>Wealth should be equally distributed
>Dating should be meritocratic
Can anyone explain this extreme cognitive dissonance on the left? Is this all just a ploy to enable wimmin to select barbarian genes without consequences?
>>80946691
every thread deserves a reply
even shitty ones made by posters who are obvious newfags
please lurk a little before sliding more worthwhile threads
>>80947030
I'm still waiting for you to present an argument but thanks for the bump.
>>80947030
If this is bullshit then please explain why it is bullshit. I almost never post threads here but I have lurked every day for years. My bad for actually trying to create some new talking points besides le jews and trump memes.
Romantic relationships are not wealth.
>>80948528
Wealth is a bargaining chip for the intelligent to secure reproductive success. Women are attracted to money and power.
>>80948716
So?
Romantic relationships are not wealth. Ergo, the claim that wealth should be equally distributed does not imply that romantic relationships should be equally distributed. No cognitive dissonance.
Poor bait, desu.
>>80946691
The "Left" as a political movement mostly consists of emotionally vulnerable people with little self esteem and a poor self imagine being manipulated by Authoritarians who intend to use their egalitarian rhetoric to justify seizing control of society for themselves.
You can see this in every single left-wing revolution in history.
>>80946691
>Dating should be meritocratic
What is this supposed to mean? I've never heard it before in my life.
>>80948911
Romantic relationships aren't, but wombs/eggs, sperm and children certainly are.
>>80948911
>Romantic relationships are not wealth
From a materialist / positivist perspective they are mutually beneficial exchanges which includes the transfer of wealth. The left is fundamentally politicised positivism, which is why they trend towards atheism and man-made institutions.
Personally, I'm for meritocracy in all fields, I just want to dissect this apparently deeply contradictory stance in the opposition.
>>80948939
This is definitely true. I think the left fights against and hates their native culture because they aren't able to compete in it.
It's not so much bullshit as redundant. The left, despite being increasingly supportive of egalitarianism and "greater-good" style welfare, is still very selfish.
I don't know your position on abortion, but how do
>my body my choice
and
>all people are equal
jive? Of course, they then say that the larval human isn't a person. But regardless of when you consider personhood to begin, you'd think they would consider the future person's rights infringed, wouldn't they? Of course not.
They're leftists. They will believe whatever makes them most comfortable with their decisions.
>>80949383
>From a materialist / positivist perspective
How about from a Communist perspective you dumb shit, seeing as that's the fucking perspective you're attempting to discuss.
Jesus, I thought you were baiting but it turned out you're just fucking retarded.
>when I attempt to judge conclusions through a different lens of assumptions nothing makes sense!!!!
Gee, I fucking wonder.
>>80949002
It means you're attracted to people who display qualities you deem good.
>>80946691
>Can anyone explain this extreme cognitive dissonance on the left?
It's no cognitive dissonance, you are just being misled by believing them when they state their motivations and goals.
They really just hate Western society and want to destroy it.
>>80949540
And when has the left ever opposed this?
OP I've posted this before. Taxes, or in other wrods your life, are taken from you to pay for other people's shit. Meanwhile dating is a free market
>>80946691
Hi Vanda
>>80949764
Thank you. Exactly.
>>80949489
You have to be pretty stupid to think Communism is a good idea, so no wonder you can't see the relationship it has to materialism and positivism. You probably don't even know what those words mean.
>>80950125
Can you please be more specific, who this is? I tried a few search terms but I'm finding nothing. Would love to read someone discussing this very issue.
>>80950732
>Can you please be more specific, who this is? I tried a few search terms but I'm finding nothing. Would love to read someone discussing this very issue.
nice try MI5
>>80949610
All the time
for example if you deem having 4 limbs as a "good" quality you are an ableist shitlord
or the fat people that say "you have to find me attractive because beauty is a social construct"
It is truly the equality meme pushed to it's logical conclusion
>>80950732
>You have to be pretty stupid to think Communism is a good idea, so no wonder you can't see the relationship it has to materialism and positivism.
So what you're saying is, in effect, "these two beliefs don't make sense in my worldview, and I flat-out refuse to consider them from another worldview, somebody come and make them make sense for me!"
Nobody can do that, anon. Nobody can make them make sense inside your worldview, because if they made sense inside your worldview you'd believe them already. If you want to understand why people think the things that they think you have to be willing to think the same way that they think - at least for a little while.
I'm sorry anon. You're simply too dumb for philosophy. You can banter about who knows the most Enlightenment buzzwords all you like but you lack that most fundamental component of the true patrician philosophical master-race: impartiality.
You are forever doomed to be an ankle-biting alt-right LARPer.
>>80950900
Interesting perspective. So the left DOES push against meritocracy in the dating market. It just doesn't apply to straight white males I guess; kind of how they don't give a shit about poor white men. This post really made me think. Thanks
>>80950900
I have literally never heard this, except Tumblrinas saying having racial preferences in dating is racist, and perhaps weight and gender.
>>80951224
Astounding projection. Maybe you should consider applying that standard to yourself. I came here with an open question to collect other perspectives to challenge my own current interpretation.
I've read the Communist Manifesto and I don't disagree with his critique, I disagree with his solutions.
>>80946691
What a horrible fucking post you weak, small minded cuck. Saged.
>>>/r9k/
>>80951239
not a problem, now try to figure out if this is satire
>>80946691
i agree with you OP but i hate inferior anglo blood scum so fuck yourself
>>80951398
You're right. An interesting question may be, why has socialism been able to be adopted into a more centrist position but not this other form of "equality"?
My guess would be that taxation is a less obviously invasive form of redistribution, compared to some kind of rapey solution to dating inequality.
Also, Women are far more useful tools to grow the state than men because even though men produce more, they trend towards being self-sufficient and not dependent. Cultural Marxism is of course trying to destroy masculinity, so men will be more dependent. However, right now, women are much easier to pander to.
>>80951492
>I came here with an open question to collect other perspectives to challenge my own current interpretation.
And when I suggested that you actually consider the issue from another perspective your reply was a flat-out "No."
Great job, anon. I applaud your intentions but they don't fucking count if you can't follow through.
>I've read the Communist Manifesto and I don't disagree with his critique, I disagree with his solutions.
Good thing neither of those are relevant to this issue then.
Let me spell it out for you in fucking baby steps.
Marxists argue that the means of production should be cooperatively owned by the workers, such that labour - not ownership - decides who gets the profits. Or, rather, there are no profits and workers are paid the 'full value' of their labour.
Romantic relationships are not a lathe. They are not a factory, a tractor, or a stove. There is no call to seize romantic relationships, only the means of production. Furthermore, to go about seizing romantic relationships to redistribute you'd have to rob people of their private property. Marx, as you well know considering you've read the Manifesto, was strictly against redistributing private property - only the means of production are to be seized. Anything else is thievery.
Further-furthermore, it's impossible to redistribute romantic relationships. You can't make two people fall in love. For something to be a moral requirement it must first be possible.
There. Done. You can fuck off now.
>>80951582
REEEEEEE
Women were a mistake
>>80952150
The USSR did assign wives though
>implying sexual intercourse isn't the means of production of labour
>>80952150
Everyone in first world countries has access to the internet. Even the homeless can go to the library and use the computers. The internet is the ultimate means of production and the ultimate source of learning the skills for that production. Mission accomplished. So, why are there Marxists today? The same reason there are Feminists today. They want more.
>>80952019
>it's impossible to redistribute romantic relationships
I guess that's why prostitution doesn't exist
>>80952541
>just the US economy
$18 trillion dollars
>the size of the internet economy across the entire world, including manufacturing goods and then retailing them through the internet, so a very, very broad definition indeed
$8 trillion dollars.
You can look those figures up yourself
You are so off base it's pathetic.
Never post again.
>>80952541
Communism was an ideal for a industrialised world, it's irrelevant in the West today because the means of production are in some Chinese sweatshop
>>80952746
>>prostitution
>>romantic
Wtf is wrong with you
>>80952886
This is a strong case and deserves some credit. It's easy to see how one could blame capitalism for all these ills, the way that one blames guns.
However, like a gun, capitalism is just a tool and it that be used for good or evil. The direction it is pointed depends on the people, the morality of the times and the culture.
If you only care about wealth and power, you're unlikely to care about ripping people off, or buying products that are less ethically sourced.
Marxism tends to destroy religion, the device by which historically, the masses obtained any decent moral standards. It's not hard to see how destroying the fabric of ethical principles could turn capitalism in a darker direction.
>>80946691
Yeah somehow people who dont have a job are poor victims the cruel society and hard earned money is stolen from you so they can have the same material comfort as you.
But people who have no success in dating are just virgin creeps that only deserves disgust.
I think this is stupid too. Thats why I am planning to move in a country with 0 welfare where my hard work will actually give me an advantage over the lazy and dumb (singapore, dubai, hk, switzerland ... if you know other go on and name them)
>>80946691
It was that way in the past, and still today in some countries and cultures, it's called arranged marriage.
cheers
>>80954961
I know that feeling brother. I'm getting out of this rat race as soon as I can. Some how I met an older conservative woman who is super redpilled and we are going off-grid together but I definitely wouldn't have bet on this considering I've been a loser all my life. The best advice I could give you is to look into church, you're far more likely to find one there than in this degenerate society.
>>80946691
I think it's because distribution of money is more anonymous. Telling a person to the face that he/she should be distributed equally onto the partnership market is a very personal thing to do.
And large societies all work like that. The more abstract a political demand is, the easier it is for people to swallow it even if it means in the end that they are directly affected by it.
Just look at the political debate and how often you see statements like "it's the society's fault", "we need to find a common response" and all this NULL-talk. It gives people the feeling that something is to be done and everybody is to be taken a fair share of the task that is to be done. But in secret everybody hopes that he personally isn't affected and that someone else is going to do it.
>>80956900
>The more abstract a political demand is, the easier it is for people to swallow it even if it means in the end that they are directly affected by it.
This is a really good insight. Thank you for your contribution!
>>80946691
>meritocratic
The left is composed of ugly whores and sub-beta tier males.
Ugly whores can't get a white man with money to take care of them, so they get a poor brown man to play house with them.
However they still need money so they take the money from the rich white man who married the pretty decent white woman.
It is just the unwashed masses wanting into the pockets of the wealthy.
>>80946691
Left is build around cognitive dissonance. Take to incompatible ideas and combine them. This is dialectic materialism used by Marx in Capital also know as doublethink.
>>80946691
go back to wanking to animuh loser
>>80946691
>>Dating should be meritocratic
Brits just made it illegal for a man to ask a woman out. If she is made to feel "uncomfortable" she can go to the police and file a report now.
Probably will not actually be convicted, but it is enough to scare many men away from even asking.
AHAHAHAHAH! BRITS!
>>80946691
>Wealth distribution should be based only on merit
>Dating should be meritocratic
At least they got one thing out of two
>>80962275
>I get my news from Daily Mail headline screengrabs posted to /pol/
>>80946691
Basically the left is fulfilling the female imperative.
>Women earn less than men on average, this would benefit the majority of women
>Women want to be able to choose the best man they can get
>Women vote for increased immigration because they want the best men no matter where they come from
>>80946691
The left are not rational or logical. The wealth shouldn't be distributed equally. You're asking the leftists to make an exercise in logical thinking; you're asking too much.
Can't people even understand the OP ? He's just saying the left doesn't realise the contradiction between those statements.
Also Houellebecq wrote and is famous because of this concept. He's saying that everywhere you let the free market reign you'll have inequalities and poor people suffering, in a free market of relationship and love or other domains the same happens.
Guess what, the left call him a sexist shitlord that should be banned.
>>80963830
Wikipedi say, the book is called "Extension du domaine de la lutte" or "Whatever" in english. Is that the right one? Have you read it?
>Guess what, the left call him a sexist shitlord that should be banned.
With what reasoning?
>>80964656
Yes, that's the book. I have and it's worth it. He gets some reasonable praise over at >>>/lit/
