Why do I view the world so differently than those around me?

>as long as you're no older than 21
Remove this and you are based

Here's one more for you all
>99.9999% of people have nothing worth hearing and aren't even human in my eyes

>Redditor edgelord thinks he is unique

youtube.com/watch?v=Gd9OhYroLN0

>No arguments, just insults
You're just reinforcing my beliefs

Well OP, I can't tell you why you believe the things you do, seeing as I know nothing about you. I too share your anti-civ views, but the fact that you have to use a term like "midwit" (only midwits use the word midwit) to describe the dealings of other people shows to me that you want to feel some sense of otherness, and that you may well hold these views because you want to be unique. With time and more critical thought you will grow out of your edgy and reactionary nihilism, I believe on you OP.

>shows to me that you want to feel some sense of otherness, and that you may well hold these views because you want to be unique
Oh for fucks sake...

I specifically stated this was not the case. Stop making shit up to suit your agenda faggot.
>With time and more critical thought you will grow out of your edgy and reactionary nihilism
mmhmm, just a phase huh?

>I specifically stated this was not the case
Not him, but It doesn't matter what you say is true. Actions speak louder than words and you could even be doing it, as plenty do, subconsciously.
You also write like you're 17, which I hope you are, because if you're much older and still typing like this and still have such edgy thoughts, I fear it may not be a phase and you may actually have had a traumatic childhood and are in need of therapy before your resentment turns you (even more) crazed.

Listen OP, if you weren't such a self absorbed cunt, you'd have realized this is a literature board and you would have made a thread about a specific book or idea, not some "waahhh I'm so different" bullshit. Get over yourself. also, saged.

>Not him, but It doesn't matter what you say is true
Oh ok then.

I guess you're an aids ridden albino who sucks off sailors for a living then. What? I thought it didn't matter what you say is true?

All I'm hearing from you is that you're salty I dunked on you and you're butthurt I don't give a flying fuck about your pathetic existence
>Anything that upsets my delicate sensibilities is edgy and therefore not an honestly held belief, you're just doing it for attention
You're wrong, believe me or don't.

Do you legitimately see everything in black and white?

Are you going to be more specific or what?

nihilism
no one understands me lol :(

Sounds like the typical post-2010 non-religious Yea Forums user. Those are not even "your views", those are typical doomcore Yea Forums views.
A lot of them are just retard contrarianism too, for instance the bit about popularity, the reasoning isn't even logically sound, the conclusion is one of the most banal clichés on Yea Forums.
Read more and acquire views of our own.

TL;DR: You're basically a living meme, it's even embarassing. I wish I could convince myself people like you are extremely rare, but I suspect they aren't.

Keep crying, you're an insect to me

how old are you carapace daddy?

>You cannot hold views others have held in the past or else you're a meme
Keep walking retard

32

>I wish I could convince myself people like you are extremely rare
They honestly are, but I think because how much they stand out and how vocal they usually are makes them seem like they're way more common. At least I hope.

People are not adressing your views (you have barely stated any argument for them anyway), people are adressing your beliefs, stated in your OP, that your views are rare even on Yea Forums. But they aren't see .

You're obviously asking fo attention with that very thread. Contrary to others user itt I'm willing to assume your beliefs are sincere, but that doesn't really make things better.
See for instance this part:
>The more popular a work/author is, the more worthless that authors work is
>Why? Because you can't create or say anything truly important without alienating most people

The first part absolutely doesn't follow from the second. The logical consequence of the second part is that a work can't be really good if almost everyone likes it. That doesn't mean "the more your popular the more you suck" because that would imply a direct relationship between popularity and quality no matter the size of the readership.

To give you an example, it's one thing to say an author read by a billion persons must suck, it's another to claim a writer read by 1000 persons is always five or ten times worse than a writer read by 100 persons.

That you failed to understand this very simple consequence of your own beliefs show that you've not examined them with any real rigor. This, combined with the other belifs listed in your second post, really makes one suspect you're underread and not very thorough in your thinking.

Before you tell me that I'm mincing words, not I'm not, I'm stating a simple difference between two very different beliefs. And ignoring the importance of expression and choice of words is rarely a good sign anyway.

>All ethics shit
What are your views on time, space, and causality?

>What are your views on time, space, and causality?
I don't care, it has no tangible real world affect on me what I believe about it.

>that your views are rare even on Yea Forums. But they aren't
That's funny because 95% of the replies in this thread are calling me edgy, which implies they DON'T agree with me.

I said nothing about the past, I'm talking about the present, precisely 2010-2019 Yea Forums. The set of views in your post is not a single belief held by Kaczynski or whatever, it's a collection of beliefs scraped from various internet sources and presented in a particularly simplistic language (remember, being simplistic is not the same as being simple). And that particular collection points to a certain type of young semi-cultured male who spent too much time on the internet uncritically reading a scant few nihilistic or unconventional authors.

You don't seem to realize it, but you second post really read like one of those "doomer" images people make on this site.

It's not believing that violence is an inherent part of human nature (a rather robvious idea that has been repeated left and right for at least two centuries, and a view I personally agree with) that makes you a typical edgy 4channer, it's the conjunction of those 17 beliefs with making a thread on Yea Forums about how almost nobody agrees with you.

>You're obviously asking fo attention with that very thread
No more than anyone else who makes a thread on any topic on this board.
>The first part absolutely doesn't follow from the second.
Yes it does. If you're just repeating popular ideas, your work isn't important. If you're saying something new, most people will reject it and insult you for it. It's very simple. The best philosophers like Cioran and Schopenhauer are relatively obscure, the worst ones like Nietzsche are popular.

>Before you tell me that I'm mincing words, not I'm not, I'm stating a simple difference between two very different beliefs
You're nitpicking

Not necessarily, I agree with some of your views and it still find them edgy. Also your OP statement is bound to attract people who want to prove you wrong, this is Yea Forums after all.

But overall the things you described as your beliefs are ideas that are regularly discussed and shilled here.

See how often Kaczynski is discussed on Yea Forums (though we used to discuss him more). There used to be regular mention of Ligotti and Zappfe not so long ago. Your ideas on unequality of men and women, the immorality of having children, popular works being bad, morality being unreal and the universe being devoid of meaning are all regular Yea Forums talking points. Those are not so widespread as they used to be but they're still prevalent on Yea Forums.

Your ideas about violence and selfishness are a staple of philosophical discourse since at least 1900. Your idea about natural talent is basically a rehash of the idea that IQ cannot fundamentally be changed.

Reality the only belief you listed I wouldn't expect to see mentioned at least once a day on Yea Forums is your idea on marrying kids. Even then a lot of people here would agree with you if you raised the age from 12 to 14. A lot would also disagree but on Yea Forums people like to disagree with anything. Doesn't change that your beliefs are far from being very minoritary.

>The set of views in your post is not a single belief held by Kaczynski
I said he was right, I didn't say I worshipped the ground the walked on and agreed with everything he ever said and never held differing beliefs.

You asked what I believed and I told you, I don't care where you think I got them from. They're my beliefs and you can either accept that or go fuck yourself, I honestly don't care which.

>about how almost nobody agrees with you
And this thread is proof I'm right, 95% of the thread disagrees with me.

A handful of people make those threads, it doesn't mean most of Yea Forums agrees with them. Ever actually opened those threads? It's 90% people calling the OP edgy.

>No more than anyone else who makes a thread on any topic on this board.
The thread is specifically about your own views so you're inevitably directing attention to yourself.
This is perhaps not as cringy as "rate my bookshelf", but it is more attention-whoring than "what do you think of Joyce?".

>Yes it does.
It doesn't, read my analysis again.

> If you're just repeating popular ideas, your work isn't important.
Being popular doesn't mean repeating popular ideas. Becoming popular by spouting controversial ideas has been a common strategy for authors in the past 150 years. Baudelaire and Flaubert both became popular by being sentenced in court for immoral writing.

>most people will reject it and insult you for it
Most people means dozen of millions of people in any big Western country. This has no bearing on whether a barely read author is better or worse than a not so commonly read author. My whole point was about the importance of scale and you missed it completely.

>The best philosophers like Cioran and Schopenhauer are relatively obscure
My sides. Schopenhauer is pretty much a household among people who read, I hear jounalists namedrop Cioran from time to time in radio interviews with thousands of listeners. None of them is obscure, and Schopenhauer isn't even relatively or mildly obscure.

I'm correcting a retarded deduction. That's nitpicking only if you don't give a single fuck about logic or making sense. In which case why bother having beliefs? If OP can't express himself or reason properly he shouldn't be surprised people call him a retard. Judging from his posts itt he seems to be almost begging for it too.

God, society was a mistake and everything popular is bad. Everyone should selfishly do what they want and society should collapse.

Sent from my iPhone.

A handful of people make those answers too. And it's not about how many people hold those views, it's about how often they're shilled and how they weight on the common discourse here.

This thread doesn't proves much, you'd obtain a similar result in any thread that isn't very focused on a particular author or work. Yea Forums is inherently contrarian.

Also I already called you a retard several times itt and I still agree with about half your beliefs.

>And this thread is proof I'm right, 95% of the thread disagrees with me.
You aren't insinuating that, because no one agrees with you, you're correct, right? That's going even beyond contrarian into insanity.

>A handful of people make those answers too
Wrong. The threads get 60 people dropping by to say "edgy faggot" and then leaving, the user count is in the bottom right of the page.
>it's about how often they're shilled
By the same handful of people, what's your point exactly?
>and how they weight on the common discourse here.
A lot more than most other common beliefs actually. Take the christians, they get their share of detractors but their threads are still 90% pro religion.
>This thread doesn't proves much
It proves exactly what I said it did
>you'd obtain a similar result in any thread that isn't very focused on a particular author or work. Yea Forums is inherently contrarian
Wrong. If I made a thread with the exact opposite views I'd get replies of "based" and "doing gods work user".
>Also I already called you a retard several times itt and I still agree with about half your beliefs.
Which makes you the retard. You agree with me and you want to sit on the other side of the fence with the rest of them hurling insults.

Consider that your intelligence may not be above, but below average

>why is nobody like me?
>also 99% of people are not human to me
If that's your starting point, it's not difficult to find answers.

>primitivist is fucking retarded
wow

Attached: gnome child.jpg (229x220, 4K)

>The thread is specifically about your own views so you're inevitably directing attention to yourself.
Everyone who makes a thread does so to recieve validation for their views or to clarify something. If someone makes a thread saying "plato more like gayto" they want validation for hating plato.
>It doesn't, read my analysis again.
I read it, you're wrong.
>Being popular doesn't mean repeating popular ideas
That's exactly what it means. Nietzsche is eternally popular because he allows retards to believe "if I just try hard enough, I can do anything I set my mind to!". Nietzsche is an optimist in pessimists clothing.
>Becoming popular by spouting controversial ideas has been a common strategy for authors
Controversial in the governments eyes and polite conversation, never people's deeply held beliefs.
>My whole point was about the importance of scale and you missed it completely.
Scale isn't important though, the minutiae don't matter.
>among people who read
So 5% at best of any western nation.
>jounalists namedrop Cioran
So what. Journalists aren't even 1% of the country.
>radio interviews with thousands of listeners
Who have no idea who Cioran is.
>None of them is obscure
Here and to readers, in the general population they definitely are.
>I'm correcting a retarded deduction
You're nitpicking, we both agree the more popular a work is the less interesting things it says so just give up

>You aren't insinuating that, because no one agrees with you, you're correct, right?
About my claim in the OP, yes.

Consider that you're acting out because my post hurt your ego
Nice argument

Put your money where your mouth is and stop using the internet

You're a communist right?

Why do you have a job in a capitalist society? Put your money where your mouth is.

LOL

I don't know if this was meant to be an attempt at a joke or if you were being literal, but he's saying that you should be living the life you want to live. You're pining for a life where people do whatever they want because morality doesn't exist, which would mean you wouldn't be standing on top of a mountain formed of hundreds/thousands of years of human technology passed culturally for future generations, looking down at the death below and saying "god, i wish that were me".
If you really want to live a life that is ruled by the base desires of humans, not civilization, go somewhere that's far, far closer to that ideal, like africa.

> the user count is in the bottom right of the page
I stand corrected.
>By the same handful of people, what's your point exactly?
That views being shilled nonstop and defining the common discourse makes them not rare even if they're shilled by a minority.

> Take the christians, they get their share of detractors but their threads are still 90% pro religion.
I stopped engaging in religious threads long ago because they've become complete circlejerks. There used to be a lot of arguments against them, my guess would be that people got tired of trying to argue with insistant LARPers.

>Wrong. If I made a thread with the exact opposite views I'd get replies of "based" and "doing gods work user".
Do it then.

>Which makes you the retard.
No, calling out your retardedness doesn't make me a retard.

>You agree with me
Only with about half you said. But you've demonstrated many times itt that your mind has trouble accepting anything but extremes.
As for the half I actually agree with the way you express it makes me embarrassed. There is such a thing as finding yourself begrudgingly conceding a point to a retard. That doesn't mean the retard immdiately becomes intelligent. I'm not one to assume agreeing with me is always a proof of intelligence.

>It proves exactly what I said it did
Meh, at best it's evidence. You'd need a legit poll over all Yea Forums (a difficult thing to make I admit) to have a real idea of what people think. People calling others edgy retards is a feature of this place, some people do it without even reading the threads, it doesn't constitute a proper statement of belief.

But I'll take into account your objections and adjust my statement about the popularity of your belief:
The majority of regulars on Yea Forums may not agree with you (or not entirely, as is my case), but your views, in parts and also in whole, are pretty common in /lit's discussions and often accepted as basis of discourse (as the "default opinion" that has to be restated or refuted). They're also pretty emblematic of what Yea Forums was obsessed about until 2016 at least.

About a quarter of the beliefs your stated are common in philosophy (if not in normalfag discourse), another quarter is nearly ubiquitous on Yea Forums, yet another quarter is frequently shilled and frequently argued against, and only the last quarter is realyl something most Yea Forumsizens would really disagree with.
That summary is approximate, if you want a more detailed enumeration see .

>I said he was right, I didn't say I worshipped the ground the walked on
And? Nothing to do with my point. I was arguing against your implication that I called you a meme for believing 'things that people in the past believed' (for instance Kaczyinski that you named). I called you a meme because of the totality of your belief, not because a single one or even a handful of them.

>Everyone who makes a thread does so to recieve validation for their views or to clarify something.
And you're doing both. Are you agreeing with me here?

>That's exactly what it means.
No, reread the part where I mention Baudelaire and Flaubert. In some cases the ideas become popular only after someone defended them in a book.

> Nietzsche is eternally popular because he allows retards to believe "if I just try hard enough, I can do anything I set my mind to!"
That's not the only reason he's popular, in fact many people mistake him for a nihilist.

>never people's deeply held beliefs
That was certainly not the case with Flaubert, read on the Madame Bovary affair.

>Scale isn't important though, the minutiae don't matter.
Scale matter and only an idiot would call it minutiae. Scale of readership is literally the main difference between a popular work and a non popular one. You're very close to contradicting yourself.

>So 5% at best of any western nation.
Between 20% and 75% depending on how you define "people who read". This is also irrelevant to the point, the obscurity of an author is measured against that of other authors. You're claiming Nietzsche is popular and Schopenhauer is not, yet the people who read and admire Nietzsche are the same for read and admire Schopenhauer, whether they're 5% or 60%. Almost everyone who has read Nietzsche knows Schopenhauer is one of his first infuences.

>Who have no idea who Cioran is.
Not much less than they know who Nietzsche is.

>Here and to readers, in the general population they definitely are.
Same for Nietzsche. You could argue Cioran is a league below Nietzsche in terms of popularity (though he's still pretty well known). But Schopenhauer is certainly close.

>we both agree the more popular a work is the less interesting things it says
In don't agree. Some popular works are better than some obscure works (do you believe Les Miserables or Le Père Goriot are worse than Siege or the Turner Diaries or that manifesto by a trans asian guy that was shilled on Yea Forums last month?). Some very obscure works are not better that some merely not-well-known works (is Legacy of Totalitarianism in a Tundra better than Mallarmé's poetry?). Both those statements don't contradict "to be good you have to alienate most people", but they certainly contradict "the more popular the works, the worse it is".
I repeat, you haven't understood my criticism of your argument. Even putting aside scale your argument doesn't always get the comparison in the right order.

Well, if you are an actual negro and not just LARPing, you have a LOT of genetics to overcome, but if you are here on Yea Forums you are doubtless an outlier so that is something...

Oy vey! The Frankfort School has done its job with you, plain to see! Welcome to the world that the Jews have prepared for you, filthy goy!

So, you are Jewish, then?