Has idpol taken over lefypol yet?

Go away

you guys sure showed me

Undialectical as fuck, moron.
Marx's inability or unwillingness to concern himself with the problem of the educated versus the uneducated touched upon by Bakunin crops up in all those passages of his writings in which, for one reason or another, he deals with the educated non-capitalist stratum of society. One of the first essays written by him in the early 1840s, when he was still groping his way toward…Marxism, was his Criticism of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. An unwitting satire on the Marxist claim that all recipients of wages (and salaries) belonged to the same class was supplied, no doubt tongue in cheek, by Marx's contemporary, the ultra-reactionary Imperial Habsburg General Jellachich who called himself a "proletarian who lives only on his wages."

that's the opposite of what he implied, you retarded nigger

You take this implication meme too seriously.
Simply, Marx is already a proto-tankie by his disparaging of the lumpenproletariat.

Wow that's quite a meme you've sperged up.

Oh, you haven't even seen this meme yet.

There were several attempts recently but they all failed.
I don't know for long we'll be able to hold on tho.

If you don't like IdPol stop giving it attention and go read something and make a thread about that instead.

The IdPol problem has been discussed to hell and back for the last two weeks and doesn't need anymore conversation. I remember when I first started coming to Holla Forums a year and a half ago IdPol threads were in the minority and the same conclusions were drawn back then that are now. And they weren't in the minority because the board was dominated by tankies or anything either, if anything there were more anarchists and even they were sick of discussing it

If you guys NEED to waste your time discussing this at least make a general.

I'm usually just b8ing b8; it's not my fault that it's so fun to join in on a reactionary scum's conversation with himself.
No one's saying you can't have a different conversation. The majority of my criticisms come from when people make threads about gender or refer to it in a pseudo-scientific ("truther") way. Ultimately, my goal is to show that even this objective moralism (Utopianism from utility) is a spook.

just curious
are you an actual grill?

Hey guys, you triggered? I said are you triggered?

ARE YOU TRIGGERED YET?

COME ON, ADMIT IT

TRIGGERED

AS

FUCK

kek

Yes.

Not triggered, you are just being annoying.

lol get a load of this triggered undialectical fuck

pic pls?

Is this the negation of the negation?
Hegel?
Are you here to save me?

No.

are you a qt?
do you like third wave feminism?
>tfw no anarchist gf to smash mcdonalds windows with

You know what's annoying? Dealing with REACTIONARY SCUM that don't know just how triggered they are.

I'm here to trigger you, you ultra-triggered reactionary.

Reactionary? How exactly?

See, there you go, getting triggered again. I can't say that I blame you, since I'm a brilliant rusemeister. Haha, the joke's on you, really.

My condolences on your bumpered rumper. Maybe one day when you learn the true dialectics of my ultra special feminism (that only I can define btw) you will stop being such a reactionary triggerholic.

Triggered

I asked you a question

My work here is done, for sure.

Fine. Here's a pic. You judge, otherwise I'll seem arrogant or insecure.
>tfw an attentionwhore

I like feminism, because it's vague and can either relate to class (which is Marxist and radical), or it can become entirely idealistic and moral (Tumblrinisms). I just want to find balance. Third wave feminism's exact boundaries in the history of feminism are a subject of debate, and some even theorize a fourth wave emerging in academia today. All in all, it's historical epilepsy.

You are autistic.

ITT: Everyone get's trolled by an Anarcha-Feminist flag poster.

Seriously they're obviously just shitting you

Whoops, wrong pic. I'm really sleep deprived these days, pretty obviously.

ur a qt femanon :3

And you got triggered.

R.I.T (requiem in triggeret)

lol what's the matter, feeling a little triggered are we? In my dialectical opinion you appear to be showing the symptoms of being acutely triggered.

Hmn…thanks…..

k

will u be my gf
we can do leftist stuff together
pls respond

I seriously (seriously) hope you don't do this again, or that isn't really you.

user pls…

They're just pixels. Judge me how you will.

Don't you hit on me, you silly boys. I don't want anything to do with triggering your patriarchal tendencies to claim ownership over me as your "girlfriend."

Woah the entriggerment seems to be becoming rather chronic.

So you admit that the majority of what you post is false? Cool thanks

Then why is so much of what I see from you and other IdPol conquistadors here "Hey don't ignore me and my argument!" spammed over and over

ITT

I'm not judging your looks. I'm saying it's a bad idea for anyone to post their picture on here for security reasons.

It appears that you just can't handle my post-ironic dialectic. Maybe if you'd read more Marx you'd know just how deeply reactionary you are. Here's hoping that someday you survive your triggering and are able to lead a normal, healthy life (just kidding I was being ironic again).

This is impressive tbh

are you just feeding the ducks right now

Satan-chan was qter tho

No. I admit that I am by and large just trying to provoke discussion, whether jokingly or seriously, to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could posit such a question.
Either I enjoy engaging in such a way, or I hate engaging in the other way.

That's not what I meant. I meant that…whether you think I'm dumb or not for posting it…I would have still posted it.

OMG WE HAVE GRILLS AND THEY ARE QT A FUGG :DDDDD

also they know a lot of theory

It feels good to be the board where we can have fun.

...

Post more pictures of you!

see

Nah. Catgirls are better.

Not everyone who opts the flag communist is communist, nor is the one who opts the flag anarcha-feminism a feminist. Paradoxically, letting them speak for me, or me speak for them—"anyone who speaks in the name of others is an impostor"—is something that you have to figure out on your own.

My point was that even though that poster wasn't you YOU are still out-shitposting Satan Nazi too.

Also
Never gets old famalam. Also I've noticed a trend. Every time you post in a thread within five or six posts it starts to become all about you personally. What's with that?

Obligatory, tho…

your post are always so fun

More like "triggering the cucks" I think, reactionary.

I'm not here to impress you, I'm here to show you all the true light of feminism by posting about it any time someone mentions "idpol" which I'm totally not triggered by btw despite repeatedly claiming feminism isn't idpol, or I might not be since I claim I'm just being ironic when I post everywhere about it with my shitposting flag up.

PS, sorry I triggered you so mercilessly. I can't help my ironic rusery.

Feminism is for women who have forgotten how to be women.

i feel like if i had more passion about anything id do that too as a secret feminist

You seriously think all this discourse about ideology is my personality and my daily life? That's kinda disingenuous to assume, and rather boring considering this other poster in the thread shitposting.

Well it's been fun and for a second I took you semi-seriously but thankfully I know to ignore you for the rest of your time here (IE until you get bored and decide to go back to whatever cess pool of ideology you climbed out of).

Have fun getting all the useful idiots here to fap to ur shitty manga pix

You can do what you want, and I don't think. It's likely not to come back to you anyway, but uh… daily reminder that the pervasive global surveillance infrastructure is very real, and you do well to protect yourself, particularly as a leftypol user.

see

You're both shitposters :^)

That depends entirely on the feminism.

I believe those who aren't well-read on the subject conflate feminism (the entire concept) with liberal feminism. Now, the former is not identity politics, the latter is.

Please explain how to be a woman.

one of them is actually good at it tho

By being a human being: being treated as one by others, treating others as one, and treating yourself as one.

Is check your muh privilege feminism even so much of a thing anymore? I feel like that's a cultural moment that people have seemed to have moved on from.

So indirectly you're saying feminism is for women who've forgotten how to be human. That seems a little extreme.

I find it hilarious that you think that I have to conform to what you think feminism is. Feminism is what I say it is, even though I'll never define it but instead just post quotes appearing to support me.

Sorry to take you both so unwittingly onto my ruse cruise. I can't help it, it's just ironic.

"The stepping out of (what we experience as) ideology is the very form of our enslavement to it. Ideology has nothing to do with 'illusion,' with a mistaken, distorted representation of its social content." — Slavoj Žižek

Whatever you say.

Stay spiced, spicey-"comrade."

I maintain the Sisyphean task of being all at once apathetic and ethical.

Postmodernism was a mistake!!!

Grats, I suppose.

You're aware this was made by "one of us" right? 8ch.net/leftypol/res/591357.html#q695315

What's the matter? Did I trigger you? I can't imagine how.

why is this group so dismissive of feminism? ill never understand this and veganism always get the most shit, for being some kind of idpol cancer even tho feminism has always been part of socialism in a big way, do people not get that we can be leftist and then for a second be like oh yeah we should also keep in mind womens liberation

Yeah I knew it was made by "one of us" (lol)

It's still stupid

Kek, no I suppose that this year has marked the death of liberalism in the West - both of classical "conservative" liberalism and social "left-wing" liberalism.
This is clearly seen in the competition between Sanders and Trump, who both represent a break with liberalism.

Most people still assume that feminism is liberal feminism though.
That not entirely unfair though, since most other forms have been rooted out systematically.

I must confess that I am a little confused right now.
Whether or not you're ruse-cruising it's a valid point to point out that while feminism easily can be connected to identity politics and most often are, it doesn't have to be IdPol.

Doubtful.

lol

"one of us"
Sectarian rectionary scum REEEE get off my boooardd X~((((

Now, I remember when this was made - I was happy for it. But the lack of nearly any modern theory in that list says a lot about Holla Forumss conception of what "tumblr feminism" is.

To be fair, finding good leftist (and not just neoliberal) philosophy post-1967 can be really hard.

Philosophy? Sure. Political theory? Plenty

You're right. It could use more Foucault.

Okay, I'll grant you that, but there are fewer "big names" to pick from, which people like. A lot of the political theory comes from "nobodies" which I actually sort of like, but I must conceed that it has less draw and prestige to the average person.

You're right that their names have less weight but that's only because they're still publishing, still becoming the big names they might soon become. Some more recently deceased theorists are already getting that kind of "legend" status. Ted Grant springs to mind first for me, I'm sure there are others too, I can't think of.

Yeah, I just remembered:

The list should have some Abdullah Öcalan.
A great LibSoc, political theorist and feminist righter for the 21st century.

Also, he has some name-recognition.

The problem is that a lot of these post-Marxist's (it's a very vague term, but it'll do) (not necessarily feminists) who wrote at the turn of the millennia (like Baudrillard) where very critical of capitalism - they had just given up on a revolutionary turnover of the system (or believed it to come in a very different from, such as Negri).

Thus, I think it's a flaw of Holla Forums that they're so reluctant to look at these critical-liberals and say "what can we use here?", instead we throw them away on the basis of their political defeatism alone. I've found feminist theorization of the body and post-colonial racification to be extremely interesting in the way the liberal narrative describe the working class - and constructs a superstructure legitimization of their exploitation.

He's already on it, though from what I've read of him he says really nothing new what-so-ever. The only interesting thing is how influential it's become among the Kurds.

Great post.

You're not talking about women anymore, you're just talking about women. Feminism is for women who have forgotten about the importance of motherhood, social norms (wearing dresses), courtesy, temperance, modesty, child rearing. Feminism is a short-minded response to capitalism, an FU to men who have forgotten how to be men. The problem isn't women, so much as it is men forgetting how to, and even being encouraged to do the opposite of, disciplining women. Women function on a cognitive level of 15-year olds (anyone here who has actually had experience with women knows what I'm talking about,) they don't belong in politics. Men need women to make and take care of our children, cook meals, take them to soccer practice, etc. The problem is effeminate men being total pussies, the problem isn't women, women are easily put in line, the problem is men.

Anybody else loathe anarchaposter even more than rebel "reddit obesity" absurdity?

You can't really recommend defeatists without recommending defeatism.
I mean, I take a lot of my ideology from Nietzsche, but I don't know if I would wholesale "recommend" him to any leftist, out of fear that we might take on some of the shitty parts about him.

Foucault is a faggot and a degenerate, and most of what he says was obvious to past generations.

Nietzsche had no respect for socialist dogs.

women's liberation from being women?

What is the importance of any of those things in a society where women's primary function no longer is to be married off to secure alliances and inheritance rights?

Sure. Doesn't mean that he didn't make some pretty good criticisms of culture and Christianity.

By the way, he wasn't much for conservatives either. He was nobility and aristocracy as decandent and unmeritocratic.

Indeed. One is only truly liberated and emancipated when one's identity is broken and one is free to be an individual instead.

Thus women's liberation must mean the end of womanhood.

Modern feminism basically says "Women are men"

Women are needed to procreate, and to take care of the household while men work jobs that women can't physically do. Real women understand this intuitively.

Nietzsche was the philosopher of aristocrats par excellence.

holy shit

lol
>>>Holla Forums

You cannot be an individual without being a male or a female. Freedom is meaningless without knowledge of how to control oneself, let alone knowledge of how to increase your power.

Sounds like death.

You got it.

you mean the anarcha-feminists right? I think there are two regular anfem posters plus anti-feminists using the flag to shitpost. Anyway, actual feminists are a breath-of-fresh air since I'm getting tired of the "feminism is obviously, undoubtedly wrong" shtick.

I want to like Rebel but the fact he uses Reddit to advertise his videos annoys me more than it would have if he actually used Reddit as shitty-old Reddit.

Give up. You're embarrassing yourself

Women don't deserve voting rights, and anyone who is foolish enough to involve women in politics has no idea what women are really like.

Feminism is for dykes.

You *are* not male or female. You have a male or a female body thus you inhabit something male of female. In this sense, you *have* male or female sex.

Gender is something different though. It's an identity, a set of norms you impose upon your indivuality to reduce it in order to fit in. Thus malehood and womanhood, as identities, must cease to exist in order to usher in the emancipation and free association of the individual.

Did we die once we stopped being nobles and commoners? Did the death of identity in this case mean the death of individuals?

Sorry, I'm a bit drunk. I meant to say you're just talking about manly virgin women or sluts who have never had real men in their lives.

The bourgeois aristocracy is degenerate passive nihilism and obscures the real active means of nihilism by claiming the will to power is capital circulation.
home.isi.org/nihilisms-conscience-nietzsches-politics-aristocratic-radicalism

Yes you are. Check your fucking pants and you will figure that out. You are either man if you have a dick, or a woman if you have a pussy. Gender and sex are two words for what's under your pants. Freedom can also be a word for denial of reality.

Please don't pretend to have read Nietzsche if you haven't.
Right-wingers do this often, and this makes them assume that he was Evola for some reason.

No one hates degeneracy and passivity than aristocrats. Hippies are passive pacifists, aristocrats understand the importance of war. Nihilism is weakness, as is Christianity. And don't link me to degenerate websites in an argument against degeneracy you autistic cunt.

Sure I have. It's called Aristotle, bitch.
And leftypol wonders why brocialist is a pejorative these days..

Holy fuck you're damaged
Have fun with that in life

I don't know who Evola is, but Nietzsche had as much disdain for Marx as myself. Read his tirade against equality in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, or his rants against socialism in Human, All Too Human, or even in the Antichrist. He fucking hated socialists, as does any man of noble-blood.

That never stopped, fuckin' pleb.

Are you dense? I'm no philosopher but he clearly thinks people have a "self" separate from the body.

No. No I am not.
I *am* not a man.
I am.
That is the whole of it.
Nothing less than that.
I cannot be reduced to less than that. I see no reason why other would want to or ought reduce their individuality in order to conform the the societal standards imposed upon them according to the bodies they inhabit.

Then again, I am not infected with the kind of slave-mentality you have, where you crave submission and to reduce and limit yourself.

I never said Nietzsche didn't hate socialists. I even conceeded that point. I don't know why you're pressing that point.

also

Congratulations, what exactly did you read then?

I'm not a 'brocialist' even though that's fuckin' plebbit-tier of you to say. I'm as conservative as your mother's mother you fuckin' confused degenerate.

There were many things that draw real anarchists to Nietzsche: his hatred of the state; his disgust for the mindless social behavior of 'herds'; his anti-Christianity; his distrust of the effect of both the market and the State on cultural production; his desire for an 'übermensch'—that is, for a new human who was to be neither master nor slave.

So, no, the degenerate bourgeoisie is not anything more but passive nihilism.

That's because socialists don't think, they just work off of emotions.

He explicitly denied the idea of a soul as distinct from the body, you're desperate to seem as if you know what you're talking about.

This is coming from a socialist who demands equality which would make everyone a slave to some bullshit conformist standard.

Because the aristocracy teaches you how to think pleb.

Never mind the fact that "soul" is a religious concept, when did I ever do this?

No, of course I'm saying that the Self is seperate in large degree to the body it inhabits

Way to copy-pasta the wikipedia page. Nietzsche fucking hated socialists, as does any of those who contain the German/Nordic spirit. Active or passive nihilism is fucking disgusting, nihilism/feminism/christianity/equality call it what you will. The strong will put you in your place. Women have no rights except what men give them.

Nicomachean ethics, politics, rhetoric, and poetics. His sciencey stuff is outdated.
Oh, so you're a retarded Holla Forumsyp.

Also my grandmother is not conservative, as if you knew anything about me.
>>>Holla Forums

That sounds awfully intelligent.

Equality of oppotunity.
This is also often called "meritocracy". I support not rigging the system in favour of those who already have power.

Even Marx said so:

"one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural muh privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby"

Yeah, so? What is your point with this?

If you think otherwise, then tell me what personal values that all people with male bodies share.

If none, then there are no inherent male values.

I'm sure you're grandmother would teach you a thing or two about men, you fucking namby-pamby. Women shouldn't even have a right to access the internet there so fucking retarded.

People don't even deserve that, because equality is bullshit. Some people are obviously inferior.

Opinion discarded.

k buddy

Real men can put women in there place, real men can provide for their wives, real men can produce children, real men know equality is bullshit.

If that is true, then you have nothing to fear with equality of oppotunity. If you truly are superior then you have nothing to fear from fair competition.

The only reason to oppose it is if you understand that you indeed, are inferior and need a system to protect you.

The point still stands regardless of my lack of sobriety, even now I know I'm more articulate than the average woman.

I copy pasta a lot of text because it has a lot of consensus in academia, but I guess that must be GULTURAL MARGSISM
In the notebook excerpts published as The Will to Power Nietzsche describes nihilism as "ambiguous" in that it can be symptomatic of either strength or weakness. Seriously, reread Nietzsche.

k, bud

But you said that if you have a penis, you're a man.
Does that mean that every single individual with a penis can and will do that?

You're right, I also have no reason to respect such retarded and worthless notions. If plebs need to be beaten back into place then so be it.

Funny way to spell "read".

lol
I'd love to see you be pregnant.

Well, they posted an excerpt from him so I suspect they think they know something…but they probably just get their information from memes just as much as I get my information from Wikipedia. Among other things, anyway.

So you're a tool and listen to what people tell you from above? No wonder you're a feminist.

Nietzsche hated nihilism almost as much as I do.

Giving women the right to vote only proved that men have become weak.

Why is it retarded and worthless? Do you have any other argument than appealing to your fee-fees?
What do those who are truly superior have to fear from a system that promotes those who are superior and demotes those who are inferior?
Why must we protect and shield weakness?

Only the one's have a brain to match their manhood, and those seem few and far between. Most men are shit, and few can live up to actually being a man. Which is why few men should even have the right to reproduce, only the elite.

You probably have no idea what it means to be a woman.

Oh. So you admit that being a man has little to do with whether or not you have a penis?

Holla Forums gets most of their philosophy from memes and infographs.
Holla Forums is a little better, but not by much.

Funny thing is that I probably have a lot more noble blood than this chump who drones on in Evola-speak.

There is simply no need to bother with your petty ideals. If you press equality further we will just cull you until you learn your place. You are a tool, you don't even fathom who you're working for.

If that was it than even egalitarian cuckolds would be counted, and they might as well be considered eunuchs.

There you go again with your memes.

"It is a self-deception of philosophers and moralists to imagine that they escape decadence by opposing it. That is beyond their will; and, however little they acknowledge it, one later discovers that they were among the most powerful promoters of decadence."

the ideological supermarket—like any supermarket—is fit only for looting.

You probably like to make a lot of assumptions on the internet.

I'm just copy-pastaing because I'm really tired of this Holla Forums tripe and am about to snooze.

you're a bootlicking idiot.

But you said just beore that it was biological, that I should check my pants. So is it a set or values or is it biological?

I'm not blaming you here. I've only read "beyond good and evil" directly, most of my other knowledge of the guy is second-hand sources. I was just talking about Holla Forums in general.

You only see it that way because of capitalism. It's actually a battleground that would BTFO any female combatants. In reality women are merely raped on battlefields. They have no place around violence because men will always physically and psychologically destroy them

People make them in real life as well, they're usually grounded experience.

Says the commie tool sucking up MSM/academic bullshit like nobody's business.

Do you really need to have this conversation? Are you unsure whether you are male or female?

Kek.

This is dungeons and dragons-tier

This guy has forgotten that guns - the great equalizer - exist now.

No. I don't. You just need to be consistent in your philosophical positions.

I hold that noone *is* male of female, so no… This is not something I am unsure of.

Funny enough, 1/5 women tend to equal men on the front line, and that's just the one's that volunteer. Who will take care of the kids? Who does that better than women? It's sad when women forget their place. Kurds are cucked as fucked.

I am. Equality is bullshit.

Then you should be put down.

Most of my knowledge of anyone comes second-hand. This I think is the great success of the ideological apparatus, that it doesn't work on just the explicitly stated level, but is also crucial that it maintains for itself the obscene, contradictory consciousness.

An illumination of a scene from the Skylitzes Chronicle, depicting a Thracesian woman killing a Varangian who tried to rape her, whereupon his comrades praised her and gave her his possessions

jap.physiology.org/content/89/1/81

Individuals, who are good a taking care of children? Why ought we not use those best for the task, rather than simply delegating the task to a population segment, regardless of individual ability?

I'm sorry, I'm a gardener-in-training. I'm too dumb to know what you meant by this.

Individuals are mere extensions of family units.

What of individuals who do not belong to a family unit? Are they simply a figment of our imagination?

This link shows nothing about your baseless historical conjecture that female armies were more often conquered by men.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking?wprov=sfla1

Don't be so harsh towards yourself. It's my fault since, being tired, and really, really biased, that I can't find a good, explicated middle-ground.

Are you reading any books currently?

Also
>>>Holla Forums

That doesn't look like a grill

Right now, just a book about how to grow potatoes and other tubers properly, but I'm going to read some Murray Bookchin I think. I don't know.
Any recommendations.

It looks feminine and identifies as a woman. I don't really care if its trans or not, to me it looks pretty cute.

I don't think they've ever identified as a woman.
If it's the same one, I speak to them on IRC and never have they mentioned being trans.

I don't really care either way. Gender is a spook anyways.

Whew lad.

what does that image have to do with anything? It is about a varangian guard trying to rape a woman and being killed by her, and then the rest of the varangians giving her his stuff.

Heh, what a fun name. I hope you enjoy it or at least gleam something from it. What made you consider him in the first place you think?

I don't know about that since I mostly use steam for chatting on the nets.

Even a single counterexample disproves a conjecture.

Well, he's what inspired the YPG basically, and I think he has some interesting perspectives on how you can use the state in certain cases to aid anarchism. Also he has some interesting ideas on how hierarchy is the source of the problem more so than class, posing that socialists who support one kind of hierarchy while rejecting most others may easily degenerate, as in the case of racialist socialists and Leninist socialists.

But yes, Bookchin makes him sound like a nerdy pokémon or something.

This thread is glorious.

We will seize the means of production with the force of a 1000 vaginal walls.

D-dude… come on. Gross.

Fine. One vaginal wall, then.

No. Just one very dedicated spammer using the anarcho-shitposter flag.

...

7/10, nice hair, would fugg

I find myself torn between thinking that the pomo trolling is funny and wishing that we could get back to having actual serious content.

Hey, there is a weird new captcha!

L O N D O N
O N D O N
N D O N
D O N
O N
N

At least I hope, so you're far away from me

I'm not "trolling" like 70% or something of the time
Content is a spook. Language is always subjective and presupposes ontological "truths" in its very form of grammar, syntax, lexicology, etymology, and pragmatics (I'm using pragmatics in the linguistic sense of study and not the philosophical).

is this reply part of the other 30%?

post tits or gtfo

No, there's literally a whole field of study based on this called semiology. See: Saussure & Pierce.

If you say so. Poe's Law is in play either way.

youtube.com/watch?v=6a2dLVx8THA

Here. It explains the difference between signified and signifier pretty well.

I'm fine with this. The internet is a playground.

So…
Let me just get a hang of this.
What you're saying by "content is a spook" is that "philosophical truth cannot be deduced from language".

Yeah, that sounds right, since analytical philosophy has been killed by Gödel and Linguists at this point.

No, there is no philosophic truth!

n1xys cancer crew has sure been trying.

fuck off and die

TITS NOW

gulag from scum like you, reactionary fuck

CRY SOME MORE FAGGOT

come and suck up these tears thirsty fuck

Did femanon shitposter get banned? That ain't right, there's already a shortage whenever satanazi isn't around.

Just get a Stickam if you want camwhore tits.

...

Hmm, do you figure I can get a camwhore to shitpost on a chan with me?

A bit, some people believe religions as ideas are causing problems instead of religions as organisations, based on class relationships.