No.32040
non-sequitur poltardism
No.32041
people are too quick to cry poltard
No.32047
>>32040One might say that your comment itself is a non-sequitur.
Not to mention that there wasn't anything /pol/ about that post.
No.32048
>>32047Too bad. People aren't allowed to shit up threads they don't like by trying to immediately kill it with a purposeful detail. If I see a sincere poster trying to share their love of something I will strike down the shitters that want to kill it.
No.32049
And no, I'm aware of your epic memes.
https://find.4chan.org/?q=own+nothing+and+be+happyDon't gaslight be with your backtalk. You guys took away my sense of home but I won't let you drive away the people that still feel comradery here as a place they aren't subjected to wider internet culture's vomit.
If you want to be based do it in the steamcord.
No.32050
considering the 'you will own nothing and be happy' as some kind of epic meme you need an archive to look up really shows how separated you are from other social spheres and internet politics...
I won't disagree with anything you're saying, but the fact that you're trying to justify it makes me think that you're doing it from a position of weakness or something. If you don't understand something's history and backstory it's best not to speak about it otherwise you come across as a fool to those who do.
No.32051
And you shouldn't consider that other people are more diverse in interests as a flaw forcing you to deal with that. You can enforce the limitations of what's alowed as a manager on the site, but considering that people have a diversity of interests as a flaw is toxic.
It's the nature of not being gatekept that you have to interact with things you don't like. That's the nature of the internet since forever. You want a utopia that never existed or one that can only exist through rigid adherence to protocols that haven't been codified anywhere.
No.32052
And again, I don't disagree with the actions taken or the reasoning, but your justification is what people are calling out as being nonsensical(or moreso just being phrased in a way that's not convincing). So it's best not to try to justify it or defer it to people who understand the material and can express why it doesn't fit.
No.32053
>>32050What's the psychology behind thinking explaining things is weakness? Wouldn't not being able to explain something mean you think you're wrong? Otherwise why wouldn't you explain it? I'm not involved in this but it just feels like nagging if you don't have anything to say besides you agree but disagree with nothing coherent other than your impression of something being weak. Were you just not able to think of something but still wanted to make people feel there's something vaguely wrong?
No.32054
>>32040Do you refer to anything you don't like as being from /pol/? I didn't like the reply either and I'm glad it's deleted but blaming every stupid little comment on some outside influence comes across as silly.
>>32053NTA but not every decision needs an elaborate explanation. The palantir reply was an off-topic remark that invited IRL controversies into a 2D thread and that's reason enough to delete it. I don't have a problem with cool guy's decision to delete it, it's the justification that rubs me the wrong way. Not everything is some sinister 4chan conspiracy to destroy sincerity on Kissu or whatever.
No.32055
>>32053You're entitled to your opinion, but it feels like his attempts to explain himself make his position weaker than if he just acts like a tyrant mod and lets others explain or justify it
Especially considering he lost his hat at people disputing if the comment was actually about /pol/ or not
No.32056
>>32048The original post was kinda off topic but why do you immediately assume the worst?
That the poster was some kind of bad /pol/ agent trying to purposely kill a thread?
>>32050>I won't disagree with anything you're saying, but the fact that you're trying to justify it makes me think that you're doing it from a position of weakness or somethingWhat are you even talking about here?
No one is justifying anything.
>You guys took away my sense of home but I won't let you drive away the people that still feel comradery here as a place they aren't subjected to wider internet culture's vomitThere is no reason to lose your kuso and make things personal.
No.32057
>>32056you are too stupid to be posting on /trans/. Vacate the premise
No.32058
>>32057Why won't you answer?
No.32059
It's funny to be upset about
>took away my sense of home
>wider internet culture's vomit
and then conclude that you're against the sentiment expressed by the "In the future you will live in a pod and eat the bugs and drink the soy and rent your clothes and own nothing and you will be happy" meme.
Like, have some self awareness, be capable of reality testing? What do you suppose the "/pol/tard" boogeyman in this picture is upset about?
No.32060
Alright, that's it. Let's settle this once and for all over a round of Mario Kart World. I will race in cool-guy's name.
No.32061
>>32060I don't have a Switch... how about we race in SuperTuxKart?
No.32062
>>32058Justifying your beliefs by explaining it is trying to justify it. Why he assumes the worst is probably just from experience with these kinds of things. I don't think either of these things deserve to be said since they come with the fact that it's implicit with what is talking about, or are genuine open questions or just assumed to be open for the sake of an argument.
No.32063
>>32062>Justifying your beliefs by explaining it is trying to justify it. I don't think it's fair to say that explaining something is the same as justifying it.
To explain something doesn't necessarily imply that you're trying to convince others that it's right.
>Why he assumes the worst is probably just from experience with these kinds of thingsThat is kinda what I assumed, but I still think that it's not fair to treat a poster who, as far as we know, doesn't try to cause problems as some agent of /pol/ trying to "kuso up threads they don't like by trying to immediately kill it with a purposeful detail".
It's not unrealistic that the poster just read the palantir's at the same time the thread popped up considering that those things happened pretty close to each other.
Again that post was kinda off topic, I won't deny that, but taking a personal offense to that post is just silly.
No.32064
I was going to delete it for being derailing and off topic if you didn't bring it up first in the mod chat but with this justification you're just chasing demons and I don't think that's healthy.
No.32065
its almost as if the guy has a persecution fantasy
No.32066
>>32063I don't think it's fair either but that's the thought process behind using the word justify.
No.32067
abababababba
No.32068
kkk
No.32069
kjikkkkk
No.32119
>>32056>The original post was kinda off topic but why do you immediately assume the worst? The benefit of a doubt only goes so far. Give people freedom and they will turn every site into an identical clone of every other.
Subcultures/communities on the internet today largely do not exist the way they did back in the 90s, 00s and even the 10s. A catchphrase on tiktok is expected to be normalized everywhere else. If some wojak or twitter screenshot takes off somewhere it's going to be posted here if it wasn't banned.
An internet community isn't defined by shared interests or values but by the rules that are forced upon its users to mold them to behave in a certain way.
>>32059Not sure what you mean by this, but I'm well aware that the future (and present) is terrible.
No.32140
>>32119>Not sure what you mean by this, but I'm well aware that the future (and present) is terrible.What I mean is
>>32041 No.32141
>>32119>An internet community isn't defined by shared interests or values but by the rules that are forced upon its users to mold them to behave in a certain way. That is a pretty weird way to think about it.
Communities are obviously defined by shared interests.
For example cappybarachan was created around monmusu, 39chan was created around vocaloid, and even kissu was originally created around the /qa/ culture.
Rules only define how much can a poster deviate from the original culture.
>internet today largely do not exist the way they did back in the 90s, 00s and even the 10sAlso this isn't entirely true either, every site and board/page/subreddit/whatever has it's own culture, and it's in-jokes.
And it is true that there's lot more overlap than there used to be but it's not the same as every site being a clone of one another.