/lit/ - Literature

Somewhat on this topic. I have the opportunity to take a bath for the first time since I was very young. Being that I actually can't even remember the last time I took a bath, I, uh, am embarassed to admit I have no idea how to properly take one. Since it's basically the first time for me, I would like to make it as perfect of an experience as I can.
So, I guess I'm asking what you guys think is important to a good bath. How do you take them? Do I need to buy any special soaps or oils? What do you do while in them? Any advice, really.

Why bother suggesting things that require moderation to enforce? When in living memory have mods intervened to improve the board in any way? There have been hundreds of meta-threads and no results. Help isn't coming. The problems of the board are endemic to the site.
Think of it this way, what can regulate the behaviour of a group of autonomous agents? A few factors come to mind: reputation, shared customs, laws, convergent interests. Reputation is out the door immediately due to anonymity. Custom and mores can bind behaviour, but their effectiveness decreases in proportion to the increase of the size of a community. As a group gets larger you can no longer rely on the mechanisms of mechanical solidarity to produce like-minded individuals who will act similarly of their own volition: people of diverse interests and diverse customs come to occupy the same community, and the behavioural regulation which which was once implied must now be proscribed, through laws. But laws require enforcement, and no one enforces them here because mods and jannies don't care. The possibility of moderation through interests requires a set of incentives which can harmonise behaviour. These clearly do not exist here. In fact, there are disincentives to putting in any effort. So if all structural factors tend toward dysfunction, why be surprised by the dysfunction that results?
In the light of that, just stop worrying about the quality of the board as a whole—you're chasing a chimera. Instead, treat /lit/ like fishing: cast a line out every now and then and see what nibbles, and make the most of those few threads where you can actually have a good discussion. Otherwise, just relax and enjoy the shitposting.

>>17301327
Judging by your OP it seemed you needed it. You said Mill thought people could do whatever they want, when that isn't what he thought. I then gave you arguments from Mills mouth addressing why state enforced 'meaning in life' is inadequate, none of which you've answered or addressed.
All you have done is repeated the premise that the majority of people are both lack the actuality and the possibility of finding meaning in life without it being imposed upon them by the state. But, being a premise and not a conclusion, it requires further argument secure, which you haven't provided. If you want an argument, first you have to make one.

>>17105123
Simply be humble in your knowledge

Any recommendations for classic texts and papers in political science? And by political science i'm talking people like Kenneth Arrow, James Buchanan, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, T.H. Marshall, etc. Not kiddie shit like Clash of Civilisations or End of History. It doesn't need to be public choice dominant (they were just the names that came to mind). And not political philosophy either: so no Machiavelli, no Hobbes, no Marx, no Schmitt. I'm already well versed in that subject area. Don't try to convert me with partisan recommendations.
In philosophy there are plenty of books which collate the key contemporary papers in a particular field (Oxford Readings in Philosophy, Routledge Contemporary Readings in Philosophy, Wiley Blackwell anthology of x), but i can't find anything similar for political science. If there is anything like this it would be much appreciated (maybe it's divided into the sub-topics of polisci?).
And before you start chirping about the poverty of political science, save your breath—i don't care. We are all aware of its limitations.