/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23265601]

When exactly did liberals hijack literature? I understand that all art movements have always been left leaning, particuarly in regards to socialism (many great writers were pro-socialism) and freedom of speech; although in recent decades it seems almost as if liberals are weaponising literature against non-liberals, censoring texts they don't agree with and trying to tarnish every writer's legacy who wasn't aware of the modern sensibilities in the past (for example, even socialist loving Orwell was subject to this), and some anons have even said they've been treated weirdly to passive aggressively for purchasing writers with right-wing leanings; all whilst they lord over this kind of moral superiority, exclaiming it's right-winger who are censoring literature and using examples of no longer banned books that, yes, were banned by a conservative American government, but fail to represent all the right-wing works that are still heavily censored/banned around the world.
Was this just a natural development from the liberal sympathies of the 20th century spouting into liberal extremism, or is there some other reason as to why this violent shift occured? All "radical" bookshops that encourage "debate" only encourage liberal ideas and it seems as if you can't go into a franchised bookshop no more without being subjected to transgender authors or pop-sociology books regarding white suprmacy. Does anyone else think liberals have started gatekeeping literature?

[Anonymous No.23265690]

>>23265601
>Was this just a natural development from the liberal sympathies of the 20th century spouting into liberal extremism
This. You'll notice that everything is a result of liberalism naturally developing. There's no end to liberalism, and hence it gets more and more extreme as time goes on. Liberals have always treated the arts like a little clubhouse yet have no real interest in anything artistic outside of its aesthetic value. All the liberal books you mentioned that talk about white supremacy may be brought in bundles from bookstores, but I'd wager to say that they sit largely unread on the bookshelf in some studio apartment.

[Anonymous No.23265697]

>>23265601
>When exactly did liberals hijack literature?
Literature has always been liberal, it's a fundamentally bourgeois art form.

[Anonymous No.23265720]

There are no such things as debates anymore, only struggle sessions

[Anonymous No.23265726]

>>23265601
>all art movements have been left wing
>mfw

[Anonymous No.23265736]

Liberals always preach freedom and tolerance when they are not in power and once they get in power they throw all these ideas away

[Anonymous No.23265762]

>>23265601
>I understand that all art movements have always been left leaning
>always
You mean the last 80 years by that?

[Anonymous No.23265800]

>>23265601
>were banned by a conservative American government
As far as I'm aware, the American government has never banned a book. You're referring to elementary school libraries removing these books from their shelves.

[Anonymous No.23265814]

>>23265601
>banned books
>all were published in living memory and haven been consistently available for purchase
What did they mean by this?

[Anonymous No.23265818]

>>23265800
Cope, writers like Henry Miller and Burroughs were banned by American governments. As well as books that preached pro-socialist sentiments, such as the work of Orwell.

[Anonymous No.23265819]

>>23265814
>adult toy table is in the middle of the children's books section

[Anonymous No.23265820]

>>23265814
America is actually a joke. How is this legal?

[Anonymous No.23265822]

>>23265818
No they weren't. It was never illegal to own those books.

[Anonymous No.23265831]

>>23265818
Not really. You could always purchase copies of their work and censorship was mostly geared towards pornography produced not for art but for the explicit purpose of gooning.

Anyway, local censors were onto something when it came to banning the beats (as evidence by pic-related of Allen Ginsberg reading a smut poem at a pedophile conference).

[Anonymous No.23265839]

>>23265819
>>23265820

[Anonymous No.23265849]

>>23265822
>banned from being imported into the United States
>wtf that doesn't mean it's illegal to own
Are you genuinely retarded? If you import weed from California into a non-legal state it's legal to own it in that state. Just because there's no huge legal enforcement about possessing the book doesn't mean it's still legal to own.
Also, books like The Anarchist Cookbook aren't illegal to own exactly, although the possession of the book has led to heftier sentences under terrorism laws, which is still fucked and probably worse than it being straight up illegal.

[Anonymous No.23265850]

>>23265849
illegal*

[Anonymous No.23265855]

>>23265849
>Just because there's no huge legal enforcement about possessing the book doesn't mean it's still legal to own.
If laws aren't enforced they're meaningless, anon. That's why you should take libtards doing everything they can to criminalize online speech while using the power of government to monopolize information flow seriously. Real censorship isn't putting books on lists, real censorship is invisible.

[Anonymous No.23265857]

>>23265849
Name one book it is illegal to own or purchase in the United States in 2024. CP doesn't count.

[Anonymous No.23265859]

>>23265857
>doesn't understand past-tense
Get off a literature board, retard

[Anonymous No.23265861]

>>23265849
>get caught plotting terrorist plot
>own book called Anarchist Cookbook
>get sentences for plotting terrorism
>(You) conclude he was sentenced for owning a book
RETARD.

[Anonymous No.23265868]

>>23265859
>there aren't any
Ok, then shut the fuck up and talk about actual censorship instead of buying into marketing bullshit (BUY THESE HECKIN' BANNED BOOKS!!!!).

[Anonymous No.23265874]

>>23265861
https://theintercept.com/2017/10/28/josh-walker-anarchist-cookbook-terrorism-act-uk/
Thread started off as a discouragment of liberal gatekeeping but you retards have actually made me realise you're all as retarded. Thanks.
>in4 he went to Syria to fight so suffered the reprucussions
He was fighting the "bad guys", you don't see this happening to people fighting for Ukraine. FFace it, they threw the book at him (pun intended)

[Anonymous No.23265884]

>>23265868
>misunderstanding the point of the thread becuase of /pol/brainrot
Makes sense. I was trying to have a discussion about the overall gatekeeping of liberals in literature but you retards start sperging out after a slight mention of (past) conservative censorship and derail the thread over a literal non-issue that was a passing comment. Retards

[Anonymous No.23265885]

>>23265601
There was a nice set of children's books I almost bought for my neice as a Christmas present. However, it contained "And Tango Makes Three" so I bought her a set of Little Miss books instead.

[Anonymous No.23265897]

>>23265874
>UK
HahahahhahahahahhahahahahHaha. Nice goal post move.

[Anonymous No.23265906]

>>23265874
>UK
>found uanimously not guilty
Bro, what are you even trying to prove?

[Anonymous No.23265915]

Literature is cooked not just by libs, but by women.

[Anonymous No.23265920]

>liberals
>left
Wtf do Americans mean by this

[Anonymous No.23266013]

>>23265601
Let's be real. We all know what this thread is about. You are just mad that you can't buy David Duke books on Amazon or at Barnes and Noble and instead have to buy them on David Duke's website. Grow up. The free market economy has dictated that fringe neo-nazi books are not profitable to shelve in bookstores. Grow up. That's not censorship or socialism or communism. That's CAPITALISM.

[Anonymous No.23266047]

>>23265601
I feel half of these reasons are made up

[Anonymous No.23266053]

>>23265920
>Politics in a different nation are le different???
You have to be 18 to post here

[Anonymous No.23266059]

>>23266013
I think they're just unheard of desu David Duke isn't a household name. I think most college libraries don't really gaf even my college has a copy of Mein Kampf

[Anonymous No.23266070]

>>23266013
E. Michael Jones books used to sell a lot in Amazon before they decided to ban him

[Anonymous No.23266082]

>>23266013
>another retarded commie who does not understand free markets and capitalism

[Anonymous No.23266109]

>>23265884
>my messaging was off because my opinions are half-baked
>BUT IT'S /POL/'S FAULT
Lol

[Anonymous No.23266120]

>>23266082
>NOOOO WHAT DO YOU MEAN NOBODY IS BUYING MY NEO NAZI BOOKS SO YOU DECIDED TO STOP STOCKING THEM NOOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T DO THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD FORCE YOU TO STOCK THEM THAT WOULD BE A REAL FREE MARKET ECONOMY

[Anonymous No.23266123]

>>23265601
yes the libtards are gatekeeping literature

[Anonymous No.23266124]

>>23266013
[Corporate overlords collude with government to amplify/deamplify information]
>IT'S BAD INFORMATION AS DECIDED BY THE FREE MARKET

[Anonymous No.23266126]

>>23266070
But you can still buy them directly from his website or the publisher.

[Anonymous No.23266127]

>>23266124
>NOOO I HAVE TO GO TO A DIFFERENT MARKET PLACE TO BUY MY BOOKS
>THIS IS CENSORSHIP!

[Anonymous No.23266128]

there is one topic both parties in congress magically have consensus on. its also the topic that is most readily banned on all these platforms. if you talk about this topic they can make it so you are unable to have a bank account

[Anonymous No.23266130]

>>23266127
[Corporate overlords collude with government to amplify/deamplify information]
>THEY HAVE OUR BEST INTERESTS AT HEART

[Anonymous No.23266146]

>>23266128
What topic? The Talmudic question or are you referencing something else?

[Anonymous No.23266161]

>>23266130
>private entities don't like propagating nazi garbage, so they don't sell it because it would harm their bottom line
>AHHHHHH LITERALLY 1984 MUH FREEZE PEACH

[Anonymous No.23266173]

>>23265601
>A Wrinkle in Time
>opposing Christian beliefs
???

[Anonymous No.23266178]

>>23265874
The Kurds are anarchist terrorists and the US should help the Turks finish them off. Anyone who fights for them should be arrested.

[Anonymous No.23266205]

>>23265601
So if poltards owned a bookstore they should be forced to sell troon and pro black books? Why aren’t right wing publishers selling troon and pro black books?

A: because you choose what you want to sell

[Anonymous No.23266219]

>>23266205
NOOOOO YOU DONT UNDERSTAND RIGHT WING PUBLISHERS ARE SELLING TO A NICHE AUDIENCE SO IT IS OK FOR THEM TO SELECTIVELY CHOOSE THEIR CATALOG BUT AMAZON IS FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC THEY CANT CHOOSE THEIR CATALOG YOU LITERALLY DONT GET IT THEY SHOULD BE FORCED TO SUPPLY OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS AND BEFORE YOU ASK NO IT IS NOT OK FOR LEFT LEANING BOOK STORES TO SELECTIVELY CHOOSE THEIR CATALOG ONLY RIGHT WINGERS GET THIS PRIVELEGE

[Anonymous No.23266231]

>>23266120
>>23266127
>>23266161
Calm down and try not to talk like a complete fucktard

[Anonymous No.23266235]

>>23265601
The vast majority of educated people were, are and always will be what you mean by "liberal" and "left-wing" when compared to the norms and standards of their time. Conservatives and right-wingers are fundamentally xenophobic because they are afraid of intellectual challenge and the possibility of being wrong. It is 99% the result of simple ignorance. An education has always been the most-effective tool at dispelling it, and always will be.

[Anonymous No.23266238]

>>23266205
>>23266219
>le epic gotcha

[Anonymous No.23266239]

>>23266235
and men can be pregnant, also

[Anonymous No.23266246]

>>23266235
Ironically most "educated" people are the biggest conformists and most oversocialized people
Kaczynski was right when he said they are out of touch with reality

>they are afraid of intellectual challenge and the possibility of being wrong
Holy shit the irony in this post

[Anonymous No.23266253]

>>23266235
The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.

Thomas Sowell

[Anonymous No.23266255]

>>23265601
>all art movements have been left leaning
Ignorant take. Art has only become associated with the left in recent decades, perhaps since 1945. Before that, art was mostly the product of religious expression.

[Anonymous No.23266257]

>>23266239
>>23266246
>>23266253
If you want to understand the answer to OP's question, I provided it to you. If you want to rant and recite bumper-sticker slogans then that's ok. But I don't care.

[Anonymous No.23266264]

>>23265814
Ah yes, back-to-school vibrators. Perfect for my 1-year-old son as they explores her pan-anarcho-sexual identity.

[Anonymous No.23266267]

>>23266257
but thats not the answer the answer is ideas are being censored by the left who is in power. they are not censored because they are incorrect, its because they want to suppress discussion of certain ideas, because it challenges their power

[Anonymous No.23266271]

>>23266219
I’m always unsure if anons here realize that Amazon is a company. They can choose their image and who they cater to as they wish. This isn’t a communistic economy where a company is forced to sell certain products and cater to everyone.

If a 7/11 or corner store wants to sell crack pipes with roses and chore in them that is their choice. Some places won’t want to sell them because they don’t want crackheads buying from them. Is it fair for the crackheads? Maybe not but there are other corner stores. As a store or company you have an image and a clientele you cater to. That many anons don’t realize this tells me they have no business sense

[Anonymous No.23266275]

Libertarians and classical liberals really need to understand the leftists will always use freedom of speech to gain power and silence their opponents
That's why absolute freedom is not possibille

[Anonymous No.23266277]

>>23266257
You didn't even try to refute what I said
Stay in your ignorant bubble

[Anonymous No.23266286]

>>23266267
You aren't being censored. You're being ignored. Those are different things.

[Anonymous No.23266288]

>>23265601
>I was banned for...

[Anonymous No.23266290]

>>23266277
Correct: I do not owe you anything. No one else does either. It's up to you to educate yourself. I'm not your social studies teacher and I don't care whether you're the child who was left behind.

[Anonymous No.23266295]

>>23265920
Current liberals have much more common with communists than liberals of the past

They worship the state and the illusion of equality is more important to them than freedom and meritocracy

[Anonymous No.23266302]

>>23266286
>You aren't being censored. You're being ignored
Tell that to people who lost access to bank accounts for their opinions
You are just straight up gaslighting now

[Anonymous No.23266309]

>>23266290
Typical ivory tower libtard
Keep pretending you are smarter than others when you have no understanding of the real world

[Anonymous No.23266312]

>>23265601
its just evidence they have too much power and dont deserve the power they have. they need to give some up

[Anonymous No.23266314]

>>23266161
[Corporate overlords collude with government to amplify/deamplify information]
>THEY ARE PROTECTING US FROM NAZIS...WE ARE THE RESISTANCE
Lol

[Anonymous No.23266318]

>>23265601
>why aren't the normies who read memoirs and genrefics chuds and neocons
what a great question OP
if you want chud/lit/, go to the current events section and find some neocon retard who claims that liberals are le true racists and fascists.

[Anonymous No.23266326]

Is it just me or has /leftypol/ been raiding this board lately?

>>23266318
Go back to your breadtube circlejerk where you can pretend trannies are the resistance fighting the system and white people are evil oppressors

[Anonymous No.23266328]

>>23266302
Sorry are you claiming that all laws are inherently liberal/left-wing and no one thinks they are or can be unjust?

Because that'd be a really stupid and baseless claim.

[Anonymous No.23266339]

>>23266314
You…you do realize Amazon is a company don’t you? And that companies can target whatever sector of the market they want? Oh noes, you have to wait a week or two instead of 2 days in order to buy a far right book!!

[Anonymous No.23266343]

>>23266328
Leftists like you are literally promoting two tier justice where your side can riot and loot without consequences while the right gets punished for the smallest offense

I'm seriously fucking sick of people like you who can't be honest and argue in good faith

[Anonymous No.23266346]

>>23266326
>Don't disagree with me in my safe-space!
>You guys just circle-jerk!
I mean would a little self-awareness really be THAT painful, for you?

[Anonymous No.23266352]

>>23266343
Oh no, anon! Please don't be sick of me! I thought we were such good friends when you made up laws and then pretended that I support them.

[Anonymous No.23266358]

>>23266339
>>23266346
You clearly type like an outsider, why do you pretend you belong here?

[Anonymous No.23266359]

>>23266352
Thanks for proving my point

[Anonymous No.23266361]

>>23266358
You're responding to two entirely different people. You're the claiming that this is your super-secret circle-jerk, anon. I've been on here long before you became a college sophmore and read Ayn Rand for the first time.

[Anonymous No.23266369]

>>23266235
Go back/good bait

[Anonymous No.23266374]

>>23266361
had you transitioned at that time

[Anonymous No.23266375]

>>23266369
Facts don't care about your memes.

[Anonymous No.23266376]

>>23266361
>You're the claiming that this is your super-secret circle-jerk
You are not gonna get banned for spouting your leftist drivel here so that's a false equivalence

>I've been on here long before you became a college sophmore and read Ayn Rand for the first time
And you still haven't grown up mentally, sad

[Anonymous No.23266385]

>>23266235
What you people call xenophobic is just a natural instinct to preserve culture and in group preference

[Anonymous No.23266386]

>>23266358
Been here since 14 and have probably read more than you

Anyway, 4chan isn’t some monolithic collective but comprised of individuals. Sorry it isn’t the echo chamber you’d hope for

[Anonymous No.23266388]

>>23266326
>"how dare people have different opinions! MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODS"
shut the fuck up faggot, go back to complaining that barnes and noble doesn't carry the turner diaries like the drooling single chromosome retard that you are.

[Anonymous No.23266398]

>>23266361
>>23266386
>>23266388
Lmao You will pretend to support free speech when it suits you here and then in your reddit/discord/Twitter echo chamber you will ban anyone with opposing thought
Nice double standard you got there

[Anonymous No.23266405]

>>23266398
Sorry are we on twitter? Discord? Reddit? Did I somehow go to a different website and not notice?

Nope: looks like I'm still on 4chan. I'm not responsible for why you get banned in other places but, pro-tip? People probably wouldn't do that as often if you weren't such an asshole.

[Anonymous No.23266406]

>>23266388
Shouldn't you be bitching about Elon Musk on twitter?

[Anonymous No.23266410]

They’re not liberals. They’re progressives. The left-wing take over of literature was made possible by the creation progressive era and the victory of progressivism through the 20th century. The takeover of literature publishing is closely related to the takeover of media companies and universities. In some sense, they’ve always been progressive. They are just more openly insane about it because a century on and they’ve had total victory. Every institution in America is progressive. No exceptions. Small organizations like businesses that choose to not be progressive somehow due so at the risk of brushing up against the law and losing both tax savings and investment opportunities.

[Anonymous No.23266412]

>>23266405
Lol you are not even denying it
You and your people want to subvert 4chan because it's one of the only sites that hasn't been taken over by your woke cult

It's really interesting how the less pro free speech a site is the more leftist it becomes

[Anonymous No.23266413]

>>23266398
you're replying to multiple people, you dumbass niggerfaggot.
keep crying that blue-haired commie librarians don't include the protocols of zion in their banned books list
>>23266406
shouldn't you be reading

[Anonymous No.23266416]

>>23266410
This
60s civil rights era was the beginning of the cultural revolution

[Anonymous No.23266419]

>>23266205
Why not? They're already forcing bakers to make shit for gay weddings aren't they?

[Anonymous No.23266423]

>>23266412
"Me and my people?" Your delusions of persecution are ridiculous, anon. I don't like you. Lots of people don't like you. Instead of convincing yourself that it's a mass conspiracy to persecute you, try this: consider what it is about you that so many people say that they dislike, and really put some thought into whether or not you should change.

[Anonymous No.23266422]

>>23266413
>multiple people
The fact that your opinions are exactly the same just proves you are NPCs with no critical thought

[Anonymous No.23266429]

>>23266413
Keep crying that public schools don't allow books about trannies and sodomy

[Anonymous No.23266437]

>>23266398
My motive is that I’m more tired of /lit/ becoming /pol/ and no one reading. That you can’t understand that Amazon is a company and will cater to who they wish, and sell what they want, and have the image they want is my point. If you don’t understand that then idk. Imperial Press exists. These far right books aren’t banned or censored, companies just choose not to sell them because they don’t want to promote that stuff. You are crying because Amazon isn’t selling what you want them to sell but it’s their choice

[Anonymous No.23266440]

>>23266423
>I don't like you. Lots of people don't like you
That can be said about woke lunatics like you, no one outside of your bubble believes in your progressive bullshit

>Instead of convincing yourself that it's a mass conspiracy to persecute you, try this: consider what it is about you that so many people say that they dislike, and really put some thought into whether or not you should change.
>my opinions are correct and you are stupid it is you who needs to change because I says so
Holy shit your lack of self awareness is astounding

I have really noticed over the years that leftists like you are extremely one sided and never ever call out their own side, you are truly incapable of self critique and self reflection

[Anonymous No.23266445]

>>23266416
I mean, even the civil rights era was made possible by the progressive victory in the world wars and the subsequent court decisions, like the wall of separation of 1947. It’s become something of a meme on the right to speak to the fact that right wing politics was made literally illegal between 1945 and 2015, but it’s true. If you’re a publisher, you’re heavily subject to the law. Why would you publish someone who for example opposes civil rights law, opposes legal gay marriage, or supports state religion? You wouldn’t. You open yourself up to a whole litany of lawsuits. Meanwhile, you literally get tax incentives and investor funds for being “women-owned”, “black-owned”. So yo have on one hand the active take over of these institutions as lefties proliferated in them, but you also had the negative deprivation of alternative views per the law. Not to mention that American conservatives are more interested in Fox News and Duck Dynasty than book publishing…

The left has totally won in this country in ways that people are just now waking up to. They dominate the politics of every city, most institutions, the courts, the prosecutors’ offices, the legislatures and executives of most of the important states, the universities, everything. They literally won and made their opponent’s views illegal. No institution touches right wing politics with a 10 foot pole. That’s why all you get are Ben Shapiro and Glen Becks and books about the Founding Fathers from this or that grifting Texas Senator. The right lost. You’re living through something not that unlike the Soviet Union.

[Anonymous No.23266450]

>>23266422
anon, leftists infight over dumbass minutiae and idpol all day
meanwhile /po/fags are either libertarians with no meaningful politics (besides the 1% who actually bother to read mises et al) or natsocs that get all of their politics from shitposting retards.

[Anonymous No.23266451]

>>23266339
>PRIVATE COMPANIES CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT
>BUT THEIR INTERESTS ARE THE SAME AS THEIR CUSTOMERS
Holy shit you're dumb. You're regurgitating the arguments used to justify social media censorship before Elon took over Twitter.

Side note, did you know that there was a book about the Trucker Protests in Canada that was selling really well but chain bookstores denied it physical shelf-space because it, again despite selling well, wasn't of interest to customers?

[Anonymous No.23266452]

>>23266437
It's always funny how commies defend private companies and say what they want even if they have ties to the government

[Anonymous No.23266457]

>>23266445
>The left has totally won in this country in ways that people are just now waking up to
I know but people are still denying it here so they pretend that America is one election away from becoming fascist

[Anonymous No.23266460]

>>23266452
How am I a commie or is this the usual strawman an anon who disagrees with you?

[Anonymous No.23266465]

>>23266451
They can stock and sell what they want. End of discussion

[Anonymous No.23266466]

>>23266440
>I have really noticed over the years that leftists like you are extremely one sided and never ever call out their own side
holy shit you are a magnificent retard if you've never heard of commies and '''anarchists''' bitching about each other
you are no better than leftists who get all their knowledge of /pol/fags only from other leftists

[Anonymous No.23266468]

>>23266451
just recognize that books and media are truly influential and matter, i guess. at least we can realize this!!!

[Anonymous No.23266471]

>>23266460
You are the one bitching about /pol/ and how this place is becoming too right wing

[Anonymous No.23266474]

>>23266471
So is this a world where one is either a tranny commie or a chud? Whatever happened to nuance?

[Anonymous No.23266475]

>>23266450
>leftists infight over dumbass minutiae and idpol all day
Bullshit there is much more infighting on the right which is why they can't do anything while the left is united in their hatred for traditional right wing values and white people

[Anonymous No.23266477]

>>23266457
It is fascist. It’s just lefty fascist. Fascism as we tend to speak about it is nothing more than when one party wins. The progressive Democratic Party won. They sort of allow the Republican Party to hang out and push classical liberalism and progressive politics from between Reconstruction and Civil Rights just to give the illusion of opposition. It’s rather one election away from being openly fascist, lefty fascist.

[Anonymous No.23266478]

>>23265601
there should be absolute freedom of speech at amazon, barnes and noble, and also all social media platforms

[Anonymous No.23266480]

>>23266474
>Whatever happened to nuance?
It died when media started calling everyone to the right of Clintons a fascist

[Anonymous No.23266483]

>>23266440
You've noticed that, have you? Because of all the time you spend engaging with "leftists like me" on reddit and twitter and wherever else you wanna accuse me of being "from" that I should "go back to?"

The truth is that there's a massive diversity of opinions and values and beliefs among the group you think are "leftists." That inclusion is sorta our defining trait. And we disagree with one another non-stop. It's that we're just all on the same page about hating you, anon.

[Anonymous No.23266485]

>>23266437
>My motive is that I’m more tired of /lit/ becoming /pol/ and no one reading
In most cases people saying that attribute all opinions they don't like to /pol/ and would be better suited to Reddit.

[Anonymous No.23266487]

>>23266477
That's why I have much more faith in outside force changing something than the Republicans who are completely useless

[Anonymous No.23266490]

>>23266465
>NOOOO CENSORSHIP DOESN'T EXIST
It does.
>THEYRE PROTECTING US
They're not.
>THERE CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT
At least you admitted you're a fascist.

[Anonymous No.23266493]

>>23266475
they both do that shit you dumbass
90% of the population are braindrooling retards who get all their politics from CNN/fox meanwhile 10% shitpost online and do nothing while bitching about ideologies that are unattainable because they are so entranced by hypothetical utopias like commie shithole or ethnostate shithole instead of organizing
surprise but commies and /pol/fags have unproductive politics because they focus too much on some hypothetical magicland in their heads where either all the capitalists or the niggerjews are gone instead of doing anything about it.
politics is controlled by people who think SNL is funny because they work all day instead of spending their time on imageboards and jacking off.

[Anonymous No.23266495]

>>23266478
But then Amazon, B&N, and social media all lose their freedom. They were created by someone and are ran by someone. Should you not be allowed to take you creation and business in the direction you want it to go in? If that’s the case then you think Imperial Press should have to sell Black Baby or Troon Daddy or whatever. Can’t have target markets or audiences. One must cater to everyone and do as the communist government wants us to do

[Anonymous No.23266498]

>>23266478
I agree that corporate censorship is too rampant nowadays but it's stupid to expect private companies to allow all opinions to be shared equally. Why would any sane billionaire want a bunch of chuds denying the holocaust when their jewish investors at Black Rock are keeping them finacially afloat?

[Anonymous No.23266504]

>>23266493
>politics is controlled by people
Politics is controlled by money. And the people in control only care about making more money. Laws do not and never have applied to them. Left, right, liberal, conservative, democrat, republican... the rich care about money. Neither of the "sides" in the culture wars mean a god damn thing to the people at the top, except that they might be able to sell you something because they printed a slogan on it.

[Anonymous No.23266505]

>>23266495
I get your point but I believe when you are beyond a certain size and are a public company and are a platform for distributing information you should not be able to censor

[Anonymous No.23266510]

Can we just agree that neither side actually supports freedom of speech and they only want it as long as it benefits them? They will pretend to support it when it suits them and once they gain power they crush their opposition.

The whole idea of free market of ideas is cute but does not work in the real world.

[Anonymous No.23266511]

>>23266487
What do you mean by outside force? Like a foreign nation?

[Anonymous No.23266513]

>>23266498
well the holocaust is probably exaggerated precisely because there is this kind of censorship that prevents scrutiny of certain people who are in power. thats sort of an example of why censorship is harmful

[Anonymous No.23266514]

>>23266504
>Politics is controlled by money
Bluepilled take
Politicians do not care about money when they can just print them

[Anonymous No.23266518]

>>23266505
So if you are super successful you should lose your vision and not take your creation/business in the direction that made it super successful in the first place?

[Anonymous No.23266519]

>>23266511
like a non political party force. there are ways to acquire and exert power outside of political parties and voting, which are clearly coopted

[Anonymous No.23266520]

>>23266511
Yes

[Anonymous No.23266521]

>>23266510
you are correct.
leftists would just ban anything antisemtic, antiSJW, and antigay.
rightists would just ban anything semitic, SJW, and gay.

[Anonymous No.23266524]

>>23266514
They aren't a monolith. Their competition is with each other. They cannot simply "print money." That's extremely not how it works. Money represents leverage over labor. You want it to be a conspiratorial cabal who runs the world because it's too complex for you to understand, otherwise.

[Anonymous No.23266525]

>>23266518
its just the first amendment is an inalienable right of American people, and if you have a near monopolistic grip on a platform that disseminates information, you infringe on that right. so if you have a platform that is a public company and over a certain size you should not be able to censor

[Anonymous No.23266536]

>>23266525
>its just the first amendment is an inalienable right of American people, and if you have a near monopolistic grip on a platform that disseminates information, you infringe on that right
You are correct, but not for the reason you think.

The solution isn't the government mandating that site moderators let any speech stay in place. It's that the government enforce anti-trust laws that are already on the books. And it cannot happen because the monopolies are the ones that determine who gets elected to run the government. And the reason that the monopolies have that power, in the USA, is because of citizens united. And the direct cause of citizens united was the appointment of ultra-conservative judges during the Bush presidency, and their "grass-roots" support that was bought and paid for by the Koch brothers. There actually was a genuine conspiracy at work, here. In fact it's incredibly well documented, if you're interested.

[Anonymous No.23266542]

>>23266536
I agree with all that but i also think platforms should not be allowed to censor people

[Anonymous No.23266546]

>>23265601
>were banned by a conservative American government,
literally never happened

[Anonymous No.23266553]

>>23266524
>Their competition is with each other
They have no real competition, USA is controlled by the uniparty
>They cannot simply "print money." That's extremely not how it works. Money represents leverage over labor
That's basically what MMT says, US can print as much as they want because they are the reserve currency

[Anonymous No.23266555]

>>23266542
You're wrong. They should be. And you actually agree. If Starbucks has a bulletin board in their cafe, do you have the right to cover it in nothing but political slogans supporting your candidate? If a gas station has a window, should you be allowed to spray paint "Adolf Hitler for President" and it's illegal for the gas station owner to remove your artistic masterpiece? Unless you believe those idiotic and ridiculously hyperbolic examples, you absolutely believe that owners of a platform should be allowed to censor the speech made on their platform.

[Anonymous No.23266557]

>>23266525
But Amazon doesn’t have a tight grip on the market, they are just the most successful. If I want a fishing rod, I don’t have to buy it from Amazon. If I want a book I don’t have to buy it from Amazon. There are other options out there. Plenty of them. Just because Amazon is super successful doesn’t mean it ceases to be a business. It is run by people and the people have the right to decide the vision of the business. They can sell what they want to sell. It is theirs. They own it or created it. Just because Amazon doesn’t sell a book doesn’t mean it is banned or censored. Imperial Press doesn’t sell classic titles like Penguin. They aren’t censoring those classic titles. If Penguin wanted to publish far right books that is their right. They don’t, that is also their right.

The internet and marketplace is more than Amazon. In fact there are many things I can’t get on Amazon

[Anonymous No.23266561]

>>23266519
>>23266520
In my opinion, this all ends in war abroad and civil war, probably lasting decades or more. We are clearly entering a sort of cold civil war as we speak. But it’s important to understand what I mean when I say that. People tend to think that civil wars look like most people and average Joes participating in fighting. Generally, that’s not what civil wars look like. Civil wars look like politicians, soldiers, police, and sometimes government workers fighting while the rest of the population either chooses a side or just tries to go about a normal life. And while that happens, foreign powers throw their lot in with this side or the other. So foreign involvement is almost a certainty, but I don’t see any situation where foreign nation sort of conquers the United States and redesigns it post-war Germany style. That’s certainly a possibility for Western Europe, but not the United States. But I could totally see like Russia reorganizing a disintegrating EU after some conflict across the continent. That’s very possible, and people who think it isn’t are naive.

[Anonymous No.23266564]

>>23266555
I think if starbucks was a company for pushing information like amazon, meta, google, they should be. but they're primarily coffee.
I think this would only apply for platforms, and only very large ones, where them censoring definitely is affecting first amendment rights. its different than small business cake shops, etc. its a platform thats a vital part of the country's discourse

[Anonymous No.23266566]

>>23266557
That's not what a monopoly is. A monopoly is when one business has control to suppress other businesses offering the same goods or service. Amazon can set prices because it can afford the losses. If Dave & Bill's Fish Bonanza sells the Fish-Slaughterer 3000 for $200, Amazon can offer it for $150 and put Dave and Bill out of business, then jack the price up once Dave and Bill go under. That's what makes something a monopoly. And Amazon does this, all the time. Their entire Amazon Basic line of business is a specific model that exists solely to do this. They force their competitors out of business, purchase the manufacturing resources when the competitor goes under, and sell the product for a slight mark-up once the competitor has been defeated.

[Anonymous No.23266570]

>>23266557
I think even if they arent an absolute monopoly, if they are large enough (just use definition of a company that is so large they are required to go public) and are a platform they should not be able to censor

[Anonymous No.23266572]

>>23266561
>But I could totally see like Russia reorganizing a disintegrating EU after some conflict across the continent
Like the Ukraine war?

[Anonymous No.23266576]

>>23266525
>amazon becomes big enough that it HAS to keep whatever bullshit on it
>someone can upload copious amounts of cp, taking up whatever remaining storage they had
>they have to keep it on there because some retard thought free speech absolutism is a good idea

[Anonymous No.23266577]

>>23266275
>That's why absolute freedom is not possibille under any form of government
ftfy

[Anonymous No.23266587]

>>23266576
I get your point but they are using their power to suppress opposing ideological viewpoints and that shouldn't be allowed for platforms

[Anonymous No.23266592]

atheists have been pushing the intellectual hype since their meme of enlightenment, hence why according to them all the poor should go to college
atheists have no critical thinking so they think if they dont understand something, it means it's deep and true, and they just parrot the dumb down version of the thing over and over (think of Kant and Hegel, ie The german question).
This was all academics before 2012, but in 2012 occupywall street happened and it's the first time that socialists knew they have a better market to tap than the proletariat after the commies killed themselves (and thus leaving socialists standing like morons, since according to socialists, socialism was a bridge from the classical liberal republic by bourgeois to communism).
The market is the young yuppies educated, not in maths, but in Bullshit studies, full of money, and completely fucking lost in life, doing retarded master like psychology, who will end up in a meaningless bureaucratic job and of course those ppl will be mostly roasties. So it's the perfect recipe
-women have no critical thinking and spend their lives spreading their legs, 10 years of casual sex, then they end up pregnant, so 10 years of raising some kids, then they get bored playing the helicopter mom and they go back to the cock carousel. This makes women desperate to feel virtuous, and they will always embrace what the ruling & entertaining class is telling them (no matter what kind of society they live in)
-the intellectuals in the bourgeois republic want to secure their republic, so the poor who vote really need to think there is an alternative to classical liberalism, and that's jut new liberalism, the 2020 variant is wokeism, but the proletariat is just fucked over since the communists themselves were unmasked as just another society full of control freak atheist bureaucrats who have fuck all idea on what to do, and they heavily despise any criticism
-there is also the jewish trend of pushing for self depreciation on whatever atheists consumed, any angle of the way of life after ww2 will be shitted on
-socialists mixed that with the infatuation of the atheists for (fake) introspection
atheists fucking love ''meta'' things, like in their cartoons (atheists love to watch cartoons) so like a cartoon talking directly to the audience knowing he is a cartoon (stuff like rick an morty and so on)

[Anonymous No.23266594]

>>23266592

so there you have it, the desperate need of the atheists for public posturing, applying especially to the roasties, and huge control of the ruling class over entertainment (ie Hollywood and the academia).
The fantasy of the atheist is to mix, in their republic, 3 things
-the bureaucracy
-the education
-the entertainment
so for instance when you watch the products of Hollywood you get an education, when you get an education you become a better citizen, and when you vote you push for more education and more of Hollywood. In their minds all those 3 fields are the same

[Anonymous No.23266595]

>>23266566
Then any big company is a monopoly. A huge company can always buy in bulk get cheaper and sell cheaper. Chewy will always be able to sell cheaper than veterinarians and small pet stores. That’s just the way the world works.

I have many problems with Amazon but until they are THE ONLY option I believe they can sell what they want.

Walmart also destroys small businesses but you don’t have to shop there. They can sell what they want to sell. Maybe you want a communist government or a cap on growth. Maybe it would be better but until then we live in a capitalistic society and businesses can do as they see fit. It is their right. They are run by people and those people should have freedom and rights

[Anonymous No.23266600]

>>23266587
He's being disingenuous, anon. Learn to recognize concern trolling.

[Anonymous No.23266601]

>>23266587
i get that but that would be something impossible to actually legislate an enforce
>now amazon has to only keep anything pertaining to politics
>person again uploads petabytes of cp claiming that their ideology is that cp is good
>amazon has to keep it all again

[Anonymous No.23266603]

>>23266592
>>23266594
Is this copy
pasta

[Anonymous No.23266620]

>>23266601
they certainly shouldnt be able to censor criticism of power. thats much more harmful. its the first amendment and it was literally designed to make sure power was scrutinized

[Anonymous No.23266640]

>>23266595
A monopoly is when a single company creates an unreasonable restraint of competition in the market. That's not my definition. That's the US government's definition.

Correct: any company big enough to influence the price of an entire sector of the market is a monopoly. Our laws are specifically set up to prevent that from occurring. And we actually did a pretty good job at preventing it for a pretty long time. There were successes and failures, but we did do a decent job. That changed in the 80s and has been accelerating way beyond anyone's control since the early aughts to the point that a very small number of companies now control almost everything. It's not "the way the world works." It's the world we made, intentionally, by allowing our politicians the be owned by money. Which is the direct result of legislation that was put in place and other legislation that was repealed, to facilitate doing so.

[Anonymous No.23266641]

>>23266620
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. If someone comes into my office in my business and talks shit about my family he won’t be arrested unless he refuses to leave. I certainly have the right to tell him to leave though

[Anonymous No.23266650]

>stuff that's legal in Japan is illegal in the US
>land of the free
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.23266655]

>>23266641
maybe you just started looking but i'm talking about huge platforms like book sellers and social media companies that censor certain ideas

[Anonymous No.23266656]

>>23266595
>>23266640
By the way, your belief that it's "just the way the world works." is called Capitalist Realism. It's a charade. It's a false notion that you have been poisoned by. It is not the way the world always was. It is not the way that the world has to be. It is a specific world that specific people intentionally created, and it's hurting you.

[Anonymous No.23266664]

>>23266620
>now amazon only has to keep things that are criticisms of power
>Chuck Sneed uploads petabytes of cp with their manifesto "Why Age of Consent is bad", claiming that it's a criticism of power
>amazon now has to keep it
inb4 "okay but now it only applies to text"
>Chuck Sneed uploads his 12 petabyte manifesto of handwritten criticism of power structures
>amazon has to keep some random faggots 12 petabyte PDF on their data servers
inb4 "okay but now there's a filesize limit of less than a gig as a reasonable accomodation"
>Chuck Sneed writes a script that massuploads his 12 petabyte manifesto in individual parts, each being less than a gigabyte
>amazon has to keep it otherwise it's censorship
these absurd edgecases are why its impossible to legislate unless you have clearly definable terms, otherwise some troll faggot can abuse these to hog resources and cost companies money

[Anonymous No.23266673]

>>23266572
Well, no because that’s a different dynamic and Russia hasn’t won that war yet. It would be more like Russia doing to the EU what America did to Germany after the war. A lot would have to happen, obviously, but it’s a possibility. People have gotten far too comfortable with the sense that they’re somehow exempt from history. They’re not. Never will be. History spares nobody from tragedy. And Europe’s future is very uncertain. America’s is all but certain. It’s just certainly going to be painful.

[Anonymous No.23266758]

>>23266655
That’s akin to someone’s property. Whether one goes into your store or yard or website, you can act as you see fit including banning someone. You can say whatever you want as long as it isn’t a threat or libel and not be arrested. That doesn’t mean people have to accept what you say without consequences

[Anonymous No.23266793]

>>23266641
>Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences
That's exactly what it means you NPC
>you are free to criticize the CCP but not from the consequences

[Anonymous No.23266812]

>>23266793
If by consequences you mean jail, then yes. If by consequences you mean social repercussions then no. You don’t have to remain friends with someone or see them if they said some vile shit to you. They just won’t be arrested. They had the freedom to say that without being arrested yes, but it doesn’t mean there aren’t repercussions. If you say some offensive or edgelord shit don’t be surprised if you are ostracized and shunned

[Anonymous No.23266837]

>>23266758
>That’s akin to someone’s property.
Not when the means of dissemination are monopolized and the government steps in to ban speech, retard.

[Anonymous No.23266861]

>>23266837
Honestly you just haven't thought this through, very hard. You're a not-very-bright reactionary.

The solution to the problem isn't for governments to arbitrate how private websites moderate the content posted on them. It's for governments to enforce anti-trust statues to ensure that monopolies don't arise that have sole control over the dissemination of information.

[Anonymous No.23266865]

>>23266861
statutes. Not statues. Although I'd be down with some anti-trust statues.

[Anonymous No.23266894]

I like it when people on /lit/ talk politics. It reminds me that you people are basically redditors and that your opinions aren’t really to be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.23266956]

>>23266812
>If by consequences you mean social repercussions then no.
If JS Mill is anything to go by what it meant to be a liberal a century ago, then it's not hard to se how modern day liberals are not truly liberal. JS Mill makes it a point throughout 'on liberty' that whether it be jail or vague "social repercussions" the effect is always the same, vommonplace opinions become empty dogma and the people who believe them become incapable of actually defending them. In fact, with jailing, the perpetrators atleast go out with martyrdom. But now, the best they can do is fade into obscurity.

[Anonymous No.23266960]

>>23266861
id rather them enforce the fuckin 1st amendment

[Anonymous No.23266962]

>>23266894
your'e a retard pozzed jew tranny tho

[Anonymous No.23266968]

>>23266960
The 1st amendment is not about protecting speech on private internet forums from moderation by the forum owners. That simply is not a thing. That is not the first amendment. No such laws do nor ever have existed.

[Anonymous No.23266978]

>>23266968
i don't care about the private forums i care about the public companies running massive platforms where much of the discourse is conducted

[Anonymous No.23266985]

>>23265601
>Wizard of Oz banned because Dorothy was too strong of a woman
This shelf was made by seething rightwing /pol/tardation

[Anonymous No.23266987]

>>23266978
You're confused about what public and private mean.

[Anonymous No.23266995]

>>23266987
public company, owned by the public. large enough company that censorship meaningfully infringes on their rights

[Anonymous No.23266998]

>>23266995
A public company is not owned by the public. You are confused.

[Anonymous No.23267003]

>>23266998
Look I get what you are saying, but the 1st amendment was written to preserve rights for people against government overreach. That overreach can similarly come from massive corporations. The same rights should be protected from them, for the people, for the same reasons

[Anonymous No.23267015]

>>23265857
>Aug. 12, 2004 — Author Irwin Schiff can no longer sell his 1992 book, The Federal Mafia: How Government Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes , because it offers fraudulent advice and services to help people avoid paying income taxes, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco (9th Cir.) ruled Monday.
>Judge Procter Hug Jr. held that the book qualified as commercial speech, which is afforded fewer constitutional protections than expressive speech, because Schiff makes claims that are “designed to convince readers that they can lawfully avoid paying their income taxes so that the reader will buy other products in Schiff’s line.” The government may ban or regulate commercial speech if the speech is misleading or related to unlawful activity.

However, it's not illegal to own a copy. And it looks like there's some print on demand copies out there.

[Anonymous No.23267020]

>>23267015
>The appellate court’s ruling upheld a June 2003 preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Court Judge Lloyd D. George that prevented further sales of the book. Schiff, 76, was also ordered by George to turn over a list naming everyone who has purchased The Federal Mafia through Schiff’s Web sites or Las Vegas bookstore since 1999. The appeals court did not address the constitutionality of that order, and instead sent it back to the district court for additional consideration.

[Anonymous No.23267024]

>>23266985
>t.

[Anonymous No.23267049]

>>23266987
Counterpoint: you're too sure of yourself about what 'private' and 'public' mean

[Anonymous No.23267050]

>>23267003
So you want more government control saying what companies can or cannot sell? That seems like the opposite of “freedom”. And just lol if you consider amazon a “source of information”

[Anonymous No.23267052]

>>23267003
>Look I get what you are saying, but the 1st amendment was written to preserve rights for people against government overreach. That overreach can similarly come from massive corporations. The same rights should be protected from them, for the people, for the same reasons
You're not appealing to the first amendment when you state this. You're appealing to a belief you hold that has no legal weight. And you're ignoring the bigger point that the USA has laws in place to prevent companies from becoming monopolies in the first place. Our politicians have been bribed to ignore those laws. And THAT is the cause of the conundrum that we currently find ourselves in. A lack of enforcement of anti-trust laws that currently exist. Not a lack of new amendments governing the moderation of forums owned by private companies (private in this sense as "not owned by the government," rather than private in the business sense of "not publicly traded," because those are two very separate uses of the words "public" and "private" and they do not mean the same thing).

[Anonymous No.23267058]

>>23267050
I think you are bring wilfully obtuse. Anon clearly thinks that the govetnment should not just write antitrust legislatures but actually force media companies to not shut down some specific discourse on their platforms, which are open to the public.

[Anonymous No.23267061]

>>23266987
Aren't you the same retards always sperging about how corporations are indebted to the social order due to their connection to public infrastructure? They use telecommunications infrastructure and can't even clearly define the service they provide (i.e. it's information distribution).

[Anonymous No.23267068]

>>23267061
If you have a point? Try making that instead of telling me what you've decided I think.

[Anonymous No.23267069]

>>23267052
>>23267050
I just think the amendments in the bill of rights supercede other laws that are passed. and this first amendment in particular is vital because it is a check on power. corporations are huge reserves of power and allowing them to assert it without restriction against people is exactly what the first amendment was designed to prevent. I guess what I am saying, is if some ideology has hijacked powerful institutions (and the government), censorship should not be allowed just because that ideology exerts censorship through its corporate power rather than its government power

[Anonymous No.23267075]

>>23267069
And I'm just saying that your understanding of the 1st Amendment is you invented and reading something into it about the governance of private companies that simply is not contained in the 1st Amendment.

You aren't talking about the 1st Amendment. You're talking about what you wish it said, instead of what it does. And that's nice. But it doesn't say that, so what you're saying isn't relevant to anything or anyone.

[Anonymous No.23267077]

>>23267068
>my cognitive dissonance has been pointed out and I have no response
Lol

[Anonymous No.23267079]

>>23267077
Seriously what cognitive dissonance are you even talking about? You made something up and attributed it to me. That doesn't give me cognitive dissonance, anon. It just makes me think that you're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.23267093]

>>23267075
I see your point I just disagree. Restriction on censorship is a check on power. exempting corporations from that is just permitting them tyrannical power

[Anonymous No.23267096]

>>23267050
>And just lol if you consider amazon a “source of information”
What a non-point.

[Anonymous No.23267102]

>>23265601
>When exactly did liberals hijack literature?
Around the same time atheist/secularist cowards hijacked academia/science.

You're all the same Godless reprobate scum of the earth.

[Anonymous No.23267111]

>>23267079
>filtered
We've established you're cool with censorship as long as you perceive it to be in accordance with "your" political beliefs and that you can't address the relationship between a commodity like public expression, the right to which is first and foremost in all Western states, and its monetization using public telecommunications infrastructure. I'll bet you cried a lot when Elon bought Twitter.

[Anonymous No.23267116]

>>23267102
Did you post that because Tyndale was garroted before being burned and his execution wasn't due to translating the bible into English?

[Anonymous No.23267120]

>>23267116
ESL

[Anonymous No.23267128]

>>23267120
Not at all. Try being more clear with your posts.

[Anonymous No.23267138]

>>23267128
Try being literate. Nothing you've said in either of your posts was relevant to what I said. Do the world a favor and become an hero.

[Anonymous No.23267145]

>all art movements have always been left leaning
What the fuck am I reading

[Anonymous No.23267155]

>>23267138
>I thoughtlessly posted the picture so people would think I was familiar with Tyndale but it really has nothing to do with what I wrote
Got it.

[Anonymous No.23267163]

So we really pretending that if the tables were turned /pol/ wouldn’t trying to get rid of tranny and pro black and Jewish books? I see anons crying because these books are sold

[Anonymous No.23267164]

>>23267145
Something written by a teenager evidently. That or a purely ignorant pedestrian.

[Anonymous No.23267165]

>>23265601
>All "radical" bookshops that encourage "debate" only encourage liberal ideas
This is much like claiming Nazi bars only encourage neoconservative "debate"; it's hilarious, it will piss off a group of people I hate anyway, and you should keep repeating it.

[Anonymous No.23267185]

>>23267165
Nazis don't like neocons though. so it seems like you don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.23267189]

>>23267163
I think the main gripe people have is that progs are incapable of self-awareness and can never see their own hypocrisy. They've become blind dogmatics, as Mill observed would happen, although he was not talking about them.

[Anonymous No.23267208]

>>23267189
The way I see it is both sides are very similar in behavior and often tactics. They will both act the same if in power. The reason that the far right isn’t as powerful is that it’s often based on discrimination and hate. Too often a white nationalist is racist which won’t fly in the mainstream. The left is based on sympathy even if it is often power disguised

Objectively anyone who is very involved in the culture war is a terrible person and a cancer. Identity politics have done nothing but sow discord and politicize every little thing. The far right is too dumb to see that they are useful idiots though. Because they exist it gives rational to the leftists to exist and the average person isn’t going to side with the far right. What the alt right needed to do was simply hold their ground and draw attention to liberal domination in the media and academia. They dropped the ball though and became radicals themselves. They have done to 4chan what liberals have done to academia and the media. They are the same type of person, two sides of the same coin

[Anonymous No.23267228]

>>23265601
Literature is liberal, if it was conservative it would be coterature.

[Anonymous No.23267230]

>>23267228
>couture is conservative

[Anonymous No.23267231]

>>23265820
Good thing we make you laugh, because it won’t be long until you’re vaporized.

[Anonymous No.23267240]

>>23266161
Freedom of speech is contrary to private property. One of the most famous paradoxes we here in America were founded upon. One eventually will have to give way to the other in time.

[Anonymous No.23267241]

>>23266059
>David Duke
>not a household name
Since when?

[Anonymous No.23267266]

>>23267208
Progressives are also based on discrimination in a very literal and not highly specific sense which can only apply to right wingers. They are discriminatory namely to those whose minds fall outside of their purview. What do ypu think the whole paradox of tolerance is even about? It implies that progs are not tolerant. In order for you tp tplerate something ypu need tp have an objection to it. Otherwise it would just be pure acceptance. Progs do not tolerate unless the thing being tolerated is subordinate to their ideology. You might say that at least they accept others. But they don't accept anyone. You might mention that they accept muslims, but they don't accept traditional muslims. They only accept things that are also progressive or people who, while muslim, place progressive values above anything else. They might say that "well, at least progressivism is built on cooperation" but that's a false distinction. All societies, no matter how homogenuous they seem, are ultimately a collection of different people whom all expect eachother to follow a rule of cohabitation. What the true nature of that rule is is another matter, but it would not be fundamentally different between progs and cons. The main difference is in the content of the ideologies.

[Anonymous No.23267310]

>>23267266
I am well aware of the paradox but they have at least a veneer of tolerance. Most people aren’t cool picking on the bottom of the hierarchy. If you think white males have had it as bad as blacks, gays, troons then I don’t know what to say. These problems arise when you have a 2 party system and it is either one side or the other. Everything becoming politicized exacerbates the issues. Maybe it’s untrue for other countries but a far right government just isn’t realistic in the US. What would it even look like in the melting pot and the land of freedom? And obviously people are wary after Hitler and Mussolini. The far right is just reactive and doesn’t have a game plan, at least one that most people would like. Look at this whole clusterfuck of a time without bias and it’s obvious why the left is winning and will continue to win

[Anonymous No.23267326]

>>23267208
>The way I see it is both sides
Lol

[Anonymous No.23267607]

>>23267310
>These problems arise when you have a 2 party system and it is either one side or the other.
No. These problems arise when ypu live in a democracy, whose sole purpose has always been to satisfy men of large desires. Alsp, of course whit emales have had it as bad as blavks, what are ypu even talking aboit? You think white people have never been slaves? If however you think minoritoes are "oppressed in current day america then I don't know what to say except that all oppression is perhaps subjective. Democratization is synonymous with politicization. What you actually are looking fpr is more akin tp Schopenhauerian apathy but ypu don't have any actual monarch to support giving all political powers to, effectively depoliticizing the populace

[Anonymous No.23267614]

>>23267607
Christ. Phones suck

[Anonymous No.23268810]

>>23266465
Just like parents can decide which books are allowed in public school libraries.

[Anonymous No.23268837]

Ban all americans from this board, holy shit.

[Anonymous No.23268843]

>>23268837
shut up gay retard

[Anonymous No.23268982]

>>23265601
1945

[Anonymous No.23269382]

>>23268837
American message board. You’re free to make your own.

[Anonymous No.23269385]

>>23267230
It was a joke whoosh

[Anonymous No.23269393]

>>23265820
that's a Canadian chain. we don't have those in burgerstan.

[Anonymous No.23269401]

>>23265818
Orwell's work is extremely obviously a critique of socialist countries (esp. Soviet Union) and it's always hilarious to see people who have never read him claim otherwise.

[Anonymous No.23269406]

>>23269401
Orwell was a demsoc who hated Stalinist totalitarianism.

[Anonymous No.23269439]

>>23269385
But liberal Nike is not a "joke" whoosh?

[Anonymous No.23269595]

>>23266398
holy fuck you are mentally retarded

[Anonymous No.23269606]

>>23266505
Literally this post >>23266219, which was mocking people like you. Thanks for playing.

[Anonymous No.23269623]

>conservatives when Bud Light faces consumer backlash: YEAH TAKE THAT TRANNY LOVERS GO WOKE GO BROKE
>conservatives when book chains face consumer backlash: NO YOU SHOULD BE FORCED AT GUNPOINT TO SELL THOSE BOOKS AND CATER TO MY POLITICAL BELIEFS
Just another case of good when my team does it, but bad when your team does it.

[Anonymous No.23269654]

>>23269623
Tribalism is a bitch. Cultural warriors are clowns and hypocrites

[Anonymous No.23269698]

>>23266451
>Side note, did you know that there was a book about the Trucker Protests in Canada that was selling really well but chain bookstores denied it physical shelf-space because it, again despite selling well, wasn't of interest to customers?
Oh you mean that book that is available on Amazon?
https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Convoy-Inside-Story-Three/dp/1989555934
You must feel so silenced.

[Anonymous No.23269709]

>>23265839
Lmao

[Anonymous No.23269735]

this book foresaw the complete sissification of literature

[Anonymous No.23269752]

>>23269401
it's literally about the BBC you fucking moron, and I mean the broadcasting channel not what the pope sucks

[Anonymous No.23270748]

>>23266478
you can buy Mein Kampf on amazon, retard.

[Anonymous No.23270755]

>>23265601
Okay. So a book seller should sell EVERY book. Is the corporation forced to buy them? The government paying for them? The taxpayers?

[Anonymous No.23270878]

>>23269698
>Oh you mean that book that is available on Amazon?
Not sure if that's the one but the point that was made was that companies choose to sell based on their financial interests and this will inevitably lead to a free marketplace of information (the book in question is a counterexample to this). The publisher of a top selling book brought it up to a major bookseller that a specific volume was being denied shelf-space in retail stores to be met with the reply that the book wasn't of interest to their customers (i.e. publishers keep an eye on these sorts of things and the seller was caught being disingenuous--the dispute received some back page coverage). Modern censorship revolves around minimizing the presence of certain ideas, not simply erasing them, by way of deamplifing their potential for impact (the online example of this is "deplatforming" from the main outlets of social media).

So, the idea that those whom control the means to distribute information exist in an ideological vacuum, their influence on the public narrative being completely passive, is naive nonsense. A best selling book about a topic of particular interest and relevance was minimized because it was critical of both the Trucker Protest and the government response to it.

[Anonymous No.23270885]

>>23265601
>I understand that all art movements have always been left leaning, particuarly in regards to socialism
lmao, this is a modern lie and millennials fell for it

[Anonymous No.23270891]

>>23265601
It was all fairly simultaneous. Jews controlled most of the major anglophone publishing houses by 1900, earlier than leftists insinuated themselves into academia.

[Anonymous No.23270901]

>>23265601
The left-wing hold over the arts and humanities is nowhere near as inherent nor as ancient as one might believe. It really only started happening around the late 1800s.

[Anonymous No.23270920]

>>23269401
it's a critique of stalin's socialism. orwell made emmanuel goldstein to be the 'good' socialist.
animal farm also makes out snowball to be the 'good' socialist.
some argue that both snowball and goldstein are parallels to trotsky.
>>23269698
it's funny once you realize these same retards are probably laughing at liberals for crying about book bans, who once themselves cried about their own books being 'banned'.
it's obvious that both parties just want to enforce ideological suppression while still pretending to believe in freedom of speech. so instead they choose to exercise the most allowable form of 'banning' just short of actually banning books.
i find it triply retarded because both think books are somehow the last bastion of political freedom despite most americans not being much readers.
the average american gets their politics from TV but they still pearl clutch over precious books that they will never read.
also actual readers who are interested in politics will easily be able to find the book by other means and gets their book news elsewhere, instead of getting their knowledge of new releases from bookstores like fucking troglodytes.

[Anonymous No.23270930]

>>23265601
Mein Kampf and many works of radical fascist literature are easily more deserving of the title “Banned Book” than any of those lmao. The original version of Mein Kampf without annotations is actually illegal to own in several countries.

[Anonymous No.23271236]

>>23265601

[Anonymous No.23271957]

>>23270920
>orwell made emmanuel goldstein to be the 'good' socialist
??? The book is extremely vague on whether or not Emmanuel actually exists as a person or something devised up by the inner party to oust "wrongthinkers" and to produce propoganda by displaying him with enemy forces.

[Anonymous No.23271972]

>>23265601
>The Lion, the witch, and the wardrobe
>Banned for: Gore and Mysticism
Based Lewis.

[Anonymous No.23272002]

>>23270748
Ya but you can't buy anything close to bestiality. How come none of those banned bookshelves in libraries have anything about dogfucking? Fucking libtards.

[Anonymous No.23272013]

>>23272002
I've read furry porn novels published on amazon that are still up. I don't know why that one would be banned in particular because minotaurs are basically humanoid, unless its actually feral bull on human women.

[Anonymous No.23272024]

>>23272013
https://www.amazon.com/Morning-Glory-Milking-Farm-Monster/dp/1736546619/
Wait its still up and availible in paperback, kindle and audiobook and for free with an amazon sub.

[Anonymous No.23272123]

>>23265601
Communist-friendly convergence and consolidation of the publishing industry (primarily in New York City) was an outgrowth of Radical Reconstruction (i.e. English & their proxies carpetbagging the North itself) and 'robber baron' depredations-- it's been about a century now, together with state enforced homosexuality education on the German model. Soviet Active Measures from FDR's unilateral recognition of the Bolshevik government (1933) - first in the West - go pedal to the metal despite resistance, but only seeing the fruits of their perfidy after the Berlin Wall

>“Our major secret weapon is to deprive you of an enemy.” — Georgi Arbatov, UC Irvine (1988)

Book Deals that sell dubious amounts of copies for dubiously generous fees to public figures as a money laundering modality becomes a daylight robbery thing per picrel after Y2K, before it would have to be textbooks barring majestic AstroTurf mass market fiction campaigning. Seventy years of Nuremberg Regime outlawing substantial criticism and you get a warped view of recent and long arc historical perspective miscarried by the last World War-- fellow travelers and spiteful mutant poseurs in academia bending the rules and tastes over decades, and now you have Classics departments trying to not teach Latin or Greek to go with the public's entertainment trash pushed to new lows of vulgarity by design.

It's not a 'liberals' problem, it's a
>"We lack the 'social technology' to determine that the shifting sands we stand up on with our clay feet are totally and utterly immanent to a strategic effort that sees over, past, and through you-- and even if the narcissistic injury of recognizing and acknowledging such abject moral failure and literal nihilism driving it and the civilizaed world over a cliff could be gotten over itself, they not-so secretly would rather lose - and get everyone else killed & enslaved with them - than do the right thing, because their defective self-conception is that bound-up in these faulty self-negating value determinations."

In other words: Boomer hippie nice-pinkos don't get that Moscow & Beijing don't want to get along or social parity or racial equiality, but the opposite once they have a free hand to denude places like India, the Middle East and Africa with bioweapons to acquire (mostly Chinese) Lebensraum. Literature being made more and more trashy and real talent/quality being made proactively more scarce than it already is is just a manifestation of the power of making things worse for its own sake-- the worse things are, the less onerous slavery in varying degrees is, especially for lack of Beauty and Truth for reference. A prisoner with a garden will get lonely, a solitary confinement prisoner eating ze bugs wearing ze mask in the UN Smart City Gulag pod will become psychologically and physically ennervated. This is just on a broader Perspectival/Worldview-Warfare scale encompassing every aspect of life (Thanx, Enframing AI).

[Anonymous No.23272127]

Liberals simply have the most power

[Anonymous No.23272131]

>>23265726
wasnt he a socialist

[Anonymous No.23272151]

>>23265690
>have no real interest in anything artistic outside of its aesthetic value

I feel like its the opposite. They only care about political worth and aesthetics are only secondary.

Not that these books are good, but the reading left went from loving Harry Potter and considering them the greatest children's books of all time to hating them and talking about how "poorly written" they are only because the author took political positions they didn't like.

[Anonymous No.23272157]

why don't the terminally-angry, barely-literate, book-banning, art-hating rural animals simply turn off their televisions and take literature away from the bourgeois?

[Anonymous No.23272217]

>>23270920
>it's a critique of stalin's socialism. orwell made emmanuel goldstein to be the 'good' socialist.
No he didn't and it's obvious by the end of the book that he probably doesn't exist and is an image used to root out wrongthinkers.
>Trotsky
Goldstein is obviously based on Trotsky but Orwell wasn't a Trotskyite.
>both sides
No, retard. There's a difference between disallowing conversations from taking place through the overt and shadow restriction of traditional and online platforms versus not wanting to have a book with cock sucking and anal sex prep instructions followed by a step-by-step guide on how to meet strangers online in a grade school library.

[Anonymous No.23272489]

>>23266445
>You’re living through something not that unlike the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union seemed a lot more repressive that makes analogies kind of absurd but there are some funny (to me) similarities between the Democrats and, like, the Brezhnev era.

A lot of this thread seemed like whining from bored consumers so 100% useless as creating an alternative. This thread says "the libs be like" but they the libs that be like. But for me, the issue with culture is less to do with them, as it being a seriously bizarre place for EVERYONE, like a weird sort of free-floating anachronistic digital mind prison that has reached peak saturation. I'm not exactly sure what it is, though. Individualism driven by a world that is more and more rapidly alienated and digitized leading to a sort of narcissus effect? Frankly, a lot of our actual lives lack written media, our complete media and social life has been elevated from us to this abstract cloud -- and the inevitable death of the cloud will undue most lasting marks that we had made on the world during this sad present. A bit like the Dark Ages. That is, we're all doomed. It's going to get even worse with A.I. generated everything. I know this is a lot to process right now, but I suppose whatever comes next might have to occur offline with people learning how to make their own fun again.

>>23271957
>No he didn't and it's obvious by the end of the book that he probably doesn't exist and is an image used to root out wrongthinkers.
I took it as meaning that Goldstein's existence or not is irrelevant as the Party obliterates the ability to even discern if he is. Like the very concept of history is destroyed permanently and becomes whatever serves the Party as if it managed to impose a simulated alternative reality that's impossible to escape.

>Goldstein is obviously based on Trotsky but Orwell wasn't a Trotskyite.
I don't know if it fits as a descriptor, but he had briefly fought in a militia associated with the left opposition to Stalin which also included Trotsky at that time, and he seemed at least sympathetic to Leon Trotsky.

[Anonymous No.23272506]

>>23272131
He unlike Nietzsche was like a real proto-Nazi.

[Anonymous No.23272511]

>>23272157
Given the state of the art world since leftists took control of it in the 50s, hating art today is the only sign that one has a genuine appreciation of it.

[Anonymous No.23273069]

>>23271236
Kek

[Anonymous No.23273115]

>>23272157
>terminally-angry, barely-literate, book-banning, art-hating rural animals

that's a very rude way to refer to africans

[Anonymous No.23273228]

>nooo there’s a hecking gay book in the library it’s making the kids gay where is my boy don’t tell me he’s caught the gayy
Right wingers are pussies

[Anonymous No.23273238]

>>23270748
Isn't the copy on Amazon a poor translation and overly edited to deter people from being convinced of its academic worth?
Active mishandling of information still counts as censorship. You need to get the outdated USSR form of censorship out of your head, that concept has failed time and time again. This is the new approach.

[Anonymous No.23273244]

>>23265857
The government realized that it's much better to just record who buys certain books instead of banning them.

[Anonymous No.23273247]

>>23265915
The wildest part about it is that women buy theses smut novels and read them in public, talk about them in public, and then argue that "It's not a rape book, it's pretend rape" or whatever.

[Anonymous No.23273267]

>>23273247
women deeply love the idea of talking about anything they want to anybody and that their behavior will never be frown upon. Now since it's women, at the end of the day, all they talk about is sex and how much they love being turbo sluts.

[Anonymous No.23273269]

>>23272489
They weren’t more repressive. They were just less subtle and more confrontational about. In the Soviet Union, if they didn’t like what you published they just shipped you to a Gulag or lined you up against the wall to be shot. In America, they flatly refuse let you publish, they close your bank accounts, they blacklist you from every company, every school, they drag your name through the mud in the media and make sure that you’re socially ostracized, and if all that fails then they try to put you in prison. It’s no less repressive. It’s just less violent.

[Anonymous No.23273298]

I think it’s pretty obvious what has happened. Progressive leftists are having their “unipolar moment” within domestic institutions. These are the people who as far back as 2007 were talking about how Republicans are evil scumbags and they got their marching orders from Jon Stewart, who subtly gave the green light to ostracize, mock, and yes, deprive a platform. They wouldn’t know good literature if it smacked them in the face with its surgically attached tranny cock but they don’t care about that. That’s not what literature is to them. Literature is to them what it was to your high school teacher. It’s reading The Scarlet Letter or The Handmaid’s Tale talking about why religion and misogyny are bad. It’s reading Toni Morrison and talking about why racism is bad. The reason they won’t publish quality stuff is because they actually sincerely believe that they really are doing that when they publish a BLM activist poet that reads
> I can’t breathe
> I can’t breathe
> I CAN’T BREATHE
when that is obvious dog shit. And there’s no real question how these people proliferated in the institutions. The progressive left has won every political battle in the West since the late 18th century. In America, the Revolution immediately resulted not in an aristocracy of gentry but in the dominion of lawyers (bourgeoisie) and their legal documents, then the civil war and reconstruction, the rise of industry and titans of industry, people who made their wealth not from land and war but from hustling, selling, financing, and producing, then the world wars, the civil rights era. Our modern history is one giant history of the left winning every single mainstream moment, every social tone setting debate, every fight. So yeah, the universities and the media and the publishing houses are all filled with the progressive leftists and the only real question is why in 1980 they were able to publish good novels even ones that said “nigger” but can’t seem to do it in 2024.

[Anonymous No.23273832]

>>23273238
Imagine believing the Ralph Manheim translation is compromised. You're a schizo freak.

[Anonymous No.23273868]

>>23272217
i don't know why you think gen alpha would even read books. they were given an ipad at 6 years old because their parents didn't want to parent them and they are seeing much worse shit on social media and youtube.

[Anonymous No.23273908]

>>23272506
Wagner was an anarchist and a friend of Bakunin. The Nazis were definitely not anarchist.

[Anonymous No.23273952]

>>23265726
Reminder that Wagner was a proto-socialist who wore silk underwear. (Act III of Meistersinger cancels this out, though.)

[Anonymous No.23275113]

>>23273247
gooning for womemes

[Anonymous No.23275253]

>>23265601
none of this was banned, as long as you don't live in north korea you can buy any of the dogshit on this shelf on amazon. schools ban them from their libraries? womp womp

[Anonymous No.23275644]

>>23265601
Oh those bastards, sneaking in Dr. Seuss.

[Anonymous No.23276231]

>>23265601
>banning the lorax
Based.