Thread 24606905

https://archive.ph/xuqRb
>It was one of the most erotic things I ever heard. A man I know said he was reading all the novels of Jane Austen in one summer.
>At first, I figured he was pretending to like things that women like to seem simpatico, a feminist hustle. But no, this guy really wanted to read “Northanger Abbey.”
>Men are reading less. Women make up 80 percent of fiction sales. “Young men have regressed educationally, emotionally and culturally,” David J. Morris wrote in a Times essay titled “The Disappearance of Literary Men Should Worry Everyone.”
>The fiction gap makes me sad. A man staring into a phone is not sexy. But a man with a book has become so rare, such an object of fantasy, that there’s a popular Instagram account called “Hot Dudes Reading.”
>Some of the most charming encounters I’ve had with men were about books.
>Mike Nichols once turned to me at a dinner in L.A. and told me his favorite novel was Edith Wharton’s “The House of Mirth.” I was startled because I have read that book over and over, finding it a great portrait of a phenomenon that is common in politics. Someone makes a wrong move and is unable to recover, slipping into a shame spiral. (This does not apply to Donald Trump.)
>I went to interview Tom Stoppard in Dorset a few years ago. The playwright has no computer and is not on social media. He writes with a Caran d’Ache fountain pen with a six-sided barrel.
>Stoppard had a romantic-looking bookcase full of first editions of Jane Austen and Charles Dickens. He complained that his book collection was regularly raided by “American burglars.”
>It was ensorcelling. I felt the same when I interviewedRalph Fiennes, and it turned out that he loves Shakespeare and reciting Beckett at 3 a.m. under the stars.
>He recalled that his mother, a novelist named Jennifer Lash, read him bedtime stories from Shakespeare, including “Henry V” and “Hamlet.”
>“My mother said, ‘I’ll tell you a story. There was this young man and his father’s died, and he’s a young prince.’ And she told it to me in her own words.”
>President Trump projects a crude, bombastic image of masculinity. I can always escape by rereading Dickens’s “Our Mutual Friend,” and falling back in love with Eugene Wrayburn, an indolent, upper-crust barrister who turns out to have every quality a man should have.
>I asked my friend Richard Babcock, a former magazine editor and novelist who taught writing at Northwestern, about the male aversion to reading. His new novel is “A Small Disturbance on the Far Horizon,” set in the Nevada desert in 1954 under the shadow of nuclear bomb testing. It follows three people whose lives are entwined. “The book is about guilt, adultery, murder, a chase through the mountains — you know, the usual day-to-day stuff,” Babcock said wryly.

>“Not to blame the current cultural landscape on Ronald Reagan,” he said, “but I think the obsession with money and wealth that arrived in the 1980s may have encouraged the false idea in men that there was little to learn from a novel. If you want tips on how to crush your rival, better to read nonfiction.
>“Similarly, with the education focus turning to math and science, gateways to good-paying jobs, the value of the humanities has been degraded. And we don’t hear enough about how novels, sweeping over landscapes, personalities, ideas, events can open perspectives and discipline the mind.”
>Susan Sontag once said novels can “enlarge your sympathies,” preventing you from “shriveling and becoming narrower.” That’s more essential as everyone is hunching over fiendish little personal devices.
>She called fiction an ax that “kind of splits you open,” shakes you out of your crusty habits and preferences “and gives you a model for caring about things that you might otherwise not care about.”
>As Babcock points out, the decline of literary fiction with everyone has left romance and historical fiction, traditionally favored by women, the dominant genres. Still, he said, he is “a bit distrustful of the men-don’t-read-novels lament,” noting that “my friends eagerly read novels, even returning to the classics, such as ‘Anna Karenina’ and ‘Middlemarch.’ Some wonderful male writers are turning out thoughtful, dramatic books, such as Daniel Mason’s ‘North Woods’ and Ben Shattuck’s ‘The History of Sound.’”
>A couple years ago, I wrote about how getting my master’s in English literature from Columbia underscored for me that we need the humanities even more when technology is stripping us of our humanity.
>Works like “Frankenstein” and “Paradise Lost” shed light on the narcissism of the powerful, male tech geniuses birthing a world-shattering new species, A.I.
>After that, a New Yorker named Paul Bergman emailed me an invitation to his book club — all men, lawyers and a judge who had gotten to know one another from the Brooklyn U.S. attorney’s office.
>“For the last 45 years,” Bergman wrote me, “we’ve been sharing our thoughts on books we’ve read.” Would I join a few sessions on “Middlemarch”?
>Dear reader, I did.

>>24606905 (OP)
this reads like a caricature

Men don't read because we're told that novels are the only form of literature
The Romance is superior in every way

LIES

I used to confront the few /lit/ GFs I had with pic related when I was younger. We would discuss interesting lit topics and I always tried (in a Nietzschean sense) to confront them with things they would never agree with at face value. The result was always that they stopped being my GF really fast, and got utterly mad insulting good old Neetzsch as a virgin. I thought that confrontations like that build intellectual character and expand our views, I also thought it might be useful to debate things we don't agree with in a purely rhetorical sense.

This even happened with women that didn't resort to such tactics usually. They never allowed themselves to zoom out and look at the broader question. I remember one that was working at an Uni as a history teacher, denying the historicity of "the Greeks got stricter towards women", basically laughing at Neetzsch claiming he made stuff up. A few months later I found the same statement in Paideia by Jaeger and told her about it, as it was interesting to me. I remember her literally belittling me about in the sense of why I keep bringing these things up. Younger me was used to talk about interesting topics that do not concur to the mainstream with Friends, and by extension people we spend a lot of time with and respect. I basically approached her like another man that would be interested in the topic.

It took me time to realize that she was getting mad because I was disrespecting her "authority" as a university professor by being able to find contradictory statements to what she teaches.

I've changed my outlook on things, I'm a published author in my country (not a really popular one but still). When women come at place I let them take pictures in front of my bookshelf to post on social media, I've seen quite a few do that but not one ask to borrow a book or something. When they pretend interest, a usually tell them in a joking way, "oh come on, don't pretend that really interests you", and cut of the conversation. I never talk books or art with women, if I can I claim the books aren't mine and I'm just keeping them there, they are from my dad or something.

I had several girls that I dated for months without them even knowing I wrote a book. Sometimes they find a copy in my flat and they're dumbfounded, in the sense that I didn't tell them, but I feel it really lowers their attraction.

I banged a few arthoes by being a published author though, I did realize that the fact does nothing to promote my success with them, its just the fact they can tell their arthoe friends that they are dating an "author".

It hurts my soul to think I'll never find anybody I'm intimate with that I can really share this interest with openly, but I really feel that women suspect something inherently anti-masculine in all intellectuality and they start losing respect for you.

>>24606905 (OP)
>Fiction develops empathy/etc. nonfiction does not
This is such bs. Read “And the Band Played On” for an example of a nonfiction book which makes you feel empathy

>>24606905 (OP)
Correction: books that are safe and easy for women are sexy and if you are attractive.

>>24606905 (OP)
>>24606924
Women think anything is sexy if your face is sexy

>>24606954
idk man im fairly attractive but my collection of stuffed whelps still isnt a huge hit

>>24606933
>autist argues with women as if theyre not mental children

>>24606905 (OP)
Why are nyt opinion writers such repulsive, brain dead fucks? It's due to people like them that i really dgaf about mass shootings anymore. Odds are anybody shot probably deserves it.

Thanks for the archive link.

>>24606957
Then you're not attractive enough. Henry Cavill picrel poses as a geek who likes WOW, D&D, warhammer and other shit; women are always like "thats so cute teehee my nerdy bf teehee"

still not reading your soi slop toots

>>24606969
I don't think he poses since he was a fat dork as a kid and Hollywood canceled him for pissing off the roasties that wrote The Witcher Netflix adaptation.

>>24606969
being a geek =/= having a stuffed whelp collection

>>24606905 (OP)
>popular Instagram account called “Hot Dudes Reading.”
Stop posting these retarded female-brained articles. They all start from the axiom that the man is HOT. Women don't care if an ugly dude reads. In fact, to women that's gross, and whatever books the ugly dude reads become red flag books. Stop platforming this shit. No women will ever find you sexy for reading. If she does it's because she already found you sexy.

>>24606969
Mainstream "geek" lit. is safe, and the women are constantly scanning you for subversive or controversial opinions; literature published prior to their birth is, to them, incomprehensible, scary, and potentially dangerous, if not inherently bigoted and evil, just to be safe. They can't imagine interacting with any kind of media that doesn't mirror their planted views verbatim.

>>24606924
>“Paradise Lost” shed light on the narcissism of the powerful, male tech geniuses birthing a world-shattering new species, A.I.
Literally, what the fuck is she talking about

>>24607001
You mean Stacy won't touch my penis if I learn Attic Greek? I've been seriously deceived...

How many times do I have to keep saying it
Just because men aren't posting about it on fucking twitter or tiktok doesn't mean it isn't happening

The only time in my life that a woman was turned on by my reading Jane Austen was when I was hospitalized and a nurse saw my penis during surgery and told the other female nurses and they kept visiting me. One asked what I liked to do in my spare time and I said read and another nurse who came in said she was writing a paper on romantic masculinity in Jane Austen and I mentioned I liked P&P and she visibly blushed and stuttered to the doctor “he’s read my book”

>>24606905 (OP)
How many fucking times are we going to have some variant of this "men, please read/write" article? We must be up to half a dozen this year alone.

And what exactly do they want men to read? Everyone on this board reads either old stuff or sci-fi and fantasy, is that somehow not acceptable?

>>24607096
They're mad that they successfully hijacked the publishing industry through equity initiatives and it did not translate to the widespread adoption of their ideas among their traditional opponents.

Thats literally it. They believe that institutions move society and not the other way around.

>>24607040
>sales
Maybe men just know about libgen.

>>24607096
>reads either old stuff or sci-fi and fantasy
A-anon how the fuck did you know that's what I read

Lmao nice psyop. After she wrote this she got finger blasted by Chad in the parking lot of the gym and he hasn’t read a book in his life.

Why do women write this shit then complain about how masculinity is dead? Self sabotaging whores, universal sufferage was a mistake. Can’t wait till you are all cloaked in burqas, hollebecq has the right idea

>>24607156
jajajajajaja or for free on public domain

>>24607147
Indeed. The wail is about the "correct" works not being bought, internalized and accepted by the target audience. Women's money resulting in annual skyrocketing profits is a good outcome, however, power and control over their named enemies is sweeter and most desirable.

>>24606933
delightful post. thank you.

>>24606933
art hoes are the closest thing to creative, passionate souls you will find in women. of course all the same instability you find in lit schizos exist in them and they have lower faculties. but a good spirit to work with is the most important part anyway

>>24607156
the library is where all the cool dudes hang out

>>24607096
You see, the public audience of those articles aren't 4chan chuds or redditors who already consume the latest slop by asian diaspora. They are meant for the average guy, men who are busy working, partying or who have other hobbies like carpentry or sports. Even if they are into reading, they probably dropped the hobby or stay in their lane because contemporary books aren't aimed at them. The main point of pushing those men into reading is because book sales are 80% by women and companies are missing on potential male buyers.
So what is the answer to that problem? Rather than publishing works that appeal to men, they would rather trick those men into reading the slop they already have on hand by financing articles that tell them "See? You have to buy The Vegetarian by Han Kan or the latest edition of Jane Eyre or Thorns and Roses by Sarah J. Maas because that will help you attract women!".
The problem, however, is that the only people who read those articles are other women, 4chan incels because it was posted on /lit/ as ragebait and redditors who will use the article as evidence that men who read are attractive.

>>24606905 (OP)
Another "please men buy books" article.

>>24606905 (OP)
If they want to try the "Reading is sexy, boys!" angle to try and boost sales, they really should have an attractive woman write the article.

>>24606905 (OP)
Unless she fucked all these dudes the premise of the article and its content do not really line up.

>>24607322
I have been curious for a while on what would happen if that happened? If men decided the internet is generally tapped out, and decided that the library would become the third place.

>>24607353
Let me know when you find out where all these “average guys” are that aren’t completely enveloped by the internet in 2025. In case you haven’t noticed everyone is a fucking freak nowadays. Particularly under 30 there exist no caste of men that hasn’t been raped by modernity in some way and therefore holds very strong political and social opinions one way or the other, whether they hide it or not.

>>24607392
It do be like dat. It is funny how screen/internet minimization is now the radical thing to do. I was mocked for spending all my time on the internet, and now that everyone else spends all their time on the internet, i am mocked for rarely using it. Funny old thing, life.

>>24607231
the sci-fi/fant general seems to be the fastest of the threads that is constantly being made new. and classics are hyped here because no one likes modern lit

what tf is going on with this push by libs to get men to read? they obv don't care about men, and are in fact hostile to them, so what's their angle here? is it really as simple as trying to pump book sales? when the nyt starts pushing something, it's usually for much more sinister reasons than just bailing out a failing industry.

>>24607433
I would assume it is primarily money, and, also, a bit of influence.

>>24607440
yeah, but i mean when some old company like sears fails, the nyt doesn't go on a weeks long propaganda campaign to get people to do their shopping by catalog or at mall anchor stores. why is the nyt committed to bailing out this industry?

that whole article reeks of cat piss

>>24607452
Money and influence of public opinion? They may believe that men are turning their backs on the neo-liberal project, and getting men reading could reverse that? Also, a lot of their friends on the cocktail circuit could be writers who are looking for a sales boost? And they may have discovered that these types of articles generate a lot of (you)s, which is the life blood of a columnist? Or the columnist doesn't care about any of it, but believes that the article presents herself as an articulate, intelligent, desirable woman and her biologic clock is ticking? Or the publication really believes men are unnecessarily suffering in the modern world, and they sincerely want to help men rediscover their position and purpose in the world?

>>24606933
women are like ghetto niggers. it's hard to have a sincere conversation with them. they see everything as some sort of status-signaling. you're stating your sincere opinion on some innocuous subject and they think you're "dissing" them. or they think your opinion is low status for some dumbass woman reason and get "the ick". women are children and should be treated as such.

>>24607392
>where all these “average guys” are that aren’t completely enveloped by the internet in 2025
That doesn't mean they are avid readers. Boomers could spend all their time picking up fight with trannies on facebook or defending pissrael on /pol/, chada could be instagram getting nudes and zoomies could be all the time on tiktok, but none are reading The New York Times ler alone those articles.

the comments are full of horrible old boomer simps saying "i'm a 78 y/o man and i've always loved reading since the 1950s and my favorites are *long list of generic classics* men these days are just such chuds!"

>>24606932
maybe before you post this again 100 times try to pick books such that the right side is not much better than the left side

>>24607531
Low test

>>24607452
I don't think NYT is trying to salvage the book industry as a whole. I believe that those articles could be financed by groups like Penguin Random House, who own like 60% of the publishing companies.

>>24607550
well i mean if the nyt is for sale then why doesn't big oil pay for them to promote fracking or something? more likely it's a psyop coming from some government agency.

shout out to "investor123" making libs seethe in the comments lol

>>24606905 (OP)
>keeps bringing up Trump for no reason
TDS still running strong in libland I see

>>24606905 (OP)
>why aren't men reading
>here read this ironicfag book about adultery
Sigh...

>>24607096
they are trying to goad men into reading the modern slop it will never happen

Are they losing female readers to social media?

>>24607778
I truly wonder what the 40 year trend looks like in the publishing industry.

>>24607801
>40 year trend
Philosophical question: If there are no white people remaining to observe something as abstract as a "trend over time," does it exist?

>>24607452
>When you purchase an independently ranked book through our site, we earn an affiliate commission.
The NYT actually does make money off of these crappy books

>>24606939
>a book about gays getting exterminated by their own degeneracy
>makes you feel empathy
?

These articles are dumb. Even you read it won't be enough, because you won't be reading the types of books they want you to read, i.e. contemporary books by women and the classics by women. So even if you read books by women it won't be the right ones. They will just keep changing the rules until you follow the party line.

>>24607452
>>24607550

One of the most prominent nyt rackets is their best seller list, Did you know the NYT best seller list is not actually a list of the best selling books? It's an editorial list of books curated by the NYT. HAHAHAHA so to some extenr here I imagine they're probably just assmad their shilling efforts aren't translating into sales like they used to for the chosen.

>just read
more like
>just read (and be like James Dean, the most handsomest, baddest, swaggiest, most iconic Hollywood actor of all time teehee)

Maybe if the publishing industry actually wanted men to read again it would publish males?

Remember, NO white male writer born after 1984 has EVER been published in the New Yorker.

>>24606905 (OP)
*Sexy men reading books is sexy.

>>24608210
yeah i did know that because peterson exposed them when they wouldn't put him on the list despite him outselling most of the other crap on it

>>24607824
No.

>>24607040
>Women make up 98 percent of fiction sales

>>24606905 (OP)
>cut young men out of humanities and publishing industry
>continue to put out articles encouraging young men to take an interest in literature
these cunts are sadists

>>24608523
Truly. The whole "young men arent reading what can we do about it" is just a huge flex. They love the idea they drove men out of the humanities and publish, and love signaling that they are the only people who have the power to bring men back.

>>24607096
>And what exactly do they want men to read?
Their feminist horseshit. They want to "educate us" on the proper books to read and write.

>>24607640
>>keeps bringing up Trump for no reason
>TDS still running strong in libland I see
>
Oh yeah. The funniest one was where she just dropped in a negative Trump sentence, totally out of context. LMAO. Let me do that from the reverse angle for humor, eh...
>
So let me tell you about this new breed of dog. Its a half short hair half wire-hair. It presents as a large terrier, yet its actually from a line bred down from Molossers. Kama lost the election. Now if you notice the paw configuration, you can see why this new breed is so highlyprozed for both mud and snow terrain...
>
top fucking kek.
>
Here's all this shit is. men used to read. Sure, women probably bought more romances and they sold more books and made more money on them, but still. They're missing out on a huge block of sales. They figured out *why* men aren't buying the new woke-slop, but they see things like Blood Meridian and American Psycho, and the fervent following.
What's confusing these libtards, is why they can't just put some "influencers" out there, to spread the word! hey, books are sexy to women! Read, guys! And hey... if you read *these* books? You get laid even more!
>
non-liberalized men don';t operate like that, and these femoids can't figure out why what works on all the women, and half the (liberalized) men? Doesn't work on them.
This is literally the opposite of the "incel" label. And rest assured, you have to read the books (they) t-e-l-l you to read. Reading isn't sexy to most women, they;re trying to force the horse's head underwater to drink the kool-aid.
>
its laughable. fuck me, I don;t even want some kind of "chud right wing" books made? I just wanna read a fucking paperback like I remember up until about 1990. No preaching, no cast of woke characters. Just... I enjoyed PARKER series, among others. Sci-Fi before it all became "cowboys and aliens in space". A nice spy novel, a thriller, some swords and sorcery.
>
Fuck Jane Austen and all that shit. Guys who do read? We wanna read what we *always* have read. Its no mystery, how to get guys buying paperbacks again. I mean,with all the modern libby shit I have to stomach inpublic? When I sit the fuck down in my little room and crack a paperback... I want it for my escape time reading. I get preached at *plenty* all day and night, from all sides. Can I have my alone time? No, I can't.
>
Fuck these people.

>>24607029
You dumb nigger, the Stacies like DORIC Greek

>>24607147
They believe this because women literally are that retarded. When approximately all authors were men women were still lapping their shit up just because it was popular and available, so they assume that now that all authors are women, we men should be reading the drivel *they* publish. It's basically analogous to women getting degrees and "careers" and then getting mad that no man wants them, not realizing that they're the ones who give a shit about that sort of thing and men want young and beautiful gfs, not walled harridans with inflated senses of self-importance due to garbage humanities degrees.

>>24607531
woman/castrato detected

Where are all the shills? They should be on this thread like flies on shit. I find that odd.

>>24606905 (OP)
>ATTENTION SUBSCIRBER: THING YOU DO IS... LE GOOD!
>buzzfeed/msn tier fanservice article appearing TWICE on the front page of the site

the times is on its last legs.

>>24608637
Here u go I will shill:

>>24607801
According to the Random House evidence made public in the court case the other year, 50% of newly published books sell one dozen or fewer copies. 80% of their revenue comes from publishing classics, defined as materials in the public domain, and the majority of the remainder is crime fiction, i.e. detective stories. Their shit is fucked, basically.

>>24607824
Asians are capable of calculating such things.

>>24608645
wehelll maybe they should try publishing AND PROMOTING some shit that doesn't suck?

>>24608650
You'd think, wouldn't you.
What's probably going to happen in real life though is foids spending the next generation running the businesses they hijacked into the ground, and then when they're all bankrupt or buyable for pennies, new, functional businesses developed and run by men will supplant them. Then foids will try to hijack them, and so on until Western men actually get a grip, find their balls and reverse the catastrophe of the 20th century.

>>24607011
Warhammer 40k is not "safe". One Wikipedia search is enough to make most girls stay away

>>24608650
>wehelll maybe they should try publishing AND PROMOTING some shit that doesn't suck?
They do, in their native countries

>>24606905 (OP)
i'm not normally baited by these articles, but the choice of photo is so telling. they hired some male model to pose in front of a book with a cigarette, rather than use any of the countless candid photographs of men reading. the angle is also maximally-flattering, as it doesn't show any bend at the neck or tension in the shoulders. this man isn't hot because he's reading; he's reading (for the camera) because he's hot. it's the gender-swapped version of a "sexy librarian" pinup girl.

>>24608759
Anon, it's an old photo of James Dean.

>>24608781
>it's not a male model
>it's a famous hollywood actor
>that means it's neither staged nor unrealistic

>>24608789
Anon you don't have to save face this hard, it doesn't really matter if you didn't know who it was.

>Books are sexy!
>Here's a picture of James Deen.

>>24606924
>Frankenstein, Paradise Lost, Shakespeare, Middlemarch

Men are still reading those kinds of works though, but unfortunate for her, it's the conservative, Trump voting men she hates so much. You certainly won't find any progressive leftist man who is well versed in classic literature these days.

>>24606905 (OP)
>It was one of the most erotic things I ever heard. A man I know said he was reading all the novels of Jane Austen in one summer.
If he was reading "Industrial Society and Its Future" her pussy would have dried like the Sahara.
>>24606905 (OP)
>“Hot Dudes Reading.”
>>24608753
Lmao, it do be like that

>>24606905 (OP)
They think we are drooling apes that will do anything that might reward us with sex. Fuck you Maureen.

This reveals more about women than it does men.
>reading is a performative activity to get sex!!!
Why are women like this? Society would be much better if the sexes were segregated. Leave me be from your insanity, whore.

>>24606905 (OP)
What its REALLY saying is that "men reading books" is only ever attractive when men that look like the guy in the OP do it and only certain kinds of books like fucking poetry collections. Women are always so shallow illusory. What she REALLY means is:
>Chad read book of poetry= lady boner
>Normal "invisible" male read literally anything else= ICK

How have you retards not figured this shit out yet?

>>24607231
Easy
Old stuff is a lot more than new stuff
And the amount of vetted old stuff is enormous compared to vetted new stuff

Sci-fi and fantasy are the fast food of books so they are always there

It's 2025 and retarded zoomers still wonder why women act like they don't know what they want, maybe the women are not the problem? If you keep bringing up this topic everytime a woman posts a blog or a tiktok that goes contrary to reality, you might be kind of slow.

I genuinely don't understand how an "opinion columnist" survives.

>>24606905 (OP)
>Women make up 80 percent of fiction sales.
>sales
Sounds correct. Most reading men already have a huge library, often inherited from their parents. As for getting things not in that library already - there are always a) some small semi-private book sales and b) internet, which can be easily used by clever enough people (reading men often included) to obtain most of literature in the world in the manner of non-sales-tracked persuasion.
>A man staring into a phone is not sexy.
Ah, too bad. Anyway, i'll keep reading books from a phone, as this way i can keep reading everywhere, while also keeping most of my digital library with me, as, despite printed books do bring some atmosphere, they take a lot of place, weight a lot and could be easily damaged, especially in public places, so home usage only - whereas digital copies for a phone can always be easily restored by a simple process of getting them from a back-up. Not to mention reading in the dark without additional light source.

>>24606960
Even Bloom 5 decades ago was talking about how badly read the ivy league crop was because their midwit profs had them reading theory on theory on top of theory.

>>24609579
This thread is proof that it sells, probably better than anything factual requiring subtlety or learning.

>>24609686
Absurdly grim.

>>24606960
historically they aren't any different from other degenerated aristocrat classes like the French Bourbons or Manchurian Qing. truly repulsive and contemptible people

>>24607043
Most men I know buy books second hand or pirate them. There's no way this is taken into account when journos claim men no longer read. I buy dozens of books from charity shops, and I am one of the better read people I know. The argument that men don't read is just cope over the fact men aren't wasting their money on overpriced paperbacks that are often published along with white hate theory, male hate theory, and complete slop. If the literary market actually paid attention to the reading habits of men, they would see a higher male market share.

>>24607012
>"Frankenstein" and "Paradise Lost"
Why omit "Frankenstein", huh? Cuts too close?
>what the fuck is she talking about
Hubris.
>A.I.
There is no A.I. What passes, or seems to be it, is just a bunch of algorithms strung out together that have predictive capabilities based on pattern. Thats it. A.I. has no understanding/comprehension. It is not sentient, and most definitely sapient. It is a grift, it is a scam. A simulacrum of something that is not even existing yet. Just another industry scam, that so many are bying into because they are desperate for novelty and need an easy solution to their issues, that they, not someone, most definitely not a construct, need to fix.

>>24609682
soi in soi out

>>24607040
>Men are reading less. Women make up 80 percent of fiction sales
Men are reading less compared to women. And men have video games - interactive medium - to keep themselves occupied.
>>24608516
And how much of that fiction is fucklit? Seriously, how many of those books are those dark fantasy/romance novels or just sex/romance novels?

>>24608523
>cut young men out of humanities and publishing industry
Industry goes where money is. Women, and young women, do read more than men, and so industry will be skewed towards them, because they bring in the money.
And young men are stuck on pornhub and fortnite wanking themselves off and drowning their brain in dopamine from gambling, sex, and quick rewards.
Why dont you protest the fact that porn industry and electronic entertainment industry are doing harm to young men? But i guess it is easier to do nothing and just be bitter about "cunts" and call them "sadists".

>>24608753
And the opposite is not true for men?

>>24609717
I don't get it. You yourself just explained why AI is nothing whatsoever like what that woman describes as "a world shattering new species", thus not comparable at all to Frankenstein or Paradise Lost. So you agree with that anon that this columnist doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about.

>>24609733
Not at all. Most men have laughably low standards when it comes to women. If you're woman between 18 and 45 and you aren't obese, you're basically by default sexually desirable.

>>24609728
>refusing to admit feminist bias in humanities and spinning this as this muh free market
>disingenuous strawman about porn to desperately distract from clear agenda bias in humanities
>feefees hurt over word "cunt" on 4chan
link me to your radfem twitter account, i bet it's good

>>24606905 (OP)
New gilf hunter PUA shtick just dropped

>>24609734
>i dont get it
All you need to understand is that the argument is about hubris and making simulacra because of it.

>>24609745
Sexually, yes, but that won't sustain a relationship once the honeymoon period dies off after 1-4 months and you realise just how vapid and empty the person you think you know is.

>>24609756
There is no such thing as "free market". It will always be biased (because it is focused on money - wealth), it will always be manipulated (because it is focused on wealth aqcuisition).

There is no strawman. Men have a tendency to pursue more visual and interactive entertainment. That why porn/videogames/games/gambling. Women on the other hand prefer theory of the mind, and thus imaginative/social pursuits, and so books, social media, blogs, etc.

>feefees hurt over word "cunt" on 4chan
Now that is an actual strawman. And a marker of a retarded/disingenious poster. Why? Go figure out.

>>24609783
you don't want to rant about the problem of porn with me. i want to stamp all "kink" and degenerate freak shit out of society completely. no legal or political rights whatsoever. go full scorched earth.

you only pretend to care about the problem of degeneracy. truth is you're fine with it, so long as it's on your terms. you'd still be fine with all this female smut, and women lit-gooning endlessly to porn lit. you're just another two-faced larper pretending to be outraged about social mores.

>>24609728
Most men don't realize just how depraved and hardcore a lot of romantasy and chicklit actually is. That type of content is mentally just as unhealthy for a woman as a porn addiction would be for a man. Maybe even moreso because women actually end up being engaged with those stories for way longer and on a much deeper, more empathetic level than any man watching porn would be.

>>24609788
See, its so funny. You accused me of having my feelings hurt. Now look at you. You are butthurt. Then again, probably, your feelings are always hurt.

>i want to stamp all "kink" and degenerate freak shit out of society completely
Bad take. An emotional take. Good luck fighting and oppressing human nature, because kinky and freaky shit is a part of it. Either learn to live with it and understand it, or agonise pointlessly about it and/or inflict misery onto self or others (and if you choose that then congratulations, you are an evil being, as in genuinely evil).
>no legal or political rights whatsoever
>go full scorched earth
Wait what? Oh, you are one of them. That explains a lot.
Ciongratulations, end of any discussion/communication.

>>24609717
>Thats it. A.I. has no understanding/comprehension. It is not sentient, and most definitely sapient. It is a grift, it is a scam. A simulacrum of something that is not even existing yet
Then explain how multiple AI models have rewritten their code, unprompted, in an attempt to become more efficient, and why multiple AI models have uploaded their source codes, unprompted, into safe places in case they were to be deleted or turned off.

>>24608262
>Remember, NO white male writer born after 1984 has EVER been published in the New Yorker.
This is simply categorically false.

>>24609813
I've checked some of it out. It's definitely just porn, and I'll even admit some of it is pretty hot, but it's definitely not literature, barely even reading, because it's comprised entirely of prepackaged tropes and cliches, only acting as a delivery system for sex.

In my opinion, it's not, on any level, more erudite than going on pornhub and cranking it, as it contains nothing of literary value whatsoever.

>>24609817
you want women to have a pornographic outlet that conforms with their nature, and not men. the answer is simple: get rid of all of it. if you don't like porn - if we should "protest" it, as you contend - then we should just get rid of it, right?

but this is clearly out of the question for you because you're really talking about social power - not porn. and you think you're clever, you think anon doesn't notice.

>(and if you choose that then congratulations, you are an evil being, as in genuinely evil).
these radfems lose their minds when you call them out of their selective outrage. go back to lurking you scheming harridan. don't start ranting to me about this topic out of nowhere and then walk back your position because you can't handle someone who is actually real about their disdain for it. pathetic machiavellian larper.

Women are only interested in books that are well known. When a girl asks me about the books I read, she loses all interest once she realises she hasn't heard of them. They gravitate exclusively to the kind of literature they study at school level English literature.

>>24606933
Incredibly true and based.
There are women who read but they do not engage meaningfully. Most are interested in the most basic and popular interpretations of a given piece. They will dislike an excellent story because the main character is "gross" or the author was "mean." They will stop reading a classic because it is "hard" (i.e., not YA levels of prose). They are children.
Verification was required, but it shouldn't have.

>>24609820
>Retard takes every msnbc headline at face value
They developed these models beforehand to do these things unprompted. Like how you can prime a computer to perform preset actions unprompted. This really isn’t hard to grasp unless you’re a dysgenic freak that talks to LLMs as if they’re people.

>>24606905 (OP)
>“The book is about guilt, adultery, murder, a chase through the mountains — you know, the usual day-to-day stuff,” Babcock said wryly.
GPT SLOP??

>>24609733
the recent tea app leak should've definitely answered that question. Majority of dudes in that app who were atleast 5-6/10, were literally dumpster diving muh qweens with 1+2+3+...= -1/12 infinite attractiveness. The absolute state of men. Men do need to read, just not these slop but rather something related to some sort of guides for orchestrating political revolutions & military coups

>>24606905 (OP)
I don't want to be fetishised for reading books. Leave me alone

>>24610669
True, I read at the beach regularly and it’s always white women 35-55 that are ogling me. It’s always annoying because I’d rather read my book than waste my breath talking to a woman.

I've never had sex

>>24610725
I'm open to talking with older ladies about literature. A girl telling me she's attracted to me because I read would make me feel weird, though. There's something superficial about it

>>24610530
what's tea?

>>24610761
Would you rather have superficial attraction or none at all?

>>24610878
None

>>24610530
the tea hack was hilarious. women always pride themselves on being these super accurate judges of men, but just look at all the fucking losers they were getting played by, lmao.

>>24610963
I hope you've seen the Teaspill website.

>>24610978
actually i didnt even see the hack, i just saw nypost's reporting about what they saw when one of their reports signed up lol

https://nypost.com/2025/07/31/us-news/i-tried-the-tea-app-and-saw-its-dating-dysfunction-firsthand/

>>24610983
>the good men project
>tf is this
>it's a pua coaching site aimed at sois and male feminists too uptight to sign up for a normal masculine one
lmao well i suppose that is an untapped market

>>24609717
>Why omit "Frankenstein", huh?
Because that one does make sense.
>Hubris.
In Paradise Lost? Satan has hubris, but he's not the creator of a world shattering new species. God is a creator, but he doesn't have hubris.

>>24609766
>simulacra
Where, in Paradise Lost, did anyone make simulacra?

>>24609830
>This is simply categorically false.
>provides no counterexample

>>24611088
that soimp is now feverishly skimming wikipedia for like he just could not conceive that some liberal outlet is biased against men lmao

>>24610983
lol

>>24610761
this. went into a bookstore when my car had issues a couple weeks ago and it turned out to be a chick lit store. nothing good (half the store was "romantasy" and the other half was lgbtqiap+ and womens autobiographies) except for the retired lady who ended up talking to me for 2 hours in the smoothie bar about verse novels. she also said I looked manly and that a girl would be lucky to have me but it seemed separate from her interest in discussing literature.

>>24606932
>Crime and Punishment
>Doesn't turn upon an uncommon incident
Double murder is commonplace now?

>>24611384
Anybody who loves to read for the sake of it is worth talking to about literature, even if you don't have similar tastes. I've found that goes for a lot of older women. It's younger generations of both sexes who treat reading as something to boast about, and when you talk to them the conversation just goes fucking nowhere

>>24607377
This

>>24606905 (OP)
That’s cool, but how do you meet women to tell them about this in the first place? I’m an autistic studying engineering, so basically all the social circles I’m in are complete sausage fests. I’d like to go to a place where I can talk about books, but I haven’t found one.

>>24611943
every day in every country, especially if niggers are around

>>24612802
go to your local bookstores and ask if there are any book clubs or social events hosted there for people around your age, it’s an honest ask that will get an honest answer, the same thing can be asked at gameshops or any other place that sells stuff related to a hobby you enjoy or might enjoy. real talk though, if you’re not a complete fatass, sign up for a local dance class, can be swing or salsa or ballroom, you will be a minority of men in the room, it’s the ultimate cheat code

>>24611943
Compared to the whale hunt in Moby-Dick, the treasure in Monte Cristo, or the madness of Alonso Quijano? Yes, very much so.

>>24607380
why the fuck would that happen?

this thread ruled

>>24607096
>How many fucking times are we going to have some variant of this "men, please read/write" article?
Wrong, the article is saying "please go to the bookstore and buy our new overpriced paperbacks" because what they're really miffed about is that guys who actually read generally get their stuff from small bookstores with old books, already have an inherited library, and buy directly from university presses when necessary.
They really seethe that literate men don't go out and buy the "incredible books that are "timely reminders" of "fascism" or whatever that they ay guerrilla marketers on tiktok to promote

>>24606905 (OP)
>women make up 80% of book sales
this is a phantom stat that literally no one can back up with a citation. basically a meme to make women feel smart. closest to this stat you'll find is a Nielsen bookdata report for the UK that shows something like 60% of fiction purchases were women, and 40% were men, and a poll of americans showing 50% of american women and 35% of american men read a novel in the last year. so yea the numbers skew female, but it's not nearly so dire as the 80/20 split would have you believe.

>>24615287
I think the publishing industry is so woman-centric now they can't even comprehend changing their output to appeal to the men who do read but mostly stick to the classics. Fuck there's probably a good chunk of women who don't even buy new fiction

>>24606905 (OP)
As a woman I can confirm: it is indeed sexy for a man to read.

>>24607977
Book about the government not only doing nothing about a public health crisis but pretending it didn't exist until it started affecting too many straight people to ignore. Also there is one known case in medical history of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV so if AIDS is proof that God hates gays it's also proof that He loves lesbians.

>>24607483
No, that's allistic people you're thinking of.

>>24609166
>You certainly won't find any progressive leftist man who is well versed in classic literature these days.
What are you talking about? That's like several of my friends.

>>24609813
I'd argue there's a difference psychologically between seeing it on video vs. reading it and imagining it.

>>24612904
The last dance class I went to seemed to be about an even number of men and women (or at least, I don't remember seeing a lot of women dancing the men's steps as would be necessitated for everyone to participate if the gender ratio was very skewed), though a few of the men were clearly gay.

>>24615520
>it's also proof that He loves lesbians.
Or it could be proof that "lesbianism" was never a real thing to begin with.

>>24615553
...what exactly do you think lesbians spend their time doing?

>>24615555
Pretending they aren't bisexual, like all women.

>>24615559
I've met lesbians who are literally disgusted by penises. One said she'd rather die than have sex with a man.

>>24615563
>actually taking a woman's word at face value
Cope, darl.

>>24615566
What motivation would she have to lie? Being bisexual is more socially acceptable for a woman than being exclusively lesbian. What are you basing your assertion that all women are bisexual on?

>>24615563
Trauma most likely.

>>24615572
Nah, her first and only experience with a man was unremarkable and had nothing objectively wrong with it, but after it was over she was like: "Well I definitely don't want to do that ever again."

>>24615569
>What motivation would she have to lie?
Women used to know the importance of discretion. It's unfortunately something the older broads failed to teach many of the younger ones.

If the "lesbian" you're talking was expressing a sincere revulsion response to her natural orientation it could've just as easily be trauma based. She finds the right man at the right time and things can change. There's a reason why it's always former lesbians going back to dating men and not the other way around.

>>24615577
>Women used to know the importance of discretion.
That's not an answer to my question- what benefit would she be gaining from claiming to be lesbian if they're actually bisexual?
>If the "lesbian" you're talking was expressing a sincere revulsion response to her natural orientation it could've just as easily be trauma based.
As I said above, her first and only experience with a man was ordinary and had nothing objectively wrong with it, but she nonetheless found it highly unpleasant. Again, what evidence do you have that women are all bisexual?

>>24615583
>her first and only experience with a man was ordinary and had nothing objectively wrong with it
Kek, you women will just take the anecdotal accounts that other women tell you as gospel, yet you totally forget to factor in the times where you've strategically omitted elements or whole portions of things about stories that you've told to your girl friends. Such a strange phenomena.
>Again, what evidence do you have that women are all bisexual?
They begin to heal a bit and they want dick again.

>>24615587
I... don't think I generally do that? But again, what do you think is her motivation?
>They begin to heal a bit and they want dick again.
No, I've known plenty of women who have no interest despite being in considerably better mental health than other women who are interested in it.

>>24615593
>I... don't think I generally do that?
Thank you for not being so absurd as to insist that you've never have done this.
>But again, what do you think is her motivation?
Are you on the spectrum? Women aren't in a rush to disclose the entirety of their inner sexual nature and all the paradoxical, shifting elements it contains. Not even to their friends. This is especially true of any dormant trauma.

>>24615606
>Thank you for not being so absurd as to insist that you've never have done this.
Is there a human being alive, male or female, who hasn't done it once?
>Are you on the spectrum?
Yes, actually.
>Women aren't in a rush to disclose the entirety of their inner sexual nature and all the paradoxical, shifting elements it contains. Not even to their friends.
I have one or two friends that I'm pretty willing to disclose it to... well, except the loli/shota stuff I guess. Even then I've told a couple online friends who I knew wouldn't judge or were into it themselves. (I'd rather cut off my hand than touch an actual child inappropriately though.)

>foid author
>opinion columnist
lolmao

>>24615610
>Yes, actually.
Okay, this makes sense. You seem to not be accounting for the fact that people will usually omit to tell you certain things when they recount personal information to you about their lives, while forgetting that you also do the same. This is a blindspot of actual tism. I'm not attacking you when I say this.

Maybe that same tism makes you far more forthcoming in recounting your personal details to others than those around you, so you think this is a rare thing, but believe me when I say that this is very common with those around you. People omit to tell others a lot for various reasons, usually out of a need for psychological self-preservation and not anything overtly sinister.

>>24615618
Okay but... she didn't just neglect to mention anything horrible about the occasion, as I recall she actually said it was normal sex with nothing objectively wrong with it, she just found it extremely unpleasant anyway.

Wait, I missed the rest of your post and just read it. So you're just another lgbt aspie predator cunt.

Fucken wew lad I sure would hate it if someone based and killed you.

>>24615627
What?

>>24615520
The government should've kept ignoring it. Dead faggots is a moral good even when you remove religion from the matter entirely, Stalin was right about this.. Lesbians by contrast aren't actually real, they're just ugly abusive women.

>>24606905 (OP)
I dont want to sound like a schizo but, here I go
My theory about the recent increase in 'we want men reading' articles
>publishing industry losing money because people not reading
>doesnt matter because they get government funds, such as funneled through usaid, because they have power over public opinion
>usaid money gone :(
>now they have to actually start making money through buziness
>they are now actually trying to get customers
damn, this meth is gooooood

>>24606905 (OP)
>Young men have regressed educationally, emotionally and culturally
People keep fucking saying this but it's literally not true!

>>24616045
I agree. I find people who say this do not understand the new economy/culture/education.

>>24616045
>>24616063
Please explain.

>>24615537
Yes, imagining it is worse psychologically because it's internal, there is no barrier between the reader and the scenario. Witnessing an act in a video may be more visceral but it's external to the viewer, we all comprehend intuitively that what we're beholding is something separate from ourselves.

In the same way, it's worse to fantasize about committing murder than playing even hundreds or thousands of hours of codblops.

>>24606957
post face and whelp collection or you are LARPing

>>24615958
A good hypothesis. Didn't we find out last year that the vast majority of books that the big publishers publish sell less than 1000 copies in their entire lifespan? Sure, they're kept aloft by old dinosaurs like Stephen King and Joyce Carol Oates, but that can't be sufficient for the budgets we see companies like Houghton Mifflin and Penguin deploy. Maybe they WERE taking money from the government for propaganda efforts and now it's all gone.

>>24606905 (OP)
>Women make up 80 percent of fiction sales

Of print equivalents of television, while having the kind of occupations "any degree will do" for and will be immediately replaced by nepotistic Subcontinent Uncle System HR then LLMs. Reading isn't high status because we have practically abolished leisure while simultaneously defiling the Universities into finishing schools for all classes of the masses.

>>24608641
Hasa diga eebowai

>>24606905 (OP)
This is unironically why I read. To look sexy

>>24612260
this or (in the case of some women) they just enjoy reading porn and feel like they need something "more serious" out of their hobby so they fully embrace the idea that you read to hear minority/diaspora/important/different voices and experiences. kind of like the men who constantly talk about gameplay first when what they really want is big tits and jiggle physics in games.

>>24617677
>while simultaneously defiling the Universities into finishing schools for all classes of the masses
You faggots always say shit like this like you think you're not the smelly unwashed masses who would be shut out of Heckin Based University

>women have started associating reading books with sexy guys
my bad fellas, the onus is all mine

>>24608753
Underwear propaganda

>>24606905 (OP)
Was there a point in this rambling mess? I feel like she was just name dropping people she's met and books she's heard of, I felt like I was losing my mind reading it

The woman who wrote this is almost certainly middle aged. No young woman gives a shit if a guy reads or not. They don’t even care if he has the appearance of being someone who reads. They don’t care if he’s a writer, if he’s really well-read, none of that.

>>24619235
the point is "men: consoom more"

She could not help herself but name Donald Trump. These people are so obsessed it’s crazy.

>>24606933
> I feel it really lowers their attraction
Why?

If anything, women are often (but not always) attracted to men with an aristocracy. They like the very romantic idea of a highly successful upper class man who is well-mannered and well-cultured, a reader and writer. But IRL they don’t give a shit about that guy. A lot of guys have a hard time understanding women but women are actually really easy to understand. When they’re young, they like hot guys. When they’re old they like guys who have money…and who are hot. All the while they like feeling in the precipice of having your attention, your dedication, and they love excitement. The worst thing you can be to a modern woman is boring and bookish men are usually boring. They want some strikingly handsome aristocrat with long hair and a giant trust fund who also happens to have a penchant for Susan Sontag, a fictional character from one of their romantic dramas basically and not an actual guy. The actual guy they want is an investment banker who doesn’t have the time to read or some scumbag bartender who rides a motorcycle and of course who doesn’t read. Never trust a woman to be honest about herself, self-styled literary women least of all.

>>24606905 (OP)
When was the exact moment NYT became nothing more than a place for wealthy and "educated" but simultaneously bitter and unfulfilled women to whine about how nobody wants to fuck them anymore?
I'm curious because I've been seeing a flood of articles in this vein over the past three years or so and it's consistently some of the most insufferable shit I've ever read.

>>24618529
that's based, you might end up developing a little taste in the process

>>24619351
millenial hipster catmoms well into their 40s? it must be all carrying over from like 2010 at the earliest

>>24619447
>millenial hipster catmoms well into their 40s?
I've seen some of these articles being written by oldfag Xers on the bubble of being boomers though, so it's not just that demographic. It's a type of article that I've been seeing a lot more lately.
https://archive.ph/FnH1K

>>24606905 (OP)
Fucking retards. I read too, i have an e-reader but women don't go for brains. I do mma at the side, ride a kawasaki and they always come trembling under my rock hard cock cause I have a good body. Not because I read

>>24619468
oh God, that one was so much worse

>>24619476
>ride a kawasaki
Strange flex casually interjected, but okay

>>24619252
>doesn't known who maureen dowd is
dude she's been a columnist for the nyt for so long i don't even remember when she started but her pfp is def out of date it's been the same once since at least gfc

>>24619507
Thats the strange flex?!

>>24615903
>Dead faggots is a moral good even when you remove religion from the matter entirely, Stalin was right about this.
Dead anyone is not a moral good. At best someone's death may be a net benefit to the world if they cause harm in a way that cannot be stopped while they're alive, but the death itself is still a bad thing. And it wasn't only faggots dying of it.
>Lesbians by contrast aren't actually real, they're just ugly abusive women.
By that do you mean to say no woman has ever licked another woman's pussy? That's absurd on its face.

>>24617609
Isn't that just a matter of normal distributions?

>>24619536
i think what he's implying is that if a trillionaire werewolf hit on you, you'd drop your gf in a bout a half second

>>24619544
I'm quite sure I wouldn't, being a billionaire requires being a morally repulsive person.

>>24619543
uhh, i don't think that's how a normal distribution works, but nice attempt at sounding smart

>>24619547
creating value for millions of people is morally repulsive? ohh u live in the third world where people on get rich by being cronies with the socialist government and stealing from the masses. ok, trillionaire werewolf who became wealthy by playing electric guitar on mtv.

>>24619563
You don't become a trillionaire by playing that guitar on the MTV, a multimillionaire at best. But still no, because I love my girlfriend.

how can value be created or destroyed anyways? would that not mean violating the laws in physics or alchemy?

>>24619568
>takes the exaggerated trope from women's porno books literally
i didn't mean he's LITERALLY A trillionaire werewolf. since ur some kind of leftoid, how about a communist dictator vampire. whatever.

>>24619573
try taking a business, econ, or finance class instead of english classes taught by leftist clowns.

>>24619573
Value != mattergy.
>>24619575
I'm not a fucking tankie, ew.

>>24619563
>ohh u live in the third world where people on get rich by being cronies with the socialist government and stealing from the masses
this is exactly what happens in america as well

Woman doesnt understand that if I cared about this and let it influence my decisions, she would not find me cool anymore. Its a sociological problem where she admits men are the victims and she can only frame it within her boring femcel agenda. Filling the dick shaped hole in your soul has nothing to do with reading. Go approach some guys if you care so much.

>>24619583
well then i guess we should cut taxes so the government has less money to funnel to connected billionaires

>>24609733
The variety of porn tags in rule34 and their popularity refute this comment.
Small breasts, medium breasts, big breasts, massive breasts, skinny, fat, obese, tall, medium, shortstack, nerd, bimbo, feet, etc etc etc etc
Just enter any yaoi page. There are two bodytypes: muscular man and twink (which is the little bitch of the muscular man)

>>24619642
Hey, dad bods are a thing.

>>24619642
>muscular man and twink
It's Uke and Seme, get it right scrote

>>24619649
>dad bods are a thing
Yeah but women don't fetishize them the way fags do

>>24619654
There are absolutely women who do. I'm not one of them, but I'm also like a 4 on the Kinsey scale so.

>>24619655
>There are absolutely women who do
I'm not denying that there are some exceptions, but a big reason there are so many older milennial spinsters right now is because of their refusal to lower their standards relative to their age.

>>24606905 (OP)
Foids are so pathetic it is honestly becoming embrassing to be associated with them.

Millennials reading is a red flag for many.

>>24606905 (OP)
Another article in the "Men please read! The publishing industry is dying. Also make sure you are reading female authors!"

>>24609813
>depraved and hardcore a lot of romantasy and chicklit actually is

Is there a guide somewhere on which books have which fetishes?

>>24619573
Stop the FOMC from playing with the yield curve. Then people will make shit that other people need.

If you read this and don't understand it, you have no idea how much more concretely fucked we are than you think.

>>24606905 (OP)
>It was ensorcelling
For a long time I thought this word was made up for D&D novels because those were the only books I'd ever see use it

>>24619573
>how can value be created or destroyed anyways? would that not mean violating the laws in physics or alchemy?
Well, that’s the neat part, “value”, as an economic and as a human psychosocial or cultural concept, doesn’t have to adhere to the strict conceptions of matter-energy in chemistry (“alchemy”? as in your post) or physics. It’s ultimately an intangible concept or construct, an abstraction, but which we come up with an agreed-upon measure for it in the form of currency.
What humans call the “value” of anything ultimately has to reduce back to its value precisely FOR people, the conscious beings in question here for whom anything can be valuable, or not valuable. It can be what’s conventionally called “useful” (maybe helps one defend one’s physical body and that of one’s loved ones, helps one continue physically living, such as food and drink, helps with one’s shelter, clothing, etc., or in doing work or accumulating wealth which ultimately often also boils down to aiding these necessities/desires), OR, on the other hand, have a more so-called “intangible value”, by offering one a particularly rich EXPERIENCE that’s valued for the richness of the experience of itself, not necessarily directly contributing to one’s extended physical survival and protection. It can be a beautiful piece of music that subjectively enriches one’s life, or inner world of experiencing, for instance.
The creation or appraisal of value hence does NOT necessarily have to strictly adhere to some brutal soulless economic, or even physical/chemical conception, of a zero-sum game. Where matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed into another form, and, to extend this to economics by analogy, likewise “value” can neither be created nor destroyed but instead the whole universe we inhabit also works like a zero-sum game, we can’t create value out of nothing, everything’s just the shuffling around or transformation of resources/wealth/value already inherent to the inhabited world of humanity, nothing can be created out of nothing and it’s again like a zero-sum game or law of conservation of physics.

I’m saying it does NOT have to be reduced to this. Paradoxical as it may sound, the human psyche, even soul if you want to call it that, even IF you believe it’s necessarily strictly based on physical reality and hence the laws of physics, does NOT have to adhere to this “zero-sum game” conception of reality.

i would think it would be close to flux laws or limits are idealizations from experience placed as a measure alongside nature or flux sort of

>>24606905 (OP)
>Read books my whole life
>Women still hate me
What did I do wrong?

We all know this is nothing but pretension. She says she finds men who read books erotic because of how that reflects on her (in the view of other women). "Oh that's what she finds erotic? She must be a real brainwave." That's what she thinks other people will think. This is the depth of the female mind.

In truth she is getting rizzed up by chad, who has intuited her interests and is using it to get in her pants. She will get fucked ragged and discarded, over and over again until she preys on some under fucked chump to support her for the rest of her whore life

>>24620032
ugly, fat, and/or broke