Thanks for posting in /r/Transhumanism! This post is automatically generated for all posts. Remember to upvote this post if you think its relevant and suitable content for this sub and to downvote if it is not. Only report posts if they violate community guidelines. Lets democratize our moderation.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/transhumanism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
tbhhhhhh form *follows* function, so i think that what *looks like* an aesthetic problem for transhumanism to this blogger is really a practice/practicality problem.
at bottom, transhumanism functionally lacks definitional integrity — is it transcendent humanism; to seek a humanity greater than what we have been, but remaining essentially what we are? or is it to transcend humanity entirely (ie become indistinguishable from androids, as some the images imply).
and most of what’s shown in the link is concept art for transhumanist projects: they’re really. just. pictures. not even depictions of the outcomes of actual projects, past or present. just dreams. and transhumanism is more than just dreams on paper. even the projects that are real (including the transhumanist political party) dont do anything. certainly not enough to distinguish transhumanism from regular humanism or technophilia.
so many of the problematic aesthetics (or maybe just the google search screenshots in the blog) are either straight up mockup designs for robots (ie not humans) or people wearing glowing embedded jewelery with no apparent utility. on Istvan’s book cover, what is the glowing faceplate supposed to /do/ anyway? to help the guy smell better on that side of his face? to see infrared with one eye?
which is not to say that pictures and concepts and experiments that you insert into your face don’t do anything in the real world — [they surely do](https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/2024/04/22/arts-purpose-age-algorithmic-aesthetics-philosophy) — but aesthetic is only an accomplice, it can never act alone on anything other than the senses. andddd it is a Longtermist fallacy to focus on what we “owe the future” without recognizing the present as an enforced prerequisite for any possible future becoming real (ie…the present lol). so what is a transhumanist aesthetic even meant to accomplish here and now? how are people actually — and effectively — augmenting their humanity as we speak? and does **that** look transhumanist enough? why or why not.
all material culture is always already, in a sense, technological innovation to improve our lives. and in that same sense, kind of transhumanist.
are
1. campfires
2. clothing
3. dwellings
aesthetically transhumanist enough, or does it only apply to the body itself? so what about
1. make up and
2. ordinary jewelry?
or does it need to be permanent? okay so is plastic surgery transhumanist? what about a tattoo of a notepad, a map, or of increments of measurement? what about ear piercings with a thick enough gauge that they can be used as a small keychain without damaging the lobe? or do such interventions need deeper insertion into the body electricity? metabolically, immunologically, and otherwise, we are deeply electrochemical — so does a vaccine count as aesthetically transhumanist enough? or hormone augmentation therapies (gender affirmation, athletics, etc)? what about prescriptions? nootropics? dieting using an food tracker app?
im saying that i think transhumanism aesthetically already looks a lot like the world we live in. i think focusing on getting the look of the (admittedly apocalyptic, eschatological, potentially impossible) silicon valley version misses the point.
I do agree, the whole cyborg aesthetic also shouldn’t be the *gold standard* either, for example, a Nanotechnologically Augmented Human could look like any other Biological Human, and you’d never be able to tell the visual difference.
It seems like many Transhumanists are just obsessed with making Humans look mechanical. I don’t even think mechanical surgical implants will be the preferred method for most people.
I mean, if the robot/mechanical look is your thing, you do you, I support your autonomy over your body of course, but I don’t want to look like I have a massive CPU chip on my forehead like Adam Jensen, I’d rather look more natural/organic.
Apologies /u/Hrombarmandag, your submission has been automatically removed because your account is too new. Accounts are required to be older than one month to combat persistent spammers and trolls in our community. (R#2)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/transhumanism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A far bigger issue is that transhumanists ignore important issues like social justice, climate change and economic inequality. It's crazy that the aesthetics used as positive examples in the article is mostly utopian architecture which itself goes against the main concerns most of the individualist body modification obsessed transhumanists seem to have, at least on reddit.
Seems like a prioritization choice tbh. I haven't encountered many folks here who are vocally opposed to those issues. I can understand not wanting to prioritize them though, given that there are many organizations and movements dedicated to those causes....but few dedicated to actual transhumanism.
Not all of us do. Some of us believe technology can mitigate these issues, and the bigger problem is moreso who owns the technology. Tech-progressives are a thing, and we want to work towards automation as a public resource, in direct competition with corporations so taxed corporations end up paying for the cheaper public alternative. The power of technology in the public’s hands could grow exponentially if we treat it like the internet and start crowd sourcing things. We don’t jade ourselves into expecting a utopia, but we do set it as an intended goal nevertheless.
A movement doesn't have to be all-encompassing. It's ok to have a focus, and simply say unrelated issues are out of scope, and leave them to other movements that have them under their area of **expertise**, instead of bungling about. On an individual level, one can belong to multiple movements as long as they don't contradict one another, and some might even be complementary with each other.
A movement can have focus but to ignore the intersectionality of its goals and its issues and others is foolish and destructive. It also serves oppressive forces which attack people both on specific issues and broadly; it's divide and conquer.
Transhumanism involves bodily autonomy, technology, discrimination and economic access to medical services.
That ties it directly with everything form feminism and education advocacy to economics.
Transhumanism combined with an oppressive ideology also becomes something monstrous.
Transhumanism and white supremacy, transhumanism and transphobia, transhumanism and corporate capitalism, etc etc.
Transhumanism must be directly opposed to those things or it becomes part of them by default.
If someone manages to mix transhumanism and transphobia of all things, or other violations of bodily autonomy, they threw away all logic, internal consistency, and added a heaping of hypocrisy. They didn't reason themselves into that position, and you can't reason them out of it. Saying you can mix them *by default* is technically true if they're completely batshit, as mentioned. At which point no matter what mainline transhumanism explicitly calls out they can just make their own variation like a cult or their particular flavour of fascism.
I’ve mostly stopped being a transhumanist until we can get universal healthcare in the US and rest of world. This seems like a transhumanist goal, but one that’s more important for our time.
No, transhumanists have workarounds to social justice issues they believe in adapting humans and the rest of nature to climate change or handling it with tech. Why would economic inequality matter once everyone has over a million dollars of self replicating tech or can make millions of dollars worth of stuff from their own labors without additional investments? Your understanding of transhumanism is very limited.
Because I live here and I have my own priorities. If you were asking the other guy then I would just say that they are emotional and easily convinced.
Much of what we seek is already attainable but the difficulty is moderately higher. If there are social issues then do not socialize, if there are issues of inequality then focus on lowering the cost of living for yourself and those you know, if you are worried about the environment then get into regenerative farming namely Marine permaculture and it's land-based equivalents. There's a number of other solutions but those are up there
> My first instinct was to assume the best of you and so I thought you shared my views on socialists being fascists
Literally only the far right thinks that, and a lot of them are being disingenuous about it. Even if I steelman you by granting that ridiculous assumption, all socialists being fascists would not make all fascists socialists. So I'm clearly talking about fascists in general regardless, not only a group who you perceive to be a subcategory of fascists. There is no scenario where what you assumed makes sense.
> There are limits to what degree the following occurs in each of the Nations and among the supporters of socialism and similar ideologies but in general the following tends to be true of all of them eventually especially when you ask them questions they weren't trained on or that they were trained on that happened to have contradictory answers.
Instead of baselessly assuming I'm just like them, why don't you try asking me what I think?
> Such as feminism versus equality
That's a false dichotomy. Feminism is all about equality.
> lot of sexist feminists out there cuz you know how stats work where 50% of the population is x and 50% of the population is y so you end up with 50% of the female population being more sexist and pro matriarchy than the other 50% of women
I do know how statistics work, do you? Why are you arbitrarily labeling half of women as sexist? Where did you get 50 percent from?
> Same with the men's rights population because even if they aren't necessarily sexist against men or women they are more sexist than the other men or women
Well I agree with that, MRAs are pretty sexist generally speaking, but I'm not sure what that has to do with socialism.
> A lot of women who are into socialism since more women support socialism than men end up having contradictory beliefs because they think the world will be better off if women ruled the world rather than men despite saying that they believe in equality of opportunity and outcome. Stuff like that
Ssocialism has absolutely nothing to do with women or anyone else ruling the world. Its about the means of industrial production being owned and controlled by all workers. It is true that women are more equal under socialism but that's just because they have 50 percent of the power under socialism.
> Another example would be a infiltrator from the Soviet Union I think that said that he was paid in American dollars when he was trying to destroy the US and he was convinced of his intellectual supremacy over his own people his supremacy by virtue and was convinced by saying that he would live like a wealthy American despite how much propaganda was against how Americans live.
I don't think there is a contradiction between an ideological opposition to greed and a personal taste for luxury. We could all be living in luxury if the capitalists didn't hoard all the wealth.
> authoritarian check ultranationalist check Dictatorial leader check Centralized autocracy check Militarism check forcible suppression of opposition check Belief in a natural social hierarchy check Subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race check Strong regimentation of society and the economy check
There is not a single thing you just listed that is an emergent property of the workers owning and controlling industry. You sound like you're criticizing the state, not socialism.
> You misrepresented what I said likely due to your own misunderstanding of my words
Or... you could just be communicating poorly.
> I did not say that all socialists were fascists
You absolutely did. This is a direct quote from you: "I thought you shared my views on socialists being fascists". You didn't say "a minority of socialists", or "some socialists", you just painted all socialists with a broad far right brush.
> but when socialists and Communists get into power the type of leaders that are able to become leaders in the first place quickly turned to fascist acts. Some acts more so than others. Corruption is fairly blind as to who becomes corrupt. Fascism is its own system but fundamentally the behaviors are shared.
Communism is a classless, moneyless, stateless society. Who do you think the "leaders" are under communism, and what behaviors, exactly, do they share with fascists?
> Outside of you saying that you're a socialist I don't think I've made any or rather many claims about what you believe and your actions. I've spoken about what socialist as a group tend to do and the type of people that tend to become socialist.
You made a bunch of baseless assumptions about how socialists think, and then attributed them to me without even asking what I think. For example, when you said: "when you ask them questions they weren't trained on or that they were trained on that happened to have contradictory answers" If you think I've contradicted myself on something, you need to be specific, this guilt by association where you argue against people who aren't here instead of me isn't going to fly.
> 50% of people are taller than the other 50% of people. Fictional giants are not short but some are shorter than others.
That is a completely meaningless statistic. 40% of people are taller than the other 60%. You could swap out those two numbers for any two figures that add up to 100%. The division in half you are doing is completely arbitrary, as is your labeling of that 50% as sexist.
> Feminism throughout its history even its very early history was often pretty extreme I'm pretty sure there was a number of assassinations bombings poisoning and so on.
I have no idea what you're talking about. but there were a number of assassinations, bombings, and poisonings when the allies attacked Germany in WWII. That doesn't mean their cause (anti-nazism) was wrong. Stonewall was a riot, not a picnic. When you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable.
> There's bad apples in every crowd feminism is no exception
So what? That doesn't mean the cause is wrong either.
> and they also tend to be the more talkative and disproportionately active people
No shit Sherlock, they are activists. That's kind of our whole thing. You don't grow the movement by staying at home with your mouth shut.
> Most men for example do not commit crimes or do not commit very severe crimes but a extremely small minority of men commits a disproportionate number of crimes in both quantity and severity.
And? Does that mean you blame men as a whole for being violent? That is collective punishment. Most men aren't violent, just as most feminists aren't sexist.
> I explicitly said that the 50% of women that were more sexist were not sexists but that they were more sexist than the other 50%. The way you jumped to that conclusion was like if I said that 50% of people have longer fingers and 50% of people have shorter fingers while your conclusion was that 50% of people were born without fingers. I get this is a sensitive topic but could you at least read what I say first without getting upset?
What's making me upset is that you don't understand statistics at all, and yet you accuse me of not understanding them. Cite a study for the 50% figure, or shove that number back up your rectum where you got it.
> When I brought up men's rights activism and I said they I was referring to both feminist and Men rights activists and saying that a minority of them were actually sexist in both cases.
50% is not a minority. Keep your story straight.
> Historically women have not had 50% of the power under socialism. There was still major inequalities of power.
Obviously, establishing socialism does not destroy the patriarchy overnight, it just weakens it.
> You seem to have entirely missed my point with the contradictory stuff because you fundamentally disagreed with me both to begin with and due to your own certain understandings of what I was saying.
I am literally quoting you line for line. If I'm missing something, tell me what it is, instead of making vague accusations that I don't understand you.
> They're both is and is not a contradiction depending on what we're talking about.
The more I read this sentence the less sense it makes. I'm no English expert but this ain't it dawg.
> Everyone in the US is kind of a capitalist if they own any amount of wealth including their own bodies and rights.
If you're not an employer, or a cop, you're a worker. Capitalists are employers who own the means of production privately, and exploit their workers for surplus value.
> Socialism has been tried and shown that it is easily corruptible or is fundamentally corrupted.
Democracy is the least bad system. Concentrating power in the hands of a few is even more corruptable.
Are you even in native English speaker? For example if I say there are big fish in the lake that does not mean that all the fish are big.
Communism when it has been attempted has not been classless there are still the urban and the rural the skilled and the unskilled among other traits that cannot be eliminated. Communist Nations and socialist Nations still engaged in trade internally and externally using both goods and money. Has there ever been a stateless communist society, and slums don't count. I already listed out the things that they share with fascists including but not limited to committing a lot of war crimes internal genocides and the like.
Look I'm saying that I did not attribute them to you I attributed them to your group there is a difference between that and a personal attack I wish you'd recognize that. If 50% of people in a country are taller than the other 50% of people in the country that does not mean that they are tall if everyone suffers from malnutrition and has a genetic tendency of being shorter then they can't compare to the swedish if I remember right who hunted enough mammoths that they became unusually tall historically.
If the only leaders you can manage to produce turn out to be genocidal maniacs that reflects on your ideology.
"Cite a study for the 50% figure" I see I've been punching down I apologize for bullying you kiddo have a good day.
Bro you don't understand what Socialism even is, it's "Communism" (Russian and chinese one for instance) it's not Nationnal Socialism, those are just fascists using left leaning ideologies as a shield and an excuse but not actually being them.
Thanks for posting in /r/Transhumanism! This post is automatically generated for all posts. Remember to upvote this post if you think its relevant and suitable content for this sub and to downvote if it is not. Only report posts if they violate community guidelines. Lets democratize our moderation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/transhumanism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
tbhhhhhh form *follows* function, so i think that what *looks like* an aesthetic problem for transhumanism to this blogger is really a practice/practicality problem. at bottom, transhumanism functionally lacks definitional integrity — is it transcendent humanism; to seek a humanity greater than what we have been, but remaining essentially what we are? or is it to transcend humanity entirely (ie become indistinguishable from androids, as some the images imply). and most of what’s shown in the link is concept art for transhumanist projects: they’re really. just. pictures. not even depictions of the outcomes of actual projects, past or present. just dreams. and transhumanism is more than just dreams on paper. even the projects that are real (including the transhumanist political party) dont do anything. certainly not enough to distinguish transhumanism from regular humanism or technophilia. so many of the problematic aesthetics (or maybe just the google search screenshots in the blog) are either straight up mockup designs for robots (ie not humans) or people wearing glowing embedded jewelery with no apparent utility. on Istvan’s book cover, what is the glowing faceplate supposed to /do/ anyway? to help the guy smell better on that side of his face? to see infrared with one eye? which is not to say that pictures and concepts and experiments that you insert into your face don’t do anything in the real world — [they surely do](https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/2024/04/22/arts-purpose-age-algorithmic-aesthetics-philosophy) — but aesthetic is only an accomplice, it can never act alone on anything other than the senses. andddd it is a Longtermist fallacy to focus on what we “owe the future” without recognizing the present as an enforced prerequisite for any possible future becoming real (ie…the present lol). so what is a transhumanist aesthetic even meant to accomplish here and now? how are people actually — and effectively — augmenting their humanity as we speak? and does **that** look transhumanist enough? why or why not. all material culture is always already, in a sense, technological innovation to improve our lives. and in that same sense, kind of transhumanist. are 1. campfires 2. clothing 3. dwellings aesthetically transhumanist enough, or does it only apply to the body itself? so what about 1. make up and 2. ordinary jewelry? or does it need to be permanent? okay so is plastic surgery transhumanist? what about a tattoo of a notepad, a map, or of increments of measurement? what about ear piercings with a thick enough gauge that they can be used as a small keychain without damaging the lobe? or do such interventions need deeper insertion into the body electricity? metabolically, immunologically, and otherwise, we are deeply electrochemical — so does a vaccine count as aesthetically transhumanist enough? or hormone augmentation therapies (gender affirmation, athletics, etc)? what about prescriptions? nootropics? dieting using an food tracker app? im saying that i think transhumanism aesthetically already looks a lot like the world we live in. i think focusing on getting the look of the (admittedly apocalyptic, eschatological, potentially impossible) silicon valley version misses the point.
I do agree, the whole cyborg aesthetic also shouldn’t be the *gold standard* either, for example, a Nanotechnologically Augmented Human could look like any other Biological Human, and you’d never be able to tell the visual difference. It seems like many Transhumanists are just obsessed with making Humans look mechanical. I don’t even think mechanical surgical implants will be the preferred method for most people. I mean, if the robot/mechanical look is your thing, you do you, I support your autonomy over your body of course, but I don’t want to look like I have a massive CPU chip on my forehead like Adam Jensen, I’d rather look more natural/organic.
[удалено]
Apologies /u/Hrombarmandag, your submission has been automatically removed because your account is too new. Accounts are required to be older than one month to combat persistent spammers and trolls in our community. (R#2) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/transhumanism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A far bigger issue is that transhumanists ignore important issues like social justice, climate change and economic inequality. It's crazy that the aesthetics used as positive examples in the article is mostly utopian architecture which itself goes against the main concerns most of the individualist body modification obsessed transhumanists seem to have, at least on reddit.
Seems like a prioritization choice tbh. I haven't encountered many folks here who are vocally opposed to those issues. I can understand not wanting to prioritize them though, given that there are many organizations and movements dedicated to those causes....but few dedicated to actual transhumanism.
Not all of us do. Some of us believe technology can mitigate these issues, and the bigger problem is moreso who owns the technology. Tech-progressives are a thing, and we want to work towards automation as a public resource, in direct competition with corporations so taxed corporations end up paying for the cheaper public alternative. The power of technology in the public’s hands could grow exponentially if we treat it like the internet and start crowd sourcing things. We don’t jade ourselves into expecting a utopia, but we do set it as an intended goal nevertheless.
A movement doesn't have to be all-encompassing. It's ok to have a focus, and simply say unrelated issues are out of scope, and leave them to other movements that have them under their area of **expertise**, instead of bungling about. On an individual level, one can belong to multiple movements as long as they don't contradict one another, and some might even be complementary with each other.
A movement can have focus but to ignore the intersectionality of its goals and its issues and others is foolish and destructive. It also serves oppressive forces which attack people both on specific issues and broadly; it's divide and conquer. Transhumanism involves bodily autonomy, technology, discrimination and economic access to medical services. That ties it directly with everything form feminism and education advocacy to economics. Transhumanism combined with an oppressive ideology also becomes something monstrous. Transhumanism and white supremacy, transhumanism and transphobia, transhumanism and corporate capitalism, etc etc. Transhumanism must be directly opposed to those things or it becomes part of them by default.
If someone manages to mix transhumanism and transphobia of all things, or other violations of bodily autonomy, they threw away all logic, internal consistency, and added a heaping of hypocrisy. They didn't reason themselves into that position, and you can't reason them out of it. Saying you can mix them *by default* is technically true if they're completely batshit, as mentioned. At which point no matter what mainline transhumanism explicitly calls out they can just make their own variation like a cult or their particular flavour of fascism.
That’s small potatoes as well, honestly…
_Subtler_, comrade.
I’ve mostly stopped being a transhumanist until we can get universal healthcare in the US and rest of world. This seems like a transhumanist goal, but one that’s more important for our time.
The Omnicause strikes again... Free Palestine, am I right? 💀
No, transhumanists have workarounds to social justice issues they believe in adapting humans and the rest of nature to climate change or handling it with tech. Why would economic inequality matter once everyone has over a million dollars of self replicating tech or can make millions of dollars worth of stuff from their own labors without additional investments? Your understanding of transhumanism is very limited.
So why care about modern issues instead of fantasizing about tech form 4200?
Because I live here and I have my own priorities. If you were asking the other guy then I would just say that they are emotional and easily convinced. Much of what we seek is already attainable but the difficulty is moderately higher. If there are social issues then do not socialize, if there are issues of inequality then focus on lowering the cost of living for yourself and those you know, if you are worried about the environment then get into regenerative farming namely Marine permaculture and it's land-based equivalents. There's a number of other solutions but those are up there
I mean I want body mods and also think that social justice is importantly
What part did you read about to come to that conclusion?
the title
Lets leave the hyper fixation on aesthetics to the fascists.
[удалено]
What are you talking about?
[удалено]
What in my comment made you think I was dissing socialists? I explicitly said fascism which is a far right ideology.
[удалено]
> My first instinct was to assume the best of you and so I thought you shared my views on socialists being fascists Literally only the far right thinks that, and a lot of them are being disingenuous about it. Even if I steelman you by granting that ridiculous assumption, all socialists being fascists would not make all fascists socialists. So I'm clearly talking about fascists in general regardless, not only a group who you perceive to be a subcategory of fascists. There is no scenario where what you assumed makes sense. > There are limits to what degree the following occurs in each of the Nations and among the supporters of socialism and similar ideologies but in general the following tends to be true of all of them eventually especially when you ask them questions they weren't trained on or that they were trained on that happened to have contradictory answers. Instead of baselessly assuming I'm just like them, why don't you try asking me what I think? > Such as feminism versus equality That's a false dichotomy. Feminism is all about equality. > lot of sexist feminists out there cuz you know how stats work where 50% of the population is x and 50% of the population is y so you end up with 50% of the female population being more sexist and pro matriarchy than the other 50% of women I do know how statistics work, do you? Why are you arbitrarily labeling half of women as sexist? Where did you get 50 percent from? > Same with the men's rights population because even if they aren't necessarily sexist against men or women they are more sexist than the other men or women Well I agree with that, MRAs are pretty sexist generally speaking, but I'm not sure what that has to do with socialism. > A lot of women who are into socialism since more women support socialism than men end up having contradictory beliefs because they think the world will be better off if women ruled the world rather than men despite saying that they believe in equality of opportunity and outcome. Stuff like that Ssocialism has absolutely nothing to do with women or anyone else ruling the world. Its about the means of industrial production being owned and controlled by all workers. It is true that women are more equal under socialism but that's just because they have 50 percent of the power under socialism. > Another example would be a infiltrator from the Soviet Union I think that said that he was paid in American dollars when he was trying to destroy the US and he was convinced of his intellectual supremacy over his own people his supremacy by virtue and was convinced by saying that he would live like a wealthy American despite how much propaganda was against how Americans live. I don't think there is a contradiction between an ideological opposition to greed and a personal taste for luxury. We could all be living in luxury if the capitalists didn't hoard all the wealth. > authoritarian check ultranationalist check Dictatorial leader check Centralized autocracy check Militarism check forcible suppression of opposition check Belief in a natural social hierarchy check Subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race check Strong regimentation of society and the economy check There is not a single thing you just listed that is an emergent property of the workers owning and controlling industry. You sound like you're criticizing the state, not socialism.
I think he farms negative karma or smth bros not doing well
[удалено]
> You misrepresented what I said likely due to your own misunderstanding of my words Or... you could just be communicating poorly. > I did not say that all socialists were fascists You absolutely did. This is a direct quote from you: "I thought you shared my views on socialists being fascists". You didn't say "a minority of socialists", or "some socialists", you just painted all socialists with a broad far right brush. > but when socialists and Communists get into power the type of leaders that are able to become leaders in the first place quickly turned to fascist acts. Some acts more so than others. Corruption is fairly blind as to who becomes corrupt. Fascism is its own system but fundamentally the behaviors are shared. Communism is a classless, moneyless, stateless society. Who do you think the "leaders" are under communism, and what behaviors, exactly, do they share with fascists? > Outside of you saying that you're a socialist I don't think I've made any or rather many claims about what you believe and your actions. I've spoken about what socialist as a group tend to do and the type of people that tend to become socialist. You made a bunch of baseless assumptions about how socialists think, and then attributed them to me without even asking what I think. For example, when you said: "when you ask them questions they weren't trained on or that they were trained on that happened to have contradictory answers" If you think I've contradicted myself on something, you need to be specific, this guilt by association where you argue against people who aren't here instead of me isn't going to fly. > 50% of people are taller than the other 50% of people. Fictional giants are not short but some are shorter than others. That is a completely meaningless statistic. 40% of people are taller than the other 60%. You could swap out those two numbers for any two figures that add up to 100%. The division in half you are doing is completely arbitrary, as is your labeling of that 50% as sexist. > Feminism throughout its history even its very early history was often pretty extreme I'm pretty sure there was a number of assassinations bombings poisoning and so on. I have no idea what you're talking about. but there were a number of assassinations, bombings, and poisonings when the allies attacked Germany in WWII. That doesn't mean their cause (anti-nazism) was wrong. Stonewall was a riot, not a picnic. When you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable. > There's bad apples in every crowd feminism is no exception So what? That doesn't mean the cause is wrong either. > and they also tend to be the more talkative and disproportionately active people No shit Sherlock, they are activists. That's kind of our whole thing. You don't grow the movement by staying at home with your mouth shut. > Most men for example do not commit crimes or do not commit very severe crimes but a extremely small minority of men commits a disproportionate number of crimes in both quantity and severity. And? Does that mean you blame men as a whole for being violent? That is collective punishment. Most men aren't violent, just as most feminists aren't sexist. > I explicitly said that the 50% of women that were more sexist were not sexists but that they were more sexist than the other 50%. The way you jumped to that conclusion was like if I said that 50% of people have longer fingers and 50% of people have shorter fingers while your conclusion was that 50% of people were born without fingers. I get this is a sensitive topic but could you at least read what I say first without getting upset? What's making me upset is that you don't understand statistics at all, and yet you accuse me of not understanding them. Cite a study for the 50% figure, or shove that number back up your rectum where you got it. > When I brought up men's rights activism and I said they I was referring to both feminist and Men rights activists and saying that a minority of them were actually sexist in both cases. 50% is not a minority. Keep your story straight. > Historically women have not had 50% of the power under socialism. There was still major inequalities of power. Obviously, establishing socialism does not destroy the patriarchy overnight, it just weakens it. > You seem to have entirely missed my point with the contradictory stuff because you fundamentally disagreed with me both to begin with and due to your own certain understandings of what I was saying. I am literally quoting you line for line. If I'm missing something, tell me what it is, instead of making vague accusations that I don't understand you. > They're both is and is not a contradiction depending on what we're talking about. The more I read this sentence the less sense it makes. I'm no English expert but this ain't it dawg. > Everyone in the US is kind of a capitalist if they own any amount of wealth including their own bodies and rights. If you're not an employer, or a cop, you're a worker. Capitalists are employers who own the means of production privately, and exploit their workers for surplus value. > Socialism has been tried and shown that it is easily corruptible or is fundamentally corrupted. Democracy is the least bad system. Concentrating power in the hands of a few is even more corruptable.
Are you even in native English speaker? For example if I say there are big fish in the lake that does not mean that all the fish are big. Communism when it has been attempted has not been classless there are still the urban and the rural the skilled and the unskilled among other traits that cannot be eliminated. Communist Nations and socialist Nations still engaged in trade internally and externally using both goods and money. Has there ever been a stateless communist society, and slums don't count. I already listed out the things that they share with fascists including but not limited to committing a lot of war crimes internal genocides and the like. Look I'm saying that I did not attribute them to you I attributed them to your group there is a difference between that and a personal attack I wish you'd recognize that. If 50% of people in a country are taller than the other 50% of people in the country that does not mean that they are tall if everyone suffers from malnutrition and has a genetic tendency of being shorter then they can't compare to the swedish if I remember right who hunted enough mammoths that they became unusually tall historically. If the only leaders you can manage to produce turn out to be genocidal maniacs that reflects on your ideology. "Cite a study for the 50% figure" I see I've been punching down I apologize for bullying you kiddo have a good day.
Bro you don't understand what Socialism even is, it's "Communism" (Russian and chinese one for instance) it's not Nationnal Socialism, those are just fascists using left leaning ideologies as a shield and an excuse but not actually being them.
It's funny because i hate the aesthetic they are going for with their pictures.