/lit/ - Literature

>>20571564
>Do you realize how many long analyses I've written on various writers and philosophers on here whereas all you ever do is just say the same bullshit over and over again without providing any additional information?

> either characters or plot, or is it forever a braindead story for adult americans

>>20559228
>she reads college books

>I like how you were too cowardly to even reply to any of the posts you're referring to. Post your picture to prove you aren't projecting

> Time to read another book! Gotta consoom consoom CONSOOM!1!!!111!!1!!!!11!!

>writing in English
>writing prose

>What's new, Socrates,

>>19997063
>burgermutt

Will christKEKS ever recover? They just keep getting BTFO'd. Constant and repeated humiliation.

The Antichrist, paragraph 15:

Under Christianity neither morality nor religion has any point of contact with actuality. It offers purely imaginary causes (“God,” “soul,” “ego,” “spirit,” “free will”—or even “unfree”), and purely imaginary effects (“sin,” “salvation,” “grace,” “punishment,” “forgiveness of sins”). Intercourse between imaginary beings (“God,” “spirits,” “souls”); an imaginary natural history (anthropocentric; a total denial of the concept of natural causes); an imaginary psychology (misunderstandings of self, misinterpretations of agreeable or disagreeable general feelings—for example, of the states of the nervus sympathicus with the help of the sign-language of religio-ethical balderdash—, “repentance,” “pangs of conscience,” “temptation by the devil,” “the presence of God”); an imaginary teleology (the “kingdom of God,” “the last judgment,” “eternal life”).—This purely fictitious world, greatly to its disadvantage, is to be differentiated from the world of dreams; the latter at least reflects reality, whereas the former falsifies it, cheapens it and denies it. Once the concept of “nature” had been opposed to the concept of “God,” the word “natural” necessarily took on the meaning of “abominable”—the whole of that fictitious world has its sources in hatred of the natural (—the real!—), and is no more than evidence of a profound uneasiness in the presence of reality.... This explains everything. Who alone has any reason for living his way out of reality? The man who suffers under it. But to suffer from reality one must be a botched reality.... The preponderance of pains over pleasures is the cause of this fictitious morality and religion: but such a preponderance also supplies the formula for décadence....

>>19781708
> His collapse theory is retarded.

Go take your antidepressants you retarded cuck

>Why yes, I do like Allen Ginsberg, Alduous Huxley, Hunter S. Thompson, Ken Kesey, Jack Kerouac, and William S. Burroughs. How could you tell?

>>19654404
>THE DEMONYM OF UNITEDSTATES IS: «UNITEDSTATIAN».

>>19628081
>NOOO KACZYNSKI WASN'T ORIGINAL
So what faggot.

>>19586650

>logical fallacies!

>>19543643
Stalinists never show up anywhere. They're pussies like you confined to twitter. Boogs, Republicans, Libertarians aren't larping - they're defending small businesses, stopping mandates, ending CRT being taught in schools while "Stalinists" are on twitter dilating over being called the wrong pronouns. Big difference - we have guns, money and influence. You have no job, no success and no future. We are not the same. We can actually shoot, and kill, people like you. You don't even stand a chance against us.

you’re on 4chan doing the exact same thing

>>19525063
>mahayana

>In scientific terms, there is no soul, simple as that. Also, a theoretical pure human would probably not have a soul, and instead rely on cooperation and logic with no emotions needed to motivate it. I have no idea why I felt the need to add that last part but whatever.

>>19497843
…what
>pic related
It’s me reading your bullshit bot comment

>Freedom is the greatest Good!

>>19410544
>That's fine and dandy. Sifting through a mountain of shit, you discover a ruby. Doesn't mean there isn't a mountain of shit. Using your example, do you really think even 10% of anti semitic posts on /lit/ are intellectually stimulating like in your anecdote? I understand the argument you're making, but I fucking hate /pol/ after what they did to /sci/. Stupid mouth breathing retards who are vehemently anti vaxx with gigabytes of le soijack memes on their hard drives, but don't even know the basics of viral replication or half the shit they parrot (like the "negative effects of mRNA"). Every challenge to their schizo babble is answered with le_soijack_meme.png, or they defend it with an unsourced graph from 2020 or a screencap of some half-baked reply on /pol/, in typical /pol/ fashion.
>/lit/ is more resistant to this bull shit, I think. However, you can still achieve adequate gatekeeping without these braindead fucks muddying up any good conversations that take place. I think they are a net negative to every board on this site.

>>19406381
>Imagine openly discussing Reddit and Reddit culture unironically on here and admitting to browsing it too. The fuck happened to this place. Election tourists out now, you all need to go back.
>Also to the dumb asses calling this place a "working man's board". This whole site used to be the definition of white nerdy and middle class. But I'm sure since 2015 it's significantly less educated, and probably significantly more working class than it used to be ten or thirteen years ago.
>Your question OP is pointless, everything online is performative. the only difference is instead of calling someone bad faith you will all call someone the n word fifty times and call them a fed here. Twitter Reddit and 4 Chan are interchangeable at this point. They all cover the same shit and post with the same dull repetitive boring tone. Picking one of them is just going to determine how many slurs I want to see.

>hope

>>19340914
>um, nope. also, that's a bit reductionist