There were plenty of other Socialists who were around around the time. I tend to assume that Socialism refers to some sort of preferece for an egalitarian socio-economic relationship that goes beyond Social Democracy and that Communism refers to set of ideas proceeding from Karl Marx.

You could, for instance, say that Marxism and Communism effectively mean the same thing but not that Marxism and Socialism do. The meanings, of course, would vary given different contexts.

I always just think that that should be personal or something. It's kind of garrish. I don't know. It's just a feeling that I get about those things.

Posting on Facebook is a bit of a nebulous territory. I don't know that there's anything wrong with sharing the posts, but, then you have to cope with the comments somehow. That is probably a situation that you just shouldn't put yourself in if you don't know what you're doing. I bet that that does help some people, though.

Nozick is in the "Know Your Enemy" section of the Anarchist bookstore that I go to sometimes. I haven't actually read Nozick, though. I've only read Ayn Rand as well, I guess. I was thinking of reading Rothbard's Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature so that I could level a polemical onslaught against it, but will probably ultimately dismiss such notions as being rather childish. There is no real reason to sift through the pathology of so-called Anarcho-Capitalists. Libertarianism is an appropriated political concept in my opinion, but I just simply generally accept what the Wikipedia article has to say about it. I don't think that Chomsky ever outlined what he particularly means by Anarcho-Syndicalism. I would honestly bet that he could only tell you so much. His political work is much more in the way of social critique. Manufacturing Consent is fairly popular because it was made into a documentary. Chomsky is in the IWW which, I would bet, is why he is an Anarcho-Syndicalist. I think that the IWW is pretty alright, but don't really agree with Anarcho-Syndicalism, myself. The IWW isn't strictly Anarcho-Syndicalist, but Anarcho-Syndicalism is the prevailing ideology within the IWW. Your critique seems to be something along the lines of that left-wing libertarians have no model of what kind of society it is that they would like to create which is more or less just true. We honestly don't know what it precisely is that we do want. We are just simply critical of everything. To me, it stands to common reason to conclude that society should be as liberal and egalitarian as possible. Whatever social configuration acheives this is best. I don't really have a model of what Anarchist society should like aside from "a loosely affiliated set of freely associated societies" who engage in participatory democracy. I haven't really gotten too much further than that. I write off everything else that I come up with as being "Fascist". Who knows if I or anyone else will ever be able to give you an answer?

Idk, listening to "Rock and Roll Suicide" has gotten me through some tough times. Maybe there is something to those posters?

You always see things like that and think it's kind of disturbing for them to be so public, but when it actually relates to you, it can have the effect of causing you to stop and think about your general way of going about and doing things.

Meta, meaning "above", and physics, meaning "matter and whathaveyou"...
Metaphysics is seriously just a Philosophical attempt to answer "What is?" It's like the study of what there is. There's a whole field of Philosophy devoted to something else which no one can seem to explain, but that is still ultimately just what Metaphysics is. The ancient Greeks wanted to know what there was. Were there forms and modes? Was there just atoms and the void? That, by my estimation, is what Metaphysics was, and is still, I would argue, ultimately what Metaphysics is. It's sort of absurd now for Philosophy to answer Metaphysical questions when there are scientists. If someone thinks that Metaphysics is really something else, then I don't see why they shouldn't get into it and discover whatever it is that they will or can from that. I'm not terribly interested in Metaphysics because I just think that that's what it is. It can be fun to engage in Metaphysics, and I suppose that that does have a place in Philosophy, but it is kind of absurd anymore.

Edit: Like, the term either means something like "to see the physical world from the Archimedian Point" or to "transcend the physical world". It's a whole lot of theories proceeding from there. I honestly can't quite say what Metaphysics is either, and I honestly suspect for this to have something to do with pretense in Philosophy. I do think that that just is what Metaphysics is, though.

Like, it's just how Aristotle navigated that there was Philosophy and that you were supposed to believe in the gods. In a way, it's just Philosophy, but what I think that Metaphysics ultimately does is to just simply ask, "What is?"

Those are interestng questions, but I do not recall asking them.

Whoa, crazy. I'm from a somewhat staunch German Catholic family. Introspection is only permissible in so far that it relates to the divine. They're not actually that bad, but they are rather strict. I'm somewhat estranged from them, though.

I honestly suspect for Catholic guilt to have something to do with it. You just feel too responsible as a human agent to ever take your own life. In so far that it doesn't relate to the absurd logic of Catholic dogma, I suppose that guilt can be somewhat positive. There's a whole The White Ribbon element to religious guilt, though. I wouldn't necessarily consider for the concept to be wholly laudable. It is good that it adds a certain weight to human agency, though.

I'm an atheist now. I'm not quite sure how I feel about Durkheim's conclusions. They're decent enough in so far that they indicate that Protestantism could be somewhat anomic, but a bit strange in so far that they suggest that greater social control in Catholic communities is what was resultant in lower suicide rates. To me, social control seems to naturally produce an anomic experience. I honestly just meant to point out that that is kind of an old study, but, apparently, it still holds up, so, I don't really have much of critique to make.

Well, okay, but I think that the Wikipedia article is fine.

It sems like we both would be. I'm not sure that there is much to be gained through speculation. I would assume that most transgendered people wouldn't accept the traditional role of women, though.

In a nutshell, I suppose. It's not a terribly homogeneous field, and, so, whatever anyone says Queer Theory is just sort of true. They don't want for there to be roles. It's late and I'm not sure as to what it was that I was trying to get at there. It's like a reinvention of a way of life. You would identify as a woman and want to be regarded as such, but not necessarily to live out the role of a woman in a negative sense. You would want to create a new way of life as a woman.

I'm not going to explain that being queer is not the same thing as being a homosexual again.

Here are the begining paragraphs to the Wikipedia article:

Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender. Originally meaning "strange" or "peculiar", queer came to be used pejoratively against those with same-sex desires or relationships in the late 19th century. Beginning in the late 1980s, queer activists, such as the members of Queer Nation, began to reclaim the word as a deliberately provocative and politically radical alternative to the more assimilationist branches of the LGBT community.[1][2]

In the 2000s and on, queer became increasingly used to describe a broad spectrum of non-normative[note 1] (i.e. anti-heteronormative and anti-homonormative) sexual and gender identities and politics.[3] Academic disciplines such as queer theory and queer studies share a general opposition to binarism, normativity, and a perceived lack of intersectionality, some of them only tangentially connected to the LGBT movement. Queer arts, queer cultural groups, and queer political groups are examples of modern expressions of queer identities.

Critics of the use of the term include members of the LGBT community who associate the term more with its colloquial, derogatory usage,[4] those who wish to dissociate themselves from queer radicalism,[5] and those who see it as amorphous and trendy.[6] The expansion of queer to include queer heterosexuality has been criticized by those who argue that the term can only be reclaimed by those it has been used to oppress.[7]

How does your imaginary computer at all thwart me, Bitter Crank?

Well, her (eir?), declaration seems to be against that there are roles at all. I assume that most queer people want to create new gender roles. I'm sure that relationship that transgendered people have to their chosen sex is somewhat tenuous. I wouldn't think that the experience should just be negative, though. You get to sort of reinvent the wheel. Gender Nihilism seems to be like other Nihilist texts in that it seems to adopt a somewhat fatalistic pessimism. I think that such Nihilist notions are somewhat pathological. The critique is there, and they glean a lot of things about the world, but the worldview is just too bleak for my tastes. I feel like things don't go well for Nihilists because they have such a gloomy outlook. But yeah, from her perspective, it seems like she is kind of bothered by that by becoming a woman she has picked all of the baggage of being female. I would suggest that she should try to see what was originally liberating in her general way of going about and doing things, but I doubt that she would care for my psychologisms.

I'm not a transgendered person, and, so, I can't really tell you too much about it. I don't know that they could tell you too much about it either to be honest. I bet that they're all a bit torn as to how it is that they want to go about living as the other sex.

I will use they in colloquial speech and "he or she" or "ey" before I simply use "he" and you are who will have to get used to that (In so far that I am posting here, I guess.).


I had thought that "he or she" had caught on more by now.

Being transgender is complex, but I don't think that all transgendered people fall prey to the trappings of traditional gender roles. In Gender Nihilism she (ey?) sort of implies that experience of being female is ultimately negative and that gender needs to be abolished altogether. I don't wholly agree, but thought that that was an interesting argument. I think that it sees too much in the way of deterministic interpellation. I could see that transgendered people could end up sort of accidentally parodizing the roles which they have switched to, and that this could be somewhat dissociative. I don't think that that's too common, though. People figure things out however.

I was countering that you think that Queer Theory is absurd with that what already stands is absurd. The search for a gender neutral pronoun is an emergent phenomenon and so it does seem a bit odd. I don't think that it is absurd to suggest that there ought to be one. I would argue that Queer Theory necessarily is of a radical position in so far that it seeks to totally reconceptualize gender and sexuality, but that the position is not necessarily extreme or outlandish. I do think that if a person asks that you use certain pronouns that it is not unreasonable to expect for the other person to consent to their request.

I'm just trying to explain what I mean by "existential stake". I didn't mean to imply that you were denying anyone's right to exist, although, refusing to use a person's chosen pronouns does slightly deny their right to exist as such.

Perhaps I'm not being terribly clear.

If you were to engage in a debate with an Arab Muslim over Islam, then they would have more of an existential stake in the debate. The hegemony of Western culture does not deny your right to exist. You don't really have anything to lose by engaging in the debate. The other perspective has more 'weight' to it or something. It doesn't mean that they're right. It just means that they have more of an existential stake in the debate.

Should that be taken into consideration? I think so. A person who has an existential stake in a debate is somewhat unfairly subject to it. There shouldn't really be a reason for it to matter whether or not a person is proven right or wrong.

There's probably some other philosophical term for this which better describes what I have just cooked up, but I don't know what it is.

That's just nonsense, though. First off, "validity" doesn't apply to "being." — Terrapin Station

A person who identifies as being queer does have to contend that Queer Theory is valid.

How is that there are an arbitrary set of behaviors that are considered to be masculine and feminine more reasonable than what Queer Theory posits?

There is no claim that you attest by making an argument. You aren't of a marginalized position and don't need to stake your existence when engaging in debate. I'm not quite sure how to put this effectively. A person who is queer has to contend the validity of their being while making an argument for that you should use their chosen pronouns. Because you are, I assume, heteronormative, you don't risk anything by engaging in the debate.

There is a good reason, though. You ought to respect their chosen identity.

Imagine if I exclusively decided to refer to you as "she" or "her" in a demeaning sexist sense. Terrapin Station made a comment. She is totally off of her rocker. You would, at first, probably ignore this as you would consider yourself to be someone who is above engaging in such a discourse, but would probably eventually be bothered by it enough to address me with why it is that you don't think that I should do that.

I think that respecting chosen pronouns is kind of similar.

That is just my summary of what Queer Theory is. I think that it suffices, but other people can disagree with it. It doesn't really seem like anyone knows quite enough about Queer Theory to really discount it. I fail to see how a theory which challanges traditional gender roles necessitates that a person has to be a homosexual in order to believe in it.

I actually think that that gender is performative and that sexuality is fluid is just simply a statement of affairs. Being queer is not a choice in lifestyle, it's just simply describes the relationship that everyone has to sexuality and gender. I identify as being queer because I think that the traditional roles that we are assigned to at birth ought to be challanged. I don't always perform my gender as a male. I don't think that anyone does. I usually do, however. as I'm not usually in a situation where it is advantageous to behave otherwise. I actually think that everyone is queer. Identifying as such is also a partial means to promote the theory which I see as being mostly positive.

Au contraire! I have posited that what being "queer" means is that you generally accept something along the lines of that gender is performative and that sexuality is fluid as per Queer Theory. This does not necessarily imply that a person has to be a homosexual in order to be queer.


If you want to identify as being a unicorn, then that is something that I am willing to accept.

If I experience the sky as being red, then it is red to me. A person who is colorblind may experience the sky as being red.

I'm just explaining that the equation of homosexuality with queerness is as a result of the slur, "queer". Identifying as being "queer" does, whether or not someone accepts Queer Theory, refer to something other than being "homosexual".

They aren't fringe beliefs in this regard, though. Being "queer" is not synonymous with being "homosexual". "Homosexuals" are just often called "queers" in a pejorative sense. Queer Theory can be summarized as being a radical reconceptualization of sexuality and gender. It is related to Gay and Lesbian Studies, but is not synonymous with it,

Thanks @PoeticUniverse.

Being queer is not at all equivalent with being "gay" or "homosexual", though. My interpretation of Queer Theory is that it posits that gender is performative and that sexuality is fluid. This is what I understand from my reading of Gender Trouble. I accept this hypothesis, and, therefore, identify as being "queer". Not all of the queer community accepts this, and not all of the queer community considers for Gender Trouble to be the seminal text on Queer Theory. Some people interpret eir postulation as having quite negative results. See Gender Nihilism. My speculation (I haven't read it, but should.) upon Gender Nihilism is that, while it may be a legitimate critique of Queer Theory, it is too deterministic.

I am having fun with it, but do contend that I have not maintained either an absurd or an extreme position.

I have included qualifying terms in all of my arguments and have not claimed to speak for the community as a whole. I do indentify as being queer as I do accept that gender is performative and that sexuality is fluid, but, as I, for all intensive purposes, am functionally straight, I just let people refer to me as being male.

What I mean is that there are a lot of internal divisions within the LGBTQ+ community, many of which revolve around the queer community. Not everyone in the LBGTQ+ community accepts Queer Theory as being valid.

How is it bonkers? In so far that gender is performative (That is a claim that is not necessarily accepted by the queer community as a whole, although, from what I glean, it seems to be a consensus.), the gender that you perform is particular to the situation that you are in. There are as many genders as there are particular situations. We can, therefore, say that there are something like an infinite number of genders.

Are we speaking of the queer community, the LGBT community, the LGBTQ community, or, the LGBT+ community, or the LBGTQ+ community? From my experience, the queer community does care about gender pronouns.

Ey are asking that you respect who ey attest that ey are. You have no existential stake in the argument.

They are there, but some people have qualms with them. I think that they're pretty good.

There are not 57 genders. Gender is performative and sexuality is fluid. You perform an infinite array of gender roles whilst generally carrying on however. Someone may have counted that there are 57 different ways that people identify, but they have bound to have missed someone. There are an infinite number of genders as each one is particular to each situation.

This was a lengthy and informative reply. Thanks, PoeticUniverse. I don't mean to assume that you're unaware of them, but I think that you have just rediscovered the Spivak pronouns.


Submit to the newspeak and let the queer community destroy the English language, S!


I think that I've heard of those. It sounds pretty fascinating, T Clark.

How have I collapsed them all into a big blob? The question, "Are we responsible for our actions?", arises out of that we can not know the consequences of our actions. I would argue that for a person to be held accountable for their actions, that their intentions are relevent. The crisis of intention arises out of that we can not know what the consequences of an action are before the act is committed. One can not act in an Ethically valid sense abstractly. One tests Ethics by acting. Ethics is more of an experimental process than it is an ontology. I'm trying to hash this out with myself for long enough for you to see what I mean about it, but I feel like we might just be talking at cross paths. I don't think that I have confused action with knoweldge or intention, but, as I really haven't parcelled this all out myself, I can't quite give you too much of a delineation to explain what I mean about Ethics as I am just simply currently unsure.

They get the preference because they have the stake in the argument. Your stubborn insistence upon maintaining the rules of English grammar does not place you in a position where you are falsely identified.

I always forget not to say, "you guys". There have been a number of occasions when I've said something like "see you guys" to a group of either all women or people who don't identify in a binary sense. It's a strange colloquial habit that I should probably drop.

How can it not be relevent? If we don't have responsibility then we are not responsible for what is outside of our control. The "question" over "what responsibility entails" assumes that we do have responsibility. As I've stated before, I think that the statement by Arendt can be interpreted so as to simply call responsibility into question. It's not that she was suggesting this, but it can be interpreted in such a manner.

That the consequences of an action can not be known is what Arendt was suggesting. You do some thing and it all just sort of butterflies out from there. I'm not trying to get into an Epistemological discussion, I am just merely pointing out that there is an Ethical crisis of intention.

If you think that it can just be accepted as a given that we do have responsibility and don't care to respond to this, then, that's fair enough. I do accept such things as a given, but I'm not necessarily convinced that we have responsibility has been proven abstractly.

Eh, I'm hopeful. It's become quite common to use the colloquial "they". That's fine by me in spite of that it actually is grammatically incorrect. I don't mind conceptualizing gender as a multiplicity, though.
It is kind of a particular issue that only ever gets brought up in left-wing academic circles. In so far that such a community is capable of effecting any real change, things will change. You can almost be a Communist without nearly everyone assuming that you're either a Stalinist totalitarian or a backstabbing traitor now. So, they effect some sort of change. Who's to say whether or not it's really for the greater good?

Your demands disregard the demands of others. Just use "they" or "them". That's what mostly everyone who cares about these things does from what I can tell.

I think that this is where to post this.

While I like and agree with this theory, my qualms with it are that I think that you have assumed that we do have responsibility. That the consequences of an action can not be known before the action is committed calls into question whether or not a person can be held to be responsible for their actions. I assume that we do have a responsibility towards others, but that is merely an assumption. I don't have a proof for this.

I am not a lawyer, but I do see how someone could get that impression. I've thought about studying Law.

Just read it. It's only like 8 sentences.

It all sounds a bit funny, but through common usage it will cease to be so strange.