the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
view the rest of the comments
When I saw the original post I had to check if OP was a 196 poster (they are) and I found this gem:
The brainworms are terminal I'm afraid.
more brainworms
They really love this image, they posted it multiple times in comments.
Whatever this person's deal is to be this way, I hope their situation improves, because it's kind of unsettling.
The dialectical materialism bit gave my multiple aneurysms. These relationships ("social constructs") are a result of the material! Are they honestly saying that they think this "social construct" has no cause but just is because of itself?
When the slave owner oppresses the slave, or a capitalist the worker, his ability to do so is because of his possession of materials (farm and factory) not his possession of materials because of his oppression except in continuation. Or put another way, commodities are sold after the worker is given their wage, so how does the capitalist initially pay the worker? He must have capital to start! This all returns to the material situations these groups found themselves in and how this progressed.
There is a common misunderstanding of dialectical materialism where people forget the dialectical aspect and point out any example of ideas giving rise to action as disproof. Dialectical materialism flips Hegel's subject-object dialectic which regards the subject (ideas and the like) as primary into a subject-object dialectic where the object (matter) is primary, or object-subject dialectic. The material gives rise to ideas in the human mind, which then are transformed into material action, or for another example, national culture is at first the product of natural conditions, then later asserts itself upon those conditions through human action. The argument this person makes goes: "By skipping one step chronologically the entire dialectic is flipped again and the ideal is the primary aspect, the material secondary! Did I just disprove dialectical materialism?"
I want to rip my teeth out
Hmm, so you have ideas that if carried out would cause change in the material? Waiter! Waiter! One cup of Marxist tears please! I guess we’ve found something more universal than mere matter!