Holla Forums & Feminism

Practically speaking how would this actually be resolved? The woman is the one that actually does the labor. Fucking filthy Porky only provided the startup capital in the form of semen.

Schopenhauer pls.

As long as feminists espouse and reinforce belief in myths like "patriarchy" and "rape culture," or the generalised ideology that women in the western world are oppressed by men and disadvantaged in comparison to them, I'll remain an antifeminist. Drop the bullshit and I'll join the cause.

I should clarify, I like and respect women. I simply don't like feminism and the abusive nonsense that it spawns.

Yeah, its improved a little I guess. We still need to accept that motherhood is a form of slavery no matter the circumstance though.

...

I don't doubt in rape culture at all. My problem with feminism is mostly in the indentity/intersectionality theory and the special snowflaking.

So long as men walk the earth every culture will be rape culture.

I don't mean to imply that culture should exist. It shouldn't

geez

Why do we have to accept it though? Presumably by saying we have to accept it, it follows that you want us to take action to remedy it. So what would you have us do?

He clearly called for an abolishment of gender roles.

...

...

Abolish Gender!

What do you mean by that?

Stop motherhood. Stop PIV sex. If there is no other way for humans to procreate then tough shit. This barbarism has to stop.

Maybe we just need to go extinct. Its not we're good for the planet or anything.

Okay, go on….

Alright, opinion discarded.

...

The OP literally says 'Marxist/Socialist Feminism'.

Yes, there's a distinction between different types of ideology (surprise!).

Where'd I say that? There's a hell of a lot of unthinking 'ugh, fuck feminism', but I have seen more thoughtful critiques elsewhere (specifically of patriarchy and how that relates, or doesn't, to class & economics).

It's like the mirror of pol or something.

Yeah I'm not a feminists and the only thing you're doing by saying I have to be to be a leftist is making me dislike your worthless ideology even more. The distinction between the different branches of feminism are worthless to me. I'd never be associated with any branch seeing is how they're all based on patriarchy theory which I'm adamantly against.
All these pro feminists that have been showing up here lately have been really been grinding my gears. Honestly the boards quality has dropped dramatically over the past 6 months so I'm not surprised. It couldn't last. Feminists worm their disgusting hands into everything. They're the worst idpolers out there. Absolute Zealots. That intersectionality topic a few months ago should have been indication that the demographics here were changing terribly. All my leftypol friends seem to have scattered to the wind. This place is already on the way to being an idpol ridden shithole like every other left-wing form on the internet. I guess I should have known.

...

No thanks.

This implies that they'd side with us over their fellow feminists in a conflict.

HUEHUEHUEHUEHUE. Good one.

You realise that Marxist feminists have sided with revolutionaries against their more 'respectable' compatriots in the feminist movement, right?

At least you're being honest in that you're suffering from a severe dose of pure ideology.

Actually, nope.

Wasn't part of his argument. He's was focusing on that sociopaths belief that motherhood is "slavery". It sounds like something a fucking ancap would say. No doubt it would come out of the mouth feminist. There may never have been an ideology associated with more delusional psychopaths then feminism. Look at this toxic crap. I can't even fathom why anyone would want to be associated with it.

I don't think they'd do it now. As an anarchist all I ever seem to see is our feminists standing with the liberals when there is a conflict.

Name one branch of feminism that actually doesn't acknowledge that patriarchy is an existing institution in the modern west and is somehow vital to western capitalism. I'm no more blinded by ideology for my dislike of feminism then I am for my dislike of capitalism. Embedded liberalism , tiger economies , neoliberalism, neoconservative, conservatism, are all "distinct" forms capitalism can take but I oppose all of them based of their fundamental overlapping tenants of free market exchange and adherence to hierarchy. Same with feminism. I fundamental oppose it's major tenants as an ideology and I tolerate no form of it.

I agree with OP, insofar as the "feminist" struggle is the struggle to end all hierarchy and destroy all identity, male and female.

Liberals/capitalism has fucking ruined feminism though

Yeah same here. In practice they always side with their fellow feminists over anyone else. That's not not even mentioning how they have tendency to completely derail left wing groups main goals to focus on their spooky patriarchy conspiracy theory.

I agree, the idea that acknowledging subsets of oppression under capitalism is somehow automatically ignoring that they're all ultimately rooted in capitalism is ridiculous.

Fuck off idpol faggot.
There's so such thing as "Marxist" feminism. It has all turned into the same form of neoliberal nonsense. What you call "Marxist feminism" died a long time ago.
The only rational position left is egalitarianism.

This.

The argument that some so-called "anti-capitalist" feminists are actually liberals and so we should not support feminism entirely doesn't hold a lot of water. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That's like saying "Oh, well I'm not going to be anti-capitalist because some anti-capitalists side with capitalists when the kitchen gets hot."

Let alone that in my experiences with Marxist or otherwise anti-capitalist feminists hasn't ever showed that.

This is a feminist term that means: your movement will be assimilated and will adapt to service feminists at the expense of all other priorities.

Would you say that the feminism of any given revolutionary movement (Zapatistas, YPG/J, NPA, etc.) makes them neoliberal shills? That seems a bit ridiculous to me.

It's not some, is it? It's fucking all of them.

As I said before, my experiences with socialist feminists have never shown that. Feel free to point out an instance of it though

All hierarchies must be opposed.
Any support for some kind of chauvenism of supremacism has great support for degenerating the socialism, which is supposed to be anti-authoritarian in nature.

This can be seen with Marxist socialist, with racialist socialists, with nationalist socialists ect.
It would also apply to anyone who believe in male supremacy over women or more importantly, that we shouldn't abolish gender

I'll take it under advisement, random voice on the internet who suspiciously claims that my numerous observations of feminist behaviour are wrong. Clearly your veracity is impeccable.

Wow, my english broke

What I mean is that supporting any kind of supremacy can cause the socialist aspect to degenerate, as you're okay with one kind of domination but not with others.

Wow you sure debunked everything I've said
You sure are correct in thinking that people can't have differing experiences

I'm not interested in debunking you. I am simply disagreeing with you and stating that I think you are a liberal spreading deliberate lies to sheepdog the board into doing liberal idpol. It's not like there's a shortage of people coming here to push that shit.

Ooo, we snitchjacketing now?
Fine, you can go ahead and believe that every single dissenting voice is some big conspiracy against you, I don't need to waste my time with that.

P U R E I D E O L O G Y
"The stepping out of (what we experience as) ideology is the very form of our enslavement to it"

Preferably, kill yourself.

KEK

responded to the wrong post lol, meant to respond to

So let's see, so far no one has done anything to address my points aside from calling me a liar and a liberal.
You guys are really convincing me here

No-one is trying to convince you of anything.

ok

You think there's only the two of us here?

Didn't imply there was only two, I was responding solely to that last post.
Are you capable of speaking in anything other than platitudes?

Indeed, and what a shame it is. But the conflict persists, and It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, it has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—free trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The emancipation of women and their equality with men are impossible and must remain so as long as women are excluded from socially productive work and restricted to housework, which is private. The emancipation of women, then, becomes possible only when women are enabled to take part in production on a large, social scale, and when domestic duties require their attention only to a minor degree. And this has become possible only as a result of modern large-scale industry, which not only permits of the participation of women in production in large numbers, but actually calls for it and, moreover, strives to convert private domestic work also into a public industry.

Kek. You will be assimilated into our pussies for sure; how else could you explain Alunya?

...

Notice how many US citizen pollute literature and culture spaces with radfem writing. This is because US has traditionally smug leftist circles that invent their own terminology and sub-movements (as if their "development" of marxism hasn't already alienated, you know, working class). Add to that purely american love for self-promotion and you get modern radfems/SJWs. From the European point of view this american political/self-promotion circus looks laughable and ridiculous.
So ridiculous, in fact, that it even looks staged: having leftist movement in the most turbo-capitalistic country of the world, a movement that alienated working class from itself by being self-absorbed into mental masturbation for decades. I wonder, who could be beneficiary of such state of affairs?

For all my dislike for nazis your radfem kind sounds not unlike the nazis: "See this ugly kind of humans? They are excellent aggressive oppressors, they rape and kill. Let us take their rights away and tilt the legal system against them! Oh and also let's make them pay us! And give us, good kind of people more rights! This is fair because we are better!".

TL;DR;
Hating on hate-based ideologies like nazism and gender-nazism (radfem) is justified. These ideologies deserve negative sentiment and obscurity they get.

I've never seen a feminist say that trans people appropriate bodies.
Kill yourself, Americuck.

I know comrade. What was showing were how many people saying it was okay. Turns out the topic was linked in Reddit should have been the first indication something was going go terrible wrong for us. We use to laugh at how silly the whole thing was. I have a whole folder leftypol antifeminism memes. I don't know where our comrades have gone. Feels bad tbh fam.

No why don't you get the fuck off our board. There isn't a more toxic inconsistent ideology the feminism. I don't even know why you'd think I'd take a femnigger like you seriously. You're the worst cancer the left has ever known. You couldn't even muster a half way decent response. You just repeatied the same tired meme that doesn't even work in the context of my post.

Kek. You actually admitted you assholes side with liberal feminists and their obsession with making women as much wage cucks as men are. Literally make our points for us. You all have the same goals in the end.

Welcome to the internet, extremely young and naive person.

Just go look up TERF on Google. You're in for a treat.

Funny thing is…
I just copypasta'd from Marx & Engel's Communist Manifesto and The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.

Holy shit, you are retarded.

I'm not american, but if you read US media you will see this opinion. Turns out it is one of us feminist memes. US is cancerous, it should stay on its containment continent both physically and culturally.

Ok.

Where was this linked on reddit? I can't find it anywhere.

Regardless, the fact that you used a racial slur in this post really supports the idea that you're reactionary.

Except that they wrote the majority of modern feminist theory.

k

...

Despite the fact that I seriously doubt that claim, that doesn't change the fact that current day TERFs are a vocal minority that are widely hated in feminist circles.

...

Which one did you copy and paste it from? I don't really agree with much of what Engles wrote in his origin of the family. So it doesn't matter to me. It's not like I agree with them about everything or something. Engels also a homophobe. I'm I suppose to agree with him about that.

No it doesn't indicate anything because we're on an imageboard. Nigger like fag have no racial connotations here. In fact, I'm half black and half Palestine. What a silly thing to say. Also I don't remember what sub it was on and it was several months ago. The thread is long gone. So obviously Google wouldn't turn up anything .I don't even know why you would think it would. Holla Forums isn't even listed on Google as far is know because of all the CP spam.

Ah, I misunderstood what you meant by that. I thought that you were saying that this specific thread was linked on reddit, my bad.

And I would say they most certainly do still have negative connotations.

I too dream of a day when women are permitted to display their ankles in public.

KEK. That book list is a fucking joke, studiously scrubbed clean of what happened in the 80s and has been defining thought in the movement since.

Here is the origin of the term Rape Culture:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_Culture_(film)

Note the presence of Mary Daly. That woman was well known for proposing that the population of men should be reduced ~10%.

You can doubt it all you like. Go and look at what feminism was during the 1980s. The ideological vanguard was nothing but "TERFs".

Both. I mashed them together.

Yeah they have negative connotations now because of stormniggers and alt right faggots being actual racists. It didn't use to. Fag and nigger are just things you add to words on image boards. It isn't an indication of anything. I specified that the topic I was talking about was an intersectionality thread.. We noticed that there was an abnormal amount of responses in support of intersectionality in the particular thread and then it turns out it was linked on one of the sjw subs. I'm saying it was indication that we have a lot of those types from reddit and Facebook lurking here now.

Thanks for the memes, I guess. I don't see how it's relevant to Mary Wollstonecraft, though.

How is this different from nazism?

Looks like gender-nazism describes feminism pretty well, without irony.

Don't know if you noticed, but it isn't the 80s anymore.

That'sfine, because your Wollstonecraft meme isn't relevant at all.

Remember, they're completely not serious when they say #killallmen. Honest.

Okay.

Yes we sure happen to be taking a lot about ideology a lot. Nothing gets past you. I'm sure your cobbled together copy and paste paragraph really holds the same meaning as the passages originally did.

That's funny feminists seem to act like we live in the 17th century. The 1980s would be a nice improvement.

I said that because regardless of whether or not TERFs were prevalent in the 80s, they're widely hated in feminist circles and generally a minority today.
Nechayev used to be an influential revolutionary, that doesn't mean that socialists today agree with Nechayev.

Are they using the same theory that they were in the 90s?

80s

Oh and I'm less concerned about "safe spaces" and more worried that all the antifeminist leftypol members seem to be missing in action. It feels bad that I don't know where my comrades have gone. We could always deal with you idpolers together. It felt good. It's not like I advocated for mass bans or banning the word feminism. It's just an old fag thinking about better times.

As I have said multiple times, TERFs are no longer prevalent in modern day feminism.
The argument that something is clearly not what it is today and is actually something it was 30 fucking years ago has no bearing on reality.

And most feminist circles today are liberals who think stronk wymyn ceos and politicians is good. When they talk about "mainstream feminists" that's who they're talking about, not the the socialists. Whether mainstream feminists like trannies or not is irrelevant to their embrace of liberalism, which is the major issue the anons have.

Reddit always says this and it's bullshit, they absolutely forget that their mothers aren't dead yet for a start…

They've probably developed a resistance to the bait.

The point is,
I don't see why you expect every feminist to atone for every act of misandry. It's like…why do you have to apologize, if you're a Marxist, for everyone who called themselves socialist, like the DPRK? Or if you're more of an anarchist, why do you have to apologize for every faux-revolutionary whose petty violence leads into a vicious cycle of more petty violence?

You must be a STEMfriend though, judging by how you formated that current year, so thank you for making this code a little safer for us all.

And yet tthe attitude of subjects towards authority revealed by today’s ideological cynicism resembles the fetishist’s attitude towards his fetish. The fetishist’s attitude towards his fetish has the peculiar form of a disavowal: "I know well that (for example) the shoe is only a shoe, but nevertheless, I still need my partner to wear the shoe in order to enjoy."

Probably because they finally did the negation of the negation right for once instead of becoming a nimble spastic like yourself.

That's not what I asked.

Agreed, this isn't remotely relevant to the topic at hand

Then what were you asking? It appeared to me that you were asking whether liberal feminist theory today resembles liberal feminist theory in the 80s in order to link modern day liberal feminism to transphobia.

Hello Reddit.

Reminder that we have this thread every week.

That's not what I expect. I wouldn't expect nazis to atone for every act of antisemitism either. That would be stupid.

I've been on Holla Forums for a long ass time m8, just haven't been posting recently

Are they still using the same theory that they used in the 80s?

KEK

It sounds like you need to lurk again.

I'm no expert on liberal feminism, but it doesn't seem too far a leap to suggest that modern day liberal feminism was influenced by the theory from the 80s.

I don't have to refute you. Read Žižek.

Then I don't see why you'd bring up TERFs like Mary Daly to me.

I was demonstrating the origin of contemporary feminist theory. It's all right there in the thread if you've forgotten.

But that Annon wasn't me, faggot. I'm just here to shitpost in this shit thread

Can we agree that feminist theory from the 80s was generally completely insane?

I disagree with TERFs and liberal feminists too, I just don't see how it's relevant to this discussion

Upton Sinclair — 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

And I'm saying it's irrelevant what some bitch thought in the 80s. You just want to scapegoat feminists, call them idpol, and dismiss a whole lot of Marxist women.

k

No it's leftypol our hunger is insatiable.

What the fuck does that mean? Those are complete contradictions. Do you just lump random words together or something? You know what's sad. I really use to like your post but you've become a real obnoxious asshole. Anyway no ones suddenly become a feminist ( can't imagine why anyone would). I don't even recognize half these posters. They're just gone. A dream of a leftist forum without idpol is dead.

Motherfucker, what are you bitching about? There's a problem with idpol and anyone falling for it should be killing themselves.

All that keeps happening is that idpol is used to ignore class struggle and people bitch and moan for shit that doesn't even matter. You deny people their class interests, they start getting into stupid wars that distract from who's exploiting them.

That's the issue, not whether SJWs have green hair or not.

...

Someone who helped coin the now ubiquitous term "Rape Culture" then secured academic tenure and taught her ideas to thousands of others to propagate throughout society is irrelevant?

LMAO.

LMAO yourself, nerd. Here's a meme from a normie that would simply reject people like Mary Daly.

Unpopular opinion alert: all sex is rape. Women rape men. Men rape women. Women rape women. Men rape men.

GASS THE ANTI-INCEST KANTIANS, VAMPIRIC MATRIARCHY WAR NOW!!!!!!!!

drive.google.com/file/d/0B-5bln1gYWC0bDRhSmxOaS1XbjA/view

That one comes from Dworkin. She wrote theory in the 80s, too.

And I came up with it independently. Just like I came up with communism without Marx.

Yes it is but why did you use one? It makes no sense in that context. What is a "nimble" spastic suppose to be?

Men and women aren't equal.

...

Good job.

You.
You're right, anycase. Becoming a feminist is real, hard work. Something I couldn't expect you to understand.

..even sex with..
..inanimate subject? Like robot..?

It's true. Men and women are not equal and to treat them like that is to make both miserable.

I've always felt like as a man I can't accurately assess the social issues facing women. But looking at things like admission rates and wages when accounted for sector and hours worked, the data looks pretty ok for women other than the whole rape thing.

Physiologically it is true, I agree.

There is another thing: brains have embedded gendered behavior bias. It has been proven that even chimpanzee toddlers differ by gender in their attraction to cars and dolls.

So, there is nature and nurture. Gendered career paths are not entirely nurture, there is this biological bias.

What do you think about it, leftypol?

By that logic they can't assess your issues either.

Creating a robot is raping it into being.
Also,
I think you mean…insentient
in which case,
you should find having sex with lesser things like amoebas fun too.

Gender is a made up term by an insane sociologist named John Money who experimented on little kids on got one to kill himself. Gender isn't actually real, it's a made up term. You don't mentally switch from one sex to another, humans are either born male or female, that's it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money#Sex_reassignment_of_David_Reimer

Men and women are psychologically and biologically different. Women are more emotional and short-sighted on average. Women should not vote, be given more than 100 dollars at any given time, and should be removed from any potentially violent situation. That's reality.

Looks like women generally work less demanding, less risky/occupational mortality jobs, while males work oppositely.

I wonder, aren't males forced into working these high-risk jobs?

And isn't it surprising that feminists are liberal when their professions mostly do not belong to working class?

...

Why are redditard always so obvious?

This is Holla Forums's answer, I want Holla Forums

Do we try to straighten innate biological biases, or do we let people live like they want to (even if it creates gender-segregated jobs and generally limits one's possibilities) ?

But they are just automatons even if they look like humans

You'd wonder how convincing a thing may behave while still being an automaton. It's not that hard to imitate one of your catgirls, their behavior patterns are not that hard, esp. if you are into dumb moe.

I've never used reddit in my life.
SHOW ME THE RECEIPTS!

You can't change reality and to attempt to do so is turn men and women into freaks that will become depressed and be prone to suicide. There's nothing wrong with what you call biological bias.

No one should live like they want. You should live according to standards that counter what you want, otherwise people become mindless rapacious hedonists.

Women shouldn't work and gender isn't fucking real. Wake up to reality.

It limits ones possibilities only if one is an asocial virgin who thinks women are inferior to him. Rather than consider even the fact that they have desires and objectives other than yours

Women will never relate with you because you don't think they are thinking subjects equal to you. So why would they share any of your points? Or your biological reductionisms? Idpol feminist or woman hater is the same as it results from sexual impotence and asocial sentiments.

Also stop samefagging you schizo.

You didn't answer my question what is a nimble spastic? Anyway seeing how popular feminism is among redditers, Tumblrinas and upper middle class college students that consider soc dem reforms socialism. I doubt that. It's really one of the most intellectual lazy position a human being could have.

...

By limiting possibilities I mostly meant women being housewives and men being workers in dangerous fields where they die often. Are we ok with this, if this is what people want?

The other part of your post is rubbish.

...

kek

Well considering women are physically weaker than men we certainly shouldn't reverse that just because we've convinced ourselves of some lie.

tfw someone uses your OC

THIS IS WHY I HATE modern FEMINISM!

Benis

Hmmm…
Could you please elaborate on what you mean by this?

Wrong pic

Care to explain a bit about your pic and what (and why) is this "alienation" thing? Just out of curiosity.

If you think the bourgeoisie have power over you it's nonsensical to think that men don't have power over women, being overly represented in general and in the most powerful positions in the bourgeoisie.

So yes patriarchy is a real thing.

Motherhood isn't slavery in of itself, men buy female reproductive power by keeping them enclosed from the means of production just as capitalist do to wage slaves. The fact that some women have been so thoroughly cucked into accepting these relationships as normal doesn't mean a single thing.

Your argument is reactionary.

Before women were in the workforce at these numbers it wouldn't be difficult to make the argument that just as workers can believe that they are consenting to exploitation women think they are consenting to sex when in fact they have no choice but to marry a man and have his children to even be a part of society.

Man you put the nazi in femnazi.

Radical leftist theory is as much a conspiracy theory as patriarchy theory. Unless you are willing to admit as much, and accept that the entirety of radical leftist thought is as serious a position as belief in Satanic Jewish Reptilians, then perhaps you shouldn't be treating patriarchy as tantamount to the latter.

Last I checked, this is Holla Forums. If you're looking to engage in reactionary identity politics, go to >>>Holla Forums.

No it isn't. I'm a radical leftist. It's obvious that we leave in a society where the class your born to pretty much decides your future. However, we don't live in a patriarchal society anymore than we live in a world ruled by the Jews, just like men, are represented by high percentage in the ruling class. Similarly, the majority of both jews and men don't have any more control over the lives and the means of production than the average women does.Unlike your spooky reactionary crap, the proletariat doesn't own the means of production or have control over his/her life by the definition of the term. Radcial leftist theory is grounded in the material reality, patriarchy theory has alll the trappings of a misguided conspiracy theory that puts the blame on the "other". I can't even believe that you had the nerve to say that I should go to Holla Forums and when you're the one thats spewing a bunch of reactionary rubbish with no basis in reality. What a leap of logic. This is your brain on idpol.

>>>/x/
>>>Holla Forums
>>>/out/
>>>/suicide/

Patriarchy is not an economic hierarchy, so of course it has no relation to the means of production. It is a sex-based hierarchy. Recognizing that there are superstructural hierarchies is hardly reactionary; if anything, rejecting their very existence is what's reactionary, since such an orthodox view is immature and no longer relevant in contemporary society.

As if you don't engage in it in a regular basis. Your sectarianism toward radical leftists who disagree with you is itself a form of identity politics, no matter how much you might rationalize it as "class politics orthodoxy" or some similarly ridiculous phrase.

*disagree with me

Nothing is consensual. Everything you choose to do of your own will is the will of the environment that you have been raised in, especially an environment of global capitalism.

If not the will of society and it's influence on your, then the will of the chemicals in your brain making you attracted to certain people.

That's what I see it as, anyway. Sort of a pointless statement, but whatever.

I wrote a paragraph response addressing your arguments. If that wasn't a serious response to your asinine position I don't know what to tell you. As for the bullying crap either stop going to image boards or grow a thicker skin.

Yes and the Zionist conspiracy theory is a race based hierarchy. So what? They are both reactionary positions that focus on superficial unimportant characteristics of the ruling class. The average man, the average women, the average Jew, and the average White all have very little control over the system they live in. Modern Patriarchy theory isn't a very leftist stance at all. All hierarchy is economic and material in nature and if it isn't it would crumble incredibly easily with a change in the material conditions and isn't worth bothering with. Not that I'm saying that I believe a gender hierarchy even exist in modern western society. Which I don't. A women can do pretty much everything a man can do in modern western society. Man or woman a person is defined by their class and material wealth especially now in the age of neoliberalism. Class is the only form of discrimination, in modern western society, that people are legally allowed to get away with.

Not supporting identity politics isn't in itself a form identity politics in itself. How could it be? Unlike you or the polyps I don't align with myself with any special snowflake group. Also don't lecture me about sectarianism. When you were trying to say I needed to accept your crazy conspiracy theory to be a leftist.

If nothing is truly consensual, then clearly when we use the word consensual we are describing a degree of consent/perceived consent on the part of the consenter in the situation. That they believe themselves to be consenting, and there is evidently no conscious or intentional coercion from outside, is what matters.

So yeah, a completely pointless statement.

You should probably keep in mind what is written in The Second Sex by SImone de Beauvoir or the Origin of Family, Private property and the State.

If anything, the patriarchy is a relic of slaver societies, the feudalism and the capitalism. And what has been done to somehow rectify it now is merely done to sustain the capitalism.

It must be clear to you that no reform under capitalism would ever destroy capitalism. Especially nothing that reforms the superstructure while keeping the base intact.

So the patriarchy is probably set of rules intended to create the tension inside the working class.

All what you say in your post is true. The modern man and modern woman have both the same opportunities within the system, same abilities and all that jazz.

The patriarchy is not a hierarchy in the sense of top-down. But probably just a way to turn the brothers and sisters into oppressors and the oppressed, significantly reducing their revolutionary potential. To create a hierarchy where no hierarchy was ever needed.

Just like racism is pushed on to people to again create the tension in the working class and reduce their revolutionary potential.

Spot-on analysis, excellent to see this here. We are all working class: man and woman, black and white, heterosexual or homosexual. Any divisions between us are a tool of the ruling class.

...

Why is it my responsibility to change when you're the one being the contrarian asshole?

Patriarchy isn't a conspiracy theory, anymore than radical leftist theory is. Unlike Zionist conspiracy theories, patriarchy theory simply posits that there is a sex-based hierarchy wherein the male is dominant over the female as facilitated by the structural and systemic conditions of society. In Marxist and socialist feminism, these conditions are the material conditions of capitalism.

That's a ridiculous notion for which you have no substantiation. Simply ignoring superstructural hierarchies and believing naïvely that they will magically disappear without intervention once the base hierarchy which produced them is abolished is tantamount to believing that racist and sexist beliefs will simply go away in a socialist society. As much as you would like to believe otherwise, some hierarchies in the superstructure persist beyond changes in the material conditions which produced them. Patriarchy is one such example, given that it has been a near constant that predates capitalism. Although superstructural hierarchies may be weakened by a reorganization of relations in the base, as was the case with patriarchy throughout capitalism, those superstructural hierarchies nevertheless exist and persist well beyond material changes unless a social movement (feminism) addresses that hierarchy and seeks to abolish it.

Are you seriously denying that women do not experience discrimination on a regular basis due to their sex or gender?

They are also defined by a multiplex of other traits and identities which are relevant to the various superstructural hierarchies which exist in society.

I'm pretty sure it's completely legal to be racist, sexist, genderist, homophobic, etc., and express those forms of bigotry in various ways in society, even up to and including through economic or financial means. Your rabid opposition to any form of identity politics is reactionary as fuck because you are attempting to avoid a constant feature of politics that will persist even once whatever variant of socialism you want to achieve is established. The problem with identity politics is that it can distract from class politics, not that it exists as a separate issue alongside class politics. To oppose the very existence of identity politics, rather than just its use by liberals at the detriment of class politics, is as ridiculous and politically juvenile as opposing class politics as a liberal or opposing the existence of politics itself.

You picked a stupid gender-biased name. Pick a better one, then I'll take you seriously.

wew lad.

You read Lenin first before you act as the well-read here, tool

k

And it's extremely telling that your boogeyman are [demographic] rights activists, you fucking bigot.

Maybe just maybe "patriarchy"/"gynocentrism" are just roles prescribed by the superstructure for convenience and taking issue with one but not the other is fucking retarded and only serves to divide people according to this dichotomy thereby reinforcing it.

Holy fuck. No, you retard. Bourgeois exploitation of the proletariat does not require a conspiracy. It just requires a power disparity in the relations of production. Once you have that, it's just in the self-interest of the bourgeoisie to exploit you. They do not have to even cooperate with each other for this to work. Just because they do cooperate sometimes doesn't mean the exploitation itself is a conspiracy. That would imply more self-awareness than they have. If they really understood the position they were in they would take steps to radically change it since (especially right now) they are very vulnerable to the vengeance of the proletariat in a violent revolution.

...

he just meant patriarchy isn't a conspiracy theory you dumbfuck

See I can strawman ideologies too. This retarded bullshit where people paint some group who mildly disagrees with them (there's nothing incompatible about improving men's and women's rights or agency) and categorize retarded bigots as members of that group with no evidence is only hurting our revolutionary potential.

Feminism as a whole (bourgeois and leftist feminism are not as different or separate as you claim) is an extraordinarily shallow analysis of gender roles. The idea of traditional gender roles exploiting women in a feudal sense is a tortured metaphor that ignores all forms of power and agency aside from the fictional ones described in the superstructure's ideology. It is in aggregate simply a tool to preserve the power of the superstructure by keeping potentially revolutionary agents (i.e. feminists) instead invested in the belief system created by the superstructure. It is exploitative in exactly the same way as the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" ideology, except it operates on our instinctual bias toward helping women as opposed to our instinctual bias toward viewing ourselves as in control.

False dichotomy, tbh.

fallacy fallacy

Suck my phallusy.

...

I'm making a comparison. I don't consider radical leftist theory to be a conspiracy theory, either. In fact, I believe most conspiracy theories are just garbled and corrupted descendants of radical leftist thought that people with percolating class consciousness latch onto out of ignorance of radical leftist theory.

I rigorously defend against the notion of radical leftist theory being a conspiracy theory, as well. My comparison was meant to imply that patriarchy theory is as rational and scientific an interpretation of how society structures sex relations on a systemic level as radical leftist theory in interpreting how social relations have economic roots and are produced by systemic conditions.

Now, did I make a meaningful point that refuted your statements, or did I just shitpost?

If you seriously disagree with my characterization of so-called "MRAs", then you clearly have never been around them (or you are one of them). The problem with MRAs is precisely that they don't promote men's rights; they just engage in trolling, outrageist bikeshedding, and hatred of women under the pretense of promoting men's rights. They are the equivalent of how many bourgeois feminists on Tumblr act, except that is literally the principal demographic of people who identify as MRA. Maybe if men's rights groups weren't basically just reactionaries motivated by a hatred of feminism, I would take them more seriously. Even bourgeois feminism is more credible than them.

MRA almost exclusively consists of those who are far-right "muh GG" retards from Holla Forums and KotakuInAction who are more sympathetic to "anarcho-"capitalism and propertarianism than anything that is even remotely social democratic (which they consider to be "SJW"). They are lumpenproletariat with zero revolutionary potential whatsoever, so I have no concern about alienating them from our cause. They can go fuck themselves until the revolution comes, at which point we'll fuck them up once they inevitably side with the fascists and other reactionaries.

Eh, sort of. Wasn't trying to set it up as a dichotomy. Both ideologies depend on the latter, but feminism also depends on the former. The "help women" instinct is part of the "I'm in control" instinct, but it doesn't operate on the same existential level. It's more of a knee-jerk response as opposed to more of a mantra.

But you did, and you keep doing it:
If her functioning as a female is not enough to define woman, if we decline also to explain her through “the eternal feminine,” and if nevertheless we admit, provisionally, that women do exist, then we must face the question: what is a woman? To define woman in every respect.
She first points out the inadequacy of defining woman either by her biological operations or by some broad understanding of the "eternal feminine." She will revisit these definitions in much greater detail later in her study, but for now, she pursues a more general question: do women even exist? She admits they do, "provisionally." She will make the radical suggestion that "woman" does not, in fact, exist as an immense category and that men and women alike should always be defined primarily as humans. Throughout history, woman has been denied this muh privilege.

The latter. Same as here.

wew lad

You got an example of this? Because I've followed that movement for a few years and never seen this. But shit, I disagree with you so I guess I must be one of them, which means you can disregard what I have to say! Your ideology is fukken airtight m8.

The MRM itself is not traditionalist. One of their core points is that men have had certain disadvantages historically. There are traditionalists who participate, but that's just because they agree with anti-feminism. Most MRAs I have heard from are very much opposed to traditionalism.

Just from this I can tell you have never actually looked into the group because they don't refer to themselves collectively this way.

Gee don't make it too obvious you're just freaking out over a boogeyman. There's very little overlap between those groups and the MRM.

Social democracy is cancer. And these are quite different ideologies from the far-right boogeymen you listed above. You are just throwing everything you disagree with into the blender at this point, tbqh fam.

First off, that's a redundant statement, which suggests a need to bolster your position to make yourself feel like it's stronger than it is. Second, you are saying this of people who criticize the status quo re: gender now and throughout history.
Yeah, and given the sheer skill with which you have categorized people already, I expect you to decide they're bourgie sympathizers even if they stand next to you waving an ancom flag.

I'm not talking about philosophical thought but basic instinct. Instinct doesn't follow logic, it's just a heuristic rule. A human's nervous system doesn't have some hidden justification for they freak out over spiders or snakes, it's just something it's programmed to do via evolution.

Feel free to read up on it yourself. You should know your own movement's history, since you've followed them for so long: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights_movement

Of course they don't, just like bourgeois leftists who engage in bikeshedding and identity politics don't refer to themselves as "SJWs". Nevertheless, MRAs are just that regardless of whatever apologetics term they use to describe themselves.

Beside the fact that the majority of GG, Holla Forums, and KIA either are, or sympathize with, MRAs?

Those are much of the views that the groups I listed sympathize with, with the exception of Holla Forums being more fascist (they recently purged propertarians and "an"caps, too). Are you just completely and utterly oblivious with those groups?

...

An emerging view in neurology is that instincts and emotions are intrinsically rational because they operate along a logical framework. (I subscribe to this view.) They are essentially quick heuristic calculations which have been fine-tuned over millions of years of evolution. For example, if someone were to toss a ball across your range of vision and it lands behind a wall on the right side, you would be able to quickly predict where the ball generally is with relative accuracy based on the trajectory of the ball because your brain used the information currently available to you to conjecture the ball's place. Such calculations are by their nature rational because they are based on certain principles which manifest in mathematics.

Humans instinctually react very adversely to spiders and snakes due to certain evolutionary pressures over millions of years which caused them to develop a rational determination of the threat such animals pose. Even this reaction can be overridden by higher-order reason, however, such as when humans educate themselves about snakes and spiders and proceed to lose that ostensibly "irrational" fear of them. That fear wasn't irrational, though; it was merely an evolutionary heuristic, and heuristics are intrinsically rational.

Ebert tried to relegate Luxemburg to women issues, when he tried to get rid of her.
He successfully managed to do so with Zetkin.

Jesus Christ dude.
I've never been involved with them, just paid attention to what's going on. Why would I need to read up on things I watched unfold? That wiki article just says the SPLC took issue with the tone of some MRM websites. Hardly some reactionary boogeyman.

No, what I was saying is they refer to themselves collectively as the men's rights movement (MRM). That you would jump to conclusions about apologetics is telling about both your level of knowledge and intent.

sympathize with =/= is
Most of them are not MRAs either in that they promote men's rights or are part of the men's rights movement.

Most of GG and KiA don't particularly care about politics. If someone is a lumpenprole here, it's them. Those groups' only shared interests are their hobbies. Being used by reactionaries as a chess piece against the bourgeois left doesn't make them reactionaries.

No, but you keep demonstrating that your knowledge is limited to hearsay you got from their opponents.

That is "emerging?" I had thought that was a given to everyone who is not a pomo.

Eating the baked muffins and then shitting them into a toilet would be a better metaphor.

You imply that females don't want it and that this "enclosement" makes them suffer somehow. In fact being a housewife/househusband is a pretty nice occupation, when compared with almost any other job.

Housewives don't have to commute, to please superiors, they are safe, they get to be with their children a lot, occupational mortality rates are very low.

Many men would gladly take such role if it were socially acceptable, because it is much better than, say, working at a factory.

Giving a superior lifestyle option shouldn't be called "enclosing", esp. when a person chooses this life herself.

Again, they chose this (superior) option. If men had such option they'd chose it too. Do you really think men like being coal miners?

This. There really is a bias in male judgement when it comes to women. It is a proven fact: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/"Women_are_wonderful"_effect

If an alien species visited earth it'd see this clearly: two kinds of people, one shorter and weaker that gets its wishes fulfilled mostly by the other kind, a stronger one.

You can say many bad things about both MRAs and RadFems (though I haven't heard calls to diminish female population to ~10% from MRAs while the same opinion with "female" replaced by "male" was a real opinion held by some radfems as we have come to know in this thread).

Denying that men inherently lack in rights (see draft, alimony, divorce) and that there should be some movement to correct this status quo is mean.

It's like you guys are trying really hard to miss the point of the argument being made here by getting hung up on semantics. For one, "justification" requires a thought process. "Programming" is the metaphor in this context. It's like you guys don't understand how evolution works. Mutations occur randomly, and natural selection culls what works less effectively.

B R U H

It's not a male-specific bias. Women have it too.

It is even worse this way. Anyway, such biases slowly but steadily create various legal laws and social customs that influence society on a large scale. Is it good?

I was just pointing out that it's a bias shared by basically everyone. I don't particularly disagree with the rest of the post.

Feminism mistakenly regards waged labor as emancipatory. Men are privileged to sell their labor, not enslaved by it. Women are enslaved by taking care of their own children instead of going to work, not muh privileged by it. And never mind the fact that the single-income nuclear family is disintegrating. This is what happens when your theory is not based in physical reality.

I don't agree with the men's rights' movement on much of anything but the hatred feminists have for a politically powerless group which at most shitposts on the internet is downright bizarre.

I've seen MRAs and feminists with downright progressive views on issues other than gender - but their theory is garbage on both sides, so men angry at homelessness, conscription, and workplace deaths (seem pretty leftist to me!) and women angry at being paid less for the same work see each other as enemies. It's the best trick Porky ever played, and the solution is socialism.

And the jab at KiA (which itself attacked game journalists over McCarthy-style blacklists and unfair labor practices) is uncalled for; their only commonality with the MRM is recognizing that your ideology is garbage.

Not really.

"If you're not a feminist, you're an MRA!"
This is an implicit admission that feminism is opposed to men's rights. The MRM has basically no power, but they stand for something that is fundamentally opposed to feminism. Most MRAs aren't class conscious, but they don't blame feminism for
they blame feminism for blocking people from raising awareness of those issues, which it does. The reverse (MRAs stopping feminists from raising awareness on their issues) doesn't happen because the MRM only cares to make replies in disagreement and lacks the power to do anything else.

When you are so shamefully ignorant that even a mediocre Wikipedia article is more accurate and informed than you, you better fucking believe it that I will link to that article. It cites its sources. There's your evidence.

It says a whole fucking lot more than that. Your desperation is showing.

Pomo? I have only heard of this view of instincts and emotions recently, and I usually follow neurology. Am I just lagging behind?

Nothing you said contradicts my statements.

In my experience, MRAs are by definition reactionary because they are a reaction to feminism, which has historically been a leftist movement (with radical roots). The so-called "men's rights movement" is to the feminist movement what white power and white nationalism is to black power and black nationalism, or what the alt-right is to so-called "SJWs", or what fascism is to communism. MRAs' objections to homelessness, conscription, and workplace deaths are as empty as fascists' objections to immigration's impact on the working class: it's a position with vague and superficially leftist qualities but which is presented in the context of reactionary identity politics.

KiA is just a militant form of online reactionary identity politics which objects to the activities of game journalists on the grounds that they are being corrupted by some conspiratorial cabal of so-called "SJWs" (whatever that means) attempting to disseminate feminism to achieve a matriarchal NWO that subordinates men everywhere, often with the tacit criticism that game journalism is too leftist. That should be obvious, given that KiA has strong ties to Holla Forums, Holla Forums, Holla Forums, 4chan, and the MRM.

I wasn't aware that KiA and the MRM were even aware of anarcho-communism. Or was that a feeble attempt at insinuating that I'm some {"SJW" / "feminazi" / "liberal" / "redditer" / "Tumblrina" / }?

I agree.

.What is your experience? If you are going to cite it, you may as well share.

bizarre

In this thread we have already seen that "radical" part of feminism called for mass killing males until they represent no more than 10% of population..

Years of having to deal with the stupid fuckers when the whole thing got popular on 4chan, and initially getting involved as an observer before it took a sharp turn to the alt-right.

What the fuck are you talking about? That is obliviously stupidity on the same level as Satanic Jewish Reptilians trying to establish a NWO. If you seriously believe that, then it astonishes me that you are even here. Usually, people that intellectually incompetent struggle to understand basic politics, much less economics.

vice.com/read/is-reducing-the-male-population-by-90-percent-the-solution-to-all-our-problems

I'm going to go with what I actually saw over wiki's reference to the opinion of a politically motivated group. And this section en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights_movement#Reactions.2Fcriticism
is where it discusses criticisms of the MRM which comes down to "[person/group] has this opinion about the MRM", which you would see if you actually checked the sources.

This is word salad. You can't have an experience of a definition. Definitions are abstract concepts.

Except where it's anti-feminist, it's mostly opposed to contemporary bourgeois feminism, not historical feminism.

Except unlike with blacks and whites (to use an over-broad brush), women were not enslaved and oppressed by men, except in the eyes of feminists.

Baseless assertions.

Do you not see the irony of accusing KiA of being nutty conspiratards while also accusing them of having a vast conspiracy with everyone you don't like?

>I wasn't aware that KiA and the MRM were even aware of anarcho-communism. Or was that a feeble attempt at insinuating that I'm some {"SJW" / "feminazi" / "liberal" / "redditer" / "Tumblrina" / }?
No, he was very obviously referring to feminist ideology in general, which he assumes you hold considering your defense of it.

So basically: "Disagreement with my ideology in any way is hatred of women". This argument originated from Dworkin in the 80s as well.

"KiA is just a militant form of online reactionary identity politics which objects to the activities of game journalists on the grounds that they are being corrupted by some conspiratorial cabal of so-called "SJWs" (whatever that means) attempting to disseminate feminism to achieve a matriarchal NWO that subordinates men everywhere"

Do you bother checking where you are before posting about your 4chan boogeyman?

Game journalists got caught in serious CoIs and chose to villify the people who called them on it. Gamergate may have become ineffectual and obsessed with irrelevant e-celebs, and I've seen some retarded shit upvoted in KiA. but the anti-Gamergate position is not one which any honest leftist can support - not when game journalists were engaging in systemic blacklists and giving favorable reviews based on bribes and personal connections, to the detriment of independent developers, consumers, and even fair-minded journalists alike.

Their connection with the MRM is based not on shared ideology or interests, but on being villified by the same people - individuals who apply the same labels indiscriminately to any criticism of their ideology, whether from the left or right.

And?

My experience was that MRAs were intrinsically reactionary. Any exception to them were more interested in general equality and probably wouldn't identify as members of the men's rights movement. MRAs are, as far as I'm aware, categorically opposed to feminism in all its forms; they make no distinction between bourgeois feminism and radical leftist feminism.

I take it your position of women's history is "lMaO WHO CaAres???"?

Just like it's a "baseless assertion" to consider fascist views on immigration totally leftist, right?

No, in part because I am not making any such accusation. You're grasping at straws to build those strawmen. I recommend you don't waste your time.

Basically, no whatsoever. I don't know who the fuck Dworkin is and I don't care who she is. Resorting to misrepresentations of your opponent's positions is a sure sign that your own position has become untenable. If you cannot maintain good faith principles in discussions, then don't participate in them.

The "anti-Gamergate position" is as worthy of leftist support now as is Nazism. It is nothing more than reactionary identity politics promoted under the pretense of leftism. That "anti-Gamergate position" does not critique the actions of gaming journalists within the context of the material conditions which produce them; rather, it is simply a reaction to perceived faults and corruption in the game industry as they relate to some RIP conception of the agenda under which those activities operate and from which they originate. The "anti-Gamergate position" is essentially alt-right, as is the MRM, which is precisely why pandering profiteers like Milo Yiannopoulos (their rough equivalent of Anita Sarkeesian) leapt at the chance to use them as a means of attaining wealth and prestige. If you support KiA and "anti-Gamergate", especially at this stage, then you might as well fuck off to Holla Forums, /gg/, or /gamergate/, where the rest of the NRx shills and literal retards circlejerk.

literally who cares

*Just like it's a "baseless assertion" to not consider fascist views on immigration totally leftist, right?

Good christ.

So we're in agreement. I'm surprised at how easily you admitted it, though! :)

On the one hand you have reactionary identitarians working on behalf of a crooked industry, on the other hand you have a broad coalition of people who oppose said reactionary identitarians - many of whom have sadly accepted alt-right critiques, and many of whom reject them.

But make no mistake; there is one group of people in the Gamergate conflict which supports proletarian interests, and it's not the side you've taken. I far prefer a movement hitting big corps on unfair labor practices to a full-bore defense of the status quo and demonization of any who oppose them - because make no mistake, if you criticize the business practices of game journalists, developers, or clickbait media you will quickly become "Gamergate" in the eyes of Gamergate's critics.

A handful of opinions isn't scholarly research.

They're mostly just opposed to the feminists who see what they're doing and try to stop them. For instance:
youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0
youtube.com/watch?v=GO_X4DkwA_Q

You take wrong. Again you're doing this thing where you think anyone who disagrees must be [boogeyman].

Irrelevant to the discussion. Immigration is not related. I could compare you to Hitler but the comparison isn't necessarily a good one just because I chose to make it.

Uh…
>KiA is just a militant form of online reactionary identity politics which objects to the activities of game journalists on the grounds that they are being corrupted by some conspiratorial cabal of so-called "SJWs" (whatever that means) attempting to disseminate feminism to achieve a matriarchal NWO that subordinates men everywhere

Except your exact words were:

So, yes.

Which is why you're defending a hate movement.

Which I haven't done. You can claim that all you like, you are lying because you've been caught making the "disagreement is bigotry" argument.

Whoops missed the last line from

Also, this guy we're responding to is doing exactly this about the MRM.

Not but how can you defend stuff like this?

reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/4nkv88/mcintosh_finally_uses_communist_terms_communists/

We ARE communists! We LOVE calling people we don't like reactionary!

Back then, when GG was still new, I was quite sympathetic towards it before I recognized that it's irrelevant and pure ideology, but you just have admit that nowadays it's in the firm grip of the alt-right and probably always was.

McIntosh is being a retard by trying to apply communist ideas to fucking video games. This is what people mean when they say "cultural marxism." KiA is right to think he's a retard.

Fuck off. I'm a communist, and I only refer to people with appropriate labels. "Reactionary" has a specific meaning that Joshathan Joshinjosh provides in the image linked by that reddit post.

I have seen "anti-Gamergate" used to mean both against Gamergate (the controversy) and for Gamergate (the movement). If you meant "anti-Gamergate" as the former, then replace it with "Gamergate" because I meant it as the latter.

What a bankrupt position you take on the issue. I don't care if Gamergaters consider me a supporter of their goals when I criticize the practices of the gaming industry; my criticisms are from a radical leftist perspective, not whatever reactionary viewpoint they promote.

I prefer actual scholarly opinions, not grainy videos with a flagrantly antifeminist slant. Unsurprisingly, you stoop to the same sort of artifact-riddled jpeg "muh graph" bullshit as does Holla Forums and other alt-right.

The statement I made in , which you're quoting, is asserting that KiA and their ilk believe that gaming journalists and the gaming industry is being "being corrupted by some conspiratorial cabal of so-called "SJWs" (whatever that means) attempting to disseminate feminism to achieve a matriarchal NWO that subordinates men everywhere", not that I consider it as much. It doesn't even make sense for me to make such a statement about my perspective given the position I've espoused in my posts thus far.

I said that MRAs as a group are, in my opinion, fundamentally reactionary because they originated as a right-wing reaction to feminism under the pretense of promoting men's rights, not as a legitimate movement for men's rights. None of that asserts that anyone who disagrees with my "ideology", whatever you think that is, is woman hateric. That's an intellectually dishonest ridiculous caricature of my position and you should be ashamed for resorting to such fallacious tactics.

Why the fuck are you even here? That is the sort of neoreactionary bullshit that is regularly espoused by the alt-right, and is essentially the position they take on feminism. It's an intellectually bankrupt position that demonstrates a profound ignorance of the history and multiplex philosophy of feminism.

Now you accuse me of lying? I don't have discussions with manchildren who cannot even uphold the basic principles of good faith and rhetoric. Fuck off back to >>>Holla Forums. Don't expect another response.

That's not a conspiracy theory, you fucking imbecile. KiA has well-known ties to those groups as they regularly collaborate and cross-post with each other. If you seriously don't know this, then you definitely have zero understanding whatsoever of KiA.

Thanks for proving that you're basically a false-flagging reactionary. gb2/pol/

No chill 2bh.

You don't have a "responsibility" to do anything I ask you to do. I'm not your keeper. However, this is an image board and I have no obligation to be kind you. Calling me a "contrarian asshole" because I happen to disagree with you really doesn't help your case. It's more than a little hypocritical.

No they aren't comparable. I already made the distinctions clear here . This poster here sums it up best when he says "Bourgeois exploitation of the proletariat does not require a conspiracy. It just requires a power disparity in the relations of production." I don't need a conspiracy theory when by all objective measure the wealthy elite have near total control over our lives.

How exactly is that unlike the Zionist conspiracy theory? It's exactly like the Zionist conspiracy theory. The Zionist conspiracy theory is a race based hierarchy wherein the Jew's domination over members of other races is facilitated by the structural and systematic conditions of society. Patriarchy theory holds a lot more in common to the Zionist conspiracy theory then it does radical leftist theory. You keep trying to point out differences but all you keep making clear are the obvious parallels.

>Simply ignoring superstructural hierarchies and believing naïvely that they will magically disappear without intervention once the base hierarchy which produced them is abolished is tantamount to believing that racist and sexist beliefs will simply go away in a socialist society

The only one being naive is you to think that you have any way of undoing the superstructure while the base is still around to reinforce it. If sexism and racism are still major problems after the destruction of capitalism then we'd be far better equipped tot take on those challenges under a socialist society then a capitalist one. I'm not interested in helping you make capitalism more comfortable for the special snowflake identity group. If your looking for a more diverse ruling class then you're posting on the wrong board. I

No more than I deny that men can experience discrimination based on their sex or gender. What I deny is the silly notion that women don't have the same rights and legal befits that men have in modern western democratic society. What proof do you have that women are discriminated against systemically anymore than men are? In modern western society, women receive lighter sentences then men do, live longer then men do, have greater purchasing power then men have, and receive more college degrees then men do. I'm not saying women have it better than men or anything. We're all fucked over by porky at the end of the day. However, I am saying that the average man and the average women have the same amount of power and the same legal protections and opportunity in modern western society. Unlike the poor, who by every measure end up having a worse life then those born into wealth regardless of their sex.

I've already explained to you that I view all hierarchy is being economic in nature. I can guess a lot more about a person life based of their parent's medium income then I can by their shoe size, or genitals. All intersectionality does is justify the system and obscure class based hierarchy. People like you are to busy vilifying their fellow proletariat based on superficial characteristic to properly organize against the ruling elite.

Yes people can legally hold sexist and racist attitudes. However, no they have no legal standing to use these views to discriminate against other people. Women have the same legal rights and entitlements that men do. Thought crime is not the equivalent to legally sanctioned hate crimes against groups. Which is completely illegal in our society and very much against current neoliberal social norms which aren't racist or sexist to a measurable degree. However, in this society I'm free to discriminate against the poor on the basis of their class as much as I want. I can deny them jobs, deny them an education, deny them health care. In fact, modern day society goes out of it's way to not even acknowledge that class even exist instead implying they deserve mistreatment at my hands because of some apparent defect that doesn't allow them to succeed in our society.

My god you're just the worst.

Choose up to one

Aside from the issue of you are not the arbiter of what constitutes "a legitimate movement for men's rights", your argument is "disagreement is bigotry". Deny this all you want, you're lying when you do so. Your ideology is feminism. That is what you are quite vocally defending. To claim I am "intellectually dishonest" is a risible position and you should return immediately to reddit.

Oh look, anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot and the boogeyman!
Perhaps, just perhaps, the boogeyman is telling the truth!

The person who stated they did not know or care who Dworkin was (a major figure in the recent history of the womens' movement) is now lecturing me about history.

Yes.

Doubtless, I'm sure you'd be out of your league against such sophisticates.

You're projecting here.

>Fuck off back to >>>Holla Forums.

Idpol is your domain, darling.

This is a tacit admission that I am right.

Thanks Internet.

Just a reminder that feminism is the ideology of rich elitist whores

No, feminism belongs to the nekos now.

Nor is a conspiracy needed for patriarchy theory to be a fully functional theory.

That is not how it is conceived and proposed by believers of that conspiracy theory, nor is that how such conspiracy theories are generally understood. You are misrepresenting Zionist conspiracy theories and I strongly suspect you know that.

I never stated as much and completely agree with those sentiments.

You should know as well as I do that legal equality is virtually meaningless in capitalism.

I didn't state that. There are many instances throughout the world, though I suspect you only mean in the United States and Western Europe. One example might be the nature of contemporary gender roles and norms, which delegitimizes women and treats them as inferior to men. Generally, disciplines such as philosophy, politics, economics, STEM, and business are still considered "manly" disciplines and the disproportionate representation of women in those fields demonstrate as much.

Assuming that is all true, none of that negates the fact or possibility that women experience discrimination based on their sex or gender.

I agree with regard to bourgeois intersectionality, but intersectionality theory has revolutionary potential.

Categorically false. Projecting the one-dimensional caricature of feminist liberal SJWs onto me only dissuades me from continuing this exchange.

In your country. Not every country.

End your life.

Gamergate's goals are leftist; your calling said leftism superficial doesn't change that.

They are leftist because they oppose game journalism as it stands, and the ideology of game journalism is far-right and borderline fascist, despite a thin veneer of progressivism. They combine the labor rights views of 1950s Hollywood, the social views of Jack Thompson, and the hostility towards free speech and popular dissent that has characterized aristocrats in every generation.

Quiet observer, but I'd like to note that your hostility and acridity is rather unpleasant. Although this is not entirely one-sided, some of the people you are arguing with are taking a fairly soft stance and to lash out against them with bitter sick seems a bit much.

You have no argument.

I'm sorry for being so bitter and acrimonious. That's basically who I am these days, especially when dealing with people on the chans who, in my view, treat me like dogshit and when they defend reactionary views under the pretense of leftism. I consider being respectful, polite, and considerate to be generally a waste of time on places like Holla Forums, since it goes unappreciated and only serves as a handicap as a result. If Holla Forums was generally a more respectful, polite, and considerate community, I would gladly be that as well. My hope for such a community died long ago, though, so I see no point in trying to roleplay as a member of it.

You have no argument.

I'm sorry for being so bitter and acrimonious. That's basically who I am these days, especially when dealing with people on the chans who, in my view, treat me like dogshit and when they defend reactionary views under the pretense of leftism. I consider being respectful, polite, and considerate to be generally a waste of time on places like Holla Forums, since it goes unappreciated and only serves as a handicap as a result. If Holla Forums was generally a more respectful, polite, and considerate community, I would gladly be that as well. My hope for such a community died long ago, though, so I see no point in trying to roleplay as a member of it.

fucking fix your site

...

Be the change you want to see in the world. There is no need to continue engaging a discussion that has become unpleasant. Likewise, when others becomes hostile it might serve to end the exchange there.
Nothing won, nothing lost – but at least your mood is intact.

That said, I can't blame you for not wanting to engage in imageboard politics/rhetoric anymore. I personally rarely do nowadays and I'm happier for it.

"Disagreement is bigotry!". I can't possibly see why people are treating you badly.

It's amazing. Pol, leftypol, other sites outside the imageboards, anywhere people have a drop of sense in their heads and the ability to speak their minds, they hate SJWs with the force of a thousand suns. Anyone who isn't part of the cult recognizes immediately that third wave feminism is cancer, retarded inconsistent hypocrisy.
I'm going to just say it straight out. If you're on the third wave feminist bandwagon, one day you are really going to regret it. Everybody else thinks you are cancer. Right now the media is giving them a buffer, but when that buffer is gone.. Whooo boy… It's going to be bad. People are going to remember and rightfully loathe you. Essentially, your life is going to be ruined.
As for me, I'm going to indulge in some indecent consumption and scarf down some potato chips as I enjoy the show.

It also doesn't help that I am a veteran of 4chan's Holla Forums for nearly a decade (before I quit). I think I'm going to quit *chan culture for good. This community and culture simply doesn't fit me anymore and I no longer fit it.

>>>Holla Forums

It also doesn't help that I am a veteran of 4chan's Holla Forums for nearly a decade (before I quit). I think I'm going to quit *chan culture for good. This community and culture simply doesn't fit me anymore and I no longer fit it.

>>>Holla Forums

Your position this whole thread is the equivalent of the tankie who calls every anti-tankie lefty a fascist sympathizer. If feminism is worth defending you should be able to come up with better arguments instead of just throwing around words like MRA and neoreactionary as pejoratives for everyone who disagrees with you or is unconvinced the groups you dislike are evil.

...

You can't run from people in real life like you can just stop going to a chan you moron. People who want classless, implicitly including 'raceless', societies like me hate you.
Liberals hate you. You shit over their spook of rights and individuality.
Even other classcucks hate you, because you shit over their self-determination and pride. You bring up petty issues that look like a joke from their frame of reference considering the United States has a black president.
Your movement is infested with corrupt 'non-white' tribalists that don't give a shit about a raceless society, and just want to replace 'white' people as the new dominate 'race', and will pay you respect as long as you're useful and then will off you as a threat to their new regime.
You're the tool of porkie to create a spook to distract people from the universal struggle between proletariat and bourgeois. Porkie is going to discard you like a used wad of shit covered toilet paper after he's done with you.

I mean, people like you blame 'white' people for slavery, but there were 'non-white' people that owned slaves. You're not consistent in the slightest even from your class spook infected narrative. The unverified number I got for people that owned slaves was 1.7 percent. It wasn't uniformly 'white people'. It was 'rich exploitative people' who then came up with an ideology to justify their exploitation. Pretty much the same shit as usual. That's what you call a 'consistent narrative'. It's kind of a wonderfully simple example of how these things work. "Hey, I'm a sharecropper and I can barely feed my family because I have to compete with slavery, but God Bless Me at least I'm not a nigger slave."

But then porky tells you to go after 'whitey' because somehow children are responsible for the sins of their parents, and an arbitrary class carries the sins of the 1.7 percent of the wealthy population in the United States that brainwashed them in the first place, and somehow the blatant inconsistency doesn't pop out to you? The stupidity levels are off the chart.

SJWs are the same type of fools that got brainwashed into thinking that 'black' people were subhuman in the first place.

I've read the white muh privilege pamphlets. My immediate thoughts were, 'Wow this is some primo psychological manipulation here, all of this shit is irrelevant. I don't have a trap big enough for this spook.'

Seriously, SJWs, you are fucked. You have no idea how fucked you are. Your ideology is too stupid. Once porky is done with you, you're fucked.

I'm the poster who called you liar. I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you find somewhere you do fit in. Good luck for the future.

...

You're so petty and childish. Which is about what I'd expect from a feminist.

You keep saying that but all evidence is to the contrary. It has no basis in material reality. You admit yourself it's not an economic hierarchy. If it's not grounded in an economic material basis then it's just as valid or in this case as invalid is the Zionist conspiracy theory.

Yes because economic equality isn't guaranteed. All the rights in the world are worthless if you lack the economic power to be free. This supports my argument not yours.

It suggest they don't experience gender based discrimination anymore than the average man does. You're using discrimination is a nonspecific buzzword. If women aren't discriminated against legally, economically , or by any material measure compared to men then how is what you're saying even relevant? I can show that the poor are discriminated in all of these ways and more very easily.

No it's exactly how it's viewed by proponents of the Zionist conspiracy theory believe that society is geared towards helping the Jews grow richer at the expense of the other races who they view is nothing more than cattle.

Nothing prevents women from joining these fields outside of the same economic factors that prevent some men from not joining these fields. It doesn't prove systematic discrimination against them in itself. In fact, men don't even dominate the majority of stem fields anyway. Men only dominate computer science and math heavy fields like engineering and physics. Biology and Chemistry are both dominated by women for example. Hardly proof of anything.

I've seen your views on Men's rights , motherhood, and gamergate. Combined with you salty personality, you fit very well into negative stereotype I have about feminists.

Equality for all!
However these neo-feminist idpol posts are terrible, and they hurt your movement even more. Please stop.

This. Thank you.

I understand that I am not in a position where I can fully understand your methods (that is, the rhetoric espoused by harsher feminists posters), but from what I can glean you are only furthering the stereotype that feminists are 'aggressive idiots who are the dupe of their own ideology'. Hate begets hate.

rip in pistachios feminism
sad day, sad thread

what's with all the censorship?

In leftypol we generally use working class to refer to the proletariat as a whole. Claiming that all or most women belong to the bourgeoisie is just plain wrong.

top lel, get some elitism or you'll end up supporting Trump.

Poetry.

MRAs aren't Traditionalists, they don't want to bring back gender roles, they want the same muh privileges that they believe feminism awarded women and "beat them at their own game" see PUAs.

I agree

Gender is a social construct

For shame.

I agree with MRAs on some issues, tho.

MRA as a pejorative is akin to SJW as a pejorative. Useless.

MRAs are identitarian idiots, regardless of whether they are right on some idiots and spamming "le all febbinisms ebil SJWs maymay" regardless of all the evidence to the former makes one thick-headed.

*on some issues

Sadly, it isn't. There is a biological basis under gender/sex spectrum. Different sizes of brain nuclei and different brain connectivity. Toddler experiments show that children are attracted to male/female type toys even without any gender conditioning.

Sex/gender is a slight biological bias that gets reinforced by a society in a feedback loop.

But to whom am I speaking, you probably stop believing in biology if it doesn't pander to your ideology…

That being said I'm all for abolishment of social gender condition and more open self-expression. But it is foolish to think that people won't display gendered behavior bias even absent a history of gender conditioning.

This is why Holla Forums is firmly anti idpol.

This position misrepresents both the ontology of identity and its political significance. That the subject is itself always already a product of discourse, which represents both the condition of possibility for a certain subject-position and a constraint on what forms of self-making individuals may engage, shows merely that reality is ontologically incomplete. There is no real identity—individual or group-based—that is separable from its conditions of possibility, and any political appeal to identity formations must engage with the paradox of acting from the very subject-positions it must also oppose. Then, can an identification be premised on a forward-looking solidarity rather than a ressentiment-laden exclusion? Maybe. If not, what can material-class based solidarity offer to the politicized identity whom thus enunciates itself, makes claims for itself, only by entrenching, restating, dramatizing, and inscribing its pain in politics? If yes, how can we relate ourselves in such a way that indirect, technologically mediated experience would shape discourse for the relative immiseration of us?
I'm an idiot, indeed moreso than all the monsters you can conjure in your head.

of*

This is a list of scientific unproven gibberish to me, sounds like a critical "theory" writing. You can't call something a "theory" if it is formulated so vague that there is no possible statement that disproves it. Honestly, US-based marxist discredit themselves with such writing.

I abhor detachment from reality because this detachment is the reason of great majority of human problems. If you are responsible (and if you think about politics you can't be anything else) you should take the reality as it is.

Reality is that males and females differ in subtle but measurable ways, starting from chromosomes (= active genes, i.e. males have some genes that females can never have, on the other hand female pair of copied chromosomes gives more resilence to inherited from mutations), continuing in prenatal hormone exposure and culminating in brain development.

The results are different. The behaviors are different. No amount of empty wording about discourse theory could change it.

Changing such biological details would require no less than genetically re-engineering humans.

*no possible experiment that proves or disproves it

Yes. I get that.
Feminism, insofar as it is not identitarian, is about the abolition of gender, not the promotion of one gender over the other. Feminism, the right kind at least, is about destroying the gender-antagonism.
Noone is free as long as they are a woman.
Noone is free as long as they are men.

They must transcend this and become individuals.

MRA-ideology cannot claim to the same.

This episode is garbage.

Daily reminder that science is oriented and can be manipulated.

You overlook the fact that meaning is a human concept and does not mean anything beyond what we experience as humans (we certainly do not experience ourselves as merely specimens of a species). Things do not actually exist. We just have names for specific constellations of matter that occure around us. Following this, even we ourselves do not exist, atleast not through time. The momentary "me" is just what past momentary "mes" have been floating into, and it has already floated into a new momentary me that is now finishing this sentence. All these momentary mes can fit the same relatively vague description, but the more you get into detail the more they differentiate from one another, to the point where every momentary me only fits one very specific description. Even so much as breathing in new oxygen particles or leaning a little bit to the left or thinking something else changes the constellation of the matter that makes up "me", so that a new "me" now exists. A thing that is wholly one thing does not magically produce its complete opposite quality without the potentiality for that quality to be inherent in the thing in the first place. Oh, and the physical processes that produce life do not account for this potentiality, they are only it's expression. In general a merely theoretical idea is worth nothing, only an executed one actually exists. The internet today is humans playing at being robots and sorting themselves into boxes.

That's because it's dialectics, spastic.

How would you know? Have you ever been an MRA?

Shit's pretty bad right?

This is the only board where you can move freely without tripping on Holla Forums's insanity, and we still can't have certain discussions without calling each other SJW/reactionary. All we can do is call each other names and maybe hoard information. Image boards basically make you unlearn persuasion and the only "skill" you get in return is to be desensitized to random psychopaths.

This part really gets me good: we are bitter over the SJW phenomenon, but when their slimy tactics are adopted by real politicians, who will inflict serious damage in real life, we are unable to do anything about it because we can't convince anyone.

Are you for real? Can't you see what's wrong? You're doing this cancerous territorial thing where muh pure chan community free of enemy spies is more important than convincing or converting anyone.

If you gave half a fuck about getting anything done aside from meme-spouting then you would drop the shitty chan culture while debating a topic. By the way, that means you should stop calling people something-niggers. Yes, what a shocker! Probably you think this puerile horseshit is necessary to keep out SRS. It's not. You just look like a moron with no self-control, and it becomes hard to tell you apart from Holla Forums raiders.

In B4 "BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT CHAN CULTURE & GB/2 REDDIT." Dasu, dasu, shop for a whopper, etc. Fuck chan culture. Learn some social skills and you might some day get something done even after this site inevitably goes down.

This is why no one takes you femshits seriously. Peddle your MRA boogeyman crap somewhere else asshole. No one is buying it.

Not even the person you replied to, but whatevs.

Let us take this as true. That still does not mean we should destroy gender. We depend on gender to read which of our community we might wish to be intimate with and to signal our status to others. Most of the human population only encounters with certain others. Despite what joke ideologies like queer anarchism aim for, that isn't changing any time soon.

No, but I've run into real-life MRA, and read MRA-programmes, none of which promoted the abolition of gender.
If you have evidence to the contrary I would love to see it, but until then MRA is meritless identitarian crap, a knee-jerk response to bourgeois feminism.

All identity is a restraint upon individuality. Let's aboloish it.

There are men's advocacy groups that genuinely promote equal rights. The Good Men Foundation, for example, promotes activism on men's issues, supports charitable foundations such as boys' and girls' clubs, and publishes an online magazine dealing with men's issues that also acts as a forum for dialogue between feminists and men's rights advocates. They focus on criticisms of traditional male gender norms, father's issues, factors affecting at-risk boys in inner-cities, sex and health.

This is true, but compared to fields like marxist studies science at least has empiricism to back itself up.

This holds some truth, but also note that feeling of meaning (which too has its biological basis) is helpful at building scientific models of our environment/experience. It is not perfect, but it doesn't need to.

This can't be a basis for any serious political movement.

This interpretation of existence doesn't change empirical results (which my thesis was about) in any way.

I don't see how you challenge my argument about human behavior being biologically biased and not being a 100% product of his/her experience (though experience still has a larger influence in the end).

To fix the human condition we have to understand it first. Closing our eyes and hiding behind cushy philosophy won't change anything.

You can't covert feminists. They covert you. Have you been under a rock for the last 20 years? Anyway I have no problem debating idpolers if I feel like it.
I made this post and a half a dozen other well thought out response defending my position. Image board culture is what keeps this bard good and idpol free. If someone doesn't have a thick enough skin to handle this environment then they're probably not worth talking to. Oh and I hate to say it seeing how it was abig part of you mornic rant but your post reeks of Reddit. You should fuck off back to whatever shithole you came from.

Equal rights is not the point.
The abolition of gender is.
The "equal but seperate thing" is identitarian and restrictive at best as it maintains and perpetuates the same antagonism that already exists within society.

In this sense, gender-egalitarians are more like people who believe in "class-cooperation". The point is to get rid of the gender-divide in totality, and I have never seen a "men's rights" advocate agitate for that.
Yeah, perhaps feminism is a misnomer, but when someone comes unto Holla Forums and spams that feminism is just bourgeois "feminism", then I'm sorry, these people should be called out and I don't know why you didn't do this.

You have shit taste in hentai and a sour disposition. Don't worry, when I was talking about femshits. I was also talking about you too.

You are arbitrarily privileging a certain supervenience level over others, and assuming that what is explained in sciences like physics is ontologically exhaustive. We merely look at the microphysical level of reality and find wave lengths. This doesn't mean that the higher supervenience level where we experience the prima facie properties of objects that we do are any less real. Look at the human body, we have microphysical properties on one supervenience level, physical properties on another, biological properties acting on another, and mental properties acting on another, all of these sets of properties and activities are real to some degree and not reducible to each other, insofar as one cannot simply explain exactly what is going on on one level without actually referencing that level, hence why biology is still a science, hence why philosophy is practiced today. Stuff goes on on the biological level that we could not properly explain if we only used physics, this shows us that microphysical reductionism is false. If it was true we would need no other science but physics, or, as you propose, the reduction of consciousness to mere neurons and electronic particles interacting.

I don't see how you challenge my argument about human behaviour being dialectically biased not being a 100% product of his/her "inherent" nature, or what you called genetics.

I'm not the one insulting "porn."

You're doing the same thing, save that you just call all MRAs reactionary.

I really wish you'd leave your shitposting veil behind. When you take your time to formulate your thoughts, you can be shockingly exact and concise. But as it is, it seems to me buried by a persona of ironic arrogance.

Can't fix a massive deficit of love (or whatever you want to term it) over night. As I promoted before, rather than add to the pile, leave when a conversation turns puerile – or turn the other cheek and see if you can do some 'good on the centimeter'.

Shit convert not covert.

Finding MRAs outside the alt-right is uncommon, both right now and historically. Besides, I've been following your posts and from what I can tell, you should be wise enough to know that a tu qoque is no rebuttal at all.

The "best" MRAs we can find are the ideological equivalents of social democrats on the gender issue.

And Social Democrats are really fucking shit-tier.

So do I consider it an insult? Yeah, absolutely, and its no real problem, because we'll never need these people or their theory.

Spamming every thread with feminism being anti-socialist, however, that is reactionary.

You can call it whatever you want. You have bad taste in cartoon porn. Also by sour disposition I was talking about how arrogant and passive aggressive you are. Your shit taste just makes it even worse.

Meh, it's not passive aggressive.

And I don't know why you are against fun.

I'm not being ironic,
not shitposting right now,
I'm just trying to make sense, comparing what I know with the argument presented (which didn't even really respond to the argument I presented—called it gibberish, and went on to cite a science I wasn't referring to).

Language ever was the source of misunderstandings. Imageboards were a mistake.

I am not. Abandon this notion.

Better than being active aggressive, I guess.

Don't you get it? Communism means no fun or gulag!

No. Again, more simply: Most of us don't want to have sex with people who have unattractive genitals and secondary sexual characteristics. Gender is a proxy for signalling these.

Abolition of gender sounds cool, but it cannot be total and if total it cannot be voluntary.

Smoothing gender differences is possible if you remove massive cultural/legal bias that currently exists, but it won't remove natural biases (also it won't help currently existing 7.4 bln people that have gender experience ingrained in them). People will still have different tastes, temperaments, hormones and hobbies. Gender dimorphism (smaller than in many other animals but still significant) is a part of human nature.

Of course given enough political will and technology you could change the human nature, but this doesn't sound like a humane thing to do, especially considering pretty arbitrary part of the modification.. If you had such power why do you focus on such specific thing as gender, why don't you use it to remove diseases and extend life…

In the end many people will still want to identify as some gender. Who are you to stop them?

Even if I can redefine my concepts to agree with that, that still doesn't help him/her because humans have very little control over their material nature. Our DNA and bodyplans are constant, once created. Our thoughts and feelings are defined by how our brain is structured. The only thing that we can consciously change is some subset of brain state, but even this is a mere subset.

My point is that there is no way for humans to change their gender/sex or related concepts by just thinking hard about them, they are linked to low level brain nuclei, at least partially. There are proofs of this.

But I digress, the argument sounds pointless to me. I'm much more interested in giving people true freedom to change one's nature, cure all diseases and attain long life. Gender doesn't worry myself much.

Hey I like you and we've had good convos in the past, but sometimes I feel you use more complicated language - I does get a little confusing to simple manual labourers and farmers like me.
Not saying you're pretentious, just saying that keeping it simple is always the best thing to do.

If I can't drink and fight and fuck then it is not my revolution.

Certain parts of gender, perhaps. Most have nothing to do with that, though.

Nope. It's much worse.

Indeed, and I really even sympathize with this…the "abolish gender" posters ITT are a little misguided, belying themselves to an estranged, idealist view. Should we too abolish language merely because there are other languages than ours and we would lack communication with such?

Okay. Sorry.

You're saying abolish gender, not reform it, though.

Why not. It is known that US marxist "theorists" developed a very elaborate language that played in role of them alienating the working class from themselves.

Looks like they were more interested in living bohemian lifestyle and conversing inside their circles than interacting with workers, though. How can an academic that somehow got into a costly program in paid college understand the struggle of "simple" worker?

I dropped out of college and am working retail.

To be frank, the individual would gain a shitload more liberty from abolishing it all together, than it gains in convenience from being able to tell if other people are male of female from the clothes they wear.

Calling someone pretentious is pretty harsh, especiialy when there is legitimate theory behind it.
However, if it is not easily comprehensible to those who are supposed to be the engine of the social revolution, then I fail to see the point.

I was merely being diplomatic.

feel sorry for u user
I'm in similar situation.

Besides, I believe that human beings tend to be fairly bisexual, when not subjected to any kind of sexual or gender indoctrination.

I was more so referring to how you come off overall. (Or to me at least.)
Maybe this is a more apt formulation: the content and presentation of your posts seem at odds. Most of your posts are more insightful and thorough, than posts like make them seem.

Superficial, for sure, but it's hard for me to separate the way something is presented from what the actual contents are. To me you regularly come off as an ironic shitposter with little interest in actually discussing the subject - and instead appear solely interested as asserting your own truth as supreme.
While in actuality, so I understand, you have the more noble goal of providing insight.

I don't wish to say "improve the way you express yourself", because - as this post should make clear - I have enough trouble with that myself. That said, if you have not yet, it might be something to turn over in your head.

This has some empirical truth to it, again. But still there is bias…

Bisexual detected.

We're all a little bit bi.

There's a evolutionary pressure on us to be a little bit bi.
If we're not a little bi, we can't tell which other males are considered sexually attractive, and we'd be unaware of who our primary competition would be.

bi has even stronger evolutionary benefits in other pressures, e.g. black swans. I'm more than a little bit bi hehe (^:
But not all people like it, again..

*in other species

I can't stand you.

Unfortunate that it is. Tears do not burn except in solitude, for a perfect graveyard of buried hopes.

Then you should sit…

You need to read your ancient history or look at prison populations. There's a massive segment of the population that are just not interested in same sex sexual activity regardless of environment.

Both of which were and are filled to the brim with gayness

I feel like you're oversimplifying human sexuality in your two posts. Coming from the heterosexual end since that's what I know, biologically heterosexual men tend to be attracted to certain feminine-typical physical traits, which can also lead to attraction to contradictions things like futanari and traps. But that's not really the same as being attracted to male sexual traits. They could be attracted to someone male, but only if that person had traits that gave off human female sex signals. They could be attracted to an asexual alien under those conditions as well.

Humans evolved to have a system that was good enough to get them making babies.. It didn't evolve to be a 100% fool proof checker for sex.

As for checking out your competition, I know which men are attractive the same way I know a friggin' dog or cat is good looking or not. I don't want to have to have sex with something that looks like an actual dog or cat, not human. But a cat or dog can actually 'look good' to me.

Tbh, I don't understand much about what people find sexually attractive in masculine-typical men except for the stereotypical platitudes. No lights switch on in my brain, so all I can do is listen to other people tell me about their subjective experience.

I feel that your statement about everybody being a little bi is motivated reasoning, i.e. people are like me.

Tbh, I couldn't say either way.

On the other hand, talking about sexuality in terms of gender orientation feels a little limiting.. Some people are turned on by being found attractive. Their arousal doesn't really have anything to do with their partner. They're not attracted to men or women; they're attracted to a type of developing awareness and situation.

Saying that someone who is 'self-sexual' in the example above is 'bisexual' is a statement without any useful information in it… And even contains misinformation… Because they're not attracted to men or women at all, they're attracted to something else entirely.

Not enough to justify your fap fantasy.

You can cut the cute act. I've had enough confrontations with you to know how nasty you can be.

Ruffling up someone's feathers can be fun sometimes, a pretense of wit as a diversion in an argument if it get's too…heavy. But you're right and the rest is my excuses.

Ah, despair.

Just for the record, I am not into sex with men. Probably never will be

A cat can be aesthetically pleasing to you, but you can't tell which cat other cats would want to fuck.
This is the exact purpose of slight bi sexuality amongst all human beings. Now you don't want to fuck other men, and niether do I, but we understand that they are attractive, even without being told so.
This makes us more able to compete, and there's nothing to be ashamed about.

Is that really what was going on?

I just though I was too stupid to follow what was going on…

:(

What the hell does that mean? Are you hitting on me? Fine. I'll bury the hatchet for now. It's not like either one of us is going anywhere.

I mean, sometimes I joke, not all the time but sometimes I do. I assumed chans were a little more light-hearted, but then again Holla Forums is the first political board I've ever ventured to, straying from halfchan when my homeboard /lit/ got flooded with "race realists" among other unsophisticated views. Guess there's no real end to today's ideological cynicism, and perhaps should've thought of myself as more capable of malice. This was all really stupid…

No, I mean that some arguments really ought not be taken so seriously…that jokes can build rapport but not really in my case I guess.

I genuinely can't tell which men women find sexually attractive. I mean I can tell if a man has ugly features or he looks unhealthy, i.e. general traits of attactiveness in humans, but I genuinely can't tell if a man has any sexually specific features a women would find attractive, unless I had a previous example to compare to.

Pfft, ashamed.

If I've fapped to futa, then I'm long long past the hang ups like 'dat's gay, you can't du dat! oh mi gawd crisis of identity spooks!'

Oh the irony, not caring if a nice feminine-typical body has a dick or not.

On the other hand, a male body with a vagina? Nothing.

Basically, my brain just cares about the hourglass figure, heart shaped face and breasts.

Feminism's ability to foster an "us vs them" mentality between proles truly is amazing. I mean, how many of the people who are seriously against it are there primarily because of the "If you're not with us you're against us!" radfems?

They can but you were being a real bitch the last couple of weeks. I'm glad you decided to calm down.

Are you feminister from /lit/ ?

Really? You can't, at all?
Come on, you must see how that would be an evolutionary disadvatage in the same vein as something like autism.

Hmmn, sure. Sorry again. Hope y'all have a pleasant evening.

No, but they did leave some pretty lulsy posts in the archive. "If Harold Bloom wants to bring back masterpieces, why isn't he devoting time to writing them instead of 99% criticism?" — Feminister, 2014

No need to feel sorry, sometimes you can just make me feel very inadequate because intellectually you're way out of my league and I might as well be an ant trying to speak to God.

Not that I'm aware of. I can tell that men with blocker faces are more masculine, but that's more experience than something instinctual. They actually look unattractive to me.

As for having any effect on getting laid. If I get laid, it has more to do whether I feel confident or not or have the energy to go out and socialize. It's not like I have an advantage in finding possible rivals that are more physically attractive and then knocking them out before they come to the venue? I can tell if a girl is into a guy by her behavior towards him. I don't have to have it going on internally.

You too femposter. We're cool for now.

Stop kissing her ass. It's pathetic.

I'm sorry, that wasn't what I was trying to do.

Idk, it's just when someone posts a huge textwall and I don't get it, I feel dumb.

Your dishonesty is blatant and your projection is no less surreptitious. It's really pathetic. If you are the norm of Holla Forums, then this place is a lost cause.

0/10

Your TL;DR shitpost is completely inapplicable to me because I'm not the liberal classcuck caricature you're trying to slander me as being.

Commit suicide.

You know what?

I quit, you all win. This is a waste of time. This thread has become a reactionary circlejerk of virtue signalling and shouting down those who aren't politically correct by Holla Forums's standards. I give up. The left is truly dead and this board is the apotheosis of this fact.

Enjoy your thread. I'm out.

You already said you left. Why get cold feet now? Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

You would know that after not having read my post, and thereby being driven into a frothing inarticulate rage because of its hard hitting untruthiness.

He/She/Zie/Sie/Ey/Ve/Tey/E literally went back to Tumblr.

Don't underestimate the power of memes.

Oh I'm sorry comrade. Look don't beat yourself up about it. Just read more theory. It has nothing to do with your intelligence. A couple years I wouldn't have understood half the crap she says either.

Feminism has become the most dividing and damaging element on the left, and judging from this thread some people need to wake up and smell the roses. Being against the modern iteration of feminism, is NOT pandering to reactionaries, socially "regressive" "proles" or ignoring real systems of oppression.

In fact the materialist left is the only one that fights gender discrimination by despooking men and women in the undeveloped parts of the world such as in India (see Naxalite struggles there), by pointing out to men that they stand to gain in their struggle against economic oppression if they also liberate women from household and sexual bondage. In contrast the post-colonial and feminist ideologue critiques "patriarchy" and the "West" from a superposition, that is the modern liberal post-modern delusion that there are free floating identities,situations and cultural codes that exist in a nebulous array of signifiers.

And we can also see this on the war against "gender", which by no means is a discussion as liberal feminists like Judith Butler, with regards to a universal category that can be de-constructed, changed as however one wishes. Yes maybe there are more genders due to hormonal imbalances, who knows? But the main point is that gender is a real biological fact, it is not a cultural artifact.

Finally the greatest anti-materialistic fallacy committed by modern feminists is that there are categories of oppression without direct material causes (the Foucauldian cancerous obsession with discipline) , in this way you get patriarchy trumping capitalist exploitation, performativity trumping existing causes in Butler. Zizek already getting suspicious o this bullshit, pointed out in "Contingency, Hegemony, Universality" that THERE IS NO ABSTRACT DIFFERENCE ruling all the other differences. There is no arche-oppression that must be puritanically purged from ourselves, neither is sexual difference a "difference" among others founded on nothing (or performance as Butler puts it), it becomes difference only when you enter the world of language)

lmao didn't read

You tried.
Read Žižek.

...

...

Delete this.

person who exploits other people's labour and person who has penis are the same because most people who exploit other people's labour have penises, clearly male proles benefit from this.
t. retard

Over represented is the wrong word fist of all, because although they are they're not the majority of the bourgeoisie.

The argument still stands. If Jews did have majority power which they don't it would be true that they have power over others.

And no the theory of patriarchy isn't due to a pathological hatred of men like anti-semitism. Stop being so liberal.

No one said anything about wage labour, it was the means of production.

We can play this game till the cows come home. The exclusion of women from the means of production is more severe than the exclusion of men from the means of production, since disproportionately the bourgeoisie are male.

What I don't understand is why there is an urge to simply discount feminism when both Marx and Lenin were feminists and when the very same logic of exploitation applies to women.

Every time you show this to male so called marxists they go knee jerk and use the same damn arguments that they reject as down right reactionary from the bourgeoise. Like the idea that women enjoy the opportunity to not die in the streets so they must agree with the system that makes them have to choose between submission and being completely outcast from the social system of production.

This is literally a fucking socdem argument, kill yourself reactionary.

What the fuck is this, if you're so smart why can't you make a distinction between non-materialist feminism and materialist feminism and stop wasting your time railing against the former.

Thank you for describing patriarchy. This is the best example of reactionary pseudo-leftists blowing themselves the fuck out.

Shameful.

Nazbol detected

marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_03.htm

At what point does it say we should care about a person's identity instead of their class?

Pleb reading comprehension.

When you refuse to take the marxist critique seriously to avoid internal conflict you are already in the realm of reaction.

Yeah liberal isn't code word for anything you don't like. Not a single thing points to me being a liberal in anyway. My point still stands that patriarchy is a crazy conspiracy theory I already argued this point >>724772 >>725048 and I am not repeating myself for you. It's a reactionary position. Why don't you read the thread before making garbage replies. Piece of shit.

No the majority of men like the majority of women have absolutely zero control over the means of production. By no objective measure is the average women excluded from society anymore then the average men is. This divisive petty nonsense that only serves to divide the working class and alienate men. The average man is just as screwed over as the average women is by the ruling elite. Focusing on superficial characteristic of the wealthy is the same mistake all reactionaries like yourself make. The elite being Jewish or Irish or male is irrelevant. I can tell more about a person by their parent's medium income then the genitals they were born with could ever tell me. In modern western society women, and men hold the same rights and have the same opportunities. The only legal discrimination in the modern world is wealth based. patriarchy is an outdated dead institution that has very little impact in the modern neoliberal economy.

Good sassenach!

See occupational statistics
You are saying that you want for women to work dangerous (these are the reason males represent 90% of workplace deaths) manufacturing jobs so they have more access to means of production ?

(^:

Women seem to prefer safer jobs, while males are forced to work horrible jobs due to social expectations and fierce competitiveness our society.

ie patriarchy

anti-anti-feminism is the negation of the negation

...

Aka feminism

Oh no, 'pick your class' or females has less porkies in it due to historical trend X, X or X! We can't have this, we need more female porkies! I want my female tribe to have just as much ham as anybody else!
Oh, let's make more 'pick your racial social construct' bourgeois!

In other words, what you're doing is making 'pick your spook' into your football team and then trying to get more resources for your football team. It's stupid. It's beyond stupid. *We're supposed to be overthrowing the entire system.* You do that the problem is solved, and the class identity that is enslaving you is gone, since everyone's free to be an individual.

The current wave of feminists are just spook slaves.

Feminists aren't undermining subversive class identities to replace them with the dichotomy of proletariat and bourgeois; they're *entrenching* them. They're creating a set of identities that create horizontal stratification between proletariat and proletariat, and the winner is always porky.

'Men' 'White', you understand that you are mixing proletariat and bourgeois together right? That you're creating brotherhood between porky and exploited?

Idpol is one of porky's favorite tools. I'm not going to say that third wave feminism is something that porky socially engineered, but I will assert that porky was smart enough of an opportunist to recognize it for the anti-communist poison that it is… And porky is cleverly taking advantage of and supporting it…
Until porky's done with it, and then third wave feminists are going to get torn apart by the wolves that porky is holding back.

So what you're saying is…capitalists exploit women to reproduce the means of production?
You sound like a Marxist/rad- feminist yourself.

lol nice try Foucault, what is the discipline of punish then? It an architecture of discipline not of social formations arising in the development of economic relations.

So just because a social democrat says it it's reactionary, what the fuck are you a Taliban mujaheddin? Of course a social democrat would say it because he is in favor of maximum utility, but a Marxist says it because he wants to dissolve economic bondage which is intimately tied with gender bondage. Thats the whole argument Engels make sin origin of teh Family.

But I did, I specifically distinguish the post-colonial, Butlerian, third wave feminism from the socialist / Marxist one.

I'm referring to the massive resentment that third wave feminists are causing among…. Anyone who isn't a part of the cult. I've noticed a trend of porky is to prop a group up that's useful, and then to throw them under the bus as a scapegoat. Porky just quietly switches sides and then says, "Yeah, it was those bastards/bitches, get them!" And then the scapegoat gets sacrificed to the hungry demon of history, and everybody is happy and fulfilled, including porky who's already setting up the next conflict and scapegoat so that the building pressure of resentment in society gets turned towards someone else again..

So, when are feminists going to start recognising pedophiles (meaning people who are attracted to children through no fault of their own) as an oppressed minority?

Until then, you can take your "intersectional theory" and sodomise yourself with it.

What are you even saying here? That's really confusing…
Foucault says that these are two distinct forms of the prison system. To make a slapdash analogy, discipline is to punish, what superstructure is to the base; they function for the state apparatus to reproduce the (capitalist) means of production. To paraphrase Foucault again, discipline is a response to alienation, an identification of corporeality, an entrance into the system for one "to be" reformed, the emergence of a bourgeois mercantilist economy, which reminds you that you are not just a "criminal" but a deviant who must become complicit with market forces, the prisoner to take part in his own imprisonment; in short, the system is designed to ensure you become a pliable piece, moved or moving around the economy, or otherwise prison, and remaining productive.

Sigh, I like this post because muh Žižek, but would make complaints about X, Y, or Z that other anons have pointed out a bit. I guess the only thing I have left to say is that it's kind of ironic you adduce the essays contained in Contingency, Hegemony, Universality, written by the trio Butler, Laclau, and Žižek, as a most true rebuke of post-structuralism; Žižek advances the thesis (elsewhere) that the history of philosophy is the history of (productive) misreadings, and this volume emphasizes that what we are dealing with here is not so much a philosophical dialogue as a series of (more or less) productive misreadings of each other: it is clear that Butler persistently misreads Lacan's notion of the Real, Laclau misreads Hegel, Žižek misreads the history of (post-)Marxism, and so on. They split increasingly fine hairs, to getting stuck in some petty squabbles and calling each other crypto-Fascists, about what is at stake for theory today, and I worry that they spent to much time deconstructing one another's rhetoric/polemics and not enough time deconstructing theoretical concepts: where Butler calls Žižek a Hegelian-formalist, Žižek calls Butler a Kantian-formalist. That book is really a testament to the #Occupy movement where "We all agree that the current system is bad, but only one of us can be right about it," and perhaps even signaling what happens here ITT—Žižek did say it best that history happens twice, first as tragedy, then as farce.

How are we ever to escape history, when even an abstinence from politics is itself a political attitude?

Whats wrong with sticking to your guns? In fact I would contend if Laclau or Butler are even leftists and not liberals/social democrats, as they are definition of reformist advocation of idpol.

If someone wants to be a Marxist then he must stand up against this bullshit. If occupy collapsed because of the cancerous influence of such people, then it deserved to fail and was a joke in the first place.

is exactly what I'm talking about in
Orthodox Marxist materialism has become it's own ideology, an economist vs. historian, or more often a worker vs. classcuck, narrative. Personally, I see this as more divisive than idpol has ever been to the left, though I am not saying that idpol isn't divisive, merely that identities themselves are so nebulous that it's just too easy to scapegoat this or that group of "thinkers" for the downfall of theory.

They will usually tell you, mate. It is no more difficult that figuring out what a man likes.

By doing the same thing porky does, by having the attitude 'What will be the consequences of this, and will that be good or bad for me in the future.'

The current future we're looking at is one where SJWs are to us to what the Nazis were to the right. In the future, people will stay away from communism, reading the good books and so on, because… You know, *SJWs*.

"Hey, brother, want to hear the word of Marx?"
"Oh, I'm.. I'm not comfortable with that.. That sounds like an SJW."
*Shudders with repressed antipathy and frustration* "Cultural Marxism. It's not… cultural.. Marxism… We're material…. Fuck… Thank you for your time, good day."

It's already happening now. SJWs are turning people were on the fence, or even leftists that are becoming disillusioned, into liberals or even the far right.

Historian here. I have never had any issues with Marxist economists. Hell, even the Keynsians usually acknowledge the validity of economic phenomena described by historical materialism. I have even had a Keynsian get my back in a discussion with other liberals about the contradictions built into capitalism.

Of course you do, but the thing is that the immaterial ideologies that orthodox marxism alienates were never really with us to begin with. Let them tilt at their imaginary giants, but they can do so with the liberals.

Uhh…are you sure? I don't think I want to extract the surplus value of labor and enjoy monetary consolations at the worker's expense…

The point here is not that historical/dialectical materialism is a false premise, rather that material determinism enshrines into politics recourse only to compensation, a belief in economic meritocracy where inequality is merely the fault of the individual being unconscious of his "needs" and his "ability," and controverts that "circumstances are changed by men […] and forgets all social life is essentially practical," (Marx)

but determinism through identification/idpol (A=A) is no better, and is also not what is talked about when one says dialectical materialism. It is then a flight from reality and a want of pathologies, giving up an engagement to useful criticism, focusing more on methodology than praxis, exactly like the abovementioned.

The synthesis of these things (dialectical materialism) must remember the governing ideology mystifies the economic relations of society and therefore places the proletariat in a state of false consciousness that serves to reproduce the working class, an army of labor, and that history is as a collection of dead facts or an imagined activity of subjects.

Marxist orthodoxy is immaterial in that it is only theses and books which tell us that which is Marxist. Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying Marx? Do we not smell anything yet of Marx's decomposition? Marx too decomposes. Marx is dead. Marx remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest, of all that the world has yet possessed, has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become Marxists simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.

Okay, I got a little giggle out of that. But seriously, you know that's not what I meant. Stop being facetious.

Rejecting femenininism is not the same as going to the other side of the coin you fucking tumblrite.

Ideas on gender fluidity seem pretty wonky.

"All gender is a performative act, because Judith Butler said so."

However, you should not conflate this gender fluidity thing with feminism, no matter how hypnotized some people might be by these ideas.

Gender abolitionists promise the end of all gender-based oppression, which apparently sounds irresistible to many modern feminists. It might be possible to abolish gender sometime in the future. The problem is that some people want to abolish gender right now and at any cost just because it would theoretically turn everyone mellow and bring about world peace. However, these ideas are based on pomo obfuscationspeak and are unfalsifiable. They're a lousy excuse to go all machiavellian. Try explaining that to online cults, though.

Notice how this is a very specific idea upheld by cloistered academics and their internet-addled students. It doesn't offer any realistic short-term goals, at all. However, as mentioned somewhere above, you're only playing along with the establishment when you take the bait and keep bitching about it (if you'll excuse me the negatively gendered word, dohoho!).

I wish we could redirect attention to some other idea, something that IS falsifiable, and give it to the undergrads. Take, for example, the phenomenon of learned helplessness. Apply it to women in soul-crushingly unhappy marriages, and you've got a brand new research topic that might actually involve an empirical methodology. Wonder if anyone's thought of this before. You can't keep analyzing gender roles in Shakespeare forever.

No, the point here is that narxist economists and marxist historians are not opposed to one another. Indeed, they tend to reach consensus as often as not.

That is not a problem. On the contrary, that is the function of politics. Politics aimed at dictating social normalcy have always been counterproductive.

That is resolved simply by recognizing that it is nothing but ideology.

He stared to long into language and lost track of reality, which was never so obscured as he imagined it to have been.

When you say "I reject feminism, over something that happened online!" normies will think you're a spergy retard.

They'll be half right, because you're clinging to spergy online rivalries.

It's a problem, and you need to do something about it.

In B4 "No I don't you tone-policing faggot!"

Guess who the normies are going to side with?

Do you know how much drama normies have over facebook stuff?

Again, not the point, nor what I'm arguing against.

Compensation is precisely that normalcy you are talking about. It presupposes debt, or loss if you will, and acts as a "necessary" exchange to keep one passive to the system. The coincidence, of facticity, of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.

No serious Marxist today actually thinks this…

'It is not only our reality that enslaves us. The tragedy of our predicament, when we are within ideology, is that when we think we escape it, into our dreams, at that point we are within ideology […] 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 […] The starting point of the critique of ideology has to be full acknowledgment of the fact that it is easily possible to lie in the guise of truth.' — Žižek

That's because he was a philologist, and a very good one at that.

It's not nice to bully a man with neurosyphilis dementia…

Are you a Randist/Objectivist, by chance, and believe that anything can be known to arbitrary precision? If so, please look at the heisenberg uncertainty principle…or the scientific method to boot…

Huhmn…sorry…

or facticity*

You guys are fucking scum, you couldn't even kill Anastasia Nikolaevna commie bastards.

You said that orthodox marxism was divisive, yet the only people it actually divides from the group are the post-leftists which is no loss.

You should probably not take him, or any other Lacanian, too seriously. He is kind of in the same vein as Stirner–more fun than useful.

I'm a true Scotsman, I tells ye!

Marx only exist as to guide us, he is not the bible, Marxist analysis is a field of study and analysis that can be expanded as long as Capitalism exists.

Nonsense, praxis is guided by methodology not the reverse.

Which is precisely why when mainstream feminism became part of the ruling ideology, it started to either essentialise gender relations (everything is oppression) or it begun treating it in terms of a Foucauldian study of discipline. The subject in this case is a Kantian self-flagellating area until you reach the point zero identity of practice=identity. Foucault was right in taking Deleuze's insights of Nietzsche and identifying power with forces, assemlances, quantas etc. But his mistake is identifying the power that builds the STRUCTURE of discipline with the edifice itself. The idea that practice alone escapes the ideological edifice is post-modern delusion, identity is socially constructed, but it is also a fantasy, it exist in relation with an ideology, as identity. That's the whole point of Althusser/Zizek. For example the policeman example Althusser brings up when he points to you and you and you respond. (marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm)

Also I read almost all of your posts and I don't understand what you are on about. You agree that idpol feminism has twisted even the insights of Foucault on power, yet you also seem to adopt the Butlerian "performativity" nonsense.

(witnessed)

Blasphemy won't be tolerated on this board. You must accept the teachings of the one true communist in their entirety or not at all heretic.
ab uno disce omnes!
ab uno disce omnes!
ab uno disce omnes!

Indeed. I did. And you should too if you want to (try to) escape from ideology. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness. This is that which I think great readers are apt to be mistaken in; those who have read of everything, are thought to understand everything too; but it is not always so. Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking that makes what we read ours. We are of the ruminating kind, and it is not enough to cram ourselves with a great load of collections; unless we chew them over again, they will not give us strength and nourishment. Memorization by rote, which is easy to do, denies us this radical freedom of memorization by scrutiny.

Lemme see what you're hiding under that kilt~ ;3

Not what I'm saying, but I'll make the case for your strawman anyways, because it could be fun: How can hermeneutics, once freed from the ontological obstructions of the scientific concept of objectivity, do justice to the historicity of understanding? Hermeneutics has traditionally understood itself as an art or technique. This is true even into an organon of the human sciences. One might then wonder whether there really is such an art or technique of understanding. But at any rate, we can inquire into the consequences for the hermeneutics of the human sciences. These consequences do not need to be such that the latter is performed differently (ie in a way that is technically correct). They could also consist in the correcting (and refining) of the way in which constantly exercised understanding understands itself (metacognition). In this circle is hidden a positive possibility of the most primordial kind of knowing, and we genuinely grasp this possibility only when we have understood that our first, last, and constant task in interpreting is never to allow our fore-having, fore-sight, and fore-conception to be presented to us by fancies and popular conceptions, but rather to make the scientific theme secure by working out these fore-structures in terms of the things themselves. A person who is trying to understand a text is always projecting. He projects meaning for the text as a whole (Gestalt) as soon as some initial meanings emerge in the text. Again, the initial meaning emerges only because he is reading the text with particular expectations in regard to a certain meaning. Working out this "fore-projection," which is constantly revised in terms of what emerges as he is penetrates into the meaning, is understanding what is there. What gives this schema its validity is the presupposition of the progressive retreat of magic in the world. It is supposed to represent progress in the history of mind, and precisely because your romanticism disparages this development, takes over the schema itself as self-evident truth. It shares the presupposition of a Renaissance and only reverses its values, seeking to establish the validity of what is old simply on the fact that it is old: the "gothic" Middle Ages, the Christian European community of states, the permanent structure of society, but also the simplicity of peasant life and closeness to nature.
This is the point at which the attempt to critique historical hermeneutics has to start. The overcoming of all prejudices, this universal demand of Renaissance, will itself prove to be an unfortunate prejudice, and removing it opens the way to an appropriate understanding of the finitude which dominates not only our humanity but also our historical consciousness.

Jesus only exists as to guide us, he is not the bible. Theology is a field of study and analysis that can be expanded as long as Christianity (et c) exists.

Althusser also says "There is no such thing as a purely repressive apparatus," and "There is no such thing as a purely ideological apparatus," which is more to the point of the policeman example Althusser brings up when he points to you and you and you respond. You begin to look at yourself through the "Other's knowledge."

D A S E I N
A
S
E
I
N

Jezz you guys are really getting into a heavy discussion. You guys realize this thread is going to auto sage in less then 50 replies right?

Truly a sad day for Holla Forums.

It's time to sticky feminism to the front page of Holla Forums then.

I'm not replying to that other copy paste shit, since it's irrelevant to the point I made, I understand where you are going with that hermeneutic shit and it's crap. Wholly idealist nonsense that presupposes textual interpretation = actual reality.

Of course, they are a complex mixture of mechanisms, we remain entrapped in ideology without knowing it. Yet Althusser unlike Foucault does not take power separately from the actual economic conditions. if you want to know how fr Foucault fell for his own bullshit, read the govermementality lectures. There he presupposes that it only power designates governance and everything comes magically together because the proles wanted power and willingly enslaved themselves. His followers don't like to admit this but he became a lolbertarian in the end and only thought with regards with the right of state and those who want/exercise power, Foucault always remained a cynical bastard, assuming people want enslavement. Thus leading to the micropolitics of desire that birthed the nonsense pants on head retarded feminism we have today.

Is pure mystical bullshit, read Adorno.

Check out this correlationist .

Did you witness the clusterfuck that happened here femposter? Every time I start think you're pretty cool guy femposter. You go and post something like this. It's like asking to have an immigration or racial iq thread stickied. It would attract the worst idpolers around to this board.

But it doesn't.
Reread it again.

Let's look at the policeman example again.
'Assuming that the theoretical scene I have imagined takes place in the street, the hailed individual will turn round. By this mere one-hundred-and-eighty-degree physical conversion, he becomes a subject.' The very fact that we do not recognize this interaction as ideological speaks to the knowledge-power of ideology. 'That is why those who are in ideology believe themselves by definition outside ideology: one of the effects of ideology is the practical denegation of the ideological character of ideology by ideology: ideology never says, "I am ideological."'

Perpare to get sublated, fool!

Idpol is good for this board. It keeps the tongue sharp~

All the vodka in the world won't dull the pain :(

Which is precisely what Foucault and Butler cannot accept. Think about it, in Foucault it makes no sense to ask who builds the prisons, because building a prison is confined to the architectonic of discipline, it's not an ideological apparatus but a regime of power like any other, in Foucaults theories power is distributed in the form of various disciplines including science, politics, economics etc. Which is why he considered questioning who enacts power as pointless, and proceeded to point the solution to the liberation of desire/pleasure. Desire/pleasure then are Foucault the only real thing one should care about and you should form your own counter-discipline to counter biopolitics.

But of course isn't this the game of modern day consumerism? The feminist and the post-colonial play this game all the time, assuming that their own discourse runs counter with the overpowering discourse of liberal market capitalism. Thus I contest any idea of Foucault as revolutionary that claims formation of knowledge within capitalist ideology is revolutionary. In fact, like Zizek says they ARE vital to the immanent mode of capitalism, to always perform and construct your identity while re-inventing your self, nothing is more at home with the creative destruction aspect of Capitalism.

ITT: People forget that OP refers to class-based feminism. Retort to spew their hatred towards the strawman that every feminism is the same.

Flora Tristán, Rosa Luxemburg and Emma Goldman just didnt exist.

There were several idpolers in this thread.

You must hone your Stalinist instincts more if you think posters here were just arguing against feminism in general.

Please stop.

Did you even read Discipline & Punish?

Reformists were unhappy with the unpredictable, unevenly distributed nature of the violence the sovereign would inflict on the convict. The sovereign's right to punish was so disproportionate that it was ineffective and uncontrolled, and even spectators of the punishment began to sympathize with the punished. Reformists felt the power to punish and judge should become more evenly distributed, the state's power must be a form of public power, so as to operate more discretely and subversively. This, according to Foucault, was of more concern to reformists than humanitarian arguments.

Then I guess you might not like what Žižek says in this video:
youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ

ok so you are just trolling at this point, fine if you don' want to engage in discussion, just don't shit on my board with idpol nonsense.

You missed the first part o the sentence I wrote which explicitly states that I disagree with the idea that praxis and performance forms theory. In Marxist theory praxis means revolutionary struggle and not ivory tower bullshit which is what Foucault and other po-mo loser were doing.

Also sorry to smash your idea on Foucault but power is not ideological in Foucault, neither is techniques of power. Read the Govermentality lectures were he outs himself as a lolbertarian.

ok so you are misrepresenting my position, fine if you don't want to engage in discussion, just don't shit on my board with orthodox materialism

No, that's explicitly what I'm referring to, and what Žižek is referring to when he says "don't act. Just think."

Foucault uses the term "power/knowledge" to signify that power is constituted through accepted forms of knowledge, scientific understanding and "truth". These "general politics" and "regimes of truth" are the result of scientific discourse and institutions, and are reinforced (and redefined) constantly through the education system, the media, and the flux of political and economic ideologies. In this sense, the "battle for truth" is not for some absolute truth that can be discovered and accepted, but is a battle about "the rules according to which the true and false are separated and specific effects of power are attached to the true."

"Power is everywhere" and "comes from everywhere" is in this sense is neither an agency nor a structure, a "regime of truth" that pervades society, and which is in constant flux and negotiation.

Did you even listen to his lecture on the birth of biopolitics where he criticizes notions of human rights found in both the liberal and neoliberal order?

Thanks for the puerile scapegoat again.

Actually no.
You READ THE GOVERNMENTALITY LECTURES where he make explicit the notion that liberalism must force individuals to be free: control and intervention becomes the entire basis of freedom. Freedom must ultimately be manufactured by control rather than simply "counterweighted" by it.

Dig up dead ideologies all you like. The point is that (practically) every feminist is the same.

...

That doesn't even make sense.
youtube.com/watch?v=PCU7nRaUbL8

...

Why? Are you claiming that Arianism is not dead?

Pic related

There are plenty of heretics denying the divinity of Christ.
DEUS VULT!

That is not the entirety of Arius' theology, though.

You said Arianism, the ideology, not Arius, the presbytr. His heresy just proves that the only good Christian was Christ.

Are you a circumcellion?

But am pretty sure Paul wouldn't consider Jesus a good Christian.

Smashin trader's tables, saying it's A-OK to sin, as long as you stop doing it at some point and saying "am sorry"…

That's not how the church works!

Kinda like Marx and Tankies.

No, you use the terms power and ideology wrongly, and sometimes interchangeably which is something neither Foucault nor Althusser would have wanted.

Power in Foucault is used in a Nietzschean way and it designates formations of disciplines, techniques etc. Power doesn't have anything to do with an enforced pre-dominat ideology, one practices and enacts power, which is why he says in the govermentality lectures that even proles have and use power. Knowledge formation is just a subset of power, it is not merely ideological, but the space of contested truth.

Ideology in Althusser is something very specific, it means subject formation. It's how the subject is relegated by a specific set of beliefs, fantasies and a concealment of true capitalist oppression. The truth of the Ideological State apparatus is not contested but wholly accepted by the general populace and is generally seen as normal as it produces the subject through education, masking how the general economy works.

He criticizes them from teh perspective of biopolitics, he doesn't criticize neo-liberalism itself which he sees as escaping state opression/biopolitcs.

If capitalism didn't have power why is it the dominant mode of production today?

The rest of your post is grasping at straws and misrepresentation.

Foucault's analysis of neoliberalism is not an endorsement of liberalism, but rather a way "to expand his analyses of mechanisms of power to the whole society" and a way to emphasize the peculiar notion of freedom functioning at the heart of neoliberal governmental practices. First, a neoliberal political innovation consists in setting up "the economic rule of the law" (just look at people like Margaret Thatcher). Second, Foucault argues that neoliberalism is one sort of general framework of biopolitics. Foucault finds in the writings of the Cynics the idea that "truth is revealed or manifest in the material body of life" therefore Foucault discovers in the Cynics an ideal of a philosophical life that could inspire potential forms of political resistance against a neoliberal governmentality, ie "where there is power, there is revolt."

lol

...

...

This is true suffering.

Why in the fuck do you think wage cuckery = access to the means of production.

You're not a marxist at all.

You don't even understand what you're arguing against, jesus christ such a failure in reading comprehension.
Of those that do there are more men than women, so as the ideas of the ruling class are the ruling ideas the fact that they're majority men affects the rest of society as bourgeois ideology does.
That's not what I said, learn to read.
This tendency is only showing itself as a recent development.

Fuck off, when the revolution happens you'll be the ones continuing to exclude women from access and history will continue to play itself out due to your own insecurities and theoretical impoverishment. Does the fact that the theory of patriarchy is well founded in marxism mean anything to you? I wouldn't have to quote Marx, Engels and Lenin on this to an actual leftist. Stay revisionist.

...

This is my new favourite phrase on leftypol.

Women aren't excluded right now that's the point. The patriarchy has been dead for at least 30 years . It isn't relevant today. It's like talking about serfdom in modern day Europe. Last I checked, Marx and Engels didn't write about modern day neoliberalism. Fuck off with this meaningless patriarchy crap. Go back to the 19th century where this shit actual mattered.

Then would you care to explain away the phenomena of conscription in the US liability for military service of all male citizens, and the Selective Service System (SSS) whose mission as to serve the emergency manpower needs of the Military by enlisting untrained manpower, or personnel with professional health care skills, if directed by Congress and the President in a national crisis?
Care to explain how whoso that aren't registered in SSS won't qualify for federal student loans or grant programs including Federal Pell Grants, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (FSEOG), Direct Stafford Loans/Plus Loans, National Direct Student Loans, and College Work Study?
Care to explain the felony cited upon to be punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 for males who do not enter themselves in the SSS?

You fucking Eurocentric social(ism) (((realists))) haven't even seen the power level of C U L T U R A L M A R X I S T R E L A T I V I S M
Ohho, buddy, when you awake the dragon of postmodernism (ie post-post-colonial critical theory =3) you won't even be able to wake from the nightmare of deconstructivism and critical theory; you will only then be able to realise what a discursive, biopolitical subject thou art!!1

PREPARE TO BE SUBLATED, REVISIONIST!

Oh you're doing that thing where you try to focus on men again. As if that would make patriarchy theory more appealing to me. That's real sweet of you , but there hasn't been a draft in 40 years. Which really supports my 30 year statement. Also the draft is about as much proof of the patriarchy as it is gynocentricism. In addition, the draft makes complete practical sense, men are more physically suited to combat then women are. It's biology.

Bully

IDEOLOGY+

but you haven't explained the fines and the fiscal repercussions of such a draft
you merely dismiss it because the army today operates in such a subversive, "disciplinarian" way

It's biology. Sexual dimorphism isn't ideology anymore than gravity is. Men are stronger, can take more damage, and have higher endurance. I can't take you seriously when you say crap like this. Honestly.

Why shouldn't I dismiss it? There hasn't been draft in 40 years. They know they probably won't get away with one without a huge backlash.

But you're not talking about reproductive, ie hereditary systems predicated on an alterity of gametes. You know nothing about evolution or genetics if you think it becomes individuals and not species in toto. You're saying things about muscles, which can be altered through repetition and practice, but instead are locating it in the abstract virtues of "endurance," as if it were only a universal category to men! The fact that women armies and and combatants have killed, maimed, or terrorized men armies is the only counterexample I need to refute you (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory?wprov=sfla1).

Also,
Is an oxymoron, and not a good one.

Your understanding of biology is fundamentally flawed. Sexual dimorphism in species can lead to radical physiological differences between the sexes. For your information, a women in the the top percentile of her gender can only match the strength of an average man and never comes anywhere close to men in the top percentile of their gender. Inferior combat forces can sometimes over power supererior forces due to circumstance beyond their control. When the Zulus overpowered the British it did not prove that shields and spears were the equivalent of guns. Nor does your example prove that women are physically equal to men. It's like I said it's basic biology. It's like trying to deny gravity. I honestly can't believe that you'd hold such an unsupported crazy opinion.
researchgate.net/publication/6614766_Hand-grip_strength_of_young_men_women_and_highly_trained_female_athletes
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019188699190053E
ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(09)00039-7/abstract

for fucks sake stop shit posting

The statement "Truth is produced by power' is retarded regardless of origin. You are not arguing for Foucault but against Hegel.

Yep, typical feminist cannot into elementary biochemistry.

I wasn't being sarcastic. Go and read www.b4uact.org and then try replying again.

Fixed the link:
b4uact.org

It says a lot that so-called "intesectional" feminism can't even conceive of there being oppressed minorities outside of the tumblr-approved word salad.

Maybe you should start a thread for pedophiles then, I guess.

Sick burn?

Maybe so, but I'm just generally confused by your top-down approach to it. It seems at odds with Darwinian thought, in that only the community of living things are durable, even if the durability of mechanism is only possible through homeostatic internal and external conditions, thus creating a fitness for the environment and a regulation of adaptation.

What I mean to say is, I guess…not that physiological differences between sexes don't exist, but that sociobiological behaviours rely on indirect evidence that behaviour and trait is heritable through differential reproduction, caused by the presence of the behavior in question, leading to an increase in the frequency of individuals tending to exhibit that behavior or trait in a population. Even if a trait is the result of evolution byn atural selection, or an adaptation if you will, it does not follow that the trait is uniformly expressed in a population or static in an individual over time (the differences between male and female as groups have been small compared to differences among males as individuals and females as individuals, but evolution still remains to a species and not a sex). To do otherwise seems retroactive and prescriptive, arguing that political change is futile because sex and gender at the individual and social level are caused by a static, human nature.

So, yeah, your stats account for differences in hormones, but as secondary-sex traits emerging out of puberty, but it is very difficult to determine whether or not sexually dichotomized physiologies and behaviors, which you're right to assume can be correlated with genetic, hormonal differences, are fixed or changeable; there is a sort of futility in separating nature from nuture here, and in other words the structural and hormonal aspects of brain and body development, from social learning and environmental influences on brain or body development.

That's sort of a false equivalence, but what I'm trying to do here is look at the explanations for the phenomena, rather than the "facts" in and of themselves, like when Einsteinian physics diverges from Newtonian and says that gravity is the result of patterns of complex, microscopic phenomena (like temperature is the average of internal kinetic energy). For Newton if there are two masses and empty space, there's nothing that really happens between them, but still, they're attracting each other, and that was kind of mysterious demanding a more rigorous method. For Einstein however he thought about space and time together and then his explanation of what gravity would be is that there’s masses which curve space, and time, and the reason they go around then in "orbits" is that space and time itself is curved, in the sense that things don’t move in straight lines anymore, they go around.

idk, these arguments aren't being real productive

Also sorry am dumb…

Yes, because the feminism thread certainly isn't the place for that discussion, right?
Feminism is only for genuinely oppressed people like bourgeois tumblrites who get "stare raped" every day.

You're discussing it now, aren't you?

Also

It isn't a discussion when one side has all the intellect of a bucket of wet sand.

Oh.

you literally didnt even have an argument against what ancom user said, fam, you just shitposted and strawmanned until he was harassed out of the board. youre the problem on this board, not people like him (who werent even talking about idpol). kys

sure thing fam

Get the fuck out of here Reddit you aren't fooling anyone.
>>>/Out/
>>>/Suicide/

your position is intellectually bankrupt fam. you cant even muster up any semblance of a rational defense, just spooky bogeymen and strawmen to cope with any criticisms of your ridiculously childish position. all youre doing is whining about "muh idpol" and accusing anyone who dares disagree with you of being this or that scapegoat because you were utterly demolished in rational debate. its pathetic tbqh

take your own advice. Holla Forums provocateur

Excuse me. I 'm not the poster you were talking about dumb faggot. I had no problems arguing with that ancom retard about his inane position.You can't dismiss every argument you don't like. The ancom poster was arguing with multiple people. You can't dismiss all of our arguments because of muh harassment. Personally, I made a decent effort tot debate that worthless prick. See some of my posts

Also I can't believe you have the nerve to accuse me of being a "pol provocateur" after having just written out a pathetic rant about bogymen and scapegoats. You're a dishonest piece of shit just like he was.

im not dismissing any arguments, im pointing out that you lack a tenable argument because they are all predicated on a set of strawmen and fallacies which collapse under rational scrutiny.

every response you made to the ancom poster was rebutted by him. pretending that he was just some idpol liberal troll throwing a tantrum and that you are the righteous vanquisher of said troll only tells others that you are emotionally invested in combatting those views due to some personal insecurity rather than any serious commitment to rational critique.

you literally promote reactionary views and defend extremely hostile behavior by anons toward fellow comrades. either youre a Holla Forums provocateur or just an unwitting useful idiot for the very reactionary identity politics that Holla Forums endorses. you may try to defend that position by appeals to resisting "idpol" that isnt even there, but its obvious that you are just using that as a front for your otherwise cryptoreactionary views.

you are not proving that you are in a position of rational authority by shouting down dissent and accusing others of being X if they have A, B, or C views. that's just called being an insecure asshole.

Look I really don't understand what you're going on about. No the difference between males and females as groups are substantial sometimes in the range of 40 percent. Look at the first like in my post athletic women, who train and exercise cannot surpass the average man that doesn't train or work out very often. Men is a group are significantly physically stronger to women as a group. A woman that is the best of the best barely can come close to a man that goes to the gym a few days a week. When it comes to an explanation behind the phenomenon. Male humans are stronger then female humans due to selective pressure. Short of genetic engineering these differences are not going to disappear anytime soon.

Yeah he doesn't refute any of my arguments. I was the last one to write a post in that exnage anyway. Those were example posts not all the post I've made. I'm not a useful idiot of anything. None of us in this thread promoted anything in the way of an opinion that Holla Forums would endorse under any circumstance. All I see is you continue to dismiss my arguments is " shouting down dissent" and "scapegoating". . In addition, to pathetically accusing me of being from pol without any proof or provocation; when I advocate for the end of hierarchy and capitalism like nearly everyone that was arguing with that asshole does. All you keep doing is putting your fingers in your ears and going on about your own anti-idpol scapegoat. I hate to break it to you but Holla Forums loves idpol just is much as you faggots do. We don't advocate for a return to the status quo. We don't advocate for the subjection of women and minorities. We don't advocate for a return to a patriarchal society. We are not expressing or endorsing conservative views in any shape or form. Fuck off you piece of garbage. This isn't r/socialism, screaming about reactionaries and harassment isn't going to get you anything here except a bunch of pissed off anons that are tired of your bullshit.

you dont have an argument to refute, so of course im not.

he probably quit because you stopped being reasonable in that one post you were and resorted back to strawmanning and namecalling. i would quit too if i was basically arguing with a child.

come on fam

the ancom poster clearly said he was for the ending of hierarchy and capitalism, too, but that fact is inconvenient for you, so you treated him as some liberal "other" to attack. anyway, your vocal support of that is meaningless if you actively argue against attempts to dismantle non-economic hierarchies. for all i know, you just picked up that cliche position from browsing this board and youre using it to try to fit in.

Holla Forums hates idpol while unwittingly engaging in idpol, and directs that hatred at idpol under the pretense that they are against idpol. you are doing the same exact thing. being against idpol is to oppose idpol when it distracts from class politics, not to categorically oppose it in all its forms and attack anyone who engages in idpol or blends idpol and class politics, thereby alienating them from the very class struggle you ostensibly want them to join. you are using "anti-idpol" as an excuse to attack any and all forms of feminism or contemporary thought about what ancom guy called "superstructural hierarchies". that form of "anti-idpol" is hollow at best, if not an outright dishonest attempt at undermining the radical left. although you may not advocate explicitly for the reactionary views that Holla Forums holds, you and the other anons ITT are providing auxiliary support by upholding the same notions of feminism and rejection of non-economic hierarchies that Holla Forums does. you dont even accept an established theory such as patriarchy and it seems to me that your opposition is more motivated by an ulterior hatred for feminism than a rational objection to the theory.

pathetic, end your life

Whatever buddy. You can call me a child all you want. At least I can make a single post without contradicting myself. You can't talk about sectarian infighting. While simultaneously saying I'm not an actual leftist because I don't support your special brand of idpol. For fuck's sake you end your post talking about my "reddit boogyman" just after you got done writing about your Holla Forums bogyman. You don't have shred of self awareness or human decency. You're an even bigger prick then ancom. All your doing is repeating the same moronic arguments that he did which I've already given my opinion. I'm not repeating myself for a clown like you in a bumplocked thread. I don't feel like arguing with some brainwashed idpoler all day.

sectarian infighting is when individuals of a shared ideology and interests quibble over petty differences of opinion or theory to the point of hostility. i have no reason to believe that you share the basic tenets of my views and share my interests, nor do I trust that you are authentically leftist, so it's simply a rational consequence for me to be hostile to you. you may oppose capitalism and hierarchy, but you refuse to take those positions to their logical extremes. you are thus as much my comrade as any social democrat or fledgling socialist who is unwilling to fully support the logical consequences of their beliefs.

im just pointing out that your rabid antipathy toward anything and everything you arbitrarily label as "idpol", and that sort of extremely hostile behavior and beliefs are unfit for any serious radical leftist. you can label that as my "special brand of idpol" all you want, but your doing so only buttresses my point and further demonstrates your untenable and reactionary commitment to "anti-idpol" as you conceive of it.

pointing out that your beliefs and behaviors are characteristic of a Holla Forums provocateur or useful idiot thereof is not tantamount to "Holla Forums bogeyman". you, meanwhile, are accusing me without merit of being from reddit, despite how even reddit does not behave in the way you describe me as behaving. the difference is that whereas i am describing your conduct, you are simply vilifying me for the purpose of impugning my position.

with the utmost sincerity: commit suicide. you have zero revolutionary potential and you actively inhibit the radical leftist cause. alternatively, develop some maturity and deal with those glaring personal problems of yours rather than victimizing those who might otherwise be your comrades.

sectarian infighting is when individuals of a shared ideology and interests quibble over petty differences of opinion or theory to the point of hostility. i have no reason to believe that you share the basic tenets of my views and share my interests, nor do I trust that you are authentically leftist, so it's simply a rational consequence for me to be hostile to you. you may oppose capitalism and hierarchy, but you refuse to take those positions to their logical extremes. you are thus as much my comrade as any social democrat or fledgling socialist who is unwilling to fully support the logical consequences of their beliefs.

im just pointing out that your rabid antipathy toward anything and everything you arbitrarily label as "idpol", and that sort of extremely hostile behavior and beliefs are unfit for any serious radical leftist. you can label that as my "special brand of idpol" all you want, but your doing so only buttresses my point and further demonstrates your untenable and reactionary commitment to "anti-idpol" as you conceive of it.

pointing out that your beliefs and behaviors are characteristic of a Holla Forums provocateur or useful idiot thereof is not tantamount to "Holla Forums bogeyman". you, meanwhile, are accusing me without merit of being from reddit, despite how even reddit does not behave in the way you describe me as behaving. the difference is that whereas i am describing your conduct, you are simply vilifying me for the purpose of impugning my position.

with the utmost sincerity: commit suicide. you have zero revolutionary potential and you actively inhibit the radical leftist cause. alternatively, develop some maturity and deal with those glaring personal problems of yours rather than victimizing those who might otherwise be your comrades.

FIX YOUR SITE CRIPPLE

Hahahahah, Marxists are fucking Jew theorists!!!!111

I don't know what you're talking about. I don't believe in god. Where would you ever get that impression? I thought we were having a serious discussion here.. Men are stronger than women. It's not a remotely controversial statement. Its not fringe or unsupported. You're the one supporting a wacky unscientific theory for reason I can't understand. Men being stronger then women does not imply that men are superior to women or that women aren't worthy of the same rights and muh privileges that men have. Don't get your panties in a bunch fam.

I'm just kidding. I'm bored of this conversation.

Oh okay. You shouldn't shitpost with that flag. People might take you seriously. You were playing with fire when you were joking around calling people reactionaries. There use to be a girl who posted anime pics like you that unironically did that and tried to make every discussion about gamergate and Sargon of Akkad. You don't want to be mistaken for her.

That was a fun time.

This is leftypol. Goofsters and gaffsters are taken seriously around here. I'm surprised you haven't been banned before.

But I have.

(witnessed)
I knew it. Blatant proof that you're a bully. You should have know a board full of nerds was gonna ban you for that Stacy.

I support that materialists should be socked once and a while to remind them that the world isn't just calculation.

Don't get any ideas. I have a yellow belt. You can't bully me like the others.

What are you going to do with that? Tie me up with it?