Post your Kirk memes. I know you've got them.
>>822264the face on the bullet is sending me
These are all shit except this one
>>822291Anyways, I don’t get the radlib obsession with Charlie Kirk. He was just some milquetoast libcon.
CHARLIEEEEE NOOOOOO
>>822307Let us have our fun Mr. Langley
>>822307He was the puppet master behind lots of RW internet media/influencer network and was on the brink of launching an efficient international TPUSA with branches in the UK, France, Japan etc. TPUSA was also about to launch a huge der strummer style anti-trans campaign in the US befire he got shot and the whole org collapsed. Not to mention he was Trump's court eunuch briefing him about under-35 Americans expectations. A true Lee Atwater figure, he probably would have been president eventually.
All it took to abort the entire project was one (1) bullet from a mormon guy who wanted to impress his transgender mutual. One of the most succesful political assasinations.
>>822333>TPUSA as the next Der Sturmer<looks inside>”bahhh, college is a scam”>”democrats are the real racists”>”what is a woman”>”i love milton friedman”>”socialism is when the government does stuff”>”Israel is our greatest ally”All of these are milquetoast libcon positions. Retards like you are why the left will never broaden its support base. Literally nobody should care about trainny culture war garbage.
>>822340Happy kirkmas to you too, Mr. Grinch
>>822330>Rightoids tried to make him into some kind of martyr, but it backfiredNot really. I just remember some people getting fired for endorsing or making jokes about the killing, but that’s about it. Not even Trump or the GOP establishment really gave a fuck about Charlie’s death. And then some on the right began DA JOOSing the whole event.
It’s really just the left’s equivalent of the right’s George Floyd jokes. Both were funny at first, but now it comes across as forced and uninspired.
>he's become less than a joke.Not to irl boomers and others who aren’t terminally online. Shocking to hear, but most people aren’t going to approve of killing your political opponents.
>>822345They tried and failed, miserably, because nobody actually liked that retard. Other than the morons who sincerely followed him and the rightoid grifters trying to grift lol
>Not to irl boomersWho cares? They're all evangelicals who wish to end the world and believe he's an angel sent by god or some shit
>Shocking to hear, but most people aren’t going to approve of killing your political opponentsMost people got bills to pay and don't care about this shit either way. Just another public assassination of many. At least kirk's kirkination was funny and basically a one off event unlike the routine murder of black people by the police. The two are not equivalent
>>822307He was a ridiculous joke figure in 2017 and then when he was assassinated they tried to turn him into a mixture of Horst Wessel, Jesus Christ, and 9/11. This backfired and all he got was the contrarian irreverence shown to 9/11.
I do not use contrarian as an insult here, it's just that you can't understand the irreverence without the fact it's countering official reverence. >>822350>They tried and failed, miserably, because nobody actually liked that retard. Other than the morons who sincerely followed him and the rightoid grifters trying to grift lol>Nobody liked him except the people who liked himWow, stellar analysis.
>At least kirk's kirkination was funny and basically a one off event unlike the routine murder of black people by the police.Celebrating either of those things is retarded and only creates more horizontal alienation among the working class. Does celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death bring us anywhere closer to achieving class consciousness?
>>822357I thought he was the puppet master commanding the next Final Solution to the Trans Question. Now, he’s just a joke? I don’t know if you’re the same anon that said that, but everyone here seems to be a radlib anyways.
>>822360Point is, it's not that many people. If it had been we would have seen some consequences other than ridicule and grifting.
>Celebrating either of those things is retarded and only creates more horizontal alienation among the working class. Does celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death bring us anywhere closer to achieving class consciousness?Get off the high horse, making fun of the retard zionist propagandist's death is more beneficial to the working class struggle than your lame half baked denouncement of it lol
>>822365>Point is, it's not that many people.Well, TPUSA is one of the largest conservative youth groups in the United States, so I think it’s a bit disingenuous to say that absolutely nobody liked him.
>making fun of the retard zionist propagandist's death is more beneficial to the working class struggle than your lame half baked denouncement of itExplain how celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death helps the working class and advances class consciousness. Explain why it wouldn’t reinforce right-wing grievances among conservative members of the proletariat.
>>822371>TikTok watermarkYou should go back there
>>822377>you criticized me for X therefore you must support YYeah, go back
>>822373>>822378>nooooooooooOoooOOOOOOOoo you can't share a video that was originally on tiktok on leftypol that means you belong there muh hecking imageboard pvritywas this your point or did you have a better one?
>>822370>one of the largest conservative youth groups in the United StatesSo it's not that big and certainly not a group of people who's opinions should be consulted
>so I think it’s a bit disingenuous to say that absolutely nobody liked himI think it's perfectly fine, nobody of note cared about this dude. His own mossad assigned wife didn't even give a fuck
>Explain how celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death helps the working class and advances class consciousness.It doesn't particularly help, it just helps more than complaining about said celebrations
>Explain why it wouldn’t reinforce right-wing grievances among conservative members of the proletariatIt delegitimizes their claim to martyrdom. If it's socially embarrassing to venerate this moron in his death, because most everyone ridicules him, that is better than if everyone was watching their tone and acting all somber andf shit as to not offend conservatards. That you would even give them an inch is a bad sign as to your own disposition. Like rightoids gaf about the truth or hypocrisy or some dumb shit lol, they'd use his death to reinforce their grievances regardless of if people were celebrating or not. That's what they always do with everything
>>822345>Shocking to hear, but most people aren’t going to approve of killing your political opponents.They don't give a fuck. After what right wingers did with christchurch we can do literally anything and still be morally superior if any asshole tries doing the "left is violent" shit just show them one of the 20 different muh great replacement shootings
Truly a blessed day.
>>822360if i was the same anon who said that, why would i not have put it in the same post? are you familiar with how an anonymous imageboard works?
if everyone here is a radlib (and they ain't, they're far lower than radlibs.) then you're not even a
rad lib, you're just a lib. god forbid we alienate the working class by… having a laugh.
>>822370"largest conservative youth group" is like saying "largest railroad in vatican city", even republican voting youth usually aren't big enough losers to actually get involved with such a thing.
it is of course not true that literally nobody liked charlie kirk, but he wasn't a universally known and widely beloved figure capable of actual martyrdom. even conservatives moved quickly on because he was playing tail-end charlie (lol) to the wider direction of travel of the US right. (e.g. Fuentes and pals were already tearing him to shreds.)
in any case: there is no point pandering to conservative members of the proletariat. it is a doomed strategy (they're not going to become communists just because you sing "we are charlie kirk" without giggling!), and a stupid doomed strategy at that. (the overwhelming direction and energy of young people is towards the left, there is no point focusing on the biggest losers with the worst personality disorders and - for the most part - the most petit-bourgeois rent-seeking parents and upbringing. even if you could win them over, you've won over the losing demographic! you've become king of the minority!)
Debating in the Kirkmas thread instead of posting memes, trvly we are carrying the flame ❤️🔥
Does anyone have the one where Epstein catches the bullet and saves Charlie?
ITT: death of a conservative idpol activist attracts liberal idpol retards
>>822438Everyone left, right or centre likes to laugh at Kirk.
>>822439I know. All Westoids are idpol retards.
>>822443How is the abbreviated phrase "Western identity politics" a buzzword?
>>822447Quite the contrary. For me, the only good Westoid is a dead Westoid, and that includes liberal faggots like you.
>>822469>I don't like identity politics <Proceeds to engage in identity politics Coping thirdie.
>>822470Yes, exactly.
My Third Worldism = Based and Correct
Your First Worldism = Gay and Retarded
>>822472Thirdies love Israel and fascism. Explains why you are so upset at Kirk's death lol.
>>822474Holy based. Third World fascists have infinitely more revolutionary potential than Western shitlibs. The lives of 1,000 shitlibs are worth less than the life of one fascist.
>>822475>Thirdies>Revolutionary potential All they know to do is sell out their land and resources to Israel and manufacture treats for First World CHADs.
>>822475>The lives of 1,000 shitlibs are worth less than the life of one fascist.I’ve heard that same quote, but with a Jewish twist.
the two anons arguing with each other are both retarded and ruining the thread
>>822477>First World CHADsIf you guys are Chads, how come you're not having enough sex? How come all your countries' fertility rates are below replacement level?
>>822478Based Jews. Replace goyim with treatlerites and they'd be 100% correct.
>>822479Proud to have taken a steamy Chadpreet Third World shit all over this already caca thread.
>>822484I wouldn't be surprised if this was a self-plug
>>822340for someone who thinks this thread is pointless and nobody should care you are taking a lot of time out of your day to left-punch inside of it
>>822373>ignoring the content of the video>seething over a watermark because the video passed from its original source and through other websites>missing the irony of a man who called for public executions getting publicly executedu mad
>>822485>72k views>uploaded 5 days agonah
>>822481>If you guys are Chads, how come you're not having enough sex? How come all your countries' fertility rates are below replacement level?because women are allowed abortion, birth control, contraception, and access to sex education, unlike the countries where they are expected to be barefoot, pregnant, chained to the stove by age 14
>>822481>Based Jews. Replace goyim with treatlerites and they'd be 100% correct.ok this is just a trollsona at this point
>>822487Yeah, uygha. I don't care about Charlie Kirk, so why would I watch some caca skit made by some unfunny lib comedian (non-zero chance it's your video)? I wish more Westoids like him died, especially you.
>>822489And it looks like that will be your downfall.
>>822490No, I'm dead serious. The proletariat in the West are a lost cause. Labor aristocracy, treatlerism, and false consciousness are too rampant.
>>822491Western shitlib women are our unwitting fifth-column in the JDPON revolution.
>>822545conservatives are the biggest zionists.
fundamentaly conservatism is a personality disorder and the sadism of zionism appeals to the same disposition as the sadism of modern conservativism.
pretty much any public opinion polling will tell you that rightists across the developed world except japan (where everyone votes LDP) and spain (weird) are the nastiest, stupidest, and generally oldest part of their population. the idea you should waste energy pandering to them when the friendly, the smart, and the young all trend left is insanity.
>>822469>How is the abbreviated phrase "Western identity politics" a buzzword?Because western identity politics are not relevant to wether we can laugh at this retard's death or not. You're just bringing it up to say something, but actually you're not saying anything. That's why it's a buzzword
I dont care about the conservative parts of the working class albeit.
>>822340You are mistaking radicalism for political efficiency. He wasnt a "radical" at the personal level but enabled the worst radicals through his network, media empire and advocacy. Radicals among the right cant tolerate or work with each others without a figure like Kirk to play conductor, hence why his death was so damaging.
>>822558Yeah the kirkiversary is funny and all but crazy how much it has overshadowed 9/11s big 25
how many offerings did y'all make for the kirk? my family sacrificed a cow and a goat, hopefully he will reward us with good rain
>>822570based and brap brap pew pew pilled
>>822546>moralfagging and demanding ideological purity from the proletariatLiberal cattle status reinforced. You are not a Marxist
>>822567>it was all charlie kirk pulling the strings, pls ignore capital!!kek what a bitch
>>822580god damn, I wanna cum inside all of them now
>>822589>demanding ideological purity from the proletariatwhy do people here think proles are le gods chosen people? if a prole acts like a genocidal maniac then fuck him, he deserves no empathy
>>822592Achieving a unified class consciousness is more important than upholding some gay moral pov
You would understand this if you weren’t a liberal
>>822593You're disunifying the proletarian consciousness with your gay pearlclutching about some ziorat getting kirked. The proletarian position is to laugh at his retarded ass
>>822598>still moralfaggingCattle status: reinforced
>>822602There's no morality at play retard, enemies of the proles get kirked and the proles rejoice, simple as. The only reason you're upset is because you have a bourgeois mentality
>>822592the more interesting question is why people like you come to a leftist website to suck bourgeois cock non-stop while denying class struggle
>>822603>kills random political celebrity over partisan idpol>leaves capital untouched>this somehow advances class consciousnessCattle status: doubly reinforced
>>822593youre the one moralfagging though? youre acting like being a proletarian is some magical property that instantly makes someone morally superior when its just a fucking class position that says nothing about you as an individual
>>822604learn to read
>>822605You're the only one kclutching your kirks about class consciousness here though nobody pretended rulling class right wingers getting merced advanced the cause of anything, some of us like it because it's funny and cathartic and some others are grinchy about it simple as
>>822608>no morality at play<but also>some of us like it because it's funny and cathartic and some others are grinchy about it simple as Cattle status: triply reinforced.
>>822606>strawmanThe proletariat’s morality is irrelevant so long as it doesn’t supersede or undermine class consciousness.
Caring about an individual’s morals is for liberal faggots like you.
>>822605>Complain about people enjoying some retard ziorat getting kirked on an imageboard>Capital status: untouched>Thinks he's advancing class consciousness somehowYou are such a faggot dude lmfao
>>822614no, caring for an individual's morality is just a basic aspect of human society you moron. are you the same leftcom who defends ICE agents and IDF soldiers because theyre just poor hecking proles?
>>822615>tu quoque fallacyCattle status: quadruply reinforced.
>>822626>minor grammatical mistakeCattle status: quintuply reinforced.
>Le fallacy
Your mom fallacies my dick
>>822569im thinking the event itself would be forgotten soon enough and life go on, like there are kids in school nowadays surprised this was a real attack and not an internet meme
if burgers don't turn this into a national holiday or something know it will be seen soon as just a long ago tragedy overshadowed by the whole war on terror it kickstarted
>>822570>>822580I support reproductive rights and am not religious. I also think the two liberal women in the video are not emotionally mature enough to handle children and I am glad they did not have those babies. I do not agree with the conservative woman about abortion being bad and hell being real. I found everyone in this video to be obnoxious in different ways. This was a frustrating video to watch.
>>822589troll talk, unserious
>>822514
why are you posting "BASED NAZIS KILLED THE BLACKS WITH LAZER EYES" memes from pol you fucking freak
>>822492>And it looks like that will be your downfall.Me not seeing women as my private property is my downfall? For the record I disagree with the anon who says "first worlders are chads" that's just imperialist chauvinism by I also disagree with your angle of attack that the west has fallen because women can abort or something. that shit is just stupid.
>>822769this place has just become memelord nihilism. are you capable of expressing a single sincere thought?
>>822765>Getting frustrated at two baddies making fun of some pro life conservatardThat's gay as hell anon
>>822772Here are a couple sincere thoughts:
The Nazis killing imperialist soldiers and indirectly bringing about the end of European colonial control was a GOOD thing, actually.
HOWEVER, that also had the effect of transforming the United States into the most dominant imperial power of the modern era, which is a BAD thing.
>>822776they do seem stupid though. they also seem like the type to say they're broke while having multiple sugar daddies. good for them.
>>822778terminally unfunny troll logic
>>822783I don't think drafted black soldiers during US segregation who fought against fascists alongside the soviet red army are "imperialist soldiers" and you strike me as a troll shitjacketing actual anti-imperialism which is a systemic understanding of imperialism as a phenomenon driven by the mode of production, and completely independent of which particular metropole is the current hegemon.
>>822783>posting pro rape and pro nazi MP4 files<teehee i'm so sincerethen you are a reactionary
>>822784Just because American blacks were oppressed by American whites doesn't mean the former are not indirect beneficiaries of imperialist superprofits. The post-slavery racial conflict between blacks and whites in the United States is a conflict largely over access to these superprofits because of the US' imperial standing in the world.
I spit, piss, and shit on the graves of those monkey soldiers.
>soviet red army are "imperialist soldiers"Social imperialists. Next.
>completely independent of which particular metropole is the current hegemonThis is retarded. A unipolar hegemon, which is what the United States is, is worse than multipolarity for the hyper-exploited Global South. Unipolarity concentrates command of capital in a single imperialist entity and enables a unified counterrevolutionary front. Multipolarity, while not inherently good, can at least keep imperial powers in check by generating interimperialist rivalries (which thus weakens hegemons), raising the cost of interventions, pluralizing the command of capital, and creating space for anti-imperialist struggle. The destruction of the United States as a unipolar power, the first of its kind in modern history, is a good thing.
>>822785>>posting pro rape and pro nazi MP4 filesYou're in a thread mocking a political murder, uygha. Cut the moralfagging.
>>822793
>blacks were beneficiaries of imperialist superprofits
that wasn't your original argument. your original argument is that it was good and based when nazis killed them. you retreated to something a lot more reasonable after being a shitlord. you types always do this.
>>822795meant for
>>822794 since you edited it
>>822795>it was good and based when nazis killed themThem being beneficiaries of imperialism is why it was good for them to be killed.
>posts literal nazi propaganda gloating over black us soldiers being tortured and bayoneted by nazis, depicts nazis with epic memelord lazer eyes
<actually i was just saying black americans benefited from imperialist superprofits even under segregation, i was not trying to imply that it was based when nazis comitted racially motivated war crimes
motte bailey shit
>>822797but your meme wasn't anti imperialist in the slightest. there wasn't a single hint of any of this nuance. it was just pro-nazi gloating. and no matter how much nuance you pretend to add we know you're just a fascist shitlord using anti-imperialism as a guise.
and no, gloating about black US soldiers getting tortured to death in racially motivated hate crimes by nazis and dying at higher rates than their white american comrades who were taken as prisoners instead is not anti-imperialist rhetoric in the slightest. it is at best trolling. you are a very dishonest person. none of that put a dent in imperialism anyway as you acknowledged in another post so it wasn't even "good" it's just an outlet for your barely disguised racism masquerading as anti imperialism.
>>822798>i was not trying to imply that it was based when nazis comitted racially motivated war crimesIt was based, just not for the Nazis' stated reason (if it even happened).
>>822800uygha, people on here joke about the Tsar's children being bayoneted, Charlie Kirk being murdered in a public space (you are literally in the mock Kirk thread), and the Red Army killing 60 gorillion Christians, among other things. You can handle some monkey cannon fodder imperialists getting rekt. Your moralfagging is selective.
>white american comrades who were taken as prisonersPeiper NOT impressed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST) >>822802my moralfagging is not selective. i just see through your fake anti imperialism. you are just a racist. you are calling black drafted american proles living under an apartheid regimes "monkeys" and gloating that nazis killed them, posting memes that depict nazis as chads. i can see through it. you will never convince me that this is just trve communism. you are a nasty little chud
>>822802>if it even happened/pol/yp doesn't even pretend to try
>>822807>my moralfagging is not selectiveIt is lmfao. Edits of Bierut ethnically cleansing Germans from Eastern Europe get posted all the time. Until I see you moralfag about those types of edits, stfu uygha. (Btw those edits don't bother me either).
Anyways, you're just a nobody on the internet, so convincing you is no skin off my back.
>>822811>imperial powers tell lies about all wars except WW2Kay.
>inb4 Holocaust denier allegations >>822812>other people post other stuff so your moralfagging is selectivei am not those other people so it is not
>you're just a nobody on the internetlikewise
again. you are fooling nobody. you start off depicting nazis as chads, and gloating that nazis tortured and murdered black americans at higher rates than white americans, and that these black soldiers were not treated the same as white POWs when captured, getting tortured and bayoneted. this was explicit gloating and depicting nazis as chads. it was not soviet style "Lol both the american and german imperialists are killing each other" it was gloating from a nazi perspective. you only backpedaled after getting called out
>>822812>now posting memes implying america got punished with 9/11 when 9/11 was an inside job by the bush administration, saudi wahhabist pedophiles, and israeli zionists to justify destroying iraq, afghanistan, libya, syria, somalia yemen, only 3000 americans died while millions people from other countries died and had their entire governments and economies destroyed and reactionaries placed into positions of poweronly a fool can look at 9/11 and think the US government was hurt by it in any way.
>>822816you have such terminal imageboard brain you are only capable of responding with mp4s
>>822817True, but dead Amerisharts makes my boyclitty quiver. The same is true for October 7.
>>822819what zero class consciousness and infinite nationalism does to a mf
>>822821I only care about the Global South proletariat.
>>822823you don't care about anything. you are an O9A nihilist thielbug who talks in sharty language. you probably aren't even from the global south. global south just wants imperialist terrorism against them to end. normal proles from the global south don't go on english speaking imageboards, post nazi memes, and talk about their "boyclitty"
>>822802terminally online shock content addict. go outside and have sex lil uygha
>>822832>terminally online shock content addictNta but that’s basically this entire thread lol
>>822814>and gloating that nazis tortured and murdered black americans at higher rates than white americans, and that these black soldiers were not treated the same as white POWs when captured, getting tortured and bayoneted.Nazis didn't torture US troops
>>822878 (me)
they tortured Soviet troops and partisans, but not US troops, even black US troops were treated pretty well by the Nazis
>>822264>center my voicekys
>>822589it's not moralfagging to identify that schizophrenics are delusional and it's not moralfagging to identify that conservatives are unpleasant anti-civilization freaks.
it is not really a question of ideology at all, but of marketing. conservative political marketing selects for the worst people, even when their actual product (in terms of governance etc) is the same as that of their opponents. (e.g. as in the UK case.) this is quite in accord with a marxist analysis of bourgeois politics. it is not un-marxist to recognise that Irn Bru's marketing makes a cornerstone of its scottishness and in turn is rewarded with a majority of the Scottish soft-drink market, and it's not un-marxist to do the same with bourgeois politicians and their support groups. we can read off, ex-post-facto, that most Irn Bru drinkers are Scottish and we can read off, ex-post-facto, that most conservative voters are awful, even before we redouble that analysis by realising that they're disproportionately petit-bourgeois.
>>822593some proles work actively against class consciousness and drag the rest down with them. it is utterly naive to imagine you should embrace some of their wrecker talking points in the hopes of winning them over.
>>822945please quote all the sentences you believe to be moralising for the benefit of the class
>>823082Sure, since you're apparently illiterate:
>unpleasant anti-civilization freaks>the worst people>most conservative voters are awfulThese are all appeals to morality. Hope that helps!
>>823090Distaste is an affective reaction. Saying "I don't like conservatives" is expressing distaste.
Moral judgment is a normative evaluation. Saying "conservatives are unpleasant anti-civilization freaks" is making a moral judgment.
The poopy write-up was the latter.
I guess your pic related was a portrait of you or something because it doesn't apply to me ^_^
this guy has been calling everyone moralfags for laughing at kirk's death for 150 posts lol. very not mad energy
>>823115The fact you're still replying makes you madder btw
>>822878bruh are you even the same anon. anon literally posted a video praising nazi troops for torturing and executing black US troops. scroll up and read the conversation before jumping in.
>>823130that was my first post at you. this is my last
>>823179I warned you about debate addicts.
>>823089none of that language is moralising. in short
>>823090but piece by pieace
>unpleasant is it moralising to describe the taste of food as unpleasant?
>anti-civilizationstatement of policy, not morality.
>freaks"an unusual person", judges usualness rather than value.
>worstjudgement of quality, partial synonym of unpleasant
>awfulas above but softer.
>>823095>>823096>>823097was it necessary to be wrong in triplicate?
even if we were to grant for argument's sake that morality was raised, it still wouldn't be moralising: it is not moralising anti-marxism to say that a marketer might discover that immoral people prefer to buy israeli goods and moral people do not. you do not, personally, have to embrace this moral judgement
as a moral judgement, it is simply data. "morality" here is an arbitrary personal trait like scottishness or mental retardation. (such as yours) such traits can be found, empirically, to correlate with other things. what you do, normatively, with that information is your own business.
>>823188Linguistic meaning is lexical, compositional, and contextual. It’s about what the words do in context, not simply how each word is defined. For example: compare “How do I kill a process?” vs “How do I kill a person?.” Both contain the same verb (kill), but carry radically different meanings. Thus, taking each word in isolation, choosing a neutral dictionary sense, and ignoring how the words function together in a phrase is misguided.
>>unpleasant>is it moralising to describe the taste of food as unpleasant?No, because it describes an affective reaction in that specific context. The context changes the word’s purpose. The phrase “unpleasant anti-civilization freaks” as a whole is a moral judgement; “unpleasant” only reinforces the overall framing. Of course, you can backpedal and claim you weren’t doing this, that “unpleasant” was simply expressing your own affective distaste, but then your argument ceases to be material analysis and collapses into subjectivity.
>>anti-civilization>statement of policy, not morality“Civilization” in polemics is often an evaluative concept in and of itself.
The marks of civilization—the writing, the cities, the state, etc.—reflect a particular ideal of human organization. This ideal often presupposes a moral vision along with it. Typically, to call a society civilized is to morally praise it; to call it uncivilized is to morally condemn it. Calling a group “anti-civilization” is often synonymous with calling them barbaric, destructive, enemies of social order, i.e., they are outside the bounds of civilization’s moral values.
>>freaks>"an unusual person", judges usualness rather than valueUsing the dictionary’s strict definition of a word as evidence that a word cannot have another meaning is fallacious. Nevertheless, what is considered “unusual” if it’s not relative to what’s considered “usual?” In the phrase’s context, it doesn’t merely say “unusual”; it marks someone as backwards and grotesque (anti-civilization) compared to the usual (civilization).
>>worst and awful>judgement of quality, partial synonym of unpleasantAgain, what is considered “quality” if it’s not compared to some type of standard? By what judgement?
>it is not moralising anti-marxism to say that a marketer might discover that immoral people prefer to buy israeli goods and moral people do not.That would absolutely be moralizing.
>you do not, personally, have to embrace this moral judgement as a moral judgement, it is simply data.This is self-defeating. If you don’t embrace the moral judgement, you can’t call it “immoral” and “moral” in the first place, as it simply becomes a descriptive correlation.
>"morality" here is an arbitrary personal trait like scottishnessOne is descriptive of a national/cultural/ethnic identity, the other is a normative evaluation. They are completely different things.
>such traits can be found, empirically, to correlate with other things. what you do, normatively, with that information is your own business.To find correlations with morality, you first have to decide what counts as moral and immoral. That decision is already normative.
>>823179Objectively speaking, Hitler decimated the West's ability to maintain colonialism.
>>823287>hitler killed hitler, and hitler was a fascist, therefore hitler was the greatest anti fascistmm yes, dialectics, mm yes unity of opposites, very hegelian
>>823273that's a lot of words to
not find a moral argument. you're on much stronger grounds identifying a subjective judgement, but one can mix subjective judgement and material analysis quite cleanly - if i say coca cola is disgusting slop, that wouldn't undermine an analysis of
why it sells one iota, nor would "disgusting" or "slop" constitute moral judgements on their product simply because emotive language is used.
the only other point of any interest to me is that you cannot draw a clean line here between a national/cultural/ethnic identity and a normative evaluation. if i say that JK Rowling isn't Scottish (she lives in Scotland but is of English heritage, after all.) while simultaneously saying that anyone else can become Scottish simply by living in Scotland, is it not apparent - from inference before I say it plainly - that I regard scottishness as a desirable trait and take this into account when deciding who does and doesn't count?
(this isn't an idle question borne of me making up silly hypotheticals either, "anyone can be Scottish by living in Scotland, except reactionary English people" is basically the unofficial official line of modern progressive Scottish nationalists. Scotland is a touch odd in applying this to
nationalism, but you'll find the same trends in most questions of identity, one way or another…)
>>823339>that's a lot of words to not find a moral argument.This was your thesis:
<it's not moralfagging to identify that schizophrenics are delusional and it's not moralfagging to identify that conservatives are unpleasant anti-civilization freaks.If "anti-civilization" is a neutral description, then it doesn't support calling them unpleasant freaks. If it does support calling them unpleasant freaks, then you're treating anti-civilization as bad, which assumes civilization as good. That's either a moral argument or, at the very least, a normative statement that relies on an ideal of what's considered desirable. Either way, it's not a neutral method of analysis, as you are selecting and framing traits in a way that presupposes a norm.
>you're on much stronger grounds identifying a subjective judgementMorality itself is subjective.
>if i say coca cola is disgusting slop, that wouldn't undermine an analysis of why it sells one iota, nor would "disgusting" or "slop" constitute moral judgements on their product simply because emotive language is used.No one said that would be a moral judgement. It only shows emotive language can coexist with analysis; however, it doesn't show that your framing is non-normative.
>the only other point of any interest to me is that you cannot draw a clean line here between a national/cultural/ethnic identity and a normative evaluation. if i say that JK Rowling isn't Scottish (she lives in Scotland but is of English heritage, after all.) while simultaneously saying that anyone else can become Scottish simply by living in Scotland, is it not apparent - from inference before I say it plainly - that I regard scottishness as a desirable trait and take this into account when deciding who does and doesn't count? Delineating who should and should not count as Scottish is itself normative. All you've shown is that identity descriptors can be normatively loaded. If deciding who counts as Scottish can be normatively loaded, then deciding who counts as "anti-civilization" can be too.
>>823425there is no need for "anti-civilization" to support "unpleasant freaks" or vice-versa. is it moralfagging to say that coca cola is both disgusting and unhealthy?
if identity descriptors can be normatively loaded, and who is or is not anti-civilization
can be normatively loaded, then it follows that far from being "completely different things" as you said previously, my earlier point that morality is just an arbitrary personal trait which we can draw correlations from - like scottishness - holds.
otherwise and elsewhere: you are attempting a sleight of hand where the analyst being non-neutral means their analysis must be non-neutral, and thus normative, and thus moralising. you will have to get out of bed much earlier in the morning to fool anyone with a trick like that.
>>823427i sleep in a racing car, do you?
>>823448
your framing does not have to remain neutral for your analysis to remain neutral. "Coca cola sells well due to skillful marketing achieving the miracle of making a product which is considered genial to all identity groups rather than exclusive to some" does not become a moral judgement just because you append "despite being revolting piss made with the blood of latin american sugar growers"
my analysis is not circular because, if you actually remembered it, you'd see that there are various other factors. it would be nonsense to say that being conservative is simply correlated with being conservative, but we can draw together various other traits (most obviously age and education, and the framing device of voting/policy preferences) to get the full picture.
but you've no real argument against the core of my analysis, so you throw out the slur of "moralising" and expect anons to clap like seals.
well, nobody clapped.
>>823437>there is no need for "anti-civilization" to support "unpleasant freaks" or vice-versa.Nobody said is there was a “need.” I said IF it supports the “anti-civilization” label, then the label is being used normatively
>is it moralfagging to say that coca cola is both disgusting and unhealthy?This has been answered to you twice now. You are being tautological.
>if identity descriptors can be normatively loaded, and who is or is not anti-civilization can be normatively loaded, then it follows that far from being "completely different things" as you said previously, my earlier point that morality is just an arbitrary personal trait which we can draw correlations from - like scottishness - holds.That only shows they share one property, not that they’re the same kind of thing. You can operationalize “anti-civilization” descriptively and then correlate it. But that only shows moral commitments can be treated as traits for statistical purposes; it doesn’t show they are arbitrary. If instead you treat “anti-civilization” as a normative verdict, which is what you did, then using it as a variable risks circularity: you’re correlating your evaluation with itself.
>otherwise and elsewhere: you are attempting a sleight of hand where the analyst being non-neutral means their analysis must be non-neutral, and thus normative, and thus moralising.I never said an analyst’s non-neutrality makes the analysis normative. You can be a non-neutral analyst and still produce a neutral analysis, so long as your framing remains neutral. You didn’t do that.
>>823450You’re still dodging. Your Coke example proves my point: an appended insult doesn’t make a neutral analysis normative. But if “anti-civilization” or “unpleasant freaks” is doing analytical work then it’s not an appendage. So which is it? If it’s just an appendage then you can get rid of it without it affecting your analysis. If you can’t do that, it’s normative.
Your own “analysis” refutes you. “Unpleasant,” “anti-civilization,” “awful,” and “worst people” are not neutral descriptors. You can’t read “awful” off voting data the way you can read “Scottish.” Your analysis is contingent on measuring normative traits.
Unique IPs: 77