This is what moe is (The tl;dr version)

[Anonymous No.]

It seems like people still don’t understand what moe is even from my simple short post. I am going to tell you what it is and isn’t. This is the tl;dr version since my first one I guess didn’t get the point across.

Moe, in short, is Jap for a reoccurring fetish point on a character that draws people to them. Getting drunk and flailing around, thighhighs or saying uguu. They’re all stupid gimmicks a character does that are to make a character like them. Moe characters or moe blobs are characters that exhibit one or more of these fetish points. Well call them fucking moe blobs because they have a shit ton of these. A blob of moe. Moe can never have depth or substance. It is always shallow and fake. If moe were pure there wouldn’t be things like the superflat movement that is against it.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3864855
Continued:
Characterization can also become moe. We have tsundere, shy girls, yanderes, etc. It’s all under a shitty shallow and gimmicky archtype with set traits. SAME SHIT.

This is what moe isn’t. Moe isn’t having an interest in battle manga or trains. Unless you fap to that shit or whatever. When someone has a high interest in a particular thing we call it an euthiast, or we use the word interest. I’m interested in trains, I might say. Moe is also not and can never be associated with deep characterization. To have deep characterization implies rising above moe.

In closing moe characters: Characters I would rape because of various gimmicky personality points or clothing they wear. Very animalistic lust. There is nothing pure about moe.

Non-moe characters: Characters that might/might not be attractive but rise above shallow moe characteristics. Would have a normal sane relationship with. Deep characterization. No lust/animalistic feelings involved.

[Anonymous No.]

>Non-moe characters: No lust/animalistic feelings involved.


Right, so moe = rape.
Not moe = no raping.

Someone call Rance, i think he has a point to make.

[Anonymous No.]

I hope all these horrible threads are because /a/ is down or something.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3864873
Um, you're horrible.

[Anonymous No.]

>
Non-moe characters: Characters that might/might not be attractive but rise above shallow moe characteristics. Would have a normal sane relationship with. Deep characterization. No lust/animalistic feelings involved.

There's nothing wrong with deep characterization love+lust with these

[wujiao-chan!? No.]

why are you preaching to the converted?
maybe try /a/ where they have warped and/or corrupted definitions of 萌

[Anonymous No.]

Discussing about moe is retarded.

It is like /jp/ discussing on what VNs are REAL DEAL and what VNs are DISNEY.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3864913

I think moe is a bit more definitive than those. No one knows what real deal or disney actually mean.

[Anonymous No.]

>explaining to /jp/ what moe is

[Anonymous No.]

Dear OP:

I think you are wrong. And also dumb.

luv,

Anonymous

[Anonymous No.]

Am I cute yet, uguu!~

[Anonymous No.]

She is cute, that's why she's called Moe Moe Mad Madam Mim.

[Anonymous No.]

dogs is gay

[Anonymous No.]

>>3865191
Fascinating.

[Anonymous No.]

I thought moe means, "A cute girl or show with cute girls that I hate!"

[Anonymous ‮～ᚻᛟᛟᛟᛟᚩᛗ ‪‪‪‬ ‪‬ ‭‬ !Jones4ZrPA No.]

>tonberryking !vzc9TxEtRo

[Anonymous No.]

Moe is a noun or adjective used to describe the desire to dote upon or protect something, or something which evokes those feelings. Your long and complicated "definition" of something which has already been defined is a little pointless.

[Anonymous No.]

The best definition of moe is in the nico dictionary.

"Do as Bruce Lee said: Don't think. Feel."

[Anonymous No.]

The Japanese can't even come up with a single good definition for "moe", why do you have the pretense to think any of YOU ever could?

[Anonymous No.]

10/10, I'm actually pissed.

Moe is a feeling of love towards a fictional character (or, more generally, concept). Japan agreed. How can a definition so simple be so hard to comprehend?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3865615
They actually did that. Awesome.