[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 286 KB, 875x1000, negative people.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1910545 No.1910545 [Reply] [Original]

If you feel like a lot of people on /lit/ correspond to the guy on the right, you must post ITT.

>> No.1910547

Pretty much every /lit/ard's opinion about Twilight even if he never read it...

>> No.1910551

It's the price of having taste. Not everyone has the virtue of being able to eat a shit sandwich and enjoy it.

>> No.1910554

>>1910545
Yep..... But I shit my pants too...

>> No.1910556

>>1910551
Being angry on the Internet has nothing to do with having taste whatsoever.

>> No.1910557

I don't get this picture, other than proving that ignorance really is bliss.

>> No.1910559

>>1910556

Being honest on the Internet does.

>> No.1910561

>>1910551

>irony strikes

>> No.1910563

>>1910559

The person in the picture is clearly very angry, not just honest. Whether he is right or not is irrelevant, his mindset is childish.

>> No.1910564

>>1910557

>implying enjoying something means you're ignorant

>> No.1910565

>>1910551
>>1910557
>>1910563

>mad

>> No.1910566

>>1910563

That's because he's an absurd strawman.

>> No.1910568

>>1910566

>I say "strawman" and feel like I belong to the elite

>> No.1910570

this is what scrubs actually think is happening when they get laughed at for being inferior. make the guy on the right be lol'ing every caption and end it with him having fun playing a better game and you've got a more honest picture.

>> No.1910572

>>1910563

>implying /lit/ards who criticise Twilight without having read it are "honest" instead of "angry"

>> No.1910574

>>1910566

Not necessarily because there really ARE people who get extremely angry over disagreements like these. If you're of the kind who hold similar opinions to the one on the right but don't get angry when someone challenges them or has differences over the internet then all the more power to you.

>> No.1910575

This is an extreme example. I enjoy many books that have been recently released.

But many of them are also shit.

>> No.1910576

>>1910570

>yet I am not loling when I'm being a douchebag, even now, I'm not loling

>make the picture "more honest" by making it more deceptive

>I totally have a full grasp on my psyche

>> No.1910578

>>1910570

>I'm a namefag, I don't understand the concept of anonymity

>I think it matters who I am

>> No.1910579

>>1910575

>implying date has any influence on quality

>> No.1910580

>>1910576
>>1910578

uh oh looks like we've got a greentexting samefag scrub itt guys

>> No.1910581

>>1910572

You don't want to get into this argument with D&E, the man can criticize a book without reading it.

>> No.1910582

>>1910580

>uh oh, I have been revealed for the douchebag I am, let us pretend anon is inferior so we don't have to discuss with him and prove our stupidity any further

>> No.1910583

>>1910581

>I speak more truth than I realise

>> No.1910587

>>1910582
>>1910583

uh oh looks like the greentexting samefag scrub is greentexting some more

>> No.1910588

nununununuuu. this is all wrong.

>> No.1910589

ITT: /lit/ards revealed.

>> No.1910590

Why would the guy on the right be enraged? With it not having anything to do with him, it must be out of genuine concern for the person on the left, or even more tragic, all humanity. He sees the world around him, people enjoying crap, and he despairs, knowing soon the depths our moribund culture will reach because these fools perpetuate the onslaught of absolute shit by buying it. The image is supposed to mock him for his emotions, but those emotions are completely just and anybody who doesn't empathize with him is a shiteating faggot.

>> No.1910594

>>1910590

Except for the fact that we're discussing undisclosed games in this comic, i.e., undisclosed books. How can you judge that which you don't know? You can't. To assume you can, and that it's shit, without even knowing what you're talking about is THE POINT.

Thanks for proving my case. Stop judging things you neither know nor understand.

>> No.1910596

People who read books to feel superior are morons.

>> No.1910597

>>1910590

Those emotions are irrational and not progressive. They are essentially useless whining. If the man despairs because his fellow man consumes and does what he considers to be harmful to the mind then he should understand the motivations of the other man and try to steer him in the right direction, not just express his disgust as if it does anything but express to the world that he considers himself superior.

>> No.1910598

You don't have to read a book in order to think it's bad.

If you saw someone eating a plate of shit, would you reserve your judgment until you had a bite?

>> No.1910599

>>1910594
I can tell the game must be pretty fucking awful by how emotional the guy on the right gets about it. Plus he gives a number of scathing criticisms that you've seemingly overlooked there, friend.

>> No.1910601

>>1910596

Agreed, and people who need names on 4chan prove that they read to feel superior; why else would they want others to recognise them?

Being anon means you leave your ego at the door: nobody cares about anyone else's ego.

>> No.1910603

No, gamers don't correspond to vertebrates.

>> No.1910605

>>1910599

So does my girlfriend. Since when are emotions a good way to judge something? Guy on the left seems to love the game. Why think people with negative opinions have automatically better opinions?

>Cynic detected

>> No.1910606

>>1910598

When you see the feces on the man's plate you know what is inside it, you know it's attributes, you know everything about it. When you see a book you haven't read you don't know the first thing about it, only it's name, the cover of the book, the author's name and the kind of people who read and enjoy the book.

>> No.1910607

>>1910594

I like how you're the one who has the ultra-subjective opinion that "anything I like is good, anything I don't like is bad", but we're supposed to be the irrational, elitist ones.

>> No.1910608

>>1910598

>strawman argument

No, because I already smelled shit a million times in my life before, and since smell and taste are closely related, and I know what shit actually is, I've already experienced it.

Shit never tastes good.

Books can be awesome, but you won't know before you try them.

>> No.1910609

>>1910607

I never said that. You missed the whole point.

>> No.1910611

>>1910605
The guy on the left seems like a moron. To each of the right's criticisms, it's just, "Oh. But I enjoy it!" As if that means anything at all. On the right, he's an intelligent, emotional individual who has given it a lot of thought and feels strongly about it, so of course when it comes down to it I side with him.

>> No.1910612
File: 11 KB, 182x278, 3421342.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1910612

>>1910606

>When you see a book you haven't read you don't know the first thing about it, only it's name, the cover of the book, the author's name and the kind of people who read and enjoy the book.

>only it is name

Which I've probably heard of, and most likely read about.

>the cover of the book

Despite the old platitude to never judge a book by it, it can often be revealing. Take my pic. I think we're all familiar with covers like this and what type of book they imply.

>the author's name

Is most definitely revealing of the book's content.

>the kind of people who read and enjoy the book.

Can also be revealing, though probably less than any of the other criteria.

>> No.1910613

>>1910599

>I can tell the game must be pretty fucking awful by how emotional the guy on the right gets about it.

Right...

>> No.1910614

>>1910597
>If the man despairs because his fellow man consumes and does what he considers to be harmful to the mind then he should understand the motivations of the other man and try to steer him in the right direction

>implying ethical prescriptive statements
>implying a universal capacity for all levels of aesthetic experience

>>1910608
>Books can be awesome, but you won't know before you try them.
what do you mean by 'know'?

>> No.1910616

>>1910614

>massive pedantic faggot detected

But at least I lol'd.

>> No.1910617

>>1910609

You can only know something by experiencing it.
Therefore only your opinion on a book matters. I'm just extending your logic a bit. If this is wrong, show me where.

>> No.1910618

>>1910614

What do you mean by "mean"?

>> No.1910621
File: 45 KB, 350x473, 1308504405734.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1910621

>>1910614

>> No.1910622

>>1910618
convey a sense

>> No.1910623

>>1910622

What do you mean by "sense"?

>> No.1910627

>>1910612

All those are indications on the PROBABILITY of whether or not you'll like the book, they aren't definitive sources of information.

>>1910614

>>implying ethical prescriptive statements
>>implying a universal capacity for all levels of aesthetic experience

What does this mean, exactly? That the person in the left could not ever reach the level where the person in the right is at, in terms of experiencing things?

>> No.1910628

>>1910614

>what do you mean by 'know'?

Cancer. Every board has its own, this is /lit/'s. Namefagging egotistic pricks who think they know something and use the board to show it off. Disappointing and childish.

>> No.1910631

>>1910623
>What sense do you convey by "sense"?
lol self-reference. Forget about it, go read an into to phil lang or something, toddler.

>> No.1910632

>>1910627

Don't bother with these retards, here's what they believe:

- a book must be difficult and not enjoyable to be relevant

- enjoying a book means you're not learning something and that you're dumb

- a negative opinion is always more intelligent than a positive one

These people don't enjoy reading, they only read to feel superior to others, so they hate when others naturally love reading, since it's such an effort to them. I wish they'd just stop reading and do something they like better.

>> No.1910634

>>1910631

>strawman

>ad hominem

Toddler eh? You just got your name rid of all credit. Thanks for playing.

>> No.1910637

>>1910634

An insult is not an ad hom.

>> No.1910638

>>1910631

That dude doesn't understand that "mean" and "sense" don't refer to the same words used in context... You're one grand idiot, namefag.

>convey a sense
>what do you mean

See? These are two different sentences. The first word is a noun, the second is a verb; they're somewhat related, but they're not the same at all, and are used in different contexts. Understand?

You do well to leave this thread, you got nothing to do in /lit/.

>> No.1910640

>>1910627

>All those are indications on the PROBABILITY of whether or not you'll like the book, they aren't definitive sources of information.

But if that probability is 90%, I'm not going to waste my time on it. Life is far too short.

>> No.1910641

>>1910637

> Forget about it, go read an into to phil lang or something, toddler.

>implying anon shouldn't continue arguing because he's stupid

>ad hominem, argument based on the person, not his actual arguments

>> No.1910645

>>1910640

That is a very good point and I agree.

That's not something we're ever going to hear from this D&E fag though. He will insist he can determine whether a book is bad without reading it.

>> No.1910646

>>1910631

>Forget about it, go read an into to phil lang or something

>go read an into to phil lang

>an into to

>wat

>> No.1910650

>>1910645

No you misunderstand. If I make that decision to not read it, I have decided it is bad. I do believe I can make a sound judgment on a book without reading it.

>> No.1910651 [DELETED] 

>>1910645

MFW Wuthering Heights was marketed as a book for children.

MFW Catcher in the Rye is marketed as a "coming of age" book for young adults.

MFW Mein Kampf was marketed as Hitler's book for the masses when it was meant for the party's core men (discussing propaganda and how to manipulate the masses in a book isn't something you want the masses to know, usually).

One must be careful how books are marketed to us.

Other than that, I agree: you can take a guess at what some books are all about; but they could still be great or share many surprises.

>> No.1910655

>>1910627
>That the person in the left could not ever reach the level where the person in the right is at, in terms of experiencing things?
That is an empirical matter, but it's entirely possible that the physiology of the person on the left might be constituted in such a way to preclude the possibility of experiencing something on the level that the person on the right might. It's not all that different from the blind not being capable of experiencing the mona lisa or whatever, except this is on a much more subtler intricate neurological level where numerous cultural, social, economic, environmental and historical aspects are involved.

>>1910638
You don't know what I'm talking about, it's alright. Just don't bother talking about words outside of the context in which I am talking about them. Leave that to someone who knows what they and I am talking about.

>> No.1910656

>>1910655

Lol, I knew this fag wouldn't leave. Thanks for admitting defeat. Just fuck off.

>> No.1910658

>>1910650

But you just said the PROBABILITY that it is bad is 90%, which is why you wouldn't waste your time reading it. 90% != 100%

>> No.1910662

>>1910656
I'm here to talk to other people, stop responding to me if you're not interested in what I have to say.

>> No.1910663

>>1910655

>You don't know what I'm talking about,

Yeah we do, you're doing a strawman by assuming that because two words have similar semes, they can be considered the exact same. They can't. Even with the same exact word, depending on the context, they wouldn't have the same role and effect, therefore it's a fallacy to think they're a tautology.

It's a perfect example of strawman. You can say anon "doesn't know what you're talking about", but the fact is, he/she does, and you clearly don't want to understand what anon has to say.

>GTFO

>> No.1910664

>>1910662

You have nothing to say, and you're in my thread. If you don't like it, fuck off.

Stop pretending you're here to exchange ideas with people and learn from them. You're not. You're only here to stroke your ego and make people remember your name. Grow the fuck up.

>> No.1910665

>>1910645
>He will insist he can determine whether a book is bad without reading it.
You don't think 90% probably is sufficient for the use of the term 'determine' in relation to a critical evalution of an object?

>> No.1910667

>>1910656

Which is why I would be open to being convinced that it is not, in fact, bad. But until then, I will conclude that it is bad.

If I see a Danielle Steele type mass-appeal book, I'm going to automatically conclude that it is not a book I should spend my time on. That it is a bad book. However, if people I respect tell me otherwise, I would give it a second look.

>> No.1910668

>>1910665

>evalution

Please stop... You keep using words that are way out of your reach.

>> No.1910669

>>1910667

Probably not the post you were answering to, brah.

>> No.1910670

>>1910664
>You have nothing to say, and you're in my thread. If you don't like it, fuck off.
I've got plenty to say dude, just not to you. As far as I remember these threads are free to post in for anyone, whether the op likes it or not. If you don't like that, delete your thread I guess.

I'm perfectly willing to listen to people who have worthwhile things to say in this thread, and I'm sure that they'll likewise benefit from what I have to say if they have a sufficiently open mind. Deal with it bro.

>> No.1910671

>>1910665

Well I was talking about you there in the part you quoted. The person using 90% probability was someone else.

>> No.1910673

>>1910631

>implying a self-reference, even if it was, which it isn't, would make any difference

Sure is idiots ITT

>> No.1910678

>>1910673
I guess you wouldn't see the problem in asking what the reason in reason was either. Oh well, your loss.

>> No.1910681

>>1910670

Then what do you have to say? I mean, apart from trying desperately to make yourself a name on a goddam online imageboard...

All I learned from you today was that namefags should be considered with caution as they tend to be pedantic people with a bend towards contempt for anyone who doesn't show off their vocabulary in equal measures.

>> No.1910684

>>1910678

You can still ask what the meaning of "to mean" is, and you could get an answer, so I don't see the problem.

Your argument is like saying "we can't study language via language, because it's a self-reference", and using language to study language is known as linguistics. So are you of the opinion that linguistics can't exist? This is bananas.

>> No.1910689

>>1910669

Oh shit, you're right.

I was responding to:
>>1910658

>> No.1910690

>>1910684

This.

>> No.1910693

sage

>> No.1910694

>>1910693

Sage does nothing, genius.

>> No.1910695

>>1910681
>Then what do you have to say?
Whatever I've already said, along with whatever I have to say in this thread to anyone who's interested.

>All I learned from you today
But there's nothing someone like you could learn from me, so you're lying to yourself.

>Your argument
What argument? Since when is not wanting to spend my time explaining one term and another and another, bundled up with problems of self-reference, things I'm not really interested in discussing in this thread, an argument?

>> No.1910700

>>1910695

>But there's nothing someone like you could learn from me

I agree.

>What argument? Since when is not wanting to spend my time explaining one term and another and another, bundled up with problems of self-reference, things I'm not really interested in discussing in this thread, an argument?

Easier to say that than to explain why you think linguistics are a fallacy because of self-reference.

You're pathetic.

>> No.1910703

>>1910700
>Easier to say that than to explain why you think linguistics are a fallacy because of self-reference.
But what I said has nothing to do with any of that

>> No.1910704

>>1910695

lol that fag got himself into a corner and can't get out.


>self-reference makes your statement false

>it doesn't

>asked about linguistics, no answer


XD

>> No.1910705

>>1910703

Dude, you can't say you refuse to waste your time with him AND YET CONTINUE TO TALK WITH HIM.

Just answer his questions or leave it be.

>> No.1910708

>>1910704
But what I said has nothing to do with any of that

>>1910705
Where did I say anything about wasting time?

>> No.1910711

>>1910703

Of course it has.

You were using self-reference to mean the question wasn't valid, without explaining how self-reference would make the question invalid. On top of that, it wasn't self-reference because it wasn't the same word and it wasn't even in the same sentence.

Then I showed how linguistics was a metastudy, since it's language about language, which you'd consider a self-reference, yet it's not a problem and doesn't make linguistics invalid.

>> No.1910713

>>1910711
>You were using self-reference to mean the question wasn't valid, without explaining how self-reference would make the question invalid
But what I said has nothing to do with any of that.

>> No.1910716

>>1910708

>Since when is not wanting to spend my time

Not wanting to spend time on something is akin to saying "I don't want to waste my time", and if you're gonna argue on that, I won't. Shallow semantics instead of real discussions.

>> No.1910718

>>1910713

>But what I said has nothing to do with any of that.

Well yes, since it was your basis for trying to make my question appear invalid.

>> No.1910720

>>1910703

>get murdered
>can't retort
>has nothing to do with what i said

the now classic 3 step method

>> No.1910722

>>1910716
>Not wanting to spend time on something is akin to saying "I don't want to waste my time"
Why would I argue on something as stupid and wrong as that?

>> No.1910724

>>1910722

Are you serious?

You don't have to argue on something you think is stupid and yadda yadda, but stop trying to say you don't mean "I don't want to waste my time on this stupidity".


Dude...

>> No.1910727

>>1910720
Why would I retort to someone arguing against something I haven't even argued?

>> No.1910728

>>1910722

>Not wanting to spend time on something is akin to saying "I don't want to waste my time", and if you're gonna argue on that, I won't. Shallow semantics instead of real discussions.

>Why would I argue on something as stupid and wrong as that?

Predictable.

>> No.1910729

>>1910724
But what I said has nothing to do with any of that.

>> No.1910730

>>1910727

But you did argue just that.

You fail at trying to escape your own contradictions. Just lame.

>> No.1910731

>>1910590
>He sees the world around him, people enjoying crap, and he despairs, knowing soon the depths our moribund culture will reach because these fools perpetuate the onslaught of absolute shit by buying it.
What a novel idea. Nobody ever said it in the last three thousand years.

>> No.1910732

>>1910729

The recording is skipping...

>> No.1910733

>>1910730
But what I said has nothing to do with any of that.

>> No.1910736

>>1910732
But what I said has nothing to do with any of that

>> No.1910738

>>1910733

Summing up:

>anon says "what do you mean by 'sense'?"

>DE says "self-reference, you're stupid, your question makes no sense"

>anon says linguistics is self-reference, language about language, and it has never made linguistics invalid

>DE can't respond to this and keeps saying "But what I said has nothing to do with that"

>> No.1910740

>>1910738
But what I said has nothing to do with any of that.

>> No.1910741

http://pdfmyurl.com/

If you want to save this thread which discreted DE forever, turn this webpage into a PDF file and share.

>> No.1910742

>>1910733
>>1910736
>>1910740

Is D&E the Abatap of /lit/ ?

>> No.1910743

>>1910741

Discredited*

>> No.1910744

Hey DE, just curious, what are 5 of your favourite books? Please answer, I'm genuinely curious.

>> No.1910747

>>1910736
Done anything else, yet, today, Deep&Edgy?

>> No.1910751

Why are you even arguing with D&E? I mean, the name he writes under isn't a sufficient summary of his nature?

>> No.1910752

>>1910747
But what I said has nothing to do with any of that

>> No.1910753

>>1910751

Good point.

>> No.1910755

I hate people like DE because they give literature a bad name. I'm concerned that people who aren't academics come here to get a taste of what books are all about, and face someone like DE.

As an academic and university teacher, I can assure you people like DE don't actually make it to our world, and we are NOT pedantic like this, nor do we use our knowledge to feel superior, since we are teachers most of us and love to share our knowledge, which we never use to bloat our egos.

I apologise on DE's behalf for the bad reputation he gives to the people of letters.

- Professor Anon

>> No.1910757
File: 12 KB, 197x251, vsktbm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1910757

>>1910755

Awesome bro (assuming you're legit).

>> No.1910771

>>1910755

>I am professor douchebag; through feigned humility my head reaches ever new heights, soaring up my own asshole

At least d&e doesn't try and mask his pompousness

>> No.1910774

>>1910767

okay guys could you take your comments concerning me here to stop de-railing this great thread please thanks

>> No.1910778

>>1910771

There was nothing "pompous" about that post. It is an honest observation on his part.

Telling us that he is a professor instead of some random dweeb is relevant to his point.

>> No.1910786

Why would I treat a professor in the same respect as some anonymous jerkoff on the internet whom I have no responsibilities or expectations towards?

>> No.1910803

>>1910778

you are a child

>> No.1910806

>>1910786
That sentence is horrible. Is English your first language?

>> No.1910812

i lol'd at the comic

grotesque distortions of despairing facial expressions always get me.

>> No.1910813

>>1910803

Nope. It was crucial to the point he was making because he was talking about academic circles so saying it is not "pompous".

>> No.1910815

>>1910813

fuck's sake man, you're stuck on the professor part...

>> No.1910821

so adora-ble

>> No.1910822

Hahaha, oh /lit/. I love you all.

>> No.1910823

>>1910813
To be honest, >>1910815 has a point. Who says that anyone cares what academics are like? Who says that D&E is one?

Personally I do think they're all fairly pompous and argumentative, but that's mostly from personal experience.

>> No.1910830
File: 627 KB, 1401x2100, r4aM0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1910830

just read what you enjoy, and learn more about it. reading is fun, don't let bullies tell you otherwise.

>> No.1910843

>>1910823

I thought D&E was an academic. Doesn't he have a Ph.D?

>> No.1910850
File: 23 KB, 437x300, yea okay.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1910850

>>1910843
hahhahahhahahhahahhahahahhaahahhaha

>> No.1910860

>>1910843
No.

>> No.1910870

>>1910850
>>1910860

Has he ever revealed his academic status? I'm not asking this to discredit him, it has nothing to do with his arguments, I'm just curious.

>> No.1910875
File: 237 KB, 1268x1690, my hair for fa down 4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1910875

he actually does have a PHD

>> No.1910877

>>1910870
upper level undergrad

>> No.1910882

hey guys let's talk about what sort of academic qualifications onion has, oh wait economics lolol

>> No.1910885
File: 64 KB, 800x600, my hair for fa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1910885

>>1910882
>>1910882

don't insult my waifu

>> No.1910902

>>1910882

But what I said has nothing to do with any of that

>> No.1910912

Hey... hey guys... what if... what if we could enjoy different types of books, games, etc, for different reasons?

Nobody reads Harry Potter for the quality of the writing. But that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it, or a Dan Brown book, or Stephen King, or w/e, and also enjoy whatever you asshats consider literature.

>> No.1910928

>>1910912

These people don't want to stop other people from reading those books, they just want to let it be known that their taste is superior in terms to current literary criticism.

It's called a superiority complex and it serves no purpose (except to feed the ego of the one with the complex).

>> No.1910929
File: 286 KB, 355x190, pfft (2).gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1910929

>>1910882

>> No.1910933

>>1910928
so when someone expresses that they're enjoying something they only want feedback from others who enjoy it?

that sounds like an ego trip too.

>> No.1910939

>>1910912
I know right. I mean so what If my favourite read is Chuck Palahniuk, favourite band is Mindless Self Indulgence and I think Transformers is the greatest movie ever.

Fucking aspies on here just don't get that taste is subjective. Fuck them.

>> No.1910948

>>1910933

No, there's a difference between saying why you think Harry Potter is shitty and saying that you're superior to the person who thinks it's not shitty.