Cringe thread?

cringe thread?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=cJd_VLJ3TH8
docdroid.net/KqINJsm/document.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=-VdbFzwe8fQ
marxists.org/subject/marxmyths/paresh-chattopadhyay/article.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=q4tIhHHvzNA
youtube.com/watch?v=wMfExwigqNY
liesjournal.net/volume1-03-againstcoupleform.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

most of the threads on Veeky Forums are cringe threads

>it's an e-celeb thread
Go post this on /b/ or something.

holy....

I used to think that burning books was a horrendous crime ...

Holy shit. Its like her main source is what her dad used to tell her for bedtime stories.

Like shit nigga cite some sources
instead of just name dropping hitler and mousellini and shit.

You are a youtube pedagog what you say isn't going to translate well into a book.
You must dig deeper

I don't want to read your fucking blog in book form. I want carefully crafted arguments with sources to back up your position. ANd I also want to see what the opposition is saying and why they are saying it.

in short

P S E U D
S
E
U
D

What's happening is part of a phenomenon I wrote about a couple of years ago when I was asked to comment on Wallace. I went to the Yale University bookstore and bought and read a copy of "Infinite Jest." I suffered a great deal in the process. The writing was dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed the incessant verbal tic "and but so." I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Wallace's mind is so governed by quirks and forced mannerisms that he has no other style of writing.

But when I wrote that in a newspaper, I was denounced. I was told that college freshmen would now read only David Foster Wallace, and I was asked whether that wasn't, after all, better than reading nothing at all? If Wallace was what it took to make them pick up a book, wasn't that a good thing?

It is not. "Infinite Jest" will not lead our children on to Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow" or his "Crying of Lot 49." It will not lead them to DeLillo’s "White Noise" or John Barth's "The Sot-Weed Factor" or William Gaddis's "Recognitions."

Later I read a lavish, loving review of Infinite Jest by the same David Eggers. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Infinite Jest at 21 or 22, then when they get older they will go on to read David Eggers." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Infinite Jest" you are, in fact, trained to read David Eggers.

Our memes and our literature and our board culture are being dumbed down, and the causes are very complex. I'm 33 years old. In a lifetime of shitposting in English, I've seen the discussion of literature debased. There's very little authentic memery of the humanities remaining. My research assistant came to me two years ago saying she'd been in a thread in which the OP spent two hours saying that Walt Whitman was a cuckold. This isn't even good

good post

>not even able to copypaste properly
cringe

What's cringe about that? It's not wrong. SJWs lust for power and fanaticism is quite brownshirt-like.

it's objectively wrong

...

Prove your not-an-argument.

>The topmost one

hitler was not a socialist. he claimed to be

First prove your not-an-argument. You don't just get to say whatever you want without evidence and then require everyone else to.

youtube.com/watch?v=cJd_VLJ3TH8

>"If there was a moment in the 2016 U.S. election that epitomized this newfound hate for the young on the right, it was Republican consultant Rick Wilson’s infamous… declaration that Trump supporters were “childless, single losers who masturbate to anime.” Guilty as charged. Well, except I don’t masturbate to anime characters. I dress up like them and guys masturbate to me. "

There isn't an argument in there. It's just an ad-hominem. It boils down to here are some stupid responses by some liberals therefore liberalism is stupid. Never mind the fact that even if the video were correct it wouldn't proove what I asked for you to proove.

Conservatives don't believe the Boston Marathon bombing was real?

Oh Jesus Christ I didn't actually believe she wrote this but she did. Fuck me, what the fuck?

Is that real, Christ.

But then again, I’m the stupid one for not having sent in a manuscript for my own short political polemic.

I have a copy of Milo's book while it was still being edited and it's hilarious

>"you're best points seem to be"

Milo's editor is a fucking retard

xoxo

Post more pls or give dl link. Also
>You're best points

docdroid.net/KqINJsm/document.pdf

Well, at least a pseud sounds intellectual.

...

b-ased

LMAO

The editor's first note to Milo was "write a thesis statement." Pretty pathetic stuff.

Because on literally every point of interpretation it’s offensively incorrect. I don’t know why that even needs to be said.

Being power hungry and extremist isn’t particularly rare, and you need a bit more than that to justify calling “SJWs” Nazis. It’s the exact sort of equivocation made by somebody totally ignorant of history and unable to draw on a more relevant example. Literally every reference and comparison made on those two pages are meant to be emotionally salient, not factually accurate at all.

Hitler wasn’t “nationalist by technicality” he was the logical conclusion of nationalism.


Weirdly enough, at the end of the page she almost wanders into the communist view of nationalism. Communism isn’t ‘globalist’, it strictly believes in the right of national self determination, with the definition of nation given to us by Stalin “a nation is any group of people bound by acommon history, territory, and language”. And thus the correct view from communism is ‘internationalism’, where Nations work together, rather than compete, but retain their distinct character. The difference is that rather than pan-Western, socialist internationalism is obviously across socialist nations, and allied with national liberation movements. That’s why socialists devote so much attention to Palestine, it’s a clear national liberation movement of the old kind.

>Hitler was a nationalist
I bet you think that that Hitler was a socialist too, you tankie mong.

is this written by that woman who doesn't have kids?

What? No, he’s obviously not a socialist. Like people do know that he purged the “left” faction of the party right? And that when the Nazis first came to power it was literally in a coalition with The Nationalist Party. Not the Social Democratic Party, or the liberal parties, or whatever else.

Well looking at the quality of the writing, at least you know it isn't ghost written.

what did she mean by this

more
read it all

rofl

>no, Hitler wasn't associated with the ideology -I- like, but he certainly was in favor of upholding the sovereignty of nation states and the glory of his home country and it's people, despite invading poland and france, and sending massive numbers of german citizens, among them war veterans and shopkeepers, to the gas chambers.
Nationalists are the ones who freed countries from colonial rule, and your distinction between nationalism and "internationalism" is non-sense, since germany had nations which it "worked together" with, ones which it didn't have to invade first, unlike your precious soviet union
I don't mind socialist policies, but tankies should be rounded up and gassed

Which countries are those? Certainly not Austria, Czechoslovakia, or Poland. Or Greece, or Italy.

almost every nation in south america, Ghana, and the Ukraine are a few examples, you fucking disgusting communist

If you are stretching it that far then Soviet Russia had plenty of nations it worked together with. It's such a broad way of defining it it's pretty hard to name any countries today that don't work together with anyway sans North Korea.

>asks for an argument
>posts to a video with an argument
I geuss you are as stupid as to what the guy in the video says liberals are.

I think it's safe to say they like it :)

She mocks the SJWs for calling everyone they don't like a Nazi but does the exact same thing. Also it's really poorly structured.

Ah yes, the famed German anschluss of Ghana. How could we forget?

the fall of People's Republic of Poland wasn't at all based on nationalism. We just simply didn't want to be poor and get exploited by USSR anymore. The Solidarność was a normal trade union, their initial postulates were socialist in nature. They didn't really want to destroy the commies, it was an unintentional side effect of them gaining popularity and the government going almost bankrupt, and the decline of USSR. All the governments of Poland after 1989 were social-democratic or centre-right, nationalism was always marginalized, and now it's only slightly less marginalized.
Nationalism is more than just not-that-bad. It's one of the plagues consuming this world, along with racism and religious fundamentalism, like Kapuściński said

Silly fellow pollack if Lauren "The Great Thinker of modern America" says Solidarnosc was nationalist it must be true. She double checks every fact and is very knowledgeable. After all, she has theoretical PhD in Political Science.

It was written in 3 hours between twiiter posts

What the fuck is wrong with this guy? He's completely retarded.

Who is this?

Nice geckos

I mean, would you expect anything more from a chapter titled "The Art of the Troll"? He's pretending to be retarded.

He should firstly define what it means to be a troll while bringing hystorical examples.

He's really not.

If you think he is retarded because of this chapter, you should read his poetry( he wrote 2 books of poetry under a pen name.

I think he's retarded because of everything he's ever said and done. "Trolls" like him are just itching to spill their guts and tell you how clever and smart they are at trolling, nothing in that book is anything but him genuinely bragging. No wonder the editor made a few fuck-ups in his grammar, s/he had enough on their plate trying to make him sound not like the deluded cockend he really is.

Did she even read Mein Kampf? It's not exactly difficult to go through, you just need to read a general history of the Weimar Republic. How hard is it to read some academic papers or 2-3 books?

...

lauren southern

His editor:
>People will might take this seriously, Milo, and so don't insult it.
10/10

Because he was. Nazi, Fascist, Socialist, etc ideologies are all rooted in 1793's embrace of authoritarian liberal ideals.

sorry who owns the means of production in nazi germany?

The German government. By 1928 the government directly controlled over half the economy and the rest was highly regulated with the government dictating who can run businesses and where.

What on earth is he talking about?

and what is the definition of socialism?

Socialism is defined by central planning. This can come in a variety of forms, which fascism being one of them.

Socialism isn't Communism, pinko.

the real cringe in this thread is you

You can't imagine why the owners of companies which were essentially given monopoly rights by the government would have in turn supported the government?

The people. That's why Soviet American Jews invaded them to promote their (((capitalism))).

You can't read?

I have never used "pseud" on Veeky Forums because it's a stale meme like "hipster" but I think I have just witnessed an actual pseud for the first time. This reads like an awful clickbait blog, I swear the internet has actually managed to infiltrate some peoples' brains in the most unhealthy way possible.

Yeah that must be the case

>monopolies exist in socialism

It sounds stupid to you because you can only conceive of socialism as being synonymous with communism. Socialism is defined by central planning. When a government decides who can run businesses and where they are planning the economy, albeit indirectly. It's a form of socialism.

...

>socialism is defined by worker ownership of the means of prodcution rather than by the capitalistic business owner
>this can happen without a government

Again, you're conflating communism with socialism.

>communism is collective ownership of the means of production in a cashless, stateless, and classless society.
difference being collective.
Socialism is a system where all businesses are just worker co-operatives

What is a "worker co-operative?"

youtube.com/watch?v=-VdbFzwe8fQ
when the worker's own the means of production.

You're not answering me. What does it mean to own the means of production?

Marx used "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably to refer to the same thing. Get this Leninist revisionism off my board reeeeee.

marxists.org/subject/marxmyths/paresh-chattopadhyay/article.htm

What Marx thought isn't very relevant to a discussion on Spengler socialism. Marx is not the authority on all things socialism.

Why are people so hostile to the historical fact of German socialism?

Ohhh I misunderstood.

Anyway, Spenglerian socialism is comparable to Jünger's socialism in the sense that it isn't socialism but rather a rhetorical attempt to undermine the Marxist in Weimar.

In what way is the government planning of the economy not a form of socialism?

Intellectual /= intelligence

...

watch the video. It's when the entire workforce owns the equipment and democratically make decisions about the company

We've already made it a point not to redirect arguments to youtube videos ()
I want to get somewhere, damn it!

have some more
youtube.com/watch?v=q4tIhHHvzNA
youtube.com/watch?v=wMfExwigqNY

I'm not watching any videos but I appreciate you attempting to clarify what it means to own the means of production, and in the process define what socialism is. You say it's when a group democratically makes decisions about a company, or in other words, to control production. Let's extrapolate this to a grander scale. Suppose an entire country democratically elected a government to manage and control production. This would be socialism, yes? Well that's exactly what happened in Germany. The people elected a government which then went on to decide who can run a business and where. The government controlled the means of production.

embrace nihilism

>Suppose an entire country democratically elected a government to manage and control production.
no that would be state capitalism
>State capitalism is an economic system in which the state undertakes commercial economic activity, and where the means of production are organized and managed as state-owned business enterprises, or where there is otherwise a dominance of corporatized government agencies or of publicly listed corporations in which the state has controlling shares.

You can call it whatever you want but reality of Nazi was that over 50% of the economy was directly controlled by the government, which the remaining half operating under this "state capitalism." If all you wanted to say was that German socialism is not Marxism then I would agree with you, but to deny that German socialism is socialism is absurd.

socialism is democracy first and foremost, i find it hard to believe a dictatorship would allow the high pay that worker co-operatives now allow

>socialism is democracy

I'm talking to an idiot. Have a good day.

worker co-operatives are defined by their democratic control of the business. Watch the video

>I strapped my boyfriend with homemade explosives and blew him up. His flesh spread everywhere. So did my affection. I’m sick of love. Let’s fall in politics.

liesjournal.net/volume1-03-againstcoupleform.html