>>37750
Enjoying violence seems to be generally acceptable everywhere, and is only questionable when an individual shows an overly obsessive fixation with it. At that point friends and family might call into question the person's sanity, but probably not much more.
Enjoying cute things is only socially acceptable under certain situations. One prerequisite is being female, males who enjoy these things are considered weird creepy or gross, but homosexuals can often times get a pass on this. Another prerequisite is being rather young. Even if you're female, the older you get the less acceptable it becomes. This varies from one culture to the next. In eastern countries the age allotment is much higher than western ones. Women here over the age of say, 15, who still enjoy cute things will be met with some criticism and or mockery from their peers, it's considered childish and weird for anyone over a certain age. The only western groups I can think of who accept or even encourage wholesome media meanwhile, are the very religious ones. People outside of those groups would consider their media "lame" at best.

>>37752
You sound like those mainstream media reporters, reporting on violent videogames or something.

>>37753
"Wholesome media" is a dumb, fabricated concept invented when people stopped reading books and corporate heads got to decide most of what people consume. Tastes have changed and so have the corporate heads, but this milquetoast ideal has continued to permeate through the soccer mom infested anglo-sphere. 50s sitcoms are "wholesome". A lot of cute anime has loli, yuri or otherwise sexual undercurrents. You can ignore that and still enjoy those things, but using a label like wholesome implies there's unwholesome media, which is a destructive and restrictive notion,

Post edited on 21st Feb 2021, 9:24am

Sometimes I muse at the thought of conversing with creators whose works I admire. I wonder if I'd end up hating them as a person and vice versa or if we'd actually get along. How much is our enjoyment of an object dependent on us imposing our perspective on it? Throughout history there are many instances of creators accusing their audiences of misunderstanding their intent and creation. Similarly I've always sat on the idea of making something but sometimes wonder if it's better off not to due to earlier misgivings. Not too long ago, I read about a doujin artist "retiring" from drawing anything related to a series after an official announcement from said series discouraging people from depicting their characters suggestively.

Post edited on 21st Feb 2021, 4:33pm

>>37762
My opinion is that people can't own ideas. As soon as they put something out there for public viewing, it stops belonging to them. They can't decide how people interpret it or what derivatives they make. Money complicates things, but the internet allows this ideal to exist despite that.

>How much is our enjoyment of an object dependent on us imposing our perspective on it?
It's entirely dependent because you can't help but have a certain perspective on something. If you didn't, enjoying anything would be impossible.

I think I might have hipster tendencies. Even when a particular interest of mine is already niche and obscure, like a little known game, I gravitate towards less popular strategies and aspects of it. Maybe I don't like the idea of doing what everybody else does or maybe I think going on a less trod path will let me discover some kind of hidden knowledge. Either way, there's something rewarding to me about doing things in a way which most people don't. Not that I would inconvenience myself too much or keep doing something that doesn't work, but when it does work, it feels great.

>>37737
Because I cared a great deal about Tomoko for a long time at one point and the feeling is never really gone I suppose.
>>37739
Yeah, I don't think there's anything wrong about that. You know how she can be very judgemental though. I guess I was equally harsh on others (in my mind only) at her age as well. I think it's that time when having taste is more important than escaping and that's when you feel it's only natural to bash what other people like. Maybe I'm completely wrong about this, I don't know. I'll spend some points today on gangan and check if she changed at all. The covers are not looking enticing, it's starting to look like a Hinatazaka46 cd cover, probably on purpose just to punish us, we'll see.
>>37741
I try to not remind myself of anything, dear anon.

>>37762
>I read about a doujin artist "retiring" from drawing anything related to a series after an official announcement from said series discouraging people from depicting their characters suggestively.

What series was that. Just curious.

>>37769
Not him, but I know love live did that.

>>37769
https://soranews24.com/2020/12/30/20-year-fan-artist-retires-from-rei-art-after-studios-no-evangelion-fan-porn-please-request/

>>37772
Glad I never gave them any money. Anno is officially the Japanese George Lucas.

>>37752
Violence is human nature. All of our modern comforts are the leftovers from massive multi billion dollar programs trying to drop as many city-killing warheads as possible as quickly as possible and as effectively as possible. Mans heart is in his weapons, don't ever forget that.

>>37777
I don't have a problem with violence in itself but rather the over glorification of it in medias and how it's representation is disconnected with how it is in reality. Also, the original poster was commenting on violence in contrast with "cute" media. My main issue with the post I quoted is primarily with the idea that something is acceptable if it's "normal".

>>37778
The closest thing I can think of as "violence glorification" in this context is Black Lagoon, and even that's seriously stretching it. Violence in anime/manga is virtually always shown to be mentally harmful to the person doing the violence too. Death Note is one of the most obvious examples of this.

>>37781
I would not really agree with that. In most anime either there is no message or the message is neutral to positive, it's very rarely negative.

>>37781
Token negative contextualization does not mean they are not still glorifying it or producing violence for viewer's pleasure. They may as well say "Don't do this at home blah blah this is bad blah blah BLAH who cares?! lets have some fun and start the gore porn!"
People don't watch slasher flicks for the interpersonal and emotional drama young adults face while trying to survive an overwhelming terrifying and unnatural habringer of their inescapable doom. No they want to see dumb horny teenagers get hacked to bits in fun and creative ways, with bonus points for cool or realistic looking practical effects.
Just as something like Hirigashi wasn't popular with kids for it's story of Rika's physiological torment and unwavering dedication to saving her friends while uncovering an evil plot ripping her small town apart, no dumb teens just wanted to see "killer lolis" and "bitches gettin pwned" while making funny faces.

>>37786
>slasher flicks
Pretty low bar. You can have both gratuitous violence and more fleshed out characters.

I question your definition of "glorying", which is a semantic issue. Manga and Anime are forms of entertainment, so anything in them is going to be there for the sake of entertainment. You can't have violence in a piece of media, but not for the sake of entertainment in some way or another. Even if it's supposed to make the viewer sad or whatever, it still serves the same purpose.

Your "problem" with violence portrayed incorrectly according to you comes across as soccer momish to be honest. Violent or otherwise "inappropriate" media, can't be blamed for the world's problems. That's confusing causation with correlation. Let "dumb teens" or sadists(like me) who get a kick out of stuff like Higurashi get their fix.

>>37787
I'm not saying violent media causes people to be violent. You may be confusing me with another anon? That or putting words in my mouth? If that's what you're into then so be it. I'm not here to judge anyone. I just think it's weird that it's more acceptable than non-violent media, I also think a person is kidding themselves if they think it's more than what it is, and that a person may as well be honest with themselves rather than make up excuses for what they like.
You're right by the way that our definitions probably differ a lot on what constitutes glorification of violence. One person might say it's a depiction of violence in a positive context, another would say it's a depiction of violence for entertainment regardless of context. I think it falls somewhere in between, as some media truly does intend to leave a person unsettled and bothered by scenes of graphic violence. It's there not for us to enjoy but make us feel something other than joy or excitement. There's certainly no way I could call something like that a glorification of violence.

>>37788
>I'm not saying violent media causes people to be violent
>Just because it's normal doesn't mean it is appropriate. That is probably the reason why the world is so screwed
I don't really know how to interpret this.

>>37789
I think it's better for everyone if when you realize a person starts to take himself too seriously or covertly defensive, just let it go. It's never worth it.

>>37789
Sorry if I'm being hard to understand. I don't mean to say it's causing violence, but that it's desensitizing people to it.

Lately I'm having dreams about my classmates from middle school again. I never have dreams about my adult life. Even my unconscious or whatever it is seems to consider my adulthood to be too uneventful and boring to be thought about. It's impossible not to notice that the people behind the otaku industry also seem to have a special place for school life in their minds. Of course a lot of the media has students themselves as the target audience and that would partially justify it but I believe there's more to it than just that.

The forced socialization I went through in school was the peak of my social life. After that the "system" is done, it's up to you to pursue life in society. Once school is over, making any lasting connections with people become a lot harder and to some, probably next to impossible. That seems to be the case for everyone, not only to reclusive weirdos. If you start searching online stuff like "making friends after 30" "making friends as an adult" you'll find a staggering amount of articles and other stuff about it, including friendship making gurus because of course that's a thing it exists. Those articles always mention the obvious things. Look for people who share hobbies with you, attend to social events blablabla. Everything is so insipid. I think it overlooks the fact that something inside you goes bad and that innate ability to connect to people in a deeper level is broken by something. For some it was never that good in the first place.

I also realized recently that 99% of the conversations I have is with myself. Of all the things I think about, only 1% will ever be known to people on the outside. Maybe that's the case with everyone? Not that anything I think about is worth to be known of course.

>>37800
>that innate ability to connect to people in a deeper level
I've never really had that. In school, I had acquaintances I talked to only in the class we shared, who rotated on a yearly basis.

>>37800
The movie Stand by Me made a similar point;
>I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was 12. Jesus, does anyone?

I guess there's biological reasons, most adults only have friends as couples, a thing I find particularly horrifying, but it makes some sense. That would also explain the despair of males for achieving a (often horrible) life with a female since since that could also be perceived as the only way to avoid social ostracism.
Personally I also find my mind and dreams stuck in school years, but since those were hell you could say I'm perpetually stuck in hell.
The topic of social isolation has too many implications. I remember in my 20's reflecting of how I could spend 4 or 5 days without hearing my own voice and how weird that felt, how I created a self that had nothing to do with the self others could see and so many other thoughts.

>>37800
With most people it goes like that, no matter what your MS or HS school-life was actually like. Imagine it like this, your brain is like you were as a child, it is in a room full of toys. The child looks at the new toys, they are new, polished, but they are generic, no personality, and have no relations one to each other. Like a child, he wants to play with toys, making they act in storylines, but they are not interesting, and no emotion will be brought upon by witnessing their act. So he opens an old crest, and under the cobwebs there are old toys, battered and dusty, but they are interesting, they have intricate backgrounds and relations to each other, the baby wants to play.
So does your brain goes about making its stories. Being a loner or not has nothing to do with it. Per example, even if you spoke with no one and were friendless in your youth, and speaks with some adults in the present, it still doesn't matter. In adult life there's no fights, no people challenging the teacher, getting thrown out of the classroom, threatened with suspension, etc. Everything is mechanical, this form, sign this, and polite, there's no primal instinct involved. No food for the primitive mind. Moreover, everyone you met, you observed during years, the years of change, for most youngsters, and you saw they interacting with each other, everyone of them. This creates a complete personality for most of them.

>>37888
>In adult life there's no fights, no people challenging the teacher, getting thrown out of the classroom, threatened with suspension, etc.
I'm pretty sure stuff like that does happen in the "real world". Most adults, before they settle down, are obsessed with social relations, and afterwards they still care about politics and celebrity gossip. In school and now, other people have felt like empty husks who talking to is pointless. Students acting out like that is just more proof of them being alien to me and empty, obsessed with their petty, surface-level issues and lacking in introspection.

>>37892
>In school and now, other people have felt like empty husks who talking to is pointless. Students acting out like that is just more proof of them being alien to me and empty, obsessed with their petty, surface-level issues and lacking in introspection.

Are you completely sure you're superior to most people or do you voice those thoughts as a sort of self pep talk? I see people on imageboards saying similar things almost regularly and I never know what to think. I don't know if you guys are just lying to yourselves or you really know what you're talking about. I guess I'm just projecting my own doubts. I just feel like shit. No way out of it. I look around and people basically manage to put some order and comfort in the world, providing all sorts of things, from running water to anime and I don't know how to do anything. I suppose a lot of people like to talk about celebrities and other inconsequential things. But then I remember I laugh and cry over plots of fiction. I couldn't measure a difference of value between those things. All I do is to hide in here like a photophobic insect. It feels like such an absurd, herculean task to look down on people from this position, I just wonder if I'm more or less delusional than you. If I think about it, I can't make heads or tails of anyone. I guess I don't even know exactly what I'm asking you.

>>37893
I'm not "superior" to most people. I am better than them in a few ways which I personally value. I also consider my disregard and apathy for certain things most other people care about as virtues.

Post edited on 9th Mar 2021, 11:04am

>>37893
Personally I don't look down on people, since my self steem is so low I couldn't do that even if I wanted to. I just dislike people deeply. It's the same? I want to think it isn't.
Pure dislike, no need for moral justification or of any kind. The same way they dislike me, I dislike them, and that's all.

>>37892
It seems you did not understood what I meant. First, I did not meant that school students are more aware, or better in any way that relates to consciousness. I am perfectly aware of the husks phenomenon you mentioned. Fighting in the adult world is nowhere near as common, and that doesn't necessarily imply a higher state of consciousness but is mentioned merely for the fact that it is primal. In classroom you see humans beating others for fun, you see lust in reality, how it works, etc. First-hand. Politics and gossip have nothing to do with what I am talking about. That post was not meant as a praising of school students, but rather as as statement that in that time of budding youth the youngster comes in contact with lots of people doing primal things, in a more primal environment. This also happens outside of school, but in school there are more characters for the dreams.

I like to fantasize a lot about what would happen if some kind of spiritual being approached me, like a demon or the spirit of the canal near my house. What would they say to me, and what would they want from me? I think I would really easily go along with whatever they wanted if I thought I could benefit from it.

Worshiping and doing the bidding of something like that is a comforting thought to me. Maybe because I'd like the sense of purpose, direction and meaning that would provide. A being who was superior to a human and I can see and talk to giving me directions and hope in life.

I also think about human sacrifice a lot. If I could just pick people to sacrifice in exchange for things without having to put myself at any risk, would I actually go through with it? I've thought many times that I would sacrifice my sister, who I don't like that much, for instantly learning Japanese. That's supposed to be a really horrible thought, but I think I would actually do it.

Having Kenkou Cross's artistic ability, or something comparable to that level, is worth about 500 people in my mind. Does that mean there's something wrong with me?

>>37895
This is the point I arrived at after many long years of debating similar justifications.

Do you ever think in the future there will be robotic companions and/or realistic vr people plug their brain into, and if people from then look at our posts from now, they'll think we're poor, pitiful, primitive saps? Maybe they'll wonder how we even managed to get by without such basic sources of happiness. Is that a comforting or distressing thought to you?

>>37973
Maybe not robotic companions yet, but combine recent advances in GANs ("this X does not exist") with some sort of booru-style on-demand generation and recommendation system and now we're getting close to some sort of hedonic tar pit. Considering that people probably already spend hours searching for images that appeal to them, I can certainly some people getting sucked in and spending most of their time flitting between sequences of images designed to be increasingly stimulating to them.

>>37974
>some sort of booru-style on-demand generation
I've fantasized about that kind of thing a lot.

>>37973
There will be robotic companions it's just a matter of what form that will take. It's likely to just be a more advanced Siri or whatever it is but with a robotic body that can do simple things or is just decorative.

VR will advance but it is still not clear whether true VR is actually possible. Google Glasses are supposed to come out soon and the US military is experimenting with HUD goggles for their infantry but it's still just a screen. Actually hooking the brain into a Virtual reality is something completely different. I'm not going to say it's impossible though and if it is possible it's probably just a matter of time.

I really don't like the idea, there are quite a few problems I have with it. It takes away what it is to be human, it's going to make people even more connected to social media and their devices than they are now, it's going to trivialise everything and make everything dull, it will open up a myriad of ways for big business to profit form us, manipulate us and otherwise interfere with our lives, people will not be able to separate what is real form what is fake and there are a myriad of other unforeseen calamities that could occur as we don't know what effect this would actually have on the brain or society and certainly not over the long term.

>>37973
Yes. Robotic companions could probably be realized earlier although probably "primitive" compared to our expectations as the previous post mentioned. The VR and technological gap could happen but it will still be a long way off, possibly not in our lifetime. To be able to progress to such a state we will have to first reevaluate our position as humans and the fabric of society must first change.

I think as >>37974 >>37976 mentioned, we are at a tipping point in human history because everyone have become so overly dependent on technology to a point where we are almost guided by it and not the other way around. I fantasize quite a bit about society in the distant future where the lines between human and technology have pretty much blurred.

>>37973
There will be no future, just fight for survival.
Our years will be remembered as the last moments of the golden era that was the second half of the 20th century. So not robot maids, cat girls or VR, people will be too busy struggling for the basic.

>>37973
To whatever future robot person is reading these posts: I hope you're happy, because I'm not.

In the normandy landing, why didn't the front line troops off have some sort of shields? depictions and stories make it seem like the first ones off the ships would be meat shields for the people behind them. So why not carry 'something'? anything?

>>37994
I don't think there's any shields that could be effective against intense machinegun fire, and if they were the sacrifice in mobility wouldn't be worth it. Also the costs not assumable.
You need something like a tank to move that kind of armor, not just some dude.
Last time it must have been tried could have been in WWI, and it wasn't a practical idea; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_personnel_shield
Same with body armour, I remember some units of germans that even looked a little like medieval knights, but at that point modern war wasn't about that.
Besides that, the idea of Normandy wasn't to send waves of men against enemy fire until they could surpass the german defenses, there was a lot of previous work to avoid that, so most of the landings meet with barely any resistance. Only Omaha and Juno didn't go that well.

>>37995
Sorry, I completely forgot I couldn't post any 3D pictures here.

>>37995
I guess that part might be a bit exaggerated then. Seems weird, but I guess it can't be helped if the impracticality outweighs the benefits.

>>38019
Sounds like you're scapegoating. This isn't 4chan where there's hundreds of posts a day to occupy your attention.

Post edited on 3rd Apr 2021, 1:31pm

Sometimes I wonder what is the point of wasting my time on imageboards, when I could just watch anime and play video games.

>>38024
There is no point, you actually are wasting time
Just like me

>>16448
I wonder if anyone ever noticed that the previous thread is actually >>2253. >>15685 is a daily report thread.

>>38024
>>38026
I likewise spend too much time on imageboards. As >>17224 put it,
>imageboards are fucking addictive.
But I don't think it's always entirely a waste. However, it'd probably do me well to limit my usage of them and other similar timesinks that detract from time I could instead spend doing more enjoyable things.

Do you ever think about how many people have done the same things as you on a particular day? Or if anybody has ever done the thing you've done? For example, how many people played a dreamcast game on an emulator today? How many people read x visual novel today? Was it just me, or was there someone else? Are there days 0 people do this particular thing?

If you make a sandwich with rye bread, roast beef, tzatziki Sauce tomatoes and white cheddar, has anybody else made a sandwich with those exact ingredients before(yes, because I did)? Or am I first and last person who will ever eat this?

>>38061
If you shuffle a deck of cards thoroughly enough, you will be the only person to have experienced that specific arrangement.

>>38061
I do think about that often.
And I think the likelihood that I was the only one is often high. For example, I often find myself being the only viewer of a video, or the only one posting on some website, out of 7+ billion people, I'm literally the only one on the counter, and I think you can extrapolate that to offline activities too.