/lit/ - Literature

>>22037070
have you tried reading classics? faggy liberal books are easy to spot if you know what to look for

>>22037070
napoleon got publicly cuckolded by first gf and then two wives lmao
bothering the whole continent to compensate for weak dick game

Maybe liberalism is actually good and you are the fag

>>22037070
don't even know what this post is complaining about

>>22037070
it's been a decade since people used le unironically

>>22037070
>liberalism is le bad

Yes, anon, I'm sure. Due process is le bad. Separation between judge and prosecutor is le bad. Not being randomly taken by the secret police in the middle of the night is le bad. Inalienable rights are le bad. Individual autonomy is le bad. You should instead be ruled by an authoritarian retard who would send you to a concentration camp the second you started sperging out.

>>22037489
Useless strawman.

>>22037070
Conservatives rarely write anything worth of value. You should try to stick with the bible.

>>22037489
freedom aint free
https://youtube.com/watch?v=KSNJGymnLG4

>>22037489
>false dichotomy
Yes because before everything before the liberal state was Nazi Germany, right? The fact you need to shill so vociferously and with such extreme misleading "arguments" is an example example of why liberalism is unhealthy, you're genuinely dependent on the ideology in a way that can only be described as perverse. Whatever you are, you're not free.

>>22037494
>Conservatives rarely write anything worth of value
Not a conservative but this is objectively false. Consider TS Eliot, or Thomas Mann, or Philip Larkin, or Evelyn Waugh, or Jorge Luis Borges, or Leon Bloy, or Henry Montherlant, or Fyodor Dostoevsky, or Jonathan Swift, or Edmund Burke, or Stefan George, or Marguerite Yourcenar, the list goes on

>>22037502
>Cohen
I wonder who could be behind this post.

>>22037070
just because something isn't extreme doesn't make it liberal. you're simply an unhinged nigger. a fucking animal incapable of improving or change because of youre fragile shitty ego. hopefully you find the validation you seek in whatever nonliberal books you find, nigger.

>>22037494
Literally the entirety of the western canon is conservative in the most fundamental way. If you could bring Shakespeare into our time and educate him on modern politics and ask him where he stands, he'd call the most mild centrist a psychotic communist based on the conditions of his original time and thought.

Is what one might say, but I'd sooner ask. Can you give an example of leftist writing of value? I look forward to laughing at your post.

Poetry

Prose

Drama

i'm not unhinged, the books are

>>22037574
>If you could bring Shakespeare into our time and educate him on modern politics and ask him where he stands, he'd call the most mild centrist a psychotic communist based on the conditions of his original time and thought.
On what basis

>>22037608
You’re a fag

I oftentimes wonder what the political discourse was in the 17th or 18th Century Europe. Only a minority of the population participated in politics, but they can't have agreed in everything right? I imagine them discussing over how things should be done and being in constant disagreement with each other and many apolitical readers entertaining themselves daily in the political quarrels of the active population, but where are those texts?

>>22037568
Yeah I was gonna say dostoevsky too, I know I'm a /lit/let but dostos a great pick fuck you, liberalism is bred from entitlement you're never gonna see a dude with as miserable a backstory as dostoevsky being a liberal fuckwit

>>22037608
On the basis of having actually read Shakespeare or even knowing who he is. Are you trying to say it's controversial to suggest someone the 16th century is more illiberal than a liberal from the 21st? Are you completely unhinged or retarded? Shakespeare quite literally spent his entire life writing apologetics for the Tudor monarchy.

I hate Liberalism but I have to admit that I am basically a Liberal
I was listening the French anthem the other day and I get up to the part where 'Liberté, Liberté chérie' comes out of nowhere and I start tearing up and get filed with a passion for Liberalism

>>22037620
I think it is a Whig fallacy to assume history only develops in one way, toward liberalism. In some significant ways we are less liberal than our forebears. There are things that were acceptable in their time that are forbidden in ours. 'Tolerance' is a buzzword. What we should ask is 'tolerating what'?
>>22037619
>you're never gonna see a dude with as miserable a backstory as dostoevsky being a liberal fuckwit
I like Dostoevsky a lot (especially his critiques of liberalism and secularism) but he was spiritually buckbroken by the Tsar. People who have suffered much worse than him like Primo Levi, Jean Amery, people under Communist tyranny etc. found their liberalism confirmed by their experiences with the totalitarian states of central and eastern Europe.

>>22037474
le has made a post-ironic come back

>>22037637
it's not post-ironic if it's just used pejoratively

>>22037630
You're a sleeper agent and "liberty" is your trigger word, but instead of being activated to kill a specific target, you just have a crying fit

>>22037630
ur cute & should post feet

>>22037635
>In some significant ways we are less liberal than our forebears.
name 1

who does russian disinformation target, and why?

>>22037635
The idea that someone whose life's work is an endorsement of monarchy wouldn't be counter to liberalism seems ludicrous in the extreme. It's the antithesis of the thing. Do you actually have an argument you want to present or are you just going to keep noising about?

>>22037070
Just skip anything which is a nyt or Barnes and noble bestseller. Publishers make them put in those liberal signals. It's a sign you can skip a book, because those ones will already have any difficult or controversial content cut in hopes the book will sell more. They are all literally trash.

>>22037643
I have too many triggers
Clearly I was God's idea of a joke
>>22037650
Nobody has asked me that before but uh, no I'd rather not do that

>>22037502
Is this ironic or not? Because I believe this, unironically.

>>22037659
Since when are monarchism and liberalism incompatible? In many ways the constitutional monarchy has proven itself to be a more moderate form of government than the republic. A monarchy is not a totalitarian regime. Since at least the Magna Carta in 1215 the British monarchy has been checked by certain liberal principles and expected to respect them. I am not saying Shakespeare was a liberal in any modern sense of the word. I am only saying that the political environment of his time was not totally alien to ours, or that every development since his time would be automatically odious to him. After all, said developments were the offspring of the cultural logic of his time. In 'The Merchant of Venice', the city of Venice is praised precisely because of its liberality and generosity toward foreigners.
>>22037672
Not him but I'd like to see your feet too anon

It seems quite obvious to me that what we’re living through today is so far downstream of liberalism that it probably shouldn’t even be called liberalism. I wouldn’t call contemporary polemics disguised as literature “liberal”.

>>22037489
there are a lot of third world people on /lit/ now who have deeply internalized the values of their autocratic rulers.

>>22037681
>>Since when are monarchism and liberalism incompatible?
Since their definitions were defined. Liberalism is axiomatically anathema to monarchism, you cannot have universal human rights and a king.
> In many ways the constitutional monarchy has proven itself to be a more moderate form of government than the republic. A monarchy is not a totalitarian regime
Moderation of rule has nothing to do with being liberal or not.
>After all, said developments were the offspring of the cultural logic of his time.
Yes, meaning they are apart/distinct. Thanks for the concession so I can go back to masturbating to anime girls.

>>22037675
>2023
>irony/sincerity dichotomy

>>22037694
But anon, one of the core liberal texts, namely Hobbes' 'Leviathan', advocates for a strong monarchy precisely for liberal ends. Perhaps your thinking is too binary. You think something must either be A or B. But political traditions are remarkably mutable. They intermix. Half the people you'd draw up in compiling a list of 'conservative thinkers' would also belong on a list of liberal thinkers.

>>22037489
Pride world of degeneracy they are building, and Orwell would disagree....

>>22037685
In the future all political discourse will consist of mass polling extrapolated by AI. This will be the logical conclusion of the liberal experiment, the madness of crowds refined and distilled by cold science.

>>22037080
The classics were written by lefty authors too.

>>22037468
Liberalism / leftism is a good think, too much liberalism is unironically bad. I wouldn’t want to live under a monarch even if i possessed 1,000,000 ducats, or even florins.

>Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight to the radical liberal positions, which it developed and corrected. It also managed to appeal to various religious denominations. In England it became the political party of the Catholics, who had never felt at home among either the Protestant conservatives or the liberals. In Wilhelmine Germany, too, Catholic groups felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly Prussian and Protestant conservative forces. In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine, and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.
—Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)

umm, chud bros..?

>>22037717
name 1 so I can laugh at you

>>22037712
But how is this a proper liberal experiment. The liberals of the 18th-19th centuries never prescribed machine enslavement.

>>22037630
It’s a fallacy to conflate classical liberalism with modern ideologies and positions associated with being a “liberal” today (funnily enough, used almost like a slur or swear-word now, among people who hate this “type” of person). You could call it progressivism, the regressive left, the politically correct left … I don’t know what you could definitively call it, honestly. Economic neoliberalism fused with neoconservative hawkishness on foreign policy, a paradoxical authoritarianism and push towards censorship, support of policies even most of their populace statistically disagrees with (“we need even MORE immigration!”), forcing of medical experiments, heavy use of propaganda, intimidation, and “othering” of political opponents, an inverted race-and-gender-and-sexual-orientation-based hierarchy of oppressor vs. oppressed (intersectionality), all while claiming to be for “tolerance,” “love,” and “freedom.”

You can see for instance how the classical liberal maxim of equality of opportunity turned into authoritarian “equity”, forced equality of outcome, and attacks against those who disagree with this (eg James Damore on how perhaps women and men have different outcomes in computer science/programming because of innate neurobiological differences).

I'm a Racist Liberal. Books for this feel?

>>22037841
This is the thing. The sort of progressivism we ended up with in the late 20th and early 21st centuries would’ve been unrecognizable to old revolutionary liberals of Europe and America.

>>22037731
The Vatican was captured by the British and American intelligence at the behest of their Fabian masters almost a century ago.

>>22037489
There’s really no such thing as due process in my country — USA — when the process is via a labyrinthine legal system constructed by jews and maintained by parasite jewish attorneys. Plus, SCOTUS has basically made due process nonexistent.

>>22037070
Have you considered starting with the Greeks?

>>22037070
Actually, you're right.

>>22037489
What separation do you suppose was created by liberalism that didn’t exist prior to it?

>>22037709
Orwell was an unabashed liberal.

>>22037619
mate never put a disclaimer on yourself for being a dostochad

>>22037489
You probably thought that was a big gotcha, but most people arrive at chuddy beliefs exactly because they think that not even the people in power take the self-professed values of liberalism seriously, as anything but a rhetorical trick to make themselves appear legitimate and justified in the eyes of true believers. People are almost always as chuddy as they believe the "other party" to be cynical and chuddy in their own way.

>>22037489
Based. I hate progressivism as much as the next guy since it's obviously just a vehicle through which mentally ill people can displace latent emotions and reframe them as some great moral cause, but I will never understand hating trannies SO much that you'd prefer your agency be restricted by some authoritarian hierarchy over letting them exist and throw fits.

>>22038013
Western liberal democracies are not the slightest bit less authoritarian than the systems they claim to be defending you from. They just use different language, and obviously, use language on their own terms, since they are the ones in power, rather than being defined conceptually and linguistically by their enemies.

Few things are more important nowadays than the critical eye necessary to perceive and recognize the contradiction between what people claim to be for in theory, and what they are actually like in practice.

>>22037070
Every new book I read, without fail, "discredits" Freud

>>22038040
>Western liberal democracies are not the slightest bit less authoritarian than the systems they claim to be defending you from.
Dunno... you can criticise them without being shipped off to a gulag for 10 years

>>22038048
Stop reading pseudology

>>22038049
This is a useless strawman.

>>22038057
WTF? How is that a strawman.

>>22038062
Most governments allow for criticism, besides maybe nazism and communism.

>>22037717
But not faggy liberals

>>22038049
Who cares? Who does freedom of criticism benefit? This is the trap of liberalism, the belief that freedom of speech or of demonstration somehow makes them less authoritarian. Freedom to protest means nothing because the ruling class will carry out their agendas regardless. Freedom of speech means nothing for the same reason.

>>22037841
Modern liberalism is completely congruent and continuous with the internal logic of liberalism, and by proxy, the enlightenment and christianity. There couldn't have been any other worlds in which the internal logic of the ideas our ancestors claimed to be for wouldn't have led us to this exact same position we're in.

The only way western societies might have averted this crisis would have been a scenario in which western societies did not end up becoming christianized, since christian morality is ultimately the root of everything people detest modern liberalism for. The turning of the other cheek, the cosmopolitanism and radical egalitarianism, the repugnant cult of death, everything.

>>22038013
Trannies are just 1 mechanism in the modern leftist machine. If you've got a regime that's "cleaning them up" they're going to target other groups too...which a lot of people would be very much for. Also you're clearly not from a major American city, the tranny agitprop is everywhere and it's fucking EXHAUSTING. I am sure if you took brain scans of people today and compared them against those from 10 or 15 years ago there would be significant differences just based on the unremitting exposure to political mind rape.

>>22038049
It is extremely easy to end up in prison in the west due to saying or thinking the wrong things. There's also the whole anarcho-tyrannical attitude western governments have towards the law.

This thread is a trash heap of opinions that have had zero actual thought put into them. To the point where its no longer funny, its just sad. Im gonna go read a book instead.

>>22038075
We get it you read the Wikipedia page on Nietzsche anon, you can relax now that we've all admitted how impressed we are.

You realize Christianity has been a vector for violence and homogenous societies as much as the reverse? Ever hear of the Reconquista? The Crusades?

>>22038098
>thread isn't full of leftypop shills
>booooooooooooo how is this allowed omg what's wrong with you all
no one cares you cry baby bitch

>>22038073
There is an inherent lack of dignity in not being able to speak your mind. It warps and distorts your integrity. It kills your spirit. Ernst von Salomon talked about how National Socialism emasculated its citizens. Your assertion that a society with freedom of speech offers *no* more possibility for social change than a society without it is way too bold to be asserted without argument. I am all for pessimism, but not at the expense of reason.
I am not saying liberalism is not coercive, and perhaps in very subtle ways. I am only saying that it is obviously less authoritarian. It is a tangible good that I am allowed to complain about my government without worrying for my life. (Consider also all the other aspects of liberal govt, like independence of the judiciary, etc.)
>>22038093
Not saying the democratic West is perfect. Just tangibly better than its alternatives. I wish this were not the case. But it is. This crap has happened too often. People discontented with liberalism yearn for regime change, then they get it, and very quickly regret it.

>>22038102
>Ever hear of the Reconquista? The Crusades?
Gross violations of Christian morality. Sin.

>>22038102
Just fyi this quote is literally about judeo-deconstructionist bullshit tearing apart the family unit, it's basically Jesus insisting his disciples partake in proto-communist show trials for their family members to identify and ostracize any non true believers. You're making the point you're trying to argue against, lol.

>>22038114
>let me tell you what real Christianity is
>of course I know better than all the Popes and priests who built western civilization
LEWL

>>22038124
Go and ask your church's priest about the Crusades or the Inquisition then

>>22038111
>Just tangibly better than its alternatives.
In what sense? Western societies are dying at an absolutely breakneck speed. How could you call it better than the alternative systems existing in our world when only western societies have a problem with literally being unable to stay alive and perpetuate themselves? People in subsaharan africa might live extremely hard lives but they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

>>22038129
I have, he agrees the capture of Jerusalem was clearly a direct miracle from god.

>>22037070
Liberalism contains Free Expression and The right to bare arms.

>>22038075
Liberalism doesn't come from Christianity, it comes from how the universe, life, and consciousness actually works.

The fundamental dialectic in politics is permanence vs. change, which is reflected in the history of metaphysics as substance vs. process.

A focus on permanence is simultaneously a focus on what makes something intrinsically separate from the rest of existence: what remains untouched by its dynamic interactions with reality.

The Christian God is defined as timeless and unchanging. The desire of Christianity is for eternal permanence in a condition of unchanging bliss with God.

A focus on change is simultaneously a focus on relationships, as change (motion) is a relational phenomenon; "change in itself" is incoherent.

The conservative view of truth involves uncovering timeless, perfect, unchanging truth and endlessly obeying and preserving it.

The liberal view of truth acknowledges that truth and learning is a dynamic and changing process as new facts are continually created and need to be accounted for. Science is epistemologically liberal, which is why only six percent of American scientists are Republicans.

We now know that the universe isn't a mostly timeless, unchanging terrain, but instead a dynamic and evolutionary process. Anti-evolutionary sentiment has everything to do with contradicting a conservative obsession with permanence - an obsession that ultimately comes from cowardice and a desire to eliminate all uncertainty.

>>22038140
Based

>>22038147
I unironically never got the idea of the freedom of speech. What does it mean? In every society that ever existed, there was an overton window which made saying particular things acceptable while making others unacceptable, the only aspect that ever changed was this window moving in accordance with the views of the elites. Does freedom of speech mean the freedom of liberal speech? Even believers in the idea often claim that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequence's of one's speech.

>>22037913
Farm is a critique of communism. He was snyi left.
Well, you could say he is liberal in a way that he wants to be free from state, but we know that todays liberal parties are Orwells worst nightmares.

>>22038013
Authoritarian hierarchies are the entire basis of civilization.

>>22038136
>Western societies are dying at an absolutely breakneck speed.
I think this feeling is a side effect of media overconsumption. People were saying this shit in the 70s, and the 1890s (and I don't think they were wrong to feel that way, only their predictions of immediate collapse were not borne out). Not saying that decline is impossible or nonexistent. I think in many ways we have declined. But liberalism has outlived all of its competitors. No suitable adversary has appeared.
>How could you call it better than the alternative systems existing in our world when only western societies have a problem with literally being unable to stay alive and perpetuate themselves?
I am not sure what you mean by "unable to stay alive", considering life expectancy has never been as high. As for declining birth rates, I think this was always going to happen. The boom in fertility that accompanied the industrial revolution was an unsustainable anomaly. Illiberal societies haven't been able to deal with this problem either. Now China is experiencing it. India will soon as well. And possibly Africa further along the line.

This is an annoying discussion because I feel I am being pigeonholed into defending liberalism, but only because I think the charges you guys are laying against it are false. I don't have "faith" in the "destiny" of liberalism or anything like that, I don't think it's "destined" to thrive. I just think the reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated.

>>22038190
Bullshit, cooperation between human beings for mutual benefit is the basis of civilization and human society. This base needs to exist before powermongers can parasitize it.

>>22038198
>But liberalism has outlived all of its competitors. No suitable adversary has appeared.

There were plenty of adversaries. The only reason liberalism won was because it took over the most economically developed countries in the world, therefore being able to outgun and outnumber any rival.

People have this idea that liberalism is what causes countries to be successful, when rather it is economically successful countries which adopt liberalism as an expression of the interests of their bourgeoisie.

>>22038206
Altruism only exists in an intra-tribal fashion in nature. Xenophilia is a trait which gets weeded out extremely fast in the process of evolution.

>>22038162
>Liberalism doesn't come from Christianity, it comes from how the universe, life, and consciousness actually works.
lol
this is a literature board you know
it's impossible to say this shit having read anything essential from Rome or Greece
the worldview of people used to be radically different before the Abrahamic cults took over

>>22038225
>There were plenty of adversaries. The only reason liberalism won was because it took over the most economically developed countries in the world, therefore being able to outgun and outnumber any rival.
>People have this idea that liberalism is what causes countries to be successful, when rather it is economically successful countries which adopt liberalism as an expression of the interests of their bourgeoisie.
Liberalism is literally the necessary precondition for the material state of the modern world..
>>22038233
Why do whites love animals then

>>22038176
I think liberals, the original liberals, sought to enshrine protections against specifically legal repercussions and not social or socio-economic repercussions. The irony of liberalism though is that it can really only guarantee freedom within the context of liberal state ideology though. So with the liberal-progressive era, legislation became not only about enshrining individual rights but also enthroning liberal governance and thus positive rights. That means social engineering and thus it meant wielding the social and economic to go after your enemies. As a Catholic monarchist, I can stand in the town square and advocate for a dissolution of democracy and installation of a monarchy and I can do so without fear of going to jail for it. But at the same time, the liberal state can mobilize its partisans and activists and it’s institutional beneficiaries who socially ostracize me, close my bank accounts, and physically attack me without fear of prosecution on part of activist prosecutors, etc. And were I to win an election, it would be literally illegal for me to start up a Catholic state and that point I’d be subject to legal prosecution, because I exited the political bounds of liberalism.

>>22038272
That's another thing, it always seemed odd to me how proud liberals are about their tolerance of religions (in comparison to the middle ages) when they only tolerate religions insofar that they accept becoming completely neutered and being exiled from the realm of the political. At that point religion becomes just an inconsequential quirk rather than the guiding principle of one's understanding of the world. Can you really say that you tolerate a religion when you only tolerate it under the condition that it stop acting like a religion? Why do we consider tolerance in itself a virtue, anyway, when clearly it's just a rhetorical trojan horse to further liberal agenda and a pretext to act against heretics who liberals have branded "intolerant" for one reason or another?

>>22038364
It was religious people themselves who invented 'pluralism' though anon. People were tired of the never-ending religious wars that had wracked the European continent. They were sick of seeing people hanging from trees.

>>22037070
>another /pol/ thread

>>22038225
>People have this idea that liberalism is what causes countries to be successful, when rather it is economically successful countries which adopt liberalism as an expression of the interests of their bourgeoisie.
This.

>>22038364
But is that not better than just out right excising religions you don't agree with from your country? Or worse yet, imprisoning or slaughtering those that don't believe? It seems to me like its at least progress from that point and all of the previous evidence shows that giving religion power in government as you described leads to the top dog suppressing the others at best. It seems to me like the compromise for maximizing the religious rights of the citizens.

>>22037502
I basically agree with what he’s saying unironically. What people don’t realise is that this satirical structuring of choice that he presents is the only way humans can live in green ways without the crushing tyranny and hypocrisy of liberal technocratic encroachment over all areas of life and the subsequent parking-lot-isation of the earth. The nazis invented green politics and it was seen as very queer at the time. Without sublating the will of the common man to a more coherent principle humanity in its legions commits far greater atrocities than it would otherwise, much more subtle yet deadly. The liberal illusion of life is not life but a plastic parody of it.

>>22037070
It's not even the good kind of liberalism, either. Just POCmark whinging and hating white people. Meanwhile I'm still waiting for us to actually begin killing rich people and landlords.

>>22038515
I think you are assuming that the authority you will be submitting to will already 100% agree with your world view if you unironically believe what was ironically said in that video. The authority could just as easily be down with the parking-lot-isation of the earth for example, and in a system that held the view described in the video of pure submission as freedom, your only freedom would be to get down with that idea as well, or be done away with by the system.

>>22038482
It’s not because politics is fundamentally religious and if your religion is fundamentally dogmatic then your politics must necessarily be dogmatic. If you deny the religious aspect of politics you deny politics. And that’s what we have in America. Politics is effectively a game for middle class professionals of varying degrees of wealth. It’s something the medievals and ancients wouldn’t have even recognized as politics.

But this imagined past you clearly have where the church just went around slaughtering everyone who wasn’t a good little Catholic is not real. It never existed. It never existed anywhere. In fact, the great irony is that the medievals were, for the most part, more free in regard to right-think and social policing and even economic policing than the typical citizen is today.

>>22038553
Things like that don't happen through illiberal direct power structures. That's a caricaturised view of evil typical of decades of liberal propaganda. Even the most comically evil tyrant could never be 1% as evil as the tumescent bureaucratic structures of liberal states accelerated with big data, and when they were they just got killed. I basically believe the more power through tech we have to both destroy the environment and to exert control over individual lives the more directly dangerous liberalism gets, it's more than just climate change which is actually a meme liberal states use to perpetuate their control, just look at the whole covid disaster that's being actively memoryholed now.

>people pretending that the 2023 status quo in america is a shining example of liberalism
>as if for the last 20 years the deep state hasn’t been concentrating its power and psyopping the population into ideologies like communism and fascism that reject individual rights and private property

>>22038364
It’s an inherent contradiction built within liberal ideology because liberalism is inherently dogmatic. You say you never understood it but it seems to me you understand it perfectly well.

>>22038760
It doesn’t reject negative individual rights. It just places them below positive social rights. The social engineering you’re referring to is definitely not liberalism but it is downstream of liberalism. It’s more or less what liberalism morphed into.

>>22038760
>implying things were better in the post-war twentieth century up until two decades ago
sweet summer child, look into the unspeakable atrocities of glowies and see that this is where we were heading all along

>>22038771
Positive rights aren’t downstream of liberalism though,
The idea where people have some kind of reciprocal social obligation to provide for the basic needs of others is actually a regression back into a kind of neo-feudalist mentality, a reimposition of the basic underlying dynamic of lords and serfs smuggled in, hidden under ‘liberal rhetoric’
The communists and neoreactionaries basically already have what they want in today’s society

>>22038815
>The idea where people have some kind of reciprocal social obligation to provide for the basic needs of others is actually a regression back into a kind of neo-feudalist mentality
and that's a good thing

>>22038827
If you are a communist manchild who either can’t provide for themselves or gets some twisted sadomasochistic pleasure wielding arbitrary power over others, yes I can see how that would sound ideal

>>22037784
not him but Joyce (easily the best writer who ever lived)

>>22038836
it's a fact of life that many people cannot provide for themselves, at least in every respect. we are all dependent upon one another. all of us will eventually cease to be self-sufficient, either through illness, accident or ageing. any political philosophy that fails to take this into account will be deficient and anti-human.

>>22038815
Refer to the Schmittian friend-enemy distinction and anything else is revealed as a series of obfuscated lies.
>>22038849
The denial of Aristotle's claim that some people are better of as slaves or some equivalent position in terms of liberty is anti-human and anti-meritocratic.

>>22038866
Problem is that slavery is arbitrary. One is born a slave. There is nothing meritocratic about it.

>>22038849
This kind of collectivist philosophy centers around the idea of man as an invalid and dependent, it inevitably incentivizes and creates more invalids and depdendents, flattering the vanity of ‘benefactors’ by producing more sickness.
Liberty has always been smeared as inhuman, I just don’t care. It is better on both an aesthetic and moral level to see other humans as fellow citizens rather than as lords and serfs. Liberté, egalité, fraternité

>>22038878
I like liberty too anon. I also like strength. And independence. And exaltation. But it is a dangerous romantic fantasy to pretend that sickness, destitution, and powerlessness don't exist, or that they only happen to "other people"—or that they only afflict people who in some way "deserve" to be afflicted, or who otherwise brought it upon themselves. It is in my own rational self-interest for there to be some degree of assistance for people who cannot help themselves. Not only for my own sake, if I should ever personally need it, but also because it is depressing to see people crushed by circumstances beyond their control. Even prehistoric humans cared for those who could not care for themselves. There are ancient skeletons of congenitally disabled people who lived to adulthood, who must have been cared for and fed by their tribe. This is a kind of human beauty as well.

>>22038870
The categorisation for social rank is not arbitrary, at least not any less arbitrary than the delineation of negative liberties through liberal state apparatus, e.g. who decides so-called human rights? That's the entire flimsy argument liberalism has against monarchism, that the rule of an individual king is "like just his opinion man," when this couldn't be further from the truth, and the latter group was restricted by tightly regulated codes formed through historical dialectic with bodies representing other classes of society. It's almost like liberalism is a historically emergent phenomenon in a society (see: leviathan) that has grown too large and unwieldy to be considered a coherent unity that is able to govern itself. Reminds me of when Sloterdijk called modernity "a culture of bastards."
Also, slaves in many periods of history had greater social mobility than the lowest strata do today, a blackpill liberals are unwilling to accept.

>>22038905
Certainly voluntary personal charity towards others to alleviate suffering is a good thing, but surely you must see the barbarism and absurdity of implementing larger systems of social obligation, where the productive element of society is crushed by a redistribution of their resources by unaccountable bureaucrats to any wasteoid loser who shows up with a sob story

>>22038944
>the productive element of society is crushed by a redistribution of their resources by unaccountable bureaucrats to any wasteoid loser who shows up with a sob story
I would hardly call usurers, market speculators and bankers and "productive"

>>22037070
Read archaic history books and old, out of print novels that have re-prints. For example, lately I’ve been reading Thomas Bulfinch’s mythology compilation as it was written before 1900. It has its inaccuracies and “old views” that have since been re-interpreted by modern anthropologists, but that’s precisely why I like it (fuck those gay retards. They haven’t made any significant new discoveries on the subject in centuries). I keenly ignored the introduction cobbled by that bargain-bin phd cunt, who spends over 30 pages decrying Bulfinch’s work and elaborating on why she thinks his ideas are out of date. I don’t need an introduction to tell me what to think about something before I read it - especially not from some insidious female pseudo-academic.

Remember to always skip introductions. Always.

>>22038950
grow up

I can't read anymore faggy /pol/ threads. Everything I read is /pol/

/lit/? US politics.
/g/? US politics with annoying conversational style.


wtf do I do? wtf do I browse? I can't be the only one who notices this.

>>22038965
I know what you’re talking about and I hate it.
It’s the future we chose, though. We decided boomer liberal ‘live and let live’ mentality was cringe, and now people have belief systems where there is no distinction between private (your personal life and hobbies) and public (politics)
Biggest reason why I hate all this commie nazi post-liberal shit

>>22038965
Yeah. You just have to get off the internet and out of urban centers in all seriousness.

>>22038815
You’re conflating the idea that people have social obligations with the idea that people deserve certain things as a legal right but they’re not the same. The ideas that you have, for example, a legal right to free healthcare or a legal right to free education on the basis of your skin color could only come out of liberalism. The pre-eminence of rights is a pre-requisite.

>>22038815
>>22039024
And to be clear, to say you have a legal right to healthcare and to say that we have a social obligation to care for each other’s health and wellness or even that the rich should provide charity for the healthcare of the poor, these are very different things.

>>22038965
Once Reddit got rid of thedonald, all those Redditors and those who would have went there ended up here. It sucks and I hate it but it’s time to admit 4chan is /pol/ and /r9k/

>>22038963
You are not immune to propaganda.

>>22039032
I know. I used to be like you.

>>22038111
peaceful protest as the ultimate extension of free speech never changed anything. It has never worked, doesn't work and never will work.
Your free speech is a meme-level copium.

>>22038950
based

>>>/vg/429688447
Artificial Academy 2 General /aa2g/ #1279
Who Framed /aa2g/? Edition

Welcome, this general is for the discussion of ILLUSION's Artificial Academy 2.

COPY ERROR MESSAGES WITH CTRL+C, PASTE THEM WITH CTRL+V INTO GOOGLE TRANSLATE. JUST CLICK THE WINDOW AND PRESS CTRL + C, IT WORKS.

>Downloads:
/aa2g/ Pre-Installed Game, AA2Mini: https://tsukiyo.me/AAA/AA2MiniPPX.xml
AAUnlimited updates: https://github.com/aa2g/AA2Unlimited/releases
Anon's Modded Pre-Install: https://pastebin.com/42JS3q6E

>Information:
AA2Mini Install Guide:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vS8Ap6CrmSNXRsKG9jsIMqHYuHM3Cfs5qE5nX6iIgfzLlcWnmiwzmOrp27ytEMX03lFNRR7U5UXJalA/pub
General FAQ:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200216045726/https://pastebin.com/bhrA6iGx
AAU Guide and Resources (Modules, Tans, Props, Poses, and More):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17qb1X0oOdMKU4OIDp8AfFdLtl5y_4jeOOQfPQ2F-PKQ/edit#gid=0

>Character Cards [Database], now with a list of every NonOC in the megas:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1niC6g-Xd2a2yaY98NBFdAXnURi4ly2-lKty69rkQbJ0/edit#gid=2085826690
https://db.bepis.moe/aa2/

>Mods & More:
Mods for AAU/AA2Mini (ppx format, the mediafire has everything):
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/vwrmdohus4vhh/Mods
/aa2g/ Modding Reference Guide (Slot lists for Hair/Clothes/Faces, List Guides, and More):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gwmoVpKuSuF0PtEPLEB17eK_dexPaKU106ShZEpBLhg/edit#gid=1751233129
Booru: https://aau.booru.org

>HELP! I have a Nvidia card and my game crashes on startup!
Try the dgVoodoo option in the new win10fix settings.
Alternative: Update your AAU and see if it happens again. If so, disable win10fix, enable wined3d and software vertex processing.
>HELP! Required Windows 11 update broke things!
winkey+R -> ms-settings:developers -> Terminal=Windows Console Host

Previous Thread:
>>>/vg/428858839

>>22039033
And look at yourself now. Wow, truly enviable.

>>22038950
That's usually what I do .
Whether it's fiction or non fiction,I usually only read old stuff.
These days I'm into dawnloading politically incorrect books Even if I don't subscribe to their message just cause I know it makes WEF demons angry

>>22037070
Fiction? Try Hyusmans, Waugh, Dante, Faulkner, Melville, Daurevillé, A. Theroux, and Leon Bloy. Non-fiction? Burke, St. Thomas Aquinas, De Maistre, Montaigne, Yockey, Chesterton, Belloc, Bloy again, Wagner, Francis Canavan (essays), and John Henry Newman. Basically, read traditionalost Roman Catholics and enjoy the absolute joyride of watching liberals get lit on fire.

Not a single person asked for OP's definition of "liberal" and "lefty" but instead argued for and against nothing and with no one. Literal circlejerk.

>>22037070
Read Carlyle

>>22037070
Maybe you should read between the lines, chud. The world is moving beyond your shitty brand of american “conservatisim”

>>22039686
What need is there for that? The lefty tradition is much more homgoenous than the chud tradition because they all subscribe to the enlightenment's values and views. Like even between a classical liberal and a radical communist there's common ground about radical egalitarianism, their whiggish views of history, "anti-nationalism", subscribing to secular humanism and disliking christianity, etc. the only major difference between them is how fast they want the end results.

>>22039879
Leftism has more in common with the chud tradition than with liberalism

>>22037717
Being a leftist 100 years ago is not the same as the current liberal progressive leftist

>>22040383
Someone is judged by their beliefs in the era they lived

>>22037085
It was justified though

>>22038176
Of course you wouldn’t. Look the whole spiel about bad words is that being offended makes you a pussy which should be punishable by prison time

>>22038267
Animals aren’t humans, unless you’re some closet furfag who conflates the two