Pretentious nonsense.

That is, this simplistic version of "he was just like that for no other reason than to have been so, therefore, he and his works are to be despised." Not a very good argument, even if true. — Outlander

I'm giving the "short story" obviously, but what I suggested was that people read his biography for themselves.

If it's true, it's a good argument. It might not be a pretty argument, but alas sometimes the facts aren't pretty.

You wouldn't take health advice from an obese, alcoholic, chainsmoker either.

He was obviously persecuted by the State for his beliefs when alive. A State that was not an open, free society and therefore has no problem ruining a citizen's life, if not outright taking it. — Outlander

Marx cannot blame the state for his utter lack of moral character. When I call him a "bum", I'm putting it extremely lightly.

Let me stipulate again, he let his family whither away in abject poverty (even by standards of the time) - resulting in the death of most of his children and perpetual ill health of his wife - while he himself was being showered in money by benefactors like Engels, most of which he squandered on cigarettes, drink and opium.

Of all of Marx's children, the only one to lead a long life was a son he illegitimately conceived with his maid (because of course he would) and was not raised in his household.

I pity his wife.

"I don't care what Mike Tyson does outside the ring." — unimportant

Fair. I don't care what Marx did outside of being a bum either.

Is it not a case of judge the message and not the man? — unimportant

A fair question, to which I would answer "no" - the man and the message are both important, especially when it comes to philosophy.

People may say and write many things, proclaiming to uphold lofty ideals, etc. - that all costs very little.

The resulting actions are what make the man, to serve as the living proof that one is able to live according to their professed ideals, and that doing so will result in an actual ideal.

Now, we are all human and I don't expect philosophers to be infallible, but Marx is truly an extraordinary specimen.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, I suggest you read his biography.

You'd believe anything you read, now wouldn't you? — Outlander

Well, it is attested to by Marx himself in writing, and you seem to ascribe some special value to his written words.

If his were my legacy, I'd rather not be remembered at all.

Thanks for the invitation, but there are no good conversations about Marx or Marxism to be had.

I don't hate anyone, by the way. I'm just not one for mincing words. Marx was a lowlife who made his wife and children suffer in destitute poverty to fund his smoking, alcohol and drug habits. He did this off other people's money, of which he received copious amounts.

A cartoonist couldn't come up with a better caricature of a useless bum.

The only interesting question about this man and his "philosophy" is what lapse of sanity had people taking him or it seriously.

In fact, Marx affirmed his own state of weakness for his entire life.

Before you read his philosophy, I suggest reading his biography and then ask yourself the poignant question whether this is the sort of "man" you would take economic advice from.

'Penniless bum', 'deadbeat husband', 'petty thug' and 'shameless antisemite' are some of the nicer terms I could use to describe his person.

That might sound like an ad hominem to some, but it's not even half of it. It's like these terms were especially invented for this absolute hog of a man.

I think it's just about possible to argue that the popularity of Marx's philosophy might have been partly based on ressentiment—and that actions by some of his adherents were motivated by it, e.g., in the violence of revolutionary movements—but not that his philosophy is itself based on it, since ressentiment, at least in Nietzsche's use of the term, includes not only projecting blame on to the stronger party but also and obversely celebrating or affirming one's own state of weakness. This is something Marx's philosophy does not do: it seeks to abolish the conditions of weakness. — Jamal

No one who is accused of harboring Nietzschean ressentiment believes of themselves that they are 'affirming their own state of weakness'. However, Nietzsche would argue that is exactly what Marxism does by glorifying the role of the worker while leading them to the promised yet hitherto conspicuously absent communist utopia (a century and counting, by the way).

"The meek (read: the workers) shall inherit the Earth."

Well, how's it going?

Marx called religion the "opium of the people," though ironically his philosophy is entirely ressentiment-based, and it is ressentiment that functions as "opium" for the weak and disenfranchsed to this day; never actually producing anything positive for them (except psychological self-gratification), and being responsible for the myriad of humanitarian catastrophes that communism is well-known for.

What did Marx expect a dismissal of the spiritual world to result in, other than mass capitalism? It's the logical consequence.

In a further twist of irony, religion, for all its faults, is often the moral glue that binds vulnerable communities together. Without it, they fall apart in a negative spiral of crime and demoralization from which there is no escape.

So Marx, in addition to having the blood of tens of millions on his hands, did the poor of this world a gigantic disservice by inviting them into a cult of godless materialism - the very thing it purports to fight.

UK, Australia and Canada recognise Palestinian state, Israel condemns decision

An important development.

The Anglosphere is the part of the world the US cares most deeply about, and three out of five countries comprising the Anglosphere have now recognized Palestine, with the fourth (New Zealand) presumably soon to follow.

It's important to stress that US relations with the Anglosphere are fundamentally different from every other part of the world. The US considers these countries as actual allies (rather than mere interests), since they are in practical terms all English-speaking islands and therefore share very similar geopolitical challenges.

You haven't experienced unsafety, so you fence with paper realities that describe a society that once was.

Good for you. I wouldn't wish such a thing on anyone.

But in essence all you're saying is, because you are safe, there is no problem. Unsafety, for you, is a statistical anomaly. For me and many others it is reality.

All I can say is, I wonder how many months of being terrorized in and around your home you'd be able to stomach before you sang a different tune.

When the authorities cannot or refuse to keep me safe, they have no moral grounds to deny me the means to protect myself. It is really as simple as that.

Just for the record, I would take my chances even running away from a gun wielder at 20 yards+ - they're not that likely to hit you lethally. A knife wielder in a small alley or corridor - you're chanceless.

Gun vs gun in a small alley - at least it's 50/50, and the other side will realize this as well. You have a counter-threat.

You don't get to choose from those options. The other guy has a knife, and you have nothing.

Or maybe you started to feel the gravity of unsafety, and you wield a knife as well. I'd love to hear your thoughts on fighting a guy twice your size in a knife fight. Keep in mind, if you manage to defend yourself using a knife (which in many countries you're prohibited from using in self-defense) you may also be guilty of murder - possibly premeditated.

And believe me, you wouldn't be debating college students in public if you had any awareness that there were serious threats on your life.

Running away is perhaps the most effective option. — Michael

Of course it is - and it would be the first option I'd consider.

Unfortunately, if someone is out to seriously hurt you, they will have considered it as well.

I'm talking about fending off a knife fighter and you only have your bare fists.

Also, I agree that wars would be less deadly without guns - they would be less deadly for the side made up of criminals fighting against the side made up of law-abiding, normal people.

It would be a landslide for the criminals.

You know what, maybe they are not effective, but they're a hell of a lot more effective than your bare fists I'll tell you that much.

But if you have any ideas on how to fight off a knife wielder with your bare hands without losing your throat, I am all ears buddy.

Of course they're effective. That's why we send people to other countries wielding them. :lol:

This is a straight-forward dodge. Fuck your paper reality.

Interesting.

To be clear, I think US gun laws are much too loose, but I think there are ways to sensibly mitigate the risks while still allowing citizens to carry protection when the authorities neglect their duties.

And I would much rather have "the great equalizer" as called it.

Criminals already have access to firearms, even in my country, that has virtually no legal firearms.

But what about a knife wielder? How are you going to protect yourself against that? What about a knife wielder who is also twice your size?

I'm in the unfortunate position where I've had to contemplate my options in such a situation, and my conclusion is that I would 1000% prefer to go toe-to-toe with firearms, than I would against a knife wielder. One stab in the neck and it's over, as recent events have shown.

Grim, I know, but this is reality. We are not living in the '90s anymore. Society has changed.

But you know, if you have any advice for me I'm all ears.

General unsafety, police being completely powerless to stop it - it's obvious what he means.

UK and many other countries in Europe including my own are turning into shitholes. The sense of safety that once was is now just an illusion. People feel safe because they had the good fortune not to be confronted with reality, which is that if they cross paths with the wrong people the authorities can't and won't do a single thing.

I am being confronted with such a situation right now.

In my opinion, evidenced by fact, a firearm is an equalizer between men. Otherwise, the bigger guy basically always wins the fight, fights the bigger guy often picks because it gives him purpose to be superior over a stranger (when it's easy for him to be). Any other weapon aside from a firearm has its effectiveness basically determined by the size (and sometimes skill) of the user.

I find it pleasing to know I live in a society where an elderly man or woman or even child home alone can fend off a large, armed man with murder or rape on his mind, with ease, in the event of such an emergency, whereas the only other fate would be unspeakable tragedy. — Outlander

I agree.

If the authorities cannot reasonably keep you safe, there's no moral grounds upon which they can prevent you from keeping yourself safe.

Many places in the West are degenerating when it comes to crime and the state's ability or willingness to fight it. Clever criminals can basically do whatever they want.

You talk and act like fascists and extremists, you’ll be identified as such — accurately. — Mikie

If you genuinely believe anything that's happening in the US is remotely "fascist", it is you who is the extremist here.

Despite all of the legitimate criticism one could have of Trump, almost all of what this forum produces on the topic reads like a toddler's temper tantrum.

Get over yourselves already, and stop this childish posturing as 'crusaders against fascism' - it's embarassing, and, as we see with the Kirk assassination, potentially dangerous.

I hope the forum takes this as an opportunity for self-reflection.

By unironically labeling people as 'fascists' you're exactly contributing to the political climate in which murder becomes justified.

It's a tried and true tactic of those who want to see radicalized individuals take matters into their own hands.

Unfortunately, it has become commonplace on this "philosophy" forum.

As miniscule as this forum's influence is, many of you have done what little you can to feed this dysfunctional climate further (and the various threads may act as a testament to this). Some of Kirk's blood is, unironically, on your hands as well.

What a laughable pretense that such people take themselves seriously intellectually.

Some of you might want to strap on your masks a little tighter.

My prediction: he will not send troops to a city, like Chicago, because that would be a blatant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. — Relativist

But Trump is Hitler, and America is becoming fascist!

A fair few of them, sure.

Therapy.

People who showcase an unhealthy obsession with things in the past that they have little to no connection to, are often running away from their problems in the present.

Žižek underscores the point that morality is power in disguise. — praxis

I don't disagree with Zizek or Nietzsche there, but I do believe the group that classifies themselves as "the victims" are doing so out of a sincere (though misguided) bid for self-validation. Resentment and a desire for revenge (and a corresponding desire for power) are a part of that.

Then there's the grifters, the profiteurs and politicians who jump on this bandwagon; they see emotionally vulnerable people as an opportunity for profit.

For them morality really is power.

The emotionally vulnerable are just being exploited and led in destructive circles, because the grift depends on them not finding a proper cure.

They appear to be convinced from the outset of the righteousness of their moral or ideological stance. How would you explain this phenomenon in a way that differs from Žižek’s interpretation? — Number2018

I would offer a slight twist on the subject.

The woke category that characterizes themselves as 'the oppressed victims' are absolutely shirking responsibility; they blame history, they blame the system, they blame other people's faults and "unconscious biases", etc.

This category exhibits something that I would almost consider a collective inferiority complex, which I believe stems from their own, unconscious rejection of their historical or cultural identity. That is then projected on society.

When one reduces one's own historical and/or cultural identity to "subservience to patriarchy", "slavery", etc. the 'other side of the mirror' is that one is indirectly admitting to one's own inferiority. Hence, observing the woke is like watching a dog chase its own tail.

But only a one of them is having sex for money. And that is called prostitution. Not commodifying one's body. We do not call builders football players. Because they are builders. We don't call prostitutes football players. Because they are prostitutes. — AmadeusD

Nowhere was I suggesting we start calling everything "prostitution".

Then all physical jobs, of any kind, are prostitution. — AmadeusD

No, I don't think so. Because not all jobs commodify the body for entertainment.

I actually like the idea of putting professional sports, and similar practices that commodify the body for entertainment (like modeling), in the same basket as prostitution.

And so the bickering schoolchildren continued;

"No, Turd Sandwich is worse!"

"I can't believe you think that! Giant Douche is clearly worse!"


The silver lining was that at least the subject seemed to have subtlely changed. The children had started to realize that neither Turd Sandwich nor Giant Douche was a particularly appealing option - for they were a set of very special, philosophical children.

Alas, despite this profound insight, the die had already been cast. Someone was going to have to 'win' this argument, which usually entailed convincing the other side that they had better things to do with their time.

Poignant questions about how come there were only unappealing options would have to be answered, presumably, later.

Speaking of the woke and their infinite capacity for projection;

When making my daily walks, I have started to notice a peculiar pattern. Every now and then I will pass by a woman/lady on an empty street, when they will inexplicably tense up, clutch their purse and/or pull out their phone. Sometimes they'll even pretend to be making a sudden call.

Normally I wouldn't think anything of it, but this has happened more times than I can remember, and I suspect something else is at play: they are assuming that, because I am a man and they are alone, I must be there to rob or rape them, and they are pulling out their phones as a way of saying "I have the emergency services on speed dial/someone is on the phone with me, so there will be proof", etc.

I am not tall, nor overly muscular or otherwise intimidating.

I suspect this is the result of years of fear porn and woke propaganda about 'rape culture'.

Despite not being particularly likely, being raped is one of people's biggest fears. The woke have taken this fear, inflated it and ensured that people are continually confronted with it, keeping it always at the front of their minds.

They've also worked hard to ensure rape is, in the minds of the fearful, psychologically tied to "men" - not a small set of deranged individuals, no - men.

My example is of course anecdotal (maybe it was all coincidence?), but one need only to glance at the things wokies and RabFems espouse to see the possible connection. Such things generally don't worry me unless I start seeing symptoms in my everyday life, and that is what I believe is happening here.

Woke is promoting sexism of the worst kind, and is exactly that which it pretends to fight.

Oh, your sacred feelings! How very woke! How very feminine! How very irrational! — unenlightened

Bit of a weird response. No idea why the word 'feel' set you off in this way, but at this point I figure I'm not surprised. You obviously have a chip on your shoulder, and are not interested in having it pointed out.

Universities and academia are at the root of this mania, so you'll excuse me if I don't take their views on the topic especially seriously.

They spent years trying to stretch the definition of rape and sexual violence to 'drunk people having sex' and 'I had a shag that I regretted', and are now trying to sell the idea of a "rape epidemic" - I'm not buying it. Sorry, not sorry.

But if they are indeed all funded by the US state department (which I doubt in some cases), isn't it all the more impressive that they are also quite critical of developments in the US? — Tobias

Well then, let me dispell all your doubts by pointing out it's right there on their websites under 'Funding'.

Your go to response to something you disagree with is personal insult. — unenlightened

It's not meant as a personal insult. It's genuinely how I feel about the position you're laying out.

You talk about an obsession with sex, but it's you who seems to throw all reason out the window on this topic.

I genuinely believe that you, and people like you, are being manipulated into an emotional response by people much cleverer than you, in order to control you for political ends. This is essentially just how propaganda works.

Topics of sex and sexuality are especially suitable for this, due to the fears, insecurities, resentments, etc. that a lot of people harbor and are often ashamed of - fear and especially shame are very powerful emotions. You give people an excuse to turn that shame into righteous indignation and a sense of moral grandiosity, and you have a delicious emotional cocktail for people to get drunk on. Or actually hooked would be a better word, because very few people will voluntarily trade that emotional drug back for the shame that started it - it's addictive; a clever propagandist will seek to fuse the subjects ego to whatever it is they're being made to believe, making the road back to sanity all the more difficult.

In addition, sexual topics are often taboo, ensuring limited interaction with the real world, and thus a lower threat of the echo chamber being disrupted.

Maybe you should read up on how propaganda works. Propagandists are very clever, and they know people better than people know themselves.

"A host of think-tanks manned by informed academics"? Oh my, , you make it sound so impressive.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that they're all funded by the US department of state. :rofl:

The academic world is dead, my friend.

Rapists are thrown in jail, and even an accusation without proof resulting in an acquittal is enough to ruin someone's life.

I suspect you harbor resentment towards the natural structure of society and men/masculinity in general, and that this is just some exercise in projection and the justification of your own prejudices.

Specifically, rape and fear of rape is part of the mechanism of control of female sexuality by the patriarchy. — unenlightened

It's things like this that really make me question what type of mindworm has bored its way into your brains.