I'll ask again, who are the ones who decide what 'high' and 'low' culture are?
First off, d***e, you never asked me this.
Second, try dealing with the actual points your interlocutor makes, especially when they've directly answered the question you've asked. All you've done is go off on a new tangent, pretending as if you had asked me something before, even though it has nothing to do with the previous question asked, and the answer given (hints of Ne user: probably INFP [INFx seemed rather obvious from the start]).
But, to answer your question: those who have the knowledge to do so.
Because clearly, that could only happen when those pesky lessers are involved.
Apparently you missed all those times where I said that I partake in both low and high culture readily.
Try opening your eyes before, once again, you shoot your mouth off.
This can be perpetuated by either side is what I'm saying.
If you compare our current dominant low culture with the canon of high culture, there is far more exploitation of children's sexuality going on in low culture than there is in the canon of high culture. There is a semi-interesting discussion to be had here, but you're so missing the proper degree of proportionality to each side that you've rendered such a discussion useless.
Some people consider Vladimir Nobokov's novel Lolita to be a fine piece of literature.
Personally, I found it to be more than a little disturbing and pretty damn disgusting.
That is one interesting piece where an interesting debate could be had.
But, considering that is one book, amongst hundreds or thousands that would properly be considered high culture, 99% of which would yield no such difficult a debate, it would be myopic to focus too intently on Lolita and thus completely miss the forest for one tree.
Again,
my OP addressed this line of thinking.
[emphasis
yours]
I'm sorry, I don't recall responding to you, nor knowing or caring who you are.
A very worthwhile topic of discussion.
Perhaps you should just read the post above that already addressed this topic:
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64885&p=2153478&viewfull=1#post2153478
Does 'low' culture equate to 'easily accessible'?
No, probably not.
There is plenty of not-easily-accessible low culture.
Does 'high' culture equate and appeal to laughably pretentious individuals?
Regarding the former, I doubt culture "equates" to people.
And regarding the latter, I don't know, do you like high culture, "Mr. PURE Type"?
I would think...that a highly cultured member of society such as yourself would know the definition of 'implied'.
Well, I am not surprised that a lowly cultured member of society such as yourself would not know the definition of "projection".
Purporting elitism may be closer to what you've actually been doing.
Once again, projection.
And if you expect to get any kind of response from now on, do not selectively respond to what I write. Respond to every part of it. I understand that your entire posting style thus far has been an exercise in not reading, misreading, and reading into what was written what was not actually there, but maybe having to actually deal with each word written would help stop you from doing so.
(wishful thinking, I know, considering the extent of the problems displayed, but we may hope...)
'Something I won't even bother to think about must be wrong so you should shut up'.
What a big baby.
Actually, you have no idea what the fuck I have or have not thought about.
As it stands, you sound like another typical piece of Eurotrash who comes here thinking they know all about what they're talking about, when really they're just another prototypical postmodernist who doesn't have a clue.
Try being around here for more than a day or two, with 4 posts, before thinking you know who the fuck people are and what they're about.
If anyone's a baby around here, it's you.
Ouch.
You really got me there, bub.