/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.8715971]

When will we ban reading to white children.

>According to a professor at the University of Warwick in England, parents who read to their kids should be thinking about how they’re “unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children” by doing so.

>At one point, Swift even flirted with the idea of “simply abolishing the family” as a way of “solving the social justice problem”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417997/professor-if-you-read-your-kids-youre-unfairly-disadvantaging-others-katherine-timpf

[Anonymous No.8715974]

[Anonymous No.8715977]

lmao

[Anonymous No.8715979]

>>8715971
Luckily the equality of outcome team lost this election, so this bleak future might be averted for a while longer.

[Anonymous No.8715983]

>>8715979
Luckily the cartoonish american elections aren't as significant as the media likes to pretend.

[Anonymous No.8715986]

Boy, I'm glad my parents actually cared about giving me a headstart in life. I could read at 4, you don't actually learn to at school till 6 where I live.

[Anonymous No.8715989]

>>8715971
That professor is writing this as a way of critiqueing equality of outcome right? Right?

[Anonymous No.8715991]

>>8715971

Can I call this guy a commie without you guys calling me a /pol/ack?

[Anonymous No.8715992]

>mfw

[Anonymous No.8715998]

>l-lol white people aren't o-oppressed you r-retard

[Anonymous No.8715999]

>>8715991
No since its an explicitly Liberal concept.
A way of solving the problem of social inequality without altering the Capitalist means of production. But since you don't realize that you're probably a dumb /pol/lack

[Anonymous No.8716001]

>>8715999
>>8715971

This guy is a commie.

[Anonymous No.8716002]

>>8715971
>Let's make everyone equeally dumb
Great plan

[Anonymous No.8716003]

>>8716001
Yes, I am

[Anonymous No.8716007]

>>8716003

So, when are you getting a job?

[Anonymous No.8716008]

>>8715971
>National Review
There aren't people who seriously still follow this garbage...are there?

[Anonymous No.8716012]

>>8715989
Yes obviously

>>8715971
>>8715979
>>8715991
>>8715998
>>8716008
You idiots need to actually listen to what he says instead of just taking a sensational headline and making up your own story to get mad at:

https://soundcloud.com/abc_rn/excerpt-family-values

Also go back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.8716016]

>>8715991
Depends, does he advocate socialised ownership of the means of production?

This guy is a bourgie fuck. He wants

[Anonymous No.8716019]

>>8716016
>He wants

What did our comrade mean by this?

[Anonymous No.8716024]

>this fucking narcissism
>'what should I, this particular person, do to solve this problem?'
>because obviously, inequality is not a social and global issue with complex causes and no obvious solution, it's not a fact of life at all but something to be set aside with my magical thinking
>'I mean, it's obviously only white people's fault, everyone else has no agency and importance in the state of world, right?'

[Anonymous No.8716027]

>>8716012

What a silly babble of non-sense, I cringe at the idea these so called ''philosophers'' think they are doing some meaningful contribution to the world. Socialists need to stop romanticizing their ideas, they are out of touch with reality.

>Also go back to /pol/
Why?

[Anonymous No.8716028]

>>8716012
>You idiots need to actually listen to what he says instead of just taking a sensational headline and making up your own story to get mad at:

I am saying nothing about the sensationalist headline, only the vehicle.

Even if the article is a refutation of such a stupid thing to say, what fucking idiot actually believes there is merit in refuting and acknowledging such tripe?

[Anonymous No.8716031]

>>8715971
>According to a professor at the University of Warwick in England, parents who read to their kids should be thinking about how they’re “unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children” by doing so.

if by "think about" you mean "we should encourage them" then that's what he is saying.

>At one point, Swift even flirted with the idea of “simply abolishing the family” as a way of “solving the social justice problem”

I didn't know "flirting" means "presenting an idea as a faulty, harmful conclusion"

[Anonymous No.8716038]

>>8716012
He is still advocating for equality of outcome. Cutting advantage people down to the level of the disadvantaged to make everyone equally miserable.

It is still his goal, all he is saying is that he doesn't agree with the methods.

[Anonymous No.8716039]

>>8716028
>what fucking idiot actually believes there is merit in refuting and acknowledging such tripe?

The posters here, including you

[Anonymous No.8716043]

>>8716038
Thats very true and perfectly legitimate

[Anonymous No.8716044]

>>8716043
So you agree with the idea of equality of outcome?

[Anonymous No.8716048]

>>8716044
No, I find the very dichotomy of equality of opportunity/outcome is Bourgouis nonsense

[Anonymous No.8716051]

>>8716038
He's advocating for equality of opportunity, not of outcome.

[Anonymous No.8716053]

>>8716039
thanks for depositing another You) into my account faggot

[Anonymous No.8716057]

>>8716053
No problem friend :)

[Anonymous No.8716070]

>>8716048

>He thinks it's a false dichotomy

Of course you do.

[Anonymous No.8716078]

>>8716051
You could implement ways for the disadvantaged to get to the same level as the advantaged. That would be the way of equality of opportunity.

What he is advocating for is cutting the advantaged down to the level of the disadvantaged.

The brain fart here is the idea that the disadvantaged would gain anything from removing the advantage from the advantaged. Nobody would gain anything from this measure, there would only be more losers at the end. And a meaningless sense of equality that doesn't actually improve the overall situation.

Like having two cups. One is empty and the other is half full. His solution is tipping out the liquid from the half full cup so both are empty. They are equal now in theory, but all you did in the end was wasting half a cup worth of water.

[Anonymous No.8716082]

>>8716078

>The brain fart here is the idea that the disadvantaged would gain anything from removing the advantage from the advantaged.

It's classic Left-Wing zero sum thinking.

"X's gain is my loss."

Don't lose any sleep over it.

[Anonymous No.8716084]

The bottom feeders should claw and fight their way to the top if they are truly deserving.
Unironic commies should be sent to socialist work camps. See how many of them are still commies when (if) they come out.

[Anonymous No.8716086]

>>8716070
Yes I do since its ultimately a liberal matter, its one of their many management of excesses of Capitalism rather than addressing the economic system itself.

[Anonymous No.8716089]

>>8716082
>It's classic Left-Wing zero sum thinking.
>"X's gain is my loss."

Meanwhile people on /pol/ tearing their hair out over black men fucking white women is what?

[Anonymous No.8716092]

>>8716089

>Meanwhile people on /pol/ tearing their hair out over black men fucking white women is what?

Because there's a limited number of women in proportion to men. What is more, due to monogamy/etc, there will be a 'loss' once a woman is claimed via marriage/etc.

Books, by contrast, can be used over and over again without any loss. They can be recycled.

[Anonymous No.8716094]

>>8716078
>Like having two cups. One is empty and the other is half full. His solution is tipping out the liquid from the half full cup so both are empty. They are equal now in theory, but all you did in the end was wasting half a cup worth of water.
That water not yours to distribute as you will.

[Anonymous No.8716098]

>>8716089
Because they are losing their women to the gain of niggers? Understand that white women are the property of white men, why do you think interracial cuck shit is popular among losers

[Anonymous No.8716101]

Why does /lit/ keep bringing /pol/ up every time someone disagrees with their views?

[Anonymous No.8716102]

>>8716092
what do books have to do with anything? the "zero sum thinking" here is in regards to private schools.

[Anonymous No.8716105]

>>8716094
Whose water is it then? It wasn't taken away from the other cup. And the other cup doesn't get more full by wasting the water on the floor.

[Anonymous No.8716106]

>>8716102

No, it's in regard to parents reading to their kids.

[Anonymous No.8716111]

>>8716105
It surely belongs to someone. Where then did the other get its water from?

[Anonymous No.8716112]

>>8716106
no it isn't. The guy we are arguing about has said that reading to kids SHOULDN'T be subject to any equalization and that it should be encouraged.

He used that as an example to contrast to paid private schools, which he said occupied a completely different position and in his view did not have the same protection. you can conveniently listen to it here: >>8716012


Or do you just believe everything you read online?

[Anonymous No.8716116]

>>8716092
But don't you faggots claim that marriage is over (somehow thanks to the left) and everyone just divorces everyone?

[Anonymous No.8716119]

>>8716111
Just like bed time stories read from your parents, the water came for free.

The water fell from the sky and the first cup managed to catch it, the other cup was less lucky and caught none.

[Anonymous No.8716126]

>>8716119
>he is arguing about bed time stories

[Anonymous No.8716130]

>>8716126
>in this thread about bed time stories

[Anonymous No.8716135]

>>8716119
>Just like bed time stories read from your parents, the water came for free.
This is untrue.

Not all parents read to their children, some it doesn't occur to do so from a lack of education, some can't afford to be an active parent and let TV raise their kids because of their lifestyle and obligations such as work, etc...

It isn't free, to read to your kids suggests a degree of leisure and liberty that not all have, someone somewhere in your familial line earned it.

[Anonymous No.8716136]

>>8716130
>in a comment chain directly linking to a post where it is made explicit that nobody is advocating against bed time stories

I know the principle of charity is useless, but it shouldn't be replaced with the principle of only arguing against a made up position.

[Anonymous No.8716137]

>>8716135
so what's your position on reading bed time stories?

[Anonymous No.8716139]

>>8716119
>the privileged are simply the result of luck
they or their predecessors were better able to fight/steal/barter/think whatever to get to their position

nothing is free

[Anonymous No.8716142]

>>8716139
>their predecessors were better able to fight/steal/barter/think whatever to get to their position

how is that not luck?

[Anonymous No.8716145]

>>8716142
Give one example of something earned then. Yours is a ridiculous position.

[Anonymous No.8716147]

>>8716135
Doesn't change the point that stopping the parents from reading bed time stories wouldn't improve the education of the kids without bed time stories.

The solution is helping the other cup to catch water. Or if you want to go socialist, share the water of the other cup. Throwing the water away altogether is just a waste and an overall loss.

>>8716136
I guess you were reading selectively, I made quite clear what I was arguing about.

[Anonymous No.8716148]

>>8716145
what, the position that it's luck to whom you're born? You imply I make the concept of earning meaningless, meanwhile you are the wone doing exactly that with both the concept of something being free AND luck.

Here's your example:

Bob needs a sled made.

James makes him the sled.

Bob gives James a good ol' blowy for it.

James has earned that blowy.

[Anonymous No.8716151]

>>8716089
>Meanwhile people on /pol/ tearing their hair out over black men fucking white women is what?

Personally I don't think it's the fact that white women are fucking black men that is the problem, at least not for me anyway, the problem is that it's somehow socially acceptable for black men to act extremely masculine but it isn't for whites.

[Anonymous No.8716153]

>>8716147
>I guess you were reading selectively, I made quite clear what I was arguing about.
point to where you did that.

[Anonymous No.8716160]

>>8716148
Your family are not independent from you.

Does everyone know how to make a sled? Do they all have the tools? Do they all have the materials? According to you James is lucky to get that blowy from Bob because he had the resources to make a sled.

[Anonymous No.8716161]

>>8716094
My time is not mine to distribute as I will? After all, the only thing being spent in the case of my reading books to my kids is my own time.

[Anonymous No.8716165]

>>8716153
Here:
>>8716038

He disagrees with the method of forbidding parents from reading bed time stories and the method of putting all kids in state camps. He still thinks the advantaged shouldn't have the advantage.

[Anonymous No.8716166]

>>8716161
Time is not the only thing involved.

[Anonymous No.8716170]

>>8716161
>My time is not mine to distribute as I will?
Not if you want food to eat, not be raped, or killed, etc... You need to take certain steps and spend your time to address these concerns, and everyone is differently able to manage their time thus. Acting like time is the only 'currency' at stake is puerile and misleading.

[Anonymous No.8716171]

>>8716160
>According to you James is lucky to get that blowy from Bob because he had the resources to make a sled.

Yeah, there was luck involved, it's the complete dismissal of the concept of luck to deny that. It's lucky that he was in the position to get there, but not everything derived from luck is in itself only and exclusively lucky.
But being born to somebody involves no action of your own, and is thus not earned. Remember how you asked me for an example of something earned, not an example of something without luck in its causal chain? I remember.

According to you, everybody has earned everything he has ever done and there is no difference between what you do and what happens to you in agency.

[Anonymous No.8716173]

>>8716101
Shut up, /pol/

[Anonymous No.8716174]

>>8715971

So what's next? We kill genetically superior people too? You can't have equality of outcome if people are inherently different by nature.

[Anonymous No.8716175]

>>8716165
>He disagrees with the method of forbidding parents from reading bed time stories

He explicitly disagrees with it being done at all. You must have been listening selectively.

>He still thinks the advantaged shouldn't have the advantage.

No, he thinks the advantage should have that advantage and it should be encouraged for more to do it. That's what he says with his mouth words.

[Anonymous No.8716176]

>>8716174
Just clone one fat lesbian gender studies professor over and over again to make up the entire population.

[Anonymous No.8716177]

>>8716148
So inheritance should be completely outlawed to equalize things. What's more, some people don't have 2 parents. Parents need to be forbidden. Fucking kids who get fathers, FOR FREE? Don't even get me started on breast-milk. Unbelievable that such entitlement exists. Everyone needs to be tossed into the gutter at birth and allowed to make their own way in the world. Anything less is utter disparity.

[Anonymous No.8716181]

>>8716171
>According to you, everybody has earned everything he has ever done and there is no difference between what you do and what happens to you in agency.
Basically yeah, that's simple causality.

>>8716171
>Yeah, there was luck involved, it's the complete dismissal of the concept of luck to deny that. It's lucky that he was in the position to get there, but not everything derived from luck is in itself only and exclusively lucky.
>But being born to somebody involves no action of your own, and is thus not earned. Remember how you asked me for an example of something earned, not an example of something without luck in its causal chain? I remember.
What aspect was earned? You have yet to answer.

[Anonymous No.8716182]

>>8716177
Who the HELL are you arguing against? Who made the statements you are parodying? It wasn't me in your quoted post, it wasn't the guy this thread is about.

Is it just your genuine opinion? Are you just retarded?

[Anonymous No.8716185]

>>8716174
>You can't have equality of outcome if people are inherently different by nature.

Liberals don't believe in nature. They have taken John Locke's tabula rasa to it's ultimate logical conclusion, so much so that there are sociologists who say even biological sex isn't real.

[Anonymous No.8716186]

>>8716181
>Basically yeah, that's simple causality.
So the concept of "earned" is meaningless and could just be replaced with "is the case"

Yours is a ridiculous position.

>What aspect was earned? You have yet to answer.
the blowjob was earned. It is stated in the first reply. He did a thing, using his agency as a human being, and got a blowy for it. He earned that blowy.

[Anonymous No.8716187]

>>8716182
That is exactly the logical conclusion of the post I replied to. Those fucking kids didn't EARN their balanced upbringing, the antibodies from breast milk, etc..there's orphans out there after all.

[Anonymous No.8716190]

>>8716185

t. somebody who gets all his information from sources disparaging his supposed enemies.

[Anonymous No.8716191]

>>8716186
>the blowjob was earned. It is stated in the first reply. He did a thing, using his agency as a human being, and got a blowy for it. He earned that blowy.
But other people couldn't have possibly gotten that blowjob because they lacked the resources he had. It was pure luck on his part.

[Anonymous No.8716196]

>>8716187
yeah, they didn't earn them, they were handed to them. Like when I give you some of my popcorn when we go to the movies. Doesn't mean you aren't entitled to eating them.

Obviously I haven't EARNED my antibodies, that's ridiculous, when am I supposed to have done that?

[Anonymous No.8716199]

>>8716191
>It was pure luck on his part.
Partial luck, but modified through personal agency. You understand perfectly well, it's easy enough.

[Anonymous No.8716205]

>>8716190
>t. somebody who gets all his information from sources disparaging his supposed enemies.

No, sorry. The liberal sociology departments at universities are quite vocal about what they believe, so I just have to listen to what they say.

[Anonymous No.8716207]

>>8716196
>yeah, they didn't earn them,
Alright, so no parents. It's only fair.

>>8716196
>Like when I give you some of my popcorn when we go to the movies. Doesn't mean you aren't entitled to eating them.
But why would you give me your popcorn? Obviously I earned that by tolerating you as a companion. Discounting of course the fact that I had parents whose influenced enabled me to endure flatulence and idiocy knowing sweet sweet popcorn awaited as reward, for the same of simplicity.

[Anonymous No.8716210]

>>8716175
Okay I guess now we are addressing the original thing I said that your selective reading omitted apparently.

Come on, listen to it again. He makes it very clear that he thinks that equality of outcome is what we need to achieve when possible. That is the entire ideological basis for his search for solutions. He just comes to the conclusion that he doesn't have good solutions.
The entire first half of the talk is about it. Don't make me transcript that entire thing.

[Anonymous No.8716214]

>>8716205
when did you listen to them? Could you refer me to any texts that aren't clearly a ridiculed fringe that would support your argument?

[Anonymous No.8716215]

>>8716199
>Partial luck, but modified through personal agency. You understand perfectly well, it's easy enough.
What aspect was the agency? What aspect was earned? You did not answer, you just reiterated and side stepped. The resources and conditions that enabled James to get that blowjob from Bob are not equal, it was luck - according to you, that is if you're consistent. Which clearly you are not.

[Anonymous No.8716224]

>>8716207
>Alright, so no parents. It's only fair.
Yes to parents. No to fairness as total equilibrium. No to arguing with somebody who makes up positions to attack.

[Anonymous No.8716227]

>>8716224
I'm sorry I used your argument and you found it stupid.

[Anonymous No.8716228]

>>8716214
Well, you can watch the interview on The Agenda with Jordan Peterson where the transgender sociology professor he is debating literally says biological sex isn't real.

>clearly a ridiculed fringe that would support your argument?

It isn't a "ridiculed fringe" at all you moron. Why do you think Facebook has 58 gender categories? Certainly isn't because someone at Facebook suddenly found out one day that this shit is real and nobody knew.

[Anonymous No.8716229]

>>8716210
he is talking about a level playing field. Starting points. He is talking about equality of opportunity, not outcome.

[Anonymous No.8716239]

>>8716227
You're so deeply deluded it's fascinating.

[Anonymous No.8716253]

>>8716228
Oh look a massive multinational panders, colour me surprised. You can't even define the people you're supposedly against. Who is this professor and how relevant are they?

[Anonymous No.8716255]

>>8716239
Your insistence coupled with your total lack of substantiation is not.

[Anonymous No.8716258]

>>8716253
>You can't even define the people you're supposedly against.

I'm not "against" them, I vehemently disagree with them.

And you know perfectly well who I am talking about.

[Anonymous No.8716259]

>>8716228
>Jordan Peterson where the transgender sociology professor he is debating literally says biological sex isn't real.
That is not said at any point in the interview.

>It isn't a "ridiculed fringe" at all you moron. Why do you think Facebook has 58 gender categories? Certainly isn't because someone at Facebook suddenly found out one day that this shit is real and nobody knew.

well give an example first. Equality as a statement of fact rather than a moral prescription isn't mainstream liberal thought.

[Anonymous No.8716260]

>>8716255
You can't even point towards what you want to be substantiated.

[Anonymous No.8716261]

>>8716258
OK, I want you to define them. I don't actually know who you are on about, is it cultural marxists, is it the jews, is it libruls, is it buzzfeed neoprogs. Who?

[Anonymous No.8716268]

>>8716260
Except for the multiple times I did.

>>8716215
>>8716215
>What aspect was the agency? What aspect was earned? You did not answer, you just reiterated and side stepped.

[Anonymous No.8716272]

>>8715971

I for one plan to blast an entire bottle of lighter gas into my newborns nostrils to make sure he or she becomes retarded, so as to not disadvantage people of diverse cognitive abilities.

[Anonymous No.8716273]

>>8716261
I mean, just take a look at Twitter. The people I'm talking about are the ones who have been screaming on there that half the American continent is racists and sexists for voting Trump into office, and are currently rioting and railing against democracy because they didn't get their way.

[Anonymous No.8716274]

>>8715989

Who the fuck can tell anymore?

[Anonymous No.8716275]

>>8716229
He is arguing that all children who get into school should have the same basic level of intelligence upon which they can build further education and parents are being unfair by training the intelligence of their children before school. By that logic kids who are genetically advantaged intelligence wise should also be made dumber to be just as dumb as the dumbest kids who get into school so the playing field is absolutely equal at that picked starting point.

We can call that equality of opportunity taken to an extreme I guess. You are applying equality of outcome methods to get to a point where you then start the equality of opportunity.

Like I pointed out before, this doesn't actually improve the overall situation though. Everyone being equally dumb at the starting point that is.

What you should actually do is set up programs for disadvantaged children so they can get the benefits of good parenting without actually needing to have wealthy parents. Extended pre-schooling and such. This way you have an overall improvement, not a forced equally low starting point.

[Anonymous No.8716276]

>>8716260
Except for the multiple times I did of course.

>>8716215 (You)
>>8716215 (You)
>What aspect was the agency? What aspect was earned? You did not answer, you just reiterated and side stepped.

>>8716181
>>8716181
>What aspect was earned? You have yet to answer.

>>8716145
>>8716145
>Give one example of something earned then. Yours is a ridiculous position.
You've yet to give a single example. You think people don't want to get their cock sucked? Absurd. That James was able to do it isn't a question of willingness, but of agreeable conditions and resources that allowed him to act towards fucking Bob's mouth. Countless others would have liked to fuck his face instead, but they weren't as lucky.

[Anonymous No.8716278]

>>8716272

You should remember to break its legs as well, so as not to unfairly disadvantage handicapable people.

[Anonymous No.8716285]

>>8715999
I think you're wrong the idea is that you bring different groups in and whine about their representation in an institution. One you do that you can gain control of that institution by micromanaging people in there based on race/ethnicity. Instead of class privilege you have race privilege. Of course economics factors in because they'll label any economic equality as racist leading to a centrally controlled communist government.

[Anonymous No.8716294]

>>8716285
Yes but they'll have to learn race is an artificial reactionary construct and shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.8716295]

>>8716294
>race is an artificial reactionary construct
You don't think culture exists?

[Anonymous No.8716296]

>>8716116
The construction of marriage has changed for the worst. Masculine and Feminine has changed into an unstable antagonistic partnership, where neither side feels any obligation or any security.

[Anonymous No.8716302]

>>8716139
poverty is a natural state from which people rise by inventing useful institutions and technology.

[Anonymous No.8716303]

>>8716273
Ah right ok people on twitter, glad you have such a defined opposition, I'll be sure to keep an eye out for their opinions, clearly very important to you.

[Anonymous No.8716307]

>>8716151
>extremely masculine but it isn't for whites.
White men still have to be good providers which is not really macho.

[Anonymous No.8716315]

>>8716294
Then how can you genocide?

[Anonymous No.8716327]

>>8716116
Not /pol/, but I think it's accurate to say that liberalism, both in the economic sense and in the social sense (the latter would include most parts of the left), have proven incredibly destructive towards marriage. Marx himself even said 150 years that capitalism reduced the family to a mere economic relation. The sort of individualism encouraged by liberalism, in both its senses, makes it difficult for either partner to feel any sense of responsibility towards the other or stability when it is reduced to a contract, free of any social expectations or legal constraints against ending the contract.

[Anonymous No.8716378]

>>8716303
>being this deliberately retarded

You are aware that this just makes you look more like a moron right?

[Anonymous No.8716387]

>>8716151
>>8716307

>Everything is a race issue

kek.

[Anonymous No.8716395]

>>8716387
Literally nothing is a race issue.

[Anonymous No.8716436]

It's funny how liberals have no issues accepting nature when it comes to debating theist, but we'll completely go on faith and ignore facts when that nature must be applied to humans.


I wonder if we will ever be able to have a decent conversation about race on TV without everyone going apeshit about feelings.

>Inb4
>Go back to /pol

[Anonymous No.8716447]

>>8716228
Son, you seem to be confused. Sociology tends to be based fairly in reality and certainly rewards quantitative methods more than just making stuff up in all serious departments. Perhaps you are thinking of gender or ethnographic studies?

[Anonymous No.8716457]

>>8716024
Inequality isn't even an issue. Equality is an issue, we should look at equal societies and say "how can we make people futher distinguish themselves above the rest?". Humans are unequal, if you want to become equal, go join the bacteria.