Tomoko thread&hellip; why? Because I like the character&hellip; and other reasons&hellip;<br/>Post lewds (spoilered), memes, edits, pics and anything else related to the subject

Posting mode: Reply [Return]
Name
Options
Subject	Spoiler Image
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password	(For file deletion.)

Anonymous 2024-01-28 (Sun) 17:26:04 No.22964

>>22959
stop being a liberal and/or an anarchist any time. as a marxist ill keep making fun of anyone focusing so much on consumption they think theres an objective measure of "too much consumption" that it becomes "consumerism" - also a "bad" thing to do, much like christian sins - or that to be a correct "leftist" you need to buy the right things or barely buy things because obviously individual choices matter and being a leftist is when youre miserable, instead of focusing on production which is what shapes society, like any proper marxist does

>The less you eat, drink, buy books, go to the theatre or to balls, or to the pub, and the less you think, love, theorize, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you will be able to save and the greater will become your treasure which neither moth nor rust will corrupt—your capital. The less you are, the less you express your life, the more you have, the greater is your alienated life and the greater is the saving of your alienated being.
^ literally marx

Anonymous 2024-01-28 (Sun) 20:07:59 No.22965

File: 1706472479671.png (2.23 MB, 1920x1080, ClipboardImage.png)

>>22963
You are the blind imbecile pal >>22943
>the word is often used by conservative retards to guilt-trip people who like anime or video games.
Which implies that consumerism is somehow NOT a negative thing and not a cultural product of capitalist material obsession.

>>22964
Never been an ankid or lib.
>as a marxist
You're not a marxist, you're a semi-literate speedreading cretin ignoring the entire prior thread of arguments.
>*snip marx excerpt out of context*
>^lItErAlLy MaRx
Yeah and you do not comprehend what he meant, at all.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/epm/3rd.htm
Within the framwork of this manuscript Marx is describing the conditions of the system of Capital current to his time, which was the 19th Century, wherein Capitalists directly repressed workers, rather than modern liberal welfare system which developed specifically because the old school method resulted in protest and revolts. Consumerism was not a thing in Marx's time, as high quality items were primarily for the elites. As he notes, proletarians were minimalistic in what they acquired. This means demand is lower and purchasing power is limited, thus there was a paradigm shift, where cheap previously unavailable items became available to the greater masses.

>ill keep making fun of anyone focusing so much on consumption they think theres an objective measure of "too much consumption"
You're an undialectical moron who I doubt even actually read Kapital in full or Debord.
>also a "bad" thing to do, much like christian sins
False equivalency, Christianity is a religion and sins are a system of ethical codes based on the time-period's morals and the society it formed in. Anti-consumerism is a part of socialist rejection of capitalist manipulation of people and is based on socio-economic analysis.
>to be a correct "leftist" you need to buy the right things or barely buy things
I said neither of these things, shove your strawman up your ass.
>being a leftist is when youre miserable, instead of focusing on production
Non-sequitur and strawman. No ethical consumption under capitalism =/= unlimited consumption. There is a difference between consuming because you "like" it and consumption because of escapism caused by alienation.

Anonymous 2024-01-29 (Mon) 08:40:19 No.22981

>>22965
You feed the system no matter what until it's abolished as a whole. That's the entire point. It's not about individual choices. You don't know anything about what you're talking about.

You type a lot of trash but I seriously don’t think you’re equipped to understand politics as a set of understandings and interests rather than seeking moral high grounds. You can't even bring up a consistent and unarbitrary definition of consumerism yourself.

The vast majority of self-styled 'communists' truly are bourgeois-sentimentalist moralists.

Anonymous 2024-01-29 (Mon) 09:02:59 No.22982

>>22965
>Which implies that consumerism is somehow NOT a negative thing
LITERALLY DIDN'T FUCKING SAY THIS, YOU FUCKING MORON.
>conservatives misapply the term "consumerism" to hide their boomer resentment to new art forms.
<WHAT? YOU THINK CONSUMERISM IS GOOD??? OMG YOU'RE A LIBRAL.

Anonymous 2024-01-29 (Mon) 09:11:32 No.22983

>>22964
Note how Marx wasn't talking about endlessly accumulating consumer goods here, the only items he even talks about is books. Besides Marx wasn't living in the environmental crisis we are.

Anonymous 2024-01-29 (Mon) 09:14:47 No.22984

>>22982 (me)
My point was: consumerism and conservatism are both cringe. That's it. That was my entire point.
I do not take conservative "critiques" of consumerism seriously, they usually reduce to critiquing "muh vidya games" rather than actual commodity fetishism.

Anonymous 2024-01-29 (Mon) 19:00:29 No.22997

File: 1706554829476.gif (57.87 KB, 250x250, 490c4a26c0affe59e19f87b5d8….gif)

>>22981
>You feed the system no matter what until it's abolished as a whole
No shit Sherlock. But like I said, there's a difference between "There is no ethical consumption under capitalism" and "just consume anything in any quantity or quality it doesn't matter lol!" which disregards Marx's statements on considering quantity and quality of commodities. Again, read Debord.
Consumerism is a form of unhealthy escapism and is in no way helpful, it's literally like an addict buying more and more to feel that high, only instead of narcotics, its consuming media. There is nothing wrong with enjoying arts and music and film, but there's a difference between analyzing and liking an anime and buying merchandise like body-pillows and funko-pops because you're obsessed with it.
>It's not about individual choices.
Yes, it is, even if we are limited by the framework of out surroundings.
>You can't even bring up a consistent and unarbitrary definition of consumerism yourself.
False, I've remained consistent in my posts ever since my first one on the subject ITT >>20939 You're just using pretentiously worded ad hominum and addressing NONE of my points.
>The vast majority of self-styled 'communists' truly are bourgeois-sentimentalist moralists.
Ah yes, such as yourself, defending the capitalist phenomena of consumerism from criticism as such because you feel called out by posts on the subject. I'd request you take your superficial nonsense and post it to reddit, where it belongs.

>>22982
>>22984
>N-no I didn't say this!!! Using CAPS-LOCK and Title formatting proves it!
Anon just type normally, I can't take this shit seriously.
>conservatives misapply the term "consumerism" to hide their boomer resentment to new art forms.
That's not what you said. If you meant this then you should have worded it better, because otherwise it does in fact sound like liberal hand-wringing, since you only focus on conservatism in your initial post.
>My point was: consumerism and conservatism are both cringe.
Fine, like I said, that's not how your initial post reads.
>I do not take conservative "critiques" of consumerism seriously
Then you need to reassess yourself. Material analysis involves seeing the views, motives and rationale of different ideologies, individuals and cultures.

Anonymous 2024-01-30 (Tue) 03:35:02 No.23001

>>22997
>I know moralizing and obsessing over "unhealthy" individual choices is petit-bourgeois mentality but I'm going to keep doing it because vibes
You are beyond help, buddy. You're a moralist and a liberal, not a marxist.

Anonymous 2024-01-30 (Tue) 04:53:37 No.23004

>>22997
>Anon just type normally, I can't take this shit seriously.
I'm just tired of people on this bloody site putting words in my mouth and then acting like assholes to me by accusing me of shit and being rude. Really kicks all the desire to have a normal conversation out of the window.
>If you meant this then you should have worded it better
There's a big difference between "It's just that the word is used by conservatives" and "It's just a word that's used by conservatives." Again, you haven't read my post well and instead wanted to start this petty argument with me instead. You could have at least asked what I meant bx this before making assumptions, I hate when people act like this.
>Material analysis involves seeing the views, motives and rationale of different ideologies, individuals and cultures
That doesn't mean that conservatism isn't a knee-jerk reaction to the progressives' decadence. Yes, I understand why one might become a conservative, just as I understand why one might become alt-right. That doesn't mean these solutions are correct and not just "I support the opposite of the current thing." As all of you may know, only anarcho-egoism is correct and everything else is wrong.

Anonymous 2024-01-30 (Tue) 04:58:26 No.23005

>>23004 (me)
Also, when people try to backpedal by starting to mock me because they're too afraid to admit that they're wrong it pisses me off even further. Like, admit that you're fucking wrong so we can just move on from this and never bring this up again, it's not a big deal.

Anonymous 2024-01-30 (Tue) 16:03:09 No.23011

File: 1706630558997.png (118.18 KB, 350x197, ClipboardImage.png)

>>23001
>I have no argument so I'm going to (continue) strawman my arguments, projecting my own liberalism
LMAO other anon is right, you are a redditor. Go back

Anonymous 2024-01-30 (Tue) 17:15:00 No.23012

File: 1706634900106.png (270.59 KB, 583x328, ClipboardImage.png)

>>23004
>I'm just tired of people on this bloody site putting words in my mouth and then acting like assholes to me by accusing me of shit and being rude.
Anon… this is an imageboard which evolved from a group that broke off from /pol/ and other boards of 4chan/8chan because we liked anonymous forum posting but were tired of retards shitting themselves about communism. It's still a fairly abrasive community because the expectation is to either have thick skin and ignore or take your lumps and engage back. I only called out what appeared to be apologia for a bourg mentality, and thus I was more hostile than a typical argument.
>There's a big difference between
It's not as big a difference as you think; as I said the majority of your post sounds like a work around, 'admitting' it's a thing but appearing to try to justify ignoring or defending it, by bringing up one-sided information. Conservatives are not the only ones who criticize consumerism. If you had expanded (literally a sentence more) on the actual aspects of consumerism and THEN added on the comment of "keep in mind reactionaries…" as an addendum, then your post would be more balanced.
>you haven't read my post well and instead wanted to start this petty argument with me instead
False and no.
>ou could have at least asked what I meant bx this before making assumptions
Stop trying to blame this all on me. This isn't a professional discussion forum, it's an informal shitposting site. Even the moderators don't ask for clarification on posts before deleting them. As I explained, your wording was suspect and so received the response it garnered.
>That doesn't mean these solutions are correct and not just "I support the opposite of the current thing."
That also doesn't necessarily mean that you don't support something just because there are others you dislike that support it, that's partisan contrarianism.

Anonymous 2024-01-30 (Tue) 22:05:06 No.23014

>>23012
>It's still a fairly abrasive community because the expectation is to either have thick skin and ignore or take your lumps and engage back
That's no excuse to pick fights over some miscommunication. This entire argument came out of nothing: you imagined in your head that I somehow disagree with you just because you have problems understanding language. Why is it hard for you to admit that your assumption was wrong?
>appearing to try to justify ignoring or defending it
The key word is "appearing." Because it's you projecting your assumptions. I simply distinguished between consumerism as a concept and "consoomerism" as a smear or moral posturing.
>Conservatives are not the only ones who criticize consumerism
No shit, I CRITICIZE CONSUMERISM.
>If you had expanded (literally a sentence more) on the actual aspects of consumerism and THEN added on the comment of "keep in mind reactionaries…" as an addendum
How the hell could I have predicted that some random person I wasn't even talking to would misunderstand me?
>That also doesn't necessarily mean that you don't support something just because there are others you dislike that support it
Doesn't mean that you have to completely agree on the subject matter with the other side either, you don't have to hold conservative views to oppose consumerism.

Why are you doing this?

Anonymous 2024-01-30 (Tue) 22:12:41 No.23016

>>23014 (me)
Argument over the meaning of a sentence. Peak political discourse.

Is this how being on Ben Shapiro's conference feels like? I hate Ben Shapiro now, Ben Shapiro does not deserve to live.

Anonymous 2024-01-30 (Tue) 22:27:52 No.23017

File: 1706653672893.png (48.16 KB, 330x330, ClipboardImage.png)

>>23014
>That's not excuse
Quit complaining, you certainly weren't de-escalating with your Capslock.
>This entire argument came out of nothing
Yes, because I told you to shut up and stop reviving a derailing dead debate from months ago.
>you imagined in your head that I somehow disagree with you just because you have problems understanding language
I understand language fine, language is fluid and your meaning did not come across as you may have meant it.
>Why is it hard for you to admit that your assumption was wrong?
Why is it hard for you to admit that your sentence was open for interpretation given its context?
>appearing
<projecting your assumptions
That's not how projection or appearance works; Context is important - your response, in the context of the prior debate on the topic - makes your sentence sound apologetic for consumerism with "muh conservatism" appearing as an excuse. If you meant otherwise then I am sorry, but again, do not dump all the blame onto me here, this isn't a professional debate.
>I simply distinguished between consumerism as a concept and "consoomerism" as a smear or moral posturing.
Fine, good.
>How the hell could I have predicted that some random person I wasn't even talking to would misunderstand me?
You responded to a post that is in turn responding to my post >>21669 and I only told you to quit continuing the direction of conversation, which you did not. Furthermore I'm literally the OP of the thread so I keep tabs on it.
>Doesn't mean that you have to completely agree on the subject matter with the other side either, you don't have to hold conservative views to oppose consumerism.
Correct
>Why are you doing this?
It's a conversation, if you're tired of it you don't need to reply or just say you're done.

Anonymous 2024-01-30 (Tue) 23:09:24 No.23018

>>23017
>Quit complaining, you certainly weren't de-escalating with your Capslock.
>I told you to shut up
You could have asked me NICELY and I wouldn't have gotten pissed off.
>Why is it hard for you to admit that your sentence was open for interpretation given its context?
Because I thought that I've seperated the two parts of my sentence well enough for them to not be confused with each other. I deliberately tried to avoid the interpretation you've just made. And writing an entire definition of consumerism is just overkill when I just wanted to quickly respond to a person who seems to equate consumerism with moralism. Maybe I could've used different wording but I do not think one needs an entire definition of a concept to understand a simple response message.
>I only told you to quit continuing the direction of conversation, which you did not
I did, I simply thought it's silly to prohibit people talking to each other. Which you seemed to do when I responded to the other guy. I didn't actually want to start an argument, I was simply joking. Sorry if it came out rude (not for the Caps Lock though, I was genuinely pissed off by this point) but that's simply outside of my control unless I'll have to attach /jk like a fucking redditor.

Anonymous 2024-01-30 (Tue) 23:33:34 No.23019

>>23018
>equate consumerism with moralism
just thinking consumerism exists is moralist, doesnt mean its the same thing as moralism *shrugs*

Anonymous 2024-01-30 (Tue) 23:35:59 No.23020

File: 1706657759450.jpg (98.43 KB, 720x487, GFF-8LtXQAAGdDJ.jpg)

itt: race towards the bottom over abstract ideas bourgeois theorists wrote from centuries ago

Anonymous 2024-01-31 (Wed) 01:51:02 No.23021

>>23019
*wild confusion*

>>23018
>You could have asked me NICELY and I wouldn't have gotten pissed off.
Fair enough, but again, it's fairly standard here.
>writing an entire definition of consumerism is just overkill
Fair point in normal discourse, but imageboards are, by default, quite tense and antagonistic, so details like that will get misunderstood. I think of it as being similar to being in the hood, you watch what you say and if you say something, you make yourself absolutely clear, otherwise SOMEONE is going to have a problem with you.
>I simply thought it's silly to prohibit people talking to each other
1) It was off topic as is
2) I already knew that re-engaging the debate was going to result in srach, and I was hoping to cut it off before it gained steam. Instead I ended up being the catalyst.
>unless I'll have to attach /jk like a fucking redditor.
LOL, nah no worries, we've reached an understanding, and nobody was harmed in the process. Peace.

Anonymous 2024-01-31 (Wed) 03:16:44 No.23022

>>23021
>Fair enough, but again, it's fairly standard here.
That's not an excuse.

Anonymous 2024-01-31 (Wed) 06:52:56 No.23023

Everyone whines about "consumerism" but where do you draw the line lol. Literally every hobby is consuming something. Pretty much any purchase or trade implies consumption.

>inb4 "oh so you want people to consume infinitely?"
Genuinely braindead.

Anonymous 2024-01-31 (Wed) 08:21:00 No.23025

>>23021
>srach
That's a very Slavic word. I notice there are a lot of Russians here for some reason.
>>23019
>just thinking consumerism exists is moralist, doesnt mean its the same thing as moralism *shrugs*
It's like saying that criticizing capitalism is moralist. It's not a moral failing of consumerists, rather it's something that takes the enjoyment of life away from us, just like capitalism does. If you don't view this as a problem then fine, do what thou wilt. But on my personal level, it is a problem. A problem that I suffer from also, I also try to numb my brain in mindless entertainment. That brings me neither joy nor satisfaction, rather, it leaves me as a husk.

Anonymous 2024-01-31 (Wed) 16:01:24 No.23026

File: 1706716884588.jpg (151.12 KB, 750x1000, consume.jpg)

>>23022
Piss off and stop being a snowflake about it, you knew you were derailing and you escalated the situation, don't pretend to be on a high horse here.

>>23023
Stop being obtuse, consumerism =/= consumption. This has been repeated ITT like 3 times; It's not the actual act of consumption, but an ideology surrounding the act.

>Consumerism is the PREOCCUPATION of society with the acquisition of consumer goods.
>Consumerism is an ideology that is pushed by capitalism to encourage greed and commodification and is not the same thing as consumption in and of itself, which is what consumerism exploits to direct the population and propagandize them, exploiting their societal alienation.
>By the very fact of media and commodities and personal property existing and being acquirable, people consume something. However that is an action that occurs as part of living and social interaction, not an ideological act.

Anonymous 2024-01-31 (Wed) 17:28:01 No.23027

>>23026
>Piss off and stop being a snowflake about it
That anon isn't me, dude.

Anonymous 2024-01-31 (Wed) 18:38:20 No.23033

File: 1706726299974.jpeg (88.16 KB, 749x730, Mental Illness tomoko.jpeg)

Oh leftypol, the only place where a thread about an hikki character from an anime will derail into autistic lengthy detailed debates about socio-economic ideology.

Anonymous 2024-01-31 (Wed) 21:27:16 No.23045

>>19630
Legendary long-term thread derailment. Amazing display of the butterfly effect.

Anonymous 2024-02-01 (Thu) 04:27:34 No.23050

>>23045
It was all going downhill since >>19622

Anonymous 2024-02-01 (Thu) 12:24:52 No.23051

>>23050
Eh, it's not as inflammatory nor did it bring in debatelords from both sides of the aisle. Could have been averted & died down at that point in hindsight. But the post I linked though solidified that trajectory.

Anonymous 2024-02-02 (Fri) 15:33:07 No.23056

File: 1706887987447.png (104.21 KB, 728x533, 1701454262408.png)

>>22965
>>22997
>>23012
>>23017
>>23026
We see here the nature of morality: it condemns only excesses, never the thing itself. Thus profit is permitted, but greed is forbidden; small businesses are fine, but big ones are not. Workers reproducing their labor via wage labor through the consumption of commodities is good, but buying the "wrong" commodities or "too many" is bad. You can see pretty easily how this corresponds to the conditions for petty-bourgeois emancipation.

Luckily, even in advance of communism we can self-flagellate over our naughty consumption habits and fantasize about how badly everyone’s consumption will be restricted when the (surely imminent!) revolution happens - which has little to do with an actual Marxist class focus on production.

It's fun when people debate whether their layman's understanding of marxism justifies their consumption habits vs. whether it justifies their puritan self-denial. It's moralism all the way down.

Anonymous 2024-02-02 (Fri) 16:05:01 No.23057

>>22984
>commodity fetishism
One of the most important concepts advanced by Marx and I'm begging leftoids to understand that Marx used the term "fetish" to argue "commodities behave like little gods in how they seem to command men" and not as some sort of moral attack.

The term commodity fetishism isn't meant to scold people for liking things. It describes the fact that in capitalism we don't relate to each other as humans asking each other to do things, but rather indirectly command each other through commodities.

If I go to a restaurant, I don't beg or threaten or whatever the cook to make me a meal and the waiter to deliver it. I just buy the meal. The meal itself then appears to command them to move, like a little god. It's about obscuring processes of production.

Anonymous 2024-02-02 (Fri) 23:50:47 No.23061

File: 1706917847395.png (246.37 KB, 1525x1208, Cope n Seethe liberal.png)

>>23056
>Posts cite marx and the communist critique of consumerist ideology
<U-ure all moralists
LMAO, like clockwork.

>it condemns only excesses, never the thing itself.
Meaningless and fallacious statement. The idea of too much of a good thing is bad has existed for centuries.
>profit is permitted, but greed is forbidden
>small businesses are fine, but big ones are not.
Said by nobody in this thread, particularly the posts you reference.
>Workers reproducing their labor via wage labor through the consumption of commodities is good, but buying the "wrong" commodities or "too many" is bad
Strawman fallacy, nobody said this.
>You can see pretty easily how this corresponds to the conditions for petty-bourgeois emancipation.
Well when you create a false equivalency ridden, fallacious strawmen, of course it "makes sense"… in a vacuum.
>we can self-flagellate over our naughty consumption habits and fantasize about how badly everyone’s consumption will be restricted
Another strawman.

Everyone that invokes the "moralism" boogie-man is automatically a pseud, like (you)rself, because, as usual, the entire argument is based on fallacious and deliberate misinterpretation of posts that rightly critique an ideological facet of modern capitalism… primarily because they feel called out for being lumpen theorylets that pretend to be communist but in reality would never want to give up clearly harmful aspects of their decadent bohemian lifestyle that is endemic to first-world radical liberals.

I repeat for the mentally ill such as yourself; Consumption =/= consumerism.

Now quit derailing the thread and go back to your anarchist threads.

Anonymous 2024-02-03 (Sat) 08:57:19 No.23063

>>23061
>Now quit derailing the thread and go back to your anarchist threads
Why did you have to drag the anarchists into this? Many of them are Situationists also. You're doing exactly what that anon just did. Meanwhile, people here are calling anti-consumerism "liberal." So who is the real anarchist or liberal? What I see is MLs accusing each other of anarchism while actual anarchists don't even understand what the heck is going on.

Anonymous 2024-02-03 (Sat) 16:55:00 No.23065

>>23063
I'm not dragging in anarchists, it's just that these sorts of libertarian "socialists" always hang out in anarchist threads because they like to LARP as anti-authoritarian.

Anonymous 2024-03-05 (Tue) 16:47:35 No.23477

File: 1709657255725.jpg (382.12 KB, 1448x2048, GHcHfOtWwAAZS9E.jpg)

mokocchi

Anonymous 2024-03-06 (Wed) 19:59:40 No.23507

>>23477
Cute!!

Anonymous 2024-03-07 (Thu) 08:24:45 No.23532

>>23477
Tomoko is unironically the most based character just because of how much she is a NEETcel. She is what Kazuma from Rent-a-Girlfriend should have been, we should laugh at how pathetic Kazuma is instead of being expected to root for him or want him to have a girlfriend. I don't know of any other good NEETcel anime other than NHK.

Anonymous 2024-03-07 (Thu) 08:34:31 No.23534

>>23532 (me)
Also, I think the problem with Kazuma is that he's downright annoying instead of being just a goofy perverted NEETcel who doesn't shower and is therefor just boring to watch.

Diogenes was the first perverted NEETcel who doesn't shower, change my mind.

Anonymous 2024-03-07 (Thu) 13:49:23 No.23535

>>23532
She's not a NEET, she goes to school.

Anonymous 2024-03-08 (Fri) 05:31:49 No.23557

>>23535
Everyone in Japan is forced into going to school at that age tbh.

Anonymous 2024-03-08 (Fri) 07:00:52 No.23563

>>23557
Actually, no. High school is not mandatory in Japan.

Anonymous 2024-03-08 (Fri) 09:49:00 No.23567

>>23534
Diogenes was a hikkineet who didn't even want to quit his home (a cracked pot in the middle of the road)
too based for this world

Anonymous 2024-04-02 (Tue) 19:34:10 No.23868

File: 1712086450207.png (1.86 MB, 1795x2457, ff2a90b16de15eaf7b7b810929….png)