Freeze Peach

Free Speech I figured I'd start a thread on free speech, seeing as lainchan doesn't seem to know if it is a free speech zone, or a moderated forum. A lot of people think free speech is "valuable", but really it is just a means of power and little else. Power is what people ultimately want - they want to be heard. However, for most common folk, they're just shouting into the void. Their voice doesn't actually matter. Does that mean they don't have free speech? I don't think so, it just means they don't have power. What about on lainchan? Well, there's certainly an opportunity to say whatever you want, but that doesn't mean it'll be seen. The mods here are somewhat inconsistent and tend to stumble through their job, aimlessly and ignorant. The only consistent "moderation" is through word filters. When a topic gets very hot, it gets the kibash. So, speech on lainchan isn't really all that "free" because it could be intentionally or haphazardly destroyed. The /q/ board is interesting in that anything goes, but ultimately it is useless because it isn't listed in /mega/. So the situation on lainchan is it isn't really a "free speech zone" nor a moderated forum, since it doesn't consistently live up to either standard. This is important because lainchan is going to effectively be torn apart by people pulling in either way until it is an incoherent mess. So what's the benefits of a free speech zone? Well, all ideas get equal weight for starters - there is no bias for or against any one particular idea. Each discussion can come organically, and ultimately a topic will either (1) flourish or (2) fail. If it fails, it is because overwhelmingly, people used their voice - their free speech and its power - to shut it down. When people are united for/against any given thing, that thing can be given the space it deserves (or even none at all if deserved). This is having faith in your users, and not treating them like helpless children. What about actual, consistent, correct, careful, and considered moderation? Well, first it has to be all of the things listed, otherwise you're just pulling out the flowers with the weeds. This is very damaging to a community. Lainchan is slow not because of its obscurity, but its moderation. Also, the modes of moderation are ripe for abuse here. It only takes one bad actor to permanently taint a single conversation and send it to modville where it'll never be heard from again. This is due to (1) unwritten rules (or ad hoc rules) and (2) inconsistent application. Moderation is poor when it cannot correct either/both of these failings. This type of moderation is VERY harmful to a community. It's like abusing an animal - they won't trust you anymore. I hope others can contribute to these analysis of free speech and moderation.

>>8478 O..oh no I'm guNNA- NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER

Lainchan has never been a free speech zone, its an ethnostate for lainons safe from the garbage that destroyed /g/. If free speech means >>8479 to you there are plenty of other soykafholes for you to wrestle in, voat or gab or whatever. Also free speech is a fuarrrking lie. The only reason commies and nazis are allowed to have an opinion is because they are laughably impotent. Should the condition cease to be either democracy will revoke their rights to protect itself or radicals take power and revoke it themselves after victory.

>>8480 "Free speech" is a philosophy, not a law. So it isn't a "lie" >>8478 My serious opinion is that free speech is good for the elite reasoners that can examine objectively, terrible for the gullible masses swayed by emotion and rigorless logic.

>>8481 And I bet you and everyone you agree with happen to be members of the former group whereas everyone else is in the latter.

>>8480 >The only reason commies and nazis are allowed to have an opinion is because they are laughably impotent That's why these two factions have all the power, they're far from impotent. Congress was on the right, now its far left. The oval office is hard right. >>8481 You'll have to provide a means of telling the two apart if you ever hope to make that argument. >>8482 You're behaving exactly as he described. Step back, check your emotions, and return with a clear, rational head.

>>8482 I regularly enjoy discussing with others counter to my opinions, as long as the discussion remains proper. Your attack of character would place you with the masses.

>>8483 >You'll have to provide a means of telling the two apart if you ever hope to make that argument. It does not follow. I spoke of ideals, not implementation. Though you find that the two freely separate regardless. The insular congregate in echochambers that allow clan rule. The open minded drift to places they can talk freely without consequence. It's not perfect, but surprisingly effective.

>>8485 That sounds like good reason in favor of free speech. Echo chambers exist in-part because of moderation. You eliminate the dissenting views (usually for technical reasons above and beyond the content of those views), and in doing so foment an echo chamber. This is what we should be hoping to avoid here.

>>8485 Ideals or not, if you cannot tell them apart, then that ideal is worthless.

>>8486 Yes, zealous moderation has ruined many great spaces. >>8487 Men from women is the easiest discriminant to improve the conversation. Yes, there are many exceptions, but the average is almost always improved.

>>8488 >zealous moderation ruined many great spaces I think it's more inconsistent and haphazard moderation that is a bigger harm. If it was consistent, then it would shape the culture rather than destroying it. >Men from women How does this help, exactly? Let me guess, "muh women can't computer"? ok bóomer.

>>8489 Women are rarely objective. It's uncommon enough in men these days, women are a lost cause. And zealous moderation is problem because you have to consider the appeasement factor with every comment.

>>8490 Not really, zealous moderation could mean a lot of things including giving warnings instead of nuking it from orbit. Lainchan has a significant problem with the latter approach.

>>8490 Why are you here then? Theres plenty of sites with no moderation and no women.

>>8490

>>8492 >>8493 women can't do: logic, programming, philosophy, politics, drive (damn), math... so ya, they're good to be left out.

>>8494 AMD.

>>8492 Give us a few then. Why do you want women on your site? Just look at the demise of Reddit. Yes, there is overlap between men and women, but they mostly turn everything into hugboxes and safespaces before demanding special considerations. Then everything has to be wholesome and not long after comes the crusade against "assholes" and by that time anyone with a shred of testosterone (and typically, intelligence) has left whilst the the male thralls are subjected to a compromised moderation.

>>8496 You're going to have to back up those claims, that's some pretty wild conjecture.

>>8496 I'm perfectly sure you're capable of backing that claim up.

>>8497 Back up with what? The numerous studies that show women are more emotional? The fact that as communities become more feminine, they adhere to the female mindset? The mating strategies of women that have no girlfriends? Please, argue in good faith. We all know what I'm describing is real, the question is whether you think that's positive.

>>8499 You're arguing in bad faith. If it is so obvious and apparent, you should be able to cite a minimum of one study backing your claims up. And no, I'm not talking about your claim women are emotional, but that communities are affected as you claim. Show us the proof, otherwise you're just blowing hot air.

>>8499 Back up all of your claims, they're all sus.

>>8499 Bring up the studies. Show us the communities that were "ruined" because of women. Go ahead.

>>8499 >We all know what I'm describing is real, the question is whether you think that's positive. Evidence is required for everything you describe.

>>8499 >We all know what I'm describing is real >Please, argue in good faith I really can't tell if I'm being baited.

>>8504

I think there's merit to the claim that moderation can and is harmful to certain types of speech. The problem with going with this line of reasoning is leftists are so quick to say "oh so you want to use slurrs", but that really isn't it. There's a pedophilia topic active in /hum/ and it is definitely a topic people should be wary of, but it isn't being destroyed. This seems like effective moderation.

>>8506 >There's a pedophilia topic active in /hum/ For now.

>>8507 I get the impression the mods are largely absent. Really gross threads pop up all the time and go on for a while before getting nixed.

>>8508 >>8507 Honestly, we should be sad that such a thread will likely get killed. Overall, the quality of discussion is excellent, and there's no promotion going on, just analysis of their relationship with lolicon. That isn't really pedophilia, it's just harmless cartoons.

>>8509 You just aren't thinking about the imaginary children, you heartless monster.

>>8510 Where's the harm though?

>>8500 >>8501 >>8502 >>8503 >>8504 >>8505 None of you women could manage a 2 minute Google? Thank you for proving my point. Many more if you search for "gender difference emotional expression online" into Google scholar. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/64d7/b995dac7ac1cc27e54d93cb1fa4f3f339450.pdf https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/10949310050191809

>>8512 You mentioned a specific site as an example. We asked for examples of subcommunities which had been affected in the specific way you described and you can't even do that. I mean, I expected as much, but still. >None of you women So much for good faith, huh.

>>8512 Holy soykaf are you fuarrrking stupid? Nobody fuarrrking cares about their emotionality. We're interested in your bullshit claims about them destroying sites. You're acting like a nigger, which is 10000x worse than any woman

>>8512 And to make things more explicit for you attentionless redditors, the studies I linked showed that mixed communities made men more emotional.

>>8515 >>8512 Show us the proof of your claim: women cause online communities to fall apart.

>>8515 That doesn't actually back up your allegation. Try again.

>>8515 You claimed that women are a cause of online communities falling apart. Quit shifting the goalposts and prove your original claim, you fuarrrking dumbass.

>>8512 >None of you women could manage a 2 minute Google? Glad you dropped the pretense of having an argument in good faith.

>>8518 >>8517 >>8516 >>8514 >>8513 Ignore this bad faith actor. The topic is free speech and moderation. Not women, not reddit, not minorities.

>>8513 Read the studies. >>8516 >>8514 I never said destroy. >>8518 See above. I'm out. Not arguing with those in bad faith. I've had better debate on Reddit.

>I'm out. Not arguing with those in bad faith. Huh.

>>8522 So much irony. I looked at his "citation" and it has nothing to do with his claim. Back on topic: Moderation is a necessary evil. It prevents soykafheads like that guy from fuarrrking up good discussions. Free speech without constraint is not really all that good or desirable. Words are much more powerful than we give them credit.

>>8523 >So much irony. I looked at his "citation" and it has nothing to do with his claim. Going to back that up buddy? You know what discussion is right?

>>8521 >Why do you want women on your site? Just look at the demise of Reddit. Yes, there is overlap between men and women, but they mostly turn everything into hugboxes and safespaces before demanding special considerations. Then everything has to be wholesome and not long after comes the crusade against "assholes" and by that time anyone with a shred of testosterone (and typically, intelligence) has left whilst the the male thralls are subjected to a compromised moderation. The word is absent, but the meaning is pretty clear. You meant "destroy", and you never backed it up one iota. Glad you're leaving, cause you're very much a bad faith poster. >>8523 Moderation should not remove anything or make it inaccessible. It should hide the comment, but allow it to be seen. This preserves free speech, and allows crap to be cleaned up effectively without the risk of overbearing moderation.

>>8524 Could've sworn you were out.

>women enter free speech thread >Shit it up and demand moderation Like clockwork.

>>8527 >>8524 Oh you're back? Care to back up your claims?

>>8527 >women enter You're surely able to prove this, right?

>>8527 >Nigger enters >soykafs all over the whole conversation

See, normally I'd say a lack of moderation is best but people like this idiot show up.

>>8523 We need ways to filter people out, like a UID number or something. I don't think moderation should be done by people who clearly don't actually use the site. >>8525 This. Moderation should be done by the users in a fully transparent way. >>8531 We just need better tools.

So this is the power of HRT meds. Incessant, rabid, emotions- with the refusal of logic. This thread will be my next citation.

>>8533 Pretty funny to see these women and trannies have a hissyfit. I find the best filter against them are communities where logic is required for participation. Embedded forums are usually based

Hey guys, this is >>8533 is the pedo 5g vaccine rf poster. He's just still salty cause his threads keep getting deleted. Also, he's >>8534 doubleposting now, and will likely continue to derail the thread. IGNORE HIM AND POST.

>>8534 Funny you should mention that. There are a few enclavesi know of. Shan't mention them though, lest the rabids follow.

>>8536 Nice schizo post

Are you mad about your threads being deleted? I agree with some of your opinions but this really isn't the way to go.

>>8478 This thread is proof free speech will never work. Someone provides sources and they're rejected without a single argument. Humanity is doomed.

I still really can't tell if I'm being baited.

>>8478 Why is this thread so active? I suspect same users on both sides

Free speech must be absolutely upheld in all situations. There should be zero moderation. There are reasons: - Marginal views and voices are overwhelmingly harmed by moderation - Sensitive topics will always be controversial, and should be allowed to go on. - What is seen as "truth" might be untrue, and deserves to be rationally debated. >>8539 Those sources were checked out by multiple people and they all roundly understood that it doesn't back up the poster's claims. The claim is "women destroy online communities", and that is yet unproven. However, I know it's YOU posting (bad faith as always, stay classy) so it's obvious you're pretending.

>>8542 >women destroy online communities Link me this quote, else you are arguing in bad faith.

>>8543 Come on.

>>8543 >Why do you want women on your site? Just look at the demise of Reddit. Yes, there is overlap between men and women, but they mostly turn everything into hugboxes and safespaces before demanding special considerations. Then everything has to be wholesome and not long after comes the crusade against "assholes" and by that time anyone with a shred of testosterone (and typically, intelligence) has left whilst the the male thralls are subjected to a compromised moderation. You're arguing in VERY bad faith. Reported all of your posts.

>>8544 What's the matter? Cat has your tongue?

>>8545 W..well he didn't outright say the word destroy! Checkmate!

>>8545 So the "quote" is wrong. Nice bad faith. >>8547 >Nooo!! Let me misquote and strawman!!!

>>8542 Moderation separates the wheat from the chaff though. If you'll observe this thread, there's one person generating a LOT of chaff. Moderation, done right, would prevent this. Unfortunately, the mods are all absentees.

>>8549 I agree. One person calmly mentions that women are more emotional and suddenly same users, insults and emotions are thrown against him. Read this thread from start to finish and it is evident who the disruptors are.

>>8548 Listen, man. Lainchan is not 4chan. Drive that deep into your skull. Lainchan is not 4chan.

>>8551 Agreed. Leave.

>>8548 lol, you're really dumb. We all can see that. A sad, prejudiced little man. How sad. >>8549 The thing is nobody "does moderation right". People are always going to be fallible, and have their own tunnel vision. Rules mean very little if they're not enforced consistently. That's something op mentions, because it is imperative that it be done if there's any hope for moderation to be effective and beneficial. >>8552 >>8550 Nice schizo posts.

>>8553 Put it this way. You would be thrown out of a debating society for your behaviour, whereas I would remain. Mentioning that women are more emotional seemed to be a flashpoint for your spergout (ironically proving me right).

>>8554 I'm in a debate society, and I've won multiple debates against other teams. You're: -- using the motte and bailey strategy. Being against women is your bailey, but your motte is "women destroy chans". This would disqualify you. --- using "evidence" that doesn't actually support your claim. This would disqualify you. --- begging the question. This is a fallacy, and again, would disqualify you. --- Insulting people. Needless to say, another disqualification. --- Misogyny. You're a special little snowflake man, so special and unique because you're male. But this would also get you disqualified --- Schizo posting. This wouldn't fly in a debate club, cause we all know it's you.

>>8555 >women destroy chans Please link me where I said this, else your argument is void.

>>8556 It's been posted. Get lost you kíke

>>8557 Where?

Free speech is a problem. It can be used to incite violence, and even lead some (weak people) to suicide. Moderation is essential to prevent spergs like the one fuarrrking with this thread. Unfortunately, the mods on lainchan are largely absent from their duties, and everything ends up being an ad hoc job. The rules don't seem to be well-enforced, and there's very obvious "unwritten rules" that get enforced haphazardly. There's a reason places like 4chan suck ass, it's the lack of moderation.

>>8555 The state of you. He gave links that communities with women become more emotional, and here you are pretending he said something he didn't. Can't defend yourself or your retardation. 100% you chopped your willy off.

Don't look now, but the pedo thread got killed finally. Which unwritten rule did they violate?

>>8559 Then why are you still here? Leave.

>>8561 Maybe the one about raping chilren

>>8563 Please point out the children being raped.

>>8564 Hi pedo.

I don't understand why the lólicon thread was deleted.. It was genuinely good conversation. Only a few soykafs, but they could've been pruned. Lainchan really does have weird moderation.

>>8565 Not an answer.

>>8567 Hi pedo.

Honestly, all I care about is if the mods can all get on the same page, and write down what they actually disallow. The rules definitely do not cover half of the deletions being made.

>>8570 This. I'd prefer a long list of specific rules over a short list of vague ones. If they don't want any discussion of certain topics thats fine but I'd like to know what they are.

>>8512 MikeeUSA has joined the thread.

>>8478 Do you mind writing less and saying more?

This thread is hilarious, not even sure who's baiting who anymore

>The /q/ board is interesting in that anything goes, but ultimately it is useless because it isn't listed in /mega/. There's /megaq/

Women and trannies; get the fuarrrk off my lainchan

>>8594 Neither of them post here, however you should be removed as well.

>>8594 Hey pedo guy

Users on this site are so sensitive, I can't type certain words because they're blacklisted/the post is discarded. OP is dumb, though.

its actually simps. The problem is not the woman by itself but the 20 orbiters that align as soon as a woman shows up. The only way to keep the thirsty nerds in check and productive is keep woman away from them. There was also a research paper that concluded men get ~20% dumber negotiating with a hot woman cause they waste too much mental resources trying to impress her. So if you want to keep your nerds productive keep them away from women. >>8559 Evolution.

Hey NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER MOTHERFUCKING NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

>>8657 >simps >orbiters >nerds Where do you think you are? Come back when you are 18 The problem is people that are so concerned with nerds or free speech or pedophilia lowering the quality that they are ironically doing it themselves.

>>8662 >terminology triggered me I am angry come back when you have something to say

>>8595 >>8596 I am not even him, well, he exagerated, but i saw threads where ban for transphobia were asked, there's really something, but i know this lainchan won't change.

>>8525 >Moderation should not remove anything or make it inaccessible. It should hide the comment, but allow it to be seen. If only this had been made precedent years ago. Quite a lot of seemingly permanent damage has been done to internet discussion platforms as a whole due to absence of such an approach.

don't mind me I am just watching the soykafshow

>>8528 arisuchan

You guys disappoint me. It seems like ego precedes the quality of the forums. I wish I could have a better place to hang out.

>>8696 reddit.com

>>8696 I got you fam https://www.thugboy.com/

I thought lainchan was cool until I saw the PMSing women in this thread having a tantrum because they were rightfully called out as emotional.

>>8657 Or, consider: keep the nerds away from society.