Incorrect vs. Crude

According to a neo-Marxist worldview, society is stratified into subgroups with varying degrees of social and political power, and the relationships among these groups can be broadly characterized as a dynamic of "oppressors" and "oppressed". Thus, to participate in social structures associated with this stratification, in the progressive gloss, is to perpetuate power imbalances, and thus - to varying degrees - to engage in a form of oppression. This is the basis for the leftist rejection of vocabulary deemed "politically incorrect": using language that actively or passively perpetuates these social structures constitutes a microcosmic instantiation of oppression.

Of course, those who reject the neo-Marxist framework have good reason to reject the notion that "politically incorrect" language is inherently oppressive. Many, reacting to the perceived overreach of leftists, scale up the use of such language in order to make ideological statements. However, in the process the boundary between what is merely "incorrect" and what is crude has been all but erased. While conservatives are justified in denying that "politically incorrect" language is oppressive, the reactionary amplification of the crude can be criticized on several levels.

1) Crude language is not conducive to the pursuit of beauty. In fact, it is inherently contrary to the traditional esteem for "the good, the true, and the beautiful". Speakers like Milo Yiannopoulos argue under the pretense of cherishing virtue, while simultaneously glorifying ugliness in their rhetoric. Pop "anti-SJW" polemics, which rely heavily on slurs, curses, and sexualized language, are a far cry from the eloquence and restraint of past generations of Western thinkers.

2) Crude language is not conducive to sound logic. Instead, it functions as a crutch by those who are either unable or unwilling to take the time to formulate their opinions in a coherent, rational presentation. Sometimes, this unwillingness comes from the perception that the other side is equally unwilling to engage in a rational discussion. However, logic is important not only for discussions with other parties but for the formulation of ideas within a community as well. When an entire community prefers to settle for crude epithets rather than reasonable discourse, this is inherently harmful to the group's intellectual stability.

3) Crude language is not conducive to effective rhetoric. In deliberation - whether it is a formal setting involving two opponents, or just an individual evaluating multiple perspectives - the ability to approach the arguments of the other side fairly and earnestly is absolutely essential. However, the use of crude language creates emotional distance between the speaker and his opponent, making it much more difficult to engage with opposing worldviews without bias.

4) Crude language contributes to the degrading of societal values and standards. Daily, our culture becomes more vulgar, more divided, more sexualized, and less focused on the pursuit of virtue. For one who values virtue to engage in unfiltered crude language is either a paradox, or a sign that the speaker does not truly value virtue.

Of course, there is a place for vulgarity. Yet as the vulgar becomes increasingly intertwined with our politics, our rhetoric, and our lifestyles, it is important to step back and evaluate how the language we use is shaping our humanity.

Attached: cursing_at_work.jpg (600x380, 23.68K)

Very true. It's very childish and pathetic, in my view. Sargon of Akkad comes to mind. In this situations I often think of what Hitler would do. He is my paragon of virtue

Read mein kampf.
Other wise bumping good thread.

Gather people and get them to talk eloquently if the leftists are already shit talking they automatically lose that argument.

This is politically incorrect.

It's anonymous so you won't have to deal with the social stigmatism of being honest here.

If this isn't something you can deal with, then you need to leave. You're not one of us if you can't handle having the truth posted here.

This is a place for the truth.


I believe this. At first I thought this was a leftpol thread, but it is useful. I hate the words 'demonrats' or 'democRATs.' It daft boomer weakness, because we all know boomers bought their ideology like their brand. Just explain your point of view without a crutch.

This post is not talking about the social stigma of being honest. It's an opinion piece about the value of crude language. This board is an open forum for those who wish to be vulgar; it's also a board for those who wish to express dissenting opinions.


This is a good comparison for imageboards vs real life. Here is politically incorrect, but run around on the streets screaming "ITS THE FUCKING JEWS YOU FAGS" and see who is open to your ideas. Compare that to well placed comments on the double standards of jewish supremacists. Real life is different. But yeah, keep Zig Forums incorrect.

On the contrary, truth is beautiful and as bright as the sun, shining over all the good things of the creation.
The MSM tell us that truth is politically incorrect and that we are all equal, saying otherwise is being rude.
You already have seen the power of discussion without using crude language.
Memes naturally are aided by 4-letter words for the shock value, but making them family friendly is a plus because then they can be shared by everyone and the ideas will reach farther.

Attached: 2e7d280b5bb4a6f6b52bfcd4272fdefdeee994a1d59326e687c00bbccb37b6c2.jpg (1280x1560, 598.53K)

It's funny because the left spent years screeching in the streets and, over time, used this brute force method so consistently for so long that eventually normal people adopted their worldview into their own implicit biases due to the sheer repetition of it (i.e. diversity is our strength, there is nothing wrong with two people being in love, etc.) Being crude and politically incorrect out in public works, even if you are seen as a sperg, once people have heard it from you it desensitizes them to the next time they hear it and so on, until it becomes very normal. This is how the overton window shifts.

The whole reason cuckservatives exist is to allow the left to walk all over them in the public sphere, by saying the most outrageous things on TV and in newspapers, practically gushing over white genocide and child mutilation, all while cuckservatives calm their supporters down behind the scenes, quietly assuring them that they are fighting against this oppression while letting the left wing narrative dominate the airwaves publicly.

Brute force works. Bullying works. Being crude in public works. Also subtle behind the scenes activities work. We should be using all the tools we have to our advantage, both public and private infiltration, agitation, etc. A combination of both tactics work.

But utilitarian pragmatism does not reconcile well with traditional conservatism. It doesn't matter that these tactics "work": they are inherently contradictory to beauty, logic, and virtue. What is being conveyed is not a proper, respectable worldview, but a banal corruption. The ends do not justify the means, in other words.


It's not about "looking classy", it's about actually upholding the virtues we cherish. Using tactics that contradict our virtues in order to spread our ideologies isn't just inconsistent, it's wrong.

You don't fight fire with fire. You don't fight Satan with Satan.

This place is only becoming increasingly intertwined because Babylon is becoming increasingly obvious, so the truths here are now more widely accepted.

Nonetheless, this place is not for you my dear, it is not for organizing a forum to convince others through eloquence and sophistication that our side is the right side, we do not want them to come here, they come of their own morbid curiosity tired of watching the mindless decay of the world around them, but we do not invite normies here nor proffer it as a place our mothers should frequent, else they go mad with the psyops and shilling and psychological warfare incumbent to this shithouse wall in the back underground belly of this whorish empire, the Israeli States of America, the new Babylon, we come here only to leave our regal scrawl, to show the world we left with sweet fuck-all.

"To speak the truth, even with some austerity, to live with some rigor of temperance, or some extremes of generosity, seems to be an asceticism which common good-nature would appoint to those who are at ease and in plenty, in sign that they feel a brotherhood with the great multitude of suffering men. And not only need we breathe and exercise the soul by assuming the penalties of abstinence, of debt, of solitude, of unpopularity, but it behooves the wise man to look with a bold eye into those rarer dangers which sometimes invade men, and to familiarize himself with disgusting forms of disease, with sounds of execration, and the vision of violent death." Emerson

Attached: PlatoTragedy.jpeg (554x356, 25.86K)

If the good ideas are cloaked in this filth, it's no wonder why no one takes you seriously, or push people further away.
Also implying you're doing anything but shitpost aoubt how we need to shitpost freely. Words mean nothing without action, and there is no action behind your impotent posts.

So, in other words, this forum isn't a place for rational discussion, it's a place for those who are disillusioned with society to express their thoughts and feelings unfiltered?

I completely understand that. In fact, I'm arguing precisely that to abandon virtue (beauty, logic, etc.) because of disillusionment is a dangerous move, and one inconsistent with traditional Western values.

That's a false dichotomy.

And, we do not abandon virtue, we are abandoned virtue, whom know to be great is to be misunderstood, and no longer allow any to take for granted our inserting some explaining sentence but leave the world of markets and towns in astonishment as they labor below our thoughts yet true and piercing.

Attached: Rope.jpg (900x762 499.28 KB, 616.78K)

My whole point is that crude language is contrary to beauty, logic, rhetoric, and societal standards, so relying on crude language in a sense does constitute abandoning virtue.

If you are "abandoned virtue", then don't cheapen yourself by lowering your standards.

First of all, "whom" should only be used as an object; using it incorrectly just comes across as a poor attempt to look intelligent. Apologies, that's a pet peeve of mine.

Second, being misunderstood is not equivalent with greatness. Plenty of not-great people are misunderstood everyday. If you mean that one should hold to his convictions regardless of societal pressure, then sure, that's fine. But don't mistake public disapproval for a sign of greatness; that's not a sound connection to make.

I'm struggling to understand this since your grammar is a bit confusing, but are you saying that you no longer try to insert "explaining sentences" but prefer to present your thoughts in a way that is "true and piercing"? I agree that true and piercing rhetoric is important, but that neither excludes proper logic nor includes logically vapid vulgarities.

And as for this:
my summary was literally an attempt to represent your previous comment. You said:
That essentially means "this place is not for rational discussion, it is for the free expression of disillusionment".

Get thee gone thou of Semitic filiation.

I absolutely agree. Especially shills use crude language because they don't feel themselves part of our fellowship, and thus don't care to contribute to the beauty of our shared virtual habitat.

It really isn't difficult to talk in a way that can be considered 'higher class' when you're among abject retards that can hardly form coherent sentences. Poor rhetoric is a sign of laziness anons, remember that.

You do your pathetic pr shit, those of us whom play to win will do what must be done to succeed. Cucking out is out of the question. And letting weakness lead is cucking.

This does make me think and change my mind. is conflicting as well. Maybe we need a Mr. Roger that calmly and politely talks about jewish disgust of nonjews and how they use media in an effort to destroy western civilization. I don't know how you combine real life politically correct with beauty, respect, and virtue.

*politcally incorrect

1) Those of us *who* (not whom) play to win. Again, pet peeve.
2) It's not a matter of PR, it's a matter of values – and consistently living out those values.
3) You call it "weakness"; I call it "high standards". Your call to abandon standards for the sake of fulfilling an objective reflects the fact that you'd abandon the very intellectual tradition you supposedly want to defend. The irony is unsettling.

Who is Satan?

Attached: 0bbf136abcc167ce44581a85b10b229dc0297786256754a840bbf87c7ba9b277.jpg (255x204, 14.96K)


Attached: 143c8860f87d7a85e9f142838dde1a8033c13ffbb8a78d626aebb2b059ef84b4.jpg (211x239, 9.92K)

The Satan reference was a metaphor, dude. Furthermore, not only did you completely miss the point but you have added credence to the argument in my post by providing an example of rhetoric that is illogical, irrelevant, and ugly.

White Nationalism, the Jews' favorite weapon.

Go away spamming kike.

"The antithesis between lack of property and property, so long as it is not comprehended as the antithesis of labour and capital, still remains an indifferent antithesis, not grasped in its active connection"
My problem with this popular characterization of Marx is that it makes it seem like Marx is a liberal egalitarian rather than someone who wants to abolish class distinctions. It's not technically wrong but it's not even unique to Marx.
Marx called people he didn't like "dirty Jews of negro blood" in his correspondence. Marxist are SJWs now to be sure but still.
As for the rest of this okay. Like sure ad hominems and swearing like an edgy child are bad. Vulgarity has its place tho. Nobody wants some robotic politician prattling on about virtue. Like republicans who's only opposition to Trump is that he's crude. Language policing in this context is just factious

Yes, that's why I termed it "neo-Marxism" rather than classic Marxism. Marx's thought was different than pop liberalism in notable ways, including what you mentioned.

One globohomo shit race!Kill whitey!

Is Satan a bastardised analogue for Prometheus?

So your not a christer?

in vulgarity is layman's truth, it is just his language and his nature to discard the little problems for the bigger problems
obviously this language isn't to be used in discourse with women (as their nature prizes little problems over bigger problems) and scientists (with surgically precise language).

the problem is both the fact the layman has been robbed his language and cannot impart his truth and the scientific language of layman's truth isn't thoroughly worked out.
faggot, for example.
the word recent, its use timeless, its variations plentiful, its meaning universal, as all men look upon the worst of men and think "this is not how a man should be"
it is the same thought, and disgust, that runs through women's minds as they look upon manbabies.
but what's the scientific description of faggotry, or manbaby? it's perfectly possible, but it's not as simple or potent because most people aren't speaking or listening in the scientific language.

Fuck You

Take your "we" and fuck off.
And before you return with your next turd bolus, learn the meaning of reactionary.
It doesn't mean what you leftists think it means.

I man you can be a "traditional conservative" until you die, but, I don't know if you realize it but you are in a war for the survival of your race whether you like it or not, and in warfare you have no choice but to win or to die. So you make your choice, I'm going to choose what works, and I'll worry about the consequences later. I would love to have a perfect world where I can win the war with my hands tied behind my back, unfortunately the reality on the ground calls more for pragmatic action than perfect conservative integrity. Further, while we admire our ancestors for maintaining societies of the highest moral character, there is a precedent for the rowdy crude Englishman or Colonial American at the local pub, being at the forefront of revolutionary politics. Even the ancient Greeks had their moments of debauchery in warfare. War calls upon our most carnal instincts. Getting one's hands dirty is a necessity for survival.

Good thread. Crude language is rampant on the "right-wing" boards.

You can't even hold a conversation without derailing.

Bump because I agree.