/lit/ - Literature

Reminder that Brave New World describes a utopia not a dystopia.

>>11245696
A satire of a utopia, the epigraph literally says we should avoid utopias to make society less perfect and more free

>>11245688
What would you expect from a nation brainwashed by capitalism and religion for centuries? The only surprising thing about Murica is that is somehow didn't implode yet.

>>11245712
>muh freedom
This meme never worked and never could work. Humans depend on other humans, whether it's their tribe, their employer or their state. That dependance always limits freedom to a ridiculous degree, in the end giving you the freedom to pick between McDonalds and KFC.

So might as well skip that and deal with suffering. Soma for erryone!

>>11245733
Freedom doesn't work against basic social cooperation you absolute dunce.

>>11245696
>>>reddit

If you haven't read Brave New World Revisited go check it out. They should force high school kids to read it right after BNW.

>Millenials want to suppress ideas and freedom of speech
>Colin Kaepernick wants to kneel at a football game in non-violent protest as freedom of speech for a decidedly Millennial cause, only to be met with Boomers and similar age groups demanding he and those who follow suit be penalized
And what other meaningless sensationalist drivel will they puke out next, I wonder?

I own a first edition that used to be part of a library on an ocean liner.

>>11246165
>He's too retarded to understand how freedom of speech works from a legal standpoint.

>>11246040
It does. There is no fucking freedom if you're forced to submit to society, only a set of options left. Also called liberty.

Hell, take muh censorship. Even without the state punishing people for certain options, society can do the job all by itself by isolating pedo-activists or racists.

>>11246175
>It's a /pol/lock brings his brainrot to /lit/ episode.

>>11246188
thats correct

>>11246175
Oh yes, I forgot the difference between oppressing somebody via practice and custom, and on paper. How stupid. What's incredibly stupid is the thing I just said would be on paper as well. Funny, that.

>>11246224
>Oh look it's the guy who brings his gay image collection to a literature board.

>>11246236
If you think censure for certain words or actions is ever going to be absent from any era of human society, you're sorely mistaken. The United States is a step ahead of most nations in that the legal protection for your speech is there.

On the topic of Colin Kaepernick: if he's "free" to speak, then team owners are also free to choose who they associate with or hire. The NFL is a private business. If someone hired me as their employee but I spent all day walking around the office screaming "Nigger!" and making the company look bad, of course they would fire me. The point of freedom of speech is that you're free from criminal charges, not that you're free from the censure of your ideas.

>>11246283
>On the topic of Colin Kaepernick: if he's "free" to speak, then team owners are also free to choose who they associate with or hire.
What's the fucking point of free speech if you are allowed to be penalized for it, then? What's the point of free speech if not for others to at least give consideration towards, instead of stifling them out of the gate? Why can't you grasp that oppression on paper and oppression in society are meaningless distinctions if people are still being shamed and criticized for exercising their right to portray their points of view? Maybe the "young people" this article refers to are simply implementing a reversal of the current "you can have freedom of speech but prepare to suffer for it" and just bringing what has been heaped upon them up against those who levy it against them? All the young people are doing in this instance are consolidating values taught to them, your loss if you realize the double standard too late. Maybe you will actually try to consider something from a different point of view instead of demonizing somebody who exercises their right to free speech?
>The NFL is a private business.
Ah yes so if a business entity wants to violate a freedom of speech by essentially blacklisting the speaker, that is well within their right. This will really suck for you when Social Justice becomes the norm in the business world and you either follow the trend or won't get hired. But hey, that's something they're allowed to do, they're totally not violating your freedom of speech, right?
>If someone hired me as their employee but I spent all day walking around the office screaming "Nigger!" and making the company look bad, of course they would fire me.
False equivalence. Nonviolent protest and you shouting NIGGER for no good reason in your place of work are not even remotely the same thing.

Take your tired /pol/ echo chamber talking points back to your containment board.

>>11246165
Being penalized for political activity outside of work is unfair and runs against the value of freedom of speech (not to be confused with the first amendment)
But when someone is politically demonstrating at work AND its harming your business, what are you supposed to do?

>recent public opinion polls have revealed
>cites none
whew

>>11245696
BNW society may have been a utopia to itself, but I cannot hold myself to just see the society as the source of meaning not can I believe that the society alone can suffice as humanity's greatest achievement.

>>11245713
>He thinks religious tradition caused the decreased care for freedom of speech

Good. The "marketplace of ideas" is absolute bullshit.

I'm also willing to bet that these "unpopular ideas" that OP cites are probably mostly related to bigotry. People who cry the most about freeze peach almost invariably are crying about the fact that they can't call black people racist slurs without consequences.

>>11246188
Highly underrated post.

>>11246477
>What's the fucking point of free speech if you are allowed to be penalized for it, then?
To give plebs the feeling that their opinions matter. Also how do you even propose this to work in reality? Colin is a softball case, it's hard to argue against him unless you're a republicunt but what about pedos protesting for their rights for lolli porn or whatever, simply going in public is bound to have social consequences for them, no matter the legal situation.

>Nonviolent protest and you shouting NIGGER for no good reason in your place of work are not even remotely the same thing.
"Good reason" is easy to come up with. It's his way to protest against black on white violence or affirmative action or whatever meme case alt-right kids find. If it's not enough, how about wearing something like "NIGGERS AND JEWS CAUSE WHITE GENOCIDE" shirt. It's perfectly non violent protest but will fuck up the work atmosphere and keeping that idiot would hurt the company.

>>11246542
Dude are you for real? Religion and censorship are best buds since ever. The "liberal" Hollywood is STILL afraid of nipples while showing violence into everything because of it. Sexual education is crippled because of it. If anyone gave a flying fuck about freedom of speech and freedom of expression, they would focus on religious influences instead of butthurt youtubers who want to yell "nigger" without consequences.

>>11246555
B-but, but I feel oppressed if I can't call OP a faggot :(

>>11246555
>unironically supporting state reprimand for statements of 'bigotry'
kys, nigger pinko.

>>11246555
>freeze peach
>>>/Reddit/

>>11246631
>>unironically supporting state reprimand for statements of 'bigotry'

What the fuck are you even talking about, cappie?

>>11246612
>Dude are you for real? Religion and censorship are best buds since ever. The "liberal" Hollywood is STILL afraid of nipples while showing violence into everything because of it. Sexual education is crippled because of it. If anyone gave a flying fuck about freedom of speech and freedom of expression, they would focus on religious influences instead of butthurt youtubers who want to yell "nigger" without consequences.
I could buy this, but all the people who restrict freedom of speech are atheist liberals. Also not showing nipples doesn't mean showing nipples is illegal. We're talking about government restriction of ideas.

>>11246652
The final redpill is realizing that letting corporations limit your free speech and letting the government lint your free speech are effectively the same thing

>>11246655
Maybe one day but they're not that strong yet

>>11246555
What about making well-sourced arguments that black people's continued poverty and crime is not due to white people oppressing them? Since this is the basis of an entire industry of wealth reallocation and the source of enormous amounts of social conflict surely it is an important thing to discuss.

>>11246639
>"marketplace of ideas" is absolute bullshit.
>freeze peach
>muh bigotry
The implication is clear.

>>11246652
Freedom of speech is a principle and not the same thing as the first amendment.

>burgerpolitics
aaaaaaand saged!

We should become the pitiless censors of ourselves.

>>11246660
No, it isn't. What the fuck does "state reprimand" even mean, cappie?

>all speech, thought and opinion is good and valid simply by virtue of it being speech, thought and opinion

if you actually think this you should kys

What a great thread which is definitely about literature and not politics

>>11246652
>doesn't mean showing nipples is illegal.
Isn't it in most states though?

Besides something like copyright can be easy interpreted as attack on freedom of expression too, so the whole thing is a big clusterfuck between government/companies for centuries already.

>>11246670
>certain speech, thought, and opinion should be suppress by force

Human Rights are ultimately, at their core, simply Rights to violate the Ten Commandments. 'The right to privacy' — the right to adultery, in secret, where no one sees me or has the right to probe my life. 'The right to pursue happiness and to possess private property' -- the right to steal (to exploit others). 'Freedom of the press and of the expression of opinion' -- the right to lie. 'The right of free citizens to possess weapons' -- the right to kill. And, ultimately, 'freedom of religious belief' — the right to worship false gods.

>>11246667
Legally punished by the state.

>>11246684
If by "suppress (sic) by force" you mean "turning reactionary turds with brainrot into pariahs" then yes, absolutely. No state intervention is necessary for that.

>>11245688
This is a lie. Generation Z is the most conservative and libertarian generation since the 2nd world war. Those kids do indeed care about censorship and the 1st amendment.

>>11246692
And where did I say that the consequences that certain speech engenders should be meted out by the state?

>>11246631
Trump called NFL players exercising free speech "animals" and said they should be fired. Surely that's what you mean by state reprimand, yes?

>>11246705
>'recent public opinion polls have revealed that an actual majority of young people in their teens see no objection to the censorship of unpopular ideas'
Your response.
>Good. The "marketplace of ideas" is absolute bullshit.
And like I said earlier the implication is obvious, quit acting retarded.

>>11246693
I disagree with ostracism, but it has been around as long as language, probably longer. I wouldn't expect that behavior to disappear, and there's no chance of obviating its emergence. And that's how you spell "suppress," I don't know what the "(sic) [sic]" is about.

>it's a /pol/ thread thinly disguised as a /lit/ thread because the OP made a vague reference to Huxley

You have to go back

>>11246712
No, I don't.

>>11246716
Because you meant to say "suppressed."

>>11246724
Good for you.

>>11246719
So the head of state reprimanding Americans for exercising free speech is not what you mean by "state reprimand"? K.

>>11246718
It probably was but it doesn't mean there isn't an interesting discussion to be had about the topic.

>>11246734
I explained what i meant here >>11246692. But what I meant should be clear, quit being a semantic bitch.

>>11246477
>Nonviolent protest and you shouting NIGGER for no good reason in your place of work are not even remotely the same thing.

So under your line of reasoning some speech would be “OK” to qualify for free speech and other types of speech wouldn’t? Do you have any idea how much of an idiot you sound like?

>muh “I don’t like what you’re saying so go back to /pol.”

>>11246743
Reprimand and legally punished are two entirely different things.

>>11246657
They're both violations of ones right to express themselves. The consequences are different but they both stem from the same place

>>11246658
Gonna agree with this feller.

It wasn't supposed to be a manual.

>>11246166
Neat. Do you go out of your way to collect first editions or did you happen to come across one?

free speech absolutism is cancer.

>>11246825
pussy-ass faggot nigger.

>>11245688
>diluting a nation of British stock results in the dilution of British values

more at 11

>>11245688
source?

>>11246825
>free speech absolutism
imagine being this much of a cowardly faggot

this is a great discussion of brave new world, guys

>>11246825
GIVE ME THE LIBERTY TO SAY NIGGER OR DEATH

>>11246761
When a company does it right now it's just getting rid of your easy audience to which you have no right

>>11246885
You've yet to prove to me how they're different

>>11245696
Wrong. It is a dystopia disguised as a utopia. Everything is either sex, drugs or instant gratification. What meaning to life is there to fuck woman every day without creating some form of bond? What place do drugs that numb you have in a place that should always be happy? Why live only to watch a porn movie with funny feelings? The only good part is that if you rebel you mighy be sent to the artsy place in the north. They torture children to hate roses and books, reduce IQs and force people to take up certain jobs. Holy shit I fell for the bait.

>>11246477
I agree with you in principle, but I can't help but feeling that the whole Kaepernick issue is just desserts for a political left that has done everything in their power to enable and encourage corporate censorship.

>>11246906
The people still enjoy that shit and there is no real suffering unlike in our world. And as you said, there is the option to fuck off if you want something else, unlike in our world.

>>11246906
I'd say the central question of the novel is whether it is more important to be happy or to be free--Huxley obviously leans towards free and I'm with him

>>11246931
>suffering
>a real thing
anon please 'suffering' is a meme the Jews came up with to frighten people into docility

>>11246823
About five years ago, when I was an undergraduate, I did study abroad during the summer. There was an old bookstore in town and they had a first edition of the book there.

For a week or so I contemplated buying it. I was an undergraduate and didn't have a lot of money, so I struggled with the decision to purchase the book. Eventually I decided that I would. I went to the ATM and withdrew the amount I needed and went to the store. When I got there I couldn't find the book on the shelf, so I asked the clerk about it. He checked the store ledger and confirmed that they had sold the book several days prior. I was disappointed obviously, and as many of the other students in my social circle there were into literature I bemoaned the incident to them. This was in Cambridge, England.

While I was there I developed feelings for a girl in my circle, and we eventually became involved. Once we were back in the United States (she was from the east coast and I was from the west) we continued keeping in contact with one another. I moved to New York City to be with her. A little less than a year later we moved to San Francisco, and for my birthday she presented me with a first edition of Brave New World, nearly identical to the one I had intended on buying back in England, except it had been part of a library collection on an ocean liner.

The book also arrived late so she bought me a mass paperback version as well as a stand-in for it. Now I have the two sitting together on the shelf.

>>11247769
What a lovely gift.

>>11247769
did u fuck her good anon?

>The only people who cry for free speech are bigots

The absolute state of the American left.

The copious amounts of drugs people do

>>11247769
Sweet.

>>11247769
wholesome post

>>11246652
>I could buy this, but all the people who restrict freedom of speech are atheist liberals.
Expect that the MPAA literally was founded by Christian fundamentalists to prevent anti-christian ideas appearing in American media. You may be upset that progressive extremists want to limit things such as hate speech, but there are extreme Evangelists that want to burn all gay people. It would be ignorant to ignore how Puritan ideology still affects conservative thought today.

>>11246904
you literally just said the consequences are different.

>>11249234
>2018
>Evangelists possess the same power as SJWs
When you have to go back decades, if not centuries, to find a comparable example of something you're likely making whatever point you're trying to defend look much, much worse.

It's like defending modern jihad by comparing it to the Crusades.

KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES


CHARA DID NOTHING WRONG


KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES


UNDERTALE IS JEWISH KIKE PROPAGANDA


KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES


CHARA DID NOTHING WRONG


KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES


SARGON IS A FAT KIKE


KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES


CHARA DID NOTHING WRONG


KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES

>>11247769
what a fucking normie, holy shit

>>11250953
>women don’t buy him $150 books as gifts.

Stay mad, faggot.

>>11246522
What's a protest at this point without disruption and damage? Remember OWS?

>>11250953

Political dystopia is reddit as fuck

>Americans

I think that's the real problem that no yank wants to fathom.

>>11246652
>all the people who restrict freedom of speech are atheist liberals
>We're talking about government restriction of ideas.
So the US government is full of atheist liberals who are passing laws to stop people expressing themselves? Have you got any examples?

>>11246188

Why isn't this post getting a response? Too rational?

>>11249234
>but there are extreme Evangelists that want to burn all gay people.
Unironically nothing wrong with this. KYS faggot.

>>11245733
>Deal with suffering
>Soma for everyone
Did you purposefully contradict yourself?

>>11246825
There is no ''absolutism''. Either we have free speech, or we don't. You want to censor the views you despise, but conveniently leave the ones you agree with, or neutral to. Go fuck a cactus.

>>11246188
thats when you introduce protected classes?
plus the environment in the west isn't that bad. both nazis and commies have their own little corners.

>>11246555
Kill yourself

>>11252908
We're talking about what people want to government to do. Not what the government is doing. Currently free speech is at least relatively safe.

>>11247769
is it ok to feel both really happy for this anon and also so fucking envious?

>>11254165
Yes. Just don't let your envy turn to bitterness.