The Bathhouse Question

[BillyONare]

Greek men went to the bathhouse to clean themselves and enjoy the hot water and discuss philosophy without the distraction of slaves and women, just like you would enjoy sitting with your friends in a pool or hot tub or sauna in the modern era. They didn’t engage in faggotry or pederasty. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[The Green Groyper]

I'm starting to think every claim that "BAPism" and the "vitalist sphere" were just a barely veiled cover for homosexual Jews and degenerates was absolutely true after all.

[Guest]

Aka: You see, the thing about Foucault... he wasn't like those other fags. He's not like the average homo of today who wants gay rights or whatever... to do the stuff straight people do but with a man. He was one of the cool ones. He reached the ascended state of sexuality... that is, chemsex. Where those involved literally have to get so high that they're actually willing to partake in it. You straights just wouldn't understand. 

Right. Are trannies the real Nietzscheans?

What does willingness have to do with what he achieved? To go beyond and see the essential is worthwhile regardless of if one naturally enjoys doing so or not.

The drugs were drapery, tools — and unimportant ones.

Limit experience is not defined by drugs or sex.


Тrоопs are stupidity manifest. "To change one's sex" is nonsense.

“To go beyond and see the essential.” What profound essential realizations come from getting high and having gross sex with faggots? The drugs were tools for what? Being a massive fucking faggot?

[The Green Groyper]

Aka: You see, the thing about Foucault... he wasn't like those other fags. He's not like the average homo of today who wants gay rights or whatever... to do the stuff straight people do but with a man. He was one of the cool ones. He reached the ascended state of sexuality... that is, chemsex. Where those involved literally have to get so high that they're actually willing to partake in it. You straights just wouldn't understand. 

Right. Are trannies the real Nietzscheans?

What does willingness have to do with what he achieved? To go beyond and see the essential is worthwhile regardless of if one naturally enjoys doing so or not.

The drugs were drapery, tools — and unimportant ones.

Limit experience is not defined by drugs or sex.


Тrоопs are stupidity manifest. "To change one's sex" is nonsense.

“To go beyond and see the essential.” What profound essential realizations come from getting high and having gross sex with faggots? The drugs were tools for what? Being a massive fucking faggot?

No you see, being high and having your ass quite literally railed by niggers and Arabs gives you the clarity to the essential value of life, passion and human achievement. Foucalt literally came closer to becoming a true ubermenschen than all of us. 

Striped is clearly a faggot-I genuinely would not be surprised if he's fishing for a younger boy to DM with.

[JohnTrent]

I was under the impression when originally making this thread that we were supposed to view "the Bathhouse" (when it was most prominent, i.e., 60s?-80s US) as a contemptible thing. Additionally, while we're at it, I view it to be a distinct modern phenomenon alongside the rise of AIDs. In my opinion, the type of bathhouse buildings used in antiquity aren't quite as related, but others might certainly diverge from this view. Since the thread has veered into a few different directions, I would just like to state these things for the record so people don't mistake me for approving the things described in the thread.

[The Green Groyper]

I was under the impression when originally making this thread that we were supposed to view "the Bathhouse" (when it was most prominent, i.e., 60s?-80s US) as a contemptible thing. Additionally, while we're at it, I view it to be a distinct modern phenomenon alongside the rise of AIDs. In my opinion, the type of bathhouse buildings used in antiquity aren't quite as related, but others might certainly diverge from this view. Since the thread has veered into a few different directions, I would just like to state these things for the record so people don't mistake me for approving the things described in the thread.

You suburbanite coward. I expected better of you JohnTrent.

And I don't believe you.

You really believe that everything in bathhouse culture is contemptible? Reader of Sotos...

You are scared of the dimwitted sportsball bridge-and-tunnel hicks that populate Salo, TBC and it appears, this place.

Just come out and admit you want gay sex.

[JohnTrent]

You suburbanite coward. I expected better of you JohnTrent.

And I don't believe you.

You really believe that everything in bathhouse culture is contemptible? Reader of Sotos...

You are scared of the dimwitted sportsball bridge-and-tunnel hicks that populate Salo, TBC and it appears, this place.

Alright, let's not get carried away here. I do actually have some reservations about some of Sotos' writings whenever he speaks about homosexual behavior at length. I don't find it as immediately interesting as some of the other subjects he introduces, and a part of his fascination with bathhouse-type areas seems to stem from personal interest most. The crime reporting is different because he seeks out mostly indifferent sources such as police reports or news statements, sources which are mentioned in his controversial Bait piece added onto Gates of Janus. But that's for another time, and opens us up for larger questions in the future thread.

The homosexual can be interesting on a sociological level, or in the sense of Genet's analysis in an earlier post in this thread. The recounting of early life, personal details, what they confess about themselves and how it might reflect on other homosexuals. I am not interested in their sex life. However, this only holds true when it is merely promiscuous behavior; when it becomes sadistic or torturous, then we are in the familiar waters of the average Sotos writing where viciousness reigns. But you can notice the difference between the two, because the homosexual sadist is colored by the personal trait of sadism first. If you read through PURE in haste it doesn't really matter to you if the perpetrators are heterosexual or homosexual, because their primary motive is destruction. Sometimes the perpetrators themselves do not care so long as they are able to destroy. Again, something else is at work there.

As for the claim of contradiction/cowardice, I never really contested what the original Guest had claimed about the Bathhouse symbol, only the significance of it over time. In short, I never defended its existence or claimed that it should be prized in the initial thread write-up. My posts previous to this one also reveal a similar position: in our conversation, it is stated that I don't prioritize the ugly over the beautiful, and in the TL;DR post, I ended it with "We will not be limited forever", meaning that the presence of ugliness and the rarity of beauty is to be viewed as a limitation. It is the choice of the great artist to use ugliness as a means to create something worthwhile, if it is a personal priority of theirs, but there's always been a lurking belief in the background that the predominance of ugliness is still something abnormal. The great artist is still a great artist, their choice of direction doesn't impact the final product. What I'm contending against is the notion that ugliness is the element that makes them great. Even in the most extreme sense where someone subordinates everything to ugliness, they must adopt a certain process to truly succeed. A widespread predominance of ugliness, however, prevents some forms of flourishing that would've been familiar to distant ancestors. Hopefully this paragraph helps in elaborating how I'm not contradicting myself.

[Handi]

straights

Faggot detected

[Guest]

I don't get nietzche or whatever so I'll ignore the inspiration and just talk about whether striped is using words in a way that seems earnest. what limits are you actually approaching? i once saw a naruto meme where the joke was that he appeared to have put something inside his butt and was "approaching his limit" and if this is what you mean, please clarify. I want to build a space elevator. I can imagine getting aids and using it as a weapon, but this does not seem to have the same feeling. Maybe if I had blades that popped out of my arms instead of HIV but this seems really different. would it be a limit experience to beat faggots to death with a mace shaped like a spiked dildo?

[Zed]

"Is (passive) sodomy (based/nietzschean) actually?"

Inclined to think this is the oldest question of philosophy. Let us borrow from BAP's thesis as relevant and timely - 

Therefore at the very least, the addition of the statement referring to the many in Socrates' definition of self-rule is a rhetorical provocation against Callicles, who does indeed shortly proceed into his second speech, an impassioned speech if not a tirade against temperance and in praise of licentiousness. But in being a provocation it is also therefore a deeply rhetorical statement that cannot reveal Socrates’ real position. There is no reason that a philosopher who believes in selfrule and temperance as a matter of justice or simple truth should have to refer to the opinion of the many on the subject, especially if this someone is a Socrates who said the things he said earlier about the multitude, and who is supposedly trying to convince a Callicles who believes the things he does about the many. The statement is intended as a provocation at this particular point in the dialogue, made against an exasperated and annoyed Callicles, and it is intended to elicit from him the inordinate praise of licentiousness (and thereby of "tyranny”) he actually embarks upon from 491c-492e. Socrates is then able to use this extreme speech to stump Callicles in a particularly vulgar way.

Receiving an answer from Callicles that the satisfaction of all of one’s desires is indeed what leads to a happy life, Socrates uses an excited oath and twice praises Callicles for not being bashful or ashamed [apaiskhunthenai] to admit such a thing. [494c] He asks Callicles if someone who scratches himself perpetually and thereby satisfies a desire will also be leading a happy life. The dramatic peak, which is also the comic peak, of the dialogue is approaching: the next few exchanges, in which Socrates again ironically praises Callicles' manliness and his lack of shame, are absolutely critical to understanding the Gorgias:

Callicles: What an odd person you are, Socrates—an unskilled demagogue [demegoros]!

Socrates: Why, of course, Callicles, that is how I upset Polus and Gorgias, and struck them with bashfulness/shame [aiskhunesthai epoiesa]; but you, 1 know, will never be upset or abashed [aiskhuntheis]; you are such a manly [andreios] fellow. Come, just answer that.

Callicles: Then 1 say that the man also who scratches himself will thus spend a pleasant life.

Socrates: And if a pleasant one, a happy one also?

Callicles: Certainly,

Socrates: Is it so if he only wants to scratch his head? Or what more am I to ask you? See, Callicles, what your answer will be, if you are asked everything in succession that links on to that statement; and the culmination of the case, as stated—the life of catamites—is not that awful, ugly, [aiskhros] and wretched? Or will you dare to assert that these are happy if they can freely indulge their wants?

Callicles: Are you not ashamed, [aiskhunei] Socrates, to lead the discussion into such topics? [494d-e]

The shaming of Callicles is predictable given his character and also his position on natural right—only a bit earlier in his latest definition of the superior he had emphasized manliness [andreia] and attacked effeminacy of soul [malakia tes psukhes]. It is on account of its deleterious effects on manliness that Callicles attacked philosophy in his first speech and temperance in his second. Manliness is in every way central to Callicles' understanding of liberation from convention or of the appearance of the right by nature. Socrates has shamed Callicles by bringing up the example of the most unmanly men and suggesting somehow that they too would satisfy Callicles' criteria for happiness or liberation.

But to understand Socrates' rhetorical defeat of Callicles, we have to pay close attention to the theme of shame in the Gorgias, a theme Callicles made central to his initial speech, and a theme that resurfaces everywhere at critical points. Note that after Callicles' first speech, Socrates praised his frankness [parrhessia] and the fact that he lacks shame [aiskhune]. Socrates agrees with Callicles that Gorgias and Polus only lost the argument because they were shamed, and therefore tacitly accepts Callicles' notion that shame stands in the way of truth. This is uncontroversial enough, for now. But as Socrates says, "if you can bear me out in any point arising in our argument, that point can at once be taken as having been amply tested by both you and me, and there will be no more need of referring it to a further test; for no defect of wisdom or access of modesty [aiskhune] could ever have been your motive in making this concession, nor again could you make it to deceive me: for you are my friend, as you say yourself. Hence any agreement between you and me must really have attained the perfection of truth." [487e] Therefore according to Socrates' own claim, we can only be sure that the conclusions he reaches will possess truth or will be in need of no further testing if in fact Callicles will at no point be encumbered by shame [aiskhune]. But we have just seen this is not the case, but that at the crucial point, Callicles is encumbered by shame. Callicles is ready to admit that the scratcher fulfils his criteria, but too ashamed to consider the example of the catamite. Therefore we can be sure that whatever explicit conclusion Socrates reaches together with Callicles, either here or in the future, will in fact be in need of further testing, or that it does not necessarily possess truth, or, which is the same thing, that Plato, in having Socrates defeat Callicles in this manner, exhibits to us the essentially rhetorical character of the entire discussion in the Gorgias, Socrates’ victory over Callicles has little to do with the truth or falsehood of the matter being discussed. It is for show, or display: a display of something other than dialectical truth. In fact the entire Gorgias is "for show"; it is a sinister dialogue, marked by a sinister theatricality in which all the characters come masked. There is no one we know of by the name of Callicles.

After being compared first to an eternal bird defecator [494b] and next to a passive homosexual, Callicles is shamed or annoyed and remains relatively silent for the rest of the dialogue. On several occasions he wants to end the conversation. This allows Socrates to push through some points that, in light especially of what we have just considered, should at least raise eyebrows. At the end of his attack on intemperance, Socrates makes seemingly the most extreme case in favor of conventional morality and of convention in general. This is all supposedly against Callicles’ praise of natural tyranny and licentiousness.

Updating and localizing the dialogue for the zoom zooms -

mikaXyuuGroyper: What a fucking retard you are, Guest.

Guest: Why, of course, mikaXyuuGroyper, that is how I upset oyakodon_khan and Chud, and struck them with bashfulness; but you, I know, will never be upset or abashed, as a true sigma. Come, just answer that.

mikaXyuuGroyper: Then I say that the man also who enjoys Undertale thus spends a pleasant life.

Guest: And if a pleasant one, a happy one also?

mikaXyuuGroyper: Certainly,

Guest: Is it so if he only wants to play Undertale? Or what more am I to ask you? See, mikaXyuuGroyper what your answer will be, if you are asked everything in succession that links on to that statement; and the culmination of the case, as stated—the life of a discord tranny—is not that awful, ugly,  and wretched? Or will you dare to assert that trannies are based and Nietzschean, actually?

mikaXyuuGroyper Suburbanite coward! READER OF SOTOS. I expected better of you.

As BAP indicates, Socrates 'wins' via the shaming Callicles. Getting to the point, let us see what Nietzsche has to say about shame. His war against shame passes through every book he has written and there is an abundance of passages concerning it, so I'll content myself with pulling my personal favorite:

What do you consider most humane?- To spare someone shame.

What is the seal of liberation?- No longer being ashamed in front of oneself.

Thus, I believe we can fully say --- shameless passive catamite femboys are Nietzschean, actually.

Anyways, I'll write less of a shitpost later, since this topic is fun.

[BillyONare]

“I don’t believe there are any fagot-related open philosophical questions.”

[Handi]

Bridge-and-tunnel.

More of your faggoted innuendo I see.

[The Green Groyper]

Does this forum just need to own it and put up a rainbow flag?

Because now we have at least two members openly advocating for faggotry.

[Zed]

Does this forum just need to own it and put up a rainbow flag?

Because now we have at least two members openly advocating for faggotry.

[Guest]

Limit experience is the very poor man's limit break or ultra instinct.