/lit/ - Literature

Tarantino or Kubrick as their favorite director

he is so cute

Chomsky
Harold Bloom
Marx
Zizek
Peterson
Shapiro
Molyneux

>>13622705
Real patricians prefer John Ford (if we're talking about American directors)

>>13622724
Why are metalhead niggers so based?
Better than hood nigger or white person nigger

>>13622705
Don’t forget monty python

>>13622724
This image a metaphor for American gluttony, lust, muttinization and materialism and an inevitable consequence of a state where authority is a product of man and not God.

>>13622705
The only based director is pasolini

this thread

Deleuze

Is being a brainlet a better fate than being a midwit? As a midwit I can't help but wonder.

>>13623343
Yes, midwits are smart enough to realize how stupid they really are, but brainlets are blissfully ignorant and live genuinely fulfilling lives, which is more than most can lay claim to

Chr*Stianity

>>13622868

>>13623358
Midwits by definition are opposed to Christianity. There is a U-curve for Christianity. Mostly it's brainlets then it tapers off as it approaches middle-range intelligence, then it increases again with super intelligent people (Langan, Ratzinger). Midwits are almost always materialists, which is why they think they are smart by dismissing it. Thanks for outing yourself, midwit.

>>13623357
That's what I worry about.

What do you think is the best course of action as a midwit? How can a midwit create something of value?

>>13623372
is there a larger version of that image?

>>13622668
>""""""""""""""critiquing"""""""""" the enlightenment*

>>13623405
>"""""""""""""""" critiquing"""""""""""""""" """"""""" critiques""""""""" of the enlightenment

>>13623404
It's not very good. That was the only worthwhile part.

>>13623405
Then why must people still defend the enlightenment to this day?

>>13622668
>Founding Fathers
>Muh Constintution
>The Federalist Papers
>Hume, Voltaire, Locke
>FUCKING LOVING SCIENCE
>Separation of Church and State GOOD
>Vested interest in contemporary politics
>"we don't live in a democracy, we live in a 'representative ""republic""'
>>13623405
>n-no you
Absolutely seething midwit.

>>13623404
>not sure if I've walked the full x axis or got half way and turned back

>>13623467
>"we don't live in a democracy, we live in a 'representative ""republic""'
Fuck off. It's a good argument and I use it against people in favour of abolishing the electoral college and people complaining about the fact that Hillary got more votes than drumpf.

>>13623488
Hey, big boy, thanks for proving:
>Vested interest in contemporary politics

>>13623497
>PAYING ATTENTION TO THE WORLD AROUND YOU MEANS YOU'RE A MIDWIT

>>13623511
Kind of yeah

>>13623511
Yes.

>learning

>>13622730
Ford's nowhere near consistent enough to be anyone favorite. Watch more than his big 6 and tell me what you think.

Hegel

>>13623511
That's actually correct desu.

>>13623404
>literally making up fake graphs to make yourself feel better
found the low IQ

>>13623488
>>13623488
A good argument for what? You see, you proved yourself to be an imbecile with your very first sentence, that you just use concepts for simple parroting in simple scenarios for social leverage and you let this slip out on full display. Nonetheless, representative republic with universal suffrage is a democracy where the masses pick the leaders of government, a circus that has led to the deterioration of the very nation that set it up to begin with. The same criticisms of democracy are indeed applicable to a representative republic. To defend it as a valid form of government, already shows you lost ground and conceded to popular consensus as being a barometer for governance, moreover, you are fine with a divided people, and a directionless ad hoc nation.
> and I use it against people in favour of abolishing the electoral college and people complaining about the fact that Hillary got more votes than drumpf.
Ah! This is what the argument is for? Great non-sequitur leap. The fact that you make this connection goes to show your limited midwit brain's processing power. At this point, the fact that an entire nation is torn between two candidates it really doesn't matter does it? Even if you had an excellent candidate, within this limited framework he has at best 8 years, in which the powers of the head of state are severely limited, where there is extreme infighting, where hardly anything will be accomplished, and after his term is up, in another decade, all that work and effort will be undone, just so braindead idiots like you could debate it all over again in the morning. No. I reject this framework. I reject this useless quarreling. In fact, I am quite amused at your post and how you think. Imagine puffing yourself up to relay to other equally inferior minds to pointlessly bifurcate this electoral distinction, just to give a little civics lesson instead of getting to the point of rural vs urban divide and how city culture leads to hivization of mind, culture and person. Even if you could grasp the truth, your city colleagues and suburban socialites would be dearly offended, so no room for polite conversation there.