The state of Veeky Forums

Popular threads on this literature board include:
>xD Jordan Peterson has normies using the term "postmodernism"
>Can people with a low IQ read literature?
>What are the benefits of eugenics?
>Bruce Springsteen in the Noam Chomsky of musicians
Fantastic. Breathtaking. Sublime. My question is this: how can we keep insightful threads like these coming?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence_(engrossed_copy)
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Bump. You can't ignore this forever.

wow great thread

>I state the obvious as if it is some form of profundity, but, do so with an ironic edge, making it seem as if I am smart for doing this, while also not being constructive at all, and, instead become a puerile and derivative loon
>inb4 t.

You seriously don't have a problem with threads like these being on Veeky Forums?

Those threads are a lot less retarded than starting a thread with a reddit image like that

>I falsify the jurisdiction by using extreme juxtaposition to a forlorn degree that only mirrors my own putridge image, since I am the one who loves this kinda of imagery

This could be solved in any one the following ways:
Range ban Americans
Make youtube/twitter/news article posts/screenshots bannable
Have more than one mod

I think the second is the best choice.

No, they aren't. Addressing a problem is not worse than making a thread comparing Bruce Springsteen and Noam Chomsky. Your brain would have to be smoother than marble to believe that this thread is worse than the threads mentioned.

Don't forget ">reading manlet authors"

amazing rebuttal
proud of you, user

Permaban any IP that has also posted on /pol/, /r9k/, /tv/, or /v/

yo I've seen this pic before somewhere

the second is the best
no we lose too many funny spergs, the Jew threads are amusing and not a problem as long as the Peterson posting and YT celebrities are kept at bay

I like your second choice. I'd love to see it implemented.

>o no! people aren't talking about what you want
>wanting your opinion to be popular
Stop being such an extrinsic fag, ok?

keep the /r9k/ and /tv/ fags ban /v/ and /pol/

You've missed the point entirely. It's not that people don't share my opinion, it's that these thread have absolutely nothing to do with literature.

>expecting actual intellectual stimulation from an anime image board

this made me feel bad, man

things used to be better.

Sure, there was only like 3 authors that anyone every talked about in depth (DFW, Pynchon, Dosto) but at least people actually discussed literature. The shitposting has lost all reference to reading, it seems as though people here don't even bother.

Political threads, philosophical threads that don't directly pertain to a book, and discussion of pundits must be banned. We need a serious clean up, but is there any hope?

One idea would be to "be the change you want to see" as it were, making more good threads to drown out the bad ones. I think the limit is 4 per person in the catalog at any time

banning unfunny shitposts and obvious reddit bait would be the best course of action, so everything mentioned in the previous post

Well, sure, but I mean in the absence of the mods/janitors actually doing anything.

I haven't seen such a high concentration of autistic screeching in a while. This thread is glorious, ousting you agoraphoic, single-minded cunts to the spotlight of shame. I hope this shitpost of a board continues as is, otherwise it wouldn't be Veeky Forums.

the solution is to ban political discussion, /pol/ ruins it every time

anime is not allowed on this board

Intelligence too.

Please expire that train of thought, destination the canvas that takes me to kansas, I do inquire sir, what may you inspire?

>putridge

More /pol/ and more reddit.

>implying everyone doesn't have those threads hidden already

You are complaining about the brainlet drains OP? The brainlet drains have their functional purpose. Keeps em occupied and happy.

Short term thinking. Every Peterson thread that exists attracts other midwits who see it and think this place is the go-to Peterson forum. The problem compounds to the point where /pol/edditors out number anyone else, then the cancer spreads to every other thread, depressing the quality of posts boardwide. So while you have them hidden, it has become fait accompli and Veeky Forums is irreversibly changed. close the door completely on these kinds of discussions and they'll be forced to go elsewhere.

>What did he mean by this

this thread is worse than all of those.
Any good erotica recs?
doesn't have to be literary, any good smut is fine.

preferably one where the kinky relationship starts, like a mother and son discovering each other sexually despite hitherto being a regular parent/child pair

Succulent Prey got my jollies off

It's why we link people to /pol/.

I'm starting to think we should just advertise it before we close the thread. Like

HEY GUYS CHECK OUT THIS NEW BOARD ON Veeky Forums IT JUST CAME OUT ITS CALLED /pol/ OH MY GOD SO AMAZING

And then you link it.

The Jordan Peterson threads are to Veeky Forums what /pol/ is to Veeky Forums.

Here's a fun fact: you can make any subject technically on-topic if you word the thread as "recommend me a book about ".
People are just abusing this in ways previously unseen.

>previously unseen
buddy this has been around since late 2012, when I started browsing Veeky Forums
there are books about everything therefore there are threads about everything

The truth is Veeky Forums used to be full is pseuds, talking about stupid shit like Ezra Pound and Buddhism. I was part of the people who arrived and started calling them out on their shit and over time we did it and chased them off.
I might appear like the quality has went down but its only because there's no more of their smoke and mirrors horseshit

>used to be

This place is an intellectual powerhouse, I know having studied Phil & Lit. You might not like what you see but this is what peak performance looks like

Maybe when we had regular Flannery O'Conner threads, but not anymore

But /TV/ is a good board

>replacing Pound with Wallace
>replacing Wallace with Peterson
>replacing Buddhism with Nihilism
Good Job, faggot

Noam Chomsky is the Bruce Springsteen of historians

...

nobody on /pol/ even knows who petersen is btw, that's purely a Veeky Forums meme as far as I can tell

this is a blatant lie

Actually, I agree with OP. I was on here like a week ago and it's clearly deteriorated since. There has been a wave of invaders. Let's have some threads that discuss actual fucking Veeky Forumserature.
Also basically this. /pol/ is the primary board that isn't content to keep its /r/TheDonald and Stormfront expy shit to itself but has to spread it around to other boards like an epidemic.

/pol/ needs a fucking shoah. /pol/ needs a ruthless purge wherein everyone actively posting on the board is permabanned. Douse the entire fucking board in gasoline and light it on fire, I don't care who gets caught up as collateral. Especially because I'll bet a lot of the Reddit migrants don't know how to ban evade. /pol/ just needs to have a scythe swung throught it, butcher the board and all its posters. We can grow something better out of the entrails.

I love seeing Jews getting so desperate the shills start responding to each other

I can smell the Reddit on you, it's a pungent stink.

Well you're certainly helping by adding only that this is happening and not trying to make a better thread.

I've made threads about specific literature before, but they never pick up much and then get pruned.
It's a real shame, since I can never get any real discussion about the literature I'm reading.

My ethnic background is actually 100% goy (a mix of English, French, Danish, and Czech) and I didn't particularly mind the brownshit shit as long as it stuck to the /pol/ ghetto, but now that you mention it, I am kind of happy my grandfather killed a few nazis faithfully serving his country. The nazis he killed probably had much lower BMIs and better excuses for being nazis than this poster, though.

The neonazi Redditor is a cravenly, dirty thing whose intellectual faculties can only be mobilized in spreading the cancer that infects thoughtful subject matter boards.

I can get behind that

Ironically, people like this have helped transform me into a reactionary and an advocate for aristocracy. I've become genuinely, profoundly right-wing out of my belief that people like this deserve to be ruled, and not to rule.

And yes, I include myself in the number of people who also deserve to be ruled. I'm too stupid and autistic to be trusted with meaningful decisions about the fate of my country. Just give me a lord to obey.

There was a very good Heidegger thread going a few days ago user. I think however you may be a part of the very problem you have identified.

>about the fate of my country
Or even of yourself.

I feel the same, but how would good leaders reliably come to power?

This is a question that has been addressed by Plato, Augustine, and numerous others. The short answer seems to be: set aside a ruling class, give them the best education and opportunities, and just hope nobody goes mad with power.

Literally constitutional monarchy.

The "hope nobody goes mad with power part" is kind of important though. Would competition with some sort of honor system work to stop this?

Actually, despite being progressive overall, I very much feel this feel. It's astounding how ill-suited some people are self-government and critical decision making. I wouldn't feel at all comfortable running the world given the limits of what I know and my lack of expertise and self-control, and I'm more conscientious and have had the good fortune of being better educated than most of the voting public. At least I try.

Mencius Moldbug was almost dis-invited from a conference hosted at my university. Through reading him, I discovered Nick Land. Not only do they really know their history, but their arguments for reaction really gave me a run for my money. The decadence, myopia, and cowardice in pursuing any useful great projects on the part of our bodies politic is really depressing when you look at it.

I think monarchies tend to lead to instability in the long-run that freer institutions tend to moderate, and it's almost impossible to centrally plan an economy. But those are the main reasons I'm not a monarchist. I like Plato's republic model, as utopian as it may be.
Also, this. Despotic regimes select for bloodthirsty, callous, megalomaniacal leaders--who because of their grandiosity are often extremely poor planners with little attachment to reality. This is much like how democracies select for pandering, short-sighted, partisan ones.

It does sound attractive. Why did the American colonies become so hostile to monarchs? The government was not all that bad

We treated them the same as the nigger countries that we colonised, when they obviously deserved better than that. I don't blame them but it's bitterly disappointing that things turned out the way they did.

A mixture of enlightenment ideals (Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire, and others), idealizing Athenian democracy, and a frustration with various demands made by the British (quartering troops at peace, the stamp tax, etc).

Despite this, most of the founders and framers of the constitution were very distrustful of democracy and felt only magnanimous, well educated people who were upstanding in their communities were really qualified to make political decisions.

The Jacobin revolutionaries in France implemented a more radical form of revolution that ended in Napoleon consolidating power.

How so? My impression from learning about the colonies was that for the most part the government didn't interfere too much, except for a few instances, but the protests from the colonies eventually changed it.

I know that much already, but I'm still confused by the growth of revolutionary sentiment when the government was pretty fair.

AFAIK, that's a topic of lots of scholarly debate that I'm not really expert in.

There was a big backlash when King George revoked the charters that allowed states to self-govern and started detaining people.

The declaration of independence lists the grievances:
> en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence_(engrossed_copy)

There's a theory in politics that revolutions are actually more likely given a strong, educated populace that's doing fairly well when there are social imbalances. I'm not sure if I buy that.

Yeah, I'm taking these things into account as well, and it still just seems unusual. Thanks for the reply though, user.

No prob! This was a good talk.

Not everyone is as stupid or want to be as stupid as you. People can be or made better to rule themselves. Giving up on these people as if their nature is static is simple defeatism

Even Rome's concept of dictatorship was eventually corrupted. That user is disingenuous to not emphasize the most important point

I think the quasi-aristocratic parliamentary monarchy of 18th-19th C. England was quite a good structure—non-universal suffrage, a lot of old blood which had very high levels of education, a parliamentary system to diffuse tensions and prevent the long tenure of bad leaders. The main problem is that there isn't any blue blood around anymore, and the universal-suffrage genie is out of the bottle, so to speak. Also, no political structure can last forever—the imperfect nature of man assures that—so pining for a utopia that will stand outside of time is mostly pointless.

Universal suffrage and an authoritarian government aren't mutually exclusive. "Blue blood" is no longer necessary - we can now quantify the variables that we used to have to select for.

I can envisage a system whereby the top 1% of the top 1% of the youth (in IQ, academic performance, whatever qualities we might wish to have in a leader) are automatically enrolled in a special university in which they study for X years/decades and are eventually put to a public vote at perhaps 50 years old where the people decide on who will lead the country until their eventual death. Those who aren't selected become part of council whose only power is to depose the leader if it ever becomes necessary.

that person would always be surpassed by someone else and who might move against the leader or be favored as a pretender to the title by a council member(s). You’ve conveniently forgotten how dangerous monarchs and autocrats are for stability, they’re the source of endless ridiculous intrigue and power legitimacy crises.

Then the council aren't able to depose a leader without a public majority vote. The current members of the university will be forbidden from living public lives so that the public can't be persuaded that a better option exists; they can only decide which way to vote based on the performance of the current leader.

>Range ban Americans
this would improve the board most. it just has to be N America, Mexican bros are cool and even the Brazilians are tame here. About the worst you hear out of S America is their postal system is too shit for book depository or amazon. I'm not sure N America knows what books are, tbqh.

>Range ban Americans
I've been saying this for at least 1 year

I do think that universal suffrage is the main problem as it creates a culture of politicization. That is, it makes people infuse political intent into their everyday life and views. This naturally leads people to turn to the government to solve their problems rather than relying on individual initiative. People, when taken as a group, are very short sighted, so relying on them to pick a leader for 20 - 30 years is a problem. The point about blue blood is that the aristocracy had a very long foundation of prestige and the wealth to pursue a very particular education—i'm not sure how easy it would be to replicate that.
Take, for example, the modern British parliamentary system. Many of the ministers come from the same schools(Eton collage --> Oxford), studying the same degrees (PPE); they're groomed from early childhood for politics. This doesn't make them virtuous or upstanding statesmen necessarily, as they still have to pander to the collective multitude. Universal suffrage has always been an ideological venture of liberalism's belief in universal human value, not a practical measure for good governance.
Then again, with the modern form of warfare necessitating a Levée en masse, some kind of popular ideology is needed.

Veeky Forums peaked during the Totalitarianism in Tundra days, it's nothing but decline now.

The English Aristocracy were as a rule utterly useless and contributed nothing. It was the Middle Class puritans who gave everything the nation had of worth from Shakespeare to Newton. The restoration was unironically the worse thing that ever happened to England

They were generally good statesmen though. Let the blue-bloods rule, and the citizens pursue true art without having to worry about politics.

>I do think that universal suffrage is the main problem as it creates a culture of politicization. That is, it makes people infuse political intent into their everyday life and views.
I agree with this.

> This naturally leads people to turn to the government to solve their problems rather than relying on individual initiative
I disagree that this is a problem.

It would be easy enough to replicate aristocracy based on merit as opposed to birth. State-sponsored lifelong education for the best of each generation. I agree with most of what you've said.

The Puritans were the worst thing that ever happened to England.

>They were generally good statesmen though.

No they weren't. Every good that happened to Britain came about thanks to the incompetance of the Monarchy. India was conquered by free enterprizers, the New World colonized by the same class that decapitated them and they were an utter blackhole on Britains high arts by the 19th century
The current pathetic effeminate state of Britain is entirely down to nearly every sensible headed Englishman emmigrating over the centuries shifting the balance of power over to the pansy bisexual Jack Whitehalls and the mouth breathing Anglo-Saxon cattle class enabling them without a thought

What the fuck is this meme in OP's pic related?

Have you been living under a rock, soyboy?

No, I just spent my time on holiday and reading actual books away from a computer screen for the past couple of months, and actually completing things I start.
Can someone just answer the fucking question.

/pol/ meme about how eating soy supposedly increases estrogen production, making males effeminate. It's basically the nu nu-male. The open mouth with a beard is showing the tendency of "soyboys" to pose like this in photo's, there's a collage of it but i don't have it saved.

It's the nu-male smile

If you'd bother to google what I said, you would have got your answer.

>No, I just spent my time on holiday and reading actual books away from a computer screen for the past couple of months, and actually completing things I start.
Tell me your secrets oh wise one

>check the catalog
>a Jordan Peterson shitpost thread
>my entire board which is mine and no one else's has been ruined by /pol/. Ban them yellow kike Moot!
Clean your room.

why google when I can be a dick and get the answer and (You)s at once

I think nu-male is more specific to a certain kind of guy who is otherwise intelligent and capable but keeps choosing to be a cuck while soyboy is the more passive and low intelligence goatmen variety who were doomed from the start.

Dan Harmon is a nu-male, the try guys are soyboys