/lit/ - Literature

>We live in a culture where X
>Most people
>Why are people
Why do these make me cringe so hard

>>4960635
>Taste is objective

>degenerate pott heads
>pott
just epic ^_^

>>4960635

5/10

>>4960653

4/20

>>4960635
Good one OP

>>4960635
>taste is objective
stopped reading there

I guess the reason you are so upset is that your opinion is completely irrelevant to anyone IRL.

Why is every degenerate think that "subjective" or "relative" tastes can't be rated according to some kind of grade/class/hierarchy.

Are you really that gay and stupid? Or u trullin?

>>4960635
>implying there's any method of proving why Nabokov is better than John Green
>implying taste is objective
Artistic quality is wholly subjective.

>>4960666
>Degenerate

Please go away /pol/

>>4960680
>Implying some who has read War and Peace does not have infinitely better taste in literature than someone who has only seriously read the Harry Potter series

You really are, the biggest faggot.

Lemme guess, classic simpsons is just as good as new simpsons episodes? Because muh taste is subjective.

Please. Low grade b8 m8.

Quality compared to other works is objective
Taste is Subjective you dumbass

>>4960685
Aldous Huxley warned western society to be wary of social degradation.

This didn't come from /pol/, dumb idiot.

>>4960686

Why omit Ulysses?

>>4960696
Tripe doesn't deserve too much recognition.

>>4960686
See, you're just making statements with a condescending text color without backing them up. Why is War and Peace indicative of better taste than Harry Potter? Why is classic Simpsons better than newer Simpsons? You can't just make unwarranted claims and then, when they are challenged, simply repeat them with pretentious incredulity.

>>4960702
>semantic argument

Go fuck yourself mac, I don't feel like "exploring the meaning of things" and writing out a bunch of long shit explaining shit to your dumb ass. Get fucked cretin.

>>4960705
It's not a semantic argument. You made a ludicrous claim that War and Peace is objectively better than Harry Potter. I responded, claiming that that isn't necessarily true and that there is really no way to objectively judge something like artistic merit. You responded with a classically inept repetition of your original statement.

>>4960657
6/10
>>4960635
some people will say there is something wrong with elitism
nietzsche said:

THE VANITY OF OTHERS OFFENDS OUR TASTE ONLY WHEN IT OFFENDS OUR VANITY
THE VANITY OF OTHERS OFFENDS OUR TASTE ONLY WHEN IT OFFENDS OUR VANITY
THE VANITY OF OTHERS OFFENDS OUR TASTE ONLY WHEN IT OFFENDS OUR VANITY
THE VANITY OF OTHERS OFFENDS OUR TASTE ONLY WHEN IT OFFENDS OUR VANITY

taste isn't objective, that literally doesn't make sense. i agree with nietzsche and i find elitism more entertaining than timidity

>>4960716
>You made a ludicrous claim that War and Peace is objectively better than Harry Potter.
This is a perfect example of how your 420 addled brain can barely keep up an argument.

That is not what I said--What I said was

>Someone who has read War and Peace has infinitely better taste than someone who has just read the harry potter series and nothing else

Trying to arguing anything opposed means you're a dumb faggot not worthy of my time.

G'day.

>>4960729
But see, instead of justifying your opinion, you just express it and then qualify it with "you're a dumb faggot if you don't agree." What makes War and Peace indicative of better taste than Harry Potter? Is it the length? The entire Harry Potter series is longer than War and Peace. The symbolism? Ulysses is one of the most symbolically dense novels in the English language and you've disregarded it as garbage. So, your argument is simply, "my taste is the 100% universal objective truth and any opposing opinion is worthless."

This is why nobody takes classicist, premodern, artistic objectivist Luddites seriously.

i never actually finished your post and now that i know you didn't say that taste is object just that there is more refined and less refined taste then yeah i agree

like having refined taste is just stuntin' but people who aren't even trying shit me to tears, i'd rather hang out with pretentious(as a worst case scenario) and culturally literate art types than the people who don't even fucking try to understand/learn/hold a stimulating conversation

it's really like the difference in hanging out with people with good hygiene as opposed to no hygiene
and people who dress well as opposed to cargo shorts and graphic tees

>>4960644
they're so passé

>>4960701
>pretending to like this
you sound like those people who write 1 star reviews on amazon
i didn't even read joyce but this is a stupid as fuck argument

>>4960754
Thank god there is someone here with a couple of firing brain cells.

You're still probably an idiot capable of annoying me to infinity and beyond, but still, at least you acknowledge people can have better taste than other people.

Taste isn't objective, but the stuff you read a tells a lot about you.

OP I like the idea of creating an objective scale, but what do you base it on?

the hell are you talking about elliot

>>4960858
Lots of stuff, nearly impossible to have an all satisfying criteria because people are cunts about stuff like that.

>>4960836
i'm smarter than you doe...

>>4960855
How so?

Pynchon watches The Brady Bunch.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

>>4960836
and when you say better what relation does it have to give it meaning? better in what way?
i said more refined and not better because i don't think tastes can be better than each other, tastes can be more refined and so some people can have better tastes >>FOR ME<< but that's about it
you actually seem kind of dumb now though, you never said taste was objective but you seem to be implying it

>>4960855
agreed
>>4960881
not that dude but your taste is heavily influenced by the image you want to maintain and this includes even when you don't want to maintain an image at all
plus taste is gendered

>>4960902
Wouldn't that mean that it's false? Like, the stuff you read is just creating an image you'd like to convey, but it's not necessarily the real self? If so, how could that "tell a lot about you"? Would it rather just "tell a lot about the image you want to convey"?

>>4960881
People tend to read stuff they can associate themselves or agree with.

>>4960881
Your character/personality is just your genetics and your memories interacting with the environment. Therefor everything you do (way you interact with your environment) speaks to your character/personality. That includes books you choose to read.

>>4960911
well the image you want to convey is directly related to what you value, unless you're a full kek-fag stripped of a persona who lives life as performance art

>>4960915
>>4960918
Seems fake, to me.

>>4960858
Feed all digital versions of the books ever read by the individual into a Markov chain program and count total unique chains generated and get the standard deviation.

>>4960933
maybe not all people are cynical like me doe and genuinely enjoy things instead of pretending to enjoy what i think an ideal version of me would enjoy

>>4960694
did you actually think people would take you more seriously because you mentioned Aldous Huxley? why?

Is this /mu/, /pol/, /sci/? Whats been happening to /lit/ recently? Have you guys notice a new phenomenon occurring on /lit/ for the past month or so in where OPs are being far more aggressive, sentimental and close-mind than usual. The trolls here were usually stubborn, but acted tolerably by holding an actual argument, however silly it may have been, with respectable detachment (like butterfly, => arrow science fundamentalist bitch, and ALL CAPS dude). Recently, it feels loke /pol/ is trying to usurp the predominant passive-aggressive shitposting here with their own brand of fanatical venting.

>>4960965
But don't you see anon, the books speak about you in the sense that someone could begin to construct what you view as an idealized self based solely on what you read.

I think almost everyone believes that their own taste is the "best" taste, or that it's the only "genuine" or authentic taste. When people are confronted with the fact that other people like different cultural products, products which they themselves do not enjoy or consume, they generally feel that these people are either too stupid to enjoy better things, or that they have an excess of pretense or affectation which causes them to "like" those things only because liking them flatters their sense of self and makes them feel cultured or intelligent or whatever. Your average petit bourgeois ninny usually looks at the lower end of reality tv and thinks that it's made for folks too stupid to enjoy shows like Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones, while at the same time believing that Lars von Trier makes movies for pretentious folk who like to brag about obscure art house films they've seen, which films they probably never actually "enjoyed" watching but forced themselves to sit through only to flatter their own sense of cultural prestige.

It's only when the inarticulate rabble are confronted with arguments against their own taste, arguments which expose them as stupid or pretentious in the very same way their identity presupposes everyone else's stupidity or pretense, that they quickly jump to defend the oh so virtuous egalitarianism of modern liberalism, wildly gesticulating like angry gorillas and spraying the atmosphere with the sulphuric stench of their shamelessly inane and unctuous platitudes, "b-b-but art is subjective tho, b-b-but who are you to say what music other people are allowed to listen to? huh? HUH? You know what you are? You're a classist! That's what you are, you're a classist! And that's just as bad as being a racist. That's just as bad as if you said 'all black people should be slaves.' That's just as bad as if you said that. And I bet you even believe that, don't you? I bet you're a racist and think black people should be slaves. I bet you even call them n-words when you think no ones watching. Well, let me tell you something, I won't stand for it! I'm putting my foot down! I'm ending racism today! Your kind doesn't belong in society, it belongs in the 18th century! Ha! Ha!"

>>4960635
>homenining
Homenamena doo doo doodoodo

>>4960635
this is what happens when you let everyone affect culture rather than the nobility

>>4960754
i'd much rather hang out with those illiterate people than pretentious pricks who pretend to understand things and talk circles around each other, one-upping each other in loud-mouthed nonsense - at least I am not sickened completely by people who don't care about art, but also, I also prefer to hang around people who don't dress well and who don't have perfect hygiene, as they are almost always more interesting, less vain, less likely to be fair-weather friends, have more real, worthwhile experience, etc, etc,

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I think you're an immature dumbie

>>4960701
Don't you recognize trout tripe when you see it?

>>4960999
Dosen't Evola believe in spirits?

>>4960984
i noticed this also. the one thing that i loved most about lit is the fact that it was always calm and laid back no matter what was being argued and people didn't insult each other for no reason
but then again i haven't been here for long so i may be part of the problem

>>4961004
>one-upping
that's not really civilised behaviour though
but i understand your feelings and it's fine with me if you consider me immature and dumb

I think the problem is that people confuse relativity and subjectivity as meaning "unimportant" or "not real." And it's not just a problem with culture, it's a problem with morality and politics and a while bunch of stuff.

It's kinda absurd when you think about it. People believe -- although only when it's convenient for them to do so -- that because art is in some sense "subjective" any argument about a given work's quality is meaningless. Like because something is relative you can't say anything about it. Imagine a cop pulling someone over for doing 20 over the speed limit and the guy saying, "well actually officer, I bet you didn't know it but speed is relative, so if you think I'm speeding that's just like your opinion. But maybe you should give yourself a ticket because actually I bet you didn't know it but you're sitting there in your police cruiser hurling though space at 1000 miles per hour. So actually in fact you're the one who's speeding, not me."

>>4961004
>I also prefer to hang around people who don't dress well and who don't have perfect hygiene, as they are almost always more interesting, less vain, less likely to be fair-weather friends, have more real, worthwhile experience, etc, etc,

wow I bet you're one of those kids who watched Into The Wild and then wanted to go live on the streets because homeless people are so genuine and authentic and have "worthwhile experience." hahahaha

>>4961022

Its scary. /lit was a comfy place. It still is, mostly, but its getting shitter

>>4960995
>>4961053

>>4961076
where 2 cop?

>>4961022
lit was nover calm and laid back idiot go kill urself if u believe that omg i can't believe you could be so stupid

>>4961028
I prefer honest assholes to cultured jerkoffs, also I just consider you immature, maybe ignorant of the working class (dumbie isn't a serious word)

>>4961070
wow I bet you're a judgmental idiot.

I didn't even mention homeless people in that post, but yes, homeless people have far more worthwhile experience and more important things to say then young people sitting around drinking talking about literature and art trying to be more cool and fashionable than each other. It's hardly even worthwhile comparing them because those young hip/cultured people seem absolutely naive, sheltered and immature in comparison.

>>4961133
>saying the same thing twice
>defending yourself on an anonymous board

>>4961127
>lit was never* calm and laid

I dont think you would know that.

>nover
>idiot
>go kill urself
>u
>omg
>so stupid

11 year old girls dont have all that good memory.

>>4961148
is there some sort of point to your post? just because its anonymous doesn't mean it has to be lowest common denominator, and I wasn't repeating myself, I was clarifying

>>4961076
That's mad decent.

>>4961133
>homeless people have far more worthwhile experience and more important things to say then young people sitting around drinking talking about literature

You sound as if you haven't encountered any homeless people before.

>>4961148
>rebutting with this dribble

>>4961193
you sound as if you have preconceived notions or are incapable of recognizing the worth of people on the outside - or, you sound as if you've encountered the homeless, but not homeless people.

>>4961239
>you've encountered the homeless, but not homeless people.

I judge people by their actions. When I see homeless people shouting profanities incoherently, defecating/urinating in public, or begging aggressively near ATMs, obviously I won't have a good view of them. Why should I care about what these people say? They don't even respect other people.

Unlike you, I don't romanticize particular groups of people because of their condition. That's what you're doing. You're stereotyping.

>>4960635
>we live in a culture
How do you know what culture I live in, anon? I could be posting this from anywhere in the world.

>>4961288
he said we not you

>>4960635
>I'm very aware that I'm a braggard and that I can be crass a lot of the time.
>"braggard"
>>braggard

solid 4/10

>>4961271
Those people shout profanities and urinate in public, etc, most often because they have mental disorders, which is also often whey they are homeless. Some don't respect other people - but look in the mirror, you don't respect them. Its not a one way street, you seem to think disadvantaged people are the ones who have to respect normal people first. In fact, able people have more means to be respecting and understanding, yet they often don't demonstrate this in regards to people less well off than them.

If you talked to them, or understood the way they think and talk, you would find wisdom and sometimes very intelligent and eloquent explanations as to why they are like this. But you have your preconceived notions, so this isn't likely to happen.

I wasn't romanticizing them, and its somewhat strange you accuse of me stereotyping them right after you demonstrate the most obvious and common stereotypes of homeless people right off the bat.

>>4961364
>But you have your preconceived notions, so this isn't likely to happen.

Real-life experience is "preconceived notions"? LOL, do you live in the suburbs? Only people without similar experiences would attempt to discredit the experiences of other people. Tolerance can only go so far. Just because the homeless have a shitty life doesn't justify their actions.

>>4961384
Your preconceived notions aren't due to "real-life experiences", but due to stereotyping people based on shallow observations. A real-life experience would be getting to know a homeless person.

No, I don't live in the suburbs.

Tolerance can only go so far? Well, first of you'd have to actually have some tolerance to say this. If homeless people's actions aren't justified because of a shitty life, how do you justify your actions? Which mental disorders make you into a judgmental jerk? Disturbed homeless people have more of an excuse than you do so far. But enlighten me.

>>4960984
/pol/ raids

>>4960680
Not really. You're wrong

There's no universal skydaddy to tell us what's good and bad, right, but we can accept certain axioms and draw "objective" conclusions based on them.

>>4960967
He literally ends his life changing lecture with something along the lines of "I hope I have helped people through my essays and literature, to show them the possible degradation that awaits them, and stop them from living lives they might enjoy that they ought naught to enjoy by any standard of decency"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RX-iUfPJ9I

Most people don't understand how crucial pic related is.

You're a rat in a cage my friend.

>>4960648
>>4960658
>>4960659
>>4960680
>>4960689

>not knowing that everything is objective
>not knowing that glorious science will eventually categorize everything, including taste, including beauty
>thinking this small-mindedly

I think that if you know nothing about art, then you should keep your uneducated opinion to yourself. We aren't listening anyway. I'm an artist. I was the best in every class at school, then at art college and further on from there. I'm not better because my hands work better or I can wield a brush better, but because I have sharper artistic sensitivity. Like the way musicians always know a virtuous performance and others of us (all with ears) may not. This was not based on opinion. It was a fact. I can see good art, I can see good design. I may not always like it, but I and others like me are attuned to what is good in art. Some people just are not in the race. Keep your ideas to yourself and stick to what you do know.

>>4960635
I want the pseudo intellectuals to leave
yes I know that means everyone

>>4961163
next time please make your insults gender neutral
thank you

>>4961271
lol....

>>4960635
I've read War & Peace, and while it was a tremendously rewarding experience, and I'll never read another book the same because of it, I don't think I deserve any sort of respect. Seriously, why do you think I do because I've read a book?f

>>4962642
>read war and peace
>can't read (and understand) a 4chan post

>>4962774
In what way did I misunderstand your post? You say right here that someone who has read War & Peace is worthy of respect:

>If you have read war and peace, you deserve respect.

In my post I ask you why I deserve respect for doing so. I asked it in plain terms. So explain to me how I did not understand you post, and please answer the question that I posed in my first post.

>>4962787
*your post

>>4961364
>Muh subjectice life experience
>The pissed stained heroin addict deseves ur respect cause I bet he's nice and knows about stuff he would need to know to not be dead right now!
>Only god can judge like dis if u agree evry tiem

OP is an insufferable faggot but you and that idiot who posted "lol PROVE War and Peace is better than Harry Potter xD" like 8 times are infinitely worse.

>>4962774
And by the way, before you jump down my throat like the juvenile you've proven yourself to be throughout this thread, I did understand the wider point you were trying to make, that you believe there is some objective criteria regarding literature, film, music etc. but nowadays people ignore it and claim all art is subjective.

As we've seen you don't back up your point all though, and resort to posting self-gratifying images and snide comments of no substance.

>>4961410
>Literally saying the homeless people are better than/more virtuous than anon simply because he doesn't agree with you and has the nerve to state the obvious

Why do you retards exist? How did they actually teach you to deny reality and get this indignant about being a sarcastic retarded faggot? I don't understand what happened but you're everywhere now.

>>4962787
>You say
I'm not OP, anon.

The idea presented in the OP is that a person who puts in the effort to read the more difficult and heady works that better articulate, question, and define the human experience deserves more respect than the average masses of unwashed plebs who watch reality TV garbage and whose zenith of reading stops with Harry Potter.

While whether the individuals themselves deserve respect is questionable (especially if one makes it a determinism/free will debate, sigh), the actions themselves could safely be said to be more respectable. Though, semi-arrogantly lording over others (even assuming they're morons with shit taste to be a given) won't get you very far, and isn't very nice.

>>4962811
>still thinks i'm OP
see>>4962811

>>4962811
>thinks OP is the only person in thread
see>>4962817

>>4962807
Do you just look in the mirror all day and jerk off? I had a better conversation with a bum on the 6 line the other day than I'm having right now. Homeless people are definitely not more virtuous than anyone, but they're much more interesting than someone who simultaneously looks down on people who canonize Harry Potter and declares Ulysses garbage.

>>4962822
Even if you're not the OP, which I do take your word, I did understand the argument, as I wrote here:
>>4962811

And still, no one has told me how such actions are more worthy of respect. If they are objectively show, they should be able to be laid out for me to see.

>>4962836
Do you go through life actually making a face like "xD"? I hope someone decks you in the near future.

>>4962852
What the hell are you talking about?

>being angry that people don't literally say "what you like is better than what I like"

>>4960635
You have ten seconds to explain how value judgements are truth-apt.

>>4962836
AGAIN, SEE >>4962817

AGAIN, SEE >>4962817

>>4962860
The universe has definite rules, therefore there is a definite (or at least better) way to navigate those rules.

The laws of cause and effect exist within your brain same as everywhere else. There is a reason you like/don't like something. That reason(s) can be judged to be rational (valid) or irrational (invalid).

>>4962861
Are you seriously this dense? I'm not attacking you. I have already said that I understand that, and said that I did before you posted this. You initially said that I did not understand his post, when I was only referring to and asking him to justify a certain part of his post. I am now asking for you and others who think like to to tell me why you're correct rather than just saying you are. Saying things like "the actions themselves could safely be said to be more respectable" don't mean a thing if you explain to me why that is so, as my original question was asking why these things are worthy of respect.

So what is it? Do you believe in perfect beauty and that certain qualities can be considered perfect? Can you actually try to explain instead of just saying you're right, or are you going to post an off the cuff insult because you actually don't know what you're talking about?

>>4962866
If
>watching shit-tier reality TV garbage
isn't objectively worse than
>reading works that seek to understand the core of humanity
isn't self-evident to you, than there's nothing to argue about.

I mean, WHO'S TO SAY that
>killing an old lady for fun
isn't any better or worse than
>helping an old lady across the street safely
right? I mean, we're all just energy and matter anyway. Who cares?

>>4962877
*being objectively worse than


Derp.

>>4962877
an old lady that needs help going across the street probably doesn't contribute much to society anyway.
Not saying that you would by killing her...

>>4962877
So again you have no argument, you just feel in your little heart that you're right, and you have nothing to say. Enjoy feeling better than everyone without actually being so.

>>4962879
>Derp

The sign of a true intellectual intellectual.

That ain't me>>4962880

>>4962880
>probably doesn't contribute much to society anyway.
Wow, what an absolutely psychopathic implication, anon.

>>4962886
>So again you have no argument
Heh. You really can't read, it seems. If you can see the point to

I mean, WHO'S TO SAY that
>killing an old lady for fun
isn't any better or worse than
>helping an old lady across the street safely
right? I mean, we're all just energy and matter anyway. Who cares?

Then you can see the point to the OP's post.


>you just feel in your little heart that you're right
Nope. See>>4962863. You realize science will eventually categorize EVERYTHING, right? Including 'taste', including beauty, etc.


>>Derp

>The sign of a true intellectual intellectual.
Ah, nice implied ad hom via non sequitur.

I knew >>4962880 wasn't you. It's too edge-lord.

>>4962895
Your argument relies on a worn hypothetical and the hope that somewhere down the line there will be a scientific proof that in in accord with your belief. Listen, I would love if you had tried to convince me, but you haven't. All you've said is that you're right because you're right, and that your argument's truth is self evident. I'm not unreceptive to some genuine dialogue, but you're simply not providing anyway.

I do apologize for the personal attack, that was petty and worthless. Maybe in another thread you'll have something to defend your position, but I'm just not seeing it now. And it's not that I am not understanding what you are saying.

>>4962863
>The universe has definite rules
Questionable.
>therefore there is a definite (or at least better) way to navigate those rules.
Nonsense. Depends entirely on the goals set out in advance. Which are arbitrary in themselves.
>The laws of cause and effect exist within your brain same as everywhere else. There is a reason you like/don't like something. That reason(s) can be judged to be rational (valid) or irrational (invalid).
It can't. There is no way to determine one preference to superior to another in a rational way. There is no act inherently superior to another and you will never be able to demonstrate that it is without first getting people to agree with your completely arbitrary premises.

>>4962915
Yeah but at the end of the day everyone including you knows that you're just being an inflammatory faggot because you can without someone punching you.

Also it's impossible for you to prove you're not a faggot.

>>4962935
>I just know it's right! Just agree with me, you know I'm right.

>Faggy fag faggot I win.

>>4962946
So you can't prove it? Wow I think you need to understand that you being a faggot is just as good. Can you actually prove that dying of AIDs and annoying everyone you've ever met is objectively less "good" of a life than being a normal person who doesn't act like a pissant about things for the sake of saying so? No, you can't. So you shouldn't worry about it. You fucking faggot.

I don't think that the idea of subjective tastes is that bad. People should like what they like. Certainly people more well-read and people with larger backgrounds definitely have tastes that are more rooted in experience, and should be taken with more seriousness. Someone who takes reading seriously instead of a form of escapism would generally have more trusted tastes, even if you could never compare their favorites as either better or worse than each other.

The problem I have with this sort of thinking is when it's used as a defense in place of an actual argument. If you criticize someone's favorite band or book, they could just use the subjectivity card to delegitimize your criticism as "just your opinion" without ever saying any sort of formal rebuttal.

>>4962935
Well at least you know when to stop arguing with your betters. If you want to be a true elitists you need to work on your sophisms though.

>>4960635
>doesn't like ulysses
fuck off you dumb little shit

>hurr durr mah objective taste
>has shit taste

>>4962908
>Your argument relies on a worn hypothetical
No, it lies in self-evident truth to rational people, really.

>All you've said is that you're right because you're right
No, I haven't really made any specific assertion regarding taste. AGAIN, read this:

WHO'S TO SAY that
>killing an old lady for fun
isn't any better or worse than
>helping an old lady across the street safely
right? I mean, we're all just energy and matter anyway. Who cares?

If you can see the inherent and self-evident idiocy in the above idea, which is that of moral relativism, you can see the point that OP is making in the idiocy of 'taste' relativism.

>>4962915
>Questionable.
Oboyherewego.

>Depends entirely on the goals set out in advance. Which are arbitrary in themselves.
More moral relativist drivel. But yes, within a framework of definite rules, there is a best way to navigate those rules. Same as with any game.

>It can't. There is no way to determine one preference to superior to another in a rational way
Yes, there is. Those that are irrational are discarded. Unless you're a moral relativist retard.

>There is no act inherently superior to another
And there it is. Moral relativist retard status: confirmed. You are literally the human cancer killing the West. But to you, I suppose a poverty-stricken waste land is equal to a thriving, rational society on its way to explore the cosmos.

>completely arbitrary premises.
Maybe borderline sociopath even?

>>4962946
>he still thinks he's talking to one anon

>>4960635
>braggard
>pott heads

this is the greatest b8 I've seen in a while

>>4963549
>being autistic enough to actually quibble over typos
Holy dumb.

I read a book once but I found it boring so I stopped.

My taste is objectively better than yours because I know that books are all bad. You are not "refined" for reading books; you are elitist and judgemental.

>>4963597
Now this is b8!

>>4963597
0/10

>>4963669
>>4964193
the good lad just did a bit of satire of op, silly mates.

Bumping my wicked thread.

If you're going to read anything just read OP then read this, then continue the discussion on the shit I'm talking about.

Jack offs who like hearing themselves speak have pretty derailed the thread, but my posts are educational and intriguing in the highest degree.

>>4960635
>>4961563