Can /lit/ still write without memes?

>>8377193
>Getting memed this hard.

Fuck off to r/books

>>8377217
r/books doesn't have the people /lit/ has, nor gets as deep as /lit/ can get. I believe there's Anons with great insight, they just get buried by memes.

>>8377213
Are you not even slightly annoyed by the staggering amount of meme comments in every thread?

>>8377193
To understand why people on this board act as they do, you must start with the Greeks.

>>8377193
>trying to shut memes

OP, do you really have so much spare time?

>>8377232
Fitting.

>>8377232
Anon, do you think the fleeting joy you get when you meme someone is enough to compensate for how /lit/ wastes most of its potential?

>>8377193
I always thought plebian and patrician were memewords mainly used for fun banter rather than serious discussion, seeing as they're a bit outdated (they're ancient Roman terms used to refer to social class). It's like that friend who thinks your favorite team sucks- you might make fun of him or call him an asshole, but both of you realize that you don't really mean that and that it's all in good fun. The few people on this imageboard who actually see some sort of social hierarchy whereby everyone who dislikes Death Grips is an actual peasant plowing wheat for the glorious Patricians who listen to GYBE! and prefer thighs over butts and boobs are usually the ones who devote all their time to this website instead of going outside, making friends, having fun, etc. And it's perfectly easy to make fun of them, so I don't know why you see a threat here.

/lit/ is but a meme

>>8377193
Memes are the communication of the future, and we're the unthankful few who will have to labor through the developmental phase so our descendants can enjoy perfected memery.

>>8377249
Oh, I most certainly do.

>>8377302
I wouldn't say a threat, but rather an annoyance and a slight preoccupation. Haven't you noticed how many people has actually bought into the dichotomy? I see growing numbers every day. It's almost impossible to discuss a mainstream author. New Anons can't get recommendations (is it reading Ulysses a meme or is it not reading Ulysses a meme?), Anons new to literature can very easily be trolled.
I'm not saying /lit/ was a lot better before; but I think one was able to get a good rec. I remember finding extremely helpful Anons. I suppose it's no use to make a post like this anyways, I just got nostalgic.

>>8377343
it's pleb to think that most people actually take the dichotomy as seriously as they claim to on /lit/ because anonymous board discussion relies on being provocative and walking the middle line in internet discussion is boring and leads nowhere

>>8377327
Then you are completely justified.

>>8377359
I wonder how right you are Anon. I used to think like that; but now I honestly don't think most Anons are «in on the joke». It's not hard to notice when Anon implies these things and there's no one to troll. How are you so certain? Is it possible that you think like this because you think too highly of Anon?

>>8377343
Well that's what happens on this site. People take intentionally provocative or weird stances on things for kicks, eventually it becomes an inside joke, then newfags buy into it because they don't really know any better. Eventually they all grow out of it.

>>8377319
Automated replies to automated posts on automated threads. We might as well let a few bots do all of Anon's work. /lit/ glorifies not thinking.

>>8377374
That's the thing Anon. Don't be so sure about they growing out of it.

See >>8377370

>>8377380
I could snowboard through a whole valley full of ice cream!

>>8377374
I'd say that about 80% of threads either don't attempt to discuss literature or are highjacked by memes. 80% is a lot to cover inside jokes. It's frustrating because most of the other places to discuss literature tend to attract people that mainly reads mainstream authors, which is not bad per se, but gets annoying when it's most of the board or forum.

>>8377193
You're actually such a retard. What you just wrote was astronomically fucking stupid. I've actually just spent about eight minutes trying to write an explanation that would make you understand precisely why what you just wrote was honestly one of the top five most idiotic, myopic, childish fucking things I've ever read in my life, and why it made me literally cringe with second-hand embarrassment. But I reached about four paragraphs and decided you're one of those who are too stupid to learn.

>>8377402
lmao

>>8377402
Anon, why is it so hard to get a sincere reply these days? Is it really that people don't bother or is it that they don't have arguments?

I thought I made it quite obvious that this post wasn't directed at the Anons who know these memes and don't buy them. Yes, I suppose you're not one of them. I suppose you're gonna argue that most Anons are not actually imbeciles that buy into that shit. But how are you so sure? I honestly think there's a very high number of Anons who think they understand, but actually don't.

Regardless of that, I stand by my opinion that such a large quantity of meme replies is simply stupid.

Your reply is almost a meme: writing in a condescending manner without providing any good argument.

File: uhhh.jpg (30KB, 287x287px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 287x287px

>>8377193
>Is it possible that they are simply not-Joyce? And maybe not-Joyce is not equal to shit?

>>>/wsr/

>>8377402
You won't give any argument Anon. You won't because you don't have any.

If you do, I'll be gladly surprised; but I sincerely doubt it.

File: Untitled.jpg (12KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 259x194px

>>8377418
Sincerity is passé. When you're semi-ironical all the time, you don't need to commit to anything. On one hand it's weak and pathetic, on another it's immensely liberating and maybe, just maybe, an "improvement"(however you define it) over what we've had previously. Half-believing everything is more inclusive and whole than barring out everything in conflict with your current belief. Maybe it's an adaptation to the Information Age where several equally attractive truths compete for mindspace. It's like this image, where one fact can mean two completely different things, you know there are two sides to the same truth, but you can see only one at any given moment. This makes one cynical towards anything presented as absolute truth.

>>8377470
I happily agree to the rejection of absolute truths; but I think one can be sincere in one's hesitation to commit to anything. I don't think you need to commit, but opinions are not commitments and refusing to have them (or to express them) is simply a defense mechanism against judgement. Which is non-sensical since judgement in an Anon community is a void concept.

>>8377470
>It's like this image, where one fact can mean two completely different things, you know there are two sides to the same truth, but you can see only one at any given moment. This makes one cynical towards anything presented as absolute truth.
Not the guy you are replying to, but dear fucking god yo need to sort your shit out when it comes to truth. Either read Aristotle or Tarski. What you'll learn that truth has long been tamed and there's nothing that you can do about it. Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

No -- a fact cannot mean two completely different things: A true proposition is not a true proposition and a false one at the same time. That's incoherent. What you mean was: a proposition can be both true and false. But that's inconsistent with classical logic. And I don't want to hear about your dubious non-classical paraconsistent bullshit. At any rate, it is THE NAME (or in this case, the drawing) of the proposition that can mean two completely different things.

>but you can see only one at any given moment.
So fucking what? Why would that raise doubts about absolute truth? The fact that we are cognitively incapable of perceiving both drawings at the same time is immaterial here. What's important is that you CAN perceive and interpret both drawings and it is absolutely true that you can do both of these things. It's not like one of the drawings is forever hidden and unknowable to you.

Quit listening to the verbiage of your beloved hogwash continental hacks and sociologists.

>>8377232
hahahha no he's being legit; tis but the infinite yarn we live in and the Greeks knew

File: 1358023668271.jpg (46KB, 360x588px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 360x588px

>>8377193
You failed to account for the fact that most people are fucking idiots who are incapable of thinking for themselves and hold dear the tenuous notion of community that memes provide for them in the delusion of their own minds.

I use memes on twitch for the same reason

>>8377302
Found the pleb

>>8377715
you are so far from "getting it" that I doubt we can have a conversation

>>8377232

Oh man, I think that would be a bit intellectually painful for OP. Think he's a big guy or a hot head? Either way, we've gotta get this guy outta here.

>>8377904
I'm speaking to said «idiots». I perceive them as nocive to themselves and others. It probably is a lost cause.

I'm guilty, I admit it, but I just love the words "corncob", "hack", various DFW-related phrases and Zizekspeak so much.

I am sitting in a room, surrounded by memes and anons.

File: sexkeanu.png (760KB, 750x828px) Image search: [Google]

760KB, 750x828px

I'm feeling a little harassed by this post OP. I can't answer all of your goddammed questions.

File: 234623444.jpg (21KB, 328x385px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 328x385px

>>8378442

>>8378450
I'd be satisfied if you answered one, Anon.

File: Mad.Men.S07E06.720p.BluRay.x264-DEMAND.mkv_snapshot_42.36_[2016.05.19_09.34.03].jpg (86KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1280x720px

>>8378482
>What's your end game?
I just want to be happy, I don't want to die....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUy_BtvSJ8A