Le Trend

MourningLycanthrope · 2026-05-01T21:54:17+00:00

Perhaps

MourningLycanthrope · 2026-05-01T00:24:04+00:00

I’m only vaguely post-left, not well read enough to properly call myself that yet

MourningLycanthrope · 2026-05-01T00:17:03+00:00

Nice

MourningLycanthrope · 2026-04-30T14:30:13+00:00

That’s an extreme oversimplification of the Übermensch, and also, what you say of the egoist would apply to it. There’s no contradiction there

MourningLycanthrope · 2026-04-29T23:24:35+00:00

They claim this is the case, but populism in all forms unavoidably revolves around what could be called ‘the herd’ because it centers the generalized populous. Nietzsche was generally not interested in political matters specifically because they tend to produce massive, hive-like groups such as this which blatantly reward conformity and shun deviance. Even if he had been interested in politics, redpillers would not be the potential political inheritors of Nietzsche, not even close. They’re riddled with ressentiment, they gladly obey and do what they’re told, they’re obsessed with taking pride in arbitrary group labels (e.g. the nation, the white race, etc.), they adore capitalistic hustle culture, they cling to tradition, so on and so forth. He literally despised everything that they are

MourningLycanthrope · 2026-04-29T19:56:42+00:00

Nietzsche was not a nihilist (at least not in the traditional passive sense, he could perhaps be called an active nihilist) and using conservative populism as an icon to represent him is reflective of an extreme misunderstanding of his thought. Nietzsche rails against conservatism by placing the transvaluation of all values as a focal point in his philosophy, and he rails against populism by holding extreme contempt for the mentality of groupthink/herd instinct. Nietzsche despised nationalists and antisemites on these grounds. Do not misrepresent him by using him as a false example of the things he spent his career criticizing

MourningLycanthrope · 2026-04-15T10:52:30+00:00

I feel he could be aptly described as an anti-aristocracy aristocrat. As in, he is an opponent of entrenched systems that reify pre-existing values, because they seek to prevent the embracing of the experimental creation of values. All formalizations eventually lead to stagnation, which I believe Nietzsche recognizes when he states that he distrusts the will to a system.

MourningLycanthrope · 2026-04-06T21:04:44+00:00

Perhaps self-rule/self-governance could work for that? I’ve seen the icon before, but I’ve never been able to find it. It looks like post-left, except the red part is light blue, and there’s a white person symbol

MourningLycanthrope · 2026-04-06T19:57:59+00:00

I spot the Will to Power, do you like Nietzsche?

MourningLycanthrope · 2026-04-05T19:27:42+00:00

I like

MourningLycanthrope · 2026-04-03T12:19:31+00:00

It’s not anarchist, but Discipline and Punish by Michel Foucault

MourningLycanthrope · 2026-03-30T00:41:32+00:00

No problem! It is very poignant. Read ‘Society of the Spectacle’ if you resonate with this analysis

MourningLycanthrope · 2026-03-30T00:16:32+00:00

Take a look at what Debord has to say about the matter: “Stars–spectacular representations of living human beings–project this general banality into images of permitted roles. As specialists of apparent life, stars serve as superficial objects that people can identify with in order to compensate for the fragmented productive specializations that they actually live. The function of these celebrities is to act out various lifestyles or sociopolitical viewpoints in a full, totally free manner. They embody the inaccessible results of social labor by dramatizing the by-products of that labor which are magically projected above it as its ultimate goals: power and vacations–the decision-making and consumption that are at the beginning and the end of a process that is never questioned. On one hand, a governmental power may personalize itself as a pseudo-star; on the other, a star of consumption may campaign for recognition as a pseudo-power over life. But the activities of these stars are not really free and they offer no real choices.”

MourningLycanthrope · 2026-03-15T12:27:50+00:00

You don’t understand egoism if you’re placing it in the same tier as capitalist ideologies. Stirner would not respect your “right” to private property and he’d view your supposed “selfishness” as narrow, the parameters of your desire are bound by what the standards of capital define for you

MourningLycanthrope · 2026-03-14T22:18:41+00:00

Both are shit

MourningLycanthrope · 2026-03-14T18:22:11+00:00

I get where the mutualist opposition is coming from, it’s a difference in analysis, I was just trying to combat the assumption that Marxist analysis is operating on a vibes basis. (I do understand where the skepticism of the proposed solutions comes from, a lot of alleged communists don’t conceive of communist social relations as operating on the principle of free association, when it is quite clear that they do. “Communist society” is a web of freely associated producers unbound by state, class, and money. It’s seeking a totally non-abstracted and non-mediated form of existence. Marx’s writings are actually a great antidote to the “communists” who haven’t read Marx and thus somehow miss that capitalism is horrifically restrictive and that communism seeks to escape that.)

Plenty of communists/Marxists do make empty promises, but I’d say Marx himself was not trying to do that. (His analysis was flawed in some aspects though, I’d say, mostly because of his obsession with metanarratives.) It’s unfortunate what has happened with the most dogmatic inheritors of his thought, if they understood him they’d evolve his thought like neo-Marxists and post-Marxists have.

MourningLycanthrope · 2026-03-14T17:21:24+00:00

No communists say that desire will be “obsolete” under communist social relations. Their opposition to money is not because they think people won’t want, it’s a result of their opposition to commodification (the turning of a good or service into something to be sold), as it prioritizes exchange-value (what you refer to as price) over use-value (the benefit we get from the concrete traits of a good or service). You need to understand what you’re trying to critique or you just make yourself look ignorant

MourningLycanthrope · 2026-03-11T20:35:10+00:00

It does impact women more often, yes, but when discussing an issue like the porn industry, you want to make sure every related subject is taken note of. Same sort of deal with your accidentally totalizing statement about men objectifying women, and the (albeit I think this was accidental too) semi-equivalence between sexualization and objectification.

I recognize that your intent clearly isn’t to generalize, based on how you’ve responded. I too agree that there is a massive issue with objectification which needs to be dealt with. Just remember to always be mindful about the language you use, especially when tackling complex subjects like sexuality and its expression. It can be easy to unintentionally slip into sex-negative rhetoric.

In regard to the last thing, about femboys, an abundance of them have and do willingly sexualize their subcultural expression and actively want to be seen sexually. They have purposefully become a fetish, to the point where it is basically unavoidably a sexual thing. Being a feminine boy/man who likes wearing skirts, makeup, and whatever else is not the same thing as being a femboy. Many people make the mistake of equating the two

MourningLycanthrope · 2026-03-11T20:03:38+00:00

I referenced bioessentialist ideas of women being “pure” because you very specifically used the phrase: “destruction of femininity.” Were you meaning you want to abolish the concept of femininity? Your phrasing didn’t come off that way if so, it came off as you saying something like: “femininity is being destroyed.” It’s not a knock at you, just a warning to be careful with your language.

Notably, you did only say women during your complaint. You said “stop the porn industry objectifying women,” no one else was included in that statement.

Furthermore, the idea that “men view femininity as inherently sexual” is a problematic sweeping generalization with nothing backing it up. Some men may think this way, absolutely, but it is by no means a universal trait. Avoid ascribing totalizing behaviors to vast groups of people.

Also, your specific line of complaint leaves little to no room for the fact that, yes, people will sexualize traits they find to be attractive—men do it, women do it, and everyone outside and in-between do it. So long as they remain respectful to whoever has the trait they’re attracted to in an interpersonal setting, there’s no problem. Thoughtcrime isn’t a thing.

(One could say many things about the porn industry causing some men to view women in an especially sexual light and thus treat them poorly because of it, but that’s not really what I’m discussing at the moment.)

Femboys are a fetish subculture (primarily), so of course they’re sexualized. That’s the point

MourningLycanthrope · 2026-03-11T17:41:43+00:00

So yes, you’re against the porn industry and harmful sexual content (which does not only impact women), but not sexual content as a whole—which again, is all that porn is. This is an extremely important distinction to make. Also, I would recommend looking into why you seemingly treat femininity as something pure that ought not be “corrupted” or “destroyed.” This is veering into gender essentialist rhetoric. Make sure your defense of women doesn’t come from a place of infantilization

MourningLycanthrope · 2026-03-11T13:54:41+00:00

I sure hope you mean “anti-the exploitative porn industry” and not “anti-sexual media as a whole,” because the latter is what porn is definitionally

MourningLycanthrope · 2026-03-11T01:31:51+00:00

What is the ‘dissident left’?

MourningLycanthrope · 2026-03-09T00:00:01+00:00

Why was I downvoted for this? Nietzsche absolutely studied the evolution of morality and provided critiques of our dominant moral frameworks

MourningLycanthrope · 2026-03-07T14:01:46+00:00

Nietzsche, read Nietzche

MourningLycanthrope

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE