Great writers are empathetic, sensitive beings who care about humanity rather than merely themselves...

He wasn't an anything though, practically apolitical

Although my views about the world and politics can be described as quite left-wing*, I think you are oversimplifying things, OP. People are not that simple, not that black and white. One can be highly empathetic and honestly believe that right-wing actions are better in the long run, or the least of two evils (Nabokov comes to mind).

I honestly believe than, in average, right-wing people are not only less intelligent than left-wing, but also less capable of empathy, like you said. But there are intelligent, talented and gifted individuals in any side and spectrum of the political philosophy.

* All this neoliberalism and free-market parrots of the world today who think they are innovative when in fact they are only following the fashion of the time makes my stomach turn. They do not seem to perceive (or, most likely, perceive but do not care) that they want guarantees in everything that they need from the government (safety, police force, roads, electricity), and “freedom” not to pay taxes with everything that they don’t need, since they have the money to pay for it (education, health, social-security). In other words, they want the State operating in everything that they need, but not spending any money with all they can afford (and fuck all those people who can’t pay for it, it’s not their problem, right?).

In the country where I live assholes were getting to the point of stating that legislation about Labor Law should not exist, that the market should operate by its own rules, and that companies could do their own laws, so that people could accept them and work or don’t accept them and go find employment elsewhere. But when you talk with those retards about the dreadful labor conditions in England, for example, during the first decades of the Industrial revolution (where companies and industries would do as they please, reducing men, women and children to simple slaves) they never seem to know that things were once like that (before the State had to intervene in order to make people had at least some scraps of decency, and all of that after several years of fighting, strikes and protests).

what about Céline faggot?

You guys don't know a thing

I'm not talking about all that stupid injected moderne day jewzzzzz and niggggg orca grr people of the east are sand niggers

Tolkien simply writes of a nostalgic time, presented through each race in a different manner.

Elves long for their homeland (valanor) just like he longed for home when he was fighting in ww1

The dwarfs were honor bound folk who would do anything for their homeland, yet they are displaced at almost all points in history

Men I could write about for awhile, but it eventually comes down to overcoming their natural weak will and pride, joining to get her to push back that which bring them to the brink, all while having a strong love for their kin of the WEST.

The hobbits give us the nostalgic feeling of children and being new to the world and it's wonder but also the sorrow it.

He writes about a simple time, away from post modern society and away from the industrial era. Although he detested nazis ( they bombed his nation what did you expect )

The dude was notriously catholic and was absolutely libertarian

If you argue against then you are refusing most of the shit he said on record...the man was most definitelyNOT A liberal anarchist.

Mobile posting so try to make sense of that please.

>One can be highly empathetic and honestly believe that right-wing actions are better in the long run, or the least of two evils (Nabokov comes to mind).
Except Nabokov isn't empathetic at all and his best writing is when he writes character's that are both inhuman and despicable.

I say he's an anarchist because the position is all about the weariness of concentrated power.

This post lacks empathy. Are you a right-winger?

This is how an idiot talks. Take notice anons.

Yeah that's true, they say many writers are assholes in day to day life, even if they believe in a compassionate society (egTolstoy).

I don't know what Nabokov's views are, I wasnt saying they have to be left wing, just not right wing. And I don't even know how you can be right wing and get anything out of literature. Take a great novel like Madame Bovary. The conniving, selfish, capitalist pharmacist 'wins' at the end. Does a right winger snap the book shut and feel good about it, thinking the stronger has won and that's just.

The only way I can archive authentic empathy is when I dose oxycodone. Depression completly killed my sensitivity.

"Saurman believes that it is great power that holds even in check, but I don"t agree. I believe it's the little things, the small acts of kindness to your neighbors and those you love."

Tolkiens protagonist often have an absolutel power at their side. If you look to his other works you'll find that men are often ruled by one entity or yield to it, in this example I'm using the numenorean men of the north, essentially the aryan men (not ascetically) of middle earth. These men dictated most of the happenings on middle earth and they were THE true king lineage

Evil in check* mobile posting is aids

To add, the men in Tolkiens universe are far better than most men in our history.

peacerequiresanarchy.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/the-letters-of-jrr-tolkien/

Sounds like a libertarian to me

“My great sin in this was pride and, I’ll admit it, vanity, and stupidity.”

>the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.

That's not libertarian, friend, that's anarchism

>inb4 we're just smarter like that hehehe

There are a lot of psychological facets to why they do this but I'll try to just talk plainly about it. Artist types are almost always left wing because they are led primarily by their emotions. When you go into every argument based on how the subject matter makes you feel, you will more than likely reach a left wing conclusion. These people have very low self-esteem and weak foundations so they try to fill in the cracks by being more accepting of emotional answers to emotional questions. 90% of /pol/ memes are actually backed up by data and logic and that's why everybody else on Veeky Forums hates them so much: most of what /pol/ says is really, really scary because it's true.

I used to be a mega liberal until I had an existential crisis and realized that my tolerant worldview was actually hollow and didn't serve my well-being at all. You just let your feelings answer every doubt: "no that just can't be how it is, surely there's another answer." The observable, objective truth is staring you in the face but you force your eyes closed to it. Ever wonder why artist types are always so miserable? They genuinely believe in impossibilities. They will look you in the eyes and tell you a falsity that they think they really believe when on a subconscious level they know it can't be true. Who we are as people dictates what political viewpoint we have; that seems like an obvious statement but you really need to reconsider it and how it affects you.

This thread is most likely bait but I genuinely love everyone on Veeky Forums (including the lefties that I vehemently disagree with). I want to help at least one person out there get themselves on the path towards true logic.

You need to get in touch with your anima user.

Something we can all agree on thought I don't think such a statement dictates a political compass

>Artist types are almost always left wing because they are led primarily by their emotions

>Read this
>Get angry
>Know I can't reply

The first words in that letter are

My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy

Just stop

Whats the observable objective truth again?

Please go away

@10197659
This is some good bait

What do you think I did when I went through the aforementioned existential crisis? Completely destroying the corrupt, unhappy life you used to have and replacing it with a structured, satisfying life is what we're all here to do. That's what I did.

Seek out the source of that reaction.

Statistics and data about certain people groups. Causes and effects of certain lifestyle choices. Motivations and reasons behind decisions of government leaders. That sort of thing. Go to /pol/ and [attempt] to start a serious discussion if you're actually curious.

>phone poster
>presents no argument

Sorry I said some stuff that you didn't like but if you want to have an actual discussion I'm here.

>Statistics and data about certain people groups. Causes and effects of certain lifestyle choices. Motivations and reasons behind decisions of government leaders. That sort of thing. Go to /pol/ and [attempt] to start a serious discussion if you're actually curious.

I'm not going to /pol. My point is their focus is often an inconsequential distraction to the real issues. How's your income, social services, do you have large debts for essentials? Why? Can you afford things? Why not? These are critical points pol ignores because it doesn't lead you to the right.

>/pol

Oh you're a redditor then? I'll still bite anyway.

None of that makes any sense. Explain to me how issues of income and social services lead one to the right.

>is left-wing
>pretends to be empathetic
>is a hateful cunt
Noggin=Joggin

still doesnt make him a leftcuck

wtf ok so you're young
>doesn't lead you to the right

Not at all a response. Lead me through your logic. Why do those things not lead someone to the right?

I'll never stop user

You're stupid

Cool, thanks for proving my point then.

The only true great writers are those who have minimum use of the word 'and', prove me wrong

>The dude was notriously catholic and was absolutely libertarian
Which are both simplistic black-white thinking, at least with right wing libertarianism. Binary world view is childish at best but dangerous and very anti empathy at worst.

Like monarchies?

It's less about emotion and more about exploration of these. Ring wingers are just as emotional if not more but they tend to be too lazy when it comes to exploring why they think in a certain way.

>90% of /pol/ memes are actually backed up by data and logic
Oh jeez, why did I even bother.

To completely honest with you guys, both left wingers and right wingers are retarded.

The true intellectual is a Radical Centrist.

>Artist types are almost always left-wing because they are led primarily by emotions

In STEMs there's generally only Silicon valley libertarians and Democrats. This is much more true in pure math/science and econ than it is in eng, but it's still true.

Also, literally everyone does nothing but arguing based on how they feel instead of on facts. Have you seen Fox news? Do you notice our collective fear-mongering populist embarrassment?

If you're a middle class fag with nothing to lose or gain and don't care about the people who do.

Threads like this are actively unhelpful for resolving anything at all.

So many leftists are like this. They don't understand that their only link to improving the condition of humanity (which is such a nebulous concept) is through active love, by treating the people around them well and with respect.

>an inconsequential distraction to the real issues. How's your income, social services, do you have large debts for essentials?
>le materialism
Who gives a fuck about standards of living when everyone is a drug- and sex-addicted deracinated half-breed? Who gives a shit about humanity after left-wing policies have reduced them to animals.
These whores, junkies, delinquents, whats the value of their lives? It's nothing, it's trash. Leftist movements created them.

>Who gives a fuck about standards of living when everyone is a drug- and sex-addicted deracinated half-breed? Who gives a shit about humanity after left-wing policies have reduced them to animals. These whores, junkies, delinquents, whats the value of their lives? It's nothing, it's trash. Leftist movements created them.

Dostoyevsky wanted to gather all turks in Russia and ship them to Asia.

I am right wing because I care. To hold the individual as that of upmost value is not to care merely about oneself; but to recognize what is best in mans search for an end to despair is not to be mothered by the state, but to be valued as a responsible individual inside of society.

Nigga how do you just pick certain parts of my posts to reply to? I said I was a left winger until I had an existential crisis that forced me to reevaluate my life and now I'm on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Yes there are plenty of conservatives (think of the hillbilly stereotype) that are too lazy and stupid to think beyond themselves but those people are not on Veeky Forums.

You're just making yourself look like a fucking retard for deflecting and not coming up with a real response.

Also, you really trust /pol/ for

>Statistics and data about certain groups
where first of all as an axiom almost no number seen anywhere in an online debate can be trusted and second of all even well-meaning and talented professionals have a hard time separating the incredible mess of interrelated factors from each other, and moreover where very few people are actually accustomed to drawing reasonable conclusions from accurate data once it is produced?

And also for
>Motivations and reasoning behind decisions of government leaders
Which I can't imagine could possibly be anything but idle speculation, moreover submitted by disparate and unknowable sources with conflicting motives and levels of irony, post-irony, post-post-irony, and flat-out race baiting?

Why and how? Genuinely curious.

Writers who would be considered right-wing today:

Every single one who wrote before the 1950s

anybody who engages in any kind of argument online has to work on the assumption that the data they're talking about is correct and reliable. of course there's no way to pull it out of the internet and inspect its physical veracity. but when the data is government and research supplied we can be a bit more certain. so we take that data and we hold it against our life experiences; if it holds up we accept it and if it doesn't we discard it and keep looking for truth.

this website's userbase is made up of literally thousands of anonymous people from all over the entire world with nothing to lose. do you really not see any merit in that? that when we put together our separate, objective experiences we all come to the same conclusions? the answers are right in front of you but you're refusing to see them. on a real and honest level are you thinking of a response to say that I'm wrong or are you really considering my opposing viewpoint?

such terrible bait user

be ashamed of yourself.

>Taking jokes seriously

>Empty rethoric
Dostomemeskij was also right wing

Are you the same guy that some time ago made the argument that /pol/ is a dialectical truth machine and that the position held by the majority there is correct because it is held by the majority or is this a common thing to believe among /pol/friends?

>position held by the majority there is correct because it is held by the majority

See you've done this funny thing where you mention my point and don't actually refute it but you pretend like you did. And no I'm not that guy.

I'm not the other guy nor i was trying to refute your point. I just wanted asked a question.

* to ask

Why are right wing people so convinced their arguments are not emotion led? As if resentment, hatred, inferiority, fear, and disgust are not emotions?
Both sides are emotionally led because they are fucking people.

>implying those are the emotions that lead right-wing positions
Nope. The real emotion behind it is love. We love who we are and we love our families. We take the positions that will help us to prosper. Anger is a secondary emotion and will show up when you try to prevent us from doing that. Lefties use emotion to prop up false logic and righties use common sense logic to back up their emotions.

The obnoxious shithead brats on this website cant even get laid and don't have any friends, they are right wing because they are angry and full of hate not because they are defending the family.

Not to mention
>niggas touching my (nearby) women!!

So rational.

The only one of those emotions that's more typical of right-wingers is disgust. Also, inferiority isn't an emotion, it's a state of being.

Good job on demonizing your opponent with totally baseless claims. I have plenty of friends (hanging out with em later actually) and I have a gf of 4 years.

I'm going to stop monitoring this thread because, once again, no actual discussion is taking place. When someone says something someone disagrees with all they do is reply with a non-answer. There really needs to be a way to facilitate real discussion between this board's different perspectives. Maybe it's just impossible with the way that Veeky Forums has become.

I'll say this: it took me about 4 years to become a liberal and it took me 2 years to go from there to a full-on /pol/lack. Self transformation doesn't happen instantaneously. Just be open to opposing viewpoints and be true to yourself. Always seek truth and you will end up where you need to be.

It obviously isn't baseless on Veeky Forums, there is loads of evidence.

I've shifted right because I allowed myself to open my eyes about the damage left wing social policies have done to large cities, and also how a left-wing victim complex is a path to self-destruction.

If you really care about others, you want them to better themselves. By trying to rescue them instead of letting them learn from their mistakes, and encouraging self-reliance and responsibility for ones actions, you turn people into pets.

There is nothing more dehumanizing than fostering perpetual dependency.

Orwell would be considered right if those on the left who claim to be fans of him actually read his essays.

He said ultimately left-right is meaningless; what matters is libertarian vs authoritarian.

>Great writers are empathetic, sensitive beings who care about humanity
>you may as well kill yourself

8/10 b8 good job op

>Great writers are empathetic, sensitive beings who care about humanity rather than merely themselves.
There are counterexamples

>They have to be this way to create vivid characters.
I guess it does help

>You'll also be deranged
>implying this prevents you from being a good author

I don't think lack of empathy is what causes the right to fall behind in lit and academic lit. I think it's more a matter of their materialism and disdain for nuance. When I try and imagine myself writing something that could be considered a right-winged book, it's either a dumb conspiracy theory book, a story about a poor guy who pulls himself up by his bootstraps, or a story about a rich guy who cites the previous example as a means of telling everyone else to suck it up. And there is some lack of empathy which emerges in there, but I don't think it's the driving force. It's really more because they're just basic. And yeah, I get that trying to be as far away from basic as possible can cause you to get your head stuck up your ass, but that's still the more useful extreme to be on for writing. A pretentious douchebag's vivid bullshit is always going to have more appeal than some boring simpleton's pasty grey porridge.

I thought he was a right winger who was voicing his depression (which is probably a good way to improve), but I've only read OP and not the thread.

I despise that everything is now framed on the basis of politics and further division. Fuck off

empathy is a spook; taste reflects material interest

>taste reflects material interest
I mean yeah, but not any kind of material interest. I think it's fairly obvious that taste is a matter of qualitative interests and not quantitative ones. If someone asks you "would you prefer to have 5$, or 10$?" and you say "10$," you aren't really making something one would consider a taste based judgement. That's more a matter of common sense. A qualitative, taste-based question would be something more like "This sculpture, or that sculpture?" etc.

>empathy is a spook
you didn't read stirner

As a far left fuckface I disagree completely. Some right wingers wrote some amazing stuff(T.S. Eliot, Ezra pound, among others) you cannot simply put people in boxes like that. It is a baseless claim. And you're being as hateful as you perceive conservatives, i disagree with much of what conservitives say, but i don't automatically think them bad people.

See I think its foolish to conflate Eliot and Pound with what is today's right wing, because today's right wing is so disgustingly corporate and soulless while masquerading as traditional, when a lot of these so called conservatives are in no ways traditional at all, maybe solely on the surface.

That is a fair point, but many alt-right people claim they are for tradition. Whether they are or not is up to debate. But i don't see the newer right wing people for tradition either user, more so breaking down and reaction to neo-liberalism(which i think is equally disgusting, but i think there are better ways of counter acting it)

mishima?

You lack imagination. I can imagine hundreds of right wing narratives, from comedies to dramas.
I'm not even a right winger. But their ideas can be compelling in grand narratives, or small intimate pieces. Sacrifice, nobility betrayed, virtue in the face of impossible odds or vice. Stoic resignation to decay.

NeoCons and NeoLibs are essentially the same beast, save one likes war up front while the other likes the Shadows.

Political divisions are corrupt and so far from what they once were

>You lack imagination.
you aren't wrong

>Sacrifice, nobility betrayed, virtue in the face of impossible odds or vice.
How are these right-winged? I'm not going to make the hard claim OP is, but I don't see how these are anywhere near as righty as the examples I gave.

>Now answer me this. Do you think that the same holds of horses? Do people in general improve them, whereas one particular person corrupts them or makes them worse? Or is it wholly the opposite: one particular person - or the very few who are horse trainers - is able to improve them, whereas the majority of people, if they have to do with horses and make use of them, make them worse? Isn't that true, Meletus, both of horses and of all other animals? Of course it is, whether you and Anytus say so or not. Indeed, our young people are surely in a very happy situation if only one person corrupts them, whereas all the rest benefit them.

You're a narcissist.