/jp/ - Otaku Culture

Shut up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib3kCv7TSxU

You're welcome.

Nope.

I'm a girl!

Ask me anything!

>>9669381
>Otakus posting their lineage on Youtube
You do realize why I'm going to say that thoses >otakus< are very suspicious don't you?

Aren't half the touhou cosplayers female?

Worst thread of the day, congrats.

>>9669381
wow. not epic, not cute, i hate it.

>>9669375
>The only girls who labelled themselves as "otakus" are usually 14 years old fake neet because it's fun, morever spouting out loud that they are lesbians because it's fun too.

They are not all like this.

Otaku = a strong, unhealthy obsession with something. An otaku female could exist, but rarely do I see one, and I'm not talking about the west here.

One of my friends (Japanese) is a train-ota, he has a girlfriend he wants to marry who is also a train-ota. I've never met her, but I just can't picture it at all.

They are out there, but as with most cases; the ones who are actually otaku are the ones so obsessed with their hobby that they have no time to tell other people about how much of an otaku they are or take part in some kind of 'culture', it's a waste of time.

>>9669412
But the day isn't over...

What. I've always been a lesbian.

Fujoshi threads always topped off at 250+ posts so there are probably more females in /jp/ than you think.

>>9669430
Nothing can possibly top threads like these.

>>9669432
So confident!

>>9669412

congratulation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBsad0rJkFk

>>9669422
>Otaku = a strong, unhealthy obsession with something.
What kind of otaku is /jp/ ? I wonder.

>>9669440

She looks anorexic.

>>9669375
There are barely otaku males in /jp/ or 4chan.

>>9669441
Obsessed with dicks.

>>9669441

/jp/ is not one person, /jp/ should be a conglomeration of varying types of otaku discussing their niche topics that do not fit on the other boards. The real otaku on /jp/ won't be posting in threads like these, they will be posting in the threads dedicated to their interest, or rather - they probably won't be posting at all because they'll be too busy playing visual novels or something to talk about it.

>>9669422

lol that is not what otaku means

are nymphomaniacs otakus too??? or hardcore partiers?

>>9669451
Otaku is not an elite status symbol

Only 40? 40?!!!
I thought we were all little girls...

>>9669460
Wow, get out of /jp/ with your Facebook-speak.

People already summed it up. Yes, there are, but they are not common, they probably don't post in /jp/, and for that matter most males posting in /jp/ aren't otaku either

>>9669464

stfu dork

>>9669460

otaku〈日〉〔日本製アニメや漫画などの熱心なファン〕

The term otaku was born 20-odd years ago because young men who were not good at conversation spoke to others saying "Otaku wa ... " （literally meaning "Your house is... ," but also expresses a slightly distant way of saying "you."）.
「オタク」という言葉が誕生したのは20数年前で、話下手な若者がほかの人
に話すとき「オタクは…（言葉の意味は「あなたの家」だが、「あなた」
の少し距離を置いた言い方である）」をよく使うことからだといわれる。

Stickling for detail and fond of collecting, their characteristics are similar to the "mania" person （maniac）, but the word comes from the fact that they say the words, "Otaku wa..." （And how about you?...） when speaking to others.
詳細にこだわる、収集癖があるなど、その特性はマニアと似ているが、相手
を「おたくは…」と言うことからこう呼ばれる。

An otaku is an obsessive hobbyist and generally, the image of these people is one of socially dysfunctional individuals, gloomy, unkempt and possibly with a Lolita complex.
オタクは一つの趣味に極端に執着していて、一般的に社交下手な人間で、ネ
クラ、ださい外見、そしてたぶんロリコンというイメージである。

The appearance and behavior of otaku can sometimes give the impression to people that they are potential sex criminals.
オタクの外見と行動は、時として性犯罪者予備軍という印象さえ与える。

Otaku are also not popular among women.
オタクはやはり女性に好かれない。

>>9669461
Where in my post did I imply that? Otaku for example is what >>9669422 describe. There aren't that many people here like that.

>>9669375
>>9669470

The remainder 20% are birds and cats.
The birds are cooking spaghetti.
The cats are being lazy.

Is the guy who plays World of Warcraft sixteen hours a day and knows every place, person, and item stat in Azeroth an otaku?

>>9669469
Times change

>>9669498
He's a retard for still playing WoW.

>>9669503
If he gives up, he will feel as though he has lost.

>>9669498

Yes.

>>9669501

No.

>>9669498
Not unless he's Japanese. Else he's just a hopeless nerd.

>>9669404
will this thread 404 soon?

Women can be otakus.
In anime

>>9669543
epic spoilers, /a/tard

>>9669550
Epic forced meme

>>9669543

Please stop misusing spoilers

Is the word otaku somewhat related/equivalent to the words nerd and geek?

Every female I met in /jp/ meet ups looks like Saori Bagina.

>>9669559
People abusing the spoilers is an epic forced meme, you're right,

>>9669543

The plural of Otaku is not otakus.

>>9669518
So an otaku is just a Japanese hopeless nerd, right?

>>9669566
It's only a forced meme if you're spamming it with the intention of having it catch on.

>>9669572
There's no difference between a meme and a forced meme in regards to how retarded both are.

>>9669572
Spoiler misuse has caught on. Your point?

>>9669375

Duh. Who the fuck do you think made all those fuhomo threads.

>>9669578
Spoiler misuse caught on shortly after spoiler tags were invented.

>>9669577
Even so, one should aim to use terminology accurately.

Any of you otaku girls want to go out with me?

>>9669572
>>9669577
Memes are just spam that people like.

>>9669578
But that misuse existed on Something Awful, which 4chan lifted the concept from. It wasn't an actual standard like pointer quotes.

>>9669584
>Spoiler misuse caught on shortly after spoiler tags were invented.

That doesnt provide spoiler misuse with any sort of legitimacy.

>>9669590
Look up descriptivism, you racialist.

>>9669586
>Memes are just spam that people like.

I don't like this spam.

>But that misuse existed on Something Awful

Somethingawful is somethingawful. 4chan is 4chan. And again, that gives no legitimacy to spoiler misuse.

>>9669590
Maybe you should post about it on /q/ if you're such an anti-spoiler otaku.

Are you worried about being shot down since it's not actually abuse?

>>9669603
Unlike all you retards, I don't go crying to mommy and daddy when things don't go my way. Besides, that will only bring further attention towards /jp/. /q/ already supplied us with enough retards as it is.

>>9669581

They played with dolls and they have a predilection for sewing so I thought they were Scandinavian males.

>>9669603
Of course it's abuse but most people, especially outside of /jp/m don't seem to mind it because it gets in their way of "fun".

>>9669590
To say that something "caught on" implies that it is a passing fad.

>>9669615

Sewing isn't feminine or gay.

Memes are self-propagating ideas.

I am a girl but would not really call myself Otaku. I do like anime and video games but in a much more casual way than a lot of people on here.
I can, however, confirm that female Otaku do exist, having known one who was living an almost hikki lifestyle. The reason you don't realise they exist is because they are drowned out by the attention whoring fakes that you described. Real female otaku, in my experience, are inherently shy and socially awkard, rather than the "OMG GLOMP SO KAWAII DESU =^____^=" type, they're just pathetic.
Admittedly, they are massively outnumbered by male otaku.

>>9669642
Thanks you very much for your insight.

>>9669612
/q/ is a big fucking disaster.

>>9669627

Spoken like a true Scandinavian.

I think memes are childish and spoiler misuse is equally childish.

>>9669647
It would be more accurate to describe that post as informational rather than insightful.

>>9669642
Wanna hook up, sweetie?

>>9669602
> Somethingawful is somethingawful. 4chan is 4chan. And again, that gives no legitimacy to spoiler misuse.

But we carried a lot of their ideas over. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST), shitposting, faggot, etc. And they're the ones who started the spoiler tag trend, so they have every right to use them however they want. Why are we putting greater-than signs before quotes? Because some nerds on Usenet decided it would be visually useful, despite it making no semantic sense.

>>9669631
Are any ideas not self-propagating?

>>9669654
>I think memes are childish

Welcome to memegenerator.com.

Now get out.

>>9669657
I wasn't being serious either way.

>>9669654
>I think memes are childish
I'm sorry, but that's a pretty retarded statement.
You're confusing the word 'meme' with 'stupid shit that /b/ makes'. Or the reddit version of meme which basically translates into 'the copypaste faces that go into comics, and that dog'

/jp/ I'm really disappointed in you

>>9669653

What a horrible world to live in.

>>9669672
I hate that memes have been reduced to specific templates. Even /b/ felt the advice dog and rage comics memes became played-out pretty quickly. Fucking /b/, of all places.

>>9669660
>And they're the ones who started the spoiler tag trend, so they have every right to use them however they want

Yes. In their own site.

>Why are we putting greater-than signs before quotes? Because some nerds on Usenet decided it would be visually useful, despite it making no semantic sense.

The greater-than sign is a shortcut to quoting, faster than typing "" repeatedly. It doesn't change the quoting purpose and only recently has it been misused by teenagers in 4chan. Spoilers, though, are a tool to discuss something that others should not see if they don't want to know about plot-specific events about a show or book they are planning to read. This is being misuse and used as a styllistic crutch for people who don't know how to write or merely want to bring attention to a detail about themselves while at the same time looking like they aren't whoring attention at all. Spoiler misuse is retarded and speaks volumes for the quality of a poster.

>>9669672

Maybe you're just stupid for assuming that you're the only person who knows the 'real' definition of a meme.

Do you have trouble conversating in real life? I didn't realize I had to make every tiny detail of my post clear to cater to a few idiots who can't read between the lines.

>>9669682
I still laugh at /jp/ daily doses and even futaba daily doses. I guess I should feel bad about this.

>>9669685
>Spoilers, though, are a tool to discuss something that others should not see if they don't want to know about plot-specific events about a show or book they are planning to read.
And angle brackets were originally used to enclose things and denote mathematical inequalities, but then, people started using them for other things as well.

>This is misuse and used as a styllistic crutch for people who don't know how to write or merely want to bring attention to a detail about themselves while at the same time looking like they aren't whoring attention at all.
It can be used that way but it can be used for other things as well. Often they're used as a stand-in when the author wants to create some sort of suspense or uncertainty but doesn't want to do this:
>>9669689
I still laugh when Meiling gets a knife in the head.

>>9669685
>Spoilers, though, are a tool to discuss something that others should not see if they don't want to know about plot-specific events about a show or book they are planning to read.
And angle brackets were originally used to enclose things and denote mathematical inequalities, but then, people started using them for other things as well.

>This is misuse and used as a styllistic crutch for people who don't know how to write or merely want to bring attention to a detail about themselves while at the same time looking like they aren't whoring attention at all.
It can be used that way but it can be used for other things as well. Often they're used as a stand-in when the author wants to create some sort of suspense or uncertainty but doesn't want to add a big block of whitespace.

>>9669689
I still laugh when Meiling gets the crap beaten out of her in a comical fashion.

I don't dislike spoilers, just the people that use them. Also this thread is shit.

>>9669685
>used as a styllistic crutch for people who don't know how to write or merely want to bring attention to a detail about themselves while at the same time looking like they aren't whoring attention at all

This so much, I don't know why people can't just type normally without having to provoke replies with trolling, memeshit or reaction images. Memes are shitty, but what's worse is the colloquial 'meme-speak' that people struggle to not-use in their ordinary posts, That's the real shitstain /b/'s meme culture has left on 4chan.

>>9669719
>>9669742
>It can be used that way but it can be used for other things as well. Often they're used as a stand-in when the author wants to create some sort of suspense or uncertainty but doesn't want to add a big block of whitespace.

If you read a book, you'll find people don't require spoiler tags or huge white spaces to accomplish the same effect. You don't need to be Oscar Wilde to pull that off.

>>9669868
You'll also find that we're casually chatting here, not writing novels.

If your lives weren't so incredibly empty you wouldn't care about imageboard semantics.

This is a gay thread, but stop shitting up legitimate threads in the name of "quality", like you people always do.

>>9669884
Note my remark about not having to be Oscar Wilde.

>>9669868
But we can take advantage of the visual nature of the web. Books have some things we don't, we have some things books don't. Enclosing words in asterisks like *this* makes no sense, but it's the plaintext "standard" for emphasis and is used on 4chan sometimes in lieu of proper tags.

Even ">" was largely intended to be visual. If people quoted Usenet postings and mail like "this", it would create quite a few syntactic and readability problems > is nice and clear, and works better for long blocks of text without any ambiguity.

Using spoilers to mark a beat is a useful and sometimes funny way to convey information more interestingly. Things don't necessarily have to match their original, semantic purpose. SJIS art is another example. Left-parenthesis-accute-accent-lowercase-omega-grave-accent-right-parenthesis is meaningless, but ( ´ω`) is grandpa.

I don't take fault with greentext stories because they're using a feature incorrectly, I take fault with them because they're fucking retarded.

>>9669915
Misused spoiler tags are just as, if not even more retarded because they basically force the reader to hover over them, just to see the poster use them in a completely retarded way to convey an "epic joke" or otherwise bring attention to his shitty post.

>>9669923
You sound way too cynical for a site like 4chan, where 90% of posters pretend to be idiots and/or little girls.

If you want a serious website that has evolved beyond "epic" "memes" and takes itself too seriously, check out Something Awful.

>>9669923
It's called a punchline.

I know people like you don't understand humor though, so I'll give you a break.

>>9669915
I share >>9669923's opinion. Sure, we can use them the way you mentioned, but most of the times they are nothing but a cry for attention. You can ommit certain bits of information and only reveal them at a later point, or use sarcasm, for example, if you feel what you're about to say is ashaming, like admitting you have a social life on /jp/. Or you just don't say anything, instead of misusing a board function to enable you to say something people don't care about or which is related to behaviour that is not welcome around these parts.

>>9669936
You don't use spoiler tags to convey punchlines. That's the whole point.

hi

>>9669923
>>9669943
How can it be a cry for attention?

You just posted. You want a response. What a cry for attention.
I left a line break. Must be padding out my post to get attention. Attention is a long word, I must be using it for attention. I'm being silly, looks like I'm an attention whore.

It's no more a cry for attention than posting to begin with.

>>9669956
post feet
arigato

>>9669949
What if you don't want to spoil the joke? Internet users scan before they read.

>>9669936
That's a funny way of defining spoiler misusage. Please note the definition of punch-line:

>A punch line (or punchline) is the final part of a joke, comedy sketch, or profound statement, usually the word, sentence or exchange of sentences which is intended to be funny or to provoke laughter or thought from listeners.
>the final part

>>9669956
hey harry what happened to your scar

>>9669956
is that a pizza box right next to you?

>>9669972
Speak for yourself, Facebook-trash.

Females are mentally incapable of liking loli, so they can never be full otaku.

>>9669949
Not everything is restricted to its original intended purpose.

We evolve~

>>9669958
They'll only do that if your text isn't engaging enough in the first place. They'll still see the spoiler and still hover over it, even if they're scanning through. It's not like they'll think "oh, wait! This post has spoilers! It's probably a joke! I better read it all up instead of scanning through all this boring text!". This whole reasoning is retarded because, at this point, spoilers aren't even being considered as tools that do their job of not telling people snape kills dumbledore or vader is luke's father.

>>9669964
yeah, it's from dominos..

>>9669960
Oxford English Dictionary defines "spoiler" as:
> a person or thing that spoils something

Surely seeing a punchline prematurely spoils the joke? It sure would be nice to mark those off separately with a special tag.

>>9669974
What the hell does Facebook have to do with anything? Think you might be getting a little ahead of yourself there, anon.

Oh jesus stop typing words
The grass grow and die, the Caribou travel back and forth, and the Galaxy spins on, spoilers or no spoilers.

Who but the lowest of the low cares enough to type paragraph after paragraph about this bullshit?

>>9669975
Hell, bel-air kopipe still works to this day and they don't even use spoiler tags.

>>9669985
Go back to your IRC weeaboo circlejerks with your epic "~" and belittleing.

>>9669984
see >>9669975 and >>9669988

And bad puns don't get funnier just because you use spoiler tags on the lame punchline.

>>9669987
I know right. Let's all start spinning epic greentext stories and spam advice dog memes because who gives a shit right.

Like 60% of Comiket attendees are female.

>>9669975
> They'll still see the spoiler and still hover over it, even if they're scanning through.

Then that's the fault of the user, and undermines exactly what you're arguing spoiler tags exist for.
Personally, I don't do this without reading first, and anyone who does is a moron.

>>9670003
It's also the fault of the user if they scan through your epic wall of text right into the punchline, wether there are spoilers or not. Your point?

>>9669997
I disagree.
http://world4ch.org/read/prog/1318996246/1,5

This would have been nowhere near as funny if there wasn't a beat before the explanation.

>>9669999
Nice quads.

Also sloppery slipe yadda yadda

>>9670007
Your post isn't funny, spoiler tags or not. At most it might be a clever pun, but it becomes obnoxious the moment I have to highlight the hidden text.

>>9670005
Scanning isn't really a conscious thing. You just do it automatically. If you choose to mouse over something designed to withhold information, then it's your own darn fault.

Otherwise, we may as well not have spoiler tags even for films and the like. Spoiler warning: Aeris dies. If you're a Final Fantasy fan, chances are you picked out the words "Aeris" and "Final Fantasy" in my post because they begin with uppercase letters and they're something you're interested in.

>>9669999
Yeah man. First comes the greentext stories, then comes the recycled meta discussion outside of ghost.

We don't want to head down that path.

>>9669868
Yes, because when you read a mystery novel, the the culprit is revealed on page two hundred forty five, not in the middle of page one. Books can do this because they are long.

>>9669960
And your point is?

>>9670005
You have to actively do something to mouse over a spoiler, whereas accidentally scanning the center of a post before the beginning is something anyone can accidentally do.

>>9670017
So this is all just really about your personal preference, right?

>>9670017
Rewards feel better when you expend a little effort to get them.

Psychologists agree, don't bother them about it.

>>9670026
99.9% of all posts with misused spoiler tags are not funny and 100% of them are annoying as HELL because they basically forced you to move your mouse to hover over them.

>>9670021
>You have to actively do something to mouse over a spoiler

And I will mouse over it if I feel it's worth it, like if I'm partaking in the discussion of a VN that I've played and want to discuss with other people by use of spoilers. I won't hover over shitty spoilers that compensate the inability of a poster to write. And you'll hear about it and I'll make sure to be as obnoxious as your spoiler misusage.

>>9670044
>99% of all posts are shit but typing up posts is not a bannable offense.
I don't see how this is related to what I wrote.

>>9670021
>Yes, because when you read a mystery novel, the the culprit is revealed on page two hundred forty five, not in the middle of page one. Books can do this because they are long.

I really suggest you read best-of craigslist. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

>>9670032
99% of all posts are shit but typing up posts is not a bannable offense.

>>9670034
I look forwards to reading all your "I didn't read your post but I'm responding anyway" replies in the future.

>>9670032
I usually hover my cursor over text anyways in order to help me keep track of what I'm reading. I have bad eyesight. Don't judge me.

>>9670032
> 99.9% of all posts with misused spoiler tags are not funny

That's just like, your opinion, man.

> 100% of them are annoying as HELL because they basically forced you to move your mouse to hover over them.

That's the point.

>>9670034
> I won't hover over shitty spoilers that compensate the inability of a poster to write.

But they aid discussion, not hinder it. Think of it like _pseudo-emphasis_ or TYPING IN CAPS (tastefully).

>>9670041
I suggest you kill yourself. Either explain yourself properly or fuck off.

>>9670034
I'll strive to only make A+ posts in the future in fear of agitating your majesty.

>>9670029
And disappointment will feel harsher when you go to great lenghts to get to it. Psychologists agree, don't bother them about it.

>>9670048
I didn't read your post but I'm responding anyway

>>9670047
You said that people shouldn't make posts with spoiler tags because most of the time the posts are shitty. This is true of all posts.

>>9670048
Epic spoilers dude, fucking EPIC. Everything of what was said could have been done just as well without the use of them but you did it to annoy other people. E P I C

ITT.

>>9670055
Then don't go through the great lengths to do it.

>>9670065
They don't annoy anyone though.

>>9670061
But those "all posts" don't make me hover over them for no reason.

>>9670050
They don't "aid" anything. They only annoy.

>>9670066
EPic, brah

>>9670067
But he has to because a piece of JavaScript makes him!!!1

(Spergnote: the above "1" is ironic)

Kuso thread award for false statistics. 100% of /jp/ are little girls.

Whatever, it shouldn't matter even if there are girls here. And I imagine the ones that do frequent this place are hardly /cgl/ and /a/ tier being all, 'lol check out mah OTAKU swag 2hu for life fuck tha secondaries arimari is totes kawaii tho!111'.

>>9670071
You make people hover over them just to make them see something that could have been said just as well without them.

>>9670079
Truly a heinous crime

>>9670072
Nobody made you hover over anything.

>They don't "aid" anything. They only annoy.
Many people disagree.

>>9670072
> They don't "aid" anything.

As I (and others) have pointed out, yes they do. They signify a beat for a joke, or hide supplementary information, or anything else that shouldn't be revealed on the initial scan. This is useful. At least admit to that. Greentext is useful because it saves time and helps brevity. That doesn't make it okay.

> They only annoy.

To you and a handful of others.

I seriously suggest you email Lowtax and ask for his opinion on the matter. It's his fault.

>>9670065
It only annoys you, nerdlord.

>>9670001
Over half of the attendees are female and 70% of the circles are run by fujoshi. I don't know how much this figure has changed, but Comiket has always been predominantly female.

This means yes there are otaku females, possibly even more than males. What you should be asking is if there's such thing as a non-Japanese otaku.

Okay guys, what's with all this EXPERT PROGRAMMER crap on /prog/? It isn't an acronym or an initialism, so it shouldn't be capitalized. Furthermore, the term rarely requires emphasis, so the [b], [u] and [i] tags should go. And [o] is clearly there for graphological reasons (to match the underline). None of them meet the semantic ideas of bold, italics, underline, overline or uppercase.

I propose a BBCode burning session. Collect all the tags you can, and meet me at the church at midnight.

>>9670116
I don't even.

>>9670090
It's annoying and that's the point.

>>9670091
"Many people" are /a/b/v/-trash.

>Nobody made you hover over anything.
Yeah just like you don't have to read my post but you do it anyway, epic argument.

>>9670093
>As I (and others) have pointed out, yes they do. They signify a beat for a joke, or hide supplementary information, or anything else that shouldn't be revealed on the initial scan. This is useful. At least admit to that.
I don't understand how you condone greentext abuse but you're indifferent to spoilers which are effectively even worse.
I'd much rather see people use gimmicky things like _, *, / or whatever instead of abusing spoiler tags and annoying other people in the process.
And not everyone "scans" posts.

>>9670099
I'm not the only one in this thread complaining about them.

>>9670133
>"Many people" are /a/b/v/-trash.
True, but not related, and certainly not everyone who disagrees with you on this point.

>And not everyone "scans" posts.
But many people do. And not all of them are "/a/b/v/ trash."

>I'm not the only one in this thread complaining about them.
You and one other. Maybe two. On the other hand, /jp/ has had threads for a long time now where dozens of people raped spoiler tags together and nobody flipped a shit about it. But of course, because you don't like them, they're "/a/b/v/ trash."

no saging please

>>9670155
>On the other hand, /jp/ has had threads for a long time now where dozens of people raped spoiler tags together and nobody flipped a shit about it.
I'm complaining every time I see them, don't worry. How else do you think that a shitty thread like this got derailed so much?

>>9670171
There have been threads lasting days full of them where you didn't show up. Either you were on hiatus or you weren't around.

>How else do you think that a shitty thread like this got derailed so much?
Shit threads are always derailed into other unrelated shit.

>>9670133
>Yeah just like you don't have to read my post but you do it anyway, epic argument.

Nobody made you argue back, epic argument.

>I'd much rather see people use gimmicky things like _, *, / or whatever

Whoa there nigger, back the fuck up. Are you literally 12? Get off the internet. Right now.

>>9670185
>Whoa there nigger, back the fuck up. Are you literally 12? Get off the internet. Right now.
That's pretty ironic, you know.

>>9670171
/jp/ existed before you got here a few months ago.

>>9670201
And people have been misusing them and complaining about them since forever. What's your p oint?

>>9670203
No, it's a recent development. There have been threads lasting days full of them where you (and your fellow spoiler-haters) didn't show up.

>>9670218
I usually hide threads I that don't interest me. Unless it's an especially shitty thread like this one that I know won't get deleted because the janitor(s) is/are fucking retards that don't do their jobs properly.

>>9670161
Unless they changed the regex, your post will have actually not bumped the thread. Neither will mine.

>>9670229
more reason not to sage

>>9670224
So what you probably meant to say was "people have been annoyed by them for forever, but did not complain until recently."

It truly pains me to see so many people defendind spoiler abuse itt. I'd like to believe they are all /q/uestionable posters, but I know that can't be true. Truly a sad state of affairs.

>>9670245
It's like memes. It becomes fashionable to hate them. 4chan keeps going in circles and attacking itself. We're all masochists here.

>>9670256
What an incalculable tragedy.

>>9670245
What I meant was that I don't have to justify me or my habits before you here.

>>9670256
Any community that gets it's laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they're in good company. Like >>9670262

............................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\

>>9670261
And what I said is that your statement was factually inaccurate. I don't care whether or how you try to justify yourself.

>>9670270
And what I said was that your initial statement in >>9670201 was randomly pulled out of your ass.

>>9670263
Any community that doesn't call out retards on their shitty posting is eventually infested by fuckwits like you.

>>9670263
I too cannot understand this "humor" function the humans possess, Unit 12.

>>9670282
Thank god there are still people like you here.

>>9670282
But spoilertard, you're the shitposter.

>>9670291
Because humour didn't exist before a sixteen year old on his summer vacation decided to abuse the spoiler function. How long have you people been on 4chan? Have all the "legendary" pastas really passed you by unnoticed? Or is it that you're spited by the fact your amazingly amusing spoiler-friendly content isn't being passed around by people on facebook?

>>9670263
> it's

Halt, citizen. Come with us quietly before we are forced to join this fray.

>>9670293
Fuck off, you cunt. The misuse of spoiler tags has been around long before new /q/ and even claiming that they have something to do with each other demonstrates that you are genuinely a fucking retard.

>>9670289
That wasn't me. >>9670218 and >>9670245
are my posts. I only implied what was said in >>9670289 even though I believe it to be true but I offered you space to explain why the complaining only started recently if you've been around for a long time.

>>9670299
I actually repost all my threads on Facebook for upvotes.

>>9670293
Fuck off, you cunt. The misuse of spoiler tags has been around long before new /q/ and even claiming that they have something to do with each other demonstrates that you are genuinely a fucking retard.

>>9670289
That wasn't me. >>9670218 and >>9670245 are my posts. I only implied what was said in >>9670289 even though I believe it to be true but I offered you space to explain why the complaining only started recently if you've been around for a long time.

>>9670299
Just because spoiler tags can aid in the delivery of content does not mean that they are necessary, and nobody implied such.

>>9670308
I was long annoyed by it but I didn't say anything until I saw people who thought the same as me so I started doing it as well.

>>9670321
Do you think the majority of posters (let's say, "good, non-/a/b/v/-trash posters") agreed with you in the past or agree with you now?

>>9670299
Something Awful used spoiler tags in much the same way we do now.

It was certainly full of 16-year-olds, though.

>>9670327
I don't really care about that. It's for the good of /jp/ as a whole and in the long run. Honestly, I doubt people will stop doing it like they pretty much did with greentext but what can you do.

>>9670295
Yeah, there aren't many left. Those days are over.

>>9670335
>It's for the good of /jp/ as a whole and in the long run
I strongly disagree with your assessment.

>what can you do.
The only thing you can do is complain about it. Whether that's worth it is anyone's call.

>>9670355
Huh?

>>9670355
I'm confused. Is this suppose to be read from right to left?

>>9670355
XKCD is shit.

I'm filing a request for topic change now, this one is dead.

>>9670348
I won't give up the fight just yet. For me it's very similar to greentext usage and /jp/ seems to be very against that. I just hope that won't change some day.

On a related note: why is this thread still here?

>>9670330

moot already confirmed this as fake

>>9670371
Not enough reports, janitor sleeping, janitor likes this thread, janitor was OP. Take your pick.