Reveal Your Uncool Conservative Beliefs Here

(as sanpaku was posting yesterday tho it'll be a realer thing later)

As scientific understanding has grown, so our world has become dehumanized. Man feels himself isolated in the cosmos, because he is no longer involved in nature and has lost his emotional "unconscious identity" with natural phenomena. These have slowly lost their symbolic implications. Thunder is no longer the voice of an angry god, nor is lightning his avenging missile. No river contains a spirit, no tree is the life principle of a man, no snake the embodiment of wisdom, no mountain cave the home of a great demon. No voices now speak to a man from stones, plants, and animals, nor does he speak to them believing they can hear. His contact with nature has gone, and with it has gone the profound emotional energy that this symbolic connection supplied.

I sort of believe that, but I think our sense of isolation grows more out of capitalist alienation than out of science per se.

would argue the two go hand in hand

There's this thing called communism

go on

I don't see how communism can reconnect humans with nature.

I'm not that familiar with Jung, but I wouldn't have thought he'd be considered uncool and conservative (despite recent Jordan Peterson associations).

I don't see how communism can reconnect humans with nature.

― had (crüt), Thursday, March 15, 2018 3:50 PM (seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

five year plan to sit under a tree maaaaaan

dig it

I'm not that familiar with Jung, but I wouldn't have thought he'd be considered uncool and conservative (despite recent Jordan Peterson associations).

― rob, Thursday, 15 March 2018 20:55 (six minutes ago)

Aryan mystical woo racism is kind of conservative

I don't see how communism can reconnect humans with nature.

It made the Zhivagos move to a farm, iirc

xp
yeah I could be way wrong on this, but I would have thought the "mystical woo" aspects would make him unappealing to conservatives, but I guess it depends on how narrowly you want to define "conservative." I mean, marcos's quote is basically an argument in favor of paganism.

Appealing to fascists then, how's that?

identity politics is fucking exhausting

Go on

ya, sucking cock is exhausting

apt

The phrase “toxic masculinity” is badly conceived and the fact that it sounds like it means masculinity is toxic makes it counterproductive. The fact that you have to explain it every time you use it makes it worthless

The things that are bad about “toxic masculinity” are just the things that are bad about masculinity, the extra adjective essentially signifies “#notallmen”

iirc a non-negligable number of ppl who use the idiom believe that all "masculinity" is toxic

you said iirc when you meant ime

If you have to explain what 'toxic masculinity' means every time you use it, it seems to me you only speak to some kinds of people.

Fortunately for me and my people it never comes up in conversation

It's too bad you don't like it but it is a thing. If you need it explained to you over and over again... it might even your own damn fault?

I'm grateful for all the "as the adult in the room,..." reveals itt

this isn't the gratitude room bro

This is the uncool room stop tryna be cool

It's too bad you don't like it but it is a thing

is it 'toxic femininity' when some psycho mommy drowns her kids in a tub?

is it 'toxic transpersonery' when a trans person does something shitty/aggressive/criminal?

toxic ilxery

'toxic masculinity' without any other analogous terms for other genders implies that it's disproportionately men, or maybe only men, who have it within their nature to do horrible, violent things. which could be true! but doesn't it then open the door to talk about other groups of people who are disproportionately likely to commit atrocities? isn't that the kind of conversation y'all generally want to no-platform?

I think the bigger hurdle/thing you have to explain every time here isn't separating between toxic and non-toxic masculinity, it's keeping in mind that masculinity doesn't = men and everything they do.

sleepingbag is a more assertive roger adultery who knew

I think the thing is that a lot of people probably need toxic masculinity explained to them because they don't know what it means, not everyone is plugged into woke twitter. I also think it's probably best to lead by gentle example w/most people, I don't believe people getting aggressively confronted or called out for stepping wrong works as well as others believe. I know getting aggressively confronted from right wing types has never made me go "hmmm...maybe they're correct." I don't dispute that emotions run high on subjects and I don't think people are necessarily wrong to feel argumentative at points. I don't know whether or not this is a conservative belief but maybe since I guess it could be argued that debating more diplomatically slows down social progress. Maybe? Idk.

I'll defer to sleepingbag's expertise on the subject

True story, I once came home from Roskilde Festival with a weird rash, and it turned out to be because my sleepingbag was toxic.

I am not a huge fan of callout culture but there are many times when it is necessary

I needed it in my early 20s tho

i don't think it worked

It's been known that he's that for a while but folks will engage nonetheless. xposts

Omar, I think that if pushed most will agree that diplomatic debate is important, it's just a lot of ppl are sick of being the ones that have to do it. You need ppl on your side for social progress, there are exceptions but mostly that's what it boils down to.

Ok Mordy w/e

sorry but we're gonna have to call you out a whole bunch more if we're going to get you in shape

That's never gonna happen.

I'm an unfixable mess

is it 'toxic femininity' when some psycho mommy drowns her kids in a tub?

No, it's

https://i.imgur.com/yRhkuFO.gif

is it 'toxic femininity' when some psycho mommy drowns her kids in a tub?

is it 'toxic transpersonery' when a trans person does something shitty/aggressive/criminal?

'toxic masculinity' without any other analogous terms for other genders implies that it's disproportionately men, or maybe only men, who have it within their nature to do horrible, violent things. which could be true! but doesn't it then open the door to talk about other groups of people who are disproportionately likely to commit atrocities? isn't that the kind of conversation y'all generally want to no-platform?

― sleepingbag, Saturday, March 24, 2018 6:58 PM (twelve minutes ago)

hm, so which one would you like to discuss first

educate me baby

it's true that men on average have higher rates of violence than women. it's also true that the variances between individuals in a particular gender are much wider than when compared in aggregate.

Oh is that a fact

it’s obv true the question is if it’s material