopt the special leftist condescending tone?

[Anonymous No.6776320]

>>6776269
Say something stupid and boring, than double down with something even more stupid and boring. Me thinks you belong on reddit.

[Anonymous No.6776330]

>>6776320
i was the one who initially said 'go back to reddit' and i was demonstrating that it's not just leftists that employ the same dismissive, condescending attitude you're describing. i've identified it in your own posts and given you an example of how it happens in a non-leftist context

do you feel a little wiser now?

[Anonymous No.6776399]

>>6776314
Yea, anyone that is defensive of Marxism so is probably a leftist.

I'm not dismissing anyone. I'm asking why they are so dismissive, and why its always the same.

Feminism is Marxism. The word feminist itself was invented by a socialist, Charles Fourier. Even if it was entirely in rejection of him, Marx certainly was influenced by him. But beyond that, the two ideologies share many similarities. Almost too many to list. At their very core, both are about how one group does all the world (women/workers) and how another group takes all the spoils (men/capitalists). I know that's overtly simple, but its true. As I said before, maybe Feminists also identify as Marxists, and visa versa. Gail Dines is a good example. Anyhow, I wouldn't say that a criticism, more of an observation. I'm as right wing as it gets, but I'll defend anyone that claims that all Marxists are Feminists, and all Feminists are Marxists.

I was in agreement that feminism forces itself into everything. That's completely true.

I do know what I'm talking about. I think the difference being, leftists don't really understand what the state is. An assembly, a worker's council, whatever, looks and acts exactly like a state, so its a state. "Stateless communism" thus doesn't make any sense, because communism is always some sort of direct democracy, which is just a state. Even primitive communism was a state, a family headed by either parent is just a micro state. So yea, if I make an argument, and you think its wrong, explain why, rather than retreating to "you don't understand". Because that makes us both stupider, arguments from authority, like that, are not arguments.

Alrighty, I'm using the definition of communism, how it would actually function, according to the socialist authors I've read. Remember, I'm thinking about how communism would actually function, not statements of what it is or isn't. From my analysis, its still the state. It seems that Marxists define the state, so of course communism isn't the state, because they've defined the state to be the opposite of communism. Are you starting to see what the problem is here? Arguments from authority aren't real arguments. Arguments from definitions are arguments from authority.

I don't know why, call me crazy, but when I go onto a communist debate forum, I just assume that those arguing for socialism and such are leftists. Is that a bad assumption to make? No true lumberjack?

No, you're making assumptions that my original arguments were invalid. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I assume your penis is huge and/or your vagina is extra small.

> it's common to all people who don't want to engage in argument. leftists aren't the only people who do this. i mentioned this a while ago

I don't get what you mean...

That last line was replying to another dude. (You can reply to as many posts as you want.) Unless.... you were that same dude!!!!!

[Anonymous No.6776405]

>>6776320
>me thinks
>patrician
When was the last time you went outside buddy?

[Anonymous No.6776406]

>>6776330
I never said "go back to reddit". I haven't been dismissive in anyway. I think looking down on reddit is silly. At least before, its quickly becoming another Facebook. Lame sjw faggy circlejerk. "go back to reddit" is only a valid insult when r/cutefemalecorpses is banned.

[Anonymous No.6776414]

I honestly believe that capitalism is something we need to deal with intellectually; and this is because it has already been demonstrated it can be included more effectively into authoritarian states than it can be into democratic ones.
The patriarchy insofar that it ever was used to enforce power under capitalism was just a cultural boon, and feminists have spent decades throwing their bodies at the sword of patriarchy only for capitalism to set it down when dull, and pick something else up.

Capitalism incentivizes so much bad shit for humans, and there is zero reason to conclude that it is the final end-all-be-all organizational method for human production.
It's such a natural thing to want to talk about. But that all being said; the discussion, if you could ever call it that, has become so polluted that no matter how rational or reasonable your position the guilt by association is such a titanically crushing burden that you will never be heard outside an echo chamber of left ideology.

What makes the nightmare worse is the echo-chamber has slowly been filled with subversive ideologies and professional victims.

We need to return to Hegel and start over.


On a side note, can anyone explain to me why the last volley of french thinkers who fuck around with existentialism, post-structural, linguistics etc. Why do they all inspire such fucking retards?

Most of these people when you read them are not saying anything all that radical towards anything besides capitalism. Even Foucault reads as if he was a closet christian, and he certainly believed in definite meanings in many of his books.

Is it just an epidemic of misreading? Where does this POMO=anything goes no meaning generalization come from? I'm more and more starting to believe that these failures of social revolution, which are only folded into capitalism once they occur, are further proof that we are fucking about with the wrong issues.

I'm sincerely worried that philosophy has fucked up and lost its general credibility. Science is in the reigns of capitalism, and the likelihood that it will save us without proper guidance is very low.

China is forming the new Epoch of voltron ideology with capitalism the body and eastern totalitarian communism as the head.

We are so fucked.

[Anonymous No.6776421]

>>6776405
> The lady doth protest too much, methinks

Shakespeare wasn't patrician?

Today I cut down two trees and killed four chickens. When is the last time slaughtered something?

[Anonymous No.6776426]

>>6776421
>Plebspeare wasn't patrician?
my sidses

[Anonymous No.6776438]

>>6776426
You're a full retard. Got it.

[Anonymous No.6776452]

>>6776438
aren't you mad. shakespeare is certified pleb shit. then and now.

[Anonymous No.6776487]

>>6776452
Nothing you could do or say could effect me emotionally.

[Anonymous No.6776500]

>>6776399
>Yea, anyone that is defensive of Marxism so is probably a leftist.
is that what you class as 'self-identifying'? very telling. are you just padding out arguments with superfluous words you don't realise actually alter what you're saying to something other than what you mean? when was the last time you looked a word up in the dictionary?

>Feminism is Marxism
there is not a lot of text in marx or engels that supports feminism at all. and feminism in the first wave had more to do with classical liberalism. wollstonecraft? and again i'll mention that the post you initially responded to (the one you were in agreement with) listed a bunch of non-marxist feminists. feminism isn't marxism.

>I was in agreement that feminism forces itself into everything.
i know, but then you tried to qualify it with an argument that then undermined what the person you were replying to was saying. i'll repeat, it's not just leftism that 'forces itself' into things (odd choice of words)

>So yea, if I make an argument, and you think its wrong, explain why, rather than retreating to "you don't understand".
so you did make an argument?

>Alrighty, I'm using the definition of communism, how it would actually function, according to the socialist authors I've read.
no one knows this until you actually say it. saying 'feminism is marxism' or something similarly vague without explaining what you think feminism or marxism is (as opposed to common definitions, such as communism being 'stateless') just going to invite people to tell you you don't know what you're talking about

your response is to use a similar tactic of "why do leftists always do this". let's not forget that point

>but when I go onto a communist debate forum
/lit/ isn't one
>those arguing for socialism
correcting your definitions isn't 'arguing for socialism' necessarily. it's not 'self-identifying' either

>my original arguments were invalid
you were making an argument after all! i knew it

>I don't get what you mean...
i mean that people duck out of discussions with use of debate tactics and it's not limited to either left or right. see here:
>>6776330

>I never said "go back to reddit"
i never said you said 'go back to reddit'. i explicitly said i was the one who said it

still unsure as to what your 'blathering' comment was about. apart from being a condescending tactic

[Anonymous No.6776568]

>>6776500
Oh of course not, I can those that self identify was leftists as leftists. I just assume those that defend Marxism are also leftists. Very different. Dictionaries are invalid, they were written by rich white men. Hey, remember when I said that leftists retreat to definition arguments? And how arguments from authority aren't arguments? Remember that?

"The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" is feminism 101. Feminism is the Marxist take over of the women's rights movement. They knew by the 60's they lost the economic debate, had to switch over to cultural arguments. Everyone likes women, so its an easy way to push the agenda.

Yea, leftists try to get in on everything. The left is just rent seeking. That's all it is, the ideology of parasites. http://cssc.berkeley.edu/events/event/queering-agriculture-food-security-in-the-nations-capital-and-the-crises-of-reproductive-american-familism/ Would you say that was written by a leftist, or not? Do you see my point, maybe? Maybe?

I more made a statement, that Marxists have been doing what Feminists do, but long before.

Again, I never get the "you don't understand" argument from right wingers. Your three options were (if you were the person that first replied to me) 1: not reply 2: explain was I was incorrect or 3: dismiss me by saying I don't understand. It could be one massive coincidence that all the leftists I've spoken with, or seen in discussions with, will always take option 3. So either all ravens are black, or all black things are ravens. Beats me!

If you read what I wrote, you should see I said "else where".

Socialists have to control the narrative to be correct, so controlling definitions is arguing for socialism, to them. NO TRUE LUMBERJACK!!

I was referring to arguments I've made else where. Read closer. Try putting your face closer to your monitor.

If you scroll up a little, you'll see someone said "go back to reddit, SJW". That is what I was responding too. You started blathering when I correctly pointed out that Marx and Engels were "marxist capitalists". If that was you. The text of this thread is just above if you're confused, I'll say which replies are mine if that makes it easier for you.

[Anonymous No.6776584]

y'all are fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.6776604]

>>6775671
>Hillary Clinton is a feminist

[Anonymous No.6776620]

>>6776568
>Hey, remember when I said that leftists retreat to definition arguments?

remember when i said it's not just leftists who do this so painting it as a leftist tactic is wrong?

>They knew by the 60's they lost the economic debate, had to switch over to cultural arguments.

cultural arguments became more relevant with how widespread mass media was and how it played so big a part in creating subjects

>Yea, leftists try to get in on everything.
as do other -ists. this is my main point.

>Do you see my point
i see the point that ideologies try to get in on everything but i wouldn't be so disingenuous as to say it's only a leftist thing.

> It could be one massive coincidence that all the leftists I've spoken with, or seen in discussions with, will always take option 3

are these the 'self-identifying leftists' you originally mentioned or dudes like the one you responded to asking "why do leftists always use this tactic?" even though he didn't self-identify as one?

>Socialists have to control the narrative to be correct
this is less of an argument than "you should read more". you've been trying to control the narrative ever since you stepped back from the discussion and asked "why do leftists always use this tactic"

>I was referring to arguments I've made else where
there was no point bringing them up

>That is what I was responding too.
fucking hell, i literally told you i said 'go back to reddit' to make a point -- the very point i linked back to in the post you're responding to here

>when I correctly pointed out that Marx and Engels were "marxist capitalists"
we were talking about 'marxist capitalists' in the same way that 'feminists force their way into everything', since you made the comparison that feminists were like marxists, i.e. 'marxists force their way into everything'. mentioning marx and engels misses the point as they aren't 'marxists forcing their way into everything' but rather they were 'capitalists' (involved in capital) before they developed marxism -- so the difference is that these are not marxists forcing themselves into capitalism, but forcing themselves out. completely different

[Anonymous No.6776633]

>>6775976
>She clearly got destroyed. She calls him out being a money-hoarder, then he points out that she's such a money-grubbing, un-british whore that she would ask a non-profit for money.

Nope. a) the video is out of context, b) his tirade is inaccurate, c) he is a money-hoarder.

a) she had been winding him up on discrimination. He claimed a business owner should have a right to trade or not trade with anyone, and ended up defending the stance that a hotel owner is allowed to refuse entry to blacks, Christians, or ladyboys if he wished because it was his business. She said the systematic refusal to trade with a particular race or religion was discrimination and is illegal... It was this discussion between them that got him so flustered.

b) she was in New York and asked the charity if they could contribute towards her airfare because she couldn't afford to fly back to the UK have the debate and fly back to the US. The charity happily agreed to pay some of her ticket price. The event was cancelled later on due to a scheduling issue with the venue, and the charity issued a press release saying Starkey has no idea what he is talking about.

c) she called him out on tax evasion. He had been spouting the usual nationalist Britishness bollocks, and presenting himself as the epitome of British. Yet he has a LTD company registered abroad, and all of his books and public appearances are in the companies name, with his public speeches being 'outsourced' by this company. As such, he doesn't pay any income tax at all, the capital gains tax goes to a different country, and he pays himself in tax free dividends. As soon as she started on this, that's when he lost control.

Notice her snide, "so, where are you domiciled for tax?" is what finally triggers him, and the whole section where she rips him apart for discrimination is cut out.

[Anonymous No.6776638]

>>6775765

That was her? Holy shit, this is hilarious.

[Anonymous No.6776640]

I really like the communist song that she recorded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1PGN_DChZs

[Anonymous No.6776645]

>>6776633
>tfw this very well could be laurie penny
Oh god, this could be just the beginning

[Anonymous No.6776650]

>>6776645
You know, Laurie Penny is the only confirmed author to have ever been on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.6776651]

>>6776650
go to bed tao

[Anonymous No.6776655]

>>6776640

>manarchists

[Anonymous No.6776658]

>>6776651
No, seriously. Tao has only mentioned 4chan. Laurie has discussed specific /lit/ threads about her.

[Anonymous No.6776669]

>>6776650
I feel like reading her book and then writing an essay in response to it because there is no way I will for even a second watch her deem herself a revolutionary. It's funny how identity politics is easily co-opted with capital.

[Anonymous No.6776675]

>>6776669
what a deep and insightful essay you would have written. muh identity politics is bourgeois. fuck feminism

[Anonymous No.6776677]

>>6776633
A is an deadlock argument between libtards and commies

B is still correct, the charity just made a none bias statement which was professional they didnt say he "didnt know what he was talking about". she was still asking for money. who cares if its just for her flight or not.
she was asking for 2 days "pay" to speak for a charity

C is his banker doing what he is paid to do, and lol at him paying 0 income tax stop watching movies.


she also interrupts him while he is talking to make a comment on his taxes like ROFL. pure derisive bitch.
HURR DURR inherent violence after i started shit.

good thing he was sloshed, someone said the truth

then when people interrupt her "EXCUSE ME I HAVEN'T FINISHED RACIAL PREJUDICE INHERENT VIOLENCE"

[Anonymous No.6776698]

>>6776675
What an insightful post you have written

[Anonymous No.6776706]

>>6776633
>c) she called him out on tax evasion. He had been spouting the usual nationalist Britishness bollocks, and presenting himself as the epitome of British. Yet he has a LTD company registered abroad, and all of his books and public appearances are in the companies name, with his public speeches being 'outsourced' by this company. As such, he doesn't pay any income tax at all, the capital gains tax goes to a different country, and he pays himself in tax free dividends. As soon as she started on this, that's when he lost control.

Westminster does not have the British people's interest anyhow.

[Anonymous No.6776712]

>>6776677
>A is an deadlock argument between libtards and commies
And? it was this argument that created all the tension and has been conveniently cut from the video.

>she was still asking for money.
>she was asking for 2 days "pay" to speak for a charity
She never asked for money and they offered to pay expenses anyway. I don't where your "2 days" comes from:

"In February/March this year Starkey and Penny kindly agreed to headline a debate the weekend after the Jubilee in June for expenses only. We also asked a number of other activists, journalists and historians to speak from the floor, and they agreed to this for expenses, although a few waived this. The event was to be free of charge and open to the public, from whom we were as interested to hear as any of our invitees. Although Starkey was going to open by speaking about the benefits of a constitutional monarchy over a republic, the intention was to get to a more wide-ranging discussion about how people think society should or shouldn’t be governed.

When Penny indicated in the second week of May that she might not be able to get back from the US in time, we tried to find a replacent but couldn’t. We offered to pay her airfare back, however, time was too short to do adequate publicity and we cancelled the event. The timing was the issue not the money [emphasis in original document]. We were shocked at Starkey’s accusation"

>C is his banker doing what he is paid to do, and lol at him paying 0 income tax stop watching movies.
Of course his accountant is doing his job, the point is Starkey's company is still registered abroad for tax reasons. Movies? I'm not sure you understand basic LTD financial statements.

[Anonymous No.6776741]

Shes not really a political person, just an opportunist. I feel like calling her leftist is dishonest when her and her ilk are more about attention than actually accomplishing any communist goals

[Anonymous No.6776743]

I wish you guys had the self-awareness to feel embarrassed about this conversation.

[Anonymous No.6776758]

>>6776743
Same. I hate it when entire threads turn into bickering about pointless semantics. Also if I see the word Marxist again im going to throw up.
Why cant we just make fun of the dumb broad instead of taking her seriously enough to actually get mad?

[Anonymous No.6776765]

>>6776712

this argument does not "create tension" you cant act like a retard because someone disagrees with you in a debate. Libtard arguments never change, the idea that you can get "taken out of context" talking to a dusty old libtard is asinine. Please.

she says in the vid she asked for 2 days pay.

Still wondering what interrupting while someone is talking, bringing up their legal taxes and then name calling is supposed to do.


dumb bitch is out to make a buck. She is always a whiny cunt on purpose, any public appearance. She does it for attention she uses to build her "brand" this has been established.

Its all just marketing to make money. She has not a single revolutionary bone in her body.
Pure divisiveness for any revolutionary cause.


I'm not even defending the old fuck. But I'm certain he actually believes in his "englishness" or whatever. Lauria "anything for a dollar" penny is just and ideological hooker.

[Anonymous No.6776773]

>>6776758

>Why can't we just make fun of the dumb broad?

kill yourself and your family

[Anonymous No.6776798]

>>6776773
Woah there Laurie, that is problematic

[Anonymous No.6776953]

>>6776798

Holy shit, you're funny.

Do you write your own material?

[Anonymous No.6776974]

>>6775904
>She's a proletariat in almost every sense of the word.

She went to private school, she went to oxford, she went to harvard, she works in the media.

[Anonymous No.6776978]

>>6776765
>this argument does not "create tension"
It did 'create tension' as the argument initially hinged on homosexuality. David Starkey is a raging homo -- not a closet one either, he openly has a male partner -- and he shoehorned this into the argument so he could argue from authority. He cited an instance of a Christian couple refusing to let two homosexual males rent a room in their small hotel. Starkey said something along the lines of "as a homosexual person, I'm qualified to have an opinion on this, and I still defend the Christians right to refuse them entry." Then expanded this point to argue that any business has the right to refuse trade with whoever they want. Scaled up, as Laurie said, this would be lead to the current board members of Ford declaring that Blacks, females or Jews can't buy Ford cars... I hope you can see how this heated exchange between them, and Starkey's insistence that he's permitted a special perspective because he enjoys the taste of cock, caused tension between them.

>you cant act like a retard because someone disagrees with you in a debate.
I agree. and pic related is "acting like a retard".

>Still wondering what interrupting while someone is talking, bringing up their legal taxes
Because Starkey was making the point that evil foreigners are destroying Britishness, British values, and everything British. Meanwhile he has a registered foreign company to completely evade the British economic system. It's a relevant point.

[Anonymous No.6776981]

>>6776974
This twitter account is great at pointing that out/making memes out of her.

https://twitter.com/proletariandem

[Anonymous No.6776988]

>>6776974
>She went to private school, she went to oxford, she went to harvard, she works in the media.

You forgot: "She is of Irish, Jewish, and Maltese descent."

[Anonymous No.6776992]

>>6776988
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3077499/Laurie-Penny-said-grandmother-won-George-Cross.html

[Anonymous No.6777007]

>>6776992
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk
Wiki articles > vice magazine > 4chan posts > shit smeared on the wall of a public toilet > daily mail articles.

[Anonymous No.6777026]

>>6777007
This 825 page thread mainly about her might be of interest then?

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/alex-callinicos-swp-vs-laurie-penny-new-statesman-facebook-handbags.266196/

[Anonymous No.6777045]

>>6777026
Oh, I remember that! She even posts in that thread herself.

[Anonymous No.6777710]

>tfw Laurie Penny, Russel Brand, and Zizek are the most important leftist thinkers of our time.

[Anonymous No.6777731]

>>6777710

Time to an hero.

Nah, Zizek is entertaining and very cogent.

[Anonymous No.6777732]

>>6777710
>Laurie "Tear Down The War Memorials" Penny
>Russell "Jihad Makes Me Glad" Brand
>fat cunt Zizek

[Anonymous No.6777778]

>a vapid, jumped up public school girl (who has nothing interesting to say)
>on my /lit/

ahaha no

[Anonymous No.6777827]

>>6777710
Were did it all go wrong?

[Anonymous No.6777833]

>>6776399
I know I'm late but you seem to take words you vaguely know the meaning of and conflate them together.

Fourier, for example, couldn't have been a marxist, since he was something close to a 100 years (and dead) when Marx first got published. If anything, he'd be a part of the "left-socialism" (in itself a anachronical term here, considering it only started being used after Lenin), but there is a lot that can be put inside the blanket term socialism, including some forms of capitalist democracy.

[Anonymous No.6777841]

>>6777710
Nice shitpost
>me being ironic

>>6777827
Nice shitpost
>me being sincere :^)

[Anonymous No.6778202]

>>6775585
More Michael Jackson Bad and Dangerous eras

[Anonymous No.6778212]

>Laury Penny
>leftist

top kek