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

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

Ah right, scream into the void and get ignored because I’m not a multimillion dollar donor. Forgot to waste my time, no I have not.

Do you have any more useful suggestions or is void talking all im allowed to do now or get shouted down with “you haven’t done enough” bullshit?

I guess perhaps I’m just disenfranchised in which case, nothing systematic is gonna help.

Guess I’m the doomer after all.

Ah yes, me, the demigod who can act up on all my worries. Tell me again my plan to get trump to fuck off the 2024 election?

Not to be too sarcastic at you, it’s a good sentiment that I do sort of agree with, but it places too much “you can do anything” blame on the observer who literally is already worried. Aka, this runs a major risk of demotivating people straight into doomerism when they’re faced with worries there’s really nothing that they individually can do about.

Unless I’m wrong and there is some legitimate answer to that sarcastic opening question that I, individually, can do about it, in which case, I’m all ears lol

If this is alpha humor, it beats the almost totally nonsensical YouTube poops of Millenials for me. Just sensical enough to string along, nonsensical enough to be entertaining.

Whoever made this monstrosity did a great job lmao

I got a reason! It’s because people are afraid meta is doing what Microsoft did to a much earlier project. The crux of that whole story is that Microsoft adopted the new tech, became the biggest player thus dominating the area, then, when they had full control of the tech they ended up shutting it down. Some people are convinced meta is going to do that to the fediverse.

This is vague and handwavy, I’m hoping someone actually knows the name of the project. It was early 90s I believe or maybe into the early 00s but it was before my time in the tech sphere of the internet.

Seems like we have a fundamental disagreement on what value is. I don’t think society sets what’s valuable and you appear to. I also noticed that we’re drain swirling but that’s likely around the fact that I do not view society as the standard to achieve. Society is a standard that should be guided, not lauded as the end all be all of what reality should be.

Society is not perfect, and it’s social constructs, including money, are essentially bullshit, in my opinion. I think that’s what we’re likely getting caught in. Because I think money is overpowered bullshit, to me, it looks essentially the same exact thing but in different dressage as robux.

I’m likely off topic at this point, it happens. If this seems of no value to you, feel free to disengage. one of my issues is that I’ll keep talking even when the conversation has veered way off lol I don’t mean to waste your time in case that happens.

I guess all I’m trying to say is: you, in my opinion, put too much stock in what society currently is and not enough in what it could look like. The original comment kind of starts to get at what society could look like in a passive meme of a way. I’m personally not sure if society can work without a lubricant like money, but I saw a definition disagreement and jumped on it because that’s what I do for fun.

What do you think about that assessment of the situation?

Oh boy you’re not gonna like my stance on morals :)

And I’m not sure if I should get into my philosophy on language… But, si je parle en francais a tu, it’s as useful as if I hadn’t talked at all to you all, because (assuming you don’t already know French, if you do, replace the example with a language that you do not know and the point still stands) French is a social construct amongst the French, not amongst English speakers. So therefore, different constructs have different values in different contexts.

I guess my wandering point here (because I absolutely agree still with the original poster that money is a made up social construct) is that even though you value money more than robux, it doesn’t give money any more legitimacy, it’s just you’ve decided one is more useful than the other based on the necessities of society. That is not a wrong thing to do, by all means, you need money and not robux to survive in common society, but it does cover up the nature of things in that money is technically just as legitimate a token as robux.

I added an edit that covers the tradable token part.

Their point is they don’t want to give you anything because, per the nerdy ass phrasing, those fake tokens are also tradable for things of minor interest, which is more interesting to have than not have. So why give away the tokens for free?

Their original point is just that money is made up (aka that it only has agreed upon socially determined value)

Oh boy we’ve engaged nerd mode, my favorite!

Robux technically are just as legitimate as dollars it’s just we arbitrarily do not accept robux for milk because it’s new (aka not “legal tender”). If you want legal money, you’ll have to specify lmao

That seems to be the original point of this chain, am I wrong?

Edit: technically legitimate not meaning backed but as legitimate as any other made up tradable token, aka crypto. It might be more correct for me to say robux are technically as legitimate as crypto, but I’m not entirely sure right now about the exact phrasing I want to use.

How did they get mixed? I see 1 in arabic and 2 and 3 in Hindu. Is there a good place to start reading or watching about this in your opinion? If not, I’m just gonna YouTube the history of numbers and see where I land