/lit/ - Literature

>>12415646
I'm down for manlet extermination. When you wanna start?

stupid kike

>>12415650
Just accelerate global warming and the coastal manlets will drown while the coastal chads just comfortably stand around.

>>12415646
what is it with kikes and their neurotic fantasies

I'd actually pay to watch them fight each other.

>>12415646
>And I might do a few things to that Nazi sister of yours, too.
neetch was such a philosemite that he would approve of this. prove me wrong

>>12415646
:Pinker is the eau de /industrial cleaner/ used as a sterilizing agent for a /Nietzschean divine/ violence injection machine acclimated to an /axiology of Hume's/ cosmology device:

Picturing Nietzsche pummeling Pinker to death with the hardcover edition of Enlightenment Now.

>>12415669
>not being a manlet with a life ring fucking all the hot women while the post-glacial chads have to watch with embarrassment

Yikes

>>12415646
This supposed Superman is obviously motivated by butthurt. Apart from the strawmanning, I think it’s a bit specious to say “well I suppose you wouldn’t like to experience x”, like going to the Allied high command and asking them not to engage in warfare against Germany simply because they probably wouldn’t like it if they personally were bombed and bayoneted... it elevates the subjective discomfort or suffering of one hypothetical person hypothetically caused by some proposition and totally omits any of its boons and advantages—which can be a reasonable and necessary exercise, but it’s hardly a refutation, because it would disqualify almost all human activity.

>>12415646
Remember that the Ubermënsch cannot, simply CANNOT be anti-Semitic. The tribe is untouchable and beyond reproach.

>>12415646
>“I am a superman: hard, cold, terrible, without feelings and without conscience. As you recommend, I will achieve heroic glory by exterminating some chattering dwarves
He is none of those things. Especially since he's so anally devastated over Nazis.

>>12415726
Übermensch*

>"Because you can't."
>Nietzsche proceeds to body-slam him

>>12415685
Based schizoposter

>>12415646
>caring what Margaret Atwood has to say

Nietzsche was the type of lad to start suggesting pistol duels when people got too sassy, Pinker would be fucked.

>>12415894
I can imagine it escalating into physical confrontation very easily

>>12415646
ass

>>12415894
>Good God almighty, now Wagner has entered the ring!

Just looking at Pinker tells you he's lying

>>12415682
>Nietzsche was a philosemite
is this bait or do you not know the sort of things he said about them?
Nietzsche's anti-antisemitism was purely of the 'i am superior to plebeian ressentiment' variety

>>12415650
Terrible idea. The best film directors tend to be manlets, and at least half of the best writers were manlets. It is up to us lanklets to defend our manlet brethren who are forced to endure the most unspeakable nastiness from shallow women. That you share the prejudice against manlets held by vile Tinder thots is truly despicable.

>>12415687
NEETzsche was a manlet cuck

>>12416006
cope

>>12416006
Nietzsche was anti-judaic, not anti-semetic.

>>12416086
based lanklet brother-in-arms

>>12415646
Steven Pinker is a sophist.

>>12416539
That's why he needs the hardcover edition faggot.

>>12415646
>catches a sabre to the torso

>>12415646
cringe. Who is this bozo?

>>12415646
Pinker would be fucked. The neoliberal messiah rules as they all do, by deception and obfuscation.

>>12417748
Who is a bigger normie in the "le intellectual darkie web" Bret WhineStein or this Jew here?

>>12415726
oh man, this post

>>12415646
>I cannot think of a reason why you should not except for your own safety. If you truly intend to do what you have just proclaimed you shall, then raise your fists. We shall settle this as men.

>>12415988
>YOU SEE THE... THING IS PINKER-

>>12417748
>The neoliberal messiah rules as they all do, by deception and obfuscation.
Neoliberals are generally pretty open about their rule, and usually do it by ledgers.

Or are you one of those Americans who have conflated neoliberalism, ie. the restriction of the scope of the state to that which profits the private sector and encourages free trade and promotes laissez-faire capitalism (via austerity, cuts to social services, removal of trade barriers, and the like), and the pink-haired whiny SJW's that Americans usually think of when they say, "liberal"?

Ironically, the GOP are as neo-liberal as it gets. It's the folks you guys call liberals, such as Bernie, who actually fight against the neoliberal status quo.

>>12417854
>Ironically, the GOP are as neo-liberal as it gets.
It's not ironic to anyone here who read burke or maistre. Rights are already a liberal concept.
>liberals, such as Bernie, who actually fight against the neoliberal status quo.
Bernie supports open borders. This helps the ruling capitalist class lower wages and continue to disrupt the family unit and harmony of the people, hes just another shill for them. This your first time on /lit/? Your whole "le gop is liberal" sounds like you just came off the boat from reddit. You should probably go back. You arent as smart as you think you are.

>>12415646
I want to dive into Nietzsche some day but I get the vibe that this is actually a good characterization of his ideology

>>12416639

same thing lmao

>>12418148
>Bernie supports open borders.

lol wut

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0

>>12416086

This

>>12415646
these are the people that apparently are the defenders of rationality and facts

So he doesn’t understand nietzsche at all

If Buddha and Nietzsche were confronted, could either produce any argument that ought to appeal to the impartial listener? I am not thinking of political arguments. We can imagine them appearing before the Almighty, as in the first chapter of the Book of Job, and offering advice as to the sort of world He would create. What could either say?

Buddha would open the argument by speaking of lepers, outcast and miserable; the poor, toiling with aching limbs and barely kept alive by scanty nourishment; the wounded in battle, dying in slow agony; the orphans, ill-treated by cruel guardians; and even the most successful haunted by the thought of failure and death. From all this load of sorrow, he would say, a way of salvation must be found, and salvation can only come through love.

Nietzsche, whom only Omnipotence could restrain from interrupting, would burst out when his turn came.

"Good heavens, man, you must learn to be of tougher fibre. Why go about sniveling because trivial people suffer? Or, for that matter, because great men suffer? Trivial people suffer trivially, great men suffer greatly, and great sufferings are not to be regretted, because they are noble. Your ideal is a purely negative one, absence of suffering, which can be completely secured by non-existence. I, on the other hand, have positive ideals: I admire Alcibiades, and the Emperor Frederick II, and Napoleon. For the sake of such men, any misery is worth while. I appeal to You, Lord, as the greatest of creative artists, do not let Your artistic impulses be curbed by the degenerate fear-ridden maunderings of this wretched psychopath."

Buddha, who in the courts of Heaven has learnt all history since his death, and has mastered science with delight in the knowledge and sorrow at the use to which men have put it, replies with calm urbanity:

"You are mistaken, Professor Nietzsche, in thinking my ideal a purely negative one. True, it includes a negative element, the absence of suffering; but it has in addition quiet as much that is positive as it to be found in your doctrine. Though I have no special admiration for Alcibiades and Napoleon, I, too, have my heroes: my successor Jesus, because he told men to love their enemies; the men who discovered how to master the forces of nature and secure food with less labour; the medical men who have shown how to diminish disease; the poets and artists and musicians who have caught glimpses of the Divine beatitude. Love and knowledge and delight in beauty are not negations; they are enough to fill the lives of the greatest men that have ever lived."

>>12418506
"All the same," Nietzsche replies, "your world would be insipid. You should study Heraclitus, whose works survive complete in the celestial library. Your love is compassion, which is elicited by pain; your truth, if you are honest, is unpleasant, and only to be known through suffering; and as to beauty, what is more beautiful than the tiger, who owes his splendour to his fierceness? No, if the Lord should decide for your world, I fear we would all die of boredom." "You might," Buddha replies, "because you love pain, and your love of life is a sham. But those who really love life would be happy as no one can be happy in the world as it is."

For my part, I agree with Buddha as I have imagined him. But I do not know how to prove that he is right by any argument such as can be used in a mathematical or a scientific question. I dislike him Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is coming rapidly to an end.

>>12415646
Nietzsche would probably say lol ok and proceed to murder this kike

>>12418304
He is reducing Nietzsche's ideals to his own petty bitterness. But he's kind of right. It's not like Nietzsche would start moralizing and begging for mercy. He would agree that there is no reason why he shouldn't try and fulfill his threat if that is his will.

>>12417854
>It's the folks you guys call liberals, such as Bernie, who actually fight against the neoliberal status quo.

I'm not sure who you're targeting here but Bernie supporters HATE neoliberals... that's kinda the core basis of their support

whether Bernie offers enough of a challenge to the status quo to truly count as a soc dem let alone socialist is up for debate but that's beside the point

>>12415646
Nietzsche would see nothing wrong with this. The reason he would give the kike to discourage him would be to walk away for his own safety, if he doesn't just outright start wailing on him.

>>12418304
Not one thing he said in that quote is inline with nietzsche at all.

>>12415646
Whats even the point he's trying to produce here?

>>12418540
T-that is what the sentence suggests, Anon.

Just kinda tired of folks conflating SJW socialists with neoliberals. Neoliberals hate communism and socialism in all its forms, and don't really give a flying fuck about social issues, holding profit as the highest ideal. "It's all about the economy, stupid."

Both parties have been extremely neoliberal, save in lip service, since Reagan, if not longer, but it's only the "liberal" Democrats, who push for what Americans would refer to as "socialism", the polar opposite of neoliberalism, and who ever pretend to give a flying fuck about the lower class.

Neoliberals do sometimes push for open borders for cheaper labor, but even labor that crosses from a poorer nation to a richer one is more expensive than labor actually done in the poorer nation, so many are actually a bit torn on that front. However, they are *all* the most capitalist of capitalists, hating communism more than Liberty Prime and McCarthy combined.

>>12418304
The general vibe surrounding Nietzsche is nearly the polar opposite of what Nietzsche actually wrote. He oft gets cited as the "father of nihilism" despite actually describing nihilism as an inevitable intellectual pitfall only those of true worth could rise past, and yes, advocating might makes right and cold unemotional as the ideal, despite all the petitions Neitchzie made against both those things, from all the talk of rising up from nothing, to "I'd only worship a god who dances."

It's exactly the sorta statement someone who heard of Neitzchie from a bad philosopher once in Philosophy 101, and never bothered to actually read, would make, so... Yeah, you do somewhat risk falling into the same trap this guy did.

(Not that Neitzchie is the greatest thing ever - some of what he wrote was downright insane, it's just he tends to get billed as the opposite of what he is.)

>>12418607
A huge chunk of SJWs are Neoliberals.

>>12418637
Name three - they're nearly all socialists and communists. (I'd say name one, as I can't, but there's gay Catholics out there, so...)

>>12418638
the left that can be named is not the real left

>>12418607
Imagine being this deluded

>>12418304
it is, you can tell because the only response /lit/ can muster is “n-nuh uh daddy neetch would beat you up fiirst!!!”

>>12415646
But Steven, according to Google you're only 1 inch taller than him! And still a manlet!

>>12415700

Lanklets getting served some rare comeuppance

>>12418607

SJW are merely the latest, yet most unalloyed true believers of the neoliberal projects.

>>12415646
>playing of slave morality
>invokes reason
>thinks it somehow refutes nietzsche
cringe and bigotpilled

>>12418607
sjw liberals ARE neoliberals you fucking retard
don't even call the pseudo-'left' socialists, it's an insult to socialism.

>>12418638

I think its funny trying to split hairs on these subjects. From a strict DOTR who-becomes-street-lamp-decorations perspective, Neoliberals are the politically same as SJW but higher in the social and economic strata. To be credibly called a neoliberal is to reference your academic credentials. You work for a think tank. You have multiple advanced degrees from a lifetime in academic and governmental service. The "SJW" everyones fretting about have been your students, who you design your curriculum to manufacture.

>>12419003
>>12419033
Are these real? Is he that unaware that he's going to fall for the same retroactive moral imposition game that brain-dead social commentators fell for? Never mind all the sphincter talk.

>>12415646
Who is this jew fart?
t.unintellect

what a sad, reactive last man

>>12418637
>>12418829
>>12418924
>>12418938
*sigh* I'm guessing I need to splain to our European brethren or some such.

America suffers from doublespeak and the ministry of truth, so a lot of terms are inverted.

In America, "liberals" are for social services, welfare, helping the poor, equal rights, worker's rights, unions, etc. ie. The Democratic Party, which is similarly progressive on most social issues, save for guns. Most of our SJWs also fall into this camp, though they are generally too extreme for the party (hence Bernie getting the Ron Paul treatment).

Neoliberals, in America, are closer to what Europe thinks of when they say "economic liberal", and closer to the traditional term. Austerity, lower taxes, free trade, pro-corporate power, deregulation - essentially what the Republican Party stands for, save they also back various paleo-conservative religious social issues, and guns. For them, "liberal" is a slur they use against Democrats who they believe are socialist and/or socially progressive. Currently there's kinda a split in the party between the more extreme members and the more middle ground old guard.

The problem occurs when Republicans start thinking "liberal" and "neoliberal" have something to do with each other, since they share a word, when in American terms, they are polar opposites.

To make matters worse, these two parties switch positions every few decades. The Republicans founded Planned Parenthood and pushed for various social services for poor farmers. The Democrats used to be elitist and racist as fuck and full of members from the KKK. And really, they've swapped positions on every major issue over the past 50 years, in some cases two or three times. Because, as demonstrated by the current government shutdown (over $5 billion fucking dollars, which is couch-cushion change by our government's standards), they do not give a shit about the American people, only clinging to power.

How has nobody said "ASS" yet?
This board is officially dead.
ASS

>>12419348
Learn to search

>>12415646
Wow I thought this was bait but he actually wrote this

>>12415646
I think I saw this episode earlier on Netflix.
>>12415670
As the rat is to the bubonic plague so too the jew to the disease now called modernity.

ASS

>>12418638
>Name three
steve, keith, and jacky mao

>>12416086
successful ppl are honorary non-manlets

>>12419631
>As the rat is to the bubonic plague

So innocent according to latest findings? It was spread by fleas and humans rather than rats as was previouslu thought.

>>12419123
Yet many American "liberals" may well be neoliberals also, to the extent that "postmodernism" (to the extent one wants to give credence to the term) is more in line with late capitalism, and to the extent that "SJW" progressivism sees a displacement of minoritarian struggles toward the sociocultural (superstructural) sphere wholly, thereby leaving behind the outmoded material class struggle. Corporations need to conform to "PC" norms but are otherwise lauded or free to act. Many a youngster may be "political," but is any of them "economic"? If not neoliberals themselves, many are surely, despite a nominal anti-capitalism (because "capitalism = fascists hurting gays and the environment"), indifferent or complacent to it.

>>12415646
I'd go back in time and confront whoever told him he was interesting.

>>12419123
Is this a satire of the political illiterate American?

begone, Stinker

>>12419003
thank you Steven "Stinker" Pinker for affirming an evolutionary justification for my brap fetish

>>12415646
fucking disgusting subhuman

He's not that wrong, philosophy isn't exempt from modern scrutiny. So dangerous philosophers like Nietszche, Stirner, Heidegger should be marginalised in the class rooms or at least presented in a less positive light.

>>12420402
Sure, corporations often go out of their way to appear "woke" to sell their products (especially since it means automatic positive critical reviews, regardless of how bad the product is), but how many SJW's do you see touting the benefits of capitalism and the free market?

In the US at least, I dunno, maybe it really is different in Europe and ya gotta bunch of gay Ayn Rand's over there. Here, they were integral to the Occupy Wallstreet movement (and used for its downfall), as well as various other worker's rights, ecological protests, and anti-corporate power movements. Pretty much everything neoliberals fight against.

In the US, SJW's are literally the hippies of the modern day.

I mean, does this really sound like your SJW's?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

>>12415646
Lmao. This man is a bigger joke than Memerson.

>>12421396
>Neoliberalism is associated it with the theories of Mont Pelerin Society economists Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and James M. Buchanan, along with politicians and policy-makers such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan.

Do any of these sound like folks the SJW's would ally with? Do they sound like what Americans refer to as "liberals"? ("Conservative" Saint motherfucking Reagan, FFS?)

I'm tellin ya, ever since "conservatives" took to the economic right, and "liberal" became Rush Limbaugh's slur of choice, terminology has been flipped on its head around here.

>>12418607
*smokes doobie* yeah man just like the grad student with 500k in debt that teaches our political science 101 class said

>>12419056
there's no fucking way that second way is serious. it's probably a real tweet but it's obviously a joke please be a joke

>>12422513
SJWs are establishment bootlickers. they are the type to take the side of multinational, billion dollar corporations against """""""""neo-nazis""""""""". Antifa are more than willing to go beat the shit out of working class white people if those white people oppose immigration (scab labor and democrat votes). It is socially acceptable to use violence against anybody who's ever been called a "nazi" or "white supremacist". SJWs do not threaten the establishment powers in any way, whatsoever.

>>12419631
look at that luke

he really made it

by golly boys luke made it

>>12418509

Nietzsche is right, the Buddha's world as imagined here by Russell would indeed be insipid. The sufferings of this world amplify the appalling fact of our contingency and insufficiency, which is nevertheless the constitutive principle of our being. You don't reckon with that, you don't really confront yourself as yourself, simply by removing the lowest forms of suffering. The real Buddha is smarter than Russell's and realises that you need to cut straight to the root- even the better worlds of the gods are ultimately to be ovethrown.

'Buddha' is sort of right as well, since the sufferings of this world cause us to seek deliverance from suffering, not just more of the same. 'Nietzsche' here is all about the moment of confrontation, but he can promise no deliverance, only the unending violence of the climax. Love- orderedness-toward being, though Russell wouldn't have phrased it that way- is indeed the answer, though not Russell's puny human vision of it.

>>12419003
What the fuck?

>>12422628
The hippies weren't a threat either, but economically and socially, they sang much the same song that the SJW's do now, "free love" and all. The hippies similarly had no issues making billions for the folks who owned the Beatles and Bob Dylan, and the like. Right or left, folks rarely attack the media producers that take their side, and tend to vehemently attack those that don't.

But Occupy Wall Street and the like, along with most of the major SJW activities, have been far left movements, running entirely counter to the tenets of neoliberalism. Demanding wealth redistribution and justice against greedy corporations is par for the course for SJW's, entirely hostile to neoliberal ideals.

>>12422746
Eh, I get your point, but I think you're drifting off topic.

It's true, it isn't correct to call a known socialist, such as Steven Pinker, a neoliberal.

At the same time, however, politicians like Hillary Clinton are neoliberal through and through, and yet are constantly accused of being socialist, because they pay lip service to those concerns. Yet the Clinton's are responsible for more welfare reduction and deregulation than nearly anyone else, including Reagan.

When politicians start talking out of one side of their mouths while doing things entirely counter to their rhetoric, linguistics, if not reality, start to get distorted. So folks have started associating progressive social policies with neoliberalism, even though neoliberalism is an entirely economic position, and an ideal held by the very same people throwing around the term as an insult.

You're right that, in America, the terms liberal and conservative have been entirely corrupted. But does that not make fighting for the definition of neoliberalism a losing battle?

I suppose some would say that's the intent, to make political dialectic impossible, and ensure each side views the other as siding with the same enemy. Every political position claims it's fighting "the establishment" and that its opposition has sided with said. Further obfuscating that amorphous term solidies their power. (Though I'm not sure if it's really deliberate, so much as a simple consequence of constantly appealing to the basest of human nature, rather than reason.)

>>12422847
Steven Pinker isn't a socialist. idiot

Doesn't Pinker's ideal condition of civilization and humanity mean spiritual death first and later extinction? What's the point of a society of atomized individuals with nothing to pursue or do, just waiting for death? How can humankind find meaning and reasons to keep going while living on this state of complacency?

>>12415646
>reason
>too lazy to read even Über Wahrheit und Lüge
the last man, everyone

>>12423734
>spiritual death
Already happened.

>>12416539
he could still take pinker ez

>>12418859
That's literally what he would do though. It is entirely consistent with Nietzsche's ideology, so Nietzsche would simply attack him, which is also in-line with his philosophy.

>>12422746
>redistribution and justice against greedy corporations is par for the course for SJW's, entirely hostile to neoliberal ideals.
Sjws are controlled opposition for the neoliberals. Nike exploits third world labor but because they did a commercial with Kaepernick the sjws fill in and defend them. It's like useful idiot foot soldiers for corporations.

>>12415646
>I see now the error of my ways. Any enlightened morality should proceed with a careful analysis of moral rules to see if they would harm the type of person I am. I, as it so happens, am a serial killer. No enlightened morality, I argue with my enlightened reason, should see serial killers as transgressing any norms, and thus deserving of punishment.

>>12418509
Both Buddha and Nietzsche believe in a version of Eternal Return and they both believe life is suffering onto death. They differ in their evaluation of the world, life, existence, suffering as eternally recurring. Whereas Buddha sees this sate of affairs as unfortunate, and imagines and prescribes a way out of existence, Nietzsche evaluates this state of affairs as ultimately perspectival, a matter of taste. He wouldn't disagree with Buddha's evaluation, i.e., his belief that life and suffering eternally recurring is worthless and to be avoided, escaped from. He'd say the Buddha and others like him are degenerate life, life incapable of tolerating living. To live properly for them is to do everything in your power, including castrating yourself, in order to avoid having to do it all over again.

Mind you, Buddha is no different than Plato in this regard. He too saw life as eternally recurring (in the Phaedo, for example), and he too prescribes an ascetic life, the life of the philosopher as he conceived of him, as the way out. "An unexamined life is not worth living," he says, and we usually stop there without wondering why. The truth is for Plato that an unexamined life is not worth living because life is not worth living. Examination of life, i.e. to becoming a philosopher, is the only way redeem the life you have because it's the only way to opt out of existence.

Both these sages, Plato and Buddha begin with assumptions about the value of existence. They believe their own taste or distaste for it is shared by everyone. It's impossible to see things differently. Even among the ranks of human beings that both of them construct, each rank possessing radically different perspectives of life and things in it, neither of them permits for someone to evaluate existence differently.

That is their starting point, and that is where they differ from Nietzsche. I happen to believe Nietzsche is right in his perspectivism regarding value, and specifically the value of existence understood as eternally recurring suffering onto death, and that people like Plato and Buddha, and Anaximander and Parmenides among others who invent a second world into which one can finally cease to be, have spiritualized their degeneration..pic related.

>>12424459
first off neetch was a sickly incel who spent most of his adult life in the care of his mommy and sister (lol) so it’s unlikely he’d do anything but autistically shriek at the guy. regardless thank you for agreeing that there’s no substance to his “””philosophy”””

>>12424830
he also ate a lot of fruit, which was basically the s o y of his time