/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6864771
Now think logically, with most of the internet user base being avid consumers of cartoon pornography and this woman being known even by non-fans of her work through her fan-porn, shouldn't she have way more numbers than what she has?
Even i should have some saved up.
>>6864775
And can you elaborate on it instead of going
>greentext
>greentext
>wow ur retard
Sure, i'll admit the wording might come off, but only to an autistic individual who can't contextualize information and is unable of recognizing nuance while taking everything in absolute terms.
But i know that for retards
>autism = post with many words
It rather says a lot about you being legitimately autistic.

>>6646981
>this is my observation
>NOOOOOOOOOOOO TAKE IT BACK U SUCK I BET U DONT HAVE ANY MONEY OR FOLLOWERS AAAAAAAAAH UR JUST JEALOUS COPE SEETHE YOU DONT UNDERSTAND ANYTHING JUST FUCKING LIKE AND SUBSCRIBE TO MY CHANNEL AAAAAAAAAAAH
>>6646984
>anon shares an observation
>is met with endless strawman projections and ad hominem to discredit what anon said because anon is threatening to make them question their online social circles
You're pretty much confirming what i said.

>>6646989
Bingo.

>>6116002
The cheat code you're looking for is
>P A N D E R I NG
The normie doesn't care about art quality as long as it's readable, but the average consumer cattle wants:
>"WOW THATS LITERALLY ME"
or
>"WOW THAT VALIDATES MY BELIEFS"
or
>"WOW THAT MAKES ME FEEL GOOD ABOUT MY IDENTITY"
or
>"WOW I LIKE THIS BECAUSE IT REFERENCES ANOTHER PIECE OF MEDIA I ALREADY CONSUME AND LIKE"
Those are the things the mediocre consumer seeks.
You give it to them, they give you money so they can consume more.
They can't literally help themselves.
Only go this path if you lack a conscience.