/lit/ - Literature

Herein is probably one of the most cogent refutations of the leftist conception of sequestered government power, loose borders, and the sort of egalitarian mind trap with which people become willing to accept carte blanche cultural evisceration

Cohesion and restriction are a necessary requisite for human happiness and flourishing

>>8722907
You know, sometimes I think Leftism is just an excuse to be a nihilist.

>>8722913

Its foremost requisite is a cowardliness toward even the idea of accepting truths, so yes

It's intellectual masturbation and nothing more, which is why it flourishes in universities

>>8722889
Denial of death Becker

>>8722925
Yeah, but the point I was trying to make was that they think Reason is a redeeming tool, and they think they can use reason as a weapon against any hierarchy, any power structure, and any cultural system without it having seriously dangerous consequences.

Hence, it can be nihilistic. Take Foucault for example, who spent most of his career examining power structures. For what purpose? What ideas were rattling around in his head when he did that? Was he motivated by genuine empathy for other human beings?

Somehow I doubt it.

>>8722889
The Concept of the Political by Carl Schmitt

Noam Chomsky failed.

>>8722939

>Was he motivated by genuine empathy for other human beings?

Good point

This is the greatest trick the leftist's have ever played -- convincing people that their agenda is altruistic -- that they're the only virtuous ones

>>8722913
>>8722925
>people who disagree with me can't handle the truth

>>8722913 (You)

>>8722957

lol
>behaviorism relevant in the 21st century.

>>8722959
People rarely even understand their own motivations until it's too late.

Recently read Richard Feynman's memoirs, and in it he says that after he played a hand in the creation of and use of the nuclear weapon against the Japanese he fell into a terrible depression. Well, maybe you should've thought about where your ideas were taking you, before stuff like that that happens, is the only thing I could surmise when I read that passage.

>>8722964
>>8722965
>"Stalin was a great guy lads, he didn't want to just murder people, he really did believe in the Cause™, trust me!!!!"

lmao

>>8722977

I award you -10.000 out of 10 points.

>>8722964
>>8722965

I'm talking about the framework from which they operate

It is irredeemably faulty, but they refuse to confront this, to branch out

they're dogmatists, at least the ones in universities -- not your average "the world is such a happy place yay diversity" leftist

>>8722983

>>8722977
>anyone who calls me on my shit is a stalinist

>>8722985
What is faulty about their framework?

>>8722993
>posting b8 memes is "calling people out on their shit"

lul

>>8723001
Let's be honest, we're all just memeposting here

>>8722993

>a fervently dogmatic postmodern lens is a good foundation for examining the world

what could go wrong huehuehue

>>8722985
Please, tell me what is this framework? who are the major thinkers? What are its features?

Hegelianism is arguably the philosophy most concerned with there being absolute truth.

>>8723010
Modern Leftists like zizek are the most fervent critics of postmodernism's effects though, same with le gultural margsits:DDDDDD

>>8723021
>replying to retard spongeposters

Sex and Character

>>8723015
>Hegelianism is arguably the philosophy most concerned with there being absolute truth.

Hegel's absolute truth is far from being the common sense perception of the term though, which interprets it as simply 'objective truth' of the positivists and materialists.

>>8723021

>citing Zizek, an exception to an expansive rule

ok fantastico

>>8723021
>Modern Leftists like zizek are the most fervent critics of postmodernism's effects though

True he is, but his Marxist psychoanalysis makes him only scratch the surface. Materialists are annoying for that reason.

>>8722907
>Cohesion and restriction are a necessary requisite for human happiness and flourishing

Dude, no "leftist" would disagree with you other than possibly individualist anarchists, who are just as influential on the right.

>>8723025
>mfw I wrote my dissertation on marine sponges

>>8723039
Enlighten me.

>>8723044
>Dude, no "leftist" would disagree with you

Not him, but sure they would. They do all the time. Especially the intersectional cultural/gender/ethnic studies people at universities, who think category destruction is just fun and games.

>>8723044

>no leftist would disagree that religion, cultural homogeneity, and ethnostates are the foundation of harmony and happiness

literally what am I reading

>>8723050
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phc4.htm#N_1_

I'm really not good enough at this, so I'd probably make you more confused.

>>8723050
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/mean07.htm#15

I'm really not good enough at this, so I'd probably make you more confused.

>>8723054
>>8723051
Only if you define the ideal society of insane racialist/theocratic traditionalists as the only societies where there is any cohesion and restriction.

>>8723069
Maybe the other guy does, but I don't. My problem is just that I don't see any end point to this attempt to use reason to destroy everything that can't stand a prolonged critique.

>>8723076
An end-point that doesn't lead to extreme nihilism at that.

>>8723069

>Only if you define the ideal society of insane racialist/theocratic traditionalists as the only societies where there is any cohesion and restriction.
>building a strawman version of a conservative society to refute

Maybe if you read some of the books posted here you would understand what we're saying instead of ad libbing about what you think it is

>>8723076
>My problem is just that I don't see any end point to this attempt to use reason to destroy everything that can't stand a prolonged critique.
And why is that a problem exactly? It would be far more dangerous to say "yep, I've reasoned enough, time to stop critically examining what one believes from now-on!".

>>8723081
I'm responding to posts in this thread strawmanning what evil super nihilist leftists allegedly believe.

>>8723095
>And why is that a problem exactly?

It leads to stuff like this>>8722968

Heidegger really blew my mind but I'm probably just basic

Kierkegaard felt about as close to salvation as I had ever been

>>8723138
>Heidegger really blew my mind but I'm probably just basic

You're not. If Heidegger doesn't blow your mind, you don't understand him.

>>8722983
>>8722965
on a sidenote i sometimes think it would be great to ban people here for posts like this, but then i catch myself shitposting and my router take like 8min to restart so no
>>8722939
what class of consequences are you talking about?

is your point that you have to allow people to have some freedom for 'evolution' or other nature related things in the system?

>>8723134
I don't understand. What does Feynman's feelings about his part in the atomic bombing of Japan have to do with "reason destroying everything that can't stand a prolonged critique"?

>>8723148
Because reason isn't everything.

If I told you that I was going to cross smallpox with ebola, and release it over a highly-populated area, just to see what happens, what would you say?

You would probably say I was insane and evil, and yet crossing smallpox with ebola is a perfectly valid scientific venture.

>>8722889

>From the wiki of sex and culture

we cultural decline now famalam

>Thread about harsh, esoteric truths
>People start Marxposting
Fuck off back to where you belong

>>8723155
Your example would be acting unreasonably. Read Plato
>>8723163
Not an argument

>>8723155
It's not "science" which tells you whether or not to release smallpox/ebola over a densely-populated area, it's your reasoning faculty. The way you formulated that example is very confused.

>>8722889
The Rational Male. This book will not only change your view of civilization but also change your life.

>>8723171
>Your example would be acting unreasonably.

No, it wouldn't. Science is based on reason, so science can't be unreasonable.

Doesn't work that way.

>>8723175
>it's your reasoning faculty

Okay, so prove, with reason only, that other people have value.

>>8723176
>"Manosphere"
>plate theory
>Game awareness
>"red pill" ideology.

>>8723179
Hahaha
10/10 if troll
7/10 if bait.

>>8723186
I gather you don't mind the taste of the steak if you don't know where it came from?

>>8723184
Define value.

>>8723197
It's true though. It's not bait at all.

You can't explain why crossing ebola with smallpox and dropping it over a populated area for the sake of science, is wrong.

Because from the point of view of science, it isn't wrong, it's just another form of scientific venture.

Do you know why it is that way? Because science has already decided that the subject, e.g subjectivity, isn't real by definition.

>>8723203

It's just that this thread is filled with books from intellectual giants from all spheres of ideology and then you shit it up with what is essentially a slightly intellectualized book for pick up artists

>>8723184
Prove otherwise.

There are numerous ways to do this, the categorical imperative, Master-slave dialectic, etc. even egoism

>>8723205
>Define value.

No. You have google.

>>8723215
>There are numerous ways to do this, the categorical imperative, Master-slave dialectic, etc. even egoism

None of which stopped the nuking of the Japanese, the Cambodian genocide, the Holocaust or the Holodomor.

Do you honestly think the pilots of Enola Gay that dropped nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave a shit about intellectual masturbation like that?

>>8723176

everyone out, the fedoras have found the thread

>>8723213
Meh. The closed mindedness of "liberals". Enjoy wanking over your Weininger, because he accomplished so much.

>>8723211
Science isn't the basis of nor the only way of applying it.
>>8723228
None of which has to do with leftism postmodernism or whether or not we can prove people have value. You've moved the goalposts.

>>8723236

I'm not a liberal, I've posted ad nauseam in this thread about the importance of monogamy and conservatism as a function of a healthy civilization

I just don't like anti intellectual conjecture from angsty millennial pseuds shitting up a perfectly good thread

>>8723239
>or not we can prove people have value.

You can't prove people have value rationally anyway, because all ethical systems have a fundamental axiom at it's core that isn't rational at all.

>>8723213
>>8723255

Being against something just because it comes from an easy to ridicule and somewhat 'cringy' culture is incredibly close minded. The thread is about books that will make you look at society in an entirely different way, which is exactly what redpill books will do. Furthermore, OP said he wants to know 'esoteric' shit, so I don't see why a book should be ignored just because it isn't a part of """world literature""".

>>8723159
We walking into meme territory now. Theres are hundreds of monogamous countries that are below 1700s tier in terms of society.

>>8723278

>unironically thinking that PUA ebook hucksters have any insights at all that will make you look at society in an entirely different way

lol

>>8723278

what you're saying is akin to say we should start reading black lives matter books as if their movement/ideology had ever produced anything worthy of further investigation

>>8723286

Just a thought, not sure if there's any credence behind it, but I would overlay adherence to monogamy w/ national IQ to see what kind of correlations emerge

>>8723293
>smug liberals *still* thinking they have all the answers

>>8723260
Hegelianism is presuppositionless kiddo. Read the science of logic.

>>8723309

this whole thread has been rife with anti-leftist literature and no one has had an issue until it came from /r/theredpill so fuck off

>>8723309

>relying on memes from stefan "i used to be a principled ancap until i decided that shilling for a statist like trump was more profitable' molyneux

lol

>>8723317
>Hegelianism is presuppositionless kiddo. Read the science of logic.

>>8723286
Monogamy, or at least a strong degree of sexual repression, is necessary, but not sufficient.

>>8723317
You cannot even write without making presuppositions.

>>8723377
>>>8723317
>You cannot even write without making presuppositions.
Suck my dick. How's that for a presupposition?

>>8723039
What is it then?

>>8723439
I hear contempt in your voice, go read him.

is there any fucking philosopher out there that doesn't just shit on women?

>>8723492
MUH SOJINY

>>8723492
No. Even Simone de Beauvoir shat on women in She Came to Stay. The sole unified movement of higher thought is enmity towards women; indeed, misogyny is the mark of genius.

>>8723260
>You can't prove people have value rationally anyway

If there existed no people, there would exist no value

Thus, people are valuable

>>8723492
why did a reply to this post get deleted

>>8723507
>>8723492

It is mans fault. Because man had to breed women to be dumb, so they could 'get' them, if man breed women to be smart and able, that would lessen the chances of men getting them

I suppose there always must have been a class of men who had difficulty getting women, as we are aware of the one/s existing today, perhaps though in ways today it is easier then ever to meet a potential mate, there is a relatively large class who still has difficulty, perhaps relating to the relatively recent increase in womens liberation

>>8723530
this is /pol/ HAPPENING conspiracy tier bullshit

>He predicted everything in 1970
>If we had followed his extreme plan we could have been saved

It's too late.

>>8722957
If I don't see it
it doesn't exist hahaha
You cannot believe this right?

>>8723492

>is there any fucking philosopher out there that doesn't just shit on women?

only fem "philosophers" like de beauvoir kek

Men have noticed the tail ends of the bell curve are skewed to the male's favor since time immemorial, it's only natural they jotted it down

>>8723550
If women were smarter and stronger than men they could create a reproductive union, and actively enforce eugenics,

If men keep women dumb, distract them with shiny rings and pretty clothes, then there is a chance even the average joe can score himself a relative bae

>>8723615
>create a reproductive union, and actively enforce eugenics,

arent they already doing that but only in groups

>>8722925
Whatever helps you sleep at night Porky-san

The Unabomber Manifesto/Industrial Society And Its Future

Just read it.

>>8723530
What was the deleted post?

>>8723492
Hegel.

>>8723631
But as I think what I was responding too initially, 'is there any philosopher that doesnt shit on women', I believe was a statement made due to the perceived observation that all women are not (good) philosophers (or put another way, I believe it was implied, on average men are smarter than women)

>>8723667
But how to do we maintain anarcho-primitivism? Won't it just evolve back into quasi-feudalism again?

>>8723678
The codes to the nukes

Nah, just something about what simone beauvoir said, that maybe had a hint of women bashing, that a mod wrote, and realized it may come back to haunt them

>>8723700
Ah okay

>>8723667

desu famalam it was a lot of pontificating from the foundation of dubious presuppositions

also anarcho-primitivism is kind of totally ridiculous

It was interesting to read him lambaste leftists, I'm always welcome to that

>>8723667
The best part is the destruction of leftism and the sweeping criticism of modern society.

However, his solution's a bit eh. Wernher von Braun has a good quote about how we can't return to a level of more simple technology, technology is there to stay and becomes inextricably wedded to the society's it's spread amongst. Might as well do away with the wheel.

>>8722889
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

good 25 minute read

Christopher Lasch - The Culture of Narcissism; The Minimal Self

>>8722913
Eh, leftism believes that humanity is perfectible, and that history follows a progressive track to a future golden age. Nihilists don't believe in that stuff.

>>8723697
>>8723708
>katzynski
>anarcho-primitivism
He critiqued that shit.

>>8723159

How does Unwin quantify "cultural condition" and how does he define culture with regards to cohesion?

>>8722955
not too big too swallow but def important

>>8723679
nah dude hegel is talks about how women are unfit to rule in government in his writings on the state.

I know its meme tier but this book did change the way I see a lot of things

>>8722933
don't read this voidpill lads

>>8724027
This was incredible. His critique of neoreaction was also pretty great

>>8722957
A behaviorist and his wife were laying in bed after making love and he asked her "was it as good for me as it was for you?"

>>8724941
Heh heh.

>>8723459
nonsensical presumptive twaddle that stays stuck up its own ass.

I love it.

>>8723054
I'm a leftist and I disagree

>>8723159
Well, it's hardly deniable.

>>8723481
Haven't got the time at the moment.

>>8723076
>My problem is just that I don't see any end point to this attempt to use reason to destroy everything that can't stand a prolonged critique.
And? If it can't stand rational critique, it deserves to be destroyed.

ITT: cranks, pseudoscience, and meaningless wank.

>>8724027
>And okay, this example is kind of contrived. So let’s run through – let’s say ten – real world examples of similar multipolar traps to really hammer in how important this is.
>1. The Prisoner's Dilemma
>real world

>>8727139

>>8722889
Other works similar to Sex and Culture? Haven't been able to find any.

>>8722897
own but haven't started yet. How does this change perspective of life?

>>8722901
Is Jung a meme now?

>>8727470
What's wrong with positivism?

>>8727503
the fact that you think in terms of right and wrong.

>>8727511
I'm listening, go on

>>8727139
t. computer science major

>>8727470
>STEM fag
>not a positivist
what
this meme makes zero sense
or am I retarded?

>>8727503
Logical positivism only places value on statements that can be empirically verified. Except that maxim cannot be empirically verified, its an unjustified critera. The positivists entire goal was to shit on metaphysics, but they couldn't figure out how to create a theory without metaphysics.

>>8723159
Classic /lit/ to worship the work of a late 1800's sociologist but ignore the 200 years of improvements that led to that author being disregarded.

>>8727654
This, it's self-defeating.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
-- Thomas S. Kuhn

The PDF is easily found using google, educate yourselves

>>8723530
You can't breed women to be stupid. Because the genes that code for such things are not on sex chromosomes. Also selective breeding is a fairly modern development not know to primitive man.

>>8727782

>the 200 years of improvements that led to that author being disregarded.

sauce

literally just perused through an anthro journal and found a recent study w/ data pertaining to monogamy degrading to polygyny and causing strife among males

>>8727782
Why was he disregarded tho

>>8727887
I didn't say that the premise could not possibly have any truth but rather that that author is from a time when anthropology was so methodologically flawed that reading his work is a waste of time. Interested in that article you mentioned. Care to cite it?

>>8723286
>Theres are hundreds of monogamous countries that are below 1700s tier in terms of society.
name 50

>>8723286
>there are hundreds of . . . countries
Literally fewer than 200 countries m8

>>8727898
Because they failed to define things like "maintain their culture" in any way aside from living according to the value system that the author prefers.

>>8727910

pic related is pretty much all you need to know senpai

Unwin's premise is entirely correct, even if it's dressed up in his own ad hoc verbiage

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/367/1589/657.full.pdf

>>8727959
How does that chart account for the difference between the US/Europe and monogamous countries being larger than the difference between monogamous and polygamous cultures in every category?

>>8728207

its data not an argument, friendo

>>8728223
But your argument was that there is a casual relationship between monogamy and success as a nation my argument is that the data you have provided are not adequate to convince me of that

the urine tapes by jeremy commonforth

>>8727642
>science is empirically verifiable

>>8723309
>posting an actual molyneux meme to defend the intellectual legitimacy of a PUA book

wew fucking lad

Frankly I don't know if these books I'm mentioning are esoteric in the US.

Revolt of the Masses by Ortega and Gasset, organized a lot of thoughts I already had and made me an overall more complete person.

And I'm currently reading Gutenberg Galaxy by McLuhan and I feel as if it's going to completely blow my mind once I fully understand his points and conclusions.

The already mentioned Unabomber manifesto also blew my mind one year ago, and actually it's what made me interested in reading non-fiction, but nowadays it appears to me as cringeworthy honestly: there's no critique that hadn't been made by a leftist decades ago. I really don't understand what amount of doublethinking takes to agree with this and not be some kind of leftcom or something, I have the impression that Teddy didn't know much outside of STEM because his critique of the left was weirdly specific, like he was criticizing some group in particular, and as I said his critique of the system looks incredibly familiar to the New Left's critique of capitalism. Also his proposed solution was ridiculous.

>>8728647
>Calling something a PUA book as a means of discrediting it
muh superior intellect

>>8723041
Except for the fact that if you stopped your retarded memespouting and sat down to read the Frankfurt school guys, you'd see how they're actually criticizing and oposing a lot of the late capitalist culture from it's very beginnings.

But DAH JUSE right?

>>8728742

His anarcho-primitivist solution was ridiculous and he also examined the left through a quasi-psychological/anthropological lens without really citing anything or proving his assertions, more or less he just pontificated

That said it was an interesting read and I would probably be more surprised than not if none of his assertions about leftists were incorrect; I'd expect that group to be generally more empathetic, weak, and dependent with their virtues in other places like creativity, but now I'm pontificating as well

But yeah, pretty much what you'd expect from a STEM lord poster boy with rampant schizophrenia

>>8724027
Jesus Christ I love this short of shit, will save for commute tomorrow, thanks famalam

>>8727852
Once I had free time and decided to go to a science phil class a qt I was into was in just to have an excuse to talk to her and they had a lecture on the intro to the second edition or something from it, and it blew me away, been wanting to read ever since, but I'm sorta scared.

Is it hard for someone with no science of science philosophy background? Any preptime?

>>8723050
>>8723439
In very simple terms, universal truth is present in the particular moment, that is to say, no given moment has constituted itself out of its own material, but is made up of principles and a substance belonging to a wider category of possible things, to a universal. This universal instantiates itself in the present moment, moves from the order of possible to that of actual - once actualised the next formulation or the next moment of the universal will take the last moment into account, will accept it into itself, and proceed from there. Thus all that is is present in and for itself in the particular as a moment of itself.

Expressed in the more general, religious and mystical terms that inspired him, the mind and its processes, the sight of the eyes, the hearing of the ear, feelings, thoughts, exist as a part of the material world. Unlike a stone, which is dead to itself, and to an animal which merely responds to the environment around it, man possesses the ability to self-cause his movements, and moreover, to self-cause movements of the highest order: rational thought. The awareness of his ability to self-cause his thoughts is not only unique because it separates him from the animals, but is unique in that, being part of the world, it is an aspect of the material world coming to perceive itself as itself. When Moses asks God who he is, his answer is "I am that I am." Hegel believed this to be an expression of pure subjectivity, of Moses interrogating the nature of existence and finding that his existence made possible his question and the moment within which (or out of which) it came. Thus in asking the question he moved together with the world as it turned as a self-conscious moment of itself.

>pill of any kind and not understanding the metaphors in The Matrix

I hate how you faggots have bastardized this stuff too. It's all a fucking spook, by the way.

>>8728804

>late stage capitalism blind consumerism and hedonism
>not an outgrowth of Marxist relativism and shirking of cohesive doctrines

>>8727119
>If it can't stand rational critique, it deserves to be destroyed.

So you're a nihilist?

>ctrl+f
>no Iliad

baka tbqhwy senpai

>>8722967
Keep pressing those levers little rat

>>8729237
>This universal instantiates itself in the present moment, moves from the order of possible to that of actual
rationalists take too seriously their imagination

>>8722933
david benatar is superior laddy

>>8723286
>There are billions of countries in the world that are monogamous but are also apes

First you dumb nigger. There are barely 200 countries. "Hundreds" means that most of the world is both monogamous and black.

Second, being monogamous by itself does not make a society progress. It is simply necessary for it to happen according to this book.

>Liberals understanding culture or reality

Thank god Trump won.

>>8724027
Slate Star Codex is the most sude thing on the internet.

>>8731890
>sude thing
?

>>8723155
That's not what science is though...

>>8731903
PSEUD

>>8724717
Is that a bad thing? I really like Baudrillard. I think he's more relevant than ever, especially with this new era of faux news and fraudulent studies.

>>8727654
I don't really know anything about positivism but I just thought it'd be interesting to mention trinary computers. Rather trying to interpret the world through binary terms, like you mentioned, people have found that using trinary (yes/no/maybe) are actually a lot more helpful with computations at the quantum level. The connection might just be tangential but I thought it was interesting seeing the same pattern in even our harder sciences. That is all.

This one did it for me back in my undergrad years at college. I spent a weak trying to come to grips with it.

this book is /pol/'s wetdream but they don't read

its actually a great read

>>8732828
Quantum anything but computers especially is a hoax. You should put as much stock into what they do as astrologists and tea leaf readers.

>>8732864
That hurt my feelings anon. I'm not saying positivism IS quantum, I'm just saying the move away from positivism mirrored our move away from binary computers. I wasn't trying to describe some type of emergent quality of quantum physics. The "quantum" part wasn't even that important, it was the realization that binary operations have their limits, you fucking cunt.

>>8732835
Now, I've only skimmed it on Google books, but that book is garbage.

>>8723667
Fitch & Madison sent me a review copy of his new book, I'll make a thread about it when I finish it.

>>8727943
>but I like living in squalor
kek

>>8731923
>That's not what science is though...

Says you. It still is like that and can be.

>>8732925
I actually had to sit down after reading his introduction to The Open, this man is the Hegel of our times.

>>8732909

All that passage is saying is that the ideological logistics required for everyone in a society to kowtow to homosexual desires is harder than it would be the other way around -- presumably due to proportions, yes?

I would read it because I'm open minded and I'm sure there are passages, including this one, that I'm likely to disagree with.

But why browse /lit/ if you can go to google books and slyly discredit everything that might expose you to an opposing viewpoint?

>>8723530

>women have evolved separately from men

>>8732909
This >>8733775 is a pretty accurate description. More broadly, one of the main topics of discussion in the book is about how egalitarian democracies become tyrannical. Part of that is the increase of, and obsessive focus on, homosexual rights.

Read the part in the beginning about the common illusions present in society and I think you'll start to see how relevant what he wrote in the 90s is today with SJW culture and the lugenpresse.

Gairdner is a very smart guy and shouldn't be so easily dismissed in my opinion. He has a website with his essays, and blogposts as well.

>>8732909
Also, I'm curious what exactly you find so garbage about that passage

>>8734012

What's more interesting about this sort of "Western civilization is in dire straights" sentiment is that it has gone from the mouths of a few clairvoyant philosophers over a spread centuries to mainstream right-wing sentiment.

That is, even the most optimistic, mainstream traditionalists have accepted the way in which the Republic is mirroring other late-stage civilizations/democracies in the throes. Indeed it seems that all those who haven't been inculcated with a rotten, Marxist, postmodern worldview are stricken with fear on some level, especially with regards to a shift in the zeitgeist which effectively carves out a path for cultural decadence.

There are still some leftist academics (Pinker et al.) who shout, "but crime rates have fallen!!", while being ignorant to the greater purview of the social contract being tattered and the impetus of some pernicious doctrines to not only maintain hegemony in influential institutions, but force their doctrine unto the people as inflexible credo.

>>8734117
>wrote all this bullshit
>doesn't know the difference between "straights" and "straits"

>>8734117
>the impetus of some pernicious doctrines to not only maintain hegemony in influential institutions, but force their doctrine unto the people as inflexible credo

Well said. I saw a nice breakdown of the hypnotic effect of John Oliver's program, and other like it. Basically it's a cyclical routine of
>present strawman
>break down strawman with seemingly logical and fair points
>funny quip

The effect is that the audience never gets a chance to think about what John Oliver is even presenting, but they know they are against it, and that is it stupid and that they are smart. It creates a Pavlovian response of laughter to any point of view that isn't their own.

You even saw this in the presidential debates where Hillary would smile derisively at everything Trump would say. This was a very innocuous tactic on her part and it made me sick that anyone could resort to such things in a debate as their primary mode of defense.

I heard an amazing little piece last night watching the Agenda:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSTIP4w5nOw

>There is a smug style in American liberalism. It has been growing these past decades. It is a way of conducting politics, predicated on the belief that American life is not divided by more difference or policy divergence -- not really -- but by the fauilure of half the country to know what's good for them...

>An industry arse to cater to the smug style. It began in humor, and culminated for a time in The Daily Show, a program that more than any other thing advanced the idea that liberal orthodoxy was a kind of educated savvy and that it's opponets were, before anything else, stupid. The smug liberal found relief in ridiculing them. The internet only made it worse.

>>8734122

lapse of judgment

>>8734196
>It creates a Pavlovian response of laughter to any point of view that isn't their own.

Absolutely. Hollywood is not only overwhelmingly leftist, but it's actually somewhat evil.

You mentioned this, but yes, they are attacking strawman. Most people who go through the public school system then onto college will never actually be exposed to real arguments from the other side, just incessant strawman representations and slander,

>>8734012

Tell me how exactly homorights destroys society fampai.

>>8734229

Not him, but I'd argue that it's not necessarily solely homosexuals as this author represents.

Rather it is the liberalization of all sexual activity, and by extension homosexuality, that portends worse things insofar as we accept monogamy and women's restriction of sexuality as a function of a healthy society

see >>8723159

>>8734229

They don't.

Socially/legally mandated support for them does, however - and that's coming from someone who thinks marriage is a dead institution anyway, thanks chiefly to no-fault divorce.

>>8734244
Should male sexuality be restricted?

>>8734229
I should have clarified that it's not just homosexual rights. Because the book is about the family, part of that is about sex but it's not the main point of the book. The bigger point is the problem of the state guaranteeing rights of any kind, rather than simply protecting freedom within the Law.

For every right you have, there is an obligation of a fellow citizen to provide you with that right. This is the problem with the notions of "a right to healthcare" -- sacrosanct in Canada -- or "a right to daycare" which is being pushed here in Canada now as well. Because you are essentially forcing other citizens to provide you with that healthcare, or daycare, or other service. Never mind the bureaucracy involved.

By providing gay rights and all these other rights the citizens are obliged to provide those rights and the protection of those rights. This is one way the State government can enforce it's own morality in an innocuous manner -- and that is the big problem.

>>8734275
I don't really follow you. Free healthcare is debatable since it is a huge investment and a huge raise in taxes. Legalizing gay marriage is pretty much just letting an extra ~2.5% of the population do some paperwork and it has pretty much no effect on your daily life. How are they comparable?

>>8734264

Yes but as women are the gatekeepers of sex it is imperative that they be held to strict cultural standards.

>>8733608
The mughals did alright for their time. People seem quite comfortable in Saudi.

>>8734328
>huge raise in taxes.
>american government pays more on healthcare per capita than countries with free healthcare.

stay cucked

>>8728742
McLuhan is a hack that never defends any of his points read Harold Innis.

>>8734371
I'm not American, I'm from a country with a pretty good public healthcare (Spain), but that doesn't answer my question.

>>8734328
I think my post already answers these questions. It's not about "free" healthcare or gay rights specifically. The bigger issue is that the state is guaranteeing rights. Read that post again, I think it answers your questions

>>8734117
You are misusing that phrase social contract. What do you mean by it and why is it in tatters? What are these pernicious doctrines? Why are they pernicious?

>>8734018
The author decries any sort of collectivism and then writes stuff like "better for a normal society to be unfair to homosexuals in the name of social health". Nevemind the author's bizarre definition of collectivism along with welfare state, socialist state, etc. It is not a serious work.

>>8734434
He's against top-down state collectivism. He is very much for the bottom-up, small scale collectivism found in the family and local community.

I don't think you can declare the work to be serious or not... You haven't read it. Read the first 3-4 chapters (~150 pages) and you'll get a better idea of it. Much better than I could by attempting to reduce to a few posts here

>>8734412
Yes but if you guarantee a "right" that hurts nobody at pretty much no cost then why is it a problem that the state guarantees that right?

>>8734412
Private property is a right guaranteed by the state. Should that also not happen?

what are considered the biggest works of philosophy in this board? If i am not mistaken it was phenomenology of spirit and more 2~3

>>8734539
I doubt more than 2 people on /lit/ have read the Phenomenology.

>>8722897
i have to read part of this and several other things way over my head for a research paper. this baby is coming in on friday.

kill me

>>8723577
can you give a synopsis? i'm kinda intrigued