So we went from "it's nothing but pedos and porn" to "there are some bad words on there". If you find that offensive, maybe stay away from the internet.
Racism and homophobia aren't just bad words, and they were literally in the first three things I looked at.
If you find that hard to understand, maybe stay away from HN where we try to have at least some minimum of reason in our discussions: you either lack that by minimizing racism and hatred to "bad words" or you are a troll arguing in bad faith.
I think you are the one doing the conflating. You've jumped from "these words are sometimes used" to "these words are used solely for the purpose of expressing racist and homophobic feelings".
Okay, I'll go back & check again, maybe it's you who is right after all, maybe it is only "sometimes" on 4chan...
Nope, it's still me, I'm right: I just saw a whole new group of content on the first page of /g/, still lots of racism & homophobic slurs. A an even mix of f- & n- words, though it also included these two gems: "tranny fa--ot shitskin" followed by "Holocaust never happened"
So nope, nothing is conflated for me and I haven't jumped anywhere. My feet are firmly planted in the land of "4Chan has lots of racism & hate speech". I don't know what land you're in if it's a place where calling someone a "fa--ot [n-word]" doesn't get categorized into some sort of hate speech.
> I don't know what land you're in if it's a place where calling someone a "fa--ot [n-word]" doesn't get categorized into some sort of hate speech.
This is the main point of contention. No one denies that such words are a common occurrence on 4chan, but you believe these words are automatically indicative of racism.
Are you open to the idea that someone who refers to himself as “an Archfag” is simply communicating on his being an Arch Linux user, and not otherwise intending to communicate his sexual orientation, and certainly not to proffer a negative view of his own sexual orientation?
You got this wrong, it's not an insult. Somethingfag such as "oldfag", "newfag", "Archfag", etc. are not insults whatsoever. They're shibboleth terms for "old users", "new users", "Arch users".
Your entire premise is incorrect.
>2) The language of the insult is a comparison to another group of people.
No one is being insulted, so this point is also wrong.
>3) Being a member of that group is supposed to be a bad thing, which is what makes it an insult.
You're projecting here big time. No one there is tying any negativity or positivity to the "fag" suffix, only you are.
>4) Therefore the person believes that group of people is in some way inferior, bad, or otherwise undesirable in some way.
Nonsensical since nothing is being tied to inferiority, "badness", or anything undesirable.
People [who don’t get it] are being insulted to some degree. Just indirectly. If these words didn’t have their actual background of meanings, they wouldn’t be used.
I don’t agree with people getting too insulted by any of this. It’s not edgy. It’s corny and part of the gate keeping. Both sides don’t get it at times. At least when the using side seriously thinks there’s nothing wrong at all, ever, with the usage. Again, I don’t think the word usage matters at all. I was once a “/b/tard”.
The extremes of saying it’s so bad or saying there’s nothing wrong at all in any way shape or form are both incorrect.
> I don't have anything to say about people that uses a slurs against themselves because that isn't what I saw in 4Chan. It was someone calling other people "Archfags" as an insult, and each of the other examples I cited were used as insults. I've checked /g/ a few times since I posted my original comment to see if it was a fluke, but nope: Still lots of racial & homophobic insults.
I think you interpret these words are insults when they are simply descriptors.
You keep saying they are used so commonly but you don't provide any context for these quotes.
On the first page of 25 comments, 10 were used in a manner of disagreement with the person referred to, 5 were self-descriptors, 5 were in praise of others, and 5 were with no positive or negative inference to it.
It doesn't matter how they claim it's being used. It's a slur. The user of the slur doesn't get to decide who's offended by it. It's an offensive term just like the N word.
Perhaps it is, but that's a completely argument than the one proffered by the user I was responding to.
I'm refuting those claims, which are falsifiable, your claims are not and are merely a moral axiom such as “Stealing is bad.” which entail no factual, falsifiable component.
The "community" is the actual world we live in. A message board isn't isolated from that. It's offensive and a slur in the real world, of which 4chan is a tiny subset.
You do not want to live your life by the average of what “the world” finds offensive. There is no one on the world who would want such, and thinking that one want such can only come from a grave lack of realization how much cultural values can differ around the world.
Your case to freely be racist with no repercussions is unconvincing. 4chan’s cover story doesn’t matter. It’s clearly a huge center for racism and other forms of discrimination. You’re literally arguing to use slurs.
4chan most definitely exists in the real world and is subject to its morals. It doesn’t matter if you use a slur at a private club, Internet forum or at home. It doesn’t change its offensiveness.
>Your argument rests on 4chan not existing the real world.
Wrong, 4chan is a subset of "the greater real world", and therefore has different sensibilities, culture, etc. Exactly how Blacks can say the n-word and it's not offensive, they have their own sensibilities and customs, and are a subset of "the greater real world." QED. Argument is proven factually correct here. I win.
>Your entire premise is faulty, because it does.
Just proved my entire premise is logically consistent and bullet proof.
> "Fag" is a slur on planet earth (where the 4chan users reside). There's no argument beyond that.
Stop shifting the goal posts. No one is calling anyone "fag" in this instance. Even then, using the logic above it is not a slur.
>There's no argument beyond that.
You're right, because I 100% proved my point and there's no argument that can say otherwise.
I win. Any response from you is you admitting that I'm right and that I won.
> There's no other way to use these words. They're always racist and homophobic.
The way this thread progressed was very fascinating to read.
First, an absurd baseless generalization was made. Then, when challenged, the generalization was narrowed down a bit. Then it was narrowed down again and again until we got this comment which asserts an outright lie.
These words aren't always used in a racist and homophobic way. 4chan is proof of this.
They clearly can, and are in this case used, to communicate information where neither the listener nor the speaker is even thinking about race or sexual orientation, and no comment thereon is made.
If you wish to still call that “racism and homophobia”, then neither of which necessarily has anything to do with race or sexual orientations, or even disdain. — you should also know that your usage of these words is then quite nonstandard, and does not align with what most mean with them.
The word “nigger”, in particular, has been of particular interest of study in how depending on context the word can very much be about race, and negatively so, to a simple form of address that has no implications of race.
