(untitled)

https://lainchan.org/hum/res/74048.html Yep, they just did it again. Arbitrary deletion after deletion after deletion. Lainchan is done, if it ever even was to begin with. I have no particular attachment to that thread but I saw it greyed out in my thread watcher and thought yep, no surprises there. It's Lainchan, of course a longstanding thread with hundreds of replies will be active when you go to sleep and then just silently greyed out when you wake up. Of course it is. I would link the wayback machine for convenience, but turned off my auto-archiving script a while ago. I've included the link so a person can search for older versions themselves. Most of the posts were probably archived. Which defeats the chan concept and spirit imo, arching. But then again, so does what the fnckheads imagining that they run things do as well. With their new image OCR "go away spammer" function, it's essentially getting to be facebook and imgur censorship tier at this point. There's something really wrong with this place. https://files.catbox.moe/94hpao.png The first time I uploaded this to catbox it failed and I was like goddamn, the entire world is run by Agent Smith. Then it worked second time. lol

t. retard complains about retarded thread being finally deleted you can always discuss your retarded topics on retarded imageboards which are plenty

>>81538 Typical response. My mind has a massive predictor tree and probably already knows every output you could possibly produce. Within a sentence or two it's narrowed down to a few branches, not even large ones, and you will offer no surprises. The outcome of interaction with people like you is 100% determined by my choices, you bring nothing to the table and simply react. It's weird because I'veseen Apple-dumbfnck1234 post materials about cult deprogramming, hypnosis, and SRA / ritual abuse-like aftereffects. Yet he allows this site to run this way.

>>81539 seeing how you're butthurt over truth doesn't do anything to make your thread any more legitimate. using intricate phrasings only reassures your retardation. catering to moderators is disgusting. my input to you is zero because you're an intellectual black hole

>wow this must be an important and interesting thread >click catbox link >unsourced vaccine shizoshit Its at best off topic

Hey, if it makes you feel any better I think you're both dumb niggers. >>81538 I've no idea what thread in question was deleted so I say something very general that just because you personally don't get anything out a discussion, doesn't mean it's useless and thus needs to be removed/suppressed. >>81540 I don't need to say much about your digital autism equivalent of crayon drawings, do I? Just because you're posting on an anonymous image board doesn't mean you have to mentally revert to playground age.

>>81543 Oh, it was one of these vaxtard / anti-vaxtard threads? Well, I guess it does suck having the clots from an experimental MRNA injection / not being able to participate in polite society for a year or two.

oh fug they killed the simpsons vaxxxxxx thread por quois por quois idk it was an ok thread but olde. on le other hande killing olde threads is what new threads are for not moderator action in my humiliated opinion >>81544 yes it does sorry I dont make les rules

>81538 since you are here its a retard board too

>>81544 >Just because you're posting on an anonymous image board doesn't mean you have to mentally revert to playground age. I consider it a form of mirroring. Dark mirror. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrors_in_Mesoamerican_culture?useskin=vector >>81546 There was no reason to remove it. It's been sitting there for nearly a year. It fell back a few pages, then someone bumped it. A mod noticed and deleted it. Completely unacceptable behavior not to mention "narcissistic" (few times I'll use the term) to just erase a bunch of people's time and energy investment. There is no excuse for that. Period, end of story.

>>81537 Appreciate that you added a screencap of the thread, because I wondered where that thread went! Didn't see anything in there that warrants deletion, so I'm kind of surprised that it did got deleted. Guess I'm not the only one who feels that way, seeing the replies in this thread, but considering the rules, isn't this thread more appropiate for >>>/q/ ? In the meantime, I'll go and make a new thread about the subject in the coming week, since there's more shenanigans at hand.

>>81548 would the same be true if this thread get deleted? I post in off topic or rulebreaking threads like these with the expectation of short thread lifetimes. Hopefully everyone else in that/this thread had/has similar feelings.

>>81550 I've tried to post in /q/ in the past and my threads never appear, gives some error. Then again the rest of the boards used to give that message too and it seems to have been fixed, so don't know. I don't really give a sh!t about their "don't criticize me!" enumerated formalisms (rules) tbqh, beyond what it compels them to do. This is not the first time they've done this. More than likely a particular mod or Appleman will jump in eventually, if anything at all, and provide some vague justification, never admit fault, and hope to quietly sweep it under the rug and let it fade away like all the other times. Once you admit fault, they have you, never admit, never submit, always maintain the superior position, always remain opaque, everyone knows this. Totally predictable behavior from anything that likes to make its way into management-like positions, such as moderators. Often applies to admins founders and staff, but not always. We will see. Your more fair and even tempered attitude is probably better for this overall. But again, I've seen this happen so many times and in so many ways.

the last posts where brewing soykaf so someone got triggered and deleted it completely. Been discussed to dead as its been state of this site for years now and repeatedly occured with even way less controversial topics.

>>81548 Dejpegg'd this image. Don't know why artists create this just to jpeg them into oblivion.

>>81554 Well actually on closer comparison the saturation is such that the model mistook it for noise, and changed the contrast and colors quite a bit. Too much to be an acceptable improvement really. The saiyajin ESRGAN model tends to do that when you have high contrast or saturation.

>>81548 >Dark mirror. Oh one of those dark tardigrade traits. You go on then, champ! >>81551 Yeah, I don't expect it to stay up either so I'll just call the mod responsible a lazy user for deleting the entire thread with all the effort posts and possibly useful info instead of taking the extra minute to only remove the soykafposts. Calling them mega gay if they did so over some personal offense because only bitch tits do that kind of thing. That's what the science says at least.

>Hey, if it makes you feel any better I think you're both dumb niggers. and you with your retarded oppic is the only sane man in thread. your way of "getting on top" is disgusting and futile. i admit your victory in contest of retardation though. >I've no idea what thread in question so i cluelessly spit out some soykaf out my ass just because i want to show off. and you call me dumb nigger. ever looked into mirror? >Just because you're posting on an anonymous image board doesn't mean you have to mentally revert to playground age. you say this advice right after violating it yourself, now tell me any single reason why i shouldn't throw off your consideration as useless trash? >>81547 >it's a retard board that's why i don't feel bad about calling you out >>81548 >There was no reason to remove it except it was a dumb /p0l/-tier thread. people there needed to stop after investigating the research data, but /p0l/-folks are unstoppable. >Completely unacceptable behavior not to mention then go to /q/ and ask moderators to explain. it's also funny how you define what's acceptable and what's not on a site that isn't even your own. btw you are currently violating rule 6 which states >Do not whine and cry about 8chan, lainchan.jp, "quality", "invasions", "new users", mods, bans, or kalyx outside of /q/. and rule 11, which states >Read the rules again. At least 3 times. now will you keep talking to me about being acceptable? >>81552 >I don't really give a sh!t about their "don't criticize me!" and they in return don't give a soykaf about you and your thread >Appleman will jump in eventually, if anything at all, and provide some vague justification, never admit fault, and hope to quietly sweep it under the rug and let it fade away like all the other times they recognize your mind being an all consuming void and prefer to take a nap instead of trying to fill it with reason

>>81557 >/p0l/-tier thanks for verifying your mental issues to everyone

>>81556 I wouldn't consider myself a dark triad, no. Nor a "dark empath". Not what is meant by the phrase, I consider conflating those concepts with mirroring or mirrors more broadly, to be a distortion.

>>81558 Yeah he pretty much just took chunks of what I wrote out of context so he could apply his canned reactions and slant to it. Not worth responding to in depth, speaks best for itself imo.

>>81557 Sure, freedom of expression and being stupid, I get it. Be a dumb nigger then. Just don't be surprised why people end up thinking you're being one. Also hey, safe and effective! >>81559 That's actually a good thing and I'm glad you aren't, fello lainon. Dark triad types are usually just psychos and cunts or have some other anti social issue. But regarding the mirroring, don't wrestle pigs in the mud. They've got home advantage and all you'll ever get out of it is getting dirty and messed up.

i didn't care about the vaccine discussion beforehand, but after seeing how badly it is repressed, i start suspecting there really is something scummy going on about them...

>>81560 the issue i see with such phrases is only reason you would have it on your mind is being an user. Engaging with a place your hate is not mentally sound. Also reminds me of old people's associating what they dislike with the devil. Middle age mentality in 21th century.

>>81558 you could teach me a better word to describe that kind of people, i don't like pronouncing the "***-tier" thing myself >thanks for verifying your mental issues to everyone huh that's kind of response i like to make often which is certainly ironic seeing how you're probably another masking tard >>81560 that's all you can say when your petty opinion is confronted rightfully and in a due manner. yeah i won't cater to you as being a "fellow lainon" and be nice to you when i see you're clearly being stupid. your way of trying to get away from argument by shrugging off frustration i give you is pathetic, but i hope you recognize your issues there behind the mask of unapproachable formidability of mind and work on them >>81561 >Be a dumb nigger then. >freedom of expression and being stupid, I get it i am being completely honest with you, while you are a covert pathetic tard posting pics from google in the vain attempt to upset me. saying things out your ass and pretending them to be true, like you do, is pathetic >Also hey, safe and effective! the safe and effective is about you. you are so afraid of confronting your own lack of an opinion about anything that you absolutely must fake an intelligent patient guy when talking to me, just so you don't feel so bad. the reasons against deleting that thread you give here are "i don't want it to be deleted!!1! please undo!1!". why then are not moderators entitled to doing exactly same thing, namely "the thread tired the fuarrrk out of me, i will just DELETE it whole"? >>81563 >Engaging with a place your hate is not mentally sound actually that's not necessarily true. there's that exposure therapy. also it is generally healthy to strengthen your mind by engaging with things you dislike, if you don't push beyond exercise.

>>81564 >i need exposure therapy for politics lmao at your life

>>81564 the reasons for shooting you in the head are "i don't want to be shot in the head!!1! please spare me!1!" if my reasons for shooting you in the head are "you tire the fuarrrk out of me, i will just shoot you in the head", then i will shoot you in the head, and i will be right.

OP here. Scrolling back through the thread and seeing shrugging guys posts, textwall multireply guy, me crossing out posts. lmao haha hahahahaha Oh man. lol. Improved my day, when you step afterwards and look at it from afar. I'm going for a walk I suppose. kek Aetheric bio-internet frog god moment.

>>81564 Are you upset? You sound upset. What I've said appears to be true regardless and / or validated by your response. Especially the pigs in the mud part. If you believe otherwise then actually point out what your exact issues are instead of just frothing otherwise you just look dumb while trying to appear otherwise. >>81562 Really makes you think. And the mod deleting an entire thread instead of only the posts that they've got issues with makes them lazy and gay.

>>81569 it's like burning a book because someone scribbled a footer you didn't like. humility is a virtue, just let us cook

>>81569 Mods are often biobots, which makes them inherently fake and gay. Very gay in fact. More gay than fake at least, so at least 101% gay.

>>81567 that's right in term of moral if we are speaking about a society of wise men. in reality however people are not trained in philosophy, as such most of them (you included) make decisions based on the model of the least self harm to benefit ratio. shooting somebody in the head when you can avoid them is not wise in terms of the ratio, but deleting an unbearable thread is perfectly safe for the moderator. in this light your analogy in invalid if, however, we go into philosophy, and speak philosophically, which is ironic considering the level of intelligence of all the interlocutors, then indeed a man who makes a tyrant of himself for reasons such as grief or irritation is a bad man, and should improve himself. you only forget that if we begin in philosophy, then the retarded thread didn't have to exist in the first place. inflexibility of mind of those who posted in the thread can not be amended by any reasonable approach and would probably take a sage with skill more on Socratic level. since there are no such people in here, it follows that the only way to restore order is to enforce a rule. you are being retarded, mods get irritated, they see futility of arguing with you, they remove you. i can't imagine how you could expect anything else. well, i just lied. i can imagine it perfectly well

>>81572 >as such most of them (you included) make decisions based on the model of the least self harm to benefit ratio. The rational free agent theory is easily debunked by just looking around. The average person is neither rational, nor a free agent, nor do they fine tune their internal metrics and feedback loops for relevant personal gain. Personal net gain, risk:benefit, etc are all byproducts of what's actually happening. I'm sorry dude but when people pull this "the average person is le selfish gene" BS I just have to ask myself if it's wishful thinking, autism (ie a false sensation that everyone normal knows what they're doing and is in on it), or they're just totally asleep at the wheel in general. Like it's the most absurdist anti-reality take possible.

>>81572 >model of the least self harm to benefit ratio. shooting somebody in the head when you can avoid them is not wise in terms of the ratio, but deleting an unbearable thread is perfectly safe for the moderator i now deem you to be unbearable according to vague bullshit personal judgement such as you are being retarded. thus seen as your post didn't have to exist in the first place and is perfectly safe to remove it then your post should be removed in any case because i say so. >the only way to restore order is to enforce a rule yes of course, a rule, my rule. now you must agree with me or else i will see futility in arguing with you or else i will remove you.

>>81573 you have not provided evidence in your post, while my evidence is the nature herself. everyone moves towards what they think is good for themselves, and opt to move away from what they think is bad for themselves. those who are mistaken about good and bad necessarily bump into bad, as such they can't do anything else except try and minimize the level of perceived bad, which leads to minimization of the ratio about which i am talking. that's how i look around. show me your view.

>>81574 if that's your will go on and remove me, what do i care? all is fair here, you don't come giving grief to the owner of the land.

freedom of speech is there for a reason... i can name many reasons actually, but in light of this thread i can think mainly of one: to give falsehood the chance to be disproven lest it rot in someone's mind forever. >>81576 if you don't care about freedom of speech and censorship, that is your thing, but it isn't ours.

>freedom of speech is there for a reason people need an illusion of freedom >to give falsehood the chance to be disproven lest it rot in someone's mind forever or be replaced by another falsehood. making clownish threads like that is a poor excuse for freedom of speech >if you don't care about freedom of speech and censorship, that is your thing, but it isn't ours. who denies you the freedom of speech? go on and speak as much as you like. to a wall, or to your neighbor, whoever seems to be more patient. but you come to others' places and bitch around how you're not allowed freedom of speech. rights are not given, they are taken. you go around demanding freedom but all you need it for is to spread your own retardation unto others

>>81578 are you really >>81572 ? you were talking so wisely now look how low you have fallen. >freedom of speech is there for a reason >people need an illusion of freedom better have freedom of speech than no freedom of speech, or would you disagree? >to give falsehood the chance to be disproven lest it rot in someone's mind forever >or be replaced by another falsehood. making clownish threads like that is a poor excuse for freedom of speech so discussion leads to falsehood? if that is the case surely there would be no truth in this world, would you disagree? >if you don't care about freedom of speech and censorship, that is your thing, but it isn't ours. >who denies you the freedom of speech? well, the people that prune threads maybe...? >go on and speak as much as you like. to a wall, or to your neighbor, whoever seems to be more patient. if freedom of speech means anything, it should be to tell people what they don't like to hear. >rights are not given, they are taken. thus i take. >you go around demanding freedom but all you need it for is to spread your own retardation unto others welcome to freedom. you may use it another way if you like, hope that i follow you in this regard.

>>81573 >>81574 It's main protagonist syndrome as far as I can tell. Look how much this user is trying to sound smart. Meanwhile I've got flies nose dive and die in my food all the time. Everyone (including you, proponent of the rational actor theory) are only doing the best they can. And that's all they can do due to the limitations of processing all possible options. Another refutation to >>81572 is me actively seeking out this argument counter to the claim of me trying to get away from it. Getting a semi from the mere opportunity to get a self important, preachy prick mad in front of the entire board to see instead of using my time more wisely on my urgent tasks instead should deboonk this idea for good. >>81578 While your retardation everyone else is supposed to endure then? The lack of self reflection with this dude lmao! >>81568 Shrug guy, has a nice ring to it lel. Have a nice walk!

>>81580 >It's main protagonist syndrome as far as I can tell I'd just like to interject for a moment, what you're reffering to as "Main Protagonist Syndrome" is actually called "Main Character Syndrome" or as I've recently taken to calling it, "Primary character plus identity disorder". Main protagonists are real, as are syndromes, but its just not correct how you are reffering to this system of misidentifications.

>>81579 >now look how low you have fallen. uh-oh could i fall any lower? i'm in such a bad condition, i concede >better have freedom of speech than no freedom of speech, or would you disagree? completely agree, but i must make an amendment. no enforcing of free speech. if i want somebody to shut up in my home i should by all means be able to do so. have free speech in free speech dedicated places, fuarrrk off everywhere else. it will be fair. >so discussion leads to falsehood? a bad argument leads to a bad conclusion, no? free speech in itself does not grant emergence of truth. a party of blind men will not see the light of sun no matter how hard they rationalize >if that is the case surely there would be no truth in this world, would you disagree? yes because i don't follow you at all here. >well, the people that prune threads maybe...? maybe it's not a place for completely free speech? ask mods. >if freedom of speech means anything, it should be to tell people what they don't like to hear. exactly what i'm doing here all day, haha. anyway telling people what they don't like doesn't actually guarantee you to approach their opinions. it works sometimes, but in other cases it's like hitting a wall. trying to categorize things universally is not clever at all, stop being retarded and saying things like "if X means anything it is to do Y". you don't give soykaf, just accept that. if X means anything, goddamn, good thing it means anything, but trying to fit it in a narrow frame of deterministic applications is gonna fail. this actually gives me a clue that you don't actually give a fuarrrk what is free speech and why we need it at all. you're like a linux monkey that spew around their hymns to free software claiming how good it is, when in reality 95% of them just follow mainstream and don't give a single fuarrrk about why exactly they use free software, except perhaps "muh windows is crap" (which is true and is probably their only valid argument which they use as a universal fallback to avoid being humiliated). >thus i take. good for you. just don't get too caught up, being a tyrant is a bad thing and not worthy of respect. >you may use it another way if you like haha i guess i'll use it to nudge you just 'cause i can, then. btw seeing butthurt of others i'm gonna address soon it really makes sense to have free-speech-free places just to keep out people like me

>It's main protagonist syndrome so you really couldn't help making a diagnosis, eh? do you think it puts you any higher in the mirror? it is a universal fallback, making diagnoses. "uh he has X syndrome, i win". pathetic, honestly. >Look how much this user is trying to sound smart that's the point i don't even try, while you're at your hardest trying not to soykaf your pants >me actively seeking out this argument counter to the claim of me trying to get away from it this says you're fundamentally retarded. sorry, actually you're not. you're not cut out for introspection. your mind is void, you don't fill it, so whenever you try to introspect, you drown in that void and in horror you run away from it. you're so unaware of your actions that you even fail to recognize, that you never do what you think is bad for you. let me chew it for you, of all possible routes you always choose that which you think is the best for you. that said you make yourself a proof of your own mind being a black hole. why you say that responding to me is unwise and still do it is beyond me. you spew words, but you do not believe them, you do not own them, you separate them from you. you say one and proceed to do something else. you're in a sad condition

>>81582 >i'm in such a bad condition True, I'm not sure people could mog you much harder. But let's see! >free speech in itself does not grant emergence of truth Yet sunlight is a good disinfectant and the blind men would at least feel its warmth on their skin and the approximate direction. And if nothing else they're at least being outside, maybe you should try that too before writing more nonsense and lacking self awareness about it. >The more I debated with them the more familiar I became with their argumentative tactics. At the outset they counted upon the stupidity of their opponents, but when they got so entangled that they could not find a way out they played the trick of acting as innocent simpletons. Should they fail, in spite of their tricks of logic, they acted as if they could not understand the counter arguments and bolted away to another field of discussion. A bad faith argument still shows how bad your argument must be if that's what you have to resort to. >so you really couldn't help making a diagnosis, eh? I hope it helps. >do you think it puts you any higher in the mirror? No but you do seem quite mad. >this says you're fundamentally retarded Yes. Since I know for a fact doing my taxes and finishing my tasks would be so much closer aligned to my self interests than wiping the floor with some wannabe philosopher in a thread about to be deleted. But look where we are! Makes the absolutist nature of your statement questionable, doesn't it? >so whenever you try to introspect I can recommend you to try too. >you spew words, but you do not believe them What I've said still stands as valid but again, try to actually refute any of it with concrete reasoning. So far you've failed to do that. >>81581 Lel, based gnu+linuxtard. Also reminder mods are lazy and gay if they nuke the entire thread instead of only the individual offending posts!

>>81585 why would you answer him? he is desperate for your attention. he'd be purposeless without you feeding him. and he does seem quite mad. the real solution is to care less. ps. free speech obviously grants leads to emergence of truth. dissemination of information thus exposure to different points of view as well as false information being confronted with contradicting true information. it takes an idiot to not see this, take any dictatorship whose ideological narrative is based on lies, it always stifles free speech because it knows it would spread truth that contradicts its position, how can you not process this...

>>81575 Pleasure and pain principle is like stoneage thinking so far as psychology goes. I guess you're where you're at, that's all.

>>81537 https://www.google.com/search?q=%22what+is+happening+is+the+vaxxed+are+finally+dying+off+and+the+governments%22&sca_esv=c5bc60b37e5ec7a3&hl=en&sxsrf=ADLYWIJuQk5TC7aWXnOt-Elbg_E_efPPUw%3A1718001681612&ei=EaBmZsXwJMy-0PEPyb-h8Ak&ved=0ahUKEwiFvdL_ttCGAxVMHzQIHclfCJ4Q4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=%22what+is+happening+is+the+vaxxed+are+finally+dying+off+and+the+governments%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiSyJ3aGF0IGlzIGhhcHBlbmluZyBpcyB0aGUgdmF4eGVkIGFyZSBmaW5hbGx5IGR5aW5nIG9mZiBhbmQgdGhlIGdvdmVybm1lbnRzIkgAUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAQCgAQCqAQC4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgCgAgCYAwCSBwCgBwA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp the thread you're talking about was a bot that spammed hundreds of different sites with the same copypasta. you're either a bad faith actor whos trying to force meme something unoriginal, or a retard who fell for it. either way, this isn't the place for you.

i hope i gave sufficient proof of op or whoever that google pic posting user is easily trigger and utterly boring. that said no regrets the clown thread got nuked. they get what they deserve for not doing their clown job properly.

>>81588 Slave mindset. The OP doesn't determine the thread, nor am I bound by them. I create reality. This isn't the place for you, buddy. Maybe try reddit. Honestly though, facebook or instagram might be more your speed.

Moved to >>>/q/12643.