The Ethics of "Project Harpoon"

[Thaluikhain]

As a aside, this is one of those times when Jux's avatar seems really appropriate.

But you shouldn't have been doing it, for your own sake. That's not blaming you instead of the attacker.

It is. You cannot say something should have done something different to avoid something happened without blaming them, at least in part, for that thing happening.

Privacy?! People online are complaining about "Privacy"?! How Ironic, I suppose when it's 4chan it's immoral but when it's the government trading nude selfies like baseball cards in the NSA it's okay!

Ok according to whom? Plenty of people are against the NSA doing it as well.

When did the Tu Quoque fallacy become the central dogma of so many online anyway?

I don't remember it ever not being so. However, I don't know if that is what this is, it seems like "Why talk about X when Y is more important?". Which isn't much better.

That seems to be the skin of it, but I think it's stuffed with the usual tu quoque. "We're not so bad by comparison." is really the feel of it.

True, but that's usually the feel of "Why talk about X when Y is more important?" (there's probably a better name for this). Tu quoque would require that people complaining about this are part of the NSA's actions, wouldn't it?

 

[Somekindofgold]

It's hilarious if you're 10.

Hey call it immature all you want doesnt stop me laughing at it.

 

[RobertEHouse]

Understand that anything posted into Facebook gives Facebook the right to use it as they wish for marketing purposes. The same can be said with Twitter and other social media sites, in essence you handed them rights to those images unless you copyrighted them. So if you want to bash about privacy, you should have read the fine policy.

Unless Facebook was the one heading up project harpoon, this is a complete non sequitur. Giving facebook the rights to use your images isn't the same as giving anyone the right to use your images. If you're going to admonish people for not reading the policy, maybe make sure you know what's in the policy first.

This comes down to privacy, right? The control of one's self image online?

I was responding to the fact that FB, does not give you privacy period. Those rights are given away when you sign up to FB. FB is allowed to "Manipulate", "Post" and even "Sell your Photos" without your compensation.

How are your "Photos private" any more when a corporation owns them? How do you have control over them?

The only difference here is a third party took those photos and "Manipulated" and "Posted" them. Then used those very images in a uncontrolled negative campaign to those people. This is what it feels like to lose control of your image online, now think of the paradox of letting a corporation have that control over your photos over it?

One last thing, I have read FB policies because it is my job. Adviser

 

[Kathinka]

Oh, like hell 4chan would ever have anyone's best interests in mind. Let's forget that fat shaming or any counter and counter-counter movements exist. This is about 4chan bullies making fun of people. There is no chance that any of these dregs want to help anyone. All they are interested in is making other people sad and angry so that they can in turn feel happy. Of course they will say that it's a social reaction, that it's important for people to care about body image and stay healthy, and that telling people that it's okay to be overweight encourages unhealthy lifestyles, but only in Bizarro World would 4chan actually be telling the truth about caring. They don't care. It's trolling, and that's all it will ever be. The only reason they are hiding behind this veneer of social responsibility is to further enrage people, given it's harder to argue with people acting sanctimonious. So please, people - don't trust them, and regardless of whether you are for or against fat shaming, let's call this what it is: bullying.

I don't see anyone being ridiculed. Hell, on the FB page and on their subreddit people are lining up REQUESTING to be shopped for these exact reasons.

As a matter of fact, many coaches that get paid heaps of money to help their clients to be motivated to attain their goals employ this EXACT strategy: Do away with negative thoughts and doubts ("Why am I so fat?") and instead formulate a positive, enthusiastic goal. ("I want an awesome attractive body with a fit physique and visible muscle definition!")
This is precisely this.
All this butthurt is just the result of the current trend to label stating anything but cuddly feel-good hugbox "everyone is perfect <3" phrases as "offensive", "shaming" or "discrimination."

You use the word "hugbox" a lot. The only other place I've seen that used is Encyclopedia Dramatica. Why do you like watching the butthurt as well? It's one thing to like the idea of something, but what do you get from seeing other people angry? What's it do for you?

Make no mistake, I'm all for the root idea behind fat shaming i.e. not pretending like being overweight is okay, and I'm also against the storm of political correctness and hair trigger offense going around, but I'll never be okay with bullying or those who take pleasure in others' sadness and anger.

I don't really frequent ED. The word "hugbox" I first came across on..reddit I think it was. And I like it. It perfectly describes the circle jerk of perpetual victims that like seeing themselves as the offended and oppressed at the slightest, silliest opportunity.
I don't particularly enjoy seeing people angry, and I don't believe I said anything to that end. It's just something that happens in this dynamic. It's not something that me (and I suspect other people that aren't in it for trolling their fellow man) want, like or try to make happen.
I'm not really a fan of fat shaming. Helping people to overcome their issues and make them see it if they have an unhealthy body image is a good thing, but I believe shaming is not the way to help.
That's why I sort of like this whole thing. Posting a nice-ified picture of someone is not shaming them.

 

[Jux]

This comes down to privacy, right? The control of one's self image online?

I was responding to the fact that FB, does not give you privacy period. Those rights are given away when you sign up to FB. FB is allowed to "Manipulate", "Post" and even "Sell your Photos" without your compensation.

Which has fuck all to do with this case, because facebook didn't sell those photos to those people to manipulate. And you're right, it isn't facebook that 'gives' you privacy, it's the laws on privacy and publicity that give you those rights.

How are your "Photos private" any more when a corporation owns them? How do you have control over them?

Facebook doesn't own them, you might want to check: www.facebook.com/legal/terms

2. Sharing Your Content and Information

You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook (emphasis mine) , and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:

1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission (emphasis mine), subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-liscensable, royalty-free, worldwide liscense to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP liscense). This IP liscense ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

This pertains exclusively as to what Facebook is allowed to do with your photos, not any random shmuck from a chan. They don't own your photos, you are simply agreeing to let them use them.

The only difference here is a third party took those photos and "Manipulated" and "Posted" them. Then used those very images in a uncontrolled negative campaign to those people. This is what it feels like to lose control of your image online, now think of the paradox of letting a corporation have that control over your photos over it?

And that makes all the difference.

One last thing, I have read FB policies because it is my job. Adviser

Uh huh...

 

[Gengisgame]

I agree with the OP, I agree that taking photos of the general public and mocking them is horrible. On the project itself though and it's mocking of fat positivity I actually find that funny based on the reaction it's gotten, I don't want people to feel bad but being positive about being it is just delusional.

 

[Batou667]

Eh... #FreeBleeding was worse. Atleast this is funny to watch at.

The thing is, #FreeBleeding isn't even entirely a hoax. Some people actually DO think shunning sanitary products is empowering.

As for Project Harpoon, I think the initial fat-positive photoshops by Bulimia.com were completely misguided. Although a backlash to that in the form of photoshopping fat people to the size of a "real, curvy, kickass woman" has a certain pleasing poetic justice to it, it's poor form to use images of uninvolved women. Then again, this is 4chan we're talking about, they're amoral at best.

 

[Tilly]

It is. You cannot say something should have done something different to avoid something happened without blaming them, at least in part, for that thing happening.

Ok, well you can call it blame if you like. But I was trying to make the important distinction between social blame and legal blame. No-one thinks the victim should receive any legal blame, is the point I was making. But as for social blame, you just can't seriously say that we as a society universally believe that victim blaming is bad. Plenty of property insurance contracts specifically include a clause about having your house securely locked to help prevent theft. If there's a theft but no sign of forced entry, they'll often just say it's your fault. That's victim blaming, by the definition you're giving. It's very widely accepted and there's nothing wrong with it.

I think the actual key issue that causes problems here is that that example is of something that's agreed upon in advance. With social issues, there is often no such agreement. Which is why it seems unfair in some cases, because people are blaming you for something you don't accept is an agreed upon precaution. The obvious example being that judge (I think it was) who asked a rape victim what she'd been wearing. That was just an atrocious thing to ask. There's no common understanding or any evidence about clothing having anything to do with being raped at all, he was just being an ass and injecting his own biases into a place they didn't belong. But the problem there (in my opinion) wasn't that he was victim blaming, it was that his attempted blaming was based on nothing but stupidity and ideology rather than a reliable measure.

 

[Dizchu]

And PorjectHarpoon is hilarious now. This is Zimmerman trial, exploding van, SVU episode, Darren Wilson funding, Time Magazine poll changing levels of entertainment now and its because of the reaction. You play into their hands everytime, you cant help it apparently.

Congratulations.

So because people are calling out shitty behaviour, that's a bad thing? I know trolling requires a response, but as I said before, you cannot reasonably expect people whose personal photos shared amongst small networks have been altered for the sake of ridicule to think "yeah whatever, don't care".

When you involve random members of the public it becomes personal, transcends mere trolling and turns into desperation. 4chan hasn't had the best track record, but remember when they used to troll deserving targets? Like the Church of Scientology?

You do know 4chan is more than just people that play video games right? And this wasnt 4chan, this was /pol/, this inferno is art far beyond the ability of /v/ or /b/.

/pol/ is as much a hugbox as any SJW echo chamber they ***** about. If this is "art" then what was Project Chanology?

This is just a group of socially inept, (probably) overweight neckbearded losers lashing out at a world that doesn't accept them. The more they try to align themselves directly in opposition to overzealous social justice groups, the more they resemble them. Not helped by the fact that the whole campaign deliberately mirrored what they had a problem with in the first place. It's almost as if they want to give the social justice crowd more ammo.

 

[Somekindofgold]

So because people are calling out shitty behaviour, that's a bad thing? I know trolling requires a response, but as I said before, you cannot reasonably expect people whose personal photos shared amongst small networks have been altered for the sake of ridicule to think "yeah whatever, don't care".

When you involve random members of the public it becomes personal, transcends mere trolling and turns into desperation. 4chan hasn't had the best track record, but remember when they used to troll deserving targets? Like the Church of Scientology?

You mean when anonymoose became a bunch of pathetic, impotent activists populated by 12 year olds who think they're hardcore because they figured out what IRC is? the Chanology crap neutered 4chan for years.

And no, this was not shared amongst small networks, these were publicly available images. I've already had this argument in another thread, if you place these images on sites and accounts that you can access with a simple google search they are not private anymore and you wear the consequences. You cannot put these images up and then cry when someone finds and uses them, yes in a perfect world it would be great if it didnt happen but this isnt a perfect world and precautions have to be taken.

And yes it is a bad thing because you're giving them exactly what they want, you calling them out encourages them. You have to learn to ignore them or they'll keep going. But thats the problem these days, most people on the internet have no idea how to handle it so they just have a hissy fit when they screw up.

/pol/ is as much a hugbox as any SJW echo chamber they ***** about. If this is "art" then what was Project Chanology?

This is just a group of socially inept, (probably) overweight neckbearded losers lashing out at a world that doesn't accept them. The more they try to align themselves directly in opposition to overzealous social justice groups, the more they resemble them. Not helped by the fact that the whole campaign deliberately mirrored what they had a problem with in the first place. It's almost as if they want to give the social justice crowd more ammo.

/pol/ is nothing like your typical hugbox because unlike, say reddit, when you post something people disagree with the post isnt deleted and buried, the people who disagree call you a retard and tell you why you're a retard. A hugbox requires a system in which no badthink can interrupt the groupthink, /pol/ doesn't have that. If it was a hugbox you wouldnt have Bernie supporters and Trump supporters and Rand supporters going at each other.

And I already explained what Chanology was, it was cancer pure and simple and what started out as a joke was hijacked by idiots thinking it was a legitimate crusade against Scientology.

Let me explain the thought process behind 4chan because it seems you don't understand it, everything is a joke and nothing is sacred. Nobody there cares that feelings were hurt because its funny.

Also nice insults.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

Fat activist is a bit of an oxymororn, as a fat bugger I can say I got this way due to inactivity... and delicious food. 4chan acting like dicks and waving the privacy flag, colour me shocked. Just because somebody dropped their wallet on the street doesn't mean you have to take off with it.

 

[SecondPrize]

Copyright gains much of its meaning where money is being made. If I take a broadcast and stream it somewhere where I get sub money or ad revenue, i'm in the wrong. If I take a photo and put it somewhere where I can't earn anything form it, I'm okay. Same with someone's image. I can take your photo all I want from a public place and use it for a portfolio or display it in a show. If I want to sell it to a stock agency or use it for an advertisement, however, I will need your consent.

Money has something to do with what you can do, but mostly in what the penalties will actually be, and how much effort is put into enforcement. Presenting a photo gained from anywhere in a show or portfolio without attribution is defiantly a breach of copyright, (though both would usually also be connected to being used to earn money), and given portfolios tend to be used to gain work by showing off previous edging towards false advertising or even fraud.



Well, this post is certainly all they way messed up.
No, my photo, their image. I take the picture. It has them in it. Their image.

 

[Dizchu]

You mean when anonymoose became a bunch of pathetic, impotent activists populated by 12 year olds who think they're hardcore because they figured out what IRC is? the Chanology crap neutered 4chan for years.

Yeah but at least the Church of Scientology is an actual target that needed trolling. Going after them was ambitious, it was an indication of a group effort to knock a deliberately clandestine organisation down a few pegs.

Going after random overweight people on social media by comparison is pathetic, desperate and mean-spirited. It's essentially bullying, and nobody likes a bully.

Can you not see the difference here? It doesn't matter if the level of competency is around the same, the intentions behind the former were good and the latter were bad.

And yes it is a bad thing because you're giving them exactly what they want, you calling them out encourages them. You have to learn to ignore them or they'll keep going. But thats the problem these days, most people on the internet have no idea how to handle it so they just have a hissy fit when they screw up.

But... the people who uploaded those photos to begin with didn't "screw up"? Whuh??

Also you don't think even one of the people engaged with Project Harpoon thought to themselves "actually, what I did was pretty shitty"? I know I've done a lot to mock them in this thread, but they're still human. If a family member of theirs got ridiculed like this, I'm sure their response wouldn't be as cold. As someone else said, they did what they did because their targets were distant and they didn't have to deal with the consequences. But if people actually made those consequences known, sure it may encourage some to continue, but it may discourage others.

/pol/ is nothing like your typical hugbox because unlike, say reddit, when you post something people disagree with the post isnt deleted and buried, the people who disagree call you a retard and tell you why you're a retard. A hugbox requires a system in which no badthink can interrupt the groupthink, /pol/ doesn't have that. If it was a hugbox you wouldnt have Bernie supporters and Trump supporters and Rand supporters going at each other.

Sure it does. /pol/ prides itself for its lack of concern for the outcomes of their actions. If you question the ethics of what they're doing, they'll label you an "SJW". They deal in extremes, just like the SJWs they detest do. You are either with them or against them. If there is dissent they'll gang up on you, call you a "moralfag" and continue their circlejerk. Their "sacred cow" is this idea that they must represent the worst aspects of themselves at all times. Lack of moderation is their moderation, it ensures that /pol/ is their safe space where they don't feel threatened. It's the inversion of a discussion on Jezebel or Buzzfeed.

I mean the whole idea behind Project Harpoon spawned out of paranoia. Whether they'll admit it or not, they felt so victimised by the "SJW menace" that they decided "there are no bad targets or bad tactics". They didn't want to address the original image set they purportedly had an issue with on its own terms (and therefore actually make a point). I mean, I absolutely loathed the same image set Project Harpoon did, I just didn't overreact like a jackass. Because in a way, that's what the creator(s) of that image set wanted. They wanted justification of their own persecution complex.

I mean the parallels are uncanny.

Let me explain the thought process behind 4chan because it seems you don't understand it, everything is a joke and nothing is sacred. Nobody there cares that feelings were hurt because its funny.

Dude, I used to frequent 4chan many years ago. I still enjoy some of the things that come out of it. It's not about what's "sacred" or not, because I agree that nothing is sacred. In fact, this "nothing is sacred" mentality is what inspired them to go after taboo targets. It's what inspires them to enact vigilante justice, which often is required because the justice system may be corrupt.

But I also know the difference between good comedy and bad. Some "lolcows" deserve mockery, not because it's fun to bully them but because their own actions are so appalling. Their warped views of the world unfold through provocation, and it's both fascinating and hilarious. There's a sense of justice there. Bad behaviour by internet users should be used as an example for others. I know that there are people who were inspired to turn their lives around after seeing the chronicles of Chris-chan, for example.

Going after random people on social media is not the same. In terms of comedy, it's the difference between South Park and one of those god-awful "Disaster Movie/Epic Movie/Meet the Spartans" abominations. One has specific targets and a sense of honesty, and while it may miss the mark at least there's some degree of passion there. The other is an unfocussed, self-indulgent mess.

 

[Fallow]

If there is no reasonable expectation of getting hit by a car, why do people look left and right before crossing the street? Are we all blundering into traffic blindly? (I'm not)

You think it's reasonable to expect that cars run through red lights and mow down pedestrians?

What I think has no bearing on reality. The fact is that virtually all people look both ways before crossing the street, which means the concern of getting hit by a car is a very reasonable expectation.

I find it bizarre that you jump to the conclusion that just because private settings exist, that must mean a public setting makes one fair game for shit like this.

I'm following the capitalist line of reasoning. Privacy settings exist because people have been asking for them, in sufficient mass to make it a sound business decision.
Thus, according to a number of people (large enough to influence FB) it is reasonable to protect your photos from public consumption. Second, if you take no precautions whatsoever to protect your interests (even when those precautions are easily available) then yes, some level of fair game appears to exist. The law recognizes this with terms such as due diligence and reasonable precaution. You will also find it a recurring element of insurance claims.

The fact that privacy and publicity laws exist pretty much blows this notion out the water.

Privacy laws do indeed exist, and it's interesting that you bring it up. Specifically, no privacy laws were violated here (since no expectation of privacy can be established because the photos weren't set to 'private'), which I think contradicts your argument. Thank you for bringing that up.

The one 'arguing against reality' here is you, not me.

Ahh, the classic counter argument "no u". Your reasoning is impeccable. Sir, you have won this argument. I tip my hat in respect.

 

[Joseph Alexander]

"So 4chan started a reactionary movement"
"joined: 23 sept 2014"
you joined the escapist to ***** about gamergate didn't you?

anyway, if halfchan is doing something anti-socjus then the goons that moderate it will likely shut it down after some exasperation expressed in non-english words.

also as someone who is recovering from obesity: fat people need a fire lit under them sometimes, then the fat just melts off.

 

[RobertEHouse]

This comes down to privacy, right? The control of one's self image online?

I was responding to the fact that FB, does not give you privacy period. Those rights are given away when you sign up to FB. FB is allowed to "Manipulate", "Post" and even "Sell your Photos" without your compensation.

Which has fuck all to do with this case, because facebook didn't sell those photos to those people to manipulate. And you're right, it isn't facebook that 'gives' you privacy, it's the laws on privacy and publicity that give you those rights.

How are your "Photos private" any more when a corporation owns them? How do you have control over them?

Facebook doesn't own them, you might want to check: www.facebook.com/legal/terms

2. Sharing Your Content and Information

You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook (emphasis mine) , and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:

1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission (emphasis mine), subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-liscensable, royalty-free, worldwide liscense to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP liscense). This IP liscense ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

This pertains exclusively as to what Facebook is allowed to do with your photos, not any random shmuck from a chan. They don't own your photos, you are simply agreeing to let them use them.

The only difference here is a third party took those photos and "Manipulated" and "Posted" them. Then used those very images in a uncontrolled negative campaign to those people. This is what it feels like to lose control of your image online, now think of the paradox of letting a corporation have that control over your photos over it?

And that makes all the difference.

One last thing, I have read FB policies because it is my job. Adviser

Uh huh...

Content you give to FB under "Intellectual property" rights mean nothing unless you are a toaster. Are you a toaster? NO

"Intellectual property" rights are for products that have been "officially recognized" by the US patent office. Tv, books, movies and games are IP protected because they are officially copyrighted by a person or company. IP rights do not cover currently any live organisms. You may and can copyright your body image and thus your future images by summiting photos to the patent office in DC. To which, you may be awarded one, if you are awarded one, you will then be given a copyright to your body. Meaning you then can sort of have images listed as a IP. That is because those images are then officially backed up by a real official copyright. Then you will have official control over who has access to your images by suing those that use them without permission. I know it sounds all silly but this is how the system currently works with copyrighting a persons body.

This is what "IP" is, it is for products that are copyrighted officially.

No matter what you believe I have been doing this for several years and FB issues have come up over "IP" rights in the past. Mainly because people believe IP means protection for your own "personal images" and stuff without a official copyright. FB puts that language in their because if you do have a real copyright then they are legally covered, If not then they can still use you images any way they want until you delete your account.

The securities' options on any site currently does not have a Federal mandate or government oversight as to what they consider the word "secure" or "private" When it comes to Social media sites. So you never know if you are actually keeping things private away from the servers or back servers or backdoors.

Many people forget the legality and the scope of the web and that billions of people exist on it. That outside of your computer screens there are billions and some want nothing more than to watch the world burn. What you can do to stop or at least slow these problems to prevent another "Harpoon" is know your rights, to remember that anything online is not really secure or private. That backdoors exist in every social media site that allows not only your image to be stolen but also other private information.

We can get emotional over the whole topic even shout to the top of our vocal cords but in the past that does not do a thing. What we need are people to be more informed about the insecurities that exist with in these sites. As well as the jerks that can and will steal your information or even an image given the chance. But we first need to make sure the structure exist so this does not happen again and again the only way is though information. Information of dangers that not only exist in the real world but online as well, because shouting does nothing and trolls are always going exist but people have the power to control the amount of the damage they do.

 

[deadish]

So 4chan started a reactionary movement called "Project Harpoon". This was a response to photoshopped images of female video game characters, designed to have the proportions of the average American female (ie. overweight). The response was a campaign to photoshop overweight people who used social media, whether they were professional or amateur models, or even members of the public who had the audacity to post a selfie to Facebook or Twitter.

The project's Facebook and Instagram pages were taken down after numerous reports, and as usual they've cried censorship. While the original set of images, as well as similar fat-advocacy campaigns are tasteless and insulting, I believe "Project Harpoon" have fought fire with napalm here. I don't even believe that fat-shaming is the issue, but rather an invasion of people's privacy. As much as "Project Harpoon" claim to want to advocate "healthiness", they were clearly seeking to provoke.

When an anti-SJW page I followed posted about it, I expressed my thoughts about the invasion of privacy. The responses I got were... troubling. I was called an SJW and a shill of course, but what bothered me was how privacy wasn't an issue with anyone. In fact, I was told that "if you don't want your photos edited, don't post your photos on the internet". Actually, the responses to many news articles about the page expressed a complete lack of concern for privacy.

How did I find out about the page? A friend of mine had a photo of hers edited and posted on the page. She was absolutely humiliated, and I filed my own report against the page because of that. According to Facebook's own community standards, the page was unacceptable (because it featured altered images of private individuals).

So what do you think? Did "Project Harpoon" have the right to do what they did? Was it a valid response to fat-positive feminist campaigns?

Heh. SJWs can mutilate copyrighted characters that form the memories of a great many childhoods. 4chan can mutilate copyrighted pictures of real people.

Don't see how it's an invasion of privacy. It's not as if they hacked into their computers/phones to get those pictures. Those are public images.

Offensive maybe. But SJW fucking with copyrighted images to further their agenda is just as offensive to the artist of said works and their fans. Fight fire with fire as you say. How are SJWs liking a taste of their own medicine?

 

[Alleged_Alec]

Did "Project Harpoon" have the right to do what they did? Was it a valid response to fat-positive feminist campaigns?

Yes to the first, and no to the second (not sure how strong the connection between fat-positive and feminism is anyway).

I have the right, as a response anything anyone says about anything, to loudly declare that I'm an annoying tosser. It's not a useful thing for me to do, and I shouldn't be surprised if people think I'm an annoying tosser, however.

It's 4chan being stereotypically 4chan, I don't think we need spend too much time wondering if this is a good way to behave.

I agree with all of that, especially the 4Chan bit. Reddit, 8Chan, and a lot of places don't deserve their reputation (only some parts do), but 4Chan? Fuck 4Chan.

Apparently you've never been to 4chan then. Most of it is pretty okay.

No it isn't. At best it's a bunch of children and arrested adults trying to prove that they're part of something, while being too cool to be part of something.

SNOOOORE

Wow, dude. You're so mature and deep. You probably don't understand why people your age like shit such as Justin Bieber or Riannah, and you listen to the old-time greats, like Hendrix, Neil Young and the Stones.

Yes, there's a lot of shit on 4chan, there are a lot of edgy teens. That sort of shit happens.

However, it's also one of the few places on the internet which is consistently funny on a daily basis. It's the place where I can go if I need a peptalk for getting my ass to the gym (because we're all gonna make it, brah). It's a place where I can go into a feels thread, tell people what bothers me, no matter how personal or embarrassing, since it's as anonymous as it will get. It's the place where the same person can call me a huge ****** for liking Kahmala Kahn and tell me I have exquisite taste for reading Hellblazer in the same thread. It is one of the only places on the internet where reputation is practically a non-issue, where the only thing which matters about you is the quality of what you post.

 

[Dizchu]

you joined the escapist to ***** about gamergate didn't you?

Actually yes, yes I did. In Gamergate's favour.

I actually find it hilarious how I'm now considered an SJW after spending most of my time here defending Gamergate (even though I have issues with it), criticising social justice in general and making my issues with feminism known. While I've never tried to be arrogant and confrontational, I have rustled a few feathers here and there.

But I question the honesty of one 4chan circlejerk and suddenly I'm no better than the social justice mob I criticised in the first place.

Because fuck considering issues on an individual basis, right?

also as someone who is recovering from obesity: fat people need a fire lit under them sometimes, then the fat just melts off.

Sure, but you do that by making it known that obesity increases the risk of disease, not ridicule. If anti-smoking campaigns didn't outline health risks and instead just said "wow, look at how stupid and horrible these people are", how effective do you think that'd be?

Offensive maybe. But SJW fucking with copyrighted images to further their agenda is just as offensive to the artist of said works and their fans. Fight fire with fire as you say. How are SJWs liking a taste of their own medicine?

You're implying that all fat-activists were behind the original set of images. Come on now. This is like feminists coming to the conclusion that all gamers are misogynists because one person that happened to play games called a woman a slut one time. Or Jack Thompson coming to the conclusion that video games cause violence just because Eric Harris played Doom.