Why don't SJWs appreciate this guy?
>>7776125
>SJW
well spooked, my property
>>7776141
I really really like this meme
>>7776125
Because he is an anti-Spook justice warrior by definition
I personally think humans should have equal rights and I am a big fan of Stirner so I guess you are wrong OP
>>7776174
>definition
Nice spook, my friend.
>>7776186
>friend
Spooky
>>7776125
Because Stirner is the fucking definition of 'Might makes Right':
>But let the individual man lay claim to ever so many rights because Man or the concept man ‘entitles’ him to them, because his being man does it: what do I care for his right and his claim? If he has his right only from Man and does not have it from me, then for me he has no right. His life, for example, counts to me only for what it is worth to me. I respect neither a so-called right of property (or his claim to tangible goods) nor yet his right to the ‘sanctuary of his inner nature’ (or his right to have the spiritual goods and divinities, his gods, remain un-aggrieved). His goods, the sensuous as well as the spiritual, are mine, and I dispose of them as proprietor, in the measure of my — might.
SJWs would get crushed/enslaved if his thinking had prevailed.
>>7776225
wrong
all stirner says is 'might makes ownership' but he doesn't say that that's a good thing, only that it is a true thing.
right and wrong are both spooks
>>7776250
Well you're splitting hairs, but fine; Might Trumps All, then.
My thinking is generally the same. In university for example, I was surrounded by a load of Marxist teenage dweebs who brought up colonialism/etc any time I made an even mildly conservative point; to which I usually responded, with my standard line, that in this world you either have an empire or a part of someone else's.
They used to flip their shit, even though I never actually said whether that it was a good thing or not; just that it was the way of the world.
>>7776258
tbqh senpaitachi that just means you were communicating poorly, or they were stupid regardless of their beliefs. You'd no doubt weep tears of privileged rage as you prayed to your dead white patriarchs if I told you my societal preferences, but stirner's viewpoints are essentially my own. Stirner is neither conservative nor liberal, because those are both spooks.
Besides, you're thinking like a meathead if you think might as in physical might is the only form of power Stirner is talking about.
>>7776288
I just said Might, you're the one bringing up 'physical might' tbqh.
>You'd no doubt weep tears of privileged rage as you prayed to your dead white patriarchs if I told you my societal preferences
Nope, I'd just burn your strawmen and roast some based marshmallows.
>>7776125
the Ayn Rand of /lit/? because he sucks
hes another permutation of 'nothing matters, human constructs are meaningless aside from the ability to enforce them'
which are true but its no longer groundbreaking really
>>7776295
You said 'SJW' would be crushed/enslaved if this thinking prevailed' and seeing as how that IS the way the world works and the SJWs aren't crushed, I could only assume you were speaking of physically beating up those marxist teenage dweebs
>>7776183
>equal rights
>SJWs
Are you memeing, my spooky property?
>>7776311
>seeing as how that IS the way the world works
Big claim. I WISH the world worked that way.
>I could only assume you were speaking of physically beating up those marxist teenage dweebs
Partially. Why not?
>>7776225
That is essentially how SJW's think though. Just as a group thought as opposed to an individual thought.
>>7776258
>In university for example, I was surrounded by a load of Marxist teenage dweebs
>I usually responded, with my standard line, that in this world you either have an empire or a part of someone else's.
Edgy af
>>7776311
This guy's right. Stirner was describing facts, not depicting a utopia. The fact is that SJWs have the 'might' not to get stamped out by you and your ilk, because their opinions have enough currency to make them a force in this world. Might makes right, right? You can disregard their right and their claim all you like; they're disregarding yours too, and sadly for you, your opinions are on the wane in this world and theirs are waxing. So I guess they're disregarding harder.
>>7776359
>He thinks the world is ruled by might
>>7776364
>he thinks he's ugly because he is
>>7776328
I rather think you're just upset that your desires to assert your will are cockblocked by people whose will opposes you.
You want to punch the dweebs. I want you not to punch the dweebs. My advantage is that for the most part, society supports my viewpoint, and as such you don't punch dweebs out of fear of consequences.
But when you get to things that actually matter, people do what they want and come up with the ideology to justify it later. Exploit 3rd world countries for cheap coffee? It's just capitalism! Yell 'Bitch at people? Free speech! Tell people to stop yelling bitch? Feminism!
You can say the spooky ideology comes first and that somehow invalidates behavior, but that's just people deciding to spread ideology and succeeding due to their intellectual, social, or political power outweighing those of others. And you can easily find hypocrisy in the ideological, proving Stirner was right once again. Catholic church is full of pedophiles, banks are full of thieves, marriages are full of cheaters- spooks are chains, but the chains can only hold a willing ego, and the ego demonstrates time and time again that it will easily disregard socially acceptable spooks for what is personally pleasurable.
So fuck yeah the world already works that way
>>7776364
It's self-evident that it is. People please themselves as far as they have the power to do so. Not always necessarily in an entirely selfish way, but altruism too is governed by what you have the power to effect in this world.
>>7776141
kek
>>7776183
>I am a big fan of Stirner
>should
Choose one.
>>7776225
>>7776258
>thinking might means only power/dominance
The care that children compell in parents in also might. So is the pity a beggar inspires, and the guilt moralisers make others feel. So is the artist's talent and skill, or the thoughts of the philosopher. There is no "true" form of might which would exist if whatever opinions were left behind. People are as they can only be according to their capabilities (that is, their might).
>>7776225
lol'd at that pic
>>7776296
No. He's basically her complete fucking opposite.
From Wiki:
Stirner's Egoism is not a descriptive psychological egoism, in fact he believes that non-egoism is the most common way of thinking. Stirner also does not advocate a narrow prescriptive ethical egoism of self-interest. Stirner rejects for example, the actions of an avaricious individual whose only pursuit is material gain. For Stirner such a pursuit enslaves the individual to a single goal and this is incompatible with his idea of autonomy.
Holy fucking shit, why do so many people pretend Stirner's end message wasn't pretty much anarcho-colectivism. You can pretend all you want he was a fascist or ancap or some shit, but this only goes to show you either didn't read or didn't understand what his "Union of Egoists" sugests
>>7777215
A union of egoists isn't anarcho-collectivism, it's simply people co-operating when it suits their egoistic desires. If someone decides he wants to rob a bank and approaches me for help, and I agree to co-operate him because I want money, that's a union of egoists. If you and your friends form an anarcho-collectivist society and I and my friends co-operate in killing all of you in your sleep because we really don't like your stupid anarcho-collectivism, that's also a union of egoists.
>>7776855
i totally agree with you. reactionaries trying to appropriate stirner is fucking ridiculous. shows a lack of any comprehension of his work. the way i read him is that trying to appeal to man or society or morality for self emancipation is false. only through creating the world on your terms and making others bend to it rather than you bending to the norms of the world/ideology. i think plekanov puts it perfectly when he says
'To begin with, the incontestable merit of Stirner consists in his having openly and energetically combatted the sickly sentimentalism of the bourgeois reformers and of many of the Utopian Socialists, according to which the emancipation of the proletariat would be brought about by the virtuous activity of “devoted” persons of all classes, and especially of those of the possessing-class. Stirner knew perfectly what to expect from the “devotion” of the exploiters. The “rich” are harsh, hard-hearted, but the “poor” (the terminology is that of our author) are wrong to complain of it, since it is not the rich who create the poverty of the poor, but the poor who create the wealth of the rich. They ought to blame themselves then if their condition is a hard one. In order to change it they have only to revolt against the rich; as soon as they seriously wish it, they will be the strongest and the reign of wealth will be at an end. Salvation lies in struggle, and not in fruitless appeals to the generosity of the oppressors. Stirner, therefore, preaches the class war'
>>7776141
kek.
>>7777215
why are anarcho islamig gommunists so fucking retarded lmao, kill yourself my man
>>7777215
the union of egoists wasnt some sort of ideal for the future like communism, it was merely a suggestion. stirner is more focused on using up the present moment and not trying to build for a future civilisation
Would Stirner agree that a person, acting solely to further their own self-interests, is in turn furthering the interests of the whole? Or would he dismiss the idea of a whole (society) as a spook/ghost/illusion?
>>7777316
>it's simply people co-operating when it suits their egoistic desires.
Stirner's end game was that everyone would realize ther egoist drives and co-operate with other egoists oto supply theirn eeds;
:^)
>>7777643
Putting it in a very simplistic way:
If it's good for everyone including you, no problemmo
If you actually demote yourself based on some abstract "society" or "common good" or some shit like that, ya done spook'd
>>7777634
great argument
>>7777640
I'm not saying he's arguing for a better future, just that the logical conclusion of his text is a anarchist society. The way you put it, it almost seems like he wrote a self-help book for angsty people, which is not the case, despite what /lit/ might tell you.
He was, very much like Nietzsche after him, describing a (non-)moral system for a new kind of man, but the end of such moral system would be a society of self-emancipated, freely cooperating individuals who disregard private property and outside authority.
>>7777640
I agree with your sentiment, but, to be pedantic, I'd say it wasn't even a suggestion. He hardly mentions, and mentions it in a manner implying it was a discussion for another day or another thinker.
>>7777694
The end of his moral system is that people are already always selfishly (freedom is a spook) cooperating and private property and outside authority aren't really things. A world that had read (and accepted) Stirner would be more different in discourse than in fact.
>>7776125
>SJWs: warriors of the cause of the day, getting mad over every minor thing, indulging deeply in identity politics and fighting for whatever their bronze bull tells them to fight for.
>Stirner(basically): Everything you care about outside of yourself is an abstraction and abstractions aren't worth fighting for, things are like they are and you can't change them. Unfuck yourself and don't sweat anything else. The world will only be a better place when everyone disavows themselves of specters and unfucks themselves.
There are very few people in history more antithetical to the ideals of social justice as they are understood in the modern parlance than Stirner.
SJW is just about turning equality into a spook
>>7777201
>cultish following
>total meme philosopher
>ridiculous viewpoints
>hailed by people who don't know any better
