Voted down, simply because it reminds me of up the skirt fetish porn a bit. It's definitely artistic, just not my taste.

Does cuck mean anything to shitty people online anymore, or is it just a generic insult they throw everywhere? I mean, someone being cuckolded / fetishizing being cuckolded seems like a hyperspecific descriptor, not a generic bad thing.

I'm pretty sure that's unedited rat feces fetish porn.

Saying that "Taxation is the price we pay for a decent civilization" is the same as saying that "Human sacrifice is the price we pay for having a sun."

Such "primitive" ideology (with its absurd beliefs, fetishes, taboos, and weirdnesses) is reflected by a belief in strange elites as being either godlike ("Bernie!") or demonic ("Koch!"), along with a total ignorance about the functioning of the (alien) banking system and the military empire that it feeds.

Hahaha... seriously, what kind of passive aggressive bullshit is that? "Ignoring the theoretical underpinnings of socialism, because I've decided that that's waffling, I say Jesus was a socialist." Next time, maybe just write TL;DR and make a farting noise while rolling your eyes.

You can't dismiss the actual meaning of the word Socialist as 'semantics', if you're talking about whether or not something is socialist. That doesn't help the discussion.

In order to use socialism as you appear to be doing, you would have to first:
- ignore the history of socialism and its political development,
- ignore the entire body of academic work, current and past, on socialism, and
- ignore how the word socialism "IS used now, like it or not" in actual socialist or semi-socialist countries

By doing that you end up at your definition of the word, yes. But you had to take a pretty long detour to get to that point

Marx's quote on religion is pretty straightforward - it can be, as you say, open to interpretation, but it's generally agreed that he didn't say that your Jesus was a stand-up socialist. He is more commonly taken to mean that religion is a false response to the real suffering of the oppressed; religion provides a fiction of suffering and a fiction of redemption/happiness, that will never translate into real change. It makes the oppressed feel like they are bettering their lives, while actually keeping them passive and preventing them from changing anything.

The slightly larger context of the quote is this: "Das religiöse Elend ist in einem der Ausdruck des wirklichen Elendes und in einem die Protestation gegen das wirkliche Elend. Die Religion ist der Seufzer der bedrängten Kreatur, das Gemüth einer herzlosen Welt, wie sie der Geist geistloser Zustände ist. Sie ist das Opium des Volks."

I don't know how to make that more plain, but I can try. Religious suffering is on one hand a response to real suffering (wirkliche Elend, by which one would mean a materialistically determined actual lack of freedom, resources, physical wellbeing, etc), but it is also a false reaction against that real suffering. Real oppression creates suffering to which there could be a real respones, but religion instead substitutes in false suffering and false responses - it tries to tackle real suffering with metaphysical solutions. He goes on to say:

"Die Aufhebung der Religion als des illusorischen Glücks des Volkes ist die Forderung seines wirklichen Glücks."

This, too, seems pretty straightforward to me, but you might see 4 or 5 different things there. Religion teaches the people an illusory form of happiness, which doesn't actually change or even challenge the conditions of suffering, and must therefore be tossed out, for the people to ever achieve real happiness.

A fundamental difference here is that religious goodness is internally, individually, and fundamentally motivated. 'Good' is 'Good', and you as a Christian individual should choose to do Good. A goal of Marxism is to abolish that kind of fundamentalism and replace it with continuous criticism; creating a society that always questions, together, what good is, through the lens of dialectical materialism.

You might recognize this line of thinking* from what modern Europeans call the autonomous left wing, or what Marx and Trotsky called the Permanent Revolution, which Wikipedia helpfully comments on as "Marx outlines his proposal that the proletariat 'make the revolution permanent'. In essence, it consists of the working class maintaining a militant and independent approach to politics both before, during and after the 'struggle' which will bring the 'petty-bourgeois democrats' to power." Which sounds great, except it can also lead to purges, paranoia, and informant societies.

My entire point is that socialism and Christianity are entirely different beasts. One is a rich, layered mythology with an extremely deep academic and political history, but no modern critical or explanatory components.** The other is an academic theory of economics and politics, with all the tools of discourse of modern academia in its toolbelt, and a completely different critical and analytical goal.

TL;DR? Well, Jesus (in a lenient interpretation) taught that we should help the weak. Marx explained that the people should organize to eradicate the conditions that force weakness onto the people. Jesus
taught that greed would keep a man from heaven, Marx explained that religion, nationalism, tribalism and commodity fetishism blinded the people to its common materialist interests. Jesus taught that the meek will be rewarded for their meekness, and while on earth we should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; Marx explained that meekness as a virtue is a way of preventing actual revolutionary change, and that dividing the world into the spiritual and the materialistic helped keep the people sedate and passive, which plays right into the hands of the Caesars.

*I'm just kidding, I know you don't recognize any of this


**There probably are modern scholars of Christianity who adapt and adopt some of the tools of modern academic discourse; I know too little about academic Christianity.

Of course it's the Netherlands who add kinky shit to the woman. Those dutch with their fetishes.

It's a difficult thing to really justify or demonize because sex is a head game, a dance but also a match of submissiveness versus dominance; it can become violent and abusive through the ebb and flow of permission and denial. One moment I'm smacking her ass during sex, after a year of smacking her ass, she needs to be spanked before sex even begins, and now 10 years later there's whips and clamps and shackles. It all started with a mildly amusing smack to the ass that over time became a mutual fetish.

All of that extreme abuse porn is a matter of course, just like the secret fetish in a relationship starts with something innocent then leads to something semi-professional. This is the end result of a fetish that started with Deep Throat in the '70s opening the world to oral sex. Now it's facial abuse. She doesn't need a deep throat, now she just needs to undergo a hazing.

Will regulation change an industry piloted entirely by desire and sex starved user demand? Or would the culture simply evolve around the regulations?

Japan blurs out genitals, so what happens? The culture evolves around the restrictions and now we have a thriving bukkake subgenre. You want cum in eyes? Niche. Cum in hair? Niche. Cum on teeth? For real though, the focus is on teeth. We don't even need genitals now! Just pick a spot on the body and then ejaculate in mass! What a phenomenon.

Niches form and when they trend, that's when you end up with a popular site like facial abuse.

But hazing porn exists in the reverse and is also quite popular. Pegging? Come on, where's my face sitting fans? Hey now, there's also a lesbian variety of big assed Brazilian women who abuse skinny blond girls. I don't know what they're saying, but clearly it means something along the lines of dig that white caucausian nose further up my brown latin pussy. One woman is empowered, the other not so much, but she likes it, so... empowered? But who watches it? Men? Surely not women. Well, I know several women who watch the shit out of lesbian domination porn.

I had the absolute pleasure to sit with some really open lesbians and watch lesbian domination porn where the women wrestle each other, and the winner gets to fuck the loser in humiliating and abusive ways. I mean... the topic of empowerment is tough here. If you do porn just own it. Damn. Come on, it's just sex. People just like giving each other a hard time and they're always worrying about the next generation, even though they know humans are all dirty, filthy, sex craved fiends.

I think the most abusive porn I've watched (was sort of forced to watch) was a man having his penis hit with a hammer by a very mean woman. He liked having his penis hit with a hammer for some odd reason.

You mean where they wear bunny and fox suits and get it on?

I'm pretty sure those movies already exist. They have conventions for people with that sort of fetish.

Those watches all look intelligently designed, though some by a blind watchmaker. Seriously, how do you tell the time on that piece of wrist fetish gear at 2:00?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I really want to visit here - plays into my Logan's Run fetish.

This kind of attitude is depressing. It's none of your business what someone does in their spare time when no one else is affected by it. There are functioning alcoholics turning up for work pissed, flying planes, driving buses, teaching children. But no, let's go after the guy who sits in his bedroom playing music with a joint. Let's prevent him from having a life, even if he is self medicating a mental illness. It serves him right - if he's got an illness, he shouldn't be using naturally occurring medicine like our ancestors have for thousands upon thousands of years, no! He should be paying hundreds of pounds to a big pharma company for a pill that they invented a few years ago.

The premise behind drugs testing people is based on many things i disagree with:
1) the spectacular failure of the war of drugs - not only has drug use increased in the timeframe, but it has ruined probably millions of lives, needlessly turning ordinary, hard working people into criminals for no good reason other than "we like this plant, but we don't like this plant, and now neither may you"
2) the origin of the war on drugs - which iirc from a well sourced and produced video on here recently was instigated by a vindictive racist who wanted to go criminalise things that were seen as "black people" pastimes
3) the bias of the war on drugs - where drugs associated with the poor and underprivileged are relentlessly pursued to the detriment of functioning happy families across the world, but drugs associated with rich white folk such as those boardroom jockeys who snort coke in the office bathroom, nah, give them an easy time
4) the american prison business - which demands a steady supply of low cost, low maintenance, low rights workers who have no choice in the matter
5) the spreading of disinformation through formal education/popular media, and lack of actual knowledge or experience of drugs - which has led to a generation of people who now firmly believe that the moment you inhale a particle of THC (or "inject 1 marijuana" to the uninitiated), your brain turns into a fried egg, and you immediately begin stealing, cheating, and peddling dangerous items to children

Some of the brightest and best humans were influenced and inspired by drugs. If i wrote a list of people that i had the greatest respect for and who i considered to have made a positive influence on the world, half of them would almost certainly be drugs users; and i mean scientists, writers and artists. Your philosophy is a detriment to society, but thankfully as the decades pass, there are less and less with that philosophy. I loathe being blunt, but there is nothing worse than someone who feels the need to dictate to others what they should and shouldn't do on the basis of what they personally do or don't approve of.

We might get about 90 years on this planet with a bit of luck - why the hell do the minority spend so much time trying to dictate to the majority what they do with that time? And why do the majority let them? What sort of control fetish is it that inclines people to want to do that?

This guy's life has been fucking ruined by your adopted philosophy towards drugs, and you offer to help him as long as he bends to your will? How magnanimous of you to stoop to gutter level to help a mere drug-addled cretin... I think he'd tell you to stick your job, he's overqualified to work under you.

No, as a valid social experiment, you would only have to repeat this often enough with enough different combinations to make sure you had not just caught the one racist cop in the US.

That being said, I just can't understand the US gun fetish.

Looks to me like what passes for a fetish club there: Royal hand jobs.