/lit/ - Literature

Do you know any examples of blatant authorial bias or paragraphs where the author is explicitly talking to the reader, whether about some experience or opinion?
Can it ever be done well?

Why do some people seriously believe they can debunk every single ideology or ethical system except their own with just rational argument (read: rhetoric)?
Take the bogus theory of white privilege for example which is parroted by every progressive individual worth a penny.
In McIntosh's essay, white privilege is clearly something that is supposed to benefit white people. Progs lap this up and use it against their conservative parents in their endless desire to exert power over the people they resent.
The problem is that all of their arguments are more or less perfectly sound within their specific, dogmatic framework. But I still do not understand, nor have they ever explained in any coherent detail, how
>seeing white people on TV
>being able to be in the company of white people
>hearing people talk of history with pictures of white people
>being stopped by a cop and ASSUMING that he did it not because of my skin color
>etc(I'm not counting the retarded equivocal examples that have to do with how much money you have)
Actually benefits me? You can dispute the premises and the facts, that's ultimately not the reason why people reject ideologies though, I think. At the end of the day, nobody actually debunks any core ideological tenents. They just reject it wholesale. And at that point, the argument either dies off or goes to the battlefield.
Am I wrong?

>>22058963
Can you stop thinking about cocks for once? (Rhetorical question)

Wtf is "life-affirming"? Does it have something to do with masturbation?

How do you write from the perspective of children? What significant difference between a child (10-12 specifically) and a teen or adult should one have in mind? Do children self-reflect as much. How do you write someone in their formative years? Am I making a problem out of nothing?

OP. I'm gonna be honest with you. There is absolutely nothing of value to be found in psychoanalysis. It's pure contrived pseudoscience

There is litetally no evidence of Hunter Gatherer societies being predominantly polygamous, genetic or otherwise.