How do we stop him?

How do we stop him?

Other urls found in this thread:

illusorysolace.wordpress.com/2016/11/07/on-rationalizing-love-commodification-individualism-virtualization/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

He's right

this, i actually just browse lit for my entertainment

first time I do this

All these Auschwitz photos are doctored

rate her tastes

B A S I C

More patrician than Veeky Forums

holy fucking Reddit Batman lmao. although I will give her a point for Nathan for you. that guy is hilarious. I love when he talks to the paki that drinks his sons piss and he kinda looses it.

Please dont stop making videos, it's gonna sound reatrded, but the reality is that it is really hard to find women with interesting and entertaining literary youtube channels.

as for the shitposting, dont mind it, it really is a form of endearment, and even when it's not you shouldnt take this shit seriously, it happens all the time, even when it comes to male youtbers. also it's fucking Veeky Forums, our opinion is irrelevant. it's just a jokey joke. Banter, broohaha, ballyhoo, boisterous posturing. I love you.

I don't like her videos because she's a pseud. also it looks like her hymen is definitely not intact so she isn't pure like Carli or Katie. she also has terrible taste compared to them. she is also nothing compared to serraphina now that was a smart teacher who actually knew how to express herself and had amazing taste in /lit that elevated over Carli and Katie. she was also much prettier and wholesome than this fucking strumpet.

but I thought we are only paying attention to ontologicool because she's hot? I'm confused.

>LARPing the litcel
Wow

I wonder if she will meet us in Person. ontologicool wanna get coffee at Lit espresso bar in roncesvalles?

I prefer claire really. Still keeping her model pictures for study though.

Reminder that this was way before she enrolled inhumanities.

Exhibit a):

mini fridge mode. wtf is this body type

>The relationship between romantic love and the forces capitalism may crystalize as an entirely unromantic development in the history of dyadic love as it has the potential to produce and naturalize a conceptualization of love situated in rational terms. Furthermore, the transactional approach to romance under capitalism works to erase the more irrational, synergistic, chaotic, passionate, fluid and humanistic elements of love in support of a more standardized and individualized idea of partnership. Viewing individual lovers as exchangeable or as a sum of rewards offered has always been romantically detrimental and psychological dangerous, only now does it feel slightly less harmful and significantly more practical. As the homage goes, it is not the technology that is the problem, but rather the way we use technology that becomes a problem. The process of psychically rationalizing love coincides with the development of dating apps and virtual lovers and thus it is easy to slip into an uncritical deployment of hyper-consumptive, exchange-based romance. By this, I mean it will not feel foreign to you or your peers if you choose to forgo contact with a current lover when a high-status, physically beautiful stranger expresses interest in the form of a 60 character text message. By embracing a rational-choice approach or social exchange. Pronounced individualism prompts us to wonder whether or not we use love for personal satisfaction, the interdependence between two separate individuals, or whether the option for synergistic dyadic mutuality, a merging of two persons, is still possible. This, perhaps would be a question posed to couples and single people through long-form interviews or even focus groups trying to understand the role and nature of love in our particular sociocultural context. It is worth asking, in an era fixed on the goal of eliminating inefficiency and maximizing benefits, can we extract ourselves from this mindset in the context of romance and steadfastly embrace the complexities of love?

illusorysolace.wordpress.com/2016/11/07/on-rationalizing-love-commodification-individualism-virtualization/

what are you losers talking about?

It's called "the patrician's choice"

None of Wittgensteins lessons have been absorbed by "philosophers". Not by analytic philosophers, who have industrialized the task, and definitely not the postmodernists, who continue to write in such prolix prose as to not be understood. Her point is perfectly capable of being phrased in ordinary language. Damn shame

She looks like you'd shatter her pelvis if you fucked her

Well she is a stupid pseud so what do you really expect. I'm sure Sasha grey could have put it more eloquently.

more.

shut up you boor, it's a college assignment

I was juxtaposing the youtube comment and her critical writing to prove that she is the complete opposite of a "thot"

You do understand that Veeky Forums is majority autismo, yes?

Who cares what you're insignificant and gratuitous point was. My point was that it's ridiculous that people actually write that way and even more egregious that it was for a school assignment.

He's not wrong though.

She's smarter than you bro

Claire...

what is her name

did she walk any shows?

That text posted was pretty standard for an academic paper. It's not impressively written, it's just normal. Like, your average upper division English Major could probably shit out 12,000 words of that in a single night. It's also not at all hard to parse if you actually know literary criticism. That text is from a random paragraph in the middle, so without the context provided by the introduction where she introduces her concepts and defines her terminology, of course it's going to seem obtuse: you skipped the part where she gives you a glossary to understand what she's talking about. The rest of it though is very straight forward literary criticism.

What kind of hat do you guys think this fellow wears?

Better than Kevin's.

who?

just how i like it