Hurr sexuality is a social construct

>hurr sexuality is a social construct

Why are marxists so unbelievably retarded and unscientific?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Foucault wasn't a Marxist.

if they weren't unbelievably retarded and unscientific they wouldn't be marxists.

>Foucault wasn't a Marxist.
yeah he was

>whines about bourgeoise sexuality

anyway he influences a lot of cultural marxists today

This guy LITERALLY believe some people are gay because the society they live in taught them to be gay.

Does he even know what fetishes are or how the brain works?

Does he even know what estrogen is?

Cause it makes them feel good.

bump

Commie scum defend yourself.

It is

Outside of society, there is no sexuality. Sex is only for reproduction. No fancy fetishes or (((orientations))).

>Outside of society, there is no sexuality.
What are you even saying?

>No fancy fetishes or (((orientations))).
Fetishes develop in the BRAINS of young people. There's much more variety of things to do now so more fetishes are formed.

People who lived in neolithic times still had fetishes. Although they were things like feet, boobs, thighs etc.

>No fancy fetishes or (((orientations))).
Son, gay people have always existed.
Tons of animals are gay.

Stop with your marxist pseudoscience.

>Leaf

bump for marxists to explain themselves

It's sort of hard to say what he was vis-a-vis Marxism.

He was by the 1960s an anticommunist (as in, anti-USSR, anti-Eastern bloc), but he was clearly influenced by Marxist philosophy.

he's a post-modernist, basically a nihilist when it comes to social theory. Say what you will about the tenants of Marxist-Socialism dude, AT LEAST it's an ethos.

marxism is a spook

they hate this fact

marxist here. what's to explain?

>people are gay because capitalism
Why do you believe this?

>
>stirnerism
>muh brain is a spook
>*proceeds to carve out prefrontal cortex with a rusty knife*

>he's a post-modernist
Yes and this was based off marxists.

Maybe hardcore marxists don't believe in his theories but he was strongly influenced by marx.

All marxists are retarded however.

You're an idiot, and I think cultural Marxist everything is garbage

>no argument
Why do you think I'm an a idiot.

ok so you equate "influence" to "continuation"...in other words, because Soren Kierkegaards work on existentialism "influenced" Nazi philosophers like Heidegger, Nazism is just a continuation of existentialism...if this correct?

No, all I said he was influenced.
There's also a strong overlap between his followers and actual marxists.

define social construct

society is a racial construct

Marxist thought across the board is highly critical of post-modernist theory simply because it is not a constructive philosophy. Post-modernism, to put it in harsh terms, proposes the human condition--being inherently irrational--will continue to act irrationally despite it's best efforts to course correct. A Marxist such as myself might say humanity has the potential to better itself and improve despite it's flawed nature. To put it simply, there's a big chasm between Marxism and post-modernism.

Ask this question from Christians

>Marxist thought across the board is highly critical of post-modernist theory
Yes, some marxists are critical of it. It doesn't change the fact a fuckton of marxists are in support of it.

>A Marxist such as myself
You honestly deserve to be thrown out of helicopter for believing in such ridiculousness anti-scientific things but okay.

>A Marxist such as myself might say humanity has the potential to better itself and improve despite it's flawed nature.
Marxists deny human nature though. They don't believe in it.

lmao dis nigga

>no argument

>Foucault
>Mr "Imma steal Bourdieu's concept and say they are my original work"
>Mr "What is a scientific method?"
>Mr "Lole nothing apart from social structures exists ever"
>Mr "I turned sociology into a philosophical pseudoscience"
>Foucault
>Wrong
Holy shit user, do you think he was mistaken on something?!?

yes i know that

Why would evolution select for heterosexuality?

>You honestly deserve to be thrown out of helicopter for believing in such ridiculousness anti-scientific things but okay.

You're posting on message board that has a page dedicated to outing and shaming so-called "degeneracy" and yet this same message board contains numerous pages dedicated to and celebrating untold levels of strange shit that you might consider lapses in your own sense of moral fortitude, but keep posting, please.

>Marxists deny human nature though. They don't believe in it.

Like any social theory, Marxism examines and diagnoses society as a result of human flaws that arise due to our nature. It then proposes a means of overcoming our own propensity to act irrationally by emphasizing the importance of collective action and social awareness.

Isn't that what a lot of Sup Forums says? That the degeneracy of todays sexuality is cultural and can be changed when the culture changes?

Need to read Focoult before I know what his point is tbqhwy

Sexual expression is a social construct. Like using décolletage, hiding the ankles, etc.

More than fetishes, different societies have concepts of beauty that overlap with "hardwired" attractive attributes in our brain. IE.- Being fat/thin, having bended feet, having a lazy eye VS wide hips, symmetrical face, etc.
When Marx invented his Materialism theory, we didn't had the knowledge or technology we have right now. He wasn't wrong, per se, but sticking to such a subjective method in our time is like still using fucking Comte as a sociological doctrine.

His teacher was Louis Althusser, a notorious Marxist, but he himself wasn't.

For those saying Foucault wasnt a marxist, you're more wrong than right

Foucault's and other postmodern thinkers all came up with their nonsense to continue supporting socialism/communism even though those ideologies had failed by every measure. It is literally "I don't like the rules, so I'm taking my ball home" the philosophy

I don't know, but by shouting and cussing at it it only seems to grow stronger

Population control is one reason.

>You're posting on message board that has a page dedicated to outing and shaming so-called "degeneracy" and yet this same message board contains numerous pages dedicated to and celebrating untold levels of strange shit that you might consider lapses in your own sense of moral fortitude
This has nothing to do with anything we're talking about, but keep posting please.

>Marxism examines and diagnoses society as a result of human flaws that arise due to our nature
No it doesn't. It doesn't even accept human instincts as facts.
Do you even know what dialectical materialism is?

>It then proposes a means of overcoming our own propensity to act irrationally by emphasizing the importance of collective action and social awareness.
You're not even listening to anything I'm saying.
One of the major marxist theories is the idea that all human behavior is the result of economic forces.
Meaning all human behavior is the result of capitalism.

It's very unscientific.

Foucault deconstructs and declares Marxism as a fatal doctrine in plenty of writings. I'd like to know more about how he allegedly continued to support communism somehow in his works, because I don't see it.

>Sexual expression is a social construct.
No it's not.

People get fetishes and shit when their young and it shapes their brain. This isn't a social construct.

>Like using décolletage, hiding the ankles, etc.
Bro the reason people started doing these things was their evolutionary instincts. Society had a small role to play yes, but it's mainly their instincts.

>different societies have concepts of beauty that overlap with "hardwired" attractive attributes in our brain. IE.- Being fat/thin, having bended feet, having a lazy eye VS wide hips, symmetrical face, etc.
I agree with that. But the reason all societies have similar beauty standards is clearly an evolutionary one. Most of these societies never interacted.

>He wasn't wrong, per se
YES, YES HE FUCKING WAS

Why can't you people give it up already? How many times does this pseudoscience homeopathy have to fail in the real world and in theory before you people kill yourselves?

I dunno, sounds pretty redpilled to me.

Not every faggot is a biological faggot.

>a marxist jew that supports transgenders is redpilled
/leftypol/ pls go

>No it doesn't. It doesn't even accept human instincts as facts.
I'd like to know more about this.
>Do you even know what dialectical materialism is?
I'd like to know more about this.

>I'd like to know more about this.
You should try reading.

>One of the major marxist theories

ONE of

>is the idea that all human behavior is the result of economic forces.

How much do economic forces affect your life? Last time you were living through a recession or a tough economic time, how did that make you feel? Did you take any action to improve your condition? Or did such an occasion not impact your life in the slightest? Your behavior in this regard can be a predictor of class. I'd like to know which side you fall on.

Only because, in real life, it fails economically. Or certain aspects of marxism.

But postmodern thought is predicated upon what we here would call cultural marxism. Foucault falls under that

>ONE of
So?

>How much do economic forces affect your life?
Every day.

They don't magically change my genetic instincts or give me new emotions or take away my emotions.

>HURRR THE REASON YOU THINK THINGS ARE CUTE IS BECAUSE OF CAPITALIST MODE OF PRODUCTION
No, that's because I evolved that way.

>Did you take any action to improve your condition?
Of course I did.
Of course economics effects people's lives. But countless other things do as well.

>be a predictor of class
Classes are marxist pseudoscience.
They literally believe in things like "bourgeoise sexuality" and think that classes are thinking breathing things.

Yes it is fαm. Listen: what is instinctual about shaping your head like a fucking alien? Or about shaving your whole body? Or about making you morbidly fat? Or jagging your teeth like a piranha's?
>inb4 inferior cultures
Not a marxist, but I hate to say that's a really "westernized" view

Again, not so much. I mean, you can even see how we dress. Do we use fucking victorian lingerie? Was that ever sexy/appealing? How do you explain the different approaches to sexual behavior in different cultures all throughout the world (Hetairas, Epheboi, Monogamic marriage, Wet Nurses, Kindergartens, etc.)?

No, he wasn't wrong for his time. Was Newton wrong when he said light was made of corpuscles? Was Hippocrates wrong when he spoke about humorism? In the light of modern science, yes. But taken their context into account, you can understand why they thought that way.

I don't remember any explicit rejection of human instincts such as fear or hunger in any marxist writing. I can't make any tenable inference that dialectical materialism leads up to a rejection of human nature.

>Yes it is fαm.
It ain't, cuck.

>what is instinctual about shaping your head like a fucking alien? Or about shaving your whole body? Or about making you morbidly fat? Or jagging your teeth like a piranha's?
Are you dumb. Do you realize how the brain and it's imagination works? You could have a 5 second moment of seeing an alien when you were 4-5 years old and it will completely change your sexual life later. Your brain will completely restructure itself to be sexually attracted to that fetish. There's no magically changing it either.
Evolution made fetishes work this way because we evolved as hunter gatherers with nothing but the bodies of other human beings around. Evolution didn't anticipate all of the crazy shit we have today.

>Do we use fucking victorian lingerie? Was that ever sexy/appealing?
No, but at the time people GREW UP WITH THAT FETISH. Those things were considered feminine because the brain associates weak/vulnerable/cute things with femininity. If they grew up during our time and had our fetishes things would be totally different.

>No, he wasn't wrong for his time. Was Newton wrong when he said light was made of corpuscles? Was Hippocrates wrong when he spoke about humorism?
Yes, yes these things are wrong and should be discarded.

>But taken their context into account, you can understand why they thought that way.
Sure why not?

>I don't remember any explicit rejection of human instincts
But there was.

>such as fear or hunger
Bullshit. Marxists think they can socially engineer these things out of humans.

>I can't make any tenable inference that dialectical materialism leads up to a rejection of human nature.
Really? So all marxists believe in human nature now.
Marxists believe people naturally like to own property and start families. Marxists believe people are naturally protective of their in-groups and not of outside humans?

Nope.

>They don't magically change my genetic instincts or give me new emotions or take away my emotions.

What emotions do you feel under harsh economic periods?


>Of course I did.
What were they?

>hurr race is a social construct
>hurr gender is a social constuct

You are now aware that 50% of the western world denies the science of biology

>Marxists believe people naturally like to own property and start families. Marxists believe people are naturally protective of their in-groups and not of outside humans?

Read "Fanshen" by William Hinton to see how communists addressed this issue in real life. Sorry those no youtube videos on it.

>What emotions do you feel under harsh economic periods?
Sadness and anger.

What does this have to do with anything we're talking about?

>What were they?
Got a new job?

>read an entire book
You're going to have to summarize this guy's point. Nobody is going to stop everything to read a book in the middle of a debate.

>>But there was.
Don't know where any marxist writers themselves said that. I'd like a primary source for that.

>Bullshit. Marxists think they can socially engineer these things out of humans.
Not those things your thinking about.

>Really? So all marxists believe in human nature now.
Now? When have they ever not believed in it. It's a characterization of their arguments. Read carefully about what your taco interlocutor is saying. It's plain obvious that there's elements of human nature underlying the activities we do, but it is not these activities itself that is static and preeminent nature of humans
>Marxists believe people naturally like to own property and start families.
What kind of property are you talking about private or personal?
Marxists believe people are naturally protective of their in-groups and not of outside humans?
Is this some cultural marxism tangent?

>characterization
mischaracterization

>Don't know where any marxist writers themselves said that.
I thought marxists claim that all human nature is the result of the "mode of production".
Is this not what they believe?

>Not those things your thinking about.
Ohhhh, just not THOSE things. They think they can engineer other instincts out of humans.
They're still delusional.

>When have they ever not believed in it.
See above?
Also marxists on the internet always get mad whenever someone brings up human nature and claim that capitalism is what defines human nature.

>but it is not these activities itself that is static and preeminent nature of humans
Of course it's not. It's not the activities that defines human nature.

Human nature(instincts) creates the groundrules for human behavior. People are hard wired to do things. Some people are more hardwired to do certain things, some less than others. Doesn't change the fact this hard wiring exists.

Marxists can't magically socially engineer these things out of humans.

Communism is not possible, The state will never wither away by socially engineering people.

>What kind of property are you talking about private or personal?
There's no difference. Nobody believes in socialist property norms. It's just some bullshit you made up with your ideology, people aren't going to abide by it.

I mean ALL property though.

because postmodernists dont believe in science.

>member of the communist party
>not a marxist
lol

>>I thought marxists claim that all human nature is the result of the "mode of production".
>Is this not what they believe?
Yea, but why does this mean that it's not real?
Is it because it is subjected to the whims of people and relegated to pure imagination?

>>Ohhhh, just not THOSE things. They think they can engineer other instincts out of humans.
I forgot to ask you what do you mean by human nature. If its biological instincts like hunger then it's pretty unfair to attribute something like that to the marxists.

>Human nature(instincts) creates the groundrules for human behavior. People are hard wired to do things. Some people are more hardwired to do certain things, some less than others. Doesn't change the fact this hard wiring exists.
I'll give you that, but you see everything after that could change right? Whether we get our food with spears in the african savannah or we get it from a supermarket is clearly not the same and the society, culture, and behavior are not the same within individuals in those societies.

>There's no difference. Nobody believes in socialist property norms. It's just some bullshit you made up with your ideology, people aren't going to abide by it.
I didn't make it up. It certainly wasn't made up by a Marxist. The term "capital" used in economics and a subset of that is what the marxists refer to as private property. The toothbrush in your bathroom is what they would consider a personal possession.

8th graders don't have a great grasp of the scientific method.

>Yea, but why does this mean that it's not real?
What is not real?
Marxists believe "human nature" is the result of the mode of production and not actual human nature ie. evolutionary instincts.

>I forgot to ask you what do you mean by human nature.
I don't understand why marxists can't understand even the basics of scientific concepts.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct

>If its biological instincts like hunger
Not just hunger, the entire range of human emotions and other things hardwired into our brains.

>but you see everything after that could change right?
No it can't. Not at all.

>Whether we get our food with spears in the african savannah or we get it from a supermarket is clearly not the same and the society, culture, and behavior are not the same within individuals in those societies.
Of course the culture can change. The culture can change for a multitude of reasons besides just the economic system you are part of.
The way the brain is hardwired does not change though. Culture can only change very little.

>I didn't make it up. It certainly wasn't made up by a Marxist.
Left anarchists. Whatever. It's all the same bullshit ideology that NOBODY is going to ascribe to.

>The term "capital" used in economics and a subset of that is what the marxists refer to as private property. The toothbrush in your bathroom is what they would consider a personal possession.
Yes I know leftists believe these delusional things. I'm saying nobody is going to accept this and 99% of people don't accept this.
All marxists SERIOUSLY need to be gassed.

He had some very interesting theories. A lot of his historical accounts were/are controversial/stretching-it.

>I don't understand why marxists can't understand even the basics of scientific concepts.
no u

bump for more marxists getting btfo

Why is this shit taught in universities?

bump

Was AIDS a social construct, too, Foucault?

>The variety of threads allowed here are very flexible and we believe in freedom of speech, but we expect a high level of discourse befitting of the board.

Why is Japan so based.

Hope you're actually japanese.

Then why is leftypol allowed to spam the board every day?

Sexuality is a social construct. What else would it be? Sexuality is all about what society tolerates and demands. Hundreds of examples too.

money is a social construct
same with age
also wanting a incentive to work
and imperialism
greed too
murder and rape

were not animals btw

>tfw a genuinely redpilled and useful concept gets hi-jacked for political means to an end

gives me actual depression, desu

Even animals have gender roles, only retards think everything is forced upon you by society

Do you understand the concept of reproduction? Do you understand that all animals have to reproduce sexually? Have you observed non sentient beings without socially constructed roles reproducing?

Hint, sexuality is a biological necessity for organisms to reproduce (organisms which require sex to reproduce, as opposed to asexual reproduction such as budding).

Even people without contact with other human beings desire sex.

Holy fuck why do you science denialists exist?

Marxism is a fucking cancer on humanity. Marx wrote what is equivalent to the Bible. It had few specifics or objective claims, if any, and it made endless, unfounded claims about social theory. Cults of Marxism spring up, whether explicit or not, whether knowing so or not, that do the one thing that Marxism has successfully refined over the centuries - divide and conquer.

It creates classes. There are always in-groups and out-groups; The rich and the poor; The whites and POCs; Feminists and MRAs, The 99% and the 1%.

Economic Marxism has virtually been obliterated. Now social Marxism need be crushed.

Sexuality is more then just reproduction. Everything surrounding reproduction is a social construct, even reproduction itself is heavily regulated by society.

>legal and moral ages of consent
>marriages
>rape cultures(actual rape cultures like ancient greeks fucking boys, arabs fucking boys, secluded tribes having boy fucking coming of age rituals
>dating
>hook up culture(finding a mate is highly dependant on society)
>to a degree homosexuality(find me a lesian animal, i dare you)
>fetishes


In short, instinct to reproduce is natural, anything else is 100% dependent on society.

Here's the correct version of your argument.

>hurr gender is a social construct
>durr non-hetero-sexuality is genetic