/lit/ - Literature

>>15070653

>>15070730
noooooooo

>>15070653
Why is he bullying the elephant? :(

>>15070653
Could you elaborate on this or perhaps post a book?

>>15070935
Crocs are stupid as fuck ambush predators. They bite down and only afterwards judge whether it was smart to clamp down or not. In the case of an elephant, it's usually not smart at all.

>>15070938
Lacan's quote:
>“Even if what a jealous husband claims about his wife (that she sleeps around with other men) is all true, his jealousy is still pathological.”
When you extent "pathological thinking" to the political realm, then this can often come to mean that political opponents are wrong and ought to be disregarded, even when they make claims that are empirically correct.
You can see Zizek doing it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkSV4xyKkds

>>15070653
Evola talks about this in the bow and the club.

>>15070969
i never read evola, what did he say about it?

>>15070969
>>15070978
answer pls

>>15070949
>then this can often come to mean that political opponents are wrong and ought to be disregarded, even when they make claims that are empirically correct
No it doesn’t, midwit. It’s the idea that empirically true facts can be used to serve a more general claim that is empirically false or indefensible, it’s a problem of induction. For example, it is true that Jews hold positions of power, in banks, media, government, etc.. but to extrapolate from these atomic facts that “Jews are enacting a conspiracy of western subversion” is simply a bad argument.

>>15071513
Cringe

>>15070949
Jesus i've never seen Zizek talk before, people respect this fucker?

>>15071513
Its not about Jewish conspiracy theories, but about more realistic things. Like when the Der Spiegel fake news debacle happened, plenty of people were more annoyed that this gave credence to people who disbelieved mainstream media, rather than being outraged that a star journalist could make shit up for years because it fit the narrative. Or whenever people respond after an Islamic terror attack that this might fuel xenophobia, when such hostility towards Islam might actually be merited, but it is dismissed because it is 'islamophobic', itself a very nebulous term.
You also get it to a certain degree whenever medical research inquires a bit too deep into the biological nature of race. Like no one will ever let his political views be affected by whether people of certain races are more compatible organ donors, but the fact that such differences exist is enough for some people to clamor for a stop on research into it (whether it's empirically correct or not), because some groups could use it as an argument for biological racism.
It couples with the cop-out of bad faith, where people claim that the other party is arguing in bad faith, and that any arguments he might've had don't have to be addressed, because they come from a place of "bad faith". A cop-out that is, ironically, itself very bad faith. Tankies do it pretty often.

>>15071756
I want you to realise how funny you sound, arguing from a painfully obvious one-sided political slant.

>>15071814
>midwit enters the thread

>>15070653
discord.gg/jWYETgZ