/lit/ - Literature

More like milk generation, am I right guys? WOOOWEEE

>>11153140
rolling

>>11153140
rolling

>>11153140
roll

>>11153140
>>11153157
>>11153165
I too love getting warnings on /lit/.
>>11153127
A jew pretending to alt right.

>>11153140
I can feel quads

>>11153140
No matter what I roll, irl it's going to be 4 or lower.

>>11153140
who is she

>>11153140
gib jew boobs

>>11153140
roll

>>11153140
gib milky

>>11153140
roll

>>11153140
Who is this cute little lesbian and how tight is her pussy?

>>11153140
Rolling

>>11153140
Rolling

Everything he writes reads like a reference book. It's just a constant droning of numbers and statistics with the occasional snarky quip. I haven't been able to finish a single book of his.

>>11153140
Roll

>>11153140

>>11153140
rollllllll

>>11153127
roll

>>11153324
the image + the roll = my sides

>>11153127
Ben Shapiro engages in masturbation.
Look at his dead soulless eyes. Listen to his nasally weak voice. He lacks charisma, spontaneity, and passion. He is a hypocrite.
I used the term "porn generation" on /pol/ numerous times and had a really good thread about it once. I think he or his ghost writer plagiarized it.

was it the khazar milkers?

YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO

>>11153127
>I'm... im not an incel, really

>>11153590
He has a wife and two kids

>>11153573
The moment of truth

>>11153610
The article was written 13 years ago

>>11153779
So?

>>11153127
whiny little zionist baby complaining about virgins on the internet jerking off to his sister's giant tasty jew tits.

>>11153127
An irrelevant book by an irrelevant author. If you don't want to be a clueless bastard you should stop concerning yourself with other clueless bastards and with retarded subjects.

a very surface-level diagnoses of something as important as an impending social collapse

"the social liberals talk about porn too much so now people jerk off too much and it's bad! people are jerking off instead of doing good things!"

i vote we ban porn in order to save our society.

>>11153823
It's just 21st century's TV. TV didn't cause a social collapse.

>>11153845
>TV didn't cause a social collapse.

>>11153866
>brainlet wojak reaction
I didn't see that coming at all.

>>11153823
this.

>>11153876
>that thing didn't do that
>no further argument
>anon replied that thing did do that
>no further argument
>original anon (not) surprised by the reply he received
>still no argument
>mfw

>>11153127
big guy

>book is against social liberalism
>shapiro still supports "free markets" and "civil liberties"

>>11154065
If TV caused a social collapse, there'd be no society right now or it would have stagnated decades ago. Technological progress indicates that it has not stagnated.

>>11154094
Technological progress is not society. I think it's fair to say the values and ideas that brought us to the point we were at before television have completely changed. In that way society has collapsed into something new and arguably less desirable as we are still trying to grapple with the implications (which may and are likely to be devastating in many ways yet to be discovered) of this rapid technological development.

>>11154114
Technological progress is the fruit of society. It is how the success of a society is measured among humans. The society that possesses inferior technology is considered inferior. If we measure a platoon of armed American troops versus a tribe of ape-men wielding spears, we would consider the former to be the more advanced (and thus more successful) society.

There has been significant technological progress since television was invented. So the idea that it's caused a social collapse or the start of one is totally unwarranted nonsense.

>and arguably less desirable

Maybe for the ape-man who doesn't know how to use the new technology.

>>11154126
Yes technological progress is the fruit of a society, but it is not the society itself. You say "we" but you really mean "I". I don't measure other cultures by that standard and there are plenty of people who think the same. As a culture, we have yet to realize the totality of this implications of these new technologies. Can you list all the effects that pharmaceutical birth control has had on our society in the last century? Imagine if the transition from books and radio to exclusively television and other screen-based utilities has atrophied a certain part of our brains (and thus our minds). This would have vast implications on society and change the cultural dynamic much quicker than we could account for. The populous and the collective mind is shifting at an ever-increasing rate and assuming that is a positive thing is only wishful and romantic thinking.

>>11154177
>You say "we" but you really mean "I"

No, I mean we. We as in those of us who are capable of clear thinking. Who in their right mind would think the society that has only produced spear-wielders as its ultimate soldiers is the more successful society in that comparison? You would have to do some serious mental gymnastics to convince yourself of something different. You'd have to muddy your mind and focus solely on the resources being exhausted in order to produce that superior society, and ignore all of its superior products, in order to convince yourself of a different conclusion.

>The populous and the collective mind is shifting at an ever-increasing rate and assuming that is a positive thing is only wishful and romantic thinking.

There's no assumptions being made here.

>>11153573
ayyy

>>11153573
heebin'

>>11153783
kek

>>11153823
I don't think the argument is that people talk about porn too much. The problem is how much and what kind of porn people are watching, and how this changes our relationship to each other, specifically the male-female dynamic. This kind of behavior calls into question what kind of concerns we have as a society, what we see as healthy/valuable. In fact, even though porn use is pretty commonplace nowadays, it's not like you can talk about it anywhere casually. It's a private affair.

But how often have humans adhered to certain habits only to find out later just how detrimental they were? Framing this as a liberal-conservative issue not only limits discussion but also indicates a lack of imagination--what might life be like without porn?

>>11153573
Roll

>>11154520
Fuck yes

>>11153127
>>11153573
Can you imagine being Ben and growing up with not just one but THREE attractive sisters with Khazar milkers?

He must have felt very confusing during his teenage years

>>11154218
>We as in those of us who are capable of clear thinking
HAHAHA
Regarding your judgements of inferior or superior, where is the authority in this judgement? What axiom anchors your objective worldview? Throwing around words like "superior" is seriously begging these questions.

If we obscure the variable of humanity, the sun is superior to every civilization combined on earth as it is a more technologically advanced phenomenon than we could ever hope to create in the next millennium. Does this mean we should now worship the sun and it's superiority? That's up to you to decide I guess.

I think there's a valid argument about the negative effects of what is essentially industrialized sexuality, but I doubt he makes it at all.

>>11153140
>rolling

>>11153573
rawl

>>11153590
"Hey Liberals,
My name is Ben, and I hate every single one of you. All of you are fat, retarded, goyim who spend every second of their day looking at stupid ass pictures. You are everything bad in the world. Honestly, have any of you ever studied the Torah? I mean, I guess it's fun making fun of people because of your own superiority, but you all take to a whole new level. This is even worse than jerking off.
Don't be a stranger. Just hit me with your best shot. I'm pretty much perfect. I was captain of the debate team, and first violin. What newspapers do you read, other than "naked drawn Japanese people"? I also get straight A's, and have a banging hot wife (She just told me loved how I support my family; Because I have SO much cash). You are all schleps who should just kill yourselves. Thanks for listening.
Pic Related: It's me and my sweetheart"

>>11153573

>>11154669
3/10
I had to deduct points for misuse of the Yiddish term "schleps" (it's a verb ya fucking nudnik) and not mentioning that his wife is a doctor

>>11153590
>Fucking social liberalism is completely deranged reeeeeeeeeeeeee
>But free markets, which cause social liberalism to happen in the first place, are actually completely good you goys
Who the fuck even believes this stuff? How is this guy even famous?

>>11153845
>Technology is neutral
lol!

>>11154853
>free markets cause social liberalism

Big claim there buddy

>>11154858
It is. The people who invent the tech, use the tech, and then complain that the tech is taking jobs away from them aren't though.

>>11153140
Rolling.

>>11154894
>Hey Jeffrey, how do we make more money?
>>I know, let's create an endless media cycle that relentlessly promotes a consumerist lifestyle that appeals to humanity's basest instincts because we're corporate devils and will crush any sort of social, religious or community values in the name of endless profit!

That's how it works.

guys, I think I am love with Ben Shapiro's sister

>>11156566
I think I would milk Ben Shapiro's sister

>>11154669
6/10, I appreciate the effort.

>>11156591
If you really loved her you'd write her a poem.

>>11153127
Everything you need to know about conservatism you can get from the fact that Shapiro is the smartest conservative. Every other conservative is dumber than him

>>11157412
Into Abby my goy dick did slide
She wanted to go for a ride
I ravaged her bits
But blew on her tits
She told me next time come inside

>>11157601
Very nice poem.

>>11153127
>How Social Liberalism is Corrupting our Future
>Implying economic Liberalism isn't either

>>11153590
>I've become a favorite target of Internet leftists, who often refer to me as "The Virgin Ben"
Kek can't believe this was written back in 2005

>>11153806
I think it might be you who is clueless mate

>>11154669

Hey buckos,

My name is Jordan, and I understand every single one of you. All of you are depressed, fatherless, underachievers who spend every second of your lives grasping for some kind of meaning. You are everything human in the world. Honestly, have any of you ever gotten any structure? I mean, I guess it’s trivially entertaining making a hobby out of trolling as a projection of your own bloody insecurities, but you all take to an axiomatic level. This is even sadder than collectivizing through identity politics on Facebook.

Don't be afraid to be an individual. Just hit life with your best shot. I’m pretty much there with you. I'm an accredited clinical psychologist, and tenured at the University of Toronto. What dreams do you have, other than “realize the potential defining my individual existence?" I also get my words twisted, and have a bloody hot interview (I just got her; Shit was SO illuminating). You are all people who should just improve yourselves. Thanks for listening.

Pic Related: It’s me and my interviewer.

a jew reframing the narrative to allow whites to feel like they are resisting the complete takeover by kikes

Why are all the books published by the alt-right so eerily similar?
It's always follows the format of: [Name]: How [Liberals/Boomers/Immigrants/Muslims] [are/have] [ruining/ruined] society
I can't imagine actually forking out my own money to buy one of these abominations

>Ben Shapiro
Garbage, you might as well read something by Rachel Madow

>>11163486
>A Jew
>In the alt right

>>11163595
>who is Milo Yiannopolous, a homosexual jew that exclusively dates black men
>who is Lauren Southern, a woman that has/had interracial relationships
>who is Mike cernovich, who fucked a tranny
The alt-right does not practice what it preaches. Shapiro is alt-right in lieu of better terms and no amount of mental gymnastics can change that.

>>11163614
None of these people are alt right. Milo tried to apply that label to himself to be edgy then started calling himself "alt lite" after , suprise suprise, being called a Jewish faggot by the actual alt right.
>Lauren Southern was in an interracial relationship
No she wasn't, and she isn't alt right either. She has interviews with people from Generation Identity who themselves aren't alt right.
>Mike Cernovitch
No

You're using Alt Right as a pejorative to anyone in the right you don't like based on a stereotype. Alt right are people like Richard Spencer and Mike Enoch, and it's a mostly irrelevant online movement of far right dissidents which have adopted "alt right" as an umbrella term to thought that is to the right of William F Buckly. Those people you listed are to the left of the Buckley by a large margin

>>11163614
The alt-right is an imaginary.

>>11154546
>If we obscure the variable of humanity, the sun is superior to every civilization combined on earth as it is a more technologically advanced phenomenon than we could ever hope to create in the next millennium. Does this mean we should now worship the sun and it's superiority?

Terrible comparison. You're a pseud, but I'm not surprised you're here given the thread.

>>11153610
>Thinking theyre his children

>>11153590
>Has a wife and two kids and didn't screw the village bicycle
>There are people on this board who are *proud* to have had sex in a failed relationship and take pride in their failure

Bruh

>>11163739
Not an argument.

>>11163689
>b-but they're not REAL alt-right!!1!11!
Like clockwork.

>>11163881
Do you really need an argument laid out to expose how utterly stupid that was?

First of all, yes, you really ought to fucking worship or at least respect the sun to an extent. The sun is why we are here.

Second of all, the statement had nothing to do with the discussion. We were not talking about "technologically advanced phenomenons." We were talking about different societies and how their philosophies compared. Science is an expression of philosophy; it is applied epistemology. Technology is the product of science and ambition. The more advanced the technology that is wielded is, the more advanced the possessed level of science is, therefore the more advanced the possessed level of philosophy is. Philosophy is how we think. The more advanced philosophy means the more advanced brain.

The post did not address anything in the post it responded to either. It did not give a rebuttal to this question:

>Who in their right mind would think the society that has only produced spear-wielders as its ultimate soldiers is the more successful society in that comparison?

It only sidestepped it and instead questioned where the authority is in the judgment. But the authority is philosophy and the proof of its authority is how Western civilization has progressed for the past 3,000 years. Now go ahead and sidestep what I am saying some more.

>>11163959
pure ideology

>>11163964
Something wrong with having a consistent thought process?

>>11163959
First of all >>11163964 is not me (as I am the anon you replied to)

Second,
>Technological progress is the fruit of society. It is how the success of a society is measured among humans.
This is actually what was being discussed in this reply chain. I hold the negative position.

>Science is an expression of philosophy; it is applied epistemology.
Wrong. Science is the application of a *particular* epistemology. In the West it is the empiricist's epistemological perspective most commonly associated with science. This means that any form of knowledge derived from such a perspective is only seen as knowledge relative to the epistemological perspective; no absolute knowledge shared between all epistemological systems.

>Technology is the product of science and ambition
Wrong. Technology is the product of its own existence. Adding your own causality behind that is simple reductionist romanticism (within an empiricist perspective as science and you seem to perceive through, this may be less true to a rationalist).

>The more advanced the technology that is wielded is, the more advanced the possessed level of science is
Wrong. There is no such thing as a "level of science". Technology exists in many forms, whatever judgement we project onto such a thing only reflects our own perceptions, not anything that exists within the tech itself. This means that objects such as the sun and a live human body and many more are a sort of technology.

>therefore the more advanced the possessed level of philosophy is. Philosophy is how we think. The more advanced philosophy means the more advanced brain.
These are all huge logical leaps and assumptions I would need more details to respond without misrepresenting you.

>The post did not address anything in the post
I am being much more direct in this post so I hope you are satisfied. I can continue if I must as I didn't cover everything.

>>Who in their right mind would think the society that has only produced spear-wielders as its ultimate soldiers is the more successful society in that comparison?
This begs the question which you answer
>the authority is philosophy and the proof of its authority is how Western civilization has progressed for the past 3,000 years.
I assume your axiom is the argument that (supposed) better technology -> more advanced (both materially and philosophically) -> more successful, which I feel like I have argued against thoroughly (for 4chan) in this post.

Returning to my original example, the sun is just as much a technology as any mechanism of reality. As it is much more advanced than anything we can hope to conjure in the next millennium or longer, by your axiom, it is more successful than we may ever be. You cannot reduce a technology to something only created by humans (another technology) as that is a sort of paradox. Technologies are the only technologies that can create technologies. Not a very tight premise; meaning tech like the sun will always be superior.

>>11164126
>Wrong. Science is the application of a *particular* epistemology. [...]
That doesn't really make my statement wrong. It just means that it was not specifically stated.

>Technology is the product of its own existence.
What does that even mean? Are you saying that it exists without someone to validate it as such? How does that make any sense?

http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~funkk/Technology/technology.html

>The word technology comes from two Greek words, transliterated techne and logos. Techne means art, skill, craft, or the way, manner, or means by which a thing is gained. Logos means word, the utterance by which inward thought is expressed, a saying, or an expression. So, literally, technology means words or discourse about the way things are gained.

At what point in this definition is it implied that there does not need to be a "speaker" i.e. someone to give the expression to it?

>There is no such thing as a "level of science".
So there is no way to compare different stages of scientific progress then? It is totally nonlinear? Very fitting conclusion for you to take. However, we make comparisons when we have goals; if you think no comparisons can be made, then that just means you don't have any goals.

I'll respond more fully later as I need to head out for a bit.

>implying 4chan of all places is not at least as detrimental to your mental health as porn

>>11164261
Yeah, but the world is porn saturated to such an extent that they're not really comparable.

>>11164126
>>11164170
Why the fuck do you quote and respond to individual sentences? It's so autistic.

>>11164307
That's the form of discourse the medium encourages.

>>11163486
>Ben Shapiro
>alt-right
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhkYWtKpI2Q

>>11164170
>That doesn't really make my statement wrong. It just means that it was not specifically stated.
It is a pretty significant detail to leave out.

>Are you saying that it exists without someone to validate it as such? How does that make any sense?
No. The technology itself is the "someone" which validates its own existence.

>At what point in this definition is it implied that there does not need to be a "speaker" i.e. someone to give the expression to it?
Answered above. To understand fully you must first understand what the Logos (which technology is an expression of) actually is. The Logos is everywhere and expresses itself in a multitude of ways, this is why phenomenon such as a sun or a human body etc can be understood as technologies.

>So there is no way to compare different stages of scientific progress then? It is totally nonlinear?
No and yes. You may compare relative distinction between different subjects, but the problem I have is your judgement of "superior" or "successful" you project onto whatever particular subject you choose. Yes scientific progress is nonlinear (at least relative to our perception of it).

>However, we make comparisons when we have goals
I'm fine if you consider all this necessary for the sake of utility, but that does not make any of it true (unless you define truth as utility, in which case you would put truth on a continuum; meaning no truth can exist as it becomes paradoxical).

>>11164170
not the anon you're responding to, but i also take issue with the idea of technological progress as a way to judge a society.

i do believe in "technical progress" but we have to recognise that it isn't uniform. mongols were technically and technologically superior to their enemies in military terms, but not in terms of literature, record-keeping, astronomy, statecraft, architecture, etc.

neither does technical progress proceed through pre-set "levels." if we want a metaphor to describe it, then technological development can be said to "deepen."

even so, technological development doesn't necessarily cause spiritual or moral development. we might have factories, airplanes, computers, etc, with which we can efficiently achieve those kinds of results which those technologies allow for, but the real question which justifies a society is whether that society enables people to live fulfilling lives - does it offer them peace and liberty? any technological development has to be compared against that metric and not some arbitrary "tech-goodness"

in the case of the spearmen vs the riflemen, the answer whose society is better is obviously not determined by who kills who (an unironically uncivilised idea) but by who stands up for the freer society.

remember agricola: the romans might've been the better equipped, but they fought to enslave britons for no good reason except for glory, while the britons fought for freedom against roman greed and "peace."

>>11164307
>Why the fuck do you quote and respond to individual sentences? It's so autistic.
Feels good.

>>11162551

Better image.

>>11165374
Very nice image.