/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3462733]

We must sublate /pol/'s thesis; we must serve 4chan's Absolute Spirit to its ultimate teleological purpose.

We must kill /pol/.

[Anonymous No.3463097]

No, let's not.

[Anonymous No.3463099]

/pol/ is like /b/, OP - you keep it around to collect all those kinds of folks in one spot, lest they spill over on to other boards. Best just to leave them be.

[Anonymous No.3463106]

Every time I see someone get upset with /pol/ for being feckless racist conservatives, I just get this overwhelming psychic impression of how fucking boring and whitebread they must be

How can you be on 4chan and seriously not understand conservatism, nationalism, and jingoism in young, rowdy, socially outcast men? How can you be so pleb, so liberal, so fucking boring a human being that you take joy in further marginalizing marginalized viewpoints, like a goddamn soccer mom on twitter, for the sake of a "look how WRONG this guy's unorthodox/niche/un-PC/easy target views are!!" circlejerk?

[Anonymous No.3463113]

>>3463106
This man is right.
White knights annoy me far more than white trash. At least the latter are funny and I can have a beer with. The liberal preachy left is arrogant and annoying.

[Anonymous No.3463115]

>>3463106

I'm not upset with them for being racist feckless conservatives. I'm upset that they don't stay in their own treehouse and come over here and intentionally fuck up our treehouse because theirs is now full of shit. I don't want to silence or marginalise them, I literally don't care about their views at all, I just want them to stay in /pol/ where they belong and for them to stop shitting up threads here.

[Anonymous No.3463150]

>>3463106
Understanding it doesn't mean you don't want and need to combat it. It's toxic, to the boards they invade and to broader society.

As far as them being marginalized viewpoints, that's bullshit. Technically speaking I suppose they are, like fundie Christians in the US, but that doesn't class them in with sex workers or animists. One obvious and crucial difference is their viewpoint is a desire to oppress and harm others.

[Anonymous No.3463648]

>>3463150
>Understanding it doesn't mean you don't want and need to combat it. It's toxic, to the boards they invade and to broader society.

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mi/john_stuart/m645o/chapter2.html#apter2
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/101011.htm

Q: There was the revisionist conference in Iran several months ago. How worried should scholars and the general public be about the capacity of this kind of revisionism to engender anti-Semitism?

Hilberg: This revisionism began in the 1960s. It is not new. I boycotted Germany for quite a while, but when I passed through a while back Munich I went to a kiosk and bought a local right wing paper, a German paper, I found to my great astonishment that I was mentioned on the title page as a Zionist leader. Now, that was a big surprise to me, but the headline was: “The Lie of the Holocaust”. So, Germany in the sixties had adherence to this belief, even though there they should have known better than anywhere else. There was a Frenchman who was already in print in the 1960s. Half of his book was devoted to me. It was a neo-Nazi publication. As soon as my book, The Destruction of the European Jews, was out in 1961, I became a target of these groups.
...
I have come to the conclusion, not once but several times, that, as far as I am concerned, I do not agree with legislation that makes it illegal to utter pronouncements claiming that there was no Holocaust. I do not want to muzzle any of this because it is a sign of weakness not of strength when you try to shut somebody up. Yes, there is always a risk. Nothing in life is without risk, but you have to make rational decisions about everything.

>In her biography on Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (which is often misattributed to Voltaire himself) as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs.[2] Hall's quote is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech.

[Anonymous No.3463652]

>>3463150
To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility. ...

The objection likely to be made to this argument, would probably take some such form as the following. There is no greater assumption of infallibility in forbidding the propagation of error, than in any other thing which is done by public authority on its own judgment and responsibility. Judgment is given to men that they may use it. Because it may be used erroneously, are men to be told that they ought not to use it at all? To prohibit what they think pernicious, is not claiming exemption from error, but fulfilling the duty incumbent on them, although fallible, of acting on their conscientious conviction. If we were never to act on our opinions, because those opinions may be wrong, we should leave all our interests uncared for, and all our duties unperformed. An objection which applies to all conduct can be no valid objection to any conduct in particular.
...
We may, and must, assume our opinion to be true for the guidance of our own conduct: and it is assuming no more when we forbid bad men to pervert society by the propagation of opinions which we regard as false and pernicious.

I answer, that it is assuming very much more. There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation. Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right.

[Anonymous No.3463660]

>>3463150
Are you saying that racists aren't oppressed? You can be fined or fired for expressing an opinion!

[Anonymous No.3463662]

>>3463648

nobody's trying to shut you up or silence MUH TRUTHS. nobody's even seriously trying to convince you you're wrong because they don't care about what you think. you're perfectly free to scream about the kikes and niggers in the echo-chamber that moot has so kindly bestowed upon you, but when you scream anywhere else, people will laugh at your bullshit and tell you to take it somewhere they don't have to hear it. Not because they want to silence you everywhere forever: because it does not belong here, precisely, and they don't want to see it here.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? Fundie Christians seem a shockingly accurate comparison in that they similarly cannot understand why nobody wants to hear their bile. They believe it, after all; how could anyone pass up a chance to listen to it?

[Anonymous No.3463663]

>>3463150
>Understanding it doesn't mean you don't want and need to combat it. It's toxic, to the boards they invade and to broader society.

>One obvious and crucial difference is their viewpoint is a desire to oppress ... others.

[Anonymous No.3463671]

>>3463662
>We need to combat this viewpoint.
>>[remedial freedom of speech stuff]
>YEAH WELL I MEAN YOU CAN SAY IT IF YOU WANT IN YOUR LAME FAGGOT ECHO CHAMBER U IDIOT MORON, BUT U'LL JUST BE LAUGHED AT IF YOU SAY IT IN REAL LIFE >: ((((((((((((((((((

I'm not even a racist, and I don't go to /pol/. You're just a moron. Stop trying to coerce away ideas and viewpoints you don't like by sageposting and stereotyping everyone as a /pol/ neo-nazi heil hitler redneck. It makes you an intellectual coward.

>Why is this so hard for you to understand? Fundie Christians seem a shockingly accurate comparison in that they similarly cannot understand why nobody wants to hear their bile.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that they have a right to say it anyway? Here's another freebie for you:
>They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[Anonymous No.3463678]

>>3462733
>ultimate teleological purpose.

You must be new here.

Thank Moot for the hide button

[Anonymous No.3463680]

>>3463678
>calling others new
>didn't have the ability to hide threads until moot added it

[Anonymous No.3463781]

>>3463662
This guy isn't me (>>3463150) and our viewpoints on some of the nuances are probably a little different, but he gets it.

Note I did *not* call for any form of state intervention on the question. I'm opposed to that, quite vehemently, although I see the other side of the argument. What you're asking isn't for Hilberg to not bring the power of the state against such people, but for him to say nothing against them after they barge into a privately owned social space he and others like him have frequented for some time. I said we- sane, empirical people of general good will- should fight provable falsehoods that ruin the lives of people that come to believe them and ruin societies where they become common.

Which is something Hilberg spent his career doing.

Now. [con't]

[Anonymous No.3463782]

>>3463781
>To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.

This is an unworkably abstract and purist vision. It is incumbent on no one to give equal hearing to David Irving and Hilberg. "Hear out both sides, entertain all the ideas" works when you're talking, say, Dawidowicz vs Hilberg. People's lives are too short, the burden of proof is only so high and the arguments of racists still far so short of it.

To continue the comparison with American Christian fundies, it's like the "teach the debate" argument on evolution. There is literally zero empirical reason to believe that some form of Darwinian evolution is the not the means by which present species came to be. It is a waste of time to act as if it's otherwise. (And I'm a theist and I'm saying this!) The same is true with regard to entertaining Shoah denialism, nutso and impossible (yes, I used that word) theories about The Jew Controlling The World. And true of barely articulate rage ideas about women and other minorities born of nothing but resentment, that have been shown in historical case after historical case to do nothing but salve the pains of their proponents and do nothing positive for the rest of humankind.

Surely you'd mind if some shouty, paranoid loudmouth came in to the coffeeshop you go to and started yelling about how the kikes and cunts and niggers, right? You'd want the proprietor to throw him out and tell him to go talk about it at the Stormfront Club, yes? That's what's going on in /lit/ right now.

[Anonymous No.3463793]

>>3463782
Just realized the second graf got a pic convoluted. What I'm saying is, just as how there's no empirical reason to suspect Darwinism isn't true, there's no empirical evidence to suspect the Shoah did not happen, etc.

[Anonymous No.3463795]

>>3463793
Fuck me to hell, a bit convoluted.

[Anonymous No.3463800]

If we kill /pol/, those obsessive bastards are going to invade all the others boards.
Better do nothing

[Anonymous No.3463804]

>>3463781

>I said we- sane, empirical people of general good will- should fight provable falsehoods that ruin the lives of people that come to believe them and ruin societies where they become common.

like the idea that evolution stops at the head?

[Anonymous No.3463828]

>>3463804
What?

[Anonymous No.3463862]

>>3463828

i know it sounds silly, but alot of people actually do believe there are not quantitative differences in aptitude between varying ethnicities, or atleast, they are careful not to be contrary.

[Anonymous No.3463867]

>>3463781
You fight them by proving them wrong, stupid. You will never eradicate people who believe shit for biased reasons. And that's all racists and bigots are, people with biases that blind them to the truth. Which is exactly why you should be incredibly careful when you start to feel comfortable and righteous in your role as the arbiter of what is true and what isn't, what is permissible to say and what isn't.

I never understood how anyone could not understand this. It's like the first thing you're supposed to "get" about liberty, democracy, and all that: the MORE YOU DO NOT LIKE AN IDEA, THE MORE THREATENING IT IS, THE MORE CONVENIENT AND SAFE IT WOULD BE TO DISARM AND DISALLOW IT, THE MORE DANGEROUS IT IS TO SILENCE IT. The easier it is, the more appealing it is to silence someone, the bigger the tumor at the heart of social liberty. You are exchanging overt threats - skinheads and idiots - for a cancerous fucking rot that will slowly eat away at every value our civilization just spent 4 centuries erecting, so that you can feel proactive and progressive.

I mean, that's fourth grade social studies shit. It's remedial. The more it burns to let someone go on writing Holocaust denials and yadda yadda yadda, the more they gloat that you can't do shit to silence them, the better your society. Directly and openly inciting violence may be a different issue, but we don't even need to get into it here, because the vast, VAST majority of these idiots don't write a single paragraph of violent rhetoric. Their work can be used for those purposes, sure, but
>Yes, there is always a risk. Nothing in life is without risk, but you have to make rational decisions about everything.

[Anonymous No.3463878]

>>3463867
There's a place for that. It doesn't have to be every place, and there's no reason to let their bullshit get in the way of serious people have intelligent discussions.

For an obvious example, whether we would've or not, whether it'd be worth it or not, /lit/ is never going to be able to have a thread seriously discussing anything Laurie Penny wrote ever.

[Anonymous No.3463885]

>>3463878

the revolution starts with you

[Anonymous No.3463888]

>Libshits being this mad

[Anonymous No.3463894]

>>3463663

>Heidegger's face when Husserl was kicked out.jpg

[Anonymous No.3463896]

>this thread
JIDF please.

[Anonymous No.3463898]

>>3463888

lets not get our termonology twisted, theres a difference between 'liberal' as conceived by the false dichotomies of american politics, and the classical sense of liberal.

[Anonymous No.3463899]

>>3463800

>Complain about the possibility of /pol/ invading other boards
>While talking about invading /pol/

[Anonymous No.3463904]

>>3463150
Watch out you might catch racism or even worse Christianity!

[Anonymous No.3463909]

>>3463660
Not in 'Murrica

[Anonymous No.3463910]

There is not a single argument apart from gun control that /pol/ actually is legitimately right about, or has knowledge of. 90% are white middle-class kids, how can you take them seriously OP?

[Brotarian No.3463913]

It's simple really you must kill the /pol/ but you shall fail for /pol/ is everything.

No really you're just attacking a void because you'd be attacking everything.

[Anonymous No.3463914]

hey /lit/-tan, we just had a position open up, why dont you intern and get some hands on experience?

>>>/pol/10172555

[Anonymous No.3463915]

>>3463888
I don't see what libertinism has got to do with this.

[Brotarian No.3463917]

>>3463910
/lit/ with the ad hominems. Son.

[AnalCrust !m9jxTLhLcw No.3463933]

Why all this Hegel/Laurie Penny bullshit from /pol/ lately?

[Anonymous No.3463934]

>>3463909
Mexico?

>>3463894
Blame obama, not the jews

>>3463115
implying every muslims likee pizza and is nazi

>>3463652
LOLWUT

>yes, OP is fag

[Anonymous No.3463936]

>>3463917
>complaining about ad hominems

/pol/ is the worst with that shit. If you don't agree with them, you're a "brainwashed goyim"

[Anonymous No.3463937]

Lets not mess with /pol/. They're a sleeping giant and could easily crush most boards on 4chan other than /b/, /sp/ and /v/..

[Hagbard_Celine !0naAABjWKY No.3463940]

Hegel's a nigger

[Anonymous No.3463942]

You fuckers don't have half the balls nor a quarter of the courage it would take to defeat us. /pol/ is the most active and influential board on all of 4chan, rivaling /b/. We will destroy you fuckers.

[Brotarian No.3463943]

>>3463936
>Fighting ad hominems with ad hominems and saying "well you guys do it"

[Anonymous No.3463944]

>>3463878
To expand:


I'm not arguing the feds shut down Stormfront. Not arguing for laws against denialism. Not even arguing the Skokie march should've been illegal. What I'm arguing is that there is no reason for people in a community to not loudly and harshly voice their rejection of these ideas. And, when they start derailing valuable social and intellectual contexts, for private owners to tell them to GTFO. Even if there is some value in having racism and misogyny on /lit/, it's outweighed by the value of having a functional board.

You think that keeping discussion in /lit/ on at least slightly productive grounds is going to make it /easier/ for /pol/fags to spread their ideas?

[Anonymous No.3463947]

>>3463933
Most easily influenced board when it comes to crap like Guido Fawkes, and still attempt to do crap like "raids".

[Anonymous No.3463949]

>>346387
Uhm, I'm not /pol/ and i would never let you have a "serious" > discussion about Penny. That shit is toxic with commercial interest, penny is by nature (kind of attractive) she exerts populist opinions to the typical liberal masses, she has a cult following, she is a hypocrite and not a scholar. She will bring back the trip as, the idiot pseudo look at me I read edgy political books, tier lists, unqualified philosophical discussions, censorship (ie. Sexism, misogyny etc.) . In my mind she is everything that the idea of being anonymous is not. I "kind of" welcome /pol/ here. There is no way one can read any amount of influential literature and stay that racist. Reading makes you hardcore for free speech and thought, nwhich leads me to believe you don't read that much.

I will stop penny in every way I have tried to stop /mu/ on this board. They are very very similar.

[Anonymous No.3463950]

>>3463910
>90% are white middle-class kids
>implying you're not describing /lit/
>implying race and class is more important than substance of opinion.

They're are more minorities and diverging viewpoints on /pol/ than /lit/ will ever have.

[Anonymous No.3463951]

>>3463910

> this is what liberals actually believe

The really sad part is, is I bet this guy lives in the same upper-middle class, gated white community in the burbs, right next store to the people he thinks are so evil.

But you can guarantee he has some lame excuse about WHY he lives there....as if it isn't for the same reasons every other white person moves to the burbs.

[Anonymous No.3463960]

>>3463943
>implying I'm fighting an ad hominem

I'm just pointing it out, you sperglord

[Anonymous No.3463964]

>>3463910
>90% are white middle-class kids, how can you take them seriously OP?

What are you implying?

[Anonymous No.3463965]

>>3463933
No. There isn't a raid. Seriously? There have been several attempt to create "faux discussion" to garner interest for penny's books, Google astroturfing. But any attempt to give the girl credit has been dismantled by /lit/ so far. There is no god damn raid. Stop being so paranoid. Want to know how I know this, I went to /pol/ and looked for threads or any evidence for it, after that I asked. They have better things to do than to raid the slowest board on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.3463966]

Let's supplement /pol/'s more idiotic side with some legitimate intelligence. Be dignified and that sorta thing.

If we piss them off by stooping to their level we're fucked/bound to be inundated with accusations of being JIDF.

[Anonymous No.3463973]

The more you talk about killing /pol/, the more you attract them.

Calm down son.

[Anonymous No.3463975]

>>3463944
Most of the time "/pol/ pls go" sagebombing is ten times more destructive than any actual racism or nationalism or whatever. In particular, it definitely perpetuates an atmosphere of taboo and fear around the criticism of Jews, more appropriately of Zionism (which is a real thing, not always a conspiracy theory).

98% of it is motivated solely by group exclusionary circlejerking. Ironically, the people doing this are making /pol/, a "legitimate" target of hate, that is they are creating an Other that "deserves" the hate it gets, just like racists do (in their eyes). You're conforming a whole assortment of ideas and viewpoints to /POL/, THE EVIL ONES so that you can feel proactive and upright in denouncing them and sagebombing them. That's othering in its purest form.

Not that I'm saying this shit has any place on /lit/ if it's not literature related. Again, I'm not even racist. But shit like the ADL is propped up by this, and they're very cognizant of it, and of how to cultivate it.

[Brotarian No.3463976]

>>3463960
>/lit/ pls

[Anonymous No.3463978]

u wot m8

u wan me dek u u faakin nerdy cunt

yeh thot so

[Anonymous No.3463979]

>>3463949
Implying that one has to exclude freedom of speech and thought if one considers the concept of human races to carry any significant truth

[Anonymous No.3463980]

>>3462733
Killing /pol/ will probably do more harm than good for reasons that have already been elaborated on in this thread. But instead of whining like little bitches about their incursions, we could always COUNTER-RAID /POL/. Let's show them what a real red pill tastes like.

Just throwing that out there.

[Anonymous No.3463981]

hai guyz this board is better than /B/ i will deffo stick around here. u book ppl can help me read good cus im frm detroid and i dont read so good.

ffanks guyz!!

[Anonymous No.3463983]

>>3463966
This. Leave the obvious trollbait alone. The pol and penny threads and let's discuss literature. We can do this /lit/.

[Anonymous No.3463989]

>>3463976
>implying I'm /lit/

I came here through >>>/pol/10176645

Check your spec, sperglord

[Anonymous No.3463993]

>>3463966

> by stooping to their level

> implying the maroons on /lit/ don't like the smell of their own farts

[Anonymous No.3463994]

I have had a lot of good times on /pol/ but it is SO active these days it is hard to keep up a good thread. Also the economic and political threads I used to enjoy participating in have pretty much been replaced by /b/ style racism, gun control, general nonconstructive anti-americanism by americans, etc.
If only Romney had won the election and there hadn't been such a conservative grassroots backlash/shitfest, things would've been easier.

[Anonymous No.3463995]

>>3463933
This guy seems to be something to do with it:
http://www.crackerwax.com/tag/laur-penny/
http://www.crackerwax.com/about/
There's some vague leads connected to a magazine called "The Commentator" too, but nothing I'd call massively solid, i.e. I don't know if something to do with the Commentator is reacting to something to do with this or causing it.

[Anonymous No.3463996]

just like only /v/ can into vidya and /lit/ into philosophy, only /pol/ can into politics
Don't act like idiots thinking you know more than they do on that field. Just stick to books

[Anonymous No.3464000]

I go on /pol/ when something's happening.

[Anonymous No.3464002]

>>3463951

Yawn.
Can you do anything more than project my racial and economic backround without throwing around baseless asumptions? /pol/ as well as most of 4chan are made up by white males in their 20's -30's, seeing racist and nationalist posts with no backing from any source and completely arbitrary shitposting from /stormfront/ is something that frustrated white males belonging in this stratum do.
/pol/ is shit not because of the type of people that inhabit it though, but because of the shitty subculture of the internet warrior has over spilled and made almost every thread hilariously ignorant and silly. Thus almost all of JIDF, feminist, interacial threads are made by stormfags.

[Anonymous No.3464004]

>destroy /pol/
Wonder who could be behind this

[Anonymous No.3464005]

lool u fags hate free speech? lol go back to china you fagets

[Anonymous No.3464006]

> posting in the most active thread in /lit/ history

[Anonymous No.3464009]

>>3463979
I'm not denying that biology. /pol/ are right on a few things but mostly plain retarded. A dare you to read a quarter of most influential books from the western Canon and becoming anything else than more tolerant. Ie. I accept that there are different races but I don't give a flying fuck about colors, I care about merit.

[Anonymous No.3464011]

/pol/ here.
>talking about literature on 4chan
>wasting your life with liberal arts as uni major instead of hobby
>justifying a whiny /q/ tier thread with references to someone like Hegel, who would make /pol/ seem liberal
>you in charge of not being permanently ass-ravaged by /sci/
God, I could go on like this for hours, that's how shit you are. Just stay down and take every other board's dick, hipster queers.

[Anonymous No.3464012]

[Anonymous No.3464016]

>>3463996

/lit/ has had multiple political threads about anarchism, authoritarianism and political philosophy. /pol/ cannot go past shitposting in disgussing this topics for the simple fact that they have read so little or have had no college education.
Lurk more kid.

[Anonymous No.3464018]

>>3464002
Shut your mouth and don't go there.

[Anonymous No.3464020]

>>3464009
>A dare you
a great testimony of your literacy

[Anonymous No.3464023]

>>3464016
>/pol/ cannot go past shitposting
You know, I see the most resources used and sources provided on /pol/
Calling it a stupid board is simply incorect

>thinking college means shit

[Anonymous No.3464027]

Join us /lit/

[Anonymous No.3464028]

>>3464002

What does it matter to you? /pol/ never has and doesn't raid other boards. The 'redpill' pics posted on /q/ were made by trolls.

[Anonymous No.3464029]

/pol/ here

believe me, you don't want us spilling over

[Anonymous No.3464032]

When faggots talk about how much they hate /pol/ what they really want to say is "I hate political opinions I don't agree with".

>>3463966
>Let's supplement /pol/'s more idiotic side with some legitimate intelligence. Be dignified and that sorta thing.

Why? I see more dignified and intelligent post on
/pol/ then I'll ever see by some crying sheltered middle class white on /lit/

[Anonymous No.3464034]

>>3464023
>You know, I see the most resources used and sources provided on /pol/
>Calling it a stupid board is simply incorect
What a life to be dazzled by pretty graphics and mistake it for intellectual substance.

[Anonymous No.3464025]

>>3464016
Just stay on /lit/ and don't annoy others.

[Anonymous No.3464035]

>>3464020
I'm posting g from a tablet so fuck you

[Anonymous No.3464039]

>>3464020
>ad hominem
You should do better than that /lit/

[Anonymous No.3464040]

>>3463980
>Let's show them what a real red pill tastes like.
Cough medicine doesn't count. When you find some however, you're more than welcome to try, but you'll be preaching to the choir by that then.

Good luck on your journey.

[Anonymous No.3464043]

>>3464002

> sorry, I couldn't hear you over all the ad homs and insinuations that anyone who has an opinion that defers from your own must be from /stormfront/ and wears a swastika on his forehead.

> if you're under the age of 30 and you're not a liberal, you have no heart
> if you're over the age of 30 and you're not a conservative, you have no brains.

[Anonymous No.3464044]

>>3464032
/lit/ is only when you want to discover authors, nothing more nothing less.

[Anonymous No.3464048]

>>3464029
Implying pol wouldn't love that cuy

[Anonymous No.3464050]

>>3464039
Pointing out an error isn't an ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.3464052]

>>3464050
>being this prescriptivist
How are things back in Victorian England?

[Anonymous No.3464054]

>>3464050
You were not merely pointing out his mistake, but also made a statement which can only be interprited as a way to ruin his credibility because of one typo

[Anonymous No.3464055]

>>>/pol/10176645
You've made a huge mistake

[Anonymous No.3464056]

>>3462733
It seems like another anon has willing swallowed the blue pill.
You claim to be enlightened through your knowledge of literature but you shut out the reality of the world around you.
tl;dr >>>redd!t

[Anonymous No.3464065]

>>3464032
I'm >>3463966, and I don't post anything political on /lit/ (I'm actually a working class libertarian who disagrees with the predominately radical consensus on this board), I just enjoy the literary discussions.

/pol/ may agree with me ideologically, but I never found it particularly cerebral. And I've found the best way to have one's beliefs eroded is by hearing them spouted by idiots.

[Anonymous No.3464067]

>>3464065
>predominately radical consensus
What do you think that is?

[Anonymous No.3464068]

OH SHIT /POL/'S HERE OH GOD WHERE ARE OUR BOOKS NOW THE END OF TIMES HAS COME

[Anonymous No.3464069]

>>3464050
It's the thing you wrote beneath, don't play dumb fuckwad

But honestly /pol/ why can't you keep to your own board. There is lots need to politicize /lit/. Just like we tell /mu/to leave their board identity behind we tell you to leave yours. Here you are anonymous and a /lit/izen and we discuss literature. Anything else should be discussed elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.3464078]

>>3464067
Generally towards the left; you tend to find most people here at the least social democrats and it's fairly common to see anarcho-communists. I don't mind, as I just avoid those sorts of discussions. Seeing as this is a board about literature.

[Anonymous No.3464080]

>>3464054
Oh oh ohhh... context! He was complaining about /pol/'s literacy with a post with errors, which begs for such a statement.

[Anonymous No.3464081]

>Scream names and rant angrily at "stormfags"
>Lose any structured debate with them
>Scream even more

[Anonymous No.3464074]

>2013
>still being a platonist

your delusion realm of higher forms does not exist

[Anonymous No.3464077]

>>3464069
>But honestly /pol/ why can't you keep to your own board
because you started this thread about raiding pol

[Anonymous No.3464085]

Fuck you OP, why did you have to start this. Now we won't ever be able to talk about literature.

[Anonymous No.3464086]

>>3464069

>But honestly /pol/ why can't you keep to your own board

We do keep to our own board you fucking faggot, you're the ones planning to raid us

[Anonymous No.3464087]

>>3464009
Depends on what you consider western 'Canon'. Nationalism and Fascism does after all spring from great authors of the 18th-19th centuries. Sure, freedom of speech/thought, the right to assembly etc. are by essence good things in most societies. However, what is essential for /pol/ is that somewhere after '45-'60's shit just went overboard and and 'western thought' was hijacked by leftist thoughts which are in their very nature the anti-thesis of western core values (inb4, what are western core values). Absolutely, /pol/ is quite retarded at times, but it is an effective medium in attacking cultural-marxism as it does attract a whole lot of /pol/acks everyday who are influenced and carry it on into everyday life.

[Anonymous No.3464089]

>>3464078
>Generally towards the left; you tend to find most people here at the least social democrats and it's fairly common to see anarcho-communists.
None of that is radical in itself comrade.

[Anonymous No.3464090]

>>3464086
The OP isn't representative of most of us. Seriously we just wanna talk about books and shit.

[Anonymous No.3464096]

>>3464069
I was pointing out the irony, which isn't an ad hominem.
/pol/ doesn't give a shit about your board, this is the first time I'm here. You should reconsider cyring "/pol/ raid" on every sight of a conservative opinion. You're more paranoid than our JIDF shills.

[Anonymous No.3464098]

>>3464089
Well it depends what perspective you approach it from. I'm talking radical in terms of the old sense; ie anything diverging from the nice mixed-market consensus, and especially if said divergence is leftist.

[Anonymous No.3464101]

>>3464034
People on /pol/ actually use some sources for their arguments. You bassically can't have an argument on /lit/ about anything political because everyone bases their opinion on "muh philosophical reasoning". I can't keep count of how many times people just refused to believe that blacks are more on welfare and commit more crime. Refusing to do a simple google search and doubting every single source simply because it contradicts with their worldview.

[Anonymous No.3464102]

>>3464074
>your delusion realm of higher forms does not exist

>Implying this is what Plato (and Hegel) believed.

[Anonymous No.3464104]

/pol/ is kind of like /fit/, or any board for that matter, in that it has its shitty threads, although it HAS become worse lately.

Basically, there is fucktons of shit posting (anything involving 'JIDF,' race, gender issue shit), but there are certainly redeeming threads.

As lame as it sounds, it has so much 'spin' that it essentially is a 'no spin zone'. (I cringed writing that, but am not sure how else to say it.)

Fallacious, emotionally driven, shallow opinions are often called out as such or are ignored.

Fuck it, I don't know why I'm trying so hard, but I do honestly believe that /pol/ has its merits.

[Anonymous No.3464106]

>>3464069
>But honestly /pol/ why can't you keep to your own board.

When the rest of 4chan stops shitting up happening threads.

[Anonymous No.3464107]

>>3464081
>implying someone can't be dumb and still be right
>implying someone can't be smart and still wrong

If you know how to debate, you can convince people of anything, that doesn't mean you are telling the truth, or that you are right.

[Anonymous No.3464111]

>>3464101
This

I love /pol/ because people link and source their beliefs

I'm an atheist and saved like 30+ links about research showing positive qualities about religion on society, it changed my view of religion entirely

Before that I just dismissed religious fundies as 100% wrong "sky daddy worshipers"

[Anonymous No.3464115]

>>3464104
But the gender issue threads are great rage threads, especially the tumblr screengrabs and I need Feminism

[Anonymous No.3464118]

>>3464101

Discussions on political philosophy and ideology cannot be based on statistics or an article on the Daily Mirror. It requires more rigorous argumentations and thus threads like that have less traffic than "Blacks eating up our wellfare."
Also polite sage.

[Anonymous No.3464121]

>still thinking /pol/ is a bunch of stormfags
They're a vocal minority. There might even be morr communists like me there than them.

[Anonymous No.3464122]

[Anonymous No.3464124]

What books does Dorner read?

[Anonymous No.3464126]

>>3464111
Holy shit you're dumb

[Anonymous No.3464128]

>>3464118
Haha... Here you have the reason why philosophy is dead. Nope we don't need facts.

Inb4 objective reality, or morality and truth.

[Anonymous No.3464129]

>>3464124
Tom Clancy

[Anonymous No.3464130]

>>3464101
>People on /pol/ actually use some sources for their arguments.
Do you understand why "arguments" are "sourced"?
>You bassically can't have an argument on /lit/ about anything political because everyone bases their opinion on "muh philosophical reasoning".
That's what argument is all about, it isn't argument if you outsource it to academics and check your critical faculties at the door.
>I can't keep count of how many times people just refused to believe that blacks are more on welfare and commit more crime.
Well, keep trying the whole blind indoctrination thing, just do it elsewhere.
>Refusing to do a simple google search and doubting every single source simply because it contradicts with their worldview.
If you come up to Diogenes claiming you can show movement isn't real, do not be surprised when he gets up and leaves.

[Anonymous No.3464131]

>>3464101
The trouble is that any time you try to discuss anything with /pol/ all they do is parrot the same tired slogans and post the same tired pictures like the happy little sheep they are, not realizing that anyone can make a .jpg say whatever they want. Find me someone on /pol/ that uses a reputable source like Pew or something and I'll eat my hat.

[Anonymous No.3464132]

>>3464118
1. When you make a thread about blacks on welfare, it's about blacks on welfare, not political philosophy.
2. Philosophy is probably the least rigorous subject of debate there is, so don't delude yourself. Even when citing tabloids you deal with something that's at least falsifiable.

[Anonymous No.3464137]

What's happening in this thread?

[Anonymous No.3464138]

I love how you people make fun of /pol/ posters for saying JIDF, but whenever anyone says anything racist you dismiss them as from /pol/, like /pol/ is invading or something

[Anonymous No.3464142]

>>3464138
Replace /pol/ with /x/ and JIDF with spooky skeletons

[Anonymous No.3464146]

>>3464131
They use reputable sources a lot. Sometimes sketchy. At least they value sources. On /lit/ you get away with any kind of shit dribble a.k.a postmodernism

[Anonymous No.3464149]

>>3464130
>That's what argument is all about, it isn't argument if you outsource it to academics and check your critical faculties at the door.

No, data gets sourced because political issues deal with statistics and numbers that other people compiled. If you're going to argue about gun violence you can't just pull shit out of your ass, you have to actually go and find the numbers from police studies or data sets

[Anonymous No.3464156]

>>3464131
That's just an assumption. Spend more time there and you'll see as many reputable sources as you want. This is just hypothetical, not an invitation, we don't need anymore braindead libs.

[Anonymous No.3464161]

>>3464146
>On /lit/ you get away with any kind of shit dribble a.k.a postmodernism
Do the sources /pol/ use have a better h-index than "La Condition postmoderne: Rapport sur le savoir"?

[Anonymous No.3464165]

>>3464132

>Philosophy is probably the least rigorous subject of debate there is

stoped reading right there, go back to /pol/, /lit/ is not for you. Also philosophical argumentation IS the most rigorous since it involved the multiplicity of meaning and interpretation and not merely questions of truth/false value.
It involves the hardest kind of argumentation, that of the dialectical kind.

[Anonymous No.3464171]

>>3464161
They provide html links that one can look at and refute instantaneously. Otherwise it's a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.3464172]

>>3464161
Yes.

[Anonymous No.3464175]

>>3464149
>No, data gets sourced because political issues deal with statistics and numbers that other people compiled. If you're going to argue about gun violence you can't just pull shit out of your ass, you have to actually go and find the numbers from police studies or data sets
This is poor undergrad level thinking. You should be able to critically appraise any data, not just use it in an ad hoc fashion.

[Anonymous No.3464176]

/pol/ is destroying /lit/, proving knowledge is worthless against strength. Proving everything /lit/ does is pointless.

[Anonymous No.3464181]

>>3464165
You have no idea what argumentative rigor is, but I'm not surprised philosophy majors actually believe this. Must be hard spending 4 years (or maybe more, lib arts majors are usually lazy) for a degree in spouting hot air over a subject that's only fit for a leisure activity these days.

[Anonymous No.3464184]

JIDF THREAD

[Anonymous No.3464186]

>>3464175
Strawman alert

[Anonymous No.3464188]

>>3464175
Okay so if you want to know the amount of gun murders in Chicago

Unless you go there and count the bodies yourself, you're gonna have to rely on the police data collection instead. You can critically analyze it such as try and find if data entry was poorly done or guesswork, but there's no other way to know the facts than to rely on sources

[Anonymous No.3464198]

These board war are orchestrated bullshit.

Why is this thread sill up?

[Anonymous No.3464203]

>>3464171
>one can look at and refute instantaneously.

Do you have any examples of this or are you just pulling that out of your ass?

[Anonymous No.3464206]

>>3464176
What are you on about, crackhead?

[Anonymous No.3464208]

YOLO

[Anonymous No.3464210]

>>3464198
You can thank reqqit for all of this, SRS more specifically.

They are hypocritical parasites.

[Anonymous No.3464212]

>>3464203
Just browse /pol/ for a while. I don't give a flying fuck if you believe me or not. I'm only here to have fun I saw some /pol/ thread about this board were trying to invade us. We don't want more libs on our boards you can keep your gay marathon turd fest.

[Anonymous No.3464218]

have you guys read Mein Kampf?

[Anonymous No.3464219]

>>3464181

Nice counter arguments, you sure showed me. Just another post confirming more and more /pol/'s anti-intellectualism.
You should try college education yourself sometime.

[Anonymous No.3464220]

Shut it down

[Anonymous No.3464229]

>>3464219
Thanks, I suspected I hit the nail on the head. Don't worry about my education, it pretty much contains your entire degree under the label of "soft skills".

[Anonymous No.3464230]

>>3464219

Switch tactics.

[Anonymous No.3464236]

>>3464229

You sound like a true broke-ass.

[Anonymous No.3464238]

>what is 4chan

lol i dunno lol amomymous we r leguun xDD

[Anonymous No.3464242]

shut it down

[Anonymous No.3464246]

i already know that this whole thread is shit

[Anonymous No.3464252]

>>3464188
>You can critically analyze it such as try and find if data entry was poorly done or guesswork
That wouldn't be being critical, that's pure bad faith, unless there's some reason to mistrust the source like that. You have to ask yourself what those numbers mean, i.e. what is recorded as a "gun murder in Chicago" and why. The issue, though, with the post above is the order:
>If you're going to argue about gun violence you can't just pull shit out of your ass, you have to actually go and find the numbers from police studies or data sets
So, argument then source data, not the other way around. If you start off with your argument and then look for source data, you're setting yourself up for all kinds of bias. Whereas if you start off with the data you're looking at, critically appraise it, and then conclude, which becomes your argument, that is far more rigorous.

However, you're not going to be able to argue anything particularly interesting with just numbers like above. If I want to argue that gun crimes are rational and not crimes of passion (at least in general) for example, no number of crime per capita statistics are going to prove that either way. I'm going to have to use other forms of reasoning and rhetoric to show that.

[Anonymous No.3464253]

> Oh no they're using freedom of speech to say something I don't like, we best spam them!! xD

[Anonymous No.3464255]

>hating on an image board on the internet

I thought you guys would learn something from the books you read.

[Anonymous No.3464257]

>>3462733
This is you OP, regards /pol/

[Anonymous No.3464261]

>this thread

[Anonymous No.3464267]

>>3463942

/pol/ STRONG! Bring it BITCHES!!!!

[Anonymous No.3464272]

If 4chan's proverbial spirit had an ultimate purpose, it would be free speech and random lulz.
It's a place not to give a fuck because you're anonymous and you can simply express yourself.
Suppression does not support 4chan's cause.

[Anonymous No.3464276]

>>3464252
You can continue typing 3 paragraph answers about something everybody knows, or just accept that your initial concern (whether /pol/ is able to cite reputable sources) is resolved.

[Anonymous No.3464282]

>>3464267

enjoy your ban

[Anonymous No.3464285]

This whole thread smells of begal