/edu/ - Education

>>3520
yeah…. like in parts i get what he's saying, that we shouldnt reify nature as some absolute and untrouchable thing, but only libs and super deep eco ppl think like that (but for different reasons). Most nature lovers who have a problem with fucking everything over also want to use nature for human goals, and as long as people have been around we've changed our environment. All animals do that…. and some more than others, like beavers create niches for toooons of species by their activity. The difference is that on one side you have ppl that see humans using nature to their advantage as this total obliteration if necessary, an the "upgrading" of nature and shit. On the other, you have people who want to live "in harmony" with nature or whatever, basically respecting other creatures, caring for our environment around us, giving each part of our (ecological) community their share by not taking what we dont need or being totally cold to all nonhuman life. They arent in fundamental contradiction, like both are pro-human, just one is a narrow humanism that alienates the human from their environment and their living nonhuman community and food sources and all that.
But also i notice in hyper-industrialist and transhumanist types, their base philosophy seems to be centered around the idea that what makes people content and live good lives, is fundamentally very difficult to get, and maybe a neverending problem of having to build more and more in order to get closer and closer to a good, healthy, happy life. This contrasts with the epicurean "What is good is easy to get". Personally i disagree with it also, especially considering that its odd that even with how miserable the modern world can make us, some people insist that we were even more miserable before. Why not just kill yourself then? How did we get here? And surely we didnt evolve to be naturally miserable, and crave things that we never knew about in order to be baseline content.

>>3523 (me)
>Why not just kill yourself then?
here i mean why would they have not all killed themselves in that situation, if we started out in pure agony and misery all the time

Nice work keeping the thread alive, will post some responses when less busy

>>3497
>Countered all the time
Maybe, with varying quality. In these 2 big ecology posts there is not nearly enough effort to counter his points for what they are. The problem is that these people don't actually understand what he's saying, not because he is a genius, or because they can't handle it, but because they don't try very hard.

>>3498
Coke and nature are the same in the fact that they give a number of people pleasure. This makes no bearing on whether or not we should take it into the communist future.
>Science says we can't live without nature
Does it? It does it say we need oxygen to breath (a biological process that happens independent of the human thinking process)?

>>3503
This is a very very poor reading of that paragraph. He is not saying humans don't feel any emotions and therefore should give up 'feeling' for communism or some stupid shit. He's in fact saying the exact opposite! He's saying 'so-called' emotions (i.e. 'natural' emotions in this context) don't exist
>a genuine human 'emotion' is that IT CANNOT be reduced to anything natural, because it shakes the foundation of any and all kinds of representations of the natural world in the first place, it SHAKES the very foundations of the ethical imperative and injunction to reduce it to something natural
>I can't read therefore everyone else is a pseud
Nope sorry

>>3504
>Neolithic revolution destroyed people's help
Anprims get the wall first, you know this
>People who want to automate things can fuck off
Can Marx fuck off too? Who else is excluded from your dream world?
>Bourgeois engineers
Shit dude what are you talking about?
>We need nature to live
How the fuck do we need living organisms around us to live? Says who? Morons said thousands of years ago you need various things to live, who gives a shit about them now?

Let's pick an example. Currently humans need oxygen to function. I don't NEED various organisms to produce this. I could make it in a factory (yes I know this sounds very 'sad' and 'crazy' to you but that doesn't matter here). Humans have come so far technology-wise, who are you, random bunkerchan poster, to say we have reached the limit of human existence and now must rely on nature? We used to rely on nature to communicate, with birds, smoke signals, whatever
>No you cannot get rid of the birds we need them to communicate!
Then phones were invented.

>>3505
>Capitalists do something so it is bad
>This is bad because it 'sounds' porkie
Why should I leave nature be? Can you give a single reason not oozing with superstition?
(btw, if you say it may be "it may be useful in the future" then you are still saying it is our right to NOT leave nature be)

>>3506
&lt"So yes, the 'Earth' will have to be taken into account if for the simple reason of keeping those services stable until they can (can they?) be replaced by artificial means."
>The answer is, yes, they can be. Other than that, I generally agree, but to even pursue this requires a recognition that there is no mystique, no emotional, ideological or superstitious investment in what we call those "natural processes" - we must purely approach them from the standpoint of practicality, and convenience. Soberly, of course.

>A science is the opium
He doesn't really refer to ecology as the science of what plants grow well with other plants. He means the ideology of it. To be honest ecology in the scientific sense can just be referred to as biology. However I agree it is a poor word choice, but if you know 'ecologists' or people invested in the 'ecology' movement you know how absolutely drowned in anti-scientific mysticism they are.

>Utopian thinking that isn't based in what people want
Why do people want things? Obviously because of the ideology of the society. This is a nothing argument. People don't 'want' communism right now. Shall we give up?
>He rejects knowledge about the environment
Again, no where does he deny any facts of environmental science. We know why tsunamis form, this has no baring on whether or not we should try and stop them. Idiots would claim that we shouldn't try and stop them because that would be 'interfering with nature'. As communists that's exactly what we do, we destroy the current 'nature' of things. Should I also stop living in a house because the house 'gets in the way' of the oh so natural wind? Nature has no consciousness, has no agency, it doesn't care whether it exists or doesn't. To say otherwise is by definition mysticism.

>Anyways yes anyone who is okay with exploiting and destroying all nature
So how much nature are you okay with destroying then? Just enough so that the western world can develop, but not enough so that the whole world can live pleasant lives?
>Rafiq is pretty explicit that anything that could die to serve Humanity SHOULD die
Why not?
>Muh exploitation
Who am I exploiting? Who owns the land that I am appropriating? Oh yeah the human race because we are the only things ever to exist that have a conception of 'possession'. Like I have said you can't exploit the Earth unless you accept the mysticism that the Earth is conscious or some other God 'owns' it.

Communists are those that acknowledge the fact there is no god and choose to change the world ourselves, as opposed to waiting for the divine right to by anyone else. We don't wait for an afterlife, we create it here on Earth. This heaven won't necessarily adhere to your liberal beliefs regarding how great the environment is.

>why should we allow some idea of "maybe in the future people will actually like this" to dictate what we do now?
Yeah why should we save nature because 'some people in the future might like it'? The point is that a future society removed from the ideology of capitalist society won't share your views on 'nature'. It won't view 'nature' as this sacred thing that we mustn't mess with, lest we bare the wrath of 'God' (climate change to the ecologists in this context). You are sold this ideology on years of disney films where animals can talk. The idea of this hidden animal world where they are conscious beings, but is this true?

Optimizing nature destroys everything natural about it. You think it's natural for us collect millions of tonnes of crops an ship them across the globe with great ease? It is not natural; it is the product of thousands upon thousands of years of human labour.

>Im not against legit optimizing, but if it happens at the expense of the old, then really i dont trust it.
Here is the anti scientific view of the ecologist. Who gives a shit about the old?
&ltI'm not against optimizing tsunamis to kill as little people as possible but destroying tsunamis alltogether? Why would we do that!
Do you see how arbitrary your argument is?
>Real optimizing meshes the old with the new
…No it doesn't it just makes it better. We optimized communication with phones. We didn't just breed carrier pigeons to fly really fast.

Granted this doesn't mean there haven't been technological failures. Like you mention with lead in gasoline. They weren't predicted because of various reasons. If we don't have capitalism to pressure people into releasing things prematurely we limit this problem. Also with better understanding of science these problems get minimized as well.

In the quote at the top it spells out Rafiq's position quite clearly. No one is saying we should blow up the Earth tomorrow. The process would be a slow one where everything that is deemed unnecessary is removed. This isn't about burning down the amazon tomorrow, however the extreme ideological reaction in this thread paints it that way.

>indigenous people across the world fought against it
So if indigenous people fight against us stopping them rape and kill each other it's 'good' is it? Reactionaries are reactionary, it doesn't matter how 'natural' and 'pure' you find their so-called 'culture' to be.
>There are still maotists out there like this.
This tells us nothing. There are also unironic anprims, they are reactionaries too. It doesn't matter who you are, it matters WHY you do something.
>Understand that the project of Capital is the project of progress and city-building and "optimizing" and unthinking alienating of things from their environment and into their constituent elements.
Why can't we do this in a communist society? Why can't we remove plants from the ground in a society where humans are treated fairly? I fail to see how "progress" is bad intrinsically.
>[communists] dont want the worker alienated from their community, from their labor (i.e. their life time and power), from the land and tools they use frequently, from their homes, etc
True.
>The answer to this is not replacing the separatory power of money with that of the government. The answer is reuiniting the rifts that were caused and removing this tumor that we call Capital. Its about workers but about so much more.
What are you *actually* proposing here? We return to monke?
&lt"For you Communism is a fantasy, plain and simple, it is the 'good' of capitalism minus 'the bad'. What you fail to understand is that the overthrow of capitalism entails just that - both what you perceive the 'good' and the 'bad' are sublated, because both are conditions of the other's existence."


I actually missed a point
>Fundamentally, we ARE animals, and we DO live in a biosphere, and even though we've dramatically changed our ecosystem, look at where we changed it.
You didn't read either of the Rafiq threads, did you? You think a fucking cockroach is of equal worth to humans? You think humans have no agency in changing our environment? I offer you all of known human history as my source to back this up.

This is what I talk about in my other post just now about the lack of care of anyone to read the threads. They just read
>environment go bye bye
and shut their eyes and ears.

>>3509
This has already been addressed. It honestly baffles me how anyone could read this in good faith and come away thinking that he is advocating destroying everything all at once tomorrow.

>>3523
>Only libs think like this
That's only the majority of the western world… no need to critique that…
>ONLY libs
This thread is extremely clear in disproving this fact. You may not literally kneel every night and pray for nature, but it is still your God. It is the Other that you dare not disobey.
>if it happens at the expense of the old, then really i dont trust it.
You are scared of going against nature, even though it is all we have done throughout human history. The mere existence of humanity goes against nature. The idea of a communist society is AGAINST NATURE. What you're saying doesn't come from a place of critical thinking, and what you call 'science' it comes from a place of deep ideology.

You are just inventing this random utopian society in your head like it is in anyway possible.
>No you can't be cold to nature!
>You must respect other 'creatures'!
>NOOO DONT MOVE THAT ROCK MOTHER NATURE PUT IT THERE
Only libs believe in this shit? You're a lib then, or a deep ecologist (I like how you say 'super deep eco', as if deep eco isn't fucking moronic and reactionary in itself by very definition).

We can't go back to monke. You think the majority of people are going to follow you to your shitty little commune where you all 'respect' nature and braid eachothers hair? Where you gonna get your health care then? Are you going to have plumbing? What central system are you connecting this plumbing too? If not, you're going to need the dreaded TECHNOLOGY to collect water. Or even more advanced technology to synthesize water when mother nature says
>'no rain this year!'
>yes dear…

Why should I want to do any of this? Why should humans want to respect other creatures? Or care for my environment? They are not conscious agents. Unless you believe that Bambi was a documentary or something. The only thing I care about is not having nature oppress humans in any way. Should we respect nature by not killing tumors in humans? When does it end?!

We're not saying that content happy lives are hard to get, but the pure nature of human existence is our lack of nature. We say "fuck you" to nature and decide our own evolution.
>Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.
We don't invent some utopian world where everyone stays in their place with their small village farm patch living 'sustainably', 'as one' with nature and aim for it. The seek the conclusions of current contradictions. This is the different between socialism as a science and you wishing to simply extend the already alive ideology of capitalism. You wish to extend the alienation man experiences into communism by treating nature as valuable as it 'just exists'. It's not just capitalist ideology, it is RIGHT WING ideology. "Muh sacred land" "muh birth right" "Muh pure culture" "Muh white wife and 2 white kids and a golden retriever".

>Why not kill yourself?
Humans 'natural' state isn't agony, but it is curiosity to some extent. Our meaning is defined by how we work towards things (i.e. labour). Read this
>How did we get here?
By some sick accident as far as we're concerned.
>Are we naturally miserable?
We live in late neoliberalism. Everyone is fucking miserable. It isn't in our DNA. But I think it's clear humans will always be able to 'progress', the desire for 'more' is unlimited.

Let me be very clear. No one is denying environmentalism as a science. No one is denying the climate crisis. However it means nothing to us ideologically. It is not the divine wrath of god. It doesn't mean we should return to monke. It is nothing more than than the failure of humans to plan their control of nature properly, due to the limitations capitalism puts on us.

>>3702
oof

https://archive.fo/QsFZc#428967

Archiving this old leftypol thread about Rafiq here

>Anyone have Rafiq's 'Our Materialism'?
Reminder check backups for this

>>4291 (me)
Per my promise in https://archive.is/HqXWm

>>3506
This, but all your going to get in response from Rafiq sycophants is how you're strawmanning him. And if you have the audacity to do anything put worship him you'll be accused of not reading him, even though his defenders have supposedly read him but can never actually defend him using his writings. It's absolutely insane cultish behavior.

>>3704
>He doesn't really refer to ecology as the science of what plants grow well with other plants. He means the ideology of it.
Which is a strawman that borders on a parody of ecologists being hippy earth worshipers.
>To be honest ecology in the scientific sense can just be referred to as biology.
No it, can't. That's like saying Epidemiology could be called Internal Medicine. They're looking at two different things a completely different scales.
>Why do people want things? Obviously because of the ideology of the society.
Self preservation isn't something that society needs to instill in people. You don't have any knowledge of the history behind environmentalism. Just like a propagandist you cherrypick the historical periods that fit your narrative. As early as the 1960's the public used to think exactly like Rafaiq. They saw the environment as simply something to utilize, and that was a part form them. It's very much a colonialist mind set which you and Rafiq obviously share.
We know now that humans are very much effected by nature in a symbiosis that we barely understand. Rafiq rants on about ideology because he's an idealists with no understanding of the material roots behind it, particularly the history.
Also, I'm not so sure what's so ideological finding nature sublime. Yet somehow thinking that seeing nature as only a utility is somehow escaping ideology.
Rafiq is a left version of an autistic atheist. Proselytizing that there's definitely no god with zero self awareness that that itself is a faith based belief.

>>3705
>This thread is extremely clear in disproving this fact. You may not literally kneel every night and pray for nature, but it is still your God. It is the Other that you dare not disobey.
I don't disobey nature because it's more powerful than me that a cursory reading of history shows myself and humanity still don't understand.
When you see a "High Voltage" sign do you still insist on playing with the wires inside? You don't? Huh…I guess electricity is your God that you dare not disobey. So fucking retarded.

>>3705
>Why should humans want to respect other creatures?
Certainly not because of any ideological reasons or because we think "nature" is sacred. We should respect other creatures because we understand that respecting other creatures, treating them well, helps ourselves, our own psyches. Dogs and humans evolved alongside one another for tens of thousands of years (some research says even longer), it is expected that we would have some sort of "bond" to the animal – they found that both humans and dogs release oxytocin when looking at each other's eyes and interacting. Those dogs that were friendly, with puppy eyes, etc. we kept around, the rest we killed or simply didn't accept/feed and they died. There is something "real" that you feel towards your dog, but it is only you that feels it, your dog is acting on instincts and survival (if he goes against the pack, or isn't on friendly terms with the pack, he'll be cast out). So there is a perfectly good materialist explanation for the human-dog friendship phenomena, that doesn't involve Disney magic.

Compare dogs to our other "domesticated" pet. Cats probably came to humans by chilling on the outskirts of settlements, catching the rats and other small creatures attracted to our garbage. That's why cats today still seem independent, and most are OK changing owners, going somewhere else when they need, because that was their lifestyle around early human settlements, as long as there's food, they stay. Dogs on the other hand are pack animals and are not suited for the solitary life, so it is expected that their behaviour will be more "social".

>>4293
"This" to a very large post. "All you're going to get from sycophants is strawmanning" to a post with a very large response… Come on bruh.
>if you don't worship him wahh wahh
This is pathetic. Spend more time reading and learn how to criticize things. I'll be responding to the rest shortly.

>>4294
Okay it's not a strawman, you gotta stop using this word. It makes you look like a Destiny or Vaush watcher. It's fucking stupid. Just say what you think is wrong or say where you disagree. Do you know ecologists? Do you know biologists? Do you have academic training at all? This isn't to shame you: and yes it is relevant.

I can't prove to you that every ecologist is a hippy tier retard, however that isn't the point. From my experience with the left and ecologists I can attest to the utter ideology that permeates through this field. In the same way when you watch a Zizek film you don't go 'pffft prove it that every person thinks this way!', we know this because we live in society, and interact with it everyday and can attest to the truthfulness of the statements. Do you genuinely believe there is no eco mysticism seeping into the left? This idea that we should be 'one' with nature. The idea we shouldn't 'mess' with nature, and be good little boys? If you had bothered to read Rafiq you'd know what is oh so disgusting about this line of thought.

>No it can't.
Okay I agree here. As it field it is something separate from biology, however it comes with ideological baggage because of this separation. My personal background is in mathematics and physics and I could write a book or so regarding the ideology implications of these sciences in the same way Rafiq has here. It isn't really that surprising.
>Just like a propagandist you cherrypick the historical periods that fit your narrative.
>As early as the 1960's the public used to think exactly like Rafaiq.
Straw manning retardation. Has nothing to do with the point at hand.
>They saw the environment as simply something to utilize, and that was a part form them.
How is this bad? "not being a simp for muhther nature = colonialism" won't cut it. Literally not an argument dude. It's as stupid as those morons who claim "efficiency is capitalist!" and what not. I don't give the slightest shit how 'bad' something sounds to your liberal mind. Communist revolution sounds bad to your average joe, that means nothing. It means less than nothing to the value of communism.
>Wow nature is so pure and holy we barely understand how great it is 🙏
>What is ideological about finding nature sublime?
Wow it's really mask of time, isn't it? Are you acquainted with eco fascist work? Deep ecology shit? I suspect you are not since your lack of self reflection speaks bounds.

Do you know what nature is, 'Comrade'? Nature is shit and filth. It is disease. It is women dying at childbirth because the baby is too large. It is the mentally and physically ill suffering and being killed because they are not strong enough. It is rape, it is starvation and it is endless struggle. How is this torture sublime? The only thing that is sublime is the human intervention in this so called 'natural' process. This is what you think is nature. What you think is nature is specifically sterilized 'natural parks' and animals in zoos and pathetic petit bourgeois attempts of 'returning to nature'.
>muh autism
>muh atheism
>actually you're the one with no self awareness!
uh huh

>>4295
>I don't disobey the owner of my land! They are more powerful than me!
>I don't disobey my slave master, they are more powerful than me!
>I don't disobey my capitalist! They are more powerful than me!

It's clear: you're not a communist. "High voltage" is the complete fucking antithesis to nature you moron. It is the human ability to harness such great power and contain it by the sheer use of human labor. Electricity doesn't rule us, it doesn't 'decide' what we do like famines and capitalists do. The fact you act so smug after such a pathetic analogy really sums it up. You are so involved in your ideology, so narcissistic in your lack of understand, it's depressing.

>Do you know what nature is, 'Comrade'? Nature is shit and filth. It is disease. It is women dying at childbirth because the baby is too large. It is the mentally and physically ill suffering and being killed because they are not strong enough. It is rape, it is starvation and it is endless struggle. How is this torture sublime?

Nature is not all powerful. It is not a god. You can believe it is, by all means, but you're not a communist. You are a reactionary, since when humans say 'we should improve our lives' you cry about how hard it looks.

look what I found

https://www.reddit.com/r/likeus

>>4333
This gives our movement hope since these grown adults can be so swayed by nothing more than cute propaganda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGFVUsYnw8U

Rafiq is a cunt. I have no clue why he's taken at all seriously. Yes, I do deify nature. All leftists should.

>>4349
>yes I diefy our queen. All leftists should.

Why should we all do this random stupid thing you say we should do?

>>4349
you’re dangerously arrogant

>>3389
Forums are not only the superior internet discussion method, but the most superior communication method in general for serious topics.

>>3392
>Kind of shows that you haven't actually taken the time to read his points. I love coke. Does that mean it needs to exist post in a communist future?
Communism has nothing to do with these topics. Of course it has to exist. Its the base layer of our existence. Its our soul.

>>3702
>Coke and nature are the same in the fact that they give a number of people pleasure. This makes no bearing on whether or not we should take it into the communist future.
You're an idealist and solipsist. You'd happily move us all to brains in vats apparently to avoid surplus labor extraction.

>>3702
>How the fuck do we need living organisms around us to live? Says who? Morons said thousands of years ago you need various things to live, who gives a shit about them now?
Absolute biology brainlet kys posting this trash. You have no comprehension of how complex even just human skin microbiome is. Stop shitposting this is supposed to be /edu/ not whatever it is you're doing here.

>>4498
Based.
>>4499
>>4500
The point isn't that I am choosing to bring these things to the communist future, I'm REJECTING the idealism of 'I like thing therefore it will exist in communism' that the nature defenders are proposing.

If it got to the point of brains in jars, why not? It's no more monstrous than what we already are compared to our animal brethren.
>>4501
>No you don't understand science, you're not heckin valid!!!
I'm fully fucking aware of the extremely basic concept that our biology is complicated. This is painfully obvious to every human alive. But are you going to sit there, in a world we have irradicated diseases with labor, with buildings hundreds of metres tall, dude we've been to the MOON. Does the concept of destroying all animals slowly really sound that crazy? Or creating cyborgs? I'm not saying it's desirable, the point is that doesn't matter.

If you want to discuss the human skin microbiome or something we can have a thread for that, but the actually intricacies of that are not relevant here, it's a philosophical discussion regarding humanity's relation with nature.

Fuck animals, fuck nature and most of all, fuck ecologists.

>>4506
Based

>>4505
>I like thing therefore it will exist in communism
That's not what they're proposing. Did you even read Marx? You're the idealist thinking we exist separate from nature.

Why the fuck do you think we need to destroy all animals? We can do communism without this shot. You're taking communism and extending it to weird transhumanist shit that has nothing to do with the relations of production. At least be honest. You're a transhumanist not a communist.

>>4510
Let us go through the comments
>>3378
I love nature, much of it is still not understood, so the fact that Rafiq thinks he could make a sweeping generalization as, “It’s not it’s own thing” while worshiping for more abstract concepts like wage labor just shows how much hubris he has.
&ltI love coke. Does that mean it needs to exist post in a communist future?
Our love for these things have no bearing on their use in communism, our personal opinions on these objects are useless. More of an argument needs to be made. We don't exist separate from nature but nothing is more unatural than the human. And NOTHING worse than the communist. Nature abhors equality, freedom, the weak being given a chance, and rejection of 'natural' ways of life. Can you name a single less natural thing than democracy? We are against nature and we seek to destroy it in every fibre of our existence as humans. As beings that labour.

Why not destroy all the animals if they are of no use to us? Post capitalism and we gain no pleasure from our fake relationships with pets, dogs will just go extinct. Not because we genocide them mao style, but because the course of human history dictated it to be so. My question for you is have you read Marx?! What constitiutes the relations of production dictate everything in society! You know why they didn't call the commodity fetishism thing ideology? Because it is literally the core of our society and it's functioning, it's not a structure on top of it.

>>4513
>Can you name a single less natural thing than democracy?
NTA, but bees and ants make decisions "democratically", unless you consider bee and ant colonies as a single organism.

>>4291
>>4292
Still haven't found it in my archives but it may be in this book someone just posted on /leftypol/

>>4522
I made that and no, that is just a single forum discussion about ecology (it's posted in the OP). Good to see it getting reposted however.
>>4521
But it's not the concept of democracy that we have. That 'everyone should get their say', you know? What we see as democracy is just a way of running a hive that is effective at not leading to the death of the species, democracy as we know it is a complete rejection of the social order, of kings and queens, of tribe leaders and so on. I guess what I mean is the idea we should strive for some level equality is completely bizarre for nature, where disease runs rampant and food chains of constant death cannot be escaped.

>>4505
>I'm fully fucking aware of the extremely basic concept that our biology is complicated. This is painfully obvious to every human alive. But are you going to sit there, in a world we have irradicated diseases with labor, with buildings hundreds of metres tall, dude we've been to the MOON. Does the concept of destroying all animals slowly really sound that crazy? Or creating cyborgs? I'm not saying it's desirable, the point is that doesn't matter
Those accomplishments only blow your mind largely due to your ignorance of science.

>>4529
I guarantee I'm far more rigorously qualified from a better university than you are. The point is these things SOUND absurd to anyone not with our level of knowledge. Imagine 200 years ago and telling someone of the technology we have today. The sheer arrogance and ignorance it takes to declare some arbitrary thing 'really hard' means nothing to humans. It doesn't matter if you think it's personally very difficult to do things that would serve humanity, humanity will do them anyway.

Of course I know that the literal process of getting to the moon isn't 'insanely complicated', but the course of technology that needed to occur to allow this to happen, when you compare it to the most grand achievement of a dolphin or something -like dude my background is maths/physics I'm not ignorant here- ITS FUCKING BONKERS. We left our planet!!! Who knows of the possibilities the future holds for us? Certainly not random anonymous pseud number 6151

>>2297
I would rather we just go extinct tbh than let this hell cone to fruition

>>2297
> the abolition of biological life as such, the strip-mining of planet earth to produce the galaxy-spanning technological structure which will house mankind, the end of gender, birth, motherhood, family, sex, animals, religion etc.
How many flu shots do I need to develop this level of autism?

Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent.

t. Judge Rafiq

>>5043
based

Is Haz actually this person, disguised?

>>5063
I hope I wasn't the only one who noticed the similarities.

>Both Arabs
Check
>Both said they don't want to write anymore because it would be "long and rambly"
Check
>Accused of being an animal abuser by leftypol tripfag
Check
>'Anti-Anglo' philosophyfag
Check
>Both very easily agitated and will shout, scream and yell non-stop with little proclivity
Check
>Both recommend reading Zizek
Check

And the most damnable evidence.
>Both (very embarrassingly) refer to themselves in third-person.
Check.

If someone can find evidence of Rafiq being a Lysenkoist, it would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If they do turn out to be the same person, I'm going to be very disappointed tbh. I'd have much preferred his writings than his dumb bloodsport cringe.

>>5073
Holy fug.

However, Haz did say that he didn't know who Ismail was, so perhaps not. That was an offhand comment which could be inaccurate though.
Also he is not that old, so he'd have to be a child genius probably to be Rafiq under disguise.

>>5096
Haz did say he knew a significant amount of Hegel in highschool while roasting Anal Water. It's possible he started early with his studies which may line up with the point you made.

>>5073
rafiq already knew of leftypol and had been a part of leftist forums since ~2008, he wrote a 500+ page book just to own some dudes on revleft - he also disagreed with heidegger. the traits mentioned are shared by most marxists who started out with zizek.

>>5063
>>5073
Rafiq wasn't a pseud who tried to obfuscate because he didn't know what the theory of value was. Their philosophies arent anywhere near each other either. Haz when pressed reveals he doesn't know shit and says you have to do idealist leap of faiths and "believe in the people" when it comes to truth. As already pointed out its Heidegger shit. The reason Rafiq was aggressive was because he knew what he wanted to get across and was tired of repeating himself. Read any of his posts and you get a clear explanation and position on whatever topic.
Haz just screams and yells because he doesn't know how to explain shit he just read once and doesn't understand. He would call Rafiq an Anglo for actually knowing something instead of pretending with big words. And hopefully Rafiq would shoot him and push the body in a ditch.