5 ms·

> 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

> 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.

krapp 3y ago
Nah. 4chan's reputation is entirely deserved.
- bheadmaster 3y ago
  Nah. 4chan's reputation is entirely undeserved. See? I can also make claims without any arguments whatsoever.
  - krapp 3y ago
    Yes, that's all you've been doing. 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.
    - bheadmaster 3y ago
      > Yes, that's all you've been doing. 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. Please refrain from personal insults. See https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
      - pjc50 3y ago
        But you can still post racism inside /b/?
        bheadmaster 3y ago
        Yes. 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.
        kelseyfrog 3y ago
        > Nobody takes any content from /b/ seriously. That's a bold claim. It requires a single counter-example to disprove. I take it seriously, so your statement is empirically wrong. Please retract it.
        bheadmaster 3y ago
        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.
        kelseyfrog 3y ago
        Oh, you took me literally too! So weird! What evidence would it take to change your mind?
    - 98789992165 3y ago
      >user: krapp >created: August 16, 2012 >karma: 16769 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.
    - temporarara 3y ago
      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.
      - magicalist 3y ago
        > 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.
      - krapp 3y ago
        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.
    - theshackleford 3y ago
      > You're being neither clever nor insightful here. If only you’d considered this yourself before posting.
cloverich 3y ago
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).
- bheadmaster 3y ago
  > 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.
  - zilti 3y ago
    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.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "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).

krapp 3y ago

Nah. 4chan's reputation is entirely deserved.

bheadmaster 3y ago
Nah. 4chan's reputation is entirely undeserved. See? I can also make claims without any arguments whatsoever.
- krapp 3y ago
  Yes, that's all you've been doing. 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.
  - bheadmaster 3y ago
    > Yes, that's all you've been doing. 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. Please refrain from personal insults. See https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
    - pjc50 3y ago
      But you can still post racism inside /b/?
      - bheadmaster 3y ago
        Yes. 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.
        kelseyfrog 3y ago
        > Nobody takes any content from /b/ seriously. That's a bold claim. It requires a single counter-example to disprove. I take it seriously, so your statement is empirically wrong. Please retract it.
        bheadmaster 3y ago
        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.
        kelseyfrog 3y ago
        Oh, you took me literally too! So weird! What evidence would it take to change your mind?
  - 98789992165 3y ago
    >user: krapp >created: August 16, 2012 >karma: 16769 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.
  - temporarara 3y ago
    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.
    - magicalist 3y ago
      > 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.
    - krapp 3y ago
      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.
  - theshackleford 3y ago
    > You're being neither clever nor insightful here. If only you’d considered this yourself before posting.

cloverich 3y ago

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).

bheadmaster 3y ago
> 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.
- zilti 3y ago
  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.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "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).