/lit/ - Literature

>>15141434

How can I make my gf a commie? She already hates Rand and capitalists. Now I just need to persuade her to see the value of marxist philosophies.

How does one discuss books with others IRL [spoilers](women)[/spoiler] without coming off as an excessively prideful incel

Write what's on your mind

I'm not sure how to get over my egirl crush

What is it like to be a chan girl? What is it like to wake up and realize that hundreds of men are thinking about you, myself included? Men thinking about caressing you, kissing you, feeling your body and holding you. And all of these are men you've never met. Do you think it stresses them out? Or is it an ego boost to know that you live literally rent free men's brains?

So the book is going to be a spoof of the Once and Future King but instead it is called the Once and Future Kang. In the book King Arthur is actually African. Would you read it?

>>14278112
Here's an exert from one of my uni history classes that I thought was alright.

This primary source is a document containing an address from a Pennsylvanian Democratic-Republican club. The address was drafted to defend the club’s critical stance of the government at the time, which was considered blasphemous by some. When this club was formed, America had become a sectionally and party divided nation. Disagreements had arisen among many groups and prominent societal figures about how the maintenance of liberty and the American experiment of self-government could be maintained. One prominent party, the Federalists, generally opposed popular democracy in which all sovereign citizens of the nation participated in the election of their politicians. They viewed the common man as prone to passions and anarchy that could potentially jeopardize the hard-fought independence that the nation had only just so recently obtained. They generally wanted America to become an industrial economic nation that could rival or potentially usurp Britain’s position as a global economic and military hegemony. They passed laws advocating for economic and tax/debt reform and supported a strong central government. They were commonly portrayed as elitists, made up of prosperous merchants, lawyers, and well-established political leaders. They were understood to be a product of the common 18th century view of society being composed of a well-defined hierarchy, with only men of moral (and) or economic fiber being fit for a position of leadership. Federalists argued for a broad usage of the constitution’s general welfare clause, which allows congress to pass laws that would benefit the people governed by the Union. The opposition to this party were the Republicans. They argued against the view that the common man was incapable of managing and cultivating a democratic system, and accused Federalists of being aristocratic tyrants who were abusing their positions of national power in the central government and reducing the power of state governments. Most were constructionists, meaning they adhered strictly to the powers granted to the central government in the constitution and argued that the general welfare clause could not be used to exercise such broad actions as the creation of a national bank and the wanton levying of taxes for public projects. Returning to the subject of the original address, the members of this club identified with Republican ideals and values and generally opposed those of the Federalists. They argued that a defense of a group’s political opinions was just as essential to the maintenance of liberty as the defense of the common man’s right to free speech, which was defended by the first amendment. They argued that only slaves are not allowed to freely express their thoughts, and that infringing upon their rights to expression could endanger the protection of liberty.