Honestly its just getting out of hand, why wont the admin step in to solve this?
black penis
Who gives a shit nice bait though.
>>3
who gives a shit? umm, sweetie? you done a heckin transphobia and we dont stand for that here
Traps are gay that's a internet rule if you want a hugbox go to Twitter or drink bleach like Amanda Todd and an hero.
I don't care about edgy jokes, you're bound to find them on any anonymous board. But I don't think there's a noticeable sentiment of genuine hatred here. It's nothing like some other textboards where you can almost always guarantee that the post isn't ironic.
This also OP keep in mind a lot of the post here were made in like 2006 back then things were different nobody cared about race or LGBT stuff and those people were often the butt of a joke back then.
>>1-999 same person
I don't think actual moderation is required here (this isn't a quote unquote safe space & deleting opinions we don't agree with isn't very "BBS culture") but I definitely think this sucks & the main proponent should stop shitting up these threads lol
ok dude whatever your a gen-z newfag zoomer faggot and you should an-hero over 9000 times (do you get that reference btw) also saged.
Hate speech has no place here
If you can't take rudeness, you seriously don't belong on an anonymous bbs.
Anonymous textboards don't actually have any inherent traits except for whatever the sysop decides on, really. All that stuff about having to be rude or freedom of speech or whatever is just bullshit someone made up and tried to pass as their "objective opinion" (lol). Almost as dumb as people who say imageboards are meant to always allow otaku stuff just because Futaba, the first one, does.
you have SAoVQ and dis.tinychan for bigoted shit anyway
>All that stuff about having to be rude or freedom of speech or whatever is just bullshit someone made up and tried to pass as their "objective opinion" (lol).
The 8chan boom really made every new wannabe imageboard that comes after it tack on "freeze peach" like it's supposed an advantage, not realizing that it's probably the main reason why every new imageboard is so cancerous.
>>14,16
Shii's ramblings and their consequences have been a disaster for anonymous forums.
Why should some obnoxious people receive special treatment over other obnoxious people? Obnoxious people deserve to be shunned for their obnoxiousness regardless of ideological orientation.
Now everyone wants to be the asshole of the internet.
People who say shit like this are retarded. Let me explain something to you since clearly you can't figure it out yourself. Most of the people who you regard as <buzzword for person you don't like> wouldn't even be here if you and your ilk weren't so aggressive in restricting speech. As a personal anecdote, I would never have even cared about what you think if the places and communities I visited weren't invaded and destroyed by aggressive speech policing and thought-crime witch hunting that you people create everywhere you go. I never would have seen /pol/, I never would have seen the things that lead me to oppose this tranny bullshit, I never would have thought about race, and I would have been content to just play video games. YOU are why we are "radicalized", YOU created the boom in NatSoc online, YOU created "racists and transphobes", YOU created the need for places with freedom of speech and expression (which you now openly mock and seek to destroy). YOUR BEHAVIOR is the biggest recruitment tool for your political enemies and the people you regard as "the bad guys". Go use one of the other dozens of websites that cater to you if you hate free speech so much, and I encourage anybody who wants to destroy their site in the long term to take OPs advice.
hate speech should be banned because it is essentially trolling which also should be banned
>Go use one of the other dozens of websites that cater to you
You could say this to anyone who doesn't like something about a website. In fact, if ssz started banning transphobia or whatever, you could get told that w
Also,
>YOU are why we are "radicalized", YOU created the boom in NatSoc online, YOU created "racists and transphobes", YOU etc.
So you guys basically have no agency at all?
>>21
Then don't be surprised when nobody takes you seriously, since you dismiss instead of engage. If I was wrong, it would be easy for you to craft an argument. But neither you nor anybody else does. All you accomplish is reinforcing what I've already said.
>>22
Those are bold claims, I think it's interesting that you chose not to elaborate on them. Care to?
>>23
Yes, that's why I am saying it to you on this website. Convenient that you left out the context of why, though. I don't go to other websites and demand they do what I want, I find websites that do what I want and leave when that stops being the case. This seems to be the opposite of what you are doing, and the operative problem I described revolves around people like you demanding that things change to their liking instead of creating their own spaces or using ones that already exist. I also am not familiar with ssz, but under the assumption you've assumed I use it despite no indication, I call strawman.
>>24
This may be hard for you to grasp, but I and many others of whom I speak are multifaceted characters. Pointing out the irony that the primary initiative against what you hate made it explode in popularity is not an admission to a lack of agency, nor does it demonstrate that the people described have only that one trait. In simple terms, describing a carrot as "orange" does not mean that this is the only thing that can describe the carrot; It's one small piece of the whole. In the same way, people spurred to political action and thought by people destroying communities they care about are not only defined by that one thing. Implying otherwise is disingenuous.
iOS-kun???? Is that you?
YOU are why we are "radicalized", YOU created the boom in NatSoc online, YOU created "racists and transphobes", YOU created the need for places with freedom of speech and expression (which you now openly mock and seek to destroy).so wait. the thread Lets discuss the Nazi heritage was started on /debate/ 7 years ago and went on for 160 posts with the moderators barely touching it (there are some deleted posts, but I assume they were "dicks out for h*r*mbe" or the like) because people were "aggressive in restricting speech"? here on 4-ch?
I also am not familiar with sszssz is the current administrator of this site
If you can't take rudeness, you seriously don't belong on an anonymous bbsbut 4-ch is rarely actually rude, typically most posts are pretty collaborative. It's not like 4chan where everyone actually is shitting on each other. perhaps you're confusing healthy debates or memetic shitposting for rudeness?
guys please shut up i made this bait thread to make the "old internet" guy angry and your still bumping it
>>25
You don't know what a strawman is you nerd.
>>27
In terms of timeline of the wider events that led to the aforementioned boom, that thread would have largely preceded it. I am not claiming such things didn't exist, I am claiming that they were previously much less common and popular than they are today, which is an important distinction. Citing this as a refutation of my point demonstrates a lack of understanding on why I oppose the OP to such an extreme degree in the first place. I'll say it as many times as necessary, I am interested in preservation and not change.
Again, it seems like your deliberately trying to manipulate what is being said by playing games with the scope of the argument. The "people" I refer to are those who go from place to place spreading their ideology. Their M.O. is typically to embed themselves somewhere, complain that the place is intolerant or "ist" or "phobic" etc., attack the original members as being so as well, and eventually destroy it through a combination of alienating the userbase and restricting what is allowed to be said to an extreme degree that the intended topic for the entire site is all but lost. They then leave and repeat the process for the next place. It's been described as a sort of social cancer, but I prefer to think of it as a weaponized version of "death of a hobby", if you've seen that little comic.
I wouldn't know why people start those sorts of threads, I am not them, and as such any explanation I can provide would be little more than a guess.
And the insults are already leaking in, which I'm probably also guilty of without realizing. This is deliberately charged language, and seems designed to trap me. Let me respond by posing a different question: If places A, B, and C have restrictions like the ones I so fervently hate, and places X, Y, and Z have hands off moderation like what I am trying to argue for, than it can be understood that there is a relative balance. But if ABC tries to push their restrictions on XYZ, its natural that XYZ would respond as though it were a threat, right? And likewise ABC would be justified in the reverse situation. Ultimately, you can tell which is happening by what changes are being called for. In this case, what I see as more restrictive policies in moderation are being advocated for, and as someone who dearly loves XYZ I perceive this as a dire threat to what I care about. The magnitude of the threat at the moment does not concern me, because I am deeply terrified of it spreading. This is why I am so aggressive in attempting to destroy it when I see it.
As for "shitting up random websites" I find many websites and lurk every day to decide if that place is something that is for me. I don't advocate for places to change as you seem to imply or as OP demands.
>>28
I am not strawmanning whatsoever. Giant wall of text though this post may be, I do have a point informed by experience. Giving an inch and taking a mile, as they say. It starts with "be more tolerant" and ends with an exodus. This escalation is what I am concerned with. I will admit that I have a large number of issues with transsexualism and the "treatments" given to those affected. This is not something that informs my argument, as I would be this vitriolic over literally any similar call regardless of which groups were involved.
In general, I will concede that moderation is necessary. As mentioned by others, things like gorilla posting are rightfully deleted and just posting the word nigger does nothing for good discussion or board quality. Perhaps I am being too aggressive in my approach in making my case over the course of this thread, and maybe there is a middle ground on the issue that can be reached. I feel very strongly about this issue though, and my concern is only deepened by some of the responses which seem to be in full support of OP and dismiss anything to the contrary without even considering it. I want, above all things, for the board to be good and not to fall victim to the same fate as so many others because of what I can only describe as virtue signalling.
Take the second half of this discussion to /current/ you spergs
check my dubs on the way out
>>28
Good post.
>>35
It's hella gay, mate.
Having a chill place > muh freeze peach
Racists, transphobes and bigots of all kinds should not be welcomed here
>>38
Based, bigots need to burn.