You really are a bad person. Stop it.

>>5075879
For the record, this event is for doujin music, not denpa music specifically. But the organizer and DJs all like denpa music, so it ends up tending very strongly in that direction.

They do argue about what is or isn't denpa a lot in Japan too. "trudenpa" (non-moe denpa about crazy stuff) is called "real-kei" denpa. But the arguments rarely involve that, because the term "denpa song" (as opposed to just occasionally calling music "denpa" as an adjective or "real-kei denpa" without "song") came into existence to describe the over the top moe music for erogames.

I think I've finally thought up how to explain why "moe" music is "denpa" to English speakers. When you don't speak the language, you are mostly missing the "cringe" aspect of moe denpa music. Imagine a lady from your country, in your language, singing lyrics like "i wuv you master meowow!" and you can maybe understand it a little better. This is how the term denpa was originally used mockingly - the music was considered so cringey and embarrassing with their blatant pandering, only a crazy (denpa) person on a different wavelength could appreciate it. I think a lot of foreigners are only exposed to Japanese through anime, so it becomes the language of the fantasy, anime world, and is more resistant to that cringe effect because of it. (Not saying this to badmouth those whose exposure to Japanese is through anime.) This is not the only way for a song to be denpa - but it is why many moe songs are called denpa.

>>5075882
Because of this, in my experience at least, the main argument of what is denpa or not is based on if it's funny / cringey / cheesey enough. The argument of "that's not denpa" is usually from a "that song is too good to denpa" rather than "that song isn't good enough to be denpa." An example would be true my heart from ave;new. The song was made to be a regular song, not to be over the top like the ave;new project songs, but it got lumped in with the denpa songs due to people mishearing the lyrics and making it into a meme. So some people say the "comical" aspect is forced onto the song from the meme, and the song lacks any denpa aspect on its own, and it's disrespectful to poke fun at this song by calling it a denpa song.

UNDER17 and MOSAIC.WAV all were a couple of the early artists to have their music called "denpa song" and they rejected this term - yes even MOSAIC.WAV, who instead insisted on "A-POP." Momoi Haruko also spoke at one of her concerts and on her radio show about how she didn't like the term denpa song and the mocking comments she got online, since she made her songs in all sincerity, not to be funny. However, on a later radio episode, she said she would make a denpa song using contributions from the radio listeners. (The song is Cue!) So she seems to have softened her opinion on the term too.

In my opinion it is thanks to great artists like Momoi and MOSAIC.WAV who put real talent and thought into their otaku music, rather than just trying to create a throwaway gag song, that denpa song music was able to influence mainstream music - and this has caused the umbrella of what is considered denpa to expand. They were on the cutting edge and stood their ground despite the haters. However now and then, one thing is the same - everybody feels denpa a little differently. So try and have a little patience with those who are on a different wavelength than you. Moe and denpa are good buddies with each other.

Don't encourage it. Don't act stupid. Don't even reply.

>>5075890
Doing these things makes them think it's good.

I'm talking to myself as well. But what then can be done when someone thinks debasing something is OK?

I don't know who you are, but I am frequently on this board so it's likely that we've spoken before.

>>5075894
That implies reason and logic are at work in the forces of nature, which they aren't. There is no reason, there is no purpose. We're not here for any reason. That's why you have to understand reality construction principles. You are in control of reality constantly and can do whatever you want with it. The future doesn't even exist yet so you can make it into anything.

>>5075898
Well, to play along with your idea: If Humans introduced the concept of logic to make sense of the things around them. To deny logic is to deny humanity.

File: 1483906560941.gif (13KB, 209x301px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 209x301px

>>5075879
dumb rudeposters

>>5075916
You want rude? I could give you an example of the dumbest, most rude people around. But I won't because pointing fingers wouldn't help, and it would be extra rude to expose them.

>>5075902
Yeah right. Tell that to the Vulcans.

If I told you something you disagreed with would you be denying humanity because I am supposedly a human and introduced the idea?

>>5075935
Some things are largely agreed on by the majority. You can have opinions, but your opinion isn't always correct.

>>5075947
Majority doesn't make something inherently correct.
But it does make it constructively correct.
Reality constuction principles acts from the working majority and the working majority is infinite in scope.
It bores me when people talk of the current state of the working majority as being significant when it isn't even there, but constantly fluctuating, and you're able to find a wide variety of working majorities depending on where you look at any time.
There is a working majority that agrees with you and one that disagrees with you, yet so many choose to believe that the current working majority they are in is the "correct" one.
It's like drinking a glass of water and in that moment thinking it is the only glass of water to have ever been drank or ever will be drunk by anyone.
Yes, in that moment it is yours. And that's where your ownership of your perception of the working majority ends and you have the choice to alter that perception at any time.

>>5075979
>Majority doesn't make something inherently correct.
That's true, many groups on 4chan are a great example of that.
>But it does make it constructively correct.
What is really correct is what is TRULY for the better of humanity. As a more personalized example: non-critical, negative portrayal of something you claim to like, or encouragement and approval of that type of negative portrayal, is not good for the well-being of that which you claim to like, because it would encourage others to turn it into something else entirely.

If you encourage the destabilize the fundamentals of something you claim to like, then you end up hurting the people who like the thing for what it is. It's chaotic and selfish of someone to do that.


I guess what I'm trying to say, is that casuals walk in and try to change things they don't really care about and understand, and the loss of such people would make it better for those who truly care. Understand the things that attract casuals, and reduce and remove those things.

>>5076034
"Many groups on 4chan" is an example of constructive correctness, not inherent. It does show someone who has never dabbled in reality construction principles that what they took as inherent correctness has apparent deviations. Without a proper understanding they would likely mislabel it as you have.

Bettering humanity being the correct ritual to undertake is a concept for a working majority. There is a working majority for the deprecation of humanity as well, but that's beside the point you're trying to make, it's really just semantics of my specific view.

I feel that casuals are those that have no passion and end up somewhere they never wanted to be, yet remain.
Going on reality construction principles, some days I am a full blown casual, other days I am passionately hardcore for my work.

Reality construction principles knows this to be true. A balance must be mainatined one way or another.
Sometimes I choose to play even if I'm clearly not in the mood to play.
This is my choice and my choice to make again or not in the future.

Anyway, yeah. That was the whole deal with the archons. Maybe that wasn't clear.
Archons make people casuals.
It sux. keep up the fite. etc etc.
nite sweetie

>>5076068
But when speaking about something as a whole with only two generalized options, there can only be one majority. In this case, it's positives vs negatives for all of humanity.

>>5076108
right now its a struggle or just trying to be fantastic or just chillin as if you got it together type people

Good thread, glad to see people that understand reality construction principles again

>>5075898
PS did I write this because this seems like something I said once

>>5076449
lol ya