Voluntary Idpol Containment Thread: Jim Kicks Ass At Web Design Edition

Please voluntarily contain your idpol arguments and prosetylization in this thread. AoC, GSM, MRA, SJW, whatever. This is designated thread for that shit. Old one got 20 replies in before CM accidentally the entire site again, now it 404s. g/j CM.
t. is not a mod

I'll start:
-People who think drawings should legally constitute human beings should be institutionalized.
-You are the only person you're entitled to sex with, GI thots a shit idea.
-It seems like needlessly-complicated, cointerintuitive bullshit that you can be tried as an adult at 14, get a driver's license at 16, smoke, vote, strip and get drafted at 18, go to a strip joint and drink at 21. That still doesn't mean the AoC should be lowered to 12. Buying porn is a non-issue since it's post-scarcity and you youngbloods don't know how good you have it.
-Divorce law needs to be reformed since women have joined the workforce, and marriage should have no legal status tbh.
-Looking at somebody funny or making a failed pass is not rape.
-There are plenty of incels who can't get laid for reasons other than shit personality, shit lifestyle, shit hobbies or shit hygene. Some of them have ugly faces, be manlets/lanklets/dicklets, or have grating voices, for instance. Or a medical condition. Some of them were raised messed-up.
-The >muh single mothers may-may is faddish, opportunist bullshit but I think it's tougher for a kid to form a meaningful relationship when they grow up if have no model to build that off of or dissent from.
-If you want to get more surgery than the Michael Jackson, idgaf but I don't think I should have to pay for it with my taxes

not posting why I'm wrong in this thread means you admit I'm right btw

Attached: a585c2b27ba292f83639cacf13f3a759f6978c86667ccf481c044475c8941a3d.png (817x1260, 1.11M)

Other urls found in this thread:


Something that silly is a dumb idea, sure, but there's definitely a youth desocialization crisis going on, with significant bias against boys (though girls are certainly affected, too) and economic factors are faaaar from explaining all or even most of it. SOMETHING has to be done.

I disagree.
Not sure I agree, but what would you suggest?

What's GSM?

Yay! Hopefully the mods don't torpedo this one.
Mostly, IMO. Let's see what's left.
IdPol should not be a basis for law. Abolish it entirely.
There are plenty of places where hookers are legal and even more where they exist. That leaves…
…specifically, genital removal and lower-spine injury. I'm pretty sure these aren't the folks demanding state-trafficked wymmyn, especially since it wouldn't help them, so… volcels with shit personality.
Also, just as a matter of fact…
…keep going. It's apparently downright common for under-14-year-olds to be charged as an adult. This would be fine… if it were equally easy to drink, vote, et cetera "as an adult."

Gender and Sexual Minority.
Basically, pedo, zoo, necro… or cliquish nu-liberals. Depends on what you get.

Gender/Sexual Minority, an alternative to tacking more letters to LGBT

Attached: the_ting_goes.png (600x533, 502.65K)

They didn't torpedo the last one, that died because Jim doesn't have enough computer.
take your meds
I was never debating that it's bullshit that 14-y/o's are tried as adults, or that it happens a lot, but enjoy your smug asswipery I guess.

also nofap is bullshit

Childhood is a material condition honey pie

The state is a humongous hypocrite when it comes to the AoC. That doesn't disprove anything. I agree that whatever age the AoC is it should be all pe nothing. Either they get all the responsibilities as well as rights of an adult, or they don't. Also the question of what should be done with a 14 year that murdered someone is not analogous to when they should have sex.

Just gonna continue off my post from the last thread rather than try to reiterate it since I am way too lazy to do that. So really after thinking about it some more not only do I think its extremely rare for self described anti idpol leftists to actually have a consistent stance on idpol but I think idpol being the only or even the main problem with the left was a red herring. Last thread an user replied to my post critiquing the whole anti idpol thing saying basically liberal idpol was just mainly the result of the left not successfully connecting these issues with class struggle, but there is something off about this. Really this exactly what most of the wider left on other spaces like twitter has been trying to do for some kind of time, but they are largely unsuccessful because of their moralfaggotry and the fact that they ==FUCKING BAN EACH OTHER ALL THE TIME== I wonder who wrote extensively about that. So honestly I think real problem is moderators and moralfaggotry/oversocialization, moralism derived from idpol is used as a justification for moderators to ban whoever the fuck they want basically. Now many of you would argue that idpol and moralfaggorty are intrinsically linked, which as say is true a lot of the time, but if we define idpol in a consistent manner we'd find that some identity politics actually tend towards anti moral stances. If we're to label the incel community as one, which a lot of people here do that would an example of one. So its not really idpol itself so much as what idpol is used as justification for in my mind, most likely all these power tripping mods on leftist subreddits would find other justifications to ban people even if idpol didn't become normalized on the left. This is isn't a defense of idpol mind you, I am just further explain why I don't give a fuck about being anti idpol one way or the other anymore. I'd really just encourage you to think about this on your own without input from faggots here, reddit, Zig Forums, and twitter telling you what to think.

This tbh

Attached: 1537457437241.png (1200x1200, 149.11K)

…and this is fine when the question is "are you prefertile," much as skin color is a material condition when the question is "hiding naked in a snowbank."
Of course, what actually IS material generally has fuck-all to do with what people care about; your grandmother keeps getting referred to as a "woman" despite the fact that she's postmenopausal and isn't going to birth anything, which is its biological definition. Biologically, childhood =/= age, and basically, tl;dr, what is actually a material condition tends to amount to fuck-all.

…"everything I like is not idpol, eh?"

You can already be emancipated as young as 16 in some states. Much like with child marriage, setting a uniform semi-arbitrary age limit, and then offering the opportunity for exceptional individuals to bypass it with court order, is certainly a better approach than testing every single person, or completely abolishing the limit.

It has a biological definition. That definition is not age, but relies entirely on fertility. Some individuals, for varying reasons, remain children all their lives.
It's… also completely irrelevant to anything, unless you're trying to hav babby.
This would be a start, but still divides the populace into "identities of rebuttable presumption X" and "identities of rebuttable presumption not-X."
…can you come up with a non-identity-based method of accomplishing your goals? If yes, you've got a little special snowflake theory for structuring all of society; if no, it's not worth doing and should be thrown out.

Fertility is completely irrelevant, you fruitcake. The legal standard in every civilized state is psychiatric maturity.

…the definition. It's either a juvenile or a reproducing member of the species - generally, actively reproducing, in most species.
I lol'd. You're also wrong - the president of the US is a psychiatrically immature adult, for instance - but the preload, text form of your flag and that quote are just epic lulz.

While 13-year-olds getting jobs and kids may be a viable strategy for savage tribes, it isn't a winning idea for complex industrial societies (especially now that nutrition is causing puberty as young as 8).

Civilization has been the purview of states, at least to this point. Hopefully that will change.

…whereas I'm looking for something a little more universal that doesn't rely on a label.
I mean…
…who cares what is a winning idea for a complex industrial society, which probably has a state? Far more interesting is what is a winning idea for the 13-year-old (or the 8-year-old)… and that's not going to be the same from one group member to another.
One thing that is not a winning strategy is school; schweinhart and weikart's data establish a trauma level equivalent to being orphaned in a massively multiparty civil war. Mass trauma and destruction are good for society, however, because broken people lack the basic everyday function either to successfully complete a revolution, or to just build something better.
So… things good for society are not always good at all, and no two members of the class will be the same, or have the same good.

The L being first was always dumb bullshit (argued on the basis of intersectionality, that women + homosex is worse than just homosex), but what is this nonsense?

Attached: 1421537569147.png (351x364, 258.33K)

How did we get to the point were the biggest loser is the winner?

Attached: Nietzsche1882.jpg (1200x1601, 203.65K)

Having victimhood status grants you freedoms you normally don't have. Normally you're not allowed to be aggressive or exclusionary, but if you can convince people you're oppressed and you're doing it to your oppressor? It's the same reason why supremacist ideologies have a narrative of victimhood. If you've been "kept down" then you're "justified" in indulging in violence.

let free market decide

The question is then, what is it that grants those freedoms on the base of oppression points?

Sympathy and accepting that individualist moral system. If society results in oppression then the reasonable response is for the people in society to change it. But this individualism invoked by oppression olympians means that only the oppressed as an individual can do anything, so they must be empowered so they fight the oppressor alone. And often they end up trying to fight not just the oppressor but society as a whole. Instead of working with "allies" to change society they're almost as hostile toward them as they are toward willful "oppressors."

But why this sudden fixation on the concept, the term oppression, as if it was a given all along, with the only question being who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed?
Which people in society? And what if something is deemed oppressive (religion, for example) while counteracting it is also deemed oppressive? What is the end game?

Because unlike momentary violence/coercion which allows self-defensive violence, "oppression" is ongoing and by this logic confers ongoing privileges.
Anyone who recognizes the problem and wants to change it. It wasn't slaves who ended slavery (mostly). People don't like to mistreat others as much as some would have you believe.
Well these people are going to argue about what's more oppressive, and therefore who should be allowed to act more freely. I would tailor my opinion to the details of the situation.

Ongoing how? Who perpetrates oppression and upon whom exactly? Is it a question of class relations? Is it institutional?

People wanting things to change rarely accomplishes anything real at all.

That is arguable. Haitian slaves most certainly did end slavery there, and Brasilian and American slaves forced the issue quite effectively.

If something is more oppressive than another thing, that would seem to indicate that oppression is quantifiable rather than simply being a qualitative state. Without a metric to go by, how can anyone say that one oppression is greater than another? Surely it can only be a matter of personal opinion.

Have you ever tried to debate with the mentally ill? A little munchausen's, a little narcissism…
…full and automatic recruitment, and this characterizes an age.

No, it doesn't. It means that it should be lowered to 14, or else whatever other age you choose to set the threshold of criminal responsibility at.

I think it's far worse than testing every single person. We already test people to drive.

Needs to be gotten rid of in favor of 3D printing everything at home. The current status of the means of production lend themselves to a social system that places undue strain upon not only sexual relationships but all relationships. Restructuring the way the means of production are managed isn't nearly enough. We also need to restructure education and travel. The capitalist state compels you to spend what should be the best years of your life learning corporate government propaganda. If the schools weren't shit, you'd start college at 14, or else start a job.

This would be an improvement still.
In the US, though, there's a bit of sticky history with "voter eligibility testing"…
Opencourseware, ck12, some sort of improved version of wikihow, a (non-google/non-censored) search engine…
…we're sort of there. It just doesn't give you Magic Useless Paper(tm), aka, "extreme debt." So the kid is going to have to start their own illegal business.

Have fun masturbating to death on your ball of mud while the sun slowly swells into a red giant.

That's because driving is a privilege involving specialized knowledge that is taught, not a right deriving from biology.
Ah, the neo-Maotist solution. Economies of scale aren't going to get you very far that way.


Years and years ago the entire "SJW" thing was mostly a right-wing propaganda smear against leftists. Within a couple of years it became real. People actually were becoming pink-haired SJWs in large numbers and were now conforming to what had been simply propaganda. It's like half the left fell victim to a psyop or something and it's actually quite disturbing. Leftypol was one of the very few places that - without being racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc was against allowing IDpol to control left-wing politics.

Did we fall victim to memes? Psyop?

What the fuck happened?

Attached: twitter_trans_zinnia.png (652x1000 110.5 KB, 117.39K)

First, web2.0/SF is basically a "kill funnel" for genuine speech, and flooded with 9,000 botsocks of everyone who thought they'd form a hack PR firm and sell the corruption of democracy.
Secondly, there's no reason to assume that this isn't the right, or that the right isn't itself just a sock front.
So… question your assumptions.

All right-wing and left-wing propaganda is propped by the CIA and the CIA has an infinite budget. That's what happened.
In fact I might be getting crazy but based on some patterns I've been noticing recently I will even go as far as to claim that pretty much all propaganda, trends and fads have someone behind crafting it for the purpose of manipulation. It might not always be the CIA but it's always someone with some "reasons".

Attached: CIA.jpg (3500x2357, 1.55M)

So your argument is that all the insanity is basically done by paid agents and bots. I can believe some of it, but not all of it.

I thought the Q conspiracy was being driven by bots but that would only account for part of it. Clearly there are real people who support this movement or are being paid to support it since there are photos, youtube videos, podcasts, etc.


The term "SJW" originated on the left to describe idpolers, user. And idpolers were always that bad.

It existed ever since the 1970s (when the 1960s "culture wars" ended, leaving lots of "social issues" activist orgs with nothing legitimate to do) in its current form, but was largely confined within academia. Consensus on Zig Forums is that SJWism exploded out of academia into general society around 2007, primarily via Twitter, Tumblr, and Reddit, as the result of Something Awful's corpse disgorging "woke" former trolls.

This. Everything from postmodernism, to continental philosophy, to critical theory, to intersectionality and standpoint theory are well documented as having been created during the Cold War by CIA front groups such as the Open Society Foundation and Ford Foundation to combat the USSR.

Livejournal. Livejournal was patient zero (or damn close, I hear SA was just as bad but I don't have ten bucks so didn't see it.).

And their first big attacks targeted left-wing writers who didn't buy into either idpol or their abusive tactics.

"Social justice" was a 19th century jesuit invention that was popularised by moral philosopher John Rawls in his 1971 book A Theory of Justice. The rainbow liberals did not start jumping on that shit until the 90s.

You can't do this for everything, dummy. Do what Mao didn't: Look at the design of a blast furnace and deduce its operation.

Attached: fritzlol.jpg (224x423, 38.66K)

The term had a variety of meanings, but what I'm referring to is their underlying theory and praxis, which gelled around the 1970s.


That is what I wrote: John Rawls in 1971. Only then it was a religious movement.

Yes, but also that a lot of the REST of content is being done by paid agents and bots, and that folks that operate independently of the narrative will likely be banned, for a false consensus effect.

Former trolls? More like trolls who found a way to harass people in the open and get away with it. The cancer was festering in academia before 2007 though. This all could have been stopped if people had understood just how full of bullshit academia really is instead of just blindly siding with anyone who claimed to represent science. Unfortunately it took so long to dislodge the Christian fundies that people were willing to side with anyone who seemed more reasonable than they were, but it's not very hard to be more reasonable than someone who thinks the Earth was created in 6 days. If New Atheism had appeared earlier, we may have gotten rid of the liberals without allowing them to ruin all the things they've ruined.

You can do it for the most important things.

if you worship the lower classes you are idpol

Is there any serious analysis of idpol?