Leftypool is spooked

From whose perspective? There is no universal standard of "valuable vs. worthless"
Or you could say it is justly acquired by the proper owners, whose interests aren't aligned with yours. Why is one statement with implied normative content (just=good, exploitation=bad) inherently more correct?
How would working towards freeing other labors instead of working towards being benefiting from other laborers be in the interests of the most skilled laborers? Whether or not you subjectively appraise this process of benefiting from other laborers to be just or exploitative is irrelevant, laborers are not one uniform mass, and as such their interests as individuals diverge.
I could object to it just to spite you.
Or maybe working in a factory for twelve hours is the greatest fulfillment for a man or men in general, do you have a measuring tool which is universal and objective which will allow me to compare "working in a factory for 12 hours a day" to something else?
What if he's insane, and maybe has no intent if any? So, not every labor then.
Why not? Where's the universal satisfaction-o-meter? Consider the debate between hedonists and utilitarians who believe in "higher forms" of happiness than pleasure.
Used would have been perfectly sufficient without implying normative content, mein spooky friend.
Maybe the other proles share the same intention, does that mean you don't have any enormous power in your hands at all (as a laborer), especially when the state has turned much of the people into parasites onto laborers and capitalists alike via the welfare state?
So, yeah, exploitation has implied normative content ("it's bad :(") with the intended emotional reaction being "I hate/fear/dislike this system you're describing" which is intended to control the way you act/think/protest/etc. all while being immaterial. So the concept of exploitation is a spook.
Czechm8.
The autistic sword of deconstruction cuts both ways.

Newfags can't spook post

and can't be bothered to read Stirner to learn how

...

If you're OP: where is your argument, mother fucker?

see

You didn't give an argument.
You just made arbitrary statements with no backing.

wrong
This is how I know you didn't read the book.

see

I was clarifying that it meets one of the conditions, immaterial, not that immaterial is a sufficient conditions. Necessary, not sufficient, you didn't debunk anything, get back to the drawing board my spooked acquaintance.

Yeah, except that immaterial isn't even one of the conditions, since material things can have spooks surrounding them. Sacred objects, for instance.
Read the book.
I bet you can't even define what a spook is.
Do it.
I want to see you try. Should be fun.

It's cute when Holla Forumsyps finally grasp the meaning of a spook and want to shitpost using it

Now go read stirner and his idea of union of egoists, you faggot

Then your whole argument is pretty much retarded, like you

learn what a spook is

The point was being that he would be laboring to no end, or an end which was not actually rationally intended to satisfy him (or anyone), meaning his statement that all labor has an intent to satisfy the man laboring is incorrect. We should strive for precision in our language :^).

The point is you are an idiot basing his argument on subjective points and an imaginary insane men

You are a retard for doing this

Its even praxeology-tier

How is this even comparable?

Apparently it wasn't obvious enough for you. I'll try to spell out what should have been a clear message, maybe if blank slate theory was true you would have already figured out my point :^)?

Leftist naturalists do not believe in an objective morality, but they use terms such as exploitation and value which, due to their denotation (maybe just connotation with value), have normative content, normative statements in a philosophical context try to establish what is good, what ought to be done, what is bad, evil, what ought not to be done, statements you shouldn't be making if you're a naturalist. If I was describing a system where people were killing each other, if I presented this description as "A Theory On Homicide", there would be no implied good, value, bad, guilt, or evil, homicide is simply the intentional killing of another human being, justified or not. Alternatively, I could describe this as "A Theory On MURDER!" Obviously, the latter description has an implication of guilt and wrongdoing; as a naturalist, I can't call a system of people killing each other "murder" without addressing the fact that the implied normative content of "murder" is just my subjective appraisal of that killing, if I did, that would be a serious oversight. One dictionary definition of exploitation: "unfair treatment of someone, or the use of a situation in a way that is wrong, in order to get some benefit for yourself", golly, I wonder if words like "unfair" and "wrong" have normative content? If that implied normative content wasn't hypocritical enough, you won't have to go far to find a naturalist leftist railing against "the evils" of capitalism, and even if you don't use the word evil, saying a capitalist "exploits the surplus value of his employees' labor" is functionally equivalent to saying "that man leftists constantly describe in unflattering terms is wrongly and unfairly taking the profits from good things I produced!" Hm, yeah, that sounds like it might have a little bit of normative content, which is not something you would expect a rational naturalist who doesn't believe in objective morality. If you want to be precise as a naturalist, you should use "taking" instead of exploitation and instead of "value" some other term which doesn't imply worth or usefulness should be used, since worth and usefulness both have normative implications (e.g. is a severely disabled man "useful", depends on who you ask.) Leftists gloss over the fact that the normative statements implicit within their attacks on capitalism are meaningless from a universal/objective standpoint.

a man that recognizes there is nothing but his own ego, will understand that working as a wage labourer is againts his own, because part of the value created by him is not appropiated by his ego, therefore a man that recognizes only his own ego recognizes that being exploited by porky is againts himself. exploititation is not a constructed ideology, its the result of deconstructing the capitalist ruling ideology

go read the ego and its own now, faggot, and try to make it past page 10

Literally all of those connotations of normative language are supposed to refer to an objective morality. However:
Regarding your analytical overview of the supposed content of his language:
Also, why are you being so verbose if all you wanted to say is , quoting A.J. Ayer's Language, Truth and Logic
s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/ayerLTL.pdf :
of value are significant, they are ordinary ’scientific’ statements; and
that in so far as they are not scientific, they are not in the literal sense
significant, but are simply expressions of emotion which can be neither
true nor false

Laborer and capitalist.

Except nothing is implied. It's exactly what happens and many laborers themselves disdain it. You're the one inferring.

Because their fellow laborers are their property and they like doing what they are doing already without the added responsibility of capitalist.

He never said that they didn't. I'm sure there are a minority who have a trample fetish that love it.

Could be, but that's not what was happening in his time. Like I said, you can find someone that's into anything. If you love toil and fatigue, I'm sure there's a diamond mine in Africa that will accommodate.

Intent formed from madness is still intent. There's a part of him gets something out of it, if only to satisfy a tick.

You conveniently left out the first part
He may master the skill for himself, but it's still for the service of another. It's not completely his own. You would understand this concept if you read the book.
Considering this is being told from the perspective of laborer who values his labor, your point about satisfaction is moot.

See above

No, because the point was they have that power if they chose to use it, which they hardly ever have.

Reading comprehension fam.
It might help in the future

cont'd
Again regarding his egoism:
concepts, we seem to be leaving the way clear for the ‘absolutist’ view of
ethics—that is, the view that statements of value are not controlled by observation,
as ordinary empirical propositions are, but only by a mysterious
‘intellectual intuition’. A feature of this theory, which is seldom recognized
by its advocates, is that it makes statements of value unverifiable. For it
is notorious that what seems intuitively certain to one person may seem
doubtful, or even false, to another. So that unless it is possible to provide
some criterion by which one may decide between conflicting intuitions, a
mere appeal to intuition is worthless as a test of a proposition’s validity
of value follows from our theory also. For as we hold that such sentences
as ‘Thrift is a virtue’ and ‘Thrift is a vice’ do not express propositions
at all, we clearly cannot hold that they express incompatible propositions.
We must therefore admit that if Moore’s argument really refutes the ordinary
subjectivist theory, it also refutes ours. But, in fact, we deny that it does refute even the ordinary subjectivist theory. For we hold that one really never does dispute about questions of value.
So by his appeal to his own (and by extension the reader's) unverifiable in regards to objective truths and/or empirical truths egoism (as defined in the book, pls read it), he isn't even making an appeal to morality or what ought to be done, he's just using language that he admits (see above) is out of his absolute control and bound to be defined by
plain that this question raises no genuine problem, since we have shown
that to say that p is true is simply a way of asserting p

in which the word ‘truth’ seems to stand for something real; and this
leads the speculative philosopher .to inquire what this ‘something’ is. Naturally
he fails to obtain a satisfactory answer, since his question is illegitimate. For our analysis has shown that the word ‘truth’ does not stand for
anything, in the way which such a question requires.

Stirner is not making any sort of appeal to objective morality or verifiable truth and here's your meme logical positivist to prove it. Read a book and we'll have a friendly conversation about whatever you want.

sorry for bad greentext

If we're talking nothing but our own ego, becoming a capitalist and keeping the proles stupid but just smart enough to work the machines is preferable to freeing other proles along with yourself.

What was this supposed to be in response to?

I didn't suggest you had to. I don't see how what is basically a dismissal of people saying "please be nice to my ideas :(" is particularly relevant to what I said.

That's a better way to summarize it.

My point was the idea that labor has value (e.g. worth, usefulness) is subjective, especially if you take the view that human life is awful with the additional capacity for existential suffering and that human life should not be propagated. I am not suggesting that I operate on this premise, or that speculating many people do, I am saying there is no objective proof it is incorrect (i.e. it being the idea that productive labor is actually harmful, less than worthless).

"Exploitation" has in its definition, not just its connotation, "unfair" and "wrong", that is a clearly defined, not just inferred, normative statement.

So you're suggesting that if the egoists didn't mind the additional responsibility they should perpetuate capitalism? Sounds good to me :^)

But the suggesting that they have power as a group suggests that they as a group are willing to exercise it, which presupposes that their interests are aligned. He didn't address that, well, consider present day, many people are not working and dependent on the state, many workers are too comfortable in the middle class to care about whatever "contradictions" leftists identify, essentially it's thoroughly possible for a society to have no real revolutionary potential, violent or not.

What about someone who labors while sleepwalking?

That shouldn't necessarily hurt his satisfaction.

My point was that if most proles are as "predatory" as the state (seeking to benefit without laboring), they would often be happy to benefit from other proles without risk and without working via the welfare state, if not becoming capitalists, which for most people requires significant risk, and at least an initial decade of serious work (to earn, not inherit, status as a capitalist.)

I should elaborate, a group with potential power and no willingness and therefore no ability to exercise it is not powerful, at least not right now.

that does not satisfy my ego

abolishing capitalist mode of production does

Ok, but if that satisified someone else's ego there'd be no moral imperative for them not to perpetuate capitalism.

The egoist will do that which he wills and what he has the capacity to do - he will do what he will do. "Should" doesn't enter into it.
Then is that "someone" really labouring? Or is the labouring body merely a senseless object, disconnected from the someone?
It will or it won't - it's not about should. In a large number of cases, it does. Hence the existence of communities like this.

I'd also like to make the quick point that empathy isn't an opposite concept to egoism, and is often a path to enjoyment. So as to why many here would prefer not to simply become capitalists - they have a "fellow-feeling" for the like-minded that they enjoy.

my ego>his ego, as he is only property

2deep couldn't resist the bantz

So you're saying you don't recognize the legitimacy of slave morality, you just operate as if you did?

No, you're only his property, you swasshbuckling homo.

There is no moral imperative, period.

Also, the idea that capitalism is in anyone's best interests is laughable. It's a short-term indulgence that fucks you over in the long run.

The idea that something can be legitimized is where you're fucking up.

Yes, correct. It goes both ways.

he should claim me, then and since I do not devote my ego to his', I am not his property

Except that capitalism creates the value of labor. It has nothing to do with some objective force. Labor is valued by people who value commodities, since labor is what creates them. Stirner never states anything objective value. Again, you're seeing things that aren't there still.

You're still missing the point. There is no "should". Either you appreciate being your own, or you don't. The capitalist is likewise not his own. The capitalist does not have the option to not make profit, compete, or exploit. The moment he does, he ceases to be a capitalist.

Stirner uses exploitation much in the same way Marx uses it, albeit Marx was much, much, much, more thorough. It describes a mechanism of capitalism.

No, he even says >if they once became thoroughly conscious of it and used it
They aren't even conscious of it, so there is no reason to infer that.

The sleepwalker is under the illusion that he's satisfying some need in his dream. Not really any different.

He is not free to take the satisfaction the capitalist accrues from it. It's not his and he has to give it up. He doesn't get the full fruits of his labor. Again, this is from the perspective of laborer who values his labor.

No, not me particularly, and I don't know Nietzsche well enough to agree or disagree. I'll give you the quote, and perhaps a more knowledgeable person can put it into the context of what you're saying.

Stirner confirmed for homosexual?

Gender is a spook. Stirner was bi master race.

It's not a particularly difficult or extraordinarily long book. You don't have a voluminous corpus of literature of his to read before you can understand it, he even says he set his cause on nothing FFS.

I can confirm that Stirner's egoist love in particular, and overall approach to ethics in general, is in no way slave morality.

But perhaps some people need to be reminded that Nietzsche was even accused of plagarizing Stirner.

Penises and vaginas aren't ideas that only exist within the minds of the people who believe in them.

No, but the idea that soemone should act a certain way because of his sex is.

I said gender, not sex.

Anyone who messes with genders or falls outside of the biological norm will have a hard time procreating and passing on genes.
Snowflaked to death.

Irrelevant, both to this conversation and to reality. Your genes are worth jack shit, not all individuals of a species need to breed, the worthwhile parts of humans aren't passed on genetically, and gender deals with far more than just getting laid.

TL;DR lose the spooks

Yeah, the ones that don't scratch their heads in confusion when they see the biological counterpart.

Was that supposed to be banter? I couldn't tell over the sound of you not having an argument.

No, that was supposed to be biology 101.

You can't very well procreate very easily when you don't know what to do with the opposite sex, or "gender".

Ah, I See the "aren't" now, read that as "are" before.
Because the only way to pass on genes is by procreation.

Also, no, gender is always about sexuality, and there are only two sexes.
If you mess about with that then your evolutionary fitness goes down, down, down.

You can call yourself a pangender bifocal demiyacht and have a "unique identity" because of that, but you'll be nothing but an evolutionary dead end unless you combine babybatter and egg.

And spreading through "idology" like "messing with genders" is anything but "worthwhile" since it weaknes evolutionary fitness.

At the end of the day, the breeders are the only people that matter, to anyone who wants to pass on anything.

Stirnerism was a mistake, it's nothing but a forced /lit/ meme that no one outside Cambodian pottery forums cares about.