Hot garbage coming right up. get ready to get mad

reason.com/2016/05/20/capitalism-not-socialism-led-to-gay-righ/

hot garbage coming right up. get ready to get mad.
"MUH GAY CEOS"

Attached: Capture.JPG (2373x1582, 212.93K)

Other urls found in this thread:

nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/survey-20-percent-millennials-identify-lgbtq-n740791
youtube.com/watch?v=7-2jLLMdEBw
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Cuba got rid of sodomy laws before the U.S.
Just saying.

Waow, that thing that affects… less than 1% of the population.

That's an ancap magazine. Not really surprising they would publish such garbage.

Attached: koch brothers.png (750x375, 455.63K)

In a way they are right. Gay Marriage and the nonsense that passes for sexual liberation are products of American neoliberalism. Homosexuality once represented an alternative sexual and social lifestyle to the repressive social roles supported under capitalism. Now it's just a bizarre mimicry of it that is just as pathetic.

nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/survey-20-percent-millennials-identify-lgbtq-n740791

Colour me surprised.

I'd like to point out to David Boaz that the early gay rights activists in the U.S. were often communists who defined LGBT people as a distinct national minority using Stalin's analysis, despite Stalin's own homophobia. One of the fun ironies of that era.

I think the ruling class in the core capitalist countries basically granted what were essentially political demands (legitimate ones, IMO) made by the LGBT population, and did this because there was no longer any reason to continue dividing the working class which had been defeated by the neoliberal shift. Social liberalism in any case serves productive purposes in the world's most developed cities, and this cosmopolitanism is exactly what Marx predicted would happen as capitalism expanded. There's no reason for anyone to act surprised by this.

However, the Nazbol tendency to locate the defeat of socialism in the granting of these political demands has the order reversed. It was the defeat of socialism that allowed the capitalist ruling class to neutralize its own superstructural political struggles (and then expects to be patted on the head for doing that). To be sure, this does get "buy in" among members of these groups – the hegemony of capitalism and empire incorporates progressive social struggles into itself (provided these struggles abandon any anti-imperialist dimension) and reactionary attacks targeting these groups do pose a risk of furthering binding them to the status quo. But in dialectical fashion, the same process breaks up the LGBT community along class lines. I'm a gay man, for instance, and it's now less apparent to me that I should automatically side with Pete Buttigieg or whoever on account of us both being gay – our class differences are pretty obvious. But I wouldn't have thought this when I was a kid growing up in the South where there was a lot of homophobia and so on.

Attached: 781ff897235af53fdba7502b13e18365fd0bb33f1402843098e2949e64aec716.jpeg (877x1200, 105.05K)

die of AIDs already

and take the trannies with you

I hear you. I'm still working on my theory here, but I think that slots into the idea of incorporating progressive social struggles into the hegemony in exchange for the abandonment of any anti-imperialist dimensions to those efforts.

Attached: 664.jpg (558x614, 13.61K)

What do you think, look at the pic attached. It’s a fucking Nazbol meme. No shit it’s a joke.

>>>/twitter/

uh oh they're weaponizing i d pol again

what the actual fuck. i didn't sign up for this.

Why do I have to be lumped in with them?

Attached: emoji.png (752x727, 103.94K)

Most of those people are just idiots jumping on the special snowflake gender fad, they aren't truly, biologically gay.

Source: your ass.

Somebody should post this on Zig Forums or right wing reddit

Just find some communist boipussy in Europe bro

I wish mods would leave stuff like this up. I wanna see how dumb it was.

It's more that homosexuality points to the possibility of arranging society in a way not structured by the struggle for domination / power between men. Like, homophobia intensified in the Victorian age and became more heavily regulated / censured because of the need to conscript large numbers of men into the army for the purposes of warmaking. But the paradox here is that these homosocial environments (the army) creates heightened opportunities for comradery and bonding between men – and many opportunities for situational homosexual relationships to develop:

youtube.com/watch?v=7-2jLLMdEBw

Homophobia regulates an authoritarian, homosocial environment dedicated to warmaking. This isn't to say that straight men should become gay or whatever, but that homosexual relationships shows how it's possible for men to have relationships that are not based on dominating other men and so on, or dominating / subordinating women, etc. This is incidentally why I think gay clubs tend to be more "relaxed" in a way. People have more fun, there's less aggro, and you can notice an actual shift in behavior among straight guys in these clubs: they are freer than they would be at "The Dirty Rooster" or whatever club they're usually hanging out in and circling the dance floor like vultures and seeing other men as a threat.

Anyways, fascism is this imperialist phenomenon on turbo-overdrive. Fascism even went further by breaking down even (conservative) bourgeois family relationships by celebrating pre-marital sex and encouraging illegitimate children (between racially "pure" partners). But any perceived "feminine" values or struggles for women's emancipation were suppressed. Fascist Italy and Germany deliberately tried to reduce the proportion of women in their workforces and turn them back into homemakers with subsidies from state-run breeding programs. Homophobia was extreme and murderous, and remains so today in white nationalist groups that are often male-only.

Pretty weird. But I think you're seeing this incorporation of homosexuality into the empire. Like Pete Buttigieg is this neocon warhawk basically who lives a conventional bourgeois lifestyle. And notice how the right plays it these days. A few years ago they would've said homosexuality poses a threat to Western civilization, that allowing gays into the army would weak our military forces, etc. But now they're saying that homosexuality is part *of* Western civilization to justify more war against "backwards" Islamic societies.

Why do you care if you're "lumped into them"? Who is doing the lumping? Right-wing talk radio? Give up on this shit

Attached: python_army.jpg (800x420, 45.1K)

Technically the Greeks invented boipussi. This means its a part of muh western civilization.

Attached: 55ead9b98547b8c8b71628fb95c0d81a.jpg (500x667, 45.13K)

The Romans did not consider eunuchs to be men or women.
Greeks had a third gender which was basically "twinks and dykes".
Native Americans have "two-spirit". Albania has "Sworn Virgins". Polynesians have "mahu". The Dineh of southwest America have four genders; fem man, masc man, fem woman, masc woman. Polynesia has fa'afafine, India has Hijras, Ethiopia has Ashtime, Kenya has Mashoga, Congo has Mangaiko, Polynesia has Palao'ana, Indonesia has Waria, Phillipines has Tagalog, 18th century England had "mollies", Mexico has "Muxe", Latin America has travestis, Oman has Xanith, Sumeria had "Kur-gar-ra", Egypt had "Sekhet", Inuit shamans have a creation story that tells us about "ijjuaq" who was a third gender.
TL;DR traps are traditionalist.

Bad take. Nothing about homosexual relationships negate or refute the idea of domination between a man and another man, just as straight relationships do not negate or refute the idea of domination between a man and a woman. If anything, we can see homosexual undertones and even blatent homosexuality itself in some of the most "domination" focused ideologies. Even fascism retains in some aspects a latent homosexuality. To conflate sexual relationships with the idea of domination, the lack of domination, or really any similar cultural or societal aspect is a dangerous one, no matter how positive you may think your intention or perceptive your analysis. By doing so we commit a fallacy by assuming an inherent essentialist quality or essence to said relationships where none exists.

There is a homoerotic component to fascism which emerges from its homosociality, but it is not a homosexual ideology conditioned by self-hatred. The fact that fascists often dress like gay men (undercuts, tight-fitting polos shirts, etc.) is more of a distraction here; more of a coincidence arising from both homosexual and fascist cultures expressing themselves in stereotypically masculine ways – although to very different purposes. There are some weirdos who think Rommel's troops licked each other's buttholes at Tobruk but you can dismiss them. Incidentally, the fascist regimes found it more difficult to criminalize sexual "deviance" between women, deemed less of a threat to the state and its ideological drive toward warmaking.

are traps gay though?

Of course not. Feminine men are a separate gender from masculine men.

Yes, and this is exactly why capitalism should be wiped off the face of the Earth along with sodomites

I’m shit at learning languages. I failed Spanish class three years straight.

have a screenshoot

Not really, most of the time men compete with each other it’s over career opportunities, not girls.

The US army doesn’t do what it used to do. Instead of men fighting other men in battle it’s mostly guys with video game sets drone bombing people.

Most of the people castrated had it done against their will because they were slaves.

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-06-03 at 7.21.55 AM.png (808x494, 263.41K)

Yes. Once they were castrated, despite wanting to continue to be men, they simply were not men. Roman courts decided that eunuchs do not qualify as men accordingly. Your point?

My point is that this was a form of oppression not something good or that should be celebrated. It should be viewed as a crime against humanity.

I personally agree. I don't believe in genital mutilation in any form. Yet i still wouldn't consider a male who lost his balls to be a man, nor would i consider a young twink who wears dresses, takes hormones, and sucks dick to be a man either. The difference between the two is that one hasn't been mutilated.

Thats because how language is taught in school is fucking retarded.

Some dyslectics cunt guide to learning a language:
0. Ditch the textbook, it teaches you useless arbitrary vocabulary and due to that spends way too long on each chapter, you wanna get a general grasp of the shape/system/flow/whatever of the language by means of grammar as quickly as possible. Vocabulary comes naturally and when you are learning a germanic or latin language you already have a shitton of cognates.
1. Find a video explaining some very basic GRAMMAR and pronunciation
2. Now that you understand basic grammar, pick up a simple text in the language you wanna learn, start translating the sentences and looking up and figuring out (including the grammar) every sentence. Say the sentence out loud when you translate it.
3. Add the words and expressions you learned to ANKI
3.b When you get to a slightly more than not at all being able to understand pace, get movies with matching subtitles in the language you are trying to learn. Translate them too, pause the movie as needed. This solidifies the connection between the spoken and written language in your brain.
4. Repeat step 2 and 3 until you can read at some form of reasonable pace. Then start practicing your spanish -> english cards in reverse order and start posting on spanish language forums or in spanish language communities. Translating from spanish to the language you know is very different from forming sentences in spanish, but it helps when you can at least understand what others say.

note, learning a language takes long, dont overwork yourself, your brain is made of cells, which get tired and damages when you use em, connections are made during rest too, its neccecary, you cant just force it. Its more similar to muscle fiber than you think, although it doesnt work in the same manner at all, it does get tired and gets reorganised during rest. Take it easy and space it out.

based

Attached: Gachimuchi_Bombomb_Battlefield.webm (450x270, 3.72M)

interesting

im not gay i just thought the article was funny

also kill yourself reactionary illiterate faggot

Attached: 70c3283e-959e-45c7-9028-83b126d5ea01.jpg (576x430, 64.76K)

Fucking based, maybe the fags and the trannies will finally fuck off

Attached: 1558132276657.png (645x773, 11.04K)

Attached: 77960daaa26aa5632f7c6dd4206520d924ce76e811e0cd2752a5ca4dcf7424eb.jpg (954x726, 191.98K)

How are they wrong?
Why are so many of you upset about this

Socialism doesn't give a fuck if someone is gay. What is even the point of "gay rights" under socialism?

it makes perfect sense for this to happen in Capitalist bourgeois democracy. Capitalists get to expand their markets turning homosexuals into the rampant consumers they are today.

Attached: 1416553586762.jpg (400x609, 77.86K)

Bruh are you gonna let me and my boyfriend get married, see each other in the hospital, and adopt a kid or not?

Yeah, do whatever with your man for all I care. Are you going to help your fellow worker seize the means of production, though?

with the abolition of capitalism the need for marriage is gone.

why would anyone have an unwanted kid under socialism?

The answer is no

how?

Reproduction is literally the meaning of life. Read Darwin.

why would marriage continue without property relations

I didn't say reproduction would stop.

This is real, capitalism is vicious bourgeoisie.

Attached: 196bh1ju6g8wijpg.jpg (640x419, 106.93K)

No the nuclear family is a toxic capitalist creation. Straights aren't going to be allowed to get married or raise children in a genuine communist society let alone gays.

the nuclear family has existed as long as civilization has, capitalism just changed living arrangements

What the fuck? Capitalism destroyed the nuclear family. Read Marx.

No it hasn't. That is just nonsense. You're probably one of those idiots that think that nuclear family was the smallest unit of the true family. In a true family, the parents had virtual no control over their children's lives or their own. All the money and resources and decisions were made by the head of the family unit. Nuclear families have existed for brief periods before capitalism but have never nor will ever be the most common or natural unit of human social organization.

No it destroyed the extended family. The real family unit. The nuclear family is pathetic shadow of it supported by capitalism.

the nuclear family has existed as long as civilization has, capitalism just changed living arrangements

the extended family still exists

You can't just copy-paste your original assertion when it's challenged. You actually can, but that makes you a faggot.

Attached: what am i reading.jpg (300x300, 103.55K)

No it hasn't for the reasons I outlined. The nuclear family is not a unit of the extended family because the parents have no power over their children or themselves. The power remains in the hands of the heads of the extended household not them.
In what way did you grandpa pick out a wife for you and tell you what job you were suppose to have? Does he have control over your bank account? Its not just "living arrangements" the fundamental relationship you have without kin has changed. This obsession people have with playing house with a romantic partner in modern society is sociopathic and disgusting.

fucking exposed for larping polyp

the nuclear family as it is imagined today existed literally from the end of the second world war until its degeneration some 10-20 years later into a world of single mums and co-parenting set ups etc.

For the entirety of the rest of history parenting has been done by the extended family, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and then from a community of interconnected extended families.

y'know like a tribe.

it is only recently, when these tribes, which had settled into towns and villages, and cities based not around mass industry but mainly around commerce, were pushed out of their community and neighbourhood structures and broken down into nuclear families.

the nuclear family is the penultimate degeneration before single parenting, starting with the tribe and creeping slowly towards single mums

except that wasn't much of a challenge

Correct…
…but glorifying the old kinship structures that has complicated political decision-making and impeded the impersonal function of public institutions for all of history is just reactionary. Unironically read Fukuyama, his "Origins of Political Order" is fundamentally liberal but a good read regarding the role of kinship and patrimonialism in both the formation and decay of the modern state IIRC.

Then you probably can respond to it without being a faggot

parents have always been the main people responsible for raising children what are you talking about?

My first job was at my grandpa's restaurant.
But that not happening does not void the extended family

And this is relevant how?

Men and women who have children together live together. It has been this way since sedentary cultures emerged.

liberal pol pls go.

no it has always existed just living arrangements changed

and they still have a role in parenting

Sure big cities destroy small villages that does not mean nuclear families don't exist within the tribe.

single moms are just a result of the capitalist welfare state

there was no decent argument presented

There's no decent arguments in your posts either, just empty assertions.

but yet you're still here
lol

I'm not really debating with you though. Just came by to call you a faggot.

you're so butthurt lmao

Not important
yes it does. In an extended family, your grandpa would have the same power over you that a parent has over a child in a nuclear family until the day he dies. Than his eldest child would take over. That is how it works. That is what an extended family looks like.
But not by themselves in a dumb little unit nor did they have control over their lives or their children lives such as in the nuclear family.

I didn't intend to glorify the extended family. I think the nuclear family is disgusting. I think single moms are worse and the extended family is a little more stable. However, it is still built on hierarchy and control. Children should be raised communally. Their parents can participate in their raising but they shouldn't have control over their lives or dictate the structure of how they are raised. Beyond that I don't know. I've tried searching for communist alternatives to the family but all I ever get is radfem wank fests about single moms. Which I absolutely don't support. I'll check out that book it sounds interesting.

Family is a spook. Only the state raises children

t. ranny

This thread is gay

Attached: d8dc792.jpg (1961x2048, 358.02K)

Because marriage is an institution that exists out of love and a desire to start a family.

how is it not true

capitalism is 100% responsible for FAGGOTS

Reminder, no one can offer proof for why a nuclear family is bad. 99% of the time when people hate families it’s people with daddy issues and spoiled brats who are ungrateful for all the shit their parents have done for them.

so what. it isn’t capitalist. You anarchists are retarted with your obsession over hierarchy. The family is a beneficial hierarchy because children aren’t smart enough to make their own decisions, they need someone to guide them. Their parents. The family exists so that children can be guided into maturity. The family should be nuclear because as adults people can exist without their parents, unlike when they are children. As such they should be allowed to move away from them, meet other people, and start their own family.

It is true, but that is a bad thing.

at least we now know how you came into existence

Attached: ea22.png (820x550, 531.66K)

I don't know about anyone else here, but i personally don't care about the nuclear family one way or another. The problem is that the family unit is already dead, and we need to figure out a way to either replace it, or rebuild it.

The institution of marriage =/= committed monogamous relationships. Read Origin of the Family.

Ah yes, I too remember when I was put into an arranged Marriage at age 19. I know it might be hard to understand, but institutions are not stagnate, they change over time.

Attached: BrainletBike.jpg (326x294, 26.64K)

I'm not an anarchist. It's not like I'm saying children can run around on their own. I'm saying parents should not have control over their children lives and shouldn't be allowed to raise them. Children can exist without parents. It's dumb the nuclear family is unstable and idiotic. People can move whatever they want but as far as I'm concerned they shouldn't be allowed to start families anymore than they should be allowed to start companies and have employees.

Yeah but the nuclear family is an "institution" was always worthless trash. It's just even more pathetic now.

The reality is that it was some combination of both Socialist activists and Capital which lead to gay marriage and the progressive dissolution of gender. So what.

The issue wasn't about arrangements, though those were a problem as well. The issue was and is the property based and inherently contractual INSTITUTION of marriage. No one is going to stop you from engaging in a fully committed monogamous relationship with someone else and taking some kind of ceremonial vow devoting yourself to them, and in fact Engels himself believed that purely monogamous relationships would be the dominant form of relationship in socialism/communism. But as it stands, marriage as an institution in fact works against the ideas behind "marriage" and makes it into a purely property based relation no matter what flowery language you embellish it with.

Ah yes, loving someone and starting a family is obviously impossible without getting married.

Attached: breinlat.jpg (208x326, 9.31K)

Why? After all the parents are the ones who are biologically related to them. Their has been no industrialized society that has existed without the family. And their never will be. For it is impossible.

Having a family involves no exploitation. The children do no labor for the parents. A family is in no way similar to a company.

It’s rare.

bold claim faggot