/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.9467709]

ITT: What I Read/What I Expected/What I Got.

[Anonymous No.9467713]

[Anonymous No.9467719]

[Anonymous No.9467722]

[Anonymous No.9467733]

>>9467709

[Anonymous No.9467735]

>>9467733
I don't see the major difference in what you expected to what you got t b h

[Anonymous No.9467743]

>>9467735

you dont pick up on subtlety well

[Anonymous No.9467750]

>>9467743
wow rude

[Anonymous No.9467756]

[Anonymous No.9467778]

[Anonymous No.9467785]

[Anonymous No.9467791]

>>9467743

[Anonymous No.9467799]

>>9467785
so you expected gay naruto fanfiction but instead you got gay dragon ball z fanfiction instead? remind me to stay away from hacks like homer

[Anonymous No.9467810]

>>9467778
Saved

[Anonymous No.9467831]

>>9467785
hahaha accurate

[Anonymous No.9467914]

[Anonymous No.9467928]

>>9467914
In fairness, it's both what you expected and what you got.

[Anonymous No.9467986]

>>9467914
T O R T L L A
O
R
T
I
L
L
A

[Anonymous No.9468020]

[Anonymous No.9468042]

>>9468020
I remember reading that Alan Moore found The Blind Owl to be one of the most disturbing books he read.

What is in the What I Expected box? Is that a worm or something?

[Anonymous No.9468075]

>>9468042

The owl scene from the movie "The Fourth Kind" Whenever I think of owls I think of that scene. Not a great movie, but that scene legit disturbed me when I was like 14 or something.

I wouldn't say the book is the one of the most disturbing books I have ever read. I would say he was just trying to out-kafka kafka except without the thin thread of black humor kafka had, plus more occult and surrealistic influence.

[Anonymous No.9468083]

[Anonymous No.9468116]

[Anonymous No.9468390]

It was exciting as fuck 2bh.

[Anonymous No.9468429]

>>9468020
needs more bitter cucumber ends

[Anonymous No.9468436]

>>9467709
like seriously, wtf

[Anonymous No.9468545]

[Anonymous No.9468654]

>>9467743
>>9467791
Get off my board,

[Anonymous No.9468659]

>>9468390
Is The Civil War better than The Gaelic War? Bello Gallico is pretty fucking boring, corn memes aside

[Anonymous No.9468669]

>>9468659
I haven't read that.
Couldn't get my hands on a copy for cheap.
I will try with an E-book.

The Civil War is pretty rad. Made me feel like I'm reading a war novel instead of some historybook.
No wonder, since it was made for the Plebs as a propaganda tool (I think)
It's considerably shorter than Gallico. This one is only 3 books long while Gallico has 8.

Try it,maybe the faster pace will help.

[Anonymous No.9468810]

The book wasnt bad, just not what I was looking for. I think Chambers has the same problem Lovecraft has but perhaps even worse: The concepts are a lot better than the execution. I like his ideas and even some of the stories, the non-horror ones perhaps more than the horror ones, but its just not scary. Where Lovecraft tries too hard to make it shoking to the reader Chambers doesnt try at all.

[Anonymous No.9468834]

[Anonymous No.9468885]

[Anonymous No.9468934]

[Anonymous No.9469370]

>>9468834
kek

[Anonymous No.9469474]

[Anonymous No.9469477]

>>9468669
The pacing wasn't the issue with Bello Gallico, it was just boringly written. Even the descriptions of fights were pretty low-detail and uninteresting. May have been the translation though. May get Bello Civili if I get on another Roman kick

[Anonymous No.9469486]

[Anonymous No.9469492]

[Anonymous No.9469510]

[Anonymous No.9469756]

>>9468810
Anon, that book was written decades ago. It was probably stone cold terrifying back then.

[Anonymous No.9469884]

>>9469756
ur mum was born decades ago and she's still terrifying

[Anonymous No.9470116]

>>9469510

housecleaning memery aside, that's a rather ridiculous expectation and surefire setup for disappointment tbqh

[Anonymous No.9470131]

>>9467713

[Anonymous No.9470175]

>>9467722
Upvoted

[Anonymous No.9470182]

>>9469510
what the fuck made you expect game of thrones from that book

[Anonymous No.9470213]

>>9467743
Can you explain the subtlety? I totally get it but that guy needs you to explain it, thanks.

[Anonymous No.9470264]

>>9469756
what's with the second half then

[Anonymous No.9470514]

[Anonymous No.9470531]

>>9468436
I only remember that a really young Seth Green was in the movie adaptation.

[Anonymous No.9470755]

>>9469477
Maybe we are just different then.
I found Bello Civili to be really exciting to read.

[Anonymous No.9470761]

It had a few interesting concepts in it.
Really liked the dual language structure. You had to keep track of what each character knew/could understand

[Anonymous No.9470786]

>>9469486

points for originality

[Anonymous No.9470862]

Should I make a few more?

[Anonymous No.9471179]

>>9467709

[Anonymous No.9471242]

>>9467791
I hope you die of cancer.

[Anonymous No.9471339]

>>9470514
>Ted Kaczynski
>/pol/

Don't be an idiot. He was a far-off leftist -- the type who comes to hate almost all of the left because they're not left enough.

Like "we actually need to literally destroy human civilization to end racism, sexism, etc." kind of far left.

[Anonymous No.9471374]

[Anonymous No.9471481]

>>9469756
I know. It still does not mean that I have to feel scared because I should cut the author some slack does it? Like I said I can see the ideas and appreciate them, the passages where he describes Carcosa are pretty great tbqh, as is the Prophets Paradise. He just does nothing with it for the most part. That half the stories were not horror at all, even in the version I read which already cut the last few out, is also very strange to me. Not a necessarily bad book but not what I was looking for at all and a bit of a letdown to be honest.

[Anonymous No.9471490]

>>9471242
Could you elaborate what makes you wish this dreadful sickness on me?

[Anonymous No.9471493]

>>9471339
>ted kaczynski
>end racism, sexism
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.9471670]

>>9468545
for me it was the other way around

[Anonymous No.9471735]

>>9471493

>It is true that not all was sweetness and light in primitive societies. Abuse of women was common among the Australian aborigines, [...]

>Propaganda for example is used for many good purposes, such as discouraging child abuse or race hatred.

>Among other things, the system has failed to stop environmental degradation, political corruption, drug trafficking or domestic abuse.

Also, re. /pol/:
>The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.

Source: Industrial Society and Its Future, a.k.a., “The Unabomber Manifesto”
https://www.wildwill.net/blog/2017/04/26/industrial-society-and-its-future-a-k-a-the-unabomber-manifesto/

Further:
>In an article on pages 21–22, Anti-Authoritarians Anonymous wrote:
>>[A] return to undomesticated autonomous ways of living would not be achieved by the removal of industrialism alone. Such removal would still leave domination of nature, subjugation of women, war, religion, the state, and division of labour, to cite some basic social pathologies. It is civilization itself that must be undone to go where Unabomber wants to go.
>I agree with much of this. But there is the question of feasibility.

Source: Answer to Some Comments Made in Green Anarchist
https://www.wildwill.net/blog/2017/04/26/answer-to-some-comments-made-in-green-anarchist/

The following are in context of criticizing anarcho-primitivism, providing evidence for negative aspects of primitive cultures:

>In other nomadic hunter-gatherer societies male dominance was unmistakable, and in some such societies it reached the level of out-and-out brutality toward women.

>Much worse are the forced marriages of girls in their early teens to men much older than themselves.

>Among the Eskimos with whom Gontran de Poncins lived, husbands clearly held overt authority over their wives [83] and sometimes beat them.

>The Australian Aborigines’ treatment of their women was nothing short of abominable.

>According to A. P. Elkin, under some circumstances-for example, on certain ceremonial occasions-women had to submit to compulsory sex, which “implies that woman is but an object to be used in certain socially established ways.”

Source: The Truth About Primitive Life: A Critique of Anarchoprimitivism
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism

His writings generally see sexism and racism as being *obviously* bad. He thinks that the mainstream left isn't honestly fighting against these issues because industrial society fucks them up.

[Anonymous No.9471772]

>>9467709
Just because it is not in the thread yet

[Anonymous No.9471817]

>>9470862
Yes

[Anonymous No.9472238]

>>9468436
love that book

[Anonymous No.9472264]

>>9467722
>tfw you see your content posted

[Anonymous No.9472273]

>>9467709
never bothered with the other two books in the trilogy

[Anonymous No.9472278]

[Anonymous No.9472343]

>>9471772
Awful

[Anonymous No.9472353]

>>9467785

[Anonymous No.9472812]

[Anonymous No.9472824]

>>9472812
I hate this and I hate these threads.

[Anonymous No.9473144]

>>9471735
agreed. I don't know how you can't see strong environmentalism and strong anti-capitalism as leftists POVs. He's not even "traditionalist" like what bring right wing people close to him; primitivism and traditionalism are pretty different things.

Ted being widely considered right wing is actually pretty good evidence for Moldbug's hypothesis that right wing views are just those that are "heresy" to the church of liberalism.

[Anonymous No.9473152]

>>9471179
Kek.

It fucking sucked

[Anonymous No.9473308]

>>9473144
>Ted being widely considered right wing is actually pretty good evidence for Moldbug's hypothesis that right wing views are just those that are "heresy" to the church of liberalism.
That's very interesting. I had never heard of that hypothesis, but in radical feminist circles it's a well-known and constantly occurring problem that liberals keep insisting that radfems are just right-wingers in disguise. Exactly because radfems put forth ideas which are heresy to them, like critique of pornography, prostitution, and sex liberal ideals, critique of transgenderism, and so on. And it's insane with what viciousness they attack radical feminist women sometimes, simply for expressing their ideas. ("Radical feminism" refers to a set of ideologies here, not extremist or militant action.)

[Anonymous No.9473333]

>>9473144
In which book did Moldbug say this?

[Anonymous No.9473343]

[Anonymous No.9473862]

>>9473333
I think it's in a "A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations"

[Anonymous No.9473933]

[Anonymous No.9474675]

>>9473308
>in radical feminist circles it's a well-known and constantly occurring problem that liberals keep insisting that radfems are just right-wingers in disguise.
It's a well-known and constantly occurring problem that radfems and various adherents of "left"-liberal identity politics keep insisting that the anti-identarian radical left (Marxism and related) are really just right-wingers in disguise.

[Anonymous No.9474760]

>>9469486
I kinda like Korn. Will I like this book?

[Anonymous No.9475309]

>>9474675
>radfems
>liberal identity politics
>not Marxists
Wew lad. Lrn2radfem.

http://radfem.org/

[Anonymous No.9475339]

>>9475309
Hmmm

[Anonymous No.9475373]

>>9475339

Mistake #1:
Victoria Woodhull was a suffragette, not a radical (second wave) feminist.

Mistake #2:
Applying class analysis to other axes of oppression than just classism (such as race and sex) is not equivalent to liberal identity politics.

Mistake #3:
Appeal to authority, thinking that everything God and Father Karl Marx did and said was absolute truth and beauty, is dumb. If you are able to understand that Hillary Clinton's brand of feminism may not be representative of black and working class women or women in the third world, because while Clinton is female, she is part of the white American upper-class, you should be able to understand that Karl Marx's brand of socialism may not be representative of black and female people with additional particular struggles in society, because while Marx may have led the working class, he was white and male.

Also, I have NEVER heard of a feminist claiming that misogynist men on the right are really conservatives in disguise. They consistently talk about "misogyny in the left" when talking about, well, misogyny in the left.

[Anonymous No.9475377]

>>9475373
>claiming that misogynist men on the right are really conservatives in disguise
*on the left

[Anonymous No.9475418]

>>9472353
>>9471772
Please stop. These don't make sense. Either you're missing the point or you have fetal alcohol syndrome.

[Anonymous No.9475507]

>>9475373
>Mistake #
lmao
Okay, let's go.
>Victoria Woodhull was a suffragette, not a radical (second wave) feminist.
This gives a view into what sufficient conditions for being expelled from an orthodox socialist org are. It doesn't matter what your intellectual foundations are or -why specifically- you emphasize petty-bourgeois institutions and identarianism, just that you do. She could be a nazi and the point would still hold.
>Applying class analysis to other axes of oppression than just classism (such as race and sex) is not equivalent to liberal identity politics.
Right, but that's not what she did, nor is it what intersectionalists do today. They don't decompose subjectivized discrimination into its fundamental causes within the class and material structure of society, they don't examine the mechanics of how oppression of socially-defined groups presupposes that of objectively-defined ones, and so on. Also "other axes of oppression" ishygddt
>Appeal to authority
No, it's not. I'm making a claim about what is and what is not "Marxist," not what ought to be. My words were "the anti-identarian radical left (Marxism and related.)"
>If you are able to understand that Hillary Clinton's brand of feminism may not be representative of black and working class women or women in the third world, because while Clinton is female, she is part of the white American upper-class
It's because her "feminism" is wholly an accessory to and device of class rule. As such, it's not a true or meaningful emancipatory horizon.
>you should be able to understand that Karl Marx's brand of socialism may not be representative of black and female people with additional particular struggles in society
The truth of a theory of how the world works does not depend on who it "represents" and how well.
"Additional particular struggles" are an emergent property of the specific form that capitalism's contradictions take and not states of affairs inherent to "the pathology of the human race" or whatever immutable, transcendental, context-independent cultural characteristics you point to. If you want to say it traces to nature, you open up a whole 'nother can or worms, too.
>while Marx may have led the working class, he was white and male.
Pic. You couldn't produce a bigger non sequitur if you tried.
>misogyny in the left
Clearly it's meant for "misogyny" to be a "right-wing position," and one antithetical to the emancipatory project, no? So you can dismiss positions as immoral without arguing whether they're actually correct or incorrect, theoretically justified or unjustified, how well they're informed by the lessons of history?

Also
>Mistake #x
Stop mansplaining, shitlord

[Anonymous No.9475614]

>>9475507
>This gives a view into what sufficient conditions for being expelled from an orthodox socialist org are.
Wait what now. I thought your argument is "radical feminists are liberal identifarians" and not "radical feminists tout ideals that get one expelled from an orthodox socialist organization [that's dominated by white men]."

>or -why specifically- you emphasize petty-bourgeois institutions and identarianism
In calling anti-racist and anti-sexist efforts petty-bourgeois institutions, you're revealing that you're literally as ignorant on these topics as your average Trumpkin.
Have you ever read a feminist book?

>Right, but that's not what she did, nor is it what intersectionalists do today.
The topic is neither Victoria Woodhull, nor today's "intersectionalists." The topic is radical feminists.

>They don't decompose subjectivized discrimination into its fundamental causes within the class and material structure of society, they don't examine the mechanics of how oppression of socially-defined groups presupposes that of objectively-defined ones, and so on.
Radical feminists do all of this. You're basically summing up their whole gripe with liberal, queer fauxfeminists.

>Also "other axes of oppression" ishygddt
I'm not sure what this is supposed to express if not your flat-out ignorance of women's and blacks' oppression by men and whites. Do you *literally* believe that racism and sexism don't exist?

>The truth of a theory of how the world works does not depend on who it "represents" and how well.
And it was not the truth of classist analysis that I was questioning; it was its ability or inability to cover the particular concerns of black people and female people, which overlap with but are not equivalent to the concerns of working class people.

>"Additional particular struggles" are an emergent property of the specific form that capitalism's contradictions take and not states of affairs inherent to "the pathology of the human race" or whatever immutable, transcendental, context-independent cultural characteristics you point to.
Firstly, it'd be a great service if you reduced your dependence on fancy buzzwords, because it makes it really hard to decipher what you're saying.
From what I can tell, this sentence comes down to "classism is the only real struggle and sexism and racism are just byproducts of it." Which is bullshit, because racism and sexism also affect people who are on the same class level and would continue to affect them even if there were no hierarchies based on economic class.

>You couldn't produce a bigger non sequitur if you tried.
It is not a non-sequitur, because a white person has an incentive of upholding white supremacy and a male person has an incentive of upholding male supremacy.
Your picture is /pol/ tier. Try harder.

>Clearly it's meant for "misogyny" to be a "right-wing position,"
Except you just made this up. Misogyny is a male supremacist position. Racism is a white supremacist position.

[Anonymous No.9475707]

>>9467709

[Anonymous No.9475741]

>>9475614
>Racism is a white supremacist position
>No other culture ever knew racism
But whatever, glad to have more womens' studies majors on this board.

[Anonymous No.9475778]

>>9469492
ughhhhh shit i was hoping this wasn't true. wanted to read this but i feel like i'm going to think the same thing

[Anonymous No.9475782]

>>9468083
common nigger
how the fuck did you not get what you expected?

this book gave me the feels

[Anonymous No.9475797]

>>9473152
I don't think so.
It's my favourite Camus book.

The Stranger sucked.

[Anonymous No.9475860]

[Anonymous No.9475962]

>>9467791
So true anon

[Anonymous No.9475982]

[Anonymous No.9476064]

>>9475418
>Woooooosh!

[Anonymous No.9476323]

>>9475741
Aw, you sure *have* shown me, my man!

Anyone with half a brain would have deduced that the comment was about US race politics. But you just had to be a willful idiot and miss the point just so you could pretend to have a point.

P.S. I just spent time in a thread that was on fire so sorry if I'm bullying you too much. You sure need to get your ass down that high horse though, especially when you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.9476658]

here with caligula

[Anonymous No.9476668]

>>9467756
f*cking perfect

[Anonymous No.9476700]

here with perceval

[Anonymous No.9477947]

>>9475860
to be fair, the way they are holding their swords is an advanced technique to break armor.

[Anonymous No.9478167]

>>9475614
>Wait what now. I thought your argument is "radical feminists are liberal identifarians" and not "radical feminists tout ideals that get one expelled from an orthodox socialist organization [that's dominated by white men]."
My argument is "the judgement of whether or not someone's a Marxist doesn't depend on why they're an anti-Marxist, or what specific kind of anti-Marxist they are, only that they are one."
>In calling anti-racist and anti-sexist efforts petty-bourgeois institutions, you're revealing that you're literally as ignorant on these topics as your average Trumpkin.
I'm not doing that, though. Socialism is inherently "anti-racist," "anti-sexist," and so on. But identarian movements pretending towards the same which ignore class and the rooting of all other societal struggles in class forces are diversionary from the get-go and necessarily place an immense amount of emphasis on "issues unrelated to class struggle" because they're necessary to support the theory.
>The topic is neither Victoria Woodhull, nor today's "intersectionalists." The topic is radical feminists.
Intersectionalists are usually understood to be a type of radical feminist, no? Unless by radfem you mean TERF, in which case the talk of inclusivity and representation seems rather moot.
>Radical feminists do all of this. You're basically summing up their whole gripe with liberal, queer fauxfeminists.
So you say we share that complaint. But the rest of your post makes me somewhat doubtful.
>I'm not sure what this is supposed to express if not your flat-out ignorance of women's and blacks' oppression by men and whites. Do you *literally* believe that racism and sexism don't exist?
Heh. No, I'm saying that it's foolish to reduce the human experience of all things like social status and hierarchy to a number of interlocking and fully independent "axes of oppression." Class in the first place isn't some kind of continuous gradient from "more oppressed" to "less oppressed," it's one's objective relation to the means of production. Similarly, one's position along these supposed "axes" would be context-dependent and therefore difficult to precisely pin down, challenging the notion of a stable, objective "identity." Beyond that, axes based exclusively on demographic information fail to account for a startling number of hierarchies and human experiences with them - Columbine, Elliot Rodger, and /r9k/ shit in general come to mind, and it is necessary then for feminists to declare them "agents of patriarchy," "problematic," and fundamentally deserving of their treatment, akin to the TERF stance on trans people. So it fails its own test of "inclusivity."
That I take issue with your methodology does not mean I believe racism doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.9478170]

>>9475614
(cont.)
>And it was not the truth of classist analysis that I was questioning; it was its ability or inability to cover the particular concerns of black people and female people, which overlap with but are not equivalent to the concerns of working class people.
Class, not class-ist. I'm not talking about the social attitudes forming within and between socioeconomic strata, but the fundamental organization in production that gives rise to them. Similarly, I allege that this gives rise to all other forms of subjectivized discrimination.
>Firstly, it'd be a great service if you reduced your dependence on fancy buzzwords, because it makes it really hard to decipher what you're saying.
It's basic materialism vs idealism. Cultural and material problems both exist and both feed each other, but which is fundamental? Ultimately one has to give rise to the other. The view that culture is fundamental to society, and not material conditions, has several problems, notably an inability to explain the course of history, the structure of society, or the cyclical crises in both.
>From what I can tell, this sentence comes down to "classism is the only real struggle and sexism and racism are just byproducts of it." Which is bullshit, because racism and sexism also affect people who are on the same class level and would continue to affect them even if there were no hierarchies based on economic class.
"No war but the class war" doesn't imply that all proles are the same. Sure is liberal in here.
Again, i'm not saying that "class-ism" gives rise to racism, or that the latter is a special case of the former. I'm not sure you've understood my position. I'm talking about -class.-
>It is not a non-sequitur, because a white person has an incentive of upholding white supremacy and a male person has an incentive of upholding male supremacy.
Not necessarily. They only have incentives like that so long as they'd actually benefit in some way from concretely acting on them.
>Except you just made this up. Misogyny is a male supremacist position. Racism is a white supremacist position.
First, I'm not >>9475741 and it did seem obvious to me you were talking about the US. But even so it's false. People can become leery of immigrant laborers or H1Bs competing for jobs they or their community want to take without actually believing in or advocating the supremacy of whites, people can be hostile towards Wahhabism and by extension Arabs without it, and so on. Much of /pol/ for instance happens to be nonwhite.

[Anonymous No.9478193]

>>9469510
the one of this with him cleaning is way better anyone have it

[Anonymous No.9478243]

I thought I'd try my hand at making one of these.

[Anonymous No.9478360]

[Anonymous No.9478610]

>>9472278
"I've been disappointed four times before but I just know he's going to do this one serious"

[Anonymous No.9478614]

>>9475707
I think this is the worst one

[Anonymous No.9478662]

>>9475707
it's more like this

[Anonymous No.9478728]

>>9467733
Please could you upload the last image?

For the sake of the kek lad

[Anonymous No.9478856]

[Anonymous No.9478890]

[Anonymous No.9479088]

Rate

[Anonymous No.9479405]

>>9472278
The ducky got me

[Anonymous No.9480608]

>>9479088
It's unclear WTF you even read.

[Anonymous No.9480694]

>>9478167
>My argument is "the judgement of whether or not someone's a Marxist doesn't depend on why they're an anti-Marxist, or what specific kind of anti-Marxist they are, only that they are one."
You changed the topic halfway through then.
I was responding to your suggestion that radical feminism is comparable to liberal identity politics, which is BS.

>identarian movements pretending towards the same which ignore class and the rooting of all other societal struggles in class forces
Radfem doesn't ignore economic classes. It adds the analysis of sex classes. And the observations of misogyny in anarchist and other such leftist communities makes it clear that being anti-capitalist doesn't contradict being a sexist, which is why "you should stop focusing on sexism so much" is bullshit. You just want women to stop acting in their own self-interest and blindly follow the lead of men who claim to have it all figured out, when they often treat women every bit as horrible as conservative men.

>Intersectionalists are usually understood to be a type of radical feminist, no?
No. Intersecionality is a term coined by black feminist Crenshaw who pressed the importance of understanding that black women's experiences of misogyny are intricately tied with their experiences of racism, and as such a feminist group may not be able to help their causes in a meaningful way if it refuses to incorporate anti-racist analysis as part of its anti-sexist framework.
The term has since been co-opted to mean ridiculous things such as requiring to consider members of the male sex class to be women if they verbally declare themselves to be so. (See Danielle Muscato, Alex Drummond, Riley J. Dennis.)

>Unless by radfem you mean TERF
"TERF" is to "radfem" what "feminazi" is to "feminist".

[Anonymous No.9480705]

>>9480608
>Stormlight Archive
It's in the image name

[Anonymous No.9480719]

>>9480694
>fragmenting the proletarian class in theory and practice
>destroying the possibility of revolutionary proletarian consciousness and solidarity
good luck with your revolution

[Anonymous No.9480730]

(cont.)
>>9478167
>and it is necessary then for feminists to declare them "agents of patriarchy," "problematic," and fundamentally deserving of their treatment
A male person who is being bullied is a member of the oppressor class along the sex axis who, within his class, is getting the short end of the stick and being punished for being unfit to the position of the dominant male. (Such males need to be ostracized, lest it becomes evident that men are not, after all, naturally superior to women.)
Yet it is due to their male privilege, entitlement, and violent socialization that they express their grief through violence and misogyny. A woman who is bullied and ostracized in a similar way is more likely to turn her hatred inward due to feminine socialization, and only harm herself and not others.
(This is not to deny a possible biological factor in aggression rates of females vs. males, but even if biology has an effect, so does socialization.)

A proper feminist analysis does not flat-out spew hatred at the likes of Rodger and say he deserved no better treatment *from the beginning of his childhood*. Neither does it coddle his violent grown-up ass and fawn over his "poor and misunderstood" murderous self.

[Anonymous No.9480735]

>>9478170
>I allege that this gives rise to all other forms of subjectivized discrimination.
Women's subjugation can be traced back to the invention of agriculture and accumulation of wealth (the original capitalism if you will), in which reproductive resources were realized to be one of the most valuable, and women thus kept under control.
This is a development that happened 10k to 20k years ago. By now, women's subjugation to men has established itself as a deeply enshrined part of modern societies, such that it would be extremely naive to think that once capitalist systems begin to topple, men will automatically stop being sexist, and extremely cynical to suggest that women should ignore any immediate benefits they may get from fighting misogyny and instead put all their energy into the Eventual(TM) abolishment of capitalism.

That said, some radical feminists do consider anti-civilization activity as a main aspect of their politics. The best example would be Lierre Keith of Deep Green Resistance:
https://dgrnewsservice.org/resistance-culture/radical-feminism/lierre-keith-the-girls-and-the-grasses/

>They only have incentives like that so long as they'd actually benefit in some way from concretely acting on them.
One also benefits passively from white and male supremacy through the actions of the people around oneself, even just the internalized oppression of women and e.g. blacks. Women frequently behave like doormats because they've been conditioned into it.

>>9480719
>you better be our doormat, lest you divide the movement!


P.S. anyone else have a problem with 4chan just saying "connection error" when your post is too long or something? I haven't actually breached 3k characters, but I get such an error unless I split my post into smaller parts. Like >>9480730 and this one.

[Anonymous No.9480783]

[Anonymous No.9481655]

the coming-to-terms with the meaninglessness of it all brought a tear to my eye

[Anonymous No.9481809]

[Anonymous No.9482218]

>>9480735
What the fuck are you even on about?

[Anonymous No.9482396]

>>9482218
TL;DR: leftie/SJW bullshit is what he's on.