Whats One 1 reactionary thought you have?
Video games used to be better in the past. The industry peaked in 2000s.
>>829138not reactionary. it follows the natural development of capitalism
>>829140Well if we want this thread to be anything other than transphobia and psychotic sadism, threshold for what counts as reactionary needs to be lowered.
Women
>>829134LGBT.
Also, the word "reactionary" just means opposition to social and political changes. Not all change is necessarily good.
>>829159>Not all change is necessarily goodSuch as? In this context I mean.
>>829162Let's be extreme for the sake of example: pedophile rights. Abolishing the age of consent would absolutely be a type of social change I would vehemently oppose. By definition, my opposition would make me a reactionary, but is there really anything wrong with that if the change in question is genuinely shit?
In practice, the term "reactionary" is used by leftists as a normative statement that condemns people for their opposition to policies and changes leftists find "good" or "progressive."
>>829164>By definition, my opposition would make me a reactionary,Depends on what the opposition is based on. Consent and harm prevention, or moral conventions? The same way an esoteric neo-nazi supporting environmental protection wouldnt be progressive.
>>829175>What the opposition is based on is not relevant to the definitionOf course it is relevant, how could it possibly not be! Both a reactionary and a progressive might oppose the same aspect of today's society, where exactly their opposition comes from makes all the difference. Already gave one example, if you want another one, anti-EU sentiments. Is critique of neoliberal policies reactionary? Is ultranationalism progressive?
>>829176>Of course it is relevant, how could it possibly not be!It's not relevant because it's not part of the definition of the word. What the opposition is based on and whether it's valid is a separate, normative question.
>Is critique of neoliberal policies reactionary?If you are advocating for a return to pre-neoliberal policies, then in a purely descriptive sense the answer is yes. Whether that's a good thing depends on whether those policies were better or worse.
>Is ultranationalism progressive?In what sense? If it's to return to an idealized past, yes. If it's to radically overhaul society à la Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, or the Soviet Union, then no.
It should be 2023 or 2019 again and forever
do I really need to be a leftist to be a communist? I thought communism was an alternative different than leftism and rightism? I don't want to be a leftist but communism is cool
>>829229there's no way you care about this for any reason that isn't gay and stupid
>>829233so the answer is no?
>>829159>the word "reactionary" just means opposition to social and political changesit has a more specific meaning in political theory which is how people here should interpret it
We need to go back.
>>829248
it's 100% objective and not evaluative at all. a reactionary is someone who opposes societal development (not just "change"). this definition says nothing about whether it's good or bad to do so. and the fact that your example is "pedophile rights" (completely orthogonal to the question of development vs reaction) shows you are completely out of depth. at least skim a fucking wiki page before coming to my board to say midwit shit.
>>829233it's not stupid, stop being an asshole. I say this because I am genuinely insterested in communism as an alternative to capitalism, even though I'm not a leftist. capitalism sucks but i don't feel like supporting neither the left nor right, and isn't both sides capitalistic anyway? it kinda doesn't make sense to support the left because the left is also capitalistic as much as the right is
>>829255I genuinely dont understamd what you are trying to say here? What is "the left" to you? Its just a vague term for a collection of ideologies and tendencies all vastly different to each other but similar in a way that justifies putting them together. The "left" is not an organization or a system so it cannot "be something" in nature. Its like asking whether you can be a biologist without being STEM because you dont like STEM for some reason.
>>829253>it's 100% objective and not evaluative at all>this definition says nothing about whether it's good or bad to do soGood and bad IS evaluative, you absolute fucking retard.
>>829253>the fact that your example is "pedophile rights" (completely orthogonal to the question of development vs reaction) shows you are completely out of depthAlso, that's a perfectly good example of a terrible form of change.
>>829263>>829265holy shit you are actually illiterate. reread the two excerpts you just quoted until you understand, i refuse to hold your hand through something this obvious. you're not even disagreeing, you are understanding 0% of what is being said to you.
>>829164pedophilia is literally reactionary theory put into praxis
>>829282No, you're just a retarded pseudo-intellectual faggot tripping over your own logic.
What's good and bad is subjective, and in determining that you are making an evaluative judgement.
>>829283NAMBLA fags call themselves progressive.
>>829285so have eugenicists and race science shills "progressive" has been a meaningless term for at least 200 years atp.
>>829288Irrelevant. "Progress" is really just a euphemism for change anyways.
>>829290can you just get around to whatever point your trying to make instead of fishing for (you)s and playing semantic word games?
>>829304I already made my point, dumbass.
>>829308I suppose not lol, have (you) for your troubles anon
I have seen some people call this reactionary although I stand by it. Drugs should be decriminalized and drug addicts are victims
>>829159BBLanon what do you mean by lgbt? As in support or against?
>>829138early capitalism, through its origins of artisanal production, used quality as the main form of competition due to a lack of market control. Once market control is established enshitification occurs
Video games of the 2000s are akin to all other forms of products. They are now enshittifying
>>829134Since no on this this thread actually wants to risk answering OP instead of arguing semantics:
Women (as a group) don't want really gender equality, they want freedom from gender norms for themselves but then bend over backwards to justify enforcing it for males.
this is reactionary since I have no actual evidence beyond my biased and emotional observations of gender dynamics >>829411Samefag; felt like ranting reactionary since I've been given the opportunity.
To add to this I have a dulled reaction to anything labled feminism or women's rights. Like if I don't have the right to my body (circumcision, conscription, etc.), why the fuck would I care about women? No amount of respecting women's rights seems to change their opinions, hell Switzerland just voted by a large margin to keep the draft male only despite women being able to vote, hold office, and be military leaders. I live in Seattle and there a few clubs that are "fem only" that even exclude transmen, yet if the reverse is true women's groups lose their shit. Lesbian bars can exclude men but gay bars can't exclude women (I have personally witnessed a bachelorette party being pigs to gay dudes, but it was "ok" when they do it). Women are unwilling to call out their own for bullshit because that would somehow re-enforce misogyny. Men are "privileged", yet if he can't extract that privilege he's made fun of for being less of a man (short, autistic, effeminate, physically weak, not assertive or confident, etc.). Women's issues are always systemic, men's are always individual. I'm not even sure why I'm so pissed off by it since I'm gay and I don't even have any female friends.
>>829411>Women (as a group) don't want really gender equality, they want freedom from gender norms for themselvesI mean yeah, that is to be expected, all equality movements want improvement in situation for themselves, not worsening. Why would it be otherwise? Nobody is joining "make my life worse" club.
>>829429He meant women don't want just to improve their lot, they want to improve them too much (according to his arbitrary limits)
>>829411>>829412Women can be very infuriating creatures. It's almost like they want you to do something to them but know you either won't so they'll call you a pussy or not a real man or you do something and you get in trouble in some way. Very frustrating.
>>829448What the fuck are you talking about? What and when exactly did this happen to you?
>>829451I suppose Anon believe there is only two options when it comes to interacting with females:
>Socically awkard hand hovering respectfully nod toward her simping or>grab 'em by the pussy caveman. He is upset that women do not react positively to either one.
I fucking hate transhumanists (I'm a transhumanist)
Sometimes there's a viral post on twitter about how Japanese films about WWII always focus on Japanese victims and never on Chinese victims.
Of course! Japanese films are targeted towards the Japanese people! So of course they will focus on the history of the Japanese people's struggle. Its not the Japanese film industry's responsibility to make films about the Chinese people's struggle, that's the responsibility of the Chinese film industry.
And this is something people are fine with when it comes to WWII in Europe, the Soviet Union's films like Come and See were about the Soviet people, Polish films about the Polish people, German films about the German people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_feature_films_(1950%E2%80%931989)The reason why people don't see this when it comes to Japan and China is simply that the Chinese film industry doesn't pull its weight and deliver on making films to the standard of Come and See, Man's Search for Meaning, etc, and (when it comes to this topic) only makes slop that no one outside of China will ever care about it. So people see the lopsided output for good films relating to the 2nd Sino-Japanese War focusing on the Japanese, and blame Japanese film for that, when the real blameworthy party is the dogshit Chinese film industry pumping out slop.
>>829472> Its not the Japanese film industry's responsibility to make films about the Chinese people's struggleYes, it is, if you believe in Christian morality (which most leftists do). Actually it's all of Japan's responsibility but close enough.
The gays are the biggest issue in American leftism. I've had enough of them ruining elections for us. I wouldn't even call it reactionary. Really just a fact. You get 1 leftist candidate that's pro-black, pro-Palestine, pro-latino, pro-minority etc and with generally good policy, but apathetic towards the gays and not scared to say it, MF would sweep the country.
>>829472>German films about the German peopleGerman war movies aren't chauvinistic at all because the German mind is so guilt-tripped by Hitler. Can you imagine the seethe a nationalist German WW2 movie would generate? I'm pretty sure that sort of thing would be considered illegal over there.
Anyways, this is actually kind of a good thing because chauvinism in movies, especially war movies, ruins the plot. Always the cartoonish "we're good guy and they're the bad guys" dynamic. German war movies don't really have this issue, which is why they're one of the best. Stalingrad 1993 is one my favorite war movies of all time.
>>829498Does that count as reactionnary if Mao himself made that point?
>>829502He was a peasant warlord from a century ago.
>>829494The gays, uh huh.
>>829494Gays themselves aren't the problem, as gays aren't a separate class. Let them have their poopoo butt sex, whatever. The problem is that the bourgeoisie fragments the proles by leveraging these non-class identities. Pro-LGBT working class people fighting anti-LGBT people; bourgeoisie wins.
The leftist insistence that gays must be accepted is part of this problem. Sorry guys, but most of the non-white and non-Western working class despise LGBT.
>>829510Honestly, LGBT is nothing compared to feminism. LGBT are like what 10% of the population? It is very easy to accept, out of sight out of mind. What the gender war is for the 90% of the population is much more detrimental.
>>829512The same logic applies to feminism. Feminism co-opted women into system, expanded the reserve army of labor, expanded the tax base, and increased spending. More importantly however, it unleashed horizontal conflict in the working class between the ostensibly "empowered" women and men who just saw their purchasing power decimated.
>LGBT are like what 10% of the population?Being a faggot is trendy these days. Up to 30% of Gen Z identifies as LGBT, which would've been unheard of 20 years ago. I think that's pretty strong evidence that people aren't simply just born gay.
>>829519Meanwhile in the past:
<Being left-handed is trendy these days. Up to 10% of youngsters identify as left-handed. I think that's pretty strong evidence that people aren't born left handed. >>829519>I think that's pretty strong evidence that people aren't simply just born gay.Or perhaps they are more likely to come out now that it doesn't mean social or literal death anymore
>>829519>I think that's pretty strong evidence that people aren't simply just born gay.Ok, lets say that is the case? Whats your point, why did you bring it up?
>>829510>most of the non-white and non-Western working class despise LGBTWhich is why they have to be dragged to enlightment. Are you a revolutionary vanguard or a rearguard?
>>829526>Which is why they have to be dragged to enlightenment.That has literally nothing to do with communism though. Obviously were not bigoted but LGBT rather frivolous identity that has nothing to do with communism or being revolutionary.
>>829528Why not? What is the goal of communism in your mind? And dont you dare give me that retard quote about "not the state of things".
>>829531I suppose it's an ever changing concept. But I'm a little by the book in I'd define it as worker owned and controlled nation-state or similar entity.
>>829522Yeah, dumbass, you're not born right-handed or left-handed either.
>>829523Meh. I don't think that explains everything though. Less than 5% of people identified as LGBT in 2000. No one was going around killing homos in 2000. Sure, people might think you're a weirdo for taking it up poopchute but anti-discrimination laws were already in place and more were on the way.
>>829524People's minds are highly malleable to their environment. I mean this in a general sense: neuroplasticity is very real.
>>829526>>829531Demanding ideological purity is dumb and a good way to alienate most people.
>>829534>No one was going around killing homos in 2000That doesn't mean there was no ostracism going on. Disowning, conversion therapies and so on.
>anti-discrimination laws were already in placeThere is possibility to work around thoses. "Oh but we're not firing you or denying you an apartment because you are gay but because of
insert bullshit reason but good luck proving that on trial"
>>829538Second one still happens to this day in most countries even in the west ahah, just make shit up, harass them out of the job because they're not fast enough or some shit until they burnout etc.
>>829538Meh. You're still exaggerating. You said being gay back then meant "literal death," which is hysterical. If anything gays are better off in Western bourgeois society than in any other society in history. Ancient Romans and Greeks may compete for second place, but only if you were a fuckable twink or something, lol.
Unique IPs: 45