Hey here's a little discussion that I found on some kind of furfag's artwork.
I swear it's like these morons haven't read a single word of marx in their lives.
The artwork is posted here for reference.
Hey here's a little discussion that I found on some kind of furfag's artwork.
I swear it's like these morons haven't read a single word of marx in their lives.
The artwork is posted here for reference.
Other urls found in this thread:
Stop trying to awaken the liberals. Focus on working people, many of whom are right wing, most of whom are disengaged in politics. The idea that liberals or "red liberals" are adjacent to us ideologically is an illusion. The reason why people believe something is more important that what they believe. Most workers who aren't socialists aren't socialists because they're not familiar with socialism. If someone's engaged in politics and what they've taken away from socialism is the mere symbols, then they've already chosen what part of socialism they want to engage with.
Go back to your furry forum.
How can a revolution without intersectionality perpetuate racial divides if a revolution is only possible when all the proletarian comes together?
Furries are retarded anyway, all radlibs on those comments probably have spend 4 digits into art of their 'sonas.
The internet was a mistake
You've got an uphill battle, judging from the lack of supportive responses.
Best bet is to throw examples (IRL, not imageboard/Twatter eDrama) of leftists being slandered as nazi Russian TERF hacker bots in their faces.
Also harp on the difference between the legally explicit nature of idpol oppression in the past, versus the legally implicit nature of basically all idpol-motivated capitalist oppression today.
I'd fuck the shit out of the fuzzy cunt between her hyperthighs while popquizzing her on Kropotkin and Proudhon, berating and shaming her for being unable to get a single question right until she cums from the humiliation
It amazes me that so many people think "anti-idpol" means "neo-nazi with commie paint."
Take the LGBTQ thing. One can argue from an anti-idpol position : "equality means everyone." "It's okay to be you." "Everyone is welcome." Et cetera. Or, you can have specifically-enumerated classes of "special," such as a frightening amount of "violence is actually illegal" legislation or Gaga's enumerated list which vandalized "born this way."
That's the basic difference between idpol and anti-idpol. "Everyone." Or universalism or whatever you want to call it. Usually, if you could port your argument to a completely different topic and have it make sense, it's usually from the anti-idpol side.
"STFU and get to the back of the bus, nigger," is NOT actually anti-idpol, and seeing the "trigger word" anti-idpol and pushing your idpol kind of makes you a tard.
Me, I like the QLGBT thing for a simple reason : I really like the color spectrum as a graphic motif. I do not care what the topic is, i just likes me an anti-idpol world.
I do NOT much like me "neo-nazi, but I call myself a communist and do no work." I also don't generally like idpol haters who don't call themselves communist. See? Your labels don't matter…
You can argue that saying "ew, no homos allowed" is just as idpol as "die cis scum." Or that "back of the bus nigger" is just as idpol as "you don't get to speak, whitey" Or that "back in the kitchen bitch" is just as idpol as "haha male tears!"
Uh huh, ok. I'm bi and I hate the LGBTQ shit because it's often personally hostile toward anyone who's not L or G (and still sometimes toward the non-L Gs - I mean do you know why they put the L first? That's a whole thing.) The LGBT movement drives away a lot of the people they say they support, largely because nobody wants to be told what to do and liberal politics are shit. That's a big reason you see so many lolbert gays and reactionary trannies - they see what liberalism and the LGBT movement has to offer them (activism, but our way not your way) and are repulsed. I say all this to point out how "positive" idpol may not be "hateful" but it's pandering and insulting not to mention authoritarian. Most importantly - functionally - it serves to push people away from fighting for their own interests.
…and I do.
During Florida's vote restoration, there was signifigant opposition based on exclusion of murderers and sex offenders.
The rallying cry presented was "all of us or none of us;" I think that's a good guideline.
Please note that my rationale was "rainbows and glitter are pretty."
Personally, I'm a little more extremist. My social circle has included pedophiles, zoophiles, abdl, folks who were "cheating" on their boyfriend with the pedophile that diddled their little sister (I… guess they were nonexclusive), wincestuous lesbians, and if we include foaf, the occasional necro. They all seemed like people to me.
The thing I find most hilarious is the "coattail" argument. Nigga, homosexuals make up under 2% of the population. These self-entitled queens rode the coattails of those who believe that equality includes EVERYONE.
…but fuck, rainbows and glitter are pretty.
lol ya i noticed
That, my friend, is sabotage camping on a movement.
The one most certain way to set up a far-right movement is to ensure everything revolves around a heirarchy of "special" identity. Then, inflict enough terrorism that when people in folks' lives disappear because of identity, they don't dare speak out about it. It's very, very deliberate.
At the other end of the spectrum, that triangle literally means "sex offender pride."
Have you tried mentioning other sexual orientations?
It is never not hateful. Nor, for that matter, is it ever not a sign of hitler-tier far right activity.
Conversely, though, it's also a minority parasite that jacked a movement to kill and camp in the corpse of. Know why stonewall was all boylovers and trannies? It's because either of those groups ALONE outnumber the LGB by a decent margin. Neither one, however, controls more than about a 5-7% swing alone; the movement in general rested entirely on "equality means everyone" normies. (and equality-means-everyone queers-they-do-not-mention. which are a supermajority).
…but, two things are true : anti-idpol is the same no matter which face it is a refutation of : everyone means everyone. And the second is that I find rainbows really fucking pretty.
Just… countersignal the fuck out of them until they either go away or are marginalized. Put the universal up and the "special" down. Surely, there's enough of humanity to drown out a small percent of 1% of the population.
Same could be said about an intersectional revolution alienating WASP workers.
Hey OP here, apparently there were more replies in the comment section.
Any works I need to read in order to better understand the implicit nature of idpol motivated oppression today?
Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make, I usually saw myself as a egaltarian or a universalist. I always tried to judge people on their actions not their race, gender, what have you…..
I also found it a disgrase that we have seen people be seen as guilty without a chance to find their innocence or to hold everyone to the same standards instead of adhering to the bigotry of low expectations.
Prepare to get blamed for being colorblind. You have no winning moves. Either you kowtow to crippled furry transgender muslims, or they accuse you of class reductionism.
I, for one, welcome a flash-weekend of our new overlords.
The hiccup there is subtler than the one for identities though. Criminals weren't just born that way. They "did" something that was "harmful" to society. That shouldn't take away their personhood, but you can't use the argument that they're just born different. You have to find another angle, like "people should be able to return to society after rehabilitation" but good fucking luck with anything remotely like that in The Land of the Free where people think you teach morals by beating people into submission.
If you're not just being glib, that's pretty retarded.
Weird people are still people. Shitty people are still people. The most monstrous people in history are still people. The idea behind the LGBT movement isn't just to see everyone as people, but to normalize sexual behavior that is harmless. Attraction to kids or animals is a whole different category because of consent. Those people are still people but acting like the implied sex acts are equivalent to consenting adults is both a completely different discussion and asinine. It's the difference between a pedophile and a child molester. It's not merely a question of accepting someone who's different but establishing consensual boundaries to prevent actual harm.
"Sex offender" used to (and in a lot of places still does) include plain jane homosexuals. It literally just describes someone who's on record as doing something sexual that's illegal.
It's not that simple though. You don't need that many people to publicly shame someone, and that threat scares people into silent compliance. If you speak up and get torn down you just reinforce this idea. The dangerous thing about this is that right wingers are nearly immune to that process so look attractive to people. Somebody has to find the right combination of irreverence and genuine concern to do that kind of thing for the left. Any major figures right now either take the wokescolds too seriously to be irreverent enough or are too nihilistic to be serious enough.
I think a lot of this can be chalked up to certain generations failing utterly to socialize their children or instill any sort of ethical understanding of what society has managed to build so far. A lot of these fuckers seem like rebels from fundamentalist homes who think because that version of social morality was garbage all of it must be and they have to start from scratch. This is most obvious with the innocent until proven guilty thing, which is so painfully obvious when you actually understand the logic behind it.
because they think that white workers do not exist
nobody hates poor whites like rich whites
So the furfags thinking capitalism a shit and one of them even saying class is a primary focus for any struggle is bad?
It's not a whole different category, degenerac.y is degenerac.y, "yes" is not a magic word that inherently changes something.
More like it seems like most of them are idpol focused liberals, they usually tend to ignore class in their distinctions.
Since when have liberals called for the abolition of capitalism?
bruh it's gay to have sex with women because what you're enjoying is a man's penis being stimulated
That's the problem. Deviantart is flooded with SJW liberal retards. Most skeptics are on reddit or youtube.
Also, as others have said, it's easier to convert republicans into socialism than liberals. Liberals only care about idpol; republican voters are deluded into thinking the GOP gives a shit about them.
…but did they vote something that was harmful to "society?" If that's not the charge (which is its own form of problematic), then it's still problematic.
Not really. Identity is not, actually, consent or consensus.
Eh. Since the message is the same, whatever paintjob one prefer.
Not really; they were straw-larping (and often gave themselves a pass), and used that to pretend they were brave.
Go outside the fake "left" idpol demands and back to the shit as it was before they jacked it, and you'll see the "immune to moralization" right-wing folks become a melted puddle of morality police fairly quickly.
Could've just not sold out, but hey, the door is always open.
Remember that for all your…
…it actually works much more strongly the other way. Transgress every taboo, and both burn the reeee'ing out while showing these things to be constantly broken as a norm.
Not going to work that well if you ARE them, but for the rest of us…
Void dubs speaks truth
Hello comrades Anonymous
Pedo spooks even the most deviant egoists due to the consent issue. Most men like young supple women. Get over it (just like we have to get over queer sex, dykes, homopedos, etc.) If you're gonna include P in that might as well let in straight dudes. Or would that defeat the purpose. Intersectionalism destroys itself again. I win.
To be fair everyone hates poor whites and wonders why the rural classes are embracing hyper-reaction
Yeah, but it's just that; an identity is not the presence or absence of personal opinion.
I'll admit that this topic is not the place where the blinkering obvious reality and ethical importance of childrens' consent and consensus seems most important…
…whereas the topic as a whole takes on greater importance because, you know, MOTHERFUCKING CONCENTRATION CAMPS. (how do you know "the left" is a bunch of sellout bitches? motherfucking idpol concentration camps).
…but the spook is a hella transparent one; anyone trying to maintain "they don't have opinions" and "they get really pissed off when I punk them" is a FUCKING TARD.
I mean, that's sort of implied in the "equality means everyone" bits, and tends to be what happens with an anti-idpol position.
It's too bad, because idpol-based "beat a breeder" is fucking fun when it needs to be whipped out. But it's not a good long-term basis for society. In fact, that would become equally fucked up as soon as the novelty wore off.
good fucking luck
in my experience wrangling tards of this nature, they are some of the most stubborn and shallow minded individuals to ever exist.
Honestly, I'd recommend starting with the basics of leftist thought instead of assuming that they have prior experience with it. Usually they pick up all their opinions through osmosis and never actually actively seek out knowledge on the subjects at hand. I'd recommend showing them some basic statistics supporting basic assertions of leftism (worker exploitation, faults of capitalism etc)
Just telling them to google bookchin unfortunately wont work. They either won't understand the subject or they won't bother.
So yeah start real basic. Give em some of Marx's general assertions and work off of that.
This meme is only valid if you acknowledge that adulthood begins several years before 18.
Liking young supple women is not pedophilia. The meaning of the word pedophilia has been changed by feminists to include their primary sexual competition, teenage girls, in order to keep them out of the dating market. Men wouldn't give spinsters the time of day if they were allowed to fuck a teen.
Or they will actually google Bookchin and immediately recognise that he was completely full of shit.
of course it begins several years before adulthood. I don't disagree with your post.
yeah but if you want to beat up queers then everyone loses their minds.
women should be housewives
men should work
families should produce children
families should have homes, healthcare, and food
queers and furries are weird and nothing is gained by promoting their existence. Literally zero.
And you have to acknowledge that "consent" is when a person agrees to do a thing without the threat of negative repercussions.
This'll piss off stirnerites, but life is worth living when you have family. Depression is simply a chemical imbalance in your brain, too much cortisol and not enough oxytocin. Humans get the highest amounts of oxytocin from one consistent sex partner and child rearing. Call it a spook, but it's what drives humanity. No amount of drugs, food, or porn can replace the human love hormone.
As for queers and furries, what are these people besides self-centered deviants? They're misfits who make everything about themselves. Quote from the OP image:
And you have to acknowledge that all the "negative repercussions" from 18+ fucking a teen are either completely made up or problems that any relationship could have blown way out of proportion and arbitrarily claimed to be worse for this particular pairing for no other reason than because jealous feminist cunts said so.
Life is worth living when you are having a good time. I don't know about you, but I tend to have a better time when my family is not around.
Kek. Behold the wonders of capitalism:
And if you aren't down with Nazi idpol you're an SJW. Those two groups are the unwitting poster children for dialectics.
Your tradcon bullshit is idpol too
Despite being a persun-of-straw, your persun-of-straw is closer to true than the shit you typed.
"Porn" is the quickest way to shatter a series of very harmful taboos. There's an irony here; normal people consider the-exact-media-change-which-is-needed to be flat-out antipornographic (porn is fine, but different and not useful for normalization/restoring health from abuse from moralfags like you), while y'all will call literally everything porn.
Meanwhile, it's firmly established that hard drug abuse is a wholly-temporary effect from severe abuse and an alienating world (which you folks routinely put work into proppiing up), Oxytocin comes from meaningful social contact, not family specifically, while an abusive family structure is just going to increase trauma, and some guy named Harry Harlow did a little research on what your puritan, ultra-orthodox regimes do to people, and the answer is "completely fucking broken and unable to function."
So, I'll take the hard drugs and porn over your proposal. They don't actively fix the problem (unlike hippie drugs and "porn," i.e., taboo deprogression), but they also don't cause additional damage, which makes them the better choice.
Meanwhile, Winnicott had some interesting studies on true self, false self, and ultratrad neofascist bullshit. Again, you're just destroying people and promoting hard drug abuse.
Weak damage control.
I'm not the one defending a 4-armed, magic casting fursona cat with a hitler youth haircut. Once again, this image comes in handy. Drug abusers will not be tolerated in any productive society.
I should also add that the USSR gulag'd fags and that China literally executes drug dealers, just for some real world examples. Actual socialist and communist states will never tolerate deviancy. Your best bet is literally keeping liberalism to preserve your vice, no joke.
Drug dealers are worse
I'll bet you'd take a beating like a champ too, ya smarmy fucker
…but will tolerate suicide nets for the workers so their porky bosses can extract more.
/fascists/ is over there.
This autism purity spiraling has got to stop. Every somewhat successful leftist state is deemed fascist because "stuff costs money and there's like, rules, man"
China's suicide rate is below many other firstworld countries, and has massively dropped: shanghaiist.com
To which the government forces them to pay taxes on, which are used for social programs for the working class. China will give its 50/60 year old population free education, so they aren't forced out of the labor market. In the US, the government raises college tuition by flooding the market with student loans, and then the students are permanent debt slaves. The capitalist country turns its citizens into debt slaves, China gives its citizens free college.
Autism semantic word games. A country has to be a player in world politics if it doesn't want to get conquered by some foreign power. That means working with an international economy and maintaining army/industry to protect the nation. The Paris Commune only lasted 2 months until the Bloody Week because "hurrr who needs government structure with an organized military durrr". If fascism means taking practical measures to not be conquered by outside forces, then sieg heil my dude.
…and the major Autonomous Zones usually aren't.
Morality is a spook
Anarchism is a failed ideology, meant for facebook pages and deviantart comment sections. If you don't have an organized military to protect your commune, outside forces take over. Catalonia will never have its independence from Spain, because Spain has an army. Catalonia does not. The Paris commune fell in 2 months because their lack of organization caused a hole in their defense. The Rojava revolution has not been squashed specifically because the US military industrial complex has been against Assad's regime.
The only anarchist communes that exist today are either 3rd world shitholes that no one is interested in, or homeless squatters in abandoned buildings. Both lack 1st world infrastructure. Trotskyite global, unending revolution sounds like a nice option, but the real world is all too cruel. Thus, the other option for a country to protect its people is a militarized structure, AKA the USSR, China, and DPRK. Venezuela, Chile, and Brazil are more evidence that a lack of a military means suffering under neoliberalism.
To bring it back to the original point, only capitalist countries with tolerate liberalism and its malignancy. The United States will tolerate "Malificus the 4-armed magic casting anarchist" fursona because that person is just another consumer. They can't start a political revolution, they can't damage the system. They'll make their weird deviantart account, pay rent, and buy food from a grocery store after their 9-5.
…and the only left ideology which still holds turf, unless you count chinese billionaire capitalism to be a "worker-managed horizontal society,"
tl;dr : "I like stalin so I can punk black people"
Now watch some other guy do the same research on how the American population's psychological health has been affected by its shitty repressive feminist age of consent laws and come to the exact same conclusion and then immediately get censured by the government at the request of shrieking feminists just like they did when Bruce Rind debunked their bullshit claims about who can't consent.
I just want to address this again because this is the most cancerous liberal shit that needs to get booted out of the left and everywhere else. Who the fuck put you in charge of determining when someone is facing catastrophic negative repercussions? And how do you deal with the fact that literally any action anyone takes incurs risk? Are you going to spend the next 150 posts advocating for liberal gun laws that disarm the working class because someone may accidentally get hurt if civilian gun ownership is allowed? Are you going to make everything illegal? Are you just going to kill everyone so no one can ever be harmed again? Because your liberal stupidity is doing a good job killing the brain cells of anyone who reads it.
…most of the research points towards the first five years of life, which is usually a seperate legal domain from age of consent proper… but it's definitely there, and would amount to a literal truckload or two if you printed it.
It's possible, and this bullshit has mostly been terrorism-driven.
There's been a pretty solid change in psychology as a whole, however. It's apparently driven more by a scientific anti-bullshit sentiment than any sort of awareness of previous psychology, human rights implications, or anything else, but since the entire regime was bullshit, it's not like that matters. So, it's… not as likely now, though terrorism is still possible.
At some point you'll have to actually address what other people say instead of regurgitating SJW mantra. You argue from a liberal position, which is why it irks you to hear uncomfortable truths. Anarchism still holds ground? Lol what ground, abandoned buildings in San Francisco? I'll take China tyvm, you can keep vice and emoji activism.
The irony is thick.
There's your SJW mantra. And unlike you, I have no idea wtf vice publlishes.
Was this for real? It did cause me to facepalm hard, is it what they mean by smash capitalism? Kill the bouregoise with facepalms?
Are you by chance refering to Slab City style communes?
Is this the absolute state of anarchism in modern world?
I don't have an issue with voluntary communes and people working together. What is an issue is pretending that these communes and worker states don't need protection. How do you have protection? An organized military. That means authority and hierarchy, even if it's just for physical security.
Wake me up as soon as the roasties controlling psychology are driven out and we finally get to have an actual scientific discussion about consent instead of "this person cannot give consent because if she could, men would date only girls of her age and leave me out to dry and that hurts my feelings, and if you disagree you must be censored".
Speak truth to power, comrade