Posted this in the FAQ and then realized it's probably best that I just start a thread for it...

I realized after posting this that it's a pretty loose term, my bad. To me, at least, it means not basing one's opinions on social issues around american conservative concepts of morality and tradition.
I'll give you a more specific answer if I think of one, but you're making me realize how bad of a way to put it "socially liberal" is outside of conversations in the US. Surely you have some idea of what I mean.

I'd agree with you if not for the fact that there are a number of legal benefits to being married which, without legality of homosexual marriage, we are cheating gay people out of. Although I suppose that just fits your definition of normalizing themselves into a community instead of changing the community, I can't help but have my views warped by applicableness to reality, and legalizing gay marriage seemed a lot more viable than harnessing the revolutionary potential which you speak of.

Ok, wait, here's a slightly better way to put it as I interpret it:

You shouldn't give a shit what other people do with themselves so long as they're not actively harming, infringing upon the freedoms of (there I go with loose terminology again…), or becoming a serious burden upon those around them.

Viable, sure. But not necessarily desirable.

I tend to avoid holding desirableness over viableness, but I take your point. On an unrelated note, why do you keep posting anime girls?

It wasnt revolutionary to begin with as for something to be revolutionary it needs to hold values that are incompatible with the system. Thus any movement wich values share some similarities with the normal operation of the system its values with example to accepting foreigners in their economy and letting them operate in it! Our current system is liberal and premotes humanism so any type of human may it be gender, sexuality or national or race is compatible to operate in the system. And the system prevers to have them in it to get rid of frustrations (wich can escalate) and to increase the number of 'productive citizens' (Thus more utlity)

Folk need less Maoist/Marxist bullshit inpired queer theory (They dont read Foucault) and actually go into anarcho-queer theory to get a supposed real insurrectionary (not revolutionary) potential going.

The System needs a population that is meek, nonviolent, domesticated, docile, and obedient. It needs to avoid any conflict or disruption that could interfere with the orderly functioning of the social machine. In addition to suppressing racial, ethnic, religious, and other group hostilities, it also has to suppress or harness for its own advantage all other tendencies that could lead to disruption or disorder, such as machismo, aggressive impulses, and any inclination to violence. Naturally, traditional racial and ethnic antagonisms die slowly, machismo, aggressiveness, and violent impulses are not easily suppressed, and attitudes toward sex and gender identity are not transformed overnight. Therefore there are many individuals who resist these changes, and the System is faced with the problem of overcoming their resistance.

Agitation against racism, sexism, homophobia and the like no more constitutes rebellion against the System than does agitation against political graft and corruption. Those who work against graft and corruption are not rebelling but acting as the System’s enforcers: They are helping to keep the politicians obedient to the rules of the System. Those who work against racism, sexism, and homophobia similarly are acting as the Systems’ enforcers: They help the System to suppress the deviant racist, sexist, and homophobic attitudes that cause problems for the System. But the activists don’t act only as the System’s enforcers. They also serve as a kind of lightning rod that protects the System by drawing public resentment away from the System and its institutions. For example, there were several reasons why it was to the System’s advantage to get women out of the home and into the workplace. Fifty years ago, if the System, as represented by the government or the media, had begun out of the blue a propaganda campaign designed to make it socially acceptable for women to center their lives on careers rather than on the home, the natural human resistance to change would have caused widespread public resentment. What actually happened was that the changes were spearheaded by radical feminists, behind whom the System’s institutions trailed at a safe distance. The resentment of the more conservative members of society was directed primarily against the radical feminists rather than against the System and its institutions, because the changes sponsored by the System seemed slow and moderate in comparison with the more radical solutions advocated by feminists, and even these relatively slow changes were seen as having been forced on the System by pressure from the radicals.
-The System’s Neatest Trick by Ted Kaczynski

So you mean At what degree should people mind their own business?

Basically, yeah.

So in the liberal sense you mean Liberty to do a something. I prever granting everybody liberty and a free gun to defend that liberty and thus the ability to defend themselfs against any authority.

A spook is a fixed idea that rules over you yet doesn't exist. Nations, morals, laws, deities.

Alright, I was basically wondering what the general concensus on that viewpoint was here, yeah. Liberal as in liberty to do shit and defend yourself from others preventing you from doing shit or harming you via the shit that they do.

I keep specifying harm because minding my own business regarding the actions of others only goes so far. I can't see bringing myself to just not care about the actions of people like rapists and murderers, the line between their sort and somebody with, say, different sexual preferences than me being that one is actively causing harm unto other unwilling parties, which makes me feel justified in generally disliking them.

So spook basically means prevelant social construct?

Thats just your personal ethics or the system of ethics you comply to.(Then it isnt by own choice that you dislike something but enforced by the police in your head called the police thus a fixed idea.) Its purely subjective to like or not like a something and to make a judgement upon it by own values and act upon them. The rapist too has the ability to make his own judgement and follow some urge to rape someone, thats fine for him but he will attempt to dominate someone and if that someone doesnt comply to his authority then that person can assert herself/himself in his/her defence against the might of the other.
And if someone doesnt like gays and wants to kill them, then fine but dont expect them to comply to that too in the usual docline way citizens act in society. We are indoctrinated to be so pascifist as possible for the benefit of the system its enforcement of the regulation of human life to reap the benefits of a obedient and hardworking population to keep the economy so well fucntioning and smooth as possible without any youknow annoying revolutions and shit.

yeah

Your post seems to imply that you view harming somebody who is actively attempting to cause harm unto you (e.g. trying to rape or murder you) in self defense as being equal to being the initiator of the conflict; that is to say that it seems like you're saying the initial perpetrator of harm against another person is no more or less justified than a person defending themselves from the person initiating the conflict. Is that what you're saying? That self defense and actively seeking to cause harm to somebody who's done nothing of the sort to you are essentially the same?

Yuifaggot is right. Gay radicals from the '60s would probably have been appalled if they knew their liberal successors would end up celebrating the institution of marriage.

The justification never mather as they are just mere ideas, the act itself only mathers. I can all say that i will rape your boypussy but what does that mather if i actually dont do it. I can claim i will rape you but never become a rapist if i never preform the actual act. All justifcations are emty and have no meaning for the act is the only thing with meaning to the person its inflicted upon.

And what I'm saying is that if the acts which somebody inflicts upon others have some serious negative impact upon said others, and those others had done no harm to them to ignite the conflict, then it only makes sense to shun them as bad human beings. You can't seriously be arguing that that notion is only a construct of our current system meant to keep people docile and happy in the same sense that taking we're told to avoid non-passive action towards a power structure which is actively infringing upon your life.

*in the same sense that taking we're told to avoid non-passive action towards a power structure which is actively infringing upon your life is a notion meant to keep us docile and happy.

Only if the society that would shun that person has the same code of ethics like you. It may also be completly turned around and see as an acceptable practise to do a verry patriarchal act like that as seen in some Islamic society's where the harm of the female isnt that mutch valued. Society sometimes has (according to my subjective ethics) have fuckedup morality/ethics and sometimes good ones.

What do you mean? That hostility against other individuals cant be compared to hosility towards the existing power structure?

I mean that hostility towards individuals who haven't shown any in particular towards you is not comparable to hostility towards a power structure which is actively hostile to you in the sense that they exert as much constant control over you as possible. The latter is an act of self defense against somebody who is wronging you, the former is nothing of the sort.

To add to that, the power structure against which one might defend themselves, in this comparison, is like the party in the former example who initiated the conflict by harming the other party first.

Unnecessary suffering.

The absolute capacity for harm and the total indifference from those who knowingly inflict it is fucking absurd. There's nothing socially liberal about watching the weight of an entire social fabric come down on someone.

The worst of this is that it's common-place in middle class society. Occult-tier hazing is fucking weaponized in any friendship for the purpose of social capital, the defence of which being that you're acting according to circumstance. Those excluded by misfortune lose all capacity for the meaningful self-expression necessary to escape whatever neurotic condition will inevitably develop, completely ruining their quality of life. These people can't even turn to each other because of the prior exclusion from social norms. They only thing they can turn to are commodities which continue to separate them from both others and themselves.

This entire process envelops almost every tension and grows along the fault lines of potential wealth divisions.

True, one is asserting your might over a thing or something you see as your own (as your property/object) And in the other you are the one being attacked and you use your own might to defend yourselfs.

Anyway i do assert that we dont harm others (Some do offcourse) because its the ethics that has been enforced upon us since birth and remain enforced by law and social pressure to maintain a good citizen according to your direct social serounding by other citizens. This whole thing disolves quickly to around those who dont depend or feel rewarded by the system wich are mostly the people of the lowest classes who display behafior that isnt on par with the code of ethics of the society.

The justification for those who act against you in harm usually is subjective or based on some kind of idea belonging to the fixed idea that they subject to. (Like according to their religion sucking dick is a sin as a guy)

Provided you brought up the sin thing because you're revisiting the idea of killing gays for religious reasons:

I don't agree with every ethical code that's been made commonplace in our society, but the assertion that it's wrong to inflict harm or death upon others because you disagree with something that they do, something which doesn't involve them harming others, is one that I agree with heavily, even after considering the idea that I only think that because I've been told to.

In short, killing gays because your religion says that they're sinners is not justifiable to me because their sinning causes no actual harm to you whatsoever, but killing somebody who's about to rob/murder/rape you is because it's either they die or they cause a considerable amount of harm to you. Maybe I'd think differently had I been born in Iraq and raised to believe that it's totally fine to kill a woman if you don't like how her nose looks, but regardless, I think how I think, and the fact that certain groups of people agree with me serves as reason to change that no more than the fact societies other than my own disagree with the sentiment serves as reason to keep it.

I get what you mean regarding morals basically being all subjective, and recognize that my own are subjective, just like yours and anybody else's, but I'm doubtful that it's going to change either of our definitions of morality as of now.

It's weird, I had this exact conversation with a shroomed-out friend of mine in the woods the other day.

The thing is with those people is that they usually consider all members of society to be in the group of beleavers and non beleavers. As loyal servants of the truth and the heretics that should be punished or be teached and converted. The existance of others commiting sin is allreayd an insult to their god as they consider every human to be a creation of god so they apply their values on every single human and judge them as sutch. Thus by killing them they think they are doing a good act wich would (according to their idea) be harmfull against his fellow beleavers and God cause sutch displays of sins are a form of blasphemy wich they consider a harm towards god.

I fully agree, i actually would recommend you to read Max Stirner cause he goes balls deep into this whole thing of personal ethics and how others act out in accordance with the fixed idea (Like religion) that provides them with a supposed legit justification as the act of another brings harm to their supposed idea.

Also my opinions dont really reflect this board, aint a leftist (am post-left) and aint in any sense collectivist but more of an anarcho-individualist.
Introduction Video: youtube.com/watch?v=HvsoVgc5rGs

And that's where I see the line between justification and bullshit. Harm to a person and harm to their idea are objectively different things. Hence why I generally can't stand people who make a big deal of/use, to justify their own violent acts, other people "harming their ideas" instead of harming their person.

Then Stirner is perfect for you because well you allready have plenty of experience to know that there are a fuckton of crazy people there who see their idea's being harmed and thus actually go out and kill people for it. Muh nation, muh religion, muh idealogy and whatever, all fixed idea's and all sacred!

Here is a perfect quote.
Do not think that I am jesting or speaking figuratively when I regard those persons who cling to the Higher, and (because the vast majority belongs under this head) almost the whole world of men, as veritable fools, fools in a madhouse. What is it, then, that is called a “fixed idea”? An idea that has subjected the man to itself. When you recognize, with regard to such a fixed idea, that it is a folly, you shut its slave up in an asylum. And is the truth of the faith, say, which we are not to doubt; the majesty of (e.g.) the people, which we are not to strike at (he who does is guilty of — lese-majesty); virtue, against which the censor is not to let a word pass, that morality may be kept pure; — are these not “fixed ideas”? Is not all the stupid chatter of (e.g.) most of our newspapers the babble of fools who suffer from the fixed idea of morality, legality, Christianity, etc., and only seem to go about free because the madhouse in which they walk takes in so broad a space? Touch the fixed idea of such a fool, and you will at once have to guard your back against the lunatic’s stealthy malice. For these great lunatics are like the little so-called lunatics in this point too — that they assail by stealth him who touches their fixed idea. They first steal his weapon, steal free speech from him, and then they fall upon him with their nails.
Ego and his Own, Max Stirner.

...

Thanks for pointing me to him. I suppose I only hold the idea that causing harm to people, not their ideas, is wrong because I would think it was wrong for somebody to cause undue harm unto me and feel hypocritical not recognizing that others are just in feeling so, just like how you seem to dismiss the notion because you lack that pattern of thought. From what I can tell, at least. I'm not really one to care if people "harm my ideas", so it's not something I personally see as anything worth giving a shit about. Didn't expect the convo to end up here, but I can't say I'm dissapointed that it did. Thanks for all the thoughts.

Also, I will say that I agree with you completely in the sense that people who actually care about their ideas being "harmed" (i.e. disagreed with) in the same way that they care about others causing harm to their person are absolutely fucking ludicrous and generally babies.

Not a problem Senor, i usually only shitpost here so its nice to have an interesting convo for once.