/hikki/ - NEET / Advice

>>4238
By having hobbies that don't require another person's participation.

is this the debian founder?
did he really finnish himself after his gf cheated on him?
Really a shame that the best people go so early.

>B2T
having someone to talk to might even be worse. Let's assume you are in touch with your high school buddies. Sure it is nice to have someone to hang around but while you got stranded onto NEET island, your peers are actually living their lives. They have careers, families, projects, hobbies and typical normal people stuff while you have nothing and not even money. You will eventually start to compare yourself and feel ashamed to lagging behind them. The worst part will be when you try to keep a happy face for them while you pretend everything is wonderful. It is not envy of their lives that will crush you but the sheer shame and guilt you will feel for getting stuck in life.

What I want to tell you is it would be best to find a similar friend to your situation. Maybe not a druggie but someone who is unemployed as well. There is one guy my cousing knows who was unemployed for 2 years already and he became best friends with another guy who was unemployed as well. Imageboards are nice and dandy but they cannot replace your need for actual human interaction.

>>4238
Your picture is so incredibly mean spirited.

Anyway, you ought to find something that fills you with as much enjoyment as having friends.
Look into creative hobbies like drawing or writing.

>>4240
>did he really finnish himself after his gf cheated on him?
Where did you get that information?

Since I don't have much communities I like to post in (or lurk, for that matter), I have been for a few years looking for ways of entertainment whose outside input is zero to minimal. Here's a list:

If you're into computers:
>Studying programming and playing around with NCurses
>trying to code terminal games (rouge-like, classicals like tetris, sudoku, etc), or even graphical (SDL-based, or just use an engine)
>octave/math oriented programming
>Basic OS installation, maintenance and fixing (this can work pretty well as a type of job if there's room in your city for a technician)

Studying:
>Physics, math, calculus
>Languages (very gratifying if you actually manage to pass the basic level barrier, plus it opens the possibility of entertainment in other languages that weren't translated to yours)
-→[Sub-category] Translating
>Music
>Sociology
>History
>Other Cultures

Arts:
>Learn how to play instrument (only if you have any at hand, I personally have a keyboard and guitar)
>Learn how to draw
>Learn how to compose
>woodcarving (or just ***carving in general)
>Photography (if camera is available)
>Photography editing (can also work as a job)

Obsessions:
>Collect pictures
>Collect music (bonus ponts if it's really obscure music)
>Collect old software
>Collect old or weird games (the obscurer, the better, the 90's is the best start point)

There's probably more but I don't even know what are your interest so it'd be kind of pointless.

>>4243

How do you find the discipline to do these instead of masturbate all day?

>>4245
Masturbating only once per week. You'd be surprised the amount of time you get by just evading spanking the monkey. In all seriousness though, I don't do ALL of these at the same time. I jump from one to other depending on what I feel like doing at the time. Technically, I'm much more proficient at those subjects I like (maths, science) than those I don't, where my experience barely gazes a merely layman status at best (for example, drawing).
As for discipline, sorry, there's no easy way around it. You just force yourself against your own will to do things you don't really want to do. You don't have an opinion (because you ignore it), you just do it. Achieving it isn't easy at all, but that's the reason why people value discipline.

>>4245
By realizing this is your life and it's your own responsibility to waste or use it.
(Alternatively, read a ook on self discipline)

>>4243
>all those beautiful hobbies and things you can study
>then you realize you have no interest in any of those
>no passion for anything in life
>you are a consumer wasting oxygen on this planet
I really hate myself. There was a time when I was indeed into computers but my interest was never high enough to go past the "user with more than average knowledge" phase. I tried programming once and I was miserable in it. Abstract thinking is nothing for me.

God how I hate myself for beeing a useless fuck.

>>4255
That's such a mental-cop-out. It's easy to just think that you don't do anything becuase you can't. What's hard is accepting that you not doing anything is soley your fault and not the result of something out of your control. If you were as useless as you would like to think you are, you would a vegetable.

>>4238
>How do you deal with the isolation of this lifestyle?

Hobbies and interest keep me busy if not that i'm mostly just sleeping 10 years hikikomori here by the way.

Sleep.

Sleep for a long time.

Sleep until you find work and come to hate it. Then continue to work. You'll sleep much easier afterward. You may feel the urge to kill yourself rising with a vengeance, but it's no more difficult to keep bottled in than any other emotion. This goes for most social interactions. As long as you're present, you matter, positively or otherwise.

source being just found my way out of neet-ness and this is the only thing keeping me alive. Protip, never, EVER, work fast food. Even if it's your only shot. It isn't worth your physical health, let alone the damage it does mentally.

>>4243
this guy sounds pretty cool. take some tips. even if you fail, you've still accomplished something.

I really wish people would stop advising other shut-ins to start drawing. The medium is nothing but frustration to build a skill in, has very limited commercial viability, and involves a lot of failure and aimlessness, which our mental states cannot afford.
It is essential that a hikki hobby requires no outside input to feel like a successful endeavour, but creative work revolves around appealing to other people. Making things for self-gratification is self-defeating, because the goal of the work will always be of an equal value to the artist as not having to do shit in the first place. Masturbation is just as entertaining as drawing a picture you might like, but doesn't require as much focus and has far less risk of failure.
Inevitably, the artist will choose to go dick around instead of putting in the effort, which will make them feel lazy and useless, further feeding the self-doubt and self-hatred that keeps hikkis and NEETs in their vicious cycle of depression and nonexistent self-esteem that the hobby is supposed to break, not exacerbate.
Unfortunately, most hobbies that would be less encouraging towards suicide involve at least leaving the house for supplies, if not exercise. Carpentry, gardening, bicycle riding, even volunteer work can help stave off the darkness and free your from your own mind for a while. But going outside sucks and not every area can acommodate these practices.

>>4271
I don't draw for "fun". I draw because my irrational human mind tells me I have to. But maybe don't draw if you find it frustrating.

>>4271
Drawing isn't about frustration, man, it's about having fun. I don't know how to draw but I occasionally feel like drawing something just for the sake of doing it and spend hours just doodling, choosing the colors, fixing the errors, etc.
Look at most of the paintings around the wold, a lot of those "artists" don't even respect proportions at all, yet they enjoy painting and believe they're good. Hell, some even sell their shit for ridiculous prices.
It isn't about perfectionism, it's about enjoyment. That's why it's a hobby and not an obligation.

>>4271
You got the complete wrong mindset man. You seem to believe creative expression is solely for impressing other people but that's not it. Drawing (or music or writing) can allow you to express yourself in a way that might make it easier for you to deal with it. It helps you identify your feelings and allows you to see clearly what it is that is wrong.
Look at the term "Outsider art" (I know it has become commercial too by now but the original meaning) People who created art not for sharing but themselves

Masturbation doesn't offer you a way to express yourself.

>>4272
>>4273
>>4274
Thank you all for reading my post thoroughly and responding without any bias based on subjective personal experience.

>>4275
>posts opinion
>people respond on your opinion with their opinion
That's what a discussion is.

>>4275
I read your post thoroughly and what I got from it is "drawing is bad for neets because it's hard and when you can't do anything it makes you feel worse". What is your point then if it isn't that? Because that's exactly what I addressed in mine.

>>4276
What you are describing is an anecdoche. Discussions involve paying attention to what the other side said, not just strawmanning and acting smug.
>>4277
I said nothing about difficulty. Learning to draw is quite doable, but it a fundamently unrewarding and psychologically demanding pursuit.
I'm going to stop myself now, no point in rehashing my entire point as clearly it went over your head last time.

>>4278
I disagree with your premise. Creative work does not require the approval and validation of others to be rewarding to the artist. If an artist likes their work and takes pride in it, that's all that matters. Stop being an emotional leech pussy and thinking that others are the exact same. You said
>our mental state
,so I am assuming that you are saying this out of some kind of personal experience. Stop speaking for and projecting onto hikkis becuase you're, "one of them". Stop categorizing yourself and acting like part of a hive mind.

>>4278
>but it a fundamently unrewarding
You think it is unrewarding because you associate the idea of drawing with getting some some sort of reward as a result, when it should be a reward by itself. If you don't like drawing and you force yourself to draw and stress out as a result, you're aren't pursuing an unrewarding hobby, you're a retard. I draw like shit and I enjoy it because I like to do it. Here, my friend, is where YOU should read our posts, because the point apparently went over your head even after three posts.

>and psychologically demanding pursuit
AKA "too hard for neets and makes you feel worse". If you don't like drawing and want something more passive you could like, read, collect pictures, music, and a lot of shit I said in that other post or other stuff that doesn't need you to be more active than a plant, but then don't complain later that you "don't do anything and have no hobbies and that makes you feel worse" (and this doesn't necessarily go to you, but OP or other neets in similar situations). We recommend drawing to people that get an interest in it, but if you don't like it there's literally thousand of other things you could do, just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean others won't.

>>4279
Now this is a real answer. Thank you.
It is irresponsible to recommend drawing to other hikki types. You're right, not all people in this situation are the same and I made a broad generalization based on not just how common I have found this introverted, self-deprecating, and rootbound kind of individual to be on websites like this (look at some of the recent posts here, for example), but also from my firm belief that such advice does more harm to the people I have described than it does benefit to the presumed minority of people who are both in a hikki lifestyle and extroverted enough that they feel the need to self-express. I would also like to point out that other suggestions are just as hypothetically beneficial to the extroverted minority as the suggestions that I have seen cause further suffering on other imageboards. Thusly, there is no reason to continue to unknowingly nudge other posters along their downward spirals. There is a non-destructive way to accomplish what you are trying to do. I understand that you are trying to help, and that the two of us will never fully understand each other's mindsets. However, you have my word on it, your advice causes more harm than good. I speak not for myself but for many posters I have known, and the many more that I have not.
>>4280
Once again, excellent, this is a real discussion.
If you think I mean a reward as something material, I don't. The creative impulse is comparable to chasing the dragon, fufillment and true happiness is always just out of your reach and will remain there until the day you die.
Even you have admitted that you hold what you create in disdain, but you enjoy the process. That's masturbation, except with a different kind of paper getting messed up. So you're still not really accomplishing anything, but it doesn't bother you because you don't actually care about your ideas coming to fruition anyways. So why even create? More to the point, why even try to convince other people to go down this path? Surely you could amuse yourself in a way that will actually provide you with a sense of accomplishment, if not material benefits. Your enjoyment of something does not make it a practice to prescribe to others.
Even the rare successful creative work is a letdown. You make the drawing, either it looks like you wanted it to or, more likely even among great artists, it failed and you get to feel like a loser while you watch your idea die. After that, unless you are such an egotist that you give yourself Stendahl's Syndrome, you're either back to being bored and miserable (if it worked out) or bored and even more miserable (if it didn't work out).

Oh, actually I guess you're still not paying attention. Either that or you can't fathom how "taking a toll" and "being difficult to pull off" are separate concepts. Let me dumb it down for you: smoking crack is easy to do, but it still causes you harm in the process. Let's see your cognitive dissonance block out that little analogy. This is your last chance to comprehend this simple concept of difficult vs. destructive. For further instruction on how you are wrong; check out my response to the other poster. You know, the one that actually read what I wrote, and not what you wanted to.

>>4281
Oh come on, I'm not a robot. Drawing is a way to past time, yes, just like masturbation, but the difference here is that at the end of the work with one you feel you've actually have accomplished something, while on the other you've merely jacked off (which in turn could be as harmful as you point "drawing" to be, mentality-wise and all that bullshit). I merely pointed out I draw like shit just to illustrate that you don't need to be Da Vinci to enjoy it. Skill has nothing to do with enjoyment; you want to put it like making any mental effort is devastating to neets and you'd rather have them play plant than to do anything that could potentially make themselves feel better, whatever that thing may be.

If we crack it down to simple pieces, drawing is just a hobby: it's something you do to pass your time without feeling you're a waste of resources. This applies to everybody and honestly to everything in this life. There's no need to write so pretentiously to say this. You know very well what I meant, attacking with a strawman about the wording I chose is just lame and the whole superiority air you give makes it worse and like you're in some sort of denial; just because you don't like what I suggest doesn't mean other people won't be interested in trying, because not all neets are carbon-copied. First and foremost, if you are of "the degraded kind" who can't even handle drawing, why on fucking earth would you even give it a go? It's ridiculous. And even then, it's not the only hobby I mentioned.

Really, doing nothing about your problems will never solve them. Shielding and hugboxing are just cheap cop-outs. I never understood how people so "mentally worn-out" actually manage to discuss anything. When I feel like absolute shit I can barely watch movies and listen to music. If you have that much energy to complain to other people, why not trying to put it into use and try to improve yourself? The whole "I'm so broken I can't do other than move my fingers over the keyboard to complain" sounds like some sort of excuse to me when you are so energetic and think out your long posts like that. And no, I'm not saying "go out and get your shit together", just do something about that "broken" thing.

>>4281
I don't believe that the desire to self-express is a fundamentally extroverted trait. I create to satisfy and entertain myself. I want to look at something I like and say, "I made that". Regardless of every failure, every success makes it all the more worthwhile. Ultimately, I feel that people can use hobbies as a tool to feel better about themselves, without being so invested in them as to feel shame about failure in said hobby. That's the whole point of hobbies. A casual interest. If people are really emptionally weak enough to be led down a downward spiral because they fail to satify their own standards, and this is enough to ruin a casual interest for them, they were already beyond hope. What's your idea of a non-destructive suggestion? One where failure is not a possibility from what you've said so far. Well how about this? Art is better than something like volunteer work becuase it's both personal and something you can clearly see improvement in. Art produces a tangible product that can be judged, unlike masturbation. I honestly can't see how you feel carpentry is so much different. Is it becuase art is more personal? I feel that people will never improve their lives until they learn to not be such a big pussy that they need constant validation. Art helps with that. Everything you see as negative about art, I see as positive. I also disagree with your analogy. Crack is harmful to everone who does it. To me it seems like you and all the supposed introverts you have spoken to are frauds. You're just extroverts who aren't good with interacting with others. I resent the notion that people can't feed off their own being and need others to suck their dick constantly because otherwise they feel bad about themselves.

>>4282
I'm done with you, man. You're pulling every trick fallacy in the book and only half of the stuff you're saying has anything to do with what I said. The rest is just fantasy. I like that you're putting quotes around things nobody said, really helps drive home the fictitiousness of your strawmen.
>>4283
Let me just start off by saying that I'm not using "extrovert" like an insult, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't either. This isn't /r9k/ and noone's chucking bottles of piss at each other's heads.
I find it interesting that you are not bothered by the flaws in your artwork, I think that truly signifies the difference between you and the people for whom I am concerned. Some people can't lower their standards regarding their own creative output, this I have found to be common accross all levels of talent and inspiration. To try to bring an idea into this world, especially for someone who is consumed by their own ideas, and see it come out wrong no matter how hard you try is devastating. Perhaps I was wrong before, it's not that you don't care about your ideas, it's that you don't care about them until after the fact. I can't trust people like that, it is such a half-baked way to live.
I did not say that hobbies with a chance of failure are destructive. Creative hobbies are destructive to a certain mindset which is dominant amongst hikikomori and similar people, the audience that you advised to engage in creative hobbies. Carpentry, hiking, things that are not dependent on either the execution of an idea or the feedback of others, are ideal for people with shit self-esteem, asocial behavior, and overactive minds. Like we find among Bernds, hikkis, etc. In carpentry, the goal is clear. If the task is to make a table, all you have to worry about is making the damn table. How a table is made, that's not really something you have to wing, the knowledge is there. It is a cold, hard, fact that you got the job done. If the table doesn't work, by Allah there will be a tangible reason why. Failure like that is actual progress, unlike with art, you can learn from what happened and thusly feel the accomplishment that makes hobbies purposeful. Instant confirmation that this wasn't a humiliating waste of time.
Artistic endeavours, not so much. Maybe you enjoyed the process somehow, maybe the end product doesn't suck, maybe you have something to show the people in your life. All these little maybes that can turn out wrong, all this doubt that can further rootbind your mind and further chip away at your confidence. If you were alone with your thoughts all day, you'd understand that.
And then people like you suggest it to people like me, such an assumption made in such a cavalier way, that something so frustrating and ephemeral ought to be taken lightly, and then laughed about while looking back no matter how badly it turns out.
I don't see where you're getting this idea of a need for constant validation from. If you work on something, especially something personal, it should not end up bringing you shame. It should have felt like a step forward in some way, shape, or form. Failure at art does not do that. It just fails, and drags the soul down with it. Maybe you learn how to shade better, but at the end of the day whatever you tried to express is ruined.
You're starting to sound like you think this is a contest of who's favorite hobby is better. This is not the case. My interest has been, from my first post, strictly humanitarian.

>>4284
>I find it interesting that you are not bothered by the flaws in your artwork, I think that truly signifies the difference between you and the people for whom I am concerned.
I am bothered by the flaws in my creative output, it's just that those flaws motivate me to do better next time. The conclusion I come to when failing isn't that i'm not incapable, it's that I just wasn't good enough at the time. Two of the best things about art are, 1. You can do it anywhere and anytime, so there is always a next time. 2. There's constant room for improvement. It is a ceaseless pursuit and every step forward makes all the prior failures worth it. People who think that they can't improve in art are simple delusional. Unless you actually have some kind of disability, if you practice art more, you WILL get better at it, guaranteed. If you're already satisfied with your work and see flaws as, "happy accidents", none of this would even be a problem for you anyway.
>Perhaps I was wrong before, it's not that you don't care about your ideas, it's that you don't care about them until after the fact. I can't trust people like that, it is such a half-baked way to live.
You seem to be under the impression that people can't just try to bring
their idea to life more than once after failing to do so the first time. If you really care about your idea, you don't give up after one failure, you hone your skills and try again later when you feel cpable enough. Art is an uphill battle, not a means to an end. If you really just want to see your idea in physical form, you could just hire an artist provided that you have enough money. If you aren't driven by your ego and you just want it truly be yours however, you make it yourself.
>If the table doesn't work, by Allah there will be a tangible reason why. Failure like that is actual progress, unlike with art, you can learn from what happened and thusly feel the accomplishment that makes hobbies purposeful. Instant confirmation that this wasn't a humiliating waste of time.
False comparison. If something doesn't work with art, there is also a very concrete reason why. You can also learn from your mistakes and do it right next time. If your art sucks becuase you can't shade, that's basically like if your table came out wrong becuase you don't have a hammer. The difference is that you can't just buy art skills like you can with tools, you have to develop them through practice. If you are unwilling to do so, that's not a problem with art, that's a problem with you and your laziness. If you are implying that hobbies that require a lot of practice and self-improvement to get better at, aren't fit for hikkis becuase they're too stupid to figure out that they just need to practice more and can't expect to produce a good fan comic after just trying to draw it a few times, I disagree.
> Artistic endeavours, not so much. Maybe you enjoyed the process somehow, maybe the end product doesn't suck, maybe you have something to show the people in your life. All these little maybes that can turn out wrong, all this doubt that can further rootbind your mind and further chip away at your confidence. If you were alone with your thoughts all day, you'd understand that.
>And then people like you suggest it to people like me, such an assumption made in such a cavalier way, that something so frustrating and ephemeral ought to be taken lightly, and then laughed about while looking back no matter how badly it turns out.
First of all, don't assume that i'm not alone all the time, and second of all, stop being such a sensitive faggot. Hobbies are good for keeping your mind off of life's troubles, giving you something fun and relaxing to do, and maybe making you feel proud of yourself. Three things a lot of shut ins are in desperate need of. Nothing more, nothing less. They are not meant to validate the existence that you feel you do not deserve. That's what a therapist is for. Hobbies are not therapists, nor should they be treated as such.

>>4285
I am disappointed. Your inspirational words were top notch, I enjoyed that immensely, but then you started letting the ad hominems fly and that will get us nowhere.
I tell you what, go have a cigarette or something next time before you get started. I'm not typing out all this shit so you can just lose your temper and stop making sense like that other poster did.
You fail to realize that there is a difference between improving and improving enough. If I try to dig a well with my boot, I will indeed make progress. Then I'll die of thirst. Not everyone thinks of artistic pursuit as a sport.
Fair point, old ideas can be reworked. But with each failure, the futility of the act becomes more apparent. After a certain point, you have to stop saying "believe it" and just walk away. Happy accidents blur into outright fuck ups pretty damn easy, too. Just depends on how much you're willing to lie to yourself.
You enjoy the process. I'm happy for you, but the vast majority of people never will and your gung ho attitude just pushes these people further down a path that they should not be on. It is a very specific kind of person that can be a visual artist.
Let's abandon the hammer/shading metaphor. One is a tool and the other is a skill. Very different, I'm sure that you buy your pencils and brushes just as a carpenter develops skills in carpentry through practice.
I never implied that shut-ins shouldn't pursue hobbies that require practice and self-improvement. Come on, I thought that you were reading my posts.
One of the major points I was making is that drawing is neither a fun nor relaxing activity. And I have made it quite clear that it is, for so many people, not something that one can be proud of. I'm not sure if you agree with me on the emotional needs of hikkis or if you're just echoing my sentiments to claim them for your views. That's a smart tactic, although fallacious.
Don't tell me what I feel about my life, you assume too much and that assumption is inaccurate. And I disagree with your final point. A good, simple task with a clear goal does wonders for the mind. Whether a thoughtless zen-like task that allows you to reflect on whatever's bothering you or one that keeps your mind occupied and away from itself. The right task is dependent on the worker's mental state. And I am getting really tired of telling you that drawing is not a task like either of those outlined above.

okay then tl;dr my opinion is more valid than yours and i'm right on all matters.

>>4286
>I tell you what, go have a cigarette or something next time before you get started.
That's just a tad funny coming from you.
>But with each failure, the futility of the act becomes more apparent.
That's the thing about art, it's an inevitability. Eventually, eventually you will get there. You're right, some people don't naturally have the mental fortitude to climb the mountain of creative expression, but I know everybody is capable of doing it. Imagine this, instead of giving up, somebody keeps pushing and pushing until they reach the end of the journey. The journey itself and its effect of the traveler are more important than the destination. If a person learns to force them self hard enough, that extends to other things. Art is the definition of true self-improvement. Art is one of the best hobbies precisely because it is not superficial. To succeed at it, you MUST change as a human being for the better and you will inevitably do so if you keep going. I reject the notion that some people are just born incapable.
>a path that they should not be on.
There is no path that they, "should be on". That's the whole point. What you do should only be defined by what you want to do. Your desires may be shaped by other people, but at the end of the day, it's still your life and your choice. I don't appreciate the mentality of trying to, "protect", people from themselves. I refuse to tell somebody to not reach for something they might not be able to achieve in their current state. I truly believe that art has a positive effect on those who choose to commit themselves to it and I resent your apparent contempt for it. How can I not assume that you have some personal vendetta against art when you would go as far as to equate it to masturbation? It's human nature to make such assumptions.
>One of the major points I was making is that drawing is neither a fun nor relaxing activity.
For me personally, I care most about the end product. I'm also a bit of a masochist. Art is like a frustratingly hard video game that you have something physical to show for. In my opinion, any sensible person enjoys a good challenge and the eventual reward for taking on that challenge. If a person doesn't, they need to develop that in themself to be a well-adjusted person, something that art can help them with.
>I never implied that shut-ins shouldn't pursue hobbies that require practice and self-improvement.
Maybe, but you come off as encouraging the use of people's defeatist attitude to justify the policing of ideas.
>A good, simple task with a clear goal does wonders for the mind. Whether a thoughtless zen-like task that allows you to reflect on whatever's bothering you or one that keeps your mind occupied and away from itself. The right task is dependent on the worker's mental state. And I am getting really tired of telling you that drawing is not a task like either of those outlined above.
You're telling people to go after low hanging fruit. I personally look down upon hobbies that consist of mostly menial tasks and have a low ceiling of mastery. They don't illicit true self-improvement in my opinion. Art is an extension of the artist. When a person makes art, it's like they're ripping a part of their soul away and putting it onto a piece of paper. You are your art. The better your art gets, the better you get as a person. A person defines their art as much as their art defines them.

>>4288
Also, this is all within the context of hobbies. If you're going to pick a hobby, art is just one of the best choices in my view.

>>4288
Look, you're the one that's getting angry. I'm the one that should be getting angry, but I'm not.
You have this deep-seated belief that anyone can succeed at art. I guess you've never heard of Thomas Kinkade, or Adolf Hitler. I don't know, maybe your standards for success are just too low.
I'm not trying to protect people from themselves. I'm trying to protect people from you. Nor am I saying that people should be discouraged from what they want to do, or what they can't currently do. I'm saying people should not encourage people to try to do things that everyone sorta-kinda wants to do, but few actually can even with the optimal environment and experience. I also do not hold art in contempt, and I would say that your preconceived notion of masturbation as something worthy of contempt is a troubling sign. Masturbation has a vast number of proven health benefits, art's health record is much more spotty. GG Allin, for example.
Art has nothing to offer as therapy or challenge that other pursuits do not also offer with less ambiguity and mental strain.
Policing of ideas? What a disgusting accusation. For the first time, you have actually irritated me. I recommended that people such as you think about the consequences of their words, and explained my position. Nobody is oppressing you, you can say whatever you want, but if it is wrong I'm going to tell you. And I have told you.
What a very elitist attitude towards people who are different from you. You are aware that the human experience encompasses far more than just what you have dealt with? There are reasons why some people are artists and some people are athletes or any number of other types of people. And I can guarantee you, there's a lot of historians, activists, gamers, etc. that look down on you for not being like them.
Now you push for the emotional investment of artistic work, which I never denied, and was central to my arguements. Not everyone is fit to be "ripping a part of their soul away and putting it on a piece of paper", and is is irresponsible of you to suggest such an act to people that you have demonstrated no understanding of. You have admitted that there is an emotional investment before the finished product, though. Are you contradicting yourself or are you adopting a less solipsistic outlook?
>>4289
pic related

>>4291
>You have this deep-seated belief that anyone can succeed at art. I guess you've never heard of Thomas Kinkade, or Adolf Hitler. I don't know, maybe your standards for success are just too low.
I'd say both Thomas and Adolf were successful. Adolf wasn't deemed good enough for art school, probably because his people were kind of cartoonish, but if he had the time and resources, he definitely could have improved on that. The homeless and soldiers don't have that opportunity, but everybody you're concerned about probably does. I feel that you succeed in art when you finally enjoy what you make. Now we come back to the point about getting satisfaction from yourself and not others. If Hilter liked his art, he succeeded in art. He at least liked it enough to keep drawing in his spare time.
> I'm not trying to protect people from themselves. I'm trying to protect people from you. Nor am I saying that people should be discouraged from what they want to do, or what they can't currently do. I'm saying people should not encourage people to try to do things that everyone sorta-kinda wants to do, but few actually can even with the optimal environment and experience.
I don't agree with that. I truly believe that anybody of sound mind and body can succeed in art by my definition of success. If they are not of sound mind, no hobby can fix that and they need to get help. It is their decision and their decision alone to choose art as a hobby and in opinion, it is good decision.
>I would say that your preconceived notion of masturbation as something worthy of contempt
It's not more worth contempt than dirt. By itself, dirt is not worth contempt, but comparing something to dirt shows it.
>Art has nothing to offer as therapy or challenge that other pursuits do not also offer with less ambiguity and mental strain.
The, "ambiguity and mental strain", are part of what's good about art. A struggle is good for people. Art is a struggle that anybody can overcome and everybody comes out better for.
>Policing of ideas? What a disgusting accusation.
There's a thin line between telling people they shouldn't do something out of a sense of self-righteousness, and actually preventing them from doing it. If you could delete every post that suggested to someone to take up art, would you? Think of all the people you could keep from being, "hurt".
>There are reasons why some people are artists and some people are athletes or any number of other types of people
That reason is because they chose to do it. Any person of sound body and mind can do those things if they try hard enough. I really am convinced of that.
>Now you push for the emotional investment of artistic work, which I never denied, and was central to my arguements. Not everyone is fit to be "ripping a part of their soul away and putting it on a piece of paper", and is is irresponsible of you to suggest such an act to people that you have demonstrated no understanding of.
Again, stop speaking on others behalf. Every person is capable of self-expression and self-expression is good for everybody. I have a good reason to see hobbies that require zero self-expression as lesser. They have a smaller positive effect and reap smaller rewards. Those hobbies encourage complacency while art makes people strive perpetually for improvement.
>You have admitted that there is an emotional investment before the finished product, though. Are you contradicting yourself or are you adopting a less solipsistic outlook?
The emotional reward of success is more significant than the emotional investment and hurt feelings from failure. A person who does not know that needs to learn it.

>>4292
That's a good way of putting it. You succeed when you like what you make. A very simple rule, easily enforced, but it revolves around the concept of liking something, which is a can of worms. We'll set that aside for now.
You're right, it is their decision to make. So why do you seek to influence that decision? And why do you judge the decision without knowing the decider and the situation that this decision springs from? I disagree that someone who cannot like what they do is not of sound mind. Self-hatred or extreme introversion are not necessarily neuroses, plenty of people with those traits lived their lives just fine. You can be content without being happy, you can have a positive influence on the world without believing in yourself or respecting yourself.
Dirt is worm shit, it may be useful, but it is shit. Masturbation is not shit.
Struggle without uncertainty is good for people. Art provides quite the opposite. And you have proven that you are not qualified to speak for everybody.
Do you think I'm out to silence you? No, I'm trying to get you to see what you're really doing when you recommend art as a hobby. Free speech is a right as well as a responsibility, one which you have shirked.
Existentially speaking, you are correct. But existentialism is no creed to live your life by, you have to think practically. This world is run by pragmatism. And just because there is a distant, vulnerable chance to make something work does not mean you ought to do it.
If you think there is no struggle for self-improvement in say, exercise or volunteer work, you are sadly mistaken. You need to get this idea out of your head that I consider art to be a more difficult hobby because it is self-expressive. I consider art to be a less reliable and beneficial hobby because it is self-expressive. How many more ways will I have to cook up to explain this to you until you understand it? And to say that there are less benefits to pursuits with practical applications is just nonsense.
That is a broad glossing over of the vast array of aspects regarding artistic work. Your optimism is as cavalier as it is poisonous. But thank you for avoiding my question.

>>4293
>You're right, it is their decision to make. So why do you seek to influence that decision? And why do you judge the decision without knowing the decider and the situation that this decision springs from?
I personally don't go around suggesting people start doing art, I just think people doing so is totally fine. For the sake of convenience, let's pretend that I do do that. I believe in having enough respect for the person I am talking to to assume that they are fully capable of making the decision that they feel is the best for them and that if they end up not liking my suggestion, it's no harm no foul. It does not matter whether I know for a fact that they are or not, I will treat them as such upon our first encounter. I like art, they seem to want something to do, so i'll sugest it. It's as simple as that. I always give people the benefit of the doubt.
>You can be content without being happy, you can have a positive influence on the world without believing in yourself or respecting yourself.
That's a terrible existence. A complete cop-out. If a person is consumed by self-hatred, they should seek help. To me, it seems like you're treating self-hatred like some kind of incurable, developmental disorder. It's far more harmful and reckless to tell people that they don't need to try to improve their mental state. Let's try switching a few words.
>You can be content while having mental retardation, you can have a positive influence on the world without being able to comprehend anything fully.
That's how you come across to me. It's very condescending.
>Masturbation is not shit.
It's still insulting to equate art to masturbation.
>Struggle without uncertainty is good for people. Art provides quite the opposite.
If a person practices art, they will definitely get better at it. There is no uncertainty there. If a person does not know this, they are either ignorant or delusional due to their low self-esteem, "disability". Also, i'm not speaking for others, i'm only trying to argue a point.
>Free speech is a right as well as a responsibility, one which you have shirked.
Lines in the sand are arbitray, subjective, and subject to change. Nobody should have the power to draw those lines. If it is not against the rules of the site specifically to suggest art, I am not in any arbitrary moral violation.
>Existentially speaking, you are correct. But existentialism is no creed to live your life by, you have to think practically. This world is run by pragmatism. And just because there is a distant, vulnerable chance to make something work does not mean you ought to do it.
You are just trying to justify and get others to accommodate towards a defeatist mentality. I refuse. There is no room on this planet for any of that.
>If you think there is no struggle for self-improvement in say, exercise or volunteer work, you are sadly mistaken.
I never said there was no strugle. The difference is that an artist's struggle is both perpetual and personal. A hobby that forces you to improve your creative output, an extension of your very being, is better in my opinion.
>But thank you for avoiding my question.
I'm not contradicting muself, I just feel one thing is more important than another. I've been thinking about our conversation and the people who you're talking about, the ones that have become more depressed becuase of art, are pictured in my mind like a bunch of cry babies.
>I keept trying to draw muh waifu, but it always looks like shit. Why can't I just instantly be able to it without having to practice regularly?! I'm just a waste of space; I guess I should just kill myself already.

>>4295
Why do you insist on discussing this with the guy? He's resorting to using the same fallacies he accused me of using back then and in full cop-out mode. It's pretty obvious he will keep insisting neets should be plants to be happy.

>>4295
Your attitude is respectful, yes, but common sense dictates that you ought to put effort into understanding your audience and address them as best you know. This one-size-fits-all approach is uncalled for. You can snigger all you want at the concept of words doing damage, but it does not make the problem go away. And you are just one person, more than one person suggested the same thing in this thread. Even if a statement is not necessarily damaging, the more it is repeated the more malignant it becomes.
Yes, how condescending of me. You're right, unhappy people must be treated as inferior and stigmatized. Anything else is disrespectful. So much for that speech about letting people make their own decisions and all that. I really wish you would stick to your ideals, if you insist on being an idealist.
You seem to be really hung up on this masturbation thing. What, like you just grab your fuckbuddy every time you're lonely.
That's not a quantifiable outcome, nor is it secure. Sometimes shit happens in art and you fuck up something that you learned by failure how not to screw up. So the only real change in this inevitable hypothetical is that now you have cause to kick yourself even harder. In carpentry, for example, a few simple rules of thumb enable you to solidify your knowledge and usually fix your mistake. That's the kind of self-improvement that people ought to find in hobbies.
You have been made aware of the fact that your actions have caused others harm needlessly, yet you are unrepentant and are emboldened to perform those actions again. How is that not a moral violation, arbitrary or not? Don't appeal to authority, especially not after hiding behind Existentialism. Your decision are your own, to paraphrase you.
I am not a defeatist, I just take exception to people getting pressured into pursuits that will most likely do them more harm than good, especially by someone who is not interested enough in their audience to take their well-being into consideration. Since you don't care about those you advise, and have made a disparaging assumption that they are defeatist in outlook, I have to wonder if your intent was malicious from the very beginning. I am not very fond of people myself, but I find exploiting the trust of others in order to do them harm to be a very low and despicable act. Thank you for making the world and even more hostile and miserable place.
So now you want people to be in a perpetual personal struggle? I am almost speechless. You seem to be capable of higher ambitions, so why are you intent on trying to get other people to suffer?
So now you're mocking the people you advise. Well, that is not contradictory to the other spiteful things you have said about these people. So I guess you're improving as a debator, if not a human being.
I will say, I haven't had an arguement this good in years. You've got real skill at this. You're even better than the Magyar on endchan who gave me attitude for calling Madball a Metalcore band. That was a good arguement, too, but much less ephemeral. If you were more consistent, or willing to own up to it when you do change your mind about the details, you might be able to win this dialogue after all. Unlikely, but I'm rooting for you anyways. See you tomorrow :)
>>4297
Adults are having a conversation. Take your parrot speak and forced memeing elsewhere.

>>4298
You aren't discussing shit, you're just crying out that neets need to be treated like special kids just because you think that a certain hobby is too overwhelming for them and don't want to accept that all you have is an opinion and not a truth, and then call bullshit on other people. Hikikomori circles differ a lot based on community, and your experience comes mostly from KC and (probably) wizardchan-tier boards where basically anons and berns are so broken they need urgent HELP, not escapism of any sort, something we both agree. The point here isn't exactly why they're broken/what are their problems, it's that you assume that our userbase is people near suicide conditions who are living on the border of life and death and that therefore we shouldn't try to indulge them in any hobby that could potentially consume their self-esteem and push them off the cliff, which isn't true at all because you can't state as a fact that it is so. But even if that were the case, we don't recommend hobbies to that kind of people, we recommend to look for help and/or to at least try to push them into improving in some sort of way.

OP asked how people cope with lifestyles where isolation is a big thing, and the most viable way for people under these conditions to pass time is simply to look for a hobby they like. Drawing is a pretty good hobby if you are interested in it, but ultimately it is only a way to pass time while making you feel good, and if it fails at this then it isn't a fucking hobby. If you're dealing with the ultimate form of self-loathing, and are in a shut-down state where your system barely responds to any input, then the problem is something else entirely and you can't blame it on anything but yourself/whoever made your life so shitty. But just because you are in that state doesn't mean that drawing isn't a good hobby for you or not; who knows, it could actually be a beneficial action for somebody who was neck-deep in shit, but that is ultimately for them to decide. However, that was never the point here, and you fail to see this every single time, preferring to make excuses about how just because you don't agree with the idea then "your peers" don't either, and hiding behind all this pseudo-intellectual prose and superiority-complex tone. You could be writing a book for hikis or something, but here you are, claiming your internet opinion is more valid than anyone else's just because KC is a shithole where people who would kill themselves but can't for X reason gather to wallow in their negativity.

>>4297
Because i'm a pervert.
>>4298
>Your attitude is respectful, yes, but common sense dictates that you ought to put effort into understanding your audience and address them as best you know. This one-size-fits-all approach is uncalled for. You can snigger all you want at the concept of words doing damage, but it does not make the problem go away. And you are just one person, more than one person suggested the same thing in this thread. Even if a statement is not necessarily damaging, the more it is repeated the more malignant it becomes.
Well, as far as I know the person, art seems like a fine suggestion. I know very little about them at first. If they specifically stated beforehand that they hate art, I obviously wont suggest it to them. Do you honestly expect me to do some kind of physiological evaluation before daring to suggest what to me is a very innocuous thing? That's where the benefit of the doubt comes in. I expect the people I am talking to to not be that sensitive. If the only way to avoid a, "one size fits all approach", is to get a deep enough understanding of that person to know that art would somehow psychologically damage them, I will go for one initial approach. That's perfectly justified to me. If i'm going to approach everybody in the same way at first, i'm going to assume that they are a well adjusted enough person to handle my suggestion. Just like I wont avoid writing avocado because your mother might have died from an allergic reaction to an avocado and me writing it would cause you to have a panic attack, I wont avoid art as a suggestion. The commonality of the, "disability", you think exists is irrelevant. Just like with simple words, I can't accept that something as innocent as art could be harmful enough to enough people for me to avoid it.
>You're right, unhappy people must be treated as inferior and stigmatized.
You have it backwards. You;re the who feels that, "unhappy", people should be treated differently. Unlike the mentally retarded, people with intense self-hatred don't have to be in that state. They can and should be cured and no hobby will do that for them.
> That's not a quantifiable outcome, nor is it secure. Sometimes shit happens in art and you fuck up something that you learned by failure how not to screw up. So the only real change in this inevitable hypothetical is that now you have cause to kick yourself even harder. In carpentry, for example, a few simple rules of thumb enable you to solidify your knowledge and usually fix your mistake. That's the kind of self-improvement that people ought to find in hobbies.
Art. Is. The. Same. When you mess something up in art, you can also fix it by the way. People edit and tinker with their art until their happy with it all the time. Digital art makes this even easier today. If you know what you did wrong, but you still keep doing it, that's because you haven't practiced enough yet. Just knowing isn't enough in art. You have to change on a more fundamental level to do it right. That's yet another quality that puts art above carpentry. You change with your art and your art changes with you. That's real growth.
>You have been made aware of the fact that your actions have caused others harm needlessly, yet you are unrepentant and are emboldened to perform those actions again
I don't recognize that harm. I don't believe it is valid.
>Don't appeal to authority, especially not after hiding behind Existentialism. Your decision are your own, to paraphrase you.
I'm not appealing to authority. Different KNOWN circumstances call for different actions. If a site has a clearly stated rule against something, i'll follow it.
>I am not a defeatist, I just take exception to people getting pressured into pursuits that will most likely do them more harm than good, especially by someone who is not interested enough in their audience to take their well-being into consideration.
I disagree with your use of the word, "pressured". It is the person's responsibility to make their own choices. Nobody is forcing them to do anything with their words. I assume that people have that much basic self-autonomy.
>exploiting the trust of others in order to do them harm to be a very low and despicable act.
My intent was as malicious as art is harmful. Not at all.
>So now you want people to be in a perpetual personal struggle? I am almost speechless. You seem to be capable of higher ambitions, so why are you intent on trying to get other people to suffer?
Perfection is non-existent, but improvement always comes from the ceaseless striving of it. Complacency is the enemy of progress. A perpetual struggle means perpetual improvement. There is no ceiling. That kind of drive is what everybody should develop in themselves.
>So I guess you're improving as a debator, if not a human being.
Really now? Your insistence on disproportionately demonizing people based on their actions makes you seem daft.

>>4298
I found the thread for anyone who's interested for some reason.
https://endchan.xyz/kc/res/8318.html

>>4300
Addition: Reading through this whole argument again, I realize that I might have come across as implying that other hobbies don't have a positive effect on people. While I might not have to actually say this, I don't feel that way. I think even hobbies that encourage, "complacency", can be beneficial, just to a lesser extent. I was reacting defensively to what I saw as the other guy shit talking art.

>>4299
You had your chance to be a productive part of this conversation and you blew it.
>>4300
Nice pic. I was really disappointed that the card's stats were so meh when I got it because that's a really great, unnerving image and usually mtg is so bland with their card art nowadays. And early Magic cards were so damn gorgeous. Earthbind, the original Land Leeches card, it had a lot of soul and if I could say the same about the majority of the art I have seen, I would not be so jaded about the field.
I'm not asking you to pussyfoot around, that's no way to live. Just keep a loose mockup of all the ways that simple things that can cause problems and look for warning signs. You've proven that you can be much more intuitive than you are willing to be. You can't unsay things, but you can say them later when you're sure that you'll get the desired result. For all my snarkiness last post, I mulled over what you've said, I think you are interested in helping people.
If you've got a cure for unhappiness and self-hate, I am all ears. Psychology (not psychiactric care or neurology) is frustratingly complicated. Shit is just as much of a "one step forward two steps back" field as art. Perhaps this is the nucleus of our conflict: you've got enough causing you grief with art and don't have time to deal with psychology on top of that, and I am the opposite.
That is something I cannot stand about art. By the time you've got the base you need to start bringing your ideas to the light of day, they've faded from your mind and you've ended up in a much different frame of reference than you were depending on to do what you wanted to do. And that is being optimistic.
I disagree with your opinion on the validity of that harm. Call it a draw I guess.
You should follow your own ideas first and foremost. My belief in your ability to make up your mind is why I'm taking this time to communicate with you. It's about balancing respect for others with the responsibilities we have towards each other. The line blurs no matter how hard you try, though. Seisatsu is a nice guy but he doesn't make your choices for you. There's a joke about Hiroshima and his botnet in there somewhere but let's move on instead.
Don't just rely on what you know, either. Sometimes you have to make educated guesses about other people and situations. Once again, it's a blurry fucking line and thank god that we have the ability to make judgment calls because certainty is so very rare, I don't have to tell an artist that. Uncertainty and doubt defines your work from start to finish.
Free will can be influenced by outside forces. The choice is still the chooser's own but that can be whittled down into an existential technicality with enough force. And even an innocent suggestion, a small amount of info communicated to someone, is a mild form of peer pressure. You're putting an idea in someone's head that may not have been present or focused on before.
But you understand what I was getting at with my hyperbole, yes? Because if I was just flaming you, I'd act like that other douche. I wouldn't be putting in this effort if there was no important message behind it.
God damn, very nicely said! but that brings us back to the question of the efficacy and cost of art as a vehicle for this perpetual self-improvement. As for your statement about the ceiling, I'm not really willing to get into that unless you've survived an existential crisis already. I don't know you well enough to be sure if inducing a crisis would end up being beneficial to you if you haven't been through one yet. So I'm going to hold back until I can be reasonably sure about that. I have concern for the person I am communicating with, and act with caution and judgement thusly.
We are defined by our actions, not our internal ideas. If you kill a man, you're a killer, regardless of your feelings and moral stances on killing people. Kinda the nice thing ab9ut Catholicism, yeah you're a sinner but God is more interested in how you use the life He gave you than who you are on the inside. We're all capable of being real scumbags, but we can choose not to be and that's good enough for the good book. Watch the ad hominems, btw. Ibidem, full blown insults will not further this discussion.
>>4304
Nah, I understood that, although I think your views on other hobbies is skewed due to your personal taste and the passion you feel for it. In that context, I find your defensiveness towards my criticism of art itself justifiable, although I wish you wouldn't be so impulsive. That said, I'm an irredeemable second-guesser, Stalin was a little too hotheaded for my tastes. I lose sleep to brooding over whether or not I'm tired enough to sleep for Chrissakes. INTP, by the way. I'm guessing a lot of these arguements are going to keep boiling down to fundamental differences in our characters, so we might as well show our bones.

>>4302
A cuteposter calling an openly gay man a faggot. Is this irony, or just stupidity? I mean, c'mon, if you're not using Yui and Tomoko to break the ice with other asocial gays, what's the point?
>>4304
I owe you a disclaimer, too. I know on endchan I hit on that guy, but make no mistake; I enjoy platonic arguing and I will not try to turn it into something flirtatious unless I'm getting a vibe or my opponent is a Magyar.
Don't think I'm trying to soapbox my way into your pants. What kind of pick up line involves existentialism, Hitler, and the Catholic Church anyways?

>>4305
>Just keep a loose mockup of all the ways that simple things that can cause problems and look for warning signs.
Prior to this argument, I haven't ever even considered art as potentially harmful. I'm not sure what you mean by, "warning signs". If you are implying that all, or even most, hikkis don't possess the emotional strength for art, I disagree. If you are not implying that, I really don't know what you intend for me to do in the future. Let's look at op as an example. Going with the assumption that you chose to voice your concern here and now becuase op is one such case of person you feel is an emotional cripple, what were the warning signs? If you do not know or cannot explain specifically when people should avoid suggesting art, I feel that you have no right to complain about them doing so.
>If you've got a cure for unhappiness and self-hate
Therapy, medication. While I know that these might not be a cure-all for everybody, they should be suggested to the type of people you are concerned about before any hobbies are.
>That is something I cannot stand about art. By the time you've got the base you need to start bringing your ideas to the light of day, they've faded from your mind and you've ended up in a much different frame of reference than you were depending on to do what you wanted to do. And that is being optimistic.
A lot of your more minor complaints about art seem like non-issues. People who have a hard time keeping track of ideas can just keep a notebook for that. You also failed to address my rebuttal to your claim that a piece of art somebody screwed something specific up on can't be fixed and is permanently fucked up.
>It's about balancing respect for others with the responsibilities
Arbitrary responsibilities. Rather than a blurry line, I feel that no line should exist. If a line isn't be concrete , it has no right to block or define anything.
>Uncertainty and doubt defines your work from start to finish.
Another jab at art. The, "uncertainty", of art leads to limitless possibilities while the uncertainty of arbitrary lines leads to tyrannical behavior being justified, if not by you, by somebody else.
>You're putting an idea in someone's head that may not have been present or focused on before.
As you said, i'm an idealist. Anybody who is pushed into doing something they don't really want by such light influence, is at fault for their own suffering.
>efficacy and cost of art as a vehicle for this perpetual self-improvement. As for your statement about the ceiling, I'm not really willing to get into that unless you've survived an existential crisis already. I don't know you well enough to be sure if inducing a crisis would end up being beneficial to you if you haven't been through one yet.
You call it a crisis, I call it a good mindset. You seem to be putting aside a lot of stuff for, "later". If you're concerned about my mental health, you don't need to be. Surely you could abandon your ideals just this once for the sake of this argument?
>We are defined by our actions, not our internal ideas. If you kill a man, you're a killer, regardless of your feelings and moral stances on killing people.
How you judge somebody for their actions should be proportional to those actions. The guy who cuts you off in traffic isn't as bad as the guy who killed your cat, and that guy isn't as bad as the guy who killed your mother. If suggesting art as a hobby to somebody without knowing if they're capable of handing it, makes you a bad person, it doesn't do so more than loitering.

>>4307
Stop making art out to be this test of endurance. For some like you it is pleasurable because the process syncs with your thought process. For people unlike you, neurotic, psychotic or sane, it's against their entire perspective. You'd make a god awful survivalist or numismatist, because that's not the kind of person you are and that is perfectly ok. Nobody ought to judge you for not being the right man for the job/diversion, whether that activity is art or anything else.
"lose all motivation to enjoy myself, and the life is basically sucked out of me" is very indicative of something resembling acedia, depression, or just ennui. Empty feelings don't bode well for art, don't you agree? But yeah, from that I gather that OP hasn't much faith or joy in himself anymore and is having a bitch of a time seeing a point to anything. Cold, hard, clear progress in something could help build his spirit slowly and surely, while distracting from the void, not shoving it in his face. Art does not provide that. Exercise involves quantifying reps, time, resistance so that feeling of meliora is a matter of fact. In carpentry, either the shelf you made is working or it isn't. In art, yeah the picture is done, when you feel that it is done. Hopefully you feel the same way tomorrow, hopefully you don't regret any of the many judgement calls that you made in the process.
Not every injury to the soul is a chemical imbalance or mental illness. There are a lot of alternative approaches to just pills and couchsitting. Art therapy would be the one yoh'd like best, but a lot of these approaches are just passive/complacent hobbies with a paid guide and confidant. To respect someone like you do, as a first measure, you have to assume that the person can try to make positive changes in their life, in short that they are sane. Caveat, with a keen eye focused on warning signs that certain advice won't suit them or, in the case of the neurotic and psychotic, that they can't help themselves and act on reasonable advice given in good faith.
Using words to preserve mental images is like trying to keep water in a cup missing its bottom by putting a paper towel to it. That analogy was messy, but so is the floor, now. Your point the reversibility of art is a blanket statement that collapses under its own generalizations. Even pencil can only be erased so many times, before the paper starts to give way and the surroundings of the trouble area get collateral damage. Watercolors, ink, clay, oil, chicken fat, acrylic, assemblage, etc. are much less forgiving. I am disappointed that you treated such a flawed statement as a trump card.
Blurry line, spectrum, cartesian plane, shades of gray, whatever metaphor you need to use to take what I said into consideration, please do. These visualizations are disposable, and only as clear as the message needs them to be.
This is not about hypothetical third parties and what they may or may not mean by saying the same thing I have said. That is pure conjecture about things alien to this debate. And how is calling art uncertain a jab, when you turned it into a selling point so seamlessly? Yeah, all words can be synonymed into good or bad reflections of the meme they represent, but your arguements are starting to lose cohesion and if I meant it as a smear I'd think you couldn't pull off what you did in your current state.
So who got you into Egotism? Nietszche, Rand, or Allin?
You have not had your Existential Crisis, I have gleaned. I'll admit, your optimism and drive made me suspect as much. The void stares back and all that. I am not an idealist, hence I prescribe rules of thumb, logical caution, and refuse to squish my petceptions of the world to fit one doctrine or another. I just look at what I see, and seek to understand. Moreso than myself winning this arguement, I want you to start looking at the world that way, too.
Knowing what to say and knowing when to say it are two distinct skills. You ought to spend some time honing the latter, even the right thing can come out wrong based on the situation. There is a reason lessons have plans and structures.
Good and bad aren't absolute. We know that CO is carbon monoxide, we can prove it. There is no empirical proof in moralism, if there was, there'd be one religion and one political system. Being a killer is not absolutely bad. Context is everything, because context is everything.
I am disappointed with you. You seem to have lost the fire, attention, and the focus that made you such a formidable opponent, I wonder if you are losing your will, or are just starting to show your gaps in knowledge. Perhaps you are the shitposter, and are impersonating my partner in this dialogue as some attempt at revenge. I'm gonna go eat sushi, hasta mañana

>>4308
>You'd make a god awful survivalist or numismatist, because that's not the kind of person you are and that is perfectly ok.
Who are you to tell me that? While I don't, if I wanted to be a survivalist, I believe in my capability to adapt the proper mindset for that. If I only decided to try being a survivalist on somebody's suggestion, and I ended up greatly injuring myself, I wouldn't put the blame on the person who suggested it to me, because I wouldn't see it as their fault. Your attempt at trying to get me to relate with the people who you are concerned about failed because you misjudged my world view. I'm no hypocrite and everything I expect from others, I expect from myself. Every person is capable of doing anything, given enough effort. Whether they decide to put in that effort or not is on them. People who end up suffering as a result of their own lack of self-awareness, are not well-adjusted.
>That is something I cannot stand about art. By the time you've got the base you need to start bringing your ideas to the light of day, they've faded from your mind and you've ended up in a much different frame of reference than you were depending on to do what you wanted to do. And that is being optimistic.
I have a lingering problem with this counter argument. Rather than address my point, you pivot and twist to something else. Was that an attempt at throwing me off-balance? Let's boil down that specific back and forth.
>me:Art is not uncertain because improvement is inevitable
>you:In art, a person can know how to do something, but still mess it up
>me:If they still mess it up, they haven't improved enough
>you:I hate how in art, by the time you get good enough to bring your ideas to life, they'll have escaped you.
I think the root of this is me interpreting your very vague usage of uncertainty to mean in terms of guaranteed progress with practice. I interpreted it this way becuase of your main argument about some people not being, "meant", to do art. I now think you meant to convey how the process of making art involves a lot of self-doubt while you are actually doing it, and that makes it detrimental to the mental-health of people who already doubt their own worth. Assuming that this is correct, let me adjust my argument. If a person doubts themself to the point where any further self-doubt from something as inconsequential as a hobby would cause them physiological damage, they are not mentally fit enough for anybody to be suggesting anything to them but mental health care. That is not something as simple as a personality trait, it is unhealthy. I will proceed with this new argument in mind.
>But yeah, from that I gather that OP hasn't much faith or joy in himself anymore and is having a bitch of a time seeing a point to anything. Cold, hard, clear progress in something could help build his spirit slowly and surely, while distracting from the void, not shoving it in his face.
I think it is far too presumptuous to assume that op's self-hatred would necessarily expand due to the hypothetical missteps they would make while pursuing art. Their self-doubt stems from their perceived, "uselessness". It is reductive to connect a large amount of initial self-doubt that is the result of something specific, with the easy expansion of that self-doubt over trivial things. For all you know, op could be satisfied with anything they do as long as he is doing it. If op is the type of person who wouldn't be bothered by minor missteps, and instead gain great satisfaction from the improvement that would inevitably happen as a result of their practice, art would be great for them. Nevermind that anybody who is fit mentally can learn to have that mindset if they don't have it already. You simply do not know op well enough and instead use broad generalizations to characterize them in your head.
>Not every injury to the soul is a chemical imbalance or mental illness.
To the extent you are suggesting some people have, I would say that they are.
>they can't help themselves and act on reasonable advice given in good faith.
I have not observed that level of incompetence from op, so I have no reason to believe that they are at it.
>Using words to preserve mental images is like trying to keep water in a cup missing its bottom by putting a paper towel to it. That analogy was messy, but so is the floor, now.

>>4310
continued:
Funny, but meaninglessness to me.
>Even pencil can only be erased so many times, before the paper starts to give way and the surroundings of the trouble area get collateral damage. Watercolors, ink, clay, oil, chicken fat, acrylic, assemblage, etc. are much less forgiving. I am disappointed that you treated such a flawed statement as a trump card.
That's just another skill in art. Seeing problems develop before they cause irreparable damage and learning to fix them with as little disturbance as possible. If a person is not yet capable of those things, they only need practice, practice, practice to attain those skills. As I already said before, this branch seems to have been introduced as some attempt at misdirection. Also, you ignored my point about digital art.
>Blurry line, spectrum, cartesian plane, shades of gray, whatever metaphor you need to use to take what I said into consideration, please do. These visualizations are disposable, and only as clear as the message needs them to be.
You're right, the visualization doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact that unclear rules shouldn't be used to dictate what people's behavior should be, or anything else.
>This is not about hypothetical third parties and what they may or may not mean by saying the same thing I have said. That is pure conjecture about things alien to this debate. And how is calling art uncertain a jab, when you turned it into a selling point so seamlessly?
I did this because of my misunderstanding of your use of the word uncertainty. I also used the word uncertainty, in the way I thought you were using it, to connct to my previous point and elaborate on why I feel unclear lines should not be used to decide how people should behave. That principle extends to beyond what you are saying.
>Yeah, all words can be synonymed into good or bad reflections of the meme they represent, but your arguments are starting to lose cohesion and if I meant it as a smear I'd think you couldn't pull off what you did in your current state.
You're still avoiding my rebuttal. What about the efficacy and cost of art as a vehicle for perpetual self-improvement? Elaborate on the ceiling point. There's no need to set it aside for some other point in time. Beneficial to me in what sense?
>There is no empirical proof in moralism, if there was, there'd be one religion and one political system. Being a killer is not absolutely bad.
I agree with you on this, but what I don't understand is how you can feel this way while still claiming that there are objectively right and wrong things to say? You have done that many times over the course of this argument. Regardless of context, morality is still subjective as there are many way of perceiving contexts. You seem to contradict yourself in this way. Anyway, are you implying that within the context of is thread, your demonizing of people was justified? I don't agree. I personally feel that people should live by their own moral code, while not trying to enforce it onto others, like you seem to be doing to me. If you think suggesting art is an immoral thing within this context of this thread, feel free to refrain from doing so, but I disagree with you preaching.

>>4310
There is a point where some things become unreasonable and do not warrant the investment of time and effort. And try as I might, I will never be a Jedi that smokes weed for a living without suffering from the negative neurological side effects, so I will dedicate my desires to things obtainable without intense reality bending. Your existential technicality is correct, but is moot.
That is a very neat way to define my point about neets. And I'm relieved to see you establish a baseline for us to work from, it was sorely needed but I was dreading having to set it up. Good to see that you're back to your old self, the last post was far below your usual stsndard. I assume you meant "psychological" and not "physiological", and I would like to point out that damage to the psyche can be significant without being clinical. I agree that the influence of a hobby should not be severe to the point that it requires professional treatment or directly drives the subject to suicide. But not killing yourself or requiring in or outpatient care is not the same as being mentally healthy, and mental health itself merely needs to be above a certain threshold to allow the subject to fully function.
The fact that we don't know OP well enough is central to my point. At the first sign of trouble in this breed of situations, the only responsible course of action is to be as pessimistic as we are compassionate. What is said cannot be unsaid, but what is remembered can be said later.
Why do you insist on this arbitrary level of happiness that everyone must maintain? It is not realistic. Forgive my emotional response to a logical arguement, but I am just flabbergasted that someone wants to excise the concept of pain from the world when my life revolves around it. My feelings are actually hurt by that.
I believe you have misinterpreted this quote, as it is another hypothetical to be planned around after the first sign of trouble brewing, not an assumption to be made about a complete stranger. You seem to have trouble with the concept of doublethink, and I think I can give you a quick definition; doublethink is the ability to equally believe in two mutually exclusive concepts simultaneously. To a lesser extent, this idea can be used to give equal credence to mutually exclusive notions, giving the thinker the flexibility to explore and plan around both without committing to an opinion in mind or action, such as "OP can handle x" and "OP can't handle x"
Furthermore I would not equate emotional issues as incompetence, they are obstacles to be dealt with using one's competence, just like external issues such as basic animal needs.

>>4311
You take pleasure in scoffing at subjective statements about art that differ from your own subjective experiences. Just because artists are very different people from survivalists, doesn't mean all artists are the same. Do you sneeze at Kafka when he writes about his process?
Thank you, though. We need some comic relief, I'm doing what I can but I'm in full sperg mode so it's like pulling teeth.
I am not attempting a misdirection and I heartily invite you to finish some of Da Vinci's old dead projects, although I wish you luck on the years ahead of educating yourself on restoratio techniques, furthering your current craft, and rolling the dice about whether or not your herculean effort will pay off, or if you'll decide that your color choice does not please you like it did a decade ago.
My purpose in listing off all of those mediums was to point out the inability of the digital medium to represent the vast majority of art history. And I would like to see how your übermensch attitude will endure a complete system failure, a file corruption, EMP or any other threat to the work's integrity. No matter what method you use, so long as your work is a part of the world there is a way for it to be negated, and the likelihood of such an occurrence is worryingly out of you the artist's control.
Unclear rules should not govern the actions of people other than the rule's creator. The creator has the preexisting knowledge and proper associations of ideas to apply an ill-defined rule to themselves with the desired effect. And unclear ideas can still be transmitted to others, who can better adapt them to their own usage with the assistance of their mental background. It still has value, even if there's judgement calls involved like the ones I encouraged you to make.
When I use the word uncertainty, I am referring to a state of unreliability that disables the subject from verifying their own situation, not only in terms of relativity to previously held positions and potential future events, but also in the sense of the effect one's situation is having on oneself in the present. These three pillars of knowledge preserve the human ability to make decisions properly and have a psychological base to work off of.
Sigh. Look, the potential of art, due to its uncertainty, is technically limitless, although I have time after time tempered variations with that statement with an appeal to a sense of prscticality. Yeah, having no baseline allows for greater freedom, for people such as yourself who are already inflexible enough to build off of their ideas born during the formative period of their development instead of their present perceptions. But that kind of person is not even close to being a majority among humanity. Every action requires some sort of precedent, especially creative actions. The opposite of your method for finding inspiration/precedent is to find a solid baseline to work off of in the outside world. It's like never fully letting go of the impressionable state we all go through as children. Because this entails perceiving, respecting and leaning upon foreign ideas, rather than exercising judgement upon them according to hardwritten subjective rules made during a now fully ended impressionable state, this method excels in maintaining variety and vitality, although it can't survive in a vacuum like your way can. The world can always show you something exciting, but even the most self-contained person will lose their own spark, and self-plagarize or methodically slog over all the possible variations to be had within the limited scope of their uncompromising vision. To use an example, your mindset is akin to Johnny Ramone, mine is more like David Bowie. Feel free to tear this theory (not a hypothesis) apart, there is no easy way to set this up and we're going to have to make sure we are on the same page about this to progress further on this salient. Particularly I want to draw parallels between these two extreme creative mentalities with the ENTJ and INTP categories in the Briggs-Meyers system. Did I guess your settis correctly? :p
As for the surface point I was trying to make, the medium of art is perfect for you and your kind, it is the ideal environment for your perspective, but the sort of person you directed your recommendation towards (regardless of how sure if at all that we have made a correct educated guess based on instinct and rules of thumb) cannot and will not gain any of the emotional soothing, pride, sense of accomplishment or justification that you recieve, and will far more severely be subjected to the pitfalls that do not affect you. These include frustration, acedia, opportunity cost, reduction in self-esteem, bitterness, and shame.
The value of art as a vehicle of self-improvement is not universal, the negative and positive aspects

>>4313
cont.
of the practice vary not only according to personality but environment. We have been over the key differences in thought process that regulate the value of art over other hobbies, we have touched upon environment, we have established most if not all of the definition necessary to create and recreate this logical process, and we have both acknowledged our biases. Am I missing anything or do you think that we can reach a synthesis?
I think that it is possible to reach objective statements about the situation using a utilitarian mindset to be logical about the limited information we have if we remove the real world application and treat the clues as facts, rather than carefully made assumptions based on deduction and preexisting knowledge of hard facts. But utilitarianism is a sort of ideology, and although removing the idea of morality would make the work much more complicated, it would not comprimise the integrity of my conclusions. Ethics is kind of a shorthand on this matter, I apologize for being unclear, it would have been more exhaustive and correct to evaluate your actions on their ability to acheive your stated goal of helping the recipient

god, how much I hate internet arguments

>>4312
>And try as I might, I will never be a Jedi that smokes weed for a living without suffering from the negative neurological side effects
I disagree with this comparison. There is nothing impossible about obtaining a level of skill in art that translates to what our agreed upon definition of success is. I understand why would say that this point is moot and dismiss it(you have no rebuttal), but at least do so without making yet another very false comparison.
>But not killing yourself or requiring in or outpatient care is not the same as being mentally healthy, and mental health itself merely needs to be above a certain threshold to allow the subject to fully function.
You have a very low bar for, "fully functional". As you already know, my definition is somebody who either, is capable of adjusting their mindset to allow themselves to enjoy a hobby that they might not be naturally or currently suited for, or to simply give up on those interests without taking any kind of physiological damage from them. A lot of our disagreements stem from having different definitions for certain words and phrases, I'll get to those, "dissonances", as I go through your post.
>The fact that we don't know OP well enough is central to my point. At the first sign of trouble in this breed of situations, the only responsible course of action is to be as pessimistic as we are compassionate. What is said cannot be unsaid, but what is remembered can be said later.
Now we come to your definition of, "pussy footing". Yours seems to be avoiding everything that could even remotely be dangerous. Mine is when you act in a cautionary way when you do not have a concrete reason to be. Signs can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways. While some interpretations of signs are more likely to be true, I simply can't ascribe to that kind of mindset. The interpretations of, "signs", is subjective and therefore, should not dictate behavior. Your interpretation of op's signs is that he is somebody who's already low-self esteem would diminish due to very insignificant things. Your interpretation is that op is mentally unfit. I find this to be condescending. As I already said and you haven't corrected me on, you wouldn't have complained now if I am incorrect about your view of op.
>but I am just flabbergasted that someone wants to excise the concept of pain from the world when my life revolves around it.
>my
Was that a Freudian slip? I don't know what you mean by, "excise the concept of pain from the world". I'm not insisting on any level of happiness, I am insisting on a level of mental health. How unreasonable is that?

>>4323
2.
>I believe you have misinterpreted this quote, as it is another hypothetical to be planned around after the first sign of trouble brewing, not an assumption to be made about a complete stranger.
If it is, "planned around", it is an assumption. It would be moronic to act upon something you believe definitely would be untrue, so the assumption isn't that is it is definitely true, it's that it might be true. I believe in only acting in an unnatural(cautionary) way, or in this case not acting, because of things you feel are definitely true. If we expand your mentality to other things, you're proposing that at any slight, "sign", of danger to an action, people should refrain from doing it. That only encourages indecision and often leads to missed opportunities, something that is definitely bad for hikkis. If I stretched hard enough, i'm sure I could even find potential dangers to the hobbies you feel are, "safe", for people like op. I could say that there's the chance that op has very poor social skills because he apparently has, "nobody to talk to online". Maybe volunteer work, which involves interacting with others, would make him feel even worse about his potential lack of social skills. Not everybody is cut out for frequent social interaction after all. Your type of mentality is far too loose and can stretched and pulled to justify anything if you jimmy with it enough.
>Furthermore I would not equate emotional issues as incompetence, they are obstacles to be dealt with using one's competence, just like external issues such as basic animal needs.
The lack of the ability to make your own decisions due to emotional issues crippling your capacity for it, is incompetence to me.
>You take pleasure in scoffing at subjective statements about art that differ from your own subjective experiences.
Mischaracterization. If I feel that somebody's negative experiences are their own fault, yes, I will scoff at them.
>I heartily invite you to finish some of Da Vinci's old dead projects, although I wish you luck on the years ahead of educating yourself on restoratio techniques, furthering your current craft, and rolling the dice about whether or not your herculean effort will pay off, or if you'll decide that your color choice does not please you like it did a decade ago.
You're forgetting the goal of art, self-satisfaction. If you will only be satisfied with yourself when you are at da Vinci's level, that is both attainable, but somewhat unrealistic. Learning to have realistic expectations for yourself based on the work you put in is also something art can help with.
>My purpose in listing off all of those mediums was to point out the inability of the digital medium to represent the vast majority of art history. And I would like to see how your übermensch attitude will endure a complete system failure, a file corruption, EMP or any other threat to the work's integrity. No matter what method you use, so long as your work is a part of the world there is a way for it to be negated, and the likelihood of such an occurrence is worryingly out of you the artist's control.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGOLqU8AZpo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2g5qbvb7F4
If it can be displayed by tiny pixels, it can be made with tiny pixels. You can save periodically when creating digital art and you can keep saved files on an external hard drive. Normally, the chances of an EMP happening are infinitesimally smaller(let's not get into politics) than your chances of making a mistake when doing physical art. All of the analogies you just brought up also don't work because none of those things are actually under the artist's control, while actual mistakes are.
>And unclear ideas can still be transmitted to others, who can better adapt them to their own usage with the assistance of their mental background. It still has value, even if there's judgement calls involved like the ones I encouraged you to make.
Well, i'm not going to adopt your ideas because I fundamentally disagree with the idea of acting based on assumptions, which as I already said, you are making, just not, "absolute ones". What you also don't get is that because your ideas are unclear, there are an infinite number of ways to, "adapt", them to my own, "usage". This could potentially cause more harm than good. If you want others to adopt your ideas, you should present them in a very concrete way and base them on concrete things. It would actually be better to me if you said that yes, all people with a lot of self-doubt definitely are highly susceptible to having that doubt expanded from the smallest of things. I wouldn't agree with you, but I would respect your conviction. Conviction isn't necessarily acting the same in every situation, it can also be acting situationally based on what you know is fact.

>>4324
3.
>When I use the word uncertainty, I am referring to a state of unreliability that disables the subject from verifying their own situation, not only in terms of relativity to previously held positions and potential future events, but also in the sense of the effect one's situation is having on oneself in the present. These three pillars of knowledge preserve the human ability to make decisions properly and have a psychological base to work off of.
I'm not sure if you are describing uncertainty in terms of art or in terms of how a person feels. If it is art, I simply do not agree with your interpretation. If it is how a person feels, you are describing a form of mental unfitness. If a person is lacking in those things, the, "three pillars of knowledge that preserve the human ability to make decisions properly", they are not mentally-fit and need to be fixed. You both seem to be implying that there is something fundamentally wrong with the people you are concerned about, yet they at same are well-adjusted enough to not be in urgent need of mental health care. Is this another instance of double-think?
>people such as yourself who are already inflexible enough to build off of their ideas born during the formative period of their development instead of their present perceptions
Very presumptuous.
>Every action requires some sort of precedent, especially creative actions. The opposite of your method for finding inspiration/precedent is to find a solid baseline to work off of in the outside world.
Yet another skill necessary for art is the ability to change and shift between precedents, or baselines. Drawing inspiration from your childhood or your, "impressionable state", and drawing from present reality even at the same time is possible for artists who are good enough. The backbone to all art however is reality. Everything should be based on a frame work of reality. This is true regardless of what your source of inspiration is from or what style you are doing. You didn't get into how any of your point makes art more difficult for people who can only draw from their present reality. Is it too many options? What exactly? Anyway, as long as a person has a firm grasp on recreating reality, they can recreate anything else in their mind. I don't think you need to guess to figure out that I don't like modern abstract art.
>Because this entails perceiving, respecting and leaning upon foreign ideas, rather than exercising judgement upon them according to hardwritten subjective rules made during a now fully ended impressionable state, this method excels in maintaining variety and vitality, although it can't survive in a vacuum like your way can.
This is my main point of contention with your, "theory". You assume that my method of arguing directly correlates with my method to art. That's some mental gymnastics right there. People wear different hats depending on the situation.
>ENTJ and INTP categories in the Briggs-Meyers system. Did I guess your settis correctly?
I don't know what settis is, but this is definitely bringing something alien into the argument. I wont get into why I don't like the Briggs-Meyers system. Socionics is at least marginally better from what I know.
>As for the surface point I was trying to make, the medium of art is perfect for you and your kind
I thought this point was moot. You already know what problem I have with this statement and your use of the word kind.
>The value of art as a vehicle of self-improvement is not universal, the negative and positive aspects of the practice vary not only according to personality but environment.
Which is why there is no problem with suggesting it to others. The value of art is just as non-universal as the value of volunteer work if we go by your logic.
>Am I missing anything or do you think that we can reach a synthesis?
I think that it is possible to reach objective statements about the situation using a utilitarian mindset to be logical about the limited information we have if we remove the real world application and treat the clues as facts, rather than carefully made assumptions based on deduction and preexisting knowledge of hard facts.
First i'm the one being existential, and that's apparently bad because it doesn't connect with reality perfectly, and now you are the one proposing that we set aside facts for the sake of reaching some non-existent conclusion. I'll let you in a little secret; the only reason why i'm still doing this with you is because of my pride and because I enjoy arguing. Otherwise this is totally inconsequential to me. I'll keep going until you give up.
>morality
Here's an argument I had with somebody else before that talks about the subjectivity of morality. Maybe you'd be interested in that.
>>>/x/1299

>>4323
Hey, remember when you said "Everyone is capable of doing anything, given enough effort"? Seems like I gave it quite the rebuttal, so why do you claim otherwise? These generalizations you make, yes they are very charming, but they are too easy to break. Cold, hard, elemental concepts that can be applied freely would acheive the desired effect with less vulnerability, but less quotability.
Do you consider yourself to be mentally healthy by your definition? I consider myself healthy by mine, perhaps our standards are biased by our own states. I like this explanatory spirit, too. Exciting to see you adapt your style a little.
You are speaking to your standard of mental fitness when you dissect my tenuous evaluation of OP, I really should not have to tell you that I do not use your definition. I considered mental unfitness an option based on some signs, but it was about as much of a hard assumption as any other possible mental state that his post did not dispell. If that's condescending, then another hypothesis I made, that OP is fine but needs advice, is more than respectful. I only made the actions that I judged to be called for, as I knew these mutually exclusive hypotheses were not facts, and that other hypotheses not worth mentioning currently are just as likely. When in doubt, exercise caution as I do. Initial impressions are not facts and even confirmed facts can be interpreted in a vast number of ways. I am tiring of you pointing out things you have said that I may or may not have addressed for the purposes of exalting as a victory somehow. Coming from the poster that has blown off vast chunks of my posts, it rings more than a little hypocritical.
What I meant by that is that you seem to believe you can eliminate unhappiness from the human condition like a tumor, and that you desire to do so. You continue to equate happiness with mental health. No, I said what I meant, I am a very unhappy person, and I'm doing just fine, I'm holding my own and then some in this dialogue, aren't I? According to you, though I am insane and need to be filled with pills, which is much more respectful to me as a human being than just paying attention to the things I say and thinking about the potential consequences of your response to such.
I honestly find it hard to believe that you are so against "pussyfooting" when you have displayed the ability to accept and adapt to information communicated in conversation, some of which you have inferred. That is the very practice I have prescribed, yet you have condemned ad nauseam.

>>4324
did you mean "could be untrue"? And when faced eith multiple potential situations, you should prioritize goal accomplishment, risk mitigation, flexibility of the decision, and probability in that order. Acting on the possibility that best suits these criteria is not making an assumption, it is quite the opposite. Caution is not unnatural, it's a dangerous world out there and not everything you need to know will be availiable to you. If your ancestors shared your happy-go-lucky policy, you never would have been born.
That is a gross oversimplification of the decision making process I have explained and espoused. And things are different when you're the one at risk, rather thsn others.
Missed opportunities are bad for hikkis. In the same way that practicing art is, same cycle of self-deprecation and acedia. But it is better to miss a bad opportunity than to take it, and what you offer with art is a bad opportunity.
The looseness is a downside to the flexibility and respect it grants to its users' ability to use reason. As the sloppiness and back-patting of your system is a downside to the decision making speed and confidence it provides. Ugh, I believe this is another impasse, where neither side can change the other's fabric of being and thusly their minds. But this was a worthy endeavour, I feel. I may not rewrite your identity to follow my ideas, nor will you do the same to me, but dynamic tension has strengthened both of our worldviews, and our abilities to express them.
I think you're describing situations that are really defined by willpower. And I have pointed out so many fucking times that it is not just the risk of them taking your advice, but the wearing down of their mental state by the constant, yet mild, pressure of the incessant suggestion of something that would do them harm. Once again, you oversimplify my arguement, and once again, I correct you.
Give me an example of a negative experience someone has had with art that you did not blame them for.
Now you champion realism as something to be cultivated and admired? Lol wut. That is inconsistent with the whole of your arguements up until this point. And you admit that art demands the lowering of expectations for yourself to acheive self-satisfaction. How is that not destructive to the hobbyist's self-esteem? So now you are recommending this soulcrushing to people that you reasonably should infer might have shit self-esteem and are looking for a pastime to help them with that.
My point was that they are out of the artist's control! You're telling me that I'm wrong because I'm right! And pixels can't make all forms of art, don't dispute that sculpture can be rendered in CGI, you know it's not the same. Not that I'm hating on digital art, it has done some cool stuff and deserves the same respect as its fellow mediums.
If you're relying on facts and only facts, you're not showing conviction in yourself, which is more important than conviction in ideas that are useless if not applied with good judgement and self-mastery. Supplementing your ability to percieve and decide on situations with ideas is more of a luxury, something to expedite the process, not replace it as you have done with your policy of "universal" "respect"
You're quite right about my presentation. It does not thrill like yours, but it is built more stably. I make a point of avoiding statements which are false, illogical, or just unprovable. If we were both like me this conversation would be unbearable, if we were both like you it wouldn't have been constructive.

>>4325
Once again, you apply your idea to my statement and tell me it's what I meant. It is not, the state I described could be caused by external factors, and may be temporary. Once again you make a sweeping generalization about an idea that describes a vast array of different specific scenarions. I must admit, with me it is hard to tell what is doublethink and what is a concrete statement.
I mean, everything about art IS based in reality. Even the most surreal ideas are some adaptation of observations we have made previously. Nothing is sui generis.
I didn't say anything about people who can only draw from the present. My method described involves retaining the mentality of acceptance that we have as children in order to share space within your mind between your original ideas and new ones experienced after the end of the impressionable state, where your method switched from acceptance of new ideas to appraisal of them from the perspective formed by whatever ideas you experienced before the end of the impressionable period.
My creative method is identical to my logical method. Your love of art appears to be hard-wired to your identity, fundamental to your self, like your convictions and the method of debate that you have shaped from them. I admit it is possible that this is not binding, but it makes perfect sense. Tell me about your creative method, especially how it differs from your philosophical method.
Ah, settis is a cheap Krautchan meme. Just a corruption of the word "settings". Fucking up English composes maybe 20% of our culture.
I saw some correlations, I know it's not a perfect system but I believe it helps anchor a lot of the differences between us. Like the Bowie/Ramone simile, not definitive, just handy. Socionics you say? I'll check it out.
Fine, we'll drop it. I don't even remember if I called it moot and for what reason that may have been. Suspicious, but I'll trust your word.
You say because the value varies it should be recommended more, I say it should be recommended less for the same reason. Once again, we agree on the coin but not the side. I wonder if there is any idea on which we will not find ourselves to be polarized on every aspect save the base concept.
Ugh, we can indeed come to a conclusion in an entirely hypothetical model. But that conclusion would be the layout of the spectrums that you and I represent the extremes of. I will admit, I cannot fathom any purpose to publishing this beyond waving our intellectual dicks around, but that's any philosophical work ever anyways.
I am enjoying this, too. You're quite the talent in this field, I'd consider you my equal, and your enjoyment shows. You will regret those final words, though, I am far too tl;dr to give up.
Yeah, I'll read that tomorrow. Thank you. I'd show you my last row, with the Magyar on endchan, but it's jammed within a music thread and he just kept on losing his cool. Not a good read, but the best I've had in recent history.

I think constant loneliness and lack of human contact is rotting my brain

at this point I can't hold a conversation to save my life so it can only get worse

>>4340
I know that feel.
Everytime someone talks to me IRL I am taken aback and have to figure out how talking works all over again. Like, I even fuck up using my mouth to make sounds

>>4336
I'm tired, so if I don't get to it today, i'll respond tomorrow.

>>4344
ok. Have a good day or night or whatever it is over there.

>>4336
>Seems like I gave it quite the rebuttal, so why do you claim otherwise?
Your rebuttal just boiled down to you disagreeing with me about everybody being able to change their mindset in what seems to me like a trivial way. Other than the danger of intensified self-doubt, you didn't go into much detail about why else some people are simply incapable of taking on art no matter much effort they put. I think it's a simple as a change in mindset, which in my opinion, any healthy person can do, you seem to think otherwise. Unless a researcher does a study that proves that some people are incapable, at least without, "herculean", effort to adapt themselves to art, it's a stale mate. Your argument wasn't even presented in a theoretical way, which is the plane that I thought this argument was strictly located. You can't just flip flop between theoretical concepts and, "it's not practical in real life man".
>You are speaking to your standard of mental fitness when you dissect my tenuous evaluation of OP, I really should not have to tell you that I do not use your definition.
Yes I do consider myself to be mentally healthy. Okay fine, my bad. It just seemed reasonable to me that your definition would include the possession of the three faculties necessary to make decisions on your own part. I shouldn't have assumed that, but again, you have a very, very low bar, which I personally find objectionable.
>but it was about as much of a hard assumption as any other possible mental state that his post did not dispell.
So you admit that signs can be interpreted in many ways, yet you still claim that people should act upon these possibilities? Is this a case of double think? If we're going to start talking about things in terms of real-life, the implementation of your idea is completely impossible, which i'll get into more later. People are not psychic and they should not be expected to take into consideration every possibility given any hint of something. You yourself fail to do this superhuman feat. You also cannot expect people to reach the same conclusions that you do. Advocating for some undetermined heightened level of car fullness from people is horribly wishy-washy and nobody will be convinced to do so. Your concern didn't even occur to me personally.
>Coming from the poster that has blown off vast chunks of my posts
Don't forget that you're the one trying to dictate how people should behave. I only respond to my problems with your post, nothing else.
>You continue to equate happiness with mental health.
No. I expect people to meet my definition of mental fitness. It has nothing to do with happiness.

>>4337
>Acting on the possibility that best suits these criteria is not making an assumption, it is quite the opposite.
The, "risk mitigation", and, "probability", steps are where assumptions come in. It doesn't matter what you call them, those steps still require you to act upon things that only have the remote possibility of being true. You're acting based on prior experiences.
>I have found this introverted, self-deprecating, and rootbound kind of individual to be on websites like this
>I speak not for myself but for many posters I have known, and the many more that I have not.
That's natural, sure, but it's still reactionary. You cannot expect other people to have your same experiences. My feelings on your decision are actually completely irrelevant. I shouldn't have mentioned them. My main issue is with you trying to present your idea of how people should act in this very step-by-step, logical way , and how you're mad that they didn't, when you didn't actually make your decisions in that way. I'll say what my problem with the probability step is later.
>and what you offer with art is a bad opportunity.
For the group of people you think are incapable of it that I don't think exists outside of the mentally-ill. I am very bothered by your complete evasion of my volunteer work counter. Your logic, or system, or whatever can be applied to anything. That's one of my problems with it. If you want to call it a draw, fine, but you place far too great, "respect", in people's ability and willingness to, "come to the right conclusions", given evidence that can be interpreted in any way.
>the wearing down of their mental state by the constant, yet mild, pressure of the incessant suggestion of something that would do them harm.
I again, do not recognize that harm. That was a draw by the way.
>Give me an example of a negative experience someone has had with art that you did not blame them for.
A kid I knew in art class tripped and spilled paint onto another kid's project. There.
>Now you champion realism as something to be cultivated and admired? Lol wut.
>And you admit that art demands the lowering of expectations for yourself to acheive self-satisfaction. How is that not destructive to the hobbyist's self-esteem?
Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but you're now oversimplifying my argument. People don't need to lower their expectations if they're already realistic. Realistic is also proportional to effort. If a person put in more effort, higher expectations are more realistic, if they put in none, there expectations should be non-existent.
>My point was that they are out of the artist's control!
I'm not sure why you brought up things that are out of an artists control up in the first place. I though you were equating them to things that are the artist's fault. If somebody's self-esteem goes down because their computer crashed and they lost progress on the art they were working on, they really are not all up there. If you're trying to make a point against art in general, you did so poorly and out of left field.
>your policy of "universal" "respect"
"Universal Respect", isn't a policy for me. I presented it that way for the sake of this argument. It's how I act naturally. I have full confidence in my actions, so I do not have self-doubt in my ability to act upon given information. I like my method and dislike yours. Simple as that.

>>4338
>It is not, the state I described could be caused by external factors, and may be temporary
Maybe mental illness wasn't the right word to use, but it is mental-unfitness in my view, which is why I said," what you're describing. It's a toxic mentally that warrants therapy or psychiatric help. I wasn't implying that you held that same view, just that you were describing something.
>My method described involves retaining the mentality of acceptance that we have as children in order to share space within your mind between your original ideas and new ones experienced after the end of the impressionable state
I'd argue that most people are actually less flexible than me when it comes to the intake of new ideas, but whatever. This is all very alien and obscure. I don't agree with your correlation between people's active and creative mindsets.
>Tell me about your creative method, especially how it differs from your philosophical method.
I either day-dream something and try to put it on paper, or draw a real life object/scenery. I understand that art can have meaning to it, but I think that if it does not look aesthetically pleasing(which isn't dependent on subject-matter alone), the point is moot. I don't like abstract art. Interpret that in whatever Freudian way you want.
Analogy time: Giving people suggestions on what they should do is kind of like giving a homeless person spare change. On the surface this seems like an undeniably good act. People do it out of pity and it's very non-committal. However, there is a canteen next to the homeless person. It could have anything in it. What you are suggesting is that people look at that canteen, stop, and think to themselves that shouldn't give them money because that money might be spent on alcohol or worse. If was really committed to helping the person I was giving change to, which I admittedly am not, I would first go out of my way to get a full understanding of them, and then give advice. I would ask questions and really get to bottom of who that person was. Guess what though? I'm not going to go through the effort of running to the supermarket and buying that homeless food and then going back to give it to them. If op had included more personal details, I definitely would have taken them into consideration. It's not a perfect analogy, especially since there is a high chance that that homeless person is an alcoholic, but that is part of the, "probability", part. You have admitted to being a newcomer here. You may have dismissed
>>4299
,but they do have a point. Our user base, unlike on kraut, have not shown the tendencies you are worried about. That's part what should be considered. You should be able to see why it's annoying when an outsider comes in and tells people how they should behave, and based on experiences that are not relevant to this specific place. Assuming that asocial people are the same as on krautchan is already a big assumption. If i'm ever on krautchan, i'll make sure to not suggest art, but I will here.

>>4345
Also, what did you think about the thread I linked?

>>4354
The change in mindset is not trivial. We're talking about a complete shift in priorities and creative process and for what? To have one hobby with little real world application over another.
You're mistaking one of several negative consequences of an art hobby with the deep-seated hurdles towards the adoption of the hobby and the enjoyment of it. Which I have exhaustively laid out earlier in this dialogue. Look, usually when we reach these impasses I agree to disagree with you but on this, no. Not only is overwriting your own personality damn near impossible, but for a hobby, it is also absurd. I'm not flip flopping, both theory and pragmatism are relevant in this discussion and will be brought up when the time is right.
These pillars can be absent temporarily or only in certain situations without indicating mental dysfunction. An example of a certain situation: the altered state requisite to create.
It is not a case of double think. It is a proper time to use double think. Impossible, only in certain situations that require speed like irl interactions. Even then some application of the technique is quite doable and ought to be pursued. In situations like this thread, on an almost dead chan, you have so much time to think through what you say that there is no excuse. Wishy-washy? Thinking about what you say before you say it and what impact it will have is just good policy.
Well that's fair, but I would have liked to know that earlier. The dubiousness of things going unresponded to clutters my mind.
Well I got you to clarify yourself on the relation between happiness and mental health, so that is good.

>>4356
Acting based on past experiences. You say that like it's a bad thing, but that's just learning coming to fruition. Noticing patterns is a good skill to have.
I did not expect you to have had the same experiences that I have had. That's why I communicated with you instead of just flaming you. And I thought out my first post very carefully, I knew it was probable that I would stir up a lot of anger, but that this response could take many forms. And I was right. One poster didn't respond at all, another just bullshitted me, and you engaged me in a serious discussion. I will admit, I expect an immediate flame, too, but I felt that a more aggressive and disrespectful stance would provoke more and distract from the message which I intended to communicate. Predictions don't have to be perfect, they just have to give you a way forward that makes sense.
What evasion? Am I missing something or did I not answer your question in the way that you wanted? First you accuse me of trying to dictate the actions of others, then you criticize me for giving them greater freedom within my suggested method. My position is consistent: how about yours?
Ok, then let's stop bringing it up.
I should be annoyed, but the drollness of that anecdote was funny.
I'm talking about expectations on a project by project basis, btw. Not a lifetime's progress butthe current effort and skill level relevant to the piece at hand. And a lack of success in a field is not the same as a failure of character. You really need to let go of that idea.
Fine, I'll try this a different way. It is illogical to hold a pursuit (with some very real consequences) as being superior to other pursuits (lacking consequences of a similar magnitude) when the end result is always of an unreliable sense of accomplishment and the product is vulnerable to being undone. You're encouraging people to build on unstable ground for a purpose that is in most cases unattainable, and in all cases ephemeral.
I find it interesting how you don't think about your social interactions and just go through them by instinct and with a hope for the best, whereas I tackle the issues before the fact in the hope of avoiding issues later. Like, Jesus Christ, how are we irreconcilably opposed on every fundamental aspect of our being? Other than a love of arguing we have agreed on nothing that we have fully clarified. I am almost afraid to ask, but; are you being honest about your positions or are you playing Devil's Advocate or some similar kind of seminar roleplay?
I am exhausted. I am sure it shows and that I have made an unacceptable amount of typos, hopefully you can read what I typed. I will have to answer your last two posts tomorrow morning. Good night

>>4357
Alright, looks like that's a draw. Although oncce again I must point out that temporary or conditional states of uncertainty are not defining of someone's mental condition as a whole, and that everyone, including yourself, is susceptible to these states being induced by external factors.
Look, unless there's a full blown study on this, which would be nearly impossible due to the unique and esoteric nature of this line of thinking, there really is no way to be sure of the percentage of the population that thinks like me or like you. Yes, surely there are people who think actively and creatively in different ways. But I do believe that it is not unreasonable to posit that some psychological features are universal no matter the task at hand, and that the fundamental problem solving and abstract reasoning processes are much too essential to the psyche to be set aside without severe influence from external factors.
Ah, so you are more interested in the lines and process than the idea that is born from them. That is the best way to look at art, and explains why you're alienated by the other mentality that I have described and defended.>>4358

A fair analogy, but you negate the fact that this is also within a time constraint. A little critical thinking, an observant mindset, and a healthy dose of deductive reasoning will enable you to make the best decision possible without a heavy commitment. Just because we cannot stop to pick every beggar off of their feet and fix their lives does not mean we have to shut out any kind of effort into being a positive influence to the situations we find in passing.
Well, that's a fresh way to play the newfag card I guess. Look, I've been in chan culture for ~10 years now. I've gotten around, and I've seen many facets of the hikki existence, none of which really deviate from the rootbound template I have touched upon. I put in my two cents, communicated why I thought a certain practice was damaging and should not be taken so likely, then defended my position. I have been very respectful to this chan and its culture, I highly doubt that recommending art to people who are sad is a hallmark of ubuu culture.
>>4358
Your opponent was sloppy and kind of daft, although he was respectful enough and cleaned up his act towards the end. The troll with the pluff films comment was worse. I could see it throwing you off your game, but you made it work. Like the old adage about the world's greatest swordsman fearing the kid who has never held a sword before. I do wonder if you seriously think that people who use sex toys are "depraved" though, lol. I don't use them, myself. Just more work to remind yourself that you're alone. It was interesting to see you argue over a topic that is not nearly as dear to your heart as art is. You lost a lot of that oratory fire that kept getting you into trouble here, so you were able to dominate that discussion.

>>4359
>The change in mindset is not trivial. We're talking about a complete shift in priorities and creative process
>one of several negative consequences of an art hobby with the deep-seated hurdles towards the adoption of the hobby
>overwriting your own personality
A person doesn't need to, "overwrite", their entire personality. Their personality is not entirely composed of how they approach hobbies and skill learning. How you approach a hobby is just one of many mindsets that a person has depending on the situation. There's no such thing as a mountain climbing personality or a fishing personality or a book reading personality. To be frank, that view of people is childish. People change specific mindsets throughout their entire lives. For school, for work, for practically anything, it requires a shift in one of a person's infinite facets. Because hobbies are minor, the shift is easy. My sister is a perfect example of this. Throughout her whole life, her personality and interests have been entirely the result of her friend's influence. As her friend groups would shift from person to person, so would her mind. She's done horseback riding, art, poetry, rapping, fencing, swimming, acapella and more that I can't even remember. As soon as she moved on to other people, she would immediately lose interest, but she was at least very convincingly passionate about those things, even if that passion was fleeting. Even her taste in food would change. She used to hate sushi and spicy food, but when she got a bunch of Indian and Asian friends, she practically forced herself to like it, and she succeeded. While I definitely don't think that is a healthy mind-set by any means, it does demonstrate the basic human ability to adapt. My sister was nothing special and i'm sure there's lots of other people like her. The people you are worried about are stuck in a negative, toxic mindset that consumes them and restricts their basic human ability to shift their mind. We still haven't agreed upon what personality is best suited for art. You are doing what you say I have done to you, attributing a definition I do not agree upon to my views. To me, art only requires these shifts: the ability to take risks in stride and attribute them to a current lack of skill and the ability to set your expectations based on the work you put in. I may not enjoy fishing as I am now, but I believe in my ability to develop the patience for it.
>These pillars can be absent temporarily or only in certain situations without indicating mental dysfunction.
Which situations? When there's a decision to be made and there's a light bit of outside pressure? That's still an incredibly low bar. Also, after making a decision, a mentally-fit person is also be able to recognize if that decision was a poor one or not and pull out before they suffer any harmful psychological effects from it.

>>4360
>Even then some application of the technique
>Thinking about what you say before you say it and what impact it will have is just good policy.
>criticize me for giving them greater freedom within my suggested method
The dictation is of the method. Your method neither works in this situation, nor accounted for prior experience. If the point of your method is to avoid situations like the one in this thread(people suggesting art), it is absolutely useless. Even if I had taken the time to analysis and mull over Op's signs, I wouldn't have come to same conclusion when looking at signs as you have because I have never thought about art in the way you do. You only think about the art in the way that you do because of prior experiences, experiences that I don't have. I get that you just made up that method right now, in the same way that I made up, "universal respect", but you utterly failed to create it while keeping the context of this specific situation in mind while doing so. If you ask me, defining exactly what you expect other people to do was a mistake. Before this, the vagueness of your expectations of others made this argument like trying to climb up an oiled up pillar. Now you have given me something to grip onto.
>I'm talking about expectations on a project by project basis
Expectations shouldn't be on a project to project basis. That's part of the necessary and entirely possible shift. Art is a skill like swimming or speaking. If you do not practice speaking, you should not expect to be good at it. The ultimate goal is the ability to do that skill. Art can be done anywhere and at any time. It is an ability, not a means to an end.
>the end result is always of an unreliable sense of accomplishment and the product is vulnerable to being undone.
I don't agree. If you satisfy your own realistic expectations, there's nothing unreliable about it. If you didn't, you try again until you do. The product being easily undone part is still out of left-field. It's just a random criticism of art, not part of your central thesis. Pottery, even of concrete things like a bowl or vase, is easily broken and can crack in the oven, which is out of the potters control. I can do it too.
>You're encouraging people to build on unstable ground for a purpose that is in most cases unattainable, and in all cases ephemeral.
If you practice enough, the goal is obtainable. We still haven't agreed upon what the goal is, but that's what I think.
>just go through them by instinct and with a hope for the best, whereas I tackle the issues before the fact in the hope of avoiding issues later.
I'm actually more careful in real life. Online I just spew out whatever I feel like. I don't use the, "extra time", to more carefully form opinions. I instantly have opinions and use the extra time to more clearly express them.
>are you playing Devil's Advocate or some similar kind of seminar roleplay?
>I personally don't go around suggesting people start doing art… For the sake of convenience, let's pretend that I do do that.
I already admitted to somewhat be playing the devil's advocate. I fully support people's right to do so, but I only give suggestions after I have a thorough understanding of the person I am talking to. I am being a bit disingenuous about some things, but I'll never tell you what. For the most part, I agree with my stated positions.

>>4362
>Alright, looks like that's a draw.
If you feel like it fine, but I did just make a counterargument.
>But I do believe that it is not unreasonable to posit that some psychological features are universal no matter the task at hand
You underestimate the malleability of people's minds. Whatever.
>A little critical thinking, an observant mindset, and a healthy dose of deductive reasoning will enable you to make the best decision possible without a heavy commitment
I already explained my issue with this line of thinking and your method. The whole time constraint thing seems like a non-issue to me. Not everybody uses the extra time on image boards to really deliberate over their next course of action. If you decide to shift your whole point and make it thinking about what you say before you say, fine, but it's kind of like telling people to treat other's the way you want to be treated. Okay. That sounds nice and not very disagreeable, but I wont do it all the time. It's less about the amount of time and about more about the amount I care. Spending any extra time with that sort of thing on the internet almost seems like a total waste of time to me. I, and most people, just don't care enough to put even one more iota of extra effort to giving change to beggars.
>we have to shut out any kind of effort into being a positive influence to the situations we find in passing
Yeah, that's what the change is. We just suggest stuff. That may or may not be a positive influence, just like how change may or may not be spent on alcohol.
>I highly doubt that recommending art to people who are sad is a hallmark of ubuu culture.
Well, there is a whole board for art. Yume Nikki is also a pretty, "artsey", thing too. The main problem is actually with how you presented your point. A newcomer trying to shame other users for not acting in a way you like is how you come across.
>It was interesting to see you argue over a topic that is not nearly as dear to your heart as art is.
I think I am just as passionate about the subject. That's just how I act when i'm trying to convince somebody of something, when i'm the one on the defensive. I try to be sympathetic to the other person and acknowledge why they wouldn't want to adopt my view point. I might make small concessions too. To demonstrate my point, let me re-write your first post.
>I get how a lot of people like art how it helps them relax, so they'll naturally think that others would feel the same way, but I'm not sure if it's the best suggestion for somebody like op. Art involves a lot of mistake making and self-doubt over whether you can actually accomplish what you're trying do. That might not be a problem for you or most other people, but that kind of thing is bad for people with already low self-esteem. Art revolves around something that is not really concrete. Even if something a person draws would look decent to you or me, a person with low-self esteem might only see its flaws and be further lowered into an emotional dark pit. There's a lot less room for self-doubt in something like carpentry. The table is either usable or it isn't. Something like volunteer work is actually better for developing social skills and feeling like you've contributed something to the world too. I think that people should think about that sort of thing the next time they feel like putting out a suggestion.
See? If you put in some effort, you could probably wrangle that into some kind of conclusion to this whole thing because I basically just took your thesis and filtered it through my perspective. Also, what's your personal opinion on the subjectivity of moral? I'm just curious.

>>4363
You have mangled the understanding of my point entirely. The personality dictates how we approach hobbies, and how we approach hobbies dictates which hobbies will do us benefit. The approach is slave to the person's fiber of being.
Your sister was able to abandon her interests so easily because that ability is part of her personality. Some of us can be shallow in our interests and all over the place, some of us slowly reconcile our interests with our observations of the world, some of us find external factors to shape to suit them. I am disappointed that you did not look deeper at your sister's behavior, and see that much more of it is modular than mine or your own, and that these surfsce interests and lifestyles are merely playthings of the static personality underneath them.
Your understanding of art and your faith in the ability to adopt new hobbies is stained by your own unflinching faith in yourself, which is not a universal trait among humans. I do not think that you can overwrite this part of you, that keeps you mystified by the mental processes of others. I'll admit, you are as refreshing as you are frustrating.
Times of crisis, or bodily stress, altered states brought on by a number of outside influences like reading too many creepypastas on a gloomy night, or intoxication. Yes, a person can recognize their decisions as poor or the situation they have entered as undesirable once the temporary uncertainty has passed. That does not justify you encouraging them to enter an uncertain state, however.

>>4364
Instructions on a bottle of shampoo are not orders, nor demands. Just as your recommendation of art was not a demand, and my described method was not an order.
I felt that prior experience was not a criteria because it is essential to applying each criteria. We know that it is probable that the beggar is a drunk because we know that many beggars are drunk.
The relaying of information to others that do not have it (whether by life experience or some other factor) is the sole purpose of constructive communication. I feel like someone who took an anti-censorship stance has no business smearing said communication. You yourself proved that what I said about recommending art to people was justified. You didn't know, so I told you and now you know.
I'm not really willing to sacrifice what we are learning just to say I won an internet arguement. You are more than willing to criticize the specifics of my method, and perhaps your insights will develop it further. Dialogues aren't contests of who's righter than the other guy, and if you're prioritizing victory here, your defeat is ensured.
I like your concept of universal respect, and I wish you'd step back from the arms race and flesh it out with specifics. I think I could use the concept in real life, after mulling it over.
Truly, our perspectives are irreconcilable. Speaking and swimming, yes, the means to the end is an end in itself, but failure in art, to me, kills the idea it was supposed to anchor. An increase in skill that can be thwarted by factors outside the artist's control is not a worthy trade for that. Failure in speaking is different, you can practice oration without a real audience, and if you flub your words, they fade immediately. Swimming, not so much, but you don't bring ideas to life with swimming, either you float or you drown.
Oh, please, like you've never looked back on something you felt was successful and seen something that makes you realize that it is shit. Happens to me all the time in my poetry.
Random criticism? You're putting your heart and soul into something vulnerable, that you now have to worry about the welfare of. Beyond all the shit levelled at you during the creative process, that's a shitty kind of success.
Well, you know, if you scratch at a concrete wall with a spoon long enough and hard enough, you'll make a tunnel out of Shawshank Prison.
Ok, that's what the internet should be for in a perfect world. But hey, the 00's are over and we have to be careful nowadays. I don't like it any more than you do, but if I'm already having to sidestep botnets and disinformation agents I might as well take a little extra care for the people who are in this shit with me.
I really wish you would just tell me what you really think. I'm not hiding shit from you, I even gave a neat little disclaimer about how I'm not out to fuck you just because I'm queer. Besides, doesn't the process of mocking up positions that you do not hold kind of ruin the fun for you? It does for me.

>>4365
Your counterarguement has been said several times, just like any counterpoint I would have to make to it. That disagreement reached the end of the line. We'll move forward with fruitful ones.
I still think you're mistaking the surface of the personality for the actual bed of it. Yes, surface opinions and mechanisms are malleable. The mentalities that control these surface thoughts are not.
That's not a shift, that has been my point from the very beginning. We have already been over whether or not you cared, and how illogical and damaging it is to try to shift the minds of other people when you don't care about them. I feel like your fall-back arguement shouldn't be that you are communicating irresponsibly.
This is where your analogy stops being applicable. Winos buy food as well as black velvet. Your suggestion either had an effect of dubious positivity at best, or did nothing and was a waste of time.
I'm doubtful that it was my presentation that brought us to this point, and not the later revelation that I am new here, whether here or in one of my other posts. My tone was not aggressive, and I made quite an effort to be inclusive rather than confrontational, becauss I knew people were going to take exception to my point. My second post was sarcastic because people answered confrontationally and did not demonstrate an acceptable level of awareness of the message I laid out for them. You came around, the other guy didn't.
Hm, you just described how I have acted throughout this dialogue. Maybe we have strategy in common, if almost nothing else.
See, knowing what we do now, that is a very nice redo of my thesis. However, I feel that things would have played out similarly, despite your even more conciliatory tone. After all, a lot of this dispute was just rehashing of points of disagreement that could not be comprimised on and the testing of each other's selves to get a better understanding of why these points could not be comprimised on.
That said, I think your reworking of my thesis through your own viewpoint is an excellent synthesis, and proves that this was a productive discussion.
On morals? Well, yes I think individual morals are subjective and that you put it well when you said that they do not become a problem until they affect other people than the moralist. Although morality is a necessary part of everyone's psyche (save true sociopaths), it is impossible for the moralist to keep their conclusions to themselves, moral choices dictate the actions through which we all interact with the world after all, and our heartfelt opinions are transmitted to those who we teach such as mentees and our children. I do not think that there are any moral or ethical stances that can be applied comfortably to the entire human experience, but that some mores are more universally applicable than others.
I hold to no ideology, but I am more utilitarian, egotistic, and humanist in my influences, and I endeavour to ameliorate any situation I find myself in to the best of my knowledge and my perspective's base in those three ideals, egotism, utilitarianism and humanism.
I do have some deep-seated moral stances that I know are subjective and not perfect for every situation, but I try to reconcile them with the realities of the outside world in order to better myself and humanity. I'm not perfect, but logic is.
Recommending art is not immoral to me, I just think it's something to be thought about before doing, as it can be damaging.

>>4368
I'll get to it tomorrow.

>>4370
Ok. I have been worn out from wörk wörk wörk anyways so take your time.

Can't you loser exchange E-Mails or something?

>>4378
lol why do you care?

>>4379
Because I told him that he couldn't play with us