/lit/ - Literature

I go to a very conservative university where being a /lit/ male is generally pretty homosexual

>>19143244
There are some guys that dress like this on campus, just makes them look like professors looking to groom rich-parent pussy to me. Just dress up in gym shorts and neutral shirts and focus on other things.

Because they haven’t

Probably because you look like picrelated and they are making a mental image to later share with their besties in their laughinggirls.jpg group chat.

>>19143265
i think you attached the wrong image, girls think he's based

f you genuinely think yourself to be handsome then it's probably admiration. God speed, anon.

Cumberpatch looks like a complete mong lol

>>19143244
Wya? I wanna drop a load of warm cum in your shaved bussy

>>19143334
eastern idaho

>>19143244
it's basically the women's ver. of lingerie

>>19143265
The entire internet loves this man.

>>19143244
if you arent handsome then it doesnt work. be honest with yourself, are you? no, then it is probably ridicule or curious shock, never admiration. are you handsome? even if you are decently blessed with genetics, incompetently grasping social norms can be a very ugly thing. most of you, while not offensively ugly, are repulsive in personality. this is a combination of arrogance and social ignorance. you are most likely cringe.

>>19143244
Chicks like brooding white men, I never got more pussy than when I was unironically on the edge of suicide. Its what made me stop caring about pussy and start viewing women as lesser

This trend is so neo-reactionary but at the same time comes from tumblr. It's surreal.

>>19143837
Hes such a G

I once went to class dressed exactly like my 80 year old professor who’s a judge for the fifth circuit. I just got made fun of for being an old man without the 50 extra years.

>>19143825
Can confirm. Also, when they ask you to introduce yourself with an interesting fact, say that you write poetry or something. A chorus of "awws" without fail (provided that you are presentable-looking). Anything to set you apart from the other species while being a prospective mate. But it's such a vain rat-race that I'd rather do something else with my life

>>19143825
>>19143856
that sucks, when i was suicidal i just stayed home with my rifle thinking about how much brain splatter was going to be around my room

shoulda gone outside I guess! but covid

>>19143856
>Also, when they ask you to introduce yourself with an interesting fact, say that you write poetry or something
How do you think women would react if I tell them i'm plotting to overthrow the government?

>>19143856
Well, i sort of look like a poor mans version of the guys in OPs pic, especially back then, and my bag is more philosophy than poetry, albeit ive won poetry awards and sheeit so I can do it.
Point being, I was so blackpilled back then, chicks would talk to me and rather than entertain them with the usual niceties Id just say straight up hardcore blackpilling shit immediately.
>girl: omg hi anon why do you look so sad/pissed off?
>me: humanity has abandoned God entirely and become its own self-fulfilling whore prophecy without an end in sight
>girl: omg can we fuck?

Women are just attracted to intensity, doesnt matter if its physical, emotional, or intellectual; positive or negative; as long as its intense they get wet.

>>19143889
Not well probably. Told some girls in the Socialist organization on campus that I was an ecoterrorist and they were not amused.

>>19143905
Those girls are ridiculously easy to fuck
Braindead
But theyll feed you to their pack of wolves after youre done cumming

>>19143905
That sucks, women (the non crazy ones) want fake intensity, like the "fear" of intensity, not actual intensity. Roller-coasters basically, "scary" but not actually danger. They prefer actors to the real thing.

Shame too, because insurrection is what I have devoted my life to; that and exchanging dialogue on the literature board during downtime.

>>19143924
This is so true, because my intensity at that time was caused by real trauma and suicidal ideation, so if I kept it theatrical and light, I was the "dark brooding sexy man," but when I got too real, or too dark, theyd get scared and run off.
And in my head I was always like lol bitch did you think I was just playing around? Im a fuckin mess

>>19143933
Women, in my experience, more than men are instinct and feeling. You make them feel excited and that's enough with dumb broads/whores. They uncritically respond to their feelings/impulses.

>>19143935
Sounds gay. I will worry about women after I finish my work.
>more instinct and feeling
The crowd is always like this, and since I understand the crowd then I may just understand women.
Appearances, always.

>>19143917
>But theyll feed you to their pack of wolves
What do you mean by that

>>19143987
That those lefty girls are easy to fuck bc theyre often dumb and ridiculously insecure, but, the minute you do something they dont like, or start ignoring them when youre done with the pussy, they will turn on you, and since leftists are pack animals, that means all of her woke ass shitlib friends will turn on you, too.
Doxxing, job loss, all that good stuff. Anything under the sun. Imagine a dozen little twitter thundercunts trying to avenge their friends broken heart by ruining your life, with accusations either real or imagined.

>>19143894
This is the most fedora shit I have read in a while and I truly believe it is unironic lol

>>19143996
Its my life experience, sorry that you're ugly.

>>19143995
Holy fuck
Then how do you got away with it? Are you a chad?

>>19143998
Ive had some bad experiences lol i didnt always get away with it. Bitches have tried to ruin my life and some have come very close.
Im alright. Not a chad, but probably toward the upper tier of handsome.
I was always handsome enough to not have looks be any sort of obstacle, but I always got to them with my voice (deep), and my ideas, or as the ugly anon called it, my "fedora shit"

>>19143997
So you are actually being serious then? Lol

>>19144013
Of course. Well, the conversation I wrote as an example I pulled entirely from my ass, and I probably wouldnt have said something as simplistic as "self fulfilling whore prophecy" or whatever the fuck I just wrote, but it gets the basic gist across well enough.
I was basically a Camus/Nietzsche wannabe (/lit/'s most hated enemy), and I am telling you, it worked.

>>19143996
It sounds like a guy like that namefag has pumped and dumped you or you had a crush on such a guy. Don't worry reverts here to stay.

>>19144010
What are your views on relationships now?

>>19144032
Im probably a year out from being engaged, now. Love her very much.
My views are that women are becoming increasingly retarded, find one who wants a simple life, isnt materialistic and who puts a lot of value on family, and cling for dear life.
Sex is a giant game, albeit, fun. The purpose of men and women being together, though, is so they can both feel at home, build a home. The loyalty and homespun comfort of a good woman is worth more than 10,000 whores.

>>19143894
thank god i was never this cringe

>>19144046
You should have tried being that cringe
Maybe you would have felt some vaginas by now

>>19144045
I have my doubts about any long lasting relations. I don't think a truly monogamous relationship is possible. Our bodies are only interested in procreation like our bodies our mental aspirations are destined to failure.

>>19144056
I've been with 2 women, the second my wife. Never had any desire to be with or turn myself into a whore.

>>19143244

Because they are silly little girls and they have silly little girl ideas about how charming men are supposed to dress, which they get from the television and the internet. You can leverage this to your advantage if you wish.

>>19144060
Lmao, first I was cringe, now Im a whore. Buddy, you just look down people because deep down you think youre a fucking loser.

>>19144060
Being "cringe" and edgy are the symbol of youth. Congratulation on never experiencing the spirit of youth.

>>19144069
Yes.

>>19144071
I was, just not to such a degree.

>>19144057
How old are you? Not asking to mock you.
The passions sublimate with age. I do agree that getting married straight out of high school or college is incredibly risky. People are at peak sexual virility for the most part then, and peak irresponsibility. Everybody just wants to fuck, and women especially tend to take a casual approach to relationships. Its overall a casual, flakey time period.
But, if you have any modicum of reason, that shit all starts to slow down the closer you get to 30. By then, everybody has had enough crazy sex where the idea loses its luster, and enough trauma from bad experiences where the novelty of "meeting new people" is dead weight, too. By then, a lot of people are just ready to get a job, secure a shelter, buy a pet and watch TV holding the hand of someone who makes life a little less shitty.

>>19144075
Well, stop doing that. Thats what I did for a long time and its gonna fuck you in the end if you dont figure it out. Love you brother

>>19144069
Just leave that fag. People these days have this protagonist of movie syndrome which delude them into taking their selves extremely seriously and never doing anything "cringe". I actually heard this as a complaint from an old man. Who was pretty pissed off when saw most youth in his surroundings superficially acting like dim spirited old people.

>>19144084
That is true. Im constantly self-amused and getting shit for it from sad sacks, who I then have to call out for being that way, remind them that its okay Ive been there too and I love them, and then make them smile. Its fucking pretty gay desu but Im not immune, I can be negative and critical too.

But for sure the world would be better off with more silliness

>>19143256
>Just dress up in gym shorts
>gym shorts
Not saying that every dude should walk around in a three piece suit but for fuck’s sake, gym shorts?? Who willingly dresses like that except for when they are on their way to/from the gym? I thought ”Americans have shitty fashion sense” was just a meme but this frightens me.

>>19144078
24
I am edgy or cringe but I don't know. Relationships and marriages are pretty fucked when I observe them. Let me references a quote I read

>Love. Of course, love. Flames for a year, ashes for thirty.

Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, The Leopard

>>19144102
It is a learning experience. No one stays like that. But sure one need a little childish spark from time to time otherwise things become boring and gay pretty. Here by spark I don't mean edgy or degenerate shit but taking things lightly.

>>19144139
Fashion is the lowest form of art though. That and photography. Useless statement

>>19144146
>That and photography.
Fuck you faggot

>>19143894
You may have watched True Detective S01 a few times too many my friend

>>19144139
I wear basketball shorts all the time. I don't care about fashion. Too much work and I'm not tall anyway and it's expensive. I'm comfortable and feel free, who cares?

>>19144146
I disagree with any of that, all expression is valid. Inferior and superior are literally reptilian tier pleb shit constructs we designed because we are still partially in retard consciousness. When we hit divine logic mode, we wont believe in shit like "superior" and "inferior" lmao what the fuck. It is. Where is the superiority or inferiority within "is?"

>>19144154
>expensive
Bruh thrift stores are cheap as shit. Of course it's a chore to learn basics of fashion but if you will stick to monochrome then you will dress better with very minimal clothing.

>>19144164
Good luck finding stuff that fits in a thrift store, though. Mine gets donations exclusively from very wide Italian men.

>>19144164
Fuck you I'm reading the effay sticky now

>>19144158
Every expression is valid however what entails what we love and what we don't is entirely dependant how much we use our senses. If we value our vision so much of course we'd value pictures, paintings, writing, fashion, etc. alot and the extension of it comes from the superiority of our eyes. You'll understand what I'm saying if you found the beauty of your other senses. Photography and fashion are the last things we should appreciate.

>>19144183
The senses can be a receiver of beauty, but every expression of art, both emanates from and can only be received by the sixth sense, that of spiritual empathy, the negative inflection of which is fear and hatred, the positive inflection of which is trust and love. Beauty of the innermost soul

>>19144177
I can pick up goodshit in a pile of shit because I was a luker on /fa/ and it's archive for 4 years. Now I grew out of fashion. It was just an unnecessary normalfag power game which I am not interested anymore.

>>19144181
It is okay for basics. You build up minimalist wardrobe and stick with only plain and minimalist clothing then you can't go wrong with that. Simplicity is sophistication. Uniqlo is the most kino brand for good quality basics. These days I am big whore for all black, you can't go wrong with this shit if you know that basics.

>>19144146
Not 'fashion' but style.
I wish everyone just wore Rudi Gernreich's designs.

It would be a visual treat.

>>19144146
Opinion disregarded.
>>19144154
How you dress is up to you but in all honesty if I find this sentiment to be lazy. >Too much work
The only work you have to put in is actually buying the clothes and that’s still not a hard thing to do at all.
>I’m not tall anyway
More the reason for you to care about other aspects of yourself. Don’t you bother brushing your teeth either because of your height?
>it’s expensive
Shop during sales and you will be all right. I always buy my clothes at 50-70% off. Shop for winter clothes during spring and summer clothes during the fall.

>>19144193
Spoken with all the guileless bile of a tripfag

>>19143244
cuz you look retarded

>>19144193
But the soul can't get to wear it is without your other senses. Face it. Art of fashion and other ventures like photography can only be led to a dead end. They can't grow from you but from the other and from the other to society. Fashion is the only art form that can only breed narcissism and self indulgence. Same thing with photography.

>>19144231
My favorite part of this board, is how often terms like pseud, and pretentious, are thrown around, by a segment of the board whos entire base layer is composed of pretension and the rejection of the emotional spheres impact upon greater reality, aka, the rejection of spirituality.
Its /lit/erally why I come here, its mad funny.

>>19144045
So true. About to end a relationship with an activist lefty girl soon. Hoping the boat doesn't rock me too deep into the waters when it happens. After this, its only apolitical, secure girls from now on. The funny thing is that I had a chance at a good girl like that in the past, but I felt it would be a boring life compared to chasing a chic relationship with one of these more well read socialist girls, so I broke off what I had and went in that direction. I felt I could ween away some bad ideas and put someone like that in the right direction intellectually. Now I feel like the prodigal boyfriend and certified idiot because its falling apart and she'd snap my neck at the feintest sign of political dissent.

They're fun for a time. The honeymoon phase is wild, and the instability of it only adds to the excitement. However, when that ends, it crashes terribly, and the long term prospects are bleak. Too many issues and insecurities, and married to the politics.

>>19144240
All art forms can breed this are you serious
Axl Rose is a musician have you ever fuckin seen that guy talk about himself holy fuckin shit dude.

Every art form has an element of the self included within it, a stamp of the soul so to speak, even fashion and photography. Thats the more important part about art, the memetic imprint, the memetic transmission, and the memetic adaptation path it follows.
Clothing often reflects a certain emotion someone is trying to convey, and photography has the element of deliberate or instinctual choosing of the framing, the subject, etc.

>>19144240
Photography is unique because it the only deductive art medium. It's limitation is it's beauty. Every other art medium start with a blank canvas, blank papers, black background etc. but photography works with the world which is already full. Street photographers has very less subjectivity in comparison to a writer, painter, poet etc. so I don't know how you can say that it is nar narcissistic. Most people can recognize the famous photographs but they don't know the names of photographers. I have seen many great photographs circulating on internet but when ask if they know the name of photographers, No is the answer. They literally separate us from the rightful recognition for our work and yet you call photography narcissistic, what a shame.

>>19144139
You’d have a heart attack at most college campuses anon. Basketball shorts are what most male students wear April - September

>>19144254
One retard's perceived rejection does not indicate a dearth of the quality in question. To a women's study major every word out of man's mouth is weaponized subjugation. You've gone so far as to faggotize yourself with a kitsch title on an anonymous board because of a vain conception that what makes you superior to other fags here is a spiritual connection they lack. Fuck off you holier than thou narcissist. Have you ever considered that you are spreading the word you treasure so dearly around degrading its real value like a cheap whore? Of course not, because you are too arrogant (but mostly ignorant) to acknowledge that what you perceive as the ungraspable essence of the transcendental is a fucking glorification of your own ignorance.

I don't get it

>>19144322
I havent failed to grasp that at all. The glorification of ones own ignorance is literally the entire point

>>19144323
We have "neofolk"

>>19144323
Left is larp and right is alcoholic larp

>>19144146
ah yes,a man of high culture and aesthetic sense

women have been going for gay guys since...at least 100 years
way longer actually
think of it like hot potato babysitting
you give off an irresistible sensation of vulnerability
women respond to that
it's gross af
real scarface shit
tongue out your mouth looks like it's up the butt

Not lit related

>>19144351
this is neofolk not dark acedemia

>>19144341
>doc martins
Hmmmm

>>19144045
How many people has she fucked?

>>19144351
Goofy

>>19144357
those clearly aren't docs lmao

>>19144275
The only reason we *hear* about axl rose is from what we *see*. They wouldn't have been as popular without our vision of what he looks like. His clothes, music videos,interviews, the way they picture him. All irrelevant to what we actually hear from him.
>Every art form has an element of the self included within it
No it doesn't if I taste something i don't need to see it for it to taste good and for others to say it needs to look like this to achieve an aesthetic of what I'm looking for when eating something.
>Clothing often reflects a certain emotion someone is trying to convey
It's a projection of an emotion that doesn't go to the self. You attach clothes to yourself for the purpose of a convention. Clothes can't reach you. If you felt sad or happy it can't be said in the clothes. Other mediums broaden emotions much better than fashion.
>>19144283
Videos and paintings are deductive no? The subjectivity of art is what makes it great. I can say fashion is different than photography that much I do know and perhaps it isn't as self indulgent that I give it credit for I your argument but Photography states a world as is. Rather than expirencing it merely imagizes it. It replaces our moment with an image. Photography is not natural. The blankness and nothingness of art is what makes its greatness appreciable. Photography is an indulgence to our vision. We can already capture the world. It's called memory and expierence.
>>19144322
Fuck u >:(

>>19144341
That's still gay larp, even if men do it. Probably gayer actually.

>>19144322
Also, if you wanna get real: the laws of science are always subject to change, the material is always subject to change, and the most potent change agent is the collective will, aka, the spirit. It applies universally; anything that becomes known by anything capable of knowing, is thus subject to change, by default.
So, emotions matter a lot, everything subconscious matters a lot, because it guides intention. Intention is everything in a will, because it guides whatever the will will decide to do with the knowledge it has gained.
The conundrum on Earth has always been that the most sadistic and selfish tend to rule it, despite them being vastly outnumbered. The reason for that is that theyve been able to subjugate the will for their own intention, but this process has evolved from open subjugation to one of deception.
The only way 7 billion + people can be ruled against their own desires by a minority who doesnt fulfill them, is by fracturing any parallel intentions that may crop up within the collective, subjugated will. That is largely done through a series of deceptions that primarily rely on the emotional.
With reference to this conversation, you are correct, I have a cursory recollection of many facts, but ultimately, it is trivia, because ultimately, I am ignorant. Such is an admission of modesty before God.
But, I do know that when I spoke, I said what I sincerely believe to be true, because I did it on instinct. I chose this name the same way, on instinct, I sometimes post with names I think of, it feels right at the time. That might say something about how Im feeling.
Just as when I read your response to all of it, I understood as saying something about how you are feeling. Allegations of pseudery, from people who use their secondhand accumulated knowledge, to justify a veiled hatred of others and of themselves.

name/trip is always a massive sign that someone is fucking retarded

>>19143825
I'm not white, but aside from that, I've only had the opposite experience - I've done a lot better when I've been overconfident.

>>19144402
Suicidal ideation is not mutually exclusive from overconfidence, if anything, it can be a major cause. What goes up must come down.

>>19144379
>Videos and paintings are deductive no?
No, video is the extension of photography. It is in between adductive and subtractive. It is still more adductive because it start with a storyboard, a scrip, a plan. And painting is a pure blank canvas. There is still a lot of subjectivity involved in photography because a photographer chooses to point the camera where he wants and what he wants to capture within the four edges. You're committing a blunder by dividing world from yourself. Every art is an interpretation of what's out there so reconstruction is an adhom. Literally no artwork stands a single chance against the Majesty and Brutality of nature. All art is mere photocopy of it. If photography is "unnatural" then so does all art.
>We can already capture the world. It's called memory and expierence.
You apply same argument to poetry and literature as well. The thing is we are interested in the ways which the artist see the world and this is why we value art. You're taking photography very lightly. There is only one Henri Cartier Bresson in photography. If you think that capture this work is easy then please buy the cheapest camera and feel free to hit the streets. Although this means nothing because he has already given the world concept of "decisive moment" but go ahead and try to master in the context of geometrical composition.

>>19144418
You are wise

>>19144422
Thanks man

>>19144351
fuck you cocksucker

>>19144418
Ok your first argument has some merit to it but I don't think all art is a photocopy of it and how you create isn't just copying nature. You expierence nature creating it. Photography works to concrete something that's already an object. The object although subjective like you pointed out, doesn't do justice to what you can expierence first hand.
>You apply same argument to poetry and literature as well
They work abstractly. You read poetry from something that you can craft through expierence with the self and the audience. The eloquence of the writing of poetry is unique to our minds and nature and creates an expierence through our reading of it. Same thing with literature. You can't compare something like architecture and something like music because there crafts have different tools to them. We value art based on how we value our senses. If our world ever suppressed our visions beauty would be reached another way.

What the fuck is going on in this thread

>>19144153
>You may have watched True Detective S01
??? the boring chad gets all the girls

>>19144486
He is simply saying that when you look at a piece of art, regardless of the medium, it carries with it the conscious or unconscious intention of the artist, which you experience as your own interpretation. Thats sort of a truism, but with more profound implications, the reason human beings enjoy creating art is to express a feeling, and if they choose to show an audience, to see the way that others respond. When we look at art, we always place our own interpretation upon it, which may or may not align with the artists, and in a truer sense, never fully could; but at the same time, if it resonates with us, there is something within the artists intention that captured us and caused us to have the positive interpretation, so our subconscious intention aligns with the artists intention by default. Regardless of whether or not art resonates with one person versus another specifically, it is still a valid expression of intention. If thats the case, then I would argue that the wiser thing to do is listen to all art, rather than appraise it, for properly understood, it is a mode of communication.
He is using different language than I, but we are saying the same thing, thats why I called him wise. Art is a mode of communication and expression, and therefore, calling any piece of art or medium of art "superior" versus "inferior," is merely to avoid listening in favor of speaking over someone. It is like if I said that I love the color blue, and you told me it was false, or inferior; true and false, inferior and superior dont apply to my opinion on blue.

>>19144495
Ive never seen that show

>>19144513
I agree on alot of what you said however applying an application of inferiority and superiority as metrics of what can be is entirely subjective and even I'm self aware of it. However, this evaluation is what should be seen as something to strive for. Our judgements of art shouldn't be seen as baseless simply because I say it's inferior but rather why it can be said so. If we really believe art should be made for expression and communication than having our tastes analyzed from the inside out can distinguish why we value more things than the other. As it currently stands, people are starting to hate poetry and reading. Opera is dying. Music discussion is barely intelligible. Painting is now a mere exercise for boomers and art students. Our democratic modern approach of art has now created the obscurity of art. The communication and expression of the unheard and unseen that wanted to be sensed. Although popularity isn't how we should value art on the inferior/superior scale, it has merit in distinguishing what can be said about art in its essence. We wouldn't know good without the bad and building from it is a positive.

>>19143889
Just say you’re a Leninist

>>19144572
I get where you are going with all of that and it is something I have considered before, too. I would say that when an artwork has a particularly strong resonance with the masses, it is less a mark of its superiority or inferiority in quality, and more a mark of its poignancy; it said the right thing at the right time; rather than resonating with a few because it spoke to their personal experiences, it resonates with the many because it speaks to a more broadly felt emotion.

To give a concrete example, I wouldnt say that the lesser known films are any better or worse than those remembered as masterpieces, but that the masterpieces held more power of resonance, because what they were communicating was something felt within the broader social reality instead of the subjective emotional sphere.
Humans are all feeling the same thing in different ways, and sometimes a piece of art comes along that articulates it for us all in ways we didnt understand as well before. Instinctually, it becomes celebrated and remembered as a great work.

>>19144664
Poignancy is a good word for that.
>Instinctually, it becomes celebrated and remembered as a great work.
But only after they are dead. Its sad we value art in this direction though and where it's going, art is becoming more and more robotic. Artists continually get disrespected. There's going to be a crisis in the art world. We no longer few art in itself rather we value it as entertainment. How we celebrate these works also depend on these communities who hold it up and if you have communities who hold the values of the things I said above, artists are going to notice.

>>19144724
>art is becoming more and more robotic. Artists continually get disrespected.
Indeed. But, its physics anon: every action produces an opposite or equal reaction. The suppression of the emotional by rationalist absolutism, or of the spiritual by materialism, or of the artistic by the logical, will create quite a reaction. In fact, it is.

>>19144737
So we should just let it be as its natural? Its not. There needs to be change.

WTF is this thread? We've got Retard Hegel fighting Retard Guy Debord about the nature of science and photography, we've got >>19144341 this shit, we've got Butterfly posting sick fits, what the fuck is going on? It reminds me of 2011 /lit/ desu, fully approved

>>19144743
There will be change, but you just have to recognize that it will come regardless of what anyone does, AND because of what everyone does. Meaning, the ebb and flow of consciousness is cyclical and predetermined by God, that is why true randomness doesnt exist within the mathematics of physics. The implication is that things are following along a path.
So, Im not saying to "let it be," per se, if you care about this, then do whatever you want and can do about it.
Just recognize that you care about it because you were designed to care about it, and thus, whatever you do about it is inevitable. Now multiply that by seven billion individuated units of total consciousness.
It is inevitable, its physics.

>>19144755
>It reminds me of 2011 /lit/ desu
Im bringing sexy back. Ive realized that jannies are asleep during these hours, and that if you word the OP to a thread in a way where it doesnt draw their attention, you can start to discuss the *real* shit within the replies and they dont notice.
Ive been dropping threads about the nature of consciousness and AI into /pol/ this way lately. They nerfed the quality of conversation across the chans by pushing gay and fake quasi nazism, even when race was discussed back in the day, it was broad, nuanced and productive. Now it is just seven million "nigger" threads in a row.
But no matter how hard they try, they cant stop us now, we are the Renegades of Funk. The bitch is back baby

>>19143244
>>/fa/ck off carnt

>>19144774
fuck off back to /pol/ subhuman

>>19144755
It is pronounced Guy Debord not Guy Debord you fuckwit.

>>19144779
Uhh wrong it's pronounced Guy.Duboards4channel.org

>>19144779

>>19144788
Ceci n'est pas une Pepe

I can't believe this is a real thread

>>19144776
Again, all expression is valid. /pol/ is representative of many sad things regarding the current state of consciousness, but, theres a thirst for these things there. Hidden among all the trash, is a desire for the truth that drives that place. Same with most of the boards to an extent, except /b/ is literally a fucking abyss now. Idk what to say about that.

>>19143837
Looking good brah.

>>19144821
take dick

and fucking choke on it tripshitting subhuman scum

>>19144821
>all expression is valid.
>validity is possible.
demonstrate.

>>19144880
Kiss me
>>19144886
Well, you can choose to see something that exists as invalid, but, thats just selective, self imposed blindness, and doesnt even really carry meaning.

>>19144909
>meaning
Chomsky lost the first part of his argument with Foucault by claiming meaning existed mate.

I see you're gunning for a Nobel prize, or you're an insufferable cunt who is making large epistemological claims in order to win fundamentally contingent arguments.

Just because it comes farting cum out of your face cunt doesn't give it any significance.

>>19144930
Youre so eager that you failed to recognize I agreed with Foucault.
You asked for proof, but then affirmed core nihilism. So which is it?

>>19144937
Foucault never phrased meaning as anything other than contingent. You need to up your game. Also which one would you fuck? There's only two patrician answers for Foucault/Chomsky, and I bet you get *neither* answer correct.

>>19144953
Well I wouldnt fuck Foucault because he wouldnt fuck me because Im not a 12 year old Parisian girl.
I also dont know about Chomsky because of the consent issues, Id worry he saw any consent on his part as being manufactured by me.
I agree with Foucault on the contingency of meaning, but I also find him to be, while brilliant, a fuckin rube at the same time. Sometimes.
They were talking past one another, I dont think Chomsky really "lost" anything there. Meaning is contingent, but Chomsky's entire focus is on the communicative faculty of language and concept formation. So, the contingency of meaning in the grand, metaphysical sense, doesn't negate the practical utility that contingent constructions of meaning hold for us: the ability to communicate how we feel to one another

>>19143894
Somehow I don't think this would work for me.

>>19144930
>Chomsky lost the first part of his argument with Foucault by claiming meaning existed
No, Chomsky won that by default because it's obviously correct.

>>19144964
>Foucault
>Fucking girls
Anon, I...

>>19144977
>obviously correct
Anon, I…

>>19144977
Its really difficult for me to have these conversations, because divine logic isnt commonly understood, I think. "Correct" doesnt even have bearing on these things. Like that other anon accused me of making large epistomelogical claims to win contingent arguments, but Im not trying to win any sort of argument lol. Arguments dont exist really and winning them certainly doesnt either, as a matter of corollary.
What I mean is, Foucault made the point that meaning is contingent and thus relative and thus nihl, but, Chomsky was making the point that, "real" or not, the assumption or conscious creation/adoption of meaning is the practical means through which communication is made possible.
So theyre both "correct," just highlighting different areas of the truth with different emphases.
Its not difficult for me to have these conversations because I dont know how to articulate them; its difficult because peoples egos start interjecting and they want to turn it into a pissing contest, aka, an "argument."

>>19144982
Kek
True

>>19144995
No. Chomsky didn't make that argument. Chomsky actually claimed that language had meaning. And when asked to prove it he said, "it would be nice." And when asked to prove it he shut the fuck up.

You should emulate Chomsky.

>why do girls like it when I wear cloths I bought myself instead of my mom

>>19144964
Can you shut up?

>>19145019
Make me pussy.

>>19144147
It's the truth

>>19145009
Imagine coming to a thread just to cry like a little girl and tell people to stop talking
Lmao if you dont like people conversing on a discussion board then go see a therapist, or play with dolls, whatever you need to do, because nobody else gives a fuck about your problems.

>>19144154
only based poster in the thread. lmao at these fags and their fashion rules - you mustn't break the rules guys! plz look at the FAQ! just be handsome and well-built and you can dress like shit, literally doesn't matter in the slightest.

>>19144381
Bad take on women but otherwise incredibly based
Natpop will unite the collective will :)

>>19145024
give me an address i will fucking end you

>>19145029
Cheers cunt, thanks for you concession.

>>19145221
If you can stop crying and making ridiculous, unheard demands that everyone else stop thinking just to please you, you can try. But again, youre too much of a pussy to do that so far.
>>19145226
I conceded nothing because I was never involved in any sort of "argument." You were arguing with yourself.

wait a second this isn't /lit/ is it

>>19145245
This is Hell, boy

>>19143837
trying to be progressive, while wishing for traditional aesthetic, values, and roles is not unusual. not to bring Freud into this, but there's something contradictory about it. this phenomenon gets bigger and bigger.

>>19145027
Huh
Where is Truth?

>>19144146
>Fashion is the lowest form of art though.
This is why black men are taking your women

>>19145254
>not to bring Freud into this, but there's something contradictory about it. this phenomenon gets bigger and bigger.
Yes, and ends in Lacan.

>>19145317
We will never make it. Fuck language.

>>19145291
Yes, women can't appreciate art

>>19145330
Art emanates largely from the feminine, at least 50%

>>19145357
Fucking based

All of these gymbro "dyel" yelling women hating retards don't understand this simple fact. The blacks that they hate are the result of high test no feminine up bringing. Their muh trad west was drenched in aesthetics. So old good new bad view is in absolute contradiction with their likes and dislikes.

>>19145357
From the male interpretation of the feminine yes, that's the entire concept of the muse. Not from the feminine itself. My point stands.

>>19145291
Blacks dress well? At best they are kitschy. And women dont care what you wear that much, simple and well fitting is enoguh.

>>19145373
Im a fucking 5'8 metrosexual and never had any issue getting women. I will admit all day that most women are retarded, but thats because most people are. I am a man so naturally i am more comfortable with mens form of retardation, but i dont shy away from the feminine within, either.
Black men arent as successful with women as the demon media matrix sells the image to create disunity among the various races of men (brothers), but, yeah, some of them do very well. Confidence is part of it, the other part, as you are hinting at, is they are very in tune with the expressive aspect of themselves and women dig that.

>>19145373

>>19145291
Niggas don't know fashion

>>19145385
Spoken like someone who has never cohabitated with a woman and nurtured her creative side
Women are born and bred artists, they thrive on emotion and everybodys sister, grandmother and aunt does some weird impulsive shit like crotcheting or making ornamental crafts for literally no apparent reason
That reason, made apparent, is it is a compulsive aspect of their nature to be expressive

>>19145391
No they hate blacks for their savage behavior but on the other hand they worship masculine high testosterone worldviews. And then they blame women for destroying civilization. Ironically they have much more in common with hood blacks who call women "bitches" than they would like to admit. For appreciating aesthetics you need femininity in your character.

>why has every 18 year old girl eyed me like an animal after I started dressing like this?

>>19145391
Blacks being more emotive and unstable is a result of them living in matriarchal societies in Africa, therefore imitateing women. Whn they lived free under patriarchy in the US for about a century their stock improved, but now that the West is devolving back to neolithic matriarchy we are seeing everyone become more animalistic. Good men of all races are geting outbred by R selective retards. Good men and women produce a few offspring and invest a lot of resources into them, subhumans pump out babies and leave them be.

>>19145416
.....no

>>19145401
We were talking about art, not "arts and crafts." The best examples of those things you mentioned are those based on traditional patterns, the "weird impulsive shit" is at best pleasing to the eye in a "that's cute" kind of way.
>That reason, made apparent, is it is a compulsive aspect of their nature to be expressive
Irrelevant. In general, they cannot create lasting art. Pure expression like that is not some kind of unfiltered genius, it is surface level. The overwhelming majority of great art that has stood the test of time was made by men, not women. There's always exceptions of course, as with everything.

>>19145393
Kek
I am not a commie or western.

>>19145401
>another tripfag with retarded opinions

>>19145420
There is truth in this but only one layer of truth, id suggest digging deeper, beyond the material
Your analysis, while correct in a certain sense, is reductive due to reliance of biological essentialism, which is really just materialist reductionism. And i do not say that to be insulting toward you, but as a way of prodding your curiosity toward examining the phenomenon from other angles.

>>19145426

>>19145401
Embroidery and other arts and crafts type of things are not great masterpieces. And being emotive doesnt mean you experience more or are more sensitive to beauty. Many of the greatest artists were reserved and stoic men.

>>19145424
What the fuck is "great art"
This was all already ran through in the thread with me and that other anon
All expression is valid and your qualitative appraisals are objectively meaningless, the subjective meaning they carry merely tells me things about (you), and not about the pieces of art in question

>>19145401
>wah wah muh wahmyn are qweenz knitting snowflakes on a sweater is heckin ebin art
>Im a fucking 5'8 metrosexual

>>19145432
Kek wrong guess
Cope as much as you can but Jews are the essential part of western culture. They're great artist precisely due to their feminine nature.

>>19145433
The shit about embroidery is entirely subjective appraisal and doesnt prove what you think it does
However
The other stuff you wrote has merit; too much emotionalism can hinder people, as can too much reason. The optimal state is balance between the two
But, the emotive side is the feminine itself, and this balance can and is achieved in both women and men

>>19145435
>What the fuck is "great art"
Like I said, art that has stood the test of time.
>This was all already ran through in the thread with me and that other anon
I don't care, not everyone spends all of their time reading every thread here
>All expression is valid
It depends on for what purpose. Is all expression valid as proof of humanity? Sure. Is all expression valid as art? No, it's not. If everything is art, nothing is art. There is a reason humans are more drawn to appreciate certain artistic expressions than others, I guess to some degree it's arbitrary where the line is drawn (but not entirely). Muh everything is subjective is nothing but a meme.

>>19145429
Im not a biological determinist myself, I just gave the most succint and simple explanation. I do believe theres metaphysical forces behind most things, and as much of a meme as he might seem to people who havent read him, Evola writes well about this concept. The man couldnt walk after ww1 and so wrote extensively, and only his most catchy or poetic books were translated, his more formal philosophy remains in italian. Id recommend you read The Sufi of Rome, its an account of some of conversations and youll probably be surprised how much more complex his ideas were. or you can just watch the Keith Woods video, thats where I found out about it.

>>19145442
It wasn't, you're a spiritual semite
>Jews are the essential part of western culture
No, they are the essential part of global culture. You could argue that western culture has been supplanted by global culture, and that global culture is a perversion of western culture, but they are not the same.

>>19145455
Literally just read over my posts ITT im not typing all that shit out again
But in general: everything that exists is valid, because it exists. To speak of invalidity here is merely to speak of self imposed blindness. Literally, to speak of not accepting reality. One can do it, but its silly.
>if everything is art then nothing is art
Everything is nothing, so yes.

>>19145459
this is the guy who recommended riding on top of a tiger btw.

>>19145471
You've not addressed any of my points.
>everything that exists is valid, because it exists
Valid as what? As proof of existence, sure. As art? No, not everything is. If everything is art, nothing is art.
>Everything is nothing, so yes.
Your entire point amounts to nothing. I accept your concession.

>>19145474
The jew fears the tiger.

>>19145476
Valid as in worthy of acceptance and consideration.

>>19145476
Its not a concession. Get divine logic pilled. Opposites contain themselves in a unity. Everything is everything, and everything is nothing, at the same time.

>>19145487
Why, because it exists and someone calls it art? some art is better than other art. Equality exists only in mathematics.

>>19145487
Acceptance of what? Consideration of what? As proof of existence, sure. As something pleasing to the eye, sure. As art? No. If everything is art, nothing is art.
In your line of thought, everything is equally valid as an expression of food. Carrots, steak, concrete. They are all valid as in worthy of acceptance and consideration in this regard. Yet no healthy individual would attempt to eat concrete, or argue its merits as food.

>>19145493
It is, you're just schizo posting and hoping no one notices.
>Opposites contain themselves in a unity. Everything is everything, and everything is nothing, at the same time.
No. Read the Greeks again. Or the Vedas. Or the Bible. You don't understand.
>Divine logic
Retard. I should filter your trip.

>>19145493
So are you a pedophile or what?

>>19145502
>You don't understand.
The irony is of thermonuclear proportions

>>19143894
Cooper?

>>19145514
I accept your concession still.

>>19145495
Acceptance of reality, consideration as a part of reality, if your goal is holistic analysis of reality. If it isnt that, then fine, but seems like a misstep.
Everything isn't equally valid as an expression of food because humans dont create or express food as a way to communicate emotions to one another. God created food. Concrete will kill you if you eat it and carrots likely will not. Thats not true because any man decided it.
That part of your concern is alleviated simply by recognizing art as having a distinct conceptual definition from food. Art can only be rendered "invalid" in the eye of an individual who decides for his or herself that it is not. But, since that is the case, it is necessarily a matter of accepting what one accepts and rejecting what one rejects, despite all of it existing regardless.

>>19145502
>a man creates a painting to portray his feelings and express them
>(you) say the painting is of "inferior quality" and therefore not art, or not good art
>the painting exists regardless and is art regardless
>the man and his feelings also exist regardless and are the source of art, regardless
>anon rejects a painting
>anon rejects the feelings of his fellow man
>anon rejects reality
Its the same shit as any other time someone expresses how they feel and then others try to "correct" them, as if concepts like correct and incorrect had any bearing there.
Its like if I said I hate my life and you proceeded to tell me why Im wrong and that I actually dont feel that way.
Lack of acceptance of the real reality out of preference for your own

Unwise

>>19145533
Reality is that not all art is equal, and not any human expression is valid or worthy of consideration as art. Unless you consider the entirety of reality to be a piece of art, but then this entire discussion is meaningless and you're just derailing.
I'll try in your words. Art is where the divine and the human come together to create a transcendent experience or expression. Not everything of man is divine, even though the source of humanity is divine. Therefore, not everything man produces is automatically art. Only when it is divinely inspired (literally) will it be able to stand the test of time.
>Food
You seem to miss the point that some things that would be considered art under your logic would not be appreciable by any mentally healthy human being. Food is to the body what art is to the soul. They are no different. For art, God decided what sustains us and what doesn't.
>it is necessarily a matter of accepting what one accepts and rejecting what one rejects, despite all of it existing regardless.
Which follow patterns and are not random nor arbitrary.

>>19145553
This has to be bait, but I'll bite.
>the painting exists regardless and is art regardless
No. This is not true. Not everything that exists is art, just as not everything that exists is food. If everything is art, nothing is art, and your entire argument as to what makes art art is moot.
>the man and his feelings also exist regardless and are the source of art, regardless
That is your assumption. You do not know if his feelings are a true reflection of reality, or an expression of an unwell mental state which distorts reality. Feelings are not art. That's something a art history college freshman might say.
>anon rejects reality
Retarded take. I really hope this is bait and you don't actually believe this.
>Lack of acceptance of the real reality out of preference for your own
I, too, have read a summary of Marcus Aurelius, brother.

>>19145562
Art is just the communication of a sentiment through some kind of creative medium. You reveal everything when you define it as something grandiose, like transcendant divine merger or whatever. It implies that to you, it has to meet a certain "standard" (completely made up by (you)) to be accepted by (you).
>mentally healthy
Normative assumption. Again, you reveal all of it.
>for art, God decided what sustains and what doesnt
>only when it is divinely inspired does it stand the test of time
Fucking fuck man I literally had this exact conversation already ITT and it was so fucking long and I dont want to type it all out again. Mother of fucking fuck.

All art has the capacity for resonance with varying individuals based on their personal experience and interpretation. There is some art that has more power of resonance, borne out by the fact that the masses at large celebrate and remember it as a great work, rather than just a subculture doing that. The reason is that it speaks to a more broadly felt emotion than does the more particular forms of art, which more people resonate with.
To the divine, none of this involves inferiority or superiority of quality. Everything simply is. The more particular, lesser known works of art are as valid as the timeless masterpieces, but serve different functions. All of it is the work of God because we are the work of God in a universe that doesnt experience true randomness at the quantum level and is thus predetermined.

>>19145572
None of it is my assumption, I am in harmony with God and know that I am loved unconditionally, and that everyone else is as well. Try it out.
Your entire response to me is littered with condescension, remarks that arent substantive and constitute nothing more than negative statements attempting to annihilate the truth within. Insults, belittling. It all says more about who you are and how you feel, your orientation toward reality and life, than it does about me or my words.

>>19145572
Also, real quick: where are you getting this idea that "everything cannot be art" from? I didnt equate "everything" to art, I said that art is communicative expression of sentiment through a creative medium, and that all expression of this sort is valid.

>>19145593
>Art is just the communication of a sentiment through some kind of creative medium.
No, it's not. That['s a very (post-)modern interpretation that's entirely rooted in our western paradigm. Your ignorance is staggering.
>as something grandiose, like transcendant divine merger or whatever. It implies that to you, it has to meet a certain "standard" (completely made up by (you)) to be accepted by (you).
I don't think any of the great ancient artists would disagree with my definition, but they definitely would with yours. I don't go by my personal standards, you assume that because you think everytyhing is subjective. I am not knowledgeable enough in art to be the ultimate arbiter as to what consititutes art. Yet I can follow the logic of of the great artists of history to get an idea.
>You reveal
This is not some game of gotcha. You seem to assume you are enlightened in regards to the mysteries of the oneness off reality. I too, have smoked cannabis when I was younger.
>Fucking fuck man I literally had this exact conversation already ITT and it was so fucking long and I dont want to type it all out again. Mother of fucking fuck.
Relax anon, it's just a discussion on 4chan. Take your meds. You're not as enlightened as you want to appear to be.
>All of it is the work of God because we are the work of God
See my point in my previous post. Not everything of human is divine, even though our origins are divine. You have no idea what you're talking about.
>To the divine, none of this involves inferiority or superiority of quality. Everything simply is.
There is always a hierarchy. "Everything simply is" is your absolute most retarded take so far, and that's saying something. Yes, everything is, but quite the opposite of simply.
>The more particular, lesser known works of art are as valid as the timeless masterpieces, but serve different functions.
To end here, I half agree. They are equally valid as expressions of human creativity, and serve different functions. Because we assign words to denote the functions of things, one of these is art, the other isn't. Because they serve different functions.
Not everything is art.

>>19145616
Literally every line of your rebuttal ends with a dismissive insult.

>>19145471
>>if everything is art then nothing is art
>Everything is nothing, so yes.
true yet a miniscule clarification: there is your art and that which is not yours, i.e. impenetrable/retarted/too complex/too shallow. and that's it. everyone should develop his own art and so be the harmony of being. and not to shit or resent otherness.
NO UNIVERSAL STANDARD. UNIVERSALITY=MATRIX.
LET US MOVE FORWARD

>>19145616
>(post-)modern interpretation
based peterson reader. however, why post-modernism bad? it's simply time after modernity; was modernity good? no. it died: it's good. whatever comes after is what you are able to create/perceive.

>>19145616
>Not everything of human is divine, even though our origins are divine.
Lol, WHAT????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
SERIOUSLY, WHAT?????????????????
AND YOU ACCUSE ME OF IGNORANCE
I aint got time for this shit.
>the All is One
>except for humans
Omg

>>19145604
>None of it is my assumption, I am in harmony with God and know that I am loved unconditionally, and that everyone else is as well. Try it out.
Lmao this has to be bait. You are in harmony with your own farts.
>Your entire response to me is littered with condescension, remarks that arent substantive and constitute nothing more than negative statements attempting to annihilate the truth within.
>ucking fuck man I literally had this exact conversation already ITT and it was so fucking long and I dont want to type it all out again. Mother of fucking fuck.
Lmao
>It all says more about who you are and how you feel, your orientation toward reality and life, than it does about me or my words.
It says you have no idea what you're talking about and by making these passive aggressive remarks you're no better than what you accuse others of. You are not enlightened.
>>19145608
It's the logical end point of your pomo theory. What is something that isn't art then? Everything humans do are to some extent "communicative expression of sentiment through a creative medium", be that medium a canvas, a book, music, words, facial expressions, etc. All of those are valid as expressions of humanity, yet not as art.

>>19145627
It isnt, but that concept also isnt strictly post modern. Imagine being so hell bent on dismissing the expression of other people as "unworthy," that you literally define "all expression is valid" as a post modernist concept instead of a truism

>>19145620
Precisely anon. Thanks for that I was starting to become exasperated. Love you, brother.

>>19145619
Yes, faggot. Leave if you don't like it. Are you new here?
>>19145629
You missed the point completely. My point was that our actions have the potential to be expressions of the divine, but are not necessarily. Just because the divine created us, does not mean we are the divine itself. We are to some extent aspects of the divine, and aspects of the divine are within us, but we are not the same as the divine. This is rookie metaphysics.
Oh I forgot an insult, so here's your "you type like you're an edgelord."
>>19145627
Stop playing semantic games. Post-modernism is not just that what comes after modernism. And no, modernity wasn't good either.
>whatever comes after is what you are able to create/perceive.
I hope this was an attempt to capture the spirit of pomo in a sentence.

>>19145651
>Just because the divine created us, does not mean we are the divine itself.
Omg. Wow
>this is rookie metaphysics
Holy shit

Also
Im not scared off by your insulting nature, thats missing the point entirely. I pointed it out because again, you reveal it all.

>>19145638
>"all expression is valid" as a post modernist concept instead of a truism
But it is. Truisms are irrelevant. All expressions are valid, but not necessarily as art.
Some art is unworthy to be called art, yes. Am I the ultimate arbiter? No. Time is.

>>19145659
>Omg.
>Wow
>Holy shit
>You reveal it all
You have to go back. Or start with the Greeks. Preferably both.