/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16675258]

Does the fact that almost all book circles are incredibly left wing hint that the left is objectively the more intellectual side?

[Anonymous No.16675267]

yeah. although genius writers never fit into a specific political tribe and are usually nuanced

[Anonymous No.16675286]

>>16675258
Yes, obviously. The left is also the only group of people legitimately concerned with preserving tradition and society from commodification. The right lives in a fantasy land, and most societal problems they see are pure projection.

[Anonymous No.16675304]

oh my fucking god don't you faggots ever get tired of posting the same fucking thots again and again? sick of seeing these fucking bitches

[Anonymous No.16675363]

There are so few genuinely honest and curious intellectuals in the world that to attempt to categorise them by political beliefs is to bow out of the search for truth.

[Anonymous No.16675396]

>>16675363
This. It's as relevant as obsessing over categorising them by whether or not they eat breakfast in the morning. You have to wonder if the people posting these things understand 'intellectual' to mean playing into the same image I like.

[Anonymous No.16675409]

>>16675258
The fact that this was not true until the 1960s. It hints to the fact that academia has been handed over to Marxist infiltrators.

[Anonymous No.16675416]

>>16675258
The only book circles I've ever see that don't read fiction garbage have been priest/theology student book circles.

[Anonymous No.16675417]

>>16675409
You mean to say that printing became cheaper so lower class people were able to become well read

[Anonymous No.16675432]

>>16675417
Yes
Educating the proles without teaching them high culture was a mistake

[Anonymous No.16675453]

>>16675258
book circles are inherently faux-left-whatever bourgeois. We also have a bourgeois right-wing book circle with a YouTube channel in our city and they are incredibly dull and don't discuss serious literature at all. Book circles are generally made up of the kind of people that Goethe would have called Philister.

[Anonymous No.16675458]

>>16675258
yes but you made the mistake of believing intellectual is a positive when in reality it means circle jerking. i’ve enjoyed some books by left wing authors but the truth of the matter is the right wing doesn’t really exist outside of the internet. it’s extremely small though it may become bigger in the future. most left wingers i have talked to are not intelligent or not more intelligent than their right wing counterparts. i can tell OP is dumb because he just associates popularity as evidence of truth..

[Anonymous No.16675464]

>>16675363
100%

So tiresome seeing the constant "left" or "right" thinking with maybe a "centre" thrown in. It is an oversimplification. People are rarely this easily categorized unless they fight hard to put themselves there.

[Anonymous No.16675466]

right wing has been anti-intellectual many times in history , like protesting teaching evolution, they then wonder why higher academia is filled with lefties

[Anonymous No.16675481]

>>16675466
Christianity is inherently left wing.

[Anonymous No.16675486]

>>16675258
>The majority is superior
Retard

[Anonymous No.16675527]

>>16675481
>left wing

[Anonymous No.16675529]

>>16675464
It’s difficult for Americans to have a fair perspective on this, I think, because of how corrupt their politics is. They are taught from childhood that they live in a democracy, and so, in order to not go insane, they make themselves believe that the monstrous, pseudo-Manichaean division between the two parties is somehow a natural state — a true reflection of the different ways you can think about the world.

[Anonymous No.16675545]

>>16675529
Left, right doesn't exist outside America?

[Anonymous No.16675546]

Self-described leftists are the most pretentious people in existence.

[Anonymous No.16675554]

How is rejecting reality in favor of feelings and opinion, 'intellectual'?

[Anonymous No.16675594]

>>16675545
It does, and is still a very limiting dichotomy, but ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ are less loaded terms. In the USA, you can’t say you’re ‘right-wing’ without people dismissing you as a racist, homophobic abortion-hater, and you can’t say you’re ‘left-wing’ without people despising you as a communist.

[Anonymous No.16675624]

>>16675546
>shooting qt commie gf instead of raping
ngmi

[Anonymous No.16675653]

>>16675624
What do you mean what do you think I added that extra few holes for?

[Anonymous No.16675655]

>>16675258
no, they just gravitate towards groups because otherwise their lives have no meaning or purpose. most leftists will hurt themselves if left alone too long.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NWvER50j2oQ

[Anonymous No.16675764]

I'd say since liberals tend to be wealthier they just have more free time. Also liberals tend to live in close proximity to other people. I'm conservative and live in the middle of nowhere.

[Anonymous No.16675789]

>>16675466
> protesting teaching evolution
It is funny that in America the main antagonist of teaching evolution in schools was William Jennings Bryan, left-wing hero.

[Anonymous No.16675795]

Yes. Higher IQ is associated with higher propensity for mental illness, so leftism is unfortunately common among intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.16675836]

i want to fuck an asian so bad

[Anonymous No.16675846]

>>16675554
Not an argument, faggot.

[Anonymous No.16675895]

>>16675258
>He believes in wings
Get this clown out of here lmao

[Anonymous No.16676002]

>>16675409
wasn't there a letter wherein lovecraft was talking about how most intellectuals were left-wing all the way in the 1930s?

[Anonymous No.16676004]

>>16675836

They smell like fish though, I don't know how you get over that.

[Anonymous No.16676006]

Books in leftoids circles
>The subtle art of not giving a f*ck
>White fragility
>Something on "antiracism"
>Marx, only to be filtered

Very intellectual.

[Anonymous No.16676007]

>>16675286
fuck you for making me reply to this bait

[Anonymous No.16676014]

>>16675304
This

[Anonymous No.16676023]

>>16676004
nah they dont

[Anonymous No.16676024]

>>16675258
The specimen you have to be to create bait threads to get attention from strangers, very tragic
Intelligence in a specialised field isn't wisdom/political competence

[Anonymous No.16676202]

>>16675258
Eagles fly alone, but sheep flock together.

[Anonymous No.16676222]

>>16675258
>academics who spend all their time bitching about capitalism suddenly turn into ludwig von mises and surmise that they must succeed in this capitalistic paradigm because they are the smartest and most worthy

like pottery

[Anonymous No.16676255]

>>16676202
Quotes are for sheeps.

[Anonymous No.16676297]

No, just that rightwingers tend to be incredibly stupid. They’d probably be illiterate if they could fit it within their return to monke bullshit

[Anonymous No.16676325]

>>16675363
This.

[Anonymous No.16676384]

>>16675258
Eliot, Pound, W. Lewis, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, all either right-wing or so radically left-wing as to be rejected by most leftists. Great writers and artists have always tended to take up intellectual extremes, and politics is no exception. For every great left-wing author, there is a complementary right-wing one.

But in answer to your qeustion, we happen to live in a culturally leftist time, so unsurprisingly many literary circles are populated by leftists. In the time of Eliot, Pound, Lewis, Ford, and Joyce, fascism and extreme-far-right ideas were common in such circles. The current cultural and social mores say nothing about the inherent intellectuality of a political position.

[Anonymous No.16676409]

I would assume this depends on the political context of individual states. I know American research shows that more educated individuals and individuals with higher IQ tend towards the left wing party and favor more left wing political ideas. However, this is probably skewed by how antiscientific the American right has become.

I have deep issues with "wokeism" on both an ontological basis (a lot of it is unfalsifiable pseudoscience), and personal level. But I'll never fit in on a right where global warming is fake, ocean acidification (also driven by carbon and on a very firm basis) is fake, etc.

Research also shows that high IQ individuals are more likely to be religious, which trends with the right in America, but might not be the case everywhere. The more intelligent someone is, the more likely they are to hold idiosyncratic views and not subscribe to all their parties major views.

The shocking thing to me is just how well the leaders of the right have been able to turn conservatives against environmentalism. It seems like this is an area where they should be leading. A carbon tax would make foreign goods more expensive and bring manufacturing back home. Greater mitigation today means less changes to our way of life tomorrow, etc. I've seen people on /pol/ be legit pro littering though. "Drill baby drill" I guess. Don't use hybrid engines, because they're "gay...."

[Anonymous No.16676424]

Daily reminder that the right are inherently anti-intellectual because what they want isn't evidence-based policy to curb social ills but policies that simply improve their position of power at the expense of the poor.

[Anonymous No.16676429]

>>16676424
>policies that simply improve their position of power at the expense of the poor
to be fair this is what the left wants as well. its what all politics want. because politics is a stupid game for the powerful to influence the poor.

[Anonymous No.16676433]

No it's because book circles are very gay, so they attract feminine men

[Anonymous No.16676436]

>>16675258
>Does the fact that almost all book circles are incredibly left wing hint that the left is objectively the more intellectual side?

Did you also notice they only read fiction?

[Anonymous No.16676516]

>>16675258
I want an Asian gf so fucking badly...

[Anonymous No.16676625]

>>16675258
Intelligence and creativity are not the same thing

[Anonymous No.16676698]

>>16675481
No, it isn't and you are confusing socialism with left-wing ideals. Socialism is neither left-wing nor right-wing.

[Anonymous No.16676707]

books are usually rectangular you leftist

[Anonymous No.16676730]

>>16675258
By nature, yes. But it's more likely that they're all jacking each other off in an echo chamber. However, same likely goes for the right.

[Anonymous No.16676896]

>>16676255
Its a proverb not a quote, amoeba

[Anonymous No.16676947]

>>16675258
Cause right-wing circles are more pragmatic (or focused on praxis, in Marxist terms), they rather act to change their country than sit around writing books and shit, both to their detriment and advantage.

Although, it highly depends on your definition on the outdated concept of left and right wing. To me it's first position (liberal capitalism, the West, etc.), second position (communism, socialism, Marxism, etc.), and the third position (fascism, idealism, distributism, etc.) If you frame it that way, then I'd argue all of them are just as intellectually grounded.

[Anonymous No.16676948]

>he believes in the left vs right dichotomy