LWDT 7: The Earth and Heavens Tremble.

[Proctopeo]

TIL it's okay to advocate for bullying and physical assault of a minor as long as you use your far-right counterpart as a distraction from your own moral failings

also
>implying I'm mad
you be trippin'

Imagine using the actions/beliefs of a select few people to be representative of an entire group lmao, you're sounding awfully similar to white supremacists with that kind of rhetoric :^)))

Nah, I'm taking a page from the revolutionary socialists today :^)

[Cekoviu]

Imagine using the actions/beliefs of a select few people to be representative of an entire group lmao, you're sounding awfully similar to white supremacists with that kind of rhetoric :^)))

Nah, I'm taking a page from the revolutionary socialists today :^)

This is a really great thread and I love the intellectual, honest debates we have here

[Rostavykhan]

What are we supposed to be mad at here? I can't stand Chapo but I'm not seeing the problem with the comments

Imagine getting mad in defense of baby-talking Neo-Nazis who use cartoon frogs on the internet to deceptively spread their Neo-Nazism because leftists mocked them online lmao. Proct's outrage is fucking hilarious.

You really have no place to be talking about hilarious outrage, tho

[Torrocca]

Imagine using the actions/beliefs of a select few people to be representative of an entire group lmao, you're sounding awfully similar to white supremacists with that kind of rhetoric :^)))

Nah, I'm taking a page from the revolutionary socialists today :^)

TIL'd revolutionary socialists only use the actions/beliefs of a select few Nazis, racists, etc. as indicative of entire groups

As we all know, thanks to and according to your "no u" expressed here, of course, there are plenty of good Nazis (and the ones making up the entirety of r/frenworld definitely were, seeing as how hellbent you are on defending them from mockery by using a few assholish statements the mockers made as indicative of that entire mocking group's collective beliefs), and thus they're exempt from criticism.

[Torrocca]

Imagine getting mad in defense of baby-talking Neo-Nazis who use cartoon frogs on the internet to deceptively spread their Neo-Nazism because leftists mocked them online lmao. Proct's outrage is fucking hilarious.

You really have no place to be talking about hilarious outrage, tho

TIL'd being upset about direct assholery aimed at me is equivalent to defending baby-talking Nazis because a few people made atrociously violent remarks

Hmmmm.

[Cekoviu]

Nah, I'm taking a page from the revolutionary socialists today :^)

TIL'd revolutionary socialists only use the actions/beliefs of a select few Nazis, racists, etc. as indicative of entire groups

As we all know, thanks to and according to your "no u" expressed here, of course, there are plenty of good Nazis (and the ones making up the entirety of r/frenworld definitely were, seeing as how hellbent you are on defending them from mockery by using a few assholish statements the mockers made as indicative of that entire mocking group's collective beliefs), and thus they're exempt from criticism.

[Proctopeo]

Nah, I'm taking a page from the revolutionary socialists today :^)

TIL'd revolutionary socialists only use the actions/beliefs of a select few Nazis, racists, etc. as indicative of entire groups

Not the listed, but definitely the et cetera.

As we all know, thanks to and according to your "no u" expressed here, of course, there are plenty of good Nazis (and the ones making up the entirety of r/frenworld definitely were, seeing as how hellbent you are on defending them from mockery by using a few assholish statements the mockers made as indicative of that entire mocking group's collective beliefs), and thus they're exempt from criticism.

The mockery wasn't directed at frenworld, though, it was directed at the random high school student of which a candid photo was taken and uploaded online for internet points.
The response to frenworld's response was indeed mocking frenworld, but not the initial post.

I can take or leave frenworld, in the grand scheme of things they're irrelevant. I'm defending the random in the Pepe merch.

[Torrocca]

TIL'd revolutionary socialists only use the actions/beliefs of a select few Nazis, racists, etc. as indicative of entire groups

As we all know, thanks to and according to your "no u" expressed here, of course, there are plenty of good Nazis (and the ones making up the entirety of r/frenworld definitely were, seeing as how hellbent you are on defending them from mockery by using a few assholish statements the mockers made as indicative of that entire mocking group's collective beliefs), and thus they're exempt from criticism.

You wound me, Cek. We all know I'd be a perfectly smooth cylindrical bale of hay. ;~;

[Cekoviu]

You wound me, Cek. We all know I'd be a perfectly smooth cylindrical bale of hay. ;~;

I apologize, I will delet this immediately

[Torrocca]

The mockery wasn't directed at frenworld, though, it was directed at the random high school student of which a candid photo was taken and uploaded online for internet points.
The response to frenworld's response was indeed mocking frenworld, but not the initial post.

I can take or leave frenworld, in the grand scheme of things they're irrelevant. I'm defending the random in the Pepe merch.

Literally the very title of the post itself was mocking that entire cancerous community, not the kid lmao, and so were most of the posts. You're literally cherry-picking (ironically enough, red-highlighted posts that were deleted) to screech about an entire community based off what a few people said.

[Torrocca]

You wound me, Cek. We all know I'd be a perfectly smooth cylindrical bale of hay. ;~;

I apologize, I will delet this immediately

thank <3

[Proctopeo]

The mockery wasn't directed at frenworld, though, it was directed at the random high school student of which a candid photo was taken and uploaded online for internet points.
The response to frenworld's response was indeed mocking frenworld, but not the initial post.

I can take or leave frenworld, in the grand scheme of things they're irrelevant. I'm defending the random in the Pepe merch.

Literally the very title of the post itself was mocking that entire cancerous community, not the kid lmao, and so were most of the posts.

By using the picture of the kid, without even censoring his face for fuck's sake.
That last part should be inexcusable to you.

You're literally cherry-picking (ironically enough, red-highlighted posts that were deleted) to screech about an entire community based off what a few people said.

Note, many of those deleted comments garnered a lot of upvotes - two above +100, over a tenth of the total upvotes of the original post.
It'd be cherry-picking if none of the comments were popular. But, as mentioned, two definitely were, and arguably one or two more, too.

For a better analogy, I'm taking off entire branches of a tree to demonstrate details about said tree.

[United Muscovite Nations]

How does CTH even know that the kid is alt right or something, Pepe was a mainstream meme for nearly a decade.

[Proctopeo]

How does CTH even know that the kid is alt right or something, Pepe was a mainstream meme for nearly a decade.

And while less mainstream than it once was, its connotations as an alt-right hate symbol are spurious at best, and examples of such are quite elusive, especially in the wild.

[Torrocca]

Literally the very title of the post itself was mocking that entire cancerous community, not the kid lmao, and so were most of the posts.

By using the picture of the kid, without even censoring his face for fuck's sake.

TIL'd the back and side of a head = a face

That last part should be inexcusable to you.

If it were for the purposes of a witch hunt and it actually showed the kid's face, abso-fucking-lutely. As is, though, the picture was taken in what's a public environment of what the kid publicly chose to wear that day, that being the hideous Pepe get-up. Which, obviously, is still pretty fucking ludicrously shitty especially since it led to those aforementioned bullshit calls for violence, but isn't anywhere near as bad as you're insinuating regarding the contents of the photo; that said, they still should've censored the tiny bit of visible face that was there.

You're literally cherry-picking (ironically enough, red-highlighted posts that were deleted) to screech about an entire community based off what a few people said.

Note, many of those deleted comments garnered a lot of upvotes - two above +100, over a tenth of the total upvotes of the original post.
It'd be cherry-picking if none of the comments were popular. But, as mentioned, two definitely were, and arguably one or two more, too.

For a better analogy, I'm taking off entire branches of a tree to demonstrate details about said tree.

It's cherry-picking on account of the fact that A) lurkers exist, making the popularity of those comments utterly moot and not actually indicative of the community's expressed beliefs (the majority of which weren't expressing any form of violence or mockery toward the kid himself) and B) the fact that there's only a select few of those comments among 166. You're quite literally talking about less than a percent of commenters using violent or harassing rhetoric.

[Proctopeo]

By using the picture of the kid, without even censoring his face for fuck's sake.

TIL'd the back and side of a head = a face

Some of his face is still visible.

That last part should be inexcusable to you.

If it were for the purposes of a witch hunt and it actually showed the kid's face, abso-fucking-lutely. As is, though, the picture was taken in what's a public environment of what the kid publicly chose to wear that day, that being the hideous Pepe get-up. Which, obviously, is still pretty fucking ludicrously shitty especially since it led to those aforementioned bullshit calls for violence, but isn't anywhere near as bad as you're insinuating regarding the contents of the photo; that said, they still should've censored the tiny bit of visible face that was there.

This is a roundabout way to be wishy-washy.

Note, many of those deleted comments garnered a lot of upvotes - two above +100, over a tenth of the total upvotes of the original post.
It'd be cherry-picking if none of the comments were popular. But, as mentioned, two definitely were, and arguably one or two more, too.

For a better analogy, I'm taking off entire branches of a tree to demonstrate details about said tree.

It's cherry-picking on account of the fact that A) lurkers exist, making the popularity of those comments utterly moot and not actually indicative of the community's expressed beliefs (the majority of which weren't expressing any form of violence or mockery toward the kid himself) and B) the fact that there's only a select few of those comments among 166. You're quite literally talking about less than a percent of commenters using violent or harassing rhetoric.

Why do lurkers make the popularity moot? They are a part of the community, after all, they just interact from a distance (upvotes and downvotes, potentially reporting things, too).
This just feels like a convenient way to downplay the shittiness of the whole thing.

[Torrocca]

TIL'd the back and side of a head = a face

Some of his face is still visible.

Which should've been censored, as I said.

If it were for the purposes of a witch hunt and it actually showed the kid's face, abso-fucking-lutely. As is, though, the picture was taken in what's a public environment of what the kid publicly chose to wear that day, that being the hideous Pepe get-up. Which, obviously, is still pretty fucking ludicrously shitty especially since it led to those aforementioned bullshit calls for violence, but isn't anywhere near as bad as you're insinuating regarding the contents of the photo; that said, they still should've censored the tiny bit of visible face that was there.

This is a roundabout way to be wishy-washy.

Not really. What was visible of his face should've been censored, regardless of why or where the photo was taken, which was my point.

It's cherry-picking on account of the fact that A) lurkers exist, making the popularity of those comments utterly moot and not actually indicative of the community's expressed beliefs (the majority of which weren't expressing any form of violence or mockery toward the kid himself) and B) the fact that there's only a select few of those comments among 166. You're quite literally talking about less than a percent of commenters using violent or harassing rhetoric.

Why do lurkers make the popularity moot? They are a part of the community, after all, they just interact from a distance (upvotes and downvotes, potentially reporting things, too).
This just feels like a convenient way to downplay the shittiness of the whole thing.

Because lurkers don't put their actual beliefs out onto the playing field, and they sure as fuck don't put out a reason for upvoting/downvoting a comment expressing a certain sentiment. In addition to that, there's also the pervasive issue of vote-brigading, which can easily happen to make a subreddit's community look bad and is enough of an issue on that website to have an official, admin-made rule. You can't appeal to popularity among anonymous voters as indicative of communal beliefs when those voters can come from literally anywhere and can't be confidently said to make up a good deal of the community and its actual beliefs.

Now, it'd be entirely different if r/CTH restricting voting to subscribed community members, but it doesn't do that at all, which further makes this whole thing about votes moot.

[Proctopeo]

This is a roundabout way to be wishy-washy.

Not really. What was visible of his face should've been censored, regardless of why or where the photo was taken, which was my point.

Fair.

Why do lurkers make the popularity moot? They are a part of the community, after all, they just interact from a distance (upvotes and downvotes, potentially reporting things, too).
This just feels like a convenient way to downplay the shittiness of the whole thing.

Because lurkers don't put their actual beliefs out onto the playing field, and they sure as fuck don't put out a reason for upvoting/downvoting a comment expressing a certain sentiment. In addition to that, there's also the pervasive issue of vote-brigading, which can easily happen to make a subreddit's community look bad and is enough of an issue on that website to have an official, admin-made rule. You can't appeal to popularity among anonymous voters as indicative of communal beliefs when those voters can come from literally anywhere and can't be confidently said to make up a good deal of the community and its actual beliefs.

Now, it'd be entirely different if r/CTH restricting voting to subscribed community members, but it doesn't do that at all, which further makes this whole thing about votes moot.

There's no evidence, or statement, suggesting that vote brigading happened. Your only argument here is that it's possible. It's just as possible that CTH natives - some lurkers, some active posters - were the main force behind these specific comments having high positive scores.

[Torrocca]

Because lurkers don't put their actual beliefs out onto the playing field, and they sure as fuck don't put out a reason for upvoting/downvoting a comment expressing a certain sentiment. In addition to that, there's also the pervasive issue of vote-brigading, which can easily happen to make a subreddit's community look bad and is enough of an issue on that website to have an official, admin-made rule. You can't appeal to popularity among anonymous voters as indicative of communal beliefs when those voters can come from literally anywhere and can't be confidently said to make up a good deal of the community and its actual beliefs.

Now, it'd be entirely different if r/CTH restricting voting to subscribed community members, but it doesn't do that at all, which further makes this whole thing about votes moot.

There's no evidence, or statement, suggesting that vote brigading happened. Your only argument here is that it's possible. It's just as possible that CTH natives - some lurkers, some active posters - were the main force behind these specific comments having high positive scores.

Which is why it's fucking useless to use those posts as indicative of community beliefs because there's no fucking way of knowing who made those votes in the first place, which is my whole fucking point as to why using those posts as indicative of the entire community's beliefs is fucking stupid bullshit.

[Cekoviu]

There's no evidence, or statement, suggesting that vote brigading happened. Your only argument here is that it's possible. It's just as possible that CTH natives - some lurkers, some active posters - were the main force behind these specific comments having high positive scores.

Which is why it's fucking useless to use those posts as indicative of community beliefs because there's no fucking way of knowing who made those votes in the first place, which is my whole fucking point as to why using those posts as indicative of the entire community's beliefs is fucking stupid bullshit.

I'm kind of curious as to what your average concentration of "fucking" is for posts and how this compares.

[Torrocca]

Which is why it's fucking useless to use those posts as indicative of community beliefs because there's no fucking way of knowing who made those votes in the first place, which is my whole fucking point as to why using those posts as indicative of the entire community's beliefs is fucking stupid bullshit.

I'm kind of curious as to what your average concentration of "fucking" is for posts and how this compares.

It's probably a bit above average, tbqh. I fucking use "fucking" a fucking lot for no practical fucking reason, but at least you can fucking tell when I'm being fucking serious with my fucking posting when I don't fucking use "fucking".

[Proctopeo]

There's no evidence, or statement, suggesting that vote brigading happened. Your only argument here is that it's possible. It's just as possible that CTH natives - some lurkers, some active posters - were the main force behind these specific comments having high positive scores.

Which is why it's fucking useless to use those posts as indicative of community beliefs because there's no fucking way of knowing who made those votes in the first place, which is my whole fucking point as to why using those posts as indicative of the entire community's beliefs is fucking stupid bullshit.

Your "logic" seems specifically construed to be a "get out of accusations of shittery free" card for Chapo Trap House.
"Upvotes don't matter! We don't know who made them!!!"
Yeah, we know who made them. People who visit Chapo Trap House made them. Most of which are, certainly, regulars, even if they are just lurkers.

[Torrocca]

Which is why it's fucking useless to use those posts as indicative of community beliefs because there's no fucking way of knowing who made those votes in the first place, which is my whole fucking point as to why using those posts as indicative of the entire community's beliefs is fucking stupid bullshit.

Your "logic" seems specifically construed to be a "get out of accusations of shittery free" card for Chapo Trap House.
"Upvotes don't matter! We don't know who made them!!!"

No, actually, it's not. Shockingly enough, unlike whatever probable imagining you have of me, I fully-well realize there's shitty beliefs and people aplenty in r/CTH and that that's wholly deserving of criticism, but that still doesn't fucking mean the entire community shares the beliefs of a few people calling for violence against a kid because those few people received anonymous upvotes to their calls for violence like you're trying to peddle here.

[Proctopeo]

Your "logic" seems specifically construed to be a "get out of accusations of shittery free" card for Chapo Trap House.
"Upvotes don't matter! We don't know who made them!!!"

No, actually, it's not. Shockingly enough, unlike whatever probable imagining you have of me, I fully-well realize there's shitty beliefs and people aplenty in r/CTH and that that's wholly deserving of criticism, but that still doesn't fucking mean the entire community shares the beliefs of a few people calling for violence against a kid because those few people received anonymous upvotes to their calls for violence like you're trying to peddle here.

Isn't that how these things usually work, though? Some people are shitty, so we criticize the whole community they belong to?

[Torrocca]

No, actually, it's not. Shockingly enough, unlike whatever probable imagining you have of me, I fully-well realize there's shitty beliefs and people aplenty in r/CTH and that that's wholly deserving of criticism, but that still doesn't fucking mean the entire community shares the beliefs of a few people calling for violence against a kid because those few people received anonymous upvotes to their calls for violence like you're trying to peddle here.

Isn't that how these things usually work, though? Some people are shitty, so we criticize the whole community they belong to?

Nope, contrary enough to your earlier indictment of this being something popular among revolutionary socialists which, funnily enough, is you yet again using the excuse of some people's shittiness to villainize everyone of a particular group.