/lit/ - Literature

>>19307993
Aw shit, cuz it says comedy, right? Aw dam son.

>>15307301
>>Generalizations are always false.
>That's a cop out, and not true
That's the joke.

(The statement is itself a generalization ...)

>I really don't want to hear about the 2020 zeitgeist, I'm asking you what it is you were trying to insinuate about Howard Zinn's book.
>You said it is primarily critical of mainstream history because it ignores the history of marginalized groups. I think that's a rather agreeable and obvious statement. You said "supposedly". Did you seriously mean nothing by that except that you take issue with generalizations, and if so, why refuse to say so to begin with?
Well, you asked about whether mainstream historians under-represent marginalized economic/racial/social groups. I implied that they probably over-represent certain groups that are popular today, but were historically marginalized (e.g. gays). And they probably under-represent certain groups that were marginalized then, and are still marginalized today (e.g. isolated maroon communities and their modern rural equivalents).

Stuff like African-American history is a bit more mixed, because they're

>Bullshit. You came in arguing
I did not. If I did, those were some shitty arguments. Maybe I came in a somewhat antagonistic manner, but that's just because it's 4chan.

>Still not buying it.
And that's fine. Nobody said you have to agree with me.

>>Zinn described himself as "something of an anarchist, something of a socialist. Maybe a democratic socialist."
>Excellent! This is providing something to discussion.
I just quoted Wikipedia.

I didn't contribute shit.

>The question remains whether the book's title was intended to be evocative of socialism.
I'm not sure "evocative" is the right word, but you're definitely close.

>I think that would have been needlessly damaging to its marketability.
Interesting thought. Firstly, I'm not sure Zinn was necessarily focused on marketing. Secondly, I don't agree that associating with socialism would damage it's marketability. Books (and most media) tend to exaggerate and sensationalize, in order to attract attention. Boring stuff doesn't get attention. Imagine savages book >>15306622 being titled "Liberalism is wrong about important issues". Would it sell more copies, or less? Even if you aren't primarily marketing to socialists, exaggeration tends to help sales.

(1/2)

>>13263392
>Misquotes Anna Karenina

>>13009874

>>12550236
>you criticize appeal to authority while appealing to authority yourself.
This is honestly the most retarded board on this entire god-forsaken website

>>12422128

>>12375507

>>12370432
Congratulations

OP here,

by Redpilled, i mean presents ideas that see beyond the socially accepted mainstream. They kind of pull the veil and reveal the machinery behind our everyday experience, or whatever.
Like in the Matrix, when taking the bluepill meant he could go on with his life in (blissful) ignorance, or Redpill meant seeing and living in the computer program that controls everyones lives.

>>11389368
I don't mean fascist. Not at all. No partisan ideologies please.

>>11389364
>pic related

>>10722702

>>6666011

>>5143022