cancel reply
Posting mode: Reply


Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
name e-mail subject pw(deletion)
Post and go
Bump thread?

  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Javascript must be enabled for all of our addons to work.
  • Come chat and see that we're all a bit crazy on IRC!
  • Do not post any artwork from sexyfur.com and/or
    Jeremy Bernal. This is now a bannable offense.
Flockmod!

File: medieval_gothic_stock_by_mariaamanda-d51fkyx.jpg - (2223.55 KB, 2608x3932) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
2276919 No.3498914

Because circa 1997 to 2004 i could see them at malls and such,but seems like they have all vanished. I would like someone dressed goth,then someone dressed as a gangsta anyday.

No.3498917
File: 4b9b520cbaff7d499ded7f40145138c1.jpg - (207.99 KB, 1700x919) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
212986

South Park happened and they were all shamed into extinction.

No.3498918

Wealth inequality was not as severe in decades past as it is today, and the general public had far more time and disposable income. This allowed people to spend more time focusing on art and literature, and introduced numerous young people to Romanticism. From Romanticism flows a fascination with the Gothic, the supernatural, and a general fixation on emotion.

This, of course, is good for the arts, but it also gave rise to the Goth movement, which was essentially Romanticism combined with the counter-culture Punk Rock scene of the 1980s, which was itself a product of the 20th-century far left. And is another topic worthy of discussion through the lens of class, but I digress.

In any event, due to wealth inequality, humanities education is being slashed throughout the country, which means fewer children are reading books, learning about art, and generally being introduced to Romanticism. Likewise, the future doesn't look very Romantic to children growing up today. Some children still have opportunities, but the competition for those opportunities is fierce, and getting more intense with each passing year. Those children turn toward desperately trying to fit in, so they don't get left behind.

Other children know instinctively that they are going to be left behind. The opportunity isn't there, and only a life of hardship stands before them. It is no wonder that those who wish to rebel against the hand of fate would embrace the so-called "ghetto" and spit in the face of an uncaring social order. And with hip-hop culture increasingly allying itself with the left, it's unsurprising that young radicals would turn in that direction for comfort and direction.

tl;dr if we had communism there would probably be more goths and less gangstas.

No.3498922
File: PlanNine_07.jpg - (20.10 KB, 640x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
20581

>>3498918

>art and literature, and introduced numerous young people to Romanticism.

In reality, goth as a genre was more inspired by cheap B-movies and vampire fiction, combined with glam rock and moody bands like the Doors. Another major part came from the UK scene with teenage girls practicing low-brow neo-paganism and pretending to be witches.

No.3498924

>>3498922
Why should anyone be drawn to b-movies or vampire fiction? Why seek media outside the mainstream at all? Why not just watch TV and ignore books entirely?

Hint: Because humanities education introduces young people to a wider set of ideas.

No.3498926

PS, know what umbrella all vampire fiction falls under?

Romanticism.

No.3498927

Goth is individualist. Most goths were in college, predating the time when colleges were heavily promoting collectivism. Hip-hop is collectivist, and individual hip-hoppers are less visually individual. They all blend in together. Colleges now push collectivism and they also put down white cultures, and goth was mostly white kids. So, there you go. The guy above me only has it partly right. Punks wouldn't shill for communists, they're too busy doing their own thing. More communism would mean more hip-hoppers.

No.3498928

>>3498927
This is all gibberish. The Goth scene was never any more "individualist" or "collectivist" than the hip-hop scene, and a common criticism at the time was that all goths looked the same. See South Park, where the goth kids hate conformity but all look and act alike.

You just pulled everything you said straight out of your ass. The reality is that capitalism destroys individuality, which is why we see fewer and fewer subcultures that were once prominent in decades past. Now, the only two real subcultures of note are the haves (hipsters) and the have-nots (hip-hop culture).

No.3498931
File: no-u.jpg - (29.94 KB, 640x454) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
30658

>>3498928

No.3498932

>>3498928

>capitalism destroys individuality

Capitalism rewards risk takers, who often have to go against the grain and disrupt things to make change. Communism removes the incentive for anyone to be any different from anyone else. Because there are severe penalties for rocking the boat. I'm sure Dr. Dre is a communist, for example. If you want to get into goths "all looking the same", then you're going into the downward spiral of subcultures, where the "originals" are unique and the band wagon jumpers are not.

No.3498933

>>3498932

>the "originals" are unique and the band wagon jumpers are not

To be fair, I suppose the original hip-hoppers were different too. By '97 the goths were a 2 decade old subculture anyway. It lost the new car smell, got a little rancid.

No.3498952

>>3498932

>Capitalism rewards risk takers...

What is the first step a risk taker takes when launching a new product or idea?

No.3498964

>>3498952
Looking for people to risk funds?

No.3499187

I think i have seen goths in videos hanging out at Disneyland.

No.3499193

>>3498932

>people need financial incentives to want to be different

lolwut? No, that's retarded.

No.3499199

>>3498928

>which is why we see fewer and fewer subcultures that were once prominent in decades past

What rock are you living under?

There's so many subcultures today that none of them stand above the mass. Everyone's so different that nobody can tell anyone apart from the technicolor vomit that is society these days.

>>3499193
Capitalism rewards trendsetters who come up with a novel idea that people want to copy. The followers enjoy playing with a new trend for a while, and then it comes time for a new distraction and new ideas.

Socialism on the other hand punishes trendsetters, because they might be ideologically dangerous. Anything that makes people behave differently from the norm is automatically awful.

No.3499259
File: gini-index-usa.jpg - (114.42 KB, 1157x815) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
117171

>>3498918

>This, of course, is good for the arts, but it also gave rise to the Goth movement, which was essentially Romanticism combined with the counter-culture Punk Rock scene of the 1980s, which was itself a product of the 20th-century far left. And is another topic worthy of discussion through the lens of class, but I digress.

but wealth inequality was skyrocketing during the 1980s and 1990s.
the important takeaway is that the world has been going very badly since ~1971. there's a long list of economic reasons why this is the case, but the important thing is to realise that our current obsession with the 1980s and 1990s is pathological. The most impressive indicator for this is unemployment - during the 1990s, widely recognised as good years, unemployment was higher than it was in the 1970s - widely recognised as horrible years.

>>3498932
absolutely baffling that a furry could believe this given the financial structure of this pygmy fandom.
>>3499199

>Capitalism rewards trendsetters who come up with a novel idea that people want to copy

do i need to go out and dig up all the examples where someone invented a cool thing and then it was someone else who got rich commercialising it even though they did none of the creating it?
because i will (not) be doing that.

No.3499266

>>3499259

>absolutely baffling that a furry could believe this given the financial structure of this pygmy fandom

Then explain why everyone is slapping the P logos on their art these days? Capitalism, baby. Sell sell sell.

>because i will (not) be doing that.

You won't, because that's an aberration caused by copyrights. In the wider world, you can't set a trend alone without access to distribution channels for publicity, and to get access to distribution channels you effectively have to give up your copyrights. In other words, it's the record labels and movie studios who are the trendsetters, who get rewarded for introducing new genres and styles to the public.

So you think genres like punk and goth aren't manufactured by corporations? Who do you think sold all the records and made money over ticket sales, magazines, concerts...

No.3499267
> In other words, it's the record labels and movie studios who are the trendsetters, who get rewarded for introducing new genres and styles to the public.

re. this is why the studios have head hunters going round looking for new trends they could sell. New cool things to monetize.

The important bit isn't who gets rewarded for coming up with the idea, but that new ideas spread fast and wide because you can make money doing so - in contrast to socialism where new ideas are resisted and suppressed because the leadership has to guard its intellectual hegemony at all costs to maintain its social and economical hegemony. If the people started to question how things are done - why everyone dresses in the same sensible brown, why every car is a Lada and only party bosses drive a Moskovitch, why there aren't any fashion items in stores or why they can't listen to Rock & Roll, they would start to question their leaders.

No.3499273

Here's an example of a Russian TV ad in the 80's, for men's fashion

https://youtu.be/zzlzx8D4hYw?t=114

It may seem baffling why a society running a planned economy would bother making advertisements at all, since there was no competition between producers and retailers - things like clothes were produced and distributed according to projected demand, and that included planning what would be in fashion years in advance.

The point of the ads was to emulate western TV that people could sometimes recieve despite the soviets trying to jam western radio and TV channels in the bordering countries. Western TV showed all these nice things people could buy, so the Soviet TV started showing ads for similiar "luxury" products that weren't actually available to anyone.

No.3499276

Funny socialist history:

https://www.rbth.com/blogs/continental_drift/2017/05/18/soviet-spiel-why-ussr-produced-ads-non-existing-products-765399

>the government required all companies to spend one percent of their revenue on advertising, the Soviet Union’s sole ad agency churned out hundreds of commercials pitching imaginary products.
>Between 1967 and 1991 the Soviet Union’s sole advertising agency produced literally thousands of commercials, pitching products that state owned companies did not produce and had absolutely no intention of producing. From minced chicken to hot air showers and double layered toilet seats, the Estonia-based Eesti Reklaamfilm (ERF) made over 6000 commercials for all manner of goods – both real and fictitious.
>In a consumer orientated capitalist society, advertising is about getting people to buy your product instead of your competitor’s. But because of the absence of competition in the communist system, television advertising had a totally different purpose and role.
>“Its objective, in the simplest sense, was to project a narrative of abundance onto a population that was accustomed to experiencing scarcity.”
No.3499286

>>3499266

>Then explain why everyone is slapping the P logos on their art these days?

Essentially my point. This isn't risk taking and innovation, it's cultism, cargo-cultism, sycophancy, stupidity and egotism.
The most successful furry artists aren't the most skilled, nor the most creative, nor the smartest. They're the most cliquish. This fandom is a standing testament to the morass that markets actually create.

Liberal Capitalism as advertised is everyone popping champagne flying off to London on Concorde. Liberal Capitalism in practice is getting DVT en-route to Milwaukee thanks to 28" legroom in a non-reclining chair on a leased 737 with a crying baby in the seat behind you and an extra charge if you want a soda. You don't have to be a communist to see that. There's a reason the British used to make quality television back when the BBC was expected to perform a public service rather than compete with other television channels on a semi-market basis.

>In other words, it's the record labels and movie studios who are the trendsetters, who get rewarded for introducing new genres and styles to the public.

ah yes, and they're the creative people we should be rewarding rather than the parasites we should be purging.

>So you think genres like punk and goth aren't manufactured by corporations?

I think they were co-opted and ruined by corporations.
But it doesn't have to be corporations, this shitshow of a fandom is a testament to what happens when you let money and a ""creative"" community mix. Learn to do anything creative myself? Nah fuck it I'll pay someone else. I won't even think of a pose or setting, I'll just buy a YCH. CREATIVITY!

No.3499302
File: never_in_amercian_kids_animation_ever.jpg - (14.70 KB, 480x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
15050

Fuck off OP, you asked the same thing like last year.

No.3499304
File: france_gives_zeo_fucks_and_the_youth_are_all_the_better_for_it.png - (163.32 KB, 444x359) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
167243
No.3499311

>>3499286

>Essentially my point. This isn't risk taking and innovation, it's cultism, cargo-cultism, sycophancy, stupidity and egotism.

You're fixating on the few "superstar" furries who draw simple YCHs for thousands, yet those aren't the ones who sell the most art. They're just the ones you fixate on in your anger against the free market. People want to buy exclusiveness, and so the market rewards those who can exploit this niche.

>Liberal Capitalism as advertised is everyone popping champagne flying off to London on Concorde.

No it isn't. The concorde was a commercial failure because it was more than anyone needed, or wanted to pay for. If you want better seats, buy tickets in first class! But of course, you value your money more than your legroom, so you're allowed to make that compromize. Under socialism, someone else would tell you exactly what you can buy - although under socialism you wouldn't be travelling because it would be deemend unnecessary for you to go anywhere else than work and home.

No.3499316

>>3499286

>There's a reason the British used to make quality television back when the BBC was expected to perform a public service

The BBC made "quality programming" based on some arbitrary metric of quality. The thing is, quality is not the same for everybody, so you're really showing your class there. Television isn't just for you, you know - what's popular is often low brow, but that doesn't make it lower quality.

>ah yes, and they're the creative people we should be rewarding rather than the parasites we should be purging.

These parasites only exist because the government maintains a copyright law that enables them to monopolize the content and distribution channels to themselves. Without copyrights, we'd have a multitude of channels for distribution that cost very little to use, yet popular trends would emerge in more or less the same way: someone starting to "sell out" and pander to the masses.

>I think they were co-opted and ruined by corporations.

Most of the new trends are born as a counterpoint to the established trends pushed by mainstream popular culture because people get bored. Then they become popular culture because the mainstream starts to adopt them, and sell to these people exactly what they want to buy. Even Punk is not an exception to that - even as it tried to be as DIY as possible, against the establishment, it wouldn't have gone anywhere without the artists getting on MTV. Punk became accepted as a social expression through the popular media - otherwise they'd just been these filthy vagrants mixed with middle class kids pretending to be hobos.

No.3499320

>>3499286

>this shitshow of a fandom is a testament to what happens when you let money and a ""creative"" community mix. Learn to do anything creative myself? Nah fuck it I'll pay someone else.

This whole thing is about them, not you; the market doesn't revolve around your petty ass, and these people who you lament as being uncreative don't care - they care about getting what they want, and if buying an YCH is exactly what they want then the system is working as it's supposed to.

You're simply complaining that other people don't go through the trouble of spending years and years learning to create stuff when they can just buy what pleases them.

What I'm guessing you're really after by separating money and the creative community is the fact that you would have access to a host of free art if everyone was forced to do art only for the sake of art.

No.3499321

>>3499320
Under communism this guy gets gulaged and you won't have to put up with his endless walls of text anymore.

No.3499322

>>3499311

>those aren't the ones who sell the most art

are they the ones who make the most money, though? that's the important thing. nobody cares how much output you've got if you're not making any profit.

>They're just the ones you fixate on in your anger against the free market

I don't dislike the market. I dislike elements of the fandom, or more accurately elements I used to dislike before I realised the problem is with me for having standards. (This isn't snark, I mean it sincerely.) Don't conflate those things.
Set macroeconomic policy appropriately and the market can figure the rest out.

>The concorde was a commercial failure because it was more than anyone needed, or wanted to pay for.
  1. This is completely irrelevant. The point is how capitalism is advertised, what you're shown on the box is luxury - the reality, what people are actually willing to accept on the margin, is very different. Apple laptops are advertised with young smiling people, that's how it's advertised - the reality is still sitting alone in your room at bugger o'clock in the morning arguing about stupid nonsense with stupid people.
  2. Concorde was actually profitable for British Airways because they figured out people were perfectly willing to pay the premium. :^)
>Under socialism, someone else would tell you exactly what you can buy - although under socialism you wouldn't be travelling because it would be deemend unnecessary for you to go anywhere else than work and home.

god, it's like talking to an American on NationStates circa 2006.
I could bore you with my unreasonable knowledge of the airline industry across countries and time periods, but it would be an even more pointless exercise than trying to make my original (and main) point about economic management.

So now, a question: In your frazzled American brain, is Britain a socialist country? Is her healthcare system socialist? Answer this, it's important.

No.3499323

>>3499286
Also, re. the concorde: it was a British government project to solve a question that nobody was asking, and became a political project between the UK and France because the US companies saw how pointless it was and didn't want to participate. In the end only Britain and France ended up buying any, to save face against admitting that it was useless.

If you bought the idea of a market economy being drinking champagne on a cross-atlantic weekend trip to New York, you actually bought the Thatcher-era neoliberal "government guided missile" mockery of the free market that produced the concorde.

They promised you everything to allow the government to institute crony capitalism - corporations in collusion with the government - and when that failed to produce the good that it promised the left got a nice blunt weapon against capitalism by carefully ignoring that it was the government who was incompetent in handling the market.

No.3499325

>>3499316

>The thing is, quality is not the same for everybody, so you're really showing your class there. Television isn't just for you, you know - what's popular is often low brow, but that doesn't make it lower quality.

ah yes, let's set our standards at the lowest common denominator. Let's never expect that anyone can better themselves, or that we can better ourselves as a species. Let's just give up and jerk off all day. By all means, brutalise people but under no circumstances patronise them.
I'd tell you to fuck off, but the thing is this is what's won. This is the world we live in - you're free to choose, so long as you want to choose between terrible options. It's not even enough to have swill on ITV, C4 and the infinite channels of freeview, satellite and Sky. Nope, the BBC has to bow to this as well. It's not that television isn't just for people like me, it's that television isn't for people like me.

>Without copyrights, we'd have a multitude of channels for distribution that cost very little to use

Let me pose another question: Are you pro-piracy?

The culture machine broke itself anyway. In constantly striving to be different, everyone has again become the same. It's like sparkledogs writ large.

>>3499320
The system may well be working as it's supposed to. The original case was that the market rewards creativity, which it does not. The market rewards being good at selling what people want - and the last thing people want in this fandom is creativity. They want the 100th variation of the same picture to feature their identikit sparkledog, and they'll hand over $70 to prove it. Very good, fair and voluntary transaction free of coercion. Now tell me, where's the creativity? In the fucking paypal logo?

>You're simply complaining that other people don't go through the trouble of spending years and years learning to create stuff when they can just buy what pleases them.

I'm complaining that a would-be creative fandom is creatively bankrupt. I'm complaining that increasingly people are so lazy they won't even be the idea guy - they'll even contract that out to the artist, just to have their avatar inserted into the picture.

>What I'm guessing you're really after by separating money and the creative community is the fact that you would have access to a host of free art if everyone was forced to do art only for the sake of art.

I don't want to consume, I want to create, and I want to discuss creating. I'm more interested in good ideas than good art - if you've got a novel fantasy story in shitty pencil drawing, that's more interesting than an actually-fappable YCH. If all I wanted was to sit at home and wank all day the structure of the fandom as-stands is basically perfect except for the few dickheads who put their art exclusively on something like Weasyl which nobody uses so i'm not making an account just fuck off and put it on furaffinity like a normal person already.

Except that's all a lie. Every last word of it. I don't want the fandom to get better, I don't want people to suddenly decide to be creative, to put effort into things and try to build a better world. That's stupid, that's unspeakably stupid, and even if it wasn't stupid it's not going to happen. No, what I want is to be a fucking idiot with no taste. What I want is to look at this Pygmy tribe of STEM losers capable of engineering anything except an interesting personality and concluding they're all actually interesting. What I want, in short, is to be objectively wrong about everything. Why? Because then I'd be happy. Because then the sheer amount of wasted potential in the world would stop disappointing me. Because then I'd have fun masturbating with my penis, instead of walls of text that I only half mean.

No.3499328

>>3499323

>Also, re. the concorde: it was a British government project to solve a question that nobody was asking

a good number of people were asking it. the two practical problems were that they were asking it in the pre-1973 oil crisis world, and that they were asking for a slightly bigger plane that could fly slightly further.

>, and became a political project between the UK and France because the US companies saw how pointless it was and didn't want to participate.

US companies withdrew because their projects were overcomplicated engineering failures and because the hippie lobby got upset that the planes went bang flying overhead, not because they had good sense.

>If you bought the idea of a market economy being drinking champagne on a cross-atlantic weekend trip to New York, you actually bought the Thatcher-era neoliberal "government guided missile" mockery of the free market that produced the concorde.

Concorde was produced by the Harold Wilson (1960s) era belief in technological utopianism and managed capitalism, not Thatcher era belief in the state shoving the market down everyone's throats.

>They promised you everything to allow the government to institute crony capitalism - corporations in collusion with the government - and when that failed to produce the good that it promised the left got a nice blunt weapon against capitalism by carefully ignoring that it was the government who was incompetent in handling the market.

libertarian nonsense
they don't call 1950-73 (the period that actually produced the Concorde, and where people actually did believe in macroeconomic intervention for meaningful policy goals*) the golden age of capitalism for nothing. a tripartite agreement between corporations, government and workers is far more efficient than the present system - which is indeed corporations in agreement with government to strangle workers.
*no, 2008 doesn't count. 2008 was desperately scrambling for a way to stop the stupidity of the 1976-2008 consensus blowing up the world.

No.3499329

>>3499322

>are they the ones who make the most money, though? that's the important thing.

The most successful Patreons tend to be those that provide what the people want. There are some people who pay for stupid things, and so some people can make a lot of money by selling bullshit, but that does not mean others aren't rewarded. Compare the situation to how Apple's phones and computers are ridiculously expensive for what they are - they're making a lot of money in their niche, but that only covers 10% of the market.

>Set macroeconomic policy appropriately and the market can figure the rest out.
>This is completely irrelevant. The point is how capitalism is advertised

I guessed right that you fell victim of Thatcherism, and got duped to equating neoliberalism with capitalism and the free market.

>In your frazzled American brain, is Britain a socialist country? Is her healthcare system socialist? Answer this, it's important.

The answer to the question depends on whether you understand socialism through its behaviour, or through its theory. Through theory, Britain is not a socialist country even though it employs many leftist policies. It flip-flops schitzophrenically across capitalism and socialism without much coherence in policy. Through behaviour though, Britain is increasingly socialistic as it exhibits the type of state encroachment into peoples private matters and the market, which ends up harming the people at the benefit of the ruling classes.

No.3499330

>>3499328

>Concorde was produced by the Harold Wilson (1960s) era belief in technological utopianism and managed capitalism, not Thatcher era belief in the state shoving the market down everyone's throats.

True, but you probably got the idea of the promise of "concorde capitalism" from living through the Thatcher era. That was my point. Somehow I don't think you were even alive in 1973, and if you were then that's kinda sad.

>a tripartite agreement between corporations, government and workers is far more efficient than the present system - which is indeed corporations in agreement with government to strangle workers.

Indeed, because it actually includes the workers in the negotiations. The "libertarian nonsense" is pointing out that socialism as itself is just the state defining itself to be the people rather than asking what anyone actually wants.

No.3499337

>>3499325

>ah yes, let's set our standards at the lowest common denominator. Let's never expect that anyone can better themselves, or that we can better ourselves as a species.

Again, define "better" without referring to your own tastes. If you want to come up with a metric to define what sort of art or entertainment is "high" or "low" in quality, all you can really do is ask everyone what "good" means, which makes it a popularity contest. Otherwise you're imposing your arbitrary opinion and other people simply don't need to agree.

>you're free to choose, so long as you want to choose between terrible options

If it was truly terrible, then nobody would be watching it. Now, you may argue that there's a race to the bottom, but that's only true if there's absolutely nothing better to be had, and there is, because we're not yet at the point where literally a single corporation can choose what you view.

>Let me pose another question: Are you pro-piracy?

I'm anti-copyright. The matter of piracy is complicated, as in, should you break an unjust law knowing that in the present it can still hurt innocent people to do so.

>The original case was that the market rewards creativity, which it does not. The market rewards being good at selling what people want

Which hinges on being creative and coming up with the latest stuff.

>the last thing people want in this fandom is creativity.

You're looking at the situation with one eye only. It's not a market for novelty all the time, and whenever something new is made it's going to get copied and reproduced hundreds of times to satisfy demand - but that does not mean creativity isn't happening or isn't being rewarded. Creativity is behind all of it.

At some point people get bored of the same cookie cutter YCH, and someone comes up with a new thing, and then everyone does that for a while. Remember when it was Michele Light or Terrie Smith pumping out literally thousands of cookie cutter pinups that people bought?

>I'm complaining that a would-be creative fandom is creatively bankrupt.

There was never a "would be". This is a fandom that is based on fetishizing humanoid cartoon animals, and secondarily being like a huge gay swingers club. The point for most was and is roleplaying, porn, and consuming the art. The only reason why anyone picked up a pen is because there was no content from the outside to be fans of, so it had to be produced "in-house", and as some became better at it, others stopped because everyone knows how terrible amateur fan fiction is.

>What I want, in short, is to be objectively wrong about everything. Why? Because then I'd be happy. Because then the sheer amount of wasted potential in the world would stop disappointing me.

Then only realize that you were ever only subjectively right about anything. There is truly no wasted potential, and you can stop congratulating yourself for having "standards". The problem seems to be that you're being falsely modest, in the sense of "Oh, I can't help but feel superior even though I know it's just me".

No.3499356

>>3499329

>The most successful Patreons tend to be those that provide what the people want

What people want isn't some innate thing. It can only be read in the context of what's on sale.
And this is important in the context of television, or christ - in the context of me and fucking videogames. That's a more fun story, let's do that one. In the old days, I had a limited supply of games - so naturally I played the fuck out of the lot of them, and I had fun. You know what I do now? As in, right this moment. I leave an emulator open with nothing in, unable to decide between the tens of thousands of games on every piece of hardware up to 1999, which i've got downloaded in complete sets, and I type nonsense to a stranger on the internet. You know why that is? Because there was never an innate part of me that said "ah yes, I want to make the blue hedgehog go fast", the blue hedgehog was dumped in my lap and I enjoyed making him go fast because what else was I going to do before I discovered masturbation?
I'm not arguing against choice - don't get me wrong here. Even in my limited set of games, there was a choice. What I'm saying is, glorifying the results of choice ex-post-facto is stupid. I've been swamped with choice, and it's lead to a lower equilibrium result for everyone than if we were still in the days when I was trying to download ROMs over dial-up.
Your definition of socialism is "something i dislike" or "the state existing" tier and I'm not interested in pressing further on that - but here's my key takeaway: You know what Britain's socialist state healthcare has inside it? Choice! Choice and markets. Don't like your local doctor? He's a state employee, but you can still pick a new one. Want to try a different drug? Fine. The contrast between state intervention and choice is silly.

>>3499330

>True, but you probably got the idea of the promise of "concorde capitalism" from living through the Thatcher era.

I got it from the entire nature of how capitalism is sold. You always get the neat example of the furry getting his rocks off and the artist getting to fund the repair of their phone screen, rather than the coal miner deciding that black lung is mildly less debilitating than starving. (And it's true! It's true! Working down a Chinese coal mine IS an improvement on sustenance farming! It's just not pretty! Marginal gains aren't pretty, that's why they're marginal!)
You don't advertise anything by saying what it's actually like. Christ, that's basically why everyone prefers porn to sex.

>Again, define "better" without referring to your own tastes.

Oh fuck off, tell me having your eyes gouged out is painful without referring to your own feelings. Take this sophistry elsewhere.

>If it was truly terrible, then nobody would be watching it.

Wrong. Working in a soviet steel mill was terrible, people still did it because the alternative of going to the Gulag was worse.
Look at politics. Basically everywhere in the world (except italy!) this one applies: "If both major parties were truly terrible, nobody would vote for them."
So consider the economics of this - imagine you've got 100 people with no taste, and 10 people with taste. The 100 will enjoy anything equally, but are drawn to shiny things. The 10 hate shiny things, and will only enjoy quality. Naturally, the media you're going to get is going to have a lot of shiny things. The 10 alone can't support a viable market, but if shiny things were banned, the tasteless hundred would see no change in their enjoyment of the not-shiny media then available. You know what's a good model of this? Clickbait. Stupid people can-and-will read real headlines, but they're stupid so they'll read inferior clickbait articles given the chance. I'm not saying we should ban clickbait, but what I am saying is that market forces may lead to worse outcomes in such scenarios.

>It's not a market for novelty all the time, and whenever something new is made it's going to get copied and reproduced hundreds of times to satisfy demand - but that does not mean creativity isn't happening or isn't being rewarded.

It really does. You go out and do something genuinely creative. Worldbuild something impressive, tell a nice story - put some actual thought and effort into something, and then tell me at the end of it you'll be paid more per-hour than someone churning out recolours of the same series of poses. actually, fuck that stakhanovism: just do something with competent anatomy, then tell me if any furry actually notices.

>Creativity is behind all of it.

I prefer to imagine creativity is underneath all of it. 6 feet under, to be exact.

>At some point people get bored of the same cookie cutter YCH, and someone comes up with a new thing, and then everyone does that for a while.

Ah yes, bandwagon jumping, that famous synonym for creativity and original thought.

>There was never a "would be". This is a fandom that is based on fetishizing humanoid cartoon animals, and secondarily being like a huge gay swingers club.

There's a "would be" in that the fandom tries to bullshit itself as anything other than a wank-hut. There's a could-be because animal people is such a broad, interesting, and underutilised concept. Unfortunately, the mantle of that concept is currently occupied by the wrong type of silicon addicted cunt. So here we are, there's nothing unless you want to talk about tits and cock. (Or hang around imageboards moping.)

>Then only realize that you were ever only subjectively right about anything.

No, this is sophistry. Simpsons S1-9 is objectively superior to whatever season we're on now. Challenging someone to a discussion that invariably spirals into a philosophical dick-waving contest on the nature of human experience isn't going to change that. When someone yells "look out!" because you're in the road, you don't say "Why? How can you prove there's actually a car coming?", you fucking jump out of the way and if it turns out he's a liar and nothing's coming you walk back across the road and break his nose.

>There is truly no wasted potential, and you can stop congratulating yourself for having "standards". The problem seems to be that you're being falsely modest, in the sense of "Oh, I can't help but feel superior even though I know it's just me".

It's not false modesty, it's self loathing. It's the consequence of pissing away insufferable hours on imageboards with people I don't like, and realising that the moment I stop being a combative dickhead I've got nothing to actually say to people and no hope of getting a single reply. Have you ever sat in a furry discord? jesus christ it's small-talk to an art form. And you know, that's the other thing - I know higher standards are out there. They're just all pricks I'd never want to be associated with, because you know the laughable thing? In my self image, I'm a nice person.

And you know, really, that's my problem. I was told, long ago, that this fandom would be an interesting place for sad dickheads like me, only to find out it's full of people with whom I have nothing in common.
Now how we got from here when I was originally making a point about the 1980s being shit I can't remember. Anyway, core takeaway is that I hate myself and want to be somebody else, be it through lobotomy or typing so many combative walls of text that I eventually run out and find myself forced to type something nice instead.

No.3499424

>>3499356

>What people want isn't some innate thing. It can only be read in the context of what's on sale.

Yes it is. Why do you like Sonic instead of Super Mario for instance? Of course availability affects choice, and some choices are made for you, but people still make choices. Lots of people didn't like platformer games at all, or chose not to play video games, so again you're confusing your own condition to be universal.

Even with corporations trying to push choices on you, new trends emerge because people aren't happy with what's on offer and instead create something else. The fact that the majority is happy with what's already out there doesn't change anything.

>The contrast between state intervention and choice is silly.

State intervention tends to limit choice by limiting you to the choices that are the most profitable to the state. Changing the available options is unprofitable because it introduces transition costs, so the state tends to limit innovation and at best offer some cosmetic variations - like choosing between a red Lada and a blue Lada, or choosing one NHS doctor over another NHS doctor both being educated to the same standards and both taking treatment recommendations from the same guidebook.

On the free market, limiting innovation leads to obsolescence and a loss of customers.

>I got it from the entire nature of how capitalism is sold.

By whom? That's the question. Who had you been listening to when you learned what capitalism is? Some leftist commentator making sarcastic remarks how capitalism fails to satisfy their nirvana fallacy?

>Oh fuck off, tell me having your eyes gouged out is painful without referring to your own feelings. Take this sophistry elsewhere.

That's just silly. Pain is a biological fact. Whether a Rothko painting of a black square canvas is good art depends on who you ask. Comparing your personal preferences in art and entertainment to being violenty tortured is the ultimate hubris. "Oh no! My favorite TV series is not on anymore! This is like Abu Ghraib!"

>You don't advertise anything by saying what it's actually like.

Which is why you shouldn't take adverts seriously. If you got dissapointed because your x-ray glasses from the cereal box didn't actually see through walls, the problem is that you're an idiot.

>Christ, that's basically why everyone prefers porn to sex.

Porn is a caricature of sex designed to show the bits that trigger our primal instincts. It's not an advertisement for sex, and if you take it as a description or a promise you've misunderstood it.

>Wrong. Working in a soviet steel mill was terrible, people still did it because the alternative of going to the Gulag was worse.

Nobody's sending you to the Gulag for not watching Britain's Got Talent. Again, you're going off the silly end.

>So consider the economics of this - imagine you've got 100 people with no taste, and 10 people with taste.

Taste as defined by whom? Wouldn't those 100 people say the other 10 have no taste? See there's the issue again: you still try to assert there exists some objective universal metric of quality that just so happens to align with yours.

> The 10 alone can't support a viable market

Yes they can. If there's money to be made, someone's going to draw your fetish or tickle your fantasy. The problem is rather that you don't want to pay, so you're trying to get what you want by complaining about it.

>You know what's a good model of this? Clickbait. Stupid people can-and-will read real headlines, but they're stupid so they'll read inferior clickbait articles given the chance.

Clickbait doesn't work by stupidity, but because of a common psychological effect where people get excited by a promise. The reason we browse gossip news online is because we're satisfying the hunter-gatherer instinct of seeing what's under that rock, or behind that tree that looks interesting. Just because it doesn't serve your purposes doesn't mean it's stupid.

>actually, fuck that stakhanovism: just do something with competent anatomy, then tell me if any furry actually notices.

That's an irrelevant complaint. Not all creativity is useful, and most ideas just aren't interesting to anyone but yourself. If you don't believe me, go start an ice sculpting studio in the Kalahari desert.

>Ah yes, bandwagon jumping, that famous synonym for creativity and original thought.

Without creativity and original thought, there wouldn't be bandwagons to jump on.

>There's a "would be" in that the fandom tries to bullshit itself as anything other than a wank-hut.

Nah, that's just you trying to get everyone on your bandwagon, to do your kind of thing instead of what they want to do.

>No, this is sophistry. Simpsons S1-9 is objectively superior to whatever season we're on now.

Now you're literally showing signs of autistic obsession and self-centeredness. Which seasons of Simpsons is better or worse depends on whether they're culturally relevant to you, and why you're watching Simpsons in the first place. For me Simpsons is just something you put on when you're having a hangover, and the earlier episodes are worse because a) I've seen them already, b) they're crudely animated, c) they're talking about issues and people that aren't topical anymore.

>and realising that the moment I stop being a combative dickhead I've got nothing to actually say to people and no hope of getting a single reply.

Then just don't say. You define yourself through your dissapointments, so there's no victory condition for you. The only way to win is to stop playing the game.

No.3499425

>>3499424

>Now you're literally showing signs of autistic obsession and self-centeredness. Which seasons of Simpsons is better or worse depends on whether they're culturally relevant to you, and why you're watching Simpsons in the first place. For me Simpsons is just something you put on when you're having a hangover, and the earlier episodes are worse because a) I've seen them already, b) they're crudely animated, c) they're talking about issues and people that aren't topical anymore.

maybe when it's later in the day and i want to engage in more meaningless typing i'll come back to this, but for now i refuse to continue to engage with someone who is completely devoid of any sense of taste or quality control. Christ, on British television they swapped out the intro sequence on new-simpsons episodes with the one from old episodes because they realised people were switching off en-masse when they saw that first indication it was going to be a new episode - in the hope that a few of them would stick around due to the sunk-cost of having watched the intro.
i mean that's literally what this is - give me terrible writing and stilted animation talking about Trump because it's "more relevant" than a well written, well animated episode about a union going on strike. (haha because unions are dead now)

at least i've learned what kind of person keeps zombie simpsons on the air, i guess.

No.3499431

>>3499425

>on British television

There's your problem. Wrong demographic. Why the stations are trying to trick people into watching it is another question entirely and has to do with the sunk cost of buying the series and finding advertisers for the slots.

>completely devoid of any sense of taste or quality control

Again, anything you said does not invalidate my point. You think there are some universal standards of taste that just so happen to align with yours, and you forget that the entire world is not your tiny hamlet.

No.3499436

>>3499425
Also, what does it say about your creativity and standards when you'd rather watch ancient Simpsons episodes over and over? It's beginning to sound like "Kids get off my lawn!" type of thinking.

The zombie simpsons argument is moot. The Simpsons was subversive when it first came out because it pushed the envelope of what a TV cartoon can do. By season 5 they hit their peak popularity and then the novelty started wearing off.

The main argument for the "zombification" comes from viewer ratings, and that is used to argue that the writing and ideas got worse, but the real reason is that the people were getting bored and started judging the show based on their boredom. Harvey Fierstein put it this way: “Anybody could do this. You’re the fucking Simpsons. Do something we have never seen before.”

That's because The Simpsons was such a show changer that when others caught up with it, the bar just started going up and up. In reality most of the early episodes are exceedingly simple with simple gags and themes, to the point of not really going anywhere, and from a modern perspective you can't really see where's the funny. I mean, a kid born after 2000 who is 18 now does not recognize the feud between Bart and principal Skinner because that world does not exist anymore.

Of course that doesn't mean Simpsons can't do bad episodes, or that the latest Trump topic isn't uninteresting. It means that it isn't a lack of taste or standards that keeps The Simpsons going. The people who maintain this "zombie" are those who weren't introduced to simpsons in the 80's or 90's and who don't have the same seen-it-all/out-of-loop standards of the older fans, so you got people who judge it very poorly and people who give it a good thumbs up, averaging out at around 7/10 on IMDB.

And that's not bad. Plenty of 7/10 shows are perfectly enjoyable.

No.3499437

The irony is that in the late 80's when The Simpsons came out, TV was so formulaic and based on a strict set of "tastes and standards" that every show was literally the same family sitcom with different actors. The point of The Simpsons became to present everything in the opposite light and make a "sitcom" where all things go to shit and everyone's an asshole.

People started laughing at the show because it was saying "This is you. Look how terrible you are!". That was the difference it made. The hypocritical and superficial 80's was over, and the 90's started with self-criticism and even masochistic self-hatred of the generation X, culminating in works like The Fight Club.

So the people who venerate the earlier Simpsons seasons today are venerating that cultural environment and that message, holding it as their measure of good taste to laugh at the corruption of yourself and your environment, and laugh at the moralism of the mainstream media - without actually doing anything about it. By these tastes and standards, "Eat my shorts" has become high culture, and the changing values of society are seen as falling standards.

O tempora, o mores.

No.3499513

>>3499437

O pretentious, O asshole

No.3499546

>>3499437
nah it's just a mediocre show that used to be a good show. it's not changing cultural norms, it's not a fixed and outdated definition of good taste: it's that the product has become mediocre. people didn't hate Windows ME because they were judging it by the standards of MS DOS.
this is the part where you tell me Windows ME was actually great.

p.s. this fandom needs a simpsons moment to get it out of being a boring formulaic cliquish rut. :^)
(but MY $75 YCH is of a LAVA fox, that's totally original.)

No.3500277
File: top_five_kitchen_nightmares_shutdowns_1485899141896_54338154_ver1.0_640_480.jpg - (84.50 KB, 640x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
86528

>>3499546
You didn't get the point.

The first ten years of The Simpsons was social satire of a particular period, and when the society changed the satire became no longer relevant. People who venerate the old Simpsons and claim the new episodes are bad still live in the society of the 90's in their minds, and don't recognize that the target moved on.

Simpsons was never really more than a mediocre show production and quality wise - the poignancy of its humor is what made it great.

For example, one criticism against the character of "Zombie Homer" is that he's now doing zany things like butting into people's lives in an "unrealistic way" like some tv-celeb doing home makeovers.... wait... what's that on TV on every channel these days?

No.3500648

>>3500277
you had a week to think up a reply and somehow managed to make your point sound stupider.

No.3501118
File: a152.jpg - (46.39 KB, 640x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
47499

>>3501113
https://youtu.be/qhlF5zAclAk?t=2m31s

>>3499302 probably got the image from http://thenudecartoons.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Desnudos?zx=a486e47b7d5a9f93 which has a ton of similar stuff.

No.3501177

>>3500648

>and somehow managed to make your point sound stupider.

What's so stupid about it? The society changed, The Simpsons changed, you didn't, and now you're bitching and moaning that The Simpsons isn't the same anymore. You don't get the jokes, or the topics aren't relevant to you, so you think it's bad. As for the animation quality: it was always terrible, especially in the first most popular episodes when they didn't yet have all that money - now it's just terrible in a different way - one that annoys you because you didn't grow up with it.

Tl;dr The main problem of the New Simpsons: "Kids get off my lawn!"

No.3501182

Oh they didn't vanish. They just gained weight. Tons of weight.

No.3501193

>>3501177
yeah, it's definitely that the jokes and stories are equally good now, just on different topics. it's certainly not possible that they've bled the premise dry.
the simpsons hasn't changed with society, it's just changed. it doesn't skewer the society of the late-2010s (and god knows it's ripe for it.) in anywhere near the same way it skewered the society of the 80s and 90s.

i'm going to make like the American economy and outsource:
https://deadhomersociety.com/tag/the-musk-who-fell-to-earth/

>They could’ve shown Musk as Shary Bobbins, a noble creature whose best efforts are eventually overwhelmed by the inherent crappiness of Springfield. Or they could’ve shown Musk as an evil, Hank Scorpio-esque nutbar who loves his inventions more than people. Or, with just a few tweaks, they could’ve shown a Musk vs. Burns battle for the soul of Springfield. (Burns would triumph, of course, because good is dumb.) But they didn’t do any of that. They had Musk show up, then they drew some of his stuff into Springfield, then he vanished while everything fell apart. This is about as shallow and pointless as it is possible to be given the enormous amount of screentime he got.

contrast with Hawking in S10

>Moreover, only on The Simpsons would Hawking be a bullying and arrogant dick who insults everyone and uses an extend-o-glove built into his chair to punch Skinner. Yes, he is smarter than everyone else, but he’s a jerk about it, and that’s what makes it work.

That's not a change in society, that's lazy writing. (Unless you want to make the perfectly reasonable case that by getting lazier and phoning it in, the Simpsons has changed with society as a whole. If you want to laugh, look at /r/surrealmemes. Simpsons is just here for ad bux.)

No.3501253

>>3501193

>That's not a change in society, that's lazy writing.

When it's Elon Musk you're speaking of, he's literally the poster boy promising to fullfill everyone's dreams about the Jetsons future.

You can't criticize Elon Musk. He is above and beyond. Even The Simpsons couldn't do it without getting a ton of shit, assuming the writers themselves weren't such fanboys.

No.3501254

>>3501253
so take shit, this is the show that already got dissed by the president. fear of taking shit is a sign it should be put out to pasture.
musk isn't the poster boy for the jetsons future either, he's the poster boy for the end of history. space, the final frontier... let's dump a car there like it's the north york moors. what was once the common heritage of mankind is now just a place to play for upvotes in the here and now.

No.3501257

>>3501193
Besides, if you want to criticize Elon Musk, the reasons go a little bit beyond the ordinary TV audience:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-06/how-elon-musk-used-broken-marketplace-play-us-all

Long story short: Elon Musk creates new companies left and right to get cheap government loans and subsidies, which he uses to borrow money between his companies while drawing money out for himself in the form of interest on debt and stock options for money he has lent to his own companies. All this is arranged so that his companies never make profit, thereby don't pay any tax.

So far every US citizen has paid Elon Musk about $50 in cash, in the form of government spending on his companies and what do you get? Nothing, unless you happen to be a rich asshole who can afford one of the cars, or you're in need of a cheap satellite to be launched.

No.3501259

>>3501254

>so take shit

You forgot the part where the Simpsons writers are huge Elon Musk fanboys, in line with all the people who are affected by the reality distortion field he stole from Steve Jobs. Turns out, if you own stock in a company whose sole value is in its overhyped stock, you don't want to do anything that would rock the boat.

>this is the show that already got dissed by the president.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/07/23/simpsons-creator-matt-groening-leads-anti-trump-chant-at-comic_a_23043654/

>'Simpsons' Creator Matt Groening Leads Anti-Trump Chant At Comic-Con
No.3501279

Well OP, I'm going to goth fetish party this Friday as a matter of fact.

If you want I could take some pictures.

No.3501282

>>3501259
even if they were fanboys, you could still tongue-in-cheek make him a jerk. or make him a nice, perfect person torn apart by the fact springfield are jerks. both would have provided far more comedy potential than what we got - an excuse for him to show up and say hello. (even that can be done better. Tito Puente was given an appearance in the 'Who Shot Mr. Burns' just because Matt Groening wanted to meet him. The episode was still good, regardless of whether you're old/sad enough to know it's referencing Dallas.) it's less about actually criticising him, and more about being funny - not offending your idols and boosting the value of your stock portfolio may well be perfectly good reasons to avoid making a good episode - but those good reasons don't suddenly make it a good episode on the consumer end.

The President I was thinking of was Bush Sr. rather than Trump. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ervjj_qRXXQ

No.3501347
File: Shut-up-and-take-my-money.jpg - (37.89 KB, 600x337) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
38802

>>3501282

>you could still tongue-in-cheek make him a jerk

You dont' understand. Elon Musk is like Buddha and Jesus combined for all the burned out california hippies who were promised flying cars and nerd valhalla by the year 2000. He is untouchable. He is their last hope. He cannot be a jerk, not even in a self-ironic way, because of picture related.

Remember how The Big Bang theory treated him?

No.3501350

>>3501348

>The President I was thinking of was Bush Sr. rather than Trump.

It's not a secret that Matt Groening is a liberal, and does liberal politics with The Simpsons. I mean, what do you think the core message of The Simpsons was/is? Who does it slam the hardest?

Liberals have holy cows too.

>but those good reasons don't suddenly make it a good episode on the consumer end.

No, but it does give a better explaination to the suckiness of that episode, than simply blaming it on "Zombie Simpsons" in general. They may get more celebrity guests for a lack of better ideas, but that's not the reason why those episodes tend to suck. The ones that suck the most like Elon Musk or Lady Gaga are because the writers are such fawning suckups for them that they dare not write even a slight bit of caricature lest they offend the idol.

The rest of the show is still perfectly cromulent.

No.3501352

>>3501347
I don't rememberer TTBT since I've not seen it, honestly. Even then, that leaves open the option of Musk being perfect and Springfield being terrible. Though at a push, if the writers are the world's biggest sycophants, I suppose saying "not even Musk can save Springfield" could technically be read as insulting Musk rather than Springfield.

>>3501348

>I mean, what do you think the core message of The Simpsons was/is? Who does it slam the hardest?

"If you try you might fail, so never try." would be about the message i'd take from the Simpsons. At peak, it slammed everyone in authority or power. Which can be a US-Conservative message as much as a Liberal one, and is probably the main way the show has aged since now that's a far less subversive position to take on the people attacked at the time - people take distrusting cops, teachers, politicians, etc, for granted now. Part of the reasons the ranks of management have swelled in both government and corporations.

The show does pander to a more liberal audience now, but even then it'd have the opportunity to be slightly funny if it attacked Conservatives in the older, more cynical fashion rather than just crudely slapping nonsense together into a 4-act structure for an excuse to namecheck BLM or something.

No.3501355

>>3501282
Also, do you think that Mr. Musk would have come on to the show if they had made an episode where he arrives in Springfield, eavesdrops on Homer's stupid ideas, then kicks up a series of ambitious startups that obviously have no chance of survival but he convinces the people to throw money at him anyways by distracting them with an endless list of more ambitious startups, and then finally runs off with the money?

Musk is a person who you believe to be either a saint, or a monster. He could be a genious visionary, or he could be just a very successful shyster playing on your hopes and dreams to make a dollar, and that ambiguity is what pushes people into being absolute fanboys - the plausibility that they're being total idiots causes people to reject the idea that Musk is a charlatan, and enables him to be exactly that. They're protecting Elon Musk's image to protect their own self-image.

That's also how Steve Jobs' reality distortion field worked. While Apple was clearly abusing its customers, stealing ideas from others and presenting them as their own, engaging in patent trolling and shitty business practices like planned obsolescence and deliberate incompatibility, selling substandard products for superstandard prices, Jobs was playing it out as great innovation and "magic" to big show audiences and spending $1.4 billion a year on PR. The contradiction between the lie and the reality is what made people fall into two camps: those who saw through it, and those who just fell deeper into the lie because they were now personally invested and couldn't admit being fools. The 10-15% of people who really bought it got the whole show, hook, line and sinker, and made Apple billions.

No.3501397

>>3501352

>"If you try you might fail, so never try." would be about the message i'd take from the Simpsons.

The main point of the Simpsons in the 90's was to be a counterpoint to the contemporary TV programming that was designed to present an idealized version of the American society with the "nuclear family" and its TV dad where everything turns out fine in the end, and important life lessons are learned about family/social values and important subject matters. Like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0rInDa39l8

Simpsons main joke was to turn this mainly conservative driven (TV networks had very strict rules of programming) fairy tale on its head and present the society as a caricature of itself, where everyone's a dick and nothing works, and nobody ever learns anything. It was funny because that was more or less the reality in the late 80's early 90's with the social hypocricy of trying to pretend that there's nothing wrong with America. Even the fact that Homer works at a nuclear powerplant and carries home nuclear waste is a joke on the nuclear family idea. The dad is a radiant example of one.

Today it's become customary to be self-critical and employ self-blame as a form of virtue signaling, so the joke doesn't have such an impact any longer. Consider for example saying "I'm such a nerd" in 1995 vs. saying the same thing in 2015. Totally different connotations.

No.3501518

>>3501355
Thing is Musk can toss a ludicrous, stupid idea that has no right to generate money, make it seem cool, tweak it a bit, or a lot, and make money off it.

Like his 'boring company' selling flamethrowers.

No.3501542
File: 30007584_10155484544963697_33505781_n.jpg - (46.50 KB, 256x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
47620

I wanted to get more pictures but technically flash photography wasn't allowed at the party.

No.3501544

>>3501130

>>alienated a lot of people

Boy, there's "wrong," and then there's you.

No.3501589
File: Freedom Toons.jpg - (151.94 KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
155590

>>3501542 Dressed like this, you might not expect that I'm actually a progressive conservative Trump supporter.

But this guy makes a pretty accurate representation of where I'm at, at this point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNoqKq_AFls

No.3501615

They're tumblr trannies now

No.3501616

>>3501615
exactly.
Myspace génération was all about "I'm goth, I'm different " the Tumblr generation is all like "I'm trans, I'm different " maybe the future will be like, gab.io "I'm white, I'm different "

the artificial need to be "different"...

No.3501657

>>3501615
That's less wrong than one would think. Of course just a small number became trannies, but yeah, they sit under the same rock as most tumblrinas.

No.3503553

>>3501118
I reversed searched and got nothing, what is that cap from? Looks like an ad.

No.3510694
File: GothNight.jpg - (61.19 KB, 960x641) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
62660

There's actually a Goth night here in town. I haven't attended yet due to work and poor planning, but this coming Tuesday I intend to be there.

No.3510698
File: Zim_and_Dib_Hamstergeddon_1.jpg - (31.85 KB, 445x336) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
32613

I used to be an angry goth kid. It just sort of died because it started to be mainstream, and as you get older, making money and looking like a good employee becomes more important than making a statement. That and all the good goth culture sources started to sell out, and then the fan base was insufferable.

Dem raman noodles ain't going to buy themselves.

I still do dress in mostly black, but its a little more stylish and work appropriate now. I occasionally go back and goth out 90's style in guilty pleasure a few cities over though.

No.3510704
File: 500full.jpg - (14.63 KB, 500x220) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
14986

>>3510698 Steam... You can work a Full time Job and still be Goth. By the way I'm live right now & it would be cool if you could show up.

No.3510706
File: 200px-JTHM.png - (28.04 KB, 200x141) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
28717

>>3510704
fine I'll show up to your snap chat thing, whats the link

No.3510708

>>3510698 if you watched Invader Zim, shopped Hot Topic, then you were never a goth. You were just a typical wannabe poser.

No.3510718

>>3510708
Speaking of Invader Zim: when is the movie coming out?

No.3510744
File: 62240_20160608172327_char.jpg - (13.96 KB, 236x236) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
14300

>>3510708 Yeah thanks a lot asshole that's exactly the kind of attitude thats killing the goth scene.

Further more Invader Zim was a great fuck'n show.

Suck it nerd!

No.3511273
File: april_2_ (150).jpg - (371.57 KB, 953x688) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
380485

>>3510694 Well I made it... I missed the other ones but this time I was there tonight for this one.

I'll try to make next one's too.

I'm so glad we have a local goth scene.

No.3511283
File: 1262325272.vinnyvanyiffy_gothsloth.png - (75.22 KB, 782x828) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
77022

>>3511273 Did you take any pics?

No.3511311
File: dr-fox-unikitty-7.5.jpg - (14.61 KB, 210x240) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
14958

>>3511283 Well no but the host of Goth night did... He's probably asleep at the moment but he'll forward them to me as soon as he gets up... Also recreating the outfit would be no trouble at all... I'm in my guy clothes right now to do some clean up around the lab/office... but when I'm done I'll put it all on again and take some pictures for ya.

No.3511314
File: 35646163_1568521436602969_3591874788798234624_n.jpg - (49.20 KB, 720x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
50380

>>3511283

No.3511317
File: 1442939990.lordfoxhole_gothic_kitty_color.jpg - (137.97 KB, 826x1280) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
141280

>>3511314 Kinda blurry, but thanks for posting ^^

No.3511792
File: 1024px-Ruins_of_Ludlow_restored.jpg - (135.81 KB, 1024x631) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
139068

>>3498932

>>Capitalism rewards risk takers
>>I have no idea who John D Rockefeller was.
No.3511905
File: Dream_Big_Furi.jpg - (140.68 KB, 1280x722) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
144059

>>3511317 I'm ... I'm gonna do it okay! I'm like... I'm gonna do it. okay... I WILL.... I said I would... so I will... I'm like... gonna put it all on like it was at the last goth night because it's the honorable thing do to... I can't right now because I've got grown up stuff to do here real soon ... so I can like pay bills and buy stuff... but You're chubby Goth furry pic is hot & I like to play dress up and stuff... Just ... i dunno ... Just hang in there man... I guess ... I dunno ... It'll but fine...

vc: yangig

No.3511906
File: 1443453067.lordfoxhole_gothic_kitty2_color.jpg - (155.66 KB, 1014x1280) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
159397

>>3511905 Aww, thank you <3

No.3512050
File: GothRequestSet01.png - (963.60 KB, 839x605) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
986729

>>3511906 :U ... wow... HOT... HAaaawwwT

And thank you for flashing me those amazing breasts of yours. Her Tummy is sooooh adorable!
That character is seriously cute. Do have any more of her?
<3

Sorry to keep you waiting... Everything just came out of the wash.
I'm a little bit bigger in these than I was for goth night.
but the outfit is the same.

I'm so thrilled you wanted see it. After a few of these... I'm gonna show you all my new top in Cobat's fashion thread.

No.3512053
File: GothRequestSet02.png - (428.00 KB, 569x579) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
438270
No.3512054
File: GothRequestSet03.png - (496.18 KB, 659x573) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
508084
No.3512055
File: GothRequestSet04.png - (571.98 KB, 723x649) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
585703
No.3512056
File: GothRequestSet05.png - (439.97 KB, 458x702) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
450534
No.3512057
File: GothRequestSet06.png - (421.88 KB, 465x676) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
432005
No.3512058
File: GothRequestSet07.png - (495.25 KB, 485x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
507132
No.3512059
File: GothRequestSet08.png - (329.40 KB, 411x582) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
337308
No.3512060
File: GothRequestSet09.png - (393.97 KB, 442x624) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
403421
No.3512061
File: GothRequestSet10.png - (561.80 KB, 628x686) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
575280
No.3512062
File: GothRequestSet11.png - (367.10 KB, 411x660) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
375909
No.3512063
File: GothRequestSet12.png - (435.86 KB, 444x690) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
446323
No.3512064
File: GothRequestSet13.png - (494.90 KB, 469x712) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
506774
No.3512065
File: GothRequestSet14.png - (482.56 KB, 519x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
494142

and that's the last one...

It feels amazing, I blew 2 loads just trying to get it on and it's already hard again.

Anyways ... I appreciate you wanting my out fit. <3

No.3512074
File: af0b891b-85d0-4912-a312-3a77209f4125_412x232.jpg - (19.55 KB, 412x232) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
20016

>>3512065 wanting *to *see my *outfit...

I mean...

It's late & I'm a little drunk and sometimes I type too fast and skip words.
ah heh heh heh

vc: rave

No.3512091
File: serveimage.jpg - (7.12 KB, 225x225) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
7291

Hhahaaa oh god, I was a 'mall goth' for a while back in the day - they are all super mega cringe fests for the most part now. Only a few I knew either died or just grew up : p Lel

No.3512107
File: 1193767090.lordfoxhole_scary_03.jpg - (171.06 KB, 821x1150) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
175162

>>3512050 Thank you for taking the time to do this <3 It's a cool outfit. I'm glad you had fun, and that's really hot that my request made you shoot your load twice...

The cat character is 'Cathy', an older milf kitty by Lord Foxhole http://www.furaffinity.net/user/lordfoxhole/. Those two are the only goth pics he did of her, but there are plenty more of her in the gallery - though he hasn't drawn her much recently.

No.3512110
File: 1198770938.lordfoxhole_anthro_2.jpg - (83.59 KB, 794x684) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
85601

>>3512107 Off-topic, but someone made him a sculpture of her, which I think looks adorable.

No.3512232
File: 1432485949.lordfoxhole_gothic_kitty02.jpg - (306.52 KB, 819x1280) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
313876

vc: do

No.3512236
File: PinkDevil.jpg - (12.77 KB, 248x203) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
13077

>>3512110

Some one made this sculpture of Roxi.

looks a pink devil. Like she's about to feast on flesh of a virgin sacrifice.

ceak

No.3512426
File: 36310476_1579516118836834_4953193694359453696_n.jpg - (64.86 KB, 464x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
66413

This was me at Gothnight last night.

No.3512434
File: 1273202259205.png - (550.53 KB, 640x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
563747

>>3512426
You look like you ate out a hooker on her period and forgot to wipe your mouth.

No.3512441
File: nohohon_tisyu.jpg - (72.77 KB, 900x903) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
74518

>>3512434
10 points to Gryffindor

No.3512477

>>3512236
I think John once said that Roxi was a sex-demon and he tried to establish that in one of his portfolios.

No.3512479

>>3512477 "Demon" ... well that explains a lot :/

No.3512481
File: more-roxikat-00.png - (1096.77 KB, 1237x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
1123091

>>3512479
IKR? Here it is,

No.3512482
File: more-roxikat-01.png - (1326.27 KB, 1238x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
1358096
No.3512483
File: more-roxikat-02.png - (1170.75 KB, 1238x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
1198850
No.3512486

I accidentally posted the next image here,

https://lulz.net/furi/res/3511723.html#3512484

No.3512487
File: more-roxikat-04.png - (1279.35 KB, 1238x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
1310057
No.3512488
File: more-roxikat-05.png - (1384.55 KB, 1243x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
1417776
No.3512489
File: more-roxikat-06.png - (1375.72 KB, 1237x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
1408736
No.3512490
File: more-roxikat-07.png - (1321.67 KB, 1250x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
1353388
No.3512491
File: more-roxikat-08.png - (1259.40 KB, 1242x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
1289630
No.3512492
File: more-roxikat-09.png - (1234.97 KB, 1237x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
1264614
No.3512493
File: more-roxikat-10.png - (1101.51 KB, 1238x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
1127943
No.3512494
File: more-roxikat-03 oops.png - (1446.06 KB, 1242x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
1480766

Here's the missing image.

No.3512499
File: MFWroxikat.jpg - (71.20 KB, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
72908

>>3512493 Huhhhhhh... Great...

The strips thread relevant in so much as she reveals a rather demonic form... BUT let's just go ahead and redirect this particular thread away from Roxi.

>>3512236 My sincerest apologies It's my fault so le'ts just talk about things we can do as individuals to encourage a fun gothy culture.

No.3512556
File: Aura_-_Gothic_Dancer_(BW).jpg - (145.70 KB, 826x1043) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
149192

>>3512426 Nice shot - very striking.

No.3512585
File: John_Astin_as_Gomez_Addams.jpg - (18.75 KB, 362x274) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
19197

I just feel fortunate that Savannah has a thriving Goth culture.

Ya know tomorrow night? I'm going to another Fetish party & I'm looking forward to showing off my outfit.

No.3512725

Live your life /furi/

No.3512742

>>3512585

I think there are goths in Southern California. I have seen some in videos of Disneyland 2017 and such

No.3512748

Is how the 97-04 goth dressed similar to how historical goths dressed?

No.3512753
File: DRK001.png - (11.86 KB, 822x528) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
12148

>>3512725 but it's not our life tho :(

No.3515122

>>3512753 I'm not saying everyone needs to be goth or anything I'm encouraging people to get out more and interact with people.


Delete Post []
Password