/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11377240]

Was he right?

[Anonymous No.11377279]

>>11377240
no.

I mean, he even said he was wrong

[Anonymous No.11377336]

>>11377279
No, he said that democracy was under threat in certain parts of the world and journalists jumped on it because the end of history means the end of their relevance.

[Anonymous No.11378130]

>>11377240
Both Yes and No.

[Anonymous No.11378134]

>>11378130
damn

[Anonymous No.11378215]

>>11377240
He was wrong about the date, but his thesis is largely correct. The greatest lesson of the current 'threat to liberalism' is that while people are unhappy with some of the management of the liberal world order, nobody has any clue as to what can replace it, alternatives like communism, fascism and monarchy are discredited, and populist movements are making a mess of their actual attempts both to govern and to articulate a coherant worldview. I'm not worried about liberalism long term.

[Anonymous No.11378480]

>>11378215
tocqueville did it better

[Anonymous No.11378524]

>>11378215
Doesn't really matter if all alternatives are worse, eventually people will try them no matter how bad the results would be. And how long term do you think? 100 years? 1000?

[Anonymous No.11379264]

>>11378524
Doesn't disprove his central point because any reversion to another ideology would just be a reversal of history, it doesn't progress any further because the entire course of political history is the result of striving for recognition of your individual humanity, and nothing fulfils this need better than liberal democracy.

[Anonymous No.11379471]

No. The increasing penetration of information technology is going to kill liberal democracy. Cambridge Analytica already struck the first blow.

[Anonymous No.11379482]

>>11377336
no. he said the hegelian/teleological assumptions in his book were premature and that he failed to take into account religious fundamentalism in islam and evangelical christianity.

[Anonymous No.11379535]

https://jacobitemag.com/2018/06/25/the-power-elites-queer-liturgy/

[Anonymous No.11379606]

>>11379535

[Anonymous No.11379847]

>>11379606
>>11379606
An article that spends much of it's time talking down and uppity, taking potshots, and generalising. Author is interested in both talking the talk of academia and being a creative labeller - has nothing to add to the conversation except that he's aware of the others now.

>Just as attacks on the the king were once reframed as rebellions against God, attacks on corporations and governments today can be neutralized as bigotry.
>Just as

This is ridiculous. Content just because of content is sad. The worst is that the piece gives off the resonance of the short sighted, the fickle, of the instantaneous truth-burger, yet the paths and connections are all interesting.

As a co-founder, and probably a decently off individual, from a poor fools perceptive, your writing is weak. Not because of your turn of phrase, which is bland and patronising, but because of your surface-level evaluations, eschewing of complexity, and leading the reader with a snide opinion rather than facts that make your opinion approachable by those who don't already believe as you do. While this might be the style you are trying to sell, those who would click are not going to suddenly drop their standards because someone is speaking their language.

Maybe you should look to see whether or not your groupings are real or if they're just convenient for your discussion. Then, if you're going to write about people or situations, as I'd hope you would in dealing with politics, you can deal with the specific and see if your labels still hold true.

Generalising about how and why morals reign in your shit country shouldn't be as easy as it must have been for you when you wrote this. I can explain to you why your thoughts on this are stupid, but I imagine getting at the issue is not really your point anyhow.

---

Why did I write this to him here?

[Anonymous No.11379947]

>>11379847
> Not because of your turn of phrase, which is bland and patronising, but because of your surface-level evaluations, eschewing of complexity, and leading the reader with a snide opinion rather than facts that make your opinion approachable by those who don't already believe as you do.

> I can explain to you why your thoughts on this are stupid, but I imagine getting at the issue is not really your point anyhow.

[Anonymous No.11380081]

>>11379535
This rings true for me specifcally. I just finished three years in one of the nation's top law-schools.
80% of the student body is going on to be corporate lawyers - a literal scum-of-the-earth profession if you know much about it. At the same time you could not find a more "woke" group of young people if you tried - every other class was chalk full of diversity talking points, making the law "more accessible", more "diverse". Classroom discussion was unbearably self-policed by indignant feminist/"racially conscious" students who in a year's time are quite literally going to be defending the phizers and the monsantos of the world.
It's the perfect scam honesty - how better to sleep at night after a long day of contract negotiations a saudi prince's real estate acquisitions (real things my classmates are now doing) than on a mattress of "anti-islmaphobia".

[Anonymous No.11380110]

>>11379847
Hello cosmopolitan elitist.

[Anonymous No.11380130]

>>11379535
>>11379847
Lo' and behold, I wander over to /tv/ - you want "evidence"? (apple uses literal slave labor - but hey, they're "diverse" and they love the gays, so who cares?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=42&v=dar_brj8zdw

[Anonymous No.11380332]

>>11377240
nah

[Anonymous No.11380445]

>>11380130
Naw, you're missing the point. I personally don't care about the truthfulness of the content of your arguments, only the rhetoric. I just want to see your rehashings of Queer critics lead with evidence so as to convince a wide audience rather than snide opinion to keep your circle jerk going. As >>11380110 shows, my opposing your rhetoric is assumed to mean I'm not one of you - and that only because of your rhetoric. He and you too are welcome to think I'm in a corner with Them or the other or whatever. But then, who I am is someone you need, someone who has many eyes.

That you won't tells me you can't, that you can't tells me that you aren't worth it. You're a maintenance man, all your effort will only ever amount to keeping up. With what? Wouldn't you like to know you fickle fuck.
---
Also, can I have a job? I could use some cash and I don't have a university education. I can do regular work, but it's boring. Need a ghost writer for your shitty ideas?

[Anonymous No.11380461]

>>11379947
I thought it was both funny and biting. I'm glad someone picked up on the hot, shiny blackness of my steaming being. It's so lonely here, sometimes.

[Anonymous No.11380496]

>>11378215
I'm not sure "populist movements" really count as a threat to liberal democracy...are they not part of it?

[Anonymous No.11380920]

>>11378134
I know.

[Anonymous No.11380923]

>>11380081
Going to apply to Law School and stuff like this is appreciated.

[Anonymous No.11381038]

Fukuyama? More like Francis Fukushima, cause that shit was a disaster

[Anonymous No.11381129]

>>11381038
B A S E D

[Anonymous No.11381239]

>>11378215
I imagine "liberalism" as it exists today shall continue to exist in some form or another for quite a while, primarily because it's the socio-economic outlook that provides both (a) the oligarch class the greatest potential source of consumers / workerbees and (b) it appeals to the materially-minded masses in that it provides shallow social causes to promote, as well as endless amounts of consumption and media-based distractions.

We more or less live in a hive world for oligarchs to funnel money out of whilst placating the money sources (i.e. the working population) with economically-acceptable democracy and hedonistic distractions. In such a power set up, radical movements such as fascism or communism provide little mass appeal (outside of the slowly-growing disenfranchised class) and/or they can easily be co-opted by the oligarchs to give the impression of change whilst really just reinforcing the status quo.

Look at Trump, the man is a dyed-in-the-wool plutocrat who willingly fucks over his working class support base, but because he locks brown people up in cages and calls African countries "shitholes" his supporters feel like he's taking them to a perfectly-functioning ethnostate utopia.

[Anonymous No.11381243]

>>11380081
When I was in law school I couldn't stand the people around me, I was never interested in being a criminal lawyer (more academics) but it's such a garbage profession and the law is a web of immorality

[Anonymous No.11381689]

>>11380461
This exchange is like speaking to a parrot who sits in a parlor you wish someone would invite you to sit in some evening. But nobody's here except for the fucking parrot.

[Anonymous No.11381735]

how can you even think that he was right. no system ever stabilises. there is no stationary equilibrium

[Anonymous No.11382383]

>>11381689
You must imagine an engrossing conversation.