/lit/ - Literature

The former of your arguments is true. Even among sports fans you can distinguish between pleb fan and elitist fan.

My view is that it is more likely for intelligent people to deviate from normality because it takes an active effort from the individual to separate himself. Someone who would not separate themselves is never going to listen to Bach of their own initiative. However, someone who could separate himself could also have a genuine interest in sports, or Deadmau5, therefore I would conclude that taste is not a very reliable indicator of intelligence

"Mr Earbrass can only conclude that the apathy of the lower figures is due to their having been deprived of novels."
- "The Unstrung Harp, or Mr Earbrass Writes a Novel", by Edward Gorey

>>2388949
>My view is that it is more likely for intelligent people to deviate from normality because it takes an active effort from the individual to separate himself.
Well, that's my definition of a person with what I call "derdeveloped tastes". But, deep down, I guess I actually mean "dull people I don't like".

>However, someone who could separate himself could also have a genuine interest in sports, or Deadmau5, therefore I would conclude that taste is not a very reliable indicator of intelligence
Well, suppose there's genuine, honest-to-god interest in sports and cars in a lady and no interest in literature, music or art whatsoever beyond Murakami and reality TV. Suppose that's a sign of lower intelligence or no?

I really find it hard to tell stupid and clever epople apart. Stupid people apparently try, while intelligent can just act dumb whenever they feel like it. I have a friend who I'd never consider intelligent if I didn't know him well enough - but he's actually one of the most intelligent people I know.

I'm so fucking confused. What leads people to strive for appreciation of arts in general? Is it imagination (= intelligence in my opinion)? Or chance? I come from a pleb background, but I started listening to academic music out of nowhere when I was 12 and now I'm a composer. Does that mean I'm more intelligent than the guy from school who's a football-watching divorced cubicle worker now?

>Or is liking sports and being "patriotic" (i.e., popularly nationalistic or borderline racist in a common way) really a sign of lower intelligence?

Liking sports, no. Being a "patriot", I'd say yes. Especially if said patriotism extends beyond "I really like things x and y about my country" into loyalty territory.

>>2388957
I'm absolutely sure she doesn't give a shit about the country. But she's occasionally say stuff like "why didn't you serve int he army even a little?" or "maybe we should really build that wall on the southern border".

I'm so not used to hearing this from people I talk to more than once.

OP here, whoops, sorry for the "things faggots do" in the name field, just posted in a /g/ thread with this and it stuck. Pardon - and fuck you, 4chan X.

>>2388959
>"why didn't you serve int he army even a little?"
>"maybe we should really build that wall on the southern border"
hit it and quit it

>>2388956

>Or chance?

I think there's a good amount of chance involved. I can't imagine myself being this interested in the arts if I wasn't a shut-in. If I led the same lifestyle as many of my former classmates I'm sure I wouldn't have developed a deep interest in music/films/books (not yet anyway).

>>2388962
Well, and that's my question. Should I? Were she male, I'd already have stopped all contact, because why the fuck would I talk to a fucking pleb. But a man wouldn't call me and cry.

>>2388964
Do you live in a big city? Do you go to the same school/university? Do your friends know her? Is it likely you would run into her after stopping contact?

>>2388959

>But she's occasionally say stuff like "why didn't you serve int he army even a little?" or "maybe we should really build that wall on the southern border".

Push the issue and see what she comes up with when you throw arguments and questions her way. Maybe you can win her over and make her non-retarded, gradually.

If you mean patriots as in "elitists" are basing their somewhat racist attitude on actual racial differences, the average intelligence of their "people", and general wealth, then no, I wouldn't say they're less intellegent. They just won't bend to help the lesser people.

>>2388966
>Do you live in a big city? Do you go to the same school/university? Do your friends know her? Is it likely you would run into her after stopping contact?
Absolutely not likely. No. But... wouldn't that be a retarded fuckign thing to do? Again: in general, are people with simpler, popular tastes actually intellectually inferior or did they just happen to be like that? Mostly, that is? Of course I've seen plebs who were very intelligent, and who knows, I could be a pleb in intellectual disguise, ha ha.

>>2388967
>Push the issue and see what she comes up with when you throw arguments and questions her way. Maybe you can win her over and make her non-retarded, gradually.
Is the whole issue a sign of lower intelligence on her part, though? Obviously, there can't be a simple answer, but what would be the chances, you think?

Also, uh, it's my fault this's come into personal advice territory. But I was meaning to ask for the more generalized opinion on this.

i always thought that taste was more relevant to social class and that intelligence is one of those flexible and varying things. the most intelligent will rise to the top of their subcultures. the most intelligent of say the academic types will be the ones who score the highest and win the contests. the most intelligent of the artistic types will be precocious and become well respected within the community. a lot of girls hide their intelligence and develop perceptive social skills. i get a long with pretentious types who try to discuss philosophy as well as i get a long with geeky types who have pleb hobbies but stimulating exchanges and conversations

>>2388973
> the most intelligent will rise to the top of their subcultures.
Mmmmm, hey, you may actually be right. Hey, you're right, why didn't I think of this.

People like that are mentally and/or socially deficient. I'm inclined to blame it on upbringing rather than genetics. The problem is that these cretins breed at a larger rate than more intelligent people. It really is like the movie Idiocracy. Being around these people makes me wish the Nazis had won WWII.

>>2388973

Yes, so intelligent.

>>2388941
Here's the thing OP, with your tastes, you need to find a homogenous community that shares the same tastes. This is true, unfortunately, for love interests as well. After all, the only reason to date a person is a "trial" period for marriage, ideally. There are other reasons as well, but as one person said, if there is no compatibility, hit it and quit it just to say you did.

As far as girls calling and crying... that's what girls do.

I love you guys who comment on people who don't share the same ideas you do and how inferior they are,when you have little to no achievements of your own. That is the definition of "wank". You stay classy.

>>2388983
do you actually think lil wayne controls his entire image? you don't think he has hundreds of lawyers and public relations to control his image? you don't think research marketers don't report on how to make his music catchier? you really think he produces all of his music, rather than have audio engineers and producers do it? you're thinking too simplistically here.

>>2388984
Well, I agree and that's what I'm probably bound to do, but that's okay.

But I will restate my question in the OP:
Are plebs (in /lit/ terms) equally intelligent people that just happen to have different or underdeveloped tastes? Or is - well! is being part of the Western culture and not knowing who Richard Wagner is - is that actually a sign of lower intelligence? Statistically speaking?

>>2388957
There are many different ways of being a "Patriot". Taken at face value, it might simply mean doing what you consciously feel is the best for your nation, whether that be supporting human rights, attacking poverty issues, or going to war. Many different ways of being a patriot, but yes, it is often a badge that chickenhawk's like putting on people actually willing to die for their country, whatever the cause.

most people do not pride themselves on intellect or good taste as they usually see these with negative connotations like square or pretentious or hipster attached. instead they would describe themselves as earnest and hard working and down to earth or like, chill, a bro. paris hilton is totally acceptable to mock but for some reason when those prodigious kids from privileged backgrounds goes on to more privilege, people want to emphasize more on hard work and intelligence rather than privilege and intelligence. i would say that "mainstream" western culture emphasizes on different values.

>>2388992
Depends on the person. They might not have had exposure to Wagner growing up, and that is probably more of a fault of their respective education system or their family.

There are many different forms of intelligence as well. You can't just say someone is an idiot for failing your little culture-quiz. "Western Culture" is different by continent, and even region.

And defining a person's intelligence based on their acceptance and preference of popular music or culture... is petty, to say the least. You may not like the present culture, but it seems that your smug attitude towards others who do gives you a preponderance of self-importance, given to smelling your own farts in solitude while participating in endless wank.

In short, you're probably not a fun, enjoyable person to be around.

>>2388998
>And defining a person's intelligence based on their acceptance and preference of popular music or culture... is petty, to say the least.
I myself am torn between this opinion and it's opposite.

Let's see your take on this:
>>2388959
>but [they would] occasionally say stuff like "why didn't you serve in the army even a little?" or "maybe we should really build that wall on the southern border".
Incase you joined the thread later. If you just didn't think this was important - sorry, because it indeed probably wasn't. Do statements like these signify lower intelligence or not? Statistically speaking?

>>2388999
How would it? It's a girl who is testing your worth to her.

Right now, her body gets wet at the thought of being someone "dangerous", the dashing soldier who goes to war for a "greater purpose", whatever that is. It's fucking romantic as hell, and I admit, I am getting a half-bone just thinking about it.

But really, that question shouldn't be given serious thought, as it was a kind of probing, testing question that girls sometimes do to assess their man. She might have more smarts than you're giving her credit for, and instead of her failing your little tests, your failing hers....

>>2389001
Well, now I think you're giving her too much credit. Probably.

It's only an illustration of a simplistic taste that I have a first-hand knowledge of, though. The question is: are simplistic tastes a sign of lower intelligence in a majority of cases or not at all?

>>2389004
what if you have a hipster friend who is 20 years old and has entry level good taste (joy division, the strokes, ratatat, fleet foxes) and sees the world simplistically compared to my other hipster friends who are 18 and have explored cinema all the way to obscure czech new wave and can eloquently converse about film and music

>>2389012
>what if
Fucked if I know. I'm asking this same question myself. Maybe it means they're more intelligent. Maybe it means fucking nothing. I just don't know.

>>2389004
Not at all. I've eaten many fine meals at fancy restaurants, but my go-to food would still be a simple grilled chicken breast sandwich. I also still enjoy pizza and beer in moderation.

The same with cars. I couldn't give two shits about a car as long as it got me to my destination, and didn't cost an arm and a leg to fuel and insure it. Others would claim I have simple tastes, and would opt for more refined european sedans, or american cars with a large engine displacement.

Taste has nothing to do with intelligence. Like I said, there are many different kinds of intelligence.

Epicureans also lauded moderate tastes over decadent ones, as too much of decadence makes one soft, obese, and useless in society (as well as broke today).

If you want advice, which you are seeking in this transparently oblique manner, you should probably consult /adv/ or /soc/.

In short, you should try to maximize pleasure while simultaneously minimizing suffering. If you think another girl can make you happier, you should probably go after her instead of participating in this inactive, pointless wank.

facta non verba.

>>2389012
that criteria for measuring intelligence is very narrow. I mean, look just now at what you said.

I think you are substituting "intelligence" with "independence". The hipster friend has her own tastes, and because she doesn't share the same with the group, you are ragging on her for being a "pleb", for following the mainstream. That seems a bit contradictory, no?

>>2389020
>If you want advice, which you are seeking in this transparently oblique manner, you should probably consult /adv/ or /soc/.
No. I do not appreciate the insinuation either.

Now that I don't like you, let me mention that fancy restaurants and fast food are both signs of bad taste and faulty conformism. I eat fish, fresh vegetables, fruit, salt crackers and cheese. My diet is immensely superior to yours - if it's not because I'm more intelligent, I bet proper nutrition MAKES me more effectively intelligent than a sedan-driving pizza-eater like you. You villaneous faggot.

>>2389024
>I think you are substituting "intelligence" with "independence".
But would such independence be a sign of higher intelligence, in your opinion? (No, I'm not implying you should automatically say "yes".)

How do we define intelligence?
Is a unique taste a sign of intelligence? Or the ability to not think one-dimensionally? Or the ability to adapt?
We can hardly discuss this if we lack even a rough definition of the term.

>>2389041
>How do we define intelligence?
OP here.
I wish I fucking knew. I wish somebody in the world knew. If we did, we could test it then. But as is, it's like aprticle physics. We can only look for signs.

Patriotism is a mental illness.

Prove me wrong.

Intelligence is nothing without social graces, and willingness to tone down or compromise on your views to ensure social harmony.

You could be the smartest person in the room, but that doesn't mean you have to flash your intelligence around constantly. Sometimes talking about topics that everyone is well-versed on is the truly smart thing to do.

That said...
>hit it and quit it

Do you want progeny of yours parroting semi-racist views (and likely living in ignorance about the rest of the world)?

>>2389040
>Now that I don't like you, let me mention that fancy restaurants and fast food are both signs of bad taste and faulty conformism

You're disregarding an artform by dismissing fancy restaurants. You are a plebeian, case dismissed

What does any of this shit have to do with /lit/erature?

Is /lit/ really just "All-Purpose Hipster Circlejerking" now?

>>2389049
>You're disregarding an artform by dismissing fancy restaurants. You are a plebeian, case dismissed
You're disregarding the language by dismissing a full stop. You are a plebian, case dismissed.

Ha ha!

>>2389049
fancy to him is prob just anything that makes him feel slightly uncomfortable for not knowing which utensil to use
don't rag on him, we all have problems

>>2389053
>Is /lit/ really just "All-Purpose Hipster Circlejerking" now?
OP here.
I think it is, yes. Isn't it? I think it is.

>>2389040
now don't go mistaking intelligence with that preponderance of self-importance, given to smelling your own farts in solitude while participating in endless wank thing we talked about earlier.

Intelligence would probably be the raw ability to understand or to adapt to situations. Now whether that becomes realized or not is an entirely different matter.

>>2389054
I'm comfortable disregarding unimportant parts of the language such as including a period at the end of a two-sentence post in a casual setting such as an imageboard

>>2389053

>Is /lit/ really just "All-Purpose Hipster Circlejerking" now?

No, I think it's "All-Purpose Hipster Circlejerking With Slightly Above The Average Vocabulary".

>>2389060
>I'm comfortable disregarding unimportant parts of the language such as including a period at the end of a two-sentence post in a casual setting such as an imageboard
And I'm comfortable in eating healthy food and not mixing nutrition and aesthetic pleasure in a vital setting such as real life. So?

>>2389058
>smelling your own farts in solitude while participating in endless wank

/lit/

>>2389063
the worst type of wank is to accuse others of wank without contributing something that is not "wank"

just want OP to know that he is the most insufferable faggot I have ever met

>>2389067
But... but we never met, Anon.

>>2388941
John, it's over. Pleb.

In response to OP's original question, I doubt having mainstream taste or political view is a direct sign of mental inferiority.
It's just matter of adaptation, really. If having some kind of taste in some circles helps you to socially adapt, I'd say it's a sign of some form of intelligence.

>>2389065
>>2389065
aww, c'mon. That's a bit unfair. It wasn't pure wank, merely a humorous one.

Nothing compared to smugly dissecting what some teen/early20's girl said to you while you are high on your own flatulance . "That bitch be likin Nascar and wantin to build walls to Me-HEE-Co. That bitch be dumb".

This is your life OP. You're wasting it.

Nearly every post in this thread holds the implication that the person who wrote it is superior to everyone he's ever met. That makes me laugh.

the FUCK is wrong with murakami

>>2389072
>"That bitch be likin Nascar and wantin to build walls to Me-HEE-Co. That bitch be dumb".
I dunno about girls, but I'm obviously intellectually superior to you and your strawmen army.

>>2389073
>Nearly every post in this thread holds the implication that the person who wrote it is superior to everyone he's ever met. That makes me laugh.
Honest. I never implied anything of the sort right until the restaurant exchange.

>>2389075
He's pleb lit.

There is a statistical correlation between the two, but not a causal one.

>>2389077
which one?

>>2389078
>There is a statistical correlation between the two, but not a causal one.
OP here.

Obviously, this can't be discussed in absolutes.
But why do you think there's a statistical corellation?

>>2389076
Yes, clearly you are an intellectual colossus.

>>2389073
no no no. I'm just here for shits and giggles. I saw OP's post... and as someone else said, he is an insufferable faggot.

>>2388984
>>2388998
>>2389001
>>2389020
>>2389058

that's all me. The sad part is I was earnestly trying to help him out. But it turns out we have another case of self-flatulence poisoning and wank addiction.

Here's a book I recommend. In my opinion it's a pretty good book. Your opinion might be different, but I appreciate your input.

>>2389077

i asked which Murakami....still waiting

>>2389081
You insist on giving me love life advice when I was asking about corellation between intelligence and tastes... and you still call me self-flatulence-poisoned?

>>2389084
Haruki, of course. Don't be stupid, Haruki's the default Murakami.

>>2389086
Oh c'mon OP. This isn't ask Miss Emily. This is a thinly-veiled relationship advice request because you lack the own judgement to make a decision on your own. Likewise, you are indulging your own self-importance by doing so.

Prove me wrong.

>>2389093
>This is a thinly-veiled relationship advice
No.
>Prove me wrong.
Done. My word here is paramount, because I'm the only expert on me in this thread. You can't just disbelieve my own words on my intentions without sound justification. If I said I'm not asking for advice, you will have to go with that until you completely disprove me on the matter. Else, you slide into personal attack territory. That's how talking to people works, you know.

>>2389075
What?

>>2389080
Because intelligence is measured in the form of certain logical operations, which you can perform better if you are exposed to them as a child. Such exposure during childhood is higher in upper social groups, just like exposure to 'high culture'.

>>2389084
lol this guy thinks he's a patrician because he knows Ryu and Haruki Murakami

What a faggot

>>2388941
And likewise, you little faggot, people have different motives for their "tastes". Some have preferences based on the pure enjoyment of it. I like pizza because it tastes good, for instance.

Likewise, as far as nationalism/patriotism/racism is concerned, it might better their interests. For instance, if I were running in politics, it would not sit well if I was bashing the very city that I was campaigning in. Many people adopt these notions because it would benefit them far better than going against the current. They would have better job opportunities, social standing, etc.

and that's all intelligence is. The ability to adapt given a certain environment, as well as the raw ability to learn things.

What you are doing, however, is setting up an "us vs. them" mentality, and putting yourself up on the pedestal. You aren't superior, you just have different motives. Your primary motive might be that because you have no other attribute that is appealing, you want to create for yourself a facade of uniqueness and superiority to make yourself seem appealing. How is it working out for you so far, my unique snowflake?

Hell, you might even be stupid for going against the current, because that decreases your opportunities at the present and future, when employers and society just sees you for what you are: a wanker.

>>2389100
>Because intelligence is measured
What assessment are you using to measure intelligence?

>There is a statistical correlation between the two, but not a causal one.

Do you have said statistics?

>>2389111
I am talking about IQ tests. The correlation is what I observe.

>>2389112
IQ tests have proven to be a bit flawed and culturally biased. There exist no "perfect" aptitude test.

>from what I observe
That's good for something I suppose, but it is a qualitative measurement for a quantitative need. Also, there could be bias. Scientifically, it isn't really sound nor accurate.

To prove correlation, you need numbers. And again, correlation doesn't really prove anything. 100% of rapists drink water.

Get off your high-horse you fucking faggot. Just because you read more books than people and supposedly have more 'refined tastes and interests' does not make you more intelligent than the next person.

PS.. they way you are talking makes you sound like even more of a pretentious poofer.

>>2389116
He just has low emotional intelligence and is insecure.

Nah, my boyfriend can have some pretty shit taste in literature - he's pointed it out himself before - and loves the vidya (which I know most people consider to be a "plebeian" hobby), but he is far from "simple". How can you even date someone with whom you have no intellectual bond?

>>2389120
easy
>rich
>ample bosom
>tight pussy

I'm a simple man with base needs to fulfill, however.

>>2389048
>Americans in charge of contraception

>>2389121
Yeah, the answer was indeed obvious, but I was hoping it would make OP think.

>>2389048
>>2388941
>implying racism is bad

taste has nothing to do with intelligence. intelligence is god's gift and no amount of books you read will ever change that. just look at the world around you.

>>2389115
If there is no such thing as intelligence, or no measurable number for it, I don't really need to do extensive scientific studies to not be able to measure it...
>>2389118 emotional intelligence
lol. Invented by humanities people to assuage their inferiority complex caused by failing math.

>>2388941
Whether your preferences are populist or elitist, what matters most is how much enjoyment you get out of life, being around those you enjoy, and trying to get as much quality years under your belt as possible while avoiding the suck.

If you don't enjoy doing something, don't do it. Same with people. But spending your time trying to justify how your tastes are better than most is not what I would call "quality time", and would be better served actually enjoying your tastes and spending time with people you enjoy.

TLDR; I don't give a fuck what other people like or do in their spare time, and you shouldn't either.

>>2389129
Ahh, but there you've made a mistake. Just because there's no perfect tool for measuring it doesn't mean it's not there.

I can accurately measure how wide my desk is with my tape measure. But, with the tools I have now in my room, I cannot measure the volume of liquid in my coffee cup. Does that mean it's not there? absolutely not.

And if intelligence didn't exist, we would not be having this discussion. Everyone would have instead different motives for their tastes (ie cost, enjoyment, possibility of upward mobility, attractiveness to the opposite sex, etc.) All of which I am more inclined to believe than just based on merely intelligence. Intelligence is more involved in apprehension than behavior, in which I think biology comes into play even more. The little lizard-part of the brain that says "I want to fuck, I want to eat, and I want to get maximum pleasure (high) now".

After all, how do you explain many of the "intellectuals" smoking and drinking? One of you said that eating at fancy restaurants was bad for the health. Wouldn't these "intellectuals" now be seen as not very intelligent?

>>2389088
oh
>>2389102
nope, just wanted to know which one he meant and now i feel better
youre the one throwing out the names to show your knowledge

>>2389132
and IF it was merely tastes based on motives, then all this thread is saying "my tastes are better than yours because I have different motivations than you". Which, intrinsically, is a rather pointless thing to say. It's like saying, "Green is better than blue because my favorite color is green". "I enjoy these things because it is the closest alternative to what I really want to that is within my means". "I enjoy the art show because I get to show off to my girl what I learned in art school".

And there you have it, I guess. This thread is pointless wank, including my own very post.

>>2389129
what do you think about the autistic who are wizards at math? do you not think they lack intelligence socially? when talking about dolphins for example, intelligence can mean the ability they have with forming social links and co-operating. or would you not class it as a type of intelligence?

>>2389132

>how do you explain intellectuals drinking and smoking?

These things are lifestyle choices that have nothing to do with intelligence.

>>2389140
so now we are cherry-picking what we deem are "tastes" and what aren't?
Is eating healthy also considered a "lifestyle choice?"
How about devoting time to reading a particular genre of literature? Wouldn't that also be a "lifestyle choice"?

>>2389142

It depends on the reasons why they do these things. Eating healthily, and educating oneself might have Apollonian motives guiding them, whereas drinking and smoking do not, i.e. in moderation they have no impact on a person's intellect.

>>2389147
I think the question posted by OP (ignoring all the plebian vs. elite bullshit) is that are they related, either through correlation or causation?

>>2389142

You're irritating as fuck. And no, that doesn't make you Socrates.

>>2389153
I apologize mate. Didn't mean to be irritating.

>>2389152

When you get right down to it, "high" art and literature are both education and entertainment, so it could go either way. Geniuses read Shakespeare and posers read Shakespeare; Idiots play sports and geniuses play sports.

>>2389158
I'd have to agree with you. And not only posers and geniuses, but everyone in between.

>>2389132
You are obviously a twat, but just for the record: Intelligence is commonly interpreted as the ability to use reason in order to achieve a certain goal. Smoking is not unintelligent if your goal is to enjoy yourself.

>>2389206
thank you guy who didn't read the whole thread. Your input was insightful and inspiring.

>>2389103
>you want to create for yourself a facade of uniqueness and superiority to make yourself seem appealing. How is it working out for you so far, my unique snowflake?
If you knew anything about how society works, you'd have known that unique snowflakes get all the bitches. It's not even that important to be appealing - being distinguishable is all it takes in most cases when it comes to women. And not only women.

You asked a personal question, faggot, so don't whine when you get a personal response.
I was always a wonderkid and the eye of everyone's apple, always a monstrous attention whore, and all the more lovable for that. I myself hate people like me, but, seriously, I can be very nice and I stick out favourably all the time. So it's working nicely for me.

Ah ha! And now it's on! Being called a pretentious faggot was only the beginning for me ITT. Bring it on, WHOOO

>>2389120
>How can you even date someone with whom you have no intellectual bond?
OP here.

It fucking sucks, sister. It sucks. But it's not the question here. This guy >>2389116
>Get off your high-horse you fucking faggot. Just because you read more books than people and supposedly have more 'refined tastes and interests' does not make you more intelligent than the next person.
is frothing at the mouth, but he's on the right track. He's answering my question.

The fun part is, I've maintained the same opinion almsot always. It sometimes falters, but I invariably get back to it through experience.

Yes, sportspeople are stupid.

inb4 no they aren't, because yes they are. Evidence? You're a sportsman or an apologist of theirs and you think the answer isn't plainly self-evident and think this is actually worth arguing with me about.

check and mate.

>>2389210
You are welcome.

>>2389247

>I am right and disputing this with me is evidence of my being so.

>>2389247

I'm inclined to agree with you, but I'd like to hear your arguments.

>And how could there exist a 'common good'! The expression is a self-contradiction: what can be common has ever been but little value. In the end it must be as it has always been: great things are for the great, abysses for the profound, shudders and delicacies for the refined, and, in sum, all rare things for the rare.

>>2389310
Most people don't eat their own shit, but I do.

NOM NOM NOM NOM

>>2389326
Don't! You'll get a terrible infection!

>>2389337
oh NO! As long as it is a rare infection. AIDS is so blase these days.

>>2389342
>AIDS is so blase these days.
I'm not so sure, actually. I think bugchasing is still pretty damn edgy.

>>2389342
>AIDS is so blase these days.
Oh, no AIDS, just a good old fecal infection.

>>2389348
people do that in reality?

>>2389351
Well, there's no consensus on whether it's an actual social phenomenon or a rainbow party.

posters who should be permabanned dot txt

>>2389383
this is you >>2389395 and you need to stop

Political Elite accept: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
Political Plebs accept: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DqHyIcsO8E

>>2389558
nice.