How can I keep enjoying the internet?

Anyone else an old user (both in age and time spent online) that finds it hard to appreciate things like they used to? I still spend a lot of time on the computer and stuff, but like...I never find myself enjoying lurking around IRC, random image/textboards and forums, finding niche communities, interesting websites, learning new things, creating things and just...I don't really know how to explain it. Like 10 years ago was the last time I can feel nostalgic for. I can think back to video games I'd play with people, brewing soykaf on random chans, chatting away on IRC, making music and art and sharing it online, writing things to share knowledge. Now I just seem to sit on the computer, check the same few websites then watch a couple videos and lose interest then I go do something else (which is okay, because I will do stuff like paint, go hiking, shoot photos, make music). I just miss that "feeling" of being plugged into everything, like sensing the pulse of the internet. I want that back. Am I just old? Or did the internet just change too much? I know a lot has changed in that so much of it has become super centralized, social media is a thing, IRC basically died and got replaced with Discord. I never really got into that part of things as it was growing...most I use is Twitter and sometimes Instagram to post cool pictures I take. Also nobody seems to just take it easy anymore. Everyone feels angry, tense, ready to attack or shout at each other for nonsense. It is like kicking dead whales down the beach! Tonight I'm trying hard again to get back into it all though. I'm reconfiguring irssi to idle in old IRC channels, I'm reorganizing bookmarks of useful websites and checking boards/forums/Twitter and playing music on my headphones which for some reason I never do anymore. Currently drinking a beer and feeling pretty cozy. It still feels different, though...like I'm not doing it because I want to even though I want to.

>>36698 Often when you want to return to something from your past, it's the past you want to revisit, and the thing is just a vehicle. This is fine to indulge in occasionally, but dangerous to dwell in. You can't feel nostalgic without growing out of an old version of yourself, so if you're nostalgic for something, the chances of you genuinely enjoying it again at this stage in your life, are very low. It means in this stage, you need something new to define it.

>>36698 Consider the possibility that your brain has the right idea.

>>36698 Yeah. The internet isn't very fun or interesting anymore due to centralization, neo-feudalism, censorship, and the global rise of authoritarianism. It's more striking to those of us who grew up with an earlier version of it that was freer, diverse, and hadn't yet become the primary tool of governments surveil and control. Essentially, everything interesting and engaging about the internet is uncensored content brought by random regular people. What most of it is now is consumer content. This fails to be interesting past five or ten years when you come to realize it's all recycled curated crap. It can't really be enjoyed at that point. Go outside, I guess. Eventually the cool kids will make another cool internet.

>>36698 >Am I just old? Or did the internet just change too much? Unfortunately it's both. The internet became safe, sterile, consolidated and corporatized and you just grew up. Everyone grew up. Everything's a lot more fun when you're a kid - lurking in cool niche chatrooms and shooting the soykaf with your dudes on some deathmatch server or mmorpg was fuarrrking amazing as a sixteen year old, especially when you were more or less stuck in meatspace for fourteen years prior. In your thirties, less so, especially since you likely have actual responsibilities and obligations that keep you away from the keyboard. Plus, it's been around for long enough that the internet has just gotten mundane - and that's even assuming it hasn't changed, which, I and other people ITT have mentioned, it has. Everything's safe and corporate, people have to walk on eggshells to avoid hurting some perpetually offended banshee's precious feefees, nobody ever makes anything for fun anymore, it's just profit-oriented "content" (a nebulous term that I fuarrrking despise) churned out with all the soul and efficiency of a factory production line. Everyone either acts like they do in real life on the five big websites™ or locks themselves into an insular discord group with like a dozen other people until it splinters apart from drama or miscellaneous glitterboyry. The internet went from an escape from reality to being an extension of it, and a vehicle to match propaganda and advertisements to eyeballs. Enjoy your stay. TLDR: You grew up AND the internet became trite and boring. What a combination, huh?

We failed to defend the internet. It's like some foreign invaders came in and gentrified the place, and what did we addicts and internet dwellers do? Almost nothing. We complain about how the internet has turned out, but only a few fought to protect our internet. Part of it was complacency, that the internet would always be the internet and so what, as long as we can have our little patch of the wired we'll be okay. We're like native Americans now. Places like lainchan are reservations, digital ghettos for those who refuse to accept the new order.

>>36698 The Internet has changed drastically with >>36709 giving the best explanation as to why. However the Internet of old does still live on, just not in the limelight. You have people hosting personal sites on platforms like Neocities, some are hosting forums such as Melonland, and IRC is still around even with Freenode's collapse. The main issue as to why it seams like the internet is so small, is that outside of the Big 5 and related sites it's a sea of SEO spam. With countless sites trying to improve their search results, they result to SEO spam which makes genuine sites, niche discussion forums, and other sites not interested in SEO get buried. The successors and survivors of the old Internet are still around, but finding them will take time.

>>36698 I want to almost quit the internet now. It doesn't make me happy any more but I'm very addicted. Not sure how to do this well

>>36698 When you first discover the internet, it's like a door to a whole other world and your like Alice in wonderland. Eventually, it either loses its sheen and you become yet another decline poster or turn away from the internet altogether. People seem to want to get back to wonderland, go back to being a naive, innocent and unspoiled internet virgin and get rid of that feeling of soykaftiness. But the internet is not a place for facile experimentation, it is what you make it. If you participate in cancerous boards and soykaf filled subreddits, your going to burn yourself out eventually. Real enjoyment online comes from finding good sites and communities and taking part in them. IRC might be dying out, 4chan is a soykafhole now and there's no shortage of vapid trash on social media, best thing to do is find a comfy forum and keep to the sites that give you genuine enjoyment. As long as you have your little corner of the wired, the rest of the internet can go to hell. But what really gives us this feeling of soykaftiness? It's the way corporate algorithms feed us content designed to stress you out, incite your fury or turn you on. People see this stuff and react to it by venting, creating more negativity. It's a system deliberately designed to suck up as much of your attention and keep you hooked and corpos rely on useful idiots to take it upon themselves to keep the cycle of negativity going. Look at 4chan or Reddit, 90% of the posts are extremely negative, compare that to Heyuri which is far less so. I quit being online for years, gamer gate is what started it but the Trump era was the final nail in the coffin. But then two years into covid, I started digging around on archive.org just finding strange content, weird books and movies, old websites etc and I learned to enjoy it again. Basically, don't websurf on the major platforms or use the big search engines, stay away from 4chan or Reddit unless your there for something specific and don't access mainstream news sites like CNN, Fox, BBC etc.

Internet culture was better when it was its own unique thing. When large corporations and the influx of normal users turned internet culture into the mainstream culture as a whole, it ruined both.

The net of old is out there we just need to find the cool spots, as such share some cool sites ITT Ill start https://thebestmotherfuckingwebsite.co/

Let's not conveniently side-step the void of anonymous contribution. It's all a vacuum. Every post exists only today. You're holding onto a whisper that maybe what you're saying does something, something heard. Hell, I've started threads on here that have lasted years (which obviously doesn't matter). There's nothing fun about opening a forum you've visited for 10 years be dramatically different, and all of the users moved on but you—not that you'll ever know. All you know is that it's not the same anymore. The alternatives? Stuff you've been avoiding. You got conned. Thanks for the revenue!

The internet went to soykaf because it was overrun with norms-obsessed reactionaries. Freaks and weirdos are what make society interesting and worth keeping around, and homogenization is the death of culture. It wasn’t normal people who made the internet (or society) great, it was the bizarre and fascinating subcultures and communities you found on it that gave the unwanted a place to belong and create great things. Image boards used to celebrate uniqueness, now to be unique or against the hivemind is the greatest crime you can commit in their eyes, worse than murder or rape. Then the iPhone was made and the internet became yet another place for normal people to continue the antagonization and extermination of the “other”. It’s telling that the biggest controversy online are a subculture of people who want to use drugs to modify their bodies to look like the opposite sex, and how their freedom to do with their own bodies what they desire is being pathologized and legislated because nobody is actually free, we’re just slaves to make money for others and breed more slaves until we die. It’s bleak, I’m this close to just cutting off all interaction to others and instead focusing on my own art and enjoyment until society collapses and I have to die in an attempt of self defense against one of the “normal” and “well adjusted” people who decided to butcher innocent people because their cult leader demands it. Interaction with other humans has become negative sum; nothing to be gained and everything to lose. Since when has a “normal person” done good for the world? Every inventor, every great artist or musician, every great leader or author, they were all weirdos, freaks, or outcasts in their own respect society.

>>36809 >lucky enough to be you All you have to do is spend some time trying new soykaf and thinking for yourself instead of letting cultural norms decide your beliefs. You can devote a mere hour a week to this cause and still end up a radically different and better person than you were before. The average person can’t read above a 5th grade level or do basic math, why the fuarrrk would you trust their opinion on anything. Think for yourself and learn skills. It’s your own life, nobody else will live it for you, but they’ll certainly try to harass, bully, and control you into living your life for their benefit

I very much feel the same. Everything said here rings true to me. I barely have the energy to read, let alone post these days. The internet just feels like real bloat, i want to try reverting to something simpler, dunno what yet but i work on it. Computers in general have started to feel foreign and unusable in general. normal people will be normal personyig, not too worried about that but i have the felling technology becomes so different i think a new type of internet is needed.

I think the biggest change isn't the normal influx as there were plenty of those even in 1999, or even the existence of social media -- I've been addicted to a carousel of web forums since around that time -- but rather the monetization of life online. Nothing cool can happen, no scene can emerge, without dozens of grifter wannabe-influencer parasites coming out of the woodwork to extract revenue out of it one way or the other. They become a smokescreen, making it much harder for curious outsiders to differentiate between legit players/venues and marketing funnels. >>36737 I have hundreds or thousands of bookmarks from 10+ years ago that I've recently started exploring again. A lot of the content is much older than that. Some linkrot, but most of that is on archive.org. I can already see that it's a good antidote to the eternal-now mentality that all the modern feeds provide. >>36700 It's not just nostalgia; the other thing about being older is that it feels a lot emptier just lurking. When you're young, it's biologically normal to just hang around, absorb the culture, and so on - whether in real life or online. But as time goes on I think you start to feel like you need to lead, curate, synthesize, create, give back, and so on. The old internet culture is something we can share with others in the right place.

>>36698 I don't think that irc is dead. I'm not old enough to have seen it back when it was the de-facto instant messaging solution, but it's still very popular for open source projects. My take is that the internet has just massively expanded and normal people have invaded our sacred land (i am still old enough to remember facebook when it first got popular). Doesn't mean that the 'old internet' is gone, just that the new, normal person friendly side of the internet is much bigger than before. IRC channels are still very much alive, lots of matrix rooms for you to join, even XMPP mucsmucs aren't too few if you know to look for them. 4chan is a centralized platform, and so is reddit. These were always bound to go down at some point, and new platforms have sprang up to take their place, such as lainchan itself. Oldschool websites still exist too, if you know to look for them. Neocities has a lot of cool soykaf, and there are even search engines like wiby that will index only simple sites.

>>37003 Yeah, I feel that we have just gotten a little old. I'm still a young adult and even I don't enjoy lurking as much as I did 5 to 10 years ago. It's not even that the internet has gotten that much worse, just that we grew out of it more or less. I still enjoy being here, on xmpp and irc, and lurking at phpbb forums it's just not as fun anymore because I'm no longer a 14 yo kid.. growing up is like kicking dead whales down the beach a bit Sage because dp.

>>36712 do you suppose webrings and private communities would be a good way to keep the original spirit of the internet alive in a post-SEO, post-corporation situation?

>>37015 At one hand you are right. I noticed I wouldn't really enjoy what I used to enjoy 10 years ago as I growed out if it. I'm no longer a kid. Then on other hand. There's tons of stuff that you don't see anymore. Remember when ARG were popular? I'm not saying do an other ARG game (all of which copy each other), but there used to be people who experimented with the web just for fun making weird things. Other one that comes to mind is flash games. I recently even stumbled on some old weird flash website and it left an impression on me. It didn't really have a purpose. You just clicked on stuff and bizzare animations happened. But it was just there. This weird thing existing just for fun where you have no idea how deep it goes. That doesn't happen nowdays. I remember newgrounds, which pretty much pioneered web animation and it had this distinct feel. I don't see that anywhere nowdays too. There's animations on stuff like youtube, but they all feel the same and done before. I think what might have happened before is that when web was new, there was no rules for anything. So your mind was open to do anything you could imagine. Nowdays though. There's a very distinct format you are expected to follow.

>>37458 Not him but I joined our webring and it was a fun experience. There is an active thread for it. If someone really just wants to explore that part of the internet, check https://neocities.org/browse or https://wiby.me/. I know OP already posts photos somewhere, but it's not the same as making your own website or a blog. Being involved and actively contributing takes a bit more effort, but it's fun. Or even getting into archiving or looking for lost media on the internet. Several communities out there that are into that kind of thing these days. I think all I'm suggesting is being actively involved into something with somewhat of a goal and learning and exploring the net is a better experience than passively consuming a feed of content the algortithm presents you with.

>>36702 >global rise of authoritarianism This is it! It's just authoritarianism. Pick your flavor, left or right, it's all just authoritarian crap now. You can't speak your mind anymore without fear of being attacked and doxed online. I think of freedom of speech as the new piracy with politically incorrect, unfiltered, dissenting opinions being what the authoritarian soykaflords want to stamp out. >>36698 >I'm reconfiguring irssi to idle in old IRC channels good, i am/was an irssi user and always will be >feeling pretty cozy even better! >>36742 As a millennial, I agree, but gen z is bringing back the old web in a new form. they aren't commercial like the 2000s and 2010s internet eras were. Read: https://maggieappleton.com/cozy-web

Eternal Summer. Cycling. Over and over.

>>36698 If it's the old community feel without being invaded by normals you miss, darknets like onionsites or i2p, or gopher/gemini protocols are what you're looking for. Personally, I've found the Internet to be much less fun for me because I constantly have to think about what X community considers acceptable because the unwashed masses have meltdowns whenever they're confronted by something that disagrees with their worldview. So I moved more to the above and it's much like the good old times. I still use big sites and such for specific things, and usually spread the message of darknets being full of evil hackers that'll put CP on your computer so the infection doesn't move there too.

>>37620 "politically incorrect" nowdays is just codeword for bigotry. when people dont put up with that soykaf, losers cry "censorship" and freedom of speech. youre not "a free thinker", youre just someone who wants to be able to saw awful soykaf without any consequence. freedom of speech does not mean freedom to not be held accountable for that speech by others.

>>37981 for your consideration, feel free to share your thoughts lol lol lololol

>>37981 The only bigot here is you, so stubborn and obstinate in your belief that anyone that thinks different than you is wrong and evil/racist/etc. Real nice of you to straw man the worst possible positions onto millions of people. Yes, anyone that complains about political correctness is totally an evil racist bigot. Real nice!

>>37982 NTL, but since the argument "free speech = just a law" is purely a semantic one, you can just accept that definition for the purposes of a discussion and say something like "free expression" instead for what you mean. There's no "school of thought" for what "free speech" is or isn't here, it's not about philosophy, it's about insisting a word means something favorable to an ideology and enabling "you're stupid for not knowing what words mean" as a response to any objection. I don't think that really has "unstated corollaries" for most people, they just think of it as a law rather than a value, definitionally. The reason to avoid getting sucked into semantic debates is that ambiguity about whether you're talking about words or talking about something else prevents you from clearly talking about anything.

>>37984 IMO semantic debates (or, preferably, semantic preludes to debates) play an important and useful role in clarifying what people are trying to argue about in the first place. At least in theory, or should I say in a perfect world. Somehow in practice it seems to more often turn into just another round of talking past each other and responding to emotional impressions of cherry-picked trigger words -- funnily/tragically enough, one major issue that defining terms at the outset should ideally help us avoid. But whatever, that honestly might be even more of a lost cause than this: It seems important to at least make known the idea that rights can conceivably exist independent of any given instance of their being endorsed by governmental edict. It strikes me as insidiously dangerous that this is an unfamiliar concept to anyone -- sometimes I wonder if this isn't subtly encouraged. After all, if you can gradually nudge everyone toward taking it as given that the government itself creates rights, then you have succeeded in spiriting away much of their basis for objecting to the government removing rights. At such a point, the argument might imaginably go that if the government has decided to do so, then it must have been the will of the people, and that this is only another reminder to go and express our will on the ballot. But just as in civil/contract law there are rights/immunities/entitlements that you cannot waive regardless of the contents of the documents you sign, it stands to reason, I think, that there are rights that should be unwaivable by the people (and in turn unalienable by the government). I mentioned already that many of the rights endorsed by the founders were regarded as existing in and of themselves and as transcending the matter of their endorsement by any particular state. But I also suggest that legislating away these rights should not even be allowed, or in another sense, that there should be a very strong or even unassailable presumption that, regardless of the apparent or supposed will of the people, it is never in fact the will of the people that those rights should no longer be endorsed in the law. But now I digress somewhat into my own slightly under-baked legal fantasies. Anyway, speaking of semantics, some significant implications can be found in what words are used to refer to what governments do in regard to rights. Words such as endorse, enshrine, enact, protect, recognize, ratify, affirm, guarantee, make [into] law, or codify seem to imply that the rights acted upon in these ways existed prior to, not because of, said actions. Other words such as grant or institute seem to suggest the opposite. It is somewhat encouraging that the latter category of word doesn't seem to have overwhelmed the former so far. "Establish" is one interesting example of an ambiguous word that could imply either creation or assertion. Again, all this aside, my real point is only that it's vital for people to have a chance to entertain the idea of rights as things that exist in and of themselves and that are merely recognized and formalized, not originated, by law. This is mainly for two reasons: 1) As saith George Carlin -- one of the Holy Trinity of standup comedy: >Rights aren't rights if someone can take 'em away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter and shorter. Here we see a conflict between the idea of a fundamental, inherent right, and, if you will, a de facto right. The way Carlin frames it, Japanese-Americans during WW2 lacked rights. In my framing, neither they nor anyone else on earth at any time ever ceased to have certain fundamental rights, despite the fact that at many times in many places, those rights were unprotected or violated. Regardless, Saint Carlin's teachings provide us a valuable opportunity to separate the right per se from the enjoyment of its guaranty by the government. If we recognize that the thing that we can actually be deprived of is not a right, then we can begin to think about rights as things that exist independent of being affirmed or upheld by any given entity. 2) I think it's important not to fall into a trap in which what is right or just is presumed to derive somehow from the law. It is not because it's in the Bill of Rights that freedom of speech is a good thing, just as it is not because it's illegal that murder is a bad thing. Yet it isn't unheard of that the basis of an argument in favor of a right will begin and end with the fact that the Constitution says so. This, as I've mentioned, precludes in a very concerning way a huge body of thought about what rights are, how they can exist without a government declaring them, and how they can be violated without a law being broken. In my disjointed research to remind myself of various terms and to try to organize and crystallize my vague ideas I was having in reaction to the posts I was reading, I flashed briefly on many more ideas of points I wanted to explore than I could hope to remember. So I'll just say that if this seems somehow incomplete or lacking, it might be only because I didn't have the time or the means to fully illustrate all that I wanted to. But I'll leave it at this and see if it goes anywhere.

>>37981 >"politically incorrect" nowdays is just codeword for bigotry. Very unfortunate because it is presented as a binary -- you're either politically correct or a racist. But political correctness is really more about using "proper words" that obscure the real meaning of what's going on. George Carlton had a great bit explaining what political correctness is and why it's so insidious. You're not fired you're "laid off", you're not an employee you're an "independent contractor", it's not a war it's an "armed conflict", it's not a prison it's an "internment camp", it's not bribery it's "lobbying". The list goes on. I think probably this is a dichotomy encouraged by the country's owners. It encourages anyone with a brain to accept fascism as the only viable alternative, but the fascists are all funded by the owners too. As long as elections stay incredibly close (happens more and more now, have you noticed?) Everyone is terrified to step out of line and seriously criticize "their side".

>>37985 >This, as I've mentioned, precludes in a very concerning way a huge body of thought about what rights are, how they can exist without a government declaring them, and how they can be violated without a law being broken. I have noticed a lot of skepticism towards the concept of rights itself, and believe our society is moving away from this concept. Here's a video someone linked me once in place of an argument, I think it reflects the position I see pretty well though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhRBsJYWR8Q That said, I see free expression as something other than a right. A right is a thing with a moral imperative to hard guarantee for individuals. But as relates to all the various things any person or organization can and will do to shape and control the speech of those around them, it's more or less impossible to draw any objective line, and even if you did draw a line, that line would be drawn on a moving picture. The value of free expression goes beyond any one person; it's a measure of our capacity as a collective to effectively process ideas and information. That's something that requires active, ongoing consideration on every level to improve and isn't a simply applied set of rules. But it does need people to believe in it. And I think people can believe in it in some respect even if they have opinions about who they really want to shut up about what, where. The barrier is the rhetoric: stuff like writing off the entire concept, because the people expressing it are probably just trying to justify pushing some website to not ban people saying X dangerous and harmful thing. But it's not about X, it's about respecting people's agency to read things and decide for themselves what to think, benefiting from everyone's genuine input, it's about defending against being trapped in controlled delusions, having a society of people not livestock.

>>37982 Freedom of speech != freedom from consequence sounds a lot more like "talk soykaf, get hit" to me. People should be allowed to talk soykaf about each other and people should equally be allowed to have and share opinions about what others say. I think where it crosses the line is when you criticize the government and the government fights you back. That's not fair and that's not freedom, but the government also has a duty to protect speech, not just be a passive bystander. If you're talking soykaf about another person, they can sue you for libel, but what about a group of people? At that point, it's very hard for that group or for individuals within that prove the damages in court, particularly if it's another group that's attacking. Whether it's justified or not is up for debate, but it seems pretty sane that at some point you may need a higher authority to step in and at least prevent the spread of misinformation. That's not really something we have right now and the information space of the internet has been heavily weaponized by various groups against each other, with misinformation as the primary ammunition. I think what's changed about the internet is that everywhere you go is a battleground now. There's overall a lack of trust, not just in strangers, but in people we've known for a long time. You never know when someone is going to turn on you or when you'll learn something about someone that causes you to lose all trust in them.

>>38006 >misinformation no such thing. Misinformation only exists because Internet stopped being a place for somewhat smart people able to set up a modem on their own. So we have idiots with no critical thinking who believe every thing said and need Verified™️ Certified™️ Fact-Checkers™️ to check it for them. That sounds misanthropistic but I don't care. Because everywhere is cattle who believes in anything, governments utilize troll farms who push "anything" into public spaces. And then offers censorship and Authority Checks™️ as a solution! How convenient. Perfectly justifies government's existence that some time ago had started being doubted once smart people could see that they may have free, independent cyberspace.

>>37985 The way rights are conceived of now absolutely makes sense. Being works of fiction, their existence depends entirely on the availability of force to enforce their existence. Regardless of whether you socially engineer the unwashed masses into considering rights as entities that exist regardless of their enforcement, this does not stop them from being a complete work of fiction. This is on the same tier as stating something is right because it is written so in the bible.

>>37987 >>37987 NTL, but I'm skeptical of the idea that freedom of speech and freedom of expression are equivalent, incidentally. I think it's obvious (and was obvious in the time period the Bill of Rights was created) that freedom of speech covers more than just literal speech, audio produced from a person's mouth, but it also might not apply to every conceivable way a person could express him or herself. I think this precludes a lot of insane or antisocial behavior from becoming protected by law.

Finding this place has been huge for me. Thank you all for being here. I like the zine too.

>>38084 Yuhh I appreciate my experiences here. Feels not so much nostalgic as it feels like internet should have been.

When you get older things don't hit like they used to and you have to do stuff that is in your accrual interest. However, the internet has gotten a lot smaller than it used to be the large social media are choking out a lot of the other sites, and infecting people with the ideas that are forced on to them.

>>38088 I''ll be active at least once a day. There are still real discussions here and I want to be a part of it. On socials it just recycled content followed by bot response 90% of the time.

>>38088 And I appreciate you!

Borrowing the thread to test posting through tor

>>38174 >Borrowing the thread to test posting through tor There's a board for that! https://lainchan.org/test/

>>37620 >As a millennial, I agree, but gen z is bringing back the old web in a new form It's because the older Gen Z, say, anyone born from 1997-2002 (if we go by Pew Research Center, some sources placed the year 2000 as the final Millennial birth year *shrugs*), grew up online (typically if they were an internet geek like me) in the golden age of "classic memes", the first years of YouTube, when fan pages still existed, when Geocities was still around (it ended in 2009), when forums were commonplace, and when most personal websites still looked like picrel and had plenty of affiliate links to check out. It truly was amazing and honestly anyone who had a childhood online in the 2000s had a great time. Speaking from experience.

irc is a garbage neckbeard half working protocol written by some tranny and all servers run by trannies that blocked tor since 2003 because oh no they could write bad text otherwise. irc is like any other wh*te protocol an insufferable pile of garbage written by pseudointellectuals who think they are gods while in reality the protocol just fuarrrks up all the time because of a bunch of vague incantations being part of the core and every client implements them differently and people randomly get dropped from the channel every day.

also the top irc networks were easy to hack into and full of Indian tier php and perl code

>>36808 >bizarre and fascinating sub(!)cultures >wanting one subculture to become accepted in normal person society (even though it's like, not even schway) You can only have one or the other desu. This is the source of tension between transsexuals and everyone else. Many chose to aggressively sell out in hopes of mass acceptance and now the backlash has spilled over into the wired, too. Linux popularizers should take note of this, BTW. Getting normal people off the Redmond plantation is a noble ideal, but they're just going to bother distro maintainers to make sure the kernel-level DRM for their favorite live service game and always online productivity software are bundled with the OS so they don't have to do anything because, like, doing computers is hard enough or whatever, y'know?

>>36808 >Since when has a “normal person” done good for the world? Every inventor, every great artist or musician, every great leader or author, they were all weirdos, freaks, or outcasts in their own respect society. Since always. Normal people are the ones who keep the world spinning, you autistic retard. They erect the buildings where the inventor works, they drive trucks to maintain the logistics necessary for his invention, they make sure his toilet is clean. Each one of your pet genuises wouldn't last 5 seconds without the support of all the normal people around them, and whatever great bullshit they came up with would crumble to dust. How many great musicians were chopping trees and sawing wood to build their own instruments? The good normal people do for the world is setting the stage so otherwise-worthless savants can truly shine, and they do it thanklessly.