the greatest poet of our generation

File: Screenshot_2017-06-13-20-23-35-1.png (2MB, 1079x1342px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1079x1342px

>>9634090
Coal burner and self-admitted slut, social media shame and move on.

File: 636034997669779292-1599123601_b-lx-rupi-kaur3-1ytm62d.jpg (1MB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2000px

HERE COMES A NEW CHALLENGER

>>9634127
Wtf is that, deport and move on.

>>9634123
dyel faggot.

>>9634123

I don't give a shit about her private life.

The only thing that really annoys me is how poorly read she is. Her taste is shit and her "commitment" to poetry is all surface. She honestly isn't smart. That is what annoys me.

File: 636108652280583995766440092_Pepe Confused.png (22KB, 612x491px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 612x491px

>>9634090
why did she put the dog collar on herself and not the dog?

File: 1496307114641.jpg (74KB, 807x802px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 807x802px

>>9634141

fukken kek

that says it all, really

>>9634123
Her face is sagging like crazy. I hope she gets better.

>>9634090

She looks underage in this picture

>>9634090
another gear in the machine of youtube/tumblr writers. nothing more than bullshit catered to their short attention span fanbases.

not sure why it bothers /lit/ though. do you guys actually spend time watching vapid shit like this?

don't bump shit threads

I like her and find it a bit sad that so many posts are just commenting on her looks. how fucking superficial is that.

File: image.jpg (43KB, 455x650px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 455x650px

>>9634127
>tfw you realize you were the honey in the milk all along

>>9634133
she's literally a model

remember, it's life on easy mode. you don't need to be smart when you're that beautiful.

>>9635172

Being a model is a superficial occupation.

>>9635220
So? Superficially criticising someone for making a living in a superficial way is ridiculously hypocritical.

>>9635229
are you just trying to get replies, faggot

read what he was responding to

>>9635230
He was responding to my post which said
>I like her and find it a bit sad that so many posts are just commenting on her looks. how fucking superficial is that.

>>9635230
>>9635236
he doesn't get it

>>9635239
you don't seem to understand how to use the reply system

>>9635229

>Superficially criticising someone for making a living in a superficial way is ridiculously hypocritical.

No it isn't. Anon deriding a superficial person in a superficial way is hardly the same thing as that person in question actually shaping the whole of their life and "career" around an even greater superficiality just to get ahead.

What can I criticize her for, if her looks and job are off limits?

>>9635240
no, i do. just a drunken mistake on my part.

>>9635236
>>9635239
>>9635240
>>9635241
>>9635242
>>9635243

>>9634123
>self-admitted slut
if a guy sleeps with women we all respect him
if a woman sleeps with guys we all look down on her
why is there such a dichotomy

File: image.jpg (19KB, 317x279px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 317x279px

>>9635247

>>9635248
that's not true at all

>>9635248
The guys look down on her, when they are raw dogging that booty hole, ayyyyyy!

>>9635243
Fair enough.

>>9635241
For one thing, it's just a job. For another, this thread of conversation was about criticising her for her looks, not for her career. See posts:
>>9634141
>>9634144
>>9634145
>>9635097

>>9635242
Maybe grow up, given that it's implicit in your question that you're just looking for any possible reason to criticise her.

>>9635248
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6CCePrJlaU

>>9635259

>For one thing, it's just a job.

Fuck off you mediocrity apologist. First it's her speaking out bravely with Her Art and now it's merely just some job that she's grinding out to get by?

Is this the girl in question what I am talking to? Only an absolute sycophant would move the goalposts around like this.

>>9635270
>First it's her speaking out bravely with Her Art
Was it? Where in the thread does it say anything remotely resembling that? I know I didn't say anything of the sort. Are you hallucinating from your pent up rage at all the women who never wanted to touch your penis?

File: 1496298982719.jpg (44KB, 329x399px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 329x399px

>>9635259

>Maybe grow up
classic white knight line

>>9635274

>Was it? Where in the thread does it say anything remotely resembling that?

I know you didn't personally say it, you hysterical fool. She said it herself time and again with her vacuous surface addled appeals to "social issues".

>Are you hallucinating from your pent up rage at all the women who never wanted to touch your penis?

Haha this has to be a woman posting. Calm down you goofy cunt.

>>9635283
>I know you didn't personally say it
Then why is it relevant? Please, feel free to address any of the other points in >>9635259 because right now you're just fighting with some sort of imaginary straw-man. It's funny how much you seem to know about this girl you dislike when you've always been able to just close the youtube window.

>>9635283
>Haha this has to be a woman posting.
you only just realized this?

this bitch is the most universally hated slut on this board. only a fellow roastie would defend her.

>>9635277
>you
Classic virgin rage. Go back to r9k.

>>9635248
>consensus existing on anything
nigger!

>>9635259
>Maybe grow up, given that it's implicit in your question that you're just looking for any possible reason to criticise her.
>implying criticism is childish
>implying implying someone is childish isn't childish
Shutting down all criticism is worthless. Its also probably the best way to validate a critic.
Also, "superficial" does not mean "false."

>>9635289

>Then why is it relevant?

Because you're a faggot reddit cunt who defends shitty writers due to being a shit reader. I probably have far better taste in female writers than you do. I'm not sexist. I go after quality. Her work isn't that. End of.

I laugh at you and your need to defend this woeful mediocrity.

>>9635296
I'm not trying to shut down all criticism. I'm just pointing out that this is a literature board and criticising a poet almost exclusively for her looks is pathetic behaviour. Clearly motivated by some sort of anger against women in general, as is demonstrated by the robot-tier angry responses I'm getting.

>>9635301
you're a worthless whore. I hope you die today!

>>9635297
Hahah oh wow. None of that is relevant to the conversation and is just totally insecure bragging. You're motivated by envious emotions and totally incapable of seeing how illogical you're being.

>>9635301
Well then I guess we should talk about her poetry
https://www.savbrown.com

>>9635312
You can if you want, but it's a bit late to back-track now. You really need to admit to yourself that this hate isn't about her poetry and never has been. It's staggeringly obvious.

>>9635312
what is there to talk about?
it's lousy teen poetry made profitable by social media

whoop de fucking do

>>9635315
I didn't even comment on her looks and job, I only commented on you being a stupid white knight.
In fact, I haven't said a single thing about her ITT.
Thanks for the psychoanalysis though.

>>9635323
we're like, mortal and stuff. woah.

>>9635325
Whether you commented on her looks or just cared that people should comment on her looks so much that you felt the need to defend them despite being totally uninvolved makes very little difference. Know thyself.

>>9635310

>insecure bragging

Again with the moving of the goalposts. Men are insecure for reading too few female writers, and now they're also insecure for reading too many! Wonderful.

Am I ever allowed to disregard this woman's work at any point? Or should I just figuratively award all female writers participation awards and meted respect simply for being female writers?

You don't even see how sexist you're being with this paternalist coddling. Value the quality of the work. If it's shit it's shit. You can call get mad at me all you want but in the end you are being subconsciously sexist toward female writers by refusing to judge them on a truly level playing field.

>>9635331
I'm not sure your opinion on any sort of writing is worth a damn given that you're incapable of understanding this conversation. Either that or you're just madly grasping at straws to troll with.

>>9635323
It's dogshit. She has something to say but she says nothing.

>>9635248
Imagine if men and women are not exactly the same. Wouldn't that be a crazy world to live in?

>>9635248
That's because men put pussy on a pedestal. Besides, look at all of the beta pussies on /r9k/ and reddit (and here) who complain about "Chad". Most rational men just tune them out though, although it IS easier to tune out a man than a hysterical woman.

>>9635333

This "conversation" is an sloppy diarrhea shit of catty womyn and white knight orbiters - I can only do so much with it.

>>9635330
How is there "very little difference" between criticizing a woman's appearance and life choices, and criticizing a person for shouting down criticism with non-arguments?
I'm serious, explain it to me.

>>9635339
Are you aware that you're incapable of thinking without buzzwords or is that just water to you?

>>9635341

>I'm serious, explain it to me.

Enjoy the wait. You'll never get that answer.

>>9635341
You don't see how your motivation for desperately wanting to enable people to insult her for irrelevant matters is similar to their motivation to insult her in the first place? No? You seem to be deeply in denial for whatever reason.

>>9635342

>Are you aware that you're incapable of thinking without buzzwords

I've made several points. You refuse to respond.

See:
>You don't even see how sexist you're being with this paternalist coddling. Value the quality of the work. If it's shit it's shit. You can call get mad at me all you want but in the end you are being subconsciously sexist toward female writers by refusing to judge them on a truly level playing field.

Not that you'll ever address it.

File: 14COhR2.png (24KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 512x512px

>>9634127
I saw this book at my grocery store, thought it was a cooking book.

>>9635345

>obfuscated emotional rambling capped off with a bitchy line at the end

gr8 post

>>9635346
You didn't make any points, just some attempted virtue-signalling guff that doesn't in any way pertain to the conversation.

>>9635350
It really can't be such a complex proposition that you can't understand it at all. Surely you're not that thick?

>>9635345
What we have here is a straw man argument.
I am insulting you, but you argue against me enabling others to insult, which I am not doing, and then draw conclusions from that.
Try again please, but argue against me, and not the boogeyman this time.

File: 1496572666402.png (161KB, 400x344px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 400x344px

>>9635351

You're either (You) chasing or an actual moron.

>>9635323
People die when they are killed.

>>9635355
Whether you're the one typing out the hypocritical criticisms of 'superficiality' and her looks or you're just arguing that it's somehow not hypocritical, you're presumably motivated by the same thing.

>>9635366
I never argued that it wasn't hypocritical.
Once again you are not arguing against me, but a straw man, a boogeyman.
When you present a point I haven't made and then refute that point, but act like you are refuting me, it does you no good.

>>9635379
I've been talking about this one thing from the start, I'm curious why you started responding with posts framed as counters if you're talking about something else. Because that would be mad.

>>9635383
I posted this >>9635242 implying that you wold find some excuse for any criticism. You responded here >>9635259 saying I was trying to criticize her. Then I posted here >>9635296 saying you shouldn't shut down criticism. You responded here >>9635301 implying that her poetry was not off limits, so I posted her website here >>9635312 inviting others to talk about her poetry since it wasn't off limits to you. But you still got mad and replied here >>9635315 implying I said things I didn't say, and I'm pretty sure you can follow the conversation from there.
So, I have been talking about this one thing from the start, and I am curious why you started responding with posts framed as counters if you are talking about something else.
It's almost like you don't have a good argument and are just defensive, arguing points you think you can win with, even if they don't fit the conversation we are having.

>>9635396

>tumblr hoe with no argument just activated some weaponized autism and it's armed and ready

popcorn.mp4

>>9635396
>>9635404
>sets phasers to REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>9634090
>tfw brewster is probably dead now

>>9635248
You are intentionally using vague language to obscure the issue. We don't respect a guy who sleeps with *a lot of* women, we call him a player or a man-whore. Nor do we respect a woman who sleeps with *a lot of* guys, we call her a slut. This isn't that complicated. Both are bad and deserve no defense

>>9635396
>I posted this >>9635242 implying that you wold find some excuse for any criticism
I'm not finding an excuse for any criticism though, I have been exclusively and specifically talking about the people like those highlighted in >>9635259 who are criticising her looks. That includes those who started off criticising her looks then looked for any other reason at all to criticise her when it was pointed out how stupid they were being.

>>9635338
>rational men
Most become bitches when it happens to them
>tune out
Soon you wont be able to since you're just a bitch who is lucky that nothing bad happened to him but when it does you become like a kid

>>9635451

>who is lucky that nothing bad happened to him

not that anon but what weirdness are you projecting here? what was the "bad" thing that happened to you, anon?

>>9635456
>what was the "bad" thing that happened to you, anon?
Exactly what I'm talking about, youre so clueless you take everything for granted

>>9635458

>Exactly what I'm talking about

lmao what?

but you're not talking about anything? you spoke in some weird vageness and when i asked what you meant by it you said "exactly what i'm talking about". what did you actually mean by that? use your words.

>>9635462
>uses niggerspeak and spaces
Back to plebbit, faggot

>>9635248
For simple reason. A 5/10 woman will find someone to dick her very easily. A 5/10 man will need a whole lot more effort. Men need to compete more and be of better genetical material then women to reproduce ( or have sex, but it's the same thing ), so a man who can have sex with lot of women is most likely genetically superior, ergo he is more respected.

>>9635470

hahaha. only newfags use that "reddit spacing" meme. anon have always typed in variegated styles, even way back.

and kek at you changing the topic right away. you are so full of shit.

>>9635479
>variegated
Bit weird word choice there mate.

>25 Posters
>83 Replies

everyone in this thread needs to die.

>>9635479
>we iz da postaz nao

>>9635482
God forbid anyone has a conversation instead of shitposting and leaving.

>>9635481

another winning misdirect.

look don't get mad and larp as an oldfag when anon only wants you to be clear about the spoopy "bad" things you were alluding to.

>you're just a bitch who is lucky that nothing bad happened to him
are you really so egotistical that you feel you can declare outright that this guy has never had anything "bad" happen to him? are you really this delusional?

>>9635443
>I'm not finding an excuse for any criticism though.
Why now are you backtracking to a point I made at the beginning of a conversation we already had, that devolved into something unmanageable for you?
This is only an extension of the straw man. Circling back around to a point I made 2 hours ago and then commenting on that, because your talking points had resulted in embarrassment.
Oh well, I'll bite.
It's really easy for you to say that you haven't been finding an excuse for any criticism, in response to a post claiming that you WOULD shut down any criticism, a post made 2 hours ago, and after only 2 of your posts.
You claimed I was saying things I wasn't. I refuted you, and when proven wrong you circled back around to my very first post, because that was something you could refute, because it was speculation on your action, and now you refute a speculative claim with actions made after the speculation. You claim that you aren't finding an excuse for every criticism, but very little new criticism of her has actually come up, for you to shut down. So essentially you are yelling into the past, to a claim that you would do something, stating that you haven't done the thing you haven't had the chance to do!

File: serveimage.png (439KB, 2126x2362px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 2126x2362px

>>9635491
No no I'm not part of your debate, just pointing out that 'variegated' wasn't really the right word to use there.

>>9635494
> in response to a post claiming that you WOULD shut down any criticism
So in other words, your own straw man which has been conclusively shown to be false given that I'm not doing that. Do you see me in the Roopy Core thread, where people are attacking the content of her work rather than her looks, inexplicably given that she's actually relatively unattractive compared to Sav? No.

File: 1496478451381.jpg (60KB, 661x720px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 661x720px

>>9635497

oh, really? i didn't even address that seriously because the word was fine.

protip: don't try to play the snarky pedant if you aren't that good at it.

>>9635248
A key that opens many locks is a master key, but a lock that is opened by many keys is just a shitty lock.

>>9635500
L O L That's not what a straw man is, but nice try at giving me a taste of my own medicine.
And on the Rupi Kaur comment, why even bring that up? Let's follow the logic of that comment. You attack people in the Rupi threads because the content in those threads is about her poetry. The content in this thread is not about poetry, so you attack it, as criticism of poetry is valid. We already established that here >>9635301 >>9635312 (you then got angry about "backpedaling") So essentially, your post was incorrectly name dropping a fallacy, and then making a point we've already established.

At this point our argument has gone so far off the rails we might as well end it here, since it will never go anywhere worth going. Unironically have a nice day.

>>9635540
A master key belongs to a thief.

>>9635323
I have no idea who this woman is, but if this shit has given her notoriety beyond /lit/ trolling her Facebook page I want to know fucking how and why.

>>9635547
Are you fully fucking retarded? The post you're replying to establishes that I haven't posted in the Kaur threads because they're actually addressing her writing and not bitchily calling her ugly. None of what you're saying makes any sense.

>>9635564
It's tumblr poetry that was popular on... tumblr. Then she got it published because it resonates with younger women and /lit/ is mad because they're a bunch of plebs who are trying to hide that by pointing out how pleb other people are.

>>9635574
The /lit/ posters who are most mad about her spend most of their aggression on calling her ugly and superficial while arguing incoherently and saying things like
>L O L
I suspect we've had an invasion of envious teenage girls from somewhere.

>>9635590
Probably the same /r/socialism faggots spamming Marxist horseshit.

>>9635573
I forgot the word "don't." As in you don't attack people in the rupi threads. My bad, but if you could read you'd be able to tell from the context exactly what I meant, especially since I go on to note how we have already established that criticism of poetry is valid.
It was a really good move to focus on one missed word, as if the entire rest of the post didn't exist, since that was the one thing you could refute.

>>9635613
You've been incoherent and illogical so far, how could I possibly work out that you meant to do it in a slightly different way this time?
I'm not attacking anyone, I'm just pointing out that if the first and only real criticism you have of a poet is that she's apparently ugly and superficial, that's stupid. Arguing the point is also stupid for the same reasons.

>>9634123
Fucking dropped.
The whoring is one thing, but this. Jesus.

>>9635628
What have I said that is illogical? Incoherent I can see, but illogical? Give me an example.

So would it be okay if they criticize her poetry along with her looks, or if they criticize the poetry first and then her looks? Or is the criticism of the looks bad by itself?
I feel like most would say it is bad no matter if it is a standalone comment or not, but your post suggests you believe otherwise.

>>9635657
This entire conversation is an example of you being illogical.

Bad? I said it was stupid. Criticising anyone for being ugly and superficial is stupid. The only way you could possibly make it stupider would be to call her a hypocrite too. Why are you so obsessed with criticising her looks?

And there you go imagining things again. You're stupid.

>>9635665
>This entire conversation is an example of you being illogical.
>you're stupid.
I've just been reading a lot of Plato, and I wanted to feel like Socrates.
Now I feel like Sadcrates.

>>9635301
Here. We. Are.

First post in this thread but:
Most people here are memeing cos there's nothing to say about her "books" that has not already been said times and times before.

>>9635681
Sure. And everyone on /r9k/ is just roleplaying as bitter angry virgins too. And all the racism on /pol/ is ironic.

>>9635315
>it's because she's a WYMAN

Explain why we have similar threads about john green and why we DON'T have similar threads about Sylvia Plath

>>9635685
Explain why we have threads consisting just of people calling John Meme ugly? We don't.

>>9635248
>we all
yeah yeah
fuck you and kill yourself

>>9635690
That's objectively not true, those threads are full of people calling him a four-eyed faggot. You didn't do the reading and now you look stupid

>>9635351
How can someone be so dense and dishonest in an anonymous conversation?

>>9635695
You realise that just making stuff up doesn't really work when we can look at the archives, right?
Here are the last three John Green threads.
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/S9625032
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/S9609373
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/S9592992

In 100 posts, there are only two that comment on his looks. One of them is a post that also comments on his mind
>this faggot is like a fat ashton kutcher but more fucking retarded ahahaha
the other is just an afterthought to some questions about women.
>Why are women so fucking stupid? Why can't they make their own decisions? Why aren't they self-sufficient? Answer that you four-eyed cunt.

>>9635690
>implying

>>9634090
I dreamt she was my gf last night

>>9635684
And maybe if you need a safe space you should go to reddit.

Explain why we don't have Sylvia Plath hate threads? Explain me why john green get the same treatment

>>9634123
Is she really a coal burner?
I thought she had a boyfriend and all, you sure this is not just a fashion shoot!

>>9635711
I'll try again.


Her works (I've only read what was posted on /lit/) is so shitty, that it would make no sense talking about how shitty her books are (I mean, this threads are a waste of space too, though)

It would be like eating a plate full of dogs hit and try to make a gastronomical review about it.

There's nothing to say, so people start memeing

>>9635665
>Why are you so obsessed with criticising her looks?
You're the one who brought it up just now, desu.

TRASH TRASH TRASH GET OUT REEEEEEEE

>>9635248
>Only real answer ITT:

Men are designed to breed with whatever they can to pass on their genes.

Women are designed to seek out the highest order of men to fuck and breed with; this is why 1 women can fuck 50 guys but a man will rarely fuck anything over 5 women.

Men and women are fundamentally different.

>>9635540
I don't agree with that at all but I'll be damned if that wasn't the perfectly said.

>>9635323
That was absolute shit is this by the person we're talking about?

>>9634090
>I'm straight
>I'm bisexual
>I'm lesbian
>I'm bisexual (again)
>why I don't wear bras
>I'm pansexual
>why I don't shave my armpits
>I'm asexual
>I was raped
>I was sexually assaulted
>I haven't changed my hair color this week? time to fix that
>I'm polyamorous
>I was almost kidnapped
>That time straight white male catcalled me on the street
>why I'm gender non-binary
>rinse and repeat

every alt-chick on youtube. These videos sound like a joke, but they're real. Every single channel is real. And they exists because young wanna be like them, and horny lonely white boys want to fuck them.

>>9636677
are you new to human experience?

>>9636906
lonely white virgins are their main power source desu

>>9637747
If we're talking about patreon bucks and donations, yes.