/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6797011]

You spend a lot of time discussing theories /lit/, have you tried writing your own?

[Anonymous No.6797025]

>>6797011
okay

[Anonymous No.6797031]

>>6797025
go on, go write one. There has got to be something better than 'muh gender equality' to come out of the 2k10s.

[Anonymous No.6797063]

I have the theory that the current generation of 20-30 somethings has no idea of what growing up means and hence choose not to.

[Anonymous No.6797066]

>>6797063
I agree with this. If you write it I will write a theory citing your theory.

[Anonymous No.6797077]

>>6797063
can you say why they don't know?

[Anonymous No.6797109]

>>6797077
No not really, but I can give some examples of what I mean. (This should be prefaced by telling you that I am part of the current 20-30 somethings generation and as such could just be the current 20-30 somethings generation's guy who claims his generation can't grow up)

Job-wise it's hard to really say "i've grown up at one point": Highschool doesn't really mean anything, after 4-5 years of college (the first of which can be spent in some sort of infantile anything-goes stasis) you often don't get a job, you get unpaid internships and at least in the US instead of financing a stable life you start paying off the massive debt you accumulated to get there.

Media-wise video games are the big center of "adult" life now. Now I'm not saying that video games are inherent infantile of childish, but they are a unique medium that lets you unironically enjoy the thigns you enjoyed as a child, i.e the Mario you played as a child is the same Mario you can play today without feeling a little bit of "wait a minute is this what I'm supposed to do?". And while I don't think this is necessarily bad, it allows you to basically revert to your childhood and childhood environment at any given moment.

Lastly if we're looking at literature there is a huge part of contemporary readership that are "stuck" on Harry Potter and The Fault in Our Stars. This is not good. The problems that are solved (if there are any) in these books should not be the problems you identify with at 23.

Now this could just be result of my extremely skewed perspective and to be honest I never quite know how to treat these "social theories" when I come up with them since they could just be convenient masturbatory narratives to make me feel smart, but that's how I feel about it.

[Anonymous No.6797113]

>>6797063
If don't know how to do something how can you choose not to do it?

[Anonymous No.6797120]

>>6797113
because you haven't decided to try find out?

It takes the will to achieve to even begin on the journey anon.

[Anonymous No.6797148]

>>6797109
No, these are all legitimate points.

From my perspective, I believe that our generation are in the unique position of having low paternal input coupled with media saturation. We are reactive to media, expecting it to provide wider truths. As a result children's books which get a lot of promotion become our canons, video games are our holidays or escapism as restrictions on travel becomes tighter because of warfare and financial struggles.

Furthermore, each generation has their own standards to which they determine 'grown up' to be. With less paternal influence, we have less standards to live up to. This is made even more problematic because of broken homes and the disruption of traditional family values.

We are lambs in a sheep's clothing.

[Anonymous No.6797170]

>>6797109
You make some great points anon.
I agree with them.
You should look at Europe too, see what things are like over there, see if they match up.
Would definitely check out any work you wrote on it in the future. Good luck.

[Anonymous No.6797201]

MORE QUESTIONS: How do you think social media will influence the next generation?

[Anonymous No.6797204]

Has the internet displaced the role of the parent?

[Anonymous No.6797215]

Is Homer antitheistic?

[Anonymous No.6797225]

Has consumerism influenced global apathy?

[Anonymous No.6797227]

What do you think will be the outcome of the current postmodern deconstruction?

[Anonymous No.6797237]

>>6797109
>Lastly if we're looking at literature there is a huge part of contemporary readership that are "stuck" on Harry Potter and The Fault in Our Stars.

I think literature has a very, very small role in your theory. A much larger part is the economic basis. Our generation has seen a huge shift in purchasing power from older buyers to younger buyers. Popular music, for example, is exclusively in the hands of children, and the Taylor Swifts and Co are the dominant messianic figures for a generation raised with the phantom pain of an amputated God.

Of course diversity through the arts is wider than at any point in history, but this exacerbates the problem as a huge number of small pockets are pushed aside for the mass youth consumption.

On the other side, there is a heavy incentive to market to this new, younger buying generation, and popular figures need to be younger, more attractive, and more sexual to hold appeal.

The ripples of this extend beyond the 20-30 bracket though. Youth is a commodity and it's heavily flaunted. Old age and the perceived associated wisdom that came with it was once very noble, but now it's a terrible ailment that needs to be concealed. The only thing that maters is being young. If Socrates were alive now, he'd be in the clinic having a chemical skin peel, botox, hair plugs, and collagen injections around his crows feet.

This youth obsession nests under the umbrella of a society wrestling with the 'death of human universals' and a relativistic outlook: "my view is equal to yous," where both are sculpted by the sociological semantic framework that is collectively made. And all the reactions to this are pretty much expected -- again, the widening of musical genres, the widening of self-identification like cis-whatever's, the widening of pretty much every social aspect as the 'essence' is revealed as a falsehood and we erect a temporary (ever-widening) spectrum to fill the void.

I see it as a transitional phase; a necessary one too.

[Anonymous No.6797238]

>>6797109
What should our concept of adulthood be without parental influence?

[Anonymous No.6797242]

>>6797237
I bet this sounded good in your head.

[Anonymous No.6797245]

No, I'm not educated enough.

[Anonymous No.6797246]

>>6797242
hey, this is a thread for idea flinging not critique.

[Anonymous No.6797252]

>>6797245
an educated perspective isn't entirely needed in this case. It's more planting the seed of a theory to pursue. If you think of something that needs answering you research around it.

[Anonymous No.6797259]

>>6797237
would you argue that we are going through a stage of ideological and aesthetic chaos?

[Anonymous No.6797278]

>>6797259
>would you argue that we are going through a stage of ideological and aesthetic chaos?

[Anonymous No.6797283]

>>6797278
thanks for your contribution. Old memes are not welcome in a thread dedicated to new ideas. At least bring a new one to the table.

[Anonymous No.6797284]

>>6797237
>Our generation has seen a huge shift in purchasing power from older buyers to younger buyers.
This is not true. Wealth accumulates at the end of people's work-life. This is why concerts with old stars (that were popular when these people were young) sell out ridiculously quick at high prices. Old people buy luxury furniture etc.

Youth unemployment rates are also higher than unemployment rates among older segments.

I can't be bothered to dig up the statistics that I have previously looked at but I will attach this one that I googled my way to.

[Anonymous No.6797291]

>>6797284
ah but that fails to take into account internet piracy.

How many texts have you BOUGHT lately?

[Anonymous No.6797294]

>>6797291
There is no incentive to target pirates when doing business. Except if your goal is to establish a defacto standard (e.g. MS Windows).

[Anonymous No.6797299]

>>6797294
what I'm trying to say is, you can't base media consumption on total wealth anymore when you can have it for free.

[Anonymous No.6797300]

>>6797283
>thanks for your contribution.
>Old memes are not welcome in a thread dedicated to new ideas.
>At least bring a new one to the table.
You're really making the next great breakthrough with your bullshit 4chan posts dude, keep those delusions of grandeur up, Reddit might like them.

[Anonymous No.6797312]

>>6797109
>"I'm more grown up than everybody else"

[Anonymous No.6797313]

>>6797300
why do you think the belief in new ideas is coherent with delusions of grandeur? All of these authors and philosophers are individuals, what makes you think that you are any different? Why do you separate yourself without even trying?

[Anonymous No.6797317]

>>6797299
If that media consumption is coupled with advertisement, then I am with you. But there is no profit in targeting pirates.

[Anonymous No.6797323]

>>6797317
obviously not, but if you are to determine the media consumption of a particular age group without considering profit instead just trying to see behaviors objectively then it would make sense to consider pirates.

[Anonymous No.6797331]

>>6797313
You bet I separate myself from fedora'd gentlefolk like you who think of themselves as 'philosophers'. Nothing you said was new or insightful, you're a laughing-stock.

[Anonymous No.6797343]

>>6797331
I'm OP, I'm just asking questions. This is for new ideas which might just be a thought for now. Not edited fully researched works. You know, a brainstorm.

Is this a piece of work that I have published publicly? Have I written my name to this? Am I not just encouraging thoughtful conversation? You're the one who isn't going to become a philosopher. You're too cynical and defeatist.

[Anonymous No.6797344]

>>6797242
>I bet this sounded good in your head.
It sounds good if the word restriction on posts was long enough to allow me to elaborate properly instead of shoehorning complex ideas into crude surface-scratching paragraphs.

>>6797259
>would you argue that we are going through a stage of ideological and aesthetic chaos?
I'd argue the contrary. Instead of chaos, it's pretty ordered and logical. With regard to ideology, we are a species just arriving at puberty, and I'd stress again the importance of seeing the widening spectrum of differing ideologies. Aesthetically, we are in a similar position; indirectly reacting to Wittgenstein, Derrida, Korzybski, etc, and beginning to grasp, as a collective body, the crucial role of a subjective semantic framework to perceive and describe reality.

This framework -- the possession of this framework, and the faint notion that the individual has one -- has done away with modernity and any residual enlightenment values. It's still far from chaotic: the Aristotelian essence is dead, and the evolving society we have is exactly what you would expect as the bugle sounds at it's wake.

[Anonymous No.6797349]

I have theories on physiology, meditation, Christianity and spirituality

[Anonymous No.6797363]

>>6797344
Nicely put. Do you think that it would be necessary for a unifying ideology to be written to respond to current events/environmental issues?

[Anonymous No.6797372]

>>6797349
brief on a theory surrounding meditation?

[Anonymous No.6797375]

>>6797323
Let me just be clear about what I want to say: The guy is trying to argue that that media caters to young people due to an economic basis that determines the content of our media. The claim is based on the assumption that young people somehow have more purchasing power. But this assumption is not supported by empirical data.

Why do you think that media consumption (without regard to purchasing power) matters? What does such media consumption drive? Or what does it signify?

[Anonymous No.6797379]

>>6797343
Yes you've really founded the Academy of Athens here on 4chan my friend. Nowhere better than /lit/ to find Socrates' in sunglasses.

[Anonymous No.6797391]

>>6797375
Because these days media consumption is a major part of the development of ideals. Perhaps it would be better to argue that media is directed at the young, not because of purchasing power, but to continue the influence that the media has over our perception of reality.

[Anonymous No.6797397]

>>6797379
better than Facebook, Twitter, Reddit or Tumblr for finding people relaxed enough to write how they really think.

[Anonymous No.6797428]

I sincerely maintain a form of simplistic nihilism, which is sketched below:

0) Humans have the capacity for truth, imagination, and to think what is the case, however unpleasant.

1) All human endeavor is ultimately futile, because every individual, group of individuals, and every trace of human existence is eventually destroyed.

2) There are no gods, no afterlife. These are all abstractions of the delusional human will-to-persist.

3) In life, there are differences of status between humans. However, these all come to nothing, due to the first point. Human life is built around the aberrant life-delusion to the contrary. This manifests in the most delusional group of all, 'high-functioning' adults, as urges to raise a new generation, protect territory, impart knowledge, and so on. These high functioning adults meet exactly the same end as the homeless drug addict, and other 'low' animals.

4) It is due to the uniquely invested delusion of functional adults that animally unattractive ideas such as 1), 2) and 3) are so easily dismissed. However, it is intellectually dishonest to do so.

5) As a consequence of 1) and 2), there is no difference in status coming, in the end game for all humans. Past life, there is nothing to strive for. There is nothing past their own individual lives to properly incentivize humans, although most delude themselves otherwise, per their animal nature.

6) Philosophically defensible responses to the above state of affairs include passing the time in as pleasant a manner as possible until death (including making more children since that's what you're evolved to do), suicide, and others. These amount to attitudes held toward life while in it, which however do not change the outcome for anyone.

note: ad homs to the effect of "I was a teenager once, too" actually don't stand up, nor do they impeach the above. It turns out, that the edgy teenagers grasp at reality, until the enticements and distractions of adult productivity proceed to delude them.

1/2

[Anonymous No.6797429]

>>6797372
I can't talk right now but I'll post it later

[Anonymous No.6797432]

>>6797428

2/2

A comment on the note: The reason why edgy teenagers sometimes grasp at actual reality in their edginess, is partly because they have the free time to think it, and still have a certain petulance of children which lends itself to an intellectual honesty which is dismissed by adults as "unproductive", "not useful", and so on. Adults learn to forget this honesty, as not being germane to the pattern of animal life, chalking it up to lack of experience of the young.

[Anonymous No.6797444]

>>6797011
Yeah, I have a very elaborated theory to refute materialism, reductionism, immaterialism, dualism and just about every hitherto proposed model of the world.

[Anonymous No.6797445]

>>6797284
>>Our generation has seen a huge shift in purchasing power from older buyers to younger buyers.
>This is not true. Wealth accumulates at the end of people's work-life.
Perhaps. But even if the average person does escape the compound interest on their mortgage and overcome the resulting forced under-consumption, this would just result in more parental wealth their children have access to. I doubt the thirteen year olds with iphones, play-stations, laptops, spotify and itunes accounts slogged away at a grueling 9-5 to pay for it all.

>This is why concerts with old stars (that were popular when these people were young) sell out ridiculously quick at high prices.
You have a small handful there: The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan, The occasional Elton John performance, maybe ten or fifteen others. You're right that they sell out quickly, and for high prices, but the demographic is mostly a nostalgic aging one, and a young "I listen to real music" one. Either way, this example does nothing to counter the point. Take a Led Zeppelin song at random, and take an Iggy Azelea song at random. Look at the youtube views alone and see who has generated the most amount of money out of sidebar advertising in the past year, and that's not even factoring in the hundreds of other online paid or advertised services.

You're right that your dad would probably fork out $100+ bucks to see his favorite 70's band reunite for one last show, but this is utterly dwarfed by the revenue generated by the younger generation.

[Anonymous No.6797450]

>>6797391
I would probably turn the argument upside down then: It is our ideals that drive media production and consumption. I would claim that the idealisation and popularity of youth drives the media to produce material that it considers to target a younger audience. Middle-aged people will watch such programmes as well because it is what is popular.

This obviously opens up the discussion of whether or not such productions actually targets young people, since it actually targets both young people and middle-aged people.

I am not going to make the argument in its entirety but I guess it can be done with a reference to the idea of imitating what everyone else does. "Imitating the template of time", as I think someone put it.

I also think that people attribute way too much power to media. However, one influence that media has on people is that it makes people talk about media, since media talks about itself all the time. (Journalists love to interview journalists.)

[Anonymous No.6797506]

>>6797445
>But even if the average person does escape the compound interest on their mortgage and overcome the resulting forced under-consumption
In my country people seem to be able to pay off their mortgage (and be debt free) around the time they are in their fifties. I don't know what the situation is in other parts of the world. By that time their wages are very high and their children have moved out. This is when they are able to buy 'luxury' goods. And there is a lot of these people, so it is an important target demographic.
>I doubt the thirteen year olds with iphones, play-stations, laptops, spotify and itunes accounts slogged away at a grueling 9-5 to pay for it all.
This I can get behind. One thing I noticed is that colleagues, who have children, will spent large amounts of money on their children. Buy them the popular brands and latests gadgets and so on. Some have theorized that these parents do this to compensate for not spending enough time with their children. Of course, if they spent less time working and more time with their children, then they wouldn't have to make all that extra money necessary to compensate for not spending enough time with their children! Thus, these people would benefit from reduced working hours.

[Anonymous No.6797533]

>>6797432
Is it not arguable, that the fact that we are getting closer to our eventual annihilation that it is time to start taking responsibility for our actions on this planet to preserve the future of humanity? Will this give us our purpose? Could it be the next logical step from nihilism?

[Anonymous No.6797577]

>>6797363
>Do you think that it would be necessary for a unifying ideology to be written to respond to current events/environmental issues?
I don't think that's possible, and it would run against the grain of the current movement.

People rage all day about the decline of western values, about so-called SJW's, about how shit contemporary aesthetic expression is, but I love it. When I see a self-identified 'transexual anarcho-libertarian who listens to dubstep' and an 'asexual neo-marxist who listens to ambient goa-trance' (those are horrible placeholder examples), I don't see two deluded 'spook-ridden' individuals who are indoctrinated by contemporary ideologies, but two people who are pushing the boundaries of the dead essence. It's the Ship of Theseus scaled up to a socially aware level.

If we view this in the micro, you could have a cup. "The cup has always been there and that's the way things are", but now we have a collective body who have finally realized -- though for the most part unaware of the realization directly -- that 'cup-ness' was never inherent in the object, but applied by the observer. Now this collective body has taken the reigns, with each individual entitled to paste their own version of cup-ness over the object, based on the other aspects of the framework they posses to describe 'reality'.

This movement scaled back up to the macro/social level is snowballing. Obviously sex/gender is in the spotlight, but the same rejection of the essence, the 'x-ness', of both objects and events is happening in every facet of society. Essentially we have the erosion of ideologies via the formation of smaller ones, which in turn will get broken down later. Some of these movements are very vocal as they happen and piss a lot of people off, but seen from the wider lens it's inevitable, as is the future fractalization of them.

[Anonymous No.6797579]

>>6797450
I wouldn't underestimate it. Especially now when it is so readily available with so few distractions. One of the main reasons I come on 4chan is because it is helpful to breath ideological fresh air. There are children as young as 2 with access to their parent's phones. They advertise smart watches on fucking rastamouse. I do fear for the future if this is allowed to continue without alternative input.

[Anonymous No.6797596]

>>6797577
Is there not a danger that this fracturing will cause alienation of the individual or will focus be directed to more practical matters and it will drive more action?

[Anonymous No.6797653]

>>6797577
>that 'cup-ness' was never inherent in the object, but applied by the observer.
>This movement scaled back up to the macro/social level is snowballing.
>Essentially we have the erosion of ideologies via the formation of smaller ones, which in turn will get broken down later.
>>6797344
>indirectly reacting to Wittgenstein, Derrida, Korzybski

interesting stuff. what role do you think Korzybskis timebinding will have in the snowballing death of the essence?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svRJ7lDpSB0

[Anonymous No.6797701]

>>6797109
What does being "grown up" mean in the first place. Just because you think something has childlike qualities doesn't mean it's inherently that way. In the future those things you mentioned could very well be considered being grown up

[Anonymous No.6797738]

>>6797701
>What does being "grown up" mean in the first place.
a) The men in this picture are grown up.

b) The 30year old NEET who spends all day playing Call of Duty, surfacing from his lair only when Mother calls down that dinner is ready is not a grown up.

c) If any of the men in the picture acted like b) they would cease to be grown up.

[Anonymous No.6797752]

>>6797738
But isn't that what you determine as grown up? What would a child produced by our generation say?

[Anonymous No.6797767]

>>6797738
In a development to your '30 year old NEET' point, an old friend of mine got called out in that exact way by a 12 year old. So you are correct in the NEET point. Universally, an avoidance of responsibility is not considered grown up.

[Anonymous No.6797818]

>>6797577
But that individualization is often made in an already established framework. By considering all things through establishment you make every idea relate to it, become a commodity, which would further work as an affirmation of the establishment or establish-ness, actually making you less individual. Changing parts of that establishment requires a popular vote, but it affirms the need of establish-ness

[Anonymous No.6797877]

>>6797818
(Different person here) would it be arguable that much like the dark ages, we are due an ideological renaissance that will come as a result of this fragmentation and isolation?

[Anonymous No.6797920]

>>6797818
>But that individualization is often made in an already established framework.
That framework is fundamentally linguistic. The only way we describe reality is through linguistics, and that includes math as language.

>By considering all things through establishment you make every idea relate to it, become a commodity. . .
Internal to the framework you don't have a fixed amount of concepts, you can continually create more because we are in a state of continuous change. David Hume, for example, didn't have a moral opinion on pirating TV shows or on Marxism. Yes, he had to remain within a semantic framework to make any statement about reality, but the statements he could make were a response to what he perceived to be the reality of his time. From an empirical perspective there always needs to be Bayesian probability, and consistency within, but there is nothing from preventing people from creating new concepts, which they frequently do.

>. . .which would further work as an affirmation of the establishment or establish-ness, actually making you less individual.
It implies more individuality if the individual is capable of pushing the boundaries and creating more conceptual devices with which to superimpose on top of their view of reality.

>Changing parts of that establishment requires a popular vote
Not at all.

[Anonymous No.6798081]

>>6797533

What you're suggesting is a viable "productive adult" view of things, which is made all the more attractive for the simple fact that it is attractive, from an animal point of view. However, it all ends in the same way.

It can be pleasant to imbue life with a local meaning and purpose, indeed animals, being animals, are primed to do so. But these don't actually exist.

[Anonymous No.6798145]

>>6797109
>Media-wise video games are the big center of "adult" life now. Now I'm not saying that video games are inherent infantile of childish, but they are a unique medium that lets you unironically enjoy the thigns you enjoyed as a child, i.e the Mario you played as a child is the same Mario you can play today without feeling a little bit of "wait a minute is this what I'm supposed to do?". And while I don't think this is necessarily bad, it allows you to basically revert to your childhood and childhood environment at any given moment.
how is this different than watching sports? it isn't

>Lastly if we're looking at literature there is a huge part of contemporary readership that are "stuck" on Harry Potter and The Fault in Our Stars. This is not good. The problems that are solved (if there are any) in these books should not be the problems you identify with at 23.

people read books for different reasons than you, romance features highly in womans thinking and harry potter has plenty. (the author even said she should have rewritten the ending to have the expected romance work out)

you seem to be explaining your situation more than most peoples. I have quite a few friends that still live with their parents, which seems to me the most visible way of "not growing up" but you happened to miss.

Also, all theses generation theories are all completely retarded because there are so many different people. treating them as a collection will always be wrong.

A simplification is wrong and a complexity is worthless.

[Anonymous No.6798166]

>>6797237
>Our generation has seen a huge shift in purchasing power from older buyers to younger buyers.
this is retarded, do you know nothing of the 80s or 90s? the music industry was even more parasitic on young kids/teens.

[Anonymous No.6798177]

>That framework is fundamentally linguistic. The only way we describe reality is through linguistics, and that includes math as language.
No matter the word for it, it's always likely that killing others on a whim won't be looked upon as a good thing. This tacit agreement, with many others, takes the form of a framework. And for individualization, in order to be, a framework is needed, something from which you make yourself distinct and be understood as such.

>Internal to the framework you don't have a fixed amount of concepts, you can continually create more because we are in a state of continuous change.
I agree that framework is constricted by semantics.


>>6797920
>It implies more individuality if the individual is capable of pushing the boundaries and creating more conceptual devices with which to superimpose on top of their view of reality.
But that means the individual must be considered through semantics. And considering everything through semantics is making the framework bigger and the human lesser, more concrete by the help of his traits categorization within semantics.

>Not at all.
I meant in sense that, for example, if one ruler holds power, it's only by the majority of people accepting or fearing(form of acceptance) his power.

[Anonymous No.6798182]

>>6797148
a generation would likely be defined as "the majority of people in a certain time period"

the dysfunctional home is not even close to a majority.

and your focus on "paternal influence" is obviously personal or male focused. maternal influence could be as strong or even stronger but you didn't even mention it.

[Anonymous No.6798196]

>>6798182
Apologies, I meant parental. A Freudian slip I'm sure as my dad is dead.

[Anonymous No.6798199]

>>6798145
>>6798166
>>6798182
after giving critiques on wrong ideas i'll give my general view.

America: Our parents grew up in a time of unfettered economical growth. When they got older they had jobs, college = job still made sense to them. It no longer works for us. If people don't realize this before they are 18-20 they will have some thinking to do later.

Politics focuses on the older people because they care and have more money for campaigns. Therefore young people don't change the society it is all up to old retards.

All the riots lately are not a sign of race struggle but economical struggle. Those black communities are stagnant apart from drug sales and you can't exactly write how good a weed salesman you are on a resume.

Like I said, since school costs so much and college no longer =job so clearly, people go into fields they could learn off the internet if they cared enough or thought about it, they get out find no job and continue to live with their parents. I also see a dip in peoples view on marriage. It is seen as less obvious as before, another large change from previous 300 years of american culture.

I'll stop there but I think the main "problem" of our generation will be coming to realize the fact that our US economy is no longer great and is sinking contrary to what we hold as an axiom of life.

[Anonymous No.6798242]

Here's on of the problems, a lot of these things are over analyzed by our generation as we tend to do with a lot of things. Here's what being grown up is, it means taking responsibility. Plain and simple, if you do that you're grown up. Secondly, we really fucked up as a culture when the advertising agency's decided that children should be the focus of the media and created a world where children and childish thoughts are the main entertainment focus and not fully developed adults, hence why nobody knows what it means to grow up. We've been fed the same childish bullshit in different shades throughout our lives, and the next generation is probably worse off.

[Anonymous No.6798259]

>>6798242
>Secondly, we really fucked up as a culture when the advertising agency's decided that children should be the focus of the media and created a world where children and childish thoughts are the main entertainment focus and not fully developed adults, hence why nobody knows what it means to grow up.
examples? it is meaningless without examples

[Anonymous No.6798269]

>>6798242
I'm not sure if its children being the focus of advertising that is entirely the issue, I would suggest that convenience and humoring mediocrity is a massive part of it. Why try when you don't have to?

[Anonymous No.6798371]

OP here, would you want this sort of thread to appear again?