/lit/ - Literature

I think anyone who genuinely cares about whether an author is 'problematic' or even seriously uses the term is a sub-human troglodyte that should be mocked/ignored.

>>15796032
Problematic to whom?

>>15796086
To normies

>>15796078
why is that? dont you think its important to consider others feelings?

>>15796127
Not in this case. 'Problematic' is used as catch-all term to mean 'Person has a BAD OPINION therefore shame them'. It denies nuance, other perspectives/life experiences.
It shames others into fitting into the one cultural mould that is acceptable in current year, ignoring that cultural attitudes always shift with time (there will absolutely be opinions that are completely benign and acceptable today that will be treated with revulsion in 10/20 years).
This isn't even getting into basic principles like death of the author. Letting an author's personal/political opinions damage your enjoyment of their work (even if said work does not reflect those views at all) is also reprehensible in my view. The only logical endpoint of this witch hunt for 'purity' is EVERYONE gets cancelled, or forced to conform to the blandest, safest topics for fear of offending anyone, and that is damaging to art and culture as whole.

>>15796127
"No!"

>>15796032
I don't have a problem with it

>>15796032
That baboon is problematic to my eyes.

>>15796175
but what about authors who are racist, misogynistic, etc... they are hurting people. do you think it's alright?

>>15796243
learn to respect others, cretin. you got bullied in school, yes we know. no need to treat other like shit though.

>>15796250
Yes. Their opinions cannot truly hurt you.
The flip side of authors having the freedom to explore darker topics and push boundaries is that readers need to have the security of self to engage with or reject these ideas earnestly, without flinching away from anything mildly uncomfortable under the guise of 'offence'.

>>15796032
I was expecting some twitter bullshite but sadly I agree with her opinion

>>15796032
The maiden's received pronunciation sounds quite affected - quite affected, indeed.

>>15796032
I don't read problematic authors like DiAngelo or other liberals because I genuinely believe they're mentally ill and I'm not interested in that stuff

>>15796032
It's fun to make little /pol/ babies cry
Fuck off with your bait thread

>>15796032
I pretty much agree with >>15796175, but let's pretend I don't. Why should we shield ourselves from the very notion that people from our past used to hate women and niggers? Their point of view is valid even if all we do with it is dismiss it. It keeps the discussion going. Most times their racism, sexism or whatever rarely even touches the work per se, but if it does, can't we a a society be taught to be critical of what we read? Is it really that hard to read and not be a fucking sheep that the better opinion is just to not read at all? Seems absurd to me.

>>15796294
>sadly
Nothing "sad" about coming to agreement with a stranger, if anything, it's a rarity considering today's socio-political climate.

>>15796113
not normies, just faggots

This thread is trash. Fuck off with censorship.

>>15796396
Found a problematic poster boys.

>>15796396
It is not censorship to discuss how one should deal with problematic literature.

>>15796283
they hurt some people though. do you think its alright to have some people feeling hurt just so you can read "transgressive works"? how edgy is that? learn to have compassion for others, its all im saying

>>15796294
its good that you agree. dont be sad. people should become more sensitive to others feeling. in particular in this board where everyone is so mean we can't have a civil discussion.

>>15796250
not the guy you replied to but the world is full of pain and people hurting others. I guarantee there hasn’t ever been an author or artist of any kind who is free from the ever changing definitions of “””””problematic”””””” behaviour. You may as well never read anything if you care about what the author has done.

>>15796353
its not valid, since it hurts people, a lot, and therefore is wrong. you wanna read the people of the past, fine do whatever you want. but dont complain when most of us turn our backs to it. contemporary writers are much more understanding of the issues of today, so why should i care about the past?

>>15796461
>so why should i care about the past?
Do you like repeats?

>>15796461
>dont complain when most of us turn our backs to it.
no one cares what you do cringe pseud troll

>>15796461
Because by reading about the past, you can understand what has changed and what is to be changed, what has disappeared and what has been destroyed.

>>15796468
>>15796472
>>15796473
Troilled hard

>>15796478
"trolls" don't exist retard, irony is a meme. Language is creative non only descriptive.

>>15796491
Sounds like you're mad you're getting trolled hard baby

>>15796473
the past is full of issues, even more than today, we can't keep focusing on it. the issues at hand tell us so much more about today than the those of the past. i just dont see the point in choosing to engage with out-of-touch authors rather than the conscious authors of today.

>>15796032
As an aside, American Negroes could raise their perceived IQ by 20 points (i.e. >100) if they cultivated a Brit or Euro accent.

>>15796531
I'm pretty sure she's Dutch.

>>15796429
>how one should deal with problematic authors

They are authors that simply have different views to you or I. She can promote anyone she wants on her channel and you can in your personal life, but this question always stems into censoring "opinions I don't like". I get that you don't see racism, sexism, or any other "ism" as an opinion. You all tend to think of them
as detrimental ideas that need to be silenced. I will read anything no matter my opinion and many of you do not value that yourselves. I can understand. But, to sit here and act like we need to have some personal policy over what types of authors and ideas need to be promoted is lunacy. Imagine the inverse of your position and ask yourself if that would be okay with you. Would you agree with racists and sexists having a policy of never talking about literature they deem as cucked?

>>15796339
>>15796396
>>15796472
>>15796478
id says you guys are the one trolling trying to derail this genuine discussion. i've been checking this board for one year now and was waiting for an opportunity to understand why people here are so hateful, despite seeming pretty cultured. i thought only the uneducated could sprawl such hate. i came to the conclusion that its because you only interact with out-of-touch ideas and you live in your little bubble. the girl in the video makes very reasonable points yet only two people here hav agreed with it (and im not even sure if theyre genuine). get real guys, read more, open your minds, and interact with people who also read (in college for instance).

>>15796550
is this a liberal indoctrination copypasta

Oh god, that author has a different view than me, it hurts so much to read his book.

Stop drinking onions milk

caring about an author's moral background is fucking pure retard shit

Niggers. Niggers everywhere with their niggerish niggerisms and niggernotions. Boy, don't we ever get enough of niggers. Niggers, niggers, niggers.

>>15796558
Would you read a book from the guy who raped your mom, killed your family, and shat on your face when you were 2?

>>15796550
I went to college, dipshit. Don't sit here with your superiority complex and think you can just spout whatever opinion you want without many anons calling you a raging faggot. You act as if random anons owe you anything. I could make the same argument you make with every thread on here. Half of the book threads simply say whether the book was cringe or based. Fuck off.

>>15796540
that simply isnt the same thing since literature that is pro-blacks, pro-women... etc or at least dont speak badly of them does not harm anyone. in the other hand racist and sexist works do hurt people and as such should at least be reconsidered (maybe banning them is too much, but the issue should be raised at least).

>>15796519
How can I be trolled since trolls don't exist? Can one die eaten by a dragon? No and if you pretend otherwise you're a mad mad faggot. Can you show me a troll ? No and if you pretend otherwise you're a mad faggot. Can you define what a troll is? No and at best you would say something along the lines of "a troll is someone who pretend to be someone else on the internet to make other people mad". Well guess what? This just doesn't make sense because you could say "huuur you a troll" and totally dismiss any kind of discourse. This wouldn't make sense from any point of view. If you're the "troll" you gain nothing. And if you're getting "trolled" the most logical thing to do would be to ignore the "troll" and to answer him truthfully so the discourse can be elevated. Also like I said discourse is creative so even if you're "trolling", you would still create meaning into the world (even meaningless meaning) and thus the question of you're sincerity would not arise. Can you imagine a murderer saying it was a "troll" and it was "ironic"? Everyone would say he is making fun of us and let put him behind bars. Everyone? Not quite. Because you little mad demented faggot would say he's a "troll" and everyone got "trolled". So fuck you mad faggot also I'm very calm right now.

>>15796574
0/10 troll

>>15796565
one of the most popular threads right now is one diminishing black people's contribution to poetry and calling a professor who values such a contribution a "k*ke". and you telling there is no problem with this board? get real. you guys are pretty cultured thats why i try to understand the reason behind this hate. if it was a boomer facebook group i wouldnt even bother. so tell me, why all this hate?

>>15796569
I see you have been met with an opportunity to consider the inverse but you instead chose to act in a state of cognitive dissonance. If you want to get into a debate where we define harm, you will be faced with another road block where you will have to make some reasonable concessions to my point. You act as if I spout quotes from mein kempf when I'm really just a proponent of zero censorship. It is all or nothing. Picking and choosing is what autocrats do.

>>15796569
>do hurt people
We don't care retard. How brainwashed do you have to be to think everyone must care about liberal values

>>15796582
why are you even here? do you know where you are?

>>15796583
please tell me how can pro-black or pro-women lit considered harmful for anyone. im waiting.

>>15796582
Racism is a valid ideology. Tell the blacks they can't be racist towards whites and they would have to reevaluate their entire psyche.

>>15796578
fuck you and shut up if you have no arguments

>>15796590
lol yeah as if a few black people joking about "whities" can be considered racism. i know youre just playing the victim when its obvious most blacks arent racist against whites. and im not even saying that all whites hate blacks or anything, i know that racism today is much less present and most whites are tolerant. all this came thanks to education, thats is why i dont expect uneducated people, like rednecks and such, to adopt tolerant and reasonable views. yet you guys are different, you read books. so why all the hate? its so obvious racism is bad yet you persist. do you just want to be contrarians? pls just tell me why you guys are racist despite being cultured, i genuinely wanna know.

>>15796569
I never get this line of reasoning. Why is it okay to hurt certain groups of people based purely on arbitrary characteristics, but not others? It's "problematic" to discuss Black crime statistics, or Black IQ, or Jewish anything, but it's not problematic to demand the eradication of Whites, the exclusion of Asians from society, or forcing otherwise cisgendered individuals to become the other gender. If the former causes "hurt", but the latter doesn't, then you've totally mangled the very definition to the point where I have to ask, how do YOU personally, the advocate of this, look at this and not think it's going to bite you in the ass?

More importantly, given that this entire conception of what "hurts" people is given to you by large international corporations only doing this to sell you cheap goods, how can you be sure that not only it won't bite you in the ass in the future, but that it isn't biting you in the ass NOW, and that your ideology is causing you pain, misery, and hurt? How can you be sure that the things that are claimed to be "problematic" are actually problematic, and that the things that aren't aren't actually?

>>15796604
>do you just want to be contrarians
yes

>>15796604
>i have never interacted with blacks in my life, but i'll have you know that the tv told me...
Yeah, you're not racist because you have a Black friend, uh huh, yup, sure.

>>15796584
how edgy do you have to be to not care about others. learn compassion, jerk.

>>15796614
Seethe subhuman

>>15796619
Be compassionate, buddy.

>>15796606
im not demanding any of the things you mentioned, nor all most people who share tolerant views toward women and minorities. you are taking the opinion of a little uneducated part of the black community and thinking somehow all blacks want whites to die. sorry to break it to you but most blacks just want to live without oppression, not oppress others. there is no revenge in this, only a desire for acceptance, tolerance and compassion. have you guys gone so deep into your bubble of contrarianism that even basic values such as this seem to you as non justified? i just want to understand why cant you just show love for your fellow human beings. i promise you they will show love back.

>>15796622
Some people are compassionate, some are not. This is by nature and determied evolutioanrily as compassionate people help keep a society together and discompassioante people are individualistic people who push the society forward. Both types are essential to building a strong society, which is why they both conntinue to exist today. However, in this day and age, we can separate in groups to thrive with our kind on the internet while cohabitating with the other group offline. As such, 4chan is for those who don't value compassion and reddit is for compassionate people. When we meet on the street, we'll both be nice to each other, but on the internet, you go back and I remain here. Now fuck off retard

>>15796438
toughen up fag

>>15796632
this is what you get when a manchild reads nietzche. stop pretending as if youre advancing society in anyway, cretin. youre a narcissistic looser who tries to feel superior by hating on others on an anonymous forum. i shouldnt be surprised you dont act like that in real life though, you wouldnt have the guts to do it, coward. im against violence, but if i ever saw you, i might break my code...

>>15796582
The issue of the matter is that people don't like patronizing figures telling them what they should be reading and which people you admire may be problematic.
Being cultured as you say just gives you more of a connection with those figures they are cancelling, so if anything it makes people take more issue with people like the girl in the video, not less.
And what point is raised in the video?
Celine was a nazi and I don't agree with him, but journey to the end of the night is just pure art. Should I deprive myself of the joy of reading him because of his opinions? Should I not read Hamsun? Velazquez had a black slave all his life. Schmitt and Heidegger were nazis.
Althusser killed his wife.
Caravaggio was a murderer.
And yet all those people have contributed so much to their respective fields (except Althusser lmao) that their works are simply unavoidable.
Maybe raising the issue with them is not that bad in itself. But opening the door to clasifying this people based on their moral character and not their craft will just spiral into censorship.
First it is just the issue. Then they sre regarded bably more broadly. Then they are dropped from schools curriculae in favor of other 'cleaner' authors. Then the interest drop, they don't edited/promoted and eventually are forgotten.
I would much rather have people harshly shut down atittudes like the one in the video than letting her start policing culture.

>>15796650
>brainlet rage

>>15796652
But she specifically excludes dead people from her banlist if my skimming of the video presented an accurate description of her idiotic argument

>>15796630
You're wrong and have no idea what you're talking about. You have never interacted with Blacks. Ever. I can tell, because of this statement,
>want to live without oppression, not oppress others
This is wrong, namely because Blacks aren't oppressed. If they were, then they wouldn't be, as they would have fucked off and fled away from White people. They don't, however, and wherever Whites go to (White Flight), Blacks follow and demand free stuff. That's the entire reason for the construction of "Whiteness", some kind of weird miasma that Whites (and Asians) generate just by existing; that's why this "Whiteness" causes oppression, becuase Blacks aren't actually oppressed at all.

They want free shit (everybody does, I've met many Asians who are upset that Blacks get to pull the Racism card but they aren't), and know that they can bully Whites into giving it to them. Blacks are pretty open about this, and aren't really sure why Whites are like this (it actually makes them mad, and many feel really shitty about the fact that they as a group do it). They don't want "love and compassion" from Whites, they want that from Blacks. Multiculturalism is forced top-down, and always has been (literally, the army had to be called in to force Blacks and Whites to attend the same schools at gunpoint). Your assessment of what Blacks want and how they act is totally divorced from reality, glaringly so to anyone who has actually interacted with Blacks.

You're trying to be holy and pious by aping religious symbols that you don't really understand. You're causing people hurt, pain, suffering, and misery, namely yourself. You're a bad person, and you're problematic.

t. Detroiter

>>15796604
I used to hang with a latina chick that would say terrible things about white people. Fuck off

>>15796650
>narcissistic looser
>i'm against violence, but if i ever saw you, i might break my code...
ahahaha holy fuck how do people fall for this bait lmaoo

>>15796652
maybe youre a little right i guess. if a racist guy solved a big math problem, i dont think it would be justified not to read his proof (giving him prices is out of the question though). so maybe systematically not reading an author because of his belief isnt always the best course of option. id say the girl in the video makes a good point concerning when to read said author or not. nonetheless reading any author no matter what they've done, i dont think thats an ok thing. heidegger is debatable since his philosophy is kinda related to his why of life, but not much. hitler in the other hand i dont see why anyone would read him, and no one should. yet people in this board persist, as if they wanna propagate hate, why is that?

>>15796669
>Blacks aren't oppressed
Yes, they are, bigot. Have you seen this video of a white couple threatening innocent blacks with a gun? Look at it: https://youtu.be/skGh_5tVJZg

They didn't do anything wrong, as it is accurately explaiend by the media later on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-_7bBtBETc

How about we turn this shit around and talk about...
PROBLEMATIC READERS

>>15796687
It's called meta-trolling newfriend. Like Zizek explaiend here https://youtu.be/JkpRqxKbgF8

>>15796686
All people talk shit about each other
The twitter whitewashing shit is just the same
Except they are ideologizing it, where everybody else feels kinda guilty, or knows not to say it to people's face, trannies and niggers, and I'm using offensively, not in a /pol/ way, but simply call me nigger to my face, because the point is, can you take it to your face, or do you need to hide behind a screen?
There's a difference between someone not being able to live without fear, and someone wanting control

>>15796704
Problematic readers are those who read problematic authors. So most /lit/ "people"

>>15796707
Zizek is not a troll, he's just a capitalist stooge performing for his master's to sell Nike's
He was never in it for the lulz

There are no clean solutions to the black question, so maybe it's time to start getting dirty. Society would be so much better without them and that could be empirically proven.

>>15796726
No, he's a covert stalinist converting unsuspecting zoomers who think they're watching a stand-up for le intellectuals. But that has nothing to do with the point you missed.

>>15796718
There are no problematic authors, only problematic readers, and those are the ones who show their own perversity in the reading
Conrad was no racist, but if a racist reads him, all they see is racism
You know
Are you just a racist, sexist, petty little reader, anon, to see your thoughts, and your secret desires in what you read?

>>15796701
They tried to run the woman off the road. Repeatedly. Did you even watch the video? That's not "oppression". You're just aping what the media tells you, and not even accurately. Yeah, the woman shouldn't have gotten into an argument with the Black woman, and that's what you're upset about: THAT is what was "hurtful" and "mean". Not the fact that she was almost a fucking murder victim, the fact that she raised her voice.

Which is just another nail in the coffin of this whole "problematic" thing, because you're only supporting it because the media told you to. If the media told you that the continued existence of the Black race was "problematic", you'd be advocating for Negroes stacked six bodies high in gas chambers. How can you seriously think that a system that encourages people like you to be murdered, punishes you for defending yourself, and then calls your continued existence "oppression" is in any way good for you? Have you even thought about what this sort of thing implies for you? Especially when this system is literally only being done to sell you cheap shit. The answer is that no, you haven't actually thought about this stuff, because as you've demonstrated, you've never actually interacted with these people, so ironically you have the privilege of being able to say dumb shit like this with zero consequences.

>>15796738
You sound like a problematic person altogether. Hope you're an American so you get purged soon when commies take over.

>>15796669
i have interacted with blacks, in fact my best friend, who i have known since being 8, is black. im not even white myself. you guys tend only to notice the people who take advantage of tolerance precisely because you only focus on the bad things, because of your preconceived notions. taking advantage of nice people is common in all races, it's a trait you can find in anyone. it is something the must be fought, and i know people within the black community trying to educate their peers on what tolerance really is, because no one really told them before. this isnt a reason to become hateful like you guys do, its actually an anti-solution. blacks are oppressed, this is the reality. they have a harder time with the school system (schools with a black majority tend to have bad teachers and classes too full) the job market and the justice system. they are less oppressed than before of course, but the fight hasnt ended yet.

>>15796735
>What /pol/ thinks
At least learn to read before shitting yourself online newfriend

>>15796742
You're projecting you poor little crossdressing nazi nigger

>>15796739
Stop being a racist and you'll have no problems, Mr. Bigot.

>>15796664
She says she is okay with reading them, but still raises the issue about their validity on a moral basis, which I totally reject.

>>15796693
That is absolute nonsense. If a neonazi today somehow would be the best writer of the past hundred years, would you not read him? Would you not buy his works?
I sure as fuck would.
The only matter in which it is appropriate to judge and artist is in the quality of his art.
No one gives a fuck about Hitler, he is a shit writer. Mein Kampf only has historical value, and quite limited at that. But if it was written with the prose of Nabokov then it sure as hell would have a place in my shelf.

>>15796743
>im not even white myself.
We know Bergstein

>>15796744
Nice argument r*ddit

Books by Thomas Sowell hve been considered problematic as he dismisses much of black oppression to being a problem black americans and liberals caused themselves.

>>15796693
>heidegger is debatable
>mfw thinking there may exist people who actually think like this

>>15796743
So you have a Black best friend, therefore you're not racist. People like you were mocking people like you less than a decade ago. Hell, they still do.

>blacks are oppressed
No, they aren't. You're refusing to accept reality, and that is why they're suffering. You're assuming that if you just treat them like White people enough, they'll eventually become White people with more melanin. That's never going to happen. They don't want it to happen. The single worst thing a Black man can do is "Act White", a belief you will reify because "diversity", and then you go and expect that he'll be White if you just keep doing this. What the fuck are you trying to accomplish, other than confusing them? Blacks are absolutely mystified by people like you, who treat them like giant children too dumb to see how the world works (they understand exactly how it works).

Blacks have a harder time in school, more run ins with the law, and a harder time in the job market because they have an average IQ of 80 (I'm ignoring the Somalis being imported, who have an average IQ in the 60s), and because society refuses to accept that and take it into account. You want to "love" Blacks, and "be nice" to them? Accept them as they are and let them live as they need to, not as you want them to. They aren't your pets, and the fact that you act as they are is frankly making me rethink my statement that Blacks aren't oppressed, because you're treating them like fucking animals only kept around to make yourself look good.

>problematic
>marginalized groups
>systemic
>sYsTeMiC
>SYSTEMIC

I would also like to say it is unfair to judge someone whom has not grown up in our culture. What we consider abhorrent today was probably not an issue, or was sinply the rhetoric at the time. Aristotle belived in Natural Slavery, should we disregard his works?

>>15796751
im not jewish neither. nothing wrong with that though, nazi.

>>15796749
>If a neonazi today somehow would be the best writer of the past hundred years
This isn't the really the point, and I think this is the core of the problem. Reading something a neonazi, or whatever wrote, doesn't "pollute" you. It let's you engage with that mindset, however alien, or repulsive, without hurting anybody
You scared of being raped, of women not liking you because your dick is too small and you feel worthless, you can't find a job, you don't know what the fuck is going on in the world and all you know is you want out
Guess what, the ONE thing that does not help you at all is that EVERYONE ELSE IS TELLING YOU NOT TO THINK ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT'S BAAAAAD
Why the fuck do you think people tell stories?
The worst thing ever was the Ifucker getting illiterate morons who can only ever afford to get some shit phone so you all could be clickbait
Fuck you all, you're the scum of history, no one has ever remembered your kind, and no one ever will

>>15796754
>Calling names sure does make you look literate
And it's all you will ever be worth
A fuck you on a shit site
Enjoy it

>>15796767
I would point out that those having iasues are those who are native african americans. Many imigrants who are first or second gen do not nave the same issue with education and the law. Probably because they usually take education seriously and follow the law accordingly.

>>15796777
>Many imigrants
Fuck off streetshitter
You will be human

>>15796032
tfw no black /lit/ gf

>>15796175
I will NEVER, EVER read sartre
some writers can be determined as useless and reprehensible without reading a single word

>>15796760
That is cheap bait mate.

>>15796783
Look at the stats, you don't see blacks coming from the carribean who also experienced slavery and work on plantations causing the same fucking issues we have seen from african americansnwho are native.

>>15796767
i didnt play the black friend card. you explicitly said i never interacted with blacks, obliging me to give you a counter-example to your claim. had you not talked about that, i would have never mentioned it. in addition the whole black friend thing is about people who make racist comments, then try to defend themselves by saying they have a black friend. i obviously didnt do that since i have been defending black people since the start.

in addition, youre implying that blacks have a low average iq because of their "nature" and not because of the historical condition whites have put them in. had they had the same advantages as whites back in the days, they would be as good. blacks have the same potential as whites, and giving them the tools to realize it is not treating them like pets, but actually respecting them and giving them their right. this is like saying that a man who knew that a kid who was born in the ghetto had a thing for math was oppressing him because he was helping him learn math. this makes no sense. you are looking at thing for a bigoted perspective, and try to make it seem like youre the one showing respect. get real.

>>15796777
Then it's low IQ and cultural issues, the matter is the same, Blacks are being weighed down by the people who pat themselves on the back for caring about them. If it were up the "racists" (whatever that term is supposed to mean), Blacks would be left alone and allowed to do what they need to in order to be the best they can be. Given that this culture is set by large corporations, I personally would say that yes, "oppressed" is an accurate way of describing the state of Black America, given that they've been stuck with a shitty culture meant to keep them a the bottom, and pathological altruists forcing them to stay at the bottom to be "nice".

The problem is that that's not what people think "oppression" means. "Oppression" is jackbooted cops kicking Black babies in the face for NO REASON except HATE! That's not Black America, at all. Black America is UNDER policed, Blacks are given more lenient sentences, and have a lower rate of police violence than Whites despite committing more crime at a higher density than Whites. They aren't "oppressed" according to the colloquial usage of the word.

Most of black amercias problems would fucking vanish if their dads stuck around, hell single motherhood has become a plague all around desu

>>15796802
>At each poverty concentration level, the violent crime rate is substantially higher in black than in white census tracts.
Source http://archive.is/iRPsZ#selection-127.113-131.174
>Melanin concentration may directly correlate with aggression.
Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912000840
>Race is a better predictor of crime than poverty.
Source: http://www.colorofcrime.com/2005/10/the-color-of-crime-2005/
>The Black-White IQ gap in America is equal to the gap in South Africa, even though SA is ruled by Blacks.
Source: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/ravensiii.pdf
>The Black-White IQ gap exists even when both races are raised in identical environments.
Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016028969290028P
>93% of Black men who are murdered are killed by other Black men.
Source: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bvvc.pdf#page=3
>The Black-White IQ gap exists even when both races are raised in identical environments.
Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016028969290028P
>The percentage of Blacks and Hispanics in an area, not poverty, is the best predictor of crime.
Source: http://www.colorofcrime.com/2005/10/the-color-of-crime-2005/
>The white-black gap in SAT scores, a proxy for IQ, is increasing
https://archive.is/uSx7u
>Genes can predict your academic performance, according to new research
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/genes-can-predict-your-academic-performance-according-to-new-research

>>15796835

>>15796837
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/race-and-iq/

>>15796802
>and not because of the historical condition whites have put them in. had they had the same advantages as whites back in the days, they would be as good.
This is such a baseless reductionism that it's amazing how uncritically accepted it is. There haven't been much interaction between blacks and whites throughout most of human history so there must be more to the story of black people being stupid than white people oppressing them. Black people being stupid is a universal thing, meaning it doesn't matter what part of the world, what tribe, and what historical circumstances and advantages they currently have. White people and Asians have historically suffered slavery and oppression but this is ignored because they don't need a convenient excuse for being stupid.

Even if it were true that there current stupidity is entirely the result of white people, then what does that say about black people? It's says they were weak to begin with and that they're currently broken. You're admitting that they're garbage so why don't we just agree to get rid of them and we can promise not to oppressive any other people going forward. There's no point in waiting and dealing with their shittiness for hundreds of years, letting them be financial parasites and hoping they'll eventually be fixed according to your theory historical materialism.

>>15796846

>>15796802
>"nature"
I'm implying that Black IQ is the result of genetics, and given that we don't properly understand all of the genes involved in IQ, and that IQ is almost entirely the result of inheritance and not environmental factors (unless you're positing that Blacks as a race have chronic problems with fetal alcohol syndrome and lead poisoning, which they, as a race, do not), it's fair to say that yes, Blacks have low IQ's "because of their nature" as a simplification.

Your refusing to accept that nature is the problem. It doesn't even have to be IQ, they're just different from us. The idea you have that that difference is bad is silly. You're engaged in a religious act, which is why you are advocating the same thing people like you have been for a century. It hasn't worked in that time, and it won't work now. But then, you aren't trying to help them, you're trying to cultivate piety and holiness for yourself. No amount of money given to DEM PROGRAMS will change Black IQ. A eugenics program could, sure. I disagree with eugenics in principle because not only is the science too murky to "uplift" Blacks, but it's also a philosophical and technical question that I simply do not trust the United States Federal Government to answer.

The US has been doing this for a century, and it has never worked. A conspiratorial man would allege that that's the point, and that Blacks were put into a very careful box to keep them from ever amounting to anything. Given that IQ is a result entirely of heredity (again, barring largescale things like fetal alcohol syndrome or lead poisoning, which do not affect the majority of the Black population), your beliefs are disastrous and harmful.

Stop hurting Black people. Start caring about them. Start accepting them as they are.

>>15796078
fpbp

>>15796259
>you said something racist? who hurt you my sweat summer child!

>>15796852
http://theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com/2010/01/epistemology-endocrinology.html

>>15796259
why should her "right" to respect trump my right to not be offended by the haunting visage of this beast?

lol all the stats you guys post either concern short-term tests or are biased (what even is an "intelligent" gene). the idea here is the long term. i believe there will ne a time where black will show their potential, we'll just have to wait and help them in the meantime. the fact that you guys let such short terms stats guide show how biased you really are.

>>15796869
good. standardised tests of any kind are useless

>>15796909
cope

>>15796032
LOATHE her voice

>>15796871
not surprised youre a trump supporter desu

>>15796250
>they are hurting people.
No they're not.

>>15796604
>most blacks arent racist against whites
u rong

>>15796032
I quite like this lady. She seems to read more interesting literature and think about what she reads much more than most young women in the booktube community.
Annoying accent though.

only people who read nothing but YA fiction give a shit about this

>>15796802
You would not say this of the aboriginal tribes in Australia. Humans are a species like any other species. We have dumb breeds and smart breeds.

>>15796909
>"hey let's help them be less stupid"

We have a real progressive here boys

>>15797127
not "less stupid", rather less uneducated

>>15797124
why wouldnt i say it?

>>15796032
lmao not only a nigger but also speaks in mongoloid brito*d accent and tries to dress like an arthoe

>>15796438
I won’t deny myself the experience of a great work of literature/philosophy just because the author was a bad person by the arbitrary standards of modern western liberals. I would rather live in a world where the canon includes all perspectives (yes, even the “hurtful” ones) than a world where the only perspectives that can be heard are those that reinforce the current moral order. I don’t want great art and great ideas to be beholden to the whims of the zeitgeist

>>15797149
Look at them.
>>15797143
I see you're just being nice about it.

>>15797173
theyre humans too, therefore they can, a priori, become whatever they want

>>15796032
This bitch looks like a man.
Why should I listen to her?

>>15796032
I automatically disregard the opinions of anyone who has ever used the word 'problematic'.

>>15796032
Leave her alone OP

>>15796863
This position is incoherent. You begin by appealing to a physicalist argument (whether it’s cogent is neither here nor there). But then exclude the possibility that external materialist forces may have something to do with the cause we’re discussing. If that is the case then you’re advocating a position in which the internal mechanism of mind and genetics are foreclosed from external influence, but somehow have causal effect beyond themselves, without being affected upon. From here it looks like you’re advocating some sort of monadism. And if that’s the case, following Leibniz and his great big iq, to animate said individual one is pressed to accept that god animates everything. So at bottom your position is entirely theological. But, seeing that you view “religious acts” pejoratively then it’s difficult to reconcile your position without making some concessions.

>>15797474
>You begin by appealing to a physicalist argument (whether it’s cogent is neither here nor there).

It is the most consistent and significant factor in the poorness of black outcomes relative to those of other races that we know. Nothing else has this explanatory power and we are pretty damn confident of this.

>But then exclude the possibility that external materialist forces may have something to do with the cause we’re discussing.

No one in this thread actually has, you are just projecting. They can and do matter, but there is little reason to believe at this point that most black populations would have their intelligence averages rise up near those of whites/Jews/Asians were they given absolutely fair treatment (i.e. a welcoming social and academic environment and financial resources), as only a small portion comparatively would likely be able to. This will matter for some people who are otherwise disadvantaged but show potential, but will have only very limited effect at best on most.

>>15797310
Holy shit

>>15796032
is this little richard? when did he start transitioning?

I LOVE problematic authors.

They're so much more interesting than the non-problematic ones.

>>15796988
>What is reading comprehension?
How do you confuse a noun with a fucking verb?

>>15796438
>do you think its alright to have some people feeling hurt just so you can read "transgressive works"?

Yes, this is the basis of the ideal of free speech. Offensive speech is far more important than popular speech. If your feelings are hurt, analyze why instead of trying to censor it.

>>15796032
Not gonna watch. But I don't give a fuck if an actor in my favorite movie or the man who hand crafted my kitchen knife raped fifty seven newborn babies. Is that related to me? No. Does it make me a bad person for buying from them? No. So in short, I don't care.

>>15796032
don't care, I don't bleed monthly

>>15797694
>the man who hand crafted my kitchen knife raped fifty seven newborn babies

There are many men who craft knives which are used on infant junk quite openly.

>>15797636
Re:external materialist forces being a factor of physicalist explanations.
>No one in this thread actually has [foreclosed external materialist causation]
Yes. You have. Like I said, your position is unreconcilable, because you imply that material forces have little or no causal power over genetic causal mechanism. Eg:
>[external materialist forces] can and do matter, but there is little reason to believe at this point...
You can’t have your pie and eat it to. Either you accept materialism, or you don’t. It can’t be thrown to the wayside without any evidence (you only offer prescriptive challenges that rely on potentialities). Now, because you’ve cut off external materialist accounts, the case remains that an individual is effectively hermetically sealed. It is a monad. If that is the case then you need to appeal to god to animate the individual. So at root any physicalist explanation is incoherent because it is theological.

I hate niggers, women and jews.

Nigger.

>>15797675
haha cant believe i confused trump with trump! im such a dummy!

>>15797777
Checked

>>15797686
youre just trying to be edgy... "analysis" analyze what exactly? a racist author's use of the n-w*rd (with a hard r)? get real, get a grip, but most importantly: learn compassion, cretin.

>>15797818
3/10 bait idk why anyone is replying to you

>>15797777
havent seen this word in a while... this place disgust me honestly... i was just trying to understand it... guess ill go back to browsing twitter
>>15797811
"checked"? like when two friend check each other? so this is how low you have come to? identifying friendship with shared racism? despicable.

>>15796032
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. You should read your cultural enemies.

>>15797827
yea i was trying a little at the beginning (was pretty bad but still) but i grew tired of it and now i just post whatever goes in my mind

>>15797839
I hope you die.

>>15797839
gr8 b8 m8
>>>/r/eddit

>>15797897
>>15797894
nigger it aint my fault yall got baited lmaooop

>>15797924
I didn't, your "bait" is so obvious that it becomes cringe in itself.

>nigger

opinion descarded

>>15797932
Yea I have to admit I suck at this but since I got so many replies it shows how low the board have sinked. Think of it as a social experiment, showing how far can race-baiting goes in /lit/.

>>15796032
>nigger
huh

>>15796461
>everyone in the past was bigoted
Lysistrata says hi

>>15796175
i remember totally acceptable liberal discourse from the early 10's that's now considering to be literally hitler

>>15796032
Black phenotype+Anglo accent+Female, is there a worse combination?

>>15797777

>>15796078
lynched**

>>15796032
she should be thanking her lucky star that she grew up in a white civilization. who the fuck is she to say what books we can and can't read. this kind of ingratitude really pisses me off.

>>15798671
b-b-based
had she been born in africa, bye bye clit, bye bye rights, say hello to famine and pestilence

>>15796032
>problematic
Is that hebrew?
What does this mean?

>>15796032
I want her big lips wrapped around my cock

>>15798831
>her

>>15796032
>play video
>notice her dutch accent
>close video

>>15796650
Come on buddy the baits been taken this is a bit much

>>15796250
People can believe what they want to believe, you aren't required to let that bother you.

>>15796701
nice anecdotal evidence retard, just stfu

>>15796032
who is this and why does she dress like she picks cotton

>>15796032
You question hinges crucially on the unstated premise that 4channers are responsible individuals and not societal outcasts indifferent about the good of humanity.
You guessed wrongly

>>15796259
Female hands typed this.

>reddit bans a bunch of subreddit for whiny faggots
>whiny faggot population on /lit/ goes up dramatically

>>15799295
this. absolutely tragic. /lit/ will never recover.

>>15799295
which ones got banned?

when did /lit/ become another /pol/

>>15799190
>speaking about '4channers' like an outgroup
Get out. And many do care about far more than they can deal with. Nonsense like "problematic"authors is laughable though, it's a nonissue.

>>15799320
a lot of them were banned. the idea of forming a new site to visit is becoming more and more appealing as time goes on. if mods could add ID and geo-info that would be nice, but it wouldn't stop all the Redditfags.

>>15799342
ID is a good idea, but flags would just cause most threads to go off topic even more often than now

>>15798751
Greek I believe.

>>15796032
She looks like the guy who wears a shower cap and does livestream interviews with pornstars.

>>15796113
twittercels aren't normies

>>15799329
Please stop giving shit takes you will force me to steelman her argument

>>15799342
there's nothing that could save it except dedicated mods banning the shit out of redditors, itoddlers and facebook filenames, coupled with anons taking gatekeeping seriously, instead of pretending to be retarded all the time and attracting actual retards

>>15796562
I would absolutely read something by a man like that