/script>
What are some books that intellectually argue FOR hatred and contempt?
>>9159446
your parent's diaries desu
>>9159446
That is the ideal male body, if you disagree you're a moralistic closet gay.
My twisted world
Peter Sotos' entire body of work
Otto and Schoppy
Lacan's Ecrits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iagUmxfdj0E
>>9159446
Anything by Ezra Pound.
>>9159458
Still haven't read MTW, gonna go download it.
Love Peter Sotos, should go look for his writings and old magazines.
Existence already does a pretty good job of arguing for hatred and contempt so any writings addressing the idea would just be belabouring the point.
>>9159473
>belabouring
Think you're fuckin' smart, huh?
>>9159464
>Love Peter Sotos
Lighten up, Francis.
>>9159464
>Still haven't read MTW, gonna go download it.
120 pages of memes t b h
>>9159476
Not really, no. I'm just good at approximating intelligence well enough to make others think so.
I've always been a reader so I have a good vocabulary and can, intentionally not too clearly or plainly, express myself in such a way that at the very least conveys being educated, if not outright intelligent.
Or am I just missing a joke?
>>9159580
WE GET IT, YOU'RE A NEET. ITS OK.
>>9159580
The point is, there's no need to use complex language on lit unless it's more effective. You do it for the sake of seeming smart. This might make sense in real life, but not on an anonymous image board.
In addition, verbosity with no reason makes no sense in objective discussions in general. It's a lot better to convey your ideas in simple words. This gives access to a broader audience and makes discussion easier and more pleasant.
Also /lit/ hates purple prose at the moment, and therefore anything remotely verbose. But that's just a taste thing. So only half the mocking you receive is justified.
>>9159446
Nietzsche.
>I have some preconceived ideas about life but I am not smart enough to argue for them myself and I am not well read enough to know any writer who did.
These threads are so boring.