/baw/ - General Discussion

Whatcha gonna do when Hulkamania destroys yooooooooooouuuuu?

Important reminders:
>remember to address someone's argument or not address them at all
>if someone believes [x], it does not necessarily mean they believe [y] just because the internet told you that only [xy] exists
>please do try to act vaguely like grown-ups

>>405211
Equally important
>those who oppose the existence of the conversation are not a side in it, they're outside of the conversation entirely and should be treated as such

>>405212
>>405211
Agree.

//youtube.com/watch?v=guG9cVs3ms4

Need I remind you that the verdict isn’t final, there will be an appeal, and Gawker isn’t dead yet? Celebrate when it’s dead.

>>405209
But not even close to the heights of hilarity that is defending GG

>>405216
Need I remind you that the value of Gawker minus obligations is in the low forty millions. The only way they can file an appeal is to take on even more debt, which is going to exceed the value of the company.

>>405217
>current year
>giving a fuck about GG/anti-GG
babby

>>405217
>>405219


I still can't figure out what is real and what was trumped-up bullshit, as both sides of the Gamergate coin like to play the vicitm. The closest I can parse is that, from what they say online, Anita Sarkessian, Zoe Quinn, and Briana Wu all seem like dicks, and the people on 8chan ALSO act like a bunch of melodramatic assholes. How anyone can figure out what to believe on either side's claims is beyond me.

>>405220
That's the gist of it.

>>405220
Slow is a lying fuck. Zoe Quinn did and has done nothing. Anita has made some well intentioned videos with sadly shallow argument construction. Now, Wu actually IS a crazy person but the only thing she's "guilty" of is making bad mobile games and standing up for women in the industry.

None of which, in case you aren't aware, is grounds for doxxing and harassing them endlessly. As a matter of fact, basically NOTHING is grounds for that, or at least nothing the likes of a #GG/MRA type is liable to care abou

>>405220
It's sort of like actual politics in that both sides have some truths to them but both sides are also actually pretty fucking awful.

There is no "both sides,"or not legitimately, unless you're the sort of person who considers Jim Crow up for debate. Your typical internet "conservative," as that idiot Milo would put it, stands at best to maintain the status quo indefinitely and more commonly to roll shit back because they feel it somehow infringes on their right to god knows what. As
>>405212
said, these people oppose there being any kind of conversation or analysis of the problems of our current culture, be they racial, religious, gender, sex, what have you. They're not a side of a debate, they just don't want there to be a debate.

In far more pressing news: http://boingboing.net/2016/03/18/chelsea-manning-gets-the-us-ar.html

>>405224
>They're not a side of a debate, they just don't want there to be a debate.

Pretty much this, yeah.

>>405225

God bless Chelsea Manning. I hope she some day gets to breathe the free air. And God help anyone foolish or desperate enough to join the Armed Forces.

>>405222
>>405224
wow you guys sound totally unbiased, people better believe you if they know what's good for them am i right
>>405224
>>405225
I'm willing to debate if you are, which means not just going "lmao like you even believe that, liar" to my every claim, like seems to be the main strategy in this tired argument.

>>405227
>wow you guys sound totally unbiased
I confess my bias towards treating people like human beings yes

Like Slow let's say I give you the benefit of the doubt and accept you as trying to be sincere, let me ask: do you not understand why your repeated defense of the various vile people that roll through these threads may have rather damaged your credibility? Do you not get why, when they post (for example) anti-refugee shit, your DEFENSE of them might make YOU seem anti-refugee?

>>405229
I guess I can understand that, though I don't agree with it, and direct you back to rule number 2 and to an extent 3 >>405211

I don't defend anti-refugee beliefs (I have no issue at all with refugees and would accept one into my home assuming [s]he wouldn't take advantage of it), but I will call out lack of counterarguments while still acting like you're the smart winner, and I will ALWAYS call out suicide encouragement.
I've lost a friend to what I suspect to be suicide, and while I'll never know if this was the reason, I know he DID get harassment over his "problematic" views--he's was truscum, a transmedicalist, and despite being a trans man himself, "progressive" people felt like this was a reason to bully him. That's trash, and the people who do that kind of thing are the lowest of the low.

>>405230
>I will call out lack of counterarguments while still acting like you're the smart winner
You mean that thing you do ALL THE TIME?

>>405231
When I give an actual argument, people tell me I don't even believe what I'm saying, I'm just saying it to make myself look good. Or sometimes just greentexting a summary of my argument with no further additions.
Eventually I just started looking down my nose at them and laughing at them, since there was no real point, though lately I have been trying to avoid it and taking things a bit more seriously.
What can you do v0v

>>405228
>I confess my bias towards treating people like human beings yes

I find that sort of hilarious as I'm watching you demonize and treat Slow as someone who isn't human just because he disagreed with you. I'm seeing Slowpoke being overly respectful while arguing with you and you're just being an asshole because you don't like what he says. That's also something I've noticed Anita, Zoe, Brianna Wu, and 8chan do. The only thing getting mad and screaming loudly at each other does is let you blow off steam. It doesn't change anybody's mind. If anything, it entrenches opinions and invites people to push you back even harder.

>>405233
This is why I try to encourage people to not act a fool. It doesn't win anyone over, it just makes your dong feel bigger.
If the goal is to get people to accept your beliefs as valid, the way is absolutely NOT via consistent mocking, derogatory comments, stereotyping, and the like.
If anyone is on the fence, behavior like 19/20 people in these threads have just pushes that person further away.

>>405230
>I guess I can understand that, though I don't agree with it
It's not relevant whether you agree with it or not, it's still a fact. You have BURNT credibility fighting for people who you shouldn't have been fighting for, and are now for some reason surprised that you get lumped in with them all the time. That's why you get accused of using the same tactics they used and having the opinions they have, because you constantly defend and, may I add, never attack them. For someone who likes to act like he's some kind of neutral figure, you are often found in decidedly partisan positions.

>>405235
People can believe what they want to about me. I uh, don't exactly lose sleep over what DudeWithMoney thinks about my political affiliations if I'm honest.
That said, failing to address my arguments and instead just going "lmao >implying slowpoke" just makes me look more correct to anyone who isn't already firmly on your side, so it's just kind of masturbatory. Which I mean, is also fine, I don't care if people just beat off to my arguments either.

(I also don't really "attack" anyone, I just call out stupid arguments from people I expect better from. For example, I know Stone is a fairly smart guy who is/used to be kind and understanding, so when he just starts stereotyping impoverished people while congratulating himself for being so cool and smart and right, I feel more of a need to address that than I do a skinhead anon talking about how it's in black DNA to commit more crimes.)

>>405236

>I know Stone is a fairly smart guy

[citation needed]

>>405239
Man I asked for counterarguments instead of just posts calling me a liar

:^)

>>405240

You put forth the assertion, it’s on you to provide proof. And someone else was likely going to take the potshot anyway. Figured I’d beat them to the punch.

>>405224
>there's no both sides
This is exactly why the internet flocked to GG.

Certain people wanted to shut down the debate and censor all information coming in, and this got people curious as to what the information was.

>>405242

Well, let's not pretend that GG did the exact same thing in the opposite direction, with individuals using GG to demonize others who frankly had reasonable opinions on sexism and inequality in the media. Both sides have individuals who try to shut down the conversation, which will push people to the extreme of the other side depending on which bad actor gets to them first.

>>405243
>with individuals using GG
to do what it was made to do, harass women

>>405244
I mean, if you want to get technical, the women's suffrage movement was created to oppress black people and put them back in their place, so I guess all feminists hate black peeps.

Can't believe it turns out feminism really IS a hate movement, wow.

>>405244
>>405245
(to clarify, I do not believe either of these posts to truly be the case, just operating under your logic my man)

>>405244

I guess I'll quote Kazerad as they put it more eliquently than I could.
>In addressing a problem like harassment, your first step is to figure out the causes. With something as broad as “harassment”, there are going to be a lot of different causes all contributing to one quantifiable output. When you establish a baseline that is essentially “normal” for someone in a particular position, you can work to isolate isolate specific behaviors or attributes that affect the harassment they receive.
>The harassment that was brought up in that Hateful Boyfriend post, for example, is tamer in both content and harshness than what I get on about a daily basis. At the same time, though, I’m a bigger name than its author was - I’m inclined to say that our harassment is both pretty expected for our relative popularity levels and it’s hard to draw conclusions from it. The harassment received by someone like Zoe Quinn is probably greater than mine - but from what I’ve seen, about on par with someone like Andrew Dobson. One attribute both Zoe Quinn and Andrew Dobson have in common is a general hostility toward critics, and I’m inclined to say that the “solution” to their harassment is to either place blame on them for handling their audience poorly or to promote positivity and understanding toward people who don’t want to receive criticism. Either one works.
>The key here, even if you’re addressing something pervasive like general misogynistic attitudes in the gaming community, is that you need to address it from the inside. You need to be able to understand a community, see what is causing the misbehavior, identify the people who are perpetuating it, and get them to stop. It’s a very social thing and ultimately, the only way you permanently win is with the collaboration of the people you disagree with.
>The thing you don’t want to do is rush in and start attacking people, since they’re not going to just go away. The thing you really don’t want to do is rush in and start attacking people for the wrong thing, since people who act out are usually doing so because they have some complaint/fear that is going unrecognized. Dealing with situations like this is a delicate thing, and someone can’t just barge in and expect the same treatment from mass audiences that they would get from friends in an artist-circle. I would like to see things improve, but I’m not going to have pity for someone who expects that hurt feelings will be enough to solve problems.
>I don’t want to decry anyone’s harassment as being so normal they should accept it. But, I think actually dealing with harassment as a social issue requires careful movement and an exact analysis of the causes, and misplaced blame only makes things worse.

>>405245
>>405246
please name the thing that you think #gg is attempting to genuinely do and what you think the origin is

or shut the fuck up, either one would be fine

>>405246

The Gamers of the Gate may not have intended to become a group dedicated to harassment, but harassment certainly became one of its standard operating procedures after getting its name. And while the group proclaims to fight for “better journalistic ethics”—last time I checked, anyway—these days, that fight boils down to yelling about cultural marxism and complaining about anything from women in positions of power within gaming companies to cultural critique of a game’s politics (for example, the blowback against people shittalking the political nature of The Division’s storyline).

>>405226
Thought to note on that Donald Trump looking to go Metal Gear with US Military. I'm interested to see where the "you want our protection, its gonna cost ya." plan goes.

>>405251
>Thought to note on that Donald Trump looking to go Metal Gear with US Military. I'm interested to see where the "you want our protection, its gonna cost ya." plan goes.
You'll have to continue wondering because DT isn't going to be president.

>>405252
Eh he's played their games and has all their numbers and files. He's ready to drop the info bombs when he gets the nomination. Sanders would have a chance but Hillary is too tied to the system he's ready to destroy.

>>405248
It's a big group of people, I'm sure they have plenty of goals.
You can check out probably their largest collaborative effort here though http://www.deepfreeze.it/
Said effort looks to be about exposing corrupt journalists and archiving incriminating things about them. There's also a list somewhere of the various websites they've impacted by raising awareness of the lack of ethics, causing big-name websites to change their policies. You can look for that if you want, but I doubt you care.
>>405250
Are we playing the game where we pretend a movement or group is solely represented by the worst people calling its name? Do I get to list some awful people from other movements to "prove" that they're hateful and murderous?
Actually, I lose this game, because if you ask me to name some "good" GGers, I'm gonna refuse on the grounds that I don't want to sic some of the more radical people on here on anyone I know. I'd just as soon not have friends of mine harassed and coaxed into self-harm because I used them as ammunition to win an internet argument.
I submit.

>>405254

>Are we playing the game where we pretend a movement or group is solely represented by the worst people calling its name?

No. But if the reasonable members of the group aren't willing to disavow those bad actors, why would you consider it a surprise that the bad actors who get shitloads of attention become the de facto face of the group?

>>405255
>if the reasonable members of the group aren't willing to disavow those bad actors
Lots of them do.
Do you ask every Muslim you see to denounce the couple of Muslim terrorists by name before you stop referring to them as a religion of hate?
When you meet an atheist, do you show them /r/atheism and have them call every user on the first page a moron before you respect them as a person?
Upon meeting a Christian do you pull up a list of the personal beliefs of every leader-figure of The Crusades and tell them that they have to reject those thoughts, one by one, out loud?

(not trying to harp on religion but I figured if I went for one I should go for all)

Or do you just kind of assume that every group has loud wackos who ruin the fun for normal people, like a normal person--with the bizarre exception of one?

>>405256

>Lots of them do.

Then why don’t those reasonable members of the group ever manage to get the kind of attention that the bad actors do?

>>405257

Are you joking, Freehaven? I mean... you're a furry. Do you ever ask why the more reasonable members of furries don't get the kind of attention the bad actors do?

>>405257
For the same reason that Fred Phelps got TONS of attention, but I, a much more reasonable Christian, was only one the local news once when I was 6 for a performance my First Grade class did at the local mall. For the same reason that Trump refusing to show up for his speech was aired on every station instead of Sanders ACTUALLY giving his speech.
People love the loudmouth pricks.

(I'm not gonna look up the personal views of the figureheads of the crusades, you'll have to do that bit if you want me to do some denouncing)

>>405258

The furry community, as a group, doesn’t exist to fulfill some form of sociopolitical “mission”. The Gamers of the Gate group does.

>>405256
>Do you ask every Muslim you see to denounce the couple of Muslim terrorists by name before you stop referring to them as a religion of hate?
>When you meet an atheist, do you show them /r/atheism and have them call every user on the first page a moron before you respect them as a person?
>Upon meeting a Christian do you pull up a list of the personal beliefs of every leader-figure of The Crusades and tell them that they have to reject those thoughts, one by one, out loud?
these are labels rather more significant to a person's identity and harder to change than a dumb watergate play created by some dumbshits on /v/ who found an easy to exploit way to attack a couple women they hated anyway

if you don't want to be painted with the #GG brush, you don't have to associate with #GG

>>405260
>GG is a big deal, furries aren't, bad comparison
>>405261
>religion is a big deal, GG isn't, bad comparison

y'all can work that out amongst yourselves

something something something [links to incriminating feminists] something

>>405262
See this is exactly the kind of shit that makes people call you a dogwhistiling sympathizer. You know full well that these are two different points but you are pretending that they are not. You are adopting their tactics to defend their position in their name, and you wonder why people associate you with them.

>>405263
I also address both (2) points at once in my last line, by saying VERBATIM, and I QUOTE, "okay, furries aren't political. okay, religion isn't a choice. feminism is a political choice and it has bad seeds too, and you know it"

It's right there in the post, fam.

>>405264

I'm looking over your post and I’m not seeing that particular combination of words in it.

>>405264
feminism is a philosophy around a century and a half removed from what would be considered the origin point of it which has split and evolved into countless branches that have themselves changed over time

#GG is 2 years removed from its origin and continues to attack the same targets in the same ways as it did from literally day 1

>>405265
No see it's under the black bar, you gotta kinda hover over.
If you have NoScript you might have to highlight it.

oh and is of course, not a philosophy but a loosely associated hate group

the comparison between the two, as you'd admit if you were genuinely a "third party" and not a sympathizer, is so tenuous it might as well not be brought up

>>405267

Ah, I keep forgetting, I’m a fucking retard.

>>405268
No see I proved earlier that feminism is a hate group too, so it's a really fair comparison. Scroll up a bit, you'll see it, it's pretty early in the thread.

>>405270
>No see I proved earlier that feminism is a hate group too, so it's a really fair comparison. Scroll up a bit, you'll see it, it's pretty early in the thread.
Okay so you're back to denying all that Quinn shit actually happened and/or are saying she deserved it then, just want to make sure

>>405271
Are you denying that the Suffragettes came together under the banner of hating the black man?
Just checking.

>>405272
No, I am denying the relevance of the point due to the length of time.

>>405273
So what's the exact statute of limitations on being a problematic movement?

>>405274
Gonna say it's probably not 2 years

>>405275
Oh, well that's pretty convenient then. Well-played, fella.

Can we go back to the part where Slow claimed that he was disgusted by bullying and considered those who partook in it trash.

You know, Slow.

The guy who is defending #GG.

>>405276
I mean, I used that basic common sense that I was equipped with. It let's me discern that if someone was harassing another person for being a woman 2 years ago, and is still doing it now, they probably haven't changed much.

>>405277
I also have said that I'm plenty against the crappy members of GG. I've publicly called them out and denounced them myself, when I see them.
I, also, am no fan of Fred Phelps, whatever Big Names the KKK has. I did not endorse 9/11. Personally, I think Seth McFarlane is a tool, and does not represent atheism properly. I don't like Randi Harper or Big Red, whose real name I forget and don't feel like looking up.

Does that cover me for the other Groups With Problematic People mentioned thus far? If you can think of more let me know, I'll speak against them too.

>>405277

I've seen more harassment and bullying being done to Slow over this particular subject matter than Slow doing to other people, what does that mean?

>>405279
I again love how you equate being a backwards asshole on the internet with religious affiliation, like they are on the same level or in any way comparable.

At least you've finally admitted the KKK connection though. Keep thinking it through, you're almost there!

>>405281
Isn't it common knowledge that the KKK originated as a far-right Christian group?
Cause that's what I was talking about.

>>405280
That he is experiencing the social consequences of exercising his political right to freedom of speech.

He is allowed to act like an ass, he's not allowed to be respected for doing so.

I am not, however, about to, say, post his face and home address and start a movement dedicated to hounding him to the ends of the Earth, along with anyone that sympathizes with him. I'm just going to call him an asshole.

>>405283
>I am not, however, about to, say, post his face and home address and start a movement dedicated to hounding him to the ends of the Earth, along with anyone that sympathizes with him.
I do appreciate it, it's more than a lot of "your side" can say.

>>405284

Now if you’d just disavow the Gamers of the Gate for doing the same thing…

>>405284
>I do appreciate it, it's more than a lot of "your side" can say.
But it is, sadly, not a thing anyone on your side can say.

>>405282
The KKK's nominal Protestantism is not exactly the defining characteristic of the group, even you must admit.

>>405285
Check 6 posts above yours, Stone, and uh, see a doctor about your eyes. This is the second time in one night, it's worrying me.
>>405286
It is, but I've already resigned on that ground and said I won't be posting names of the "good ones" out of fear that the radicals on here will harass them, so I have no proof to submit on that front.
If nothing else, it's something I can say, and I'm on my side.

>>405283

Interesting, so harassment is okay when you're doing it but you're demonizing gamer gate for harassing others... seems hypocritical to me. Where do the people who think harassing people is bad go?

>>405288
>I won't be posting names of the "good ones"
because they don't exist

you cannot be a "good" #GGer for the same reason you cannot be a "good" KKK member, when bigotry is THE core element of your movement you sacrifice your right to be called good

at BEST you can slide by on the racist grandpa card but even that can be surrendered if you continue to offer active political support to those positions

>>405288

Can you disavow the Gamers of the Gate without deflecting their shittiness via bringing up other “bad actors” in the sociopolitical sphere? Because that seems to be your habit: “Well I think the worst Gaters are assholes BUT SO ARE THESE OTHER PEOPLE.” Why can’t you say the worst Gaters are assholes without undercutting their bad behavior?

>>405289
>Interesting, so harassment is okay when you're doing it but you're demonizing gamer gate for harassing others... seems hypocritical to me. Where do the people who think harassing people is bad go?
I would venture to suggest that there is a difference between calling someone an ass on an anonymous image board and the actual, literal planned smear and scare campaigns engaged in by #GG. You may disagree with this theory if you like but if you actually think this is all harassment maybe this conversation isn't for you at all.

As a side note I absolutely hate that this is the most active part of this site I used to love.

>>405290
>because they don't exist
Yikes bro, you got me, I'm without any counterpoint here.
Except I already said I lose this particular fight way earlier in the thread.
So we're back to masturbation.
>when bigotry is THE core element of your movement you sacrifice your right to be called good
Again, feminism, black-hate.
>oh but that was uh some years ago, and uh, some people in the group don't agree with that anymore-- w-which is different from people in GG not agreeing with harassment, it's different
We're dancing in circles, guy, I'm gonna get dizzy.

>>405294
>oh but that was uh some years ago, and uh, some people in the group don't agree with that anymore-- w-which is different from people in GG not agreeing with harassment, it's different
Yes, a century and half is different than two years, that is correct.

>>405293

We’re imageboard regulars. We live to argue.

>>405291
Not my intention to undercut it.
I think that the GGers who doxx, harass, fling sexist/racist/transphobic slurs, and are just generally turd-eaters

are turd-eaters.

Sated?
>>405292
He might be referring to how I can no longer even post in other threads, even if I'm on-topic, without people tearing into me despite me personally having done no wrong aside from being pompous and narcissistic.
>>405293
lol same

>>405297

See? That wasn’t so hard.

>>405297
>He might be referring to how I can no longer even post in other threads, even if I'm on-topic, without people tearing into me despite me personally having done no wrong aside from being pompous and narcissistic.
For example?

If you guys ARE interested in seeing someone analyze both sides of the GamerGate, taking a look at the bad and good actors on both sides, I recommend Kazerad's tumblr.

http://kazerad.tumblr.com/tagged/GamerGate

>>405299
Wow are you doubting a victim
are you SHAMING a VICTIM
Iunno lots of times in the 4chan complaint thread, all deleted now, been several in the SYM threads. Not gonna look for them, don't care enough, just saying it happens.
>>405298
I wasn't aware that saying "I hate bad people" somehow included the phrase "except for the ones who have ever used the hashtag '#GG'"
Would have clarified sooner had I known, sorry love.

>>405300

I’ve read his stuff (man I wish he’d start writing for his blog again) and I admit, he’s good about taking a balanced look at it. But while I’m all for the sociopolitical mission of “improving games journalism”, the Gamers of the Gate have tainted said mission due to the actions of its bad actors and the group’s generally harsh view of anyone it deems an “SJW” or “anti-GG”. At this point, the group is more about mocking “SJWs” and feminists than about trying to be a watchdog for games journalism—if /r/KotakuInAction is any indication, anyway.

>>405302
deepfreeze.it

It's not a screamer, pinky promise.

>>405301
>"except for the ones who have ever used the hashtag '#GG'"
Well those are the ones you put a good bit of time into defending so

>>405300
I don't care for GG or anti GG but his essays are pretty damn good in general.

>mfw some tard stopped reading his comic only because he mentioned GG on his tumblr

>>405302
>improving games journalism
In what way

>>405301

>I wasn't aware that saying "I hate bad people" somehow included the phrase "except for the ones who have ever used the hashtag '#GG'"

It doesn’t. You just seemed more willing to say “the bad Gaters suck” while simultaneously pointing to people equally as bad—or worse—seemingly as a way of undercutting the awfulness of the worst Gaters’ bad actions (“They’re bad, but they’re not THAT bad in comparison to [x]”). I understand if that wasn’t your intent, but that’s what it looked like to me.

>>405305
>tard
Please do put more effort into word choices. I'm not one to crack down on every little "idi*t" but "retard" and any comparison of black people to monkeys (including "chimping out") are both very common and very uh, counter-intuitive to the idea of being progressive and accepting.

>>405307
The intent was more
>these people are trash. Also, these people. These ones? Trash. I'm glad we all agree that every movement has garbage people in it, please stop acting like they don't.
I understand the misreading though, I suppose it's akin to "I didn't mean to do that, but [x]," where [x] frequently comes across as an excuse even if the person is simply explaining why an event happened and not intending to undermine the fact that it did.

>>405302

Well, frankly, I feel the same way about SJWers and "Feminists" (I utilize in quotation marks because I believe the actual goals of political/social/economic equality for men is now somewhat detatched from the movement). My experiences have had me view people using moral high grounds affoarded to them by claiming "social justice" to harass and dox people who had a different opinion from them, to get them fired from their jobs because they made a comic on the internet they didn't like. I also have friends who used to be part of the social justice clique until they said the wrong thing and got turned on and chased out. So while I roll my eyes at most "those damn sjwer liberals!!" rants (I mean, I'm fairly liberal myself), I do recognize that there are two sides to this debate and that bad actors definitely exist on both sides, and that the good actors don't endorse the actions of the bad actors.

And I don't think I need to ask YOU, Freehaven, to "disavow" the "bad" SJWers. I imagine you don't agree that doxing people is a good thing based on what they believe. It does depress me a bit to see you require Slowpoke do that.

I used to be a namefag here on plus4chan, and in fact many of you probably know me, I had rather positive relationships with most of you, but I had to go anonymous because it got just too cliquey. If you said the wrong thing to someone, you got harassed over it. If you supported the wrong cause you were "the enemy." Perhaps it's better this way because as an anonymous person I'm more free to speak my mind and all I have to worry about is getting banned.

>>405309

Right, right. At least we’re at an understanding about that, now.

>>405311

That was supposed to say "the actual goals of women's rights on the grounds of political/social/economic equality to men" but it got garbled when I typed it out and I didn't catch it upon review.

>>405302
Isn't that subreddit a group dedicated to posting cringeworthy posts?

That's like me browsing /r/tumblrinaction and using it as a cross-section of the website.

>>405311
>I used to be a namefag here on plus4chan, and in fact many of you probably know me, I had rather positive relationships with most of you, but I had to go anonymous because it got just too cliquey. If you said the wrong thing to someone, you got harassed over it. If you supported the wrong cause you were "the enemy."

What are you even fucking talking about, this place had died and bled out users twice over before any of this shit, we didn't have any cliques because we didn't have any people.

>>405315
Possible reference to the End Of The Golden Era, before the first +Exodus, back when Bea hit a kind of weird "SJW" kick and started banning people (for like 5 minutes but still) over using "gendered language" and stuff

It was fairly cliquey back then

>>as an anonymous person I'm more free to speak my mind and all I have to worry about is getting banned.
Yes, that is the entire reason why *chans do not even allow a login function for its userbase. The whole idea behind discrete identity is to allow freedom of expression. moot has been saying it for years.

Fuck, you namefags suck sometimes. All of you are complaining that "why do you assume I hate all [x] when I said I hate [y]?". Have a fucking guess. And you deserve it for namefagging in a pol thread. Only trolls should be doing that.

By all means do it, but don't act all surprised when people judge you instead of your argument.

>>405316
I'm glad I mainly browsed /pco/ back then, I guess.

>>405317

Gee, it’s almost like some of us want to be able to follow a discussion and take accountability for our words, and namefagging/tripfagging allows us to do that. Who would’ve thought?

>>405319
>>be able to follow a discussion
>what is a reply number?
and if you really care who said something, you are ignoring the argument they are presenting

>take accountability for our words
>on the internet

>>405319
Personally, I put on a name because Captain Raptor told me to. Haven't taken it off since.
she'd probably hate me now lmao

>>405317

At the same time, the reason man of us went from just being anonymous to having names on Plus4chan was so we could build relationships within the relatively small community of posters. It was great for awhile! I had loads of fun with Gentlemen Bones, Dr. Nurse, jazz, spideranon, bea, Kosh, and others. But I don't know something happened to the site's temperament and people just kept rubbing each other the wrong way and taking offense to everything and now I barely speak to all of the people I once called friends.

>>405320

I prefer to take responsibility for the things I say. If you have a problem with that, please tell me why I shouldn’t.

Otherwise, let’s get back to actually discussing politics.

>>405322

If it makes you feel better, blame me for the decline. I’m a shitty person; I can take it.

>>405323
>>"let’s get back to actually discussing politics."
this guy! If you didn't have your name showing I would have thought you were brand new

Also, nice ego trip, but the only person responsible for the decline is Mister Twister.

Twister really is terrible.

Also lol, again, trying to make this weird, fake "oh I'm one of YOU" thing happen and say that plus+'s end is because women started not liking being called "bitch" or whatever and not because Anonex would forget to pay the bills.

>>405330
>>405334
You mean the guy whose name is only in this thread because of your two posts?

>>405335
Yes.

Isn't /pco/ for pedophiles?

>>405340
That's what the P stands for, yep.

>>405322
>At the same time, the reason man of us went from just being anonymous to having names on Plus4chan was so we could build relationships within the relatively small community of poster
How you choose to use your free speech and the reactions people have to those choices is the very nature of forming a relationship. You're upset because the reaction you got to your decisions wasn't the reaction you decided you deserved.

If, given the choice between keeping your friends and continuing to use hate speech, you choose the latter, then that says rather a lot about you.

>>405342
>>405343
What are either of you talking about?
I feel like I missed something.

>>405344
Two posters talking about the same thing, but most likely are NOT replying to one another.

The argument is "staying anonymous and shitposting" vs "putting a name in the namefield and choosing your words carefully".

I helped!

>>405343
>then that says rather a lot about you.
That no one considers it hate speech?

>>405346
Look, let's be real here: if you're complaining about losing friends because you weren't "politically correct enough," there's about a 99% chance that what actually happened is that you misjudged who you could say "nigger" around or some nigh-identical situation.

>>405340
Now that /aco/ exists, it's /aco/ for pedophiles and furries.

>>405347
I don't think anyone was really complaining about that. It's also untrue.
>>405345
Thanks!

>>405349
>I don't think anyone was really complaining about that.
It's true that you don't think, but it's not true that nobody was talking about it. This guy was!
>>405322
>>405311

>>405347
>there's about a 99% chance
I'm going to need to see those statistics.

//youtube.com/watch?v=2q6jHad-XG0

>>405352
Hm, a youtube video posted without comment in the /pol/ thread, and which has a number of identical uploads from other users immediately visible in related

nothing suspicious about that

>>405351
Can you cite any time someone has "lost friends for not being PC enough" where they weren't just being dicks and got surprised when their friends sided with the people they were being dicks to over them?

>>405356
Yeah, cause he was totally presenting that as an actual statistic and not just using an extremely common turn of phrase.

>>405357
"He" uttered a fabrication he just made up on the spot, but he phrased it so that it would seem as though it wasn't a complete lie.

>>405355
Back when "social justice" first started getting really popular on Tumblr, I made a comment about wanting to pinch a really cute kid's chubby cheeks
Someone said something to the effect of "lol she'd probably try to kill you, she hates that stuff"
I said something like "it would be worth having to survive a murder attempt"

A friend of mine later told me I had made a rape joke, and when I was confused because rape isn't something I joke about, they brought that back up--touching a girl against her will is rape, and I was saying I would touch her despite her fighting back. I argued that cheek pinching is completely nonsexual, and I had no idea how they had gotten rape out of that. They told me that sexual assault is rape, and then, dead serious, sent me a .pdf of some big-name company's harassment policies, where they outlined sexual harassment as "any unwanted touching i.e. grabbing their hand, pinching, etc"

They then made me admit that I had made a rape joke about a little girl and apologize for it or they would stop talking to me.
I had no self-esteem at the time and definitely no self-respect, so I admitted it and apologized. So technically I suppose I didn't lose a friend over that exact scenario, but if I had loved myself at all, I definitely would have.

Back to actual politics:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/03/10/surprise-nsa-data-will-soon-routinely-be-used-for-domestic-policing-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-terrorism/

#cyberpunkdystopia
#panopticon
#Foucaultwasright

>>405361
>rape isn't something I joke about
WHOA POKE, WHY NOT? SOUNDS LIKE YOU'VE BEEN CONVERTED INTO A SELF-HATING MAN BY THE SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR VIRUS, GOTTA EXERCISE YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO AVOID THIS KIND OF SELF CENSORSHIP

>>405358
No, he responded to the story you posted earlier about plus4 getting too "cliquey" because people wanted you to stop posting vile shit

>>405364
What
>>405365
What

>>405361
So you made a social faux pas, then apologized for it and didn't lose the friendship, meaning the story already has nothing to do with the question that was asked. Cool story, bro.

>>405367
Do you really think that pinching a kid's cheeks is a real social faux pas?

>>405368
This is not really the point so much as the part where your friend asked you to back down because it made her uncomfortable and you actually did instead of trying to lecture about infringing on your ~freedom of speech~ or whatever.

Though for what it is worth, no, I don't (at least not in my cultural context).

>>405369
She didn't ask me to back down, and she wasn't made uncomfortable. She was just calling me out on joking about raping a little girl, and made me admit that I was joking about raping a little girl (I wasn't), and then made me apologize for joking about raping a little girl, otherwise lose the friendship. It was very manipulative, and I eventually did lose the friendship because something like that happened at least once per week, that was just one of the more ridiculous ones off the top of my head.

It had nothing to do with me being a dick and the friend taking the side of the person I was being a dick to, as >>405355 insisted it would, therefore it was relevant.

Man, SJWer Anon is about as crazy as Voting-For-Trump Anon. I would not be surprised if it isn't just the same person having a giggle.

>>405368
Getting a bad reaction socially means what you did is a social faux pas, yes. That's how socialization works.

And the story you're telling isn't even about political correctness, it's about you making a joke that made your friend feel uncomfortable, though you choose to believe she didn't feel uncomfortable about it because it makes you feel like you were in the right and have reinterpreted reality to stroke your own ego--a situation we've all personally witnessed you doing dozens of times.

With the "Slowpoke is always right" filter taken off, that story goes: "One time I said something that I thought sounded right in my head but which other people interpreted as me being a dick, so I apologized about it and then everything was cool. But I still think I was right because I'm always right."

>>405372
Ignoring for a minute that you almost certainly ARE Trump-anon having a laugh (hint: using "SJW" is a giveaway because it's your terminology), no, the person fighting to silence vast chunks of the population and the person fighting against that are not of equivalent levels of craziness.

>>405379
How does some lady punching a horse make Trump not a monster?

>>405380
Yeah he's literally hitler and his supporters are literally nazis. How come people can't see this? We should kill them before it becomes too late.

>>405376
>>405378
Kind of funny that in Post A (I'm assuming you're the same person here) you're approving of an abuser bullying me into calling myself a child-rape apologist because of something innocuous that I said, and in post B, you're saying that you're fighting against silencing anyone.

If you're siding with the kind of person I described (my former abuser, the person who ruined my sense of self-worth for years) then you and I have nothing further to talk about, guy.

>>405380
>monster
>>405381
>hitler
That's the kind of rhetoric that leads to violence by progressives against trump supporters.

>>405382
>I'm assuming you're the same person here
wrong

>>405383
Trump is a monster but you do realize that second post is totally one of yours being sarcastic right

>>405385
In what way is he a monster? You can't just lay down these accusations without supporting them.

//youtube.com/watch?v=NVZvTszrpxM

>>405387
>factory in argentina gets acquired by a corporation
>retards in canada think this is proof of communism working
>make a video about it

>>405386
There's the rape, the racism, the list really goes on.

Nothing you would object to of course, even if he did it in front of you.

>>405389
>the rape
>the racism
Whaaaat?

>>405390
Object to, or admit to, as it happens.

>>405389
The rape is actually new to me, do go on

>>405392
I don't consider your interest the least bit genuine given your history but it's easy enough to find details on with google. See also the mob connections.

>>405394
I don't consider your interest genuine because you're a relentlessly condescending asshole who does nothing but support regressive sociopaths and will never, ever have a moment of self reflection on why people get so short with him.

>>405393
The only rapey thing coming up on google is that some tabloid claimed that Trump raped his wife, and she had to publicly deny it for the rumors to stop. I hope you have another incident, because that was weaksauce.

>See also the mob connections.
This is a Cruz fabrication, a guy that posts Trumps naked wife as propaganda, and you're sucker enough to drink the kool aid.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/in-effort-to-appeal-to-mormons-anti-trump-super-pac-features-naked-wife-melania/

The true story is that at the time of Trumps dealings with Gambino controlled S&A the mob had a monopoly on construction companies in that area, and considering Trump is a real estate developer.... They weren't called the concrete cartel for nothing, it was impossible not to do business with them.

Besides, scratch the surface of any other candidate and you find the mob. Not because they're criminals, but because the mob is PERVASIVE, they're in everything from unions to investment banking.

The top Bernie supporters are unions with deep ties to the mob.
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000528
>Teamsters Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Hoffa
>Hoffa became involved with organized crime from the early years of his Teamsters work, and this connection continued until his disappearance in 1975. He was convicted of jury tampering, attempted bribery, and fraud in 1964, in two separate trials. He was imprisoned in 1967 and sentenced to 13 years, after exhausting the appeal process.

Hillary fundraised from mob families in a mob castle built by Castellano himself.
http://nypost.com/2015/09/16/hillary-to-visit-notorious-mob-mansion-for-fund-raiser/
She even helped one out of prison for political gain.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3351235/Hillary-Clinton-s-ties-MOB-former-Secretary-State-met-Mafia-heir-pizzeria-asked-father-s-release-prison-return-offer-couldn-t-refuse.html
And was even compared to a mafia kingpin herself.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-escaped-whitewater-indictment-compared-to-mafia-kingpin/article/2581726

You need to be less goddamn gullible.

>>405395
>you're a relentlessly condescending asshole who does nothing but support regressive sociopaths and will never, ever have a moment of self reflection on why people get so short with him.
Are you talking about yourself? 'Cause it really seems like you are.

>>405395
Meanwhile you think so highly of yourself that you think I'd feign interest in a political subject just to get Anonymous-sempai to notice me
Zzzzzzzzzz

>>405392
We've told you about it before.

>>405396
>The only rapey thing coming up on google is that some tabloid claimed that Trump raped his wife, and she had to publicly deny it for the rumors to stop. I hope you have another incident, because that was weaksauce.

Completely incorrect. It was published in a biography of trump, and Ivanka originally stated it in their divorce proceedings--it's a matter of public record.

Trump has never denied things unfolded exactly as Ivanka described, nor has Ivanka ever recanted on the fact that Trump angrily and violently forced himself on her sexually. That is an established fact. But it was not considered rape because under New York law at the time, you "couldn't rape your wife." Even Trump's lawyers' response to questions about it is only that New York didn't consider violently fucking your wife against her wishes rape at the time the incident occurred. Any conscious human being would recognize what he did to her as rape, it's only not rape in the eyes of the law.

And her "publically denying it" was not what happened at all--after the divorce, Trump's lawyers made her stop saying it because even though it is historical fact that he raped her, the fact that it couldn't be called that at the time due to a legal technicality (that any thinking human being living in the year 2016 would consider bullshit, including New York which struck that law from the record since then) means that her saying he raped her would be defamatory, and Trump is rich and loves nothing more than to sue the shit out of people for defamation, or even just allege defamation for the chance to file SLAPP suits.

Donald Trump raped his wife. This is a historical fact, whether or not Trump supporters want to address it.

>>405410
>whining
>not offering solutions to problems
>not mad at islamists for making muslims look bad
>claims closing the borders hurts him somehow
If he actually cared about solutions he would demand that his government end unrestricted immigration from warzones, regardless of religion. 21st century warfare tends to weigh in on the small non-state actors side, it's just unrealistic to admit refugees without vetting.

>>405400
This is honestly completely news to me.

Maybe you told a different pink sea-otter hippo thing.

>>405412
Hm, yes, continue to be flippant to the person telling you about a rape, continue to claim that you're some neutral party as you let that sewage just above you fly by without comment.

>>405413
I wasn't being flippant, and I wasn't claiming to be neutral?

He just said he'd already told me, and I said I had never heard of this before. Do I really need to start denouncing bad things with every post so that people will know I feel that way?

(disclaimer: The Client, heretoforth referred to as "Slowpoke," believes that rape, harassment, and bullying are very bad things, and does not claim neutrality on those subjects)

>>405409
>You realize this doesn't mean rape, right?
Yes, actually, forcing yourself on someone sexually means rape.

>>405415
Not if it's consensual you fucking virgin.

>>405416
Forcing yourself on someone means it's not consensual.

>>405418
No it doesn't, it's possible to be forceful while consensual. Are you twelve years old?

>>405419
Being forceful and forcing are not the same thing no matter how much you pretend otherwise

Trump is a monstrous human being and doesn't deserve to exist outside of a jail cell much less be granted the US Presidency

>>405419
>“Then he jams his penis inside her for the first time in more than sixteen months. Ivana is terrified… It is a violent assault,” Hurt writes. “According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, ‘he raped me.’”
>Following the incident, Ivana ran upstairs, hid behind a locked door, and remained there “crying for the rest of night.” When she returned to the master bedroom in the morning, he was there.
>“As she looks in horror at the ripped-out hair scattered all over the bed, he glares at her and asks with menacing casualness: ‘Does it hurt?’” Hurt writes.

Lol, so consensual.

clearly this is the work of some kind of underwater sjw cabal out to discredit the great and honest donald trump

>>405421
>Hurt writes
>tabloid writer
>written as though he was in the room and saw it
>denied by everyone involved
Yeah ok.

>>405420
She denied it was rape and said quote "The story is totally without merit."

>monstrous
Again everything you put up are false rumors, do you have an actual reason why you think he's a monster or not?

>>405423
>tabloid writer

He wrote for Newsweek for Christ's sake, not National Enquirer.

>>405424
think about who you are talking to, do you think he honestly cares or indeed even believes what he's saying

it doesn't matter anyway, regardless of whatever lies shitty people on the internet tell, regardless of the backwards rednecks that flock to him, Trump doesn't have the clout to go all the way to the finish line, he'll lose, the Dems (probably under Hillary granted, but you can't have everything) will win again, and the American right will continue to shrink and consume itself

>>405424
Newsweek is a tabloid.

>>405425
>think about who you are talking to
He's talking to Trumps wife. And I say it wasn't a rape.

Listen and believe motherfucker.

>>405432
Trumps wife would have no more idea than anyone else. It's about Trump's ex-wife. And as has already been noted, it's not rape in a legal sense because lol, New York says you can't rape your wife. But making someone who doesn't want to have sex with you have sex with you is rape by any logical standard, regardless of the legal circumstances.

>>405434
It's not rape in any sense, the story is without merit.

>>405435
If you honestly believe that forcing someone to have sex with you against their will isn't rape, I'm beginning to have concerns that you are, yourself, a rapist. Or at least a potential rapist.

>>405439
>against their will
That's not what happened though, no matter how badly you want his ex wife to have been raped, she denies it.

>>405439
Most Trump supporters certainly fit at least the latter criteria.

>>405440
Because she was threatened with defamation suits, yes.

Interesting how /pol/-kun gets so angry when Breitbart is dismissed, but will do the same for NEWSWEEK of all publications.

>>405442
That's your very strong religious belief for which you have no proof, yes.

>>405446
It was in their divorce proceedings, dude. It's a matter of public record. You've just got a strong religious belief that it didn't happen because if it did you might have to admit that you are willing to support a rapist if it serves your political goals.

>>405445
Nah, /pol/-kun didn't like Trump iirc

>>405447
The defamation litigation is a matter of public record?

>>405460

And, again, I’ll remind you that Gawker plans to appeal, so don’t go celebrating just yet.

IN OTHER NEWS: my state’s legislature is a motherfucking joke. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/north-carolina-gender-bathrooms-bill/index.html

>>405461
Are you retarded?

>Under current Florida law, any appellant (person filing an appeal) in a civil judgement, must bond or pay one half of that judgement, with the maximum bond being fifty million dollars, to the court before the appeals process can begin.[13] The problem facing Gawker is that this is more than their current annual income, and may make the appeal process difficult, if not impossible to undertake.[14]

I've said this to you multiple times, let it penetrate that thick skull of yours.

>>405463
They already raised the money for the appeal actually.

>>405464
see >>405218

Reminder that in 2014 after Gamergate attacked the advertisers, Gawker had about 6 million in profit. They were already saddled with significant debt, the minimum of 50 million debt on top of that will significantly impact their bottom line, whereas if the full 140 million is proceeded with they will be forced to incorporate.

So at the minimum Gawker is severely damaged, and if Gawker incorporates its basically the end of the company, Denton will likely be fired by the board within a few quarters and it definitely wont be posting pro-bestiality pro-pedophilia articles anymore.

>>405465
Ok but why not wait for the appeals before you pretend to celebrate the improvement of "journalism" and not your real interest?

>>405467
>not your real interest?
And what would that be?

>>405466

People, don't resort to physical violence on other people just because they support a candidate you disagree with.

What is this, 3rd Grade? Shameful behavior.

>>405468
>And what would that be?

Your tribe beating the "other" tribe.

>>405470
What tribes are those?

>>405471
It's kind of irrelevant which tribes they are. It's just about beating "the other guy."

In this case it's Gamersgate and what they perceive to be "Anti GG," i.e. sites like Jezebel that push feminist issues or Kotaku that they've honed in on as *the* premier "bad games journalism" site even though every other games journalism site is pretty much exactly as bad--both of which happen to be run by Gawker.

>>405472
being fair, Gawker actually is a dreadful organization

>>405476
I like Lifehacker.

It occurred to me today what the Trump phenomenon is really all about.

Supporting Trump is basically people's way of saying they wish they didn't have democracy, they want a return to monarchy. They're tired of people who actually have to try to work with other people and think of other people's feelings and show common etiquette, they want a noble class who will be as rude as they want to because they have all the power. The polls even show that the primary unifying feature of Trump supporters is leaning authoritarian.

Trump supporters are closet monarchists. They don't want Trump to be president, they want a king. And Trump has all the features one would expect--bad manners that would be easy to mistake for good breeding, no real understanding of rulership other than that it's his by Divine Right, loads of money and no sense of how to spend it, and barely any real-world skills to speak of. But damn he makes a nice figure to watch on TV, and I suppose in some lights he could even look the way a leader is supposed to look according to the movies--like an angry, ignorant old nouveau riche (which is ironic given that he came from money) white man with too much money and a bad toupee.

I'll bet the people voting for Trump are the same people who made the Royal Wedding such ratings gold. Americans obsessed with royalty.

>>405478

>Supporting Trump is basically people's way of saying they wish they didn't have democracy, they want a return to monarchy.

This is a good examination of Trump's popularity that falls along those lines: http://weeklysift.com/2016/03/21/tick-tick-tick-the-augustus-countdown-continues/

>>405480
Not so much they want a monarchy is they want to break a system that is trying to assemble a global plutocracy.

And right now Trump is the only one calling it out and looking to break the system they've spent creating through bad trade deals.

If Congress wants to curtail anything he does then they'll have to fight him. As the system was originally meant to work.

>>405482
>Not so much they want a monarchy is they want to break a system that is trying to assemble a global plutocracy.
friendly old farmer trump, known salt of the earth fellow

>>405482
>Not so much they want a monarchy is they want to break a system that is trying to assemble a spherical plutocracy.

By electing someone whose name they only know because he's rich?

Stop deluding yourself. Trump is not the cure for plutocracy. He is plutocracy writ large.

>>405480
That was a good article. I enjoyed it, and agree with most of the points it made.

>>405484

But not really. Others I see drooling at the prospect of being president ready and easily bending their views to set themselves in what they belive are better postions with the political elite (save his fellow Populist Sanders). I watch his interviews and read about his past decades about being asked to run and I don't see him out for himself. He sees global elites doing wrong by this nation and abusing the people and he wants that to stop.

Man willing to give up the life he's living in comfort to take on a thankless job. He's as close to what the founders wanted in those seeking elected office nowadays.

Even moreso if he upholds the pledge that he'll not accept the salary of the office when he's in there.

Any man who's got the other Billonaires and Politcal Kingmakers acting like Bond villians holding secret meetings on islands on how to defeat him has got to be doing something right.

Could he be a farce, sure but right now just him being here is causing the corrupt system to unmask in an attempt to take him down before the general. And overall shoving these rats into the light of day I think is the most important thing to do right now.

>>405482
>Not so much they want a monarchy is they want to break a system that is trying to assemble a global plutocracy.
This.

Bernie is on the same road and he would probably be my second candidate if Trump doesn't get nominated. The only thing that turns me off Bernie is he's like tripling the tax and I work for a living.

>>405483
Nah he's a bastard, but at least he's a predictable bastard out for himself. A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for... pretty much the corporation that offers her the most money. There's no telling who Hillary will work for, she's a complete campaign whore.

>>405487
>Man willing to give up the life he's living in comfort to take on a thankless job. He's as close to what the founders wanted in those seeking elected office nowadays.
In that he would be the only pro-slavery candidate, yes.

>>405487
>Man willing to give up the life he's living in comfort to take on a thankless job.

Are you fucking high? Trump would do anything to hear his name spoken. He's a narcissist, not a martyr.

>>405493
it's finally happened

this thread has gotten so utterly absurd that EVEN THIS seems like it COULD BE sincere

>>405488
The only thing that turns me off Bernie is he's like tripling the tax and I work for a living.

Income tax would go up 4% for income over $250,000, below that it stays the same. That's not really tripling

>>405507
No, Bernie does plan to raise income tax across the board....but also cut out the need for insurance, thus saving most people more money than they would pay in insurance premiums. Even if they're only paying in to their company's plan.

>>405508
>saving most people more money than they would pay in insurance premiums

I worded that badly. What I mean is that the amount most people's taxes would increase would be lower than the amount they would save by not having to pay insurance premiums. I.e. a net increase in the amount of the money they make that they get to keep, even though the gross tax rate would increase.

>>405508
>>405509
>No, Bernie does plan to raise income tax across the board

Is there a source for this? Every analysis of his tax plan I can find doesn't have increases for anything below 250,000.

>>405513
>it has good humour
hm, no

>>405516
no u

>>405516
>i dont have a sense of humor
ooo-ok

>>405524
>>405521
I mean I guess if hate speech is your idea of a punchline then /pol/ macros are for you.