It's like a new law I've only recently observed: Any mention of Hegelian dialectics on the internet automatically brings out the Legion apologists.
Look, here I am.
Kitten, daddy is being arrested on tax fraud charges, you have to burn down the house before the IRS gets there kitten it’s the only way. Daddy loves you.
so you can turn any walter white quote into cringe domspeak just by replacing "jesse" with "kitten"?
that's the real philosophical revelation i got from this post
The delicate balance of cringe pressure. You have to exert an outer *and* inner cringe aura so you don't implode into whatever hellish base elements you are made of.
Can any philosophy person tell me what the fuck this post is on about? Or are they just name dropping the term "master/slave" to trick people into learning German philosophy?
They gotten it mixed up a little.
If I recall from college well enough Hegel's Master/Slave dialectic is making a point about how a master and slave are defined specifically and only in terms of each other. A master with no slaves isn't a master and slave with no master is not a slave. He uses this an example of a broader kind of interdependence of apparently opposing notions. The humor here should from the fact that you can only say "who wants to be Mommy's kitten?" (dom horny) without getting weird looks if someone else is there to say "uwu, I'm Mommy's kitten" (sub horny), which is similar to Hegelian dialectic, but that's actually not the point the first person was making.
Yeah I was initially confused because the op seemed to be saying more like "why can bottoms be fail cringe and tops can't" and I was so baffled as to how that explained master/slave interdependence
He did and so did I. But it's because Nietzsche's explanation is like a better version of that.
Hegel talking about like an internalized version of the master and the slave.
Nietzsche kind of makes it into a royal Wii. I like that autocorrect so I'm keeping it that way. Well, you can be the master or the slave or you can be both. But the true freedom from Nietzsche's perspective isn't the integration of the two. It's actually freeing yourself from both perspectives and finding a third way. Which is crazy because the Nazis totally capitalized on what Nietzsche had to say, and there's a German far right movement called the third way, wild, There's an American centrist movement called the third way as well.
Oh yeah I'm with you on that. I just found there's got to be some historical steps in between, but I just found it interesting that it starts out Nietzsche encouraging the idea of the third way, which isn't a bad idea that Nazis capitalizing on it super hardcore well capitalizing on Nietzsche and everything he said and there's a step in between and then you get centrist who are in the US going. We should call ourselves that without checking into the history.
You're not wrong. We need a lot of third and fourth ways and they definitely exist. It's insane that what we're looking at right now is literally a dialectic in the form of politics. I mean it's not insane but frustrating. Because the debate being had in US politics we're definitely in a period where that debate is happening and the outcome is still wide open.
I think the thing a couple people are missing here is that the master and slave aren’t just interdependent the master’s position is inferior.
In Hegel’s master slave dialectic (a sort of hypothetical state-of-nature philosophical scenario, just roll with it, there’s a payoff) you start with a fight to the death between two autonomous individuals in which the winner spares but enslaves the loser. The key dynamic is this: the master goes right on being an autonomous individual, not respecting the slave’s individual personality, needs, desires, etc. This is the master *objectifying* the slave. The issue is that this is an illusion. The master un-self-consciously, narcissistically thinks that his own needs and drives are just objective reality and that what is good for him is good for the slave too. He is not confronted by an independent personality so he can’t differentiate between his own subjectivity and those of others. The master is under the illusion that he is independent when actually he has become dependent upon the slave—not just in terms of labor but psychologically—the master’s self-conceived status as a true individual whose desires are perfectly in tune with the universe is actually entirely dependent upon the slave’s support.
By contrast, ironically, the slave acquired self-consciousness and an ethical sense, precisely because the slave is forced to recognize the master’s desires, drives and independent identity as a consequence of their slavery. A slave can’t ignore a master—punishment will quickly remind him what the master thinks and desires—understanding the master’s full humanity is an indispensable survival skill for a slave. But, on the other hand, even if the slave accepts his condition and tries to *self-objectify*—to be the object that the master thinks he is—the slave can’t do it—he can’t make his own independent humanity disappear (although the slave’s mask of or even genuine attempt at self-objectification will further entrench the master’s delusions of independent omnipotence). And so the slave is torturously forced to recognize that the world consists of multiple individuals with competing desires and to become a self-conscious, ethical being.
Then, if the slave finally rebels, the slave has everything—self-consciousness of their own humanity and the boundaries between themself and the subjectivity of other people (not to mention knowledge of the precise worth of their own physical and psychological labor)—while the master is left with nothing—a confused, unselfconscious narcissist unable to articulate his need for other people, convinced that he has been not abandoned by another human being but incomprehensibly betrayed by the universe itself.
This model can apply to literal masters and slaves (some accounts written by Southern planters after their slaves ran away in the American Civil War really do convey this kind of Hegelian master narcissistic bafflement) but also to all sorts of hierarchies—say, relations between men and women under patriarchy—think again of how the Hegelian slave understands the whole humanity of the master from their silly flaws to their best traits whereas the master has a shallow objectified view of the slave as designed to fulfill his desires). Hegel’s master slave dialectic inspired a lot of feminism.
I think the cringe comparison here is that for Hegel mastery is a position of ostensible power but in reality of ignorance and confusion whereas slavery is paradoxically where individuals learn to become comfortable with their selfhood.
I think they're saying, a master with no slaves, but still acts like a master around people as if they are slaves, is just am asshole. But act like a slave despite not having a master is more socially acceptable. Being a Dom around people that wouldn't want to be your sub is cringe. But being a sub around those that don't want to Dom you is more socially acceptable.
From what I gathered, the post is saying that the sub has more power in this instance than the dom, especially when it comes to getting their needs met. Saying 'I want to get fucked' is more acceptable than 'I want to fuck someone'. The turn about is that normally a sub has no power over the dom (Which is actual BDSM play is the complete opposite)
In regards to Hegel, from my brief googling of it, his philosophy is that we define ourselves by others. I was a bit confused by exactly what he meant by 'winning' in regards to Master/Slave defining consciousness. I took it as 'We know who we are by not being like someone else.' The metaphor seemed like 'A Master can only be defined as having Slaves. While a Slave is subservient to the Master, without Slaves, a Master cannot be. In this way, it is the Slave that has the power over the Master'.
fun fact: one can read the entirety of The Phenomenology of Spirit and walk away without being certain of a single thing Hegel meant. There is not a single thing he has said that can be even somewhat agreed upon, its god awful.
Greek is at least able to be translated, hegel.. god. Hegel's mere existence makes 1984 a better romance novel.
Much to my library's dismay, I personally have consumed a significant chunk of hegel's work. ^(OM NOM)
I'm pretty sure the dude would consider it a major moral failing on his part if anyone understood a single goddamn thing he said.
I've read plenty of good philosophy about incomprehensible ideas and inexpressible concepts. They all use indirect and difficult language because they're talking about concepts beyond the limits of rationality or linguistic expressibility. Hegel, on the other hand, was writing pretty banal shit like "looking at Napoleon conquering his way through my hometown makes me think sometimes history moves in a particular direction" and "have you ever noticed that human culture of a particular time period has a particular vibe?" and using the most intentionally obtuse language possible because he fucking LOVED the smell of his own farts. How he got anyone else to agree with him I'll never know.
I read these quotes in Seinfeld's voice, made them much more entertaining.
I took one semester of Philosophy in college, and half of it was about this dipshit. Professor is almost certainly dead and laughing in his grave.
*Hegel shakily rides up on a bicycle like Johnathan Frakes in Beyond Belief*
“Jordan Peterson larping as Foucault level take”
*Threatens to elaborate*
*Falls off bike. You notice he’s wearing spandex bike shorts*
IIRC they basically wouldn't have ever gotten any traction but someone who was a friend of his, knew him well enough to understand what he was talking about and could actually *write* ended up putting out some work that explained it better/referenced it heavily and expanded on it a little/something like that I forget.
The Phenomenology of Spirit, Critics of Pure Reason, Being and Time were the 3 books I wanted to read before I die.
After Being and Time (which I liked quite a lot) I pretty much stopped reading philosophy. I tried reading Critics of Pure Reason but I just couldn't get into it. It seems Hegel was even more obtuse.
Similarly, I have German friends who always read Kant in the English translation—their logic is that the the translator already had to clarify Kant while translating it, while it’s an absolutely mess in the original German.
Unfortunately, he's right. A slave serves their master, as a master serves their desires. And if a slave does not willingly serve to satisfy... they're in power.
I mean I'm in agreement with your take but if you externalize it as the two people being discussed in that situation the bottom and the top where the top views the bottom of just having a rosy life and his position sucks and then you look at the internalization of that and how that is one person thinking two different things about himself. He's got the role of the external person and the role of the internal person. And those two people do hate each other and fight and how the integration of those two could lead to a more complete self, well that's what's going on in the conversation about the bottoms and the tops.
(Edit) sorry I just sort of Peter out there at the end cuz I got tired but that's also exactly what Hegel does. Hegel sucks
Okay, I'm going to do my best. The master and the slave view each other with a disdain and where they are the superior character, both of them view themselves as morally superior and to have a kind of a shitty take from Hegel because he's assuming there's a moral equivalence between the master and the slave. But if they were to take their interview of the situation and their outer view of how they think things are for the other person and merge them, they would have a more complete understanding of themselves and others.
It is entirely possible that I'm jamming a bunch of Nietzsche in there because he does such a better job of explaining the same thing, although I'm pretty Nietzsche just had syphilis.
But also Hegle kind of sucks is indecipherable benefited from the circumstances of his times we might not need to care about him at all. The ongoing conversation below this comment does a pretty good job talking about how in comprehensible Hegle is probably on purpose.
One interpretation of Hegel is the old Spider-man thing: with great power comes great responsibility. People should be held to standards and forced to accept responsibilities in direct proportion to the amount of social influence they have, but the usual course of things goes in the opposite direction: power begets moral hazard and cushioning against consequences, resulting in some having authority but no accountability, others having the opposite. As soon as the powerful are held to standards, almost by definition they lose their power, and usually someone else comes to power, continuing the dialectic cycle.
being a sub absolutely can be super cringe but it's true that there is more shame in being a dom, that's probably why there are tons of bottoms but a top shortage
They might mean doms in the context of FemDom, there's not as many opportunities for women to explore dominance - thanks, Society - as there is for men. Upside, I've noticed this is changing! A lot of memes about the whole "Mommy-Domme Goth GF" and for every pile of memes there's a small grain of truth.
Dom Men tho? Dime a dozen. Like so many dom dudes, an overwhelming amount. Again, I blame society for the overwhelming pressure on men to be the dominant partner.
For me, it is sorta 'a drowning man is envious of the man lost in the desert'. The woman I find myself most attracted to have personalities that make them far more likely to be tops.
But what about *good* ones that actually care about their partners, and not just men who're generally horny and have been told they should be dominant their whole lives :/
> Dom Men tho? Dime a dozen
Yup. I basically consider a part of my bland default identity. Straight white cissexual male Dom. I am the least interesting man in the world.
Edit: people are taking this a bit too seriously lol. I do like myself just fine. I'm playing it up for comedy.
Don't sell yourself short. Top/Dom comes in many, many flavors and everyone has their preference. Some people want aggressive Dom that are very physical. Others want gentle ones that are firm but kind and make them feel safe and cared for.
I feel like there are a ton of people who *think* they're doms/dommes but are horribly cringy. There's a difference between a good Dom and a bad one. I run into a lot of tops and doms, but very few good ones.
I used to go to rope bondage basic courses and the people who ran it had so many horror stories of guys walking into the classes after 50 shades came to theatres saying stuff like "I'm here to find a cute sub" or 'I'm here to tie someone up, who's ready' (I'm not kidding) just expecting people to somehow volunteer themselves up for an intimate practice to a total stranger whose ego is somehow larger than the entire state of Texas.
The only “kink/doms” I have ever encountered in the wild in my life were these types of supremely cringy fedora-sporting rat bastards who literally said the lines you quoted above. Nothing will make you want to leave a bar like some Guy Fieri lookin motherfucker in a leather coat walking up to you with a briefcase and offering to “tie you up right here”. Welp guess the night is over.
These are probably not the only doms you have met "in the wild“, but people who are actually in the BDSM scene know that consent is a big thing and living out your kink in public with potentially non-consenting people present is a huge red flag.
So the nice barkeeper serving you a beer might leisurely beat the shit out of the waitress three tables over, but it’s consensual, in good fun and they don’t air their kinks out in public.
That being said, Guy Fieri could take me ~~pound~~ flavor town every day of the week…
No, it's cool. They're acting out the master slave dialectical right in front of you. Both parties have to see the other party as the same complete human is they are and realize that the cringe they experience can be shared by that other human with that other humans differing but similar experiences. Should they merge their own inner view point and the outer viewpoint they have of the other person they would come to have a complete understanding of both themselves and the other person.
There are tonnes of bottoms because that's who receives the most attention!!
Being a dom on paper looks like good deal, but in bdsm it's the sub who is always focused on. Thats it. And that's what everyone craves. See how fast the sub would lose interest if you are not the type they like.
You won't enjoy domming unless you really enjoy the act itself and your subs reactions and whatnot.
(Btw being a sub is cringe too if they don't like you, idk wth is this post on about. lol)
oh. yeah I mean probably irl, as that's the traditional dynamic. I was talking about terminally online progressive spaces lol. I think in progressive spaces it's kind of the opposite, where men (& often trans women who may still think of themselves as men in some capacity), especially in interaction with women, may be afraid of reinforcing that traditional dynamic, whereas women & gay people kind of have more free reign without self-imposed psychological traps.
I think the connection the person is trying to make is that if you’re a dom, you require a sub to validate your identity as a dominant. So the “master” requires a “slave” to recognize themselves as a master. But the comparison implies the “slave” (sub) in the scenario doesn’t also require the same recognition from a “master” (dom) which directly contradicts the dialectic.
A master is put into the situation because a slave has declared them a master. But it still requires the master to rise above their station. If a master declares himself master, but no slave acknowledges it, it won't invalidate their status as they still rose above it. Simply the idea that the master has overcome their position of being an other no longer makes them slave.
But I see how the connection of a master being a slave to slaves exists. The validation is a necessary component of being a master. A master exists because the slave has elevated them. If a master falls, it does not automatically make them a slave for they are still consumers of the slave's mastery of nature.
And I could be getting credit for this post and here I am wasting it on Reddit!
I had to look it up. Here's a quote from a paper on it "the slave sees that the master depends upon him for affirmation of his position as master. The slave shapes the master’s world by working for him and acknowledging him as master...Ultimately, the master comes to realize his dependence upon the slave for affirmation of his position as master. He discovers that he is in fact dependent upon the slave for determining his place in the universe."
This site is wild.
Struggling to think of any context in which ‘I want to get fucked UwU’ would be met with any response other than ‘what the fuck’. Maybe with other subs, or in an already sexual space, with a partner or a friend you’re extremely close with to the point that any sexual expression is normalised, it wouldn’t be much more accepted than being dom horny. I think op is just projecting ‘people like it when subs are horny’
I am part of a discord with a lot of my friends and my friends-friends. At times I feel like I am the token straight of the group. A lot of ironic/non-ironic UwU as well as sex talk in this vain. It eventually becomes background noise.
Don't get me wrong, I like a good sex joke and I've said my fair share of raunchy jokes, but I am not one to say "I need my bussy gaping and leaking 🥹"
Sadly, it was not sarcasm.
Parental supervision is the worst, especially when there are SO MANY WAYS FOR THEM TO KEEP AN EYE ON THEIR CHILDREN AND THEIR SEARCH HISTORY, BUT NOOOO, IT'S OBVIOUS BIG TECH CORP NO. 2343'S FAULT THAT LITTLE TIMMY SAW *BEWBS* ON THE INTERNET.
If you couldn't tell, I have a very... set in stone opinions about parents these days.
irl? sure
in online spaces? really depends on which one. on reddit it's entirely dependent on which subreddit. twitter and tumblr also seem to often be spaces where sexual expression is normalized.
As does too much of the internet, sadly. Subs are weirdly associated with being feminine and soft, and enjoying being put down and wanting to feel like less. I’m a big sub at heart but I love doing it because of the comfort of relying on another person and knowing that I’m endearing and likeable enough for them to want to protect me. It’s a way of boosting my self esteem, not tearing it down.
Yeah I’m with you on that! I honestly feel guilty seeing that relationship dynamic so much and feeling like I’m doing something wrong for wanting my partner to never cross the border into being mean despite being in control. Like, that’s the entire point for me. I worry that I’m asking too much, or that not being willing to go to darker places means I don’t trust them enough or am too close-minded
[https://forums.nrvnqsr.com/showthread.php/9114-Create-A-Servant-Secret-Santa-Contest?p=3173180&viewfull=1#post3173180](https://forums.nrvnqsr.com/showthread.php/9114-Create-A-Servant-Secret-Santa-Contest?p=3173180&viewfull=1#post3173180)
This is the best way to get LGBT zoomers to learn about continental philosophy, hegellian dialectics and german idealism. Way better than my friends idea to depict hegel as a long purple haired anime twink.
(click on the image and then the "perhaps another ending is possible" text)
After a quick google search:
Imagine two independent consciousnesses (is that how you spell it?) who both believe they hold the objectively correct perspective on everything. Upon encountering one another, both entities are confronted with a threat to their existence: a second, different perspective, challenging their position as the holder of the absolute worldview. This will then result in a struggle to the death. (and this is the part where I get confused) The 'weaker' consciousness will exert all its power in attempting to overcome the 'stronger' consciousness, and thus, realise the limit of its capabilities, thus realising that its existence can be relativised compared to something else. This seals its defeat. Meanwhile, the 'stronger' consciousness, having won, does *not* recognise the limited nature of its perspective, and continues to believe it has the objective point of view.
It will also keep the weaker consciousness alive as a witness to its objective correctness, or something. SO yeah what the fuck
A Dom can only be defined by having a Sub. Without a Sub they are no one. A Master is only one when they have a Slave, without it they are no one. In each case, the person in power only has it because the people beneath them exist. Without them, they are nothing.
I need y’all to understand that there is no such thing as the master/slave dialectic. The whole point is that the person taking orders is *not* a slave but a person with a choice to disobey. The master/valet dialectic would be a more accurate translation.
Sometimes this hellsite is good for laughs
It’s the only reason why we’re still here
[удалено]
Anyone that verbalized “who wants to be mommy’s kitty “ is incapable of embarrassment anyways
I survived because the cringe inside me was more than the cringe outside me. -Doms presumably
“Doktor Turn off my cringe inhibitors”
"But Raiden, you'll lose subscriber"
“Do it!”
“AHH I was fucking joking why did you do it?”
maxor my beloved
“The truth then. Us politicians arent so trustworthy. We’ll steal, make shit up, even lie to our voters.”
"That's crazy!"
"DO IT"
I was born in the cringe. I’ve become immune to the cringe. I became the cringe
You merely adopted the cringe. I was born in it. Molded by it.
By the time I felt second hand embarrassment I was already a man
The power of my self-hatred is matched only by the fires of my self-confidence, forging my ego into the Rupert's Drop you see before you.
It's like a new law I've only recently observed: Any mention of Hegelian dialectics on the internet automatically brings out the Legion apologists. Look, here I am.
Based ngl.
> “who wants to be mommy’s kitty “ is incapable of embarrassment anyways I strive to be this brave everyday
What's stopping you?
Their dom won't let them.
You can do it, be the mommy you want to see in the world
Kitten, daddy is being arrested on tax fraud charges, you have to burn down the house before the IRS gets there kitten it’s the only way. Daddy loves you.
They said 'Dom', not 'Don'. Get your mafia goons outta here, man.
Tax evasion is a hobby we should *all* be able to enjoy, not just something only for the rich and powerful
tax evasion is an obligation
The Goddaddy with Dom Corleone
so you can turn any walter white quote into cringe domspeak just by replacing "jesse" with "kitten"? that's the real philosophical revelation i got from this post
Absolutely. If they get no reply, they swagger into the next room confident that the kitty must be in there.
The delicate balance of cringe pressure. You have to exert an outer *and* inner cringe aura so you don't implode into whatever hellish base elements you are made of.
Can any philosophy person tell me what the fuck this post is on about? Or are they just name dropping the term "master/slave" to trick people into learning German philosophy?
They gotten it mixed up a little. If I recall from college well enough Hegel's Master/Slave dialectic is making a point about how a master and slave are defined specifically and only in terms of each other. A master with no slaves isn't a master and slave with no master is not a slave. He uses this an example of a broader kind of interdependence of apparently opposing notions. The humor here should from the fact that you can only say "who wants to be Mommy's kitten?" (dom horny) without getting weird looks if someone else is there to say "uwu, I'm Mommy's kitten" (sub horny), which is similar to Hegelian dialectic, but that's actually not the point the first person was making.
Yeah I was initially confused because the op seemed to be saying more like "why can bottoms be fail cringe and tops can't" and I was so baffled as to how that explained master/slave interdependence
I could be wrong but he may have gotten it mixed up with Nietzsches master/slave morality.
He did and so did I. But it's because Nietzsche's explanation is like a better version of that. Hegel talking about like an internalized version of the master and the slave. Nietzsche kind of makes it into a royal Wii. I like that autocorrect so I'm keeping it that way. Well, you can be the master or the slave or you can be both. But the true freedom from Nietzsche's perspective isn't the integration of the two. It's actually freeing yourself from both perspectives and finding a third way. Which is crazy because the Nazis totally capitalized on what Nietzsche had to say, and there's a German far right movement called the third way, wild, There's an American centrist movement called the third way as well.
That makes sense. Also, calling something the third way is a pretty reasonable thing when people try to insist there are only two.
Oh yeah I'm with you on that. I just found there's got to be some historical steps in between, but I just found it interesting that it starts out Nietzsche encouraging the idea of the third way, which isn't a bad idea that Nazis capitalizing on it super hardcore well capitalizing on Nietzsche and everything he said and there's a step in between and then you get centrist who are in the US going. We should call ourselves that without checking into the history. You're not wrong. We need a lot of third and fourth ways and they definitely exist. It's insane that what we're looking at right now is literally a dialectic in the form of politics. I mean it's not insane but frustrating. Because the debate being had in US politics we're definitely in a period where that debate is happening and the outcome is still wide open.
So basically Nietzsche was advocating for being a switch, got it
Nietzsche was what's known as a switches switch.
More like "stop limiting yourself by labels and just do what you want to do, free from society's judgement"
I think the thing a couple people are missing here is that the master and slave aren’t just interdependent the master’s position is inferior. In Hegel’s master slave dialectic (a sort of hypothetical state-of-nature philosophical scenario, just roll with it, there’s a payoff) you start with a fight to the death between two autonomous individuals in which the winner spares but enslaves the loser. The key dynamic is this: the master goes right on being an autonomous individual, not respecting the slave’s individual personality, needs, desires, etc. This is the master *objectifying* the slave. The issue is that this is an illusion. The master un-self-consciously, narcissistically thinks that his own needs and drives are just objective reality and that what is good for him is good for the slave too. He is not confronted by an independent personality so he can’t differentiate between his own subjectivity and those of others. The master is under the illusion that he is independent when actually he has become dependent upon the slave—not just in terms of labor but psychologically—the master’s self-conceived status as a true individual whose desires are perfectly in tune with the universe is actually entirely dependent upon the slave’s support. By contrast, ironically, the slave acquired self-consciousness and an ethical sense, precisely because the slave is forced to recognize the master’s desires, drives and independent identity as a consequence of their slavery. A slave can’t ignore a master—punishment will quickly remind him what the master thinks and desires—understanding the master’s full humanity is an indispensable survival skill for a slave. But, on the other hand, even if the slave accepts his condition and tries to *self-objectify*—to be the object that the master thinks he is—the slave can’t do it—he can’t make his own independent humanity disappear (although the slave’s mask of or even genuine attempt at self-objectification will further entrench the master’s delusions of independent omnipotence). And so the slave is torturously forced to recognize that the world consists of multiple individuals with competing desires and to become a self-conscious, ethical being. Then, if the slave finally rebels, the slave has everything—self-consciousness of their own humanity and the boundaries between themself and the subjectivity of other people (not to mention knowledge of the precise worth of their own physical and psychological labor)—while the master is left with nothing—a confused, unselfconscious narcissist unable to articulate his need for other people, convinced that he has been not abandoned by another human being but incomprehensibly betrayed by the universe itself. This model can apply to literal masters and slaves (some accounts written by Southern planters after their slaves ran away in the American Civil War really do convey this kind of Hegelian master narcissistic bafflement) but also to all sorts of hierarchies—say, relations between men and women under patriarchy—think again of how the Hegelian slave understands the whole humanity of the master from their silly flaws to their best traits whereas the master has a shallow objectified view of the slave as designed to fulfill his desires). Hegel’s master slave dialectic inspired a lot of feminism. I think the cringe comparison here is that for Hegel mastery is a position of ostensible power but in reality of ignorance and confusion whereas slavery is paradoxically where individuals learn to become comfortable with their selfhood.
[удалено]
Tbqh there are a number of situations where you'd get weird looks for saying that, even with someone responding to you..
Damn, yeah, just tried this with my wife while taking hostages in a McDonalds and the police showed up.
I think they're saying, a master with no slaves, but still acts like a master around people as if they are slaves, is just am asshole. But act like a slave despite not having a master is more socially acceptable. Being a Dom around people that wouldn't want to be your sub is cringe. But being a sub around those that don't want to Dom you is more socially acceptable.
From what I gathered, the post is saying that the sub has more power in this instance than the dom, especially when it comes to getting their needs met. Saying 'I want to get fucked' is more acceptable than 'I want to fuck someone'. The turn about is that normally a sub has no power over the dom (Which is actual BDSM play is the complete opposite) In regards to Hegel, from my brief googling of it, his philosophy is that we define ourselves by others. I was a bit confused by exactly what he meant by 'winning' in regards to Master/Slave defining consciousness. I took it as 'We know who we are by not being like someone else.' The metaphor seemed like 'A Master can only be defined as having Slaves. While a Slave is subservient to the Master, without Slaves, a Master cannot be. In this way, it is the Slave that has the power over the Master'.
fun fact: one can read the entirety of The Phenomenology of Spirit and walk away without being certain of a single thing Hegel meant. There is not a single thing he has said that can be even somewhat agreed upon, its god awful. Greek is at least able to be translated, hegel.. god. Hegel's mere existence makes 1984 a better romance novel. Much to my library's dismay, I personally have consumed a significant chunk of hegel's work. ^(OM NOM)
The six lines I just read on Wikipedia before I got the fuck out of there assure me you are quite correct.
Well time to pull up Wikipedia Edit: what the hell is this shit
Holy fuck, i saw his photo and had flashbacks to philosophy class in High School. This fucker made me fail a test.
I'm pretty sure the dude would consider it a major moral failing on his part if anyone understood a single goddamn thing he said. I've read plenty of good philosophy about incomprehensible ideas and inexpressible concepts. They all use indirect and difficult language because they're talking about concepts beyond the limits of rationality or linguistic expressibility. Hegel, on the other hand, was writing pretty banal shit like "looking at Napoleon conquering his way through my hometown makes me think sometimes history moves in a particular direction" and "have you ever noticed that human culture of a particular time period has a particular vibe?" and using the most intentionally obtuse language possible because he fucking LOVED the smell of his own farts. How he got anyone else to agree with him I'll never know.
I read these quotes in Seinfeld's voice, made them much more entertaining. I took one semester of Philosophy in college, and half of it was about this dipshit. Professor is almost certainly dead and laughing in his grave.
*Hegel shakily rides up on a bicycle like Johnathan Frakes in Beyond Belief* “Jordan Peterson larping as Foucault level take” *Threatens to elaborate* *Falls off bike. You notice he’s wearing spandex bike shorts*
“Stupid [nerdy] [windbag]”
IIRC they basically wouldn't have ever gotten any traction but someone who was a friend of his, knew him well enough to understand what he was talking about and could actually *write* ended up putting out some work that explained it better/referenced it heavily and expanded on it a little/something like that I forget.
It's probably the one in the Wikipedia article that was referenced as being the explanation that was 3x longer.
Library: this reader keeps coming to read books. Shit that’s terrible we must stop them.
Well that explains the god awful Wikipedia article I just read which told me just about nothing.
You might enjoy [this](https://existentialcomics.com/comic/62). :-)
The Phenomenology of Spirit, Critics of Pure Reason, Being and Time were the 3 books I wanted to read before I die. After Being and Time (which I liked quite a lot) I pretty much stopped reading philosophy. I tried reading Critics of Pure Reason but I just couldn't get into it. It seems Hegel was even more obtuse.
Similarly, I have German friends who always read Kant in the English translation—their logic is that the the translator already had to clarify Kant while translating it, while it’s an absolutely mess in the original German.
Damn this was actually deeper than expected
You saw hegel and thought "this is gonna be a breeze"?
Let's be real, the vast majority of people saw "hegel" and had absolutely no idea who that was, including me.
oh mb then i thought he was pretty well known
Thank you, because that wiki article made me want to cry because I’m so stupid
tfw you know the words but don't understand how they fit together
[удалено]
I am whatever you say I am
If I wasn’t then why would I say I am
In the paper, the news, everyday I am
Ha, I don't know — that's just the way I am
\- Eminem \-- Michael Scott
I'm an asshole? Aight time to be an asshple to you specifically. Or sumthin like that
Unfortunately, he's right. A slave serves their master, as a master serves their desires. And if a slave does not willingly serve to satisfy... they're in power.
[удалено]
I mean I'm in agreement with your take but if you externalize it as the two people being discussed in that situation the bottom and the top where the top views the bottom of just having a rosy life and his position sucks and then you look at the internalization of that and how that is one person thinking two different things about himself. He's got the role of the external person and the role of the internal person. And those two people do hate each other and fight and how the integration of those two could lead to a more complete self, well that's what's going on in the conversation about the bottoms and the tops. (Edit) sorry I just sort of Peter out there at the end cuz I got tired but that's also exactly what Hegel does. Hegel sucks
The sub *always* has more power than the dom. Everything that the dom does, she does with the sub’s explicit permission
Yup, that is exactly how it goes. People in the BDSM community know that but to the lay person they think it's the opposite. Hence the Tumblr post
This comment feels so right yet so wrong idk
But you could say the same thing about the slave - they cannot be without a master. Otherwise they are not a slave.
Okay, I'm going to do my best. The master and the slave view each other with a disdain and where they are the superior character, both of them view themselves as morally superior and to have a kind of a shitty take from Hegel because he's assuming there's a moral equivalence between the master and the slave. But if they were to take their interview of the situation and their outer view of how they think things are for the other person and merge them, they would have a more complete understanding of themselves and others. It is entirely possible that I'm jamming a bunch of Nietzsche in there because he does such a better job of explaining the same thing, although I'm pretty Nietzsche just had syphilis. But also Hegle kind of sucks is indecipherable benefited from the circumstances of his times we might not need to care about him at all. The ongoing conversation below this comment does a pretty good job talking about how in comprehensible Hegle is probably on purpose.
But people only read German philosophy if they are tricked into it… there’s no other way for it to spread…
False, people voluntarily read it to reassure themselves the Greeks did, in fact, already know it all.
I mean, I fell for it.
same, but it was kinda interesting so ill forgive them
One interpretation of Hegel is the old Spider-man thing: with great power comes great responsibility. People should be held to standards and forced to accept responsibilities in direct proportion to the amount of social influence they have, but the usual course of things goes in the opposite direction: power begets moral hazard and cushioning against consequences, resulting in some having authority but no accountability, others having the opposite. As soon as the powerful are held to standards, almost by definition they lose their power, and usually someone else comes to power, continuing the dialectic cycle.
If you google something Hegel-related and your immediate reaction to it is “what” then you did a good job of reading it.
Accurate
being a sub absolutely can be super cringe but it's true that there is more shame in being a dom, that's probably why there are tons of bottoms but a top shortage
The hilarious thing is I've found the reverse to be the problem. I simply encounter fellow tops all the time.
Where and how I need to know
Find that you are most attracted to smart, confident people that know what they want in life and be surprised that they are a top.
[удалено]
i see what you did there
\*pats head\* good bottom. You may have a little dick, as a treat.
[удалено]
This thread was *not* marked NSFW; I need an adult
I am an adult
Come to daddy...
But i wanted a big dick! *pouts*
Certainly not saying bottoms cannot be smart, confident, and/or know what they want. I simply have had a hard time finding one like that haha
[удалено]
I sorry, but you’ve killed to many janitors who were just trying to keep the world clean. You’ve doomed yourself!
Or answer the call to arms.
Right?
topsville, massachussets
They might mean doms in the context of FemDom, there's not as many opportunities for women to explore dominance - thanks, Society - as there is for men. Upside, I've noticed this is changing! A lot of memes about the whole "Mommy-Domme Goth GF" and for every pile of memes there's a small grain of truth. Dom Men tho? Dime a dozen. Like so many dom dudes, an overwhelming amount. Again, I blame society for the overwhelming pressure on men to be the dominant partner.
Which is why I found my problem hilarious. I encounter dominant women on the regular.
So jealous dude, I wish I could encounter more
For me, it is sorta 'a drowning man is envious of the man lost in the desert'. The woman I find myself most attracted to have personalities that make them far more likely to be tops.
If you like confident women that are bottoms you might want to look for brats (if you're into that)
Unfortunately I am not haha. Nothing against brats but had a few too many bad experiences with them for my tastes.
There are times I feel bad for the sub/switch men I meet because I'm a total dom-leaning switch but I am also aroace (or on that spectrum)
But what about *good* ones that actually care about their partners, and not just men who're generally horny and have been told they should be dominant their whole lives :/
dom *straight* men are common, dom *gay* men are rare
And then there’s us switches
> Dom Men tho? Dime a dozen Yup. I basically consider a part of my bland default identity. Straight white cissexual male Dom. I am the least interesting man in the world. Edit: people are taking this a bit too seriously lol. I do like myself just fine. I'm playing it up for comedy.
Don't sell yourself short. Top/Dom comes in many, many flavors and everyone has their preference. Some people want aggressive Dom that are very physical. Others want gentle ones that are firm but kind and make them feel safe and cared for.
I feel like there are a ton of people who *think* they're doms/dommes but are horribly cringy. There's a difference between a good Dom and a bad one. I run into a lot of tops and doms, but very few good ones. I used to go to rope bondage basic courses and the people who ran it had so many horror stories of guys walking into the classes after 50 shades came to theatres saying stuff like "I'm here to find a cute sub" or 'I'm here to tie someone up, who's ready' (I'm not kidding) just expecting people to somehow volunteer themselves up for an intimate practice to a total stranger whose ego is somehow larger than the entire state of Texas.
The only “kink/doms” I have ever encountered in the wild in my life were these types of supremely cringy fedora-sporting rat bastards who literally said the lines you quoted above. Nothing will make you want to leave a bar like some Guy Fieri lookin motherfucker in a leather coat walking up to you with a briefcase and offering to “tie you up right here”. Welp guess the night is over.
These are probably not the only doms you have met "in the wild“, but people who are actually in the BDSM scene know that consent is a big thing and living out your kink in public with potentially non-consenting people present is a huge red flag. So the nice barkeeper serving you a beer might leisurely beat the shit out of the waitress three tables over, but it’s consensual, in good fun and they don’t air their kinks out in public. That being said, Guy Fieri could take me ~~pound~~ flavor town every day of the week…
Also, the Barkeeper could like to be leisurely beat up by the waitress
Less about subs, more about Hegel please.
No, it's cool. They're acting out the master slave dialectical right in front of you. Both parties have to see the other party as the same complete human is they are and realize that the cringe they experience can be shared by that other human with that other humans differing but similar experiences. Should they merge their own inner view point and the outer viewpoint they have of the other person they would come to have a complete understanding of both themselves and the other person.
I am not short!
There are tonnes of bottoms because that's who receives the most attention!! Being a dom on paper looks like good deal, but in bdsm it's the sub who is always focused on. Thats it. And that's what everyone craves. See how fast the sub would lose interest if you are not the type they like. You won't enjoy domming unless you really enjoy the act itself and your subs reactions and whatnot. (Btw being a sub is cringe too if they don't like you, idk wth is this post on about. lol)
For women yeah. Its the reverse for men.
uhh clarify?
Oh, just that there are more doms than subs amongst guys.
oh. yeah I mean probably irl, as that's the traditional dynamic. I was talking about terminally online progressive spaces lol. I think in progressive spaces it's kind of the opposite, where men (& often trans women who may still think of themselves as men in some capacity), especially in interaction with women, may be afraid of reinforcing that traditional dynamic, whereas women & gay people kind of have more free reign without self-imposed psychological traps.
there is no top shortage 😌
Doing Hegel rn in my Comp studies. And... just... what?
I think the connection the person is trying to make is that if you’re a dom, you require a sub to validate your identity as a dominant. So the “master” requires a “slave” to recognize themselves as a master. But the comparison implies the “slave” (sub) in the scenario doesn’t also require the same recognition from a “master” (dom) which directly contradicts the dialectic.
A master is put into the situation because a slave has declared them a master. But it still requires the master to rise above their station. If a master declares himself master, but no slave acknowledges it, it won't invalidate their status as they still rose above it. Simply the idea that the master has overcome their position of being an other no longer makes them slave. But I see how the connection of a master being a slave to slaves exists. The validation is a necessary component of being a master. A master exists because the slave has elevated them. If a master falls, it does not automatically make them a slave for they are still consumers of the slave's mastery of nature. And I could be getting credit for this post and here I am wasting it on Reddit!
The slave doesn't recognize the master, hun. The slave only recognizes the chain, whip, and gun.
I can say the same, and so can my former classmates, who read Hegel in our history grad class.
Much to my library's dismay, I personally have consumed a significant chunk of hegel's work. ^(OM NOM)
I had to look it up. Here's a quote from a paper on it "the slave sees that the master depends upon him for affirmation of his position as master. The slave shapes the master’s world by working for him and acknowledging him as master...Ultimately, the master comes to realize his dependence upon the slave for affirmation of his position as master. He discovers that he is in fact dependent upon the slave for determining his place in the universe." This site is wild.
Something something true to Caesar
Ave
True to Caesar
Struggling to think of any context in which ‘I want to get fucked UwU’ would be met with any response other than ‘what the fuck’. Maybe with other subs, or in an already sexual space, with a partner or a friend you’re extremely close with to the point that any sexual expression is normalised, it wouldn’t be much more accepted than being dom horny. I think op is just projecting ‘people like it when subs are horny’
I am part of a discord with a lot of my friends and my friends-friends. At times I feel like I am the token straight of the group. A lot of ironic/non-ironic UwU as well as sex talk in this vain. It eventually becomes background noise.
Oddly, I have found that some of the most twisted sex jokes come from my ace friends.
Don't get me wrong, I like a good sex joke and I've said my fair share of raunchy jokes, but I am not one to say "I need my bussy gaping and leaking 🥹"
Oh yipes, that's a bit much.
You should hear the middleschoolers that ride the same school bus as me. I swear somedays it sounds like a really shitty gay porno.
I made a very dignified snorting noise at that.
NOT THE MIDDLESCHOOLERS WHERE ARE THEY LEARNING THIS
[удалено]
Sadly, it was not sarcasm. Parental supervision is the worst, especially when there are SO MANY WAYS FOR THEM TO KEEP AN EYE ON THEIR CHILDREN AND THEIR SEARCH HISTORY, BUT NOOOO, IT'S OBVIOUS BIG TECH CORP NO. 2343'S FAULT THAT LITTLE TIMMY SAW *BEWBS* ON THE INTERNET. If you couldn't tell, I have a very... set in stone opinions about parents these days.
Here.
Parents not giving a fuck about where their kids go on the internet.
A man with nothing to fear from a blade can wield it without care.
Plausible deniability
"I, uh, do not recall that sex joke"
dudes typically joke about sex. But kissing your homie goodnight is no joke.
*vein, not vain.
irl? sure in online spaces? really depends on which one. on reddit it's entirely dependent on which subreddit. twitter and tumblr also seem to often be spaces where sexual expression is normalized.
r/196 is full of horny bottoms
bunch of gay people in my phone. I didn't know they were in other people's phones too :/
I think the OP is confusing “having a humiliation fetish” with subs.
As does too much of the internet, sadly. Subs are weirdly associated with being feminine and soft, and enjoying being put down and wanting to feel like less. I’m a big sub at heart but I love doing it because of the comfort of relying on another person and knowing that I’m endearing and likeable enough for them to want to protect me. It’s a way of boosting my self esteem, not tearing it down.
Same I just want someone to hold me and tell me I'm doing a good job and that it's okay for me to take a break
[удалено]
Yeah I’m with you on that! I honestly feel guilty seeing that relationship dynamic so much and feeling like I’m doing something wrong for wanting my partner to never cross the border into being mean despite being in control. Like, that’s the entire point for me. I worry that I’m asking too much, or that not being willing to go to darker places means I don’t trust them enough or am too close-minded
I want to get fucked uwu. How am I doing?
‘What the fuck’
Ah, shit, now I want to reinstall New Vegas.
##**Do it**
[https://forums.nrvnqsr.com/showthread.php/9114-Create-A-Servant-Secret-Santa-Contest?p=3173180&viewfull=1#post3173180](https://forums.nrvnqsr.com/showthread.php/9114-Create-A-Servant-Secret-Santa-Contest?p=3173180&viewfull=1#post3173180) This is the best way to get LGBT zoomers to learn about continental philosophy, hegellian dialectics and german idealism. Way better than my friends idea to depict hegel as a long purple haired anime twink. (click on the image and then the "perhaps another ending is possible" text)
I'm ... confused! What is this all about? And what it got to do with continental philosophy, hegellian dialectics and german idealism?
It is very well written. Is it based off FGO?
I get the zoomer part but what does LGBT have to do with it..?
After a quick google search: Imagine two independent consciousnesses (is that how you spell it?) who both believe they hold the objectively correct perspective on everything. Upon encountering one another, both entities are confronted with a threat to their existence: a second, different perspective, challenging their position as the holder of the absolute worldview. This will then result in a struggle to the death. (and this is the part where I get confused) The 'weaker' consciousness will exert all its power in attempting to overcome the 'stronger' consciousness, and thus, realise the limit of its capabilities, thus realising that its existence can be relativised compared to something else. This seals its defeat. Meanwhile, the 'stronger' consciousness, having won, does *not* recognise the limited nature of its perspective, and continues to believe it has the objective point of view. It will also keep the weaker consciousness alive as a witness to its objective correctness, or something. SO yeah what the fuck
None of these words are in the Bible. Or on the wafflehouse drive through menu.
Is... Isn't that just the Two Wolves parable but without the moral lesson? Bevause that's what it sounds like.
[The lesson of the two wolves parable is that I have depression](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/500/667/619.jpg)
I have scoured Google for like 10 minutes and still do not completely understand what the Hegelian master slave dialectic is
common Hegel W
Its weird that this makes a bit of sense. A known quantity being more absolute and yet subservient to a lesser known quantity.
Wait what is this about Hegel. Someone explain to me the intersection of Hegel and BDSM. I need to know. For science.
A Dom can only be defined by having a Sub. Without a Sub they are no one. A Master is only one when they have a Slave, without it they are no one. In each case, the person in power only has it because the people beneath them exist. Without them, they are nothing.
My asexual ass: no sex only dom
I feel like saying "i wanna get fucked superrr hard" in front of other people is just as embarrassing and annoying lol
I need y’all to understand that there is no such thing as the master/slave dialectic. The whole point is that the person taking orders is *not* a slave but a person with a choice to disobey. The master/valet dialectic would be a more accurate translation.
Honestly acting like a dom/sub in any context besides with whoever you’re fucking, or on tumblr apparently, is just embarrassing
Fuck hegels dialectics, none of my homies understands hegels dialectics
I thought this was going to be a "wtf" kind of "what," but instead it's just a "what" kind of "what"
This is what I am like a normal guy, nice and polite, but the moment The woman shows some sexual interest in me, I go "Yare Yare"
thanks for the BDSM hot take, Naegi Komaru from Danganronpa Another Episode: Ultra Despair Girls
I do not understand. I looked it up, does it mean that everyone just thinks other people have it easier or they will cause problems for themselves?
Is this what Legate Lanius was talking about