/lit/ - Literature

>>10879166
About half way in, after he quotes Peterson talking about implicit violence between males when interacting, giving his own beta-male anecdotal rebuttal (that sounds willingly naieve, and, not understanding his whole point: where communication breaksdown men fight; you dont disrespect another man that is close, equal, or greater in strength than you, unless you want to fight--which is different with women, because even if they disrespect you, you aren't supposed to fight--so what do?)--hint bitch, if you want to take him down, then just say he is making an is into an aught with no other justification, but no, instead, the author bitches "it cant be done, he's too slithery, like a slimy snake oil salesman", he then quotes
his comment section, "my grandma once told me never hit a women, but you sure as hit can hit her back"(00's upvotes), "shouldn't hit anyone, but if someone attacks you..." (00's upvotes) and the authors remarks, after listing a couple other comments: "if people follow you seem to say things like this a lot, you should probably think hard about why you're attracting this kind of audience."
He literally did nothing wrong there, and that comment section is perfectly reasonable: you have the right to self-defense! I don't understand how that specific situation can be viewed negatively. The reviewer has some self-awareness, but has quite limited perspective of the philosophical cannon. They can't even understand his argument--in context--which is basic, but tbf, he does generalize on certain topics, however, his core foundation is easily ascertainable.

This b8 doesn't deserve my coherency

>>6387654
gr8 b8

>>6384875
taking the bait (pic related):

We have words for "astrologer" and "alchemist" because most people are not astrologers or alchemists, therefore it is necessary to denote that astrologers, etc. are different. Similarly, we have the word "atheist" because most people are not atheists. If most people were and had always been atheists, we would not have nearly as much use for this word.

Nevertheless, it is silly to talk about whether or not words "should exist": if they do exist, they should. I am looking at this from the perspective of a linguist fyi.