/lit/ - Literature

>>20304910
I reconcile it by now boohooing every time some mustachioed southern faggot has an idea I don't like. There reconciled. Next we will look at Faulkners taxes for inconsistencies.

>>20304910
You realise the South has always been anti-capitalist? A lot of the rhetoric of the Confederacy was anti-capitalist in nature. Conservatives like Flannery O'Connor decried industrialisation and economic liberalism

>>20304910
Southern values were reactionary, i.e. anti-capitalist.

>>20304910
South had an agrarian based economy?

Op is a retard

I just finished go down moses and was surprised by how critical it was of capitalism
>sold him in egypt
>sold him to the pharaoh

>>20304910
Listen buddy Ron Paul has never attacked capitalism. He does look good in a stashe though he shoulda kept that.

That's because you can only think in two categories:

1.) Pro-capitalism, racist, fascist, evil, right-wing, religious, bigoted, homophobic.

2.) Collectivist, marxist, feminist, centralized, censorious, egalitarian, socialist.

It has always struck me how idiotic this is, because of how many things not fitting together at all that you have to put into the same boxes.
Yet, most people only seem to think in two categories. If you're against us, you must be with them. Because of thinking like that we have odd allegiances, such as that between SJWs, feminism, and Islam, evident from such weird neologisms such as "islamophobia". It's amazing how quickly that term had become mainstream, despite how nonsensical it is. A phobia for a religion? For what other religion do we have such a term? Christophobia? Buddhophobia? Baptistophobia?

I have always had contempt for reasoning like that. Those arguments always come in forms like these:

> If you are for X, how come you are against unrelated thing Y?
I think that binary thinking is especially prevalent in America, because they only have two major parties. They seem to have a hard time thinking in political categories of more than two.

>>20305028
Two is also the lowest number of categories you can have with which a simplistic tribalism is possible, of course. If you just had one category, one central party, as in China maybe, then you need to make up a new oppositional category, then it usually becomes "insiders, Chinese" vs. "outsiders, non-Chinese". Either way, the simplest way in which people can usually think, while retaining a category for an opponent, is two. It is the crudest way in which you can make sense of the world and therefor it's not surprising that it has become the lowest common denominator for the masses. Two. "If you are not A, surely you must be B?" Surely, those people opposing Antifa must be fascists, because if you oppose people who proclaim to be against fascists (group A), there cannot be a different explanation than you being for fascism (group B). Even their opponents, many times, adopt the same thinking and will accept the caricature of their opponents, themselves not being able to think in shades of more than two. That is why we have so many people who truly identify as "fascists" now, just because they think "Well, those people say they dislike fascists. I do not like them. Then, I should be a fascist!" And on and on it goes. You see it here, you see it everywhere.

If you dislike oranges, how come I saw you eat an apple yesterday?

>>20305028
I don't find Islamophobia to be nonsensical at all. Why do you think that? Unless the gist is that it lumps all Muslims as terrorists. People hate or are uncomfortable around Muslims due to their perceived threat.

>>20305050
Take your meds and learn to write concisely and clearly. This is a jumbled rant

>>20304910
The South was always superior in every way

I don't reconcile it because I don't care.

>>20304910
look here you yankee fuck, i catch you making more lowbrow faulkner bait threads and i break your god damn thumbs

>>20305028
This has absolutely nothing to do with Faulkner and the anti-capitalist themes in his writings.

>>20305961
Are you retarded?

>>20304910
It's not that weird, I have a friend who's a proud Southerner and a commie.

>>20305934
Better lowbrow Faulkner than no Faulkner?

Am German so I don't have to reconcile "this" and instead can simply bask in his illustrious writing :^)

>>20305857
> >50% obese
>25th percentile and below for all quality of life statistics
in what way are they superior again?

>>20306053
Now do it just for Southern whites

>>20304910
This intertwining of capitalist rightism and the South is a very recent development. Establishment parties left and right alike disavow the kind of cultural Southerner who flies the rebel flag. This isn't because they are dumb racists—they are no more or less dumb and/or racist than the average person of any political creed. They disavow them because the values of the south are just different. The lineage to the old Yoknapatawpha still exists, it's just that the hypercapitalist ruling party has overall disenfranchised it to the point where they're worse off economically than the average inner city nigger. And, guess what? By and large, they don't give a shit, because they are the salt of the earth. Never have been capitalists, by and large, never will be.

>>20304910
Based. You cannot be a true trad person if you are pro-capitalist.

>>20305852
The threat is real, it’s not phobia

You can’t have Islam without political Islam

>>20306217
the song remains the same. cope

>>20304910
Capitalism brought us wokism and the modern SJW cancer. Real trad people are against this.

>>20305022
kek

Bump

>>20304910
God I fucking love Faulkner

>>20304910
did he really defend southern values?

Capitalism doesn't exist. Economics will never be a science

>>20304910
What are Southern values?

>>20304910
What are other writers that embrace Southern values?

>>20305028
>1.) Pro-capitalism, racist, fascist, evil, right-wing, religious, bigoted, homophobic.
>2.) Collectivist, marxist, feminist, centralized, censorious, egalitarian, socialist.
Yes, because they're the natural resolutions if you want to have a coherent worldview. (1) is rational and realistic, (2) is irrational and idealistic.

>>20307550
What do you mean 'capitalism doesn't exist'? There's no places whose economy is based on private ownership of the means of production for profit?

>>20307610
No, your property can always be confiscated by the state.

>>20307579
What's rational or realistic about religion or homophobia? Among other things.

>>20307635
>homophobia
Not him but why did you pick this one?

>>20307635
>religion
Christianity is the soundest and most solid worldview due to more than a millennium of scholasticism and theology that enabled the most advanced metaphysics we know of.
>homophobia
Cognitive homophobia is rational because homosexuals worsen the prospects of a community due to social friction, not reproducing, and comorbid degeneracy manifested through overindulgence in unhealthy behaviors.

>>20307626
And that makes it not capitalism how? That applies in any system with a state.

>>20307542
Have you read a single word of his?

>>20307626
Capitalism is just a term marxists use for non-socialist systems.
Just ignore them.

>>20307702
Just two examples.
>>20307703
>Christianity is the soundest and most solid worldview due to more than a millennium of scholasticism and theology that enabled the most advanced metaphysics we know of.
Except for the part where there's no good evidence that it's actually true.
>Cognitive homophobia is rational because homosexuals worsen the prospects of a community due to social friction
What makes you think it's homosexuality that generates friction and not homophobic reactions to it? Why do I care if my neighbor is gay?
>not reproducing
So you're saying monasticism and priestly celibacy are harmful to society?
>and comorbid degeneracy manifested through overindulgence in unhealthy behaviors
I'm sure that has nothing at all to do with how our culture treats them.

>>20307703
Don't be ridiculous. You presuppose that fags cause social friction and are degenerate. That they do not reproduce could be seen as a benefit to the in-group that inherits their possessions.

There's nothing intrinsically rational or irrational about either of the two options proposed. There are plenty of consistent worldviews. It's a matter of axiom selection.

>>20307734
>Except for the part where there's no good evidence that it's actually true.
What's your metaphysics?
>What makes you think it's homosexuality that generates friction and not homophobic reactions to it?
I don't care, it's an instinctual response for many people, homosexuals are only about 1% of a population, and Christianity is against them too. Therefore, there is no point in welcoming them in society.

>>20307751
>What's your metaphysics?
That's not relevant. You can't make whatever you want be true about actual reality by changing how you define your axioms.
>I don't care, it's an instinctual response for many people, homosexuals are only about 1% of a population, and Christianity is against them too. Therefore, there is no point in welcoming them in society.
Well, there's the harm caused to them by discrimination and violence. There's the basic concept of human rights.

>>20307734
>What makes you think it's homosexuality that generates friction and not homophobic reactions to it? Why do I care if my neighbor is gay?
I understand you want a debate, but please stop trying to defend homosexuality. Stick with religion.

>>20307746
>You presuppose that fags cause social friction and are degenerate
It's well documented, no need to presuppose anything.

>>20307754
Why shouldn't I criticize all the things you're wrong about?

>>20307758
I'm not the one you are debating with, I just want to confirm that aversion to homosexuality is normal and healthy.

>>20307753
>That's not relevant.
Yes it is. You have to demonstrate there's more evidence or coherence for your proposed metaphysics than for Christianity in order to claim that "there's no good evidence" for Chrisianity. What's good evidence? What's the evidence for your metaphysics? Explain it.
>human rights.
Not a thing.

>>20307761
Not really, it causes a lot of needless suffering. Plus, even if you personally find something gross that doesn't mean you can't tolerate its mere existence.
>>20307764
>Yes it is. You have to demonstrate there's more evidence or coherence for your proposed metaphysics than for Christianity in order to claim that "there's no good evidence" for Chrisianity. What's good evidence? What's the evidence for your metaphysics? Explain it.
Most metaphysical questions are nonsense; there is nothing it would mean for the answer to them to be either "yes" or "no".
>Not a thing.
There's nothing it's unacceptable to do to a human being?

>>20307746
>Don't be ridiculous. You presuppose that fags cause social friction and are degenerate.
Hmmm

>>20307782
>Not really, it causes a lot of needless suffering
>needless
I disagree.
>even if you personally find something gross
It's more about protecting children

>>20307793
And there we go with the homophobic "all gays are child molesters" trope. Most gay men are attracted to, you know, adult men, just like most straight women are.

>>20307800
>trope
???

>>20307787
>28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners
how can you read a statistic like this and believe it?

>>20307807
The international homosexuality community is all about international sex and promoscuity.
Brave New World joked a man had sex with hundreds of partners in a span of a few years. It was seen as a joke, impossible by 1930s standards and yet here we are.

>>20307782
>Most metaphysical questions are nonsense; there is nothing it would mean for the answer to them to be either "yes" or "no".
If you have no understanding of metaphysics, you have nothing to base your epistemology on, so you no way to evaluate evidence.
>There's nothing it's unacceptable to do to a human being?
Do you think morality was invented when some bureaucrats drafted UDHR? You're obviously not very educated in anything, so I don't know why you're even having this discussion. You're a leftist, your worldview is based on your feelings, and you're probably a homosexual or friends with a homosexual, so you're defending it because of your feelings alone. There's nothing worthwhile to discuss you with, you have nothing of value to share.

>>20307802
>not understanding the difference between anecdotes and data
>>20307812
The notion of human rights does not start with the UDHR lmao.

>>20307753
You basic concept of human rights is the same as his acceptance of God. It's not derived from rational thought. It's axiomatic (baseless).

The harm caused to them by discrimination and violence could feasibly be less than the harm caused to the community that is forced to accept them against its will. It is similarly axiomatic to want to protect your in-group and its traditions and values, but at least its based in evolutionary psychology.

>>20307813
>it's a trope
>THAT'S JUST AN ANECDOTE THAT THOUSANDS OF GAY MEN UTILISED THE GAY LOVERS PEDOPHILE RING TO HAVE SEX WITH HUNDREDS OF BOYS BETWEEN SIX AND EIGHT
Oh fuck off.

>>20307816
God is derived from rational thought. What's your metaphysics?

>>20307807
It's what they reported, it says right there

>>20307821
God is not derived from rational thought. He is derived from faith. That's where you start from with any metaphysics.

>>20307816
Nobody's harmed by gay people just existing lmao.
>>20307819
Gay pedophiles should be punished. Socially tolerating non-pedo gays will not lead to more gay pedos. The pedos, straight or gay, were acting underground anyway.

>>20307831
>non-pedo gays
???

>>20307830
>God is not derived from rational thought. He is derived from faith
> That's where you start from with any metaphysics.
Both wrong.

>>20307835
There are men who are sexually interested in other adult men and not sexually interested in children.

>>20307831
>Nobody's harmed by gay people just existing lmao.
For better or worse, yes, they are, when they are in a community that wishes to keep them out. Your live-and-let-live individualism is not a universally shared or rationally derived foundation. It is an axiom you chose. People care about maintaining their communities, and that often involves necessarily excluding outsiders. The existence of outsiders in their community causes harm to them, hence their reactions.

>>20307851
If your community is harmed by the mere existence of gay people it is a bad community that should not exist in its current form.

This is a Faulkner thread?

>>20307848
Look, it's simple. There are more homophobes than homosexuals, and the number of the former is increasing day by day. Therefore, your existence is a plague.

>>20307859
>If your community is harmed by the mere existence of gay people it is a bad community
Then leave.
>that should not exist in its current form.
Who asked for your personal opinion? Can you base this ought statement on a solid foundation? If not, no one cares about what your feelings.

>>20307867
People are born gay, people aren't born homophobic.
>>20307870
I base it on the fact that gays are human beings who do not deserve to be harmed for how they are by nature.

>>20307875
>people aren't born homophobic.
Prove it.
> do not deserve to be harmed for how they are by nature.
What's this based on? Oh right "human rights". No one cares, there's no rational basis for it.

>>20307880
Are you saying it's moral to harm people for how they're born? Would it be moral to harm someone for having green eyes?
And if people are born homophobic why do rates of homophobia vary significantly by culture and time?

>>20307896
>Are you saying it's moral to harm people for how they're born?
If they harm society, sure.
>Would it be moral to harm someone for having green eyes?
If they harmed society, sure.
>And if people are born homophobic why do rates of homophobia vary significantly by culture and time?
Because people can become homophobic despite not being born so, and people who were born homophobic can become more tolerant in certain circumstances.

>>20307859
Do you understand that you arrive at this statement from adopting an axiom that is not universal or "true"? I know that this is a universal problem to all axioms, but it's worth noting in this case for a reason I hope to make clear to you:

You state that a community harmed by the existence of gay people is bad and should not exist (in its current form). If I restate that in a more general form (with only one leap in logic) that I hope you would agree with (tell me if you do not), I would restate it as: "A group that subordinates a subgroup on the basis of an intrinsic property is a bad group, and should not exist." Would you agree with that statement?

Are you willing to apply that to all the communities of the world? The uncontacted tribes of South America and the tribal Pashtuns? The Palestinians and the Trobriand Islanders of Melanesia? Virtually every single group on the planet that you yourself are not a part of?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I would venture you would say no, that you would not say that these are not all bad groups that should not exist (in their current form). How sure are you that you are not doing exactly what the gay-haters are?

>>20307907
What makes you think driving gay people into the closet is going to make them less bad for society? If anything it'll just drive them underground, get them tangled up in black markets, make them reluctant to get tested for STIs...
>>20307927
I think any group that subordinates people on the basic of intrinsic property should change and not do that, yes.

>>20307934
>What makes you think driving gay people into the closet is going to make them less bad for society?
Because no one can see them and they're less likely to affect society.
>If anything it'll just drive them underground, get them tangled up in black markets, make them reluctant to get tested for STIs...
So?

>>20307942
So if anything it's easier for them to have to worse effects on society if driven underground. I understand the argument for STIs etc even if I don't agree but what harm comes from merely SEEING them?

>>20307950
>So if anything it's easier for them to have to worse effects on society if driven underground
How so? If they do anything illegal, they just go to prison.
>what harm comes from merely SEEING them?
They set a bad example because homosexuality goes against Christian morals, and they're disliked by homophobes.

I am so sick of atheists, anons.
They know nothing about philosophy, but believe themselves to be experts.
Anyone with a basic understanding of metaphysics and epistemology is not an atheist or materialist of any kind.

>>20304910
>he hasn't read George Fitzhugh
Slavery is the highest form of socialism.

>>20307934
>I think any group that subordinates people on the basic of intrinsic property should change and not do that, yes.
Translation (does it sound familiar?): "I have the best moral framework, and all others are inferior and should change to mine."
At least you're willing to bite the bullet. That's respectable. But it's not so much of a live-and-let-live framework anymore, is it?
And what are the consequences of this? Is someone who wishes to change these groups justified in attempting to do so? How far does that justification go? Is force justified?

Not one atheist has EVER had an answer to the transcendental argument for God. Not a single one. It is irrefutable.
Even Quine basically admitted it. He remained an atheist, but he himself said he had no justification for it.

>>20307965
But Christian morals are based on a set of empirical claims that don't stand up to scrutiny.
>>20307987
Practically speaking, you should act with a certain amount of caution because it's hard to know whether your actions will be net positive utility. Often that amount is a lot.

>>20308018
>But Christian morals are based on a set of empirical claims that don't stand up to scrutiny.
Stop talking about things you don't understand.

Faulkner did not "attack capitalism" you direction-brained, Twitter-addled zoomers

>>20308024
He's not, how do we know the events described in the New Testament actually happened and weren't just fabrications, pious fraud, etc.? Faith alone is the only answer. Note that Christians necessarily believe precisely this scenario took place with Islam, some guy went into a cave and just made up an entire religion.

>>20308024
Are you saying Christianity doesn't have as a major underpinning the notion that the resurrection etc really happened and its theology would be damaged by acknowledging it didn't?

>>20308041
>acknowledging it didn't?
But it did happen. You are presupposing that it did not and you are incorrect.

>>20308039
>>20308041
That's a different discussion. You said "Christian morals are based on a set of blah blah." You're talking about Christian morals which are also adopted by cultural Christians, and they have no issue "standing up to scrutinity." Yes, the NT is true too, but you don't have to accept that to accept Christian morals which are the most popular morals in pretty much all white countries.

>>20307725
No?

>>20308055
How do you know it happened?
>>20308058
Sure, but if Christianity isn't true there's no reason to adopt them.

>>20308018
I'm not speaking practically. They are bad because they subordinate groups based on intrinsic characteristics. They should change because they are bad. Is anything justified in order to effect that change (the best option among options being the one that maximins utility)?

Anyways, It's interesting to me that you mention net positive utility. Now in the realm of what is practical, what makes you so sure your framework achieves net positive utility? Imagine a framework that subordinates a single individual to a greater group and in doing so achieves a higher net positive utility than the group that does not. Is this a justification for it? Also, what if it's the case that you cannot proselytize them without effecting a net negative to utility?

This video annihilates atheism.
https://youtu.be/4MZErPk3_MU

>>20308063
>Sure, but if Christianity isn't true there's no reason to adopt them.
There is a pragmatic reason to adopt them if they work, which they do, so many atheists subscribe to them too e.g. Macron is a cultural Christian despite being an "agnostic"

>>20307934
>I think any group that subordinates people on the basic of intrinsic property should change and not do that, yes.
I should also note that it would be a horrible loss to the diversity of humanity if this change were to occur. Do you not agree?

>>20308079
They subscribe to the parts that work and throw away the parts that don't. Any two moral systems generated by humans won't be completely dissimilar and without overlap, our evolved instincts guarantee that.

>>20308086
I don't know what's your argument, but I doubt you ever had one other than "human rights say homophobia is bad" and "i'm gay and i deserve respect"

>>20308058
Christian morals are based upon Jesus' teachings or on further development of doctrine from said teachings by figures like Aquinas. Again Christian morals rely upon the claim that Jesus taught X at some point in time and the New Testament wasn't just a fabrication like the Quran or Book of Mormon, or indeed like Exodus might've been.

>>20308098
No, that's Christianity. Christian morals is a moral system that you can simply base it on empirical success even if you're an atheist.

>>20308027
He implicitly does so in his resignation from a post office position. There's also a strong case to be made that it is a recurring theme in his work (with the ascendancy of market values in the weakening and loss of Southern values).

>>20308059
Then do it.

>>20308097
I'm not even gay lmao

>>20304934
Thats not reactionary means

>>20308105
Maybe not, but nevertheless, you are defending homosexualism and it is a perverse sin.

>>20308105
You may as well be because you type like one and think like one.

>>20308108
Yes it is because reactionaries were anti-communists, and capitalists always financed communists despite communists pretending to be anti-capitalists

Do not be confused by the title. This video is Jay Dyer explaining how atheism is extremely bluepilled. It is not saying that Jay is bluepilled.

>>20308110
And you know this how?

>>20308114
forgot link
https://youtu.be/CXtfaToG5ss

>>20308117
He probably read the Bible where it explains what's a sin, which you don't seem to understand. Pro tip: no one cares if you're an epic atheist, a sin is a religious concept

>>20307703
And you are calling leftists idealists?

>>20308128
Materialism has less ground to stand on than idealism, but you wouldn't know that

>>20304915
Funniest post on lit today

>>20308127
And why is the bible's view on it authoritative?

>>20308142
Probably because he's a Christian. You really are very slow

>>20308103
>He implicitly does so in his resignation from a post office position.
So if you have a job and leave it to write, you're an anti-capitalist? What a retard. And even if it were a recurring theme in his work (minor, at best, in his bibliography), that does not make him a critic of capitalism.

>>20308148
I'd like his answer, though.

>>20308148
Atheists/agnostics seem to think that their worldview is just sort of "the default," as it were, and that it has some kind of epistemological privilege as such that it doesn't have to justify itself the same way they demand that Christians justify their beliefs.
They are totally wrong but that is an assumption that they all seem to have.

>>20308167
In the same sense that not believing in fairies is the null hypothesis and the existence of fairies has to be demonstrated, yes.

>>20308180
Show me the empirical proof that empiricism is correct. Show the empirical data which shows that materialism is the truth.

>>20308180
Christiany has already been demonstrated many times by Aquinas, Berkeley, the Apostles, and the Bible iself. You just haven't read anything because you're a retard.

>>20308190
I agree with most of what you are saying but I think that Thomism is wrong. I think that Thomas Aquinas's metaphysics and epistemology are sloppy and he made up heresies such as the false idea that there was death before the fall.

>>20308160
>As long as I live under the capitalistic system, I expect to have my life influenced by the demands of moneyed people. But I will be damned if I propose to be at the beck and call of every itinerant scoundrel who has two cents to invest in a postage stamp.

For better understanding of Christian metaphysics I prefer Saint Maximus the Confessor.

>>20307821
>God is derived from rational thought.
I don't care about anything else you guys are talking about but citation needed please.

>>20308188
You cannot draw an accurate map of the territory by sitting in your armchair and not actually going and looking at it, and I'm not sure why you'd expect to. These things are causally entangled.

>>20308201
His proofs of God are good if one accepts an Aristotelian metaphysics though.

>>20308225
So you claim. Show me the empirical data which proves it!!!

>>20308246
It was empirical science that brought humans to the moon and wiped out polio, not prayer and faith.

>>20308244
I prefer a sort of Platonic metaphysics desu >>20308216
>>20308216
>>20308216

>>20308222
>citation needed
Why? You won't read it. You just spam "citation needed" and other trite nonsense in every thread probably.

>>20308249
You keep naming scientific advancements but what I am asking you is to take a step back and explain the metaphysical framework for you to believe in science and empirical data inthe first place.

>>20308276
That I... believe there's such a thing as external reality and that Bayes' theorem is valid math? And really a pretty high probability assigned to the former seems to me to follow from the latter.

>>20304910
why would i need to reconcile his correct views

>>20308276
>explain the metaphysical framework for you to believe in science and empirical data
It works

>>20308284
>I... believe there's such a thing as external reality
Baseless faith

>>20308252
>Why? You won't read it. You just spam "citation needed" and other trite nonsense in every thread probably.
Are you ok?

>>20308252
>Berkeley
>proof

It was real in his mind.

>>20308286
This is called begging the question. You are assuming the very the in question.

>>20308292
Irrefutable since his treatise was first published.

>>20308290
Not really, I don't believe it absolutely, but I assign a probability of basically 1 minus epsilon to it because my observations are and continue to be consistent with it.

>>20308302
There's no observation of an external world, you're just philosophically illiterate which is also why you're a materialist

Here is another problem for the atheists in addition to epistemology and metaphysics: value judgements.
Not only do you have a baseless presupposition that science and empirical data are real, but also you cannot justify why scientific achievements such as going to space or curing polio are good. What is good in your worldview? Why should we follow it?

>>20308302
>because my observations are and continue to be consistent with it.
Once again you are doing what is called BEGGING THE QUESTION.
You are assuming in your justification the very thing that we are asking you to justify.

>>20308313
Sure there is. We receive sense data; if it shows a world that follows consistent rules then that raises the probability that it's coming from an external world and not being generated by some other means.
>>20308315
There is no morality baked into the structure of the universe. But humans have certain preferences because of how we evolved, and we join together to form societies that satisfy those preferences.

Science presupposes that there is such a thing as logic and that it can be used to accurately describe reality. Logic is not material. It is metaphysical. Atheists who try to argue for atheism have already refuted themselves by trying to use logic in the first place.

>>20308327
>if it shows a world that follows consistent rules then that raises the probability that it's coming from an external world
Non sequitur

>>20308334
Oh and also, if an atheist tries to refute this by saying that logic is just physical brain matter, then once again we have arrived at totally arbitrary and baseless nonsense. You are trusting the chemical reactions in your brain to tell you that everything is just matter.

>>20308336
You need to learn Bayes's Theorem.

>>20308346
You need to learn basic deductive logic

>>20308343
>then once again we have arrived at totally arbitrary and baseless nonsense. You are trusting the chemical reactions in your brain to tell you that everything is just matter.
Yes and?

Guys what does this have to do with Faulkner, capitalism, or Southern values?

>>20308370
Christianity is the central Southern value

>>20308370
To make a Faulkner from scratch we must first invent the universe.

>>20308370
It doesn't. This board is dead. Full of retarded zoomers with attention spans shorter than Faulkner's johnson and with their own dogmatic axe to grind. I don't know where to go.

The south is pretty comfy desu anons. There are some things that I don't like about it but overall it's great to be quite desu

>>20304910
Capitalism doesn't exist

>>20308487
What the fuck are you talking about.

>>20308113
this man knows

He was a manlet. Discuss.

>>20308546
>manlet
Dropped.
I thought he was sounding pretty based judging by what this thread was saying about him, but if he was a manlet then never mind.

>>20307703
> Cognitive homophobia is rational because homosexuals worsen the prospects of a community due to social friction, not reproducing, and comorbid degeneracy manifested through overindulgence in unhealthy behaviors.
Start with the Greeks

>>20307851
> For better or worse, yes, they are, when they are in a community that wishes to keep them out. Your live-and-let-live individualism is not a universally shared or rationally derived foundation. It is an axiom you chose. People care about maintaining their communities, and that often involves necessarily excluding outsiders. The existence of outsiders in their community causes harm to them, hence their reactions.
Start with the Greeks. They considered homosexuality beneficial to social and military bonds. So did the Samurai.

>>20308594
We are not the Greeks or the Samurai. The Greeks did not want to keep out homosexuality.

>>20308598
So? The idea that homosexuality is inherently corrosive to social bonds is thrown into doubt by these examples. Most people in developed Western societies today support the rights of homosexuals. Is there a compelling reason to change this?

>>20307703
>Cognitive homophobia is rational because homosexuals worsen the prospects of a community due to social friction, not reproducing, and comorbid degeneracy manifested through overindulgence in unhealthy behaviors.
How tf does two men not reproducing have any effect on the health of a community? So what, like 5%, or less, won't reproduce. I don't see the harm. As for over-indulgence in bad behaviors, I would like to see some stats backing that up. Even if that is the case, I don't see how it "worsens the prospects of a community". You seem unhinged.

>>20308664
> As for over-indulgence in bad behaviors, I would like to see some stats backing that up.
They do have stats for these but completely ignore the fact that their stats aren’t replicated by other studies. The nonsense claim that 25% of gay men have had over 1000 sexual partners is not replicable.

>>20308546
>>20308577

>>20308608
>The idea that homosexuality is inherently corrosive to social bonds is thrown into doubt by these examples.
That was not the claim. Read through that conversation and lemme know where you depart from the other anon.

Though it's also worth saying Athenian pederasty and contemporary pride homosexuality are two different worlds.

>>20308796
Both are evil and Satanic, regardless of any distinctions that you make.

>>20308812
>>20308796
The duality of /lit/
....

>Faulkner
kino

bump for faulkner

>>20308546
>>20308577
>>20308721
Spiritually women.

by being a national socialist?

>>20307542
Somewhat
>As long as there’s a middle road, all right, I’ll be on it. But if it came to fighting I’d fight for Mississippi against the United States even if it meant going out into the street and shooting Negroes … I will go on saying that the Southerners are wrong and that their position is untenable, but if I have to make the same choice Robert E. Lee made then I’ll make it.

>>20312039
He also consistently praises the values of Southern aristocrats and portrays liberal values as milquetoast and effeminate or just trashy. Think Caddy's fiance, or Jason Compson (pursuing money) versus his father. His portrayal of northerners in general. This is one affirming aspect he could never bring himself to criticize even in old age.

But what you touch on is the whole unifying theme of Faulkner as far as I've read. He recognizes both the impossibility/obsolescence of Southern aristocratic institutions in the modern world and the inability of the Southern people to abandon them.

>>20307851
lmao cope

>>20312484
Elaborate