Check this out! Go Feminism!

"All their achievements were only possible cuz their wymn girlls :D"

I've always wondered why exactly people like Goldman were so butthurt over Kronstadt. How exactly do they think an armed insurgency against the government should be dealt with? Are socialists supposed to be more tolerant to military coups and uprisings?

For fuck's sake.

Btw, I'm webming it so you don't have to give her views if you don't want.

Here it is in webm.

I dream one day our leftist propaganda will have such production value.

Just wait for a leftist to do a kickstarter and give them lots of money.

damn anita is getting T H I C C

It's not hard when you're 5'0"

ignore it, leftypol is full of the sargon/reddit types. you cant have a serious and educated about feminism in this place, dont even try

Finally something good from Anita.
She shoud stop making videos about video games tho.

...

Anti is a legit conartist tho.
Just because she finally made a video worth watching, it doesn't discredit her previous shit work.

...

thanks for proving my point

please stop posting you're just embarrassing yourself

go back

...

...

kill yourself divider

This board is quality satire, keep it coming friends.

...

This isn't really an argument. I know you think it is because chans like to "teach" you to point out logical fallacies (albeit without the following reasoning), but nonetheless you have made the claim that she's selling something, when nothing in the video is as such, nor should it have to cover the entire breadth of someone's legacy. It's an introductory youtube video, with animation to elucidate some of the points. Of course they're going to overlook some things.

Yes, I know. Holla Forums likes to cherrypick and strawman certain types of "idpol" while pretending like their grasp of certain theoretical concepts isn't Holla Forums-tier, as if they've contributed much to the broad aspect of left-critique to inflate a vegetable ego.

...

...

Easy comrade, I think people are just angry at the fact that she keeps telling people current society and the state can be salvaged, and you know very well that it can't.

...

It is hard with a state, and it is even harder without one.

I am confused, are you an anarchist or not?

Yes everything is about you /s

I am more of a Marxist.

They are generous tonight, indeed.

Wut, The liberation of people of different genders can only come with the abolition of hierarchy.

Capital is the dominant "hierarchical" formulation. Different facets of alienation accost one another under the illusion of a retained option therein. Yes, we should remove artificial stacks of ascendancy, but what you and I say here is mere platitudes. Instead, we'd do better to focus our criticism.

Yes, the State and Capitalism

what the fuck am I reading

I'm not the guy who said that, I was pointing out that saying "It's just the facts" was stupid.

Somebody trying too hard to sound smart.

...

No (You).

I need Anita lewds :(

This is actually pretty decent in presentation and information. Good job Anita

*also I want to hit it*

Stop being a sperg and pay attention

That's how she should have said it, maybe you should listen closer instead of hearing what you want to hear. What she really said was "Contrary to what that word might suggest," which frames the word as the subject with suggestion as the action, as opposed to "contrary to what people may believe," which would emphasize the importance of the person hearing the word instead. Given that her career is literally analyzing messaging, this is a mistake she should not have made.

Don't fail me this time hotwheels.

Most, pls

Moar*

I've expected worse tbh

Is Anita a comrade or a liberal?

Ok, so where does she suggest that anarchism is chaos? She's on your side in this user

Her and McIntosh are have put out some anti-capitalist rhetoric over the years, but they're pretty much under the impression that dismantling the superstructure through Twitter and Youtube will somehow result in the defeat of the capitalist system. The most I think they've ever gone regarding the material basis is to express favour for some socdem reforms for minorities.

McIntosh is a full bourgy too. His dad is an Israeli arms dealer who owns his own island. They seem like liberals who at times adopt the trappings of anticapitalism for kicks to me.

youtube.com/watch?v=_D4l0izPVM0

I think it had more to do with the circumstances of the insurrection. The marines were rebelling because they believed that the Bolshevik government was taking too much autonomy away from the Soviets, and they were right.

>you were allowed to disagree with her
It's shit. So are any "conspiracy theories" about her, but she's still shady and manipulative.

Here's what actually happened.
It's pretty obvious why a lot of people hate her. She passive-aggressively called them bigots, cashed in on their angry response, and then didn't bother trying to live up to her goals. Given how many people donated to the kickstarter and how long it took her to put out videos, there's a good chance that people who backed the project died before seeing any results.

Strawman

legitimate criticism

i am an egoist and i will not sacrifice my resources to make wetdreams of degenerate femiscum true

Thunderfoot please go.

Have you seen any of her videos? She frequently claims that video games train people to treat women like trash.

No, no it is not. Insulting someone on a platform they chose to use that includes features meant for them to give feedback is not harassment. By disabing the comments on youtube and linking to kickstarter, she funneled all the critics to one place, where it would be easier to compile what they posted.

I've seen a few, she never claims that your favorite videos games are women hating filth

Calling someone a 'stupid feminazi bitch' is not a critique, they flooding her kickstarter with nothing more than insults, they cannot be called critics.

When it goes on for days if not weeks and it's coming from a certain sector of the internet then it is.

confirmed to have never watched her videos

Meanwhile she is a "critic" who insults her subjects (by calling them unwitting bigots). And I guess that's fine because she has slick production values and the right opinions or something? Your classism is showing.

When you go on the internet asking for free money to keep doing what you've already been doing for a while, you open yourself to people's response. If your plan is to besmirch people for dosh, you can expect them not to take kindly to it.
This is completely irrelevant except to craft a boogeyman narrative.

this level of dishonesty isn't even worth responding seriously to
see pic

but the people that are "angry" at her are not the people that donated to her, and the people angry at her weren't even upset at her for asking for money, they were angry at a strawman of an ebil feminist saying their video games are evil and they need to be taken away.

it's important when we're discussing what is and isn't harassment. I know you're not the sharpest tool in the shed but I thought you would get that.

Unsheltered Homeless (2009) Women - 12,000 - 4% Men - 240,000 - 96% Suicides (2008) Women - 7,585 - 19% Men - 28,450 - 81% Deaths by homicide (2004) Women - 3,856 - 20% Men - 14, 717 - 80% Deaths on the Job (2010) Women - $355 - 7% Men - 4,192 - 93% Federal Funds for Sex Specific Cancer Research Women - Breast Cancer - $631,000,000 - 40,000 deaths Men - Prostate Cancer - $3000,000,000 - 33,000 Deaths Federally Funded Battered Shelters Women - 2,000+ $300,000,000 per year Men - None - $0 even tho 48% of domestic violence is against males Forced Selective Service Women - No Men - Yes Injuries on the job (2007) Women - 36% Men - 64% College Enrollment (2009) Women - 58% - 11,658,000 Men -42% - 8,770,000 Affirmative Action Education Programs (Gender Specific) Women - Yes Men - No Average Hours worked Per Week (2010) Women - 36.1 Men - 40.2 Child Custody Rates Women - 11,268,000 custodial mothers Men - 2,907,000 custodial father's US Military Deaths From 1950 - 2010 Women - 139 - 0.0001% Men - 100,063 -99.99%

Fuck off back to gamerghazi retard. We don't need cancerous idpolers like you posting on here.

say it with me now

NOT

also

I recognized you from that other Anita thread. You're to much of a smug retard to bother arguing with. The other guy is wasting his time.

...

That's not her, pretty disgusting though.

This outfit is starting to look familiar…

And yet life was much more despotic for humans prior to the advent of a state or a social contract, constant, unresolved quarrels of pure, violent dominion, but this much is hard to theorize about because it now only exists for the living in less than concrete terms, so instead we focus on the contrary, the opposite pole for a repressive apparatus of government: the ancient, politic Greeks, who lived under a popular government, knew no other support than virtue—when the modern inhabitants of countries such as those formerly are now entirely taken up with manufacture, commerce, finances, opulence, luxury, and so on, virtue becomes secondrate. When virtue of the state is banished, ambition invades the minds of those who are disposed to receive it, and avarice possesses the whole community. The objects of their desires are changed; what they were fond of before has become indifferent; they were free while under the restraint of laws, but they would fain now be free to act against law; and as each citizen is like a slave who has run away from his master, that which was a maxim of equity he calls rigour; that which was a rule of action he styles constraint; and to precaution he gives the name of fear. Frugality, and not the thirst of gain, now passes for avarice. Formerly the wealth of individuals constituted the public treasure; but now this has become the patrimony of private persons. The members of the commonwealth riot on the public spoils, and its strength is only the power of a few, and the licence of many. The state, yet in its infancy, then is the actuality of concrete freedom contingent upon the alignment of reason to man and man to reason, and wherefore we stumble is also that which elects its purpose, that which can give ourselves no other sort of preference.

Learn to use paragraphs anfem. Its like you're trying to make it difficult to decipher that word salad.

Liberals who stole our rhetoric to push shitty idpol

You don't have to read it if you don't want to, user. I don't expect anyone to take me too seriously here anyway…

you do realize you're dealing with unread people that made an unread teenager their mascot, right?

plansfornigel.tumblr.com/post/80361427049

I still have a grain of faith for some posters here, but for the same reason and others I cannot dilute what I say, I cannot suppress the eccentricities of my style, and I cannot make anyone care. My only hope is that those who have an actual interest understand and those who don't regard me as a fool. People have a hard time letting go of their suffering. Out of a fear of the unknown, they prefer suffering that is familiar.

It didn't really "debunk" half of those statements made by MRAs. For example they dismissed the work place death gap the dark way people dismiss the wage gap as life style choices. Which I'm sure the author agrees with. He also purposely misconstructs the arguments he can't outright dismiss like saying that because violence is mostly male on male the MRAs argument is invalid as if women committing the crimes is central to the argument in the first place. Instead of the fact that men are more often the victims of violence crime. He also dismiss all discrepancies in the way men and women are treated by the judicial system with "women and children" domestic violence bullshit without showimg that actually accounts for the discriminatory gap. What an absolutely garbage blog. You should feel ashamed for linking to it or even knowing about it.

There's no justification for using anything but the simplest words possible for expressing your statement. I know a lot of leftists have this problem and I admit I've had it too in the past, but the circumstances of our movement demand the plainest language possible if we're to have any success in getting our ideas across and fomenting revolution.

Is that what you call you're pretentious world salads? This isn't good writing. It makes it difficult for people to communicate with you and for you to effectively articulate your thoughts and ideas. You come off like a college freshmen in the first creative writing class.

It's not a word salad if you actually took some time to follow the premises to their conclusions. For me it is already simple, and to dull it even more would be to sacrifice meaning.

If this were a more verbal exercise I'd have less chances to squeeze out an argument and it would leave much more to be developed by others in their own self-theory. Since it is written instead I find it easier to move, organize, define, analyse those definitions, and qualify them in much more complex sentences. For me, effort on the reader's part will counterbalance my tendency in writing to be more or less abstruse and without such the insights could never be realised.

No, they're the people she called sexist and also the same people that conservatives called satantic and shit. A lot of them are deeply upset that the "left" hates them too now.

The only reason it's relevant to point to "a certain sector of the internet" is to paint a classist picture where alienated prole men are nasties who do wrong by bourgeois women. The fact that you are stooping to personal insults to engage in classist apologetics is abhorrent. Gulags are too good for a reactionary like you.

Vid very fucking related.

Somebody needs to make a memery of that stammering shit, it's getting fucking embarrassing the way people use it all the fucking time.

Dude, you are talking to LARPers who treat being read in leftist literature the way religious fundamentalists treat being read in their holy books.

You can read or you can not read, but to evaluate a subject on how it is distributed rather than the content of the distribution is to say you aren't willing to engage in understanding and resolves communication to mere rote expressions.

Maybe some people should come up with better arguments than "I'm going to stop listening to you now."

Maybe you should realize that other people than the one you're arguing with can find you stupid and annoying.

It's the writer's job to organize their thoughts in a concise and effective manner. Its not my job as the reader to follow your stream of consciousness to whatever conclusion you want me to reach. I'm going you this advice from personal experience. I use to do this shit all the time. No one could understand my arguments and writers with actual talent could look through the bullshit and rip apart my arguments like they were paper. You seem to have very interesting ideas regardless of the shitposting flag but you're only hurting yourself being this stubborn.

He's right that person was being lazy. Sometimes the stammering works even thigh I agree it's over used. It made sense in this context though.

You know what, I wasn't really in that comment chain, just jumped in here to comment on the tendency on Holla Forums for people to jerk off to how much theory they know and how people who haven't read their specific leftist lit are reactionary scum. But ok I'll bite. I went back and read the comment chain.
Are we not all interested in at least some vaguely similar movement to radically change society? Is the point of leftism not to see actual change in the material world? If this is the case, then you can't separate the content of theory from how it is exercised. Theorizing is, at the end of the day, an action we partake in. So is communicating theory. The quality of the theory and the quality of its presentation are both important factors: you can't communicate a good theory without a good theory to communicate, and it doesn't matter how great a theory is if you can't communicate it to anyone.

If you want to see the biggest problem with leftism in action look no further than this post
It can be summed up as "I have my view, which I know is right because of how much time I've spent cultivating it. I will now sit here and wait for everyone else to come around to my way of thinking." This approach is counterproductive. It fails to do propagate your view in any significant way. Instead it turns people off leftism and your ideology specifically. At the same time, it gives you a sense of satisfaction that you did good because you're superior to those dopey illiterates. But there's nothing to congratulate yourself over.

All you did was sperg about your opinions and tell people who disagree they're doo doo heads. You had in front of you people who were attempting to discuss something (to the point that they politely requested you modify your communication style so they could understand better) but instead of engage with them, you put them into a mental box and went with what's probably rote by now. You blew the opportunity to maybe learn something about people you disagree with (kind of fucking important when your goal is to spread your ideas to people who disagree with you). On top of that, it's just plain arrogant. If your understanding of a subject can only be expressed with specific vocabulary, that's a strong indicator that your understanding thereof is limited to linguistic constructs rather than having a basis in logic, much less material reality.

Personally, I'm rooting for every single person on this board (and everywhere else) who wants to see leftism succeed. But leftism can't succeed if its proponents are content to let opportunities pass by. We're flying on fumes as it is, and people who want to understand what you have to say request that you communicate what you have to say in a way that more people can understand and you not only refuse, but you rebuff the ordinary people who don't quite grasp the greatness of your knowledge? That is the opposite of what the left needs. I'm sure it's hard; I'm sure you're comfortable in your way of thinking, but you can do better than this. For fuck's sake it's not that hard to use plain English. I can relate to having trouble putting my thoughts into simple terms. I can also tell you it's a skill that you can learn. It's something you can get better at, and it's more than worth it. Sure, it's a good feeling to master theory but that doesn't hold a candle to the thrill you get when you see it click in someone else's mind. That's something you should be chasing not avoiding. Both for your own edification and for the ways it will benefit leftism. As comatose as leftism is right now, every step counts and we can each only do the work of one person.

This is why we need more women in the ship construction industry. Only this way we would achieve gender equality.

Even if I could be more fluid with y'all, is it not true that reading requires effort in the first place? Strictly speaking, there can be no absolutely passive reading. Many people think that, as compared with writing and speakin, which are obviously active undertakings, reading and listening are entirely passive. The writer or speak must put out some effort, but no work need be done by the reader or listener. Reading and listening are thought of as receiving communication from someone who is actively engaged in giving or sending it. The mistake here is to suppose that receiving communication is like receiving a blow or a legacy or a judgment from the court. On the contrary, the reader or listener is much more like the catcher in a game of baseball. Catching the ball is just as much activity as pitching or hitting it. The pitcher or batter is the sender in the sense that his activity initiates the motion of the ball. The catcher or fielder is the receiver in the sense that his activity terminates it. Both are already active, though the activities are different. If anything is passive it is the ball. It is the inert thing that is put into motion or stopped, whereas the players are active, moving to pitch, hit, or catch. The analogy with writing and reading is almost perfect. The thing that is written and read, like the ball, is the passive object common to the two activities that begin and terminate the process.
What are the other conditions under which this kind of reading—reading for understanding—takes place? I think there are two. First, there is initial inequality in understanding. The writer must be "superior" to the reader in this, and his writing must possess insight his potential readers lack, conveyed in a symbolic form. Second, the reader must be able to overcome this inequality in some degree, seldom perhaps fully, but always approaching equality with the writer. All of us, without exception, can learn to read better and gradually gain more by our efforts through applying them to more rewarding material.

This is not at all what I did. I agree that it doesn't matter how great a theory is if it can't be communicated, however I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who says I am not engaging with the matter of someone's understanding when still you and others are attacking the character of the writing rather than what the writing actually says. How arrogant then are you to say that it is only me not willing to communicate, that instead it is my arrogance rather than your own to have concepts made in the image of your digestion! Of course, language was ever the source of misunderstanding, and I think this conversation is going to suffer from too much of it as long as we keep going in a roundabout way to the topic that was at hand. Look, I'm not calling you or anyone stupid, I'm just saying that you're still not treating this fairly and have double standards as to what is and isn't appropriate.

This was painful to read.

I can't even read the full thing.

Forgot one:

Are you fuckers serious? Is this board literally inundated with idpollers now?

The will be useful idiots for the revolution, thrown in death camps1

Its pretty sad to watch honestly. This is why nobody takes your board seriously. In between the few people that have actually read books and have semi-coherent opinions there are hordes of edgy teens, larpers and hippy liberals like the ones on your youtube debate.

And you are actually taking these human turds seriously and being nice to them instead of just laughing them off the board.

The reason Holla Forums does better is because there is already a concensus and common goal, and when some libertarian or ancap jokers post they get laughed off in minutes.

wew

Yeah its became really bad at this point. I don't really know where they're all coming from. O blame all the retards shilling our board on reddit and Facebook as if it wasn't going to attract absolute cancer here. The amount of obvious SJWs using terms like Brocialism seriously and supporting idpol shit like BLM is really getting out of hand. I hope it's just Holla Forums false flagging.

Yes that's English 101 buddy. He's completely right.

Then you would agree that your theory counts for nothing to the people to whom you failed to communicate it, wouldn't you? This poster gives you feedback to help you communicate to more people. Nobody will have a harder time reading properly formatted paragraphs, and many will find it easier. Sure, it's not sugary-sweet polite feedback, but you're on an imageboard, nigger.

The problem is people can't respond to the content because the form is incomprehensible to them. And I'm not even to the form of your post about theory; I'm responding to your reaction that you refuse to make any concessions when communicating your ideas. This is basic shit that's taught in grade school English courses - write for your audience. And you know what, it'd be one thing if it was enough that maybe a handful of people would read what you wrote and understand it. It's not though. Leftism is hanging on by its fingernails right now, and turning away from an opportunity to spread its ideas, even if only to enrich the understanding of your fellow leftists, is a waste. But that's still not what gets my goat. No, you make a post that's nigh-incomprehensible and when someone points this out you, you put on an air of pretense to show off how much better you are than other people.

This is why I say "you are talking to LARPers who treat being read in leftist literature the way religious fundamentalists treat being read in their holy books." It's a way to feel important and special via obscurity. You take people's inability to understand you as positive feedback. You take it as a sign that you're doing things right. Where do you get the idea that elitism belongs anywhere near the left?

I'm not, nor at any point was I talking about my comprehension of your message. At this point I find that matter far less important than your insistence on dismissing someone who provided constructive criticism that would help everyone involved here. The burr up my ass here is your insistence on obcurantism for the sake of feeling superior and distinguishing yourself from the plebs who don't understand you.

Your use of language, and your response to criticism of it is the issue that I raise. If you don't want to talk about that I would find it hardly surprising.

Bullshit.

In what way? It's one thing to be standoffish while providing criticism as to why you have trouble engaging with someone. It's another thing to rebuff criticism. It's something else entirely to get validation from rebuffing well-founded criticism.

Yep, it's been getting worse for some time now. I'm beginning to wonder what the point of posting here is.

Everybody who leaves makes it worse by skewing the proportion, and then where is there left to go?

More likely, it's Holla Forums who shilled on cancer sites and brought them here. People don't seem to get that internet content is bad enough when it's flowing ONE-WAY.

If you stop posting here. They're will be less of us to fight off the cancer. We need solidarity comrade.

I think it was a mix of Holla Forums and genuine morons. I warned everyone that there are more idpolers then there us and we shouldn't be getting the attention of large idpol websites but nobody listened. Now look what happens. The boards well on its way to being just another sjw filled pseudo-left circle jerk.

yes, let's forever stay irrelevant where noone can question our snowflake wetdreams.

you're what's wrong with the Left

There's always 🍀🍀🍀useful idiots🍀🍀🍀 but it was probably Holla Forums who led it and shilled for it. There's an inherent problem with that kind of situation anyway. There's always going to be some number of idiots who will go along with it and it doesn't take many to fuck the board up. All you really have to do to ruin any online community is make it grow too fast, because then the new users are imitating other new users instead of older users.

Too bad Holla Forums is such cancer that it's probably impossible to make it worse by flooding them with normalfags…

The way you stop that shit is by keeping them out of the moderation team. BO is even considering handing ownership to somebody else right now.

See
You don't have to bring normalfags here to take the message to where they are. All you have to do is exercise enough self-control to not namedrop Holla Forums. Fucking impossible, I know…

If you weren't such a fucking idiot you'd know that there aren't "simple" words and "complex" words, but just words, that all have a particular meaning and purpose.

You fucking cocksucker.

They are right, though.

But we are talking about it, obviously. And you're being much more condescending about it than I have been.
No, that is not my argument. It's that when you strive to express a new thing clearly it occurs that you appear, but merely appear, like an obscurantist by dint of the fact that no one has a familiarity with the concept in your mind. difficult subjects may require difficult language. A difficult idea proves difficult precisely because we don't have the language yet to describe the thing in question.
Tell me what you don't understand about my thesis and the following reasoning that "it's hard with a state and harder without one"? Otherwise, I can't help you except talk about the nature of clarity and communication.

When I say that I still have a grain of faith, and that it is my reason for being unable to communicate effectively, it doesn't mean that I am better, that I am more loyal to the cause, that there is only one interpretation to follow; no, it means that understanding has to be mutual here, that concessions as you would have are not one-sided, that in some cases we need to create that language and that proves to be no easy task, that it encourages greater charity be given to the author, in my opinion, and so on.

Being less "obscure" could also bring about some very real problems, like patronizing the uninitiated, insulting their intelligence with mere simplicity rather than the heart of the concept, or rattling people up when evaluating their ideologies—and believe me, first hand info, people can get very angry, very fast when you try to talk about some fact without tact or in a way they can't discern beyond the reptile brain, just see whenever people try to explain some drug induced eureka moments, or a lot of Max Stirner's career.

I'll try to put it very succinctly, considering that's what you want: philosophy is not a transmission of already completed ideas, but construction of the same through different methods over time, so it's a given there will be lots of experimentation, which must (this is present already in Plato/Socrates, dialogues being the rudimentary manifestation of this 'dialectic') include the reader and force him to work out his own ideas as well, and not just spoon feed him.

You also don't have to be a fatass larper.

There literally are, you dip. There are individual words with complex structures, because of a shitton of prefixes and suffixes like "antidisestablishmentarianism." There are groups of words that are complicated because of their grammatical arrangement, like "Because I forgot to take a cursory whiff, I wore the sock into which my roomate shot his pearly jizz a fortnight ago, and the dired congealed cumstain crumbling against my sole sent a disgusted shiver from my foot up to my cranium, making an uncomfortable stop at my taint." Then there are words that represent complex concepts, like "serendipity," which means "a confluence of events that coincidentally result in a surprisingly favorable outcome." OK, I kept it fairly simple with that one, there are words with much more complex literal meanings. But there are also words that are complex because of their non-literal meanings - their connotations. Indeed, many words carry with them an immense amount of weight relating to culture. This kind of thing is why natural language processing is such a hard nut to crack. So much of language is in subtle implications. That's how grammatically similar phrases with literally simple words can carry very different amounts of meaningful content. Compare: "For sale: baby shoes, never worn," and "Breaking News: National Poll, largest response."

Also, basically this:

Your ilk would lob bombs at orphanages while waving a red flag and tell people they're LARPing when they try to stop you.

nice equivalence……LARPER

(You) talk of what is killing the left today as if (You) had the ledger of all our failures right in front of (You)…but in my opinion, the greatest of our graves is precisely the kind of language policing that has been going around lately, the kind that makes one "associated" as an SJW.

That is objectively wrong. There are both words that are simpler is in there smaller like "cat" vs "feline". There are also words that are easier to understand because they're not commonly used like "argute". You shouldn't use needless complex words when another simple worlds will do just as well. It's a lesson they teach in basic writing workshops and it's one of the fundamental components behind good writing. Vomiting out a thesaurus every time you try to articulate an argument just makes you look like a narcissistic moron.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051031075447.htm

...

Absolutely dreadful. Way to justify physically harmful wage slavery by assuming men "choose" such jobs because they want to "prove" their masculinity.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE NORMIES GETS YOUR DIRTY CAPITALIST HOOVES OF MY COMRADES

Yeah instead we should completely destroy or message and lash out like morons with no plan except expansion. Until we're no different from the groups were fighting against. We're outnumbered. It take planing and nuance. If you just flood the board with newfags the board's posters will be overwhelmed by the flood of cancerous faggotry. You're what is wrong with the left. If you're willing to sacrifice you're own platform just to "recruit" new members then you're the one thats getting recruited not them.

I know that's the quickest way for them to take over. Once they can start banning people for not accepting thier idpol it will all be over. We'd better hope the board owner sticks around or makes sure that some idpolers from Holla Forums or reddit doesn't get in control of the board and the moderating team.

Since when is Holla Forums a poltical party moron? It's just a place for leftists to shitpost and discussion news without getting banned by sjws.

That isn't how language works. Language is open-ended and flexible. You can express novel ideas using existing words and grammatical structure.

I have no problem with it, but someone else found it to be word salad, which is another way of saying "I can't parse this."
I'm not particularly interested in talking about the details of theory right now to be honest. I see clear communication as a far more pressing issue than any particularity of theory because communication underpins our ability as a movement to propagate any and all of our theory. This is why I bothered to chime in with a wall of text.

OK, this I can work with. If you have an idea you want to express, why should it be up to your audience to interpret what you say? How does that not encourage people to take away something different from what you meant? Why should greater charity be given to the author, especially when someone provides criticism on how to more effectively communicate the concept (and concepts generally as in this case) but the author responds with "well some will read it and some won't"?

And what if the uninitiated communicate to you that the way you present ideas is unclear? Why would you favor obscurity and lack of understanding over clarity and possible insult?
At least in that case you are actually confronting a point of difference rather than, for all they're concerned, talking gibberish at them. People are extremely reticent to admit a change of mind/heart when and where it happens. If you've argued with people IRL there's a very good chance you've changed some outlooks, but just didn't get to see the results. As for lack of tact, that's an entirely different issue from putting concepts into terms that people understand.

What else would it be?
There is huge a difference between articulating a partially formed idea in the hopes that the audience will come up with some missing pieces and "communicating" in a way that is an impediment to understanding. If you're trying to seed ideas in other people, you have to give them something they can work with. All this is a moot point though because I'm not seeing anything in what you wrote ITT that is particularly novel. If you want to do philosophical spitballing, throwing around barely formed ideas and see what gets somebody else thinking, that's cool and all. I'm not going to demand that you do as much work as possible on your ideas before putting them out there. Couching your method in SAT words isn't going to do anything for your method's efficacy, though. Especially when the intended audience who according to you is supposed to pick up where you leave off has trouble with that kind of language.

For this board. There's still bunkerchan (lol) and other leftist boards on this site. If Holla Forums gets compromised people could just move.

This is extra funny because Chomsky is very guilty of trying to sound smart.

Language policing is shit, but it's also not the same thing as "I don't understand what you're saying, bruv."

Anita confirmed for disgusting poly-sloooooooot

Kill yourself anita, you capitalist swine, you lying, twisting cunt. Don't you fucking dare throw Emma and Emma's beliefs under the bus to peddle your piece of shit media brand.

It won't be the same. We'll lose a lot of the original members and sjws will inevitably follow us to the new forum anyway. Look at the Stormfront /news/ conversion and let it be a lesson. Stormfaggotry has spread to all image boards even when moot tired to isolate the cancer. Our best bet was not getting their attention in the first place. Idpolers are surprisingly good at taking over forums and imageboards and once they there. There almost impossible to get rid of.

She said Stalinist* communism I thought…
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-there-is-no-communism-in-russia

It doesn't matte his point still stands. It's pretty disgusting watching some porky use a socialist icon to shill their media brand.

No. She said "Communism of stalins russia", not "stalinism". Anita says that russia was communist and that Emma hated communism. Anita oink oink also proceeds to carefully avoid mentioning anything about Emmas beliefs, keeping it vague to trick any watchers into believing she is a liberal femininist. She doesn't even mention the political beliefs of the Spaniard ancoms, instead calling them "anarchist", not anarcho-communist.

So much this.

The entire video basically states that Goldman supported only the liberation of women within the confines of their mental and physical (in a sexual context) state. This is something Goldman stood for, but she stood for it only by expanding on works by great anarchist thinkers and leftist theory, aka destruction of capitalism (which reinforces the chains on not only women but all mankind). Instead Anita "oink oink muh pork" Sarkeesian turned Goldman into some kind of 80s anarchist stereotype as a figure that rebels against her parents, and as a girl who likes to shake dat booty.

All that being said hopefully this will result in some of her viewers reading actual workers by Goldman, like her autobiography, her essays on anarchism, or even My Disillusionment in Russia.

Well then maybe we just need to find a cure for the cancer… put people on notice about class.

But user, don't you know that if you think men and women should be equal, then you automatically are a liberal feminist?

...

Finally someone in this thread with a brain.

I'll never forget that bitch for going to the UN with Zoe "I eat Five Guys" Quinn and attempted to pass a bill banning "problematic
" speech on the internet in an attempt to turn online into a global torture chamber.

Fuck Anita

What the fuck, sister? How could you see a woman crying and have that reaction? We need to stand in solidarity with oppressed womxn+ everywhere.

...

But we already do that it's still gotten worst over the last couple of months. We've got basic garden variety sjws posting on here.

Fixed.

Yeah, that's cause new fags keep rolling in. They haven't been set straight yet. It sucks, but now is the time to go hard and fast on identitarians.

I always do fam. We just need more people on board. It's time to form an anti-idpol vanguard comrade.

No war but class war.

...

Yeah right, faggot. Try again.

...

le fuck you

WTF Holla Forums ?
This amount of IDpol is fucking cancerous and unjustifiable

Yep this place is going to hell in a hand basket

it's ok comarde, this was the future you chose

Why?

Because you fucking idiots don't read theory so you have no way of deconstructing idpol arguments and running them out of leftypol.

YOU IDIOT!
It's not about "reading theory". No matter how much theory you read, as long as you bait they'll keep fishing.

They'll even create the baited.

It's not reading. It's shitty moderation.

I've really had enough of liberals, in many ways they're worse than the right, at least the right are up-front about what they're about.

It doesn't matter how much you destroy their arguments. They're zealots. They lick their wounds and make another bait thread or worse derail someone else's thread to talk about their bullshit.

...

Reading isn't the answer to everything, you know.

...

did you newfags forget about "manarchism" term from anokchan?

lol

yeah! uphold the MRA-reddit-Sargon-pickupartists-'marxist' front! Destroy the cuck-form!

That's quite the mouth full. I like how you jammed a bunch of groups that don't agree with one another into a perfect little anti-feminist boogyman.

>>>/reddit/

well it's a popfront against the common enemy: sexual liberation!
Y'all could get in touch with evangelicals as well tbh.

Being opposed to liberals who use the language of oppression to reinforce bourgeois societal normals and uphold the capitalist superstructure is not necessarily the same as being opposed to women's rights, self-determination, economic freedom, etc. Simply because those reactionaries are opposed to those same ideologues for their own reasons does not mean that we share their reactionary social sentiments. This line of argument is below you.

...

The problem is that not everyone here seems to realize that there's a BIG difference between liberal SJWism and materialist analysis of women's position in society. Trust me, take an article by ANY marxist written on issues like gender, sexism etc. and try to start a discussion on leftypol about it. If it doesn't derail into openly sexist bullshit then the next round's on me.

I don't even consider myself to be a feminist. I think that feminism and its scope are limited and only up to a certain point useful for us communists. I believe that the true culprit behind the patriarchy lies in the sphere of political economy (or is strongly interacting with the sphere of political economy, value-dissociation etc.) and not in culture or in any set of ideas located outside of history.

This..

like, we leftcoms are the first to be called white dude brocialists or, put more nicely, 'class reductionists' but leftypol takes this shit to the next level. (Doesn't mean that our critiques are similar tho)

Well, the way to get around that is through solid arguments, not this false equivalence 'you're a bunch of MRA' shit. That will only reinforce the us vs them kneejerk tendency that leads to this stuff in the first place.

Yeah okay buddy. They refer to marriage is a form of male slavery. They call traditional conservative housewives "Overseers". Again these groups do not have mutually similar goals in the slightest. The only thing they have in common is they don't like feminism.

Okay buddy. I have no interesting in talking about something that no longer exists.

this

Did you really need to bump this shit thread? You didn't even contribute anything.

this steak is shallow and pedantic

she does mention that Goldman was an anarchist, to be fair.

Mcintosh is anti israel

Well, krondstadt was an anarchist revolution and goldman was an anarchist. And the Bolsheviks fucked over a lot of anarchists and bullied others into joining then

This is good, but who is Lupus Dragonowl? It doesn't sound like a real name. Is this your penname, user?

It's factual but I'm slightly triggered by a liberal using Emma Goldman's legacy to make money

o SHIT

what's the source of this

I've seen it before

Lol, all the fag feminists in here. Why the hell would anyone care about feminism who isn't a dumb broad?

back to Holla Forums nigga

Sexual liberation causes a loss of revolutionary motivation down the drain of promiscuous sex. Our revolutionaries will be celibate.

Says the moralfag who cares about women and spooks like "human rights."

Holla Forums are all squares.