Is there any legitimate reason to be anti-feminist, anti-SJW when it comes to the gender and race pay gaps...

Doing leads people to think it is.

The quicker you bring this about, the quicker women and minority workers will see their personal oppression as in the context of the proletariat. The reason why these issues work right now is because these people see their oppression as the result of sex or race, not class. Get rid of that, and their will contextualize their oppression in terms of class.

It would be great to skip straight to class. That's not going to happen at this point though.

It's not allying with the rapid SJWs. The rabid SJWs exist because of divisiveness. The more they drive you to the other extreme, the more they are justified to going to their own extreme. By acknowledging their issues on some level, you stop alienating much of the left. If you stop alienating the rest of the left, you can get more people on the idea of class struggle.

As it is, anti just makes you look crazy in this climate, it's a double win for porky. I'm not saying you should go full SJW. I'm saying between the options of being anti and letting porky's play divide you even more, or meeting part way, meeting part way is more productive, no matter how upset you may be that porky caused this issue.

Let me put it another way

You can go

or

wow we really need the help of these trailblazing revolutionaries

Let me put in a more likely way…

Trying to appeal to idpol

Disregard idpol

But seriously OP, you need to understand that even though we are against idpol, we are still for equality of all people.

You're damn right.

It is sort of happening though.
A lot of people found out that Barrack Obama has done nothing for black people. I bet most would find out the same thing about Hillary Clinton.

I suppose a kind of identitarian accelerationism, might work out for the better, though.

...

Yes. While hypotheticals like those mentioned in may happen, we've seen leftist movements and organizations get so bogged down in Idpol that they can't get anything done when it's allowed to flourish. As someone who has a latina gf and whose kids likely won't be pure white I want to see institutional discrimination, that is discrimination with power behind it, go away. That isn't going to happen when production is controlled by a few private individuals and sitting around discussing muh privilege and shit. SJWs and (liberal) feminists can't fundamentally solve these issues and would be more than happy with a more diverse ruling class while leaving the vast majority of proles of every sex, race, and whatever exploited. As such we should oppose them on the grounds they aren't effective at solving the problem.

"This stuff" isn't leftist. It's just the alt-right in blackface and a frock.

I didn't say it's about recruiting them. It's about trying to be the more reasonable of the alternatives. This tit-for-tatism just has people going for neolib shit.

Doesn't seem to be working out so great in reality.

The fact that many won't even engage on the topics of gender and race only means you can't proselytize to them. If you engage with them, that means you can try to convince them of class consciousness. Refusing to engage, and being outright confrontational does the opposite. Engage them and interject class at every point you can. You might annoy them by inserting class into everything, but it becomes part of that dialogue.

You're still going to have to work through this gender crisis thing. It's more harmful to be adversarial about it than to engage them and be part of the conversation.

What I'm saying is that by completely disregarding any level of idpol, you're giving up any say you have in defining the role of idpol in the left. You're adding fuel to the fire, and making SJW idpol seem more reasonable.

It's difficult for me to give my opinion on the worst cases of SJWism because the fact that brocialists often don't disavow the extreme ridiculous cases of SJWism, but often the entirety of any sort of idpol, and the fix to idpol is class struggle, it makes it very hard to have my voice heard. You can fix some of the idpol stuff on the way. It's not the worst thing in the world if you deal with some of it before the revolution. Alienating people on the other hand, not so good for the revolution. Being so extremely anti gives them a very potent weapon.

It´s what happening in my country, the left is dying and the populist rightwing party is swooping up all the dissatisfied working people.

Put go ahead, idpol has been such smashing success right!

Also…

There's a very legitimate argument to be made for actual feminism that focuses on getting rid of gender roles, because gender roles in our society produce women who are more likely to be counterrevolutionary (moderates, liberal SJWs, etc.). Liberal feminism today seems to be primarily concerned with enforcing strict gender roles.

Exactly. People aren't swarming to your version of leftism, and you've divided the left so you're not even a part of the conversation on idpol. It's not working, people aren't going to you and you won't engage idpol, so SJWs get to define idpol.

It actually has been brought up in actual conversation before. Well Berniebros has.

And race issues? It produces uncle toms? If you dismiss idpol, you get no say on idpol. You could be actively working to make the idpol opinion more reasonable than what SJWs are doing. It's almost like you're acting as reactionaries against SJWs, and SJWs are using that to dominate the public dialogue.

Bringing about class consciousness requires unity. By letting stupid SJW idpol become a divisive factor, you are working against it. Idpol does not go away just because you pretend it doesn't exist. Engage idpol, come up with the more reasonable ideology, and win the hearts and minds of others. Don't push them in the other direction.

What is your point? Are you suggesting that every leftist should fight every possible facet of inequality in society and still manage to oppose capitalism?

This assumes they're interested in negotiation or economic change. They're not. The SJWs want you to do what they say, all the time and not do anything else. I think you know that though, given your use of the term "brocialists".

You misunderstand, Our version of leftism isn´t mainstream anywhere, it´s the idpol version of leftism that is losing support among the people all over the first world. So dont try to put your failings on us.

You support those issues enough that you can proselytize to them, yes. If you're not engaging with them, they're not gaining class consciousness. You treat them like they're not worth interacting with. This is the exact opposite way of achieve class consciousness.

I'm not saying you'll ever win the stupid SJWs. I'm saying you're giving people that identify as left to the SJWs. Come up with a way to deal with gender and race issues better than SJWs, and people will stop listening to SJWs. This requires more than just saying class struggle will fix everything.

You're concerned that fighting for those causes will mean you won't achieve your anti-capitalist ambitions. You know what many of them are concerned about? They're concerned that if they fight for your causes, there's no guarantee your revolution will be successful or bring about positive change for them.

You're going to have to compromise. If their oppression is because of porky, both help them now, and set their eyes on the real target. Don't just tell them there's your real target, kill porky and things will get better for you. That looks like you're just trying to deflect or use them. There is nothing wrong with alleviating porky oppression if you can help people contextualize it as porky oppression while you do so.

And that's the problem. You expect people to magically convert to class consciousness. You are not engaging people and their issues. You can't proselytize this way, you can't be part of the mainstream leftist dialogue this way. You are hoping that people adopt your ideas wholesale without reaching out to them and meeting them part way.

Show that you want to help them. Fight for their causes which are ultimately because of porky. When you are fighting their fight, you gain their trust. That's when you help them contextualize things in a class context. Take the first step with them.

While Holla Forums is making headway into turning every day people into white nationalist, Holla Forums is talking about compromising with SJWs.

This is why Holla Forums loses, every times.

No, they won't. SJWs and supporters aren't interested in solving these problems. They just want power. They want their will to triumph.

youtube.com/watch?v=BDj_bN0L8XM

So what you're saying is…SJWs are übermensch? Wow, I want to be a social studies warrior now!

That's because white nationalism is idpol.

You're trying to get the people that identify as left, not the SJWs themselves, and make SJWs irrelevant. Your worker based idpol is tone-deaf. Don't let SJWs dictate idpol of the left.

Yes, and addressing career choice and reasons why women don't get promoted is part of the way you deal with the wage gap. If you deny it exists, when it does, you let someone else dictate the explanation for it.

No, it´s you who expect people to people magically gain class consciousness by idpol, we actually want to talk about class.

Idpol has already been proved to not work, I dont know why you are so obsessed about it.

No, career gap leads to earnings gap, there is no wage/pay gap

How about you do that, and I'll continue to support feminists that can be bothered to incorporate materialist analysis instead of feels>reals SJWs.

...

Class consciousness is a form of idpol. You might want to talk about class, that doesn't mean you're getting your message out to people in that class.

Yes there is. Just because Maddox is a twat and glosses over the promotion bit because the settlement says "no wrong doing" and thinks laws on the books are 100% enforced doesn't mean shit.

I'm telling you to engage the left and tackle the issue of idpol. I'm not telling you to convert SJWs. But you probably think everyone not worth your time is a SJW. Even if they just hopped on SJWism because that's the leftist thing to do, they don't meet your level of scrutiny for an acceptable feminist. If you look down on the people you need to convert, you're not going to convert people. You're not raising class consciousness. You're just circlejerking with other people pretending you're the vanguard or something.

I'm referencing Leni Reifenstahl's film.

Did you miss the last twenty-thirty odd years of history or something? Any idpol construction will be immediately hijacked by SJWs with cries of "do as I say or you are a bigot" or declared as bigotry of the right.

...

There's a massive amount of doublethink going on here. SJWs are causing people to flee to the right, but SJWs will always be relevant. I never said you should adopt SJWism. I said you should tackle the issues SJWs tackle. If people support these causes, but SJWism drives them away, then you'll be there to take them in. They're relevant because you let them be relevant. They're basically the only and loudest voice on many of these issues now, and they're because you're letting them basically bully you with the bigot line.

Post-scarcity might be inevitable, that doesn't mean you won't end up on a savage reservation.

Nice shitposting, perhaps you could point out anywhere where idpol-leftism isn´t being soundly beaten by neo-libs or populist rightwingers right now?

Well if your definition of idpol is that broad then I dont really see the point of this discussion.

Wow, racist much? Fucking cishet scum

Holla Forums

...

You're now strawmanning me, reddit. You've very studiously missed the central point of my argument: SJWs will either co-opt or sabotage any competing grouping.

Then lets get down to it. Instead of dismissing everything you don't like as SJWism and idpol, and invariably dismissing feminism as no-true-scottsman or idpol, learn to actually address the topic. I said try to take a reasonable stance, not convert to SJWism. If you believe that people actually want a reasonable stance, then take one. Don't just ignore or deny it and hope it goes away.

Filthy prole

Because people like you let them.

We are not going to win any supporters with social issues. Our strength lies in economics.

Prove me wrong, then.

I am certain that any group you attempted to establish would be thoroughly infiltrated and derailed within weeks. I would be delighted for this not to be the case but reality is what reality is.

Undialectical tbh.

The burden of proof is on you.

Yes, which is why referring to it as a "wage gap" is erroneous. It's an "opportunity gap".

Because people let them. They chase people out of the discussion until they're the only voice left, and make it so the only voices are pro and anti. And dividing people into a clear pro and anti dichotomy only give them more legitimacy in the eye of the outside observer, which may or may not be majority, but more than when they were fringe and there was a competing moderate view. By driving people to extremes they bolster their numbers, and by driving people to the other extreme, they use that to further justify their existence and recruit more supporters. The solution to SJWism is being reasonable and holding your ground.

The way you try to use that term is naked sophistry. And no, the burden of proof is not on him, because history supports his argument.

It's wage as an aggregate. Units of currency for units of labor-time.

There we go with the deductive reasoning again. I don't really have a stake in this argument (I'm not that user) except that the way he's framing his argument is circular. ie:
is really bullshit, begging the question yet dodging it nonetheless, as if the 2 signifiers were not 2 signifiers signified and signified and so on and so on top assume the initial point and demand from it the circumstances.
I'm probably not going to reply to you anymore though because >hurrr is just sophistry

It´s not gonna work, we are outnumbered and outgunned. Also consider that the naive leftist is prone to believe the accusations of bigotry, as it´s a popular narrative these days.

Do you have any ideas on how we should do this beyond "be reasonable"?

Go implement your praxis, then. When exactly what I have described occurs, do not be surprised.

The pay gap is bad. I support efforts to fight it, but most feminists don't go far enough; they're okay with CEOs having a wage 100s of times higher than workers provided said CEO is chosen in a gender-blind, race-blind process.

No one should face racial or gender discrimination, but trying to address it without striking the economic system that creates it is a fool's game; at best you empower a tiny minority of women and racial minorities while the rest remain as powerless as any other worker under capitalism.

The pay gap is a myth. It has been thoroughly dosproved. Men seek out higher paying employment and work dangerous jobs like in mines and on oil rigs while women will not treat those as an option. Working the same jobs with the same experience the difference in pay is negligible.

The gender gap is extremely simple compared to disparities in race, because it's mainly due to personal choices, the exceptions being maternal leave and the politicization of benefits that females need in particular like birth control.

Ironically, affirmative action is mostly exploited by well-off white women.

the best thing to do is not take sides, dont be a feminist or an anti feminist because both of them have no intentions to cooperate with the other. its best to leave it until everyones tired or it becomes irrelevant.

This is what always baffled me. Even if the wage gap was completely made up, taking action against it will only hurt the bosses and NO ONE ELSE. There's literally no reason to be against this.

Westerners are trained to idolize their bosses like deities.

I don't want women to be paid the same as men. When they do less dangerous jobs, jobs of less market value, work less than men because they take more time off for pregnancy/child rearing, etc.

If you look at millennials, childless women are beating the shit out of us men in the workplace. And yet leftists wonder why white working-class Millennial men are voting for Donald Trump…

Yes, all of those calls for more women CEOs and gender-discriminatory hiring practices will certainly only hurt the bosses. The capitalist's worst nightmare is a world where they still own the means of production and have orders of magnitude more wealth than the proles, but 50% of them are women.

You may want to look into the labor movements of the Nineteenth and early-Twentieth Centuries.

Nobody wonders about that. The motivations of reactionaries are anything but mysterious.

hey welcome from reddit enjoy your stay

There should be no wages in the first place, porky

Yeah, it has been obvious that feminist "it's not bigotry if we do it" id-pol has been driving people to the right for a long time.

Never change, Holla Forums

It´s sad but true, those same idpolers that would rather skin their right hand rather then saying the word "nigger", cant turn around and use language more vile then the KKK to describe the working class men that are losing out in the new global capitalism.

Ideology, and likewise stepping out thereof, drives us to tension and madness. Madness, herein, is the absolute break with the work of art; it forms the constitutive moment of abolition, which dissolves in time the truth of the work of art.

The thing that the left doesn't understand is that you have an entire generation of young angry white men who are unemployed and there's like no social safety net for working-age men. Meanwhile all a woman has to do is open up her legs and the government gives her money for 18 years. And now you have Democucks who want to make it even harder for us to secure employment. When childless women are already kicking our ass in the workplace. That's a kick in the teeth.

The official unemployment rate in my province for men aged 25-54 is only 6.1%. But the employment rate for men aged 25-54 is 85.2%. What the hell happened to the 8.7% of men who are not employed but not considered unemployed? Either the government is fudging the unemployment figures or that 8.7% gave up looking for work because it's pointless.

And I bet if I looked at data specifically for 25-29 and 30-34, the situation would look more bleak. The baby boomers are better positioned than us.

This almost looks like a script.

...

Pay gap isnt real.

And we are anti-idpol not solely because "oh porky causes it" but because you cant fundamentally change shit within capitalism. Racism will NEVER go away as long as minorities live in poverty and are kept there like all poor people are. For sexism, i cant even think of a serious issue here in the EU aside from fucking Muslim shitstains fucking shit up.

There is nothing wrong with using memes of other people if they are true.

Actually i got the meme from here, but it applies perfectly to this situation.
On the other hand you are dismissing the post based on its procedence alone.
This is very close to "you are X your opinion is dismissed" substituting X by whatever attribute , no matter how irrelevant to the content which is ,ironically ,one of the most common attitudes in Holla Forums.

You said you were familiar with fallacious implications, no?

So tell me what one means when referring to tu quoque and how it relates to confirmation bias (ie the informal "fallacy" of selective attention).

Sure, your "historical" analysis is totally not based in anecdote but a real spectrum of politics data!

Im not him. I dont have to explain shit to your stupid "if you cant answer my question it means im smarter and thus right" questions.

Then don't, but stay away if you're afraid, yea.

???

Profit.

Implication of position against feminism and SJW without specifying the parameters of either.
Implication that these gaps exist in any significant manner.

"no really I'am one of you" while confusing the points hes trying to imply consensus on, a indication that whoever is manufacturing this bait hasn't read a smidge of theory.

That last paragraph is pretty much the same pattern as this meme.

...

You still need to explain tu quoque if you want to reach the negation of the negation and respite from your ideology. But I guess tu can play at that game.

I thought the mods banned you, anarcha-fem poster

Only for so long. Now I can funpost about >muh materialism & c again.

I feel terrible directing people to this video when I want to dispel the wage gap myth, but Maddox really put together a great, concise presentation on this one. I don't know a better link.

I liked you better when you weren't arguing on behalf of identity politics and posted slutty 2D catgrills

You've literally becoming the most annoying shitposter on this board. You make me long for the old days of Milo, Jim Profit and SatanNazi

I'm not allowed to post porn or anything resembling roleplay. So I gotta keep the catgirls to a minimum.

here is a happy kitty for you though

Do read Das Kapital again, and then Marx's theses on Feuerbach:

"The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated. Hence this doctrine is bound to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society."

youtube.com/watch?v=EtvfHnZMcOY

should've been
thb

It's pretty clear that in that quote that Marx is criticizing dogmatic bourgeois conceptions of materialism or what he called mechanical materialism. Nice try deflecting when people call you out for your idealist post-modern bs tho.

Just because some post-modern thinkers had good ideas and points in particular doesn't excuse the general failures and idealism of the movement. It became the ideological vanguard of late capitalism along time ago fam. And your still back in the 80s trying to convince the rest of us living in 2016 to give it all a fucking chance.

Anarchist Christian and other religious cults were around a long time before capitalism and your le materialism maym they didn't fix shit.

>If you make compromises and give ground to SJWs/feminists, they will respond in kind! Definitely don't hold your ground and force them to give ground or look crazier and crazier to reasonable people.
Go home, Porky. You're drunk.

Solidarity with radical and extremist ideologies that aren't rooted in reality or fact does no good to either side of the political spectrum.

Just because SJWs and Feminists claim they are liberals does not make them actually liberal.

They are rotten authoritarians who use emotional manipulation and social bullying tactics to gather power and wealth for themselves.

...

Saved that excellent post

If they were liberals and not insane, kool-aid swilling lunatics, then there wouldn't be an issue with supporting them… But they aren't, so this whole idea that you need to side with insane anarchists, tumblr special snowflakes, and identity politics-obsessed faux-academians just because they claim to be on your team is fucking stupid.

That's exactly how the left got co-opted and used to allow opportunistic con-artists to squeeze money and authority from weak-willed fools.

I'm more concerned about the paygap between a janitor and a lawyer.

Consider addressing the wildly out-of-synch systems that make up the total cost of living, first.

Giving some people more money for their labor is nice in the short term, but it doesn't solve the issue of various necessities, utilities, taxes, and property costs being way too fucking expensive.

It's just the average earnings between men and women.
There's already laws to protect against this kind of thing.
These are problems inherent within capitalism anyway.

I think you want this board >>>/liberalpol/

Oh, but you see, this middlemanager, who is male, is making more than this female one, and the female middlemanager is less likely to become a CEO.

..

What do you mean workers? SJWs don't deal with filthy peasants!

How about no.

I would say that Milo was worse. Milo had sockpuppets and tripfagged. He also did the same shit where he would pretend like out of context references coupled with a contrary lolpinion counted as irrefutable proof and then declare victory with semi-serious LOLITROLLU memes when he got rekt.

What definition of "liberal" are you using here?

Meant that if it will hurt anyone at all, it will be the bosses. Closing the pay gap, unlike implementing affirmative action, won't harm any proletarians that are excluded from its agenda (i.e. male workers). So it's the last thing we should be wasting effort opposing.

OK mother fucker. Let's use Clapistan for an example.

So let's do some basic math. The average working woman makes 0.82 what the average working man makes, and women work at 82% the rate that men do. Multiplying the two figures we see that women on average earn about 67% or 2/3rds of what men earn. Now let's make this really simple. So for every 2 dollars a woman earns, a man earns 3. BUT what about spending? If we were talking about even-Stevens consumer spending of those 5 dollars (the man and woman each spend $2.50), that would mean the woman spends 125% (2.5/2) of what she earns while the man pays 83% (2.5/3) of what he earns. But consumer spending is far from even. The numbers I got while casually browsing just now were around 60-80% female-controlled. So out of that $5, the women are spending $3 or $4 while the man spends $1 or $2. On the lower side (60%), that would mean women spend about 150% (3/2) of what they earn while men spend 67% (2/3). On the higher side (80%), that would mean women spend about 200% (4/2) of what they earn while men spend 33% (1/3)

WHY DOES NOBODY EVER MENTION THE SPENDING GAP?
A certain group of people controlling a greater portion of wealth than their labor would suggest? Who does that sound like?

[1] data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FM.ZS
[2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_States

I know, and you were wrong. The only thing that hurts the bosses is rising labor costs or revolution, which is not what "closing the pay gap" does.

Refusing to fight for it is not the same thing as opposing it.

Nice try deflecting when people call you out for your materialist "modern" BS though.
Not at all, silly. All materialism is in effect an argument for the property-form "I may sell this to this market because it is for the good of society" and that capital in general also includes unprocessed goods. Being simply an economic determinist was never the foundations of Marxism; instead, historical developments, the role of the geographical and psycho-cultural investigations cannot be divert nor accelerated at all.
lrn 2 dialectics

General failures like what? That edgy kids can go on the internet and hate postmodernists without ever having read a single word of theirs? Pure ideology.
Yeah, it's totally their fault that you haven't actually read Marx, Hegel, Kant, Plekhanov, Adorno, Bloch, Marcuse, the Yugoslavian Praxis school, Jean-Paul Sartre, Foucault, or Gramsci.
All these misunderstandings are of your own arrogant making.

So I say again,
lrn 2 dialectics, nerd

You realise normal people don't know about the SJW menace? But we have to make sure the left looks good to twelve-year-olds on the internet who to them, the most important thing politically is btfo-ing e-feminists and making sure the world knows you can't be a feminist without being crazy and hating men or something.

Yeah, because BlackLivesMatter, transgender bathrooms, rape on campus, and Hillary "It's a Woman's Turn" Clinton are never ever in the news.

Though, on the aggregate level materialism certainly describes the development and shaping of ideology better than any other level.

Much as I would tell and Austrian Economist, yeah, things get very complicated when you go into very detailed critiques, and yes newtonian mechanics break down on the sub-atomic level, but to reject the aggregate level of analysis is to cripple all real systematic analysis of the issue.

As an allegory, newtonian mechanics still work when looking at celestial bodies close to us and with most objects that are actually of any practical use to human beings. The same with Macro-Economics when describing the development of economy.
The same with Materialism, when we're talking about the development of ideology.

Even though they all break down on the microscopic level.

Yes, normal people hear about blacklivesmatter and are like, "what? People are up in arms about police brutality? These people are totally unreasonable?"

OR they watch the electric idiot box and think all they want to do is rob convenience stores and entitled.
Swings either way.

This is a good point, however my contention lies herein. Instead of being the simple no-nonsense, tough-minded alternative it seemed to be has tended to substitute for 'matter' some notion like 'whatever it is that can be studied by the methods of natural science,' being a form of naturalist ideology. The most important contrast and distinction for philosophy as common-sense goes back to Plato's philosophy of forms, Kant's critique of pure reason, and Marx's use of the dialectical method in Capital, that mind or spirit or consciousness holds the contexts and contents of these identities through ideas. Is it then fair to say consciousness is a separate entity? Well, not necessarily: don't even illusions need minds to have them (cogito ergo sum - i think therefore i am)?

I think, and I could be wrong of course because I'm a fairly simple agricultural worker, that the biggest part of where we might disagree is on how much agency people have.

I essentially believe that we only have very limited free will. We are born with a certain temperament (nature or Will, if you'd like), which may guide us in the direction of certain archetypes in society, that are shaped and created according to what is more pragmatic for that very society. The only real choice we have in choosing which kind of people we are is whether we choose to embrace our Will and thus the path that has been laid out for us or not.

I don't know if you agree.

I agree. It's not as if I can say "I'm flying" and then suddenly I'm flying, to use a cliché example. However, I believe one should exercise caution when someone gives you a prescriptive account of science or a practical function of one's will. This does not mean to say that you cannot know something, quite the contrary, that one can be so sure, as to override compassion and all other evidence to the contrary. However, when one philosophizes, and indeed when one asks about the function of a laboratory within science, language still treats mental occurrences as independent events (hypotheses) and our normal language for describing them, with its apparent reference, using personal pronouns, to subjects who have them, is viewed either as not designating anything, as with some first person instances, or designating the body to with experience is causally linked, as in the third person. All in all, I have a less extreme version of Cartesian solipsism and would describe my views as compatibalist/stoic-that determinism does not matter but that individuals' wills are the result of their own desires and are not overridden by some extreme, divine (or otherwise "economic") force

to which experience is causally linked*

And this tells us what exactly? That men are more frugal? Well, good for us I suppose.

Indeed, one's Will is a manifestation of one's own desire.
However, I would pose that you do not choose your own desires. These are simply inherent in you from birth and the concrete manifestation of these desires is shaped by the society one lives in.

I, for example, was born as a person who was destined to be an anarchist, but had I been born in the distant past I would much more likely have been a Machievellian tyrant; however, the archetype of the Anarchist exists today and the Warrior-King does not, and so while they result of the same will to power, I become one rather than the other becauce of the economic forces around me.

That's my model of Will and human agency, anyways.

Hmn. I agree to an extent. Every ideology, and even when we shed former ideologies, attaches itself to some kernel of a pleasure principle, of ambiguous excess, an awareness that we are not fully identical (practical ideological efficiency-"I am still human, I am free to choose my ideologies!/real people with real worries!"), and makes it possible to lie in the guise of truth, whether paradoxical or common sense.
But that, for me, just makes:
…a very interesting position to have. I want to poke at you some more but have to be getting some sleep for tomorrow. May you have a pleasant day

thats a strong term. i consider myself a first wave feminist, but second and third wave feminism are too far away from class consciousness and focus too much on trivial matters that could be solved immediately under socialism

Poking is mean, m'kay

thank's for the chin-waddle. sleep tight

Shit, fucking autocorrect

blacklivesmatter stopped being about police brutality and turned into another pack of arseholes screaming about "triggers" months ago. Sucks really. The police brutality was important and needed dealing with but the issue has been completely backgrounded by the SJWs who jumped onto the bandwagon to push their inconsequential shite.

This.
Liberals will fucking ruin anything.
But that's what you get when you have young students trying to speak on behalf of working-class people.

What use is money if you don't exchange it for something?

not really, the white working class has always been right wing

"No"?

to be anti-sjw is stupid and reactionary. The correct way is to lead sjws who are mostly deluded liberals.

No they haven't. Before the "left" became obsessed with nonsensical idpol issues. They use to organize working class people into fighting for their class interest. Now they've been brainwashed by libertarians and conservatives. The Midwest was once a center of American socialism you twat.

No it isn't . SJWs are focused on individualism and power. They're an incredible weak link that's easily pacified by race baiting and idpol. They fit in very nicely with the neoliberal status quo. Associating with them is an incredibly poor idea.