>>3889540>durr im too intelligent for a mere loner landscape shooter as you durrno it’s pretty obvious you’re just flailing around like a wounded, cornered animal and saying any more in a (futile) attempt to refute me would somehow worsen your situation. i’ll happily keep this up until the bump limit and then some if you want to lengthen your crippling misery to a crossthread.
>muh strawmanfirst it was peterson lecture clips, and now it’s /pol/‘s infographic of logical fallacies, what’s next? i’m guessing your tourist peabrain needs me to elaborate further, so here i go. by your logic, the only way photos can have any creative merit is if the photographer has input, which would discount any shot that doesn’t have an actor or at least some prop, yet picrel of a literal mural that i had nothing to do with beforehand was apparently suitable for /lit/ anons (as edgy as they are) to lay over a cool, angsty poem on it. what was that about “complex themes“ and “dark corners of the mind” again?
oh, and:
>inb4 adhominem>inb4 reddit spacingcope, dilate, cringe, go back
