Why do people who read books as a hobby so pretentiously agitating? They have a list of "books I should read," whilst remembering little information about the books they've claimed to read. While the attitude itself isn't any different from hardcore hobbyists, it still displeases me how this phenomenon occurs. I like to read as well albeit seldomly. If you're going to have a conversation about the literature you've read without actually having any memory of particular passages, understood the moral of the story or simply didn't finish reading the book; why are you pretentiously acting like it's the single best hobby that everyone should participate?
>inb4 I hurt someone's feelings
>>7483463
>why do people who read books as a hobby so pretentiously agitating
you should read more, also, reading (or writing) isnt a hobby for a lot of people, it is living through the mind of humanity in print. it is communicating with our ancestors, communicating to our descendants,
honing, learning, seeking, finding, all of these wonderful things, and sometimes, just sometimes, someone comes into this wonderful world of literature and shits all over it with 50 shades of grey. it can be a bit jarring to find out that some people arent a part of this life, and frustrating. please try to be more understanding of those who live their lives in print.
>being this normal
bet you've seen star wars
>>7483463
also, please try to see that many of us are quite annoyed by the pretenders hiding in our midst, we call them plebs. the people who seem to wear books as badges.
>>7483476
You can actually learn a lot about humanity through 50 Shades Of Gray. It actually shows the sickness of the human race, the fetishism of power, and the inner desire that lurks inside everyone of being dominated and dominating. The book is important, because if you strip away the romance, you will have in your hands something very close to De Sade in spirit - a wealthy and powerful man tortures an innocent woman. Although the author didn't touch the same philosophical matter as De Sade, the fact it's so popular shows that De Sade was right in claiming that everyone craves for absolute power and the desire to exert that power.
Also, it's one book that actually support Wilhelm Reich's view about the emotional plague, that is, a blocked, robotic, automatic individual will seek a release from his condition by pathological means like pain, submission, murder, suicide, etc.
Tl;dr: it's a great textbook for a psychiatrist, expresses some painful truths about humanity, and shows how absolutely disturbed and blocked the average woman is.
see what i mean? niggas be breathin this shit.
>7483463
No (You) for you.
>>7483525
D E V I L I S H
E
V
I
L
I
S
H
Why is OP such a plebeian?
>>7483525
op on suicide watch
>>7483514
>blocked
What do you mean by that?
>>7483525
>>7483600
>>7483642
She/he would have seen (OP) anyway, not (You). Do you even 4chan?
>>7483514
The only legitimate response to 50SOG is this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox2RmGof-C0
To reply to OP, I personally do indeed read books primarily with intent of learning. So far my favorite genres are computer science and radical feminism, the latter shadowing the former by quite a bit since you can learn CS without reading any real books (papers and shit is more like it). I figure I'll eventually read many books on politics and philosophy other than radfem. But not sure if anything I ever read will be nearly as mind-blowing as radfem books which revolutionized my whole outlook on life and society.
>>7483476
This argument could LITERALLY be made with any hobby. -1
>>7483480
You see, this is what I'm getting at. It's not so much that I dislike people who read; I simply hate people who try to tote how much they read.
>>7483603
For someone who reads, you gave an AMAZING response.
>>7484956
I also read with the intention of learning. That doesn't explain the agitating phenomenon of a small population of readers who act as if they're god tier for the amount of books they've read. That becomes an issue when you only know the title of a book and the author without actually understanding any of his works.
If I came up to you and said "I like Issac Asimov because of the foundation series" without understanding the book or being able to explains the parts I've enjoyed then you've wasted your breath and someone's time.
It's also the equivalent of claiming you have a skill but not actually knowing anything within the skill you describe.
this is true of any medium. bibliophiles, cinephiles, audiophiles -- they all tend to be total pseuds who only engage with critically-acclaimed formalist works and insist they are cultured. chill out and learn how to enjoy art. you're impressing no one apart from your other pseud friends
>>7483476
>mind of humanity
>wonderful world
kill yourself
>>7483463
>the moral of the story
My god, pure pleb.
>>7485090
How's that reading comprehension going for you?
>>7485037
> it is communicating with our ancestors
>This argument could LITERALLY be made with any hobby. -1
u wot
>>7483463
You write like a pretentious faggot.
You used the word "whilst".
Stop caring about what other assholes do.
>>7485105
it's normal in civilised countries
>>7485116
>>This argument could LITERALLY be made with any hobby. -1
>What is genealogy. Damn dude, that was simple....
>Using a vocabulary word
The stupidity, it hurts so much. I don't care that you're probably a troll, I hate you so fucking much. Please burn.
>>7485146
People don't take genealogy as a hobby?
>What is ancestry.com
I thought readers were smarter than this.
>inb4 how can genealogy be a hobby
That's like asking how hockey could be a hobby.
-1
>>7485165
>People don't take genealogy as a hobby?
>Thinking that this is what I meant.
>>7485173
>Telling myself that wasn't what I was purposing.
Pls see my OP picture.
>fucking "whilst"
>>7485182
>you could say that about LITERALLY any hobby
>names an individual example as proof
>>7485193
>Yet that one example is ahead of your 0.
This ignores that fact that you couldn't defend how reading is a way of "communicating with ancestors." A hunter could tell me that he hunts because of his family line. A gun owner could make the same logic with his hobby. Did I mention that some historians look into their ancestral pasts?
Once again, please see the picture in the OP.
>>7485211
>This ignores that fact that you couldn't defend how reading is a way of "communicating with ancestors."
I'm not the one that claimed that.
> A hunter could tell me that he hunts because of his family line
Not the same thing.
>Once again, please see the picture in the OP.
You first.
>>7485223
>A hunter who takes pride in his hobby states that it's a way to communicate with his ancestors.
>It's a completely subjective reason which cannot be proven nor disproved.
>Not the same.
Lets look at the OP pic at the same time.
i dont know about you guys but my gun whispers through time secrets about my grandpa.
>>7485246
Does it tell you who to kill?
>>7485249
yes. it tells me to kill OP but he's already doing that to himself.
>>7483476
You do not communicate with your ancestors. Your ancestors are dead. Reading is a hobby like watching anime. Get over yourself.
>>7485257
maybe you dont, but that just means lit is only a hobby for you. please stop projecting.
>>7485260
OP is simultaneously shitting on something that is an occupation, way of life, and source of personal truths for millions of people while lumping them in with the pseuds.
>>7485276
Nice reading comprehension there homie.
