/lit/ - Literature

Another step toward the end.

I don't particularly care. These books aren't marketed to me and i'm never going to read them.

>>9138788
this is the only correct answer

>>9138780
the Managerial Psychiatric State strikes again.

The left reads what is comfortable and what they want to read.

We acknowledge every kind of literature

>>9138788
this
also why is 'chronic pain' an offensive aspect, unless it has something to do with maybe mental illness. why would anyone care about that?

I'm as true neutral as much as I can be in politics. If one side is ahead I step on the other one, but I never ever help ether, but this has gone too far. They read 1984 in protest to oppressive president. And then they're the ones spewing double amounts of hate and censoring things that they don't like. I mean, are they transcending irony, or are they just digging themselves a deeper grave?

>>9138818
you already know the answer to that

As long as this "sensitivity index" is only available on request i couldn't care less. If people print the official copies of books with trigger warning annotations then i'd be mad

>>9138780
french AIDS man would have a field day with the whole medicalisation of politics trend. muh society is one huge lunatic asylum and we are all the inmates

>>9138800
Unless it's about any minority

We really, really don't need another fucking thread on this.

>>9138788
>if it doesn't affect me now, I don't care!
You tell em man

Personally I lack the cognitive capacity to see how trends might impact things I like, so it's nice to see I'm not alone!

>>9138888
We also don't need you tone policing the board

If both things went away that would be

C H O I C E
H
O
I
C
E

>>9138780
I'm pretty sure that it applies only to trash bestsellers marketed for the general pleb audience. I don't care.

>>9138780
Offensive to whom? ZOG?

Hm, wonder why they'd do this, maybe its SJWs, or perhaps leftist jewish communist unversity professors, or maybe reptilians trying to make white men wea-

>a person who, for a nominal fee, will scan the book for racist, sexist or otherwise offensive content

Oh, its just neo-liberalism.

>>9138882
lrn2 postcolonial methodology, dumbass

>>9138895
You say it like there is anything that can possibly be done to prevent it. If they think it's profitable they're going to do it. If you don't buy these books in the first place how do you expect to change them doing it?

>>9138860
this, welcome to the madhouse boyos

>>9138948
>If you don't buy these books in the first place how do you expect to change them doing it?

By taking down ZOG once and for all

we're in a world where one little slipup on the part of an editor and writer will fuck a publishing house

i'm not particularly mad about it. any house that cares so much about such stuff isn't one i'll be submitting to.

>>9138948
The answer is simple anon

Lose all your friends and loved ones by complaining relentlessly until you die ingloriously on a hill no one could possibly care about.

You know what your problem is? That you're not more like ME (all advice ever)

Seriously though this shit is gay and irrelevant and I was just playing double's advocate tee hee jokes on you I was only pretending to be retarded

>>9138788
This. I'll stick to books written at least 5 decades ago, please and thank yo

>>9138968
Unironically this. SIEG HEIL!

We already had this discussion.

>>9138990
You better had.

>1959. Naked Lunch published, banned in two cities, overturned by courts following obscenity trial on basis of redeeming social and artistic value.

>2017. No chance.

Oldfag here, I feel sorry for millenials who think this is in any way shape or form normal behaviour. It isn't. It wasn't like this in the 80s or the 90s. We'd have laughed at the thought of shit like this happening one day in the future, we'd long since left it behind we thought.

How does this differ from the MPAA for film or the ESRB for video games?

publishers are hiring people???

>movies
>comics
>music
>games
I guess it's time to rate books.

>>9138780
If by offensive they mean offensive to my particular personal taste, then yes, I am all for it.

>>9139860
>Notes From the Underground Review
>7/10 it's ok - IGN

>>9138882

Mishima, Proust, Joyce. . .

>>9139884
>Da Vinci Code
>reminds of the first time I played call of duty *sheds tear*
>10/10 - IGN

When I was a kid movie stores were always refusing to rent r rated movies to me, but nobody batted an eyelid at the books I bought.

I don't remember there ever being an age policy. I wonder if that will change now.

Necessary step towards fighting fascists like Drumpf.