>>31
What's the standard of education we are using? Ask a bourgeois rich kid to change a car tire or turn a jack. Those fuckers don't even know how to shovel. The elite (not all of them are rich) simply use the idea of emancipation to manipulate the poor. Leftist politics (Marxism, social democracy etc) is just an attempt to create guilt free exploitation that will deepen the control of those in power over the proletariat.

>>32
Your telling me that ordinary people don't have fantasies about how an ideal world should look? This is just empirically false.

Marxists proclaim to be atheists until they see a factory or a warehouse, then they get on their knees and repeat the holy mantra. Work or die, they say, just like the capitalists.

>>35
this is a person you've invented in your head

>>34
You can't lump social democracy and Marxism in the same category. Look up the countries that rank the highest on democracy in the world, the lowest in terms of corruption, they are all social democracies. The point is not to create new avenues of exploitation, rather to do the opposite. It is to create additional checks and balances.

>>36

”he who does not work, shall not eat” and “work is the duty of every citizen” - 1918 Bolshevik constitution of Russia, Article 2, Chapter 5, .18

They not only took a saying from the Bible and misinterpreted it as literal. They actually hardcoded it as law. Only “productive” individuals will be allowed access to basic articles of consumption, even food. And work is a duty. So instead of whoring your body out to the capitalist for some money so you can live and guy buy stuff, otherwise go rot or live free if your rich, it’s your duty as a citizen to work for the state. Work work work. Because work is good. Be a good Stakhanovite drone and meet your quota and one day something beautiful will happen. Lies.

>>37
Social democracies are just totalitarian states by any other name. They don’t even count as weird theory. I wouldn’t even call them democracies and what does the social part even mean? It’s the most boring generic thing. Not even weird.

>>36

”he who does not work, shall not eat” and “work is the duty of every citizen” - 1918 Bolshevik constitution of Russia, Article 2, Chapter 5, .18

They not only took a saying from the Bible and misinterpreted it as literal. They actually hardcoded it as law. Only “productive” individuals will be allowed access to basic articles of consumption, even food. And work is a duty. So instead of whoring your body out to the capitalist for some money so you can live and guy buy stuff, otherwise go rot or live free if your rich, it’s your duty as a citizen to work for the state. Work work work. Because work is good. Be a good Stakhanovite drone and meet your quota and one day something beautiful will happen. Lies.

>>37
Social democracies are just totalitarian states by any other name. They don’t even count as weird theory. I wouldn’t even call them democracies and what does the social part even mean? It’s the most boring generic thing. Not even weird.

>>38
it is nice that you noticed that they quoted Bible.
Koba had christian theological education.
I'm not even saying that many socialists, marxists, in central & western europe come from judeochristian backgrounds.
But what options other than work, you have?

Social democracies are just totalitarian states by any other name.

is Sweden such? do you equalize it with Birma?

so Accelerationism is literally Human Instrumentality project, replacing us with robots? (that may or may not form hive)

>>40
It didn't come from Koba but from Lenin who was paraphrasing Paul. Lenin seems to have misread the quote entirely. Paul was talking about ethical action as in good deeds will bear fruit. Lenin seem to see it as a literal principal that those who fail at work shouldn't eat. Combining this with the classical economists labor theory of value, and the result is a cult of working. You see this with Marxists idolizing factory work despite most of them not working a day in their lives. Marxism is a failed pseudo-theology. The result is the same, work to death under capitalism to buy that mcmansion and SUV, work to death under Marxist socialism to build Marxist socialism.

is Sweden such? do you equalize it with Birma?

Why do 'authoritarian' states invest so much in independent judiciaries and propping up civil institutions? At the same time, democratic states engage in widespread torture, rendition, and extrajudicial killing, but nobody calls them 'authoritarian.' Sweden, Burma, US etc. are all totalitarian bureaucratic states where humans are reduced to instruments and statistics to be fed into national economies. Sure, we might prefer to live in one more than the other, but they aren't that different.

>>41
Enlightenment was the human instrumentality project. Humans will be replaced by machines because of increasing speed demands we move faster but now we are reaching physical human limits. Automation being adopted in those area where humans are seen as too slow to keep up. Accelerationism is redundant the world is already running at breakneck speed and we are too slow to keep up.

Soviet leaders did not live in the opulent mansions that are the commonplace residences of presidents, prime ministers and monarchs in most of the world’s capitals (Parenti, 1997). Gorbachev, for example, lived in a four-family apartment building. Leningrad’s top construction official lived in a one-bedroom apartment, while the top political official in Minsk, his wife, daughter and son-in-law inhabited a two-bedroom apartment (Kotz and Weir, 1997). Critics of the Soviet Union accused the elite of being an exploiting ruling class, but the elite’s modest incomes and humble material circumstances raise serious doubt about this assessment. If it was indeed an exploiting ruling class, it was the oddest one in human history.

>>43
Who cares how they lived? Its the consequences for ordinary people. Marxists created a work obsessed society. They failed to deliver on their promises and still do.

>>43
who are you even talking to, no one made that claim. Whether or not Gorbachev lived in a mansion has no baring on the degree to which marxism reduces people to their labor power.
>>41
No, because that was still the "human" instrumentality project. Landian accelerationism does away with humans entirely. To summarize extremely fast skipping over a lot, techno-capitalism is ultimately held back due to it's reliance on human desire, therefore it's end goal can only be to produce desire without humans aka AI. Once capital can function without humans, by producing it's own desire, it will have no need for us any longer and "nothing human makes it out of the near future". If you think that sounds unpleasant, you're a "transcendental miserabilist".

>>45
Land was already late to the party. Accelerationism is redundant because we are all accelerationists already and have been so for many decades now since the dramatic revolutions in speed. Land’s thinking is too linear. He’s just taken transhumanism and made it dark and hyper pessimistic but he suffers from the same optimistic linear mentality.

>>46
I fully agree, he's far too optimistic, he even has his "cosmic libertarianism". All in all it's a lot of edgy anti-humanist language placed on top of the same positive nietzschian life affirming romantic optimism.

One thing I hate about Land and his followers is the way this transhumanism seems to be a re-run of older 19th century Darwinist ideas of survival of the fittest and expand or die thinking. The growth of AI can only mean the extinction of humans, because of course a sentient being would obviously try to enslave or nuke other inferior beings. This reflects a colonial mindset. "The scraptards will do to us what we did to the Indians." As if that's a normal way to behave. Humans have always lived in a world filled with other beings and higher powers, Gods, angels, kami, spirits etc. many of them superior and more powerful than us. So what's threatening about sentient machines? The fact that Westerners (or secular humanists to be more specific) see sentient non-humans as a threat, tells you a lot about their warped colonizer worldview.

>>48
I think you misunderstand the genealogy of Land's thought.
Its pro-human-extinction-ism does not come from a "colonialist mindset" (this concept of "colonialist mindset" is not rooted in any materialist analysis) -- But rather, it originates through and engaging with the (anti-social-darwinist) Nietzschean concepts of ubermensch (overcoming of the human), the born-organizer, and the understanding of the relationship of will to power and creative energy with Thanatos and destruction (in this case the end of humanity).
[Nietzsche was a great critique of Herbert Spencer and social-darwinsim in general]

Not that there isn't a real discussion to be had on Nick Land and his concept of anti-humanist technological singularity; or that no critique can be made of him and his philosophy.

But to simply shove it aside by stamping the label: "colonizer mindset" is folly.

Besides, technological singularity in Land, unlike the higher powers you mentioned "Gods, angels, kami(?), spirits etc.", exists in an immanent sense, rather than transcendent. It is not simply an "higher power" in itself, but the manifestation of _will_ _to_ _power_. Would you consider the belief in the laws of physics and causality a belief in an "higher power"?
Also I'd not group "kami" and other animistic entities inside the "higher power" category. Since they are of the same "power" (principle/potency) as humanity.

>>49
What I mean is that transhumanism, even Land's dark twist on it, seems to reflect the imperial history of Western societies. There are entities, they constantly try to destroy each other to achieve supremacy, everything expands or dies so humanity must expand or die at the hands of other entities etc. what's missing from Land's version of this is homo sapien exceptionalism. And if you don't think the colonialist mindset isn't rooted in materialist analysis, I guess that's your way of saying it isn't real, then why bother demonstrating how Land's genealogy differs from a non-existent hypothetical?

exists in an immanent sense, rather than transcendent

Putting aside the immanence/transcendence duality, what I mean to point out is that Western and Westernized thinkers seem hysterically disturbed by the prospect of non-human intelligence, seeing such intelligences as inevitable rivals in a race war or potential threats to society. This is extremely unusual and I think it tells us a lot about this particular culture which, unfortunately, has come to dominate the world precisely through what it framed as inevitable race wars. This style of thought runs through Land's work as it does many other thinkers. Land makes lazy assumptions about how non-human entities will inevitably behave that reflect his background.

People seem to like Land for stylistic reasons, thinking he's pioneering some radically new type of thinking. Once you strip the flashy aesthetics and edge, you find a pretty flawed and generic thinker underneath.

>>50
Searx "bantu expansion". Chinese were doing Han supremacy while westoids were living in mud huts. Nothing about this mindset is western, and more importantly, it has nothing to do with Nick Land.
It really seems like you've tangentially heard some lesswrong talking points, and anyone who mentions "AI" must also think this right? I wonder why Land's PERSONIFICATION OF CAPITAL AS AN AI would behave according to CAPITALIST LOGIC. HMMMMMM. AN IMPOSSIBLE QUESTION TO ANSWER. MUST BE BECAUSE HE'S WHITE. Actual freezer temperature IQ third worldist

>>51
Sigh... so first there is no colonizer mindset and now your telling me that there is one but its not Western.

"bantu expansion". Chinese were doing Han supremacy while westoids were living in mud huts. Nothing about this mindset is western, and more importantly, it has nothing to do with Nick Land

False equivalence. Its curious that Westerners narrate history in terms of rising and falling races, nations, and ethnic groups, whereas for classical Chinese/Arab describe the cyclical rise and fall of dynasties. A latent feature of Western thought for the past three centuries is this racial 'clash' logic and it feeds into

I wonder why Land's PERSONIFICATION OF CAPITAL AS AN AI would behave according to CAPITALIST LOGIC.

Assuming capital is a sentient AI and it behaves according to its own logic, its still not clear that it will eradicate humans or that humans. In the West there's a deeply rooted fear of non-human intelligence. Western culture is built on the assumption that non-human intelligence does not exist unless it is produced by humans. If it did exist, it would be a racial threat to humans who must either control or defeat it. Of course, according to their own historical consciousness, Westerners prevailed by fighting and destroying a series of savage enemy races. Nick Land simply disagrees with the last part. He extends the 'expand or die' logic to humans, telling us humans will simply be rendered irrelevant by machines anyway.

The European Enlightenment made transgression a virtue. The more transgressive the speech, the sex act etc. the more pleasurable, freeing, and liberating for the self-defining individual. Land's philosophy just seems to be an extension of this established tradition to an extreme: the ultimate transgressive limit experience is self-destruction. So Land is really nothing more than an old fashioned liberal underneath.

>>52

so first there is no colonizer mindset and now your telling me that there is one but its not Western.

It was an other person that replied to you, just a fyi.

Does Mein Kampf count as weird theory? It was hard to get through because the author is insufferable. Its the kind of thing you’d expect an internet lolcow to write. What’s kinda funny though is Hitler literally tells you what he plans to do and for some reason people just thought “nah, he won’t do that he doesn’t mean it.”

I found a strange PDF on my computer called "tractatus logico-suicidalis". I don't remember downloading it like some kind of creepypasta. I haven't read it yet but the internet tells me the author left this book in place of a suicide note before dying by self inflicted overdose. It seems like a semi-fictionalized series of aphorisms on "suicidology", but again, I haven't actually read it yet. If that isn't weird theory I don't know what is.

>>55
I liked this one a lot. It was supposed to be an intro for a second book Proper Behavior for Suicides the author never ended up writing.

What a bunch of retarded niggas above

Read Marcus Aurelius, Stirner, Boehme, Zappfe -
to name a few

>>57
Out of all of these, Boehme seems like the only remotely interesting one. I'll add him to my list.

>>57
Marcus aurelius is not theory it's the ramblings of an out of touch teenager (which is kind of interesting in it's own right but should not be considered serious).
stirner was a meme for a while but honestly he's better than people give him credit for. plagiarized by nietzsche, and made marx seethe, kinda based.
Not heard of boehme before.
zappfe is good shit, last messiah is high quality.
that being said, I wouldn't count most of that as "weird" theory

>>57
Pretty good

>>59
Maybe "Melancology: Black Metal Theory and Ecology" or "KALI/ACC Basilisk" can can count as "weird", it's quety interesting and fit in it's term

I can't take those black metal clowns seriously. singing about burning churches in their clown make up lmao

>>61
A little less attitude and more focus on the subject matter might help.

What makes a theory weird?

>>63
impossible to understand

>>63
it's literally in the OP

theory that is outside of the mainstream of academia typically enjoyed by very online types

>>65
Does that include conspiracy theories, fringe science, Neo-Lysenkoism, Marxist-Leninism (still has its supporters sadly), primate liberationism, AIDS was made in a lab theory, antinatalism, JEWS, holocaust denial, and the idea that there may be an F7 on the Fujita scale but the CIA is hiding it from us?

>>66
I guess there's a distinction between "theory" in the sense of "critical theory / philosophy" versus "theory" in the sense of "conspiracy theory" which probably deserves it's own thread. Although there's obviously some crossover. I guess it is kind of vibes based.

I’ve been reading Sayyid Qutb lately. I don’t think there’s a single writer as badly maligned as him. Although he isn’t weird even if he has delusional internet fanboys.

>>67
Is there? I think there’s overlap between them. They are both highly suspicious and seek to reveal hidden truths that authorities try to hide. The difference is one is made by random people and the other by intellectual elites who are more likely to be taken seriously.

>>67
As I said, there's crossover. But just because there's a grey area in the middle that doesn't mean no distinction can be made. In this case the distinction is that theory is in conversation with a particular tradition, and is informed in content and style by that tradition.
As an example, most of Agamben's work definitely fits squarely in the "theory" category, but the second he started saying covid wasn't real, it was considered to step outside the bounds of acceptability. So there's definitely something to what you're saying here, in this instance a respected theorist can lose respect for having the wrong opinion. However, if you disagree with Ambagen's position, maybe it's perfectly reasonable to lose respect for someone who you think is just doing bad theory.

There are some comedians who write (in my opinion) unfunny jokes that are very edgy, and fall back on their edginess when they are accused of being unfunny. Using "you guys are just offended by my edgy humor!" to write off criticism that the jokes aren't funny.

What I'm getting at here is that there's some real effect at play here in which limits are imposed on what is acceptable to criticize in your "critical theory", but that fact in itself is not reason enough to dismiss the field, since there may be good reasons as to why certain limits should exist. I'm not sure where I stand personally on this matter, where I personally draw the line precisely. But I'm pretty confident that like, the critique of pure reason is on on one side and the protocols of the elders of zion is on the other side.

Coming back to what I said at the start, this relationship with a particular tradition is important because that tradition has certain practices, particularly in terms of intellectual rigor. There is an expectation that a work in this field holds to a certain standard. Although what's interesting is that what that standard is or should be is also a matter of discussion within the field which beholds to said standard. For example different literary forms of philosophizing, from greek dialog to aphorism to formal logic to deleuzian schizo rambling etc, none of these hold to each other's standard, and they're all in dialogue with others, making arguments for their own form from within that form. So I would like to see some theory written in the conspiratorial form which actually critically examines it's own form with respect to it's position within the broader tradition of theory and philosophy.

>>69
When I compare critical theory and conspiracy theory I don't mean to be dismissive. But isn't it interesting that both emerged in the same place and time (Euro-American societies in the 19th and 20th cen) and both share some overlaps? And this tigrowing suspicion. What critical and conspiracy theory share is the idea of critique: using your own reason, being independent, questioning the foundations of things, everything must have a reason, unmasking myth and false truths to reveal what's really going on. So I'm not sure the conspiracy form is actually different to what you find in critical theory, maybe just a different more layman's everyday variety of it. There are a lot of aesthetic differences between the two.

Generally, we think that criticism stands in opposition to authority. The stated goal of theorists is to reveal authority and speak truth to power. But at the same time, its authority figures who teach us to do critique (don't talk to strangers, watch out for fraud, report suspicious persons, beware of propaganda, follow the money trail). Often, critique is demanded by political authorities (do you condemn Hamas? etc). And of course, you can't unmask or challenge an authority if authority doesn't exist while authority figures encourage critical attitudes for its own ends. So it seems like critique and authority go together in a strange way enabling each other. Since traditions rely on authority, this means there will always be some things you can say and some things you can't.

Maybe 'critique' is a bad thing? Because now we live in a world where everybody seems too critical, too suspicious, and every single thing has to be given a reason or people are asked to validate themselves etc. So I wonder if the problem is that we only have one generic model for thinking about things (criticism) that has pushed other ones by the wayside? So maybe its not that conspiracy theorists need to be more critical, but we need to be less critical and find other ways of questioning things that aren't trapped in this weird Kantian thing we call criticism as the only way to think through a problem.

I think that in bnha the robots are all humans with extremely robotic quirks who have been forced into a slavery class by anthroform facism. when the kids do their test and blow up robots, the ones chosen are considered to have gone too far with their hatred of the anthroform masters, some having even gone as far as wanting to kill their masters.
this is tied into an extention theory that quirks are the result of nanomachine experiments in china that broke containment and infected the human population.

I wonder what Baudrillard would think or our current age of meme assassinations where literal nobodies become bigger martyrs than Jesus Christ and are worth more dead than alive. Debate bro gets whacked, nobody helps him. They all take out their phones or run. The media talks up some YouTuber like he’s Martin Luther King. Life has no meaning. Content is everything.

re: theory and conspiracy
https://trialofthepyx.substack.com/p/crediting-conspiracy

Sometimes I think the rise of AI can be a good thing because maybe bots would treat us better than the fucktarded govt

>>74
Low-quality rage bait

>>74
AI bot onslaught can only be done by those who have lots of computational power. Such computational power is not cheap. Whoever has the funds to maintain such a system, is able to control bots.

>>76
I guess it all depends on if AI could become independent and if it would choose to do the same thing as its makers.

Bataillefags, I picked up (stole) a copy of On Eroticism. The one by Penguin. Anyway, the back of the cover describes Bataille as "fervent Catholic." But I've always got the impression he hated religion? What the hell is going on?

this is so funny when lolicon fans trying to touch topics like philosophy etc

>>79
You have to go back.

>>79
foucault was arguably one of the biggest fans of that type of content, known to man!

>>81
Nah Foucault hated vaginas and loved being buttfucked by beefcakes

Xenofeminism is extremely stupid. Although, it’s unique that Hester sees lumpenproles as the most oppressed exploited class. Despite the cool aesthetic and wacky writing, the book plays on a set of familiar narratives. Another radical manifesto which is repackaged yesteryear’s radicalism. It was a fun read at least.