Faulkner, William

>attacked capitalism
>defended (or at least empathized with) Southern values
How do you reconcile this Yea Forums

Attached: 2559179_custom-659f8f8880c751f77c89da036fda48ae5ed24c7f-s1400.jpg (1400x1882, 602.37K)

I reconcile it by now boohooing every time some mustachioed southern faggot has an idea I don't like. There reconciled. Next we will look at Faulkners taxes for inconsistencies.

You realise the South has always been anti-capitalist? A lot of the rhetoric of the Confederacy was anti-capitalist in nature. Conservatives like Flannery O'Connor decried industrialisation and economic liberalism

Southern values were reactionary, i.e. anti-capitalist.

South had an agrarian based economy?

Op is a retard

I just finished go down moses and was surprised by how critical it was of capitalism
>sold him in egypt
>sold him to the pharaoh

Listen buddy Ron Paul has never attacked capitalism. He does look good in a stashe though he shoulda kept that.

Attached: Ronnie.jpg (1200x675, 45.62K)

That's because you can only think in two categories:

1.) Pro-capitalism, racist, fascist, evil, right-wing, religious, bigoted, homophobic.

2.) Collectivist, marxist, feminist, centralized, censorious, egalitarian, socialist.

It has always struck me how idiotic this is, because of how many things not fitting together at all that you have to put into the same boxes.
Yet, most people only seem to think in two categories. If you're against us, you must be with them. Because of thinking like that we have odd allegiances, such as that between SJWs, feminism, and Islam, evident from such weird neologisms such as "islamophobia". It's amazing how quickly that term had become mainstream, despite how nonsensical it is. A phobia for a religion? For what other religion do we have such a term? Christophobia? Buddhophobia? Baptistophobia?

I have always had contempt for reasoning like that. Those arguments always come in forms like these:

> If you are for X, how come you are against unrelated thing Y?
I think that binary thinking is especially prevalent in America, because they only have two major parties. They seem to have a hard time thinking in political categories of more than two.

Two is also the lowest number of categories you can have with which a simplistic tribalism is possible, of course. If you just had one category, one central party, as in China maybe, then you need to make up a new oppositional category, then it usually becomes "insiders, Chinese" vs. "outsiders, non-Chinese". Either way, the simplest way in which people can usually think, while retaining a category for an opponent, is two. It is the crudest way in which you can make sense of the world and therefor it's not surprising that it has become the lowest common denominator for the masses. Two. "If you are not A, surely you must be B?" Surely, those people opposing Antifa must be fascists, because if you oppose people who proclaim to be against fascists (group A), there cannot be a different explanation than you being for fascism (group B). Even their opponents, many times, adopt the same thinking and will accept the caricature of their opponents, themselves not being able to think in shades of more than two. That is why we have so many people who truly identify as "fascists" now, just because they think "Well, those people say they dislike fascists. I do not like them. Then, I should be a fascist!" And on and on it goes. You see it here, you see it everywhere.

If you dislike oranges, how come I saw you eat an apple yesterday?

I don't find Islamophobia to be nonsensical at all. Why do you think that? Unless the gist is that it lumps all Muslims as terrorists. People hate or are uncomfortable around Muslims due to their perceived threat.

Take your meds and learn to write concisely and clearly. This is a jumbled rant

The South was always superior in every way

I don't reconcile it because I don't care.

look here you yankee fuck, i catch you making more lowbrow faulkner bait threads and i break your god damn thumbs

This has absolutely nothing to do with Faulkner and the anti-capitalist themes in his writings.

Are you retarded?

It's not that weird, I have a friend who's a proud Southerner and a commie.

Better lowbrow Faulkner than no Faulkner?

Am German so I don't have to reconcile "this" and instead can simply bask in his illustrious writing :^)

> >50% obese
>25th percentile and below for all quality of life statistics
in what way are they superior again?

Now do it just for Southern whites

This intertwining of capitalist rightism and the South is a very recent development. Establishment parties left and right alike disavow the kind of cultural Southerner who flies the rebel flag. This isn't because they are dumb racists—they are no more or less dumb and/or racist than the average person of any political creed. They disavow them because the values of the south are just different. The lineage to the old Yoknapatawpha still exists, it's just that the hypercapitalist ruling party has overall disenfranchised it to the point where they're worse off economically than the average inner city nigger. And, guess what? By and large, they don't give a shit, because they are the salt of the earth. Never have been capitalists, by and large, never will be.

Based. You cannot be a true trad person if you are pro-capitalist.

The threat is real, it’s not phobia

You can’t have Islam without political Islam

the song remains the same. cope

Capitalism brought us wokism and the modern SJW cancer. Real trad people are against this.

kek

Bump

God I fucking love Faulkner

did he really defend southern values?

Capitalism doesn't exist. Economics will never be a science

What are Southern values?

What are other writers that embrace Southern values?

>1.) Pro-capitalism, racist, fascist, evil, right-wing, religious, bigoted, homophobic.
>2.) Collectivist, marxist, feminist, centralized, censorious, egalitarian, socialist.
Yes, because they're the natural resolutions if you want to have a coherent worldview. (1) is rational and realistic, (2) is irrational and idealistic.

What do you mean 'capitalism doesn't exist'? There's no places whose economy is based on private ownership of the means of production for profit?

No, your property can always be confiscated by the state.

What's rational or realistic about religion or homophobia? Among other things.

>homophobia
Not him but why did you pick this one?

>religion
Christianity is the soundest and most solid worldview due to more than a millennium of scholasticism and theology that enabled the most advanced metaphysics we know of.
>homophobia
Cognitive homophobia is rational because homosexuals worsen the prospects of a community due to social friction, not reproducing, and comorbid degeneracy manifested through overindulgence in unhealthy behaviors.

And that makes it not capitalism how? That applies in any system with a state.

Have you read a single word of his?

Capitalism is just a term marxists use for non-socialist systems.
Just ignore them.

Just two examples.
>Christianity is the soundest and most solid worldview due to more than a millennium of scholasticism and theology that enabled the most advanced metaphysics we know of.
Except for the part where there's no good evidence that it's actually true.
>Cognitive homophobia is rational because homosexuals worsen the prospects of a community due to social friction
What makes you think it's homosexuality that generates friction and not homophobic reactions to it? Why do I care if my neighbor is gay?
>not reproducing
So you're saying monasticism and priestly celibacy are harmful to society?
>and comorbid degeneracy manifested through overindulgence in unhealthy behaviors
I'm sure that has nothing at all to do with how our culture treats them.

Don't be ridiculous. You presuppose that fags cause social friction and are degenerate. That they do not reproduce could be seen as a benefit to the in-group that inherits their possessions.

There's nothing intrinsically rational or irrational about either of the two options proposed. There are plenty of consistent worldviews. It's a matter of axiom selection.

>Except for the part where there's no good evidence that it's actually true.
What's your metaphysics?
>What makes you think it's homosexuality that generates friction and not homophobic reactions to it?
I don't care, it's an instinctual response for many people, homosexuals are only about 1% of a population, and Christianity is against them too. Therefore, there is no point in welcoming them in society.

>What's your metaphysics?
That's not relevant. You can't make whatever you want be true about actual reality by changing how you define your axioms.
>I don't care, it's an instinctual response for many people, homosexuals are only about 1% of a population, and Christianity is against them too. Therefore, there is no point in welcoming them in society.
Well, there's the harm caused to them by discrimination and violence. There's the basic concept of human rights.

>What makes you think it's homosexuality that generates friction and not homophobic reactions to it? Why do I care if my neighbor is gay?
I understand you want a debate, but please stop trying to defend homosexuality. Stick with religion.

>You presuppose that fags cause social friction and are degenerate
It's well documented, no need to presuppose anything.

Why shouldn't I criticize all the things you're wrong about?

I'm not the one you are debating with, I just want to confirm that aversion to homosexuality is normal and healthy.

>That's not relevant.
Yes it is. You have to demonstrate there's more evidence or coherence for your proposed metaphysics than for Christianity in order to claim that "there's no good evidence" for Chrisianity. What's good evidence? What's the evidence for your metaphysics? Explain it.
>human rights.
Not a thing.

Not really, it causes a lot of needless suffering. Plus, even if you personally find something gross that doesn't mean you can't tolerate its mere existence.
>Yes it is. You have to demonstrate there's more evidence or coherence for your proposed metaphysics than for Christianity in order to claim that "there's no good evidence" for Chrisianity. What's good evidence? What's the evidence for your metaphysics? Explain it.
Most metaphysical questions are nonsense; there is nothing it would mean for the answer to them to be either "yes" or "no".
>Not a thing.
There's nothing it's unacceptable to do to a human being?

>Don't be ridiculous. You presuppose that fags cause social friction and are degenerate.
Hmmm

Attached: 1493417182558.jpg (3100x1855, 1.02M)

>Not really, it causes a lot of needless suffering
>needless
I disagree.
>even if you personally find something gross
It's more about protecting children

And there we go with the homophobic "all gays are child molesters" trope. Most gay men are attracted to, you know, adult men, just like most straight women are.

>trope
???

Attached: twodadsbetterthanone.jpg (960x468, 89.15K)

>28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners
how can you read a statistic like this and believe it?

The international homosexuality community is all about international sex and promoscuity.
Brave New World joked a man had sex with hundreds of partners in a span of a few years. It was seen as a joke, impossible by 1930s standards and yet here we are.

>Most metaphysical questions are nonsense; there is nothing it would mean for the answer to them to be either "yes" or "no".
If you have no understanding of metaphysics, you have nothing to base your epistemology on, so you no way to evaluate evidence.
>There's nothing it's unacceptable to do to a human being?
Do you think morality was invented when some bureaucrats drafted UDHR? You're obviously not very educated in anything, so I don't know why you're even having this discussion. You're a leftist, your worldview is based on your feelings, and you're probably a homosexual or friends with a homosexual, so you're defending it because of your feelings alone. There's nothing worthwhile to discuss you with, you have nothing of value to share.

>not understanding the difference between anecdotes and data
The notion of human rights does not start with the UDHR lmao.

You basic concept of human rights is the same as his acceptance of God. It's not derived from rational thought. It's axiomatic (baseless).

The harm caused to them by discrimination and violence could feasibly be less than the harm caused to the community that is forced to accept them against its will. It is similarly axiomatic to want to protect your in-group and its traditions and values, but at least its based in evolutionary psychology.

>it's a trope
>THAT'S JUST AN ANECDOTE THAT THOUSANDS OF GAY MEN UTILISED THE GAY LOVERS PEDOPHILE RING TO HAVE SEX WITH HUNDREDS OF BOYS BETWEEN SIX AND EIGHT
Oh fuck off.

God is derived from rational thought. What's your metaphysics?

It's what they reported, it says right there

God is not derived from rational thought. He is derived from faith. That's where you start from with any metaphysics.

Nobody's harmed by gay people just existing lmao.
Gay pedophiles should be punished. Socially tolerating non-pedo gays will not lead to more gay pedos. The pedos, straight or gay, were acting underground anyway.

>non-pedo gays
???

>God is not derived from rational thought. He is derived from faith
> That's where you start from with any metaphysics.
Both wrong.

There are men who are sexually interested in other adult men and not sexually interested in children.