Has there been any philosophic attempts to theorize about the eradication of what can be considered worthless men, i.e...

but isn't the pursuing of subjective definitions of life, liberty and happiness create the byproducts necessary for the functioning of a capitalist society?

All self-edifying projects are delusions, Just some are societally preferred and encouraged, as opposed to others which are discouraged by economic and juridical controls

You're living in a disenchanted meta-bourgeois cesspit, and you think the people who are discontent with the cesspit are the superfluous ones, just because their rejection of cesspit normativity leaves them without another ground to stand on and they become deformed in the process of rejecting the status quo.

You're so presentist that you think "ethics" is equivalent to "how well you perform by the standards of whatever Is, Now." Normativity for normativity's sake. You don't want to find an objective or higher moral vantage point to judge what you see. You just want to assume that whatever Is, because it simply Is, Now, i.e., it's what you were born into, is the order that should be maintained. And not only that, you want to ENFORCE it, without having even read anything that would make you specially qualified to be its enforcer. It Is, it apparently has normative conditions, and it apparently has people who fail to live up to those conditions, so you might as well get a stick and start beating those people.

You aren't even ideological. You're just a tumor on liberalism's corpse. You're the party communist in 1988 who thought that everything would be solved by properly truncheoning the masses back into wise submission to what Is, Now, and therefore what must always be.

You're basically an animal. You're an antibody defending cancerous growths on a braindead organism. I'll take a fat schizoid who breaks the mold for the sake of breaking it over your pointless unconscious ass any day. At least the crazy fat guy reveals the possibility of other ways of being. You're

redundant.*

Look back in Anger, John Osborne

Go pick that up and read it now!

you'll take the fat schizoid, but the fat schizoid won't take you. Unless you have the last chicken tendie.

not OP but i actually agree with this but only because it's self-aware and realistic.
Had you held these opinions out of spite alone i would try to smite you.

this post illustrates what i meant in:
the fat schizoid is essentially human-cancer but he has a right to exist so long as it's respectful to others

So the only true difference between you and the OP is that the fat schizo deserves to live in your system and he does not deserve to live in OP's. I'd personally take OP he probably can talk about interesting things other than anime and how his masturbation sickens him (though he may well be a fat schizo).

I also do not see much difference then between OP who you characterized in a hysterical diatribe and the schizoid. As far as I see it you see them as both cankers on a rotting organism/cesspit or other composition of disgust you conjured up.

>I also do not see much difference then between OP who you characterized in a hysterical diatribe

what?
I'm beginning to think that the schizo might be you.

>a right to exist

sounds spoopy

fucking stirnerfags always get hung up on semantics.

>fat ugly loser detected who gives nothing to the world and who'll die alone without anyone caring detected

Go back to your anime and leave people alone. Stay indoors at all costs, you vile cretin

It may very well be my friend, but please, lets not get off track!

I am confused now by your characterisation of the hypothetical schizoid as Human-cancer, but a cancer that nonetheless deserves to live. A similar but far more detailed description of OP resulted in you calling him very much the same thing with the exemption that he was somehow enforcing the same corrupt ideology that the Schizoid wanted to escape from. You respect the schizoid for trying to reveal the possibility of a new way of being and yet you still call him a human cancer (No doubt if he is a human cancer as you say wouldn't that be because of his actions demonstrated in finding this new way of being?) I am confused by this position you have taken. You have also asserted that he has a right to exist so long as he is respectful to others which is slightly different to trying a new way of being, as trying to escape the cesspit and assert such a new way of life would be disrespectful to the sensibilities of those in the cesspit, people such as OP but also their families who have had the time, love and effort in raising this child potentially squandered and it is the schizoid in the attic, the basement, or (if they are lucky) the second house that the family rents out where the schizoid languishes resembling the corpse you so thoroughly described.

If the system is flawed, this eliminates the only way for it to fix itself. The solution to all problems is to take rationality over authority.

>the person who wrote this thinks he is a winner

seriously, read your post to yourself aloud and then the post you were responding to and ask yourself who sounds more insane

There's an entire genre of Russian lit devoted to this, look up the "superfluous man." The book Oblomov explores this concept well, in addition to being well written and often hilarious.

yeah it's called communism or fascism or anarcho-capitalism

>t. disgusting frog shitter who is an absolute affront to all aesthetic sensibilities and smells like literal shit

>people who win in life get this angry over anonymous people, people whom they know nothing about except what they project into them based on their OWN experience
I'm only guessing, but my theory makes a lot more sense than yours

one or both of you is a troll

go post a frog, creep

The beauty of it all is that they eventually will disappear if left to their own devices. They become rightfully insecure and retreat from the larger world. At that point they can be called upon to do jobs for monkeys or be the first in line to run towards a Gatling gun. They are expendable and that may be their greatest utility.

In another way they create the distinction between good and bad. without them the next guys up in ranking of adequacy would be the target of disdain and shame. These men may actually have something to offer and their gifts would be potentially wasted without the meek and incompetent to take the sharp end of dominance disputes.

They are useful because they are not. Until the great are greater the weak will remain as defecient with reason.

keep winning, Mr. Anonymous

It's nice when they post suicide threads :)

Plato's Republic

I too admire promiscuous middle-management women on Facebook with red-wine addcition and multiple cats at once, in their future, and the internet boys who inexplicably worships them through puzzling, impotent hatred directed towards "worthless men".

>t. disgusting unloved loser who'll never know romantic love

>the internet boys who inexplicably worships them through puzzling, impotent hatred directed towards "worthless men".

oddly insightful

it literally is an attempt to win their approval

...

the number one goal of science should be to figure out which fetuses will end up being physically unattractive once grown up and abort the pregnancy. it will be a great humanitarian advancement.

>muh progress

Bit spooky in here

I agree, but on the other hand all women are literally subhuman and there's no reason to tolerate their existence now that science has made their only indispensable function redundant, so we should focus on getting rid of women before we deal with the worthless men.

if robots are "holding you back" you dun' fucked up. failed normie i believe they call it.

you are so mad online

See, all women are intellectually capable of is petty sniping, and their only purpose in life is to sow discord amongst men and ruin creative male groups which are attempting to accomplish higher, non-material goals. Women are the cancer on the body of the human race.

>the eradication of what can be considered worthless men

this only works if worthless women are enslaved, otherwise all you've done is tip the balance of power in favor of a proportionally far more worthless gender (outside reproduction, which responsibility they generally choose to avoid when given a choice, proving that they are biologically unsuited to making choices)

>Has there been any philosophic attempts to theorize about the eradication of what can be considered worthless men
Kinda?

The whole eugenics movement is like that.

this. the idea that there is such a thing as a worthless man but not such a thing as a worthless woman can be based on one assertion only: that any and all women derive some measure of worth to the species through their biological function (one man can father many children, but only with access to many impregnation-receptacles).

However, as I stated this is true with the caveat that any woman who would choose not to participate in the healthy reproduction of the species is a worthless woman, and a cursory examination of reproduction-rates in those countries which grant women the most freedom suggests this is a very high proportion, which means that in a free society the biological worth argument becomes meaningless.

A worthless woman *could* hypothetically attain worth by becoming a mother; but if granted the choice, the worthless woman will not, thus she is at least as worthless as the worthless man. But if we reject western liberalism and compel the worthless woman into worth, then we may as well compel the worthless man into it also, as doing so would probably take less expense and effort than his extermination.

So really, what OP has done is trigger the demonstration of the point that the best solution to the worthless man and the worthless woman is a shotgun-wedding at the hands of worthy society as a whole, to remove them from the concern of "The Rest of Us", and compel each to shoulder the social burden of the other.

Ironically, this will be a far graver punishment to both than would a merciful death, while also costing less of, and profiting more to, society than simple mass-euthanasia.

Absoiutely. Imagine a world without the frogmen. Bringes a tear to the eye desu

Women are pretty, ugly men are gross. Therefore the latter should die

Eugenics. You can read any number of British gentleman-scholars from the past couple of centuries, the Darwin-Huxley-Galton families being the most famous. Charles Darwin, Julian, Aldous and T.H. Huxley, Francis Galton and Thomas Malthus. Fabian Socialist thinkers of the early 20th century were also strong advocates of eugenics - George Bernard Shaw, the Webbs and H.G. Wells, among many others.

Plato too. Also the Venetian thinker who Malthus plagarized his work from, can't remember his name off the top of my head though. Eugenics was hugely popular in early-20th century US, Edwin Blacks' "War Against the Weak - Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race" is excellent and well worth a read.

Thanks guys. That's exactly what I was looking for.

This was somewhat based up until you'd take the fat schizoid for the sake of breaking it right after you condemned him for normalcy for the sake of normalcy.

You committed the same sin he did, except yours is even worse because at least choosing normalcy for the sake of normalcy bulwarks society and thus standards of art and beauty, regardless of how arbitrary they may be, whereas your choice is just blowing it all up for by your own admission no reason.

Hegesias
Mainländer
Solanas