Why do so many socialists turn into hardcore laissez-faire liberals when it comes to sexual dynamics?Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez would never complain about wealth redistribution requiring the "disempowerment" of plutocrats because she knows that collective well-being is above the freedom of a few of high ability (or lucky birth) to accumulate as much resources as they want. But when it comes to sexual distribution, she ignores collective well-being and her compassion for the weak goes out of the window.I wonder if this just shows how much one's politics are driven by self-interest. AOC would have difficulty to compete in a economic free market, so she defends regulations and redistributive policies, on the other hand, she is a very attractive woman who would have no difficulty in finding a partner, so she couldn't care less about less fortunate individuals who require redistributive social norms to mate.
But how could sex be distributed more fairly than it is now? Everyone has sex with people who want to have sex with them.
>>13120643Monogamy and arranged marriages, like it was done in the past.
>>13120643In a free market everyone buys stuff from companies they want to buy stuff from. It just so happens that few companies are able to offer stuff at the most advantageous conditions and they end up building monopolies. Socialists understand that, but won't understand that the same logic applies to the sexual market. My question is, why?
>>13120648Nothing stopping you from arranging your own marriage. I did
>>13120664Socialism doesn't work the way you think it does. If you have a useless product, it won't be wanted under a socialist system either
>>13120549even women are having less sex, than they were at the times of the sexual revolution. we are not living in female hypergamy incel dystopia but in a neoliberal panopticon techno-atomisation dystopia. sex is a stand in for the unattainable object of total enjoyment, that's why our propaganda practically orders people to be free and empowered. Family community and kin mechanisms that formerly regulated society and perpetuated the model of family biological reproduction, have given way to a busybody state of disembodied interlopers, cause you can't even trust yourself to be free, an ethics based exclusively on 'consent' extends to all aspects of life, furtherin the same mechanisms of marketisation that make people feel sexually violated all the time. Unspoken agreements that held together society have gone away.
>>13120674what is the utility of sex?
>>13120664cause there's no such thing as a "sexual market" you dumb incel
>>13120549Read Revolution and Counter Revolution. It is the seemingly contradictory, but mutually supportive interaction of egalitarianism and liberalism.
>>13120757? There is>>13120549I don't get how she can disagree with this.
Intellectually it's because the left came to be totally dominated by Jews in the 20th century (not an antisemite, this is just a fact) and for whatever reason, those Jews became fucking obsessed with "freeing" people to have sex and indulge in perversion and laissez-faire degeneracy as the universal omnitool for creating happinessMore subtly than that, it's because the left tends to attract two types of people: - socially aware but lazy faggots, who have never conceptualized difficult virtues like heroism, duty, sacrifice, honor, temperance, etc., and think by default that the only virtues are "negative" freedoms like being able to be a fag if you wanna (which isn't so much WRONG, it just misses most of the human experience of real liberty)- crypto-puritans and crypto-evangelicals, people who come from extremely uptight and often asexual backgrounds typical of the American colonial protestant diaspora, and when exposed to a new ideology ("you can snort poppers and eat AIDS cum if you want!") they go just as hog wild over it and become puritan EVERYONE MUST EAT AIDS CUM ALL THE TIME. Fundamentally their entire perception of reality still hinges on sex, and fundamentally it still hinges on taking an extreme fundamentalist stance toward sex. Mix these all together and you get a surprisingly stable motley assortment of college leftists sitting around, half of them jews, doing drugs and being lazy sexual degenerates, while talking about how all their intellectual heroes (all mid-20th century jews) had the right idea about how degeneracy is the best and fascists are all just sexually repressed
>>13120549Because in the United States the "left" is the expression of the cultural movement/impact of capital, while the "right" is the expression of the material movement/impact of capital. They're both influenced by capital, but the left tends to deny it because they are in denial of the material reality of today.
>>13120844>crypto-puritans and crypto-evangelicals, people who come from extremely uptight and often asexual backgrounds typical of the American colonial protestant diaspora, and when exposed to a new ideology ("you can snort poppers and eat AIDS cum if you want!") they go just as hog wild over it and become puritan EVERYONE MUST EAT AIDS CUM ALL THE TIME. Fundamentally their entire perception of reality still hinges on sex, and fundamentally it still hinges on taking an extreme fundamentalist stance toward sex. Dogshit post overall bro but this part is extremely true
>>13120857Jews, layabouts, and crypto-puritans are seriously 97.5% of any college leftist discourse. Hanging out with them is basically watching 40 art hoes shoot up heroin and talk about how even though they don't shower they still get fucked on Tinder every week.
>>13120549> she is a very attractive woman who would have no difficulty in finding a partnerwhere does this meme come from? AOC is dead average in looks and sometimes looks kinda freaky not in the good way. go to the bronx and queens and there are thousands of AOCs
>>13120844>- crypto-puritans and crypto-evangelicals, people who come from extremely uptight and often asexual backgrounds typical of the American colonial protestant diasporaAs mentioned above, bad post overall, but I have not seen this very real trend articulated before.It's like the old George Carlin bit about "Why is it that so many people against abortion are the ones you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?" except it's more like "Why is it that so many people for free sex are the ones that can't get laid in the first place?"
>>13120664this is something that doesnt get discussedsocialists are only ever radicals in some abstract economic terms and ignore the biological human animal and its functions. in every other case especially when it comes to women, socialists suddenly become pearl clutching protestant liberals screeching about "rights" to your own body that come from literally nowhere
>>13120549>If you think your 'poverty' is due to "capitalist empowerment," maybe it's because far too many people relied on the disempowerment + silence of capitalists to not be 'poor' in the first place.checkmate atheists
>>13120549Your premises is that sexual gratification requires penis in vagina sex. This is simply false. The classical model for properly socialized adults in capitalist society brings us back to the childhood Oedipal situation. The classical nature of this model already presupposes as an established fact the hegemony of the bourgeoisie. Egalitarianism on the other hand is intrinsically related too sexual promiscuity... especially among females (in animals most emphatically demonstrated amongst bonobos) and the insignificance of hunting (and as such meat eating). With the historical contraction of capitalism (its last period of substantial expansion having ended in 1971 and the collapse of Lehman's in 2008 being a critical nodal point in this world historic contraction) you can witness the growth of "polymorphous perversity" globally.
>>13120549>Sexual distributionThere's no such thing, sex cant be quantified
>>13120880she's sexy because she's a woman in a position of power and people's stupid reptilian brains short circuit if they try to think too hard about why they like something
>>13120916why does everyone assume capitalism is ending or in its late stage? capitalism does not end it IS the end.
>>13120917i-it can! there's a scientific reason why no one wants to sleep with me and it's all the joos' fault! it has nothing to do with me being a bitter, fat and unkempt piece of shit!
>>13120857>>13120899homophobia and transphobia are no longer conservative, they are comparable to anticlericalism back when the catholic church was in power. these people are effectively the priesthood of the nwo, christian priests claim to be chaste, these people claim to be sexually debauched, but the same sense of pious holiness about them
>>13120949Glad to see you in agreement that our current economic policies will render the planet uninhabitable
>>13120664>Socialists understand that,They don't. They see a rich people has more than they do, it's unfair because they have less and they want a share of it. Resources should be fairly distributed because reasons. Their thinking does not go beyond that.So OP is ironically right. Incels are social communists while Progressives are social libertarians and only economically communistic.>>13120678yep.
>>13120957This post radiates chapo tranny energy
>>13120901"You're trying to control my body!""hell yeah I am!"
>>13120957what mean if not bitter fat and unkempt tho?i hope your incel smear doesn't rely on your target merely being bitter fat and unkempt... surely you realize that this means a man suffering from the lack of real companionship who is NOT bitter fat or unkempt would blow apart your whole argument, right?
>>13121030trannies are incels class traitors who took the easy way out. you really notice it when they complain about people don't wanting to fuck their grotesque asses like it was a form of bigotry(which is what 90% of their 'civil rights movement amounts to)
>>13121058fact check: true
>>13120916Easy to say all that when you're not the one on the "masturbating to interracial pornography" side of polymorphous perversity.
>>13121058the transsexual movement is weird and seems kinda irresponsible from a medical standpointI'd guess for most people, it stems from an inherent insecurity and self-reinforcing delusions that becoming the other gender is "the solution" to their problems ("when I'm a beautiful woman everyone will want to fuck me!"//"When I'm a strong man I get to run the patriarchy!") ignoring that this is batshit stupid and based on false premises (ie. no one wants to fuck you because you're a narcissist obsessed with your gender//there's no "patriarchy" you fucking retards)
>>13120899>I have not seen this very real trend articulated before.You must not be paying attention, because it's been a meme on the alt-right and alt-lite for years.Pic related is a book about it.
>>13121058um HAHAH yes bazed
Because its easy to just say the only reason people dont get laid is because of themselves. You cant prove or disprove it as it is. Its more of a case by case thing. If the numbers are correct and 28% of young men are actually virgins it just seems dishonest to say that theyre all the strawman of what an "incel" is.
>>13121116the meta cult
A purely one to one pairing of the sexes isn’t how humans are built, and has never been realistic to expect. In the same way a purely egalitarian economic system is neither possible nor desirable.What is desirable is that woman be woman and men be men. If more men actually went out and did things, put their life on the line as police officers or soldiers or firemen, there wouldn’t be this excess of males around, and the ones who don’t die would be highly desirable. Instead men jerk off to porn or willingly emasculate themselves in the repressive eunuchversity system so they can find some emasculating job while not understanding why their wealth doesn’t afford them love.Mashallah we all find qt virgin brides someday. However we must never forget that those who don’t are the necessary hero’s of human evolution, and value them as such.
>>13121214based civilan janny poster
>>13120744This is actually pretty good.
>she is a very attractive woman
>>13121232im just gonna start posting gore in these threads and be a ban martyr.
>>13121241Sometimes I shit such threads up with SFW gay porn. It's the ideal solution imo
>>13120643Because a great deal of men are left out and thus have no stake in society.
>>13120549>Why do so many socialists turn into hardcore laissez-faire liberals when it comes to sexual dynamics?Because the two have nothing to do with each other ? What does an economic system based on the idea of workers being entitled to the fruits of their labor have to do with people fucking each other ? Do you want to wait 10 years for your state prescribed wife so badly ?
>>13120664>Socialists understand thatI suppose you mean "American liberals from twitter". This has nothing to do with socialism.
>>13121316>tankie missing the pointNot surprised
>>13120549>celibacy in single quotes>female empowerment in double quotesunironically wdsmbt
>>13120857>>13120899foucault talked about the sexual obsession of both puritans and the sexual revolution and how they aren't opposing views, but two steps along the same general trend of putting sex on a pedestal
>>13121308Ugly and annoying people are generally enemies of society. Such people are going to be neurotic even given everything they want.
>>13121386Foucault might be a bad authority on this considering he died of GRIDs and anal punch fisting. Or is this like how drug counselors are all ex drunks or ex junkies?
>>13121341Well i sure missed the point of your retardation alright. The sexual ""market"" isn't the same as economics. There isn't any contradiction is being liberal in terms of sex and Socialist economically just like it isn't to be socialist and hold conservative views on sex and marriage.What do you think socialists should promote collective ownership of the means of reproduction ? Sharing the pussy around ? Your individualism vs collectivist views are not even relevant at all.
>>13120549What a stupid ass tweet, she is literally saying that there is no reason, as a man to vote for her cause unless you are some spooked moralist then.Even the socialists admit that their politics are mere egoistic will to power at play, disguised with shitty slangs of morality so that spooked weaklings go in for their "higher virtues".
>>13120549>too many people relied on the disempowerment + silence of women to not be 'celibate' in the first placeAOC dropping crimson pills on an unsuspecting twitter audience
>>13120664People aren't commodities.
>>13121407yeah, as a guy down in the muck himself, he knows how it works
>>13121457someone hasn't been living in a consumerist dystopia with the rest of uswhere are you, and how do I apply for refugee status there
>>13121467Point taken, but I don't think the solution is to purposefully embrace commodifying human beings because it might get us laid.
>>13121454>what a stupid tweet, she's sure to alienate the well-known bloc of unfuckable men who read Stirnercope more please
just have sex lollmao like just put your penis in a vagina
>>13120678Setting up the Marxist > Integralist pipeline.
>>13120674socialism /=/ the labor theory of valuemarx did not invent socialism
>>13121574Thats called rape, bro.
Have sexWith an ugly girl
>>13121405These men wouldn't have gotten laid today, are they enemies of society? Add in other uggo's like shakespeare, dante, schopenhauer, kant.
>>13121566I aint coping, im being 100% honest here and not coming with the "good for society" bullshit spooks. Why should i support her then? Or why should a man support her according to her tweet that states celibacy to be increasing amoung men?>muh stirner virginsGo read him before typing your shit.
>>13121613>These men wouldn't have gotten laid todayNo, they would've.
>>13121615>Or why should a man support herhave you looked at the absolute state of Democrat men, especially the white ones? They seem to literally get off on their own team shitting on them
>>13121336>>13120831There is not. Your problem is reducing social relations and love to a mathematic bartering. You're a stem-brained logical positive literalist who doesn't understand human emotions.
>>13120549I don't get why incels care so much about sex. You can't get laid, fine. But why do you want society to radically change because you want to get your dick wet?
>>13120648>arranged marriagesIf you're undesirable, nobody's going to want to arrange a marriage with you. No father is going to want to marry his daughter to you. It wouldn't be any better for you.
>>13121653Not even an incel but pair bonding is prerty fucked in the west rn
>>13121635How when any woman can find more attractive mates through Tinder?
>>13121653Yes, but I don't really care about sex that much I just wanna cuddle with a girl
>>13121671Prestige is still very attractive
>>13121661I have a good job and earn enough money to be a desirable under the standards which marriages were arranged in traditional societies. I just can't compete in the modern sexual market where you need to be an aggressive and dominant alpha male to be even considered human by any average woman.
>>13121613you are completely delusional and absolutely retarded. you're mentally ill.
>>13121685They would kill themselves before getting prestigious enough to attract mates nowadays, or not get motivated enough to work.
>>13121671By going on Tinder. You think it's literally raining attractive men and every woman has one? Women settle much more than men.
>>13121636They are unconscious egoists that also seek their egoistic pleasure on the current standard "virtues" created by today's morals. They play the same cards of virtues used by the judeo-christians in ancient times, thinking of being some choosen people on the inside.
>>13121697>Women settle much more than men.by definition not possible lol. They get what they can get, that isn't settling, that's just what they're worth
>>13121697Yes, that's what happens. Women have an endless supply of attractive mates on social media so they don't even bother to look at average man anymore.
>>13121697This is the most inaccurate statement I've ever read on 4chan. Unless you consider women "settling" with Chad instead of giga-Chad as "settling"
>>13121703Definition of what?
>>13121715if women and men pair off, then neither side can be said to be settling. If you're some woman and think you,re settling with your man, why did you not pair off with a superior man? Because he didnt want you, meaning he is above your level, meaning you aren't settling at all, you just have inflated self worth.
>>13121653>he doesnt understand that life is all about power and sex
>>13121706>>13121708Maybe you need to look at your standards. You're not going to be with a hot girl.
It's because of how they conceive of freedom. To them you're not actually free to do anything unless you have the ability or power to actually do it. You wouldn't free to go to the market unless you had a car to drive and some working legs. You wouldn't be free to go to the moon unless you had a rocket ship to actually take you. When it comes to sex, government laws are what is primarily limiting your "freedom" or ability to fuck dogs and lick shit out of peoples asses and this is how they can reconcile being libertarian on sex while supporting a restricted economy.
>>13121686Wow apparently that means I'm an aggressive and dominant alpha male.
>>13120549There's something you've missed.Half of the population is women -- giving women bodily and sexual autonomy over a minority of men who cannot find mates is indeed in the interest of collective well-being; and not at all laissez-faire.And with that, I expect this thread to die.
>>13121734It is not a tiny minority of men who wouldn't be able to get laid in a total laissez-faire sexual market, but 80% of them. We are not at this point yet, but we're reaching it.
The age of men is over. Women have realized they control the means of reproduction and have staged the very revolt male marxists envisioned for the workers. Lysistrata is the rule of the day.
>>13121746Just like OP you're creating a problem out of whole cloth because of a potentially willful blindness. You yourself just said that this reality you speak of does not exist.
>>13121234Silverstein is based.
>>13121724Not true. Hot women have average husbands much more than hot guys.
>>13121779This is literally not possible if you stop to think about it for just a second. If the hot guys arent taking ugly wives, then they're taking the hot women. There is a limited number of hot women, they can either be with ugly guys or hot guys, if they're with some ugly guys, then necessarily some of the hot guys are left with no hot women.
>>13121751do you know how tinder works? the matches are probably swiping yes on everyody just the same as the video maker is doing. i know that's the only way i have ever used it.
>>13121791>There is a limited number of hot womenNot really. You're talking 10/10?
>>13121811It doesn't matter what you consider hot, there are still a limited number of both hot men and women
>>13121815Dude, how high are your standards?
>>13121817it doesnt matter what my standards are, they could be anything at all, how are you not getting this. The number is necessarily limited for both men and women
>>13121762If Lysistrata was the rule of the day, people would be taking Alyssa Milano's sex strike more seriously instead of endlessly ridiculing it across social media. I shouldn't be surprised at this point that its always incels on this board who fall hardest for 'the personal is political' meme.
>>13121845>lysistrataMore like Assemblywoman, pleb
>>13121823It does matter. The number is obviously limited because that's what makes someone attractive is that they're better than others. But how does it disprove that women care a lot about personality and charm and will settle for average guys that are charming?
>>13121870>But how does it disprove that women care a lot about personality and charm and will settle for average guys that are charming?So say they do, that means that there is a leftover amount of attractive men that are not going to be with them right? If the 7-10s of women are deciding to be with some male 5s then there will be some male 7-10s with no women of corresponding attractiveness, meaning they too will settle for some less attractive women.
>>13120549>Why do so many socialists turn into hardcore laissez-faire liberals when it comes to sexual dynamics?Yes, AOC needs to share her tits and her nudes.
>>13121431>No replyBig oof.... really makes you think
>>13120549>AOC is a socialist>socialism is about money being thrown in a pile and giving it away equally>The rights of the individuals should be modeled after the rights of propertyMy Gott, pure ideology and so on.
>>13121811There aren't infinite people, retard.
Can I get the cliffs on Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez?I know nothing about her other than what I've seen from a few posts and videos, and she seems like another politician appealing to the lowest common denominator leftists by virtue-signalling on race and gender issues.She also has one of the weirdest faces I've ever seen which is why I've even remembered such a vapid person.
most people succeed either at sexual selection or work life and end up being right wing at the part of life you're good at
This is hilarious. 4chan's population of disgruntled and sexless incels will regularly shit on any group of people categorized along racial/ethnic/religious parameters as being weak/stupid/lesser/savage/treacherous/etc. They will shit on any ideology or set of political values which espouses sympathy and action on behalf of the aforementioned groups. But the moment the topic is shifted towards sex and they are reminded of their virginity they begin suggesting inane bullshit >>13120648This is pitiful self-interest disguised as reactionary "tradition". If you'd really like something atavistic, I suggest that you all kill yourselves. What we hold in common with paleolithic people is a recognition of weak men, we've just lost the gumption to cull them.
>>13121915>weak menThis is exactly it. If you can't find sex in today's day and age you are a pitiful fucking loser. Probably fat. Probably never learned how to ride a bike.
>>13121915>This is pitiful self-interest disguised as reactionary "tradition"Wonderful. This is the most concise way to characterise the recent shift towards conservativism here.
>>13121878Not all 7 women settle. Or the 7 male also find hotter partners. You're putting too much thought into this. It's not a numbers game. If you play your cards right, you can find someone. If you're too ugly, well, there have always been people like that. You're not a special victim.
>>13121915that is the point of the op..
>>13121890He obviously meant that there isn't a set number of hot women at any given time you fucking sperg.
>>13121928You cant seriously be this dumb m8. 'not all 7 women settle'. No but if some do, then there are some male 7s that then have no female 7s left. There are no hotter women left for them, so they will settle too'it's not a numbers game'. It is exactly a numbers game. The number of men and women settling literally has to be the same
>>13121915>weak mensounds ableist and patriarchal but ok
>>13121935>there isn't a set number of hot womenbut there is? There is literally a number of hot women in any given generation, just as there is a corresponding number of hot men
>>13121915>muh 4channel is one indentity groupBait>This is pitiful self-interest disguised as reactionary "tradition".>he thinks true altruism exists>"shame on the one that does shit for his self-interest">t. egoist
>>13121661Except the holy Quran adresses this very issue of undesriable people seeking marriage.
>>13121942And I told you that the 7 men either settle or most likely move up. Usually up if they're rich and successful.
>>13120549Think of a manthen take away reason, logic and empathywelcome to clown world
>>13120549Down with the neoliberal sexual marketplace! Embrace Fourierism!
>>13121976bro. if the male 7s marry up, you have the exact same thing- a shortage of female 8s and 9s for the 8 and 9 men. You cannot get rid of this fundamental symmetryI am not trying to be an asshole here but are you really bad at math or something
>>13121990And I've been trying to tell you that attractiveness is subjective. That's why I asked you about your standards and that's why I told you it's not a math game.
>>13121950Imagine intentionally missreading something so hard. Or is it unintentional? In which case I can only refer to a psychologist to help you cope with your crippling autism.
>>13122019>attractiveness is subjective.I fully agree, which is why when we're discussing men and women pairing off, there are the same amount of 7,8,9s etc for me and women because it is literally 0 sum. Whatever you can get, that is your level of attractiveness, broadly speaking, on average people do not settle, they go with what they can get, the amount of settling is necessarily going to be the same for men and women.I could consider 5s and up or only 10s to be hot and this wouldnt change one iota the dynamic im trying to explain to you
>>13122038What possible reading is there of 'there isn't a set number of hot women' other than that I took it for?
>>13121942Because of the way sexual attractiveness works there are more hot women than hot guys. So it makes sense
>>13122050>there are more hot women than hot guys.No there are the same number of hot women and guys, necessarily. What you mean is that men will sleep with a wider range of women than women will men.
>>13121697women settle when they hit the wall, i.e when they can no longer attract chad, realize that there is a real correlation between their age and their ability to attract males, and get scared upon realizing they will keep aging
>>13121915Why is self-interest pitiful? I am proud of my self-interest and will take it to an extreme if necessary.
>>13122071She's a "Democratic Socialist" which in America means an extremely mild form of social democracy, but America is so rabidly right-wing it looks like Communism to them. Basically if Bernie Sanders was a fit young Latina, which has predictably inspired a lot of regrettable horny posting from both sides of the political spectrum.
>>13122043You're saying that if a 7 guy goes for a 5 girl, there will be a 7 girl that lost a guy she could get with so she wouldn't have to settle. Pure math. But I'm saying that men and women have different ideas of what makes someone attractive. A 5 guy can become the same as a 7 if he has charm. That's why the concept of "settling" is stupid.
>>13120674>If you have a useless product, it won't be wanted under a socialist system eitherIt doesn't mean it won't be produced. Creating jobs to keep proles busy was a regularity.Also, the backyard furnaces of Mao's wacky plans turned useful tools into useless pig iron. The plan was kept running even after it came to Mao that the backyard iron was a waste because it had propaganda value.
>>13121325So socialists don't understand market dynamics?
>>13120844All of this post implies you support an ideology of enslaving people sexually. Why don't you stop complaining about what you don't like (freedom) and start explaining how exactly your NON-FREE sexual system is going to work and how it would benefit anybody
>>13120844>not an antisemite>all Jews are either lazy, pro-AIDS, or asexualanon...
>>13121325>pointing out capitalism's inevitable concentration of power to the detriment of society has nothing to do with socialismexplain for a second what you think socialism is
Women will fuck me or they will pay the ultimate price
>>13120686it makes you feel good, incel, try it sometime
>>13121026What socialist authors have you read? You're paraphrasing Peterson or worse
>>13122103What the hell is social democracy?
>>13120664>Socialists understand that, but won't understand that the same logic applies to the sexual market. My question is, why?What the fuck is a sexual monopoly? You really think there are 10 people having all of the sex in the world? How does one attractive person consume another and assume all of their sexual value?Nevermind that poor/fat/ugly people fuck like rabbits everywhere on Earth. The only people walled off from sex are screeching frogposting incels and it's of their own accord because they like complaining more than they like living.Your economic analogy is gibberish. The same logic doesn't apply at all. The problem with capitalism is laborers create a certain amount of value, that value is used to create more violence and obstacles against laborers, and the cycle repeats infinitely. This logic doesn't even remotely apply to sex. You don't make someone more attractive by fucking them, and you don't make yourself less attractive by fucking someone, and fucking someone doesn't give them power to castrate you. The systems have nothing in common, at all, unless you're retarded and haven't read anything about socialism or ever had sex.
>>13122178It's a serious question because I think you made a meaningless distinction between "democrat socialist" and "social democrat." What the hell is it?
holy fuck there are a lot of seething discord trannies itt
>>13121915What's the point in saying "sexless incels", that's redundant
Liberal ideology is dominated by capitalist interests.The sexual revolution was basically pushed by huge companies but somehow leftists thinks that being polygamous was a great victory against capitalism.
>>13122167Liberal democracy = capitalism, globalism, imperialism, oppressionSocial democracy = capitalism, globalism, imperialism, oppression, with a consolation prize
>>13122167democratic socialism except gayer and even more class traitorous
>>13122134he said half of them, which is an understatement
>>13122203Incel means you're not having sex with other people.Sexless means you don't have *a* sex.It's an important distinction. Incels are horny but lonely. The shrieking pink wojaks complaining about "sexual freedom" are beneath contempt and beneath maleness or femaleness altogether.
The butterfly can fuck off because you're filtered>>13122210I don't know what this nonsense is either. What the fuck are you talking about liberal democracy for? I asked a guy to define social democracy and you think that's an answer.
>>13122197Social democrats don't believe in reforming markets economies into, eventually, non-market economies, just better market economies (from a welfare perspective). Think Scandinavia.If your political scene has both social democrat and socialist parties, the social democrats will be to the right of the socialist. Portugal is like that, though some might argue that "socialist" doesn't mean what it used to, since the socialist party occupies the political centre.
>>13122208>>13122208>Liberal ideology is dominated by capitalist interests.No shit, that's the definition of liberal>leftists thinks that being polygamous was a great victory against capitalism.How do you not know what leftism is in 2019And how do you think having a choice of sexual partners is "polygamy"
>>13122221Defining a term in relation to another term is just a normal way of explaining a convoluted topic, don't get mad about it. Social democracy is oppressive capitalism but slightly nicer to the working class than liberalism. That's the definition.
>>13121026worst thing I've read all week
>>13122221filtering is reddit tier
>>13121026>Incels are social communistsWe communists say that people should control the value produced by their labor.If that labor is social, sure, I do think people should control the value produced by their social activity, if there is any. You should control the value produced by your social activity. But your social activity is complaining about subjects you don't understand on an anonymous message board, so I don't see where the value comes in.Your idea that people should be enslaved into sex..... I don't understand how you think that should work, so go ahead and explain it, but it sure as hell isn't communism.
>>13121734The reported levels of happiness among women in America have been steadily going down since the 60 though. So clearly this has not been in the interest of the collective well being.
>>13120549>laissez-faireThe metaphor that sexual attractions and courtships are a form of economic transaction is wanting. Access to sexual/romantic partners is not a commodity, and not anything the state can control without extraordinary side-effects of dysfunction. We are not talking about the exchange of tangible resources, or even the trade of services.The hard fact is nature decides who fucks who. Cultural biases and differences may influence the sorting process, but at the end of the day there is no skirting around the biology of attraction and its yielding of differential outcomes.You might say it comes down to whose needs ought to be valued most, a woman's control over her own body and sex, or a man's need for a woman's body and sex. You're obviously a retrograde creature if you deny women the autonomy to choose who they have sex with. It's just a barbaric fantasy concept.
>>13122253>We communists say that people should control the value produced by their labor.Almost all communists want to first go through a process where you own *nothing* you produce, because the state takes it all and then distributes it all.If you were going to immediately set up autonomous communes with workers actually owning the means of production you would be surprised how many libertarian types would be amenable to it.
Women in current years self worth is undeniably inflated but nothing comes close to the i*cels percieved self worth.
>>13122203just like saying dumb socialists, it gets the point across with more weight even if its redundant
>>13120643>But how could sex be distributed more fairly than it is now?legalized prostitution, legalized bigamy, legalized polygamy, legalized polyandry you would see a lot off this stuff be utilized if it were legal
>>13120991puritanism for enforced sluttiness. what a world we live in
>>13122228Liberals are on the left spectrum mostly.I wouldn't even say polygamy, but polygyny. Women don't really have much trouble in sharing one powerful man with other women. I don't think that this is a problem, not for powerful men at least. But for women this results in difficulties when comes down to form families or deeper emotional bonds.
>>13121457their bodies in themselves no, but i have news for you - basically every aspect of human existence is commodified, organ markets are the next frontier
Ban all methods of birth control for both sexes.Make abortion illegal.Ban pornography.Abolish the idea that sex is for anything but procreation.
>>13121697>You think it's literally raining attractive men and every woman has one?yes. because it literally is. you can just ask any woman on Tinder. Or look at the reddit hotwife stuff. there is an endless amount of chad cock out there for those that want it. >>13121708this guy gets it
>>13122253Marx conceptualized communism as a state where there is no "control" of the products. "To each according to his needs."Marx considers the impetus for proportional ("fair") compensation to be a residue from bourgeois morality:>What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations,but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect,economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whosewomb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductionshave been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor.For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individuallabor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share init. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (afterdeducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock ofmeans of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which hehas given to society in one form, he receives back in another. [...] Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are nolonger at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on theaverage and not in the individual case. In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The rightof the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact thatmeasurement is made with an equal standard, labor.cont.
Men historically were made economically productive by the allure of a mate. Arranged marriages only existed for males that had land, made money on a ship or in the army, or learned a valued trade like smithing. The "hunter gatherer" evolved from acquiring meat and berries into money and security. What happens in ten years when all those atheist nihilist polyamorous programmers in silicon valley start wondering what the point of it all is? What good is a fat salary when you have no offspring? Your VR headset wont smile when it sees you come in the door.China inherits the earth.
>>13122335cont.>But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, orcan labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity,otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequallabor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but ittacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. Itis, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consistonly in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be differentindividuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they arebrought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the presentcase, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored.Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and soforth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, onewill in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all thesedefects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.>In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increasedwith the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety andsociety inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!Free access is the final form of communism to Marx, unrelated to the work that each person actually inputs.
>>13121751wuuut i had not seen that before. mega blackpill
This blabbering about sew is missing the point. No one cares that much about sex. Even the Incels who claim they do. What people want, or rather need, is intimacy and bonding. The sexual revolution was just another aspect of capitalism extending its grasp to human interactions that weren't yet transactional in nature. The solution is to destroy capitalism through a new Stalinism (which correctly identified the early liberal soviet laws on family as counter revolutionary).
>>13120549seems like a recognition of the reproductive capacities of men and women. obviously women are self interested when it comes to sex because they have more to risk, they are looking for the biggest return on their reproductive efforts. there must be a distinction in the sexual distribution between sex for procreation and sex for recreation. i dont see why access to either should be truly guaranteed but efforts to increase access (dating apps, legal sex work) should definitely be promoted.
>>13122351>In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increasedwith the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety andsociety inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!Do people really find this plausible? Imagining this future era of prosperity did ever occur, his proposed banner incentivizes doing nothing while creating as many needs as possible. Do marxists not think incentives exist or what?
>>13122362Sexual intimacy is of a different order. Friendship can only fulfill so much of that need. And there is still another difference, between the physicality of a sexual relationship and the physicality of a friendship.
>>13121686I'm a timid, introverted, skinny loser and still get laid regularly. It isn't how you act, you're just ugly
>>13121762Bro no lol, woman's power over things is still extremely surface level. If 20% of men stop showing up to work tomorrow civilization would collapse. Woman have been given social currency in system created and run by men
>>13122414Yeah but those 20% will show up to work. Mostly because they have wives and families to feed. This influence is power and it's not surface level.
>>13122400are you white?
>>13122414>>13122436If men stopped holding up civilization, women's social currency would disappear. Yet women use their social currency to convince men to keep holding up civilization. It's a feedback loop, an arch that stays upright through the weight of both sides leaning against each other.
>>13122414if the worker bee men ever seriously tried to revolt they would be enslaved im pretty sure. Obviously under some other name than slavery but stillThey already are in a sense enslaved because they pay more taxes but receive less benefits. If you look up the stats for net taxation impact by race and sex in the US it is absolutely ridiculous
>>13122362>The sexual revolution was just another aspect of capitalismNot just the sexual revolution. The "death of the nuclear family" isn't coming from the left. Happy, healthy families are not good consumers- lonely singletons filling the void with material goods are good consumers.This is what really irks me about someone like Contrapoints. Transgenderism is capitalistic to its core. A demand exists for a service (surgeries, hormones, even something as banal as the trans flag) so an industry will arise to supply that demand (I also have a sneaking suspicion that all this gender dysphoria and trans panic is just increasing the size of the market, similar to how men were convinced they needed fancy moisturisers and scented body scrubs). Do you really think that in a socialist system all of Contrapoints' makeup, outfits, background stuff would be considered "needs"? She'd get a plain brown smock,her chosen pronoun, and a shovel to tend the fields.
>>13122439No, I'm an arab
>>13122439no I'm Jewish
im not an incel. but the logic here is kind of hilariously incisive. why is wealth considered to be unfairly distributed and then redistributed promptly, but sex considered to be so inviolable as to avoid any such discussion, despite obviously being skewed towards some individuals in the same way wealth is. there are individuals who have untold billions and are taxed at a very high rate. there are Chads who go out and despoil hundreds of women. maybe someone who should implement the 'Chad' tax, wherein chad must redistribute some of his harem, rofl
also occasio-cortez is the fucking ugliest latina ive seen, i see better bitches in the ghettoest parts of la county every day
What are you on, OP? AOC is hella ugly, looks like a turkey and a blobfish had a child.
Socialism empowers individual choice by not letting a small number of people dictate the economic reality of daily life for the great majority.Fascism is interested in absolute state control over everday affairs in the social sphere, not socialism.
>>13122351>free accessFree access to what exactly? This is my biggest issue with free healthcare. Do we go into ghettoes and favelas with the most cutting edge medical technology and drugs and start administering them? Should society provide lung cancer treatment for a lifelong smoker?>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!What if I have many many needs and no desire to acquire abilities? What happens when that applies to a sizeable chunk of the population? Why the fuck would anybody strive to become a doctor or fireman or sewage worker or programmer when all their needs are met, because I see this happening right now in my country (Ireland). People who never work, even though they have the ability and opportunity, get free education, healthcare, housing, no bills to worry about, nice little bit of change to spend on groceries and stuff every week, and other people are seeing this and starting to wonder why the fuck they bother getting up in the morning.
>>13120549It's not just hardcore laissez-faire liberals with regards to the dating or casual sex market. It's hardcore just-world laissez-faire liberals
I’m surprised more left wing people don’t see that the pro-life movement is a massive threat to the bourgeoisie.Not only does it threaten to deligitimize their moral authority by laying bare the savagery and selfishness of their values (the sheer scale of the slaughter would make Stalin, Mao, and Hitler blush), but banning abortion would also throw a massive wrench in consumer capitalism — it literally could not continue as it has.
L I T E R A T U R E
>>13122588Private property shouldn't existHow does this comport with your incel rape fantasy?
>>13122602>but banning abortion would also throw a massive wrench in consumer capitalism — it literally could not continue as it has.Care to explain this? I don't understand why.
>>13122602If we do get to a point where everyone does live an at least decent life why would abortion even be aloud? I mean I guess muh artifical wombs might exist at this point. Only thing I can think of is fringe shit like the baby will be born a vegtable or the mom could die, otherwise its just muh body muh parasite
>>13122642Why should you be allowed to go to a doctor for antihelminthics after I put tapeworm eggs in your salad?
>>13121915Quod erat demonstrandum, the moment sexual dynamics are brought out left-wing socialists become not only liberals, but almost fascistic "Might is Right" fanatics.
>>13122195>You don't make someone more attractive by fucking themYou totally do since female sexual desire is mimetic, the more women you fuck the more women will want to fuck you because by being promiscuous you demonstrate your high social status as an alpha male.
>>13122612We can look at this from two perspectives, Marxist, and Integralist. I prefer the latter, but both are fundamentally anti-bourgeois.We have two scenarios: one, abortion is banned and sexual behavior among the poor remains unchanged, and two, abortion is banned and more stable family structures emerge.For the Marxist, the first scenario would mean an explosion in proletarian population. The bourgeoisie would have to respond by massively increasing social spending, or through repression, or both. To the Marxist, this meets all the criteria of “a good thing”: it heightens contradictions, weakens the bourgeoisie, etc.Scenario 2, to the Marxist, has essentially the same effect. A Marxist should want the poor to have stable families for the same reason he wants the poor to be educated: it gives them power in the class struggle, and allows them to more effectively organize in their own interests. Not to mention, it would drastically improve problems like mass incarceration. Families also spend less prodigally, which hits consumerism where it hurts.Integralism is neither egalitarian (in the modern sense) nor revolutionary. To the Integralist, scenario one would force the bourgeoisie to behave better: they would have to take up the responsibilities that come with being elite by protecting the weak and vulnerable and by setting a good public example. I.e. demonstrating the properties of aristoi, being an actual ruling class.The second scenario is a good in itself to the Integralist.
>>13122834Thanks for the response.Would it really mean an explosion in proletarian population though? Women have always had abortions, won't they just change methods? Like "black market" type shit like some do now?
>>13122873Not scalable if it’s banned. Price goes up, demand goes down.
>>13122834What if banning abortion doesn't have any of those consequences, but instead creates a black market, from which economic levies are taken through imprisonment and re-appropriation of illegally obtained funds?
>>13122902We seed the black market with our own doctors who "accidentally" botch the abortion and kill the mother in the process.
>>13120957>poking at incelshow original and funny. guys he made fun of incels. you know they don't have sex right? haha
>>13122914But it would be much easier and more efficient just to create a national requirement for hospitals to care for foundlings and introduce them into the care system when they're of age. Then there can state revenue increases in the form of illegal fund annexation and tax increases for imprisonment as well as foster care. And black market abortions are dangerous anyway, the risk of death is implied, increasing it without claiming responsibility (which the state could not claim) wouldn't have a deterrent effect.
>>13122873You'd have to argue if they would get them in significant enough numbers which I honestly would doubt
>>13120549>Why do so many socialists turn into hardcore laissez-faire liberals when it comes to sexual dynamicsHahaha Meis sides
The funny thing is that sexual liberation and free marketeering are linked. The guild system was to the market what marriage and Christian marriage was to sexuality.
>>13120549>I wonder if this just shows how much one's politics are driven by self-interest. Well most politicians definitely-if you are self aware enough about your own selfInterest you are most likely not entering politics.
>>13120549Celibacy is not a bad thing. Involuntary celibacy is.
Wealth and sex are different kinds of social goods and should be distributed differently.
>>13122902Risk goes up, availability goes down, prices go up. Black market can’t scale like industrial abortion, you really ought to look at how vast it is. Population surges.Also black market still heightens contradictions, if you’re a Marxist.
>>13120549because politics is never about theory and always about interests
>>13120757Yes there most definitely is, you just call it something else, like “attractiveness, compatibility, desirability etc”
>>13120871You are funny, write some more...
>>13123018The first part of this >>13122936 still applies. Why wouldn't the bourgeois stadtholders just loosen access to foster care to compensate for the glut of new births?
>>13120880She’s only attractive among other politicians. It’s the “only woman there” scenario. Even though she has a Luis Suarez Face her tots are nice.
>>13120917The 80/20 rule is very real and can be quantified, and I say that as an unironic member of the 20
>>13120549What does this have to do with literature?
>>13123040Increasing spending, weakening the bourgeoisie through debt, taxes, or inflation, as prescribed by Lenin.
>>13120917how do they count up the total charges of sexual assault for prosecution and whatnot?seems like a decent place to start
Don't you guys realize that you're lucky to be celibate? The Church teaches the greater excellence of celibacy over marriage. Take up ascetic discipline; die to the world; flee the ravening she-wolf of the flesh and the roaring leonine devil. There is nothing sadder than seeing those excluded from a type of sin bemoan their beatitude.
>>13123053We’re converting the Marxists, which will free literature from it’s present critical prison.
>>13123061In what way would a greater need for taxation weaken the current iteration of capitalist liberal democracy? I can see why Lenin or Luxemburg would say that, given the inefficient and obviously coercive methods of taxation that were employed during their lives, but at this point complaining about taxation is as far as it gets. Starving families would rather do just that than "riot" and attack an "innocent business owner."
>>13123075You lost me, but what's the title of this book?
>>13123077Since when did Marxists not care about material conditions?
>>13122253>Your idea that people should be enslaved into sex..... I don't understand how you think that should workSame way that you enslave people into maintaining widget factories.
>>13121928I genuinely cannot tell if you’re baiting, but holy fuck.Exquisite.
>>13123094Who's a Marxist? I never said I was. And there is such a thing as obesity coupled with malnourishment, i.e. the material illusion of satisfaction. Also, going by what I think I understand of Marxist theory, that there is a base does not negate superstructure (Debord and Gramsci).
>>13121109>no one wants to fuck you because you're a narcissist obsessed with your genderThat's not the reason no one wants to fuck them.
>>13120901at least in an American context, "socialists" are the intellectual descendants of pearl-clutching liberal protestants. they are not really operating within the Orthodox Marxist tradition. they might read Marx but they fundamentally don't think in a Marxist manner.
>>13120549What shocks me is the lack of empathy that people feel for young men who are being hurt by technological and demographical changes. It is undeniable that social media has created difficulties for many men, they now have to compete with a much larger pool of eligible males, this combined with the decline in the birth rate, which means less young women, means that young men face unprecedented challenges in finding a partner. And yet the only response they are given is "lol kill yourselves weak boys". Is it any wonder that so many of these young men are attracted to destructive cults like incel groups? They are the only ones who care about their issues.
>>13123111I’m not a Marxist either. I’m saying Marxists should support the pro-life movement exactly because of the damage it would do to the superstructure. Read the beginning of the exchange; it would obliterate liberal democratic moral legitimacy.
>>13122602I don't think it would, "the bourgeoisie" is frantically trying to increase the population through immigration to make up for the shortfalls due to contraception and abortion. You could crash capitalism in a few years by just deporting Third Worlders, it would self-destruct for lack of bodies in the market.
>>13123135In Papua New Guinea part of the traditional ritual requirements for a boy to fully become a man is for that boy to come back to the tribe with the scalp of another man he's slain in war. If a boy is unable to come back with a scalp, the women of the tribe will make fun of him until he is able to prove himself a proper man. It's not in their nature to pity men who are considered failures by society. They're the gatekeepers of tribe's future, if they pitied "failures" they'd be failures themselves.
>>13120549AOC is a neoliberal not a socialist. Fuck off.
>>13123159If you don’t think they’re afraid of the pro-life movement, look how hard Gates, the UN and others are pushing abortion and contraception in Africa.
>>13123198Why would you push contraception in Africa while fretting about the population shortfall in the US and Europe. How does this make any sense whatsoever?
>>13123135>What shocks me is the lack of empathy people feel for young menIt doesn't shock me. people are shit, and even more so because they have been indoctrinated into believing that men don't deserve sympathy
>>13120549What has this got to do with literature?
>>13123224Population control is a bedrock neoliberal value.
>>13123189Eh, I wouldn't say she's an all out neolib. She's certainly no socialist, not even a dem soc. She's somewhere between a lib and a succdem from what I've gathered.
>>13120757What is the name for the process by which humans identify and select who they have sex with?
>>13122233>Defining a term in relation to another term is just a normal way of explaining a convoluted topicIt's normal for retards to float by on vague intuition and parroted phrases instead of bothering to break down what they hear into coherent ideas. Doing what is normal does not mean you are communicating a coherent idea.
>>13122129>the opposite of degeneracy is slavery>therefore unless you want to be a slave, be a degeneratejew trying to trick people againalways a fucking jew
>>13123135No one in the history of the world has ever given a shit about low-status men.
>>13123242So where do they plan to get their extra bodies from if Africa's fertility rates drop below 2.1?
>>13123254She's a capitalist cuckold. That's all she is to me.
>>13123187In Papua New Guinea another tribe requires young males to ingest the semen of the older men of the tribe to achieve full adult status. My point being that pulling random anecdotes from primitive exotic tribes proves very little about the universal nature of anyone.
>>13123254She's a Latin American style socialist, which in practice is "Gimme dinero por favor gingo :3"There's not really a lot of debate over the finer points of Marx going on.
>>13123283She's not. She's a liberal.
>>13120549life and well-being are human rights in America, sex is not. if you conflate sex with well-being that is your own problem, not the government's.
>>13123293That's literally what Latin American socialism is.
>>13123225> indoctrinated into believing that men don't deserve sympathy I believe this is what some feminists refer to when they talk about 'toxic masculinity'.
>>13123135What is referred to as empathy is nothing more than politically motivated feeling. Give people a justification to feel for young men from a leftist framework, and they'll have all the empathy in the world for them.
>>13123296You just want to larp some cold war antics and act like your enemy is manlier or some other gay shit. Socialism has many currents, most socialist parties today hold feminist theory in their literary canon, dumbass
>>13123297Who is going to inspire more sympathy? A little girl diagnosed with lung cancer or a young man diagnosed with the same disease? People are going to feel less sympathy for the man because he can "tough it out" while they're going to feel worse for the little girl because she is weaker and more likely to die. But this extendes beyond that. The current political thinking among the left is that men have been historically privileged so no man can never be in a disadvantaged position, therefore, they do not deserve sympathy. Fuck off with you buzzwords
>>13123279If you refused to drink their semen you'd probably get made fun of all the same. It's not the ritual itself that matters but whether you can complete in the context of the society you live in, and the 20 and rising % of men who can't complete our rituals will get 0 sympathy from women until there's enough of them at they disrupt our society itself and supplant its rituals with their own.
>>13123330Men have always sacrificed themselves to support and protect women, and women have always sacrificed themselves to produce children. As both sides retreat from their responsibilities under this ancient, natural compact, all marks of recognizable human social relation melt away, things fall apart. The natural law is not just an abstraction — nature is dogmatic.
>>13123330I'm just saying, though, this concept is what many feminists have referred to with the buzzword 'toxic masculinity'. The idea that the man can always 'tough it out' is part of traditional masculine norms. In some cases this concept may hurt men by resulting in them getting less sympathy. That would be an example of 'toxic masculinity'.People being indoctrinated into the belief that men don't deserve sympathy is literally exactly one of the phenomena that 'toxic masculinity' is meant to describe.The phrase is sometimes used to criticize men by certain feminists, but plenty of others have discussed how it harms men. Your description of the 'current political thinking' of the left is basically a caricature, although I don't deny it certainly applies to some obnoxious feminists.
>>13120549>society shifts its views on sex so that it is no longer confined to lifelong marriage>sex becomes commodified and destroys itself along with marriage, family, society, etc.Can't say I feel sorry for people not getting any. Sex is dangerous and it was never meant to be handled so trivially
>>13123400I mean if its women not having empathy would 'toxic femininity' be a better name?
>>13123400I’m essentially down with this as long as it doesn’t denigrate other virtues, like courage and self-sacrifice, or get wrapped up in radical, constructivist gender ideology.Both sexes have brains, both sexes have emotions. They are made to cooperate.
>>13123400Actually when feminists refer to "toxic masculinity" they refer to stupid shit like "man-spreading", "mansplaining" or "locker-room talk".
>>13120643The abolition of rape would probably result in a just distribution of sex but I dunno I'm not an angsty virgin
>>13120549what is she even trying to say in this tweet? i don't understand
>>13120643rofl, i turn down bitches all the time ;)
>>13123262Jesus Christ gave a shit.
Imagine thinking about sex in terms of economics and then wondering why you've never had sex
>>13123420Well it would depend on why they didn't have empathy. It seems like a reasonable analysis to say that aspects of traditional masculine norms might encourage us to not have empathy for men who fail. Generally men are supposed to be independent, providers, more dominant, etc. Those are loosely described aspects of traditional masculinity. If traditional feminine norms resulted in women not feeling empathy for men this would indeed be an example of toxic femininity. Though of course, men have historically been involved in the construction of many traditional feminine norms. In any case, I don't think blame is a very productive mindset. We should simply look at what social norms are hurting people and work to change them to make a better society for everyone. >>13123445Yes, I agree with this. The concept of toxic masculinity is useful because it allows us to highlight aspects of masculinity that may be harmful without condemning masculinity as a whole. There are many valuable concepts part of traditional masculinity, like the ones you mentioned. >>13123453Your main exposure to what feminists say is probably through social media. Obviously there are a lot of dumb feminists out there, like with any set of ideas. They are often amplified because the nature of social media is that controversial edgy ideas are often spread much farther.
>>13123499Whoops, I meant to reference >>13123447for that last paragraph.
>>13123499>We should simply look at what social norms are hurting people and work to change them to make a better society for everyone.I agree whichis why we can abandon the term 'patriarchy' and just look at various forms of power imbalance
>>13123484It is economic though
>>13123484Only the downtrodden are able to visualize the chains of their oppression. I wouldn't expect privileged sex-havers to understand it, no more than a son of the bourgeoisie can truly understand the plight of the working class.
>>13123149But, again, what about Marxists with a more superstructural orientation like Debord or Gramsci? The "Spectacle" is one of the precursors to the modern "accelerationist" movements.
>>13123516The term patriarchy refers to a particular power imbalance in society, though. That is, a social system where men hold the primary power, as shown through political leadership, property ownership, etc. So long as there are societies where this holds, it will be useful to have a term to describe them.
>>13123547And women being cruel to low status men refers to a particular sort of power imbalance, but as you said above there is no point in thinking in terms of blame.
>>13120549any first worlder with a brain is what you mutts call a """socialist""", it isn't related to sexual dynamics whatsoever
>>13123463That the men who no longer have sex or have never had sex are part of an old power structure that would use non-consensual means to have sex with women.
>>13123547given foucault's definition of power, if a woman is married to a powerful man and can get him to do anything and influence others however she wants, does that make her more powerful than him?
>>13120549Because "sexual dynamics" are a waste of time and an extremely low priority, if it's a priority at all. It's also extremely divisive. We want the culture war leftists to support anti-capitalist causes even if all they care about is nonsense about dicks and cunnies.
>>13120549Oh boy. You know not EVERYTHING is a market, right?But assuming sex is, you clearly haven't taken any economics class outside of high school. If you had, you'd know that not all markets are structured the same. Whats the labor here? Who are the firms? Who are the consumers? At BEST, this is a market that must be analyzed where both sides are labor. Good luck trying to find a utility function for that.inb4 muh supply and demand
>>13123499>Generally men are supposed to be independent, providers, more dominant, etc. Those are loosely described aspects of traditional masculinity. These traits would not be bad in themselves though, right? Wouldn’t it depend on the ends? E.g., being more dominant is good when ordered towards a good end, like defending the town in a war, or forcing someone to stop doing something bad. We don’t want to do away with that, right?
Incels of the World Roid Up, You Have Nothing to Lose but Your Virginity
>>13123677Well, yeah. One could go much deeper and be much more specific. I'm not saying all those traits are bad, just that these expectations directed towards men may adversely effect them in some situations.
>>13123646What's Foucault's definition of power?
>>13120871The "evolutions" of these people are who dominate media and academia
When is was 12 i thought of the idea of "sexual communism" wherein all the students would list all the other students they were sexually attracted to and matches would be disclosed and sexual congress arranged for accordingly.I never told anyone about the idea or thought it should be implemented, but it's interesting to think it was basically incel philosophy before it's time(in fairness, abrahamic religions and fascism were also "incel philosophy before its time").>>13123670good post but couldn't the sexual marketplace be modeled in theory, even if no one is good enough to do so right now?and besides that isn't OP's point valuable to the extent that socialists and progressives hypocritically only provide the "inequality bad, duh!" argument in so far as cash is concerned; when it comes to sex, they sound like a reaganite whining about "welfare queens" and unironically telling people to "pick yourself by your bootstraps."
>>13123710> power must be understood in the first instance as the multiplicity of force relations immanent in thesphere in which they operate and which constitute their own organization; as the process which, through ceaseless struggles and confrontations, transforms, strengthens, or reverses them; as the support which these force relations find in one another, thus forming a chain or a system, or on the contrary, the disjunctions and contradictions which isolate them from one another; and lastly, as the strategies in which they take effect, whose general design or institutional crystallization is embodied in the state apparatus, in the formulation - of the law, in the various social hegemonies. ...> Power is everywhere; not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere. And "Power," insofar as it is permanent, repetitious, inert, and self-reproducing, is simply the over-all effect that emerges from all these mobilities, the concatenation that rests on each of them and seeks in turn to arrest their movement. One needs to be nominalistic, no doubt: power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategical situation in a particular society..
>>13123670The males are the consumers the females are the firms selling product (pussy), it’s not that hard to see
>>13121888Your post is retarded and boils down to a no u. Why shouldn't your logic be exportable to different situations?
>>13123640which, by that tack, shes far off. those men are continuing to do what theyve done for generations. however, upward wealth concentration means fewer & fewer hands command that kind of raw power. the most immediate new crop of incels are dealing with the ressentiment of seeing two generations of faildads before them manage to smash because of the sudden combination of localized ethnic clades with matchmaking rituals plus a heavy government subsidy of the economic family unit & that being relatively suddenly & dramatically pulled out from underneath themonce the neoliberal order progressively centralized social relations around larger corporate chains in the name of supply chain efficiency, relationships became mediated through disembodied administrative complexes. this left a smoking crater where matchmaking rituals used to be. but the technologies which replaced them, because of their tight coupling to antisocial market norms, leaves everyone involved either sexually starved, sexually traumatized, or sexually debauchedeven a hundred years ago men of the new incel type would have been press-ganged or recruited to some corporate-imperial mission of murdering an island of rare wildlife. theyd hang out on ships & fuck their hands, or die in a world war. but if these neoliberal hacks like trump keep inviting corporate technocrats who rule in some capacity over a centralized supply chain production operation to finger each other about how oppressed by the nihilistic, lumpen masses they are (because despite their power they cant stop fucking watching TV), the incel problem is only going to continue to grow.frankly, while she can indict "the powerful" all she wants, AOC doesnt have the balls to say where the real current glut of petit bourgeoise rapists are. theyre not incels. theyre cops/military men & the adult children of cops/military men & their friends. all cops should be women. primarily because this would make it much more fun to fistfight them, secondarily because i would finally, eventually get my dick sucked in the back of a cop car by the kind of person i want to do that, instead of the many times its happened with the kind of person i dont. i really dont want to get my dick sucked by another alcoholic mick unless they also are a woman with some fat titties. i guess if the cop in question, was mtf trans too that would be okay. but no more of these bald, fat, wife beating dip shits
>>13120643I refuse to believe so few women want me to have sex with them.
>>13122107>Creating jobs to keep proles busy was a regularitybased
>>13123483I like Jesus Christ
AOC is following a horridly ahistorical line of thinking that presents society as having been demonically and fantastically abusive to women until feminism came around and gave girls the freedom they have today, a belief that is backhandedly misogynistic in that it imagines women as being perpetual victims with no agency prior to the saving grace of 'female empowerment.' It makes sense that her liberal mind would interpret history like that given the rape-and-revenge histrionics that puritanical callout culture selects for, except the 'rape' here is often a minor, barely offensive horny comment and the 'revenge' a series of twitter posts presenting the man-in-the-crosshairs as some demon possessed by the Manichean evil force of experiencing sexual attraction. Incels and the adjacent groups are more often than not legitimately disenfranchised and alienated people whose cries for help are suppressed simply because expressing grievance as a young man is not in vogue or cool; the idea that these men would've coerced sex out of women in a more 'patriarchal' landscape is anachronistic at best and insulting at worst, especially when you take into account that some of the most sexually coercive and oppressive men hide themselves under the 'feminist' banner. This being said, between the incels and their female counterpart, the rape-and-revenge twitter feminists, there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the way sex operates. Sex is very similar to historical tragedies and obsessive-compulsions in that it always repeats itself, no matter how many rationalizations about today's society being unfairly patriarchal or the opposite, people (and you) are still going to fuck eventually, which may be a hard pill to swallow if you've made your entire presence about how it's not something you do and/or condone (of course, religious mystics are always the exception).
>>13120549We clammer for equality but as soon as it comes to who fucks who it's all of the sudden the right time to discriminate.The left's rhetoric has always been "bro be who you want except people we don't like."Life would be so much better if everyone followed the satanic Bible instead of some gay pseudo philosophy.
>>13123917You must be 18 to post here.
>>13122103>America is so rabidly right-wingwrong. It isn't left either. It truly is liberal.
>>13120549Socailism is about the workers being able to control the means of production. THey believe that this entitles workers to more freedom because they view modern worker and owner relations as wage slavery. They view their ideology as a form of freedom like how libertarians see their ideology as.
>>13122167Socialism: rejection of capitalism. Seize the means of production etc. Democratic Socialism: acceptance of capitalism with various degrees of enthusiasm. The goal is to try as much as possible to restrain capitalism by creating a generous welfare state and a muscular government that can regulate the market and reign in capitalists.
>>13121109I just wanted to be fucked and treated as a woman desuYou have to be very retarded to think that we, knowing that being trans is 999999 times worse socially than being just gay, are going to be perfectly benefited when we become women/men.It's sometimes amazing how people try to think for you.
Now That's B8!
>>13123996this is true. america is very "culturally right wing" in the sense that the fourth estate which massages the politico, cop, & tycoon sector is rabidly anticommunist in a facile, moronic way. it is economically liberal, however, in a way that is also deeply anticommunist. so even the "culturally left wing" parts, such as the podcast, lootbox, & prestige TV sectors, are based on facile, moronic progressivism. everybody watches TV or uses social media now, especially the elites, but the machine that churns at the heart of america is "clasically liberal" in the most vulgar, blood-soaked, yet antiseptic senseamerica is a liberal hell hole, & not even the most "culturally right wing" or "culturally left wing" petit boug idiots or the hog-like lumpen gamer underclass or their capitalist masters would dare do anything to threaten their collective disgusting, consumptive way of life. in a sense, the collective consciousness of america is narcissistic consumption which cross-cuts against race, gender, & all other class lineswe can only hope the great satan sterilizes itself through endocrine disruptors & mass narcissism so china can make a run of it next, & lets be honest, fuck it up in a different, horrifying way
>>13124142yeah most anti-trans talking points are high octane retardation. the fact is that all trans people are mentally ill, steming from a lack of earnable agency connected to traditionally gendered institutions, but being trans is not a mental illness. its just either in utero hormonal variations, or overexposure to meat pumped full of antibiotics or touching too much receipt paper as a child. its a natural response to the encroaching planetary sterilization that the capitalist class has been enacting upon us since the 1600-1700s. its like how some fish go hermaphrodite in different water conditions. take heart in the fact that this dip shit saying youre doing it as a cure-all to your faildaughter problems is far more mentally ill than you arepsychosomatically however youre probably trans because you took the SAT. if you dont have hormone disruption & take the SAT you get into DD/LG shit, but if you do well actually that happens too. the collapse of embedded social institutions means that people lack concrete roles & degenerate BDSM shit gives them the structure they crave. this is also why people who take the SAT become fascists when their performance is at odds with all the propaganda theyve read about what racial groups are supposed to have higher IQs than othersanyway i genuinely hope you have stable access to HRT & get to do all that dumb woman shit. enjoy your worsened ability to do math & reason spatially. i bet you look good in thigh highs you dumb bitch. enjoy being friends with other shrill women who rag on each others bearded podcaster boyfriends publicly on twitter. i bet its a blast being in your 30s & calling yourself an uwu soft witch you roastie. im looking forward to reading your feminist swill comedy-adjacent book that aspirant media simps quote tweet as "a hilarious & harrowing look at the state of modern gender relations" before drunk DMing you about how they want to cum on your face & then apologizing weepily in the DMs the next day. you only got published because you went to an ivy league school & a family friend owns a publisher. & pull your sleeves back up! youre telling everyone in a five mile radius that you have BPD when you pull them over your hands like that
>>13124277the SAT as in the test? i dont understand this psychobabble
>>13124414yes, the test. what part of this is psychobabble? i didnt even say "jouissance" a single time
>>13124428Every student in the US wanting to get into or has entered into a university is not a transgender
>>13124456yes, but they are into DD/LG shit. dont believe me? just go on tinder for five minutes, or better yet, check porn hub
>>13124001That's using the same words to mean different things and they will never both be described in the same terms in any meaningful way.A debtor also fights for freedom from the 'debt slavery' by killing his creditor.
>>13123670Everything that features deliberate voluntary exchange between people is a market. No need to be bothered by the word.I bet you complain about 'commodification' because people realize they can exchange x for y.
>>13121697Holy fucking shit. Holy fucking shit. The fucking delusion. I hate incels too but God in fucking Heaven. How detached from reality can one person be?
FUCK MODS FUCK MODS FUCK MODS FUCK MODS FUCK MODS FUCK MODS FUCK MODS FUCK MODS FUCK MODS FUCK MODS FUCK MODS FUCK MODS FUCK MODS FUCK MODS FUCK MODSRENAME IT Literature/Politics RENAME IT Literature/Politics RENAME IT Literature/Politics RENAME IT Literature/PoliticsRENAME IT Literature/PoliticsRENAME IT Literature/Politics RENAME IT Literature/PoliticsRENAME IT Literature/Politics
>>13121915not very redpilled but very very based