If a lot of you people read the books the /lit/ hivemind thinks is good and you still believe in the modernist worldview, are insufferable envious un-constructive assholes, are leftists, etc. then I conclude that reading those books did not actually work improve your character or soul and that reading them is not as important as you say it is. And that I’m just going to read what I want instead.
>modernist worldviewDefine your terms poltranny or is that a euphemism for things I don’t like?
>>24793263Ok cool
>globalistThere's a case for it. The typical English readers are white, you don't really need to write from the point of view of China or the Congo.>academicThis is what you would expect from people that build their website on "reputable" or at least scholarly sources.>secularThis falls into the academic section really. Ever since the "Flood Geology" controversy about 250 years ago the intellectuals in the West stepped away from having their assumptions begin with the Bible. This would be fine to me but there is definitely a backlash and a bias in academia to discredit or disparage anything Biblical. If the Bible was a goldmine of a bronze-age recollection, then a few scholars have actually treated it that way and there's a decent body of literature out there without getting into the nutters.>progressivismIt's hard to defend progressivism when it just looks like "spitefully tear down whatever is old in society" in practice. Still I have my own motivations for defending the "let's all get along with happy diversity" idea.Also good luck OP, question everything
>>24793263Wikipedia should be banned for degeneracy.
I have no real problem with a site like Wikipedia having a 'default worldview' so long as it's honest about what that is. This is preferable to the site purporting to be objective or something.
>>24793263Post-modern rightwingers being all foucaldians and shit because they're asshurt the encyclopedia - the Enlightenment invention par excellence - of the internet doesn't push for tradlarping. We're done as a species. Nuke this gay planet.
>>24793263>modernist worldview,Modernism is a movement, not a worldview. It comprises the works of both pacifists (Joyce) and staunch fascists or jew-haters (Pound, Celine)
>>24793263>SecularHe is going full Conservapedia huh
>>24793335How did you mix in your schizophrenia, fedora tipping, autism, nihilism, so well with your coping and seething?Truly you are reddit par excellence!
>>24793866Dumb post. I’m right-wing and agree with him
>>24793869Which part?
>>24793294>This is what you would expect from people that build their website on "reputable" or at least scholarly sources.Wikipedia literally uses online news articles, retard.
>>24793866Kek
>>24793263>modernist worldviewSorry, I wasn't born in 1890 to have that. I also wasn't excommunicated for modernism by the catholic church. Can you maybe use simpler words you know the meaning of before embarrassing yourself?
>>24793809Spot on.
>>24793294>Still I have my own motivations for defending the "let's all get along with happy diversity" idea.I think the idea is more: "We're going to do liberalism and you're going to pay for it and your kids are going to be surrounded by it and indoctrinated by it and if you don't like it you're a fucking Nazi child."
>>24793263>I’m just going to read what I want instead.I think that's a positive attiude.
>>24793322https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Erotic_images_of_children
>>24793263Reactionaries really need to be hanged
>>24793876Wikipedia uses whatever sources exist. It is biased toward scholarly sources, if they exist for a topic. They don't always. Current events are not going to have scholarly papers written about them immediately, it takes time to do research and compile results and then peer review. But people will still expect the events to be documented on wikipedia. As a result, many articles for recent events are basically summaries of various news articles. If you're lucky there's quotations from primary sources directly involved in events, but often they don't bother with this because they are waiting for the more serious investigative papers to create the "definitive" version of the article.
Anyone who complains about secularism is not a serious intellectual.
>>24793294>This would be fine to me but there is definitely a backlash and a bias in academia to discredit or disparage anything Biblical.But you're fine with discrediting things from the Quran, Upanishads, or Tao Te Ching? It's telling you go straight for the Bible in opposition to Secularism. I have a feeling you'd be a lot more appreciative of secularism if instead you were forced to treat the Quran as the basis of all truth.
>>24793263this website fucking sucks. can't read anything without getting some dumb woke twitter slop bullshit. don't get me started on the controversial, locked articles.here's a random example talking about punk:>As of 2019, the genre is still overwhelmingly represented by white males.[86] However, as sonic diversity has increased in the genre, so too has its fanbase.[87] This has helped bring greater attention to inclusivity within the scene.[88] Bands like War On Women, Limp Wrist, Gouge Away, and G.L.O.S.S. have helped bring attention to subjects like women's rights, transphobia,[89] rape,[90] mental health,[91] queer rights,[92][93] and misogyny.[94]this is fucking retarded.
>>24793294>This would be fine to me but there is definitely a backlash and a bias in academia to discredit or disparage anything Biblical. If the Bible was a goldmine of a bronze-age recollection, then a few scholars have actually treated it that way and there's a decent body of literature out there without getting into the nutters.The challenging of Biblical literalism, which is the most prominent and long-standing case of textual analysis, eventually led to the discrediting of the Bible as a historical source.
>>24795153Anyone who refers to himself as an "intellectual" is not a serious person.
Another day, another random thing right wingers are gonna cry about. When will you fags stop being such babies?
>>24795553Spoken like a midwit.
>>24793263>And that I’m just going to read what I want instead.that is generally what i do.why you would hold high standards for 4chan is retarded.
>>24793263Checked Larry's xitter, he's mad that wikipedia isn't sufficiently deferential to ZOG instititions like the ADL, is complaining about "Qatari control of the media".Clearly a severely deluded and mentally ill Zio.
>>24795425This would be excellent if we were allowed to use the same tools upon the Quran.(At least Wiki seems good at debunking Hindu/Buddhist mythology too, I haven't heard that anyone over there takes the "out of India" or reincarnation theories seriously.)
