Immediately calls it an offensive depiction of a gay guy. Funny how he immediately assumed the sexuality and gender of the cartoon, definitely very bigoted.
Like genuinely, at this point, all we know about that character is "Leftist". There's no way you can know if that's a man, a woman, a tranny, a straight, a queer, or god only knows what else.
Literally: how can he assume it's gender. Except seriously, how the fuck can you know. You can't just encode pink with a gender to the Left at this point. All we know is that whatever it is, it's danger colors signify Leftism.
Leftists in general are always very angry compared to their right counterparts. I suspect one factor was neglection in some way by one or both parents.
Also, on Marx being racist/sexist… Black Slavery was still legal in most of the world, and women were still second class citizens at best. It wasn’t because he was “actually a bad person”, like idiots and anti-leftists are trying to say, it was because “Blacks and Women are lesser” was as ingrained into society as “murder is bad”. Refusing to acknowledge this historical context is exactly what anti-free thinkers want, as it lets them tell people to stop learning from past figures because they were “bad” and poisoning the well of ideas before the person has a chance to form an opinion.
You have to suddenly care about historical context when it comes to realizing how shitty of a person Marx was. No, no, the context...
edit: actually never mind it looks like that blog site uses some wysiwyg editor that produces abortion quality code where every element is styled individually thus making the page about 50x as big as it needs to be...
I love the rant on the Marx cartoon - not because it’s great but because he completely misses the point of the cartoon thinking that Stonetoss is saying that Marx would hate the furries and oh my gosh, of course he would and that’s not an attack on Marx that’s just a fact.
When the actual point is these are the ones that want communism and Marx would’ve had them put up on the wall and shot in the first wave!
Fucking Marx hated Marxists when he was alive for God's sake. He'd find Millennial Leftists as degenerate and deserving of execution. Most Communists would.
I think it's funny that even back then the left was dominated by faggots. What the fuck is it with that ideology attracting sexual deviants, faggots, and tranny lovers?
What StoneToss Actually Thinks: Intolerance of intolerance is intolerant.
No, that's what you think. The left makes martyrs out of monsters because it cannot imagine that the wounds suffered by evil cultures might be self-inflicted.
Look. Morality is subjective because it's value based. That doesn't mean Moral Relativism is a legitimate form of ethics.
It's like saying reproduction in mammals can come from monogamy, polyamory, polygamy, or non-consensual. That doesn't mean that reproduction primarily through rape is a good idea.
Recognizing, as fact, that morality is subjective; it doesn't mean that you can have any meaningful ethic by just asserting that. If you intend to have any social boundaries of any kind, you will have to assert an ethic.
The Left just lies about it's ethic. It's operating off of a Friend-Enemy distinction. Those within the moral framework are "friends" that are being manipulated with love-bombing (AKA: acceptance) and enabling (AKA: community love). Those outside of the moral framework deserve malicious and pathological treatment.
It's like when the Left talks about Universal Healthcare, and then says that unvaccinated people should be denied that healthcare. It's because the unvaccinated are not within the Universe. They are outside of the moral framework of the Left, and are of the Enemy status.
Subjective morality is an oxymoron. If it’s subjective, then it’s an opinion. If it’s an opinion, then it’s not a moral standard. (which by definition applies to everyone equally)
Nobody who talks about morality is talking about their values. They are talking about standards which are universal and objective.
If it’s an opinion, then it’s not a moral standard. (which by definition applies to everyone equally)
That's not true. Morality never has to assume equal application. That's a particularly modern concept of ethics based off of "universalism". Many ethics in history have supremacy at it's core.
Nobody who talks about morality is talking about their values. They are talking about standards which are universal and objective.
Again, neither of these are true. Morality as a concept can be spoken about without invoking your personal values. Universalism is basically a western concept stemming from Christianity.
It actually does. If the basis of ethics is power (supremacy as you say) then it’s subjective, based on the whims of whoever has the most strength. If it’s subjective, then how is it different from opinion?
If morality can be subjective, then what distinguishes it from opinion? Why even have both words?
If the basis of ethics is power (supremacy as you say)
Uh, these are not similar concepts, and it isn't correct to frame ethics from power.
Ethics from power is merely "Command Theory" of ethics, which is to say: not a valid ethic at all. There is no consistent standard in Command Theory, it is merely an appeal to authority and nothing else. Morality forms the philosophical foundation for ethics. Command Theory is effectively an amoral "ethic", which doesn't make sense, because there is no actual grounding to the ethic. It's not an ethic at all.
Supremacism is the assertion that the system being analyzed regards itself not only as the best system, but that every other system is so inferior as it should likely be destroyed. This is not necessarily an argument from power, but a form of zealotry.
If morality can be subjective, then what distinguishes it from opinion? Why even have both words?
Because opinions refer simply to a personal assessment. Morality refers to the philosophical grounding on which a society's ethic is based on. Opinions may deviate from an ethic, because opinions are not a social structure.
Many opinions can create an ethic (by virtue of opinions giving way to folkways, giving way to morays, and then being formalized into an ethic), but they are not the same. It's like taking one grain of sand and saying "why would you even have a word like 'dune' when it's still just made of sand?"
There is no consistent standard possible when you believe morality is subjective. That's what subjective means, "up to individual determination".
Morality refers to the philosophical grounding on which a society's ethic is based on. Opinions may deviate from an ethic, because opinions are not a social structure.
Can you give an example? It seems to me that if there is some philosophical grounding for an ethic, then that has to be objective, and so any morality with philosophy as a basis would also by nature be objective.
There is no consistent standard possible when you believe morality is subjective. That's what subjective means, "up to individual determination".
That's not true. Morality doesn't have to be objective for you to be consistent with the commonly accepted subjective moral interpretation.
You think it's moral to not kill. Some communists think it's moral to kill rich people. The morality here is not objective. But you can agree that one particular variant of these subjective moralities can be dominant in your society.
It seems to me that if there is some philosophical grounding for an ethic, then that has to be objective, and so any morality with philosophy as a basis would also by nature be objective.
Okay, the ethnic I just gave you above. This is literally how morality and ethics works, so it isn't possible for you to have an objective morality.
This is such an important point that I notice conservatives who argue against moral relativism fail to acknowledge. The fact that individual morality is subjective is exactly why a society must rigorously impose correct moral standards to be successful. Otherwise you get a generation of atheists going "I don't need a man in the clouds telling me how to live. I'm a good person." followed by a rootless generation who have no idea where their values come from and start rationalizing all kinds of bullshit virtues that only lead to further degeneracy, which probably leads to the next generation of people believing in a sky god again. (but this time a strong female yaas queen hate-slaying-goddess)
Society should impose moral standards, frankly all societies do. Even in one as degenerate as ours, the fact that most people don't find the phrase "Make Racists Afraid Again" and "Punch A Nazi" shows you that there very much is a moral standard being imposed with coercion.
My only problem is that unlike a lot of the religious political factions, the government shouldn't impose those moral standards. Two reasons:
The government can't be trusted to impose moral standards without bastardizing those moral standards into their own political objectives. The concept of an ethical state is an explicitly Fascist concept for a reason. As the arbiter of morality, the government has unlimited jurisdiction and unlimited scope to cultivate and groom the population into compliance with it's orders, regardless of whether or not any good ideas have actually taken place. Even now, we see the government claiming that not getting vaccinated from covid is anti-social and immoral, justifying the removal of all rights to bodily autonomy from the individual. Similar arguments are made about the immorality of gun ownership, so that the population can be disarmed. If an institution is to be a moral one, it must not be a political one. You have to separate the church from the state, otherwise the state becomes God.
Passing off the responsibility of social enforcement to the state creates social weakness. I'm seeing more effective arguments from Christians today knowing that they have no protection from the state, than have ever been made in the past 80 years. This is because, as far as I'm concerned, the theists never argued their case effectively, mostly because they didn't know why they did anything. Just that the books said so, and that should be good enough for everyone. The reason that you have people like me who end up circling back to Christian behaviors even without actual religiosity is because there were no good explanations about why things were the way they were.
For example, I can make an argument that the reason you should ban pre-marital sex is because it is the best way to prevent abortion. Forcing men to only engage in sex within marriage completely undercuts any argument about bodily autonomy, the responsibility of society, the beginning of life, the beginning of legal personhood, or the responsibility of spouses to each other. A marriage is a statement by the man, that regardless of how a woman gets pregnant, he has a perpetual obligation to both her and any and all children. Even the argument of children from rape is irrelevant because the father has made an all encompassing commitment to all future children. This also guarantees the social and economic security of the wife who is guaranteed to be provided for.
I didn't have to appeal to religious authority, or shout that you want to kill babies if you don't agree. I don't even have to argue that the government shouldn't regulate the private sexual acts of others, because it's not, it's enforcing a private contract for the benefit of future children and the mother.
To this day, I have never heard a religious person make this argument, and I don't know that I ever will because religious people never had to make any argument further than: "it kills babies" and "it's illegal". Passing off social enforcement on the state makes those social issues an entirely political issue, and the basis for the reasoning of that social enforcement wasn't done, it was just blindly carried on because of appeals to authority.
Just like with anything else, if you pass off the responsibility to the state, it means you've abandoned your responsibility, and can't actually carry it any further. This is why armed populations are so important: not because they need to fight off cops & armies, but so that they re-assert responsibility for protecting themselves. The state becomes a crutch, and your actually ability to do your work without it gets weaker the longer you use it.
The question is whether you derive your morality from a higher power or whether it is self-serving. There is no validity to morality constructed around justifying whatever you feel like doing. The worst people in the world, as designated by nearly everyone else, can construct a moral framework in which they are right. That doesn't help the rest of us.
I am not fond of (or at least used to be not fond of) the religious binary argument that everyone serves some master, wittingly or not -- typically God or himself. But leftist morality strikes me as derived from the self. Then tribalism decides which groups' so-constructed moralities are acceptable. Incidentally, these tribes seemed to be defined by religious conservatives. Each group that is condemned by religious conservatives is deemed a virtuous victim by the left.
Immediately calls it an offensive depiction of a gay guy. Funny how he immediately assumed the sexuality and gender of the cartoon, definitely very bigoted.
Honestly, how could you even assume that.
Like genuinely, at this point, all we know about that character is "Leftist". There's no way you can know if that's a man, a woman, a tranny, a straight, a queer, or god only knows what else.
Literally: how can he assume it's gender. Except seriously, how the fuck can you know. You can't just encode pink with a gender to the Left at this point. All we know is that whatever it is, it's danger colors signify Leftism.
Is this a tranny? It reads like it's a tranny.
He writes like a Welshman!
Long and Welsh? Maybe it's Mauler!
Mauler uses logic, which this guy doesn't. This is the anti Mauler.
It reads as though from a 'high functioning' angry and confused autist, so yes.
Leftists in general are always very angry compared to their right counterparts. I suspect one factor was neglection in some way by one or both parents.
Seeing a wokie rage about them makes the comics so much more entertaining. I don't know why.
From the comments:
You have to suddenly care about historical context when it comes to realizing how shitty of a person Marx was. No, no, the context...
The more they seethe, the more you know you're winning.
p { text-align: justify; }
how fuckin hard is that?
edit: actually never mind it looks like that blog site uses some wysiwyg editor that produces abortion quality code where every element is styled individually thus making the page about 50x as big as it needs to be...
I love the rant on the Marx cartoon - not because it’s great but because he completely misses the point of the cartoon thinking that Stonetoss is saying that Marx would hate the furries and oh my gosh, of course he would and that’s not an attack on Marx that’s just a fact.
When the actual point is these are the ones that want communism and Marx would’ve had them put up on the wall and shot in the first wave!
Fucking Marx hated Marxists when he was alive for God's sake. He'd find Millennial Leftists as degenerate and deserving of execution. Most Communists would.
Stop trying to convert me to communism
You should see their opinions on fags.
I think it's funny that even back then the left was dominated by faggots. What the fuck is it with that ideology attracting sexual deviants, faggots, and tranny lovers?
Man going to this much effort just to have a cry about a cartoon…
Go. Outside.
I didn't read all those fuckin' words but I don't know how anyone can help but laugh at the lumpenprole comic. Laugh at thyself, commie scum.
Yet another example of why the left can’t meme.
No, that's what you think. The left makes martyrs out of monsters because it cannot imagine that the wounds suffered by evil cultures might be self-inflicted.
Look. Morality is subjective because it's value based. That doesn't mean Moral Relativism is a legitimate form of ethics.
It's like saying reproduction in mammals can come from monogamy, polyamory, polygamy, or non-consensual. That doesn't mean that reproduction primarily through rape is a good idea.
Recognizing, as fact, that morality is subjective; it doesn't mean that you can have any meaningful ethic by just asserting that. If you intend to have any social boundaries of any kind, you will have to assert an ethic.
The Left just lies about it's ethic. It's operating off of a Friend-Enemy distinction. Those within the moral framework are "friends" that are being manipulated with love-bombing (AKA: acceptance) and enabling (AKA: community love). Those outside of the moral framework deserve malicious and pathological treatment.
It's like when the Left talks about Universal Healthcare, and then says that unvaccinated people should be denied that healthcare. It's because the unvaccinated are not within the Universe. They are outside of the moral framework of the Left, and are of the Enemy status.
Subjective morality is an oxymoron. If it’s subjective, then it’s an opinion. If it’s an opinion, then it’s not a moral standard. (which by definition applies to everyone equally)
Nobody who talks about morality is talking about their values. They are talking about standards which are universal and objective.
That's not true. Morality never has to assume equal application. That's a particularly modern concept of ethics based off of "universalism". Many ethics in history have supremacy at it's core.
Again, neither of these are true. Morality as a concept can be spoken about without invoking your personal values. Universalism is basically a western concept stemming from Christianity.
It actually does. If the basis of ethics is power (supremacy as you say) then it’s subjective, based on the whims of whoever has the most strength. If it’s subjective, then how is it different from opinion?
If morality can be subjective, then what distinguishes it from opinion? Why even have both words?
Uh, these are not similar concepts, and it isn't correct to frame ethics from power.
Ethics from power is merely "Command Theory" of ethics, which is to say: not a valid ethic at all. There is no consistent standard in Command Theory, it is merely an appeal to authority and nothing else. Morality forms the philosophical foundation for ethics. Command Theory is effectively an amoral "ethic", which doesn't make sense, because there is no actual grounding to the ethic. It's not an ethic at all.
Supremacism is the assertion that the system being analyzed regards itself not only as the best system, but that every other system is so inferior as it should likely be destroyed. This is not necessarily an argument from power, but a form of zealotry.
Because opinions refer simply to a personal assessment. Morality refers to the philosophical grounding on which a society's ethic is based on. Opinions may deviate from an ethic, because opinions are not a social structure.
Many opinions can create an ethic (by virtue of opinions giving way to folkways, giving way to morays, and then being formalized into an ethic), but they are not the same. It's like taking one grain of sand and saying "why would you even have a word like 'dune' when it's still just made of sand?"
There is no consistent standard possible when you believe morality is subjective. That's what subjective means, "up to individual determination".
Can you give an example? It seems to me that if there is some philosophical grounding for an ethic, then that has to be objective, and so any morality with philosophy as a basis would also by nature be objective.
That's not true. Morality doesn't have to be objective for you to be consistent with the commonly accepted subjective moral interpretation.
You think it's moral to not kill. Some communists think it's moral to kill rich people. The morality here is not objective. But you can agree that one particular variant of these subjective moralities can be dominant in your society.
Okay, the ethnic I just gave you above. This is literally how morality and ethics works, so it isn't possible for you to have an objective morality.
This is such an important point that I notice conservatives who argue against moral relativism fail to acknowledge. The fact that individual morality is subjective is exactly why a society must rigorously impose correct moral standards to be successful. Otherwise you get a generation of atheists going "I don't need a man in the clouds telling me how to live. I'm a good person." followed by a rootless generation who have no idea where their values come from and start rationalizing all kinds of bullshit virtues that only lead to further degeneracy, which probably leads to the next generation of people believing in a sky god again. (but this time a strong female yaas queen hate-slaying-goddess)
I think this is mostly true.
Society should impose moral standards, frankly all societies do. Even in one as degenerate as ours, the fact that most people don't find the phrase "Make Racists Afraid Again" and "Punch A Nazi" shows you that there very much is a moral standard being imposed with coercion.
My only problem is that unlike a lot of the religious political factions, the government shouldn't impose those moral standards. Two reasons:
The government can't be trusted to impose moral standards without bastardizing those moral standards into their own political objectives. The concept of an ethical state is an explicitly Fascist concept for a reason. As the arbiter of morality, the government has unlimited jurisdiction and unlimited scope to cultivate and groom the population into compliance with it's orders, regardless of whether or not any good ideas have actually taken place. Even now, we see the government claiming that not getting vaccinated from covid is anti-social and immoral, justifying the removal of all rights to bodily autonomy from the individual. Similar arguments are made about the immorality of gun ownership, so that the population can be disarmed. If an institution is to be a moral one, it must not be a political one. You have to separate the church from the state, otherwise the state becomes God.
Passing off the responsibility of social enforcement to the state creates social weakness. I'm seeing more effective arguments from Christians today knowing that they have no protection from the state, than have ever been made in the past 80 years. This is because, as far as I'm concerned, the theists never argued their case effectively, mostly because they didn't know why they did anything. Just that the books said so, and that should be good enough for everyone. The reason that you have people like me who end up circling back to Christian behaviors even without actual religiosity is because there were no good explanations about why things were the way they were.
For example, I can make an argument that the reason you should ban pre-marital sex is because it is the best way to prevent abortion. Forcing men to only engage in sex within marriage completely undercuts any argument about bodily autonomy, the responsibility of society, the beginning of life, the beginning of legal personhood, or the responsibility of spouses to each other. A marriage is a statement by the man, that regardless of how a woman gets pregnant, he has a perpetual obligation to both her and any and all children. Even the argument of children from rape is irrelevant because the father has made an all encompassing commitment to all future children. This also guarantees the social and economic security of the wife who is guaranteed to be provided for.
I didn't have to appeal to religious authority, or shout that you want to kill babies if you don't agree. I don't even have to argue that the government shouldn't regulate the private sexual acts of others, because it's not, it's enforcing a private contract for the benefit of future children and the mother.
To this day, I have never heard a religious person make this argument, and I don't know that I ever will because religious people never had to make any argument further than: "it kills babies" and "it's illegal". Passing off social enforcement on the state makes those social issues an entirely political issue, and the basis for the reasoning of that social enforcement wasn't done, it was just blindly carried on because of appeals to authority.
Just like with anything else, if you pass off the responsibility to the state, it means you've abandoned your responsibility, and can't actually carry it any further. This is why armed populations are so important: not because they need to fight off cops & armies, but so that they re-assert responsibility for protecting themselves. The state becomes a crutch, and your actually ability to do your work without it gets weaker the longer you use it.
The question is whether you derive your morality from a higher power or whether it is self-serving. There is no validity to morality constructed around justifying whatever you feel like doing. The worst people in the world, as designated by nearly everyone else, can construct a moral framework in which they are right. That doesn't help the rest of us.
I am not fond of (or at least used to be not fond of) the religious binary argument that everyone serves some master, wittingly or not -- typically God or himself. But leftist morality strikes me as derived from the self. Then tribalism decides which groups' so-constructed moralities are acceptable. Incidentally, these tribes seemed to be defined by religious conservatives. Each group that is condemned by religious conservatives is deemed a virtuous victim by the left.
This means stone toss is doing a good job.
Sounds sticky...
Man, that's a lot of cope. Someone call in a cope overdose.