Ars Regendi Simulation Forum

Full Version: homosexuality of the bourgeoise
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
A major problem for my thought has always been the homosexuality of the petty bourgeoise, and understanding it. But I think I'm finally making headway.

1. ambition is gay because it bases some idea of success in relation to others. it's feminine. it's gay. it's institutional.
2. on the other such people engage their ambition in some institution, like a college or a corporation. they're relying on something. that's feminine. that's gay. it's institutional.
3. all such things remind me of children who go to soccer or catechism. see point number two.
4. on top of this they frame it as normal or even privileged. one is privileged to be like a child. one is individualist about being a child. one reduces individualism to childhood. one reduces individualism to being institutionalized, to infantalism.
5. they don't actually relate with others, they relate with others that remind them of themselves. this is actually gayer than ambition, as it is outside of one's aim. one takes a break from one's work to be gay. one takes a break from being a child to be gay. it's onanism. I'm actually at a loss on this one, I need more theory. suffice to say, they are not men.
6. They're not doing X thing in relation to others for some public good, they're doing it to be gay. My theory is really gone here. I can't actually explain they're actions other than for homosexuality. I'm not sure they're writing books or whatnot for public benefit, but somehow they are faggots.
7. On further reflection I try to explain number six as this. The things they do in relation to others, they actually do in relation to themselves, and vice versa. The things they do in relation to others, they do for themselves, when they ought be doing it for public benefit. The things they do in relations to themselves they actually do in relation to others. One the one hand they are children, on the other they are faggots.

if you are actually gay you'll have to excuse me. I am also gay. I know gays. somehow these people are gayer. if you go by an elitist college society, you may hear them, for instance, sing a song, about how great they are. it's gay. they're gay. their whole being is related with institution. they're not actually people, they're mama's boys. relating with an institution is like sucking up to your parents, it's something not even a child should do. if my father was like ye soccer mom, I'd have had to murder him. in fact I would have murdered him, but I got him to apologize for not being Kantian enough, and I settled for that.
Yes, well, I'm a single parent child myself.

Helsworth Wrote:
Yes, well, I'm a single parent child myself.

Admitting it to yourself is progress

Now you just need to read Mencius

yangusbeef

debauchery Wrote:
A major problem for my thought has always been the homosexuality of the petty bourgeoise, and understanding it. But I think I'm finally making headway.

1. ambition is gay because it bases some idea of success in relation to others. it's feminine. it's gay. it's institutional.
2. on the other such people engage their ambition in some institution, like a college or a corporation. they're relying on something. that's feminine. that's gay. it's institutional.
3. all such things remind me of children who go to soccer or catechism. see point number two.
4. on top of this they frame it as normal or even privileged. one is privileged to be like a child. one is individualist about being a child. one reduces individualism to childhood. one reduces individualism to being institutionalized, to infantalism.
5. they don't actually relate with others, they relate with others that remind them of themselves. this is actually gayer than ambition, as it is outside of one's aim. one takes a break from one's work to be gay. one takes a break from being a child to be gay. it's onanism. I'm actually at a loss on this one, I need more theory. suffice to say, they are not men.
6. They're not doing X thing in relation to others for some public good, they're doing it to be gay. My theory is really gone here. I can't actually explain they're actions other than for homosexuality. I'm not sure they're writing books or whatnot for public benefit, but somehow they are faggots.
7. On further reflection I try to explain number six as this. The things they do in relation to others, they actually do in relation to themselves, and vice versa. The things they do in relation to others, they do for themselves, when they ought be doing it for public benefit. The things they do in relations to themselves they actually do in relation to others. One the one hand they are children, on the other they are faggots.

if you are actually gay you'll have to excuse me. I am also gay. I know gays. somehow these people are gayer. if you go by an elitist college society, you may hear them, for instance, sing a song, about how great they are. it's gay. they're gay. their whole being is related with institution. they're not actually people, they're mama's boys. relating with an institution is like sucking up to your parents, it's something not even a child should do. if my father was like ye soccer mom, I'd have had to murder him. in fact I would have murdered him, but I got him to apologize for not being Kantian enough, and I settled for that.


discombobulated may be a better word, to describe the bourgeois. They search, redundantly, for happiness, only to meet, unknowingly, their own demise, created by speculative fantasies. They search for happiness, thinking it is success, only that their true happiness lies, in fact, with the opposite. It has been proven throughout history, modern technology has allowed this little gay uprising to perpetuate. They will soon meet their maker, it may be war (they often kill each other) or anarchy; drivel such as them cannot survive in a anarchistic society.

yangusbeef Wrote:
discombobulated may be a better word, to describe the bourgeois. They search, redundantly, for happiness, only to meet, unknowingly, their own demise, created by speculative fantasies.

fantasies are gay I only fantasize if I masturbate

Reference URL's