/lit/ - Literature

>>21565017
We are in serious need of something like that.

>>21565017
>off topic
>racism off /b/
Now you know.

>>21565131
Coy anons can always get around those with books for threads or arguing their post isn’t racist, just real or whatever. Need one that isn’t a grey zone

bump

>coombait posting
>silence
>tradcath shitposting
>silence
>degerate threads completely unrelated to lit
>silence
>JBP shill threads
>silence
>marxist, liberal and conservative threads
>silence
>non-stop bible shitposting
>silence
>Increased interest in National-Socialism lit
>THIS NEEDS TO HE BANNED

Your transparent attempts to silence those you do not like are transparent and pathetic. Fun fact, every great mind and thinker wrote about and supported anti-jew behavior and policies from Tacitus and Cicero to Goethe and Carlyle.

Stop trying to moderate what you don't like.

>>21565131
"off-topic" is such a vanilla milquetoast report that I can only imagine jannies completely ignore it

>>21566609
All of those are issues too. /pol/ is definitely an issue

>>21566609
>>coombait posting
>>silence
Not true, people complain about this a lot. There are anti-coombait images, too.

>>21565017
Define 'belongs on /pol/'. Where is the line?

why does the typical 4chan mod and jan-e think its a good idea to leave race baiting porno threads up all day?
this is happening to every board

>>21566628
I think they are understaffed. They remove shit like half a day later, when the thread has been ruined already.

>>21566616
Because you do not like the thread does not mean it is unrelated to the board.

>>21566620
There is not a small, coordinated group dedicated to stopping people discussing and sharinf coombair lit. There is one for any threads that seek to read naughty books and discuss them. Yeah, there are bait threads that get a handful of replies but that is true for every board and dozens of different topics. But OP wants to police thought, police what is and what is not lit. You can post spicy images so long as the message you type is pertinent to the discussion.

>>21566637
What does the sticky say?

>>21566624
If the thread is political or ideological

>>21566637
>But OP wants to police thought
Yea, /pol/tards are real the victims here, aren't they? Are you faggots all the same or is just one idiot with a victim complex? I bet you're the rockwellfag.
>police what is and what is not lit
We know what literature is. Sperging about the Jews or the vaccines in a thread about Shakespeare or whatever is not lit.

>>21566659
I bet fags like you would consider
>Any trans literature?
To be apolitical. Everything implies a political stance.

>>21566679
>Everything implies a political stance.
ok so then stop posting books about trannies you nutjobs

>>21566624
If I disagree with it and it is rightwing.
>belongs to leftypol
If I disagree with it and it is leftwing.

do you ever get tired of making this piece of shit thread and getting mocked for it?

>>21566697
Do you ever get tired posting about trannys, Jews and wimminz? The whining about /pol/ will stop if they post on their board

>>21566679
>if you dislike /pol/tards then you must like trannies
No, trannies are annoying as well. They're the opposite extreme.
>To be apolitical.
I have no problems with something like Orlando, nor do I have problems with Ernst Jünger's work. It's the obviously /pol/ shit with no literary merit that's the issue here.
>Everything implies a political stance.
That's the excuse trannies use as well, you're better than that (or are you?). There's an ocean of difference between 1984 and the self-published "we must genocide all the heckin jews" books that you probably jerk off to.

>>21566705
you don't fit in

>>21565017
>another whining thread
kys troon

>>21566659
Discussing current political stuff is typically off-board, but 75% of all books are political. Shall we discuss The Republic, The Princes? What about the Concept of the Political? What about the Histories? The rules are obvious, you are mad that you are losing ground that is all. You can claim it is going to shit, but it remains largely the same, some increased traffic but the quality is still here you just don't like it so you want it gone.

You are Caine. What you yourself can not posses you want to destroy.

>>21566709
I agree with trannies and feminists when they say everything is political. In order to end political discourse you have to realize almost everything we believe is founded on political grounds. Are gay rights political? Should all mention of gays marriage in a neutral or positive fashion from any piece of literature be banned? For you it may not be extreme, but throughout most of history I'd assume most people would be more sympathetic to genociding muh heckin jews than "gay rights."
All limitation of political discourse is just censorship in favor of whatever the current political majority or ruling party considers within its overton window. For a very brief period in the history of liberal democracy, from maybe 1990-2010, it was possible for politics to not "infect" everything, but that's not the case anymore. The "just let me heckin grill!!!" days are over.

>>21566726
>Shall we discuss The Republic, The Princes? What about the Concept of the Political? What about the Histories?
Ah, yes, the classics have the same literary value as whatever self-published nazi drivel that is read on /pol/ because both are le political therefore the same. I hope this isn't how you think in the real world.
>The rules are obvious, you are mad that you are losing ground that is all.
The rules are barely enforced. We wouldn't be in this thread if the rules were properly enforced.
>You are Caine. What you yourself can not posses you want to destroy.
That's quite the projection but very fitting if we apply it to the resentment that Nazis felt about the Jews.

>>21566659
>Yea, /pol/tards are real the victims here, aren't they?
If you think that the methods of policing one group wont be used to police any other groups you haven't been paying attention to the decline of free speech on the internet. Unironically and without meaning any kind of offensive connotations, places exist that have that level of control over what gets posted. One such place is reddit and you should go there instead of changing the way this place works. At least that way you will have somewhere to come back to once you are sick of the bullshit that comes with forums in that format.

>>21566762
he's right. go back.

>>21566757
>books i don't like arent books

>>21566762
>One such place is reddit and you should go there instead of changing the way this place works.
Yeah, the posters that complain about things being heckin' offensive are a mystery. Pretty soon the trannies will start saying 4chan needs community moderation tools, a way to vet different posters like a system of good boy points...

>>21565017
>Maybe the the internet as a whole is damaged but something’s got to be tried
98% of the internet bans racist opinions. Do you think you'll fix the internet by banning racist opinions on another 1%?

>>21566777
>literature just means BOOKS! I'm being le heckin political just like Plato, mummy! I'm self-publishing a book with a cover made in MS Paint about how we must genocide the Jews!

>>21566726
Discuss them in their historical context then and don’t extrapolate to current times and give opinions

>>21566785
its the classic story of the cali liberal--shits up his own town with his short sighted hysterical views, moves to another town, shits it up, repeat ad nauseum

>>21566785
The thing is that those politically incorrect opinions have a board, do they not? Let this board be for those who read books and want to discuss them and not ideological opinions

>>21566762
>decline of free speech
You're the same retards glorifying Nazi book banning in the other thread and how books by Jews should be banned in the modern day.
> One such place is reddit and you should go there instead of changing the way this place works.
It's you who belong back in /pol/.

Give everyone a trip. Let everyone see who the real culprits are for the decline in quality. Newfags think this site is the lawless Wild West. There have always been rules and they have always been strictly enforced until recently

Everything is permitted as long as you aren't boring.
Nazi book discussions are fine, just ban that fag that posts the same 5 pics of Rockwell.

Everything mentioned here is available on reddit. Yet as always troons, lefties, marxists, jews and all the usual scumbags are now wanting to intrude on, and police, other areas they are not welcome in.

It is precisely this behavior that is giving reasons for men to look in to the National-Socialist world-view.

>>21566799
>There have always been rules and they have always been strictly enforced until recently
How do people believe this? I've been making the same rancid shitposts all over this site since 2010. Nothing has changed.

>/lit/ is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/. If you want to discuss politics, go to /pol/. Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.

Just a refresher on the rules here. It clearly stated where politics should go. To those saying everything is political, somehow /lit/ was able to do fine discussing literature without politics for over a decade.

>>21566820
Go post pizza, nsfw images on a blueboard, doxx people, etc and see what happens. /lit/ used to have very strict moderation. To think otherwise shows you have a bad memory, aren’t being honest, or are a newfag

>>21566820
They're newfags that haven't been here and still lament for the "golden ages" when 4chan was a land of friendship and kumbaya. Nah just c/d'r shills

Ive been thinking about making an alternative /lit/ textboard, to preserve some of he elan vital here while filtering out the plebs and chuds.

What ive got so far is to have no images, so it cant be flooded with cp, gore, racist imagery, etc. It would just look like an all-print newspaper page. Even reading access is password protected, but whats more, you need an account to post there. Instead of the anonymity that has fesered here for so long every user will get a social cedit score that dictates how many unique threads they can make per day, and is determined by a mixture of post quantity and (you) farming. Then there will be an aditional irc chatbar to allow for private conversations and interpersonal relations. Finally some sort of daytrading page for buying and selling manuscripts. Instead of captcha, new users have to pass a rudmentary IQ test in order to post.

Any thoughts? Im open to ideas and a beta of the sight will come out later this year hopefully. The spam on here is out of control, but im not ready to abandon the medium quite yet.

>>21566818
>It is precisely this behavior that is giving reasons for men to look in to the National-Socialist world-view.

Ah, yes. The radical right is doing so well that they are confined to a Japanese anime image board. What a true threat

>>21566838
>Instead of captcha, new users have to pass a rudmentary IQ test in order to post.
based

>>21566810
>ban one of the most conisistent effortposters on this board

>>21566852
>ban an off-topic /pol/tard
Yes

>>21566838
I’d be down. It’s hard to police quality though. For example I wouldn’t have any issue with someone just getting into literature posting if they were sincere. Also readers branch out every now and then into niches where they aren’t as knowledgeable. Everyone has their strengths and deficiencies. I think the main thing is to make sure everyone is there in good faith

>>21566810
Hate that loser so much

>>21566855
I agree 100%. Contrary to what some shitposters on this board claim, i dont have an issue with people who are fascist or deeply interested in fringe politics or lit. What i have an issue with is when quality threads get hijacked by inflamitory racist span that only functions to shit-cover the entire conversation. A few simple account requirements (manditory IQ test, five dollars a year to cober hostin costs, whatever) would effetively filter 99% of bots, and the feds could be manually picked off after the fact.

>>21566797
I have never been to /pol/ or any thread on book burning. The fact that you think my posts "belong on /pol/" only strengthens my point. I am not a fan of many of the topics and threads brought up in this thread as things to be gotten rid of. But turning 4chan into new reddit is not the way to do that. Im down for some good old fashion targeted bullying and or ignoring shit posts, especially when they shut down actual conversation.

>>21566880
The issue is that those shitposts are designed to farm for replies, in order to derail threads, so bullying doesnt work. As for ignoring, that only goes so far, espescially when there are shadow arguments that only function to bury quality posts.

Its too much to expect every single user to personally be responsible for filtering bad faith posters. A simple range ban of certain air force bases would probably suffice tho

>>21566880
>But turning 4chan into new reddit is not the way to do that.
No one wants something that drastic. Turning /lit/ into book/pol/ is what's ruining the board. Does it bother so much you that /pol/ shit belongs on /pol/ rather than on /lit/? Mods move threads to where they belong all the time.

>>21566896
At this point the shitposters outnumber good faith posters. The ability to gatekeep is gone. Ignoring doesn’t work because shitposters find themselves and threads derail and snowball. Unfortunately if jannies aren’t going to do their jobs, we are going to start looking for alternatives, even if that means creating a new place

There is no reason not to suspect that the people pushing for censorship are the same ones who flood certain topics with shitposts just to create this reaction.

>>21566912
This. No one hates /pol/ because of their beliefs. They are hated because they can only spam those beliefs, often on other boards where they don’t belong. The alt right could have had a good thing going but they quickly became the same as their enemies, just opposite sides of the same coin

>>21565131
Those reports have zero effect. The mods just ignore them. Not sure if it's incompetence or if the mods are intentionally facilitating the destruction of the board for some reason.

>>21566928
I think it’s either they are overwhelmed and can’t bother to do it for free(can’t blame them), or they obviously sympathize. For all the talk of jannies being trannys, I think it’s more likely they are /pol/

>>21566896
That may be true but the alternative is giving bad actors more tools to fuck up lit, not less. Because they will find methods of circumventing criteria you establish while also using that criteria to fuck with people posting in good faith. Which will lead to more over corrections until 4chan loses what makes it different from any other forum on the internet. Thats how its always happened. All Im saying is if you want that level of control to be implemented there are places that already exist like that and you can go there instead of fucking with 4chans set up. And I mean that without any weird bullshit superiority. Im mostly worried about keeping internet culture diverse so that there is somewhere to go when you are sick of the status quo (which in my opinion is a little too sensitive for my taste).

>>21566920
this
I don't hate /pol/tards for WHAT they believe, I hate them for being such stupid individuals that they fall into believing /pol/shit. My own father is a regular old fag of no particular fame who works and smokes and drinks and jokes & he's still a qtard. Literally anyone can buy into the dumbest possible shit, what bothers me most is people who refuse to believe their opinions will change - not people who are unwilling to change them, but people who truly believe their current opinions won't change. Just kill yourself now if you're stunting your own growth.

>>21565017
Kek did someone tell YWNBAW again?

>>21566944
>STOP BELIEVING FACTS

>>21565196
>books for threads
A few months ago all of those blogpost threads ("books for this feel", "book on this topic") used to get sent to the shadow realm immediately. The jannies just stopped caring.

>>21566944
I am not reading all of that incel tantrum you just posted.

>>21566912
It doesnt bother me that /pol/ shit belongs on /pol/. I would just like to point out that I have been accused of being a /pol/ poster in this very thread when I have never been on /pol/, I made political statement, or any other such thing that have been complained about so far in that post. So lets just say I don't trust any of you (or me for that matter) to dictate what is and isnt /pol/ without really just cherry picking things that align with what you like seeing on lit.

>>21566935
>For all the talk of jannies being trannys, I think it’s more likely they are /pol/
No, because they banned the word "soiboi" (with Ys instead of Is).

>>21566963
*I made no political statements

>>21566966
Because it was spammed incessantly. If we were a few years in the past “tranny” would have a filter by now. Probably “chud” as well. If you think that the enforcers of this site are leftists, then that means /pol/ is just controlled opposition, which is embarrassing for /pol/ posters sticking around. It would be fascinating to watch what would happen if 4chan was shutdown or bought by a company caring about PR image.

>>21566986
I think they're just normal people. Doesn't have to be troons or /pol/tards.

>>21566959
I'm not an incel and your desire to see enemies everywhere is unhealthy. Check your blood pressure

>>21566996
Yeah. Most people fall somewhere in the middle. It is the people at opposite ends who are loudest and draw the most attention, especially in the age of social media. It distorts the perspective

>>21566986
>. If you think that the enforcers of this site are leftists, then that means /pol/ is just controlled opposition
That's not what it means

/pol/ is the middle school edgy phase that 90% of people (who go through the phase) pass through unscathed. Putting too much stock in what they say and do will make you miserable, no different from how seething about kids these days will make them change.

>>21565017
This is retarded. A lot of discussion about literature is necessarily going to be political.

>>21567017
there are some guys with wives and children in there. it's a general nut job containment board.

>>21567010
Then it is an alphabet agency honey pot or at least a way to monitor, which is worse. Maybe some handshake agreement between feds and owners of this site

>>21567020
/pol/ doesn't mean politics, silly.

>>21567022
I don't know how to address your post aside from bitter and unfortunate agreement. It's true that people persist with those beliefs permanently. Monkey brain likes to classify things into easily reddit-postable groups, and I think most people with those beliefs who are not under 25 typically have a problem with accepting their place in the world.

>>21567026
Yeah, /pol/ means whatever I don't like, which to me just looks like whatever is not necessary to talk about.

>>21567041
/pol/ means politically incorrect. It's in the header.

>>21566799
>forced trips
yeah dude that totally wont instantly devolve into attention faggotry and discordia
get a grip

>>21567045
and 4chan is an anime website with more non-anime boards than anime boards, and onlyfans is like fiverr except they sell more porn than services. your desired definition doesn't reflect what the word is associated with.
Learn what to say and when to say it

>>21566838
i'm for this as long as you keep out the riff raff attention whores from the unreal server; they're fucking unbearable

>>21567051
>4chan is an anime website
is it, though? They define themselves as:
>4chan is a simple image-based bulletin board where anyone can post comments and share images.

> your desired definition doesn't reflect what the word is associated with.
In the case of /pol/, it perfectly applies. It's an orange board shithole for nazis, zionists, etc. Pretty much 'politically incorrect' garbage and nothing more.

>>21567074
>They define themselves as:
>define themselves
Precisely. OnlyFans did not start as a porn website - go find where they refer to themselves as a porn website. It doesn't matter what something is or is referred to - if I say "lion" and you picture a lion, but I actually meant tiger and tell you you're wrong, you're just not going to understand which is analogous to what is happening now.

>>21567091
OnlyFans did not start as a porn website
oh bullshit
in what other context are people 'fans' of some ethot other than lusting over her mid body?
revisionist asshole

>>21567045
>>21567041
So we can't discuss literature in a way that isn't politically correct? That's also retarded.

>>21567110
Racism is against the rules already.

>>21567110
no listen
what we do is have accounts with usernames so that each user has accountability, and maybe a way of tracking the quality of their posts, I don't know a score or something, and depending on how good your post is the score could go up or down (just spitballing). since the site would be about reading things we could call it 'Read-it!' again I'm just throwing around some ideas here what do you think?

>>21566785
no, but we will fix this place if we just send them to pol instead of the literature board. you can discuss nazi literature, but it has to be about the literary value and historical context, not about how muh traditionalist twitter account says to retvrn to tradition or whatever.
you have spaces to talk about your ideology, go there instead

>>21565017
All I know is that is that quality can only be improved by stricter moderation. All the best forums had precise rules that must be followed. And for the anons reee’ing about free speech and censorship, their is literally a board just for you where you wouldn’t be silenced. Most likely the board is done for though and it’s time to move on. I don’t come here as much anymore and every time I do I’m shocked by how much it’s gone downhill. Sadly this place is no longer one of the premier literature sites. If you were to show a bunch of average people this board and ask them their thoughts…

>>21567104
it did start as a non-porn website, don't you remember them almost being dropped by VISA/Mastercard because they were taking revenue away from the porn industry? onlyfans began as a website like fiverr, the same way 4chan began as an anime website. neither are what they claimed to start as.

>>21567134
4-chan means the 4th channel, nothing about it says anime
only-for-fans means nude pics that only fans (simps) who pay get to see
it's apples and oranges

>>21567142
picture a shark. did you picture a croissant? then you're wrong - apples and oranges

>>21567126
This. Everyone would be happy. /lit/izens would have their place to discuss literature and /pol/ would have their place for ideologies. Everyone wins. But /pol/ has to be aggressive and imperial and then cry like a victim when anons complain about them

>>21567120
Sounds too much work. Let's just put the /pol/ trash in the /pol/ bin.

>>21567144
I pictured fonzi on a motorbike

>>21567153
just because that's what you pictured doesn't mean fonzi on a motorbike is a shark

>>21567144
I pictured your mom getting railed by Bruce from Finding Nemo.

>>21567158
no u

>>21567155
just because fonzi is on a motorbike does it mean that chewbacca, a WOOKIE, could be in coruscant while the ewoks were on the moon of Endor?
That. Does not. Make sense.

>>21567144
4chan doesn't define itself as an anime website, nor do people in general think of it as an anime website. What you say is retarded.

>>21567168
>no u
Me? Railing your mom? I'm no shark but if you say so.

>>21567170
>4chan doesn't define itself as an anime website
It doesn't today, you are literally agreeing with my point lol it started as an anime website and no longer is despite the insistence of many that it is an anime website, and akin to posters in this thread insisting onlyfans was founded with the intention of posting porn when that's just factually untrue

>>21567171
have sex

>>21567177
are you fucking retarded dude
the name of the website is ONLY FANS
ONLY FOR FANS
what else could that possibly connote but secret nudes? you fucking imbecile

>>21567185
>I am physically incapable of using a search engine
Not my problem

>>21567024
>Then it is an alphabet agency honey pot or at least a way to monitor
Everyone already knows that
> which is worse.
Dilate

>>21567189
youre simping, thats all this is
youre simping for a slut website designed for slut whores to sell their middling wares

>>21567196
read >>21567189

>>21567177
You're saying that things are not what they are perceived as but 4chan simply defines itself as an image board with multiple topics and that's what people think of it. Perception perfectly matches definition in this case.

>>21567201
I am saying that things are not necessarily what they once were, regardless of what they identified themselves as at either time when they either were, or were not that thing. I have no idea how you got that interpretation and I'm inclined you're believing what you want to believe, so I won't engage anymore

>>21567185
>Famous guy makes meet up for fans
>Guss hes going to show them his cock?

>>21567209
obfuscating simp
>>21567200
simp

>>21567212
no u

>>21567205
anime website, always was, always will be.

>>21567216
Case closed

>>21567216
Frog website

>>21567205
I don't understand what you even mean. This discussion started because you seemed to imply /pol/ meant politics when in reality it means politically incorrect:
>OP: We should add a report option for 'This post belongs on /pol/'
>You: This is retarded. A lot of discussion about literature is necessarily going to be political.
Politically incorrect is an apt label for what /pol/ does (even if it's an understatement). It's not just something political.

>>21567118
Racism on /pol/ is against the rules as well. Welcome to 4chan. Additionally the definition of that word has exploded even since it was written as a rule. We should be able to discuss, for example, the implications and research of The Bell Curve as long as people aren't just spamposting "NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER." Political theory, even that that appears racist, is contained in books, and books are the topic of this board. Stop being such a softie. Engage with viewpoints that make you uncomfortable and ignore users that make low-quality bait posts.

>>21567222
trips of truth

>>21567236
I'm the anon that made the post you quoted, not him. I still don't understand what you're trying to say; that you shouldn't be able to discuss books/topics that are politically incorrect on this board?

>>21565017
What about an idea of adding a radical right general? Ban anyone being politically incorrect outside of it. Everyone gets what they want then. /pol/ can still post on /lit/ without clogging the board and derailing every other thread

>>21567244
No I'm the guy who quoted, not the anon you posted to. What i was saying was that you shouldn't be able to quote that anon's post, not mine, because I still don't understand who you're trying to quote; that you should'nt be able to post quotes/posts that are him, not that anon on this board?

>>21567237
Stop trying to have an honest dialogue with people who just dream of being the thought police. These fags probably unironically applied to be jannies yesterday

>>21567237
>Racism on /pol/ is against the rules as well.
It's actually not. Why do you lie? /pol/ on the left, /lit/ on the right.

>>21567244
Threads about politically incorrect topics are almost always a way to post about the politically incorrect thing itself, and not the book. It’s a way to circumvent the rules. If someone posts a book about football, and the thread is filled with anons discussing the week’s games, it isn’t a literature thread

>>21567252

>>21567252
I don't agree with the premise that 'racism' as such is even a legitimate concept, much less am I inclined to follow such a petty rule on an anonymous board. The real issue should be off-topic posts, not whether someone is """""racist"""""" or not. The fact the tard ITT is talking about the latter proves where his signpost is pointing. It's to the left lad.

>>21567237
>racism is just when people use racial slurs
The rule says 'Racism outside of /b/', not 'Racial slurs outside of /b/'. Someone who says 'All races are inferior to [insert poster race here]' is equally racist as someone who tells a poster that he's a 'nigger.' Only exception I can think of is if the word nigger is in a book's title or part of the text.

>>21566838
All of your suggestions except the registration and social credit system are acceptable. Users shouldn't have to walk on eggshells and very valid posts can damage someone's reputation if they fall outside the board's consensus.

>>21567279
shut up nigger

>>21567282
no u

>>21567298
>u
NOOOOOO RACISSSSSTTTT

>>21567263
>Racism on /pol/ is against the rules as well.
>No, it's not. Here's the proof.
>Actually, I don't believe racism is a valid concept.
Nice weaseling out, liar. But rules are rules.

>>21567246
No. Derailing all the threads and spreading our messages is what's important. Nobody cares about your daily polwhiner cryfests when there are important issues to educate people on. And besides, only some threads attract pol attention. Don't post in threads specifically about trannies or Jews or communists or nazi literature if you're so horrified by seeing your heckin 4chan threads "derailed" as if without the smattering of pol influence the entire catalogue would be filled with vibrant high effort threads you'd be incredibly interested in. You'll still get to see your 8-12 Lolita threads a week, your Joyce meme threads, your "I read dostoyevsky for the first time and he was good" threads and your stacks threads and fucking "what am I in for threads."

>>21567301
if I dont agree with the premise of something existing how am I expected to obey a law that forbids it existing, braniac?

>>21567246
It could work. The only problem is that people will flood the general with ragebait to try and kill the thread. Also, it may attract more /pol/ users to the board; who will reply to the other threads, so the board may end up more like /pol/ than it already is.

>>21567281
I think there needs to be middle ground. Ideally a community would have similar interest. There is a difference between disagreement on a book and a person who tries to subvert or derail any discussion. I wish there was middle ground between Reddit and 4chan. A place where you didn’t have to tow the line and a place where someone could anonymously post inflammatory comments and recede into the darkness without repercussions

>>21567252
I've been banned for racism many times and the message I always get is
>racism is banned outside of b

>>21567313
grammar nazi here (although I know nazis are a contentious subject in this thread), it's actually toe the line, as in putting your toe at the line before a race starts

>>21567305
So next time someone says this board isn’t /pol/-lite, here is a post about a /pol/tard admitting to spreading propaganda and derail threads

>>21567306
Rules exist whether you believe in them or not. It's irrelevant how you personally feel about them.

>>21567331
if there's a rule against entering Piecrustia and I don't believe that Piecrustia is an extant place, how am I supposed to not enter Piecrustia?

>>21567327
>pol-lite
All of 4chan is moving in that direction because it aligns with the truth and is banned everywhere else.

>>21565017
Hey hoe, let's go
Censorship has got to go/
Hey hoe, go on
Try and silence them some more/
Hey hoe, uh oh
Here's a big and fat/
Just/
No.

>>21567327
>>21567339
You're going to hear about the Jews until everyone knows... they have to be made aware

/pol/niggers like >>21567339 should be shot. not even a shred of self-awareness to see that they're just as inane and soulless as their bleeding heart liberal bogeymen.
>the truth
wake up, chuddyboy. this isn't your family thanksgiving. go fight your little battles in your containment board where they belong. you're making me glad the jews won, which is ironically the exact same type of ressentiment that got many of you retards all riled up and gathered in the first place.

>>21567259
I see what you're saying, but I don't think that's isolated to discussion about politically incorrect topics. In my experience on /lit/, even when people post threads about specific books the discussion that occurs is rarely focused on what's in the OP. People relate other books by the same writer that they've read, or other books/authors that cover the same themes as what's discussed. I make a boatload of threads about William Faulkner and his works and people almost NEVER interact with what is explicitly in my OP.

But at least the discussion is in the same ballpark as what the thread is supposed to be about. The discussions here are almost without exception more fruitful than threads I peruse on /pol/. I really don't think most people that make topics about politically incorrect subjects are doing it strictly to shitpost. I think they and the threads can be very receptive to discussion of literature that covers that politically incorrect topic, even in a way they might not be seeking. Same as any other thread.

>>21567279
It's a dumb rule that hasn't been followed, except by ideologue jannies, since at least /pol/'s inception and probably way before. Racism rarely takes the form you give it, and the term begs interpretation. There's a really good article by Henry Louis Gates Jr. about this called Let Them Talk, on New Republic, which is about academia but fits discussion here just as well.

What's worse:
>(A) LeVon, if you find yourself struggling in your classes here, you should realize it isn’t your fault. It’s simply that you’re the beneficiary of a disruptive policy of affirmative action that places underqualified, underprepared and often undertalented black students in demanding educational environments like this one. The policy’s egalitarian aims may be well-intentioned, but given the fact that aptitude tests place African Americans almost a full standard deviation below the mean, even controlling for socioeconomic disparities, they are also profoundly misguided. The truth is, you probably don’t belong here, and your college experience will be a tong downhill slide.
>(B) Out of my face, nigger. (edited by anon for effect)
Now what's more racist? Does the truth value of the first statement affect whether or not it is racist?

>>21567357
theyre not interested in truth, only MUH ROOLZ the same way poltards are only interested in DA JOOZ
its two sides of the same coin; both are retards

>>21567354
>It's good that 50% of families break up
>and that encouraging children to transition has become normalized
>and infant circumcision being performed on hundreds of millions of newborn boys
>and fighting wars for Israel
>all of that is great because I don't like pol posters who should all be killed
https://youtu.be/b9JDPm_QHk4

>>21567337
That's pure sophistry. If you don't even believe in the rules that a website has, why are you here? Why do you keep visiting?

>>21567368
It turns out I can do what I want whenever I want, as long as there isn't someone more powerful than me preventing me from doing so. The jannies are inept; therefore I persist.

>>21567372
based stirnerbro
rulefags btfo epic style as per usual

>>21567354
Yeah. I bet he cries about liberalism being shoehorned into schools and media across the country yet he does the same thing from the opposite side. Anyone who admits what he did needs to be banned as an agitator

>>21567354
>go fight your little battles in your containment board where they belong.
But everyone already knows about the Jews there. They need to know everywhere else, too.

Uhmm… sorry incels but human rights and democracy ARE NOT POLITICAL!! Advocating for basic rights and respect for marginalized folks is not a political thing, it’s called being a decent fucking human being. And it’s of especial importance in a space as colonized as “literature” which is frankly a construct made up to demarcate the works of average white males from BIPOC and Otherized Persons who spread their Culture through oral tradition, folktales, and Ways of Knowing that white people can’t ever be expected to grasp….

>>21567366
MUH ROOLZ would disappear if MUH JOOS did. The former is a reaction to the latter

>>21567384
>I bet he complains about lies being taught
I do complain about it a lot.

>>21567372
>The jannies are inept; therefore I persist.
So you know you're breaking the rules yet you continue to break them. That's a far cry from "ackshually racism is not a valid concept." You know what you're doing is wrong. That's all I needed to hear.

>>21567393
I reject the concept of racism and I persist here, irrespective of your opinion.

>>21567390
But it really is, with routine frequency and very obviously, the Jews.

See like this evil practice in pic related? That happens because of the jews. And to stop it that needs to be addressed. Its one of many many things.

>>21567403
not him but fuck off
youre not a revolutionary because you post shit everyone here already knows about
if you had balls youd try to 'spread the message' on twitter or youtube, not somewhere you know you wont get punished for it
coward bitch wanting to get high on your own farts is all this is

>>21567393
I too reject the concept of racism and don't subscribe to any jannies rules about what's allowed to be posted here. And I've never felt the need to cry about not enough rules enforcement on 4chan that's just retarded

>>21567408
hear, hear!

>>21567389
I know this is satire but I read a post on reddit yesterday (big mistake) about like "Things you think everyone gets wrong" and more than a few of the top were along the lines of "I don't think it's that history has a left-leaning slant, I just think that people and society are progressing towards [my ideological leanings], which are actually universal."

>>21567398
No, you said you persisted because "jannies are inept" (at enforcing the racism rule that you're aware you're breaking). If you truly didn't believe in racism, you would't have said "jannies are inept".

>>21567405
I dont use Twitter or have a YouTube account. I've had conversations with people I know irl, but you're right. I should be doing much more. Anyway I'm on here researching for a book I'm... writing

And check out pic related. He said that before the internet even existed, so no pol.

>>21567420
now who's engaging in sophistry, pigshit?
I reject the concept and I reject a rule based on a fraudulent concept. It is nothing to me and I continue to post, proving it is nothing.

>>21567408
>jannies rules
Website-wide rules*
>And I've never felt the need to cry about not enough rules enforcement on 4chan that's just retarded
Because you benefit from off topic posts that cater to your views.

>>21567428
freespeech benefits everyone but left-leaning parasites like you, whose paper-thin houses of cards topple the moment people are allowed to freely exercise their own intellects

>>21566827
>. To those saying everything is political, somehow /lit/ was able to do fine discussing literature without politics for over a decade.

Stop lying. There has always been dicussion of political systems in the context of the books that outline them. That is tantamount the rules on /tg/ saying talk about ttrpg but dont mention any of the supplementaty media. Every board has stuff that i adjacent to the central theme, /k/ has outdoor innawoods stuff and military and history, /fit/ has beauty, health and all sorts.

You keep trying to tease out what is you don't like. It is not the shitposting but only a small subgroup of shitposting that reflects what you do not like.

>>21566854
Im rarely off topic and don't shitpost much.

>>21567428
>website wide rules
Not heckin web rulerinos
>Because you benefit from off topic posts that cater to your views.
I used 4chan well-before ever encountering any pol ideology or having any political views of my own. I still never cared enough to try to lobby moderators to oy vey shut down people who made threads I didn't like. R-eddit is a website where that's the cultural norm. Perhaps migrate there if you're worried about pol this much?

I think this thread needs an exercise. Every anon who thinks that "pol posts" should be sent back to /pol/ create metrics for what defines a "/pol/ post" and then post those metrics here without reading anyone elses metrics until the thread gets bumped off of the board. After that we can go into the catalogue and see what the metrics are. After that we can make a thread that analyzes the most common metrics for loop holes that can be exploited later and try to fill them. If we can come to some definitive metric that accomplishes your goals without leaving things open for exploitation in new and potentially more annoying ways, without adding more policy than just relegating pol posts to /pol/, that would be something. Though Im still skeptical that there are any metrics that can be layed out that wont be refined later until 4chan no longer operates like 4chan, maybe thats fine and this place should die to something new anyway.

>>21567439
Also in discussions of authors political, philosophical, religious views or biography you should be able to discuss topics relevant to today's politics. Would the muh rules crowd object to pol posting in an overtly political thread about how dystopias are depicted? How about a thread concerning Dostoyevsky and other famous writers and their views on Jews throughout history.

>>21567403
I believe I saw you last night going on about the same thing. I’m not even mad because I am certain you are paid back by having a miserable life. Like the other anon said, if you wanted to spread a message or if you had balls, you’d go somewhere outside of this echo chamber. Everyone here already either agrees with you or stands no chance of converting because you are strange. Try to spread your message where it can actually matter. All the radicals here are cowards who hope to hype others up to do the dirty work. Get off the internet. You are going on and on about Jews and circumcision on a literary board. That isn’t healthy

>>21567427
"I persist because jannies are inept", you said yourself, not me, faggot. You know what you're doing is wrong but you wished it didn't exist. Repeat after me, "I persist because jannies are inept." LMAO

>>21567445
*go into the archive not the catalogue.

>>21567415
Yeah shitlibs have been doing that for a long time and it’s extremely effective. You define your beliefs as normative and your enemy’s beliefs as political. There’s a great section on that in The Concept of the Political

>>21567447
It helps spread the message if the overwhelming sentiment on 4chan is that message. You're right though, we have to spread beyond.

>>21567439
I come here every week or two and every time I see your posts everywhere. Get a life, loser

>>21567448
>You know what you're doing is wrong
I never conceded that.
You cannot understand the difference between liberty and morality, because you are a braindead leftist who has no means to conceptualize freedom.
You cannot frame this as a moral argument no matter how hard you try. I reject, and continue to reject your forced reality. I am god here.

>>21567436
>le heckin left!
You don't even know what's wrong yet you bring your little boogeyman to the table. If trannies were ruining the board, I would blame trannies, the thing is, /pol/tards are ruining the board.

>>21567445
If the post/thread is ideological or is an “us vs them” political stance. /lit/ was fine for years not posting all this nonsense. If you can’t post without being an ideologue then that is on you and you are the issue

>>21567465
How about Twitter and other social media platforms? Why aren't they to your liking while 4chan is? There must be some reason you specifically like to discuss things here. If pol is ruining the website then what's wrong with Reddit? I am a pol thread derailer and I get permanently banned on reddit after making a single pol post, anywhere on the website.

>>21567475
Gonna need you to be more specific about what "posting like an ideologue" is. Remember we ate creating metrics. All you did was substitute "posting like an ideologue" for "pol posting".

>>21567488
*are. Jesus fuck my hands

>>21567463
>I never conceded that.
You did and I didn't mean "wrong" as in morally wrong, I meant against the rules. "I persist because jannies are inept" means jannies don't enforce the rules so worms like you take advantage, knowing what they're doing is wrong (against the rules).

>>21567507
just because you drew a (false) conclusion from my words with your left-poisoned pilpul does not equate to me conceding anything at all. your tricks will not work here, kimosabe. you've met your match. I do not concede to you, I do not concede to the jannies.

>>21567488
If you post about politics outside of a historical perspective. Giving a backdrop of the June Rebellion for Les Miserables is fine IMO. It’s the culture war bullshit that needs to go

>>21567476
I like middle ground. Reddit glorifies trannies and you'll get permanently banned if you say they aren't women. /lit/ was that oasis but then quality took a nosedive due to /pol/tards.

>>21567523
youre full of shit
that butterfly dyke used to go on and on about marx every chance she got, smearing her fish stinking snail trails around every thread.
let's face it, it's not politics you hate, it's right wing politics.

>>21567452
It's not even normative; they think their beliefs are reality (therefore not beliefs). They believe in the physical reality of capital-P Progress as a medieval peasant believes in the physical reality of God.

>>21567523
But what happens on /lit/ if you post the opposite? You don't get banned, your post isn't deleted, your post isn't down-voted so that nobody sees it. What made it stop being that oasis?

>>21567515
I heard your words alright, pal. You believe you're some rebel by breaking the rules (you even called yourself a "god" lmao). By your own admission, you persist because jannies are inept. You can try all the mental gymnastics that you want but I know what you said.

>>21567535
In a perfect world butterfly would be banned and so would /pol/tards. Zero tolerance policy. Obviously discussing politics is taboo. There is a board for it

>>21567535
Are you insane? Everyone hated butterdyke. She was an annoying cunt but she vanished, thankfully. Things are better when political ideologues disappear.

>>21567523
So everywhere else on the internet glorifies trannies and pol is the one bastion of sanity and you want to prevent that from being elsewhere on 4chan? Our point of view is immediately banned everywhere else on the internet. Don't come here and cry that we're just speaking about issues that matter where you don't want us to. The lit catalogue can survive some pol threads, and of the 3 or do I see right now (including this one) they have almost all the replies. Clearly this is what interests people so what's the problem? You can make a thread on any lit subject you want. There are plenty of useless threads on lit that get like 3 replies and sink.

>>21567542
> What made it stop being that oasis?
/pol/cels who can’t help themselves and spam endlessly. They can’t discuss anything if it isn’t through their political lens

>>21566609
Yeah you people are worse than all of those.

>>21567553

>>21567559
You can just ignore them if they're not worth replying to. The more (You)s you get, the more likely someone's going to take the time to actually engage your post. This is my experience anyway, and my own leanings often differ greatly from the standard /pol/ack's.

>>21567519
Ok so we need a way to be specific enough about what is and isn't "culture war bullshit" in order to make metrics. I feel like you aren't understanding what I mean when I say "make metrics." Basically what Im looking for is a series of unambiguous if then statements that can be used as hard and fast rules for identifying "pol posts." So far you have given me info for how a post can be misconstrued as a "pol post" (your legitimate backdrop example), and thats good to keep in mind. But no concrete rule like "if it says something like this, then send it to pol" for threads or "if it says that, the delete it" for posts. If an AI can read it I can at least trust that jannies can maybe read it.

>>21567554
There is /pol/ for tranny hating. Let /lit/ be for those who want to discuss literature. No one is complaining about /pol/ posting on /pol/. The complaint is they migrate to other boards and shit them up

>>21567572
>Me: I don't like reddit because they permanently ban you for saying that trannies aren't women. The marxist butterdyke? she was annoying cunt
>You: You're le reddit!
...

>>21565017
>phoneposter
you're also the reason the site is worse

>>21567584
This. /pol/tards are quick to go full victim mode when all we're really saying is "maybe post your /pol/ shit on the /pol/board, not on /lit/"

>>21567544
You can delude yourself into thinking this was a win for you, go ahead, it's what you do best. But know that you have won nothing--you haven't changed my opinion, you haven't changed my actions.
Nothing has changed at all.
Your efforts here today had less effect than even a drop of water in a bucket.

>>21567577
>just ignore the roaches in your house
We need an exterminator. /pol/ has made many anons from /lit/ leave or post much more infrequently, has derailed threads, has killed threads by making shitty threads. If there is an issue it’s best not to turn away from it and close your eyes. Would you tell /pol/ to ignore minorities, women, trannies, leftists, etc? I doubt it

>>21567584
Keep complaining that the site is undermoderated but you can't stop people interested from making the posts they want to post on 4chan. So we will continue to do so.
>>21567587
You are. You should go there where pol posts on the lit sub will get the author permanent bans within a day or so and, if not banned, downvoted into being "hidden" from view, for your convenience.

Otherwise I've got infographics depicting Jewish evils to share with you.

>>21567553
>things are better when everybody agrees with me

>>21567587
so you admit you use reddit...

>>21567602
There is no abundance of amazing threads on lit we are replacing. There are many free slots at all times for you to strike up a conversation about whatever on topic lit subjects you wish. Go through the catalogue right now and tell me what % of threads you think are good. And then why anyone should care particularly.

>>21567581
Fine. Zero tolerance for politics and ideologies. You can only discuss books. One can discuss Les Miserables without the June Rebellion, for example Jean Valjean’s plight. It is probably better though to have good jannies who exercise good discretion and dish out punishment when things get out of hand.

>>21567600
See >>21567445
and >>21567581

>>21567608
4chan is sectioned off by interests. You are posting on the wrong board when there is literally a place for you
>>21567622
Because everyone left or comes here less often. I said that. Also zero reason to put effort into this dump

>>21567624
We get it. You want /lit/ to be /pol/.

>>21567623
>t is probably better though to have good jannies who exercise good discretion and dish out punishment when things get out of hand.
I agree but it has already been established that individuals can not be trusted to do that. I like the hard stance you have taken but I see an issue when talking about things where politics can be used as the best example for a concept being discussed, like if lit were to talk about nick lands hyperstition idea in his writing or people want to talk about the analogy of platos state in the context of how to govern ones own inner self. It also doesn't account for a bunch of religious or sexuality flavored ideological spewing.

>>21567647
Not even close. Not sure if people who don't know how the read should be involved in a discussion on how to best run a literature forum.

>>21567649
It’s easy to tell the difference between a flamewar, or looking to start a flamewar, and someone posting in good faith

>>21567638
But I'm also interested in literature.
>everyone left, they come here less often, there's no reason to put EFFORT into this dump
Jesus you are a tremendous faggot. Yes anon, pol posters have driven everyone away and lit is now... tragically... a dump :( and this is very emotionally impactful for you because you won't leave and also cant ignore that 10% of the catalogue is a bit pol tinged even while probably 20% of the catalogue are totally useless threads with under 8 replies

Just keep crying pol whiner. What you should be doing is pol posting yourself

>>21567657
>t. every post i dislike is a flamewar

>>21567655
You sure are trying your hardest to give /pol/ wiggle room

>>21567657
If so then it should be just as easy to frame how one would do that into a series of rules. If for nothing else then to warn people ahead of time how not to post here.

>>21567657
God no... not a flame war! Anything but that!

>>21567608
>why would it stop at 2019

>>21567668
what good is rules when the jannies do nothing?
am I the only one in this thread who isnt completely whack a mole retarded?

These posts are so disingenuous. I don't know why you guys whine about /pol/shit of all things when there are overwhelmingly more posts like:
>my girlfriend left meeeee, books for this feel??
>my dog died, books for this feel????
>my wifes boyfriend raped me, books for this feel???????

>>21567677
Stomping your feet on the ground isn't high iq anon

>>21567601
Jesus Christ, it's not obligatory to post, you know? My intention was not to "convince" you or whatever faggot shit you had in mind, I was simply calling out the nonsense. We were having a back and forth discussion and you admitted "I persist because jannies are inept." You made your views crystal clear (and you haven't even tried to clear them out, you just dance around the issue).
>Your efforts here today had less effect than even a drop of water in a bucket.
Kind of like sperging about the Jews in some niche corner of the Internet.

I dont want to alarm you but there may be a flame war or flame wars in the thread!

>>21567667
Im really not. Only one person so far has made a statement that isnt vague and exploitable. This is why legalese are so long and specific. To ensure no loopholes or ambiguities. I would like to state again for the record that I have never been on pol and I find many of the things complained about ITT equally disagreeable.

>>21567691
>Kind of like sperging about the Jews in some niche corner of the Internet.
I'm not him albeit. I merely reject the false concept of racism and refuse to genuflect to the jannies.

>>21567668
Complaining about trannies, niggers, Jews, women, leftoids goes on /pol/. They have their board, let us have ours. That is fair enough.

>>21567691
>Kind of like sperging about the Jews in some niche corner of the Internet.
You know it was some combination of random anons who, unknowingly, convinced me that they were right about the Jews when I was thinking about it myself. It does impact how real people out in the world see things. Hopefully the message spreads to enough of them to make a big impact.

The evidence is pretty overwhelming.

>>21567693
See >>21567698

>>21567701
the difference is you learned about it on /pol/ where you had an open mind to it
all youre doing here is preaching to the choir or riling up the stiff leftists who'll never buy the jew shtick anyway.
go to twitter and spread your ideas there. how many times do we gotta say it.

>>21567692
It is funny to see one side putting up an argument as to why it is relevant to keep such on lit and the other side screeching madly about losing ground.

The Zeitgiest is changing, embrace the change my fellow wh- left-wing people.

>>21567698
I like that metric though I already see how /pol/ would circumvent it in perpetuity by simply using new key words. Those key words could be established on /pol/ beforehand by the way.

>>21567704
I did. see>>21567716

>>21567708
Honestly most of 4chan seems to pretty much agree with us. There are just a number of very dedicated pol whiners
>go to Twitter
No thank you

>>21567698
Also in that case does that mean that praises of such groups should also be relegated to /pol/ in the interest of fairness? or are we just looking to oust that bad feeling opinions? And if so bad according to whom? What about talking about identity groups at all?

>>21567716
That metric is retarded. There's a plethora of literature that delve into those topics throughout history (aside from trannies, obviously). Should literature that contains ideology in general be blanket banned?

>>21567733
You faggots don't even agree with the already existing rules, so why do you even care?

>>21567733
I am seeing pitfalls too but I think the answer (not my answer, Im still very skeptical a good metric exists) is probably "you can talk about those books on /pol/". Which again I think is a bad answer.

>>21567737
This post right here is a prime example of why this whining is retarded. Just because I've dissented, I'm designated a /pol/ poster despite literally only coming to this site for /lit/, /tv/, and /vr/.

>>21567730
Those threads don't even exist. They're complaining that if a thread devoted to trans literature is made here it will be largely populated by people of the belief that transitioning is significant self-harm and that movements to promote more transitioning, especially among the underage, are evil. Which is perfectly reasonable given the thread context. I don't ever see threads that are just "I hate trannies," though I do sometimes see them on pol. Likewise there's a thread about book burning and a thread about mein kampf right now. These seem on-topic to me.

>>21566614
Nah, I've gotten several 3 day bans in the last two months for off topic posts on lit

>>21567744
Your arguments just happen to magically favor the /pol/tard view every time. "Rampant impunity! No rules! I am le god!"

>>21567737
I care because if no one can agree to metrics of what "pol posting" is then its evidence that an objective definition doesnt exist, and everyone who is calling for "pol posting" to be moved just want to enforce their subjective views of what is or isnt a good post. Which is faggotry.

>>21567742
It's a fair answer if we ignore the general culture of /pol/ which isn't going to be reading-inclined. It's the same issue with philosophical, religous, and historical works that get posted here, technically those are meant to go to /his/ according to the rules, but they still fit into /lit/ as well.
It's not the best system, I get it, but as long as people are discussing books or at least the OP is attempting to on whatever thread he started, I don't think there's more that should be done.

>>21567754
>I am le god!

The polbitching is just rank and probably by tourists or otherwise sensitive redditors. I have never seen a polyp make a shid thread, they just post the books they read and talk about topics they always discuss and then some ledditor loses their minds over it and starts going MODS MODS MODS because they can't even argue in good faith over the topics discussed. Get into the fookin pit

>>21567750
that just means your funpost triggered one of the jannies

>>21567754
Your brain addled. There's literally nothing for you to come to that conclusion other than your own schizophrenic bias. I'd much rather have the broken system we have than whatever ideas you could come up with.

>>21567764
Yea, that's why /pol/tards say, nice illustration. "I am god here." See: >>21567463

>>21567754
>NO NO NO NO HOW DARE YOU HAVE INCORRECT OPINIONS WITH IMPUNITY!! YOU CANT JUST SAY AND THINK PROBLEMATIC THINGS LIKE THAT OMG WHY ARENT THE MODS STOPPING THIS
kill yourself my man (emphasis on man, because you will never be a woman)

>>21567754
>the /pol/tard view
>anarchy
Why are lefturds so goddamn stupid? Anything that isn't enforced drag troon story hour eat ze bug climate change race doesn't exist podlife is /pol/, despite the fact up to ten years ago anarchy was supposedly left wing.
Fucking establishment regurgitators

>>21567771
If you agree with the racism rule and the off-topic rule, there's no reason to disagree with the /pol/ rule, other than 'muh relativism, it's all relative bro.'

>>21567779
"I am god here" is a quote from lawnmower man and you are being successfully trolled by a s*yjakposter with Stirneristic tendencies.

>>21567790
I dont agree with those rules.

>>21567769
My feeling as well. The left can't win arguments so they inevitably resort to just trying to push their opposition off any board they infest. The funny thing is that this guy hasn't actually made a case for why people with opposing views to his own should be banned other than they irritate him.

>>21567783
"I persist because jannies are inept." - Generic /pol/tard, 2023. That's how they think (See the above replies where they admit it). Sounds like anarchy to me. They know they're breaking the rules, and they still break them.

>>21567747
Ok but imagine a post is made thats something like "boy I sure do love gay lit like x, don't you?" or some shit (in my mind the "books for x identity thing" is a veiled attempt at something like this). Would we ban people that say "no, gays suck" get banned where people that say "yeah gays rule and so does their literature" stay? Or do we just ban Identity signaling all together? I understand that these are not the issues being addressed but they are things that will need to be addressed if we are going to trust people to identify "pol posts" without over reaching or over correcting.

>>21567783
it's almost like they're not arguing in good faith and are just ideologues who want literally the entire internet to be a safe space where dissent is deleted

>>21567801
Thanks for the propaganda post kikebro

>>21567806
you keep quoting me because it's so iconic, what I said.
I'm awesome, thanks for noticing

>>21567809
Yes basically. Just the usual whining about how people who have different views to them are allowed to post in their safe space.

>>21567807
I would pretty much not ban anyone for anything except literal spamming such as making the exact same thread dozens of times a day

>>21567790
>I hate niggers because they look different
Not okay.

>I dont think dark skinned people should be allowed in civlized society because of the preponderance of clinical evidence that shows they are unable to think in abstractions.

>>21567801
>I dont agree with those rules.
You don't agree they should exist on this board? Then you're basically a /pol/tard. All you say favors their views.

>>21567811
It's apparently real but every time I see it I think it's a satirical pol creation

>>21567716
Fuck you and your semantics and legalese. /lit/ was fine with it’s rules and they were enforced for years until /pol/ exploded and spread like cancer. It’s /pol/ that is the issue, not how the rules are worded

>>21567818
this is the only way 4chan should be moderated. Just delete garbage spam and let the board sort itself out. Trying to control 4chan has only ever damaged it (like when moot accidentally killed /b/ entirely that one time)

>>21565017
dilate

>>21565017
>mods still haven't deleted this off-topic thread
Mods confirmed trannies

>>21567820
They shouldn't exist on this board. I am absolutely a poltard. The other anon you've been speaking to is the one who's refusing that label on the flimsy excuse that they "don't visit pol." Pfffft

>>21567730
What groups have you seen praised here?

>>21567826
/lit/ is still fine, you're just a fucking baby who can't deal with the fact that incorrect opinions exist. Return to reddit if it bothers you so fucking much

>>21567790
>there's no reason to disagree with the /pol/ rule
There is. Because this isn't a rule and (mainly) just whining about wanting it to become one and a few anons wanting actual discourse on how to measure said rule.
>If you agree with the racism rule and the off-topic rule
If these rule don't work then why would the /pol/ rule work?

>>21567837
>If these rule don't work then why would the /pol/ rule work?
Don't expect logic and rational thinking from a turdbrain censoring leftoid

>>21567815
It's the perfect example of a /pol/tard's attitude towards derailing threads with their garbage. Essentially a self-own that remains unexplained because its meaning is crystal clear. I had my doubts about your intentions but then you laid them bare in front of me. Best thing is you didn't even notice.

>>21567762
>as long as people are discussing books or at least the OP is attempting to on whatever thread he started, I don't think there's more that should be done.
I agree and am trying to make that obvious to people that think that relegating what they claim to be "pol posts" to /pol/ is an over step.
>It's the same issue with philosophical, religous, and historical works that get posted here, technically those are meant to go to /his/ according to the rules
historical events and religious and philosophical ideas are meant to be discussed on his but historical, religious and philosophical literature are supposed to be discussed on lit. I know that seems impossible but its how the rules are written. I've never quite wrapped my head around it. mostly because Im not sure how one would separate the two.
>It's a fair answer if we ignore the general culture of /pol/ which isn't going to be reading-inclined
I disagree because one would still need an objective metric for what is fit for pol but not lit which, outside of the tools we already have, seems impossible to me.

>>21567851
try not to pull a muscle doing all those calisthenics bugman

>>21567851
you don't belong here, you know you don't belong here. Why are you trying to force yourself and your stupid views where they aren't wanted?

>>21567855
I thank you for admitting your real intentions without knowing it. Beautiful stuff.

>>21567818
I can get behind that if I thought I could trust you to be telling the truth.

>>21567861
Been here for years. /pol/fags are ruining the board and /lit/izens (who aren't /pol/tards) are noticing it.

>>21567862
the fact you think it's a selfown because I made my intentions explicit just goes to show what a conniving little pilpul sophist you are.
I made my principles clear and I stood by them in spite of your constant nonsenical attempts at browbeating me. Shocking, huh?

>>21567862
>ha ha ha you admitted you don't care about the RULES on 4CHAN
Wow anon

>>21567826
It will matter if the new rule was set up in a way that could be abused by people from /pol/ to suppress legitimate /lit/ conversation as a kind of tantrum. Also saying that rules worked until x thing happened kinda means they didnt work (at least not for your purposes, I personally think that the current rules plus personal responsibility is the right way to go).

>>21567869
>I've been on lit for years
Seriously? How many dostoyevsky, infinite jest, Lolita threads can one person read in their lifetime?

>>21567869
you are obviously lying, an actual /lit/izen would not care that other people read no no books, and someone who actually belongs on 4chan wouldn't give a flying fuck what anyone's opinion is on anything.
How exactly do "/pol/fags"(I know you mean literally everyone who isn't one of you trannies) ruin the board, exactly? Just by posting and reminding you that they exist and don't share your views?

>>21567802
there's a bunch of tourists on the blueboards shilling for ukraine right now. They're all from reddit and have probably never heard the other side of the argument ever

>>21567851
whining about a "derail" in a thread summoning pol

the funniest part is most of us don't even go on /pol/, just hate reddit censors with a passion

>>21567874
I'm the greatest /lit/izen who ever lived. The leading tastemaker of the board.

>>21567833
You are so focussed on how bad things are now that you are unwilling to entertain that things could be bad in other ways. And once you let the genie out of the bottle you can't put him back. This is how the internet has become what it is.

>>21567887
alright then, what does GPS stand for?

>>21567887
Well I read the board years ago, and I'm reading it now, and all the exact same books and authors are being discussed.

Why do /pol/tards love to bring their boyfriends with them? You reply something to a particular retard and then his angry boyfriend comes to help him. Homosexual hivemind.

>>21567899
You're calling others a homosexual hivemind?
Good god, the irony is tangible. I can taste it on my tongue.

>37 posters

>>21567899
mad that nobody else is as big a faggot as you?
I bet you're the same one who's been making this same shitty thread demanding censorious moderation for weeks now.

>>21567912
>proves me right
Thank you once again LMAO and no, I'm not even OP.

>>21567896
Guy
Pierces'
Scrotum

>>21567921
>nooooo more than one person can't disagree with me at a time

>>21567869
This. Simple as. The board is fucked anyway so might as well voice complaints. We wouldn’t want to silence people, freedom of speech, yada yada yada. Worst thing that happens is nothing gets done and /lit/izens abandon ship. Best case scenario is something gets done, like the rules being enforced. I have no hope of /pol/ staying in their own lane

>>21567879
I care when you derail my threads. I don't give a shit what you cunts use to rot your brains. Jerk off to all the Nazi books you want, just don't ruin my thread.

>>21567921
Sure you're not and I'm also sure you're not literally the only one pushing your garbage view here. Nope. You're the majority! Sure you are. That's why you're crying about getting dogpiled in the most pathetic way possible. Because it's totally not just you.
>38 posters

>>21567934
You have 2 options anon
1. Go to r-eddit where no pol opinion havers will derail any of your threads with pol opinions ever
2. Stay on 4chan and sometimes we will

I hope you choose #1 I think it'd be for the best

>>21567934
your thread that you made specifically to demand that "/pol/fags" (again, meaning whoever disagrees with you) be banned from the board?
Actually given the dogshit you spew that makes perfect sense. You just want the illusion that nobody disagrees with your ideas.

>>21565017
Kek at /pol/cels having thin skin when they are complained about. A bunch of hypocrites is what they are. Let /lit/ go to the dogs I say

>>21567947
>not a new ip
OP, you're not fooling anyone.

>>21567947
>still 38 posters
KEK stop samefagging tranny it will never make you a woman

>>21567938
>1 person makes 37 /pol/tards seethe
Would be lovely but it's not likely. I'm not OP and if you search for "go back to /pol/" or similar phrases in the archive, you'll see many posters have expressed similar opinions.

>>21567898
You are blatantly dishonest if you don’t think that /lit/ has declined. No one said it used to be great, just a lot better than it is now

>>21567954
plenty of schizoposts deserve a go back to /pol/ in response, that doesn't mean the people posting that are faggots like you, OP.

>Would be lovely but it's not likely. I'm not OP and if you search for "go back to /pol/" or similar phrases in the archive, you'll see many posters have expressed similar opinions.

>>21567953
Never denied it. Don’t like me saying /pol/ made /lit/ shit, then you are welcome to leave or ignore the thread. Same thing you do to /lit/

>>21567954
I'm a poltard and I find this thread quite amusing

>>21567968
>just let me have the illusion that nobody disagrees with me!!!

>>21567946
This isn't my thread. I meant the LITERATURE threads that I usually start and have ruined with your retarded nonsense that belongs on /pol/

>>21567957
I think its genuinely the exact same from what I remember.

>>21567976
post any example of you making a literature thread and it being derailed and ruined by /pol/ spam. If it happens so often you should be able to find them in the archives

>>21567943
I already said why reddit is shit. I don't want /lit/ to be shit also (but in the other direction).

>>21567976
>https://archived.moe/lit/
Care to share an example?

>>21567978
Nah, it's much better. Fewer tripfaggots, fewer trannies, fewer jews.

>>21567981
>>21567987
Honestly, I find it offensive that you ask for evidence when it's all over the place. It makes you sound very dishonest, so I refuse to engage.

>>21567988
I think you're right I used to find it pretty insufferable but now there's enough pol air for me to breathe here
>>21567985
Well then stop complaining about what makes 4chan good you ungrateful retard

>>21567995
oh, please.

>>21567995
i dont recall a single instance yet i see polwhiners every single day

>>21567905
>38 posters
It would appear that somebody is trying to make this issue seem far more populae than it appears to be.

>>21567981
Without going any further there was a thread someone made a few days ago about those boxes with books they put in neighborhoods. /pol/ derailed it.

>>21568010
Post a thread you started about literature you pathetic redditor

tough shit faggots
YOU WON'T CENSOR 4CHAN
YOU WON'T CENSOR 4CHAN
YOU WON'T CENSOR 4CHAN
YOU WON'T CENSOR 4CHAN
YOU WON'T CENSOR 4CHAN
the end. off to reddit now, go on.

>>21567995
None of us know who you are or what threads you've posted. Just link one that was about literature and was derailed by poltards. A single one.

>>21568010
I was in that thread and the OP picture was race bait featuring an aggressively ugly groid in a cheerleaders outfit and a fat mexican with her ugly children. how was that a literature thread you absolute melon

>>21568020
They were just some kids, /pol/tard. If that bothers you, you're part of the problem. You say you don't derail threads and you keep to yourselves, but that's simply not true.

>>21568012
I’ve made threads about Giovanni’s Room and Isaac Singer that have been derailed

>>21568035
Post link schizo

>>21568033
>>21568035
So find it and post it. Just an example or two

>>21568020
>T. is scared of brown children
it's about a public free library, how is that not about literature

>>21568041
all I see are invaders standing behind a box of books they cant read

>bitch about jews
Based
>bitch about /pol/
NOOO!! You can’t do that whiner!!

It’s all so tiring

>>21568045
Like how /pol/ invaded /lit/? So maybe we do have a gripe

>>21568033
>>21568041
kek i was the one who 'derailed' that and i actually did get banned for that comment i made about "muttspicoid kids"
so the jannies do enforce the rules, not that it matters because I just evade

>>21568046
the difference is nobody is here crying that jews hurt their feelings and anyone posting pro-jew sentiments should be banned and removed from their safe space
you know this full well, and are just a piece of shit who wants 4chan to be a censored safe space like everywhere else on the entire internet

>>21568040
Kek. Why would I save the links? If you don’t believe /pol/ has ever derailed a thread…

>>21568054
>muttspicoid kids

>>21568059
I don't. It has literally never happened. My irrefutable proof is your obstinate refusal to go search the archives and post one, which you won't do because it's literally never happened until you prove me wrong.

>>21568057
Who said anything about hurt feelings? The complaint is that /lit/ has become unusable

>>21568040
There you go:
>>/lit/thread/S21559239
Literally derailed in the 3rd post and it snowballs from there into ruin.

>>21568059
You don't have to have it saved, if you can remember anything said in the thread you can find it within 2 seconds
>>21567987

>>21568069
>creates obvious pol bait thread
See there's your problem. Do you have any others?

>>21568064
It hasn't though. You have to prove that.

>>21568075
>You made us do it! We dindu nuffin!
Come on now.

>>21568082
If anything, you posting obvious /pol/bait just makes you look like even more of a faggot.
Why was this shit thread not deleted, by the way?

>>21568075
>>21568076
Kek at this good faith arguing. No matter how much proof you get you’ll always twist it

>>21568082
stop denying a picture of blacks and mexicans isn't race bait when you 100% know it is

>>21568069
You literally posted a /pol/ bait thread lmao

>>21568082
I never posted in that thread but it's clearly pol bait. Do you have another example?

>>21568071
How about you just scroll through /lit/.

>>21568085
It's literature-adjacent (little free library). E-reader threads are also not deleted, nor are public library threads.

>>21568096
e reader threads dont show ugly blacks and mexicans parading themselves around a kindle they'll never read from

>>21568092
Any thread that mentions a Jewish writer

>>21568087
I'm actually positive that threads have been derailed by poltards and I'm just interested in seeing them because it's funny to me. I laughed when I opened the public free library one and the users itt being like "I remember that I got banned for posting spicoid" is also really funny.

>>21568088
I would consider an off topic picture of a white woman kissing a black man racebait. But these are just kids next to a box of books. If you feel like that's bait, you are probably a fragile /pol/tard.

>>21568101
Yes, that's also pol bait. I tend to post antisemitic things in those threads myself.

>>21568100
Showing on-topic photos of people you dislike is not against the rules.

>>21568109
It's bait if the intention is to curate a certain response, which the free public library thread clearly was intended to do.

>>21568111
People like you are the problem. This thread wouldn't exist otherwise. What's funny is how you have a victim complex.

>>21568119
then neither is me calling a spade a spade.
or a spic a spic, for that matter.

>>21568130
Wrong, because racism IS against the rules.

>>21568127
I dont have a victim complex. I don't care about being the problem to a bunch of redditfugees I see pol posters as the solution.

>>21568120
All threads are made to generate certain responses.

>>21568141
Yeah and all toasters toast toast.

>>21568141
Yes and some are made to generate responses from pol users such as the one you posted.