/lit/ - Literature

>>18859538
Buddha's metaphysical penis.

>>18859538
All religion should be eraticated violently and completely

the stupidity of frogposters

>>18859538
Simone Weil's concept of the sublime.

>>18859555
OH SNAP

>>18859555
The following letter is inspired by a quote from Thomas Paine: “He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” Full disclosure: I’m one of those people who firmly believes that the best way to schematize the stupidity of frogposters’s ideological and factual crimes is to initiate meaningful change. Would the stupidity of frogposters like it if I were repulsive and unethical, too? I don’t think so. Is the stupidity of frogposters ultimately responsible for all of the simple-minded, ridiculous hucksters who pervert the course of justice? The evidence is inconclusive. Right off the bat, we see that even if the stupidity of frogposters’s writings were thoroughly successful in making a few people feel better, they would still be demeaning to everyone else. However, on the other side of the ledger, it is clear that some people think it’s a bit extreme of me to lead the stupidity of frogposters to resipiscence—a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that where there’s no name for a problem, you can’t see a problem, and when you can’t see a problem, you pretty much can’t solve it. The name of our problem is the stupidity of frogposters, and I maintain that the solution is to produce a compelling model of a society worth struggling for. In the absence of such a model, ethically bankrupt, puerile tightwads typically retreat into specific cultural and ideological identity groups that make rights, status, and privilege claims on the basis of a victimized identity. If you think that the stupidity of frogposters isn’t planning on exploiting such identity groups, then consider that I’ve repeatedly pointed out to it that I reject, with immeasurable scorn and indignation, the imputation that I have any sympathies or purposes in common with bookish, abominable evildoers. That apparently didn’t register with it, though. Oh, well; I guess the important point here isn’t the stupidity of frogposters’s double standards. It’s that if my memory serves me correctly, it has committed a number of heinous acts against society. Its most piacular offense, however, is perhaps its pigeonholing people into predetermined categories. As unconscionable as such behavior doubtlessly is, unlike the stupidity of frogposters, when I make a mistake I’m willing to admit it. Consequently, if—and I’m bending over backwards to maintain the illusion of “innocent until proven guilty”—it were not actually responsible for trying to reinforce the concept of collective guilt that is the root of all prejudice, then I’d stop saying that morally questionable priggers are so fascinated by the stupidity of frogposters’s humorless, unforgiving squibs that they fail to notice how it represents an existential threat to our safety, security, and well-being

>>18859555
Get er done op

>>18859555
>>18859581
Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that it has been pouring a few drops of wormwood into our general enthusiasm. That is a fundamental violation of common law and demonstrates that I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how the stupidity of frogposters is utterly gung-ho about credentialism because it lacks more pressing soapbox issues.
To put it crudely, if society were a beer bottle—something, I believe, that the stupidity of frogposters holds in high regard—it would indeed be the nauseating bit at the bottom that only the homeless like to drink. I have a T-shirt emblazoned with the following inscription: “In the stupidity of frogposters’s line of business, you don’t need to know what you’re talking about.” I like to wear that T-shirt to make a point about how the stupidity of frogposters wants to impair the practice of democracy. This desire is implanted in a part of its brain that’s immune to reason or argument. Consequently, there’s no chance that we can get it to see that its hirelings are merely ciphers. The stupidity of frogposters is the one who decides whether or not to pollute the great canon of English literature with references to its disdainful obiter dicta. The stupidity of frogposters is the one who gives out the orders to quash other people’s opinions. And the stupidity of frogposters is the one trying to conceal how if the past foretells the future, we’re in sizable trouble. It has repeatedly tried in the past to weaken our mental and moral fiber, and I fully expect it to exert more and more control over other individuals in the not-too-distant future.
I don’t object to the stupidity of frogposters’s hit pieces because I still wish briefly to take a position on the question as to what extent the stupidity of frogposters’s declamations blend self-involved, capricious Marxism (manifested in a dour stance) with a purported support for environmentalism, trade unionism, and the dignity of labor

>>18859581
I give your boring drivel a F-.

>>18859581
>>18859589
>>18859555
I object because several things it has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement of its that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something to the effect of how it’s a living bodhisattva of peace and nonviolence. I hate to sound a dissenting note, but that idea is pure insanity. As the stupidity of frogposters ought to know, the reality is that I recently read one of its op-ed pieces. That is, I made an attempt to read it. I gave up after a few pages because it made me too painfully aware of how the stupidity of frogposters has gotten away with so much for so long that it’s lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only an organization without any sense of limits could desire to make a mockery of the term “physicophysiological”. And now, dear brothers and sisters, one final thought: History has proven beyond any doubt that I never thought I would live to see the day that a footling, aggressive insurrectionist like the stupidity of frogposters could manage to deflect attention from its unwillingness to support policies that benefit the average citizen.

>>18859555
Seethe vaxbot

>>18859581
>>18859589
>>18859597
Not op

>>18859538
>>18859626
Friends, countrymen, people who hate OP, lend me your ears; I come to bury OP, not to praise it. To begin at the beginning, OP is frightened that we might move ahead with a process that serves the interests of our country and all its citizens. That’s why it’s trying so hard to prevent whistleblowers from reporting that, as I like to say, "OP fails to consider the consequences of its complaints". Those may be harsh words, but I assert I have a fundamental right to say them. I also have the right to say that we must fight against social injustice. This call to action begins with you. You must be the first to have a little confab with it about its jejune propositions. You must be the one to pave the way for people of every sex, race, and socioeconomic status to fulfill their own spiritual destiny. And you must inform your fellow man that OP has been trying hard to convince us that the rule of law should give way to the rule of brutality and bribery. It inarguably has a knack for refining snake oil to unprecedented purity, potency, and opacity, doesn’t it? In any case, OP’s jaundiced, obnoxious game of chess—the abysmal chess of Cæsarism—has continued for far too long. It’s time to checkmate this stubborn nithing and show it that Bonapartism-oriented curmudgeons guarantee the destruction of anything that looks like a vital community. That said, we mustn’t lose sight of who our real enemies are: OP and its maladroit spokesmen. All this aside, OP’s animadversions are negativism cloaked in the rhetoric of obscene, hubristic nosism. Sometimes it helps us to think clearly about this by turning to an analogy, let’s say with animals. Imagine a bunny who’s merrily keeping our courage up. Suddenly, a couple of wolves come along and sacrifice children on the twin altars of sexism and greed. Because of the wolves’ actions, the bunny is unable to awaken people from the spell of tribalism. If that analogy helps, good. If not, well, just ignore it. In either case, the moral is that OP’s argument that its chicaneries are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals is hopelessly flawed and completely circuitous. Comments on the above are welcome, but please think them out first.

>>18859538
Stupidity is nothing but expressed entropy

Nigga you're just replacing words. No one is gonna read this garbage.

>>18859635
not OP obviously

>>18859538
cope and seethe

>>18859555
1/3
There are two lenses here that are difficult to identify but we’ll separate those out: 1) stupidity and 2) frogposters. Obviously, I could go into the nuance of the frogposter as something metaphysical, which is that pepe has become the fish of wafer meme that indicates the in-group of the out-group, also known as the polarity to the total consumption and integration of progressivism. Stupidity is actually a fascinating discussion. In many ways, stupidity is the ugly cousin of humanity that has always been with us, is probably more us than we even imagine, and yet for each and every one of us it is merely an intellectual negativity. In a sense, a pepe and stupidity are probably the same thing to the progressive. A frog poster just “doesn’t get it.” This getting it, or rather one buying into the enlightenment, which Sloterdijk correctly says that the enlightenment is nothing more than “A language game for cognitive winners,” we then understand that we are dealing with something awkward and profound. The frog is an interesting glyph. I think of it as the Egyptian scarab on the head of mummies, it feels like the entry point of cognition. I think of the frogposter as pure intellectual cynicism, whereas stupidity is pure intellectual negativity. In a sense, this is fundamental that to society they are the same thing. Someone who is intelligent but not progressive is effectively not an ally, whereas someone that is unintelligent is not useful for capitalism, so these two could be viewed as similar but must be viewed as something else entirely.

>>18859898
2/3
To wit, and sidetrack. It fascinates me that the Christian ethos did leave so many scars in our psyche, Christian slave morality and what have you, but didn’t in way of forgiveness or Christ’s sermon on the mount that those that call someone else a fool risks hell-fire. It is intriguing that even in a society that is thoroughly formerly Christian, these two attributes can be easily forgotten. We live, obviously, in the era of intelligence. Intelligence is a peculiar and very ugly thing, for it is nothing more than the abstract made real, whereas wisdom is understanding the posture one has to be in to abstract in the first place. In a sense, intelligence is understanding the identity property, or what can make A A at all, and wisdom is understanding that A supposes an infinity of possibility and that is the first state of identity at all. Essentially, one can be wise without intelligence. It seems that stupidity, largely, is someone whose mind isn’t fully in the game of life. It is a mind that is anti-life in a way. In fact, the other poster represents this type of tacit competition which is stating who has the most beautiful insides. The frog is merely the glyph for the negativity of one’s intelligence being extruded into reality, that is that in frogposting one assumes the position of capable-but-not-willing, it is a nihilistic position in a way, or in the anonymouse position it is capable-but-not-seeking-reputation.

>>18859903
3/3
Intelligence is peculiar, because for all intents and purposes, it is totally antithetical to spirituality. For an intelligent mind is, well, dead, in that it mimics the world as the world is most nearly, and as such the bugman stereotype applies even to the greatest writers of all time, for their minds are nothing more than something that becomes the world. Intelligence is not a curse because one is better than someone else, quite the opposite if that, but it is a curse because one is further away from themselves than the unintelligent. This is confusing, but essentially the more one is intelligent the less self one has because intelligence is nothing more than logic and logic is universal. In a way, idiocy is both individuality and forced spirituality. If you cannot understand the world, you will not worship its creations. To me, this is the main error in all stupidity or idiot calling, it is that one calls one an idiot not because one hates idiots, in fact they are probably jealous of them, but because they do not have power over them. This is, undoubtedly, in a way, fair in a democratic meritocracy and represents the current deep trend, that is that people think that the intelligent should rule, not realizing that the intelligent always, by definition, are nothing more than non-human. For example, the most intelligent individual is not the one in medical school that shows the most errors in the course work, rather intelligence in todays day and age represents the degree to which one is internally obedient, i.e. who most efficiently and completely converts one’s internal mind to match the prescribed information. As such, a stupid frogposter is merely one that is disobedient, or rather one that could be internally obedient, but has chosen not to. The frog is not so much a rebel, but is useless as a form of rebellion, which is the most common form of rebellion in our society. People do not strike, do not break company property, rather we have been so reduced as human beings by having our internal world become bureaucratized that our sole act of rebellion is merely doing this act of conversion a little bit less.

My psychopathic pregnant live-in girlfriend
That just had an aggressive mental breakdown

>>18859538
Tittyfucking and dry humping. Why women dont want to practice std free sex.

>>18860401
They do though. But Venereal diseases are the most fun to get

>>18860722
Doing this

>>18860722
1/3
Swedenbourg offers the most compelling understanding of sexual Hell, in that it would be a place where one would choose total filth to be able to indulge in one’s lust. I think this is inextricable from the concept that the less likely sex is to create a healthy family unit, the more likely it is to cause a severely lethal or bad STD. For example, if monogamy produced STDs whereas polygamy or general looseness was actually needed to sexually diversify one’s genetila’s biome, then it would seem that we would have an opposite sense of morality. However, sex follows Hegels history, McKenna’s logos, and Chardin’s radial energy, that the proliferation of consciousness is itself the good, and the things that most nearly related to that seem to be the good. You’ll see that I would separate these from intelligence. Pure consciousness is pure kindness. I will admit, I think that sexual desire is one of the most fascinating concepts available to us. I want to imagine for a minute, if birth control were replaced with abortions not only in their wide usage but in their severity. Essentially, to fulfill modernity’s psychic lust-demands, does not require abortion (the killing of the potential of life), but rather requires the denial of birth itself. Essentially, someone in the old days that slept around enough would eventually see a human being be created whom hated them as a result of their wanton behavior, but this human has been denied its existence, essentially we have de-bastardized society to make everyone a bastard.

>>18861023
2/3
I cannot stress this enough. The most frequently criticized point in Christ’s lessons is that lust in the heart is cheating in reality. Obviously, this may seem like an ideal, but it gets at something fundamental: That sexual energy is the same as psychic production energy. Schopenhauer and Freud are kind of right, the Will led to intelligence for Schopenhauer and libido was generic life energy qua in Freud, and these might be nominally true, but we miss that libido and consciousness are not married in one by the nexus of the individual, they are separated by birth, and in so far as society separates consciousness from the libido the libido grows because the desire for birth, or consciousness, developes. It is ironic that feminism has essentially increased the sexualization of women more than any patriarchy ever could have dreamed of. Why? Because birth itself is the death of the erotic. The erotic is the purloining of birth. The idea that filth, or STDs generally, are fun or exciting is nothing more than expressing this deep purloining. In Bataille’s understanding of De Sade, sadism reaches a peak because death is denied victims, whereas in modernity eroticism reaches a peak because birth is denied its lovers. This is fundamental. No-fap is simply called conception. This is why tityfucking is interestingly deranged.

>>18859538
SPEED VRRRROOOOOMMMMMMMM

>>18861031
3/3
Tittyfucking, or generally the fuck-dollification of women in today’s society, is the pure transition from the giving Mother to the sexualized gf. If we look at tittyfucking exactingly, we see it is the transmutation of the nurturing mother’s milk into a vagina. This is pure symbolic depravity. This is perhaps one of the most damaging things ever done to women in human history, because rather than women being a sacred nexus of human existence(a zero that makes a 1 if you will) , they have become the tunnel purely without the inner sanctum. Said with too much harshness, modernity has turned women from wombs into holes. In so far as women are denied birth, they are denied their humanity, in the same way that in so far as men are denied birth, they are denied morality. This is, perhaps, the single most sadistic transition that has been enacted on a category of humanity. Essentially, women have undergone a double-capitalization of productive unit for capitalism and sex object for the men indifferent to them. I cannot stress this enough, sex without the intention of birth at some point, is sin. This is not to say that sexual pleasure is wrong or fetishes are wrong. Not at all. It is that sexuality, or any pleasure, without the vector of responsibility is pure sadism. I think there is an unspoken truth that should just be addressed plainly. Men, mostly, do not find 95% of women that they meet interesting. Men know, and most will not acknowledge or accept this unless they’re a bit too honest, and women know this and will secretly hate themselves for it. Essentially, because dating is the extraction of pleasure from another human without the commitment of a family or marriage, most honest people will avoid dating simply because there is something unspeakably bad that is that men simply don’t find their partners interesting and don’t know if they will have children with their partner, so they expect their girlfriends to be sexy. This sexy-ification is what you’re getting at. Essentially, the feminist is the pure misogynist because they convert a woman’s body to a pleasure machine and man’s body to a wit device (good sense of humor).

>>18859538
Link Goodfellas to Aquinas' metaphysics :^)

>>18861048
>Goodfellas
Haven't seen it chief

>>18861051
Well I didn't get dubs anyway, so no biggie

the fabled 'perfect 4chan post'