Well, noisy discourse, shitposting, and doubles threads. Actually, not really discourse at all. Mostly just heresy.
I know having that kind of space online as I was coming-of-age was huge for me, it gave me somewhere to experiment with opinions without consequences. Somewhere to say truly, truly disgusting things. And I did, a lot. But over time, it became clear where I was just being offensive and experimenting with "naughty" ideas, where I was trolling, and where I genuinely disagreed with the norm.
That free experimentation with opinions and language is a lot harder to find these days, but it really shaped and honed my ability to even form arguments, my ability to explain my position to people who don't agree with me, and my ability to listen to positions I find offensive.
Not all discourse needs be Discourse, full of profundity and consequence; experimentation, freedom, and privacy are core to the human developmental and creative processes.
Well yes, but the question is, do you value that developmental benefit enough to pay for it? The real problem here isn't "freedom", it's business: how can 4chan pay for itself?
Which is not to say that your comment is not valid. Society needs a release valve where people can feel free to vent their creativity along with the darkness in their souls. Imageboards are really great for that, as the ephemeral anonymous nature lets the good ideas survive and the bad ideas fade forever into the aether. Without the fear of consequences or prejudice, the human spirit is unbound to create stuff. Naturally, 90% of everything created is crap.
It's just a terrible place to learn socialization. And a few too many do that.
What you revile here with such colorful language is nothing but many developmentally delayed people you likely bully in real life (and certainly, if not you, others do) for not learning social graces and conforming to society at the rate you do forming a community and insisting that they be treated with rather than oppressed by society at large, or they'll tear the place down.
You don't like it, because you were on the oppressing side, and oppressing them is easier than dealing with their very real underlying issues and trying to meaningfully integrate them in to society.
So your suggestion is to eliminate a community that plays a healthy role for normally developing people and a meeting ground for them, presumably in hopes that they'll go back to quietly being oppressed.
> It's just a terrible place to learn socialization. And a few too many do that.
Frankly, I doubt you offered them a better alternative.
I have offered an alternative wiki farm, and specifically a wiki about tropes in media. The last time we had to deal with a developmentally disabled person on there, we ended up calling his parents to ask for help. You know, so we could treat him like a real human being and not just a ban evader.
Perhaps I read it wrong: feel free to provide another interpretation of the quoted text. I'd genuinely like to be wrong here, but it reads like you're engaged in culturally approved oppression of the invisibly disabled.
Ed: In particular, you identify a group of developmentally stalled people who didnt receive the help they needed to be properly socialized, and then immediately call them "deplorables" because they acted out.
I think that says it all: these are people you willingly other instead of embrace because they offend your cultured sebsibilities, and the culture you're in tells you to revile rather than help. That's the definition of culturally sanctioned oppression.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but openly racist and sexist people are deplorable.
> openly racist and sexist people are deplorable
I mean, I obviously disagree. I think it matters a lot why they're doing those things, as opposed to that they're doing them. If it's because they're mentally disabled and we've failed to teach them socially appropriate behaviors as they matured, how is that their failing rather than ours?
Your lack of concern for that possibility -- that we're just discarding the disabled because they didn't develop under their own power in to normal adults -- is what troubles me about your stance.
I've claimed that I think you're acting a certain way, but that's not a personal attack: it's a specific claim about how you're acting (and how it impacts others) based on specific and cited things you've said. Calling you out for your behavior isn't "attacking" you, even if it's uncomfortable for you or violates your social expectations.
> I don't really care about your views now, because you're obviously a lost cause.
Yes, I suspected that you would refuse to engage with someone who disagreed with your view and called you out on your behavior, because it would force you to confront the reality of how your actions impact people rather than the social fable you tell yourself about them. Notice how you call me a "lost cause", but clearly never even talked to me in this exchange. You just said the socially approved phrases at me. I think the reason you haven't actually addressed my specific points is because at some level, you know you can't. That what you're doing really is oppression targeted at a disabled group you've been socialized to find "deplorable" rather than "unfortunate".
It's just much easier to deny your bad behavior and fit in.
But I sincerely hope you'll at least try for your own benefit. I think having to explain why poorly raised mentally disabled people saying racist things are deplorable rather than unfortunate, without merely assuming your conclusion is right would teach you a lot about yourself. You don't even have to show me: just spend 5 minutes typing it out for yourself. Why not be sure you're right instead of merely assuming Im wrong?
Good luck on your commit. (:
That you're not even able to admit that much is telling, lol