Is he right, Zig Forums?

Is he right, Zig Forums?
This post was too short, so I guess I'll explain that I am not a troll, just here to start a discussion.

Attached: 46an83qdd9b21(2).jpg (700x444, 42.14K)

Other urls found in this thread:

This is just a thinly veiled

Literally nobody is implying that, retard. The tweet is making fun of progressives/>liberals, not actual communists.
t. OP

He is. Companies don't care about progressiveness, they just fallow trends.

He's right as far as Western liberals go. But it's just advertising. A private corporation cannot "care for issues", their shareholders will only care about their bottom line, their profit.


no. people receptive to "woke" branding don't hate capitalism. if they did the branding wouldn't matter.

Agree. Most of progressiveness is aimed a 'more female cows' progressives and not anti-capitalist socialist.

That's the whole point, it's exactly what he's saying. They pretend to hate it.

not one word was wrong

Yes, he is.

There do exist so called "activist shareholders". Some banks and pension funds nowadays, large investment parties, also now advertise their own avoidance of investments in weapons industry, or their investment options in green energy, that sorta thing.
But, here is almost the exact same problem as what ethical slaveholders meant towards the abolishment of slavery. A small group of powerful but at least seemingly ethical humans end up serving as an argument for capitalism.
Many of these people end up being surrounded by greedy people that push them into soul-destroying decisions.
Some modern protests also focus on getting organizations to deinvest their money from the unethical banks and funds.
Activist shareholders need to be made to realize that there are better things to bet their money on, like a union of countermovements that work against the corporate power, with a bias toward the controversial ones (for spectacle and popular support ofc)

I can tell just by looking at the guy that he's making fun of commies too.

He's too dumb to realise that the Starbucks meme is totally invalid.

Attached: starbucks meme feudalism.jpg (1639x774, 281.42K)

Hit the nail on the head.

not him but starbucks sucks, if you use it you have no right to complain about capitalism.

Not sure if burger liberals can be said to even pretend to hate capitalism.

some do but they say "we need a mix of capitalism and socialism" because they have no idea what socialism actually is.


if you use an iphone you are by default bourgeois

nokia is the proletariat's brand

it's one thing if you use a smartphone for its utility but if you're an actual retard who buys the 1000$ phone as soon as it comes out (and own anything without a headphone jack) you should kill yourself.
no I mean it, things would be better if these people killed themselves.

That’s funny, I’ve seen a lot of black proles use them. I’m not sure why people care so much about policing the kind of use-values people consume when Marx critiqued this “critique” of working-class consumerism in vol one

A lot of workers buy things things like expensive clothes, phones, shoes etc. because those are the kind of luxuries they actually can afford. Very few luxury brands could probably stay in business without prole consumption.

I’ve literally seen guys that probably own million-dollar houses walking around in t-shirts, shorts and cheap new balances. Zizek is right that Capitalism is a religious force and that capitalists are in many respects motivated by this rather than mere self-gratification.

Warren Buffet eats off the dollar menu at McD’s every day for breakfast.

You have a fair point there, Costa actually pays taxes and there's bound to be one right next to the Starbucks within 1 street.

Excuse me but no, everyone knows that by buying Huawei you're supporting Dengist thought

Chill out, fren

Company: Haha look at how progressive we are we have a gay/interracial couple in our commercials
Progressives: Aww that's so cute and progressive! What were we mad about again?

Whereas the more reasonable response is to try flush your razor and say that gillette is trying enact 'male genocide' (yes famous right wingers said this).

The irony of people being pissed about Gillette is that non-controversy overshadowed the APA's decision to define "traditional masculinity" as toxic- I'm not even making that up.

The same organization that defined homosexuality as a mental illness for decades and transsexuality as a mental illness up until very recently will now tell you, or your shrink rather, that you need unlearn masculinity.

Yeah, I saw that, it's very wrongheaded thinking that's for sure. How about they address men's issues by not insulting men.

Or are you seriously suggesting there's no problem with the sort of masculinity that gets thrown around - largely consumption based, sex based, encouraging violence, and entirely focused on shallow attributes.

The problem is mostly with framing and definitions - I would be happy with identifying the harm of what I would call brutish, chauvinistic, reactionary behaviour, but calling it 'toxic masculinity' is needlessly antagonistic considering the times we live in.

Can agree with you on that but I'm not entirely sure what would be labelled instead that wouldn't antagonize that crowd.

It will antagonise some blatant Nazis either way but with proper terminology that wasn't needlessly offensive maybe we could finally move on as a society. But then again creating pointless bickering is the point isn't it?

Seeing as the ultimate goal by a lot of groups and people is "discussion and awareness" and nothing more, it sure is.

I meant more that idpol is pushed by TPTB to destroy genuine debate and divide the workers but that works too I guess.

Same concept different labels. ;)

Just love nu-Zig Forums these days. I read through the report it was pure ideology–it honestly felt more like a giant Tumblr post than anything resembling a balanced scientific investigation of the matter at hand. It was in the main liberal ideology with footnotes with splattering of bullshit self-help. Ascribing men's higher suicide and murder rates to mere toxic masculinity is just bullshit self-help that is not one whit more substantial than what Jordan Peterson does with his clean your room schtick.

Only the APA will now tell your shrink that the best course is to help you see yourself as both a beneficiary of patriarchy and a victim of it–not making that up at all.

As Zizek points out:

And, all this, from the organization that helped green-light torture for the US army. Yes, perhaps we could chalk it up to simple hypocrisy but what if their actually ideologically consistent? No, heterotopia of differénce that liberals admire could survive an Islamic fundamentalist state.

For our purposes, no revolution could ever occur in America or anywhere else without quite a bit of stoicism.

Bro it's called "toxic masculinity." It's not implying masculinity is toxic, it's literally trying to convey toxic aspects of masculinity you fucking brainlet.

You can go now, you've expired.

I understand that's the theory but in reality it's been used as a bludgeon (along with the rest of feminism) that we really need to just move on from accusatory, gender based words like that. I mean it's like, all women's problems are blamed on the patriarchy and toxic masculinity, and all men's problems are blamed on the patriarchy and toxic masculinity. When that's used as an example of 'oh feminism isn't anti-men' it gets pretty grating and poisons the whole debate. I mean how often do you hear the term 'toxic femininity' exactly outside of people saying it in this very argument?

We need to move on to egalitarianism desperately.

Attached: anti male shaming.jpg (1900x1440, 481.09K)

Attached: 5gNFLff.jpg (1280x720, 117.04K)

And here was me trying to have an honest discussion.

BTW, that's a code purple.


Attached: noargumentsfound.png (891x1280, 245.92K)

Honest discussion indeed.


That's an extremely generous characterization. To the extent that debate even exists its a side-show at best.


there's already a term for that
'internalize misogyny'

Capitalism is a better method of oppression to enforce the weird social shit that neoliberals want. If you're selling "male tears" coffee mugs at a 300% profit you're not a communist.

If you were able to discuss anything without going off initial reactions and basing your entire argument around that initial reaction - absolutely.
Unfortunately hun, you can't. So fuck off. Hopefully your first reaction to me was a longlasting one.


But emotions and initial reactions are good now, right? After all were all in the process of deconstructing toxic masculinity now. Subjectivity is a female trait that we all have to learn to embrace rather than denigrate, sweetie :)

But my main impression of you is that you're a typical twitter-leftist whose "arguments" mainly come down to insulting and nitpicking. So in actuality I kinda doubt my first reaction to you will be long-lasting, as you hope, because there are many people just like you.

And, no, I didn't base my entire argument off that reaction. It's pretty clear that you either do not read what you react to or just go in for the easiest strawman possible.

I apologize in advance if my impressions of you cause any negative feelings in your person. I wouldn't want to feel inadequate in any way or to feel like your abilities and personhood are challenged. I'm sure you feel like you are a very intelligent person and I'm sure that you are in your own special way but I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree 🤷🏻‍♀️

Toxic masculinity is just the same logic, though. That men aren't bad people, but rather, they are manipulated directly or psychologically by a bad society. And whether you believe in the feminist hypothesis or not, it is 100% true that people are products of their environment.

Very true. This actually was a mistake on my part what I should have said is that their manipulated by bad men/patriarchy–which would be more in-line with the feminist thesis.

While I'm sure that patriarchy may have had a negative effect on the development of women's personalities I'm not sure I find the argument that convincing. Like is a big-stabbing careerist woman the product of internalized misogyny or has she merely internalized capitalism?

Although I generally disdain using very exceptional cases as evidence, I have to wonder if something like what happened here can be described as "internalized misogyny" or merely something else. Would the friend be so conflicted about keeping the secret if the roles were reversed? Ya know, I'm really not sure, but I do know how public opinion would react

*Or both perhaps?