/lit/ - Literature

No, I'm not sick.

This book fucking sucks. The non-sequitor tangent about nixon towards the beginning has aged horribly. Might as well have been hunter thompson calling him a "fucking werewolf". The most insightful thing in this book is that "DRUUUUMMMMPF" posting is at least 50 years old.

>>12523444
Yes I have. Unironically one of my favorite texts. I reccommend you looking up the article 'Disneyland as Simulacra' who uses Baud's concepts quite well.

I happen to be asexual

>muh disconnection with nature

>>12523464
>celebrity worshippers get butthurt when people bash the most corrupt president after the current one
like pottery

>>12523485
Trump is a zionist swindler and implicit pedophile via mr epstein. That doesn't prevent marxists from being eye-roll inducing. The author of this book literally could not help himself from inserting AND THEN NIXON, THAT FUCKER! THAT SWINE! Into his super important theory. Very cringe, very bluepilled.

I have indeed watched Eggman's videos.

>>12523477
gtfo this board

I'm still on the first chapter but its already making me hate myself for coming and posting hereeven more. /lit/ is the image (of a literature discussion group) that murders its model. It's all sound and fury, praising or bashing authors without anything substantial to back it up, simply relying on the (usually valid) assumption that everyone else is partaking in the same hyperreal game to keep perpetuating itself

>>12523547
>I just read the first chapter of this, I obviously agree with it entirely
>if I ignore all of the times that /lit/ discusses things and get butthurt reading too much into the dynamics of shitposting then I too can be an intellectually bankrupt socialist faggot
Gonna be a yikes from me dog

>>12523516
political theater is a huge element of Baudrillard's work, the Nixon gov't was an excellent example. it's not a non-sequitor, you are just too politically reactionary to read anything that appears to lean against your ideological bent. reactionary politics is the intersection of resentment and fragility

I used to find Baudrillard really interesting, but the problem is that the basic insight of this book is that people who watch a lot of movies with violence or whatever in them who then get into carcrashes think, "Wow! This is just like a movie!"

Anyway, wonder what he would have said about how normies relate to the world through the lens of Harry Potter these days.

>>12523576
>reactionary politics is the intersection of resentment and fragility
Why is it the only people who talk like this are physically weak, easily driven to hysterics and perpetually upset? How did people who support the status quo get labeled as "reactionaries" to fringe whiners? Rhetorical question of course, but the dishonesty at the core of marxist scripts is so pathetic.

>>12523598
t. fool

>>12523598
>physically weak
nothing makes me assume how tough you are than judging the physique of an anonymous internet interlocutor
>easily driven to hysterics and perpetually upset
nigger you came in here triggered that someone would dare talk about Reagan. you are the only upset person in this thread lmao

>>12523464
The book is dated in its examples but has become more truthful in its theoretical statements as time goes on, Baudrillard may not be a perfect writer but he had his finger on the pulse and is the closest thing we have to a prophet of our condition.

>>12523477
go back to tumblr you mentally ill retard

>>12523627
Yeah because modern socialists are widely known for their physical prowess and emotional stupidity. I like how you have proven in your post how senselessly angry you/that you haven't even read the book because you are off by about 20 years with that administration.
>>12523632
>TV BAD
*insert list of quotes bitching about the youth and media dating back to socrates*

>>12523649
>emotional stupidity
Bit of a freudian slip I suppose but that was supposed to complete the sarcastic sentence with the word "stability"

>>12523649
>>12523649
>modern socialists
that's not me or Baudrillard, you are lashing out at imagined enemies right now. are you okay anon? are you the asexual everyone is bullying? maybe you just need a little break from 4chan, it can be stressful for new users

>>12523681
lmao. Is this really how you go through life? Anyone who disagrees with your petulant resent filled books is actually themselves angry and filled with resent? Furthermore, anger is an illegitimate emotion, coming from some pinko? Jesus christ dude. Whether this is your natural reflex or perfectly calculated rhetorical traps, you people are pieces of shit. You might as well try for a 3-pointer and accuse me of not having read the book now. Go ahead, complete the headcannon hugbox.

>>12523649
it actually has little directly to do with media theory, McLuhan would be a better example of that. Baudrillard was writing his work primarily as a study in signification and how reality is socially constructed and perceived, and how in our current state it has almost passed directly out of human control as hyperreality develops a hivemind of its own. I think it's interesting to pair reading Baudrillard with Plato, but Socrates is a bad example, and Baudrillard is definitely not bitching about the youth.

>>12523706
>perfectly calculated rhetorical traps
...anon you might actually be in the midst of some sort of breakdown. talk to someone you love. neither I nor Baudrillard is a "pinko"; as you have read the book you obviously know how critical Baudrillard is of communism.

No one understands his book.
Prove me wrong
Check’d

>>12523732
the central thesis is pretty straight up, the rest is kind of rambling

>>12523444
Was anyone else really upset that the book in the Matrix looked like a full on book when in reality this thing is like 1/4" thick?

>>12523547
You just have to focus on the insightful posts nab. They exist you just are too lazy to engage with them.

Anyway /lit/ is best at giving not-too-mainstream books rec (they started the evole/junger/carlyle hype train before the far right revival was a thing in public discourse, for instance).

If you just take the good recs and ignore the rest it's fine.

Case in point: I discovered history of philosophy without any gaps through /lit/. Try it, it's good you faggot.

>>12523724
>...anon you might actually be in the midst of some sort of breakdown. talk to someone you love.
>I'm not a communist, I am a series of hyphens
Please mister may I have some more? Tell me to take my pills, mister!

>>12523444
OP here. Seems like most of you (all of you) didn't realize my thread was directed at fellows who have read through the works referenced in my post at least twice. Instead, the lot of you, stirring from your sleep still nestled in your warm, childhood bed, grabbing the phone from your bedside (or perhaps it was still firmly secured in your hand) stumbled upon my thread, already teeming with excitement from rushes of dopamine, having passed over more than a couple pictures of silly memes and bulging breasts, then proceeding to coarsely skim the content, ignoring the fact that there were a number of terms whose meaning escaped you, you defaulted to whatever memespeak loosely corresponded to the topic at hand, leeching off the half-coherent thoughts of others mindlessly reproduced, not for their intellectual merit, but for their potency in producing dopamine. A bunch of drug addicts you all are, your vocal apparatus entirely under the mastery of chemicals, and yet you have the gall to post in my thread, spouting the first thoughts to enter your brain, all doubly bastardized by the still-lingering haze of sleep and the chemical high already coloring your experience in kaleidoscope fashion, causing your vision to lustily scour your phone screen for pepe-green and wojak-white, all else being a fragmented blur. How dare you impose your unoriginality upon the earnest viewers of my post who now timidly recoil from sharing their sincere thoughts, intellectually bludgeoned and shoved aside as it were by a gaggle of offensive plebeians who rudely and loudly insert themselves into every discussion, contaminating the board with a foul stench and a viscous oily paste of vulgarity and pomp, impossible to wash clean, inevitably driving away all those with no taste for such things, indeed, even you peasants would flee from your own stench if it had not so dulled your own sensibility, short-circuiting as it were your nervous system, which now, tired and heavy, serves the will of fluids, whose blind, infernal influences battle it out in the wild, lawless colosseum which has become your quotidian state.

>>12523752
do people often tell you to take your pills anon?

>>12523598
The right is just as easily triggered as the left, it's an hysteria contest now. Only the vocabulary and outer ideological apparatus differ (and in the end they matter much less than the daily habits of those who defend them -and in both cases those habits turn out to boil down to "trolling and shitposting on social media").

The fact that you're still caught up in this pathetic game of left/right one-upwomanship proves you need to shut up and read more.

>>12523763
No, its rare that I stoop to speaking with socialist drones because the lies and canned responses are tiring. You, and this conversation, could be substituted for any of your peers and about anything, and it would be exactly the same replies. But this book is trash.

>>12523772
>if you read more then you too can see the light of being an enlightened fence sitter, respected by nobody who will be railroaded by the real world
I'm out. Enjoy your garbage thread if it doesn't die with me.

>>12523785
>socialist
who is this socialist you keep referring to? as much as you might want it to, socialist doesn't actually mean 'person who disagrees with me'; Baudrillard explicitly rejects socialism as a solution to postmodernity.
>book is trash
the only reason you've given is that it personally upset you to see someone talk disparagingly about Nixon; you've spent the rest of the time sperging about socialists for some perplexing reason

>>12523793
>if you don't blindly subscribe to ideological divides of left/right you are a fence sitter
so this is the power of Americans...

>>12523477
awww :3

>>12523746
do u even simulation anon
>>12523516
Baudrillard didn't hate Nixon or talk shit about him, that's his whole point: the people who were outraged about Nixon being a crook were just fooling themselves into thinking modern government isn't a total sham. Being upset about Nixon is to imply there are still real honest politicians. Which there aren't, for Baudrillard.

>>12523481
Retard

>>12523516
>>Trump is a zionist swindler and implicit pedophile via mr epstein. That doesn't prevent marxists from being eye-roll inducing. The author of this book literally could not help himself from inserting AND THEN NIXON, THAT FUCKER! THAT SWINE! Into his super important theory. Very cringe, very bluepilled.

Where do people like this come from?

>>12523516
Based.
Literally too smart for this board

>>12523450
But I'm not well.

>>12523516
Baudrillard wasn't a Marxist.

I have.

You are literally ten gallons of shit in a five gallon hat.

>>12523760
No offense, but putting words like "black-pill" in the post is basically an invitation for the lowest common denominator to begin shitting up a thread. Avoid using meme-based vocabulary if you want actual responses with a better topic than, "have you taken the blackpill yet /lit/?" to stimulate real discussion.

>>12523746
Yes

>>12523444
Read it last year and has seriously fucked me up. Been steadily plowing through any Baudrillard I can get my hands on

Relativism is bluepilled as fuck

>>12523892
Anon, don't humor the /lit/ resident idiots, they're shills for anti-literature, anti-intellectualism and mental illness. Ignore them.

>>12524649
They know what they're doing.

>>12523444
Sounds like cyberpunk. Treatise about cybernetics could be interesting too. Is it some humanist writing fashionable nonsense using big words? Then I'll pass.

https://youtu.be/2U9WMftV40c

>>12524197
love that song

>>12523444
reading this right now actually, just read the “implosion of meaning in the media” chapter and thought it seemed pretty on point. also i felt that the whole security/deterrence thing was pretty interesting/accurate

>>12525458
if you don't know who Baudrillard is don't read it; start with the Greeks instead

>>12525458
hes not a humanist

>>12525538
What is he?

>>12525808
>What is he?
Baudrillard

>>12523444
Jews control the media

>>12523444
>depends on the labour theory of value

>>12525290
Whoa dude

Non-communist twinks of /lit/, is Baudrillard worth reading?

Include a demonstration of not being a communist twink in your post. No "everying in my favela loves him" 3rd world posting either.

>>12525902
>Non-communist twinks of /lit/, is Baudrillard worth reading?
No. He's not for the likes of you.

>>12525962
I said NO commie twinks to reply to my post.

>>12524236
>Jean Baudrillard (/ˌboʊdriˈɑːr/; French: [ʒɑ̃ bodʁijaʁ]; 27 July 1929 – 6 March 2007) was a French sociologist, philosopher, cultural theorist, political commentator, and photographer. He is best known for his analyses of media, contemporary culture, and technological communication, as well as his formulation of concepts such as simulation and hyperreality. He wrote about diverse subjects, including consumerism, gender relations, economics, social history, art, Western foreign policy, and popular culture. Among his best known works are Simulacra and Simulation (1981), America (1986), and The Gulf War Did Not Take Place (1991). His work is frequently associated with postmodernism and specifically post-structuralism
>not a marxist
You people are going to be killed en masse in the near future.

>>12525969
>>I said NO commie twinks to reply to my post.
How do you think I was able to respond to you post? Anyways, why are you so interested in reading him? It's not like he's going to say anything useful or even correct.

>>12525983
what about that wikipedia paste had to do with Marxism though?

I thought in the shadow of the silent majority was better

>>12525996
>>what about that wikipedia paste had to do with Marxism though?
It's the typical tenuous association with pomo and cultural marxism. The massive list of critique that includes almost every facet of society that people take as naturally granted probably puts him in the same group of dissenters labeled as marxists.

anime for philosophers is objectively a good thing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T0a_jXHiDo

>>12525902
what about right wing twinks :3

>>12525996
marxism is whenever you don't kill niggers

>>12523569
i don't think you understood the post you replied to

>>12526024
this is very good

>>12523516
>The author of this book literally could not help himself from inserting AND THEN NIXON, THAT FUCKER! THAT SWINE!
Uh oh, you haven't actually read the book. lol
Go ahead and guess how we know that.

>>12525902
I'm close to the "alt right" and I greatly enjoyed it

>>12523464
Its goddam bad. My "favorite" is the car crash sex chapter. I think I threw my copy out when I finished.

Meh, I remember being a 1st year student, freshly enrolled in a mickey mouse humanities course and having this assigned to us. Pretty terrible and lazy, but fun to read if you're young and disillusioned.

>>12525504
Nah. But my main gripe with humanists meddling in technological affairs they understand nothing about stems from pic related. They write stuff that sounds smart but has no consequence or real contribution to anything. Worse than being pseud, just waste of time.

Bump

>>12523516

/pol/ is leaking

>>12525902
It’s worth reading. I’m a communist non-twink and I just demonstrated this by seizing your mother by her means of your production.

>>12523793
>there is no way out of the twitter circus, you're right or left or bewildered spectator
>foregoing twitter to read books and do irl militantism is out of the question

Now that's what I call an resounding apology of the bluepill.

>>12529091
underrated post

>>12523736
This. The argument is clear and could have been elucidated in a few pages. Instead he babbles incoherently 100+.

The problem with philosophers is that they are also human and need to eat, and full-length books sell better than two-page essays.

>>12530531
That's actually not true, short meme books sell very well, I still remember that shit book "Indignez vous!" by stephane Hessel, it sold very very well despite (or rather, because) it was 30 pages long

>>12524649
It's a meme, you dip.

>>12528479
>reads one book
>denounces humanists
if this isn't a meme it should be

>>12530531
>philosophy is only about concise argumentation, everything else is useless
not gonna make it

>>12527834
>Uh oh, you haven't actually read the book. lol
It happens somewhere between page 30 and 50 iirc. What you have posted is actually a completely different book, anon.

>>12526013
>probably
Lol no dude that’s quite literally not what marxism is and most primary source pomo (by which i think you really mean post structuralism) is not marxist. Frederic Jameson is one of the single namedrop worthy pomo marxists I can think of. Baudrillard’s too nihilistic for marxism, which is a prime example of an utopian political theory. You can at least get your terms straight and do the most basic google-tier research before lumping and equivocating Peterson style. If you look into the truth of this comment and are still hung up on a tirade against “cultural marxism” at least get your goddam conspiracy names right and start associating it with the Frankfurt School lmao.

>>12531737
>Frederic Jameson
>pomo marxist
Jameson hates postmodernism anon

>>12531776
Yes, but he is a scholar of postmodernism.

Is this peak Baudrillard; before he quit his job at uni and feel into the "celebrity intellectual" solipsism trap?

>>12532942
in the same sense that Neitzsche was a scholar of nihilism I suppose, but he's not a postmodernist or pomo Marxist (whatever that memerson neologism means)

>>12529091
Maybe it was funny in your native language.

>>12533102
That’s actually a perfect example. That’s why brainlets lump Nietzsche into a general discussion on nihilism, which in and of itself isnt wrong just misguided. Hence why I could see why someone would mistake Jameson or something, but no one else is acceptable (unless you’re really hunting for specific figures).

>>12523464
Mmm boods :-DDD

>>12523760
why are you here?

>>12526013
How do people like you even think?

>>12525983
>>12526013
go back to youtube, petersonfag

>>12527906
Based Ballard.