Nav_image
Nav_image NEWS TOUR BIOGRAPHIES DISCOGRAPHY VIDEOGRAPHY GALLERY INTERVIEWS Nav_image
Nav_image JOURNAL ESSAYS TIMELINE FORUM THEATRE SITE INFO Nav_image
Nav_image
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 53

Thread: Idiot Trinity Professor Says That White People Can Die; Costs School a Fortune

  1. #31

    Join Date: 04.09.12
    Posts: 392
    Rank: Glass Jaw

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dirge Inferno View Post
    I have white guilt.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shangri-LIE View Post
    Me too. I've considered going to a black church and letting them scourge me, then walking into a gender studies/social science class (which there are literally no jobs for post graduation, just a ton of student debt) and castrating myself in front of them for humiliation all in one day once. We're fucking monsters.
    You could always trade in your white guilt for black guilt like Bill Clinton did. It's pretty easy, even on Father's Day.

    Personally, I wear my white guilt like white gilt.

    And let's be honest: saying that one class is better than another is classist. Equality is inherent amongst all courses and the only reason equally-equal and undifferent people can't get jobs is because of binary cisgendered patriarchal capitalists and the loads of white Naziscum impregnating social constructs, maaan! We need to be commufist in the logicunt of reason. So grab your bike locks and bandanas!
    Last edited by SangreV; 10-09-2017 at 02:54 PM.

  2. #32
    The Overman's Avatar
    Join Date: 04.11.12
    Location: Hell, Illinois
    Posts: 1,070
    Rank: Crimson Soil

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SangreV View Post
    You could always trade in your white guilt for black guilt like Bill Clinton did. It's pretty easy, even on Father's Day.

    Personally, I wear my white guilt like white gilt.

    And let's be honest: saying that one class is better than another is classist. Equality is inherent amongst all courses and the only reason equally-equal and undifferent people can't get jobs is because of binary cisgendered patriarchal capitalists and the loads of white Naziscum impregnating social constructs, maaan! We need to be commufist in the logicunt of reason. So grab your bike locks and bandanas!
    Who gives a fuck about 'equality'? I have no desire to be the capitalist's equal. What I want is for him to die. If he won't do me the service of dying on his lonesome, I'd like to do it myself.

    And the like is true of most of the worthless American middle-class. Nothing would please me more than to see camps in suburbia.
    Last edited by The Overman; 10-11-2017 at 12:30 PM.
    To revenge the misdeeds of the ruling class, there existed in the middle ages, in Germany, a secret tribunal, called the “Vehmgericht.” If a red cross was seen marked on a house, people knew that its owner was doomed by the “Vehm.”

    All the houses of Europe are now marked with the mysterious red cross.

  3. #33
    The Overman's Avatar
    Join Date: 04.11.12
    Location: Hell, Illinois
    Posts: 1,070
    Rank: Crimson Soil

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Absolution View Post
    All of these are about how action is the essence of ones character, that the will, individual, or ego behind the action is irrelevant. The deed itself is the only thing that matters. None of it is about the erasure of individuality you've interpreted it as.
    I mean, no? Why are reactionaries so bad about interpreting the very texts they've claimed as their own?

    Once again:

    Everywhere language sees a doer and a doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the “ego”, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things—only thereby does it first create the concept of “thing.” Everywhere “being” is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of “being” follows, and is derivative of, the concept of “ego.” In the beginning there is that great calamity of error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a capacity . Today we know that it is only a word.
    Nietzsche pretty clearly does not think that there is an "ego as being" or an "ego as substance". Acordingly, Nietzsche isn't compatible with your black-clad middle-class individualism. You might do better to retreat into mysticism, as Shangs has.

    Swans and Joy Division aren't going to save you, friend. =]
    To revenge the misdeeds of the ruling class, there existed in the middle ages, in Germany, a secret tribunal, called the “Vehmgericht.” If a red cross was seen marked on a house, people knew that its owner was doomed by the “Vehm.”

    All the houses of Europe are now marked with the mysterious red cross.

  4. #34

    Join Date: 04.09.12
    Posts: 392
    Rank: Glass Jaw

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Overman View Post
    Who gives a fuck about 'equality'? I have no desire to be the capitalist's equal. What I want is for him to die. If he won't do me the service of dying on his lonesome, I'd like to do it myself.

    And the like is true of most of the worthless American middle-class. Nothing would please me more than to see camps in suburbia.
    Knowingly or unknowingly, Marxists care about equality. They all want to be equal in peasantry as they kneel before the all mighty government. Slaves without any chance of freedom, they yearn to embrace and release their inner cuck. All because they cannot compete on a capitalist playing field against other men.
    Last edited by SangreV; 10-11-2017 at 03:04 PM.

  5. #35
    The Overman's Avatar
    Join Date: 04.11.12
    Location: Hell, Illinois
    Posts: 1,070
    Rank: Crimson Soil

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SangreV View Post
    Knowingly or unknowingly, Marxists care about equality. They all want to be equal in peasantry as they kneel before the all mighty government. Slaves without any chance of freedom, they yearn to embrace and release their inner cuck.
    No. Sorry to say, I don't give a fuck about 'equality' as an abstract concept. The bourgeoisie certainly do, though. Which is why the French capitalists enscribed it on their banner during their Revolution - liberté, égalité, fraternité.



    (Marianne - a Marxist flag before Marx was born.)

    Or, for that matter:



    Meantime, what did Marx himself say respecting 'equality'? Per The Critique Of The Gotha Programme:

    ... But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
    Likewise, Marx to Sorge, 1877:

    The compromise with the Lassalleans has led to compromise with other half-way elements too; in Berlin (e.g., Most) with Dühring and his “admirers,” but also with a whole gang of half-mature students and super-wise doctors who want to give socialism a “higher ideal” orientation, that is to say, to replace its materialistic basis (which demands serious objective study from anyone who tries to use it) by modern mythology with its goddesses of Justice, Freedom, Equality and Fraternity.
    Marx is much less of an abstract egalitarian than Jefferson, Robespierre, and all the other bourgeois Great Men you'll die defending. Indeed, sir, by accepting the bourgeois premise - that "all men are created equal" - you accept two premises in one: that all men are created, and that all men are equal.

    Marxism is precisely the rejection of such bourgeois notions. And you will find this viewpoint is common to most well-read Marxists. For instance:

    [–]Althuraya 15 points 1 year ago*
    Communism happens to generate some equalities, but that's not its aim. It is merely to free humans and enable the full realization of their capacities as humans and as individuals. The chains that bind us to work, scarcity, are overcome. The chains that bind us to the will of other humans, the gate that is the relationship to the means of production, is likewise gone with the end of scarcity. No human is unequal to another based on the concept of value as a highly abstract measure of labor, but the question of equality doesn't even matter when that is gone.

    It's not a state of equality as such so much as it is a state where the conditions of inequality are not present to even generate the problems. At best one could say Marx sees a true equality of opportunity for all to develop their humanity and capacities to whatever measure they are able to attain given their natural limits and historical limits if they so desire. One is free to develop what they like, how they like, and when they like for whatever reason without having to compete for anything with anyone in order to just have the opportunity to develop.

    [–]shamankous 4 points 1 year ago
    To add to this, one of the most potent aspects of Marx's critique is that the capitalist is just as bound by the market as the proletariat. If we focus on equality their is the implication that we are taking something from one group to give it to another. If we instead focus on freedom, we can say that capitalism unambiguously harms everyone.

    [–]SoyBeanExplosionpolitical philosophy, ethics[S] 1 point 1 year ago
    The more I read about Marx's views the more I find this view far more compelling than the arbitrary maximisation of some strictly defined formal 'equality'.

    ...


    [–]mcollins1political phil., ethics 6 points 1 year ago
    Fundamentally, Marx viewed the endstate as being a classless society. As such, the idea of "equality" - like the idea of "rights" - would become antiquated and illogical in a communist society. Rights and equality only exist within a class society. Both of these words and concepts come from Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke, et. al. and emerge in social contract theory. Marx rejects this theory, so equality has no place in his view. It is, at most, an old bourgeois idea which will no longer matter.
    Again, sir: 'equality' is a mystical bourgeois totem, religious in origin and abstract in principle. The Marxist has no interest in it.

    (Of course, it's certainly true that some illiterate 'Marxists' lay claim to the whole concept of 'equality'. These people tend to be Lenin LARPers, and expecting them to slough through Das Kapital is like expecting Shangs to post while sober.)

    All because they cannot compete on a capitalist playing field against other men.
    Oh, this is why you guys oppose open borders, right? And support tariffs to give 'the nation' - a collective if ever there was one - a heads-up on the... competition? Because you're not capable of competing against foreigners?

    On the one hand, I'm meant to feel sympathy towards (and some kind of pitiful racial camaraderie with) the useless opiate addicts of Appalachia etc. On the other - competition breeds success.

    After all:



    I suppose that's reasonable, though. An unemployed nationalist drug addict like Shangs can't reasonably be expected to compete with a hale Mexican migrant worker.

    Quite the opposite is true, in fact. I compete constantly with my fellow-workers; I am a laborer. Shangs up there does no labor. He isn't - competitive.


    LO, THE SUPERMAN!

    Last edited by The Overman; 10-11-2017 at 06:07 PM.
    To revenge the misdeeds of the ruling class, there existed in the middle ages, in Germany, a secret tribunal, called the “Vehmgericht.” If a red cross was seen marked on a house, people knew that its owner was doomed by the “Vehm.”

    All the houses of Europe are now marked with the mysterious red cross.

  6. #36

    Join Date: 04.09.12
    Posts: 392
    Rank: Glass Jaw

    Default

    Your gimmick is pretty convincing, I’ll give you that. It’s too bad you did not grasp that my remark about equality was sardonic, but it’s always amusing whenever a Marxist gets triggered. It doesn’t matter if you value equality or not in a literal sense because under Marxist or communist dictatorship you are all equally worthless. It’s an approach that is destined for failure; has failed on the big stage every time. It’s not even a good theory; rather, it’s a doubleplusungood theory.

    There is a difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration. Only an idiot would argue in favour of open borders. Illegal aliens may carry third world diseases - are tax payers paying to have them tested? If so, it’s a waste of resources when spending it on non-citizens; if not, it’s incredibly careless and inexcusably detrimental. If some immigrants cannot enter the country legally like all other immigrants are expected to, or require special privileges like open borders, then it is obvious they cannot compete if they cannot get step one right. I could go on with examples, and certainly Capitalism is not perfect but, relative to the rest of the world, it is superior and it is therefore wise to prevent the undermining of such a system or it will collapse and begin to resemble Marxist or third world systems. Utopias are for fools, and Marxism is best worn by ironic hipsters, miserable university profs and unfuckable feminists.
    Last edited by SangreV; 10-11-2017 at 07:06 PM.

  7. #37
    The Overman's Avatar
    Join Date: 04.11.12
    Location: Hell, Illinois
    Posts: 1,070
    Rank: Crimson Soil

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SangreV View Post
    Your gimmick is pretty convincing, I’ll give you that. It’s too bad you did not grasp that my remark about equality was sardonic,
    It wasn't 'sardonic'. Your comment was made in bad faith - you've never read Marx, know fuck all about Marx, and still feel fit to pontificate on the subject.

    You're an idiot.

    but it’s always amusing whenever a Marxist gets triggered.
    The same way BreakingYourMomsOldMound was #triggered by the Big, Bad College Professor? or the way Trump is #triggered by kneeling before the anthem at football games?

    It doesn’t matter if you value equality or not in a literal sense because under Marxist or communist dictatorship you are all equally worthless.
    Rather like the nationalist company you keep now.

    It’s an approach that is destined for failure; has failed on the big stage every time. It’s not even a good theory; rather, it’s a doubleplusungood theory.
    Of course it has. But I don't blame capitalists for feeling there's something to be salvaged in their system; we won't hold the Long Depression of the 1870s, or 1907, or 1921, or 1929, etc. etc. against them.

    There is a difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration. Only an idiot would argue in favour of open borders.
    Or someone who can outcompete immigrants. That doesn't apply to you, and it certainly doesn't apply to a waste of human life like dear ol' Shangs.

    Illegal aliens may carry third world diseases - are tax payers paying to have them tested?
    So do Mansonites. I shudder to think of the rate of STDs in a Manson show.

    If so, it’s a waste of resources when spending it on non-citizens; if not, it’s incredibly careless and inexcusably detrimental.
    Of course, by your self-same logic that money ought not be spent on citizens, either.

    If some immigrants cannot enter the country legally like all other immigrants are expected to, or require special privileges like open borders, then it is obvious they cannot compete if they cannot get step one right.
    It's hardly the immigrants with the pull to enforce open borders. It is, in fact, the very capitalist organizations you worship.

    Capitalism is not perfect but, relative to the rest of the world, it is superior. Utopias are for fools, and Marxism is best worn by ironic hipsters, miserable university profs and unfuckable feminists.
    And workers. Like myself.

    There's a phrase 'round here to describe useless eaters like Shangs and all those unemployed coal miners: they call them "white niggers". These people - by your logic - need to learn to compete on the free market.
    To revenge the misdeeds of the ruling class, there existed in the middle ages, in Germany, a secret tribunal, called the “Vehmgericht.” If a red cross was seen marked on a house, people knew that its owner was doomed by the “Vehm.”

    All the houses of Europe are now marked with the mysterious red cross.

  8. #38

    Join Date: 04.09.12
    Posts: 392
    Rank: Glass Jaw

    Default

    Please look up the definition for the word: sardonic. Then find yourself a safe space. Once you’ve untriggered yourself, you can quit the sophistic justifications and try to actually understand why Marx’s theories were utter failures and why they are destined for failure when put to the test. Everything I’ve read of his is utter rubbish. Also, attempt to understand why so many ignorant young folks in western countries, psychologically, are drawn to Marxism. You may learn something about yourself not revealed by the echo chambers that abound you. Otherwise, you’ll end up equally as incorrigible as flat-earthers.

    But oh, please keep going!

  9. #39
    The Overman's Avatar
    Join Date: 04.11.12
    Location: Hell, Illinois
    Posts: 1,070
    Rank: Crimson Soil

    Default

    LMAO

    > Whines about echo chambers
    > Whines about DA YUFF (next stop: "Millennials".)
    > Doesn't notice that I'm literally the only Marxist here, on a forum dominated by angsty tweenage alt-right Mansonites.
    > Neglects to notice that the moderators just created a safe space for Shangs right when I was giving it to him good for being a welfare leech.

    You. Are. Dumb. Holy fuck.
    To revenge the misdeeds of the ruling class, there existed in the middle ages, in Germany, a secret tribunal, called the “Vehmgericht.” If a red cross was seen marked on a house, people knew that its owner was doomed by the “Vehm.”

    All the houses of Europe are now marked with the mysterious red cross.

  10. #40

    Join Date: 04.09.12
    Posts: 392
    Rank: Glass Jaw

    Default

    Are you really that dense? I’ve not made one mention to you about your love affair with ‘shangs’ or this forum being the reason for your neuroticism and autistic rage. How you made that inference is baffling but you were triggered and may have ‘short-circuited’ in a Hillarian way.

    But I get it. Marxism is retro, it’s hip. You’re going against the grain.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

NEWS | TOUR | BIOGRAPHIES | DISCOGRAPHY | VIDEOGRAPHY | GALLERY | MEDIA & INTERVIEWS
MANSON'S JOURNAL | ESSAYS & ANALYSIS | TIMELINE | FORUM | THEATRE | INFORMATION & LINKS