/lit/ - Literature

Why else do anons read Schopenhauer?

Can we not make these worthless threads

>>18151488
No, you dumb fucking whore. He was only sexist against normalfaggot oversocialized consoomerist women.

>“I have not yet spoken my last word about women. I believe that if a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself from above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man.”

― Arthur Schopenhauer

very true

No woman has ever asked me that. Most women, especially women who look like the one in OP's post, haven't even heard of him.

>>18151526
How nice. Why was this hidden all these years?
He’s basically saying what Wollstonecraft already said. Yes, of course empty headed bourgeois breeds annoy. It’s a class thing, a systems failure, not a whole sex.

>>18151526
Yeah and this was after he was forced to sit down and actually talk with a woman while he was getting his bust modeled

>>18151488
Yes. That's why I agreed to go on a date with you even though I rejected advances from every woman in my life. I know your little secret, baby *starts caressing and massaging noticable bulge under your skirt*

>>18151488
Women don't know who Schopenhauer was

>>18151506
Have you ever made a good thread? Why are you even here?

>>18151556
>It’s a class thing, a systems failure, not a whole sex.

>>18151568
true

>>18151556
He didn't say they don't lie. They all lie and manipulate impressions. It's incredibly disappointing. I tried to love women but they cannot be loved

>>18151573
desu I don't remember seeing a thread started by buttefly. "she" mostly derails other people's therads

>>18151556
>it’s a class thing
Is that why you and the bougie Ivy league radicals like you are the most insufferable?

>>18151573
Stop replying to it newfag

>>18151585
I make threads about books. But you people only want to talk about the males you love and how all women are bad.

>>18151488
It's hard for me to find conventionally pretty women as sexually attractive anymore. When I look at OP's picrel girl, my subconscious recoils in disgust at the fact that she's most likely not a virgin.

>>18151613
All women are bad

>>18151593
You have me all wrong. I’m like Wollstonecraft, a working stiff with only a few college courses to my name

>>18151620
Why are there so many incels on /lit/? Is it because girls go for brainless muscular chads instead of sensitive literature enthusiasts? It's the '80s nerd/jock stereotype thing all over again, isn't it?

>>18151652
Have you met many women? You might be lucky enough to have met the one in a million female with male genes but they're very rare. Don't act like they aren't.

>>18151613
Only men are worthy of love, women serve to have sex and keep the species alive.

>>18151676
After 3 ltrs and a dozen flings i legitimately wish i could give a man sexually attractive and not repulsive. i hate everything about women except the physical side

>>18151623
I thought you were a troon.

>>18151623
Wollstonecrafts death was the only vaguely amusing or interesting thing tied to her entire life. The best part by far was the end of it all

>>18151623
it shows

>>18151676
There’s no wonder they won’t have sex with your kind anymore. Poor and deranged. What kind of future could that lead to?

>>18151699
Anon calls everyone that, duh.

yes, thats why i read him

>>18151556
>It’s a class thing,
Bullshite, he never implied that.

>>18151566
No, you dumb retard. That woman was an artist of a particulate that is why he liked her. He met many pathetic cunts his whole life.

>>18151756
Which is why Wollstonecraft got it right.

>>18151756
Which is why Wollstonecraft got it right.
How women “of good breeding” are inferior gossips while the free and wild growing women are their superior

>>18151771
No, it doesn't depend on class. Many people have noble characters regardless of their class. But I would say that poverty also creates scum of society just like consoomerist culture this is why poverty is a curse. I have seen many people with good characters who got completely fucked over by poverty and turned into literal scum.
The thing is Schopenhauer would have appreciated independent solitary women. But sadly those women are almost extinct in contemporary society.

>>18151771
>>18151796
What I want say is that, if someone has a noble character poverty will demolish it and it is almost impossible to stay sane under shitty conditions. But if someone has a noble character and they are from upper class then their wealth will strengthen their character and not the other way round. This is precisely why I think that poverty is curse and why I don't fetishist lower classes.

>>18151771

hmmm I wonder which class she belonged to

>>18151875
Hah, this is the paradox with bougie people who talk shit about other bougie people. You don't see working class people critiquing other working class people who abuse power whenever get a chance to.

>>18151828
I agree with the first part, but the wealthy with this “noble” character is what’s so rare you can count them on one hand.

>>18151875
She took care of wealthy women’s kids for a living

>>18151934
>She took care of wealthy women’s kids for a living
who would've thought

>>18151934
>is what’s so rare you can count them on one hand.
It is same everywhere and almost non-existent in lower class.

>>18151526
Naïve cuckold

>>18151934
have you dated any truly lower class women? they're morally bankrupt in every case, take off your rose colored glasses

>>18151941
Anyone who’s read her.

>>18151943
No no. Those who are lucky enough to have positive influences and are relatively free of too much financial OR DOMESTIC burdens can indeed rise up. Many such women are wasted on a lifetime of childrearing and are simply good mothers to be forgotten by everyone but their families

>>18151581
>It's incredibly disappointing.
t. emasculated male

Femme fatales are high test. If you don't like the chase and struggle, you're not a man.

Its just sexist incels scourging through his word to find anything that justifies their misogyny even though its usually taken out of context or just him rambling about shit like he usually does

Imagine being a woman and knowing your whole life is determined within the biological niche of "thing that gets fucked." Lmao. Could never be me

>>18151506
Imagine being such an attention whore that you refuse to stay anonymous on an anonymous image board

>>18152068
God I wish that were me.

>>18151488
Define sexism, nowadays that word lost any meaning

>>18152088
Misogyny generally

>>18152088
It's when you tell a woman that she isn't a perfect angel.

>>18152088
Sexism - judging or discriminating people based on their sex rather than their character
Misogyny - hatred of women

>>18152099
Male lives matter, you misandrist pig.

>>18151960
This. My cousin is a classic example: hasn't worked for years and let her husband support her with multiple jobs, then her husband died from illness and left her a fortune from his life insurance policy, and not even a week later she badmouthed him to family members and started dating some other guy. Most of the family knows she's a whore and she has friends who are just like her. There are a lot of women like this.

>>18151988
>If you don't like the chase and struggle, you're not a man.
True simps are the pinnacle of masculinity

>>18152153
>This
>I have one example to prove the rule
*yawn*

>>18152206
"Lower class" as a label is meant to describe precisely that type of tactless behavior. That wasn't just one example, but a prime one.

>>18152242
No, it’s an economic indicator, and I’m telling you not half of them the working poor are as crass as all that. Crassness even isn’t such a bad thing. You larping nobles are hilarious. But I do acknowledge the degenerative nature of impoverishment. Capitalism ought to be abolished for just that reason.

But all you want democracy abolished instead of putting people to the challenge of self governance and responsibility. Fools and glyphosate babies.

>>18152344
Economics only plays a significant role in determining whether someone is lower class or upper class for people who are lower class. How much tact one has is the real indicator of class. I'm against capitalism only to the extent that it occasionally permits the tactless to tyrannize over those with tact, but democracy is the worse offender in this regard.

>You larping nobles are hilarious.
If you don't feel any noble sentiment at all, then what are you even concerned about? Why do you care about any of this?

Poor guy got fucked over by 19th century injury claims lawyers.

"The old woman dies, the burden is lifted"

>>18151488
Gingers look so rare and precious. Dunno what was up with that anti-ginger internet meme from a decade ago. Smacked of anti-white propaganda.

No, I'm reading Weininger.

>>18151623
>a working stiff
Frankly, I doubt it. What exactly do you do, butterfly?

>>18151623
>employed
you're a middle aged tranny who shitposts on 4chan with zoomers from morning till night lmfao

>>18152344
>muh capitalism is ebil

Is there any faster way to identify somebody who has never cracked open a history book in their entire life?

Literally the most fundamental force that advanced civilization, but let's throw it all away because it doesn't produce perfectly even unified results continuously.

>Some people are poor right now, therefore Capitalism has failed!

Capitalism produces a much more even distribution of wealth and a much stabler economy overall than any of the alternatives by a mile. It's not about perfection. Some people are always going to be poorer than others until we literally eliminate the concept of scarcity, which is never. And due to global economic circumstances well beyond the control of a single nation, markets wax and wane. Economies boom and bust. It's never going to be perfectly stable. But capitalism always recovers and continually raises the standard and quality of life over the long run. Socialism and communism fall apart at the first economic speed bump, because there are no built in mechanisms to handle natural markeg fluxuation. In Capitalism, when things get bad, the market pivots and recovers. In communism/socialism when things get bad, the party does what it always does: keeps everybody's money and sends them to the breadlines until, sooner or later, the country collapses entirely.

>>18151488
Yes

>>18152491
What do you think of him?

>>18151488

Barista I know said Schopenhauer's philosophy is the nearest and dearest to her heart, and she acknowledges his misogyny yet venerates him regardless. I have to respect a person who can put art ahead of ideology.

>>18151953

>>18152388
It is categorically explicitly economic. Tactfulness is something else entirely. You’re saying tactfulness is absent from the poor 1/9 I’m saying it’s more 5/5.
It capitalism doesn’t “occasionally” allow the sociopathic into positions of power, it does it as a rule.

Direct democracy and consensus/near consensus voting would put a whole community in charge of the steering wheel of their collective lives. The chances of screwing up slim and occasional.

>why do you care about any of this?
Why isn’t this obvious to any of you yet?

>>18152483
You people still say shit about the Irish. Who knows why you people find discrimination funny.

>>18152514
Unlike you, I do read, and a wide variety of topics and authors. And I’ve found the problems that plague us. Your notion of advanced are culturally ingrained into your brain. You have no self awareness.

>>18152924
>You people still say shit about the Irish
No "we" don't, fuck off

>>18152928
You use this name anonymous and you are lumped into a collective blob. I just saw some ass take a shot at the Irish the other day.

>>18152924

Direct democracy puts the dumbest 50% of people under the sway of the most self-serving and persuasive .1%

>>18152924
>Direct democracy and consensus/near consensus voting would put a whole community in charge of the steering wheel of their collective lives.
Surely you are jesting.

>>18152969
So, a justifiable hierarchy?

>>18152990
You prefer Pelosi, AOC and BoJo corrupt climbers? Or are you one of those angsty teens that unironically want Hitler or a return to monarchism?

>>18152491
Do you agree with him?

>>18153015
>You prefer Pelosi, AOC and BoJo corrupt climbers?
Of course not, but the assertion that everyone will 'steer' things correctly is absurd. In fact, it would even produce outcomes you find undesirable, e.g. a majority of some commune (or whatever you'd like to call it) do not like black people and so vote them out of the area. No doubt you will respond that by the time we have direct democracy and workers' councils that racism will not exist, but whatever.

>>18152078
women...

>>18152924
>you have no self awareness

What about what I said led you to conclude this?

You say you've read history: can you point to a single successful society at any point during history beyond the tribal level that didn't have have a capitalistic economy and lasted for more than a few decades before collapsing?

I'm not asking for a lot here. Just one. It shouldn't be hard, right? Capitalism is evil and there are better alternatives, according to you and the mindless hordes of twenty-somethings who've never cracked open a book that wasn't required reading for a class. Surely you can give me one example of a non-capitalist society that didn't fall apart almost immediately.

>inb4 listing modern capitalist European countries and calling them socialist

Please go look up what socialism is at the very least, I know reading is hard but you can do it. Having a social safety net is not socialism. We have one in America, it just sucks. Doesn't make us any less capitalist. Socialism is public control and ownership of the means of production (which is effectively government ownership). This is why it's so incredibly fragile. Bureacracies are too slow and inefficient to be able to handle the mercurial nature of real world markets, and their only counterplay is to fix prices and impose heavy taxes on trade, which is effectively economic suicide.

I'm guessing you're just a meme socialist from this trendy new fad of calling universal healthcare socialist, so it's important to learn the distinction. Otherwise people will continue to not take you seriously.

>>18151506
>>18151556
>>18151613
>>18151623
>>18151723
>>18151771
>>18151934
>>18151974
>>18152099
>>18152206
>>18152344
>>18152924
>>18152941
HOW THE FUCK DOES BUTTERGRANNY MANAGE TO SHIT UP ANOTHER FUCKING THREAD TALKING ABOUT CLASS AND ''MUH ANARCHO-DEMOCRACY'' NOBODY HAS ANY REASON TO CARE ABOUT THE FREEDOM OF OTHERS,YOU UTTER MORRON.
W*RKERS AND SLAVES EXIST TO SERVE THEIR MASTER,YOU ONLY IDENTIFY WITH W*RKERS AND SLAVES BECAUSE YOU CAN'T IMAGINE YOURSELF AS A MASTER,YOU HAVE NO WILL,YOU ARE WEAK.
YOU WERE BORN A LOSER AND YOU SHALL DIE A LOSER

HOW MANY FUCKING THREADS DO YOU NEED TO SHIT UP WITH MEANIGLESS ''OH NO OPPRESED W*RKERS'',DON'T CARE,DIDN'T ASK,FUCK THE W*RKING CLASS AND MOST OF ALL,FUCK W*MEN

>>18152242
THE LOWER CLASSES ARE THE LOSERS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE SOCIETIES
>>18151585
CORRECT,AND ''SHE'' DID IT AGAIN
THE ONLY BIGGER LOSER IN THIS THREAD,OTHER THAN THE PEOPLE THAT GOT BAITED,IS BUTTERGRANNY HERSELF,SINCE SHE DOES THIS SO FUCKING OFTEN

>>18153015

All right, I admit your post here throws me off, I forgot I'm on /lit/ where there's a higher chance the other person actually has a brain.

What do you mean when you say "justifiable", in terms of a hierarchy? Not to hairsplit, but if you mean:

>Organically occuring
or
>Moral

Might be different. Actually, maybe it wouldn't be. If you just mean a natural consequence of people's propensity to self-organize in leader/follower roles, then yeah no duh. But the corruption of those in power, even if it's an extra-governmental role, is one of the most recurring themes in history. For every Tito you have a dozen Maos and Pol Pots and Stalins. For every Antoninus Pius, you have a Caligula and a Julius Caesar and a Tiberius. The constraints on power, and that includes the constraint on the mob as a vehicle of power, are essential to the survival of a moral state. That .1% or the singular personality (as Caesar or Napoleon or Mao or Stalin or Ayatollah Khomeini) that comes to lead the masses in a direct democracy can incentivize the disenfranchisement of the minority by appeal to the majority, for their own enrichment.

>>18153082
To you sir, I say based.

>>18153093

Just to put it out there, IMHO, no state can exist that can satisfy the needs of hundreds of millions of people. Representative Democracy fails at our scale (as a U.S. citizen) and Direct Democracy wouldn't do any better. Small scale Representative Democracy is better, and I do want to willingly concede the point that I don't think Direct Democracy or a rough approximation is viable for a smaller population. Switzerland is a good example, but it's dependent on having a high standard of education and low level of economic disparity amongst the voter base.

>>18153123

Sorry, I concede that it IS viable for a smaller population.

>>18152941
>You use this name anonymous and you are lumped into a collective blob
Lol, why do you post here butters? You hate the entire system but continue to engage. Is Reddit too competitive of an environment for you?

>>18153015
Your fundamental idiocy is thinking that a bunch of braindead highschool dropouts will magically create their own utopia if you just let them vote directly on everything.

Representative democracy, for all its flaws exists for a reason: because people are dumb emotional reactionary impulse easily-manipulated morons. Hand them a fifty page bill full of legalese and they'll be asleep by the second sentence. And to avoid having to think about any of this stuff (because it makes their small smooth brains get ouchie) they'll listen to the first charismatic asshole who comes along and tells them how to vote, even if the policies in question would actively hurt them.

Representative democracy is prone to similar issues, but at least it has SOME kind of buffer, and works occasionally despite still resulting in the election of some extremely stupid politicians. It's flawed by anything is better than nothing.

>>18153130
This.

Why come here and post garbage if you don't want people to argue with you? If you go post on reddit with a feminine username you'll have hordes of simps to upvote and post comments agreeing with you, and all your attention-whoring needs will be fulfilled.

>>18153082
thats not even butterflys trip

>>18153028
The majority of people in any given area would not do this, but lets assume the racists will flock together and try to i pose such standards on their small communities. They’re still going to have to find a way to get along with the surrounding neighborhoods. A certain level of self sufficiency can be made, but they had better not encourage active hostility towards other communities. So, not being a liberal, I say have at it.

>>18153053
>What about what I said led you to conclude this?
The simple fact of the matter.

>>18153093
Just that some people will know more, in this or that, and deserve their rank of sorts. In this society rank is usually given to those who hole more money or who are more violent. Their hierarchies aren’t justified. Titos, Pol Pots, Julius, Caligulas don’t matter in direct democracies. They’re reduced to single voices for their local communities. There’s no leaders. If there’s a centralized committee that needs creating a leader or council in control of it, is instantly recallable if they mess up.

>>18153111
He’s an idiot.

>>18153153
What’re you talking about? You guys will be stuck online. You don’t want to participate.

>>18153258
>« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS 05/01/21(Sat)23:19:59 No.18153258▶
>>>18153028
>The majority of people in any given area would not do this, but lets assume the racists will flock together and try to i pose such standards on their small communities. They’re still going to have to find a way to get along with the surrounding neighborhoods. A certain level of self sufficiency can be made, but they had better not encourage active hostility towards other communities. So, not being a liberal, I say have at it.
>>>18153053
>>What about what I said led you to conclude this?
>The simple fact of the matter.
>>>18153093
>Just that some people will know more, in this or that, and deserve their rank of sorts. In this society rank is usually given to those who hole more money or who are more violent. Their hierarchies aren’t justified. Titos, Pol Pots, Julius, Caligulas don’t matter in direct democracies. They’re reduced to single voices for their local communities. There’s no leaders. If there’s a centralized committee that needs creating a leader or council in control of it, is instantly recallable if they mess up.
>>>18153111
>He’s an idiot.
>>>18153153
>What’re you talking about? You guys will be stuck online. You don’t want to participate.

>>18153258
Honest question: do you feel embarassed when somebody completely dunks on your whole worldview and the best response you can come up with is a middleschool tier insult?

Did you actually believe the guys in college who said that you were intelligent and quick-witted right before they tried to get you to perform sexual favors? You don't need me to put two and two together for you, do you?

>>18153082
Mr.Based?

>>18153258
>The majority of people in any given area would not do this
Called it.

>>18153258
>What’re you talking about? You guys will be stuck online. You don’t want to participate.
lmao says the dumb bitch who argues on 4channel every single day

>>18153258

I gotcha. But I still disagree (except on the Direct Democracy scale I outlined here >>18153180). Julius Caesar's career was marked by populism, both within the military and the commons. If Rome had been a Direct Democracy, there just would have been a direct vote to appropriate farmland and give it to the masses. It wouldn't have been any fairer or more just or better. Direct Democracy can't work in a large scale society because in a vacuum some people are more competent and more productive than others. And ambitious, greedy people will always be willing to extort the jealousy of the less productive and less capable to strong-arm resources away from the productive (Roman land reform, Soviet kulaks, Robert Mugabe giving farms to his cronies and turning the breadbasket of Africa into a starving third world hellscape). At a small pop., homogenous, low economic disparity, sure Direct Democracy might fly with informed and vigilant people. But this anon >>18153153 lays out my thoughts exactly (though I'm generally more conciliatory in my choice of language) re: the question and also underscores why Direct Democractic reforms to our system now are especially dangerous. Most people aren't informed at all and are also exceptionally fine with their ignorance and incapable of being self-reliant. We need Representative restraint now more than ever and a massive descaling of Federal power.

Also, this is tangential. But it's so humorous in an incredibly frustrating way to me that "State's Rights" is such a polarized term, where the Left tends to utilize it like a cudgel against barbaric red states and the Right upholds it as sacrosanct but only in partisan situations. State's Rights is ALWAYS the better principle, yet the Right has no issue abrogating it on stuff like marijuana legalization or gay marriage while the Left can't fucking even see that their celebration of those victories is explicitly a celebration of state authority besting the federal government. It's so tiring.

>>18151488
no he was based

>>18153333

>>18153316
What dunk? Your whole post is delusional. Grafting on your personal experiences it seems.

>>18153337
Go ahead. White utopia will flock to Atlanta Georgia. A founding principal will be exclusionaryism. The surrounding tolerant communities will mostly sneer at these sorts, but be wary of the occasional stalkers. And they’d likely shoot to kill any.

>>18153344
>If Rome had been a Direct Democracy,
It wouldn’t be. Athens wasn’t. But for argument sakes, what’s wrong with giving those willing to farm land some plot to farm?
> Direct Democracy can't work in a large scale society
And this is another reason why it’s perfect. We don’t need huge nation-states. They are bad.
The ambitious will have a nice home and family life, or make nice films, the greedy will grow a fat belly, or have many sex partners. Non accumulative currency would eliminate the corruption of money.

>>18153082
Keked and based

>>18153412
>Go ahead. White utopia will flock to Atlanta Georgia. A founding principal will be exclusionaryism. The surrounding tolerant communities will mostly sneer at these sorts, but be wary of the occasional stalkers. And they’d likely shoot to kill any.
Is this supposed to be some sort of commentary on my point? I am unable to derive any meaningful argument from it.

>>18152924
>Advocating for direct democracy/near consensus voting

THE WHOLE WORLD IS CRINGING BUTTERFLY. :3

TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW TAKE IT BACK NOW

>>18153490

>>18153412
OK, so you've had several chances to respond to my actual arguments and you've repeatedly chosen not to. Obviously you're not here for a discussion, you clearly think you know everything despite not having two original thoughts to rub together. So please, tell me: Why are you here? Nobody's going to fall to their knees and worship you for being so #woke that you can sit around chanting nitwit banalities and misunderstanding economics. If you want attention you can post your ass on instagram.

Or do you think you're actually accomplishing something here besides embarassing yourself?

>>18153412

My point about Rome wasn't specific to the outcome of the farmer form bill per se, it was just that Caesar's ambitions utilized that carrot and I don't see any fundamental difference in whether he was an elected Consul or a private citizen in a direct democracy insofar as he employed the lower classes against the middle for reasons of personal ambition.

But I think we have more common ground than I originally thought. But I still agree with that other Anon but it's just utopianism without a realistic chance of succeeding in the current geopolitical paradigm

>>18152483

How do you think she comes?

>>18151488
Yes, he was very sexy.

>>18153519
Butterfly, you'll never be as pretty as her. Even in your prime, you were less than her right shoulder, and now, everyday, you age more and more ugly.

>>18153519
I wasn't even doing a 'not an argument' bit. I am seriously having trouble understanding you.

>>18153530
>Nobody's going to fall to their knees and worship
Great.
>#woke
Pbbbfffbfbfhahah
> do you think you're actually accomplishing something
Why are you here?

>>18153542
>But I think we have more common ground than I originally thought.
That’s nice. There’s huge hurdles to get over in organizing such a things starts and I am still trying to figure the best ways, but the latest developments are the crashing of the US economy is well under way. People are going to be open to solutions, so we’ve got that much going for us. A long shot I still think is possible.

>>18151556
I see this >«Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ»!!bGBGaUpA8kS guy talking dumb shit 24/7. Don't waste your time with him.

>>18153613
I'm here to have coherent discussions with well-read, knowledgeable people. Which is why I'd like to cordially invite you to leave, maybe try someplace where they'll appreciate your unfounded conjecture and sanctimonious vapidity. Maybe try putting your thoughts in the form of tiktoks? I think you'll find there's an audience for it there.

>>18151556
>It's a class thing
>Even though it exists in all classes.
Ah yes of course it is always those darn classes just being at fault for peoples behavior