
The 8chan story: Destroyer of worlds - smacktoward
https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2019/06/29/8chan/content.html
======
Uptrenda
It's a mistake to take Internet culture and compare it literally to real-world
happenings because the two don't mean the same things. Here's a simple example
of what I mean. In real life: if someone makes a racial slur they know that
its offensive and if they continue to act this way we can say with confidence
they're a racist. But the same actions on an image board can be done by anyone
with little consequences.

If there's no consequences, then that means the words context on an image
board is significantly different to the real world. As such, you end up
getting kids and other people casually using racial slurs to seem 'edgy' or
rebellious. The question I ask is are any of these people actually racist in
real life? If they're not knowingly thwarting social norms, and there's no
harsh consequences for doing so, then I argue the words don't have the same
meaning as they do in real life. Since that's the case-- we cannot say 8chan
is a "hate speech" website.

Most of the comparisons from mainstream media miss this point, and it only
highlights how terribly out of touch these old-timers are with how the youth
of today express themselves. To really bring this point home, one of the main
benefits of using image boards like 8chan is they provide a safe place where
you can freely express your ideas without the fear you've somehow upset some
crazy person. Such discussions could never take place on a site like Facebook
where behavior has to be hyper-mediated with respect to everyone else.

Now to directly address the point of the shooting: recall what happened with
Columbine. Shortly after the shooting, these so-called experts started
examining the interests of the shooters and they noticed one alarming
peculiarity! Both shooters were fond of the video game series 'Doom.' How many
of you have played Doom before? Killed anyone lately? These reductionist
arguments always seem to have an agenda to express. In my opinion, the agenda
is all about dismissing uncomfortable aspects of how people think and feel
about the world, and how they've been treated.

I don't know why the Christ Church shooter did what they did. But I can tell
you with absolute certainty no amount of examining how many times the N* word
appears on /pol/ is going to give you any profound insights here. Most of what
the shooter put out are actually red herrings designed to make politically
correct people go around in circles exactly like we're seeing now, and the
references to memes made throughout the shooters writings were made in the
same way. So if you want to understand why the shooter did what they did,
you're going to have to dig a lot deeper than blaming it all on a website.

>From the link: There’s no room for argument about whether hate-filled
internet message boards encourage real-world violence: they do, and none more
so than 8chan.

Yeah, good reasoning. There's no room for arguing about whether this article
is wrong: it is, and no more so than in this quote.

~~~
krapp
>If they're not knowingly thwarting social norms, and there's no harsh
consequences for doing so, then I argue the words don't have the same meaning
as they do in the real world.

You can't separate the two like that. The internet is ubiquitous enough now
that if effects the real world to the same degree as any other form of mass
media. People who spend time pretending to be Nazis on an imageboard _cannot_
simply turn that off and have it not affect them in real life, people don't
work that way.

And I'll give you one consequence - pretending to be Nazis on an imageboard
creates a welcoming atmosphere for actual Nazis, and a way for actual Nazis to
propagate their ideas and culture. Because the thing about irony is, since no
one can tell you aren't serious, no one can tell you _are_ serious.

>And since that's the case-- we cannot say 8chan is a "hate speech" website.

Being ironic doesn't somehow remove the effect of hateful speech, it just
means the people speaking don't care about the effects.

>and it only highlights how terribly out of touch these old-timers are with
how youth today express themselves.

...as if they're all sixty year old fuddy duddys who only use manual
typewriters and can't work the remote for their newfangled color tvs?

The web and its culture have been around for decades at this point - saying
that only young people understand it and acting as if it hasn't subsumed every
other aspect of modern society is like saying only young people understand how
to use a telephone. It's a stereotype that isn't as true as you think.

>I don't know why the Christ Church shooter did what they did.

I mean, he literally published a manifesto and everything but OK.

>Most of what the shooter has put out are actually red herrings designed to
make politically correct people go in circles exactly like we're doing now,
and the references to memes made throughout they're writings were most likely
more of the same.

You know this how?

