What's actually known for sure about his political positions besides that he voted for Reagan? What were his stances on things like abortion, homosexuality etc.? Was he really a conservative or was he just trying to be ironic by voting for Reagan?
>>7893089
New Sincerity is the policy of an emotional reactionary. Wallace spent most of his time eviscerating posturing and jaded young people hopped up on irony--in other words, leftists.
He was very tolerant of homophobia in his novel Infinite Jest. Most characters, even author stand-ins like Hal, casually use phrases like 'faggy' to refer to things they don't like. Homosexuals are portrayed as degenerates and objects of disgust. He refers to progressives as Hillary Clinton-supporting granola cruchers. He was extremely fond of his Midwestern upbringing, and his 9/11 essay for Rolling Stone betrays an appreciation for national pride and unity. He attended church regularly.
He would probably tell you that he was apolitical or possibly a moderate, and he certainly wasn't a card-carrying Republican, but I think he had an appreciation for conservative values even if he felt they couldn't always hold up.
This is nothing but speculation though, and mostly irrelevant to his work
He was probably a centre-leaning democrat. I read in a Vice obituary that he classed himself at one point as a member of the communist party of America and, if franzen is to be believed, he voted for Reagan because his neoliberal policies would hasten the downfall of capitalism in America.
In Up, Simba, while enchanted with McCain's personality, he wrote that his [1] jingoism and gun rights activism was kind of scary, and with regards to abortion, I think it was in a supposedly fun thing to do that he believed abortion to be morally wrong personally, but it was morally wrong also to restrict another person's access to abortion, so essentially he was pro-choice. He also demonstrated a kind of disgust with the identity politics burgeoning in the university system while he was at pomona, writing in the essay on wittgenstein he thought that seedy upper class business men would be delighted to see leftists fight over whether to call the poor "economically disadvantaged" or w/e and that it'd make being poor sound better and thus make people less sympathetic, and was even written up one time for basically sitting down and telling a kid "hey so it's not fair and totally sucks but to make it in academia you can't write like a nigger" [2]
By the time he got interviewed by that deutschland cunt, which i think was in '03 and his last public interview, he resigned from politics as they were too upsetting. He'd probably be a Jim Webb democrat if anything at this point, maybe he'd be interested in the alt right, and I think he'd probably be horrified at the level of censorship and hedonism demonstrated by the modern left, but we can only speculate.
[1] McCain's
[2] Obviously in different wordings
>>7893159
>and, if franzen is to be believed, he voted for Reagan because his neoliberal policies would hasten the downfall of capitalism in America.
That would make sense to me. I can imagine him as a socially but not as a fiscally conservative.
>>7893159
>and, if franzen is to be believed, he voted for Reagan because his neoliberal policies would hasten the downfall of capitalism in America.
I know that feel. The most frightening thing to imagine is not an awful presidency; the frightening thing is the slow decline, the endless succession of increasingly mediocre and snake-like centrists, the slow and sure degeneration of the national ideal, in which the progressives and the conservatives are complicit.
So I thought about voting for Trump. But then I thought—if Trump fails, it will be thought that eccentrics are unreliable, and the show will go on. Then I thought about voting for Hillary. But nobody learned from her husband's presidency—why would this be any different? What I never considered was voting for Bernie. I want a way of living that isn't brutal to the poor; I don't want capitalism. But if Bernie's particular brand of socialism doesn't work—and I am skeptical of many aspects of it—it will only make the capitalists bold when the next election comes.
What I want, what DFW wanted, was some Nero to elect; some prodigious and monstrous presidency which might shock the people into thought. Republicans want Obama to be a monster (he isn't); Democrats wanted Bush to be a monster (he wasn't); but neither was the president we wanted, and all of us want a change.
>>7893208
>I'm a leftist
There, I saved everybody the trouble reading this boring post
>>7893089
Hard to classify on the left-right spectrum of US politics. Between Infinite Jest and Bog Red Son, he was clearly disgusted and deeply saddened by the excesses of modern capitalism, yet from more of a traditionally moral standpoint than the usual leftist dislike of power inequality. If he were alive today, he would likely be drawn to both Bernie Sanders and the alt-right, as both are critics of the immorality of Late Stage Capitalism.
>>7893294
Bernie isn't a critique of anything. He's a symptom. But I don't think DFW was veryssophisticated in politics. And as a white beta idealist I think he'd vote for him.
>>7893247
would it confuse you if I said I'm against gay marriage, abortion, and divorce? or if I said I don't like socialism and I have much sympathy with the political opinions of Milton Friedman (though ultimately I don't agree with him)? I also don't think standardized state-funded schooling is a good idea, and I don't like Bernie's views on college tuition.
I'm something of a democrat (but not a Democrat); I have more sympathy with monarchy than with Communism, and I like neither capitalism nor socialism. I'm a nationalist and far from an anarchist.
My political view is, I admit, a jumble of opinions which don't always fit together. An unsorted heap of bigotries, anxieties, patriotic half-thoughts; I cannot now resolve them into something coherent and unified. Call me an idiot and I won't argue with you; but don't call me a leftist.
Make Me Moiste Daffyd Foster Wallace Posts
He Was One Man
>>7893314
Most people's political views are like that.
>>7893310
Ah, unlike you?
>>7893335
Yep. I'm a white alpha realist.
>>7893330
of course. and most people are more sane and more intelligent than we realize. my point is only that it is rarely useful to dismiss anybody (including myself) as a "leftist", just as it is rarely useful to dismiss somebody as "right-wing".
>>7893368
I hate this post a lot
>>7893314
I'll call you a pompous douche you pompous douche, how's that.
I would guess that he was charmed by McCain, at least versus Bush, by his coverage in 'Up, Simba' but he did a profile of a conservative talk show host here in LA, John Ziegler (at the time on KFI in the evenings) that evinced his disagreement with the message, as I recall. At least enough that Ziegler was still bruised enough to say some bitchy things after DFW's death.
>>7893294
Obviously he'd vote for whoever wasn't Clinton because Dave hated women. Franzen remembers a conversation where Dave asked him "What do you call a woman being pushed out of a moving car?" Franzen said he didn't know, and Dave grinned and said "A good start" and got mad when Franzen didn't laugh.
>>7893448
Based Davey
>>7893208
>What I want, what DFW wanted, was some Nero to elect; some prodigious and monstrous presidency which might shock the people into thought
I'll respond with greentext instead of a proper argument:
>voting someone who might shock the people into thought and system into change into office
>by the means of an election
>implying that the only candidates in an election aren't going to be fundamentally pretty much the same kind of people
>implying that someone who challenges people's opinions and views (shocking them into thought) would get any votes from anyone.
Seriously, that's stupid. The voting system in place is a mean of maintaining the status quo, real change is the last thing that would come out of it, no matter who it elects as the figurehead for the next 4/8 years.
>>7893159
>would hasten the downfall of capitalism
Is that even possible? I don't think it's a thing you can fight with itself. It won't be rendered absurd or powerless through its excess, it will only mutate into another, probably even more terrible form of itself.
>>7894549
jesus, this is "heightening the contradictions", standard marxist-leninist shit
go read
>>7894562
Why are you so hostile? I just asked a question.
>>7893159
>McCain's gun rights activism
>>7893089
All Americans are communists
>>7893448
franzen is the perfect straight man to wacky dave's antics lol
>>7894948
and i answered it, and with a tinge of exasperation to show that you should have known this and hopefully inspire you to internalize that knowledge for next time, read a wiki, whatever
>>7893153
The irony is that he was posturing harder than anyone else. I'd say irony won.
>>7893153
>betrays an appreciation for national pride and unity
It's amusing to me that not hating your own culture is seen as a black mark against your Leftism
>>7893159
>with regards to abortion, I think it was in a supposedly fun thing to do that he believed abortion to be morally wrong personally, but it was morally wrong also to restrict another person's access to abortion
Possibly the most retarded of all the posititons available. I'd expect nothing less from the meme bandana man.
>>7895136
But you talk as if its proven, assumed knowledge. It's not, it's just crackpot marxist theory.
So to go back to the original question, is it even possible to hasten the downfall of capitalism by supporting poor leaders? Personally I highly doubt it.
We're all hopped up on advertising and social media and nobody - least of all 'the people' at large - has the will to effect change. Politicians come and go but capitalism isn't going anywhere through democratic means until we all start caring more about societal injustice and structural flaws than about our own short term comfort. That's never going to happen, and this isn't some 'wake up sheeple' rant, this is just acknowledgement: people's minds don't work that way. It takes a visionary or a psychopath to care more about ideals than about their own wants and needs, and advertising has spend the last hundred years comprehensively reinventing our wants and needs for capitalism's advantage.
Imposition of some radical other order is the only way that our society is going to change very much - coup d'etat, foreign invasion or some overwhelming environmental crisis. All of those sound like pretty shit options to me - I guess I'd rather just keep buying shit I don't need and ignoring homeless people.
>>7895296
>is it even possible to hasten the downfall of capitalism by supporting poor leaders?
This isn't all of what accelerationism entails.
>>7895319
But it's what we were talking about, it's not my problem if the reference to accelerationism was misplaced.
Really can't wrap my head how somebody could reasonably be against gay marriage besides wanting to impress their manly badass friends.
>>7895365
it's basically >muh traditions
loss of > muh traditions = downfall of civibibleation
>>7895390
The joining of two individuals regardless of gender is essentially the same as the joining of the man and woman, unless you want to muck it up with prescribed gender roles.
>>7895365
procreative units are inherently future-oriented and should be privileged
>>7895394
What a stupid reason. We don't have any practical reason to procreate and pass on genes. And marriage is a completely separate issue from that.
>>7895397
>practical
>marriage separate from the raising of children
don't bitch about those of us building the world while you masturbate. you are a sidewalk-dwelling homeless man to us, except you are far more responsible for your predicament -- you expect esteem. you will receive only pity, inversely correlated to how swollen your head is
>>7895393
I'm gay but two men fucking doesn't produce babies. Maybe you missed that biology lesson. They don't join as one flesh because there is no external product of their union you dumb fuck.
Gay marriage is absolutely an abomination and the discursive consequence of seperating marriage from the concept of procreation will have disasterous consequences on illegitimacy rates and birth rates.
>>7895393
But it takes a man and a wife to make a child, which is what the ritual means: a community bringing together two members to make new life which will be cared for and recognised.
Rituals are communications with the past. We lend our bodies to their prescribed actions and words, and through them we give voice to the dead--our response to the past is in our understanding which, as it were, sees the past through its own eyes. To change a ritual is to replace the matter of the past with yourself, which is to communicate with yourself, which begs the question of why the ritual is needed at all--if you want understand yourself you only need to think.
I'm not arguing against spending your life with someone of the same sex, or even against legal unions, just that there is value in ritual, and to change it is to put yourself above it, which is to engage in meaningless actions.
>>7895394
>married hetero man wants kids, but is impotent
>gay man donates semen
?
>>7893159
>was even written up one time for basically sitting down and telling a kid "hey so it's not fair and totally sucks but to make it in academia you can't write like a nigger"
everything I hear about this guy makes me like him more
>>7895416
this does not permit the heterosexual man to have children
>>7895416
>donating semen creates children
?
>>7895416
Married men shouldn't "want" kids. That's the problem right there. They should be open to procreation and should enter into the union with hope for settled Christian family life. Children should emerge from the relationship through the regular performance of marital fides in the bedroom.
To "want" a child and then to pursue technological means to that end, or purchase sperm with which to artificially inseminate your wife, is to reduce your human offspring to an end to which your desire points. It is repulsive.
>>7895413
For fuck's sake, we're all ready facing overpopulation. Would a few more faggots shacking up here and there really be that bad of a thing? And you haven't considered that surrogacy is becoming an increasingly viable option for same-sex couples. You'd have to be crazy in believing that encouraging same-sex relationships would result in a birth-rate fall substantial enough to bring upon the end of civilisation. Homosexuals don't 'convert' either, so according to your philosophy, they'll be taking up space regardless.
I seriously could not give less of a shit anymore about gay marriage. It's still illegal here in Australia, and I only support it in the sense that I can't fucking believe we still have to have a discussion like this when we've got untended refugees coming in left and right, a multi-billion dollar debt, and a government that is actively trying to create a mining industry boom only months after the Paris conference. Such a comparatively inconsequential issue has somehow become the most important weapon in a power-hungry politician's arsenal. It taps into sentiment as opposed to logic.
>>7895676
>we're all ready facing overpopulation
No we're not.
>>7893153
He flunked out of Catholicism
>>7893159
Why should AAVE be discouraged in academia? It's no less legitimate than either standard conversational English or the obscuranting language used by most humanities scholars.
The use of a widespread dialect doesn't exclude any more potential readers than the use of unnecessarily academic language.
>>7893159
>"hey so it's not fair and totally sucks but to make it in academia you can't write like a nigger"
Did he really?
>>7895947
He didn't say nigger, come on. But I do remember that incident in whatever thing I read.
>>7895413
You're a retarded faggot. Marriage and child-rearing are two completely separate issues. You may have noticed, that is, if you had any reading comprehension at all, I didn't even mention children at all.
And if you seriously think birth rates will plummet because gays can be married you are so hopelessly deluded and stupid you should be euthanized.
i havent looked at /lit/ in several years and you guys are still really, really dumb. i honestly hope that this board is just repopulated every year with a fresh crop of 17 year olds who move onto greener pastures after a few months. i really hope its not the same batch of dullards posting here year in year out, because it would mean you havent improved or grown at all.
david foster wallace is a left of center liberal/social democrat who has grievances with bourgeois individualism and the attendant alienation of late capitalist consumer society. his politics permeate his work, you don't need to find quotes from interviews about what he thinks of Reagan or whatever to find out. he spells this out explicitly in his work.
>>7896155
i mean he literally has one character go on like a ten page rant against what he specifically terms liberal individualism in The Pale King, you people are hopeless.
>>7895676
>For fuck's sake, we're all ready facing overpopulation.
Who is this "we"? I don't live in the third world, so once the people of my nation get enough sense to close our borders we absolutely will not be facing overpopulation. Those in the third world who cannot control themselves can die in Malthusian corrections for all I care.
>Would a few more faggots shacking up here and there really be that bad of a thing?
Opening marriage to unions that are necessarily non-procreative changes its meaning and this change will have undesirable consequences - and, importantly, will have no benefit since the concept of gay marriage is absurd and creating it benefits nobody in reality (only in warped minds).
>And you haven't considered that surrogacy is becoming an increasingly viable option for same-sex couples.
It isn't viable in ethical terms. Homosexuals should not be raising children.
>You'd have to be crazy in believing that encouraging same-sex relationships would result in a birth-rate fall substantial enough to bring upon the end of civilisation. Homosexuals don't 'convert' either, so according to your philosophy, they'll be taking up space regardless.
I said no such thing so your comment is irrelevant. Legalising same-sex marriage removes the discursive link between matrimony and procreation. Procreation will no longer be promoted by the central institution of our society and what procreating happens will take place in dangerously unrooted and fluid cohabitations, increasing the chances of single parenthood and all of the effects of that (increase crime rates, lower cultural capital etc.)
>>7896092
>Marriage and child-rearing are two completely separate issues.
No they aren't.
He used the term spic in IJ, and he hurt my feelings. Boo-hoo
I cared not if it was one of the many voices he used when narrating. I hate him. I want to make a meme out of him and be ironic about it too.
>>7893089
nah
>>7895415
You make your point very persuasively, but I think the question remains: Why does the coming together of two members of a community to make new life etc. have to involve two people of opposite sex?
Rituals always have changed over time, and considering the rate of change in the last hundred years or so, why shouldn't there be any alteration in who can take part in the ceremony, or what roles are available, to reflect our recent history? That doesn't mean cutting ourselves off from the past so long as there is some continuity of meaning.
It's not simply talking to ourselves. I can't help thinking of all the late-nineteenth/early-twentieth century sadboys who must have dreamed of being able to publically declare their love.
>>7896305
>can die in Malthusian corrections for all I care
Right, Malthusian corrections. Those wouldn't affect you in the slightest, so long as you closed your borders, right? You can just tend your little garden.
>>7896460
I haven't been effected by African famines so far and I always hear they are going on.
>>7896438
>Why does the coming together of two members of a community to make new life etc. have to involve two people of opposite sex?
Biology. Go back to community college and take a class, bro.
>>7893089
To get a good grasp on his intellectual and political beliefs, head to your nearest mens league softball game and eavesdrop.
>>7895365
You need to be religious or incredibly autistic
>>7895394
same sex couples tend to adopt children
>>7896785
You need to not be a limp-wristed bien pensant
>>7896794
It's amazing how often liberals post that ridiculous Rothbard meme about a free market in children and then advocate just that to satisfy the sick wants of homosexuals.
>>7895394
>procreative units are inherently future-oriented
Yeah, they're oriented toward a future of misery and depravity.
We need zero population growth, folks. It's simple math.
>>7893159
>DFW was an accelerationist
>>7896305
>Who is this "we"? I don't live in the third world
The third world doesn't have the overpopulation problem, dumbass. Each child born in the FIRST WORLD has a vastly larger ecological footprint.
Newsflash: the earth is a sphere of finite radius - you FUCKING moron.
>>7896954
>We need zero population growth, folks. It's simple math.
That means everybody should marry and have two kids.
>Each child born in the FIRST WORLD has a vastly larger ecological footprint.
Watermelon detected. Nobody cares about your insane communist gobbledegook.
>>7896091
no he didn't, that's not what the original poster said
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100201882/why-david-foster-wallace-would-be-in-favour-of-telling-middlesbrough-schoolkids-to-stop-saying-nowt/
