eeeeee :3 julietttttt >.<

haven’t you heard of the paradox of tolerance? karl popper would be so disappointed with the state of the modern left…

if the intolerant left won’t accept me, i’ll forge my own path #MGTOW

it’s unlucky that trans sage beat me to the bit and is doing it better

maybe it’s gay for you i’m #SuperStraight

i’m just kidding juli!!! i’ll let you stick a baguette up my ass or whatever you frogs get freaky with

me doing warmed over platonism: hehehe i’m so play pilled ^_^

theory of the forms, pragmatically

doubt at least in canada they’ll be like ooo i’m gonna dump syrup over you and i’m not even gonna say sOorrey what’s france got on that? methinks it all a bluff

smh now she’s claiming post modernism new thread planned on friday to address this

just call yourself a philosophical pragmatist and you can mental gymnastics yourself into and out of any position it’s based

downside: you might have to read enough dewey to drop a few conversation sound bites to appear like you know what you’re talking abt

nothing is new under the sun and i have remarkably narrow taste in women

if you come have sex with us you will receive salvation from the femcel cult its like baptism but less gay

can’t an ace girl and her girlboyfriend have celibate sex anarcha-feministly anymore without the femcel woke brigade coming after us

NL: i don’t know why you even bothered to post online about this before doing the obvious resolution path like literally everyone has their brain fried

for the record by the way,,,, i was vindicated for this call

okay chat she’s literally lying dud you all know i’m incel gang 4 lyfe

i called her immediately and we just hung up now !! i love her 🥺

for the chat: we had a loving lil pow wow and now we’re purrfect meow

sorryyyyy luv uuuuu mwah mwah 😚

picking this thread back up (apologies, this is going to be disorganized)

first things first: a clarification: we both agree that the rejection of orientation model actually doesn’t matter at all, i just said it in that one tweet as intentionally as myopic and diminutive of your position as possible. just a quip muhehe

the problematic skeet in question:

next, i think this clip will provide some structure to my argument. 1. contextual nature of categories changes attitude away from identifying in too fanatical away with a category 2. and it’s not about true or false, it’s about degrees of enlightenment and about what you draw your attention to

(sidenote: geuss doesn't address these two in a systemic way iirc, but it permeates his work. therefore im using this as a succinct expression of his general approach)

if you truly believe there are deep problems with the way this historical configuration of sexuality is constructed, why are you even bothering to define yourself in any way to it, even negatively? perform a nietzschean turning away instead, and find new forms of higher enlightenment

crucially, it doesn't even matter if the points you are raising are true or not. it's about where your attention is, and where you choose to maintain and emphasize.

now lets address the list directly: my core complaint is that these are just a bundling of independently fine tendencies, but i think it's counterproductive to lump them together.

1. identity, and the primary thing i am skeptical of 2. true but uninteresting (we agree) 3. queerness - basically an implication of 2 not working, and unclear why significant 4. tbh just kinda silly. radfem is kinda dead end 5. feminism. well and good, but unclear why relevant

i see 1-3 as stemming from the same thing: rejection of sexual hegemony and 4-5 as simply feminist analysis (4 masquerades as prescription, but we all know when we get into defining capital M Men, it just lapses back into feminist analysis)

and with 1-3, i'm not sure why we turn rejection into an identity. here's a very short piece that i find insightful and think might be helpful (you haven't read lacan, but you've read stirner, so you'll be mostly fine)

here's a passage i've been thinking about, but mostly for its inapplicability. you say your use of the term is idiosyncratic, and ofc i agree, but i don't think your motivations are idiosyncratic, or detached/isolated at all, and are fairly definite, consistent, and are continuously situated

the opposite in fact - they are consequences of other very dearly held positions (see above). however, rather than clarifying anything, i think the subsumption obfuscates the value and truth in those particularistic analyses

ofc, "clarity" need not be the goal, but see above for my approach to a more enlightening motivational attitude (esp rorty passage)

motivational contexts come prior to rationality, and imo your motivations are overdetermined, and the conditionally applied rationality is unnecessary, and i would argue a hinderance on both your analysis and your orientation in the world

alright thats p much it, ily lots hope ur doing goooood ily uwu

anorexic ass lyrics

i miss keep decay off of 10 accounts at once

wild how quotes from the philosophical Great Men occupy the equivalent level of reverence as a throwaway title from some emoboi soundcloud artist in my mind

nietzsche : wagner :: willow : n0thanky0u

i have a headache and i’m tired it’s so bright

nah it’s mb, i’m tired

it’s fun to talk about but we’re whiffing one another on meaning, i think irl is goated

i don’t like anything :) my energy has been sapped and i am a dead husk :)

eh don’t bother it’s just showing that through the course of the book the pathos of distance takes an inversion from laudable generator of values to threat to new values

i don’t have an issue with the contradiction and opacity i have an issue with the type of thinking, values, motivational structure that would produce such an identification but also the length that this convo has gone on doesn’t rly reflect the significance i actually feel. it’s shrug w/e, i get it

mentioned this example the other day