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 Bathhouse Question
|
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
(10-16-2023, 10:50 PM)Striped_Pyjama_Boy_Nietzschean Wrote:(10-16-2023, 04:12 PM)august Wrote: 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. “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? (10-17-2023, 12:25 AM)Guest Wrote:(10-16-2023, 10:50 PM)Striped_Pyjama_Boy_Nietzschean Wrote:(10-16-2023, 04:12 PM)august Wrote: 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. 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.
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.
(10-17-2023, 12:48 AM)Striped_Pyjama_Boy_Nietzschean Wrote:(10-17-2023, 12:37 AM)JohnTrent Wrote: 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. Just come out and admit you want gay sex. (10-17-2023, 12:48 AM)Striped_Pyjama_Boy_Nietzschean Wrote: You suburbanite coward. I expected better of you JohnTrent. 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.
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?
"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 - Quote: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. Updating and localizing the dialogue for the zoom zooms - Quote:mikaXyuuGroyper: What a fucking retard you are, Guest. 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: Quote:What do you consider most humane?- To spare someone shame. 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.
“I don’t believe there are any fagot-related open philosophical questions.”
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.
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)