/lit/ - Literature

Ban CotC and all mentions of Gardner. He is not literature, and at this point he gets posted literally every fucking thread. If you faggots weren't literally fucking every thread I'd care less, but no. Every. Thread.

>>14673724

>>13074968
>You also sound super pretentious
To be honest I really find it hard to see how I sound any more pretentious than the rest of this board.

>Lurk more and maybe you’ll realize that nobody here talks that way.
I have lurked enough to know that people here don't all post in a uniform way, and that I'm not the only one that writes like that. Neither do I always write like that, it depends on what I'm responding to or trying to say.

>Also, anon didn’t try doing greentext,
Fair enough, we can't presume to know his intentions exactly, but that is the kind of thing that would normally be greentexted.

>and capitalization/punctuation is irrelevant so long as the point he’s trying to make is comprehensible.
Doesn't that mean my "reddit style" is also irrelevant as long as the point I'm trying to make is comprehensible?

>It’s like you’re trying to find shit that’s just not there because otherwise your points don’t have a leg to stand on.
And that anon didn't try to find shit that wasn't there?

>since the brainlets there think attacking punctuation and capitalization is an actual argument.
As a rule I never comment on things like grammar, punctuation, capitalization, spelling or other such pedantic elements in other anon's posts because it's just a waste of time. However, if that anon uses my style as the only argument to discredit my post then I can do the same to him.

>>13075013
I can, sure, but why would I do that? To make a few anons happy? I have posted this way on 4chan for years, this is the first time people have brought up this reddit thing.

>>13075355
>to be reddit is to be overly analytic and pedantic
I won't deny that I'm overly analytical and pedantic, at least compared to the average poster here, but I also don't see how minding the devil in the details is a bad thing. If anything people aren't analytical and pedantic enough.

>with heavy use of "i" statements
I am talking about my on this matter, and responding to points made directaly at me. There is no way not to refer to myself frequently in this particular context.

>short sentences with no punctuation errors
Not going to deny those are two things I do strive for in my writing, simplicity and correctness. I'm not saying everyone has to write that way, but I also don't see how it's a bad thing.

---

Here is some undeniable pretentiousness for you guys though: you are all faggots trying to bring me down to your level instead of lifting yourselves up to mine. Stick that in your humble pie and fuck it.

>>12781591
iktf

>>11575496
>4chan was like just the weird kids in the cafeteria, goths and dweebs and psychopaths? Or predominantly left leaning?
Trying to shoehorn the Anons into a classification other than the titular Anonymous is an exercise in futility.
Nevertheless, it originally consisted of a hybrid of SA-2chan posters, and in hindsight if mootykins was anything to go by a lot of them were underaged, pic very much related. And during the mid-to-late Bush years it was the hip and edgy thing to bash on Bush.
But I dont think anyone ever realizes enough how impactful Ron Paul was on the political-minded that posted here. Mind you, he was the natural cultural progression of Bush-hating. His movement, and the way he got shot down, spawned so many anti-establishment libertarians its not even funny. Almost every major /pol/ e-celeb you can name was a Ron Paul libertarian before they went down the ethnonationalist route, primarily because of the economic cost of diversity.

>>10764872
>Who the fuck are you people? Go back
I've been here longer than you.

>>10406890
>better safe than sorry
he actually thinks anonymous discourse with people who don't think like him threatens his safety

>>10361608
this image