/lit/ - Literature

>>13181876
This is your life on subjectivism.

>>9822431
>By implying that they are of an inferior quality just because they are famous.
Is that what you infer? See >>9822092. There goes the rest of your post, because I foresaw the likes of clinical retards like you harping on the "THEY BAD CUZ THEY FAMOUS, THAT WHAT YOU SAYIN?".

Keep sperging out because I touched a nerve, your tears are delicious.

>>9822440
>That lacks any foundation
That seems, once more, your shitty opinion butting into the fact that no one should take you seriously on any matter that isn't flipping burgers and sucking dick. Considering we're not discussing dick sucking or burger flipping here and that it's literature, music and film making the artistic menu of these debates, why are you still talking? Your entire """argument""" got proven wrong by a comic that probably took the author less than 20 minutes to complete. It just goes to show that you are not to be taking serioulsy.

>Anon, it's not about you but your viewpoint
Which is correct on these matters. You can spam the tenets of meme Analytical Philosophy all you want and shit on history if it pleases you (wanting to pretend there was a literacy level high enough to compare Shakespeare to any modern writer), the matter of the fact is that you're wrong. I've listened to the Beatles. I've seen Avatar. I've read SK. They're all complete and utter garbage and there aren't enough temper tantrums you can throw about their sales that you can use to prove anyone with more than half a mind wrong. Just accept that you're stupid.

>lacking cultural impact of Avatar
Best selling film of all time disagrees with you. It's not just "a" commercial performance, it's "THE BIGGEST" commercial performance for a film in one sitting ever.

>Rest is you sperging out and trying to strawman your way out of it
If we're dumbing down things, let me give you a proper rundown:
>SK IS GOOD BECOJ FAMUS
>It doesn't work that way for the following [Insert Argument]
>BUT HE FAMUS, HOW CAN HE NOT GOOD??
>Kys

>>7995764

Can someone explain to me why the logic in this picture is flawed?

And what logical fallacies can be spotted here?

>>6416159

>This author was really ahead of his time. He lived in 1800 but thought women and black people were people!
Thoughts on this proposition?

>>4838077

>everything is subjective
Simply irrefutable

I've gotten to the point where if someone uses the word "objective" or "subjective" I just walk away from the conversation.

Nothing you say will change these people's minds. They think an uneducated opinion and an educated opinion are just as equally valid. Usually they say this because they cannot quantify their own opinions with empirical evidence. You cannot help these people.

Come on satan, explain the will to power to me.

>>3295304
subjectivist detected
pls go

In the honor of ye olde days, I will proceed to dump quality material.

>>2903943
>No, they don't. Many do, though, and it's not necessarily a bad thing if you do it in the right way
That's just your opinion.

>Again, no. The consistency of many author's work is a varying thing, to be sure, but Palahniuk's got a bad ratio going - I'd say somewhere around 90% bad to 10% decent
Seeing that 90% of all literature is crap that doesn't really matter.

Needs more /lit/ pics though

>>2880436
You're mistaken. /lit/ hates those hipsters who believe they're "entitled to their opinion."

>B-but that's just your opinion!