NATION

PASSWORD

Somerville, Mass to recognize polyamorous partnerships

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

What do you think of this?

I'm not poly, but good for them
78
42%
I'm gonna tell my wife and her boyfriend, so we can start planning the move
14
7%
Meh/undecided
20
11%
This is no bueno
75
40%
 
Total votes : 187

User avatar
Grenartia
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44201
Founded: Feb 14, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Grenartia » Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:17 pm

Diopolis wrote:
Grenartia wrote:
Imagine thinking that has any relevance to anything.

So you admit that you can't. Good to know.


Why do you even care about it? There's literally no reason to worry about it.
Lib-left. Antifascist, antitankie, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist (including the imperialism of non-western countries). Christian (Unitarian Universalist). Background in physics.
Mostly a girl. She or they pronouns, please. Unrepentant transbian.
Reject tradition, embrace modernity.
People who call themselves based NEVER are.
RIP Borderlands of Rojava.
The truth about kids transitioning.

User avatar
Diopolis
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17293
Founded: May 15, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Diopolis » Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:24 pm

Grenartia wrote:
Diopolis wrote:So you admit that you can't. Good to know.


Why do you even care about it? There's literally no reason to worry about it.

That making more people is the whole point of human sexuality, that we don't know under what conditions poly succeeds but that it has the potential to go very wrong, and that figuring out custody issues for poly relationships promises to be a cluster isn't enough of a reason?
Texas nationalist, 3rd positionist, radical social conservative, post-liberal.
Did the moon landings end because there's a whites-only Nazi UFO base there and NASA didn't want to have to explain why they would never send a black astronaut? Almost certainly not. But it's less depressing than the reality that the moon landings were pointless. So too with all our great works.

User avatar
Grenartia
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44201
Founded: Feb 14, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Grenartia » Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:36 pm

Diopolis wrote:
Grenartia wrote:
Why do you even care about it? There's literally no reason to worry about it.

That making more people is the whole point of human sexuality,


With going on 8 billion people, increasing resource strain, climate change, overcrowding, etc., something tells me making more people is pretty damn low on the radar.

that we don't know under what conditions poly succeeds


We in the poly community arguably do. Open and honest communication, not being jealous, and mutual respect for your partners. Its not exactly a big fucking secret, and they're the same things that lead to success in mono relationships.

but that it has the potential to go very wrong,


Just like any relationship ever. Geez, man, that's the 2nd lamest argument against it ever.

and that figuring out custody issues for poly relationships promises to be a cluster isn't enough of a reason?


There's no reason they need to be any worse than for mono relationships. Which are a clusterfuck.
Last edited by Grenartia on Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lib-left. Antifascist, antitankie, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist (including the imperialism of non-western countries). Christian (Unitarian Universalist). Background in physics.
Mostly a girl. She or they pronouns, please. Unrepentant transbian.
Reject tradition, embrace modernity.
People who call themselves based NEVER are.
RIP Borderlands of Rojava.
The truth about kids transitioning.

User avatar
Fahran
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17478
Founded: Nov 13, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Fahran » Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:51 pm

Grenartia wrote:Do you have any hard evidence that its currently the most prevalent?

Yes. There's a pretty broad anthropological consensus on this. Source

"Anthropologically, polygamy is defined as marriage between one person and two or more spouses simultaneously. It exists in two main forms: polygyny, where one man is married to several women, and polyandry, where one woman is married to several men. A third form, group marriage between several men and women, is rare; same‐sex polygamy is very rare. Polygyny is the most common form, including de facto forms, where a person is formally monogamous but socially polygamous, maintaining additional relationships. Contemporary anthropologists explore polygamous kinship and gender relations and the law and politics of polygamy. Focal points include managing love, emotions, and sexuality in polygamy and polygamy's impact on women's and children's health and rights. Polygamy becomes political when minorities such as fundamentalist Mormons claim the practice as a religious or cultural right in majority monogamous societies."


Grenartia wrote:The poly community has a term for men who exclusively seek multiple women for a relationship. Its called unicorn hunting, and isn't looked very highly upon. Which isn't to say that NHA's assertion that such arrangements are outright discriminated against by the rest of the community is entirely accurate.

I feel like what you refer to as the poly community is a largely insular and marginal group within the broader community of people who practice polyamory, especially given that it is a socially accepted practice in many regions, and within the West, where monogamy has become the more conventional social model. You have to exclude fundamentalist Mormons, all those businessmen who go on "work trips", and certain immigrant communities as well since they practice polygyny almost exclusively to my knowledge.

Grenartia wrote:The problem with the article is that it presumes a different set of social values than are widely accepted in current society. If you're drawing conclusions about a phenomenon for a society that values egalitarianism and gender equality, but are using cherrypicked datapoints from societies which decidedly never truly valued egalitarianism and gender equality in the first place, then you are at best making an honest, though fundamentally obvious, mistake, and at worst, outright lying.

Our society, despite a lot of the rhetoric and pretenses, isn't egalitarian or liberated from gender norms or the material conditions that support them. Even serial monogamy has led to more mild occurrences of the phenomena we could expect from widespread polyamory. Ostro presented a decent explanation for why this argument largely falls flat earlier. Some of it is biological. Some of it is cultural and social. Polyamory may work fine among your small, insular, and marginal community, a community largely populated by progressive, college-educated people who don't really care too much about social institutions. Your norms and concerns aren't the same as those that predominate in the rest of society and, even if they were, I'd rather impose my preferred model on society than yours.

Grenartia wrote:I won't guess as to which of those the author(s) of the articles in question are guilty of.

Perhaps you could present data that provides a compelling counter-narrative? We do have examples of societies where polygyny isn't the most common sort of polygamy practiced. Demonstrate that we'd get something akin to what Celt insisted would happen.

Grenartia wrote:Which is fundamentally saying that men aren't at all responsible for when they rape, kidnap, murder, assault, rob, and commit fraud, and that they require women to avoid doing them (which is somehow sexist against both women and men, and is fundamentally freudian in its flawed conclusion, AND perpetuates rape culture). Likewise, I have to question if they truly accounted for the fact that all of these crimes were more common even in monogamous societies of the past, and are more common in unstable societies of the present. Like, this is truly a prime example of fractal wrong-ness.

Pointing out that particular social institutions and models can produce social dysfunctions isn't the same as absolving people of moral responsibility. Poor people don't cease to be moral agents simply because a society that allows widespread poverty without a social safety net makes criminality, instability, and violence more common. You're arguing like a neocon here. We can both punish rapists and murderers and structure our society in such a way that people are less disposed to become rapists and murderers.

Grenartia wrote:Sounds like the classic correlation = causation fallacy. In fact, hell, this alone proves the conclusion doesn't apply to Western societies at large, because Western societies do not have brideprices. In fact, it could equally be argued that the existence of the brideprice itself is the cause of these things, not whether or not the society which has it allows polygyny or not. Of course, that argument would itself require conceding that men only become involved in bad behavior when sexually frustrated with no outlet, and that they must have access to a woman to be satiated (which is extremely rapey and blatantly incorrect to say). I refuse to concede that argument (an argument which is DIRECTLY implied by both articles).

A bride price is one mechanism that can block men out of marriage but it isn't the only one. The issue is that, even in our society, polygamy is going to exacerbate socioeconomic and romantic disparities. I think it's a given that men who are unable to get married and unable to start families are going to have much less of a reason to give a damn about social order than men who do have those opportunities.
Last edited by Fahran on Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"They [progressives] were all corrupt." - Kowani
This too shall pass.

I've been contemplating the next season of my life for a few weeks now. I could worry about unfulfilling good byes and paltry words for a hundred more weeks, but I suppose this will suffice. If your eyes should happen upon this signature, I pray that you will find love, happiness, and righteousness with each morning that you rise and each evening that you sleep, secure in the knowledge that you are deeply worthy of such wondrous and beauteous things.

User avatar
Fahran
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17478
Founded: Nov 13, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Fahran » Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:55 pm

Diopolis wrote:Can anyone point to significant numbers of polyamorists that have above replacement fertility?

The Saudis. Polygyny can actually result in a higher fertility rate. Polyandry, on the other hand, tends to depress the fertility rate of a population. For obvious reasons.
"They [progressives] were all corrupt." - Kowani
This too shall pass.

I've been contemplating the next season of my life for a few weeks now. I could worry about unfulfilling good byes and paltry words for a hundred more weeks, but I suppose this will suffice. If your eyes should happen upon this signature, I pray that you will find love, happiness, and righteousness with each morning that you rise and each evening that you sleep, secure in the knowledge that you are deeply worthy of such wondrous and beauteous things.

User avatar
Diopolis
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17293
Founded: May 15, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Diopolis » Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:05 pm

Fahran wrote:
Diopolis wrote:Can anyone point to significant numbers of polyamorists that have above replacement fertility?

The Saudis. Polygyny can actually result in a higher fertility rate. Polyandry, on the other hand, tends to depress the fertility rate of a population. For obvious reasons.

I was attempting to use polyamory to here mean the liberal progressive term where it's totally, for realsies, completely different from anytime anyone ever tried this before.
In other words to get an example that we can both(me and gren) agree is polyamory and one which isn't .9 TFR dog moms.
Texas nationalist, 3rd positionist, radical social conservative, post-liberal.
Did the moon landings end because there's a whites-only Nazi UFO base there and NASA didn't want to have to explain why they would never send a black astronaut? Almost certainly not. But it's less depressing than the reality that the moon landings were pointless. So too with all our great works.

User avatar
Fahran
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17478
Founded: Nov 13, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Fahran » Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:52 pm

Grenartia wrote:With going on 8 billion people, increasing resource strain, climate change, overcrowding, etc., something tells me making more people is pretty damn low on the radar.

Population contraction can have a good many deleterious consequences. Given the United States may have a fertility rate as low as 1.77 births per woman - the replacement rate is around 2.1 births per woman - encouraging social models that depress the fertility rate even further could lead to population contraction and the deleterious consequences in question at a faster rate.
"They [progressives] were all corrupt." - Kowani
This too shall pass.

I've been contemplating the next season of my life for a few weeks now. I could worry about unfulfilling good byes and paltry words for a hundred more weeks, but I suppose this will suffice. If your eyes should happen upon this signature, I pray that you will find love, happiness, and righteousness with each morning that you rise and each evening that you sleep, secure in the knowledge that you are deeply worthy of such wondrous and beauteous things.

User avatar
South Odreria 2
Minister
 
Posts: 3102
Founded: Aug 26, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby South Odreria 2 » Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:09 pm

lmao are people still doing malthusian economics
Valrifell wrote:
Disregard whatever this poster says

User avatar
Cisairse
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10935
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Cisairse » Tue Jul 14, 2020 6:05 am

we've been in a transmalthusian state for literally decades, and you know trans rights matter
The details of the above post are subject to leftist infighting.

I officially endorse Fivey Fox for president of the United States.

User avatar
Punished UMN
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5445
Founded: Jul 05, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Punished UMN » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:12 am

Cisairse wrote:
Fahran wrote:In all honesty, the position is no less valid than the liberal position that we should always strive to prioritize personal freedom. The distinction is that one argument is religious while the other is ideological - representing a secular theology.


I could argue the "live and let live" position on ethical grounds.

Live and let live is a slogan for people too afraid to have positions. The personal is political, all social interactions have social ramifications. Everything one person does ultimately affects all of us, so we have a vested interest in regulating individual actions.
Eastern Orthodox Christian. Prudish. Low-key bisexual. Purgatorial universalist.
Ascended beyond politics, now metapolitics is my best friend. Absolute pacifist. Proud member of the Napoleon Bonaparte fandom.
I have borderline personality disorder, if I overreact to something, try to approach me after the fact and I'll apologize.
The political compass is like hell: if you find yourself on it, keep going.
Pro: The fundamental dignitas of the human spirit as expressed through its self-actualization in theosis. Anti: Faustian-Demonic Space Anarcho-Capitalism with Italo-Futurist Characteristics

User avatar
Servilis
Diplomat
 
Posts: 532
Founded: May 07, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Servilis » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:15 am

Loben The 2nd wrote:i advocate for mass investigations on the entire city council to see who has the most child sized skeletons in their closet.

Ironic, coming from someone who's flag contains a skellington.

User avatar
Punished UMN
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5445
Founded: Jul 05, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Punished UMN » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:17 am

New haven america wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:not rly :)

Yes really.

You're in the same slippery slope that people who claim society is going to die because of LGBT people are allowed to exist are.

Social studies have confirmed that slippery slopes in social norms and policy really do happen. There's even a term for it: norm cascade. It's only a fallacy when the person making the argument has not given a mechanism of action for the norm cascade to occur.

Source: Eugene Volokh. "Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope." Harvard Law Review, Issue 116 (2003), pp. 1026-1137.

(You can actually see a norm cascade in-progress in this thread).
Last edited by Punished UMN on Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:18 am, edited 2 times in total.
Eastern Orthodox Christian. Prudish. Low-key bisexual. Purgatorial universalist.
Ascended beyond politics, now metapolitics is my best friend. Absolute pacifist. Proud member of the Napoleon Bonaparte fandom.
I have borderline personality disorder, if I overreact to something, try to approach me after the fact and I'll apologize.
The political compass is like hell: if you find yourself on it, keep going.
Pro: The fundamental dignitas of the human spirit as expressed through its self-actualization in theosis. Anti: Faustian-Demonic Space Anarcho-Capitalism with Italo-Futurist Characteristics

User avatar
Cisairse
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10935
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Cisairse » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:46 am

Punished UMN wrote:
Cisairse wrote:
I could argue the "live and let live" position on ethical grounds.

Live and let live is a slogan for people too afraid to have positions. The personal is political, all social interactions have social ramifications. Everything one person does ultimately affects all of us, so we have a vested interest in regulating individual actions.

We're not talking about apoliticism, we're talking about polyamory.
Last edited by Cisairse on Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
The details of the above post are subject to leftist infighting.

I officially endorse Fivey Fox for president of the United States.

User avatar
Punished UMN
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5445
Founded: Jul 05, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Punished UMN » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:49 am

Cisairse wrote:
Punished UMN wrote:Live and let live is a slogan for people too afraid to have positions. The personal is political, all social interactions have social ramifications. Everything one person does ultimately affects all of us, so we have a vested interest in regulating individual actions.

We're not talking about apoliticism, we're talking about polyamory.

I repeat: the personal is political and the political is personal. Literally every action you take in interacting with other people is political and every political action you take is personal. Politics is not some magical sphere that isn't affected by social constructivism.
Eastern Orthodox Christian. Prudish. Low-key bisexual. Purgatorial universalist.
Ascended beyond politics, now metapolitics is my best friend. Absolute pacifist. Proud member of the Napoleon Bonaparte fandom.
I have borderline personality disorder, if I overreact to something, try to approach me after the fact and I'll apologize.
The political compass is like hell: if you find yourself on it, keep going.
Pro: The fundamental dignitas of the human spirit as expressed through its self-actualization in theosis. Anti: Faustian-Demonic Space Anarcho-Capitalism with Italo-Futurist Characteristics

User avatar
Cisairse
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10935
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Cisairse » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:51 am

Punished UMN wrote:
Cisairse wrote:We're not talking about apoliticism, we're talking about polyamory.

I repeat: the personal is political and the political is personal. Literally every action you take in interacting with other people is political and every political action you take is personal. Politics is not some magical sphere that isn't affected by social constructivism.

I never disagreed with that & have no clue how it is relevant to this discussion
The details of the above post are subject to leftist infighting.

I officially endorse Fivey Fox for president of the United States.

User avatar
Punished UMN
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5445
Founded: Jul 05, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Punished UMN » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:52 am

Cisairse wrote:
Punished UMN wrote:I repeat: the personal is political and the political is personal. Literally every action you take in interacting with other people is political and every political action you take is personal. Politics is not some magical sphere that isn't affected by social constructivism.

I never disagreed with that & have no clue how it is relevant to this discussion

If you have no clue how it's relevant then you don't really understand the statement or what it's trying to get at.
Eastern Orthodox Christian. Prudish. Low-key bisexual. Purgatorial universalist.
Ascended beyond politics, now metapolitics is my best friend. Absolute pacifist. Proud member of the Napoleon Bonaparte fandom.
I have borderline personality disorder, if I overreact to something, try to approach me after the fact and I'll apologize.
The political compass is like hell: if you find yourself on it, keep going.
Pro: The fundamental dignitas of the human spirit as expressed through its self-actualization in theosis. Anti: Faustian-Demonic Space Anarcho-Capitalism with Italo-Futurist Characteristics

User avatar
Cisairse
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10935
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Cisairse » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:52 am

Punished UMN wrote:
Cisairse wrote:I never disagreed with that & have no clue how it is relevant to this discussion

If you have no clue how it's relevant then you don't really understand the statement or what it's trying to get at.

Feel free to explain.
The details of the above post are subject to leftist infighting.

I officially endorse Fivey Fox for president of the United States.

User avatar
Punished UMN
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5445
Founded: Jul 05, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Punished UMN » Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:04 am

Cisairse wrote:
Punished UMN wrote:If you have no clue how it's relevant then you don't really understand the statement or what it's trying to get at.

Feel free to explain.

1) Marriage is about the propagation of society and its values.
2) Monogamy ensures that the roughly equal number of people of both sexes and sexual orientations will be in a position to propagate society and its values.
3) Polyamory could undermine that because its an unknown variable that could disrupt this balance (especially true given that patriarchy still exists and so likely polyamory will simply reduce itself to exploitative polygamy)
4) Therefore, the normalization of polyamory could result in a smaller group in society being more responsible for the propagation of society and its values.
5) If a social group in society has disproportionate influence on social values, it will create political resentment.
6) Political resentment creates discord.

Essentially, while polyamory could theoretically introduce new freedoms, it also 1) opens the way for the exploitation of vulnerable women in a way monogamy does not (as seen in many societies) and 2) could (not necessarily will) undermine the cultural diffusion of values from generation-to-generation.

This is not to say that all polyamorous relationships will end in exploitation, but no one ever said that eliminating the minimum wage would make all people minimum wage workers either.
Eastern Orthodox Christian. Prudish. Low-key bisexual. Purgatorial universalist.
Ascended beyond politics, now metapolitics is my best friend. Absolute pacifist. Proud member of the Napoleon Bonaparte fandom.
I have borderline personality disorder, if I overreact to something, try to approach me after the fact and I'll apologize.
The political compass is like hell: if you find yourself on it, keep going.
Pro: The fundamental dignitas of the human spirit as expressed through its self-actualization in theosis. Anti: Faustian-Demonic Space Anarcho-Capitalism with Italo-Futurist Characteristics

User avatar
Proctopeo
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12369
Founded: Sep 26, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Proctopeo » Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:35 am

Punished UMN wrote:
Cisairse wrote:I never disagreed with that & have no clue how it is relevant to this discussion

If you have no clue how it's relevant then you don't really understand the statement or what it's trying to get at.

I do understand what you're saying, I just disagree. However, I do agree that slippery slopes exist.

Punished UMN wrote:3) Polyamory could undermine that because its an unknown variable that could disrupt this balance (especially true given that patriarchy still exists and so likely polyamory will simply reduce itself to exploitative polygamy)

I don't, however, see what the boogeyman has to do with this.
Arachno-anarchism || NO GODS NO MASTERS || Free NSG Odreria

User avatar
The Emerald Legion
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10620
Founded: Mar 18, 2011
Father Knows Best State

Postby The Emerald Legion » Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:46 am

Grenartia wrote:
Diopolis wrote:That making more people is the whole point of human sexuality,


With going on 8 billion people, increasing resource strain, climate change, overcrowding, etc., something tells me making more people is pretty damn low on the radar.

that we don't know under what conditions poly succeeds


We in the poly community arguably do. Open and honest communication, not being jealous, and mutual respect for your partners. Its not exactly a big fucking secret, and they're the same things that lead to success in mono relationships.

but that it has the potential to go very wrong,


Just like any relationship ever. Geez, man, that's the 2nd lamest argument against it ever.

and that figuring out custody issues for poly relationships promises to be a cluster isn't enough of a reason?


There's no reason they need to be any worse than for mono relationships. Which are a clusterfuck.


So you're an advocate of genocide? Because preventing people from having kids is a time tested means of wiping them out.
Last edited by The Emerald Legion on Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
"23.The unwise man is awake all night, and ponders everything over; when morning comes he is weary in mind, and all is a burden as ever." - Havamal

User avatar
Cekoviu
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16954
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Cekoviu » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:03 am

Proctopeo wrote:
Punished UMN wrote:3) Polyamory could undermine that because its an unknown variable that could disrupt this balance (especially true given that patriarchy still exists and so likely polyamory will simply reduce itself to exploitative polygamy)

I don't, however, see what the boogeyman has to do with this.

i'm sure you're able to grasp its relationship, you just don't want to.
pro: women's rights
anti: men's rights

User avatar
Proctopeo
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12369
Founded: Sep 26, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Proctopeo » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:04 am

Cekoviu wrote:
Proctopeo wrote:I don't, however, see what the boogeyman has to do with this.

i'm sure you're able to grasp its relationship, you just don't want to.

you're right, I should accept that Slenderman exists as an entity to oppress whamen
Arachno-anarchism || NO GODS NO MASTERS || Free NSG Odreria

User avatar
Punished UMN
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5445
Founded: Jul 05, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Punished UMN » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:13 am

Proctopeo wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:i'm sure you're able to grasp its relationship, you just don't want to.

you're right, I should accept that Slenderman exists as an entity to oppress whamen

This is a stupid comparison. Your refusal to acknowledge that marriage exists primarily for the purpose of reproduction of capital, children, and social values, and that such a contract, when unregulated, would serve to increase the social power of those who already possess advantages in that area, is primarily driven by your libertarian ideology, and not by any kind of understanding of fact.
Eastern Orthodox Christian. Prudish. Low-key bisexual. Purgatorial universalist.
Ascended beyond politics, now metapolitics is my best friend. Absolute pacifist. Proud member of the Napoleon Bonaparte fandom.
I have borderline personality disorder, if I overreact to something, try to approach me after the fact and I'll apologize.
The political compass is like hell: if you find yourself on it, keep going.
Pro: The fundamental dignitas of the human spirit as expressed through its self-actualization in theosis. Anti: Faustian-Demonic Space Anarcho-Capitalism with Italo-Futurist Characteristics

User avatar
Diopolis
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17293
Founded: May 15, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Diopolis » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:17 am

Punished UMN wrote:
Proctopeo wrote:you're right, I should accept that Slenderman exists as an entity to oppress whamen

This is a stupid comparison. Your refusal to acknowledge that marriage exists primarily for the purpose of reproduction of capital, children, and social values, and that such a contract, when unregulated, would serve to increase the social power of those who already possess advantages in that area, is primarily driven by your libertarian ideology, and not by any kind of understanding of fact.

I don't think he is refusing to acknowledge that.
He's refusing to acknowledge patriarchy exists, but then again, patriarchy is more of a conspiracy theory than my beliefs are.
Texas nationalist, 3rd positionist, radical social conservative, post-liberal.
Did the moon landings end because there's a whites-only Nazi UFO base there and NASA didn't want to have to explain why they would never send a black astronaut? Almost certainly not. But it's less depressing than the reality that the moon landings were pointless. So too with all our great works.

User avatar
Cekoviu
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16954
Founded: Oct 18, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Cekoviu » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:19 am

Proctopeo wrote:
Cekoviu wrote:i'm sure you're able to grasp its relationship, you just don't want to.

you're right, I should accept that Slenderman exists as an entity to oppress whamen

this but unironically tbh
Diopolis wrote:
Punished UMN wrote:This is a stupid comparison. Your refusal to acknowledge that marriage exists primarily for the purpose of reproduction of capital, children, and social values, and that such a contract, when unregulated, would serve to increase the social power of those who already possess advantages in that area, is primarily driven by your libertarian ideology, and not by any kind of understanding of fact.

I don't think he is refusing to acknowledge that.
He's refusing to acknowledge patriarchy exists, but then again, patriarchy is more of a conspiracy theory than my beliefs are.

diop be like "patriarchy doesnt exist but inshallah it should"
pro: women's rights
anti: men's rights

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Armeattla, Dexterra, Emotional Support Crocodile, Heloin, Immoren, New haven america, Riviere Renard, The Archregimancy

Advertisement

Remove ads