>Trans people start getting rights in early 20th century Germany
>Fascist dictators take over the country and try to erase all record of their existence
>Trans people start getting rights in early 21st century America
>Fascist dictators take over the country and try to erase all record of their existence
What is it about trans people that makes right wingers go completely insane?
it's le satanic inversion of le good
>>6167>What is it about trans people that makes right wingers go completely insane?Nothing.
>>6170Care to elaborate on what you mean by there being something in transpeople that makes right wingers mad?
>>6171>Care to elaborate on what you mean by there being something in transpeople that makes right wingers mad?Well they go full fascist dictator every time trans people start getting some joy in their lives, obviously something is triggering them to pull their masks off.
>>6172You answered your own question.
>>6173Are you a bot? You're not making much sense.
>>6174You can apply the same logic to a number of other movements with much larger influence that don't get the same level of reaction, though.
>>6176
your answer would be probably hate speech and something disproven and reactionary tbh
>>6174damn that image goes hard i tried to write something like that a few times but it really hits it
>>6174>That pic>It's cause of le le healthcare costs!!They're calling it the most American post of all time
>>6175The demagogue reaches first for the lowest hanging fruit, the smallest minority. The 'larger influence' of other groups makes them a more difficult target to scapegoat. This is where the regime made a mistake calling orgs that don't exist terrorist orgs to silence dissent. They created a dragnet database of protesters, went after the easiest targets and sought escalation to create more targets, but the assassinations and celebrations by masked goons have the eyes of the rest of the world focused on them in a way they couldn't foresee. The rash can have neither integrity nor foresight.
muuuuuh tras
>>6182Heh. I looked thru the catalog and nobody was talking about the death squads or tanking economy. I wandered in here cos usa bread was about chabad and Putin's rabbi or something.
>>6167Neither the nazis nor Trump won because of trans people, they're just going to be victims of deeply reactionnary movement because like it or not, most people find trans people rather odd, and reactionnaires don't like that.
>>6167they're a very tiny group of people and usually quite poor so it's really easy to just say whatever made up shit you want about them, they can't do anything about it, plus people of all cultures and backgrounds can unite in hating what are essentially feminine men who act kinda weird and break social norms
luckily the cat seems to be out of the bag this time now that the internet exists and care has become more standardized globally
>>6179just say what you think, troid science is a developing field but it's clear that they exist somewhat
>>6187
Tbh the trans movement would probably have been more accepted if they phrased themselves on a medical sense
"We don't feel right in our body and the only thing that helps is feeling like a woman/man" is a much more agreeable position compared to what is the current position of trans people being actually the gender they want to be.
>>6167Rightists love differentiation
The most fundamental difference is that between man and woman
Trans people show that distinction is arbitrary and fluid
Ergo, "total transhumanist death" is necessary for rightists.
Not for nothing does Thiel read Girard.
imagine being so narcissistic to make the rise of fascism about you
>>6188Good point since it is a medical issue. If it is a mental health issue then that should be the focus of treatment. Nobody can change their sex at the chromosomal level, so I think the fact that rare anomalies occur where surgical intervention was made an option then opened the door to the mentally ill going beyond expressing masculine or feminine 'gender' traits.
How long before someone proposes that a national homeland be created for trans people
>>6191imagine caring what happens to you, couldn't be me
>>6190>t. article reader >>6193I think we should put all the brits in a small area around birmingham and let trans people take the rest
>>6190
i called it, your opinions about trans people are lumping them as fetishists and subhuman sexual deviants rather than humans, and a bunch of scientifical and theorical revisionism on gender.
I think the reasonable approach towards the "trans question" is recognition of historically "trans" people, burdoches, unicha etc.
Now with privately owned medicine and the NGO industrial complex it's very easy to sell hormones to people who might like direction in life.
How many people are given Adderall, ssris, Viagra, now ozympic for their issues? Millions, possibly billions.
This leads one to believe that the current trans movement might not be 100% organic. It has hitched itself to bourgeois medical companies.
The resolution of these contradictions is most definitely nationalized medicine in a workers state, however in the meantime there is t so much and answer to the question just observations.
Two obvious factors are that trans people undermine patriarchal gender roles by existing, and trigger sexual frustrations in repressed right wing psyche.
>>6197>This leads one to believe that the current trans movement might not be 100% organicHaha, the irony. But you make a good point about big pharma creating the disease to sell the drug for any occasion.
>>6199>big pharma creating the disease to sell the drugbasic ass populist "first year interested in politics" opinion lmao
>>6197i ve seen transhumanists defending israel because israel has a medical industry that people on HRT relies on it when you can send the bourgeois medical complex to fuck themselves and DIY your own hormones/medications
>>6187
damn uygha you are proving my point
i think the main issue is that we have not really found a way to treat gender dysphoria like BIID or BDD, you can't really do much to convince someone besides telling them to fuck off and crossdress in private, which is what results in all those mentally deranged 60yo transitioners you see in videos and shit
i just dont see how you fix it, do you encourage them to be okay with being masculine? that is already enforced by social norms and every other guy being some variant of masculine? and you cant just have the "just be a feminine man" excuse because really what is the difference between a feminine man and a trans woman besides one having breasts and pronouns
>TRA's reject Gender Dysphoria largely completely these days and are just like "Yeah AGP is 100% valid and true
this was the opinion of the guy who invented the term AGP, he also only studied 40yo boomers and hrt was made of horse piss, it's just not really representative of current transitioners
>you should be able to force children to engage in your sexual fetish, but also if you call out AGP you are a bigot"
this is just nonsense anon, people are not like going and interacting with children and then furiously masturbating about it later or something unless they're pedophiles, come on now
>What about the reality that Tifs are largely often victims of sexual abuse and misogynistic violence and that time and time again we see that their reasoning for transitioning is to escape that violence and abuse
i do think there should be at least a bit of a distinction made between trans women and trans men, and i have met women who kind of do what you're talking about, though the vast majority don't do a lot more than get short hair and use like she/they or he/him pronouns, plus literally all the discussion around this ends up being
<Those filthy disgusting rapist AMABs are grooming our poor innocent pure little girls!
doesn't really help anyone
lastly id like to address your point on medical reviews in europe, i do agree that care for minors is quite poor, and stuff like puberty blockers really are a mess that probably should not have been used since they have a host of side effects and don't even result in development in line with the opposite sex, i havent heard anything about adults aside from the hellscape that is the UK. i would not put a ton of trust in the UK though anon, pretty much anything that comes out of there is extremely ideologically motivated
also even though i personally disagree with how trans youth care is going i looked it up and it seems like there are also a fair few european countries who have done reviews in favor of it
>>6190
idealist rubbish
let's be honest here, gender is such a fucking sham, there are two sexes a human can be excluding DSDs, male and female
now, i relate to your article or whatever because that was akin to how i was as a child, unfortunately nature does not care what you identify as, and all children WILL go through puberty, do you really think everyone is just going to ignore that? we have genders because we have sexes, societies have had third genders because of what are basically intersex gay guys
look at the ""fa'afafine"" shit your article that you quoted referenced, they're literally just feminine gay men but renamed to be part of their own little category, these are the people who are sometimes pushed into transitioning in the west because of the restrictive gender norms that the "backlash" against trans people want to bring back
"AGPs" as you describe them in your earlier post are not like this, they are not naturally feminine
also
>muh women's spaces
trans women for the most part fit better in women's spaces as they are exposed to more danger by being in men's spaces
take for example a trans woman in the women's bathroom, there are very few of them so the risk, as nonexistent as it is, for women is quite low, also men can just go into the women's bathroom and rape you anyway btw
now take a trans woman in the men's bathroom, 1 trans woman among all men, the risk for assault/rape is much higher
you simply value trans women's lives less than the life of an adult human female, because you are misandrist
trans women get raped too btw, they need to have access to shelters for that sort of thing
also, women have been invading men's spaces since forever
>womens rights
you made this up, women's rights are not being taken away by trans people
>womens identity and womens safety
again i already stated this but trans women are much less safe than women when put in male spaces then woman are when with trans women
also fuck off with the identity shit, you are female, nothing more, you don't own being feminine or wearing typically female clothes, you yourself agree with this
also
>skyhigh suicide rates
they are not actually 41%, btw, youd think someone who cares so much would know that
overall you seem to just see trans women and by extension males as less than females, you only have an issue with trans women and not trans men, so you are clearly just an angry misandrist, no wonder people think you're reactionary
sorry if i made spelling mistakes or some part of my post doesn't make the most sense, i didn't want to put too much effort into this given that you're not going to change your opinion and will probably keep regurgitating whatever propoganda the bourgeois media implants into you
reminder that the anti trans shit in the UK was started by a billionaire who got made fun of on social media one day and decided to dedicate her life to oppressing a tiny minority of people
>>6167Trans people are unique and special. Thats why. That is the only coherent explanation for this.
Le 41 percent is a meme and a lie. Cis men have a higher suicide rate actually.
>>6200I thought I was repeating an old cliche from decades ago? Ah well.
>>6197If you're retarded enough to get psyoped into transitioning you deserve it. There are only 3 types of people who do this, all of them signalboosted by the media to no end in order to produce ragebait:
>college kids>unfortunate autists>na and western euro big city consoomer ultraliberalsA statistically insignificant group the average midwit loves to philosophize about.
>>6201Usually these "people" are redditors
>>6206what about transgenders in china
>>6207this is now a debate thread, not a answer threads/Q&As. your time is over grandpa
>>6202>Muh misandry lmfao, are you that trans person that got all upset about how feminists are misandrists the other day?
>>6211Regardless of whether you don't like the term she used, it's sexism against men and those soyciety would like to put in the 'man' anglo box. And it's certainly real
>>6213>Regardless of whether you don't like the term she used, it's sexism against menA very serious issue for sure, just like racism against white people lol. Also REALLY funny that you think I'd take offense to the term itself and not the meaning of the term.
> And it's certainly realI have been a man my entire life and I can tell you that it's decidedly not real. Thinking that feminism is sexism against men is incel shit
>>6214Ok but nobody mentioned feminism before you did. We are talking about the societal perception of sexed subjects. For example the rape fantasies constantly surrounding transgender women, which find their origin in something that is assumed about men
>>6190
>Look would Trans people even truly exist if you were taught from a young age that it's fine to be gender non-conforming, that it's fine for men to love flowing fabric and dresses and makeup and being feminine? No as one of my favourite articles on the subject states
And neither do we exist in the kind of society, where transgenderism cannot exist. As long as there is precedent and material interest for masculinity and femininity as opposed to sex, many people, transhumanists and cissoids, will form their identity around gender and suffer for it. Transgenderism not only exposes the contradictions inherent in current heterosexual relations, i would go so far as to say it hastens their resolution.
>>6215I brought it up because I haven't seen anyone ever bring up misandry on this site other than that person, who mentioned it in relation to their trans experience and feminism. If that's the basis of their view on feminism, which you presumably share since you so quickly jumped to the defense of it, your view on the societal perception of the sexed subject is about on the level of the average incel
>For example the rape fantasies constantly surrounding transgender women, which find their origin in something that is assumed about menSays who? Don't rape fantasies also surround cis women? Imo, moreso than transgender women, but I could be wrong. Seems to me more like a misogyny/transphobia issue. Hardly a result of some supposed societal misandry
>>6214>>6217i didn't mention feminism at all, furthermore if your criticism of transgender people is simply just because you hate amabs, i don't see why anyone should be listening to your opinion on it, none of my points were refuted because the basis of your opinion is entirely illogical
>>6218>i didn't mention feminism at allI didn't say that you did, I simply asked if you were the same anon who brought misandry up the other day. You remind me of them so I was curious.
>furthermore if your criticism of transgender people is simply just because you hate amabsWho says that? I'm a man, I don't hate amabs, I don't really have any criticism of transgender people as people, I couldn't care less. Though I do agree with Chinaflag anon in the main
>none of my points were refuted because the basis of your opinion is entirely illogicalIt was a long ass wall of text and it wasn't my argument. I just wanted to know if you're that same trans anon the other day crying about feminism being misandry
>>6201See that's another thing.
By allowing "the left" to organize around identity it leads to splits.
There's gonna be inevitable splits due to the need for healthcare access for the identity as the material conditions of the imperial core weaken.
So much focus on the individual.
>>6219i dont really know what you're talking about, but agreeing with that anon is agreeing with their criticism, so idk
<i couldn't read it but i did start arguing about the one word my npc brain latched on tobrilliant
All of you need to be shot.
>>6221Yeah I agree in the main with their assessment on gender ideology and the like, though they are a bit more upset it seems. That's not really a criticism of transgender people though, in my view.
>i couldn't read it but i did start arguing about the one wordI did read it, but I didn't feel like going through it point by point lol. I also didn't mean to start arguing about the word specifically, I was just curious if it was you. So I'm guessing you are that anon? And you're upset I called you out?
>What is it about trans people that makes right wingers go completely insane?
Easy target to single out and bully. You wouldn't believe it but most people haven't aged mentally past high school years. Both on the left and on the right (with everything in-between).
Someone different/unusual is a great target to unify against. Be it an ethnic group, someone's gender identity, perceived whiteness level (ex: Italians and Irish weren't considered white in the US), the way someone dresses (ex: brands like StoneIsland are considered huligan clothing), etc etc. The reason for attack can be Anything. Of course the flashier the better.
LGBT movement was put on spotlight all this time for this exact reason. So it could become a scapegoat for the upcoming fascist takeover so that US can proceed with its decades long war plans.
>>6223i told you that i really don't know what you're talking about, but believe whatever you want, what i say clearly wont change it and you don't seem to be interested in having a proper conversation about any of this
>>6225My bad anon, I believe you're not them. I don't disagree with you too much on a lot of your arguments just so you know, I just agree with chinaflag anon a bit more
What is it about detrans people that makes mentally unwell trans people rope?
>>6227you're referring to the same group here
its a myth that fascism comes from sexual repression
fascists are the biggest perverts
>>6229that doesn't mean there isn't sexual repression
>>6230>>6231what is the chud repressing? their lack of restraint is what makes them so odious.
>>6229Nazism was intrinsically tied the desire to dominate and kill communist women, who were often personified by Rosa Luxembourg. It was a phenomenon that carried all the way to the Eastern Front, when the Wehrmacht had to make up special propaganda to explain how Soviet Women were actually hermaphrodites and that's why they kept smoking German soldiers.
>>6167Right wing ideology is predicated on the foolish notion of immutable differences between men and women. That sex is gender despite the reality of human brain chemistry being fucking strange and more influenced by gut bacteria than your junk. Much of right wing politics relies of fiction rather than reality so when reality doesn't conform to their world view they destroy as much as possible. Doesn't help when femininity is certified clownery already with many arbitrary expectations most fellas don't ever think about or get socialized to. The idea men would choose to present as women is incompatible with such an ideology. Why would they choose to be weaker when they occupy such a vastly privileged position in society? Also why Transmen are forgotten.
>>6167>What is it about trans people that makes right wingers go completely insane?Right wingers are stuck up and can't comprehend the idea of some women having dicks and some men having pussies. I was never taught about transgenderism growing up so when my little brothers friend came out as non-binary I was going insane and couldn't understand it but I had friends and family who helped me to understand but right-wingers don't. Also Trans people serve as a great distraction from the exploitation of the working class. So that's why the average treatlerite-amerifat when told about how 3 people own half the wealth will go "bUt tHe tRaNs!!!"
>>6167careful, some anons on this very website like to pretend nazis were all LGBT and will "gorkypost" you into oblivion for pointing this out
>>6175>Are you a bot? You're not making much sense.Their goal is clearly to provoke and annoy you. Not much else to it. Making sense is actually antithetical to their goal of anti-communication.
I think fundamentally the right is terrified by the lack of a fundamental essence to things (maybe the platonic “world of ideals” is a good parallel?) and the notion that perceived essence can be changed, especially if it raises the possibility that perceived ideas about themself can change.
At least with gays they can conceptualize it as some unchanging essence, that people are “born that way”. Transgenderism is predicated on changing some supposed fundamental aspect of yourself. It terrifies them.
>>6238but transsexualism is an essentialism that posits a gendered soul trapped in a false body. its strictly theological, not secular.
Trans bullshit was literally invented by Jewish plastic surgeons
>>6239pseuds don't talk about shit you don't understand challenge (impossible)
>>6240Like whole cloth invented for the sole purpose of scamming naive goyim of their money and neutering them. Double whammy. Only the Jews could do this I wouldn’t neuter my worst enemy.
>>6241what is incorrect in what i stated?
the primary claim of transsexuality is an "identity" which exists apart from the body and is sought to be aligned with it.
>>6244Dysphoria is physical feeling like depression
>>6245transsexualism isnt reducible to dysphoria
>>6239I mean as a Catholic unironically our theology is that we’re spirits possessing souls inhabiting bodies so the whole “woman trapped in a man’s body” thing at least kind of makes sense from that theological framework.
That said I’ve got no issue with transgendered individuals and wish them the best, I don’t think it being an idealistic category makes them less valid or “inherently bourgeois” or something.
You should get shot for using Chatgpt.
>>6249>I don’t think it being an idealistic category makes them less valid or “inherently bourgeois” or something.i dont know why being "bourgeois" (e.g. a modern subject) ought to be invalidating to begin with. looking at the history of transsexuality, the earliest account i can find of men identifying as women is the scythian priest class of the "enaree" as described in herodutus' "histories" (425 BCE). the priestesses take this assumption because they are afflicted by the goddess "celestial aphrodite" (as described in plato's "symposium" as an original deity, akin to the divine mother). other cases were the followers of "magna mater" (the great mother), or the latin "cybele", the priests of whom would castrate themselves and assume the role of women (mythically following attis). the presence of transsexuality is then inherently theological, as being in the manner of the "mother of the gods" (what is to you, mother mary). would you then say that trans women ought to recognise their proper guardian as the virgin?
i am also reminded of Christ's consideration of the eunuch:
>For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”<matthew 19:12as more of a protestant myself, i see immanent criticism of the catholic church within the council of nicea. let us look at the very first canon (325 AD):
<if any one in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such an one, if [already] enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted.https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htmthis banishment of the eunuch is to me, a sign of the times.
>>6250I'm fucking retarded and forgot to link the comment, I deserve to be shot.
>>6251>i dont know why being "bourgeois" (e.g. a modern subject) ought to be invalidating to begin withJust stop
>>6174The screenshot feels like a massive waste of time. Bigotry isn't always economic. Sometimes racism in someone's brain has little to do with their economic situation and more to do with the fact that ol' grandpappy's number one rule at the grocery store was "no uyghurs, they steal."
Trans people get hate because their existence violates expected modes of societal behavior and that makes people uncomfortable. That's it, plain and simple. It's the same instinctual reaction as watching someone eat something you were told was "disgusting," like bugs or fish eyeballs or bird spit. If eating that is normal in your culture you won't bat an eye, just like if being trans or gay is normal in your culture you won't bat an eye.
The idea that healthcare for all will fix transphobia is a laughable assumption, especially considering transphobia exists in societies with very cheap or universal Healthcare. It's wishful thinking that avoids the hard or distressing thought that hardline / objective "economic" solutions will never cause people to cease bigotry naturally.
>>6254Please fuck off and read Marx
>>6255Nice digits but bad response.
>>6256You have reproduced those same illiterate distinctions in thought by which universal categories are raised and take unto themselves lives of their own. Begin here:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#a2 >>6257Since you've done all the reading already, how about you synthesize your understanding into a direct rebuttal of what I had to say?
>>6254its also messed up since the logic of economic determinism assigns the rich as more "civilised" than the poor, and thus "progress" as slaves becoming more like their masters. attitudes to various minorities such as transsexuals differs by continent and culture; it is not a merely eurocentric diagnosis. for example, there is the formal distinction of "ladyboys" in thailand or the "travesti" in south america, particularly brazil - with no analog in the west, since it is seen that one must belong to the gender binary.
>>6257youre just vomiting buzzwords like any zealot.
>>6251The first canon of Scripture for Christians came about in 382 AD at the council of Rome under Pope Damascus I.
https://www.tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htmWhy did you link to na? It's an exclusively right wing aggregate like drudge.
>>6261Damasus*
Damn autocorrect.
>>6261>first canon of scripturei specifically speak upon the first canon of the council of nicea, which is indeed in 325 CE
>Why did you link to na?because it provides the text…
>>6258The post is nothing more than an exploration of that individual's misguided world view through the most basic of nonsense wherein the individual is conceptualised as an ahistorical subject and the product of a division between the fetishised notions of society and the economy.
Why? Because these threads are the garbage pits of this site in which the most sophisticated hallucinations regarding moral prejudice, gender, and sexuality are dumped.
I am not going to take the time to dissect this horseshit, simply because when informed that they are either outright wrong or have misunderstood their own ideals, those delusional fanatics that crawl around in here with the freedom to simply denounce anyone who can see through their mysticism of human relations as "reactionaries" double down much like their would be opponents in simply quoting verbatim whatever incomprehensible body of dogma that they allow to churn in their brains.
For the benefit of you, and everyone else, here is On The Jewish Question:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/Once you have read it, come back to this thread and then begin anew.
>>6263Nicea was an ecumenical council to clarify/define the creed in response to arianism.
I guess na has a decent archive, I just don't like their 'news' aggregate.
>>6251The first sentence here is absolutely hilarious, because it is a blatant and outright admission that you do not care about communism full stop.
>>6264>For the benefit of you, and everyone else, here is On The Jewish Question????????????????
>male wage earners were granted legal rights to become patriarch of the atomic family unit without a household
This here is the important part
>>6267That you do not recognise why it has been quoted nor the implied argument is all the more reason to read it
>>6269Are you a transwahman?
>>6174>without householdWithout home?
>>6171The rightwing won't shut up about transwomen and gay "groomers" despite saying nothing about Epstein files and all the fucking abuse in the Catholic church and Protestant youth groups
>>6269Again, how about you actually synthesize your understanding into a response? Here's my response to you: materialist analysis cannot address every facet of bigotry and thinking it can is misguided. Quoting materialism at me does not counteract this standpoint. Explain to me how materialism directly addresses every and all forms of bigoted thought. Will society think that you're one of the "good transes" if you just pay for every procedure all of pocket? Obviously fucking not. Not to mention that there was trans panic before the concept of "healthcare" and "capitalism" even existed.
>>6244Because you can argue that point for nearly any human calling beyond basic needs like food and shelter
>>6174Is the post in the picture your post?
>>6265of course, the catholic church begins its original sin much earlier by seeing peter as the first pope, so i suppose i belabour the point, but i am just bringing attention to the displacement of the eunuch in christendom, and now the crisis of their return (who i interpret Christ as saying that there are those who may serve heaven in their position). i would also say in general that much of queerness is to be viewed in a protestant sense of soteriology, that one is convicted by faith in a predestined election (which by the "confession" of "coming out", one is saved). the transsexual or homosexual belong to a transcendent identity rather than an immanent cause of their being - otherwise it would be viewed as a symptom, or effect, and so its cause could be corrected (e.g. queernees could be "cured"). as far as i know, no gay "gene" has been located, and no matter of "socialisation" can "revert" homosexuals into a state of heterosexuality. it belongs to their soul, as a device for worship. thats how it can be justified.
>>6266it would be more hilarious for you to assume someone who was "bourgeois" was a capitalist. the bourgeoisie are principally "burghers" or city-dwellers (kant describes the bourgeoisie as "citizens of the city", which is a german version of the french configuration, and what comes to constitute the "middle class"). the bourgeoisie thus come to define universal and cosmopolitan life; what we understand as "modernity".
>>6275You have such a disordered comprehension of what materialism actually is that you beleive it to be nothing more than another ideology in that arsenal by which you may attack those strawmen in your mind seem to defy all rational thought and live rent free. The argument in the first two posts is sufficent, moreso the texts quoted.
You can't even correctly formulate an understanding of the topic. Stop posting and educate yourself on that basic reading which is required to post here.
>>6280>you're so wrong I won't even tell you how wrong you are!!!Did YOU do the reading? I'm starting to feel you haven't.
>Oh, so you can't formulate a counter argument. How typical, "comrade".
>>6281I have seen every iteration of these threads thus far, and they are immiserated all the more for idiots such as yourself who simply will not take the time to approach your own views with that critical eye which is required in order to understand what socialism is, the response the socialists must have regarding questions of 'gender', and the resulting splits that occur from this in those movements which claim to represent trans people.
Every time, without fail, you are given a full argument in response, and every time you end up denouncing others as "reactionaries". I do not care any longer, shit up this thread with your own hysterical delusions and convince yourselves that such meaningful arguments may be made on capitalism by abstracting from class, alla
>>6254 >>6174>Monarchism was split into Capitalism with each firm being a mini monarchy. Peasants were forced off the land through enclosure of the commons and proletarianized. In exchange for submitting to this forced wage enslavement the male wage earners were granted legal rights to become patriarch of the atomic family unit without a household. From this material condition spawned the traditional gender ideology. This was forgotten and taken as fact and common sense. When others reject this ideology the facade breaks and they can't accept it. They take the patriarchal rights granted to them and try to beat others back into line. This desire lets fascist governments, which thrive off chaos and fragmentation of the workers, to decide to enforce this same violence to gain approval through targeting a scapegoat. Is this correct?
>>6283I don't denounce people as reactionaries. Are you going to offer a counterargument or not?
>>6285Read the texts, do the most basic of things that is required to begin engaging with others on this topic.
That you think no counterargument has been given despite the final line in that post quoted is telling.
>>6285Transes are hated because people are stupid, okay? There are no reasons to hate transes.
Trans cuties are the main characters of history. All cis are NPCs.
>Uhhhhhhhh, how does class relate to trans women bigot????????
>>6285Gotta find someone who can translate all that smartass speak
>>6286I am familiar with materialist analysis and, as I stated, do not believe that it applies wholly to bigotry, because while bigotry can begin for materialist reasons, it is both my experience and my philosophical reasoning that many forms of bigotry over time become self-sustaining for reasons beyond pure materialism.
I want to hear—in your words, not Marx's—why that would *not* be the case, as I do not find Marx's take to be convincing in this regard and having it endlessly quoted at me doesn't change my mind on it. If you have a different breakdown, I'm all ears.
>>6291>Familiar with materialist analysis>"because while bigotry can begin for materialist reasons">"philisophical reasoning"These and more tall tales from /leftypol/
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/"Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it"
If only Marx knew that he was still just philosophising. Ironic!
>>6292Again, if you find my point of view so contemptuous, refute it. I'm open to having my mind changed.
>>6294I have by highlighting the most basic contradictions in your own thinking. It is up to you to reproach them, I simply do not give two shits.
Delude yourself as much as you like on this topic.
>>6295>I have by highlighting the most basic contradictions in your own thinking.Such as what? Spell them out more clearly.
Oh look, somebody pointed out that basic error you engage in with your own thought in such delusions of "philosophical reasoning" with
>>6257If only we had been more attentive!
>>6297This isn't a counterargument. State what issues you have with what I said.
>>6298They probably don't even understand it.
>>6303I want to hear from you, the person behind the screen right now, not from someone else. Are you going to refute what I said with your own words and understandings or not?
The gauntlet is thrown, sir! I will not read, I will not.
This outrage will not stand.
>>6305Okay, so you won't. Thanks. Enjoy your day.
And nothing was read that day.
Why? Because the grown adult demanded they be treated like a child, to the surprise of no one.
>male wage earners were granted legal rights to become patriarch of the atomic family unit without a household
When?
>>6291I'm not the guy you were talking too, but I think you can take the exemple of the Irish in the UK.
The Irish immigrant were, between the 18-20th century, often the poorest people in Great Britain, they were despised and seen as lesser compared to the Brits, they was a genuine form of racism made against them.
Now, the material explaination for that, is that the Irish came from a poor exploited land, so when they migrated to Great Britain, they were already oppressed, therefore, materially, an anti-irish culture formed against them.
Now comes the later part of the 20th century, Ireland becomes much richer and starts to pull itself away from poverty, reaching standards closer to the Western European ones, Immigration slows down and the Immigrants are richer.
Yet, in the mean time, the IRA is acitvely participating in a war against the British government, attacking targets in Britain.
If, the cultural explaination is right, then surely, the active republican campaign against Britain would mean that British culture stays anti-Irish.
But this isn't what happened, from the 90s onward, when the poor irish immigrants finally got replaced by Eastern European and South Asian one, the discrimination against the Irish stopped in Great Britain (Northern ireland is a very different situation) sure, you'll still have a few remarks here and there, but who can trully talk about anti-Irish hatred in Great Britain ? Even the far right is more hateful against Middle eastern immigrants.
Ireland's improvement in its economic situation meant that its immigrants were no longer poor, meaning that there was no reason to discriminate against them, so the hatred turned toward the new poor immigrants.
>Monarchism was split into Capitalism with each firm being a mini monarchy. Peasants were forced off the land through enclosure of the commons and proletarianized. In exchange for submitting to this forced wage enslavement the male wage earners were granted legal rights to become patriarch of the atomic family unit without a household
When did this happen?
>>6310Thanks for the response. I think that materialism certainly holds more sway in populations with direct colonial conflict history, but part of the issue with the question of Trans people is that there is no direct economic interaction of that sort at play. It is a direct question of civic expectation.
The closest material explanation I have previously heard as to "why" someone might see Trans people negatively in a material sense is that by finding out that someone of one sex / gender is actually another, mating possibilities are thrown into jeopardy or made more confusing. Possibly—but if this were the case, then we would expect to see the same amount of hatred thrown towards a variety of populations for which this is also the case—people who are asexual. People who are infertile. People who by choice do not want to have long-term relationships or children. People who are, for whatever reason, just not interested in you particularly. And while there is some hatred thrown towards those groups, the sheer scale of malcontent directed towards Trans people absolutely remains an anomaly.
There is another potential materialist explanation that goes something like this:
>people wish for a society that works in a specific material fashion, as this society results in the best possible outcomes for them personally.>deviations from that specific set of material social circumstances jeopardize personal best outcomes>therefore, deviations are to be prevented at all times.The issue that I take with this is that in order for it to serve as a usable model for human behavior, we must assume a method of human thought similar to "Homo economicus" (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus ) that certainly does not apply homogenously throughout human decision-making. How does "Homo materialis" discern whether any given change in society's material conditions is good or bad? Would Homo materialis change his mind on trans people if it turned out that letting them exist would lead to more economic prosperity because they can stop worrying about dysphoria and get back to work? If so, why doesn't this work in real life? If not, is there some other aspect of the existence of trans people that Homo materialis is incentivized to resist?
The confounding issue here is human irrationality, which is often the cornerstone of many forms (not every, but many) of bigotry. Take a rich white man, for instance—what material elements in his life bias him, specifically, towards the hatred of, say, black people? On a societal level the material analysis is obvious (the state needs an underclass), but what about *him?* Is it likely that he has performed a Homo materialis-style consideration of his rational self-interest and concluded that he is better off upholding white supremacy, or is it more likely that he, all his life, was told that black people are inferior to he himself and believed it with minimal thinking on the issue? Similar to things like Psychohistory or the Ideal Gas Law, material analysis has trouble delving into the specific actions of individuals, and is better at describing overall economic incentives that provide frameworks for more nebulous and less-predictable aspects like irrational thought. Material analysis can describe why a state might need an underclass, but the individual rationale of why *this* underclass and why people in the overclass believe the underclass should be comprised of what it is is trickier.
This leads me to the following question: what is the convincing "material incentive" to detest trans people—not just now, but historically? I have yet to see one that maps as directly to the historical treatment of Trans people as well as "people get the ick and can't get over it." Similarly, what material conditions would get rid of transphobia forever? The same can be asked of other phobias and isms as well; what material conditions would get rid of America's hatred of black people? What material conditions would erase homophobia? Things become even more difficult to answer the further in you go; why, materially, do some gay people hate bi people? Why, materially, do some black people hate mixed race or light skinned black people?
Lots of people just quote materialist writings here. I want to see its rules in practice applied directly to these problems in a convincing manner.
>>6313Yeah, I mentioned that distastes for social deviation in regards to gender and sexuality existed throughout history prior to capitalism and asked for why and how that would be materially so given the explanation in the screenshot, but they didn't respond to that.
>>6174>this desireWhat desire?
The more I use the word material, the more materialist my explanation is
>>6174You didnt provide any economic explanation
>>6257>take unto themselves lives of their ownExplain
>>6314>And while there is some hatred thrown towards those groups, the sheer scale of malcontent directed towards Trans people absolutely remains an anomaly.It's not that anomalous if you look at how society has viewed gay people and women who didn't want to reproduce/get married in the past. We just live in a different media landscape now
>>6320>It's not that anomalous if you look at how society has viewed gay people and women who didn't want to reproduce/get married in the past.That hatred exists, absolutely—but the sheer amount of abject hatred, media and institutional attention, and handcrafted anti-trans legislation strikes me as way out of line compared to what you would expect, and the fact that other similar groups don't have that same level of attention thrown their way is very telling. I would want to hear what the material analysis is for this.
>>6321Ruling class is afraid their children will trccn out and the property will be left without an owner or something. Trccns are a danger to the concept of private property. Here, i shat up a simple stupid explanation, voila.
>>6322 (me)
Trccns are a danger to capital accumulation
>>6321I mean I would say that with the advent of contraceptives like the pill, woman's emancipation and the implementation of civil and marital partnerships for gay people, rightoids have simply passed the buck of that societal hatred onto trans people. Not that those other groups don't still receive that as well of course. The seemingly more intense media and institutional attention is a consequence of the changing media landscape, which now overflows us with information, relative to the past.
>>6190
Article sounds interesting.
You got a link?
>>6319They relate to reality only as ideals, to that degree in which they are abstractions from it in the conscious mind. Thus "racism"
>>6254 is taken as a totality in which it is mutually distinct from every other category in thought, removed entirely from a historical and subsequently social context.
This is the deluded thinking of someone who has not even read the very first line of the text quoted
>>6257 which for the benefit of the thread:
>The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way. >>6240>>6242Don't make me remind you of Schicklgruber 100 times.
Also, the world didn't experience such transphobia and homophobia before the spread of Jewish religions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_transgender_historyThe Scythians, for example, had enarei who underwent social transition and even had HRT
Castrarion and mare's urine >>6319>>6326As such they gain the fantasy of perpetuity in which some inner relation between them is unfolding through the drivel that they think up in their own mind. Nothing is said, the argument bears no underlying validity, and everyone must continue as if they have understood in the slightest what is meant because some idiot cannot be bothered to question what they mean by "modes of societal behaviour", "economic situation", or indeed "materialist analysis"
>>6326Same with transphobia and anti semitism then
>>6330Bordiggers great alibi said something similar about anti semitism no?
>>6324>with the advent of contraceptives like the pill, woman's emancipation and the implementation of civil and marital partnerships for gay people, rightoids have simply passed the buck of that societal hatred onto trans people. The reason why I find this interesting is because while I think materialism can easily say that we need to play musical chairs to maintain an underclass, the sticking point I always have an issue is materialism never seems to predict "why *these* guys."
I think a good example of this is the granularity of where most transphobia seems to go to—trans *women* in particular. If it were entirely about "controlling the breeding stock," I think we would expect just as much, if not more, outrage towards trans *men,* since at least in theory every trans man to those on the right would be a "lost ovary," whereas every trans woman would merely be a "lost competitor" (I understand that this is explicitly the view of the conservative male, but I think it's pretty obvious that conservative males drive the conservative movement as a whole). But instead, most hatred is given towards trans women; the best explanation I've seen towards this is that men don't want to be "surprised" that they've been with a man the whole time—but why? Is it wasted time? In that case any woman can decide they ultimately don't like you, or be revealed to be infertile, but not as much hatred goes there. Is it because you're afraid people will think you're gay? That doesn't seem material at all; it just seems irrational.
>>6328And how does this relate to this post
>>6174?
>>6333Sheer fucking nonsense.
>>6334You are not the same anon im asking him
>>6326Now gib me list of factors that gave rise to the totality we call "transphobia"
>>6336The gullibility of morons who won't read
>>6257 and will instead write yet more drivel like
>>6332 >>6337Waaaaaaaahh you didnt gib me objective material factors aaaaahh
>>6337You dont know do you?
"controlling the breeding stock" is such a barely veiled fantasy of your own psychological issues it's a wonder you aren't banned outright for merely reproducing the sexual fetishes from which such a sentence comes
>>6339I bet you do
>Uhhhhhhh how can I be banned for simply stating what most reactionaries think, chud???????? Besides it's not a fetish, it's the way the bourgeoisie think!!!
>>6340>"controlling the breeding stock" is such a barely veiled fantasy of your own psychological issues it's a wonder you aren't banned outright for merely reproducing the sexual fetishes from which such a sentence comes…What? This isn't what *I* think, I don't think people should be doing this. It's the material explanation I've heard most often for why men oppress women. Domestic servitude and the bearing of children. Do you disagree? If so, why do men oppress women?
>>6340I dont. It probably requires big research into history or something
>>6342It is hilarious that you deny it as your own thought when it is you who wrote it. Seek help from a therapist mate, you have no intent in actually engaging in honest discussion on this issue because this is simply an outlet for you to vent your own deranged notions on gender under the guise of a progressive veneer whilst simulatenously reinforcing them.
>>6332>If it were entirely about "controlling the breeding stock," I think we would expect just as much, if not more, outrage towards trans *men,*That control manifests in a patriarchal society, where maleness is the primary state of being. Men transitioning to women are seen as a refutation of male superiority, whereas women transitioning to men are seen as either irrelevant or understandable.
>the best explanation I've seen towards this is that men don't want to be "surprised" that they've been with a man the whole time—but why? Is it wasted time? In that case any woman can decide they ultimately don't like you, or be revealed to be infertile, but not as much hatred goes there. Is it because you're afraid people will think you're gay? That doesn't seem material at all; it just seems irrational.This is not a good explanation at all
In times like this i wish people here had their name field filled
>>6348The feeling is mutual
>This is no longer my hugbox! people are refuting my deluded rants through logic and reason.
Moderators!
>>6347What's funny about that?
>>6346>Men transitioning to women are seen as a refutation of male superiority, whereas women transitioning to men are seen as either irrelevant or understandable. While this may work more abstractly, in a concrete sense I don't think most people see it this way, as the material ramifications arising from this mode of thought don't seem to be present (e.g. hypermasculine gayness seems less acceptable than hyperfeminine gayness in media and elsewhere). This seems to be especially the case in the bathroom debate, where the prime reason for the refutation of transness is not male superiority, but in fact a specific type of male degeneracy that is argued to be intrinsic to men.
>This is not a good explanation at allI agree.
>>6349Not to filter mang, but to follow the conversation. It would make it easier
>>6334How come? Which part?
>>6351In order to rescue their own inadequate understanding of what the term patriarchy means they essentalise the concept as some threadbate notion throuhg a metaphysical quality ('maleness') and project it onto the world at large by vomiting it up during the course of conversation.
The quality of this discussion is so low because these views come from those cesspits of the internet such as hexbear, reddit, tiktok, and discord.
These idiots will do anything but actually read Marx, all in order to avoid confronting the world not as they wish to see it but as it actually is. Why? Because it is the dumb function of repression at work in their own personalities in which the truth must be displaced through its own degraded forms.
>>6326People also do this with "fascism" dont they?
>>6352>While this may work more abstractly, in a concrete sense I don't think most people see it this wayI don't think that matters too much
>as the material ramifications arising from this mode of thought don't seem to be present (e.g. hypermasculine gayness seems less acceptable than hyperfeminine gayness in media and elsewhere)This seems like a reach, I wouldn't really know how to quantify which type of gay is more acceptable lol
>This seems to be especially the case in the bathroom debate, where the prime reason for the refutation of transness is not male superiority, but in fact a specific type of male degeneracy that is argued to be intrinsic to men.I would argue that the image of men as intrinsically violent rapist is an image instilled and arisen through male dominance
>>6356Fascism, my friend, is everything I don't like.
>>6355>Because it is the dumb function of repression at work in their own personalities in which the truth must be displaced through its own degraded forms.?
>>6360We must control the breeding stock
>>6361You are referring to this
>>6332 anon's repression?
>>6362It is so clearly a product of that discourse in which they are enmeshed, where they are incapable of recognising affect in speech that they cannot divorce the assumption from the fact that it is their own view projected back to them.
It is not the result of rational thought but thought which has turned upon itself in its conscious expression that it must engage in a pathology of fantasies, drawn from whatever internet shithole they spend too much time in
>>6358>I don't think that matters too muchAt least to my argument it does, because the main issue that I take with "pure materialist" analysis of this sort is that it doesn't really seem to come up with any answers as to how these social issues can be corrected, which at least to me points to an incomplete analysis of the issue at hand (returning us to the question of what slate of material conditions "creates" transphobia, and what slate of material conditions would ultimately "erase" it). I don't think material analysis is *wrong,* more that it only goes so far and then eventually one must introduce alternative frameworks of thought. There's a reason why I likened it to Psychohistory.
>This seems like a reach, I wouldn't really know how to quantify which type of gay is more acceptable lolIt's anecdotal, granted, but I think there's way more coverage and acceptance of feminine gayness / male queerness (Ru Paul's Drag Race, femboys in anime, etc) than the alternate. I think the fact either way that it's not clear cut in one specific direction speaks to what I'm saying regarding people not really thinking about this from a general standpoint of men being better.
>I would argue that the image of men as intrinsically violent rapist is an image instilled and arisen through male dominanceSure, but it isn't being presented as a positive, and one could just as easily argue that socially superior men are considered to be commanding yet benevolent overlords rather than conquering rapists (and in fact the visage of the conquering rapist is used to demonize others in war, and black people to this very day). I would posit that this is an example of the irrational, unevenly-applied thinking that materialism alone doesn't really fully explain.
>>6363Likewise 'maleness' has a similar operation to it, being nothing more than a shoddy attempt at adding sophistication and the semblance of profound introspection to misandry.
>>6365>mocking correct arguments in greentext makes them wrongyou must be 18 to post here
>Uhhhhhh, you can't mock people here. It isn't clever, and you haven't refuted any of my arguments anyways
Spoken like a true member of the breeding stock
>>6367No i mesm he predicted what will be written in response to his post
>>6370because its the logical response to stupid bullshit
>>6355God you are annoying lmao. Really have nothing to say. "Maleness" in the terms I was discussing is not a metaphysical quality you retard. But refers to the material prioritization of male bodies that dominate society, materially the penis havers as opposed to the non penis havers
>>6373>material prioritizationAnd the drivel continues
>>6363You are saying engaging in shitty discourse will result in this and that the "cure" that will dispel the veil of false worldview is reading the marxist texts you posted here
>>6314>but what about *him?* Is it likely that he has performed a Homo materialis-style consideration>but the individual rationalethere is no individual, only society
>>6375I'm saying this moron wouldn't be spouting this continued nonsense if they just fucked off and read Marx, specifically the first text they were replied to with.
Ah but this is the trans thread, where I must proudly wave my banner and defend those thoughts which are the very essence of truth
>>6275>>6281>Again, how about you actually synthesize your understanding into a response? they did the first time and then again and you still refuse.
>>6301>They probably don't even understand it.and i guess thats permission for you to remain ignorant?
>>6304>i dont want to read i want to argue >>6376This is the overall issue I take with this line of thinking. There cannot *just* be society if one wishes to engage in meaningful, on-the-ground, day-to-day change. If you find yourself in front of someone who can be swayed to your side politically and you aren't interested in his personal life, personal conditions, and personal idiosyncrasies, how do you plan on swaying them? Things like interpersonal bigotry are in part individual problems and thus in part require personal solutions.
>>6364>At least to my argument it does, because the main issue that I take with "pure materialist" analysis of this sort is that it doesn't really seem to come up with any answers as to how these social issues can be corrected, which at least to me points to an incomplete analysis of the issue at hand (returning us to the question of what slate of material conditions "creates" transphobia, and what slate of material conditions would ultimately "erase" it). I don't think material analysis is *wrong,* more that it only goes so far and then eventually one must introduce alternative frameworks of thought. There's a reason why I likened it to Psychohistory.The more individualized you try to find out people's reasoning, the harder it's going to be because people simply don't think that way. They create all kinds of copes and false consciousness. The solutions are obviously to move towards a more developed economy where these kinds of reactionary and bigoted views will be phased out over time.
>It's anecdotal, granted, but I think there's way more coverage and acceptance of feminine gayness / male queerness (Ru Paul's Drag Race, femboys in anime, etc) than the alternate. I think the fact either way that it's not clear cut in one specific direction speaks to what I'm saying regarding people not really thinking about this from a general standpoint of men being better.I think you're too concerned with the surface level distinctions.
>Sure, but it isn't being presented as a positive and one could just as easily argue that socially superior men are considered to be commanding yet benevolent overlords rather than conquering rapists (and in fact the visage of the conquering rapist is used to demonize others in war, and black people to this very day)That doesn't really matter/is subjective. It's still a result of patriarchy and a reinforcement of male supremacy
>>6380He called you a personalist and now he will call you le voluntarist
>>6374>More non argumentsLol retard
>>6383Silence, or it's back to the breeding pens with you
>>6373Could you elaborate on this?
>>6384Lmfao stfu retard, keep crying about misandry
>>6380>how do you plan on swaying them? you dont
>Things like interpersonal bigotry are in part individual problems and thus in part require personal solutions.no they are not. the goal of communism is not to convince people of correct ideas read the texts linked
>>6386You are breding stock, that is all you ever will be
>>6386But misandry is also a has-a-life-of-its-own abstraction of totality or something
>>6382>le voluntaristits actually true this time lol
>>6364>At least to my argument it does, because the main issue that I take with "pure materialist" analysis of this sort is that it doesn't really seem to come up with any answers as to how these social issues can be correctedbut it does. you want to find the secret to why individuals believe a thing so you can what? rationally convince them otherwise? thats not how people work. ideology is determined by the material base, not directly but by second third fourth order effects. to change ideology you change the base not debate with people.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-9/mswv9_01.htmhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htmfd;pd
Voluntarist activist opportunist falsifier denier
>Go on to a Marxist website
>Enter a thread about my favourite topic
>Post my inane drivel
>Someone replies with a Marxist response
>"Fuck off am I reading Marx retard"
>Recieve response after response pointing out the intellectual flaws in my discussion with a Marxist critique
>"Heh, yeah, it's probably something to do with totalities"
Now fuck off back to whichever shithole you crawled from
>>6387(You) dont but le party does propaganda agitation
>>6381>The more individualized you try to find out people's reasoning, the harder it's going to be because people simply don't think that way. They create all kinds of copes and false consciousness.See above; this is *precisely* why I think that there needs to be a phase shift at some point in the process, similar to how some problems require relativity and others require quantum mechanics. Materialism in its current form doesn't strike me as a Unified Field Theory.
>The solutions are obviously to move towards a more developed economy where these kinds of reactionary and bigoted views will be phased out over time.So that's the thing, I'm not actually convinced that this is the case. I think it will get rid of *some* bigotry for *some* people, but if someone says "you know, socialism is great, but it would be even better without group X," what is materially going to stop that from being thought of even being the case? What if it really *would* be better for only 1,000,000 people to share the same resources rather than 2,000,000? There are people who believe in socialist practices but only for their group *right now.* Why won't that thinking recur in the future? And even if it only does on a small level—the *individual* level—won't we still need to deal with it individually?
>I think you're too concerned with the surface level distinctions.I think that they serve as important markers that hint at why people think the way they think. We can glean a surprising amount about what is more or less acceptable via surface level distinctions like that. Colorism and beauty standards are a good example of this, I feel.
>That doesn't really matterI 100% agree that it's wrapped up in the overall patriarchy package, but I do think it matters for the reasons above.
>>6385What is there to say? It's really basic. Maleness emerges out of the relations between physical characteristics of sexual dimorphism in humans and the reproduction of human beings, in patriarchal societies such as the one we live in people born with such qualities are relegated to a superior position
>>6396>and the reproduction of human beingsAt last, we have acknowledged the existence of the very text we were told to read.
>>6388Honestly anon, it's funny how much of your outrage about this "breeding stock" term and accusations of it coming from the anon's psychosexual issues is clearly projection.
>>6398These aren't my thoughts, it's what the other poster thinks.
>>6395>Materialism in its current form doesn't strike me as a Unified Field Theory.thats cuz ur dumb
>>6394sure they have a line but its just "support minorities" their solutions are universal to the working class not particular to the minorities, eg universal healthcare not trans specific healthcare, which is why the original shay image is 110% correct
>>6403>eg universal healthcare not trans specific healthcareThis sounds awfully reminiscent of a text quoted in this thread, but what was it called again?
On The Trans Problem? On The Prole Problem? Oh yes, that's it…
>>6395>you know, socialism is great, but it would be even better without group X," what is materially going to stop that from being thought of even being the case? What if it really *would* be better for only 1,000,000 people to share the same resources rather than 2,000,000?these thoughts are embedded in scarcity mindset and the material premise of communism is the construction of productive forces capable of eliminating scarcity
>>6395Ehh I think it serves just fine, the problem with non materialism is that it's always gonna amount to some subjective bullshit where we can shrug our shoulders and be like "maybe".
>what is materially going to stop that from being thought of even being the case?The material conditions having changed to the point that they are no longer conductive to such things
>I think that they serve as important markers that hint at why people think the way they think. We can glean a surprising amount about what is more or less acceptable via surface level distinctions like that. Colorism and beauty standards are a good example of this, I feel.Personal subjectivity is important to understand sure, but it's not really something that needs to supplement materialism as such.
>>6404yeah you get it its too bad anon doesn't. otjq is profoundly universal. he probly thinks its antisemitic
Materialist explanation for transphobia?
>>6408Breeding Conditions
>>6406>The material conditions having changed to the point that they are no longer conductive to such thingsOkay, but what *is* that, that's what I want to know. What is it, and why would it be the solution?
>>6405>these thoughts are embedded in scarcity mindset and the material premise of communism is the construction of productive forces capable of eliminating scarcityBut we live on an exhaustible ball of rock with only so much stuff on it. Productive forces in and of themselves don't eliminate scarcity.
>Productive forces in and of themselves don't eliminate scarcity
<I have no idea what the productive forces are, but I will pretend otherwise
Ultraleft raid?
>>6410>But we live on an exhaustible ball of rock with only so much stuff on it. Productive forces in and of themselves don't eliminate scarcity.scarcity is relative to population size and population size doesn't continue to grow exponentially. there are enough resources on the exhaustible ball of rock that we can produce enough material goods to satisfy the population at its natural carrying capacity in a post scarcity society. it doesn't mean infinite growth it means sufficient growth such that the need for toil and drudgery to meet peoples needs and desires is eliminated, which removes the social necessity of competition and therefore the material foundation of in/out group dynamics
>>6408Britspawn have a faulty gene that they spread worldwide via rape when they colonized the world. This faulty gene causes violent spasms as a primal response to the gaudy colors used in the trans flag.
>>6410>Okay, but what *is* that, that's what I want to know. What is it, and why would it be the solution?You can't predict the future anon, but generally more education and higher economic development lead to less bigotry across the board
>>6415What does this have to do with the concept of "hey, if we kill a few people, all of us can have more stuff because there will be less of us that need the stuff we all have to share?"
>>6419uh did you read the post??
>>6417I like to hope for nicer solutions.
>>6418100% agree. I'm not really expecting any framework to predict the future. I just get a little antsy when people say "well all the bigots will be gone when we achieve communism" without actually stating why. It feels like a handwave.
see you dont have to change peoples minds or even kill them you just have to change the material base for the reproduction of society and then their childrens children wont be bigots anymore
>>6421>I like to hope for nicer solutions.the bourgeoisie like for you to think that too. makes you much easier to kill
>>6422>reproduction of societyThis has something to do with breeding, doesn't it?
>>6420I understand the concept of being able to sustain the population at a specific point, but unless you're saying that anyone will be able to have whatever they want whenever they want it, the idea that "less people means more stuff" will persist.
If this is what you're arguing—that we can all have a yacht and a car collection and a hundred acres if we so desire it—then fine, I hope we get there, but like I said it feels a little handwavey.
>>6421Sure but we've been having a whole conversation, I don't think I've been handwaving it
>>6426We have, and thank you for engaging me in it, I'm always searching for good answers to this question. I don't think you were attempting to dodge it at all so I don't want that to be the takeaway.
I guess my hesitancy simply remains that if materialism is the end-all be-all I would love to see a materialist description of a no-bigotry endpoint. My fear is essentially that we'll be more than capable of addressing future materialist conditions and essentially have no answer for human tribalism, or that said tribalism will get in the way of building the future in the first place (e.g. politics becoming coopted by those who want socialist ideals, but only for some). I have no problem with materialism as a framework, I just want to know what safeguards there are for a rugpull, essentially.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialismThere you go mate, because you can't be bothered to read Marxist texts but would still like to pretend you know what the term materialism signifies
>>6189>Rightists love differentiation >The most fundamental difference is that between man and woman>Trans people show that distinction is arbitrary and fluid>Ergo, "total trans death" is necessary for rightists.Yeah, that sounds about right. Thanks.
>>6432I would agree it is this. Male/Female is the most fundamental difference. Ordained by god or whatever. Our bodies display it and it has not changed for millennia. Necessary for reproduction. Built into culture.
The idea that maybe things aren't so black and white, that those distinctions are way more fragile than they were taught is a dangerous idea in the conservative mind. Leads to the idea that maybe other hierarchies are not so rigid either. It's time to retreat behind new reasons why these people aren't actually making a "real" transition. We know that can't happen! Find out the lingering evidence of their birth sex! or just kill em
Although tbh doesn't really explain somewhere like Iran: very conservative but okay with trans? Maybe it comes from their long cultural history in the sciences and drive to medicalize it and then fix it.
Unique IPs: 54