Snowflake ideology

libcom.org/files/Perlman - The Reproduction of Daily Life.pdf

guys come on it doesnt have to be this hard. i just meant to say i agree with leftists when it comes to economics but i still want to keep my culture and traditions and such, though not make it as much of a prime factor as conservatives do.

Depends on the issue, now doesn't it?

True, so then why should one about social issues when they will be sorted out by marxist revolution?

That's not an argument. In your own words, say why you think the things you think.

That's perfectly okay. Faggots are just trying to confuse you.

Why do we need to have laws against such banal things to begin with? Most countries have fucking tons of pointless, often draconian laws that serve no purpose except exercising authority for its own sake. It used to be common to prohibit or mandate basically anything on a whim to prevent any kind of social change.

Do you think you will be forced to fuck other men at gunpoint if homosexuality is legal or something?

i could care less about homos tbh, the thing is the current left is pushing so far as to defend senseless acts like those done by the BLM, pushing immigrants to come in and conduct cultural appropriation in numerous circumstances.
i just want to look realistically that the black population and acknowledge that we need more education for the misguided youth, look at the obvious fact that first generation immigrants usually dont assimilate very well and reduce their movement (not ban totally). and pushing progressive agendas too quickly as they're doing right now will attract backlash from the right, we're already seeing that now.
and since economic change indirectly affects change in society, why not focus on that?

well, i'm not a revolutionary socialist, but social issues would never fully be "sorted out", they would just reflect the given material conditions of a given place

for instance, why americans (particularly rural americans) are so much more pro-gun than rural europeans

People on Holla Forums seem to forget all-too-often that what we ultimately strive for is not simply a society where the workers are free - though most believe that freeing people as workers will free people in all situations, which I disagree with.

The fact of the matter is that social conservatism, when applied prescriptively and doctrinally, will always lead to the oppression of marginalized groups of people. And this is something that is incompatible with the aims of Marxists and anarchists - in theory, at least, though often not in practice historically in most of the Marxist revolutions and the anarchist ones as well to a somewhat lesser extent.

Inevitably a social conservative will appeal to an argument that conservative viewpoints are just a natural state of society, sometimes going so far as to argue that they are scientifically demonstrable. These people have no idea what science is, and lack historical awareness. To cite an obvious example: Ancient Greece, one of the most important societies in Western civilization (if not the most important for basically providing the foundations of all of Western civilization) widely accepted homosexuality. The so-called scientific proof that homosexuality is against nature (despite how often it occurs in nature) and that women and non-whites are inferior to white males is the epistemic violence utilized by primitive accumulation and colonialism to justify the spread of capitalism emanating out of Europe's bourgeois class of white straight males. It cannot be cashed out scientifically.

Of course, this is then where the social conservatives will cite conspiracy theories that the ebil degenerate social libertarians are conspiring against conservatism in the sciences because there is nothing to back up their claims. And at this point, the only thing left to do is line these people up against a wall along with every other Nazi fuck trying to co-opt emancipatory struggles, as they've always done.

this tbh

"social conservatism" is a pretty meaningless term tbh

you bring up some specific issues, like whether homosexuality is natural (most evidence suggests it is; at the very least it's not a fucking active choice), but "social liberals" have been wrong in the past–read up on the history of the west german left with pedophilia

specific issues should be looked at their own basis, as vague as that sounds, rather than fetishizing progress for the sake of progress

Are you saying lolis should be illegal because if so you're a fagget

lmao

i definitely think lolis should be legal, but actual children is a very different story for reasons that should be obvious

Ok, because I'll fucking hunt you down and shoot you if you try to take my lolis away

smh Nui is still worst girl tho

I don't understand what social conservatism is even supposed to mean. I like tradition and culture and I'd like for it to continue. But these traditions should not be coerced upon anybody and not be held as authority for merely being a tradition. It seems that there are some people who would wish to restrict people's deviation from cultural norms for the sake of combating degeneracy and maintaining stability. It is this that would marginalize the minority, Even if there were no people who were "naturally" homosexual, the society should no infringe upon their personal lives if they wish to commit homosexual acts. Who cares? But what I dislike, is the attitude many young people have towards tradition. Calling it stupid just because it is old and wanting to abandon everything. They are free to do as they please but I believe the new and the old should be kept at a balance. If a tradition is found to have "ugly" or discriminatory aspects to it, it should be modified, but to ditch the traditions just for being traditions is foolish.Both lead to a blindness.

It means everyone hates chads

That is what social conservatism implies, though.

The act of politicizing socially conservative values carries with it the implication that they need to be doctrinally enforced. Because it goes without saying that the left and anarchists would gladly let people continue to be prudes in their private lives if they so wished as long as their actions didn't involve coercing others into following their personal preferences/opinions (such as forcing a partner to be monogamous to them forever because they agreed to be monogamous at the beginning of the relationship but later decided that this wasn't working out for them).

Social conservatism is nothing but reactionary entryism and needs to be smashed.

Learn my pronouns

Well I agree with you. But for example, I'm a buddhist and my family is buddhist. We participate in buddhist practices and culture. Buddhism means something personal to me. I would like to see it preserved and if I had kids I would introduce them to it. I, however, don't think that it should be politicized or enforced in any way whatsoever. It it isn't followed in a meaningfully voluntary way, it is cheap and insincere. If my children are to reject it, then that is fine. To each his own.

Are you saying you don't want a Chinese Cultural Revolution up your ass? Because that was mostly a powerplay by Mao.

What do you mean?

You sound like you are speaking from an American perspective. It may sound like a No true Scotsman at first, but our actual left was crushed decades ago out of Cold War paranoia. Objectively speaking, Democrat types are center-right and ardently support capitalism, even if they are more open to market regulation.
In reality they have only drifted farther right to compete with the GOP, which is bound to be monarchist in a decade. They despise unions and have become apathetic to minorities and the poor; they helped destroy welfare in the nineties to help bring back white voters because of the public perception of welfare as black people living in unearned comfort, even though most users were white by virtue of population. BLM has been further divisive because they think literally everything is "white supremacy" and don't give two shits about the actual problems black people face, generally speaking they are just college age kids that want an excuse to be assholes.

In particular, though, you seem to share the annoyingly common belief that Tumblr runs the world. Nobody cares about "cultural appropriation" or wants to more people immigrate as much as they are tolerant or apathetic to immigration. If anything the US borders are pretty secure and illegal immigration rates are stagnant. I would even argue that it is acceptable to talk about in spite of its racial implications because it is so benign, which means it's unlikely to spur any drastic, detrimental changes when nobody actually looks up how it works in the country. It's a wedge issue that plays on fears.

Immigration is such a failure in Europe because they have stupid governments that don't know what they are doing. The US government is a colossal asshole, but is at least good at it. Even immigrants from the same country are extremely more likely to be criminals in Europe than America. Ironically, Muslim views in America are still rapidly improving because they hate the government instead of us.

I'm asking why you think your Buddhism is threatened.

Is it because that opium of the people quote?

I don't.

...

Then why would you feel threatened by social liberalism?

is there anyway to argue against the "muh ussr" "muh venezuela" argument without using the "no true scotsman" argument?

well yes, but how do you explain that to a non-leftist (which is pretty much 99% of the country) without sounding like a snowflake socialist? people arent going to buy the "we're moving rightwards" and especially stormfags are just going to dismiss it as jew shill or some stuff.

anyways is there any specific beliefs in what i described? it cant be that snowflake right?

I'm sorry if I made it seem like I do, but I don't. What I was saying is that people should be tolerant and free to do as they like as long as it doesn't oppress others. But at the same time, I very much like tradition and would like to see it preserved but not with force or politically. Basically, I don't accept the way of the sword as it would be done at the expense of others who differ. I don't like the attitude of the people who arrogantly deem their traditions as superior and would enforce it dogmatically. If people seriously think they have to do certain things which I wouldn't do (like have sex with multiple people within a short time frame) they should be able to go for it as long as it isn't rape or anything forceful.

this is just kind of depressing. it gives validation to Holla Forumsfags to say "blacks are more useful and intelligent while oppressed".

So…what's stopping you from living a traditional life? Do whatever you want. I can assure you that nobody cares.

Do you have the over version with shillery?

Short of rabid SJWs claiming that Buddha (I've never seen this ever) is the patriarch, that's pretty normal social liberalism. Other people accept you as long as you don't infringe on others. And no, a man marrying a man does not infringe on how you choose to marry in accordance to your religion.

Nothing is stopping me from having a traditional life. I don't feel persecuted or anything. Where this comes from is that I don't understand what conservatism is supposed to mean. Does it merely mean a stress over traditional life and culture or a FORCED implementation of policies intended to "protect it" You see what I mean?

in a lot of asian countries traditions are being sacrificed for a materialistic consumerist capitalist culture popularized by porkiechingchongs like japs or second best koreans. these, especially the second best koreans have spefic corporations designed just to provide entertainment to make profit (developing pop groups to gain cult following among beta teenagers and get money from concerts, merchandises). around 2013 here the government spent 45000 dollars to invite one of such """"""""""""bands""""""""""""" here while people are starving in the mountains and ethnic minorities barely have education.
so what would an ideology that tries to conserve traditional values while fighting for progressive economics?
im not the other guy

Well I don't think marriage should even exist. But yes, that really doesn't count as infringing on other people's rights. I agree.

I agree with you as well. I don't think there should exist some hierarchy promoting any "social values" should exist. It's very sad how money (the people's god) ravages almost everything it touches.

All you have described is antipathy toward specific "progressive" politics, which seek to change the priorities of social authority, not to challenge it outright. Pretty typical socialist talking point.

In politics, conservatism does indeed imply force. People are just so used to force that it seems innocuous to them.

I would call him a Social fascist

Traditional culture is being eroded by capitalism to begin with. All culture is. Even avant-garde life is fetishized into commodities and fads

I think that any socially conservative ideology is authoritarian and ignorant.

Most capitalists support capitalism because they have been lied to and misled, but social conservatives have no such excuse. They're just fundamentally shitty people who let their gut feelings control their decision making without thinking things through or empathising with others.

Well if that's true, than I'm not a conservative but have a conservative "lifestyle". It's interesting because Chomsky calls himself a conservative, so this is where the confusion comes from.

Capitalism erodes everything.

you believe in something that is very silly, seek help of the ghostbusters

I personally use it to signify the importance of education and information, I don't even consider myself more intelligent than the regular Joe. I guess I better stop using it since it sends the wrong signal.
Regards, not the guy you responded

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

youtube.com/watch?v=ujDltzATwk0

You're free to do that; but there's no reason to insist that everyone else needs to do that too; if you can't do it without keeping it to yourself, this means that there is some kind of force or at least persuasion involved.

But it's useful to remember that your "culture and traditions" are just things to make you feel good through identification. You're clearly worried about losing them, which is itself the suffering caused through clinging.

The sooner people learn to disassociate and realise the quality of non-self in phenomena like culture and tradition, the less suffering there is.

I'm not advocating for change for the sake of change, as that's just the same as identifying with tradition; one clings to change. I'm advocating becoming detached and not getting upset when you see that things change.

Perhaps the solution is to move away from the principles of integration and trying to produce a "pure" group of people who behave in similar ways. I think the solution is to emphasise not clinging. Each person should realise that clinging to traditions and habit causes suffering, no matter if these people are immigrants or natives.

That's okay, just prepare that you won't be able to. Do you seriously believe that after such radical changes to the economic relations in society the culture won't adapt to the new conditions? That's pretty naive.

Good post

Read the sticky

To answer you question, Holla Forums is not a homogeneous group. Some here seems fine with calling themselves Marxist feminists (and then several subgroups of how feminist), other's don't like connotations and call themselves egalitarian, whatever works. In general, I think more or less all of us agrees that any attempt to enforce a perceived traditional/nuclear family or gender roles (for either sex) is an attack upon the individual choice.

I guess the bottom line for most is that anyone should have the right to dress in drag, get fucked in the ass etc, but a recognition that these activities are in no way revolutionary or a critique against the capitalist system - for that one needs to talk about class (even if it's not class alone).

Because economy is in itself a social activity, as labour is a social activity. Social norms are also intertwined with the class system they exist in.