Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Erowind's Containment Thread

screw social media erowind

  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#21
Erowind

Erowind

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 959 posts

 

.

 

I'll respond when I've got the mental energy. I think our conversations are going to become the light of the forum if they continue, considering that they'll illuminate both of our views for everyone that always had questions or hostility against them. I also hope that the synthesis of our ideas yields some sort of new knowledge. Thankyou for the reasoned response.

 

Also, I wasn't trying to jab at you with the emotional trauma thing. And I'm happy that you've not taken it the wrong way. My best friend growing up moved to Macedonia for a few years and came back a neonazi. (Using the term "Nazi" here because they literally tattooed swastikas on themselves.) The reason was that for months he got the shit kicked out of him by gangs of Croatians and Albanians for being Serbian. At a certain point he had enough of their shit, the problem was there weren't any Serbians around to get along with and the only people that weren't kicking his ass all the time were the neonazis. Combine that with a father that abused him and it's really easy to see why he did what he did. Which is to say, I have very personal experiences with this exact thing. He's not a neonazi anymore because when came back to America his girlfriend practically beat it out of him.

 

I also am thoroughly convinced that the reason people do terrible things is because our culture is abusive in nature and teaches them to respond in those ways, in that sense, I was referring to a more abstract abuse in your case, one that we all experience. Under my own definition I am also an abused person, everyone on this forum is. That's not a victim narrative either, it's one of self-reflection and a desire to move forward. All of this a larger conversation for another time though, I don't have the mental energy right now. Again, thanks <3


Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#22
Erowind

Erowind

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 959 posts

Also don't ban her please, if that is a thought on anyone's mind right now. Otherwise you already have my contact info AWR. I assure you I do want to continue a respectful discussion about this.


Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#23
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,326 posts

I agree with 85% of the democratic platform....The issues that I agree with are extensive like protecting the environment, science, infrastructure, and protecting the rights of LBGT people. I believe in human rights for all and everyone should be treated with respect....

 

What do I not agree with? Mostly Identity politics and turning entire groups of people against another group. Example: the white male. Within my opinion sjw's are poison for our movement as they don't value the old concept of not shitting on your "possible" voters and sadly instead focus on gaining support by cheering for one team against another. They're diversionary at their very core and they don't seek to bring people together.  This could be a very long post if I really wanted to go into it but I'll just focus on the female division that they're creating.

 

Lets just say that one of these groups are women being one of the main groups the sjw's are using to attack men and to take basic human rights away from. I'll get into the "human rights" point later on, but anyways, the core of my point is the future shouldn't be just female as the sjw's scream for, but for everyone....But that isn't their intention. What's funny is second wave feminism at its core used  sex, free sex and partying to push their movement forward only for third generation feminism to have made what they created 50 years ago into a reason to destroy thousands upon thousands of men. What's funny or ironic is the fact that their movement destroyed the traditions of decency and keeping it between two people within the bed room that would have kept such behavior from occurring in the first place. They made the environment that made it just to turn to blow it up! Of course I could type up a 50,000 word essay on this but lets just say they don't believe in such basic legal concepts as innocent until proven guiltiy as long as one is a man and so the women is always right as this is made to degrade men in the eyes of the law. It is like the media making all blacks look like thugs...Same effect.

           Quickly, one realizes that  these peoples core intentions are to drive men and women apart and to desolve the concept of the family. The family is probably the single most important part of human society throughout our evolutionary development as a species. Lets just say that the family is the core evolutionary unit  needed to raise our children because our species has one of the highest developmental stages within the entire animal kingdom(of nearly 15-18 years!), but even outside of evolutionary   reasons men should have every right to be part of a family and to enjoy our children as human beings. Somehow these sjw's believe men aren't fully human and don't deserve the right to be loved or to have a voice within the structure of the  family. I realize that at the time of first wave women sat at the other extreme and it was needed so I ain't attacking the entire women's rights movement but things have swung to far in the other direction and worse.

 

The next step is to destroy the family and make so men are seen no better than african Americans were in the 1850's. No legal rights(females word is vastly better!), demeaned and unjustly destroyed in the public sphere.  That my friend isn't what I believe in as a liberal and anyone that calls themselves liberal better wake up and reject the extremist that walk amongs us. The same shit is being done against anyone that is white and such should never be occurring with the help of anyone that supports freedom and fair treatment of all human beings.



#24
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,442 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

Excluding the hyper rich, which you're not part of, fascism is generally a lashing out. It's a lashing out in the same way that radical leftism is, as a response to the systemic violence and abuse of our society. The problem is that fascism is easier to fall into, it is radical in that it takes the worse elements of our society and our own behaviors and amplifies them. It's easier to be a fascist because one doesn't need to invent a new script, all the values, the way someone should act and their role and purpose in society are all set out for them.

Yes and no. While I did go from being a nationalist-hating, Muslim-loving, pro-LGBT, anti-gun, anti-Trump, globalist, feminist communist to pretty much the opposite in the span of roughly half a year, it did take many, many redpills and heavy convincing to believe what I do now.
 
This was one of the hardest realizations I've come to reach, even if it was relatively brief in revelation.

This is why I doubt your sudden "redpill" philosophy. If it had been over more time, I would have believed it. But too often I've seen people just like you— start out leftist, liberal, centrist, or previously apolitical, then go through a period of extreme radicalization thanks to something sudden. Often frustration over some extreme position.

"I don't like this aspect of my political side's platform". This then becomes "Let's look up like-minded people." And that's how you're snagged. It starts with something innocuous, like noticing a discrepancy or bit of hypocrisy in certain thinkers and ideologies, so you find a biased source on the other side that you agree with. And then you start agreeing with several of their other platforms. And soon you're one of them. 

 

Without fail, at least 70% of them come back around within a year or two. It's more common with people who were already extreme to begin with, as you were. If anything, there's a risk that you're going to crash back into becoming a Communist within a year.

 

It's one reason why I went from apolitical/public school Democrat to Glenn Beck-obsessed Republican between 2009 and 2012 and then suddenly swung so hard that I identified as a Communist in 2013. I simply surrounded myself with different facts. One year, it was that leftists were plotting to repress White Christian men and dismantle capitalism, and you weren't going to hear anything about Cloward-and-Piven or the crimes of Che Guevara and George "Spookydude" Soros in your textbooks. The next year, it was that rightists controlled all major corporations and crushed labor movements and funded the same social divisions rightists rage against as a means of keeping power, and you were never going to uncover the truth about communism if you were indoctrinated by Capitalist propaganda from the Koch Brothers and the Mercers.

 

Then I just stopped watching the news and following blogs and eventually found my own way. The reason why my social ideas and politics have been stable since then is because I gave myself time to develop these views, compare them to facts and beliefs, make sure that the information was not flawed in and of itself, and most importantly considered the impacts and future effects of various developments

 

I never would have become a technist otherwise. My ideology is "Sapiens Über Alles." Anything which threatens the future technological development of humanity is evil and must be stopped. Fascism worships precisely the wrong things and does count as one of these degenerate ideologies. It is nothing more than the nostalgic gentry's serfs of the 18th century furious that industrialism destroyed the medieval agrarian order and can't accept that we won't return to such a world.

There is nothing left for fascism— it will be swept away in due time. At some point, the delusions will crash against reality.

 

 

jTkO0sZ.jpg


  • Casey and Erowind like this

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#25
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,058 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands
I agree with Yuli immensely here.

I remember once when I was a conspiracy nut believing that global warming was a lie. I was also an anti-SJW, 'rationalist' who loved poor offensive humor and believed in totalitarianism and eugenics. The only reason I was never able to swing too right because of the fact that I knew and loved muslim people around me, and with the anti-islamic rhetoric came on, it gave me a good check. Or at least, it was either that or maturity that made me reflect a lot on my beliefs, values, and ideas to the point that I found my own way that involves a lot of accepting ignorance on a position, and a lot of existstential nihilism in the sense that nothing really matters.

My ideas on politics are really weird, and I can write like a giant essay on it, but I'll spare the pain and just say that find your path by reading the sciences and asking yourself questions.
  • Erowind likes this
Outlook's secret song of the ~week: https://youtu.be/QAlMaVYIzqw

IMPERATOR!

#26
Erowind

Erowind

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 959 posts

I agree with Yuli immensely here.

I remember once when I was a conspiracy nut believing that global warming was a lie. I was also an anti-SJW, 'rationalist' who loved poor offensive humor and believed in totalitarianism and eugenics. The only reason I was never able to swing too right because of the fact that I knew and loved muslim people around me, and with the anti-islamic rhetoric came on, it gave me a good check. Or at least, it was either that or maturity that made me reflect a lot on my beliefs, values, and ideas to the point that I found my own way that involves a lot of accepting ignorance on a position, and a lot of existstential nihilism in the sense that nothing really matters.

My ideas on politics are really weird, and I can write like a giant essay on it, but I'll spare the pain and just say that find your path by reading the sciences and asking yourself questions.

 

This is all really good discussion. Something I've been struggling with lately is how to express this encouragement of truly free thought to others. How to encourage them to think for themselves and understand the difference between something being true and false. How not to get their political alignment from Youtube. The problem is that when folks don't read, can't keep up with a video like the three arrows one you posted and can't understand intellectual speech without a lot of stopping to give context--I'm at a complete loss. All of this stuff works great when we're engaging with other intelligent people who already know how to reason. But it does next to nothing when engaging with people who do fall into the SJW vortex solely because those videos were entertaining, and they seem to only be capable of engaging with entertainment. Videos with terms like intersectionality and reactionary do little for someone who actually has formed their politics largely from cringe comps. Don't get me wrong, that three arrows video was good, we need more like it. But it's just not reaching the audience largely effected by the web of Youtube personalities partially causing this problem.


Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#27
Erowind

Erowind

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 959 posts

Original Thread:

  • photo-3752.jpg?_r=1520967078
      08 Nov
    Outlook

    SJW cringe comp, why the cucked left will always fail: https://youtu.be/69obN625Fjs

    Hide Comments
    photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
    08 Nov  
    Sciencerocks

    There's alot of hate directed towards men. It makes me so sad...Why can't there be more love? Why do people love to hurt people so much and why do the sjw's do it?

    photo-3752.jpg?_r=1520967078
    08 Nov  
    Outlook

    Yes, my friend. Indeed it is us men who are the victims of severe oppression.

    photo-4717.jpg?_r=1524900378
    09 Nov  
    rennerpetey

    SR, I think you should watch the video. I personally am upset at the extreme left for existing and allowing conservatives to hold it over our heads and for phenomena like this to happen. When I say I am anti-SJW, I mean the extreme left, who are often as rational as the youtubers mentioned in the videos. I am also upset at the right for using the SJW strawman to justify every action against the left. We just need to grow some balls and stop being so damn principled.

    photo-4271.jpg?_r=1516529872
    09 Nov   Delete
    Erowind

    Since you're upset about the strawman, maybe don't use the term. It's not an honest term to being with, it originates as and is still used for slander. By using the term SJW, everyone on both sides get set off and what you're actually saying gets lost in the confusion. Also, Marxism-Leninism is on the extreme left, there's no getting away from that. Personally when talking to others I've opted as describing myself as far left. Misconstruing that any Youtube rationalist...

    photo-4271.jpg?_r=1516529872
    09 Nov   Delete
    Erowind

    Misconstruing that any Youtube rationalists represent their political ideologies is not really a good argument. There is no political bloc made of solely Youtube rationalists. Sargon doens't represent all liberals, Anita Sarkesian doesn't represent all feminists and so on.

    photo-4271.jpg?_r=1516529872
    09 Nov   Delete
    Erowind

    Also apologies for being direct if that directness hurts at all.

    photo-4717.jpg?_r=1524900378
    09 Nov  
    rennerpetey

    What should I call the group then? The irrational left?


Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#28
Erowind

Erowind

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 959 posts

My Response: @ Rennerpetey

 

DISCLAIMER: This is by no means a cohesive essay. It's more a collection of thoughts that are still developing that my brain somehow considered relevant to your post. I fully admit I'm missing some explanation of why I consider the things I'm saying true. I also didin't expect for this post to be this big, and I can't be expected to write a 10,000 word essay right now. Communicative bandwidth is truly the plague of humanity. I'm also not expecting an equally large/detailed response, nor will I hold that against you. If you do write a tome though, good on you.

 

I don't know, that's up to you. I tend to think that infighting by calling out a large portion of the left is sectarian in nature, but that's just me. Just because folks are focused on idenpol right now doesn't mean they won't swing back towards class at some point. (Or evolve an entirely new approach.) There is very little reason that marxists and anarchists shouldn't be collaborating together. Assuming we're both engaging in good faith, our direct action is very similar and we ultimately want the same thing, a stateless, classes, moneyless society. To throw shade fairly here. Anarchists are really good at explaining what we don't want, but bad at explaining what we do. At least on the laymen's level, the actual theory is sound. Freedom is a process not a definite state, so we can't actually explain what a truly communist society looks like until we're living in it. We can only get glimpses at the next steps toward that vision. Ideology isn't just a straight vector traveling forward either. The path to communism will likely require a multitude of different approaches and not progress linearly. Which makes organizing difficult, because when someone asks, "what does your world look like?" There is no clear answer to give them, only points to organize around that might one day yield an answer.

 

On the flipside of that, Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, Stalinists and Maoists are really good at having solid points to organize around, and really bad around actually organizing around those points. I think it's really divisive to let the interpretation of Marx be the thing preventing people from doing the most basic of activism. If all these groups agree that capitalism is evil, that should be enough for them to at the very least resist capitalism through strikes, expropriation of corporate property, support of unions, building community centers and so on. (Which is also to say that marxist-leninists, anarchists and democratic socialists should work together on more things.)

 

To illustrate the situation; here's a list of different organizations that is by no means comprehensive and highlights their particular brand of sectarianism.

 

Marxist-Leninist Orgs: If people like Lenin, why not just organize around pure Leninism?

 

I'd list democratic socialist orgs, but they're becoming a dying breed. The Democratic Socialists of America have done a really good job of sucking up a lot of the demsoc fiefdoms with their multi-tendency approach. For that same reason I won't list anarchist orgs. There are a wide veriaty of different anarchist perspectives, but overall we do actually organize within the same networks and run community projects together. In my opinion the best anarchist orgs also keep the door open for a healthy amount of non-anarchists to participate. Assuming folks are revolutionary and not revisionists, there shouldn't be a major conflict. Using my collective as an example here, we have anarcho-transhumanists, anarcho-primitivists, anarcho-feminists, queer-anarchists, anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, insurrectionist-anarchists, nihilists, socialists, and some pure marxists all working together. Does it really matter that I don't agree with the primitivists on everything? If they want to protest some megacorp specifically because they're using gmos I can get behind the protest because I don't like megacorps. By that same token maybe the primitivists don't like genetic modification, but they'll be cautiously supportive of someone genetically modifying plants to grow human hormones for trans people. There's so much overlap that there's no good reason for us not to organize together right now.  

 

Identity politics are a major dividing point right now. There's a genuine critique to be made that organizing solely around identity is not a threat to capitalism, and that's why the capitalists are actually conforming to third and fourth wave feminist critiques of gender. There's also a counterpoint to be made that gender politics is a potential gateway drug to socialist politics and overall people not being alienated by gender politics are moving farther left.

 

A question that I have for all the men feeling alienated out there right now is this. What about you makes you a man? For the sake of entertaining the thought imagine being a man doesn't have much to do with biology, humor me. Does being a man mean being stoic, noble, intelligent, well spoken, strong or any other behavioral trait one could name? Because if that's the case it's important to recognize that women can be those things too. It's also important to recognize that men can cry, be empathetic, giggle like little girls and be nurturing to children (trying to avoid the word "motherly" here.)

 

Again, assuming biology is not a major factor here. Operating under the idea that these traits are culturally conditioned into people, what is a "man?" For that matter what is a "woman?" What does "gender" even mean? I'd posit that "gender" is a really inadequate term, that it doesn't accurately describe people. That "gender" doesn't exist in the ontological sense that people think it does. Gender as a concept is trying to describe a multitude of different tendencies, traits and behaviors in humans by lumping them all into one term. For example, sexual preference doesn't necessarily correlate with body image or personality traits like how someone should talk. If this is correct, gender is in conflict with an underlying reality. It tries to mandate a causal relationship where there is none. "Person A who is of gender X must be sexually attracted to people of sex Y therefore they must also act like Z." If this argument holds, it's no wonder society doesn't know how define itself right now and people are universally confused about their identities. The moment women stopped conforming to artificial gender roles, the whole illusion started a process of imploding upon itself. That's not to say we should force everyone to conform to traditionalist puritan gender roles again either. It's to say that it's time we let go of the concept of gender entirely.

 

None of this is to advocate for an oppressed vs the oppressor mindset either. (At least in this context, class conflict is real.) Men are oppressed, but they're not oppressed by women or queer people. They're oppressed by themselves and the culture that surrounds male-identity. Gender roles hurt men in very insidious ways. We are taught to handle our emotions with outbursts of anger. We are taught that crying is wrong, that we will be hated by everyone if we do. We are taught that compassion is for faggots and that domination through violence is the solution to our problems. We are taught that we are weak and contemptible if we're not on the top of whatever social hierarchy our particular peer group contains. Moreover, we are taught to constantly be in competition with others within that hierarchy, lest we lose our position and become lesser of a human. We are taught to hate each other under even the suspicion that we have a romantic interest in the same girl. And, godforbid if that turns out to be true, we are taught to kill each other over that jealousy. Jealousy, hatred, self-pity and rage are all too common to what being male means for so many men. I've been there, I'm sure a lot of people on this forum have too. And I'm not saying we all need to just drop everything, dawn dresses and suddenly act completely feminine. (Not that there's anything wrong with wearing a dress and having a penis.) What I'm saying is that there are better ways to handle ourselves, and it's time we start learning from people who haven't adhered to their archetypes. Many of those people are themselves men, they're just men who had the courage to define themselves instead of letting society mandate what they must be. Being a person is so much more than just doing what you're expected to. It's about creativity, passion, love and defining oneself for what one wants to be. Those aforementioned toxic behaviors aren't completely specific to men either. I know women who exhibit toxicity in the same way. For that matter there are sets of toxically feminine behavoirs too. Although, speaking to the experience of growing up male, I'd say we do get hit harder overall in this specific way. It's especially bad when a group of men mutually reinforce all this toxicity on one another.

 

All of this is to say that I think just pointing at folks and writing off everything they're saying because they're "SJWs" is a very effective way to not engage honestly with ideas being presented. (Not that you're being deliberately dishonest, I'm often guilty of bad debate too.) I'm saying that there is merit in some of the ideas being put forward, and there is a broader picture that is often ignored. It's also important to point out that from a political science perspective there is no difference between valuing male identity politics over feminist identity politics. They're both still identity politics. 4chan is no different from Tumblr in that regard. "My identity is best because fuck you." is practically the argument being made. And when we get bogged down with that argument it prevents us from honestly engaging with ideas put forward by anyone.

 

So to answer your original question Renner. Why not refer to people by what they themselves want to be called? Moreover why not listen to what they're saying and critically engaging with those ideas instead of letting others tell you what they're saying. Finally, why not engage with the books they write and the theory they create instead of the worst people within their groups that people who already disagree with them hyperfocus on. I think you'd find there's more comrades within feminist movements than might appear at first glance if you give them a chance. My comment ages ago on that one status update came off as vaguely anti-SJW. That's my fault, I spoke before I really understood what I was saying. And again, I'm not saying everything feminism is advocating is right either, just that it's most certainly not 100% wrong either. God strike me down for saying this with fear of attracting the wrong attention, not even fascists are 100% wrong about everything, they do oppose liberalism after all.

 

P.S I used some language in this post that is actually derogatory in certain contexts. I contextually used the word appropriately in my opinion, this is coming from a queer person. Which is not to say I'm policing the use of the word "faggot" either. Non-queer people are free to use it if it's contextually appropriate and they're not being derogatory.


  • caltrek and rennerpetey like this

Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#29
rennerpetey

rennerpetey

    Fighting Corporations since 2020

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 553 posts
  • LocationNot in Kansas anymore

I'm working on a response currently


  • Erowind likes this

John Lennon dares you to make sense of this

Spoiler

#30
rennerpetey

rennerpetey

    Fighting Corporations since 2020

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 553 posts
  • LocationNot in Kansas anymore

I have read and re-read your post and am prepared to respond.  If don't mention a point you made, just assume I agree entirely.

 

I am young and inexperienced and haven't fully, or even mostly, developed my political views.  Similar to how I supported Trump in 2016, the entire anti-SJW premise that I have expressed is, I believe, a holdover from my small town, conservative upbringing.  I think everyone can agree when I say that people who argue that all men are rapists, or all white people are racist, are irrational.  My problem was that I vastly overestimated their amount and influence within the left, and from that viewpoint, I was frustrated that these people had somewhat hijacked the left and were preventing the progression of leftist goals.  I now realize that those people don't really exist to a relevant degree except in "EPIC SJW REKED COMPILATION" videos and Tucker Carlson segments on Fox News.  This realization has come because of your post and a YouTube Series that explains the attitudes and tactics of the alt-right very cohesively(introduced to me by Outlook Link).

 

I do believe in and advocate for true equality for all with an emphasis on class equality.  Being a queer man growing up in a small conservative town, I like to think I have experienced an adequate amount of discrimination that I can relate to others who are also discriminated against, but maybe not.  I also believe that in most-all cases, class division and other capitalist devices are the most effective tools of discrimination used against oppressed peoples.  I may not know what I want as an alternative, but I know I don't want the current system and I am willing to participate in a revolution to get rid of it.

 

After writing this, reading your part on leftist solidarity, and watching a documentary involving abject poverty, I am extremely frustrated there are no organizations such as the ones you mentioned, on the University's campus where I go to school.  I currently want nothing more than to participate in an organization like that.  Right now this is my only passion, to free people from these horrid conditions the system puts them in and I am too young to do anything effectively.

 

PS. Your post is perhaps the most comprehensive and best written argument for leftist solidarity and against anti-SJW mentalities, I have ever read.


  • Erowind likes this

John Lennon dares you to make sense of this

Spoiler

#31
Erowind

Erowind

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 959 posts

As We Rise

A secure family is a nation's strength.

Hide Comments

photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
16 Nov  
Sciencerocks

exactly, everyone deserves a family and the nation is most certainly better off when everyone has one. The children are raised well and the nation is healthy.

 

 

My Response:

 

Nuclear families are inherently isolating. It's important to make distinctions here. When you're both talking about the family. Do you mean, the Americanized vision of the nuclear family with one mother, father and X amount of children? Do you mean large extended families like we find in more pluralistic countries, where it's common for multiple couples, many children, aunts, uncles, grandparents and so on to all live under shared housing? Do you mean chosen families where an individual upon maturing chooses their family through free association? Nuclear families originate as an American phenomena and are destructive to the social fabric of society due to their isolating nature. It's a really good to see them dying off. The idea that a couple should be responsible to solely provide emotional and economic support to one another is absurd. At no point in history has the individual been expected to handle lifes pressures in such a lonesome way before. And, from the way the other countries haven't conformed, and cultures who have gone through the nuclear family trend are now rebelling against it. I'm glad to say we're slowly returning to a world with stronger overall communities. I'm thoroughly convinced that authoritarians love the nuclear family because it is so isolating. Authoritarians know that strong communities are more equipped to resist their oppressive edicts. 

 

And for the record, I'm supportive of both large extended families and chosen families. I'm hostile to nuclear families though. The old traditionalist mantra that it takes a village to raise children is true. I'd take it a step further and say it takes a village to be fulfilled as a human in general. I'm also critical of hierarchies that arise within extended families and chosen families alike. There's no "ideal" community. Only an ideal we can work towards, freedom is a process not a definite state.


Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#32
As We Rise

As We Rise

    Matthew 24:12, NIV

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 735 posts

Nuclear families are inherently isolating. It's important to make distinctions here. When you're both talking about the family. Do you mean, the Americanized vision of the nuclear family with one mother, father and X amount of children?

........

Nuclear families originate as an American phenomena and are destructive to the social fabric of society due to their isolating nature. It's a really good to see them dying off. The idea that a couple should be responsible to solely provide emotional and economic support to one another is absurd. At no point in history has the individual been expected to handle lifes pressures in such a lonesome way before. And, from the way the other countries haven't conformed, and cultures who have gone through the nuclear family trend are now rebelling against it. I'm glad to say we're slowly returning to a world with stronger overall communities. I'm thoroughly convinced that authoritarians love the nuclear family because it is so isolating. Authoritarians know that strong communities are more equipped to resist their oppressive edicts. 

 

And for the record, I'm supportive of both large extended families and chosen families. I'm hostile to nuclear families though. The old traditionalist mantra that it takes a village to raise children is true. I'd take it a step further and say it takes a village to be fulfilled as a human in general. I'm also critical of hierarchies that arise within extended families and chosen families alike. There's no "ideal" community. Only an ideal we can work towards, freedom is a process not a definite state.

k lmao.

 

On a serious note, I don't see how pic related is "destructive." 

a21389a9c9eea3e82c1a8aac0737171d.jpg

 

I think the real destructive "phenomena," as you like to call it, is a rise of single-parent families, 3+ parent families, same-sex families, bi-racial families, et cetera. Mainly because it is destructive for the mental growth of children and their ability to connect with other members of their community properly. In my eyes, a quaint 1940s/1950s-type nuclear family with one mother, one father, and 3+ children would be ideal; especially in order to combat diminishing European populations and replacement with certain foreign peoples within traditionally European nations.

 

 

 

I don't have any interest in conversing with you about this topic because any attempt of mine to convey my viewpoint in a way that would get you to see from my angle would be in vain and will potentially result in a ban. 


The reality? There are millions of normal people who are starting to LIKE the idea of fascism BECAUSE there are literal bolsheviks flooding the streets and attacking people. I swear to God, when the Left actually gets the storm they've been preaching about, you won't even see it on the news. The population will just shrink from 330 million to 230 million overnight and nobody will ever speak of it again.


#33
Erowind

Erowind

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 959 posts

I have read and re-read your post and am prepared to respond.  If don't mention a point you made, just assume I agree entirely.

 

I am young and inexperienced and haven't fully, or even mostly, developed my political views.  Similar to how I supported Trump in 2016, the entire anti-SJW premise that I have expressed is, I believe, a holdover from my small town, conservative upbringing.  I think everyone can agree when I say that people who argue that all men are rapists, or all white people are racist, are irrational.  My problem was that I vastly overestimated their amount and influence within the left, and from that viewpoint, I was frustrated that these people had somewhat hijacked the left and were preventing the progression of leftist goals.  I now realize that those people don't really exist to a relevant degree except in "EPIC SJW REKED COMPILATION" videos and Tucker Carlson segments on Fox News.  This realization has come because of your post and a YouTube Series that explains the attitudes and tactics of the alt-right very cohesively(introduced to me by Outlook Link).

 

I do believe in and advocate for true equality for all with an emphasis on class equality.  Being a queer man growing up in a small conservative town, I like to think I have experienced an adequate amount of discrimination that I can relate to others who are also discriminated against, but maybe not.  I also believe that in most-all cases, class division and other capitalist devices are the most effective tools of discrimination used against oppressed peoples.  I may not know what I want as an alternative, but I know I don't want the current system and I am willing to participate in a revolution to get rid of it.

 

After writing this, reading your part on leftist solidarity, and watching a documentary involving abject poverty, I am extremely frustrated there are no organizations such as the ones you mentioned, on the University's campus where I go to school.  I currently want nothing more than to participate in an organization like that.  Right now this is my only passion, to free people from these horrid conditions the system puts them in and I am too young to do anything effectively.

 

PS. Your post is perhaps the most comprehensive and best written argument for leftist solidarity and against anti-SJW mentalities, I have ever read.

 

Thanks for the reply :)

 

I'm genuinely happy after reading your post. I've learned a lot from outlook's link to that series too. There is real discussion and debate happening on this forum that I rarely see anywhere else, it's a big part of the reason I keep coming back. Many here are actually learning from one another. I appreciate your humbleness, but don't sweat it. I'm young and still developing my views all the same. By that same token, I'd say political views continue to develop throughout a persons life; I don't know that the process ever stops. And I absolutely agree that saying all men are rapists or all white people are racists is absurd.

 

"Being a queer man growing up in a small conservative town, I like to think I have experienced an adequate amount of discrimination that I can relate to others who are also discriminated against, but maybe not." This is something I've been trying to figure out too. I've lost whole friend groups just for admitting to want to cross dress. I don't really have an answer right now either. What I do know is that the discrimination is real, it's a product of our material conditions yes, but that doesn't make it any less real. As to what degree I'm able to relate my personal struggles to someone else, I don't have an answer yet. I know I'm justified in feeling hurt though. I'd like to think that feeling can be a rallying point with others who experience same or similar pain.

 

I completely understand the desire to organize. You may have already checked these directories before to no avail, if so, I'm sorry that sucks :(

 

The Slingshot contact list is mostly anarchists.

 

http://slingshot.tao.ca/contacts/

 

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

 

https://www.dsausa.org/chapters/

 

Democratic Socialists of America Youth Chapters

 

https://y.dsausa.org...olved/chapters/

 

The Industrial Workers of the World are organized around syndicalist principles. Although, I've met leftists of all stripes within the IWW. The most active organizer at the Pittsburgh branch when I was active was a Trotskyist.

 

https://www.iww.org/branches/US

 

Sorry I don't know of any large purely Marxist or Leninist groups. I gravitated towards anarchism partially because my politics were very progressive to begin with, but more because I encountered anarchist literature online first, and my city has multiple anarchist orgs. If I had encountered DSA first, I could very well be a democratic socialist today, the same could probably be said for leninism. I still think I would have found my way to anarchism eventually, but, I don't know.

 

Something that I'll say. My experience with leftist politics is really positive, but I also live in a city with thriving leftist organizations filled with people who have already worked out some of the growing pains for new organizations. I was able to hop around until I found the people who fit my personality and organizing style the best. Don't feel bad if you find yourself not liking a particular group for some reason or another. I joined the IWW first personally, and later left for the collective I'm part of now. No one was mean or anything. I just couldn't handle the archaic meeting style they used (something specific to the Pittsburgh chapter from my understanding,) and for whatever reason didn't click with the people there. They still do great work, and when it's relevant I keep in touch with them. In Pittsburgh, the IWW spearheaded a campaign against privatizing the water treatment plants for the city. They had someone there for all the city council meetings constantly bringing attention to the issue too. It's okay to move around, you'll be the best activist you can be when you're around people you enjoy being around. Which is not to say that one conflict should kill your relationships either, just that if you're not comfortable for a long period of time it's fine to move on. And, if you find folks to be toxic in someway, don't feel bad for just leaving if you need to. I haven't personally had any horror stories, but I've heard them. And I assure you, drama is common in all political spheres, not just leftist ones. Nazis seem to have it the worse, which is probably a good thing. (I might also just be telling myself that to feel better.)

 

If that all fails though, you could start your own group on campus. If you're amiable to DSA's politics at all I'm sure they'd be thrilled to offer guidance on how to start a youth chapter on your campus. They're a multi-tendency organization and in Pittsburgh at least there are quite a few anarchists involved with them, but Pittsburgh is a bit of an anarchist mecca so that's probably unique to my city. If starting a whole chapter is too overwhelming, don't feel discouraged. You could start something smaller like a radical literature club and just see who shows up, or otherwise try to find some like minded folks on campus. If you're campus is large like a state school I imagine there'd have to be at least one leftist there somewhere. Maybe try posting up some flyers and seeing how people respond to them. Although, if your campus is already inundated with alt-right be aware of your safety too. People do occasionally get attacked just for putting up a flyer, it's really rare, but be safe and aware of your surroundings. Don't be afraid of everyone either, I'm not trying to seed paranoia. The vast majority of people, even the alt-right, are not dangerous outside of certain protest settings.

 

It's also okay to just work on yourself and get involved when you're not geographically limited. I know that sucks, I drive 40 minutes multiple times a week to organize with people. Not because Pittsburgh is far, but because the traffic from my suburb can be terrible. I guess my point is that if you continue to desire to organize with other people, you'll eventually slog through whatever is in your way so that you can. 

 

If you ever have any questions feel free to pm me :)


  • rennerpetey likes this

Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#34
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,058 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands

Nuclear families are inherently isolating. It's important to make distinctions here. When you're both talking about the family. Do you mean, the Americanized vision of the nuclear family with one mother, father and X amount of children?
........
Nuclear families originate as an American phenomena and are destructive to the social fabric of society due to their isolating nature. It's a really good to see them dying off. The idea that a couple should be responsible to solely provide emotional and economic support to one another is absurd. At no point in history has the individual been expected to handle lifes pressures in such a lonesome way before. And, from the way the other countries haven't conformed, and cultures who have gone through the nuclear family trend are now rebelling against it. I'm glad to say we're slowly returning to a world with stronger overall communities. I'm thoroughly convinced that authoritarians love the nuclear family because it is so isolating. Authoritarians know that strong communities are more equipped to resist their oppressive edicts.

And for the record, I'm supportive of both large extended families and chosen families. I'm hostile to nuclear families though. The old traditionalist mantra that it takes a village to raise children is true. I'd take it a step further and say it takes a village to be fulfilled as a human in general. I'm also critical of hierarchies that arise within extended families and chosen families alike. There's no "ideal" community. Only an ideal we can work towards, freedom is a process not a definite state.

k lmao.

On a serious note, I don't see how pic related is "destructive."

I think the real destructive "phenomena," as you like to call it, is a rise of single-parent families, 3+ parent families, same-sex families, bi-racial families, et cetera. Mainly because it is destructive for the mental growth of children and their ability to connect with other members of their community properly. In my eyes, a quaint 1940s/1950s-type nuclear family with one mother, one father, and 3+ children would be ideal; especially in order to combat diminishing European populations and replacement with certain foreign peoples within traditionally European nations.



I don't have any interest in conversing with you about this topic because any attempt of mine to convey my viewpoint in a way that would get you to see from my angle would be in vain and will potentially result in a ban.
If I was never reprimanded once, whether by warning pnt, suspension or ban, in my entire history on this forum, then you wont be banned for trying to state your case. To me, it just sounds like you're trying to frame your unwillingness to argue by making it sound like you'll be targeted for your beliefs. At most, you'll get a long response by Erowind or renner. If people can come onto here and start spouting pages of shit on scientific racism and eugenics without a ban, then simply liking nuclear families, or even stating that nuclear families are good because they stop the Great Replacement, won't get you a ban.
  • rennerpetey likes this
Outlook's secret song of the ~week: https://youtu.be/QAlMaVYIzqw

IMPERATOR!

#35
As We Rise

As We Rise

    Matthew 24:12, NIV

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 735 posts

If I was never reprimanded once, whether by warning pnt, suspension or ban, in my entire history on this forum, then you wont be banned for trying to state your case. To me, it just sounds like you're trying to frame your unwillingness to argue by making it sound like you'll be targeted for your beliefs. At most, you'll get a long response by Erowind or renner. If people can come onto here and start spouting pages of shit on scientific racism and eugenics without a ban, then simply liking nuclear families, or even stating that nuclear families are good because they stop the Great Replacement, won't get you a ban.

For my previous ban, I literally have no idea what I said wrong. The mods just said I was posting "Stormfront propaganda." If I don't even know what I said wrong there, then what's to say that the things I post now won't get me banned for similar reasons? 


The reality? There are millions of normal people who are starting to LIKE the idea of fascism BECAUSE there are literal bolsheviks flooding the streets and attacking people. I swear to God, when the Left actually gets the storm they've been preaching about, you won't even see it on the news. The population will just shrink from 330 million to 230 million overnight and nobody will ever speak of it again.


#36
Erowind

Erowind

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 959 posts

 

.

k lmao.

 

On a serious note, I don't see how pic related is "destructive." 

a21389a9c9eea3e82c1a8aac0737171d.jpg

 

I think the real destructive "phenomena," as you like to call it, is a rise of single-parent families, 3+ parent families, same-sex families, bi-racial families, et cetera. Mainly because it is destructive for the mental growth of children and their ability to connect with other members of their community properly. In my eyes, a quaint 1940s/1950s-type nuclear family with one mother, one father, and 3+ children would be ideal; especially in order to combat diminishing European populations and replacement with certain foreign peoples within traditionally European nations.

 

 

 

I don't have any interest in conversing with you about this topic because any attempt of mine to convey my viewpoint in a way that would get you to see from my angle would be in vain and will potentially result in a ban. 

 

 

If you're not willing to converse, why respond? Contribute to the conversation or stop spreading propaganda on my thread. Again, given the moderation teams track record, I think your fear of a ban is unfounded.

 

You completely ignored my critique that the nuclear family is ISOLATING because it puts an immense amount of pressure on two people to care for themselves and their children in complete lonesome. I'd go further and argue that domestic abuse and other such dysfunction is inherent to nuclear families. You could have debated with a real response.

 

But no, instead, you responded with one giant non-sequester grounded in 18th century sexist and racist rhetoric that is no doubt valid in your mind due to a long descent into conspiracy and pseudoscience. I'd elaborate, but a longer response would imply to the readers reptilian brain that you "won" the "debate."

 

iCW18ib.png


Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#37
Erowind

Erowind

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 959 posts

 

If I was never reprimanded once, whether by warning pnt, suspension or ban, in my entire history on this forum, then you wont be banned for trying to state your case. To me, it just sounds like you're trying to frame your unwillingness to argue by making it sound like you'll be targeted for your beliefs. At most, you'll get a long response by Erowind or renner. If people can come onto here and start spouting pages of shit on scientific racism and eugenics without a ban, then simply liking nuclear families, or even stating that nuclear families are good because they stop the Great Replacement, won't get you a ban.

For my previous ban, I literally have no idea what I said wrong. The mods just said I was posting "Stormfront propaganda." If I don't even know what I said wrong there, then what's to say that the things I post now won't get me banned for similar reasons? 

 

Okay, progress, that's a real point. I'll actually message them and ask myself.

 

For the record, I hadn't seen your or Outlook's new posts upon posting my most recent post prior to this one.


Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#38
rennerpetey

rennerpetey

    Fighting Corporations since 2020

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 553 posts
  • LocationNot in Kansas anymore

 

Thanks for the offer, I might have to take you up on that.  Sadly I am limited because, even though I live on a college campus, I go to a residential high school so my movement is somewhat(very) restricted.  I think I'll just wait out the 2 years I have there until I get into college (Hopefully Georgetown U) where I can really participate in that sort of stuff.  That being said, I will keep searching for such clubs, but it would be beyond my ability to start and maintain one right now.


  • Erowind likes this

John Lennon dares you to make sense of this

Spoiler

#39
As We Rise

As We Rise

    Matthew 24:12, NIV

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 735 posts

I'll actually message them and ask myself.

Can you not.


The reality? There are millions of normal people who are starting to LIKE the idea of fascism BECAUSE there are literal bolsheviks flooding the streets and attacking people. I swear to God, when the Left actually gets the storm they've been preaching about, you won't even see it on the news. The population will just shrink from 330 million to 230 million overnight and nobody will ever speak of it again.


#40
rennerpetey

rennerpetey

    Fighting Corporations since 2020

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 553 posts
  • LocationNot in Kansas anymore

 

I'll actually message them and ask myself.

Can you not.

 

Why the Hell not??????   Worst case scenario is they say no and we all go on with our lives.  They're not going to ban you for asking, that's ridiculous.  I don't know if you're using the mods as an excuse not to explain your reasoning, or if you genuinely are afraid of getting a warning point.  Its not like they don't already know your views, god knows you've locked enough status updates to get your point across.


John Lennon dares you to make sense of this

Spoiler




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users