/lit/ - Literature

Industrial Society and its future

>>14230426
Online dating increased the likelyhood of people finding companionship. If you want to get ass the old way, you had to rely on your social circle and if that was of poor quality or you didn't even have a social circle, then you were plain fucked. Now you can hunt for poon that you probably never would have met if you had to rely on IRL methods only.

>>14230426
How to get a gf like this bros?

>>14230437
Literature that’s not reactionary and evaluates things from a disinterested perspective. Ted K was cool three years ago when I was an immature faggot

>>14230426
here ya go

>>14230446
>Online dating increased the likelyhood of people finding companionship
This is not the case in rural. You already know every in the rural, and technology only gives you easier communication between who you already know. This distinction in relative limits imposed before technology and after really applies most to urban centers.

There's no such thing as an "interpersonal relationship". You know, how everybody is just another anon? Just do your thang and maybe others will join in, caring about "relationships" is just dragging you down

>>14230451
Heterosexuality was a mistake

>>14230446
lmao no it isn't

people are having less sex than ever before

>>14230501
>sex=/=companionship
Posting marriage and divorce statistics would have made a stronger point

>>14230516
sex indicates companionship. People who are coupled tend to have sex, and people who don't have sex tend to not be coupled

>>14230453
>Literature that’s not reactionary
All literature is inherently reactionary

>>14230516
>all these virgins are in happy relationships
Lmao!

>>14230453
>Literature that’s not reactionary
Give it a few years before you try to use this word without sounding retarded

>>14230516
You are a fucking moron desu.

>>14230426

>>14230426
>ruined

What?

>>14230501
Wow 73% of men are whores instead of 92%

>>14230902
Thank you butters

>>14230451
concern yourself with something more fulfilling
the reality of relationships is not all it is talked up to be, unless you truly find your muse

>>14230479
t. lizard who needs but a warm rock to bask upon

>>14230426
Not sure, but I learned in my 1 semester at school that there's been a huge decline in third places over the last 3 decades. That could be a good addition to your arsenal of search terms. I'm also interested.

>>14230919
t.

>>14230501
How does that refute the other guy's point? Getting sex through tinder is objectively easier than through other means.

>>14232519
Got anything objective to back that up? Personally I'd say it's objectively easier to get through grindr than tinder so what now? How about you just bend over a take one for the team buddy

>>14232519
Tinder isn’t representative of the larger population and Tinder’s culture is heavily skewed towards favouring particular people. Tinder is a place where attractive people can find casual hook ups with other attractive people. For less attractive people seeking sex or for people searching for fulfilling relationships, Tinder isn’t that great.

>>14232531
what do you want me to post a peer reviewed study comparing whether it's easier to get sex through tinder than through traditional means?

>>14232519
Those men have never had sex. Men that have never had sex very likely have never had companionship (unless they're cucks), so online dating has not "increased the likelyhood(sic) of people finding companionship", at least for that specific bracket of people. It's also a very sizeable bracket, so consider that. I, for one, embrace our future sexless society of herbivore men.

>This is my write-up / personal take

Romantic love is a product of capitalism, sustained by narratives depicted in pop culture to encourage mass-consumerism, which has over time pushed such societal norms as the inherent loneliness of being single by illustrating examples of “what you’re missing out on,” defining unrealistic expectations through unrealistic scenarios, thus purposefully suggesting (and triggering) misery. This is for the benefit of big corporations. We are feed this information with purpose. They really want you to find someone, quick. So, they present you with dating apps and dating websites. No longer do you have to worry about love, the impossibility. They’re just doing to do it for you. Isn’t that exciting?

Once you find someone (anyone), these ideologies encourages us to spend our money on the romance, of which is also a billion-dollar industry, romance is. The costs of dates; the opportunities now open to you because you indeed now have that +1, now you have someone to go out with into the market outside your door; you have someone you want to be seen with, someone who you want to do things with and spend money with and on; more gifts to buy at Christmas, Valentine’s Day becomes a reality; the expenses of weddings and honeymoons; love is expensive. Even the government seeks to marry people and keep people married (it keeps people off welfare, for one). Marriage is social institution, overseen by the same people who work side-by-side with the rich businesses and the national banks. Insurance companies favor the married. The divorce industry is doing pretty damn well too.

So it’s no question as to why big corporations want to push the idea of “romantic love.” They have branded the meaning of the thing. We manufacture love in factories. It’s advertised everywhere. Tinder is advertised on fucking billboards. Don’t pay into it, do not support this. What romance means is “a love with a plot line,” and the more exciting the story, the better it sells. So, tell me. How could it be that dating apps and websites* are so popular yet they are the most counter-romantic thing to have ever materialized.

Love at a convenience: that’s just what they (the people who make the big decisions) want it to be - and when you make it a conveniency, you’re stuck in a cycle of that very same misery via expectant break-ups and grief, moving on to the next one, all according to plan. Commercial love, that’s where we are. All I’m saying is the most anti-capitalist thing you can do besides being dead is say fuck love.

>>14230919
The 23% aren’t people who are voluntarily celibates, they just sit at home and watch pornography instead

>>14230453
>evaluates things from a disinterested perspective
sounds like you still are an immature faggot

>>14230437
Ted can't even begin to imagine the dystopia we're in. I wish I could send him a letter without getting on a watchlist.

>>14232568
is that eggman?

>>14230426
Understanding Media

>>14232569
Yeah

>>14232568
This was it, this was my final and fatal blackpill. I remember this image. It's the one that did me in for good.

Have another.

>>14232553
Romantic love pre-dates capitalism. Still, there is a truth that capitalism has perverted the notion of romantic love, although I suppose it makes genuine love stand out more when it doesn’t play by capitalistic rules.

>>14232540
Do you know who gets a lot of "reviewing" from their "peers"? Homosexuals.

>>14230453
>Literature that’s not reactionary
faggot

>>14230453
Paul_Kingsnorth
Ivan_Illich
D._H._Lawrence
C._S._Lewis
E._F._Schumacher
Leopold_Kohr
Neil_Postman
Jacques_Ellul
Lewis_Mumford
Kirkpatrick_Sale
Jerry_Mander
Edward_Goldsmith
Gene_Logsdon
Russell_Kirk
Wendell_Berry
James_Howard_Kunstler
Richard_Proenneke
Philip_Sherrard
John_Seymour
Edward_Abbey