he look like when Jay Z was nodding his head in that one gif

gotta click this thread man

The concept of TEFism is so funny to me. Why do they care so much? Might be wrong but I don't even see this kinda backlash with trans men, there's not this vocal section of cis men who's like NOOOOO YOURE NOT A MAN IM SPECIAL. It's so silly.

(below is just historical information for context here)

the original reason TERF-ism began was because women were scared laws and regulations which affected them would be commanded or influenced by a party which had different identitiarian needs and perceptions. they also cared largely about how the framing of certain social issues and connected identities would affect institutional political and cultural apparatuses which then ran-off to effect their place in society and identity.
20th century feminism changed very rapidly in the latter half of the century and had very big epistemological splits. the same portion of feminists who went down the anti-porn/anti-sex work/etc route during the Feminist S***Wars of the 70s-80s set the general stage for TERF-styled feminism.
This is different from the actual anti-men/countercultural "radfem" movement prior, which was more exaggerated and less pointedly political per-se, and the post-sex wars feminists were more focused on addressing what they saw pertinent political phenomena and their perceived knock-on effects rather than making countercultural in-roads or being part of outsider groups

I was gonna post the same thing, i was trying to find the discussion of Foucalt (wasnt sure if it was in this thread or the idpol one) but this s*** made me laugh my ass off

Yes I am

77 years ago today

i took a look over all of this and definitely have a lot of thoughts lol

first of all, not shocking about the background of the author bourgeois pseudo-spirituality is easily one of the worst phenomena ever, and it's not even a new one. even back in the olden days, esoterica, secret societies, etc. were obviously more of a trend found among the rich and well-off (i mean so much of the lineage of modern relevant esoterica in the west literally came from connections to british royalty ), or those who at least had the connections or resources enough to live such bohemian or new age lifestyles. This isn't 100% the case obviously, but there's a straight line between "late 1800s esoteric bohemian who is actually from a wealthy arisocratic family" and "2000s new age spiritualist who is actually from a wealthy aristocratic family". Orientialism is also a huge part of this and the extent to which "exotic" "foreign" cultures appeal to the rich who can access them - this too was literally always been the case even now, I mean, how many famous musical artists and commercial writers are Hare Krishnas now? Very rare you see a working class coal miner like "yeah you know what, i think it's time i travel to india to live in an ashram for a bit"

Similarly, the whole "spiritual grifter" thing is obviously a WHOLE different thing altogether, i mean it's a mix of all of that, and also the obvious above mentioned latent orientialism of foreign religions and cultures - like, the same reason you can succeed as a grifting christian missionary in south korea or japan, you can succeed as a hindu grifter like sadghuru in america around a bunch of white people however i also think this doesn't really mean the underlying religion itself should be put to blame as much as those trouncing on it out of cultural opportunism, and I really dislike attempts at hating on or denouncing religion over such

when it comes to critiquing or a***yzing religion, here's the thing i always say - apologists and philosophers of many sects, many origins, many churches have already essentially dissected and answered virtually any philosophical question or pondering about a religion. No random academic or internet thinker is gonna blow a hole in a religion with hundreds if not thousands if not longer years of apologetics and the like, especially since religious scripture and apologetica (i mean, even apocrypha and esoterica too) are some of the best preserved and available works in human history and always have been even across regions. now i know that's not what the point was here but i had to add that because thats one of my biggest annoyances about religious discussion in general

With that said, of course, a***ytics or extrapolations of religion can be new and fresh especially in relation to contemporary concepts of which are indeed unique or new. Like obviously people were not talking about global post-industrial capitalism in relation to their practice 5th century BCE. Discussion of them in that sense ideologically or similar can be interesting, especially as relative cultural facets. The thing is to me, and I mean this in extrapolation to the above part about apologetics and actual teaching, I don't know how much Zizek has actually really read or looked into Buddhism to make the points he's saying. Because if you are to engage with a religion conceptually, you can't just do so with your idea of what you think the religion is, you have to engage with the literal thousands of years of religious philosophical theory if you're making a broad observation about any moral, ethical, etc. system about it.

You could look to the flanderized modern practice of said religion vs its original tenets as a distinction, but if you're that, you aren't really observing the religion, you're observing a separate culture which practices that religion, and that changes what argument you're actually making. When you engage with broad religion as a whole, you have to actually engage with what apologetics and theory exist for it - this is also true in politics, like no serious academic would think a GOP talking point on "marxism" is actually representative of marxist theory because their idea of "marxism" comes from the alignment of the term to what they see in the news and twitter or whatever. Similarly, I don't think any real religious leaders or academics are going to engage with an a***ysis of Buddhism (or any other religion) based on someone's idea of what they think the religion is.

So basically it's hard for me to really talk about what Zizek is saying here because he's engaging more with his interpretation and individual conceptualization of Buddhism rather than the religion itself (I also just cannot stand long form Zizek speeches he drives me insane). I don't think he's actually read anything about Buddhism beyond like a wikipedia page skim and i don't blame him for this, i get it that it's just his job to essentially make conjecture, but because it's all just isolated academic conjecture it's hard to really comment on

Do you have discord

Until we can figure out what's going on

@Scratchin_Bandit

got a feeling the United States is structured to be the very last country that would shift to communism

ppl from
all over the world come here for work for better or worse

so u would be nuking the people of the world

and furthermore it would just be murdering a s*** ton of the working class and effective proletariat and only a small percentage of ruling class

but i get where ur emotional sentiment might come
from given the history and present

No way you think I was actually series

idk some people really are on that s***

i seen ur posts though i know ur smarter than that

"I have a dope book rec if you feel like reading. It's short and easily digestible, not some textbook ish lol
It's called "What Has The Government Done To Our Money?" By Murray Rothbard"

Can someone tell me anything about this book or author

I'm not able to read right now due to disability but I'm hoping to soon but I'm trying to see where this recommendation is coming from because it's from a friend that's been talking about libertarianism

Was recommended in response to me basically saying that capitalism fuels the unsustainable corporate domination we live under and his response was that it's propped up and made possible by government intervention and that free markets would self correct

"The more reading I do though, the more I come to see the market as a living organism. It very actively seeks equilibrium, and will do whatever it can to achieve it. Left alone, it finds it very efficiently. Throw government into the mix and it gets dicey really quickly"

@Scratchin_Bandit @deadac

Man I wish I was as well read as you MFs to really break this down well

This is such cap but btwn my health and my current knowledge I can't bust this up well enough

The thing is there was never such a thing as this free capitalism and never will be. Capitalism needs a state to exist for it to even function and be perpetuated. It needs police and courts and debt collectors to enforce contracts and property, that alone sets up the need for a state