ok but is it possible to get an 8x12 penes enhancement
im looking for mine to be the size of a baseball bat
1 Like
I have seen that you’ve posted a lot of passive aggressive comments since you came here to forum.
Please note that it is in your own best interest to be friendly and polite if you want to receive help from other forum members for your challenges.
4 Likes
wow man it’s good to have you here.
1 Like
Is the wim Hof method mouth or nose breathing ?
1 Like
That’s one healthy perspective. Thanks for sharing
1 Like
I had to stop at 3 min. His marxist whining is pretty in your face, I had to check his channel and bio. It’s sad.
but I won’t blame you for sharing, I already endured the likes Andrew Tates, my brain is numb at this point.
I force myself to watch all sides, I check a bunch of incel pseudo blackpill channels and the marxist. I guess I like pain or try to develop callousness. Anyway, they are all parroting the same points.
I do have to say, at least the Incels go for self-improvement. At least they have that silver lining. They try to improve.
I’m not even gonna touch is comment about France lol
Another piece of copium.
But these ideas are worst, everytime they get applied, they hurt everyone and collapse on themselves. These people feel smart by criticizing everyone and theorizing about everything, but they are just as insecure. They never offer anything new or good, they just deconstruct everything.
At least the “patriarchy” with all its short comings will last even if it deteriorates slowly.
The Marxists pseudo intellectuals fail in every way at everything in just years and decades. It fails 100% of the time.
Marxism used to be cool, then it killed hundreds of millions and went bankrupt on its own every time in isolated events. Even just a Marxist city will collapse while the rest of an healthy country slowly improves or stagnates.
And everytime they deconstruct, they end up with nothing and then they come back to a laggard capitalism that is technologically and socially backward by decades. Because once they destroy all the “bad people” and there are no more excuses to play victims, they can never figure out a better way forward.
4 Likes
In fact Marxism was never applied, just “Leninism”, “Maoism” and “Stalinism”.
Marx advocated for the means of production in the hands of the labour class, which didn’t happen in URSS or China because it was handled by the State. Same happened with the abolition of classes, that also didn’t happen because the ruling class and proletariat was a well defined line for URSS and China.
They didn’t apply any of Marx’s ideas, just their own “adaptations” to those ideas that were never compatible with Marx’s view of economics or philosophy.
Even Marx wasn’t a Marxist, he was a Hegelian.
The nuance in Hegelian thinking is that we are shaped and driven by history, not “free will”, which is kinda dumb to point it out because it is obvious at this point, everything we think, do and are it is a byproduct of an historical force that came before us. It is enough to look at how Middle East manages their law and how men kill women and it is naturalized and considered “honorable” in some cases.
Lacan critiziced this idea by particularizing it. It is not an universal force of history, but particular (each of its own) and it is not historical but symbolic.
The achievement in Hegel and Marxist thinking it is not idealism (an ideal state of things like communism or the Spirit) but dialectical thinking.
Dialectical thinking it is the foundation of social sciences because it has logical accuracy when it comes to subjective problems such as master and slave dialectics (in Hegel), or desire as desire of the desire of Other (in Lacan).
Because subjectivity is dialectical, which means it is an binary movement of two forces that act simultaneously (something similar to Taoist or Hinduist tradition, but the Western version of it through thought and logic).
I’d highly encourage you to read Hegel and Marx without judgements.
1 Like
I’m not going down the dialectic rabbit hole with you. I know exactly what you mean and what you’re referring to.
I may sound like scumbag who refuses to engage in debate but I’m shocked by how predictable your answer has been. Word for words, spewing what you read in books.
These are old ideas from a flawed reasoning.
If I type questions on googles, I get the same replies 10/10 times, any left wing channel on youtube will repeat these “points”.
There are thousands of memes from the early 2000s with the same arguments so much it’s cliche.
Not gonna lie, if you’d have said these things in 1930, you’d look very smart.
5 Likes
PS: not gonna lie, I saw you reply, I sweated.
I was gearing up, “he’s gonna start by reducing everything into his dialectical viewpoint and follow up with pseudo logic. Maybe some Socrates, but def Hengel, Marx, Lacan. I haven’t read that much Heindenberg”.
“I’ll have to show the flaws of dialectics, follow up with empirical evidences”. I opened a few tabs lmao
Then you dropped the
“It was not real Marxism”.
Phew
Could you imagine if free enterprise and capitalism failed every where at every level, killed by the tens of millions in just decades before collapsing and then people said “it’s not real capitalism like Adam Smith wanted it”. “That’s not the utopia he envisioned” ?
“We need an 8th try, this time if you trust us it will really work. We can start over with cultural capitalism”
Anyway, I think it’s a silly ideology, but I don’t have bad feelings toward you.
Let’s say it’s subjective.
Have a good evening
I don’t think that ideas have an age, they may be more accurated or more wrong sided but their time is kinda trivial. I also do not think memes are a measure for them.
Many Greek ideas were older than Christ and were considered wrong for thousands of years until recently, like Heraclitus’ view of ontology, nature and metaphysics was considered wrong for like 2500 years until Einstein’s theory of general relativity (everything is moving all the time), although Western common sense is still Aristotelian/Newtonian.
1 Like
Nah, I saw you reply on other threads, so I assumed you’d share something new with some articles or something deep. Something that would somehow give a new twist to the old marxist sludge.
We can always improve our understanding of the world. I don’t think I ever thought anything that no one before has ever thought.
But I meant, your reply was cliché. So, I assume most people have read it, or at least the summaries and can see the merit or lack thereof.
IMO: it’s a case of over-intellectualisation, an imbalance, a reasoning that is ungrounded and speculative, proven wrong.
It’s so obvious that it doesn’t work, there are mountains of empirical evidences, most people’s instinct can feel it. But once lost in ideas and the ocean of the mind, people come up with whatever utopia they prefer.
That’s the problem with “intellectuals” that hang in their silos and never have to face the failure of their ideologies. They grant themselves so much benefits of the doubt at the cost of society. They rationalise forever without the boundaries of the natural world, without the need for results.
They are so sure of their “logic” they don’t have rigorous standards to discredit their beliefs.
They still hope that somehow with the magical technology, or luck, their pretentious technocracy will prevail. Their impulse to control.
And even IF I was generous and said it wasn’t complete BS (totally is), if it’s so complicated that it failed to be implemented through a century of enthusiasm and billions of supporters. What it is good for ?
They also copy cat a lot of ideologies, it’s heavily inspired from the Christianity they love to criticise. Whatever they think it’s a response to something else, a critique. Without something to rebel against, they have no ideology, just eternal class warfare.
They deconstruct everything to start from an imaginary blank slate that goes against biology, against basic human nature which they confuse for nurture and environnement in their lust for control. It always leads to negative and depressive feelings. It’s based on dark aspects of human nature.
Happy people with high self-esteem reject these ideologies. Depression and crisis are the breeding ground for these reactionaries.
Capitalism provide the ressources that leads to the decadence they despise. It leads to the wealth without which there is no inequality. Once they destroy it, they destroy the surplus and force everyone back into subsistence.
All that to say, if it was gonna be a thing, it would have been by now.
Natural selection, decentralization, flexibility and innovation fueled by the right incentives, that’s progress.
1 Like
I dunno what you mean by “work”.
Human nature is a messy object of study, and there were tons of empirical evidences for Nazis to justify why their race was superior.
So, empirical evidence has to be interpretated through lens, and those lens are the subject of study of social scientists, and dialectical thinking is one of the methods to understand it.
Dialectical thinking deals with negativity, which are the processes that are “not seen” and desguised as positive “what seems to be”.
Positivism is great for many forms of knowledge but it cannot deal with human nature without falling deep into many generalizations, which leads to many of the issues it tries to solve through psychology for example, in madness or over identification, or gender identity based on biological frameworks.
Positivism cannot deal with subjectivity because subjectivity is negative.
Deconstruction it is supposed to question everything we are so certain about.
It asks you “Why are you so certain about X or Y?”, the main issue with ideological postures is certainty, to move foward and progress we have to continue question everything we take for granted.
1 Like
Because you are playing that game of “not real Marxism” which is the central theory that has been applied in different ways. All iterations have failed in every settings, most have not just failed, they have collapsed.
We can go country by country, versions of Marxism in practice.
Otherwise you can stick to your Marxist utopia, but it’s hard to debate with a fanatic about infinite possibilities.
We’re talking Marxism here, I have a feeling you jumped to Nazism because it’s tricky to defend.
But I’m happy to go at length with you about Nazi science and eugenics in private.
I’m not pro-Nazi but I really like the subject and spent a lot of time on it. It’s just not appropriate in public.
Yet deconstruction is a political tool, which everything is under Marxism (which is a totalitarian ideology) where the goal and ways are set prior to experimentation.
Deconstruction eventually hits a limit, but that’s not acceptable politically. It’s a top-down system.
Now, thanks to the surplus created by the capitalist industrial societies, you have the means to waste people’s time on infinite mental masturbation without caring about actual results and the separation of power with real political diversity allows you to disagree.
Deconstruction in the marxist context is the problem.
But you can select the area you want to deconstruct with me.
1 Like
He should want that for himself because it brings him a certain amount of enjoyment and control. To do it for a woman takes the meaning out of his life. He becomes Peer Gint- a braggart and a swaggerer. He looks like he does not care about a woman’s approval, but simultaneously, sees her as the queen for which his desires can be satiated
1 Like
I’m not playing any game, I’m being as clear as possible. “Marxism” is not “trying to enforce communism through the State”.
I already said I’m not talking about idealism, but scientific tools to understand subjectivity and society that precede Marx and belong to Hegel (although Marx did a great contribution because of his focus on economics).
Also, Marx was wrong in a lot of things, like class struggle for example, that had been disproven already, after the russian revolution the proletariat became a new “political class”, it wasn’t abolished.
But he was right in a lot of things and predictions on capitalism.
Saying that everything in favour of Marx’s argument is “that wasn’t real Marxism” is just a vast generalization that does not lead to any question or answer.
I guess you were exposed to a big deal of Jordan Peterson because he talks like that, here’s an interesting bit about Zizek and Peterson debate that helps to clarify the point I’m making:
Deconstruction is based on Heidegger’s work and he was an anti-marxist. Not Marx.
Heidegger questioned the relationship between “Being” and “Entity”, which was poorly articulated before him through the history of philosophy and people confused being with entity itself.
The problem that Deconstruction tackles is the Metaphysics of Presence, or, in other words, how we came to think that meaning is trascendental rather than material.
All these accusations are Petersonian attempts to escape the ontological and epistemological argument by throwing generalizations everywhere.
Because Peterson is not a philosopher or a good rational thinker for that matter.
1 Like
For modern and contemporary analysis of politics, capitalism and economics I wouldn’t recommend Marx, but Byung Chul Han.
1 Like
Of course not 
Talking about cultural Marxism here and there, I kinda reply to your video at the top. That’s how it started.
I don’t like Peterson more than that, but I suppose I’m not the only one who can see through that stuff nowadays.
Anyway, you know how it is, Saturday night, you get a couple beers, then next thing you know you get yourself into a conversation you really don’t want to have.
So, I’m gonna leave now.
If need be, I consent to removal of this convo by a mod.
2 Likes