/lit/ - Literature

>>18830636
>implying their culture(s) have remained untouched and static for 40,000 years

This romantisization of aboriginal cultures, as if they are some ancient untouched, uncorrupted, static people is so out of touch

>>16294753
You use a lot of words to say almost nothing. Most of what you said actually supports the fact that Pluckrose and Lindsay know exactly what they are talking about when they bring attention to the dangers of this indoctrinated thinking.

Yours are the ramblings of a pseudo intellectual with a lib-arts degree. If this is a troll its a good one, if it's not, please consider necking yourself.

>>14968383
>one of the youngest people to be appointed professor
>gets sick and has to quit

>He was too much of a queer to be a teacher!

>>14708137
>As a person of color I am a brain dead mule who can only serve the whiteman under this system and I take no responsibility for my actions because I don't have any power

Firstly that is not the definition of murder you schizoid.

Second as a PoC I can deny everything you said.

Third your shortcomings are your own, not the whites fault.

Cope harder.

>>14665930
>>14665881
>>14665856

Do you know what site your on retard? What a bunch of boring jaded cunts. How about you pass me some of those chips off your shoulder you normal faggot.

It's pretty unnecessarily wordy, like ok Melville I get it, you write and have a large vocabulary but it obscures the text when it takes you 4 lines to say "I walked past a man and gave him a nod." Melvilles writing comes off as pretentious and it's annoying as fuck that people see this mediocrity as anything but a writer flexing to seem deep and profound. Other writers have done a much better job at playing with these ideas without the word salad.

>>13758239
Fuck is that an annoying pop-sci thought. I find that to be a valueless question to ask from the philosophical point of view. We have no choice but to feel like we have free will, Even if you where given the opposite answer you'd still feel the exact same as you do now. There is nothing to be gained in trying to answer that question semantically. We need hard science for a question like that and the science seems to point at us having no real freedom. We feel ourselves think. The act of thinking is as much a sensual feeling just as taste or touch, it is the feeling of neurons getting stimulated. In the same way you can't control the taste of an apple or banana or how you see the color blue, you can't really control what your next thought is going to be because it's literally the feeling of the structure of your brain being changed by its environment. It's not like these neurons get stimulated out of nowhere by some hidden 'you' behind the scenes.

Non of that changes the fact that you're going to feel like there is still a 'you' behind the scenes.