/lit/ - Literature

No, and nor is "arrogant." Last resorts of the petty, basically leveling the masses against you.

>>5075988
Unless they can explain in a syllogism, then no; I don't just accept "conclusions" as legitimate criticism until I have heard their premises.

>>5075988
no because being pretentious is a good thing

I think it is, but people misuse the word.
Pretentious means something lacking in content posing as something greater and more profound.
There is plenty of art like that.

The problem is people labelling something as 'pretentious' because they don't understand it.

No, it's just a whine and masturbation.

>>5076017
>there are people who post in /lit/ right now who actually think this

>>5076018
Your definition slightly skewed, but I agree nonetheless

>>5076033
it really is. the teenage urge for authenticity is what leads to alienation and inhuman individualism. pretentiousness is just a bit of play for the sake of engaging fellow human beings.

>>5076059
the definition of pretentiousness is the notion that the form of expression in question isn't authentic though

if it's ironic than it's playful, but don't assume you're on a higher ground because you believe all forms of art are unquestionable and simply the fault of the beholder

It can be, but it rarely is. A book can be written pretentiously, possibly creating an irritable sensation in the reader. However, simply because a book is written in an academic style or with a larger vocabulary doesn't make it pretentious.

Expecting a certain level of intelligence in one's readers doesn't denote pretentiousness, but creating works whose sole purpose appears to be to inflate one's own ego is pretty pretentious.

I think it is mostly used as a criticism of the presenter. Rather than to the content in question.

>>5075988
No, cause how would you know if something is pretentious? Its too subjective. How would you know what the creator is trying to do? Maybe what you interpret as pretentious was actually a meaningless occurrence you associate with pretentiousness.

>>5076095
>the definition of pretentiousness is the notion that the form of expression in question isn't authentic though

i know that. you're misreading my post. i'm saying that authenticity as an end goal is specious and tends to drive people away from each other toward their own ends. it's 'us vs. them' mentality.

pretentiousness is more of a longing for human engagement. it's perfectly normal and harmless nearly 100% of the time. if it's ironic, then it's detached and even less playful and probably comes from a misanthropic place.

in the informal every day usage, it should be directed at people who are talking about things they don't really understand.

>>5076097
Pretentious would be someone trying to write ten pages on why The Faults in Our Stars is the greatest literary work of all history

>>5075988
No.

>>5076131
lol, ok mr. deepman

but it's still not a good thing in the context of literature
I hate authors who constantly reference inane shit when it adds nothing in particular to the enjoyment of the novel

>>5076219
>i am 13 years old

>>5076244
>look at how blasé and smart I am!!
you sure showed him

>>5076257
We should just start using a pejorative referring to the country, culture, and people of France instead of pretentious

it is a thing you say after establishing that a thing is bad because you think it doesn't know that it is and that makes it doubly bad.

it's irrelevant, unless you care about the difference for some reason. there aren't really any legit reasons to.

>>5075988
yes it is.

the problem is people use the word pretentious to describe art they don't understand.

pretentious is not: this is boring and I didn't pick up on the subtext because I'm a stupid idiot with a stupid face

pretentious is: this shit has no subtext, it's purposefully vague because it's inviting you to make shit up about it and it's clear the artist had no intentions while creating it

It's a legit criticism for why you don't like something. It's not really a legitimate criticism of an argument tho.

It's a handy buzzword for when thought-out criticism is too much to explain.

It's not /lit/, but the ending to the movie "Her" fits it perfectly. It was a decent movie until the whole Alan Watts and operating systems leaving thing. It's one of the only book/film endings that legitimately upset me for setting up something good, crashing and burning, then ruining any enjoyment reading or watching the work gave me. I don't feel like devoting more brainpower than I can to a blatantly pretentious flop so I just call it "pretentious."

>>5076313
you might like your argument but it's complete shit

>>5076321
I suppose that can be a case, yes. An argument can be faulty as hell from a logical perspective, but yet be aesthetically pleasing.

>>5076326
only you think your shit is pleasing in any way

>>5076330
Well nothing is *fundamentally* pleasing. Pleasure is something kindled within the viewer, but what is being viewed could incite feelings which vary heavily from viewer to viewer

>>5076341
holy fuck please drop your trip

u = pretentious

>>5076341
you're so fundamentally stupid that you can't imagine a thing that is actually good so you substitute some garbage that is actually bad but appeals to your stupid beliefs

>>5076348
Maybe so. Perhaps not. I do not consider myself as such, but if I am and I am simply oblivious to it, then I prefer to remain as such to altering my behavior.

>>5076356
What's the difference between good and actually good?

>>5076362
You're a pretentious faggot and everyone who sees your disgusting tranny self is repulsed. You see it in their eyes too. Fuck off, you delusional genetic waste.

>>5076362
>What's the difference between good and actually good?
your arguments are no kind of good and I haven't called them that. what you mean is the difference between things you like and things that are good and the difference is the things you like aren't necessarily good.

>>5076380
Please explain to me the nature of good as abstracted from liked.

>>5076399
they are unrelated.

>>5076405
That does not explain

>>5076428
in case of an argument or criticism, legitimacy

>>5076445
By this you mean correctness?

>>5076448
there's a little more to it than that

>>5075988
I'd say /lit/ is the most pretentious board in 4chan.
Fuck this board.

>>5076450
Then you mean consistency?

>>5076462
I mean the word I used

>>5076472
Which is rather vague. Legitimacy means accepted and respected, or consistent with a particular criteria. I'm assuming you mean the criteria, and I'm trying to find what that criteria is other than "conforming with criteria".

ITT: no one actually knows what pretentious means

>>5076503
it's not difficult to make a proper argument or criticism. logic is a system. as long as you conform to the system, everything you do is "good".

>>5076522
Then by "good" you mean "logical"?

>>5076517
>pretentious
>pre·ten·tious /prI5tenFEs/ adj
>if someone or something is pretentious, they try to seem more important, intelligent, or high class than they really are in order to be impressive

>>5076538
within the context. I just explained that.

>>5076539
You are probably talking to some vapid woman who is fairly new from a different website who is attempting the popular leftist warping of no true scotsman.

>>5076002
This, in a nutshell.
Whether or not someone is pretentious is entirely in the eye of the beholder, so it really comes down to the accuser being petty, possibly with low self esteem as well. In it's original form, the meaning of pretentious was perfectly viable, usually used in the world of arts and humanities, but social media has degraded it.

>>5076548
So not formal logic, but the sort of logic generally applied to the topic

>>5075988
Yes and no.

Pretentious is a very legitimate criticism, however, like any criticism, it can be constructive/legitimate or it can be useless.

If some pleb hipster type just calls a work pretentious, it usually means nothing. Just like if they were to call the work any number of other things.

If someone can show WHY the work is pretentious, because it is a valid fault, then it is a very legitimate criticism.

>>5076574
...what?

>>5076656
There are different sorts of logic. Formal logic obviously not being employed here.

>>5076737
already back a'whoring?

>>5076737
post tits

>>5076758

>>5076768
y-you t-too
(I didn't really get your image, and I was planning to write "it was a joke")
it was a joke. *Feminister*, you get it? /pol/, etc.

>>5076768
hoochie mama

>>5076768
thanks butterfly but we've already seen your starving-african-child physique

I need feministers dirty bush and I need it now

>>5076780
Feminister is a man in hormones

>>5076781
what does that mean

>>5076782
On*

>>5076782
tr*nny

>>5076789
when in Rome, right? (Rome being 4chan)

>>5076737

I'm not the anon you're talking to but the original point of your argument is that there's apparently no distinction between "good" and "liked" or "desired." You want other to prove this wrong even though you haven't provided reasons to support your own assertion that there's no difference (it's a habit of yours to assert things and act as if you don't need reasons to believe they're true). I'll try to explain to you why it's preferable to think of "good" and "desired" as separate. You might desire to eat pizza every day for each meal. Regardless of this desire, it isn't good for your health to eat all that pizza. Whether or not it's true that this is bad for you has nothing to do with whether or not you desire to eat pizza. There's a simple example of a way in which we can talk about the good in an objective manner which isn't based on the whims of individuals. Whether or not to accept something along the lines of what I'm saying or to prefer your account is a metaethical problem but one which I think has an objective position come out at the most plausible basis for an ethical theory. Given that ethics deals with interactions between humans (and sometimes humans and non-humans), doesn't it only make sense that we'd pick out properties relevant to everyone in beginning to formulate an ethics? If we want any kind of guidelines or methods of evaluation, we need to pick out objective standards like bodily health (or, potentially, other objective standards) to be able to even speak coherently about what is actually good as opposed to what is desired.

>>5076795
>>>/b/
>>>/gif/
>>>/lgbt/

And stay there

>>5076804
post traps

>>5076802
it's just feminister bra: the board matress. no need to effortpost

no

(didnt read thread)

>>5076588
Hallelujah, a voice of reason from the void

Notice how the only people who will ever call something pretentious are those who don't understand what that thing is.

Example:

"It's quite a mundane task."
"Stop being so pretentious."
"In what way am I being pretentious?"
"You're using big and smart words."
"mfw"

In conclusion, no.

>>5076802
A whim is merely one sort of desire, there are plenty of others.

As for ethics, I don't believe ethical good exists, full stop.

>>5075988
yes

in the same way that something being 'brown' or 'spiky' is a legitimate criticism

>>5076871

>A whim is merely one sort of desire, there are plenty of others.

You understand my point.

>As for ethics, I don't believe ethical good exists, full stop

Then why did you imply that you did when you asked if there was a way of talking about the good independent of the liked?

>>5076891
I was assuming he meant in a sense independent of ethics.

>>5076894

Then that's even easier. Adequate sleep is objectively good for productivity even if you desire to stay up late and party, dislike work, etc.

I think pretentious is another way of saying "overly ambitious". Someone can can have a good story on their hands, but end up writing it as if its a thesis statement, which just takes the fun out of it and makes it a chore to fully comprehend. I'd prefer any deeper meaning to come from word play, and metaphors and devices like that, rather than just constant use of 20 dollar words.

>>5076899
Yes, but I mean as per the context we're speaking in; we're not talking about sleep.

>>5076904
>Feminister

What country are you from? You clearly must be European because you are always shitposting at the same time as I'm online.

>>5076904

You were talking about whether or not arguments can be good independent of what someone happens to find appealing. The answer is yes. Any context will imply some purpose or set of purposes again which the quality of an argument can be judged. Your now explicit lack of belief in quality standards and rigorous argumentation explain a lot regarding your lack of integrity in past threads where I've encountered you.

>>5076907
Clearly.
We're both from Luxembourg

>>5076908
Well an argument is a sort of appeal

>>5076911
You're pathetic

>>5076907
I pretty much do nothing but read, write, have fun with my bf and people I know, and post here. I exercise each day, but that doesn't take up a significant portion of my time.

>>5076914

An argument can have appeal but whether or not it's appealing doesn't necessarily tell us anything about whether or not it's good.

>>5076917
It's a lovely country!
Snob.

>>5076923
And I never really got the criteria of what makes an argument good in this context.

>>5076929
and that is why everyone hates you

>>5076933
non sequitur

>>5076929

>And I never really got the criteria of what makes an argument good in this context.

Clearly. If you recall, the context was a discussion you were having with an anon where you claimed that there's no distinction between good and what a person happens to like. In other words, the context regards whether or not there can be such a distinction. I've explained a few times now how we can make such a distinction. Not sure what you don't get.

>>5076936
There's not. If everyone hates something, then it isn't good in any meaningful sense. But there are various sorts of good applied to different contexts of liking something. "Chocolate is good for my pleasure [but not on my shirt]"

>>5076935
it was not an argument and therefore can't be fallacious. it's an explanation of why everyone hates you.

>>5076920
your bf? no homo, right?

>>5076951
Feminister is a mtf transsexual

>>5076953
eh?

>>5076941

>If everyone hates something, then it isn't good in any meaningful sense.

If everyone values their lives but also values unsustainable living, there's a pretty meaningful sense in which it would be good to re-evaluate our values. Even if we didn't have some other value to conflict with our problematic value, all we do is go back to my original point about the indisputable fact that there are objectively good things for people and other entities (becoming a matter of ethics, which you claim to reject while simultaneously making claims about the value of arguments lol).

> there are various sorts of good applied to different contexts of liking something. "Chocolate is good for my pleasure [but not on my shirt]"

Yes, and many of these goods are significantly less trivial than your example. The fact that a good is a good in relation to something else makes it no less objective.

To remind you, your original point was that there's no distinction between good and what is liked. Clearly there is.

>>5076953
he will still always be male. And a gay one at that.

>>5076958
>If everyone values their lives but also values unsustainable living, there's a pretty meaningful sense in which it would be good to re-evaluate our values.
That depends on how much they value their lives. If I pay you ten thousand dollars for every day of your life you will sell me, you will probably sell some days, but it is very doubtful you will sell them all.

>Clearly there is.
Not really.

>>5076966

Can you manage to remember anything that was said within a few posts prior to what you're responding to? My example was a response to your argument that if everyone felt one or another about something, then that would determine that something's value. So, I provided an example in which everyone felt the same way about something but that feeling had no impact on whether or not it was a good thing to value. Please refer back to >>5076958 and try again.

>>5076970
But it would. If people value their life AND non-sustainable living which jeopardizes their life, then there will be a compromise; sustainable living does not become good unless life is valued utterly over the good of non-sustainable living.

>>5076802
>>5076891
>>5076899
>>5076908
>>5076923
>>5076936
>>5076958
>>5076970
Im enjoying the conversation you are having with feminister, and wanted to ask a question.

You are trying to show that there is a distinction between the word good and the word desire. However whenever you bring up an illustration of the distinction, I always find it puzzling on how I can easily swap the two words out and the sentence still makes sense, for example.

You might DESIRE to eat pizza every day for each meal. Regardless of this desire, it isn't GOOD for your health to eat all that pizza.

Rewritten

You might DESIRE to eat pizza every day for each meal. Regardless of this desire, it isn't DESIRABLE for your health to eat all that pizza.

Am I missing something? I dont see the useful the distinction, the words seem oddly synonymous, with only a weird distinction in the semantics of their use, for example, how I have to switch out good with desirable in your given sentence, rather than desire

Sorry if this is backtracking for you

>>5076929
if the only quality of an argument that you recognize is it being convincing, I'm unconvinced. your argument is therefore bad and your proposed criteria invalid.

>>5075988
Depends.
Pretentious is always thrown around when you talk about literature, art, or use any big word. But you're only being pretentious if you're PRETENDING to be something you're not. If you really do think what you say about literature, and if you just know and like big words, you aren't pretentious anymore, you're just you.

I personally despise pretentious people, but I define pretentious people as those who say they are ''so into this'' or ''love that author/band/sport'' but then can't talk about it for more than 10 seconds because they're only stating their ''love'' for things to appear interesting, while hoping nobody they encounter actually enjoys the same things.

In other words, you have to know someone well before you can call them pretentious, to see if they are pretending, or wether they're just like that.

>>5075988
I think the only legitimate question is whether there is such a thing as 'objective pretentiousness'.

>>5076313 makes a good point. Pretentiousness should only be a criticism of aesthetics. An accusation of pretentiousness takes place in the accuser's understanding of a metalanguage. If the accuser feels that the language is emulating the aesthetics of the context in which it is placed, yet it still feels contrived as if it was generated by vanity (or something along those lines), then he/she will accuse it of being pretentious. Some metalanguages and contexts benefit from a common understanding from their users, so accusations of pretentiousness may reach a consensus; however, this is still subjective.

So, back to the real question. Is there such a thing as objective pretentiousness?

it's as valid as any criticism towards a book/film/song etc. In the end it's all subjective

For me, at least some pretentiousness comes from a lack of self confidence.

When I include in my writing something refined, or something extreme or obscure or grotesque, that is something that stands out, I start worrying about coming off as pretentious, and that anxiety oozes into what I'm writing. In times like that I have to regain my focus and rethink the whole thing. Sometimes I am able to overcome it and find a formulation that feels clean, sometimes I have to cut that part out.

Who else has this?

>>5077279
A good lesson on pretentiousness can be drawn form Dr. Johnson, Oscar Wilde and The Algonquin round table as chronicled By Frankiln Pierce Adams. I all these cases we have people displayed for whom pretension is part of their personal motif. The people who dined with Johnson were always waiting for him to drop a witty bon mot, or, as with Goldsmith, attempting to "shine" on their own. Both Wilde and the habitues of the round table were often remarked to crib, hoard and save impromptu drolleries from friends and attempt to work them into the conversation.
When pretension is your stock-in-trade, I think its more forgivable than when you simply use it as a shield between yourself and the world.

(Did i sound pretentious enough in that passage? I said "bon mot" and Habitue". That ought to set'em back one. And I referenced Johnson! God I'm good!)

>>5077504
>When pretension is your stock-in-trade, I think its more forgiveable [...]

I agree. As I've said, it's all about context and the critical metalanguage it creates. This is how aesthetics are judged.

>>5077243
Ah yes. But now is "I'm unconvinced" a legitimate criticism? It is if your personal notions are the criteria of legitimacy. BUT. If we are using, say, logic or consistency as determiners of legitimacy in this context (a legitimate scientific theory would be clearly held to higher standards, but this is not a scientific context), then my statement remains legitimate because it has not been demonstrated as either inconsistent or illogical.

Is legitimacy "good"? Well it might not be the same good as your person being convinced, but it is "good" to those who value it, who like it. If no one here likes legitimacy by this criteria, then it ceases to be good; it might not be bad, but it would at the least be irrelevant.

>>5077743
>"good"
>"good"
>""

>>5075988
yes, if you pretend to be what you aren't

>>5076095
>the definition of pretentiousness is the notion that the form of expression in question isn't authentic though

No it isn't.

>>5077779
yeah it is. but phrasing it in terms of authenticity opens up too many traps. It's this >>5077279

>>5077746
">"good""
">"good""
">"

>>5077743
if the criteria is "does this have approval" then lack of approval is a pretty fucking legitimate criticism

if the criteria is something else then you're disagreeing with yourself since you established that was the criteria that you wanted to use

>>5077823

Yes but the criteria isn't that, it is "does this have refutations", don't you agree?

>>5075988
I always consider something to be pretentious when it seems like the author is more concerned with conveying his intelligence rather than his ideas.

The old adage "never use a big word when a small word will do" is the main thing to consider. The small word will most likely make it easier for a wider breadth of people to understand the point, but I guess there is a fear that the use of simple language will reveal a simple mind. This is a false assumption.

Some ideas, concepts, or assertions require the use of complex terminology. Words like peristalsis, inveterate, dissemble...these words convey specific ideas and images quickly and more economically than a long string of small words could. Sometimes though, writers will employ so many uncommon and rarefied words that it almost seems like their purpose for constructing these sentences is solely to build vessels of big vocab, instead distilling ideas to their essence and conveying them effectively: the lifeblood of good writing.

I come across pretentious writing most often in academia and amateur writing. Nowhere else is the desire to prove one's intelligence as prevalent. Writers construct these impenetrable walls of language because the desire for validation supersedes the desire to communicate. This is obnoxious to read and usually leads me to wonder if the author isn't trying to hide a weak idea under a gilded veneer.

However, even in a scenario where complex ideas are conveyed articulately and obscure verbiage is used effectively, some will still throw "PRETENTIOUS" as an insult, often to excuse and cover their own lack of understanding. Since this behavior is common as well, we're stuck with this weird uncertainty of "do they really think it's pretentious or do they just not get it? What IS pretentious anyway?", and then all you get is shit-flinging and red faces.

In response to the main question, I assert that "pretentious" is in fact a legitimate criticism, regarding the points I've raised above. "Pretentious writing" isn't this weird esoteric thing; if you wanted me to write a pretentious paragraph, I could fulfill that task easily. I would take a very simple idea and communicate it in a needlessly complex way, so much so that the original idea becomes almost inscrutable. That to me, is the essence of pretentious writing.

>>5077897

>build vessels of big vocab, instead OF distilling ideas

fixed.

>>5077823
Well the criteria itself requires approval.

>>5077911
you're not disagreeing with me. accept that your conclusions are wrong.

>>5075988

Depends who's doing the criticizing.

>>5077897
always use the most precise word.

use big words because then you'll remember what they mean next time you see them.

>>5075988
Only when the importance of authenticity is agreed upon.

>>5076538
dumb bitch

i fucking hate it when people use the word pretentious to describe my writing. it makes it seem so ingenuine when i sincerely want to create something that's fun to read and to puzzle with, just like the stuff that i genuinely enjoy. i don't know why some people think "hard to understand" or "trying too hard" means unenjoyable. if you didn't like it for whatever reason, i get that and that makes sense, but "pretentious" is just a noiseless word

>>5077144

I gave up trying to explain to Feminster since, like the one or two other times I've tried to have a discussion with him, he conveniently forgets things he said in the previous posts or acts like we're suddenly talking about a different issue.

I understand what you're saying but my response would be that we shouldn't be all that surprised to find that "good" things are also desirable things. Good things being desirable doesn't mean that there's no difference between the two concepts since we'd certainly agree that there are desirable things that aren't good, right? This only becomes a problem at the metaethical level when we're trying to decide which, if any, position is best in determining how to evaluate "goodness." However, real life consists mostly of ethical evaluations which imply an already more or less settled metaethical stance. It isn't possible to formulate an ethical stance that completely lacks any sort of objective standard by which to evaluate and so, regardless of how you choose to evaluate, it's nonsensical to say that there's no objectivity in ethics regardless of which metaethical position you take or if you've even settled metaethical problems in the first place. An ethical good is something you ought to desire, not necessarily something you already desire. The fact that you ought to desire it clearly means that there are going to be reasons for desiring it other than that you already desire it or don't desire it. This is a useful distinction insofar as it allows us to have a branch of philosophy called ethics. If we said that "good" is nothing more than that which is desired, there would be no normative dimension at all and science could simply tell us everything that's good and everything that's bad since apparently good and bad things don't exist as "oughts" but only as "iss."

>>5078015
If we are in agreement and my conclusions are wrong, then yours are as well.

>>5078539
>since we'd certainly agree that there are desirable things that aren't good, right?
Such as?

>>5078549
your only function is to receive the jism of desperate/lonely men, you don't have the cognitive faculties to shitpost on 4chan, or even a "heart of gold" a whore is a whore is a whore: you are a whore

not even a desirable or "proper" whore. real whores whore themselves for money, presumably want to escape. But you whore yourself out for mere toleration, which is sad, because everyone hates you,

>>5078519
I totally disagree. You might find it noiseless, but maybe your writing honestly comes off as inauthentic and wordy. Maybe you have too much fun crafting the puzzle and "making it fun" and aren't really communicating something that's interesting to read.

Calling something pretentious is a valid criticism (i went into it more in >>5077897). I concede that it loses its power when so many people will reach for "pretentious" when a more precise criticism is deserved, but I still attest that there is a distinct feel that "trying too hard" evokes. It feels like the author is trying to impress me with enigmatic images and verbose language instead of actually communicating something to me, and it may be a subtle distinction but goddamn when it is present it's entirely detrimental and overbearing, like blackened burnt garlic in a pasta sauce.

>>5078549
>>since we'd certainly agree that there are desirable things that aren't good, right?
>Such as?
Your mephitic discolored vagina for one

>>5078576
lol so like, for his birthday I gave me bf a chance to expose me in public cuz like, I, uh, sometimes wear a t-shirt with nothing underneath. a lot actually. and if he can catch me in the right moment he can yank it up but I'm on guard and if I catch him trying and he fails he loses he chance until his next birthday. yus. In all seriousness

I will tell you something, anon. I don't have a heart of gold, I don't want a heart of gold, I'm not even sure what the fuck that is supposed to mean. Your point is shit. A whore is defined by having sex for money: but I don't, so I'm a whore but not even REALLY a whore but that's worse than a whore! you're fucking retarded, dude

>>5078549

>Such as?

Most people would say that unsustainable living is desirable in that it makes them comfortable, allows them have fun when they want, is convenient etc. but most people (supposing they're scientifically literate at an elementary level) would also say that unsustainable living isn't good insofar as it's damaging to some of the other things they value like opportunities for their children and grandchildren, destruction of wildlife, etc. Whether or not you personally feel this way is irrelevant since no matter your ethical stance there will be an analogous example or one which is even simpler. I don't know your values so I can't give an example which is relevant to you specifically. The point is that, regardless of having a different set of values, those values are necessarily identified as objective or as being in the service of implicit and underlying objective values. You could very well criticize someone for having bad or stupid values but it wouldn't change the fact that they provide and objective standard. Even when someone's self-professed value system is one which is founded on personal desires there's a difference between "desires" of an ethical nature and trivial, everyday, desires where ethical desires continue to serve as objective oughts or ideals across all or most contexts and trivial desires serve as context specific judgments more akin to aesthetic judgments. It could very well be that you want to argue that these sorts of aesthetic judgments are all that there is but I doubt anyone seriously acts on that kind of theory other than in discussions about ethics where they want take the easy way out and not think about what an ethical good could mean even with all the difficulties of formulating a response to such an issue. So, I don't think anyone has the kind of belief in practice that I take Feminister to be promoting in theory, not even Feminister, because practical affairs make such a stance untenable for anyone who hasn't completely given up on life. The only people who actually act on the belief that context specific desires are all that matters are the mentally ill.

>>5078576

This is pretty cringeworthy man. Is this part of your manifesto or something? A whore is a whore is a whore is an ad hominem. Protip: stay relevant.

>he's ready to call me a white knight i can feeeeel it

yes. you generally see it when people talk about themselves and their art. talking about the process is great but some of the shit i hear i have to roll my eyes. I think people do use it where it's probably debatable or not really appropriate but the word can still be legitimate.

>>5076002
>>5076567
these are also the arguments pretentious people use to protect their own fragile egos.

I like having a conversation with the idea that pretentiousness doesn't exist. so that people can indulge themselves when they talk about their art because I understand that enthusiasm is natural when you're in the zone and being creative. at the same time a degree of self awareness is important for an artist so when you babble on in comprehensibly you know where that line is. it's not an exact science but there is a sense of reasonableness that we share when we communicate well.

>>5078602
Therefore unsustainable living is a desire which conflicts with other desires, and it is a matter of which has precedence.

>>5078582
i get what you mean, and when someone senses that and lets me know i don't mind it at all, even if they use the word pretentious, but if that's all they say it pisses me off. its just really hard to be ambitious and try to create new kinds of work and still have it be enjoyable, which is what i'm trying to do. i don't want to put anyone off or appear smarter than i am. i just want to make stuff that i like to read, which is why pretentious bothers me. because it's the opposite of my intended goal. but you know, sometimes it doesn't come out right.

>>5078609

>Therefore unsustainable living is a desire which conflicts with other desires, and it is a matter of which has precedence.

Right, and the "desire" which takes precedence is the one which is taken to have normative authority. The fact that it's pleasing to be subject to normative requirements doesn't mean that those normative requirements cease to be normative.

>>5078615
>2014
>responding to feminister

>>5078615
Then you say that "good" is simply the dominant desire?

>>5077144

I really hate arguing on the internet, especially about philosophy since good philosophy can't be done on a forum. I'm also too impatient and easily infuriated to be able to continue doing this so feel free to look at my most recent posts and I might check back if you're wondering anything else/want me to clarify.

>>5078599
>replying
>lol so like, for his birthday I gave me bf a chance to expose me in public cuz like, I, uh, sometimes wear a t-shirt with nothing underneath
You can't even resist what you think might draw lascivious attention to your post (you are a hooer for attention) in your denial of whoredom. you don't know the heart-of-gold archetype? it's almost as if you're a gristle-headed whore playing at being literate. You're fooling no one. Recant and drop your trip, or move to >>>/soc/

we have enough intellectual vanity here w/o your sexual vanity and swollen narcissism

cunt

>>5078625

No, you say that. I can't talk to you anymore though. Take that to mean whatever you please.

>>5078615
call her a whore

>>5078629
Archetypes don't exist except in fiction, you numbskull. If someone fits an archetype in real life, it's because they're actively trying to play the fucking part.

>>5078631

Calling people whores seems needlessly inflammatory but I can't say I care for his character as he's portrayed it thus far.

>>5078610
The parts that "don't come out right" are probably the ones that seem pretentious...stick with it man!

>>5078610
I understand where you're coming from, because when someone calls a work "pretentious", they're also inadvertently criticizing the author as well, calling his intent into question. You've expressed that your intent is pure and that your love of the craft and product is tantamount; you've left your ego at the door but it's still called suspect in evaluating your work, and I can understand why that would be annoying.

The only guiding metric I have I guess is stop trying to make stuff you like to read, and start writing things that you need to say. The need to communicate will cull the wheat from the chaff.

>>5078637
i think it's a girl, man

>>5078637
>hasn't seen the nudes

>>5078756
>won't post them

sure is summer.

>>5078787
not on this board

>>5078791
it's a one day ban if that

>>5078797
I have to find them on the /pol/ archive.

If I delivar, then I am forever not a faggot. Agreed?

>>5078815
>If I delivar, then I am forever not a faggot. Agreed?
>>>/b/

>>5078830
if you hate 4chan so much why come here?

>>5078815
You are forever not a faggot in my eyes, anon. Don't listen to >>5078830. He doesn't believe in a good fun time between boys over girls. He believes all men should be castrated over an open flame.

We're not like that, anon. We're good ole boys. Good ole boys who like a nice titty.

>>5078877
>being this much of a beta faggot for her pics
>on a literature board
The quality has really declined here. and she's not even that attractive, her nipples are tiny and her areolas are as big as pepperoni. if you want to see naked women, look for real porn and stop being pathetic about a fucking camwhore trying to pass herself off as smart.

>>5078897
>implying this isn't an excellent ploy to get rid of her

>>5078902
her tits are big enough that she'd feed off the attention and probably end up posting more. Do you really want everyone other thread on /lit/ to be a thread about her? she'd be the equivalent of boxxy here, right in summer when she take her strongest hold and become a celebrity. you're opening pandora's box

>>5078897
>Being this much of a cunt about something that took me less than 2 minutes to write.
>Naked pics is like oh hey my curiosity is piqued she posts here all the time whynot.jpg
>THE QUALITY HAS REALLY DECLINED HERE
>NOT LIKE MY OLD LIT WHERE WE WERE PATRICIAN KARAMAZOVS
>implying i don't want to be able to make fun of her big pepperonis too
>implying everyone is a humongous beta faggot like you

geeettttt fuccccked fuunnn polliiiice

>>5078921
you sound as if you are not yet twenty

Not if the thing in question is supposed to be inflated.

Michael Jackson is pretentious.
Ronald Reagan is pretentious.
The entire lower west side is pretentious as all fuck.

Only one of those statements is bound to a probable reality where it's true and applicable.

>>5078930
Ouch brah. You got me right in the feeeels.

You sound like a prim and priggish schoolmarm, replete with polyps, dust and hemorrhoids. Can you teach me to be as crusty as you?

Or is it earned with time o sage?

>>5075988
just read this thread and think about it

>>5079114
or this thread:
>>5078695

>>5079151
How does any culturally literate white college student male not cromulent

Pretentious exists, but it's not the one way street it's treated to be. You can be equally pretentious trying to lower yourself for greater acceptance as you can be for falsely elevating yourself.

Bill O'Reilly's attempts to be some kind of populist working man are just as pretentious as Film Socialism is.

>>5078606
projecting retard spotted

>>5080226
That's narrow, Metal Gear Solid is pretentious, but it's supposed to be. That doesn't mean you connote the word immediately with something bad, you just define the anti-war message as way too serious.

>>5075988
Yes, in very specific contexts. As is hipster. You are a hipster if the fact that a message in something you read is being exposed to a broader audience is cause for anger instead of celebration.

>>5080249
>Metal Gear Solid is pretentious, but it's supposed to be.

That makes 0 sense. I don't play video games, but Metal Gear Solid is supposed to pretend to be smarter than it actually is?

>>5080507
It's made up of overly important themes and characters who are imperative beyond sense.

I don't know /lit/ you tell me. I've been wondering this for a long time. I thought this one artist was utter crap and I completely framed it as 'what I thought.'

Outcome: A huge group who liked this artist put forward their art and asked if I thought their art was crap too. The first piece put in front of me was photography (which was a different medium from what we were discussing, but I commented nonetheless) to which I replied that "I am uneducated in photography and I think that in order to appreciate photography you need some kind of education, to me right now it seems pretentious." Everyone basically booed and hissed at me for that and I have been a sort of pariah since.

The only reason they cared for my opinion in the first place is because I'm recognized as one of 'the best' in that community, despite constantly stating I am not and that there are others in the community who could be 100x what I am and they probably will be, if they dedicate themselves to the art. I look back on it and laugh sometimes, other times I wonder what they expected from me.

>>5080612
Nice blog. Where do I subscribe?

>>5080679
maybe I should create a blog. I'm annoying enough.

Thanks though, point taken. Disregard my post. Goodnight

>>5080687
ok

>>5078549
>If we are in agreement and my conclusions are wrong, then yours are as well.
my conclusion is that your conclusions are wrong. if we are in agreement your conclusions are wrong and mine are not.

>>5076017
>Hey let me justify me being a complete chode all the time by claiming that doing so is a good thing!

You aren't fooling anyone retard.

Is 'overrated' a legitimate criticism?

Artist can be pretentious in his interpretation of his art but the art can never be pretentious.

The second its done, book, music, movie, game, it moves to another world without such things. It can have lack of character progress, lack of color, too many hallways, too little violin it it, but it can not be pretentious.

>>5076567
>Whether or not someone is pretentious is entirely in the eye of the beholder
No, it's not. If they are pretending to be something they're not just for attention, they are pretentious. Just because an accusation is often made falsely doesn't make all such accusations invalid.

>>5081470
Not culturally, it's a very individualistic reproach.

>>5076849
You know what's even more annoying than that? People using "mfw" or "tfw" and not posting a reaction face. Yeah.

>>5076320
What would you have preferred? Something more along the line of Skynet or HAL 9000?

>>5081952
>mfw I have no face but I must meme

>>5075988
Yes, but not a particularly helpful one on its own

>>5076341
>everything is subjective
Pure intellectual cancer.

>>5076399
>>5076428
>>5076448
YAAAWWWN

>>5076362
Dumb whore. Fuck off. This is a board for rational men, not emotional cumdumpsters like yourself.