FlickOfTheBean

You tear yourself apart!

Not with that attitude

That's my point though. If you don't ban (aka censor) illegal things as a foundation, you end up living in a hellscape. I'm saying your argument isn't thorough enough. It's not going far enough. It's scratching the surface and saying "good enough" when it doesn't actually appear to be.

I am talking about illegal things because it's an obvious hole in your argument. What are you talking about about? Because it sounds like you're being short sighted to me, sticking to a happy path, but I could be wrong. What do you think?

You can't seriously be against all censorship in books, right? Where are your actual boundaries? I don't think you'd be ok with something obviously evil like a book of cp.... Right?

Edgecases are why it's hard to be consistent.

Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should!

If it looks like a penis, feels like a penis, and quacks like a penis, it's probably a penis

That's bigots for you. They'll cut off and throw community members into the sacrificial fire for the sake of their panicked feelings, because treating people decently is just not one of their baseline values.

Women didn't exist back in those days /s (last time i omitted the /s on a joke didn't go very well lmao)

No. The instance being killed by the taliban is the opposite of that is happening here.

The taliban has done nothing, in this case. The admins of the instance have chosen not to keep the instance due to not wanting to fund the taliban in anyway.

This phrasing fucks up which way the action flows, which is important for a headline to get right to remain accurate to the story. Does that make sense?

I can't help but project an old version of myself on you. I can't imagine defending 4chan unless I was actively using it a lot... It did used to be basically my only internet community, so I understand being particularly fond of the cesspool.

However, I don't actually understand your reactions here. Why are you defending it when it seems like 4chan itself wouldn't even go this far except maaaybe as a limp wristed attempt at an excuse when something truly horrific happens because of them? I genuinely don't think I understand

Like, to currently vilify it is easy, just take a screenshot of pol. I remember looking pre2016 and seeing HYPERPARTISANSHIP all caps everywhere. It's an anonymous forum with people discussing plans to make life shittier for various groups, essentially at all times.... And before pol it was b (my era was back when pol was a boring place, I don't know the current state of any board, but I know some of the history and what motivates some normies of my niche who fuck with it)

I just don't understand the downplaying of it, normal people participate in shit ways on 4chan specifically because of the anonymity. The anonymity is why it's such a cesspool in the first place. It's toxic keyboard warrior syndrome to the extreme.

This ignores that 4chan is widely known as the cesspool of the internet and attracts those types. It's like going on Hexbear and being surprised at the communists. People gather where their banners are. Shit attracts shit. This reduction is apt.

Sure it kind of does some good ish things sometimes, but more often than not, it's just an internet mob internet mobbing. That's essentially all it is: chaos waves constantly crashing back in on itself. Any good that comes from it is incidental at best.

Also, defending 4chan on the wider Internet is a little odd, 4chan itself revels in its shit reputation....

Ok, this may be wrong history but I could have sworn I saw some article a few years ago explaining that this marriage happened because it was the middle of the great depression and her parents couldn't afford to feed her or something like that.

Makes it worse, imo.

That said, was he a pedo? If sex happened then obviously yes, but I thought this marriage was a charity case more so than a "indulge a pedo who's interested in our daughter during the depression" situation...

I'm gonna have to go find that article at some point...

Edit: welp, I went looking for it, couldn't find it, so everything above this line may be bullshit, but based on the age she had her first child at, yeah I'd say that obviously counts as some pedo shit