4 ms·

> 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 reputa

> 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?
        bheadmaster 3y ago
        I find your manner of discussion obnoxious, so I will refrain from replying to you anymore. EDIT: you changed your reply to make it less obnoxious, but I won't come back to this discussion regardless.
        kelseyfrog 3y ago
        That's funny. I'll be here still waiting on hearing which evidence will change your mind. :)
        antonvs 3y ago
        The other user is correct, your style of discussion is obnoxious, and is not contributing anything useful to the discussion. What are you trying to achieve here, exactly? Did something trigger you to start behaving in this way?
        kelseyfrog 3y ago
shuntress 3y ago
> 4chan is not an entity onto itself - it is composed of many individuals It, like every other community, has an aggregate identity built from the contributions of the individuals within the community. > Additionaly, the official rule 3. of 4chan states [racism is only allowed in /b/] If you honestly believe that /b/ is the only place on 4chan where you will find racist sentiment you need to have your head examined.
trealira 3y ago
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.
antonvs 3y ago
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.
- bheadmaster 3y ago
  The purpose of the phrase "this is idiotic" isn't to inform, but to insult. It contains no useful information whatsoever. > Would it be ok to praise the quality of the argument? If so, it should be ok to criticize it as well. Why would the former imply the latter? It is ok to give gifts to people, but not to steal from them.
  - antonvs 3y ago
    > It contains no useful information whatsoever. 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?
    - bheadmaster 3y ago
      > 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.

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?
      - bheadmaster 3y ago
        I find your manner of discussion obnoxious, so I will refrain from replying to you anymore. EDIT: you changed your reply to make it less obnoxious, but I won't come back to this discussion regardless.
        kelseyfrog 3y ago
        That's funny. I'll be here still waiting on hearing which evidence will change your mind. :)
        antonvs 3y ago
        The other user is correct, your style of discussion is obnoxious, and is not contributing anything useful to the discussion. What are you trying to achieve here, exactly? Did something trigger you to start behaving in this way?
        kelseyfrog 3y ago

shuntress 3y ago

> 4chan is not an entity onto itself - it is composed of many individuals It, like every other community, has an aggregate identity built from the contributions of the individuals within the community. > Additionaly, the official rule 3. of 4chan states [racism is only allowed in /b/] If you honestly believe that /b/ is the only place on 4chan where you will find racist sentiment you need to have your head examined.

trealira 3y ago

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.

antonvs 3y ago

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.

bheadmaster 3y ago
The purpose of the phrase "this is idiotic" isn't to inform, but to insult. It contains no useful information whatsoever. > Would it be ok to praise the quality of the argument? If so, it should be ok to criticize it as well. Why would the former imply the latter? It is ok to give gifts to people, but not to steal from them.
- antonvs 3y ago
  > It contains no useful information whatsoever. 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?
  - bheadmaster 3y ago
    > 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.