Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

May 14 2017

8725 30be 500
Może czas najwyższy wyłączyć komputer, wyjść do parku, uśmiechnąć się, zgilotynować kogo trzeba, pogłaskać kilka obcych piesków, rozpocząć krwawą rewolucję, żyć.
Reposted byUbikpanpancernykapitandziwnyLuukkagabormangoeExfeletesBiesBerenicelargehamstercolliderqbshtallwasnaeniedobrzeathlinkatastrofonieprzytomnyboozeschaafAnetzschka
6796 4f76 500
Żyję.
Ale wyjebałem z zupy, bo za bardzo rakowisko się tu zrobiło. Chyba się starzeję i mam zmniejszoną odporność.

April 29 2017

9288 5f56 500

browsedankmemes:

420 Meme St. is in Africa. Who would’ve guessed.

Reposted fromhighhopes highhopes viatfu tfu

April 28 2017

>But I think the idea of relationships having to be a zero-sum-thing is quite common too, and I from my point of view, this way of thinking is an unhealthy mistake, because since humans are different, relationships can have complicated dynamics, and I don't think it's healthy to always trying to "settle the score", always trying to "pay back every debt", positive or negative. This only puts everyone under pressure, and I think we all have enough pressure already.

But that’s exactly my point. This is a sick and demeaning practice of people who are too immature to hold a relationship at all. There is no correlation with monogamy here.

>why should commitment always be exclusive? I mean, you can have more than one child and still be committed to all of your children? You can have more than one friend, and you very probably have (or at least had) more than one parent, and the multiplicity of these relationships doesn't automatically decrease their value, right? The love you feel for someone doesn't have to decrease just because you also feel lvoe for someone else.

Come on, you have to realize that these are apples and oranges. Love for kids, for parents, for pets, for friends, for significant others – these are all completely separate things, and you can’t compare them.

>Are you trying to say poly relationships are only sexual, only about fucking more than one person? I'm sorry, but that's quite a shallow view then.
>I wouldn't call that "hedonism" because having a poly relationship probably doesn't mean you're only skimming the cream off of a bunch of relationships. I guess in a complete relationship, you have to take the downsides as well, good time and bad times. So I don't think a poly relationship is only for the pursue of pleasure.

Okay, maybe I used an oversimplification here. What I have in mind is generally intimate behaviors, such as sex, but also cuddling, kissing, holding hands, certain intimate ways of communication… If we strip these away from a relationship we are left with friendship. True friendship is also a form of love. And there is nothing in friendships that goes against the concept of monogamy.

>Really? I want to remind you that there's this thing called "marriage", and having an unmarried relationship can be a legal (and cultural) hassle at times - that's one reason why people fought for same-sex marriage. So, one way or another, you are kinda pressured into marriage. Also, I guess you might also see marriage as a sign of the exclusive commitment you seem to value so much?
>But then again, being married means that a break-up also includes a divorce. There is a lot of pressure - legal, financial, cultural, societal - standing in the way of ending a marriage, besides the trouble that already comes with a break-up already. So you say you're not forced to stay with incompatible people? Well, I see quite a lot of force there.


Look, I live in a hella conservative country. I’ve been living with my girlfriend for ~2.5 years without marriage now, and I don’t feel any pressure. I mean, those things that you mention are real problems, but not within the first and second world countries. Yes, marriage is a form of commitment, and you do it only when you know you can handle the commitment. Sure, sometimes (even often) it happens that people are too weak to work through downsides of the commitment or that they simply cease to love each other, and they have to go through the inconvenience of a divorce. It’s called a calculated risk. Obviously, divorce is not pleasant, but I wouldn’t call it a factor that forces you to form unbreakable relationships.

>From my experience, for many people "marriage and children" actually is the their ideal of a relationship, and in our society, this is quite well-accepted, while other (maybe more meaningful and healthy?) relationship goals aren't.

But that’s again a personal problem. I’ll stress it again: in our culture before you get married (which you are not obliged to do), you get to know the other person. Therefore you can discuss stuff like whether you want to get married and/or have kids at all. Marriage with children is a natural order which emerged in the human society. I am not saying that it’s right because it’s natural, but it implies that this idea is generally accepted within such a society. You can conform to it, but you do not have to. Sure, when you look around, you’ll probably see more people who want marriage and kids, but imposing a different world view on them would be immoral just like forcing people to marriage, don’t you think?
Reposted byBattlecakemegustonanistapesymistaprincess-carolyndupabladawymiotshitonarainbowki-adiwredna
2392 5ca1 500
Reposted fromsargon sargon viaUbik Ubik

April 27 2017

>the normalization of jealousy as an indicator of love
That's the ONLY argument here that has any value. Commitment does require mutual fidelity, which can cause jealousy when someone is insecure or/and their significant other is not quite loyal.

>the idea that a sufficiently intense love is enough to overcome any practical incompatibilities
Well, yeah, love isn't always strong enough. Luckily, we live in a culture in which we aren't forced to stay with people we aren't compatible with.

>the idea that you should meet your partner’s every need, and if you don’t, you’re either inadequate or they’re too needy
Bullshit. That's a toxic relationship, not "toxic monogamy".

>the idea that a sufficiently intense love should cause you to cease to be attracted to anyone else
Nobody says that. Nobody can force you to not be attracted to anyone else. But that doesn't mean you should go fuck them.

>the idea that commitment is synonymous with exclusivity
But that's how it is. If you're committed, you can give up this little bit of hedonism away for someone you love.

>the idea that marriage and children are the only valid teleological justifications for being committed to a relationship
This is a thing that only a person who has never been in love could say.

>the idea that your insecurities are always your partner’s responsibility to tip-toe around and never your responsibility to work on
One more bullshit. Another indicator of a toxic relationship, completely unrelated to monogamy.

>the idea that your value to a partner is directly proportional to the amount of time and energy they spend on you, and it is in zero-sum competition with everything else they value in life
Jesusfuckingchrist what kind of relationships has the author of that post been through? This is never a case when you're not a self-centered asshole.

>the idea that being of value to a partner should always make up a large chunk of how you value yourself
No one imposes this on anyone. But being a good boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife is gratifying by itself, and if you don't understand that, I feel sorry for you.
Reposted bymangoe mangoe
6573 a10c
Reposted fromzelbekon zelbekon
Reposted fromHeadbanger Headbanger viaUbik Ubik
Reposted fromfungi fungi vianaich naich
4020 cf1d 500
Reposted fromfungi fungi viaprincess-carolyn princess-carolyn
>The poles are even more conservative than the Austrians
The catholic faith and the conservatism in Poland have been declining in the last 20-30 years. I think we are "behind" in secularization partly as a result of decades of belonging to the Eastern Bloc, as the faith was suppressed by the authoritarian state (which gave people reasons to stick to it even more).
However, I think that the decline has at least stabilized, maybe there even is an incline lately, as the society gets more and more polarized, which attracts more conservative-leaning people back to the church.

>and they take their Catholicism way more serious
You are probably correct here. Polish christians are often as zealous as the American ones

>We have to import polish priests because there are to few Austrians doing it.
You mean you want less people to believe in evolution?
In general, I don't believe that would be a good idea. Polish Catholic Church suffers from rotting from the inside much more than from any outside issues (such as secularization and liberalization of society). Polish priests are corrupt, they have too much power, and they abuse it way too often (of course there are good ones, I personally know a few decent priests, but they are in a minority). If anything, they repel people, not attract.

April 26 2017

0160 745d 500
Reposted fromSpecies5618 Species5618 viaUbik Ubik
0425 cefc 500
Reposted fromzelbekon zelbekon
Ja lubię oddzielać scifi od reszty szeroko pojętej fantastyki, więc chodzi mi bardziej o fantastykę poza SF.
Zajdla znam i szanuję, rzecz jasna. Temu Oramusowi i Głowackiemu chętnie się przyjrzę kiedyś, dzięki.

Kłamcę czytałem, solidne 2/10. Maja Lidia mnie obrzydza tematyką do tego stopnia, że sięgać nie zamierzam. O Ziemkiewiczu słyszałem dotychczas tylko negatywne opinie (i to nie bias polityczny, to było na długo przed tym jak się wynurzył ze swoją szambiarską publicystyką).

Ale ciekawi mnie ten Dukaj. Już mi kiedyś mignął wśród polecanej polskiej literatury współczesnej, pewnie w kotekście Lodu.
Czyli jest w polskiej fantastyce coś wartego uwagi poza panżejem i dwoma pierwszymi tomami zimowego ogrodnika?

April 25 2017

Oh fuck you for expanding my reading list even further.
But seriously, thanks. I'll try to look into it if I ever have time for it.
>really? i assumed this is as crystal clear to you as it is to me.
Not really. Hedonism can be present without it. And a self-aware mind should, hypothetically, be able to adapt to different paradigms without degeneration. I'm not saying it's happening around us though.

>whats missing here is thoughts like "there will be no revolution until the system is destructed." thats what theyre doing now. they destruct the system. you are the system. the family is the foundation of the society. traditions are the society
You mean thoughts from Marx? But did he specify the "system" to be that, or are you adding this yourself?

>yes and no. marx ideology is itself deconstructive and just plain social. the frankfurt school combined it with psychology.
>no. its still the same antisocial, anticulture, antitraditional, antifamily antireligious spin. it may be look like the dictionary definition isnt the same, but the goals are the same: kill a civilisation, take over, build whatever you like.

As I said before, I don't really know much about Marx and his ideology. I haven't read his works. But the question is: have you? Are you relying on your own knowledge, or is it second- or third-hand? The "telephone" game is much more disruptive when ideology is involved.
Reposted bypanpancerny panpancerny
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl