/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.9666656]

Thoughts on ontologicools taste in literature? Watch "hi 4chan" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/3gIFqBdRsvE

[Anonymous No.9666662]

/lit/ is more autistic than I thought

[Anonymous No.9666664]

>>9666656
Maybe stop what you're doing

[Anonymous No.9666785]

Needs more Gene Wolfe.

[Anonymous No.9666798]

>>9666656
What was this BS that it was r/books that spearheaded this brigade but it made it look as if ?lit? did it?

[Anonymous No.9666872]

Fucking /lit/bros ruin everything

[Anonymous No.9666879]

>>9666656
muh dick

[Anonymous No.9666883]

>>9666872
Does anyone have the collage pic where lit find this virgin looking girls book review youtube and thrash her untill the point she deletes her channel?

[Anonymous No.9666887]

>>9666666

[Anonymous No.9666888]

>girl youtuber trying to get youtube famous
>get upset when 4chan goes crazy for them

why is this always the case

we made boxxy an icon, you want to be an icon right onto?

[Anonymous No.9666895]

>>9666888
Boxxy made herself an icon by being cute and pure. Onto is a Whore with dad issues who will never make it.

[Anonymous No.9666904]

>>9666656
>Bored intellectually

I'm sorry but I can't stop laughing.

[Anonymous No.9666905]

>>9666895
What the fuck is wrong with you? Who hurt you, anon? *unsheathes katana* ready yourself for battle, i WILL defend m'lady!

[Anonymous No.9666913]

holy shit just redpill yourselves

haven't you already read Schopenhauers On Women

all women are trash and can't be regarded human by white men like us in any way or form

[Anonymous No.9666914]

>>9666904
She's the definition of pseud, however that is no excuse to be rude, but she's the typical pretty girl: "hello I'm an intelligent person because I'm interested in all these things although I actually don't know about those things, why do guys see me only as a walking talking bagina??"

[Anonymous No.9666920]

>>9666914
How can I not be rude to a women that proudly wears a Cow Piercing in her nose and isn't pregnant at this point?

She's bored because she doesn't have kids. That's the only conclusion I can draw from her video.

[Anonymous No.9666927]

>>9666920
Children aren't intellectually challenging, Anon.

[Anonymous No.9666930]

>>9666656
How many people here are actual Literature/English major/students?
It seems to me that the majority of people form /lit/ are in STEM.

[Anonymous No.9666934]

>>9666662
>>9666872
>>9666879
>>9666883
>>9666888
>>9666895
>>9666904
>>9666905
>>9666913
>>9666914
>/lit/ is a serious discussion board, fuck off back to /pol/ or /fit/ if you want to be a redpilled retard xD

[Anonymous No.9666936]

>>9666930
I would say 70% STEMlords, 20% NEET, 10% have studied lit

[Anonymous No.9666937]

>>9666914
>records videos on her laptop in 240p
>only lightning is her window
>has written university essays on many subjects tangent to her videos
ah yes, very typical pretty girl

hOW DarE ShE vOicE hER tHouGHts?

[Anonymous No.9666939]

>>9666934
Do you think I'm joking? Fuck off back to your oh so serious threads, pretentious little shit.

[Anonymous No.9666940]

>>9666934
Fuck you I just want to see the collage of /lit/ bullying that poor woman. It has nothing to do with redpilling you fucking faggot

[Anonymous No.9666944]

>>9666939
t. virgin

[Anonymous No.9666946]

9666937
>hOW DarE ShE vOicE hER tHouGHts?
reddit

[Anonymous No.9666955]

>>9666946
awesome post dudebro

[Anonymous No.9666957]

>>9666944
My virginity doesn't define me.

[Anonymous No.9666969]

>>9666937
Link to her essays?

[Anonymous No.9666986]

>>9666927
>Children aren't intellectually challenging, Anon.

t.notaparent

[Anonymous No.9666988]

>>9666986
t. full time mommy

[Anonymous No.9666995]

>>9666927
How under age is /lit/? Everyone here is like 19 at the oldest, no?

[Anonymous No.9667000]

>>9666988
Thanks for the compliment.

[Anonymous No.9667008]

>>9666927
t. child

[Anonymous No.9667027]

>>9666969
https://illusorysolace.wordpress.com/

[Anonymous No.9667032]

>>9666664
thumbs up

[Anonymous No.9667034]

>>9666798
no

[Anonymous No.9667045]

>>9666656
Link her acct

[Anonymous No.9667050]

>>9666798
yes

[Anonymous No.9667052]

>>9666888
>>9666895
Ugh- fuckin' boxxy. I was on 4chan at the height of her popularity, or whatever you want to call it. What a fucking nightmare.

[Anonymous No.9667061]

>>9667027
I don't think you can call many of these essays in good faith. I like the blog, but don't say it's something it's not.

[Anonymous No.9667086]

>>9666656
The word is often thrown around here loosely, but from what I can gather of her videos she seems like a bonafide pseud.

Watch her video on Baudrillard. A couple of minutes in she gets distracted by her cat, stares blankly at the screen and finds an opportunity to mention that she has a lecture of a quantum physicist to attend. Shortly afterwards, when describing the ideas of Baudrillard and their wider implications, she pulls of a "blah blah blah". Not to mention she doesn't actually read Baudrillard, but a graphic guide.

Her most used words are "like", "uhm" and "literally". She is self-absorbed and seems to have a classic case of lowercase autism.

She's the /lit equivalent of a Sasha Grey looking RoamingMillenial, both who so happen to have a thing for Jordan Peterson.

Can we just agree that "intellectual" youtubers are pretentious as fuck and move on.

[Anonymous No.9667101]

>>9667086
>if you can't pull a seminar reply befit a phd out of your arse you're a pseud

shut your mouth

[Anonymous No.9667104]

>>9666656

>has a tattoo
>mostly male friends
>boyfriend
>will keep posting despite boyfriend not wanting her to
>will keep posting despite people talking about her cunt (she likes it)

NOW that's what I call DROPPED!

[Anonymous No.9667129]

>>9666656
She seems cool. I guess I missed the big thread where "we" spoke about her. She should be grateful that only /lit/ provoked her, if she went to other places on this fucking site she'd probably join a convent

[Anonymous No.9667164]

>>9667101
You can have a phd, do seminars and still be a pseud. It's not about using big boy words but more about having standards; the overall context and the finer nuances needs to be considered when discussing the ideas of an author and one has to be able to emphasize with said authors paradigm - otherwise you're just engaging with a half assed caricature.

With that said, it's unfortunate that the girl fell prey to /lit trolls. She can redeem herself by appealing to the right winged nature of our resident /pollacks, but otherwise she'll just end up as a meme.

[Anonymous No.9667173]

>>9666888
she has 300 fucking subscribers man
this is groundbreaking levels of autism from you guys
/lit/ is on the surface way more normal than the other boards but you can't hold it together

[Anonymous No.9667177]

>>9667173
Yeah, lets make fun of people with autism and pretend we're better than the rest. Nice.

[Anonymous No.9667181]

>>9666656
newfag core
which is good, rare to see new faces in /lit/ anyway

[Anonymous No.9667184]

>>9666887
>deleted

ILLUMINATE

[Anonymous No.9667185]

>>9667177
fuck off autist

[Anonymous No.9667188]

>>9666662
It's just the one guy reposting this shit and the 15 people who circlejerk these threads because they don't read.

[Anonymous No.9667196]

>>9667086
Thanks pretentious grad student. It's evident that shes recording the video akin to that of a diary, its messy, its not refined and not really reaching for a greater audience (and yet I'm 100% sure you'd lament about the "pseudo"ness if she did do that). You're just as pretentious as those whom you claim are pretentious, but you just have the balls to do it on camera

[Anonymous No.9667209]

>>9667173
I've already made all these points before in previous Onto threads and they still didn't get it, just ignore them, they're either too stupid or too angry to understand, just leave them

[Anonymous No.9667225]

>>9666656
Which site is that

[Anonymous No.9667256]

[Anonymous No.9667273]

>>9667173
If ppl w/ autism are behaving in a viciously improprietous way then there should be no compunction in criticizing them.

Criticizing poor social form ≠ pretending you're better than anyone.

But it's cute that you're white knighting for well read and generally intelligent autistic dudes you are low-quality, misanthropic, pseudo-intellectuals who by circling the wagons and denigrating everything, have convinced themselves otherwise.

A defense mechanism where lashing out at things that are popular or probative helps create some narrative where you are right because otherwise the truth is just too horrible to bear. A cross-breed between schizos and artists who aren't particularly savvy at either.

There's a reason the whole world laughs at 4chan and creeps come here to be anonymous. I even bet a healthy amount of these same guys shitting on everyone are bona fide pedes.

[Anonymous No.9667278]

>>9667086
Plz, 4chan is one of the most pretentious places I've ever encountered online

[Anonymous No.9667282]

Jesus Christ, I'm going to see threads about this stupid bitch for the next month or so, aren't I? Fuck this place.

[Anonymous No.9667287]

>>9667164
Lol "redeem" herself. Exhibit A here folks at the pretentiousness that is this shithole.

Wake up she's a student and still trying to figure shit out, as are all of us. Almost anyone who is a real intellectual does not spend there time on 4chan, can you agree with that?

[Anonymous No.9667289]

>>9667273
holy fuck lmao

[Anonymous No.9667292]

>>9667287
The only thing she's doing really wrong is worrying that her irl friends have the same attitude towards her as these morons do.

[Anonymous No.9667307]

>>9666656
>>9666656
She got blown out for not reading, get a girl who actually reads to bully. We're losing our mission by bullying girls who pretend to read- next stop bullying people who make youtube video games channels, though they might at least read sci-fi.

She wants points for not reading books before mouthing off about them. She's beneath our contempt, tbvh. Save it for the girls who read

[Anonymous No.9667312]

>>9666872
>we mens now
Would you have any trousers I could borrow, anon? I don't think I can pull off Scottish.

[Anonymous No.9667320]

>>9666937
her uni ripped her off if that level of "intellect" gets you a degree from them. she couldn't make her way through baudrillard intelligibly, in a video she chose to make to talk about that specifically.

the male equivalent would be an anime fan who couldn't tell you what NGE or SEL means.

[Anonymous No.9667330]

>>9667086
this. there are hundreds of women who do understand baudrillard giving fucking lectures on youtube and she thinks her chart video should be treated with the same respect.

she's like the female chris-chan trying to convince people Baudrillardchu is totally cooler.

[Anonymous No.9667334]

>>9667196
Fair point about the diary format, I did not consider that.

I'm flattered that you'd consider me a grad student, but I'm more of a loser. What do you find pretentious about my post though? Would you disagree with my criteria for being a pseud - someone who propagates pale ideas taken out of context?

I don't see anything wrong with reaching out to a wider audience per se, but my criticism of the content still stands.

>>9667278
Pic related

[Anonymous No.9667337]

>>9667330
she's not "giving a lecture" you moron, she's trying to casually rant about the ideas to the best of her ability, these videos are just a basic outlet for her to do so

[Anonymous No.9667338]

>>9667330
>and she thinks her chart video should be treated with the same respect.
What the fuck are you talking about? She's vlogging her thoughts for an audience of >300, there's nothing about asking for as much respect as actual scholars. Christ you're reaching so hard.

[Anonymous No.9667360]

>>9667287
"Redeem" in the sense of not ending up like the other womyns of 4chan. That white knight armor of yours must dense.

What the fuck is up with this PC culture anyway? So because she's "a student still trying to figure shit out", she's beyond criticism? Fuck off.

Tumblr called, they need your valuable opinion on some strapons.

[Anonymous No.9667369]

>>9667360
She's not "beyond criticism", but neither is your targeting of her simply for being an attractive girl. The only person you're successfully lying to is yourself, it's pathetic.

[Anonymous No.9667376]

>>9667061
I think they're essays for school.

[Anonymous No.9667382]

i swear it's just 1 guy arguing with everyone in here

[Anonymous No.9667393]

>>9667312
>not going full cargo shorts

[Anonymous No.9667399]

>>9667382
Who's the one guy?

[Anonymous No.9667400]

>>9667177
yea, so?

[Anonymous No.9667407]

ANOTHER SACRIFICE FOR HARVEST!

[Anonymous No.9667415]

>>9667338
she's only willing to "maybe" the fact that she knows nothing about baudrillard. that's despite her literally admitting getting her info on baudrillard from an internet image. she thinks that's "maybe" not knowing enough. it's not reaching to say she thinks too highly of herself if that's "maybe" not knowing enough. it's definitively enough to say you know nothing of any value about the subject. and she can't because she lives in a lalaland where she does need to do anything to deserve credit.

[Anonymous No.9667422]

>>9667415
yeah it's strange she didn't check a youtube video of any of the lecturers [menz or wymens or whatever the lecturer might be] and relied only on an image file. if you're not going to read the book for homework, at least read the sparknotes not the blurb, you know?

[Anonymous No.9667424]

>>9667415
None of that is her expecting as much respect as actual Baudrillard scholars. I love how you've obviously watched all her videos, and so attentively. Searching so hard for things to criticise her for.

[Anonymous No.9667434]

>>9667337
she's failing to casually rant about anything related to the subject she wants to claim interest in.

it is exactly like an "anime fan" whose response to "did you like NGE" is "never heard of it". it's not my fault this girl thought a picture on the internet gave her enough info to form thoughts about baudrillard, any more than it would be my fault someone fell for boku no pico recommendations while claiming to be super au fait with /a/ culture.

[Anonymous No.9667440]

>>9667369
These are my posts;

>>9667086
>>9667164
>>9667334
>>9667360

Where did I attack her on the grounds of being an attractive girl?

[Anonymous No.9667447]

>>9667424
she thinks it's a "maybe" she doesn't know as much as those scholars or anyone else qualified to talk about it. if she said it definitely didn't make her qualified at all to talk about it, that would be different. but she didn't.
she said it maybe made her video about an internet meme of baudrillard maybe not as serious as the other baudrillard videos she could have watched but didn't. it's not a maybe. it's a definitely.

[Anonymous No.9667448]

>>9666888
She is clearly not upset, this is just another attempt at making yourself seem like the good guys "oh but we we're just pretending to be retarded why u mad tho?" fucking brainlets cant hold on to their spaghetti even in front of a 6/10 . pathetic.

[Anonymous No.9667449]

>>9667440
All of it. That's why you're doing it. There are so many other people out there you could be complaining out with better reason yet somehow it's always someone attractive that gets attacked. Or is it just some huge coincidence? Fuck off back to /r9k/ and take your obvious sexual frustration with you.

[Anonymous No.9667452]

>>9667164
lel you sound like the biggest pseud. Well done asshole, you played yourself.

[Anonymous No.9667455]

>>9667449
not him, but have you considered /lit/ is upset that people lie about understanding books? or is everything in your world sexism if it happens to a girl because women have no agency in your world and can only have things happen to them? fuck off, you're doing women and literature no service.

[Anonymous No.9667487]

>>9667455
Have you considered Anons fish for (you)s by finding attractive girls with 10 subscribers who talk about books, so they can be completely BTFO by anon for no reason other than "someone is wrong on the internet"? It's not hard to find ugly dudes with rambly vlogs and 10 subscribers. It's exclusively girls because it attracts the (you)s. For sure it's a production, everyone's an actor, this is all contrived, everyone's just going through the motions, it's entirely arbitrary and throws some ordinary person under the bus for this arbitrary appeasement. Mature adults don't pull this lolcow shit, and even so it gets boring so goddamn fast.
>implying /lit/ doesn't exclusively lie about understanding books
different anon here btw

[Anonymous No.9667509]

>>9667487
I think you only look at the threads with girls. The campaign on that male booktuber is fucking vicious compared to this one where anon's major complaint is that she doesn't read and is a pseud. You seem to have not noticed that, even though his picture has been posted here with far worse caption and far more regularity than this girl. You seem reluctant to consider anything other than sexism, even when there's proof to the contrary, and you seem not to care that they call male booktubers pseuds too for the same shit. You seem to be the one with different standards for male and female booktubers.

We also have the absolute sperger teenager who flips out about /lit/ memes. Your disregarding of evidence is very sexist, and that is why you have no standards for women or literature.

None of the rest of the girls who do get hit on, unlike this one, get accused of being pseuds like Cliff or the sperger kid. This girl gets it because she, like the goblin youtuber who is male, is a pseud who doesn't read and cares more about her staging than reading the fucking book.

[Anonymous No.9667512]

>>9667455
>There are so many other people out there you could be complaining out with better reason yet somehow it's always someone attractive that gets attacked. Or is it just some huge coincidence? Fuck off back to /r9k/ and take your obvious sexual frustration with you.

[Anonymous No.9667523]

>>9667512
yes, of course, i must be male and sexually frustrated to talk about literature as though a minimum standard for comprehension is to read the fucking book. by your logic, then, wouldn't she, being neither male nor sexually frustrated, think literature involves not bothering to read the book? god, it's like you think the standard for females on literature ought to be handicapped. they're not deficient enough as a gender that asking them to read the book before talking about it should be considered a sexually frustrated imposition of the patriarchy. get a fucking brain.

[Anonymous No.9667529]

>>9667509
>I think you only look at the threads with girls. The campaign on that male booktuber is fucking vicious compared to this one
I don't even know who you're talking about. Cliff? I notice there were at least three threads about this girl today, but none about him.
Last time someone pulled the 'we do it to men too!' argument they used John Green as an example and were conclusively shown to be wrong, using the archive.

[Anonymous No.9667538]

>>9667523
You seem to be incapable of understanding the logic of what I'm saying to you. Lots of people misunderstand books. Getting upset about it is stupid, but exclusively cyberbullying attractive young women for it is pretty obviously sexual frustration. Either that or you're also a teenage girl jealous of their looks. In which case, fuck off back to lolcow.

[Anonymous No.9667550]

>>9667509
All the gender conscious language is merely incidental then?

[Anonymous No.9667563]

>>9667550
it seems to stem mostly from spergers who can't stand women being judged the same way we judge men, i.e. by whether they read the book. this guy is a good example
>>9667538
he's incensed i suggested reading the book was a minimum standard regardless of gender. how lolcow of me to hold an equal standard for competence or to make a thread he wants to be about sexism about literature on a literature board. how awfully sexist of me to think the subject was about books not vaginae and penes.

[Anonymous No.9667568]

>>9667086
It's hard to tell. Like other people have said, and like she admitted, the videos aren't really done with any academic rigor. This could be a sign that she's not capable of academic rigor, or it could mean that it's just not what she's interested in doing on her channel. Some of what you're saying is also pretty speculative. Using "uhm" and "like" isn't really a sign of pseudo-intellectualism, or of self-absorption or lowercase autism.

Basically, you're going after the low-hanging fruit. The strong argument, the one you'll notice nobody is making, is that what she has to say demonstrates consistent misunderstanding or poor reasoning. The reason you and nobody else is making that argument is because that would involve having actually read Baudrillard, or any one of the dozen other authors she's name-dropped in her videos, and pointing out specific errors in her understanding. Instead of doing that, you go the route of the pseudo-intellectual and attack her mannerisms.

[Anonymous No.9667575]

>>9667529
different anon. this girl just happened in the last two days. she's basically the sidebit we're using between our relationship with cliff, who has way more pseud vids. i'd post the throwing the book/glass videos from him but i don't want to give that trustfund babby more views. which is also why i'm okay with anon calling him cliff.

[Anonymous No.9667582]

>>9667086
>>9667455
>t.pseudo-intellectual autistic manchild

[Anonymous No.9667587]

>>9667568
>the one you'll notice nobody is making, is that what she has to say demonstrates consistent misunderstanding or poor reasoning.
plenty of people have made this argument. everything from her research methods (internet graphics) to her not understanding she is exactly what baudrillard was complaining about has been mentioned. they're the only good posts in those threads if you don't want to read posts about how the only reason to hate girls is because they're girls and you're not allowed hate them for being pseudointellectual.

there's some really good shit about baudrillard (and other works) in those threads. one anon nominated her Disney princess which i think baudrillard would have sponsored as a paper. stop trying to retcon and actually read the content of the thread without your prejudices in the way.

[Anonymous No.9667597]

>>9667449
Ontologicool is going to be popping up on the board for the next month, so I decided to check her videos out and see what the fuzz was about. I didn't get the whole appeal, so I wrote out my criticism on her general approach.

Instead of people engaging with my argument - which I'm willing to change and adapt if better ones come along - I'm getting called a pseud and a sexually frustrated robot.

You're a delusional fool and I would be far better off jerking to Marquis de Sade than to further interact with your self righteous ass.

Fuck this shit, 4chan was never good but it used to be better.

[Anonymous No.9667604]

>>9667575
>she's basically the sidebit we're using between our relationship with cliff
Hardly. Cliff was the side bit in between Katie, Carlie and all the other girls whose youtube names I can't keep track of.

[Anonymous No.9667607]

>>9667597
I feel you man. People used expect a weirder backstory than common popular arguments about sexuality. If it's any consolation, I'll assume you're against this bitch because you are a Husserl scholar working at a Wendy's in Louisiana and playing Pharoah (1999) in his spare time.

[Anonymous No.9667614]

>>9667604
Cliff probably has an equal relationship to those, if not longer. I think it's time we admit we're dating girls as a beard.

[Anonymous No.9667654]

>>9667587
I haven't been in all the threads and I don't mean to retcon anything. This thread has no substance, and the anon I was replying to thought that he could label her as a pseud based off of her mannerisms.

As far as the internet graphic goes, I think it's a red flag but it's not exactly condemning. She admitted that she didn't have a great understanding of the topic, and it's not pseudo-intellectual to talk about something you don't fully understand. Maybe there have been plenty of good posts I've missed attacking her on things she's said about books she's actually read, but I wouldn't know. All I can say is that this anon trying to say "Oh she gets distracted by her cat LUL what a pseud" is a fucking retard.

[not that anon(for any value of(...) No.9667669]

>>9667597
sexually frustrated robots are a big reason why reeeemales are posted and get the attention they get tho more generally
also it'd be nice if everyone remembered that there's a way to fulfill one's autistic need to engage with shitthreads without bumping them

[Anonymous No.9667672]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoMutuE1Ncc


>My thesis
>Every one is Nihilistic
>After Watching a Jordan Peterson Movie


OH MY FUCKING GOD

[Anonymous No.9667694]

>>9667614
I don't agree that the attacks on Cliff have the same sort of maliciousness to them, he certainly doesn't get crapflooded. But this is mainly subjective, so we're at stalemate.

>>9667597
She's only going to pop up because people like you will keep bringing it up.

[Anonymous No.9667710]

>>9666656
>cuck boyfriend ruins everything
who would've thought

[Anonymous No.9667714]

>>9667654
>it's not pseudo-intellectual to talk about something you don't fully understand

That's the exact definition of being a pseud in my book, which I adressed in my first post:

>Shortly afterwards, when describing the ideas of Baudrillard and their wider implications, she pulls of a "blah blah blah". Not to mention she doesn't actually read Baudrillard, but a graphic guide.

And further explicating in my second post by saying:

>It's not about using big boy words but more about having standards; the overall context and the finer nuances needs to be considered when discussing the ideas of an author and one has to be able to emphasize with said authors paradigm - otherwise you're just engaging with a half assed caricature.

Her mannerisms are just complimentary to her sloppy scholarship.

[Anonymous No.9667743]

>>9667694
>I don't agree that the attacks on Cliff have the same sort of maliciousness to them, he certainly doesn't get crapflooded. But this is mainly subjective, so we're at stalemate.
We bullied him over his dad dying and leaving him money for longer than we've known this girl when we found out. I think you think he has less feelings because he's not a girl. The past two days haven't been as bad as that for her. If you're seen any Cliff thread you know there are way more KYS posts in them.

[Anonymous No.9667747]

>>9667694
Nigga, I brought it up here early so I wouldn't have to click the dozens of threads to come. There has already been several threads about her today, none of which I participated in.

I am genuinely interested, what motivates you to argue for her case? I don't mind a longwinded explanation.

>>9667607
Sounds comfy desu

[Anonymous No.9667759]

>>9667654
>I haven't been in all the threads and I don't mean to retcon anything
Yes, you even tried to retcon the motivations of others to a motivation you would be more comfortable with them having.

You tried to retcon the very long and detailed posts on what Baudrillard actually says and what QE actually involved, and I remember some anon going off on a Spinoza tangent, between all the posts that ridiculed her research (thinking a chart about Baudrillard was enough to talk about his ideas). You said nobody made those arguments when they posted a word count about those things that would definitely meet grade for a seminar paper length and quality. You said nobody made those arguments because you only want to see posts about something else. You're willfully ignorant and blind, even to your own motivations, but you want to ascribe motivations to others and spazz out when they correct you about your blatantly false blanket statements.

[Anonymous No.9667761]

>>9667743
Either he's thicker skinned than these girls or he's being attacked less aggressively. Which one is it?

>>9667747
I'm arguing 'her' case because I genuinely believe that there are more attacks on women here motivated by nothing more than simple sexual frustration, or other forms of misogyny, justified as anything but. The same people (or sort of people) who simultaneously call Sav Brown ugly and superficial.
I don't even see why one would get angry about someone not being as good as they might be, or knowing as much as you'd want them to. The mature thing in that situation isn't to sit around anonymously insulting them on 4chan or posting sexually explicit fantasies on their videos.

[Anonymous No.9667767]

>>9667714
Again, the internet graphic should not be condemning. If it is, then you're just being uncharitable. Her channel isn't an academic forum. It's not a lecture. It's a casual, informal discussion. Let me narrow my statement down a little: You can't be a pseud for discussing things you don't fully understand in a casual, informal setting.

>>9667759
Link these posts, I don't see them ITT...

[Anonymous No.9667768]

>>9667761
>Either he's thicker skinned than these girls or he's being attacked less aggressively. Which one is it?
He's more narcissistic. Reality could beat him in the face with his overpriced whiskey tumbler and he would still be insisting he knows what Moby Dick is about from the first page and a sparknotes overview.

[Anonymous No.9667771]

>>9666656
I wasn't here yesterday when it happened eventhough I was following the attention she was getting since the first thread..

[Anonymous No.9667773]

>>9667768
Okay? So?

[Anonymous No.9667779]

>>9667767
They're in the thread she's responding to. That is the content she's made a video to engage with 4chan over. Check the archive, main one is the queen thread 9658674

Jesus, you're actually defending her without knowing why her response was retarded. I don't think you'd do that for a male, tbph, and I'm judging your for it, brother.

[Anonymous No.9667796]

>>9667773
So people here do say much meaner things and with less cause to male youtubers here than this female youtuber. We are not mean to her in comparison to any other anon who didn't read. We are not mean to her in comparison to how badly we bully the hobgoblin for being a pretentious dick. If she is that upset about /lit/ demanding she read a book, we need to send flowers and apology cards to about 1,000 anons and probably need to buy Cliff a car and lifetime supply of whiskey to make reparations to him. We owe her shit; she didn't get as harshly judged as a retard poster here gets judged, since some people are obviously very willing to forgive her for not reading a book because obviously being a girl makes you beyond any standard of competence.

[Anonymous No.9667805]

>>9667761
>I'm arguing 'her' case because I genuinely believe that there are more attacks on women here motivated by nothing more than simple sexual frustration, or other forms of misogyny, justified as anything but.

Tell me about yourself; was there an incident in your life which now makes you feel compelled to lash out against sexual frustration? Or is it a socio-political ideology grounded in hopes for a better world?

You haven't been on 4chan very long I take it.

[Anonymous No.9667811]

>>9667796
So it's the same to say something less harsh to someone who'll take it much harder than someone who'll just shrug it off? Right.
>some people are obviously very willing to forgive her for not reading a book because obviously being a girl makes you beyond any standard of competence.
Nigga I don't give a shit about her standard of competence, she's not an authority on anything, she has no responsibility to be competent, nor does she claim to be. The only reason we've heard of her is because some anon wanted to get a thrill from seeing her raided.

[Anonymous No.9667814]

>>9667743
>We bullied him over his dad dying
Do you mean here or in his comment section? If the latter, do you remember which video?

[Anonymous No.9667818]

>>9667805
Why would anyone answer your questions sincerely when you've as much as admitted to be trolling in the asking?

[Anonymous No.9667834]

>>9667811
We cannot work out that she will be upset by being told to read a book before discussing literature. And we should not operate as though every female will be upset by that. Because she's a pseud doesn't mean every woman is an intellectually dishonest pseud.

We love and miss another youtuber who actually reads books: she made a video about reading Penrose and how she wasn't prepared to read it as a first year physics student and she would come back to it. That is intellectually honest, and /lit/ praised her for it and offered other recommendations. This new girl's intellectual dishonesty isn't because she's a girl, it's because she's a shit person. Other girls aren't shit people, and actually read books, and that is good for this board. We should be mean to people who say otherwise, you retard.

[Anonymous No.9667841]

>>9667779
My point is I can't fucking retcon a long and detailed post about Baudrillard if I never fucking new it existed in the first place. I don't have perfect fucking knowledge of every post made on /lit/ in the past 48 hours.

[Anonymous No.9667847]

>>9667834
No, you should ignore people who don't actually read books, instead of arguing for hours that oh no it's definitely not just the cute ones making you feel insecure who you pick on, absolutely not, it's just a coincidence.

[Anonymous No.9667850]

Did someone take screencaps or screenshot the whole page from the big thread yesterday she must have been in???

[Anonymous No.9667851]

>>9667814
uh, not him but i know i saw some comments on his videos, but it's almost every thread since anon found out it gets mentioned and, if not that, then the throw it over your shoulder shit gets ridiculed worse than this girl's eyebrows. anon's right, cliff really should have killed himself by now if it was about bullying. we've told him often enough

[Anonymous No.9667859]

>>9666888
I think what channers do to youtubechicks is generally rude and mean-spirited, but you're right that there's definitely a way to capitalize on our weaponized autism and launch yourself into greater notoriety. Maybe this ontologicool girl only ever wanted to be an under-the-radar youtube personality, but if she played along, catered a bit more to our tastes, and publicly declared herself queen of /lit/ or something like that, we'd fall for it hook, line, and sinker

[Anonymous No.9667860]

>>9667847
>No, you should ignore people who don't actually read book
But then we wouldn't have bullied all the people we have into learning Greek. You seem to not understand pedagogy.

[Anonymous No.9667865]

>>9667841
You said nobody was making those arguments. You didn't read before posting. Stop being a shit person and lurk moar before making pronouncements about everybody and the archive if you don't want to be wrong.

[Anonymous No.9667879]

>>9667860
Bullying someone for plucking or not plucking their eyebrows is not part of pedagogy. At least, not part of the pedagogy of anything that isn't beauty school.

[Anonymous No.9667881]

>>9667859
>publicly declared herself queen of /lit/ or something like that, we'd fall for it hook, line, and sinker
we didn't fall for it. the queen of lit thread was prob her or her boyfriend. like you said, she had such low views, there's a very limit pool of people who would bring it here. she's a very likely suspect.
especially because she then made a hi 4chan video when /lit/ is a backwater of 4chan which most of the rest of the boards disown.

[Anonymous No.9667890]

>>9667879
one anon told her she was overtweezing. one tranny anon which this girl then called a male. think about your politics for a second if this is an ideology thing for you. one post by a tripfaggot who is hated by the board is not the board bullying you or a campaign.

[Anonymous No.9667912]

>>9667865
Sorry, I didn't know I was obligated to read every thread made on a subject in the past 48 hours before posting on it.

Or maybe, just maybe, I was obviously only talking about the content and posters in this thread (and others still open), and it's your fault for assuming that I both was familiar with every post made on the subject in the past 48 hours AND that I was purposely lying to make it seem like they never existed.

[Anonymous No.9667913]

>>9667818
Trolling? I don't follow, but I take you're the one I asked the question to.

In which case, judging by your elusive answer, you must have undergone sexual abuse. I'm sorry I called you a delusional fool earlier; such an experience must be tough on the psyche. It's obvious that you're projecting your frustrations on other people as a coping mechanism. It is what it is, but I hope you'll regain some clarity by cultivating your logos.

Why in the world would you be browsing 4chan of all places?

[Anonymous No.9667921]

>>9667881
I didn't know there was a 'queen of /lit/' thread (haven't been following this too closely), but by public declaration I meant on her channel. If her 4chan vid had embraced us and she continued making videos, her popularity would only snowball. As for right now it still might snowball, but that's dependent upon whether she nixes the project or not.

[Anonymous No.9667922]

>>9667912
You thought you were only meant to believe the youtube video about what /lit/ said instead of reading the relevant thread on /lit/ before posting on /lit/? Yes, you're fucking retarded and should stop posting.

[Anonymous No.9667936]

>>9667922
I think assuming that everyone has the same knowledge as you is actually a trait of autism. You should get yourself checked out.

[Anonymous No.9667943]

>>9667921
Her reason for (probably not) stopping making videos about that shit is because of the queen of lit thread which is mostly anon's pointing out Baudrillard and everyone else you mentioned don't say that. The response is because of the threads, she even says it in the video that she's making it in response to the threads. A lot of the later threads are about how she didn't really take any responsibility or any real advice for improvement from those threads, but instead focused on her looks again.

[Anonymous No.9667947]

>that comment section

holy fuck those people actually visit this place, explains a thing or two about cancerousness of /lit/ rn

[Anonymous No.9667949]

>>9667936
I think you're assuming you don't need to read the rules and the FAQ, snowflake.

[Anonymous No.9667957]

>>9667947
screenshot it she might delete

[Anonymous No.9667960]

>>9667913
>I once saw someone else trolling like this successfully in another context and think I'm doing the same thing now

[Anonymous No.9667966]

>>9667913
>>9667960
kekperfect. trying pseud shit in a thread about pseuds getting blown out is priceless.

[Anonymous No.9667985]

So all I'll say is....
She just likes the attention.

[Anonymous No.9667987]

>>9667947
to be fair, the video is titled hi 4chan.

she probably just brought summer /b/ back into contact with us.