/lit/ - Literature

>>3321598

it's decent

it's nothing groundbreaking and very similar work has been done over half a century ago


except this went viral and became the target of middle brow and low brow hicks everywhere who can't understand any of the processes or references involved so they'll just insult it to gain footing

very sad

>>3324505
>mysoginy

ugh see just reading these posts makes me dumber

>>3324500
>Women stay at home.
>And I'm not saying this in a misogynist way.


'ahahaha i'm an heteronormative piece of trash no mysoginy tho bruh!'

Wow this is still going

Anyway

Tao Lin is a legitimately amazing artist on many levels

He's met with much detraction because literature as a medium tends to attract a certain kind of posturing dime-a-dozen premodern romanticizing pseudo-intellectual that's afraid of any change, boundary pushing and betrays the ideals of the very same dead authors he worships

This kind of behaviour would be ridiculed in a medium like music, or fashion, where innovation, or at least distinction, are highly encouraged (not so much film, at least in america, because hollywood's grasp is too strong and native arthouse directors are shunned and ridiculed)


I get the feeling that the type of people who hate Tao Lin are the same type people who go on long tirades about 'fucking hipsters', 'fucking faggots' and label things as '''''pretentious''''

>>3323603

lol this is so sad

>>3323644
>How can a man be this fucking stupid

>I am asking if the group of people who right now makes up the proletariat would somehow lose out on something beneficial by breaking this superintendency and changing its ways

eheheehe

>>3323607
>You just don't get it

ikr

I am such a sheep

>>3323584

lol

typical middle brow hick

go read fight club or some shit

>>3323564
>will some sort of problem arise from this that cannot be addressed in a satisfying way by the proletariat?


yes
this question shouldn't even ever have to be asked

but your likening of the 'bourgeois' to the mafia already said everything about your world view

>>3323505
>Social networking misrepresents REAL human interaction.


ah

ahaha 10/10

'I want to know about humans, their nature, and the scope of the world'


'Please ommit today's biggest mean of interaction and information exchange, I don't like it'

>>3323439
>I also hate any writer who includes modern mediums and forums in their work. Twitter, facebook, msn. Fuck that, honestly. I want to know about humans and their nature and the scope of the world.
'I want to know about humans, their nature, and the scope of the world'


'But please filter out any contemporary influences'

>>3323528
>And yes, what he said was completely uninteresting, what he said after that was also completely uninteresting. Irrelevant. Meaningless


'childish question about 'proletariat' and 'bourgeois'


'l-l-l-learn about them???? read???? BAAAAAAAAAAAAW FUCK OFF'

>>3323466
>A very simple question

again

this is the problem

the answer is not 'simple'

not only are you unable to contextualize the concepts of 'proletariat' and 'bourgois', but you seem to think they're somehow inherently independent systems with just some lines of exchange uniting them

your question and follow up posts just display a boggling misunderstanding of basic social theory

>>3323429
>but you seem to be blind to the advantages of providing the poor with a meritocracy


it's funny

you think marxist diatribe is in any way meritocratic

>>3323431

so you formulate a question in the most biased way possible and the only opinion you don't want is from the person who doesn't support what your question is pandering to


lol this thread becomes more of a joke by the post

>>3323414

the awnser is that you should read some basic contemporary social theory because the 'bourgeois' and the 'proletariat' don't exist in the way you seem to believe they do

>>3323388
can't believe i forgot my cheese mouse picture

that ought to equal my shitpost's level with yours

>>3323372
>Perhaps that 'very special kind of person' is just more intelligent than you

>(...)are crippled with flawed rhetoric


>not this entire post

>>3323324
>Would it trouble you much to post some short rebuttals?


yea

if you're as ignorant on the subject as you claim to be i'll put it in baby terms

it takes a very special kind of person to adhere to marxist thought in any way in the year 2013

that person is either very ignorant or just plain stubborn

nothing i can say will that person's mind
it's funny but also very painful and sad

>>3323313
>discredit Marx

it's funny

you think he had any credit to him in the first place

>>3323300
>It's impossible to consider Marx outdated

I don't consider Marx 'outdated'

He is flat out trash

There is nothing of value to be taken from him

>Durkheim, specially, is at the verge of prehistory in sociology.

I'm suggesting you some starting literature, which I'm assuming you direly need

Work your way up from there

>>3323287
>They are incapable of truth, of looking at things straight, because doing so would dispel the illusion of everything that keeps their society together.

i wonder how people actually reads this with a straight face

>>3323273
>political nihilist? A social democrat? Fascist?

lol this board is so cute

it's as if people really think we're picking sides or rooting for a soccer team

i won't actually have a discussion with you because just reading through this thread makes me embarassed, but i can tell you a few things:

-stop salivating over useless marxist and trotskyist trash
-stop being a premodern romanticizing neckbeard
-go take some basic macro econ and econ ethics classes
-go read some durkheim, malinowski, spencer and radcliffe-browne

>>3322694
>Capitalism is the impetus for massive exploitation, degradation, and needless death.

l
m
a
o

i really wonder why people are so vocal about things they don't have the slightest clue about

this feels like the middle school a/v club trying to discuss ethics and politics