I find it funny how CUCKshott says le gay males are all bourgeois because they don't have children while not applying the same logic to lesbians because he jerks off to lesbian porn
What a fucking hack, a typical homophobic boomer(Rule 14c - To ensure a basic level of quality, topics or posts will not be tolerated when contributions are not conductive to well-intentioned discussion.)
>>2440297Lesbians end up raising kids far more often than gay men (I was raised by very old Lesbians btw) so I think that point is relevant. But part of that is stigma against gay men not being allowed to raise children because of the reactionary assumption they are pedophiles.
Also Marx did say subsistence wages include the cost of raising children, so Cockshott is really extending that logic that Capital needs workers to reproduce themselves at least at a 1:1 rate but ideally at a higher rate than that. This depends on bourgeois patriarchal heteronormative relations. So in a way, people who don't have children are more likely to accumulate "reserves" (savings) even on a subsistence wage, which makes the more likely to have "upward mobility" into the petty bourgeoisie. Naturally non-hetero people are less likely to have children for many reasons, including discrimination against the very idea of them raising children, but this category also includes heteronormative people who don't have children, like the "Dink" (Dual Income No Kids) couple. But at the same time perhaps it should be seen as a form of praxis to not have children since it shrinks the reserve army of labor and makes capital more desperate. People have spoken of "birth strikes" raising wages but we also know that mass deaths, such as from pandemics, raise wages. Even in pre-capitalist history, the black plague doubled the wages of artisans in the towns of England, leading Edward III to attempt to freeze wages at pre-plague levels, which was essentially unenforceable.
See
>>2439868 >>2440429>River of BloodsFuck my grammar, really… Btw, let's not forget he's a boomer, and the sooner that cursed generation leaves this realm of existence, the sooner nature can start to heal.
As for the man himself, I forgot to say explicitly that he has a tendency to speak out about issues he knows jack shit about by applying methods and logics maybe derived from his actual specialty. Not the only one guilty of that, obv, but he's been many times an example of that. Also, I guess he has a subpar - to be charitable - ability to read the room: calling into question personal life choices and circumstances is rarely a good move in any kind of debate.
>>2440459Stop fetichizing lesbian women, hetmoid
It just proves all straight men are creeps, and potential rapists and pedos
>>2440498Ok now apply the same logic from a male pov to lesbians and you will know why gay men suck ass and lesbians always get a pass even from the most reactionary men.
Thread over, I solved your question, mods, launch ICBMs towards these uyghurs homes, thank you.
>>2440498My experience with gay males has been hit or miss. On several occasions, I've been sexually harassed and, in one, drunken stupper, almost taken advantage of.
I have nothing againts gay males. But the many that I have met have been rude, brash, and or gutsy when it comes to personal space.
>>2440535My experience with hetero males have been the fact the overwhelmingly majority of them are sadistic, rude, dumb, violent, reactionary and particularly vile and hateful towards queer men and trans women, and absolute majority of lgbt experience with hetero males have been hateful situations ranging from verbal abuse to life threatening ones
Hetmoids are 90% of rapists, hate crime perps, murderers, thieves, reactionaries, homophobes, racists, reactionary and general human scum despite being roughly 40 or 45% of the world's population
It's amusing how many few queer folk and women in general acknowledge this despite themselves being the main victims of this particular demographic
TL/DR all hetero males are subhuman to me until particularly proven otherwise
>>2440551This is my experiences with hetfoids, and as such I support your right be angry at a group of people due to personal experiences with a handful of them compared to the majority.
We need to divide the nation between matriarchy and patriarchy, you get that side, I get the other side and any men or women trapped there must obey us. Sound good?
>>2440535>My experience with gay males has been hit or miss. On several occasions, I've been sexually harassed … I have nothing againts gay males. But the many that I have met have been rude, brash, and or gutsy when it comes to personal space.Gays can be like that. I've been sexually harassed. It's generally the case that gays (in a gay environment) can… not cop a feel exactly… but brush on each other as part of normal interaction. It's kind of like girls. "Girlfrieeends!" People are feeling comfy and in their environment. Stuff that straight guys would be like "woah, back off" if other guys acted like that with them. Except that's normal and it doesn't mean you're necessarily hitting on someone. You could just be friends. But it can turn into something more in a natural way, because attraction comes from that irrational feeling or well of desire or whatever. And this environment can make straight guys uncomfortable.
But occasionally someone can outright sexually harass somebody and you have to be, like, back off and be kind of brutal about it, or more likely, someone who you really don't like or find pretty gross is coming up on you, and you try to be like "bzzt!!" You have an official gay pass from me, now, that you can stand up for yourself and threaten to punch the guy and it's not homophobic if he's actually harassing you.
>>2440722>You have an official gay pass from me, now, that you can stand up for yourself and threaten to punch the guy and it's not homophobic if he's actually harassing you.This is exactly what happened. We were at a bar, and he kept touching my leg under the table with his left hand (I knew him, by the way ), and I told him multiple times to stop. He said to me, " You won't do anything," and that triggered my caveman personality, so I punched him right in the nose, and I was escorted out.
I honestly liked the guy (as a friend) and previously had gone out multiple times before, but the guy crossed the line even after multiple warnings.
>>2440754That's quite the assumption there, champ. I was clearly asking why he believes straight males are sadistic, as if he has slept with them.
Learn 2 rEAD
>>2440297hes a retarded political economist who should remain inside academia and shut the fuck up everywhere else because he holds the moronic belief that value persists into socialism and dont get me started on how he conflates his own
opinions with communism like every leftoid loves to do
>>2440429>>2440450>he has a tendency to speak out about issues he knows jack shit about by applying methods and logics maybe derived from his actual specialtyExactly. This just about summarizes the core of the basic absurdity of everything Cockshott is about. He believes that his relative (but not exceptional) expertise in one thing makes him qualified to authoritatively and "scientifically" speak on various subjects he clearly knows little about. He's the "communist" equivalent of a unremarkable billionaire saying "I could have been a physicist, but I went into business instead" at the start of their TEDx talk. The people who follow his every word are likewise the techbros of terminally-online "communism".
>he belongs to a line of thought that has nothing better to do than bash transgender women - I don't know about transgender men, thoHe doesn't talk about trans men because he doesn't actually give a fuck about any of this or what is or isn't scientific. He hasn't genuinely done a lick of investigation into Queer life and his attention is instead focused on whatever will forward his grift and appeal to "left" chauvinists. To his audience, trans women are an existential threat to tradition and "science", while trans men might as well be a lamp in the corner of a room for how little they register as sentient beings to them. In the same way that Cockshott will bend himself into a rhetorical pretzel in order to justify gays as "decadent" while lesbians are fine, Cockshotts unaddressed implicit dehumanizing view of women is deeply ingrained in his views of trans men and women.
>>2440902humans aren't going away because people are having fewer babies right now. that's white genocide tier logic
>>2440904I've come to the same conclusion. everyone calling for "decentralization" just want independent production. they either implicitly or explicitly disagree with Neurath, and therefore are in agreement with the Austrians
>>2441036https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350573206_Class_Demography_and_Gay_Politics_in_the_WestI've briefly read his text about 'gay politics' and all his sources (which exclaim that the avg. gay male receives 12% more money than straight one in the UK & gay males are less likely to raise children ) denotes to his final exclaim that the gay male spend lesser portions of his money to raise children. ( and this is le bad )
Before this exclaim, he uses a mathematical formula ( which confused me a little tbh ) for the rate of profit, which is
rate of profit = total profit / capital stock
Then he describes total profit P = (1-w) * N , where N is the working population and (1-w) is the fraction of profit made per working person ( 1 - his wage share )
He also uses more formulas like that but to be honest, it made me a little confused. His formula for the growth of the capital stock does not include population P , so at the end he says that population increase will increase the profit rate.
So , he claims that if the growth of the capital stock exceeds the rate of growth in total profit, the profit rates will decrease in a capitalist market economy. Resulting lesser investments, lesser employment etc. with using Japanese stagnation and crisis (in 2008s as i recall) as an example.
Idk if it's really a critique of how gays raise less children and use less money for children or the market economy in general, but he finishes his text with basically saying " we should increase our population if we want a steady rate of growth in profit, and when gays were opressed the population growth rate was higher cuz they would marry women"
>>2441145 (me)
>His formula for the growth of the capital stock does not include population PI've meant population N , sry.
Unique IPs: 36