/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20227497]

>cures le depression

Wow.

[Anonymous No.20227505]

>>20227497
he is legit one of the most influential thinkers in psychology, which is kinda funny since he literally went insane.

[Anonymous No.20227534]

>>20227497
>>cures le depression
Literally this

the only writer to have gotten through to me during my worst times

[Anonymous No.20227537]

>>20227505
I put long screeds on Joe Biden pictures, or dehumanizing attempts at humor, but people don't read them because they refuse to open JPGs with a picture of Joe Biden. At least, that's why I presume most people avoid them, beyond that, the vast majority of people are instantly dissuaded by multiple lines of text. Paragraphs are like wolf-piss for the peasant, he won't go near them.

I'm not a faggot who reads books, but I enjoy talking shit. As a nihilist, this is my argument about nihilism in pic related. People say that guy is a nihilist or an anti-nihilist, all I know is that dude must put some fruity flavored syrup on his big long bullshit shlong to get you peasant faggots licking it 100 years later.

People hate my bullshit because I'm an asshole. I can only presume this guy coddles you, gives you some sense of optimism, some sense of belonging or acceptance, or otherwise stimulates you psychologically in such a way that you feel a pleasant bit of "human mutuality" that attracts you to the man and his rhetoric.

I always antagonize the reader because I'm an asshole and mainly want to criticize, upset, anger, discomfort, or otherwise rhetorically assault the reader because i'm hostile and aggressive.This has seen very limited success, and the only success I generally see is writing gay smut.

If I'm going to do gay shit like coddle the psychological fragility of peasants, then I'm just going to go full blown homo and write gay smut because at least I'm not pretending to be some "voice of reason" and am openly admitting that writing is just an outlet for soft-dick bitch boys to get their balls fondled and necks kissed by a daddy who will whisper in your ear and tell you how much he loves you.

[Anonymous No.20227544]

>>20227537
Here's a second one, not a funny one, but just another screed. I usually just wander away after shitposting on here because I get distracted and am generally indifferent to the responses of people. I don't care about people's opinions, but there is narcissistic pleasure in littering pamphlets, almost like masturbating to yourself in the mirror.

[Anonymous No.20227566]

>>20227537
>dehumanizing attempts at humor

The issue is that I enjoy attacking the audience. My style is something of an insult comic, but the audience is so fragile that they can't laugh at themselves. This is classic schoolyard "mock the losers for their shortcoming" rhetoric, which has historically been immensely popular, but for whatever reason it falls flat on the internet, and I can only presume this is because the internet is a circle jerk of losers, and that makes me, a cool person, the odd-man-out, instead of the voice of reason, majority, and authority with the loser being the powerless minority as is true in real life.

It's a nonsense world on the internet, but because the round-corner police make it illegal to talk shit like you're supposed to, this website for "illegal memes" is the only outlet for functional rhetoric I can find. Every other website will just ban you outright if you criticize even the least respectable and least legitimate people alive.

Somehow everything and everybody is "divine" to the point where criticizing them is "profane blasphemy" which leads to censorship. The only problem I have with this is that this same logic does not extent to child rapists and murderers, who I feel should be protected by this same logic and thus have any public criticism of these people or their actions militantly censored and silenced, ideally with such criticisms being a criminal offense that will land you jail time.

Most people disagree, but this is their logic I am using. They are only condemning their own logic at this point, and that's the problem. They say "these are the rules", then they don't even enforce their own rules. They're hypocrites, and that's why it's so hard to engage in banter with peasants. Impartial, rational logic escapes them, yet the enforce endless constraints on the system only to enforce them with stone-faced hypocrisy.

Yes, I genuinely support these measures, largely because this makes my life easier than arguing for intolerance of 99% of things. Only perfection is worthy of tolerance, all else is worthy of condemnaiton. However, when imperfection is tolerated and respected, it becomes exhausting to criticize things which the peasants will militantly defend.

Since that rhetorical path is perilous and insurmountable, I instead take the position that the 1% of things that are not tolerated and respected should just be tolerated and respected like the 99% of things that are tolerated and respected. This way I'm not nay-saying every time I see a peasant, but instead I can just argue the position where I agree with their philosophy, I just say we need a much higher amount of this allegedly correct philosophy.

[Anonymous No.20227598]

>>20227566
Tldr

[Anonymous No.20227767]

>>20227537

[Anonymous No.20227952]

Kek pretty good, Anon
You're the now, man dog

[Anonymous No.20227956]

>>20227952