Twitter Marxists

Odradek · 2012-09-26 09:07:08

Twitter Marxist who is voting for Romney

Twitter Marxist who genuinely wants to bring back Brutalism

Twitter Marxist who thinks Breaking Bad is an okay show but nothing to get excited over

Twitter Marxist who actually comes out and says when they think people dying is a good thing

Twitter Marxist who thinks Zizek is alright, but doesn't go nearly far enough.

Twitter Marxist with a fancrush on Zizek

Twitter Marxist with a hatecrush on Zizek

Twitter Marxist with a crush on Zizek

Twitter Marxist who is Zizek

Twitter Marxist who thinks fascism proper is dead

Twitter Marxist who thinks there is something to be learned from antinatalism

Twitter Marxist who thinks antinatalists aren't nearly bitter or angry enough

Twitter Marxist who is secretly a major politican

Twitter Marxist who respects British Comedy

Twitter Marxist who thinks political cartoons are funny

Twitter Marxist who took a time machine to our time and age from the 19th century

Twitter Marxist who isn't stuck in the past

Twitter Marxist who uses Facebook

Corporal Forsythe · 2012-09-26 09:11:46

chances of every one of these going through a FUCK YOU MOM AND DAD phase: 100%

Imipolex G · 2012-09-26 10:35:46

Salix Babylonika · 2012-09-26 11:03:44

for everything else, there's MasterCard

Obā-san · 2012-09-26 11:36:52

Imipölex G said:

Twitter Marxist who genuinely wants to bring back Brutalism

Don't we all?

Sredni Vashtar · 2012-09-26 14:25:48

What does this mean?

Salix Babylonika · 2012-09-26 14:26:49

It means that I--STARSCREAM!--am now leader of the Decepticons!

KJI · 2012-09-26 20:36:22

It means the destruction of the holy roman empire is upon us

KJI · 2012-09-26 20:37:26

Twitter Marxist with a fancrush on Zizek
Twitter Marxist with a hatecrush on Zizek
Twitter Marxist with a crush on Zizek
Twitter Marxist who is Zizek
impossiburu

KJI · 2012-09-26 20:38:48

What it is what is up what is what

KJI · 2012-09-26 20:38:55

WHAT

KJI · 2012-09-26 20:39:19

Twitter Marxist who thinks there is something to be learned from antinatalism
lol what a moron
borat: NOT

KJI · 2012-09-26 20:40:11

Odradek · 2012-09-26 22:03:52

Sredni Vashtar said:
What does this mean?

I'm not sure how to explain it.

Obā-san · 2012-09-26 22:04:49

KJI said:

this is now my favorite image in the history of everything

Imipolex G · 2012-09-26 22:36:29

At first I didn't notice that he blinks

Sredni Vashtar · 2012-09-26 23:32:21

I'm probably going to be the odd man out here in saying that I don't find anti-natalism very strange or unpalatable as an ideology. Granted, some people advocating for the concept are pricks, but compared to religious fundamentalism and Objectivism, it's a pretty harmless conviction.

But then again, I find the whole thing a bit of a moot point when there are situations where even most highly optimistic would rather avoid bringing children into this world.

Obā-san · 2012-09-27 02:54:11

Sredni Vashtar said:
I'm probably going to be the odd man out here in saying that I don't find anti-natalism very strange or unpalatable as an ideology. Granted, some people advocating for the concept are pricks, but compared to religious fundamentalism and Objectivism, it's a pretty harmless conviction.

But then again, I find the whole thing a bit of a moot point when there are situations where even most highly optimistic would rather avoid bringing children into this world.

I'd agree.

Salix Babylonika · 2012-09-27 02:59:31

I wouldn't really call being against the existence of humanity as a species "harmless". Except perhaps by way of the movement being far too small to really do anything.

Obā-san · 2012-09-27 03:09:24

As long as you aren't killing/maiming/harming people, I fail to see harm.

RainbowMatt · 2012-09-27 04:21:03

Show me a person against the existence of humanity and I'll show you a person who only can get laid by paying someone :p

Unknown · 2012-09-27 04:53:57

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Corporal Forsythe · 2012-09-27 10:21:02

RainbowMatt said:
Show me a person against the existence of humanity and I'll show you a person who only can get laid by paying someone :p

This right here

Corporal Forsythe · 2012-09-27 10:23:11

Frosty said:

Ironically, I suspect humanity may destroy itself anyway; it is more than capable of doing so in a matter of hours,

No, we can't. It's a testament to human arrogance to think that we can, among many other things.

Odradek · 2012-09-27 10:53:59

I'm probably going to be the odd man out here in saying that I don't find anti-natalism very strange or unpalatable as an ideology. Granted, some people advocating for the concept are pricks, but compared to religious fundamentalism and Objectivism, it's a pretty harmless conviction.

But then again, I find the whole thing a bit of a moot point when there are situations where even most highly optimistic would rather avoid bringing children into this world.

See okay, here's the thing. As it is, the idea of not having children for philanthropic pessimistic reasons is fine. Really it is! There are overpopulation problems as it is and a lot of orphans around in need of adoption.

Okay, but what this idea has created is an inane circle-jerky perverse support group where burnt-out assholes give bad advice to depressed teenagers. It pays no mind to the philosophical reactions to the suffering of the world like Stoicism, Buddhism, or Existentialism or else it makes the most shallow, badly argued, criticisms of them and then sits back and waits for high-fives from fellow antinatalists(meaning can't be created because I say it can't! Meditation can't help your suffering because I don't imagine it can!). It pays no attention to scientific evidence while pretending to be empiricist. It pretends to be compassionate while showing nothing but anger and spite. It's trite, and uneducated, and unimaginative and self-congratulatory. It's the proverbial night where all cows are black, in which you turn out the lights and praise yourself for understanding the whole of the universe, because everything looks so uniform now. It's one of the most unhealthy online orgies of stupidity I've ever seen.

I don't want to live in a community where people can praise this, or this can be praised as at all insightful or intelligent.

And it has a stupid conception of nothingness, but that's another issue.

Corporal Forsythe · 2012-09-27 11:03:21

Odradek said:

See okay, here's the thing. As it is, the idea of not having children for philanthropic pessimistic reasons is fine. Really it is! There are overpopulation problems as it is and a lot of orphans around in need of adoption.

Okay, but what this idea has created is an inane circle-jerky perverse support group where burnt-out assholes give bad advice to depressed teenagers. It pays no mind to the philosophical reactions to the suffering of the world like Stoicism, Buddhism, or Existentialism or else it makes the most shallow, badly argued, criticisms of them and then sits back and waits for high-fives from fellow antinatalists(meaning can't be created because I say it can't! Meditation can't help your suffering because I don't imagine it can!). It pays no attention to scientific evidence while pretending to be empiricist. It pretends to be compassionate while showing nothing but anger and spite. It's trite, and uneducated, and unimaginative and self-congratulatory. It's the proverbial night where all cows are black, in which you turn out the lights and praise yourself for understanding the whole of the universe, because everything looks so uniform now. It's one of the most unhealthy online orgies of stupidity I've ever seen.

I don't want to live in a community where people can praise this, or this can be praised as at all insightful or intelligent.

And it has a stupid conception of nothingness, but that's another issue.

There's at one other annoying online trend to which I can apply exactly what you said here. This is totally spot-on.

Obā-san · 2012-09-27 11:08:45

meaning can't be created because I say it can't!

Meaning is totally arbitrary and can be created and assigned freely.

dealwithit.jpg

Unknown · 2012-09-27 13:48:33

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Corporal Forsythe · 2012-09-27 14:08:54

Frosty said:
No, we can't. It's a testament to human arrogance to think that we can, among many other things.
I was under the impression that nuclear wars were possible, in which almost no one would be able to survive?

Back in high school I was told a similar line of bullshit -- something along the lines that we could have destroyed the entire world like 10 times over with our (meaning the world's) nuclear arsenal. Right. Let's take Bikini Atoll, where the US government used as a testing ground for twenty-three nuclear bomb tests. Twenty-fucking-three. One of these set off the largest and most devastating nuclear explosion the United States had set off, ever. In fact here is a picture. LOOK AT THIS THING:

So anyway about 14 years after they detonated this beast, the island was declared habitable (1968.) This really doesn't chime with the untold devastation and leaving the planet as a glass desert as has been feared.

Then there's the other consideration, what I stated above. We live on a planet that has more than its share of angry fucking volcanos, shifting plates that create earthquakes, hurricanes that we have shown we cannot even defend against. Then there's not one, but several known supervolcanos around the globe and one on the North American continent that's due to tell us hello any day now. Somehow humanity has survived those catastrophes.

And we can't even prevent them. Hell, we couldn't prevent water from flowing into New Orleans. We can't prevent droughts from ravaging regions. And we're supposed to believe that we can lay waste to this planet with our little nuclear firecrackers? Forgive me if I have my doubts.

Obā-san · 2012-09-27 14:34:27

I dunno about laying waste to the planet, but setting civilization back a few centuries seems doable.

Corporal Forsythe · 2012-09-27 14:38:01

Mr. Truant said:
I dunno about laying waste to the planet, but setting civilization back a few centuries seems doable.

Oh that is for sure. I believe it was Einstein who said, "I can't tell you exactly what kind of weapons World War III will be fought with, but the fourth one will be fought with rocks and sticks."

lee4hmz · 2012-09-27 15:16:55

As for the links Myr posted, fuck those guys. Especially the first one; he sounds like he's still in middle school! -blasts "So What"-

Unknown · 2012-09-27 15:32:30

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Obā-san · 2012-09-27 15:41:03

Frosty said:
I don't know how anyone can expect to be taken seriously as an intellectual and use the word "gay" in their vocabulary as an insult.

Yeah, that's pretty fuckin' gay.

Unknown · 2012-09-27 15:49:48

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Obā-san · 2012-09-27 15:51:43

EVER.

Sredni Vashtar · 2012-09-27 20:24:00

Odradek said:

See okay, here's the thing. As it is, the idea of not having children for philanthropic pessimistic reasons is fine. Really it is! There are overpopulation problems as it is and a lot of orphans around in need of adoption.

Okay, but what this idea has created is an inane circle-jerky perverse support group where burnt-out assholes give bad advice to depressed teenagers. It pays no mind to the philosophical reactions to the suffering of the world like Stoicism, Buddhism, or Existentialism or else it makes the most shallow, badly argued, criticisms of them and then sits back and waits for high-fives from fellow antinatalists(meaning can't be created because I say it can't! Meditation can't help your suffering because I don't imagine it can!). It pays no attention to scientific evidence while pretending to be empiricist. It pretends to be compassionate while showing nothing but anger and spite. It's trite, and uneducated, and unimaginative and self-congratulatory. It's the proverbial night where all cows are black, in which you turn out the lights and praise yourself for understanding the whole of the universe, because everything looks so uniform now. It's one of the most unhealthy online orgies of stupidity I've ever seen.

I don't want to live in a community where people can praise this, or this can be praised as at all insightful or intelligent.

And it has a stupid conception of nothingness, but that's another issue.

I agree with this. People who proselytise about that sort of ideology and actively scorn those who disagree with them are really detestable and deserve all the accusations of adolescent mithering and solipsism that they get.

But I have a problem with knee-jerk reactions to pessimistic ideologies and concepts. Much of this has to do with my dislike of knee-jerk reactions in general, but a kernel of this is personal. To explain: I am a very dedicated fan of the writer Thomas Ligotti, who has a very bleak view of things and has written quite extensively about it. That said, I have met quite a few fans of his work who think to the contrary*, some religious, and I am yet to see them rejected by other fans (or the author himself) for thinking differently; quite the opposite, actually: When talking about fiction, an echo chamber is pretty dull.

To the point, though. On another forum, I recently recommended a book by Ligotti to a forumite who I thought might enjoy it and was immediately confronted by a third party who proceeded to, for lack of a better description, bitch about what I read despite never having read a word of the man's work. It was a frustrating and idiotic argument, and it made me quite irritable.

I guess that this is wildly off-topic, but it's been bothering me. I don't like being judged based upon flimsy criteria.

*I sort of think of myself as an existentialist. Sort of.

Salix Babylonika · 2012-09-27 20:46:05

At some point I (and I think most people) hit a brick wall where they can no longer treat a given opinion as an actual opinion. Anti-natalism (and, since you mention it, Ligotti, but for different reasons) are those walls for me.

I prefer not to discuss them because of this.

Sredni Vashtar · 2012-09-27 21:43:50

^ For what reasons?

Also, earlier you seemed to conflate the philosophical argument that life is a bad thing with the much more extreme belief that death is always a good thing. Those are really not the same thing at all.

Setting that aside, the belief that people should reproduce less scares me far less than the idea that God wants us to reproduce more. Hence why I say "comparatively harmless." I would rather have fewer, happier people than more unhappy ones.

Unknown · 2012-09-27 21:48:06

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Salix Babylonika · 2012-09-27 21:49:06

^ For what reasons?

I genuinely cannot understand why antinatalists think how they do without making assumptions about their personalities. I do not like to make said assumptions, thus, brick wall.

Also, earlier you seemed to conflate the philosophical argument that life is a bad thing with the much more extreme belief that death is always a good thing. Those are really not the same thing at all.

I don't see much of a difference, frankly. Unless you're going along the line of thought that "life is bad but death is worse", but I find it hard to draw a meaningful distinction between the two.

Unknown · 2012-09-27 21:51:52

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Tachyon · 2012-09-27 21:54:25

Super Läzuli said:
I don't see much of a difference, frankly. Unless you're going along the line of thought that "life is bad but death is worse", but I find it hard to draw a meaningful distinction between the two.

I think it's more the belief that life is bad but dying is worse.

I'm not an antinatalist, but to my mind, there's a fairly large difference between wishing death upon somebody and wanting them to not have children. The former is considerably more malicious.

That said, there are people who think the former, too. Tongpu is one of them, as is the Church of Euthanasia guy Odradek linked above. AFAIK, Ligotti is not.

Corporal Forsythe · 2012-09-27 21:57:40

I'm not going to shit up a thread with the story of the final boss of antinatalism again, so here's a link:

http://www.heapershangout.com/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/160626#Comment_160626

Obā-san · 2012-09-27 21:59:17

You Are In A Mess Cause This Is The End

God He Cannot Bless Not Leading Your Hand

In Your Mother's Womb You Feel Warm And Safe

That's A Fallacy Cause This Is Your Grave

Do You Want To Feel How Hard It Can Be

Vegetating Flesh Was Always The Fee

For Living In This Pain And In Agony

Til The Devil Comes And Fetches With Glee

Salix Babylonika · 2012-09-27 22:01:03

I'm not an antinatalist, but to my mind, there's a fairly large difference between wishing death upon somebody and wanting them to not have children. The former is considerably more malicious.

If someone told me that they didn't want me to have children, I would frankly be offended. Even as someone who plans to adopt if I ever have kids.

Even if they explained, I'd still be pretty offended. Is that the most logical response? Not really, but there is way more you can do to help save the world than just up and decide that people should stop living on it.

This is where I have a hard time not making judgments about people on a personal level, because it is really a stretch to me that people can genuinely in a sound state of mind believe that humanity gradually dying out by ceasing reproduction is a good thing.

That said, there are people who think the former, too. Tongpu is one of them, as is the Church of Euthanasia guy Odradek linked above. AFAIK, Ligotti is not.

I didn't say he was. I made it quite clear that my reasons for not liking Ligotti are totally different.

Tachyon · 2012-09-27 22:01:07

Corporal Forsythe said:
I'm not going to shit up a thread with the story of the final boss of antinatalism again, so here's a link:

http://www.heapershangout.com/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/160626#Comment_160626

The rhetoric there sounds closer to the Childfree movement, although there's obviously overlap between those and the antinatalists.

Super Läzuli said:
I didn't say he was. I made it quite clear that my reasons for not liking Ligotti are totally different.

Wasn't meaning to imply that you said anything of the sort, sorry. That part was more in response to Sredni than anything.

Salix Babylonika · 2012-09-27 22:02:38

"Rhetoric" implies a point is being made beyond "waah", and there is not one there.

Tachyon · 2012-09-27 22:03:31

Vocabulary, then.

Why am I being nitpicked?

Salix Babylonika · 2012-09-27 22:05:06

Because for a brief moment I thought you believed that person had a point.

I apologize for the implied insult that comes with that, it wasn't intentional.

Tachyon · 2012-09-27 22:09:57

Oh, that's OK. :)

And no, I think that post is hilariously stupid, and the word "crotchdropping" alone is enough to mark the author as repulsive.

Incidentally, with regards to antinatalists "in a sound state of mind", I think a number of antinatalists are actually severely depressed. For that matter, Ligotti suffers from a chronic anxiety disorder.

Twitter Marxists

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories