What does /lit/ think of the fact that intellectuals are often

>>9984199
I doubt anyone cares about the way of communication. But they clearly have a moronic target group.

>>9984207
>they clearly have a moronic target group.
Who? Certainly not the people mentioned in the OP.

I have already completely my philosophy of life.
I have an IQ of 157.
I can paint like Leonardo DiCaprio.
I've critiqued at least 677 books on Goodreads, 1405 films on IMDb, and 3 albums on RYM.
"I am great, not because I am great, but because I am" - me

>>9984199
I'm seriously confused on what the picture is supposed to imply, if you paint in your free time but have internet connection you aren't an artist? If you write a critique on something but have internet access youre not a critic? If you write poetry but have internet access you're not a poet? So do all deep intellectuals in this world not have internet access? This just seems like something made by a bitter brainlet to ridicule anyone who actually has a genuine passion for something other than mindless passivity

File: 400x400_Herz_Smilie.gif (237KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 400x400px

>>9984254
be my bf

>>9984199
That image was unironically me (and still is to an extent). Fuck I'm lost

>>9984199
Calling things "pretentious" is very often a way of justifying your own mediocrity or lack of will to do things. You can dislike a person's work but at least admit that's your opinion and hell, at least the person is trying to create something, it's better than nothing.

>>9984199
Men, people probably said the same at the invention of the printing press

>>9984199
>2010s-era Nick Land
what? he's now just a shadow of his 1990s self