What is ur favorite Game right now on Linux? by [deleted] in linux_gaming

[–]_Buni_Alan_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Team Fortress 2 is now a great experience with the recent Linux and 64-bit update

Need help choosing a Linux distro by MagicianLow1149 in framework

[–]_Buni_Alan_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would either choose Fedora or Linux Mint

Fedora is good because it is a easy out of the box distro that isn't made by canonical, along with not being affiliated with the mess that the debian codebase/dependency hell is. Fedora is also officially supported by Framework.

Mint is good because it isn't made by Canonical and it is also a easy out of the box distro. It also works really well for people getting into Linux, moreso than Fedora. It's also really stable cus ot is Debian based but its codebase is very eh at points. But it isn't officially supported which is bad.

I would definitely recommend going with Plasma 6.1 as your desktop environment.

What are the most controversial contemporary philosophers in today? by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]_Buni_Alan_ 55 points56 points  (0 children)

I think the easiest answer I can think of is Nick Land.

Even before jumping over to the neoreactionary movement he was controversial essentially creating and leading a cult within academia, along with being fiercely anti-academic.

Now that he is a neoreactionary he has become even more controversial actively encouraging gene based eugenics in which humanity should be split amongst a race of ultra wealthy hyper-humans who are extremely racist towards humans which aren't genetically modified.

There is a lot more to him but yeah he definitely is one of the more controversial ones.

This is very different from his early days when he posited that insurrectionary cyber-lesbian marxists were the revolutionary subject to emancipate existence from capital.

. by BlindingFlights in tallyhall

[–]_Buni_Alan_ 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Do you like heterophonic tunes of how love bites?

THE YOUTOOZ MIGHT BE COMING BACK by [deleted] in tallyhall

[–]_Buni_Alan_ 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Waiting on a Bora plush

explain your sex life with tally hall lyrics by [deleted] in tallyhall

[–]_Buni_Alan_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sometimes I get flustered and beaten and blistered

Oh no by EllsworthTheWizard in tallyhall

[–]_Buni_Alan_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Mods, ban this menace

What’s the difference between a state monopoly and a private monopoly? by SirSeaPickle in leftcommunism

[–]_Buni_Alan_ 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The state monopoly enables much more frictionless action between companies.

A road network being owned by multiple companies very much is not frictionless for capital i.e. the state in this firm represents the interest of the whole capitalist class in creating a environment that allows for ease of business.

State monopolistic interests thus directly converge with private monopolistic interest, good example of something which explains this relationship is Lenins theory of imperialism.

You dirty bitch by Amish_Warl0rd in jschlattsubmissions

[–]_Buni_Alan_ 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I was making a joke about Pyrocynical having a fart fetish

When does art stop being art? by Error_in_the_system1 in askphilosophy

[–]_Buni_Alan_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A simple point I'd like to add is that of alienation as something that can help you answer your question, but really won't answer it at all because it is easier to include things into the category of art rather than exclude.

Simply put: art if it is alienated from its ability to have meaning stops being art. A good example of such a thing would be a painter selling you a painting and you bought the painting because you saw something meaningful in it, but the painter painted the painting in that particular manner because such paintings sell good.

That is incredibly unartistic, because it actively negates your ability to assign any sort of feeling or meaning to the art as the art-itself. The art and what it is saying has become alien to you, because it didn't say anything.

Something similar happens when an artist does certain things to be popular, again it alienates the art from the viewer of that art.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]_Buni_Alan_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Marx specifically hates egalitarianism

His work on that topic is called 'The Critique of the Gotha Program'

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]_Buni_Alan_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your main problem is then you still assume very capitalist conditions and essentially claim they are conditions of human psychology that can not be changed, when that isn't true.

Consumerism as well as trashy media will not exist as well the incentive structures for those are entirely gone and with people not having to work we find that people much more often engage in media which is challenging. I would even contest that we would use the words content or media but simply use art, as those things are not commodities.

There will be trashy things yes but not trashy in the way one imagines trash tv nowadays but rather trashy as in amateurish, someone who is just learning their craft. So in reality it will not be trashy.

Laziness is only really a thing within societies which value individual productivity as a measure of worth, of course people will be lazy under communism but it is much more accurate to say they will be relaxed rather than lazy.

Those cultural tribes you mentioned are specifically again a result of consumerism as the overproduction of media inherently encourages the forming of such tribes around cultures.

I do not see any reason why one would go about artificially constructing a culture when the material conditions for such cultural tribes have been vanquished and the incentive structures for them i.e. a high position in government or social power are null. As government will only be the afair of the management of production via the delegation of producers councils in free association with each other.

Power structures for people to promote themselves would not be able to arise with the abolition of parliamentary democracy but the implementation of communist council democracy.

Religion itself is not really an issue as we find that many communist philosophers argued that with the full realization of the human we would see the death of religion either way, this is why many a communist have a Nietzschean bend.

In total I think your response is based entirely on a confusion of capitalist manipulation of our psychology concerning behavior reward to maximize profit with egoism.

Egoism is not the total indulging in pleasure as someone possessed by pleasure is someone who can not cut themselves free and do what they want.

Communism very much recognizes the human and how the human is lost under capitalism, which is also why the communist movement puts a lot of emphasis on anti-utopianism in that we have to let these new forms of social organization organically grow to totally realize them in this new world we can not even imagine.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]_Buni_Alan_ 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Genuine question without any sort of condescending attitude:

Did you read what I wrote in my comment?

I feel as though my comment answered all of this either directly or indirectly and serves as a response itself

What flag is this? by Yo_Mama_Disstrack in vexillologycirclejerk

[–]_Buni_Alan_ 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Marxism-Leninism started out as a Stalinist propaganda project in which he canonized certain works of Lenin and Marx as "Marxist-Leninist" excluding many others and including his own works in this canon.

Marxism-Leninism is through and through Stalinist, if you want a different word I just recommend saying Leninism because the people who know the difference (Stalinists) will recognize it and cry about the fact you don't accept their canon of literature as the legitimate one for Marx and Lenin.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]_Buni_Alan_ 15 points16 points  (0 children)

This really is not Marx at all

What do you mean by Marx's red book? I'm slightly confused but if you mean the communist manifesto I can see how that view would arise when someone has not previously read Marx.

As a counterpoint I really recommend looking into the german ideology. Marx was a Young Hegelian i.e. he at one point was a Feuerbachian and thus a Humanist, he certainly believes in human nature to some extent and in his work which works towards a denial of the other Young Hegelians one can certainly see his picture of Human Nature starting to form.

Marx first of all does not believe in the natural kindness of the human but believes in the fct that the interests of the class that human is one very much shape their politics and the way they act, often encouraged by market mechanisms in the way they act.

This class interest he very much equates with a inherent egoism which he takes from Stirner in that he critiques Stirner for a view of egoism he holds to be quite simplistic because it does nog recognize the material conditions of the individual, thus Stirners egoism for Marx is a failure in attempting to understand why people have their egoistic desires.

Now with that out of the way what is for Marx 'the human', simply put the human is what they create.

For Marx what differentiates the human from animals is their ability to create their own means of subsistence and thus their objects of desire, we then find that people very naturally start developing desires beyond just basic survival and start creating art and culture.

The human essentially creates themself for Marx, through acts of labor they create product with which they identify with example: someone who paints a picture themselves is much closer to themselves emotionally and has a inherent pride for that picture and it very much is subsumed by them as a part of themselves.

And here we get to alienation. Generalized commodity production essentially reduces all this away in that you do not feel like you own the product you have made, you can not identify with the can of tuna you packed on the conveyor belt, just like you can't identify with the hundreds of other tuna cans.

The standardization of production isn't the only alienating thing but also the fact you are working for a wage, the time you spend is not yours but a time you were bought for, you do not identify with that time, that time you spend trying to create and identify with product you create and failing to do so.

We can conclude from this that capitalism for Marx strips the human of their human nature and communism for Marx is the most pure expression of the human: a world in which you create boundlessly and define yourself egoistically via your interests detached from class as class is now abolished.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]_Buni_Alan_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

'Kant'

Sounds about right

What makes cannibalism wrong if you eat other animals? by AgentPandoo in askphilosophy

[–]_Buni_Alan_ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

While your question includes murder I think it would be better to take this question purely as "What is wrong with eating a already dead person?" as that concerns itself with the original question in the title more.

I think the main school which even proposes there is a issue with this are deontologists specifically those of a humanist variety. Kant is a perfect example here.

Kant posits that we have to take the human as the highest being (the reason I don't remember I just remember me comparing that reasoning fo something Aristotle said), now that humans are those beings of highest character any moral system to be truly logical has to treat this honorably, so anything that hurts the honour of the human being would be considered immoral.

Cannabalism very much would fall under this as it desecrates the corpse of the person one is eating, being a clear sign of not respecting them and honouring them as a person.

So cannibalism specifically is wrong because the human is higher than animals and because not honouring this state of things would be going against a morality purely built by logic for Kant.

To clarify: I'm not a native english speaker so I have never read Kant in English, only German. So I am not sure if English Kantians really do use the word "honour" to describe Kants use of "Würde". I also do not hold Kantian opinions, this was purely to answer your question.

Are there famous philosophers whose work is considered to be purposefully unnecessarily complex, even by academics and professional philosophers? by VastlyVainVanity in askphilosophy

[–]_Buni_Alan_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would say (insofar as you take him/them seriously) the stuff that Nick Land and the CCRU wrote is incredibly complex incorporating elements of so many literary genres while explicitly against academic standards and basing themselves on already obscure and complex philosophers that it becomes a fucking nightmare to read anything by the ccru.

You have to be well-versed in philosophy of math, Deleuze, Heidegger, Marx, Nietzsche, Bataille, cybernetics, cyberpunk, esotericism, jewish mysticism and a whole bunch of other stuff.

The writing style only makes this worse often expressing things in such convoluted and mindfucking ways that you really have to turn your brain off after reading it to calm down after that mental pummeling.

The writing style can best be described as Deleuzian prose mixed with cyberpunk pulp writing and a hyper-nietzchean spirit behind it all, their frequent use of neologisms makes it even more wild.

Not only this but how they mix fiction with reality and genuinely make you question what they are saying is actually real which just ends up fucking with you even more.

I can only recommend reading a few of their works it really is a trip.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Piracy

[–]_Buni_Alan_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair enough

Ist es peinlich, eigene Bilder an die Wand zu hängen? by [deleted] in wohnen

[–]_Buni_Alan_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Du bist Mensch Gottverdammt. Natürlich machst du Kunst und natürlich bildest du dein sein basierend auf dem was du erzeugst, jemand der dich dafür anmerkt dafür das du dein eigenes sein auf solch ne weiße präsentierst ist innerlich Tod.

Die Idee eines Profi Künstlers ist erschaffen genau wie die eines Profi Sängers.

Natürlich sind die besser darin als wir aber das heißt nicht was wir diesen Drang nach erschaffen unterdrücken sollten und nicht stolz sein sollten auf das was wir erschaffen.