Stirner taught me to reject labels. Gender, sexuality, race, and other social constr- I mean, spooks...

No. If you're white and you benefit from white idpol it's perfectly sensible to participate in white idpol. Same with black women and intersectionality.

Stirner doesn't hate concepts, as long as they're benefiting you and you're not furthering them at your own expense.

Pffffttthahahahahahaha. Nigger please.

His actual philosophy is an even bigger joke user.

See how they turn the conversation around as soon as they start losing?
First Stirner was about losing labels. (nonsense)
Now hes not useful to them. ("Pffffttthahahahahahaha")

What the fuck are you doing you ridiculous creature?

you are dumb, at least read the ego meme book before posting

They are social constructs and they are spooks. These are just facts, not idpol.

He's used to mock both sides, if you think it's most commonly used like an SJW you're probably a Holla Forumstergeist only being presented with that side because you won't stop your sperging.

lurk moar Holla Forums

not that you will since it would force you to realize how absolutely retarded you are even if your opinion of us doesn't change

Thank god only 10% of the people who hate Stirner have actually read him.

Look, we have to get this meme going. Stirner is middle brow frogposting and complete fucking cancer.

I'm done with stirnerites when they begin to argue that if you adopt certain belief like race, gender, nation, you are a fake egoist, and you must follow their sense of egoist, or else.

They are basically a bunch of collectivist.

...

Show me where the bad man touched your ego, user.

Race in particular is a social construct with some basis in biology, and that basis in biology might be important. Just because we don't know whether or not Iranians count as white does not mean Germans are genetically indistinguishable from Australian aboriginals.

Really fires the neurons

If you think she's hot and wouldn't fuck her then you're definetely spooked, in the actual definition of a spook.

I never saw fat-acceptance or whatever on Holla Forums and most of the girls we salivate over are legitimately hot so your point is moot.

what does an idpol-free world look like?

You know, my mother actually read Nietzsche like that when she was young. She saw the Overman and so on as sort of a goal to get past your social roles. She later became a teacher advocating Freire to be applied in teaching, so she was quite a leftist.

Thinkers associated with nihilism are easy to understand in different ways. I don't even think the fascist readings of well, for example Nietzsche, are completely "wrong".

Race doesn't follow from biology any more than the philosopher's stone follows from chemistry.

Geneticists use Clines to measure human genetic variation, race is an outdated scientific tool from a time before chromossomes.

You are not being individualist, you are a collectivist who forces other to think your way.

It touches me on here, user.

In 2016, Stirner was detourned into a handy metaphor to fight idpol. How the world turns.

I had a family member that was actually a descendant of Stirner, and I even have proof saved to disk.

Yes. And "races", roughly understood, are at different points along a cline. There's no point at which somebody is white, but subpopulations from geographically isolated parts of the world have different gene frequencies. There may be enough genetic variation between peoples that countries would be correct in preferring immigration from certain parts of the world over others on a biological basis.

Nothing is a spook.

Only if you are completely unaware of how class works and do not realize that racism is contrary to your class interests and thus your material interests.

You mean Friedrich Engels, right?

really ground breaking stuff.

Basing policy on biology is a very dangerous road to travel on but do whatever you want.

If clines are the determining factor that you intend to use, then why use poorly-defined and inaccurate concept of "race" in its stead?

Because he's not interested in discussing science as much as in politicizing it, for which the popular conception of race is very handy.

...

Okay, so what? This is a completely useless thing to state. There's practically never a choice between accepting these or those immigrants. Furthermore, I don't think we know enough to really make such choices without resorting to guesses.

Plus from what we know about humans, biology should still be at the end of the list of things to consider. We're all human as far as biology goes, but classes and culture can make us completely alien to each other.

Then there's also the fact that maybe being equal under the law is more important, whether those biological differences exist or not. But this is, of course, purely an ideological question…

Who's forcing you to do anything? Saying you're wrong when you're wrong isn't force

that's BS unless you're the USA with a-tenth-of-earth's-radius borders (which is why I'm pretty fascinated about Trump's wall)

Stirnerism is a bunch of middle class faggotry born out of the nihilism of inner city culture. When you are getting royally fucked as a manual labourer you quickly start identifying as member of the working class.

Meant to say major city

I'm not US but what I meant: the people that want to come aren't a nice mix from all the worlds areas where you can pick the ideal people.

Refugees come from certain countries at the same time, non-refugee immigrants may come from wherever but they're not really a "problem", are they, since they're pretty likely to come for a reason other than to get away from something (so they're not going to be poor or unemployable)

Thus: the choice is "do we help them or do we not and in which way do we help them if we do?" not: "should we take refugees from vietnam or from syria"

You have very little basis for saying this. The crime rate went down by 50% after public health initiatives cut down on lead. Biology is definitely a massive factor, the impact of biological diversity is more debatable

Sort of. If humans found along clines do differ considerably with respect to measures of intelligence, aggression, and conscientiousness, an arbitrary cutoff may be better than no cutoff.

The US banned the Japanese and Chinese from immigrating from the 19th to the early 20th century.
Immigration filtering is definetely a thing and Canada does it today.

Most countries in the world don't view immigration with a humanitarian mind. That's only an American tradition which has partially been exporter to the rest of the west.

But viewing refugees in any other way is fucking stupid. And people do definitely view it in a humanitarian way in Europe. That is why there's been public outrages when the refugees own smartphones or nice clothes or demand nice food or something: we expect and want them to be really miserable when they come here.

Oh, sure. I'm just saying that when it comes to refugees, it is a bit of an useless idea. With other immigrants, it may be an option, but might not actually make much sense in the normal situation (it'd be another thing if there was mass immigration from country x to country y, for example)

That is obviously what I meant when I said biology in this context. You can take drugs or medicine as an extreme example of biology mattering in a different way.

It's still optional to accept refugees. You can just not grant them asylum and deport any you catch.

Humanitarian considerations are not an insurmountable force.

And why do we expect that? There are many different types of refugees from all oscial strata. Accepting refugees has always been a thing historically like Hugeunots fleeing to England from France they were generally middle class, jews fleeing Germany etc.

The anti-refugee sentiment here comes from basic bitch Islamophobia and the desire to appease the gamergate manchildren

Fuck off, shill.

manchild detected

Yeah, refugees are by definition results of a humanitarian problem, but your original post ( )
referred to immigrants in general (who are are much more demographically relevant to europe than the events of the last 4 years) , and those were very much brought there with other intents, although with a humanitarian rhetoric, mainly declining birth rates and their associated pension troubles as well as the worsening of labour standards coming from imposed neoliberalism.

The Anti-Globalization movement of the late 90s and mid 2000s was very leftist.

It might've prevented Nice, but this isn't an issue of politics as much as it is logistics.

Just be aware that with out modern imperialism this refugee crisis wouldn't exist.

Don't bomb them to the stone age. Problem solved.

Yeah, except it's more humane to treat the causes of refugee crises than the symptoms you poser shit
Lel. "Gamergate manchildren" form the core of this board, and its anti-idpol stance was formed largely out of recent experiences with idpol torpedoing genuine emancipatory politics and material analysis of society or its contradictions - in OWS, in gamergate, in the entire historical epoch of the New Left now reaching its climax.
Maybe you need the newfag pic

not even gonna bother slapfighting with a Holla Forumstergeist

Dismissing criticism of Islam because it's a phobia is a pretty good strategy. It's funny what people believe. I'm a reactionary manchild, by the way. I'm extremely self conscious and I have a lot of trouble making friends. I slept with a chubby feminist girl with purple hair and related to her more than anybody else I've met. If she didn't move away I might have married her.

It's more humane to do both. Fag. You generally try to resolve the problem causing the refugees and accept them if they show up to your doorstep. Even if they were the result of some tribal warfare in Sudan they are still refugees.

No they don't and being anti- PC is retarded if you apply it to everything. You faggots are threatened by Muslim refugees.

There is nothing wrong with criticizing Islam. It's retarded. This has nothing to do with accepting refugees from brown countries which is heavily disliked because stormniggers and faggots are threatened by brown refugees, they are not of "the west" and they are stereotyped as violent muslims who don't work and want to fuck gamergate manchild's white waifu. And there is the beleif that these people need to be appeased or else they will join the alt-knights or someshit and start a Nazi masturbation fantasy

lol based word filter

what kind of sick pervert doesn't like pizza though? what the fuck is wrong with you? how do tankies manage to be this consistently wrong about every possible thing?

You're exceptionally delusional if you think the only people against immigration are bitter, insecure virgins. Very normal people worry about Muslim immigration and fertility rates, it isn't some extreme psychological condition brought on by jacking off to hentai.

Those people are right wing faggots concerned about the migrants stealing their jerbs or someshit goaded on by ractionary media outlets that feed their paranoia. They can't seem to seprate migrants from refugees or discuss those two issues independently without it devolving into sterotypes about sandniggers and third world brown people

What about gay people that started voting FN because they keep getting harassed by Muslim immigrants?

Girl, you need to be a bit more charitable with people and a bit less hateful. Unite for your own goals and not out of hatred for your enemy.

There are plenty of retarded fags, just because they take it up the ass doesn't mean they stop being susceptible to being retarded. I mean half of Holla Forums are faggots.

lmao

Baby, you have to stop being so dismissive of people if you want pacific discourse. Be a little bit less abrasive, sugar.

You realize that economic and conflict migration involves a material contradiction between the immigrating and native working classes, the one getting safety or better pay and living conditions at the cost of depressing wages and bargaining power of the other? And that all public policy under the capitalist state amounts to persecuting this contradiction more in favor of one of the opposed groups than the other at some time? And that this is a dialectical process, depending on the magnitude of opposing interests and the stability of the system under a certain policy, which is intrinsically valuable to the bourgeoisie? And that the only true solution is to abolish this contradiction between their interests in the first place, which is not a fundamental property of nature but a result of a parasitic minority "gating" socially necessary labor across the world by virtue of their violent claim on the means of production?
I'm not suggesting a ban on immigration, but you have to realize that a more permissive policy here by itself can solve nothing. Turn them away and the "selfish white workers" are antagonists to "the world's vulnerable." Let them in and "the foreign hordes" are antagonists to "the good people." These are both undesirable states of affairs, and pretending otherwise out of some sort of misplaced moral obligation surrounding the ruling class' "sacrifice is a civic duty" drivel is pigheaded. They are both worse.

"Political correctness" is a standardized bourgeois morality in the first place, user.

Wow, I wonder why Marxists, who sit at the natural culmination and the apex of enlightenment philosophy, could ever be leery of a deeply reactionary culture overtly hostile to enlightenment values and any systematic scientific study of the physical or social world? Why might their frighteningly mainstream opinions on homosexuality alert people who believe in an emancipatory horizon for all?
The difference is we understand this culture is an epiphenomenon of bourgeois rule and material conditions, while Holla Forums attributes it to an autonomous, "unmoved mover" vision of culture and Arabs' supposed inherent racial pathology, the mirror image of SJW arguments. We understand it can be changed, and that the means for doing so is overthrowing bourgeois rule, and not worrying about how far we can defend immigrants' "rights" to backwardness, prejudice, and hostility without overly disenfranchising native citizens in their rights against them (or vice versa,) nor, if you're hard into the "white muh privilege" shit, declaring a priori that whites have all the power, that nothing truly abridges their rights, and therefore striving to institute Sharia or something.
Like above, "let them in" and "don't" are both inhumane, and to both parties. We need to reevaluate the false premises of class rule and create a world where economic migration has been rendered obsolete, and then all immigration will be agreeable.

That alone wouldn't change it. It's completely dependent on the structure that's adopted after capitalism as to whether or not conservative subcultures and religions are erased. A lot of Marxists are unduly optimistic here thanks to Hegel and the idiotic idea that religion exists exclusively as a defense mechanism for the ruling class.

very useful for anth and soc tho…

yea yea, I'm saying that a reasonable discussion of this shit is not even possible in the current political climate. Migrants and the depression of wages for low skilled workers and refugees are two separate issues.

Oh blow it out your fucking ass and calm the fuck down. There is a rational way of looking at all this shit case by case, it can easily be changed, Muslims in Russian tatarstan are docile and "Russianized", Malaysia has the most competitive economy in Asia and is highly industrialized and Muslim.

Of course accepting masses coming from a thrid world shithole and entering western consumeist society will inevitably cause problems but lets not give the aut right autism driven narratives any credit since they are fucking stupid, they start with the niggers want to fuck my waifu as their premise and they don't take into account that America is bombing the fuck out of those areas and that their own fetsihzed white consumer culture is itself toxic and retarded

This is astonishingly stupid.

You're admitting alt right concerns have validity, but reject them because you dislike who says them and why.

Oh thank fuck, I thought I was the only non-retarded person on this board

You mean the concern that the muslims will outbreed the native population and rape all the women? No those concerns are retarded and have no validity

You admit there are problems. There may not be that problem, but there are still problems which sane people could weigh and argue about, instead of reacting to everything teenagers on Holla Forums do.

I hate this shit. I want to die.

It's in my rational self interest not to be made unsafe in my own home.
Why is the sexual morality of 1950's western world condemned while that of the contemporary Arab world is given a free pass? Is "left"-idpol really so flimsy that it can't even give consistent answers about identical beliefs across different cultures?

That just further proves my argument, it's down to material conditions and these must be altered. We cannot expect leaving them alone while pushing the bourgeoisie to liberalize immigration is any kind of solution
user…
No, they come to these beliefs as a subconscious response to various pragmatic concerns and material conditions, just as the ruling class is more likely to arrive at some pro-capitalist "ruling class ideology" owing to its alignment with their own material incentives.
Take your immaterialist analysis of culture back to reddit, """leftcom"""

The problem is blown out of proportions. Donald Trump supporters chimp'ed out over the notion of bringing in like like what was it 40 thousand refugees in 2016? What they were gonna rape everyone?

This Muslim shit is a great propaganda fearmongering tactic.

it's called the fallacy of relative privation.

This problem isn't even big fucking problem if you look at it normally and don't fall into the Holla Forums rabbit hole of the muslim hordes are coming to fuck everything or the buzzfeed rabbit hole of we must help the starving third world brown unwashed masses for social signalling

Could you elaborate on what Hegel has to do with this? His own writings on society and the State were efforts to recover the absolute idea, to "systematize" without truly comprehending anything in its specific character.
Well, which of the various contending systems of religion (broadly defined) rise to dominance and achieve some sway over the masses certainly has an unmistakable class character. This also applies to the specific ideological character of that religion. I don't think there's any real reason to believe that all "religion" will become obsolete with the end of class rule, but clearly the strongest selective pressures will cease to align with bourgeois interest and it does appear that "religion" in the specific sense we know it under capitalism will become obsolete.

Noting that SJW's are the staunchest defenders of islam isn't whataboutism anymore than noting the contradiction when enviromentalists get hysterical over cigarette bumps while staunchly defending the dumping of toxic waste.

This. Assessing the internal consistency of some worldview (in its totality) is a perfectly valid way to judge its quality. If it's seen to imply both A and (not)A, that's obviously an undesirable thing for any model of the world.
It's only a tu quoque argument if you're talking about a specific proposition itself and claiming/implying that it itself is true (or false) owing to the other person's other beliefs, actions, or perceived beliefs and actions, which are irrelevant to the truth of that proposition. So Ben Shapiro dismissing Sanders' criticisms of the system with "lol you own three houses though" is whataboutism, while "SJWs hand a blank check to certain deeply reactionary social layers for the same conduct they criticize in others, and have no satisfactory rationale beyond ad hoc exceptions to their own standards for treating hypothetically identical ideas and behaviors differently from different identity groups" is not.

Yeah I figured this isn't about muh workers or weather it's inhumane to bring over refugees or about resolving the problem that caused the refugees bla bla it's usually just the sandniggers, their brown race and their native belief system. I'm saying you should examine what exactly causes this paranoia for yourself. It pushes all the correct buttons, the race button, the religion/atheism button and the rape our women button.
If you read too much clickbait from both left and right you will gaslight yourself into being deeply concerned about this faggotry when it isn't a real problem not in the United States, and even in the most Islamisized Western countries like France muslims are what 6% of the population or less?

It's bullshit, and a socially acceptable vent for both the right wing which is allowed to shit on Muslims but not niggers, fags and other groups they dislike and for the fedora Bill Maher Sam Harris crowd which is also allowed to shit on Muslims because it's very braver and edgy and makes them seem ubiased.

The Islam horde issue and the SJW anti-racist social signalling idpol is an acceptable political discourse in the West. It doesn't mean both of those are correct it means that this shit is acceptable to talk about and have elections on.

...

You're so spooked that you can't even acknowledge that your imaginary "racial whole" doesn't actually exist and that any benefits will vaporize and go immediately to the upper strata?

There is no "collective interest" of black people or white people or men or women or any other identity the way there is a collective interest of classes, because the former is based in arbitrary visual groups whereas the other is a material relationship.

How do I force thinking? Do you believe in magic?