>>1036
>5. Feminism cannot be characterized by the words and actions of individuals or groups with money and power who identify as feminist. It is only characterized by vague, theoretical ideas.
This seems to apply to communism as well. In the real world, communists define what communism it to the world, not vague and ever shifting true scotsmen.

Happy birthday Kei!

People seem to like to be victims.
I have noticed feminism, at least radical types, kinda died off after it came out the women's marches were for Sharia law or whatever.
I think it will eventually become one of those obscure internet ideologies because even women seem to be alienated by the "not-real-feminism stuff".

I don't know if feminism is still popular among normalfags, it seems to have kind of fallen from relevancy in lieu of more trendy causes.
The only people who still care are twitter nobodies and youtube personalities with troll's remorse or are trying to impress legbearded women.
Regardless, "true" feminism won't ever reach mainstream acceptance because most people dislike most "tell how me to think" ideologies, or at least ones that are straightfoward.
Feminism also doesn't have the cool aesthetics that attract young people to extremism.

>>1049
>>1082
Openly identifying as a feminist has certainly died off because it's no longer 'cool'. But that doesn't change that nearly all women still follow and believe in the tenets of (radical) feminism, even if unconsciously.

>>1083
You could say that about any extremism related to identity. People even 3DPD deserve the benefit of the doubt because most people don't give that much thought to it.

>>1084
Until something comes up which offends their sensibilities. Bears don't become something else when they sleep, so what do you mean by give the benefit of the doubt?

>>1084
I agree with >>1089, I don't believe that people who act unconsciously deserve greater patience. If anything, someone who is unaware of the ideology they've adopted is more sickening to me than an espoused radical activist. At least there's something I can respect, even if only a little bit, in someone who knows what they're doing. There's nothing to respect in a dumb animal.

>>1090
I disagree, everybody has an ideology. It doesn't mean they have to shout it out to the world or that they even acknowledge it. People that unaware of it are unaware because they aren't screaming on the streets for the internet for attention, they have a set of beliefs and they just continue to live their lives. The most annoying people I know are people with awareness of their ideologies.

>>1091
I'm getting the feeling you have no idea what "awareness" means in this context. I'm having a hard time understanding why someone who was unaware of their own beliefs would be less annoying then someone who was self-aware, unless for some bizarre, unimaginable reason, you took "awareness" to mean "spreading awareness loudly and everywhere". People who are not self-aware are pretty obvious, and pretty annoying, so it's not like they're somehow silent people that don't talk about shit that betrays their unconscious bias. They just do it without knowing that some teacher with who espoused feminism or communism grafted those ideals into them through some mediocre anecdotes and narratives in a college social sciences class. In fact people who are self-aware don't tend to make a big scene of themselves and are often, in my experience, a lot less outspoken because they are aware of the natural contention between different schools of thought and watch their words when trying to hold polite company. Just from people I've known, self-aware otaku are pretty hard to discern and don't come off as a big anime fan at all until you mention something yourself that might be related to anime or VNs or whatnot.

To put it more simply, consider the concept of "hiding your powerlevel". Someone who isn't aware won't even try to do this.

Post edited on 14th Feb 2021, 3:10pm

>>1093
Well simply put if you are not aware of your identity you cannot play identity politics now can you? So any opinions these people have are only going to come out in a semi-relevant context(in which they would anyway), they are not going to loudly proclaim that they are an anarchist and challenge people to argue with them if they don't know they are an anarchist. And that is the thing here, most politics these days are identity politics.

>>1094
That's a naive outlook. People will do all kinds of things without thinking too hard about it. They just assume their way of thinking is the only proper one and argue with anyone who expresses something that opposes that view point. They don't like to identify as some specific school of thought because that would imply there are any other schools of thought. One of their favorite lines is "there is no such thing as an sjw".

In their world, there is only a correct way of thinking and aberrant ways of thinking. They think "normal thoughts". Identity politics are all about things a person can't control, not what their ideology is. I've unintentionally ended up, or almost ended up getting into arguments with average people who otherwise don't express much of any opinions far more, online and in real life.

So yeah, they wont go on their soap box, but that's because they assume everyone "normal" and "decent" already agrees with them. They will attack and shout down anybody who reveals that they don't though. Here's an example of that happening http://tohno-chan.com/an/arch/res/21032.html

Post edited on 15th Feb 2021, 5:20am

>>1095
Even were that to be true which I don't think it is as a great majority of people don't actually care much for politics. It would just make them the same as people with set ideologies, only the problem with set Ideologies is that they are set. People identify with them and are thus far more involved and attached to them and far more likely to argue for it and defend it even in situations where an individual with similar views but what had not labeled himself as part of that group might admit that there was a flaw and concede. Because it is now part of their identity any attack on it is an attack on them.

Most normal people don't assume anything of the sort and I don;t think that thread backs anything up either.

>>1096
>a great majority of people don't actually care much for politics
So they don't care much for it, but that's most of what they talk about along with finances. That's what they choose to drag into every situation. Saying people don't have a set ideology also implies their way of thinking can easily change.
>I don;t think that thread backs anything up either
Alright, I see that you're determined to be obtuse about this.

Post edited on 15th Feb 2021, 6:12am

>>1097
I forgot to mention I'm not American, I know things are a bit weird there and people take politics more seriously. In my country and indeed most developed nations attachment to a party is kind of cringey. Most nations don't have anywhere near as much personality cult type politics as the US has recently, to us most politicians are a bunch of suits.

Barely anybody talks politics here, hell the only people that do are Trump supporters and Vegans and they don't shut up about it(and they each identify with their position). I'm nut sure about your situation and where you are and who you hang around with but you must remember that certain groups gravitate towards political discussion to begin with, image boards certainly do and I can belive that anime would consedring how horrid the western fanbase is. But it's generally not something you find in normal society.

>>1098
>In my country and indeed most developed nations attachment to a party is kind of cringey

Sort off topic, and this might be a weird thing to say, but as someone who grew up mostly an observer to western/northern hemisphere politics, this seems to mostly be in countries that were founded by the English because they are definitely guilty of this also and it sort of just bleeds into their cultures.
>>1095
2 things, 1. when you're talking with western anime fans about these things, you're not curbing it, you're just swallowing it and internalizing it. 2. the "decent" rhetoric is becoming the new "current year" in that "decent human bean" is becoming mocked, people are starting to see through this shit.

I will add, as someone who has lived in both US and South Africa, even in countries with polemic, identity-heavy climate the average person doesn't give two shits about politics and the US can easily observe this with how many non-voters they have, the argument you are making is when coloured get up in arms about how most whites secretly or subconsciously believe in white supremacy because they don't constantly bitch about it.

I feel kind of bad for playing devils advocate now.

I was listening to political talk out of curiosity. There was an article in the LA times about "aggressive niceness" because her white, republican neighbors are doing her favours like plowing the snow in front of her home.
It reminded me of this thread, and how peoples nearly religious treatment of politics causes people to make assumptions of character and motives simply on identity and political allegiance.
>the argument you are making is when coloured get up in arms about how most whites secretly or subconsciously believe in white supremacy because they don't constantly bitch about it.
Just replace, whites or 3D with like muslim and hindu.

>>1102
There's nothing contradictory about people being conservative and doing their neighbors favors though. If anything, that's the stereotype. People write stupid articles like that to gets clicks and ad revenue. Clearly it worked.

>>1103
According to the radio program I was listening to she bitched about her neighbours on Twitter for weeks before writing the article. She seemed genuinely bothered by it. I think it was more craziness than clickbaiting.

Its bizarre that extremist politics which used to be a hallmark of imageboard types are now universally despised outside of the remaining /pol/s and /int/s.

>>1105
I don't know what you mean by this. Despised on imageboards? If that's what you meant there's nothing bizarre about it. Over time they kill discussion and move onto to greener recruitment pastures. They weren't always around either, they invaded during the 2010s.

>1. There is a patriarchy, a society-wide, concerted effort to keep woman down. Every man who does not "fight it" is part of the patriarchy.
concerted implies intent. the concept of the patriarchy is that it is primarily subconscious - that's why these Feminists place such an emphasis on challenging it everywhere, they're trying to fight something that they already assume to be inherent.
>2. Promoting feminism is the way to promote general equality. If society reached "peak feminism" there would be no issues that disproportionately affect either sex. Quality of life and happiness will also certainly be higher for everybody.
here the separation by wave comes in, and I think it's fair to say, if nothing else than on an economic basis, that it's pretty obvious that liberating half the population of their compulsion to stay away from the workforce does noticeably benefit the economy and consequently living standards along with it.
>3. Women are a victimized class of people today and in the western first world. They are victimized more so than men. Feminism cannot exist unless woman are "the victims" and will never become obsolete because the goalposts will be perpetually changing.
that's why they have the waves. the second wave was achieved indisputably, so you move onto another wave of what is ostensibly the same movement.
>4. Human beings are born blank slates. There are no innate psychological differences between men and women that tend to occur. If there are any exceptions to a potential trend, that proves that the trend does not exist. (extension of Marxism)
that's not an extension of Marxism at all. indeed the Labour Theory of Value is a rule of thumb, i.e a trend with exceptions that nonetheless do not disprove the trend. before you interject and say this applies to Marxist attitudes on social issues, please recall that Marx regarded all social conditions as inevitable outcomes of economic ones - i.e there's no difference, at least to Marx, between economic and social issues.
>5. Feminism cannot be characterized by the words and actions of individuals or groups with money and power who identify as feminist. It is only characterized by vague, theoretical ideas.
that's just standard postmodern fare, which by the way is yet another proof that Feminism is not uniquely Marxist in character.
>6. Women are not a hive mind and are all unique individuals who can not be generalized in any way, but they should have a strong sense of group identity and work towards common interests. "Sisterhood" and individualism are somehow not contradictory. A shared victimhood should be the unifying factor among women.
that's the outcome of intersectionality - that is, combining smaller interests into a larger interest. note the similarity to the fasces, the symbol of the fascists, who also sought to "combine" individuality and community. curious.
>7.Social norms and trends are not an inevitability and can somehow be removed from society so that "everybody just does what they feel like". Feminism removes social norms rather than replacing them.
social norms are complex, and to a degree I think Feminists are correct in their assessment that social norms are at least partially constructed. those that are "essentialist" typically just derive from underlying conditions. this analysis can be seen in action where the free market shapes social norms such that human action is less transgressive against one another, and more free and open for all. but to try and engineer society around this analysis, is yet again the exclusive domain of both Feminists and Fascists.
>8. All media portrays of women have a direct effect on how they are treated in real life(people will copy what they see), which justifies restricting what artists are and are not allowed to create.
a perfect point from my last point - social engineering as a response to analysis of society. just as fascists, nazis and communists strictly regulated and brutally enforced standards of art, so too do Feminists take up the mantle of extreme statism in the name of "bettering" society.

>>1360
>it's pretty obvious that liberating half the population of their compulsion to stay away from the workforce does noticeably benefit the economy and consequently living standards along with it
Except it doesn't. It justifies not raising salaries proportional to inflation. In the past, one person could support a middle-class family, now it takes two.
>Labour Theory of Value
Is complete bullshit. From top to bottom. Marx wrote things he wanted to be true, but really aren't.
>another proof that Feminism is not uniquely Marxist
No, it's not unique.

>>1383
>It justifies not raising salaries proportional to inflation. In the past, one person could support a middle-class family, now it takes two.
you are not accounting for the fact that in the past, the standards of living were also lower. so the choice is lower your living standards, or (roughly) halve the economy.
>Is complete bullshit. From top to bottom. Marx wrote things he wanted to be true, but really aren't.
the primary cost of producing a product is labor - if you could sell something for the cost of it's constituent ingredients ALONE (plus additional price, but markets will always push that down so it's barely worth talking about) then they would. so what, then, is the main cost in producing a product? well, the labor, as that, mixed with the raw ingredients, is what most products really are. and so things which were risky to produce are consequently more expensive, as you have to pay more to get people to use risky procedures as your employee. if you'd like to try selling something without taking the cost of labor into consideration, please do be my guest. tell me whether you lose all of your customers or all of your employees first.
>No, it's not unique.
uniqueLY. no thought on earth is unique. but since English seems to be your second language, I'll give you some synonymous statements. "Feminism does not draw only from Marxist theory", "Feminism does not draw solely from Marxist theory", "Feminism is different to Marxism", "while related, Feminism and Marxism are not the same", "despite similarities, there are key differences between Marxism and Feminism", "Feminism is made up of four main schools of though, of which the merely Marxist-influenced one is but a singular example."

>>1394
>the standards of living were also lower
Not enough so. It's odd that people can't live like a middle class family in the 50s on one person's salary even if they wanted to.
>if you could sell something for the cost of it's constituent ingredients ALONE then they would
No, they're trying to make a profit. Outsourcing exists to lower the cost of labor as much as possible, but they don't proportionally lower the cost of products. It wouldn't matter much if they actually used slaves. The cost of a product is solely determined by how expensive they can get away making something. Supply and demand(which can be and is manipulated). The existence of a product to begin with, is determined by profitability.
>since English seems to be your second language
I don't find pedantry to be interesting and worth engaging with. That's now how I like to have a conversation. I don't know why you would be concerned with these insignificant details unless you considered yourself a marxist.

>>1396
>Not enough so. It's odd that people can't live like a middle class family in the 50s on one person's salary even if they wanted to.
certainly, after accounting for change in living standards and inflation, there remains a large gap - but that's easily explained by the increasing government involvement in the economy and way higher taxes, it's got nothing to do with women entering the workplace.
>Outsourcing exists to lower the cost of labor as much as possible, but they don't proportionally lower the cost of products.
they don't need to if their competitors aren't doing the same. market competition determines the final price in this way - but because of the increased profits from outsourcing and continuing to sell at the same price, we still find that labor as a value has served the outsourcing company better by lowering it's cost. that company will undoubtedly be more successful with it's greater amount of money to invest elsewhere.
>The cost of a product is solely determined by how expensive they can get away making something
read Thomas Sowell. he explains in great detail how markets drive prices DOWN, not UP.
>Supply and demand(which can be and is manipulated). The existence of a product to begin with, is determined by profitability.
both are determined by labor. supply is limited by how much labor, in quantity and quality, is required, and the capacity of demand is proportional to the spending power of the public, which is reliant on their labor earnings.
> I don't know why you would be concerned with these insignificant details unless you considered yourself a marxist.
because it's ridiculous to oppose something without knowing precisely what it is. everybody knows that marxism and feminism are present forces with negative effects, but it's expressed mainly as a vague unease with a nebulous black cloud, when the enemy is very real, very clear, and very defined if you care to actually look. they do not want you to look - if people understood Marx, they would see his theories everywhere, and could call it out. but since people are ignorant of Marxism, they are totally helpless when confronted with it, and often don't recognize when they are even dealing with Marxism (nearly all the time, that is.) as for whether I am a Marxist, I am not in the sense of advocating for anything that Marx advocated for - I am in the sense of believing in a connection of labor and value (though I do not accept it as an all-encompassing theory of value), and I am in the sense of believing in the progression/stage theory of history (though not in the class struggle Marx connects it with). while I was introduced to these ideas as a kid by reading Marx, these ideas are not originally Marx's at all, and derive from a far older classical liberal tradition (Adam Smith in terms of labor and value, and the Whig historians in terms of theory of history).

>>1397
>it's got nothing to do with women entering the workplace
If everything else was the same, except women still weren't expected to work, I bet salaries would be higher.
>labor as a value has served the outsourcing company better by lowering it's cost
The product doesn't proportionally lose value(how much it costs for consumers) when there's lower costs to produce it. According to "labor theory of value", it would(or at least should).
>markets drive prices DOWN, not UP... both are determined by labor.
How about monopolies? Corporations can also cooperate with each other for mutual benefit, like ISPs do. Diamonds are one example of artificially small supply. College textbooks and electronic "learning tools" are required and new ones are constantly produced for the sake of profit. These factors which inflate prices aren't directly caused by labor, even if you could contrive some connection.
>it's ridiculous to oppose something without knowing precisely what it is
You just need to know the cause and effect. Saying people being born as blank slates is a Marxist idea, is good enough. Being able to identify the specific source of bullshit isn't needed to call it out. Lumping bullshit together under one label is actually beneficial to "combating" it(which isn't something I'm interested in anyway).

>>1399
>If everything else was the same, except women still weren't expected to work, I bet salaries would be higher.
well sure, society wouldn't even collapse because most essential jobs are worked by men, but I think after the initial pay rise resulting from men's labor being effectively doubled in value, you'd experience a fairly large economic crash.
>The product doesn't proportionally lose value(how much it costs for consumers) when there's lower costs to produce it. According to "labor theory of value", it would(or at least should).
I don't ever think Marx says that it would, but he did believe in labor coins so he probably believed it should. in any case, my conclusion that markets drive down prices derjves from Sowell, and I think it's fairly well documented that this occurs, at least over longer timescales.
>How about monopolies?
monopolies prevent the competitive forces that define a market.
>These factors which inflate prices aren't directly caused by labor, even if you could contrive some connection
indeed, and directly tying all market actors and forces strictly and exclusively to labor alone would result in a conclusion in line with the theory of "class warfare", which is naturally where Marx erroneously takes it.
>Saying people being born as blank slates is a Marxist idea, is good enough.
only insofar as Marxists after the death of Marx put class above nationality - Marx himself was notoriously racist, and in his concept of the Lumpenproletariat we see his elitist attitude to the lower classes preserved, a belief he has that the broad masses are divided between noble savages of the proletariat and the so-called subhuman untermensch he calls lumpenproles. that's where the "ivory tower" branches of Marxism mainly derive, this hatred of one's own commoner people.
>Being able to identify the specific source of bullshit isn't needed to call it out.
no, but it's rather silly to call something out without being able to refute it, and I for one can't even begin to imagine refuting something without first understanding it's argument.
>Lumping bullshit together under one label is actually beneficial to "combating" it
perhaps in a vulgar vote-winning political sense, it's of zero use in arguments or debates of any kind.

>>1399
>If everything else was the same, except women still weren't expected to work, I bet salaries would be higher.
well sure, society wouldn't even collapse because most essential jobs are worked by men, but I think after the initial pay rise resulting from men's labor being effectively doubled in value, you'd experience a fairly large economic crash.
>The product doesn't proportionally lose value(how much it costs for consumers) when there's lower costs to produce it. According to "labor theory of value", it would(or at least should).
I don't ever think Marx says that it would, but he did believe in labor coins so he probably believed it should. in any case, my conclusion that markets drive down prices derjves from Sowell, and I think it's fairly well documented that this occurs, at least over longer timescales.
>How about monopolies?
monopolies prevent the competitive forces that define a market.
>These factors which inflate prices aren't directly caused by labor, even if you could contrive some connection
indeed, and directly tying all market actors and forces strictly and exclusively to labor alone would result in a conclusion in line with the theory of "class warfare", which is naturally where Marx erroneously takes it.
>Saying people being born as blank slates is a Marxist idea, is good enough.
only insofar as Marxists after the death of Marx put class above nationality - Marx himself was notoriously racist, and in his concept of the Lumpenproletariat we see his elitist attitude to the lower classes preserved, a belief he has that the broad masses are divided between noble savages of the proletariat and the so-called subhuman untermensch he calls lumpenproles. that's where the "ivory tower" branches of Marxism mainly derive, this hatred of one's own commoner people.
>Being able to identify the specific source of bullshit isn't needed to call it out.
no, but it's rather silly to call something out without being able to refute it, and I for one can't even begin to imagine refuting something without first understanding it's argument.
>Lumping bullshit together under one label is actually beneficial to "combating" it
perhaps in a vulgar vote-winning political sense, it's of zero use in arguments or debates of any kind.

I've been thinking about something. It seems like a lot of women think they own the female form. Even though it's an abstract concept, I've noticed they feel a sense of ownership towards it.

It comes up a lot with 2d porn. There's actually women who react to it by saying "this man shouldn't be allowed to draw women". The sentiment is even stronger with life-sized dolls. Even though there's no direct connection between a doll and a human being, they get deeply offended, like something that's their property was violated or stolen(though they might try to hide that with mockery, not being indifferent gives up their strong reaction). The more realistic, the worse it gets.

I've never seen this with men. If a man did express a similar sentiment, they'd definitely be laughed off.

Post edited on 14th Aug 2021, 12:10pm

>>1412
I think those particular women are just insane. It's best to ignore them.

>>1412
I agree with them so far as photographic depiction of 3D women goes, but as 2D is the best realistic alternative to this, 2D is in fact the only way of achieving what they wish to achieve. that plus the fact that a lot of the focus on anime specifically arises from the extremely racist stereotype of the "yellow peril" being perverted and arriving to rape white women. but it can only be expected that such bigotry remains amongst radical feminists such as Clare Short.
>>1413
it's best to ignore all 3D

>>1414
>so far as photographic depiction of 3D women
Why? People are individuals. Nobody owns any body but their own. The rest of what you wrote is incomprehensible.

>>1415
why? well to combat objectification of women, which psychologically speaking only occurs through photographic depictions. so the government should crack down on 3D, and promote anime as a healthy alternative.

>>1416
Even if objectification can be proven to exist as something real, and separate from natural male sexuality, what is wrong with it? No one ever explained that to me. Okay, so let's say I'm treating women like an object of my lust rather than a person. And? Women DON'T own the concept of the female body, that's the point. They can't, no-one can, only the mind that imagines it owns it.