Thread 24702531

Good /lit/ posts

>>24702566
The /pol/ fag is right though. If someone never had to defend his beliefs because they've been the dominant culture all his life then he wouldn't have practiced the arguments that support them.

>>24702604
source on pic?

None of these are good. A thread died for this, retard.

>>24702566
Damn that's brutal

>>24702632
based

>>24702638
Not really. You'd have to ignore how over half of /pol/ arguments are just saying Dems lost Trump won for the post not to fall apart in the second sentence claiming the left won the entire world.

>>24702632
>>24702641
I just love Squirtle, that's all there is to it.

>>24702531 (OP)
A personal favorite.

>>24702566
So he agrees leftism devolves into authoritarianism rather than the freedom they profess.

>>24702566
Kek

>>24702566
This isn't wrong though. For instance, analytic empiricist naturalists are vastly overconfident in their positions, even absurd ones like their various anti-realisms, because they effectively never engage with any other sort of philosophy and the presuppositions of empiricism and naturalism are held onto like religious dogmas.

The continental only reads analytics to expose how parochial they are, or to use the linguistic turn to argue for various relativism or constructivisms and so they never get how flimsy their claims to have dispatched all prior thought are. They will repeat Heidegger's ontotheology argument by heart, or Deleuze on substance, despite clearly not having read the sources being swept aside (neither did Heidegger, he started with the nominalists...). Even when one of their saints, Gadamer, pointed out that the history here is garbage and reads Suarez back into high scholasticism and the Patristics, it didn't sink in. Hence, arguments against early analytic thought and the "view from nowhere" are arguments against ALL prior thought and ALL alternatives.

Where am I going with this? Well, the much smaller group of people who take ancient and medieval thought seriously as a going concern and not just as a historical curiosity that might be mined for some ideas are almost always well versed in analytic and Continental thought (or at least one). Why? Because as a minority they have to know that stuff to make their ideas interesting to the outside. They have to positively argue. They can't just rely on dogmatic agreement. It makes for better thought DESU.

I'm not even saying this crowd has more right. They do some things well (ethics) and others I am more skeptical about (metaphysics, philosophy of mind, etc.). But it's pretty clear that the big names there know Heidegger, know Quine, know Kripke, know Evan Thomas, etc. and know them well, whereas, when they aren't ignoring all past thought, the strictly modern people are normally showing an embarrassing strawman understanding of it.

I assume this is true for minority scientific views too though. The minority has to know the majority opinions inside and out, whereas the majority can safely ignore anything outside their parochial bubble.

>>24703585
>turns post about /pol/fags into grist for shitty philosophy mill
Kill all philosophyfags

>>24703585
Tl;dr

>>24703585
>This isn't wrong though. For instance, analytic empiricist naturalists are vastly overconfident in their positions, even absurd ones like their various anti-realisms, because they effectively never engage with any other sort of philosophy and the presuppositions of empiricism and naturalism are held onto like religious dogmas.
>The continental only reads analytics to expose how parochial they are, or to use the linguistic turn to argue for various relativism or constructivisms and so they never get how flimsy their claims to have dispatched all prior thought are. They will repeat Heidegger's ontotheology argument by heart, or Deleuze on substance, despite clearly not having read the sources being swept aside (neither did Heidegger, he started with the nominalists...). Even when one of their saints, Gadamer, pointed out that the history here is garbage and reads Suarez back into high scholasticism and the Patristics, it didn't sink in. Hence, arguments against early analytic thought and the "view from nowhere" are arguments against ALL prior thought and ALL alternatives.
>Where am I going with this? Well, the much smaller group of people who take ancient and medieval thought seriously as a going concern and not just as a historical curiosity that might be mined for some ideas are almost always well versed in analytic and Continental thought (or at least one). Why? Because as a minority they have to know that stuff to make their ideas interesting to the outside. They have to positively argue. They can't just rely on dogmatic agreement. It makes for better thought DESU.
>I'm not even saying this crowd has more right. They do some things well (ethics) and others I am more skeptical about (metaphysics, philosophy of mind, etc.). But it's pretty clear that the big names there know Heidegger, know Quine, know Kripke, know Evan Thomas, etc. and know them well, whereas, when they aren't ignoring all past thought, the strictly modern people are normally showing an embarrassing strawman understanding of it.
>I assume this is true for minority scientific views too though. The minority has to know the majority opinions inside and out, whereas the majority can safely ignore anything outside their parochial bubble.

>>24703471
>trying to prove the nazis were evil
lol, bet he's still trying

>>24702566
Tbf leftists aren't in power either. It's mostly liberal capitalists.

>>24702566
This is utterly moronic. You could flip this logic onto any society. How would debating antisemitism go in Nazi Germany? Strangest appeal to authority argument I've yet seen, the poster seems genuinely mentally ill and obsessed with poltards.

i like that one where hes like ohh you have no idea how good it feels to live like this, im such a sinful creature so I punish myself but im so sinful it doesnt help and I jack off or something like that

>>24703696
Definitely one of the all timers.

For context, this was a response to a writing exercise to develop on the phrase "The quick brown Fox jumped over the lazy Dog": https://warosu.org/lit/thread/12676451#p12676679

I'll post screenshots of parts two and three

>>24702615
This bitch died in 77. How do these 30 yr olds know about her?

>>24702627
Normies don’t read Kant

>>24703725
2/3

>>24703725
>>24703728
3/3

A personal classic

>>24703735
hard fucking punchline, christ

This always makes me laugh.

>>24702566
this one triggered the /pol/tards kek

>>24703848
Why are women so unfunny?

personal favorite

WoW because I said
>all sigmas are hidden philosophers
chat throws a bitch fit because he cant think!

>>24702566
Damn. That's brutal. Here's an image that conveys just how violent a beating those /pol/fags took from that post.

>>24702531 (OP)
>Good /lit/ posts
Nice one punchy.

>>24703585
unclear who is they or them or who you are talking about

>>24703612
But that's exactly what the original image is about. Anon's refutation of the left's assumed supremacy is really good and the refusal to engage with it is ironic
>The leftist cannot last in a real debate, the /pol/fag says, so cocksure of himself...
And the only response the leftist has (even ITT) is to ostracize, hate, and attack. The /pol/fag "is preemptively precluded from ever participating in civlized [sic] discourse" not because he lacks the knowledge or tools to "win" but because the left's dominance over sociopolitical power enables them to ignore all competing schools of thought.

Both the left and the original poster from this image >>24702566 lack any level of self-awareness. A leftist ITT cannot and will not formulate a refutation, not because they are too good for it, but because they have never been forced to engage with thought outside of their pathetically myopic worldview.

>>24704100
Anon is ambiguous because the "they" is just the "leftists" from the image he replied to. He strips it of the explicitly political to make a point about the nature of the argument in >>24702566

>>24704131
>But that's exactly what the original image is about. Anon's refutation of the left's assumed supremacy is really good and the refusal to engage with it is ironic
It's about politsperging, not philofagging over deutschbags and scholastics like the windbag at >>24703585

>>24704152
Anon is refuting the analysis that the poster makes. Almost all of the /pol/ psychoanalysis is wrong.
>1. He claims that a leftist could not last in a debate, yet simulaneously believes the left has won, and has permeated every aspect...
The dominance of the leftist's "ontological and epistemological presuppositions" relies on those philosophical ideas common to the academic left. A specific philosophical framework can have cultural dominance, the /pol/fag can fully understand the arguments, and the leftist himself may not be able to last in a debate precisely because the absolute cultural dominance of his majority worldview leaves very little room to see the many competing ideas against his own. A person minority view, e.g., in continental philosophy, would understand the majority view because he is raised and socialized within that very dominant culture. To adopt the minority view, he must typically have both a knowledge of this minority view (/pol/fagging, continental philosophy, etc) and the arguments which will besiege him daily and from all aspects of life. This is why you do not last in a debate, though it is not necessarily that the leftist is wrong, merely that they are not as familiar with either their own or the individual competing views.
The line about epistemology is how we know the original poster had this philosophical intent behind it. Yet it falls apart when subjected to this pressure.
>2. The leftist cannot last in a debate, the /pol/fag says, cocksure of himself, oblivious to the fact that if he revealed [his beliefs] then [society would punish him] and [just not allow him to speak].
This is where both the lack of self-awareness and lack of understanding of /pol/fags rears itself. /pol/fags very well know they operate within a society where their views are heavily punished, regardless of the left's capacity to refute him. Yes, the leftist can 'last in a debate' simply because he "preemptively precludes" it from ever happening.
>3. shares oft-expressed...with those that agree...
Of course. Where else? By the nature of "preemptively precluding" a particular view from "civlized [sic] discourse" you necessitate these small enclaves of competing thought within the larger discourse.

But by the very poster's image, he proves himself false: Where he "preemptively precludes", his own argument against /pol/fags is accepted and debated. There is no echo chamber.
>4. Gayest form of existence...
Perhaps.

>>24703994
love this one, makes me want to buy Homo Abyssus

>>24704207
>person minority view
person with a minority view*
To be clear, >>24703585 isn't arguing that continental philosophy is the minority view, I only use it as an example. Anon's point was a bit more precise.

>>24704207
I don't care, you philosophyfags choke up enough of the board, quit fucking insisting on yourselves, no one in this threads needs your "um acktually"s

>>24702604
I never thought I'd see one of my posts here. This was a phase I had reading the most autistic philosophy I could find.

>>24704600
did you watch pantheon?

>>24704609
Not yet. It's on my watch list.

>>24703681
Id wager theyre liberal capitalists with left wing social views

>>24704663
Social views can only be left wing in the sense of montagnards. They aren't post-political auto-praxic self-abolishing workers.

This post unironically got me to understand literature and reading. Picrel is what it is in reference too.
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/24155753#p24161168
If you are still here, anon, thanks, you got me to stop regurgitating the same retarded things over and over in dosto threads.

>>24704684
sounds fucking gay

>>24704594
This a /lit/ post thread, people will discuss the /lit/ post.

>>24702531 (OP)
someone post that greentext about simone de beavoiur and coprophagia

>>24703585
Even if I was paid, I couldn't write something this ugly

>>24704933
No one is ever going to pay you to write kek

>>24704939
I have been paid to write, and fingers crossed, I just submitted another short story to a litmag that I think will love it

>>24704015
this was one of the most valuable peices of information i have seen on the internet. truly A++ post

>>24702566
This is extremely retarded. Or midtarded or whatever zoomers call it: That hell of being slightly smarter than average but without capacity for real self awareness.

>>24704685
lol, That was probably me. Did not check the link but I assume it is my post about reading all the pages of "Help!" in Solenoid. Glad you got something out of it. Did you read Solenoid? I still haven't.

>>24703594
I mean, shit. That's about what I got from it. Could not finish the book. About to start pic rel in a few days. I hope I can actually come to have a solid, verbal understanding of German Idealism. I really want some kind of background, and I have arbitrarily decided to adopt this one.

>>24705157
Have you read anything interesting lately?

>>24702531 (OP)
This one >>24694243

>>24705275
It seems heavily ChatGPT written.

>>24705287
I thought so too, but apparently not.

>>24703848
>get really excited we may have a connection now

>>24705267
I can't tell if you are making a joke or sincerely asking or just a plotfag.

>>24705290
The vulgar language is likely throwing it off. I'd guess anon prompted it for something about this and added the vulgarity afterwards. These AI checkers are not very reliable, but GPTZero is fairly reliable and rates the middle two as 100% AI. I don't really use AI checkers for posts because it's beyond obvious when it happens.

>>24705295
Sincerely asking as a plotfag.

>>24705365
In that case, yes, I have read something interesting in the recent past. Thank you for asking.

>>24705370
That's good man, I'm glad we had this chat. Have a good day.

>>24704594
perish

>>24702531 (OP)
is this about song of achilles or circe or w/e the fuck

>>24703687
>appeal to authority
You don't know what this means

>>24705212
That's all it literally is. The complexity and autism papers over how utterly absurd the thesis is. Kant dogmatically pronounces that phenomena are "appearances" and so must be appearances of something, but then says we cannot say what the appearances are "of" cause the appearances or anything else (even though he ends up calling them causes several times to try to ground the claim that appearances are phenomena.)

It should be obvious that we have no business positing something wholly unthinkable and that if there are only appearances then appearances just are reality. It's scholastic "everything is received in the manner of the receiver" turned retarded.

>>24703471
KEK

>>24702566
Modern leftism didn't conquer anything in our society. It didn't seize institutional power by winning people over or taking the world by force, it just came about naturally like a fungus. We live in the most sheltered and bountiful society in human history and the past 100 years of social/political degradation is a direct result of that aplenty. People who don't have enough to worry about gradually relax and become more permissive. Tolerance, consensus, and equity are virtues of the privileged and get used for social currency, a way to flaunt how strong you think you are by showboating how much of your own blood you can afford to spill. If you've never existed outside of this sheltered system, you also tend to overestimate exactly how much blood you have to spare. That's when you start bleeding others, making everybody else foot the bill for your own "ideals," and everything starts to break down. We're only just starting to see the consequences of The Great Relaxing on an undeniable scale, and already the pendulum is swinging back toward the right in response. It comes at a different moment for everyone, but the shtick is over the second you hear the wolves in the dark. There are no leftists in the fucking woods.

>>24705299
Damn. I guess I notice it when it happens too, but I can't *exactly* pinpoint or explain what makes it AI. What are the characteristics of ChatGPT's writing style?

>>24703888
>trips
Checked. Saved

>>24703874
We should go find a Cha’an Buddhist master and show him this and see what his response is.

>>24706621
How come people in the past and outside of western societies don’t think like this?

>>24706632
protective superstitions? "i survived because ares liked my sacrifice" instead of schizoing out over probabilities. plus i think warfare was less madness-inducing before drones, snipers, artillery and so on made death so random and unpredictable.

>>24706425
I bet this sounded so cool in your head, but then we all remembered that you posted it on 4chan, meaning you were terminally online

>>24706723
what's with all the resentful trannies on this board recently? is there a discord outage?

>>24706675
>plus i think warfare was less madness-inducing before drones, snipers, artillery and so on made death so random and unpredictable.
That doesn’t make sense because the people in the past had far less predictive capacity than we do. They had no idea when crops would fail, when barbarians would invade, when they would get sick with some horrible disease, etc.

>>24703726
her name pops up in every "classic erotica" top ten

>>24702566
based

>>24703471
Most women are not that smart, but genuinely smart women are smarter than men in the right ways, and here we see a perfect example of this.

>>24706675
Idk, a melee of swords with cavalry charging seem maddening enough. Most historical accounts say that in Switzerland, mercenaries coming back from campaign were maddened by their years of service, often alcoholics, to the point of being a nuisance to society.

The problem is large scale war, which make a lot of people insane. Medieval warfare didn't involve a lot of troops and "those who fight" was a clearly defined part of society, same with India and their casts.

>>24706384
cope

>>24706826
>genuinely smart women
I want a pretty, nice, and smart one.

>>24706853
No man I know could go out with any two genuinely smart women I know. They're in a whole other league

>>24706632
Because death is a more regular part of their life and they grow up around it, it has not been sanitized and monetized, it is just a part of life. To say they are desensitized to it would not be right, their lives just demands that they deal with it differently, they can not afford to spend months grieving over every loss, they have to get it all out at once and move on.

When I was traveling about the world in my 20s I found myself getting invited to funerals for people I never met and on one occasion being invited to a funeral by people I just met in a city I had just arrived in. As a first world westerner it was fairly confusing and I had no idea how to turn the invitations down or if I even could turn them down, so I went to a surprising number of funerals. Eventually I figured it out, the funerals are not just for the family and friends of the deceased and you don't get invited so you can offer them platitudes, they are a time for the community to resume/revisit greiving for those people they lost, you help the bereaved by showing them they are not alone instead of telling them that you are sorry for their loss, you grieve with them and then you return to your daily life.

I can't say that the ways of the rest of the world are better but it convinced me that the west's way of dealing with loss is seriously fucked up. Nor do I know if there is anyway to really deal with witnessing someone in front of you getting blown up but I think the west's way of dealing with death does not help, it furthers the isolation.

>>24706869
why?

>>24706621
Look at the first few lines.
>You ARE the explosion.
he's making it sound so appealing and almost romantic. Makes me curious.

>>24706826
>genuinely smart women are smarter than men in the right ways
Smart women are still women. It's horsepower in service of an entirely different machine. Sounds like you were raised by a woman to think the correct approach is the feminine one.

>>24703719
But soul as perception is not influenced by the brain, stuff that happens to the brain will influence what appears to awareness but not awareness itself.

Mind does influence the body, in the way psychosomatic illnesses happen, or a single stray thought can trigger a depression (has happened to me).

Maybe a scientific explanation for this can't be given since mind is not observable to the methods of science, but so what?

The existence of mind and its contents is a prerequisite for science.

anyone got the iliad diabetes shitpost?

>>24706887
Very good post thank you.

I’ve been trying to find a certain post of a typed out scene of a guy starting off talking about some intellectual shit or literary commentary but slowly devolving into shitting himself as his stomach starts hurting and he fails to get to a bathroom in time.

>>24702637
That thread wasn't good either.

>>24707331
It is possible that I wrote it, I have written a good number of posts which follow that arc over the years. If you can provide more info it might dredge enough out of memory so I can find it in the archives, they all kind of blur together for me.

>>24705460
Chinua Achebe say neither of those things. It's rather
1. White people are a force of nature
2. Black people are lazy retards
3. yummy yummy yams

>>24706826
Periods alone and their montly ormonal bursts that fucks up their bodies makes even the smartest woman in the world untrustable for few days

>>24702566
Stupid argument.
Leftists use threats of political violence and shame to influence culture. The implicit threat for saying 'wrong' opinions is so pervasive in our society that real debate is not possible.
I am not allowed to vote for the things I want or say the things I believe in public. That is not the product of a lost debate, it's a product of a terrorism.

>>24703719
Rough questions. My answer is that God did it.

>>24705460
Thomas Sowell shouldn't be on this list though

>>24706632
You have no idea what "people" thought for any period preceeding the invention of print. You only know the experiences of an extremely small part of the population who had excess to education and writing. People have been inferring, from the very little clues that we had, that indeed war trauma was experienced by soldiers since ancient Greece and earlier - the only problem is you don't have writings from the regular oplite 99.99999% of the time, so you believe the propaganda written by someone who likely saw war from afar and was paid by some rich dude who never saw it to say how "glorious" it is to die young for your nation.
The invention of print first and the internet now are giving a voice to the regular oplite, the regular man, the regular woman. It's not the modern world that is miserable, it's life in general, and it has always been so - the only difference is that now everyone has a voice and the misery is louder than ever before.
The only and correct path to take is to listen to this and try to reduce the amount of shit we experience during our very short lifespans, not to buy into 2000 year old propaganda written by powerful people to sacrifice you, the regular men, for whatever higher purpose. If there is something you should have learned by seeing war and genocide being livestreamed on your social media in the past years is that you have way more in common with a regular person in Ukraine and Palestine who just wants to fucking live, eat, sleep and fuck in peace than you have with whatever guy is on top of the hierarchy in your country and wants you to join the military and die for his money.

>>24707943
> People have been inferring, from the very little clues that we had, that indeed war trauma was experienced by soldiers since ancient Greece and earlier
Greece you say. The beginning of Western culture you say.

>>24702566
I mean this is a bit ironic now, given that the /pol/acks won. Everything today indicates that they were right the whole time, and only a refusal to engage with ideas and instead impose friend/enemy distinction ever kept this from being the status quo.

And, worse, now that the attempt to silence the truth has failed, the ONLY possible outcome is a radical correction, which is now happening in real time.

>>24708045
I’m pretty sure that was it, thank you.

>>24706425
You are lying Marxist’s have taken over every single institution in our society and our entire societies worldview is colored by Marxism.

>>24708058
It's really baffling to see Donald Trump win two elections and you guys still complaining as if you were the victims. The most powerful man on the planet is now aligned with your ideals, can you please stop whining like women?

>>24708076
Donald Trump is a neocon faggot. Oh a bloo bloo 3% of immigrants will be deported. Heee haaaaw pay lip service to white people. Ohhhh nooo whites still having demographic decline. Oh jeeez rich globalist faggots are still plundering the wealth of the people.

Until every billionaire is [expunged] and every black, hispanic, [expunged] is [expunged] and the land [expunged] then the right didn't win.

>>24708079
Yes but surely you see the contradiction in claiming that everything is Marxist when the mainstream is currently a "neocon faggot" winning the US elections, even if he doesn't buy into your very specific brand of internet nazism? How do you reconcile his victory with the idea that "our entire societies worldview is colored by Marxism"?
Clearly there is a wide mainstream base for non-marxist ideas - and likely there always was. Your problem, it seems to me, is that you mostly interact with screens rather than people, and somehow still think that minority-pandering TV shows and YouTube feminists are real - all while the average american turns more and more into a nazi-flag-waving redneck aligned with you. I don't understand this passion in fighting imaginary enemies - it's almost as if you didn't want to tackle any real problems...

>>24708087
it's easier to fight imaginary enemies, because it gives them a sense of purpose that can never be fully satiated. Even just stating that their goal is to eradicate people of color provides these nazis with a sense of safety, because they realize it's too ridiculous to ever be realized. Once that too stops giving them the necessary shock stimuli, they will happily embrace deeper misanthropies. It's a child's game.

>>24707943
>be regular joe ancient greek farmer
>foreigners invade your land to kill you and make your children slaves
>you grab your spear to fight back
>2500 years later a braindead leftist decides to rewrite history
>bro, defending your home is a psyop by the hecking rich
>you should have just "lived your life in peace" you moron! just like stop being invaded!
>he consistently misspells "hoplite" to further insult you
grim

>>24708106
you're not defending your home by shouting slurs at underpaid delivery drivers. you're just defiling it

>>24702566
>too many words
>threatening to destroy life/career for participating in discourse
>smug

yeah thats a leftist

>>24702566
>fallacy number 1, the strawman
/pol/ is full of bots, shills, slides, gay ops, is ground 0 for turning a billion strong online jeets into golems, and a wash of surface level rage baits to hone sentiments of contempt into demeanor that would make one immediately hostile to any outsider.

And yet, there are still enough real capable and truth telling anons to shred this masturbatory hit piece, that doesn't name a single issue of contention, against an invented target that the OP didn't dare post it on /pol/

>>24702566
The main flaw with "Leftism can't be weak argumentatively and still institutionally all powerful at the same time" is that it ignores a historical progression of ideology.

Leftism was stronger and more coherent in a post-war world seeking meaning and idealism from atrocity and trauma.
This success dominated the institutions to the extent where it didnt need to defend itself and eventually stagnated and rotted and became weak and incoherent as ideological narratives of racial and sexual egalitarianism eventually fell apart under the weight of reality, and leftism became tyrannical and terroristic through institutional enforcement of ideology.

We are currently seeing leftist institutional collapse.
Welfare and social programs are being gutted for their partisan exploitation.
Mass industrial academia will be dead in a few decades as population degrowth undercuts funding and student populations and ai takes over both personalized education and most intellectual labor.

>>24708087
Besides the fact that you're using ChatGPT—no, it's not the em dash that gave it away—the presence of neoconservative figures in government doesn't mean that forms of cultural Marxism haven't already become firmly embedded into the institutions themselves. It's naïve to think that the results of one election could change the entire system, barring extreme circumstances.
>our entire societies worldview is colored by Marxism
This means that the way the average person, including the average conservative or neoconservative, holds Marxist or Marx-esque sociocultural views, even if they aren't aware of it. This is similar in idea to the way the left pushes the concept of internalized misogyny or systemic racism, which can be extended to the way Marxism pervades the system, affecting how people see the world and believe they should act.

As one example, the general belief of "everyone is equal" or "everyone is equally deserving" are taken absolutely for granted, even by conservatives, but a rightist's entire worldview is fundamentally opposed to this. To be more specific, I could explain it in your terms: You may believe the left has made massive strides in a progressive worldview. This includes ideas espoused by Marx/Lenin. Minorities have better rights. Women are the most economically equal to men in history. There is more awareness of economic inequality in general. So on. You would NOT, then, say that the system is not fundamentally capitalist.

In a similar vein, the right views these "strides" and this "progress" as "wrong" and "bad". The fact that they exist is proof that the system has trended towards cultural Marxism. It is still capitalist, of course (and capitalism is similar to communism in that both are corrosive to the national character. This is not necessary for this argument, however, so ignore it or consider it a typical evil right wing value) but the system has not fundamentally reversed this course. Trump is STILL a civic nationalist, believing in the fundamental equal value of all people to the nation, regardless of race, as long as they are loyal and want to "Make America Great Again."

Also, what is a real problem? A real problem is something that someone cares about. It doesn't matter if this is income inequality, racism, immigration, Jews, or whether the USA is the top exporter of wintergreen candy canes. There is no such thing as an invalid problem in politics, as the problems are determined by one's values. What you personally consider to not be a problem is someone else's problem—even if that is making more nationalized wintergreen candy canes.

>>24708087
>>24708175
And yes, you will try to pedantically correct what "marxist" in this sense means. That is not correctly identifying the problem. When a rightist inaccurately says
>The system is Marxist
it's because his conception of Marxism is broader in scope than yours. But this is just pedantry and not really relevant unless you want to discuss this word in particular.

>>24702566
>tell a man to argue with you
>while putting a gun to his head
>tell him that you'll pull the trigger if he says such or so or anything that you don't like hearing
>you win the argument
>you gloat and tell the loser that he couldn't argue worth shit
Truly a heroic victory.

>>24706735
>It comes at a different moment for everyone, but the shtick is over the second you hear the wolves in the dark. There are no leftists in the fucking woods.
No one should feel insulted by the dude that wrote this

>>24708111
???

>>24708215
It's chatgpt

>>24708132
>>24708153
>>24708164
Holy shit the back-to-back-to-back seethe

>>24708218
yeah I guess leftism really can't hold its own in an argument

>>24708218
>anons writing calm replies
>in the /lit/erature board
>seethe
If you have a 30 second tik-tok brain why are you even here?

>>24708222
>>24708224
>I-Im not seething! Debate me on 4chan!!

>>24708232
Yep. I'm currently boiling in a vat of vicious rage.

>>24708216
i don't think so. there's just a seething tranny in the thread trying to do epic twitter irony comebacks that aren't even coherent outside of his tranny brain

>>24708241
It's still a very gptlike structure and verbiage. I thought the gpt spammers were all banned when platojeet and buddhajeet stopped posting. just our luck to get trangpt

>>24703848
He fumbled every step he made after getting on the board and she obliterated him. Amazing.

>>24708106
Totally missed the point. Why are you people always so obnoxiously retarded?

>>24708175
>>24708177
>everyone's a heckin MARXIST
>because they... uh... because uh... cause they think people are equal and shit
>this is LITERALLY ACTUALLY MARXISM
>now you may think I'm using "Marxism" incorrectly
>but my conception of it is simply too gigabrain for you to understand
The right isn't sending their best.

>>24702566
B-B-B-B-BASED

>>24708497
>everyone's a heckin MARXIST
>because they... uh... because uh... cause they think people are equal and shit
Yes, quite literally. You can trace modern identity politics to enlightenment/liberal ethics or to more contemporary marxist dialectic. Anon here >>24708058 says that
>every single institution in our society and our entire societies worldview is colored by Marxism
and yes, a lot of contemporary philosophy, ethics, and social and economic policy is colored by marxism. The modern idpol race struggle is an extension of the dialogues held by early Marxists over the issue of the white petty bourgeois:
>https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-1/wbs-critique.htm
>“It (race privilege) is the keystone and mortar of their (the bourgeoisie’s) overarching power.” (p. 15, Can White Radicals Be Radicalized)
>Four, REPUDIATION The way to fight white skin privilege is for white workers to repudiate them. “For nowhere in your (P.L.’s) literature do we find a single appeal to the white workers to fight against white supremacy in the only way possible, by repudiating their white skin privileges and joining in a struggle with the rest of the working class for the demands of the entire class.” “there are only two paths open to the white workers: with the boss or with the Negro workers, abandonment of all claim to the share in the shaping of our destiny, or repudiation of the white skin privileges for which we, in our very infancy, pawned our revolutionary soul.”
>These four points comprise the essence of the white skin privilege theory. Are they correct? Do they conform to reality?
>THE DEAL: “The US ruling class has made a deal with the misleaders of American labor and through them with the masses of white workers.”
This post >>24708177 clarifies that Marxism in this sense is not the strict econimic policy the left would expect from a Marxist communist society.

Ironically, Sawyer predicted the modern day Pro-Black idpol ripping apart the working class and advised against the issues that would later become modern marxist identity politics. I'm not sure why you chose to be wrong on your home turf, but okay. This is the literature board, I guess nobody HECKIN' reads.
>It can be practiced by being put out as a line in working class organizing, but it is doomed to failure. Why? Basically because it leads to making the main enemy at this time the white workers in general, not distinguishing between them in terms of privilege, and thereby leads to perpetuating the division in the working class.
>...
>It will require a more or less protracted struggle after the state apparatus is in the hands of the proletariat and utilization of the state to eradicate white racism in the U.S. To put eradication of racism as a prerequisite, as WBS does, is naive idealism and can only divert the revolutionary movement from its main tasks.

>>24708491
"the point" was projecting modern "no blood for oil" leftie slogans onto an ancient society the poster never bothered to do basic research about. it deserves the mockery. greece is the worst society to try to make this point about. in athens the hoplites that would fight in a war were collectively deciding whether it should even be declared by having an open discussion about it in the agora. the "rich dudes" you accuse of manipulating the events from afar were actually leading soldiers into battle and dying with them when they made a mistake. you just have no idea what you're talking about at all.

>>24708596
What's even more funny is that what he calls
>propaganda written by someone who likely saw war from afar and was paid by some rich dude who never saw it to say how "glorious" it is to die young for your nation
Was stuff like the Iliad, which is strictly a tragedy where war is horrible to everyone and essentially senseless.

>>24708058
I'd be more specific and say that critical theory does the coloring. The point I was making is that there was no conquering and nothing could be pointed at to claim the better ideas had won out. Marxism defeated nothing. People gain different proclivities as they start to relax. They open up to new ideologies and become more permissive. Unless you start shooting them, the full buffet of ideas is always going to be present in the background of a thriving society, but nobody gives a shit about them or listens to them. The rise of Marxism, critical theory, progressivism, social justice, all the buzzwords associated with the decline are the result of relaxing too much. The internet has done a lot to speed up to memetic lifecycle, so I'm kind of expecting the fall of modern leftism to happen much faster than the rise.

>>24703719
Mostly non-arguments.
>Please explain why eating or not eating material food alters whether your magical non material soul feels "hunger"
OH SAVE ME NIGGERMAN I'M GOING INSANE

Oh you can use a magnet to alter how the mind works? Yeah we've been able to do that for ages it's called smack you across the face with the magnet and you feel pain (in your face!)

Please explain what a number is and why I can perceive them despite the fact they clearly lack physical existence.

>>24708594
>literally everyone and everything is LITERALLY HECKIN MARXIST
>but if you point out that I'm not using the word "Marxist" correctly, I'll say I don't mean "Marxist," I mean something vaguely like "social equality"
>As proof of my argument here's some no-name marxist in some no-name marxist newspaper saying marxists need to be nice to blacks I'm right so THERE
So cute that you think this comes off as intelligent esoteric knowledge and not brainrotted retardation kek

>>24704015
This is an interesting theory, but it gradually devolves into slippery slope. I simply dont believe individuals are perpetually "pushed" by lust into some bottomless pit of utter depravity. First: lust itself is not an infinite resource. I don't refer to the act of climax (although that's not irrelevant necessarily) but rather things such as age, or other fundamental faculties that lust is actually designed to "push", chief among them being relationships with other people, being unfulfilled. It is entirely possible that someone with X fetish also develops favor for things related to X, venturing through the entire alphabet, but this isn't limitless on average even for someone who is unfortunately deprived of romance. That would be boiling down human beings into a very binary concept, which might work reliably in places like India where swaths of people were forcibly rendered retarded by breeding stipulations but does not correlate with true humans in better places. It certainly happens. If you like Amy Rose you might end up becoming a massive degenerate, Amy Rose becomes the gateway drug. But it's equally as likely your lust can only push you so far. Not everyone is a bottomless pit of depravity, that simply doesn't make any sense, culture as we know it wouldn't exist if the ability to self-meter was no common enough to instill discipline or set boundaries. If you think anything I've said is wrong, ask yourself if you believe this conga line of pornographic depravity could push you into becoming a homosexual. That alone is not a guarantee of any kind, so this theory seems to describe a rather small group of unlikely victims.

>>24702566
fpbp wins the thread, the (you)s and even the dubs.

I kneel.

>>24702566
Behead all angloids.

>>24704012
Can't find the full video.

>24702566
reddit midwitted dogshit

>>24709348
This is the closest I have. I've never seen one that actually shows the stabbing.

>>24709157
>literally everyone and everything is LITERALLY HECKIN MARXIST
Yes. Let's see here: "single institution in our society and our entire societies worldview is colored by Marxism." Uh huh, where does it say literally Marxist? I'm sorry that you have no reading comprehension on the literature board.
>but if you point out that I'm not using the word "Marxist" correctly, I'll say I don't mean "Marxist," I mean something vaguely like "social equality"
Let's see:
>Marxism (countable and uncountable, plural Marxisms)
>(chiefly Western, often derogatory, colloquial)
>(chiefly Western, often derogatory, colloquial) Any left-wing ideology, government regulations, or policies promoting a welfare state, nationalisation, etc.
Yes.
>the presence of neoconservative figures in government doesn't mean that forms of cultural Marxism
Uh-huh.
>Cultural Marxism
>(Marxism, academia) Marxist analysis applied to culture and cultural phenomena.
Yep.
>culture:
>The beliefs, values, behaviour and material objects that constitute a people's way of life.
Hmm:
>This means that the way the average person, including the average conservative or neoconservative, holds Marxist or Marx-esque sociocultural views, even if they aren't aware of it. This is similar in idea to the way the left pushes the concept of internalized misogyny or systemic racism, which can be extended to the way Marxism pervades the system, affecting how people see the world and believe they should act.
The left really isn't sending their best, are they?
>As proof of my argument here's some no-name marxist in some no-name marxist newspaper saying marxists need to be nice to blacks I'm right so THERE
Yes,
>https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-1/whiteblindspot.pdf
>If we are dialecticians, we base ourselves on what is new, and look under the appearance of things to discover their essence. And one of the essential features of American history, which must be understood by everyone who hopes to apply Marxist-Leninist theory to the specific conditions of our country, is that traditionally the Negro people, for very real reasons, have carried forward the demands of the entire working class, cloaked in the garb of Negro rights!
Marxism Applied to cultural issues btw. Not a "no name", either. I was referencing the Sawyer one so you could see the ongoing dialogue and cultural developments in marxism. But you don't really read, do you? It's okay. I guess I expected you to have just a bit if literacy, but I guess that's my problem.

>>24709157
>>24709539
"Inaccurate" in this >>24708177 context meant this very mindless pedantry you are engaging in, by the way. Not that it was an incorrect view of what Marxism is as applied to sociocultural phenomenon. But again, the left isn't sending their best. And that's okay.

>>24709348
i gotchu

>>24702566
Okay fine you can have this attitude, but looking at how dysgenic the average leftist is, you won't like how it ends. And no, a smug reply on 4chan won't save you.

>>24709684
Completely deserved.

>>24709493
Wut???? Why he do that????? That make me so angryyyyy

>>24709980
she was very likely thinking something racist. his actions were justified

>>24703732
true

>>24703599
Is this really a /lit/ post or a ukr schizo post on /k/ or something?

>>24710876
The post number in that screen shot answers that, compare it to those post number of any other post on /lit/.

>>24702701
>>24703994
>>24705563
Only good ones ITT.

>>24710884
It was a rhetorical question

>>24709548
>>24709539
>here's a copy-paste from a dictionary that includes the retarded colloquial use of marxism as catch-all right wing boogeyman
>this proves the way I'm using it is correct so THERE
>if you criticize this you're... you're... a mindless pedant!
>why yes, I do consider myself very intelligent
m'lady

>>24711396
Yes. All correct.
But you need to write a real argument because I want to sperg out about Marxism a little more, and can't do it if there's nothing to reply to. SO PLEAAASE!!!

>>24711396
>>24711462
But if you want to know the reason I used wiktionary's third definition, it's because
>the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx
>especially : a theory and practice of socialism (see socialism sense 3) including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society
from Merriam Webster presented the problem of not having the meaning of social principles defined, and the only other hint was "classless society". Later Marxists (obviously Ignatin as I linked above) take it for granted that part of the social principles of Marxism is elimination of race classes, but this would be a huge fucking slog because Marx himself was notably race agnostic and I'd need to begin quoting the work of earlier Marxists, and either way a pedant is going to argue
>Well TRUE MARXISM...
Then the argument becomes a very boring explanation of how domains of knowledge are defined rather than the topic of Marxism.
Wiktionary's first and second definitions also could have worked:
1. The socialist and communist philosophy and political program founded by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
>2. The socialist and communist theory of the followers of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels; a radical, revolutionary political philosophy that aims to capture state power, introduce a dictatorship of the proletariat, and then progress to communism.
But again it runs into the same problem where a pedant who isn't familiar with Marxism will not really know what these theories of Marx imply. The derogatory, colloquial definition is actually enough to describe Marxism in this context, as (what appears to be) Marxism is ultimately subjective in nature similar to how we can't say society is strictly "enlightenment" or "liberal" despite having these traits; We can always argue that the influences are from elsewhere or don't match a particular narrow description.

>>24703599
kek

>>24711462
>you need to write a real argument
>>24711536
>you may think fascism is a political philosophy described by thinkers and politicians such as Schmitt and Mussolini
>but people sometimes use "fascism" to mean "when someone tells you to do something" see it says so on wiktionary
>if you're familiar with the theories of fascist thinkers and politicians, you'll know that fascism involves someone telling you to do something
>and society has people telling you to do things
>so according to the wiktionary definition of fascism society is fascist
I don't feel the need to argue against something so transparently retarded kek

>>24711593
No, many Marxist thinkers agree that a classless society has no social classes either, this was already spoken of by Marx, but the race elements were expounded upon by figures like Lenin and obviously Ignatin as mentioned. If that's where you want to settle your argument then both of us will be bored. It isn't a position that you will win.

>>24711611
>I'm right because Schmitt says someone should tell people to do something
>and Mussolini also says someone should tell people to do something
>this was expounded upon by figures like Hitler who told people to do something
>so I win THERE
kek

>>24706632
>people in the past
Medieval knights were known for acting temperamental and having night terrors after battles. They absolutely had their own expression of PTSD.

>>24702566
Very based.
Kill all /pol/maggots, send em back to Stormfront

>>24702638
It's not at all.
In fact, that looks like a pseud test to me. A classic internet troll post weaving fallacies, bait and insults into silly dramatic language. Anyone who thinks that's a good post lacks mental maturity and is easily impressed by bullshit.

>>24708497
>The right isn't sending their best.
That's true but it doesn't excuse you from being far more stupid than he is.
Marxists thrive on equivocation and dissembling about what Marxism means is one of their favorite topics. He's more right than you are by a long shot.

>>24703594
200 pages in and this is my understanding of the book as well (I may be an idiot)

>>24711747
>he's right because... because... HE JUST IS OKAY

>>24711703
>In fact, that looks like a pseud test to me. A classic internet troll post weaving fallacies, bait and insults into silly dramatic language. Anyone who thinks that's a good post lacks mental maturity and is easily impressed by bullshit.
triggered /pol/tard seething

>>24703720
rare actual good post and actually somewhat related to books to boot.

>>24702531 (OP)
>Good /lit/ posts thread
>filled with dogshit posts
what did /lit/ meat by this?

>>24711619
That's not the same. You can say our current worldview is colored by the enlightenment because much of what we believe was established by and directly traceable to Enlightenment thinkers. In this case,
>https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/What-is-Enlightenment.pdf
>Immanuel Kant, What is Enlightenment
>Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! "Have courage to use your own reason!"- that is the motto of enlightenment.
A humorous example is that those critical of Enlightenment liberalism are in fact participating in it to the highest degree: The Enlightenment so thoroughly colors their worldview that even when they believe they resist it, they are only taking part in its process. It is the very Enlightenment he hates and disdains that frees him from his self-incurred tutelage, and allows him—implores him—to question its values. This same contradiction is found in those who oppose liberal values. Ultimately, these ideas are so thoroughly ingrained that we are positively shaped and dominated by them. They are inescapable.

In contrast, while we can say "fascist" dialectic has resulted in some change in how we see or measure the world, it is by no means normal; our society has not assimilated fascism except in opposition to its concepts. Despite most of the right's apparent love for authority, they are the first to criticize authoritarianism when it is not an expression of the will of the people (their people, their race, or in short, a kind of democracy). Most of Schmidt's work today, in fact, helps with understanding what is NOT circumscribed within our worldview. Those who call themselves fascists on /lit/ have not had their worldview itself colored by fascism, because it remains outside of them. It is a curiosity, a foreign idea which must be adopted and enacted, rather than being in any wise integrated into himself. He is able to perceive immediately the presence of fascism for the very reason that it is foreign—it does not color his worldview, rather, it is a color within his worldview.

To elaborate on this point, it is necessary to understand what Marxism contributes, and if we can divine this inseparability within our worldview. One such concept, among many others, is identity politics. While both the left and right tend to decry it, both take part in it unconsciously. The left tends to frame things in terms of a "class" war, while at the same time engaging primarily in the war of identity, while the right criticizes leftist identity politics consciously yet subconsciously internalizes the idea of defending his own identity from the oppression of a privileged class (like Jews or globalist billionaires).

>>24711619
>>24711812
Modern identity politics is directly traceable to Marxism, for example:
>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/
>Identity politics starts from analyses of such forms of social injustice to recommend, variously, the reclaiming, redescription, or transformation of previously stigmatized accounts of group membership. Rather than accepting the negative scripts offered by a dominant culture about one’s own inferiority, one transforms one’s own sense of self and community. For example, in their germinal statement of identity politics, articulated through a Black feminist tradition, the CRC argued that
> "as children we realized that we were different from boys and that we were treated different—for example, when we were told in the same breath to be quiet both for the sake of being ‘ladylike’ and to make us less objectionable in the eyes of white people. In the process of consciousness-raising, actually life-sharing, we began to recognize the commonality of our experiences and, from the sharing and growing consciousness, to build a politics that will change our lives and inevitably end our oppression. (1982, 14–15)"
The CRC being a "Black feminist lesbian socialist organization" and:
>Smith and the CRC have been credited with coining the term identity politics, which they defined as "a politics that grew out of our objective material experiences as Black women." In her essay "From the Kennedy Commission to the [CC]: Black Feminist Organizing, 1960–1980", Duchess Harris credits the "polyvocal political expressions of the Black feminists in the [CRC] (with) defin(ing) the nature of identity politics in the 1980s and 1990s, and challeng(ing) earlier 'essentialist' appeals and doctrines..."
>[they] developed a multidimensional analysis recognizing a "simultaneity of oppressions", refusing to rank oppressions based on race, class and gender. According to author and academic Angela Davis, this analysis drew on earlier Black Marxist and Black Nationalist movements, and was anti-racist and anti-capitalist in nature.
and founded by socialists such as Barbara Smith, Audre Lorde, etc.
The effect of cultural Marxism is in how conservatives view the political and social ends of society. This can be seen in the way that modern right-populism reflects a sort of Bourgeois Socialist reform:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm
>Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate expression when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech.
>Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois socialism.
>It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois — for the benefit of the working class.
And while Marx was critical of this conservative socialism, its modern form is no less influenced by Marxism.

>>24711619
>>24711812
>>24711815
The various political actions by conservative populists, like promises of socially and economically uplifting a group of working class people from "Woke" oppression (based on both racial and economic grouping) mirrors this very socialist dialectic; That it differs in precise form is little different from the split between Bolshevism and Menshivism, or later that of Leninism, all of which are of a fundamentally Marxist origin. The entire battleground through which modern American political discourse is fought is colored by Marxism; Whether that is in contrast or complement to Marxism, both the leftists and conservatives ostensibly base their platforms on the needs of the working class.

You can likely attempt to trace bourgeois socialism to a non-Marxist origin; Indeed, the term "communism" as such was coined by Marx to distance his brand of socialism from that which was common at the time in the bourgeois class. Yet modern socialist dialectic lends itself primarily to Marxism, and many of the key figures in the American civil rights movements of the 60s were Marxist or socialist themselves, and their integration into not only conservative values, but the very institutions of the USA and the West, reflect this Marxian coloration.

I have so far tried to keep my sources open and available for you. I'm now going to quote Joseph Schumpeter, but since you have likely never read anything aside from reddit posts, you'll have to take my word for it. In CS&D, he writes*:
>I have tried to show that a socialist form of society will inevitably emerge from an equally inevitable decomposition of capitalist society. Many readers will wonder why I thought so laborious and complex an analysis necessary in order to establish what is rapidly becoming the general opinion, even among conservatives. The reason is that, while most of us agree as to the result, we do not agree as to the nature of the process that is killing capitalism and as to the precise meaning to be attached to the word “inevitable.” Believing that most of the arguments offered—both on Marxian and on more popular lines—are wrong, I felt it my duty to take, and to inflict upon the reader, considerable trouble in order to lead up effectively to my paradoxical conclusion: capitalism is being killed by its achievements.
Though he examines more the gradual, unconscious and undirected economic transformation of a society, the very fact of its predictive power and the integration of bourgeois socialist reform hints again at this Marxist penetration. Whether this is a concerted effort is of little concern, and the fact that it is not recognized as such indicates the pervasive normalization of the Marxist worldview.

These are just a couple of many individual examples. While single instances don't prove that society is colored by Marxism, the fact that Marxism has left its indelible mark on modern culture is undeniable; Modern society is colored by Marxism.

>>24711619
>>24711821
Finally, I will conclude this post with the humble ad hominem attack. Repeating again Schumpeter's words—
>the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyzes in a way which he would readily recognize as infantile within the sphere of his real interests. He becomes a primitive again.
And this is no less apparent in you. If you want to try formulating a real argument, go ahead. But you won't, because you can't. Ironically, it's exactly what that pseudbait image describes, in reverse. What the /pol/fag was saying is quite literally true, and stripped of your ability to simply block, report, and silence, you have nothing to say and no argument to defend your case. At most, you can handwave and say
>Wall of text!
>seethe!
Hypocritically justifying the complaint of the stereotypical ignorant leftist.
At the very least, thanks for giving me an opportunity to sperg out.

*Which is included to demonstrate the normalization of socialist concepts. We can raise this quote as a topic of debate though.

>>24711812
>>24711815
>>24711821
>>24711839
never read marx award

>>24711907
Qualify that statement. Since you implicitly know Marx, it should be extremely easy to prove it, and you will be able to make a fool of me. Unless, of course, you are a pseudointellectual.

>>24702566
Peak American political scientist. God...

>>24711915
no retard this is an inane "dicussion" that has happened a thousand time inside and outside of internet even if I could convince a braindead primate such as yourself of how stupid your sole argument is some other retard is gonna come in like 2hours and post the same stupid bullshit and acting all smug about being oppressed by blm and trannies

>>24711812
>Marxism is when vaguely social equality because ideology
>>24711815
>Marxism is when idpol because Marx invented idpol
>okay he didn't but here's some Marxists talking about idpol
>these two things are equivalent because they are
>>24711821
>Marxism is when vaguely social equality because lefties decades ago were Marxists
>And they were worried about social equality
>And we got social equality kinda so that's basically Marxism
>Also you're a redditor so there!
>>24711839
>you have slandered me with ad hominems
>you MUST debate me!!!!
It's so fucking funny when you people pretend to be intellectuals

>>24711931
That's not an argument. This is a way to insecurely dismiss an argument that you don't know how to refute. It should be very easy to say
>You think Marx said anything about race and identity politics, but Marxism is about the class war ...
You can keep it simple and quick. Then I reply with a quotation from my own posts, like so:
>>24711536
>Later Marxists (obviously Ignatin as I linked above) take it for granted that part of the social principles of Marxism is elimination of race classes, but this would be a huge fucking slog because Marx himself was notably race agnostic and I'd need to begin quoting the work of earlier Marxists, and either way a pedant is going to argue
>Well TRUE MARXISM...
As an example. This seems to be the crux of your argument, as your image references the disagreement between Dengism and classical Marxism, which Schumpeter's book has a related chapter on (though obviously only on the means by which socialism is attained) in Chapter 19 (Socialization in a State of Maturity).
>>24711937
This is where you are outed as an overt imbecile. The fact that your are so ignorant on the topic is what emboldens you to speak. Many such cases.

>>24711907
>productive forces
>insurance
cmon bro

>>24711954
His post is evidently ironic.

>>24711950.>>24711931
Or, I should specify, the split between Maoism and Dengism, both being forms of Marxism and the people from which having their worldviews "colored" by Marxism.

>>24711950
>The fact that your are so ignorant on the topic is what emboldens you to speak.
>your are
It just keeps getting funnier

>>24711982
Oh I'm so impressed. A typo.

>>24711750
Yeah, he is, and you're seething that I agree more with him than you.
Marxism is a religion started by Marx. His disciples over the years have built on his original pseud ramblings. Most notably, they swapped out the proletariat and bourgeoisie with any convenient (usually unscientific and bogus) oppressed/oppressor relationship: 4 legs/2 legs, red/black categories, women/men, blacks/whites, etc. Whatever is most convenient for the opportunist looking to agitate and destabilize a society for their own benefit.

Although the most common thing people probably see in everyday life is Critical Theory, which is bullshit that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Marxism. Faggot semantic nitpicking not relevant.

>>24711764
You're gullible.

>>24711937
Karl Marx is the most notorious pretend intellectual of all time.

>>24706826
>and here we see a perfect example of this
Did you read the post? He clearly states she isn't that smart.

>>24712008
>Whatever is most convenient for the opportunist looking to agitate and destabilize
>Faggot semantic nitpicking not relevant
Very funny you don't see the relation between these two things. It's so cute watching you people ape what you think smart people sound like

>>24712064
nta but you have never once given an argument in this thread. all I hear is crying and whining and posturing

>>24712067
>debate me! DEBATE MEEEEEE
When a child says 2 and 2 make 22, you don't argue with them. You just pat them on the head and laugh

>>24712105
Your parents are still patting you on the head and laughing, aren't they?

>>24712116
Ouch...

>>24712105
Normally, you say no it makes 4.
What kind of retard parents did you have?

>>24712105
>>24712130
KEK

Aren't Marxists always fighting with the bluehaired idpol people? It doesn't seem like they're the same thing if that's true.

>>24706621
MODERN war sounds like hell. I don’t think it was this bad for the ancients, when all you had to do was worry about the guy in front of you with a spear. Then it wouldn’t feel like “I survived because I just got lucky” but “I survived because I was stronger and more skilled than the guy in front of me.”

>>24708042
Lmao

>>24702531 (OP)
none of you ever screencapped a single one of my posts?!

>>24712299
true everyone was dueling back then, very honourably

>>24712348
You do know we screencap our own posts and then pass them off as having screencapped someone else's, right anon?

>>24712357
Yes.

>>24712362
I don't. I also have never had a single screencap that I have posted in one of these threads get any (You)s but have seen others post a few of my posts over the years, they generally get a (You) or two but mostly get ignored. Admittedly, I only come into these threads to see if anyone posted something I wrote.

>>24702531 (OP)
What book is he talking about? Also kek.

>>24702566
>Evil won therefore you're not allowed to be angry!
Retard.

>>24703713
That's me except without belief in God. I hated myself and other people for the better part of my 28 years, this world brings me nothing but disappointment yet i'm too attached to it's few pleasures to just end it all. And ironically, the shittier things are the more attached to the status quo i am yet that same attachment won't let me fix my shitty life.

>>24712064
I'll explain the relationship.
From the right, none of the distinctions are relevant because they're all just a bunch of lying thieves. Marxism is crack for losers. It gives them purpose and indulges their jealous resentment of people who are better than they are. So these people are a chronic source of troublemakers, whether deranged losers rioting in the streets or sniveling academics pushing ideas like restorative justice. The thing they all have in common is that they are the enemy that needs to be defeated. It does not matter what they call themselves.
>>24712149
Marxists are always fighting with each other because it's an irrational ideology that promotes grievance mongering and scapegoating. They are full of anger and butthurt and have no faculties of reason or truth with which to find common ground. The moment they have no suitable target to unify them, they turn on each other viciously.

>>24712149
You're correct but for people who insist on a left-right distinction, conflating all leftists with the bluehaired idpol crowd and all rightists with neo-nazism is politically expedient. Everyone knows deep down it's stupid to carry on this way but we all do it.

>>24708042
haha

>>24703732
Real

>>24712149
people can virtue signal all they want that they're the GOOD kind of leftist, but i refer you to that one twitter post: you will not be ejected from leftist spaces for disagreeing with marx, but you will be ostracized for misgendering a tranny. therefore the substance of leftism is trannyism, not marxism.

>>24713316
The right virtue signal just as much as the left. Virtue signalling is sort of the defining feature of the people at the two sides, virtue signalling and being annoying retards who turn everything into a virtue signal to send out to their tribe.

>>24708209
>make a plainly factual statement
>"CRINGE!!!!!! UNBASED!!!!!!! THIS WOULD NOT GET UPVOTED ON REDDIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
blow your fucking brains out

>>24713327
like your "umm both sides are like this actually" is not virtue signaling towards the "tribe" of smug centrists? the point is that you can look past social media theater to see what people's actual beliefs are, and the substance of leftist belief is falsehood whereas the substance of right-wing belief is reality, however much any given right-winger might be a slimy grifter. women factually are less capable than men, trannies factually are deranged perverts, niggers factually are unfit to live in civilized society on a genetic level. why would a sane person pick politics that force you to ignore the evidence of your own eyes about how niggers behave? you really want your children stabbed on the train? molested by the tranny schoolteacher? get real.

>>24713354
>if you don't fit into my bipolar view of the world you are a centrist

>>24713357
you are a centrist because you go out of your way to make centrist posts, genius.

>>24702604
source me bro pls

>>24702604
what's this from?

>>24713372
Right, anything which does not fit into your bipolar view is centrist.

>>24702566
The post is conflating modern leftist rhetoric with ye olde leftist rhetoric. In other words, he's confusing those that took power with those in power, or to give a more illustrative example, he's conflating Augustus with Romulus Augustulus because the latter claims some sort of historical connection with the former.
When "/pol/" asserts that "the left can't meme", they aren't asserting that they never did so, they are asserting that they no longer can.

The old left could last in a debate, since their ideological platform required them to either be good at it, or perish. But due to the inevitable march of time, those that did not grow up feeling the desperate necessity no longer have the skillset necessary to defend what their forefathers accomplished.

The poster is correct however, that leftist dogma is practically inseparable with modern society. What he fails to recognize is the hollowing out of those very institutions that he relies on to curtail political dissidents with all the subtlety of a caveman and his club.

In short, modern western leftism is a stark reification of the old saying "Pride cometh before the fall".

>>24702635
>>24704600
>>24713439
>>24713445
Newfags not using the archives is cringe, fyi, but here. Now stop bothering me.

"On the Soul" by Ed Fredkin

>>24713451
you haven't written anything that "doesn't fit" into my view. you haven't said anything of substance at all.

>>24713535
That is literally what I have been saying. How many times do I need to repeat it?

>>24713327
>They engage in the friend/enemy distinction and I don't
>So FUCK them, I only take these other people seriously

>>24713538
I never said I did not take the seriously, I take them very seriously.

>>24713503
it's interesting that the date has been cut off from that post because it's complete nonsense after musk's acquisition of twitter. the window has shifted to an insane degree and normies are now openly displaying the "powerlevel" of a 2015 /pol/tard. you get filmed screaming "nigger" in public and you get showered in donations instead of ostracized.

>>24713541
Wonderful, so you have no issues with me stating that you're hypocritical for shitting on others for engaging in the distinction, whilst also engaging in the distinction?

>>24713552
I expect it and it is why I take you sorts so seriously, you are completely disconnected from reality.

>>24713552
"hypocrisy" is a fake problem delusional people invoke to avoid real conversation

>>24713537
many more times i'm afraid as i am very stupid. what are your enlightened views again?

>>24713556
>I expect it and it
It? It being what? The post? The image? The argument? A part there-in?

>you are completely disconnected from reality.
The gnomes behind me say otherwise.

>>24713563
Ah, but it is a problem for him, as hypocrisy is only a "fake" problem when one doesn't engage in "it", it being a friend enemy distinction.
If he truly isn't, then the accusation of hypocrisy is a potent, if not, my point is made.

>>24713566
That you use left vs right to make up for that fact that you don't matter; it means you can never be wrong because there are all those other people who agree with you. You say bah when they say everyone else is sheep.
>>24713570
Either you are not even trying or grasping at straws, tossup but I am leaning towards lazy troll.

>>24713575
I think you're confusing "not trying" with "it requires very little effort", the former of which is true.
Regardless, you still haven't answered my request for clarification in my prior post, and as such the conversation cannot progress until you do so. So, what is "It"?

>>24713583
>the former of which
My mistake, "latter". Perhaps I should put in at least some effort.

>good /lit/ posts
>none of my posts are here
No wonder this thread stinks.

>>24703725
>>24703728
>>24703731
this is the kind of shit they make prisoners in CIA blacksites read to get them to break

>>24713575
>it means you can never be wrong because there are all those other people who agree with you.
the reason i'm not wrong about niggers being subhuman or trannies being men is because those facts are true in reality. i can see them with my eyes when i observe a nigger or a tranny. the truth of the facts does not change depending on how many people are willing to acknowledge them, but i will obviously prefer to associate with people who acknowledge facts rather than those who suppress them. what's the issue?

do you yourself have any observations about reality or just opinions about opinions? are blacks genetically lower-iq than whites or not? are trannies women?

>>24713591
>the reason i'm not wrong about niggers being subhuman...is because those facts are true in reality.
Presuming you mean nigger to mean anyone of African descent, why are they subhuman?

>i can see them with my eyes when i observe a nigger
So you observe a black person and think "subhuman"?

>the truth of the facts does not change depending on how many people are willing to acknowledge them
I'll agree for the sake of argument, but it does not mean that you're necessarily correct.

>i will obviously prefer to associate with people who acknowledge facts rather than those who suppress them. what's the issue?
The issue is that you're likely not seeking people to acknowledge facts, you're seeking for them to agree with your worldview which may or may not be based on facts.
For example, while I agree that "Niggers" exist, I would not consider every single Black person to be a nigger, particularly with the connotation that they're inferior in some regard, simply due to the fact that they belong to another race.

>do you yourself have any observations about reality or just opinions about opinions?
Blacks are, on aggregate, significantly dumber, and more violent that White people. The degree to which the difference in Intelligence can be assigned to hereditary ranges from roughly 50 to 80%.
This does not mean that Blacks with an IQ higher than 120 are inferior to Whites with an IQ lower than 90, which is apparently what your arguing.

Trannies can go -ACK themselves.

>>24713591
Nta
Read the book 'Political ponerology'

>>24713585
This is the last board where effortposting receives any acknowledgement at all, but even here the brainrot is severe enough that posters still have a preference for zingers over actual discussion. The only places on the internet that still have discussions will immediately ban you for wrongthink or merely taking a tone on the wrong topic.

>>24713630
So what do we do anon? This board has potential.

>>24713633
We should cry about /pol/. This worked wonders on /v/ and /tv/.

read through the thread and jeez, there's a lot of unintelligible non-functional bloviating crap floating around.

>>24702615
>Ninposting
Kek, she really was a psycho bitch

>>24713638
We've tried. This post>>24702566
Made everyone seethe kek. This thread isnt political and yet here we are.

>>24713643
First, I was being sarcastic. Are you one of those types that needs a /s?
Second, that post's argument holds as much water as a sieve.

>>24713647
>sarcastic
Really?

>>24713653
The only reasonable option is that you just didn't pick up on it.
The other is that you somehow think crying about /pol/ does anything, and that it worked on /v/ and /tv/ which is...a take.

>>24713630
Control the conversation you can, disrupt the conversations you can't

>>24713654
>somehow think crying about /pol/ does anything
I didnt. All I said was >>24713633
I dont visit those boards so I wouldnt know the situation. So I simply didnt pick up on it.

>>24706826
The top 0.1% of women are midwits too actually

>>24713621
i'm not doing the nitpicking every line thing with you, but for the record that 120iq nigger doesn't belong in a white country just as much as the 80iq one. he is still a burden. in any case it turns out you have totally generic conservative opinions, so why have you been butthurt at me for all these posts? all this shit about "not fitting into a bipolar view" and you're just another "there are blacks and there are niggers" grandpa. what?

>>24713354
Not even trannies think about trannies as much as you people think about trannies. It's strange.

>>24713341
>it is badass! IT IS!!!
>noooooooo YOU CAN'T MAKE FUN OF ME
lol

>>24713715
this line didn't work the last 10000 times you used it and it doesn't work now. it is extremely not strange to be worried about deranged perverts trying to brainwash white children into self-castration. rope yourself today instead of spreading the sickness.

>>24713718
it doesn't matter if it's badass, it's just true. you can make fun of it, but it will still be true. see also: the tranny trying to make it look "uncool" to hate trannies. "just stop caring bro, caring is like so uncool." there is a limit to these games.

There are barely any posts in this thread. What the fuck.

>>24713718
post a picture of your disorganized, trash-laden room. bonus points if dilation station is visible.

>>24713731
I'm not even a tranny, this is exactly what I'm talking about

>>24702566
leftists having to threaten people into not debating them doesn't exactly make it look like they last in debates bro

>>24713770
>actually i'm a non-tranny mouthpiece for pro-tranny memes
kill yourself twice then

>>24713742
>>24713769
>oh yeah? oh yeah? well... well... YOU'RE A TRANNY
lmao

>>24713795
I think this obsession you have with trannies is hurting you

>>24713824
it's sad that the best you can get out of people (even your own family) is pity

>>24713835
there it is again. just let trannies castrate kids bro. just let niggers stab you on the train. you wouldn't want people to think you CARED, would you?

>>24712668
if he's selling it that means he doesn't need it anymore which means he got a gf despite his lack of endowment. very uplifting story.

>>24713959
bro... he trooned out...

>>24713960
I detect an extremely negative world view in your post
actually nevermind the captcha is HRT, you might be right

>>24702566
Look at all those replies. The seethe astonishes

>>24713945
Why do you spend so much of your time getting upset over children's genitalia in your imagination? You people think about kid penises more than pedophiles do

>>24714149
yup, another tranny classic. "i'm not weird for wanting to castrate children, you are weird for noticing." it never works, but you're still compelled to type it out.

>>24705460
The faggot who posted that hasn't read any of those authors, and neither have you. Both you and they need to cut your own bellies open.

>>24713316
>you will not be ejected from leftist spaces for disagreeing with marx, but you will be ostracized for misgendering a tranny. therefore the substance of leftism is trannyism, not marxism.
So the left is not marxist.

anyone got the one about the guy's brother who wrote a book about Dragons? You know the one. (thought I'd saved it but alas no)

>>24713463
Having lost my cat this April (due to aggressive cancer in his mouth) this really hits hard. I offered years of my life in exchange for him to get better to whomever, but noone took that offer; I guess trading life force is not possible just like that

>>24714456
it is, marxism is just dlc whereas trannyism, nigger worship etc are the base game

>>24714142
"everyone is calling me a retard that means i'm right" is exactly the same argument flat earthers use btw

>>24714430
Yeah, and then he goes onto to say even with that in mind, 1 2 and 3 still apply.

>>24708164
These people love to talk down on "might is right" but at the end of the day they buy into it. Anyone who has studied any history will tell you that terrible things can go on unabated for a long time.

>>24703732
A lot of that applies to circumcision, too.

I fucking hate you lit niggers, I thought this was a good thread