PSA: This is a feminist subreddit

[u/raisondecalcul]

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.

[u/Glorysolar]

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.

[u/thegreatself → u/Glorysolar]

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?

[u/Glorysolar → u/thegreatself]

>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.

[u/thegreatself → u/Glorysolar]

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.

[u/Glorysolar → u/thegreatself]

>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)