"Hltv normies were all mad: "another tournament, another victory for SK", "sk made csgo boring", "is it just me or 2013-2015 CS was so much better?" "
Yes, people whine, that doesn't make an era. People say the same thing about Liquid now.
"Sk era was so great until today butthurt fags complain about it, certainly the most hated era ever, "
Why was it so great then? Just because people complain about it not happening doesn't mean it does happen.
"nobody remembers astralis era 1 year ago, nobody remembers cloud9 2 weeks era, nobody cares about liquid 1 month era, but you can remember a sk two years era"
Because those weren't eras. If you actually think any of those teams have an era, you need to need to reconsider your definition. I know that it's subjective, but that still doesn't mean all opinions are correct. The general consensus is that a team has to be both dominant, but also be dominant for an extended period of time. The SK had a few small periods of when they were the top, but the timeframe for each of those were pretty short.
It doesn't matter how many people complain whether a team has an era. An era comes down to the accomplishment of the team itself, not how many people are "mad." That, is truly a stupid argument. You haven't been able to refute a single point provided by me, or anybody else, and all you have been doing is making statements of what people said at the time. People once believed that the Earth was flat, does that make them right?
About the ad hominem (nice Redditor vocabulary by the way), the OP and I provided our case on why SK/LG doesn't have an era, and as far as I'm confirmed, calling what you said stupid is perfectly reasonable to me since you didn't say anything of substance.