5 ms·

They're not misunderstanding it they just don't accept your model of its value. No matter what your ethnicity someone on 4chan will make a joke about genocidin

They're not misunderstanding it they just don't accept your model of its value. No matter what your ethnicity someone on 4chan will make a joke about genociding you. The difference is that some people in the world actually are doing genocides. And someone from one of those groups, knowing that, is going to experience those jokes differently. 4chan, (and to a serious degree, HN) places the duty and the transgression on the person who has the bad experience with the genocide joke. But a completely valid model is actually that no, the genocide joke is the transgression and the one making it the transgressor. 4chan is not separate from the world it is part of it. And by fostering this environment you're providing cover for atrocities. Because not everyone is there just to have a fun time saying slurs! Some of them really do want us to die, and 4chan isn't just a diversion it is an actual site of conversion and radicalization towards their goals.

eindiran 3y ago
> And by fostering this environment you're providing cover for atrocities. To be clear, I am not "fostering [an] environment" or defending 4chan here at all, I am just pointing out that this is a misunderstanding of what the culture of 4chan is. Like the person I was replying to, I somehow doubt you have spent any time there. Where on the site are you even talking about? /g/? /lgbt/? /k/? /mu/? /pol/? /bant/? /sci/? /b/? Even though they share the cultural features I was talking about, they are quite distinct otherwise. Many people read threads on a topical board like /mu/ or /g/ and haven't spent any time on the more offensive or stomach-churning parts of the site like /pol/ or /b/. > Because not everyone is there just to have a fun time saying slurs I resent this implication that merely because I suggest people understand the things they are talking about that I am on 4chan using slurs. This style of argumentation would be right at home on the worst boards of 4chan... > it is an actual site of conversion and radicalization towards their goals 4chan is not a person, it doesn't have "goals" or opinions any more than heterogenous online communities like eg HN or Reddit do. I would agree that 4chan as a community does house more polarized opinions than most online communities, though that seems to be largely a function of not having upvotes and allowing anonymous posting. To your overall point, that this is a value difference between myself and the GP, I fully disagree. I am making a factual (and not value-centric) claim that toxicity towards anyone posting on the site is an integral part of the culture there.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  I stopped using 4chan 15 years ago when I realized that a huge portion of the people on there are not merely roleplaying nazis, but honestly hold the views they obscure behind the atmosphere of joking. Up to date knowledge of their internal jargon and shibboleths doesn't discredit my view of the site, it's still right there and it doesn't take long to confirm that my worst opinions of it from 2008 are still valid now. I never claimed that the site itself has opinions or goals. But its members do! and they emerge in the patterns of interaction and rhetoric eg its culture.
  - mtrower 3y ago
    > I stopped using 4chan 15 years ago when I realized that a huge portion of the people on there are not merely roleplaying nazis, but honestly hold the views they obscure behind the atmosphere of joking. How is that not an integral component of equal access?
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      "Wolves and sheep are equally welcome in this establishment."
      - mtrower 3y ago
        XD yes. I realize you’re probably trying to disagree with me, but, yes.
        emodendroket 3y ago
        The sheep are not going to visit in this scenario because a free-for-all is comfortable for the wolves and not for the sheep. I think this is pretty straightforward with a moment of thought. Here’s another thought: avowed Nazis are not, strictly speaking, stopped from participating in any pseudonymous forum, if they can keep their views on that subject to themselves. Why is this model less “open” or “egalitarian” than one where they’re allowed to barge into conversations and start spewing that stuff?
brookst 3y ago
> And someone from one of those groups, knowing that, is going to experience those jokes differently. This is the absolutely critical point that people are either too privileged to have ever thought of, or too disingenuous to admit. Yeah, I'm a relatively wealthy (by global standards) white guy of European descent. You can joke about genociding me and I'll laugh because it's a ridiculous thought. People who grew up genuinely at risk of genocide, or who had recent ancestors killed, don't see that same joke that same way. Worse, the people making those jokes about populations that are currently being exterminated are just doing the old "hey I'm a nazi, ha ha just kidding, can't you take a joke" thing. Which, great, free speech. But at some point if you're goose stepping in jest on a daily basis, that's just who you are. Kurt Vonnegut said it: we are what we pretend to be.
- zirgs 3y ago
  There's a genocide against white people going on right now in Ukraine.
- mtrower 3y ago
  > This is the absolutely critical point that people are either too privileged to have ever thought of, or too disingenuous to admit. ...or fundamentally disagree with? Yes, you're describing something real. You're also setting a double standard. Is it possible to understand the premises but come to different conclusions?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- _v7gu 3y ago
  > This is the absolutely critical point that people are either too privileged to have ever thought of, or too disingenuous to admit. You are also too privileged to think anyone might not be offended by those words, or even allow them the chance to speak for themselves. The banning of r/2balkan4u was a great exercise in the White Man's Burden of freeing the poor helpless "minorities" from Balkan inside jokes
- josefx 3y ago
randomdata 3y ago
> But a completely valid model is actually that no, the genocide joke is the transgression and the one making it the transgressor. The transgression is on those who carry out the genocide. There is no model where reminding someone of the existence of something is a transgression.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  Sure there's a model for that, that's why people give trigger warnings before going into discussions about take for example. You might not agree with it but there's definitely a model that many people subscribe to. People suffering the trauma of conflict can be hurt by harsh words. It's a choice to consider them or not when you speak.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Words can hurt, but that does not mean the formulation of the words is the transgression. Words only hurt when they speak to truth and what underlies a truth that hurts is where you find the transgression. It is your choice whether or not you choose to help work towards ending the transgression. Going about your day pretending something doesn't exist doesn't accomplish anything. If you need to subscribe to that model to hide from yourself from the fact that you don't actually care, it is your life to live, but it is not a model that works beyond one's self. The disingenuity is out there for everyone else.
    - AlecSchueler 3y ago
      I disagree. Words can certainly be transgressive given certain company or context. Being sensitive to the feelings of others doesn't have to be mutually exclusive to fighting against hatred and injustice. The fact that trigger warnings exist and are in use in many places is evidence of the existence of this model.
      - randomdata 3y ago
        There is only so much time in the day. Every minute spent in idle chit-chat where one might blurt out the wrong thing is time not spent dealing with the actual problem. Indeed, it is a mutually exclusive situation. It is not possible to do both at the same time. There is no denying the existence of the model, but it is used to try and hide from oneself that one doesn't actually care and would rather take the fun road of talking about it instead. Which is fine. It is your life to live and if that is what it takes to get through the day, so be it. It is not the altruistic behaviour you are trying to make it out to be, however.

eindiran 3y ago

> And by fostering this environment you're providing cover for atrocities. To be clear, I am not "fostering [an] environment" or defending 4chan here at all, I am just pointing out that this is a misunderstanding of what the culture of 4chan is. Like the person I was replying to, I somehow doubt you have spent any time there. Where on the site are you even talking about? /g/? /lgbt/? /k/? /mu/? /pol/? /bant/? /sci/? /b/? Even though they share the cultural features I was talking about, they are quite distinct otherwise. Many people read threads on a topical board like /mu/ or /g/ and haven't spent any time on the more offensive or stomach-churning parts of the site like /pol/ or /b/. > Because not everyone is there just to have a fun time saying slurs I resent this implication that merely because I suggest people understand the things they are talking about that I am on 4chan using slurs. This style of argumentation would be right at home on the worst boards of 4chan... > it is an actual site of conversion and radicalization towards their goals 4chan is not a person, it doesn't have "goals" or opinions any more than heterogenous online communities like eg HN or Reddit do. I would agree that 4chan as a community does house more polarized opinions than most online communities, though that seems to be largely a function of not having upvotes and allowing anonymous posting. To your overall point, that this is a value difference between myself and the GP, I fully disagree. I am making a factual (and not value-centric) claim that toxicity towards anyone posting on the site is an integral part of the culture there.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
I stopped using 4chan 15 years ago when I realized that a huge portion of the people on there are not merely roleplaying nazis, but honestly hold the views they obscure behind the atmosphere of joking. Up to date knowledge of their internal jargon and shibboleths doesn't discredit my view of the site, it's still right there and it doesn't take long to confirm that my worst opinions of it from 2008 are still valid now. I never claimed that the site itself has opinions or goals. But its members do! and they emerge in the patterns of interaction and rhetoric eg its culture.
- mtrower 3y ago
  > I stopped using 4chan 15 years ago when I realized that a huge portion of the people on there are not merely roleplaying nazis, but honestly hold the views they obscure behind the atmosphere of joking. How is that not an integral component of equal access?
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    "Wolves and sheep are equally welcome in this establishment."
    - mtrower 3y ago
      XD yes. I realize you’re probably trying to disagree with me, but, yes.
      - emodendroket 3y ago
        The sheep are not going to visit in this scenario because a free-for-all is comfortable for the wolves and not for the sheep. I think this is pretty straightforward with a moment of thought. Here’s another thought: avowed Nazis are not, strictly speaking, stopped from participating in any pseudonymous forum, if they can keep their views on that subject to themselves. Why is this model less “open” or “egalitarian” than one where they’re allowed to barge into conversations and start spewing that stuff?

brookst 3y ago

> And someone from one of those groups, knowing that, is going to experience those jokes differently. This is the absolutely critical point that people are either too privileged to have ever thought of, or too disingenuous to admit. Yeah, I'm a relatively wealthy (by global standards) white guy of European descent. You can joke about genociding me and I'll laugh because it's a ridiculous thought. People who grew up genuinely at risk of genocide, or who had recent ancestors killed, don't see that same joke that same way. Worse, the people making those jokes about populations that are currently being exterminated are just doing the old "hey I'm a nazi, ha ha just kidding, can't you take a joke" thing. Which, great, free speech. But at some point if you're goose stepping in jest on a daily basis, that's just who you are. Kurt Vonnegut said it: we are what we pretend to be.

zirgs 3y ago
There's a genocide against white people going on right now in Ukraine.
mtrower 3y ago
> This is the absolutely critical point that people are either too privileged to have ever thought of, or too disingenuous to admit. ...or fundamentally disagree with? Yes, you're describing something real. You're also setting a double standard. Is it possible to understand the premises but come to different conclusions?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
_v7gu 3y ago
> This is the absolutely critical point that people are either too privileged to have ever thought of, or too disingenuous to admit. You are also too privileged to think anyone might not be offended by those words, or even allow them the chance to speak for themselves. The banning of r/2balkan4u was a great exercise in the White Man's Burden of freeing the poor helpless "minorities" from Balkan inside jokes
josefx 3y ago

randomdata 3y ago

> But a completely valid model is actually that no, the genocide joke is the transgression and the one making it the transgressor. The transgression is on those who carry out the genocide. There is no model where reminding someone of the existence of something is a transgression.

AlecSchueler 3y ago
Sure there's a model for that, that's why people give trigger warnings before going into discussions about take for example. You might not agree with it but there's definitely a model that many people subscribe to. People suffering the trauma of conflict can be hurt by harsh words. It's a choice to consider them or not when you speak.
- randomdata 3y ago
  Words can hurt, but that does not mean the formulation of the words is the transgression. Words only hurt when they speak to truth and what underlies a truth that hurts is where you find the transgression. It is your choice whether or not you choose to help work towards ending the transgression. Going about your day pretending something doesn't exist doesn't accomplish anything. If you need to subscribe to that model to hide from yourself from the fact that you don't actually care, it is your life to live, but it is not a model that works beyond one's self. The disingenuity is out there for everyone else.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    I disagree. Words can certainly be transgressive given certain company or context. Being sensitive to the feelings of others doesn't have to be mutually exclusive to fighting against hatred and injustice. The fact that trigger warnings exist and are in use in many places is evidence of the existence of this model.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      There is only so much time in the day. Every minute spent in idle chit-chat where one might blurt out the wrong thing is time not spent dealing with the actual problem. Indeed, it is a mutually exclusive situation. It is not possible to do both at the same time. There is no denying the existence of the model, but it is used to try and hide from oneself that one doesn't actually care and would rather take the fun road of talking about it instead. Which is fine. It is your life to live and if that is what it takes to get through the day, so be it. It is not the altruistic behaviour you are trying to make it out to be, however.