I'm reading The Elementary Particles right now and its pretty good...

woah this guy's really ugly. be looks like a certain character from a TV show or movie. I can't place it. some kind of gremlin or demon or some shit.

Everyone's a commodity to everyone else. If there's one lesson capitalism has to offer that's it.

trash adaptation 2bh m8

t.roastie

dat buttgap

Actually all Houellebecq cares about is sex and hates the fact he isn't getting enough. He's a regular at sex clubs where swinging happens, so this dude is all about the harem.
That's why he starts to get really interested in the possibility of having an islamic state in France because ( he thinks ) it would allow him to have multiple women.
Before that he wanted to have countries turn into sex worker paradises ( read "Platform" ), since that's something capitalism could offer, but since leftist victorians are now starting to combat prostitution instead of allowing it, that option is less likely for him ( legally anyway )... And islam seems like the best bet to have loads of women (legally).

For some reason he's obsessed with the "it must be socially sanctioned to have many women, otherwise it's troublesome for me".
He seems, like many French (and all Euro's for that matter), extremely rudderless without rules, and extremely legalist. That's why at the end of the day I hate him after reading his stuff, because he seems like a helpless child without the social body saying "it's ok".

'He's a regular at sex clubs where swinging happens'
Source?
What is known of his real life?

>Source?
Personal experience.

Horseshit.

He's not *that* kinky.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZtiJQZTqu9M
He talks about Tocqueville and his views of democracy here. (It has subs if you need them)

I read Whatever and The Elementary Particles which were fine. He makes some interesting points.

He bears resemblance to Ichabod Crane from The Wolf Among Us.

this guy?

kek

/pol/ is my homeboard faggot and I certainly read more than you.

And better.

Choke on a dick.

His male characters say stuff like "Women are dumb."

lel

It's clear he fucks a lot of beurette prostitutes and faps to youporn and reads youtube comments but I don't think he's anything like a womanizer/sex addict.

Soumission was Houellebecq saying, even lazy white kids can be Muslim and they'd enjoy it.

That's what you'd call a well-known rumor. Rest of that user's post, however, is blind bullshit from someone who obviously hasn't read his books (and I can tell this without having read them myself, to give you an idea of how obvious it is)

>beurette
what does this word mean?

>Actually all Houellebecq cares about is sex and hates the fact he isn't getting enough.
Wow it's as if the type of people who would criticize a flawed system are those who are discriminated by it!

>not getting laid because you're ugly is discrimination
top tumblr

Check your genetic privilege, but nice way to admit that the system is flawed.
Here's a tip: beauty is just the product of ideology.

french slang for 'arab girl'

watch the movie 'the kidnapping of michel houellebecq'

Mental illness and intelligence and two different beasts.

To evaluate him you have to be able to differentiate, or multitask your thinking: hold two different ideas or opinions at once. Be careful, smoke may come out of your ears. Eyes may spin uncontrollably.

no another bald headed gremlin lol

>beauty is just the product of ideology

In-tandem, I assume, with certain 'genetic' traits like facial symmetry and harmonious proportionality?

You only find that to be beautiful because of ideology you retard.

Such a pity beurette porn is all terribly bad and only features uggos

But ideology is just the glamour; without the object, ideology is just a stale fart in an empty room.

Tell me, though, just how the beauty of proportional elements is ideologically determined. I admit, I am ignorant.

Come now, this should be easy for you.

Ideology has material existence.
>Tell me, though, just how the beauty of proportional elements is ideologically determined
You find it beautiful because society set you up to find it so.

Do other animals have socially imposed ideology too?

>Naturalism fallacy
Gonna stop you right there

I think you're thinking of hoggle

I asked a simple question.

no its a bald headed thing. maybe from a fairytale or animated movie

Ideology has no history so there's no way of knowing.

>You find it beautiful because society set you up to find it so.

Set me up HOW? All you've said here is 'ideology functions because the material conditions of its functioning are present'. What are they, though?

>HOW?
ISAs

Which means WHAT?

I'm not going to fucking spoonfeed you on ideology, this is Veeky Forums you should already know this.
Read Althusser's essay on ISAs and RSAs and then some critical theory.

No, don't hide behind the work of others. Explain what you mean.

Or are you incapable of thinking on your own?

>critical theory

Barista detected.

I'm not going to write and post an entire fucking essay frok my phone on a topic that's already been covered to death just because some autist wants to go "not an argument!".
You're a fucking retard if you think taking knowledge and analysis that others already did and that benefiting from their work is "hiding".

xD

Intelligent people can summarize succinctly.

I'm asking for, like, three sentences, you lazy cretin.

And no, pointing to Althusser and back at me while screeching 'ALREADY INTERPOLATED' is not an argument.

>butthurt uglyfuck

>I'm asking for, like, three sentences
Except that you'll keep asking the simplest questions and I'll end up writing an essay anyways.
>not an argument
Ebin
And this was never an argument in the first place, this was you not knowing critical theory and expecting others to teach it to you. You're fetishizing originality as if it's always desirable.
kys

I'm well acquainted with Marxian theorists of all stripes, thank you. And I'm not asking you to be original; I'm calling out a charlatan.

>kys
Why? You're the ugly one.

>And I'm not asking you to be original
-> >oh hey bro can you explain why things fall
>oh well there's this thing called gravity and if you want to learn more about it pick up a physics textbook
>OH MY GOD STOP HIDING BEHIND THE WORK PF OTHERS
>I'm calling out a charlatan.
Nothing that I've posted is pretentious.
>You're the ugly one.
Says who?

>Says who?
I do. Retard.

You've never seen me, pretentious fuck.

>you can't know someone through their words

Post your faces, nerds.

A first year physics student would be able to give a very simple and concise but clear outline of the mechanism of gravity. Would probably be glad to, considering its their chosen field of study. Yet you evade even this basic gesture.

Charlatanism is not identical with pretentiousness, nor was that the angle of my chide. I'don't explain myself, but I'm sure there's a dictionary handy. Check it out.

Not how they look like.
>A first year physics student would be able to give a very simple and concise but clear outline of the mechanism of gravity. Would probably be glad to, considering its their chosen field of study.
I'm a third-year student of physics so you're wrong :-)
I wouldn't want to even begin explaining Einstein's relativism to you
>Charlatanism is not identical with pretentiousness

char·la·tan
ˈSHärlədən,ˈSHärlətn/
noun
a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill; a fraud.

pre·ten·tious
prəˈten(t)SHəs/
adjective
attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

Looks like the only charlatan here is you.

No, you've simply exposed yourself for both a charlatan AND a pretentious snot. But the subtleties of language can escape even the most apt pupil. You're forgiven.

Calling anyone pretentious with your use of language is a pot/kettle situation at best, famalam.

Hey, you looked up irony while you were at it. Bully for you.

I am not the ideology poster.

Does it matter?

>But the subtleties of language
There's no subtlety in definitions.

Not true. Even less so when it comes to use.

Your response doesn't make sense if it isn't to him. I'm just mildly irked by your pomposity, but it is past my bedtime; I'll respond to your wittily condescending reply in the morning.

>Not how they look like.
t.uglyfuck
Why? I'm not the one complaining about how unfair it is that people don't want to fuck unattractive people.

Don't bother.

>Not true
Not an argument :^)

>uglyfuck
Prove it

Now you're pod-racing ;^P

Here's your reply.

And for you.

(you)

No (u).

>ugly AND a postivist
>my metaphorical vagina when

*positivist

Here
>positivist
Prove it

I.Q. – The modes of behaviour appropriate to the most advanced state of technical development are not confined to the sectors in which they are actually required. So thinking submits to the social checks on its performance not merely where they are professionally imposed, but adapts to them its whole complexion. Because thought has by now been perverted into the solving of assigned problems, even what is not assigned is processed like a problem. Thought, having lost autonomy, no longer trusts itself to comprehend reality, in freedom, for its own sake. This it leaves, respectfully deluded, to the highest-paid, thereby making itself measurable. It behaves, even in its own eyes, as if it had constantly to demonstrate its fitness. Even when there is no nut to crack, thinking becomes training for no matter what exercise. It sees its objects as mere hurdles, a permanent test of its own form. Considerations that wish to take responsibility for their subject-matter and therefore for themselves, arouse suspicion of being vain, windy, asocial self-gratification. Just as for neo-positivists knowledge is split into accumulated sense-experience and logical formalism, the mental activity of the type for whom unitary knowledge is made to measure, is polarized into the inventory of what he knows and the spot-check on his thinking-power: every thought becomes for him a quiz either of his knowledgeability or his aptitude. Somewhere the right answers must be already recorded. Instrumentalism, the latest version of pragmatism, has long been concerned not merely with the application of thought but the a priori condition of its form. When oppositional intellectuals endeavour, within the confines of these influences, to imagine a new content for society, they are paralysed by the form of their own consciousness, which is modelled in advance to suit the needs of this society. While thought has forgotten how to think itself, it has at the same time become its own watchdog. Thinking no longer means anything more than checking at each moment whether one can indeed think. Hence the impression of suffocation conveyed even by all apparently independent intellectual productions, theoretical no less than artistic. The socialization of mind keeps it boxed in, isolated in a glass case, as long as society is itself imprisoned. As thought earlier internalized the duties exacted from without, today it has assimilated to itself its integration into the surrounding apparatus, and is thus condemned even before the economic and political verdicts on it come fully into force.

What did this have to do with anything?

'You're an idiot.'

epic

>french slang for 'arab girl'
>watch the movie 'the kidnapping of michel houellebecq'
Very underrated movie, truly the key to Houellebecq's work.

But I am /pol/ and this is my 2nd most frequented board (see how I didn't say "favourite"?). What now~

...

xD
Fuck off, non-reader

you forgot the (((jews))) and mudslimes.

You really are a pseud, you know that?

t. /pol/tard