I only read history books written before the Second World War because then I know the contents won't be sanitised to adhere to contemporary liberal values.
That's a good idea
That's a defensible position for a conservative to take.
I prefer my books nice and sanitary like Hogg, Dhalgren, Blood Meridian and Naked Lunch instead of that pre-World War II degenerate filth like Pride & Prejudice. Ugh, disgusting.
>>7627871
>Everything is permitted, nothing is wrong, Postmodernist WOO WOO LOOK AT ME MOMMY I'M TRANSGRESSING SEE
You don't realize how homogenized modern literature actually is. It's much like how a pig covered in its own shit and slop doesn't realize how disgusting it is, though at least the pig has a use in the end.
>>7627887
I'm curious as to how you got that implication from my post. Please explain.
>>7627887
>getting upset about contemporary liberal values
>2016
let me tell you something if it wasn't for contemporary liberal values, pathetic kissless autists like you would be having an even harder time of it buddy
>>7627894
One can assume by the subject matter of the books mentioned that, in fact, this clever anonymous was not arguing in complete good faith but was instead assuming a sarcastic tone! Yes, it's true, you may not believe it, but it is likely so. Sarcasm being a form of rhetoric that reverses the statements of its user, one can assume the "nice and sanitary" Hogg, Dhalgren, etc. are in fact commonly regarded as transgressive and "dirty" novels, as pointed out by >>7627887 in earnest. This latter poster then went on to note that, despite the aforementioned novels' being labeled, via sarcasm, as transgressive and dirty, they are in fact not so, given that they are part of a homogenized Postmodern canon that elevates the transgressive and dirty above all else, thereby nullifying and stripping of meaning the very labels that define them.
The mention of the "degenerate" Pride & Prejudice (sarcasm, again) is used as a counterpoint to juxtapose pre-Postmodern transgressive fiction with post-Premodern English canonical literature. I hope, through this explanation, I have made these two posts clear to you.
t. aspiring English major
>I understand Heidegger
>>7627915
That doesn't explain the conclusion of
>>Everything is permitted, nothing is wrong, Postmodernist WOO WOO LOOK AT ME MOMMY I'M TRANSGRESSING SEE
>You don't realize how homogenized modern literature actually is.
It's literally just explaining that you got the joke about modernism as "sanitised" is a poor word choice. You seem a little butthurt.
>>7627915
>t.
Why do people do this
>>7627915
>pre-Postmodern
okie doke
>>7627926
Comes from Finnish imageboard ylilauta and krautchan, it basically means 'regards' in Finnish but they use just 't.'
>>7627924
Aha, my good friend, greentext is often used as a method of quoting another speaker, and here we find one speaker attempting to "quote" what he (or she) perceives as the childish and arrested thematic worldview of Postmodernist writers such as Cormac McCarthy. Indeed, when one speaker "hides his cards" (my own rhetorical definition) by shielding his true values, the latter anonymous speaker has no choice but to characterize Postmodernism as he conceives of it.
As for the other anonymous speaker, I cannot speak for him, although one can be sure I would like to!
Be good to the lads for me,
t. aspiring English major
>>7627852
This is perfectly reasonable, assuming at least that you understand that those history books have their own ideological assumptions
>>7627946
Huh, thanks lad.
