/lit/ - Literature

>>11655029
more so than ever but the lines are blurred more

>>11655042
What would you consider current high brow culture?

>>11655029
>>11655042
>>11655080
My dick is more high brow than your prefrontal cortex because the neurons even of my body have a stronger connection to the hypothalamus than the neurons in your brain.

Or in short, what the fuck is this.

>>11655080
bumping for answer

>>11655080
posting on 4chan

>>11655029
>Eames chair
based
>unwashed salad bowl
what the actual fuck

>>11655687
>>11655080
the top line in OP's image unironically

postmodernism destroyed the line between the high/low brow dichotomy

>>11655029
Where does reading fiction rank on this list?

>>11655029
>ballet above theatre
trash

>>11656462
>postmodernism destroyed the line between the high/low brow dichotomy
>"this" "is" "what" "postmodernists" "think" "and".. "maybe"... "believe"

>>11656497
>theatre
>above ballet
>not realizing the 'drama' and 'human interactions' and 'human interaction thoughts' and 'social situations' are all subjects and folly and litter of the masses, of which the noble mind need not bother to taint itself with, but which may simply occupy its infinitely valuable time with the pleasure of pure aesthetic beauty in multiple ways

>>11655029
when was this chart made? Is this a pre-lit /lit/ style meme? Is some of it jokes? Fuzzy harris tweed suit (the suits look the worst for high brow). And trying to push avant garde and postmodernism and minimalism...

>>11656402
>unwashed salad bowl
>what the actual fuck
"For nearly 30 years people used unwashed salad bowls. Find out why!

It’s rarely a good idea to follow the popular trend, especially if it seems like a bad idea right off the bat.

Still, people will go with the flow, which once resulted in some very smelly salads!

A foodie convinced everyone that washing their wooden salad bowls was a bad idea—so nobody ever did. Gross!

Back in the 1930s, George Rector invented the myth that wooden salad bowls cured over time and made for some amazing salads. The truth is the salad’s dressing continued to seep into the wood and caused it to rot, spoil, and turn rancid, making for a very smelly kitchen.

Rector also said to rub a clove of garlic on the bowl for the perfect flavor—unless you added too much.

The habit lasted for nearly 30 years, an entire generation of gross, smelly, rancid salads that people thought were fancy and gourmet.

Bonus fun fact: It was Rector’s article is also the sole reason fresh ground pepper mills are offered on salads in fancy restaurants, and nothing else."

>>11655727
this, unironically

>>11656999
t. low brow

>>11656999
>And trying to push avant garde and postmodernism and minimalism
this, those damn cultural marxists and their brainwashing charts

>>11655029
Every tier is just coping alcholics.

>>11655029
christ who came up with this chart.

i'd rather be low brow every day of the week than either of the middle two. high brow doesn't even exist until you've been low brow for most of your life and have actually learned something for yourself. tom selleck is a good example.

>>11657014
>>11657024
the chair and lamp and sculpture are the obvious ones

"here,... like this stuff!! its high brow!!!"

>>11657103
>i'd rather be low brow every day of the week
...sit down anon.... ive got some good news

>>11657103
>who came up with this chart.
....guess.............................

>>11655029
>eames chair

these really are the greatest chairs ever.

>>11655080
none of us will know this.

>>11657133
>plywood
>worth four figures
pic. it's you.

also: IT'S A FUCKING OFFICE CHAIR

FUCK. i can't stand those things. the casters always get stuck in my blankie when i'm tryna cuddle up it makes me so fucking mad.

>>11655029
In today's age, I think once you get past high-brow it's basically all low-brow.

That said, according to the chart I have tastes that run from high to low:
>High Brow: Clothes, Furniture, Useful Objects, Salads, Drinks, Reading, Records, Causes
>Upper Middle-Brow: Clothes, Entertainment, Drinks, Reading, Records
>Lower Middle-Brow: Drinks, Light Opera, Games
>Low-Brow: Entertainment, Drinks

I suppose I'm not much into sculpture.

>>11657149
for the comfiest furniture you can get? that kind of money for wealthy old retired people is nothing.

you have to sit in one. believe me. it could have an airbrushed picture of ted nugent teabagging a dolphin and you wouldn't care.

>>11657103
The chart is meant to be a joke.

If you observe closely, it's basically two-pronged: a fairly blunt joke at the expense of the 'lower middle' (who consider themselves better than the low brow, despite having put all that effort into 'cultivating' a noticeably worse kitsch taste, while being pretentiously proud of it) and, on an dry and arch sort of note, also a bit of a self-jab at the (genuinely) refined but awfully abstract and impractical high-brow taste ("criticism of criticism", "unwashed salad bowl").

The point is that the low-brow is authentic and the upper-middle is tasteful without being crazy. To be really high-brow you need to either be born in to it, or at least educated into it fairly early.

>>11657110
>everyone has other tastes than me has been brainwashed into it
t. negative brow

i love that even the true dregs of society still ought to have a piece of sculpture and town and country outfits.

>>11657171
The Eames lounge chair is massively overrated. It's beautiful, but that's about it. If you're any taller than 5'10, it offers *no* head support (the newer 'tall' version is better, but it also looks a bit misshapen). The reclining angle is OK, but for extended periods of sitting it doesn't offer much variation. On the whole the chair is slightly more comfortable than an IKEA Poang, except for 40 times the price.

There are better chairs out there. Ekornes Stressles chairs are terrific. For a while Natuzzi was making a chair called the 'Revive' that was tremendously good (though the recline/tilt mechanism was prone to failure). Even the Baughman 74 is more comfortable than the Eames.

Add to that the fact that the Eames lounge chair was originally supposed to be an inexpensive throwabout chair (that's why they were using bent plywood in the first place!) for the common man, but because Herman Miller owns the design patent on it in the US they keep the price ridiculously inflated.

There are better chairs out there for less money, and those better chairs will make you look less like a sheep who does nothing but follow 5-year-old pinterest design boards.

>>11657192
who has*

>>11657174
Oh, nice. I kind of sensed that was the intent, but was pretty well certain someone would be dull enough to mean it sincerely. A real life Frasier Crane, maybe. Thanks for explaining. And to answer no I don't think there is much of a low/high brow dichotomy, and if there is one it is one of irrelevance. People who adopt a culture that is purposely remote even among the plebs would do so only for social cachet, and the only people who care about that are the dumb old boomers. Rich old white women and Hillary Clinton supporters. Art patrons and philanthropists.

Everyone is feeding from the same corporate trough these days. Art hoes excepted, but most of them have terrible taste. Just look at our zoomer writers. Rupi. Tao. Ta-Nehisi. Ready Player One guy. Chapo Trap House dweebs. Up there some where the ghost of Nick Land.

>>11655029
Wow high brow has shit taste in furniture
Also why put salad of all things on this chart?

>>11657197
>ekornes
>baughman 74
>natuzzi
>thoughtful, informative post, combining physiological and market knowledge in historical context

anon i salute your knowledge of furniture and hope to someday heed your advice. i feel like i have learned something today. godspeed you chair-bro

>>11657234
Happy to be of service anon! For what it's worth, it may well be that after looking around you decide the Eames lounger is still the chair for you, which is fine - it's a decent chair. I just object to it being the *default* chair people think of when they think of a good chair.

>>11655091
>and but so

>>11657133
that doesnt look like the one in the pic, the one in the pic looks like a cheap metal fold up chair, and the lamp like a simple ikea lamp. I guess sleek minimalism is cool, easier, cheaper, therefore better, but still.. theres not many brand names on the chart, maybe the entire thing is a subtle shilling ad for eames company

>>11657259
no, but it looks like the one i sat in, once, and it was cozy af

>>11657197
my man recommending a Poang. thanks anon, I might be getting one of these. I really need something I can set beside the bookcase and read from, something that won't put me to sleep and keep me relatively upright.

>>11657193
i'm not the dregs. you're the dregs.

>>11657118
am i the dregs?

>>11657223
>t. a cole slaw man

incidentally this is my current "chair."

it sucks for everything except watching movies.

>the game
fuck

>>11655029
were thick heavy suits, tweed and stuff, worn in summer in hot areas?

>>11655029
Based on one of the shittiest and inaccurate charts I've ever seen posted on this plebeian board, which happens to be the one you posted, no. Today the dichotomy is extreme and in being extreme fuses itself with nature. We have high-highs, low-lows and nothing of worth in the middle. I'll care to explain if you ask nicely.

>>11657315
would you please explain, kind anon? i'm not op but this is relevant to my interests. i can pay you in jezebels or spurdos, whichever you prefer.

>>11657315
Explain, pretty please.

>>11657218
Your two paragraphs are contradictory, figure out why yourself or maybe another anon will explain

>>11657197
Thanks for this, saving the advice

>>11655029
not as much, I think it only matters to the highbrow and those aspiring to be so
its one of those things that justifies itself - why else care about obscure sculptors, the nuances of salad-making, and specific models of chairs?

meanwhile, mass culture has developed a very relevant (and ever-changing) hierarchy of trendiness

>>11657315
help us to raise brows anon

it takes a village or something

>>11657315
Would her sitting on my face be high brow?

>>11657008
How did they avoid thirty years of explosive diarrhea from the practice?
I'm dead serious, I'd be pissing out my lowbrow ass if I ate something like that.

>>11657197
based and redpilled, single-handedly changed my mind on the eames chairs' allure.

>>11657327
not if one admits that enclaves of unironic high brows do exist. the cultural equivalent of vegans, people who read NYT unironically and don't use the internet partly because they're old and dumb and partly because it's trash.

>>11657413
The New York Times isn't high brow. It's decidedly middle-brow, and at times upper-middle-brow.

Truly high-brow people (a few aristocratic enclaves here and there) don't concern themselves with the day-to-day reactions to Trump tweets and Hollywood scandals that the NYT covers.

>>11657413
>not if one admits that enclaves of unironic high brows do exist. the cultural equivalent of vegans, people who read NYT unironically and don't use the internet partly because they're old and dumb and partly because it's trash.
ehhhh.. its all about how you define these terms, and who is the authority of what to place in the term categories (as seen by OP image and the disagreements it can cause).

A priori, we should think the term 'high brow', the concept, should be denoted for containing the things that are the highest of culture and taste... but how to decide what that is, by what parameters... hmmmm.. what I am trying to say is: there should be a category: The Best.... Less than the Best.....Less than less than the Best.... Less than less than the less than the best..... etc...

And that the things placed in the higher categories could not be disagreed with, by higher tastes, higher intelligences? Yeah, its all too difficult... But I believe better and worse things exist, and that better and the best things do exist, and the people that do them are high brow... the difficulty is proving and defining what and why those things are

>>11657432
Hey man, this isn't an insult, you come across as intelligent in your writing. However, I think if you focused on brevity, you would get your ideas across in a more pleasing way. Right now, your post reads like the introduction to a book on Plato

>>11657425
I like to think upper middle brow is precisely Niles and Frasier Crane. Umberto Eco and operettas on the shelf. "Objets" on display. High brow is as you say: nobility. British peers who live on manors and cannot care less about the world outside their properties. Though thinking about it now they actually don't belong anywhere on this chart. They are uniques. Not typifiable. And so Frasier, a farcical character, is raised to the highest tier where he belongs.

>>11657432
That's work and NEETs don't do work.

>>11657318
>>11657322
>>11657341
As some anon pointed out already, it has to do with postmodernism, which is quite the meme cause for today's intellectual issues if you think about it, so lets say that this anon is partially right because a meme poster is always partially right. The point is that one of the most important cultural bagages that comes with postmodernism is that of blurrying: lines become less and less clear, as some anon posted itt too. The method is the one I stated on my previous post: that of extremism. I'm sure that you, as 4chan users, are quite into politics like it or not thanks to /pol/ taking what used to be /b/'s lead as the most famous of boards/the one with more media repercussion/the one the normies tend to engage the most. What has this to do with what I'm trying to say is that what I said also happens on politics, but on stereoids. Politics is THE field of extreme ideologies nowadays as the postmodernist think-tank aims directly at it, making things extreme everywhere and in doing so, blurrying. The act of blurrying comes in intellectual tradition too. You only have to look at two things: the current state of academia and these various intellectual pop figures that have emerged with the tide, as Jordan B. Peterson as the foremost example. He's an academic, not an intellectual. He's even more of a couch than he is an intellectual. To realise this, you only have to watch as he maintains control when he speaks of anything psycology related and how he loses it when he starts with his "philosophy", his buzzword postmodernism, etc. Again, academic but not intellectual. Žižek is a great example of someone leaning much more towards being an intellectual than an academic, even so if he's quite a pop figure too. Other great field of blurrying comes at sexuality. Nothing is what it used to be anymore. There are no limits (extremism-blurryingism). If you are a male and want to be female or viceversa, what is stopping you for doing so? This stance is quite interesting because I want to state two points: the first is that the so called gender revolution is one in the same with postmodernism, being part of the postmodernist think-tank or bagage. The second is how this branch of postmodernism accomplises one thing, which is defying nature. Nature is no longer sacred and Mankind has taken control over it at last. Postmodernism encourages in doing so. Nature is what we say what's nature. Nature is to be defied.

I'm going to stop know knowing that I have accomplised nothing but an outline of my thoughts, which may or may not be interesting to read or even well funded. I hope you enjoy.
>>11657343
I don't think so.

>>11657471
How do we stop post modernism and become more balanced and in tune with nature? Is that just doomed ever since the industrial revolution?

>>11657471
Also the ammount of typos I made is unforgivable.

>>11657471
thanks anon, that makes sense now. and i think you're correct about this blurrying being concomitant with postmodern relativism which has Nietzsche at the root. I hate that ugly little twerp so much, you have no idea.

so if non-specialists are becoming "experts" because the mob selects them via social upvotes and patreons and retweets, and these people are influencing people in government who have actual power -- speaking here of both sides of the political spectrum -- then what responsibility do we have as philosophers to mankind? how can we poison the well and make a "truer" meme, one with legs? peterson doesn't seem that bad. he's basically for individual rights, but these people keep moving the goal posts so normies say he sounds like a crazy alt-righter. we've been on a slippery slope for years it seems, and we're only sliding down faster by the day. there must be a way to stop it. pic somewhat related. i think there needs to be a real argument made for non-relative ethics. separation of church and state has given us... i won't call it degeneracy... but it has made man into a confused mess.

>>11657300
This. It had been so long.

>>11655080
>>11655029
Here is an actual definition faggots:
High brow culture is meant to be revered. Almost like religion. The important thing here is not the intention of the author, but the intention of the society (although if the intention from the author is to be high brow and fails, we say that the work is pretentious).
That is why the term is still relevant.

>>11657488
>>11657471
>Nature is no longer sacred and Mankind has taken control over it at last. Postmodernism encourages in doing so. Nature is what we say what's nature. Nature is to be defied.

I live in Canada, and let me tell you, defy it all you want, nature will fuck. you. up.
not a full-on environmentalist or anarcho-primitivist, but I believe human arrogance will get checked (as it is to a degree) by this current era of climate change

>How to get in tune with nature?
You have to experience it. You have to face it. It's also a great idea to learn about it so you don't die out there (depends what you're doing).
t humbles you. To stand at the base of a waterfall and hear and see the power, the never-ending flow....
me, I love standing by the coast (w/e a beach or a cliffside) when its really windy. makes you feel alive, and insignificant in the best way.

it's also a good way to understand the Romantics
and maybe God. I think it was Calvin(?) who said that inspecting God's creation (i.e. nature) was spiritually worthwhile

>>11657542
Good post, but I meant more on a societal level how we get back in tune with nature, rather than me personally

>>11655029
>High Tier
High Brow
>Mid Tier
Low Brow
>Bad Tier
Upper Middle-Brow
>Absoulte dog shit tier
Lower Middle-Brow

>>11657554
again, I think experience and understanding are key. it's hard to tell a whole society to go for a walk in the woods, but it's one of those things where the more people do it and talk about it, it becomes ingrained in the culture.

or there would have to be a drive from those who produce culture to create material that emphasizes nature, which would then make an impression on society.

>>11657576
>or there would have to be a drive from those who produce culture to create material that emphasizes nature, which would then make an impression on society.

I think this is the answer, but I'm just wondering if that could even be done on an organic level. Seems like, at least for the time being, we are tumbling down the slope of extremism. I just wonder where we'll end up

>>11655029
The game.

>>11657488
Some people may say accelerationism unironically, other may advocate for traditionalism, but I acknowledge that this cannot be stopped as for now. It just lives and so it'll die eventually. Waiting is a bad position in the modern world but is the one I find reasonable as for now. As for becoming more in tune with nature, you just have to experience it by yourself. Small thinks like hiking, losing yourself into some nearby woods, etc tend to help. This is only the first step, of course. As for the Industrial Revolution, it was harmful but completely necessary and desirable for the human species. Here we are after all. It did not start a downfall by itself but the downfall came eventually from it
>>11657495
Nietzsche did what any sane man would had done at his time. He was a genius both for realising the illnesses of his time and a an author, for his writing is exceptional. People misunderstood him back then. People misunderstand him now even more profoundly after nearly two hundred years God won his revenge by terminating him. You're right in what you say, but I think no one on this board is an actual philosopher of Mankind whatsoever, let alone of man. We don't need a truer meme. Truer shouldn't even be a concept. It doesn't matter as for truth = truth. As for the answer for your questions, i do not know too. Future unravels itself. The alt right is now a meme tier controlled opposition branch of the traditional right. Zero intellectual and political value although I acknowledge they point out the problems quite clearly. They simply are counter counter culture and is nice to have them around. Concluding, I think that after the Enlightement State and Church must be separated and are irreconciliable know in the Western world. Let me explain that non-relative ethics can also arise from other places different of the Church or any other religious institutions. I'm of those who believe that ethics can be not derived directly from God, that we as humans have an intrinsic ethical instinct. Church won't stop the so called degeneracy by now when the Church itself is somewhat propagating it.
>>11657542
Canada has to be such a good place to live far away from the cities... or that's what I tend to think. I hope that what you say actually happens. Climate change is some kind of meme by now partially because of the U.S. influence.

>>11657598
>after nearly two hundred years
1900 was 200 years ago

>>11657605
I meant Nietzsche's lifetime, not his dead

>>11657598
>Canada has to be such a good place to live far away from the cities... or that's what I tend to think.

yea, there's a lot of this country like that. I find it a little scary tbf, when the nearest other town (also small) is a couple hours' drive...
but even in most cities, it's not hard to check out impressive spots or access swathes of nature.

it's one of those things I find essential about the Canadian existence (the 'we have no culture' meme confuses me and I try to prove otherwise); man living on the edge of the man-made world.

>>11657598
eh, i suppose by "truer meme" i meant one that was more adequately concerned with our survival. the Enlightenment ethics that allowed us to engineer our own social eruption, contrary to their purpose, are being abandoned as the tragedies that spawned them are forgotten and soon to reoccur. the black death. the terror. impressment and colonization. petty continental wars. it's happening again and soon. nature is set against us, if man alone is not force enough to capsize his own ship. see: superflu, animal flu, yellowstone caldera, vulnerability of food supply. any of it would do.

I agree with you that ethics do not rely on proving a metaphysical thesis, but rather that man is a myth-making animal and we are not at all removed from using story as vehicle for truth and Christianity is still powerful despite the scandals. We aren't Donatists. And, sadly, I also agree that the Church has been deficient in its stewardship of Christ's ministry. Popes, cardinals, and bishops have been complicit. There is absolutely no mistake about that.

Wait and see is an awfully uncomfortable strategy.

>>11657598
Re: The Industrial Revolution. I wonder if in the end, Joe Rogan is actually right in that it kicked off a chain of events that will directly lead to the creation of an AI Master Race that controls us all

>>11655080
Unironically, hillary clinton

>>11657626
steady on, Nick Land. or Milton, on about dark Satanic Mills. whoever you are.

>>11657536
Revered by who? Nerds really revere nerd shit, almost like a religion. Does that make it high culture?

>>11657197
based chairbro, have you tried an emeco 1006? do want.

>>11657638
Jamie, pull that up

>>11657614
Why would't Canada have its own culture? I understand that is almost the same case as with the U.S. Countries that are somewhat "new", descendants from a colonial empire. The thing is that both Canada and the U.S. were lucky to descend from the British Empire and to inherit English, British traditions and customs. It doesn't matter that in the end both countries developed their own culture, which I think they did, so nothing to prove here.
>>11657624
>the Enlightenment ethics that allowed us to engineer our own social eruption, contrary to their purpose, are being abandoned as the tragedies that spawned them are forgotten and soon to reoccur.
Completely this. As you say, Christianity is still humanity's powerhouse as a religion, with Islam on the rise. Christianity fails to itself as Islam radicalizes and gains momentum. Tell me which thing would you do instead of standing still and quiet, I'm curious.
>>11657626
I think that we're far away from self-awareness A.I. At the moment A.I. is gaining prowess. Better hardware, better technologies. It's building itself. Well, we're the ones building it. By now A.I. is just raw processor power. It can recognize patterns (if taught how to do so), it can beat you at chess or go with ease (the case for go is interesting, for Google's most advanced go A.I. learnt to play the game by itself alone and ended beating the world's best players at ease), etc. The moment it gains self-awareness, if it does at some point, things will get extremely interesting.

Why should anyone know or care about highbrow culture, it doesn't advertise

>>11657450
Can you take what is written there and take out the unnecessary words?

>>11657649
Different groups have differents standards, goals and aesthetics.
Protip: more power you have in a society, more important is your opinion.

>>11657695
>Christianity fails to itself as Islam radicalizes and gains momentum.

I'm not the guy who are replying to with that quote, but bringing up Islam was very interesting. With the fall to extremism in the West, while simultaneously rejecting Enlightenment Ideals, as well as Christianity - and the rise of Extremist Islam. I wonder if people in the West might start to turn towards Islam if only because Islam at least stands for something, as opposed to the post modern soup we currently have in culture. Islam being perceived as "naughty" might help its image as well. Of course, this would radically and fundamentally change Islam and how it is practiced in the West, but I think it is an interesting idea

>>11655029
there is nothing more psued than that pic

>>11657695
>Tell me which thing would you do instead of standing still and quiet, I'm curious.
Repair the Church. Put it back in order. In a place of earned prestige, even.

Eat the rich. No, I'm not a facebook communist or anarchist or any of those losers. Unironically the 1% and crony capitalism is destroying my country. With the exception of the glow after 9/11, there hasn't been a sincere nationalist sentiment in the US since before I was born. After Kennedy's funeral the decline began. Nixon's resignation sealed it. Can you imagine living in a country where the leader is actually held in esteem by the people, and citizens work hard because not simply because of incentive but because they want to? That kind of faith makes economic booms, and not the false bubble kind like we're in now.

Restore the gold standard. Fiat currency is tempting economic collapse. We've had enough. The only thing keeping us afloat is our debt we owe to others and our nukes by which we hold the world hostage. That's it. If the rules applied to burgers we'd be a third world shithole by now, and in some places (by our own corruption and ineptitude) we definitely are.

Who is girl. Gib.

>>11657719
>>11657733
I'm going to the library now, so keep the thread bumped and I'll answer you later. It's funny how this entire thread derived from upperbrow/lowerbrow to this. Happy it happened. See ya in a couple of hours.

>>11657775
Bye, have fun at the library! Hope you meet a qt you can talk about this stuff with as well

>>11657788
Hello Darkness my old friend. Enjoying the act of writing so far, as always.

>>11658133
oxford anon is it you? is this me?

>>11657197
this post is the definition of high-brow.
Monomania featuring a passion for a decorative cause. (In this way even comic book collectors and poker players can become patrician if they are so knowledgeable).

>>11658188
I don't know who this Oxford anon is, sorry. We just happen to use the same God-tier notebooks.

>>11655029
Wtf is "the game" is it charades?

>>11658203
>God Tier
>Oxford

>Not Leuchtturm 1917

>>11658213

Some of you are talking out of your ass.

Whether some is high-brow or low-brow isn't subjective; there's a reason why what's considered high-brow is similar in wildly different cultures, and that is because high-brow has an objective definition. It's always had an objective definition: for the last thousand years philosophers have made a clear distinction between simple pleasures (e.g. sex) and high-order pleasures (e.g. literature). Pleasure derivation -- as you will see -- is the core determinant of an activity's place on the spectrum of cultural sophistication.

Things that are instantly gratifying generally have little value. It's obvious why we have a gut feeling for whether something is trash, low-class, pleb shit. The feeling comes from knowing that it's not very rewarding, which means it requires no effort, which means that even an animal could do it. Compare this with the feeling of accomplishment of having completed a long, complex book. This is why reading is considered high-brow, but getting hammered every night isn't.

All of this stuff has been confirmed by neuroscience at a fundamental level, and more generally by psychology/sociology. High-brow interests can actually activate neural networks that aren't present in most animals, and these brain regions are thought to involve pleasures above simple stimulation like eating and masturbating; they take into account future states of happiness despite the current activity not being pleasant. Example: you're working hard creating music, are frustrated and angry, yet you're happy knowing that you'll have created something of high aesthetic value when you're done.

>>11657708
Not that guy, but you triggered my inner English major. It's more about readability and clarity, friend. Your prose is opaque and difficult to discern; if you're serious about writing, academic or otherwise, consider whether you're writing for your reader or yourself. Presently, you do a beautiful job of writing for yourself.

This is my best attempt at translating your meaning more simply, though this too could be shortened quite a bit; I'm just a lazy hobbyist.

"Definitions of terms is most important to avoid purely semantic argument. In this case it's also useful to consider the authority which determines the content of OP's categories, given the thread's subsequent arguments.

"We may define 'high brow' as a concept which encompasses the highest culture and taste - but the actual parameters of 'the highest culture and taste' are potentially subjective, and certainly difficult to define. I propose that instead, this chart should be labelled 'The Best; Less than the Best; Less than less than the Best; Less than less than the less than the best; etc.' Even so, the items placed in the higher categories could be called into question by higher tastes, higher intelligences.

"Despite this apparent relativism, I hold a deontological perspective and believe that superlative tastes exist; hearkening back to the previous argument to authority, the difficulty is in proving and defining what, and why, those things are."

>>11657651
The dining chair? It's fine I suppose, provided it fits your aesthetic and you don't let your house get so cold that sitting on it becomes uncomfortable (or if you get a cushion/pad for it). That said, the chair's ~$600 price and general sturdiness is targeted at restaurants and businesses that will be writing it off as a business expense which helps offset its otherwise high price.

Once you pass $600 for a dining chair, though, you might want to consider simply commissioning a craftsman or woodshop/joinery to build you chairs to your specifications. If you're not going to be using it in a retail setting you don't need the indestructibility of Emeco.

>>11658262
Would this mean that writing books is high-brow by default, even if the books you write are just genre trash? It still takes more effort than reading most books does.

>>11658780

Even a poor to mediocre creative is still making something, which is a more noble, constructive and rewarding pursuit than any amount of mere consumption.

I'd argue honestly that Christian Weston Chandler is a more worthy human being for making his rubbish autism comics, than many "fully functional" persons who never have or will make anything and are content simply to blow raspberries at the work of others.

>>11658780
It would certainly be better to write genre trash than to watch television all day, but genre fiction trash can't even be considered literary for the same reasons: it requires no effort to write or understand - no profound messages, no insights, no complex characters. It's just a story, the kind even kids can understand.

>>11659007
>Masturbates furiously onto his utterly useless English Literature degree

Go read a newspaper comic, they're probably on your level.

>>11657716
>muh powa wuz n iz rite

>>11659054
I seem to have offended you, but you must have the wrong impression. I'm not brushing off anything, even simple novels. They all have their place. The problem arises when people refuse to engage in anything meaningful.

>>11655029
r8 and h8 my tastes

manga is the highbrow literature of today's world

>>11659109

>>11659075
Still, writing anything - even genre trash - takes more thought and effort than you'd seem to think.

>>11658305
b-but... my writing is high brow... a-and yours is low..

>>11659116

>>11658305
My writing was simply an in the moment ill thought train of thought, and yes it is not well done. I didnt mean to suggest to change the category names, but just to make an allusion to what the category names are/want to be/are trying to be: and then I voiced my displeasure at the realization of the anti ocd fact of the possibility of individual high intelligences, best intelligences and best tastes people, disagreeing on what should go in the categories. My apparent distaste for the possible realization that the best/high brow is not absolutely unquestionably objective by all people that can be considered x intelligent. Which just suggests there is lateral differences in taste between similar quantities/qualities of perspective/intelligence

>>11655080
How the old-money rich live. They usually live in the core of cities, just a few miles from the "downtown" area, originally a streetcar suburb and swallowed up later, but they never moved. Will often have their names on performing arts buildings and museums. Will probably never hang out with the likes of you.

>>11659127
>takes more thought and effort than you'd seem to think.
digging a hole in concrete with a shovel takes a lot of thought and effort too

>>11659168
With this analogy, you seem to be saying that digging into concrete would always be futile and worthless. I don't think you can make such a generalization with no context into the premise: what lies under the concrete? Why would you want to dig into it? Are industrial machines or even power drills not available?

>>11658305
what did you go to Cheap News Site Mid-Low-Wit ClickBait Online University?

>>11659173
>what lies under the concrete? Why would you want to dig into it? Are industrial machines or even power drills not available?
Nothing, there is just an old abandoned strip of parking lot concrete, and you hand a young adult (who has potential power and energy of thought and effort) a shovel, and tell him to start digging into the concrete, so he starts, just bashing the concrete, lots of effort expended, and thinking the whole time, lots of thought, oh this sucks, ouch this hurts, oh this is boring, oh this is pointless, oh this is meaningless, oh no one should do this or want to watch me do this

>>11659214
So why would he do it? Because you told him to? What did you tell him it was about to convince him into this fruitless endeavor?

Your analogy makes no sense.

Books for when you realise you're low brow?

>>11658262
>>11658981
Based

>>11659223
I tell him all the other kids are doing it, and its cool, and it takes thought and effort, and what takes thought and effort is worthwhile
see:
>>11659127
>Still, writing anything - even genre trash - takes more thought and effort than you'd seem to think.
writing genre trash, digging a hole in concrete with shovel, takes more thought and effort than you think, and what takes thought and effort is good and worthy and significant

>>11655029
>unwashed salad bowl
>quartered iceberg lettuce with store dressing
>The Lodge
>low-brows fuck huge jew nose

>>11659301
So you think breaking through concrete with your shovel might take more effort than you think?

Mfw my preferred drink is actually below low brow, and perhaps degenerate. A shot and a beer.

>>11659813
That is way less trashy than a non-red bull energy drink

>>11659240
>>/co/
Leave reading to us high brow gentlemen.
>*smash you over the head with a bowl of rotten salad*

>>11657542
an excellent post friend

>>11659813
Immerdoch ein gutes Herrengedeck.

>>11658195
So can any obsession be considered highbrow? What about Harry Potter or World of Warcraft?

>>11660248
It takes a lot of effort to be obsessed, after all!

>>11659128
y-you too

>>11659148
You have an interesting premise, but I was frustrated by the lack of clarity hiding what seems like an insightful message. And then anon asked which words another-anon would remove, so I couldn't resist taking a crack at the challenge. Sorry if my translation wasn't perfect; maybe the mismatches between our texts are areas where you could focus any future attempts on stylistic clarification? They should give insight into where an average reader like myself will misunderstand your prose.

>>11659206
Ha! I actually also have a diploma in journalism from a local polytech, so you're not far off.

>>11661104
thanks for the effort bro, and no hard feelings, all the posts you respond to here were mine

>>11661732
Don't you think you would run into the same problem as using Beauty as an ordering operation? Your ideas seem very Plato inspired - unless if you read Kant, in which case I bow down and offer you my asshole.
Let us assume there exists some operation that orders objects from worst to best. Let us define the set of Highbrow as the set containing objects ordered as the best. Let us apply our operation to the set of definitions of best. We then see that there is at least one best definition of best. There is obviously also at least one worst definition of best. For this to be consistent, the worst definition of best is the best definition of worst. If the set of Highbrow contains the 'best', then it will contain both the best and the worst. So the set of Highbrow is inconsistent. Thus, Highbrow should contain only the best definition of best. But then we can repeat the argument, and so on. Definition of best can be replaced with anything you want, it just becomes semantically challenging.

>>11661909
By inconsistent:
Lowbrow = the set containing the worst, but we have shown that lowbrow == highbrow

>>11661909
Yeah, its just difficult, to prove the meaning and validity of high quality, but you wouldnt argue that some houses in america in rich neighborhoods, are better than mud and straw shacks in a 3rd world slum. (mainly because, the person in the rich house could easily have a mud straw hut made on his property if he wanted, while the 3rd world slum person couldnt have the rich guy house made if wanted)

Also, would it make any sense for there to be things in highbrow that are not 'the best things'? What would the concept of 'highbrow' be aiming for if not 'the best things'?

Also your semantic trick doesnt work, I see what you are doing but it is not absolutely defeating. Your 'where does hot begin and warm end, and luke warm start, and cool begin etc.

Is technically a part of cool touching hot, so cool is hot? Nah, not gonna cut it

>>11656999
"The hierarchy of American taste, as seen in 1949 by the pop sociologist Russell Lynes."

>>11655029
A supposed update to the chart (though it seems quite English).

>>11664472
>Dabbler

>As I look at the chart, which a Life editor and I concocted over innumerable cups of coffee years ago, it strikes me, as it must you, that what was highbrow then has become distinctly upper middlebrow today. The rate of change, indeed, is about the same as that which is demonstrated in the chart showing what happened between the 1850S and the 1950S [I’ll reproduce these charts below]. Who regards an Eames chair as highbrow now? Or ballet, or an unwashed salad bowl or a Calder stabile? They have all become thoroughly upper middlebrow, and what was upper has become lower. Only the lowbrow line of the chart makes spiritual if not literal sense. Today television would find itself at all levels of the chart in ways, as we have noted, too obvious to define. The “pill” has taken the glamor out of Planned Parenthood as an upper middlebrow cause, and Art and The Environment are now their causes instead … and so on. Even if the shapes of the pieces have changed, and the board looks quite different, the basic rules seem to me much the same as they have been since Andrew Jackson Downing set about in the 1840s to make our forebears lead harmonious lives in tasteful surroundings.

>>11664501
interesting, whwat year was the op chart made?

>>11664472
>kabbalah
>sailing club
"causes"

>>11664472
>tfw all the pensioners at the cafe playing backgammon are highbrow

>>11664816
>>11664835
>tfw "Words by: *A womans Name*

>>11664801
1949

>>11664501
gee its almost as cheap profit driven marketing schemes exist

>I once expressed mild surprise at the presence of a garden gnome in an upper-middle-class garden. The owner of the garden explained that the gnome was “ironic”. I asked him, with apologies for my ignorance, how one could tell that his garden gnome was supposed to be an ironic statement, as opposed to, you know, just a gnome. He rather sniffily replied that I only had to look at the rest of the garden for it to be obvious that the gnome was a tounge-in-cheek joke.

>But surely, I persisted, garden gnomes are always something of a joke, in any garden—I mean, no-one actually takes them seriously or regards them as works of art. His response was rather rambling and confused (not to mention somewhat huffy), but the gist seemed to be that while the lower classes saw gnomes as intrinsically amusing, his gnome was amusing only because of its incongruous appearance in a “smart” garden. In other words, council-house gnomes were a joke, but his gnome was a joke about council-house tastes, effectively a joke about class.

>The man’s reaction to my questions clearly defined him as upper-middle, rather than upper class. In fact, his pointing out that the gnome I had noticed was “ironic” had already demoted him by half a class from my original assessment. A genuine member of the upper classes would either have admitted to a passion for garden gnomes or said something like “Ah yes, my gnome. I’m very fond of my gnome.” and left me to draw my own conclusions.

>>11665491
>Capitalism: when you have a post-ironic half-bureaucracy over-under-class of consultant-assessors

>>11665491
>A genuine member of the upper classes would either have admitted to a passion for garden gnomes or said something like “Ah yes, my gnome. I’m very fond of my gnome.” and left me to draw my own conclusions.
ummm...what...?? How is he so certain this is the true case? It seems like he was bettered and proven wrong, and was initially so certain of his stance, that after having been shown to be incorrect, is just throwing spaghetti at the wall.

>>11665545
Residents of the actual upper class don't need to apologize for or defend or explain their aesthetic preferences.

>>11655029
(By this charts definitions):
Low Brow > High Brow > Upper Middle Brow > Lower Middle Brow

>>11665565
Any when they do explain those preferences, they don't get upset or huffy, as the opinions their interlocutors hold of them are ultimately of no consequence to them.

>>11665565
>Residents of the actual upper class don't need to apologize for or defend or explain their aesthetic preferences.
This, apparent stranger(?) started asking about this persons garden.

>dont need to defend or explain their aesthetic preferences

"hey I am writing an essay about this sort of stuff, I am wondering about that gnome, whats the deal with it in your garden"

"I dont have to apologize or defend or explain my aesthetic preferences"

"but im very curious, can you please just tell me, certainly there may be a reason"

"certainly, there may be a reason, but I dont need to tell you"

"that is very true.. you dont need to tell me... but you can... will you?"

"ok... I put the gnome there because its funny and ironic"

"Ha!! You are not upperclass because you defended your aesthetic preference! And you are not because its impossible for you to have put the gnome there as irony!! its impossible precisely because I know absolutely everything, AND, because I say so! HA!"

"no I swear, I put it there because precisely because the humor of the juxtaposition"

"Ha!! impossible!! remember... I said its impossible!"

"nope, I swear, thats the real reason"

"but.. it must be deeper, you must actually like the gnome... like for real for real... and if you actually like the gnome for real for real, you cant possible for real for real be upper class...right... because... I.... know...everything...and....I ...said...so....right.....?"

>>11665607
are you a virgin?

>>11665607
How wonderfully middle-brow of you to go to the trouble of concocting that imaginary dialogue in an attempt to 'win' an argument of your own making!

>>11665580
>they don't get upset or huffy
You are taking this biased persons word for it that thats how the person was acting, the writer wants to paint him in a bad light, and the writer is confident that her stance and view was correct, he may have been rightly huffy at her inanery

Look at these pictures: this is who you are defending

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2783289/Stereotyping-English-That-s-typical-Anthropologist-discovers-word-national-catchphrase.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2645203/Is-How-set-make-comeback-Author-calls-revival-old-fashioned-phrase-avoid-social-awkwardness-strangers-meet.html

>>11665625
>How wonderfully middle-brow of you to go to the trouble of concocting that imaginary dialogue in an attempt to 'win' an argument of your own making!
How low brow of you for thinking what I did was middle brow, and how losing of the argument of you

>>11665627
Oh good God, man. Was it *your* gnome that Kate was writing about?

>>11665614
>>11665625
YOU LOST THE ARGUMENT NIGGER
SHUT THE FUCK UP SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU LOST YOU LOST RESPOND TO THE POINT OF THE ARGUMENT OR YOU LOSE YOU LOST YOU FUCKING SHITTY NIGGER YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU LOST YOU LOST YOU FUCK YOU SHITTY NIGGER YOU LOST THE ARGUMENT YOU IDIOT YOU FUCK YOU FUCKING IDIOT FUCK HA HA HA YOU FUCKING IDIOT LOWBROW RETARDED FAGGOT FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU YOU SHIT YOU ARE SHIT YOU SHIT YOU ARE SHIT YOU SHIT YOU ARE SHIT

>>11665636
>Lowbrows need highbrows and honour them just as much as highbrows need lowbrows and honour them. This too is not a matter that requires much demonstration. You have only to stroll along the Strand on a wet winter’s night and watch the crowds lining up to get into the movies. These lowbrows are waiting, after the day’s work, in the rain, sometimes for hours, to get into the cheap seats and sit in hot theatres in order to see what their lives look like. Since they are lowbrows, engaged magnificently and adventurously in riding full tilt from one end of life to the other in pursuit of a living, they cannot see themselves doing it. Yet nothing interests them more. Nothing matters to them more. It is one of the prime necessities of life to them — to be shown what life looks like. And the highbrows, of course, are the only people who can show them. Since they are the only people who do not do things, they are the only people who can see things being done.

>Nevertheless we are told — the air buzzes with it by night, the press booms with it by day, the very donkeys in the fields do nothing but bray it, the very curs in the streets do nothing but bark it — “Highbrows hate lowbrows! Lowbrows hate highbrows!” — when highbrows need lowbrows, when lowbrows need highbrows, when they cannot exist apart, when one is the complement and other side of the other! How has such a lie come into existence? Who has set this malicious gossip afloat?

>There can be no doubt about that either. It is the doing of the middlebrows. They are the people, I confess, that I seldom regard with entire cordiality. They are the go-betweens; they are the busy-bodies who run from one to the other with their tittle tattle and make all the mischief — the middlebrows, I repeat.

>>11665607
Jesus fuck
The state of /lit/

>>11665639
CAN YOU SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE ACTUA SUBSTANCE OF THE DISCUSSION OR ARE OYU JUST A SHITTY WOMAN WHO NEEDS TO DEFEND A SHITTY WOMAN FOR GIRL POWER POINTS, SUCK YOUR FUCKING DICK YOU FUCKING PIECE OF GARBAGE SHIT YOU WORTHLESS SCUM

SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE POINTS MADE YOU FICKLEFUCKER YOU ABSOLUTE RETARDED FUCK STICK, RESPOND TO THE MY DIALOGUE YOU DICK SHIT, OF COUSE YOU WILL RESPOND TO THESE AND SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT HELPS YOU DISTRACT FROM YOUR LACK OF COHERENT SUBSTANTIAL POINT ON THE TOPIC IN QUESTION, DRIFT AND DEFLECT, DRIFT AND DEFLECT, OH PERFECT!! A PERFECT WAY TO NOT RESPOND TO THE TOPIC FURTHER! OU ARE PERFECTLY A SHITTY FUCK, YOU ARE A PERFECT SHITTY FUCKING NIGGER,

>>11665659
DISPROVE WHAT IS SAID DUMB SHIT FUCKER

YOU ARE DUMB SHIT. YOU ARE A DUMB PIECE OF SHIT. YOU CANNOT DISPROVE WHAT I SAID, YET YOU POSE A RESPONSE AS IF YOU CONTAIN MEANING OR KNOWLEDGE. YOU FEEL LIKE YOU MAY KNOW THAT YOU THINK YOU UNDERSTAND YOU MAY KNOW SOMETHING RIGHT ABOUT THIS TOPIC, THAT WHAT I SAID WAS WRONG, GO A HEAD AND EXPRESS IT IN WORDS, YOU CANT, BECAUSE YOU ARE EMPTY AND HAVE NOTHING, FUCK YOU DICK FAGGOT

>>11665656
What do you mean by this? What does that have to do with anything? High brows need lowbrows to make up the manuel labor force, of course if everything could be automated high brows wouldnt need or honour low brows, but wish everyone was only highbrow. I realize this is a sentiment which may have an argument posed against it, but it may be correct, will you be able to pose that argument, or agree with me? Can you say and think anything on your own? In case you forgot, what does this blurb have to do with anything, what did you mean to intend by it? Inb4 you are lowbrow for not knowing. Thats why we are speaking, you called me lowbrow for being a good writer and being able to quickly write a dialogue to prove a point, I disagree, partly because that is not enough information to fully categorize a person as this or that, of course you may further say this and that and the other, but your views dont matter, I only cared to speak to you at all in case you had something interesting to say on the subject, but it appears you do not.

How is this any different from just rich/poor?

>>11665706
My initial response to you was to suggest that your creation of an imaginary dialogue in an attempt to dismiss Fox's anecdote (or to make some related but tangential point of your own) fits quite strongly the behavior one would expect of a middle-brow person: the effort to create your dialogue seems to bely a need to justify your views by any manner you can.

You then responded that my response was low-brow. To which I quoted Woolf who quite presciently wrote of the natural affinity between low- and high-brow peoples, but that the middle-brow are always trying to sow seeds of discord. Which again seemed apropos.

You may take from that what you will. Good luck to you, anon; remember that your opinion of yourself is ultimately the only one with which you need concern yourself.

>>11664472
>expensive things are highbrow and you can buy taste
this is what lower-middlebrow people actually think

>>11665671
downvoted

>>11665782
Ugh, thats such a low-brow thing to say.

>>11665627
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2783289/Stereotyping-English-That-s-typical-Anthropologist-discovers-word-national-catchphrase.html
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2645203/Is-How-set-make-comeback-Author-calls-revival-old-fashioned-phrase-avoid-social-awkwardness-strangers-meet.html
oh no NO NO NO LOOK AT HER HAT

>>11665808
>the effort to create your dialogue
What the fuck are you talking about, are you so low brow that you think it took me effort to make that dialogue? More that it took for you to write your worthless response?

>To which I quoted Woolf who quite presciently wrote of the natural affinity between low- and high-brow peoples
Oh so it must be true, because she wrote about it, how quaint of you.

>You may take from that what you will. Good luck to you, anon; remember that your opinion of yourself is ultimately the only one with which you need concern yourself.
And a perfect finale of your retardation, this isnt about me, how perfectly lowbrow of you to think this is about me, and not about the nature of the topic at hand, what a despicable prick you are.

>>11665855
>expensive things are highbrow
Are any expensive things highbrow? What are some inexpensive highbrow things?

>>11665941
The sublime.

>>11665941
Books.

>>11665941
Coke

If this thread accomplishes nothing else, at least it led to me being aware of and ordering Russell Lyne's book 'The Tastemakers' which looks interesting, and let >>11657197 provide a good post on various chairs.

>>11665782
If a low-brow person gets rich, they don't automatically become high-brow.

>>11656770
Nice

>>11665941
>What are some inexpensive highbrow things?
thought

>>11655029
no

I've never read such a thread filled with such faggots, you'll never be in control of your own life if you listen to this drivel

>>11665911
>>11665627
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2783289/Stereotyping-English-That-s-typical-Anthropologist-discovers-word-national-catchphrase.html
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2645203/Is-How-set-make-comeback-Author-calls-revival-old-fashioned-phrase-avoid-social-awkwardness-strangers-meet.html

This bitches hat must be ironic right? This bitch..and her hat, this fucking bitches hat, the bitch, her hat, must be ironic, this ironic bitch in her ironic hate, bitch, irony, that, fucking, hat, is, fucking, shit, and big, and ironic, bitchly, this bitchy bitch, fucking faggot bitch with her bitchy ironic bitch hat, what a fucking idiot bitch, what a contradictory ironic hat bitch, bitch bitchy bitch in her bitch ass bitch hat, what a dumb ass ironic hat bitch, ironic bitch, ironic hat, ha, bitch, big bitch in a big hat, ironically, bitch, big bitch, big bitch hat, big ironic bitch hat, no one could wear that hat unironically, therefore, ironic bitch, in an ironic hat, bitchily, bitchly, bitchicly, ironically, in a big ironic bitch hat, bitchily

>>11666084
A...Are you ok, anon?

>>11666084
Based stroke-anon.

I guess it's too late to call an ambulance now.

>>11665627
>>11665607
>>11665491
Its actually a pretty deep (not reallly really but deeper than it seems and was treate) philosophical quandary, which is why I got so mad that she (and anons) so quickly brushed it off, and that she was so quick to believe her opinion was so perfect and clear and correct and that he was so obviously wrong.

>>11666756
>she was so quick to believe her opinion was so perfect and clear and correct and that he was so obviously wrong

There is nothing in her piece or any of the anons' posts that say the gnome displayer is *wrong*. Instead they are attributing his response to her query as representative of a particular social class. A social class is neither right nor wrong, it is merely descriptive.

>>11666827
Thats what I meant to imply, that anything he did was wrong.

She made an assumption, he tried to combat that assumption, and by the very fact he tried to defend himself (instead of having the conversation, or fleshly describing the full conversation) she just zoned out and concluded with 'wow... I just wanted him to admit my guess about him was right, but he just keeps talking...I guess that means im right"

>I mean, no-one actually takes them seriously or regards them as works of art.
blanket out of her ass universal assumption of hers


>The man’s reaction to my questions clearly defined him as upper-middle, rather than upper class.

>In fact, his pointing out that the gnome I had noticed was “ironic” had already demoted him by half a class from my original assessment.

>A genuine member of the upper classes would either have admitted to a passion for garden gnomes or said something like “Ah yes, my gnome. I’m very fond of my gnome.” and left me to draw my own conclusions.

Why does she assume these things? Where are her proofs?

>>11666827
And come on.. is it even worth discussing with you if you are going to be so intellectually dishonest, or slightly better, just actually ignore-ent? Yes, she did believe he was wrong, she believed his perception and understanding of his own thoughts and beliefs and actions were lies

>>11655029
I can move my eyebrows up and down pretty easily, so I would incline to the negative !

>>11666927
>>11666933
I mean, at a certain point you either accept that there are such things as social classes and class signifies or you don't. If you want to argue that Fox is inaccurately characterizing the traits of upper and upper-middle classes, or that she is insisting inappropriately ascribing those traits to gnome-man, then go right ahead. Simply saying 'she has no proof!' and/or 'she wears ridiculous hats!' adds very little to the discussion.

In this particular case, it looks like she is saying irony and defensiveness are signifiers of the middle to upper middle class, and that enthusiasm and/or a certain level of aloofness are signifiers of the upper class. I don't see all that much to disagree with there, though your milage may vary, as they say.

>>11666983
(strike 'insisting' from that sentence)

>>11655080
Hamilton, Oscar bait, NYT bestsellers and stupid shit like Taleb’s works, owning BTC and a Tesla, going to coachella (the rich don’t have their own music anymore), getting away with assault while on vacation in Mexico, being able to afford and easily find pill mill physicians, affording to live by oneself, being lucid because you can show up to work late or don’t work because trust fund, owning property with multiple stories, owning two cars w/no loans, having nice credit, being capable of clothes shopping twice a year at non-counterfeit/fashion lite outlets

>>11656462
Postmodernism really did nothing that hadn't already been done in modernism, as much as postmodernists try to deny it.

>>11655080
getting raped by refugees

>>11666983
>I mean, at a certain point you either accept that there are such things as social classes and class signifies or you don't
I do, but must I accept that everything she says about them (without backing up any of her statements) is absolute fact?

>If you want to argue that Fox is inaccurately characterizing the traits of upper and upper-middle classes, or that she is insisting inappropriately ascribing those traits to gnome-man, then go right ahead.

Thats what I did, noone took me up on it, they just did only what she did and said I was wrong and thats it, without saying why, I said why what she did was wrong, yes it does include the lack of her expressing why her assumptions/statements/proposition was correct/significant/accurate/meaningful
>'she wears ridiculous hats!'
holy shit you really didnt get what I tried to do there? She *claimed*/said/stated/believed/believed she was right in believing, it was impossible for his garden gnome to be an actual instance of him attempting to be ironic. So I stated that her hat was ironic, she may try to argue that its not, but I stated that it must be, because no one would wear hats like that non ironically, everyone who wears big silly hats does so because they are funny, just like everyone necessarily has a gnome in their garden because its funny.

>In this particular case, it looks like she is saying irony and defensiveness are signifiers of the middle to upper middle class
I would say she is wrong. This is where I ask for her evidence, of upper class never utilizing irony/juxtaposition, and when in an interesting accusatory suggestive personal intellectual philosophical conversation the upper class person you are speaking with never being defensive over their position. We can even imagine he possibility of him becoming aggravated at her idiocy, which I previously suggested may have been inanery.

>and that enthusiasm and/or a certain level of aloofness are signifiers of the upper class.
So what if the garden owner in question was aloof 99.9% of his life, and then this stranger comes to his house and starts telling him how he really thinks and feels, and his aloofness for a few minutes, decreases by maybe 5% or 20% I will give you 35%! that would automatically classify him as not being upperclass?

Further more, is upperclass a term used to describe purely taste, as highbrow is meant to? Or purely quantity of money possessed? Says who?

>>11655727

you mean posting on snapchat

>>11657462
Niles and Frasier are meant to be highbrow but written by middlebrows at best

>>11664472
What does bespoke mean ?

>>11667312
Anything made to fit, is the opposite of mass produced.

>>11667336
Close, but bespoke isn't *just* made to fit, it's made off of a pattern that is made specifically to you. In between bespoke and mass produced is made-to-measure, which is something made for you from a set pattern that has been modified to your measurements.

>>11667011
All that sounds mid-brow as fuck desu.

>>11658262
Cite your sources or stop talking in such a faux-authoritative tone