Trigger warning in Kant

[Anonymous No.11289526]

SJW degeneracy creeps into every corner of culture and won't even let the past be the past

[Anonymous No.11289536]

>>11289526
>Children reading kant

[Anonymous No.11289539]

>women reading kant

Who are they kidding? How many women do you think have read Kant? Five or six in 200 years?

[Anonymous No.11289541]

>>11289526
>won't even let the past be the past
Why are you so upset that the present is the present?

[Anonymous No.11289544]

Good thing women don't read literature.

[Anonymous No.11289553]

>>11289539
Hannah Arendt ring a bell

[Anonymous No.11289565]

>>11289553
The only book she read was Raul Hilberg's, and then only to plagiarize it

https://www.thenation.com/article/conscious-pariah/
>As Hilberg read Arendt’s articles about Eichmann, he noticed a number of striking similarities to his own research. He tallied them on an accounting spreadsheet stored in the accordion folder with the New Yorker issues. At the bottom of the spreadsheet he divided the instances into "cert." and "prob." and penciled hash marks next to each category. Among the flagged passages is Arendt’s account of the plight of Bernard Lichtenberg, a Catholic priest in Berlin who was condemned to a concentration camp after speaking out against the deportation of the Jews. Hilberg noted the page on which Arendt’s version appeared and next to it wrote, in red ink, "verbatim."

>Years later, in a letter also found among his papers, he explained to one of Arendt’s biographers, Elzbieta Ettinger, that he had "noticed what she had done as soon as I read the installments in the New Yorker." He continued, "A lawyer of my publisher at the time asked me to draw up a list of items she had lifted. I found about eighty, but he also said that I would have to prove that she could not have obtained the information anywhere else. That proof I could not supply, except in such instances as an error of spelling that she had copied." In The Politics of Memory, Hilberg dedicated a few pages to Arendt and obliquely mentioned that others had commented on her mostly invisible reliance on his research; he also averred that her work "consisted only of unoriginal essays on anti-Semitism, imperialism, and general topics associated with totalitarianism." Despite his derision, Hilberg declined to publicly air his grievances. As a result, the scale of Arendt’s debt to him has remained largely unknown.

[Anonymous No.11289570]

>>11289536
>not reading Kant at age 7 and discussing with your parents how the text tackles white privilege and queer theory
Brainlet Nazi detected.

[Anonymous No.11289572]

>>11289565
>Hannah Arendt only wrote Eichmann in Jerusalem

[Anonymous No.11289573]

>>11289526
Terrifying. Truly social justice is a blight on this world. What a sickening, amoral thing to do. It's unconstitutional, censorship & thought-policing worthy of big brother.

[Anonymous No.11289578]

>>11289570
Fuck I've been found out

[Anonymous No.11289579]

there's literally nothing wrong with warning people and leaving the content unchanged.

honestly i am more offended by introductions that spoil the content of the book.

[Anonymous No.11289580]

>>11289573
next they will probably rewrite the passages that are not to their liking a la Orwell' 1984

[Anonymous No.11289595]

>>11289579
this

[Anonymous No.11289607]

>>11289536
>didn´t read Kant at the age of 10
pleb

[Anonymous No.11289633]

>>11289579
Maybe if the content is fucking Peter Sotos tier, but I can't imagine being viscerally disgusted or offended by Kant of all authors. No impressionable young person would ever get far into the Critiques anyway. Most adults wouldn't even be able to handle it these days.

[Anonymous No.11289635]

>>11289526
That publisher is some cheap outfit which puts out public domain works. They slap that on literally every single book. They are literal nobodies, why would you ever get riled up about it except for getting (you)s.

[Anonymous No.11289650]

lol. "does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today". they admit that we live in a totalitarism and that if Kant were to write today, he would be forced to respect their values.

[Anonymous No.11289654]

>>11289573
in case this is supposed to be sarcasm : you know that SJWs are not fighting for actual justice, it's all about advocating anti male, anti white hatred, genderism and general societal degenecracy.

[Anonymous No.11289659]

>>11289536
Teens do still count as children, no? And who but teens still wastes time on Kant?

[Anonymous No.11289669]

>>11289573
cringe

[Anonymous No.11289674]

>>11289633
You might not, but someone else might

[Anonymous No.11289676]

>>11289669

[Anonymous No.11289681]

>>11289659
They don't anymore? What philosophers are the teens reading now? t. 24 year old philosophy boomer

[Anonymous No.11289691]

>>11289674
If Kant qualifies as content that warrants a fucking warning then I'm not entirely sure there exists a single book worth reading that doesn't.

[Anonymous No.11289721]

>>11289681
JBP.

[Anonymous No.11289722]

Kant literally published a book on race.

In contemporary terms, you could say Kant was the first scientific racist.

[Anonymous No.11289736]

>>11289722
yes, he was a very smart man.

[Anonymous No.11289738]

>>11289526
Way to completely shit over Kant's work and completely devalue his timeless moral system in his own fucking book. I'm not mad, just mystified.

[Anonymous No.11289751]

SJW and any other type of activists are just manifestation of the systems needs. Brush up on your kaczynski for fucks sake.. this is entry level shit

[Anonymous No.11289754]

Wtf, why is Hume so racist? I think we should stop reading philosophers from before the 20th century.

''David Hume’s position on the debate between polygenesis versus monogenesis is the subject of some scholarly debate. The bone of contention is his essay “Of National Characters,” where he contends that differences among European nations are attributable not to natural differences but to cultural and political influences. Amidst this argument against crude naturalism, Hume inserts a footnote in the 1754 edition, wherein he writes: “I am apt to suspect the negroes and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation” (Zack 2002, 15; emphasis added). Whereas even the most barbarous white nations such as the Germans “have something eminent about them,” the “uniform and constant difference” in accomplishment between whites and non-whites could not occur “if nature had not made an original distinction betwixt these breeds of men” (Zack 2002, 15). Responding to criticism, he softens this position in the 1776 edition, restricting his claims to natural inferiority only to “negroes,” stating that “scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, not even of individual eminent in action or speculation” (Zack 2002, 17; Hume 1776 [1987], 208; emphasis added). Richard Popkin (1977) and Naomi Zack (2002, 13–18) contend that the 1754 version of the essay assumes, without demonstration, an original, polygenetic difference between white and non-white races. Andrew Valls (2005, 132) denies that either version of the footnote espouses polygenesis''

[Anonymous No.11289764]

>>11289539
>How many women do you think have read Kant? Five or six in 200 years?
Well there is Korsgaard and, um... well...

[Anonymous No.11289770]

I don't find this concerning in the least. So what? They want parents to reach Kant's level and explain philosophy to their kids? Lmao. If any of you guys feel threatened, you are part of the problem.

Plebs never change.

[Anonymous No.11289815]

I Kant believe they've done this.

[Anonymous No.11289846]

>>11289815
/thread

[Anonymous No.11289871]

>>11289526
Imagine being this buttblasted everytime you read a book. Back in the old days, fags were constantly exposed to hatred and became either strong as fuck or kept it a total secret if they couldn't face the music. That's what this generation of men and women need exposed to them, complete uninterest in their bullshit.

[Anonymous No.11289889]

>>11289871
Like you fags bitching about a disclaimer? Parental advisory stickers are nothing new for couple decades already.

[Anonymous No.11289898]

>>11289526
>P-plz don't sue us ; _;

[Anonymous No.11289912]

>>11289871
the very idea of the masses of kids in a uni undergrad program reading Kant is some sort of immense farce

there is not a single person who can get anything out of Kant that would also require this disclaimer

[Anonymous No.11289932]

>>11289681
Nietzsche,Machiavelli and Marcus Aurelius

[Anonymous No.11290010]

>>11289526
>this buttblasted that an editor added a paragraph-long introduction to a book while leaving its contents unchanged
Wew lad.

>>11289932
Can confirm.
t. former teen who grew out of it.

[Anonymous No.11290099]

>>11290010
I hope for you you didn't fabricate this retarded poster

[Anonymous No.11290104]

>>11290010
do they still make surge?

[Anonymous No.11290259]

>>11290099
Stole it from facebook, it's from one of those ironic philosophy meme pages.

[Anonymous No.11290330]

>>11289889
There's a difference between rewriting history for your own moral compass and letting someone know it's not suitable for kids.

[Anonymous No.11290389]

>>11290330
History was constantly rewritten, it's how it works. Only it has no bearing here since the work is untouched.

[Anonymous No.11290558]

>>11290259

Don't get this one.

[Anonymous No.11290640]

>>11289565
I should've known.

[Anonymous No.11290880]

>>11289681
BAP and Kantbot

[Anonymous No.11291085]

>>11289541
Why is this painting so fucking good? It's just two colours and a dog head??

[Anonymous No.11291096]

>>11290558
Young people want a socialist revolution. Defending the status quo makes you a contrarian, paradoxically

[Anonymous No.11291109]

>>11289573
this but unironically

[Anonymous No.11291132]

>>11289565
more attempted character assassination from 'the zionist establishment'
they've been after ever since eichmann was published
half a dozen articles from them every year

[Anonymous No.11291155]

ya'll are offended by a paragraph lol, no one actually stops reading with those and they are so fucking common, you just don't notice them with topics that haven't been politicized.

O the irony of the outrage at the outrage.

The brightest Kantian I know is a Korean woman. She teaches it at the university level and understands him far better than the /pol/tards in this thread.

>>inb4 hackneyed gb2 reddit

[Anonymous No.11291165]

>>11289526
>SJW degeneracy
Eh, this is more of a disclaimer. Publisher probably has a blanket policy for this. Either a lawyer cautioned it early or advised it after someone sued them.

[Anonymous No.11291183]

>>11289526
This is such an Anglo thing to do, that nanny/puritanism culture of no fun allowed. No wonder you have school shootings every day. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

[Anonymous No.11291186]

>>11291155
>reddit spacing
>implying everyone on the board is the same person
>implying that /pol/ doesn't have yellow fever
Remember when this board was about literature? I do.

[Anonymous No.11291198]

So they print out the book but somehow a little disclaimer is silencing it???

[Anonymous No.11291209]

why is kant so hard to read reeee

[Anonymous No.11291212]

It's not even a "trigger warning" you retarded crybaby.
You people need a goddamn trigger warning before any trigger warning.

[Anonymous No.11291225]

>>11291165
>Either a lawyer cautioned it early or advised it after someone sued them.
No. The US, for all its bullshit, still has enough freedom of expression that books with vile content can be published freely.
It's pure SJW garbage.
Anyway, looks like this publisher went out of business, they no longer have a website. Also
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/09/publishing-company-putting-warning-label-constitution.html

[Anonymous No.11291264]

>>11291225
>www.foxnews.com

[Anonymous No.11291302]

>>11291225
Well fuck.
>>11291264
Anon don't fucking pretend like FOX is any better or worse than any other major news outlet in the world. Even the BBC and Reuters have fallen to ruin.

[Anonymous No.11291314]

>>11291302
If you can't tell the difference between Reuters and Fox you have some worldview expanding to do.

[Anonymous No.11291330]

>>11291314
I can tell the difference pretty easily Anon, they're just equally shit. This is not a difficult idea that I am communicating to you.

[Anonymous No.11291353]

>>11291330
What would you consider a 'good' news outlet, then?

[Anonymous No.11291357]

>>11289526
>This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today
What a pointless thing to put in the beginning of a book. Absolutely meaningless.

[Anonymous No.11291403]

>>11289570
Is that Abby Shapiro?

[Anonymous No.11291426]

>>11291353
People who actually go to places and do Journalism instead of staring at a ticker on a computer and regurgitating a story someone else gave them with their trademark bullshit on top of it. There are precious few real journalists left in the West.

[Anonymous No.11291447]

>>11291426
Would you give examples?

[Anonymous No.11291472]

>>11291447
If you really want to make me say VICE, I will. I'm not fond of their political opinions but I would never question the iron testicles it takes to go interview Pakistan tribesmen fighting ISIS or Ukranian anarchists fighting Russian "contractors" on the border.

[Anonymous No.11291481]

>>11291472
by this standard Lauren 'burn the coal, remove the ayatollah' Southern is a real journalist

[Anonymous No.11291483]

>>11291472
Uh, Anon, embedding journalists like that is literally the norm for every news organization, speaking of Reuters do you not remember the big wikileak video release back in 2010?

[Anonymous No.11291488]

>>11291472
I was hoping you'd at least say something like Reveal or The Intercept. But it seems like most "all media is shit!" assholes, you seem to confuse broad over-the-top cynicism with skeptic wisdom.

[Anonymous No.11291489]

>>11291426
>There are precious few real journalists left in the West.
And that's a good thing

[Anonymous No.11291513]

>>11291488
>The Intercept
>People who actually go to places
???

It isn't a contest on how retarded you can both act.

[Anonymous No.11291536]

>>11289580
low quality bait

[Anonymous No.11291549]

>>11291513
>you must physically go to a place to be a "real journalist"
Sifting through literal mountains of government documents is as much of worthwhile sort of journalism as photographing warzones.

[Anonymous No.11291575]

>>11291549
They're literally most famous for fabricating stories and being so amateurish in their whistle-blowing activities they get their sources arrested. There's a reason they mostly republish AP articles theses days because people refuse to work with them.

[Anonymous No.11291587]

>>11291575
>fabricating stories
?

[Anonymous No.11291616]

I only get to use this every few years

[Anonymous No.11292215]

>>11291403
no its retired pornstar sasha grey

[Anonymous No.11292221]

The only warning they should put in a book by Kant is 'don't read this shit it's retarded horseshit' lmao

[Anonymous No.11292246]

>>11292215
retarded porn star sasha grey amirite

[Anonymous No.11292259]

>>11291616
All the jokes made me think it rhymed with can't.

[Anonymous No.11292282]

>>11291472
Vice is basically State Department PR now

[Anonymous No.11292298]

>>11289526
they have that shit for 120 days of sodom too

[Anonymous No.11292303]

>>11289526
Lmao the children part! I love the implication that current values on "race, gender, etc..." are not to be questioned. That it is "obviously" Kant that is in the wrong here. This is a sure sign of desperation. They don't trust people to come to the "correct" conclusions. Honestly it is a little frightening. If current values are so obviously correct, why do they need to stress how dated they feel Kant's views are? And moreover, how do they know what Kant would have written if he were alive today?

What this is saying is, in effect, "children" or readers more generally, need to be properly indoctrinated into the correct worldview before reading this book because otherwise there is the unacceptable possibility they might find Kant's views entirely reasonable and accurate. Simply incredible.

[Anonymous No.11292322]

>>11289635
>why would you ever get riled up about it
Because /pol/.
They push their narrative on every board on this site any time they can skate the rules about discussing politics outside of /pol/ by finding some crossover shit like this.

Its pretty obvious man.

[Anonymous No.11292325]

>>11289580
>a la
Fuck it I'm taking the bait

[Anonymous No.11292335]

>>11292303
>If current values are so obviously correct

[Anonymous No.11292380]

>>11292303
Your own insecurity and biases makes you interpret you the text that way. Gotta find a reason to get triggered after all.

> why do they need to stress how dated they feel Kant's views are?
Because context matters when interpreting a work. Reading the Greeks without understanding of their culture would make the whole pedophilia pretty distracting just like reading religious texts without understanding how normal and different slavery was, potentially misinterpret Jesus as a fan of chattel slavery. If anything, the disclaimer gives people a reason to overlook that some author had crazy views and focus on the arguments, since many things that are considered fucked up now, were pretty ordinary back in the day, and someone like Schoppy, who'd stand out as obvious sexist today, held pretty mild views for his time.

[Anonymous No.11292407]

>>11289580
orwell is a socialist pinko hippy, his vision of freedom is twisted almost as much as his priorities - totalitarianism he depicts is but a passing fancy of the era which doesnt represent any real threat to mankind
his books are used by the establishment to present a convenient bogeyman and distract from actual opression that is postmodern life, detached from values and steeped in materialism and individualism, which ironically are only increasing instead of being some kind of ideal in danger


here i said it and im not afraid

[Anonymous No.11293007]

>>11292380
>overlook that some author had crazy views
Yeah but see the implication that something not meshing well with current values means its insane and thus something to be swept under the rug/discarded out of hand is the problem here. People need to read the ideas themselves and evaluate them, they don't need anybody holding their hand and telling them "yes, I know, this part's ridiculous, don't let it get to you." Anybody who would honestly put down Symposium because of the talk of pederasty would truly gain nothing from the book anyway, just as people who can't stomach any fiction with characters they don't like are awful readers.

[Anonymous No.11293147]

Are we being invaded by reddit? How did posts defending this shit end up here?
You know you could put A disclaimer on literally ANY book written at ANY time? You could put one even on the tamest and most politically correct book that came out this year. Which should make it clear that such a disclaimer is political in nature. The fact that you fail to see that shows how blinded by ideology you are or, alternatively, that you're aware of the underlying political message and agree with it.

[Anonymous No.11293267]

>>11289526
that's not a trigger warning you fucking spastic

[Anonymous No.11293271]

>>11289526
>alt-right snowflakes are so fucking up their own asses that they don't know what disclaimers are anymore.

[Anonymous No.11293281]

>>11289681
Mostly Pete'o, a few Greeks

[Anonymous No.11293460]

>>11291085
Hoomun condisshun, innit.

[Anonymous No.11293469]

>>11289541
Good Goya

[Anonymous No.11293472]

>>11289633
This is obviously a boilerplate message the publisher puts on all its older books ya dip

[Anonymous No.11293493]

I love how Petersontards talk about "degeneracy" or "decadence" without knowing what either of them mean.

Get out of /lit/, man. You don't belong here.

[Anonymous No.11293560]

>>11293007
>and thus something to be swept under the rug/discarded out of hand is the problem here
But isn't that what this "warning" is supposed to prevent? An overly sensitive reader might get too annoyed by the "problematic" content and just drop it, instead of engaging with it on a more objective level. I see the message more of "yes I know, this part is ridiculous, but that shit is from a different time, so deal with it"

Also let's not forget the whole parents and children stuff, it's not like the "warning" is even meant for adults.

>just as people who can't stomach any fiction with characters they don't like are awful readers.
People learn engaging with new ideas by doing it. Someone with less experience leaving their comfort zone is obviously going to be more reluctant and having no preparation might cause more harm in the end, since they might just drop the shit and return to something cozy. Don't forget that kids today can adjust how and what kind of media they get in a very individualistic way, with handpicked twitter accounts and jewtube channels, and the whole bubble is enforced by algorithms, that prevent (well, at least try to) them from seeing something they won't like right away.

I'd get half of the bitching if there were annotations INSIDE the book pointing out how certain statements or actions were not PC or some shit, but this thing just gives readers a bit context, while they are still 100% free to engage with the original ideas and form their own opinions.

>>11293147
>Which should make it clear that such a disclaimer is political in nature.
Just like media ratings and parental advisory stickers. Everything is political, nigga. Always was and is likely to remain that way. Do you complain about R rated movies, porn and rap albums having age restrictions or disclaimers too?

[Anonymous No.11294058]

>>11293560
>Do you complain about R rated movies, porn and rap albums having age restrictions or disclaimers too?
No, because that content appeals to and is usually consumed by retards who need parental guidance.
That's not the case for intellectual literature, so I hold it to different standards. A normie wouldn't even make it through the first page of Kant.

[Anonymous No.11294201]

who told all the leftypol fags to come here and defend their tranny trigger bullshit warnings ? or is /lit always so infested with liberal scum? must be all roasties here

[Anonymous No.11294996]

>>11289573
Spine chilling.

[Anonymous No.11295009]

>>11289536
Never going to make it

[Anonymous No.11295011]

>>11289539
My old lady lecturer is a Kant scholar lmaoing at you NEETs

[Anonymous No.11295049]

>>11289579
The problem is is that it is """warning""" people from a certain political perspective which has nothing to do with the material. Apparently you're fine with social engineering and wrong think propangandizing if it's just a liiiiitle Orwellian. Either have standards and don't be a coward or out yourself as a shill opperating from the same social justice premises.
Fucking coward bitch made faggot. Yes I'm mad.

[Anonymous No.11295056]

The problem with liberals or 'SJWs' is that they're convinced that their morality, upon which all their other beliefs are founded, is objective and infallible, despite being based on pure emotion.

[Anonymous No.11295069]

why are T_d chucklefucks so triggered by trigger warnings?

[Anonymous No.11295088]

>>11289573
100% accurate

[Anonymous No.11295109]

>>11295069
>despising emotionalism and irrationalism is indicative of fucking r/the_Donald
How about you take whoever influenced you to propogandize wherever you go and kill yourselves. Fuck off back to wherever you came from.

[Anonymous No.11295122]

>>11295069
(You)

[Anonymous No.11295129]

>>11289573
*snap*