File: 1637277053778.jpg (153.21 KB, 948x975, 316:325, 1559977471510303786.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
At first I thought I'm just getting older, but whenever I find a place for myself, sooner or later I realize how bad it becomes. Before I blink, the place I got used to is just gone. I don't know how to get over this.
All the people who used to be there are pushed to the side by the newcomers who doesn't care about the place or it's story. It's like all the new people just outnumber the old userbase and shape everything into their image rather than acclimate themselves to the culture.
Is the spike of popularity so detrimental?
All the people who used to be there are pushed to the side by the newcomers who doesn't care about the place or it's story. It's like all the new people just outnumber the old userbase and shape everything into their image rather than acclimate themselves to the culture.
Is the spike of popularity so detrimental?
I dunno, I know lots of people here that are still here after 5+ years, there are probably new people too though I guess. Things change, it's just how life works, even if it's the same people they are the same people who are in different circumstances then they were when they were X years younger or so.
I don't see why the current state of the internet is a bad thing.
Newsflash: it's always been "bad."
It's been bad for awhile now.
http://www.textfiles.com/100/leeches!.hum
Ask yourself, what is the purpose of the forum/imageboard that you're mourning over?
Why do you go to these places, and what do you get out of them?
Who cares about the culture or the story? Why preserve it?
I sincerely mean it when I say it's just a waste of time for me.
Maybe it's mild practice for expressing myself since, in all other respects, I am a hermit.
Newsflash: it's always been "bad."
It's been bad for awhile now.
http://www.textfiles.com/100/leeches!.hum
Ask yourself, what is the purpose of the forum/imageboard that you're mourning over?
Why do you go to these places, and what do you get out of them?
Who cares about the culture or the story? Why preserve it?
I sincerely mean it when I say it's just a waste of time for me.
Maybe it's mild practice for expressing myself since, in all other respects, I am a hermit.
>>250305
>Newsflash: it's always been "bad."
I swear I see this sentiment popup everywhere any time anybody has a complaint about anything declining. I'm sure it's a psyop designed to make you think things aren't getting worse in general.
>Newsflash: it's always been "bad."
I swear I see this sentiment popup everywhere any time anybody has a complaint about anything declining. I'm sure it's a psyop designed to make you think things aren't getting worse in general.
>>250308
When you grow up, you will realize the world is too boring of a place for "psyops" to exist.
There is no mystical cabal going around the internet including Wizchan just to influence your mind.
Nobody cares about you. Or me. Or anyone else.
All anyone cares about is getting as much money short term as they can to make life into a carnival and amusement park for themselves before they die.
When you grow up, you will realize the world is too boring of a place for "psyops" to exist.
There is no mystical cabal going around the internet including Wizchan just to influence your mind.
Nobody cares about you. Or me. Or anyone else.
All anyone cares about is getting as much money short term as they can to make life into a carnival and amusement park for themselves before they die.
>>250299
Its a blessing in disguise. The old 4chan was great, sure you had to take the good with the bad, there was disgusting and disturbing shit you couldn't totally avoid being exposed to, and there was a lot of toxicity in general. The bad of the old chan culture is mostly gone, especially the worst of it, but so is all of the good. At the end of the day though, it was all just a massive waste of time. If you remember it clearly, and honestly, you wanted to pull yourself away from it. If it meant quitting it entirely to trade for the life you actually wanted, you would have done it in a heart beat, but you weren't able to. We remember the past more fondly then it actually was.
Its still a shame that there's nothing funny or clever or creative or really entertaining or fun at all on the chans anymore though. Or almost anywhere on the entire internet. When was the last time you actually laughed at something on a chan? I can't even remember. You can find stuff on youtube thats funny but never as funny as the stuff and people that used to be all over the internet.
And even youtube tier humour has been declining for the past few years or more. Take a channel like ownage pranks and compare the content now and in the past couple of years to the earlier content.
Or consider the same for sick animation/marc m, or david firth, compare their content from the early - late 2000's / early 10's to basically any year since then.
Its a blessing in disguise. The old 4chan was great, sure you had to take the good with the bad, there was disgusting and disturbing shit you couldn't totally avoid being exposed to, and there was a lot of toxicity in general. The bad of the old chan culture is mostly gone, especially the worst of it, but so is all of the good. At the end of the day though, it was all just a massive waste of time. If you remember it clearly, and honestly, you wanted to pull yourself away from it. If it meant quitting it entirely to trade for the life you actually wanted, you would have done it in a heart beat, but you weren't able to. We remember the past more fondly then it actually was.
Its still a shame that there's nothing funny or clever or creative or really entertaining or fun at all on the chans anymore though. Or almost anywhere on the entire internet. When was the last time you actually laughed at something on a chan? I can't even remember. You can find stuff on youtube thats funny but never as funny as the stuff and people that used to be all over the internet.
And even youtube tier humour has been declining for the past few years or more. Take a channel like ownage pranks and compare the content now and in the past couple of years to the earlier content.
Or consider the same for sick animation/marc m, or david firth, compare their content from the early - late 2000's / early 10's to basically any year since then.
>>250314
>Its still a shame that there's nothing funny or clever or creative or really entertaining or fun at all on the chans anymore though.
There aren't even any memes anymore and the last ones all died out much more quickly then memes used to. What were the last memes on 4chan or the very last meme, the very last meme and only one thats still somewhat going is the chud meme which isn't funny at all, its just appealing if it matches your political sentiment, and just before that was the coomer meme, only barely humorous, and again just appealing and useful, if you're an anti-porn /nofap type.
Memes (actual memes on the chans not normie social media) weren't just funny and entertaining they had some kind of X factor, at least for autists, "meme energy", that whole phenomena is dead now. There's not going to be anymore memes again and there will never be anything funny on the chans or the internet in general anymore
>Its still a shame that there's nothing funny or clever or creative or really entertaining or fun at all on the chans anymore though.
There aren't even any memes anymore and the last ones all died out much more quickly then memes used to. What were the last memes on 4chan or the very last meme, the very last meme and only one thats still somewhat going is the chud meme which isn't funny at all, its just appealing if it matches your political sentiment, and just before that was the coomer meme, only barely humorous, and again just appealing and useful, if you're an anti-porn /nofap type.
Memes (actual memes on the chans not normie social media) weren't just funny and entertaining they had some kind of X factor, at least for autists, "meme energy", that whole phenomena is dead now. There's not going to be anymore memes again and there will never be anything funny on the chans or the internet in general anymore
>>250313
there are psychological operations they're just not responsible for what he's describing or something similarly as petty. As for "mystical cabals", its just naive to believe there's no networks of powerful people that aren't open about their existence, including secret societies or cults. If scientology and freemasons exist then there's obviously cults and fraternities that have no self generated publicity and no interest in having any.
there are psychological operations they're just not responsible for what he's describing or something similarly as petty. As for "mystical cabals", its just naive to believe there's no networks of powerful people that aren't open about their existence, including secret societies or cults. If scientology and freemasons exist then there's obviously cults and fraternities that have no self generated publicity and no interest in having any.
Am I the only one that thinks imageboards are improving?
I remember the retarded le epik anonymoose /b/ shit from '08-10. It was not funny, cool or entertaining.
But yes, imageboards are an old format so the userbase is destined to get old. On discord in crab forums you see the next generation of wizzies. Yeah yeah, they are crabs now, but are we really going to pretend we weren't mostly crabs from the ages of 14-22?
I remember the retarded le epik anonymoose /b/ shit from '08-10. It was not funny, cool or entertaining.
But yes, imageboards are an old format so the userbase is destined to get old. On discord in crab forums you see the next generation of wizzies. Yeah yeah, they are crabs now, but are we really going to pretend we weren't mostly crabs from the ages of 14-22?
>>250319
>are we really going to pretend we weren't mostly crabs from the ages of 14-22?
I’ve never wanted a relationship or intercourse
>are we really going to pretend we weren't mostly crabs from the ages of 14-22?
I’ve never wanted a relationship or intercourse
>>250319
>I remember the retarded le epik anonymoose /b/ shit from '08-10. It was not funny, cool or entertaining.
it was for me but it definitely declined in quality with the chanology thing, and obviously the sjw "anonymous" that came after the initial 4chan meme and took itself seriously.
the reaction to the sjw / tumblr era during the 2010's made 4chan a lot of fun but thats all died off now. Now those people actually run society
>I remember the retarded le epik anonymoose /b/ shit from '08-10. It was not funny, cool or entertaining.
it was for me but it definitely declined in quality with the chanology thing, and obviously the sjw "anonymous" that came after the initial 4chan meme and took itself seriously.
the reaction to the sjw / tumblr era during the 2010's made 4chan a lot of fun but thats all died off now. Now those people actually run society
>Are all forums/chans destined to slowly rot away?
Not in all cases. You can use this imageboard as an example, since its inception Wizchan's always been inncelchan, migrants from /r9k/ and some normalfag trolls and failed normalfags who played with the idea of a wizard meme, with a start as bad as that your expectations should be low. We see the result of that is a dead imageboard that never took off because its pro suicide, depression, and sexual abstinence culture is simply not attractive. It's poetic that most wizards would not use and less like a site such as wizchan, despite the fact that's meant for them.
>>250319
>On discord in crab forums you see the next generation of wizzies.
Any old inncel is as good a wizard as anyone from here. When you turn into a 30 year old virgin inncel or not distinctions should vanish. The inncel could always hooked up with a whore but choose not to, that is more wizardly than being a volcel who didn't like the idea of sex or relationships.
Not in all cases. You can use this imageboard as an example, since its inception Wizchan's always been inncelchan, migrants from /r9k/ and some normalfag trolls and failed normalfags who played with the idea of a wizard meme, with a start as bad as that your expectations should be low. We see the result of that is a dead imageboard that never took off because its pro suicide, depression, and sexual abstinence culture is simply not attractive. It's poetic that most wizards would not use and less like a site such as wizchan, despite the fact that's meant for them.
>>250319
>On discord in crab forums you see the next generation of wizzies.
Any old inncel is as good a wizard as anyone from here. When you turn into a 30 year old virgin inncel or not distinctions should vanish. The inncel could always hooked up with a whore but choose not to, that is more wizardly than being a volcel who didn't like the idea of sex or relationships.
>>250313
>There is no mystical cabal going around the internet including Wizchan just to influence your mind.
lol, pretending to not to know what astroturfing is.
>All anyone cares about is getting as much money
Precisely the reason 'psyops' exist.
Look maybe before 2012, 2014 or even 2016, I would've agreed with you, when 4chan and it's ilk were just stupid websites for terminally online people but as soon as a mongolian basket-weaving forum became politically relevant (for reasons that escape me for the moment), was the point where they had to to put their hand in.
I'm not talking about mystical cabals, I'm talking about entities that are protecting their bottom lines.
>There is no mystical cabal going around the internet including Wizchan just to influence your mind.
lol, pretending to not to know what astroturfing is.
>All anyone cares about is getting as much money
Precisely the reason 'psyops' exist.
Look maybe before 2012, 2014 or even 2016, I would've agreed with you, when 4chan and it's ilk were just stupid websites for terminally online people but as soon as a mongolian basket-weaving forum became politically relevant (for reasons that escape me for the moment), was the point where they had to to put their hand in.
I'm not talking about mystical cabals, I'm talking about entities that are protecting their bottom lines.
>>250319
>On discord in crab forums you see the next generation of wizzies.
They're not crabs or wizards. They aren't made from the same materials as either. The next generation, if there one coming, will come out of leftfield you'll never see them coming.
>On discord in crab forums you see the next generation of wizzies.
They're not crabs or wizards. They aren't made from the same materials as either. The next generation, if there one coming, will come out of leftfield you'll never see them coming.
>>250299
It's a combination of dead internet theory (shills, bots, and shills controlling bots watering down online conversation), failed normies leaving dead mainstream sites (reddit, twitter, 4chan, etc.) in droves and bringing their failed normie shit with them, and terminally online faggots turning alt chans into their personal clubhouses.
It's a lot of things, but, yeah, the primary contributing factor was the mainstreaming of the internet.
It's a combination of dead internet theory (shills, bots, and shills controlling bots watering down online conversation), failed normies leaving dead mainstream sites (reddit, twitter, 4chan, etc.) in droves and bringing their failed normie shit with them, and terminally online faggots turning alt chans into their personal clubhouses.
It's a lot of things, but, yeah, the primary contributing factor was the mainstreaming of the internet.
>>250332
>terminally online faggots turning alt chans into their personal clubhouses.
To be fair, pretty much every online community below a certain critical mass of users is always a clubhouse where familiar names rule the game. Examples include IRC, BBS, 4chan circa 2003…the list could go on. This doesn't excuse the lack of creativity in chans, nor does it explain why the clever, if not somewhat puerile, sense of humor that characterized the early days of the internet is slowly drying up. There are a few wells of humor to be found here and there (in some alt-chans and even in main chan), but the post-ironic attitude seems to have seeped into the very core of the internet.
Some of these places where an inventive spirit is still present tend to attract oldfags who remember when the internet wasn't "srs bsns", but (IMO) there's always a very strong sense of going through the motions when one reads conversations there. The spontaneity of the past has been weathered down and stripped away to the barest of responses, and ritual mentions of old in-jokes is all that's left of what used to be a very vibrant pan-imageboard culture. I once again blame irony, since it is choking off all genuine and original forms of expression. In an ironic mode of thinking one can only iterate on the past and present (parodying, mutating, subverting that which already exists).
So I don't think oldfags will create the next big thing, they're too worn out and jaded. Once young people get past irony and cringe culture perhaps we'll see an entirely new, if not bizarre culture crop up.
>terminally online faggots turning alt chans into their personal clubhouses.
To be fair, pretty much every online community below a certain critical mass of users is always a clubhouse where familiar names rule the game. Examples include IRC, BBS, 4chan circa 2003…the list could go on. This doesn't excuse the lack of creativity in chans, nor does it explain why the clever, if not somewhat puerile, sense of humor that characterized the early days of the internet is slowly drying up. There are a few wells of humor to be found here and there (in some alt-chans and even in main chan), but the post-ironic attitude seems to have seeped into the very core of the internet.
Some of these places where an inventive spirit is still present tend to attract oldfags who remember when the internet wasn't "srs bsns", but (IMO) there's always a very strong sense of going through the motions when one reads conversations there. The spontaneity of the past has been weathered down and stripped away to the barest of responses, and ritual mentions of old in-jokes is all that's left of what used to be a very vibrant pan-imageboard culture. I once again blame irony, since it is choking off all genuine and original forms of expression. In an ironic mode of thinking one can only iterate on the past and present (parodying, mutating, subverting that which already exists).
So I don't think oldfags will create the next big thing, they're too worn out and jaded. Once young people get past irony and cringe culture perhaps we'll see an entirely new, if not bizarre culture crop up.
>>250299
well, wizchan and cuckchan seem to be the only english imageboards left with a modicum of activity
well, wizchan and cuckchan seem to be the only english imageboards left with a modicum of activity
The basement dwellers who dropped out of society and helped to shape the early chan days have either died off or simply moved onto other platforms. It's anyone's guess.
I'm thinking the internet is pretty dead anyway as far as originality in content. This explains why the same memes have been reposted for years on end, just with slight alterations to make them seem fresh.
Everything is friggin dead now, or devoid of culture and made to appease the masses of tards who really shouldn't be on IBs to begin with.
I'm thinking the internet is pretty dead anyway as far as originality in content. This explains why the same memes have been reposted for years on end, just with slight alterations to make them seem fresh.
Everything is friggin dead now, or devoid of culture and made to appease the masses of tards who really shouldn't be on IBs to begin with.
>>251113
People dont value making content as much now as most people who use the internet think they are the content and this extends to even IB's. it appears as if everyone will have to adapt to the latest whim ad infinitum which the major websites conjure or get kicked off. is it possible that people may move on from the twitter and face book and whatever people use? The average reddit user even dislikes the platform. The internet is very new it may change for the better for various reasons but I agree it is heading for the shitter.
People dont value making content as much now as most people who use the internet think they are the content and this extends to even IB's. it appears as if everyone will have to adapt to the latest whim ad infinitum which the major websites conjure or get kicked off. is it possible that people may move on from the twitter and face book and whatever people use? The average reddit user even dislikes the platform. The internet is very new it may change for the better for various reasons but I agree it is heading for the shitter.
>>250326
>The inncel could always hooked up with a whore but choose not to, that is more wizardly than being a volcel
Are you saying that wanting sex, not being able to get it and refusing to have sex with any prostitute is more wizardly than not wanting to have sex at all? What kind of retarded logic is that?
>The inncel could always hooked up with a whore but choose not to, that is more wizardly than being a volcel
Are you saying that wanting sex, not being able to get it and refusing to have sex with any prostitute is more wizardly than not wanting to have sex at all? What kind of retarded logic is that?
File: 1638710796406.jpg (30.85 KB, 600x315, 40:21, iOStGB3.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>251121
I assume refusing to partake in sex is more wizardly if the person in question is a sex craving crab. There's a wizard in every crab.
I assume refusing to partake in sex is more wizardly if the person in question is a sex craving crab. There's a wizard in every crab.
>>251124
>There is no similarity between a wizard and a crab
Sure, there is more than one, hundreds of similarities between virgin males.
>There is no similarity between a wizard and a crab
Sure, there is more than one, hundreds of similarities between virgin males.
File: 1638720189467.png (363.17 KB, 679x453, 679:453, ClipboardImage.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>251124
As much as I dislike the proud crabs on Wizchan, crabs are the only other men who could potentially become wizards, as normies are tainted forever.
Rather than accepting or shunning crabs, my position has always been, that we should work to rehabilitate them.
As much as I dislike the proud crabs on Wizchan, crabs are the only other men who could potentially become wizards, as normies are tainted forever.
Rather than accepting or shunning crabs, my position has always been, that we should work to rehabilitate them.
>>251124
Yes there is, a wizard is simply a 30 year old male virgin, a tcrab just happens to be one variation of wizard, who are welcome here as long as they don't talk about shit that breaks the rules. More welcome than the normalfag and succubi infiltrators who want to demonise and exile them like the rest of the internet thats for sure.
You true wiz fags are real tiring.
Yes there is, a wizard is simply a 30 year old male virgin, a tcrab just happens to be one variation of wizard, who are welcome here as long as they don't talk about shit that breaks the rules. More welcome than the normalfag and succubi infiltrators who want to demonise and exile them like the rest of the internet thats for sure.
You true wiz fags are real tiring.
>>251217
>crabs are welcome if they dont talk about shit that breaks the rules
>more welcome than succubus
The succubus who post here don't openly state they are succubus so why the double standard? the only standard we should have is the ability to discuss and share ideas in a maturelike rational fashion.
On the internet no one knows your'e a dog.
>crabs are welcome if they dont talk about shit that breaks the rules
>more welcome than succubus
The succubus who post here don't openly state they are succubus so why the double standard? the only standard we should have is the ability to discuss and share ideas in a maturelike rational fashion.
On the internet no one knows your'e a dog.
>>251250
crabs are wanna be normalfags who hate being virgins and solitude. They buy into the whole normalfag mindset, they want a girlfriend, a family, etc.
crabs are wanna be normalfags who hate being virgins and solitude. They buy into the whole normalfag mindset, they want a girlfriend, a family, etc.
>>251253
And? Wasn't that the case with the original wizardchan?
Like I get why crab stuff got banned during gamergate, and I get why on wizachan it'll never go back but it feels disingenuous when there are many 30+ crabs who will forever remain celibate and the vast majority of truwiz types here are are in their teens or early 20s.
You'd think there'd be more wizards as the years go by but instead you get kids who do a surface-level imitation of what came before. I mean, 4chan right now is normies screaming 'normies gtfo', some kind of weird-ass imitation, they probably don't even remember when /b/ wasn't a porn board and /r9k/ wasn't a fag/tranny board.
And? Wasn't that the case with the original wizardchan?
Like I get why crab stuff got banned during gamergate, and I get why on wizachan it'll never go back but it feels disingenuous when there are many 30+ crabs who will forever remain celibate and the vast majority of truwiz types here are are in their teens or early 20s.
You'd think there'd be more wizards as the years go by but instead you get kids who do a surface-level imitation of what came before. I mean, 4chan right now is normies screaming 'normies gtfo', some kind of weird-ass imitation, they probably don't even remember when /b/ wasn't a porn board and /r9k/ wasn't a fag/tranny board.
File: 1639016287370.png (196.08 KB, 881x500, 881:500, yotsuba3.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>250308
It's a point made in objectivity in counter to a complaint made in subjectivity.
From your perspective, the thing you like is changing to be less like the thing you like. From the objective viewer's perspective (not to say that the objective view is any more valid than the subjective) it's not any worse or better than it was before.
Consider this: the thing you like is the corruption of the previous generation's thing. To them, the thing you like is different and worse than the thing it was when they liked it. Exactly like how the thing you like now is changing and the number of people who like the thing now is growing and the number of people who liked the thing more before is shrinking.
So no, it isn't getting any worse, it's just changing into a form that you dislike. I also don't like it, but let's not confuse our subjective feelings for objective facts.
It's a point made in objectivity in counter to a complaint made in subjectivity.
From your perspective, the thing you like is changing to be less like the thing you like. From the objective viewer's perspective (not to say that the objective view is any more valid than the subjective) it's not any worse or better than it was before.
Consider this: the thing you like is the corruption of the previous generation's thing. To them, the thing you like is different and worse than the thing it was when they liked it. Exactly like how the thing you like now is changing and the number of people who like the thing now is growing and the number of people who liked the thing more before is shrinking.
So no, it isn't getting any worse, it's just changing into a form that you dislike. I also don't like it, but let's not confuse our subjective feelings for objective facts.
>>251259
This is such a limpwristed apathetic nothing of a thing to say. If we're taking about something less tangible and abstract like the internet maybe, but most things can be rated objectively independent of the subjective consensus of the time. Most people would agree cathedrals and old roman architecture are aesthetically pleasing because they fit objective standards of quality that can be measured.
This is such a limpwristed apathetic nothing of a thing to say. If we're taking about something less tangible and abstract like the internet maybe, but most things can be rated objectively independent of the subjective consensus of the time. Most people would agree cathedrals and old roman architecture are aesthetically pleasing because they fit objective standards of quality that can be measured.
>>251263
>Most people would agree cathedrals and old roman architecture are aesthetically pleasing
>Most people
How does claiming "most people" might think some way disprove what he wrote? How do you know what people back in roman times thought of their structures? Maybe there were people in rome who hated their new concrete invention and just wanted to go back to old masonry work builds? There's tons of options you're not considering
>Most people would agree cathedrals and old roman architecture are aesthetically pleasing
>Most people
How does claiming "most people" might think some way disprove what he wrote? How do you know what people back in roman times thought of their structures? Maybe there were people in rome who hated their new concrete invention and just wanted to go back to old masonry work builds? There's tons of options you're not considering
>>251264
Because as I said there are ways you can objectively measure quality in almost anything, otherwise nothing I mentioned would've stood the test of time like it has and no great works of art or literature would exist. Shiteaters who say everything is subjective and up for interpretation are one of the main reasons most things suck and talentless hacks are allowed to proliferate trash.
Because as I said there are ways you can objectively measure quality in almost anything, otherwise nothing I mentioned would've stood the test of time like it has and no great works of art or literature would exist. Shiteaters who say everything is subjective and up for interpretation are one of the main reasons most things suck and talentless hacks are allowed to proliferate trash.
>>251265
I don’t really understand your argument, the things you are talking about are historical pieces which don’t change, they can’t become shit over time like a video game or tv series or internet. You are basically trying to say dynamic mediums can be objectively bad or good the same as a static object like a dinosaur bone can be impressive or not. Well even then, saying that a dinosaur skeleton is objectively cool would still be ridiculous, same as claiming that everyone loves Roman architecture is.
I don’t really understand your argument, the things you are talking about are historical pieces which don’t change, they can’t become shit over time like a video game or tv series or internet. You are basically trying to say dynamic mediums can be objectively bad or good the same as a static object like a dinosaur bone can be impressive or not. Well even then, saying that a dinosaur skeleton is objectively cool would still be ridiculous, same as claiming that everyone loves Roman architecture is.
>>251263
you cant measure the aestheticness of an object lol, you are confusing utility with appearance. you could say the roman arch is an objectively practical structure, you cant say the roman arch is objectively beautiful
you cant measure the aestheticness of an object lol, you are confusing utility with appearance. you could say the roman arch is an objectively practical structure, you cant say the roman arch is objectively beautiful
This is the pseudo-intellectual zone. Sophistry is welcome, wordplay is encouraged. The reasoning is spurious. The ideas are nonexistent…You have entered THE PSEUD-ZONE!
*gong*
*gong*
>>251259
>It's a point made in objectivity in counter to a complaint made in subjectivity.
No, it's usually a cop-out point put forward because one of two reasons:
1)It's some younger person who claims "it's always been shit" to convince themselves that haven't missed anything or that they haven't arrived the nadir (or close to it) of the thing.
2)Someone trying to convince you something isn't broken.
Hell, take 4chan's /b/ board. A board that used to be truly random things, a place to find 'happenings', interesting thoughts, shitposting etc despite being a containment board. Now it's literally just a porn board, even though there are several porn boards.
To claim that it's not objectively worse would be disingenuous.
>It's a point made in objectivity in counter to a complaint made in subjectivity.
No, it's usually a cop-out point put forward because one of two reasons:
1)It's some younger person who claims "it's always been shit" to convince themselves that haven't missed anything or that they haven't arrived the nadir (or close to it) of the thing.
2)Someone trying to convince you something isn't broken.
Hell, take 4chan's /b/ board. A board that used to be truly random things, a place to find 'happenings', interesting thoughts, shitposting etc despite being a containment board. Now it's literally just a porn board, even though there are several porn boards.
To claim that it's not objectively worse would be disingenuous.
>>251281
clearly it is not objectively worse if it is still popular, not liking something doesn't make your opinion on it objective
clearly it is not objectively worse if it is still popular, not liking something doesn't make your opinion on it objective
>>251283
>clearly it is not objectively worse if it is still popular,
Wat.
You base objective quality on popularity?
>clearly it is not objectively worse if it is still popular,
Wat.
You base objective quality on popularity?
>>251259
>it's just changing into a form that you dislike.
Your entire post basically claims theres no such thing as better or worse, that all change is different.
A zoomer post if I've ever seen one.
>it's just changing into a form that you dislike.
Your entire post basically claims theres no such thing as better or worse, that all change is different.
A zoomer post if I've ever seen one.
>>251267
You can measure the aesthetics of an object the same way you might measure the attractiveness of a human face, with metrics like symmetry and structure etc without going into cringe lookism faggotry. In art you have things like colour theory, architecture has similar objective measures, put a post modern commie block next to a quaint european townhouse and then try saying aesthetics is purely subjective; it's a complete dead end argument. Even if people preferred the former to the latter in a 10000:1 ratio they would still be wrong because the latter conforms better to actual standards of beauty, eg what makes a building look good, rather than pure utility, which results in depressing concrete blocks.
>>251266
A dinosaur bone is not something created by someone with an intention and not really worth analyzing on an aesthetic level, though you probably could, things like video games and art are, so they can and should be objectively rated based on certain factors, at the very least to maintain quality in the medium. Of course once they plateau or tick enough boxes, subjective feelings come into play; you might like the red painting more than the blue painting (subjective) even though both have a good composition (objective). You might like the ninja more than the knight even though both have clean and coherent designs.
Perhaps more useful than being talented in a certain field is to be able to discern if something is actually good or not, I think that's a skill in and of itself, otherwise you end up with skilled people who can only produce shit, like smell their own fArt directors who care more about making something unique and shocking than something visually pleasing to the eye. Using appeal to popularity as an argument against this is silly especially if we're talking about the average /b/tard who probably posts scat and cp.
It's not elitist or pretentious to say that certain things are better than others and there are reasons for it, notwithstanding personal feelings. It's the sort of attitude you should have if you actually care about the quality of the things you like.
You can measure the aesthetics of an object the same way you might measure the attractiveness of a human face, with metrics like symmetry and structure etc without going into cringe lookism faggotry. In art you have things like colour theory, architecture has similar objective measures, put a post modern commie block next to a quaint european townhouse and then try saying aesthetics is purely subjective; it's a complete dead end argument. Even if people preferred the former to the latter in a 10000:1 ratio they would still be wrong because the latter conforms better to actual standards of beauty, eg what makes a building look good, rather than pure utility, which results in depressing concrete blocks.
>>251266
A dinosaur bone is not something created by someone with an intention and not really worth analyzing on an aesthetic level, though you probably could, things like video games and art are, so they can and should be objectively rated based on certain factors, at the very least to maintain quality in the medium. Of course once they plateau or tick enough boxes, subjective feelings come into play; you might like the red painting more than the blue painting (subjective) even though both have a good composition (objective). You might like the ninja more than the knight even though both have clean and coherent designs.
Perhaps more useful than being talented in a certain field is to be able to discern if something is actually good or not, I think that's a skill in and of itself, otherwise you end up with skilled people who can only produce shit, like smell their own fArt directors who care more about making something unique and shocking than something visually pleasing to the eye. Using appeal to popularity as an argument against this is silly especially if we're talking about the average /b/tard who probably posts scat and cp.
It's not elitist or pretentious to say that certain things are better than others and there are reasons for it, notwithstanding personal feelings. It's the sort of attitude you should have if you actually care about the quality of the things you like.
File: 1639076736777.jpg (333.31 KB, 1200x1310, 120:131, 1200px-Mursi_Lip_Plate,_Et….jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>251288
you claimed 4chan/b/ is objectively bad, when it is clearly subjective because many people enjoy it
>inb4 they're objectively wrong
>>251290
attractiveness of a human face is completely subjective, there are many factors that would contribute to your opinion of the best facial aesthetics, pic related is a great example or subjectiveness
>put a post modern commie block next to a quaint european townhouse and then try saying aesthetics is purely subjective
this is probably the best example yet, because I love the commie block look, and your opinion is just that, an opinion
you claimed 4chan/b/ is objectively bad, when it is clearly subjective because many people enjoy it
>inb4 they're objectively wrong
>>251290
attractiveness of a human face is completely subjective, there are many factors that would contribute to your opinion of the best facial aesthetics, pic related is a great example or subjectiveness
>put a post modern commie block next to a quaint european townhouse and then try saying aesthetics is purely subjective
this is probably the best example yet, because I love the commie block look, and your opinion is just that, an opinion
>>251293
>when it is clearly subjective because many people enjoy it
Eating tide pods is objectively bad but for a brief moment it was popular with retarded zoomers.
This is the end of the argument, there's no point continuing this conversation because you are a disingenuous person who didn't come to argue here in good faith. Everything to you is subjective therefore there is no good no bad therefore there is no dialogue.
Man the fact you used a black succubus with a disc lip is such a bait tactic because I know you're a expecting a racist outburst from some /pol/tard and then claim you won the argument.
>>251290
Commie blocks were a bad example dude. I suspect the dude is either wealthy or a zoomer, or a wealthy zoomer.
>when it is clearly subjective because many people enjoy it
Eating tide pods is objectively bad but for a brief moment it was popular with retarded zoomers.
This is the end of the argument, there's no point continuing this conversation because you are a disingenuous person who didn't come to argue here in good faith. Everything to you is subjective therefore there is no good no bad therefore there is no dialogue.
Man the fact you used a black succubus with a disc lip is such a bait tactic because I know you're a expecting a racist outburst from some /pol/tard and then claim you won the argument.
>>251290
Commie blocks were a bad example dude. I suspect the dude is either wealthy or a zoomer, or a wealthy zoomer.
>>251293
It is not "completely" subjective at all, most "hot" men have similar facial features, most "sexy" succubi have similar traits, as I said in my last post you can have subjective preferences but fundamentally all attractive people will share a grounded and objective basis in good looks, like facial symmetry or good bone structure, so you're saying nothing.
The pic you posted objectively looks silly, and I'm sorry but I don't trust subsaharan africans to have good aesthetic sense, even if the tribal chief thinks shes a 10/10 because she has a chunk of metal sticking out her mouth. Let's think about nature, almost everyone would agree trees and flowers are pretty, because they are, objectively, pleasing to humans. Even if you had a tribe of people conditioned to think flowers were ugly they wouldn't subjectively be right in their own particular ethereal way, they would simply be wrong. Now just because most things are more complex than a plant doesn't mean the same rules don't apply, and that people aren't conditioned with their own particular lack of taste to think decrepit miserable old towers of rundown concrete look good, such as yourself. Unfortunately most people are like you and have no aesthetic sensibilities at all, which is one major reason why the world is so ugly and lame and full of trash. I swear this is babies first artistic take, it's no good acting smug or enlightened when you admit you have no quality filter.
If everyone thought the same way you did nobody would strive to master any craft and we all would sit in nihilistic pools of mediocrity where nothing can ever be known and no beauty can ever be created, but I'm grateful at least some people don't.
It is not "completely" subjective at all, most "hot" men have similar facial features, most "sexy" succubi have similar traits, as I said in my last post you can have subjective preferences but fundamentally all attractive people will share a grounded and objective basis in good looks, like facial symmetry or good bone structure, so you're saying nothing.
The pic you posted objectively looks silly, and I'm sorry but I don't trust subsaharan africans to have good aesthetic sense, even if the tribal chief thinks shes a 10/10 because she has a chunk of metal sticking out her mouth. Let's think about nature, almost everyone would agree trees and flowers are pretty, because they are, objectively, pleasing to humans. Even if you had a tribe of people conditioned to think flowers were ugly they wouldn't subjectively be right in their own particular ethereal way, they would simply be wrong. Now just because most things are more complex than a plant doesn't mean the same rules don't apply, and that people aren't conditioned with their own particular lack of taste to think decrepit miserable old towers of rundown concrete look good, such as yourself. Unfortunately most people are like you and have no aesthetic sensibilities at all, which is one major reason why the world is so ugly and lame and full of trash. I swear this is babies first artistic take, it's no good acting smug or enlightened when you admit you have no quality filter.
If everyone thought the same way you did nobody would strive to master any craft and we all would sit in nihilistic pools of mediocrity where nothing can ever be known and no beauty can ever be created, but I'm grateful at least some people don't.
>>251297
>Eating tide pods is objectively bad but for a brief moment it was popular with retarded zoomers.
Grasping for straws so much you now resort to using digesting poison as an example, just lol.
>This is the end of the argument
Yeah cause you lost and can't come up with any more bullshit to try and convince people that your opinions are objective.
>>251298
>The pic you posted objectively looks silly
It does not "objectively" look silly, you absolute gorilla retard. To people who are part of that community in Africa think it looks good, otherwise they would do it. It is subjective, stop being an idiot.
>I don't trust subsaharan africans to have good aesthetic sense
So you admit that different people have different aesthetic senses, meaning aesthetics are subjective.
>Even if you had a tribe of people conditioned to think flowers were ugly they wouldn't subjectively be right in their own particular ethereal way, they would simply be wrong.
What the fuck is this supposed to mean? You can't be "subjectively right", that doesn't make any sense. I get the feeling that you have no idea what subjective means.
>most people are like you and have no aesthetic sensibilities at all
So most people have different (subjective) tastes, you mean? Yea, that's true.
>If everyone thought the same way you did nobody would strive to master any craft
People master any craft that they subjectively find fulfilling, but you will probably claim certain crafts are objectively bad and anyone that practices them is wrong or a mindless insensible plebian.
>Eating tide pods is objectively bad but for a brief moment it was popular with retarded zoomers.
Grasping for straws so much you now resort to using digesting poison as an example, just lol.
>This is the end of the argument
Yeah cause you lost and can't come up with any more bullshit to try and convince people that your opinions are objective.
>>251298
>The pic you posted objectively looks silly
It does not "objectively" look silly, you absolute gorilla retard. To people who are part of that community in Africa think it looks good, otherwise they would do it. It is subjective, stop being an idiot.
>I don't trust subsaharan africans to have good aesthetic sense
So you admit that different people have different aesthetic senses, meaning aesthetics are subjective.
>Even if you had a tribe of people conditioned to think flowers were ugly they wouldn't subjectively be right in their own particular ethereal way, they would simply be wrong.
What the fuck is this supposed to mean? You can't be "subjectively right", that doesn't make any sense. I get the feeling that you have no idea what subjective means.
>most people are like you and have no aesthetic sensibilities at all
So most people have different (subjective) tastes, you mean? Yea, that's true.
>If everyone thought the same way you did nobody would strive to master any craft
People master any craft that they subjectively find fulfilling, but you will probably claim certain crafts are objectively bad and anyone that practices them is wrong or a mindless insensible plebian.
>>251299
>Yeah cause you lost and can't come up with any more bullshit to try and convince people that your opinions are objective.
Right on cue.
>Yeah cause you lost and can't come up with any more bullshit to try and convince people that your opinions are objective.
Right on cue.
>>251299
>It does not "objectively" look silly, you absolute gorilla retard. To people who are part of that community in Africa think it looks good, otherwise they would do it. It is subjective, stop being an idiot.
So what? It doesn't look good, the same way some punk sticking his hair out in 70 different directions doesn't, it might've been fashionable at a certain time with a certain number of people, but that doesn't mean anything. Some pretentious fag might smear shit on a wall and call it art, stunned by it's beauty or deep meaning, objectively it's shit. It's an extreme example but some things just suck, especially if we're talking about actual mediums of movies, games, etc, these things can be OBJECTIVELY rated, within a SUBJECTIVE frame. You might enjoy an rpg but understand its combat mechanics are fundamentally hot garbage, simple, what's so hard to grasp about this? There's absolutely no utility or enlightenment in being so simplistically floaty you think everything is subjective and so can't be rated objectively, it's this line of thinking that results in trash and you're the sort of person that would actively ruin the quality of things I like by not having standards, so yeah, screw you too.
>So you admit that different people have different aesthetic senses, meaning aesthetics are subjective.
No it doesn't mean that at all, all that means is some (most) people have a lesser grasp on what makes something good. Suppose there's a cast of characters you like and they add a new one that is completely messy, incoherent with the established visuals, and simply unappealing, if you were a shiteater you would say something "Huh well it's subjective so it's fine" even though said character was designed by somebody with intent, and the quality of their work can be measured and deemed fit or unfit for purpose. It's really not hard to understand.
>What the fuck is this supposed to mean? You can't be "subjectively right", that doesn't make any sense. I get the feeling that you have no idea what subjective means.
Ironic considering your entire argument hinges on the assumption that nothing can be known so therefore everything is right in it's own subjective way if you say so and nothing is bad because someone might like it. Don't try to imply I don't know what words mean, I can just as easily imply you're a tasteless pseudo.
>So most people have different (subjective) tastes, you mean? Yea, that's true.
Yes they do but it doesn't refute anything I said. A story can be objectively rated, does it have good characters, good writing? You might enjoy popcorn trash like harem anime, which is fine, but it's still trash, as the stories are generally generic and vapid.
>People master any craft that they subjectively find fulfilling, but you will probably claim certain crafts are objectively bad and anyone that practices them is wrong or a mindless insensible plebian.
No I wouldn't claim that, that's just you trying to invert my meaning for some epic gotcha moment. You can enjoy stamp collecting or watching grass grow, I don't give a fuck, but if you become an established stamp designer and start putting your work out into the world, it should be objectively rated as to not fill the hobby with poorly made shoddy work. That's not being elitist, that's just simply caring for the quality of something you like, which should be fucking basic, but apparently for subjectivefags it's a heinous crime. The real crime is when disgusting trash is created under the self-assured guise of subjectivity and then people with actual taste are subjected to it.
>>251297
Commie blocks are the perfect example - these styles of buildings were created under the "design" ethos of utility > aesthetics, which says it all really, lack of consideration for aesthetics = objectively ugly. No deep careful meditative thought was put into the appearance of these buildings so no wonder they're so depressing and insulting, as conscientious is basically a prerequisite for producing good art, though it doesn't guarantee anything as counterculture dogshit like brutalism exists, which even the average person on the street would recognise as appalling. Just because you like watching doomer videos with hazy visuals layered over slowed down post punk and radio static doesn't mean it's good architecture.
>It does not "objectively" look silly, you absolute gorilla retard. To people who are part of that community in Africa think it looks good, otherwise they would do it. It is subjective, stop being an idiot.
So what? It doesn't look good, the same way some punk sticking his hair out in 70 different directions doesn't, it might've been fashionable at a certain time with a certain number of people, but that doesn't mean anything. Some pretentious fag might smear shit on a wall and call it art, stunned by it's beauty or deep meaning, objectively it's shit. It's an extreme example but some things just suck, especially if we're talking about actual mediums of movies, games, etc, these things can be OBJECTIVELY rated, within a SUBJECTIVE frame. You might enjoy an rpg but understand its combat mechanics are fundamentally hot garbage, simple, what's so hard to grasp about this? There's absolutely no utility or enlightenment in being so simplistically floaty you think everything is subjective and so can't be rated objectively, it's this line of thinking that results in trash and you're the sort of person that would actively ruin the quality of things I like by not having standards, so yeah, screw you too.
>So you admit that different people have different aesthetic senses, meaning aesthetics are subjective.
No it doesn't mean that at all, all that means is some (most) people have a lesser grasp on what makes something good. Suppose there's a cast of characters you like and they add a new one that is completely messy, incoherent with the established visuals, and simply unappealing, if you were a shiteater you would say something "Huh well it's subjective so it's fine" even though said character was designed by somebody with intent, and the quality of their work can be measured and deemed fit or unfit for purpose. It's really not hard to understand.
>What the fuck is this supposed to mean? You can't be "subjectively right", that doesn't make any sense. I get the feeling that you have no idea what subjective means.
Ironic considering your entire argument hinges on the assumption that nothing can be known so therefore everything is right in it's own subjective way if you say so and nothing is bad because someone might like it. Don't try to imply I don't know what words mean, I can just as easily imply you're a tasteless pseudo.
>So most people have different (subjective) tastes, you mean? Yea, that's true.
Yes they do but it doesn't refute anything I said. A story can be objectively rated, does it have good characters, good writing? You might enjoy popcorn trash like harem anime, which is fine, but it's still trash, as the stories are generally generic and vapid.
>People master any craft that they subjectively find fulfilling, but you will probably claim certain crafts are objectively bad and anyone that practices them is wrong or a mindless insensible plebian.
No I wouldn't claim that, that's just you trying to invert my meaning for some epic gotcha moment. You can enjoy stamp collecting or watching grass grow, I don't give a fuck, but if you become an established stamp designer and start putting your work out into the world, it should be objectively rated as to not fill the hobby with poorly made shoddy work. That's not being elitist, that's just simply caring for the quality of something you like, which should be fucking basic, but apparently for subjectivefags it's a heinous crime. The real crime is when disgusting trash is created under the self-assured guise of subjectivity and then people with actual taste are subjected to it.
>>251297
Commie blocks are the perfect example - these styles of buildings were created under the "design" ethos of utility > aesthetics, which says it all really, lack of consideration for aesthetics = objectively ugly. No deep careful meditative thought was put into the appearance of these buildings so no wonder they're so depressing and insulting, as conscientious is basically a prerequisite for producing good art, though it doesn't guarantee anything as counterculture dogshit like brutalism exists, which even the average person on the street would recognise as appalling. Just because you like watching doomer videos with hazy visuals layered over slowed down post punk and radio static doesn't mean it's good architecture.