> 4chan has a horrible reputation in the outside world.
That's because without any particular individuals to point the finger to, they just blame the monolith of "anonymous individuals".
People have always feared the unknown, and the obvious coping mechanism is to aggregate it into some tangible form, whether it's the Boogeyman, Baba Yaga, the Devil, Anonymous, or any other villain, to be used as a scapegoat.
I think communities attract types of folks unless they become uber popular (like reddit) to the point they can attract everyone. 4chan was interesting when I found it, but I quickly found it became mostly toilet humor at its best, and was often (i.e. every time I opened it) full of racism and sexism. It was a safe place for immature folks to shout whatever they wanted and not care who it affected -- though of course anyone affected likely ditched the cesspool anyways. Yet, as I watched one of my friends continue to use it, I don't think it was pure coincidence that their own verbiage became increasingly vulgar and desensitized. As some of my friends matured as they grew up, I found he went the opposite direction (at least in online messaging).
> It was a safe place for immature folks to shout whatever they wanted and not care who it affected
It is sad that the popularity of internet has reached such proportions that people are no longer responsible for what they read by their own choice, but rather people seem to be responsible for what they write, regardless of the fact that anyone can choose not to read it.
Internet posts are just text, yet people act as if we're forcing others to read what we write. Imagine if writing books that make other people feel bad was banned - what a culture would that be.
"Internet posts are just text, yet people act as if we're forcing others to read what we write. Imagine if writing books that make other people feel bad was banned - what a culture would that be."
Between death threats and insults directed at real people - and a fictionary book, there is usually a difference, even though books can be bad as well, if they are directed against certain people (e.g. Mein Kampf).
Arguably, there have been a good number of wars (ostensibly) over books (in particular religious texts seem to do the trick), whereas we are yet to declare war over any form of web content.
People tried the latter a number of times already. Then the activism at US unis happened; first, about a decade or a bit more ago, lefties not only stuffed books with trigger warnings, but fought (and in a few cases successfully) for books to be banned from universities because they made them feel "unwell".
Then, as if copying them, right-wingers tried the same in recent years.
It's a shit culture, that's what.
But 4chan wears its infamy on its sleeve with pride (usually white pride.) The Alfred E. Neuman shtick of disaffected bemusement was stale even when Mad was published on dead trees.
But go ahead and take the last laugh. You're being neither clever nor insightful here.
If all you know about 4chan is /b/ and /pol/ then your opinion is valid, but there are lots of other boards there. In any case I find it useful to see at times what the most opinionated people are really thinking when there are no filters and rules to silence them. Like Isaac Asimov said: "Any book worth banning is a book worth reading." And at times "the worst kind of people" there are spot on in their obsessions. I 100% agree with them that child and human trafficking is a big issue in this world and some of the most powerful people are definitely involved.
> what the most opinionated people are really thinking when there are no filters and rules to silence them
I'm not sure what "most opinionated" would mean or how'd you determine relative levels, but I would bet whatever metric you chose wouldn't find the most opinionated people on 4chan. Also just because people say things online doesn't mean they actually hold that opinion.
> I 100% agree with them that child and human trafficking is a big issue in this world and some of the most powerful people are definitely involved
Oh, ok, you weren't actually responding to the parent comment at all.
The thing is, everyone already knew that child and human trafficking is a big issue in this world. No one needed to wade through the cesspool to find that out. But 4chan doesn't actually give a damn about the kids. They got obsessed with phantom sex cults under pizzerias and decoding gematria in emails because they wanted to undermine Hillary Clinton's election and because they got completely washed by actual non-ironic nazis who believe all "leftists" in power (IE the Democratic Party) are pedophiles because they equate LGBT with pedophilia and, by extension, Democratic support for the former with a likely predilection for the other.
And then they came up with QAnon, not out of any sincere concern for "the children," but just as a shitpost that took off because it was too on the nose, and now legitimate efforts to curb child abuse are being hamstrung by this insane obsession they've bred into the zeitgeist to see trans people as "groomers" and secret pedo conspiracies everywhere.
And yet, even though they'll gladly take credit for it, none of them saw Epstein coming. Sure, one anon posted about Epstein's death before it hit the news. That's about all they can legitimately take credit for, but overall they've done more harm than good.
No, in the comment you've originally replied to I have clearly stated a possible explanation of why 4chan has a bad reputation. Please refrain from pointless "no u" comments, and attack my arguments instead.
> But 4chan wears its infamy on its sleeve with pride (usually white pride.)
4chan is not an entity onto itself - it is composed of many individuals, that was the whole point of my post. But because you don't know the identity of those individuals, you just consider them a monolith and put collective blame onto them.
Additionaly, the official rule 3. of 4chan states:
You will not post any of the following outside /b/:
[...]
b. Racism
[...]
> But go ahead and take the last laugh. You're being neither clever nor insightful here.
On /b/, all legal (in the US) content is permitted. It serves as a sort of containment board for the degenerates to shitpost, leaving other boards alone. Nobody takes any content from /b/ seriously, and the nickname for /b/ users is "/b/tards".
In fact, /b/ is just a small part of 4chan, one that most users actually loathe, but which seems to be the most highlighted in public consciousness. Probably due to its complete lack of censorship, which seems to be frowned upon in this day and age.
You are technically correct if we take the literal interpretation of my words, however, the literal interpretation is not the intended one. The intended interpretation is that no reasonable person takes /b/ seriously.
Perhaps you have some kind of impairment that prevents you from understanding subtleties of informal speech, but I think it's more likely you're just taking a piss.
> I take it seriously
Then you should check out the text under the title on /b/ :)
The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
The question, "What evidence would change your mind?" is perfectly reasonable.
It's a proxy for "Does your response to this topic involve trapped-priors?" Most people aren't willing to reveal or acknowledge they have trapped-priors and so it jumps to the end of the conversation where they simply leave. It's saves my time discussing topics by avoiding interactions with close-minded people.
On the rest of 4chan outside of /b/, you'll find lots of racist comments. Particularly on /pol/, but there are plenty even ignoring that board. You can report particular posts for breaking the "racism outside of /b/" rule, but it's very hit-or-miss whether the rule is enforced.
Strictly speaking, “That is idiotic” does apply to the argument, as written in the quote. It’s not a personal insult, it’s a characterization of the quality of the argument.
I suppose the rules are trying to say that you should avoid such characterizations, but that’s a dubious rule.
Would it be ok to praise the quality of the argument? If so, it should be ok to criticize it as well. Not all arguments are as clear cut as 1+1=2, and there are other criteria by which arguments can be evaluated.
It’s a claim about the nature of an argument. Do you believe it’s not possible for an argument to be idiotic?
> Why would the former imply the latter?
Because restricting speech that’s critical leads to a degradation of the quality of dialog.
Idiotic arguments exist. So do spurious arguments, disingenuous arguments, bad arguments, pointless arguments, dishonest arguments, and so on. Which of those adjectives would you like to ban when discussing the quality of an argument?
> It's a claim about the nature of an argument. Do you believe it's not possible for an argument to be idiotic?
No, I believe that an argument is either valid or invalid. Any other characteristic is meaningless in pursuit of truth.
Consider the meaning of the term "idiotic": something that only an idiot would say. Therefore, "that is idiotic" means "that is something that only an idiot would say", which in turn implies that the person saying it is an idiot.
> Idiotic arguments exist. So do spurious arguments, disingenuous arguments, bad arguments, pointless arguments, dishonest arguments, and so on. Which of those adjectives would you like to ban when discussing the quality of an argument?
The only one I'd like to ban is "idiotic", since it's the only one that insults the person. "Dishonest" is a little tricky, since it's hard to prove someone's intentions or honesty, but depending on the context it might be okay. All the other adjectives are only describing the quality of the argument, without insulting the person - and while meaningless by themselves (what does "bad argument" mean?), I'd consider them fine to be used, as long as further elaboration is included.
Some examples of other adjectives I'd ban are "retarded", "stupid", "foolish", "lazy", "malicious", since they all insult a person or imply bad motivations, without providing any information.
Dude, you need to take a hard look at yourself. Looking at your last comments, it seems that you've been drinking your own kool-aid and truly believe you have the objective truth about everything. It's either that or you're a keyboard warrior in desperate need for an ego boost.
That's because without any particular individuals to point the finger to, they just blame the monolith of "anonymous individuals".
People have always feared the unknown, and the obvious coping mechanism is to aggregate it into some tangible form, whether it's the Boogeyman, Baba Yaga, the Devil, Anonymous, or any other villain, to be used as a scapegoat.