>>108091619>Trying to express yourself in a manner that portrays yourself as a quirky individual fits bothAgain you have to prove it is fake first.
>Anon, if you don’t know the actual definition of Quirky, why are you even arguing this?Being simple and cute doesn't mean being quirky. Being quirky means acting with a quirk that might make you look cute.
It's not being cute and endearing in itself that make you quirky, it's that you have a quirk that might make you incidentally look cute that make you quirky. you call the quirky, but are unable to describe the quirk. you call them simple and cute, but that's the conclusion, you first need to explain what the quirk is. Mind you, someone can be naturally quirky and there is nothing wrong with that.
Now, "Trying to be quirky" is pretending to have a quirk YOU DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE, faking it, and when that's the case, yes it is valid complain.
>Which you’ve failed to provide any evidence for in the first placeI provide my justification of why you make empty accusation just after, you should have kept reading before replying.
>Taking such mundane and boring events and trying to portray them and pretend like they’re stories worth watchingIt's something they want to tell. you still haven't proven they are pretending.
>They haven’t proven themselves real to begin with,Anon, it's up to you to prove they are fake. You are the one accusing them of that therefore you need to prove it.
>Actually, you don’t, because the very act of including in their performance itself is clear indicator than they intend for it to be. No, it isn't. someone sincere using a medium to express themself lead to the same result.
>No, there’s still the fact that it’s boring and low effort, which you conveniently ignore.I don't ignore it, but it has nothing to do with "trying to be quirky"
I rest my point, for your critic to be vaide, you first need to prove they are faking it.
