/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23252068]

Some books should really come with a warning.
>WARNING! FAGGOT SHIT, AHEAD!
How the fuck am I supposed to know this book was going to have a bunch of nasty faggot shit?

It wasn't even that bad of a book until I got halfway through it and the character gets raped and then becomes a faggot becomes of it. Who the fuck even comes up with this trash?

[Anonymous No.23253078]

Picrel? We can only hope.

[Anonymous No.23253451]

>>23252068
Trigger warning racism ahead
trigger warning antisemitism ahead
trigger waring sexism ahead
trigger waring furry shit ahead
trigger waring faggot shit agead
trigger warning feet fetisch ahead
trigger warning communism propaganda ahead
trigger wanring femdom ahead

don't be a pussy and just don't get triggered

[Anonymous No.23253504]

>>23253451
>don't be a pussy and just don't get triggered
That is still being a pussy. If you want to not be a pussy and also be lit you need to understand why you were triggered and what that means in context of your reading. Author may have wanted to trigger the reader and you can not understand the work if you go about avoiding feeling anything that makes you uncomfortable. Even if the author did not intend to trigger the reader you are just avoiding self awareness if you go the path of "just don't get triggered." Why is very important.

[Anonymous No.23253633]

>>23252068
Just check Goodreads beforehand, man. The book's genres on Goodreads are practically a write-off.

I'm guessing the author was molested whilst he was young and now he's writing YA fiction that tries to romanticise that sort of thing.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this is self-promotion, but I'm not going to read the book lol.

Trigger warnings are cringe tho. Just turn the page.

[Anonymous No.23254156]

>>23253451
>trigger wanring femdom ahead
I will now read your book to my wife, give her some new things to try maybe

[Anonymous No.23255430]

>>23253451
>triggered
this is an asinine take
if i started reading a book with very specific details of a six year old girl getting molested, would that also require a trigger warning?
>baww, baby scared of a little pedophile action
it's a courtesy to imply or explicitly state that degeneracy will be included

this doesn't apply to shit that isn't degenerate like fat-shaming or antisemitism

[Anonymous No.23255433]

>>23255430
Dont read books
Watch marvel movies, you wont encounter anything that you cant handle, just safe entertainment

[Anonymous No.23255438]

>>23253633
>Just check Goodreads beforehand
yes, i realize my mistake now
i don't use Goodreads but when I checked LibraryThing, it was in big fucking bold letters

with this book, i kind of just saw it recommended somewhere and started reading it and thought it was pretty interesting
there wasn't anything that implied any form of homosexuality or LGBT crap until I got HALFWAY into the book

that's bullshit
this kind of shit should at least be implied in the first few chapters so that i know what the topic or theme ahead, not just thrown in there halfway into the book because the author has to include faggotry SOMEWHERE, anywhere

[Anonymous No.23255440]

>>23255433
you're okay with very specific details of six year olds being molested?

[Anonymous No.23255443]

>>23255440
Im ok with the fact that my hobby is reading literature and that literature as an artform is frequently provocative or offensive or unpredictable

[Anonymous No.23255445]

>>23255443
so if pedophilic erotica is okay then you also have no problem with child sex dolls then, right?

[Anonymous No.23255449]

>>23255445
Its these kind of logical good faith arguments that keep me coming to this website

[Anonymous No.23255453]

>>23255449
your argument is, "shit just happens, man" as if that's a proper excuse for pedophiles to a platform in which to indulge their vices
it also sounds oddly similar to
>my form of pedophilic indulgence is better than yours!
>it's cartoons, not real children! we're not like those pedophiles who actually harm children
logic works across all fields
if i am able to use your exact logic to justify pedophilia then there is something really FUCKED with your logic

[Anonymous No.23255458]

>>23255453
Youre the one who brought pedophilia into the conversation in the first place. I thought this was about how you got mad that the YA book you were reading had a gay kid?
Do you think you are different than other people who ask for trigger warnings in books because you use the word "degenerate" instead of "problematic"?

[Anonymous No.23255466]

>>23255458
>Youre the one who brought pedophilia into the conversation in the first place
pedophilia was only brought up because most people are so fucking degenerate that the only way they can see their flawed logic is when it is used to justify something so degenerate that even they can see how it is flawed
if you genuinely cannot see how your own logical arguments bring about the acceptance of pedophilic proclivities, then you may be just as fucked as they are
>Do you think you are different than other people who ask for trigger warnings
do you think there is a difference between a book that contains graphic homosexual material and a book that contains graphic pedophilic material

actually, it's quite ironic that you are implying they are the same thing
that is, as they say, "pottery"

[Anonymous No.23255473]

>>23255453
>freedom of speech must be destroyed because it lets racists say nigger
>freedom of of speech must be destroyed because it lets pedos say kids are hot
why is the common dream of all these supposedly disparate political fandoms just the removal of their own rights?

[Anonymous No.23255476]

>>23255473
>saying "nigger" is the same as admitting that children are sexually appealing
holy shit, do you actually believe you're making a valid point here??

[Anonymous No.23255479]

>>23255466
>actually, it's quite ironic that you are implying they are the same thing
I was engaging with you on your terms. Equivalizing them is obviously an indictment of your value system, that goes without saying, but it still doesn't explain why you think artists and publishers should take your personal sensibilities into account.

[Anonymous No.23255502]

>>23255479
>I was engaging with you on your terms
no you weren't
you immediately avoided the pedophile claim and steamrolled right into the next point
if you want to actually have a discussion on my terms then you would properly address how your logical reasoning justifies pedophilic behavior
>I thought this was about how you got mad that the YA book you were reading had a gay kid?
this point you made earlier is similar to your last point so i'll just answer it directly:
where in the OP does it say that i'm mad the book had a gay kid in it?
it says "FAGGOT SHIT" in the op
i will admit that i was a little upset, not because there was faggot shit but because i wasted hours before finally learning that the book is for faggots

i don't mind reading about people that just happen to be fags, what i do mind is people talking about their bodies lusting after cock and specific descriptions that are irrelevant and are only there to fulfill some faggot fantasy

this is the same point for pedophilia
i do think that, sure a child being molested is realistic and can happen
however, i do think it crosses the line when the author is being very specific like it's some sort of pornographic fantasy and find it even more repulsive if he says the child actually liked it and "lusted after his pedophile cock"

[Anonymous No.23255530]

>>23255476
they're not the same, they're just used the same way, ie as vague boogeymen to justify the removal of rights. different fandoms are trained to say different words, ie for you the bad man you're giving up your rights to "stop" is a pedo, for a twitter progressive it's a white supremacist, but the words are interchangeable and the actual point is the yielding of power. you're not begging someone to take your freedom of speech away because you're that upset about pedophilia, you're making yourself more upset at pedophilia than you really are to rationalize your desire to yield your power to speak. let's do a test:
>the smelly nigger stabbed a man and stole his wallet
>the sexy child sucked a cock and liked it
what just happened? nothing, it's just typing. but you're so fundamentally assblasted at my ability to type whatever i want that you'd gladly give up your own power of expressu just to shut me up. that's nuts, and yet a leading mentality in the west today: an envy-based hope for tyranny that you will gladly endure as long as your neighbor also suffers

[Anonymous No.23255539]

>>23255502
>what i do mind is people talking about their bodies lusting after cock and specific descriptions
Then frankly you should do intensive research before you read anything or just stop reading books, in the storytelling arts you will encounter things you don't like, they're not gonna start putting warnings on the covers for everything that might potentially offend someone.

[Anonymous No.23255541]

>>23255502
>i don't mind reading about people that just happen to be fags, what i do mind is people talking about their bodies lusting after cock
so stop reading it you incredible crybaby faggot. what do you want, for the whole world to avoid mentioning whatever gives you the "ick"? tranny mentality, i hope you kill yourself

[Anonymous No.23255598]

Oh wow! Yet another pedo thread! I LOVE THIS WEBSITE!!!!

[Anonymous No.23255623]

>>23255530
>the sexy child sucked a cock and liked it
>this is perfectly okay and allowed because freedom
so then cunnyposting should NOT be banned on 4chan?
what is the argument for this?
if no children are harmed then it's okay?
so what about self-recorded underaged pornography?
am i restricting your freedom by implying that this should be banned as well?
(which isn't even my argument but if that's the strawman that makes you feel better about your shitty argument then more power to you)
>>23255539
>>23255541
>you have to be a faggot in order to read books
holy fuck, you guys have such shit arguments
i can't read books now because i don't want to know what it's like to suck a cock?
>>23255598
>pedo thread
isn't this a pedo website?

[Anonymous No.23255984]

>>23252068
it's quite ironic that for a board that primarily fawns over philosophy and considers themselves a sophisticated lot, based on the single merit of reading books (whether this is true or false, and i am beginning to doubt the validity of this) the majority here seem to imply that the ONLY way you can "warn" people of the content within a book is to explicitly state it

i believe that says more about the lack of intelligence found on this board than it does about me
especially since i've been able to successfully counter each claim with logic, which is something that is severely lacking in all the responses to my posts

an example of such a "warning" would be preferred in implication so that it does not ruin the reading experience
saying "TRIGGER WARNING" is cringe and a turn off, and there are more subtle and intelligent ways to imply what is written ahead than explicitly stating it (i am now realizing that the majority of /lit/ users NEED this blatant warning, else their feeble minds would be unable to notice the subtlety--though personally blatant--in the example i will provide ahead)

one such example would be another man saying:
>"my eyes moved down to his cherry-coloured lips and immediately the words that came out from it became inaudible"
or
>"my hands trembled as i imagined them running across his bare chest"
it doesn't have to be this blatant but there are ways that faggots see the world that is entirely different from how normal people see it, which can be made clear through the text itself
throwing in faggotry out of nowhere with no clear indication of it beforehand is quite underhanded and unappreciated (as my OP was indicating)

if it makes me such a horrible person to dislike faggots and their artistic expressions, then so be it
i will not kneel to such degeneracy just because a bunch of HIV-ridden hands are unable to resist projecting their suicidal fantasies towards me
however, i WILL continue to point out your degenerate behavior so that the entire world knows that it is not normal; you are not normal and you never will be
take your own advice and with it, your own life

[Anonymous No.23257258]

>>23255502
>the child actually liked
you be surprised how many children like sex with older men and only say they dont because the media says its bad
>>23255530
>the sexy child sucked a cock and liked it
would read

[Anonymous No.23258584]

>>23257258
kys

[Anonymous No.23258900]

>>23253504
you sound like you started reading last year and think you're deep as fuck because of it

>>23252068
Imagine being such a little bitch reading about some fag ruins your day kek grow the fuck up OP or go back to reading your safezone yuri smut

[Anonymous No.23258908]

>>23255453
Do you seriously think people are pedos just for writing about it?
What about corey white's memoirs where he goes into detail about his childhood with addiction, foster homes and being molested by his uncle. Does him talking about that experience make him a pedophile? obviously no, so what difference is it if someone writes it in fantasy to provoke emotions from the reader. Making a character a pedo is a great way to make them unlikable real fucking quick or to complicate an otherwise good character to curveball the reader

[Anonymous No.23258951]

>>23252068
I used to read The Vampire Chronicles by Anne Rice until it turned out they were a bunch of dicksucking faggots.

[Anonymous No.23258962]

>>23255984
>>"my eyes moved down to his cherry-coloured lips and immediately the words that came out from it became inaudible"
>or
>>"my hands trembled as i imagined them running across his bare chest"
How much heavier was your breathing while you were typing these

[Anonymous No.23259007]

>>23258908
If you think that any part of my post said you can't write about certain characters then anything else I write would be a waste as you clearly skim posts rather than actually reading them.