he's not wrong you know
>>13639066>twitterfag telling /lit/ how they should be
i don't know what board is what but /lit/ failed by not banning every thread that wasn't about a book or an author's works and allowing general shitposting and general 'philosophy' threads
>>13639066god I’m so tired of seeing this retard posture like he’s literarypro tip, your commas, are, unnecessary
>>13639087he's missing one between /lit/ and "as a board" actually
>>13639066Is this the selfie suicide guy? Should I read that shit?
>>13639091sure that would be better than what he did, but completely retardedThe ideal is just “/lit/ failed as a board”, it’s not hard
Who is this faggot and why should I care? Why do so many normie niggers pretend to have used 4chan? Do they think it's some kind of secret deepweb clubhouse and they're cool for having once being associated with it? I am eating spoonfuls of brown sugar from a box and jacking off to anime while listening to a documentary in the background.
>>13639066Musi—uh, books for this feel?
>>13639066>comments about the destiny of a 4chan boardIt seems a particularly acute kind of pointless. It's enough that I waste hours of my time everyday here, I shouldn't have to pretend that what happens in this place is important and worthy of intellectual consideration.
>>13639106most of the weird twitter/phil twitter guys moved out of the chans when they hit their mid 20s
I challenge this person to be a participant in g/acc threads.
>>13639120Meaning, they forced themselves to lurk 4chan because it was trendy between 2014 and 2016, 6+ years after the site's peak.
What threads are good on /x/? I come here for the occasional philosophy effortposters, and I have to agree with the OP image if by taking /mu/ as a model they mean shit like pic related
hallö, wher the pdfs are
>>13639066This board IS bad, but /mu/ and /x/ are subhuman.
>>13639140/x/ sucks now, there used to be good occultism and guenon threads at one point but they're gone now
>>13639066/lit/ as a board, failed, by taking twitter celebrities, as its model, instead of, literally anyone else
>>13639066i think there are a lot of people here who want the board to be /mu/ with books but the threads worth visiting on here have no /mu/ equivalents
>my book wasnt well received on lit and they dont suck muh dick so ill keep saying its a dead boardi think twittards are far too gone getting high on their supply.
/x/ is blue /b/
/lit/ has failed as a board because mods--who know nothing about the humanities--refuse to recognize the obvious need for a separate philosophy/religion board.
>>13639150I would like to point out and warn that there is a not lesser percentage of users in /x/ who are already going from apophenia to psychosis and from psychosis to schizophrenia. The problem is that I don't know any difference between a real magician, an enlightened in any belief system from a psychotic, a schizophrenic and a person who really has remote vision.
>>13639157Selfpublishing should be outlawed as a crime against humanity. Yes there are problems with the traditional institutions, but the amount of retards who think slapping prose on a page makes them bona fide ~autheurs~ is enough to turn me to pic related. there is nothing that irks me more.
>>13639173The only threads that get actively moved to /his/ are Nick Land threads for some reason
>>13639173we barely get enough action as it is
>>13639136no i mean they lurked/posted from 2005-2015
>>13639176The schizoposters on /x/ can be insightful, much better than the ones here.
>>13639180Self-publishing is great. What's terrible is the idea that self-publishing is something to be desired, and not an obstacle to work through.
>>13639200That's the problem, how to discriminate truth from chaos?
Honestly, this is one of the best boards.
>>13639205It opens the floodgates to delusional wannabes and contributes significantly to the already pathological dumbing down of the liberal arts.
>>13639193That goes hand in hand with what I'm saying, and many others continue to say. The vast majority of the philosophy and religion threads on /lit/ do not really belong here, because they are rarely about any significant textual analysis; however, hardly any of those threads are even remotely tolerable on /his/ or /pol/ or any other board. It ends up here because this is the closest board and where they are most tolerated. This way of things hurts /lit/ by having over 50% off-topic, and it hurts the conversations people want to have by limited the way in which these conversations can be discussed.
>>13639210you pick and choose. cmon bro we're post-rationalism here get with it.
>>13639230The liberal arts are dead (and they don't include literature anyway, unless you want to wrap up al literature under rhetoric which would be utterly sloppy).What you're saying is more shitty books will be published, but since they also will be much, much less read than their equivalent would have been 50 years ago, it's a bit of a non-issue. Who, among those who care about literature, is going to self-published shit on the internet to find his next read?
>>13639238Is it time to create new bards? I'm not talking about 4chan/nel itself but in a more category theory and abstract level.
>>13639256>The liberal arts are dead (and they don't include literature anyway, unless you want to wrap up al literature under rhetoric which would be utterly sloppy).lmao literature is very much categorically one of the chief liberal arts big guy
>>13639256Correct, my sentiments go to the root. Like Pope, I feel the printing press was a mistake. Anything which commodifies art is a mistake. We see the full repercussions today in the both selfpublished and traditionally published forms, ie Rupi Kaur as well as James Patterson. But rolling back selfpublishing is a step in the right direction.
>>13639194You're falling into a pretty understandable and typical, yet damaging, misconception held by most marketers and people trying to solve marketing problems. Of course, current usage is defined by current usage. That most activity comes from certain kinds of threads does not mean that is the best source of activity, or that it will lead to growth. The overwhelming amount of aggressive and amateur philosophy and religion that have nothing to do with literature means that people who want literature discussions won't come here. Given that it's called /lit/, that's bad. A board that is nominally about literature should be full of literature. the philosophy and religion content is choking out the content that should be here, and it is being limited by not having the proper forum. The board should be split, and we will see growth in both kinds of conversation.
>>13639180sure, established publishers lowering standards for demographic clout is the common complaint. importantly, more and more censorship. the self publishing scene is still trying to find footing, its not as crystalized so its normal to fall for premature hype and inflated heads. reality is hitting a lot of used to be memelords. this means people are going to have to build or perish. better to understand the bitter boomer disease before it bites.
>>13639140Vampire threads are the absolute worst because of these tranny retards who destroy all conversation that isn't about their gay little twilight versions of vampires and spend the rest chatting to each other like it's discord or somethingNot even exaggerating a single word of that sentence/x/ is easily one of the worst boards and only rarely has a good thread, or even a few good posts
>>13639195No they didn't. Maybe that diabetic Kantbot did and won't shut the hell up about it, but none of these twitter zoomers are cool.
>>13639120Yeah, so? Good for them- I don't see why any of us would give a shit about their opinion.
>>13639230But self-publishing doesn't create the delusional. This is what I mean. Self-publishing itself is a valuable thing, and has always existed. But, since it's easier than ever before to self-publish, what should change is any respect for it. It used to be a DIY statement if you self-published. It doesn't mean anything anymore, and frankly, once people realize this, I think this will be better.
>>13639270>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education>The exact classification of the liberal arts varied however in Roman times, and it was only after Martianus Capella in the 5th century AD influentially brought the seven liberal arts as bridesmaids to the Marriage of Mercury and Philology, that they took on canonical form.>The four 'scientific' artes – music, arithmetic, geometry and astronomy (or astrology) – were known from the time of Boethius onwards as the quadrivium. After the 9th century, the remaining three arts of the 'humanities' – grammar, logic, and rhetoric – were grouped as the trivium.STEM education (as long as it is geared towards enlightenment and not jobcuckery, so at least elite STEM education in a few select institutions) is unironically closer to liberal arts than literature. The latter is a bit too wide a thing to be part of the liberal arts, since it includes things that are rather removed from grammar, logic and rhetoric. Petrone's Satiricon is literature, but it hardly has any place in either the Trivium or the Quadrivium.In any case someone publishing a novel or a poetry collection after 1850 is certainly not partaking in the liberal arts, the quality of said publication notwithstanding.
>>13639360lmao what are you doing you coping bitch, literally google liberal arts and tell me what the definition saysyour ignorance on this subject is embarrassing
At least /mu/ has more artists to talk about than just the same 20 over and over
This guy seems very unlikable to me on a personal level. Having been on /lit/ for more than a decade, at least most users here don't have this condescending "smart aleck" feel to them. Yes irony abounds here, it is playful and elitist, but it isn't used to prop up anyone, hence the users are called ANONYMOUS, you gigantic faggot twitternigger e-celeb wannabe. The self-righteous faggot can't even take joke, because he can't have his twitter e-persona played with.I firmly believe twitter is the worst invention mankind cam up with since the atomic bomb.
>>13639392Twitter is one big tripfag.
>>13639180>dude authorship should be gatekept by jeff bezossuck my dick nigger amerimutt
>>13639302given /sffg/ is a thing, no. this board is trash and there will never be any genuine literature discussion so long as /sffg/ types are allowed to exist on this website.
>>13639360>Liberal arts today can refer to academic subjects such as literature, philosophy, mathematics, and social and physical sciencesLiterally from the very page you linked. So what's your argument, that if you were an ancient Roman you'd be right?
>>13639380I just provided you an extract from one of the first website that turn up in Google. Do you really think I just made up this trivium and quadrivium shit?The modern definition of liberal arts is way too broad, it basically stretches it into insignificance. So it's the same word for something entirely different, a fraudulent turn of phrasing. Claiming you had a "liberal arts education" because you went to a "liberal arts college" in the 21st century is like claiming a PhD in biology makes you a philosopher because PhD is short for "Philosophy Doctorate". It doesn't fool anybody.I say it again, self-publishing has nothing to do with liberal arts, and to a lesser extent contemporary traditional publishing doesn't either.
>>13639331He's right you know.
This guy got me into Moby Dick, and for that I will be eternally grateful.
I vaguely remember he tweeted about death grips, and it gave off that awful "maybe Ive read some Literature with the capital L, but guess what kiddo, Im also down with whatever the cool kids are up to" vibe midwit faggot with a whiff of 4chan on social mediasad, many such cases
/x/ is FUCKING garbage. if you post on andor read twitter fuck off. why do twitterfags love to talk about 4channel but are barely informed about it? really it's not that hard to lurk. are they scared?
>>13639431See >>13639448A category that has sociology and psychology classified as "arts" is too broad to be taken seriously. And the Renaissance is hardly Ancient Rome. Again, the liberal arts as classically understood is a dead category, and its modern replacement is simply a cope.
What a sad, sad day. /lit/ got BTFO by a twitter nobody, and all we can respond is "no u".
>>13639448>>13639470lmfao pathetic you cherry picked a long outdated defininition. like >>13639431 said, this isn't ancient rome. literature has been one of the core liberal arts for a good long time. it's established. you don't get to pretend like you knew all along it was considered a liberal art but you felt the modern definition was "too broad", yeah your understanding of the world is purely antediluvian, very convenient. don't talk about cope you fucking weasel, that's all you're doing.being wrong isn't a big deal unless you make it one.
>no likes or rts >Made today >Literally whoNice opinion OP
>>13639484Why does it matter who he is? I mean, who the fuck are YOU, Anonymous? Twitter is for retards but he said a truth, why does everyone in this thread is acting in such a defensive way when it's clearly the truth.
>>13639488ok then buddy what is the "model of /x/"? schizoposting and tulpa threads? no thanks.
>>13639497I don't agree with that part desu, but he's spot on about how this board is a really terrible, terrible unfunny version of /tv/. At least /tv/ can be funny sometimes.
>>13639504>he thinks the point of a board is to 'be funny'you're really fucking cancerous. you're bit welcome here, we don't want you and we don't like you. read some books. if you want "funny" go to r*eddit. fucking piece of shit newfag. fuck off and die
>>13639527not welcome *
>>13639527Holy i now understand why the board is being so defensive, you guys are actually low IQ. I never said /tv/ is actually a good thing, dummy. I only said that i agree that this board IS an unfunny version of /tv/, not that it should be funny, or a funny version of /tv/. How can you have such terrible interpretation skills and browse /lit/ is beyond me. Actually, it isn't beyond me, it's exactly what you should expect from the intelligence of the average /tv/ poster, or in this case, /lit/ poster.
>>13639087Were they, Captain? Sometimes they lend, pathos, through, deliberate pauses.
>>13639540>calls people pseuds>doesn't think /lit/ is funnyWait, did you actually read Fanged Noumena?
>>13639066This guy is such a pseud. Hearing him talk it is evident he's just a silly valleygirl. Don't know how Kantbot can stand him, but it surely devalues him, so drop the lil dweeb off your tekwars and whatnot.
>>13639540good. now gtfo. but you wont will you
>>13639066>isolating the verb through commasmassive retard lol
i only really go here and on int
>>13639478> like >>13639431 said, this isn't ancient rome.And like I said, this definition was still used in the Renaissance.You should be able to tell 1st century BC from 15th century AD. Actually the sentence I quote said it was only solidified in the 9th century, way past Antiquity.But that's not the main point. The main point is that the definition is not "cherry-picked", it's the original fucking definition and it only has changed once since being really solidified, and that change was to include pretty much whatever under the definition. Choosing the older and more meaningful sense out of two is not cherry-picking, at the narrowest it's etymology.So, for the third time, there is no such thing as liberal arts nowadays, it's an empty label. It doesn't correspond to a definite community, at best to a cluster of communities that are much better integrated in more narrow professional communities and who don't exchange that much with each other. It includes thing that have no business calling themselves art like psychology and anthropology. it came to include literature (a much more ancient thing) only late while it didn't include it for most of its history (why the sudden inclusion? it's not like the Ancients didn't have appreciation for literature). Very importantly, the modern definition almost entirely includes professional fields (fields were the practitioners do it for a living) while the entire point of the adjective "liberal" is that it is a thing for free men, ie for people who don't work for a living. The notion of liberality is compatible with Roman citizenry, it is compatible with a Florentine artist under a lord's patronage, it is not compatible with modern professional academia where science is a day job and the working conditions are often comparable to that of a competitive industry. If you're doing anthropology you're not a liberal art practitioner, you're an anthropologist. Same if you study biology. And in the latter case you will have almost nothing in common with a writer of a musician, you certainly won't have much professional exchange with them except in some fringe cases. Liberal arts practitioner until the Renaissance dabbled into several or all of the liberal arts, it was part of the whole ethos. Now it's specialized and professionalized, precisely because the ethos is dead. Having a pretty sticker on it doesn't change anything. The modern definition simply doesn't cover a relevant category, it's a mess. That's the case for many words, but we can know better than take them at face value.Now to go back to the initial point, liberals art have nothing to do with modern publishing, much less so self-publishing. If I had to concede that some people working in literature-related field are doing liberal arts it would probably be academic professors of something like comparative literature (as I said it doesn't cut it, but that's a hypothetical). Those have nothing to do with self-published shit on the internet.
>>13639609Comma splicing and a missed comma. Should be:>/lit/, as a board, failed by taking /mu/ as its model instead of /x/.
>>13639675didn't read lolol
>>13639675this is next level cope dude, just shut the fuck up>So, for the third time, there is no such thing as liberal arts nowadays, it's an empty label.yeah so you decided after realizing your definition was wrong. and now i guess the world will just conform, like your mother. it's not complicated. literature is objectively one of the modern liberal arts. you're objectively wrong. think really hard about it.
>>13639705>gets btfo>has to resort to twitter memesyikes
>>13639705not him, but dude, you got btfo. this is a pathetic answer, try to at least engage with the man or be honest and admit "i was wrong, anon teared a new asshole on me". it's an anonymous board for fuck sake, no one sees your post history. your username won't be stained by a lost argument. just admit it already retard
>>13639705Look, my first post itt is this >>13639256>the liberals art are deadLiterally the first five words. It's not even about what words we use, it's about the fact the thing behind them doesn't exist anymore. Music exists, mathematics exist, but liberal arts as a set of discipline weaved together in a common practice and community doesn't exist anymore. My argument that the label is meaningless is only dwelling upon my very first point, that liberal arts is an outdated category. Do you think of people who go to liberal arts college are really liberal arts practitioners? Do you think the major writers of the past 100 years, Faulkner, Proust, Kafka, Céline, Musil, Bellow, Beckett, Joyce, Nabokov, Celan, you name it, you really believe those guys were doing liberal arts?Let's put it another way: among the major writers of the past 100 years, who would you say was doing liberal arts? The best ones I could see you claim would be Auerbach, Calasso, perhaps Broch, guys like that. Still not very convincing.I understand why you thought I was coping at first, but >>13639675 should have made clear that's not the case. You didn't even bother to address a single of my arguments, for instance the key fact that the livelihood, specialization, and relation to work of people who work in "liberal arts" fields have changed so much as to disintegrate the whole notion. >it's not complicated. literature is objectively one of the modern liberal arts. you're objectively wrong. See now I feel like you're not even really trying to pretend you're right. Even admitting that empty retort as an argument, that doesn't do anything to the original discussion, namely that liberal arts have nothing to do with self-publishing and probably not much with publishing in general. Anyway it was a useful exercise to write all this out, so thank you for that opportunity at least.
This thread was moved to >>>/qa/2907176