Welcome
Welcome to the Forums of the Libertarian Left

This is the place for agorists, mutualists, voluntaryists, geolibertarians, left-Rothbardians, individualist anarchists, green libertarians, libertarian socialists, radical minarchists, and others on the Libertarian Left to discuss theory, history, and how to smash the state. Registration is fast, simple, and free, so join the revolution today!

Some left-libertarian links: Alliance of the Libertarian Left, Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left, Agorism.info, Mutualist.org, Voluntaryist.com, Geolibertarian Homepage, Molinari Institute, LeftLibertarian.org, Center for a Stateless Society, ALL Ad Hoc Organizing Committee

Question for Mutualists

Discuss the politics, economics, sociology, and institutions of a free society.

Re: Question for Mutualists

Postby RoyceChristian » Thu May 03, 2012 3:49 am

TheAltruist wrote:OK, two points:
1. I'm fairly new to left libertarianism, and I kind of started this thread to answer some questions of mine, not to argue with trolls, it looks like the conversation degenerated pretty quickly.
2. I consider myself part of the social anarchist form of mutualism and I am NOT sexist. That comment I thought was actually kind of offensive.


This isn't a regular forum, so much. There are no mods to break up or stop the shit fights occaisionally go down. Threads often go off topic. And that's why I like it, personally.

Also TR isn't so much a troll as a douchebag. This is all part of "the conversation" that happens here. You can pick up a lot about Critical Theory or Mutualist theory in these sorts of things as well.
We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. -Aesop
RoyceChristian
 
Posts: 1523
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 7:10 pm

 

Re: Question for Mutualists

Postby TheAltruist » Thu May 03, 2012 9:13 pm

Stop arguing!! The point of this thread was to discuss economics.
Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state. - Noam Chomsky
User avatar
TheAltruist
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Question for Mutualists

Postby Alice Raizel » Thu May 03, 2012 9:40 pm

Trevor Reznik wrote:You have created my problem. You admitted it. It was you.

Yes, I am all powerful! Evil feminists are entirely responsible for your inability to get laid. The fact that you are an off-the-scale sexist douchebag has nothing to do with it and you are in no way responsible for your situation.

http://jezebel.com/5906648/the-angry-un ... up-artists

I showed a lover some of your posts. He wondered if you were going to be the next Anders Breivik.
User avatar
Alice Raizel
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:30 am

Re: Question for Mutualists

Postby Trevor Reznik » Sat May 05, 2012 10:21 pm

Alice Raizel wrote:
Trevor Reznik wrote:You have created my problem. You admitted it. It was you.

Yes, I am all powerful! Evil feminists are entirely responsible for your inability to get laid. The fact that you are an off-the-scale sexist douchebag has nothing to do with it and you are in no way responsible for your situation.

http://jezebel.com/5906648/the-angry-un ... up-artists

I showed a lover some of your posts. He wondered if you were going to be the next Anders Breivik.

The very last thing I want to is getting laid. This pathetic reduction of yours reaffirms you as an oppressor

I treat people as individuals. Therefore I am no candidate for the next Breivik.
 
And by the way.
It is precisely because women get laid all the time they are stupid, superficial, etc. Huge amounts of their time is devoted to social plays, fucking, bonding, petting weekends in the bed, partying two or three times a week, chatting, facebook, looking for boyfriends. You cant have it both ways.
Trevor Reznik
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:00 am

Re: Question for Mutualists

Postby shawnpwilbur » Sun May 06, 2012 12:33 am

Trevor Reznik wrote:It is precisely because women get laid all the time they are stupid, superficial, etc. Huge amounts of their time is devoted to social plays, fucking, bonding, petting weekends in the bed, partying two or three times a week, chatting, facebook, looking for boyfriends.

I treat people as individuals. Therefore I am no candidate for the next Breivik.

This pathetic reduction of yours reaffirms you as an oppressor.

You cant have it both ways.


...
-Shawn P. Wilbur / Contr'un / Corvus Editions

"It may be said in a general way...that we are believers in liberty, in justice, in equality, in fraternity, in peace, progress, and in a state of happiness here on earth for one and all. What we mean by all this defines itself as we go along. It is a practical, working belief..."--Sidney H. Morse
User avatar
shawnpwilbur
 
Posts: 1503
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:15 pm

Re: Question for Mutualists

Postby vaguelyhumanoid » Sun May 06, 2012 1:26 pm

Trevor Reznik wrote:I treat people as individuals.


I'm guessing you're not counting women as people, then.
vaguelyhumanoid
 
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 12:46 am

Re: Question for Mutualists

Postby neverfox » Wed May 16, 2012 12:14 pm

Trevor Reznik wrote:It is precisely because women get laid all the time they are stupid, superficial, etc. Huge amounts of their time is devoted to social plays, fucking, bonding, petting weekends in the bed, partying two or three times a week, chatting, facebook, looking for boyfriends. You cant have it both ways.

I wonder where he got that idea.
Image
A positive and scientific morality, we have said, can give the individual this commandment only: Develop your life in all directions, be an "individual" as rich as possible in intensive and extensive energy; therefore be the most social and sociable being. (Jean-Marie Guyau)
If you can read this, you are the resistance.
User avatar
neverfox
 
Posts: 2338
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:04 am
Location: Encinitas, CA

Re: Question for Mutualists

Postby ChairmanMeow » Wed May 16, 2012 3:06 pm

Alice Raizel wrote:
Your use of "Marxist" is tritely illiterate. Too many Rightists use the term as a content-free stock epithet to hurl at anyone who critiques class injustice, whether or not the theories in question share all, some, or no other features in common with Marxism. Oppose bullying by landlords or bosses? Marxist. Think the social order might possibly give poor people a raw deal? Marxist. Oppose any kind of heirarchy or oppression anywhere? Marxist.


You disagree? Clearly you're a Marxist.
User avatar
ChairmanMeow
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:26 am

Re: Question for Mutualists

Postby ChairmanMeow » Wed May 16, 2012 4:07 pm

Trevor Reznik wrote:
Alice Raizel wrote:
Trevor Reznik wrote:You have created my problem. You admitted it. It was you.

Yes, I am all powerful! Evil feminists are entirely responsible for your inability to get laid. The fact that you are an off-the-scale sexist douchebag has nothing to do with it and you are in no way responsible for your situation.

http://jezebel.com/5906648/the-angry-un ... up-artists

I showed a lover some of your posts. He wondered if you were going to be the next Anders Breivik.

The very last thing I want to is getting laid. This pathetic reduction of yours reaffirms you as an oppressor

I treat people as individuals. Therefore I am no candidate for the next Breivik.
 
And by the way.
It is precisely because women get laid all the time they are stupid, superficial, etc. Huge amounts of their time is devoted to social plays, fucking, bonding, petting weekends in the bed, partying two or three times a week, chatting, facebook, looking for boyfriends. You cant have it both ways.


In general, I don't like to "play psychologist", but I think this situation warrants it. Trevor, I've kind of watched you, and waited to take something things in before I weighed in on the matter and quite honestly I think your problem is you're intelligent.

Intelligent people, without guidance frequently become victims of their own intellect. They can develop a whole host of anti-social and maladaptive behaviors which will only serve to undermine their life goals. For example, you very clearly intellectualize your emotions.

Rather than directly deal with your feelings of rejection or alienation in dating you "ideologize" them. You focus on rules and abstract notions of fairness. This allows you to argue with ideas, rather than cope with feelings. It also allows you make other people responsible for your feelings.

Maybe you have experienced being socially marginalized, as many intelligent people do because of difficulty in conforming to a complex set of rules which have no apparently logical basis. This frustration only gets worse when an intelligent person moves into dating. Because of the disparity between intention, speech and action in dating, intelligent people catch on to these unspoken rules much less quickly.

But you also display a certain egotism - that is, you behave as though you are the only person who experiences this frustration. And maybe, to some extent in coming to this forum you are seeking some kind of validation, but this the absolute worst place to look for it. But, again, as an intelligent person, this may be the only place you know to look.

There are two things I would like for you to think about. The first is to consider what kind of frustrations and obstacles intelligent women face in dating. For most of my life the majority of close friends were female. What I can tell you is that, even in the late 90's, here in the U.S. they frequently found that most guys were intimidated by their intelligence. This was during the rise of "geeky is cool" so this eased things a little bit. But many were surprised to find that "geek guys" were in some ways more socially regressive in their views on women than "normal" guys. I have a variety of speculations on this might be, but this is irrelevant. I just want you to think about how intelligent women might also experience similar frustrations as yourself, though perhaps taking slightly different forms.

The next thing I would like you to think about is how discussing this on-line does anything to resolve these feelings. Blaming external factors will do nothing but increase your sense of helplessness. Taking ownership however will be empowering. You will find little to no resolution to these feelings, except to find ways to be successful in dating. You will have to learn to play by some of the rules, but what you may discover is that not all of the rules are bad (though many are) and not every girl likes to play them. You are right that a lot of people (notice I said people, not girls/women) are disingenuous and play games, but you just have to tough it out and find those that aren't. When you think about it, this is really not that different than finding friends, it's just a greater magnitude of frustration/annoyance.

Now I have no idea what your reaction to this post will be. I suspect you will either dismiss, or deflect it. That's fine. And my analysis could be totally off base. But either way, please understand that I am really attempting to reach out to what appears to be, from my end, a hurting person.
User avatar
ChairmanMeow
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:26 am

Re: Question for Mutualists

Postby TheAltruist » Wed May 16, 2012 8:44 pm

Thank you for trashing my topic...
Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state. - Noam Chomsky
User avatar
TheAltruist
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Question for Mutualists

Postby RonaldMcDonald » Thu May 17, 2012 10:58 am

What's the difference between this thread and Trevor Reznick?

This thread won't die anytime soon!

Image
While anarchists oppose hierarchy in the name of liberty, right-libertarians support authority and hierarchy, all of which deny freedom and restrict individual development. This is unsurprising because the right-libertarian ideology...is fundamentally anti-life in its assumptions and anti-human in its method. Far from being a libertarian set of ideas, right-Libertarianism is a mechanical set of dogmas that deny the fundamental nature of life (namely change) and of individuality (namely critical thought and freedom). --AFAQ

Capitalists are vampires - parasites who view us as nothing more than livestock to feed off of and have dominion over. --manilaryceTLM
User avatar
RonaldMcDonald
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Question for Mutualists

Postby ChairmanMeow » Fri May 18, 2012 1:46 pm

TheAltruist wrote:Thank you for trashing my topic...


I apologize. It was not my goal to take the topic further away from the OP, however I think it had already been derailed several posts earlier. Given that, I tried to deal with a recurring situation in a way that I hoped would have a better outcome. I have started a new thread with your OP.
User avatar
ChairmanMeow
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:26 am

Re: Question for Mutualists

Postby ChairmanMeow » Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:35 am

What was the original question?
User avatar
ChairmanMeow
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:26 am

Previous

Return to Political, Social, and Economic Theory

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron
suspicion-preferred