/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17691770]

>Reviewer is an over-socialized moralist who cares about the book's message and not how well its written

[Anonymous No.17691792]

>OP is a marginalized defeatist who sets the bar for all things incredibly high and can never meet it in his own work.

[Anonymous No.17691826]

I just sharted my pants

[Anonymous No.17691849]

>>17691770
>OP can't see the link between ethics and aesthetics

[Anonymous No.17691861]

>>17691849
Perhaps you could enlighten me anon?

[Anonymous No.17691867]

>>17691849
Ethics is a species of aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.17691877]

>>17691770
what are the signs that someone is 'over-socialized

[Anonymous No.17691894]

>reviewer does not talk about the book itself; she goes on and on about how the writers gender relates to the social situation at the time, making far-fetched assumptions about the canon

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17691915]

>>17691770
>Frog poster is a Tedfag
When do you move to the cabin?

[Anonymous No.17691927]

>>17691877
They repress their natural urges, assign value to things that bring them no pleasure, and are incapable of enjoying the beauty of nature. Also, they usually feel uncomfortable being alone with their own thoughts

[Anonymous No.17691932]

>>17691915
soon hopefully...

[Anonymous No.17692741]

https://orwell.ru/library/articles/reviewer/english/e_bkrev

>In much more than nine cases out of ten the only objectively truthful criticism would be ‘This book is worthless’, while the truth about the reviewer’s own reaction would probably be ‘This book does not interest me in any way, and I would not write about it unless I were paid to.’

[Anonymous No.17693185]

The concept of over socialization is absolute nonsense when you consider how much humans depended on each other when we were still hunter gatherers. There wouldn't be a single moment where people would just be alone in the wild because they would be in great danger of being killed by either a wild animal or a hostile tribe.

[Anonymous No.17693193]

>>17693185
If you aren't arguing in bad faith, consider how being surrounded by and beholden to thousands of people who aren't related to you by blood may be psychologically different from hunting or gathering in the wild in a (far smaller) group of tribesmen, and how just maybe, there may be deleterious effects of being adapted to one state and existing in the other.

[Anonymous No.17693197]

>>17693185
>oversocialization is absurd because normal socialization is normal
How do people like you read books? You obviously don't understand anything from them.

[Anonymous No.17693211]

>>17693185
Based
>>17693193
>>17693197
Cope

[Anonymous No.17693215]

>>17693185
Consider socialization as specifically "the solution to danger of aloneness". Then, socialization is beneficial and justified in the dangerous hunter-gatherer scenario, however it is not as justified in the scenario of modern society which is extremaly safe and boring. The safety of modern society should enable individualism, and thus we define over-socialization as excessive socialization for the amount of danger present.

[Anonymous No.17693228]

Trannyzinski

[Anonymous No.17693264]

>>17693211
Great contribution to the board subhuman

[Anonymous No.17693290]

>>17691770
But the tranny's manifesto is only relevant because of the message. It's very badly written, Ted was not a good prose stylist.

[Anonymous No.17693340]

>>17693264
Keep coping tedtranny, shouldn't you be punching your monitor?

[Anonymous No.17693354]

>>17693193
>>17693197
Based
>>17693185
>>17693211
>>17693290
>>17693340
Cope

[Anonymous No.17693441]

>>17693185
yeah and that's when the socialisation was good and bound by what worked and what was healthy. oversocialisation is all-consuming and arbitrary, simplifying and ideological, thoughtless.

[Anonymous No.17693458]

>>17691849
ethics has no place in literature as an artform

[Anonymous No.17694116]

>>17693458
>>17691770
live on fellow aesthetes

[Anonymous No.17694156]

>24. Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.

>25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such people. [2]

>27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals (3) constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most left-wing segment.

[Anonymous No.17694225]

>>17691915
when will you move to suck my cock?

[Anonymous No.17694226]

>>17691849
Based

[Anonymous No.17694407]

>>17691861
He won't because he doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Anonymous No.17694417]

>>17691927
so basically le nightwalk doomer is the perfectly ”socialized” being
lol