/lit/ - Literature

Because you're only human.

They are annoying people, and when you're confronted with annoying people you want to switch off - no matter how right they are.

They are also, almost entirely, not right. Some of their criticisms make some sense within the liberal democratic mainstream, but very few. So even if you do decide to listen, chances are you'll feel the effort is wasted - discouraging you even further in the future.

And their arguments, even the ones that are correct, are inherently distasteful to right-thinking righteous men like us. Our personalities are different to theirs, so we don't value the same things they do in the same way. We are forced by our reason and our commitment to intellectual integrity to acknowledge the correctness of their rare few critiques that aren't baseless, but even having done so it's hard to be enthusiastic about beliefs you only barely tolerate and which run contrary to your every instinct. That's not hurr durr macho men are the best - they ARE right (when they're right), and the fault is with us for not internalising their correctness. But you're only human.

It's a trifecta. They're annoying people, with bad arguments, that don't feel good to believe in. But right IS right, and we must do the right as we see the right. Anything less is the moral cowardice.

>>14297499
>implying people who benefit from the hierarchy are capable of sympathising with people who suffer from it
I'm sure he can say that he does, but when the time comes for actual sacrifice he will show his true colours.

The beta uprising is a job for the betas alone.

>>12058813
What a convenient opinion for you to have.

>>12058819
Sure, but it's true.

People, most but not all, go into politics because they have strong beliefs about how things could be better and they want to seize the levers of power that would allow them to implement that vision.

The tragedy of politics isn't what goes on inside the machine, it's the people who come out the other end of it. We have built a system of politics that crushes people, and we sit there complacently like this fat turd does (>>12058813) and blame its victims.

Which isn't to say that politicians are all gud bois who dindu nuffin. In fact I hate most of them. I've seen them crying in their fucking offices like little babbies because they got a slamming in the newspapers or the almighty Newspoll. Most, but not all, are truly pathetic people - petty, arrogant, vain, etc. etc., all of the traditional vices that you would assign to the stereotypical weasel politician. But for very nearly all of them, no matter how reprehensible a human being they turn out to be, it wasn't an accident that they ended up in politics. They were inexorably attracted to the career, and it was by a force so powerful it couldn't be anything but simple.

They want to help.

It's just a shame that most of them are too incompetent and too flawed to manage even that.

I suppose what I'm attempting here is less a defence of politicians and more to say that anyone who can't even see the attraction of it - who doesn't understand why people even want power - is a person who is utterly devoid of the desire to help others. Even a fucking child can see that if you want to help people you need to have power.

Good is that which evil fears, and justice is when you make those fears a reality.

>use of italics to provide emphasis
Opinions?

Personally I think it's lazy, but it's just so /easy/ to do.

Context: "Connor" is looking at something he wants to fuck.

>Connor smiled.
>Connor /smiled/.

It packs in so much subtext that you would otherwise rely on adding with a tired cliche, like
>Connor smiled like a wolf that had sighted a deer.

Sure, if you're a good writer you don't need crutches, but I can barely walk motherfucker.

Still, it feels lazy.

Console me, /lit/.