DFW

[Anonymous No.6391717]

What were David Foster Wallace's political views?

[Anonymous No.6391729]

>>6391717
he believed in euthanizing retards

[« 零 » !Ry9.FWKNDY No.6391735]

>>6391717

HE WAS POLITICALLY ILLITERATE.

[Anonymous No.6391738]

>>6391729
Source?

[Anonymous No.6391745]

He was a WASP. He attended Church, voted republican, and mascaraed all of these things behind a curtain of cynicism and cringe-worthy sincerity.

[Anonymous No.6391748]

>>6391717
he was pretty liberal later on but he voted for Reagan when he was younger
not really important though

[Anonymous No.6391753]

republican without a doubt

[Anonymous No.6391758]

>>6391729

Top haha. Well memed, my friend.

[Anonymous No.6391759]

>>6391745
I find this pretty shocking. He was so intelligent. How could he be so politically ignorant at the same time? I expected him to be some sort of leftist.

[Anonymous No.6391761]

>>6391745
>voted Republican

Did he really?

[Anonymous No.6391766]

>>6391745
*masqueraded

[« 零 » !Ry9.FWKNDY No.6391767]

FOR YOUR INFORMATION: BEING EARNESTLY "REPUBLICAN", OR "DEMOCRAT", OR BEING AFFILIATED TO ANY OFFICIAL POLITICALLY ORTHODOX "PARTY", GENUINELY; ID EST: NONIRONICALLY, EQUALS TO BEING POLITICALLY ILLITERATE; SOMEONE POLITICALLY LITERATE, REGARDLESS OF MORALITY, WOULD NOT AFFILIATE HIMSELF/HERSELF WITH ANY OFFICIAL POLITICALLY ORTHODOX "PARTIES" SUCH AS "REPUBLICAN", OR "DEMOCRAT".

[Anonymous No.6391768]

dfw essay on porn is prude as fuck

[Anonymous No.6391775]

>>6391759
pure ideology: the post

[Anonymous No.6391776]

>>6391767

you're not wrong, but saying "I'm a moderate" is just as bad

[Anonymous No.6391779]

>>6391767
Or they could be "politically literate" and have different values than you.

[« 零 » !Ry9.FWKNDY No.6391781]

>>6391776

YOUR REPLY IS NONSEQUITEURIAL.

[« 零 » !Ry9.FWKNDY No.6391787]

>>6391779

WHAT DO YOU EVEN MEAN?

I DO NOT THINK THAT YOU COMPREHENDED MY POST.

[Anonymous No.6391793]

>>6391779
I guess it's possible but it's extremely uncommon.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6391822]

>>6391767
THE ORIGINAL POSTER DID NOT ASK YOU/US WHAT POLITICAL PARTY DAVID FOSTER WALLACE AFFILIATED HIMSELF WITH. THE ORIGINAL POSTER ASKED YOU/US WHAT HIS "POLITICAL VIEWS" WERE.

YOUR REPLY IS "NONSEQUITEURIAL".

[twinshia No.6391829]

>>6391767
Unless you were a member of a political party or are involved in spreading its propaganda.

[twinshia No.6391836]

>>6391822
He was referring to his first post,
most likely.

[Anonymous No.6391843]

>>6391822
fuckin rekt

[« 零 » !Ry9.FWKNDY No.6391879]

>>6391829

THE PERSONS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF A POLITICAL "PARTY" ARE THE "PARTY"; THEY ARE NOT AFFILIATED TO IT; THEY COMPRISE IT.

[« 零 » !Ry9.FWKNDY No.6391894]

>>6391822

MY POST WAS GENERALLY DIRECTED AT THOSE PERSONS IN THIS THREAD WHO SEEM TO MISTAKENLY BELIEVE THAT CLAIMS OF ALLEGIANCE NECESSARILY IMPLY SAVVINESS.

[Anonymous No.6391914]

>>6391717
14/88

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6391918]

>>6391894
YOU ARE POLITICALLY ILLITERATE.

HEY, CHECK OUT MY "CAPTCHA"

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6391930]

>>6391914
>Closes thread

[Anonymous No.6391943]

>>6391759
holy pleb

>>6391766
i think he meant like dfw put mascara on things

[Anonymous No.6391951]

>>6391776
>believing there are only three political affiliations

[Chipstopher Colubus !Vu3GKcozRY No.6391959]

He was a STAUNCH MLM supporter. He only grew stronger with age, so much so that he copy-cat suicided by Jiang Qing

[Anonymous No.6391960]

>>6391759
he was liberal, the guy is an idiot

[Anonymous No.6391997]

>>6391759
What you said is funny because someone on the other political extreme could say the exact same thing but end the statement with "I would have thought he was a conservative."

[Anonymous No.6392006]

>>6391960
>the guy is an idiot

Funny, he'll be remembered and you won't be.

[Anonymous No.6392028]

>>6392006
Not the guy you replied to, but if you think about it 99.9 percent of people won't be remembered for anything really, so your response is kind of idiotic. I understand that there's this idea where when someone achieves fame then this supposedly give credibility to their work and absolves them from criticism, but it shouldn't.

[Anonymous No.6392193]

>>6391959
Source?

[Anonymous No.6392196]

>>6391997
Yeah, I know. It's just that it's very common for important authors to be some type of Socialist, whether it's Anarchist, Lenninist, Maoist, or whatever.

[Anonymous No.6392201]

>>6392006
Not that guy, and I'm a liberal. But, no, DFW won't be remembered.

[Anonymous No.6392221]

>>6392201
He already is...

Never underestimate the boosting effect which a suicide or premature death has on an artist's career.

[Anonymous No.6392239]

>>6391761
no. he was very much a liberal in the sense of the mainstream of the US Democratic party

[Anonymous No.6392278]

>>6392221
The only places I ever see him mentioned is on /lit/ and occasionally on lists of "top novels of the last 30 years" somewhere in the middle.

[Anonymous No.6392291]

>>6392278
Which doesn't really repudiate what I said. I get what you're saying, but traditionally if you look at artists who killed themselves it seems as though they're more prominent in being remembered than others. Artistic merit doesn't necessarily mean someone will be remembered more or less than someone else. If Marilyn Monroe hadn't died early she'd still be famous, in the way Liz Taylor was famous, but people will remember Monroe long after they've forgotten about Taylor. (We could draw a similar comparison between Kurt Cobain and whoever.) An artist can survive strongly in our collective memory past the point where anyone remembers any merits of their actual work, and as a result that work doesn't necessarily need to be of a high quality.

[Anonymous No.6392298]

>>6392221
Ten suicides wouldn't be enough to bolster DFW's work into remembrance. Despite all his efforts, he'll be forgotten by 2040. By this time even his fans will have re-read the slop and figured it wasn't as great as they thought.

[Anonymous No.6392308]

>>6392298
Why don't you think he will be remembered? What do you think it takes for an artist to be remembered?

[Anonymous No.6392315]

>>6392298
It just might. I mean, how many people under 30 can name any movies Monroe was in? And yet everyone still knows who she is. (Compare this to how many people know DFW, but not as many have read his works.)

I don't think Wallace's legacy is that much better than, say, whatever mass appeal writer is currently popular; but the popular notion that his magnum opus is difficult may cause him to have more stayin power as a 'real' writer, even if nobody actually reads anything he wrote.

[Anonymous No.6392393]

>>6391767

>GENUINELY; ID EST: NONIRONICALLY

kekku

[Anonymous No.6392405]

>>6392393
Whoa, high quality post there, mate.

What's so funny?

[twinshia No.6393208]

>>6391918
???

[Anonymous No.6393227]

>>6391759
The arrogance displayed in this post is top kek worthy

[Anonymous No.6393243]

Marxist-libertarian.

[Anonymous No.6393272]

>>6392315
This is true, but I would still like to point out that /lit/'s taste is not a good marker of what will be remembered. Most of /lit/ can't stand Kurt Vonnegut and only half of the board think Catcher in the Rye is any good, not to mention this boards feelings on the beats but they are still considered the literary classics of the 1950s and will probably be remembered long after now.

[Anonymous No.6393277]

>>6392201
More so than you.

[Anonymous No.6393319]

>>6392196
Not really, there are several authors that were turbo reactionaries, Dostoevsky comes to mind.

[Anonymous No.6393359]

>>6393319
>very common
>no, here's an exception

No-one said it was universal.

[Anonymous No.6393411]

>>6393359
T.S Elliot, Ezra Pound, G.K Chesterton where is the evidence that it is very common for "important" authors to be Socialist?

[Anonymous No.6393460]

>>6393411

Have Graham Greene, too. His point still stands (though he's being too ideologically restrictive).

[Anonymous No.6393560]

>>6392196
>wow he was a conservative so politically ignorant
>It's just that it's very common for important authors to be some type of Socialist
Do you see the flaw in your logic?

[Anonymous No.6393592]

Loves: Alcoholics Anonymous, John McCain, Church

Hates: Porn, drugs, television

[Anonymous No.6393680]

>>6391775
>>6391943
>>6393227
#R U S T L E D
R
U
S
T
L
E
D

[Anonymous No.6393705]

>>6393592
based

[Anonymous No.6393821]

>>6391822
Stop shouting

Provably just going to block you

[Anonymous No.6394969]

>>6393680
hey you fucking faggot i'll fight you i wasn't rustled fuck you you fucking faggot fuck

[Anonymous No.6395763]

>>6391768
To be fair, he's right about how simultaneously boring and lurid modern porn is. And Max Hardcore is a truly vile man.

[Anonymous No.6395773]

>>6393592
He didn't "love" AA. He outright called it weirdly cultish a number of times and had a clearly ambivalent attitude toward it in general. He just also saw how well it worked for certain people.

[Anonymous No.6395778]

>>6393592
>hates television

[Anonymous No.6395795]

>>6391745
I think the thing about him going to church was code for AA bc he was secretive about it in his writing (even though it was obvious), like in his 9/11 essay.

[Anonymous No.6395868]

Who /regrets_voting_Obama/ here?

Should've voted Jill Stein

[Anonymous No.6395872]

>>6395868
Woah, ugly print format tbh

Hopefully this post can fix it

[Anonymous No.6395889]

>>6395868
I voted Jill Stein, nerd. If Sanders runs next year I'll be voting for him.

[Anonymous No.6395893]

>>6395868
I DID vote for Jill Stein in 2012. Voted for Obama in 2008 and regretted it four years later.

I have no idea who I'm going to vote for in 2016. I may not vote at all. I'm not sure I can be a Christian in good conscience and vote for any of the candidates.

[Anonymous No.6395903]

>>6395868
>tfw voted for Gary Johnson for a laugh and a giggle
It still brings joy to me.

[Anonymous No.6395908]

>>6395868
>http://www.ontheissues.org/Jill_Stein.htm

[Anonymous No.6395910]

>>6395908
Whoa, I should've voted for her.

[Anonymous No.6395923]

>>6395908

More respect for Stein tbh

[Anonymous No.6396048]

>>6395868

I don't regret voting for him the 2nd time simply because Mitt Romney was full of shit. I was very ready to vote for John Huntsman or Buddy Roemer but the Republican party has really lost it. I'll stick to the dems until we get another moderate republican candidate.

I don't think I'll be able to bring myself to vote for Clinton, I didn't do it in 96 and I probably won't do it now. However, there is 0 chance I'll vote for Bush either, I'll probably just write in someone

[Anonymous No.6396107]

>>6391759
holy fucking shit kek

off to reddit buddy

[Anonymous No.6396129]

>>6396048
>Mitt Romney
>Full of shit
I seem to recall a debate wherein Mitt "Full of Shit" Romney said that Russia was a valid geopolitical rival that should not be discounted. Barack Obama mocked Romney at this point saying that it wasn't the Cold War anymore.

[Anonymous No.6396143]

The next president of the United states will be Scott Walker. He has the most money behind him and is the least polarizing candidate. Get ready for the privatization train. All aboard to the Koch Brother's new America!

[Anonymous No.6396156]

>>6393411
It has been since the 1960s, though. All smart conservatives have died somewhere in the 1970s.

[Anonymous No.6396161]

>>6396129

Obama was mostly right, Putin's Russia is not the Soviet Union. Moreover Obama's policy towards Russia since the election has been fairly effective, just look at the Russian economy after all the sanctions. Obama's policy also got Germany to finally take a side.

Not too bad in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.6396170]

>>6396156

Buckley was the last. It's sad, you could see his disappointment in the 90s and 00s as Fox News and idiots like Newt Gingrich stole the conservative movement and turned it into a joke.

[Anonymous No.6396172]

>>6396129
Oh, please. That's like saying that a paranoid man who eventually made an accurate prediction was being reasonable all along. And Obama was right. This isn't the Cold War anymore.

[Anonymous No.6396183]

>>6396143
I'd rather have ____Christie___ get the GOP nomination

[Anonymous No.6396187]

>>6391759
Fantastic bait. You get the rightists, DFW haters, and even make those that like DFW and are leftist to cringe.

[Anonymous No.6396197]

>>6391775
Fuck off Zizek you piece of shit
Go drink some Starbucks

[Anonymous No.6396198]

>>6396143
Yup. The collapse of the great American Republic is near. I can't wait.

[Anonymous No.6396203]

>>6396170
You can't be a conservative nowadays and win elections. It's gotten to the point where only social and economic liberals are allowed to rule the roost.

[Anonymous No.6396211]

>>6392298
>Ten suicides wouldn't be enough to bolster DFW's work into remembrance.

I'm now imagining a world were artists spend more time planning their suicide than on their art.

[Anonymous No.6396218]

>>6395868
>>6395910
>>6395923
To be fair, you can easily picture a Democrat assuming the same positions during campaign and then shifting rightwards during office. It's such an old story by now that I'm even surprised we're actually still buying it.

[Anonymous No.6396238]

>>6396203

You can be conservative but yes it's very unpopular. Most elected Republicans are just neo-liberals now who preach small government but consistently vote the opposite way. They'll vote to bolster the federal bureaucracy, restrict privacy rights and increase hand outs to agriculture and corporations but then point fingers at dems for supporting a larger "state."

It's just pitiful, I've been waiting for a sensible conservative since the 90s to run for any office and it still hasn't happened.

[Anonymous No.6396265]

>>6396170
Buckley wasn't really smart, though, he was merely a compilator of other people's ideas and he divulged it. He didn't had his own.

And this was the best that intellectual conservatism achieved in the last 50 years. How far the mighty has fallen.

[Anonymous No.6396269]

>>6391767
Coming from you, I find this statement really, really shocking.
I thought you were deeply conservative.

[Anonymous No.6396274]

>>6396156
>>6396170
I actually have a theory for that.

The principles the Right usually stands for, by which I mean the principles of tradition and liberalism, are the ones that can fully operate "in inertia"

That is, you don't need an intelligentsia to run them, you just need a mass base to support it. On a market society unified by mass culture, this is simply the natural course of things. It's the Left, with the idea of breaking social and cultural constructs and limiting capitalism (or fighting against it) that need an "intervention" and therefore a higher concentration of purely intellectual power.

The Right on the other hand requires people to maintain these constructs intact and make capitalism work well, so men of faith, men of the military, managers, technicians and vocational workers became their base, instead of intellectuals. For them, standardisation with the lowest point as reference is not a problem, and people like Buckley might even alienate some of the bottom. The Left without "thinkers" on the other hand is, as we see today, a disaster.

[Anonymous No.6396280]

>>6396203
And yet conservatives win elections in Germany, Japan, and many other countries.

It's the Republican Party that has sold it's soul for corporations, they have ceased to be a party with ideas and sincere followers and became the American equivalent of a third world big tent party where rich people can buy candidates who will follow their instructions loyally.

Now, of course, I know this is true for most political parties, specially right-wing political parties, in the entire world, but the GOP took it too far. With the exception of some dumb christians who don't actually know what they are doing, no one takes them seriously anymore.

[Anonymous No.6396281]

>>6391717
probably something stupid like his books

[Anonymous No.6396292]

>>6396280
>It's the Republican Party that has sold it's soul for corporations, they have ceased to be a party with ideas and sincere followers and became the American equivalent of a third world big tent party where rich people can buy candidates who will follow their instructions loyally.
Don't pretend that you can't characterize the Democratic Party this way except with the added bonus of toxic identity politics instead of religion.

[Anonymous No.6396296]

>>6396265

>Buckley wasn't really smart, though

How much of his stuff have you read and/or watched? The man was a genius, he just felt that Burke pretty much perfected conservatism. That's why Buckley spent most of his time debating and conversing with politicians, he wanted to put Burkean theories into practice.

His genius comes out in books more then in debate / television. Read God & Man at Yale, Gratitude and Four Reforms, great examples of his deeper thinking.

>>6396280
>It's the Republican Party that has sold it's soul for corporations, they have ceased to be a party with ideas and sincere followers and became the American equivalent of a third world big tent party where rich people can buy candidates who will follow their instructions loyally.

Agreed

[Anonymous No.6396297]

>>6396274
The thing is, there used to be a right-wing intelligentsia too. In Europe we know what happened, these guys supported (or were complacent with) Fascism and were purged after WWII, but in the United States their disappearence, without apparent reason, has been more striking.

[Anonymous No.6396308]

>>6396297
Maybe during the post-war the role of deconstructing something instead of preserving it (in the case, the New Deal-type of welfare reforms) created a demand for them

[Anonymous No.6396331]

>>6396297
>>6396308

Up until the 80s conservatives needed intellectuals to prove to the left that the new deal wasn't working and that it would do damage in the long term. From 45 to 70s intellectuals heavily influenced policy, this slowly changed as money became more important than ideology.

Then when Reagan won in 80 the right realized that they just needed an actor to persuade Americans to keep voting to dissemble the new deal. Demand for intellectuals fell on the right while demand for "actors" or professional politicians increased. Eventually you got the modern Republican party. You could even argue that Nixon was the first to do this, but Nixon actually did surround himself with intellectuals while Reagan was surrounded by professional politicians and administrators.

[Anonymous No.6396340]

>tfw Elizabeth Warren won't run

[Anonymous No.6396343]

>>6396331
Yes. I think the Reagan-Thatcher years threw conservatives back to the defensive instead of offensive, and the defense is best managed with high numbers at the expense of content. The deregulation of the media that happened under them might also be a factor, people like Limbaugh and Fox News pundits might have simply beaten the intellectuals on a traditional market competition.

[Anonymous No.6396370]

>>6396340

>mfw

>>6396343

Mass media is to blame as well. A TV show like firing line or anything educational would pretty much fail now. Everything is pundits with no qualifications throwing out zingers every 10 seconds.

It's also interesting to note that the conservative movement was severely hurt by Reagan's liberalism. Ironically Jimmy Carter was far more willing to carry out a policy of deregulation than Reagan. Carter deregulated four sectors of the American economy while Reagan only deregulated one (a few parts of the financial markets). The conservatives best chance was actually Jimmy Carter, that guy who is always lambasted by Fox News for being a weak bleeding heart.

[Anonymous No.6396394]

>>6396370

I guess you could also say Reagan carried out some deregulation in the healthcare sector since his administration shut down lots of homeless, mental illness and drug addiction centers. But that's not really deregulation, just stupid cutbacks that actually made crime and STD's a lot worse for a decade.

[Anonymous No.6396405]

>>6396370
>Mass media is to blame as well. A TV show like firing line or anything educational would pretty much fail now. Everything is pundits with no qualifications throwing out zingers every 10 seconds.

And don't forget the audience cheering at anything the guy they agree with says.

[Anonymous No.6396421]

>>6396331
>>6396370
This is actually scary.

American conservative intellectuals in the 60s and 70s tried to create a political and cultural movement that could reform American politics and culture with rational thinking. Instead they got Reagan and Fox News.

Now it's the opposite. Liberal intellectuals are trying to create a political and cultural movement to reform American politics and culture with rational thinking. What will they get?

Elizabeth Warren is nice and smart, but how far she is from Hugo Chavez kind of left-wing populism?

[Anonymous No.6396424]

>>6396421
>Liberal intellectuals are trying to create a political and cultural movement to reform American politics and culture with rational thinking
I missed the memo where identity politics became "rational thinking"

[Anonymous No.6396425]

>>6396394
Not the guy you're replying to but I think he means deregulation of business and industry conduct not budget cuts.

I didn't know it was Carter who set that train on motion, but I guess it kinda make sense. Pinochet and Deng were already working on reforms and anyone who cared could see what the trend of the future would be. It's probably fair to assume that if re-elected Ford would do the same.

[Anonymous No.6396451]

>>6396421
>Now it's the opposite. Liberal intellectuals are trying to create a political and cultural movement to reform American politics and culture with rational thinking. What will they get?

No part of the current liberal movement is oriented toward culture and rational thinking.

It was so stupid I reconsidered my views on fascism for a a minute.

[Anonymous No.6396459]

>>6396424
>I don't like it therefore it's not rational

[Anonymous No.6396462]

>>6396421
>Now it's the opposite. Liberal intellectuals are trying to create a political and cultural movement to reform American politics and culture with rational thinking. What will they get?

I think the biggest mistake of the Left following the end of the 70's-80's ebil capitalist restoration era was trying to have its own electoral "Reagan phenomenon" and blind partisan loyalty out of hurt pride instead of working on intellectual leadership.

This made this reform nearly impossible, because the reforms they were able to pass through electoral processes on the 1930-1970 all started on the outside: unionists and labor rights, the civil rights leaders and racial equality, the combination of economists and social scientists and welfare, etc.

You can easily see with the failure of movements like OWS that numbers alone unified by a vague common sentiment when you're supposed to be proposing change are useless.

[Anonymous No.6396479]

>>6396459
It's irrational because they spend so much time whining about the rights of gay couples to buy wedding cakes in a single state rather than anything that actually matters. Maybe if they started caring more about actual workers instead of people with Tumblr accounts.

[Anonymous No.6396505]

>>6391759
r8 the b8 8/8, mate!

[Anonymous No.6396533]

Who's excited for Hillary? Would DFW be excited?

I know I'm not. If she's elected, Hillary will just continue Obama's Third Way policies that let those with power and wealth to keep succeeding. But she'll make a YouTube video every once in a while in order to show she's hip with the mainstream Democratic voters, who only care about the first LGBTQYQRZZTXBFY character on television.

[Anonymous No.6396540]

>>6396479
Don't confuse actual academics with tumblrites

Actual academics do disregard important matters, as you said, but they do take their bullshit serously, differently from the tumblrites.

[Anonymous No.6396554]

>>6396459
The Democrat's focus on identity politics is a bullshit guise to mask the fact that they're just as murderous and imperialistic as the Republicans when it comes to other issues. Dems don't give a fuck about gays, blacks, women, etc., only their votes.

[Anonymous No.6396573]

>>6396533
>mainstream Democratic voters, who only care about the first LGBTQYQRZZTXBFY character on television.

I think we're to blame for our situation. Marcuse once said that the new Left can only succeed if its values, goals, morality and ambitions are visible through its actions, and in that sense we fail because we mirror mainstream politics perfectly.

Politicians were never meant to be the people who engage on political enterprises hostile to the ruling classes out of their own will and sense of morality. They should be "forced" into it by organized movements on the outside as they once were, and the Democrat's, Labour's and the Socialist's inability to deal with anything other than Identity-based politics is a reflect of our own.

[Anonymous No.6396579]

It seems that Hillary is only a nominal liberal. It's interesting that people see her as a liberal merely because she's a woman.

[Anonymous No.6396587]

>>6396573
The ever worsening situation regarding identity politics is what's slowly driving me away from rank and file liberalism. I'm also tired of it being heavily implied that I'm a scumbag because I'm white and male, even though I'm dirt poor.

[Anonymous No.6396657]

>>6392405
Id est vs i.e. (just to prove anon knows what i.e. stands for)

[Anonymous No.6396663]

>>6393592
Nailed it. DFW is a super conservative, and "The View from Mrs. [Whatever's] [Whatever]" doesn't do anything to dissuade me from that position.

[Anonymous No.6396671]

>>6396587
Where I live it's pretty much insufferable already, and I deal with it by not giving a fuck about these people and gravitating towards "unorthodox" left-wing groups instead.

The thing is, there's absolutely no reason why you have to take these people as "the Left" and either adhere to what they say or switch teams. You don't need their approval to read books, talk to people and persuade them to join you.

[Anonymous No.6396698]

>>6391759
hahahahahahhahahahhhhaahahahahahahahaha

[Anonymous No.6396732]

>>6396671
>You don't need their approval to read books, talk to people and persuade them to join you.
Actually, yeah, you do. See the Sadpuppies shitstorm.

[Anonymous No.6396763]

>>6396732
Absolutely no idea of what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.6396791]

>>6396732
Something to do with the Hugo Award, but I don't read much scifi so idk/idc.

[Anonymous No.6396798]

who the fuck cares

[Anonymous No.6396807]

>>6396698
Yes. It was funny.

[Anonymous No.6396811]

>>6396587
Same here. I'm a leftist but I can't stand most of the liberals. Most are too ignorant of history and politics.

[Anonymous No.6396866]

>>6396763
>Absolutely no idea of what you're talking about
SJW's forbidding the reading of books, talking to people and persuading them to join, because, apparently, some guy said something that might be construed as racist.

[Anonymous No.6396871]

>>6391759
nice b8 m8

[Anonymous No.6396904]

>>6392196
The first anti-capitalists were the german Romantics. They were reactionaries.

[Anonymous No.6396923]

Seriously though, what was with the bandana?

Was it a sign of certainty that he had a mental illness?

[Anonymous No.6396934]

>>6396923
He had a disorder where he would sweat an abnormal amount of the time. He wore the bandana as a way to try to mask that, and eventually claimed he used it to keep sweat from falling on his typewriter as he masturbated postmodern-ly in the Arizonan desert.

[Anonymous No.6396939]

>>6392196
>Ezra Pound, Dostoevsky, Eliot, Nabokov, Bulgakov, Borges, Balzac, Celine

On the other hand, I cannot name a single "Maoist" author of note.

[Anonymous No.6396947]

>>6396939
Zizek you illiterate pleb.

Rare pic of DFW's wedding day.

[Anonymous No.6396952]

>>6396947
>of note

also, not aware of Zizek declaring himself as a Maoist.

[Anonymous No.6396973]

>>6396866
Is it just me, or are SJWs going full-circle and meeting extreme conservatives on the other side? There's something about SJW logic that seems extraordinarily puritan.

[Anonymous No.6397223]

>>6396973
>There's something about SJW logic that seems extraordinarily puritan.
Not really. SJW will tolerate any behaviour at all long as whatever you're doing supports homosexuality, transsexualism and cuckoldry. (I wish I was joking, but sadly I'm not; that's really how insane they are.)

[Anonymous No.6397251]

>>6396048
John Major was not a 'moderate', he was a complete retard who destroyed Britain by selling us down the river to the European project - which he was a fanatical supporter of - but giving away control of our currency as Chancellor by joining the ERM and giving away our sovereignty as Maastricht.

The most vile scum since Ted Heath.

[Anonymous No.6397257]

>>6397251

Don't worry friend, I'm very aware of that fact. I spend a lot of time in the UK where I have tons of family who are old fashioned conservatives. I post with john major as my picture sometimes because I like his style, I do not like him as a politician at all. I just miss the days when the statesman of Britain put on a tie everyday, including Saturday.

I'm a card carrying member of UKIP

[Anonymous No.6397269]

>>6397257
Oh thank goodness. I was a member of UKIP throughout 2014 but haven't renewed because of the leftward drift under Pinko O'Flynn and others. I'll still be voting for them in May.

[Anonymous No.6397274]

>>6395763
>To be fair, he's right about how simultaneously boring and lurid modern porn is.
Bullshit! See:
>>>/s/15848924
>>>/s/15810603
>>>/s/15845616

>And Max Hardcore is a truly vile man
And George Lucas is an omicical maniac. He blew up a whole planet, you know.

[Anonymous No.6397275]

>>6397251
>totally missing the point that Major and Thatcher gave avay Hong Kong to the commies

[Anonymous No.6397281]

>>6397257
>member of UKIP
>>6397269
>voting for them in May.

You are both twats.

[Anonymous No.6397287]

>>6397269

Good to hear you're still voting for them. Don't worry, I think as long as Nigel is the face of the party it won't stray too much farther to the left.

>>6397281

Who is still voting con or lab? Marxists? Christ the UK is in the shitter worse than in the late 70s why are people still voting for these idiots?

[Anonymous No.6397292]

>>6397281
Who are you voting? I hope it's not the Jew, the ponce or the greens.

[Anonymous No.6397300]

>>6397287
>Christ the UK is in the shitter worse than in the late 70s why are people still voting for these idiots?
And? The two main parties are marmalade and peanut butter. You don't like either so you thinking voting for a jar of piss is the answer.

[Anonymous No.6397305]

>>6397300
>waaah UKIP is mean to muh precious lil immigrants
>Islam is a religion of peace
>black men have big cocks

[Anonymous No.6397310]

>>6397300
What exactly do you dislike about UKIP, relative to the other parties?

[Anonymous No.6397315]

>>6397300

No I think voting for the first true conservative party in decades is worth it.

Enjoy your continued affirmative action, open door immigration, wage degeneration and the rape of our culture. I'll be voting for a party that actually believes in the UK.

[Anonymous No.6397318]

>>6396952

He said author of note.

[Anonymous No.6397326]

>>6397318
Zizek is of note, you stupid shitlord.

[Anonymous No.6397334]

>>6397326

No he's really not. Outside of this board no one gives a shit. The only people that do are meme spewing 4channers who green text in real life and say

>mein gott the ideology

when they hear shit they don't like.

[Anonymous No.6397341]

>>6397334
Just fuck off, already, Zizek is immensley important to modern existentialism, phenomenology and Lacanian psychoanalysis.

[Anonymous No.6397347]

>>6397334
Confirmed to talk only about philosophy and politics in this board. I mean, Zizek is taught in Political Sciences nowadays. Probably your friends stopped reading philosophy after Nietzsche in their Philosophy 101, and they believe that they have understand all philosophy until him.

Yeah, why not.

[Anonymous No.6397349]

>>6397347
My philosophy class only taught Frege and what followed him.

[Anonymous No.6397355]

>>6397347
>>6397341

mein gott the ideology.

[Anonymous No.6397356]

>>6397349
Ha! Can this Frege teach you how to live in a faceless, meaningless and absurd world? Can he teach you what it means to Be? Not fucking likely, kid.

[Anonymous No.6398607]

>>6397334
Yeah...which is why when I saw him speak a couple of weeks ago hundreds of people showed up to watch.

[Anonymous No.6399187]

>>6391759
fucking 100/100 m8

[Anonymous No.6399203]

>>6391759
This proves how young people tend to the left just because of its perceived "coolness"

[Anonymous No.6399206]

>>6393592
source on the church? i thought that was just a code for AA