>>535766360
>since fankidfags are literal lobotomites that need to laugh at the same joke for 2 years.
Tbf, that's not just a trait exclusive to fankidfags. There's many jokes here that have long since died off but live through regurgitation. That's just snoot and practically any online community in general.
>>535768816
>Because retards here don't know how to write characters
A lot of the times anons aren't gonna care about writing (Which is fair and why should they anyway?). Especially if the character itself doesn't feel community made. And even then whatever established lore that's made will end up being forgotten. Most wanna keep it simple because they don't wish to overcomplicate.
>so they just glue gimmicks to them like a child playing with figurines.
True. Not denying that. Then again it wouldn't stick otherwise if it didn't catch your attention with the gimmick first. It would probably die off before it could get any building. So they hope it catches on before it dies.
>The result is shallow characters that exist only to make one or two idiots laugh.
Even if said character was fully built up and written, that wouldn't really ensure it's survival. Threads are already prickly over characters. Which can result in complete rejection over it. Characters also need artfags behind them to ensure their survival alongside reinforcing characterization. Thread OC's don't really have detailed rentries (due to differing headcanons), but they got art and some loose greens that substitute for it.
>>535768218
I notice that male characters often get the dumb guy trait forced onto them a lot more (I call it Damien syndrome). Especially with extroverted, physically active, or non nerdy guys. Not even just average intelligence, but straight up giving them a lower IQ. I think it's because they're trying to avoid the Gary Stu label by using it as a quick solution. Which just harms them instead. And maybe to also place introverted nerds on a pedestal.