[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


File: 1668062259397.jpg ( 58.23 KB , 750x1000 , flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x10….jpg )

 No.460336

<Does he have a point?
I've never read any of his books, but from what I understand, one of his central thesis goes like this:
>People with exceptionally disordered lives, who can't even manage to keep their own personal space tidy and clean, have a 0% chance of reorganizing the world for the better.

This strikes me as true. When I was more into activism, some of the most high and mighty r-r-r-revolutionaries had exceptionally disordered lives. Some of them couldn't even operate a vacuum cleaner (literally comical to watch them try). Or, more commonly, they would leave dirty dishes that their housemates had to clean. Yet, at the same time, they honestly believed that if they had control, they would somehow make a better world. It struck me at the time as rather arrogant and somewhat detestable. This has me wondering, regardless of whatever else Peterson is saying, does he have a point about the unfounded narcissism of some people of the left, especially those who can't even manage their own lives in a semi-self sufficient and positive way. Are we really to believe that those whose own personal space is in shambles would somehow do a better job if only they had more tasks and responsibilities, despite the fact that they fail at minor personal responsibilities?

If so, what are the political implications of this? How does this relate to organizing, the vanguard, etc?
>>

 No.460337

>>460336
Nope sage this shit nobody reply report OP.
>>

 No.460339

Reserved for sage
>>

 No.460340

>>460337
Cry harder before returning to leftypol
>>

 No.460341

>>460340
I'm going to post every stiner pick from leftybooru you /pol/tard faggot.
>>

 No.460343

>>460341
Post a picture of your physique instead. Let's see how good you manage your own body, you raging faggot.

Sounds like OP hit the nail on the head. Maybe your time would be better spent washing dishes
>>

 No.460346

File: 1668062776715.jpg ( 16.28 KB , 255x253 , d90b746b61d79af6495f491cc6….jpg )

>>

 No.460349

File: 1668063098979.png ( 77.14 KB , 542x535 , 8a4fc442a2cdfc898933e16548….png )

Reactionary thread sage sage. Sage.
>>

 No.460350

File: 1668063305975.gif ( 676.45 KB , 800x566 , e47615c8745a7036bec0536d6b….gif )

>jordan peterson being promoted by "leftists"
Funny how not even /pol/fags like that guy, and he's associated with reactionary shit.
>>

 No.460351

>>460349
Are you the same faggot who reported like 80 threads a few weeks ago, then left with your tail between your legs after everyone realized how deranged and mentally unstable you are?
>>

 No.460352

File: 1668063411939.png ( 108.06 KB , 645x770 , 09ea3e16d4d98e009f7e65f9a8….png )

>>460351
>Are you the same faggot who reported like 80 threads a few weeks ago, then left with your tail between your legs after everyone realized how deranged and mentally unstable you are?
You're a reactionary.
>>

 No.460357

>>460352
I'm living rent free in your head rn
>>

 No.460364

>>460337
>>460339
>>460341
>>460346
>>460349
>>460350
>>460352
I'm assuming you're room is a mess, anon
>>

 No.460636

One thing the Freemasons do, when you request to join, is pay a visit to your home to interview you. We do that for more or less the same reasons you express in your OP. If your house looks like a nest for a mentally ill faggot, no way do we want you in our ranks.
>>

 No.460637

>>460336
Very brilliant and exceptionally influential people who made the world a better place did not care one bit about organizing their stuff. I would say that it's a personal preference, and you should maybe not put too much emphasis on this. After-all society is not the same as a room with stuff in it.

>what are the political implications

If you judge political leadership by how tidy their rooms are, you will get very shitty politicians that trample your interests, while having very nice rooms that are being kept in tip top shape by a horde of maids.

There are no shortcuts, you have to look at the policies and ideology of political leadership to figure out if they are any good.
>>

 No.460645

>>460637
The road to hell is paved in good intentions, anon
>>

 No.460667

It doesn't relate at all. Peterson is a charlatan, and his philosophy is worthless self-help trash.
>>

 No.478041

I completely agree. Most communists are young people and young people tend to be completely dysfunctional. As you get older you reach homeostasis and come into order.
The vanguard will be older people, "old white men", as it were, who have the education, experience and emotional stability to lead society.
I wouldnt trust a generation alpha tiktoker with anything, lest my own political freedom.
>>

 No.478042

>>478041
Irony is, most olfer people are also dysfunctional.
If older people are asorderly as they advertise, we would not need counseling and rehab.

Also most activists arent young people.
>>

 No.478043

>>478041
Also the vanguard of "old white men" tend to have serious vices.


Theyre often riddled with biases and habe sexual perversions.
>>

 No.478044

>>460336
Most historical figures whom chaged fhe world were dysfunctional fucked up people with serious vices.


Jordan Peterson has a point about gettinf ones shit together but he often falls trap to right wing mysticism about marriage amd parenthood being the mandatory license of adulthood.
>>

 No.478046

>>478042
>Also most activists arent young people.
Ha! Sure.
>>478043
>Theyre often riddled with biases and habe sexual perversions.
Such is life.
I never claimed we need perfect people leading us. Just people who have self-awareness, education, and people who have actually worked before and know what life is.
>>

 No.478047

>>478046
but its true. Most activists are not young. Theyre 25 the youngest.


Also, society ironically praises older men for having vices.
"To err is to be human."

Older women are condemned for having vices.
>>

 No.478048

File: 1706168852518.jpg ( 137.37 KB , 1080x809 , 1670776782218.jpg )

>>478047
Well whatever the case is
I think we share a distrust of the kid who does his revolutionary activity by the twitter ratio
Although, as a 25-year-old, the truth is that old people just arent hip to anything really, and i do think we still need cross-generational representation. But i am just cautious about intellectual integrity always. If i was running a party i would give members a reading list.
>>

 No.478050

>>478048
But like how in USA you need to be 35 to be president, i think in central leadership we need a statute to secure the dignity of the party.
I feel like im not ready to be leader of anything, but probably would be when im 35.
>>

 No.478051

>>478050
Most people in their thirties and forties are adolescent as fuck.
Look at the amount of scandals pouring out of Congress.
They arent even major but its typical greed. Like George Santos.



>>478048
Our modern idea of maturity is due to the age segregation.
If ypu studied history you would be surprised how young many of our historical figures were when they started their careers.

Some of our great artists were career veterans by their mid-twemties.

Adolescence was a recemt social construct applied in the west.
>>

 No.478052

>>478051
I agree that todays idea of maturity is different, but it is still true that our childhoods have also been extended.
Also for whoever is immature in their 30s, we can guarantee that they were even immature in their 20s.
>>

 No.478053

>>478052
not always.
But yea I get the point. However, maturity isnt a straight line nor permanent.

Look at alot of our Karens.
>>

 No.478054

>>478053
And i get what youre saying
Maybe it seems ridiculous for me to say, but i often look at my own parents and feel a strange pity towards them because mentally theyre like children to me. Not just intellectually, but emotionally. And i have had my very immature moments but ive grown up into a whole human being, but some people never do.
>>

 No.478056

>>478054
Middle aged adults act more like the negative teenage stereotypes than actual teens.

Especially the men.

Most people lump the middle aged with the elderly.

Theyre not the same

If you hang out with the elderly (70+) and compare them to the middle aged (thirty-five to seventy), the difference is big snough.

Middle aged men tend to be more easily irate amd are extremely age sensitive.
They always assume anyone younger is out to get them. Theyre the ones whom whine the most about "kids these days" while also bragging about their juvenile delinquency career.

Early middle agers, irregardless of gender, are the worst.
Theyre the ones whom just left their cultural prime and take generational changes the hardest.

The Baby Boomers are more mellow now about tech than they were three deacdes ago.
Boomers have all left middle age amd are in true senescence.
Gen X are more cranky because their in true middle age.
But, Millennials are the worst.
Theyre the early middle aged folks amd have been the first tech crossover youth generation (having seen the last dregs of VHS before DVDs and streaming), the pop culture market is moving on to their juniors.

Millnials still havent really achieved true adulthood and often brag about their mundane trivial struggles of basic living (or as we call "adulting") amd are therefore culturally self absorbed, leaving not much knowledge on past generational cultural products before their epoch, whoch makes them have an exaggerated sense of timeflow.

This especially more noticeable in the black American sector.
>>

 No.478070

File: 1706213795945.jpg ( 27.84 KB , 239x350 , Ion Vetrilă mfw.jpg )

>>478050
>But like how in USA you need to be 35 to be president, i think in central leadership we need a statute to secure the dignity of the party.
25 yo Saint-Juste would have executed you on spot for being an utterly retarded reactionary scum cucked by le ancien regime culture, & he would be absolutely right in doing so.
Holy fuck, imagine saying such shit to Ion Vetrilă who managed to create his own AnCom youth militia in a hellishly fascistic Romania while he was just 15, with other teenage boys (14-17) who've done dozens of operations & killed >100 legionnaires in their last days of fighting. Holy shit just fucking kill yourself you entitled lefty/pol/oid useless worthless faggot. Not even gonna sage your retardation so something good could be found here instead.

https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiducii_lui_Cotovschi (roman)
https://saint-juste.info/old/vetr.htm (russian)
>>

 No.478072

>>478070
I was just talking about how young people wete active industrial agents back in the past.

Our modern social treatment of yputh is a testament to the dumbing down of society.
>>

 No.478074

File: 1706222372844.png ( 40.17 KB , 170x159 , scifi-data-crystal.png )

>>478056
This is pure idealist ramblings mixed in with a little bit of sexism and racism.

From a materialist point of view, you can't really group people by age. Zuckerborg counts as a milloonnial as much as somebody of a similar age that was forced to go live in a tent city. Yet those people share zero material interests.

It seems pretty clear this is a reactionary that's trying to scapegoat people. And it's usually the case that there is a agenda behind this, usually the perpetuation of capital interests of a faction of the bourgeoisie.

Here's the interesting bit:
Ignore the generational identity politics bullshit and focus on the material interest part.
>The Baby Boomers are more mellow now about tech than they were three deacdes ago.
>Boomers have all left middle age amd are in true senescence.
>Gen X are more cranky because their in true middle age.
>But, Millennials are the worst.
>Theyre the early middle aged folks amd have been the first tech crossover youth generation (having seen the last dregs of >VHS before DVDs and streaming), the pop culture market is moving on to their juniors.
the consistency with which this guy makes the same typos is suspicious and almost like it might be a bot disguise

He seems to be complaining about people that compare physical media-ownership with streaming-subscription media-expropriation. Basically people that realize how much of a ripp-off and loss of control over personal technology that means.

The media distribution monopolists that try to expropriate people and commit systemic personal property violations, have fucked them selves into a ideological corner. On the one hand they want to have their fake corporate property rights (which are mostly just monopolies, technically not a type of property) but on the other hand they want to deny people to have any real personal property rights. But if you deny people personal property, they have no incentive to reciprocate and accept corporate property either, and they'll just look at you as a malevolent evil power that seeks to impose it self.

Capitalists didn't used to be that stupid, they used to realize you had to let people have some personal property of their own. To create overlapping interests.

Anyway the people that reactionary-generation-idpol-poster is trying to scapegoat are probably going to drive a revival of physical-media, and that's interfering with their desires for subscription-feudalism. They hope, they will be able to mentally-rape younger people to accept their shit-sandwich. They won't tho, the only difference age will make is that younger people will probably want a local-network streaming-server that they own and control instead of a local collection of disks or tapes that they own and control.

Many property types are legal constructs that are imposed by economic systems. Personal possessions are different that's species being and not subject to changes in economic systems. Also people wanting to have control over their immediate environment is also such a species being thing that can't be changed.

Fending off corporate belligerency that is seeking to intrude into the personal space is a terrible burden, but maybe there will be a silver lining and we finally get those data-crystals that scifi promised, which will solve long-term data storage.
>>

 No.478084

>>478074
>From a materialist point of view, you can't really group people by age. Zuckerborg counts as a milloonnial as much as somebody of a similar age that was forced to go live in a tent city. Yet those people share zero material interests.


Then why do imageboards and fhe rest of the Ineternet always whine about "zoomers and Gen Alpha"?


Why is any new form of tech/media thats made popular is always immediately pathologozed?


Also concerning the tech snobbiness I mentioned earlier, its mainly nostalgia.

>Anyway the people that reactionary-generation-idpol-poster is trying to scapegoat are probably going to drive a revival of physical-media, and that's interfering with their desires for subscription-feudalism. They hope, they will be able to mentally-rape younger people to accept their shit-sandwich. They won't tho, the only difference age will make is that younger people will probably want a local-network streaming-server that they own and control instead of a local collection of disks or tapes that they own and control.


I dont do subscriptions for anything nor do I endorse it.
I download all my shit for free using media downloader apps.

Also, the people whom wanna revive physical media are the ones whom pathologize virtual media for being new. Not because of "muh corporate control."

Before streaming, people still paid subscriptions for TV channels.
Remember Comcast?

The Internet, you only pay for Internet service. No need to pay subscriptions to streaming apps.

Also, virtual media requires hardware. More efficient hardware than for physical media.

VHS deteriorate easily. DVDs even when new, can easily glitch.

Im not against physical media at all, but I dont put too much faith in it.

The only physical media Id be fine with preserving are books and letters and paintings.

>Also people wanting to have control over their immediate environment is also such a species being thing that can't be changed.


>Fending off corporate belligerency that is seeking to intrude into the personal space is a terrible burden, but maybe there will be a silver lining and we finally get those data-crystals that scifi promised, which will solve long-term data storage.


Well, many reactionaries are talking about banning/restricting iPads from kids or wantinf to further censor surreal entertainment out of fear of "muh bad influence.
>>

 No.478088

>>478084
>why do imageboards and fhe rest of the Ineternet always whine about "zoomers and Gen Alpha"?
Generational idpol predates the internet, paper magazines were already competing about who can coin generational labels. Also the zoomer label initially was "post-millenial".

>Why is any new form of tech/media thats made popular is always immediately pathologozed?

don't know, it feels like everything is these days.

>Also, the people whom wanna revive physical media are the ones whom pathologize virtual media for being new. Not because of "muh corporate control."

No that's wrong, people started talking about reviving physical media because they got screwed over by the cloud-only solutions.

>VHS deteriorate easily. DVDs even when new, can easily glitch.

>Im not against physical media at all, but I dont put too much faith in it.
magnetic tapes last 10-20 years
optical disks last 25-50/100 years (tho good luck finding a disk-reader in 50 or 100 years)
There are experimental crystalline or glass based data-storage technology prototypes that are projected to last for a 100 thousand to millions of years.
Those also have readers without moving parts which might last a bit longer too.
The fact that current mass-producible digital data storage isn't very durable doesn't mean it's not possible to do robust data storage.

>The only physical media Id be fine with preserving are books and letters and paintings.

why ? What's so special about paper ?

>Well, many reactionaries are talking about banning/restricting iPads from kids

The reason for that is probably because certain "dark-patterns" in some User interfaces have addictive properties. If that gets fixed, kids won't become "glued to the screen", and then the people trying to ban gadgets as if they're drugs, will relent. They'll probably try to ban other things tho.

>or wantinf to further censor surreal entertainment out of fear of "muh bad influence.

I think there are people who want to install a censorship system to censor political views they don't like. Those like to hide behind "think of the children"

What has to be said is that there actually was a cia conspiracy about promoting surreal art in the middle of the 20th century because that was supposed to have anti-communist properties. It was called something along the line of the "congress for cultural freedom". The Soviets at some point experimented with a mandate that all art had to be socialist realism, which kinda is the opposite of surrealism.

I don't know whether these ideas had any merit, did the CIA simply promote surrealism because the Soviets tried to ban it at some point ? As in ideological contrarianism. Did Stalin actually have a special theoretical insight about the influence of art-styles? Or did he simply tell the artists in the soviet union to paint the kind of pictures the peasants liked. And they happen to like realism.

The CIA also tried to do mind-control by injecting people with LSD, i think that was called MK-ultra. Was that a real conspiracy to figure out a way to mind-control people ? Or was it simply a bunch of people wanting to play around with drugs while getting funding from the state to do it?

Currently there are a lot of AI mind-control projects being contracted by the military. Will those turn out to be a grift ?
>>

 No.478094

>>478088
>Generational idpol predates the internet, paper magazines were already competing about who can coin generational labels. Also the zoomer label initially was "post-millenial".

Im well aware that generational labelling was a result of twentiwth century press. Im juat saying that people seem to use generational names to discriminate against their juniors, acting as if though the new kids are Cain amd Abel and the elders are Adam and Eve.

>The reason for that is probably because certain "dark-patterns" in some User interfaces have addictive properties. If that gets fixed, kids won't become "glued to the screen", and then the people trying to ban gadgets as if they're drugs, will relent. They'll probably try to ban other things tho.


They said the same thing about TV, video games and even comic books.
Even novels were pathologised as promoting juvenile delinquency.
>>

 No.478110

>>478094
>Im juat saying that people seem to use generational names to discriminate against their juniors, acting as if though the new kids are Cain amd Abel and the elders are Adam and Eve.
I don't really know about the personal motivations, i'm sure for some it's about badmouthing others, but many people probably just repeat it mindlessly, without any motivation. Perhaps the more interesting question is why the media is interested in pushing generational identities.

For me it's just annoying because it's a such a useless category.
Linguistically it would be easy enough to make it go away tho. You just have to meme a bunch of different identities into existence that group people across multiple generations, that's negation by definition. Not sure if it's worth the fight.

>They said the same thing about TV, video games and even comic books.

>Even novels were pathologised as promoting juvenile delinquency.
Most of the moral panics regarding new media types was bullshitt indeed. But there definitely was a conscious effort by unscrupulous people to replicate the addiction loops of casino slot machines in UIs. It's probably worth cataloging the worst offenders and make it into product-quality-marker if they avoid it like a toxic additive, analogous to led-free paint.
>>

 No.478127

>>478110
>I don't really know about the personal motivations, i'm sure for some it's about badmouthing others, but many people probably just repeat it mindlessly, without any motivation. Perhaps the more interesting question is why the media is interested in pushing generational identities.

>For me it's just annoying because it's a such a useless category.

Linguistically it would be easy enough to make it go away tho. You just have to meme a bunch of different identities into existence that group people across multiple generations, that's negation by definition. Not sure if it's worth the fight.

I think generational labels are just coping with aging.
Adults can only appreciate their roles when they can domineer over youth.
Any transfer of influence to youth is considered disrespect.

>Most of the moral panics regarding new media types was bullshit indeed. But there definitely was a conscious effort by unscrupulous people to replicate the addiction loops of casino slot machines in UIs. It's probably worth cataloging the worst offenders and make it into product-quality-marker if they avoid it like a toxic additive, analogous to led-free paint.


This is a fair point.
What are UIs anyways?
>>

 No.478135

>>478127
>I think generational labels are just coping with aging.
>Adults can only appreciate their roles when they can domineer over youth.
>Any transfer of influence to youth is considered disrespect.
Maybe this is a correct insight into the psyche, but ultimately useless to me, i want influence to transfer from the ruling class to the proles, regardless of age.

>What are UIs anyways?

User Interface.

Maybe we should have called it Controller Interface, instead. The word "user" already is associated with addictive drugs, maybe that was giving people the wrong idea
>>

 No.478153

He does, if you're an incel loser.
>>

 No.478234

>>478135
>Maybe this is a correct insight into the psyche, but ultimately useless to me, i want influence to transfer from the ruling class to the proles, regardless of age.

Then we have to abolish the mandate for compulsory schooling and re-introduce trades.
We also need to incentivise community kitchen gardens and make foreclosed buikdings into homeless shelters. Or at least makw them into research labs or something.

>User Interface.


>Maybe we should have called it Controller Interface, instead. The word "user" already is associated with addictive drugs, maybe that was giving people the wrong idea


Maybe the term "patron" would be better?
>>

 No.478235

>>478153
Jordan Peterson ironically enough is a junkie and hes a weeper. He is dating a woman slightly younger than his daughter.
>>

 No.478243

>>478234
>Then we have to abolish the mandate for compulsory schooling and re-introduce trades.
You keep saying this, but you never explain why this would be better or empowering for the proles.
All the socialist countries had compulsory schooling as well and before that there were a lot of illiterate people.

>We also need to incentivise community kitchen gardens and make foreclosed buikdings into homeless shelters. Or at least makw them into research labs or something.

That makes sense

>Maybe the term "patron" would be better?

<patron
<One that supports, protects, or champions someone or something, such as an institution, event, or cause; a sponsor or benefactor.
<A customer, especially a regular customer.
<The owner or manager of an establishment, especially a restaurant or an inn of France or Spain.
I don't know if Patron Interface makes sense. You are not really championing a cause or run a restaurant in southern Europe if you click on a button in a program. It has to be more general.

I kinda like "controller interface". The corporate sector has a nasty tendency to seek control over people via technology. By calling the interface that people interact with "controller interface" that asserts that people should be in control of their technology, not controlled by it.
>>

 No.478245

>>478243
>You keep saying this, but you never explain why this would be better or empowering for the proles.

If schooling is to be compulsory, that means you dont respect children's individualities.
Not all children are cut out for advanced academia.
The problem with Yankee academia is they wanna treat all kids the same because of age numbers rather than ability.

Kids whom are falling behind in studies are forced to carry on amd they become miserable and lash out or are bullies by teachers and peers.

Inner city schools are especalliy dabgerous due to young gang members prowling the hallways and picking fights.

People think books and pamphlets create moral conscience. Alot of our serial killers, thieves, druggies, amd whores all went to school. Some were exceptionally top of their grade.

We have so many kids whom slave away their youth doing studies and they graduate. And what becoms of them?
They end up bagging groceries or flipping burgers.

Theyre unable to socialise with the oppoiste sex or cook their own meals.

Why? Because schools never taught them. Parents dont have the time nor competence to teach basic home training.

Alot of kids whom end up with better prospective jobs are kids whom worked before they were of age of majority and got good references.



>All the socialist countries had compulsory schooling as well and before that there were a lot of illiterate people.



Socialist countries still had alot of illiterate people but they were in the boonies. The Soviet Union covered alot of land.
Most of the metropolitian and industrial action was centered in a few key areas. Everywhere else was tundra roughneck living.

Socialist ountries may have had compulsory law for schools but they seemed more inclined towards hands on compared to liberal capitalist countries.



>I don't know if Patron Interface makes sense. You are not really championing a cause or run a restaurant in southern Europe if you click on a button in a program. It has to be more general.


Then, call it "user".

>I kinda like "controller interface". The corporate sector has a nasty tendency to seek control over people via technology. By calling the interface that people interact with "controller interface" that asserts that people should be in control of their technology, not controlled by it.


I think you put too much stock in "muh capitalists" for everything wrong with human condition.

"Controller" will just encourage subliminal narcissism in the proles.
I mean, alot of proles in the west are especially control freaks.
Relationships and parenting are difficult because people refuse to allow the other party to naturally flourish.
>>

 No.478250

>>478245
>If schooling is to be compulsory, that means you dont respect children's individualities.
Compulsory schooling ended widespread illiteracy. It's not respecting individuality to regress to that, it's just sabotaging society.
>Not all children are cut out for advanced academia.
Suggest something better, you know other than trying to use this as an excuse for going back in time and reintroducing child-labor. You can try to bring back vocational training, as long as children can't be used as labor-power. As soon as you do that you'll stop teaching children stuff, and use them as cheap labor.
>The problem with Yankee academia is they wanna treat all kids the same because of age numbers rather than ability.
So you want to re-organize education on the basis of aptitude ? I guess that could work, i don't know i would have to look into this.

>Inner city schools are especalliy dabgerous due to young gang members prowling the hallways and picking fights.

That's a symptom of capitalism, throwing away people, if you had a socialist economy with full employment and universal high quality public services, none of that would exist. This has nothing to do with learning institutions.

>People think books and pamphlets create moral conscience.

Maybe some people do, i certainly don't, i just think that people can learn things from books.
>Alot of our serial killers, thieves, druggies, amd whores all went to school. Some were exceptionally top of their grade.
WTF? Nobody expects schools to fix serial killers.

>We have so many kids whom slave away their youth doing studies and they graduate. And what becoms of them?

>They end up bagging groceries or flipping burgers.
This sounds like capitalism miss-allocating labor-power.

>Theyre unable to socialise with the oppoiste sex or cook their own meals.

>Why? Because schools never taught them. Parents dont have the time nor competence to teach basic home training.
Sounds like we should reduce the work-day, so parents have more time to raise their children

>Alot of kids whom end up with better prospective jobs are kids whom worked before they were of age of majority and got good references.

You appear to be saying that capitalism is bad at allocating labor power, again.

>Socialist countries still had alot of illiterate people

No socialist countries were exceptionally successful at fixing illiteracy, stop making shit up

>Socialist ountries may have had compulsory law for schools but they seemed more inclined towards hands on compared to liberal capitalist countries.

OK fair enough, we'll change the teaching methods to be more hands on, maybe that'll be better.

>I think you put too much stock in "muh capitalists" for everything wrong with human condition.

I think you're trying to blame the fucked up shit capitalism does on humanity, or what ever "human condition" means to you.

>Then, call it "user".

>"Controller" will just encourage subliminal narcissism in the proles.
Huh ? I want to call it controller interface to remind people that they should be controlling their technology.
>I mean, alot of proles in the west are especially control freaks.
People should be control freaks when it comes to their technology, that's a good thing.

You appear to be trying to attack personal property. People will own their stuff, and if the stuff contains technology, people will have total control over that. This is not negotiable. Your attempts at trying to anthologize the resistance against corporations trying to expropriate people makes you look like a shill. There is something seriously wrong with you, if you manage to summon a lecture on personal property on a communist debate forum.

>Relationships and parenting are difficult because people refuse to allow the other party to naturally flourish.

Too vague, i don't know what you mean with this.
>>

 No.478256

>>478250
>Compulsory schooling ended widespread illiteracy. It's not respecting individuality to regress to that, it's just sabotaging society.

It may have ended widespread illiteracy but it didnt solve any other problems.

>Suggest something better, you know other than trying to use this as an excuse for going back in time and reintroducing child-labor. You can try to bring back vocational training, as long as children can't be used as labor-power. As soon as you do that you'll stop teaching children stuff, and use them as cheap labor.


You seem to be shilling for excessive higher academia. This is exactly what is wrong with the west.
Also, child labor precedes capitalism. Not all kids were slaving away in factories. In fact, factory child-workers were only a recent addition amd limited only to orphans and unfortunate immigrants.

Child labor in itself is not a bad thing.

Limiting kids only to academia only creates a peer pressure cult like we see in schools.

Vocational training should be the default of schooling.

>That's a symptom of capitalism, throwing away people, if you had a socialist economy with full employment and universal high quality public services, none of that would exist. This has nothing to do with learning institutions.


This is not exclusive to capitalism.
Our curret education system is Prussian styled which is based on military tactics.

>WTF? Nobody expects schools to fix serial killers. Maybe some people do, i certainly don't, i just think that people can learn things from books.


Most people treat schooling as the new church. Most people blame criminality on "poor" education.
They try to push for more unnecessary extracirricular acrivities to "enlighten" kids.
Solitary free time is criminalised.
Adults don't like seeing kids free and about. They call the cops on kids walking the dog around the block without parental supervision.

>This sounds like capitalism miss-allocating labor-power.


It can also be due to people like you morally over-investing in academia.

>Sounds like we should reduce the work-day, so parents have more time to raise their children


PARENTS ARE SHITTY LIFE COACHES!!!!

THEY CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO RAISE THEIR OWN KIDS PROPERLY!!!!

Most parents smother, abuse, or neglect their kids. Or a combination of the three.

If parents had more free time to raise kids, they would further their incompetency.

Most kids get their bad habits from parents. In fact, most of anything kids learn from parents are bad habits or avoidance.
Any good habits or talents a child has are cultivated by teachers or grandparents.

In fact, grandparents are better at raising kids than birth parents.

Theres a reason why people say: It takes a village to raise a child.
Parents by themselves would objectify their kids into bipedal pets.

>You appear to be saying that capitalism is bad at allocating labor power, again.


Yea. We should stop having ethnic kids making all of westerners' products. Have the westerners, both adults and children, make their own products.

>No socialist countries were exceptionally successful at fixing illiteracy, stop making shit up


Send statistics/graphs.

>OK fair enough, we'll change the teaching methods to be more hands on, maybe that'll be better.


It will be better. This was how the world did their education before that wretched K-12 style came on the stage.

>I think you're trying to blame the fucked up shit capitalism does on humanity, or what ever "human condition" means to you.


Humans created capitalism.
You think capitalism was some alien/para-dimensional project that was imposed on us?
Humans create their own oppression. They cope with this by blaming it on evil spirits. Evil spirits can only work through consent from humans.

>Huh ? I want to call it controller interface to remind people that they should be controlling their technology


Fair point.

>People should be control freaks when it comes to their technology, that's a good thing.


Yes it is. We should also promote technological literacy.


>You appear to be trying to attack personal property. People will own their stuff, and if the stuff contains technology, people will have total control over that. This is not negotiable. Your attempts at trying to anthologize the resistance against corporations trying to expropriate people makes you look like a shill. There is something seriously wrong with you, if you manage to summon a lecture on personal property on a communist debate forum.


Im not against personal property. Im saying that people treat other living beings as if though they are property.

>Too vague, i don't know what you mean with this.


People treat romantic partners as personal property.
In romantic love, especially heterosexual romance, people only view others as trinkets to be thrown away at the slightest tarnish.
People constanlty compare you to their orevious partners. Youre not respected as an individual, but as an incarnate romcom movie character.

Parenthood is seen as vanity projects.
People dont need to have kids, yet they choose to do so because they want a mini-me to legally bully/patronize.

Helicopter parenting is the default in North America since the 1990s.
It resulted in arrested development.
Nowadays, 18-24 are seen as secondary tweens.
>>

 No.478324

bump
hump
gump
lump
rump
pump
>>

 No.478327

>>478256
>It may have ended widespread illiteracy but it didnt solve any other problems.
So what? Maybe those problems need other fixes, unrelated to schools.

>You seem to be shilling for excessive higher academia. This is exactly what is wrong with the west.

The good part of academia was that it could overcome the power of the church, and it enabled scientists to pursue research that contradicted holey scripture, we got a lot of technological progress out of that.
The bad part of academia is that they're still not able to overcome the power of politics and big business. That's where many of the things you don't like about academia originate.

Obviously academia also produces a strata of the intelligentsia, which sees it self as having different interests than the workers. Ultimately they want a big high-tech playground with lots of toys for scientists to probe the fabric of reality. And per communist ideology we'd want to proletarianize that as well. But the problem is that research doesn't appear to be quantifiable in the way other parts of the economy are. The neo-liberals tried to commodify research and it turned into a massive shitfest, of scientists gaming the system to meat their research-paper submission quota. And loads of research journals had their scientific standards compromised by bribery enabling product-advertisement to pose as science.

The soviet intelligentsia ended up betraying the soviet proletariat, so that has to be taking into consideration as well.
Maybe the solution is going into the opposite direction. Create the playground for scientists, and lean into separating it from politics as much as possible. We should probably remove some barriers to entry so that expert credentials aren't the only way to get access. So basically this becomes a place where people can fuck around with science toys as long as they write down the results.

>Also, child labor precedes capitalism.

I know, but lots of horrible shit predates capitalism. Just because people did something in the past, doesn't mean it's good praxis.
>Not all kids were slaving away in factories.
And categorically ruling out all child-labor makes sure that's never happening again.

If you try to make exceptions on the basis that some types of child-labor have some kind of beneficial effect for the life-path of some people. You'll get overrun by every industry trying to bullshit you and all of society into letting them exploit children. You'd need insane levels of deterrence like forcing employers to wear a explosive neck-collar that gets detonated by child-protective services in case of abuse. I don't want a dystopian society where we blow up people's heads to make them adhere to principles. It's not worth it, we can raise productivity by investing into more advanced productive forces. And we'll soon be able to make sophisticated training simulations for children that only contain the good parts that produce some kind of beneficial learning effect.

>In fact, factory child-workers were only a recent addition amd limited only to orphans and unfortunate immigrants.

Any socialist will read this as attacking social mobility of people while they are still children.

>Our curret education system is Prussian styled which is based on military tactics.

Prussian ? I don't know what that means.
Are you trying to talk about how classes should be organized ?
As in full frontal lecture style with uptight children sitting in austere lecturer-hall-rows vs group-learning circles sitting on beanbags in cosy carpeted rooms. I don't think that matters, that's just decoration. The only thing that matters is the quality of the explanations.

>Most people treat schooling as the new church. Most people blame criminality on "poor" education.

Oh, they do ? Well that's nonsense.
>They try to push for more unnecessary extracirricular acrivities to "enlighten" kids.
Fair enough we'll make the ideological indoctrination an optional course, you won't have to read the Marxist theory tomes if you don't want to.

>Solitary free time is criminalised.

Ok got it, we'll create the opportunity for solitary activities in school.

>Adults don't like seeing kids free and about. They call the cops on kids walking the dog around the block without parental supervision.

Yeah that's probably an evolutionary survival trait, you know because children wandering off on their own used to mean that they'd get eaten by a lion. You do have an argument there, most places are now relatively safe and children should get a longer leash and more autonomy.

>It can also be due to people like you morally

Capitalism definitely miss-allocates labor-power tho, that's not moralizing that's factual reality.

>PARENTS BAD

>free time for the proles bad
>grandparents good
>it takes a village
I can see the argument that you want to involve more people in rearing children, because that gives children more opportunities to find an adult that offers beneficial interactions. But you're not convincing me that more free time would be bad for society. That's just bullshit.

>Yea. We should stop having ethnic kids making all of westerners' products. Have the westerners, both adults and children, make their own products.

If you want to bring back competitive production to the west you have to force capitalists to invest into building new means of production instead of chasing after cheap labor abroad. Or, you know, make the capitalists hand over the means of production and then the proles can invest into building better means of production by them selves. Bringing back child labor or attacking living standards of people isn't a viable option. Doing austerity and worsening living conditions is just a proof of incompetence.

>that wretched K-12 style

K-what ?

>Humans created capitalism.

Nope the majority of humans wasn't asked, there never was a referendum where all humans decided to install capitalism as the operating system of the economy.
>You think capitalism was imposed on us?
People never got asked whether they wanted slavery, feudal-serfdom or wage-work. The capitalists won a power-struggle against the feudal aristocracy and that's how we got capitalism. The feudal aristocracy rose from the ashes of disintegrating slave-empires and so on. None of this shit can be blamed on humans, because it was ruling classes that imposed it on humans.
>Humans create their own oppression.
Nope that's sociopath-talk.
>They cope with this by blaming it on evil spirits
Ruling classes are not imaginary, they conspire to rule in actuality.

>Yes it is. We should also promote technological literacy.

>Im not against personal property
good to know, you're not one of the proponents of tech-feudalism

>Im saying that people treat other living beings as if though they are property.

That can be cured.

>People treat romantic partners as personal property.

>In romantic love, especially heterosexual romance, people only view others as trinkets to be thrown away at the slightest tarnish.
>People constanlty compare you to their orevious partners. Youre not respected as an individual, but as an incarnate romcom movie character.
You want to bring back arranged marriage ?
No that was worse.

>Parenthood is seen as vanity projects.

>People dont need to have kids, yet they choose to do so because they want a mini-me to legally bully/patronize.
Maybe that is true for some people, but where are you going with this ?
It sounds like a pretext for interference with the right to procreation.

>Helicopter parenting is the default in North America since the 1990s.

I haven't investigated this phenomenon, so i can only guess what this is about.
But maybe it's parents trying to protect their children from the ruthless capitalist world.

>It resulted in arrested development.

>Nowadays, 18-24 are seen as secondary tweens.
I don't know what that means, it sounds very ideological, like you are trying to diagnose people instead of diagnosing the system. So i'm not really willing to give it much credence. You have to analyze the system, or i will ignore it.

If you want to know why so many people don't delay or abstain from starting families, that's simple wages are too low and cost of living are too high.
>>

 No.478332

>>478327

>I know, but lots of horrible shit predates capitalism. Just because people did something in the past, doesn't mean it's good praxis.


Then you admit that capitalism as the cause of all evil is an overused strawman.

>And categorically ruling out all child-labor makes sure that's never happening again.


It doesnt.
It just allows capitaists prey on second/third world kids.

>If you try to make exceptions on the basis that some types of child-labor have some kind of beneficial effect for the life-path of some people. You'll get overrun by every industry trying to bullshit you and all of society into letting them exploit children. You'd need insane levels of deterrence like forcing employers to wear a explosive neck-collar that gets detonated by child-protective services in case of abuse. I don't want a dystopian society where we blow up people's heads to make them adhere to principles. It's not worth it, we can raise productivity by investing into more advanced productive forces. And we'll soon be able to make sophisticated training simulations for children that only contain the good parts that produce some kind of beneficial learning effect.


The modern socio-legal positiin of children as charity cases is exactly what makes them vulnerable.

Also the definition of a child is being extended.
Young adults are now considered children.

>Nope the majority of humans wasn't asked, there never was a referendum where all humans decided to install capitalism as the operating system of the economy.


Again, the oppressors are and were humans. Amd the victims are also victims.
>Nope that's sociopath-talk.
Humanity is kinda sociopathic.

Again, capitalism was built by humans. As was feudalism. And slavemastery.

>Ruling classes are not imaginary, they conspire to rule in actuality.


I never said the elites are imaginary. Im saying that proles conjure up religious explanations for socio-physical phenomena.

>That can be cured.

How?

>You want to bring back arranged marriage ? No that was worse.


Nope.Im talking about mandatory vetting for marriage and family planning. Just like job applications.

>Maybe that is true for some people, but where are you going with this ?

It sounds like a pretext for interference with the right to procreation.

Define "some".
Also, the "right" to procreation?
You wanna put sanctions on industrial applications but procreation is treated as infallible?

>I haven't investigated this phenomenon, so i can only guess what this is about. But maybe it's parents trying to protect their children from the ruthless capitalist world.



Not everything is about your "fight against le capitalism".
Also, the motive behind helicopter parenting is "muh sezual oredators" and "muh commies."

>I don't know what that means, it sounds very ideological, like you are trying to diagnose people instead of diagnosing the system. So i'm not really willing to give it much credence. You have to analyze the system, or i will ignore it.


Society has declining expectations of young people nowadays compared to even the recent past.
18 - 24 in post-2000 society is seen as "too young" for marriage and childrearing. Its even seen as too young for steady career.

Society expects you at that age to be slaving away in college or dead end jobs and not be wanting for more worldly things.

>If you want to know why so many people don't delay or abstain from starting families, that's simple wages are too low and cost of living are too high.


Are you saying that family making is due to lower economic prospect?

<Adults don't like seeing kids free and about. They call the cops on kids walking the dog around the block without parental supervision.


>Yeah that's probably an evolutionary survival trait, you know because children wandering off on their own used to mean that they'd get eaten by a lion. You do have an argument there, most places are now relatively safe and children should get a longer leash and more autonomy.


Are you saying that kids need a longer leash to walk dogs? Or that they dont deserve actual autonomy?


<Our curret education system is Prussian styled which is based on military tactics.


>Prussian ? I don't know what that means. Are you trying to talk about how classes should be organized ?

As in full frontal lecture style with uptight children sitting in austere lecturer-hall-rows vs group-learning circles sitting on beanbags in cosy carpeted rooms. I don't think that matters, that's just decoration. The only thing that matters is the quality of the explanations.

If you think the schooling style thats being used on kids now is irrelevant to the quality of explanations, you see no problem with them being in prison jumpsuits and eating slop for school lunch.
>>

 No.478333

>>478250
>Compulsory schooling ended widespread illiteracy.
Haha no, most students that come out of US schools are functionally literate. The outcomes of students have little to do with being compulsory and everything to do with how well their funded ya petty tankie.
>>

 No.478334

>>478333
Funxtionally literate?

If so then yea.
People wanna accuse American students of being defective in evrything.

Thats not really true. Theyre not lacking in wanton or ability to learn. Its the teachers and parents whom treat the young as pets.

We are seeing an era where kids can solve algebraic equations in a blink of an eye, can recits poetry but they dont know how to rizz up the opposiye sex or do basic mechanical repairs.

American adults think precociousness amd childhood worldlyness is "evil."
>>

 No.478719

>>478256
>In fact, factory child-workers were only a recent addition amd limited only to orphans and unfortunate immigrants.

That's not true you fucktard.
>>

 No.478720

>>478719
proof?

Unique IPs: 27

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]