/lit/ - Literature

>>7038171
bumping for interest.

Can't say I have, but judging that book by it's description, I can't imagine it being very good. Sounds like reactionary punditry written by someone who had their feelings hurt by a feminist online. Doubtful it offers anything to anyone, but merely preaches to a choir of other whiners who whine about whiners.

The author's self-description is pretty amusing though. He's certainly not a pleb tryhard to sell himself as some sort of intellectual while writing about "epic fantasy" and "military realism".

>>7038171
>>7038182
This is pretty blatantly a self-promotion thread, in which case you should probably head on over to /pol/ or /r9k/, because you're certain to make more profit just based on the sheer volume that goes to those boards.

But on the off-chance this isn't, then sure, I'll bite this bait.

>feeling threatened by Liberals performing their societal function of demanding inclusion into the existing power structure through any means and metrics, ultimately leading to a less extreme and more palatable version that the authority can accept.
>muh 150 years
>muh science
>muh history
>t-they ALWAYS LIE

Conservatism really *is* dead if this is the best they can muster up. Victim Culture is the real fucking cancer and they've clearly become drunk on its toxins, much like the Tumblrites they so despise. Just read fucking Schopenhauer or Evola if you want to get your rightist hard-on, there's nothing some poser under a shitty pen name could possibly say that could measure up to Ride the Tiger.

>>7038201
Nailed it.
Just make sure that you conservatives don't become a caged Blake's tyger.

Not sure I have ever been less interested in reading a book

>>7038234
>Nailed it.
Back to le reddit, cuck.

>>7038171
>His literary focus is military realism, historical verisimilitude, and plausible characters who represent the full spectrum of human behavior.

;e;

>>7038251
Maybe you should go back to your blog, Mr. Day.

>>7038262
Cuck.

>>7038251
>reddit
you mean plebbit, pleb

sounds like some crybaby bullshit to me

anybody here read it for a laff yet

>>7038267
Only chickens say "cuck", friend.

>>7038271
Cuck.

>>7038171
This is literally a repeat of what was published in the 90s culture wars, just with 'SJW' swapped for 'Political Correctness'

>>7038201
OP here. You are right. If I wanted to self promote I would post this on /pol/, which is why I posted on /lit/ instead because I wanted some actual discussion instead of endless circle jerking.

>>7038171
>Vox Day

what a name

still, seems like more of that self-congratulatory, whiny reactionary garbage so i'll pass

>>7038201
did buckley ruin american conservatives or was he their last worthy luminary?

>>7038307
I'd go with the latter. I'm not a conservative and I have a lot of respect for him.

the American right is pathetic
/pol/ would be a good board if all yanks were banned

>>7038328
>/pol/ would be a good board if all yanks were banned
so it'd be /int/ then

>>7038316
same, but i sometimes feel as if most of the vices of the big-talking american right can be traced back to buckley which is why im pretty ambivalent

>>7038291
Fair enough, which is why I offered the follow-up. That description seems to pretty much sum up the entire book, and again, there's really nothing that I found too remarkable about it.

>>7038307
Did you just see Best of Enemies too?

I would say he probably ruined it. Reagan for better or worse is still a divisive figure, even among Republicans (well, ones that aren't running in the debates right now), but even if he hadn't helped Reagan get to the top Buckley had started to shift into a rhetoric that encouraged conservatives to actively persecute the authority which they were in theory supposed to help safeguard or at least curate in the face of the Liberal's societal function. In any case it created a huge dissonance which I don't think the modern American conservative has really been able to reconcile, even after all the Tea Party shenanigans.

Plus, I mean, there were the '68 debates. I'm not so stupid as to think he established some sort of tradition of slur use, but it did on some level 'sanctify' that as acceptable, for a handful of fringe radicals.

There's also Orwell's argument that, even by that time, there weren't any real conservatives anymore. I don't know if I buy into that, but I'm almost certain Vidal did, even if he didn't read the specific essays, and that's influenced the Liberal perception of the Conservative to a point of gut refusal to associate.

>>7038334
/int/ has yanks too unfortunately

>>7038316
I'm >>7038347. I have immense respect for the man (even being vehemently on the other side of the fence) and will even admit that Gore Vidal was kind of a petulant child during the debates, but I'll stand by what I said regarding the Conservative schism. It's a shame he's passed on, I would very much have liked to talk with him, even if I oppose his views.

>>7038171
I wonder how /pol/ will react to this.

>>7038307
the reactionaries are actually better than SJWs these days. this movement of whining middle class brats can't end soon enough.

>>7038372
They'll cream their stained shorts over it.

>reading a techno musician/video game designer/white supremacist turned author

>>7038378
Both are equally bad, although at least reactionaries are powerless.

does anyone really believe that academics who go on about privilege and microaggressions have any more intellectual value than reactionary bloggers?

>>7038378
But they're both whining middle class brats. The difference is one is whining middle class brats who only whine about whining middle class brats. At least SJWs ostensibly believe in something outside of themselves.

>>7038347
i haven't, but i just looked it up and damn it, i will see it first chance i get

buckley really just popped into my head as a counterpoint to when i was thinking about the op and the limp-wristed, screeching, and back-patting segment of "conservatism" he represents

early buckley seemed like the kind of person that would stand his ground calmly for every belief he held, someone who really believed in that mythical american ideal (as well as a transcendetal catholic ideal) that no one can really define but that many people can feel quite clearly, even if he was the last conservative left in the world

not someone who hijacked the platform to promote his own bizarre, racially motivated beliefs

but buckley did give birth (or at least help deliver the baby) of what right now i see as the beginning of a drawn-out decline for the conservative movement first with goldwater then with reagan

>>7038378
better at the tactics one associates with SJWs? definitely, they perfected their methods and are in an upsurge

how far they'll go, i dont know

>>7038400
Yes. In fact I'd say the only ones who don't think that are the reactionary bloggers themselves. Even then, I might doubt it, since crying about those things are how those bloggers are making money to buy their cheetos and mountain dew.

>>7038400
uh, yes

they're accredited, unlike those bloggers

if one can appeal to authority in a debate like this, it's an appeal to the sociologists

>Social Justice Warriors have plagued mankind for more than 150 years.

yfw SA forums circa 2010 was 150 years ago.

Vox Day is an epic troll IMO.

>>7038291
This book is literally a circlejerk though. With a title like that the only people who pick that up are gonna be fanatically aligned with his views already.

>>7038328
:(

>>7038400
Unfortunately, due to their influence, one hast to take the former seriously.

>>7038775
case in point
>>>/pol/50549839

>>7039396
Seems like you're putting the cart before the horse, pal. One takes them seriously because of their educational background. And because one takes them seriously, they have influence.

>>7038199
You know it's not reactionary unless he makes arguments for a return to prior ideas right? Just saying something is wrong is not reactionary

>>7039449
You don't think he's advocating for a return to the past?

"for the past 150 years social justice warriors have plagued mankind".

He wants to revert to a time prior to 1865. Interestingly, that was just before slavery was abolished. I'm sure that's just a coincidence though.

>>7039406
>alt right
jesus what a joke

>>7039459
>sjw's are the cause of all progress and not just people who take a moral high ground while providing nothing

STFU retard

>>7038328
Pol is all Mexicans, no lie. Like 3 white weebs on the entire board

>>7039409
I'm speaking from the perspective of their opposition. The qualifications of these academics could be disregarded if their ideas didn't influence society and its policies. If it weren't for that, they could be written off like the aforementioned bloggers.

It's a rather cruel cycle.

>>7039475
That's not at all what I'm saying. You're strawmanning.

His reactionary stance is obviously limited to one area: minority rights and acceptance. But based on his description of the "problem" it seems pretty clear he wants some sort of pre Civil War society, and implicitly one where race based slavery is still allowed.

>>7039501
It's not cruel, nor a cycle. There's a clear starting point: getting a PhD.

If you study a subject your entire life, you should be considered a greater authority on that subject than someone with an internet connection and a victim complex. It's because they studied something their whole life that they're considered authorities. Because they're considered authorities, people listen to them on the issues relating to their area of expertise. Because people listen to them, they influence society.

If you aren't an academic authority, most people aren't going to consider your opinion "expert", nor should they without some other compelling reason.

>>7039522
That's not what it says at all you fucking lier. The book was right about your type. It says they have been around 150 years but only in the last 30 have they become a dominate ideology that attempts to police thought. It says literally nothing about returning to segregation or slavery, it does not even defend the right to think that a return is okay; it says sjws are trying to police video games and get Nobel stem nerds fired.

Holy fuck, it's some nerd mad his hentai is getting censored, you made up this whole reactionary narrative out of nothing

>>7039563
>my type
But I'm not a social justice warrior. It seems like you're the one making things up.

The 150 year mark is extremely suspicious. Why that date? Why mark the beginning of the end as soon as slavery was abolished? I could be wrong, but the implication seems very clear to me.

>>7038307
Conservatism has always been shit. ALWAYS.

>>7038171

another right wing shit pig jumping on the pity train and blowing the victim whistle

>>7038201
I have never seen someone so far up their own ass while simultaneously believing in the liberal vs. conservative dick waving contest.

Also, "changing the social structure" means modifying the behavior of other people to match your personal sense of right and wrong. In a truly equal society, nobody has any moral authority over anyone else. In any other instance, believing other people should change their behavior to make the world better, as you see it, would make you a raging psychopath.

>>7038400
There's a third way. Hell, there's a fourth way and a fifth way and a sixth way and a seventh way... Etcetera.

>>7038171

"Rat turd conservatives always lie"

See: history

>See how easy that was?

>>7039529
Nothing humanities academics can say is quantifiable. Therefore, it's all just opinion and conjecture. Anyone who takes it seriously is a dipshit.

Sure, they can have interesting ideas and philosophical jumping off points, but the real issue is that they influence policy which affects everybody.

>>7038171

Oh I used to read your punditry on WND. You were a big sissy crybaby then. Looks like you still are.

I mean for real though, anyone whose ever written for WND is a huge piece of comedy shit. Go burn a cross you piece of shit.

>>7041696
Aww aren't you the cutest little thing
>muh everything is relative
End yourself.

>>7041696
Is history "opinion and conjecture"?

I wish Vox Day would come back to this thread cause I've always wanted to call him a cunt personally.

How do you make a SJW mad? Actually, a better question is, how do you not make a SJW mad?

There is a cogent critique of the SJ left to be made - in particular the neo-Maoist assertion that failure to instantly and totally conform to newly created standards of social justice is just as evil as outright opposition is execrable - but Vox Day is an idiot so I'm not expecting it from him.

He's the sort of person who wants to bring back the monarchy because he thinks he'll be king.

>all the raging tumblrtards in this thread

Wasn't Vox Day one of those Rabid/Sad Puppies who rigged the Hugo nominees this year?

>>7041696
You know the difference between STEM supremacist children and liberal arts academics? The former takes pays 'science credit' loans to back his conjectures (ie, women, non-whites, or some other subset of the population are inferior) by using statistics and 'studies' to jump to wild conclusions about genetics. Just because you can't quantify something numerically doesn't mean it's not real. These are, ironically, often the same people who fall for the same disproved axioms about things like the minimum wage causing mass unemployment and price hikes.

>>7042489
>in particular the neo-Maoist assertion that failure to instantly and totally conform to newly created standards of social justice is just as evil as outright opposition
I've spent my time simply observing and I have to admit I'm slightly perturbed by this as well. However, I don't think this oppositional white-washing is exclusive to one group. It looks as though both sides are starting to learn new ways of exploiting a vastly new culture of media.

Sounds like a good book to shill on 4chan. Get fucked OP.