Some folks probably should feel tied down by their reputation/ego. Casual sexism, misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc. for a laugh brings the entire discussion down to a level that I don't have any desire to participate in.
I think anonymity is awesome. But, 4chan is often on par with YouTube in terms of the quality of its comments. Sure, there's some smart kids there (some younger friends of mine are regularly channers), and a few not-as-smart oldtimers who ought to have grown out of it by now.
Notice several comments spend a lot of time talking about the people who call out sexism (as white knights, for instance). They're the kind of sexist who thinks that because they don't believe they are sexist, when they say sexist things, it's not actually sexist. The same kind of racist that says racist things, but because they have a black friend who's totally cool with it, it's all good. The kind of folks that do this are mostly young, mostly white, mostly middle class, and mostly assholes who should stop and think before they speak, whether it is an anonymous forum or not. Racist/sexist/misogynist/homophobic behavior is racist/sexist/misogynist/homophobic, and 4chan is full of it, on a scale that no non-anonymous forum would ever be.
So, is it mere political correctness which prevents me from calling people "nigger"? Or, is it a desire to respect my fellow human beings?
It's not about political correctness. It's about not being a dick. I've said nothing about saying controversial things...I've called out intentional attacks by people with power on people with less power. White kids calling everybody nigger isn't an important discussion that needed to happen to further the discourse on race in America. It's a bunch of privileged white kids being little shits and perpetuating and endorsing centuries of oppression.
So, yeah, anonymity is great. But, the culture of 4chan is often racist, misogynist, sexist, and homophobic. That's privileged people having fun reveling in their privilege at the expense of those with less power. I just don't see the appeal.
Obviously, I'm not suggesting censorship (or maybe somebody has assumed I am, since I've been downvoted a bit). I'm suggesting that the casual culture of oppressive language as it is used by the mostly white, mostly middle class, people on 4chan is a negative for the world. And, I'm pointing it out for what it is. It always gets wrapped up in, "You just don't understand, it's funny!" But, minstrel shows were considered funny, too. It doesn't make it OK.
It's political correctness. Nigger in particularly has had a nice and storied discussion on how arbitrary it's acceptability is.
You think you're not being a dick, but your sensitivity is blinding you. I've called my friends things far worse than what nigger objectively means, but the social constructs around it are so bizarre as to make it taboo, but only taboo in my context. Just like sex is taboo. Just like drugs are taboo. Just like homosexuality was taboo (and remains taboo in some areas).
Further, there's an aspect to 4chan you're not seeing, and it's how much they hate and punish the kind of narcissism you accuse them of. A net good.
I've seen openly homosexual people posting on 4chan about their lifestyles with absolutely no condemnation. It is not an exception to a rule. You have mischaracterized this demographic. Badly.
I'm speaking of the culture of the place. Every individual user has the ability to not participate in some of the really awful shit that goes down...but, groupthink and a culture that celebrates the worst of it ("none of us are as cruel as all of us"), leads to some truly awful behavior. And, it is so often white males targeting women (and, worse, young girls).
People with privilege are rarely aware of their privilege, and 4chan is a great exhibition of that. It's possibly useful as a tool for seeing just how much people don't see how awful their community can be, and how much oppressive behavior is tolerated and celebrated. We've got thousands of years of oppression to undo. I'm calling it out, not because I'm "sensitive", but because I've had some of this shit explained to me...I've had my own oppressive behavior called out to me. And, now that I see it, and have begun to understand it, it's my job as a white male ally in a centuries-old struggle to call it out when I see it.
It's not white knighting, and it's not sensitivity. 4chan isn't hurting my feelings or making me mad. 4chan is just doing what white men have done throughout history: Enjoying their position of privilege to make fun of those with less power. And, I recognize it for what it is because I've done it, too. The only surprising thing about it is how much most 4channers think they aren't acting like every prior generation of white men in the face of being asked to treat women and people of color like equals. They genuinely believe they are a different breed, above race, and gender, and identity; all the while promoting the same old shit.
>And, it is so often white males targeting women (and, worse, young girls).
since when?
since they make good headlines?
Most people who get ousted are narcissistic 16 year old's. They just arn't sympathetic to a news reel, and almost always the instigating factor for 4chan going to town on someone is narcissism. Adria and Anita being two fantastic examples of such.
My sympathies to Allie though. Definitely not a smart life choice posting pictures of yourself for 4chan's amusement, shame such a choice can be made before you're old enough to make it.
You've been to 4chan before, right? I just took at look. I could point to a half dozen deeply disturbing threads happening as we speak. They are conversations being held predominantly by young white males about even younger girls, some of whom have had their real identity revealed by the creepy stalking that 4chan is so well known for.
"Most people who get ousted are narcissistic 16 year old's."
So, all 16 year olds, then. Every teenager is self-involved. Their brain isn't finished yet. That's no excuse for a bunch of grown men to wage war on them.
"Adria and Anita being two fantastic examples of such."
So, you believe what happened in those cases was a sane, rational, and fair response to someone saying something that 4channers disagreed with? You call them "narcissists", one because she wanted to make some videos about sexism in video games and she asked some people to voluntarily give her a few bucks to do it, and the other because she thought it was inappropriate to make stupid dick jokes at a conference attended by women and young girls.
See, here's the thing...you could convince me that Adria Richards could have handled that situation with more subtlety. But, the response of 4chan? You believe that was justified? I honestly have a hard time wrapping my head around that kind of mindset.
And, Anita literally did nothing to anyone. She wanted to make some videos. Don't like the concept of videos about sexism in video games? Don't contribute, don't watch them. That's what I did, and the videos never bothered me one bit because I never saw them (didn't need to, as I already knew video games were sexist as hell). Huh. How hard was that? In what world is it OK to wage war on someone for expressing their opinion? In that world, anonymous forums become the only place one can express an opinion without fear, because their are vigilante gangs standing at the ready to try to destroy you at the first sign that they might disagree with you.
That it's considered justified by so many within that community because of, I guess, how strongly someone disagrees with the opinions being stated, is disturbing.
If 4chan only went after people with power, I would cheer them on. Politicians? Hell, yeah, go for it. Tom Cruise? Fuck, yeah. Bankers? Why not? Abusive cops? I'm OK with that too. But, they often don't. They go after easy targets; they're often bullies (while absurdly wearing the badge of "standing up for the little guy"). One of the easiest targets is young girls, and 4channers go after young girls daily.
honestly. It's not worth discussing here. This is a discussion that can only functionally be carried out when names can be tied to faces, because people are so self righteous about it. I don't want to be targeted. Sorry.
But political correctness can prevent you from questioning progressive dogmas. Many of them are not born out by fact, but it is impolite to disagree with them.
If the facts don't agree with my opinions, I change my mind. But that rapidly pushes you into thought-criminal territory in today's world.
OK, I think maybe we're talking past one another. So, let's get specific: What "progressive dogma" have I brought up that you believe we should be able to discuss and that you should be able to disagree with?
You haven't brought up any. But some are pretty common. I'm just arguing that PC prevents free thought and the dispassionate analysis of evidence, since it applies moral values to the evidence itself and it prejudicially strikes out some plausible hypotheses.
For example, I don't buy that racism is the sole reason for the underrepresentation of some ethnic minority groups in tech because other ethnic minority groups that have been historically oppressed and discriminated against are overrepresented in tech. But if someone posted an article about how "tech is racist" and I said "I'm not sure that tech is racist", then someone could call me a racist and I could lose my job if someone got offended.
So anonymity is essential for exploring non-progressive ideas and, I think, for getting closer to truth. There are lots of non-progressive/anti-progressive ideas that are plausible given the available evidence, but nobody will discuss under their real name.
Ah, so I see I have given the impression that I believe anonymous forums shouldn't be allowed to exist (via some mechanism...not sure what, maybe the state?). That was not my intention; you aren't the only one to take this thread down that path. I lean anarchist...I don't want anyone forcing anybody to do anything, and I think anonymous forums are necessary.
But, I also think 4chan revels in its privilege, and many of its participants are pretentious enough to believe they are above gender and race and identity, when they're really just reproducing the same patterns white men have practiced at every point in history when someone asked to be treated equally. It doesn't mean they should be censored. But, I think people should feel empowered to call it out for what it is...but calling it out gets shouted down pretty quick on 4chan (I can hear the cries of "white knight" from here).
Actually, I would argue that his opinion that tech is not racist is in the mainstream. It would not cause an eyebrow to be raised in the vast majority of tech offices I've worked in. That's the funny thing about a lot of these arguments against "political correctness"; the opinions most folks who use that term hold are the ones that white men have held for centuries. It's not at all surprising that there are still lots of white men that hold those opinions. And, given the incredible imbalance of white men in tech (even taking into account the Asian factor, the US tech industry is still a strikingly white and male industry), it is not difficult to hold those old positions without ever being questioned or challenged on them.
It's only because these views so rarely get challenged that it causes such a fierce response.
Source: I was one of those white guys who thought tech was a super great place where anyone with the skills could get ahead and there was no glass ceiling for women and their was no reason black folks couldn't do great in the industry if they just had an interest in tech. I recognize all this because I was there. I just wish I had a better way to help other people understand how their privileged position makes it very difficult for them to see and understand why the tech industry has both an extremely sexist and white supremacist culture.
So you are saying that we should abandon freedom of expression and attach IDs to anyone who has anything to say, in order to instigate retribution against those who disagree with your worldview? How will this not lead to censorship (and self-censorship) and hugboxing? If you don't want to participate in an anonymous discussion, that's your choice, but don't try to deprive others of it.
That was not my intention, but I can see how you might have taken it that way. I followed with, "brings the entire discussion down to a level that I don't have any desire to participate in."
My implication was that I opt out of such discussions, and I think (much) less of those who participate in casual sexism, racism, and homophobia.
I think anonymity is awesome. But, 4chan is often on par with YouTube in terms of the quality of its comments. Sure, there's some smart kids there (some younger friends of mine are regularly channers), and a few not-as-smart oldtimers who ought to have grown out of it by now.
Notice several comments spend a lot of time talking about the people who call out sexism (as white knights, for instance). They're the kind of sexist who thinks that because they don't believe they are sexist, when they say sexist things, it's not actually sexist. The same kind of racist that says racist things, but because they have a black friend who's totally cool with it, it's all good. The kind of folks that do this are mostly young, mostly white, mostly middle class, and mostly assholes who should stop and think before they speak, whether it is an anonymous forum or not. Racist/sexist/misogynist/homophobic behavior is racist/sexist/misogynist/homophobic, and 4chan is full of it, on a scale that no non-anonymous forum would ever be.