How accurate is this, Sup Forumssicians?

How accurate is this, Sup Forumssicians?

Not at all, just a generalization.

i'm on the bottom but im a guy, what's wrong with me ?

not even a little

very accurate

You're just gay.

Top is more like
>I hope that hipster girl asks what I'm listening to soon
>I'm sitting by myself, I feel like such a creeper
>I can't wait to get home and look at pictures of GPUs that are slightly different or identical to the GPU I am currently using
>This local craft beer is gross but I need people to know that I'm drinking it

>implying the person who made this has ever spoken to a woman

True

Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing

This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence. Hence Rousseau said, Les femmes, en général, n’aiment aucun art, ne se connoissent à aucun et n’ont aucun génie [Women have, in general, no love for any art; they have no proper knowledge of any; and they have no genius] (Lettre à d’Alembert, note xx.). Every one who can see through a sham must have found this to be the case. One need only watch the way they behave at a concert, the opera, or the play; the childish simplicity, for instance, with which they keep on chattering during the finest passages in the greatest masterpieces. If it is true that the Greeks forbade women to go to the play, they acted in a right way; for they would at any rate be able to hear something. In our day it would be more appropriate to substitute taceat mulier in theatro [Let woman keep silence in the theatre] for taceat mulier in ecclesia [Let woman keep silence in the church]; and this might perhaps be put up in big letters on the curtain

Nothing different can be expected of women if it is borne in mind that the most eminent of the whole sex have never accomplished anything in the fine arts that is really great, genuine, and original, or given to the world any kind of work of permanent value

Soap and shower is pretty great.

Oh wow, you know, you really don't have to be so mysoginistic

i done fixed t he tihng

Top is virgin nerd pretending to know how to enjoy/understand art.

Bottom is attention whore pretending to know how to enjoy/understand art but is far less pretentious and delusional.

this

This.

>implying heterosexual men can truly appreciate an art as intricate as music

There's a reason all the greats were at least bisexual.

>nice chord progression
fucking lol

>Not getting completely lost in the music to the point you don't even think of anything at all

lule

This is essentially my life except switch GPU for car parts

stoner metal chicks and country girls, I'm talking townes/hagggerd girls, aren't like this.

>concept albums
>lyrics
Absolute wettie spotted

t. someone whose crush got a boyfriend and now is salty

pretty accurate
im a girl btww

If you unironically post this image while having a last.fm account you should kill yourself.

Yet both are insufferable cunts.

The man should be thinking
>I'm a part of what some people call the "alt-right" and it feels punk as fuck. It feels like an actual counter culture, or rebellion against the PC culture that dominates American colleges.

The male representation isn't accurate for myself. I honestly hope that people are curious about what I listen to so that I can show them new music.

True

Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing

This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence. Hence Rousseau said, Les femmes, en général, n’aiment aucun art, ne se connoissent à aucun et n’ont aucun génie [Women have, in general, no love for any art; they have no proper knowledge of any; and they have no genius] (Lettre à d’Alembert, note xx.). Every one who can see through a sham must have found this to be the case. One need only watch the way they behave at a concert, the opera, or the play; the childish simplicity, for instance, with which they keep on chattering during the finest passages in the greatest masterpieces. If it is true that the Greeks forbade women to go to the play, they acted in a right way; for they would at any rate be able to hear something. In our day it would be more appropriate to substitute taceat mulier in theatro [Let woman keep silence in the theatre] for taceat mulier in ecclesia [Let woman keep silence in the church]; and this might perhaps be put up in big letters on the curtain

Nothing different can be expected of women if it is borne in mind that the most eminent of the whole sex have never accomplished anything in the fine arts that is really great, genuine, and original, or given to the world any kind of work of permanent value

t. the saltiest man who ever lived