/lit/ - Literature

>>16830485
>defending someone unironically using the words "récupération" and "intellectualize our demise" because you're scared of cohesion and coherence

Pic related.

>>15040846
It is you that don't have an argument, you may want others to ignore reality, that man is not an universal but that there are different races and subraces which are obviously not one and the same and which act as collectives against one another but how can any reasonable man take such a position seriously? You might as well argue that deforestation isn't a problem because it grows flowers in the open fields and any difference between them and trees are just a social construct or whatever postmodern garbage you have to offer.

Reminder that a rule-of-thumb in taxonomy is that if you can recognize members from different populations of the same species at least 75% of the time, then they belong to different subspecies. Now imagine if you applied this equally among all species, including homo sapiens.
>REEEEE

>>12644589
>he thinks that literature is the only facet of culture
just because you weren't an English major doesn't mean the effects aren't all around you. Flip on the fucking TV. Turn on the fucking radio. Look at demographic trends. Stop being dense.

>Why would you not care
Because unless the context specifically calls for what people called themselves, it isn't particularly relevant in understanding the genealogy of ideas and cultural norms. The history of ideas, genetic distributions, etc. generally do not care about how you name one particular segment of the population or another.

>Homo sapiens is just a modern biological term for "human"
And "white" is just a modern cultural term for "of broadly European descent". Are the people on the left "white"?

>that weren't part of intellectual discourse until a couple centuries ago
Not relevant. Gravity wasn't a part of intellectual discourse until a few centuries ago, therefore it isn't real. That is how stupid your deconstructionist argument is.

>It's entirely a terminological sleight of hand
Just because you have a very hard time processing a chain of cause of effect does not mean it is a sleight of hand, any more than the a person's inability to solve a calculus problem is the fault of deceiving mathematicians.

>how much that interpretation owes to silly revisionism.
I don't care about how past ideologues classified populations based off of their own political beliefs instead of scientific fact. Do we now distrust astronomy because Tycho Brahe's geocentric model was promoted over Nicholas Copernicus's more correct model of heliocentrism?

>Your argument is basically
I'll cut you off right there. Your argument is basically "people in the past did not have the right answers to this particular issue, therefore the issue itself is the problem", which, if you applied to any field of inquiry, would mean that you would have to discard every single fact that we hold true. You don't understand the ramifications of your "methodological" attack, let alone understand the "history" that it supposedly is based on.

>And I hate pseud theorizers that can't even tell the difference between a half-baked concept and an observable fact.
And there is the demonstration of self-hatred that I mentioned earlier. Lazy deconstruction is a vapid pseud approach. I have no time for it.

>>10637273
>Maybe this just means they're smarter on average, but that means that racism is true.
Don't be silly, race is only skin deep.