/lit/ - Literature

Thank you, Frankfurt School. Where would we be without you

Fuck off modern leftists, you bitch-ass pussies.

>>4920203
>Fuck off modern leftists, you bitch-ass pussies.

"I believe the discussion about "Trigger Warnings" is being had in bad faith. I believe it is being used as a stand-in to falsely imply a terrifying leftist censoriousness, by people who don’t understand where the term comes from and don’t want to. Stern dismissal of "trigger warnings" has become a proxy for dismissing women, people of colour, queer people and trauma survivors as readers. It is saying that our experiences do not matter - that we should calm down and "grow a thicker skin". It says that any attempt to acknowledge or accommodate readers with difficult experiences is tantamount to Stalinism. Someone is being told to shut up here, but it’s not F Scott Fitzgerald." - Laurie Penny

>>4920203
The fucking Soviets were the ones who pushed for this shit in the first pace. Look up yuri bezmenov and the process of "demoralization" that was inflicted upon the west in the 1960s. Get out of here with your pinko bullshit

>>4920208
>being this much of a bitch nigga

So basically the argument boils down to, not surprisingly- muh feels.

>>4920210
Do I have a picture of Yuri Bezmenov in my post? No, it's Lenin. So piss off, yank.
>>4920208
Yes, those people should grow a thicker skin. I'm a faggot and my boyfriend's family would disown him if they knew we were dating and you know, I don't use that as an excuse for this kind of stupidity.

>>4920208
>be a strong empowered transmorphic fat positive womyn who don't need no man
>quiver and curl into feetle position at the sight of a book written by Shakespear

Something doesn't make sense here

>>4920213
>So basically the argument boils down to, not surprisingly- muh feels

Not 'muh feels', but a consideration of other peoples 'feels'; a concept called empathy.

The same as picking up a film and finding a warning on the back that it contains copious drug use and nudity. Nobody is asking for censorship, but a warning that the book contains 200 pages of gang-rape. Nobody seems to question the idea with movies, so why is it controversial with the far more immersive literature?

>>4920216
You had a picture of a soviet flash, cunt

The soviets managed to brainwash an entire generation into believing this SJW crap

Manic depressive who was repeatedly raped by his father reporting in.

Fucking deal with it?

Life throws curve balls at you, man up and deal with them as they come.

>>4920233
Uhh maybe because a movie is a motion picture with scenes that pay out with audio right in front of you, while a book is just markings on a price of paper which you can easily simply stop reading if its really that traumatic for you

I actually agree with this. I'm trying to get my 12yo brother into reading grown up books, but don't want to push it too far. A small disclaimer revealing adult themes would be ideal.

>>4920242
>man up

>>4920252

and you can walk out of a movie, or plug your ears and shut your eyes - it's not as though you're being forced to watch 'that' movie either.

>>4920266
Why are you so opposed to letting the customer know what the product contains?

Surely if someone is so concerned if something contains graphic violence or whatever, they can just look it up? I mean I'm not against this in theory, but if you're worried whether or not Much Ado About Nothing might contain midget necrophilia or something, you really can just go online and find out. And something tells me for most people this is not an issue.

>>4920233

But in the case of film, ratings actually are a form of censorship. We use film ratings as a way to restrict who can see a film. Trigger warnings, on the other hand, are just another way we go about limiting personal responsibility. It's how we turn a generation of adults into children who can't make informed decisions of their own accord. It's not that different from getting women to wear burqas. All that practice is saying is that men cannot control themselves at the sight of an attractive woman, so it is the woman's responsibility to cover what is tempting to men. It's turning men into children who can't just practice self-control instead. It's also incredibly ineffective because it doesn't account for the fact that every single thing on earth is some kind of trigger for some person. Maybe my brother drowned and water makes me panicked. Maybe my father beat me with a coffee cup routinely and now I can't read any instance of coffee-drinking. It's an absurd notion. If a book was 200 pages of gang-rape, it shouldn't be too hard to come by this information before you embark on reading it. Why should they have to research everything they read before they read it? you may ask. Why shouldn't they? It's their responsibility. Who else should have to do their research? Diabetics monitor their own health.

>>4920266
Warning: This article contains all sorts of triggers. It has the word “rape” in it so please avoid all words that begin with the letter “R”. It also has references to trauma, which might be traumatic, or might trigger trauma, especially the kind you inflict on yourself because you’re a sick fuck. There are triggers in this article so big that Roy Rogers could mount and ride them. But wait, Roy Rogers is dead. Trigger warning: Dead cowboy! Come to think of it, his horse is dead…and stuffed. Trigger warning: Dead Trigger! Taxidermy!Also, if your eating habits make you look like a resident of Auschwitz; if you can’t resist the impulse to eat seven bags of potato chips and then jam two fingers down your throat for desert, or if your idea of emotional pain management involves dragging razor blades across your wrists just deep enough to cut through capillaries and then calling 911, then consider this a Super Duper Extra Special Trigger Warning With Power Attachments. Better put your blindfold on before reading another line. Better yet, make this the last article you ever read anywhere. You never know when some unenlightened lout is going to cause you to starve yourself because he didn’t warn you he was going to mention a ham sandwich.

>>4920289
To add a bit more, this whole argument is just another example of this bizarre, lazy, annoying attitude of demanding and expecting everything to be done for you.

>>4920289
Not for most people, but as there is no age restriction for books, it would help a parent when the kid picks up Cities of the Red Night by Burroughs, and find that half of the book is a slave getting sodomized on a beach.

>>4920292
>>4920295
#OPstatus:

B
T
F
O

>>4920298
As if that's a real problem facing our youth today.

Reader discretion is advised: The following Book contains mild drug use and gratuitous violence.

>>4920301
OP is probably not Laurie Penny.

Warning: this book has not had its privilege checked. You may be oppressed

>>4920292
I'm fine with this, as long as professors aren't forced to do this. If feminist organizations want to create a list of triggering works on their own time that's fine. Religious organizations do this in the US already to protect their kids. They have their own reviewers and everything.

But these feminist pigs, being the most equal of animals, don't want to be treated like others.

And yes, the MPAA and ESRB are shitty organizations too, and were born of irrational moral spasms, like the ones that caused these vaginal fissures.

Except they're not arguing to have a rating system to protect the chilluns from raunchy scenes, but to have a political tool to blame the "racist white heteronormative patriarchy" every chance you get

>>4920208

you know penny i kind of wish you would shut up

>>4920208
>censorship debate = bigotry
>we should calm down and "grow a thicker skin" = rape doesn't matter
>false equivalencies
>third rail abuse

>>4920324
A lot of this pop psych is complete bullshit. Resilient personalities in the face of trauma have been shown to have very strong loci of control, and putting trigger warnings on everything is telling victims that they can't control how they experience reality. Of course it's mostly for women, who our society has never given much credit for being able to control themselves. It's poor psychology.

Lesson of the story: People should be rational enough to not put their politics in front of science. Because it works, bitches.

>>4920365
Do you think people with PTSD just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps?

>>4920369
But these people don't have PTSD. These are retards who have trouble controlling their eating so they tell people to put food trigger warnings when they decide to reblog pictures of cake or some shit.

>>4920369
This bullshit reinforces the typical line from pop psych lefties that you can't or shouldn't try. Yes you can.

Federal agents from Obungo burned down my family church and imprisoned us in FEMA camps where agents raped us at their whim. But I got over it, and haven't experienced a panic attack in years. But it was me who did it, and if someone had told me I couldn't I wouldn't of tried.

>>4920208
>"grow a thicker skin"

Yeah that would sure be nice. I wonder if the caveman that discovered fire thought to himself "shit like this will make my into massive pussies".

This will essentially be a back door to book banning, particularly anything that is perceived to be sexist, racist, homophobic or Islamophobic. It won't happen all at once, but check back in 15-20 years and see what they'll be pushing for. Standing up to this shouldn't even be a 'left' 'right' issue, we should all stand on the side of freedom.

>>4920378
You've fallen into a philosophical bind here. If you can't change the way you perceive reality and the explanations you give yourself to more positive ones, then things like gender norms can't be changed.

Checkmate, feminists.

Laurie Penny is a pedant with no reverence for art whatsoever.

She is a hollow diminisher.

>>4920365
>People should be rational enough to not put their politics in front of science. Because it works, bitches.

[tipping intensifies]

i wonder, can these people ever read de sade or nin or any other eroitca, or do they cast any text with "dubious" sexual morality (though they wouldn't call it that) into the fire?


>>4920199

name me one idea proposed by anyone in the frankfurt school which vaguely resembles any of this tumblr pc bullshit

>>4920389
Only an irrational person would do this in response to an argument. I'm sorry you're not enlightened. Please come back to /lit/ when you are. Thank you and have a nice day.

>>4920390

>or do they cast any text with "dubious" sexual morality (though they wouldn't call it that) into the fire?

They have become the new moral conservatives and they don't even realize it. They are now everything that liberals used to fight against in the past. Easily outraged book burners.

People who claim to be against violence but love engaging in bloodletting and are thrilled when their opponents are metaphorically torn to shreds on the Colosseum floor of social media.

And anyone really asking for "trigger warnings" lacks the perspicacity of mind to even be reading these works in the first place. We SHOULD NOT be even attempting to discuss bastardizing means of artistic discourse for these placate-happy dullards.

>>4920390
>i wonder, can these people ever read de sade or nin or any other eroitca, or do they cast any text with "dubious" sexual morality (though they wouldn't call it that) into the fire?

No, we do read De Sade and similar works. All we ask is a small note on the back informing an impressionable 12yold girl (who may have just been raped by a father figure, the patriarchy, or both) that it might not be wise; and that teachers inform the students of any controversial subject matter prior to studying. Films are subjected to this, television programs are too. Schools even need to seek parental consent before teaching sex education, so why should literature get a free pass when there are thousands of people struggling with the issues inside. The black girl in a predominantly white middle-class Christian school who gets beaten with bars of soap in a sock every time she showers might want a heads up before reading to kill a mockingbird.

We would never want to ban books, just inform the readers of sensitive topics.

>>4920397
>Only an irrational person would do this in response to an argument.
I'm not arguing. I saw "...science. Because it works, bitches." and knew it was directly paraphrased from that famous Dawkins clip.

>>4920403

>(who may have just been raped by a father figure, the patriarchy, or both)
>the patriarchy

8/10 got me good

>>4920403
>We would never want to ban books, just inform the readers of sensitive topics.
That's what you say now.

>>4920403
Then those people who enjoy the patriarchy, and consider it the foundations of their society, should be warned about its absence in literature.

>>4920403
>getting raped by the patriarchy

How is that even a possible thing? Have you ever been raped by Utilitarianism or your automobile?

>>4920403

What if a neo-Nazi wanted trigger warnings for black characters in books because they made him uncomfortable? Would you consider that a legitimate concern? Everyone on earth has something that gives them anxiety.

Hoi Polloi shouldn't interfere with scholarly values. An unflinching reserve against views you disagree with is necessary for research and study.

If you don't like it, don't involve yourself or your children in it. Stick to Disney movies and Macklemore. Don't track your filthy peasant mud into our libraries.

>>4920192

There should just be special stickers that mark media suitable to whiny little bitches, they can safely assume that the rest would 'trigger' them. Like 'fairtrade' and other special product properties, if you are afraid of 'being triggered' you are the special case, not the norm.

I have a problem with trigger warnings, in that they only account for various types of potentially traumatic scenes and not all of them.

You don't see, 'Warning, this film contains spiders.', and yet this can be equally as traumatic an experience for someone who has arachnophobia, as, say, domestic violence.

I'm an emetophobe and have had to stop watching/reading things in the past because of particularly graphic scenes.

And what if your a strict christian. Should there be a trigger warning for homosexuality?

There can be no real equality in this regard unless you cover all the potential bases. Ergo, there can't be any real equality in this regard at all.

>>4920412
>>getting raped by the patriarchy
>How is that even a possible thing?
We are all raped by the patriarchy every day, Comrade.

>>4920445
Do you think we should remove all ratings from Film and television then?

>>4920445
What will be pursued will basically be geared toward the prejudices of progressive, feminist, atheistic young people.

>>4920372
Well, no. "Trigger" expressly relates to trauma. It might not be diagnosed as PTSD, you might say the person is faking trauma or whatever, but that is what it is about: "triggering" trauma. It originally related to rape, then expanded.

>>4920374
heh

>>4920447
It would be the fairest route.

>>4920445
>I have a problem with trigger warnings
I am so sorry. next time I'll include a disclaimer to inform you that the post contains trigger warnings.

>>4920453
Yes, why not entirely disregard the rest of my post for the sake of flaunting your wit.

>>4920192
>American universities are putting "trigger warnings" on potentially disturbing texts - reading material that might, for example, contain graphic descriptions of violence against women.
Most of the times it's pretty clear what the book is about, so you read it at your own peril. And also, what about graphic depiction of violence against men? Is this not as potentially disturbing as violence against women?

>whinging leftists should pipe down and read without questioning, analysing or reacting to the canon.
Non sequitur. It is possible both to oppose labelling books because of their content and critically analyse them.

>Asking that classes and discussion spaces take the possible experiences of their members into account in those discussions isn't just a different ballpark
She is pretty unclear here. Is she for a simple labelling of books according to the triggering issues they might touch or is she implying that the entire discussion has to be adjusted to not further traumatise/trigger victims of those events?
If it is the latter, then it is a perfect case of bleeding-heart censorship and should be fought against as soon as possible.

So: Why again do you guys like her?

>>4920451
>women work less if at all
>"why is muh net worth so low?"

I think what we really need is better education for women, because they clearly struggle to understand simple concepts.

>>4920445
I would like to be notified ahead of time whether my books or films contain degenerate behaviors such as homosexuality and liberal lies such as female masturbation.

It's done for the bathos.

>>4920460
here u go mate

I really don't understand why these people pretend to have PTSD. What's the fucking point?

I think, if implemented, this would have a rather positive effect.

Recalling my school English lessons, half the class was particularly disinterested in reading. If a dusty paperback was presented to them with a big "WARNING: THIS BOOK CONTAINS DRUG USE, VIOLENCE, AND AND FORCED INTERCOURSE" sticker, they would be much more enthusiastic. Books generally would be more appealing to youths if a 'naughty' side, or slightly sinful element to reading was introduced. Like how the films with an 18 rating in your parents collection were desirable when you were well below that age, and the only reason 50 Shades of Gray was popular.

I say let them have their stickers. Let them highlight instances of things that breach their moral framework. The only thing that will happen is more people, particularly youths, will read.

>>4920511
And have them grow up with a fucked up edgy view of their own sexuality and traditions?

No thanks. Seems like a large price to pay to prove moralists wrong.

We could just not do it. We could have people grow up without feeling like they have to rebel to express themselves.

>>4920520
They mostly rebel anyway. As I said, that's why 50 Shades was so popular, because it was touted as 'naughty'. The only price to pay is encouraging people to read better books.

>>4920317
>triggering works on their own time that's fine
That's not how alarmist politics work, anon.
>Religious organizations do this in the US already to protect their kids.
And everyone recognizes that these lists ought not be something we involve in the education of children, because its bullshit. Its the exact same thing. You're omitting the fact that these people want to inject this garbage into places like schools and libraries to ultimately create their own, feminist context upon which things can be judged. Will some people ignore it? Doesn't matter. By servicing this crap, you give it scholarly credibility that it hasn't earned.

keep this shit out. The argument has not been "in bad faith", nothing has been "misinterpreted". The third rate feminist and the hurt feelings brigade have been dominating the intellectual landscape through fear and intimidation for too long, and I'm ready to get off Mr.Bones wild guilt trip.

>>4920510
>I really don't understand why these people pretend to have PTSD. What's the fucking point?

Self-importance. In today's world, it is very wrong to be just like everybody else.

>>4920538
>The third rate feminist and the hurt feelings brigade have been...

"So let’s calm down and talk clearly about what a "trigger warning" is and is not. A trigger warning is a simple, empathic shorthand designed to facilitate discussions of taboo topics in safe spaces. What it absolutely is not is a demand that all literature be censored to ensure that moaning feminists and leftists are not "offended"[....]In the mainstream press, it is common for newscasters to warn viewers if they are about to see "potentially distressing" content. So why is there such resistance to trigger warnings - which encourage openness and honesty, rather than shutting down debate?"

--LP

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2014/05/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-trigger-warnings

>>4920552
>safe spaces
Stopped reading there.

Why are feminists so fucking stupid?

>>4920555
>Triggered

>>4920560
>not putting trigger warnings about safe spaces on your article
wow what a gross bigot

>>4920558
Patriarchal oppression.

>>4920565
>Patriarchal oppression.
Doesn't exist. Next excuse?

>>4920564
'Safe spaces' wasn't on my list of taboo subjects. Would you like to discuss how you feel in our saf... err.. discussion group?

>>4920568
Is that a rape threat?

>>4920567
Gender based glass ceilings.

>>4920510
Feels good to be a victim. It feels almost as good as co-opting other people's misery feels for white people.

>>4920552
How do trigger warnings facilitate debate? People who have triggers will avoid those books and other people will say "what is this ugly shit on my book cover?" there's no debate to be had. The book's content is the same

>>4920552
trigger warning is a warning. It says "this has stuff in it that might make you upset", as if 90% of these instances weren't purposeful attempts to make the viewer uncomfortable, because of the implicit agreement between reader and author on the subject of your own maturity.

>newscasters... warn viewers if they are about to see "potentially distressing" content.
Yes, because news has such high standards, and its never used to artificially instill tension or shock into their programming.

Ultimately, triggering is "bad", and there's only one reason why you'd ever want to describe a book as bad, because you don't want other people to read them.

PS, safe space is code for echo chambers for internalizing rhetoric. If you want to discuss something, but don't want to hear different opinions, you're kind of a walking oxymoron. If literature is so high octane, and leaves you so distressed that its a problem everyone needs to be a part of fixing, then you should just drop literacy altogether, and pick up flower arrangement.

>>4920590
>It says "this has stuff in it that might make you upset"
It says, this book/film/tv show/game/news piece contains morally taboo themes and some consumers might be alarmed. It also tends to specify the nature of the subject - violence, sex, drug use - so the consumer can determine whether they want to consume the media.

>safe space is code for echo chambers for internalizing rhetoric
Safe space in this context refers to classroom, with an emphasis on teachers treating issues that some students could find hard to deal with carefully. A girl with an alcoholic father who raped her every night might find it hard to read about an alcoholic father who brutally rapes his daughter. All this is calling for is a small warning that the book contains themes of alcoholism and incestuous rape. Why do you object to this so vehemently? Nobody is preventing you from reading the book, nobody is forcing you into counseling, preventing you from discussing the themes, or harming you in any way; this is exclusively for the poor girl who was held down and forced to smell the stale alcohol on her fathers breath as he savagely penetrated her, and many other victims.

>>4920623
Is this a problem? Are there abused people breaking down in literature classes across the country?

>>4920623
You have no idea about how for example the Motion Picture Association of America gives ratings behind close doors and in a way endores censorship? There's too many problems with this for a really minor benefit to a few people who can find out about books easily in other ways other than this.

The most retarded thing about this business is that the trigger warnings will, of course, only cover things that the SJWs find offensive.

If we're gonna do it, let's cover the entire spectrum:
TW: sex out of wedlock
TW: eating pork
TW: women in public unaccompanied by a relative
TW: using technology [gotta protect those feeble Amish minds]

Or how about:
TW: stupid fucking trigger warnings

>>4920623
>contains morally taboo themes and some consumers might be alarmed
>alarmed
as in needing to be warned of its contents.

>Safe space in this context refers to classroom
>classroom
>This politically biased doublespeak
>in a classroom
I'm just going to say that this creeped me the fuck out.

>All this is calling for is a small warning that the book contains themes of alcoholism and incestuous rape.
Your scare tactics don't work on me. Up your game.

How does this disgusting waste of human life get any airtime? Her articles look like a George Carlin sketch and she has repeatedly shown her true colours on TV as a selfish hypocrite. No matter where this cunt shows up she's always contradicting herself and as soon as the panel points out that she can't form a coherent sentence she calls them a racist and goes into a fit that's too leftist to be true.

Look up any of her interviews on youtube or even the BBC website. They are all the same.

>http://youtu.be/oj9dA6E3fJw
I sincerely hoped that this would have end the red-headed communist's career. What credibility can anyone have after something like this?

>>4920656
I thought I recognized her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj9dA6E3fJw
Grade A scumbag.

>>4920656
It's not about credibility, it's about feeelz and mood affiliation.

>>4920656
pls anon
don't call her a communist
it just reminds me of the sad truth

Watching these people trying to grapple with art is like watching a gorilla trying to grapple with a physics textbook.

The gorilla pulls out a page and tries to eat it. It's awful. He thinks "this tastes bad" and decides the textbook is terrible.

>>4920650
>I'm just going to say that this creeped me the fuck out.
Why? The article is about the education system, not books bought for personal use.

Running out of things to complain about.

>>4920669
but that's what she is. She wants the government to forcefully redistribute wealth into the hands of people she deems needing it. That's the basis by which communism exists.

>Communism is totally good for the everyman
>Communism makes the government go POOF!
>Communism doesn't get defeated in red tape despite requiring a lot more paperwork.
>Communism doesn't naturally put the entire economy in the hands of the government power, mimicking a dictator state.
>This is what communists really believe.

You're either an anarchist, a realist, or uniformed.

If you can't handle a bit of swearing and murder, you're an inferior being and you should stop breathing.

>>4920688
well i'm obviously fine with all those things, being a useful idiot (i think that's your stock term for guys like me). but this wimpy muh feelings shit is not communism. inb4 yes it is i know this ideology i despise better than you do because you're dumb just because your politics are different to mine.

>>4920656
She's a persistent self-promoter, classic narcissist. She starts all the threads about that you related to her on here. Ignore / stay away.

>>4920677
Because you're so transparent about wanting to force it on children in an environment where they're taking information at face value.

You know, because it's school.

>>4920694
Its based on the same tenant that people cannot and should not have agency.

>Racy book? Better slap a decontextualizing stamp on it so people don't have to look out for themselves.

>Economics is a zero sum game? Lets just let the government handle it so that there are "no losers".

>>4920719
congratulations on completely misunderstanding communism. what you talk about is a redistributive form of capitalism, the exact opposite of any form of communist ideology from lenin to mao to marx himself.

>>4920677
Because it negatively paints literature (The little that is taught in almost any form of education now) as something that should be avoided rather than explored.
When reading American Psycho, I became uncomfortable whilst reading the particularly gory bits. However, the gore was not the focus of the entire novel. If you were to be warned that a certain book contains violence and rape, you would most likely paint the entire book as being related to those ideas and themes, rather than taking the text as a whole, and determining the weight that content has in the novel itself.
It's also a fucking book, you don't have to read every single page, you can skip head and jump back
Why is this such an issue for them, exactly? Why do they feel the need to play guardian? Why can't people handle "triggers", especially so in the medium of the written word?

>>4920754
this is what the western left has left to do after giving up on actual politics.

TV shows have trigger warnings, movies are rated. not that big of a deal

>>4920735
If you really think that, then you just don't understand economics, or only understand it insofar as your ideology gives you reason to.

>My particular brand of communism ect ect ect.

then explain the economics of your communistic system for the rest of the class.

>>4920809

TV is a medium for tards. Film has censorship. They use it as a way to restrict people.

>>4920192
Parental Advisory: Explicit Content

>>4920809
Movies and Tv are corrupted media
I dont see how anyone who is not retard can think it is good for literature to imitate them

>>4920815
irrelevant.
as does every medium

the news has trigger warnings. trigger warnings are fucking everywhere. you're just too much of an autist to see them.

>>4920758
Really? That's the way you saw it?

>Well, since that bush was left holding the bag, we basically own the election for the next twenty years.
>So then what do we do now?
>I... I don't know...
>Well, we gotta do something with ourselves, I mean-
>ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALREADY, GIVE ME A MOMENT TO THINK JESUS CHRIST
>D:
>Ok. I got an idea...

>>4920819
Just look at how useful and constructive that label has become!

>>4920813
i knew you'd bring up the "my particular brand of communism" strawman, thank you for continuing to invalidate yourself. i guess that's what generations of cold war brainwashing does to a mind.

>>4920823
This isn't much of an argument for their inclusion then, because both industries get a lot of flak for their censorship.

>>4920823

Yeah, the news. On TV. TV is a shit medium. It's called the idiot box for a reason. They have "trigger warnings" because of advertisers, not because they give a fuck about you (except when you complain and cause some shit). Comparing ad-funded moron media like TV to literature is stupid.

>>4920208
"You know what else gets marginalized, Laurie? Stupid-ass ideas. Yours is just a stupid-ass idea, really no one gives a shit what race or sex you are."

>>4920830
you never made an argument that trigger warnings will exclude substantial material. movies and tv still have plenty of useless rape, sex and gore despite all the 'flak of censorship'. protip: censorship is a strawman here that has nothing to do with triggering material.

>>4920831
>>4920822
just stick to /tv/ m8s

>>4920842

It does, though. TV warns because of its advertisers and because of censorship. Film warns because of censorship. It's not saying "you should know there is graphic rape in this." It's saying "there's graphic rape in this, so you can't see it unless you're 17." It's a false equivalence.

It should be called Content Advisory. An unexpected rape scene could send a person who was raped into psychic turmoil for a few days or longer - which isn't helpful - especially if they were not ready yet to have 'thick skin'

It shouldn't be called 'trigger warning' b/c a lot of SJW fags think they're being triggered when they are really only upset. Triggered has a specific connection to PTSD, and using it in place of the word 'upset' diminishes the severity of PTSD. SJWs, please check your no-ptsd privilege.

will it lead to censorship? If an author was writing a novel, and it needed a scene where a character was raped - they would get a big fat sticker on the cover saying 'Rape scenes' and lose 15% of the novel's sales (or maybe sales would increase, ppl like reading about rape). Either way the author would write accordingly.

More likely, an author would be so worried what they wrote could be misinterpreted as sexist, and the trigger warning would leave no room for interpretation, that they would self-censor. 'This book is sexist' is sure to get it off store shelves.

>>4920829
I'm perfectly ready to hear about whatever economic system you favor, but it seems more like you don't know a fucking thing about economics, and just want the government to pay for your life out of the pockets of the people who actually do shit, because you're a fucking faggot.

>>4920846
trying to twist the definition to suit your evil corporate capitalist libertarian buzzwords doesn't really do anything to further or make a point

>>4920847
>An unexpected rape scene could send a person who was raped into psychic turmoil for a few days or longer - which isn't helpful - especially if they were not ready yet to have 'thick skin'

But so could seeing a toothbrush if they were raped with a toothbrush. I feel for them, but it seems moronic and nanny state. Plus soldiers with PTSD don't get the benefit of knowing if violence occurs and haven't for hundreds of years.

>>4920855

Okay, I get it. You've run out of things to say. Cool, we'll just end this then. Pretty pathetic though. Even for 4chan.

What if trigger warnings were stickers that we are free to remove if we find them obnoxious?

>>4920864
>>4920864
read the thread

>>4920863
it's okay if you don't have anything worthwhile to say m8. it was pretty much obvious from the beginning, i just felt like humouring myself for a while before i got bored of your tired strawmen of muh free speech and evil corporations.

>>4920853
>"he's a communist so fucking leech faggot welfare bitch" instead of any actual points
although i know you'll take my image seriously and use it as an excuse to swear some more like the irrationally angry person you seem to be, so there's no real point to this post. it's possible to be a communist and not a welfare state capitalist, you know.

>>4920860
absolutely. just smelling something in the air, seeing a colour, a turn of phrase could send someone with ptsd off. I guess 'trigger warnings' might only really be for sensitive SJWs.

I'd much rather see negligibly priced therapy for anyone who is triggered than trigger warnings everywhere.

I'm making a tiny community magazine about mental health. and some of the other's want a trigger warning. Other than it looking horribly lame, I'm trying my best to make sure we don't have it.

Serious question: how do they expect to implement some shit like this? It's an American university thing, but it would never work outside of a university. The MPAA isn't even a legitimate govt institution. You can just ignore their warnings and release something unrated if a cinema will screen it. So how would you get publishers to bend over and allow you to apply stickers to their books?

>>4920842
but they are censorship. The television content rating system functions more like a blacklist, preventing any nudity, among other things, because broadcasting stations will look at your content rating system, instead of the content. This is the power feminists want.
You shouldn't be allowed decontextualize the contents of a piece of art that way, and if you want to, then you're a faggot.

>>4920623
>Safe space in this context refers to classroom, with an emphasis on teachers treating issues that some students could find hard to deal with carefully. A girl with an alcoholic father who raped her every night might find it hard to read about an alcoholic father who brutally rapes his daughter.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? As if she wouldn't know that beforehand! "Hey let's open this random book. hm. hm. hm. interesting. oh my god.. oh my god.. oh my god!" *ZING* PTSD.
This is about framing your way to think and it will expand into the little details and how you are supposed to judge and form your moral.

I consider myself left-wing (not liberal, but left) and I'm strictly against it.

>>4920874

Why would a community magazine about mental health need a trigger warning? That sounds strange. I mean, I assume the readers of it know they have mental issues. And I assume it's something that's trying to help them.

They should just read the back cover of a book before they buy and read a book, like any other person. A twelve year old, traumatised girl isn't going to accidentally read a book with a graphic rape scene and faint or cry or have nightmares, she's going to notice what's going on and stop reading because she's not a fucking retard. The news mention much, much worse stuff than mainstream books do, every day, without trigger warnings.

god I can only imagine all the art and literature that would never have been created/distributed/shown or written if trigger warnings existed.

Don't we already have tags in public libraries-

Oh.

>UNIVERSITIES

I can't even get annoyed at this anymore. All I can do is laugh.

Of course it's not censorship but it's still going to look ridiculous. "WARNING: THIS BOOK IS *TRIGGER WARNING* HETERONORMATIVE ON PAGE 451!"

I'm sure the corporate overlords looking down from their sky scrapers will be mighty impressed and immediately change their world views.

>The objection seems to be that since so much classic literature involves violent misogyny, racism and brutality towards minorities, whinging leftists should pipe down and read without questioning, analysing or reacting to the canon.

Anyone else find this a strange statement? If there was a trigger warning on the books that had that content, I assume the people who are triggered would avoid reading those books. Because they haven't read the book, I assume they'd also question, analyze, or react to the text.

>>4920890
*also be unable to question

>>4920881
that's what i said! I think the point was that the ppl wanting it know other ppl are doing it and want it too.

>>4920883
I'd be worried that a girl who was raped may avoid any book with rape in it if there was a big warning. Meanwhile, it might be very helpful and therapeutic for her to read a book where a character is raped. Although, it isn't like I'm saying we should hide the rape scene in the book so she can't help but find it. I hope you know what I'm saying.

>>4920873
I can play the macro game too, the difference is that I'm also willing to actually debate openly, and reasonably, something that you're frantically attempting to avoid by feigning some seriously weak skin.

> it's possible to be a communist and not a welfare state capitalist
I'd argue that it isn't. Communism is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership. In a community, there will be people who do more work than others, and in a communist state, they get the worst deal, and you will not be able to get them to invest in your economy without threat of violence.

I'd like a trigger warning for the pictures on some cigarette boxes because they're fucking disturbing and disgusting but I guess Laurie doesn't care because I was never beaten with cancerous lungs or some shit.

>>4920899
pls go. just stahp

>>4920379
Practically every single fucking Whig, leftist, progressive, etc. for the last 300 years, if they could see to what the things they advocated for would be used as a stepping stone 50 years down the line, would have shut the fuck up and sided with the reactionaries.

At this point these people have clearly been outed as retards who refuse to learn from history. The slippery slope of societal degeneration is manifestly not fallacious. You dumb fucks deserve everything that is coming. Every single thing. I am going to be to cackling in glee when they start burning books and putting soma into the water supply.

>>4920905
not even him but i just wanted to chime in that
>stahp
I love that meemay!

>>4920901
I'd liek trigger warnings for qts. cause it sends me into a spiral of despair and then I don't get out of bed. Whether I see the qt irl or online doesn't matter.

Please Miss Penny, from your Harvard privilege, please help me.

>>4920906
but will you tip your fedora?

>>4920912
Your response does not even make sense, why have retards starting replying with *tips fedora* to basically anything they dislike? Do you even understand this meme? Have you even been on 4chan long enough to remember its genesis? Probably not. Fucking newfag.

>>4920905

>>4920899
there's nothing reasonable about calling me a fucking faggot. i'm open to debate as to the role of the market in the development of socialism and the dangers of a leninist political system that seems structurally to lead to bureaucracy, moreso than most marxists even, but you'll understand that when most communists on /lit/ are greeted with exactly the shit you've been spouting and no substance behind it, my response is just not to engage. and i will say, not as an excuse, that i'm drunk, which explains the lack of caps.

anyway, your point about people who do more work getting the worst deal is untrue. even if we grant that capitalism automatically rewards hard work with more earnings, all communism (read, socialism) does is lower the gap between the rich and poor by making the rich also provide for the poor, rather than force the rich/poor divide to disappear entirely. in a proper socialist society, indeed in most of the attempts we've seen, wages are not equal across the spectrum. communism is not forced equality but rather equality of opportunity through force. that means people don't get to be billionaires, and it also means people don't have to starve.

>>4920916
you should reconsider what you think tips fedora or fedoracore ideology and attitudes are. It was a perfect example, and if you can't see that, well I just worry for you is all. I mean, just read it.

>>4920916
Any time someone calls you edgy or says *tips fedora* in a relatively serious argument, just stop because you've won.

>>4920916
because they're anti-intellectuals. The entire stereotype is based on the idea that if you dislike establishment, it must be because you're immature.

>>4920916

Not that anon but it's kind of a lol that you'd catch feelings as quick as did are whilst talking about newfags.

You rage like a teen who arrived here with the last wave of kids and you still haven't shaken your angst stage yet.

>>4920916

>spergs so hard he hit 4 chain replies

looks like every downie has his day.

>>4920938

>>4920255
>not giving him books you've read yourself
>not just going over to the YA section or the children section that specifically does that for you

>>4920255

You'll need a warning for homosexual content because reading about fags is bound to trigger thoughts of faggot older brother.

>>4920445
>And what if your a strict christian. Should there be a trigger warning for homosexuality?

No, because you can only use trigger warnings that agree with the liberal agenda.
It's way more likely to get trigger warnings for rampant christianity in stuff like CS Lewis for example.

NYT: Room for debate. Also... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology

Now solve the puzzle.

>>4920924
>>4920932
>>4920938
>hurr durr I'm proud of being a faggot who can't be bothered to learn anything about the community I joined or make anything but the most superficial effort to adopt its way of doing things

Let me guess. You've never spent any time on any of the big boards because you thought you were too good for them. You came here within the last year and immediately started posting on /lit/ because for you books = intelligence, and you of course consider yourself intelligent and enlightened. Overall, you're a disgusting normalfag who insists on perpetuating in the zero-identity space of 4chan the norms of economies of self-publicity like the twitter and facebook accounts on which you whore out every detail of your personal life, and not only that but you do it without even a hint of marginally redeeming self-awareness because you, of course, never bothered to lurk long enough to gain a deeper understanding of the functioning and culture of this site.

4chan is a perfect metaphor for the perniciousness of mass immigration and leftist doctrine. But the struggle goes on. On the day of the rope I hope to string your kind from lampposts.

>>4920923
>there's nothing reasonable about calling me a fucking faggot.

>which explains the lack of caps
Nobody cares, and nobody called you on it.

>by making the rich also provide for the poor
That sounds a lot like coercion, which sounds very familiar... The rich shouldn't have any sort of obligations to anyone, just as anyone else. It is not the government or anyone else's place to force anyone to be moral.

>rather than force the rich/poor divide to disappear entirely
Elaborate on this concept. I do not understand.

>people don't get to be billionaires
What about people who do work that ought to be worth billions? Who are you to say that they didn't earn that? What if I was making 50 million a month, because I was a genius programmer who set the computer world a hundred years ahead of the curve? I'm going to be pretty fucking bummed when the government swoops in to give that money to other people, or, more likely, I'll just move to some capitalistic state, and they'll have my technology, and your country will be out my genius. This is why the former soviet union had to build walls. In the modern world where travel is cheap, and the world is small, the only way you'd be able to keep that kind of person around is to cage him in there.

>people don't have to starve.
So then what's to stop particularly sedentary people from doing as little as possible? Communism does nothing to motivate people into becoming productive. Also, starving in the first world is for all purposes impossible. If you're dying of malnutrition in the united states, its because of some other complication. A human being can go 30 days without eating, and there's an entire market sector of temporary work for people who can't hold stable jobs. If you can't work, then that's not really applicable to the main population.

>>4920192
>that might, for example, contain graphic descriptions of violence against women

What about violence against men?

>>4920983
Men can't get PTSD, don't be silly.

>>4920971

>all this impotent rage

We get it. You've had a bad day. Try to calm yourself now. You're making a scene.

>>4920977
yeah yeah muh 4chan culture, been here for years. i know how the game works. anyway:

>the rich shouldn't have sort of obligations to anyone
why? what's your basis for this?

>I do not understand
socialism is not about "everyone suffering in poverty". it's about reducing income equality, not removing it entirely. there has to be some level of inequality or else a binman and a university professor are worth the exact same thing, and that's not a viable way to govern society.

>What if I was making 50 million a month
this is why socialism is difficult to impossible to maintain in one state. it's not about simply forcing people to hand over money to those worth off. it's about the transition to a society where the attainment of more and more and more wealth is not the end goal. so you can have enough to be rich, if you work hard. but you won't have enough for five yachts and two penthouse apartments. to be frank, that's tough luck. it's the narrowing of the gap that's important and the changing of peoples' attitudes towards wealth and capital.
>Communism does nothing to motivate people into becoming productive
there's still different levels of income, still incentives for good performance and management. the naked profit motive doesn't have to be all there is, and if it's that important then the chinese approach of markets under socialist regimes is always an option. socialism is not a stalinist dogma and not a checklist of economic ideals.
>Starving in the first world is for all purposes impossible
the first world is where it is because of all the people at risk of starving everywhere else.

>>4920983
But violence against men is just violence.

Also, it's hilarious when violence or rape happens to men.

>>4920993
>the first world is where it is because of all the people at risk of starving everywhere else.

That's completely retarded and reveals a profound ignorance of economic history.

>muh exploiting the 3rd world
>muh sweetshoaps

>>4920997
okay, then who does all the manual labour if the chinese and indians and company don't?

>>4920324

>>4920971

>>4920192

As a committed rape fetishist, I wish they'd had this kind of thing when I were a lad.

Also, labeling isn't censorship.

>>4921003
It used to be that Americans did it and did pretty well for themselves. Half the political angst in America today seems to be about losing all those well-paying manual labor jobs that were available in the 40s-60s. Those third-world countries offered cheaper labor for globalist oligarchs, so operations got shipped there, but it seems quite clear that they were never ESSENTIAL in any way, to anything.

>>4921020
they're not essential to anything except being cheaper, you're right there. make no mistake, i don't give a shit about the third world on an emotional level. but if you take the labour from there and bring it back here you'll just get the return of strikes, labour movements etc., which the third world allowed us to outsource to other governments.

>>4921019

>Also, labeling isn't censorship.

if these labels are appearing mid work then it is censorship as it isn't allowing the artist to put forward a piece of work as intended. they are destroying the nuance and tone of it.

>>4921019
Labeling is the first step towards censorship.

>it's okay if they're sowing jew stars on our coats, labeling doesn't hurt us

>>4921034
did that sound better in your headd?

>>4921019
>if I write this rape scene here, I'll have to put a RAPE warning on my book

I hate Laurie fucking Pennie so god damned much it's insane.

How long do we let smarmy leftist faggots use manipulative, overblown emptional language to paint their shitty, lazy, perpetual victimhood as legitimate? This is becoming tantamount to politicians being able to somehow "not recall" anything yet somehow still be fit to lead.

>>4921037
Do you think anyone here falls for this kind of thing? Learn to express your own thoughts coherently or fuck off.

Movie makers measure how many swear words and what kind of sex they have in movies. For the kind of place that is supposed to be for genuine expressions of artistry, as opposed to a by the numbers calculation, this should be anathema. I'm surprised there's people unironically defending it here. You people are scum.

>>4921050
personally I'm kind of surprised there's people unironically doing anything these days.

>>4921030
>if these labels are appearing mid work then it is censorship

Time to look up 'censorship'.

>>4921034
>Labeling is the first step towards censorship.

Not the case historically. Quite rare for censorship to require any 'steps', if you look at it as a phenomenon over time.

>godwin

Slick.

>>4921038

Yeah movies and TV shows never have rape scenes, ever. Thanks, Obama.

>>4920390
>name me one idea proposed by anyone in the frankfurt school which vaguely resembles any of this tumblr pc bullshit
B-but muh cultural marxism
Muh jewish conspiration to destroy the glorious white master race

>>4920876
faggot detected

>>4921044
do you think people fall for sensational analogies? learn to express yourself rationally or fuck off

>>4920208
Being this retarded, Jesus Christ people actually swallow this bullshit?

>>4921038

i can't believe that we're at the point where this is even being discussed.

modern liberals have become the religious conservatives and are now fighting for stricter censorship. literature is being set upon by agenda-driven vultures pretending to represent it. fuck is this shit disillusioning..

>>4921057

It's all the multiculti cultimarxi pleblite's fault. The degeneracy and the censorship both.

>>4920993
>yeah yeah muh 4chan culture, been here for years. i know how the game works.

what's your basis for this?
Free will.

If a rich man is obligated to spend his money on other people, it's hardly his own money in the first place, and the only way you're going to be able to get him to spend the money that way if he doesn't want to is to take it by force. You are advocating that the government ought to Robin Hood the 1%, and that's stealing, and wrong. Those men might be faggots for holding onto the money the way they do (the real root of the problem being this and the federal reserve destroying the value of the dollar, effectively stealing from everybody), but they got that money fair and square. I'm sure if they were caught breaking the law to make it, they wouldn't take it too personally either, because a capitalist system treats everyone fairly.

>It's about the transition to a society where the attainment of more and more and more wealth is not the end goal
What you're describing is social engineering. You want to tell people how to think, and it will never work, is probably impossible, and immoral. It is not your place to tell you

>this is why socialism is difficult to impossible to maintain in one state
>In one state
If what you're getting at is a socialist Earth, what you've accomplished is no different than caging him in a socialist state. You are still keeping him from existing in a economic climate of his choosing, you've simply eliminated your competition, which would make the only successful socialist system a monopoly.
How unironic, considering what I said earlier.

>the naked profit motive doesn't have to be all there is
It still isn't, but for a lot of people, it is. The strength of a capitalistic system is that even people who act selfishly work to increase the country's economic value. This is a problem that the communist system cannot evade. Anyone simply looking out for themselves is going have absolutely no motivation to create anything of value, and will have to be coerced into working.

>the first world is where it is because of all the people at risk of starving everywhere else.
Debatable, but economics is a zero sum game. There is only so much wealth and value to go around, and better me than the asshole giving me the finger across the Atlantic/Pacific. Those people are not my responsibility, they are their own responsibility.

I want to hang out with Laurie Penny for a few days. I can't imagine she is so horrible in real life. Can you imagine if her articles and personality where the same?

>>4920688
>She wants the government to forcefully redistribute wealth into the hands of people she deems needing it.
That applies to a lot of political ideologies, and you could argue that communism is not about wealth itself.

>That's the basis by which communism exists.
You have no idea what you are talking about apparently.


Polite sage for this awful thread.

>>4921056

>>if these labels are appearing mid work then it is censorship
>Time to look up 'censorship'.

Labeling mid way into a work isn't censorship? Are you fucking serious?

A book as a creative act is a singular gesture. Any forced listing of a "trigger" is a mark on the work and has effectively sullied the authors singular act. Censoring his ability to convey it in the proper means needed.

>>4921076
She seems like the kind of woman who would cringe every time a guy looks in her general direction.

I can see the whole trajectory on this.
>books start out with simple "contains rape"
>gradually over the years they progress to "contains misogyny"
>before you know it the warnings contain moral judgments
I wouldn't put it past these feminists. They're toxic.

>>4920192
"Instead of hearing what precisely a famous publicist did to an underage girl in his car, writers simply tell us that he "abused" her. Instead of hearing exactly what a famous comedian said about Asian people, or black people, we are told that he used "offensive language".

Mentioning people who make racist remarks in the same breath as CHILD ABUSERS.

Holy shit hahahaha, the Left is completely out of control. The inmates are running the asylum.

>>4921082
Art isn't a singular act. It's as much constructed by society as the artist.

>>4921088
muh slippery slope

>>4921088
I could see them cutting whole passages from books.

>"We're not BANNING them. Just...cleaning them up."

>>4920403
>we don't want to ban books
>we just want to use classifications to discourage their being read

>>4921088
>TRIGGER WARNING: This book contains mistreatment of women.

I can see this being plastered in 99% of books for all history. I doubt they'll stop at that though, I know that there's plenty of people advocating for actually editing out that stuff from older books as well.

I love ebooks, but they make it a bit to easy to change things and for people to edit out parts they don't agree with, that's the only downside I can think for them.

>>4920694
You're a fucking moron and walking cancer.

>>4921077
>you could argue that communism is not about wealth itself.
No, that is exactly, and only what its about.
>You have no idea what you are talking about apparently.
Funny, I'd say the same about you.
I wouldn't announce your sages, by the way.

>>4921082
>Labeling mid way into a work isn't censorship? Are you fucking serious?

This would be a really, really good time for you to look up the word 'censorship'. I'm not joking or mocking or using rhetorical overstatement or anything of that sort - I'm deadly serious: LOOK THE WORD UP. This discussion will serve no purpose to anyone if it continues in this vein.

As an incentive, I'll tell you this much: Its not being censorship (which, again, it 100% is not) doesn't mean that it's unobjectionable.

>>4921076
Not at all sure that LP is an example of the following, but I have this pet idea that most people who spout fallacy-ridden bullshit on regular basis actually vaguely sort of know it or realize it later into their career, but at that point they can't really stop spouting bullshit, since that's what their career now hinges on and calls for, and they would lose way more than just "face" if they ever admitted their ideas are fundamentally wrong.

In short: primacy of self-interest above truth.

>>4921100
A PDF is no different from a hard copy. There is no computer boogieman that is retroactively going to modify something on your hard drive. There is no inherent value to paper books.

>>4921107
>No, that is exactly, and only what its about.

You should use a trip.

The craziest of libertarians are now officially more patrician than liberals. Hope you're happy being relegated to the middlebrow cunts you probably always were.

Also, was she right all along bros?

>>4920873
>>4920829
This is every pro communist argument I've ever seen. Someone gets mad and postures for multiple posts. How the fuxk do you morons never underatand that you have NOTHING? It doesn't work. You're just a fat NEET retard.

>>4921116
Not talking about a PDF.

MOBI and EPUB files are the most common ones for ebooks right now, and there's options in all the conversion programs to replace x word with y, to edit out chunks, etc., and that can easily be done by anyone.

Not talking about someone editing my stuff, but whatever you download could've been edited.

>>4921108

>This would be a really, really good time for you to look up the word 'censorship'.

It would be absolutely great if you would stop being such a vacuous fucking pedant and understand the dialectical nature of the word.

You absolute fucking moron.

>>4921075
see, we're arguing from fundamentally different philosophical positions here. you're not gonna get anywhere throwing shit at me and i'm not gonna get anywhere throwing shit at you. let's just leave it and be friends, k?

When did leftists turn into such cowards?
Trigger warnings.
Safe spaces.

Look at this pic, its a picture of the american nazi party at a nation of islam rally.
Do you think they were in a safe space?
Do you think they needed a trigger warning for the speeches that day?
These are the type of men who have guns, the type of men who wouldn't think twice about shooting you.
If the shit ever hit the fan there wont be trigger warnings, there will be men pulling triggers.

Leftism isn't about workers rights anymore, its about who is the biggest victim.
Its been poisoned by identity politics, women hate men, blacks hate white, gays hate straights.
They all think they suffer the most, they want to win the gold at the oppression olympics.
The infighting, the hypocrisy, leftism is eating itself alive.
The right wing thing all want one thing, they want to march on your neck, they are a cohesive unit.

My advice to anyone is to buy a gun and live as a monk, protect you and your family.

>>4921116
If American intelligence agencies today are capable of gaining remote access, or initiating remote activation, of the computer of some millions of people today (in some cases installing the software at manufacture point as a fundamental, unremoveable part of the machine), then the power that these agencies will have 50 years down the line should be terrifying to you.

Digital knowledge is vulnerable. Paper cannot be tampered with so easily, or at least it must be tampered with in entirely different ways.

>>4921117
>Communism is, like, a way of life.
Then what is it exactly? Enlighten me.

Also, I change my mind, you should keep announcing those sages. Sage away.

>>4921132
I don't know boss, from my end it looks like I'm tearing you a new asshole, and you're running away.

>>4921097
>implying it's unrealistic
It's not a great leap between, "contains racial slurs" and being rephrased to, "contains racism."

>>4921075
>they got that money fair and square. I'm sure if they were caught breaking the law to make it, they wouldn't take it too personally either, because a capitalist system treats everyone fairly.
my sides are dead and gone

>>4921131
>so i looked it up and you're actually right
>but still, when i say 'censorship' i don't actually mean what the word means
>and it hurts my feelings and oppresses me when you try to curtail my use of it to its commonly accepted meaning
>that in itself is a form of censorship
>WAAAAAAAAH

Progress of a sort.

>>4921138
You lead me to believe you have no understanding of computers.
Nobody has any idea what the world is going to look like in 50 years, so just pointing ahead is intellectually dishonest and fucking lazy. Don't do it.

>>4921144
running away from arguing politics with a stranger on the internet, what a coward i am.

>>4921135
lmao

>>4921135

I can actually hear you masturbating as you type this with one hand.

>>4921153
I think you're sort of missing the point.

>>4921159
hey, whatever you gotta do man!

>>4921164
no i think i got it. two retards fighting on the internet is hilarious to watch

>>4921139

Wealth and its distribution is a hugely important factor, no doubt. But consider the Marxian concept of 'alienation'. It's the dehumanisation and suffering that results from the inequitable distribution of wealth and, concomitantly, power, that concerns the Marxian there.

>>4921158
>planning for the probable is "intellectually dishonest and fucking lazy."

God you sound like a moron.

As to "no understanding of computers."

http://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-radio-software-2014-1

>>4921135
>eating itself alive.
Do you think its the political consequence of the left effectively winning every election after bush by default? Each group is sort of scrambling to be "the platform"

Penny doesn't seem to understand her existence is all about her power and ability to control. Perhaps her rape lead her down this path? The content of her ideas and actions are less important than they are all set up with the hope for control.

>>4921166
i hope you enjoy your internet victory and that it brings you happiness, anon.

>>4921155

Just because you cite a dictionary definition of a word does not mean you are taking into account all the dialectical ramifications of it in any given context. And with the word "censorship" you can bet that there are more value digressions than just the definition of the word itself.

You've the philological understanding of a high school student. Stop embarrassing yourself you laughable failure.

>>4921174
So what you're saying is we are all potentially victims of Miss Whatever's rape?

>>4921097
Slippery slope is such a retarded fallacy

>Humans don't act like they do because we're debating xD

Gregg "Opie" Hughes had a surprisingly insightful comment about this culture the other day

>"I would be so embarrassed if I was one of these pussies. But I guess there's so many pussies around you, you don't even realise you're a pussy anymore?"

>>4921172
It is really a result of the left winning every significant battle, or at least every war, in both the cultural and political spheres since, what 1688? At the latest.

At this point the energies required to continue the campaign against Reaction and maintain a lid on what watered down remnants of conservatism remain are so minuscule that the vast majority can be happily spent on internal politicking to see who gets to occupy which spots on the Party hierarchy.

>>4920909
>Please Miss Penny, from your Harvard privilege, please help me.
Don't joke, Comrade. Laurie Penny is the voice of our generation and is saving us.

>>4921174

>Penny doesn't seem to understand her existence is all about her power and ability to control.

m8

she understands that perfectly

nothing like a bit of divide and conquer to build one's exposure

>>4921183
This dumb shit is why philosophy is a huge waste of time.
>here is a definition and a point I'm making about it
>MY definition is better so your point is wrong

You might as well just fling shit at each other.

>>4921195
>in the political sphere
>neoliberalism

>>4921183

So you agree that the extent to which this proposed action is 'censorship' is the exact degree to which your use of the word deviates from its dictionary meaning? You accept that that gap is the sole province in which this could be called 'censorship'?

>>4921189
>b-but I am the fountain of knowledge on how humans act DX

>>4921132
You got #rekt and are going to keep believing in bullshit that has never and will never worked solely because you're a lazy, emotional faggot.

>>4921200

>the bittersweet tears of a young and ignorant pedant put in his fucking place

The very nectar of gods.

>>4921186
Yeah. that rape is still reverberating around the world. This is called karma in the buddhist sense. I don't mean to discount all of Penny's agency, but I sort of do.

There's a stupid stereotype that feminists were raped and that is why they are like they are. But I think it makes sense here. The privileged Laurie went out into the word and in it a man raped her. She now thinks in terms of control and the rape-essence of control has become her being. She exists as the control aspect of rape.

>>4921068
Also, they took our jebs!

>>4921171
You're a luddite. There's no way to access the information when its not hooked to the internet, and even if it is, hacking every single computer on the planet and destroying every flash drive containing the book doesn't work. you don't know what you're talking about. Dont even take my word for it. Go ask /g/ if you want to be a stupid cunt contrarian about it.

>almost 100,000
Bitch, do you even know how many computers there are per person in the US? its more than one. The NSA is nothing to be afraid of. Its just a big money pit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBgQuouPDkY

>>4921206
i'm lazy, yes. can't be bothered arguing politics on 4chan.

>>4921208

Yes, reply to the guy who's obviously not me. That's the ticket!

>>4921209
Perhaps that is truly what modern feminism is, a counter movement focusing on gaining control in the stead of the control that they felt that they lost through their being dominated.

>>4921201
Surely neo-liberalism is an extremely left-wing ideology, viewed on the historical timescale of even just the last few centuries. They literally want to use military might to spread and defend red Republicanism across the globe.

In any case, neo-liberalism has also just about been crushed at this point. It is certainly clear that it has lost its own war of survival.

>>4921198
she was socialized this way. Like lenin. She's the class that learned to lead, her actions and behaviour are more important than the content.

we should just take over our call centres and malls and kick out our managers and bosses and just ignore her. I mean last I heard she was training to be a better journalist at Harvard. Harvard is the belly of the beast.

>>4921182
>internet victory
Will do
Its not like I put any more effort into it than you did, I'm just right, and you're not.

>>4921182
Why are communist such little sarcastic bitches? I've been following your posts all thread and I'm honestly embarrassed on your behalf. Do you have no self-perception at all? This has been a pathetic display and you're somehow proud of yourself.

Jesus christ.

WARNING: PIC RELATED MAY TRIGGER FEDORA COMMENTS IN VULNERABLE PEOPLE.

>>4921222
it is probably what modern ____ anything is.
: ( : (
the agony of power, and all that.

>>4921169
that's not communism, that's marxist economic theory. The difference matters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlKL_EpnSp8&feature=kp

>>4920369
This reminds me of the scene in Super, where Frank changes into his Crimson Bolt costume in front of a man before beating him with a wrench.

Who the fuck do you think you're fooling, telling me this is about PTSD? We can all know that's bullshit.

>Another Laurie Penny thread
>249 posts and 34 image replies omitted. Click here to view.

>>4921221

Well I guess you can use it as excuse enough to pretend that you don't need to give a response. What a lucky break!

We both know you're just some kid ignoring dialectical concerns because you've never even considered the concept before.

But go on.
Tell me to consult the dictionary again, lol.

can we play a playful prank on Laurie Penny?

>>4921240
>that's not what i'm calling communism

OK.

>>4921254

>play a playful

>>4921250
>Well I guess you can use it as excuse enough to pretend that you don't need to give a response.

>>4921202
>So you agree that the extent to which this proposed action is 'censorship' is the exact degree to which your use of the word deviates from its dictionary meaning? You accept that that gap is the sole province in which this could be called 'censorship'?

Some free advice: This argument stopped being about what the word 'censorship' means the moment you used the word 'dialectical'. From that point on until 404, the argument is about how difficult it is for you to admit that you were wrong. Nothing more, nothing less.

>tfw you could of want to hatefuck her

>>4920390
They're concerned about dominant viewpoints, and how this is supposed to spur discussion about them you fucking retard.

>tfw you kind of want to hatefuck her

>>4921254
Let's rape her.

>>4921269
no I meant more like invite her to speak at one of our universities, and then it turns out it is a surprise party

>>4921230
no anon, we were just "arguing from fundamentally different philosophical positions"

>>4921254
>can we play a playful prank on Laurie Penny?
We know she lurks as she tweets about us, so I'm pretty sure we couldn't get away with a prank. In fact she'd probably orchestrate it, and it would backfire tremendously.

>>4921269

>>4920485
>the proletarian work less if at all
>"why is muh net worth so low?"
Men make up a much larger percentage of the bourgeoisie, especially the haute bourgeoisie, so there's that

>>4921272
>surprise

>>4921269
>>4921254
Don't be such fucking teenagers. Just jerk off to her burlesque photos like a reasonable adult.

>>4921269
This is why we need people like her to fight the rape culture and the rampant misogyny in our society

>>4921279
>burlesque photos
what a slut!
post them, please?

>>4921274
That was only after she was directly linked to one.

She blocks people who link her to 4chan. She's a good feminist who prefers to silence dissent and unpleasantness rather than deal with it. She would have Pussy Stalin send us all to Siberia, if she could.

>that hairstyle

Is she 14?

you're now aware Laurie is reading this thread, and without much thought one of her hands is pressing against her clit.

>>4921281
This is why we need rapists

>>4921289
anon, pls

>>4921287
she follows no gendered beauty

>>4921269
>Let's rape her.
She's already been raped. Google 'Laurie Penny Raped', and find the article she wrote about it. It's not that raunchy tho, and very hard to fap to.

>>4921292
She looks like a faggot.

>>4921289
>laurie penny will never read a 4chan thread about herself and pull your face between her legs to service her, as she bathes in the radiant glow of male attention

>>4921289
go on...

>>4921262

>Nothing more, nothing less.

This was a terribly brave bluff. But we both know you're being adamant about dictionary definitions here because that's all you know. Dialectics has never even been a concern of yours before.

Tell me, if you can, what reason would dialectical concerns not apply here?

>>4921281
>trolling

Anyway, any toddler can go on 4chan and tell you they're going to fuk ur mum. They don't really mean it.

>>4921293
I consider myself a master. I couldn't do do it. I never thought moaning would ever be this much of a turn off.

Why do you all hate me? ;_:

>>4921293
>and very hard to fap to.
challenge accepted!

>>4921295
can't wait to get my slash fiction with laurie penny being seduced by judith butler in the back of volvo in a Cornell parking lot published

>>4921300
you could chisel stone with dem cheek bones.

>>4921300
You're ugly and stupid.

>>4921293
"The man who raped me wasn't a bad guy. He was in his early 30s, a well-liked and well-respected member of a social circle of which I am no longer a part, a fun-loving, chap who was friends with a number of strong women I admired. I was 19. I admired him too.

One night, I went with friends to a big party in a hotel. Afterwards, a few of the older guests, including this man, invited me up to the room they had rented. I knew that some drinking and kissing and groping might happen. I started to feel ill, and asked if it would be alright if I went to sleep in the room – and I felt safe, because other people were still there. I wasn't planning to have sex with this man or with anyone else that night, but if I had been, that wouldn't have made it OK for him to push his penis inside me without a condom or my consent.

The next thing I remember is waking up to find myself being penetrated, and realising that my body wasn't doing what I told it to. Either I was being held down or – more likely – I was too sick to move. I've never been great at drinking, which is why I don't really do it any more, but this feeling was more profound, and to this day I don't know if somebody put something in my drink.

I was horrified at the way his face looked, fucking me, contorted and sweating. My head spun. I couldn't move. I was frightened, but he was already inside me, and I decided it was simplest to turn my face away and let him finish. When he did, I crawled to the corner of the enormous bed and lay there until the sun came up.

In the morning I got up, feeling sick and hurting inside, and took a long shower in the hotel's fancy bathroom. The man who had fucked me without my consent was awake when I came out. He tried to push me down on the bed for oral, but I stood up quickly and put on my dress and shoes. I asked him if he had used a condom. He told me that he "wasn't into latex", and asked if I was on the Pill."

>i got drunk and fucked a guy that reminded me of daddy
>he doesn't like condoms, like absolutely every other guy in the fucking universe
>he wanted a blowjob
>THE WORMS OF PAIN CRAWLED IN MY SKIN.. HE FUCKED ME.. I SAID IT AGAIN AND AGAIN TO MYSELF.. HE FUCKED ME.. AND I SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT.. I KNEW IT WAS HIS FAULT. I KNEW I HAD TO WHINE ABOUT IT ON THE INTERNET. WHINE ABOUT MEN. WHINE ABOUT PENISES. FOR ETERNITY.

>>4921296
I wonder what she thinks about that turns her on? Cocks, vaguely? some guy she knows that I would hate? Random strangers? Her male friends?

>>4921304
I wish I had cheekbones.
>be of russian jewish descent
>not great cheek bones
>only big nose
Life is suffering.

>>4921300
Because we're all hikki neet assholes with nothing to lose except our freedom to be assholes.

Also go away pinko.

>>4921311
Huh, I never noticed the gun in this pic

>>4921308

she likes to peg guys

i'd bet all my non-existent fortune on it

>>4921300
>Why do you all hate me? ;_:
Because the wacky hair colors, then repeatedly dying your hair it's natural color, do nothing to mask the fact that you are prematurely grey. Yes, Laurie, we all know your secret.

>>4921307
>The man who raped me wasn't a bad guy

What the fuck.

>>4921314
Yeah, it's "The Decision".

>>4921300
I'm literally at home right now while I miss a psychiatry appointment Laurie. Can you jsut chill out?

>>4921315
Laurie Penny would probably be like one of those butch straight girl dommes, the kind with like 20 tattoos, who act more like dudes than women, and who take complete control of the situation (and you) so quickly that it terrifies you.

Laurie, what's your Fetlife?

Why do you respond to a photo of her that's clearly been taken from twitter as though it's actually her posting it? You're none too bright.

>>4921311
I actually find curly black hair attractive as long as its not on mudpeople. Its too fuzzy then.

Threads about to 404. New Laurie thread.

"I want to see how far I can get your cock down my throat"
-LP
>>4921307
"do anything you want to me tonight, even if I say no"
-LP

>>4921307
Maybe she consented, but she doesn't remember because she was drunk?

When she sobered up she should've stopped it right then and there.

>>4921328
I only got the curls, not the black. It's auburn. Think Tom Hanks' hair in Joe Versus the Volcano, but copper colored.

>>4921327
We're responding to anon posting photos because it's funny.

WAIT A SECOND! Is that you Laurie? Are you calling me shtoopid?!

>>4921332
The fucking dude woke up to her the next day and was like "sup, that was fun! Let's do some more!"

I'm pretty sure she consented. Or I guess his rape culture patriarcho-power was just so strong that he thought he could rape her in a hotel room, chill out there overnight, wake up, and resume being completely casual and civil. He must have known the hotel was owned by the patriarchy, too.

She didn't get raped. She got drunk.

>>4921332
always get written consnet

>>4920208
>It is saying our experiences do not matter

They don't though. Why do these people believe their own personal problems and bullshit matter in the face of six and a half billion other people?

>>4921347
>Stern dismissal of "trigger warnings" has become a proxy for dismissing women, people of colour, queer people and trauma survivors as readers. It is saying that our experiences do not matter

Them saying this nonsense so much is why many people are actually beginning to (finally) render it truthful

>>4921345
>oh god baby, you're so sexy. ugh, I want to fuck you so hard. first just sign and date this form so that I can take it to the notary before they close.

>>4921344
If he fucked her passed out body, he wouldn't have talked to her like that the next day.

Her consent could have been pretty weak though. Like he lays down beside her, puts his hand on her, she cuddles next to him without thinking, and he takes it as a sign and fucks her and she moans and moves just a little.

>>4921319
She's pretending to be a kind, forgiving person.

>>4920208
>Stern dismissal of "trigger warnings" has become a proxy for dismissing women, people of colour, queer people and trauma survivors as readers
Sowell was right.

>>4921297
>This was a terribly brave bluff.

It's a plain fact, bro. No secret to you, either - you seem to badly overestimate the power of 'we both know' as an establishing phrase. Hence also the speculation about my age and assertions about my 'understanding' of the subject. All so much octopus-ink squirted to muddy the waters just enough.

>Tell me, if you can, what reason would dialectical concerns not apply here?

Because your 'dialectical' foofarah began precisely at the moment you looked the word up and discovered that I was right. Up until that point, the Party line was that I was wrong wrong WRONG and this WAS TOO censorship etc.

But OK. We'll take your Damascene conversion at face value and pretend that this 'dialiectical' tack has been your line all along. The best reason to reject such a description is that it relies entirely on the hazy, general adherence of most people to the word's dictionary definition. Ooooh, 'censorship'? Where stuff gets censored? That's bad! Me no like!

And if it turns out a little way down the line that they were mistaken about what you mean when you use the word 'censorship', well hey, what's the harm?

Now, this is a sham, because there is no way to define 'censorship' as you use it. It can't be labeling works by their content, because then the Dewey decimal system is like, mad censorious. Any amount of categories and indexes are just the most brutally oppressive 'censorship' if that's the case.

So then we have to define 'censorship' on your use as 'Something to which I object, and to which I moralise my objection, and my moralisation of this objection consists in my use of the term 'censorship' to refer to it'.

And you don't want that. Deep down in your shriveled little heart you know the word's only effective when people THINK you mean what the dictionary says it does. At your core you know that's the only reason you ever reach for that word.

Or, you know, something something 'dialectical' lol teenagers checkmate atheists. Take your pick.

Laurie Penny is actually a cunning libertarian who has adopted an obnoxious marxist-feminist persona to turn people away from communism.

>>4921347

These people cannot accept that sometimes being outraged is informative. Even moral.

It should be used through literature to explore and discuss issues. Not warned about through "triggers" like it's some cheap ploy by the author.

Our generation is so fucked..

>>4921352
If you're that drunk, in bed, with a guy twice your age, and you admittedly like him, in a hotel, maybe he might interpret that as being DTF???????

Honestly do women just not know how men work, or something?

>>4921366
I'm convinced they're just programmed to avoid responsibility without remorse.

>>4921362

>Now, this is a sham, because there is no way to define 'censorship' as you use it. It can't be labeling works by their content, because then the Dewey decimal system is like, mad censorious.

No. Either you didn't understand what you were saying or you've completely forgotten your position this whole time.

>>4921082
>>4921108

Labeling "mid" way into a work. Mid.

This is a dialectical break in authorial text.

You didn't correct his. You quoted and took up this position as though "mid" labeling within a text was not seen as censorship by you. This is how it all started about and why I (rightly) brought up dialectic concerns.

You really have failed in the most fantastic fashion ITT. But, hey - at least you tried.

>>4921366
>rape consists solely in the mind of the rapist

I have a friend, Jonathan, who's badly brain-damaged. His brain is damaged in such a way that he believes every woman he sees is wildly lusting after him. So profound is the damage that no matter what their response to his overtures may be, he interprets it all as part of some dance of seduction. After a few years, he became convinced that 90% of women really, really enjoy method-acting rape play.

They've locked him up, of course, the PC lesbian brigade. It's a scandal. OK, he may have a habit of jumping women on the street, dragging them into alleys and forcibly fucking them against their will, but it can't be rape because HE DOESN'T THINK IT IS, am I right?

Fucking liberals, man, it drives me up the wall.

>>4921377
>you've completely forgotten your position this whole time.

Nice. This is the perfect lead-in to changing the sense in which you're deploying the word 'dialectical' after realising that it wasn't flying. As a means of maintaining the illusion of not having lost the argument, I honestly don't think it could be improved.

>>4921378
Did you also get drunk, get into bed with a guy, fuck him, and regret it later? If not, why the pointless non sequitur?

>>4921385

I didn't do anything, dog, and neither did Jonathan, or the guy who fucked Laurie Penny against her will. We've already established that it can't be rape if the guy doesn't believe it is. Everything else follows from that.

>>4921389
>Its rape because I say it is.

>>4921383

No. Mine has always been about mid text.
I have the linked posts to prove it.

You're just too much of a fucking moron to properly read what you're quoting. You probably skimmed that word "mid" over in your rush to reply without realising that by doing so you altered the context.

I'll explain it to you very simply, because you really are the most shit-headed pedant on this board right now and you'll probably really need this help.

Labeling mid prose is a break in authorial text. This is a form of censorship over the right of the artist to convey their work.

Stop posting. You're a joke.

>>4921393

Clearly that, too, is unsatisfactory, yes. Progress! We have established that rape is not something that only happens if the guy says it did, and now too that it's not something that only happens if the girl says it did. Marvelous.

Now: can you think of anything about the story Penny told that might give us clues about whether or not this was rape? Remember Jonathan when you go to answer this - he has some very strange friends I may need to introduce you to, though I'd prefer not.

>>4921399
>No. Mine has always been about mid text.
>I have the linked posts to prove it.

No. But honestly, a good, strong face being maintained. Impressive.

>>4921408

It's time to stop, poppet.

You've had your little go at a bluff already, and we both know how that turned out.

Just remember to actually read the posts you're quoting. We wouldn't want you tripping over any more context in the future.

>>4921425
>It's time to stop, poppet.

I stopped a few posts ago and have exclusively focused on laughing at your ego's inability to admit error. When that will stop, I confess no man can foresee.

>>4921430
see
>>4921056

>inability to admit error

This was your first reply to me.
And I stipulated "mid" from the get go.

You can't save face around actual links, though it's cute to see you try.

But I'm sure you'll just take to straight up baiting now because you know you fucked up.

Better luck next thread, kid.

>>4921444

Nah, dog, everyone knows your first go-round with the 'dialectical' arglebargle was on the level of a 'dialectical sense' of the word 'censorship' and only later mutated into an application of 'censorship' in some putative 'dialectical' manner. Ya done fucked up.

>>4921461

>You can't save face around actual links, though it's cute to see you try.

Better luck next thread, kid.

>>4921463
>i've run out of bullshit so now i'll repeat myself

I have a feeling I won't need luck.

>>4921401
the delusions of one person don't alter the inter-subjective framework held by the majority.

>>4921472

>You can't save face around actual links

Bye, kid. It's been fun seeing you try and fail so consistently. Chin up etc.

>>4921479

That doesn't answer the question:

>>4921401
>can you think of anything about the story Penny told that might give us clues about whether or not this was rape?

>>4921483

It's only the two of us reading this. And we both know you changed horses mid-stream. No, I'm not going to link to the posts, because you already know the ones I'm talking about. At this point it's way more fun to watch you push your bullshit than actually engage with it.

>>4921503

>No, I'm not going to link to the posts

Because there are none. You have nothing to link that was posted before:
>>4921056

You tried to save face, but it's done.

>>4921131
>It would be absolutely great if you would stop being such a vacuous fucking pedant and understand the dialectical nature of the word.

>>4921183
>Just because you cite a dictionary definition of a word does not mean you are taking into account all the dialectical ramifications of it in any given context. And with the word "censorship" you can bet that there are more value digressions than just the definition of the word itself.
>>4921297
>This was a terribly brave bluff. But we both know you're being adamant about dictionary definitions here because that's all you know. Dialectics has never even been a concern of yours before.

The smack gets laid down here >>4921362

And cue damage-control goalpost-shifting in 3, 2, 1 GOTIME >>4921377

Not that any of this is news to you, of course.

>>4921566

>>It would be absolutely great if you would stop being such a vacuous fucking pedant and understand the dialectical nature of the word.

Said because you were asinine enough to claim that a label "mid" work wasn't censorship. This was, of course, because you misread the initial post you were quoting and you mistakenly thought I was talking about labels on the covers when I was talking about labels mid prose. But you've invested too much now to ever admit that, lol.

This entire time you've mistakenly thought that I was talking about labels on the covers when I wasn't. And I proved from the very start that I wasn't.

>The smack gets laid down here

More like the largest fucking fail of the thread.

>Not that any of this is news to you, of course.

It sure isn't. Typical ego snowballing. You spend all your time arguing a point with me and then realise that you completely misappropriated it from the very start. But things are on a roll and you've come too far to ever admit your initial misgivings.

Overall this really has been a very special fail.
You've put a lot of work into it.
You should be proud.

>>4921592
>This entire time you've mistakenly thought that I was talking about labels on the covers when I wasn't.

This when the posts in question feature highlighted quotes of single sentences clearly stating that you're talking about it mid-work?

Nah, I don't think anyone's going to buy that. You sure don't. That's why you keep waiting longer and longer to reply, hoping I'll go away (hence also the passim "It's time to stop" etc). Sad to say, when I told you:
>>4921262
>From that point on until 404, the argument is about how difficult it is for you to admit that you were wrong. Nothing more, nothing less

... I really was not codding, dear old Boss.

>>4921612
see
>>4921056

>>if these labels are appearing mid work then it is censorship
>Time to look up 'censorship'.

The second that you tacitly implied mid labeling of prose could not ever be censorship you were done.

Stay told etc.

>>4921659
>The second that you tacitly implied mid labeling of prose could not ever be censorship

'Tacitly implied'? Nigger I explicitly SAID and maintain now that it isn't censorship. That's what 'labeling isn't censorship' entails.

But it's interesting that now you're actually backing down off the new, post-Damascene conversion stance and have reverted to the one you took at the start. All part of the routine, of course. It's more important that whatever's being said RIGHT NOW is SO WRONG AND STAY TOLD than that one be, like, consistent.

>>4921268

You don't want to hate fuck her. You want to hate fuck what you make her represent with your perception. As soon as you unveil the masquerade, the desire fades away. In other words: reorder your perception, spell broke.

I hope that helps.

>>4921734
No I hate Laurie Penny and I want to fuck her butthole

>>4920295
This is why I love /lit/.

>>4920379
>Islamophobic.
Come on is that even really a thing any more?

>>4922113

I think the 'phobia' suffix is a bit retarded, but there's certainly Islam-specific bigotry that goes over and above any objections to doctrines or practices of Muslims (particulary in far-flung places). But people like their easily-understood terms.

>>4921319
>WASN'T

As in, before he raped her, he wasn't a bad person
As in, as far as she was aware, he wasn't a bad person.

>>4920623
>consumers

>>4920656
REKT.