121–130 of 356 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citing one crazy person using a platform doesn’t make your argument coherent. How many shooters have live streamed on facebook?
This doesn't absolve 4chan, but rather damns Facebook.
NYT gets so much mileage out of “researchers say” and “experts say” yet they never cite anyone
> Dark humor about race or ideology can eventually shape the beliefs of impressionable young people, and innocuous memes can be co-opted into symbols of hatred, researchers say. Immediately following this paragraph is a quote from a researcher: > “If you’re a young man with no prospects hanging out on 4chan, you’re definitely on some Discords and probably some pretty dark Discords,” said Dale Beran, a lecturer at Mor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Society isn’t a system we can reason about in absolutes. The spirit of the law says that you can’t tell “fire!” in a crowded building, I think we collectively agree that there are limitations on free speech and we’re fortunate to let the courts map out the nuance rather than a mob or a dictator.
Nothing is absolute... but for example, in my country (former socialist one), things like affirmative action would be considered very racist, while some countries (mostly USA) consider affirmative action anti-racist. If I argue with an american about this, which one of us is racist, and who decides that when it comes to censorship?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't have the opportunity to change their mind that's an illusion that works in their favor: “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play.…
>But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly You don't have to watch your words on 4chan though. You can literally just make fun of them. You can larp as whoever you want to get a rise out of whoever you want. That is mostly what the site is. While you're larping as a nazi you're being exposed to every other political point of view, every gender, every race, and…
NYT gets so much mileage out of “researchers say” and “experts say” yet they never cite anyone
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are people of all political persuasions on 4chan. You're free to go on there and deride any white nationalists you see. No one will ban you.
> You're free to go on there and deride any white nationalists you see Yes but you can do this anywhere. There are a limited number of places where you can openly be a white nationalist without being banned, 4chan is one of them.
I disagree. Most websites don't allow white nationalism, so there aren't any white nationalists to bully. On websites like Facebook or reddit, you're either screaming into the void or preaching to the choir.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing is absolute... but for example, in my country (former socialist one), things like affirmative action would be considered very racist, while some countries (mostly USA) consider affirmative action anti-racist. If I argue with an american about this, which one of us is racist, and who decides that when it comes to censorship?
You seem to have put your finger on one of the more nuanced issues that the OP suggested courts can resolve.
Do you really need courts to settle a verbal (well.. written) argument online?
Yes, it's just one of many examples where cultural differences cause issues, and where two people consider themselves "good" and the other one "bad" and in turn, censor all speech, since both are racist in atleast some of the courts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are people of all political persuasions on 4chan. You're free to go on there and deride any white nationalists you see. No one will ban you.
Yeah you can argue that /pol/ sways far right and you'd be correct, and I don't personally condone most of the opinions that are represented there, but take a look at the general threads, you have a pro-ukraine one and an anti-ukraine one, both with equal representation. I can't think of any other site that has this. Any other website following the classical formula of pseudonyms and upvotes/downvotes, like Reddit, h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't care. 4chan is one of the few large forums remaining on the internet where there's no downvoting, no flagging, and no dang-esque tone policers. I would be much more sad to see it go away than this place.
It must be hard for you if your idea of free expression requires absolutely no limits. I personally think it’s a bad faith argument and you’re not actually interested in reducing radicalization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We stopped white Nationalisms. If not, Communism's death toll would be a joke in comparison.
This post really illustrates the expansion of terms into meaninglessness. One presumes they're referring to the Allies (who themselves would now be considered extremely racist) stopping the Nazis, who allied with the Japanese and were targeting/killing mostly Jewish and Slavic peoples. The Nazis were specifically pro-German/Aryan and whatever they thought that meant ethnically. They did not see things in today's raci…