/lit/ - Literature

I believe she is.

No.

Yep, it's her. She deletes threads she doesn't like but says she didn't report it.

>>4321057

Explains all the legitimate non-retarded discussions that have been deleted. Marxist scum sure have their dirty tentacles everywhere.

>>4321043
janitor, not mod afaik. complete retard, unfortunately, and im as lefty as they come. thank goodness for the archives.

>>4321064
>complete retard, unfortunately, and im as lefty as they come.
Same opinion.

>>4321064
>>4321071

Pretty much.

>>4321061
But she's not a real Marxist.

If you make a Marxist critique of feminism, she bans you.

>>4321078

o-oh

So just a whore, then?

>>4321079
It's simple. Stop liking what she doesn't like it.

I have a picture of this ugly bitch somewhere.

I used to be a Stoic once. Now I'm an Epicurean because butterfly wants me to be.

>>4321085
I'm interested.

>>4321061
What threads have been deleted? I didn't notice anything.

But seriously there was (is ?) an influx of /pol/ shitposting on this board. There was an okayish thread about Adorno some days ago and guess what happened...

Bullkowski was made janitor. He got forced to stop posting under the trip.

>>4321098
I can't find it for the life of me. Just wait and someone will come through.

>>4321102

Threads about Evola, Spengler etc. And no, being right-wing/traditionalist is absolutely not the same thing as /pol/ shitposting. You can't dismiss good literature on the basis of it not being Marxist enough for your liking.

>>4321108
>mfw transsexual celebrity offspring ruins our board

>>4321102
> /pol/ shit posting

Actually, if you make threads that are too left-wing (ie classically Marxist) they will get deleted.

Butterfly will probably call you a poltard, though.

>>4321112
>. And no, being right-wing/traditionalist is absolutely not the same thing as /pol/ shitposting.
>implying those threads didn't turn into racial shitposting and the juice

>>4321091
>all dem people having spastic fits

I didn't know there were janitors on /lit/; we're not so loud as other board are, are we?

>>4321121
I'm no fan of butterfly, but, yeah, those threads pretty much consistently turned into "ONE TIME I SAW A BLACK PERSON AND I FELT THREATENED FUCKING NIGGER SCUM"

>>4321112
Have you even read those threads?

>>4321127

>>4321043
Also, it probably should be noted that at least two users use that name.

>>4321134
>dat one guy sitting up and down on his dog's head

>>4321121

What, are we not allowed to even have meta-discussions about the Jewish question any longer? As in, discussions regarding whether it is a legitimate question or not. If there was any shitposting going on, it was from the people who were trying to "call us out" on being "evil antisemites.

>>4321131

Care to provide more information?

>>4321133

Yes, and they contain legitimate discussions until someone busts in with fourteen strawmen and an abundance of retardation.

>>4321112
I wasn't talking about rightists arguing about Evola and Spengler. Those threads are actually really interesting and not /pol/-tier. Also: Wasn't there a massive series of threads a month or so ago about rightwing literature, that was actually quite good and informative and tolerated by the janitors ?
I was talking about friendly reminders about Adorno's heritage, lol holocaust didn't happen, Israeli government sterilising Ethiopian jews and shit like that out of fucking nowhere.

>You can't dismiss good literature on the basis of it not being Marxist enough for your liking.
Who does that here though ? We all accept people like Eliot, Pound etc. as good writers.

>>4321118
I just want to keep those people who are interested in discussions without calling the other worse than Hitler/Stalin regardless of their political views...

>>4321112
I like the traditional threads, I don't think they necessarily devolve into /pol/ shitposting, but the thing is that they just haven't added much to the discussion.

They created a great chart and got people aware of Spengler/Evola, but since that they've just been repetitive.

>>4321142
>What, are we not allowed to even have meta-discussions about the Jewish question any longer? As in, discussions regarding whether it is a legitimate question or not. If there was any shitposting going on, it was from the people who were trying to "call us out" on being "evil antisemites.
Well when you get down to it, that shit simply belongs on /pol/. /lit/ isn't the place for it. /lit/ is for discussion of literature and philosophy and max stirner.

>>4321143

>Also: Wasn't there a massive series of threads a month or so ago about rightwing literature, that was actually quite good and informative and tolerated by the janitors ?

Nope, consistently got deleted when mods woke up.

>I was talking about friendly reminders about Adorno's heritage, lol holocaust didn't happen, Israeli government sterilising Ethiopian jews and shit like that out of fucking nowhere.

Yeah, that is certainly /pol/ shitposting, I can agree with that.

>Who does that here though ? We all accept people like Eliot, Pound etc. as good writers.

Seems like Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ disagrees.

>>4321141
oldschool fighting game backgrounds are the best thing

>>4321152

hue. I guess from now any discussions that aren't directly related to the pure science of words and compositions shall no longer be tolerated.

>>4321162
A lot of the other shit should go as well of course. Off topic posting doesn't legitimise other off topic posting and /pol/ like stuff tends to attract the worst people from both the left and right.

>>4321157
>dat guy cleaning the window in the chinese food store

>>4321153
>Nope, consistently got deleted when mods woke up.
Oh man, I really thought, they hit post limit. But I agree, that's bullshit. And no, not even the argument that these threads go nowhere actually counts, because that would be an argument against so many threads here.

>>4321165

I disagree. /lit/ is one of the best boards for discussing anything remotely intellectual, because you get people from all corners of the political compass who in most cases are actually intelligent. The same cannot be said for any of the other boards. And I haven't really noticed any /pol/ shitposting myself.

>>4321162
Dude, metadiscussions of the jewish question are in no way /lit/ related.

If you want to discuss some actual political philosophy, like critique liberal democracy and do it with rigour and intelligence, then /lit/ is the place.

But blatant off-topic stuff shouldn't be allowed. Same goes with JIDF samefagging threads. In the thread about Persian literature they got super butthurt and basically insulted everything Persian and tried to derail the thread despite no one ever mentioning Jews.

>>4321180

I agree that threads about the Jewish question should not be made, but if someone brings up Evola's aversion to Jews in a thread about him I think it is legitimate to discuss it.

>>4321177
>/lit/
>intellectual discussion
>not just shitpost wars between pretentious snobs who know jack shit

do you even /tg/?

>>4321195

I forgot about /tg/. I sincerely apologize for this.

>>4321199
everyone forgets about /tg/ because you never get shit thrown at you there

>>4321208

Yeah ;_;

I think I will head over to /tg/ as soon as mods delete this thread. Fuck, I haven't been there for months now. It still hasn't developed severe cancer?

>>4321167
I enjoy your observations but I must go.

>>4321210
do you guys talk about magic the gathering at /tg/?

I used to play that but I stopped around the 8th set when I realized how much of a money grabbing scheme it was.

Blue-artifacts master race.

>>4321227

I don't know, I never played MtG, but I'm sure the /tg/ threads about it are good. What is wonderful about /tg/ is all the long meta-discussions and lore threads, greentext stories and even discussions regarding literature and video games in some cases.

>>4321232
Sounds like one of those rare boards on 4chan like /ck/ or /sp/ that don't ever make me rage.

>>4321102
>there was (is ?) an influx of /pol/ shitposting on this board

This is brought up every time there's a political difference of opinion; it's the argument used by those who want to silence criticism of /lit/'s leftist streak.

By labeling all opposing views as "/pol/ shitposting," the janitor and other knee-jerk leftists force out dissent.

It's a lazy, cowardly, stupid practice.

>>4321195
/tg/ is great, yeah, but come on, /lit/ is better than you describe it.

>>4321257
see
>>4321143

>>4321180
>metadiscussions of the jewish question are in no way /lit/ related.

What about discussions of Jewish influence in the American publishing industry?

That's certainly related to literature -- yet it's a bannable offense on /lit/.

>>4321261
you all know who's responsible for this, don't you. IZ DA JOOZE see: >>4321263

>>4321257
We just want to keep /pol/ discussions on /pol/ we don't want our glorious board to degenerate to /pol/s level. /pol/ has a degenerate debating culture.

>>4321263
If you have something that is actually specific, I think it would be fine. But if you want to just throw in how books about fascism are so expensive on amazon...well it's been said before. Ok, so what.

All you're going to do is flame the discussion, whereas on /pol/ someone might make a funny infograph or something.

I'd say keep it on /pol/.

>>4321267

>>4321267
>We just want to keep /pol/ discussions on /pol/

Fine. But this begs the question, "What constitutes a /pol/ discussion?"

If it's a question like "Which author is the whitest?" -- I'd agree that that doesn't belong on /lit/.

The problem is that /lit/'s definition of a "/pol/ discussion" in much more inclusive than it should be, evidenced by the frequent deletion of threads focused on right-wing authors, etc.

>>4321284

0/10 way too obvious

>>4321275
>values of 200+ years past
>still applying today

I see a dumbass

>>4321286
be careful there, boyo

>>4321275
>freedumb

Lel

>>4321289

Disregard that, I suck cocks

Actually, /lit/, this gives me an excellent idea. How about if all of us in this thread start namefagging as Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ, just for a couple of days? I'm sure it would cause major butthurt.

>>4321275

To be fair, when that guy was around people didn't put explosives in horse carriages and drive them into buildings.

actually what annoys me most about butterfly isn't the pol deletions, but the weird other deletions she makes (assuming they're her) like the thread i made about the counselor a while back or the thread i made a few days ago about screenshots of passages from books that people post on here.

i mean, if they're tangentially lit related i don't see the problem. it's a slow board.

>>4321295
No, please. Shitposting is childish and will hurt this board more than anything. Please don't !

>>4321295
post her pic

I remember seeing a webcam photo of her on the archive but I can't see to find it.

>>4321296

>>4321269
>if you want to just throw in how books about fascism are so expensive on amazon...well it's been said before.

You're seriously implying that no one /lit/ should make posts about things that have "been said before"?

99% of all posts on this board are about things that have been said before, many of which "flame" discussion.

The difference is that they most often "flame" discussions that affirm the preexisting beliefs of leftists, feminists, etc. -- which, from I've witnessed, seems totally acceptable.

It's only when posts "flame" discussion AGAINST the preexisting beliefs of leftists and liberals that people start screaming "GO BACK TO >>>/POL/."

>>4321291
u wot m8

>>4321300

Not talking about shitposting - just making her namefagging useless.

>>4321295
>I'm sure it would cause major butthurt.

You have any number of other boards to practice this kind of bullshit on. Leave us alone.

>>4321298
You should be making threads about the book "America: Beyond Capitalism" instead.

It's a really feel good read.

Comfortably left of center, but not too left.

>>4321306
But I think that /pol/ would handle it better and produce something of value out of a discussion like that. Whereas on /lit/ it'll just get trolls trolling trolls and butterfly getting mad.

Like I said, I could see /pol/ making a pretty good chart out of how fascist books are so expensive. /lit/ would never do that.

>>4321318
it'd be a chart with more logical and factual errors in it than the entire archive of /lit/ threads, but it'd be a chart alright

>>4321318

No, /pol/ produces about 1% percent of the value that can be encountered in a single /lit/ thread every month. It's a really, really shitty board.

>>4321112
>Evola
>Good or interesting

Choose one and only one. His name is only mentioned when someone wishes to give credibility to a Nouvelle Droite-ish brand of neofascism. There is a reason why Carl Schmitt is taken seriously by non-fash people and Evola isn't. And yes, I've read his works.

Oswald Spengler is very interesting, though.

>>4321318
If you think you can explain anything adequately with charts and diagrams you should kill yourself in a fascinating manner

>>4321330
It can be a pretty funny board sometimes but I think they take themselves too seriously.

Browse during european power hour and it's decent. But when the americans start flooding it's horrible and induces feelings of panic and depression.

>>4321330
I also had this photograph taken of me earlier today. How do you like it? (no tits = allowed)

>>4321333

>stop liking what I don't like you NEO-FASCIST NAZI SCUM

>>4321265
It's the /phil/-fags. Most of them are 13-16 year old angsty teens who come to /lit/ looking for someone intelligent enough to understand them. If mods deleted the countless nihilism threads we have had every day recently, then there wouldn't be a problem now. But as it stands, shit discussion attracts shit posters, and this board is soon going to lose any similarities it may have had with the /lit/ from 2 years ago.

>>4321318

>But I think that /pol/ would handle it better and produce something of value out of a discussion like that.

False. The right-wing lit threads that happened here were leagues above any literary discussion that's happened on /pol/, which is filled with anti-intellectuals.

The real question is this:

Why are you scared of allowing the inclusion of posts that allow for intelligent discussion from conservative or traditionalist perspectives?

If you're genuinely open-minded and secure about the strength of your political position, this shouldn't threaten you in the slightest.

>on /lit/ it'll just get trolls trolling trolls

Welcome to 4chan.

>butterfly getting mad

Why would anyone give a fuck about whether the janitor of an image board gets mad? How old are you?

>>4321341

It can be entertaining, but for qualitative discussions it's a desert.

>>4321342
nah, it's definitely DA JOOZE

>>4321333
What I like about Evola is that he was against a material conception of race, (ie muh Aryan purity). Celine thought the same.

He has some interesting things to say about eastern religions, I guess. But yeah, Schmitt and Spengler are leagues above him.

>>4321342

>deleting nihilism threads

I approve of this.

>>4321333
>Oswald Spengler is very interesting, though.

Very enjoyable if you treat it as fiction, definitely inspiring as a framework to a narrative of your own.

>>4321351

>implying he wasn't right

>>4321350
So do I

>>4321344
Dude, I like the traditionalist perspective. I'm critical of liberal democracy and I think western degeneracy is very real. I just don't think "Traditional thread #99" will add much to the discussion.

>>4321355

What's the Infinite Jest thread #29153 and Nihilism thread #2145500013 adding to the "discussion"? What is the "discussion", even?

>>4321351

>if you treat it as fiction

Have you read The Decline of the West, or just the Wikipedia entry?

Spengler offers an incredibly compelling theory of history, and an astounding number of his predictions have come true.

>>4321043
Incorrect.

I just wish anons would take my name off.

>>4321355
>western degeneracy

come back when you can use real words

>>4321373

Tell us more about the fake words that we are using

>>4321359
Make a thread on that please.

>>4321057
When I say I closed that thread, I only meant I hid it from my sight. I delete nothing. Never been a mod/janitor.

>>4321078
Naw. ...Democratic socialist if you must have a label.

>>4321121
This.

anti-Semitism/antiJudaism, sexism, and racism isn't nice, mmkay? Anonymous reports on anonymous. The janitor cleans it up when it is reported, and doesn't even look around for anything else to clan up.

>>4321295
>I'm sure it would cause major butthurt.
Not with me.

>>4321380

>democratic socialist
>because being a social democrat is too mainstream

>>4321340
Are you stupid enough not to know who Carl Schmitt is? Or is your reading comprehension really that poor?

>>4321375
Maybe he doesn't see the west as degenerating

>>4321384

Of course I know who Carl Schmitt is, I've read some of his books. I was referring to your dismissal of Evola and the ENR as "neo-fascist" (how ridiculous can you get).

ITT: /lit/ realizes its dreams and everyone turns into a beautiful butterfly!

>>4321385
no, I just don't like what the word suggests (apart from "decline"). But that's a purely semantic concern

>>4321385

But that doesn't mean that the words are fake, it just means that he thinks that we are wrong.

>>4321359
>Spengler offers an incredibly compelling theory of history, and an astounding number of his predictions have come true.

Like the bible prophecies?

>>4321398

Kafka was right! Or wait a moment...

>>4321398
Oh you guys.

Just chill.

>>4321399

Yeah, pretty much.

>inb4 muh fedora, muh fiction etc

>>4321380

>Make a thread on that please.

Given your knee-jerk reaction against anti-Semitism, I doubt you'd like that.

Part of Spengler's work contains a section on Jewish cultural influences (or "Magian" influences) in Europe. Given the sensitivity of those sniffing for anti-Semitism under every bed, it's probably one of the reasons why few academics talk about Spengler today.

>>4321402
she looks as annoying and boring as her posts make out her to be

>>4321402

Is this her?

5/10 would doggy

>>4321391
>ENR

Evola is debatable, but Benoist and friends are definitely fascists by a broad definitions. Seriously, your butthurtness is much more embarrassing than your political convictions. Embrace the far-rightism, and we might actually have an intelligent discussion.

This butterfly trip is much like btrl from /mu/
Cancer like this must be treated. I suggest we should ignore her attempts to delude herself pretty and smart.

>>4321413
yeah that's her

i think there's another picture of her floating around

>>4321402

>dem thick eyebrows

She looks like a woman who'd let her bush grow to a humid, impenetrable, jungle-tier level of uncleanliness.

>>4321413
>her

>>4321414
>Embrace the far-rightism, and we might actually have an intelligent discussion.
>embracing any extremist standpoint

>>4321413
btw I'm a guy ;)

>>4321424

Sorry, where are my manners....

Is this "zir"?

>>4321407
I think I see the "magian" as not even a Jewish thing, but a middle eastern thing. Christianity included. Is he blind to this? Maybe I would get something from it (Hardly believe I'd end up buying into the whole "final solution" garbage)

>>4321416
I am under no such delusions.

all you can come up with is
>hurr durr she ugly
>hurr durr she not a real grill
that's weak

>>4321424
>>4321429
Speaking of delusions.

...Friggin' browser won't let me delete my own post or picture. And you think I'm a mod?

>>4321435

I didn't say you were ugly. I said you were a 5/10, and I would happily fuck you doggy style.

If you're implying that we're focused on your looks b/c we can't find flaws in your personality, I'd suggest re-reading comments made about you before your picture was uploaded.

>>4321295
I'm not annoyed. After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

>>4321391
I wasn't implying Evola was a fascist. I was implying that the people who invoke him, including Benoist and friends, are, more often than not, by a broad definition, fascists.

Seriously, your butthurtness is much more embarrassing than your political convictions. Embrace the far-rightism, and we might actually have an intelligent discussion.

Posts too fucking much with no content, talks like she's on livejournal, and has stupid opinions about philosophy. 0/10 shitty attention whore, go back to vbulletin.

>>4321442
>implying I'm butterfly

get a trip, gal

>>4321446
2/10, would not fall for

>>4321449
You are on point.

>>4321420
>Implying extremism isn't a liberal democratic spook

How plebeian.

>>4321449
But I've never been on vbulletin. Maybe you should go back to livejournal?

didn't know it was a girl, weird

>a whole thread with 100+ replies about boring namefaggot drama

this board is absolutely dreadful.

>>4321475
>ididntreadthethreadandwanttoappearsuperiortoeverybody.jpg

>>4321414

Yeah, I don't know about that fag Faye... But how is Benoist "fascist"? That's just incorrect. I don't have that much against fascism, but I hate when people try to denigrate things by labelling them incorrectly.

>>4321475

Imagine if Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ and Sunhawk got married.

We should make this happen.

>>4321440
Look, I want you to understand, this isn't anything personal.

The idea behind this website is that it allows people to have anonymous discussions, and gives them the chance to judge an argument by its own merits. And since Namefagging is contagous, you are opposing that idea not only by being a namefag, but also by encouraging others to follow your example. You are in almost every way an average litizen, so you shouldn't be using a name. You can try to justify your actions if you want to, but I don't think you're going to convince anyone.

>>4321489

It's all about attention. Logic does not work.

>>4321475
This thread at any rate. I didn't start it!

>>4321480
I do throw the F-bomb at right-wingers, or trolls pretending to be, from time to time. All apologies where they're due.

>>4321492
Oh, don't be so cynical. Even tripfags are people. I'm sure at least some of them can be reasoned with. And even if I'm wrong, where's the harm in trying?

>>4321494

>I do throw the F-bomb at right-wingers, or trolls pretending to be, from time to time

For your own sake, you should stop doing that. Strawmanning seldom advances discussions.

>>4321480
Because he's a nationalist and his thought is palingenetic, in the sense that he views the old order as decadent and totalitarian and wishes for the birth of a new society, a "reawakening" of the West. Do note that I'm not using the word palingenetic in a derisive sense - it's a label that could be used to characterise most Marxist movements too.

>>4321496

Well, I suppose you are right. There is always hope... Or at least we can hope so.

>>4321489
>>4321492
I just disagree.

Gone reading

I thought that it is better to settle with this trip in one thread, after seeing her replies i don't think this will wrap it up.

Sage

>>4321494

Capped.

Stop being a cancer on this board.

>>4321502

>Because he's a nationalist

Incorrect. He's even written an essay that is highly critical of nationalism.

As for the rest of your post, I don't see how that would make him "fascist". You're just broadening a mildly derivative term to suit your opinions, kind-of like how everyone who is mildly dislikeable on 4chan is a "faggot".

>>4321523
That's not the real Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

>>4321523
>All apologies where they're due

>Stop being a cancer!

Hm

>>4321513
This is /lit/.
If you believe that you have a reason to disagree, then make an argument for your position.

Great, now there will be people tripfagging...

>>4321535

>implying that makes a difference

>>4321535
Capped.

>>4321544
Here's one reason -> >>4321554

The confusion of anonymity.

>>4321543
>my shitposting's ok so long as I'm polite and vaguely lefty
go the fuck back to reddit.

>>4321566

This. If you want to be cute and progressive and comfortably edgy, Reddit is where you belong.

>>4321573
i wish we could stop pretending that there's a substantial difference between reddit and 4chan. the only real difference is that reddit is constantly up its own ass, whereas we're mostly willing to admit that we're terrible, and also, I think, that we're all jaded about the Internet enough to just be fucking awful and caustic to people who come in with hackneyed, worn-out forms of internet discussion. but it has nothing to do with our propensity to say that women are all idiot sluts, or black people are subhuman, or whatever. as much as /pol/ would wish to define it that way, it ain't so.

>>4321566
>vaguely lefty
Please be on your way with this baiting

>>4321579
I hide butterfly threads, ignore butterfly posts, do not reply to butterfly posters wherever possible, so I've never paid much attention at all to their politics. I presume they're 'I'm 17 and I read guardian.com and half a Nome Chomsky book'.

>>4321563

Nice try. >>4321554 is the result of people using your name to say something you don't agree with. It isn't an example for the confusion of anonymity, but the confusion of identity. If you didn't have a name, then noone could attack you personally. In an environment of true anonymity, wether you're ignored or harrassed, supported or encouraged by others, you would know that it isn't because of their relationship to you or their prejudice of your appearance, but their reaction to your present words and actions alone. Anonymity is an amazing concept.

>>4321577
Reddit's really different, although there are some areas of the site that are similar. The voting system encourages groupthink instead of extreme opinions (which are what 4chan 'hiveminds' like SS and Rick Owens-dickriding and miata love and so on really are - not reddit 'be goodthinkful or face le downboats' but a gravitation of users towards one extreme end of a spectrum of possible opinions). Anonymity avoids users building up reputations which allow them to undeservedly dominate discourse and board opinion beyond what their contributions justify (and trip-heavy boards like /fa/ are a perfect example of this). Thread-style discussion instead of discussion prioritized by voting means that users are introduced to discussion regardless of its popularity so long as some people are interested in carrying it on, again encouraging extreme opinion. I think this tendency to push discourse to the extreme makes 4chan more interesting, more innovative and more suitable for certain types of discussion than reddit. Reddit, on the other hand, works well for basic, safe discourse like /mfa, /skincareaddiction, /coffee or /academicphilosophy, but it just can't produce the caustic, boundary-pushing discourse that makes 4chan a unique website.

>>4321577
Oh boy, is it time to post that video again? I think so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEpTPLR8Wu0

>>4321609
But on the other hand, that militates against your own argument - if it's the free expression of opinion that makes 4chan good, why is anyone who expresses the opinion that being racist and sexist is not a good thing told to go to reddit?

You're trying to encourage precisely the same kind of groupthink you critique in reddit, your methods are just less effective (because, as you point out, the structure of the two sites is different).

I mean, ultimately this whole conversation is pointless, because its not like anyone's going to change their behavior. So I don't know what the point of pretending like we care about what's just or proper is, and trying to make rational arguments about our positions. It'd be just as productive to just call each other names. You fucking edgy neckbeard faggot. Like that, see?

>>4321609
I tried posting to reddit and got down voted to the extreme. They take it personally and seemed to hate me as a user and person. It's only an opinion.