Tfw this guy can't make an analysis of MacBeth without pushing his gender theory, feminist, soyboy agenda

desu he's not wrong. Macbeh's encouraged masculinity is manipulable and without any sort of familial feeling behind it, compared to Malcolm. It's not the whole tragedy but it's a layer.

>After that disaster that was his crash course geography
What? How could you fuck up geography?

>Just ignore the fact that was his wife that pushed him to do the treason stuff

That's because she left her feminine side and became a man, thus evil.

t. cheeto-man

This is proof that the jewish bolesheviks are tring to breed out whiteness and masculinity. Try the redpill, soyboys.
Take a stand against white genocide. Get /pol/ and /r9k/ on board. This guy must be stopped

He talked about her as well, did you even watch the video?

it's not the jewish bolsheviks but capitalist rational progress that is trying to 'breed out whiteness and masculitnity'.muh intersectional feminism/genderqueer theory type ideas are popular precisely because they are the most efficient way to manage large populations under postindustrial capitalism. Do you think Disney and PepsiCo embraced 'feminism' because they are good, empathetic caring people? All ambiguity is to be liquidated, under the rule of a caste of managerial gynocrats who will ensure total atomised 'equality' for all time.

try the redpill, capitalism is great and human nature. This is being done by the jewish communists in power to get rid of white superiority and culture

as if defining masculinity hasn't always been women's work

Can't tell which one of you is supposed to be the satirical one

Yeah, by manipulating his 'manipulable' masculinity. Fuck dude.

This one is pretty obviously the "pretend to be a dipshit /pol/tard for (you)s" guy and the other one is just a rational criticism

ah yes it's going to be John Green who destroys the white race. How could we not have seen that a moderately successful youtube man would end western culture AND men at the same time?????

how did you fall for that bait?

>how can male shame be real if cheerios aren't degraded with repeated dicking?
Checkmate.

The first episode they put the classic triggerpuff and said the theory promoted in 'Guns, Germs & Steel' is racist.
Plot twist, literaly, the theory is that people in one place are forced to learn to use the resources of their place and some societys do better because of their understanding of resources and so on.
Nothing that isen't somewhat obvious, right? For the triggerpuff it was, [breaths deeply] SUPER RACIST.
Then there was a online shitstorm over this (Sargon of Akkad even made a video on the topic), and the backlash was so hard they removed the series, made a official apology video and never more touched on the subject.
Da hell, should I get it?
Ain't gonna bite. Fuck off.

No I didn't and I wont waste my time.
I already saw some of his videos and no, I wont lose anymore of my time with him.

The man writes young adult fiction but he almost certainly has better reading comprehension than 90% of the people on this board.

Are you seriously going to tell me that those themes don't exist in Macbeth, you people are monkeys.

Then why did you feel the need to comment? People like you are everything that’s wrong with Veeky Forums.

I'am surprised half of his fanbase actually disliked that video and didn't just accept it with open arms

hooktube.com/watch?v=9mGvZXvRNLs

>soyboy
Is this the shortest-lived meme yet? Barely see it posted now.

> literally thinking it's not real

R*dditors looking for "dank memes" butchered it and made it normie-tier.

>made a official apology video and never more touched on the subject.
I remember John Green made a post, I think in Tumbrl, which he later deleted, where he basically said everything in the video was right and the only problem people had was that the host was an empowered woman or something like that.

Can you even call it an agenda if it's just straight up pandering?

Wouldn't Jamie be an anti-hero to hero?

it was always normie tier you fucking faggot, nu-male was normalfag shit too. Only bugman was a real meme and it was also ruined by ant people whiggers posting it. The other two are fucking garbage. Nu-male is YT comments section faggotry, soyboy is as reddit and LMFAOOOO BRUH xD as i can possibly imagine. Bugman is an insult to someone’s soul, their genes, their lineage, their race and their mind. It is the modern untermensch, it is worse than heathen, worse than degenerate its the most scathing possible indictment of someone as human that’s been formulated and it literally comes from the introduction to Zarathustra, coined by Nietzsche, expanded by Spengler, alluded to by Yockey and others. Its esoteric, you fucking animals have no right to use that word.

No fucking way hahaha

...

>Literally just says the theory is false and gives no counter evidence to it
>lumps Aristotle in with nazi thinkers
>says we should listen more to social scientists as opposed to evolutionary biologists
holy shit, this is too fucking good

this is really excellent bait my bugdude

More like villain to hero

>only counter-example is tombs above ground in the creole, nigger infested part of America

56% retarded.

Evola was swine
really cuts right to the core upboated

Ugh, those SJW warriors again, huh. #groanzone

yeah this lol
you can't pretend these themes don't exist in macbeth and that toxic masculinity isn't real. if that's all you're discussing though, then you've missed out on a lot. also i fucking hate the way he speaks/edits his videos

That was terrible. All about politics, nothing about the literary.

I'm not watching a John Green video because fuck that pseud, but Macbeth has interesting things to say about gender and sex.
>whaaa this upsets me!!!
Try something different than literature.

>Macbeth has interesting things to say about gender and sex.
Unless you can provide direct quotes from it that say something on either subject, it's all just other people reading into it the things they'd like it to be saying.

There are several passages on manhood, in fact its a pretty driver of the play. Did you even read it?

Whoa this

>There are several passages on manhood
It's a tragedy, not an essay. Whatever comments any characters make on "manhood" are in service of their characterization, the plot, i.e. the aesthetic experience of the play.

get a load of this pseud, probably some fag with a theater not literature background

Honestly I know very little about John Green but that's quite the feat.

Not him but there's a ton.
Lady Macbeth shitting on Macbeth's masculinity for changing his mind about murdering Duncan
>Macbeth: I dare to all that may become a man; who dares do more is none.
>Lady Macbeth: What beast was't then, that made you break this enterprise to me? When you durst do it, then you were a man; and, to be more than what you were, you would be so much more the man.
A bit later Macbeth comments on her cold-bloodedness
>Bring forth men-children only; for thy undaunted mettle should compose nothing but males.

In contrast Macduff understands that there's more to being a man than just being cold and hard when Malcolm tells him to stop moping about his family being murdered
>Malcolm: Dispute it like a man.
>Macduff: I shall do so; but I must also feel it like a man.

I'm not going to bother with more examples because there are several good ones in the video.

>pseud
Cute. Not an argument, though.

A work can act out one purpose while expressing insight into another. As was pointed out in the video Macbeth's manhood is clearly a destructive, non-fatherly kind that Lady Macbeth misguidedly incites in herself and her husband - in contrast to the empathetic, familial-patriarchal manhood Malcolm incites. I'm not trying to justify this as a gender study, i still believe they're just parts of the impetus unfolding the primary, real theme of the play (fate - free will, man's proleptic degeneration), but a gender element is discernible. It's something Shakespeare actually played around with frequently.

>implying argumentation was my goal

keep on pseudin on

See You seem to be confusing characterization and plot devices with grand statements about subjects which extend beyond what is visible in the work. We can maybe learn something about the human experience from the play, and art in general, but to say "Macbeth has interesting things to say about gender and sex" is a misreading. The work itself says nothing about it. That's not the purpose of the work; to be an effective drama is.

take it to reddit or goodreads, fag

>A work can act out one purpose while expressing insight into another.
This separation wasn't initially expressed and it's certainly not expressed in the video. That's why the video is crap. It's not a crash course on literature in the fucking slightest.

You could discredit any interpretation by saying this, and it sounds like a really boring way to read literature. I mean you can of course read it like that, but it's not something that proves you right and Green wrong, or vice versa.

Well I'm not trying to defend John Green, I do think he spends too much time on it and his intent is clear.

>reading literature for the aesthetic effect sounds boring
Well, I can't say I understand that even remotely, but alright.

Green is wrong though. The interpretation is not directly visible in the work. That means what he is talking about has nothing to do with the literary merit of the work. He is not talking about literature, per se.

>Well, I can't say I understand that even remotely, but alright.
This is what I mean
>The interpretation is not directly visible in the work
What interpretation is? If the author explicitly states "hey guys I'm commenting on X" then it's no longer an interpretation even.

But I suspect you're mostly trolling at this point anyway.

>trolling

i think it's a retard that got lost on the way to reddit

i think green is right in zeroing in on the importance of lady Macbeths transformation. I interpreted it more as an existential wish for absolute freedom more than a gender thing though.

>What interpretation is?
Interpretations claiming to see any representation in a work with function outside of creating an aesthetic experience.

Also, what the author states is irrelevant. When experiencing the play, those statements don't service insight, but characterization and plot, drama.

>attempting to delineate non-literary analysis of literature in order to preserve proper literary analysis is trolling
Whatever you say.

This guy was posting in another thread. From what I can tell he's of the mind that aethsteics reign supreme in all interpretations and that the aesthetic experience is the primary purpose of all art. I take issue with this idea mainly because he seems to think this means literature and art in general has no subtext which is reductionist.

>inb4 the aesthetic experience is bottomless therefore any other interpretation is reductionist

This makes the implicit assumption that the aesthetic experience and political, social, and philosophical interpretations are at all mutually exclusive, and that these interpretations can trigger such an experience by reconfiguring the raw sense data of experiencing art into an altogether different aethstetic revelation.

>When experiencing the play, those statements don't service insight, but characterization and plot, drama.
Again, there’s no objective way of showing that this reading is any more valid that Green’s. You can certainly say that you don’t agree with his interpretation, but to say that he’s just wrong is childish.
Would you like to expand on why you think the mentions of masculinity are simply part of the plot, as opposed to a larger message?

>there’s no objective way of showing that this reading is any more valid that Green’s
Sure there is. Look at the work. Is it Shakespeare writing a formal essay, or a tragedy / fictional drama? Is it Shakespeare directly addressing the audience in a letter or treatise on the subject of gender and sex, titling it perhaps "On the Subject of Gender and Sex", or is he showing us a character in a play in an exchange with another character along the dynamic thread of plot? Is all the beauty and elegance of his language and drama just there as consequence? Look at the work and make your pick.

Joseph Butler:
>Every thing is what it is, and not another thing.

No dude. His wife uses her femininity to manipulate Macbeths LACK of masculinity. Fuck dude.

I laughed out loud

I'm glad you find your lack of sensibilities humorous. It's the next best thing to actually having them.

Do you really believe all you said? You sound rather intelligent (unless I'm being a fool for falling for your trolling), so why would you say a dumb thing like that? You're putting blinds on your reason, and that's not sensible at all.

More like villain to Sonic OC

Goddamn GRRM took a dive in quality after Storm

Macbeth is about those things though...

Read up some aesthetic theory you turbopleb

Oh it can't be that bad.
>15 seconds in
>"the plays treatment of gender roles" given preference
Ahhhhh

soy confirmed

>that post
>rational criticism
lol

It wasn't that good in the first place.

Green brings up several quotes and examples of feminine meter in the video.

very Greenesque thread

>dat industrial-strength girdle

Livepoo are doing quite well in CL desu

Who cares though. It's not like anyone gives a shit. Only women are important.

>You're putting blinds on your reason
How do you figure? At no point is it being said that there isn't anything in art that can teach us something about humanity.

for some unknown reason I watched a few of his history crash course videos. I remember in one video in he talked about women not being able to vote and insisted on doing an aside where he said he felt so strongly about this issue he couldn't not mention how much of an injustice it was. In another video he covered the caste system in india and said that it was a very effecient way of ordering a society and nothing else. He's just regurgitating shit someone told him would make him look smart and cultured and emotionally mature but clearly isn't any of those things. I'd accuse him of virtue signalling but that term has been ruined by the kind of people who say soyboy.