brazenautomaton:

jambeast:

random-thought-depository:

guerrillatech:

On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, I think it’s legitimately a bad sign that I’ve never seen a convincing answer to questions like “If we’re supposed to ‘abolish the police,’ what’s your plan for protecting me from being casually robbed, abused, or murdered on my way home from the grocery store?” and “If we’re supposed to ‘abolish prisons,’ what are we going to do with unrepentant rapists and murderers?” and “If we’re supposed to ‘give the land back,’ what are your plans for the hundreds of millions of people who are already here and aren’t descended from people who were here in 1491?”

I don’t expect you to have it all planned out like Hari Seldon, but I do want assurances that your plan amounts to more than factional allegiance signaling or “destroy an important load-bearing feature of society without creating any viable substitute and let the chips fall where they may” or “we actually do want what you’d see as a dystopia, but we know we’d never get popular if we explicitly stated our goals, so we won’t do that.”

The seventeenth to nineteenth century liberal revolutionaries certainly didn’t have our society all planned out, but they did have plans about how to run a country without a king that amounted to more than “we’ll get rid of the king and then, uh, I dunno.”

It feels like a lot of anarchist-types see society as like… a big cartoon machine built by evil people with a big ON switch, wherein you press the ON button and it causes people to suffer. And you only need to switch the machine off, or hit it until it breaks, for the suffering machine to stop working, and then suddenly all the suffering will stop being generated and everything will go back to normal. 

this is what “conflict theory” is: the underlying assumption that things are bad because the enemy wills them to be bad, and the only solution necessary is to take power from the enemy and will things to be good instead

Conservative Republicans less likely than other partisan, ideological groups to describe ‘cancel culture’ as actions taken to hold others accountable, 2020

Source: Pew Research Center

Darling Buds of May - Flower Studies

Darling Buds of May – Flower Studies

View On WordPress

Capitalism deflates your consciousness- Mark Fisher’s ‘all of this is temporary’

In our current times, we are unable to see a future or alternative reality beyond capitalism because it has become so ingrained in us. Indeed, as Slavoj Zizek famously said, it is easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism. This is what Mark Fisher calls ‘Capitalist Realism’. In his talk entitled ‘all of this is temporary’ (available on YouTube), he makes…

View On WordPress

zizek vs vivek

if vivek was right, if ideology wasn’t a big factor, then all americans would be down for healthcare and free education and stuff. these things good for themselves too but they don’t seem to understand that because they are ideologically brainwashed. how you ask? like this: leftist = socialist = simp = cuck. so they must be against everything leftists want. so they can stay manly.

vivek was right when he associated things with insecurities but ideology is there to exploit those insecurities. right winger red neck ignorant uncultured etc. etc. white people have nothing else as a quality other than their whiteness or being american so they hang on to those things fanatically, irrationally, fetishizing it.

i’m white and an american and i’m proud! suck it minorities. suck it 3rd world countries. my ancestors were x, y and z. your ancestors sucked! which makes me superior to you even though i have no other qualities than being their lame grandgrandgrand children.

poor and uncultured always more fanatical who can be ideologically manipulated. just look at fanatism that stem from muslim countries, they can even explode themselves for whatever ideology.

it’s almost always the poor and angry and uneducated that throws stuff at soccer players when they are about to take a corner kick. because they become fanatics of that soccer club, since they lack a real identity, the soccer club becomes their identity and so the players of other team hated.

At the play party tonight, I was sitting on a couch when an attractive guy with glasses initiated a conversation. We chatted a bit, and I asked him about his kinks. When he asked about mine, I mentioned consensual misogyny and that MLAM and I call it “fucking with my feminism.” He said “Adorable,” and I noted that being condescended to is also something I enjoy and teased him about not having negotiated first.

He was interested in the consensual misogyny, so I said he could give it a try. He paused and asked for a prompt. I laughed and said, “This isn’t a real one, but I was going to say ‘Women drivers, amirite?’” He looked thoughtful and then said, with a convincingly angry tone, “It isn’t women drivers. It’s women parkers.” He proceeded to go off about women and parallel parking. He was pretty good, didn’t seem to need to stop and think too much to come up with things to say, and even threw in the word “cunt,” which might have been a bit much for a first interaction with some people, but that’s one of my favorite words.

So, I was enjoying it until we continued talking. He was telling me about how he picked up his last girlfriend after chewing her friend out “for being a feminist.” I wasn’t sure if he was still trying on the consensual misogyny, so I stopped him and said, “For real?” He said, “Yeah,” and told me about his conversation with this girl and started saying things about feminist who put down men. I tried to figure out what he was on about, and at one point he said something very negative about feminism not being right.

I stopped him and said, “So, I don’t do consensual misogyny with men who aren’t feminists, or who don’t at least say ‘I don’t use that word’ when I ask them if they are.” He responded, “Oh then I’m sorry, then. Because I’m, well, anti-feminist.” I was taken aback, and without hesitation, said, “Well, we can’t do that kind of play, then. Because I can’t have any doubt as to whether you actually mean this stuff.” He apologized again.

We kept chatting because, honestly, I was interested to see what he would say. I mentioned my libertarian ex at one point and this guy said, “So, I’m a libertarian.” Color me unsurprised. Also, NOPE. Then, he started going off about Marxism (he was, and this may shock you, not a fan) and bloody revolutions and by that point I was just about done. Luckily, Boy Genius came over and stole me away for what was a great scene.

I learned my lesson. Spend more time talking about ideology and politics with strangers before inviting them to try out consensual misogyny. Maybe they don’t have to be a full fledged feminist or something like that for me to be willing to try it out, but an anti-feminist libertarian is just not the kind of man I’m looking to play with.

PS.
Admittedly, he was good. I was ashamed and embarrassed and only a little confused to find that my panties were wet from listening to a stranger call a woman “cunt” and talk about how awful women are at parking. It stopped being hot when I started thinking he really meant it, but I imagine that there will come a time where I get soaked from real life misogyny, even as I vehemently disagree.

lololol I was going back through old posts and looked at the nicknames I gave people and I have quite the collection of ideologies represented (in order of appearance):

• Marxman (actually a Marxist)
  

• The Fascist (not actually a fascist)
  

• The Libertarian (the right wing lib I dated in undergrad whose libertarianism was T H I N N and who I only ever referenced like twice but he has a tag so it still counts)
  

• Anti-Feminist Libertarian Boy (yikes)*
  

• Radical Girl (radical as in rad & radical as in radical, still friends, need to see her more)

• The Anarchist Economist (a bit on the nose I suppose but I like it)
  

PS.
Goddamn I was (and probably still am, if I get back into doing it often enough) an amazing writer much of the time and even some of the things that don’t necessarily get me hot anymore are really hot when I read the way I wrote about them.

PPS.
Holy shit I was into some fucked up shit and wrote out some fucked up fantasies/stories and I totally understand why the kinkshaming radfems came after me, since they apparently they were obtuse enough to think what I was saying was all real (they still suck tho).

PPPS.
Check out the second oldest post in my “voting republican” tag (the other posts are good too) for some high quality high concept kink discourse from some (now lost to the ages) amazing tumblr people. Also the fourth paragraph from the bottom in this post where I talk about being forced to vote Libertarian.

PPPPS.
Also the tag “academic pillowtalk” yields an amazing post where I masturbate to Marxman talking about Foucault and queer assimilation vs. liberation, and then get off to him kinkshaming me, inspired by the aforementioned radfems.

*ffs I tried to fix the tag issue but this is a trash website so just hit this link (boy oh boy the oldest post in that search)

globalzombie:

‎The Reclaim Pod: The Laurence Fox Show - Douglas Murray on Apple Podcasts

Laurence Fox discusses contemporary ideology with Douglas Murray. 24 May 2022.

Cognitive Science, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

The complementary contribution of ideology and personality to lay views of capitalism

one-divides-into-two:

Ideology and the Gender Question

“[W]e find it worth asserting at this point that, as much as sexuality, gender “exists” only insofar as it serves to organize certain ideological constructions in the service of the reproduction of the family and the conditions of production. To speak of the existence of women (or of men) as a social group is to speak of the existence of a set of social relations (exploitation of women by the bourgeoisie) with an ideological superstructure. Neither element is immutable, and only the latter draws reference to the biological characteristics of bodies, and this only after the fact, in order to justify the economic relations in question.

To say otherwise is to engage in a gross misrepresentation of dialectical materialism: the superstructure does not determine the base.

There is nothing inherent to the possession of a vagina which makes such a body more subject to exploitation because there is no “feminine” nature which precedes the institution of patriarchy as a historical phenomenon; the concept of gender (which is to say, the ideology of gender) develops and was deployed after the institution of father-right in order to justify the particular economic arrangement of the family form. The interpellation and constitution of women as a distinct social group coheres on the basis of both this particular economic arrangement (the family) and its ideological expression, but this is hardly an unchanging set of criteria (and as Lenin taught, “the fundamental proposition of Marxian dialectics is that all boundaries in nature and society are conventional and mobile”). A thoroughly Marxist definition of womanhood must not rely on bourgeois ‘common-sense’ understandings, which are themselves ideological tools for the maintenance of its apparatuses and the conditions of capitalist production, but must proceed from an understanding of the social relations of exploitation and oppression which give rise to womanhood.”

money leads to wealth and poverty,

money leads to power and control,

money leads to hate.

The ideology of humans

is making money…

This isn’t a business decision. It‘s an ideology and ego decision.

Shifting Ideology in Mainstream Comics

On Thursday Sept 4 it wasannouncedthat DC Comics will be re-launching the series “Secret Six” being drawn by artist Ken Lashley and written by Gail Simone, who is known for having an active pursuit of diversity in the comics she creates. The announcement of the series’ return was welcomed news by the comic community, but even more so by Simone’s fan base when she made clear via her Tumblrthat…

View On WordPress