/lit/ - Literature

>>20787470
kek

I'm very confused about all the summaries that describe his contents sympathetically in two paragraphs and then add one line that it's gay rehashed memery.

I think all the primitivist larping and Golden One flexing is stupid cope, so I haven't gotten around reading it - but if it has some history and some contributions on discussing the 18th century idea of Will, I'm willing to engage with it.

I also don't think it's gay to look at nice male bodies. If you're doing pullups for a year and browse /fit/ a bit, you'll also want to understand what's natty and what isn't and what you can do more to get /fit/.
Women either have good genes and shine with a symmetric face and perky big boobs - or they have bad genes and don't. Male aestetics is just more interesting, you must work beyond staying slim, and you can tune how you look.

>>13188104
Fair enough, but my as someone who doesn't read fiction likes the mods current indulgence of almost off-topic philosophy content.
Moreover, stuff like acc at least gives an aesthetic and framework for art. Unlike empty threads about Ulysses.

>18:30
>Peterson basically explains Chads to Harris
kek

>>8151954
I agree that the "nice guys" strategy to be different (nice) is indeed a strategy. One to get laid, and it's dishonest.
Nevertheless, I think there are actually a lot of nice guys among them. That is, there are naive shy lads who don't know how to help themselves and were taught to be comforting, just like they were raised intended to be like mothers.