Establishing A /lit/ Index of Cringe

[Anonymous No.14003754]

This thread will act as a developing list to explicitly recognize what we, as a community, should deem cringe and outside the realm of intellectual consideration.

Heavy Offenders:
Any validation of distributist "theory."
Disrespect towards Whitehead or Guenon
Retards talking about Deleuze without obviously having read him
Invoking Christianity as a source of morality
Validating Butterfly's affront to this board by responding to her

It's up to you to add to the list, anon

[Anonymous No.14005292]

This thread

[Anonymous No.14005407]

>>14005292
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.14005480]

I like your idea, but I don't have nothing cringe to present.

[Anonymous No.14005486]

>>14005480
you just did

[Anonymous No.14005489]

this is now a distributist thread

[Anonymous No.14005503]

>>14003754

how bout this thread right beneath you?

[Anonymous No.14005508]

[Anonymous No.14005529]

>>14003754
The pastas that start “Blood meridian monsieur” and “Ahh yes the PROSE” are good examples of things that make me cringe on here

[Anonymous No.14005534]

>>14005292
>>14005407
why is there a new wave of fpbp-ing anything that's derogatory to the OP?

[Anonymous No.14005537]

>>14005508
>What does /lit/ think of literature?
Based

[Anonymous No.14005551]

Utilitarian ethics
Labor theory of value
The word “kafkaesque”

[Anonymous No.14005556]

>>14005529
The Monsieur pasta is based

[Anonymous No.14005569]

>>14003754
anti-natilism
socialism, communism, capitalism
atheism

[Anonymous No.14005683]

How does one define "cringe"? Or, alternatively, how does one define "based," as cringe is typically implied to be the opposite of this term?

I propose the following as the definition of based: to be of high quality or generally positive despite being in direct opposition to mainstream thought or norms.

For example, if one believes that Guenon's philosophical system is of high quality (though not necessarily correct, as that classification is reserved for the redpilled/bluepilled dichotomy), then it must be based (Guenon is indisputably far out of the mainstream by every metric).

Consequentially, cringe, in the form it is used by this board, can be defined as follows: to be of both low quality and conforming to the mainstream.

Going through OP's list with these definitions in mind yields the following results:
>Any validation of distributist "theory."
Although obviously an ideology of low quality, it is certainly not mainstream and thus not cringe.
>Disrespect towards Whitehead or Guenon
Whitehead and Guenon, although one could argue were wrong, obviously were respectable and legitimate philosophers, despite being outside the mainstream. Thus, they are based. HOWEVER, this does not make criticism of them necessarily cringe. The cringe/based status of the criticism depends entirely upon each individual criticism's content.
>Retards talking about Deleuze without obviously having read him
Talking about philosophers and philosophies one doesn't understand is sadly becoming mainstream, and is an action of obviously low quality, so I'm inclined to agree this is cringe.
>Invoking Christianity as a source of morality
If one believes Guenon and Whitehead's philosophies were good systems, then one must also believe Christian philosophy and theology are good systems. They are similar in intellectual rigor. So, although Christianity is mainstream, Christian moral philosophy is not cringe.
>Validating Butterfly's affront to this board by responding to her
Mainstream practice here and is a low quality action. Obviously cringe.

My humble additions to the list:
-Atheism
-The political "philosophy" of social democracy
-Christian conservatism

[Anonymous No.14005714]

>>14005534
>new-wave
If anything’s new here it’s you. That has been going on forever and you just outed yourself.

[Anonymous No.14006481]

>>14005534
bc it's funny