/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6760122]

>African literature is g-great guys... honest! J-just as good as Western!
Isn't pretending to like another culture's literature a really shitty way to take pity on them?

[Anonymous No.6760137]

>>6760122
Achebe is one of my favorite cultural fiction authors, Buck is probably the only author I like more in that genre.

Tutuola is one of the best authors to publish anything in the last 50 years.

Cultural diversity in literature is awesome. Where else are you going to read about things such as spirits that crawl inside a woman, pretending to be an infant to intentionally come out stillborn and repeat the process to antagonize her, through the perspective of an MC that sees this as a fact of existence? Shit like that's neat. Pull your head out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.6760139]

Yes

[Anonymous No.6760157]

Why are people like yourself so interested in people who "pretend to like things"? How can you tell it is merely an act? Why is your genuine love of a thing better? This idea of policing the authenticity of others is not only heavily reactionary, it's also basically futile due to the mystery of other human beings.

[Anonymous No.6760161]

>>6760137
Is that African of African-American?

[Anonymous No.6760169]

>>6760157
excited to start college this fall?

[Anonymous No.6760177]

>>6760137

This fucking book fuck this book.

Not because it's bad, it was actually one of my favourite books in high school, but it's just the damn cultural diversity that makes teachers retarded.

Pretty much everything they taught was about how unique and beautiful this African culture was and how evil the coloniasist were. When I argued that the culture was already on its way to falling apart, that it contains some critiques about that culture, and that the missionaries in the end were just another rough beast whose hour has come round at last, they just call me culturally insensitive. We didn't even talk about literary devices or the character of Okonkwo, almost all of it was just about "muh beautiful culture," all about the effects of colonialism and its history and not about storytelling.

If I'm wrong about my interpretation, feel free to show how I'm wrong, but I'm still going to adapt Harold Bloom as my patron saint and say that that shit has little business in a literature class compared to the actual literature.

[Anonymous No.6760190]

>>6760161
Both authors I mentioned are Nigerian. I highly recommend them.

[Anonymous No.6760214]

>>6760137
chinua achebe is a hack, you're telling me you've read things fall apart and arrow of god and felt satisfied? he writes really shallow pieces that depend totally on shock value near the end

if you're interested in African-lit the negritude writers are the way to go: damas, senghor, cesaire. wole soyinka also writes plays that are much more informative over the power dynamics within colonial structures in about half the time it would take achebe

[Anonymous No.6760215]

Who says this? Stop inventing people, /pol/

[Anonymous No.6760222]

>>6760177
I don't see how their culture that had persisted and slowly evolved over hundreds if not thousands of years was in any way on it's way to "falling apart". The fact that you are critiquing the culture, as in judging it within the frame of your own separate cultural context, reflects in a very ironic fashion that you have little idea as to what the book was conveying, and it doesn't surprise me that people reacted to you as though you were a bigot.

The story isn't as simple as "our culture is good colonialism is bad". What it's conveying is that no culture should be so arrogant as to think that it is superior to another culture, and that forcefully inflicting your values onto another culture results in potential unforseen consequences but definitely a loss in diversity that cannot be regained.

It's actually become so bad in modern society that 99% of humanity operates within the same economic system. It stems from societies that feel the need to "correct" other cultures they see that they believe are doing things wrong, that they can improve those cultures by making them more like themselves, and the more like themselves they are the more successful they become. These principles are why Christianity and Islam are so widespread in the world, because they are faiths that operate under this kind of logic, as opposed to the thousands upon thousands of distinct faiths that have existed in prehistory that are tied to regional areas and rarely have any desire to force their ideals upon other cultures. Things Fall Apart is pointing out a lot of how widespread modern society came about, and what it destroyed in the process. Whether or not what was destroyed is good or bad is subjective, of course, though I see the having 99% of the world operating within the same economic system as putting all of your eggs into one basket.

[Anonymous No.6760245]

>>6760214
>Damas
>Cesaire
>True African literature
Dude you are so much of an obvious french elitist it's not even funny, absolute stereotype.

[Anonymous No.6760259]

>>6760222
>the entire value of a piece of african literature is saying "culture is relative"
do you not see how this is ironic

[Anonymous No.6760260]

>>6760157

True

>>6760177

So essentially you engaged in an argument with your teacher, who is retarded, and then you got frustrated because they didn't share your opinion?

Why do you hate this book when really you just hate bigoted human beings? Take your head out of your ass you faggot, we all are really sorry that your teacher hurt your feelings.

(boo hoo)

>>6760137

>spirits that crawl inside a woman, pretending to be an infant to intentionally come out stillborn and repeat the process to antagonize her

I'd read that

>>6760214

Not that the negritude writers aren't great, but they're not the end-all be-all. They're also very politically charged. What about african lit that doesn't have any politics - or colonization in it?

[Anonymous No.6760266]

>>6760122
why are you comparing a spook against a spook OP

[Anonymous No.6760277]

>>6760137
What is name of that book about spirits pretending to be children? I have zero experience with African literature, but this seems really interesting.

[Anonymous No.6760279]

>>6760222
>The story isn't as simple as "our culture is good colonialism is bad"

I'm not trying to say that's the story, I'm saying teaching it like that is stupid. There's much much more to the study of literature than cultural studies.

The culture in the book just does a lot of illogical and irrational things. I'm not trying to make be an "ironic fedora man" here. If something's wrong, then something's wrong. Location doesn't really matter about that.

I do agree that the rampant spread of Christianity and Islam is harmful (lol le fedora man), and I do get that the book is critical of that, so don't say I'm with the missionaries. It just comes across in the book as "out with the old, in with the new," and of course the final line shows there's a loss of the original culture in doing that.

[Anonymous No.6760280]

>>6760157
ignore this guy, he is just pretending to be an intellectual

[Anonymous No.6760283]

>>6760259
Relative to what? Are the conclusions you draw in life really this vague?

[Anonymous No.6760292]

>>6760280
no shit

[Anonymous No.6760334]

>>6760277
It is mentioned in various stories but not always by the same name as it has a few different names across different cultures, I was referring to it as pic related, as Ogbanje in "Things Fall Apart".

>>6760279
>There's much much more to the study of literature than cultural studies.
I don't think anyone denies this, and I don't think a book existing on the subject of culture implies that it thinks there isn't any more to literature than it's own concepts.

>The culture in the book just does a lot of illogical and irrational things.
>If something's wrong, then something's wrong.
This is exactly what I mean by ironic bigotry. You are applying your own values of what is right and wrong, what is rational and irrational gained from your own culture and saying that another culture is inferior based on those values. They would say the same about many of the practices of your culture, such as the fact that a man has to work for eight hours a day to maintain a living, or that a man will be locked in a cage for months for simply hitting another man. You are judging a separate culture within the context and standards of your own culture, which do not apply within that culture. A huge idea behind the book is to convey the concept that "right" and "wrong", "rational" and "irrational" are entirely subjective within cultures, and the fact that you are ignoring this concept that's in your face when discussing it with your class is going to make you look like a bigot who can't see things outside of your own cultural perspective. Not trying to demean you, just explaining the ideas behind the book that you seem to not be grasping.

[Anonymous No.6760368]

>>6760334

Well I guess the book didn't succeed with its message for me.

And I still don't get how there's no right or wrong just because other people have a different idea of it. You explain what happens, but why the hell are they not wrong? Logic is logic everywhere and there's proper logic and crazy belief systems.

There are belief systems which make you blow each other up and degrade women, and there are some which make us live in peace and harmony. Well I can't decide which is right or wrong, because it's all subjective!

[Anonymous No.6760408]

>>6760368
>Well I can't decide which is right or wrong, because it's all subjective!

You're starting to get it.

It's the popular belief of our widespread culture that killing somebody is wrong. There's nothing intrinsically wrong about it, though. Unless you're to some level religious, morality is a human-designed abstraction that makes living in a society operate more smoothly than it would without moral concepts.

In many cultures throughout history, killing an enemy is seen as a rite of passage. Our culture doesn't like the idea of killing people within that context, so obviously, we see it as irrational. All of these things are subjective, and in order for something to be more or less "efficient", or more or less "logical", you have to subjectively define what is efficient or logical first.

For example, Efficient in what sense? capitalistically? does not apply to a non-capitalistic society. A capitalistic society will still see a hunter/gatherer system, or a commune, as inefficient in terms of what they value as building an excess of wealth through imported and exported goods, and will see their lack of trying to craft or farm large amounts of trade goods for export as illogical when it could lead to capitalistic gain for them. Such things simply aren't valued in that society.

[Anonymous No.6760431]

>>6760408

or maybe I'm just considering the fact that we're all human beings who have a right to life? That we don't like unnessary pain? Unless those aren't basic principles of human rights and it's just opinion.

Fuck I can't argue if all you're going to throw back is "it's subjective!" I guess you win, or not because it's just up for your own mind to choose.

[Anonymous No.6760444]

>>6760431
That isn't a fact though.

It isn't verifiable.

[Anonymous No.6760481]

>>6760431
I'm not trying to "win" or "lose" an argument, I'm just defining a point.

And it is not whatsoever a fact that human beings have a right to life. I mean, tangible evidence pls?

[Anonymous No.6760491]

>>6760137
Am I the only one who thought this made Africans out to be idiot savages?

[Anonymous No.6760555]

>>6760408
There are many clear and objective measures of quality of life, such as life expectancy and mortality rates.

Any society with greater quality of life is objectively superior to a society with lesser quality of life.

[Anonymous No.6760571]

>>6760177
you just went to a shit school with shit teachers.

[Anonymous No.6760577]

DAE think the real racists are le niggers?

[Anonymous No.6760580]

>>6760555
You choose the metrics by which quality of life is measured.

[Anonymous No.6760585]

>>6760555
how is it a fact that living longer = higher quality life?

what is a "good quality" life anyway? that has to be defined subjectively. What makes life good and bad differs dramatically between cultures. You are judging things from the subjective perspective of only your own culture and treating your perspectives as objective fact. We call that bigotry.

"Any society with greater quality of life is objectively superior to a society with lesser quality of life."

Culture A's: definition of quality of life: "The less time you have to work in a day to maintain food and consumable goods, the higher quality your life is, for you have more time for leisure and happiness"

Culture A works on average for two hours a day, hunting or gathering some plants, cooking meals and maybe repairing something that's broken.

Culture B works for 8 hours a day to obtain a certain amount of tickets that eventually amount to barely enough to cover the amount of tickets required to have enough to eat, be sheltered and enjoy simple luxuries with the time he has within his society.

By culture A's definition, Culture A's society is objectively superior to culture B's society in terms of quality of life.

[Anonymous No.6760600]

Is No Longer At Ease the best parts of the Yams trilogy? I feel that of the three books that one gave me the best understanding of what it's like to live under a (late) colonialist system.

[Anonymous No.6760611]

>>6760600
I would say Ease is the best window into understanding adaptive life in a colonialist system out of the three. Wouldn't really say any of them are strictly superior to each other as a whole.

I have a huge book of his short stories I haven't read yet, I might just thumb through that right now.

[Anonymous No.6760617]

>>6760260
I agree, I only posted those negritude writers because their focus on surrealism really interests me. I'd check out some African folk-tale stuff like Sundiata

[Anonymous No.6760631]

>>6760580
>>6760585

I expect that if you were to ask any human*, regardless of their cultural background, questions such as
"would you like to live longer?"
"would you like to be less likely to die from disease?"
"would you like more of your children to survive to adulthood?"
the answer would almost always be "yes".

So perhaps I was wrong to call it objective, but I would instead call it universally agreeable to human nature.

*Or even, if it were possible, any animal

[Anonymous No.6760632]

>>6760555
Even if this were true (which it is not, see >>6760585) wouldn't you then have to qualify WHY a particular society had a lower life expectancy, etc.? Let's not pretend that the world is this flat, level playing field where everybody has an equal chance and the present state of a society actually speaks for itself.

[Anonymous No.6760635]

This is a very good [south] African poem i remember doing in school, but for the most part I totally agree with you. Lots of african culture (even there "religeons") was heavily oral simply due to them lacking the basic technology to invent or practice writing before colonisation.

An abandoned bundle
Oswald Mbuyiseni Mtshali
The morning mist
and chimney smoke
of White City Jabavu
flowed thick yellow
as pus oozing
from a gigantic sore.

It smothered our little houses
like fish caught in a net.

Scavenging dogs
draped in red bandanas of blood
fought fiercely
for a squirming bundle.

I threw a brick
they bared fangs
flicked velvet tounges of scarlet
and scurried away,
leaving a mutilated corpsean
infant dumped on a rubbish heap-
'Oh! Baby in the Manger

sleep well
on human dung.'
Its mother
had melted into the rays of the rising sun,
her face glittering with innocence
her heart as pure as untrampled dew.

[Anonymous No.6760640]

>>6760245
i'm from the Deep South, in no way am I a French elitist. dismissing writers for the french elitism stereotype is a bit extreme

[Anonymous No.6760670]

>>6760632
Modern social science makes it very clear that socio-cultural elements affect most factors of quality of life.

Obviously, social science is itself influenced by culture, but I justify its relative objectivity here: >>6760631

[Anonymous No.6760688]

>>6760670
Did you read my post? Yes, of course having a low life expectancy is bad, and of course if you asked people those questions they would respond affirmatively. But you can't just magically go from low to high life expectancy.

Is it necessarily the fault of the given culture that they have a low life expectancy?

[Anonymous No.6760699]

>>6760631
why should society be based upon what a large portion of humans want? There are way more factors going into play than the simple desires of human beings.

"would you like to not have to work?"
"would you like it if people who disagreed with you weren't allowed to be in office?"
"would you like to have ten wives?"

Your stance has no logic behind it. Just as an example as to why fulfilling human desires =/= a well-operating society, people living longer and having all of their children survive into adulthood due to technology is exactly the reason the world is so vastly overpopulated right now. The amount of greenhouse gasses being thrown into the atmosphere just to feed our swollen population alone is putting the world into a period of mass-extinction. This is just an example as to how human desires are not what society should necessarily be based off of.

[Anonymous No.6760723]

>>6760688
But does it not justify the forcible imposition of a foreign culture upon the society of lower quality of life?

For example, a particularly warlike culture might have a high death rate because they actively seek war. An external force could, by a number of means, make their culture more peaceable. It would not be easily done, of course, but in the long run in would reduce that society's death rate and thereby increase their quality of life.

[Anonymous No.6760727]

Why do right wingers use the Not Being Racist Is The Real Racism Meme so much

[Anonymous No.6760766]

>>6760699
Sustainability does not require unnecessary suffering.

If anything, the philosophical backbone to sustainability is utilitarianism, and utilitarianism would advocate giving people the greatest possible quality of life that they can have without reducing the quality of life of future generations.

Again, this justifies cultural imperialism. It is in the interests of everyone to force all societies to have a high, but sustainable quality of life.

[Anonymous No.6760772]

>>6760723
How so? they're war-like for a reason. Killing an enemy might be a right of passage. They might be a warrior-based culture where warriors hold the best positions in their society and are revered, and the people who are fighting each other value war for this reason, as it demonstrates who within their societies are powerful and shows which among their societies are dominant.

Take away their guns and spears and becoming a police force stopping fighting and you just made all of the young men aspiring to go to war one day miserable, and dissolved the structure of their society. Their quality of life within their own culture has then decreased. It increased through the perspective of your culture because they are now living longer on average. But that is not their perspective. Quality of life is subjective in it's entirety.

[Anonymous No.6760775]

>>6760640
well duh, deep south has shitloads of cultural ties with France.

[Anonymous No.6760780]

I think, like Bloom, that blind literary relativity is a sign that the person never had any love or respect for literature in the first place.

[Anonymous No.6760781]

>>6760723
...what? Are you seriously jumping that far ahead of yourself here? You jump to these wild conclusions without stepping back and asking a single question.

1) Why does the society "seek" war? Is it because the people are evil, or because they lack resources? Or some other external factor?

2) NO, it does not even remotely justify the "forcible imposition of a foreign culture", because why (again, I ask you, why) do you think this culture has a lower quality of life? The irony of a culture, which may itself be one of the causes of the lesser culture's distress, imposing on it to save it from itself is both tragic and hilarious.

Yes, some societies do objectively have it better than others. But for God's sakes, before we go in with an army let's consider that maybe we have something to do with the conditions of these cultures.

[Anonymous No.6760807]

>>6760766
And where is this magical utopian society bringing it's perfectly-working system to everyone?

So far, there is nothing that is proven to be sustainable as far as society goes past Hunter/Gatherer culture. That's the only observable fact there is to the matter when it comes to sustainability. Reducing the number of hunter/gatherers to force them into population-exploding, greenhouse gas machines dependent entirely on other nations buying their exports on the cheap isn't exactly sustainable.

Not to mention all kinds of negative values are being shifted. They now have to work longer to support their families than they did before, and they have less opportunities to climb a social ladder as their population is now much larger and centered on currency instead of whatever social values that they held important beforehand. How can you seriously be so deeply convinced that your idea of good, right and efficiency are the most logically correct for all humans, when there is literally no scientific basis for this conclusion?

Here's a funny example of people thinking they're preventing something and causing exactly what they are trying to prevent through their own arrogance and self righteousness: Relief aid workers supply a struggling, growing sub-saharan population with a surplus of food aid. The excess in food allows for the population to sustain itself, and grow, because of that food supply chain. Then, a regional conflict arises, and the supply chain gets cut off by an aggressive force that uses it to gain wealth. Thousands of people who were dependent on the food source, who were even born because of it's existence, proceed to the starve to death.

I'm not even saying that I think it's "bad" that people starved to death. I'm saying that the people who started the food supply line definitely did. And they're the ones who ironically caused it. Society is much more complicated than "Everyone should have the most of what they want as possible all of the time, and everyone who isn't like us should be exactly like us because our ideas are the best."

[Anonymous No.6760839]

>>6760491

apparently yes, yes you are

have you tried sci-fi or YA fiction?

[Anonymous No.6760847]

>>6760555

>There are many clear and objective measures of quality of life, such as life expectancy

This is the dumbest thing I've read this entire week. Thanks anon. You were probably being serious aswell.

>spending 90 years in a gulag is objectively (nice meme) better than living a happy life for 85 years

[Anonymous No.6760866]

>>6760617

Thank you friend, much appreciate the recommendation, I will look into it.

>>6760631

>I expect that if you were to ask any human*, regardless of their cultural background, questions such as
>"would you like to live longer?"

Both my parents don't want to be older than 90.

>the answer would almost always be "yes".

So you are even aware of your flawed way of thinking yet continue on? Embarrassing..

[Anonymous No.6760877]

>>6760766

Friendly reminder utilitarianism is the reason why the US dropped two fucking nukes on a country that would have given up only days later anyway.

Fuck you and everything you stand for. I'm actually disgusted people think like this.

[Anonymous No.6760878]

>>6760772
It is true that the quality of life would probably decrease for the current generation and perhaps for those in the near-future. But, in the long run, it would increase the quality of life of a far greater number of humans.


>>6760781
> 1) Why does the society "seek" war? Is it because the people are evil, or because they lack resources? Or some other external factor?
Well, firstly, there may be other ways to solve problems such as lack of resources. These societies may not be educated enough to have considered them (conflict is, after all, a most basic of instincts).
Secondly, while I will admit that human culture is largely driven by necessity, culture can also greatly outlast whatever challenge it was created to overcome. Culture can be self-reinforcing. A warlike culture may have been born out of the need for a society to protect itself from a hostile nation, but could perpetuate long after that nation had ceased to be a threat.

> 2) NO, it does not even remotely justify the "forcible imposition of a foreign culture", because why (again, I ask you, why) do you think this culture has a lower quality of life? The irony of a culture, which may itself be one of the causes of the lesser culture's distress, imposing on it to save it from itself is both tragic and hilarious.
Imposition of foreign culture is justified IF it leads to a greater overall quality of life for humans. I will admit that no civilisation is infallible, and well-intentioned imperialism won’t always work out as well as was intented.

[Anonymous No.6760948]

>>6760807

> So far, there is nothing that is proven to be sustainable as far as society goes past Hunter/Gatherer culture. That's the only observable fact there is to the matter when it comes to sustainability.

There are entire branches of science devoted to researching how humans can live sustainably without giving up the comforts of modern civilisation. In fact, it’s a large part of what I am studying at university.

I am currently of the opinion that imperialism would be the most effective way of ensuring sustainable development. The main reason for this is that competing nations have little interest in developing less quickly than their competitors, therefore a single nation which controlled most of the world’s resources would be able to act sustainably.


>>6760866

> Both my parents don't want to be older than 90.

These measures of quality of life are not necessarily linear functions. There is a big difference between life expectancy increasing from 50 to 70 and it increasing from 80 to 100.

However, if your mother was asked “would you like your chance to die during child birth to be 0% or some amount greater than 0%?” I think the answer would be clear.


>>6760877

If Japan would have surrendered days later anyway, the decision was not utilitarian.

If Japan would have carried on the war for years, killing hundreds of thousands more people, the decision was clearly justified.

[Anonymous No.6760966]

>>6760137
>>Tutuola is one of the best authors to publish anything in the last 50 years.
What makes you say that? I read about half of The Palm Wine Drinkard, got bored and gave up. It just seemed like a series of short folk stories with no deeper meaning lying behind it. Or did I miss something?

[Anonymous No.6761002]

>>6760948

>If Japan would have surrendered days later anyway, the decision was not utilitarian.

>If Japan would have carried on the war for years, killing hundreds of thousands more people, the decision was clearly justified.

You are actually stupid. In this case, US authorities aswell as UK authorities actually knew that the Japanese would have forfeited because they were completely overpowered, yet the US still dropped the nukes.

But that is not even the matter of discussion. You're just blind.

Assume this:

The japanese were about to forfeit, but the US actually did not know.

They drop two nukes, because they assume to end a war that would have taken more lifes than dropping said nukes.

Your utilitarian belief system is directly at fault for thousands of people dieing. The other anon made a very good point which you completely ignored. "The most of x (usually happiness, contempt) for the biggest sum of people is always the best" completely ignores future events, unforeseable events and dynamics.

>>6760807

>Here's a funny example of people thinking they're preventing something and causing exactly what they are trying to prevent through their own arrogance and self righteousness: Relief aid workers supply a struggling, growing sub-saharan population with a surplus of food aid. The excess in food allows for the population to sustain itself, and grow, because of that food supply chain. Then, a regional conflict arises, and the supply chain gets cut off by an aggressive force that uses it to gain wealth. Thousands of people who were dependent on the food source, who were even born because of it's existence, proceed to the starve to death.


I don't know why you ignored his point, is it to keep your delusions alive?

[Anonymous No.6761010]

One of my favorite authors is African, you might think that's absurd.

[Anonymous No.6761087]

>>6761002
Both your point and his show examples of error in human judgement. The theory of utilitarianism is still sound.

I "ignored his point" because I am responding to multiple people making multiple arguments at once and do not have an infinite amount of time.

[Anonymous No.6761100]

>>6760157
>reactionary

[Anonymous No.6761106]

>>6760137
This book is terrible.

[Anonymous No.6761108]

ITT: sociology undergrads regurgitate their textbooks

[Anonymous No.6761112]

>>6761010
Yeah, I love St. Augustine too.

[Anonymous No.6761130]

>>6760585
Littered with contradictions. I hope noone takes this seriously.

[Anonymous No.6761131]

>>6761087

>Both your point and his show examples of error in human judgement. The theory of utilitarianism is still sound.

I see now we are getting somewhere. You can never account for errors in human judgement, correct? So utilitarian ethics are only successfull in a bubble (not trying to bash utilitarian ethics, the same goes for teleological and theological ethics obviously).

>I "ignored his point" because I am responding to multiple people making multiple arguments at once and do not have an infinite amount of time.

Fair enough.

[Anonymous No.6761137]

>>6761100
meaningless pejorative

might as well call him a hipster while you're at it

[Anonymous No.6761140]

>>6761137
can you read?

[Anonymous No.6761173]

>>6760157
the reactionaries are at it again, comrade. only the most emancipatory authenticity shall prevail, by force if necessary! onward to greatness!

[Anonymous No.6761179]

>>6760222
no culture should be so arrogant as to think that it shouldn't be affected by other cultures. culture isn't sacred.

[Anonymous No.6761293]

These threads make me furious. I am so angry. You are all worshipping these niggers, these darkskin devils, because they is 'African'. They appeal to the sjw hipster who seeks to be 'underground' and 'progressive'. You seem to have come to believe that this makes their works acceptable. But I say, fuck this fucking piece of disgusting rubbish nigger literature.

[Anonymous No.6761317]

>Harold Bloom loved Beloved

OH NOES HAROLD BLOOM IS A FILTHY RACE TRAITOR SJW LIBERAL TUMBLR CUCK

Let's face it, /lit/ doesn't actually care about literary standards.

[Anonymous No.6761335]

>African literature

This doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.6761346]

>>6760137
>spirits that crawl inside a woman, pretending to be an infant to intentionally come out stillborn and repeat the process to antagonize her
2fuckingspooky4me

[Anonymous No.6761352]

>>6761293
>I get angry over the opinions of internet strangers

if browsing /pol/ wasn't enough to prove to you that you're mentally unbalanced this should be.

[Anonymous No.6761361]

>>6761293
Back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.6761402]

>>6761352
>>6761361
>MUH /pol/
Yea, because it's unthinkable there are intelligent folks outside the nazi central, right? Kill yourselves, niggerlovers.

[Anonymous No.6761408]

>>6761293
What a sad attempt at false flagging
Hang yourself

[Anonymous No.6761472]

>>6761131

Indeed, the practice of any ethical system is subject to the fallibility of humans.
The good utilitarian would take into account the possibility of his judgement being incorrect before making a decision.
I suspect that this is why J. S. Mill believed that people should have the greatest possible freedom of choice in action and speech.

[Anonymous No.6761509]

>>6760169
Kek
My thoughts exactly
>"hurr look at me im a fucking retard"
>Why are you acting like this?
>"lol why are you so interested in how I act xD"

[Anonymous No.6761544]

All African literature is eurocentric