/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7088427]

ITT: Phrases that immediately give someone away as a turbopleb

I'll start.

*academic consensus destroys their view*
"Literature is all subjective though."

>mfw

[Anonymous No.7088436]

>>7088427
>"Literature is all subjective though."

This.

[Anonymous No.7088444]

"I don't need the classics, anon. You see, if all literature is based on those, then I can read modern novels and its almost the same."

>I don't talk to her no' more.

[Anonymous No.7088445]

>>7088427
What view?

[Anonymous No.7088448]

The words inherently or insufferable. or inherently insufferable.

[Anonymous No.7088454]

>Hey anon, I'm a turbopleb. Whatever that is.

[Anonymous No.7088460]

>>7088444
No one said this, come on

[Anonymous No.7088464]

>always already

[Anonymous No.7088466]

it's a doggy dog world

[Anonymous No.7088475]

>>7088460
I live in a shit country.

[Anonymous No.7088482]

>>7088436
Well it is and it isn't.

If you're judging art ''objectively'' then you have to set some kind of standard which may or may not be arbitrary.

If I say, for example, that Kafka's The Metamorphosis is a better Guy Wakes Up As A Bug book than Joyce's Ulysses, then I'd be correct, but it doesn't account for the fact that Ulysses wasn't attempting to be that kind of book.

[Anonymous No.7088504]

>>7088482
>Well it is and it isn't.
it IS to those who only talk about literature in philosophical generalities

and it ISN'T to those who discuss/study literature with seriousness and any degree of context.

[Anonymous No.7088550]

>>7088448
'Insufferable' is such an insufferable word.

'Inherently' isn't inherently bad tbh.

[Anonymous No.7088576]

>>7088427
not really phrases, but this happens alot: when i offer my interpretation of a passage under discussion in class, i can always spot the pleb because it is inevitably some tumblrina-esque landwhale with whom I disagree who cuts me and the prof responding to me off to clarify on what points of her interpretation i am incorrect.

[Anonymous No.7088590]

>>7088576
you're a pleb

[Anonymous No.7088606]

>>7088482
This is true.

My gripe with the phrase is when it is used to disregard any intersubjective and/or academic judgment.

[Anonymous No.7088708]

>>7088550
I like you

[Anonymous No.7088710]

>>7088427
>turbopleb

[Anonymous No.7088723]

>>7088710
I was going to inb4 someone quoting the OP, but I figured it wasn't worth the effort. Guess I was wrong.

[Anonymous No.7089213]

au final

[Anonymous No.7089222]

>>7088427
>>7088436

can you run me through where objectivity comes from, I seem to forget?

[Anonymous No.7089230]

"ample"

[Anonymous No.7089256]

>>7089222

Reality. Join us some time.

[Anonymous No.7089259]

"human nature"
"personal creator"
"theory vs. practice"
"you don't understand the dialectic"

[Anonymous No.7089271]

>>7088576
>alot
>complains about the weight of others
>cares about tumblr groups enough to saltily post on an anonymous image board about them in his spare time
>unironically posting in a thread about 'turboplebs'

Hmm

[Anonymous No.7089286]

>>7089259

>doesn't think human nature exists
>doesn't think humans have any constraints or dictates

Grow wings and turn into a star.

[Anonymous No.7089296]

>>7089271
>Fat, and down to earth as a result

[Anonymous No.7089299]

>>7089222

[Anonymous No.7089300]

>>7088427
"At least it gets kids into reading."

[Anonymous No.7089312]

>>7089299

kek

[Anonymous No.7089316]

>>7089300
triggered

[Anonymous No.7089341]

>>7089299
This attitude infuriates and amuses me. My experience is limited to America, where it seems that "all men are created equal" has been extended to include all thoughts, ideas, and opinions. No one is wrong, and no one knows any more than anyone else. Is it like this everywhere?

[Anonymous No.7089344]

>>7089300
You haven't interacted with anyone under the age of 18 in the last decade, have you?

[Anonymous No.7089449]

>>7089341
Fuck no. Only in west.

This shit is so annoying you almost wish for a Chinese style patriarchy with a good taste leader at the head.

[Anonymous No.7089467]

It is subjective. OP is merely pointing how people bring that up only when convenient to avoid discussing things throughly. It's like saying "agree to disagree". Of course it is subjective, that's precisely why we debate and bring our experiences and knowledges into discussion, learning and changing and so on. The problem is not really at that part of the talk the person says it is subjective, but on the implied certainty the person had moments before, a certainty that is threatened by the experience of another. In spite of saying it is subjective, that person is not really believing that it is, talking as if one ought to defend oneself from the views of others on the matter, others that might perhaps have a much more vast experience on it. Even though there is no doubt that it is subjective, this has nothing to do with that bizarre notion that we live in islands of aesthetic experience.

[Anonymous No.7089493]

>>7089300
Nothing can top this. #1 defense of pleb material in any field.

[Anonymous No.7089500]

>>7089299
but what if my culture prefers wobbly tables or doesn't value staying healthy?

[Anonymous No.7089509]

>>7089299
so basically more complicated = objectively better

[Anonymous No.7089534]

>>7088448
inherantly can be useful but I would say that it is used far more often than necessary

its insufferable, really

[Anonymous No.7089539]

>>7089509
The proper use of technique and form to present beauty and emotion in its rawest form (i.e. serve the purpose of art) = objectively better, according to classicism.

[Anonymous No.7089554]

>>7089299
dear god that font is horrible why would anyone do that

[Anonymous No.7089558]

>>7089467
this is an objectively good explanation of subjectivity

[Anonymous No.7089573]

>>7089467

You sound a little buttflustered about something.

[Anonymous No.7089611]

>>7089509
more complicated while tightly controlled = indication of greater skill.

seems easy enough to tell when a writer is technically skilled, aware of clichés and movements etc and so has more experience with both reading and writing. you don't have to go and dissect the idea of objective value in every thread. unless maybe you want more midget lesbian tibetan diaspora writers to enter the canon and can't be too picky once you actually find some.

[Anonymous No.7089624]

>>7089611

Then you also get the try too hards and the old guys who cannot into creativity or new or original ideas of ways of thinking. Then you get them national pride types.

[Anonymous No.7089638]

>>7089286
>externalities

[Anonymous No.7089670]

>>7089500
so you're from South America?

yeah called it

[Anonymous No.7089700]

>morally irresponsible
>intellectually dishonest
>problematic

[Anonymous No.7089712]

>>7089299
>MATER OF TASTE

'Tis I, The Mater of Taste!

[Anonymous No.7089735]

>>7089467
Underrated post, and /thread on the "it is all subjective" meme.

[Anonymous No.7089751]

>>7089700
spotted the guy who can't argue for shit

[Anonymous No.7089859]

>>7089299
Want to read my new novel? It's packed full of literary techniques: similes, metaphors, it really has it all. I mean the critical reception has generally been unfavourable but I got my 'literary-techniques'opedia out and crammed at least one of every example in. I wrote it on my new table. It has exceptionally strong wood so I knew it must be good. Isn't it nice how we both have such objective measures of quality in both fields?

[Anonymous No.7089870]

>>7088427
>reminding people what year it is to denigrate someone they disagree with

[Anonymous No.7089903]

>>7089859
>being this retarded

[Anonymous No.7089940]

>>7089299
The first two examples are not analogous to literature because food and tables have basically the same purpose for everyone, whereas literature is much more complex and less universal. The music example has everything to do with complexity and nothing to do with quality (this is because quality is not definable, btw). As for the lit example, who says those techniques add to the value of the work?

[Anonymous No.7089948]

>>7089256
Go ahead and define that one for me, if you don't mind.

[Anonymous No.7089957]

>>7089940
Why are you defensive about this? Genre-fiction lover?

[Anonymous No.7090010]

>>7089948
A mystery, an objective mystery.

[Anonymous No.7090020]

>>7089957
Feel free to continue deflecting until you have an argument. I'll be waiting ;)

>>7090010
Sounds spooky.

[Anonymous No.7090021]

>>7089948
everything that comes to be manifested in your consciousness. You can observe the phenomenon of people choosing an unrotten vegetable rather than a rotten one in 99% of cases therefore it is reasonable to assume objectively foods that are unrotten are preferable. Now scurry back to your hole before your presence offends someone

[Anonymous No.7090058]

>>7090021
Ah, so reality is consensus-based? I sure hope you haven't sinned, anon, because Christianity is the world's most popular religion, and eternal torment doesn't sound fun.

[Anonymous No.7090088]

>>7090058
>Ah, so reality is consensus-based?
Well yeah, we test or concepts against external sources until only the objective truths are left. That doesn't mean there isn't room for change but over time we can reach a more pure reality.

[Anonymous No.7090104]

>>7090088

Is reality internal or external?

[Anonymous No.7090128]

>>7089903
>>7089957
>>7090010
>mfw the complete lack of cohesive thought or rational argument from the objectivists

[Anonymous No.7090132]

>>7090104
internal, but it reflects the external

[Anonymous No.7090158]

>>7090132

What does the external reflect?

[Anonymous No.7090193]

Can we agree that literature can be subjective according to specific standars? I mean, if we establish certain paramaters (such as technique, complexity, aesthetic quality, etc.) and classificate certain litterary works in those parameters, wouldn't it be valid the subjective taste, in those concerns?

An example if I didn't make myself clear: someone likes more the Odyssey, and some prefers the Theogony.

[Anonymous No.7090213]

>>7090193

Why do you care so much?

[Anonymous No.7090282]

>anime/manga is art
>video games are art
>hemingway isn't good
>not a phrase, but people who can't define modernism but regularly refer to things as 'post-modern'

That last one really fucking gets me. Like 'oh this story doesn't have a narrative structure, thats so PoMo' - you need to learn to walk before you can run, and trying to understand or define postmodernism before you gain sufficient knowledge of modernism is batshit retarded. Because these people often think the world went from 19th century romanticism and tradition straight into 2edgy4me nabokov and pynchon in the 50s/60s or someshit and don't realise how subversive and groundbreaking writers like Joyce, Sherwood Anderson, Woolf, Pound etc. were.... it's mostly because modernist works still seem 'traditional' and 'fancy' to the unobservant, and it takes a whole bunch of in your face dumb postmodern fuckery for them to realise that something is new or good.

[Anonymous No.7090286]

>>7088475
where? where is someone this stupid allowed to exist?

[Anonymous No.7090298]

>>7089299
agreed. literature is a particularly artistic medium. art is very difficult to quantify substance wise.
BUT YOU CAN STILL HAVE STANDARDS AND ARGUE FOR QUALITY BY DISSECTING BOOKS LIKE AN EDUCATED BIPED. THE PEOPLE WHO PREACH THE ''MUH INDESCRIBABLE LIKE OF SHIT TIER ART'' GET BLOWN THE FUCK OUT WHEN YOU ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT WHY A BOOK IS ENJOYABLE AND WORTHWHILE.

[Anonymous No.7090337]

>>7090286
there are plenty in america
just go to any state university
kill me

[Anonymous No.7090341]

>>7090298
Based on the (admittedly limited) evidence I have before me anon I somewhat suspect that in your case they don't get "blown the fuck out" but merely slightly bored and exasperated before walking away

[Anonymous No.7090350]

>>7090341
*tips*

[Anonymous No.7090730]

>>7089341
homie i feel this exact same way and i live in the us too.

[Anonymous No.7090746]

>>7089299
Cultural linguists in a nutshell

[Anonymous No.7090753]

"Cultural Marxism"

[Anonymous No.7090759]

"SJW"

[Anonymous No.7090770]

when people use sweeping generalizations like "liberal" or "left-wing" as a group they cam blame their problems on

[Anonymous No.7090808]

Guys what if like people had emotions, right?
If they had emotions and then they had opinions and then they became emotionally invested in ideas.
When invested in an idea they find evidence to support it everywhere on the internet even shit like flat-earth and your homosexuality is proved on the internet.
dang

[Anonymous No.7090904]

>>7090753
>>7090759
>>7090770
>samefagsjw

hey, tumblr is that way

[Anonymous No.7091327]

People who deride genre fiction

[Anonymous No.7091336]

>>7088444

>needing literature

[Anonymous No.7091352]

>>7090808
you are being passive aggressive, insecure, and stupid.

[Anonymous No.7091361]

>>7088466
Only 4 snoop, nigga

[Anonymous No.7091368]

Literature is subjective in a sense that different people will enjoy different things no matter if it's simpler or more complex. Which is what reading (if you're pleasure reading for the fiction and not like, say a text book or something to learn) is all about.
You could argue that's not an objective truth of all people who read also though. You can recognize a book is more detailed/employs better literary devices to develop the store and characters etc but if you don't need to do that in order to make the book enjoyable to your audience why should you? Just because you know how to doesn't necessarily imply that you need to complicate the writing.

[Anonymous No.7091369]

>there is such thing as academic consensus

that's how you know someone doesn't read academic texts

[Anonymous No.7091683]

>>7090350
You're better than that anon

[Anonymous No.7091688]

>>7091369
>Confusing consensus and unanimous consensus

[Sage No.7092582]

>>7090088
>Pure reality

>the purity of essence

Lol

But yes there is objective reality otherwise we wouldn't assume we can communicate with each other and wouldn't bother posting.

[Sage No.7092590]

>>7090104
Both. First it's external then becomes internal as I penetrate your mum.

[Anonymous No.7092604]

>let's agree to disagree

NOOOOO
You're objectively wrong, you dumbass.

[Anonymous No.7092674]

>>7088427
"I don't get poetry"

/thread

[Anonymous No.7092704]

>>7088482
>>7088504
>>7088606
all this tbh

[Anonymous No.7092717]

>>7088436
>>7088427
How is literature not subjective...

[Anonymous No.7092752]

>>7090282
reminder that art is not a positive adjective

[Anonymous No.7092762]

>>7090904
real clever

[Anonymous No.7092770]

>>7088427

If fiction is objective, why is it so hard to write a good novel? If essays are objective, why haven't we figured everything out yet? You don't understand what these words mean.

This board is really the dregs of literary discussion. No matter how smart some of you presumably may be, you're all very young, and haven't had the time needed to read enough, and learn enough, to have anything worthwhile to say.

[Anonymous No.7092851]

>>7088427
NAH

[Anonymous No.7092887]

>>7088606
>accept intersubjective opinions
>butthurt for people who say literature is subjective

[Sage No.7093076]

>>7092770
Writing is a craft like sculpting. You need practice and a sense of awareness about the field to do anything interesting tbh otherwise it's usually immature and cliche. You could say a blob of clay is beautiful but that doesnt mean it ought to be studied nor does it make fiction purely subjective.

[Anonymous No.7093125]

>>7088427
I agree with the academic consensus or think that consensus means something and is irrefutable

Turbopleb

[Anonymous No.7093147]

>>7093125
Forgot to greentext

[Anonymous No.7093190]

>>7092770
well think of a football player, its easy to say what objective qualities make a good player. but at the same time he needs practice in order to get to that level. Its the same with literature, writers don't just start good, they need to learn how to write

[Anonymous No.7093219]

>>7088444

No one said this anon, I bet you're just saying some shit to fit in.

Unless of course you're saying this thinking she's not on this board so you talk shit to make your wounded ego feel better.

[Anonymous No.7093426]

>>7092770
>you're all very young, and haven't had the time needed to read enough.
More like haven't had the time to write enough.

[Anonymous No.7093523]

>>7092887
Reading comprehension.
I don't care about subjectivity in itself, what is pleb is to -use it to disregard all teleological judgments-, which I have seen happen many times.

>"Shakespeare's writing is shit."
>"What makes you say that?"
>"His writing is boring and hard to understand."
>"Maybe you find it so, but he is widely considered to be one of the greatest English writers of all time."
>"Literature is just subjective, the only thing that matters is what I think. Ergo his writing is shit"

[Anonymous No.7093530]

"I prefer e-books"

[Anonymous No.7093537]

>>7089213
Ceci, tellement ceci.

[Anonymous No.7093548]

>>7092770
Thus the tenth person falsely insinuating OP states literature is objective.

'Fiction' wasn't even mentioned.

[Deep&Edgy !!BfzNblz4cXS No.7093575]

>>7089299

[Anonymous No.7093578]

>>7088448
I like inherently, but know i feel insecure. Thank you dicklord.

[Anonymous No.7093598]

"I frequent 4chan and mock other people who I believe to be inferior to me."

[Anonymous No.7093610]

>the emperor is naked
>obfuscatory
>modern art is shit
>modern music is shit, i was born in le wrong generation
>modern literature is shit

these things are a dead giveaway for someone who is spoon-fed culture all their life and expect to continue to be spoon-fed after high school

[Anonymous No.7093617]

>>7089213
>>7089213
double sujet
trop pour très
adorer pour aimer
alternative pour choix
Il y en a plein d'autres, mais je ne suis pas inspiré...

[Anonymous No.7093618]

>>7089300
I dont see anything wrong with it.

[Anonymous No.7093881]

>>7089300
Yeah, I fucking hate seeing kids reading. Smug gits

[Anonymous No.7093926]

>>7093610
Modern art is shit though.

[Anonymous No.7093947]

>>7093926
le wrong generation

[Anonymous No.7093954]

>>7093618
>>7093881
you know there's shit and good kid lit right

[Anonymous No.7094061]

>>7093954
I do if you're talking about some stuff potentially warping children's values. I don't if you're talking purely about quality

[Anonymous No.7094153]

>>7089870
did you do that pepe yourself
cause it's a shitty pepe
also, people usually say this ironically

[Anonymous No.7095858]

>>7093926
This tbh.

>idiots will say it isn't

QED >>7093947

Take Finnegan's Wake, and take an abstract splatter painting.
Both break the conventions of their fields and present an atomized product hard for laypersons to access.
The difference is, if you could travel a century in the future and destroy all background info about the splatter painting and Finnegan's Wake- who the authors were, explanation of what the works seek to accomplish- the former would be incomprehensible chaff while the latter would actually have the possibility of being 're-explained'. Experienced academics could actually find the specific genius behind the calculated lattice of wordplay and advanced allusion, despite the fact that both the painting and book at face value appear nonsensical.
Much of Modern Art cannot stand even slightly devoid of context-- that solid-red canvas in a museum selling for 20 million dollars could find itself in a theatre shop, identical in form, but worthless.

[Anonymous No.7095914]

>>7095858
I agree about Jackson Pollock and "some guy painting a canvas red" but come on, dude, do you have no idea who Gerhardt Richter is? Richard Serra? Yes, "much of modern art cannot stand devoid of context," you are absolutely right, and it own't, and obscurantists will try to champion the crap into 2050 but like all prior centuries only some will survive.

You're making some great points but a very broad generalization. Modern art is not just Banksy and splatter-painters.

[Anonymous No.7095961]

>>7095914
You're being pedantic. Obviously no one is saying every artistic work produced since 1940 or whatever has been shit, but when people think hear modern art they think big metal cubes or giant stick figure sculptures or something equally retarded and devoid of any artistic or even intellectual merit.

Modern art is shit. it's the taking of simple forms that require no skill, placing it in a physical context where we're more primed to think it is profound and meaningful, and writing some tripe about how a hole in a rock is a representation of the primordial yonic energies or some gay shit.

Simplicity, minimalism, is not bad in and of itself. It jives really well with corporate decors tbh. But don't tell me these colored squares are anything other than flits of movement rendered in color at worst, or just a highly abstract and nebulous representation of whatever ultimately unknowable state of mind the artist was trying to communicate at best.

[Anonymous No.7096038]

>>7089299
>conflating taste with quality
Yipyip

[Anonymous No.7096912]

>>7093617
je ne sais pas pourqoui, mais j'aime votre langue

[Anonymous No.7096927]

>>7088427
turbopleb
/ˈtəːbəʊplɛb/
noun, informal

1. One who holds a differing opinion

2. A derogatory term used to invalidate an alternative claim when you are unable to argue against it

[Anonymous No.7096950]

>>7095961
>But don't tell me these colored squares are anything other than flits of movement rendered in color at worst, or just a highly abstract and nebulous representation of whatever ultimately unknowable state of mind the artist was trying to communicate at best.
'Modern art' is closely tied to secular gnosticism, the official state religion of the USA and EU.

Gnostics believe that the physical world is evil. Thus, they are iconoclasts -- that is, morally opposed to realistic or meaningful artistic depictions of the material world.

Modern art is the gnostic equivalent of islamic geometric patterns -- an iconoclast form of religious non-representational art.

P.S. This is also why all modern art is required to be ugly: gnostics really need to hammer in that 'material world is evil' point without actually depicting the material world non-symbolically.

[Anonymous No.7096968]

>>7089300
I'mt here with you anon, people need to stop passing off Twilight shit as acceptable because it get's their kids "reading"

>also, dubs checked

[Anonymous No.7096981]

>>7089341
Fucking, thank you.
The thing people over look is THAT equality doesn't mean quality of content but instead refers to protection under the law. That's. fucking. it. You are protected equally have the same rights, but don't fucking tell me you're character is equal to mine Mr. Fedorafuck

[Anonymous No.7097012]

>>7096950
I'm adopting this as my new meme.

[Anonymous No.7097016]

>>7096981
>over look
>You are protected equally have the same rights
>you're character

Ssheesh

[Anonymous No.7097744]

>>7096950
Ah, the new American puritans. I've heard a bit about this theory on here, are there any writers who tackle 'secular gnosticism' in the West?

[Anonymous No.7097799]

>>7089299
>unable to distinguish between facts and values
this why you lit and art fags do not have seat at the adult table

[Anonymous No.7097818]

>>7097799
>CP Snow
Mah Nigger

[Anonymous No.7097824]

>>7088454
Kek

[Anonymous No.7097839]

>>7093523
>talk with people
>refuse to take her opinions

[Anonymous No.7098027]

>>7092582
Given the fact that you experience the universe using 5 old, rusty tools and a brain that makes up more thaimdead

[Anonymous No.7098203]

>>7090021
>everything that comes to be manifested in your consciousness. You can observe the phenomenon of people choosing an unrotten vegetable rather than a rotten one in 99% of cases therefore it is reasonable to assume objectively foods that are unrotten are preferable. Now scurry back to your hole before your presence offends someone

You could, also, argue that, 99% of the time, people will choose to read The Hunger Games over Ulysses, so The Hunger Games is objectively preferable.

[Anonymous No.7098261]

>>7088444
>"I don't need the classics, anon, they are written by old white men and based on an inheritant patriarchal and oppressive view on society"

[Anonymous No.7098713]

>>7089341

Yes it's the same over here in Soviet Russia

[Anonymous No.7098736]

>>7098261
Go back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.7098815]

>>7089299
more like

>implying virtue ethics

[Anonymous No.7098922]

>>7093610
Modern music is bad though.

There was some incredible stuff happening in the early 20th century, but then the Great Depression happened and the quality of output quickly declined. I'd sum up the blame for this decay as a result of popular music becoming more popular, a poor economy destroying high culture, and general angst-fueled stupidity resulting in music that exists solely to be a novelty.

Music is the most easily corrupted medium, because the best music costs a fortune to make, requires many trained individuals to practice long and hard, and requires many years to become proficient in writing it. It can also be consumed passively, one can play music in a car but wouldn't dare watch a movie or read a novel while driving. Compare a 40 minute pop album that took a few days worth of net time to write, 10-some people to create, and a moderate budget. Now compare that to a movie, which is likely to be over an hour, took weeks worth of hours to film properly, requires hundreds of people, land, and a budget that can be in the millions.

I'm barely even cherrypicking here, Nickleback and F&F were the examples I was thinking of. Both are considered to be low quality, but make a good profit. The difference is that the album can be promoted with singles, can be churned out faster, and costs much less to make.

Think of a musician like Frank Zappa, who is generally considered to be good. The truth is, he churned out more garbage than most, and did a lot of it just for money. Speaking of dead musicians, they can be milked for even more once dead simply by re-releasing demos or alternate mixes and the like, that can't really be done with a movie; it costs too much and doesn't make as much money consistently.

[Anonymous No.7098937]

>>7098922
>Modern music is bad though.

>Tangent

>Tangent

>Tangent

>Tangent

I'm not sure what I expected

[Anonymous No.7098943]

>>7098937
>tangent
I don't think you know what that is, I provided evidence to support my arguments.

[Anonymous No.7098959]

>>7089341
I think you may be overstating the case somewhat anon. Besides subjectivism in the arts, where else would you say this is happening?

[Anonymous No.7099716]

>>7088448
This poster's ideology is insufferably inherent in his post

[Anonymous No.7099720]

>>7098922
>Modern music is bad though.
MBDTF would like to have a word with you.

[Anonymous No.7099729]

>yeah, but they also thought the earth was flat

[Anonymous No.7100069]

>>7098943

>evidence

>"Music is the most easily corrupted medium, because the best music costs a fortune to make, requires many trained individuals to practice long and hard, and requires many years to become proficient in writing it."

I had no idea that pure opinion was now accepted as evidence.

[Anonymous No.7100090]

>>7090282

Anime/manga is an art-form
Video games are art-form

Just because they are no video games that could be really considered art nowadays (tbh there might be one or two that get close) doesn't mean there can't be or won't be vidya Dostoevsky's in the future. You're confusing media with content, bruh.

[Anonymous No.7100098]

>>7098922
le wrong generation

[Anonymous No.7100102]

>>7093530

"I prefer printed books."
"I prefer manuscripts."
"I prefer orally transmitted information."
"Oooga boooga cave painting."

[Anonymous No.7100152]

>>7096950

Bro, I'm a gnostic and our art is mostly classical, not modern (you're thinking contemporary IMHO but same deal).

Also the whole think about us hating the material world is extremely misleading. The pure material creation itself is qualitatively neither good or evil - it is the principles that lie beyond it that coat people's souls with mud. Division into opposites, predatory dynamics of existence, the insane solitarity of the ego - that's the stuff that we consider 'evil'. And it's not even evil in the true sense - it just binds us into ignorance. 'Evil' doesn't have a substance on it's own, it stems from ignorance.

And please, for the love of God (I'm using this as a pure colloquialism) stop using the term 'secular gnosticism'. There's no such thing.

Hope I cleared some things up, friend :).

[Anonymous No.7100202]

When college leftists try to argue from obscure definitions like "feminism by definition is..." or "racism is prejudice plus power"

[Anonymous No.7100245]

>>7100202
It's annoying and obnoxious and a tad pretentious tbh

[Anonymous No.7100348]

>>7096950
>Secular gnosticism
Is this yet another attempt to slander the gnostics by christians?

[Anonymous No.7100686]

>>7100202
Feminism has such a simple definition too, but then they try to make it more complex and act like the whole world is against them. They are part of the reason nobody understands the actual definition of those words anymore.