Not all men ik ik. Here’s the link if you wanna dunk in the replies.
Could be remembering wrong here, but I don't think it happened during Jorp's coma.
But yes, it did happen.
He thinks there's a spirit/demon cohabitating in his body named Igor.
I wish I had a spirit/demon cohabitating my body named Igor
:sicko-wistful:
Also, his first book was called Maps Of Meaning
You know, MOM :curious-marx:
Mikhaila left her husband & dad
assuming those are two different people, I did not know she was married lol
Listen up buddy, you can be a grifter or a human trafficker, choose wisely.
Someone needs to troll these fuckers with Soviet realism. Like you can easily fool them with it.
Here's a fun fact: Peterson actually collects Soviet political art "to remind himself of the horrors of totalitarianism".
Seriously. The guy has communist propaganda all around his house.
He just 100% likes how it looks but had to come up with a dumb reason to save face to his stupid fans.
Big "chanlord transphobe that violently hates trans people but has a mountain of "futa" porn on his computer" energy.
Oh look another nazi with a fondness for bleached Hellenistic statues. :desolate:
i kind of thought we had agreed to stop this kind of body shaming here on hexbear
like two days ago, even
Yes, it is fine to say "kill all fascists/slave owners" because they are making the choice to be that thing. At any point they can stop, and, critically, being that thing is what makes them evil. Not whether or not they have a weak chin or a small dick or whatever.
All you're doing is catching innocent people in the crossfire when you use insults that apply to more than just your intended targets. You can say nearly anything and set a Nazi to fuming. Using rhetoric that alienates onlookers (who might otherwise be on your side) is foolish at best and actively harmful at worst.
And it seriously undermines your claims of "no actually this isn't bad at all! it's cute and enjoyable!" when you use it as a bludgeon against people you don't like. You must understand that.
e: And yes, obviously, bullying Nazis is fine. Murdering them is fine too, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to shoot through someone else to get to one.
I'm reminded of why I rarely talk to children.
I don't think I can explain it any more simply than I already have.
You're not fighting the Nazis by doing body shaming on a tiny communist forum. You're just making your alleged comrades feel bad about themselves and engaging in the kind of toxic masculinity you allegedly don't care for.
"Oh but everyone should understand that when I'm denigrating bad people for something unrelated to their badness, it doesn't mean that thing is bad!!" wow you have such keen insight into the human mind, i could never believe you're actually a shitlib.
not this shit again. i already have to deal with this with the 9 year old i babysit. hard pass.
This is basically the “it isn’t homophobic to make fun of Trump sucking Putin’s dick because they are bad and rightwing” argument, ie the Vaush argument.
It’s not ok to use slurs or problematic attacks against people just because they are bad. It’s either ok to use an insult or it isn’t.
Vaush famously used misogyny against JK Rowling and said it was fine because she’s a TERF, this is the best example of this type of unprincipled thinking
Body shaming for a small dick is body shaming for a small dick
Unprincipled lib
When the most likely place to agree with you on the internet isn’t agreeing with you, maybe use some introspection
We should repaint them like they were supposed to look like
https://moco-choco.com/2014/04/18/true-colors-of-ancient-greek-and-roman-statues/
I wonder how many chuds would call that "revisionism" or something because I highly doubt they'd accept "historical accuracy" emphasis that wasn't about :awooga: :libertarian-alert: :hypersus:
One of them has a crippling Benzos addiction while the other is in prison.
I'm reading in-between the lines and getting that Western men should make themselves incapacitated in some way
Conservatives will probably call him a pedophile groomer today .
Arguably, they already did.
Before he died, he was being dragged through the muck by the increasingly-edgy mass media for seeming gay and the like.
Damn, that's sad. I guess it's some peace that he passed away without seeing the true depravity of the republicans.
And the true depravity of the democrats too. In general it's a cursed land that glorifies cynicism and apathy, things that Rogers opposed for his entire life. :doomer:
That fucking sucks, the only thing edgy I remember talking about Mr. Rodgers when I was a teenager was the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny and I'm pretty sure he won that
Sean from Srsly Wrong podcast made that music or animation, random fact
No need for dumb "men are trash" rhetoric. You made a bad post.
Men are the goddamned hegemonic dominant group that just by their very existence continue the oppression of all non-men. They can take some goddamn words on the chin.
And, I already said not all men, didn’t I? I fucking knew if I didn’t there’ll be a dozen enraged comments like yours, demanding I apologise for trying to vent.
Men are trash is just ACAB but with a different oppressor-oppressed dynamic that’s just as valid. “Men are trash” doesn’t mean all men are trash, just that “men” as a social class, are trash.
Men don’t have a choice about their gender.
Wow, I had no idea. I guess this means men don’t have power, as a class, over others.
I’m sorry, men. I shall make sure to coddle all of you and bottle feed you and make sure your feefees aren’t hurt by evil nasty people calling you mean names.
ok like I agree with you and I've made this mistake personally in the past but - and this is crucial - men are not a class. classes are economic not social + classes reproduce, which men on their own clearly cannot do. trying to analyze men as a class leads you down a reductive rabbithole towards class collaborationism. ultimately, because of patriarchy, men must relent in order for class unity and the overthrow of capital to be possible. but it is, without exception, always a mistake to characterize all men as one with the capitalist class.
I’m not an academic. Maybe it has been ordained that the term “class” can only be used in the economic sense, doesn’t matter if the overall structure in which the term is being used is capitalism or not.
I used it in the same sense as a group, and, crucially, I did not claim that men are a class under capitalism.
To me, saying men are a social class under patriarchy seems like a perfectly valid and non-objectionable stance. You can even go a step further and claim this social class has an economic angle to it, given men are higher paid, occupy more positions of power etc etc.
Either way, it seems like an unnecessary point to be arguing over.
this is literally the core of Marx's argument and why sociology sans Marx is so tepid. yes, there are strata within classes. yes, these social "classes" appear to be rather different. but ultimately it still comes down to who owns and who works. I'm saying don't take a line that has you proposing that men need to be opposed as a class because it means non-men must unite as a class against them, crossing lines of ownership, in solidarity. meanwhile, the ruling class still owns the means of production and the global working class is still immiserated and enslaved.
class opposition isn't even a helpful framework here. when we talk about class opposition to the bourgeoisie we're explicitly saying "we'll use violence against them to rectify the problem" - that is, politics is the question of who it is acceptable to do violence to. we explicitly cannot apply this framework to men. kill all men is not a real political framework, however amusing it is as a meme.
Ok. If we go by these assumptions and definitions, then yeah men are not a class. That was never my argument so I don’t really care if I give up that position. I’m not saying we all need to stand up and overthrow all men in a violent revolution.
Let’s just say, for the moment just say, that under patriarchy, men are a social group distinct from non-men, and that under this system, men have power over non-men.
So, men, under the system called patriarchy, can be called trash (as a group) because they, under patriarchy, have power over non-men that they use and abuse. They benefit from this way of organising society, even if they don’t (think) they actively participate in it.
I’m not saying men will always be trash, that there is something fundamental about being a man that makes you trash that cannot be changed, all that is just believed by some people at the very fringes of “feminism” (I hesitate to even use that term to describe them because imo they aren’t even feminists at that point - they just hate men.)
There are many ways of looking at and analysing society. It’s a complex world. Sometimes, using one lens can answer questions another lens can’t. But it might raise confusions and questions of its own. None of this makes one system right or better. It all depends on what you use it for.
To the best of our knowledge, we live under capitalism. But it isn’t just capitalism. It is patriarchal, white supremacist, heteronormative and many other things too. They all intersect with one another and mutually reinforce one another, and it is by this point so intertwined that fighting one system of oppression requires fighting all of them, else you’ll end up still oppressed. But that still doesn’t make them one and the same, no, the differences still matter. Any one of them can survive without another.
Like, patriarchy has existed across societies around the world throughout the ages. Today it is dependent on capitalism, but that’s because capitalism is the most powerful and all-encompassing and adaptive of all such systems that has ever existed. Patriarchy, itself, has no qualms about a return to feudalism.
So, you know, men are trash. They have been trash historically, and they are trash today. But they might not be trash tomorrow.
I'm not arguing with you about this - I agree that men are trash. however, this is a leftist forum, not a liberal one. class is an important concept - we want the public to become conscious of class. we can't be effective if we continuously shoot ourselves in the foot by using liberalized terms. the whole reason that people misunderstand class to mean "social group" is because the Marxists were intentionally and methodically driven out of academia. Marx's social theory became quietly discouraged until a new sociology was developed that did not mention its own founding principles.
liberals have spent plural centuries reinterpreting classes as merely social groups, pretending sociology can be separated from political economy. this process is called recuperation, in which the radical potency of ideas, movements, and historical figures are drained away, until things which once threatened capitalism become celebrated by its staunchest adherents. recognize recuperation when it's happening and resist it. the alternative is to just embrace liberalism.
Sigh
No. It’s not an exact comparison. That doesn’t make it a bad one. It’s just the difference that arises naturally between two different systems of oppression.
Capitalisms reason for existence is free labor and free peasants. Patriarchy is the domination of non-men. One group, by its very existence, is defined by labour (and choice) and the other is by who you are.
This is basic stuff.
Of course cops choose to be cops. The bourgeois choose to be bourgeois. That is the essence of capitalism.
Men don’t choose to be men. But that doesn’t make them any less responsible for the state of being (patriarchy) than the bourgeois are for capitalism.
Fucking.
Think of it in terms of race if that helps. White people don’t choose to be white. But they still benefit from being white. So you can call white people the devil or crackers or colonisers or whatever. You don’t fucking coddle them and say not all whites are evil.
No. White people, by virtue of being white, and insofar as they’re white, are trash. Same for men.
I’m sorry if that seems unfair or whatever. I’ll stop calling men trash when they stop the oppression, deal?
Wow, a LiberalSocialist struggle sesh where i agree with LiberalSocialist!!! I did not forsee this :lenin-laugh:
you can't say men are trash; raccoons are trash, and they're pure and wholesome animals that don't need to be compared to men
:anton: if the path you followed brought you to this, of what use was the path?
One wants to defeat, subjugate, and chain up women because they are "Dragons of Chaos." :up-yours-woke-moralists:
The other wants to do roughly the same thing but with less heroic imagery and more direct violence. :hypersus:
are they asking which one i wish was dead more? too close to call, clean the slate.
I'd love to get Andrew Tate to debate Jeffrey Peterson.
"YOURE NOT A TOP G WHERE IS YOUR BUGA'I?"
"LISTEN BUCKO, YOU'RE TOO BUSY CHASING THE CHAOS DRAGON!"
You're a moderator?? Since when!
Also, I would pay to see that debate.
