I know many of us here on /lit/ have strong political opinions, and often beatnik marxists and right-wing reactionaries will have a go at each other over Kerouac, Rand, and other less important authors. This type of debate still contributes to the vibrancy of intellectual (i use the term loosely) discussion on /lit/, and I don't think anybody (aside from a few raging autists) minds this.
What nobody likes are the epik memrz who start 1000 threads about the same philosophers and reddit-tier authors daily, despite having nothing novel to say. I encourage everyone who cares even a tiny bit about the quality of this board to sage and hide all threads dealing with the following figures, except in the rare event that a genuine discussion is taking place
Stirner
Diogenes
Schopenhauer
Orwell
Rodger
Vonnegut
Houellebecq
Card
Weir
Adams
Cline
Green
Rowling
Booktubers
Any YA authors
I welcome all feedback.
What nobody likes are morons who dislike authors simply because they are mentioned often on a website, and clearly lack the ability to discern talent and sensibilities considering the authors listed are so drastically disparate in style and content that only a true sniveling idiot would think making a thread like this was a good idea
>>8229323
What anime character is she supposed to b cosplaying???
>>8229334
hello /reddit/
OP is correct about everything d e s u
add DFW and yecarthy to the list.
>>8229323
add lovecraft too
>what does /lit/ think about lovecraft
>new to lovecraft, where do i start
literally every day.
>>8229323
>often beatnik marxists and right-wing reactionaries will have a go at each other over Kerouac, Rand,
>Kerouac, the weed smoking Catholic who cheered on McCarthyism
>Rand, the welfare taking Mills and Boon hopeful
>both have awful prose
you've been reading idiots who don't even know they're reading shit, and you believed them. you even think they're worthwhile, and your political definitions make any sense. XD I'd say kill yourself but it's much more fun to imagine you spending 60 years as this much of a retard and all the retarded little adventures you'll have getting your suspenders stuck on doors and trying to find your old neighbour's candy which got stuck in his front pocket. enjoy life, retard.
>>8229602
>what does /lit/ think about *popular_thing*
People who can't use the archive should be banned desu.
>>8229334
Hello idiot, OP didn't say a single thing about the quality of the works or authors mentioned. Only that certain works attract posters that spam the same questions and have nothing of interest or value to say about them.
>>8229323
Rodger as in Elliot?
>>8229323
Cute cosplay
>>8229966
obviously, elliotposter. it can be funny when people reply to threads with the Oxford World Classics 'My Twisted World' image, but we really don't need multiple (or any for that matter) threads specifically about him at any given moment.
>>8229488
i agree with your additions, but I see more decent discussions about these two than any of the others on my original list, e.g. the Infinite Summer reading group. I feel the same way about >>8229602
>>8229323
I've only visited /lit/ sporadically over the past few years but I always found it funny how Schopenhauer is posted every day, yet Nietzsche isn't.
Agreed, though.
>>8230027
>funny how Schopenhauer is posted every day, yet Nietzsche isn't.
probably because you have to read Schopenhauer to get Nietzsche. Nietzsche used get posted more though.
>>8229338
Genocider Syo from dangan ronpa
i already hide all those threads. can we hide marcus aurelius threads too?
>>8230042
>implying it's not because of the /r9k/ crossshitters that read a few quotes of On Women
lol
>>8229323
>ctrl F
>no Camus
>>8229323
>>8229323
>>8230077
>implying those bitches don't get bullied like the Hegelians
>implying you don't prefer talking to /r9k/ compared with talking to someone who follows Schopenhauer's advice
>implying you didn't even think I'd bring up you haven't read Kant
So, you haven't read Kant and have to hang out with illiterates who need their mom to feed them? Well, at least you're a de facto anti-natalist.
>tossing Schopenhauer in with all that rubbish
kill yourself pham
>>8230100
>implying you don't prefer talking to /r9k/ compared with talking to someone who follows Schopenhauer's advice
i don't like talking to retards in general.
>implying you didn't even think I'd bring up you haven't read Kant
i've read all three critiques, and i am an antinatalist.
>>8229334
>the only correct post in the thread has all negative replies
>>8230110
>i don't like talking to retards in general.
yet you talk to them ahead of people who have read Kant and Schopenhauer
>i've read all three critiques, and i am an antinatalist.
>i've read the books you need to find out what Schopenhauer corrected
>the corrections are a step too far
I'd be glad you're an antinatalist, but considering you read things that said 1+1=3 and shit on the corrected version of that, I have a feeling your retarded nature might compel you to natalism without your brain tipping you off.
>>8229323
>"Stirner"
>"Diogenes"
>"Schopenhauer"
>...
>"Green"
>"Rowling"
>and also, in addition to these two, "Any YA authors"
>I opine Green and Rowling aren't YA authors
to top it off:
>"I welcome all feedback."
----
this is actually pretty good bait OP, 8/10
I wish obnoxious fucking quirky hipster girls would stop praising Infinite Jest. Everything they do seems so contrived to me. I feel like they don't really connect with anything, they just see it all as a fashion statement.
>>8230126
schopenhauer didn't correct shit.
>>8230236
Okay, usually the misunderstanding is that Schopenhauer hated Kant because he corrected so much, but your argument is pretty far out. Explain because it sounds like it's going to be batshit.
>>8229334
What nobody likes are morons who clearly lack the ability to read the OP and discern its meaning. Only a true sniveling idiot would think making a post like this was a good idea
>>8229970
That's the way cum is.
>>8230109
This.
Schopenhauer doesn't deserve that, OP.
>>8230230
Just ignore the fashion readers.
Stop raging over them m8.
>>8229334
People on this site love to hate things and go against the grain.
To those who replied with OP didn't say they were bad authors:OP called the authors reddit-tier, and you know exactly what he/she meant by that.
>>8229970
Honestly in the very early days 4chan was more elitist than it was hateful. As much as an anime based community can be anyway.
But when you get new blood you can only demean them and say their favorite thing (it's Naruto) is shit so many times before the one that stick around internalize the hate and assume it's board culture to hate everything popular regardless of quality.
