/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13670917]

What works of Iiterature genuinely disprove the statements in this image as guiding principles for raising strong men and strengthening society?

[Anonymous No.13670925]

my diary desu

[Anonymous No.13670938]

>>13670917
>You don't hear about anxiety and depression in third world countries
Boomer meme, in many of them depression is universal. Also analogues to the modern concept of depression have existed since antiquity. He's expressing not a traditional pre-modern sentiment, but a deeply contemporary and individualist one infused with American neoliberal prejudices.

[Anonymous No.13671118]

>>13670938
Yes but do you agree that anxiety disorders are only had primarily by women and faggots?
Do you also agree that strictly psychological bullying and abuse over time is something almost everyone in society goes through at one point in their lives and that the vast majority of people are mentally stable afterwards?

[Anonymous No.13671147]

>>13671118
>Yes but do you agree that anxiety disorders are only had primarily by women and faggots?
Well, I am a faggot who has an anxiety disorder so...
>Do you also agree that strictly psychological bullying and abuse over time is something almost everyone in society goes through at one point in their lives and that the vast majority of people are mentally stable afterwards?
Bullying is associated with worse outcomes for both the bully and the bullied; mental health problems, drug abuse, violent crime, poor employment, etc. People definitely are able to be bullied and come out fine or even grow from the experience, but overall it is a corrosive social phenomena. I'd also question whether the "vast majority of people are mentally stable"

[Anonymous No.13671160]

>>13671118
You just want to give yourself a pat on the back.

[Anonymous No.13671213]

>>13671118
>Do you also agree that strictly psychological bullying and abuse over time is something almost everyone in society goes through at one point in their lives
no lol, maybe at most 10% of the general American population experiences it

I was a complete fucking loser and I didn't even get bullied

[Anonymous No.13671336]

>>13671147
>but overall it is a corrosive social phenomena
Why shouldn't males who are weak be punished for their inferiority (mainly psychological predispositions) and learn how much they fail as men? Only then will weak men in society be taken out of the gene pool, learn their place and only then will come good times. This is all corrective behavior to strengthen society.
Mental resilience is the main thing. Getting your test levels up and proper nutrition from an early age etc this all helps of course, but if you're inherently psychologically weak and predisposed to things such as neuroticism, anxiety, submissiveness, lack traits to deal with others, it doesn't matter physically healthy others will always find a way to psychologically abuse you if you are inherently weak at your core.

Males become more resilient through experiencing hardship and struggling against adversity, if those who display signs of weakness are targeted they will either rise to the challenge and develop a mental and emotional resilience to what is being done to them during their developing years and do whatever they're allowed to do psychologically to their abusers or even their weaker peers or they will fold and develop debilitating mental illnesses or other psychological traits that prevent them from ever reproducing or leading a successful life to influence others. It can be a combination of both sure but the main principle being enforced still stands. Institutions of learning are the building blocks of society so these are good lessons to teach young males and why being weak as a man is bad.
This is why men in society are weak today, the institutions encourage males to be docile, conformist and to be tolerant like these are essential qualities for males to have, they aren't even told how much they're failing if they go along with this unless they have guidance from a father figure or discern things easily. Too many men in society are becoming weak. Thanks to a zero tolerance policy the valuable lesson here isn't taught, there is no trial by fire, there is no rite of passage into manhood. Those who could be strong are allowed and even encouraged to grow weak, much of the truly strong are inhibited because there is no real challenge created by these institutions other than to conform.

Why shouldn't males be tempered and hardened from an early age, separating the wheat from the chaff to guide the following generations, crippling those who would've been poor fathers and taking them out of the gene pool?
Why shouldn't it be done psychologically and why shouldn't it mainly be a prolonged test over the entirety of their developing years, a test of willpower and mental resilience?

[Anonymous No.13671344]

>>13671336
tl;dr

[Anonymous No.13671366]

>>13671344
Males are weak, society is weak and you see the symptoms everywhere.
Educational institutions are the main point of influence after parents, why shouldn't males me taught to punish the weak, crippling them psychologically and ruining their chances of procreation?
By taking away the zero tolerance policy you encourage everyone to seek out weakness and respond to it accordingly, instead of just those who have sociopathic tendencies (although these should still be encouraged for men). Its better explained in my previous post.

[Anonymous No.13671375]

>>13670917
"Real world adversity"
This "real world adversity" Assuming he is speaking about western countries, i guess is current social problems.
I think considering the current "adveristies" we face there are surely going to be a rise in depression. Climate change for example, no matter what you believe personally, is a great phenomena of worry in current times, being told that our world is slowly dying and its our fault is obvious to cause at least slight distress in the average person.
But then the question rises; Is this 9-5 lifestyle of making money and spending it just to uphold a concept of economy that rises itself like up like a crude imagining of the sun, anything we would call real?
What is the definition of real world?
Survival being the main objective for thirld world countries does not correlate with lower cases of anxiety and depression.
Correlation does not imply causation.

[Anonymous No.13671395]

>>13671336
>Why shouldn't males who are weak be punished for their inferiority (mainly psychological predispositions) and learn how much they fail as men? Only then will weak men in society be taken out of the gene pool, learn their place and only then will come good times. This is all corrective behavior to strengthen society.
You should think about the circumstances in which bullying arises -- schools where hundreds of students from different families and backgrounds are crowded together. These are not "natural" environments, they're products of an industrialised, urbanised society, and using them to paint a normative picture of human behaviour is specious at best. There is a similar effect where if you force wolves who aren't related to one another to live in each other's company they will behave aggressively and try to dominate each other, whereas in-group violence is more or less absent in packs observed in the wild. There is a common narrative in Bildungsroman novels from the 19th century where an innocent, strong, lively boy from the provincial countryside is sent off to a boarding school somewhere and becomes sickly, downcast, corrupt, neurotic.

I have to admit there is a certain attraction for me in the idea of a pitiless cult of masculine virtue, but it mainly comes from its erotic charge. Struggle, domination; wrestling bodies, yelping victims. Mm.

[Anonymous No.13671398]

>>13671366
All this stuff you're describing already happens more or less naturally. I don't see how society would benefit from institutionalizing "punishing the weak". This is the most boring kind of fascism.

[Anonymous No.13671437]

>>13671395
>where an innocent, strong, lively boy from the provincial countryside is sent off to a boarding school somewhere and becomes sickly, downcast, corrupt, neurotic.
You mean like a heterosexual becomes a submissive homosexual in his late teens after being made to feel weak and powerless and suffering sexual abuse at the hands of his male peers?
So anything is preferable compared to current technological society? In ATR if you go down this line of reasoning there is no alternative other than to get a collapse of epic proportions to revert all human advancement and as there are far less easy to obtain natural resources it would never get to this level of development and centralisation again (the goal he states). So no more literature, no more video games steven.
A lot of what happens in this society is far from how humans have naturally evolved psychologically, but you have to agree that males who are crippled by showing the slightest amount of weakness and taken out of the gene pool would make for stronger men in the following generations.
A lot of the main ills of society can be put down to men being weak like never before in history.

[Anonymous No.13671509]

>>13671336
>males who are weak
tfw no weak bf to bully and then cuddle

[Anonymous No.13671521]

>>13671509
pls be a woman (female)

[Anonymous No.13671527]

we should assrape young men early and cut off one of their limbs to toughen them up. then soon we will live in a harmonious society ruled by überstrong crippled rapevictims

[Anonymous No.13671534]

>>13671527
Only those who display weakness and whose true nature is readily apparent during their developmental years

[Anonymous No.13671538]

>>13671437
This is not happening in some free-for-all test of strength between individuals, but an institution full of ulterior motivations, weaknesses, bureaucracies, prejudices, arbitrary rules. A "strong" boy can be destroyed by the confederacy of many "weak" boys.

[Anonymous No.13671544]

>>13671534
>true nature
Anon, are you insecure about your sexuality by any chance? Your ideal world sounds like the plot for an erotic sissification novel self-published on amazon.

[Anonymous No.13671547]

It's funny how /pol/ shits on third world countries for being low IQ niggers, but praises them and gives them as example whenever convenient. Same with whenever a black person or a Mexican puts on a MAGA hat and suddenly he becomes BASED. Like nigga, if you want to be racist, just be racist, don't be a flip flopping back pedaling hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.13671563]

>>13671534
all babies are weak i could kick their arse in no time flat especially the female ones

[Anonymous No.13671566]

>>13671563
Women have always had their role in society, they're the nurturers, they've allowed themselves to be infantalized throughout history because this was the deal they made with men. Its only recently that this has become eroded by feminism and this rhetoric of comparing men to women in terms of competence. They should have a basic standard for mental stability but this rite of passage shouldn't be the emphasis for women because they are fundamentally different from men.

[Anonymous No.13671578]

>>13671566
>hates women for not being womanly enough
Damn, I bet you're the most masculine man ever. Surely you must be 6'5 and smash pussy everyday.

[Anonymous No.13671595]

>>13671547
you are simple minded

[Anonymous No.13671641]

>>13671547
Third world countries are based, it's hardships, animalistic violence, and strong men as far as the eye can see and that's exactly why they're such great societies.

[Anonymous No.13671660]

>>13671566
Females used be more competent. The problem is largely middle class feminism since the Victorian era: women who had other women working for them who considered those jobs which kept their household running beneath them are behind most of the "progress" of the past century from vacuum cleaners to disposable diapers and TV dinners. It's scuppered traditional female skills from weaving (origin of computer programming since the jacquard loom) but the march towards liberation from "work" based on incompetence only goes full steam ahead during the enlightenment. At that point, the demonstration of leisure time to pursue embroidery and its complexity demonstrated female class and intelligence, to the point of written sumptuary laws for thousands of years, began to ebb from power as it became apparent the creator and the wearer were likely unrelated and the indicators of competence, intelligence, and dedication which those garments once possessed for the wearer became increasingly associated with machinery or sweatshop workers. This left the only signifier of worth in women's appearance to wealth, rather than competence, allowing a class of grandiose hysterical invalids to buy their way into "liberation" by depriving the less wealthy for credit for their work, and socially selecting against competence and hours of dedication in favour of wealth and fast fashion.

[Anonymous No.13671666]

>>13671660
have sex

[Anonymous No.13671670]

>>13671666
Get thee behind me Satan

[Anonymous No.13671673]

>>13671670
*get thees behind u*
*has sex with your ass*

nothing personnel kid

[Anonymous No.13671674]

>>13671660
How do we fix it? New sumptuary laws?

I don't understand why normies are so upset when I suggest that women voluntarily wear burkas to reject the male gaze.

[Anonymous No.13671694]

>>13671674
Just find a girl who will knit you a sweater without complaint in under a month. The protests against niqabi make me uneasy too for similar reasons; they are worn for modesty by women who don't want their beauty to impact their social position. The only woman who rejects that in my opinion is one who is getting through life on her tits rather than her talents. I don't think sumptuary laws are the way though. Complete modesty involves modesty of talents and resources, and it would be better in my view to promote those two clearly and discretely. At the moment, talent cannot be discerned from resources, but I don't think we should go the way of the Saudis where you can only tell resources by the insane shoes women wear because everyone has the same burka which demonstrates neither resources nor talent.

[Anonymous No.13671721]

>>13670917
Things Fall Apart.

[Anonymous No.13671753]

>>13671118
Old-school bullying was a lot easier to deal with than bullies today. At least the bullying stopped when you got home, and you could always confront your bully when you were ready. That’s how I imagine bullying provides an opportunity to build character. Now, you would get expelled from fighting your bully thanks to zero tolerance policies, and cyberbullies (people you *actually* know who bully you online, not randos on Twitter who say mean things) will rob you of your peace of mind online. I know that people will laugh about not being able to deal with one or the other, but when you’re a kid and dealing with both, it’s almost like there’s not a single thing you can do to pass time without subjecting yourself to torment. And the worst part? You can’t do shit about it without making things worse.

[Anonymous No.13671755]

>>13671547
It's only funny if you're eager to posture above an argument rather than have any coherent or meaningful point. Manliness and intelligence are two different things, something you might realize if you possessed either. It's not even a false dichotomy you're presenting, it's just empty retardation. "You either have to despite 110% of everything in the third world or you're a dumb hypocrite! Lmao, orange man, BAD". Isn't it funny how those so desperately ready to incite racism are stupid niggers?

[Anonymous No.13671762]

>>13671755
>Manliness and intelligence are two different things
sure seems that way in the west bunch of effete faggots insisting to the world their onions flavored dildos are enlightenment

[Anonymous No.13671818]

>"strong men"
We organise our societies on the basis that even the strongest man cannot be totally secure from the weakest man. Strength is contextual anyway in a lot of ways.

If you only cultivate "strong" characteristics you'll end up with a society of groupthink that gets left behind by the free world.

This is trite and adolescent thinking.

[Anonymous No.13671836]

>>13671818
So assertiveness, mental stability, controlled aggression, competitiveness, lack of neuroticism, lack of anxiety, not being overemotional, being able to see things logically, psychological resilience against and the willpower to endure inevitable hardship aren't considered universally desirable characteristics for men to have?

[Anonymous No.13671862]

>>13671836
All of those traits are on a spectrum, and different points on the spectrum are appropriate at different times. The only thing that is universally desirable is the ability to moderate your own behaviour to whatever is optimal for the circumstances - but humans aren't infinitely flexible, which is why a diversity of ability is necessary.

For example, you say willpower to endure hardship. This could be rephrased as stubbornness. Stubbornness is good at some times - when simple attrition is required in the pursuit of something important - but stubbornness can also cause you to stick to your guns when you shouldn't, and turn down superior alternatives. It's the people who aren't stubborn, who are lazy, who don't think it's worth the effort, who will look for easier ways to do things.

>"but why not just be stubborn when it's required and be innovative and efficient when it's not?"
Because one man can't be both. So you need two men who are different.

This is literally ancient wisdom, by the way.

[Anonymous No.13671880]

>>13671862
Submissive vulnerability is universally considered to be a strong sign of abnormality and maladaptive weakness in a man

[Anonymous No.13671901]

>>13671880
But when it's soldiers bravely following orders to their death, you'd call it courage and not submissive vulnerability.

You're seeing the world that you need to see to justify your views, not the world as it is. Submission is essential to the smooth functioning of any kind of social system because if nobody ever does what they're told then nothing will ever get done. A purely transactional social system wouldn't work because it wouldn't actually be a social system - pure transactionalism would require an absolute lack of sentimental connections between anyone involved, which means that social organisation would be impossible. Seeing as sentiment is a heuristic for evolutionary advantageous behaviour, each organism in the transactional system would have to replace sentiment with rational understanding of the cost/benefit of each and every one of the hundred sentiment-based but mutually beneficial activities that we all do every day. Such an organism doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.13672285]

>>13671880
But you realise submission is an adaptive trait and necessary for society to exist. Humans will exhibit dominance and submissiveness based on when it is expedient, sometimes you profit from submissive behaviour. There can’t be the dominant men you dream of without submissive men for them to dominate, and all people on the dominant end of the spectrum still have those who exist above them to submit to. You can’t have a hierarchy if everyone is a hotshot maverick. We are ‘programmed’ for survival and reproduction, not universal, unequivocal manliness.

[Anonymous No.13672301]

>>13672285
>We are ‘programmed’ for survival and reproduction, not universal, unequivocal manliness.
How do homosexuals/transsexuals come into this equation? Can you at least agree that they are inherently unwanted socially, morally, when it comes to diseases and other things aside from the obvious in any successful self propagating system?

[Anonymous No.13672477]

>>13672301
>How do homosexuals/transsexuals come into this equation?
That would be for you to articulate, retard. Stop hiding behind questions and make an argument. Here, I'll show you:

Homosexuals are inherently incompatible with a successful society because...

But you won't be able to fill in the blank because your arguments are fucking shit. You think that they're rational because you use big words and appeal to concepts you think are objective, but the truth is you're just so immersed in your own ideology that you can no longer differentiate facts from opinions. You get your ideas pre-packed from YouTube intellectuals or /pol/yps and then regurgitate them onto other boards and websites where your 8th grade ability to reason and political dilettantism is just enough of an intellectual advantage to let you smugly condescend your way through "arguments" without real opposition.

What do you actually believe? Describe your values without reference to politics or ideology. Can you? If all you're doing is responding to politics, you're not engaging in philosophy and you are not thinking for yourself. Your political opinions should stem from clearly articulated axiomatic statements about your values - not from muh feelings about muh homos.

The point is that homosexuals don't come into this equation at all. Your whining about strong men is retarded bullshit, and homosexuals cannot save you from the consequences of that retardation. The concept of manliness is one of many necessary social controls which have emerged to promote certain behaviours and censure others. It is useful at times and manipulative at others. There is nothing virtuous about manliness except insofar as its role as a social control facilitates other virtuousness and you will not be able to articulate a values statement which makes manliness virtuous without sounding like a fucking moron. Espousing the concept of manliness is simply a way to persuade morons who don't understand philosophy (i.e. people like you) to do certain things by appealing to their ego.

[Anonymous No.13672626]

>>13672477
I knew this was coming
Anyway thanks for the laugh