/lit/ - Literature

>>18333939
You have negative ideation toward religion because you associate it with your parents. You've made being irreligious part of your persona but it's reactionary. You haven't done the work.

You're just being dishonest.

>>18325108
>think its okay
You sound like an SJW. It's not ok to read a biography in public? It's ok to make assumptions based on the title of a book (not even the subtitle) and glare at someone, for at least 2 minutes, sitting quietly on a public bench? (FYI: I was wearing an $1800 suit and on lunch; it's not like I was wearing a MAGA hat/Blue Lives Matter t-shirt).

The whole experience was completely benign, at least for me. As I said, I just smiled at her (politely) and went back to my book (and as far as I know, she kept staring). What, did you imbue that with the idea of some white supremacist microaggression? My only victory was enjoying my lunch break despite a rude idiot who was triggered by a stranger reading a book.

FYI: The only other time I was bothered while reading was when a girl approached me on the subway because we were reading the same novel. I had a short conversation with her and she mentioned a coffee shop she likes to go to (I was polite but ignored the hint). For someone like you, that's probably on your top ten incel/nice guy /lit fantasy list. For me...it was a Sunday.

>>18304967
Trannies are all about creating false outward appearances. Seeing as you collect "Everyman's Library," I think you have a lot in common.

>>18284661
They're both written by Don Delillo

You're all a bunch of faggots. Must suck to be brainwashed to the point that certain words literally jar your mind regardless of their context. (P.S. That isn't called being empathetic; it's called being a pussy).

>>18249787
>It's really not that complicated.
Of course it isn't, it's a midwit opinion not backed up by any evidence.
>You're saying the exact same thing I am
You're saying that you're a pretentious retard. (There's that lack of self-awareness again).
>trying to sort of twist things around to defend yourself
Actually, the discussion we're having stopped being about Fight Club a few messages ago (i.e. when I pointed out you can't tell the difference between criticism and opinion); I'm making fun of you for being a pretentious pseud. Uh oh! There I go "twisting things around" again!

I want to offer you this chance to reread your own comments, realize you're a pseud, and reflect on the fact you have nothing interesting to offer the world. Then, you should turn off your computer and contemplate why you've tied your self-esteem to a discussion with a stranger; why it's important for people to know your intelligence precludes you from enjoying something like Fight Club (because, you know, Palahniuk isn't Pynchon...such a deep take!)

>>18248638
Then you're a moron.

>>18203628
Oooo, look how edgy you are! Treating people like shit is so cool and based. Contrarian opinions mark you out as intelligent; facts don't care about feelings, right?

The sad thing is, you and I probably hold similar opinions when it comes to identity politics. However, the problem is you dilute that side of the debate with midwittery and a pathetic egoism based on a perceived contrarian edginess.

Maybe you'll grow up. Maybe you won't.

>>18120628
I am not OP.

>>18109899
Really? Only 10-20% I had Tinder for like 3 months and matched and conversed with literally dozens of women (I didn't even message most of my matches).

Upgraded to texting with about 20 of them, went on dates with around 10, hooked up with 5, and ended up getting into a long-term relationship with the final one.

Here's a tip maybe...on a whiff I changed the age limit on it before I deleted it. I set the ages to 30-40 and matched with every single woman I swiped right on.

I never had a hard time when it came to women...but it isn't like they could tell I was 6'3 from my pictures.

>>18106996

>>18095869
>Refernces Disney after being dunked on
COPE

>>18082283
>"muh hyperbole" --/pol incel triggered by Margaret Atwood

>>15789539
>Omniliberals are pure consequentialists. Depending on the question at hand, they can be either rule utilitarians or ethical egoists.