One-star review of classic literature

>Nietzsche review
>1 star
>entire review is "he was a misogynist"

What le fug

...

really makes you think

who's dat dude on goodreads who has read like every postmodern tome? It may be the same one who read women and men in a weekend while snowed in

>five star review of classic book
>just talks about how beautiful the prose is
>literally nothing else about the book mentioned

>3 star rating
>Sebastian
Everytime.

>reading for anything other than the prose

What the fuck are you even doing here?

But that's all that maters

kys plen

Why else would you read for, mr king?

Please be bait.

>reading for plot

would you watch a good movie in 144p?

Would you watch shit being smeared on a camera at 2k?

>4 star review
>reviewer is a philosophy professor who makes youtube videos
>its his own book

>writing reviews
>reading reviews

Reviewing something by yourself is like jerking off in public

And of course you would give it four stars

"It's just such a great book that I wrote here but I'm not boastful or in love with myself, to show this I will detract one star. Four out of five buy it now :)"

faggot

This

Bad point. You're saying good prose is the ONLY reason to read.

Yes, it's called Lolita and it's the most enthralling tour de France of narratology in existence

That user said how that was a weird thing to do and he asked him what's wrong with it and he didn't respond because he was intimidated by his phrasing.

it would evoke a stronger reaction than watching the same shit in 144p

>ask classmates what they're researching
>male classmates are all researching fascinating, unique, or at least ambitious things
>woman: "Misogyny in Rome"
>woman: "Misogyny and Hamlet"
>woman: "The intersection of misogyny and periods in Hamlet"
>woman: "Women"
>woman: "Opinions about women having sex in Weimar newspapers"
>woman: "Women in the work of Robert Musil"
>woman: "Vagina"
>woman: "I have a vagina"
>woman: "I'm a woman btw. Vagina here"
>woman: "Sex and periods in gender"
>woman: "Woman perceptions of woman, ,vagina, cooters breasts woman period I'm on my period clitorises in the work of the band Oingo Boingo and Hamlet's Perception of Clitoris Vagina Gender Studies"
>woman: "Queering Gender in Medieval Manuscripts: Your period or MY period?"
>woman: "Misogyny, Periods, and You: Ernst Cassirer on Substance, Function, and My Gay Love Affair with Gender Studies"
>woman: "Women in 'Woman's Work': Gendering Gender in the Social Sciences"
>woman: "Prostitution and Gender in Antebellum Calcutta"
>woman: "Gender"
>woman: "Sex and gender studies"
>woman: "Tampons, pads, and ironclads: Stonewall Jackson and Freebleeding"
>woman: "Einstein contra Bergson: Who rapes me more by having existed?"

I really don't like to go full /pol/ but it's absolutely disgusting how prevalent this is in female students and teachers alike, it's like they literally can't think of anything else. I had the misfortune of taking an ancient history class in high school with a female teacher, and very specifically we studied "the roles of women", "attitudes towards women", "patriarchy in x civilisation" for every module of study, by far the most common theme. Even the most unassuming and modest of girls in the class could open up about how they were studying women's "issues" through history near exclusively.

Identity politics are disgusting. Instead of elevating people to greater heights they effectively just humiliate and demean them. Third wave feminist insult the female sex more than than any redpilled fedora, conservative or alt-right has ever managed to.

...

so sad, so accurate

Amazing post

Biggest KEK post of the week

>"Tampons, pads, and ironclads: Stonewall Jackson and Freebleeding"

Fucking dying here.

>Reviewer is an Indian.
>Every sentence contains an ellipses.

Superior education should be forbidden to women again.

HA

>be me
>asked to be a judge for a uni poetry reading competition
>first girl comes up to the mic
>lean over to other judge "I bet it's about her vagina"
>her first words were "get your hands off my vagina"
>roll my eyes
>she sees it
>starts to stutter and cry
>only managed to get thru it when the audience snapped their fingers in support
>other judges decide to award her the "victor"

and people ask why I'm a misanthrope

How was the poem?

>Tour de France
I pray to God this was autocorrect

Perfect

> be teacher
> some racket called 'Facing History" shows up for our 'professional development'
> Balding Mexicanish sloganeer stands up to cue the 'look how much we hate genocide, give us your shekels video,' a very slick piece of normie-targeting propaganda.
> can't contain myself
> raise hand while he's clicking the lights on.
> that was a wildly optimistic message. That video, as I saw it, seemed to suggest that the key to solving the world's worst problems is better history education. Is that right?
> Well, he says (surprised but able to chuckle) it's true we do believe strongly in our approach, stressing the idea of choices and the horrifying consequences taking our choices lightly. Students learn about that, that choices have consequences and that the wrong choices can do great harm to others. History is the story of individuals making choices, that's how we approach history. We believe we can teach history in a way that provides students with a balanced framework they can apply when they are faced with a choice. This leaning will give them a tremendous advantage over others, who don't understand how to think about how choices, sure, are yours to make, but to be responsible decision-makers we must also think about how our choices can inflict harmful damage on others.
> later in his talk he says, 'we don't teach students right from wrong, we teach them how to think about these things.'
>stoned, my hand was up before I realized I had raised it."
>"Yes?"
> You don't teach right from wrong?
> "No."
>You don't tell students that genocide is wrong?
>Oh, of course. Genocide is wrong.
>So you do teach right from wrong.

Did I BHTFO or what?

I'll never understand why people do that.

>one-star review of classic literature
>reviewer he/she is Anglo-Saxon.
(Plus:Classics wrote in English are all shit)

forgot pic

No, what idiocy are you on about?

I think you mean every sentence has ".." at the end. Not a period, not an ellipsis, but this stupid vague meaningless bullshit that has no point but to show off how stupid they are.

I'm on the idiocy of a modern phenomenon. Leftist academia bolstered by like-minded wealthy donors and politicians are nearly complete in their completion of a MORAL system under which they can be unified, decisive, and deadly. Today purely moral arguments are hidden in assertions like "this is just not what America is about," which is a purely moral assertion.

But appeals to "America" cannot contain the complex moral system the left has developed. My expectation is that this new moral system will be backed by what I would call "Our Shared Hope for the Human." Done right, this could be a positive approach that, juxtaposed with Trump, could take on a certain edge. This campaign could be totally apolitical and it wouldn't be, because now everything is poisoned by politics.

>shit-tier contentless post
>OP is baiting the r9k crowd for (you)s

Fuck you
t.Hemingway

You're an idiot

>5 star review of your favorite book
>It's a shemale

capped

...

>"Einstein contra Bergson: Who rapes me more by having existed?"

>two-star review
>"Let me start off by saying that I only got halfway through before giving up."

This so much, kill every anglo

>>woman: "Opinions about women having sex in Weimar newspapers"
this one's interesting if you're a Reichian but if you're into Reich you're already more batshit than a women

great retort

nathan "JR" gaddis?

why do you guys go to shitty SJW universities?

>be in uni
>working on an interesting thesis
>it's too hard / not coming together the way you'd hoped
>switch to something about women for guaranteed pass

i'm a dude and its just so much easier to get marks this way lol