Socialism

>liberalism

>democracy

>natural rights

>power differential

>prolegomena to X

>Free Willy

Attached: Herman_Melville.jpg (448x672, 101K)

>the X paradox

>a queer exploration of X

>interpellation

>a Materialist Theory of X

What the hell is that thing? And here I thought the snail knights were weird.

medieval marginalia are fucking brilliant

Attached: file.png (730x479, 745K)

top medieval memeing

>we've gotten to a point where everyone just advocates their side by calling another position Orwellian
What a great time to be alive.

Defining yourself is the sure fire way to let people know that you're a brainlet.

>I'm a socialist!
>I'm left-wing!
>I believe in progressive taxation!

Do you honestly think anyone actually gives a fuck about your opinion? Keep your opinions to yourself, the are completely irrelevant to any discussion - the only pertinent things are arguments and data. Do you have any? If not, you're literally worthless.

"He who defines himself can not know who he really is."

so tsundere...

>stop trying to fit a description of yourself in 140 characters
Are you critiquing Twitter profiles?

>the only pertinent things are arguments and data
What do you think "opinion" means

Nope. I'm critiquing the fact that people are more interested in finding a group they identify with so that they can latch onto it, than the actual discussion at hand. This behaviour is observed in children but for some reason it permeates through adulthood. Political systems, philosophical schools of thoughts, sports teams... it's all part of the same psychological process of group attachment.

It's not a war, I don't see the need to pigeon-hole yourself into right, left, libertarian, communist and whatever the fuck else. All it does is limit your understanding of the world through selective and confirmation bias.

Do I really need to spell this out for you?

Opinions:

>I believe that guns should be...
>I think that abortion is...
>I'm of the opinion that Black people are...

Actual arguments:

>In 1987, an experiment showed that guns...
>A study showed that 96% of abortions...
>Historical evidence suggests that Black people...

>140 characters

Attached: 1478287022064.jpg (699x485, 69K)

>Opinions:
>Actual arguments:

Attached: 1469835038746.gif (180x180, 216K)

wtf! I think this user has solved public discourse forever, we don't need to argue anymore!

Fucking retard.

>name a bigger pseud red-flag
>the only pertinent things are arguments and data.

>appeal to history
>Actual arguments:
top kek

Hierarchy of arguments:

Top tier: refuting the argument
Good tier: providing a counter argument
Low tier: negation
Shit tier: namecalling
Retard tier: quoting the argument and attaching a reaction image to it

Attached: 1520155327125.jpg (388x389, 44K)

u have it upside down lmao

Straight from reddit oven... mmmm, you smell mighty fine boy.
>unzips
>uncoils length
Here we go! Lets add some salt!

God tier: autism

>appeal to history
Appeal to history is appeal to conservative values, not actual history.

Elder god tier: reporting the post for rule breaching and hiding the thread

Sadly, it's a lost art.

L M A O

I can't stop laughing at this. At least you're funny.

Sewer tier: making a meme list

conservative values are only progressive values from 10 years ago, if you are going to appeal to something at least appeal to an eternal truth of tradition, not to slowing down progressives but standing for nothing positive of your own

I'm not appealing to anything other than logic and reason. You can't accuse me of being fallacious.

logic and reason are just internet meme words like any other meme word

>logic and reason
show me 1 country or at least 1 project of any kind founded and developed on logic and reason

protip: you can't

So is postmodernism.

Brother, I think you forget that evidence and data without some other moral principle or ideology is useless. If I say "A study showed that 96% of abortions are x," that information is meaningless without a reason why x is good or bad, socially desirable or not. That is where ideology and opinion come in

Elliptic curve cryptography

Checkmate postmodernist

postmodernism means nothing, it's only a tactic to hide grand narratives by pretending that you don't have them, then applying deconstruction selectively to further your well hidden grand narrative

Yes of course. It's a bit different, however, to simply state your personal views as though they had any value, which is the conventional method of discourse.

I'm a Heideggerian scholar you don't need to repeat this to me.

You're right, and the desperate source for a political or philosophical identity is sad

fear of people seeing your naked ass is not logic or reason, it's emotion

Attached: 1480222037886.png (526x493, 126K)

It's so sad that I make a post basically advising people to transcend past silly labels and view themselves as complex human beings and you dumb fucks reply to me with greentext and fedoras.

GOOD BYE.

Attached: 1511110200184.png (500x375, 222K)

I am so far above le masses.

> implying there's anything wrong with that

Attached: 880.jpg (474x528, 10K)

Is this how you react when people tell you to excel at something?

It was to be expected.
If you live in a messy house, and you clean your room, the rest of your family is more likely to take offense at you cleaning your room ("Who does he think he is? Does he think he is better than us?") than to follow your example.

People don't need to tell me to excel at something

More like we got offended at a brainlet who has a naive understanding of public discourse

edit: Thanks for the gold kind stranger!

nobody objected to being above labels it was ur logic cock sucking that got ppl rustled

>Retard tier: quoting the argument and attaching a reaction image to it

Attached: 1434187384059.png (599x554, 147K)

Literally upside down

>I think

>I

All pinkos should just die

Attached: 1518811828486.png (800x533, 111K)

>therefore I am

>therefore

>some monk a thousand years ago was brapposting

>don't define yourself, don't stick to a stable identity
>ignore substantial political disagreements
>you gotta be non-dogmatic and eclectic about everything dude, like, be yourself

Lmao, This is the most normie brainlet opinion for the post-modern age, and you don't even realise it
People have coherent opinions about socio-economic policy which can be grouped into categories, why does this bother you so much? Your inability to hold an actual opinion about anything is not praiseworthy, it just perpetuates the prevailing form of society.

You are very immature to think that your opinions are anything more than a feeble at attempt at making sense of your limited weltanschauung.

The best argument you can possibly logically respond with is a greentexted quote and a reaction image????????????

I mean there are two people saying it’s upside down, can either of you explain your logic please?

Should I literally JUST be green texting and posting reaction images? I thought I was doing a good thing by posting arguments with supported data, but I guess not???????

>arguments
>Supported data

Attached: forrester.jpg (830x460, 65K)

> I thought I was doing a good thing by posting arguments with supported data, but I guess not?

Attached: a25bb324a8d4272591be7a7fc660b383.png (619x406, 261K)

Trying too hard brah

>this poster

Attached: 1394325377869.png (478x523, 14K)

Look! There the two are!!!

My opinions don't have to reflect divine truth, they just have to be capable of affecting change in some way. Politics is a form of practice, messy and contradictory, but expecting anything else out of it would be silly anyway - every opinion you express is colored ideologically whether you admit it or not. The user above is naive and idealistic because he thinks that we could solve everything if we just stopped being ideological and calmly discussed issues separately - this is not how things work. Often you *have* to be ideological and follow a strict line to effect a desired change, or heavily compromise one aspect of your beliefs to support another aspect which you deem more urgent or important.
There is no neutral ground here, a topdown view from which we can discuss ethical, political etc. matters rationally - there are only a multitude of worldviews which have to battle it out for dominance and representation while keeping opposing views sufficiently in check. If I heavily disagree with a prevailing form of politics, I will align myself with an opposing block which mirrors my own beliefs to the greatest extent, and balance this with the capability of that block to affect the desired ends. Being a non-aligned individualist is the greatest dogmatic folly here. People are not liberal individuals in an imaginary city-state here everyone gets to participate in each and every decision, we have to struggle as much as we can and take what we can get, especially when the society starts falling to pieces around us.

>????????????

Attached: 1471886075217.png (585x353, 66K)

@ idiot logic cuck

Attached: DIsK-z-XYAAPNkH.jpg (1024x417, 58K)

thanks for writing a guide on how to get used as a puppet

Because both sides are authoritarians who want to control what you think without having an iota of self-awareness.

We live in post-post-post-modern internet culture. If you want to make a decent point then you will have to drench it in at least two levels of irony to make people pay any attention to it.

>only my special political beliefs aren't authoritarian, everyone else is a sheep
Has your mom made dinner yet?

Attached: 1474601936139-lit.jpg (1280x720, 65K)

you are actually bending over to an individual if that said individual is using your left or right wing affiliation to gain an advantage

and that happens, let's see, in every country, all the time

You suck at memeing. Authoritarians always do.

>tfw there will never be a second zizek

the younger philosophers watch their fucking health nowadays

>authoritarian

Attached: 7DxFujX.png (485x443, 21K)

What's the alternative?
If you support a position that happens to align more or less to an established political conception, does that mean you should abandon it to remain a non-affected individualist? Why?

>everything is authoritarian
>authoritarianism doesn't exist

Dare I say you guys have been orwelled

user you're awesome, fuck these brainlets

abandoning it and searching for a way to be socially active in the scope of your own individual thoughts and possibilities which allows you to shit on all of the establishment instead of sitting in front of a laptop and liking tweets of a representative who is gonna shit on you the first chance he gets

Orwell probably did more harm to socialism as a whole than any consistent anti-communist ideologue.
I fucking get sick when every political discussion that veers away from liberal centrism resorts to 1984 allusions. Fuck off with his shitty book already, read a decent history of the USSR.

>Orwell probably did more harm to socialism as a whole than any consistent anti-communist ideologue.
That's why I love him. Your ideology is shit. Equality is stupid.

"fuck off with the shitty book, NO ONE TOLD YOU TO MAKE A PROFILE ON FACEBOOK"

>read a decent history of the USSR.
You mean one on your /leftypol/ recommended reading list?