you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]L_X_A 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I don't think they intended children to be included in #2.

And even though the introduction is obvious Marcusian lunacy, the only points I disagree with are:

\3. If it means no imposition whatsoever. I don't want to see lunatics walking around with dildos up their butt. Otherwise, men should be able to wear dresses and women should be able to wear suits. Idc.
\7. Because it's compelled speech.
\10. Agreed on the judicial punishment of any organization which directly brings about or orchestrates the prosecution of individuals or groups based on their beliefs, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. Disagree with restricting belief. Everyone should be allowed to believe and proselytize whatever they want.
\12. Again, people should be free to live their lives however they want as long as doing so doesn't directly infringe on other people's freedoms.

I'm undecided on #17. Because it's retarded Neo-Marxist LARPing nonsense. But sure, demand that from China, Laos, or North Korea. See how that works out for you. If they are talking about "tHe PeOpLeS rEvOlUtIoNaRy ArMy" of western countries then I'm all for it. In fact, I think they should heavily prioritize body-positive feminists with disabilities. That'll really tip the scales in their favor. Literally.

[–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't think they intended children to be included in #2.

Sure they did. Sweden led the way in the sexual liberation of children. NAMBLA was a force to be reckoned with at the same time. Harvey Milk had a relationship with a 16 year old (Jack Galen McKinley) while he himself was in his 30s. What would you say about a politician who was living with and having sex with a high school dropout? This is so OK and acceptable that Harvey Milk recently had a Navy ship named after him. Milk was Jewish, of course.

[–]L_X_A 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks for the sources. I was aware that Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, de Beauvoir, etc. all demanded the abolition of the age of conscent. Foucault in particular was a degenerate pedo. I also knew that across the western world, 1968 neo-Marxists and postmodernists were "against the sexual inhibition of children" (ugh). But I didn't know about Die Rote Freiheit (gonna be sending that Spiegel article to every die-hard fan of Lacan, Derrida, and the sexual liberation movement I know just to fuck with them).

And yes, it is possible that they (or at least some of them) actually did believe children should be included in #2. But they didn't write it explicitly. For example, by adding the qualifier "for all ages".

You can't claim that they planned the mutilation of children based on this document alone. You have to base yourself on what is effectively written, not your inference on what it likely implies based on other characteristics of the leftist ideological umbrella.

[–]Chipit[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

gonna be sending that Spiegel article to every die-hard fan of Lacan, Derrida, and the sexual liberation movement I know just to fuck with them

Good on ya. Sharing this kind of article really helps! Don't let them forget their horrific crimes.

And don't just send the link - they won't read it. Send it with several paragraphs of the most damning information copied from the article. That way they can't stick their heads in the sand.

You can't claim that they planned the mutilation of children based on this document alone.

This isn't a court. There's enough evidence that that's exactly what they meant. The zeitgeist of the time was exactly this. And today, they're acting out the exact same thing: mutilating children beyond any hope of repair. They need to be sent to the wood chipper. Feet first.