/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2669185]

Can anybody recommend any /lit/ on "Masculinism in a predominantly feminist society"?

[Language reform guy !KHn8YK/x0g No.2669195]

Anders Breivik, lol. Someone quoted something about it earlier. It's very long tho, 1500 pages.

[Anonymous No.2669199]

I dunno, Fight Club? Deals with emasculation.

Maybe read some Hemingway. He's pretty manly

[Anonymous No.2669205]

>>2669195
Anders Breivik wrote a book? I have to read this.

[Anonymous No.2669209]

You might try some Robert Bly, the poet turned iron-john, faux-shaman. Hemingway also comes to mind, unless you're looking for expositive writing dealing explicitly with masculinity. Oh yeah, and Fight Club. And Fight Club. And James Dickey. And James Dickey.

[Language reform guy !KHn8YK/x0g No.2669231]

>>2669205
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik
"Breivik's far-right[24] militant ideology is described in a compendium of texts, titled 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence and distributed electronically by Breivik on the day of the attacks.[24][25][26][27] In it he lays out his worldview, which includes support for cultural conservatism, ultranationalism, right-wing populism, Islamophobia,[28] Zionism,[24] anti-feminism,[29][30] and White nationalism.[31] It also expresses support for paramilitaries such as the Scorpions.[32] It regards Islam and cultural Marxism as the enemy, and argues for the violent annihilation of "Eurabia" and multiculturalism, and the deportation of all Muslims from Europe (culminating in the year 2083)[33] to preserve European Christendom.[24][34][35][36] Breivik wrote that his main motive for committing the atrocities on 22 July was to market this manifesto.[37]"

http://publicintelligence.net/anders-behring-breiviks-complete-manifesto-2083-a-european-declaration
-of-independence/

The scary part will be reading it and realizing that the mass murderer got some of the things right. But then, no different than reading something by Ted Kaczynski (unabomber). He is a pretty smart dude (assistant professor in math).

[Anonymous No.2669234]

What, no one's going to insult me for using "expositive" instead of "expository?"

I disappoint, /lit

[Anonymous No.2669236]

>>2669231

>cultural marxism

fucking lol

[Anonymous No.2669242]

>>2669234
No one read your post.

[Anonymous No.2669252]

>>2669231
Thanks, found 2083 on piratebay. I think I'm going to bump it to the top of my reading pile too.

[Language reform guy !KHn8YK/x0g No.2669253]

>>2669236
Read the wiki article about it. It's shit. Breivik got that one right. I'd bet that at least 30% of /lit/ doesn't get it right.

[Language reform guy !KHn8YK/x0g No.2669258]

>>2669252
Seems interesting, but 1500 pages is long. I think i will eventually get around to reading it. If he really took that much effort to make people read this book, that makes me curious enough.

[Anonymous No.2669267]

>>2669242

I realize that now, dummy.

[Anonymous No.2669422]

>>2669231
Isn't Breivik a christian though?

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2669448]

"I have come to see male group solidarity as an immensely powerful force in human affairs, more powerful, perhaps, than the feminism of the late 20th century took into account.

"It’s amazing, given their different physiology and complement of hormones, how much alike men and women are in most ways. Still it seems to be the fact that women on the whole have less direct competitive drive and desire to dominate; and therefore, paradoxically, have less need to bond with one another in ranked, exclusive groups.

"The power of male group solidarity must come from the control and channeling of male rivalry, the repression and concentration of the hormone-driven will to dominate that so often dominates men themselves. It is a remarkable reversal. The destructive, anarchic energy of individual rivalry and competitive ambition is diverted into loyalty to group and leader and directed to more or less constructive social enterprise.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2669454]

"Such groups are closed, positing “the other” as outsider. They exclude, first, women; then, men of a different age, or kind, or caste, or nation, or level of achievement, etc. — exclusions that reinforce the solidarity and power of the excluders. Perceiving any threat, the “band of brothers” joins together to present an impermeable front.

"Male solidarity appears to me to have been the prime shaper of most of the great ancient institutions of society — Government, Army, Priesthood, University, and the new one that may be devouring all the others, Corporation. The existence and dominance of these hierarchic, organized, coherent, durable institutions goes back so far and has been so nearly universal that it’s mostly just called “how things are,” “the world,” “the division of labor,” “history,” “God’s will,” etc.

"As for female solidarity, without it human society, I think, would not exist. But it remains all but invisible to men, history, and God..."

[Anonymous No.2669459]

>>2669454
>...and God

Shame, lost all credibility right at the end.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2669463]

>>2669459
How do you mean?

I believe she means the church, that mens club she just described above.

[Anonymous No.2669464]

>Breivik

Dude's not very intelligent. His 'manifesto' is terrible; nearly all of it is copypasta from shitty blogs.

OP - read stuff by Evola and related traditionalist authors.

[Anonymous No.2669465]

>>2669459
Probably just a play to either get christian support, or angle the backfire towards religion.

fun fact: as of a couple of weeks ago, the church were seperated from the state in Norway

[Anonymous No.2669475]

>>2669448
>>2669454

What's the point of this spam?

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2669478]

And it wasn't the end of it.

"[...] Female solidarity might better be called fluidity — a stream or river rather than a structure. The only institutions I am fairly sure it has played some part in shaping are the tribe and that very amorphous thing, the family. Wherever the male arrangement of society permits the fellowship of women on their own terms, it tends to be casual, unformalised, unhierarchical; to be ad hoc rather than fixed, flexible rather than rigid, and more collaborative than competitive. That it has mostly operated in the private rather than the public sphere is a function of the male control of society, the male definition and separation of “public” and “private.” It’s hard to know if women’s groups would ever gather into great centers, because the relentless pressure from male institutions against such aggregation has prevented it. It might not happen, anyhow. Instead of rising from the rigorous control of aggression in the pursuit of power, the energy of female solidarity comes from the wish and need for mutual aid and, often, the search for freedom from oppression. Elusiveness is the essence of fluidity.

"So, when the interdependence of women is perceived as a threat to the dependence of women on men and the child-bearing, child-rearing, family-serving, man-serving role assigned to women, it’s easy to declare that it simply doesn’t exist. Women have no loyalty, do not understand what friendship is, etc. Denial is an effective weapon in the hands of fear. The idea of female independence and interdependence is met with scoffing hatred by both men and women who see themselves as benefiting from male dominance. Misogyny is by no means limited to men. Living in “a man’s world,” plenty of women distrust and fear themselves as much or more than men do.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2669486]

>>2669475
Education through reading.

"In so far as the feminism of the nineteen-seventies played on fear, exalting the independence and interdependence of women, it was playing with fire. We cried “Sisterhood is powerful!” — and they believed us. Terrified misogynists of both sexes were howling that the house was burning down before most feminists found out where the matches were.

"The nature of sisterhood is so utterly different from the power of brotherhood that it’s hard to predict how it might change society. In any case, we’ve seen only a glimpse of what its effects might be.

"The great ancient male institutions have been increasingly infiltrated by women for the last two centuries, and this is a very great change. But when women manage to join the institutions that excluded them, they mostly end up being co-opted by them, serving male ends, enforcing male values.

"Which is why I have a problem with women in combat in the armed services, and why I watch the rise of women in the “great” universities and the corporations — even the government — with an anxious eye.

"Can women operate as women in a male institution without becoming imitation men?

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2669490]

"If so, will they change the institution so radically that the men are likely to label it second-class, lower the pay, and abandon it? This has happened to some extent in several fields, such as the practice of teaching and medicine, increasingly in the hands of women. But the management of those fields, the power, and the definition of their aims, still belongs to men. The question remains open.

"As I look back on the feminism of the late twentieth century I see it as typical of feminine solidarity — all Indians, no chiefs. It was an attempt to create an unhierarchical, inclusive, flexible, collaborative, unstructured, ad hoc body of people to bring the genders together in a better balance.

"Women who want to work toward that end, need, I think, to recognise and respect their own elusive, invaluable, indestructible kind of solidarity — as do men. And they need to recognise both the great value of male solidarity, and the inferiority of gender solidarity to human solidarity — as do men.

"I think feminism continues and will continue to exist wherever women work in their own way with one another and with men, and wherever women and men go on questioning male definitions of value, refusing gender exclusivity, affirming interdependence, distrusting aggression, seeking freedom always."

— UKL
2 December 2010

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2669494]

>>2669486
>Education through reading.

So... if a thread is started and you happen to disagree with what you assume to be the political or philosophical positions of its author, you bombard it with spam?

Are you a female?

[Anonymous No.2669497]

When thinking about this I can't shake a feeling in the back of my head: that the world of today is so evil/amoral/cruel because it's more female than male.

Especially when you look into present day "capitalism", I dunno. Greed and power have always existed but evil so blind must come from a feminine force - not necessarily female, but built by a woman.

Sorry if I'm off topic

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2669498]

>>2669494
I am androgynous. I neither regard myself as a male or a female. Just an educated person who likes to enlighten the proles with my wisdom.

[Anonymous No.2669500]

>>2669486
>"Can women operate as women in a male institution without becoming imitation men?"

Why should they try? What a heavy burden to lay upon someone, to worry over such a thing, to think about gender before thinking of themselves. Liberation from such concepts should be the goal.

>The power of male group solidarity must come from the control and channeling of male rivalry, the repression and concentration of the hormone-driven will to dominate that so often dominates men themselves.

As a man, how could I live knowing that this is my nature? How could I interact with my friends believing that this model applied to our interactions? Even this was biologically hard-wired, a rebellion against biology is therefore needed.

These is LeGuin's thoughts on gender though? Makes me think about Left Hand of Darkness differently.

[Anonymous No.2669501]

>>2669498
If your gender is androgynous, what is your sex? What kind of naughty bits do you have between your legs? A hot dog or an omelet?

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2669505]

>>2669498

>I am androgynous

Biological sex?

>Just an educated person who likes to enlighten the proles with my wisdom.

Has posting walls of text quoted from other authors led to anyone being enlightened by your wisdom?

[Anonymous No.2669506]

>>2669185

inb4 Stormfront misogynist copypasta

Seriously can we just agree to disagree on this shit? It has very little to do with literature and we have the same exact discussion every time.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2669507]

>>2669497
You may or may not be off topic, but you are certainly baseless. There are many forces at work in this modern world and casually blaming the feminine for "evil" is laughable if it weren't so pervasive. Please be joking or look seriously into this before believing this.

>>2669494
>>2669498
Please stop using the moniker.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2669510]

>>2669501
>>2669505
Its not me, (neither are you) I refrain from discussing my gender, it doesn't or shouldn't matter. That is all

[Anonymous No.2669514]

>>2669505
ugh, don't call it biological sex. Ask how they were born. Some of us don't want to identify at all as our former gender.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2669515]

>>2669507
>Please stop using the moniker.

Why?

[Anonymous No.2669517]

>>2669501
lol omelet

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2669518]

>>2669507
>>2669507
Please stop using the moniker.

[Anonymous No.2669522]

Is Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ the autistic, feminist version of REI?

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2669527]

>>2669522
She appears to be, yes.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2669535]

>>2669514
>Some of us don't want to identify at all as our former gender.
That's why we have a "T" in the LGBT.

>>2669515
I don't go around posting as Anonymous.
I am still anonymous, just distinct. You want to take that away I suppose. It was simply my way of cutting the confusion for me or others. (You see how they adopted that code thing in /b/)

>>2669522
He's a schizophrenic. I just like to read a lot of non-fiction.

[Anonymous No.2669537]

>>2669522
>Implying REI isn't the top level of autism on this board

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2669541]

>>2669514
>ugh, don't call it biological sex. Ask how they were born. Some of us don't want to identify at all as our former gender.

Are you honestly offended by that? I would never have used that term in the first place had I not been trying to be polite. The distinction between 'sex' and 'gender' isn't something that I consider to be legitimate in the first place.

[Anonymous No.2669542]

>>2669537
As far as I'm aware he only has aspergers.

[Anonymous No.2669543]

>>2669535
>(You see how they adopted that code thing in /b/)

>visiting /b/

Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ, I expected better of you.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2669547]

>>2669543
Implying you've never been the locker room of 4chan.

>>2669542
I still thinks its schizophrenia. Or an elaborate troll.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2669548]

>>2669535
>I am still anonymous, just distinct... It was simply my way of cutting the confusion for me or others.

...Adopting a tripcode would compromise all of this somehow?

>You want to take that away I suppose.

Only when you're being particularly obnoxious.

[Anonymous No.2669550]

>mfw /lit/ is the furthest left board on 4chan and even they don't buy into third wave feminism.

[Anonymous No.2669552]

>>2669550
I do. Hello there. I'd prefer gender obsolescence to gender obliteration in society, though.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2669553]

>>2669548
I didn't feel I was being obnoxious. If you don't want to read the copy/pasta, don't. I disagreed with the "spam" comment, but I didn't nail anyone to the floor.
So sorry if I stepped on yer toes big guy.

[Anonymous No.2669555]

>>2669550
that's not true, /lit/ is actually home to quite a few conservatives, libertarians, neo-nazis, racists and fascists

[Anonymous No.2669558]

>>2669541
>The distinction between 'sex' and 'gender' isn't something that I consider to be legitimate in the first place.

Ahahaaaahaaaahaaa fucking christ unless you mean that bodies should not be assigned a gender and how a person chooses to present themselves is all that matters I just

I don't even know where to begin

[Anonymous No.2669563]

>>2669552

is there a difference?

[Anonymous No.2669562]

>>2669555
Racism has nothing to do with whether someone leans left or right.

[Anonymous No.2669565]

>>2669550
There are a surprising amount of feminists on /lit/, and even a few christians.

[Anonymous No.2669567]

>>2669558
>I'm being a blank slatist retard and no one can stop me!

[Anonymous No.2669568]

>>2669555
Why did you chuck libertarian in with that list?

[Anonymous No.2669570]

>>2669563
You can still conform to a gender if you'd like, and use whatever pronoun you want, but there's no pressure to align yourself to roles and norms and no real reason to live in bad faith to yourself. Genderless society wouldn't even have the genders. Gender obsolescence would have them as options but they wouldn't matter much.

[Anonymous No.2669571]

>>2669553
>I didn't feel I was being obnoxious.

People rarely do.

>If you don't want to read the copy/pasta, don't. I disagreed with the "spam" comment, but I didn't nail anyone to the floor. So sorry if I stepped on yer toes big guy.

Oh, no, I'm fine.

[Anonymous No.2669578]

>>2669562
Here in the US, the deal is that if you're conservative, that doesn't mean you're probably racist. But if you're racist, you're probably conservative.
Considering the history of social policy in the US, that makes pretty good sense. What policies are these people striving to conserve?
I'm not necessarily including fiscal Republicans in this, though it's usually intertwined with an attitude of "fuck the poor," and take a wild guess which race has been the majority of the poverty demographic in American history...

[Anonymous No.2669581]

>>2669570
>but there's no pressure to align yourself to roles and norms

You sure?

[Anonymous No.2669586]

>>2669567
I wasn't implying I agreed with blank slatism 100%, it's just a far more defensible position than thinking that gender roles and assigned "sex" are unarguably tied together and not separable at all.

[Anonymous No.2669587]

>>2669558

>Ahahaaaahaaaahaaa fucking christ unless you mean that bodies should not be assigned a gender and how a person chooses to present themselves is all that matters I just

lol, no, that isn't what I mean at all.

>I don't even know where to begin

Clearly.

[Anonymous No.2669588]

>>2669581
I was describing a hypothetical circumstance of gender-obsolescence. Try to read better.

[Anonymous No.2669596]

>>2669578
Liberal racism is expressed through condescension (e.g. the "noble savage"), conservative racism is expressed through out and out bigotry. Liberals are the ones who say shit like "being conservative doesn't make you racist, but if you're racist you're a conservative" because they're blind to their own obnoxious brand of racism.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2669598]

>>2669562
Oh yes there is.

>>2669571
You big softy.

[Anonymous No.2669604]

>>2669562
>implying there isn't a correlation between right-"ist" politics and racism

[Anonymous No.2669610]

>>2669588
>I was describing a hypothetical circumstance of gender-obsolescence.

Yes, I know.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2669611]

>>2669596
I have a racist sister. She claimed to a be liberal throughout her college years, but once out, landing jobs in corporate buildings with rightwing twits, she became what she truly always was. A zelig

Any real leftist doesn't prejudge...
Look at the astonishing poll numbers among blacks who now support same sex marriage rights.

[Anonymous No.2669617]

>Liberals are the ones who say shit like "being conservative doesn't make you racist, but if you're racist you're a conservative"
That's not what I said.
>But if you're racist, you're probably conservative.
There are racist liberals, of course. But I already explained why endorsement of conservative policies has a clear link to racist ideology because the tradition of American policies were based in racist ideology.
Social policy in the US was racist. Conservatives want to take policy back to the way it was.

[Anonymous No.2669619]

>>2669611
>Any real leftist doesn't prejudge...

Everybody prejudges. Don't kid yourself.

[Anonymous No.2669623]

>>2669610
Then, by all means, alter my hypothetical to suit your ideology.

[Anonymous No.2669629]

>not integrating masculinity and femininity into you

>for example: not tending to your garden and then later scaling a moutain

>strength without wisdom
>2012

[Anonymous No.2669640]

>>2669611
>blacks who now support same sex marriage rights.

then they are just as retarded as "whites" who support any form of marriage. Next you'll be applauding chinks who are pro tri-person marriages.

[Anonymous No.2669641]

>>2669623
>Then, by all means, alter my hypothetical to suit your ideology.

I was asking if you really believed that the sort of society you described wouldn't "pressure" people "to align... to roles and norms." Was that not clear?

Isn't pressuring people to conform to certain roles and norms a fundamental function of any society?

[Anonymous No.2669643]

>>2669611
>Any real leftist doesn't prejudge...
This the most blatant "no true Scotsman" fallacy I've seen in quite some time. Congratulations.

[Anonymous No.2669650]

>>2669611
Please don't defend liberal stances anymore, you're counterproductive, k, thanks.

[Anonymous No.2669670]

>>2669641
>I was asking if you really believed that the sort of society you described wouldn't "pressure" people "to align... to roles and norms."
Not for gender, no. That's practically tautological in the term "gender-obsolescence." I'm not saying it's feasible. Where I live, nationality barely matters, but people tend to self-describe as one or another non-US nationality. It doesn't actually have much of an impact on what they do, and people that adhere strongly or traditionally to their heritage (esp. heritage religion) are often seen as reactionary and démodé. It would be like that for gender, I imagine.

>Was that not clear?
Not particularly. Sarcastic two-word questions aren't the best way to achieve lucidity.

>Isn't pressuring people to conform to certain roles and norms a fundamental function of any society?
Perhaps. I don't know if it's necessary beyond, say, vocation or contribution. I don't have to like something just because it propagates the beast, either.

[Anonymous No.2669673]

>not being collaborative and competitive at the same time
>menandwomenlogic

[Anonymous No.2669678]

>>2669673
Actually patriarchy already does this.

[Anonymous No.2669955]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_capital

Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive?
http://www.csom.umn.edu/assets/71520.pdf

Sexual Economics: Sex as a Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions
http://www.csom.umn.edu/Assets/71503.pdf

Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality
http://www.femininebeauty info/suppression.pdf

Female polygyny/hypergamy
http://www.nber.org/public_html/confer/2008/si2008/EFABG/saint-paul.pdf
http://www.econ.washington.edu/user/erose/hypergamy_v2a_paper.pdf
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000202
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2743334
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v41/n1/abs/ng0109-8.html

In the history of mankind as a species, some hundreds of thousands of years, 40% of men have successfully passed their genes to future generations, whereas 80% of women did. Today's human population is descended from twice as many women as men. This is statistical, scientific, genetic proof that women function as sexual selectors, and men evolved risk-taking and ambition behaviours to compete for mating rights. The study was conducted by Michael F. Hammer. A lecture on the implications:
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

Esther Vilar's seminal work on the concept that women enjoy a parasitic relationship with men.
http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Vilar,Esther/ManipulatedMan.html The text itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Esther_Vilar&oldid=442296393 Synopsis.
http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/vilar.html A preview.

Female characters are defined more by their passive attributes and their emotional responses; male characters more by their actions. This is why male protagonists are preferred in fiction, by both women and men.
http://www.onfiction.ca/2011/02/actor-and-observed-man-and-woman.html

[Anonymous No.2669956]

Culture sees men as expendable blank slates, whose self-sufficiency is their own responsibility, and who must prove themselves worthy of accolade or interest. Conversely, women are inherently valuable, but typically function as inert commodities or motivation for male actors. The TVtropes links serve as quantitative evidence that this basic dichotomy proliferates the culture, to the point that it can be casually and humorously catalogued.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenderDynamicsIndex
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MenAreTheExpendableGender

"Without the higher powers of the imagination and reason, no eminent success can be gained in many subjects. These latter faculties, as well as the former, will have been developed in man, partly through sexual selection,- that is, through the contest of rival males, and partly through natural selection,- from success in the general struggle for life; and as in both cases the struggle will have been during maturity, the characters gained will have been transmitted more fully to the male than to the female offspring. It accords in a striking manner with this view of the modification and re-inforcement of many of our mental faculties by sexual selection, that, firstly, they notoriously undergo a considerable change at puberty, and, secondly, that eunuchs remain throughout life inferior in these same qualities. Thus man has ultimately become superior to woman. It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of the equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen."
Charles Darwin

[Anonymous No.2669958]

Ray Baumeister
Norah Vincent
Esther Vilar

[Language reform guy !KHn8YK/x0g No.2670005]

>>2669422
>Isn't Breivik a christian though?

Yes, he clearly failed in that dept. Anyway, might be interesting even if he is a xtian.

[Language reform guy !KHn8YK/x0g No.2670032]

>>2669643
>This the most blatant "no true Scotsman" fallacy I've seen in quite some time. Congratulations.

I'm happy that someone else caught this one too! :)

It was like in the other thread where Richard Feynman (the tripfag) made similar claims. Actually, his were more stupid and he was less polite, basically just spamming one-liner insults.

At least this crazy feminist here is polite. Still crazy. For instance,

>You can still conform to a gender if you'd like, and use whatever pronoun you want, but there's no pressure to align yourself to roles and norms and no real reason to live in bad faith to yourself. Genderless society wouldn't even have the genders. Gender obsolescence would have them as options but they wouldn't matter much.

This person clearly cannot into understanding human nature. A genderless society is impossible, so is gender obsolescent societies.

Conditioning can only alter human behavior that much. The rest is fixed by nature.

[Anonymous No.2670042]

>>2670032

What is human nature?

[Anonymous No.2670484]

>>2670042
What is cat nature?

[Anonymous No.2670486]

>>2669550
>mfw /lit/ is the most politically and theologically open-minded board on 4chan
ftfy

[Anonymous No.2670489]

>>2670484
when is dog?

[Anonymous No.2670512]

>>2669629
>seeing things in terms of masculinity and femininity
>2012

[Anonymous No.2671057]

>>2670486
>/lit/
>open-minded

No. /lit/ is full of leftist dogmatists.

[Anonymous No.2671060]

>>2671057

And right-wing dogmatists. And a whole lot of people that don't give a shit.

[Anonymous No.2671062]

>>2671057

Actually it's mostly right wing (and 4chan is in general). It's just full of racists and misogynists who think they can still claim to be left wing.

[Anonymous No.2671067]

>>2671062
>Actually it's mostly right wing (and 4chan is in general).
I think you are not familiar with the concept of irony and even less familiar with the concept of vocal minority.

[Anonymous No.2671074]

>>2671067

An ironic racist or misogynist is just as harmful as a sincere one.

Vocal minority my ass. Go to /r9k/, /b/, or /pol/ and tell me it's a vocal minority.

[Anonymous No.2671079]

>>2671074

Thank you.

[Anonymous No.2671082]

>>2671074

I thank you too.

[Anonymous No.2671089]

>>2671074
Most people on 4chan freely throw the word nigger around, and deliberately try to sound offensive. This is just a young adolescent stage of rebellion and testing boundaries. If you met some of these people IRL you would find they are actually quite liberal decent people. They just seem like idiots here because they have an anonymous forum in which to experiment.

[Anonymous No.2671091]

>>2671089

regardless of whether or not that's true regarding racism, misogyny is taken very seriously here, and feminism's argued against more than any other ideology when brought up

[Anonymous No.2671145]

>>2671089
> If you met some of these people IRL you would find they are actually quite liberal decent people.

that's what they think but that's more about confirming a certain self-image- to young people, especially nerds, conservative values are naturally distrusted because they represent the old order. identifying as liberal is the default position for them. so a young guy who isn't especially political can think of himself as a generally liberal guy when in reality he's a few steps right of center

it's like the straight guy patting himself on the back over his decision to stop calling people faggots. he's done nothing special but because he's done anything at all he imagines himself a vastly more evolved person

in a non-political sense its like how most people think of themselves as being a "good person" -- certainly more moral than average, even if they'd never give money or time to a charity and they only behave courteously to other people to the absolute minimum extent expected of them by society. every time they make room for someone on the freeway, every time they smile at the teller at the bank, every minute they patiently listen to their friend blathering on the phone about their problems, they collect this as evidence that they are overall "good people"

seriously nobody who considered themselves "liberal" and actively thought about it would think indistinguishable-from-sincere "ironic" racism was the pinnacle of comedy