/lit/ - Literature

>>11747463
Please tell me what the fuck this has to do with literature? Elon Musk has never written a book and Joe Rogan hardly qualifies as an author

>>11747468
All very true, but you seem to be under the impression that literature discussion is the norm for /lit/. You might be lost.

>>11747468
>writing a book makes you smart
Not gonna make it

>>11747797
>being rich makes you smart
Not gonna make it

>>11747463
Was it asperger's?

>>11747468
Podcasts are a form of oral literature

>>11747812
Where did I say that? Oh, that's right. I didn't.
I pointed out that your argument that "hardly qualifying" as an author means absolutely nothing.

>>11747878
I was gonna report the thread util i saw this.

>>11747903
First, I'm not the guy that you were originally responding to.
Secondly,
>"hardly qualifying" as an author means absolutely nothing.
You're aware that this is the /lit/ board, correct?

>>11747463
he's smoking it like an underage teenager, without inhaling

>>11747933
Indeed, I am aware and of all places, a literature board should realize the point I just made. For every decent author there are 100 ones of lesser stock.
Do you think De'nesha[sic] Diamond is a genius simply by virtue of writing a book? I would hope not.

>>11747812
Being rich does make you smart, and your wealth is largely a reflection of your intellect.

>>11747949
You're grossly misrepresenting the fpbp. He's saying that the thread is off-topic and should be deleted.

>>11747957
Success in any system is on average reflective of intelligence but, Success does not ensure intelligence and vice versa. Think of all the people who are incredible rich from crating stupid things like apps and compare those to actual research scientists making middle to upper middle class incomes - I wager that the latter is more intelligent.

>Asked about the wisdom of smoking marijuana while he isunder investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the “take private” tweet (which many observers suspected was a marijuana joke), Musk told the Guardian by email: “Guardian is the most insufferable newspaper on planet Earth”.

https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/07/tesla-chief-elon-musk-smokes-marijuana-on-live-web-show

>>11747982
You don't have to point out its not a perfect correlation, I dont think anyone argues it is

>>11747992
he's right about the guardian, they are unsufferable, it is SJW central

>>11747957
Most wealthy people are slightly above average intelligence, yes. But very intelligent? Of course not. If this was the tribal days, they would be unable to fend for themselves against the bigger brains. Now we have spooks like "property rights" protecting them. It's abundantly clear to any person of extreme intelligence that most of them earned their riches through dumb luck. At best, it's usually a good work ethic. Intelligence had little to do with their success in life.
Were this the Gilded age and the Carnegies of this world were running the show, I would be inclined to agree. However, it isn't and even if capitalism was unbridled, it has no tendency to place the best and the brightest at the top.

>>11748025
>"Being rich does make you smart"
You literally just argued that.

>>11748101
Im not the guy you replied to, and he never said that being rich makes you smart. He pointed out that a sign of being rich is that you're smart, which he is right about.

It doesn't account for everyone. Yes, there are smart people who are poor, and rich people who are dumb, and like I said earlier, no one is claiming it is a perfect correlation. But if you at random picked a poor person and a rich person, the rich person would most of the cases be the smarter one

>>11747941
Anon, there's no such thing as "smokes like he was X years old," there's only "smokes as he has X much experience smoking." If you were an experienced smoker as a teenager, congratulations, you're now dumber due to it.

>>11748113
>He pointed out that a sign of being rich is that you're smart
No, he didn't. That's what I pointed out here. >>11747982
His exact statement was " Being rich does make you smart, and your wealth is largely a reflection of your intellect." The statement is pretty black and white and says that being rich is proof of being smart and that wealth is mostly caused by intelligence. Neither of those assumptions are correct.

>>11747941
you don't inhale cigars brainlet

>>11748159
Yikes, im not gonna have this discussion over particularities, Im pretty sure he knows there are exceptions and that he is talking about the general case, and if he isnt, then I am

>>11748173
This. What kind of mother fucking retard inhales a cigar?
That's like injecting olive oil into your veins.

>>11747468
His first wife is an author of YA.

>>11748176
Whatever he may or may not "know" doesn't matter. What matters are the words that he actually posted and the words that he posted are incorrect.

>>11748186
Verbal communication would be a lot less smooth and pleasent if he had to insert "with the exception of X" each time we make a generalizing comment

>>11747878
hahah that's great

>>11748198
Allow me to put this in the clearest possible terms. He did not make a statement about something being indicative of something else, he made a statement about something directly causing something else, and that statement was incorrect.

>>11748227
I dont take the quote "and your wealth is largely a reflection of your intellect" as a switch on/off thing, but rather a correlative thing, which is actually correct and not wrong

>>11748173
if it's pot you're supposed to inhale it for christ sake

>>11748233
That's half of his statement and it functions as an argument for the first half of his statement of Wealth = Intelligence - which is incorrect. He's making an absolute claim and then arguing for it by using a generality.

>>11748269
He is not making an absolute claim if he uses the word "largely".
>to a great extent; on the whole; mostly.

>>11747463
I miss the old days where rich aristocrats were also culturally sophisticated

>>11748275
"Being rich does make you smart" is the absolute claim. ", and your wealth is largely a reflection of your intellect." is an argument in support of that claim. The use of ", and" to connect the two statements doesn't mean that the two statements mean the same thing.

>>11747992
>Guardian is the most insufferable newspaper on planet Earth
True, 0 integrity as well.

>>11748306
I fail to see how "being rich" and "your wealth" aren't synonymous in this context. So the question is whether "makes you rich" or "is largely a reflection of your intellect" is the one that matters. I would argue that the second one matters more

>>11748077
>Most wealthy people are slightly above average intelligence, yes
lmao, keep coping harder.

>>11747878
ok this is (unironically) epic

He talks like Tao Lin

Based

>>11747463
Is this worth 2 hours of my life?

>>11748675
Of course, it's redpilled as fuck

Does Elon know space is entertainment and that he is a slave of the Archons?

>>11748151
>>11748173
>>11748178

>>11748781
Did you just draw this?

>>11748675
Every time I listen to Joe Rogan speak I feel dumber, so it probably isn't.

>>11748865
I meant smarter*

>>11748904
No, I meant dumber, please kill yourself you disgusting vermin.

>>11748178
He's smoking weed though

>>11747878

A+

>>11748916
not me btw

>>11747941
to be fair, I wouldn't want to smoke myself silly in front of millions of viewers either.

>>11747468
first day on /lit/, eh?

>>11747463
What did Land do to him??

>>11747992
Blown the FUCK out

>>11747463
This 10/10,

>>11749100
^This. When he starts saying humans have a bandwidth problem and that AI is going to consume humanity I couldn't help but get flashbacks to Fanged Nuomena

>>11747463
This is kinda boring to watch. Why is there no podcast where the interviewer is smart? Is that really too much to ask?

>>11749183
>Why is there no podcast where the interviewer is smart?
Why don't you start one?

>>11747992
the guardian is dog-trash-tier journalism.
They've co-opted art discussion in the mainstream and it makes all art lovers look like post-modern jerk-offs.
Elon's fucking based as per.

>>11749183
>>11749197
I like Joe Rogan's casual attitude, I think that's good.
But you could have that AND have the guy be somewhat smart and well read. Pic related just as an example.

>>11749209
Like Norm MacDonald

>>11749305
MacDonald has nothing interesting to say at all. Give me more Nick Land--either interviewed or in debate with another intellectual. We already saw the Land vs Wolfendale debate and although I admittedly didn't understand everything, it was really fun to listen to.

>>11747878
Reminds me of Berserk. I wonder if there's a Pepe Behielt egg edit

>>11749320
You're right I just think he's funny and captivating to listen to. He asks good questions. I don't think he's good for intellectual listening unless you're high on pot and reading into the stuff he says and get all meta with it. I don't know who Nick Land is but he seems cool.

>>11749172
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra3fv8gl6NE
>7m49s
>It feels to me that we are biological bootloader for AI [...]

>11m00s
>I try to convince people to slow down, slow down AI, to regulate AI... that was futile, I tried for years, nobody listened.

>>11749382
>I don't know who Nick Land is but he seems cool.
He's a britbong philosopher who said the same thing back in the 90s while high on meth and artificially induced himself with schizophrenia before having too much exposure and got his brain fried.

>>11749209
what if we got will self on the joe rogan podcast? who would snap first?

>>11749431
fuck. it's happening. it's finally happening.

>>11747463
Holy shit, Elon is such an autist. I can barely even listen to this guy speak.

>>11748077
Kylie is smarter than you. You aren't smart because you're some insufferable hipster who knows about a few writers that you could never compare to.

>>11749543
He's /ourguy/. See >>11749431

>>11749431
He's embarrassing. Sounds like a 14 year old pothead.

>>11749593
t. Kylie Jenner