/lit/ - Literature

>>11292908
Hehehe

>>11292908
What is with /pol/fags lately that ties every appearance and deeds of women or minorities as some overarching theme about racism or sexism?

>>11292935
Hi brainlet. Literally any feminist reading of the work echoes the exact same sentiments. So fucking kill yourself. This is not a torturous reading by any means, and if you want to argue it's influenced by my politics, you'd have to do the same to the feminist theorists who call the novel violently sexist.

>>11292908
Why do you capitalize white when you say white men?

>>11292945
Because the federal government does in census data, and it's correct capitalization? What the fuck does it matter, freak?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUc0KC_JfF4

>>11292935
But that was the plot, was it not?

>The Japanese Nurse: The nurse in charge of the upstairs disturbed ward, for violent and unmanageable patients. She is kind and openly opposes Nurse Ratched's methods.


The asian woman loves you more white man

>>11292955
>b-b-b-b-but... /pol/!!!!!!1

>>11292943
>you'd have to do the same to the feminist theorists who call the novel violently sexist.
I sure can and I sure will. So are you admitting to be being as retarded as those feminist theorists?

>>11292955
The plot was never in question, only the interpretation.

>>11292985
Just leave the thread, man. You don't know what you're talking about. Have you even read it? Almost every single encounter in the novel and source of conflict is about sexual politics/humiliation. I really can't be bothered to reply to some 20 year old liberal boomer with some weird axe to grind about /pol/ shitting up a decent thread.

>>11293001
Browbeating me with insults is not an argument. You have not even explained your position other than so and so is white/women/minority.

>>11292993
>only the interpretation.
I'll admit, it's been 30 years since I read it - but that was my general take when I did. We can pretend that no character has a reason for being in place or for having any motivations to act as they do - but that requires more of a stretch of logic than just accepting the general trends of behavior amongst various sociological groups.

>>11293011
No, I stated my position just fine. What you're not getting is that I don't give a shit about discussing anything with you. I would rather step in dog shit than continue to """"debate""""" with you. Fuck off, once again. This is your last (You).

>>11292908
Is there anything to the name "Ratched"?

Rat-shed
Rat-shit
Wretched
Ratchet (crank, cranks, cranky, twists, tightens screws, screws nuts,)

>>11293017
>general trends of behavior amongst various sociological groups.
It does if you see them as individuals first.

>>11293034
Why does no one ever accuse /k/ of shitting the board - even when it's me?

>>11293045
There is nothing in the book to substantiate that sort of reading, dumbass. It is intentionally allegorical, and the race of various characters is repeatedly emphasized. This is clear from the famous first opening lines.

Moreover, the emphasis on sex/gender is LITERALLY THE PLOT OF THE NOVEL. Every single character's arc is about their sexual relationships and past. Every fucking one.

>>11292943
>Literally any feminist reading of the work echoes the exact same sentiments.
Give me a single one.

>>11293034
How can you state your position if you already decided you want to discuss anything with me?

I find this kind of reading to be cynically manipulative and everywhere in 4chan. If said women or minorities did something good, it is SJW or pandering. If it is bad it is oppression against whites.

>>11293045
>It does if you see them as individuals first.
But then the characters fall into stereotypes. How is that my fault.

>>11292908
>How did Ken Kesey get away with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?
He simply wrote a book. Censorship ended years earlier, so he could publish whatever he wanted. Plenty of books from the sixties feature praise of masculinity as a theme, you should read more.

>Why is a book/movie about women and Jews using blacks to oppress and dominate the creative, bold, freedom-loving impulses of White men so revered by the Left?
Because you've intentionally framed it to seem like a solely far right story. The book is about the dangers of institutionalized society and the mistreatment of those who are deemed abnormal by it. The whole book feels very Foucaultian, and Foucault's first book "History of Madness" came out around the same time. In any case, you seem like a moron, OP, so you should probably go back to /pol/.

>>11293040
Giggled at rat-shed.

>>11293058
Free feel to post examples instead of being like OP and making assertions after assertions

>>11293040
s'far as i can tell, it's meant to invoke the last sense of cranking your nuts
the theme of emasculation and rebelling against oppressive maternal figures is not at all subtle. i don't know how op could imagine he's made some discovery that has eluded critics up til now.

>>11293061
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=feminist+interpretation+of+one+flew+over+the+cuckoo%27s+nest

>>11293067
>The book is about the dangers of institutionalized society and the mistreatment of those who are deemed abnormal by it.
So, you did not see a particular indictment of psychiatrists and their institution - just the overall institutionalization of society?

>>11292949
>What the fuck does it matter, freak?
I've been bullied.

>>11293072
You're just proving that you haven't read it and are being some sort of lefty troll for no reason. Deserves a ban desu.

A liberal wouldnt make this interpretation. They would see mcmurphy as a humanistic liberal free spirit opposing general authority.

Your analysis also completely ignores the injun who is the narrator of the story and sees the world system controlled by something called "the combine". And the whole book is the mental patients trying to earn respect as humans and men and not as "Rabbits"

mcmurphy is just a petty criminal and not mentally ill, so he arrives as a rebellious figure who can rally and lead the men against the dictator

He helps a lot of them feel like humans, especially that one guy with the stutter who he helps get laid.

>>11293040
The names all seem obvious - especially RPM.

Dumbfucks can't figure out that the Beat Generation was overlapped with the Hippies, and that the Hippies were in themselves not monolithic.
Bikers were also part of that pastiche, and they were as far right as it gets.
Not every hippie was a "flower child" from Berkeley.

>>11293076
Have you seen the mouth breathers in this thread? That's probably why. They are certainly treating it like a revelation

>>11292985
>So are you admitting to be being as retarded as those feminist theorists?
Which theorists??

>>11293085
No I saw that as well. I shouldn't have phrased my sentence as if that was the only theme. The point was that cherry picking the story (muh Jews!!) and the themes to fit your political agenda betrays the reality of a fairly allegorical and naunced book.

>>11293089
>They would see mcmurphy as a humanistic liberal free spirit opposing general authority.
This is probably whatshisfucks reason for taking the starring role for the movie. This is your daily reminder: Waschbär hat nichts falsch gemacht.

>>11293089
Well that's a bad interpretation then.

That reading ignores the fact that every character is grappling with something related to sex, and Ratched uses this almost exclusively as a method of manipulation. It ignores the book's climax where Johnny kills himself due to an extreme instance of sexual humiliation related to his mother and Ratched. Hmm, yeah no matriarchy is evident there...

>>11293087
>make claims
>have no proof but insults
And somehow I am the troll. That was my earnest attempt to discuss with you, but you just revealed yourself to be the troll

>>11293120
>he's still posting
i'll admit that i laughed, but only a little...

>>11293076
I don't see that OP considers his post revelatory

>>11293103
>The point was that cherry picking the story
I only read the book once - as I said, over 30 years ago. That having been said, I have personally met someone that resembles every stereotype in the book. I did not see all of it at the time but I remembered the general outline of the story and I would see people that I met as filling the various roles. I, personally, have not cherry picked - I have grown into a further understanding of the story by long term reflection.

>>11293089
>A liberal wouldnt make this interpretation. They would see mcmurphy as a humanistic liberal free spirit opposing general authority.
no they would cheer the strong woman for putting the evil white male in his place

>>11293115
Its not bad. You can read the book and see it as how mental patients are treated like animals and not humans. And here comes mcmurphy, taking them on fishing trips, getting them laid, and getting the deaf mute big chief to actually talk for once

And what happens to people who rebel against the system?

The hammer nails them down (lobotomy)

Mcmurphy wasnt racist, he was just a charismatic criminal. His best friend was a giant red guy.

Nurse ratchet did specifically pick bitter black men who hated white men to be her orderlies so she could have them be as cruel as possible though

>>11293122
>I-I am not mad at all

wait, is the point of this thread to say that feminism = the left, monolithically? The left were the ones who were cheering on Che and Fidel at the time of this book, and those are two hypermasculine, homophobic figures. Feminism is a separate social ideology to being leftwing, and the association with leftists being emasculated is a weird fixation of online rightwingers today and not actually a reality. This is probably tied in with the sexual frustration of online rightwingers who take out the frustration as politics on what they see as the dominant culture of the women who reject them (liberal and feminist).

>>11293115
its about the feminine imprisoning and clinicalizing the masculine. Its about modern man needing to submit to and be ruled by woman

>>11293136
>no they would cheer the strong woman for putting the evil white male in his place
If I had said that, I would have been accused of being a post-modernist.

>>11293151
>*SNAP*
If you want to have a rambling, off topic conversation with yourself, do it in your own thread.

>>11293151
holy crap this post could be picture perfect next to one of those silly ms paints (of a leftist)

>The left were the ones who were cheering on Che and Fidel at the time of this book, and those are two hypermasculine,
>were
>were
>were
so the book could have been alluding to the future, you wanna try again?

>>11293151
>wait, is the point of this thread to say that feminism = the left, monolithically?
Do not get stuck on the use of terminology. Dialectics are a real thing.

>>11293153
I agree with that though?

>>11293166
>book could have been alluding to the future
The Ken Kesey is an Oracle?

>>11293166
>you wanna try again?
He's clearly a fucking retard; I wouldn't push him to post more.

>>11293178
You got something against tards?

>>11292908
>Why is a book/movie about women and Jews using blacks to oppress and dominate the creative, bold, freedom-loving impulses of White men so revered by the Left?

The left literally think that is a good thing.

>>11292935
They are virgins, neets and lacked a strong father figure in their lives. What else do you expect from a child raised by a single mother? They will grow up failures and always blame others for being one.

>>11293218
are you defending mrs ratched? did she not want to control toxic masculinity?

>>11293216
>The left literally think that is a good thing.
>I mean, that's not really happening.
>But, if it were, that would be really good.

>>11293218
Right, so again... apply that same statement to feminists who have the same reading of the novel.

I mean it. Make a post where you say that if you have a single ounce of intellectual honesty. Or are you just a partisan college-age boomer?

>>11293216
Randomly assuming things about others because you have no friends, is the absolute indicator of an incel. Please neck yourself you worthless subhuman.

>>11293252
Did I hit a nerve shitskin? Because you sound like a person who hast lost all hope and can't find joy in his life anymore. Instead of ranting about my post I suggest you kill yourself and spare everyone the dread you create with your presence.

>>11293166
>so the book could have been alluding to the future, you wanna try again?
lmao what the fuck? I want to believe this was not trolling since it gave me a pretty good chuckle.

I tend to lose track of the stereotypes of leftists; are we talking about weak emasculated cucks, or violent antifa punks looking for a street fight?

>>11293269
>are we talking about weak emasculated cucks, or violent antifa punks looking for a street fight?
The doxxing of the antifa "punks" in Berkeley was tied to them being involved with a dominatrix for hire that specialized in pegging. I was on the board when the doxxer was pulling strings to get the info. They are not hardcore.

>>11293279
>I was on the board when the doxxer was pulling strings to get the info. They are not hardcore.
lmao oh god he's serious. Come to Berlin, we'll show you how hardcore pegging is ;)

>>11293261
>>11293253
You sound deranged. I'm reporting these posts to the FBI because you sound like you may commit political violence or something. I hope you get the help you need.

I will report these posts to your school/work if I get further information as a result of my tip as well.

>>11293284

>>11293269
read the op and some of the posts itt. What do you think of the book/film, what is your interpretation?

>>11293296
i liked the book and movie. Definitely has themes of sexuality and emasculation. Other anons also touched on the humanistic themes and some of the obvious Beatnik/Hippie vibes to the book. I knew Kesey's biography before reading the book, so it's hard for me to know how well this is transmitted, but you can tell his experiences working in mental institutions and experimenting with LSD early on had a huge influence on the book. Over all, a good example of american lit from that period. The obsessive incel angle regarding the "left" in the thread is pretty dumb, but also really amusing. OP still needs a hardcore pegging.

>>11293309
Imagine typing this. Imagine the smell of the person typing this.

>>11293309
>The obsessive incel angle regarding the "left"
its not really obsessive, though if it is, why are you obsessively against there being anything to it? seeing as how some anons wrote that there are parallels with the current year and actions, behaviors and beliefs. The incel angle regarding the left, is simply positing mcMurphy represents the maverick, good ol boy, rough around the edges, possibly alt rightish, white male, who is being oppressed by a woman, the traditional system of that type of white guy, is being turned on the head, now a woman and minorities are running the show, and declaring the white male to be sick, and they are abusing their powers

>>11293309
Why did you put left in quotes, as if that's not a real, academic, or descriptive term? Are you fucking uneducated?

>>11293316
I smell like shit and sex from a night of techno and pegging. Perfect time to shitpost about books with americans who are up late. I'll start the shower shortly.

>>11293284
I will report your post to the FBI too. Hate speech about people because of their political opinions can be reported.

>>11293327
>I'll start the shower shortly.
Why lie?

>>11293331
(No it can't)

>>11293309
>Everything is always a coincidence.
>Every time.
>Every fucking time.
>Author's use of obvious stereotypes were just accidents.
>RP McMurphy - fucking coincidence.
>His name could just as easily been IP Freely.

>>11292908
You forgot the explicit inclusion of the cuck sub-plot!

>>11293325
I don't know that seems like a mostly accurate description, minus the part about the traditional system. That is definitely not what Kesey meant to convey. Most beat/hippie lit focuses on white male mavericks, I don't think any of the authors were trying to send messages about conservative rightwing values though. I'm not American so I don't really get why everything has to be reinterpreted through some contemporary political lens, but that seems like a really common exercise for Americans, both left and right.

>>11293326
wew, don't get triggered by punctuation. How about I capitalize the first letter, will that be ok for you? the Left!

>>11293284
>rants about left
>gets response
>is offended
>"This guy is probably violent because of political motivation"
Again assuming things how you like and even reporting false assumptions to the authorities can get you into prison.

>>11293309
>The obsessive incel angle regarding the "left" in the thread is pretty dumb

when every university has a Department of Incel Studies and anthologies of Incel Criticism are required reading u wont be laughin

>>11293340
>RP McMurphy - fucking coincidence.
what is the significant of his name?

op the same thing happened to me last time i watched scarface, i used to think it was a uplifting immigrant fantasy story of the hardworking guy who comes to america and makes good, but now when i watch i notice how the anglos are always in control, and montana is always out of control and operating on luck, its actually a reactionary message saying even at criminal enterprise the anglos always gonna have the upper hand

>>11293358
>anthologies of Incel Criticism are required reading u wont be laughin
I feel this is where the Nick Land spammers will naturally end up

>>11293309
>I liked the book, the book was about stuff and the author was a person

So this is the power of Leftist boomers...

>>11293284
Saying that you will use information about someone to harm them, is a threat and can be reported.

>>11293355
>everyone i talk to in a thread is the same person
That was your first mistake. Your second is believing that I am "reporting a false assumption" whatever that means. You literally used racial slurs and advocated violence against political opponents. There is no embellishment whatsoever, nor any interpretation. Maybe don't make violent comments online?

>>11293284
>I hope you get the help you need.

I know just the Nurse that can help

>>11293309
>if you fuck your enemies, you win
Really makes me think

>>11293358
Au contraire, that will be the biggest joke in /lit/

>>11293368
RPM baby. He's spinning like a top at full revs.

>>11293373
Sorry you interpreted that in an odd way. I'm just trying to get someone help. Feel free to file a false report and deal with the consequences if you so choose?

>>11293373
Can you actually do this in America? That sounds amusingly European.

>>11293369
>op the same thing happened to me last time i watched scarface
I think you got your kino confused. Pic related.

>>11292908
damn nigga you right

>>11293389
No, he's just scared and bluffing. Thats what college boomers do when faced with reality.

Tell you what, apologize for insulting right wingers and I won't make a report. Double down on your bluff or say anything other than a sincere apology and I hit submit. What do you think?

>>11293352
Because you're a retard who thinks there's such a thing as "conservative values". You have no idea what it even is to be a reactionary

I was thinking about it and the character Billy Bibbit is basically an incel and instead of insulting him and treating him like shit mcmurphy helps him get laid and he gains confidence for the first time in his life and even loses his stutter.
But then nurse roastie cant handle a man gaining confidence and threatens to tell his mother who the incel Bibbit fears and then he commits suicide

>>11293399
He smart!

>>11293405
>nurse roastie
fucking lel

>>11293402
>Tell you what, apologize for insulting right wingers and I won't make a report. Double down on your bluff or say anything other than a sincere apology and I hit submit. What do you think?


lol, imagine actually writing this

the white man will rise and put the leftist woman back in her place, the movie clearly is suggesting that women should not be in positions of power, especially feminist women who can easily hate men. This movie was a warning to white men not to let women gain power, because they will abuse that power against white men, the most dominant competitor, they will try to weaken, and because they have lived their lives oppressed by him, historically, and by their fathers, they will seek to get their revenge. How many white children boys are given psychiatric drugs by women psychiatrists, hmm?

I keep telling you guys how psychotherapy is a cult of state control, and you see it in front of you as a book and film, how do you keep defending the source of your own alienation?

>>11293405
>mcmurphy helps him get laid and he gains confidence
Never happened - and if it did, it was just a coincidence. Everything is just coincidences within coincidences. Pi flows into Theta.

>>11293402
Adding this to my based compilation

>>11293402
>Tell you what, apologize for insulting right wingers and I won't make a report
Can the mods just shut this shit thread already?

>>11293419
Oy vey shut it down mods the goyim can't know!

>>11293419
Shheeeeiiiiit. It's #3 on the charts, baby.

>>11293415
I don't, I shit on psychology all the time brother

this whole thread
>>11293067
>assumes a polfriend knows foucault

>>11293085
>hold on, are you saying that you consider the events more important than which characters was what color?

>>11292908
Before we operate our hermeneutics of suspicion, where we demote the entire novel to an allegory about the plight of the white man against the essential evil of others, can we think more plainly about the plot of the novel.

First of all, the title coming from:
"Three geese in a flock
One flew East
One flew West
And one flew over the cuckoo's nest"

Th book is obviously about deviant behaviour. He attempts to take everything unsympathetic in the standard narrative and see if there's a reason to care in a rather conventional manner. The book is not about the hero white male against the other minorities... it is about painting the conventional power structures that might prime our sensitivities in their favour, and seeing if there is a way to reverse them. The tender nurse, the psycho, the doctors, the angry negro, the savage. These tropes are kind of outdated today, but were wildly popular in the late 50s.

This doesn't invalidate what you say. I am merely pointing out one reason that what you say is just one interpretation, where there are other interpretations where externalities concerning race and gender are not the salience.

Second, the book has been countlessly criticised for its transgressive themes. This is not because of its attack on race or gender. Rather conservatives attempted to rid the book from the public because it was about crime and violence, and it explored those themes without dismissing them as immoral and evil. We might take this for granted, and you might think "its image as an anti-authoritarian hippy novel" is just an image. But that's honestly how it was received by its harshest critics.

I think there is some validity in your interpretation.I think it's really interesting that your thinking of the representational errors that the book engaged in. But can it possibly be upheld in tandem with the merits of other more conventional interpretations of the book?

If you're answer is no, it might be tricky to not see your efforts as merely a pretentious roundabout way to dismiss the book in the exact same way that a conservative reading rejected it.

>>11293429
>I shit on psychology all the time brother
It's really the only solid thing I share with The Master.

>>11293442
Foucault was /pol/

>>11293442
>being such a brainlet you think it's a big deal to know about foucault
This is honestly the most pathetic post I've read in a while. And I browse /v/ sometimes. It's just so pathetic to throw out a baby tier name like Foucault as a gatekeeping exercise. Come the fuck on.

>>11293454
>Foucault was /pol/
Is this performance art?

>>11293443
I think you could make the argument that the race-related tropes were nothing more than tropes. I don't think you can say the same thing for the sexual politics. That's way to big of a stretch, and requires ignoring the background of every character, including McMurphy

>>11293456
Pols interpretation is basically "reeee everyone is being mean to me because im a white mail"
Pol doesn't even realize how much of a mirror image they are of sjw's whining about oppression all the time to the point of insanity.

The book and movie are obviously about the degradation of people in the mental health system and how mcmurphy mounts a rebellion by helping his fellow patients to feel like humans instead of caged animals

>>11293470
Yes but you CANNOT ignore the overt theme of masculine sexuality as a source of shame and subjugation. It is fucking explicit.

>>11293467
>requires ignoring the background of every character, including McMurphy
Imagine reading the book with no mention of any of those details and no character development other than what is palatable to the perfumed princes here. The book would be flat and we would not concern ourselves with the discussion.

>>11293470
None of your statements are a response to my post. Disorganized thinking can be a precipitating symptom of schizophrenia.

>>11293454
Alright, you were trolling all along and I got baited. Good job. You can stop now.

>>11293464
Foucault was a Neo-Liberal follower of Nietzsche and opposed identity politics and his work was a direct precursor to the alt-rights post-truth strategy against established information systems
Let me guess, you never actually read him?

>>11293483
>post-truth strategy against established information systems
This is not directly owned by alt-right. If anything co-opting is a better word

>>11293478
the alt right and sjw's are mirror images of each other. easily offended culture warriors obsessed with identity politics incapable of thinking in a class or economic sense.

Sometimes i have this fantasy were i strap a rainbow haired sjw and richard spencer looking faggot to a rocket powered by the blood of click bait journalists and launch it into the sun

>>11293478
>Disorganized thinking can be a precipitating symptom of schizophrenia.
That is totally true - but have you ever seen someone try to argue IRL with a genuine nut? If you walk into the conversation midstream then it is often difficult to tell which one is the nut.

>>11293484
Not at all. Show me a Left wing effort that came close to pizzagate

>>11293484
>If anything co-opting is a better word
Because you say so. That's your brilliant reasoning. Awesome.

>>11293485
Why do the libs in this thread come across as so mentally ill? Like seriously, is anyone else seeing this shit? These posts are schizophrenia tier.

>>11293483
>established information systems
You mean the guys that put bombs in trucks to prove their false narrative?
>http://articles.latimes.com/1993-02-10/news/mn-1335_1_gm-pickup
Or do you mean the guys that edit dispatcher recordings to alter the narrative?
>https://www.yahoo.com/news/blogs/upshot/nbc-fires-producer-over-edited-zimmerman-911-call-201124740.html

>>11293485
>le everyone is a strawman but me enlightened centrist

Retard

>>11292908
the protags are a mick and an injun

>>11293490
Are you saying the left does not have its own misinformation campaign?

>>11293456
You're right. In most places it means nothing.
on pol though...
I mean these guys are special. I doubt they even read the jewish conspiracy books they're so desperately trying to meme. Much less anything that disagrees with their beliefs.

>>11293491
People are clearly arguing with you, you have no actual arguments. You have resorted to accusing anyone who opposes you of being mentally ill.

Congratulations pol, you have become nurse ratchet

>>11293499
That's not what post-truth is idiot. That's just traditional falsehood.
With pizzagate no one was actually expected to authentically believe the rumors. The people spreading them knew it was bullshit, the people hearing it was bullshit and the people in favor of it knew that yet the power of the message reverberated regardless
This is a very different politics

>>11293512
>The people spreading them knew it was bullshit
No

>>11293515
Let me rectify it. Unlike traditional falsehood whether anyone believes it or not it doesn't actually matter

>>11293511
OK so once again, not everyone who replies in a thread is the same person. Hope that clears it up this time. Welcome to 4chan.

>>11293505
Your claim is verifiably false.
>https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/text/foucault/

>>11293490
Are we accepting the premise that The Alt Right is a legit entity? I see them as puppets of The Left. The Alt Right activist that was doxxed as a former Occupy spurd really soured me to the idea that they were legit.

>>11293523
But /pol/ did believe in it and push for it. There are much better disinformation campaigns they did, but I won't let you revise history on this one.

>>11293512
>we have a year's supply of tomato paste in the basement
>we have no basement
There is way more to it than the wafer thin media coverage.

>>11293530
wow, you made it all the way to the second line of my reply
in case you missed the third one, I said that they don't even read some of the books they talk about
which must be embarrassing, because you used the fact that they mention foucault as a proof that they read him

>>11293556
whats your take on the op's take?

>>11293556
>shit meme
>failed aggressive tone
>didn't even read the discussions in the link i provided
Yikes man, that's three strikes. Maybe the FBI needs to be made aware of you too?

>>11293567
Not that anon, but I think it's fascinating and substantive. This was one of my favourite novels when I read it years ago, and I think the OP interpretation is relevant and the use of shame to turn natural masculinity, aggressiveness, and, sexuality into a tool that oppresses men is very clearly in the book!

>>11293567
The novel is pretty nice, but personally I think it's not that relevant to far-left or far-right politics.
I believe >>11293067 is right about the commentary on society though. Also, I'd point to clockwork orange, which is another great story with a similar message, but a little better in exploring society's attempts to 'correct' the individual.

>>11293067
this

>>11293584
go ahead anon
I'm highly trained in unarmed combat and have the access to the entire arsenal of the US armed forces
also, I already reported you 17 times, just thought I'll let you know

>>11293151
>wait, is the point of this thread to say that feminism = the left, monolithically? The left were the ones who were cheering on Che and Fidel at the time of this book, and those are two hypermasculine, homophobic figures. Feminism is a separate social ideology to being leftwing, and the association with leftists being emasculated is a weird fixation of online rightwingers today and not actually a reality.

Name literally any prominent left-wing thinker today who believe this. The modern left is strongly associated with feminism. As far as I'm aware, leftist ideology has always been pro-feminist. Nazbol-ish deviations were just the result of less liberalized 2nd/3rd worlders embracing Marxism and/or revolutionaries adjusting their beliefs to reality (any country that wants positive birth rates and a strong family unit isn't going to be feminism for very long).

>>11293584
>>didn't even read the discussions in the link i provided
Oh did I read them. I swear I'm so impressed by the depth and intelligence of pol philosophy. I'm not cherry-picking, those are the top results in order:
1. foucault's pendulum - in a flat earth thread
2. quote:
>utterly useless postmodern bullshit which just consisted of random buzzwords and jumbled nonsensical quotations of Foucault
in a thread about cultural marxism and why there are blacks with phds
3, 4 - same as 1.
5. a goddamni peterson thread. no further explanation needed
6. quote:
>Foucault, would you please get HIV again and die again?
What did they mean by this? Should I go on? Or will their infinite wisdom overwhelm me?

>>11293670
Wow look at those goal posts move!

>>11293677
I guess this solves the mystery. The reason pol has a sticky with logical fallacies is so you can spout their names at random when the argument turns completely hopeless for you.
So good to finally know!

>>11293694
I'm confused by most of what this post is about. But so... did you look through every reference to Foucault on /pol/ and verify that no one has ever read him or not? Your smarmy ass attitude is getting in the way. Take it out of subsequent posts or this is the last response you get from me.

>>11293704
You're confused about a lot more than that. I can't believe I'll finally get you to shut up.

>>11293713
>haha pol talked about foucault in a couple thousand posts!
>i take this as positive evidence that they have never read foucault
?????????????????

>>11293501
>le
>>>/r/eddit

>>11293721
6/10, needs more quotation marks

>>11293737
>quotation marks
Fucking hell...

>>11292908
Good lord you're delusional.

how does the indian fit into this?

>>11292908

>How did Ken Kesey get away with it?
Kesey was an ultracharismatic guy who founded a free-love hippie LSD-based religious sect
The guy was so charismatic that he invited the Hell's Angels to his place and tamed them into nice puppies
That's how he got away with it

>>11293405
Bibbits story line is more about the power dynamic and what happens when you subvert that power
"What will your mother say?"
Ratchet was fucking pissed that her power over the insane people so she reminded them of the consequences of doing that.
Bibbit wasn't ready to subvert the power structure, so he freaked out and killed himself to atone for his transgression.

telling him to think of his mother is another symbol of authority.

>>11293077
Oh I thought you had one in mind.

>>11294195
Yes, the fact that it is about sexual freedom and humiliation at the hands of a maternal authority figure and the character's literal mother have NOTHING to do with the situation

<;*) -- Brainlet

>>11294196
Do you think deliberately ignoring the results of a simple google search constitutes a victory for yourself? That's pretty fucking sad haha!

>>11293501
>you can be either a /pol/tard, an SJW or a centrist
This is what the internet does to people's brains

>>11292908
Orderlies and nurses were blacks and women back then, really all there is to it.

>>11293670
All the Focoult shit smearing on Pol is done by """leftists""" so that Polinians are turned off from reading him

>>11294868
stats? stat

>>11293541
Sure wish I could fucking read that.

>>11293972
He didn't tame shit.
If you read Electric KoolAid Acid Test, you will discover that the beat/hippie/biker scene was, on the day to day, speed-based.
Beats and non-flower Hippies and Bikers loved dextroamphetamine and ritalin.

Kerouac's On The Road is very explicit as well on the use of amphetamines.

The initial thrust of the beat and hippie and biker movements was libertarian and all the Marxist and feminist shit came out of Leary and the College Kids getting into it way late in the game.

Ken Kesey was a blue collar logging guy.
Kerouac was always about the freewheeling lifestyle of the free man's man.

People get confused due to Burroughs and Ginsberg being fags. Burroughs of course was a pretty fuckin hardcore fag, since he loved guns and violence and the outlaw life.

>>11296303
Shut the fuck up, pol crossposter. Your revisionist history doesn't fly here. Ken Kesey would be voting Democrat today like everyone else and you know it. Nothing you spin can change that fact.

>>11293890
Well Chief's father also seemed to be emasculated by his wife. I think that the OP is reading too much into the race and gender identity of the book, which I think more broadly illustrates how social expectations, institutions, and familial pressures all function to rob individuals of their identities.
This is a tendency not exclusive to the United States in the 1950s and 60s, to men, or to white people.

Nevertheless, I do think Chief's ethnicity plays an important thematic role in that the Indian in American folklore represents the natural state of man uncorrupted by society (i.e. the noble savage). McMurphy helps Chief emancipate himself from the mental bondage of social expectations, and fully realize the imagery of the noble savage.

>>11296483
Ken Kesey would never take part in politics.
If you actually talked to the people from that era and culture that are still around, none of them believe in republican representative government.

Crack a fuckin book now and then, kid.

>>11296483
*SNAP*
I fucking hate lit sometimes. Actually a lot of times.

>>11296483
No, it just goes to show that the radical left and alt-right are simply two different sides of the same coin. Perhaps Kesey hated the establishment just as much as Alex Jones does. It doesn't mean that they as individuals share the same values and ideals, but they do share an antipathy toward the existing institutions.

>>11292908
read electric kool-aid acid test by Robert Wolfe. you've set up the frame work that you bitch about yourself. if you research what Kesey was doing and his intention was nothing like alike what you've written.
He himself volunteered to take acid in a hospital. he ended up volunteering there and was able to witness what was happening to the patients. He is not intending to write a commentary on anything you've projected.

>>11296602
>muh author's intentions
Spotted the truest brainlet of them all

>>11292908
>Thinking that anyone, even or especially "cultural authorities" in The Current Year actually reads anything.

The entire thought process was "lmao Ken Kesey who likes acid, he's so cool, I'm cool, therefore this book he wrote agrees with me".

I will add that you shouldn't discount Kesey's criticism of psychiatry just because it's so obvious.

>>11292935
t. didn't read the book, proving my point.

>>11296626
in a sort of hermeneutics sense you've got to take in account the intention, purpose, and historical context of the author. none of those three categories support the framework you've tried to set up.
while those categories might not be the only laws, it is in the lest an objective standard that denies what you're wanted the book to represent.

>>11296698
Bald assertion isn't an argument. Sexual humilation is a primary theme of the boom whether that makes you politically uncomfortable or not

>>11296518
This.
>>11296483 you don't know what you're talking about.

>>11296602
Ken Kelsey wrote the majority of this book notes in a self made isolation shed for days on LSD. he tapped into prophetic channels of collective consciousness as it was about to unfolds in culture, mixed with his own representation of the masculine forces as they were being subverted by culture (as Freud pointed out they typically are, which brings about anxiety). GET FUCKED MORON.

>>11296739
>>11296841
at most ill give you the point that obviously one can interpret this book the way that you two choose (because you already are). I'll still say that the interpretation is wrong.
Ken did not make his own isolation shed he was actually with a bunch of other writes while sketching his notes for the book. he was surrounded by fellow writers at that point.
if you could can you post where it says that he made his own isolation shed?

>>11292943
so you are admitting to being as much of a resentment-tier pseud as the average feminist theorist
please leave

>>11297636
..wow...anon...i...you missed something there, theres a break in your logic, a fault in your reading, a disconnect in your understanding... go on and trace the steps of why you thought it was appropriate to say what you did, maybe you will see how your thinking was wrong

>>11297645
The poster justified their poor literary analysis by saying that feminist theorists do the same thing. The argument is pretty simple to follow.

>>11293414
>This movie
/lit/ - literature

>>11297649
>resentment-tier pseud as the average feminist theorist
Is implying feminists understanding the sexual and gender themes of the novel is a form of resentment?

>>11297688
Have you read any serious literary criticism in your life?

>>11297687
I cant believe you just dissed yourself so badly: You literally just told everyone you dont have the mental capacity to insert 'book' for the typo 'movie'. That you could not understand and of the surrounding context, or see import therein. Wow...just...wow...snap

>>11297694
Why are you so vehemently against thinking about how the OPs remarks may be True? Why are you so confident and proud in your simple limited limiting ignorance?

>>11297694
I have no bias in this, as a completely detached objective observer familiar with the work in question, after reading OPs remarks I see how there can be something to the claim. How could an honest individual think otherwise, especially to the point of seeing in this thread, apparently multiple ones appear enthusiastically against the simple obvious claims, it appears psychotic. Like they are trying to cover up and hide and deny and deflect and distract. It is an obvious thread in the work as has been said in OP and many times in this thread, as many critiques of the work include. Its not up for discussion, it is an integral facet of the text. Its not a big deal or profound or anything either, its just highlighting an idea and potential, one that may occur in lesser and greater extents in the world.

>>11297705
>>11297724
You are missing the point. The original lad isn't aware of what the school of resentment is. His main argument is that feminists do things so it is okay to do this, and he also seems to be under the impression that the theme of a book is the same as the plot. I am going to disregard the "totally not taking a side why don't you want to discuss my totally retarded view" angle that you always fall back to so quickly, but it is quite clear that this lad has never critically read anything in his entire life. There is no need for him to make threads on /lit/ when it is clear by the third sentence that he just wants to discuss simplistic /pol/ theories using the guise of a book that he has likely not even read, as it is not even a highly-regarded work of literature and often over-shadowed by the film adaptation. I seriously hope you people stop posting here. You have no reason to.
If you'd like to introduce yourself to serious literature, many people here would be happy to help you, and perhaps you would actually find some sort of fulfillment that you are so desperately seeking here.

>>11297756
>His main argument is that feminists do things so it is okay to do this
No, thats why I said
>>11297645
He was saying to people that potentially the main reason why they are not supporting or considering the validity of the OP is because they are feminists, and dont want to see into or say anything bad about a woman: so that anon said: no, feminists have come to the same conclusion about the text as the OP

>>11297756
>and he also seems to be under the impression that the theme of a book is the same as the plot.
what does this have to do with anything, and why dont you actually respond about the claims in the OP instead of just reflecting and projecting and claiming that a writer could not possibly have included or held any sentiments about women potentially abusing their powers

>>11292908
lmfao dude you got some problems