/lit/ - Literature

>>11242546
>Natural law
ohohohohohoohohoohAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>11051155
>So, you are a life denying nihilist, who doesn't play by his own rules. Since it's all so meaningless, why haven't you killed yourself already?
No, I understand the passions of a person and I find meaning in that myself. That part of my post was in reference to the post that started this whole reply chain >>11050025 as that anon says the passions of his friends are "bullshit" and "meaningless". With such an opinion as that, I responded saying any of his new aspirations that anon has are equally as meaningless (following his own logic). My point was actually rejecting nihilism, though I may have taken my rhetoric a bit too far.

>>11013386
This is a bit basic, but I'm assuming these are homework questions, so that's fine. What's the problem?

>>11015594
Racism doesn't describe intent. It describes effect. If a theory marginalizes groups, whether or not it was meant to, the theory is racist. Maybe you should take a class on critical theory senpai.

>>11015602
It's about failed scientific theories of race. The goal of the unit is (probably) to show how biases and presuppositions prevent some scientists from going where the evidence points.

Y'all got issues.

>>10350794
>I doubt he's to a good faith discussion.
Do you think he's lying or deliberately misrepresenting something? He may make mistakes (I'll argue that he doesn't, at least not that I remember in this video), but mistakes can happen in a good faith discussion.

>He mentions several times that fascism is on the rise and has morphed into a new form, and the characteristics of that new form are things which are mostly false ("toxic masculinity", "capitalism") and most of which are degree-based (you a be a little in favor or capitalism, or a lot)
I think this is a place where you and him might disagree on definition. For PhilTube, the definition of fascism might be something like "A right-wing political ideology that emphasizes the patriarchal family as the unit of civilization, and seeks to organize those civilizational units to preserve both racial and economic hierarchy." For you, what I'm getting is "A totalitarian right-wing government." I'd argue that his is more accurate, and we can go into that if you'd like.

>They are all left wing, and their symbol (red and black flag) illustrates this.
This is a common misconception. The original meaning of the red and black flag was a temporary union of anarchists and communists, true, but antifa isn't an organization. Anyone doing anything to stop fascism is an antifascist. Hell, I'm a right-libertarian, and you could argue that I'm doing antifascist activity right now, by clearing up misconceptions about antifa.

>Nazis want to limit speech to their viewpoint, but so does Antifa.
Sure, but Nazis want to ban much more of the political spectrum, and the logical conclusion of their worldview is genocide. Antifa, by contrast, aren't even all in agreement about limiting speech — some antifascists, myself included, think giving Milo or David Duke or whoever else a platform is fine, and the best thing to do is peaceful protest outside or near the event.

>If you honestly believe any of these things have been "disproven," you need to learn some basic terminology.
>Why do you say this? A lot of Marx's idea about economics, have been disproven and shown to be false.
Marx is wrong on a lot of minor points and technicalities, but the overall thrusts of his arguments (capitalism squeezes people's wages down, economic crisis is cyclical, labor makes things worth more, etc.) are correct, or at least controversial enough not to be conclusively wrong.

>Like I said earlier, act-speech or emotional speech
I'm not gonna respond to this in my current post because someone else is asking me about a similar idea. I'll lump my response to you in with my response with them. (Might be a little while, since dinner is almost ready.)