Who else cringes when liberals say things like this?
Other urls found in this thread:
I find that only 1st world morons who have never had a genuine culture hate cultural uniqueness to this extent. Let's get rid of all different languages. Let's get rid of all different cultural fashions, let's get rid of all cultural architecture. Let's just all be ahistorical burgers with no culture, no fashion, no values, and no uniqueness.
Well said. In this sense, stirnerites are incorrect to write these tangible facts of human individuality out as spooks.
End yourself, my dude.
What new culture? It's all puerile shit of no value.
Just like old culture then.
People in the turd world are no more "authentic" than people in the first.
So you're literally declaring a war on culture. Glad you're admitting it now. Still won't unite the working class.
It's impossible to "declare war on culture". Culture isn't some monolithic thing that can be destroyed. It's a process in constant motion.
I don't think egotists want to declare jihad on culture. Culture just kinda happens. Stirnerites on the other hand, yeah, they might.
In describing ones culture as something one does for fun, as something consisting solely of costumes, dishes and building styles which should only be upheld because otherwise it'd be boring like how having only one flavour of ice cream would be boring, you have already conceded to OP. What I can't stand about today's nationalism is its apologetic utter patheticness; no i'm not a racist i just want to preserve my heritage like all people should and that's the real diversity.
The correct answer to any leftist accusation of racism, fascism or whatever -ism or -phobia is no answer; like you would shrug if a scientologist accused you of being a thetan, for to answer is to recognize their authority. We're in it to win it, no apologies, no concessions, no pleading at the feet of the consumerist universal human subject.
It's true. Not all idpol is bad idpol.
What do you think creates useless, consumerist culture,
The fact that you think there is such a thing as "superior" and "inferior" cultures means you don't really understand culture and its role in society. It's just another excuse to attain self-serving snowflake medals.
Kek, as if you nazi snakes give a rat's ass about culture.
Where is a historical example?
Culture warriors are the SJWs of culture.
It's all the same shit.
OP here, I think people may have misunderstood what I was saying. I was referring to how liberals will say things like "X must be/is such an defining part to your/my people" in relation to race and culture or how something is a "critical" part to the black/asian/hispanic experience. People will probably form their own organic cultures in communism anyway, I was more prodding at the liberal tendency to almost fetishize ethnic groups.
Sorry forgot to add
*to almost fetishize and catagorize ethnic groups/culture.
I don't care about culture, as long as it's not forced on me. I also have no problem with the destruction of most cultures, since they can't last forever anyway. I won't go out of my way to protect them. Can't speak for other Stirnerist, tho.
Not about the culture of the museum, as those who dwell in such graveyards and pride themselves in knowing the lines on Mozarts grave do. Better to know nothing of Caesar while his prowess is within you, than to be able to write a biography on him that you have trouble lifting.
This is because liberals see themselves as human and those outside their sphere as animals, animals that are nobler than them but animals none the less. Take those uncontacted tribes in the amazon for example; they're quite a nasty bunch according to liberal standards, engaged in constant inter-tribal warfare over wives and slaves. Still, they shouldn't be brought to justice according to liberals, they should be left alone in their jungles, they should be free from judgement as animals are.
Postmodern westerners, generally speaking, have a very narrow understanding of identity: they view identity as a label, a personal possession which has to be guarded at all times (so, a relationship of having - "*my* identity", "*my* identity markers", "you can't question *my* identity because it's *mine*").
Contrast this with traditional societies. Identity isn't something you learn as a feature of individuality or rights, but something in which you are connected at a very basic level, i.e. something which you understand through experience. It's about obligation. It's not something which takes the form of self-righteousness or something which needs "protecting" from naysayers.
do you have any good short reads on this?
user here gets what I mean.
More like i.e. primitive. This kind of shit is counterrevolutionary.
You >are< an identity, not what you believe. Identity is ontological, not psychological.
No, its political realism in organic formation of social systems autonomously.
I don't understand this sudden western obsession with identity and culture and valuing it so hard in-itself. Things like pride in ones race seems ridiculous whether you are white, black or asian. Yet in my university and all over social media all I see is people that push for this whole view of being proud of your race and stuff as if it somehow defines you… but i thought we wanted a world where we aren't defined by our race. A lot of these things seem really contradictory like "culture and gender and etc. are arbitrary you can't enforce these things on me" to which I say yes I agree. However then they take the leap somehow to "im proud of my culture and my race, things which i previously said are arbitrary and you shouldn't define me with." What logic am I missing here?
Regardless the fascination with identity really just twists my brain like these people are pretty much masturbatory with their views of identity and victimization of what they perceive to be oppressed groups and I dont understand why? Maybe I should talk to one of these people but when i do I understand their arguments but they're all just totally unsubstantial to me.. "we need to be ALLIES to the disadvantaged" its like yeah I get it I agree only a retard would disagree with such a statement, and they just keep going "WE NEED TO BE AN ALLY ALLY ALLY IM PROUD TO BE X AND Y BE AN ALLY TO ME" like they prioritize identity so fucking hard what is the reason for this? Is it cause they see oppression as inherently propagated by culture and cultural recognition will solve their problems? I DONT UNDERSTAND and yet its the mainstream opinion in most leftist orgs what am i missing?
Culture as identity is bullshit and counter-productive. Wanna dehumanize someone/yourself? Reduce them to their cultural identifiers and "heritage". Constituting one's personhood on historical totems and norms is literally just Commodity Fetishism of a different name; where you can't relate to individuals except by estranging them to cult, where one's only value is their constructed and arbitrary relation to their ""Group's"" historical presence instead of their conscious and ever-changing taste, personality, outlook on the world, fundamental self-worth as a human being.
I hate Stirner but this is one area where I think1 "Spook" is perfectly applied. It's fucking stupid and I can't stand it. I will never forgive the liberals for this.
There's a difference between enjoying the culture as the result of semi-isolated populations living differently, and being obsessed with "culture" as some sort of sacred cow that has to be honored and respected. I'll gladly eat your food but I'm not going to hold reverence for your dead great-great-grandma.
Culture is cancer, and it should be abolished
Most people prefer to do things with other people, not just by themselves.
Lol shut the fuck up
Culture is silly but it doesn't need to be abolished.
If LARPers need to do silly things in order to have a little bit of happiness in their empty lives just let them be.
The same for religion -which is part of culture anyway-.
Talk to an academic specializing in anthropology.
I'd agree, but psychology/belief has to be part of the mix, even if only for reproduction of the system (hi Althusser).
Perhaps Holla Forums will ban me for saying this but, this is one reason why I'm very hesitant to call the frum Jews/religious Zionists living on the settlements "arrogant". I don't believe those stereotypes which apply to the rich Jewish kids you knew from high school given an accurate representation of what's going on here, nor do I believe it's correct to equate the mentality of religious Zionists to the alt-right. When alt-right idiots say: "I love the West" their "love" is just a cover for their emotional rage aimed at black and brown people (also Jews). When frum Jews say: "I love Eretz Yisrael" they do NOT mean "I want to kill Palestinians" but a genuine love of the land; in our psychology, we do not believe our relationship to the land is possessive ("the land belongs to us") but see it a sense of obligation ("we belong to the land", "we need to finish what our ancestors started", etc.). Now, we can say it doesn't matter because the end result is the same (dead Palestinians, apartheid system, checkpoints, apartheid wall, police state), but if your goal is trying to understand what the "Zionist settler-colonial project" is on a psychological level, this is it.
Perhaps I'm romantic, but I see nothing wrong with the acquisition of new, "revolutionary" identities as part of the communist project; communism comes as a break with the progression of time. The real issue arises with how this stuff is carried out before then. White Maoists and other LARPers (RAIM, for instance) become obsessed with shedding old identities through emotional blackmail. Their weakness is that they're still stuck in the idea that identity is just a label across the head/individual private property, rather than something through which you're connected by duty/role/obligation (i.e. some of these whiteboy Maoists think that solely by converting to Islam and identifying as genderqueer they immediately "decolonize their minds" or some shit).
To add: belief and action are not supposed to be rigidly opposed. You act because you believe and you believe because you act. What we see with "identity" today is all of the belief with none of the action.
The Zapatistas base most of their praxis on indigenous paradigms. In no way have they abandoned culture.
That's the point. I posted that for the anti culture american piece of shits
Ah, I see.
We left Rafah after Hadar Goldin was taken prisoner in the tunnels, and this officer was screaming on the radio "‘Stop the shooting! You’re shooting like retards! You’ll kill one another!". He could see it. We went back there and they had flattened the town with a rocket barrage. The Palestians lay in a pile. A pile of little Palestians. And I remember… I… I… I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn’t know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized… like I was shot… like I was shot with a diamond… a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God… the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure.
Culture is basically liking funny hats that you wore as a child and people around you wear and not wanting to give it up, let them go, friends, a universal, international proleterian culture would be better anyway
Sounds spooky. We'll take care of you counterrevolutionaries and put you in a nice gulag where you can be "united"
Yeah, the values of socialism
So? Never said you couldn't. Doesn't entail I give a fuck about culture
The "rich jewish kid from highschool" (what does this even mean) isn't currently engaging in genocide so frankly I prefer him. Also your blood and soil shit is not revolutionary by any mean. Face it dude you are speaking like a crypto nazi, israel is literally jewish nazism, your pathetic thinking that a modern nation state can trace back to pre french revolution societies is the same of nazis.
Romanticism was exactly the moment of birth of irrationalism and nationalism, expecially the latter which is the most vile corruption of the sense of community. You are filthy as any alt righter.
Who actually argues for this? Nothing of what you said follows from asserting that - at the end of the day - you are your own.
I am not "black", or "white", or "French", or "American", not "man" or "woman". The sum total of my being cannot be summed up in one label. Not even my interests.
Why the hell is it so important to have an "identity" anyway. No one in my entire life has ever been able to provide an answer to that. Am I disadvantaged here because my entire biography isn't displayed next to this post?
As far as identity is concerned, I don't consider it desirable at all. Sure I may be received better in certain cliques. But really, besides that it's just a suffocating state.
Identities are the chains and manacles preventing us from expressing and exploring out interests. The moment I conform, I am shackled by the expectations of those around me. If I could be completely anonymous in real life, that's exactly what I would pick.
Perhaps consider stepping outside the spectacle for a moment. There is plenty of new culture out there that isn't enforced by shame or childhood indoctrination. Just don't expect to find it in environments that revolve around consumerism and commodity production.
I figured Holla Forums wouldn't be able to handle a discussion on psychology or comparing/contrasting cultures without falling into a kneejerk emotional reaction.
Also, you seen to insist I'm apologizing for Israeli crimes simply by dissecting the psychology of religious settlers. Read my post again. No one ever says understanding the psychology of the Nazis equates to apologizing for the Holocaust, or understanding the psychology behind imperialist atrocities in the Global South constitutes apologism either.
Why is hasbara all over this board nowadays
This isn't hasbara, bro. States and borders are hideous in my mind.
No..it's you useless cunts promoting amoralism that will die in the gulag. You stirnerfags are almost next to nothing.
I'm proud of the history of my country. This land has been occupied by so many different people and they all left us amazing things which resulted in our current selfs. To deny the past is having no present nor future.
Having pride in our race…that's silly, because we're mongrels, and those who refuse to accept that we're mongrels are retards.
fuck off jewnazi
Niggers value their “culture/Muh People!” shit over anything else. Try explaining to them the concept of class struggle outside idpol and watch it go right over their heads.
Are the settlers racist? Yes.
Are they brutal? Yes.
Are they arrogant or egotistical? No.
Universalizing the mentality of the postmodern West - with its solipsism, need for masks, no true faith in anything but short-term gratification - is always bound to fail. In the case of the settlers you are not talking about a society which functions on self-interest, but one in which goes off on one's place within a hierarchy and their corresponding obligations. Even the idea of "choseness" for us Yidn has nothing to do with us thinking we're better than the Gentiles, but on our *tasks*.
Aww, you poor snowflake. Little do you realize your unique and uncategorizable being is so general to this society and emtpy just like you. You fit the stereotype of an entire generation to the letter. You're so individual with that mass produced identity of yours. Of course you don't see the point of identity, you can't appreciate what transcends the mere empty headed burgerstani.
You're not cultureless because you transcend culture and are a cosmopolitan; no, it's because you are beneath it.
This thread is rife with Yank cultural imperialism.
Fucking disgusting tbh.
Sooooo, got any arguments?
user refuted himself. It's called performative contradiction.
The rejection of categorization is itself done within a category. The rejection of a binding culture is itself made within the presupposition of a binding culture of non-bindingness.
It is simple Kantian dialectics, nothing amazing.
OP please refer to
Unsurprising but okay
You completely misunderstood that post. It's not about being "unique" through mass produced apparel or artsy instagram accounts. It's not about defining yourself.
It's about not obsessing about what particular group I conform to. It's about doing whatever you like regardless of whether someones thinks it's beneath you, or out of your league. Without concerning yourself with whether you're appropriating something, whether it's been done before, whether it reflects back on you, or whether you are implicitly associating with others.
Who cares? I don't even get what you're on to here.
But you know, at this point I'm used to this reaction. I get this in real life whenever I refuse to consider my sexuality, my race, my background - or whatever it is that defines me - my all-encompassing "identity". It's this assumption that I - and others - must be shallow one-dimensional creatures if you don't wear your [unique-identity-do-not-steal] like a brand. It's like life is a video game to certain people where we are all just cardboard cut-out archetypes with our biographies next to our name. And if you're not, you're a lifeless NPC wandering around doing nothing. I can seemingly only exist within the established identity. The only meaningful interaction with me is through that identity.
There's also an explicit hostility that I sense. With people actually getting upset and/or frustrated when you don't pick sides. You can be masculine or feminine, gay or straight, black or white. Clear preferences, clear concrete positions.
If not, you're a freak, a deviant, a faker, or you might as well not exist. And it's not just obliged that you pick a brand - no. You must obsess over it. You must point it out. You must explicitly mention it.
Culture isn't an 'identity', it's a set of relations, a way of thinking, an expression of ideas. For all the obsessing over 'culture' I never actually see the identitarian crowd at art venues, chamber orchestras or plays. I haven't met them at dance halls, at writing clubs, or on open source projects.
It's this obsessing over culture without actually living and doing it.
Expect nowhere was culture actually rejected. You seem to equate culture with brands.
What you mistake here is precisely the nature of the rejection of the cultural monolith - the embracing of monism in the guise of the rejection of the ontology of the multiple. What is mistaken is not the assertion of the multiple within the spatial confines of the "real", which would leave one wont to criticize the inability to assert the subject solely within the contours of an existent structural order, but rather the exact opposite - not the dichotomy of the One and the Multiple, but the Lacanian "the One is not".
Beyond your lackluster exegesis, there now emerges the question of the Kantian 'in itself' which you barefistedly entreat us to respect. The remark of the categorical imperative you've advanced is undermined precisely in Kant' remarks about the nature of the man deciding that which becomes sublime - a rejection of the conceptualizing of traditional philosophy in favor of the singular act of an individual becoming a subject, the elusive brush with the infinite (reified in this form as the imperative for the preservation of the cultural cordons of life). It needn't be mentioned the dissolution of the authentic category of culture by capitalism has eroded the independent pathologies of native culture, per Adorno and Horkheimer. This is not all to suggest that there does not exist some immense gap between the individual and the subject, but that its obfuscation in the guise of an extra-philosophical sublime has rendered us unable to establish our relation to that which has bound us - the abstruse and ever present enjoining of commodity to enjoy and suture oneself to the symptom of that which grieves us, rendering the project of the rendering of a subject outside of the material confines of ideology both nonsensical and utopian.
Niggas been reading.
You've actually piqued my interest. I guess it's time to read Kant.
Any recommendation where to start?
Forgive the delay, was on my way to work. For Kant, I'd recommend first reading up on the development of pantheism (the Jacobi/Spinoza) debate, which was the birth of a nascent dispute between philosophy and anti-philosophy, and had a major repercussions in the development of the philosophy of Hegel. I also apologize for my tone, I needn't sacrifice common courtesy in service of rendering a point made.
It is you who misunderstands. Identity is not what I say or believe I am. Identity is -what- I am in my being. I can be without recognizing or feeling, but often it is tied. You know that phrase, 'You are what you do' no matter what you say and think.
The meaning of your generality is that you -are- this generality regardless of what you want to believe. It is the implicit belief of non-belief, user. I don't know about Lacan, but here you do not refute the reality of what you are: a culture less slob and a typical modern historical nihilist who thinks that they appeared as a special snowflake, uprooted and belonging to nowhere, nothing but a fool's ideology.
The remarks on the in-itself and categorical imperative are cute in how banal and irrelevant to this point they are. Your sophistry doesn't impress me, but you do impress those who know nothing like this user
I'm not denying that what we do shapes and determines what we are. What I am arguing against is tethering yourself to pre-packaged brands and letting that determine your actions. Even if those brands masquerade as "culture". They're vessels for marketing commodities.
Take for example sexuality. Nowadays the Gay 'identity' doesn't merely entail same-sex attraction.
Something that was neither acknowledged as "different" in ancient times, or simply considered a normal part of sexual behavior and attractions, is now considered a "brand", complete with advertizing.
Defining what you are - you yourself, or defining others - actually is a complicated affair. Where does my "self" end? 'I' can theoretically survive physically without my relations to others. Without my colleagues, friends, family. With some preparation I might even be able to survive in the wild. Perhaps even while missing a leg, or an arm. Or the loss of one sense, of childhood memories, certain mental faculties.
Everything is interlocked. It's we define that the boundaries of the agents around us.
So you can't be engaged in culture when you disagree with certain labels? When you don't explicitly identify with a certain identity?
There is nothing snowflake about that. It's acknowledging how limiting those brands are.
You're treating the world like it's a videogame or fantasy novel. And interestingly enough denying what people are because they don't fit into your clear-cut categories.
It's a lot better than the haughty namefag accusing people of being gauche slobs.
My generality would function if it did not appear as an empty set/ontological void, or what Lacan would call the 'torture of the symbolic'.
The fact that you deliberately reference the realm of the extra-philosophical (that which I am and must necessarily be, regardless of cognitive process or conceptual thought), especially with name-dropping Kant, I call it name dropping now because you're clearly trying to masquerade as erudite, is what else than a reference to the whole of the philosophical process of Kant, deliberating on the limit to reason and the security of an extra-structural idea or substance that serves as foundation and reference point for the whole of logical discourse. This is the only possible way in which you could justify assuming collective cultural norms as a pre-reflective real, with the reference to the categorical imperative more fit as reference to your impertinence, the irrational and baseless defense of the utopian, the very apex of the empty singularity - the assertion of the primacy of a being, outside the realm of cognition and render.
It would be an excellent comedic add-on to note that your hypocrisy and accusation that I am being intellectually obtuse or dishonest with reference to the systems I've brought up, is actually a epistemological failure on your part, not anyone else.
The final comedic note being that, without this extra-philosophical "untestable" you found your claim on (which is already reconciled in the canon of Badiou (truth-processes/subject) - we've naught to assume on the being of your argument other than its rhetorical value and predominance in the common sphere, the bonafide conviction of the sophist in its most pure. So, drop the spooks, go fucking read a book, and take the cultural determinism back to where it belongs - the garbage bin of anti-philosophical hyperidealism
Holla Forums bugmen fucking obliterated into the stratosphere.
Cultures are all the same and there's no difference in life experience between an asian person and a white person
Got it lol
Literally "no argument"
All people have different experiences. That isn't solely because they are 'white' or 'asian'.
Again, it's a strawman no one is actually arguing.
Have reached apex Holla Forums?
no one is saying this.
Hoochie pls, not today.
just, not today
All people have different material experiences and those material differences can be proven to exist objectively, not subjectively. Ironic that the people lampooning the idea of the subjective experience quickly use it as their own defense
: ) heh : )
You keep mentioning Kant, but it is clear you do not know what was said nor what in Kant is useful to you. You're not even a sophist, you're just a sad pseudo-intellectual laying down word salad.
You're arguing against a strawman, talking past me and my points, ignoring the content and sleezily using words as a rhetorical trick to make it seem there is an argument when there is none.
It's equally irrational to assume religious people will just give up their religion, or in the case of Israel-Palestine the settlers can just be mass deported (there's close to half a million of them). And yes, a one-state solution would still require a massive land reform to ensure the Palestinians get back everything that was stolen from them and would unquestionably be based on race (not class).
I bet you're one of those tankies who supports Mugabe and thinks an Alawite elite in Sunni-majority Syria is "what the Syrian people want." Here's a hint: what's morally correct isn't always what's reasonable.
Get those spooks outta here.
So answer me: how the FUCK is this conflict supposed to be feasibly resolved? You have half a million Israeli settlers living among 3 million Palestinians, so you really think a mass deportation is at all realistic even if it is moral? And how the fuck is the Right of Return supposed to work? Where do all the descendants of the Palestinians expelled in 48 go if their family homes are currently being used by Israelis? Do we just kick the Israeli dwellers out? Who decides?
You know, at least we acknowledge that we're communists. Why are you guys so circumspect about admitting your own ideology?
M8, it's closer to 800,000.
Listen, I'm not wont to restate any of my points, nor am I partial to referring you to what to read. Forgive my mis-wording - English isn't my first language.
The structure of my argument is not hinged on Kant, but the post-Kantian developments. My argument is not that of a rhetorician, as esoteric as I may come off, nor do I hold a purely negative view of the category of "truth", which therefrom would be a the telltale signs of a sophist.
The base assertion of your initial accusation, that of performative contradiction, which supposes that a statement made (that of the rejection of categorization, that of cultural binds) is in contradiction with itself as it is made within the concept of a non-binding culture, fails to account for the fact that the statement on his part was, as I stated, regarding the Lacanian "One is not" and Badiou' "empty sets", is entirely within sound philosophical reasoning in that it does not substitute and critique the nature of the authority of culture from within the confines of a culture that operates on the same bounds (because it is not an assertion of a separate and essential culture but rather the non-real of the one stated by you.)
Your response takes no heed of this prior point, which is to be expected as you directly state your not knowing the philosophy of Lacan, though you make no explicit reference to the inclusion of Badiou, Adorno, or Horkheimer (which were references to the initial discussion, not your back and forth) in their relation to the question of our relation to our dispute on the nature and relation of the individual (not subject) to culture. You proceed to restate your position that my and the other user' reasoning constitutes performative contradiction, only after mentioning that we become our generality regardless of what we believe, which would make sense if our relation to our culture was merely that our difference from what is typical constituted a unique individuality - in which case you would be correct, as our notion of individuality would be defined in a utopian manner, that of difference while still operating on the same fundamental presuppositions of the culture which we attempt to separate ourselves from. This is, as stated, not the case, as the point being made is the inability of the existing order to suture the infinite number of multiplicities/particularities to itself, so the anxiety of confinement to the existing culture is not a count of the 'objet petit a'.
The remainder is an ad-hominem. The rest is a continued development of the ideas from the first, that it is an idealist proposition that a subject exists as essentially beholden to a cultural imperative, one of the most common and inoffensive propositions of, both, critical theory and modern philosophy - even idealist ones.
I maintain, in light of all this, that I have sufficiently addressed your accusations towards the other user, as well as advanced an appreciable critique, a mix of Lacan/Zizek/Badiou, that also addresses the initial debate on the merit and subjugation of the subject to the symbolic of "cultural uniqueness"
I have only to ask forgiveness for so soon suspecting you of antiphilosophical idealism, which I confess is what I fear sometimes in the mention of Kant. Nonetheless, I maintain that your stratification of Kant, and separation from the ideal, extra-philosophical implications of his canon, and its being mentioned by me, is hardly grounds for the insults you hurl, nor your sublimating your own ignorance into a critique of my writing - I made the same point in relation to multiple systems of philosophy.
All in all, I appreciate the discussion and apologize for my suspicions and invective
We are talking past each other, using the same terms while meaning different things. I recognize this, you should to. If I have failed to critique you, allow me to extend the mutuality to also include your failure to critique me.
What the fuck is with all the namefags in this thread?
i hate culture
oppresive cultural identity formenting racism, and punishing wrongthink
being tied down by horrible mistakes made by some long dead assholes
throwing away your own uniqueness to become a walking advert for your "people"
submiting to dehumanising ceremonies in order to be accepted by some psychopath governing the herd from above
Nobody said this.
Not necessarily. An asian person and a white person might have more similar experiences with each than they do with other individuals of their own races.
I know this is asking a lot of a tripfag, but please try to post better.
yeah but Hoocie is one of our most retarded tripfags so dont expect much
Fuck off turkroach.
looks like Peterson was right about leftists being postmodern.
I've never seen them before.
To be fair, you can't exactly have solidarity with someone you have basically nothing in common with.
Do you sell your labor for access to the MoP? That's all I care about on 99% of politically important issues.
That's not a solution…