this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
166 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13521 readers
164 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I don't even agree with your shit how am I better at it than you. How are you gonna jerk off over the rules based societal order and then claim you can ignore whatever highest court you have because you personally disagree. mfer you just reinvented feudalism again

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 90 points 1 year ago (1 children)

they don't have political beliefs they never do

[–] [email protected] 107 points 1 year ago (1 children)

unstoppable material interest meets immoveable ideological prism

[–] [email protected] 70 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 88 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I once had to explain the french revolution to a "classical liberal" my man that's the ideology you say you are how have you not even heard of it

[–] [email protected] 54 points 1 year ago (17 children)

there's a good quote from Trotsky (yes, bare with me) about how liberals disavow the French revolution and Marxists are the true inheritors of that struggle's legacy.

The Great French Revolution was indeed a national revolution. And what is more, within the national framework, the world struggle of the bourgeoisie for domination, for power, and for undivided triumph found its classical expression.

Jacobinism is now a term of reproach on the lips of all liberal wiseacres. Bourgeois hatred of revolution, its hatred towards the masses, hatred of the force and grandeur of the history that is made in the streets, is concentrated in one cry of indignation and fear – Jacobinism! We, the world army of Communism, have long ago made our historical reckoning with Jacobinism. The whole of the present international proletarian movement was formed and grew strong in the struggle against the traditions of Jacobinism. We subjected its theories to criticism, we exposed its historical limitations, its social contradictoriness, its utopianism, we exposed its phraseology, and broke with its traditions, which for decades had been regarded as the sacred heritage of the revolution.

But we defend Jacobinism against the attacks, the calumny, and the stupid vituperations of anaemic, phlegmatic liberalism. The bourgeoisie has shamefully betrayed all the traditions of its historical youth, and its present hirelings dishonour the graves of its ancestors and scoff at the ashes of their ideals. The proletariat has taken the honour of the revolutionary past of the bourgeoisie under its protection. The proletariat, however radically it may have, in practice, broken with the revolutionary traditions of the bourgeoisie, nevertheless preserves them, as a sacred heritage of great passions, heroism and initiative, and its heart beats in sympathy with the speeches and acts of the Jacobin Convention.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/rp03.htm

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

oh boy, that thing. Safe to say most french people have a very poor understanding of that event, because schools here teach that Robespierre was basically Stalin and that Danton was like Obama. I wish I made this up but thats literally what I was taught back in High School. Also the whole "violence bad" bullshit, skipping the fact the french monarchy was atrocious for anyone who wasnt in the clergy or the nobility.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

skipping the fact the french monarchy was atrocious for anyone who wasnt in the clergy or the nobility

The "two reigns of terror" quote is evergreen, and one of the best parts is that it's from a popular non-leftist author (Twain), so libs can't even dismiss it out of hand.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

well the bourgeoise got so preoccupied with it'ss new class enemy the proletariat that it entirely forgot it's old enemy landlords

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Shared interests in maintaining the system that puts both on top aligned them pretty quickly

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

well yes and no. The way the landlords charge the proletariat and bourgeoise rent massively harms capitalist profitability and productivity. People cannot afford as many commodities when they pay out all their income in rent and workers having this expense ultimately sets a floor on the minimum capitalists can pay while still having access to labour in an area

The bourgeoise didn't get to the top with the aid of landlords they took it by force from landlords

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] [email protected] 84 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

I'm starting to realize most people I've met have political beliefs no more complex than "I can do whatever I want and also I'm not gay." No conception of what class they belong to, no idea what organizing is, rather just stuck in the idea their personal opinions are what matters the most. They don't want anything that could possibly impede consumerism. Also it's really important to know they're not gay. They never want to be mistaken for gay and that's their central political motivation.

Anything that might imply they're gay could be bad, including wearing sunscreen, shaving, eating soy, driving the speed limit. All of that is gay and is thus the political opposition.

Is that what you're struggling with? Most Americans seem to think yelling at TV or being in a Facebook group constitutes praxis. I mean we're posters so we're not much better but at least I know I'm just a goofus cackling at a pig shit emoji

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm starting to realize most people I've met have political beliefs no more complex than "I can do whatever I want and also I'm not gay." No conception of what class they belong to, no idea what organizing is, rather just stuck in the idea their personal opinions are what matters the most. They don't want anything that could possibly impede consumerism. Also it's really important to know they're not gay. They never want to be mistaken for gay and that's their central political motivation.

Anything that might imply they're gay could be bad, including wearing sunscreen, shaving, eating soy, driving the speed limit. All of that is gay and is thus the political opposition.

Is that what you're struggling with? Most Americans seem to think yelling at TV or being in a Facebook group constitutes praxis. I mean we're posters so we're not much better but at least I know I'm just a goofus cackling at a pig shit emoji

You cracked the code for pretty much all of the "nonpolitical" chuds around me, especially the "not gay" virtue signaling.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago

political beliefs no more complex than "I can do whatever I want and also I'm not gay."

Not true. They also know there are good guys and bad guys.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 69 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I don't even agree with your shit how am I better at it than you

atheists talking about religion be like

[–] [email protected] 58 points 1 year ago

And exactly like atheism, it is the intense, structured formation of a formal critique in analysis, a thought experiment to test the default assumption, an attempt to understand why the starting conclusion "feels wrong" than directly leads to a unwinnable confrontation with the magical thinking that underpins both of these enterprises

Like a bishop once told me, not all atheists went to seminary but studying at a seminary "earnestly, in good faith" will inevitably lead to a struggle with atheism for the rest of their life

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

There's a bit of the spirit of the political revolutionary in the atheist movement I guess, in this way. I'm not sure what to do with it, but I think it's something to jot down for the moment

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago

i mean that's how i got here in a roundabout way. There's a failure of a large segment of the "skeptical community" to apply their skeptical tools to contemporary social issues, but you also had the less internationally famous people like PZ Myers, Rebecca Watson, Sikivu Hutchinson and other people in their blog networks who were not comrades but usually did better than typical white liberal democrats.

The atheist community of austin had (or has? idk fuck them) a long-running public access tv show but they imploded over trans rights with all the comrades quitting in protest. Prior to that they were a good example of post-New atheism that wasn't overtly racist and so on.

a lot of shit libs stanning clinton and biden came out of that group though. minnesota liberal radio hosts gonna minensota liberal i guess.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

I think it's a really big problem how the position of permanent and principled critique of religion as mystification has been surrendered by people who described themselves as on the left, including, communists, and taken up by reactionary Neoliberals and Neoconservatives, whose critiques are obviously deeply ignorant and reactionary, and motivated to a huge degree by a desire to feel intellectually superior to others, but in a way analogous to junk food, as these people do not actually have any interesting things to say, let alone critiques, of religion other than obvious and trivial ones which are expressed in a reactionary way.

The most hardcore atheists I know are all Iranian communists, for obvious reasons.

[–] [email protected] 63 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't even agree with your shit how am I better at it than you

feel this in mah bones

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago

Back in my internet arguing days I would usually help my opponent with their argument but still point out why they were wrong.

[–] [email protected] 57 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It never gets any less tiresome telling "nonpolitical" smuglords that they are supporting the status quo, probably outright benefit from it, and are just dodging labels because conservatism (and liberalism for that matter) seem uncool. They just have theirs and want to feel superior to you. smuglord

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But have you considered that the really enlightened mindset is precisely Super Sigma-Male 3 in which one is too busy holding their hand over a flame, flexing their bicep in a mirror, dreaming of murdering minorities, and transcending the need for compassion to have time for politics?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I have a Christian relative that is "ok with capital punishment because there are reasons" and I nearly died of irony. Would you believe they are anti-abortion too?

[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Why yes, yes i would believe that. The classic Christian USian pro-death penalty/anti-abortion combo.

If ideology were a drive thru it would be the #2. The #1 would be fiscally conservative/socially liberal with super sized fries and a 64 oz soda

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago

#1 would be fiscally conservative/socially liberal with super sized fries and a 64 oz soda

The 90s were pretty accursed billdawg planet-hillary

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I don't know how to tell this person this but they executed Jesus

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 year ago

No thoughts, head empty, only vibes

[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Vibes based politics and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

[Sartre Quote] slightly updated:

“Never believe that anti-Semites/centrists/liberals/non-politicals are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites/centrists/liberals/non-politicals have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre

[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 year ago (12 children)

True for antisemites but the problem is the centrists / liberals are actually completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies is my point. To stick with the example, the checks and balances is what you're supposed to defend against the savage lawless hordes elsewhere, how you gonna throw that shit overboard at the slightest ideological disagreement with the institutions you jerk off over. Not even leftists are that infighty

[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yeah most people don't actually have political beliefs. They're centrists, they just adopt whatever the hegemon is saying.

KINGDOM OF CONSCIENCE – Moralists don't really have beliefs. Sometimes they stumble on one, like on a child's toy left on the carpet. The toy must be put away immediately. And the child reprimanded. Centrism isn't change -- not even incremental change. It is control. Over yourself and the world. Exercise it. Look up at the sky, at the dark shapes of Coalition airships hanging there. Ask yourself: is there something sinister in moralism? And then answer: no. God is in his heaven. Everything is normal on Earth.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s because they don’t have beliefs. It’s all just vibes to them

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

Moralists don't really have beliefs. Sometimes they stumble on one, like on a child's toy left on the carpet. The toy must be put away immediately. And the child reprimanded. Centrism isn't change -- not even incremental change. It is control. Over yourself and the world. Exercise it. Look up at the sky, at the dark shapes of Coalition airships hanging there. Ask yourself: is there something sinister in moralism? And then answer: no. God is in his heaven. Everything is normal on Earth.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago

To steal a chapo bit: the average american thinks Bush did 9/11 but that he was justified in doing so. A land of incoherencies

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago

Most 'liberal's' political beliefs are basically: whatever the status quo is.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago

This is, both regrettably and fortunately, the role of the revolutionary.

Regrettably: Gotta explain stuff to these ignorant libs and it's annoying.

Fortunately: Theit ideas are such mush that you get to radicalize them rather than treat them like brownshirts.

load more comments
view more: next ›