Consent is a spook

Yes and no. Read up here on divine violence by Zizek.
lacan.com/zizrobes.htm

It always was.

It reminds me of a situation where I asked a girl if she would sleep with me for a million dollars. She said no after a brief pause. Then I asked her if I could sleep with her I if I gave her one dollar. She again said no with shock on her face.

She then asked me why I asked her these questions. I then told her we were just negotiating her price, because I already knew what kind of girl she was after the first question.

Says the triggered tumblrina

So it is a spook immediately after someone invokes it to defend any sort of public institution?

I argue that by Zizek's divine violence argument

Then kys you retarded dumbfuck. If everything is a spook why are still alive?
Living is a spook.

No.

Are you triggered I don't believe in spooks themselves? They're largely a replaced idea

cont
that nobody really matters unless they can enforce their own rules personally.

We can do this the easy way or the hard way, and it sound like you want it the hard way :^)

Spooks spook a spook. Spook me spook. Spookspook: Spook Spook'spook.

It is a spook if you put it above yourself. It's simple as that. Is being only commited to yourself and not having any principle really fulfilling is matter of discusion, but when it comes to Stirner's philosophy, a spook is anything coming before me, period.

It doesn't really bother me at all. It doesn't bother me the same way a woman that says no and then says yes a few moments later after some judiciously applied psychology and rhetoric.

We takin over the prison so back up :^)

Then let's have it.

Congratulations on being straight, you're as stupid and white as who you fuck

Hold up.
Are you implying that being white is somehow bad? I have found that being white is one of the most pleasant experiences of human life.

Notice in the OP how Tom had a shank in his coat pocket. If you saw the full episode, you would have seen Riley making it and justifying it through self defense because if he would go inside, he would need it. Tom took it with him against his own better adult judgement, resulting in the prison riot, because of his own fears that he would get raped.

The point is, if you are going to make or use and carry an instrument of violence, be prepared to suffer all of the potential consequences of its presence, either for or against yourself. It's why professional thieves never go in armed if they are on the prowl, to reduce rap and possible complications.

People here talk of revolution but never want to take appropriate steps toward it, personally or in a group.

Don't make this about race, focus on the idea of consent and its primacy in liberal politics.

Have you been non-white before? What are you, Michael Jackson?

Also asian anfem confirmed for reactionary idpol liberal for being triggered by non-consent

Meme is a spook.
The transformation of "Spook" into a meme contradicts the original concept of spook made by Stirner.

What if lady has a gun or her brother does hmm?

How is this thread not idpol

Because consent is not merely a single-issue situation but spans across multiple disciplines like economy, spectacle and interpersonal politics, but I repeat myself.

Interpreting an author's original intent is a spook :^)

That isn't how the thread was phrased. You also are confusing the idea with "spook" and economics, you're psued please leave

My nigga THANK YOU

Implying Liberal feminist women are the only ones who don't like being raped.

Oh we actually have a kung fu master rapist here boys watch out

"I was raped"

or are you actually so beta that you are going to rape and kill a woman just for some pussy?

Nigger women have fought wars. What the fuck have you done? Bashed on your cum stained little keyboard.

Consent is only a spook when I can't stab you in the throat

It doesn't matter how I phrased it, the point is, whoever owns a medium controls the discourse on it regardless of the parties' consent. They consent to its control by their very presence on it. What this means is that unless you control the basis of a reality, which is its political economy, anyone giving their consent is a redundant gesture, the person in control of it deems your consent is implied.

Blackflag, I thought you were smarter than this. You know I enjoy baiting anfems.
Implying they don't :^)
But in seriousness, the idea that consent can be induced through biopolitical measures has grounding, which belies its legitimacy. I don't see how things like feudal prima noctes can't be rendered publicly acceptable again through propaganda and successive political repressions if the message was pumped enough. Everyone has a (pathological) tendency to act against their own best interest.
Yes and? Wars only matter if you win them, same with revolutions. The only reason women fight wars is if the situation gets that desperate. They usually don't go out on expeditionary campaigns.
So I see you aren't stupid. Good.

...

Are you talking about rape? Yeah it is, and the "consent model" is contemporary invention. For all of history rape had nothing do with consent and even today it still does not.

Source on this? Seems pretty interesting.

Why are you so content on being an edgy shit

it's so old. The spook posting doesn't make it better.

...

Its a useful starting point for autists who can't into Human relations, and that's about it.

someone should put this on youtube

That's a compliment coming from you, honestly.

The point is, we are here to engage in critical discourse, and then try to apply it in our daily lives. I am in the middle of building a 3d printer with new capabilities that I believe that will take it beyond becoming a mere household appliance for revolutionary purposes.

The point is, I am seizing the means of production and giving them a revolutionary perspective, and indirectly seizing the means of reproduction through building a real alternative to this society, and of course this being really new and cool to normie women, I get asked all the time to let them see it :^)

What do you do that is comparable?

Balakrishnan is that u??????

You do know this isn't twitter, right? We have a much bigger character limit here

Cum on guys

No Stirner hit unobtanium when he realized muh values are psychological ghosts. Psychiatry nonsense will not save you from this

Of course the Ego is a spook too

is checkin em a spook?

Well fuck YOU Stirner

well you can, but will you feel good about it afterwards?

Yes.

Sure are a bunch of moralfags and tankies on Holla Forums recently.

Amazing how much of a coincidence that is

Following Stirner's logic, fucking your property without consent is up to you. If that makes you feel good then you would go for it, unless causing distress to your property also hurt you, in which case you would abstain if that suffering outweight your thirst for sex.
You would be spooked if:
-you really want sex.
-you can rape your property and getting away with it.
-You don't give a shit about how said property is feeling.
-But you still abstain yourself because the partner must consent by principle.

Anonymous is a spook, therefore I am free to disregard everything you say.