/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21342572]

>Read __.
No, you stupid jackass
Don't tell me to read books in the middle of an argument
SUMMARIZE what the author says, if you can't do that, DON'T BRING UP THE FUCKING BOOK

[Anonymous No.21342577]

>>21342572
Lmao what a great way to tell us that you don't read.

[Anonymous No.21342589]

>>21342577
This is /lit/, so nobody reads.

[Anonymous No.21342594]

We had this thread before but anyway yeah, it's annoying and a crutch for pseuds who are unable to actually argue. We're aware.

[Anonymous No.21342595]

>>21342577
>enter an argument
>pause the argument to read an entire 300 pg book

[Anonymous No.21343580]

>>21342572
It's always pseuds who do nothing but read but never think over and digest the material like kantbot that use this tactic. This is because, instead of a coherent argument being brought up in their mind, in it's place is a book, of which only a few main vague statements were remembered, which isn't sufficient material to make an argument out of.

[Anonymous No.21343598]

>>21343580
Of course, when you ask them to clarify how the book supports their view and the argument contained in it, you will get comments on how that is impossible because the material is far too complex, similar to the comment by some that convoluted language is necessary to express their argument due to it's complexity.

[Anonymous No.21344134]

>>21343598
I noticed universities prefer structure over any real research or substance. Pseuds shrivel at this too.

[Anonymous No.21344343]

>he hasn't already read everything ever

[Anonymous No.21344625]

>dipshit tells me to read book
>don't read it
>only read some negative reviews instead
>tell him I've read it and it's shit
>leave him speechless by paraphrasing said reviews

[Anonymous No.21346181]

>>21342572
read where's waldo

[Anonymous No.21346183]

>>21342595
Imagine not doing this

[Anonymous No.21346263]

>>21342572
>summarize 1000 pages in a sentence for me

[Anonymous No.21347342]

>>21344625
kek this

[Anonymous No.21347357]

>>21342572
Maybe you shouldn’t start discussions of authors without having read the critical points of their work. Maybe you’re a rude insufferable cunt demanding attention.

[Anonymous No.21348691]

>>21342577
fpbp

[Anonymous No.21348723]

>>21342595
>enter an argument
>pause the argument to read an entire 300 pg book
>come back
>"I thought your recommendation was interesting, and after reading it, here are my informed critiques of your argument."

[Anonymous No.21348983]

>>21348723
Unfathomably based

[Anonymous No.21348988]

>>21342589
You mean where people who don’t read assume nobody else reads so that they feel better about themselves?

[Anonymous No.21348989]

>>21342595
Yes

[Anonymous No.21348990]

>>21342595
Why are you entering an argument when you're not knowledgeable enough of the relevant literature?

[Anonymous No.21348993]

>>21342595
Yes? An internet argument literally doesn't matter. You lose absolutely nothing by pausing or leaving it. If anything stopping an argument to read about the subject is a better deal than just screaming at some person online because you accomplish absolutely nothing with the later.

[Anonymous No.21350180]

>>21348993
At the same time, "just read X" is doing a disservice to X. Books don't exist to be held in high regard as references. Famous book authors aren't dogma. The whole point of the book is that it's supposed to teach YOU how to argue the point presented in the book, so just telling someone else to read the book means you probably didn't absorb the point, whatever it was. Thinking of a book as the foundational text of a specific argument instead of adopting and expanding on that argument yourself, and thinking "this well-regarded book argues against your point so just read it instead of arguing with me", is a thinly veiled appeal to this retarded romanticization of notorious books.