/lit/ - Literature

Why can't you write as persuasively as this man /lit?

>>4235211
Cicero may have been good in his day, but...

Huckleberry etc.

>>3979806

>>3568749
Hitchens would be better. Just to see his expression at being resurrected.

>>3414353
Trust his judgement, and question yours more.

Silly thread though. "Completely" is so absolute. I, we, admire plenty of people but can differ with them. Should this thread (or the reboot of it) focus us on specifics?
This gets us way off the topic of literature.

>>3325052
I donno man.

You'd think they'd post more Ian McKellen or something.

>>3272200
Quite.

Everyone in this thread rustling about Dawkins’ hate for the religious need to read some Hitchens.

Now there was a master of the rational argument.

Hitchens appreciation thread.

the most eloquent articulate man of all time?

Hitch-bump.

“Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for President. One hopes it is the same half.” ― Gore Vidal

Gore Vidal dreaded the idea of an afterlife, because it would mean he'd have to see Norman Mailer again.

Who but Gore could begin a discussion by saying that the three most dispiriting words in the English language were “Joyce Carol Oates”?

The New Atheism is a crock. It's an anti-culture. Repetitious band of middling rhetorical firebrands who have somehow taken hold of the middlebrow imagination with their literalism. Boring, childlike literalism. Maybe Hitchens aside, it is clear from their books that they do not read philosophy with the meanest care. Orwell was their precursor and what was Orwell but a boring class-imposter. My question is: why do so many people otherwise engaged with the height of the imagination in the Western Canon and beyond give this movement so much time, turn to it as their (anti-) spiritual guide?

>>2709352
>Christians and Jews
>2012

Why.jpg

you're in the wrong neck of the woods, boyo

Hitchens general, then?

>>2606274
I get "tfw" I think of Hitchens.

And Jim Henson

>>2517984
Agreed. This whole thread gave me cancer.

>>2499370

How very Apropos.

>>2487206
>fighting to protect men is an unnecessary battle. its like fighting to protect white people. youre only claiming to be threatened with victimisation to maintain an unequal relationship. feminism doesnt endanger men. political correctness and diversity doesnt endanger whites.
And this is my biggest problem with feminism. It simultaneously claims to want to overthrow gender roles, but then pulls out chivalrous bullshit like this when it's convenient (or more explicitly: when it doesn't help women).

Men in contemporary western society have a number of very real, very measurable disadvantages to women. Men are given heavier sentences when they commit the same crime as a woman. Men work in the most dangerous jobs and make up over 90% of workplace deaths. Men's genital are routinely mutilated at birth in western countries, resulting in the permanent loss of more nerve endings than is in the average female clitoris, while women's genitals are held sacrosanct. Men make up the vast majority of victims of violent crime. Men who are physically abused by women are completely disenfranchised and ignored by society, while women who are physically abused by men are given all kinds of attention and sympathy. Men who are victims of rape are ignored by society as well, institutional, violent rape in prison (the population of which is very predominantly made up of men) is routinely ignored, and up until very recently, wasn't even included in rape statistics.

Rarely do men live so large. How do I go about acquiring this man's lifestyle?

this is why I come to /lit/

>>2465260

this was the climactic post

everything from here is obsolete