Should we thank socialists and democrats for liberating women?

Should we thank socialists and democrats for liberating women?

Other urls found in this thread:

livescience.com/34832-bdsm-healthy-psychology.html
psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201307/bdsm-personality-and-mental-health
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Thank large-scale capitalism eroding traditional republican values of self-reliance and landownership

There is literally nothing wrong with BDSM thought

No, thank dishwashers and laundry machines

...

No, you should thank women and their slaves.

t. Ivan Ivanoch the Fourth, member of the Russian communist party

Not him but you don't need to be a commie or even a leftie the recognice how capitalism is the biggest enemy of tradition

You really expect some virginal stormlord to differentiate between sexual kinks? Immorality is just the morality of people having a better time than you are, and for him that's a pretty massive cross section of society

t. Hanz Francesco the twelfth

When you're further to the right than Mussolini, everything is hard left

I'm not sure what other way you can interpret the transformation of America from a country of mostly yeoman farmers & independent craftsmen to landless wage-slaves and not recognize the role large-scale capitalism played in that.

>Immorality is just the morality of people having a better time than you are, and for him that's a pretty massive cross section of society

>Immorality is just the morality of people having a better time than you are
The search for a hedonist who makes an actual argument still continues.

>capitalism
>incompatible with marxism
In fact without capitalism the frankfurt school of ''thought'' wouldn't exist since they were funded by industrialists

>The search for a hedonist who makes an actual argument still continues.
Why would they want to come to your compound way out in the sticks just to make company with some angry jealous sperg who can't into BDSM and compares it to political movements?

>if people are enjoying their destructive behavior they you can't criticize it

*then

What are you talking about? Marxism had little to nothing to do with the social, political & economic transformation of America in the 19th century that would culminate in women's suffrage.

You can post the same picture with a bunch of guys tho, so your picture is irrelevant.

Fabian socialism did and fabian socialism was funded by marxists

Other way works too

70% of pro refugees and 90% public prostitutes are women though

user, did you have a brain aneurysm or something?

Contemporary men are degenerate too but at least they have the decency not to support displacement of natives.

You're confusing reaction to action. Socialist agitation wouldn't exist without the legions of drudging urban wageslaves brought about by large-scale capitalism.

Destructive to what? Your inadequacy complex?

I don't disagree

Destructive to themselves and society at large.

No, I'm just old enough to know that a bunch of consenting adults minding their own business not hurting anybody isn't going to cause the downfall of society, no matter how hard virgins scream and cry about it.

>Destructive to themselves
Said no psychologist ever. They're only destructive to your expectations of them
> society at large.
Only to the society that you wish to build. But nobody wants to make stormvirgins the new ruling class, so get over yourself

>Socialist agitation wouldn't exist without the legions of drudging urban wageslaves brought about by large-scale capitalism.
What is the french revolution other than socialist agitators degenerating society? Will you say that 18th century french was a large scale capitalist society?
>implying people in the pic aren't the teachers, journalists and public officers of our age and they don't have influence in society

Consent morality is just infantile, sanctified social abandonment.
Also, nobody is screaming or crying, you can do whatever you want without anyone stopping you. The fact that you find some posts on an internet anonymous imageboard to be the equivalent of that, is telling.

>>implying people in the pic aren't the teachers, journalists and public officers of our age and they don't have influence in society
That pic is a collage some moron made equating BDSM with political movements and eating habits. There's nothing cohesive about it and suggests an extreme lack of understanding about human nature.

Here's a hint: right-wingers can, and do, enjoy BDSM as well.

>marxists will blame capitalism for pic
>they deny the past 200 years of cultural relativism and promoting liberalization of women

Good god I've never seen anyone that defensive about something. If it takes that little to make you that angry, isn't it possible you might be a little too much attached to it?

>Consent morality is just infantile, sanctified social abandonment.
Go live in North Korea if you need a strongman telling you how to live your life and guarding the morals of the nation.

>The fact that you find some posts on an internet anonymous imageboard to be the equivalent of that, is telling.
You mean besides the fact that they're shitting up a history board?

>guarding the morals of the nation.
>if you want to prevent society from being destroyed from within you want a strong totalitarian regime
Found the libertarian jew

Do you really think there is nothing between totalitarianism and thinking that consent between individuals directly involved in something is sufficient for the activity to be good? Or are you just trying to win the discussion?
>You mean besides the fact that they're shitting up a history board?
Yes, of course, you're this angry just because I've done a grand total of 3 posts in a thread on an internet imageboard.

>Good god I've never seen anyone that defensive about something
Nice deflection

> isn't it possible you might be a little too much attached to it?
Isn't it possible that your lack of attachments to society is the reason you so zealously attack it?

8 year old drag queen boy
mother is an antifa
father is a socialist french

Obviously a coincidence

>Found the libertarian jew
Found the kraut

>What is the french revolution other than socialist agitators
Something else entirely than the situation in America that led to Women's Suffrage.

>Do you really think there is nothing between totalitarianism and thinking that consent between individuals directly involved in something is sufficient for the activity to be good?
I think that if you really need to live in the kind of society that you are so desperately advocating, you have options.

They're not good options, they're options which you can't mindlessly romanticize because they exist and we can study what they're actually like, but it's there for you if you want it

>Nice deflection
What would I be defensive about? You might be mistaking me for someone else on here but trust me when I say it you're extremely defensive: someone just stated their opinion on a practice and you're going all over the place trying to defend it while insulting others. This doesn't seem like the behavior of someone who has a healthy relationship with something.
>Isn't it possible that your lack of attachments to society is the reason you so zealously attack it?
But I don't have a lack of attachment to society. And what is "it"? Society? Deviant sexual practices?

>I think that if you really need to live in the kind of society that you are so desperately advocating,
user, the only one who is desperately doing something here it's you. I literally couldn't write in a more calm way. Also, I'm not advocating for any particular type of society, in fact that was kind of my point: there's a whole range in between the two extremes I pointed to, some are better than others.

Women's suffrage was one of the core demands of french revolutionaries

The Industrial Revolution was unironically the worst mistake humanity has committed. It gave the cancer that is Lib*ralism the chance to fester. At least i can be content for the fact it's going to collapse in my lifetime.

>What would I be defensive about?

>"Deviant sexual practices?"
This right here is what you're being defensive about. Two adults minding their own business and you need to be their morality police, barging into their bedroom to tell them that they're causing the downfall of civilization, and then use threat of state coercion to get them to stop.

I call you out on it, and you start with the deflecting. I say it's stupid to equate somebody's sexual kink with their opinion on immigration policy, you start with the "w-why are you so triggered?"

French were always pussy-whipped beta cucks. HONHONHONHON, i'm a fucking unmanly nigger.

You're drifting the conversation away unless your argument is that liberalism and enlightenment values are the cause of it all.

>I literally couldn't write in a more calm way
Me neither, so stop with the ad hominens and stick to the facts.

>in fact that was kind of my point: there's a whole range in between the two extremes I pointed to, some are better than others.
And my point stands: if you hate the society you currently live in, why don't you go live in one of the other ones?

I'm sure there's some small farming community in rural Russia which might fit your exacting standards

The industrial revolution gave the illusion to any low-life that he could change the world and carry on the revolution.
All western thinkers were influenced by this degenerate idea. Obviously the enlightenment is directly related to the french revolution

>Two adults minding their own business
So what? Again, I've already stated what I think of consent morality: it's infantile, it's social abandonment.
Why would two people consenting to do something mean that the thing they're doing is ok?
>and then use threat of state coercion to get them to stop.
When have I ever said that?

>if you hate the society you currently live in, why don't you go live in one of the other ones?
For several reasons that have to do with other opinions I hold.

Hi
poorfag here. If someone knows a very moral strict society please let me know and I'd appreciate any financial help so I can move there
thanks

>consent morality: it's infantile, it's social abandonment.
And I'll state again that you're deflecting from the fact that these attributes probably describe you a lot better than they describe people engaging in "the scene"

And yes, they call it "the scene" because it's often a community of like-minded individuals

>Why would two people consenting to do something mean that the thing they're doing is ok?
Because it doesn't harm anyone, but repressing people does harm them, so you're better off teaching them safe practices so that they moderate their behavior in order to avoid the worst extremes

>When have I ever said that?
Do you really think that you're going to get them to stop by nagging them?

Here's the argument I was trying to make originally before you tried to roll it away to socialism. The traditional Republican values of early America i.e. Lockean, Hobbseian, & further back to Rome & Greece, which were safeguards of traditional morality because of their stress on self-reliance, independence, landownership, thrift, hard work & mutual cooperation were undermined by large-scale capitalism which made it increasingly economically untenable to continue that way of life because of the disproportionate power of concentrated capital and promoted the alternative of landless wage-slavery working in factories which degraded those traditional moral safeguards.

I'm not describing those people, I'm describing that type of ethics.
>Because it doesn't harm anyone
Does it? Are people into BDSM as mentally healthy as the average person? Do you have studies on it?
>Do you really think that you're going to get them to stop by nagging them?
It's called social pressure, it has worked for millennia for all sort of things. It still works for other things now.

>leftists are smart though

>Ivanovich
>the fourth
>commie
First off, using father's name only is wierd. Also in socialist state why would a nobleman subscribe to marxist ideology?

Let's unconfuse your confusion
The american revolution was done by the same kind of people that made the french revolution

There were some structural differences though

A) The american revolution wasn't so anti-clerical
B) The american revolution was done by people who had at least some common sense
C) They shared the same principles and values but they realized society needed a structure like the previous societies based on religion morals (and religious orders)

>undermined by large-scale capitalism which made it increasingly economically untenable to continue that way of life because of the disproportionate power of concentrated capital
Consider this: this was the inevitable goal of the american revolution.
Was it more conservative than the french revolution? yes. Was conservative enough to prevent illuminist (enlightenment) values of moral relativism? no

Moral relativism was the reason wage-slavery and degenerate capitalism found a good place to live in United States

How is capitalism anything but conducive to moral relativism and self-gratification?

>I'm not describing those people, I'm describing that type of ethics.
You're describing a spook
>Does it? Are people into BDSM as mentally healthy as the average person? Do you have studies on it?
livescience.com/34832-bdsm-healthy-psychology.html
People who are allowed to express themselves and find outlets for their creativity and subconscious desires are generally more well-adjusted than people who bottle them up and bury them deep and pretend like they don't exist.
>It's called social pressure, it has worked for millennia for all sort of things. It still works for other things now.
No, it's called social repression, and it only works when people are so poor that they're willing to trade their liberty and need for expression just to put a roof over their heads and food in their stomachs.

Not the one you are talking to but,
>Does it? Are people into BDSM as mentally healthy as the average person? Do you have studies on it?
even if these people's psyches stray from the "norm" the definition of mental illness is not that. It is being in the state of mind that is harmful to youself or others. As long as it doesn't come to it you cant call someone mentally ill because you don't like his practices.
Are all conspiracy theorists mentally ill because they have higher paranoid tendencies than the "norm"?

>You're describing a spook
Bye.
>It is being in the state of mind that is harmful to youself or others
And? That's what I'm talking about. Only my definition of harmful isn't autistically limited to clear-cut cases of physical harm or mental abuse.

>Bye
Don't let the door hit you on the way out

Here's another source for you to consider before you leave

psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201307/bdsm-personality-and-mental-health

Republican values aren't exclusively enlightment values, they predate the enlightment by more than a thousand years. It's why you see Cato & Cicero talking about the evils of selling your labor as 19th century American republicans did. In large measure Republican values were ANTITHETICAL to the values of large-scale capitalism.

Paraphilias are always symptomatic of psychopathology.