Ban Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, Allen Ginsberg, Andre Gide, Goethe

>>9135459
why did you post this

>another Milo controversy shilling thread

And almost everyone before 1968 was a rabid racist.
But don't tell anyone that today. Hegel would've been cool with a 20% muslim minority in his beloved German lands.

Why this dumbass generation hasn't called for the ban of most authors before WWII is beyond me. It's so easy for them to find quotes that would trigger the fuck out of them and show it belongs to a cultural hero of the West... which makes it PROBLEMATIC to print them still.

wow, it's fucking nothing

The butt-hurt is double penetrative

>>9135493
sorry? THESE MEN ABUSED CHILREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we need to ban them along with this disgusting alt-rightist((hint: nazi) milo yiannopolous. UGH

>>9135459
Stop comparing trolls to intellectual giants. Homophoby is not the only reason not to listen to Milo, the main one would be that he is a fucking retard and literally nothing he says matter in the slightest.

>>9135459

No one fucking reads, so no one notices that the pantheon of writers said some really offensive shit.
Like Flaubert's letters referring to his boy-love while being a sexpat in the Orient.
You learn to look beyond that stuff as you see everyone worthy of note has great flaws in other regards.

>>9135498
http://i.4cdn.org/lit/1487646011121.jpg

>>9135510
>thread about literary pederasts
>anon LINKS a pic
Yeah, I'm not openin that.

lol are they really banning milo for that?

same publisher released that con artist chick's book about an honour killing that never happened?

this is hilarious. i feel like i should put money on people who hate milo being okay with beauvoir raping 12 year old girls and handing them over sartre.

>>9135519
>people keep comparing milo to some of the best writers we've had in the last century

Stop fucking say this, it's not the same thing.

>>9135520
>farty and boo vore
>best writers
Disgusting perverts

>>9135520

>if you're dead and your name persists, it's totally ok to be a pederast

>>9135526

What's a pederast, Walter?

>>9135520
so its okay when they do it ;)?
are you saying that milo isn't being punished by left-leaning liberals and conservatives for supporting pedophilia (a crime that, being people who believe in equality, one would certainly think that no one can be above the law on such an issue), but actually being routed out because he's not worthy of being part of the literary aristocracy?

>>9135526
I'm saying that you're an actual great writer and one of the most relevant philosophers in your century it makes sense to publish your art.

But if you're just a guy, a dude, a complete retard with no experience in writing and no interesting idea whatsoever, and on top of this being so mediocre you're also a troll, homophobe, pederast then yeah, fuck off.

>>9135520
he's certainly tweaking power in ways that writers haven't since 1968.

sartre wasn't as good a writer as beauvoir, but beauvoir isn't exactly great writing either. it's not like i'm implying raping kids will make you a better author, i'm just surprised at the people who think raping kids only matter when you're not their favourite author.

if you hate milo for advocating pederasty and you don't hate and ban the other pederasts to the same extent, and even think some of those authors should be kept in print or kids should read them, then yeah, you have a moral problem that looks like you're okay with raping kids so long as good poetry comes out of it, but not bad poetry. and to be fair, wilde wrote awful poetry

>>9135534
>farty and boo vore
>relevant
>great writers
>even philosophers
Fuck off.

>>9135459
Plugging his name alongside great writers won't make your boy good or interesting, OP.

>>9135534
yes, its a shame those people weren't also censored by their contemporaries who thought their work was immoral and didn't have merit. i mean, probably some of the things didn't have any merit! so just to be sure we should have censored all of it.

>>9135534

So what he should've done is build a reputation for himself first and THEN come out as a pederast.

Gotcha. Solid strategy.

>>9135537
op lists gide goethe and wilde, so you fuck off

>>9135543
>implying your boy is even capable of a career in writing

>>9135544
>implying anyone likes Faust II
>implying Wilde's poems are good
Is your reasoning that since Goethe put his advice to fuck young girls in the ass when their vagina's broken in a couplet, it's more art than Milo who published free verse?

>>9135544
Goethe is the only good writer of the bunch and probably the only one that wasn't a boy-molesting fruit. How odd.

I say all of this as somebody accused by -- as frogposters call them, 'normies', -- of being a 'kiddie fiddler'.
>>9135559
Faust II is the second best part of Faust and not even by much.

I mean does Oscar Wilde really belong on this list when his shenanigans got him so totally destroyed in court and in public opinion that he died?

>>9135515
Its a poster on pol saying they got an email a night before of the plan to take down Milo

>>9135566
Goethe literally said he likes sticking it in little boy's butts and the only benefit women had was more holes.
>Faust II is the second best part of Faust
you mean it's shit and even well respected scholars can earn more respect by not reading it?

>>9135601
>it's shit
Not at all. Read it harder.

>>9135579
well yeah, his best shit is for kids or after he got BTFO for buggering kids. even his poetry got better. I wish Bosie had been blown out like that because that was a man who needed working on his poetry and French

>>9135608
even /lit/ isn't contrarian enough to think Faust II is good. fuck off where you came from or you're going to have to read Faust II

>>9135618
Faust II was good, you're just stupid and don't get the allusions even though they're all fairly simple.

Rage, rage, rage you fucking faggot. Your impotent hatred makes me smile. Milo is a trash writer and a trash thinker and he's banished to the darkness where he belongs.

>>9135601
Even if Milo and youre arguments are sound, maybe he could have done some downplaying?

Well... first of there is the parts that make it sound like pedaphila?

And pedarasty are two different things?

The latter is legal? Is this strictly about the latter?

I thought the water water was because of pedophilia?

Not a consenual relationship between adults; which still, could have been downplayed or just said :this isnt an important enough issue to potentially lose my carrer over to speak about this now in the open

>>9135625
I really want to see you laughed out of a literature department. Where you at, we can make a date of it.

>>9135635
Rejecting half of Faust will get you laughed out, yes, yes.

Academics always dislike what they don't understand.

>>9135626
>rage, rage
>rage you fucking faggot
Dylan Thomas has really gotten meaner and shitter since leaving earth. Maybe hell has no donkeys.

>>9135643
No, it won't. It'll get people who are Goethe scholars commiserating with you that you had to read it to judge it. You're actually so retarded you don't even know literary memes since before the internet. kekekekeke

>>9135651
>goethe scholars
I personally know one and she adores the second part because she isn't a 'muh tragedy' twat like you
>muh memes
Stupid frogposter.

>>9135601
Woah, nice source pleb

>>9135661
>women hate each other
Well of course she likes the story where Goethe goes Helen of Troy fanfiction. It's the same reason Twilight sells well.
>memes are from /r9k/
jesus christ kill yourself kid you can't even get references current to you

>>9135667
>sauce
You want the Venetian epigrams if you're hitting up this thread for lewd recs.

>>9135672
>memes from /r9k/
You'd know. Go back.

>>9135680
It comes from Dawkins, long before /r9k/ which you also don't know shit about apart from reading about 4chan in online news. ekekekekekekeke. Try a book sometime in the next life, before you wind up with choruses like Faust II

>>9135600
so?

>>9135686
I've been on 4 Chan since before you were growing hair on your foreskin buddy

>>9135693
Whatever, newb, read a book before you post here.

>>9135690
I wrote that to the erratic person on their knees shouting towards the heavens "whyyy!! howww can thss happpeennn!! whooo is responsible!!!"
The link I posed explains all that.

>>9135694
I have, one of them being Faust II, which you clearly have never read.

>>9135702
>muh mary sue self insert fanfiction
I'm glad Goethe was dead so he doesn't know he had two werthers

Was the backlash about pedophilia, pedastry, or both?

>>9135706
Keep telling yourself that.

>>9135712
both with a hint of hebophilia, and an undercurrent of illiterates

>wake up
>see a picture of Ellen Degeneres on every other thread
What did she do? Was she involved in pizzagate?

>>9135721
>hebophilia
Though he was saying it the way, popularized by the lefties? That Paedophillia 'exists' in some people, and some people do not act on their natural impulses, and these people need more help and it should be talked about?

Isnt that pretty much all Milk was saying?

>>9135676
>Venezianische Epigramme
>literally satire
Anon... I...

>>9135716
>i bet anon values my snide opinion
>on a truly anomalously bad work by Goethe
i think you need more faith than i
>>9135736
>singular
>they're all satire!!!
lol try reading.

>>9135712
Pederasty, I think. But people (especially in Anglo countries) tend to talk about pedophilia every time minors are involved.
Shaming of sexual deviants is a distinct Anglo thing, taken to the extreme in the puritan US culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender_registry
>Sex offender registration does not exist outside of the English-speaking world, however. The United States is the only country with a registry that is publicly accessible

>>9135769
Anything else would not be in the spirit of totalitarian democracy. And I don't invoke that term in a derogatory sense.

>>9135814
Do you think we're moving closer to the Athenian system? This episode definitely has a twinge of Against Timarchos to it, but I can't see mandatory democracy like Athens had or even Australia's current modified version actually explicitly being endorsed by these systems. You'd need something to shift the definition of citizens for the current blind populism of the American left or right to take such sway in a mandatory system of democracy I think. Perhaps I have too much faith in the unvoting centrist.

DO NOT REPLY TO MILO CONTROVERSY SHILL THREADS
DO NOT REPLY TO SHILLS REPLYING TO CONTROVERSY SHILL THREADS
YOU ARE BEING PLAYED

>>9135833
but his hair's qtier than rimbaud's.

>>9135832
Perhaps I have to clarify that my comment was based on Carl Schmitt's conception of politics as friend-foe-distinction and his opinion that democracy as a system taken to its logical conclusion demands homogenisation by eradication of the enemy of the people.

The enemy of the people being here the party that failed to assert itself.

From this follows that the current liberal democratic capitalist model, i.e. the west, is based on a contradiction as it combines a potentially totalitarian idea (democracy) with status quo consensus politics (liberalism).

Of course, this inherent contradiction was produced by the fall of the Soviet model of living. It is now being resolved by the rise of populist leaders who decry consensus politics as undemocratic, i.e. Trump, Le Pen, Wilders, etc.

This of course is true in a certain sense as there is nobody left to eradicate in a consensus democracy. Liberals must now answer this challenge either by eradication of the populists, thus becoming illiberal, or by imposing another political system, thus becoming antidemocratic.

Liberalism and democracy will ultimately part ways. We're experiencing it right now.

>>9135865
I feel that this comment deserves an addendum.

The public shaming of sex offenders is an inherently democratic act insofar as it excludes (read: eradicate) undesirables from democratic societ, thereby enforcing homogenity.

Liberalism of course is in this regard a problematic ideology as it aspires to include rather than exclude, thereby heterogenising the demos.

>>9135865
I'd argue the semantic meaning of "liberalism" has shifted in the US any way. There're the hallmarks of forgetting their own history and it's already perfectly useless to discuss left and right with an American because they inevitably believe "liberalism" must align with one of them and often invert the meanings of both. Both the candidates decried consensus politics in surreal fashion in the US: Clinton and her supporter's belief that people she called deplorable would vote for her, and Trump's bizarre attempts to decry the populism that brought him there in the first place.

Democracy itself was not liberal. It funneled private wealth into grand displays of public duty, and it did so by making it illegal or uncouth to display private wealth. When Diogenes spits in the man's face because he did not want to spit on his imported carpets, it would have been lauded as a democratic move. Status quo consensus politics work just as well then as in Soviet Russia where everyone knows something is off but they know everyone else knows too and they're not saying shit.

The yummy mummies who talk about raising their kids gender blind in the American fashion are one of the strongest demographics for Trump. This top down account of liberalism ignores there's always far more good Germans than bad and dead ones running through the forests, and it's never because the president is personally hunting them; the status quo consensus is never liberal because it's always by definition compromising or already homogeneous.

tl;dr- I think you want to look at your premises.

He wasn't banned you asshole, they're just not publishing him anymore. People don't like pedophiles shockingly this makes him likely not profitable.

File: warning.png (22KB, 540x397px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 540x397px

>>9135888
>>9135898

>>9135903
I cannot see anyone in his demographic who would baulk at rentboys or sugardaddies to be honest. That is a fictive lost sale.

>>9135905
Diogenes doesn't need viral marketing, and he wouldn't take royalties anyway.

>>9135906
Go ahead, start a publishing company and publish him yourself if you want, you could clean up and no one would stop you.

>>9135912
To be fair, anon, I think the dude who's editor at Breibart can handle that better than me. If I had a publishing company, I'd be getting sucked off by /lit/ non stop in exchange for getting anon first refusal.

>>9135898
You fail to understand that you and I are not in disagreement.

When I speak of liberalism I do not mean American liberalism but some very broad form of classical (social) liberalism on whose premise modern democracy is build. Liberalism in its broadest sense is some sort of social laissez-faire centrism that always seeks a compromise and never wants to exclude, lest it be deemed too radical.

Also note that I am not a classicist and am not interested in applying a classical defintion of democracy. My definition of democracy is inherently modern and based on the principles of the French Revolution and the idea of volonté générale

File: warning.png (22KB, 540x397px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 540x397px

>>9135931
If you want to discuss that then make a new thread about it, stop giving Milo free advertising.

>>9135913
>viral marketing on /lit/
For ten people or what?

>>9135931
French liberalism isn't that liberal at the time of the Revolution, anon. There were some very fringe supporters on the left, but Voltaire was liberal too and a monarchist. This is like trying to shoehorn Burke into being solely a conservative, and liberalism to therefore also be a conservative idea. It just doesn't fit.

>>9135933
They really should have stopped publishing him for reasons other than boipussi if they wanted /lit/ to go on ignoring him.
>>9135934
kek this. If it is a marketing scam, it's pretty retarded. They don't get paid for books /pol/ will pirate for us. We don't even have to get one guy to buy it and give us scans.

File: warning.png (22KB, 540x397px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 540x397px

>>9135952
They don't have to. They just want you to talk about him, trying to make a bigger "noise", especially on 4chan which has a significant demographic he's aiming at.

He or his marketers deliberately provoked the publisher into dropping him. More buzz, more google adsense sees, the more it gets bumped, the more clicks his articles get, more revenue, more public exposure.

Stop promoting him.

>>9135954
lol I'll talk about any book I like, anon, fuck you very much. You're not even claiming it's a badly written book, so I'm thinking you're more likely to be advertising than I am. You're like the living low paid incarnation of THE NOVEL THEY TRIED TO BAN stickers. Fuck off we're trying to have a symposium, only high paid educated whores allowed.

>>9135947
Again you fail to understand me. French liberalism is precisely the ideology due to which our political quandary arises. It integrates both modern liberal notions and totalitarian democratic ideals. These two ideologies will eventually part ways because the historical circumstances that gave way to their marriage have been overturned.

The sansculotte and the bourgeois were historically allies but today there is no common enemy of both.

File: warning.png (22KB, 540x397px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 540x397px

>>9135959
Then you're either a paid shill or you're being played by Milo like a little puppet.

>>9135961
I fail to see how it's a special quandary of our age or how the previous systems ever made good on the promise to unite liberal notions and democratic ideals for them to schism like you predict. They never were miscible and this idea that there's a coming split implies that such a split hasn't happened to every French republic since and Napoleon in between and before that back to the Greeks and since that everywhere else. You seem to be making out there is a special era, and some cohesion that was previously enjoyed by this mixture is about to collapse in ways unprecedented since the French Revolution, and that's just patently not true. It's presentism with a splash of interest in the French Revolution and nothing else before or since.

>>9135964
The thread's obviously moved on to boipussi, how much are you being paid to mention Milo when he is clearly long past twink status?

>>9135976
But the split already happened in history. It's visible in the rise of socialism in the 19th century and the failed radical democratic projects of fascism and soviet style communism in the 20th century.

I am not implying that this split is something unique to the 21st century, only that it is appearing again.

>>9136004
But what I'm wondering is how you think they adhere at all for any period for them to depart and why you are defining the status quo as liberal as a defining part of the split?

Even in Athenian democracy, or in deGaulle's France, the definition of citizen (such as around German purity, metropolitans only, or for the industrialists women's and worker's votes and rights) has changed, and changed because of the status quo consensus, and not away from it.
>status quo consensus politics (liberalism).
is not distinguishable from democracy at all really, and certainly not liberal.

It just makes no sense to have your premise be that
>these two things which are the same but I'm labelling one liberal are going to split apart and then one won't be liberal

I'm sure you're trying to discuss something, but I'm also afraid you don't know what your words mean or that you're playing Ms Malaprop.

>>9136032
Have you ever read Tocqueville or Tönnies?

>>9136103
Tocqueville yes, Tonnies no. Have you read Burke?

>>9135865
But in democracy at least in some sense, the minority must be protected (I suppose this is done by constitutional rights?) so that the majority cannot vote to eat the minority?

>>9135459
ah yes. ban them. better yet, burn them.
we need another good book burning.

File: 1487631964035.jpg (38KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 480x640px

> and then he compared Milo to Oscar Wilde, Andre gide, Ginsberg, and Goethe.

>milo's "literature"

Get off the board breitbart shill. Celebrity biographies are not literature

>>9136032
>status quo consensus politics (liberalism).
>is not distinguishable from democracy at all really, and certainly not liberal.
Is this implying the status quo consensus politics can never be conservative?

GO AWAY, MILO.

And, btw, I saw Allen Ginsberg speak just a few months before he died. He played the squeezebox and sang a song about his own asshole. Would you like to champion bleeding, worn out assholes as well? (Oh wait....)

>>9137112
posts maybe 100 more of these exact same posts, and then maybe you and we both will be proud of you.

we saw.. maybe sneaky viral marketing... we got it... there are conversations going on... continue doing gods work anon

>>9137112
>Celebrity biographies are not literature
>teleny
>if it die
>howl
>italian journey
wtf is wrong with you?

>>9137120
it seems to be saying the opposite m9, that it can't be liberal.

>>9137132
Should we star discussing the merits of katie price' s biography?
What about the life and times of Paris Hilton?

We have to have standards.

>>9137153
Your standards are probably retarded, and your panties are way too twisted about this for you to not want it gone for a different reason. I don't think it's good, but the people who want it gone worse than John Green are definitely not good allies, nor the threat of Milo being the only thread on /lit/ so large that it requires special attention over any other shit thread. The people who think these threads are the nadir of /lit/ and deserving of special attention are probably more cancer than Paris Hilton's biography tbph.

>>9136107
Yes. Burke is a liberal.

>>9137068
Not in idealised democracy because democracy is not predicated on the existence of parties. Protection of minorities is in its deepest sense a modern liberal value that is at odds with the totalitarian idea of the rule of a homogeneous demos

File: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMizxvlpQA4uzUkGl_KaYwTVP-qaI6B6JUdCr5l4zq2pPqxWs0.jpg (90KB, 715x1080px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 715x1080px

>>9137153
>>9137175
This one is fuckin great

>>9137248
He's a founder of modern conservatism too. The idea liberals side with the left in the French revolution doesn't square with Burke's split from Fox (who was also liberal but supported the French left). Sometimes liberals are conservatives and monarchists and even Empress of Russia; it's not something which democracy or the French left during the revolution have a firmer hold on that their opposition.

File: IMG_1832.jpg (29KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 460x276px

>>9135520
Stop reading Sartre

>>9135520
>sartre
>best writer in the last century

no

>>9137282
Burke is a liberal conservative to put it shortly.

But since you have read Tocqueville, you should be familiar with the concept of equality versus liberty. Equality (homogenisation) is an element of democracy, liberty (heterogenisation) is an element of liberalism. This is not very different from my reading of Schmitt.

>>9137310
And Burke said of the French left's attempt to combine the two was flawed because it had "undermined monarchy" and not achieved any liberty.

That's the problem in this whole subthread: you seem to think there was a time where democracy was wedded to liberty in anything other than propaganda. And coming again is a time when the two will diverge, though for seemingly no real reason than you live now. What you defined as liberty was status quo consensus, which is not heterogeneous; to form a consensus there is always either homogeneity (in which case asking the same question of any one in a thousand yields the same answer and you might as well ask one guy) or it becomes homogenized (in which case asking the same question of any one in a thousand will never yield the exact answer the averaged consensus came up with). There isn't anything heterogeneous about it if you are defining it as a consensus, so your first definition of liberal now contradicts your second.

>>9137367
defined as *liberalism
not liberty

File: sfp2.jpg (24KB, 410x159px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 410x159px

Daily reminder that the Marquess of Queensberry did nothing wrong

'But Fryer further claims, this time controversially, that Douglas told Gide he was looking forward to seducing Wilde's nine-year-old son, Cyril, as soon as he got the opportunity. It is not suggested that Wilde raised any objection to this sort of talk; nor does Fryer himself raise any objections. Unlike most of Wilde's friends, Douglas didn't have to pretend to be decadent, and most readers will sigh with relief that the relationship between Wilde and Douglas ended, however terrible the circumstances, before little Cyril could face the potential consequences of the latter's advances.'
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/just-wilde-about-the-boys-1263513.html
Uranians BTFO

>>9137367
Ah, now I get it. No, I do not insist that pure democracy (read: ochlocracy) has ever existed. The only thing I am maintaining is that there are certain parts of democracy that - if taken to their logical conclusion - would spell the end of liberalism as a hegemonic ideology.

The status quo consensus (my definition of modern liberalism, not of liberty itself!) in a liberal democracy is always a shaky multi-party compromise. Liberalism in itself is build on pluralism while democracy is build on the rejection of pluralism.

>>9137424
Daily reminder Queensberry rules are for losers.

Stop shilling for this worthless faggot

File: 84201s671.jpg (105KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1280x720px

>>9137430
t. triggered catamite

>>9137425
ochlocracy has existed. that's mob rule. there's probably one going on right now over a tv. wtf? you probably really mean democracy.

>democracy will end liberalism
yeah that never works. that's like "the dictatorship of the proletariat comes right before the end of history", or "jesus is coming back next easter".

>not of liberty itself!
I changed that here >>9137376 since I meant liberalism too.

>Liberalism in itself is build on pluralism
Not necessarily, and that "democracy is build on the rejection of pluralism" is just false. Most pluralists think it's the best system of forming a consensus. It's hard to find one that isn't pro-democratic, while one that's against wholly unrestrained speech or against using your fists to solve a problem if you feel like is easy to find. Liberals who believe in liberalism as a route to meritocracy or oligarchy aren't pluralists, so even contrasting democracy (read: ochlocracy) and polity (read: republicanism) like Aristotle does not imply liberal pluralism.

This is confirming my theory American English has lost the meaning of some words.

>>9137485
Wilde boxed better than Queensberry, who starts fights like girls in home room.

>>9135459
t. Milo
Go back to /pol/ where they will fight for you book.

>all these plebs unable to recognize that Milo is getting memed on in a totally hypcritical manner by the American pseudo-left while simultaneously not giving a shit because he's an objectively bad writer and not worth defending.
LMOA lrn2nuance scrubs

>>9137137
False, you read it wrong

The Status quo is liberal (thought crime, identity, shaming, everyone (many different types and styles of thought and life) are accepted and celebrated (unless your type/style of life, is to not accept and celebrate all others)

And this is Democracy: there are many people, they have differences; lets see where their similarities lie.

>>9137579
Are you a different anon or are you really clutching this hard at straws?

>>9137482
This x 9000.

>>>/pol/
>>>/r/teh_Donald

Saged for not /lit/ related

It's their company, they can publish what they want. A different publisher will probably publish it.

His book isn't banned, a company just cut ties with an individual. It's called the free market.

>>9137266
What I was asking is more extreme.

There is a minority of people in a population, 1%. The population is having a vote, 'what should we eat for dinner'; 99% votes that 1%.

Lets say the middle class is 70% of the population: the rich and the poor have to have some representation in government right?

>>9137367
You are implying that 1000 people could not be extremely radically different in every single way, entirely 'liberated' from "each others life style choices etc", but still consense to agreeing to 'this same law for example'.

>>9137500
The main, or only reason, people are weary of democracy, is the lack of trust in the competence of their fellow citizens intellect

File: o-CORBYN-SPANISH-LAUGHING-GUY-facebook.jpg (61KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 2000x1000px

> does he have to give back his $250000 advance.....or has spent it all on blow and child prostitutes

>>9137509
>Wilde boxed
That would be Arthur Cravan, dummy

>>9137500
>democracy will end liberalism
Okay, I don't need to argue with a hardass that is willfuly misinterpreting everything I say. Have fun believing whatever but the ideological problem persists. Liberal democracy is a contradiction and this contradiction will either collapse on itself or continue and by that continue to cause problems.

Modern populism is an attempt at resolving this contradiction through replacing the ruling ideology of liberalism (as defined by scholars such as Berlin and Rawls) with some sort of conservatism.

>>9137594
He's not me, though correct. Quit being a dipshit.

>>9137602
You're correct in asking because this is where democracy, if taken to its logical conclusion must fail. Democracy asserts that there is some sort of general will everybody has to adhere to. However there is no possible way to arrive at this general will as the people - the demos - will disagree on almost everything.

The only solution - as Schmitt would have it - is by arriving through politics (i.e. friend and foe distinction) at homogenisation. Whoever disagrees with me and my group is obviously apart of the demos and deserves to be destroyed in some way.

Pure democracy is tyranny by majority. Of course this is the opposite of liberalism, it is illiberal. Because of this reasoning, some libertarians like Hoppe have become advocates of monarchy.

>>9137687

>You're correct in asking because this is where democracy,

So this is kind of like, democracy is there was no majority?

Which the 'party politic system' attempts to prevent from happening if 1000000 parties formed, and votes were split like 1% 1% 1% .89% 1% for this for that for this for that against this against that.

It would be the opposite of United! states/peoples of America.

Which is already the case, if 51% believe this and 49% believe that:

You are just suggesting eventually the "hehe we disagree, but you 51% won the vote, so we must concede hehehe"

will, or should, turn into radicalism, ala succession? (ala brexit)

>>9137630
if they were all radically different in every single way, by definition they could not have a point on which they were not just similar, but uniform. you probably mean in many ways
>>9137656
that's the same reason the Stasi had so many unpaid informants, and why so many people in the original democracy of Athens accused their neighbours of stealing figs.
>>9137687
>Liberal democracy is a contradiction
So is liberal conservatism in many respects. The continuance of either has caused problems since forever, along with every other social system and system of government or law. Someone always gets fucked. Modern populism has a far broader history even in the US than what you're letting on. It could be said it was arguably worse under FDR before Berlin and Rawls. This cataclysm of yours which rivals the French Revolution isn't happening, not even because the US voted in Trump. That's just populist rhetoric which imagines itself and the consequences of its success or failure to be larger than itself. It's like believing Clinton would have brought in gay marriage if only he hadn't got caught with his cigar in an intern before his second term ran out. It's a pipe dream.

Your definitions have been consistently off on basic premises, so if you could work on that before names, it would help. (Berlin on positive and negative liberty would also help but that might take you a few hours)

>>9137670
Wilde boxed well. He fought off three guys who tried to fuck with him at Oxbridge and he was a tall motherfucker with a long swing.

>>9137424
Wilde wanted to be punished, that's why he didn't run off to Paris like every sane friend of his advised. He knew he was evil & wanted some sort of atonement.

>>9137914
>if they were all radically different in every single way, by definition they could not have a point on which they were not just similar, but uniform. you probably mean in many ways
Yes, I should have said "NEARLY" every way, but I suppose the weasly pedantry of your perceptive genius voids you of having to answer the question

File: 1487354017327m.jpg (99KB, 1024x570px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1024x570px

> getting fired from breitbart

File: 1485482689303.jpg (64KB, 500x619px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 500x619px

>>9135459
>"Time to meme the internet into thinking a bunch of people are pedophiles!"
Shouldn't you be on /pol/ or somewhere more gullible?

File: untitled (3).png (369KB, 600x536px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 600x536px

>>9138007
>Wilde wasn't an incestuous pedo

File: 231627.jpg (55KB, 600x445px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 600x445px

Just to clarify: Milo resigned from breitshart.....he wasn't fired.
it was 100% his choice with no imbalance of power or coercion. he'll even write about how empowered he was, after the fact.

File: 1487646011121.jpg (131KB, 1905x575px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1905x575px

I don't care about Milo, but that kind of dirty play is pathetic.

>>9138321
how dumb are you? literally believe a pol "screenshot". the date is photoshopped, genius.

>>9138453
Different timezones, "genius"?

>>9138453
The fact that you said "photoshopped" rather than inspect element tells me you know nothing about image manipulation

>>9138458
yeah, you're right.
still don't believe some poltard is an "inside man".

>>9135459
the others had talent

File: 280ec1.jpg (34KB, 620x400px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 620x400px

>>9138492
'If Shakespeare returned to the earth to-morrow, and if it were found that his favourite recreation was raping little girls in railway carriages, we should not tell him to go ahead with it on the ground that he might write another King Lear.'
http://www.orwell.ru/library/reviews/dali/english/e_dali

>>9138476
>still don't believe some poltard is an "inside man"
How much time have you spent lurking pol?
No one is (cosmically legally) allowed to shit on pol, unless they lurk in at least 100 (most important stipulation) GOOD threads. At which point, no one would be able to hate on pol. I could only guess the fear of such a fate would keep you from such a challenge.

You. Fucking. Idiot.

>>9135498
unsubtle