/lit/ - Literature

>>17563005
This makes no sense

>>17563017
Oh is it “highly illogical”, you fucking reddit stemtard?

>>17563028
Take your meds. Or pray. Whichever calms the voices.

>>17563017
Everything the little goblin says is like this, meaningless and vaguely intellectual takes designed to make people seethe.

>>17563005

>>17563056
This post kills the S*pir-Whorf incel

/his/ has been trying to colonise this place recently. so now its /pol/tards seething about women and atheist midwits spamming retarded polemics.

>>17563005
this guy is the Moviebob of right wing twitter

>>17563113
You forgot the christcucks

kantbots twitter is extremely entertaining
thats all he is though, basically an intellectual lolcow similar to mr land

>>17563152
People are always saying “kantbot is just __” and it’s always something different. I guess he’s everything, like the true spirit of poetry. Thank you, kantbot.

I really hate these kind of "look what some Twitter retard said" threads. If I cared what Twitter retards said, I would be there and not here.

>>17563139
>kant bot
>right wing

>>17563166
>I guess he’s everything, like the true spirit of poetry
that is so tryhard im inclined to think kantbot actually wrote this
go back to writing theoryfiction about the CIA on twitter at least thats fun to read

>>17563181
I’m merely a student of the master pseud.

>>17563148
And the ominpresent JIDF, ever-ready to jump into a Merchant of Venice thread.

>>17563173
The real literature comes from twitter these days. Stay mad, illiterate.

>>17563148
they've been here longer than your lot.

>>17563113
So that's why there are so many neetch redditors.
>>17563148
>t. neetch redditor

>>17563332
I don't even mind nietzche as a thinker, I have enjoyed a lot of his stuff and even really agree with him when he talks about stuff like spite. But for some reason he attracts intellectually juvenile people who read him once and become weird dogmatists, even though most of them don't even understand him. Is it zoomers watching youtube videos about him or something?

>>17563195
you imitate him quite impressively

>>17563104
can anyone tell me what Neo-Babelics views on Sapir-Whorf is?

>>17563784
>Neo-Babelics is the theory that is central to Gorkoniker's brand of Bantic philosophy. Which if you're not already aware Banticism is the philosophy of speech-based communication and how interlocks itself into the religion and evolution of peoples. Gorkoniker was a Jewish theologian, and Neo-Babelics was his theory that speech is one of the most important and prominent portals in which we make contact with God. Of course there's a lot more to it and it's more complicated than I am capable of expressing, but that's the basically the shotgun explanation of it.
>Actually more like an anti-Sapir-Whorf theory. Banticism is acutally more focused on explaining how our history, psychology, religion, etc affects our conception of language, not the other way around. (Again it's more complex than that, but that's what I got for you.)
From a previous thread where another anon explains it.

>>17563784
Just chiming in as a lingfag. Linguists have not seriously entertained Sapir-Whorf in a while. But Chomsky is also a tard with universal grammar.

>>17563005
>man who cannot even count calories dislikes "Science"
Who could have seen this one coming

what kantbot needs is a good punch to the face