Has the rise of the internet, for the most part, caused

No, its caused culture to multiply exponentially. The only reason "culture" seems so dead right now is because the internet and mass media make sure that nothing truly notable rises to the top. Subcultures upon subcultures. The la li lu le lo are behind it all.

File: IMG_1810.jpg (83KB, 654x900px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 654x900px

>has the rise of (insert literally anything here) caused culture to plateau?
The answer will always be no, it's just your perspective. Non-Americans aren't always obsessing about their culture because it's just a normal part of their lives, it's not something special. America has a culture and it's the dominant one on a global scale (most countries share certain aspects of it) so of course you're not gonna recognize it. You snap your fingers "oh, tea=britain" but it's not that simple for us

MNo, it has completely accelerated and therefore destroyed the creative process. It does this by denying new creative artistic outlets the time they need to develop and gestate before blowing up from shitty newcomers rushing in to a new genre and therefore shitting it up See vaporwave, dubstep, or anything remotely new in the internet age.

>>3379686
Does non-Americans always obsessing about Americans not mean their own culture is bankrupt though?

>>3379655
Your post implies that there's such a thing as technological determinism which I feel pretty confident in saying is categorically wrong. The internet could have helped culture to plateau (and culture where? In the US? The western world?) but it certainly didn't cause it

It's low culture but r9k thinks they're at the forefront

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAExa9P7hME