Is democracy and equality and egalitarianism ruining literature and art

Unironically this. The internet was a huge mistake.

Care to elaborate?

The quantity produced by an instantaneous globally connected mass reproduction completely undercut the value of original production itself. With infinite supply, the demand can never be high enough to produce quality.

This is not limited to arts. It ruined social dynamics through the same mechanism. We feel detached and isolated because our relationships are easily interchangable, thus lack value.

I think it's the other way: our relationships became interchangeable and lost value since we became more and more isolated.

ITT: faggots

But this is hardly ever a democratic vote, it's more like just discussing with your friends until everyone can come to an agreement. It's not like if one person totally hates a place, the friends will go "fuck you, majority rules"

Hi Veeky Forums. Sup, brah

Democracy might feel better if our input was actually valued and had an impact. I understand the problems with a mob rule, however getting to have more influence on a local scale, would make democracy a lot more engaging, than the garbage we have now.

Equality, as we see it today, is ruining a lot of things. Instead of accepting our differences, we are ignoring our differences. This mentality can lower the quality of art and literature if we applying the same mentality to them. user, all books and paintings are equally good! This especially becomes true if we start rating art based on the artist and how underprivileged he is. If we can separate ideology and art it wouldn't be a problem, however, you know how well people are at keeping those separate. So I probably have to say yes.

Aw thanks sweetie but I'm just about the opposite of Veeky Forums.
Democracy is bad because no matter if it's mob rule, it is rule. There's no need to constrain yourself with others' constraints -- you can be selfless and take other people into account by yourself right, sweetie?

Make Western Civilisation Great (Right Wing) Again

Loved listening to this guy talk. RIP

Bingo. The size of the population makes it a bad system, just as it makes every other system ultimately fail. Humans aren't designed to live in "groups" this large. Civilisation was a big mistake.

"Progress in civilization is synonymous with suppression of the left."

I love reading stuff like this.

>tiger
>universal symbol of Asia

What did he mean by this?

The one in the picture is the one I listened to first and is still my favourite speech of Johnathan Bowden's.

Other favourites include:

2. Marxism & the Frankfurt School
3. Western Civilisation Bites Back
4. Lilith Before Eve
5. Julius Evola: The World's Most Right Wing Thinker

youtu.be/84bWaHnAtqM

equality and eglitarianism stems from socialism, not democracy

youtu.be/e-BZylziBKI

No idea Veeky Forums users were fans of Bowden's

Thought this board was full of lefties.

>barely literate post
>right wing
Really activates your almonds.

People don't have to be leftist to call out illiterates from /pol/ when they shitpost about Marx or Adorno.

I've already listened to the ones you listed and I concur! Loved the video. Great stuff.

>be me
>trying to decide where to go to dinner with friends
>recommend sushi place because it's healthy
>they say they don't want to try sushi, claim to like Dave and Busters better and insist on going there
>ask them how they can like Dave and Busters better without having tried sushi and try to explain that questioning their tastes will promote improvement in the long run
>they tell me that disrupting the status quo will only destabilize the established friend group and start getting angry
>warn them that I was attached to the group by the gods and that they better listen to me
>they say that maybe I should just go to the sushi place alone
>tell them I have to respect the implicit social contract and go along with the group's decision
>they hesitantly agree but insist I stop bitching about the sushi place
>understanding the imporance of public discourse, I refuse
>one of my friends privately says that maybe I should just stay home since everyone was starting to get pretty annoyed at this point
>refuse him as well
>they get fed up puts hemlock in my shirley temple
>the group falls apart after frequent trips to Dave and Busters make them all adhd and obese
yeah democracy works great

requisite WoGposting

*and put
my bad

Beautiful user

You can like people you disagree with.

Although I admit so far we've only seen fanboy-tier posting about him.

How does democracy and equality prevents talented people for doing good art?

You have a pretty narrow view of what democracy constitutes if you think it can only mean majority rule

Regarding your pic, this assumes people act upon some kind of idea of what is "best" and not upon self-interest.

t. American

The majority will always act in self-interest. At least with a monarch there is a chance that they will do what is best. After all, they are better educated and the country they leave is the one their children will inherit. People used to care about their legacy.

democracy is name only if not egalitarian

also what you have written is ahistorical

This made my day

someone post notes from underground

Suffrage ruined democracy tbqh

Man you take part in a shitty group of friends if they like Dave and Busters, mabye you should forsake them and your identity within the group then migrate to my group of friends where we frequently eat Sushi.

kek

Beauty is not objective though.

Well kingdoms only work if the king is chosen based on expertise, not blood, since it only takes one bad egg to ruin the bunch so to speak. But then we need another process to decide who is king. It would be best then, to have a king decided by some sort of accurate metric, maybe one that can't be more heavily influenced by anyone individual than another. I guess then we may have a system where everyone has an equal say in who the king is. But people die, and the king could not be aptly represented if half the population didn't choose him, so I guess we need a limit to how long the king can keep his position. I'd say every 4 years we'll do a group decision to make sure this king is working out, and if not we'll replace him with something else. But there is still an issue: if the king has absolute power, than couldn't he abolish this process or threaten the nation? Then it would be reasonable to limit this power, and form another institution which would have just as much or more power than the king. And this institution can't be made of just one person, so it must be atleast 2, but preferably more the larger the nation is to eqaully limit the kings power.

I think you see now why all modern countries have become constitional monarchies or democracies. Its just the most simply, logical form of government.

Wrong

Hegelian dialectic is happening right before my eyes

kek

Yeah but authoritarian personalities think that all intelligent people think like them and would act as they do. I see it all the time teaching philosophy classes. Their the kids who think there is only one reasonable and defensible position on any topic and will argue to the point of wilfull ignorance. So im not suprised they can't think out why democratic systems are simply beneficial

>simply beneficial
Fuck off with your normative ethics

Isn't this what we are doing already? We vote for a party who we think is the most capable of leading the country. And yet we are always disappointed when they put their own wealth and the countries GDP before the people.

There doesn't seem to be a good solution. Kings can be corrupted, technocrats/intellectuals can be corrupted, mob rule can be subverted and directed. Even if we had robots doing all the decisions, they would probably be utilitarian or utopian, which would result in nothing being done, because of human lives being affected, or by min-maxing happiness even if it causes suffering.

Is this all ironic contrarianism or is everyone on this site 13?

Like come on how does that contribute to anything

sounds gay

Yeah man, of course, I can't imagine how well you writing counterculture works would go in a dictatorship.

>13

Are you new? Everybody's an edgy contrarian, so yes, in that ballpark. Mentally at the very least

Women are largely responsible for the relentless expansion of government that occurred in the 20th century.