/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

Currently at Radio Ernstiwan:


Animumusik by Yuno

M3U - XSPF


File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 59755
47 kB, 640 × 640
(I know that this thread might look like it's made by an immature specimen that does not know how humanity works, which is absolutely true.)
I want to ask Ernst about attention seekers and about the ways to effectively deal with them.
First i wanted to describe what sort of person i usually call an attention whore.
An attention whore:
>Talks a lot about meaningless stuff and himself.
>Will start an argument over nothing.
>Will gaslight you and play a victim.
>Will troll with stupidity and shitposts.
>Surrounds himself with weak-minded people who are somehow impressed with his behavior.
>Extremely materialistic and superficial.
>Has masochistic tendencies.
Now the last point i would like to elaborate on. An attention seeker LOVES when someone beats the crap out of him. He likes being a victim, he likes being insulted, assaulted, he literally enjoys it. Such a person will commit a mass shooting or a suicide or both, with one sole goal: to get noticed.
He's extremely primitive and lacks any common sense. He's highly reactive to the outside stimuli, very emotional and predictable. An ultimate normie with a flaccid ego that controls his every action.

Now here is the question Ernst. How do you defeat a person that will go out his way to get noticed?
If you talk to him - you lose.
If you beat the shit out of him - you lose.
If you kill him - you lose.
If you try to ignore him - he will think that you are weak and will double down on his efforts up until you are basically forced to do one of the 3 options mentioned above.

Case in point: LGBT alphabet crowd, incels, feminists, various journalists, etc etc. All these people share the same qualities of an attention seekers.

Is the solution for this - just being always in control and being a stone cold robot?
How do you deal with them?
>>
No. 59757
>>59755
Is this some new 4cancer meme or something? Because I started seeing "attention seeker" thrown around on Steam a lot, usually used by the most actively noticeable and prolific shitposters. My initial conclusion was that these people were projecting their own qualities onto others and arguing with that strawman.
>various journalists
It's don't. Facemask burners definitely qualify. In that regard they're communally acting to create some bydlo tribal affiliation. Burning each other with fiery sticks or pouring lye on their hands would equally do the trick. However, you said it in such way I thought maybe you meant a colleague. If you are asking about arguing with people online, it only makes me think you are yourself pretty retarded and it's sad if you're holding onto butthurt enough to come to some unrelated forum, in which case the troll was absolutely successful so I hope it wasn't that. Otherwise answer is obvious: just ignore them retard.

>- just being always in control and being a stone cold robot?
When you say this it makes me wonder if you're butthurt about losing the sense of controlling an argument, dialogue, or having some dumb narrative challenged, and are upset at someone or some group for having successfully disrupted your efforts. If all you're concerned about is people dancing like retards in a group, bydlo gon bydlo, which is why I ignore most people.
>>
No. 59762
>>59757
Nah, i just came up with the conclusion myself that certain people are beyond saving to the point when even mercy killing them is a total waste of efforts.
I'm talking about people in general.
So your answer to dealing with such people is just avoiding most people?
>>
No. 59763 Kontra
>>59755
> LGBT alphabet crowd, incels, feminists, various journalists, etc etc.
Just stop using twitter.
>>
No. 59764
>>59763
You might as well suggest stop using internet alltogether because perverted individuals are slowly taking over the entire thing.
Worst part is that they don't even see how fucked in the head they are and consider their behavior "the norm".
It's kinda sad.
>>
No. 59765 Kontra
>>59755
It's fairly easy to ignore things I don't like. The only problem is when they open threads on EC XDD
>>
No. 59766 Kontra
26 kB, 400 × 499
>>59764
Content creation and attention economy on the internet, now combine that with the concept of an "attention whore"

The whole internet deals with the limits to attention. It's not a take-over of people you don't like, because all content regardless of its origin fights for attention. Look at kohl and 4chan and how it spilled into the mainstream, to Youtube and Tiktok etc. certainly those people aren't of your mentioned groups.

I don't share your opinion on those people in general as it is an unnecessary abstraction. But the "solution" to people who seek attention is simple. Ignore them, don't give them attention, it is that simple. We might close the thread.
>>
No. 59767
75 kB, 385 × 363
>>59764
I've never used twitter and I rarely see the kind of people you're talking about, only exceptions are prolific shitposters on imageboards.

None of the people I know in real life are like that because I can cut those sorts of people out of my life right quick without issue. I'm sure I have a a few facebook friends like that but I usually just mute 90% of the people I'm friends with on facebook anyway so I don't see any of it.

Just stop using twitter as >>59763 says

>>59755
>LGBT alphabet crowd
I don't hang around with or interact with transvestites or their ilk, so problems weren't
>incels
only see them on imageboards, their bitching blends into the background bitching of imageboards and is nothing new
>feminists
these are only a problem for me in educational or workplaces, I usually just tiptoe around them while politely smiling and nodding
>various journalists
these are a problem I'll admit, most journos are women aged 26-36 and are single cat ladies so they are absolutely fucking up the public perception of things
>>
No. 59770
87 kB, 900 × 600
>>59766
>all content regardless of its origin fights for attention
Well i disagree with this. There are certainly people who create stuff to attentionwhore. This is the bane of the modern art in my opinion, because everything is made for the sake of attention.
>Look at the controversial shit that i made!
this is how a lot of "artists" today do things.

I believe that art is when you make something for yourself not to impress others.
Same with content you're referring to.
If you make somethign to impress others your content will be trash.
>>
No. 59771
>>59770
I'm with Terry Davis on this one.
"The purpose of life is entertaining Mr. God"

I just interpret it in neoplatonic terms.
>>
No. 59780
103 kB, 570 × 756
>>59770
Content in its definition is made for a public or part of a public. Content is something that is shared. Content and attention economy are deeply linked.
Art is not content, art can be content. But then again why do you think modern art is made to impress others? Your understanding of art is an amateur one, "I make it for myself" - It is a hobby. Artists make art for the sake of art and its implications. This can include their self-expression, but also exploring an idea or whatever. There is art that aims to tackle communication, it is made in mind to interfere with publics, to make people think, to give an aesthetic experience. Ofc this can be "transgressive", but I think that art is just subsumed under the same logic of the attention economy today. Some people might calculate solely on attention, but you could also have a good idea that grabs attention. Seems like you are one of those people that like art as a skillful representation or idyllic picture. Modern art (we are talking about early 20th century, not contemporary art that as traces of modern art) is in its idea about going beyond representation or mimesis.

I still think about writing a story where the subject like in a classic novel is more or less done away with. Where the relation is the main actor, not the individual. I lately read about posthumanist films and books. People have done what I was thinking of in a sense. My idea was influenced by the academic thoughts I have been deeply entrenched in the last 2 years it seems. It's not about my experience anymore, but to give an experience and idea of something that is not about me as creative person, a poet, writer, some romanticist idea or whatever. The subject would be part of it, but not as main focus, a sort of character development or journey is not in my mind.

Once something is shared, it is part of an attention economy, even here on EC your post can get attention or not. I don't expect all my posts to get attention though.
But if I don't want attention at all, why share it with a community/public? Why post here on EC if you don't want attention? You could just write it up and get done with it. Posting something, presenting something entails the longing for attention, validation and perhaps even belonging. All if it together.
>>
No. 59783
>>59780
>Why post here on EC if you don't want attention?
For me it's a selfish desire to expand my understanding at the expense of other peoples' time. It's like getting free education, you just have to ride the dunning kruger until someone knowledgeable gets sufficiently annoyed and corrects you.
>>
No. 59786
83 kB, 613 × 600
>>59780
>Why post here on EC if you don't want attention?
But it's a difference whether you want attention for your posts, which aren't tied to yourself as a person or if you want attention for yourself, like on social media. I gladly admit that I enjoy getting attention for my posts, but I don't expect this attention to last after the discussion is done, and I especially wouldn't want to have it attached to me during the next discussion where I want to participate. I want my posts to be answered fot their content, and not for the person who made them, and I also expect everyone else to post what they think is worthwile reading, and not what nets them the most e-fame.

I even wonder why there is never a discussion on /int/ to suspend countryballs, because due to the small userbase they act as avatar for posters of some countries. I'd most likely post less if I was the only germball around.
>>
No. 59789 Kontra
>>59762
It is quite literally what I do because I have such a low estimation of people. I ignore my neighbors, I ignore old friends, I ignore ditectly engaging with most clientele or colleagues unless I have to go beyond being professional for some reason. I know it's an incredibly pompous thing to say but most people aren't worth my time, especially Americans and I suspect Russians, Chinese, basically any shitty imperial ambition state filled with peasant superstition. Why would I volunteer my time and my headspace towards annoyance when it's unnecessary?

>>59765
I don't know why I gave pidorashka the benefit of the doubt before falling to bed though.

Oh wait nevermind, it was a combination of not so subtly baiting him with trying to draw out whether this is some faggy new discord or zoomer meme or something. Funnily enough the one argument in particular I observed with someone who really liked that term seemingly the way OP is using it was clearly some form of untermensch channel like from 4,8, sosach or somewhere, and seemed to be using it the same as bydlo would use "haters." He was basically losing an argument and trying to find some way to get the guy to shut up because I got the sense he cared about looking bad on Steam for some reason.

Hence, my roundabout way of asking OP if he was mad about losing an argument publicly, and whether this is the newest buzzword discord faggots use to try and shutdown arguments when they're losing, or if he was just using really weird pidoran definitions of narcissistic personalities and extrapolating it to dumb Russian partisan shit.

>>59783
I laughed irl at that sentence

>>59786
If I was the only American left I'd consider ceasing to post entirely.

>>59764
German is right. The perversion of all things naturally that is cabbage filth is one other thing. I notice you didn't mention anime at all, complete with its not very subtle pro-pedo bent, or anything unnatural and twisted about the failures of 4cancer and sosach.

I mentioned projection too because part of the irony being you could've asked this in the today thread but uou straight up opened a brand new thread to leave there at the top.
>>
No. 59792
>>59783
But you still want the attention for your post. Otherwise, there is no correction etc.

>>59786
I agree there is a difference, but nonetheless there is a limit and a threshold. In the end, you still personally enjoy the attention and want it. I myself like the anonymous attention as well, I have encountered fashion designers, musicians, and the same goes for illegal graffiti sprayers I like, that put not their persona but the results in the foreground. The "celebrity" is not the person but a creation. Yet in the absence there still is the idea of a person behind it. These people hide their faces yet garner attention. The attention thing is notable on bigger boards, on platforms it is extreme. Not all content on platforms is driven by persona, and still, they have to fight for attention (and are happy if they get it, surely it can take time for it to happen). You don't build a youtube channel if you don't like the idea of getting attention (views, comments) for it and share what you did. And it is a typical internet shortcut to assume all people want attention for themselves on social media and not for their content, for example when it comes to activism. Ofc there is a lot of performance going on. And surely there is an individualistic craze going on for decades now.
>>
No. 59793
>>59786
>I even wonder why there is never a discussion on /int/ to suspend countryballs, because due to the small userbase they act as avatar for posters of some countries.
This was discussed on radio ernstiwan. Conclusion was to just use a proxy, but some of us unique countryballs can't be fucked. I'd like an option to just hide and appear either as Omsk or a German.
There was a point in which this board has three Portuguese posters, but it seems I'm the last one flying the national colors. I can see how I have self-censored on the basis of every post of mine being attributed to myself, but perhaps it's for the best as I would have shat out some horrible posts if it didn't harm the brand image.
Maybe it's for the better than I'm the sole Portuguese here. The other one was gay and a northerner, and for all intents and purposes I was co-signing all his posts.
>>
No. 59795
>>59780
The reason i post on EC is unironically for serious discussions.
I don't really care about getting an attention for my posts, i try to start a philosophical conversations with users to expand my knowledge about subjects or share my own knowledge with others. It's strictly utilitarian.
I feel good when i help people out when they don't know something. The reason why i use EC and not Quora is because the latter was turned into poos grinding karma simulator.
>>
No. 59796
>>59789
> I notice you didn't mention anime at all, complete with its not very subtle pro-pedo bent, or anything unnatural and twisted about the failures of 4cancer and sosach.
I thought that these things are fairly obvious without me mentioning them. I get that you are being paranoid about invaders from other imageboards but there is no need to gatekeep this community this hard to the point when you sage every single thread you do not like.
>>
No. 59797
>>59786
Man, if I could be truly anonymous on EC/int/, I'd shitpost so much.
The only reason I'm not shitposting like a maniac is because I'm easily recognizable, and can't plead the fifth.

I think anonymous message boards have ruined my brain. In that, most of the things are say are theatrics. I hold opinions and arguments not because I "believe" them, or "identify" with them, but more like as tools I can deploy in various contexts.
Maybe it's intellectual cowardice to not commit, but I like to think that agreeing with someone limits my opportunities to have a debate. It's like a game. You can't win if you stick to the same meta.
>>
No. 59798
>>59796
>sage

It's because you were starting to sound more like some vatnik. I couldn't understand why anyone but some sosach vatnik would take offense at journalism until I realized probably a lot of people are too retarded not to know difference between pundits and journalists. Journalists just go out and repeat the facts. It can be massaged so as to slant an image a certain way, such as omitting key details from a story, or reporting on one but not another, but that is mainly down to the editors and owners of the paper which in most cases is a private for profit enterprise. It's pretty well known how hard journalists butt heads with their editors.

>>59767
No, they don't. What you mean are pundits. Punditry is not journalism. Some may have been journalists, but being a pundit is by definition not being a real journalist. Case in point, Tom Brokaw and Megyn Kelly are journalists. Tucker, Joe Scarborough, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Maher, these people are pundits. They inject their personal opinions and editorialize, and in the case of people like Maher, Jon Stewart, Colbert, these people also are entertainers also who mostly host late night talk shows. It's almost as if people seriously don't know the difference between some AM radio host and an actual journalist because so far as they see it's all "the media." In this country journalists frequently get sniped at by both sides for "not grilling them hard enough" as opposition candidate or "being too mean" when it's their candidate.

Basically, my view is if you're openly hostile to journalists either you've got something to hide or you're asshurt because they're willing to talk about some fact going in the face of your narrative you wished to be swept under the rug. Thus, people hanging off of Putin's nutsack get asshurt when people start questioning what happened to all the money they stole. Regimes passionately despise journalists for a reason, and it's clear at this point people who hate them either don't know the difference, or they do and that is why they hate them because they are regimists who want the country to look more like Turkmenistan with muh le strong leader.

I further think it's probably tied to the broader issue some people tried blaming on market liberalisation or neoliberalism that people wrongly act like all opinions are made equal: they are not. I do not know if this comes more from SocJus muh equity tiers, or wrong ideas about democracy and freedom of speech fundamental assumptionsdemocracy and freedom do not stipulate that everyone is equally right, but that the more correct, moral, or truthful idea will prevail in open competitveness with other amoral, untrue, or flat our retarded ideas, or postmodernist garbage about moral relativism or assumptions that there is no objective truth, or some left or right or Protestant romanticization about the bydlo common man, or a combination of these or what, but it comes down to the assumption that your feefees and your retarded views should be given equal standing. It doesn't matter if you have fifty retarded people or fifty million, something objectively nonfactual is immortally wrong. It doesn't matter how much something gets massaged or spun, a polished turd is always going to be a polished turd, and some random pizza delivering bydlo's view on how galaxies formed does not ever deserve same consideration as an astrophysicist.

I think it is partly some bydlo outrage at expertise and their own fundamental sense of ineriority that fuels all this hate towards professionalism. Maybe also class resentments. If you're uneducated and untrained at X you are incompetent at X, simple as. The fundamentals of journalism if they do their job right is simply to state here X happened, and ask the who/what/why/when/how questions. Sometimes the answers to these questions is unflattering, which is particularly why this new breed of bullshit artists infesting the chans get so outraged by it.
>>
No. 59802
416 kB, 1388 × 824
261 kB, 540 × 955
>>59798
> I couldn't understand why anyone but some sosach vatnik would take offense at journalism

It's a sort of psychological defence. If you live in Russia you see people arrested for publishing inconvenient information about corrupt officials we all know that OP wasn't talking about journalists from 1-st channel. Or people who are hated just because they are different from others. Which options do you have?
1. Admit that you can't do anything about it. Or you can but you are too pussy for that. It's quite unpleasant.
2. Apologise yourself. Well, those journalist was arrested but actually he's attention whore so it's OK and "muh both sides".

This explains why so many Russians are passionate about fighting "globohomo" or "neoliberalism and Bezos" while living somewhere in Barnaul, Altai Krai. It's safe. It's not so boring (it's bad to steal budget money -- too obvious and trivial, unfit for attention whoring). And you are in trend with westerners who don't care much about thirdie problems.

We live among people like picrelated for whom shit eating and anal rape is normal. And the greatest virtue is ability to tolerate it. And he complains about perverts. Really, close the fucking Twitter and come back to real world. but with real world like THIS escapism in Twitter is pretty understandable

Also there is a small chance that OP is not a simple pidorushka like me but nobility from the ruling class. Then it's a natural thing.
>>
No. 59804
>>59802
What does it say?
>>
No. 59811
56 kB, 880 × 701
>>59798
Okay, i admit my mistake, not every journalist is a pundit, however i do have to say that i dislike when people try to show their opinion as a fact which i think happens way too often this days.
In fact very often when i talk to people both in real life and online i notice how a person just states his every opinion as a fact, which is rather frustrating to deal with because i don't want to engage in a meaningless argument and such a person very often wants to agrue for the sake of arguing. Maybe it's the way to vent for them, i don't know.
>>59802
I think that there is a difference between people who fight the system because they disagree with some general aspects and how things are done and those who fight it for the sake of fighting in which case it's a meaningless immature behavior IMO.
Also, there is nothing wrong with admitting that no system is perfect, in my opinion you can't control anything or anyone and there is absolutely no need to do so.

Regarding your pics, i have trouble understanding why you take those shitposts seriously because people on pics are clearly trolling, especially the second picture. It's not their genuine opinion man.

Additionally, if you had to deal with such a person in real life, if he was real, don't you think that he would be rather predictable?
The way i see it, people who pose as intellectuals without being said intellectuals are far more difficult to deal with due to their artificially inflated egos which makes them believe they cannot be wrong.
>>
No. 59812
>>59811
>artificially inflated egos which makes them believe they cannot be wrong.
This is a trait far more commonly associated with the bydlo tbh
>>
No. 59813 Kontra
2,1 MB, 1221 × 1024
>>59804
It's untranslatable and I'm not sure that you really want to know about "shitting in elephants' mouths", but the synopsis is following:
A conscript shot other soldiers who threatened to rape him. Here people scold him in media. They say that it happens, and he probably deserved it, and they had it much worse, and why couldn't he just tolerate it. The irony is that they call him "terpila" which means "one who tolerates". This is fucked up even on linguistical level. "They beaten me in kidneys in army, and I pissed with blood, but I tolerated. I ate shitty food and vomited from it, but I tolerated. And youth is not-fucked generation of terpilas". Notice how "not-fucked" is a swear word.

>>59811
> Regarding your pics, i have trouble understanding why you take those shitposts seriously because people on pics are clearly trolling, especially the second picture.
This naivety makes me wonder about your biography and background. Have you served or you are not a man? I have better than average environment and yet I sometimes meet such people.

> don't you think that he would be rather predictable?
As predictable as mad dog. Do you really want to use mental gymnastics to convince yourself that dealing with girl who watched some of NixelPixel videos is worse? Can we please not?
>>
No. 59814 Kontra
>>59813
> not-fucked
It's in a passive form. More precisely "haven't-been-fucked".
>>
No. 59815
>>59813
>not sure you want to know
Why wouldn't I be interested in this linguistical wonderland you have here? I am on EC's /int/national board after all)
>>
No. 59816
>>59813
>As predictable as mad dog. Do you really want to use mental gymnastics to convince yourself that dealing with girl who watched some of NixelPixel videos is worse?
I think that dealing with a woman is a lot different from dealing with a man, because as a rule of a thumb most women are emotionally unstable by default.

Now regarding your question, predictable bydlo men are very easy to manipulate and i have no trouble dealing with bydlo at all because they rarely think.
Like i said before in this thread i do have trouble dealing with narcissists, because not only they are not self aware, they love staying and being this way, in my experience they are manipulative by default it's their way of interacting with the world. Attention whoring is just one of examples.
>>
No. 59818
>>59816
Attention whoring isn't manipulativeness though. In fact part of the point to manipulation is practically by definition it is not done in the open or transparently. Part of the skill of the manipulator lay in how aware you are of what he or she is doing. Manipulative tactics may be made in use of gaining attention, and attention can be gathered in furtherance of some goal, but by and large attention whores are utterly transparent in what they are doing and why they are doing it click like, comment, and subscribe and pls donate to my patreon plox.

Really at this point I think you just want to bitch about women.
>a thumb most women are emotionally unstable by default.
Some of the most mentally and emotionally unstable people across the whole internet are men. At least online they are easier to deal with because they are usually more willing to just shut the fuck up. Men are aggressive enough online they become a complete pain in the ass. This is more true on imageboards but it's still somewhat true across the internet and irl where I've seen women often take on the more passive role, until it basically just becomes different men arguing. Case in point, maybe it's just my interests but like 95% of the time it's men on youtube. Could be the news, could be some documentary, could be some tech review or vidya, could be some random topic piece, and almost all the time it is a man doing the talking.

So again case in point, you wanted to start your own special thread where you could broadly bitch about things and try to pigeonhole every sort of person you don't like as "attention whores." You could easily have done this in the today thread. Or you could have started a psych thread, I dunno. But for whatever reason, you seemingly decided to start a new thread that less transparently seems to basically be you asking how to win arguments with people on the internet, or because there is some woman you resent personally you went to send to hui, most likely a family member or coworker. All of this is phrased rather personally, so I expect it is somebody that gave you a butthurt.

This is a different topic from the completely retarded economic paradigm we have now of monetizing attention spans because of the retarded and fairly dystopian corporate marketing world of mining everybody's data so they can better personally tailor company propaganda at you, which dovetails somewhat in retarded celebrity culture and the combination of factors which led not just to open tolerance but outright encouragement of traits of narcissism and sociopathy on the Wect, unless Russia is so thoroughly colonized by the Anglo and their company interests that you are now identitical to us and therefore have same cancerous celebrity culture.

Or I dunno, it could also just be a misread on things. Because this is so thoroughly alien a motive to me, and that mine is privacy, concealment, and being a hermit in my mancave as much as is humanly possible barring groceries or gaining income, it's not like I'm confident in being able to read the topic well. However, I do feel pretty confident in reading you which almost seems to sum up as "reee I cannot stand babushka and females in my life I hate journalists and feminists and gays maybe I go ask EC how to shut them up Putin pls save me"
sorry for being a cunt but reading your thread I'm just like, really now dudeI'd be more interested in exploring psychiatric concepts or philosphical and economic ones ITT than discuss people tbqh so I'm probably just gonna hijack it eventually
>>
No. 59826
>>59818
>>59818
> which led not just to open tolerance but outright encouragement of traits of narcissism and sociopathy on the Wect, unless Russia is so thoroughly colonized by the Anglo and their company interests that you are now identitical to us and therefore have same cancerous celebrity culture.
I would say it was very similar to you around late 90s (if not worse) and then kept going up until roughly 2015, when the government started to openly oppress liberals. Coincidentally i lot of people IRL and online who claim to be liberals in russia do have narcisstic traits.
There is this woman my mother knows who would go on and on how putin is bad and how socialism is a good thing, she would say that the government lies and then recommend some literally who bloggers because apparently they say the truth.
She also sued her own daughter over an apartment.
It's just one example. I've known a lot of people who love to complain about the government because apparently it denies them a possibility to become rich or something, as if it's the most important thing in life.
I don't want to derail this thread into /pol/ thread but it's all interconnected: the life philosophy, politics, the way people behave in life.
You will probably say something among the lines of "HAHA I KNEW THAT, HE'S ONE OF THOSE TYPES". Which would be a shame because that would mean you hardly understood the bigger picture of what i'm trying to talk about and instead focus on details that hardly matter.

>Attention whoring isn't manipulativeness though
I think it is. Because it's acquiring your attention for the sake of feeding on your emotions. For example if a person IRL starts an argument with you about something - very often he either wants you to confirm his opinion or ... to confirm his opinion in a convoluted manner.
I found that most people are rarely open to new ideas and dislike criticism of their own.
>>
No. 59830 Kontra
>>59818
>So again case in point, you wanted to start your own special thread where you could broadly bitch about things and try to pigeonhole every sort of person you don't like as "attention whores." You could easily have done this in the today thread
Unpopular opinion: The fact that this thread raised 30 replys in about one day (none of them being low quality or shitposting) is already a strong indicator that it should be a thread of it's own. Otherwise it would just be clogging up the today thread.
>Or you could have started a psych thread, I dunno
That seems too heavily generalized for the intent of this thread. I have noticed that /int/ leans very heavy to the "general" type thread, but I can't really see why people who want to discuss a specific issue should be referred to the today thread or a new general thread. Why not just discuss the topic until it's exhausted and let the thread die afterwards? That's what threads are for. Is there any reason for this preference? In my opinion it makes the board unnecessarily static. I assume no one would lay out a slippery slope from having non-general therads to cabbage/4chan-type/low effort posting.

Kontra for off-topic. If it shows that there is a need to discuss that in detail, maybe we could open a new thread :DD. Maybe even on /meta/, since it's probably a meta topic.
>>
No. 59832
>>59830
Personally I'd encourage making more standalone topics, since we have enough activity now. As long as the topics don't fall under the existing generals, it should be fine.

Today thread was initially meant for throwaway getting it out of my chest style posting, and it might as well stay that way. If there's a specific premise for a post, it should be a new thread.
>>
No. 59835 Kontra
>>59830
It's a slow board. That's why. It's because if everyone who's not a regular or even ones that are just open a new thread whenever they want to bitch about something in a few weeks the whole two front pages are going to be those types of threads.

I remember the permadeath of KC and the point where it was nothing but frog shitposts going back multiple pages.
>>
No. 59838
33 kB, 640 × 514
>>59835
So your solution to shitposts and kohlization of an imageboard is turning everything into generals and slapping everyone who sticks out with a banhammer just in case?
To me it seems like good posters who migrated here after KC death simply gave up on content creation and are afraid to speak out.
It's almost like ernstchan is driven by fear of normies, you guys just sit here like brotherhood of steel memebers in a bunker and wait until the storm passes.
And what if it never passes? You're just going to let the proper imageboard culture die with you?
>>
No. 59840 Kontra
>>59838
We have generals, but look at the catalog and you will see there are plenty of non-generals that went down the aisle and are never seen again. So there is a closing of threads and deletion which is valid. Another part stays open and dies eventually.
>>
No. 59842 Kontra
>>59835
>>59838
Americans being world EC police, it's an anglo thing.

Before EC reboot, we used to have a philosophy that the hallmark of EC is being able to turn any thread into serious discussions, regardless of OP post.
>>
No. 59850
80 kB, 830 × 960
>>59842
In fairness, the person I have seen bitching the most over the years about errant threads that did not fit into his mental schema is that Russian Ernst who posts walls of text about games nobody ever played.

The Americans here never struck me as the EC police, but the Russians definitly struck me as the fun police.

>>59798
I can't tell the difference between journos and pundits since I haven't followed main stream media in about 15 years. They all look the same to me and since I have dealt with a few journos in real life in that time I can safely say they will not touch anything that does not amount to solid clickbait, regardless of morality.
>>
No. 59852 Kontra
>>59850
Clickbait is a fundamental structural problem. When print media dies, no one pays subscriptions, and all fees and income gained by advertiser clicks, and everything is privatized and for profit, well then this becomes the only outcome. Either you end up needing to have something like PBS or BBC or whomever doing documentaries and the reporting, or you find a different economic model for the private business of media, otherwise the only outcome is solely printing the most outrage inducing articles with the most outrageous headlines and everything basically just becomes monetized shitposting. As people's expectations sink likewise, it becomes a race to the bottom.

On some fundamental level this is the same problem or similar to AAA games and Hollywood I like to bitch about so much. If what is most reliably profitable in mass media is truly Idioctacy tier and the public is uneducated or flat out dumb on top of it, then everything becomes geared toward most mass appeal and/or most controversy.

>>59838
People don't get banned for posting like OP. They do get banned for OPs like
>christianity a Jew religion for cucks. Islamic Vikingism is the most chad reliion discuss
Then they do eventually get banned and they should be banned. I actually seldom even see bans here tbh.

>>59840
>>59842
The thing is population density and you can see the outcome scrolling all the way back the catalogue. There are threads in there with like three posts. It's honestly a problem with generals also, which is ironic because generals often came about in reddit tier shitpost sites like 4krebs because if say a man eats a bat or IGN shitposts about about another good game, and everyone comes to talk about that, then there's no sense in having 15 threads an hour. Here it's because our population is too small and diverse in interests on some level to really sustain lots of random ass thread topics that may fit someplace else and would otherwise get no response.

Take my space and aeronautics thread. I didn't want to clog anything but really it should've gone in the technology or some other thread, and even that is not super active. A general is good for not clogging a thread on some other tangent, but it is also good to avoid yet another dead thread with like two people posting in it.

It's not like KC was where you could make some shitpost and someone out of hundreds of people would respond to it. There's maybe like three dozen people here spread across a dozen timezones. It likewise takes awhile for a bunch of new threads to eventually get farted down to page 5.

But again my take from it was OP just wanting to bitch about a whole variety of things where I'm not even sure what the point was.
>>
No. 60117
15 kB, 200 × 200
Guys i figured it out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So this type of person is called
>histrionic personality disorder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histrionic_personality_disorder
I came to the conclusion that the best way not to get triggered by attention whores is to
1) ignore them completely
2) laugh at them
3) never take anything they say seriously

You see apparently they have this massive ego that needs to be fed constantly and like i said before it's irrelevant what sort of attention they're getting.
They love when they are loved and they love when they are hated.
If you don't give them any or dismiss them and threat them as little children they literally die inside. The only dangerous thing about them is that IRL they might resort to violence when they are ignored.

Honestly these people belong in the mental facility (or coffin) but unfortunately thanks to the liberalism they are allowed to walk freely and annoy everyone with their shit. They are also good consumers so i guess that's why it was decided they shouldn't get any threatment. They are profitable.

They kinda remind me of Mark Hamill's joker. In the end they only way to defeat joker is to laugh at him, not what he says or does. That's what he's afraid the most.
>>
No. 60120 Kontra
69 kB, 604 × 453
>>59842
>Before EC reboot, we used to have a philosophy that the hallmark of EC is being able to turn any thread into serious discussions, regardless of OP post.
I like this approach a lot. It creates an inviting atmosphere while still upholding the spirit of the board. Also it is a good shittest for new users to see if they are compatible without resorting to low blows or premature bans.
>>
No. 60243 Kontra
>>60120
Is that image original content? If so, thank you for the effort. And thanks regardless for sharing it, as it has lightened my mood.