Why has the Internet always rejected romance?

malelesbian

Femboyism IS feminism.
Everytime I bring this question up, people here ignore it. Thus I think it warrants its own topic.
Where is the love in internet culture? We barely have a sense of camaraderie among ourselves, let alone romance.
Internet culture accelerates social atomization. On the internet, everyone is an individual defined entirely by their production and consumption. The community never comes into play.
Is Dissensus a community, or just a group of individuals? Are there shared values that unite Dissensus users or are we all just bumbling around doing our own thang?


Once we see ourselves as atomistic individuals, everything we do becomes all about self-improvement. Hence the manosphere. Men will accept almost any kind of self-improvement, even if it carrys along awful misogyny. I guess a lot of men care about themselves more than women, and that's a huge problem that male lesbianism solves. Because the male lesbian promotes altruistic culture.
I prescribe romance as a remedy to the manosphere's toxic hypermasculinity.
There's even brotherly love. I include that within romantic culture.
Love brings people together. Selfishness tears them apart. The irreducible relationality of love entails that love always includes oneself and another. Of course, there's also self-love, but I'm not discussing that. I'm discussing love that relates atleast two people together.
We're all rather socially isolated here. I keep returning to the same theme: we should build communal bonds by reaching out to each other in a sensitive way.
Read Shelley! Read Keats! Read all the Romantics, (except Lord Byron who was very unlike male lesbians)! Be romantic because it challenges the egoistic lies redpillers spread. Romance is feminine is non-phallic culture.
 

malelesbian

Femboyism IS feminism.
People can instrumentalize romance to serve phallic purposes, but romance-for-its-own-sake is feminine and non-phallic.
I'm not convinced it has. The internet's full of communities.
Show me a single community oriented around romance. And where is the romance on Dissensus? Huh? Where's the romance on Reddit or Twitter, two sites that dominate internet culture?
Yes but romance is feminine is non-phallic, apparently

What are your thoughts on fentanyl @malelesbian

Fentanyl is destroying America bro.
 

malelesbian

Femboyism IS feminism.
Dating apps are antithetical to romance. Dating apps are one of the worst elements of modern life. They have ultra-commodified sex in a way that makes everything worse for everyone.
 

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
I think the temptation to take the piss, to extinguish
People can instrumentalize romance to serve phallic purposes, but romance-for-its-own-sake is feminine and non-phallic.

Show me a single community oriented around romance. And where is the romance on Dissensus? Huh? Where's the romance on Reddit or Twitter, two sites that dominate internet culture?


Fentanyl is destroying America bro.
There are actually plenty of romantic and aspirational communities, of really smart people, in web3. Specifically the public goods / social welfare sector of web3, EG gitcoin, MolochDAO, et al. Sorta like open-source communitarianism.

Romantic to a fault, even.
 

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
But to your point, communities like this are seemingly hard to find, EG all the web3 stuff is super, super niche and exceptional.
 

version

Well-known member
giphy.gif
 

luka

Well-known member
ive met virtually everyone on here In Real Life. some of them are even my friends.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Dating apps are antithetical to romance. Dating apps are one of the worst elements of modern life. They have ultra-commodified sex in a way that makes everything worse for everyone.
Zizek says they herald the death of a brief window for true romance in reintroducing the strict requirements of arranged marriage. I think this is not only a within-app phenomenon but an inter-app phenomenon, with different apps serving different socio-economic classes.
 

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
Now relations between human beings, based on affection, and especially between the two sexes, have existed as long as mankind has. Sex love in particular has undergone a development and won a place during the last 800 years which has made it a compulsory pivotal point of all poetry during this period. The existing positive religions have limited themselves to the bestowal of a higher consecration upon state-regulated sex love — that is, upon the marriage laws — and they could all disappear tomorrow without changing in the slightest the practice of love and friendship. Thus the Christian religion in France, as a matter of fact, so completely disappeared in the year 1793–95 that even Napoleon could not re-introduce it without opposition and difficulty; and this without any need for a substitute in Feuerbach’s sense, making itself in the interval.
Feuerbach’s idealism consists here in this: he does not simply accept mutual relations based on reciprocal inclination between human beings, such as sex love, friendship, compassion, self-sacrifice, etc., as what they are in themselves — without associating them with any particular religion which to him, too, belongs to the past; but instead he asserts that they will attain their full value only when consecrated by the name of religion. The chief thing for him is not that these purely human relations exist, but that they shall be conceived of as the new, true, religion. They are to have full value only after they have been marked with a religious stamp. Religion is derived from religare [“to bind”] and meant, originally, a bond. Therefore, every bond between two people is a religion. Such etymological tricks are the last resort of idealist philosophy. Not what the word means according to the historical development of its actual use, but what it ought to mean according to its derivation is what counts. And so sex love, and the intercourse between the sexes, is apotheosized to a religion, merely in order that the word religion, which is so dear to idealistic memories, may not disappear from the language. The Parisian reformers of the Louis Blanc trend used to speak in precisely the same way in the forties. They, likewise, could conceive of a man without religion only as a monster, and used to say to us: “Donc, l’atheisme c’est votre religion!” [“Well, then atheism is your religion!”] If Feuerbach wishes to establish a true religion upon the basis of an essentially materialist conception of nature, that is the same as regarding modern chemistry as true alchemy. If religion can exist without its god, alchemy can exist without its philosopher’s stone. By the way, there exists a very close connection between alchemy and religion. The philosopher’s stone has many godlike properties and the Egyptian-Greek alchemists of the first two centuries of our era had a hand in the development of Christian doctrines, as the data given by Kopp and Bertholet have proved.
Feuerbach’s assertion that “the periods of humanity are distinguished only by religious changes” is decidedly false. Great historical turning-points have been accompanied by religious changes only so far as the three world religions which have existed up to the present — Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam — are concerned. The old tribal and national religions, which arose spontaneously, did not proselytize and lost all their power of resistance as soon as the independence of the tribe or people was lost. For the Germans, it was sufficient to have simple contact with the decaying Roman world empire and with its newly adopted Christian world religion which fitted its economic, political, and ideological conditions. Only with these world religions, arisen more or less artificially, particularly Christianity and Islam, do we find that the more general historical movements acquire a religious imprint. Even in regard to Christianity, the religious stamp in revolutions of really universal significance is restricted to the first stages of the bourgeoisie’s struggle for emancipation — from the 13th to the 17th century — and is to be accounted for, not as Feuerbach thinks by the hearts of men and their religious needs, but by the entire previous history of the Middle Ages, which knew no other form of ideology than religion and theology. But when the bourgeoisie of the 18th century was strengthened enough likewise to posses an ideology of its own, suited to its own class standpoint, it made its great and conclusive revolution — the French —, appealing exclusively to juristic and political ideas, and troubling itself with religion only in so far as it stood in its way. But it never occurred to it to put a new religion in place of the old. Everyone knows how Robespierre failed in his attempt [to set up a religion of the “highest being”].
The possibility of purely human sentiments in our intercourse with other human beings has nowadays been sufficiently curtailed by the society in which we must live, which is based upon class antagonism and class rule. We have no reason to curtail it still more by exalting these sentiments to a religion. And similarly the understanding of the great historical class struggles has already been sufficiently obscured by current historiography, particularly in Germany, so that there is also no need for us to make such an understanding totally impossible by transforming the history of these struggles into a mere appendix of ecclesiastical history. Already here it becomes evident how far today we have moved beyond Feuerbach. His “finest” passages in glorification of his new religion of love are totally unreadable today.

 
Top