You can say anything about character limits but back in the day of 150 characters people were forced to be creative with how they wrote their tweets. Yes, it's very fucking limiting but you gotta admire the stuff you could do with these 150 characters. It's like with trying to make a game that fits on a 64kb cartridge. Also, I like beige prose and how it forces people to think before they type the fucking text. It also gets the message across which does not allow writing whatever nonsense paragraphs your brain spits out.
You can say anything about character limits but back in the day of 150 characters people were forced to be creative with how they wrote their tweets. Yes, it's very fucking limiting but you gotta admire the stuff you could do with these 150 characters. It's like with trying to make a game that fits on a 64kb cartridge. Also, I like beige prose and how it forces people to think before they type the fucking text. It also gets the message across which does not allow writing whatever nonsense paragraphs...
@nyx I have this idea: pedophilia is only possible through the emasculation of women. It is ingrained in our society that feminine women are highly desirable. Strong men and women represent the opposite of a submissive wife or husband. Male and female is not only a dichotomy between domination and submission but also between adulthood and childhood, between strength and helplessness. Young girls and boys are the exaggeration of submissiveness and helplessness that are characteristics of a tradwife. Our system makes it so feminine women are highly desirable while attraction to strong women and men is frowned upon. Thus the system reproduces pedophiles as the attraction to helplessness and submissiveness is encouraged. Just look at the alt-right, their most common fetishes are femboys and lolicon.
No wonder why popes are pederasts, they are the manifestation of preference for femininity in our patriarchal culture. No matter how males may mock it, they need femininity. And that's why masculine accelerationism is valid, Nyx. Once the society becomes masculine, the preference for the biological domination will wither away and we all will be lifting each other up like bros at the gym. Chackmate, I have won the game.
Don't take it seriously, I'm just a little bit Jregtarded today, doing some mental gymnastics with dialectical masculinism.
@nyx I have this idea: pedophilia is only possible through the emasculation of women. It is ingrained in our society that feminine women are highly desirable. Strong men and women represent the opposite of a submissive wife or husband. Male and female is not only a dichotomy between domination and submission but also between adulthood and childhood, between strength and helplessness. Young girls and boys are the exaggeration of submissiveness and helplessness that are characteristics of a tradwife....
@nyx Speaking of dialectics, Stirner actually mocked the dialectics in Philosophical Reactionaries:
Do you philosophers actually have an inkling that you have been beaten with your own weapons? Nothing but an inkling. What retort can you hearty fellows make against it, when I again dialectically demolish what you have just dialectically put up? You have shown me with what “eloquence” one can make all into nothing and nothing into all, black into white and white into black. What do you have against it, when I turn your neat trick back on you? But with the dialectical trick of a philosophy of nature, neither you nor I will cancel the great facts of modern natural research, no more than Schelling and Hegel did. Precisely here the philosopher has revealed himself as the “clumsy” subject; because he is as ignorant in a “clumsified” sphere in which he has no power, as a witless Gulliver among the giants.
@nyx Speaking of dialectics, Stirner actually mocked the dialectics in Philosophical Reactionaries:
Do you philosophers actually have an inkling that you have been beaten with your own weapons? Nothing but an inkling. What retort can you hearty fellows make against it, when I again dialectically demolish what you have just dialectically put up? You have shown me with what “eloquence” one can make all into nothing and nothing into all, black into white and white into black. What do you have against...
ME: Why are you an anarchist? POST-LEFTIST: Because I'm against ideology. ME: But anarchism is an ideology. POST-LEFTIST: Well, yes, but not really, uhm… Uhm… Well, I support lived anarchy, the anarchy of becoming. ME: But the word anarchism doesn't reflect that. POST-LEFTIST: Hm, yeah, but I use it in my way. ME: But it's ahistorical. POST-LEFTIST: Well… kinda… ME: Then you're not an anarchist. POST-LEFTIST: Well, that depends on how you define "anarchism." ME: But that would mean that ancaps and syndicalists' definition of anarchism is no less valid than yours. By that point what does "anarchism" even mean? POST-LEFTIST: Well… Fuck it, just call me an egoist, whatever, I don't care about labels anyway.
LANGUAGE. THE BANE OF MY EXISTENCE.
ME: Why are you an anarchist? POST-LEFTIST: Because I'm against ideology. ME: But anarchism is an ideology. POST-LEFTIST: Well, yes, but not really, uhm… Uhm… Well, I support lived anarchy, the anarchy of becoming.
I can call myself a philosophical anarchist however. A Godwinist if you will. Because fuck authority, these capitalist motherfuckers are out to get me, better build a bunker.
@hayley Hayley, you must look into meta-anarchism. I keep thinking about the intersections of Stirnerism and anarchism and it just doesn’t work. It just doesn’t work. It only breaks my brain. The more I think of it, the more my brain hurts. These things are just unreconcievable and maybe they have to be this way. Maybe they have to. Maybe we put too much emphasis on ideological purity instead of ideological flexibility. It just doesn’t allow for the free flow of political desire, the ideological liberty, another form of liberty that is directly advocated by Stirner. I just… I gave up. All the arguments I was provided. They are always half-baked. They are always limiting in some way, it’s like the spirit of mother anarchy is trying to yank ourselves back into her arms like a worried parent. It’s like we’re afraid to leave her alone. But why do we do this? Do we have a psychological attachment to anarchism? Are we afraid of criticism and being left alone as the rest of the movement berates us as traitors and backstabbers (like they didn’t before, just look at how anarcho-moralists from C4SS treat folks like us, they will never ever trust us)?
@hayley Hayley, you must look into meta-anarchism. I keep thinking about the intersections of Stirnerism and anarchism and it just doesn’t work. It just doesn’t work. It only breaks my brain. The more I think of it, the more my brain hurts. These things are just unreconcievable and maybe they have to be this way. Maybe they have to. Maybe we put too much emphasis on ideological purity instead of ideological flexibility. It just doesn’t allow for the free flow of political desire, the ideological...
Are you by any chance interested in our meta-anarchist movement? We are a small group of individuals who are transvaluating values and fighting the disease of objectivity. If you look into its theory you will find many advantages of it compared to your proposal. It is more flexible, allowing to account for multiple scenarios, and it is non-dogmatic, removing the society's cultural baggage that keeps humans attached to the old values. Also, what do you think about the insurrectionary anarchist movement? I say these people have an enormous will to power and I can see them becoming true Overhumans.
I hope this will be interesting to you. Would love to hear your answer.
Sincerely, CyberSpook
Dear Nietzsche,
Are you by any chance interested in our meta-anarchist movement? We are a small group of individuals who are transvaluating values and fighting the disease of objectivity. If you look into its theory you will find many advantages of it compared to your proposal. It is more flexible, allowing to account for multiple scenarios, and it is non-dogmatic, removing the society's cultural...
Conservatives claim that progressives are nihilists. I say I am offended for being compared to such pious atheists as progressives and demand an apology, thank you.
What I don't really get about ancaps is that they expect the society to transition to anarcho-capitalism after 100 (sic!) years. Dudes, Xi Jinping has shorter forecasts, you'll be fucking dead by this point. And if you'll be fucking dead then what's the point? Ancoms are doing something at least. It's… also completely pointless but hey. They try… Try to fight off the imperialist forces as they try to destroy them.
Gotta give credit to agorists. They do the bare minimum of direct action, congrats. But yeah, in conclusion, your average ancap has no praxis, sitting on the Internet all day instead as the world passes by, not really making any change whatsoever. It's like our politicians. "We're working on it." Where are you working? Show me your progress.
What I don't really get about ancaps is that they expect the society to transition to anarcho-capitalism after 100 (sic!) years. Dudes, Xi Jinping has shorter forecasts, you'll be fucking dead by this point. And if you'll be fucking dead then what's the point? Ancoms are doing something at least. It's… also completely pointless but hey. They try… Try to fight off the imperialist forces as they try to destroy them.
Speaking of ancoms trying. MLs are right actually. Oops, did I just drop a controversial opinion? Yes, I did. MLs are fucking right. You create an autonomous zone and a bunch of vultures come and destroy your movement. And if they don't you are still in a constant struggle, isolated and outnumbered. I don't really see the point. I don't see why Stirnerites and post-anarchists cling to those autonomous zones either. "Autonomous" zones. As long as we live in a society, there is nothing autonomous about them. And here the primitivists are right (ancoms are getting trolled by both Marxists and primitivists, imagine that unlikely alliance).
Again, illegalists and meta-anarchists are better, sorry, not sorry.
Speaking of ancoms trying. MLs are right actually. Oops, did I just drop a controversial opinion? Yes, I did. MLs are fucking right. You create an autonomous zone and a bunch of vultures come and destroy your movement. And if they don't you are still in a constant struggle, isolated and outnumbered. I don't really see the point. I don't see why Stirnerites and post-anarchists cling to those autonomous zones either. "Autonomous" zones. As long as we live in a society, there is nothing autonomous about...
@nyx I wonder. If we theoretically established laissez-faire capitalism would the system theoretically become market socialist, collapse into post-civ or will it keep being capitalist? What if laissez-faire is a new form of accelerationism that destroys the economy? Wouldn't it be BASED? Let's just- let's just remove all regulations and ruin the economy! Perfect plan, literally no flaws! Laissez-faire post-civ anarchism! We're gonna create an apocalypse where millions of people die of starvation!
COMPANY: Hi! Our company is the industry leader in the production of a high-quality [product]. When someone wants [product], they buy it from us because we are the ones the consumer can trust. CUSTOMER: So you're a monopoly. COMPANY: Oh, no! The industry leader! CUSTOMER: What's the difference? COMPANY: Well, others are still allowed to compete! Nobody's stopping them! CUSTOMER: Okay, I'll buy a cheaper product then. COMPANY: Wait-wait-wait. Do you really want to dive into an unknown territory where you don't have the comfort of knowing whom to trust? Our company is the most certified and our products are the industry standard. Besides, we've deliberately made it so if you choose any other product, your life will be worse because guess what? Our product is the industry standard so you'll HAVE TO use it. Bitch, you don't even know what you're getting yourself into. If we wanted we would find you and your family and ensure that your miserable existence you call life will be as painful as possible. CUSTOMER: Oh, boy, it's great that I don't have to resist the established corporatocratic order and put some actual effort. As you wish, MEGACORP Inc., I won't stop being your customer. Man, I love MEGACORP Inc., they make everything SO CONVENIENT… At least my wife and kids are safe.
COMPANY: Hi! Our company is the industry leader in the production of a high-quality [product]. When someone wants [product], they buy it from us because we are the ones the consumer can trust. CUSTOMER: So you're a monopoly.
Gregory's Server
