[flagged]
When I used to visit 4chan for entertainment in 2009, I believed this too, but the veil came off a long time ago.
If you have a board where it's acceptable to pretend to be racist, antisemitic, etc, then eventually your board will fill with actual racists, antisemites, etc.
/r/The_Donald started as a subreddit where people thought the idea of Trump becoming POTUS was hilarious, stupid, could never happen, and people cheered him on for the lulz. Over time, it became a home base for his most rabid supporters.
Back on the original point, do you know what you call someone who pretends to be racist?
A racist.
This hasn't been plausible, much less true, for 10 years. I don't know how anyone can look at, for example, Payton Gendron's manifesto and say it's ironic. Were the bullets he fired ironic as well?
There is an entire generation of users, who are probably the bulk of users now, who were never in on the "joke" (if there ever was one).
That made me curious, so I went looking for the flagged comment. Upon reading it, I'd a hazard a guess that it's flagged not "merely for correcting dangerous nutritional information" but referring to the people who disagree with you as "HN brainlets".
The NZ mosque shooter's manifesto was almost literally one long 4chan meme thread. There were pages and pages of images and charts and memes that were (and still are) posted to 4chan every day. He openly stated he wasn't always racist and that /pol/ significantly changed his mind on the matter.
We take it serious because innocent people being murdered is serious.
Look, if people posting charts and memes you find distasteful bothers you this much, you frankly don't belong on the internet. And you can post the opposite perspective on 4chan, without censorship: you can be pro-Communist, anti-Ukraine, pro-CCP, whatever.
And if I wanted to, I could probably play the same game as you and mine the Nashville shooter's manifesto for examples of influences to target for censorship, except strangely, for some reason, they won't release it.
You're missing the point.
It's not that it's merely "distasteful". I would put shock content like Goatse, 2girls1cup, Mr Hands, and Tubgirl into that bucket.
It's that racist content is actively harmful and encourages others to be actively harmful.
There's no victim when someone posts a video of two girls eating each other's shit, but spreading racist hatred encourages and emboldens racists which then results in hate crimes.
People seek out ideological justifications for acting out their violent desires, which are inculcated by broken and atomized social environments. The ideology is the excuse, not the cause.
Ironic far right shitposts are just far right shitposts.
But doesn't it?
Usually it's the authoritarians, dictators and generally "bad guys" who need to limit speech, censor, burn books, etc.
Do you really need courts to settle a verbal (well.. written) argument online?
Yes, it's just one of many examples where cultural differences cause issues, and where two people consider themselves "good" and the other one "bad" and in turn, censor all speech, since both are racist in atleast some of the courts.
You imply (but I am not convinced) that there are serious consequences for having one opinion or the other on these "cross country" online communities. I suspect instead that for the more nuanced issues like affirmative action there will just be the usual arguing back and forth and little else.
Of course you can. Especially if there's a fire.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
Do you not realize that "echo chamber" describes this place, and any place with groupthink enforcement mechanisms (voting, karma, flagging, and excessive moderation) much more accurately than 4chan? For example, HN groupthink has endorsed low-carb and ketogenic diets almost since its inception, and as a consequence, has also promoted the dissemination of dangerous health misinformation, like LDL cholesterol denialism and downplaying the risks of excessive sodium and satrated fat consumption.
Could you perhaps share some studies of effective ways to reduce radicalization? I highly doubt “not visiting or posting on 4chan” is one of them.
The usual problem I see is anti-"nazi" rhetoric quickly descends into dehumanization rhetoric about how such people don't deserve to live, should be ejected from all civil society, and must be relentlessly persecuted by every legal and social mechanism possible; in fact, all the suspension of every civil right is acceptable if it means stopping nazis. At the same time, it seems that almost everybody who lived in 1940 would be considered a Nazi by today's rather loose standards, and everybody tries to paint their opponents as nazis (even conservatives have the rather inept 'actually, Nazis were SOCIALISTS" retort) and apply this sort of rhetoric to what even 10 years ago was a completely mainstream liberal.
Certainly 4chan is full of reprobates of every flavor. But if you live in a society where the existence of Nazi rhetoric is actually dangerous, well, you've already lost your free society. People don't read deranged Internet rants and become mass murderers unless they were born in raised in an already broken, atomized society. The ideology is the excuse for the violence, not the cause. And unfortunately, this sort of rhetoric (we have to do whatever it takes to stop nazis) is also indicative of an worsening social environment.
And typically, in worsening social environments, where a variety of ideologies become excuses for broken and/or desperate people to become violent, the government will become more and more totalitarian in response. And we’ll cheer it along.
I know, I know for the sake of appearances we don't define everyone who disagrees with us as a nazi, that would be too obvious (although we still do alot).
We describe the broad spectrum of perfectly main-stream, otherwise unremarkable views (but that disagree with us) as "nazi supporters", dog-whistlers etc.
Too easy.
He constantly butts in where he doesn't belong, to claim that good discussion is "flame wars". HN truly is overly moderated and would benefit from less heavy handed moderation.
Internet antisemitism is of course not Rodgers and Hammerstein, but wide sweeping falsehoods don't prove anything about anyone.
Guess prince Harry didn't