And as for this:
That's a false dichotomy
my summary was literally an attempt to represent your previous comment. You said:
Nonetheless, this place … is not for organizing a forum to convince others through eloquence and sophistication … we come here only to show the world we left with sweet fuck-all.
That essentially means "this place is not for rational discussion, it is for the free expression of disillusionment".
[–] 18473243? ago
My whole point is that crude language is contrary to beauty, logic, rhetoric, and societal standards, so relying on crude language in a sense does constitute abandoning virtue.
If you are "abandoned virtue", then don't cheapen yourself by lowering your standards.
First of all, "whom" should only be used as an object; using it incorrectly just comes across as a poor attempt to look intelligent. Apologies, that's a pet peeve of mine.
Second, being misunderstood is not equivalent with greatness. Plenty of not-great people are misunderstood everyday. If you mean that one should hold to his convictions regardless of societal pressure, then sure, that's fine. But don't mistake public disapproval for a sign of greatness; that's not a sound connection to make.
I'm struggling to understand this since your grammar is a bit confusing, but are you saying that you no longer try to insert "explaining sentences" but prefer to present your thoughts in a way that is "true and piercing"? I agree that true and piercing rhetoric is important, but that neither excludes proper logic nor includes logically vapid vulgarities.