/lit/ - Literature

No one individual lives in a bubble. Your self interest ties into the needs of the collective as you are always part of a group. Something that harms a group you are a member of will in turn harm you, even if you do not see yourself as a member of that group or place importance on it. It is a common misconception of individualists, egoists, libertarians, etc that my views are authoritarian or restricting freedom. Instead I believe in promoting community cohesion and collective wellbeing rather than full submission to an authoritarian regime or peer pressure. I view individual and collective interests as ultimately complementary, as it is in the best interest of individuals to create a functioning society that allows for opportunity and peace for all. Even the strictest individualist still needs a positive environment and social structure that minimizes barriers for the collective group. They are still members of that society and live within its context and framework. The social contract allows them the freedom and means to achieve their desires. I am not anti-individualist, but rather I believe absolute individualism is harmful when it contradicts with the common good. It is therefore, more valuable to create a system of cooperation that produces the most benefits for all in the long term rather than one built on purely selfish motives.

>>9613428
I was only saying that that anon was representing the exemplary mentality to accept an Abrahamic worldview. Even if you aren't racist, the bible is still a book about practically all of humanity being tormented for eternity and the only way you could find this inspiring is if you imagined yourself not to be one of them, .

>>9599989
How do I know I'm not in a simulation and God is an even bigger asshole than I had previously imagined?

>>>/soc/

>>8377573
first of all, out of all of the possible meetup scenarios, an outdoor hiking meetup seems like the most sketchy imaginable; you're even driving a van. Also, considering the memes of this place, I gotta say this seems made up when you got to
>hideous nasal voice hollers

>>6697143
I'd say no, because it creates this expectation that classics are super easy to read, and many of them aren't. I think one of the main problems of the internet is it teaches people to demand content in tiny chunks, and it decreases their capacity to deal with larger and more dense pieces of content, literary and otherwise. So no, this isn't so much a good gateway to classics as an attempt to capitalize on the fact that kids on the internet have short attention spans, but also still recognize on some level the value of reading literature.