/lit/ - Literature

>>10482801
They're the ones motivated to write philosophy. also probably easier to get published if that's more popular/something the publisher's like.

oh jesus i'm physically cringing

>>10482801

They've already written their justifications in many, many books. Try reading them?

>>10482847
ok name them
i'm a liberal but socialists and communists really trigger me honestly

>>10482856
Socialism and communism are the antithesis of true liberalism

>>10482801

"philosophers"

>>10482801
icycalm is not a hardcore leftist.

because conservatism is an inherently ignorant ideal.

>>10482801
>Existential comics
>contemporary philosopher

>>10482801

Sit down OP and I'll tell you.

I just got a publishing contract with a communist publishing country which might be worth around 10k or so.

Essentially, I don't give a shit about anything besides not wanting to blow my own brains out. I even like some right wing theory. But I want to be published so I play the "oh yes leftism cool" game.

I'm not a right winger, or I'd go to those faggots, but they're a bunch of dumbshits mostly. So here I am, pandering to communist dumb shits.

They're usually more interested in theory and delusional about being able to apply it to politics at large.

>Why are people who spent their entire life in a isolated ivy tower which exists solely because of state subsidies leftists
Gee, I can't imagine.

>>10482801
Because they aren't dumb.

>>10482948
please elaborate

>>10482963
They have high IQ.

>>10482893
>be moral
>own your own work
>ignorant

another example of why this board needs better mods

>>10482970
tfw to stoopid to be socialist

>>10482856
>SPOONFEED ME

>>10482801
they aren’t. they’re classically liberal careerist swine engaged in the work of problem invention to perpetuate their disciplines and hence the possibility of their careers

>>10482997
ok thanks for the spoonfeed

>>10482801
>not understanding that fascism was a disease of civilization

>>10482801
>reading contemporary philosophers
>going on twitter

>>10482981
>conservative
>being moral

choose one.

>>10482897
>armyguy.jpg
That's general Sherman you fucking philistine

I HEARD Y'ALL FUCK NIGGAS KEEP TALKING SHIT LIKE I WOULDN'T FIND OUT

>>10482801
What did they mean by this? Can someone walk me through step-by-step?
I literally have no idea what the twitter in the OP image is trying to express. Are they being sarcastic?

Because faculties are often more interested in getting """"""cutting edge""""""" philosophers. My old university recently hired a new associate professor, everything that she has ever published or written in the last 10 years (She's 35) is a feminist or ableist critique to continental philosophy.

>>10483096
I think they're saying that fascism could have dominated Europe but it only lost for random strategic/military reasons and not because European people were highly opposed to it.

>>10483100
Oh senpai, that's just a lie your Philosophy professors are telling you, the reason they're doing that is because the new associate professor gets paid half of tenured professors and has double the workload.

>>10482835
It doesn't matter if you had an uncomfortable skin reaction. The post is stated awkwardly and is a little bit vague, but there is a truth to it- most definitions of freedom in modern capitalism depend on a particular kind of property relation.

>>10483111
Ha that's probably true but there was a student protest at the school to hire more professors studying contemporary approaches to the humanities.

>>10482801
They're not.

>>10482801
>existential comics
>>>/r/eddit

>>10482801
Because there are no ideas of value on the Right.

Why is the existential comics guy such a faggot

>>10482801
Learn the game Anon, half of them aren't even Leftists but they position themselves to be out of convenience
The average Leftist is so stupid you can be spouting outright Fascism but once you do it in their code they celebrate you

>>10483103
But that's absolutely wrong, the Axis powers never stood a chance against the Allies. From the very outset they were massively outnumbered and outgunned. Them losing was no coincidence, it was a war of attrition and they didn't have the numbers.
Even ignoring WW2 and looking at fascism and that time period as a whole, fascism was very specific as an ideology of palingenetic ultranationalism and held sway only in specific circumstances where the social, economical and political order was coming apart at the edges. Fascism didn't lose due to 'random' reasons, it was never powerful enough to win at any point. To say otherwise is to be completely ignorant pf history.

>>10482801
>contemporary philosophers
>a literal fucking comic strip
Suicide should not just be an option, but a preference for you

>>10483147
really? that seems ridiculous

>>10483164
this twitter is just the first thing that came to my mind you autist. and reddit's badphilosophy sub which is a socialist circlejerk

>>10482856
That just means you're a gaping pussy. You will be the first to be shot in the gulag.

>>10482981
He thinks this is the conservative ideology.... sad.

>>10483116
i remember when freedom meant something else and then the capitalists renamed it. those damn capitalists

>>10483176
You reference twitter, you follow a philosophy comic strip on twitter, you reference a sub and you have the audacity to call me an autist? No for real OP go shoot yourself. Better yet, neck yourself so you can suffer.

>>10482856
Read On the Jewish Question by Marx. It's short, and it outlines the basic Marxist critique of leftism, he argues that the rights of man conflate freedom with property rights and as a consequence achieve anything but freedom.

>>10483176
why do people even go on r/badphilosophy

it's on one more level of self-parody than they think they're on

>>10483176
go back there

>>10483152
>nihilist faggot
>despites greatness and the men who made the world
>hardcore leftist bent on undermining moral values
you can't make this shit up

>>10483200
yes that's a good description of Rudolf Carnap

>>10483193
Meta discussion always attracts washouts.

>>10483075
I know that but saved it as army guy anyway because he's the default army guy if I need an army guy picture.

boom, do you feel philosophized? (i'm a professional)

>>10483187
Not exactly. The term "freedom" has always been vague as such, referring at the same time to either a state of mind or an opening of possibilities, which is valued in itself. In order to act in accordance with freedom, a concrete qualification is needed. This concrete qualification later becomes defined as "freedom", which is still valued in itself. Then later someone on twitter points out that the concrete definition is in conflict with the abstract meaning

>>10482861
One half of the antithesis, the other half being Fascism.

>>10482801
This is accidentally a good question despite OP being a faggot. I think it's because philosophy is inherently a creative enterprise. On a fundamental level, conservatives would rather things remain the same as they were in the past. It's a counter-creative drive. Usually conservative art and creative enterprises seek to glorify the past and its traditions. Most of it is a rehash of what's come before. It can still be good art or whatever, but it will be familiar.

On the other hand, anyone who is driven to create new philosophy (which is what the practice of philosophy is supposed to entail) is probably dissatisfied with the philosophy we already have. This is a more liberal tendency. It's a desire for change. Moreover, philosophy as a discipline has always taught its students to question their preexisting beliefs. Questioning dogma and tradition is another problem for conservatives. It makes them feel uncomfortable and stressed. Questioning the nature of belief itself, or the possibility of finding an objective truth (if we even know what truth is) is beyond uncomfortable to them - it's often incomprehensible.

That's not to say that conservatives never get interested in philosophy - plenty of them do - but they often will either be interested in it more as historians or in reconciling current philosophy with those pre-existing beliefs that they just can't give up.

>>10483292
yeah I understand philosophy, science and art being creative therefore liberal. But to me it seems that most contemporary bleeding edge postmodern thinkers are far left socialists because they really hate liberalism and capitalism. Maybe I'm wrong but that's my impression. And to me those political positions seem very naive and totalitarian in their final stages. Like, do they really believe that all we need is socialism, removal of borders, universal basic income and all people in the world will unite and live in peace and prosperity? I don't buy it.

>>10483157
>held sway only in specific circumstances
wow that totally doesn't apply to any other ideological system retard

>>10482801
Reading all the time generally exposes one to left-philosophy. Some people who read this literature decide they agree with its conclusions, meaning they're somewhat more left wing than the average person on average

>>10483337
>But to me it seems that most contemporary bleeding edge postmodern thinkers are far left socialists because I'm projecting my stereotyped views onto a large group of people. Maybe I'm wrong but that's my impression. And to me those political positions seem like bad things that I've been told about by the radio. Like, do they really believe in this simplified and reductive absurdity that I invented without understanding their actual point of view? I don't buy it.
inb4
>but that's what you did!
I offered some reasons to believe my point of view and provided significant caveats. You just seem to want to beat up a strawman.

>>10482856
>Thomas Paine
>Babeuf
>Proudhon
>Mazzini
>Marx
>Engels
>Bakunin
>Nechayev
>Blanqui
>Lafargue
>De Leon
>Kropotkin
>Tolstoy
>Kautsky
>Bernstein
>Lenin
>Luxemburg
>Bukharin
>Trotsky
>Bordiga
>Adorno
>CLR James
>Fanon
>Sartre
>De Beauvoir
>Camus
>Debord
>Deleuze
>Althusser
>Bookchin
>Chomsky
>Parenti
>Zizek
>Graeber
>Mark Fisher

>>10482801
Fascism lost against other european powers what's his point ?

>>10482801
Because the philosophers want a collective economy in which money is given to public services. And most philosophers see themselves as vital to the public good and thus will get more money. They are like the pigs in Animal Farm who will give themselves more money because only they are smart enough to lead.

>>10483403
Some of these are really dubious

Also a lot are pretty huge brainlets

>>10482997
>Marcuse on that
>no Bordiga or Bookchin anywhere
awful list

>>10483397
>And to me those political positions seem like bad things that I've been told about by the radio.
actually it's because my parents have lived through communism. it's simply something that doesn't work and has never worked. Only middle class college Americans think it's a good thing

>>10482801
they aren’t cons have a smaller media presence and libertarians hide in plain sight. go to UT-Austin, NC Chapel-Hill, UF, ASU, USC there’s tons of conservative, libertarian and crypto-reactionary professors of political science, economics, law, philosophy you’re just noticing the same one’s you hate over and over. Where do you think all these neat privatization, tax cut ideas came from? Your leader’s head? They’re from reactionary and conservative intelligentsia anon. They’re all well represented, crypto-fascists have been allowed to sit inside Defense, Finance, Intel, Tech for the entire post-War period. They just don’t teach you this on your cute alpha soup board because its against regime policy to let both sides of the dialectic look at each other at the same time (or to look at each other together is more succinct).

>>10483423
I mean Mark Fisher is pretty pop but he's still worth reading, especially his pretty ruthless critique of liberalism and identity politics in Leaving the Vampire's Castle

Whom on that list do you dislike?

>>10482801
I've thought about this a lot anon. While part of me wants to think that smarter people are inherently more left wing (and some shaky evidence supports this), then in every period of history the literati of every country would have been progressive. Clearly that isn't true.

My guess is that it's values.

Right wing families seem generally less tolerant of their children's decision to enter academia or study social sciences. Conservatives seem less likely to view a professorship as "real work", preferring their kids to go into business or politics or the military. Progressive families, less likely to have these particular biases, instead encourage their kids to become the next generation of philosophers or political theorists.

>>10483463
>values
you mean survival strategy

>>10482835
>right to you body
>no right to the work that body produced or to what the work that body produced was exchanged for
someone explain this to me

>>10483468
Not really. Professors and media types make decent money. It's just not as macho as being an auto parts dealer or an oilman

>>10483479
every answer you're going to get boils down to "REEEEE my imaginary right to property"

>>10483479
>if the government takes the capital your work ended up creating and you're rich, that's fine
>if the aristocracy takes the capital your work ended up producing and you're poor, that's serfdom
commies need to explain this shit

>>10483499
But property is created through labor. It doesn't just exist per se. You can't separate property from the labor used to create and refine it

>>10482997
>two marx's and two lenin's and no bakunin, proudhon or stirner
>no goldman , Chomsky or bookchin
The sneaky bureaucrat strikes again

>>10482801
All of the "fascist" dictatorships were defeated by Europeans...

>>10483516
Property is created through law

>>10483534
Maybe resources are distributed through arbitrary legal edicts, but the labor those resources require to be turned into something useful isn’t. You can't diminish that without turning people into slaves.

>>10483534
Natural law

>>10482801
>>10482835
I don't understand this. The author of EC doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.

"Capitalists" = "the property owning class"

I think he means to use the word globalist, in the Alex Jones sense; the capitalist oligarchs who wreck economies and are immune to prosecution because it would prove government's hand does not belong in the market. But a few days earlier he's railing about fascism having "lost." Fascism did not lose. It's a feature of democracy.

Pajamaboy comic artist needs to go back and read the classics. Democracy has never been easy, especially when propagandists are at work.

>>10483516
Liberals argue that if somebody uses their money to purchase some property (regardless of how this money was acquired), they deserve full access to whatever value is produced with this property, no matter who uses it.

>>10483540
>resources require to be turned into something useful

>>10483546
According to whom? If that was the case, how could societies exist without private property?

>>10483583
Forgot to attach
Bookchin's_discontent.png

>>10483540
Property isn't even an actual thing, """resources" "" are not property. the concept of property is purely symbolic.

>>10482856
>>10482861
>https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/

You have no excuse for your pseudo-liberal egotist drivel

>>10483479
>right to expropriate the work of others because they must "agree" to turn everything they make over to you if they don't want to starve, since you control all of the industrial capital which you acquired through the same process of exploitation

>>10483580
How is a collective ownership of territory more valid than private ownership and cultivation? How do you collectivize property without stealing the labor of the people who developed it? Property usually isn't useful in itself, it needs to be developed and administered.

>fascism lost
More's the fucking pity.

You know academia sucks when our dumbass president says more insightful and true things than the academics.

>>10483617
I believe in a universal right to food and shelter. I'm talking about the complete collectivization of all property, not the concept of taxation. And the thing is that communism doesn't distinguish between property owners who cultivated their own land, and rent-seekers. You're fucked regardless of whether or not your exploited other workers.

>>10483157
Uhm... Spain remained under fascist rule till the death of Franco in the mid 70ties. It was forbidden to gather and talk more than two people. Rebels were rounded up, marched into the mountains and shot. Red wine changed name to Tainted (tinto) wine cause red meant socialist. Etc etc etc.

>>10482801
Only thing that's allowed.

>>10483650
I suggest you read proudhon, what is property?
>And the thing is that communism doesn't distinguish between property owners who cultivated their own land, and rent-seekers.
that is what happens under bureaucratic control it has nothing to do with communism, the exact same thing applies to private property in US law.
Also pretty please read bookchin

>>10483660
>Franco
>fascist

Franco was a garden variety conservative, he only adopted the trappings of fascism to give his regime popular legitimacy. There were dozens of caudillos just like Franco in Latin America, and we don't describe them as "fascist."

>>10483650
>I believe in a universal right to food and shelter.

but what if no one wants to grow food or build homes

>>10483676
>what is property?
Just because you can deconstruct the concept of property to be nothing more than the power to control territory by force (which I would argue is part of the inherent human psychology, and relates to tribalism), doesn't mean that the cultural legal systems that developed to legitimize ownership aren't valid.

>that is what happens under bureaucratic control it has nothing to do with communism
Communism is synonymous with bureaucratic control. You can only distribute wealth if a central authority is in control said wealth. Voluntary communism is a laughable concept.

>>10482801
i believe it is because that hardcore leftist are the only ones who buy contemporary philosophy. those of a right wing nature tend to just go for the classics instead of anything new. and those who would produce said content are less inclined to because they have bills to pay.

>>10483676
and to achieve communism a bureaucratic state must be established as long as necessary. until either the state eventually regress to a point where it must be re implemented when society reforms into what it was that led to a supposed need for communism in the first place. or its aims are never achieved at it just exists as means into itself.

>>10483709
those legal systems are only valid if there is force to back them up. it is the force that makes those legal systems valid.

>>10483705
You can incentivize people to do that by using the wealth generated through taxation. But to me these are competing rights. The right to not be a slave supersedes the rights to food and shelter. The latter rights only apply to countries that can afford it, unfortunately.

>>10483337
>Like, do they really believe that all we need is socialism, removal of borders, universal basic income and all people in the world will unite and live in peace and prosperity?

This will never happen. Too many assholes will insist on fucking it up in the name of personal gain. Just like you will never be happy cause assholes around you will always fuck up your peace. But that dont mean you shouldnt strive for it.

>>10483733
This. I'd rather to have a failed revolution than to live like a slave to the capitalists.

>>10483727
>those legal systems are only valid if there is force to back them up. it is the force that makes those legal systems valid.
"Valid" is a cultural concept. The force makes it true in a literal and objective sense, but the philosophical justifications that our culture developed in order to legitimize the concept of ownership aren't invalidated by the fact that force is required to defend them.

>>10483733
The problem is that if you want to make basic needs met for everyone on the planet (i.e. you want literally everyone to have food, shelter, clothing) and if you even want to take it further and provide things like education, you are going to have to basically force people to work for this goal. You will need the labor and sacrifice of pretty much everyone to ensure that the entire world's needs are met.

Someone wants to invent some cool gadgetry? Someone wants to work on making a fun video game? Can't let them do it, they have to work for the betterment of mankind! You may have a noble goal but it quickly turns authoritarian when the goal can't be met by simply asking for volunteers.

>>10483813
see>>10483616

RTFM then make a proper argument against it

>>10483813
The problem of shelter is tough when it comes to the third world, but agriculture has gotten to the point where universal access to sustenance doesn't really require any coercion. If people are starving, it's government incompetence that's to blame.

>>10483843
This is very very true. BUT. I live in a so-called third world country. The problem of shelter is due to govt incompetence too. And everybody from the country side wanting a piece of the shiny apple they believe the capital is. In Accra we get thousands coming here everyday from the rural regions thinking they can make it. Just like the american dream. They end up sleeping in the street and begging. Or prostituting themselves. Or stealing. Or scamming foreigners. And by virtue, the takers are more honorable than the beggars. Just like Oscar Wilde says. But none of you faggots bother to read...

>>10483660
>Red wine changed name to Tainted (tinto) wine cause red meant socialist. Etc etc etc.
Lol no. Thats not the reason its called tinto.

>>10483879
Enlighten me oh great sage. I lived there half my life

>>10483761
how can something be "valid" if it is not true in a literal and objective sense? the cultural interpretation of those property rights is a framework for the use of force. if that culture was not adhered to and the force was still present those property rights would still exist, as property rights are a by product of force.

>>10483843
sustenance can go on until it eventually reaches a point when people are constantly getting less where those who require more and "deserve" more will not get it, should those who will not work be sustained and essencially be rewarded for sloth.

>>10483889
Tinto comes from latin. Tingere means to dye. Tincto is the participle.

>>10483890
>those who require more and "deserve" more will not get it
I require 15 whores at my disposal and a 12 inch cock. I blame liberal pomos for taking away my priviledge

>>10483948
And taint is the english derrivate. Red wine was called vino rojo (wine red) before Franco. He banned the word.

>>10483952
then go at get them. im not endorsing equality or any of that shit. acquire bitches and money to surgically enhance your penis. if can get it its all yours.

>>10483958
Any source on that? I mean we also say "Vinho tinto" in Portuguese. It's more likely to be a language thing than an outright ban.

>>10483890
>how can something be "valid" if it is not true in a literal and objective sense?
Because the concept of a cultural truth and an objective reality don't often coincide. Most of our ethical framework is based on assumptions that aren't based in an objective reality, or even human psychology. There's literally no natural reason to not exploit people who you can get way with exploiting, but that doesn't make the ethical concerns over doing so invalid.

>sustenance can go on until it eventually reaches a point when people are constantly getting less where those who require more and "deserve" more will not get it
People aren't entirely motivated by food. First of all, we can now produce enough food to take care of the daily caloric intake of the entire planet, so it's not a material issue. And second, people will still strive regardless of whether or not their basic survival concerns are taken care of. It's not like middle class Americans and Europeans refuse to want to better their conditions.

>>10482801
Leftists love to circlejerk enough to feed an industry.

>>10484107
>Most of our ethical framework is based on assumptions that aren't based in an objective reality, or even human psychology.

it absolutely is. those assumptions are arrived at from common conclusions of human behavior and observation and shape attitudes around it.

>we can now produce enough food to take care of the daily caloric intake of the entire planet, so it's not a material issue

for now. it cant go on forever with population growth. it gets to a point when food for all is impossible. even before that point people strive for more. they wont be content with the minimum. it will fail.

>>10482970
uh, IQ's just a social construct...right?

>>10484188
>those assumptions are arrived at from common conclusions of human behavior and observation and shape attitudes around it.
The "is" is objective, the "ought" is culturally-constructed based on the universalization of in-group human preference.

>It cant go on forever with population growth.
Population concerns are a 70s myth. The population with plateau at around 9-10 billion, and then contract. That contraction is a big concern for the social security systems of many European countries.

>>10484252
>The population with plateau at around 9-10 billion, and then contract

That's just a guess with very little to back it up. What if niggers don't stop popping babies at the rate they are now

>>10484264
There's a study by the UN and it's the consensus of most people who study this. Even Muslims and Hispanics have few children when they become middle class.

>>10484278
Again merely a hope, we have an extremely short history industrial populations on which to base these models on.
In animal tests at least populations with the growth pattern we are experienced never reach natural equilibrium. Exhaustion and total decline is the rule without intervention

>>10483479
You honestly think your boss didn’t have to stick his neck out to create the conditions that even allow you to “sell your labor?”

>>10484302
No intellectual labor and risk doesn't real

>>10484298
Even if that were the case (which i'm not conceding), how is that relevant to the discussion? Just because at some future hypothetical time it might be impossible to feed the entire world's population doesn't mean that that's the situation we're in right now.

>>10484302
No, that's not what i'm saying. "Work" in my post includes mental and administrative labor

>>10484278
>Blacks
>Middle Class

pick one tripfag

the "debunking" of the population "myth" in the 70s was based on universe 25. a situation with , provided accomodation and unlimited food. a system you have advocated for i might add that leads to degradation, sexual deviancy, cannibalism and many more bizarre behaviors.

>>10484307
>doesn't mean that that's the situation we're in right now.

But it might be. Soil exhaustion in particular is an understated danger and historically the ruin of all fallen civilizations from the Mayans to Mesopotamia.
I don't know about you but I will be very vigilante over the coming decades as to where, materially, my family get their bread and butter from.

>>10483479
rights are a spook

>>10484313
What is a conflict scenario where the current state of affairs becomes objectionable to you? Even in the case of intellectual/creative labor, I think it’s fair for the people who pay to distribute and advertise the created works to take a cut (in the example of publishers)

>>10484319
>people should starve right now because of some unproven concern I have over something i'm not an expert in
okay

>>10482801
The Philosophers of the Time are always reactionaries. Generally speaking, Postmodernism reacted to Modernism reacted to the Enlightenment and so on and so forth. But there are gradations, where one man rejects a portion of the previously accepted Orthodoxy, then another man goes a bit further in his rejection, until eventually someone proposes something sufficient to stand on its own without reference to previous ideas.

Right now we are transitioning from Postmodernism, which claims to be split between Continentals and Analytics; they are different precisely in the opposite way Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are different. Those two were similar in form but opposed in content, while Postmodernism's twins are different in form, but aligned in content. We are transitioning to something currently termed a Dark Enlightenment, an Enlightenment which realizes we have simply been going in a circle. This movement is broadly right-wing, as all notions of repetition really are.

To give you an idea of the trend, we find some Postmodern philosophers who tend to be more right-wing than we expect from that group. Deleuze, although the writer of a work such as Anti-Oedipus, marries, rejects an beauty in mental illness, keeps distinct philosophy, art, and science, and most importantly rejects Psycho-Analysis. Zizek, a Communist, begins to appear sympathetic to Trump, and suggests Bernie-bros ally with the Alt-Right. Both return from Postmodernism into Idealism. This trend is inevitable, as man seems to always be dissatisfied with his current arrangement.

>>10482801

The vast majority of contemporary philosophers graduated from a university

>>10483075
Sherman was a guy in the army tho

>>10484326
Not people, niggers who are not currently self sufficient should not be artificially sustained and allowed to grow their populations further.
You're a lunatic if you do not see the vicious cycle in avoiding the Malthusian process

>>10484322
My post was about the double standard in leftist rhetoric when it comes to complete sovereignty over one's own body. Their argument applies to things like abortion, sexual choice, and drug use, but it doesn't apply to the labor that body produced, or the contracts people consent to.

>>10484345
IS A MAN NOT ENTITLED TO THE SWEAT OF HIS BROW!?

>>10482801
>Europeans act smug about defeating their own failed ideology
>Meanwhile Arabs and Africans are content with blowing eachother up, and we're somehow supposed to invite these people into our homes

ralely fmaed me thnkkiing much

>>10484318
>>10484341
>black children should starve because I don't want Africa's population to grow
I don't have the stomach for that, sorry. Maybe it's a weakness on my part.

>>10484352
Really shitty game

>>10483292
>This is accidentally a good question despite OP being a faggot.
It's weird how /lit/ acts so smug about their more "patrician" board culture. It's like... do you guys not remember how it's just sort of an accident that OP asked a good question?

>>10484367
>Maybe it's a weakness on my part.

It is. Its not even a question of wanting niglets to starve, its that saving them now will just result in their ten children starving later.

>>10484388
The 10 children starving is a hypothetical; the one child starving now is a reality that we can actually see.

>>10484394
I won't pretend the dilemma is an easy one. My only real contention is that we know for sure right now that Africa's population is growing at an absurd rate, that's just the fact of the moment. While those future children starting is a hypothetical so too is your notion that this current growth will naturally decline in any suitable time.

>>10483147
lol

>>10484394
that is what people have been saying for 30 years

>>10483152
oh god wow like who the fuck cares about this

why would you even post this or think it's funny

>>10484398
Levels of certainty are what matter here. Definite suffering should take priority over potential suffering if the possibility of that potential suffering occurring is below a certain level of probability.

>>10483292
liberalism is a specific political ideology and many conservatives these days are liberal (the entirety of america is founded on it despite them not having a fucking clue what the word means), it doesn't mean "wants change"

>>10482801
Because perpetuating the status quo is easier than developing new concepts.

>>10484473
Words change their meaning retard, get over it

>>10482801
are they?

>>10484465
Personally I think in matters of ecology like this any policy should be oriented around long term sustainability not immediate utilitarian accounting.
Otherwise its always going to be the current moment vs the hypothetical until it's too late and we have a deathscape and hordes of refugees that makes current problems look like nothing.
Mind I see this as inevitable result of the current world order.

>>10484478
>Because perpetuating the status quo is easier than developing new concepts.
>Conservatives are the true progressives the whole time
fuck right off

>>10483749
You obviously don't have any children.

>>10483730
why stop at food and shelter? why not say every person is entitled to have every demand fulfilled at the expense of the taxpayer? you use a deontological concept like rights but then engage in relativism (this only applies to the West) and then you arbitrarily say one right is more important to another without any stated reason other than.... feels?

>>10484497
>Conservatives are the true progressives the whole time
what gives you that idea?

>>10484504
>why stop at food and shelter? why not say every person is entitled to have every demand fulfilled at the expense of the taxpayer?
because food and shelter are fucking necessary tenets of survival, moron.

>>10484508
How much food, what sort of shelter

>>10484506
This is not my idea.
The order of events are as follows:
OP posts: "why are the vast majority of contemporary philosophers hardcore leftists?"
>>10484478 responds: "Because perpetuating the status quo is easier than developing new concepts."
Therefore the logical conclusion is that this person is arguing that leftists "perpetuat[e] the status quo", leading to the further conclusion that he believes that it is the conservative ideology that is prone to "developing new concepts"

>>10484508
What's the principle here? Survival for the largest number of people at any cost? How did you come to such a conclusion?

>>10484524
I wrote >>10484478, and I'm still wondering what would lead you to the assumed conclusion that
>it is the conservative ideology that is prone to "developing new concepts"

>>10484331

>>10482970
>>10482948

daily reminder to be extremely suspicious of anyone telling you that they should be allowed to achieve their ends without any restriction on the means

>>10483612

Property is anything that one individual or entity is able to deny to others. If someone walked into your room and picked up the computer that you typed that post with and walked out, what just happened?

Property rights are protected because it is the baseline principle for law and order. Without those, a society cannot exist. A society in which the state does not protect the right of property becomes a society which is ruled by the principle of Might makes Right. Ownership of property is determined by force. If the state does not protect property, the individual, or associations of individuals, will. That association, or one like it, will eventually establish dominance (even if it takes a thousand years) and then become a state, which will protect property rights unless it wishes to collapse like its distant ancestor.

This is why there has never been a propertyless society in all of human history.

Ask yourself, was anybody allowed to take Comrade Stalin's car for a spin if he felt like it, or just waltz into his palace and drink his liquor or smoke his cigars? No, that would mean a slow painful death. Perhaps the Soviet serf had little to no property that could not be taken away by a policeman or a party boss without the faintest hope of legal recourse, but that is because he himself had been reduced to the status of property, owned by the state which was owned by the party.

>>10483534

The right to one's property is defended by law. The property itself is a product of labor, even if that labor is the wielding of the spear which won the land for your descendants. The purpose of property rights is to minimize violence. This is in fact the primary function of all law, no matter how inherently violent the society it strives to govern may be.

>>10483588

They can't.

>>10482801
...Existential Comics...
>Contemporary philosophers
>Hardcore Leftists
They're neither.

property is necessary for man's happiness

>>10484556

Yes, this was my point. Universities are factories for producing leftists. Anyone who has attended university and left it with anything other than a low regard for academia as such most likely lacks the critical thinking skills required to understand that they have been indoctrinated.

>>10484524

21st century western leftism is a very narrow ideology. The list of ideas which it rejects outright is far longer than those which it endorses. Defining "that which is not 21st century western leftism" as "conservative" is, at best, idiotic.

>>10484581
You either went to the wrong major or you're just regurgitating right wing talking points.
I had one philosophy class that tried to feed me that shit out of an entire semester and that was the entirety of it

>>10484508

from whence does the "right" to "survival" derive

>>10484597
From God or the molecule in your brain that fires off when you feel empathy. That is, if you stopped being edgy

>>10484595
in law, there's a huge problem with every professor being left-leaning

for example, at georgetown there are only 3 right-leaning faculty members (lawrence solum, randy barnett, and evan bernick) and that is one of the most conservative law schools

harvard has similar numbers

>>10482801
Because intelligence and compassion naturally lead one to the left. The right is the way of the ignorant and wicked.

>>10484595

My particularly favorite example is the advertisement for a "Queer Marxism" course in the history department, featuring a drawing of Castro and Guevara locked in a passionate kiss. The fact that Guevara believed homosexuals should be put to death, evidently, was unknown to the professor who commissioned the piece.

My Intro to Biology class consisted of
>overpopulation is a terrible problem, but only in aging first-world nations
>race does not exist, now we move to the study of the grey spotted manitee which is a subspecies of the manitee despite having solely cosmetic differences
>look at this woman you've never heard of, she kind of did a thing one time, but never got any credit for it until now

In the English department:
>Feminist perspective on X (literally anything, from Chaucer to Beowulf to Ulysses)
>Marxist perspective on X (again, no matter what the work in question was)
>Theory of the Novel was half Marxist (self-described by the instructor) and half Freudian
>Televisual Literature examined The Wire from a Marxist perspective
>My intro to English teacher in my second semester was a grad student whose primary interests were Marxist Criticism and "Queer Theory" (this was in 2010 in a conservative state; to this day I do not know what "Queer Theory" entails)
>I was required to take African American poetry to fulfil my "Multicultural Credit"
>The professor informed the class that opposition to Obamacare was inherently racist, assigned poems about abortion rights and how great atheism was and inadvertently led me to discover that most black poets, going back to WEB DuBois, were open communists; his radicalism actually drove several black students into the "reactionary" faction that formed at the back of the class

>German language classes helpfully informed me that "Die Pille" was the foundation of women's liberation

>half of the students were chad fratboys and stacy sorostitutes, the other half were walking talking /pol/ caricatures of tumblerites raving about privilege in the halls between classes

>in my last year, 2015, I received an email inviting me to a Social Justice Workshop for all majors

This was all *before* university riots became an everyday occurrence. I'm glad I got out when I did.

>>10484496
What exactly are you sustaining by refusing to feed people? Overpopulation resulting in ecological collapse is an uncertain hypothesis. People starving to death is a reality. The ritual sacrifice of black children in order to ensure healthy agriculture is barbaric in an almost literal sense.

>>10484581
They're using their positions as the gatekeepers of meaningful employment as a way to turn all industries to the left.

>>10484640
No, it's not.

>>10484617
maybe left-aligned solutions seem more appropriate for those who give it the biggie think for a living? why is it impossible for them to see it as a more optimal solution for the coming horizon of civilization (if we're to make it out alive, better than before, with more potential etc etc)

>>10484568
leftists use the word property differently from fucking poltards

>>10484640
>barbaric in an almost literal sense.
The post-war human-rights era we live in has no conception of barbarism. Through our prioritization of "humanity" (whatever that is supposed to mean) we have lot all concept of civilization.

>>10484641
t. someone who will never actually test themselves against the academic ladder to see if their regurgitated YouTube-clickbait-fueled opinion is based on reality

Sigh

Because leftism is equated with intelligence for some reason. It's probably a dumb conspiracy by evil forces to force atheism down our throats.

But you're stuck between a rock and a hardplace because once you accuse the left of this state of mind they think you're right.

But I'm religious and choose to abstain from the political paradigm, because it's all a bunch of bullshit where the leaders don't care about the civilians. Not like how they used to in ancient times.

>>10483103
He's talking about the ideology, not the axis. If Nazi Germany didn't invade Poland, who knows what could've happened in the rest of Europe/America with their own fascist parties?

>>10484604

Nature certainly recognizes no right to survival. Quite the contrary. Neither does God. And if empathy is nothing but a meaningless biological phenomenon, then it is in fact meaningless.

>>10484670
Or even really half a century ago.

It's really gotten bad.

>>10484668
Practically everyone is funneled into a university today (myself included), I know very few people who have no experience with these institutions.

So stop patting yourself on the back for attending one.

>>10484679

This, the most brain-dead (and mot common) argument against the perception of academia as institutionalized leftist indoctrination is "lel u never even went to school I bet XDDD"

>>10482801
Everything this guy "responds to" is an imaginary straw man. What European is publicly smug about being European? One who wants to get arrested or banned from Twitter?

>>10484679
do you actually think completing undergrad with a sprinkle (or even major, ffs) counts as testing the academic ladder? It is no big secret that college is a herding mechanism for young kids conditioned to not question educational institutions, and the shit has been noted since the early 90s at least.

Im not patting for attending. Im saying if you dont understand academia as a professional pursuit, dont pretend like you do and blame it on the Lefties/Commies/Jews/Man-Behind-Curtain. You haven't tried.

>>10484694
I have two theories:
One is that those who make this claim are the rural and suburban retards from towns backwards that a high school graduate attending university is a genuine rarity.
The other is that it's a way to relieve the cognitive dissonance derived from supporting (and benefiting from)both far-left ideologies and institutions so elitist that they've rendered the US and UK practically undemocratic.

>>10484719
>Im not patting for attending. Im saying if you dont understand academia as a professional pursuit, dont pretend like you do and blame it on the Lefties/Commies/Jews/Man-Behind-Curtain. You haven't tried.
I don't really see why this matters. I've had my own experiences with such an institution and the experiences others have had with them have seemed to have proven my point. I don't need to try and get an academic job to discern that people are making deliberate decisions to propagate specific brands of leftism to the next managerial class of any given country.

>>10484679
They're not gatekeepers if there is no gate to keep, or persons being kept from the gate. The function of "gatekeeper" and the fact of being outpublished and outpopulated are two different things. Go get a masters, PhD, whatever, and change academia. There are schools and institutions waiting for concise and groundbreaking indictments of the system you say is so "Left." Do it. Or will you blame the Jews and pretend like you were doomed from the start so you can feel good about dropping out for vocational training?

Not that vocations are bad in themselves, btw.

From his most recent comic:
"Unlike these historical and philosophical definitions, the term "postmodernism" is used by many far right pundits as a sort of boogeyman. What they mostly mean by it is some sort of Marxism (who was a very modernism thinker, in that he thought the material dialectic was the Grand Narrative of history), or more vaguely, anyone who is at all to the left of them is an irrational "postmodernist". These people generally advocate for a return to "reason" or "rationality", which somehow always equates to more concentrated power in the hands of people exactly like themselves. They ignore, of course, that no one in history has advocated for being against reason, only for understanding what reason is, and how it operates in our culture today. Of course, they don't care about any of these philosophical debates, they just want to reverse the tide of feminism or whatever. Well, tough luck for them, because it isn't going to happen."

>>10484736
>people are making deliberate decisions to propagate specific brands of leftism to the next managerial class of any given country

its basically tin foil hat at this point. "brands" of "leftism" as if these are some super-coherent prepackaged mentality-kits.

I also wonder if you're one of those people that believes "college doesnt do no real learnin 4 u (unless STEM)!!" while also thinking leftysoycuck undergrands have full and practical fluency in Marxist / Communistic / leftist theory.

>>10484738
These institutions have such a strong symbiotic relationship with the upper class that they're not going to change from the inside. The only thing that really could do it is a mass anti-academia movement, and that isn't going to happen because these institutions are the only means of economic mobility and the avoidance of menial labor for the vast majority of people.

>>10484677
God does, in a sense.
I'm not a theist tho so I'm not going to argue that point further

Rights are a social construct that is built off a biological one.
You could say your right to a shot at life stems from the aggregate effort of all of your ancestors, as well as those of your kin who worked together to form a society.
You would therefore have a duty to participate in that society in order to continue this chain.
It is a duty paid by society to give rights to society.
The reason you may pay more in duty than your fellow man is so that if you or your offspring fall down to the point of being useless there is a bedrock from which to build again, thus ensuring society doesn't descend into egoism and anarchy.

>>10484750
He's not wrong about the flattening and oversimplification of the term "postmodernism" at the hands of people on the right, but the implication that postmodernists somehow want something other than
>more concentrated power in the hands of people exactly like themselves
is pretty funny.

>>10484636
I just finished a bachelor's degree in English in October, and I can confirm your account. However, I found that reaffirming patriarchal or historically dominant ideologies was usually met with praise and good grades. I ended up graduating with high honours and received a medal for being the most distinguished graduate in the humanities. During my time, I would rarely parrot such opinions and favoured an approach of historical relativism that supported the views of "problematic" authors like Alighieri or Dickens. I wrote essays comparing Frankenstein's monster to Elliot Rodger, spat in the face of Margaret Atwood, condemned the inclusion of different languages appearing for "authenticity" as cheesy, praised the Biblical patriarchs in a novel that ironically depicted Satan as the transgender lover of Ham in the Noah's ark myth, etc.

I was also among only a handful of male English students, for my first two years, the only male student. It's rough, but I think one can still achieve and express themselves away from postmodern indoctrination.

>>10484757
>These institutions have such a strong symbiotic relationship with the upper class
I'll grant it

> they're not going to change from the inside
how would they change if not from the inside. also: they're literally already changing from the inside as the death thralls of critical-theory fetishism show its being outpublished, outfunded by alternatives.

>The only thing that really could do it is a mass anti-academia movement
lack of imagination, at least for internal change. anti-academia will be an outside movement of stone-throwers, always.

>that isn't going to happen because these institutions are the only means of economic mobility and the avoidance of menial labor for the vast majority of people
just absolute conjecture. MAYBE you can relate this to administrative bloat (by all means, pop that shit), but not for publishing professors. I'm at a research-1 institution tho so maybe Im spoiled, but I'd venture that professors are, for the most part, smart enough to warrant their positions.

>>10484773
Boom, this is what Im trying to say. The people that doom themselves into this "university only 4 lefties" conspiracy are just making excuses for not having produced anything to contest the paradigm.

Props to you man, congrats on graduation and hell yeah to making your words into an excalibur

>>10484788
Thanks for the congratulations. I think when it comes to the leftist domination in secondary education, there's at least truth in that it is what the academia presents. There wasn't anything on the "old white men" of English until my fourth year. The vast majority of novels that I studied were by female authors, and there was particular praise for Atwood, Austen, and anything written in the last forty years. Books were chosen based on the appearances of various ethnicities and favoured female perspectives in the narrators. A class on Canadian literature, for example, would not look into characters and cultures surrounding European migrants, or even relationships with the United States. Instead, one would learn about how Asian, African, or South American migrants responded to a "multicultural society" that more than often was exclusively for whites. If you were going to university and were hoping to be presented with various perspectives, you'll be disappointed. There is not a student audience or an instructor desire for a class on right-wing politics unless it is a harsh criticism. But, I don't think that you'll be silenced if you choose to study and discuss such things in your own work. Most kids are lefties, and university is for kids, so the university is a leftist environment. My elderly, male professor for a class on British literature handed out copies of Das Capital he edited himself.

That said, I think it can change based on the instructor. The real issue is whether your university is teaching applicable skills you couldn't just learn in the free market, and whether it's left or right media that you're consuming, I think you'd learn the same skills in any English class.

>>10484624
This. It's no accident that /lit/'s decline has coincided with the influx of rightists.

>>10484624
I'd believe it, but the problem is just that leftist systems are oppressive in their self-righteous dealings. I think that a deeper level of intelligence and compassion would lead one to religious enlightenment, and would allow them to achieve greater wealth in a right-wing economic system, while still participating kindly and generously in society.

Ebenezer Scrooge for example doesn't quit his business or hand it over to the state, he simply learns to treat his employees with consideration.

>>10484738
>its basically tin foil hat at this point. "brands" of "leftism" as if these are some super-coherent prepackaged mentality-kits.
Brands was probably the wrong word. I should have said brand as the competing strains have have been pushed into a single coalition by one force: intersectionality. It also helps that its standardized the discourse to the point where it's capable of being fully packaged and delivered to undergrads. It's critics are either so tepid or so fringe that they're practically irrelevant.
>I also wonder if you're one of those people that believes "college doesnt do no real learnin 4 u (unless STEM)!!"
Not at all. If it were financially viable, I'd enroll in a humanities program right now. I also find most STEM students insufferably dull (this especially goes for those in engineering or CS).
>while also thinking leftysoycuck undergrands have full and practical fluency in Marxist / Communistic / leftist theory.
They learn enough of it to make to drag their workplace a little bit further to the left, and that's what matters.
>Or will you blame the Jews and pretend like you were doomed from the start so you can feel good about dropping out for vocational training?
I may have many faults, but I'm not an antisemite. I also didn't drop out even if I do feel that my field of education amounts to little more than a vocation that for some reason requires a bachelor's degree.
>>10484775
>lack of imagination, at least for internal change. anti-academia will be an outside movement of stone-throwers, always.
I don't like violence. But Certain schools have such a stranglehold over the population that I find it hard to sympathize.
>I'm at a research-1 institution tho so maybe Im spoiled, but I'd venture that professors are, for the most part, smart enough to warrant their positions.
I never claimed they weren't intelligent. I think they are exceedingly so. If they weren't this wouldn't be much of a problem.

>>10482801
Because reality has a liberal bias

>>10484803
Ah, rough and familiar situation. Though my uni is insulated from the worst of it, there is this weird and fabricated nostalgia for some Land Before Whites. Mainly in critical theory, intersectionality, diversity training, etc. is this thought that cultural omnipotence can be spoonfed through a shallow misreading of German and French philosophy. Ironic, really.

Definitely seems that the only way to suck the juice out of university is to find your own questions and tunnel towards them. The institution gets in the way of itself; I extract less from great professors because some airhead wants to go on a speech about how Heidegger should be discounted bcz Nazi (almost literal).

Just venting now desu

>>10484821
Reality has more of a Stirner bias, honestly.

>>10484826
Certainly it seems there isn't much difference regardless of where you go. We'll both be writing essays, create a few works of creative literature, but the mechanical skills are at the heart of it all. I've seen a bit of that "Land Before Whites" in my time, though I was more often exposed to the "Land Under Whites." As though white authors were engaged in a conspiracy to conceal the phenomenal talents of thousands of ethnic authors who nobody even saw. Kind of like that whole, "Shakespeare was illiterate, a 10-year-old African immigrant wrote all of his works and never made a penny." So instead of getting an education with relevance to classic professionals in the field, everything was brand new. Personally, I still prefer the "understand our history, so that we can know what direction we should go" approach, but I don't begrudge my time.

My main problem was the female students who wanted to be young adult authors or the like, so it was hard when class discussions would boil down to being insufferable because interesting, well-developed, and complex male characters like Henchard from the Mayor of Casterbridge are derided and unappreciated because they were essentially "undate-able" to the women in the class. Not to mention all of the poetry I had to read about lesbianism, unreliable boyfriends, transgenderism, motherhood, and so on.

Do you have any experience with creative or imaginative writing classes? At my university, there was an application process but half of the women could barely write out a proper paragraph.

>>10484819
>first point (well phrased btw)
I really agree with this. I think they've essentially tried to mechanize discourse in the same way that analytics tried to mechanize philosophy, if that stretch makes sense. This concoction of discourse-theory is just pathetic recombination and fluffing, but I think this is a plight of language at the hands of convenience-gratification culture (not left theory).

>second point
ayyeee you and me both. switched from CS to PoliSci, and even still I'm unfaithful as I only write and read philosophy lol. My sympathies 2 you, I shouldn't have been so harsh

>third point
they vomit up a very select (and thin) chain of quips that really dont get them farther than being the hated person at the dinner table. But I might be lucky, as Im realizing that the DNC chair election was populated by a lot of these people...(prime content if u wanna get angry)

>fourth point
I mean "blame the Jews" abstractly, as in hoisting personal inadequacy on some grand mechanism set against you (which is the essence of antisemitism). I had my time of blaming the Jew, so to say. Took me a while to call out my cowardice. Really, I'm projecting because I let myself do that on the internet

>fifth point
we both have no sympathy for academia, even with our differences in theory-opinions

>sixth point
cerebral labor has its stratum just like menial / physical / logistical labor. Some change thought, some pump out 1 bad book about impractical theory. I just try to not discount academic work simply because its not of Einsteinian proportions. I used to do that, but it was really just self hatred that I wasn't one-upping Platos dialogues.

>>10483534
>Property is created through legal fiction
FTFY

>hardcore leftists
>posts liberals
Come on, I'm sure you can find better than this

>>10484814
>kindness can solve inherent flaws in the system
Maybe because Scrooge was taught to be charitable the whole night, not to read the Soul of Man under Socialism. Which you should to.

>>10483147
Sure there are, it is just hard to convert those values from dollar amounts

>>10483534
But the very first instance of property is my own body, which all people inherently recognize as nobody is willing to allow their PROPERTY [read: body] be used by other people as though it's some kind of communal resource.

All other property just comes from mixing things I create into unowned objects (such as when I create MY labour using MY body and mix that with wheat to create MY FIELD OF WHEAT!), or from trading things I own for other things (such as when I trade my labour through time for an hourly wage).

>>10484836
I was struck dumb by how far simple mechanical refinement took me. I had a similar moment in music when I played, but feeling that gear-shift in language was something else entirely. Unlocked so much, separated me from so much, gave me truer eyes for quality (I hope).

YA hopefuls..YA literature...best described as an actual level of hell lol. I've had similar experience. So tough to see a good piece go unappreciated, like seeing a dumb cow unconsciously graze a fine meal.

Are you doing grad school?

>Do you have any experience with creative or imaginative writing classes?
No, to my detriment. I'd love to hear your experience with them / those applications if there are any nuggets you want to pass on. I have another year in undergrad with a lot of freedom...I'll likely take one if I can!

>>10484836
I got into a selective creative writing course. I forget what the title was for it. Most of my classmates were women and I didnt sense what you are referring to. Maybe once or twice actually. There was one girl who once critiqued my story for describing a female character as wearing a summer dress. She said it wasnt called that or something like that, and made a comment about how men never get those kind of details for their female characters. It turns out later that that was what it was called. Bit of a stretch for what you are referring to though.

Main thing I remember from that course besides my own work was this one dude who was obsessed with Pynchon. He wrote this short story about a hippie-dropout-burnout trail blazer up in some forest whose coworkers were all in cahoots with the cartel.

The story ended with this one coworker filling a river full of purple slime that he believed would weaponize nature so that it could fight back against humanity. All the animals ended up dying by puking up glittering white sludge (including dive bombing eagles) and the one coworker was in a purple lake naked screaming.

>>10484879
I'm not going to grad school, though I have the financial resources and recommendations. After over sixteen years of school, I felt like a break to "experience the real world," especially as I enjoyed the few jobs I held while I was attending the university.

When it comes to creative writing, I think a professor of your own sex is a great asset. Whether intentional or not, people tend to write in a reflection of their interests (which is why I do not blame a lesbian for writing about homosexual topics), just as I wrote numerous horror stories or stories based in Japan. But female-male interests are often exclusive, which is why we so often hear around this site that women have no hobbies, taste, or higher consideration of important issues. This is mostly important if you're a male student, as a male professor will empathize with your work, whereas a female professor will usually judge it on the same merits as a blockbuster film; that is, whether it was entertaining, rather than skilled or intelligent. A male professor, however, will attempt to gleam substance in a female student's writing, as they expect it from their own biases and interests--regardless of whether it's actually there.

Also, don't shirk away from projects dealing with poetry, especially if you have the opportunity to create work in traditional formats. Some of the greatest times I ever had were writing up rhyming poems, as it gave me a greater appreciation for them in general--allowing me to excel later on in my academic career. Attempting to mimic the style or verse requirements of Browning, Dickinson or Dante will also teach you how to read them. I even went into creating poems over a hundred lines, and included poetic sequences in many of the short stories I worked on. And of course, be weighty so that your paper has good heft, but be straight-forward so that reading your work is tolerable.

>>10484885
There's a saying on /tv/, that some recent films like Drive, Nightcrawler, or Bladerunner 2048, are just part of a long sequence of media made exclusively for men. "Movies that women will never understand." Similar to how men will sometimes mock women for their only interests being, "Netflix, traveling, and talking with friends." To be fair to your classmate, I think girls really do have a greater concern for the physical details of body language and appearance, and that "men never get those details for their female characters," but in my opinion, almost all female characters are bad either because they're part of the exclusive female headspace of the female author, or they're shallow pandering. Because of that, I think people should be more daring with female characters. I got complaints for things like why a mentally disturbed teenager would kill her newborn baby to protect a male caregiver, the man who was essentially raping her due to his position, stability, and age--despite it being based on the daddy issues that are nearly ever-present with every girl you meet. Other shit was questioning why female characters were cast in a villainous role as it perpetuated stereotypes (a man's wife being a wendigo that conceals itself in her flesh, for example), or asking why they had to fail in their ambitions when it would be more validating to see them succeed.

The main thing I remember is that my classmate brought in "The Shining" one evening as a sort of presentation on Kubrick and King storytelling, and ALL BUT ONE girl aside from me, the original classmate, and the professor walking out and never returning (hell, even before the title crawl was finished) despite none of them having seen the film.

>>10484814
'A deeper level of intelligence and compassion' is incompatible with the inherent nature of capitalism, which in its ideal state is the existence of 90% of the population as dumb animals of burden who are too desperate and stupid to ask for more, and the other 10% as disconnected plebs dressed up as elites who only understand the logic of the accumulation of profit. "All that is solid dissolves into air" before capital, including all of the traditional social notions of community and kindness. Exceptions to this exist all over the world, of course, but the fact is that today Scrooge would have his factory workers living in India and wouldn't have to bother himself about their welfare because he'd tell himself he was giving them opportunity and that they could walk away from their jobs at any time if they wanted to, it's their choice as rational actors in a free market and so on, while Indian policemen break Tiny Tim's legs for participating in a strike.

>>10484925
That sounds fucking awesome, what problem do you have with that?

>>10484923
>Only menw will understand Drive, Nightcrawler, or Bladerunner 2048

Im the anon you are replying to, im also a guy, and hated all of those films. So I dont really understand what the sentiment is there

Why did they want to walk out from "The Shining"?

>>10482801
because they are scared of radical right ideas reaching the massess

>>10484935
>hating Blade Runner 2049
come on son

>>10482801
Universities were infiltrated by Marxists a long time ago, and that is where many people learn.

>>10483479
yes you do have it good luck doing anything with it on ur own

>>10484939
Besides a few shots like the beginning with the protein farm or the end with the building in the snow, and the lines for the emotion test, the entire film had many problems.

There were maybe 3 scenes with more than 3 characters in it (including extras), and 1 scene showing city life. This is Blade Runner, all it has is cyber punk urban atmosphere.

>>10482801
hardcore leftist here
idk my bff jill

>>10484932
I have no problem with it, I don't care. That's the engine of capitalism, the dehumanisation of working people into Pajeet and Ching-chong, rows of faceless factory workers or white-shirted office drones. I'm saying this without judgement: but this idea that we can have capitalism and just be nice to one another - or somehow restore the traditional values that capitalism has ripped up in order to function - is very childish.

>>10484935
The sentiment is that the concerns of the male characters in Drive, Nightcrawler, and Bladerunner don't represent interests that females take part in. Kind of like how so few females could understand Hitler, Napoleon, or Nobunaga because so few women have ever cared about their nation or politics (unless it directly involved themselves) ever. Its become even more of a concern because women are the primary victims of the postmodern revolution which took over all high education, and spend the rest of their days parroting feminist theory, OR they don't have a higher education and are obsessed with attention. Like they say, if a man finds a mountain he will attempt to climb it, but if a women finds a mountain she'll be too lazy to climb it and instead declare that where she is standing is now the new mountaintop.

This is why the highest level of emotion a modern story will get out of a women is if it's a vapid story about choosing who is the better mate (as basic as it gets), or if it involves the death of a cute dog or some shit. At this point, I can't even find a girl who will sit through Les Miserables because they don't understand any of the characters except Cosette, who is likely the weakest part of the entire story.

It's a mirrored thing too, I think there's material that men can't properly understand made by women as well, and that ends up with the condemnation that women just have bad taste (like enjoying Margaret Atwood and Jane Austen), but this has been going on since the mid 18th century. Women consume the most literature, but they sure aren't big contributors to GOOD literature and if it mentions philosophy at all, they'll throw it in the trash bin with Dostoyevsky and Camus. You don't have to like those films, but women tend to respond to male characters who don't state their feelings allowed as being empty and believe the film can be enjoyed as an action flick, while men will pick up on the thoughts and emotions of these figures because they are relateable even if they do what women view as the bare minimum for manliness.

>>10484953
I haven't seen Her, which apparently also does this, but the storyline with Joi was what made the film for me. A mainstream film that deals with commoditized digital affection in the age of porn gets some points for being topical at least.

I didn't mind the more intimate nature of the film when compared to the original; I thought it made thematic sense given K's isolation.

>>10484976
Great example. Her is another film women don't understand as well as men because women don't appreciate the idea of artificial intelligence replacing a romantic partner. It's likely because women are often dependent on men, and want to monetize their sexual offerings, so if a machine can provide convincing romantic affection or sexual pleasure, this is seen as threatening and weird. The protagonist of Her is spit on by women because he's a creep who essentially has a "sex doll." Same reason women hate Nabokov because they hate that Lolita has a pedophile as its protagonist.

>>10484966
>The sentiment is that the concerns of the male characters in Drive, Nightcrawler, and Bladerunner don't represent interests that females take part in

So what exactly are their concerns? For Nightcrawler it was power/attention, for Drive the concern was just getting the girl, and for Bladerunner it was meaning/purpose I suppose

I dont see how any of these arent shared with women as long as with Drive the concern is turned on themselves as being the girl who is sought after, or just switching genders to match what they are romantically interested in

Also these concerns are all pretty different, so I dont see a common sentiment. For Drive and BR there is a stoic protagonist, but for NC the protagonist cant stop talking. So even how they present their concerns doesnt seem to be in common

>>10484990
>women want to monetize their sexual offerings

Are you implying you wouldn't monetize your dick if you could? Quit being an /r9k/ sperg.

>>10484990
You're retarded.
>Her is another film women don't understand as well as men because women don't appreciate the idea of artificial intelligence replacing a romantic partner
There's literally a Black Mirror episode about the same problem but instead of a creep with a sex doll it's a woman with a male robotic boyfriend, so just a female creep with a sex doll.
Stop demonizing women.

>>10482970
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/political-orientations-intelligence-and-education.pdf
???

>>10484976
Thats strange, I hated Joi in the film. To me she was just cheap pandering, just some romantic interest. Her is similar since the main romantic interest is digital like Joi, but she had the same problems as Joi. They arent really characters, theyre just things in the films to fantasize about if you are into that. The romance for the main character is really their purpose but I think it fails in both films. Joi is almost a self aware declaration of that by the end. She was always a 2D and mass produced romantic product 2049v2.0, but for whatever reason we werent supposed to see that in the beginning. That only made me think K was an idiot robot in the beginning for not reacting to her in a different manner

>I didn't mind the more intimate nature of the film
I dont know if I agree with this either. Just because there are less characters doesnt make it more intimate. That would require our main character having something to become intimate with, which I dont think he does. He just has a bait and hook.

>>10484990
Ive never talked to any women about this film but when I saw it in theaters my roommate was laughing hysterically by the end and nearly every woman around us glared directly at us and they were all crying. I dont think they hated it, it seemed like a couple's film at the time.

>>10484992
I think the concern of Nightcrawler was finding a successful career, but it couldn't be done in a socially typical way, it showcased the drive to power which wasn't appeased by attempting to fit in. Usually this is unfamiliar to women who desire to have expansive social lives and lots of friends, whereas he seemed to be going for a more visceral, authentic experience from life.

Drive seems to me to be that kind of male young adult attitude that life is kind of absurd and unfulfilling, and he's struggling with how to properly participate and build a life despite experiencing a kind of disassociation. There's no big emotional moment, concern for the lives of others, but he feels that he has to "do his best." That's why its such a satisfaction when he becomes a real human bean. It reminded me of a more positive outlook on the plot of L'Etranger. I don't think the concept at its very core could ever work with a female character, as expectations are different.

When I think of Bladerunner as a film and its relation to the book, I relate that same feeling that life has to offer something greater than what is immediately apparent. It's that old men striving for enlightenment kind of idea, and it results in the prejudice and confusion of interacting with a mimic of oneself that is unfortunately a little more similar than one would like to admit. In the novel, I think this is presented well in that there is both Deckard and the retarded fellow who approach the issue from opposite ends, but both end up being disappointed and shocked with what they find, and this does lead to the fulfillment of that original "strive for more" goal, but in a way that one wouldn't expect. The problem is just, when has a women ever strived for anything but a hot partner, lots of money to buy stuff, and a martini?

The uniting concern is just that they're male-centric concerns, as stoicism is essentially a foreign concept to women. I'll be forward in saying I don't think there is any stoic women and a woman couldn't be stoic even if they wanted to.

>>10484990
I remember reading a comment on some film forum discussing whether or not Blade Runner 2049 was sexist, and one of the posters talked about seeing it opening night and how a group of women laughed and clapped when Joi's animation froze as K was about to kiss her. Women understand that their affection is a power they genuinely hold over men, and that threats to that position have to be minimized as much as possible if women want to retain that power.

>>10484992
Of those three movies I have only seen Nightcrawler, but let me just say that if you only think money and power were the motivating factors for the protagonist of that movie you either need to rewatch it or sit with Stacy and the Gals on their movie nights from now on.

Nightcrawler is not about power, its about unleashing your own internal drive to succeed in every possible way even when its dangerous, immoral and unethical. Jake Gyllenhaal's character does not care about banging the news reporter or driving a nice sports car to satisfy his Id, he spends the entire movie manipulating the Ego of those around him to push himself further and further into a state of transcending the societal Superego because he CAN.

While I won't say the movie's a classic or anything, it nails the same character motivation as Raskolnikov in C&P while also exploring the effects of that kind of ultimate control over the self.

>>10484923
>There's a saying on /tv/, that some recent films like Drive, Nightcrawler, or Bladerunner 2048, are just part of a long sequence of media made exclusively for men. "Movies that women will never understand."
ffs when will people learn to not take memes seriously

>>10485011
>Thats strange, I hated Joi in the film. To me she was just cheap pandering

well that explains the obsession of certain posters on /tv/ with the film, since it's like anime incarnate

still Villeneuve got a lot of shit for his females characters come to think of it, but he brushed it off by saying that it's supposed to mirror the world we live in

>>10485007
I saw that Black Mirror episode, and I think it proves my point. The women is opposed to the idea all throughout, and condemns herself for investing in a replication of a person rather than finding a new person altogether. The thing that she didn't see is that she had actually done that, but her prejudice as a woman and her expectations in a male figure prevent her from seeing that. The episode was basically crying out that sex-bots should be illegal, which that bot essentially was.

Her didn't play it that way, and understood that there was a value in the relationship he had with the AI, even if it made him an outcast or it had its disappointments.

>>10485001
The point is that I don't think it's that important to monetize my dick as I can get along without it and it doesn't bother me if someone has a relationship with a waifu or a robot, whereas it bothers women. As I said, you may as well tell women you're a pedophile if you want them to sneer at you whereas there's plenty of good stories about an adult male and a younger female and they're played for more than a point than demonizing the male figure.

>>10485013
>Drive seems to me to be that kind of male young adult attitude that life is kind of absurd and unfulfilling

I honestly have no idea where you are getting this. Drive was a by the book, 101, guy saves girl heist film. There was nothing special about. Literal girl next door is in threatened when I try to go clean, have to save the day. Baby Driver or whatever its called is the same exact film with just a different presentation.

> Usually this is unfamiliar to women who desire to have expansive-

To be honest Ill talk with you about films but I dont really care about this speculation of yours, or its variations. No offense but im not going to casually discuss billions of people as if I know what im talking about

>The uniting concern is just that they're male-centric concerns

I dont think theyre male-centric

>as stoicism is essentially a foreign concept to women

NC's protagonist is the exact opposite of stoic. He will not shut the fuck up throughout the film

>>10485011
I could see that, but I think a large part of that is dependent on the fact that the AI was a voice, and not an object. It appears more like a long-distance relationship and a woman could empathize with that, but that's exactly my point. They aren't seeing a man who is in love with a computer program, and thus they don't understand the movie. They see a man whose girlfriend is just somebody he can phone, which is something they have experienced, but isn't the same thing.

>>10485023
Add Leon to the list of movies that women will never understand

>>10485017
>its about unleashing your own internal drive to succeed in every possible way even when its dangerous, immoral and unethical.

So power. I said power because its a vague term and I dont really care about this poor film, but I dont see how you think what you describe is outside of the atypical power struggle.

> because he CAN.

So he gets a thrill from power, rather than the concrete consequences of his actions (car/sex)

>>10484990
>he protagonist of Her is spit on by women because he's a creep who essentially has a "sex doll."
Literally only his ex-wife was scornful. Every other women in the movie was understanding and supportive. Watch the movie again

>>10485026
>Drive was a by the book, 101, guy saves girl heist film
Are-
Are you fucking retarded? You're echoing the exact sentiments that anon posted about, you don't understand or care to understand character motivations or empathize with the estranged male lead and his particular worldview, you just see 'hot guy saves hot girl car go vroom'

>>10485023
'It bothers women'? How many women have you surveyed with this question? I've known girls and women both who have bought into crazy waifu stuff just as much as your average 4chan autist.

>>10485026
I'd say that "guy saves girl" films are more like damsel in distress films and usually involve a direct romantic relationship like husband and wife. Die Hard, for example, is like that, but there is less substance in Bruce Willis' character than there is in the protagonist of Drive, even though he has a more detailed backstory and is far more emotive. The music I think plays a big role in this, as does the long sequences of just silence where the protagonist is clearly thinking, but doesn't say what he's feeling. If it was really that terribly important for him to just save the girl and be the hero, he would likely have more passion for it. Instead, it seems like he is going through the motions, uncertain about whether that's what he should be doing, and the movie is about him coming to a conclusion.

Nightcrawler is a different film than the others, but shows a character that women typically would not like because he is a good male character, somewhat childish, cruel, and ambitious. The point is that if you think the other two have stoic characters, then there are no female stoics, and that should show you everything. Women cannot practice stoicism, just like women cannot legitimately practice Buddhism.

>>10485034
I meant women as an audience, not women as characters in the film. Women are usually understanding and supportive of beta males like him, but would any of them date him? Nope, because he's a creepy outsider. That support you see is actually just pity.

>>10485033
>I said power because its a vague term and I dont really care about this poor film
>durr I deliberately speak in vague nonsense language with symbolism out the ass so when I'm confronted with direct accurate statements I can say I was totally right
Drop your sophistry bud

>>10485027
> It appears more like a long-distance relationship and a woman could empathize with that, but that's exactly my point.

I thought your point was that Her was a great example of women not being able to get male-centric films. So them getting it is exactly your point, except now they dont "really" get it?

>>10485047
And do you have a single evidence to back up your claim?

>>10485040
The "waifuism" between men and women is incomparable because the merits of judging each are unique to the sex. Humbert Humbert obsessing over Dolores is not the same "obsession" some young women has with Edward Cullen or Damon Salvatore.

>>10485054
Robots never do, they're just shitters who throw generalizations around.

>>10485011
The last scene with Joi fit so perfectly with the anti-millennial "you're not special" theme of the film. It's sort of does exploit the fear of disingenuousness men have when they receive affection from a woman (which is why women hated the scene), but the soullessness of the black-eyed billboard calling him "Joe," the name Joi chose of K after he thought he discovered that he was a miraculously conceived replicant, was such a kick in the gut that you can't help but feel that empathetic churn good narrative fiction is capable of. If it didn't work for you it didn't work for you. My brother's a chad and he didn't get it either. If you're super successful with women (or are a woman) you have a distorted understanding of how intimacy works for most men.

>They arent really characters, theyre just things in the films to fantasize about if you are into that.
They're things for the protagonist to fantasize about, thereby articulating his alienation. It's experiencing someone buy into emotional pornography.

>>10484382
Cheeky

>>10485038
>You're echoing the exact sentiments that anon posted about

Yes, and then I explained why those sentiments are correct. Why would you be surprised that I assert the position that I just defended?

You can take the anon's explanation and it fits the most basic guy saves girl film plot point by point, and then you realize that there is nothing else to the film

Young male lives unfulfilled life, in some vague unassertive sense

He struggles to find purpose, hes a wanderer. He has to "do his best", whatever that means besides restating that he is struggling

Thats why its satisfying when he gets the girl

Thats all the other anon said. All that is missing is my point. Why does he become a real human bean? Because his only concern is saving the girl. The. End.

>>10485054
What kind of evidence are you looking for? I'd suggest the point to start is to look into how all men are treated when they go against the social grain. Women approve of career-men who are strong and good-looking, but don't have many distracting interests that would remove them from being a babysitter either for her or their children. I don't think women are big fans of ugly, short deviants who they can't build a home with and contribute to feminist power-struggles by having romantic relationships with machinery. You could test it out yourself though, but seeing how many women you pick up when you describe yourself as a person who has a strong relationship with his dakimakura who has already been shot down by other girls.

>>10485049
That is my point: women view Her as a long-distance relationship, not a relationship with a robot. They saw one film, totally in their imagination, while males saw another. They didn't actually understand it, because they're misinterpreting the subject. Just like women don't get Drive because they don't understand the protagonist. Sure, you can pretend, "They got it because they saw he drove a car around and tried to help a girl," but they couldn't begin to imagine if there was anything beyond that, which is why we have the philistine in the thread claiming it was a heist film.

>>10485064
>I don't think women are big fans of ugly, short deviants

Well, nobody is. Being a useless, weird piece of shit is your problem, not society's.

>>10485064
I am looking any evidence that "that support you see is actually just pity." Any. Hell you can comb through twitter and find one post made by a woman that pities the protag from Her and we can pretend that is evidence.

>>10485066
Nothing suggests that the man he described is useless, only ugly and odd. One can be profoundly useful to society and still be ugly and odd.

>>10485063
Sounds like the opinion a woman would give, as women have never felt the burden of social participation. Women never have to "do their best," even when they're not feeling up to it, because women are just vapid and have no substance. I merely posit that the protagonist of Drive didn't actually want to save the girl, and that the relationship wasn't horribly important to him, but that it filled a void because he appears to have nothing else. His life appears exciting if you just read it as some dumb heist movie, but I'd say he doesn't have much interest nor does he find excitement in his car chases or in killing people, so he is looking for something to make his life worthwhile. Essentially, sacrificing himself to save someone else is the apex of that, and showcases a kind of selfless attitude that would qualify him as a person and not just a pretender, and that anxiety is something women can never understand, as I do not believe that there are any women who have dealt with similar issues.

>>10485042
>If it was really that terribly important for him to just save the girl and be the hero, he would likely have more passion for it.

There is no reason to think this

>but shows a character that women typically would not like because he is a good male character, somewhat childish, cruel, and ambitious.

You havent shown this

>The point is that if you think the other two have stoic characters, then there are no female stoics

I have no idea where you are getting this from. Uma Thurman in Kill Bill is pretty stoic for a character. Ripley in Alien is pretty stoic considering her circumstances. Trinity from the Matrix is pretty stoic, like most of the other characters. The mutant girl from Logan is stoic, though she is a kid. All of the girls from Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, again all the characters are like that.

Thats just off the top of my head, though I dont watch many films. Also I do know stoic women in real life, if that is going to be your next point.

>>10484717
>or banned from Twitter?
OMG THIS IS, LIKE, THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE

>>10485048
What you described is atypical of a power struggle. It is not stretch to say what you are describing is a want for power.

You can even choose the other word I used, you know, attention, and it still describes what you are saying

But please, go ahead and stop trying to make arguments and proceed with ad hominem. Im sure no one will notice

>>10485066
Men are more likely to appreciate, understand, and sympathize with unattractive and abnormal characters in fiction than women are, as men fill more social roles in our species. That's why a story about a person who is an outcast goes over better if it's a male and presented to a male audience, as a female won't find him physically or mentally attractive due to him not being a target of romantic attraction. In the rare case they can appreciate a male character who is vaguely abnormal, such as Rochester in Jane Eyre, it's usually because they're ignoring his physical appearance in favour of his wealth--which is one of the reasons why a good-looking actor is always cast in the films, despite it being a separation from the content.

Women don't empathize or understand even supposed female outcasts, which is why they're so rare.

>>10482801
Because philosophy is like everything else ruled by fashion, but the statement isn't true if we introduce the variable of "has written a meaningful work".

>>10485074
>trying to belittle my argument by placing my supposed gender

If you cant argue you cant argue. You saying I argue like a girl wont change that

> I merely posit that the protagonist of Drive didn't actually want to save the girl, and that the relationship wasn't horribly important to him, but that it filled a void because he appears to have nothing else.

You just keep repeating these conclusions of yours. You have no evidence for this. Nothing in the film I can remember has any of this supposed complexity you are referring to

But please, prove me wrong here and now. Refer me to this

>so he is looking for something to make his life worthwhile.

Yeah. The girl. Guys saves girl, the movie.

>Essentially, sacrificing himself to save someone else is the apex of that, and showcases a kind of selfless attitude that would qualify him as a person and not just a pretender

You just described every guy saves girl film ever.

>that anxiety is something women can never understand

More baseless speculations

>>10485079
>If something is important to you, there is no reason to think it would appear important to you.
If you're in love with a person, it really shows, and essentially the protagonist of Drive isn't actually in love with the heroine, especially after her husband comes into the picture. At best, he loves her in a platonic fashion.

There are no female characters like the protagonist of Nightcrawler, and because he's not your typical Hollywood hero, he gets a natural upgrade into being better written for a film.

Now you've gone into naming very, very bad movies and named characters I wouldn't even conceive of being "characters." In my opinion, those females are objects designed to sell a sexual part of the film and have no soul within them. They're more like robots who do things but don't actually think anything. Kill Bill is just gratuitous violence and fight scenes with no story or character development, Alien is just a survival horror movie where there is no struggle but for the sake of the action scenes, the Matrix' only substance comes from the computer program and none of the characters, and the girl from Logan is a child who has not conceived of being stoic. Rogue would make a better example, but even then she's a tired female filler because despite killing everything she touches, she still has a boyfriend and all of the achievements any women routinely dreams of.

Don't know the last film, but I don't think there's stoic women in real life or in fiction. Even if one attempted to write a stoic female, I think it would fail due to being unbelievable.

>>10482801
Because far more hardcore leftists consider themselves philosophers than members of other major political groups. A lot of it is an ego thing most conservatives are given more respect for supporting traditional values and philosophies that are already firmly in place, the social worth of progressives is measured by their ability to support more "modern" philosophies which have varying degrees of reality attached to them based on the speaker.

"Why are most gun owners republicans" is a similar question that answers itself the same way. People who adopt their philosophy don't become "philosophers," and the only other US political group of the same size are far more tied to existing religious philosophies.

>>10485091
>Men are more likely to appreciate, understand, and sympathize with unattractive and abnormal characters in fiction than women are, as men fill more social roles in our species.

Theres no reason to think you that men filling more special roles will allow them to empathize with outcasts.

Women are more often than men liberal, and more often than not test as agreeable and compassionate in personality tests.

You are so far up your own ass in your hate for women that I bet you could take what I just said and simply twist it to fit your conclusion. That women actually are more compassionate than men towards outcasts but theyre not REALLY more understanding for whatever new bullshit you can think up.

Anything you can think of will fit the conclusion you have already decided on. Youre no better than young earth creationists

>>10485099
Guy saves girl films resonate because men have an inherent biological need to protect the gender that's the bottleneck for gene propagation. One man can impregnate an entire village; one women can't be impregnated by a village of men. If you don't understand this very basic fact of human sexuality then you can't understand gender representation in art.

>>10485099
My point is that women are often lacking in taste and cannot appreciate media made for males. Your argument is simply, by fact, the interpretation of the film I'd expect from a woman. I'm not saying you have to enjoy it if you're a male, but your opinion is certainly that of a philistine, because it's so shallow and showcases an inability to empathize with a male character.

His behaviour is the measure, as he is not overtly romantic with her, does not showcase a strong emotional concern for her well-being, and is able to deal with her having another lover. He doesn't appear to take pleasure in anything other than vague instances of what I would call "human behaviour" of masculine social norms, rather than spending time with her. Such as how he fits into the position of being like a father to her child, and that he appears to take relief in having done something for another person, rather than just having lived selfishly. He isn't infatuated or romantic, so I see no reason to think his motivation was her love, but it was more like the motivation one has to help out a friend when one has had few experiences with friends. Likewise, the revenge sequence can be related to the death of Brian Cranston's character, who filled in this other section. As far as I'm concerned, that relationship between boss and subordinate was of equal importance to him.

The girl isn't what's worthwhile, the DOING something is, and that something is saving someone. The girl could be anyone, which is why it is filled in with more than just the girl by the end, and even though there is no romantic finale, he is fulfilled. The girl's affection is not his motivation, and I don't see any reason why you would believe it is, unless--like a woman--you think men and women can't be friends.

Women don't save men or sacrifice for men. Men sacrifice for women, and often will have to do so despite an uncertainty or anxiety over that role. It's just a fact that is the standard, and I'm saying the interesting part of Drive is that the protagonist is clearly showcasing some symptoms of disassociation but does his best to fulfill that role, even if it's hard for him.

>>10485104
>If you're in love with a person, it really shows

Are you kidding me? Do you read?

Of course that is wrong. Think of how many different ways characters have shown their compassion or love and all of the different ways that has lead to interesting situations in literature.

Lets just take one example Im sure you are familiar with, Hamlet. Hamlet's love for Ophelia never, ever, "really" shows, and that is what is interesting about his character.

Fuck off brainlet

>>10485118
The argument was not about do men enjoy guy saves girl films

The argument was, is Drive more than or just a guy saves girl film

I dont understand where you got confused in that.

>>10484478
I'd say that it's harder to maintain a car than to wreck it

>>10485122
Youre done

>>10484508
>food and shelter should be taxpayer-funded and guaranteed for everyone because they are fucking necessary tenets of survival
Why would I want a system which aims to ensure the survival of the maximum possible number of people at any cost?
I'm not an edgy "le humanity deserves to die" fag, but the land can only sustain so many people, and the natural balance (population vs resources) also applies to humans.
I also don't see why a person who refuses to be productive, and won't earn a living, should be "guaranteed" anything by the working class. The only possible result of that is the creation of a dependent parasite class.

>>10484394
>>10484367
This kind of "humanitarian" thinking, that we should mindlessly "help out" whenever we see a suffering occur, is the reason why Africa is starving in the first place. All the aid has resulted in the disturbance of balance - overpopulation.
When the aid has to stop for whatever reason, you will see the biggest human extinction event in history. And the world can't afford to keep on feeding mouths which multiply seemingly into infinity.

>>10485115
Yet, most interesting, well-received, and empathetic outcasts, whether they be even on the far end of the spectrum as serial killers, thieves, rapists, pedophiles, etc., are male figures built for a male audience.

I do not believe you are honestly of the opinion that women are more likely to understand and enjoy a male character in fiction who is anti-social or perhaps a child murderer. The only way this would be possible is if the character is an exceedingly attractive vampire who she can "reform." Even then, they at best see themselves as a potential romantic partner, they do not SEE THEMSELVES in the person, as the behaviour and thoughts of those individuals do not resemble the behaviour or thoughts of women. There are not many female outcasts, fewer still female monsters.

>>10485131
There's an implied criticism to the "guy saves girl film" phrasing. My point is that's it's an unnecessary criticism, because like most narrative tropes there's a psychological reason that justifies its existence.

>>10485131
Regardless of whether it is more in-depth than that, if you acknowledge that Drive is a film that women aren't likely to understand because its resonance is with male biology, the point is the same. Either the film deals with a complex male character who women have no relationship with, or it's just some action movie that women don't get because the movie is designed to appeal to men.

>>10485124
Then furthermore, think of the different ways of experiencing love and compassion, or the possibility that a person could act in one way while feeling another way.

Hamlet is another good example of a play that women cannot understand, because its about male-centric issues. No women have to face the problems that Hamlet faces, so it will be too foreign for them to truly grasp. They have a dim understanding of what the play is about, they have a vague comprehension that Hamlet has some suicidal undertones, but in the end they will prefer Romeo and Juliet or one of those god-awful comedies because it's a play for women with a female character who they can see themselves in; whereas Hamlet has no legitimate female characters. Ophelia is an object, who may as well not had any lines.

If you want to show a good female perspective in Shakespeare, at least look at Lady Macbeth, but even then I think most women will be too removed from her socially to sympathize with her motivations.

>>10483733
But why would you want any of that? Especially when the rest of the world is a shithole.

>>10483749
>implying you have to be a slave to capitalists

>>10483733
None of that will ever happen while there are different groups with different interests. It definitely won't happen in any western countries, not now most of them aren't homogenous and now that most people inside each country can't get on. Muh multiculturalism

>>10483479
jeff magnum sticks to his guns, a real sharpshooter

>>10483152
Camus was a writer, hardly a philosopher at all.

>>10482801
Reality has a left wing bias.

>>10485136
There's a clear hard limitation to this in the size of the planet. While the standard of human living may go down the quantity of food we're capable of producing with modern industry can easily sustain a world population many times the size of the current one, food isn't nearly our biggest expense and much of it is luxury food.

The point about humanitarianism promoting parasitic behavior is true, but if computer improvement doesn't slow down soon all of humanity is going to become a "parasitic class." Once we start to reach the limit of people we can fit on the planet there's still not much reason to let people starve to death, those messy eugenics policies on the other hand may become mandatory.

>>10485136
Africa wouldn't be overcrowded in the first place if they had a modern mixed economy welfare state, you mong.

>>10483435
>Where do you think all these neat privatization, tax cut ideas came from? Your leader’s head? They’re from reactionary and conservative intelligentsia anon.

None of the things you listed are conservative and least of all reactionary except maybe in America. Those would be called liberals or neoliberals. Reactionary would be the French new right.

>>10485008
>Individuals (see Table 1) preferring a center right political orientation have the highest mean IQ (105.29).
>The second highest mean IQ is found amongst those of a centrist political orientation (102.53).
>This is followed by those preferring a center-left orientation, who possess an IQ mean of 100.67,
>who are followed by those clearly on the left who possess an IQ mean of 97.57
>and finally by those clearly on the right, who possess an IQ mean of 95.20.
>But the lowest IQ mean is found amongst those having no political preference at all (IQ 93.85)
lol rekt

>>10483479
You sort of have a point but the logical conclusion of your view would lead to Proudhonian anarchism/mutualism.

>>10485197
"Haha ______ is pretty [hot , funny, well-spoken, cool] I think i'm gonna vote for him!"
That lowest IQ thing is something anyone spending a lot of time with normies already knows.

>>10485182
>we're capable of producing with modern industry can easily sustain a world population many times the size of the current one
Simply not true.
Fossil fuels will run out within 150 years, and currently 90% of the world's energy is from fossils. With increased population and industrialisation, the energy demand keeps on growing in a linear fashion. Modern agriculture is based on heavy-duty machines and oil-based fertilizers.

>>10485186
>a non-industrialised country filled with low-IQ people wouldn't be poor if it JUST had an advanced, Europe-like economy
Wow

>>10484568
a computer is personal property, not private property

>>10483156
>The average Leftist is so stupid you can be spouting outright Fascism but once you do it in their code they celebrate you
As a leftist, I agree completely with this statement

>>10483337
>Like, do they really believe that all we need is socialism, removal of borders, universal basic income and all people in the world will unite and live in peace and prosperity?
creativity -> removal of structures or social pressures

they are overconfident in that the removal of existing structures will produce something new and good, the funny thing is that to remove implicit structures their only strategy is to use explicit totalitarian structures, which kind of explodes on their face every single time

The "Left" of the 2010s is like the "Atheism" of the 2000s - meaningless Aesthetic wanking.

>>10482801
Most of them are actually hardcore liberals.
As to why that is, it's because those in power are hardcore liberals, that's literally it.

>>10482970

desu you need to have a very high iq to be a leftist

>>10483156
I don't know if you are joking or not, but I unironically agree and I think Foucault is actually an example of a philosopher who spouted radical political conservatism using left-wing terminology.

>>10483337
>>10485483
The idea is that the removal of traditional structures will produce something new that's both good and bad, and that these contradictory elements will result in progress through their interaction - not there's a utopia at the end of the rainbow where everybody cuddles and holds hands but that it is conflict and struggle that creates the forward motion of human history. At least if you're talking about Marxist socialism. But then I'm not sure if you know what you're talking about except caricatures of "leftism" gained through Facebook screencaps and making fun of dumb university students.

>>10485550
>not there's a utopia at the end of the rainbow where everybody cuddles
Except that's literally what happens at the end, there is no post-communist stage of history in marxism.

holy shit there are still actual marxists blabbering about owning means of production and shit

if you want to own coca-cola, google, apple, exxon mobil, then go to the stock market and buy a share you faggots.

>>10485565
This is the stupidest post I've read in weeks, congrats.

>>10485559
Of course. But it is not characterized in the simplistic manner described by the posters I replied to, unless you're exclusively getting Marx from university undergraduates and propaganda written for Chinese peasants in the 1950s. The notion that Marxist thought can be summed up as 'revolution, then everything will be good forever' is just a means of making the phantom leftist bogeyman sound dumb for believing in it.

>>10485572
>posted from MacBook Pro

>>10484624
Compassion? They would put trump supporters in concentration camps if they could

>>10485577
answer this:
according to Marx, will there be a state after the communist revolution is complete? will there be police? will there be wars?
No? Then it's pure laughable fantasy.

>>10485577
I don't see how the real deal is that more complex than "revolution and then everything is fine forever". That's basically the gist of it. Marx unironically believed growing up in a communist system would fundamentally change Man.

>>10485582
this is the second stupidest post i've read in weeks, congrats

>>10484636
>his radicalism actually drove several black students into the "reactionary" faction that formed at the back of the class
kek'd

>>10485693
>Sent from my iPhone

>>10485593
No we wouldn't. We think concentration camps are unethical.

>>10485599
>>10485636
>what about human nature did you ever think about that
damn son I guess Marx really was wrong about everything