/lit/ - Literature

THIS IS A MEME THREAD

Simply not true. Shows that you arent in the know about all the boards

>>6946911
if "tumblr mode" involves having a shred of empathy / compassion toward other human beings then i'll gladly fall under your ideological label

>>6946911
Because /lit/ is the most human of the boards, majority of the others are either too secluded in their basement to express human sentiment, or else too preoccupied with their leagueoflegends / my little pony

>>6946915
hahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha

ayy lmao

>>6946927
This

Mods will ban your for the n-word here.

>>6946927
>>6946929

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

>>6946911
Plenty of board care about being offended, they just use words like degeneracy

>>6946927
same tbh.

'Political Correctness' is just being considerate and not dropping the spaghetti.

>>6946945

>let's censor and muzzle people
>that'll make them considerate

If being considerate needs to be put into law, you're doing it wrong, shithead.

>>6946911
Because there are humanities faggots like these >>6946927 >>6946929 >>6946945 three here, and when they flap their fingers most browsers prefer to ignore their shameful behaviour instead of flipping their shit.

>>6946939
so much this

>>6946959
exactly

>>6946945
>'Political Correctness' is just being considerate

There are limits. We had an expert on Israeli history on me campus, but he couldn't even start his lecture because of protests, trigger warnings, shouting and 'safe areas'. So far for diversity of thought and free speech in academia.

>>6946927
"tumblrism" is clinical narcissism paired with religious devotion to secular ideology.

>all those faggots who believe you most either be a shitflinging edgelord or censoring tumblerite

>>6946945

Reminder that the words "American" "Foreigner" and "Healthy" are now problematic and politically incorrect.

>http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/28/public-universitys-bias-free-language-guide-calls-the-word-american-problematic/

You've been warned shitlord. Seriously though political correctness has nothing to do with empathy or considerateness.

>>6946972

/lit/ isn't very smart really.

/lit/ comes from the same pool of nerdrage male cucks as the rest of 4chan, many of whom discovered /lit/ before they actually started reading seriously. So when they finally did, they used reading as metric by which to make to make themselves feel superior to the rest of 4chan, and with that superiority comes puritanical feelings of moral superiority as well. Hence /lit/ uses morality as a way of distancing themselves from the herd

I've never met someone who is worried about political correctness who wasn't also a college dropout. Probably just a coincidence though.

>>6946993
I disagree. Usually /lit/ uses armchair psychoanalysis of /lit/ as a way of distancing itself from the herd

>>6946953
>censor and muzzle people

I'm extremely grateful for censorship and muzzling. If you are being an obnoxious, loudmouthed cunt, you deserve a slap around the back of the head.

>If being considerate needs to be put into law, you're doing it wrong
In the UK they have 'The Public Order Act' and it's a wonderful law. You can stand in front of Big Ben or anywhere else, and you are perfectly free to articulate your opinions to friends or complete strangers. You could approach a an old man with his eight year old grandson, standing to look at the clock, and talk to (or at) them about why you dislike the aesthetics of the clock. They may not like you being there or talking to them, but if you are civil and courteous you can say whatever you want. Now, if you start swearing at them and describing the clock as a "fucking piece of shit that looks like it was built by a blind cunt with a whore for a mother, etc". . . then you will be arrested.

Again, fantastic law. You can say whatever you want or express any view, but you're not allowed to be a dick about it.

>>6947005
This posts is a wonderful example of the extent of which Brits believe in free speech.

>>6947005

I hope you're not serious, otherwise, nice fucking bait there faggot.

You deserve to be put into jail or fined for having a (shitty) opinion?

We can defenestrate moral philosophy if that's so.
No point in any other roads than the legalist one it seems.

>>6947005
That Act actually sounds pretty terrible the way you described it

I'm intellectually offended by people attempting to make arguments based on prejudices they have acquired from their limited and ignorant education.

>>6947005

So were these men arrested? I hope they were deported as well. Can't have people spreading religious violence in the civilized world.

>>6947030

Nope.
In Britain you can be arrested for calling a clock a piece of shit, but you can freely express your islamo-fascist views out in the open and run anti-democratic campaigns from an islamic perspective.

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

>>6947003
Well aren't you clever, my little reactionary chum

>>6947015
You deserve to be fined for not giving your opinion with courtesy. Are you offended not everyone share your praising of unconditional free speech?

>>6947015
>I hope you're not serious,
I'm completely serious.

>You deserve to be put into jail or fined for having a (shitty) opinion?
No, you missed the point entirely. You are allowed to have and voice an opinion on whatever you want, shitty or otherwise. It's the method you deliver the opinion that get's called into question.

You may disagree with disabled people getting a 'disability allowance' from the government. You are allowed to discuss this with anyone you please; you may even approach disabled people and engage them in civil conversion about it. But if you start dancing around a guy in a wheelchair, screaming "you fucking no-legged cunt stealing all my fucking tax money, I fucking hate you, bla bla bla" through a megaphone then you will be prevented.

Again, you are entitled to any opinion, you are entitled to voice any opinion in a civil manor, but you are not allowed to be a public nuisance and harass everyone.

And for public order offenses the police generally ask the person to stop being a nuisance and/or leave the area, and will issue a fine or arrest them if they continue.

>>6947073

I have a better idea.
Why not bring back duels when one offends the other?
That'll really solve the issue.

>>6947005
>You can stand in front of Big Ben or anywhere else, and you are perfectly free to articulate your opinions to friends or complete strangers.

confirmed not british, Big Ben is surrounded by police with guns. If you are just standing there and are not a tourist they'd probably move you for being suspicious.
thanks freedoms

>>6946974
So, don't use them.

it's that simple.

>>6947079
Duels took Gallois from us.

Never. Fucking. Again.

>>6946974
>http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/28/public-universitys-bias-free-language-guide-calls-the-word-american-problematic/

“This” political correctness and the political correctness of the OP which consists of disregarding words like “nigger” or “faggot” (moreover on a literature board) do no cover the same meaning.

b/c this board is fill with nigger faggots

>>6947077

How many times does that shit even happen? Most people have a sense of decency because they had parents. You know, the ones who give you an upbringing, so you can, as an adult, act responsibly on your own.

Why do we have to have the state enforce morality and not have people be raised properly?
Are you really that much of a bitch that you need a government body for everything to go smoothly? Or are you aware of the fact you liberals are unable to actually raise kids and have the police watch them as they grow old to keep them in check?

And also, ever been at dinner parties, you un-selfaware dork? Was the police present there to watch over the courtesy among the guests? And did you at any time experience someone calling the cops when someone said something insensitive?

You people are so afraid of the proximity of people and actually experiencing their difference to the point where you can only envision worst case scenario's in human interaction all the time.

>>6946969
>Crony ideologue from some imperialist colony steps up.
>Gets shut down by savvy students.

You'll always to defend some tenured dick, but what about the children of Gaza whose slaughter he gets people to vote for. Israel has the legitimacy of a crime dynasty, so fuck them.

>>6947105

How did you come to the conclusion that an expert on Israeli history must be a jingoist Zionist?
Pretty racist of you.

>>6947100
>Why do we have to have the state enforce morality
Because people want it to. This is nothing even remotely new.

>>6947117

Most people think political correctness is pretty retarded and shouldn't be batoned into people.

>le source?

Go outside of your campus.

>>6946911
As a Pakistani, I'd rather be called a terrorist sand nigger, than have my opinions shut down because I trigger some limp wristed pussies sensibilities.

>>6947117
Such laws are chiefly symbols and have no practical applications.

>>6947129
Wrong picture

>>6946911
/co/ is literally /tumblr/

>>6947135
Why should every sentences must have consequences?

>>6947005
>>6947077

So, government-enforced civility? This is why people say you have a nanny state.

Because this is the intellectual board *flatulates*

Because there are a lot of Marxist-Feminists and secular Jews here

>>6947144
If it's not a threat or slander the only consequences you should face are from society, not the state as some in this thread are arguing.

>>6947145
So we have always had a nanny state?

>>6947156
I was talking about your picture.
>“I am offended”
>“So what?”
Why should it implies anything?

>>6947165
>Why should it implies anything?

Would you mind rewording that? I'm not trying to be rude or dodge the question, but I dont understand what you're trying to say.

>>6947171
He talks about sentences without purpose as a bad thing.

>>6946911
Nah, other boards usually tell guys like that to fuck off back to their containment board, which they don't. They become belligerent, everyone gets tired of complaining and learn to ignore it or get baited into constant bickering

>>6947100
>How many times does that shit even happen?
Every day
>Most people have a sense of decency because they had parents.
Having parents is not a prerequisite for "decency"
>Why do we have to have the state enforce morality and not have people be raised properly?
They are not 'enforcing morality', they are enforcing a law that says it's illegal, in certain cases, to be threatening and abusive in public.
>Are you really that much of a bitch that you need a government body for everything to go smoothly?
Me? No, I usually act in a fairly civil way. It's the other members (granted, a minority) that need help.
>And also, ever been at dinner parties, you un-selfaware dork? Was the police present there to watch over the courtesy among the guests?
The "public" order act takes private dwellings into account. So no, the police weren't present at any small private events I've attended; though they were called at a uni house party once when some guy started smashing everything.
>And did you at any time experience someone calling the cops when someone said something insensitive?
No, as it's not illegal to be insensitive.
>You people are so afraid of the proximity of people and actually experiencing their difference to the point where you can only envision worst case scenario's in human interaction all the time.
I'm not sure where you pulled this from. The law is in place to further productive discourse and remove the occasional nutcase who just wants to scream obscenities and threaten people. You may salute the Westboro Baptist Church picketing at peoples funerals and telling the grieving parents how happy they are that their faggot son is burning in hell, you may raise your hand to and say 'gawd bless free speech, but in the UK, the police would politely ask them to stop being dicks and leave.

>>6946911
There seems to be a wide base of moral relativist, subjectivists and such. While moral relativism (or anything that conflicts with ethnocentrism) triggers /pol/, it's also the perspective that allows you to look on murder/rape/cannibalism/some bad thing and say "that might not be wrong in a certain context".

So, to answer your question, it's not that /lit/ in general is adverse to political incorrectness. It seems /lit/izens just don't pursue shock value, being rather blasé about it.

>>6947193

And what if I don't like the law?
Your whole argument is predicated upon the tautology that "the law is the law".

>>6947145
>This is why people say you have a nanny state.

>Be British
>Fed up with the nanny state
>Move to America, the land of free speech
>Sit in a public space with a laptop and a headset
>Verbally code my C++ commands and hack into the pentagon
>Immediately surrounded by armed FBI agents pointing automatic weapons at me.
>Pull out a copy of the constitution and set it next to my laptop
>Point to the microphone attached to my headset and mimic a talking gesture with my hand
>The FBI agents all drop to one knee and start singing the national anthem in unison

>>6947247

At least we have a constitution.

>>6946927
God this sounds so angsty.

>>6947193
Yes I do support it.

Paradoxically, Westboro Baptist coming is a rallying point for the community. Everyone bands together to block them out.

I would cause the biggest stink of such laws were to be passed in the US, I refuse to be silenced like a European coward.

>>6947231
>And what if I don't like the law?
You are free to dislike the law. There are certain laws I dislike (compulsory wearing of a seatbelt for a car driver being one of them), and I'm sure there are some laws that you and others dislike too. You are also free to public processions and assemblies to collectively voice your dislikes, and free to petition any law. It's also the law (in the UK) that if any petition receives a certain amount of signatories it has to enter parliamentary debate.

>Your whole argument is predicated upon the tautology that "the law is the law".
Is that supposed to be a refutation? Are you saying "the law is not the law"?

>>6947296

It's no coherent argument you're giving here.
Just that this is the application of the law and that's that.

You don't even have a good case for why it should be the way it is. Just that it's "the decent thing" to do, which I argue can be done through raising people properly and not by having cops arrest you.

Cops dont prevent crime and 'insensitivity'. Their job is to document it, and levy fines and/or put you in a cage.... not prevent you from committing crimes.

>>6947295
>I would cause the biggest stink of such laws were to be passed in the US, I refuse to be silenced like a European coward.

Nobody is silencing you. Again, it's not the content of your opinions, but the method of delivery. If you dislike someone, you're free to dislike them and free to tell them so. If you accompany this opinion with a physically abusive action like punching them in the face, that is a crime. If you accompany this opinion with a verbally abusive action like telling him you are going to slit his daughters throat, that is a crime.

I don't see why you can't/won't differentiate between verbal and physical abuse.

>>6947333
Assault and threats =/= Being a dick

>>6947316
>It's no coherent argument you're giving here.
It's not an argument and it's perfectly coherent. All I have done is stated what the law is and said that I agree with it. You hold the objection to my stance, but haven't presented any reason why you think people 'ought' to be removed from the protection of a legal system.
>You don't even have a good case for why it should be the way it is
You haven't requested any subjective reasoning behind the moral views I hold.
>Just that it's "the decent thing" to do, which I argue can be done through raising people properly and not by having cops arrest you.
"Everyone should just be raised 'properly' ", with all respect, is one of the most absurd propositions to questions of social ethics I've ever heard.
>Cops dont prevent crime and 'insensitivity'. Their job is to document it
Whether a legal system 'ought' to be used to deter, reform, or punish is also something I haven't said anything about, yet another issue you are shoehorning in and objecting to.

>>6947333
>If you accompany this opinion with a verbally abusive action like telling him you are going to slit his daughters throat, that is a crime.

That would get you arrested in the US and most other countries too. Americans like to think they have so called free speech, but threats to harm another person are not protected speech under the First Amendment. Just look at the amount of people arrested in the US for nasty fb and twitter posts.

>>6947374

And I disagree. I don't think the state has any affairs in matters of opinion, especially in those that affect 'sensitivities'.
We are now in a society where every stand-up comic needs to apologize as soon as he jokes about something or someone that happened to notice him and can't stop taking themselves seriously for a second.

If /r9k/ needs to man up if they wish to get laid, the whole of society needs to man up and take a joke, take a tasteless remark by the Trump or whatever the hell so happens to be done with a tongue. It doesn't hurt. Learn to deal with it.
The only thing the police was and is made for is to monopolize violence. And that's where it should intervene and only there. If we let it be present in any other case, we are not in a free society anymore.

And being raised properly is not just a parental concern. Many institutions are involved. How else are you going to have moral people? Socialization brings us that. The legal system should be the very last of our concerns in assuring we have decent people among us.

Because some people here are so mired in their political ideology that they can't extract themselves from it to have fun for even a minute, and they're stupid enough to expect people on 4chan of all places to be obligated to conform to their moral sensibilities.

It's weird because this isn't supposed to be a political board, but we've got a lot of faggots who want it to be the left-wing version of /pol/.

It's also weird because literature has a long history of being censored and persecuted at the hands of politics, and here on a board that should be about celebrating the artform you have people who advocate a similar type of authoritarianism (though coming from the other end of the political spectrum as most attempts to censor art have been). It's almost as though these posters don't appreciate the art of literature beyond how it can be used to forward their political beliefs.

>>6946993
I think there's a lot of truth to this too.

>>6947374

>"Everyone should just be raised 'properly' ", with all respect, is one of the most absurd propositions to questions of social ethics I've ever heard.

How else are you gonna do it?

Apparantly, terror. State terror.

Why is Trump going to win the next election so hard?

>>6947005
muh feels
why are you even on 4chan?

>>6946911
bcause its full of cucks hat still think they can get laid by using 'big words' n frnt of chicks

Call me a Marxist Spic if you like, I have no authority to stop you from doing so. Mods hold such authority on this board.

>>6946972
I know, right? I fail to see how thinking that calling black people 'nig nogs' is wrong makes me a tumblr

>>6947412
I don't think the state has any affairs in matters of opinion, especially in those that affect 'sensitivities'.
And again, --for the third time, I think -- I have to remind you that the state is not regulating opinions, but the method of delivering those opinions, i.e, highly abusive threats and verbal attacks, and being 'insensitive' is not a crime.

>or whatever the hell so happens to be done with a tongue. It doesn't hurt. Learn to deal with it.
Really? They're just words, not physical, so they can't hurt? Again, I have to draw your attention too the differentiation between verbal and physical. Do you remember when Clinton bombed that Sudanese pharmaceutical plant, or Nixon and Kissenger bombed Cambodia, or when virtually any war or conflict throughout history occurred? Yeah, those were started by words. Clinton didn't fly to Sudan and bomb the plant, he whispered a few words into a phone. Just because it, as you say "happens to be done with a tongue" doesn't mean it has no consequences or actions attached.

>How else are you going to have moral people? Socialization brings us that.
"Moral people" is just the semantic tag to describe the actions of a collective body.

Cannibalism was (and still is in rural tribes) moral in Papua New Guinea. And why did they reach that conclusion? Because they were "raised properly" and taught that the highest honor one can bestow upon a dead relative is to consume their body to absorb their soul. "Raising one properly" is relative, and as such has a legal system to regulate the majority view. You are so far removed from the Papua New Guineans that you would raise an eyebrow if you caught your neighbor BBQing his dead daughter in his garden. To you, someone cooking their dead daughter and eating them with a salsa dip is immoral, yet to the one doing the eating, it was you who wasn't "raised properly."

>>6946927
Spooky

>>6946939
This guys is absolutely right. Being 'offended' isn't mutually exclusive to the left/'tumblr', /pol/ just expresses it in different ways.
>muh western society
>muh degeneracy
>muh decadence

Besides, using the words nigger or spic or whatever doesn't somehow increase board quality so I don't understand the problem. I feel the OP is complaining just because this place doesn't tolerate the same anti-intellectual faggots on other boards that shit up them up with their off-topic ethnocentrism and half baked infographics from /pol/

>>6947506

> I have to remind you that the state is not regulating opinions, but the method of delivering those opinions

That IS regulating an opinion.
If I have to be concerned with how I phrase something, in a legal sense, that's soft censorship.

So long as I don't infringe on your basic human rights, you can suck a cock.

And your example involves politicians, not a conversation between people. A citizen cannot declare war. We're talking about how the law is muzzling people like you and me, i.e. people who are not in office and whose words do not have (geo)political repercussionns when we talk about the Big Ben being a piece of shit.

>"Moral people" is just the semantic tag to describe the actions of a collective body.

And now for the inevitable throwing in of some moral relativism.
Not even gonna bother with that. We're talking about the West and not spear chuckers.

>>6946927
grow up

>>6947530
stay mad faggot

>>6947536
>That IS regulating an opinion.
No, the underlying opinion is intact and untouched by law. You are being prevented from hurling abuse and threats at someone. It's unrelated to the opinion.

>So long as I don't infringe on your basic human rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

>And your example involves politicians, not a conversation between people.
It's easily scalable. The point is words have power. From a school kid managing to instigate a fight between two other kids, to politicians decimating civilizations.

>We're talking about how the law is muzzling people like you and me
restricting a citizen from verbally abusing and threatening another is not "muzzling."

>And now for the inevitable throwing in of some moral relativism.
>We're talking about the West and not spear chuckers.
It's unavoidable. You resorted to very vague concepts like "raised properly" and even posed "How else are you going to have moral people?" As we don't even agree that one person should be prevented by law from verbally attacking, harassing, and threatening innocent members of the public in a public space, we probably share different moral stances, particularly as I'm not from "the West".

>Not even gonna bother with that.
It doesn't make it go away.

>>6946911
Nigger, have you been to /mu/? That board is more tumblr than 4chan.

>>6946927
this is an anonymous imageboard. you're literally a child

>>6947625
>restricting a citizen from verbally abusing and threatening another is not "muzzling."


We have laws in the United States against harassment. You can't get in somebody's face and start screaming at them. But you can call people stupid cunts in public, and there's nothing anyone with authority can do because we actually have rights.

When the government chooses which words are inappropriate, and which are kosher, you're only a few steps away from elimination of dissent, and, eventually, the elimination of those who dissent.

Brits constantly bitch that Americans don't respect human rights, but then put a surveillance camera on every street corner in London and have ridiculous things like ASBOs.

>>6947374
It's no use bothering with him, he's a classical liberal retard from /pol/

>>6946911
Because it is the most leftie board.

>>6947688
>We have laws in the United States against harassment.
I know you do. You have a lot of other laws that restrict free speech too, and they're far more restrictive than you like to make out.

>You can't get in somebody's face and start screaming at them.
>you can call people stupid cunts in public, and there's nothing anyone with authority can do
You need to draw a line between these two because they are not that far apart. I guess this is where the conversation ends though.

If you were sat in a park reading a book, I believe that:

A) There should be a law to protect you from a physical attack from another person. Whether that person just wants to kick you or go all out with a baseball bat, and:

B) There should be a law to protect you from a verbal attack from another person. Whether that person just wants to stand there screaming obscene insults at you for an hour or go all out and detail how they want to kill and rape the corpses of your family.

In both cases it's a question of acceptable public behavior. You seem to agree with A but not B. You seem to think that a policeman could intervene with A, but it would be a 'nanny state' if he didn't stand with folded arms and a grin while allowing B to verbally threaten you for an hour.

>When the government chooses which words are inappropriate, and which are kosher, you're only a few steps away from elimination of dissent. . .
Despite you wanting to think that the US is pinnacle of free speech, you are already there. The US federal government has imprisoned hundreds of thousands of people for 'verbal' crimes. From slander and defamation lawsuits to making nasty Facebook posts. Certain words, phrases, verbal attacks on even the reputation of another civilian will see you in handcuffs.

ITT: people who can't distinguish between civil society and the state

I fucking hate my parents

>>6947781
Did they ask you to get a job again during dinner?

>>6947786
No, they kicked me out after I refused to take risperidone.
I hope they die so I can get some inheritance

>>6947837

do they want u to be homeless? wtf

>>6947247
>Be British
>Fed up with the nanny state
>Move to America, the land of free speech
>get shot

>>6947757
>B) There should be a law to protect you from a verbal attack from another person. Whether that person just wants to stand there screaming obscene insults at you for an hour or go all out and detail how they want to kill and rape the corpses of your family.

this isn't what hate speech laws and other such things are about. in many western nations other than the US people are arrested for making twitter posts of a disparaging nature against certain groups of people in general, which are not personal and present attacks against particular individuals.

To be 100% honest I don't believe in free speech. Ideally the only speech/thoughts/ allowed are the ones that I approve of.

>>6947879
someone in france was sentenced to 9 months in prison for posting this on facebook

>>6947889
Topkek.

>>6947889
That's hilarious and sad at the same time.

>>6947889

good, racism doesn't belong in our society.

>>6947639
The most tumblr board is /soc/
I've seen people do stuff like 'f**ck you* unironically. I'm surprised that place counts as part of 4chan because it feels so cut off from every other board.

>>6947911
No doubt that jailing people with the wrong thoughts will make these thoughts disappear.

>>6947879
>this isn't what hate speech laws and other such things are about.

They're not talking about not hate speech, that's the public order offenses act.

>in many western nations other than the US people are arrested for making twitter posts of a disparaging nature against certain groups of people in general

So I go to prison for making a threatening twitter post to a specific individual, I go to prison for a slanderous remark about the characteristic of a person, I go to prison for making a disparaging comment about a product or brand, but I can talk all day about how much I hate Mongolians. Wonderful.

>>6946936
say the fucking Word, nigger. jesus christ, I hate you and every white faggot on the news >>"buyragfgvfbfp well, bill. the N-word. blah blah blah"

just
say
Nigger. same thing as N-word. Fuck.

>>6947928
>No doubt that jailing people with the wrong thoughts will make these thoughts disappear.

What's worse is jailing people for ironic and/or shitty jokes.

>>6947427

>It's also weird because literature has a long history of being censored and persecuted at the hands of politics, and here on a board that should be about celebrating the artform you have people who advocate a similar type of authoritarianism (though coming from the other end of the political spectrum as most attempts to censor art have been). It's almost as though these posters don't appreciate the art of literature beyond how it can be used to forward their political beliefs.

You man just like Nazi's burned books?

haha why don't you just admit you want to colonize this board because you can't stand anyone not having you ideology.

I find it hilarious that you think there is a secret conspiracy to turn this board into a haven of subversive "cultural marxism" , when everyday it is you who shitpost and post "cuck" and "faggot" all the time as a form of debate.

Kill yourself, or just return to your containment board if you are triggered that easily.

>>6946927
Where do you think we are?

>>6947216
This tbh

>>6946911
Stop bumping up this thread you pieces of shit.

>>6946911
this thread will go nowhere. i promise

>>6947005
>brits
>not cucks

>>6948020
m8 the only ideology I'm trying to promote here is that literature should not be censored, and by extension literature discussion on this board should not be censured, out of political motivation.

To imply that this means I'm from /pol/ says a lot about how you view the world.

Oh and I guess there's one other ideology I want to colonize this board with:
>/lit/ is for the discussion of literature. If you want to talk about politics, go to /pol/.

>>6948020
Nazis were left wing retard

>>6946911
This is going to be a good thread that should be here instead of another thread that actually discusses things with content this is going to be a GOOD THREAD

>>6947105
>spotted the upper middle class white faggot in the thread.

>>6946911
I really hope you know that Evola hates the USA, even if it would be fully white. His hatred of it, isn't racial.

bump :^)

>>6947915
Agreed /soc/ is really weird. /adv/ and certain generals on /co/ are similar but not as bad. It seems like these people didnt even go through the obligatory /v/ or /b/ phase.

I have never been offended by anything in my life.

I actually live to needle people I find annoying, and I find offending their sensibilities the most effective way to do it.

>>6947537
>>6947539
>Triggered

>>6949259
>Corporatism + ethnic-nationalism is somehow leftist
Why are right-wingers dumb?

>>6949952
It's Socialism you stupid fuck

>>6946936

Niggard?

>>6949972
>if they called themselves socialists they must be socialists!
lmao read a fucking book retard

>>6949988
Weinmar state
Read a book retard

>>6946911
Because this Board is filled with soft cunts who due to there education and white collar jobs are out of touch with reality. That the answer you were fishing for faggots?

>>6946911
Someone hasn't been to /cgl/

>>6946937
>pol_escaped_again.avi

>>6946911

Because whether you want to believe it or not, the whole unregulated free speech style of /pol/ is just a breeding ground for shitcunt stormfront shit posters.

Do I give a fuck? No, that's why I like 4chan.

Do I want that shit to spread to /lit/? No it's fucking annoying, I don't give a fuck about race one way or the other so let's not talk about it please and just enjoy literature.

>>6950390
Fucking faggot cuck

>>6946939
>>6947530

Posts of the year tbh

Because this is the only board that /pol/tards go to that isn't on board with /pol/.There are plenty of other boards that hate /pol/ more, when you think about it /lit/ has some things in common with /pol/, like the disgust at how political correctness censors good art and preservation of The Canon.

>>6946911
are you offended by our lack of offensiveness?

>>6946927
to me its not even about showing empathy, just not pretending spooks exists in the manner they talk about them

>>6946911
I dont think thats true, look at the misogyny threads here.

I sort of agree with what Zizek says half way through this video. Its funny because its basically what boards like /pol/ are doing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA60L_NQYm0

>>6952006
>implying we don't hate bitches and whores and shit on plebs

>>6952018
about stalin scaring people away? (and so on and so forth)*sniff*

>>6946911
/co/ is terribly worse than /lit/ when it comes to queer theory and feminism. watch a SU thread and get pissed.

/lit/ still sucks hard tho

>>6952263

>tho

You mean tbh.

>>6946911
>muh maymay uncle Bulius Ebola is not appreciated by everyone

>>6947145
>So, government-enforced civility?
>muh anarcho-conservatism
Sorry, retard. Do you really want to go back to the days of judicial combat?

>>6946911
There is literally nothing wrong with being offended you fucking sperglord basement-dwelling /pol/ack. People in real world have different opinions, cultures and interests, and if you willingly offend them and discriminate them based on what they are of course they will be offended, they aren't basement-dwelling cucks who pussy out whenever they hear a different opinion in real life whilst being edgelords on the internet.

>>6952333

>>6946911
This is 4chan. None of us are beholden to any odeology we choose not to embrace. This is how it always has been and as it always should be.

If you feel downtrodden by the bloviations of grassfed SJWs, maybe you just need thicker skin.

>>6947005

Daily reminder that criticizing the Koran on Twitter will get you thrown in British prison

bump for discussion

Edgy teenagers on this board have a different phrase for being offended. They call it "being blue pilled" and they spam it whenever they disagree with you.

>>6946915
been lookin for this for ages
thank you anon

This board isn't easily offended, the people on here I just a lot smarter and will argue against stupid ideas like Penn Jillette Atheism and Elliott Rodger gender politics

>>6954277
>being a cuck

>>6951592
Quality post :^)

>>6954749
bump

>>6947084
No.