/lit/ - Literature

>>8063474
>There is no reason to do anything but call you names.
>There is no reason to do anything but employ ad hominem.

Okay, so you already lose on the logic end of things. Maybe your rhetoric can still sway idiots, but that's not exactly a worthy goal, I should think, on the basis that it emboldens fools.

> Academics are disconnected retard
> disconnected

Which ones? In what way? In all fields of study? Just in humanities? Be specific. Couldn't non-academics hypothetically be disconnected in completely different ways than academics are?

>reading involuted nonsense peddled by losers

The above question also applies, here, my staunchly anti-intellectual friend.

> who never achieved anything in their life save for bullshitting a bunch of failed rhetoric.

I don't know of your achievements outside of this website, and am not interested in strawmanning you as some kind of loser, but you are engaging in failed rhetoric, right here.

> If you're unironically some sort of Marxist or anarchy-hyphenation whatever because you read a book by some sex fiend about how "well you know if you really think about it in theory" when it has failed every time it's ever been tried as the world is facing a very real resource crunch V. population boom in the coming decades you are a fucking retard.

Thank you for being concerned about the world. The thing about ideology and it's implementation in the real world is, is that when an ideology "fails" it's usually because of sabotage by opponents of the ideology, so that they may point, and say, "see, it fails."

Maybe an immunity to sabotage should be a part of any good ideology, but this is difficult to achieve as the methods of and motives for sabotage are numerous and evolving. If an ideology relies on everyone believing in it and collectively following its rules, then maybe it is idealistic, but I have not run into a single ideology in my life whose implementation doesn't depend heavily on widespread assent, ideal conditions, and immunity to sabotage, which things are usually inherent to the evolving situation and come from outside the ideology.

I hope you know what I mean and don't think that was a meaningless rant. It's a counter to your counter to the "never been tried" argument.

If I cannot counter your counter, what else may I do but capitulate or remain silent?

>It doesn't really matter how many hours you've spent dragging your eyes across the whining of abject losers and artists.

There's that certainty again. Why are they losers? Which ones are they? Why are they a waste of time? Besides, one might work and learn simultaneously through the aid of video and audiobooks. Philosophy and ideas (which you dismiss as whining) can be consumed via countless methods, thanks, yes, in large part to the market and the proliferation of digital consumer goods. (Doesn't mean there aren't still problems with Capitalism, or any ideology for that matter)


> doesn't entitle you to any response at all.

Clearly.