the state of /lit/ - one meta thread allowed per board

[Anonymous No.18626925]

>Any books about being cool?Any books about having a lot of money? Any books about not being a NEET? Any books about having a nice cock? Any books about having a loving girlfriend? Any books about getting a girlfriend? Any books about killing my girlfriend? Any books about consoomers, boomers, and coomers? How do I read? Should I read this? Should I read that? What do I like? What do you like? Is this good? Do you like my stack of books? Can I see your stack? Can I fuck your stack? It’s the Jews, right? It’s the darkies, right? It’s the left, right? It’s the right, right?

looking at /lit/ it seems to be like having proper discussions has become almost completely impossible
like all boards /lit/ is becoming more and more filled with shitposters and /pol/tards who derail all threads with their worthless comments

what's the opinion of the other anons here?
do you think this board/site can still be saved or is it a lost cause?
what other alternatives for discussing literature do you use?

[Anonymous No.18627120]

>>18626925
All meta discussion is to take place on /qa/.

[Anonymous No.18627141]

My opinion is that it’s way too late to salvage this board. I come here to shit post and troll.

[Anonymous No.18627151]

>>18626925
I exclusively discuss literature with my close friends, even if they aren’t readin what I’m reading. This site and board has gotten exponentially worse in the past few years and will not be saved unless a massive backlash against all dichotomies like chad/virgin onions/sigma etc wipes that away and a huge anti-pol anti-obsessive rightoid idpol backlash happens too

[Anonymous No.18627167]

>>18626925
The current state of the board is vastly superior to what it was like in January, stop complaining. We are headed in the right direction.

[Anonymous No.18627178]

>>18626925
>what's the opinion of the other anons here?
As far as I can gather, this is a containment board for "enlightened" faggots that get a dopamine rush whenever an author circle-jerks with the reader.
>this paragraph has some deep meaning!
>that book literally changed my life!
>my brain chemicals go into a frenzy whenever some literal-who share the same thoughts as me!
/lit/ is such a fucking joke at this point. I actually have to go to different boards to actually discuss and reads books. Any person who denies it at this point are just being delusional of the situation.

[Anonymous No.18627184]

>>18627178
genrebaby mad again

[Anonymous No.18627223]

>>18626925
The board needs stronger moderation and more janitors.
The funny thing is that many polfags would be banned from /pol/ if they did there what they're doing here.

[Anonymous No.18627500]

>>18627120
Have you ever been to /qa/?
All you get is an original Soijack, but no discussion.

[Anonymous No.18627519]

>books about extremist opinion I have picked up
>anyone know any books about thing I already agree with
>can someone recommend books defending my latest zinger against well-adjusted people
>looking for books about the made up thing I want other people to buy into

[Anonymous No.18627527]

I miss Land threads with serious discussion.

They are so empty now.

[Anonymous No.18627570]

>>18627527
you could try discussing land at l*inchan
saw some land threads there today

[Anonymous No.18627578]

>>18627570
>l*inchan
its real. wtf.

If this is anything like the people with her as a twitter profile pic this site is gonna be quite shit though desu.

[Anonymous No.18627630]

>>18626925

[Anonymous No.18627648]

I never see /pol/acks here. I do, however, always see people accusing everyone of people pol if they disagree with their opinion. What is a more common occurrence? Someone claiming to be pol and saying a stupid opinion? Or someone accusing others of being pol for disagreeing with their stupid opinion?

[Anonymous No.18627656]

I never see /pol/acks here. I do, however, always see people accusing everyone of being pol if they disagree with their opinion. What is a more common occurrence? Someone claiming to be pol and saying a stupid opinion? Or someone accusing others of being pol for disagreeing with their stupid opinion?

[Anonymous No.18627684]

>>18627656
Half the catalog is incel political ressentiment on a good day so you must be using filters. Good on you.

[Anonymous No.18627708]

>early life
>"why womyn can't write lel"
>"le chinese bugman" (the author was Japanese)
>"dude Borges spic lmao"

[Anonymous No.18627736]

>>18627708
This, so much this!

[Anonymous No.18627762]

>>18627684
> incel
> pol
> everyone I don't like is incel and pol
Wowee, you sure sound like a fucking twat. Let me guess, disliking modern trends makes me pol, and disbelieving claims that Tolkien was trans makes me an incel. Ironically you're exactly like the average pol poster who calls everyone a Jew. You are the cancer you claim to hate.

[Anonymous No.18627777]

>>18627762
>women are garbage any books on this?
Repeat ad nauseam

[Anonymous No.18627788]

>>18627120
/qa/ is the blue board version of /b/

[Anonymous No.18627790]

>>18627777
So call them what they are: misogynist.

[Anonymous No.18627797]

>>18627578
They are all drug addicts, so take that for what you will.

[Anonymous No.18627868]

It’s always been exactly as shitty as it right now. This board has never been good. You are fooling yourself if you believe otherwise and all of us should be ashamed for ever having come here. The simple reality is that 4channel is social media, we are addicted to it, and we come here simply because it’s the most tolerable board on the entire site and we like books. There is no other reason. Never was. Never will be.

[Anonymous No.18627924]

>>18627762
How the fuck did you go straight to posting about trannies? Get off this board you don't read anyway

[Anonymous No.18627952]

>>18627924
Because trannies are appropriating Tolkien, it's been posted about here, and the usual fags think it's incel to speak about it. And reading is a hobby of mine and you can go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous No.18627970]

>>18627656
That's why "/pol/ bogeyman" is a meme across multiple boards. Accusing someone of /pol/ is an ez goto to shutdown someone. Same as saying someone's an /x/ schizo.

[Anonymous No.18627974]

>>18627762
>>18627952
Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.18627989]

[Anonymous No.18628036]

>>18627952
I don't have an issue with people discussing Tolkien or his reception. I'm talking about the dozens of repetitive evola/guenon threads where people say 1.) you need to read them to disagree with them but that 2.) no one who read and understood them could disagree with them. Or the same two or three threads about Schopenhauer and Nietzsche's views on women (the only aspects of them ever "discussed"). Or the "is x based," "books about my opinion" threads where the view is always the typical seething at one's political impotence.

[Anonymous No.18628044]

>>18627974

[Anonymous No.18628074]

>>18627777
Holy checked

[Anonymous No.18628104]

So many fags shadowboxing /pol/ in this thread. The problem with /lit/ isn't /pol/fags, it's the deluge of off-topic threads that use a thin pretext of "books about _" or twitter screenshots or philosophical/religious subject matter to discuss emotionally engaging and controversial topics. People inevitably get baited into replying to these threads, and they shit up the board.

The most political stuff that occurs on /lit/ is actually the vast number of low quality Marx threads (pro and anti). Such threads attract both /pol/ vermin and preprogrammed Marxist ideologues, and these users have the exact same conversations over and over again.

The best things users of /lit/ can do to improve the place is
>stop engaging with off topic threads (even to denounce them)
>stop engaging with bait threads (even to denounce them)
>make more generals

[Anonymous No.18628115]

>>18627578
they are a bit schizo for my taste, but the discussions seem fine
i don't go much there though and never posted since it seems pretty dead
have fun anon

>>18627762
who cares what the fuck trannies think about tolkien
i don't want to hear about trannies
stop making every fucking discussion about trannies

>>18627656
you are blind

[Anonymous No.18628141]

>>18627570
I’m curious but also retarded. What’s the uncensored version of the name?

[Anonymous No.18628158]

>>18628141
The real question is whether they are lainpilled

[Anonymous No.18628193]

>>18628036
> you need to read them to disagree with them
That's my pet peeve too. It's a fallacy similar to argument from authority.

All the things you mentioned are annoying and degrade the board, you're right. But that doesn't justify calling it pol or incel. People who never visited pol can have these opinions. This combo strawman and ad-hom, a straw-hom perhaps, it's just as annoying and degrades the conversation arguably even more.

[Anonymous No.18628215]

>>18627178
I go to /a/ and /vt/ do you go there to?

[Anonymous No.18628216]

>>18628104
I agree. I had hoped the QTDDTOT thread would cut down the number of Twitter screencap and 'books for my feels' threads, but it didn't work.

[Anonymous No.18628227]

>>18628193
In my experience it happens the most with /pol/ authors, who they themselves have probably barely read, if at all, and it happens the most for /pol/ opinions, informed as they are by the ressentiment of the posters making them (x is using its always ill-gotten power to restrain me from enjoying my richly deserved y).

[Anonymous No.18628230]

>>18628141
Lainchan lol

[Anonymous No.18628243]

Isnt request threads technically against the rules?
Stack threads are good though and as someone whos posted for 7 years here i feel like theyve always been here

[Anonymous No.18628292]

>>18628230
Delete this, you asshole

[Anonymous No.18628328]

>>18628227
>pol authors
I doubt any notable author visits pol. If you mean Evola, Guenon, and Giovanni Gentile, then you're being completely dishonest by calling them poorly read. This is the kind of closeminded, ignorant, and pointless criticism I'm talking about.

[Anonymous No.18628343]

>>18628036
>>18628193
>>18628227
I can only speak for the Evola threads but usually this argument is brought up when people go "wow was he a sex wizard?" "lmao technology bad". If you disagree with a take the author never made, that's just retarded and does not help discussion at all.

[Anonymous No.18628347]

>>18628292
it's dead basedkaf either way desu

[Anonymous No.18628354]

>>18628347
i wanted to write basedkaf but i am tired and now i feel ashamed
maybe my mental capacity is deteriorating desu

[Anonymous No.18628362]

test basedkaf
s o y kaf
wtf

[Anonymous No.18628369]

>>18628328
/pol/ authors = authors /pol/ likes/recommends or who write about /pol/ topics, and these authors are name-dropped by people who barely read anyway and may not have even read the authors they reference. Should be obvious from context. I also doubt those authors you mention visit /pol/ on account of their being dead.

[Anonymous No.18628370]

>>18628362
how new are you?

[Anonymous No.18628408]

>>18626925
I think we should all leave the board, read ten-fifteen novels, jot down our thoughts and impressions about them, then start from scratch. I agree that "books for this feel" threads are absolute cancer, as well as the pseudo-blog posts that whine about the challenges of life and desiring to express oneself creatively, etc., that try to shoe-horn some bullshit at the end to tie it to a character are also toxic.
Best bet: instead of complaining about it or declaring the death of the board, just stay away and spend your time reading and writing. I lost my laptop 8 weeks ago and since then have been writing exclusively on pen and paper. As I read, I write little 200 word bits based on what I've just read has inspired me to write about. After a I reach an "endpoint" of the story I'm trying to tell, I will reread and sift through the 4-6 legal pads I've filled and iron out plot points and character traits.
Chatting about the stuff is nice...most of us need some kind of social outlet, but we knew this was a solitary exercise before we made a serious attempt at writing, didn't we?

[Anonymous No.18628432]

>>18626925
>waaaas I want muh modoroation cause people are asking literature questions that offend me
Fuck off back to >>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.18628452]

>>18628432

[Anonymous No.18628453]

>>18628369
>Evola, Guenon, Gentile
>these authors are name-dropped by people who barely read anyway and may not have even read the authors they reference
Have you ever considered that those people, if they even exist, are retarded? Evola would piss on pol, which they'd know if they'd read him. You being scared off because people you don't like "name drop" him is possibly even more retarded.

[Anonymous No.18628462]

>>18626925
you know how we have just threads for charts? maybe we could make like a /recgen/ for recommendations? might clean up the board a tad.

[Anonymous No.18628473]

>>18628462
I think a stickied thread for "questions that don't deserve their own thread"would do wonders

[Anonymous No.18628480]

>>18628462
i don't get the chart threads
95% of them are on the wiki

[Anonymous No.18628483]

>>18628432

[Anonymous No.18628494]

all of the non-fiction discussion on this board is really shitposty and bad. I get the feeling that most people participating in philosophy discussion just watch Youtube videos and skim Wikipedia articles. personally I don't care that much since I only read fiction and history but it does lower the quality of the board overall and sometimes seeps over into discussions of literature.

[Anonymous No.18628685]

>>18628453
>You being scared off because people you don't like "name drop" him is possibly even more retarded.
Ah you're doing it too! If I just read him then I couldn't disagree with him, right? I must have been scared off or I would not be making such judgments.

[Anonymous No.18628699]

>>18628685
I'm doing what exactly? I don't dismiss any author before having read them, even if the people promoting those authors may be retarded.
>If I just read him then I couldn't disagree with him, right?
Provided you understood what you read, absolutely.
>I must have been scared off or I would not be making such judgments.
Whatever floats your boat mate.

[Anonymous No.18628712]

>>18627151
>a massive backlash against all dichotomies like chad/virgin onions/sigma etc wipes that away and a huge anti-pol anti-obsessive rightoid idpol backlash happens too

Goddamn, I though I was the only one getting really fucking tired of this rehashed crap over and over and over again, almost in a psyops way. And this shit is everywhere, not just here at 4chinz.

[Anonymous No.18628715]

>>18628685
I'm doing what exactly? I don't dismiss any author before having read them, even if the people promoting those authors may be retarded.
>If I just read him then I couldn't disagree with him, right?
Provided you understood what you read, you're free to agree or disagree. I've had many good conversations about Evola with anons who disagreed but could actually explain why.
>I must have been scared off or I would not be making such judgments.
Whatever floats your boat mate.

[Anonymous No.18628732]

when and why do you think european jews hijacked "western" civilisation?

[Anonymous No.18628738]

>>18628732
It started with Saul of Tarsus

[Anonymous No.18628741]

>>18628699
You are doing the exact obnoxious brainlet thing I am talking about ITT, the apparently unique attitude among Evola readers here, that if you don't read him you can't disagree with him but if you understood him you also can't disagree with him. I suspect this is due to being exposed to literally just Evola (or Guenon) as a philosopher, being early twenties, and having read little else because angloid education is so intellectually poor and produces an anti-intellectual adult, who inevitably treats whatever philosophy he does find which affirms many of his opinions as a surrogate bible instead of being critical in any way. And this attitude makes any sort of discussion of Evola impossible and turns the threads into a Q&A between pdf distributors and future drones.

[Anonymous No.18628762]

>>18627989
saved

[Anonymous No.18628773]

>>18628741
I take it you were replying to me >>18628715
>if you don't read him you can't disagree with him but if you understood him you also can't disagree with him
No, see my post. Most people who disagree with him do so only because of what they have hear others say about him or what they think he said. There's people like Frater who disagree with Evola but can actually break down why and how they disagree and I respect that. I don't think Evola and Guenon are infallible. I just dislike engaging with strawman arguments made against them, and the only cure seems to be for people to actually read them. And no "it's just schizo ramblings" is not nearly good enough.
Sure the people you describe exist, but I've personally had some very good discussions on Evola with anons who disagreed with him after having read him. Like I said, I don't agree with him on every account.
It seems to make you irrationally seethe though, you're not coming off much better than what you're criticizing.

[Anonymous No.18628783]

>>18627527
Haha never happened.

[Anonymous No.18628789]

There are multiple 'serious lit threads' up and none of you responded.
Same as always

[Anonymous No.18628802]

>>18628712
It’s immensely draining. The way people on 4chan now incessantly post about trans people or black people or women is just unbearable. It used to be that you’d see a thread or two of that at most, but now it’s just constant. No one here cares about books, they care about using books as a front for what they already believe.

[Anonymous No.18630343]

>>18628215
Say what you will about /vt/ but thanks to them, I found a person that I’m following actually discuss books and have read alongs. And more importantly, I had better discussions on her Sunday streams about the Bible than I have here on the hundred of threads created. because, as it turns out, there are actual Christians in that stream, and not "its aesthetics and based and trad" larpers like on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.18630346]

>>18626925
Does anyone know of a /lit/ type group on faceberg?

[Anonymous No.18630352]

>>18626925
Didn’t read also Fucking kys met-posting faggot
Just leave you fucking loser

[Anonymous No.18630358]

>>18630352
>Didn't read
You never read anon
Go back to /tv/

[Anonymous No.18630363]

>>18626925
There's so much LARP on this board it might be merged with /tg/

[Anonymous No.18630366]

>>18626925
>seems to be like having proper discussions has become almost completely impossible
> what other alternatives for discussing literature do you use?

The only outlet you have to discuss something you claim to be passionate about is an anonymous imageboard, of course you’re disappointed.
Just get some friends or take a class if 4chan isn’t doing it for you.

[Anonymous No.18630370]

There's nothing stopping u discussing lit but the fact u don't actually read. Go post in the William Wordsworth thread, faggot. What's that you've never read him?

These threads are never about that at all, it's just losers whining that /lit/ isn't reddit enough because humour and banter are still permitted.

[Anonymous No.18630399]

>>18630370
you can't be serious
i remember when i made a wagner thread and the discussion devolved to
>BETA MALE FAGGOT TRANNY
after 5 replies

[Anonymous No.18630404]

Every time I add someone from here it has to be a contrarian turbonormalfag during his /pol/ phase whining about blacks and jews. I still don't understand how these spergs have any IRL friends and I'm starting to think some LARP as married or engaged people to feel better about their miserable life.

[Anonymous No.18630412]

>>18630404
>I add someone from here
Why would you import people from an anonymous imageboard into your irl social media? That’s retarded you might as well just go to reddit so you can have a profile pic
>>18630399
Lol you just admitted you are pissed that the board has better taste then you and it’s got nothing to do with the quantity of literature discussion.

[Anonymous No.18630414]

>>18630399
So rather than continuing to post about Wagner, you quit and seethed instead? Maybe you really are a beta male faggot tranny.

[Anonymous No.18630420]

Posts like >>18630404 and >>18630412 perfectly encapsulate the pro-reddit sentiment prevalent in these threads. Filtered by chaos, they desperately need moderation!

[Anonymous No.18630421]

>>18626925
Also the same goes with public literature/philosophy discord servers, they're plagued with room temperature IQ zoomers shitposting about the latest tiktok meme or blogging about their social lives. I've got a handful of decent servers to discuss about neoplatonism and roman religion, but that's all I was able to find on my own.

[Anonymous No.18630426]

>>18630412
>>18630414
(?) they just started talking about trannies after someone criticized wagner and derailed the discussion
i tried to ignore them, but got a bit annoyed

[Anonymous No.18630428]

>>18630412
>That’s retarded you might as well just go to reddit so you can have a profile pic
The only guys i still talk to are from 4chan but not from this board. You sound like you're not using 4chan as your only means to socialize.

[Anonymous No.18630430]

>>18630421
>I've got a handful of decent servers
Really? You are a member of multiple servers? Because that makes it sound like you actually love discord

[Anonymous No.18630438]

>>18630430
Got any valid alternative that isn't fucking dead?

[Anonymous No.18630441]

>>18630430
Did you actually think making this post was clever? I'm not that anon, but you do realize you're exactly the type of braindead bandwagonner he's talking about, don't you? The type of individual so fucking incapable of even the most basic of retrospection he goes out of his way to denounce something as ambivalent and broad as an entire fucking platform for discourse merely for its brand, instead of the actual dialogue that happens within.

[Anonymous No.18630451]

>>18630441
Bruh
If you hate discord which is (as you said) an entire fucking platform, and you can’t stand 4chan, which is a whole fucking website and you have a problem with reddit, which is a huge fucking website than the problem is probably you.
You obviously aren’t satisfied with the level of discourse you receive electronically no matter what the userbase is like.

[Anonymous No.18630452]

This thread was moved to >>>/qa/4715594