The author isn't making a distinction between 2ch, the imageboard that Hiroyuki created, and 2chan, the imageboard that was the inspiration for 4chan.

Seems like the concept is related to the German word Sehnsucht.

I get where Francopoli's coming from, especially because he's a part of the old guard. He was there when games were actually vilified. But I think there isn't much need for that "guard" anymore. EVERYONE plays videogames now, my sister, my parents, my cousins, black people, white people, hispanic people, old people, young people. Straight up, everyone. The only criticism about gaming isn't actually the playing of games, it's "gaming culture" - the one that exists on twitter and tries to ruin the fun for everyone.

Gaming has been mainstream for at least a decade now, if not more. All this butthurt from offended gamers is just so unnecessary. The gamers had already "won." No need to be so butthurt when someone vaguely criticizes their hobby.

There is nothing anybody can do. People are not computer literate because people do not give a shit about computers and, by extension, computer literacy. For those people, they will only care when they get royally boned by their ignorance like your friend, and even then, I bet your friend's friends still don't give a shit because worst case scenario, "well, we can always ask the IT guy for help."

I don't think it's much of a victory when it takes a reporter with decades of experience and a familiarity with the subject to beat the AI, and even then, the AI still churns out the article faster than the human.

Both the white dude and Latina chick come off as whiny, oversensitive assholes.

There will always be taboo words and euphemisms that skirt around saying those taboo words. It's the nature of taboo words that changes throughout time. During Shakespearean times, the ultimate taboo words were religious oaths. So, you get euphemisms like "zounds" from "God's wounds." Now, most minced oaths like "gosh darn it," "gadzooks," and "gee whiz" sound completely harmless and even childish because the original oaths that they were referencing are no longer taboo. Then, you have your obscenities like "fuck," "shit," "cunt," "asshole" etc. I've always associated Victorian times where people were overly uptight about sex. I mean, we're talking about a society that have terms like "self-abuse" to mean fapping. And now for the present, the taboo words have shifted away from obscenities and onto racial/sexual/gender racial epithets, no doubt because society has gotten less uptight about sex while being more uptight about giving various minorities a chance to be not shouted down by the majority. When I grew up, the F-word exclusively meant "fuck," now the F-word can mean "fuck" or "faggot," and I won't be surprised that in the future, the F-word exclusively means "faggot," with "fuck" being considered as an impolite word. The number one taboo word in contemporary American society isn't "fuck" or "cunt," but "nigger." And taboo words will probably shift away from epithets to something completely different centuries later.

How is my pseudonym different from White Dude's? A question that I think must be asked. Because White Dude is a member of the dominant white culture and as such enjoys all the privileges of being the dominant class thereof. The conquering class thereof, one might even say. Let's consider: he only puts out poems under an alternate, underprivileged identity when his own, that of an established writer and seemingly-white man, doesn't do it - when he can't get poems published under his real name and identity, when his existing advantages aren't enough, he assumes another identity and reaps what few 'advantages' it might have in the context of poetry, When he chooses to masquerade as an Asian woman, he is stepping into that identity when he chooses, and leaving that identity when it no longer becomes convenient. I am unable to leave the identity of being a woman, which means it gets used against me when I don't want it to. When I de-gender my publication name, I'm preventing things like what happened a month ago over at B O D Y - where editors thought it was cool to factor in their personal opinions of a poet's bio photo when it came to making their accept/decline decision. Read it and weep. I'm not taking advantage of whatever cultural and gendered options lie in front of me until one of them fools an editor into accepting my work. I'm literally hiding myself because I think that's favorable. Because I'd rather not think that editors are judging my photo instead of my poems.

I personally subscribe to the more mundane explanation that your gender-neutral pseudonym is a way for you to disassociate from your identity while some white dude pretending to be some Asian chick is someone masquerading as something that he is not. You are merely withholding information about yourself that you don't find relevant to the enjoyment of your poems while this dude is actively deceiving the audience by pretending to be something he is not. I don't find the fact that the white dude has white/male privilege particularly relevant as I would feel the same way if it were a black woman pretending to be a white man. I suppose it's understandable if a female poet lives in some backwards shithole country where only males can publish poems or something, but this obviously isn't the case. Why the lies and the deception? Why do they hide behind a fake identity? Can I trust what they say in their art is something they truly believe in and not something that just pander to my preconceived notions of the world? This deception renders their work inauthentic in my eyes.

The effects of my antidepressant were noticeable after about a week. Here were some of the effects:

1. It is pretty cliche, but for mundane things, I saw everything as the glass being half-full instead of the glass being half-empty. It doesn't seem much, but it does add up. All other things being equal, the positive interpretation has precedent over the negative interpretation. When I look at a tree before, I might dwell on how the tree will eventually be ignobly chopped down to make way for some shitty road or dwell on how the rest of the sidewalk look ugly in comparison. Now, I focus on how the tree's shade keeps people cool or how it looks beauty in a sea of grey. I can appreciate the joys and beauty in things, even mundane things.

2. As a nice side effect, the antidepressant also mostly brought my social anxiety under control, and my social anxiety was pretty bad before the drug. This confirms that the effects of the drug on my depression isn't just the placebo effect because I didn't know that the antidepressant is also effective on people with social anxiety until it happened to me.

3. I never actually planned to commit suicide, but suicide as a topic used to be so fascinating. There was the ethics of suicide and the various debates surrounding it. There were different ways of committing suicide that I used to love reading about and comparing them. What was the least painful way of committing suicide? What was the most painful way? I remember finding a blog of someone who committed suicide because he was paralyzed from the neck down after a motorcycle accident. The blog was a manifesto about why he was going to commit suicide, but what was even more notable was that the last few entries were that of him slicing his abdomen with a kitchen knife and blogging about his last moments on Earth. After taking the depressants, suicide ceases to pull me mentally like it did before. It lost its mental luster.

4. Before the antidepressant, I've always had this strange feeling that I was an abomination, a glitch in this simulation called reality, that wasn't supposed to exist. Since I wasn't supposed to exist, it felt like the universe didn't fully accept me. In other words, there was a sense of incongruency between my apparent existence and the universe as a whole. After the antidepressant, that feeling disappeared, or more accurately, I didn't realize the extent of the feeling of alienation with the rest of existence until I started taking antidepressant and more clearly understood what it meant to be aligned with the universe.

5. I felt like I had this huge reservoir of energy after taking antidepressants, especially mental energy. This is to be expected since one of the symptoms of depression is having a low amount of mental energy or willpower. Now, I could give myself private prep talks or mentally tell myself to "quit your bitching and just fucking do it" when faced with an obstacle. I wasn't able to do that before the antidepressants because I lacked the mental energy to do so and they weren't convincing at all to me.

6. It's far easier now to mentally "hop" out of negative feedback loops. It's a lot easier for me to suspend any potential negative thinking by going, "Okay, this isn't being productive. Cut the bullshit and move the fuck on. We have things to do." My mind feels more resilient against negative thoughts and feelings.

7. Some of the thoughts I had before I was on antidepressants were just straight up delusions that made no logical sense. I would get super anger and be in a shitty mood for the rest of the day being stuck in traffic even though "being stuck in traffic" meant spending 5 more minutes on the road. 5 fucking minutes. Apparently, my depression-addled mind thought a mere 5 minutes was more than enough to lose his shit over. Somehow, being self-conscious about having yellow teeth meant that I should totally never ever brush my teeth ever again. When I was in the middle of losing my weight, I kept on thinking I was obese despite the fact that my BMI was already within normal range and various more accurate methods of calculating body fat (callipers, body impedance test) place my body fat percentage at an even lower number than BMI. But that still wasn't convincing enough, which eventually led me to give up and gain all of my weight back and then some because of reasons.

Being on antidepressants has led to a cascading effect which are these:

1. I know people always recommend exercise as a way of mitigating the effects of depression, but I personally believe that exercising consistently requires a certain amount of physical and mental discipline that people with depression often lack by virtue of having depression. In other words, I see exercise more as something to prevent you from falling back into depression rather than something to climb you out of depression. It's the reason why my attempts at losing weight and exercising failed the first time when I wasn't on antidepressants and why my second attempt is still going strong.

2. Being on antidepressants temporary reset my brain's wiring and allows me to actually be normal for the first time, which is very crucial as far as providing a baseline of how I should be feeling in case my mood becomes shitty again. CBT and mindfulness can only go so far if you have never truly felt what it's like to be content in the way normal people without depression experience content. If nothing else, the experience of being on antidepressants should provide you with a mental reference point that strengthen the effects of therapy and other means of handling depression. I am lucky in the sense that my antidepressants have kept my depression under control.

This video really shows that the dude only follows Smash and not any other esports or any other FG for that matter. A lot of the stuff he says makes me go, "yeah, Smash isn't the only game that has this." For most of his points, I could name at least one game (and can often name several) that has it as well, and I'm just a dude that mostly follows League with sporadic interest in other esports. I guess the video technically answers the question "why I like Smash?" but most of his answers don't really answer the question of "why I like Smash instead of Marvel/SF/Dota/CS:GO/HS/SC2/etc?"

Not gonna lie, I spend at least five minutes playing a game of trying to find any black people in the music video. So far, I found one black woman wearing a green suit/dress. It's hard to tell what she was wearing because she was in the back and you see her for less than a second.

The dude does nothing but post links to his shit blog.

There are so many other things wrong here but I'm not sure it's worth my time.

We all know the answer to that.

How does he draw so well with a hand that's so heavy?

j4d3 probably meant this thread.

I would tell him that there's a difference between claiming that his corner of the world sucks, which is an opinion that he is perfectly entitled to and I won't argue against since I am not him, and claiming that the world in general sucks, which he has no way of knowing. This hopefully pushes him to consider whether he actually believes that the world is a terrible place or whether he is merely projecting his torment caused by life circumstances onto other people. Whether he chooses to commit suicide or not, he does it with a hopefully more intellectually honest mind and emotionally honest heart.

Here's hoping this will light a fire up Twitch's asses and make them finally dump Flash for good.

I haven't really noticed anything different except for these two instances:

Maybe this is where you're getting the impression from? As far as I'm aware, there hasn't been any sitewide drama on Reddit that would cause people to ditch the site for Hubski.

People don't give a shit about homeless people, but will donate ~$55.5k to some dude making potato salad. Although to be far to Potato Salad Dude, he did the kickstarter as a joke and spend most of the money raised on charity or something.

Obligatory link every time the Daily Mail gets linked:

He discounts decades of European art and completely disregards any non-European traditions, many of which don't adhere to Western ideas of representation.

More like centuries of European art since he completely disregarded medieval art.

On a side note, I would take most things Prager University says with a grain of salt. They are not a real university, just a youtube channel that likes to publish clickbait titled videos with a heavily right wing stance on most of their issues. Things like dropping the A-bombs was the correct choice, modern art sucks, feminism is wrong and Christians being the most persecuted religion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but Prager University really gets my blood boiling.

To their credit, their video on the cause of the Civil War shits all over the Lost Cause, something that I fucking hate and wish would go away. At least, they didn't pull some revisionist bullshit about how the Civil War was actually about states' rights.

But nobody seems to ask whether football leads to antisocial violence, even though you could see that in Steubenville; nor does anyone ask whether cheerleading is dangerous, even though it has a pretty astounding injury rate.

We don't even need to do that. Just compare the amount of rioting that occur when a team lost or won a championship versus the amount of rioting caused by videogames.

Well sure. I didn't realize it was already popularized by a bunch of kings before Napoleon.

I still stand by the Mona Lisa being horribly overrated.

I'm very much in the camp of "what's the point of having realistic paintings when we already have cameras?" If you want to talk of "obsolete art," then to me, realistic art has been rendered obsolete by the invention of cameras that can take colored pictures. The only reason why paintings like this even exist is because photography wasn't invented yet. I am, are realistic portraits even a thing anymore in the 21st century?

Going back to the video, I'm really having trouble finishing the video because it's so terrible. It's the whole stereotypical, "The ancient Greeks/Romans were awesome! The Renaissance was awesome because they recognize how the ancient Greeks/Romans were awesome! Progress was straightforward until these shitters from the early 20th century ruined everything!" It ignores everything outside of the West. It presumes that there was "inferior art," presumably medieval art, that we "grew" out of. We might have developed more types of paints and more technique, but art isn't something that can be progressed in a meaningful sense.

All of this is opinion, of course. I think Girl with a Pearl Earring is a thoroughly unremarkable painting and Mona Lisa is a horribly overrated portrait that only got popular because Napoleon liked it and the painting was stolen from the Louvre in a famous heist during the 1900s. But proclaiming my own personal preferences and tastes as the only right one, or worse, an objective one, is complete asinine.

People who think gamers are violent because of playing GTA or Mortal Kombat know nothing about gaming. Videogames can absolutely incite gamers into committing acts of violence, but it's less "wow, GTA and Mortal Kombat are violent, so I'm going to be violent in real life too because reasons" and more "I broke my friend's nose because he kept on feeding with Teemo jungle" or "I got into a fight with a friend because he kept on peeking my side of the screen and unplugged my controller just as I was about to win in Mariokart."

Obligatory William Shatner's cover of Rocket Man

FYI, you repeated 2.4 twice.