/lit/ - Literature

dumb question.
next.

>>6239997
you're an idiot. If you don't procreate, nothing of value was lost. Do us all a favor.

>>6240000
>>6239998

Wonderful. We're starting off this thread with petulant knee-jerk reactions

>>6240005
you're the prime example of why western people are a failure nowadays.

>>6240018
What are we /pol/ now?

>hurr durr lets fuck to preserve western culture

Have you read Conspiracy Against The Human Race? It's a ood book following your logic.

>>6240018
>truth is shit, what is better is arbitrarily clinging to a greater tribe

Oy Vey, how many shekels did your post earn?

>>6240024
>>6240029
>lets let more third worldlers procreate and less european people
You're evolutionary failures.

>>6240005
so how far anti-natalist are you?

There's literally nothing better than making a nice family.

/thread

>>6240042
what about two nice families?

>>6240035
I'm happy to be an evolutionary failure when evolution has resulted in something as harrowing as sentience. A fucking dolphin doesn't have to worry about his retirement fund. We're not particularly robust as a species, we're just different. What makes all this human endeavor so important? It seems as soon as we solve one major problem it leads us to several others, which are even more impenetrable and menacing.

>>6240042
>kids have blond hair
>neither parent does

Haha, what a cuck

>>6240056
Babby's first existential crisis. You'll grow up.

>>6240060
Nothing unusual. Lots people have blond hair as kids and it turns brown or black.

>>6240035
Read my post again.

>>6240061
I am basically just a useless sack of shit. I was homeless for 3 years and now I work a mediocre job and barely maintain an apartment and I consider suicide daily. But I think this gives me a more objective standpoint on the matter. I would never want anyone to be born as shiftless and resourcefulness as myself. I was born into an upper middle-class family, never did drugs, did well in school and yet I've still been pushed to the margins of society. But what about the poor bastard that ISIS lit on fire all too recently? I'm sure his life was fine until he was consumed by flame. He could have been born to an even richer family for all I know. The point is that how can you know what your offspring might have to go through in their lifetime?

And I want to clarify. I am not necessarily making the argument to advise everyone to stop fucking. I am merely bringing the issue into question whether it is inherently moral to have children.

>>6240029
No, but from the synopsis it sounds like it might be like a book form of "Faces of Death" with some anti-natalist philosophy peppered here and there. Could you explain exactly what it is?

>>6240080
unresourceful jeeze

>>6240005
he has quads and you have nothing

>>6240173
I have quints fucker. Check these digits

>>6240035
Enjoy your 8th grade school dropout concept of evolution. Low birth rates in western countries are a product of high standards of living, not some grand Jew conspiracy, which is why we see them mirrored in places like Japan. You retards take a single trend of immigration or birth rates and extrapolate it to infinity to justify your racial panic. Mexico's population is literally around a third of the USA, not counting that the population of Mexico is around 10% white...even if they all immigrated at once your extinction scenario wouldn't happen. Same with arabs... I think they number about 500 million people whereas the population of Europe alone is 700 million, not counting white people in North America, Africa and Oceania.

>>6240029
>shill gambit

Do you fags actually believe this shit? The JIDF has membership in the double digits which would be barely enough to shill /pol/, let alone the /lit/ which is the most left leaning board on the site and wouldn't need it. This is just an intellectually lazy way to discredit opposing views by association and you know it. Shame you don't have your little echo chamber here to back you up and make you feel like less of a retard.

>>6240173
>he

be honest, nobody but you would reference your own EBIC QUADS on a board as slow as this.

>>6240212
>/lit/ is the most left-leaning

No, we still observe the value of logic and reason here. Not so, in the land of /co/ where privilege is checked at the door.

>>6240233
Gee, a real unbiased and well presented opinion.

>I am le logical rational man
>People I disagree with are not

>>6240251
Yeah, maybe you were right. We're obviously too far gone with posts like this.

>>6240080
>Because I'm a suicidal failure everyone else's life sucks

>>6240267
no but enough people's lives suck that it brings into question the morality of reproduction ya fuckin' turkey.

>>6240000

quads confirm OP must be sterilized

>>6240253
>implying the concepts of privilege and intersectionality are not rational

>>6240287
As much as it's laughed at, I'd say "checking your privilege" is very rational. People naturally form nepotistic pockets of in-groups within the wider macrocosm of society, standing back and analyzing what benefits and disadvantages you have due to this and how it affects meritocracy in society as a whole is more rational than just blindly going along with it because of appeal to ridicule.

Humanity is fighting a war against entropy. We're showing promise at the moment. There's gonna be some casualties.

>>6240329
>We're showing promise at the moment

>>6240274
No it doesn't. Suffering doesn't invalidate joy.

>>6240329
This is it. The plebbest post of all time.

>>6240319
>>6240287
Well it certainly worked out well for occupy when their "progressive stack" kept a lot of the good ideas suppressed because they happened to be in the heads of white men. While these privileges may exist, there is really no practical way to address them in any sort of politically sound form. None of the methods so far have been rational at all. But the real question is, in the 20th century, when slavery and segregation have been done away with, if we really need something as needlessly divisive and as much of a red-herring as identity politics.

>>6240354
No it's not.

>>6240349
Well it does actually because Joy is only characterized by an absence of suffering.

>>6240358
>Well it certainly worked out well for occupy when their "progressive stack" kept a lot of the good ideas suppressed because they happened to be in the heads of white men.

Occupy failed because it had a lack of well defined goals. I could say the same thing about MRAs or white nationalists. It's not particular to any end of the political spectrum.

Show me some specific ideas that were thrown out by large numbers of occupy protesters because white men invented them. As far as I could tell, a lot of white men were in the movement themselves. You're making a racial issue out of something that was primarily about economic standing.

>While these privileges may exist, there is really no practical way to address them in any sort of politically sound form.

"If we're going to acknowledge these privileges, the least we can do is avoid remedying them!"

You could have said the same thing about women's rights in the early 20th century, yet it's made huge progress. Moral changes in society start with recognizing inequality in the wider public consciousness. This is a two headed snake to conservatives because it involves recognizing that the achievements of privileged groups is not entirely due to their own ubermensch will. and secondly that public spending and legal reform are necessary to combat it.

>when slavery and segregation have been done away with

These are not the only two forms of injustice in existence, and segregation is still widespread due to economic stratification regardless of official changes. Just because Best Korea calls itself the People's Democratic Republic doesn't make it so, the same applies to calling yourself an egalitarian democracy.

>if we really need something as needlessly divisive and as much of a red-herring as identity politics.

If identity politics is "divisive" why is intersectionalism such a big thing among the political left? This is an age old right wing claim that basically amounts to a genteel way of saying "accept your lot in life and stop causing me ruckus." Some degree of conflict is always going to be necessary to challenge entrenched power structures, modern Western democracy allows for this conflict on a political level without the physical warfare touted by Marxists and it's derided by conservatives as "class warfare" to reverse victim and offender, silencing the disadvantaged and those sympathetic to them.

>>6240424
>Occupy failed because it had a lack of well defined goals

Yes, due to being bogged down in social justice nonsense. I am not making this a racial issue, they did. Are there any official records of who originates ideas utilized by Occupy anyway? This would seem to run contrary to its rather communist model. The point you should be taking is that the progressive stack was a blight on the ability of Occupy to create any sort of practical effect. One would have to wonder if it wasn't brought to bear by the very Wallstreet bankers the movement was fighting against.

>"If we're going to acknowledge these privileges, the least we can do is avoid remedying them!"

That's right. To implement a system which could hammer out every inequality in society would involve a police-state of monstrous proportions, which would be entirely irreconcilable with democratic or even humanist values.

>These are not the only two forms of injustice in existence

My honest response to this is "so what?" Do you live here on earth or some mental fantasy land your upper-middle-class existence affords you the luxury of? You do realize that everyone suffers to some degree? It is a matter of being human. Does it seem somehow remarkable then that someone's discomfort may be attributed to socially institutionalized inequities? Is it really necessary to stamp out every single iota of injustice in society, when the cost to basic human freedom would be irredeemable?

>If identity politics is "divisive" why is intersectionalism such a big thing among the political left?

Because they seem overly willing to flagellate themselves for some new concept of original sin.

Here is the real kicker. I am a leftist myself. I am for entitlement programs, centralized control of money, immigration and various other so called "left-wing" ideals. Are you even aware that politics is not two monolithic poles pulling from each other? Politics involves a complex set of issues which any intelligent individual, at least, ought to address on a case-by-case basis and derive a unique set of perspectives on. Political ideologies are not cable-packages.

>implying the men's rights movement is right-wing
>hurr durr I guess men bad so must be right wing

It must be sad to be this much of a simpleton that this is how you derive your politics. topkek


In summary you are a very uninteresting person regurgitating unremarkable, trite ideas I have heard many many times before and until you present something new I have made my peace. In the meantime feel free to read this and if you find it agreeable then I additionally find you repulsive and dangerous.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/tanya-cohen/2015/01/here-is-why-its-time-to-get-tough-on-hate-speech-in-america/

>>6240601
>In summary you are a very uninteresting person regurgitating unremarkable, trite ideas I have heard many many times before and until you present something new I have made my peace...

Nigga, I was with you until this. This is not how you debate someone and honestly comes across as childish.

>>6240364
Hi Schopy

>>6239997
>Is it possible that procreating is not moral?
If it isn't, then it shows how pathetic philosophy is.

Nothing is immoral, they're just labels we apply to actions, there is no intrinsic quality of good or bad.

Also; procreation is a basic human right.

>>6240825
Can one post be more contradictory?
>right
lmao. People don't have a right to torture nor kill not counting self-defense, so why should procreation (which exposes offspring to the possibility of torture and to death with absolute certainty) be any different?

Of course it's possible that procreating isn't moral. There's no one system of morality. What you're aksing is whether it's possible to construct a system of morality in which procreation becomes an immoral act. Yes of fucking course it's possible. Does it mean anything outside of that particular system of morality? No.

Fwiw anon, I have been considering this as well. I understand why some would immediately dismiss the idea, but still. I haven't come to any conclusion.

>>6240601

>complains about social conflict being detrimental
>posts an image of Hegel

Lol.

>I am not making this a racial issue, they did.

There's a difference between voicing your experience about injustice and being the cause of it. A criminal could likewise batter a random person on the street and respond to their cries with "Who said anything about assault? Nobody brought it up until you did." Those on top of the hierarchy naturally do not promote dialogue about the status of those below them.

>Are there any official records of who originates ideas utilized by Occupy anyway?

Way to dodge my question about what specific concepts were discarded by Occupy for being created by white men.

>communist model

For a supposed leftist, you sure write like a conservative.

>To implement a system which could hammer out every inequality in society would involve a police-state of monstrous proportions

Firstly, that's ridiculous hyperbole. Opposing inequality through reform does not equal support for a totalitarian communist state anymore than supporting a public police force means you want every single petty criminal hunted down and killed.

Secondly, history contradicts you. Welfare states and police states are pretty much opposites of one another - authoritarian states like Russia or China typically care little about inequality (despite Marxist lip service) while socially progressive Scandanavian countries have some of the most transparent democracies on Earth.

> Do you live here on earth or some mental fantasy land your upper-middle-class existence affords you the luxury of?

Just because I support social justice doesn't make me a latte sipping hipster stereotype. I'm one of the working poor.

>everyone suffers to some degree

Suffering exists not only in degree, but also in kind, and not all kinds are shared by all people. Even disregarding that, it's not enough to say "some degree" and ignore the actual degree of difference. Should a doctor treat someone with a stubbed toe with the same urgency as a patient with a skull fracture?

>>6240962
cont'd

>Is it really necessary to stamp out every single iota of injustice in society, when the cost to basic human freedom would be irredeemable?

Freedom and equality are not opposites. Poverty and discrimination in a person's environment limits their freedom because they don't have the same opportunities as those at the top of the social pyramid.

Every single iota? I'm a liberal capitalist who supports reform, not some utopian socialist revolutionary. This really makes your otherwise valid complain about political polarization a one way street.

>Because they seem overly willing to flagellate themselves for some new concept of original sin.

You do not have to hate yourself to oppose injustice that favors you. To recognize it and be dismissive is not only an unfair standard we would protest if inverted, but discarding the chance to morally better ourselves as a person.

>I guess men bad so must be right wing

Men are bad? Next up on "Shit I Never Said"...
I was an MRA myself before becoming a feminist. Many of the complaints they have about circumcision, fathers' rights etc. are legitimate to me. MRAs as a whole seem to care less about these issues than they do rambling on about how feminists are destroying society. The kind of reactionary drivel I see on Return of Kings, Angry Harry, The Spearhead etc. is pretty much overtly pro-patriarchy with a heavy nostalgia for "the good old days" when women knew their place. The conservative bent of the movement is basically why I left.

>>6239997
>Is it possible that procreating is not moral?
yes

>>6240840
Just because something can be abused, doesn't necessarily mean it should be restricted. Everyone makes mistakes, and the only way to try to eradicate that aspect of human nature would be a highly advanced police state.

If things were banned because of their dangerous potential alcohol, delicious food, and prescription medication would be illegal.

>>6239997

Procreation is the ultimate act of creativity, and thus worth engaging in. True, the beings that we create are likely to suffer, but they will only be overcome by suffering if we fail to give them a proper moral upbringing.

>>6241422
You don't see a difference in abusing yourself vs abusing someone else? (Practically) no one supports raping comatose patients, even though when just like with popping out kids you're causing harm on someone who can't give consent to said action for your own benefit. Drinking alcohol isn't illegal, but drunk driving etc is.

Procreating feels a bit off to me

>>6239997
Morality has no real implementation in modern world.

A nihilist, atheist homosexual professor and abortion doctor was teaching a class on Thomas Ligotti, a known antinatalist.

”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and accept that life is painful, disgusting and ultimately mechanical and nothing actually matters, not even meaning the individual creates for himself!

At this moment, a brave, fecund, pro-life Christian humanist who had seven beautiful children and understood the intrinsic value of human life stood up and held up a rock.

”Why am I holding this rock, pinhead?”

The arrogant professor smirked quite nihilisticly and smugly replied “It's just neurons firing in your brain that have created the illusion that you're a conscious being”

”Wrong. I'm holding it because I choose to of my own free will. If none of us has free will and life, as you say, has no meaning… then why haven't you killed yourself by now?”

The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of The Conspiracy Against the Human Race. He stormed out of the room crying those antinatalist crocodile tears. The same tears liberals cry for the “humanity” (who today live in such luxury that most life well into their 60s) while they bitterly try to write edgy novels to make money that they themselves claim is hollow and pointless. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, Nick Pizzeria, wished he had done something meaningful with his life and become more than a sophist liberal professor. He wished so much that he had a gun to shoot himself from embarrassment, but he himself "did not have the constitution for suicide"!

The students applauded and all accepted Jesus as their lord and savior and threw away their birth control devices. An eagle named “Desiderius Erasmus” flew into the room and perched atop the American Flag and shed a tear on the chalk. Psalm 127: 3–5 was read several times, and God himself showed up and instilled everyone's lives with value and purpose.

The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died in a seemingly random accident that was actually part of God's plan and was tossed into the lake of fire for all eternity.

God bless ps Be fruitful and multiply

>>6239997

Why not just say you're an antinatalist?

>>6243664
Beautiful post.

>>6242341
Your examples highlight the difference between moral and ethical wrongs. Abusing yourself or someone else are both moral issues, in the sense that people who are considered mentally healthy feel bad about them, but moral issues aren't the basis of law. Harming someone else is explicitly an ethical problem. Laws are designed to enforce a certain standard of ethics. That's why alcohol isn't illegal but drunk driving is. That's why being addicted to porn and hating yourself for masturbating isn't illegal, but forcing someone else to have sex they hate is. Both are immoral, but only one is strictly unethical (and thus illegal).

>>6240018
>>6240024
>>6240212
>Shame you don't have your little echo chamber here to back you up and make you feel like less of a retard.


DirtyRedNiggerKiller 5 standing by...

>>6244701
not wearing a seatbelt is a moral dilemma?

>>6244754
Yes, of course it is. So is deciding whether or not to kill yourself. In a philosophical vacuum (I.e. assuming there are no other factors--you have no family to miss you, your head won't detach in the accident and kill an innocent pedestrian, etc), these certainly aren't "ethical" decisions. In real life, there are laws mandating seatbelt use or forbidding suicide because other people can be harmed by your choices on those issues. If you don't wear a seatbelt and crash, the state may have to care for you for the rest of your life at the expense of other people. If you kill yourself, someone you left behind might need therapy, and investigating your death may consume scarce police resources, etc.

For a mentally healthy person, all ethical wrongs are probably moral wrongs (if hurting others doesn't hurt you even a little bit, you probably aren't consodered mentally healthy), but not strictly the other way around. However, in the real world, most moral wrongs are also unethical in some way, because unless you're a hermit, when you hurt yourself you probably indirectly harm others as well.

Note that in most cases there are no perfectly moral courses of action. Many choices are "moral dilemmas"--otherwise there wouldn't be much to think about. It's up to you to decide the least of all evils, and what you can live with. When we regret our choices, we feel guilt and have to resolve that guilt in order to love with ourselves. Some people go to confession, some people practice mindfulness, some people suppress the feeling and experience it later in shame flashbacks.