Friedrich Nietzsche's Mustache

If your takeaway is "I'm confused and therefore this must be bullshit," that's just intellectual laziness with an ironic Gen Z filter.

[prickly-porcupine-memes]

Yes. I will occasionally post things made with generative AI tools if I think the point is important.

Those of you who reply and message me privately about this as though I have murdered your dog need to get a fucking grip and realize you're virtue signaling.

Really. STFU.

[entropybegets]

AI is fucking slop, especially when dealing with Antisemitism, and Islamic terrorism, and their supporters, this shit is life and death, we deal with so much misinformation and Pallywood bullshit fakery that it's costing Jewish lives all over the world, and authenticity is EVERYTHING.

DON'T FUCKING USE AI FUCKING SLOP WHEN POSTING ABOUT THESE FUCKING TOPICS YOU ASSHOLE

[unsolicited-opinions]

@entropybegets is talking about this editorial cartoon, which probably was created with generative AI:

This cartoon is about how the UN and so-called human rights NGOs love to scream when it suits their politics, but have nothing to say when Iranians are murdered, raped, tortured, and disappeared by the Islamic Regime.

The outrage from @entropybegets, however, is that the cartoon was made with generative Al.

---

This isn't Pallywood. No one is trying to pass off an Al image as a photograph. No one is trying to manipulate evidence.

This is editorial cartoon. It's satirical, stylized, and metaphorical. It no more attempts to deceive than any of Herblock's work.

Pretending it's some kind of dangerous misinformation is ridiculous.

Claiming a cartoon that criticizes the international hypocrisy somehow endangers Jews is absurd.

If your moral framework leads you to care more about what tool was used to make the cartoon than what it's saying, your moral compass is broken.

If there's an asshole here, it's the person who saw an editorial cartoon about mass murder and hypocrisy...and decided the real emergency was the tool used to make the cartoon.

[superhgb]

i don't like AI (complicated theft), so i don't reblog things made with ai

[nietzsche-mustache]

Did you get a dopamine hit from signaling your virtue and repeating your circle's preferred position on generative LLMs?

What other purpose could your reblog possibly have served? Did it add anything to the conversation?

[nietzsche-mustache]

[nietzsche-mustache]

[nietzsche-mustache]

[prettiestpear]

[nietzsche-mustache]

[nietzsche-mustache]

[nietzsche-mustache]

[nietzsche-mustache]

[nietzsche-mustache]

[nietzsche-mustache]

Postmodernism's rejection of truth has hurt us more than is generally understood.

[murlopal]

Objective truth isn't real. I simply hyperbelieve my statements into reality

[murlopal]

Okay, I wish smb actually explained to me wtf is Post-Modernism.

Like, I know people who literally read all most relevant people called post-modernists, including hermeneutics and even they don't know wth it is.

Post modernism is when simulacrum, but that's actually just structuralist antropology

Post modernism is when hermeneutics, but that actually just dudes who still liked Hegel in 20th century

Post modernism is when Nick Land, I guess, but 90% of proposed post modernists don't take him seriously

Post modernism is when D&G, but that's actually just deeper materialist analysis on production of ideology

Post modernism is when you talk about optics and narratives, but that's academics being idealist again(I guess? I heard that Foucault explained this. It's in my reading list, I swear)

[murlopal]

I'm not joking. I'd love for anyone to explain this to me. You can't just say "post modernism is when no objective truth" because come on. People have been doing that since ancient greece. Long before Kafka(modernist) and shit

[nietzsche-mustache]

Since you're not joking:

You're confused because you're treating postmodernism like a meme instead of a historical and philosophical shift.

Postmodernism isn’t one thing. It’s a label applied (sometimes retroactively, sometimes loosely) to a set of cultural, philosophical, and aesthetic responses to modernism and Enlightenment thinking - especially after WWII. It's more a sensibility than a unified theory.

(And you would know that much about postmodernism from 30 minutes of Googling and reading if you'd put any sincere effort into it.)

No, it's not just "no objective truth." You're right that skepticism about truth goes back to the Sophists. But postmodernism isn’t recycling that - it's responding to modernist claims about universal reason, scientific progress, and the stability of meaning. Postmodern thinkers didn’t invent relativism, they situated it in the wreckage of modernity.

Modernism = the world can be understood through rational structures. Grand narratives, formalism, utopian visions.

Postmodernism = those structures were often power plays in disguise. Think irony, fragmentation, suspicion of meta-narratives.

You don't "accidentally" do postmodernism by reading structuralism, hermeneutics, or D&G. Those are related, but not identical. Structuralists tried to find systems beneath meaning. Postmodernists asked: What if the systems are the meaning? What if they’re arbitrary or ideological?

You’re conflating completely unrelated figures. Nick Land isn’t postmodern, he's post-everything, more adjacent to accelerationist horror than anything Foucault or Lyotard wrote. D&G aren't doing "deeper materialist analysis" - they're mapping flows, ruptures, intensities. You're slapping Marxist labels on things you haven’t actually digested... and probably haven't read.

If your takeaway is "I'm confused and therefore this must be bullshit," that’s not skepticism. That's intellectual laziness with an ironic Gen Z filter. Saying "even people who read this don't get it" is not an argument - it's just you admitting you've never attempted it, bragging that confusion is your comfort zone, and resolving to stay there, never actually engaging with ideas that challenge you.

If you change your mind and would like to actually engage with these ideas, start with Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition. Then read Foucault's What Is an Author? and Discipline and Punish.

If that’s too much, read Jameson on postmodernism. If that’s too much, just admit you like sounding smart more than you like actually understanding things.

Because right now, you’re doing a shallow bit. It's juvenile, it's obnoxious, and it only impresses your friends who know even less than you do.

It was a meme offering a chuckle to people who have read these things, and you treated it like a chance to show how smart you think you are - like a 4-year-old being proud they won a game of checkers against the pigeon they stumbled across in the park.

Please consider discussing this choice with your therapist.

[murlopal]

Oh, hey. Despite talking with humour(scary, I know), I am actually interested in the question. Since I was planning on cracking that Foucussy anyways, I'll take your advice into account!

Also, why do you act like tumblr or social media in general is a suitable place for philosophical or any intellectual discussion? It isn't anti-intellectualist of me to be annoying online. It's not like you can do anything serious there anyways

[nietzsche-mustache]

Could have sworn you wrote:

I'm not joking. I'd love for anyone to explain this to me.

But when it was explained to you and pointed out that you're completely full of shit, all of a sudden you were "talking with humor."

Huh.

Also, why do you act like tumblr or social media in general is a suitable place for philosophical or any intellectual discussion?

Bro. You're the one who attempted a pseudo-intellectual dissection of a meme by spouting academic terms you can't define and thinkers you haven't read in a rhetorically nonsensical arrangement.

And when someone points that out, you suddenly reverse course and argue that Tumblr isn't the place for intellectual discourse?

Forget what I said about your therapist - go see a neurologist.

I am actually interested in the question.

If you actually were interested in the question, you'd say "thank you" for the thorough answer instead of making excuses and reversing your posture.

Nobody called you "anti-intellectualist."

I am, however, calling you a dishonest, insincere poseur.

Also, I guess it's just my lack of PhD that makes me think that when D&G write "and here's how we make psychoanalysis materialist", it's them trying to make psychoanalysis materialist. I can find a quote of it, I fucking swear

Deleuze and Guattari aren't doing classical materialist analysis the way Marxists do.

When you say "materialist analysis," you're thinking of a framework where everything is boiled down to economic structures or class struggle. That's not what D&G are doing. They're more interested in flows, assemblages, and connections - how things interact and evolve, rather than pinning them down to rigid categories like "material conditions."

Instead of saying, "capitalism functions because of X material forces," they ask, what intensities drive it? What desires fuel it? How do systems emerge and break down? Their ontology is more fluid than traditional materialism, which tends to focus on concrete structures. D&G would rather map how things shift, rupture, and transform over time.

So if someone's reading them through a strictly Marxist lens, they’re likely flattening what D&G are doing. Their work sidesteps traditional materialism, it doesn't reinforce it. it’s about movement, becoming, and disruptions rather than fixed causal forces.

And some Marxists dearly love to cram everything under the sun through their lens, including feminism. Like you did.

That's why some self-proclaimed Marxists get treated like cultists rather than serious thinkers - because many of them act like cultists. They don't even understand their own 'sacred texts' - but preach with righteous, fiery, condescending sanctimony. Half of them haven’t even read the foundational material they claim to champion, let alone actually engaged with meaningful critiques or evolutions of that material.

It's why they do ridiculous shit like conflating Marxism and Feminism and claiming all feminism fits in their Marxist framing.

It doesn't.

It turns out that the world is far too complex for such bullshit.

Read more - opine less.

And go see that neurologist because unless you're just dishonest, you have either a short-term memory issue or a perceptual deficit.

[murlopal]

Not all feminism is Marxist

Only feminism that worked

[nietzsche-mustache]

You keep proving how little you know. Take care.

[nietzsche-mustache]

Postmodernism's rejection of truth has hurt us more than is generally understood.

[murlopal]

Objective truth isn't real. I simply hyperbelieve my statements into reality

[murlopal]

Okay, I wish smb actually explained to me wtf is Post-Modernism.

Like, I know people who literally read all most relevant people called post-modernists, including hermeneutics and even they don't know wth it is.

Post modernism is when simulacrum, but that's actually just structuralist antropology

Post modernism is when hermeneutics, but that actually just dudes who still liked Hegel in 20th century

Post modernism is when Nick Land, I guess, but 90% of proposed post modernists don't take him seriously

Post modernism is when D&G, but that's actually just deeper materialist analysis on production of ideology

Post modernism is when you talk about optics and narratives, but that's academics being idealist again(I guess? I heard that Foucault explained this. It's in my reading list, I swear)

[murlopal]

I'm not joking. I'd love for anyone to explain this to me. You can't just say "post modernism is when no objective truth" because come on. People have been doing that since ancient greece. Long before Kafka(modernist) and shit

[nietzsche-mustache]

Since you're not joking:

You're confused because you're treating postmodernism like a meme instead of a historical and philosophical shift.

Postmodernism isn’t one thing. It’s a label applied (sometimes retroactively, sometimes loosely) to a set of cultural, philosophical, and aesthetic responses to modernism and Enlightenment thinking - especially after WWII. It's more a sensibility than a unified theory.

(And you would know that much about postmodernism from 30 minutes of Googling and reading if you'd put any sincere effort into it.)

No, it's not just "no objective truth." You're right that skepticism about truth goes back to the Sophists. But postmodernism isn’t recycling that - it's responding to modernist claims about universal reason, scientific progress, and the stability of meaning. Postmodern thinkers didn’t invent relativism, they situated it in the wreckage of modernity.

Modernism = the world can be understood through rational structures. Grand narratives, formalism, utopian visions.

Postmodernism = those structures were often power plays in disguise. Think irony, fragmentation, suspicion of meta-narratives.

You don't "accidentally" do postmodernism by reading structuralism, hermeneutics, or D&G. Those are related, but not identical. Structuralists tried to find systems beneath meaning. Postmodernists asked: What if the systems are the meaning? What if they’re arbitrary or ideological?

You’re conflating completely unrelated figures. Nick Land isn’t postmodern, he's post-everything, more adjacent to accelerationist horror than anything Foucault or Lyotard wrote. D&G aren't doing "deeper materialist analysis" - they're mapping flows, ruptures, intensities. You're slapping Marxist labels on things you haven’t actually digested... and probably haven't read.

If your takeaway is "I'm confused and therefore this must be bullshit," that’s not skepticism. That's intellectual laziness with an ironic Gen Z filter. Saying "even people who read this don't get it" is not an argument - it's just you admitting you've never attempted it, bragging that confusion is your comfort zone, and resolving to stay there, never actually engaging with ideas that challenge you.

If you change your mind and would like to actually engage with these ideas, start with Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition. Then read Foucault's What Is an Author? and Discipline and Punish.

If that’s too much, read Jameson on postmodernism. If that’s too much, just admit you like sounding smart more than you like actually understanding things.

Because right now, you’re doing a shallow bit. It's juvenile, it's obnoxious, and it only impresses your friends who know even less than you do.

It was a meme offering a chuckle to people who have read these things, and you treated it like a chance to show how smart you think you are - like a 4-year-old being proud they won a game of checkers against the pigeon they stumbled across in the park.

Please consider discussing this choice with your therapist.

[murlopal]

Oh, hey. Despite talking with humour(scary, I know), I am actually interested in the question. Since I was planning on cracking that Foucussy anyways, I'll take your advice into account!

Also, why do you act like tumblr or social media in general is a suitable place for philosophical or any intellectual discussion? It isn't anti-intellectualist of me to be annoying online. It's not like you can do anything serious there anyways

[nietzsche-mustache]

Could have sworn you wrote:

I'm not joking. I'd love for anyone to explain this to me.

But when it was explained to you and pointed out that you're completely full of shit, all of a sudden you were "talking with humor."

Huh.

Also, why do you act like tumblr or social media in general is a suitable place for philosophical or any intellectual discussion?

Bro. You're the one who attempted a pseudo-intellectual dissection of a meme by spouting academic terms you can't define and thinkers you haven't read in a rhetorically nonsensical arrangement.

And when someone points that out, you suddenly reverse course and argue that Tumblr isn't the place for intellectual discourse?

Forget what I said about your therapist - go see a neurologist.

I am actually interested in the question.

If you actually were interested in the question, you'd say "thank you" for the thorough answer instead of making excuses and reversing your posture.

Nobody called you "anti-intellectualist."

I am, however, calling you a dishonest, insincere poseur.

Also, I guess it's just my lack of PhD that makes me think that when D&G write "and here's how we make psychoanalysis materialist", it's them trying to make psychoanalysis materialist. I can find a quote of it, I fucking swear

Deleuze and Guattari aren't doing classical materialist analysis the way Marxists do.

When you say "materialist analysis," you're thinking of a framework where everything is boiled down to economic structures or class struggle. That's not what D&G are doing. They're more interested in flows, assemblages, and connections - how things interact and evolve, rather than pinning them down to rigid categories like "material conditions."

Instead of saying, "capitalism functions because of X material forces," they ask, what intensities drive it? What desires fuel it? How do systems emerge and break down? Their ontology is more fluid than traditional materialism, which tends to focus on concrete structures. D&G would rather map how things shift, rupture, and transform over time.

So if someone's reading them through a strictly Marxist lens, they’re likely flattening what D&G are doing. Their work sidesteps traditional materialism, it doesn't reinforce it. it’s about movement, becoming, and disruptions rather than fixed causal forces.

And some Marxists dearly love to cram everything under the sun through their lens, including feminism. Like you did.

That's why some self-proclaimed Marxists get treated like cultists rather than serious thinkers - because many of them act like cultists. They don't even understand their own 'sacred texts' - but preach with righteous, fiery, condescending sanctimony. Half of them haven’t even read the foundational material they claim to champion, let alone actually engaged with meaningful critiques or evolutions of that material.

It's why they do ridiculous shit like conflating Marxism and Feminism and claiming all feminism fits in their Marxist framing.

It doesn't.

It turns out that the world is far too complex for such bullshit.

Read more - opine less.

And go see that neurologist because unless you're just dishonest, you have either a short-term memory issue or a perceptual deficit.

[nietzsche-mustache]

Postmodernism's rejection of truth has hurt us more than is generally understood.

[murlopal]

Objective truth isn't real. I simply hyperbelieve my statements into reality

[murlopal]

Okay, I wish smb actually explained to me wtf is Post-Modernism.

Like, I know people who literally read all most relevant people called post-modernists, including hermeneutics and even they don't know wth it is.

Post modernism is when simulacrum, but that's actually just structuralist antropology

Post modernism is when hermeneutics, but that actually just dudes who still liked Hegel in 20th century

Post modernism is when Nick Land, I guess, but 90% of proposed post modernists don't take him seriously

Post modernism is when D&G, but that's actually just deeper materialist analysis on production of ideology

Post modernism is when you talk about optics and narratives, but that's academics being idealist again(I guess? I heard that Foucault explained this. It's in my reading list, I swear)

[murlopal]

I'm not joking. I'd love for anyone to explain this to me. You can't just say "post modernism is when no objective truth" because come on. People have been doing that since ancient greece. Long before Kafka(modernist) and shit

[nietzsche-mustache]

Since you're not joking:

You're confused because you're treating postmodernism like a meme instead of a historical and philosophical shift.

Postmodernism isn’t one thing. It’s a label applied (sometimes retroactively, sometimes loosely) to a set of cultural, philosophical, and aesthetic responses to modernism and Enlightenment thinking - especially after WWII. It's more a sensibility than a unified theory.

(And you would know that much about postmodernism from 30 minutes of Googling and reading if you'd put any sincere effort into it.)

No, it's not just "no objective truth." You're right that skepticism about truth goes back to the Sophists. But postmodernism isn’t recycling that - it's responding to modernist claims about universal reason, scientific progress, and the stability of meaning. Postmodern thinkers didn’t invent relativism, they situated it in the wreckage of modernity.

Modernism = the world can be understood through rational structures. Grand narratives, formalism, utopian visions.

Postmodernism = those structures were often power plays in disguise. Think irony, fragmentation, suspicion of meta-narratives.

You don't "accidentally" do postmodernism by reading structuralism, hermeneutics, or D&G. Those are related, but not identical. Structuralists tried to find systems beneath meaning. Postmodernists asked: What if the systems are the meaning? What if they’re arbitrary or ideological?

You’re conflating completely unrelated figures. Nick Land isn’t postmodern, he's post-everything, more adjacent to accelerationist horror than anything Foucault or Lyotard wrote. D&G aren't doing "deeper materialist analysis" - they're mapping flows, ruptures, intensities. You're slapping Marxist labels on things you haven’t actually digested... and probably haven't read.

If your takeaway is "I'm confused and therefore this must be bullshit," that’s not skepticism. That's intellectual laziness with an ironic Gen Z filter. Saying "even people who read this don't get it" is not an argument - it's just you admitting you've never attempted it, bragging that confusion is your comfort zone, and resolving to stay there, never actually engaging with ideas that challenge you.

If you change your mind and would like to actually engage with these ideas, start with Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition. Then read Foucault's What Is an Author? and Discipline and Punish.

If that’s too much, read Jameson on postmodernism. If that’s too much, just admit you like sounding smart more than you like actually understanding things.

Because right now, you’re doing a shallow bit. It's juvenile, it's obnoxious, and it only impresses your friends who know even less than you do.

It was a meme offering a chuckle to people who have read these things, and you treated it like a chance to show how smart you think you are - like a 4-year-old being proud they won a game of checkers against the pigeon they stumbled across in the park.

Please consider discussing this choice with your therapist.

[nietzsche-mustache]

[nietzsche-mustache]

[nietzsche-mustache]

[nietzsche-mustache]