/lit/ - Literature

>>11407785
because men can't bring them to orgasm.

>>11407785
Women have this tendency to love and care for the neglected other. It's the reason why your mom makes you play with that weird kid. They are both civilization building and civilization destroying. They are necessary for creating the interpersonal bonds that make up a society, but by the same token, they can invite the wolf into the hen house by accident.

Men, on the other hand, have always historically looked out for wolves. And when we moved out of nature into cities, men were charged with looking out for human predators.

>>11407855
>civilization building
What civilization have women ever built?

>>11407882
well, your mother didn't destroy you when she should have, so that has to count for something

>>11407882
They are civilization building in the sense they force men to settle down and work on the community. An all-male community is a lot like the wild west, functional but bare minimum. With women in the picture, men will stumble over themselves trying to beautify the place. Women were unironically the reason why the wild west was eventually settled.

>>11407892
That doesn't answer my question.

>>11407896
>They are civilization building in the sense they force men to settle down and work on the community.
Men didn't settle down because of women. It was the agricultural revolution that allowed men to create civilization and settle. Women had nothing to do with it.

>>11407798
I've brought multiple women to orgasm

>>11407785
Why do retarded men allow women to do this?

>>11407925
if you honestly think women didn't contribute, then nothing anybody says can save you from your own stupidity.

>>11407930
>multiple women told me I brought them to orgasm
it's called a lie. they do it so you stop trying, because it gets annoying.

>>11407933
You are welcome to mention the contributions then. Show to everyone i'm stupid.

>>11407785
If you keep one half of the human species politically disenfranchised for thousands of years, and then throw giant obstructionist fits any time one of them comes into a position of power, is it any surprise that society declines? The females have no practice wielding power, and the males won't let them practice when they have a chance. The males bind the women's feet and in so doing declares her to be a poor runner. Well they're right, but why?

>>11407943
So no women has ever had a male induced orgasm? I mean, you're obviously trolling but cmon. You can do better.

>>11407961
That's not true though. Everytime women wielded power things always went to shit. Women are simply incapable of wielding power well. Your apologist rhetoric won't change historical facts.

>>11407785
Women want to be lawyers, tax collectors, etc. But when society collapses they need to be escorted just to go into the streets. Think about that for a moment because that says EVERYTHING you need to know about women. Their wish to be judges, professors, etc is just acting. It isn't real; it's make believe. Men will humor them but when the situation turns deadly--when the play is over--then where are all these tough independent women?

Women only demand (and always get btw) male jobs when society is so insulated that it can afford to ignore reality. It can entertain false notions and promote unnatural behaviors because there is no check. This is why war, famine, etc make people REAL. They serve as checks to decadence. You cannot entertain an elegant but hopelessly false idea in the face of an enemy ready at every chance to kill you. All your instincts are honed to ensure that whatever you do, it is in touch with the immediacy of your situation.

That's why Western feminists were fetishizing a group of Kurdish women that had formed an armed battalion (or some such group) to fight ISIS. They love the IMAGE of a group of fighting women. It makes feminists feel better about themselves (makes them think they are tough). But of course there is no dwelling on the reason such a group was formed in the first place (the male units intended to protect these women failed), or the reality of how such a group would preform in actual combat with male units, not to mention the consequences for any female survivors.

There is nothing wrong with women. They are fine as they are. They deserve our protection and our provision. But when they take into their heads to believe they are men, it seems to me that any heathy society will do its part to remind them (gently but firmly) that they are not, that they have an important role to play as mothers and wives, and that such a role is good enough for them.

Oh for fuck's sake.

>>11407995

>The flimsiest of correlations is immediately turned into a definite and indisputable causal link as soon as it means that anon has rationalized his hatred for women

It's so tiresome and transparent.

Literature?

>>11407961
imagkne being illiterate enough to read the OP image and still make this post

>>11408025
There is nothing flimsy about it. Everytime women were elevated to be something other than their traditional gender role things always go south. You can play pretend that there is no causation, but don't expect people to indulge your delusions.

>>11408006

>Think about that for a moment because that says EVERYTHING you need to know about women

That they are in general physically weaker than men, and thus need protection when society collapses into violence? Gee professor, that's profound.

>Women only demand (and always get btw) male jobs when society is so insulated that it can afford to ignore reality. It can entertain false notions and promote unnatural behaviors because there is no check.

This is such a retarded conception of "reality" that I don't really know how to start. Do you know how to hunt anon? Do you know how to skin an animal and cook it? Rudimentary survival skills? Can you see without glasses, do you have enough body fat and hair to stay warm without clothes? No? Then I guess you're not real, you're unnatural, you'd be fucked once society collapses. The decadence!

>>11408043

>There is nothing flimsy about it.

Except for the fact that no causal link has been suggested whatsoever. And you haven't done it either. Just repeated the assertion, like some sort of windowlicker. If it's so easy, go ahead. Write a paragraph or to about how exactly women rising to positions of power leads to the downfall of society. I bet you can't.

>>11408044
Yeah, I kinda agree with the general idea, but we really don't need to simulate hardshiops on everybody when we live in times of prosperity.

>>11408044
This discussion centers fundamentally on leadership. If you cannot lead in the worst of times (and there is no time worse than war or famine or social collapse) you are not a leader and do not deserve to place in such confidence. Leadership means nothing if it does not mean leadership in WAR. This is not play acting.

Second. What you say means very little. We are discussing the differential capabilities between two large groups. What I as an individual am capable of is none of your business.

>>11408053
>Except for the fact that no causal link has been suggested whatsoever. And you haven't done it either. Just repeated the assertion
Expect i have. It's easily observable how women been elevated is a good indicator society is slowly crumpling as seen by countless historical instances. You are simply content to play the role of the blind man because it's contradictory to your egalitarian ideology.

>>11408053
Not that anon, but it goes something like this (summarizing the Glubb essay):

Women rise to positions of power but are ineffective at their jobs. While this is fine in some areas that are not infrastructure critical, it's absolutely devastating when society comes to depend upon their judgment. They are more agreeable on average and therefore natural leftists by temperament. They lack the toughness needed to make hard decisions. They will ultimately be the ones who invite the barbarians past the gate.

While I disagree it's only leftists who do this (there are plenty of soiboys who fit in this category as well), I think there's something to be said for society being run entirely by progressives. You need progressives in order to advance, but you need to keep them in check or else they'll cause all of society to degenerate.

>>11408065

>This discussion centers fundamentally on leadership.

Why'd you write about jobs then? About women being professors, judges and tax collectors, when what you really wanted to talk about was how women can't be military leaders? Seems kind of incoherent anon.

>If you cannot lead in the worst of times (and there is no time worse than war or famine or social collapse) you are not a leader and do not deserve to place in such confidence. Leadership means nothing if it does not mean leadership in WAR. This is not play acting.

So basically what you're saying is that "leadership" is one thing, one thing only, and that the only kind that matters is the one in warfare. So being able to lead a corporation isn't real if you cannot also lead the infantry? That's pretty fucking stupid anon. It's not the same skillsets that are involved at all. Maybe chill out a bit with the hard-on for all things military and WAR in all-caps, it sounds pretty gay.

>Second. What you say means very little. We are discussing the differential capabilities between two large groups. What I as an individual am capable of is none of your business.

What I'm saying is rather essential, I think, since you seem to have failed to understand that human nature IS culture, and that judging people by how well they'd survive in a pre-cultural primitive state is retarded. I'm still not sure if that is exactly what is entailed by your use of the word "reality", correct me if I'm wrong.

>>11407785
Obsession with not being seen as the bad guy and emotional degradation.
>>11407882
Haudenosaunee confederacy, though they did immediately hand power over to a notorious woman beater.

>>11408044
>Then I guess you're not real, you're unnatural, you'd be fucked once society collapses.
you say this as if it isn't entirely true

>>11408074

>is asked to provide causal link
>repeats the correlation

I'm going to repeat my initial comment: tiresome.

>>11408076

I see. Have you read his essay? He seems to just be introducing new suppositions that will require compelling evidence, namely that women suck at their new jobs. Sort of just moving the issue with his reasoning instead of solving it. Does he address this in his essay?

>>11408006
>Women only demand (and always get btw) male jobs when society is so insulated that it can afford to ignore reality.
Women worked in world war II when men where fighting war lmao. You're pretty retarded.

>>11408006
real post

>>11408006
>They deserve our protection and our provision.
i dont think they do. I have nothing against women but they dont deserve anything from us

>>11408113

Not intended as such - surely it is entirely true. It was intended to point out that how well you'd do in a state of nature is a pretty dumb criterion to judge people's capabilities in a state of culture.

>>11408142
that's what they want you to think, I assure you it was nowhere near the turnout you were told it was. Consider it.

>>11407956
>show to everyone I'm stupid
Why bother, you've already done that

>>11408153
That's just paranoid mumbling.

>>11408131
It's a minor footnote in his essay. His bigger thesis is about the vitality of nations being sapped away by decadence. He outlines six stages of a civilization and the OP's passage occurs in the decadence phase:

Pioneers
Conquest
Commerce
Affluence
Intellect
Decadence

People overstate the paragraph or so about women because it's really really easy to bait feminists online.

>>11408131
>I'm going to repeat my initial comment: tiresome.
It seems nothing will cure your blindness. I'm not interested in futile struggles. Good day.

>>11408151
>a state of culture.
I dont think humans can escape culture. Anon's point if i was understanding it correctly was that we are living in a sort of bubble right now, and violent aggression is going to reassert itself soon.

>>11408165

>It seems nothing will cure your blindness.

Well I'm not so sure about that, but saying the same thing three times sure wont help me understand:

>1: Everytime women wielded power things always went to shit.

>2: Everytime women were elevated to be something other than their traditional gender role things always go south.

>3: It's easily observable how women been elevated is a good indicator society is slowly crumpling as seen by countless historical instances.

These are all variations on a correlation. There's no casual link here. >>11408076 has a causal link, but it's pretty questionable I think.

Good day to you too anon.

>>11408164

Is it worthwhile overall, you think? I might check it out.

>>11408156
So you won't? I guess i'm not stupid after all.

stupid femele apologist

>>11408171

>I dont think humans can escape culture

Nah, I don't really do either, but I was going along with what I took to be the premise in the anon I was responding to, his talk about unnaturalness in society. Then again I may have misunderstood what he meant by "reality".

>Anon's point if i was understanding it correctly was that we are living in a sort of bubble right now, and violent aggression is going to reassert itself soon.

Could be, but I still think that there's some flimsy suppositions in his talk about unnatural behaviours, insulation and "realiy".

>>11408209
>flimsy suppositions in his talk about unnatural behaviours, insulation and "realiy".
not going to disagree there. I kind of know what he means in the sense that the sort of society we have now seems almost like a ponzi scheme, but it isnt any less natural or real then any other social phase.

>>11408199
To prove you are stupid I encourage everyone who thinks you are stupid to post 'haha look at you stupid' as a reply

>>11408283
That's nice and all, but ridicule isn't what i asked for. I asked for the contributions of women and you still you haven't provided them.

>>11407962
oh, right. I forgot to answer.
Yes. it's true. All men suck at sex. "cram it in their pee hole until they start screaming" isn't actually a valid sexual technique, no matter how long you're willing to try.

>>11408330
lesbian detected. Not that youre making it very hard

>>11408335
https://www.gq.com/story/sexy-faking-it

>>11408330
wtf kind of sex have you had? I stick it in the vagina, not the urethra.

>>11408346
Some girls just come a lot, some never come at all, some require specific things to come. They also do different things when they come, some are very vocal and obvious, other just scrunch their face a bit and breathe heavily.

If you really think no girls come from being dicked idk what to tell you, they literally evolved to want the dick

>>11408371
It's a troll. Ignore them.

even plato said that education, job distribution, roles etc should be equal for both genders, although he limited it to the ruling caste in his ideal society. but you can see the bottleneck for him (whether you agree or not) was the excellence of individuals according to his criteria, regardless of gender

>>11408379
it's cute that you think that

>>11408390
We are not talking about ruling castes though. We are talking about society as a whole and Plato definitely wouldn't have approved of that.

Civilisation isn't a good thing, Redditor.

>>11408410
my point wasn't "we should do what plato said", but that even someone as conservative as plato was adverse to the kind of basic gender essentialism you see people spouting now.

>>11408444

>>11407956
>>11407925

You sound too defensive to even accept any valid points. I will try to explain the best I can though English is not my first language.

Women select men based on their position in relation with other men, I mean by this that men in higher places in a hierarchy will get to reproduce more than the ones in the middle, and the bottom ones usually don't even reproduce at all.

It is one of the reasons why humans have developed so much, other chimps' females are not selective, they mate with whomever as long as they are in heat.

Selectiveness from the females means then that with each passing generation the species as a whole is better at doing what ever they are good at doing.

Women are also more empathetic and loving, which is great for the species because human babies are quite delicate and useless things for quite a long time, and in order for women to be able to be effective caretakers they have an instinct of wanting to protect the defenseless and take the side of whomever seems to be in pain/suffering. Encouraging this on their partner and children also helps to build more trust in the other, so that tribes and the divide between "us vs them" is somewhat less pronounced.

The reason this is considered civilization building is because this values are needed since noteworthy and successful civilizations usually start as a conglomeration of different tribes in a geographical region that have a whole lot of differences and must overcome them while creating a strong sense of unity and trust in order to progress into something truly great or they are bound to stay for ever as African tribes destined to periodically murder and raid each other to the ends of time.

The danger of allowing the female instinct lets call it to govern the politics of a civilization as its main driver is that it is very easy to subdue those instinct of inclusiveness and protecting and helping the weak and frail is that you can end up inviting enemies that are using suffering as a guise.

Another danger is that, since women do not participate in hierarchies of competence as much as choose mates from them, and since hierarchies tend to produce a certain amount of suffering (from the males in the bottom of it) then it is possible for a women guided state to come to see hierarchies in itself as a problem that needs to be destroyed for the good of the suffering minority, and in taking this route the female instinct might end up undermine the whole positive aspects of itself.

>>11408801
>Women are also more empathetic and loving,
doubt,png

>>11408805
Well doubt it all you can but it is not my subjective observation, it is reproducible in lab conditions that women are more empathetic than men just as it is reproducible the higher intelligence and discipline in men.

>>11408820
>>11408805
Also thanks for your thought out answer and not nitpicking one little point you yourself disagrees with based solely on personal experiences.

>>11408801
None of those are contributions. All you said is basically women are breeding units and somehow that's a contribution.

>>11408820
do you have source on women being more empathetic? Are you talking strictly about maternal empathy?

>>11408830
No that's not what I said at all.
I mean if you want to say it like that all humans are breeding units irrespective of gender.
Civilizations that are built solely by women don't exist, but I might as well point out that civilization built solely by men don't exist either, all civilizations are built on the combinations (to different degrees and in different structures of said civilization) of male and female ideals and contributions,
The participation in raising children and molding their ideals and personality is as important as the rest, otherwise modern day culture should see no negative effects from women abandoning their role as caretakers, but negative effects can absolutely be observed.

>>11407785
because women use the animus like a prosthetic dick, just raping the fuck out of everything and fucking everything in sight. like a dick made out of fucking metal. why do you think they hate each other so much and fight over men? They want our animus'(dicks) to fuck each other over with. At least men know their dicks well enough to be careful with them

>>11408839
You can find some if you google them but lemme bootup my laptop I am sure I downloaded a bunch of studies for a discussion I had some months ago.

>>11408849
>I mean if you want to say it like that all humans are breeding units irrespective of gender.
No they aren't. Men fight, build, lead, invent, etc...
Women fulfilling their role as breeding units isn't a contribution.

>>11408849
>but I might as well point out that civilization built solely by men don't exist either
And you would be wrong. Mate selection isn't civilization building.

>female ideals and contributions
What ideals and contributions?

>>11408878
So the basic system that allows the species to evolve, better itself, and even survive, is not a contribution?

Also, to reduce the whole maternity process and caretaking of children to "breeding" is ridiculous. Reducing a whole lot of complicated and important systems to a single word to make it sound stupid is not that hard.

I might as well say that women build civilization since they carry, give birth and develop the offspring to ensure the continuation of the species.
And Men fulfilling their role as "maintenance units" isn't a contribution.

>>11407925
women have to exist for men to have something to project their anima's on. Otherwise we'd be homosexual and more effeminate men would effectively become women, leaving us in the same place we are now, just with a population in terminal decline.

>>11408908
Would you mind defining what you consider a civilization?
Because it seems to me that you have adopted a worldview in which you internally define civilization as "everything at which men naturally exceed over women" and I want to make sure we are on the same page to the basic definition atleast.

>>11408933
>I might as well say that women build civilization since they carry, give birth and develop the offspring to ensure the continuation of the species.
>And Men fulfilling their role as "maintenance units" isn't a contribution.
Tu quoque nonsense won't work on me. Men don't just maintain. They build, create, invent, fight, lead etc... whenever women are put on those roles things go south and fail miserably.

>>11408283
>>11408283
You are embarassing. I'm dealing with a woman, I suppose?

Attempt at social shaming is more often observed with women as a form of discreditationwhen they're cornered.

>>11408955
it's impossible to tell if it's a woman or a really leftist guy, they talk the same way and frame everything in terms of social status and shame instead of ideas.

>>11408948
>Would you mind defining what you consider a civilization?
>''A civilization or civilisation is any complex society characterized by urban development, social stratification imposed by a cultural elite, symbolic systems of communication (for example, writing systems), and a perceived separation from and domination over the natural environment''

>>11408952
I wasn't making the argument that men just "maintain", my whole point was exactly that it would be ridiculous to say exactly that, as ridiculous as saying women are just "breeding units".

>>11408967
Ok, wikipedia definition, that's good cause that is the one I was using.

how then is at the very least mate selection not civilization building?

>a perceived separation from and domination over the natural environment
One of the main reasons why we are not just chimps and are above the environment is because of female selective mating.

>>11408983
>One of the main reasons why we are not just chimps and are above the environment is because of female selective mating.
what kind of ludicrous argument is this? I dont see walruses creating civilization

>>11408990
I didn't say it was THE reason. Just one of them.

>>11407785
Because women are metaphyscially evil. The form of the human being is a being with all X and Y chromosones; i.e. man. To be a woman is to privated of the Y chromosome. The missing Y chromosome means that women will always be deficient from the full form of humanity (X & Y), will always fall short of the good and the beautiful that is our form, and will always be metaphysically evil and ugly for being incomplete demi-humans.

>>11408871

*SNAP*

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
As if women were capable of doing anything of world-significance.

>>11409038
how does the fact that all humans are all female during the first stages of gestation fit into your worldview?

>>11409038
>Because women are metaphyscially evil.
/lit/ - Literature

>>11408165
Jesus christ not who you are replying to but you are a fucking retard

sure: women do not have strong abstract thinking skills and when they do they tend to be oriented towards the mundane or the low complexity issues which one does not need intense abstraction to resolve; women are one plastic surgery procedure and tit job away from losing all integrity; women are all mad that they didn't get fucked into disembodied states every second of the day when they were young; women envy penises because you can rape people with penises and people who have them are strong and control violence; women don't have to fight in wars, they have not collective racial memory of killing others; women are never adepts or mystics so their inner world tends to be dim, gloomy, shallow; women's prose is truly midwit, it never ascends to levels that even pseuds like Nabokov and Proust could manage; women are basically less likely to be geniuses and genius is practically the only way to produce good literature; women do not have a strong individualist inclination, in fact Ayn Rand, an ugly, unimaginative, banal, perpetually earthbound, flightless and weasel worded pseud is the only one ive seen have a "deep" thought to give about the sovereignty of the individual soul; women are afraid of making aggressive critiques of society and their own type; women are perpetually biologically bound to defend themselves and what they do, no woman would ever attack sex and marriage and feminism, there are a number of men who find organic life to be disgusting, its almost inevitable that female transhumanists like animals or that they think female sexuality is beautiful or that a tradfag woman loves being mother, they're incapable of misanthropy, true world-hate or the desire to annihilate the world; women have no understanding of destiny; women are hypergamous; women are lazy; women are emotional to a point of atrophying philosophical and intuitive tendencies, they're not intuitive at all, they're cthonic roiling cauldrons of other people's affects; women cannot affect without using a mediating pathway, they need some type of conduit or channel they're not strong enough to emit force themselves, so they'll use sex and violence to communicate instead in their writing (despite not understanding how sex works at all), no woman has ever properly understood sex they psychologize it into an alien torture ritual for themselves or some form of affirmation of their independence, they don't see the sexual act as truly debased like Men do, and as mentioned above they are incapable of understanding the purpose or impulses beneath hyper violence (hence violence is always a psychotic detachment from one's role in society; women's whole violence pathos is based in psychosis).

That's it.

Imagine being this resentful because Stacey didn't pay you any mind when you were in highschool.

>>11410730
Is this why prostitutes get murdered

>>11410730
Great post

Ironically women's subtle but complete inability to create things like this is partly why I hate them. They are only capable of kneejerk defense of their own interests, they can't conceptualize a transcendental realm distinct from the mundane realm of "interest" (whether divine or daemonic).

I can't tell whether to hate them or pity them. They're like orcs or something, twisted mockeries of real lifeforms.

>>11407785
>Why are women so fucking retarded?
Small brains.

>>11410913
Nigga you delusional don't succumb

>>11410788
I started viewing women as children once I actually had consistent pussy. I saw them as angels when I was a virgin

>>11410903

Yup.

>>11410929
>Everything weird is weird :S Don't be weird :S That's weird be normal!! Guyyyys can't you just tamp down what you're saying so it's more inoffensive and less incisive and acerbic guyyys cmonnn it's making me uncomfortable I'm going to report you

GET OUT OF MY BRAIN, VAGINA, I WON'T FALL FOR YOUR FUCKING BUZZKILLING STATUS QUO ENFORCING MEDIOCRITY BULLSHIT ANYMORE

Imagine making a thread about literature because you're genuinely interested in discussing it, instead of being baited by the most mundane and uninteresting contentions all the time, in effect using literature as nothing but a vehicle to be butthurt about identity politics on an anonymous internet board as your prime, your youth, a time that should be filled with laughter and love, dwindles away, day by day, bringing you nothing but an increase in bitterness and resentment.

Imagine they're right about what happens when you die, and your life flashes before your eyes, imagine the last experience of your life having to be sitting through your personal cinema of despair, seeing the thousands of "HURR WOMEN ARE STOOPID, LITERATURE IS FOR MENZ" threads you've made and participated in, laboriously typing out each toxic, uninteresting and resent-filled comment, your outrage not stemming from any genuine love of literature, but from the anger caused by the suppressed realization that women have chosen that your genetic lineage dies with you, a choice on their part that you are too narcissistic to realize is coming from a place of mercy towards your potential offspring.

>>11410962
>"HURR WOMEN ARE STOOPID, LITERATURE IS FOR MENZ"

serious question why do so many reddit types do this when they want to mock 4chan types? it's always cringe as fuck

>HURR DA JOOZ R TEH STOOPID
>DURRR DA WIMMENZ

it makes you look like a babytalking fucking cringe faggot, who thinks "silly voice" automatically makes things funny. it's embarrassing

>>11410962
>but from the anger caused by the suppressed realization that women have chosen that your genetic lineage dies with you, a choice on their part that you are too narcissistic to realize is coming from a place of mercy towards your potential offspring
a nigga fucks 10 women a week and believes women are inferior and they destroy civilization, what's your response

>>11410962
nice.jpg

>>11407855
This is dead fucking wrong. Women absolutely despise weirdos. The problem comes when spinsters and hags don't have children of their own and they start projecting their maternal instinct onto humans they consider their natural inferiors. They start acting like ghetto dwelling Africans or Arabs are their own children and become hysterical whenever someone stands up to them, just like the bully's mother becomes hysterical whenever someone questions whether little Biff really is a perfect little angel. Politicians and the powers behind the throne know this, and they exploit to the hilt, ensuring that countries are flooded with brown people and women are childless. That's why women should be disenfranchised.

>>11410730
I'm not reading anything you post until you learn to do formatting like a human being.

>>11410974

>reddit types
>4chan types
>thinking that post was supposed to be funny

>>11411041
>reddit types
>4chan types

yeah you know, people like you vs. the people who don't stand out weirdly

i don't know if it's because you're young or you're a woman or what

>>11411053

>the people who don't stand out weirdly

lmao, now he's advocating ideological conformity on 4chan. What an oldfag!

>>11411059
>What an oldfag!

I don't know what you're doing, but please stop.

>>11411053
>>11411059

>calls other people redditors
>admonishes those who "stand out weirdly"

This truly is poetry. The essence of reddit is the upvote system, a mechanically enforced Heideggerian Das Man that ensures that only the most anodyne and non-offensive content to the users rises to the top, and the man calling for the same conformity on 4chan is calling others redditors.

A gargantuan faggot, truly.

>>11411065

He's a real 4chan type, lmao, a true oldfag, unlike those pesky reddit types.

>>11411068
don't cite heidegger if you haven't read heidegger, das Man is the necessary grund that makes complex communication possible, which is why jarringly different or "other" forms of life stand out starkly as the unheimlich

reddit, like women and normies in general, epitomizes the letzten mensch, but real cultures still police themselves for parasites so that they don't degrade into white noise. that's why on 4chan when someone makes a low effort post (e.g. where the whole joke amounts to "DURRRR I WUB DA XBAWWKSSSS <-- that's you! that's what you sound like right now!"), it's part of the habitus to feel actual revulsion and disgust at it, and to purge it immediately

i'm guessing this other guy is from /leftypol/, where their standards are more lax precisely because they mistakenly let anybody into the in-group who happens to demonstrate ideological conformity. but ideology is secondary to culture, at the surface of what culture enables, so what you get is a bunch of redditors who all claim to be marxist but who don't have enough of a shared abgrund to police mutations and pseudomorphological additions to the community. for example, i am a leftist myself, but i think /leftypol/ is full of bizarrely, literally "uncannily" (unheimlich) out-of-place and unfunny whiny fags who don't belong on a 4chan-style board.

it's a gut feeling. humans are very attuned to these things. but women and effeminate low-effort men can rarely do it.

>>11411091

>claims others have not read Heidegger
>claims Das Man is ground (!!!) rather than possibility

Jesus fucking christ, you've actually read Heidegger as if he was a neo-Kantian.

Or put in a different way:

>DURR, HEIDEGGER WAS A NEO-KANTIAN, HURR

>>11411111
there are many senses of the grund metaphor in heidegger, especially as the language and ideas of B&T are developed post-kehre. in fact it's one of his central metaphors, an absolute metaphor in blumenberg's sense (see bambach's book on chthonos/boden, e.g.). you are weirdly inverting the topos by calling "possibilities" (which PROCEED from grounds) themselves the ground. possibilities (the "horizon" of possibility, or horizon of interpretation) are grasped by means of rootedness/groundedness (again, see bambach) in the ground. temporality is itself the ground of all possibilities; fundamental grundstimmungen (ground-moods/dispositions) are the grounds of possibilities for dasein. dasein's being in the world, a world into which it is always already "thrown" (and etc. with the heideggerian commonplaces), necessarily involves das man. a necessary ground of authentic action is the presumption of inauthentic or "everyday" precursors.

did you just read the wikipedia page "Heideggerian terminology" that says "possibilities" 50 times in the das man section?

So this explains why Muslims men hate women and put them on a leash. They know women ruined their civilization. My God, this is the ultimate redpill. Jews aren't the main cause, women are.

>>11411111
>>11411154
It is obviously true that there has always been a large sense of "what one does" on 4chan, epitomized in slogans like "not your personal army"
Among the implicit guidelines there is "hold edgy opinions and by all means bait as hard as you can" which breeds discourse that tends to actually contain wit

My image of reddit has been almost entirely shaped by derogatory remarks on here / posts by supposed reddit users that may as well have been bait; that being said it seems like on reddit exclusion of unwanteds has been turned into a game + an automatic process, ironically lowering the amount of actual personal interaction. Important point: mainly opinions get downvoted, not the way they are presented ("culture"), which is explained by the fact that posts with downvotes are HIDDEN, and people are naturally trying to hide their enemies from public sight lest they find more allies; on 4chan you only confront and bait; and if you notice an "ally" which is easily baitable, you better try do bait him yourself, shame him, insult him, drive him off to reddit so he doesn’t do further damage to your cause by doing dumb posts
This is disregarding the fact that many posters here are far beyond genuine convictions, for better or worse

This thread was moved to >>>/r9k/46553342