Veeky Forums commies

Why are there so many Communists on this board?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=r_zped34120
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

There aren't. Veeky Forums is overwhelmingly anti-communist.

There's like 15 posters from Veeky Forums and /leftypol/ who constantly shill communist bullshit on here and the rest of the board trashes them for it. They're just an extremely loud minority.

to make you mad. One day you'll beg to know the differences between social democracy and communism, just to make the pain stop.

t. Nazi apologist

because history of all societies is the history of class conflict

ignore this tool at your peril

Good.

No I hate nazis just as much.

Because of all the Jesuits in board.
youtube.com/watch?v=r_zped34120

Then I don't see your point. No one really supports communisms here, except when one pits it against Nazism.

Communism is the intelligent man's fetish.

So is cuckdom

This is a libertarian, pro-free market, individualist board. Death to all collectivist socialist fascists.

dream on.

Why are there so many prokies on this board?

>muh horseshoe

Come back when you read some theory

We'll surely find out some day

I hope OP isn't thinking that anyone who actually understand what communism is is automatically a communist

This chart gave me autism.

Whoops posted the non meme version

>Chart made by some dipshit boomer pre-Ron Paul era in 2005
Where is the crying bald eagle watermark? AmericaPatriotFightJihadDOTcom

Being able to separate love from sex does take some IQ above average. In that sense, letting your loved one have sex with others, and not feeling bad about it, is intelligent. After all sex is just a massage, it is love that is sacred and precious.

t. not a cuck

By that logic there is nothing wrong with cheating on your spouse or any type of sexual degeneracy that isn't rape. It doesn't take a genius to seperate love from sex. Hell, even your average idiot can usually tell the difference. The only people who can't seperate love from sex are hedonists.

It takes a truly wise man to know that the purpouse of sex in a relationship is to strengthen the emotional bond between two lovers. Sex is that personal and emotional bond being expressed physically. Cheating and being cucked only weakens these bonds.

Trivializing sex into nothing more than something done for pleasure is what's causing the decline of traditional marriage/relationships in the first place.

Why are there so many Nazis on Veeky Forums, I thought they belonged to /pol/

...

Sex is self-deception. You will never actualize your ideal conception of sex, your partner or intimacy through sex, it will remain forever out of reach. It's just masturbation but with the semblance you're getting closer to ideality without actually doing so, the moment of realizing this coming right at climax.

Who Minarchist Master Race here?

You typed "i" instead of "o" buddy it's understandable they're right next to each other.

>It doesn't take a genius to seperate love from sex.

Yet you will cry to your partner that they don't love you anymore if they cheat.
Its easy on paper, its hard in practice. You will feel the sting of betrayal, just because your partner rubbed bodies with someone else to scratch an itch.

Separating love from sex takes thinking, and most people are bad at it. I can tell by your post you are as well.
Protip: love is much, much more than sex. Think on that obvious statement to realize its implications.

It's obvious you didn't read my post at all and are completely dellusional about the puepouse of sex and why it matters if someone I love cheats on me. Love is NOT about sex, BUT sex should be about love. You are a fool to suggest that thinking sex should be about love means that one cannot seperate love from sex.

This is only because you are way too obsessed with the physical aspect of sex.

>sex should be love
>but you can totally separate sex from love
>except i dont want to, because it makes me feel bad

You are too dumb to separate them. An intelligent person can do so properly, so they don't feel bad about it.
I did read your post, and it shows you are too stupid to do the deed, and your followup only confirms what was already obvious.
I won't argue further, your bad hardware just can't run this software, mate, its futile.

>Why are there so many Communists on this board?
>This is only because you are way too obsessed with the physical aspect of sex.
Good thread!

>love is not about sex
Look at this cuck lmao

>It takes a truly wise man to know that the purpouse of sex in a relationship is to strengthen the emotional bond between two lovers

The ideality of intimacy cannot be truly actualized through sex, and is thus self-deception to think this can be accomplished.

Did you even read my post...

Why are there so many cucks on this board?

Your ad hominens are as pathetic as your hedonism. I am equivocating the word "separate." When I say "love and sex are seperate," I mean it in the sense that they are distinct in their definitions. Can they be seperate? Literally speaking, yea. Should they be seperate? No. And I must emphasise that this is NOT because I see love as just about sex but because I see sex as being about love. This is why I hope to wait until marriage before having sex and abstain from having casual sex entirely. Because I understand that love is not about sex but am smart enough to only use sex for love. A person who is obsessed with the material world and their bodies such as yourself might struggle to understand this.

You think you are smart but the reality is that you are just using hedonism to justify your own sexual degeracy. Ands what is worse is you think it makes you better than other people. You say that I can't seperate love from sex but really you just can't comprehend sex beyond physical pleasure. People like you make me sick.

>waiting until marriage

You just can't comprehend sex for physical pleasure. Your wife will cheat on you with a more experienced and better lover. You will end your life when this occurs, unable to separate her act of wanting a man who can please her with her alleged affection for your person.

Yes I read yor post, did you read mine?

>the ideal cannot be realized
This is true for literally all actions. An artists painting will never fully capture the essence of what he wants to project onto those who observe the painting. Is is then self-deception to for others to think they understand the emotions the artist was trying to convey? No, of course not, that is ridiculous. It's not like the art observers are unaware that they cannot fully grasp what the artist wanted to express.

Having sex (when it is purely an act of love and not pleasure) is like art in this way. Both parties wish to express their love to the other and do so through sex. Does this make it self-deception to have sex for love? No. I don't think sex is supposed to be some sort of "perfect moment" you share with your lover because I am not delusional.

I did read your post, it's just that what you are implying makes no sense.

Also, you technically can't prove that your thesis is true for anyone but yourself since it requires you to have an understanding of others subjective experinces.

Who do you take me for? Some sort of neckbeard who is desperate for sex and a wife? I don't really give a shit. I've already had a girlfriend who actually did cheat on me and leave me because I refused to have sex with her after we had been dating for over a year. Did it hurt? Hell yeah it did. But did I kill myself or dwell on it for too long? Fuck no. I hope me having a fairly happy life with no need to ever have sex triggers you.

>Is is then self-deception to for others to think they understand the emotions the artist was trying to convey?

Yes, yes it is. It is deception to think that any communication between people can ever be comprehended fully. All communication is approximation. All relationships are an approximation. All love is an approximation. An approximation between one ideal and another through the medium of an actuality.

>Also, you technically can't prove that your thesis is true for anyone but yourself since it requires you to have an understanding of others subjective experinces

The very fact that they are subjective experiences proves my thesis. If you cannot realise this then by virtue you have proven my "thesis"

WTF I hate intelligence now

>it is deception to think that any communication between people can ever be comprehended fully

But I don't, therefore I am not decieving myself. I am aware of the subjective nature of consciousness. But I am also not so ignorant as to think that universals don't exist. Although things might be comprehended slightly differently from person to person, these universals can be comprehended in some way by everyone. And I believe they exist outside of our subjective experince as well.

You say the delusion comes from thinking I can create an ideal situation through my actions? But I don't think that, and never have. Therfore, there is no delusion in what I do. My goal is not to reach for the ideal, I simply aim for what is right below it. The closest a human can get. It would also be absurd to assume that being unable to reach the ideal would make my actions meaningless.

Holy rationalization, Batman.

>thread about communism
>devolves into chat about sex and cucking

jfc does this shit have to get into every thread

>thread about politics
>the word cuck shows up
>omg how dis hapen?

Are you new to /pol/?

Sorry I might not have explained myself well enough. I don't mean "ideality" as in the best possible thing. I mean it as in "idea" or your thoughts, motives, etc. Probably easier to explain it in contrast to "actuality" or things which exist outside your head. So when I say that "you can't actualise the ideal" I mean that any thoughts and emotions you might have of sex, your partner, your intimacy, your love etc. even those thoughts in the moment will never line up with what is actually happening, nor will your thoughts match up with what your partner is thinking. Which becomes a problem when emotional intimacy is defined by how close (i.e. how similar) you are with your partner, how your feelings for each other are mutual. When you say "I love you" to your partner, it means a different thing to your partner and a different thing to what you think it means to your partner and vice versa,

The closer you get, the more intimate you get with someone, the further apart you actually are because of the self-deception that you are intimate, and that what you are both thinking line up in some way. When you are aware of your self-deception in this regard, even if you are content with it, by definition you are not intimate with your partner since you recognize your conception of what your intimacy with your partner is doesn't match up with your partners and vice versa. You either delude yourself of the possibility of intimacy or you deny the possibility altogether.

Am I saying that you should abandon love? No, do what you want. But the notion that sex is a way to get closer to your partner, to get more intimate (on a level other than purely physical) is an act of self-deception.

This thread has been thoroughly cucked

>mfw a thread that would probably be about communism bashing by autistics reduced to autistics unironically arguing about cuckolding among each other

#
Your ideas about how different each individual subjective experince is from the next is way too extreme imo. In reality, I think they are not that far apart and all our subjective experinces are more alike then they are unalike.

Remember what I said two posts ago? What you are saying suggests that to write a poem or paint a picture in an attempt to communicate is self-deceptive. But I say this isn't true. It's not only perfectly natural for us to try and express our emotions this way, it is virtually the only way we can do it. This is literally why we have sex. We try to convey out feelings of love to each other the same way an artist tries to convey his opinions through a painting. It's not self-deception, it is a very intimate form of communication. That is why what you suggest is absurd, because it implies all communication is in some way a type if self-deception. Its not. The fact that I cannot communicate perfectly does not make communication meaningless.

I would even argue that pleasure is merely a result of successful communication. Just like an artist or poet feels great joy when someone understands what he was trying to express, sex feels so much better when you share it with someone you love.

Self-deception = meaningless

>I think they are not that far apart and all our subjective experinces are more alike then they are unalike
Whether they are not that far apart is irregardless of the fact that you cannot know how far apart you are. It will always be a deception of a kind when communicating. Communication, language, sex, relationships, all of it is, as you say, absurd. The only real way to get out of this loopdyloop is to have faith, suspend reason in the face of the paradoxical and absurd. Which is ok btw. I think my greater point (if I'm going to have any) is that things like love, intimacy, sex aren't things meant for reason or logic. These thing betray what they mean, if they are to mean anything at all.

Also
>sex feels so much better when you share it with someone you love
can confirm for a fact that this isn't always the case. Love can be a burden as much as it is liberating. One night stands are great because you don't have to worry about the future, being good at what you're doing or anything beyond the sex as it is, in and of itself. You fully immerse yourself in the moment. I'd argue this is the closest someone can get to real intimacy in a certain sense

Whoops, self-deception =/= meaningless

Also >irregardless
fml don't even listen to me

Don't know, I hate both capitalism and communism.

All good historians have a tendency to the mindset of that as a master that orientates as an anchor to their jigsawed world view. And communism works great when you are organising peasentrt/masses/slaves/citizens/plebs. Go catching one walking those shoes though.

Signed, human nature.

>The only real way to get out of this loopdyloop is to have faith
Somebody has been Kierkegaard. I like Kierkegaard too, but one has to be careful when reading him so as to not become an existentialist.

>all of it is, as you say, absurd
You lack faith in the universals. We need reason just as much as we need faith in order to believe things. It is not sufficent to have just one. I'm not sure how much you know about Kierkegaard's writings, but I will reference him here. Living in the "ethical" or "universal" requires reason, and the leap of faith requires the abandonment of the ethical. *However,* the ethical is a *necessary* step in reaching the paradox of faith. You MUST learn reason before you learn faith. It's like learning to walk before you learn how to run. It's a process. True faith is founded in reason. This is why Kierkegaard did not consider those who were mindlessly obidient to be "knights if faith." They are still trapped in the individual.

>can confirm for a fact that this isn't always the case.
I return to my original argument, which is that you fail to seperate sex from pleasure and that is why we see things differently. It requires not only a strong mind but a strong will to see sex as something more than pleasure. You lack faith yourself. You lack faith in sex as an act of love. I said earlier that sex can be seperate from love, but ony in the technical sense. It seems reasonable that someone who quite literally lacks faith in sex would actually derive less pleasure from it when used for love. Think about how people who have no faith in God derive literally no pleasure from going to church, but those who do have faith enjoy it quite a bit.

>self-deception =/= meaningless
Sure, but true faith is very different from self-deception.

That's what happens when your entire ideology is about identity politics, feminist worship and allowing every "refugee" you meet to peg you so you can apologise for your ""white privilege""

> seperate sex from pleasure and that is why we see things differently
What no I'm saying the love of a stranger can, can, be better. Sex is also pretty heavily linked to pleasure, and you have to have some level of love or connection to actually take pleasure from it.

inb4 you can orgasm during rape or w/e

orgasm=/=pleasure

You should try sex sometime my dude, feels good. Don't need something arbitrary like marriage to affirm that it's about love either

Extreme reaction to the opposite of the status quo, because they can't figure out how to operate successfully under current conditions.

The same reason why there are so many nazis on this board

There is like 20 posters total on this board, though.

And yeah Kierkegaard is pretty lit but I don't agree with everything he says (desu I think he made the aesthetic life too attractive in either/or)

...

notice how i said in almost every thread in general, it's mainly /pol/ types who are always desperate to bring it up too

I guess you didn't know as much about kierkegaard as I thought you did. I thought you did because of all that talk about the paradoxial and absurd and belief beyond logic.

Anyway, it seems that I can convince you no further of my beliefes. You see, my seperation of things from pleasure is not just exclusive to sex. I reject doing anything solely for the purpouse of physical pleasure. That is hedonism.

Also, the aincients teach that no action has the natural purpouse of pleasure, but I am sure that I would be unable to convince you of that.

Oh nevermind, maybe you do and just disagree with him. I've actually never read either/or. I've only read Fear and Trembling, The Sickness Unto Death, and Dread.

Wrong, it's mostly you leftypol fags that bring up cuck shit

You probably thought you were being clever

I believe it's mainly anglos coming up with this sexually repressed blathering, independently of their political leanings.

imo it's probably his best work. It gets better the more you read his other stuff since he hides little nuggets of his whole philosophy into the book. And one of his works where he wasn't being intentionally obscurist, so it's pretty easy to read

How do speak so surely about a topic you have 0 experience with? Teach me your ways.

>implying anyone on leftypol doesn't live in a wealthy middle class suburb
>implying anyone on leftypol lives in a country where their leftists fantasies have been implemented

Deductive reasoning trumps inductive reasoning. Its a lot harder to prove things through logical formulae but if you can then it will always be more reliable than empirical evidence. If want to know why I argue with confidence than read Fear and Trembling by Kierkegaard and also see my post here Thanks for the recco, I'll put it on my list

>tfw I'm 1 of 20 and I'm just a Byzaboo Srbposter

the /pol/ cuck obsession isn't even on leftypols radar tbqh

>tfw when only 2/20 of the posters aren't shitposters

It's a conserted colonization effort planned at /r/socialism. Anyone got the screenshot?

>"The World of Abraham"
>Modern borders drawn over everything

>this is what leftypol shills actually think
Go into any leftist thread and you see leftypol talking about "wagecucks" and other nonsense

Roaches are trying to colonize my board?

These two images could replace /pol/

Wagecuck was a term created in /r9k/ before /leftypol/ was created

Why are leftists so devoid of creativity?

Why can't leftypol create their own memes?

Leftist memes are shit in general. Leftists seem to be completely inept at humor, stealing most of their memes from either something unrelated or, more humerously, from political opponents. I think leftists suffer from some mental disability.

>MUH LEFTYPOL

Stop bringing up an irrelevant board on cripplechan, christ almighty. Even their /pol/ is bigger. This is the worst attempt at false equivalence I've ever seen.

There is a leftiepol thread on this website too.

>Stop bringing up an irrelevant board on cripplechan, christ almighty. Even their /pol/ is bigger. This is the worst attempt at false equivalence I've ever seen.

Nice damage control comrade
#blackpower
#WorkersRev2017
#IntersectionalfeminismFTW