/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10820637]

He LITERALLY did nothing wrong

[Anonymous No.10820683]

>>10820637
no one ever accused him of doing anything wrong

he even clearly regrets the few morally grey things he did do

[Anonymous No.10820689]

>>10820637
book?

[Anonymous No.10820696]

>>10820689
Diary of a wimpy kid: Rodrick Rules

[Anonymous No.10820706]

>>10820696
fuck off. found it
The Book of the New Sun

[Anonymous No.10820737]

>>10820706
yay! good for you! :)

[Anonymous No.10820749]

>>10820637
>Implying Severian is one person

[Anonymous No.10820835]

>>10820637
is there any character in the history of fiction that has gotten more prime pussy than chad sev?

[Anonymous No.10820870]

>>10820835
>having to rape jolenta
not that chad

[Anonymous No.10820878]

>>10820870

A real man takes what he wants.

[Anonymous No.10820880]

>>10820870
he literally didnt rape her. she pulled him to the side to fuck him and as soon as they walk back to camp everyone realizes what happened (jolenta cucked mommy)

[Anonymous No.10820889]

>>10820878
the concept of a "real man" is a rhetorical device used by women and nefarious subhumans to shame men into acting in accordance with their moral sensibilities as opposed to the man's.

[Anonymous No.10820901]

>>10820889
the concept of "enthusiastic consent" and "mentally revoking consent mid coitus" doesnt exist outside of legally ass saving company mandated anti-rape power points

[Anonymous No.10820914]

>>10820889

You're using a rhetorical device to discourage the use of a phrase you find triggering. What of it?

[Anonymous No.10820918]

>>10820901
wasn't arguing for those and i'm not sure how they're related to my post. i've heard people say shit along the lines of "real men always get enthusiastic consent" just as much as i've heard "real men take what they want." the point of the post is that what constitutes a real man is nebulous, and that lack of clarity of definition is where opportunistic men, or your average woman, attempt to subvert the will of men by challenging their masculinity.

>>10820914
i don't find it triggering, it's just an observation. people attempt to manipulate each other with little turns of phrase all the time, it doesn't distress me.

[Anonymous No.10820921]

>>10820880
>jolenta cucked mommy
what

[Anonymous No.10820929]

>>10820918

It's not a manipulation to use "a real man." It's a phrase that points to a standard or ideal of male behavior that we ought to strive for. That's all it means and there's no trickery involved.

[Anonymous No.10820933]

>>10820918
>well that depends on that your definition of "is" is
>hurr durr im so smrt and clever

[Anonymous No.10820936]

>>10820929
if this were true then you wouldn't constantly see contradictory statements on what constitutes being a "real man." there's tons of feminist propaganda that utilizes this phrase and it is in complete opposition to >>10820878 's sentiment.

>>10820933
got me.

[Anonymous No.10820939]

>>10820936
>when some people are hungry they want to eat a taco but other people want to eat burgers when they are hungry
>therefore hunger isnt real and is just a propaganda tool created by jews to turn me gay

[Anonymous No.10820940]

>>10820936

They aren't contradictions because everybody has their own standard of male behavior that people should meet up to. What you're seeing is that individual's opinion of what the ideal man should be.

[Anonymous No.10820953]

>>10820939
never mentioned gays or jews, and hunger isn't a behavior with variance between cultures. people eat what they have access to and taste forms from repetition of eating habits and likely genetic variance. not at all analogous to gendered behavior.

>>10820940
this further proves my point.

[Anonymous No.10820956]

there is literally an objective standard of manliness laid out in the holy scriptures wtf are you nerds debating over

[Anonymous No.10820978]

>>10820953

I don't see how that can prove your point unless you believe using any sort of phrase which simplifies a more complex idea for the sake of communication is an act of manipulation.

[Anonymous No.10820988]

>>10820978
It proves my point because it means that the person using the term "real man" is attempting to get the person they are speaking to to act in accordance with their ideal view of masculinity. It serves no true descriptive function, which is why it's useless in any other contexts outside of:

1. Getting someone to act in YOUR ideal manner.

2. Exalting your own behavior or that of others as being a representation of the masculine ideal, which you have admitted is a personal and subjective one, which feeds back into reason one.

It is not a simplification of a complex ideal because it doesn't attempt to describe, it attempts to instruct.

[Anonymous No.10821018]

>>10820988

By using "a real man" you're communicating what you believe the ideal man should be. That is the function. Normally you wouldn't have to go on to explain that you're talking about standards or ideals because it's all implicit in the phrase. If that is intrinsically manipulative then so every single act of communication. If you communicate anything that you believe, by your definition you're manipulating people even if you're not intentionally trying to be persuasive.

[Anonymous No.10821031]

>>10821018
The sense in which we're discussing the term "real man" is almost always rendered as a moral instruction and not as a description of an ideal. Take these two statements for example: "Real Men are Feminists" and "Real Men are MRA's"

Both of these statements are moral instructions masquerading as a description of a personal masculine ideal. The concept of a "real man" does not go beyond whatever it is the speaker using it is trying to get you to believe. They're completely loaded with implications without actually expounding upon anything of substance. And yes, all language is inherently manipulative, whether in a positive or negative sense.

[Anonymous No.10821040]

>>10821031

The statements can be moral instructions but they're not intrinsically so. "Real men are feminists" taken by itself could translate directly to "I think the ideal man is feminist" and there's nothing manipulative about that. It's merely a statement on what you think the ideal man is.

[Anonymous No.10821047]

>>10821040
It "can be" but rarely "is" the case that it is a "mere statement." If you express to someone that they do not meet your ideal you are implying they are deficient and in need of correction. If this is not manipulative then I do not know what is.

[Anonymous No.10821051]

>>10821031
>>10820988
literally pointless nonsense that leads nowhere and means nothing. your entire argument (because all language is manipulation so a real man isnt different from anything else) is that you dont like when someone says a specific phrase ie you get triggered

ok. you can shut the fuck up now

[Anonymous No.10821056]

>>10821051
>ur mad

got me.

[Anonymous No.10821065]

>>10820637
>another semen-slurping New Sun thread, trying to convince /lit/ all day every day to read it because it's "omg so good"
when will it end?

[Anonymous No.10821069]

>>10821065
>being this new

[Anonymous No.10821070]

>>10821047

Agree with you then. Sometimes the phrase can used persuasively but it's intrinsically persuasive. Now let's look at the original post that sparked this conversation >>10820878

Is that expressing to the person it's replying to that they're not meeting up to a standard or ideal of male behavior or is it merely saying what they think the ideal male behavior should be? I think it's clearly the latter because the conversation isn't personal and the person he's replying to is also expressing his opinion on ideal male behavior.

[Anonymous No.10821073]

>>10821070
>Sometimes the phrase can used persuasively but it's intrinsically persuasive

I meant to say it's not intrinsically persuasive

[Anonymous No.10821078]

>>10821056

By speaking to him you're engaging in propaganda

[Anonymous No.10821084]

>>10821070
>>10821047
>>10821040
>>10821018
>>10820988

>literally arguing over semantics

[Anonymous No.10821087]

>>10821084

What else is there to do on a literature forum?

[Anonymous No.10821200]

>>10821065
>>10821069
Newfags don't understand the Wolfeposting is a time honored tradition here on /lit/. On par with
>Start with the Greeks

It's our version of baneposting.