Talk:4chan/Archive1

what to do
Anyone got any ideas other than copypasta-ing the wikipedia article? --Trinity (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Inform them they have an article about them here. This page will fill up fast. CorruptUser (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel so famous now --Akira (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Writing a bad Wikipedia rundown on them is boring and not useful. What we need is to answer why they're on-mission - David Gerard (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably, cause 4chan is either infested by all manner of extremists (left, right and center), e.g.?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 4chan is a hotbed of political extremists and reactionary agitators. It's been used as a platform to organize and carry out campaigns of disinformation, mainly targetted against perennial reactionary bêtes noires such as feminists. It also has its moments of lucidity, such as being the launching pad for mainstream, organized criticism of CoS. Thus this is on-mission across the board: "analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement," "documenting the full range of crank ideas," and "explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism." -Shtrominer (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that's what the article needs to clearly be about. At present it isn't - David Gerard (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Age
This article was just created, wasn't it? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The history'll answer that question (spoiler: 8 days old).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a little more than a week old.
 * As discussed up above, the purpose of this article isn't clear yet (which is fine now, since it has been a short time still), so may I suggest this article have stronger elements of satire if a purpose doesn't develop (typically the individual boards)? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hate Site?
Is 4chan a hate site? Should we add it to the hate sight category? Jakester499 (talk)
 * Nope.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Really? Huh. Jakester499 (talk)

Hmm, there's something of a point there. /pol/ is pretty unambiguously a hotbed of neo-Nazism etc., and a few of the other boards aren't much better, but it's not really tolerated on the rest of the site (though partially because it's "off-topic"). See also Reddit, Orain/Miraheze (which hosted Rightpedia), and various other sites which host pretty much anything that isn't outright illegal. Should we maybe have another category for websites that aren't primarily devoted to racism/sexism/etc. but tolerate or even encourage it on parts of the site? (Hey, even Stormfront has boards for mundane discussion.) --Ymir (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ? No, I don't think so.  01:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It isn't. The majority of the topical board traffic is people interested in anime, video games and porn. If you combine them with /b/tards you get the super-majority of 4chan. /b/ really is as it's name states, random. The barge of offensive content is more due to the greater internet dickwad theory than any of real, active malice. /pol/ by contrast does have real, active hate, but they are a vocal minority that the rest of the 4chan community views as a containment board to isolate politics. 96.255.220.214 (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

As someone who frequents /k/, believe me the rest of the site hates /pol/ with a passion. I honestly think the actual racists on the site are a minority and most are trolling because it's a site for bored assholes on the internet. I prefer /k/ because it actually can be a good source of info and some great pics of guns. I wouldn't classify it as a hate site.PeeBay (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Ryulong's deletion
I'd like a second opinion on whether to revert this edit rather then start an edit war with his 26 sockpuppets Ryulong. Aleksandra96 (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are linked terms in each one,so i don't buy the argument about "missionality." Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I'll support your efforts revert his deletion. Aleksandra96 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Because a link to Gun in one section, Magic: The Gathering in another, and Music in a third really speaks to missionality. Internal linking does not mean /tg/ and /sp/ are relevant.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 20:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * They don't need to be completely relevant. They're examples of popular boards on 4chan.  Aleksandra96 (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So we make a vague reference to /mu/ because it's popular and not at all representative of what makes 4chan missional.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 23:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Good Things 4chan has done
I think that it would be fair to have a section mentioning some of the good things 4chan (particularly the /b/ board) has done. If that sounds good to everyone, then I'll write it.Sierra Nav (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * like what - David Gerard (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * They absolutely loathe animal abuse. For example, there was a video where these two teens tortured a turtle. As a result, a 4chan thread was made initiating "Operation Shell Shock", in which the OP wanted everyone to find out where these two teens live. It was really sucessful. Not only that, but they also waged a hacktivist war against sites or users who affiliated with the Islamic state AND in "Operation: Darknet" they DDoS'd a child porn site called Lolita City. Of course, these arent all the good deeds they have done, but its a start. (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * For every thread in /b/ documenting those good deeds, there will be one explicitly endorsing animal torture, ISIS and child pornography.Petey Plane (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Which doesn't render the good threads non-existing, though? Maybe Stopped clock moments?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC) 14:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * True, stopped clock is probably more appropriate. Petey Plane (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, definitely need some examples, especially since most of /b/ is feminist-hate threads, black people hate threads, pro-trump threads and furry/cartoon pedo threads.Petey Plane (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "good things 4chan (particularly the /b/ board) has done" — you raff you ruse --Ymir (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * YLYL is actually probly the only reason ever to go to /b/.
 * "*posts da funny banana man*" Petey Plane (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Cull list of boards
Who cares about most of these? What relevance do they have? How are they "of note"? - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

no really, /pol/ hates us
https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/86256016

how sad 19:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

no really
https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/111724920

23:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

no really
"Femicucks".

19:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

this time it's /lit/
How erudite. 02:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's high praise coming from 1/2chan. 2d4chanfag (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Possibly the most cringy "humanities" discussion
Featuring (((triple parentheses))), appeals to moderation, and repetitive use of "Clintonian feminist facist liberal ideology". Now THIS is what the humanities are for. 14:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also unironic use of Slew Jays. 03:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

4chan can't decide if we're SJWs or just Jews
http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/139873179/rational-wiki 18:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Remind me why we're keeping track of anything these guys say? RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I n t e l l e c t u a l c o n v e r s a t i o n
http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/141670915/rational-wiki 19:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The best part is where they try to divide LessWrong by RationalWiki by performing bit shifting.
 * LessWrong >>>> RationalWiki
 * 20:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Triggered little babies
The whining and lack of coherent responses are delectable. 19:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this necessary? 20:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not in the least. Fuzzy, nobody cares what 4chan says about RW - David Gerard (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

A short one
http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/151811503/rationalwiki 21:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Containment
/b/ and /pol/ are great containment for the internet. Without them, all these idiots would explode on the rest of the internet, like how stupid memes dramatically increased on YouTube and Instagram after Vine fell. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how they "contain" but eh. 18:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * They're not here, at least. Well, not too many of them... RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think they like here because this place has some semblance of intelligence. 21:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

A recent development: Chinese involvement?
I've heard from some people I know on 4chan that the site has recently started blocking certain Chinese phrases like "Tianmnen Square" and automatically bans anyone who tries to post them. At the moment none of them are sure if it's an attempt to make the site more appealing to Chinese advertisers or if something else is going on, but it may be worth a mention depending on how it develops. --Logos (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

4Chan Death
The /b/ board is dead now. compared to early 4chan now it's just Anonymous wannabe, genuine nazis, and people the old guard call new_____. I guess the spotlight hasn't been kind to this site. That authentic hatred and trolling is gone. Tabula Rasa (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And There Was Much Rejoicing. RoninMacbeth (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that Obi quote was very fitting. Tabula Rasa (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * /pol/ is the main Nazi board and it's busier than ever. Actually it's a free speech board, but wherever you have a board that isn't bought-out and censored by Jewish supremacists and their useful-idiot Bolshevik followers, Nazism will rise to the top. Because Nazism is correct and Nazism is simply a reaction to the evil of Judeo-Bolshevik supremacism. 146.255.14.121 (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This BoN has been banned but his comment will stay to show the great all power stupidity of mankind. Tabula Rasa (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)