/lit/ - Literature

Jews

>>13482173
Why is that relevant, sweetie?

>>13482156
>This HAS to be the most powerful duo of thinkers the 21st century has produced.
Implying Europeans didn't do all of that decades before. Pic related.

so, the conversation

>>13482156
Harris
>NEOCONSERVATISM IS GREAT BOMB THE MUZZIES THEIR RELIGION IS BAD
Pinker
>WOAH NEOLIBERALISM IS GREAT STILL BOMB THE MUZZIES BUT WE DON'T SAY MUZZIES CAUSE WE DON'T HATE MINORITIES

>>13482156
this is what an average bus stop conversation between strangers in europe sounds like but amerilards think it's some sort of intellectual highlight.

>>13483323
Imagine actually believing this.

>>13483323
>le europeans are erudite as default meme
good luck fooling me, I actually know europeans

The only thing they btfo'd with their waggling tongues are the cunts you have for ears.

>>13483323
Go watch a soccer, oh sorry, I mean football match. Then come tell me how articulate and civilized europeans are.

>>13482156
yes and no. they help set two important memes rolling, materialism in a world obscured by superstition. and subconscious psychology as a motivation for actions with illusory and post hoc rationalized autonomy.

However, Harris is a petty cunt deep down, but he's not honest about it. So everyone thinks he's alt right (he's not), so his third meme which was set to be society equalizing, was fully derailed. The third meme was to be the scientific fact that ultimately, outcomes are tried most strongly to genes, which are horrendously unequal at creation. Therefore, a scientific take down of 'all men are created equal' was so close.

for those who think the (ironically) jeffersonian lie produces more equality than less, and is therefore justified...has yet to apprehend the central role this myth occupies in the capitalist theology.

if all humans are created equal, then sans oppression, your poverty is your fault, and you should be condemned and ignored. if we're not all created equal, and inequality of outcome is all but assured by genes, then we need to rewind the clock on the tax code and syphon the wealth of the 1% for a more "fair" equitable society.

For quite sometime though, this third meme is a third rail, only acknowledged by the racist. So the irony's pretty clear, liberals equality-block their own goal with fake science news. And sam's tone deaf trollish subconscious nature has put him in the Charles Murray camp, earning him quite a bit of hatred. He's kind of dead in the water because of it, his influence no further than "ok take a seat and close your eyes, now stare in to the darkness"

Pinker, as far as I've read, is beyond reproach. I haven't seen any solid critiques of him, just dismissive hand waving.

>>13482156
the alt-center is tiny

>>13483276
based baudrillard

>>13482156

Just stop.

>>13483323
based

>>13484477
>>13484490
>>13484539
cringe

>>13483276
if you think about it, jesus christ baudrillard BTFO'd a bunch of ideologies
>libertarianism BTFO'd
>transsexuality BTFO'd
>modern art BTFO'd
>media BTFO'd
>feminists BTFO'd
>foucault BTFO'd
>environmentalists BTFO'd
>egalitarians BTFO'd
>masses BTFO'd
>Michael Jackson BTFO'd
>globalization BTFO'd
>Modern politics BTFO'd
>Modern war BTFO'd
>Terrorist reactionaries BTFO'd
>primitive societies BTFO'd
>scientists BTFO'd
>ethnologists BTFO'd
>psychoanalysts BTFO'd
>socialism BTFO'd

>>13485073
really, where can i read about him BTFO libertarianism and psychoanalysts

>>13484680
If we are not equal we should be equalized? Why? There is a ethical model implied here. It is for some reason hidden. Please explain to me how the existence of inequality of potentiality justifies by itself redistribution of wealth. I am really curious.
Why should the unfit be lifted up? We could argue for some sort of darwinian selection mechanism brougth up by market forces. We could also argue against capitalism from a darwinian perspective by pointing out that it allows people with unfit genes to survive and reproduce. The key is ethics. They offer the value judgment and allow us to choose.

>>13485116
indeed, that's the debate. What should the conscience of America be? should we be nihilist or anarchist? is that the state of affairs we would all like? Do we want to be darwinian or socialist? or would that be an utter disaster as well? Or maybe we want to add the categorical imperative as an amendment to the constitution. There is no "right" answer of course. There's just the will of the majority, because we've decided we like democracy, even if the results are occasionally abominable. But the founders called us the American experiment. We keep trying different things and seeing what works best, an implicitly scientific and utilitarian approach.

I don't know what conscience we'll land on, but I suspect it will be one in which those who are genetically predisposed to poverty will have their suffering--at least partially--alleviated at the expense of the 1%.

Why? wages at the bottom have fallen (after inflation) by 12% since '72, while globalization has rained wealth on the top, and arguably, almost exclusively the top in the improbable world where money makes money. The Nietzschean ubermenschs will argue, 'my idea, my wealth, you're interchangeable i'm not, go hungry herd, that's my definition of fairness'. While that very 'herd' will say 'your ideas could not come to fruition without us, your wealth is made possible by us, and things largely out of your control, you're a few gilded sociopaths, we are the salt of the earth, we deserver 'fair' compensation'. The classic struggle between labor and capitol. Many and few. Neither is right or wrong, but the many have bought into the myths of the few, thus content impoverishing themselves.

John Adams hated the ideas of investment banks, calling them essential but dangerous inequality factories. He hated the idea of an aristocracy amassing the majority of the wealth in their few hands, acting contrary to the interests of the majority. Jefferson wasn't so worried. He felt the aristocracy's natural talents would entitle them to greater wealth (falling short of the 50% they currently stand at of course), but he also thought black people were incapable of love, only lust, and that their lower IQ's meant they must remain slaves because they can't take care of themselves...so much for equality.

The poor support the rich because they are "temporarily embarrassed billionaires". But once they understand their genetic inferiority, they'll know longer be so sanguine about their station. Marx was wrong, the proletariat will not rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie, but once they realize the inevitably of their "failure" they'll vote for a slightly larger slice of the investment banker pie.

If your implication is that I'm a naive utopianist, ideologically blinded to my moral assumptions, that's not the case at all. I have no dog in the fight. I just enjoy the history, state, and forecast. My personal conscience is...probably captured well by 'absurdist'. What is your conscience ethic?

>>13483320
Their foreign policy really comes down to this but they explain it with "reason". Adorno was right all along.

>>13482156
They lost

>>13486407
>while globalization has rained wealth on the top, and arguably, almost exclusively the top in the improbable world where money makes money.
That's just bullshit. The reason why the top is getting more and more money is because it's easier now than ever to win moneys.
Poverty has been steadily declining and nowday you're poor only in comparaison to your fellow countrymen.

>>13483323
>Sacre bleu... if I see another Muslim walk by, I'm gonna MAKE him come home and fuck my wife.

>>13486493
>The reason why the top is getting more and more money is because it's easier now than ever to win moneys
Good thing he had that Neanderthal slump going or his head would have come clean off

>>13483276
You tried to but itwas just hysteric screaming in the end

>>13483323
>average european conversation is two retards repeating simple bourgeois platitudes
Sounds about right

>>13482156
Pinker is a dishonest pseud BS vendor. Imbecile.