ilyenkov [they/them, undecided] @ ilyenkov @hexbear.net

Agender. Anti-Gonzaloite Marxist-Leninist-Maoist.

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

40

Joined

3 yr. ago

Oh, they're definitely problematic still. But I met nobody before I got on them, and now I meet lots of people, so I can't complain. I imagine using them varies a lot depending on where you are, how old you are, and stuff like that. You might be somewhere rough. Different apps have different pools of people and different cultures too, so depending on what you're looking for maybe trying out a different one might help.

As for photos, my best best advice would be that it should give a good view of your face, but at least your upper body should be visible too, it should be good quality, it shouldn't be a selfie, it shouldn't be a group pic (though I think having at least one in your pics is good, to show that you do have friends), you should smile if possible, but it shouldn't look like a forced "for the camera" smile, no filters.

So, I've figured out that I'm agender and pan, but when I started on the apps it was as a dude looking for women. I had good success doing the opposite of the other suggestions here. Only swipe right on people who actually look interesting, who have stuff in their bio. My bio mentions that I'm a communist, feminist, autistic, adhd, etc. I'm just open and always completely honest. I never message pickup lines or whatever, I ask questions about stuff on their bios (a good reason to only swipe right on people who actually have info on themselves). I usually end up talking to people about art, philosophy, poetry, music, video games, or DnD.

It is a numbers game. Prepare to swipe many, many times per each match, to have to message first 99% of the time, to have most messages not responded to, etc. But putting a bit of time into it I've met a lot of very cool people. I honestly have had a great time on the apps.

By FAR the most important thing is your main pic. If someone isn't into it, they're not looking at the rest of your profile, they're swiping left. So make sure it's a good one.

To go even further, Russia and the USSR before them should have been more assertive against and less trusting of the West at every turn. "Peaceful coexistence" was a mistake and led to here. Against NATO, peace was never on the table.

I honestly enjoy holding hands and walking around cute places together as much as sex. This isn't a bit, this isn't the tired old anime joke about landholding being indecent. I'm just a slut for holding hands.

Scroll to the end of the article: "Middle Kingdom". They really can't help themselves huh

Coolest ever American just got even cooler!?!!

this obsessive "there's meaning in EVERY WORD, DUMMY" condescension

Maybe this is a problem (not something I've seen much personally, but idk), but authorial intent isn't necessarily very important. There can be meaning, symbolism, etc. in a text without the author consciously intending to put it there.

Elswyth

Huh, thanks! I'll have to do some effort posting on lib theory when I have the time and energy

I'd also like to add that like 90% of the lib theory I've read (Mill, Locke, etc.) was for classes in university, while 90% of the non-lib stuff I've read was fully on my own time. Like WHERE are these fucking university profs supposedly obsessed with "postmodernism" or whatever the fuck. Like forget actual Marxism, I'm out here having to read Derrida, Foucault and shit on my own time. I thought my proffs were supposed to be shoving that down my throat????

Also, for anyone interested in my drunken opinion: Adam Smith was a genius, JS Mill was a lib but tbh a fairly smart guy, Locke was a colossal dumbass and possibly the worst philosopher of all time, and Rawls is sooooooo fucking tedious and shitty. Hobbes was based and actually pretty rigorous philosophically, Blackstone literally made me want to blow my brains out. Robespierre was the one really actually cool lib.

Most fash philosophers have nothing interesting at all to say, and are just like a muddle of bad interpretations of Nietzsche (himself, ofc, NOT a fascist) and nonsense. The one exception being Heidegger, who is incredibly interesting.

Daily Adam Smith was actually based and would have been a communist had he been born later post. (Also him and Hume were gay and I cannot be convinced otherwise)

And they never, ever, ever read. Like I've read Locke, Smith, Mills, Rawls, and all the rest of the lib shit. Hell, I've read a little Strasser and Evola even. Show me one lib who has, in good faith, read State and Revolution.

14

those events

yeah, it's feeling old time

This rocks

At the time, I never even realized the gendered aspect of it. Although that was definitely going on, I never thought of it is "it's not cool for me to listen to this cuz I'm a boy," I thought "this is garbage, I only listen to REAL music." And what that was changed from classical, to classic rock, to metal, to hardcore punk as I went from child to teen (there are some cool aspects to punk/hardcore, but the scene also had a huge misogyny problem, a lot of rejecting mainstream dudebro norms to be a misogynist dudebro in a different way). I never listened to anything in secret, I thought I was listening to the only music worth listening to.

My music tastes now are very broad, I listen to a lot and I love looking for and finding new artists, new genre to get into, etc.

Uncritical support to the KPA.

I've been pro-DPRK for years. I've read Kim Il-Sung's writings, have you?

Finally playing Disco Elysium, it's great so far.