Is he, dare I say it, our guy? I liked his youtube videos

>>8681063
No and you shouldn't have

>>8681063
If that spoiler is serious, get the fuck off our board
I'm not kidding

>>8681148
why do you hate freedom of speech and not creating an echo chamber of ideas which anti social justice warriors hypocritically claim to be against when in reality they're just projecting?

The voice of the generation of The Voice. (=can't sing)

>>8681158
Why do you hate his use of freedom of speech in telling the other dude to fuck off?

>>8681158
>buzzword the post
W E W

If you want to have your own opinion that goes against the popular one on this site (or any for that matter), go ahead and do it, it's great to have your own views, but please learn to word it in a way that sounds like you've actually made a thought of your own and didn't just reach into The 2016 Dissenting Opinion's Handbook of Power Words to structure your post.

File: 1397870089363.jpg (27KB, 512x288px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 512x288px

>>8681063
>I liked his youtube videos

File: Sigmund Freud.jpg (160KB, 1600x1165px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1600x1165px

I think what we are seeing is envy. Envy because John Green became a succesful writer, while the many on /lit/ who dream to be, and even pursue, to be a writer fail to do so.
It is envy, in truth there is nothing to say against him not being our guy. After all, John Green is very much a-like your typical /lit/ user: someone with a bit of insecurity who wishes to become a succesful writer.

>>8681180
>>8681175
>>8681167
This is the problem that I see with, I'll just say, people like you. You have your own narrow mindedness about certain people who voice their ideas. You see this manifest itself in actually a pretty unintellectual way, via insults passing itself off as "speaking it like it is", where what I see as people who think they're "speaking it like it is" as actually some unintellectual belligerent fools who don't know how to articulate an idea intelligently without taunts and swear words, who instead get angry and start ranting about freedom of speech and echo chamber social justice warriors when they get mad at other people for calling them out on what they think is their lofty intellectual speech, which is actually just a hodgepodge of taunts and swear words thrown together in a totally unself-aware unintellectual way.

>>8681063
CHEERIOS
H
E
E
R
I
O
S

I have erotic thoughts about him. Is that bad?

>>8681240
>unself-aware

nice b9

>>8681247
You're right, my comment was rather benign. It's called being civil and polite, having a respectful conversation; something which is all too foreign to users of 4chan's literature board.

>>8681236
this makes sense to me

>>8681175 (this is me for reference)

>>8681240
You do realize we're talking about the same thing just from other sides of the issue? I have no qualms with people having varying opinions and views, my issue was with the language that you utilized to issue your post. You claim that I can't articulate an idea intelligently without taunts, yet I feel the same way about you but in regards to not being able to articulate with words that have been overused to the point of losing any appeal or impact.

I think it's great that you have your own views and that you'll defend them, I'm simply critiquing the way in which you do so. We've both seen it in effect on both of our ends now, both of us have largely overlooked the message of each others post due to the actual language. The solution of which is we either both learn to put our points across in a clearer way, or the actual conversation becomes muddled down in this metaspeak about -how- to write rather than -what- to write.

>>8681261
:/ You must suffer a lot...

>>8681240
But you're wrong.

There are multiple threads open right now with civil discussions, that don't include some nut tugger like you embellishing their speech by adding a bunch of ridiculous words that in essence, don't mean anything except for you own personal interpretation of them.

So kindly fuck off