|
Merdifex posted:It is quite a bad thing. Defining a community by it's output of memes is pointless when you don't even consider the cultural context which produced said content. 4chan being a crucible of bigotry and self-loathing cannot be ignored. I think the content comes from the anonymity. Without a name the worst you can do, when you try something out, is fail at it. On SA people will follow you around dragging it up or give you a BRCT or just get real creepy about it.* So 4chan gets more content and most of it is worthless and forgotten within a day but enough lives on that it dwarfs SA's stuff. I've been part of small traditional (so SA-like rather than 4chan-like) forums before that have been amazing- you could post basically whatever you wanted there as long as it was within the bounds of the discussion and you wouldn't get poo poo. People might argue or downvote but ultimately discussion was judged by other members based on the merit of the posts rather than who was part of the in crowd or what other people were saying about it. These forums all lost that aspect as they grew and louder, less talented members moved in and started basing things on people's reputations rather than on what was actually being posted. I think the chans get around that with anonymity, you can't form cults of personality or hate a post based solely on who wrote it because you can't tell who the other users are from thread to thread. *Seriously, SA is far creepier to individuals than 4chan is because channers are typically at least funny about it. Compare something like 4chan loving with Ben Garrison to Dubie's Doghouse. With Ben there's him making unintentionally funny legal threats, his continued reaction to obvious photoshops and more, with Dubie its what, him buying an oven fan?
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:30 |
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:I think the content comes from the anonymity. Without a name the worst you can do, when you try something out, is fail at it. On SA people will follow you around dragging it up or give you a BRCT or just get real creepy about it.* So 4chan gets more content and most of it is worthless and forgotten within a day but enough lives on that it dwarfs SA's stuff. I've been part of small traditional (so SA-like rather than 4chan-like) forums before that have been amazing- you could post basically whatever you wanted there as long as it was within the bounds of the discussion and you wouldn't get poo poo. People might argue or downvote but ultimately discussion was judged by other members based on the merit of the posts rather than who was part of the in crowd or what other people were saying about it. These forums all lost that aspect as they grew and louder, less talented members moved in and started basing things on people's reputations rather than on what was actually being posted. I think the chans get around that with anonymity, you can't form cults of personality or hate a post based solely on who wrote it because you can't tell who the other users are from thread to thread. If being made fun of hurts your feelings so much why are you still here? You a masochist or something?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:If being made fun of hurts your feelings so much why are you still here? You a masochist or something? I dunno, why are you here fishmech? The whole loving place hates you. Seriously, you literally made the list not once but twice. Your name is a verb used to describe the negative practice of actually responding to the poo poo that comes out of your keyboard.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:I think the content comes from the anonymity. Without a name the worst you can do, when you try something out, is fail at it. On SA people will follow you around dragging it up or give you a BRCT or just get real creepy about it.* So 4chan gets more content and most of it is worthless and forgotten within a day but enough lives on that it dwarfs SA's stuff. I've been part of small traditional (so SA-like rather than 4chan-like) forums before that have been amazing- you could post basically whatever you wanted there as long as it was within the bounds of the discussion and you wouldn't get poo poo. People might argue or downvote but ultimately discussion was judged by other members based on the merit of the posts rather than who was part of the in crowd or what other people were saying about it. These forums all lost that aspect as they grew and louder, less talented members moved in and started basing things on people's reputations rather than on what was actually being posted. I think the chans get around that with anonymity, you can't form cults of personality or hate a post based solely on who wrote it because you can't tell who the other users are from thread to thread. You actually think getting a BRCT is worse than being doxed, or having the police called on you on false allegations, or having naked pictures of you sent to your family? Seriously? You're tempting me to drop  to buy you one right now, you whiny baby.
Woolie Wool fucked around with this message at 00:08 on May 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:I dunno, why are you here fishmech? The whole loving place hates you. Seriously you keep whining about how tough it is that you can't make racist jokes on SA (that's what everyone who says "well uh you can just be freer on 4chan maaaan" means after all) without getting made fun of, what's your problem?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
I think its worse for a community to have its own members shamed like that. Having things done to outsiders does not affect the community in a negative way. Thats the difference, since 4chan usually pisses out of its tent people inside feel safe to try new ideas. Since SA pisses on its own members they don't.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Free speech arguments are 90% of the time a matter of whether you'd like your opinions suppressed by officialdom or by the weight of public opinion. Libertarian types tend to gravitate toward the latter. But genuine efforts at free speech (even leaving out outliers) are pretty rare. It's arguable how much you really want it in any case.
|
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:07
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:I dunno, why are you here fishmech? The whole loving place hates you. You seem, er, normal.
|
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:I think its worse for a community to have its own members shamed like that. Having things done to outsiders does not affect the community in a negative way. Thats the difference, since 4chan usually pisses out of its tent people inside feel safe to try new ideas. Since SA pisses on its own members they don't. So it's OK to ruin the lives of people outside the community who speak up against its awful behavior but it's deplorable to merely make fun of someone who acts like a jackass inside the community?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
You can either be horrible to people you are familiar with, or you can be horrible to strangers. There are no other options.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
The difference is Nintendo kid gives no fucks about what people on the I the internet think of him, which is kind of a jerk behavior but respectable in its own way. Cliff racer just said making fun of outsiders is fine, while white knighting an outside software construct in a thread about making fun of said message board for its detriment to positive societal outcomes.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:I think its worse for a community to have its own members shamed like that. Having things done to outsiders does not affect the community in a negative way. Thats the difference, since 4chan usually pisses out of its tent people inside feel safe to try new ideas. Since SA pisses on its own members they don't. Ah yes all those original ideas like: Also again you deserve to be shamed repeatedly because your posting would generally trip the r9k bot.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Alejandro Sanchez posted:You can either be horrible to people you are familiar with, or you can be horrible to strangers. There are no other options. No it's actually a choice between being rude to people you are familiar with and being maliciously, criminally cruel to outsiders.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:14
|
|
Effectronica posted:You seem, er, normal. you too
|
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
I hate that we're using old usenet discussions to paint a history of nerds being bad, because internet use wasn't even a common thing among nerds until the turn of the century. We're leaving out the nerds who didn't or couldn't have a voice on the internet somewhere and I'd like to think they were much better adjusted, especially since I hung out with a lot of them and I never once picked up on any racism, homophobia or any other bad social behavior. Maybe a bit of sexism, which got corrected. Why can't we just accept that this is maybe a new problem that's a little harder to figure out than just repainting the past?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:So it's OK to ruin the lives of people outside the community who speak up against its awful behavior but it's deplorable to merely make fun of someone who acts like a jackass inside the community? Our discussion was on why 4chan produces more, and better content. Meriflex said that he didn't think that the "reprehensible morality" of 4chan is what made it so good at producing content. I expanded on that by saying that the anonymity was what made it so good. Then went on to say that small forums with user names and post counts and such can get around that but after a certain point they are no longer able to. But if you want to talk about ruining lives... Do you think its OK to ruin people's lives with stuff like this or the lady who lost her job because she made that AIDS joke a few years ago? Because the way a lot of people on SA post all of that is acceptable, as long as its going after targets or behaviors they don't like. Normally when I post this here someone will reply with something to the effect of, "ruining lives is good, when people who are racists/homophobes/MRAs/whatever are the ones being ruined." Nobody ever calls that person out. Its all two sides of the same coin.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Our discussion was on why 4chan produces more, and better content. Meriflex said that he didn't think that the "reprehensible morality" of 4chan is what made it so good at producing content. I expanded on that by saying that the anonymity was what made it so good. Then went on to say that small forums with user names and post counts and such can get around that but after a certain point they are no longer able to. Being a racist is bad, though. Being a woman who has opinions about video games is not bad.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:I hate that we're using old usenet discussions to paint a history of nerds being bad, because internet use wasn't even a common thing among nerds until the turn of the century. We're leaving out the nerds who didn't or couldn't have a voice on the internet somewhere and I'd like to think they were much better adjusted, especially since I hung out with a lot of them and I never once picked up on any racism, homophobia or any other bad social behavior. Maybe a bit of sexism, which got corrected. It's highly likely that they were racist and sexist because America in general was highly racist and sexist 20-ish years ago.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Our discussion was on why 4chan produces more, and better content. Meriflex said that he didn't think that the "reprehensible morality" of 4chan is what made it so good at producing content. I expanded on that by saying that the anonymity was what made it so good. Then went on to say that small forums with user names and post counts and such can get around that but after a certain point they are no longer able to. So do you think being a horrible bigot who laughs about the deaths of Mexicans and complaining about people being horrible bigots who laugh about the deaths of Mexicans are morally equivalent? Does someone have to strap you to a chair and read you a Herbert Marcuse tract re-written in a third grade level using the same voice that Ringo Starr used to narrate Thomas the Tank Engine?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Cliff Racer you should start a thread about how bad SA is because apparently you're really eager to talk about that. Or heck, start a thread about sjws cause that's a topic you keep dancing around.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You seem, er, normal. you don't take your meds
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Cliff Racer you should start a thread about how bad SA is because apparently you're really eager to talk about that. Or heck, start a thread about sjws cause that's a topic you keep dancing around. no, cliff racer's posts in this thread are actually good even if you think his opinions are poo poo
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:I hate that we're using old usenet discussions to paint a history of nerds being bad, Yo try reading the whole paragraph next time. I specifically went into way more than just usenet there. Cliff Racer posted:Our discussion was on why 4chan produces more, and better content. Well that's a short one, it doesn't. Unless you just time traveled from like 2005.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Social pressure to discourage bad behavior with no threat of violence is preferable to trying to coerce people with force. Unmoderated communication methods are an extension of libertarian philosophy and like all other instances works just fine until there's a group that's not an in group.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
blowfish posted:no, cliff racer's posts in this thread are actually good even if you think his opinions are poo poo No actually his posts are mostly  aggrieved nerd blubbering with a side of tu quoque and he's probably going to start going on about  CULTURAL MARXISM any minute.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
It's okay to hurt people, if you disagree with them, and I'm glad SA and 4chan can come together on this issue
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:People who spend most of their time on forums try to analyze why some other people spend all of their time on other forums and call them shut-ins. I will totally admit that I am a nerdy shut in and suck at having a social life. But I totally understand it's my problem, not the fault of some outside group that rejected me. That's why I wanted to make this thread. The idea that the people who rejected me before now want to enter "my world" is a bad thing or suggesting that there is something wrong means that my toys are going to be taken away is so alien to me and I want to try and understand it better. BigRed0427 fucked around with this message at 00:44 on May 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:25
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:So do you think being a horrible bigot who laughs about the deaths of Mexicans and complaining about people being horrible bigots who laugh about the deaths of Mexicans are morally equivalent? i think they're morally equivalent because neither one matters
|
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
People who say "nerds are" almost always have a political position they're making. "Nerds are terrible" is generally the statement of a self-denying nerd, or a minority who feels nerd status is a product of the majority. "Nerds are great" from a self-aggrandizing nerd, etc. In reality, a good survey would probably show nerds as roughly representative of society, with variations depending on the particulars.
|
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:28
|
|
Effectronica posted:People who say "nerds are" almost always have a political position they're making. "Nerds are terrible" is generally the statement of a self-denying nerd, or a minority who feels nerd status is a product of the majority. "Nerds are great" from a self-aggrandizing nerd, etc. yep
|
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Neeeeeeeerrrrrrrrds
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:
I think everyone agrees that nerds would be roughly representative of the social groups they come from. I think people would disagree that nerds are representative of society since (at least historically) they are predominantly white men.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Social pressure to discourage bad behavior with no threat of violence is preferable to trying to coerce people with force.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Why would anyone think this thread was a good idea
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:36
|
|
computer parts posted:I think everyone agrees that nerds would be roughly representative of the social groups they come from. I think people would disagree that nerds are representative of society since (at least historically) they are predominantly white men. males and white people are both more statistically likely to be on the autism spectrum, so that's why
|
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Well that's a short one, it doesn't. Unless you just time traveled from like 2005. I'd like to point out that I don't think there's any way to quantify and as such empirically compare the content outputs of different internet communities, so stating that this or that community produces "more and better content" is pure supposition.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Gentlemen, we cannot allow a meme gap.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
the most and best content right now is being made on tumblr
|
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Merdifex posted:I'd like to point out that I don't think there's any way to quantify and as such empirically compare the content outputs of different internet communities, so stating that this or that community produces "more and better content" is pure supposition. I'd say it did do it to an outscale amount for a short time, but quickly reverted to the mean of all large internet communities in general. It's not like their fault of course, any place that has a burst of good stuff is going to attract a lot of, shall we say, less innovative people in who can't really contribute in the same way.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:30 |
|
|
Merdifex posted:I'd like to point out that I don't think there's any way to quantify and as such empirically compare the content outputs of different internet communities, so stating that this or that community produces "more and better content" is pure supposition. You kind of can, but it's going to involve a certain amount of qualitative study no matter how you do it. You'd develop a set of things you wanted to measure, get your data sets, and do a content analysis. Something like "funnier" content is purely subjective, but things like "no. of positive replies per post" is somewhat less so.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 00:45
|
|