Can there be any dissent that Norm Macdonald is officially /ourguy/

Can there be any dissent that Norm Macdonald is officially /ourguy/

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=YTPxJH7UNWw
youtube.com/watch?v=vDCasn_qM1s
youtube.com/watch?v=kv0iXXAgnhM
youtube.com/watch?v=3ab6LWXeND
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

This is a Freudian Jewish Orthodox board with Communist Characteristics though.

Norm is very tricky with words. He's a rascal. Notice how that's not actually a compliment. Pynchon is undeniably knowing. Anyone could see that he knows more than other writers, in an information sense. But Norm has been adament that in art he prefers Truth to mere facts. Judging from his tastes and how he talks about literature, I'm certain he doesn't enjoy Pynchon.

Based Norm

There's no disagreement about that. There's a thread about how literary he is every week.

Like three months ago everyone here hated Culture of Critique goy. Are you all shills?

Huh? I'm and I haven't read that book.

This is about Norm Macdonald, not Kevin.

...

Norm called Dostoevsky shit while praising Tolstoy and Gogol

/ourguy/ then

He also hates BEE and Atwood and waifus Munro
literally /ourguy/

Shame that alt-righters seem to claim him because he's not a fan of PC-ness

>I've just read an incredible article where "The Handmaid's Tale", a sub-par piece of science-fi trash, is defended by its author. The author, who rightly should be apologizing for her execrable prose, not only defends it but calls it "timely". The book has been made in to some sort of cable mini-series. I'm Canadian, so had to suffer through this book as a young person.
>It's one of those cheap, dystopian tracts. The difference with this one is it has a deeply paranoid feminist look into the future. The story is as impossible as most of these " frightening looks into the future". But to call it timely, when the possibility of this fiction ever becoming fact even more of a joke, is just a cynical cash-grab.

>One might not like the premise, the meandering non-plot, the ugly themes, the subliterate dialogue and the dull fillibustering.
>I would say "unpublishable" would describe her style.
>I don’t hate Margaret Atwood. I hate bad writing. It isn’t her fault and I’d never have anything but pity for the talentless. But the Canadian school system makes you read her.

>It is nauseating to consider that through shameless self-promotion someone like Margaret Atwood could dare consider herself Munro’s peer. Unlike Munro, Margaret Atwood is incapable of writing a novel, yet churns out chum at an alarming rate. Munro is the greatest writer Canada has ever produced but feels herself incapable of writing a novel. On the flip side sits Margaret Atwood.
>What do I care if it's well-regarded. I have eyes to read. Everyone but me is welcome to love it. But I am right.

Is Norm right?

>having such a worldview that frogposters can claim something and have it influence you

evaluate your existence, user

>being this deranged, obsessive and pathological
lol

people who prefer tolstoy to dostoevsky are always superficial and pretentious in some way

i hope the alt-right claims food and water so you die

I think so, I've felt similar things about her novels.

Which Munro would be the best one to start with, or to get acquainted with?

For what it's worth Im Canadain too, but Hand Maidens Tale was optional among others while I was in HS.

Alice Munroe.

Never came across the Handmaid's Tale until after highschool though myself.

100 percent.
I've never heard of this guy before but I'm predisposed to like him just from this.

I meant which one of Alice Monro's books would be a good place to start.

Comedian fired from SNL, frequent guest on late night TV. He gets called a comedian's comedian.
youtube.com/watch?v=YTPxJH7UNWw

What no I love Norm I would just rather those lowlifes not believe that he's preaching to them

youtube.com/watch?v=vDCasn_qM1s

seeing as how he rejects normal sexuality I would agree

>I dont like people who have different opinions than me

i prefer dost, but bruh, cool it

i liked oryx and crake though. then again i am actually retarded.

expand plz

this

this also

>believing media dichotomy to sell fear-calibrated intellectual product

never heard of a think tank, eh?

His aloof and ascetic schtick is definitely not literary. He's acting like a sixteen year old who just became an atheist and it's because he's been hanging around a bunch of delusional narcissists for too many years rather than coming to any awakening. Sick of these didactic celebrities no matter what their message is because it always comes down to representing this crafted image of themselves. If he rejects the unexamined life so much he should just disappear rather than having to prove to everyone how much more enlightened he's become.

He called Pynchon the greatest living writer and met him personally.

Norm has this weird effect on people where they project all their own beliefs onto him, think anything he says that conforms to their beliefs is said in sincerity, and anything he says that doesn't conform to their beliefs is some subtle, multiple-layers-of-irony, genius joke.

>expand plz
Tolstoy's writing is very surface-of-things and overly "literary". It's pretty to look at, and genius story telling, but it simply has no depth compared to Dostoevsky. Preferring Tolstoy over Dostoevsky says a lot about a person's character.

yeah, i've noticed that as well
>He's acting like a sixteen year old
I'm starting to think Veeky Forums has some kind of prejudice against sixteen year olds, because it seems to be a common criticism leveled at people they don't like.

You're a real jerk!

>I'm starting to think Veeky Forums has some kind of prejudice against sixteen year olds, because it seems to be a common criticism leveled at people they don't like.

Its classic projection

Everyone on Veeky Forums always goes on about how clever his comedy is, but I honestly have no clue what's so funny. I've watched tons of videos of his "best bits" from YouTube and have found nothing. Maybe I need to watch a whole episode? Can someone link me a clip of him being funny?

youtube.com/watch?v=kv0iXXAgnhM

>but I honestly have no clue what's so funny

His mastery of timing is big part of it.
At the very least, you should be able to appreciate his comedic timing.

His delivery is also astoundingly good, but I'll concede that this is partly a matter of taste.

Hypothetical Introduction to Norm graph. This is a first draft guys. Start with the roast of Bob Saget. Then the YouTube awards. From there go to either his Conan interviews or his podcasts, I’d suggest the Stephen Merchant one if you understand Norm’s confrontational ways, and his Super Dave interview if you don’t, from there you can watch everything else he has.

No he didn't retard. That was McCarthy.

you forgot the correspondence dinner

You're the one projecting here. My point is that he's very careful with his words. If the person had asked if he *liked* Pynchon, he either would have ignored it or maybe said no. But they asked instead what he thought of the man. And he gave a measured response that is easily misinterpreted. He does this all the time. He likes to speak his mind but is sort of Hermetic about it.

correspondant's

Barfyman, no you cannot rape Norm's mother with a knife

You're embarrassing yourself, user.

Not at all. People on this board are children.

He's probably the greatest "delivery" comedian. Letterman literally calls him the greatest. Watch more of his stuff, his style will grow on you.

But biggest takeaway is that he is a master of delivery

>Having read Norm MacDonald's book and watched many hours of his content on YouTube, I, an adult, am intimately familiar with the celebrity comedian's near-mystical personality.

user is making good posts, you're the fool who needs to be quiet

Thanks. And as for his last post I went through a period of about two years where watching and listening to obscure Norm clips was one of my main hobbies, wherein tracking down his thoughts on literature was a sub-hobby. His tastes are generally that of the person who goes to literature for distilled life and wisdom. The kind of writers who lived life and observed it more carefully than most other humans and put it down on paper, creating something of a second society. Pynchon isn't that kind of writer. His world is cartoonish, flimsy, and his ideas are more transitory than hardwon or timetested. These aren't value judgments. I actually like Pynchon a fair amount. I don't share Norm's tastes generally. But it's a different thing.

>Judging from his tastes and how he talks about literature, I'm certain he doesn't enjoy Pynchon.
Yeah, great post. Claiming that you know with certainty what authors a celebrity enjoys is neither arrogant nor stupid.

Since people on this sub are children, how old are you?

All this post amounts to is you getting mad that the other poster has done his homework and you are more comfortable talking out your ass.

Learning about a persons attitudes and tastes isn't that hard dude.
If you think he's wrong give an actual argument instead of just getting pissy a person dares to have an opinion

Gogol is most definitely superior. Tolstoy is debatable

I remembered it but I wasn’t sure where to put it

I don't care about Norm's opinion of Pynchon, it's not worth discussing. My argument from the start has been that Norm's fans read into his words deeper meaningd that aren't actually there. They then use this to proclaim him a genius and feel superior to others. is a perfect example of that.

How do I get to this point? Also how do I wrap my head around the fact that I will inevitably die.

And that 'argument' is groundless. It's nothing but a vague intuition that's now been blown out of the water. Now go find a new thread for you to go restating banal and flimsy points in.

>read into his words deeper meaningd that aren't actually there

How do you know?

>How do you know?
Read with me.

"I find Pynchon to be the most knowing writer of our time."

>Notice how that's not actually a compliment. Pynchon is undeniably knowing. Anyone could see that he knows more than other writers, in an information sense.
Yes, that is an assessment of what Norm wrote.

>Judging from his tastes and how he talks about literature, I'm certain he doesn't enjoy Pynchon.
That is arrogant conjecture presented as fact.

No, I'm right. You're wrong and trying to save face.

Dude you need to rethink your priorities

I've seen that way too many times with Norm. It's all over the comments of any video where he says something controversial. There's always a few fans reading way too much into what he says, and they all have their own pet theories explaining how they KNOW that X is Norm's real opinion on Y etc etc

Why? Because I got in an argument on an imageboard while I watched a tedious television show? I'm not the guy who spent two years watching YouTube clips trying to deduce another man's taste in authors.

If he enjoyed Pynchon, he would have made that point explicitly like he's done with McCarthy, Munro, and Carver. He's not shy about that.

You have a very weak arguing style. You must be an INTP.

You sound like a Capricorn.

you must be an Aries and a number 8 in numerology. Probably a 4 of wands in the Tarot as well.

>more salty fags who hate INTPs
holy shit, this thread isn't even about mbti, can you guys give it a rest

Samefag. Comeplete with making the second message in lowercase so as to try and distinguish the two. What a coward.

Is he using "knowing" in Rorty's sense? If so, mfw

idgaf about norm, but how does rorty use "knowing"

>I've lost the argument but I'm going to keep shitposting so I can get the last word in and feel good about myself.

I'm sure he wanted that interpretation to be considered.

More projecting.

Nope, my declaration of victory went unchallenged earlier, so that statement isn't applicable to my posts.

19 year old INTPs are such pitiful people.

Pleb

More projecting.

Projecting my unfortunate wealth of experience in dealing with your kind, yeah.

As a 22 year old with an Associates Degree in Norm MacDonald's Literature Preferences, would you suggest I go into the field? Is there much opportunity there?

>Although I prefer “knowingness” to Bloom’s word “resentment,” my view of these
substitutions is pretty much the same as his. Bloom thinks that many rising young
teachers of literature can ridicule anything but can hope for nothing, can explain
everything but can idolize nothing. Bloom sees them as converting the study of literature
into what he calls “one more dismal social science”—and thereby turning
departments of literature into isolated academic backwaters. American sociology
departments, which started out as movements for social reform, ended up training
students to clothe statistics in jargon. If literature departments turn into departments
of cultural studies, Bloom fears, they will start off hoping to do some badly needed
political work, but will end up training their students to clothe resentment in jargon.

He not good. People like to like him to feel intelligent.
best comedian is Emo Philips
youtube.com/watch?v=3ab6LWXeND

so, rorty uses the word "know" to mean "resent? thats werid why does he do that

Terribly unfunny

Not really, the excerpt I quoted is probably not adequate. He's basically arguing (the essay is "The Inspirational Value of Great Works of Literature") that approaching a text or whatever with the attitude that it can be explained totally, that one can "know more" or "know better" than the text is bad for the humanities

This is the same way /pol/tards talked about Drumpf before his retardation became undeniable even for them.

>approaching a text or whatever with the attitude that it can be explained totally, that one can "know more" or "know better" than the text is bad for the humanities
maybe you aren't interested in opening up a discussion on this, but my two cents is that that's kind of dumb. "knowing" isn't an attitude, you either do in fact know something or you don't. If a person claims to know better he should be able to demonstrate it more or less adequately, and if he can in fact do so then more power to him.

Well, what Rorty has in mind in literature departments are Foucauldian new historicists, Marxists, etc. "Knowingness" here means something like believing one can produce a total explanation of a text (which you can't really do)

Its a trite observation though. Did anyone ever claim to be presenting a complete interpretation?

I'd recommend you just read the essay. I'm too drunk to explain it.

no one knows which of the two it was you faggots

I'm none of the anons you talked to, but I have to comment; while reading you post I felt you were an extremely disgusting person

>t. Hasn’t read Anna Karenina
He did everything Dosto could and more

wew

REMINDER THAT HE HATES DOSTOYEVSKY BECAUSE HE REMINDS HIM OF HIS GAMBLING PROBLEM

norm Veeky Forumskino

Everyone still does hate CoCposter

Dosto is a cheap sensationalist