/lit/ - Literature

>>6657725

did you really have to post that banal comic? I swear, maybe XKCD aside, it's by far the worst webcomic I've ever seen posted, and it's posted incessantly

>>6657743
How do you mean?

>>6657725
>>6657747
SMBC is the most condescending, moralising, and preachy bullshit webcomic on the internet. Please refrain from posting it on /lit/.

>>6657763
I like it and (mostly) disagree with you
Shit thread though

>>6657763
>>6657769
You're both shitters.

Have some more.

I like how he makes sure to include all genders and races into his comics; I imagine he must have a spreadsheet where he keeps track of how many blacks, Asians and women he used in his comics. In other words, top cuck.

>>6657776
Can't unsee. Not that I miss anything.
Literally cuck.

>>6657776
Yes, that's what finally made me realize that I really don't want any non-whites in my white fiction, to be honest.

>>6657776
This observation is more telling about yourself than about the author. If you can't see how, think again.

>>6657795
What's a white fiction?

>>6657801
Good fiction.

>>6657800
>multiculturalism is more important than message and quality
>let me be intentionally vague ;)
You look lost- to get to tumblr you take a left at SA, not a right. Happy travels!

>>6657747
No really, what the fuck does that even mean?

MoS is not "worshiping thirstiness" its carrying on through the desert and surviving with no water, and not letting the lack of water destroy you.

What the fuck

does he even read these books?

>>6657801
Any fiction in a culturally white setting, about culturally white people, for culturally white people.

Reskins are unaesthetic.

>>6657816
It's just a dramatization.

>>6657812
>multiculturalism is more important than message and quality
the projection is strong with you. you are the one constantly harping on about there being too much diversity, and accusng the author of having an agenda, when literaly everyone can see that you're the one with the agenda. This is so freaking obvious, I can't even laugh at the silliness of it all.

>>6657812
>multiculturalism is more important than message and quality

Not him, but don't you think that is a bit overdone?

>>6657822
>culturally white

>>6657829
>makes an unruly assumption and accuses me of projection
You're only proving my point.

So, guys, what is the DEAL with all those christfags?

I mean lol

>>6657839
Dude, the only comment you had was about the diversity of characters, and now you call both me and the author biased. I would like to have anything to say to you, but I now I realize that I really don't.

>>6657845
>implying that's not exactly how everything's gone, ever
I can understand your frustration but of all the things to complain about, surely SMBC has got worse

>>6657848
And yet you keep making those assumptions.

>>6657849
>implying I was being ironic

>>6657854
Name one incorrect assumption I have made.

>>6657857
This one is true; if, however, still unfunny.

>>6657867
>I'm projecting
>I have anything against regular diversity
>I'm enforcing an agenda
>I called you personally biased

>>6657854
Who is this beaut?

:^^^^^^^^)

>>6657816
>does he even read these books?

Of course he doesn't. He's too busy preaching about his own world view through his fucking strawman webcomic.

>>6657901
There's literally nothing wrong with this.

>>6657882
>I have anything against regular diversity
I didn't say that. You have something against the diversity you find in the comics. How do I know? Because you say so.
>I'm enforcing an agenda
no. you HAVE one. You lack the power to enforce it. What agenda might that be? Thus far, it seems mainly directed against what you perceive to be a forced diversity or multiculturalism.
>I called you personally biased
Indeed, you accused me of valuing multiculturalism over quality. That would be quite some bias.
>I'm projecting
I think this goes without saing, really.

>>6657901
This is what free speech means. Not just on reddit, but everywhere.

>>6657912
Except the banality. Every web personality who had their asses hurt about something and banned someone from their site or board has made this point.

>>6657912
>>6657922
>/reddit/
>/tumblr/

and stay there cucks

>>6657916
>You have something against the diversity you find in the comics.
No, I'm against shoehorning in racial diversity for the sake of racial diversity.
> Thus far, it seems mainly directed against what you perceive to be a forced diversity or multiculturalism.
I don't think you understand the concept of agendas.
>That would be quite some bias.
>implying there's an objective way to look at the situation
>I think this goes without saing, really.
And what exactly am I projecting?
I'm in support of racial diversity both in comics and in real life, just not when the author makes a point to stuff it in.
Do you honestly believe that my taking offense to, as you so eloquently put it, forced diversity is indicative of some repressed racism?
>>6657912
>>6657922
get out

>>6657901
>>6657912
>>6657922

Not true, the right to transmit ideas is part of free speech. This comic commits a false equivalence by implying all transmission of unpopular ideas equates to holding the idea, i.e. an illocutionary action.

The comic purposefully does so in order to align the idea of sharing unpopular ideas with the concept of "hate-speech" (an idea that directs 'violence' towards someone and carries perlocutionary force in the speech act).

Ironically, this comic is an attempt to silence speech freedom by perlocution.

I.e. the ultimatum "wouldn't it be unfortunate if something happened if you said something we don't like :^)"


Consider an alternative comic where you replace "your bullshit" with any social issue of the last 50 years. Now go over the ultimatum and see if its not directly trying to silence a free speech act.


This is the most gross misunderstanding of free speech. While you have ultimate power to ignore someone, making the argument that you can silence someone through intimidation and still preserve free speech is absolutely fucking absurd.

>>6657946
>I'm against shoehorning in racial diversity for the sake of racial diversity.
If an author gives his characters different backgrounds, how is it shoehorning? If anything, you're the one shoehorning a multiculturalist purpose into the authors intentions.
>I'm in support of racial diversity both in comics and in real life, just not when the author makes a point to stuff it in.
Does he, though? Or are YOU making a point about what you think is wrong with the world, using the comic as an example?
>Do you honestly believe that my taking offense to, as you so eloquently put it, forced diversity is indicative of some repressed racism?
Thing is, it isn't forced. The author makes his own comic, who is being forced what?
You seem to be saying there should be no political subtext to the comic, when you are the one politicizing it in the first place. This is the act of projection.

>>6657982
>the right to transmit ideas is part of free speech
What is this even supposed to mean? That every private natural or legal person has the duty to provide you with an outlet? This is simply not true.

Guys

what about the christfags?

>>6657982
"Free speech" from a legal point of view, vs "free speech", the principle
That's it

>>6657992
There is a big ass comment after that line that explains it.

Nobody "owes" you an outlet, but if an outlet is not free -- as it is not in the case of perlocutionay intimidation -- then the speech on that outlet is not free.

The comic is not arguing about free speech at all, its arguing about private speech.

however, the comic is not saying "private speech exists" what its really implying is that its somehow okay to levy an ultimatum (perlocutionary effect) on speech and still have that platform for speech remain "free". That is not possible.


My argument is that the comic is deliberately trying to falsely mix the two in an attempt to try and appeal to preserving free speech while using perlocutionary force.

You can't do that.

>>6657983
>Does he, though?
Yep, it's pretty obvious. Flick through some of his latest stuff and you'll find that almost every comic has at least three different races.
>what you think is wrong with the world, using the comic as an example?
Nope. Sorry, disagreeing with his overuse of racial diversity doesn't mean that I discriminate by race. The 'everybody else is prejudiced argument' is how I know your roots.
>... who is being forced what?
I can't even comprehend that. Are you saying that because the author makes his own webcomic, nobody else can judge his motives? I know it's difficult to verbalize your feelings when you're not capped at 140 characters, but please try.
>there should be no political subtext to the comic
Unless it's designed to be political, correct.
>you are the one politicizing it in the first place
No, anon. I'm not projecting political motive onto the comic.
Thankfully, if you'd actually read any of the comics, you'd know that I don't have to. There's a distinct difference between including diversity and mandating it and if you think I'm making that up, watch your choice of edgy teen-centric dramas and then look out of your window.

>>6658021
>then the speech on that outlet is not free
It is, it is still protected by the first amendment.
>what its really implying is that its somehow okay to levy an ultimatum (perlocutionary effect) on speech and still have that platform for speech remain "free"
Free speech is not a property of platforms, as platforms have their inherent limitations. Free speech means safety from legal repercussions, period.

>>6657845
Smug athiests are the worst. Clear to anyone with any grounding in philosophy, both sides, athiesm and christianity are very plausible and mostly based on a premise. The actual arguments for and against are so far above the head of these comic creators its embarrassing. I mean, what was your favourite part of Summa Theologia SMBC guy? And what makes them think they can be smug against geniuses like Aquinas or Pascal?

>>6658042
>Smug athiests are the worst.
Why exactly, though? Is it the (false?) mantle of intellectualism?

>>6658032
>Yep, it's pretty obvious. Flick through some of his latest stuff and you'll find that almost every comic has at least three different races.
And that's a political issue to you. Start there, with yourself, save yourself some trouble.
>Nope. Sorry, disagreeing with his overuse of racial diversity doesn't mean that I discriminate by race.
More projecting: I never said you where discriminating, I said you are afraid of a multiculturalist manipulation.
>Are you saying that because the author makes his own webcomic, nobody else can judge his motives?
No, I'm saying that he isn't forcing anything on anyone, he's just writing comics, that you aren't forced to read or find funny.
>Unless it's designed to be political, correct.
Ok...why?
>I'm not projecting political motive onto the comic.
Yes you are. And very obviously so.
>mandating it
mandating it from whom, you fuckwit? who is doing the mandating, and who has to follow?

>>6658035
>It is, it is still protected by the first amendment.
>implying that the right to free speech under government is identical to free speech among peers
If a user posts CP and is reported to the government for it yet all other legal discussion is allowed, that website is practicing free speech under law and free speech among users.
If a user posts an image sympathetic with the Nazi party and is banned for it, that website may very well practice free speech under law, but it does not practice free speech among users.

>>6658021
>and still have that platform for speech remain "free".
That is a meaningless adjective to apply to a specific platform.
Free speech is only a fact of society in general, not something that can exist or not in a single outlet.

>>6658058
>free speech among users
And, who cares about that? That's not remotely mandatory, or even desirable. Free speech among users turns every place into /b/. If you think that's something to aspire to, go there, and stay forever.

>>6658035
free speech is not only just the American first amendment. That's another source of deliberate term swapping in the comic.

I'm not even arguing that speech must always be free qua locution. But the argument put forward is deliberately conflating 1st amendment validity and free speech.
The comic does not say "the government cant arrest you, but we will pressure you to speak a certain way and punish those who do not with consequences"


I've been arguing that conflating 1st amendment and "free speech" on this way deliberately masks the core of the argument, which is thoroughly anti-free speech.

>>6658042
Man you are really fucking dumb aren't you.

>>6658070
>That's not remotely mandatory, or even desirable.
>having the freedom to share your own opinions isn't desirable

> Free speech among users turns every place into /b/.
No, unchecked shitposting turns places into /b/. Reasonable content moderation is not censorship. The type of censorship promoted in the XKCD comic, banning 'assholes', turns places into the front page of Reddit.

>>6658042
Come on man, all 5 demonstrations of Aquinas are mainstream, any furious atheist has encountered them whether or not he knows where they came from.

Besides, criticizing the Church has little to do with metaphysics.

>>6658081
>which is thoroughly anti-free speech
So you're saying you can be pro-first amendment and anti-free speech, at the same time? In that case, this is probably an accurate description of my own position.

>>6658070

The point is, the comic makes an argument designed to seem to preserve some nebulous concept of "freedom" on a platform, when its really advocating punishment in private speech.

nothing wrong with private speech with rules, but calling it "free" is retarded, and just an attempt to hijack peoples ideology.

Great bread

>>6658085
>Reasonable content moderation is not censorship
Gymnastics.
>The type of censorship promoted in the XKCD comic, banning 'assholes', turns places into the front page of Reddit.
Damnit, I keep forgetting that this the true topic of political concern for you kids these days, the difference between internet communities.

>>6658095
>the comic makes an argument designed to seem to preserve some nebulous concept of "freedom" on a platform
Does it? I don't see it. Unless he has been claiming his own platform as a "free speech zone" and then banning opposing opinions, there is nothing wrong with this argument.

I, for one, am very happy that dedicated catholic forums exist and they ban all arguing atheists so we don't have to spend our time replying to nasty trolls.

>>6658105
>Gymnastics.
There's a difference between propagating frog memes and discussing politics.
>the difference between internet communities.
Good post.

>>6658092
yes you can.

Pro 1st amendment, would be you believe the gob'ment cant lock you up for saying something. (within the already defined limits etc etc)

but you may also personally wish to partake in platform which are private. aka, only certain topics, rules apply etc etc.

speakers corner is an example of a free platform within a 1st amendment free speech.
From a top down view, you could say the 1st just allows for the "most free" a platform could be. most platforms will not allow the full extent of allowed speech.

Thats not necessarily a bad thing, but you cant misrepresent what your platform is.

>>6658110
>There's a difference between propagating frog memes and discussing politics
Both can become equally annoying tbh, cf. sticky.

Straw polls show we've got about twice as many Atheists as christians.

However, there is a vocal minority of monomaniacs, both Christian and explicitly Anti-Christian who refuse to talk about anything else.

To be honest I got bored of Christianity as a topic some time ago.

>>6658107
I don't think places with rules are bad, they are just private speech and not free speech.

The comic is only wrong because it say "free speech means the government cant arrest you, it does not mean X Y Z with no repercussions"

but FS does mean that. once you put repercussions on someone they can correctly say "you are limiting my speech" so the argument the comic is making (that people complaining about free speech are wrong when they say people giving ultimatums is limiting their speech) is wrong.

the real argument for what the comic is trying to say would be
"the government cant arrest you, but not every platform is free; this is private and there are rules"

It's a logical conclusion to the /lit/ lifestyle: inward looking, weak, with an autistic need for rules and ranks, always avoiding and denying risks, which is the very stuff of life

Christianity is the basement dwelling lifestyle adapted to the cosmic level. No wonder 4channers love it, monks and priests were basically basement dwellers before there were basements. They should be renamed monastery and church dwellers

>>6658130
>"the government cant arrest you, but not every platform is free; this is private and there are rules"
Different anon here, this is exactly the message I took away from the comic. Maybe you're the one having comprehension difficulties?

>>6658042
>geniuses like Aquinas or Pascal
even geniuses sometimes are just pathetic biased idiots

>>6658138
Risks are not the very stuff of life, you diet-coke swilling, coddled little first world piece of shit.

>>6658130
And when people whine that their free speech got attacked because they got banned from some forum, do you think they make that distinction between "1st amendment free speech" (only one that matters or is desirable) and your "platform-specific free speech"?
That's what the comic addresses in my opinion (again, unless he's been calling his own forum a free speech zone and then banning different opinions), and frankly you're the one introducing an unnecessary ambiguity by calling "contextual free speech" the same thing as "1st amendment free speech".

I'll admit, for this thread only, that I'm an agnostic, but I relentlessly post as a Christian because it ruffles so many feathers.

>>6658164

Yes they are you whining faglord

Leave your house and learn to live a little, you pathetic excuse of a man

>>6658165

My argument was that his comic creates a sense of preserving free speech, while actually totally denying it.

the term swap of "right to free speech" and "1st amendment" is a false equivalence.

he denies free speech on the platform, but the comic is structured to show that 1st amendment rights are preserved.

through the false equivalence the comic implies free speech is preserved.

But its not.

>>6658186
Your edge is showing, shit-stain. People who have actually had to deal with shit, or been burned by bad decisions know that life isn't some dramatic fanfic. The best parts of life are comfortable. You'd know that if you whole life wasn't a fucking cushion.

>>6658202
Well good job, you started arguing there was a confusion between 1st amendment free speech and contextual free speech, and now you've completely swapped the meaning of the word so that for you "free speech" only applies to "lack of moderation on a specific outlet".

Sorry but not, that definition of free speech is completely inconsequential, and not particularly desirable, as you admitted.
The "free speech" that is worth defending and getting offended for is exclusively the free speech as in the societal right defended by the 1st amendment.

You can have the definitions you want, that's not the issue. The meaningful message here is that 1st amendment free speech is desirable while forum-specific free speech isn't.

>>6658032
but the comics themselves are never about the concept of race, for the most part.
the characters simply have such and such race
why shouldn't that be the case?

Our Father, Who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name; Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
Amen.

>>6658221
I never made an argument for what is "desirable" I don't care what you do privately, but if its private its not free.

So when someone says "you are limiting my free speech on this private platform" they are not wrong.


the comic was addressing "free speech" and "1st amendment"

when someone says "you are restricting my free speech" that cannot be taken to mean "you are infringing on my first amendment rights".
that's a false equivalence

So, saying "im not limiting your free speech because you still have your first amendment rights" is not a meaningful answer.

>>6658235
**For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.**

>>6658170
in a similar line, I made this comment:
>>/lit/thread/S6398298#p6398441

>>6658042
less that Christianity is tenable, and more that Theism is tenable.

The bible has no more valid claim to being right than any other account of God/gods.

Maybe you should stop arguing about the moral repercussions of how many different skin tones a webcomic gives its disposable characters on 4chan and go outside or something.

>>6658237
>that's a false equivalence
We understand that it is your argument. We understand that you want to call "lack of moderation on a specific forum" "free speech".
The issues here are first that it's not really a meaningful point, only a definition issue ; and that your definition introduces a really unnecessary ambiguity since everyone and their mother already use the phrase "free speech" to talk about what is defended by the first amendment, and you would be better off using "unmoderated" to lift that ambiguity.

>>6658235
>not
>PATER NOSTER, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum.
>Adveniat regnum tuum.
>Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra.
>Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris.
>Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen.

>>6658253
Lefebvrists pls go

>>6658042
>Smug athiests are the worst. Clear to anyone with any grounding in philosophy, both sides, athiesm and christianity are very plausible
Clear to anyone with any grounding in philosophy, both sides, athiesm and christianity are semantic structures.

>>6658256
Small a "atheism" is actually the denial of a particular semantic structure, and is simply a descriptive term for somebody who doesn't believe in the gods for whatever reason, no structure is implicit in it.

It is quite distinct from the "Atheist Movement", which the vast majority of regular atheistic folk don't particularly care about.

But y'know how it is.

Fools hoot the loudest.

>>6658102
>masks = secrets
philosophy genius

>>6658282
THAT'S THE POINT.
HOW ARE YOU THIS STUPID?

>>6658269
>Small a "atheism" is actually the denial of a particular semantic structure
it's still denial within a semantic structure, though.

>and is simply a descriptive term
Exactly. It's fundamentally language based, and can only be understood within a semantic structure.

>no structure is implicit in it.
It is a semantic structure. I'm not sure you understand the relationship between what we believe to be reality and the semantic models we form to describe what we think we perceive.

>>6658289
The point is becoming an idiot dad. I thought the point was laughing at teenagers, that I would have agreed to.

>>6658246
Well, it's one of the few religions that has scholars arguing for the historicity of its scripture. It is definitely easier to argue for Christianity than, say, Greek polytheism

But of course any particular religion is much more difficult to argue for than the simple proposition that God exists

>>6657725
Shitposting aside, it is quite clear some christfags come from /pol/. A lot has admitted so. That is not to say that /pol/ is a christian board, a lot of /pol/fags mock christfags all the time too. But I don't know the reason for the sudden influx of christposting. Maybe Summer?

>>6658252

Its not ambiguous, lol. The elocutionary force contained in the ultimatum is explicitly none-free.

>1st amendment >> perlocutionary force of law
>free speech under 1st amendment >> perlocutionary force of public.

how the FUCK can you cross those two logically? Arguing from the crowd that most people consider both relations the same makes 0 sense.


You calling this an unmeaningful distinction is like saying someone holding a gun to your head and telling you to say something does not violate your free speech because there is no way you will be arrested by a legal officer.

ROFL

i can't even

>>6657812
Using different colors would improve the message and/or the quality?

Why point out something that doesn't matter?

>>6657822
Have you never been outside or do you live in the Faroe Islands?

>>6658327
Obviously free speech is about not being coerced into statements, it doesn't matter if it comes from the government or not.
I suppose you're not comparing coercion with being banned from a forum though, am I wrong?

>>6658032
We are all prejudiced though. I know I'm somewhat racist. I don't think I am totally wrong, but I understand how I'm not entirely objective either.

Your argument on the other hand seems the kind that starts "I'm not racist, but".

>>6658344
rather than being coerced to say something, you're being coerced not to say something.
sorta.

>>6657747
Thirst. Not Thirstiness. Thirst. Jesus and Mary.

>>6657725
Seems like over the course of the last year or so. I think it's appealing to many on here because it gives them a logical framework for their reactionary politics.

>>6658382
>you're being coerced not to say something
Oh so that was your beef?
Yeah well I strongly disagree with that, the point is you can tell them somewhere else. I don't think there should be any competition between property rights and free speech.

>>6658344

basically.

I think being banned from a community already implies private speech and so would not argue that such a thing is coercion away from free speech (because free speech was never the aim in such a place).

but,
>consequences . . . if your yelled at, boycotted, have your show canceled . . . your free speech rights aren't being violated

the formulation of this is an ultimatum, and the comic is therefor disingenuous when it implies that an ultimatum can exist alongside "free speech".

I think its purposefully done in order to align the mere transmission of an idea with an origination of the idea, but i will spare everyone that.

>>6658434
Wait, would you describe yelling, boycott and canceling shows as forms of coercion?

Man, those christfags.

>>6658434
You're still going on about this? Look at the words: free speech RIGHTS ffs. You do not have the right to not get banned, boycotted or cancelled. No such right exists. Instead, people have a right to ban, boycot, or cancel you. Get over it.

>>6658451
not him, but I think calling them "free speech" rights conflates the letter of the law with the actual ethics of allowing free speech. If you are coerced against voicing ideas by everyone in society then you do not have de facto freedom of speech, but your censors can still pat themselves on the back because they didn't violate your de jure "free speech rights."

>>6658465
>the actual ethics of allowing free speech
I think those ethics are captured perfectly well by the letter of the law. No one is ethically obliged to give you a platform, or listen to you, or not interrupt you. All of this depends on context. Bans, boycots and cancellations are not unethical.

>>6658440
In order to display perlocutionary effect they must be given in the form of ultimatum.

They could be outcomes, and if they happen that does not undermine free-speech. But if they are posited as a warning towards a person that is limiting free speech.

The example would be, if there is an election and someone who shows up gets shot for being black it might have still been a free and legitimate election.

But if someone goes on air before the election and says "all niggers who show up to vote get shot" its clearly not a free election.

>>6657725
When i stop coming here (around 4 months ago) chrisfags were a problem for some months. Im not surprised there are still here.

>>6658481
>comparing internet debates to political elections
>while trying to make a point against legalism
Was being delusional part of your plan?

>>6658481
You can't seriously think boycotting or banning people from forum is a form of coercion like threatening to shoot people.

>>6658497
I think they have gotten worse

>>6658515
I specifically said the banning people from the forum part was not being argued.

im arguing about what what constitutes an ultimatum not extent of force.

>>6658513
friend . . .
the comparison adheres to what constitutes perlocutionary force, not anything else.

>>6658297
No, it's denial of the semantic structure.

It's complete negation of the idea of gods.

There is no structure to atheism because it is not a movement with ideals.

Get it right.

>>6658320
That's more a matter of Christianity actually having adherents active in western scholarship, rather than the tenability of Christian ideas compared to other forms of theism.

>>6658138
>>6658186

>muh ubermensch

Haha is this real? Y'all need Jesus. Then you would stop decrying the moral failings of celebrities on social media.

>>6658534
So banning from forums isn't coercion but boycotting suddenly is?