i think i'm generally repulsed by the way 99% of people engage with sex. it's always cover for retarded submissive dominance stuff and it's usually a good sign you havent really gotten over being a fascist
@ZiaNitori Gotta become Adam and Eve before the apple and stand freely in the nude without shame (literally me)
@ZiaNitori This reminds me of Graeber's summary of sociologist Lynn Chancer with feminist psychoanalyst Jessica Benjamin about their theory of Sado-Masochism in Everyday Life. At least BDSM subcultures involve mutual consent.
"In such minimal, but clearly unequal, social environments, strange things can start to happen. Back in the 1960s, the radical psychoanalyst Erich Fromm first suggested that “nonsexual” forms of sadism and necrophilia tend to pervade everyday affairs in highly puritanical and hierarchical environments.[103] In the 1990s, the sociologist Lynn Chancer synthesized some of these ideas with those of feminist psychoanalyst Jessica Benjamin to devise a theory of Sado-Masochism in Everyday Life.[104] What Chancer found was that unlike members of actual BDSM subcultures, who are entirely aware of the fact that they are playing games of make-believe, purportedly “normal” people in hierarchical environments typically ended up locked in a kind of pathological variation of the same sadomasochistic dynamic: the (person on the) bottom struggles desperately for approval that can never, by definition, be forthcoming; the (person on the) top going to greater and greater lengths to assert a dominance that both know is ultimately a lie—for if the top were really the all-powerful, confident, masterly being he pretends to be, he wouldn’t need to go to such outrageous lengths to ensure the bottom’s recognition of his power. And, of course, there is also the most important difference between make-believe S&M play—and those engaged in it actually do refer to it as “play”—and its real-life, nonsexual enactments. In the play version, all the parameters are carefully worked out in advance by mutual consent, with both parties knowing the game can be called off at any moment simply by invoking an agreed-on safe-word. For example, just say the word “orange,” and your partner will immediately stop dripping hot wax on you and transform from the wicked marquis to a caring human being who wants to make sure you aren’t really hurt. (Indeed, one might argue that much of the bottom’s pleasure comes from knowing she has the power to affect this transformation at will.[105]) This is precisely what’s lacking in real-life sadomasochistic situations. You can’t say “orange” to your boss. Supervisors never work out in advance in what ways employees can and cannot be chewed out for different sorts of infractions, and if an employee is, like Annie, being reprimanded or otherwise humiliated, she knows there is nothing she can say to make it stop; no safe-word, except, perhaps, “I quit.” To pronounce these words, however, does more than simply break off the scenario of humiliation; it breaks off the work relationship entirely—and might well lead to one’s ending up playing a very different game, one where you’re desperately scrounging around to find something to eat or how to prevent one’s heat from being shut off."
(Bullshit Jobs, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-bullshit-jobs Chapter 4, On the Misery of not Being a Cause)
@HeliosPi i must have been distracted/too blazed when listening to this on audiobook cause i dont remember this section, this is really cool
@ZiaNitori True that. Its easy to miss with his writing style maybe.
@HeliosPi
Marvellous.
I find every-day sadism esp. in German public clerks or what you call them who work on governments' behalves and sign paperwork that can upend your life?
Bureaucratic sadism is rampant in Germany. I lived in Ireland and NZ as well and experienced distinct differences in how individuals are treated. Maybe I was just lucky with the clerks I encountered in Ireland and NZ?
In Germany most of the time it feels like the clerks' sole satisfaction in life is when they can kick you in the knee. Hard. And can wave the law book at you to justify the pain they cause.
But these clerks aren't managers for whose sadism Graeber finds an explanation if not even a justification: asserting their dominance.
These clerks are normal workers.
I think, Graeber was wrong here.
Being too kind in description and attribution like him makes recognition of the broadening societal acceptance of sadism harder.
While fascism is the fictitious ideological framework for sadists who for some reason require an ideological alibi for their bloodlust, I think, neoliberalism and its egotistic, atomistic world view is a playing field where those sadists can flourish who get squeamish with actual blood on their hands.
I also think, this sociopathic, neurological wiring needs to be looked at, and how it spreads with traumatisation and epigenetics, and how cultural acceptance of sadist traits and deeds seeps into societies,
whereas the semantics in the ideological frameworks can be ignored in analysis. Those are nothing but word games, not taken seriously by their own apparent fans. So one can't debate sadism out of a fascist, so to say, because they don't actually believe the ideological stuff themselves and their underlying motivation is cruelty, and dominance to be able to apply more cruelty. 🙂
cant stand it when people act embarrassed about being nude, cant stand it when people bait being vulnerable, cant stand it when i can tell that something is being twisted to fit some weird sub/dom framework. it's such a boring fucking script that produces genuinely disgusting people on the other end of it