/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17279927]

Any books on how to write essays? Specifically word choice and phrasing. I can get my point across but it looks like a very autistic analytical paper instead of something enjoyable to read.

[Anonymous No.17279965]

>>17279927
Start at the beginning of the study of Rhetoric with Aristotle's Rhetoric. Everything else in the field of persuasion and communication is just a footnote to that book.

[Anonymous No.17279971]

>>17279927
Don't know of any how-tos, but I've always found that after reading 3-4 essays, I naturally start to think in the form that I would also like to write in.

[Anonymous No.17280056]

>>17279927
>Chomsky
>Scruton
>Cohen
>Hume
>Wagner

We're rather similar, OP.
Look for "How to Write Well" by Donald Hall. It's on Library Genesis. I have only skimmed it, but the author was one of the best American poets of the last decades. If I remember correctly, it contains a section on essays.

[Anonymous No.17280502]

>>17279927
>Destiny
Twitch streamers aren't intellectuals

[Anonymous No.17280518]

>>17280056
>it's the "marxist" interpreter of Wagner

[Anonymous No.17280545]

>>17279927
incredible bait

[Anonymous No.17280553]

>>17280502
You say this but I watch him tear down professor after professor in debate. Everyone is scared to debate him.

[Anonymous No.17280568]

>>17280545
It's not bait

[Anonymous No.17281246]

>>17280568
No one old enough to post on here should be thinking of destiny as anything other than a dancing monkey in the modern political spectacle. Agree with him if you must, but at least idolize the people whose ideas he adheres to

[Anonymous No.17281301]

>>17280553
>You say this but I watch him tear down professor after professor in debate. Everyone is scared to debate him.
He can't even win a debate vs a faggot with a black boyfriend
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZR3O9OCgik&ab_channel=Destiny

[Anonymous No.17281305]

>>17281246
Not everything has to be economic papers.

[Anonymous No.17281312]

>>17281301
>2016 Era Destiny
Haven't seen that debate but it's low hanging fruit. Don't post the first debates of a child before he become a man as a btfo. The fact that's 2016 era Destiny is the only thing anyone posts is testament to how smart he now is.

[Anonymous No.17281334]

>>17281312
Why are you like this? You are literally masturbating to someone's else supposed achievements, fucking loser faggot. Also watch the video, see your big man(lol) get BTFO by a fag.

[Anonymous No.17281345]

>>17279927
I want you to walk into a lake and to stay there.

[Anonymous No.17281347]

>>17281305
your comparison is as inane as you'd expect from someone who looks up to a streamer.

[Anonymous No.17281351]

>>17279927
find a contemporary book of published essays on your field of interest and take note of style

[Anonymous No.17281360]

>>17281334
>>17281347
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.17281377]

>>17280553
that guy is so fucking retard, his idea of a socialist is some faggot on twitter. When you win against a LARPer it's not something to be proud of.
And on top of that he has almost no understanding of philosophy, he even said Nietzsche was a nihilist. Fucking 9th grade level shit.

[Anonymous No.17281399]

>>17281360
I'm not trying to argue with you because there's no point, if you're not able to understand why we're not entertaining your behaviors then you are beyond saving.
>>17281377
you explained it, misconstruing arguments within the realm of your shallow understanding and then posing as an intellectual for children and sycophants on the internet doesn't make your smart, even moreso not worth idolization.

[Anonymous No.17281404]

>>17281360
He got bodied by even Tim Pool when got invited him by him to his show last year. Go find it on youtube. Now go masturbate loser cuck.

[Anonymous No.17281430]

>>17281377
He understands every form socialism and has said on stream numerous times that he isn't against leftists only twitter leftists. He has debated numerous left wing professors like Michael Albert and Ben Burgis.

[Anonymous No.17281439]

>>17281404
>He got bodied by even Tim Pool
no

[Anonymous No.17281451]

>>17281305
I can’t be mad at you. I remember being in middle/high school. I jumped on the anti-sjw bandwagon just as it was emerging from the corpse of YouTube atheism. Thus, I was an anti-woke secular liberal in a highly progressive urban center. I idolized the youtubers who informed my fledgling worldview as intellectual titans. I remember seeing a video wherin some British guy claims that the amazing atheist (one of my favourite channels during that early portion of my political development) was actually a great philosopher. Apparently, the philosophical communities rejection of him was elitist, and based on the antiquated notion that one must read endless ancient tomes to have anything worthwhile to say. I ate this up, since I was looking for any excuse to venerate those personalities whom I considered my prime influences. Of course, tj is completely illiterate in basic philosophical matters, but I did not know this at the time (nor did I want to). All of this is to say that I understand your childish desire to hold on to these Internet personalities as more than mere entertainers, pickers of the low-hanging fruit. But doing so will only stunt your ideological maturation.

[Anonymous No.17281462]

>>17281451
So everything has to be economic papers?

[Anonymous No.17281464]

>>17281439
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngg97NyspBo&ab_channel=TimcastIRL
Yes you can watch it yourself.

[Anonymous No.17281474]

>>17281464
I already watched it he never got bodied. He actually held himself back I think because this was in person and he didn't want to come off as toxic and made it more into a discussion than him trying to btfo like he would anyone else.

[Anonymous No.17281497]

>>17281474
>He actually held himself back
That's what apologists of him always say, everytime he loses a debate he calls it a "discussion"

[Anonymous No.17281500]

>>17281497
Show me one point in the debate where he got bodied.

[Anonymous No.17281504]

>>17281462
If phrasing it like that will help you understand, then sure.

[Anonymous No.17281505]

>>17281430
>Michael Albert and Ben Burgis.
Who?

[Anonymous No.17281519]

>>17281500
Every time Tim tells me him how fraudulent journalism and news media is, destiny has no fucking idea of that, he's ignorant of it nor he has any experience like Tim has. Not knowing what the great reset is, defending the federal reserve, the same institution devaluing the money for years. But i don't blame destiny, he's just a Keynesian/mmt retard believer.

[Anonymous No.17281527]

>>17281504
That's a boring life.

[Anonymous No.17281532]

>>17281505
You never heard of Parecon? Do you know who Chomsky is?

[Anonymous No.17281537]

>>17281519
Now I understand why you think Destiny got bodied. You are one of those federal reserve tinfoil hat retards

[Anonymous No.17281541]

>>17281532
>Chomsky
The guy who supported Chavez of Venezuela at one time? Yeah what a joker he is.

[Anonymous No.17281550]

>>17281537
Not an argument. Get fucked kid.

[Anonymous No.17281554]

>>17281541
Why do you reply to posts that aren't yours

[Anonymous No.17281556]

>>17281527
Yes. I suppose that what destiny lacks in intellectual depth and scholarship he makes up for in loud noises and pretty colours.

[Anonymous No.17281560]

>>17281550
You have worms in your brain. You are the equivalent of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and you don't even know it like how a schizo doesn't know the voices aren't real.

[Anonymous No.17281561]

>>17281554
That's my post

[Anonymous No.17281566]

>>17281556
Why don't you debate him and we can see how much economics you know?

[Anonymous No.17281573]

>>17281561
The original post from the guy who said he doesn't understand leftism. You responded to my reply to him.

[Anonymous No.17281577]

>>17281560
Not an argument, you can ad hominem and strawman all you want like a bitch in heat, loser.

[Anonymous No.17281580]

>>17281577
You can't argue with a flat earther. It doesn't matter what you say. Nothing will get past them. You are dug in too deep.

[Anonymous No.17281585]

>>17281580
Keep strawman lmao, you are just like your idol destiny, go masturbate to his voice, cuck.

[Anonymous No.17281594]

>>17281585
A general guideline is stick to academic consensus. There is usually a reason why something has a consensus and it's not because "all academics are jewish controlled".

[Anonymous No.17281597]

>>17281573
Him? This is my post>>17281505

[Anonymous No.17281599]

>>17281594
>not all academics are jewish controlled
is this bait?

[Anonymous No.17281602]

>>17281597
Yes? You replied to my reply to him which made me think you were him. Usually you would reply "not that guy but who is that?".

[Anonymous No.17281604]

>>17281594
I'm jewish myself, don't know what you are talking about anymore, schizo.

[Anonymous No.17281607]

>>17281566
You are aware that there exist other fields of study than just economics, right? In fact, one might go so far as to say that understanding economics is but one part of a worldview. In any case, I’m a poor public speaker as compared to destiny, but my personal inability to debate him (which will probably not be the case given enough time) is irrelevant to whether or not he deserves to be considered an influence by an intellectually serious adult. His ideas are unoriginal and banal, so he is not a respectable influence regardless of his ability to articulate his positions. Not that he’s particularly exceptional as a rhetorician outside of his ability to entertain as an object of spectacle.

[Anonymous No.17281608]

>>17281602
I'm so confused right now

[Anonymous No.17281618]

>>17281607
His ideas are just academic consensus explained in simple terms? How else should he go about it? Do you have any actual arguments against anything he says? You can always find exceptions but as a whole everything he says is right.

[Anonymous No.17281621]

>>17281608
I gave those names to that leftist guy. When you replied I thought you were a leftist like him which is why I responded as I did.

[Anonymous No.17281624]

>>17281377
debate him then. he will literally debate you tomorrow. his email is open for anybody. you will simply not win a debate against him, but you are too scared to anyway and in any case you will blame him for using "sneaky debate tactics" as either a reason to not debate him or a reason why you clearly lost it

[Anonymous No.17281645]

>>17281624
Destiny has been hiding from Stefan Molyneux for years even fucking Vaush does it, but destiny? He's a scared bitch.

[Anonymous No.17281663]

>>17281618
Well, one cannot build a worldview on academic consensus alone. The idea that a post-ideology world wherein experts and technocrats will simply discern the scientifically correct answer to every issue of public policy is frankly a fantasy. It speaks more to the cultural hegemony on progressive liberalism than anything else. More importantly though, why would you consider destiny an influence if all he does is parrot the academic consensus and uphold a generally liberal worldview?

[Anonymous No.17281674]

>>17281645
What? Destiny has been trying to debate him

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1047&v=_lupNC71hMU&feature=youtu.be

[Anonymous No.17281679]

>>17281663
Ah so you are just another dumb fuck leftie. I thought you were a serious person. I don't need to take lefties seriously the same way I don't need to take Austrian economists seriously

[Anonymous No.17281691]

>>17281679
I’m literally a far-right reactionary you dipshit.

[Anonymous No.17281709]

>>17281691
Even worse.

[Anonymous No.17281728]

>>17281709
Very convenient that you feel entitled to dismiss without consideration those attacks on your worldview which cannot be made to go away by quoting statistics. It speaks to your intellectual cowardice that you refuse to entertain even the possibility that valid criticism of liberalism at a fundamental level could exist.

[Anonymous No.17281736]

>>17281728
Your politics are the equivalent of flat earth. I can handwave anything you say and it would be valid.

[Anonymous No.17281756]

>>17281674
And destiny has never agreed on what topic to debate, for years they ended up never debating because a topic never gets settled and they both refuse certain topics

[Anonymous No.17281759]

>>17281756
He just said he wouldn't debate him because he is pro-violence. He is a pussy

[Anonymous No.17281771]

>>17281736
Dismissal of someone’s argument without merely out of your lack of desire to engage is quite literally the opposite of a valid argument.

[Anonymous No.17281787]

>>17281771
Do you actually think you need to seriously reply to flat earthers?

[Anonymous No.17281788]

>>17281430
>>17281624
>I'm already wrong unless I do what you say
jack me off queer

[Anonymous No.17281808]

>>17281787
You have an intellectual responsibility to engage with criticism of your ideology. You cannot merely dismiss everyone outside of the Overton window as a conspiratorial loon and be done with it. Like it or not, critics of the fundamental precepts of liberalism are far more intellectually serious than flat earthers, and even if we weren’t, refusing to engage makes you the automatic loser of every discussion.

[Anonymous No.17281830]

>>17281808
There has been engagement in academia and the debate is over. There is a reason we aren't debating Aristotelian physics anymore.

[Anonymous No.17281868]

>>17281830
Actually, Aristotle is still very much a subject of debate is multiple philosophical fields. His writings on ethics is particularly influential to this day.

Anyone who thinks that we have reached “the end of history” as a certain famous charlatan claimed is an irredeemable fool. Do not hide behind the ubiquity of your ideology out of fear of engaging with ideas you do not understand. The fact is that we are far from definitively proving which political system is best, and many competing theories have serious intellectuals behind them. You cannot solve all issues of human affairs merely by looking at statistics. All systems of political power, even liberal capitalist democracy, have fundamental values and assumptions which may be subject to critique. Now, you are perfectly entitled to find those critiques unconvincing but you must explain why that is so.

[Anonymous No.17281885]

>>17281868
>Actually, Aristotle is still very much a subject of debate is multiple philosophical fields. His writings on ethics is particularly influential to this day.
I said physics.
>Anyone who thinks that we have reached “the end of history” as a certain famous charlatan claimed is an irredeemable fool.
I never said it's the end of history but just because we aren't at the end of history doesn't mean I need to take unironic feudalism seriously.

[Anonymous No.17281901]

>>17281885
Your overarching point, though, was that academics have settled the debate between liberalism and other forms of political organization. This is simply not the case. There’s really not more to say here. Any serious academic, even an ardent liberal, would laugh in your face if you said such a patently wrongheaded thing to them. I don’t know where you got the idea that I’m an advocate of feudalism, but I get the impression that you don’t think critically very often so I’ll just assume that you went off intuition. You would be wrong, though.

[Anonymous No.17281924]

>>17281901
I never said they settled the debate. There is always going to criticism and change but I don't have to debate whether feudalism is the best system or not. I can handwave that. If your argument is that as a far right reactionary you could have some valid criticism of liberalism then I would agree with you but and we could debate those but that doesn't mean I have to debate the validity of things like phrenology, feudalism or the holocaust since that debate is over.
>Any serious academic, even an ardent liberal, would laugh in your face if you said such a patently wrongheaded thing to them
Not true. Academics handwave heterodox without blinking. Hence the term heterodox.
> I’m an advocate of feudalism,
You deduction skills are not great. I'm not calling you a feudalist I'm just using it an example.

[Anonymous No.17281950]

>>17281924
Are you really trying to pretend that you didn’t explicitly say (multiple times) that my anti liberal politics were grounds for not engaging in debate? Don’t backtrack and act like you were only talking about the Holocaust and feudalism.

[Anonymous No.17282010]

>>17281950
It's a mix a things. Your far right politics say that you aren't going to be serious and it's not going to be a substantive debate. 99% of the time you aren't actually going to have a serious talk about policy and economics with a far righter so you can usually handwave them simply for being far right since far right politics don't hold up to scrutiny. Most academics are centrist. It's valid for them to handwave Austrian economists because Austrian economists are retarded and don't do serious objective work. Personally I would say we should engage about specific topics. If you wanted to talk about healthcare we could talk about that and I think I would have to engage with any criticisms you gave if they were serious criticisms but I don't have debate you about how you think liberalism is worse than the fascist ethnostate. You understand?

[Anonymous No.17282075]

>>17282010
Just because you personally find an alternative viewpoint to be ridiculous doesn’t mean that you’re suddenly exempt from addressing the arguments of said point. You don’t have to engage with political extremist thought if you don’t want to, but if you want to actively claim that they’re wrong you’ll have to do more than just handwave. It’s arrogance at best and foolishness at worst. Also, many academics are not centrists and a good number hold extreme political opinions, especially in the humanities.

[Anonymous No.17282103]

>twitch streamer
>chomsky with conservatives
>leonard cohen with conservatives
epic b8

[Anonymous No.17282107]

>>17282075
There are things that have been proven wrong in academia though. You don't have to debate things that have been killed in academia for being wrong. Can you give me an example of some part of far right politics that you think people should be debating?

>Also, many academics are not centrists and a good number hold extreme political opinions, especially in the humanities.
Depends on the degree usually they exist in Literature departments and stuff like that.

[Anonymous No.17282112]

>>17281377
Because those are modern socialists
He has debated many of them and destroyed all of them

[Anonymous No.17282120]

>>17282103
Twitch is the new public square and major platform for young people. If we wish to spread ideas, we must engage with platforms like Twitch and Tiktok whether you like it or not. This is were the action and communication is happening today

[Anonymous No.17282123]

>>17281497
>not being an asshole to someone who platforms you means you lose the debate

[Anonymous No.17282130]

>>17282120
Doesn’t make the people on those platforms any more respectable as thinkers.

[Anonymous No.17282134]

>>17282120
twitch and tiktok aren't used much for political discourse or debates, they're used more to stream games and shitty memes

[Anonymous No.17282158]

Correct
>>17282130
Wrong
>>17282134
But increasingly they are

[Anonymous No.17282180]

>>17282158
> wrong
So their ideas are inherently more intellectually worthwhile simply by virtue of their popularity?

[Anonymous No.17282190]

>>17282180
Yes. If it’s more popular more people are affected by it being discussed, so it is more useful to talk about.

[Anonymous No.17282196]

>>17281560
>You are the equivalent of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist
Newsflash shitass everyone is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

[Anonymous No.17282227]

There is not a single post ITT that isn't bait. Impressive. I have no idea how you people haven't gone insane yet.

[Anonymous No.17282263]

>>17282190
But I wasn’t saying anything if their influence. I said that being influential didn’t make their ideas any more worthwhile

[Anonymous No.17282267]

>>17282103
Get out of the echo chamber my guy

[Anonymous No.17282276]

>>17282227
there's one actually and it got completely ignored. this thread deserves to be deleted.

[Anonymous No.17282301]

>>17282263
Sure

[Anonymous No.17282392]

>>17282130
You know you would lose in a debate to him right? You talk like this but he would make you look like a retatrd

[Anonymous No.17282403]

>>17282392
A debate about what?

[Anonymous No.17282409]

I rarely post anything sincere on 4chan but here goes. If you watch twitch streamers or similar youtube personalities as a regular thing, you need to fix your life. Seriously, you are on a dark path.

[Anonymous No.17282422]

>>17282403
Whether being on a specific platforms automatically means your ideas are wrong or really any topic at all. He specializes in politics. Send him an email and he will have you on.

[Anonymous No.17282423]

>>17282392
Debates aren't about win or lose dipshit. It's all about who can whine the hardest like a histrionic bitch.

[Anonymous No.17282424]

>>17282409
You post on 4chan. Is that any better?

[Anonymous No.17282426]

>>17279927
cursed .jpg

[Anonymous No.17282428]

>>17282424
yes

[Anonymous No.17282432]

>>17282423
People say who this are people who are retarded and can't debate or aren't confident enough in their own beliefs.

[Anonymous No.17282436]

>>17282422
>He specializes in politics.
I don't believe in politics, the social contract doesn't exist. Anyone who believes in politics is a naive child.

[Anonymous No.17282445]

>>17282428
I've learned more from Destiny that I have in 2 years of 4chan. Destiny is literally like a textbook course. I have a surface level but deep enough to understand knowledge on philosophy, politics, economics, and a bunch of other shit. He literally has 3 hour discussions with philosophy professors about metaethics. The most I learn on this website is the name of obscure reactionary philosophers. What would be a better use of my time?

[Anonymous No.17282453]

>>17282436
How come the people who post on this board are tinfoil hat retards. It must just be /pol/ posters who see Destiny and start seething. I shouldn't take anyone who shits on him seriously.

[Anonymous No.17282456]

>>17282445
Copypasta-tier bait

[Anonymous No.17282464]

>>17282445
The rare perfect bait

[Anonymous No.17282465]

>>17282432
>confident enough in their own beliefs.
Hello? Earth to faggot dipshit? People don't have their "own beliefs". People parrot other's beliefs, and they don't even believe in them. They are "confident", as in obnoxious and belligerent, about beliefs that aren't theirs and don't believe in.

[Anonymous No.17282479]

>>17282445
Holy fuck that was good. Thanks for this.

[Anonymous No.17282519]

>>17282456
>>17282464
>>17282479
It's not bait

[Anonymous No.17282539]

>>17282519
Sure it’s not

[Anonymous No.17282549]

>>17279927
This image is fucking horrifying. If this is some kind of elaborate LARP you pulled it off OP.

[Anonymous No.17282611]

>>17282539
Literally name a debate of his and I will give you the run down with time stamps. I'm not fucking bating. I can talk about his discussion with Michael Albert on participatory economics. His debates with Ben Burgis one on rent control one on socialism. Debate with John Lott on Gun Control (he lost sadly). Two debates with Fuentes on Immigration. Eric Striker debate (good memes on music). Him taking the autism test with Martin Shrekli and discussing pharma. Debates with Rem on everything from metaethics to epistemology to aesthetics. I can go down the list of all things I've learned from him. This would take hours but I'll just spam what I can in a short period of time

A general understanding of philosophy metaethics. I can discuss Moral Anti-realism, Cognitivism, Emotivism, Kantian ethics, Moral luck, prescriptivism, Error theory etc etc etc. He talks about applied/normative ethics stuff. I can discuss the arguments for and against veganism, trans issues/stats, rights etc. Stuff abut music theory and history. Harmony, melody. Objectivity in art. A pretty good understanding of politics and economics in every area. I can discuss all sorts of policy and political things like healthcare, syria, abortion, immigration, housing, statistics. Just about all types of politics. You don't even wanna know how much I know about Borjas without even reading him. I know the arguments for and against so many topics (at least 50) like a dialogue tree. You name me a political or philosophical belief and topic and I can go down and dialogue tree what their argument is going to be and what the counter argument is that and the counter counter argument to that. All of this just from watching hours upon hours of Destiny debating. It's turned me into a mini destiny.

[Anonymous No.17282635]

>>17282611
Lmao

[Anonymous No.17282645]

>>17282611
Wow. Do you have these saved?

[Anonymous No.17282653]

>>17282112
>vaush
>a Socialist

pick one

[Anonymous No.17282654]

>>17282611
Autism.

[Anonymous No.17282664]

>>17279927
For beginners:
Building Great Sentences by Brooks Landon

[Anonymous No.17282682]

>>17282549
It's not a bait and I can give the run down. Chomsky is the initial influence of mine. The first person I started reading as a teenager and gave me probably 70% of my current believes. He is kinda self-explanatory the breadth of knowledge on politics. Destiny came later but gave me a general overview of other topics that Chomsky didn't talk about much like philosophy and economics. Along with this Destiny's centrism really brought me to earth and away from the more radical socialists. I actually think Chomsky and Destiny are not as far apart as people might think. Chomsky does not think socialism is going to come tomorrow so he supports social democratic centrist action in the mean time which is the same type of centrism Destiny believes in. Destiny is a fan of Chomsky even though he is a centrist capitalist.

I'm a traditionalist in everything but politics and economics. It seems odd but I don't let my philosophical beliefs get in the way of my politics. This is why I'm a leftist but a strong supporter of Scruton who's arguments for traditionalism art and society really speak to me.

Wagner is Wagner. Nothing further needed. Same with Cohen.The greatest modern lyricist to ever exist.

Griffith is on their not for any political or philosophical reason but for artistic ones. He has really been the main inspiration for my photography and cinematography. I take a lot from historical filmmakers.

Hume is Hume. His philosophy sums up how the modern man thinks.

[Anonymous No.17282689]

>>17282645
It's not bait and I'm serious. Ask me anything and I will answer.

[Anonymous No.17282690]

>>17282682
Are you twelve?

[Anonymous No.17282696]

>>17282682
What's your IQ anon?

[Anonymous No.17282699]

>>17282696
I've never had it tested.

[Anonymous No.17282702]

>>17282689
Post the txt file where you have all of these prewritten.

[Anonymous No.17282704]

>>17282702
I really hate when people say you are baiting. It's like when you are child and your mom doesn't take you seriously. Nothing more frustrating.

[Anonymous No.17282709]

Why can't I see backquotes ITT?

[Anonymous No.17282710]

>>17282696
My IQ is 169. For those of you unfamiliar with IQ, this means I have "genius-level" intelligence.

I also have synaesthesia, and absolute pitch. Things as diverse as math, music, and art come naturally to me and I get straight A's without studying much at all. I also am able to understand music at a deeper level than most people.

While most people my age spend their free time listening to mainstream music, I spend my free time listening to works such as Jerry Garcia Band's Cats Under the Stars, Frank Turner's Sleep Is for the Week and Love Ire & Song.

All this and I'm an 18 year old still in high school.

Ask me anything.

[Anonymous No.17282711]

>>17282704
Because you are a child. This reads like something a toddler wrote, who just discovered politics via youtube and twitch streamers and picks his favourite standpoint like he is at the ideological supermarket.

[Anonymous No.17282712]

>>17282704
How old are you? What do you do for a living? What's your life like?

[Anonymous No.17282716]

>>17282682
Please fucking stop. I'm in pain.

[Anonymous No.17282717]

>>17281594

That’s idiotic. I’m not anti central bank in the abstract of the central bank is public, but that’s just a stupid criteria. The academic consensus of mainstream neoliberal economics has led to asset stripping and financialization now.

[Anonymous No.17282718]

>>17282711
You say this but my beliefs are based on academic consensus and are very pragmatic.

[Anonymous No.17282721]

>>17282712
I'm almost 21. I'm in school. And my life is not good right now but I'm not trying to blogpost with my emotions.

[Anonymous No.17282724]

>>17282611
>>17282704
Bless your autism anon
How do you retain all of this shit?

[Anonymous No.17282726]

>>17282611
>You name me a political or philosophical belief and topic and I can go down and dialogue tree what their argument is going to be and what the counter argument is that and the counter counter argument to that.
Destiny is an entertainer Anon, this shit isn't actually a game.

[Anonymous No.17282727]

>>17282718
>academic consensus and are very pragmatic

Ok stop now. It was never good bait

[Anonymous No.17282728]

>>17282710
Kek. OP writes longer paragraphs though

[Anonymous No.17282737]

>>17282721
You're still young anon. I was watching Destiny around your age too when he was trying to become a StarCraft2 pro. He's an engaging personality but he's not particularly intelligent or insightful. You'll expand your horizons after 25.

[Anonymous No.17282738]

>>17282724
I have really severe ADHD so I usually need to some type of audio in my ears at all time to function normally. So for the past 3 years I've been listening to Destiny debates all day.

>>17282727
It's not bait you fucking retard. 90% of my beliefs are the academic consensus. Just basic center left politics which is what most of academia believes.

[Anonymous No.17282742]

>>17282738
>90% of my beliefs are the academic consensus.
That's not a good thing.

[Anonymous No.17282744]

>>17282737
Destiny is definitely above average intelligence. He had a leading professor say that his arguments were better the ones his own colleagues give against him. I don't think he is some grand thinker or anything. Destiny is just like a basic 101 overview of specific topics. That's all you are going to get out of him.

[Anonymous No.17282747]

>e-celeb opinions on anything

[Anonymous No.17282748]

>>17282742
It is if your a normal person and not a pol brain retard or a 14 year old larping Communist

[Anonymous No.17282749]

>>17282728
My IQ is extremely, almost embarrassingly, high. I’ve never actually taken an IQ test, mind you, but my educated guess is that, if I did, my score would be whatever is the highest possible. No doubt your IQ is lower than mine, but please don’t feel stupid or insecure because of this, it’s not your fault. You’re probably just born that way. And you know what? Thank your lucky stars and subpar genetic makeup that you don’t bear the burden of brilliance like I have to. Being incredibly intelligent is a curse. This is not just one of the many astute observations I have every day, by the way, it is a fact recently confirmed by science.

[Anonymous No.17282751]

>>17282738
>90% of my beliefs are the academic consensus

[Anonymous No.17282757]

>>17282751
What's funny retard?

[Anonymous No.17282759]

>>17282748
It is *only* if you're a midwit.

[Anonymous No.17282760]

>>17282757
Ask your peer reviewed studies lmao

[Anonymous No.17282762]

>>17282760
Which one is pol brain retard or 14 year old communist? Which one are you?

[Anonymous No.17282763]

>>17282748
Anglo academia is politically compromised anon I'm sorry you fell for it.

[Anonymous No.17282764]

>>17282107

You are what’s called an intellectual yet idiot. You’re so arrogant and obsessed with being among the herd, that you won’t accept expansion of the Overton bubble out of fear of being labeled fascist for entertaining such ideas.

[Anonymous No.17282773]

>>17282748
>your

[Anonymous No.17282775]

>>17282762
This is /lit/ you brain-damaged twitchfag. The world is not full of strawmen.

[Anonymous No.17282778]

>>17282762
>anything outside of Neoliberalism is retarded

You trippin?

[Anonymous No.17282783]

>>17282764
>intellectual
No. He's the definition of a pseudo-intellectual. Intellectual yet idiot means they at least read intellectuals but they're too low IQ to synthesise the ideas. OP is both an idiot and has not contact with actual intellectuals. If he had read even basic texts like JS Mill's "On Liberty", he'd know his post is dumb.

[Anonymous No.17282793]

>>17282778
>anything outside of Neoliberalism is retarded
Yes this is why pretty much all of academia is centrist. You know the high iq people who actually study this stuff. You schizos think because you read some 17th century anarchist or some esoteric magic nazi philosopher that you understand what the world should look like.

[Anonymous No.17282799]

>>17282738
Isn't having earphones on all the time dangerous?
Also ignore the larptards. Adhering to academic consensus is a good thing

[Anonymous No.17282800]

>>17282793
>high iq people
somebody post the graph

[Anonymous No.17282801]

>>17282799
I have headphones not earphones.

[Anonymous No.17282802]

>>17282793
Academia needs to be financed. Good luck being a Marxist Economist or a Fascist Sociologist, with nobody giving you a dime. Academics telling "everything is fine just the way we are" obviously get paid.

Dumb post.

[Anonymous No.17282805]

>>17282801
Post your socials
I want to see more of your autism

[Anonymous No.17282808]

>>17282802
Don't blame him too much, he's 21 and grew up with e-celebs telling him everything he knows.

[Anonymous No.17282813]

>>17282802
>Marxist Economist
Pretty sure there's plenty of neo-marxists in American academia.

[Anonymous No.17282814]

>>17282802
What? I can list like 30 Marxist economists. Many from Harvard, Yale etc.

[Anonymous No.17282817]

>>17282805
No I don't want weirdos

[Anonymous No.17282821]

>>17282817
Why are you here retard? Go ask Twitch and Discord for book recommendations.

[Anonymous No.17282826]

>>17282793

You are a rube and a boob. Heterodox economists like Michael Hudson and Steve keen are not only bigger names than neoliberals right now, but they also have predicted and forecast the errors with the neoliberal macroeconomy, and disproved the mainstream assumptions of the academic elements of the Washington Consensus.

[Anonymous No.17282828]

>>17282814
He's still right, it's worth keeping in mind that funding directs a lot of academic studies.

[Anonymous No.17282829]

>>17282813
I don't mean the "identity politics has replaced Class politic" crowd. I mean the guys critiquing Neoclassical Economists. They exist yes as>>17282814 points out, but they are still not part of the Orthodox Economists teached in College. For every Marxist, you get 10 Neoclassicals

[Anonymous No.17282833]

>>17282817
You're labelling me a weirdo after your schizo-tier-babbles?

[Anonymous No.17282842]

>>17282833
I didn't mean you are weird. I just don't trust giving out socials on here. I don't know if your a weirdo but I added one guy from 4chan a while ago and he turned out to be a furry.

[Anonymous No.17282846]

>>17282793

Jacques Ellul figured out people like yourself decades ago.

> A related point, central in Ellul's thesis, is that modem propaganda cannot work without “education"; he thus reverses the
widespread notion that education is the best prophylactic against
propaganda. On the contrary* he says, education, or what usually
goes by that word in the modem world, is the absolute prerequisite
for propaganda. In fact, education is largely identical with what
Ellul calls “pre-propaganda”—the conditioning of minds with vast
amounts of incoherent information, already dispensed for ulterior
purposes and posing as “facts” and as “education.” Ellul follows
through by designating intellectuals as virtually the most vulnerable of all to modem propaganda, for three reasons: (1) they
absorb the largest amount of secondhand, unverifiable information; (2) they feel a compelling need to have an opinion on every
important question of our time, and thus easily succumb to opinions offered to them by propaganda on all such indigestible pieces
of information; (3) they consider themselves capable of “judging
for themselves.” They literally need propaganda.

[Anonymous No.17282849]

>>17282826
There is a reason Steve Keen has to live off patreon money it's because he is a hack who has been debunked.

[Anonymous No.17282852]

>>17282799

There is nothing LARPy about skepticism of consensus. Consensus is often build on sound assumptions which then takes on a life of its own, is adopted and vulgarized, and then becomes an ideology - at which point reproduces itself in the form of propaganda. Any consensus ought to be dissected and constantly criticized.

[Anonymous No.17282854]

>>17282842
>I didn't mean you are weird.
>replying to someone who uses anime reaction images

[Anonymous No.17282856]

>>17282813

That isn't marxism, thats just butthurt blackism.

[Anonymous No.17282861]

>>17282849

How so? And by whom?

[Anonymous No.17282862]

>>17282852
If you have 98% consensus on something anything outside of it is just larp. To say that thousands and thousands of professors who dedicate their life to studying from different political backgrounds, schools, and different countries are all apart of some conspiracy is retarded.

[Anonymous No.17282864]

>>17282854
I didn't want to hurt their feelings

[Anonymous No.17282868]

>>17282862
Not a Conspiracy. This Conscensus, you are talking about are just the studies that get funding. Not really difficult to understand, so what's the problem?

[Anonymous No.17282876]

>>17282862

It depends on the subject - the situation you're describing is exceedingly rare. There may be something like anthropogenic climate damage that it agreed upon, but to posture as if economics is a hard science, or the very common belief in western academia that race isn't real, is just ideology.

[Anonymous No.17282882]

>>17282868
Funding is a conspiracy you fucking retard. All of these thousands of professors around the world are fakes who are just doing it for money. None of them actually believe anything. Do you realize how schizo you sound? Do you know how peer review works?

[Anonymous No.17282890]

>>17282876
There are plenty of things that 90+ percent of economists agree upon.

[Anonymous No.17282899]

>>17282882

Do you know how peer review works? If you did, you'd know that the peer review process in academic journals is extremely politicized. Anybody who has experience with that will give their assent to what I just said.

[Anonymous No.17282900]

>>17282882
Are you genuinly retarded. Research costs money you mongoloid. And the University gets funded from different donors, like think tanks, Private Sectors, the State etc.

[Anonymous No.17282907]

>>17282899
Politicized in a way that means everyone is in a conspiracy together to get funding? Please continue

[Anonymous No.17282909]

>>17282882
>around the world
The world is not just America retard. What do Chinese academics think?

[Anonymous No.17282910]

>>17282890

Indeed, basic assumptions like supply and demand. But when it comes to the assumptions of neoliberal economics, there is no such consensus, and there are numerous academic economic schools, and it's a fallacious argument to mistake an intellectual zeitgeist for a truth which is sub specie aeternitatis.

[Anonymous No.17282921]

>>17282611
I hope you all realize that this is is most likely not bait (might be overhyped to generate responses), but the actual consequence of late millennials and zoomers growing up with full exposure to the internet and little to no interest in legacy media formats.

[Anonymous No.17282926]

>>17282900
I'm done. It's not debating flat earth tier schizos who think all professors are in a conspiracy together. Leave it to Destiny who enjoys this shit.

[Anonymous No.17282927]

>>17282907

You don't seem very serious, and it looks like you're just reproducing superficial content - I don't see the point in continuing to engage with you on this. The peer review process is extremely political to a fault, which is why controversial articles by folks like Theodore Hill have been disappeared. If you won't accept this, then you'd have to experience it and discover it for yourself and I won't be able to convince you.

[Anonymous No.17282934]

>>17282842
Good thing I'm not weird
now post socials

[Anonymous No.17282940]

>>17282926
Yeah, you have no answers it seems. You don't work in Academia, so you don't know what you are talking about. Pointing out the errors of Academia at the moment is a conspiracy for you?
Go to r/politics if that is your thing

[Anonymous No.17282945]

>>17282926
>Sorry pal, snopes says that's false. See, there's a big red "X" right in the middle of the webpage. That means I don't have to dig any deeper into this issue, thank you and good day.

[Anonymous No.17282958]

>>17282926

You are visibly at a sub-entry level of the topics you're trying to talk about. Your conception is just a vulgarized reproduction from the ideologically tinged worldview of an e-celeb, and unless you break that addiction you won't grow intellectually.

[Anonymous No.17282969]

>>17282958
Does it bother you that your position is only held by other schizo larpers like fascists and communists? You don't see a pattern there?

[Anonymous No.17282978]

>>17282969
It'd bother me if it was only held by a bunch of lames like you.

[Anonymous No.17282983]

>>17282969
>Neoliberalism is the only viable option. The rest is schizo LARP

Aaaand we are back where we began. And this position is held by everyone in Academia. You need money to do research. Period

[Anonymous No.17282986]

>>17282969

That isn't the case, economists like Michael Hudson are advising policy in China and elsewhere, and are part of their own highly respected institutions - their exclusion is mainly by thuggish neoliberal ideologues.

[Anonymous No.17282998]

>>17282986
You don't think maybe it's just because those guys are retarded? UMass has like 9 Marxists who went to Harvard and Yale.

[Anonymous No.17283016]

>>17282998

The language you're using pre-emptively excludes the possibility of a productive discussion. Your posts read like the sentimental reflexes of a true believer, not like someone who understands the subjects you're touching on.

[Anonymous No.17283026]

>>17283016
You don't want to respond to the fact that I can name you 20 Marxists who go to top tier schools and have no problem getting published. Schools were literally fighting over getting Samuel Bowles to work for them and he only chose uMass after he put it in his terms that he would only work for them f they also hired an entire group of Marxist economists with him. This kinda ruins your entire argument.

[Anonymous No.17283037]

>>17283026

I'm actually not sure what your point is. If the issue under contention is one of being published, then indeed, as I've indicated, there are many non-neoliberal economists of note who get published. I don't even know if you are the Destiny listener from earlier on in the thread, but if you are, then you are giving assent to the proposition that academic consensus is rarely to the tune of 98%, to quote a figure given out earlier.

[Anonymous No.17283043]

>>17283037
Even these Marxists would say academic consensus is something important. They don't disagree with the fundamentals and they are arguing in the same framework. They wouldn't make some retarded conspiracy theory like all academics are only doing it for funding.

[Anonymous No.17283047]

>>17283043
Academics aren't doing it for the Funding. The point is that research needs money in form of Funding. And people with Neoclassical views get disproportionally more funding than Marxist Economists.
The Argument isn't that they do it for the Money

[Anonymous No.17283062]

>>17283047
If the people you talk about were right though and the entire field of economics was a sham then wouldn't eventually something would be publish that would end the field no? There would be something that was indefensible that would show their true colors. If this exists why does not literally no one talk aboutit? No one of the Marxists publishing talk about it? Who has this information???

[Anonymous No.17283071]

>>17283043

Doctrinal polemics between neoliberal economists - the dominant school of the day whose suppositions Destiny reproduces in most of his discussions - and non-neoliberal economists are a common occurrence. Neoliberalism favors a creditor-centric, rent-seeking, financial model of the economy. Such propositions are rejected outright with enthusiasm by its opponents. Consensus on matters like supply and demand are hardly worth talking about, because such a fundamental is understood by everyone.

The issue lies in treating all forms of academic consensus as being of equal character, which would be fallacious.

[Anonymous No.17283076]

>>17283062

It isn't about ending the field. Economics is a social science, and the academic economists are used to influence policy decisions. Neoliberalism is dominant because it influences policy in favor of major creditors and major financial institutions, hence its dominance under a policy framework which favors such institutions and corporate entities.

[Anonymous No.17283078]

>>17283062
Eh...they do talk about it? Have you read some of them?

[Anonymous No.17283088]

>>17283076
Can you name to a policy supported by center left economists that you would consider to be the incorrect policy?

[Anonymous No.17283100]

>>17283088
>policies are can be correct or incorrect
Imagine thinking like this.

[Anonymous No.17283104]

>>17283100
I think someone sticking a cock up my ass would be an incorrect policy

[Anonymous No.17283106]

>>17283104
I don't think that person would consider it incorrect.

[Anonymous No.17283108]

>>17283106
Touche

[Anonymous No.17283119]

destiny is the closest thing to a modern socrates

[Anonymous No.17283121]

>>17283088

Indeed, we may point towards the rejection of deficit spending as a centrepiece of neoliberal beliefs. The reason for this is a tale that it will lead to a runaway inflation if there is public spending for infrastructure or job creation, which won't be tolerated by the patrons of neoliberal academic thought - major creditors. However, as seen during the Coronavirus crisis, these same persons and institutions (WEF, firms like Blackstone) are in favor of inflation when it suits them, in the form of asset-price inflation. This is one of the major points of disagreement between neoliberal economists and non-neoliberals.

Futhermore, neoliberal policy of the Chicago stamp looks to private public infrastructure. One particular example is the case of the Chicago parking meters, where ownership of Chicago parking meters was sold by the city of Chicago to the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority for a period of 75 years, which led to a direct increase in costs so high that some elements had to be reversed due to a PR blowback. Neoliberalism tells you that if it isn't privatized, it's inefficient, and that you've got to financialize it all.

[Anonymous No.17283144]

>>17281301

I can't tell if you're joking or not. Of all the debates you chose, you picked one that was...

A. One of his early debates where his stances on many topics have since changed considerably, perhaps not as much in the video itself you posted, but have changed nonetheless.

B. One of the shortest and easiest dunks Destiny had on some random skeptic-tuber who has since had his channel removed. You couldn't have chosen a better debate to make Destiny look better in.

If you wanted to look at some debates with Destiny that show somewhat him "losing" or an even playing field, maybe choose ones that are are longer than 30 mins and consist of discussion rather than two dudes screaming the whole time.

[Anonymous No.17283147]

>>17283144
>two dudes screaming the whole time
>implying this isn't the case for all of them

[Anonymous No.17283199]

>>17281312
Faggot

[Anonymous No.17283217]

>>17283121
What's this shit got to do with social democracy

[Anonymous No.17283740]

>>17283147
If you've watched his debates you'd know

[Anonymous No.17283761]

>>17280502
I thought this too until I saw a vid where he actually debated ethics. He’s kinda smart, his problem is focusing on manchild twitch games

[Anonymous No.17283970]

>>17279927
in my undergrad i was recommended a book called "they say, I say" and it's pretty good. very small too, like elements of style or whatever that book is called

[Anonymous No.17285083]

>>17282699
you should keep it that way for the sake of your self-esteem

[Anonymous No.17285096]

>>17282710
kek. the 'ask me anything' at the end was the cherry on top.

[Anonymous No.17285123]

>>17283761
I was under the impression he was a strident utilitarian— a position which, as far as I know, has completely died out in ethical debate

[Anonymous No.17285503]

>>17285123
>utilitarian— a position which, as far as I know, has completely died out in ethical debate
It's actually one of the three major schools of thought in ethics alongside deontology and virtue ethics.

[Anonymous No.17285711]

>>17285503
Yes obviously, but I’m talking about contemporary academic debate. I’m pretty sure most academics aren’t pure utilitarians anymore. The most recent work I’ve read which tries to salavage the theory was about “sophisticated consequentlialsm”, which is very different.
If destiny is a utilitarian he clearly knows nothing about how the debate has evolved in academics

[Anonymous No.17285844]

>>17285711
>Yes obviously, but I’m talking about contemporary academic debate. I’m pretty sure most academics aren’t pure utilitarians anymore.
Well afaik J.C.C. Smart brought Act Utilitarianism back in fashion.
>If destiny is a utilitarian he clearly knows nothing about how the debate has evolved in academics
Destiny isn't even a committed utilitarian, he switches to contractarianism when he wants to dodge vegan arguments.

[Anonymous No.17286050]

>>17285844
I was assigned to read a very small amount of Smart last semester actually. As far as I understand he thinks Rule Utilitarianism is non-sensical because it devolves into rule worship, which is antithetical to the point of utilitarianism.
it’s a good argument, but it seems like he could be inadvertently damning all of utilitarianism when act-based is still susceptible to other critiques
Regarding Destiny again, it seems like he should at least make an effort to know how theories have changed over the years if he’s going to talk about ethics. A lot of non-philosophy people take for granted the implications and commitments that come with certain ethical theories

[Anonymous No.17286295]

>>17286050
>it’s a good argument, but it seems like he could be inadvertently damning all of utilitarianism when act-based is still susceptible to other critiques
He can bite the bullet on the counter intuitive moral implications of Utilitarianism, although I certainly wouldn't take that route.
For me one of the core objections to utilitarianism is that it is a fantasy morality. Most people are simply not going to act having the greatest happiness of the greatest number in mind.
>Regarding Destiny again, it seems like he should at least make an effort to know how theories have changed over the years if he’s going to talk about ethics.
Yeah his knowledge of philosophy comes from what he learns from other people, he doesn't care to engage with the literature. Not that YT political commentators are generally known for their comprehensive knowledge of normative ethics.

[Anonymous No.17286331]

>>17279927
I'm the same but I can locate the cause of this "analyticism" and it's because of my fear that should an analytic/autistic-brand of philosopher or thinker read my essay, they will take great delight in pointing out some superifical contradiction or some lack of explanation and as a byproduct of that I feel the need to explain everything, sacrificing the rhetorical power and poetics in the process, because I'm too prideful to let some cretinous analytic philosopher develop an entire argument about how wrong I am on their autistically reading into the text what it doesn't say. I'm very well aware of not explaining everything down to the "first principles", but if you want your writing to have any rhetorical beauty and poetics, you mustn't speak to your readers as if they are retarded. The downside of this is that analytic philosophers will use this to construct a strawman which simplifies your position and claim you are wrong on the basis of that strawman. Now if you engage with them and try to explain "what you really meant", you will see that the power of your argument will decrease as the discussion inevitably turns into autistic squabbles over axiomatic definitions, despite the fact that near-everyone can understand the argument as you wrote it. Now if you point this out, they will just say you don't have a real argument but are just a polemical sophist. You can't really win an argument against autistic analytic philosophers, because you will always have to stoop to a lower level to engage them, where they will trap you with their talmudistic reasoning. The sad thing is that themselves are convinced this constitutes "real" philosophy and "rigorous" reasoning.