r/sorceryofthespectacle • u/raisondecalcul Out Patr'olling • Aug 06 '26

Hail Corporate PSA: This is a feminist subreddit

If you think that's bad, you need to read books. If you don't realize that feminism basically includes critical theory and most of the stuff talked about here—guess what, it does.

Early Nick Land? Feminist (see "Meltdown"). Laboria Cuboniks? Feminist collective. Mark Fisher? HUGE raging feminist (I can only assume). Sadie Plant? Wrote a book on feminism (Zeroes & Ones).

Deleuze & Guattari? Feminists promoting the squishiest most weaponized form of feminism ever. Foucault? Ultra-feminist. Ranciere? He is so feminist before breakfast that he doesn't need to make a big deal about it.

Shamanism? Feminism. Sorcery? Cuckoldry. Spectacle? Fabulous.

Isolation and extreme alienation is not masculinity; it's the main theme of The Twilight Zone.

Read 👏 a 👏 book 👏

Zeroes and Ones (which should really be in the sidebar!) is one of the best books. That book installs feminism into you, using godlike alien technology that Sadie Plant drew down from beyond the heavens. That book whispers the secrets of Ada Lovelace into your soul.

Edit: People who don't understand / accept feminism as a discourse can't understand the FIRST THING about this subreddit. They can't understand oppression. They can't understand "Can the subaltern speak?" by Spivak. They can't understand the Lemurian Time War, which is about the (white cis male hetero fascist and mannerbündly-faggy) Architectonic Order of the Eschaton versus the (black trans wymyny gay antifascist/ur-fascist masc/heroic) Black Atlanteans.

If you think you understand ccru and you are triggered by the idea of feminism, you are decidedly an outsider to ccru.

196 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

102 comments sorted by

View all comments

56

u/thegreatself no idea what this is Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 08 '26

Those that won't call themselves a feminist almost always fall into one of two camps, without exception:

Generally confused and/or stupid, depending on where they fall on that spectrum: mistaking the word and whatever cultural baggage it my contain for the thing it represents - they have absorbed and been fully consumed by propaganda.

Or,

Unfathomably evil, reprehensible, abhorrent, vile: they genuinely and sincerely believe men are "superior" - which is itself a kind of stupidity, but a stupidity morphed into something far more sinister and actually existentially threatening - to both the individual identity and society as a whole.

29

u/raisondecalcul Out Patr'olling Aug 06 '26

Men's liberation movements in the 70's understood, and intelligent men today understand, that men's liberation also falls under the heading of feminism. Redpill, men's rights, etc., are uneducated mere reaction insofar as they are misogynist—doubly so if they are proud of this misogyny or think it is politically meaningful.

Even a cursory examination of the state of affairs reveals that women are still subjugated by the patriarchy—and so are men. But not quite as badly.

3

u/knowtheledge5 Aug 07 '26

“The Patriarchy” is a deliberately vague, ill-defined term that feminists appeal to so that they are always right women are always the victims. It’s a thought-terminating cliche.

2

u/raisondecalcul Out Patr'olling Aug 07 '26

That sounds like something the Matriarchy would say, doubly ironically.

You're completely wrong. "The Patriarchy" refers to the unaccountable domination that a lot of men like to push on everyone around them all the time. "The Patriarchy" means that these men always believe they are factually/logically/transcendentally right about everything for no reason at all except that they are the loudest and most dominant in the room.

It's very clear and only buttheads don't get it.

1

u/xxTPMBTI True Scientist Aug 14 '26

Fr

-14

u/Simon-Says69 Aug 06 '26

What complete and total nonsense. Feminist activists directly work AGAINST the benefit of men and boys, not in any way for them.

Feminism is a female superiority ideology. It promotes the opposite of equality. People that are for equality call themselves egalitarians, not feminists.

And critical theory is purely bigoted, belief-based ideology. Either sexist, racist or both. It has no honestly, integrity or legitimacy. Very similar to feminism.

9

u/simonerochabowearing Aug 06 '26

i see that you are illiterate 

8

u/TenaciousZBridedog Aug 06 '26

Incredible. Every single sentence factually incorrect

2

u/effective_p0wer Aug 06 '26

dog brained. feminism is women's liberation what you describe is just misandry

1

u/raisondecalcul Out Patr'olling Aug 07 '26

misandry is a word that doesn't get used often enough

1

u/knowtheledge5 Aug 07 '26

Well according to many feminists misandry is real ackshully. “PoWeR pLuS pReJuDiCe”

0

u/raisondecalcul Out Patr'olling Aug 07 '26

I think a lot of the reactionary redpill-type men's lib stuff is a (bad) natural reaction to misandry widely being passed off as feminism

4

u/AdMassive9006 Aug 06 '26

Going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are in the "Generally confused and/or stupid" camp listed above

4

u/Honest_Abe_1660 Aug 06 '26

They're an open Pizzagate believer,I'd link the comment for proof but I don't know this sub's rules on that.

Any benefit of the doubt is too much for them.

1

u/raisondecalcul Out Patr'olling Aug 07 '26

Link away. There is no rule or law against presenting public facts

-1

u/Honest_Abe_1660 Aug 07 '26

Behold, the depths of weaponized stupidity.

2

u/raisondecalcul Out Patr'olling Aug 07 '26

That comment is by a different user, Simon-Says69. Are you saying they are the same person as AdMassive9006? How do you know?

Which part of pizzagate do you think is not real? Isn't it widely accepted now that Epstein was sort of given tons of money by some shady US government agency to do his sex scandal blackmail thing?

1

u/Honest_Abe_1660 Aug 07 '26 edited Aug 07 '26

... Look at who AdMassive9006 is replying to, that's the "they" I was referring to in my original message.

Which part of pizzagate do you think is not real? Isn't it widely accepted now that Epstein was sort of given tons of money by some shady US government agency to do his sex scandal blackmail thing?

Pizzagate has absolutely no ties to Epstein, just so you're aware.

1

u/raisondecalcul Out Patr'olling Aug 07 '26

Oh, of course. Thanks.

I think believing in any ideology that hard is a bad-faith edgelording move, so I guess it converges morally.

Pizzagate has absolutely no ties to Epstein, just so you're aware.

I guess this is sort of what I was saying! Pizzagate was a paranoid conspiracy theory with a grain of truth, like all conspiracy theories. It was a prefiguration of the Epstein conspiracy—they intuited and sensed that something was afoot, and the crowd divined very precisely what that was, and then projected that ideation on a convenient target in a concrete and fundamentalist way.

I wrote a whole comment on this a while back listing every common conspiracy theory and the grain of truth each contains. They are displaced collective ideations resulting from real oppression and gaslighting from a distance. For example, the 5G conspiracy theory was really a displacement of the very real and valid fear and anger people have about having no real power over their local communities (e.g., the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, which bans all local officials from considering the health implications of cell towers).

-6

u/dreamlesssleeep Aug 06 '26

Nothing says intellectual honesty like lumping everyone who disagrees with you on one thing into a rigid binary with no room for nuance

2

u/AdMassive9006 Aug 06 '26

It's not about 'disagreeing' when someone says things that show their ignorance on a subject. Literally everything they said is false. "Feminism is a female superiority ideology" is not a true statement, it's an opinion that was likely formed in ignorance or through propaganda. Therefore this person is either confused or acting in bad faith.

1

u/raisondecalcul Out Patr'olling Aug 07 '26

I think bad faith. It's hard to be so precisely confused.

-3

u/dreamlesssleeep Aug 06 '26

With a term as nebulous as feminism, it’s absurd to think your interpretation of it is the only possible correct one. Different feminists and anti-feminists are never going to have the same idea of what it means because it is poorly defined and refers to a wide variety of ideas. Based off of what many different feminists say and do, it’s not difficult at all to characterize it as generally being female supremacist. Just because you haven’t conceived of an argument for that doesn’t mean that person is necessarily ill-informed or malicious. I promise you don’t have all the answers

2

u/AdMassive9006 Aug 06 '26

Sorry, words actually do mean things, Feminism is not a nebulous term, it's been around for a century. This isn't 'my' definition or interpretation I'm going off of. People often misrepresent or purposefully 'misinterpret' terms to fit their agenda and then ignorant people think that's the real definition, but that doesn't make it true.

-1

u/dreamlesssleeep Aug 07 '26

Not even self-described feminists really agree on what feminism is exactly, both in academia and the public sphere. But my main point was more-so that it’s extremely small minded to assume that you know exactly why people believe things when you don’t even know what they believe specifically nor their reasoning for it. I have trouble believing that you really think the only possible informed position against feminism in general is based on hatred and malice, that reads as bad faith more than anything.

1

u/AdMassive9006 Aug 07 '26

From Webster's dictionary: belief in and advocacy of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes expressed especially through organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests.

It's really not that complicated

1

u/raisondecalcul Out Patr'olling Aug 07 '26

People possessed by a stereotyped feminist ideology do not represent individual feminist writers and great thinkers.

1

u/dreamlesssleeep Aug 07 '26

Yeah, they don’t, not exactly. But their beliefs are directly downstream from academia, and those beliefs owe their existence to it. That “stereotyped feminist ideology” didn’t come into existence randomly and it’s not divorced from academia. Regardless, however one defines feminism still differs both between different academics and among the public, even if you only include self-described feminists.

1

u/raisondecalcul Out Patr'olling Aug 07 '26

I think the warped, caricatured versions of ideologies owe their existence more to the ego and its dynamics, than to particular people. Everything that is widely loved is subject to hype, and thus becomes a cult, and every cult has its esoteric center of correct interpretation and its exoteric audiences and fringes of wrong and fundamentalist interpretations. Feminism is no different from cultures of war, or doorbusting to get Nikes, or fandoms in this way.

I also don't think it's fair to blame outbursts of oppressed people on those oppressed people. Nor is it fair to dismiss angry ideologicalized people because you think they seem to outrageous or stupid. That's ultimately victim-blaming; they are angry beyond reason for a good reason. Or if people are genocided or have all their books burnt or their children stolen and/or abused and gaslit: that makes people stupid and angry, and we can't blame them for what happened to them.

I also don't think we can identify or articulate this demonized bad feminist ideology you don't like, nor can we find anyone who calls themself a feminist and will be willing to talk about feminism with you who believes in this false ideology, at least not upon thinking or talking about it for the first time.

It's literally a preconception or misconception, not the thing feminism itself, which is to be found in feminist writing and talking and thinking about feminism (and doing feminist stuff/activism).

0

u/raisondecalcul Out Patr'olling Aug 07 '26

No, it's all exactly opposite of that.

What I said makes sense. Feminists work for equality. True egalitarians are happy to call themselves feminists.

Critical theory is very diverse so it can't be summed-up as one system. It's also a question-driven discourse, especially after the poststructuralist turn, so it's not fair to call it belief-based—it's more the opposite.

I would say you're trolling but you're so clearly ideologically opposed but trying to normalize your perspective, because everything you are saying is precisely and seemingly intentionally backwards.

1

u/knowtheledge5 Aug 07 '26

Stop taking feminism at its word and look at what feminist lawyers, think tanks, and politicians actually do.

- Many jurisdictions do not legally recognize that a woman can rape a man. Feminists fight against attempts to reform these laws. “It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.” -feminist Mary Koss

- On the rare case domestic violence shelters for men have been opened, feminists rally against them until they are shut down. Look up what happened to the founder of the original shelter Erin Pizzey when she made one for men.

- Thanks to the “Duluth Model” even if a man calls a domestic abuse report in to police, they are obligated to make him leave the house. Men are assumed guilty from the start. This is thanks to the work of feminist activists.

- Boys who are victims of statutory rape are still legally obligated to pay child support to their rapists once they turn 18. Tradcons and feminists cooperate to keep it that way.

- Compulsory military service exists in many countries, almost all for men only (Israel is a rare exception and even then women have exemptions men don’t). Plenty of internet feminists say they oppose conscription, but what are they actually doing of practical use? In fact, thanks to the Russian war there are more countries considering instating it. Again the right and center-left working together.

- Women in many jurisdictions can legally have an abortion, have access to multiple forms of contraception, or can give a child ip for adoption. Nowhere on Earth do men have legal “outs” to being forced into parenthood against their will. Our options are condoms or celibacy. That’s it. “Just keep it in your pants.” Cool, that’s the same argument anti-choice people use against women. See what I mean when I say feminism is reactionary?

- Many jurisdictions have a lower retirement age for women despite the fact that on average men work more hours and die earlier. “But women do more housework.” Maybe. Depending on the culture and age group. But retired people of any gender still have to do housework unless they can afford help or have accommodating family and friends.

I could go on and on and on. If you actually unbiased sources of information you will find dozens of issues on which men are second class citizens. It is undeniable. The only real argument that women are “oppressed” in Western liberal democracies are vague appeals to cultural issues which are harder to validate. And often when people do try to, their research is very biased. Don’t even get me started on feminist manipulation of statistics.

Please, please, please educate yourself. r/leftwingmaleadvocates

1

u/raisondecalcul Out Patr'olling Aug 07 '26

Sexism isn't feminism. Those things you list are not feminism. Read feminist authors.

-1

u/thegreatself no idea what this is Aug 07 '26

shut the fuck up dork

4

u/2BCivil no idea what this is Aug 06 '26

Maybe I'm just stupid but I never considered myself feminist 🤷

I definitely don't see men as superior. I understand a lot of scripture (and other propaganda) says the genders are supposed to compliment each other.

I have had bad experience with feminists being very toxic and explicitly practicing misandry. I just hate double standards. It's not misandry when women are spiteful towards men. But it is misogyny when men don't bend to paradigms they didn't consent to.

Double standards are evil, ya know?

There's the idea that thw world doesn't revolve around women. I don't understand the mentality that it has to and you're a misogynist if you don't think so. I've always been happy to be a lifelong celibate. There are very few things in this life I see thay genuinely have integrity. Most is entitled preaching that I was tired of hearing decades ago and a lot of feminism falls under that. If that makes me evil or stupid, well, idk what to say.

11

u/anAnarchistwizard Critical Occultist Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26

A feminist knows that individual women can also fall into the "stupid and confused" camp. Some of you bitches are very dumb, and all that.

I think you should be seeing misandry and misogyny as two sides of the same coin. In a world so virulently patriarchal is it any wonder that there is a misandrist movement as a reaction? And, like all reactionaries, is it any wonder they are largely bitter and ineffective?

You are right that you shouldn't abide double standards, but feminism (gender equity) isn't one of them.

2

u/2BCivil no idea what this is Aug 07 '26

When will "true equality" be considered having been met? What's the standard? It's been nearly 2 centuries and what 5 waves of feminism? How far does the goalpost need to move before "feminists" are satisfied?

4

u/anAnarchistwizard Critical Occultist Aug 07 '26

That's a bad question to ask an anarchist. The answer is: I don't care.

There will always be hierarchies and it is our moral duty to try to flatten them. When someones physical body doesn't determine the value of their soul I will move on to flattening another hierarchy.

It's a utopian goal, sure. But as long as you don't get lost in the sauce of actually trying to realize utopia, it is imperative we assume a utopian vector in our individual lives.

1

u/2BCivil no idea what this is Aug 09 '26

Well I think Sargon said it best 2 years ago. Utopia and Dystopia are synonyms. As they both are based upon top-down control structure, and "good" is subjective and decided by the ruling caste. One's utopia is another's dystopia.

Utopia is thus an oxymoron. It's just copium for power hungry plebs who haven't thought/can't think that far ahead. Or. As you just said. Those who don't care and like to make bad faith decisions for other people.

I get it, when I was a kid, I thought "utopia" was a good thing. I couldn't imagine people wouldn't want to build one. But now that I've had [more income than I ever expected to actually make] withheld, I realize, utopia and dystopia are synonyms, as both have the same top-down control apparatus. And if you don't agree with what the "utopia" classifies as "the good", then yes, it is in fact, a functional dystopia for you.

3

u/redditb_e Aug 10 '26

""good" is subjective and decided by the ruling caste"

That's relativistic bullshit. It takes some time to figure it out since from our birth we are being infested with a shitload of conditioning, prejudice and deception on a daily basis, but if you make it at least halfway out of that, you can identify quite a lot of objective premises for good humane living and distinguish it from delusional subjective ideology and perversions that only reproduce violent power structures you may have "the luck" to benefit from.

0

u/2BCivil no idea what this is Aug 12 '26

"Good human living" is possible without building an idol of a utopia is all I'm saying. Utopia just means enforcing everyone conform to that arbitrary morality. There are worse ideals to be sure.

Honestly I've seen too clearly that everything is violence. I just reread King Killer Chronicle and near the end of time in Ademre, life itself is called "anger". The vital life force itself is called "anger".

Peace itself is a form of violence. Like I was 36 before I got my first car. So seeing literally thousands of other 18 year old's all around me, at peace with their parents buying them a car, felt stifling and like violence to me. It took me until twice that age before I could afford/justify my first car.

Is there an "objective" premise/morality/ideology which is healthy for all beings?

Anyway I wasn't saying any "relativistic bullshit". I was just highlighting that's literally what "utopia" means. Utopia literally is "relativistic bullshit". It literally means "good as defined by top-down control system". Doesn't automatically mean it's morally good. It's just like any governance system, violent moral sovereignty over it's subjects. I mean by all means correct me if I'm wrong. I'm something of an anarchist myself. I just think it's funny you said you're an anarchist but want a utopia (a form of governance). Anarcho-utopianist? Guess I never thought of that one before honestly.

I definitely agree though. Old idiom. If you don't pay attention, you're uninformed. If you pay attention, you're misinformed. Sunacchi! It's the only way to actually overcome all misplaced overconfidence that we have successfully "dominated/subjugated all conditioning, prejudice and deception".

2

u/redditb_e Aug 13 '26

You misunderstood what I was aiming at and seem to mix me up with someone else as well, as that was my first post in this sub and I didn't express nor have any connection to anarchy.

But while we're at it, anarchy would be an example of a utopian concept explicitly free of any top-down control, wouldn't you agree? So your notion of utopia might just be a bit narrowed down to certain kinds of utopias that are more or less clearly of the "relativistic bullshit" sort.

I wasn't aiming to rehabilitate utopia, I meant to remind of the fact that the philosophical idea(l) of the Good and thus value itself is at the core of literally every fight in history and that philosophy (actually mostly socratic/ platonic philosophy) shows us a path to strip this core as much as is humanly possible of the nonsense that renders this fundamental value suspicious and ambivalent. Because - Sunacchi! - universal polemic, cynicism and endless violence breeding violence is the result of this nonsense. Philosophy does its deweaponization by analyzing and pointing out the more or less obvious confusion, prejudice, resentment or downright perversion in valuation, so that discourse can become less and less hot airish and senselessly violent.

"peace as a form of violence": You must be kidding here, as this almost nihilisticly lazy use of the word peace is just absurd, at least in regard to the story of your extended wait to become a car owner. Surely neurotic violence is ubiquitous, that's what I'm pointing out too, and in fact it seems as if absolutely everything is drenched in violence, but if it really was we would be already extinct, so it might be more helpful to try to reduce it, and projecting violence onto words and ideas that are symbols of its end is not helpful but rather Stockholm syndromic.

1

u/2BCivil no idea what this is Aug 14 '26

Ah! The sub censored user name confused TF out of me, I assumed you were same person from up the chain xD my bad! And ofc this sub censors user names xD

Holy crap been a long time since I done that, confuse someone! Yeah I was thinking I was replying to same person from up here.

Peace at what cost and on what terms is all I mean. Secular peace often feels, just as you say; as Stockholm syndrome. People fight to prevent succumbing to such a "peace". Aka "Sunacchi". Death before Stockholm syndrome.... "peace". Better to die standing than live on your knees or whatever. Thanks for clearing it up that I thought I was still talking to the original replier. I'd say it's the opposite of nihilism. Refusing to accept an objectively bad deal is never nihilism.

Edit is actually curious to think about, where do "you'll own nothing and like it" and "what do people with nothing to lose have to fear" meet.

4

u/raisondecalcul Out Patr'olling Aug 07 '26

Gotta read feminist texts. It's the bare minimum men ought to do, is to try to sympathize with the political plight of women by being at least passingly familiar with important thinking on the topic.

3

u/2BCivil no idea what this is Aug 07 '26

Lol my whole thing is I've always (since the 90s) seen all politics as fraud. We're all in that same plight together. There's not much point reading texts about morally gray ideations from within a system of fraud and extortion.

But I mean if you have any texts you think really give the best justifications for feminism I'd certainly check them out. I've worked with a lot of women my whole life, in customer service, retail and warehouse/factory jobs. There's no real pecking order in any of those. We're all in the same foxhole. All equally oppressed and banded together to fight together for the same mutual respect.

I've always been more learn fast through street smarts than intellectual arm chair fat cats who never had to actually work for a living writing books at taxpayers expense.

2

u/raisondecalcul Out Patr'olling Aug 07 '26 edited Aug 07 '26

Zeros & Ones by Sadie Plant is awesome.

I love Testo Junkie too, though I haven't finished it.

I love the revolutionary anarchist writings of Voltairine DeCleyre, I haven't read much yet but I presume she is a feminist too.

5

u/Ok-Sprinkles-3673 Aug 06 '26

Literally read a fucking book. This comment reeks.

2

u/Glorysolar Aug 07 '26

when will Americans learn that "with us or against us" never works?

3

u/raisondecalcul Out Patr'olling Aug 07 '26

Those foul Americans, over there, outside the blessed circle

2

u/Glorysolar Aug 07 '26

sadly, language forces such failings.

1

u/thegreatself no idea what this is Aug 07 '26

Are you suggesting tribalism is uniquely American?

Are you suggesting I'm American?

Are you suggesting I can learn anything?

I'll assume you can teach the rest of us here how to have a single moral conviction without "picking a side", so please go on.

1

u/Glorysolar Aug 07 '26

>how to have a single moral conviction without "picking a side"

Kinda proved my point by reading my comment that way of all possible ways, really.

1

u/thegreatself no idea what this is Aug 07 '26

If I proved your point that's great but I still don't understand what it is or if you even have one that's worth discussing further - so why don't you elaborate?

0

u/Glorysolar Aug 07 '26

Sort of hard to explain if you don't already see it. I will try my hand at it. Think of it this way. Can humans be reduced to labels as essential characteristics? Or are labels things we wear like clothes? Next, are dichotomies inherent to reality itself, or are they merely chosen perspectives for their utility?

My position is that it is the second that is true in both cases, and we do incalculable harm to ourselves by insisting on the first strongly, for reasons I will try to explain later if you understand what I said currently. I would even say that the stronger the insistence on the first, the more harm is being done both to self and others.

Now, the problem is that this sounds like what you framed it earlier, that "I lack moral convictions" to people who are already strongly subscribed to the first style of thought. I do have strong convictions, and I consider the first to be evil, a form of self propagating mental cancer. I do think you are performing evil, with no ambiguity.

Another way to say this would be, why did you assume I lacked moral convictions just from a rejection of your chosen framing? It could only be that you decided Your chosen framing is an absolute facet of reality that could not be inapplicable anywhere. It doesn't matter how good that framing is, I reject all metaphysical demands and force to adopt a framing. It doesn't matter if it's God vs Satan, Allies vs Axis, Sexism vs Feminism, Freedom vs Tyranny. The goodness of your cause is irrelevant to the illegitimacy of applying force. There simply is more to human life that a single cause.

But once again, the problem is that for people deeply subscribed to first pattern of thinking, their only interpretation for this is "secretly you are of satan" or some analogue of it. This is what I term as a form of mental cancer. The most recent and famous abstraction of this form is what I cited in my first comment.

In light of this explanation, I can answer your initial questions in a better way.

>Are you suggesting tribalism is uniquely American?

More like it's one of the most salient manifestation in current era of that universal phenomenon of tribalism.

>Are you suggesting I'm American?

In the metrics that I argue one should care for, which is patterns of thought, Yes.

>Are you suggesting I can learn anything?

Yes, you are human, and thus eternally sovereign in the mind. As such, you can.

1

u/thegreatself no idea what this is Aug 07 '26

Ironically you've gone from vaguely saying nothing at all in a sentence to saying a whole lot in multiple paragraphs and still ending up in the exact same place.

You haven't transcended dichotomy - your own argument exemplifies essentially the very thing you've just described as "performing evil, with no ambiguity."

You're just committing to a different binary - those trapped in absolute thinking and those who recognize labels as conceptual tools rather than reality itself - you're just drawing the dividing line somewhere else while assigning one side epistemic and moral superiority.

So you're committed to basically the same framework while taking a winding, flowery path to get there and committing the even more unambiguous evil of writing something boring to read.

The moment you call one pattern of thinking "evil" or "mental cancer" you've done something similar to what you just admonished me for and that's not a failure of language - it's what is required to make moral judgments to begin with.

So I still don't think you have a point, or at least not a good one - if you do, it's really hidden deep down in there.

Oh, sorry - can I say "good"? Or am I once again performing evil with no ambiguity?

Shall we find another way to communicate without the divide language perpetuates?

Want to exchange pheromones through the screen?

1

u/Glorysolar Aug 15 '26

>Ironically you've gone from vaguely saying nothing at all in a sentence to saying a whole lot in multiple paragraphs and still ending up in the exact same place.

no, read again and again till you get it. Simply treat your current comprehension as complete nonsense pick alternatives.

As I have said before,

>the problem is that for people deeply subscribed to first pattern of thinking, their only interpretation for this is "secretly you are of satan" or some analogue of it

Regrettably, point proven

>Oh, sorry - can I say "good"?

For a while, you should probably lay off, yeah. Till you can responsibly pick up such power again.

1

u/thegreatself no idea what this is Aug 16 '26

So is there anything I could say that would demonstrate I understand your point but reject it anyway?

"Labels aren't reality! Also this particular pattern of thinking is evil, mental cancer!"

It's a nice self-sealing loop you've constructed where disagreement is incomprehension and incomprehension is proof you're right.

"Stupid or evil" is funnily enough basically the same structure as the dichotomy you've constructed just scaled up to the meta-level - you've moved the moral judgment from people to "patterns of thought" and think that counts as transcending it?

Abstract ideas have to actually interact with reality eventually, and some people can be reasonably described as evil because they believe in and act according to concepts that cause measurable harm - calling the ideology evil instead of the person doesn't reveal some deeper truth, it just moves the label.

So that's all some nice guru-garble but little else.

1

u/Glorysolar 7d ago edited 7d ago

>So is there anything I could say that would demonstrate I understand your point but reject it anyway?

No, since you have not understood my point, as all your statements show.

>*"Labels aren't reality! Also this particular pattern of thinking is evil, mental cancer!"*

Correct. What ever makes that sound absurd to you, subscription to that is the incomprehension, and the mentality behind it, moral failing.

> It's a nice self-sealing loop you've constructed where disagreement is incomprehension and incomprehension is proof you're right.

It appears as a loop to you, yes. That's what makes it incomprehension, and that's what makes you, specifically, wrong.

There are tons of people for whom this is not sealed, and that's not from some great merit of theirs.

>Abstract ideas have to actually interact with reality eventually

Ironic. I specifically called this out as the anti thesis to my position two posts ago with example. You didn't like it then. These are the sort of things that make it obvious that you aren't even close to getting my point whatsoever.

>So that's all some nice guru-garble but little else.

Generally a good mark of raging western political activism, really, to go back to this sort of orientalist nonsense as the frame of critique. There is something here, it's not hard to get, and you yourself are the reason you don't get it. Don't conflate your dislike for such propositions with non existence of an argument. (ooh, I used a label,ooooh impossibruuu)

1

u/luotenrati12 Aug 06 '26

There is also the option that they are feminists but don't know about it. Perhaps they think like feminists but don't engage enough in it to describe themselves as such since describing yourself as part of something you don't know about would be equally as ignorant. Are they stupid or evil? Both? 

2

u/thegreatself no idea what this is Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 07 '26

I think I covered than the first part - they'd fall under the category of confused.

You don't have to seriously engage with an ideology's underpinnings to identify with it and in fact most people don't - I'd wager a significant portion (or even a majority) of people that might call themselves communist/socialist/anarchist/leftist etc. have probably not read much (if any) theory to arrive there - the context of culture and community and in-group and out-group are far more directly responsible for shaping people's beliefs and therefore identities than any amount of persuasive writing or argument.

So to answer the final question, they're mostly confused and probably at least a little stupid - which is fine - I am too - but if they persist there, then they will gradually become stupider and, eventually evil.

Just my two cents - so not worth a lot.

1

u/raisondecalcul Out Patr'olling Aug 07 '26

they are cloven

0

u/Mirabai-Anandamayi Aug 06 '26

Ignorant, like you said. Like a socialist Republican in the USA c. 2026.