/lit/ - Literature

>we

Hahaha replace "leftists" with "incels"

>>13453358
>>13453177
hahaha replace "we" with "incels"

>>13453358
They are the same thing

>>13452966
Go on OP.
What does he mean with oversocialization exactly?

>>13453373

>>13453381
"Socializing" a child means to educate it to be a good member of society
Children who are "oversocialized" or "overeducated" are brought up to essentially be slaves to the moral system, this is the reason he gives that academia is so infested with leftists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WPB2u8EzL8

You either take the Ted Pill by choice, or by force.

>>13453422
Also i think this is similar to what nietzsche writes about in "the improvers of humanity", that moralists are people whose minds are too big for their bodies and they have no real life experience. They are overeducated/brainwashed.

>>13453373
>incels
>oversocialized
Pick one

>>13452966
they are the vengeful tarantulas Nietzsche spoke about too

>>13453580
Though they are creating their own values

>>13452966
Ted predicted a lot of modern shit.

>>13453553
oh, dummy

>>13453553
Being excessively socialized and a slave to the norms that say a man should never express interest in or lay a finger on a woman is one of the main sources of involuntary celibacy, oafenheimer. Normal men who have not been destroyed by oversocialization just mock and disregard these finger-wagging dicta in favor of their appetites, and are rewarded with success.

>>13453600
Sure but their values are shit and wrong.

>>13452966
He didn't predict shit, these guys are a direct result of the hippie revolution of the 60s and 70s. Basically these people from the hippie/civil rights era got into universities across the western world and had kids, by the 90s the basedboy was already born

They didn't look like the modern basedboy, only because they were forced to go outside and exercise in those days cause there was nothing to do inside

>>13453432
It's not going to catch on because the human species', like all other species, modus operandi is survival. Technology and civilization is just another means of ensuring the species passes onto another generation. Same reason anti natalism won't catch on: people are biologically wired to have kids. Anti natalists and anarcho primitives are just weeding themselves from the gene pool. That is not to say Ted didn't have a lot of truth in the matter.

>>13452966
I really think he shouldn't have used the word "leftist" or "leftism" to describe his idea of oversocialized people/ideology. It distracts from what he's saying and for some reason right wingers are quick to quote him without having actually read the manifesto other than just that first part. The funny thing is a lot of what he says (especially the last quote) is what a lot of people on the left say now.

And while Ted predicted a lot of shit he was really describing people then who would be similar to "bugmen" and "basedboys" now so nothing really new, just as he saw it then, probably heavily influenced from his time at Berkeley.

>>13455060
To be fair he encourages people who share his ideas to reproduce, and while anti-natalism as an ideology doesn't catch on much a lot of people in modern, developed societies don't reproduce for various other factors.

>>13455186
The leftist term is accurate, Ted doesn't care much about appealing to dull right-wingers because he believes they aren't nearly as insidious and subversive as the leftest type. They might parrot it and misrepresent it but they don't get involved with any coherent movement on anything but a very surface level. Ted himself has admitted to having many modern liberal sensibilities but he goes out of his way to spout anathemas to them to keep them out. He spends a lot of his time trying to get delusional anarco-prims who think it's a liberal utopia to dissociate from him.

>>13455283
>he believes they aren't nearly as insidious and subversive as the leftest type
Source? Was it in a letter? He definitely isn't a right winger, calls conservatives fools (he didn't do that for leftists or even his "leftists") and I don't recall him saying anything positive about right wing or conservative ideology. You're certainly right about the rest, and it is funny that he is pretty liberal/leftist himself but I still think a lot of the right wingers who make a big deal about him either didn't read the manifesto or didn't understand it.

>>13455303
>Source?
Anti-tech revolution. He goes to great lengths to say don't let any fucking leftists join the movement as they will subvert it and keep it as small as possible with a few highly committed members.

>>13452966

I wouldn't describe the "onions boys" as being the archetype of oversocialized. Although many may be.

I think more about journalists, academics, and modern corporate executives. People who know all the social norms too well and it causes them pain when they come across those who don't have the right opinions, or when someone acts a little off color.

>>13455326
onion boys = onions boys

WTF auto correct

>>13453422
>slaves to the moral system
ok retarded /pol/tard

>>13455323
Thanks, he mentioned that in the original manifesto too, so it makes sense and I haven't read Anti-Tech.

While he is right that a focus and distraction to leftist topics would destroy any movement in itself, I think it's strange that he ignores the possibility of there being excessive right wing intrusion into a movement that would be similarly both distracting and limiting in pursuing the "goal." I've seen letters of his where he argues down some "right" talking points, so I find it strange that he wouldn't see that as an issue worthy of addressing since I have to assume he has some idea that the right is taking some of his ideas and really running with them. Did he address that at all?

>>13455364
He doesn't think people of the right wing mindset are dangerous to the movement. He might not be aware of liberals who have co-oped right wing points into the "alt-lite" (homosexuals like milo and the like) You may very well have people who have the same physiology as leftists but simply use a simplistic right wing coat of paint. The biggest caricatures of /pol/ and twitter probably fit this role.

His general observation is that right wing people or otherwise "ordinary" people can become very effective zealots for a cause with the right motives. In anti-tech he gives lots of examples of normal-fags who end up being martyrs, war heroes and otherwise effective terrorists. I think his big issue with the leftest type is that they are reprobates. You can't get them to be sincere for a cause because they are actually only interested in appeasing their only feelings of inferiority and posturing for social capital.

It's most likely that any anti-tech movement will be composed of competent "intellectuals" and not a bunch of disenfranchised youths by nature of the size. The main idea is to not let in professors, authors etc who are leftist and stick to the right wing or the center (if it exists it's probably the Catholics and such) You should be gatekeeping against dull layman who post on /pol/ or /leftypol/ regardless of politics.

>>13455442
Thanks amigo.

>>13453177
we are legion faggot