Why do you guys use /pol/ as a boogey man for everything that offends you. For the "smartest board on 4chan" you guys are pretty intolerant. Serious question.

File: 1.95 MB, 494x278, 1386688794611.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:20:50 2013 No.4368874 [DELETED]

Why do you guys use /pol/ as a boogey man for everything that offends you. For the "smartest board on 4chan" you guys are pretty intolerant.

Serious question.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:24:51 2013 No.4368891 >>4368874 Except we don't. We refer people to /pol/ when they make bold/bigoted/uninformed statements, and I'm not sure where it states that intelligence should preclude intolerance?

Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:25:51 2013 No.4368895

Every board does it because /pol/ is infamous for having a lot of crossover with /x/ in terms of completely fucking retarded paranoid schizophrenic delusions and stereotypical extreme Aryanist worldviews.

It's just the image associated with the board because they spent months flooding their own board and every other board with that fucking "yes goyim" bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:27:51 2013 No.4368905 >>4368874 Intelligence has nothing to do with tolerance. /pol/ please go. >do not respond to b8 threads.jpg

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:28:50 2013 No.4368908 File: 7 KB, 251x251, 1302244652765.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4368874 >serious question >no question mark

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:31:50 2013 No.4368922 >>4368905 >>4368891 >I CAN BE REALLY SMART BUT INTOLERANT What kind of lame-ass argument is this? I expected better.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:33:50 2013 No.4368932 >>4368922 What kind of lame-ass thread is this? I expected better.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:35:50 2013 No.4368943 >>4368922 Prove to me that "tolerance" has anything to do with intelligence. I'll wait.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:36:50 2013 No.4368947 >>4368922 Hitler was a pretty intelligent man, I'd say.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:37:50 2013 No.4368952 >>4368891 >>4368905 >>4368932 >>4368943 Justify your intolerance. What's that? You can't? That's what i thought.

Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:40:50 2013 No.4368964

>>4368891
>Except we don't. We refer people to /pol/ when they make bold/bigoted/uninformed statements, and I'm not sure where it states that intelligence should preclude intolerance?

Sure, there isn't proof of innate intellectual inferiority among blacks/hispanics at the physical/biological level, but there is convincing evidence that they are innately inferior through a combination of IQ tests (especially those that show different levels among races at the same income levels), adoption studies, and PISA scores. This all happening when minorities get more state benefits than we do (in the United States). However, because there isn't absolute proof I DO moderate my remarks. I avoid bigoted statements, but don't concern myself with what what be politically correct/incorrect; as long as I don't get overly emotional or hateful. Maybe if academia wasn't so politically correct they'd fund more research on this topic, and provide some finality/resolution to the debate. I'd like to see something equally convincing on your behalf that isn't just "WHITE'S ARE THE DEVIL! WHITE OPPRESSION!" This is honestly the impression I get. Am I just looking at the worst representatives on your side of the debate? What should I do when someone call me a racist and tells me to go away? *sigh*... sometimes I wonder if it's worth having /lit/ on my bookmarks toolbar. So much hate for so little purpose.

Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:41:50 2013 No.4368967

>>4368874

As someone who's interested in literature but has political views that some deem "rightist," I've noticed this trend on /lit/, too.

Even innocuous opinions that don't mesh with leftist or liberal views are immediately associated with /pol/, and interpreted (incorrectly) as evidence of that /pol/ is raiding /lit/. This effectively shuts down conversation and often results in thread deletions and three-day bans for the OP.

In addition to this, you'll often get leftists screaming that traditionalist views are, in the words of >>4368895

> completely fucking retarded paranoid schizophrenic delusions and stereotypical extreme Aryanist worldviews.

This, again, does nothing but shut down conversation.

It might be difficult for leftists on /lit/ to accept this, but some conservatives and traditionalists do enjoy reading literature, they have tastes for certain types of literature, and they're not at all associated with /pol/.

As one of these posters, I sincerely wish that /lit/'s janitorial staff would outgrow it's paranoia concerning a supposed infestation of 2spooky /pol/ infiltrators.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:42:51 2013 No.4368975 >>4368964 >sigh... sometimes I wonder if it's worth having /lit/ on my bookmarks toolbar. It's definitely not. I think you should go away and never come back. You will be much happier.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:44:50 2013 No.4368978 >>4368967 /lit/ is hardly "leftist." The fact that you think it is shows how much 4chan and whatever other internet haunts you hang out in have warped your perception of the political spectrum.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:46:50 2013 No.4368985 >>4368978 >/lit/ is hardly "leftist." 1/10 got me to reply. Try harder, you're worse than OP

Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:47:50 2013 No.4368992

>>4368895
>Every board does it

Wrong. Every board does not do this.

A quick visit to /int/, /out/, /fit/, et al. will show the occasional "happy merchant" pic or reference. These are tolerated by the janitors and the other posters.

/lit/, on the other hand, is the only board that I'm aware of (with the possible exception of /tg/) that enforces an across-the-board ban on even the most fleeting reference to Jews, racism, etc. This board is easily the most censored of any on 4chan.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:50:50 2013 No.4368995 >>4368992 >/lit/ >paradoxically the most Orwellian board on 4chan Sad, I know

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:50:50 2013 No.4368996 >>4368992 Banning morons for spouting epic maymays and shitting on the discussion isn't censorship. I see more people whining about how liberal and oppressive /lit/ is than people actually espousing "liberal" opinions. Talk about boogeymen.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:50:50 2013 No.4368997 Wow. Kid acted fast spontaneously. Daddy only touched him a bit with his arm. Nice acting; would've cringed if it weren't for my slow internet connection which allows me to see gifs in slow-mo.

Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:51:50 2013 No.4368998

>>4368967
>In addition to this, you'll often get leftists screaming that traditionalist views are, in the words of >>4368895
I wouldn't even say I lie on the left side of the political spectrum ,and I think it's pretty ignorant that you would instantly assume I am. But, in any case, there's a pretty big difference between being right-wing and genuinely believing that Jewish people are apart of an ancient clandestine order who secretly control world events and that everyone but white people are mindless savages that should be wiped off the face of the earth. That's not what you'll typically find on /pol/ from anyone that's being serious, but it's a good portion of what leaks onto other boards and thus is the unfortunate image that gets associated with /pol/ by everyone else on this website.

Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:51:50 2013 No.4368999

>>4368952
I'll justify it right now.

There is no distinction between speech and action. Speech is a form of action.

The joy of my existence depends on the spread of conflict within the social order, upsetting any and all systems of control and domination.

Right-wing thought reinforces these systems. This feature is not exclusive to right-wing thought. I am antagonistic to ideology as a whole, including liberal and leftist ones. It just so happens that right-wingers tend to be the more glaring opponents.

With this said, there is no reason why I shouldn't make every attempt to upset, remove, destroy, or otherwise impede these ideologues.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:52:50 2013 No.4369002 >>4368999 my god

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:53:50 2013 No.4369003 >>4368996 >called out for falsely stating that other boards pull the same shit >"B-B-BUT WHATEVER! IT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM! YOU'RE THE ONES WHO COMPLAIN MORE!" What a fucking tool.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:54:50 2013 No.4369005 >>4369002 >stirner.jpg

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:55:51 2013 No.4369008 >>4369003 I don't think anyone here cares that /lit/ is intolerant of Nazism and lame ironic-reactionary meme shitposting. >1/10 I replied and saged

Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc Sat Dec 14 16:56:51 2013 No.4369012

Do not post the following outside of /b/: Trolls, flames, racism, off-topic replies, uncalled for catchphrases, macro image replies, indecipherable text (example: "lol u tk him 2da bar|?"), anthropomorphic ("furry"), grotesque ("guro"), post number GETs ("dubs"), or loli/shota pornography. Keep /pol/ in /pol/. In essence: Don't shitpost.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:56:51 2013 No.4369013 >>4369003 I wasn't the guy who said "every board does it." It's absolutely true that some boards are more tolerant of the mouthbreathing contingent. That doesn't mean we want /lit/ to be as well.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:57:51 2013 No.4369014 >>4368996 >Banning morons ... isn't censorship. this is what /lit/ actually believes pppffffttttttt HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 16:58:50 2013 No.4369019 >>4368999 >all this pretension in a single post didn't even read it all the way through

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:00:50 2013 No.4369020 >>4369019 It's kinda pretentious to use the word "pretension" without knowing how to use it.

Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:01:50 2013 No.4369022

I just come here to talk about books.

Even then you guys are barely tolerable because everyone who isn't reading some obscure shit or non-fiction or some old ass piece of shit work about turning into a fucking bug is considered shit.

Truly, /lit/ is the domain of pretentious hipsters.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:02:50 2013 No.4369024 >>4369020 cool non-response bro, is all of lit this smart?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:02:50 2013 No.4369026 >>4369014 Can you explain why censorship is a bad thing?

Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:03:50 2013 No.4369031

>>4369012

>Keep /pol/ in /pol/.

I totally agree.

But this begs the question: What is a /pol/-tier post?

If it's "happy merchant" jpgs and Ben Garrison cartoons, I'm happy to see those get deleted.

But if it's a thread about literature written by futurists and Italian fascists, for example, I believe that DOES have a place on this board -- regardless of whether it might offend someone's political sensibilities. It's a thread about literature. Period.

But, of course, we all know it would get deleted within minutes -- on the spurious grounds that it's nothing but a platform for /pol/ raiding.

In other words, "keeping /pol/ in /pol/" is fine. There just needs to be a reasonable definition of what constitutes /pol/-related material. As it stands now, the definition is too widely interpreted.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:04:50 2013 No.4369033 >>4369024 It's also kinda pretentious to call something a "non-response" when it was, in reality, a response. See, there's a proper use of the word "pretentious", because I'm implying that you are intentionally projecting an ingenuous image.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:04:50 2013 No.4369036 >>4369026 No, the answer to this is so self-evident that you cant be anything but a troll. 1/10, i replied

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:05:50 2013 No.4369037 >>4368874 But /lit isnt the "smartest board on 4chan", thats /jp/.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:06:50 2013 No.4369039 >>4369033 >HURRR WELL AHKULTUALLY IT WAS A REPONSE DUURRRRR HURRRR I bet you pull all sorts of pussy

Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:06:50 2013 No.4369042

>>4369036
>the answer to this is so self-evident
No it isn't.

There's no such thing as an inherently positive or negative thing. Freedom of speech is a liberal concept and is not universally accepted.

Explain to me why censorship is a universally and inherently bad thing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:08:51 2013 No.4369046 >>4369039 You would win that bet, unfortunately.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:08:51 2013 No.4369048 >>4369042 >No it isn't. Stopped reading right there. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:08:51 2013 No.4369049 >>4369036 4chan's janitors and mods are not agents of any state. There is no censorship here, only moderation of content. If you want to have a different kind of discussion, you're free to go somewhere else.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:09:51 2013 No.4369055 >>4369046 You're a faggot and your posts are shit. Thanks for bumping my thread though

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:09:51 2013 No.4369058 >>4369048 >"Wahh, my worldview isn't infallible!"

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:10:51 2013 No.4369060 >>4369049 >IF U DONT LIKE IT LEAVE Compelling argument bro. Any other pearls of wisdom you wish to share?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:10:51 2013 No.4369062 File: 20 KB, 397x229, shades dot app.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4369055 I've been saging. Cheers, faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:11:51 2013 No.4369063 >>4369058 When I said "try again", I meant TRY. This is just pathetic

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:12:50 2013 No.4369067 >>4369062 No you haven't. Nice damage control tho

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:13:50 2013 No.4369070 >>4369060 It's not censorship if you get kicked out of a book club for shouting over everyone and ranting about things not related to the topic at hand. The same principle applies here. So yes. If you don't like it, leave.

Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:14:50 2013 No.4369073
File: 33 KB, 240x301, idiot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4369067
>doesn't know that sages no longer appear in the email field
Are you new, or have you been away from this website for a very long time?

Don't answer that, it doesn't actually matter.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:15:50 2013 No.4369076 >>4369063 >refuses to actually respond Alright, it's your choice if you just wanna give up, I guess! I'm out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:18:50 2013 No.4369082 >>4369076 >>4369070 >shown his argument is shit >presents the same argument again cool story bro >>4369073 >lies about saging to save face >R U A NEWFAG kek >I'm out Good. Don't come back.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:18:50 2013 No.4369085 >>4369082 >lies about saging to save face Are you retarded?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:19:50 2013 No.4369086 >>4369082 I wonder if you actually think that being the most abrasive will make you look the most correct, or if you're just really frustrated right now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:20:50 2013 No.4369088 When the fuck did /lit/ become "/v/ - But with boox instead"?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:23:50 2013 No.4369092 >>4369085 >dat damage control neato >>4369086 >i wonder if pretentiously shitposting will make me seem smart protip: it doesn't

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:25:51 2013 No.4369096 >>4369092 If you keep getting "censored" then maybe it's time to start wondering whether it's because your ideas are too dangerous, or because they're too stupid. Just saying.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:26:50 2013 No.4369098 >>4369092 be thankful you got a place where you can be angular and not get shit from everyone

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:28:50 2013 No.4369106 >>4369096 >Just saying Post invalidated. >>4369098 be grateful you have a pretentious shithole full of circle jerking faggots who report and cry to mods whenever their fragile world views are challenged.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:28:50 2013 No.4369108 >>4369106 If you keep getting "censored" then maybe it's time to start wondering whether it's because your ideas are too dangerous, or because they're too stupid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:29:50 2013 No.4369110 >>4369106 >pretentious fuck off, pleb. Do we make you feel bad with our big scary words?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:30:50 2013 No.4369112 >>4369110 >>4369108 >petty insults and copy pastes I'll take these posts as an admission of defeat. Who knew /lit/ was so dumb?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:30:50 2013 No.4369113 File: 138 KB, 1081x479, lit in charge of free thought.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] /lit/s mods are leftist shills. Clearly this has rubbed off on some of it's regular users.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:31:50 2013 No.4369114 >>4369110 >Do we make you feel bad with our big scary words? Oh brother. Don't you have, like, a coffeeshop to impress with your reading selection or something?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:32:50 2013 No.4369120 >>4369112 >>4369114 What are you trying to accomplish here?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:33:50 2013 No.4369122 >>4369114 >goes to /lit/ >doesn't like challenging literature >doesn't like literature at all u wot m8

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:33:50 2013 No.4369124 File: 327 KB, 985x1270, 1387060404545.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Remember, no "/pol/"* posts allowed >*/pol/ posts are anything I don't agree with by the way

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:34:50 2013 No.4369130 File: 257 KB, 816x1016, 1387060490786.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:35:50 2013 No.4369134 >>4369130 >>4369124 >>4369113 >muh free thought go make a tumblr post about your "oppression", will ya?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:37:50 2013 No.4369140 >>4369134 Tumblr posters are the ones that think free thought/speech should be illegal if it offends them though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:37:50 2013 No.4369141 >>4369120 I'm already going to get banned. So I might as well troll to my hearts content. Its hilarious that you took the bait.

Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:38:51 2013 No.4369146

>>4369130
White Girl Bleed a Lot is nothing more than a political jeremiad that presents a long list of anecdotes and doesn't offer any significant statistical analysis to support its arguments.

Just because it's written on paper doesn't make it /lit/ material. That book belongs on /pol/. It's nothing but agitprop.

Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:39:51 2013 No.4369147

the mods are heavy-handed here in general about spam and off-topic threads.
there's no blacklist here for /pol/ish views- maybe there used to be but certainly not anymore from all of the conservative literature threads and such we've had. it's just that for any political viewpoint it's better to enforce an actually intelligent level of debate. so sorry, some of us do lean towards /pol/ on the political spectrum but none of us are missing a million happy merchant jpegs and "jidf detected"s.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:39:51 2013 No.4369149 File: 34 KB, 349x642, 1279836237443.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4369141

Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:39:51 2013 No.4369150

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
And then everything was quite a bit better, really, and no-one much minded that any of them were gone.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:39:51 2013 No.4369152 >>4369146 >Just because it's written on paper doesn't make it /lit/ material. It's the definition of literature, it's written works. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not allowed on /lit/

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:40:50 2013 No.4369158 >>4369146 >books i dont like belong on pol

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:40:50 2013 No.4369159 File: 858 KB, 240x228, 1375213780001.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4369141 >troll >b8 >hilarious back in the day, trolling actually meant something

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:40:50 2013 No.4369162 >>4369146 /lit/ is for the discussion of literature. I wasn't aware that moot had changed the name to /lit/ - literature that meets my academic standards.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:41:50 2013 No.4369163 >>4369149 >spent time arguing with a troll >the ruse is revealed >WWWAAAAHHHH DAMAGE CONTROL nothing to see here folks

Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:42:50 2013 No.4369166

>>4369152

So should we also start having threads about our favorite physics textbooks, our favorite D&D rulebooks, our favorite comics, our favorite light novels?

Or are there maybe boards better suited to these written works.

White Girl Bleed a Lot is a piece of extremist agitprop and the guy who kept posting it only posted here to stir up shit. Go away.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:42:50 2013 No.4369167 >>4369162 let's talk about Twilight then, while we're at it. Nothing like dumbing down the discourse for idiots like you, because we have to be "inclusive" now

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:44:50 2013 No.4369176 >>4369167 >>4369166 see >>4369158 You've done nothing but restated you're retarded opinion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:45:50 2013 No.4369179 File: 132 KB, 680x680, 1386094857578.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4369176 >you're

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:45:50 2013 No.4369180 File: 43 KB, 250x250, 1331886546041.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] /pol/ is just /b/ with an agenda

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:45:50 2013 No.4369181 File: 148 KB, 1778x346, the logic of a lit mod.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:46:50 2013 No.4369183 File: 449 KB, 273x181, not_sure_if.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4369176 >you're

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:46:50 2013 No.4369184 >>4369176 Do you really think threads about technical manuals and Japanese manga belong here too just because they contain words written on paper?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:46:50 2013 No.4369189 >>4369181 I wonder how the /lit/mob will defend this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:47:50 2013 No.4369190 >>4369180 neo /b/ terrifies me. Newfriends in general do, actually.

Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:47:50 2013 No.4369193

>>4369166
1) comics are discussed here all the time, and there has been discussion of physics textbooks, gaming rulebooks, and light novels here before.

2) you don't get to decide what qualifies as "extreme agitprop."

3) none of the examples you posted are the same thing at all. you want to ban specific works that you deem not "real" political literature, while banning any one of these categories would be more like banning all political literature. I guess we should also ban 10 Days That Shook the World for being "agitprop," or ban Martin Luther for writing religious propaganda?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:48:50 2013 No.4369197 >>4369167 You are allowed to discuss Twilight here dumbass. We've had plenty of threads on Twilight, The Hunger Games, 50 Shades of Grey, and similar works.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:48:50 2013 No.4369199 >>4369189 >saying lit can't be relevant because it's foreign figure that one out for yourself, boyo.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:49:50 2013 No.4369200 >>4369189 Both were shitposts that don't belong here, although the one that got deleted was meant in earnest, which is frankly kind of mindblowing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:50:50 2013 No.4369205 >>4369181 one of those is oozing sarcasm, the other isn't.

Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:50:50 2013 No.4369206
File: 286 KB, 1200x806, trh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

/pol/ has had some nice literature and philosophy threads semi-recently. Some of those fuckers are really knowledgeable about right wing or left wing stuff, depending on their interest. Also got some nice info about Christianity.

I don't mind that some of /pol/'s right wingers are less well-read, because there are kinda limited opportunities and reasons to be well-read in such things these days. The enthusiastic atmosphere is at least conducive to enthusiastically sharing recommendations and finds when they do pop up, and "experts" come along often enough.

Can't stand skinheads and neo-nazis online, just hicks with internet connections and a randomly chosen religion and iconography of racism, but /pol/ distinctly differs from them, tbh. More eager neophyte right wingers, fewer bald rednecks who were born into a "Nazi KKK family" and who are just carrying on the traditions.

Still it obviously clashes with /lit/'s MO of slow discourse with a high level of respect for academics and professionals (again, there are few of those with right wing views). No wonder that there is friction. Never seen one /lit/ invasion thread or post though, ever.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:50:50 2013 No.4369207 >>4369199 So how is that worthy of getting banned and deleted. But literally saying white people are scum who should be killed is fine?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:51:50 2013 No.4369209 >>4369200 >the anti-white racist wasn't' serious! Ok, then neither was the one you're referring to.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:52:50 2013 No.4369211 >>4369184 see >>4369176 Why do you just keep doing it? Over and over?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:52:50 2013 No.4369212 >>4369200 So if I ironically say that niggers are scum that need to be deported, that isn't going to be me banned?

Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:52:50 2013 No.4369214

>>4369193
>1) comics are discussed here all the time

Not really. When threads get made about comics, there's a lot of grumbling and linkbacks to /co/ and they tend to get deleted. As it should be.

>and there has been discussion of physics textbooks, gaming rulebooks, and light novels here before.

Light novels maybe. With copious linkbacks to /jp/ and eventual thread deletion, also. There isn't any discussion about rulebooks and textbooks here. Come on, think about what you're saying.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:53:50 2013 No.4369217 >>4369190 >neo /b/ terrifies me It truly is an abysmal state of affairs over there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:54:51 2013 No.4369220 >>4369180 That's just not true.

Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:54:51 2013 No.4369225

>>4369207
>>4369209
>what is sarcasm?

be autists somewhere else, okay? I would kill you if I had the chance that's sarcasm too, if you catch my drift

>>4369212
we get that all the time. It is, however, /pol/ tier and will be referred to as such. If the way things are done here doesn't please you, no one's forcing you to stay.

Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:55:51 2013 No.4369226

>>4369212

It should. And people joking about how all white people need to die trying to stir up the /pol/tards should also get the boot. And people who seriously think "foreign lit cannot ever be relevant to me" shouldn't even be here in the first place, I mean my god.

Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:55:51 2013 No.4369227

>>4369214
welp, there we go, newfriend tells me about my own board.

there has been discussion of physics textbooks here before.

there has been discussion of gaming rulebooks here before.

there have even been "/lit/ visual novel" threads here before that haven't been deleted.

deal with it.

feel free to address my other points

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:55:51 2013 No.4369229 >>4369225 >we get that all the time. It is, however, /pol/ tier and will be referred to as such So racism against white people is fine. But racism against anyone else is "/pol/ tier" and is bannable. Wow. The cognitive dissonance is staggering.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:56:50 2013 No.4369230 >>4369220 Yes, it is. The more I think about the more assured I am. It describes it perfectly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:56:50 2013 No.4369233 >>4369226 60% of our discussions are about foreign literature and "muh translations"

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:56:50 2013 No.4369236 >>4369226 The validity of his opinion is irrelevant. A simple response would have sufficed, banning him and deleting the post is just retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:58:50 2013 No.4369242 >>4369236 There's no evidence he was banned. Posts get deleted all the time without bans being doled out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:58:50 2013 No.4369243 >>4369205 nice excuse

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:59:50 2013 No.4369247 >>4369242 He may have also deleted it himself when people started calling him out for being such a retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 17:59:50 2013 No.4369248 >>4369242 I know he was banned... because that poster was me

Anonymous Sat Dec 14 18:00:50 2013 No.4369250

>>4369229
/pol/ is about "muh whiteness" and racism against non-whites, so "racism against whites" isn't /pol/. Go make a thread about it there, you'll get curbstomped. Nevermind the fact that "racism" isn't an abstract concept. Nevermind the fact that no one takes racism against white people seriously. Nevermind that this isn't about literature anymore, but about you wanting to dictate the discourse, because you don't like the state of affairs. Nevermind that your argument is /pol/ tier in itself

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 18:01:50 2013 No.4369258 >>4369247 No. If you look at the thread, about half the posts got deleted because a few people dared to argue that middle eastern literature was subpar compared to european literature.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 14 18:01:50 2013 No.4369260 >>4369248 no, it was me. Stop lying.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature