/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11776576]

Reminder:
Only the poorly read are right wing in their politics

[Anonymous No.11776581]

>>11776576
>i-it's an i-intellectual philosophy

[Anonymous No.11776582]

>>11776576
As a rule this is true, though of course there are some exceptions.

[Anonymous No.11776586]

>>11776576
he's pointing at us

[Anonymous No.11776591]

>>11776581
All of these people unironically seem chill

[Anonymous No.11776593]

>>11776576
Only the poorly read are political

[Anonymous No.11776598]

why does zizek always look stinky?

[Anonymous No.11776599]

Bullshit. More conservatives and libertarians have read marxist writings than marxists have read conservative or libertarian writtings. You know this is true because marx was the gate keeper of "fobidden edgy knowledge" for students and their left wing professors. It can't be considered widely read.

[Anonymous No.11776601]

>>11776593
i like this one better

[Anonymous No.11776616]

>>11776576
Does anyone have an essential Zizek chart?

[Anonymous No.11776626]

>>11776593
Nailed it

[Anonymous No.11776627]

>>11776616
Start with Kleenex before going over store brands.

[Anonymous No.11776631]

>>11776591
Unfortunately "chill" (read; corpulent and vitamin D deficient) doesn't cut-it in the practical application of a political philosophy.
>>11776593
This. The more you read the more politically-transcend you should become.

[Anonymous No.11776633]

>>11776627
once he's well versed in store brands he can move up to his arms and shirt

[Anonymous No.11776659]

>>11776633
> Only a mashter of hish craftsh ushes only hish fingersh, you know?

[Anonymous No.11776670]

>>11776591
>f-fat smelly politically obsessed white people a-are chill

Which one are you tubby?

[Anonymous No.11776674]

>>11776670
This guy also looks cool

[Anonymous No.11776686]

>>11776674
>

[Anonymous No.11776704]

>>11776670

[Anonymous No.11776713]

>>11776674
>these are the 'people' giving you advice on /lit/

[Anonymous No.11776714]

i just wanna get rid of all the wogs man

[Anonymous No.11776726]

>tfw love the idea of a stateless, classless society, but hate women and minorities even more

[Anonymous No.11776730]

>>11776714
Based

[Anonymous No.11776732]

>>11776576
>claims to be well read
>worships worthless e-celebs

[Anonymous No.11776747]

>>11776576
Wrong. The natural state of man is te wish for preservation. This is why nostalgia is a thing and you always think the time of your early adolesence was the best time. The more you read the more you understand that the greatest art and ilterature as well as society existed in times of conservation not revolution and progress, which always meant mass death and poverty to most. Also the more you read and the older you get, the more conservative you will become as your wish for reproduction will conflict will revolutionary tendencies, as the later are bad news for your offsprings safety. That's btw proven for women during pregnancy and it's a reason why anti-natalism is so much pushed on western women. Women which don't get kids sta life long revolutionary teenagers. A similar thing happens to men. Having to care for a child also makes you fucking xenophobix beyond believe, as you conider people farer away from your blood to be a higher danger to your children, which is statistically true.

So no matter which aspect you take, once you actually live the life evolution or god wanted you to live, you will get "right wing". Just look at most philosophers on the left, nearly non will have children, and if at all maybe one kid or aren't really there as a parent for the,. Because going through becoming a parents would make them at best National Socialists.

[Anonymous No.11776757]

>>11776581
>>11776670
Why are leftists, specifically anarchists (generally speaking - of course there will always be excpetions) so weak of body? Is their hatred towards fascist, authoritative rule of the body politic the cause of their hatred towards fascist (disciplined) rule of the body?

[Anonymous No.11776763]

>>11776757
literally no idea what you're talking about. most leftists i know are ready to fight to the death and most right-wing status quo clingers are pudgy, passive aggressive, cop-calling diaper fillers

[Anonymous No.11776764]

>>11776576
An absolute statement that cannot be proven or useful beyond a backhanded insult.

"Only the Sith deal in absolutes."

[Anonymous No.11776770]

>>11776764
christ, what a cringe-inducing post

[Anonymous No.11776774]

>>11776747
Seconded

[Anonymous No.11776776]

>>11776757
Pic related

>>11776763
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.11776782]

>>11776776
I guess the old saying is true.... leftists are weak, myopic, genetic dead ends

[Anonymous No.11776785]

>>11776782
I just ran a half marathon the other day and I'm a tankie

[Anonymous No.11776789]

>>11776747
There’s a saying: Everyone’s a progressive until it comes to their children.

[Anonymous No.11776790]

>>11776757
>>11776763

[Anonymous No.11776791]

>>11776674
>>11776591
>>11776763
>that one asshurt leftie astroturfing this hard

No wonder they need to enforce echo chambers, pretty fuckin cringe in real conversation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ibEsD3mms

[Anonymous No.11776792]

>>11776776
>>11776782
Why do people conveniently forget that in the same study there is also correlation game hand in hand with class? A strong working class is likely to leftist while middle class is likely to be right wing.

[Anonymous No.11776793]

>>11776789
Is that why intelligence negatively correlates to number of children?

[Anonymous No.11776794]

>>117767
what a yikes inducing cringe.

>based original

[Anonymous No.11776796]

>>11776631
>The more you read the more politically-transcend you should become.
Could you elaborate on what political transcendence looks like?
I think this might be happening to me. I couldn’t even difinitely answer if someone asked if I’m a fascist or a liberal social democrat.

[Anonymous No.11776797]

>>11776763
One can be weak of body and still desire to fight to the death (not that it would work out too well for them). And yes; there are weak-bodied right-wingers. Speaking generally however, in terms of populations, the right, at least from my observations, are far more physically inclined than the left.

[Anonymous No.11776801]

>>11776797
That's what happens when you spend 2/3 of your adult life in prison like most right wing leaders

[Anonymous No.11776803]

>>11776776
>reddit

how old were you when you realized that right-wingers are the sort of people that rely on mommydaddy structures already in place and who get fat and seek out like minimum wage security officer jobs to pay for their grand theft auto habit, playing on modded servers handing out tickets in game as police officers with each other on mumble until 5 am

[Anonymous No.11776806]

Prove to me why diversity is good

[Anonymous No.11776807]

left = centrist = sjw!

[Anonymous No.11776808]

>>11776796
That's exactly what it is; puzzlement. Like being left in a state of aporeia after Socrates is done drilling you.

[Anonymous No.11776811]

>OP posited that reading correlated with leftism
>right wingers sleeved out and make thread about physical strength
How many levels of cope are they on?

[Anonymous No.11776813]

>>11776793
It's because high IQ people uually are 24/7 at work and don't have the time for a family and are working in fields in which they don't come along many women to get to know them and start a relationship.

And especially for high IQ women, which are rare to start with, staying in uni and work till 30 means they have something ike 5 yeyars to birth non-retards as their eggs are getting too old already. Male sperm also gets more retarded with age, which is why chidlren from older parents are more likely to be autistic at best.

It'S less about beeing too msart for kids and our world in which smartness takes away to ability to reproduce properly while beeing a illegal gibsmedats receiver gves you far more opportunities.

[Anonymous No.11776814]

>>11776747
Lmao I can tell you were seething as you slammed your obese arms across your keyboard utilizing all the little power you have in that illiterate smooth brain of yours

[Anonymous No.11776817]

>>11776792
No working class in the west is left wing.

Link your study to prove me wrong.

>>11776803
>part of an ideology in which the overwhelming majority of members celebrate their weakness and would disown you for pursuing personal strenght
>yeah, but what about this ridiculous straw man scenario btfo

your /r/latestagecapitalism is showing

[Anonymous No.11776818]

>>11776811
>sleeved
Sperged

[Anonymous No.11776820]

>>11776811
Leftists obviously haven't read their Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.11776821]

>>11776817
It is in the same study that you were linking. Did you read the actual paper?

[Anonymous No.11776822]

>>11776811
guess the right-wingers trying to convince anyone on boards.4chan.org/lit of how strong they (not themselves, personally, but their group lmao) are played right into OP's hand

[Anonymous No.11776824]

>>11776820
>non-squetiering to Nizecthe
That is one more level of cope

[Anonymous No.11776825]

>>11776817
i know four or five right-wingers at my workplace that do this, all secguards

[Anonymous No.11776826]

Why do leftists get so angry when pictures of their fellow lefties and the things they say are shown?

Cmon guys, these are your fellow revolutionaries who you're going to kill the rest of us with. Embrace them! Le internationale unites all milk toast white urbanites of course.

[Anonymous No.11776828]

imagine stacking so many copes on top of your fascistic worldview that you've lost contact with the subject-supposed-to-know that you claim to still know lmfao

[Anonymous No.11776830]

>>11776826
when you're too stupid to dinstinguish libs from leftists

[Anonymous No.11776831]

>>11776814
You wont believe me, but I'm a healthy and good looking mother, cross posting from the homeschooling thread. I am actually talking as well from personal experience. Before I got kids I was an lolbetarian, afterwards my my new books center around classics, traditional catholicism and bad goy politics. Husbandu is well build and fit, s he wors out 2h daily.

Your personal attacks are only a cope because you lack the biological and cultural base to get to reproduce and therefore rather destroy the world around you and all those able to. Greed and envy is what motivates destructive lefties.

[Anonymous No.11776833]

>>11776785
They didn’t say generic athletic health, they said muscle mass. You don’t get much of that from running, sorry anon.

>>11776776
Holy fuck, got a link? What subreddit is that?

>>11776808
I’m not sure exactly what to do with it. I was planning on being a political science major (I love political philosophy) but what the hell would I work toward in a political job when my goals are so splintered and self-doubted? Does it get any better, is there a way of resolving this state?

[Anonymous No.11776834]

>>11776824
>infering non-sequitur where there is non
Just one more level of not having read the Big N

[Anonymous No.11776835]

>>11776821
>too stupid to cite his own arguments
>i-it's in there I swear you're btfo

>>11776825
Wow four or five guys you work with you got him good and they say leftism is just a hobby of sub 100 IQ edgy white kids

[Anonymous No.11776837]

>>11776826
>why do leftists get so angry when pictures of white-guilt zoomers and the things they say are shown?

[Anonymous No.11776838]

>>11776822
You lost the thread. Argument was

Point: Leftists said to be willing to fight to the death, righters are fat whiners
Counterpoint: pic related remarking that righters tend to have more upperbody strength.

The leftist brouggt up the will-to-fight issue in the first place

[Anonymous No.11776839]

>>11776831
Yea and my dad works for Nintendo

>Greed and envy is what motivates destructive lefties.
Lmao how can he be greedy and envious of you if he didn’t know who you are?

[Anonymous No.11776840]

>>11776833
>What subreddit is that?

/r/latestagecapitalism

They have a discord they use to astroturf this board and ree anytime pictures of their fellow revolutionaries are posted lmao

[Anonymous No.11776841]

>>11776835
>im strong and smart

[Anonymous No.11776842]

>>11776830
Leftistism have been assimilated by liberalism unfourtanetly. There are no leftists out there that think trans people are degenerate for example.

[Anonymous No.11776846]

>>11776831
>woman
>homeschooling their children
>uses anecdote to make grand statements about society
But my favorite part of all of this is that you believe in an ideology that reduces you to your ovaries and judging from your posts they are low-quality af
btw saying that you are a "healthy" woman doesn't dispute my claim at all

[Anonymous No.11776847]

>>11776830
So do leftists even exist? Because literally every single leftist community I witness both online and offline are spergy upper right class self-hating white boys.

[Anonymous No.11776848]

>>11776839
Greed and envy on the sear posibility of people having it better than himself. He doesn't need to know anybody personally. They know they are lacking and instead of working on themselves they rather want to destroy and form a new society to their model.

That's also why conservatives are the more generous people, giving more to the needy than lefties, despite the later beeing big on gverment enfored handouts - because they don't pay much taxes but get most of them.

[Anonymous No.11776850]

The right has no coherent conception of the left-wing and tends to generalise usually warring factions with buzzwords and memery

imagine trapping yourself in a linguistic prison and posting scrawny twink leftists like you aren't the same pointless white male living inside an ideological jail of your own creation

[Anonymous No.11776851]

>>11776838
that tendency you claim will definitely come in handy then, when punching in 9-1-1 while getting knocked around and bawling like richard spencer

[Anonymous No.11776853]

>>11776838
shhhh I was seeing how long they'd try to act like that they never said that exact quote and play off all the evidence of leftists being weak/obese beta males came out of nowhere instead of a response to >>11776763

[Anonymous No.11776855]

>>11776833
Except that running is a MUCH greater indicator of health and ability than muscle mass, just look at soldiers, none of them are giant fucking bodybuilders, sure some are but much more are average sized with great cardio

[Anonymous No.11776857]

>>11776850
projection

[Anonymous No.11776859]

>>11776820
Contemporary leftism is just the most recent evolution of Nietzsche's slave morality.

[Anonymous No.11776861]

>>11776842
Leftist here. You are half-correct. It is not that leftists have been co-opted by liberals, but that leftists are trying to co-op liberals. We intentionally choose to police our own communities according to liberal social agendas to make them more appealing for liberals to enter so we can then convert them to leftists. As much as we hate the ineffective methodologies of the liberal establishment, we believe that the average liberal is more likely to convert to our cause than the average non-liberal.

[Anonymous No.11776865]

the left and the right are both guilty of virtue signalling, you've got boomer-lite on the right and vampire's castle on the left

[Anonymous No.11776866]

@11776851

[Anonymous No.11776867]

reminder that /lit/ is a leftist board
right wing newfags should go to /pol/

[Anonymous No.11776868]

>>11776763
No one who has such a lack of struggle and challenge in their lives (their society) that they put time into dumb -- largely incoherent -- shit like ""politics"" (a pretense of them, rather), human rights, etc., is 'ready to fight to the death'. Their 'worldview' changes on the basis of a twitter thread.

[Anonymous No.11776869]

Please keep posting examples of spineless, supine weakness from leftists; shame is a potent weapon.

[Anonymous No.11776870]

>>11776859
when you didn't understand nietszche because you couldn't because you're a small-brained right-winger that can only refer back to studies that show a superaverage of right-wingers is stronger than a superaverage of leftists

[Anonymous No.11776871]

>>11776853
>fighting for a cause = being super buff
wow, didn't realize the revolution would be fought with clubs and wrestling

[Anonymous No.11776872]

>>11776846
It's not an anecdote, it's a paper from NBCI you can easily google scholar yourself.

>you believe in an ideology that reduces you to your ovaries you believe in an ideology that reduces you to your ovaries
Unironic yikes.
Accepting ones biological role isn't beeing reduced to it. I am able to bring life onto this world, which no man can himself. We are in simbiosis. Beeing a mother is not beeing worth less, it's peak human accomplishment genetically speaking. And I'm prolly also better educated than most on here with an exceptional IQ even for men.

>saying that you are a "healthy" woman doesn't dispute my claim at all
I have a 20 BMI and 18,9% bodyfat. What about now?


BUt as I said, I wasn't the one making it about myself. My points stand on themself well enough.

[Anonymous No.11776873]

>>11776857
i'm horizontally focused in the intermezzo, anon, i hope you're having fun functioning as a war-machine for capital desu

[Anonymous No.11776874]

>>11776866
His brain hemorrhaged and he died

[Anonymous No.11776876]

>>11776850
I can just replace "right" and "left" in your whole passage and it would still read like it

[Anonymous No.11776879]

>>11776868
try again, and maybe read some english-language sentences beforehand

[Anonymous No.11776880]

>>11776868
>leftist
>human rights
fuck off newfag

[Anonymous No.11776882]

>>11776861
I believe you tried and failed. You played with fire and got burnt. You've been assimilated by liberalism and commodified in the process.

[Anonymous No.11776885]

>>11776876
and that's how the situation will stay since both sides have a vetted interest in destroying the other

[Anonymous No.11776888]

>>11776873
First of all I'm not white sweetie :)

Secondly leftists and antifa are useful idiots for global capital. They're too scared of confronting the actual power structures in capitalism, so instead of murdering CEOs and organizing workers they spend their time fighting "fascism" in the form of working class rust-belters who like Trump.

The second antifa or one of these "radical" groups organized against a Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg type figure, they'd be crushed by the state.

So instead """revolutionary""" leftism becomes a voyeuristic hobby of middle class white kids who got bullied in high school.

also partly because these mega-corporations pretend to politically align with leftists to appease them

as long as they politically agree leftists will overlook things like child-slavery

This is why the first world has zero revolutionary potential. Communists 100 years ago were men turned into human timetables by modern machinery, forced into the trenches by the ancien régime, and driven underground by state repression. Communists today (in the west) are solipsistic sacks of saturated fat who care more about fucking dudes and finishing their master's in sociology than doing anything proactive.

[Anonymous No.11776891]

>>11776868
>leftist
>human rights

til itt: right-wingers don't know the difference between leftists and liberals, and it's because their brains are too smooth to do much more than to believe that, as an abstract superaverage group, their arms are bigger.

[Anonymous No.11776893]

>they think feeble cattiness refutes the clear physiognomic evidence
top erudition
all that study was well worth your time

[Anonymous No.11776894]

>>11776867
>mommy my safe space

/lit/ is a board for open discussion

Stick to you upvote oriented websites if you can't handle it :)

[Anonymous No.11776901]

>>11776872
>google scholar
>no results found
nice job quoting fake studies
>I have more iq
judging by your posts and misspellings I doubt it and I feel sorry for your kids
>20% bf
So I was right about you being fat
this is massive cope from a middle age crisis suburbia mother who has reached a dead end genetically and in life

[Anonymous No.11776902]

>>11776893
lmao they're seething so hard

>we're strong and ready to fight
>W-WHY'D YOU BRING UP SO MANY POSTS SHOWING WE'RE WEAK SPOILED WHITE KIDS

[Anonymous No.11776903]

>>11776894
you're not even denying you're a newfag
fuck off

[Anonymous No.11776904]

>>11776867
Why do leftist sjw onions cucks want to make /lit/ their safespace?

[Anonymous No.11776905]

>>11776891
Find me a prominent leftist movement that's not socially progressive.
Leftistm has been assimilated by liberalism.

[Anonymous No.11776907]

>>11776835
>doesn’t read his own citations
>calls other people stupid

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797612466415

Among men of lower socioeconomic status (SES), strength predicted increased support for redistribution; among men of higher SES, strength predicted increased opposition to redistribution.

[Anonymous No.11776910]

>>11776888
I can't say I disagree with you, anon, capital is very good at subsuming whatever lies at its periphery.

So what can we really do to glimpse at the real?

[Anonymous No.11776911]

This a a blessed thread, lads. Based anti-leftists.

[Anonymous No.11776912]

>>11776833
>They didn’t say generic athletic health, they said muscle mass. You don’t get much of that from running, sorry anon.
But I care more about my physical fitness than how I look on Instagram because I'm not a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11776913]

>>11776903
I don't have to address any of your claims or opinions because I don't respect you as a human being

Once again, you can keep bawling your eyes out or return to a safer website which will curate similar opinions for you based on upvotes

[Anonymous No.11776914]

>>11776851
Let us assume for sake of argument that i am everything you project onto me.

Do you think the 9-1-1 responders I dial to bawww for are likely to be leftist?

[Anonymous No.11776915]

>>11776905
some of the most well-known leftist intellectuals of the past century btfo the concept of human rights. did you not know that leftists despise the concept?

[Anonymous No.11776916]

>>11776904
/lit/ was always leftist until the poorly read /pol/tards showed up and tried to feign erudition by pretending to have read books and so all the well read users moved on

[Anonymous No.11776917]

>>11776848
>projecting your own thoughts on how other people project themselves onto to others on an anonymous board

[Anonymous No.11776918]

>>11776904
fuck off to your containment board newfag trash

[Anonymous No.11776922]

>>11776910
We as in people on this board or do you mean we as in the masses of the United States?

[Anonymous No.11776923]

>>11776914
they will definitely be right-wingers, since those are the sort of people to seek out all the mommydaddy structure-maintenance jobs like policeman

[Anonymous No.11776924]

>>11776593
word clouds are the leading cause of politics existing

[Anonymous No.11776925]

>>11776913
>I don't have to address any of your claims
because you can't
you're a newfag and you don't even understand that concept because you're unaware of chan culture

[Anonymous No.11776927]

>>11776813
>It's because high IQ people uually are 24/7 at work
Wis > Int

[Anonymous No.11776928]

>>11776911
>thread is example of right wingers being generally retarded
>based anti-leftists
your newfagness is showing

[Anonymous No.11776930]

>>11776915
Are you a leftist?

[Anonymous No.11776931]

>>11776915
/pol/cucks are retarded and just parrot opinions

[Anonymous No.11776932]

>>11776923
Exactly. the most valuable members of society are right wing. Candle Wax jewlers and sociology grad students are leftists. Glad we are on the same page.

[Anonymous No.11776934]

>>11776913
only people i've ever seen referring to reddit on this board are newfag right-wingers -- like the one who posted a reddit screencap itt and the one who quoted it approvingly

[Anonymous No.11776935]

>>11776916
read culture of critique and based maps of meaning, onions cuck

[Anonymous No.11776937]

>>11776931
/leftypol/cucks are retarded and just parrot opinions

[Anonymous No.11776940]

>>11776932
>911 operators are the most valuable members of society
Are you forgetting that unions exist and are left wing?

[Anonymous No.11776941]

>>11776932
>live off taxpayer money to wear a uniform and play good vs. evil
>most valuable members of society

oh, my.

[Anonymous No.11776943]

Such as Fernando Pessoa, Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, among many others.

[Anonymous No.11776944]

>>11776935
lmao
literally what I just pointed out, a newfag /pol/tard quoting the titles of books he has never even read

[Anonymous No.11776946]

>>11776925
>this board is my circlejerk safe space
>ur new if you disagree with me

so...... this is the power of left wing academia....whoa....

[Anonymous No.11776952]

>>11776922
/lit/ is probably the most pluralistic board so I don't mean /lit/, I mean those of us who see how capital functions as ontology, engages in worlding, itself able to contain within it contradictions and suck them dry of emancipatory potential?

a bit prosaic but i hope you understand what i mean?

[Anonymous No.11776953]

>>11776576
Read quality and stop hating yourself and envying the lives of others.

The biggest difference is whether it's site x or site y you read. You were supposed to apply what you know, not become a bad example.

[Anonymous No.11776955]

>>11776946
It's the same thing that you're saying, except about the entire website. I'm not sure why the argument surprises you when only the content is different rather than the form.

[Anonymous No.11776958]

Reading Harry Potter does not count as being well read.

[Anonymous No.11776959]

>>11776940
>Are you forgetting that unions exist and are left wing

wtf my hardcore libertarian world view is collapsing, you've got me cornered

>>11776941
Yup

[Anonymous No.11776960]

>>11776937
typical /pol/cuck, deflecting when caught bullshitting

[Anonymous No.11776965]

If you haven't read all of these you are not well-read:

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Roger Scruton, Edmund Burke, Thomas Sowell, P. J. O'Rourke, Mário Ferreira dos Santos, Ludwig von Mises, Michael Oakeshott, Willmoore Kendall, Eric Voegelin, Nikolai Berdyaev, Richard M. Weaver, George Grant, Vladimir Nabokov, Lew Rockwell, Alain Peyrefitte, Václav Havel, Alexis de Tocqueville, Vladimir Solovyov, Olavo de Carvalho, Roger Kimball, Xavier Zubiri, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, Constantin Noica, Lucian Blaga, T. S. Eliot, Ayn Rand, Franz Rosenzweig, William F. Buckley Jr., G. K. Chesterton, Malcolm Muggeridge, Louis Lavelle, H. L. Mencken, , Paul Johnson, Russell Kirk, Miguel Reale, René Girard, Mortimer J. Adler, Marshall McLuhan, C. S. Lewis, Bernard Lonergan, Frédéric Bastiat, Jorge Luis Borges, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Orlando Figes, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Benedetto Croce, Viktor Frankl, Judith Reisman, Vilém Flusser, Hossein Nasr, George Santayana, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Bertrand de Jouvenel, José Ortega y Gasset, Jesús Huerta de Soto, Andrzej Łobaczewski, Leo Strauss, Mircea Eliade, Joseph Campbell, Carl Jung, Carl Schmitt, Thomas Woods, Carl Menger, Jean-Baptiste Say, Nicolás Gómez Dávila, David Horowitz, Murray Rothbard, Peter Hitchens, Henry Hazlitt, Vladimir Bukovsky, René Guénon, Frithjof Schuon, Friedrich Hayek, Mario Vargas Llosa, Vladimir Tismăneanu, Irving Babbitt, Charles E. Lindblom, Irving Kristol, Daniel Bell, Robert Michels, Mikhail Sholokhov, Gaetano Mosca, David Hume, Adam Smith, José Guilherme Merquior, Isaiah Berlin, Arnold Toynbee, Johan Huizinga, Christopher Dawson, Modris Ekstein, John Lukacs, Jacques Barzun, Niall Ferguson, Bernard Lewis, David Stove, Theodore Dalrymple, Leopold von Ranke, François de Chateaubriand, Robert Nisbet, John Henry Newman, Werner Sombart, F. W. Maitland, Raymond Aron, Karl Popper, Julien Benda, Leszek Kołakowski, Alexander Solzhenítsyn, Arthur Koestler, Joseph de Maistre, Rivarol, Pat Buchanan, Samuel P. Huntington, Konstantin Leontiev, Vilfredo Pareto, Edmund Husserl, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Martin Heidegger, Giuliano Gentile, Willard Van Orman Quine, François Mauriac, Robert Brasillach, Pierre Drieu La Rochelle, François Furet, Czesław Miłosz, Hillaire Belloc, Henri Massis, Ivan Ilyin, Edgar Julius Jung, Juan Vázquez de Mella, Juan Donoso Cortés, Masahiro Morioka, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Jacob Burckhardt, Christopher Lasch, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Richard Pipes, Hans Trevor Roper, Petre Țuțea, Paul Gottfried, T. E. Hulme, Ernst Jünger, John Kekes, Arnold Lunn, Alasdair MacIntyre, Gabriel Marcel, Julio Meinvielle, E. F. Schumacher, Igor Shafarevich, Karl Ludwig von Haller, Evelyn Waugh, Thomas Fleming, Karl Jaspers, Jean-François Revel, Philip Rieff, Oswald Spengler, Gustav Le Bon, Peter Kreeft, Alain de Benoist, Víctor Pradera, Francisco Elías de Tejada y Spínola, Jaime Guzmán...

[Anonymous No.11776966]

>>11776952
I think we will reach post scarcity or die out before we see capital vanish

[Anonymous No.11776968]

>>11776576
nice propaganda (9) (you)s and counting.

[Anonymous No.11776969]

>tfw realize right-wingers are just the NPCs designed to be farmed for XP in the revolution

[Anonymous No.11776971]

>>11776946
>academia
i'm not "academia" retard, i'm a /lit/ard who hates newfags
did your mother drop you on your head?

[Anonymous No.11776973]

>>11776966
i think so too

[Anonymous No.11776974]

I don't like leftists they're stupid.

[Anonymous No.11776976]

>>11776901
I can't find it either somehow, maybe I'm using the wrong keywords but just take this SA blogspot as an explanation about how sexual hormons make people change political views. Infertile days make women more liberal - meaning every woman on hormornal birth control. The same thing which happens to womens taste in men, wanting chad during fertile days and a provider during infertile days - again, most women are on birth control which is to the benefit of low t cels.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/hot-for-obama-ovulation-politics-women/

I'll post the study when I find it, maybe some other anon has it at hand.
I wouldn't make up such a thing, a there is no need to fake arguments against lefties.

>judging by your posts and misspellings I doubt it and I feel sorry for your kids
I'm writting in my third language between housework, not really sorry to not give that many fucks about spelling desu. But it's funy how you peole always start to go about muh looks and spelling as soon as you're in front of the wall.

>So I was right about you being fat
kek
You never been with a woman, have you? 18% is the ideal, 8% beeing cutting form even for men. You just outed yourself as a fat fuck not knowing basic fitness terms.

[Anonymous No.11776978]

>>11776965
typical /pol/tard pasting author names while he has never picked up a book

[Anonymous No.11776980]

>>11776966
thank you for sharing your opinions with me

[Anonymous No.11776982]

idk how lefties can claim ownership of /lt/ when they can't even read a simple thread (why'd people bring up strength) or make a coherent argument besides some flimsy strawman or screeching about the /pol/ boogeyman

[Anonymous No.11776983]

>>11776930
"
y “Empire,” Hardt and Negri mean a new political order that is replacing the competing nation-states of the past 500 years. The nation is supposed to have an organic unity rooted in the mists of history; states are defined by the territory they control. Empire, by contrast, lacks boundaries and is potentially all-inclusive. Empire also lacks any center: Unlike the imperialism of the past, under Empire one cannot even approximately separate the exploiters from the exploited with lines on a map.

This vision is sketched out at a very high level of abstraction and seems rather obviously contradicted by the reality of unchallenged U.S. supremacy that we all read about in the papers. But Hardt and Negri rightly insist that the content of a military intervention can’t always be settled by looking at the insignia on the uniforms. While nation-states always acted, covertly or overtly, in their own national interests, today’s interventionists, whether they know it or not, are compelled to serve an incipient transnational order.

The Gulf War was perhaps the first war of this kind. There the United States found itself compelled to act “not as a function of its own national motives but in the name of global right.” As Hardt and Negri don’t quite acknowledge, all U.S. imperial wars, from the Spanish-American on, have been conducted “in the name of global right.” But today, as they insist in one of the book’s defining if not most original passages, rhetoric has become, or replaced, reality. Hardt and Negri see the language of human-rights interventions not as cynical window-dressing but as their real content: Police power is the signature of Empire. And as in any well-run police state, police actions soon induce the victims to police themselves, so the universal rights on which military interventions are based are incorporated into national legislation everywhere. “Armies and police anticipate the courts” in “an inversion of the conventional order of constitutional logic.”

What distinguishes this new situation from the old international order, dating back to the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which effectively introduced the modern nation-state, is that the internal affairs of states are no longer clearly marked off as a sphere apart under international law. Once the principle is accepted that interventions across borders are legitimate on human-rights grounds, a system of global law has been acknowledged even if the bodies that will codify and adjudicate it have not yet been formed."


I can smell the brains of all the right-wingers frying, I can smell the skin-cheese in the skincreases of your mostly fluid overweight limbs as you start to angry-sweat and can hear the cheap flash furniture swivel chair creaking as your immense weight shifts toward your monitor, desperately trying to make sense of the few paragraphs of text.

[Anonymous No.11776986]

>>11776960
typical /leftpol/cuck, deflecting when caught bullshitting

[Anonymous No.11776987]

>>11776763
>most leftists i know are ready to fight to the death

Emphasis on the death

[Anonymous No.11776992]

>>11776986
It's more /r/latestagecapitalism than anything

[Anonymous No.11776994]

>>11776976
>tfw they have to pivot on sources this hard
desu leave the board and go cry to your husband with the bbw fetish fatty

[Anonymous No.11776997]

>>11776982
Read the fucking source material>>11776907
Strength AND class correlated to ideology. Instead right wingers took half of the conclusion and had a field day with it. Ironic that even older studies said the complete inverse

[Anonymous No.11777001]

>>11776976
>there is no need to fake arguments against lefties
apparently there is otherwise why did you do it?
also read the news article before posting it

[Anonymous No.11777006]

>>11776983
>that double spacing before the one original sentence
>copy and paste quotations about some brainlet tier historical generalizations

[Anonymous No.11777007]

>>11776987

typical right-wing wit; if your reading comprehension skills were good enough to own me in the first place you would have realized that to the death doesn't imply in any way the death of one or another specific party

[Anonymous No.11777008]

>>11776978
You have no ways of proving what you said, and I was just replying to OP in the same arrogant strain in which he started his thread.

I have read most of those authors, and many left-wing ones too. In fact, I used to correspond with Noam Chomsky when I was sixteen, back in 2012. He always replied.

[Anonymous No.11777012]

>>11776994
>not finfing that one specific source instantly while providing a similar in effects source means pivoting the point
You haven't even read the title. Stop asking for sources just so you can stop the discussion while not even bothering to read the provided explanations. It's the perfekt example of lefties not even really bothering to read (sicnetific counter arguments).

It's time to sop, GerstenBurschi.

[Anonymous No.11777013]

>>11777007
>to the death doesn't imply in any way the death of one or another specific party

[Anonymous No.11777019]

reminder: only scientifically illiterate faggots are left wing

[Anonymous No.11777020]

>>11777008
no need to larp /pol/tard, you've outed yourself as a pseud already

[Anonymous No.11777021]

>>11777006
>didn't understand hardt and negri's analysis of human rights
i think i spotted someone who identifies as part of a group believing that it tends to have more upper body strength as an abstract superaverage entity

[Anonymous No.11777022]

>>11777001
>apparently there is otherwise why did you do it?
>>11777012
Stop kvetching.

[Anonymous No.11777023]

>>11777008
NU UH U DINDT READ NUTHIN CUZ UR LE POL

[Anonymous No.11777026]

>>11777022
>Stop kvetching.
Refrain from using Jew speak here, thanks

[Anonymous No.11777032]

>>11776983
I bet you like to say that you’re on the right side of history to justify everything you do.

[Anonymous No.11777033]

>>11777013
either way, the earth will turn red
either red from life or red from death
we'll make sure of it

[Anonymous No.11777036]

>>11777012
>I posted a blogpost that says the same thing my made-up scientific study said
how am I to rebuke a claim that has never been made? do you want me to disprove your anecdotes?

[Anonymous No.11777037]

>be right-wing
>cannot attack the left-wing on their grounds
>attack surface-level appearance of "leftists"
>cite and misread psychology peer-review
>not well read enough to even effectively criticise psychology yet and lets everybody know by presenting the conclusions of papers as fact and truth
>have a field-day with your buddies online
>claim to have destroyed the loony left

complete anti-intellectual mindcuckery

[Anonymous No.11777038]

>>11777013
>hurr he said to the death, i can use this
>n-no, you see, it does make sense to think that by saying "emphasis on the death" i have owned leftists instead of right-wingers
d-don't think about it too hard! i'm smart and i deserve respect!

[Anonymous No.11777040]

As a leftist I will try to address what I feel are some of the arguments being presented against leftism in this thread.

First, know that any political ideology is, inherently, about who can perform violence and who violence can be performed against. This is not an inherently leftist analysis, and I believe any ideology can accept it as true, even those opposed to violence by recognizing their own philosophy as the conditions [Nobody][Nobody]. From violence extends all other power, including the state (violence over a physical territory), the rule of law (violence against law breakers), and even autonomous communities (violence against those who do violence to us).

Leftists have many strains, but the basic conceit is that we reject violence which is perpetrated by those higher on a class ladder against those lower on a class ladder. In a capitalist system, this violence is often justified by the state, and in fact many leftists believe that the state control of violence is a required condition for capitalism to continue. This can be mixed with a lot of other rejections/calls to violence to form the many variations in leftist thought.

When you reject a form of violence sanctioned by the existing power structure, you risk being a target of violence yourself. Frankly speaking, as much as we on the left hate the current state of America, we don't see it as bad enough to risk the violence inherent in revolt.

The reason we often have a lot of overlap with liberals is because liberals oppose violence on the basis of race and sex, just to name two. Since these tend to be correlated with class under the current system, it's easy to make allies there. A common liberal frustration with leftists is preferring to fight class violence first, and a common leftist frustration with liberals is preferring to fight race and sex violence first. In the best case scenario, we each believe one to be the answer to the other's prayers, but really both are posturing in attempt to gain and maintain ideological converts.

Because leftists are a massive minority compared to liberals, you are much more likely to see liberal leftists than you are to see leftist liberals. Some liberals really buy into the leftist call to action, and they're not leaving the movement any time soon. To push them out would destroy the left.

However, just because liberals are so tied to the leftist agenda does not mean that leftists are beholden to liberal interests. If leftists completely subsumed liberals tomorrow, I guarantee that those at the top of the new leftist power structure wouldn't be liberals. They might throw liberals a bone or two to keep them happy to start with, but long term the movement would move towards whatever was required to stay in power, which would look less liberal friendly and more liberal indifferent.

Leftism in America is not in a pretty place right now, I'll admit. It won't get better before things get worse and way more people are starving in the streets.

[Anonymous No.11777042]

>>11776997
That's not what I was talking about idiot, I was refrencing the people earlier in the thread bawwing about the pictures of the weak lefties and acting like they were brought up from nowhere when they were responding to a quote in this thread.

Christ why are LITERALLY ALL leftists too stupid and incapable to read a simple comment. Do McColleges just shit out liberal arts degrees if you keep throwing them money?

[Anonymous No.11777049]

>>11776923
So now I have buff no-imagination mostly-rightist responders enroute to my position. Who have good upperbody strength. Which was my point.

The left would be better served in violent revolution by firearms than barbrawling the authority, except then they'll have to support the pro-gun faction juuuust enough.

[Anonymous No.11777051]

>>11777032
no leftist would ever say something stupid like that. if you could understand the text you quoted you'd realize why. no, that's the sort of shit libs and right-wingers say.

[Anonymous No.11777054]

>>11777040
> a leftist is the only one to make a coherent post in the thread
Well imagine my shock!

[Anonymous No.11777055]

>why don’t right wingers read
>/pol/fags shilling this strength= ideology proving that he didn’t read the actual study
>proving OP right
Now this is 4D chess

[Anonymous No.11777056]

pretty sure most leftists here are accelerationists and philosophy / english lit majors so it's not like you're surrounded by people adverse to good discussion

weird thread really

[Anonymous No.11777057]

>>11777020
Sure thing, mate. Goodbye. Back to your Zizek.

>>11777023
Yeah, this is typical here on /lit/. Left-wingers get very afraid when they see a right-winger who's been on their side, because they know he's read their works.

[Anonymous No.11777058]

>>11777033
>>11777038
>>hurr he said to the death, i can use this
>>n-no, you see, it does make sense to think that by saying "emphasis on the death" i have owned leftists instead of right-wingers
>d-don't think about it too hard! i'm smart and i deserve respect!

[Anonymous No.11777062]

>>11777040
You are the useful idiots of the liberals, not the other way around.

Leftists in America don't organize against Bezos and Zuckerburg, they organize against tea party mooks. You will never be the dominant political force in the West because you have been subverted and are too stupid to realize it.

[Anonymous No.11777063]

>>11777042
they shit out all degrees if you just keep throwing them money

[Anonymous No.11777064]

>>11777042
Because it is irrelevant to what OP wanted to talk about. That anon was detailing the thread to shill his fantasy.

[Anonymous No.11777067]

>>11777051
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_historia_me_absolver%C3%A1

[Anonymous No.11777068]

>>11777049
if first responders have such great upper body strength why do they always resort to guns even against unarmed threats?

[Anonymous No.11777071]

>>11777062
>not knowing Bernie’s ‘Bezo’s act’
When will the lord stop?

[Anonymous No.11777074]

N-nice literature thread g-guys

[Anonymous No.11777075]

>>11777064
The outcome of this thread was exactly what OP wanted.

[Anonymous No.11777078]

>>11777036
Good lord, you have to be retarded to not understand that what SA is and that they are using the same data I can't instantly provide. I am actually coming from the point of honesty, opening admitting that I can't just find it, while providing an articile using the same or similar source while also using other data playing in and showing a similar correlation. Meanwhile lefties, as always, only interpret honsty as a weakness to be exploited and trashtalked down as lies and ill will. Speak about projection. That's why there is no possibility for a fruitfull discusion with you people. First you get personal, than you make people look for eternity for every source - while not even beeing interested enough in it to read it - hoping that they can't find it right know, stopping the discussion like a kike and if they provide it you either move the goalpoint or simply stop responding. Every anon which been there knows what I am speaking about.

I mean, just from an logical point, nothing else would make sense in evolutionary terms. But that's not what you and your ideology of the gaps is about, right?

[Anonymous No.11777080]

>>11776848
>That's also why conservatives are the more generous people

When you make such blatantly false statements it's clear you're engaging in rhetoric. A significant part of conservatism is that people deserve to be where they are, bootstraps nonsense which naturally leads to a lack of compassion and willingness to exploit the poor

[Anonymous No.11777081]

>>11777075
I know see>>11777055

[Anonymous No.11777082]

>>11777049
>implying all leftists are anti-gun
>implying it was ever about who leftists have to fight after the diaperfiller has called 9-1-1

i think you missed the point. funny that you granted (beyond for the sake of argument) that you would call the policeman if you got into an altercation with a leftist

[Anonymous No.11777088]

>>11777080
>blantanly false
https://www.philanthropy.com/interactives/how-america-gives

[Anonymous No.11777089]

>>11777071
Fill me in, I'm not American and don't know what Hernie Panders says day to day

[Anonymous No.11777091]

>>11777080
Here without a paywall:
https://www.rt.com/usa/193952-charity-conservatives-religion-utah/

[Anonymous No.11777092]

>>11777088
They separated to income groups

[Anonymous No.11777093]

>>11777067
>https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_historia_me_absolver%C3%A1
good point and i also believe that fidel castro is every leftist

[Anonymous No.11777095]

>>11777089
I am not spoonfeeding you to break your self entrenched delusions. Just google Bernie’s Stop Bezo Act and fucking read

[Anonymous No.11777097]

>>11777091
>rt
lmao I forgot about the part where right-wingers eat up Russian propaganda everytime

[Anonymous No.11777100]

>>11777092
>only reading the first paragraph just to spite the argument
Leave /lit/ and never come back.

[Anonymous No.11777103]

>>11777097
You can get hundreds of other magazines quoting the data which is behidn a paypall, retard. I posted it for your comfort.

[Anonymous No.11777104]

>>11777100
I can’t read further since it is a paywall. The abstract only mentions income groups

[Anonymous No.11777105]

>>11777095
dumbass arrogant mutt not everyone obsesses about your politics

[Anonymous No.11777106]

>>11776674

[Anonymous No.11777107]

>>11777091
>charity=generosity
lol

[Anonymous No.11777108]

>>11777104
You can easily google sources which broke the data down and are freely accesible if you don't wantto consume an rt link.

[Anonymous No.11777110]

>>11777106
>stop liking things I don't like or I will kill you
I knew I made the right choice which guy to hang out with, but you just confirmed it.

[Anonymous No.11777111]

>>11777097
Yeah fuck that white Christian country! Long live murrica!

[Anonymous No.11777112]

>>11777088
>>11777091
Like I said, rhetoric, no person seeking dialogue would shamelessly make such a claim and double down

[Anonymous No.11777113]

>>11777107
also they consider giving to churches as charity lmao

[Anonymous No.11777116]

>>11777107
Semantics, as there is no charity without free will and it therefore required generosity as a reason to give, even if only for optics.

But I don't expect you to accept even the data you asked for. This will simply go on and on d anuseam until you either simply play dead or the thread dies.

[Anonymous No.11777117]

>>11777110
>le cartoon picture is threat against muh life
>le cringe faggot is cool I swear

typical lefty

[Anonymous No.11777119]

>>11777112
It was a proven argument. It's not the fault of the presenter that reality is an insult to lefties.

[Anonymous No.11777123]

>>11777116
based bill gates the most generous man on earth

[Anonymous No.11777124]

>>11777111
lmao this is literally your brain on Russian propaganda

[Anonymous No.11777126]

>>11777107
>when you don't have money to give to charity because you haven't stolen it from actual workers and aren't scared by your compulsive morality into giving money to moralistic fronts in an attempt to avoid going to hell

[Anonymous No.11777130]

>>11777124
>le propaganda meme

lol typical establishment stooge

[Anonymous No.11777133]

>>11777117
What a pleasant person you are.
I'm sure you have a lot of friends, and people never try to get out of spending time around you!

[Anonymous No.11777135]

>>11777119
>proven argument
lmao! spoken like a right-winger!

foh with your neopositivism, dumb shit!

[Anonymous No.11777136]

>>11777126
>imaging having to bretzel your way through such a clear representation of greed

[Anonymous No.11777137]

>>11777105
I am not even American, I just making grand sweeping statements on something until I read about it like a fucking retard

[Anonymous No.11777138]

>>11777135

[Anonymous No.11777139]

>>11777088
>>11777091
>ok guys here's my proof, the actual study is paywalled so please just look at the Russian propaganda outlet

[Anonymous No.11777141]

>>11776576
>posts a leftist who is anti-migration, anti-political correctness, anti-sjwism, and ultimately, anti-liberal

good point.

[Anonymous No.11777142]

>>11777126
>i'll make up why people I disagree with give so I can discredit them

Full retard. Plus the orignal study is conservatives vs liberals anyway. Leftists don't give, they just leech money from their boomer parents to live meaningless costal lives. Once boomers die off leftism will become a far less popular hobby.

[Anonymous No.11777146]

>>11777139
>ok guys, I don't know how to google terms to find other representations of the paywalled data so I act like ther data doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.11777147]

>>11777141
oh yeah, and a guy who empathizes with trump voters.

[Anonymous No.11777150]

>>11777137
>just making
Just not making

[Anonymous No.11777152]

>>11777142
more lying
the poor give more to "charity" in analogy to their incomes

[Anonymous No.11777154]

>>11777133
>spend all thread going to bat for cringy political extremists
>t-the other guys the loser I swear

nice projection creep

>>11777141
typical for a white piece of shit

[Anonymous No.11777157]

>>11777146
I just find it funny that rt is your go-to

[Anonymous No.11777159]

>>11777152
>everything I can twist in semantics or which isn't proven beyond the artifical measure I simply goalmove is a lie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[Anonymous No.11777164]

>>11777157
No you don't, you're a posturing little shitworm and fundamentally dishonest

[Anonymous No.11777165]

>>11777154
>typical for a white piece of shit
typical for a racist to say

[Anonymous No.11777167]

>>11777152
>more lying

Not a refutation

>the poor give more to "charity" in analogy to their incomes

Poor is not a descriptor of political ideology. Most poor in the US are anti left.

This is too easy, it's like these 'people' have never argued outside of an echochamber.

[Anonymous No.11777168]

>>11777157
It was the first source with the data. I'm a Polak, hardly a friend of Duginism and their outlets.

[Anonymous No.11777171]

>>11776834
> he thinks the concept of Ubermensch just means "dude being really ripped, like, as ripped as you can get, and scoring, definitely scoring"

[Anonymous No.11777177]

>>11776674

No, he doesn't. He's a champagne socialist who would have perished a century earlier. He also has the single most punchable face in the history of the world. If you don't look at his countenance, and find something in the back your head wanting to just sock him in the face one time, then there's something wrong with you.*

*Women are exempted from this, as they're not geared for this form of justice. All men should however feel such an impulse on such a sight; when they don't, they are deficient.

[Anonymous No.11777183]

>>11777164
I call you out and all you can do is sling insults, typical really

[Anonymous No.11777185]

>>11777074
This. Sadly moderation hardly occurs at this time so the thread will honestly probably just hit the bump limit first.

[Anonymous No.11777186]

>>11777183
He's not me. Me beeing the one which posted the data link.

[Anonymous No.11777187]

>>11777146
I googled alternative sources and none of them are saying anything that your cherry-picked examples say

[Anonymous No.11777196]

>>11777147
of course he would sympathize with lumpenproletariat who were hung out to dry by neoliberal ponzi schemes

how can leftists hate Trump supporters, Trump supporters are the revolutionaries, you just refuse to do the work pivoting their rage at the establishment because they're smelly and dumb

[Anonymous No.11777198]

>>11777167
you made a stupid claim and then tried to back it with false data
anything you have said has been thoroughly refuted, like that bullshit that giving money to churches makes you generous

[Anonymous No.11777200]

>>11777171
>he thinks that i think this
You probably think N was a nihilist as well

[Anonymous No.11777203]

>>11777196
>not waiting till they become disillusioned with trump and then agitating them
Worked for some liberals during Obama’s time. Plus revolutionary is too strong a word for these people, radical is better

[Anonymous No.11777207]

>>11777187
Search machine: Duckduckgo
First page:
>https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
>https://www.christianforums.com/threads/conservatives-are-far-more-generous-than-liberals.7931177/
>https://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/conservatives-charitable-giving_b_1835201.html
And even Huffpost can only kvetch about how they mostly give to religious institutions, which doesn't deny the point as charity is a christian virtue and the main reason why liberals aren't as generous.
>https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/conservatives-are-more-giving-than-liberals/
>https://politicalarena.org/2011/10/23/why-conservatives-are-happier-and-more-generous-than-liberals/
etc.
Don't trust google. They eliminate anything no liberal as far as they can.

[Anonymous No.11777211]

Leftistm will only work if embedded in a traditionalist social framework.

[Anonymous No.11777212]

>>11777185
It's funny
if the mods started purging non-/lit/ shit we would eventually get rid of all the right-wingers because, as this thread proved, they are the most illiterate

[Anonymous No.11777213]

>>11777198
>thoroughly refuted
It's fascinating how you people call everything lies while going about proven points by data and simply claiming they have been refuted because you don't accept it. Leftism really is a mind illness.

[Anonymous No.11777218]

>>11776591
I live in the bay area, they are not chill I can tell you that

[Anonymous No.11777221]

>>11777212
Evola, trad and Catholic threads are top-shelf /lit/. Fuck off newfag.

[Anonymous No.11777220]

>>11777213
Classic lefties.

[Anonymous No.11777224]

>>11777200
> he thinks that i think this
> he definitely hasn't read his Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.11777232]

>>11777203
They're already agitated, what do you think is going on?

[Anonymous No.11777234]

>>11777224
>>he definitely hasn't read his Nietzsche
Hallmark of someone that hasn't read Nietzche right here

[Anonymous No.11777237]

>>11777212
Yeah, and it would have nothing to do with moderator bias.

[Anonymous No.11777238]

>>11777207
You disparage huffpost for using the Christianity argument when Seattle times and realclearpolitics used the same point because both were just citing the same social scientist
the other 2 aren't even real sources
giving to church means shit
>oh we conservatives are so generous, all that money we donated just made the cathedral bigger!
further proof the right doesn't read

[Anonymous No.11777240]

Through the whole thread lefties make claims, righties bring forth arguments and data just so that lefties simply deny their existance proudly claiming an intelectual victory.

[Anonymous No.11777242]

>>11777218
I did too for a bit. They were fine to me. Maybe you were just really annoying.

I worked in a consumer facing job there and all of my interactions were pleasant.

[Anonymous No.11777244]

>>11777221
you are the newfag if you don't think the evola posting and christcucks aren't just /pol/core
you would have a point about Christianity threads a decade ago

[Anonymous No.11777245]

>>11777240
Perhaps if you could read you would see that isn't the case, oh well

[Anonymous No.11777248]

>>11777238
>You disparage huffpost for using the Christianity argument when Seattle times and realclearpolitics used the same point because both were just citing the same social scientist
Because I mainly posted other sources and haven't read them all for you. There you have other viewpoints which you wanted to deny claiming that no other source even mentionend the points of RT which is proven to be false.

Now you merely change the goalpost as aways. Never allowing the enemy to prove their point. You are dishonest and constantly trying to discredit and spread lies about the people you claim to want a discussio with. How much more jewish can you get before we shoa you?

[Anonymous No.11777252]

>>11777237
It wouldn't
It just so happens that illiteracy and being right-wing shares a lot of traits

[Anonymous No.11777254]

>>11777245
>y-you sibli cand r-read
You could just as well said "MIRROR!" like a child or sang the "lalala can't hear you" song.

[Anonymous No.11777256]

>>11777244
>*Sip* They don't make Christianity threads like they used to

[Anonymous No.11777257]

>>11776763
>fighting to the death over a fantasy ideology

[Anonymous No.11777259]

>>11777244
No shit. The quality of such threads however are superb. Only a newfag would preclude the evolution of board culture.

[Anonymous No.11777260]

>>11777248
I like how npc this post is
right-wingers are incapable of critical thought, they just see the generosity score is a bigger number and call it a day

[Anonymous No.11777263]

>>11777252
> It just so happens that illiteracy and being right-wing shares a lot of traits
like being from the Middle East, Africa, or Southern Asia, yes

[Anonymous No.11777264]

>>11777240
>that anon getting BTFO with his strength being equal to ideology bullshit
Further proving that right wingers can’t read articles and even threads holy shit

[Anonymous No.11777265]

>>11777252
See >>11777254
Maybe if you all keep screaming THE ENTIRE RIGHT CAN'T READ long enough it will become true.

[Anonymous No.11777269]

>>11777256
this but unironically

[Anonymous No.11777272]

>>11777232
They still believe Trump can change anything, like some people did with Obama

[Anonymous No.11777273]

>>11777260
>still bretzeling
Fascinating how your own nature disgusts you more than anything else in this thread. Just like jews hate nothing more than beeing called out for what they are.

[Anonymous No.11777276]

is this thread just one dude

[Anonymous No.11777280]

>>11777259
the evola threads last 10 posts all by right-wingers who never read him
it isn't board culture evolution, it is the /pol/-tumor gone metastatis

[Anonymous No.11777284]

>>11777276
it depends
do different entities of the same hivemind count as different people?

[Anonymous No.11777287]

>we'll spend decades deciphering and replicating this shit as the entire basis of our self esteem
nice, so you're somewhat akin to hyper pretentious trekkies?

[Anonymous No.11777290]

>>11777280
Last evola thread I saw was on the hermetic tradition. It was nothing like you described.

[Anonymous No.11777297]

>>11777272
Obama supporters appeared to forget that anything needed to be changed the moment he was elected. Trump supporters (and detractors) at least agree that the political structure needs to change, even if they fervently can't agree on the direction and are scared to death of the worst-case scenario that either side could dream up (nightmares that have been distilled in them through social media).

If you could somehow trick Trump supporters into implementing a class revolution to "own the libtards" by putting up posters with Wojaks on them, they would do it

[Anonymous No.11777302]

Guarantee everybody ITT is despicable IRL.

[Anonymous No.11777308]

>>11777297
>appeared to forget that anything needed to be changed the moment he was elected.
IIRC there was some disappointment in the aftermath of 08 that only grew but I don’t disagree with the rest of comment

[Anonymous No.11777317]

there's this fat kid i work with who can barely move a small table from one side of the store to the other without bitching and moaning about it who is a literal self-proclaimed nazi who atm is spending his break time reading the black book of communism and getting so huffed up in any political conversation that he can't actually spit out a full sentence without long pauses and forgetting the thrust of what he was trying to say desu

[Anonymous No.11777318]

>>11777302
Guarantee this is the only post in this thread that we can all agree on and rally around.

[Anonymous No.11777322]

>>11776763
Yeah your point was definitely proved in Portland riots

[Anonymous No.11777325]

>>11777317
Holy shit right wing BTFO'd because of this one guy you know at work!

[Anonymous No.11777329]

>>11777325
t. that one guy

[Anonymous No.11777330]

>>11777317
>that one anecdote that surely happend
Cope.
Just how much would you be the bottom of an actual Nazi reciting Flavius Jospehus while pounding your boi pussy?

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/j5e3z7/gym-bros-more-likely-to-be-right-wing-assholes-science-confirms

[Anonymous No.11777334]

>>11777325
just saying that stereotypes go both ways rather than me bringing this up is a calculated attack on the entirety of right-wing culture and literature based on one right-wing degen

[Anonymous No.11777339]

>>11777334
>my anecdote means fat fucks are somehow equally distributed
Neck yourself.

[Anonymous No.11777341]

>>11777330
>cites broadly vice article as proof of his meme
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.11777342]

As a side note: Fat tissue stores and therefore hightens ones Estrogen production. One reason why low bf women act manly and get less fertile.

[Anonymous No.11777343]

>>11777317
DUDE! I know a guy exactly like that but he's a communist.
I guess communism is bad too.

[Anonymous No.11777347]

>>11777211
leftism will only work if there are state-assigned amazon GFs with fully-functional, lactating milkers given to all members of the proletariat

[Anonymous No.11777349]

>>11777341
>muh anecdote is more important than a poll

[Anonymous No.11777351]

>>11777343
LE BASED RADICAL CENTRIST SAVES THE WHOLE THREAD LIKE USUAL!

[Anonymous No.11777356]

>>11777339
can't we just agree that there is degeneracy on both sides of the fence as much as there can potentially be fruitful and honest discussion from people using ideas?

maybe that's slightly ideal given that both sides are completely at each other's throats at all times, but it's weird when the conversation gets reduced to analysing surface appearance rather than the strength and limitations of ideas

[Anonymous No.11777358]

>>11777356
NO ANON MY TRIBE IS STRONG

[Anonymous No.11777360]

>>11776576
Egalitarianism vs hierarchy or natural order
gee, i wonder which is more arbitrarily decreed and inconsistent with reality. you're right, leftist are well-read in a thousand different superfluous reiterations of the same assertions.

[Anonymous No.11777363]

>>11777351
LE BASED FAGGOT THAT CALLS OUT ANY INTIMATION OF MODERATION AND IS VERY ORIGINAL AND SMART SAVES THE WHOLE THREAD LIKE USUAL!

[Anonymous No.11777365]

>>11777358
THEN OUR INTERACTIONS CAN ONLY END IN THE DESTRUCTION OF ONE OF US, ZERO SUM

[Anonymous No.11777368]

c'mon guys only ten more posts til we can abandon this thread and make a new one!

[Anonymous No.11777371]

bump limit get

[Anonymous No.11777376]

>>11777363
How does that fence that you're sitting on feel Mr. Moderate?

[Anonymous No.11777380]

>>11777356
Nah. We can't. "The science is settled" as your kin likes to say. The only reason people become actually hard right wing is lefties sperging out. Look bac into history. The radical right is always the reaction after the deeds and actions of the radica left.

You were shoveling your own grave thinking to Katyn "evil right wingers" in there, just now bagging to be seen as an equal. It's to late, you picked your bed, now lie in it.

[Anonymous No.11777382]

>>11777360

>egalitarianism vs hierarchy or natural order
>natural order
>it's natural, what is there to argue about?

Besides, unless you're talking to ancoms there isn't any rejection of hierarchy. Hierarchy is just agreed upon at best, instead of having an inbred with big ears disease and an inheritance. Realistically the same favoritism based on interpersonal relationships that occurs in our current system would be present.

[Anonymous No.11777383]

>>11777376
Like a throne. Also I'm not actually a moderate; I'm a monarchist.

[Anonymous No.11777386]

>>11777349
>cites liberal feminist subsidiary of vice to bolster his worldview and point
>is clearly anti-feminist right-wing

wew

[Anonymous No.11777389]

>>11777380
>>11777382
Kill yourselves you unbearable pricks.

[Anonymous No.11777393]

>>11777386
>citing counter sourced doesn't make his points even more obvious
Ding ding.

[Anonymous No.11777394]

>>11777382
jordan b petercuck detected

[Anonymous No.11777395]

>>11777356
but the discussion started as whether the right reads less and so far no one has disputed this

[Anonymous No.11777399]

>>11777389
REad: Make the thread finally bump so evil righties don't hurt my feelies anymore

[Anonymous No.11777400]

>>11777386
>you cannot appropriate the ideas of your enemies to your own end
This is why leftism will never win

[Anonymous No.11777404]

>>11777399
What the hell are you babbling on about you silly cunt

[Anonymous No.11777407]

Can mods sticky this thread? It is a monument to the weakness of the left.

[Anonymous No.11777413]

>>11776576
*Sniff*

[Anonymous No.11777422]

>>11777400
yeah okay i concede that point, that happens on both sides, except i'd argue that right-wingers are more prone to misreading and taking surface-level analysis as truisms instead of being reasons for debate and further reading

you've "taken" this idea from your enemy and re-purposed it for your own means, but what you're really doing by simply citing it and not engaging critically with it is both destroying the original sentiment and introducing potential contradiction into your ideas

[Anonymous No.11777436]

>>11777400
i.e, you will very quickly and happily strike down a piece of research conducted in a similar fashion with a similar conclusion if it doesn't already bolster your worldview and instead infers the opposite

right-wingers pull this shit all the time when they cite peer-review, there's no interest in epistemology or how the study was conducted, only the conclusions of the author

[Anonymous No.11777441]

This “discussion” reeks of both lefty faggots and poltard losers linking and focusing this thread in their respective echo-chamber discords. Embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.11777444]

>>11777422
I disagree. Leftists rationalize things with their emotions and believe things at face value.

[Anonymous No.11777446]

>>11777407
>this is what /pol/ actually believes

[Anonymous No.11777452]

>>11777444
that's unironically what the right does

[Anonymous No.11777453]

>>11777400
that's also part of the reason why leftists get so frustrated when they have to deal with you, because there's an inherent understanding of how one goes about peer-review and research and critical learning that goes beyond the title and conclusion of an article

a right-winger will reject something if its conclusions do not fit a pre-established schema and accept something if it does, regardless of how similar the methods between the two

[Anonymous No.11777455]

>>11777422
>except i'd argue that right-wingers are more prone to misreading and taking surface-level analysis as truisms instead of being reasons for debate and further reading
This whole thread is full of right people giving whole data sets and lefties not even reading beyond the first paragraph, which cou can even see through the fact that it takes them seconds to respond instead at least a couple minutes to read the source, or at least skip through. Most of the time simply denying it by the fact that it's not published at their favorite side.

Just make a list of which side posted more sources and made more logically water tide points and which response were mostly personal insults and semantics to deny the data aked for and given.

This is the whole mentality of the left and if everything else fails they will go about and simply do a Göbbel and just claim victory often enough so that people might think they are missing obvious points. It's the most disgusting and dishonest tactic in a discussion.

[Anonymous No.11777459]

>>11777452
No, right wingers already have established beliefs with conviction with truths already proven. Leftists change their opinions and beliefs with the wind.

[Anonymous No.11777460]

>>11777455
and how many right-wingers in this thread have literally googled for something that agrees with what they say without having read that thing or understood exactly how the author went about conducting their study?

I claim ALL of them

[Anonymous No.11777465]

>>11777455
and the best example of this was the anon who posted an article from a literal feminist blog without even realising until another anon pointed it out

that reeks of a google search

[Anonymous No.11777469]

>>11777460
Pointless claim since it can be directed towards leftists as well.

You guys need to come back down to earth. Head is too big and you blatantly hold double standards.

[Anonymous No.11777476]

>>11777082
You're going to mock me whether i pick 9-1-1 or 1911, anon.

So you are trying to say what exactly? That i can't fight my own hypothetical SHTF battles?

[Anonymous No.11777480]

>>11777469
I've been pretty big on both sides performing the same sort of deception in this thread so far anon, it's not like everything discussed is some paragon of conversation when it has mostly been shit-flinging

[Anonymous No.11777481]

>>11777465
Are you stupid? I posted the vice article exactly because EVEN a feminist side had to bring it up, so you people can't againclaim its made up Rt nonsense.

It's like when even "my academics" respond with shit that fucks up your point. It's double sweet. Imagine beeing such a brainlet that you think thats a self owning. Good Lord.

[Anonymous No.11777482]

>>11777422
>>11777436
>>11777453
Leftist do this just as much if not more often than right-wingers. Just look at the left's tenuous relationship with IQ and demographic science. They're NOT competing well on that front.

[Anonymous No.11777487]

>>11777480
>both sides are the same really
>have you even read Lock?

[Anonymous No.11777491]

NO THE LEFT NO THE RIGHT
bunch of fuckwits.

[Anonymous No.11777494]

>>11777482
leftists, unlike the right, can critically think and realize that the IQ differences are much more tied to class than race

[Anonymous No.11777495]

>>11777481
>"To all you gym-bro haters amongst us, come, be seated. This one's for you. Science—objective, empirically tested science, the science that tells us that the ice caps are melting—has confirmed what many of us have long suspected: Gym bros are right-wing jerks."

wowee men who gym are more likely to engage with right-wing discourse what an exceptional take-down of left wing ideas

[Anonymous No.11777500]

>>11776576
I'm right wing (I suppose) and I like to read a lot.

[Anonymous No.11777504]

>>11777494
This post is the definition of not beeing able to read and understand actual research on this topic, merely switching the goalpost or your ideologie of the gaps. At least you actually accept that genetics inside the brain are a thing and differences exist, something unheard of even 5 years ago.

[Anonymous No.11777507]

>>11777330
Read this>>11776997 and stfu. How are right wingers still shilling this same nonsense despite getting BTFO on it

[Anonymous No.11777508]

>>11777500
you're also a moron and are not well-read, so there's that.

[Anonymous No.11777509]

>>11777495
If was the counter point to the anecdote about aesthetics. Learn to read withing context, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11777515]

>>11777507
>haha nazis got btfoed!
>we did it, plebbit!

Funny how no lefty posted any sources in this thread but somehow every rght winger got btfoed despite posting data sets.

Göbbeling and bretzeling.

[Anonymous No.11777518]

>>11777504
you didn't even respond to the post
daily reminder Murray in the bell curve explicitly denies all possible explanations except for race and concludes race is the cause

[Anonymous No.11777523]

>>11777515
I posted the source of the paper>>11776907 here and yet you retards are still talking as if you ever read the thread

[Anonymous No.11777525]

>>11777481
>"The standard conventionalism is that people are adapting their morality to their physical nature. What comes first is that you're big and strong you find yourself in this big muscular body, and other people are intimidated by you, and you have status and tend to win—so I like inequality, because inequality suits me."

So what is the author of the study telling us? He's telling us that as men work out and build muscle, they are more likely to become right-wing. Why is that? Some evolutionary imperative? Genetics? Testosterone and protein? What about men who work out and don't begin to adopt right-wing ideas? Where do these men learn to become right-wing? When does the initiation into that discourse occur, and why? Can the inverse of this exist in communities with different exercise practices? Can this be replicated?

[Anonymous No.11777526]

>>11777515
love the /pol/tard who thinks discourse is just posting links
the point was that the right doesn't read, /pol/ posted some non-sequiter studies that were criticized
tell me what study should we link when you refuse to put up an argument?

[Anonymous No.11777528]

>>11777078
Welcome to the scrum, chum.

This thread stopped being /lit/ about 3 hrs back.

/pol/lit/b/uro now

[Anonymous No.11777529]

>>11777518
>murray
You have to be retarded to consider the bell curve to be anything but an historical account in the year 2018. The science is far beyond their points. It's like quoting Rushton today.

You think that IQ is mainly due to class not race, which is simpyl wrong on so many levels. Even if we ignore that without affirmative action class and race would be the same. But the bump is near and Im not gonna bother, considereing you people denied everything else the other anons posted.

[Anonymous No.11777533]

>>11777494
LOL! Thanks for proving my point. Race comes out on top as strongest predictor for IQ.

[Anonymous No.11777536]

>>11777529
>I can make an argument but I'm not gonna btfo'd
absolute state of /pol/fags

[Anonymous No.11777539]

The Thread Where Leftists Got BTFO

[Anonymous No.11777542]

>>11777525
>posts anecdote about fat nazi
>want a poll to be deconstructed like a peer reviewed medical study with gold standard
Necking is always an option.

[Anonymous No.11777546]

>>11777539
>/pol/fags anixiously declaring leftists lost ITT for the 4th time

[Anonymous No.11777549]

>>11777533
funnily enough this just proves my point about the right being unable to critically think

[Anonymous No.11777552]

>>11777546
>everyone reading the thread sees a similar outcome
Maybe, just maybe, that's why normal people always side with the right after the left chimps out.

[Anonymous No.11777553]

>>11777533
>>11777533
another difference between left and right-
right-wingers are more likely to take IQ as complete truth, leftists are more likely to critique IQ as standard of measurement OR conceptualise findings with respect to cultural differences and social surroundings or posit different forms of intelligence (emotional intelligence etc) and base their conversation around that. That's why you also find leftists often feel confronted by any literature that concerns IQ differences between populations being used as a bolstering of right-wing ideology, since for them the whole idea of IQ is conceptualised completely differently and mediated by a vast array of other phenomena that is usually too difficult to go into

tl;dr, if the conversation is left vs right there's usually no time for theory when you want to respond quickly to somebody

[Anonymous No.11777554]

>>11777504
>has never heard of the study wherein it is shown that the wisc merely tests how one has been trained to sort the world into categories, and that this has nothing to do with "intelligence", but with class, education, and the cognitive world mapping (the sort of spectacles) actually required to operate day-to-day in the world for the testee.

the kpello were given the wisc test by a psychologist in order to test his hypothesis. they would sort things functionally, a rabbit with a knife, and claim that "a wise man would only do such and such". when asked how a fool would sort them, they immediately produced what is for the psychologist the "correct" (taxonomical) way. this is because the world that the kpello live in is a world where functional pairings matter; where one has to know how to hunt one's food, where one has to have the appropriate knowledge to produce a living for oneself within the parameters of their social world. the sortings preferred by and scored more highly by the test-makers are more abstract, autistic, and sort things like rabbits and dogs together as mammals rather than rabbits and knives together as a functional unit. this more cognitive pairing isn't more intelligent, only more modern. any vocationally trained deskmonkey in the us public school system will answer in this way as it has been prepared.

also, if migrant families improve their iq scores by 40 points within a generation, it quite obviously has nothing to do with genetics, but everything to do with habits of thought, which can be discarded or acquired in a generation.

you haven't read up on this at all, yet you're claiming everyone else is ill-read -- fitting, given your politics

[Anonymous No.11777558]

>>11777549
>me beeing ideologically blinded makes my ideological opponent prove himself wrong
Imagien the narcicism needed for such a world view.

[Anonymous No.11777559]

>>11777546
>r/latestagecapitalism fags got so thoroughly BTFO in this thread that they had to sick 3 discord servers on us

[Anonymous No.11777561]

>>11777539
>d-did we destroy the l-lefties yet...

[Anonymous No.11777562]

>>11777552
Or maybe /pol/fags are seething with no arguments and the only recourse is to posture as if they won. See how >>11777523 gets no more (You)s?

[Anonymous No.11777563]

>>11777553
>posit different forms of intelligence (emotional intelligence)

Absolutely disqualified.

[Anonymous No.11777564]

>>11777559
i'm a lone wolf as far as i know, anon

[Anonymous No.11777566]

>>11777563
you're absolutely a retard

[Anonymous No.11777568]

>>11777562
>not every post gets (yous) in a dying thread
See:>>11777542

[Anonymous No.11777569]

>>11777559
>Got btfo from the notion that strength equals ideology
>still keeps talking and lying about it

[Anonymous No.11777570]

>>11777508
You don't know either of those things to be true at all. Only a moron would make such groundless assertions.

[Anonymous No.11777571]

>>11777566
Doesn't sound like an emotionally intelligent response.

[Anonymous No.11777572]

>>11777554
nuh-uh, black man stupid cause he from sunny continent, sun melts smart Gene's only dumb gene left

[Anonymous No.11777574]

>>11777553
>leftists are more likely to critique IQ
The leftwing equivalent of critiquing the theory of evolution. IQ is rock-solid. THE gold-standard psycometric.

[Anonymous No.11777576]

>>11777568
It doesn’t matter what that post is. The fact that the actual paper all those articles was posted in the same thread that disprove the right wingers are strong meme, and yet the retard train still keeps going with right wingers continuing to act as if the paper was never linked in the first place

[Anonymous No.11777578]

>>11777570
in fact i know both of "those things" to be true.

[Anonymous No.11777585]

>>11777574
t. someone who has never heard of the study referred to in >>11777554 and needs the debate to be over after murray

[Anonymous No.11777584]

>>11777574
iq is largely defunct in modern studies

[Anonymous No.11777587]

>>11777576
>articles was posted
Articles were referring to was posted

[Anonymous No.11777588]

>>11777576
The muscle=right wing is a meme used because lefties make right wingers to be fat nazis. It's banter. Still non of the serious data sets got actually critiqued beyons semantics (Women voting patterns, charity). You only critique the lowest hanging fruit while trashtalking or ignoring those points relevant.

[Anonymous No.11777590]

>>11777574
just because somebody did it with that vice article before

https://www.medicaldaily.com/iq-test-accurate-way-measure-intelligence-or-are-mental-abilities-something-you-cant-put-297244

https://www.livestrong.com/article/127284-disadvantages-iq-tests/

http://www.preservearticles.com/201104195551/limitations-of-iq-tests.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beautiful-minds/200910/intelligent-testing

[Anonymous No.11777596]

>>11777585
>no study posted
>taking psychology as a science
>comparing general IQ as just as important as "emotional" IQ which is nothing but a participation trophy
Sad. May such cases.

[Anonymous No.11777597]

>>11777578
Because I suppose I am right wing? And if some one does not believe in equality (or what have you) they simply must be a poorly read moron?

[Anonymous No.11777599]

The "IQ" meme is just another example of right-wingers inability to read the literature they claim holds all the answers

you can't just keep deferring to the subject-supposed-to-know all the time, guys.....

[Anonymous No.11777603]

>>11777597
>associates "equality (or what have you)" with leftism
you're doing great, sweetie

[Anonymous No.11777605]

>>11777588
Fuck off read https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797612466415

>Among men of lower socioeconomic status (SES), strength predicted increased support for redistribution; among men of higher SES, strength predicted increased opposition to redistribution.
And one person’s anecdote doesn’t outweigh the countless articles and posts even ones ITT spreading this fake news

>lmao it is just banter bro
Fucking pathetic. Just admit you are wrong on that point and that you didn’t read the paper

[Anonymous No.11777606]

>>11777590
>magazines instead of actual papers
As me how I know that you don't even know how IQ tests work.

[Anonymous No.11777608]

>>11777597
cutest comment in the thread, good job anon

[Anonymous No.11777611]

>>11777585
>>11777590
It's crazy how important it is for the contemporary left to be right about race and IQ. It isn't looking good however.
>>11777584
No, it isn't. Please read any modern population health science.

[Anonymous No.11777615]

>>11777605
>still focuses on the meme instead the actual important topics on hand
Ask me how I know that it's something ou take personally. You rather be seen as inhonest and than (skinny) fat. Which makes you psychologically more a woman than an actual man. Stop drinking from plastic bottles.

[Anonymous No.11777622]

>>11777068
Not always, so hyperbole.

Also, tasers mace and truncheons tend to be first resorts.

Also, upper body strength is useful in a boxing match. Not so much when theres numbers against you
and anyone of them might have knives or firearms. Pulling your service revolver to protect self or others is kind of the point if having one. This is not to excuse any abuses of that power, only to point out the SOP regarding police weapons.

[Anonymous No.11777623]

>>11777606
i understand how they work and i understand the literature surrounding them also, which means i also understand the limitations, why some of those who have dealt predominantly with IQ studies over the course of their career are wanting to move towards more all-encompassing criteria for genuine scientific reasons and understand the implications and limitations of their field of study. If you want me to dive deep on google scholar and pull up a variety of heavily cited papers discussing the weaknesses of IQ i can do that for you, even though i know that if i do you'll still find some way of defending the test as a gold-standard un-improvable absolute

[Anonymous No.11777625]

>>11777615
What actual topics? Oh right the non-sequiter you came up with to dodge the strength=ideology meme. You seemed butthurt that you got outed for believing in literal fake news and trying to whatabout your way out like a bitch.

[Anonymous No.11777631]

>>11777611
iq is largely useless in any sociological or mass population sense
the only time it is ever used is tracking individuals and how certain things affect their iq i.e. lead poisoning and shit

[Anonymous No.11777636]

>>11777623
>B-BUT MUH BELL CURVE

[Anonymous No.11777638]

>>11777603
What is leftism, then? It (like 'right-wing') is a floating signifier which hints at a disparate constellation of ideas and values. Associating equality-as-a-value with it is as fair as associating any other ideal. If some one tells me they are a leftist (or right wing) I know next to nothing about them except I might get some vague intimations of what they value but this is likely an imprecise impression.

[Anonymous No.11777640]

>>11777605
>trade unionists can stand the company of the type of leftist on /lit/ for even 30 seconds
>hey guys you have to import scabs so you go full prole
>also let faceless bureaucrats undermine the last vestiges of sovereignty because as zizek says nationalism is just the promise of obscene jouissance

[Anonymous No.11777641]

it's no wonder most right-wing schizos get so deep into conspiracy theory, they run out of reasonable ways to justify their worldview

[Anonymous No.11777644]

>>11777596
>the study can be found in James Flynn's "What is Intelligence?" (yes, that james flynn)
>psychology was mentioned in context, when i wrote the study was carried by a cognitive psychologist -- yes, of the sort that produced the iq test in question -- the iq test which is being taken as a gold metric by some very simple posters itt
>never once mentioned EQ

are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.11777647]

>>11777623
IQ is nothing but calculating speed of your brain. Thats all it measures. There are no limitations to it. The limitations are on the defiitions if intelligence which is socially constrcted, to use your terms, as our society defines what is needed to function as intelligent.

IQ is hereditary and nurture can only make it go down. Therefore Race is more important than socio economics. There is no paper out there which can prove the opposite without beeing heavily spoiled by the methology and the underlying methology, because it would mean genes and epigenetics themselves would somehow need to be less importnat.

[Anonymous No.11777649]

>tfw another day of successfully destroying the right and watching them retreat into their echo-chamber

[Anonymous No.11777652]

>>11777625
>women voting patterns and charity are fake news, strenght is far more important on /lit/
Stop kvetching already.

[Anonymous No.11777653]

>>11777640
>getting BTFO so hard that you made a seething greentext story to cope
Sad!

[Anonymous No.11777654]

>>11777631
IQ is of immense value in sociological studies. It has absolutely enormous predictive power; the biggest as a matter of fact. It is the biggest predictor of everything from life expectancy to head size.

[Anonymous No.11777657]

>>11777647
yet you can't even show that iq is racial

[Anonymous No.11777659]

>>11777644
>that flynn which flynn effect has been debunked
Oh well.

[Anonymous No.11777663]

>>11777652
Yes wow another attempt to make a snappy comment by misreading what I said. further proving OP right in that right wingers can’t seem to read well

[Anonymous No.11777664]

>>11777654
>head size
/pol/tards have unironically reverted back to phrenology

[Anonymous No.11777665]

>>11777641

[Anonymous No.11777666]

imagine citing a study and claiming it justifies your political beliefs when another similar study using the same statistical methods reaches a different conclusion that contradicts those same political beliefs

then imagine thinking that posting articles that cite a single peer-review is enough information to BTFO the loonie left and claim victory on a board filled with people who actually read books

why is /pol/ even here

[Anonymous No.11777670]

>>11777649
>leftists get BTFO so hard they have to greentext cope
Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.11777672]

>>11777659
no it hasn't. and that study has nothing to do with flynn, it is only mentioned in depth in his book.

you right-wingers sure are fucking retarded, and loathe to deal with it.

[Anonymous No.11777674]

>>11777665
based

[Anonymous No.11777675]

>>11777664
IQ LITERALLY fucking predicts cranium volume. Holy fucking shit you're dumb

[Anonymous No.11777676]

>>11777654
phd sociologist here. you're thinking of class.

[Anonymous No.11777680]

>>11777676
IQ has stronger predictive capability than class. The literature id pretty clear about that

[Anonymous No.11777682]

>>11777675
source

[Anonymous No.11777683]

If I used to be a leftist for many years but then stopped being one did I unread a bunch of books?

[Anonymous No.11777685]

>>11777665
The Deleuze of C&S is a different monster to the Deleuze of D&R

[Anonymous No.11777688]

>>11777680
you don't understand. class predicts iq and vice versa. you fail to grasp the radical critique of iq that sociologists in my wheelhouse have made based on myriad cross-cultural studies like the one mentioned above.

[Anonymous No.11777689]

>>11777683
no

[Anonymous No.11777691]

>>11777680
this is just embarrassing
how can pol be this uninformed

[Anonymous No.11777693]

>>11777683
you went with your compulsive morality and withdrew into yourself. you're a shell.

[Anonymous No.11777695]

>>11777689
Good. Reading books actually destroyed my leftism. Also living a bit.

[Anonymous No.11777698]

>>11777691
>arguing with sociologist about the relevant sociological literature (unspecified)
the literature id pretty clear

[Anonymous No.11777701]

>>11777695
nothing to do but keep reading and living more, anon

[Anonymous No.11777707]

>>11777698
the purposeful mispelling of "is" for the second time represents what the right are TRULY thinking with, in a Freudian sense desu...

[Anonymous No.11777708]

>>11777693
>compulsive morality
You are so incredibly off the mark it is ridiculous. As well in my experience there is not a more pathologically scrupulositous cult than modern leftism. It is an absolutely totalizing moralizing system.

[Anonymous No.11777709]

>>11777647
the wisc tests how you categorize things, not how fast you do it. you have no idea what you're talking about. if someone told you that you took an iq test before and you were measured for quickness, they lied to you, and you were likely being considered for a special program in your institution.

[Anonymous No.11777711]

>>11777701
Hell yeah. I'm about to finish Tristram Shandy (which has, I must say, played little effect on my ideals political or otherwise.) Fun book.

[Anonymous No.11777717]

Can someone please link me to the discord?

[Anonymous No.11777720]

>>11777707
reminder that Freudianism is a literal pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.11777725]

>>11777708
do you realize how fractured leftism (not liberals) is? you can't possibly talk of leftism as a totalizing system when there are splinters or tendencies that only differentiate themselves by breaking open the others through critique of their moralizing systems

starting to think you were never a leftist but a liberal or like a college freshman che shirt sort of fraud

[Anonymous No.11777729]

>>11777720
right-wingers and neopositivism

it's like you guys are stuck in the 1920s, 30s vienna in every way

[Anonymous No.11777739]

>>11777709
>wisc is the only IQ test
May god have mercy on you retard.

[Anonymous No.11777745]

>>11777729
>freudian claiming others are stuck in discredited 1920's viennese ideas
well projection was a decent one i'll give him that.

[Anonymous No.11777746]

>>11777739
it's the one given to children most often in american institutions. anyone in intelmetrics will tell you testing the iq of adults is absolutely meaningless.

[Anonymous No.11777750]

>>11777725
I was a left anarchist from the early 2000s to a few years ago. I participated in quite a few direct actions, got my head split by a cop in Miami in 2003. FTAA protests. Shut down a road or two. Reclaimed the streets following a Requiem/Spectacle show once. Loved Bonnano, Goldman, Bob Black, Perlman etc etc etc. blah blah blah We hated liberals. I do not confuse the two, though nowadays the distinction grows narrower to be honest

[Anonymous No.11777751]

>>11777750
Bonanno*

[Anonymous No.11777756]

>>11777745
>thinks that to critique calling something a "pseudoscience" is and must be the same as being a proponent of that thing.

the absolute state of /lit/

[Anonymous No.11777758]

>>11777745
science needs psychoanalysis, not the other way around, it just doesn't know it yet

[Anonymous No.11777760]

>>11777750
that cop did more damage than you realize imo

scared you senseless, made you retreat back into your armoring

[Anonymous No.11777769]

>>11777756
>pseudosciences don't even exist
be my guest if you want to put yourself on the same level as homeopathy

[Anonymous No.11777773]

>>11777760
I was an anarchist for another decade. I have to say, and this is no fault of yours, but you don't seem very bright. And perhaps you are projecting here, maybe not. What is interesting is that you assume that because I do not share your values (any more) there must be something fundamental wrong with me. Do you see how you have reified your morality? Made reality a servant to it? Where anything that doesn't agree with it must be against nature? Do you see how possessed by a moralizing ideology you are? It is sad, really, when one thinks he is working for freedom but in so doing only increasingly ensnares himself in his precious little ideas.

[Anonymous No.11777775]

this get is for the global left

[Anonymous No.11777778]

>>11777775
Just kidding this one is

[Anonymous No.11777783]

>>11777778
>>11777777
This is sadder than 1991

[Anonymous No.11777795]

>>11777775
>>11777778
bad luck comrade, much love

[Anonymous No.11777810]

>tfw not even right wing just a leftist so sectarian i am against all other leftists

[Anonymous No.11778054]

>>11776855
You've clearly never seen SOF troops. They are, almost without exception, roided and swole.

[Anonymous No.11778150]

Reading and politics really don't have much to do with each other.
That being said, there was a study about favorite books by amerimutt political party and I'm surprised it hasn't been posted yet as bait ITT. Republicans were basically listing some of the canon plus one self help book and Democrat was full of young adult books, the oldest book was the Lord of the Rings for whatever reason.

[Anonymous No.11778161]

>>11778150
I was actually looking for the source a couple hours back. Maybe you can post it.

[Anonymous No.11778221]

>>11776888
>also partly because these mega-corporations pretend to politically align with leftists to appease them
no leftist buys this shit, you may be thinking of liberals

[Anonymous No.11778787]

>>11776576
t. never heard of Charles de Gaulle

[Anonymous No.11778944]

>>11776940
>Unions
>Valuable
hmmmmm

[Anonymous No.11778955]

>>11776576

[Anonymous No.11778979]