Post low IQ literary criticism

[Anonymous No.21356220]

>characters acting irrational and illogical is le bad

[Anonymous No.21356225]

So a thinly veiled meta thread?

[Anonymous No.21356232]

>the OP is able to contain his rabid homosexual tendencies

[Anonymous No.21356697]

The absolute worst is expecting that "evil characters" be punished for their actions.

[Anonymous No.21356704]

>Pacing is important
Capeshit-brained "criticism"

[Anonymous No.21356712]

>>21356220
>OP doesn't realize he uses logic to hate logic

[Anonymous No.21356723]

>lack of gray area, too black and white
>unrealistic

[Anonymous No.21356785]

>this book didn’t age well

[Anonymous No.21356825]

>>21356220
In what way? just out of the blue? Most of the time, yes.
Something that sparks the internal irrationality (which is narratively rational), then no.

[Anonymous No.21356833]

>>21356220
>Character's motives are unclear
>blah blah blah le THEME blah blah blah
>X is problematic

[Anonymous No.21356834]

>>21356220
Any criticism through the lens of politics

[Anonymous No.21356841]

>>21356834
even when the book is inherently political? /lit/-brand autism jfc

[Anonymous No.21356846]

>He doesn't rape his sister, Phoebe.

[Anonymous No.21357247]

>>21356704
Elaborate

[Anonymous No.21357252]

>>21356220
>le author is bad for smoking opium

[Anonymous No.21357273]

>>21356220
>JG Keely

[Anonymous No.21357274]

>>21356220
It was a hot summer day in the city, and the bald, bearded man with glasses was feeling parched. He had been out running errands all morning, and he was in desperate need of a refreshing drink.

As he walked down the street, he spotted a small convenience store that he had never noticed before. It was called "Onions Stop," and it advertised all kinds of onions-based products, from drinks to snacks to meal replacement powders.

The bald, bearded man with glasses was intrigued. He had heard of onions before, but he had never tried it himself. He decided to go inside and see what it was all about.

As he walked through the door, he was greeted by a friendly employee who was more than happy to explain the various products on offer. The bald, bearded man with glasses listened intently, and he was impressed by the nutritional value and convenience of the onions products.

He decided to buy a few bottles of onions drink and a bag of onions bars to try out. He paid for his purchases and left the store, feeling excited to try his new products.

Over the next few days, the bald, bearded man with glasses found himself turning to onions more and more often. He loved the convenience and the nutritional value of the products, and he quickly became a onions convert.

He started experimenting with different flavors and types of onions, and he even tried making his own onions recipes at home. He was completely enamored with the stuff, and he couldn't get enough.

As the weeks went by, the bald, bearded man with glasses became more and more devoted to his onions lifestyle. He found himself spending less and less time preparing traditional meals, and he was feeling healthier and more energetic than he had in years.

But as he embraced his onions obsession, the bald, bearded man with glasses began to alienate his friends and family. They didn't understand his obsession with the weird, beige drink, and they were concerned that he was neglecting his social life and his health.

The bald, bearded man with glasses didn't care, though. He was happy with his onions, and he was determined to stick to his newfound lifestyle.

But as time went on, he began to realize that his onions obsession was starting to take over his life. He was spending all of his time and money on the stuff, and he was becoming more and more isolated from the people he loved.

In the end, the bald, bearded man with glasses had to make a choice: continue down his lonely, onions-fueled path, or try to reconnect with the people in his life and find a more balanced approach to his health and nutrition.

What will he choose? Will he be able to find a way to balance his love for onions with the rest of his life, or will he be consumed by his obsession? Only time will tell.

[Anonymous No.21357423]

>>21356834
>Any criticism through the lens of politics
This is the most common one now. Especially identity politics

If for you moralizing; virtue signaling; or promoting your pet gender, sexual proclivity, or race; competes with the importance of art for its own sake, your opinions are compromised at best, and you have no legitimacy as a literary critic

[Anonymous No.21357458]

>>21356220
The rare JG Keely L where he claims Dracula is bad (well, 3/5) because Stoker subconsciously was using Dracula to represent homosexuality and female power but was not explicit enough about the symbolism.

[Anonymous No.21357509]

>This is problematic!
>This is degenerate!
>This is woke/anti-white!
>This is some sort of -ist

Any time you see this sorta shit, you know you can safely ignore the person.

[Anonymous No.21357634]

>>21356704
you probably don't know what pacing means

[Anonymous No.21357666]

>>21356225
Yes

[Anonymous No.21357670]

>>21357274

I really enjoy your story, please elaborate on the sort of relationship that the bearded bald man with glasses has with his friends and family, I feel the story is lacking in some finer detail there

[Anonymous No.21357798]

>>21357670
The bald, bearded man with glasses had always been a picky eater, and he found that onions was an easy and convenient way to get the nutrients he needed without having to worry about the taste or texture of food. However, his addiction to onions began to take over his life, and he found himself spending more and more time drinking it and less and less time with his family.

At first, the bald, bearded man with glasses tried to hide his onions addiction from his loved ones, but it wasn't long before they began to notice the changes in his behavior. His wife would often find empty onions containers in the trash, and his wives children would complain that he wasn't spending enough time with them.

His wives boyfriend was worried about him. He could see that he was becoming more and more isolated and unhappy. He tried to talk to him about his addiction, but he wouldn't listen.

One day, the bald, bearded man with glasses' wife's boyfriend made the difficult decision to leave. He packed up his things and moved out. The bald, bearded man with glasses was devastated. He knew he had lost everything because of his addiction to onions.

The bald, bearded man with glasses knew that he needed to make a change, but he found it difficult to break his addiction. He would go through periods of cutting back on his onions consumption, only to find himself shamefully drinking it excessively only a few days later.

Finally, the bald, bearded man with glasses realized that he needed help. He sought out counseling and onions support groups to help him overcome his addiction. It wasn't easy, but with the support of his family and the help of professionals, the bald, bearded man with glasses was able to break his addiction to onions and focus on rebuilding his relationship with his loved ones.

One day, the bald, bearded man with glasses' wife called him and asked if he would like to meet her new boyfriend. The bald, bearded man with glasses was overjoyed when hearing this, and he agreed immediately. He was thrilled about meeting him, and he was determined to be civil and polite.

When the bald, bearded man with glasses met Abdul, he was pleasantly surprised. He was kind, funny, and easy to talk to. The bald, bearded man with glasses could see why his wife was happy with him.

As the bald, bearded man with glasses continued to rebuild his life, he also started to build a newfound relationship with his wife's son. He would play nintendo switch with him or take him to a science exhibit, and they would have fun together. The bald, bearded man with glasses was happy to be a part of their lives again.

In the end, the bald, bearded man with glasses was able to overcome his addiction to onions and rebuild his relationship with his wife, her boyfriend, and her children. He was grateful for the second chance he had been given and was determined to make the most of it.

[Anonymous No.21357799]

>>21357670
The bald, bearded man with glasses had always been a picky eater, and he found that onions was an easy and convenient way to get the nutrients he needed without having to worry about the taste or texture of food. However, his addiction to onions began to take over his life, and he found himself spending more and more time drinking it and less and less time with his family.

At first, the bald, bearded man with glasses tried to hide his onions addiction from his loved ones, but it wasn't long before they began to notice the changes in his behavior. His wife would often find empty onions containers in the trash, and his wife's children would complain that he wasn't spending enough time with them.

His wife's boyfriend was worried about him. He could see that he was becoming more and more isolated and unhappy. He tried to talk to him about his addiction, but he wouldn't listen.

One day, the bald, bearded man with glasses' wife's boyfriend made the difficult decision to leave. He packed up his things and moved out. The bald, bearded man with glasses was devastated. He knew he had lost everything because of his addiction to onions.

The bald, bearded man with glasses knew that he needed to make a change, but he found it difficult to break his addiction. He would go through periods of cutting back on his onions consumption, only to find himself shamefully drinking it excessively only a few days later.

Finally, the bald, bearded man with glasses realized that he needed help. He sought out counseling and onions support groups to help him overcome his addiction. It wasn't easy, but with the support of his family and the help of professionals, the bald, bearded man with glasses was able to break his addiction to onions and focus on rebuilding his relationship with his loved ones.

One day, the bald, bearded man with glasses' wife called him and asked if he would like to meet her new boyfriend. The bald, bearded man with glasses was overjoyed when hearing this, and he agreed immediately. He was thrilled about meeting him, and he was determined to be civil and polite.

When the bald, bearded man with glasses met Abdul, he was pleasantly surprised. He was kind, funny, and easy to talk to. The bald, bearded man with glasses could see why his wife was happy with him.

As the bald, bearded man with glasses continued to rebuild his life, he also started to build a newfound relationship with his wife's son. He would play nintendo switch with him or take him to a science exhibit, and they would have fun together. The bald, bearded man with glasses was happy to be a part of their lives again.

In the end, the bald, bearded man with glasses was able to overcome his addiction to onions and rebuild his relationship with his wife, her boyfriend, and her children. He was grateful for the second chance he had been given and was determined to make the most of it.

[Anonymous No.21357843]

>>21357799

Wow what a schmuck. I will never eat onions again

[Anonymous No.21357910]

This is somehow the least pseudointellectual thread up right now

[Anonymous No.21358070]

>>21357799

Why is the bald bearded man with the glasses considered a picky eater? He clearly has an open enough mind to try onions, something not unanimously held to the standard of a universally palatable food. Did he maybe make an offhand racial stereotype reference at some point - maybe a commentary on the use of spices? It was probably a shorthand for a joke, and really, maybe it seemed good for the gander at the time. I'm sure he feels bad about it now, but cut the guy some slack, I'm sure the guy could be weened off the onions with a scallop day mixed into his diet, he really is trying.

[Anonymous No.21358166]

>>21357910
now that's a good one.

[Anonymous No.21358257]

>>21358166

Sorry for messing up the thread but I think it needed pointing out, I hadn't read enough '/lit/ sucks now' drivel yet

[Anonymous No.21358261]

>>21356834
>book makes political value judgments or implications
>nooo just ignore that, books are just pretty words
how do niggers like you even read Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy?

[Anonymous No.21358276]

>>21358261
>how do niggers like you even read Dostoyevsky
I revel in its psychological incisiveness. How do you?

[Anonymous No.21358290]

>>21356220
>The book is pretentious
At best if the book in fact so obviously pretense you should be able to point it out by exposing its arguments as fraud and by just labeling it as pretentious is a lazy cop out. At worst they mean that it uses archaic language or a more complicated style of communication than the critic is comfortable with and is just whining about being filtered.

[Anonymous No.21358293]

Did onions ever make the bearded bald man with glasses cry?

[Anonymous No.21358300]

>>21356225
>So a thinly veiled meta thread?
Cheeky cunt

[Anonymous No.21358323]

"The prose is good because it's flowery"
"The prose is bad because it's simple"
Any namedropping at all. I hate people that say "oh you're a X-philosopherian", like no motherfucker, I'm able to actually think for myself. The pseuds are worse than the normies.

[Anonymous No.21358616]

So what's the bearded man doing with his shirt off in the picture - he is squaring off in a fight, right?

[Anonymous No.21358763]

>>21358276
You spend 500 pages straight just reveling in that same thing? Does it not come to your attention that the characters frequently express their psychology through political statements and affiliations?

[Anonymous No.21358771]

>>21358323
Fitzgerald levels of purple prose can absolutely puff up a mediocre novel, though. It's not wrong to point it out when its being used as a crutch. It may not make X novel bad all on its own but its a good sign you're in for something that can't stand up on its own.

[Anonymous No.21359540]

>>21358763
>You spend 500 pages straight just reveling in that same thing?
Yes. Humor, drama and profundity all spring from his psychological incisiveness
>>21358763
>Does it not come to your attention that the characters frequently express their psychology through political statements and affiliations?
The pollack characters in Karamazov are dumb brutes. That could be perceived as a political statement. So? The only relevant literary criticism is how those characters served the greatness of the art, but it wouldn't be out of the ordinary today to hear some moralizing philistine moaning about how the portrayal of polish people in Karamazov is problematic

[Anonymous No.21359570]

>>21357273
Are you the one who keeps referencing him all over /lit/? Did you ever finish BotNS?

[Anonymous No.21359649]

>>21357634
If you care about pacing you're a braindead moron that should stick to capeshit and whatever slop Hollywood shits out.

[Anonymous No.21359968]

>>21357273
>>21357458
I was reading his blog the other day after hearing about him here and idk, it seems like his exchange with R. Scott Bakker on worldbuilding really took the wind out of his sails. He only did two more blogposts after that before disappearing. It seems like his being told that he's the "best reviewer on Goodreads" gave him a big head (might be uncharitable on my part, but I'm wary of critics who are proudly critics/when they think of criticism itself as an artform) that was deflated by a confrontation with an author like Bakker. ("Like Bakker" in the sense that regardless of what you think of his work, he's published nine books, a few essay collections and a swathe of short stories, whereas Keely has written a book but hasn't published it...? I couldn't find it if he has.)

[Anonymous No.21360029]

>>21358300
This thread proves my point and the board backs it up. Nothing here would even pass as literary criticism and strongly suggests no one here even know what it is.

[Anonymous No.21361077]

>>21360029
>no one here even know what it is.
It's an abomination for the most part. These modern academics should be embarrassed and ashamed--the work they praise and the reasons for that praise are laughable. But instead they're smug

[Anonymous No.21361086]

>>21356834
>Any criticism.
Ftfy. Just stop being sheep.

[Anonymous No.21361087]

>>21361077
Literary criticism has existed for some time. There are more critics than just “moderns”. Either way, it seems many here wouldn’t even be able to write 10 pages on their favorite book

[Anonymous No.21361103]

>>21356220
>”I couldn’t connect with the character” (because I thought they were a bad person or whatever)
Like…just say you’re boring and stupid.

[Anonymous No.21361118]

>These characters aren't dynamic or round enough.

[Anonymous No.21361126]

>>21356841
There is a difference between a political work and a work that has been politicized.

[Anonymous No.21361748]

>>21361087
>it seems many here wouldn’t even be able to write 10 pages on their favorite book
mindbroken schooloid detected. half your experience is geared towards padding a wordcount. embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.21362042]

>>21360029
>This thread proves that I have an overly elevated idea of what literary criticism means
Literally if I say "*literary work* is poopy caca" I am making a literary critique and am there for performing literary criticism. Its not good literary criticism but thats beside the point.

[Anonymous No.21362063]

>>21362042
No, Literary Criticism is the practice of analyses and theory related to literature, you only offered an opinion which is closer to poor book reviewer but really just poor.

[Anonymous No.21362068]

>>21362042
Read an actual piece of literary criticism and you’ll see the difference.

[Anonymous No.21362081]

>>21362063
>No. Literary criticism is the notion I have of it.
You are wrong, the definition that I posted proves that. What you are describing is "good literary criticism." But this is a thread about bad literary criticism. You have equates the essential thing with its most appealing representation.

[Anonymous No.21362088]

>>21362068
Again. You seem to be saying that literary criticism = good literary criticism. but literary criticism does not have t be good. But it is rarely published and when it is it seldom propagates.

[Anonymous No.21362092]

>>21362088
A review or opinion is not literary criticism

[Anonymous No.21362097]

>>21362081
Well, if you want to play this game, your definition says it is judging AND commenting, you only judged so it is not literary criticism. When it comes down to it you are just a moron who thinks he knows everything because he has the internet.

[Anonymous No.21362124]

>>21362092
a critique of any kind is a criticism and when it is in reference to a work of literature it is literary criticism. There are baseless critiques and there are critiques with bad arguments for them (which I guess you could call opinion in a sense). These are bad criticisms and when they are in reference to literature they are bad literary criticisms and make up the body of bad literary criticism. That does not mean they are not literary criticism. And of course review is not criticism. Literature reviews can contain literary criticism, what makes it a review is added stuff like rating for personal taste and arguments for why some people might like it (marketing elements). But these elements, like you said, takes it out of the category of pure literary criticism.

[Anonymous No.21362136]

>>21362097
>your definition says it is judging AND commenting
At what level is there implied commentary when you equate something to poop? But I do see your point here. I will say that my example was a bad one but my argument still stands. Criticism does not imply a knowledge of theory at all.

[Anonymous No.21362137]

>>21362124
>a critique of any kind is a criticism and when it is in reference to a work of literature it is literary criticism
No, literary criticism is itself literary.

[Anonymous No.21362147]

>>21362137
oooh this is actually almost a good point. They wouldn't call a literary criticism with literary merit on its own literary literary criticism would they? I still would argue that a better nomenclature would be "good literary criticism" because referring to it just as "literary criticism" begs the question of "which do you mean, just plain criticism about literature or criticism about literature that is itself a work of literature?"

[Anonymous No.21362162]

>>21362147
Also I think that the existence of bad literary criticism calls this idea into question because I have a hard time seeing how bad literary criticism can have literary merit.

[Anonymous No.21362175]

>>21362162
Unless the argument is that the only bad literary criticism is that which claims to be literary criticism but actually isn't. But that seems like a cop out which would invalidate the statement originally responded to (>>21360029) as a statement because "yes, that would be the point of the thread."

[Anonymous No.21362197]

>>21362147
A simple critique of a work of literature is not literary, it is just a critique of a work of literature. This debate only exists because people assume that since they know the meaning of "literary" and know the meaning of "criticism" that means they know what "literary criticism" is, they ignore context and look at the pieces individually instead of their combined meaning. People like Bloom who straddle the line between reviewer and critic probably did not help things either.
>>21362162
Bad vs good is not really part of it, that is an unsupportable opinion and very much frowned on in the field. The question would be was it effective at achieving its goal and why or why not, how could it be improved, how does it compare to others who have attempted the same goal, etc. A big part of the field is to remove the subjective as much as possible and separates it from reviews which are primarily subjective.

[Anonymous No.21362217]

>>21362197
You're what happens when inherently stupid people get post-secondary education

[Anonymous No.21362228]

>>21362217
>i cant say why you are wrong but i can insult you

[Anonymous No.21362229]

>>21362197
That seems sound. I guess I was making the layman's error here (the definition I guess could be the common use which could still be wrong) and my wariness of academic endless refining of what started as common ideas in the service making them seem more important made me double down. To the anon that posted (>>21360029), I withdraw my statement and concede that I in fact did not know what literary criticism was.

[Anonymous No.21362244]

>>21358763
t. Identifies with Luzhin and Karenin
Dour cunt, their political affiliations are transient and unfulfilling.

[Anonymous No.21362257]

>>21362229
Give some criticism a read, some of it is very enjoyable and most of it will make you a better reader. It is much broader than just the analyses of literature, it is also about things like what that literature says about us and society and how we have changed. I generally recommend picrel as an entry, Gass is very readable for even those without much knowledge of the field.

[Anonymous No.21362263]

>>21362228
I can do both. I chose to do the latter
>A simple critique of a work of literature is not literary
Writing doesn't need to be complex to be literary
>they know what "literary criticism" is
It's not a mystery known by the woke feminist sages of our hallowed universities. Almost everyone capable of language knows what literary criticism is
>>21362197
>People like Bloom who straddle the line between reviewer and critic probably did not help things either.
Any critique of literature, no matter how simple, how brief, or how subjective it may be, is literary criticism
>>21362197
>frowned on in the field
*gasp*

[Anonymous No.21362278]

>>21362263
>strawman
Lol, you did nothing but infer things which were not said or implied and take things out of context.

[Anonymous No.21362283]

>>21362257
Thanks for the rec anon. This was already in my backlog which is a bit nuts but I will get to that eventually. Im sure I have read some literary criticism in the past but I hesitate to go naming things off because my previous conception of what it was was so off.

[Anonymous No.21362299]

>muh tonal consistency. You should only have one tone throughout the book.

[Anonymous No.21362304]

>>21356834
>if you criticize my beliefs you're political. If you agree with me, you're not political.

[Anonymous No.21362375]

>>21362304
>t. modern leftist

[Anonymous No.21362385]

>>21362304
>t. modern rightists

[Anonymous No.21362406]

>>21362304
>t. human

[Anonymous No.21362417]

>>21362304
>t. AI bot

[Anonymous No.21362507]

>>21356704
you have one chance to explain how capeshit has anything to do with caring about pacing

[Anonymous No.21362620]

>>21362507
What? You don't lump every person you consider to be basic into one big straw man? Interchanging traits between them like clothes on the dolls you played with as a kid? It's literally what I spend most of my time doing with strangers on the internet.

[Anonymous No.21362652]

>>21362304
>t. right winger

[Anonymous No.21362667]

>>21362652
>t. original thinker

[Anonymous No.21362691]

>>21362304
>if you aren't actively political in your work you are political because refusing to make a political statement is a political statement in of itself
deranged morons who say shit like this genuinely make me believe wrong side won the war

[Anonymous No.21362743]

>>21362691
What an edgy way to say you disagree. Your parents must be very proud that you know what at least some of those words mean at your age.

[Anonymous No.21362790]

>>21358323
I usually see the opposite. The mainstream view is “flowery prose is always bad” while “simple Brando Sandro prose is best.

While “purple prose” that’s trying too hard holds back a lot of books, there are some books with beautiful prose out there that are certainly made better because of it, and would be lesser if their prose had been simple and straight-forward. Good prose is hard to pull off, but when done well flowery prose has something that straight-forward prose doesn’t.

When it comes to readers assigning these labels, all we can do is ask ourselves whether the person talking is biased towards poorly-done purple prose, or to generic simple prose.

[Anonymous No.21362806]

>>21361103
Spot-on.

The exception, however, is when the characters are all insufferable but the author was TRYING to make them likable. That’s why most romance novels are garbage, because these female authors write the most retarded and abusive relationships and then portray them as romantic.

[Anonymous No.21362811]

>>21362081
That’s not how definitions work, and you’re using the wrong dictionary. https://jsomers.net/blog/dictionary

[Anonymous No.21362832]

>>21358323
>I hate people that say "oh you're a X-philosopherian", like no motherfucker, I'm able to actually think for myself.

Unless you relate closely to established thinkers, or you're an independently wealthy old man who has been thinking deeply about philosophy for most of his life, your philosophical worldview is guaranteed to be either undeveloped or incoherent. People have been autisticly thinking about this shit for thousands of years. Multiple lifetimes are devoted to it. Your 'independent thoughts' you had in the shower a few times don't quite hold up.

[Anonymous No.21362851]

>>21362811
You are bit late to the party. I already conceded. Cool link though. Seems a bit fucked up that there can be a wrong dictionary. Im not happy about google gaslight psy-ops

[Anonymous No.21362855]

>>>>/lit/

[Anonymous No.21362867]

>>21362832
Im referring more to when somebody says it as a way to reduce an argument I have made to an absurd degree and then disregard it. Im cool with when people are like "that sounds like x philosopher when he said y." At least then I can confirm or deny instead of just being misrepresented as a member of someone else's club. Or even like "that is very *school of philosophy* because *argument*" would work better.

[Anonymous No.21363479]

>>21356697
depends on the theme of the story, in an uplifting story where hope and righteousness prevail it would be the case yes

[Anonymous No.21363778]

The psuedo-intellectual academic faggot replying to himself in this thread needs to stop breathing

[Anonymous No.21363832]

>>21362790
Both of you are confused, purple prose does not mean wordy and complex, it means it is filled with words which serve no purpose beyond themselves, they do not add anything to the whole. These sorts of works tend to fail in both the literary and genre worlds because they are tiresome to read.

[Anonymous No.21364333]

>>21363832
I’m not confused. That’s why I specified “flowery prose” and “purple prose.” Because good prose is usually flowery, but “purple” prose is flowery prose done poorly.

[Anonymous No.21364444]

>>21364333
>Because good prose is usually flowery
Not really. The bulk of what is considered good from a literary or genre standpoint is is fairly functional without much ornamentation, the extremes of minimalist and maximalist (as in prose style being the complete opposite of minimalism, not encyclopedic doorstoppers) are in the minority. Flowery prose is generally used as a synonym for purple and I would bet if you search for it google would give you results for purple prose. Other than a handful of times on this board I have never come across a distinction being made between them.

[Anonymous No.21364505]

>>21356220
>Post low IQ literary criticism
OP in this thread -- >>>21363217

[Anonymous No.21364538]

>>21356834
>>21356841
>>21357423
>>21361086
>>21362304
>>21362691
>>21362743

New critical theory is a malevolent poison that should be completely expunged from existence. For true art and beauty to be made, witnessed, and appreciated, works shouldn't be winnowed or categorized into some sort of pedantic modernist cheese grater of 'current year' faggotry. Keats hit the nail on the head with his concept of negative capability. Some truths are self-evident, and anyone who tries to divert what is self-evident and beautiful, or attempts to render things down into their most basic elements, will ultimately fail to see the point. Its this cancerous nihilism that perverts nature and only succeeds in making everything ugly and stale, just like the miserable lives of anyone unlucky enough to be stricken by its brain-eating, victim-affirming, misanthropy.

[Anonymous No.21364566]

>>21364538
What does this have to do with my post

[Anonymous No.21364587]

>>21364566
Shut up and feel honored that you were included in anon's post

[Anonymous No.21364592]

>>21362691
>deranged morons who say shit like this genuinely make me believe wrong side won the war
Well, you're right. The wrong side DID win the war.