"Mad at the Internet" - a/k/a KF but with autistic narration

[Apocalypse Chew Chew]

The thing that amused me in this weeks’ stream was the mention of the name “Stephanie” in that guy’s threat to sue. Yes, I think that certainly one person may have helped with law advice, but I know of a very litigious British Stephanie who has a law degree but cannot practice, who sockpuppeted their own thread on here so much that it ended up being locked a few days ago.

Stephanie

 

[Big Mommy]

@Big Mommy Do you have a copy of the Chantal stream in 1080p? I forgot she fucking cried about it

Edit: nvm i see it in the mega at 720p

I have been offline all week, apologies. Think 720p is the highest quality we've got for the Foodie Beauty stream. Everything should be in the Mega, there's a text file that should make searching a little easier too (although I need to finish and upload the version with full descriptions). If something seems to be missing, the other major MATI archiver is Xyllon - they keep a Google Drive archive and Youtube channel

 

[Null]

>anime avatar
>man who does vtuber streams with a female anime avatar
>pro-censorship

 

[vulgar]

View attachment 2273609
View attachment 2273612

>anime avatar
>man who does vtuber streams with a female anime avatar
>pro-censorship

View attachment 2273615

there's nothing wrong with VTuber story hour you chud bigot

 

[Disheveled Human]

@Null what is the 15 second russian song on the front page its catchy and have no way to search for it?

 

[Null]

@Null what is the 15 second russian song on the front page its catchy and have no way to search for it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gnnvvckBAI

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

>pro-censorship

there's nothing wrong with being pro censorship, but only if the censorship favours the side I agree with. I don't understand all this bullshit where it's like "i dont like what u hav 2 say but i'll die 4 ur right 2 say it." if you don't have the moral self confidence to say that you're right and everyone else is evil then you shouldn't be in politics.

the enemy is evil because they oppose me and because of that I have the right to brutalize them and censor them. simple as.

 

[Null]

there's nothing wrong with being pro censorship, but only if the censorship favours the side I agree with. I don't understand all this bullshit where it's like "i dont like what u hav 2 say but i'll die 4 ur right 2 say it." if you don't have the moral self confidence to say that you're right and everyone else is evil then you shouldn't be in politics.

the enemy is evil because they oppose me and because of that I have the right to brutalize them and censor them. simple as.

cringe. retard nigger. kill yourself.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

cringe. retard nigger. kill yourself.

the most important distinction is between friend and enemy. Supporters of democracy like you will continue to lose until you have all been slaughtered like dogs because you are blind to this fact

 

[Disheveled Human]

there's nothing wrong with being pro censorship, but only if the censorship favours the side I agree with. I don't understand all this bullshit where it's like "i dont like what u hav 2 say but i'll die 4 ur right 2 say it." if you don't have the moral self confidence to say that you're right and everyone else is evil then you shouldn't be in politics.

the enemy is evil because they oppose me and because of that I have the right to brutalize them and censor them. simple as.

Nah I hated conservatives who did it back in the 90's now I hate liberals doing it now and would imagine in the next 15 years I will learn to hate conservatives again when its their turn to censor shit again.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

Nah I hated conservatives who did it back in the 90's now I hate liberals doing it now and would imagine in the next 15 years I will learn to hate conservatives again when its their turn to censor shit again.

the left is continuing to make huge gains everyday but no, the right somehow bring it back because our democratic system is still intact and fair. the censorship of the left and censorship of the right are two very different things and as long as you conflate them you will never understand anything

 

[Disheveled Human]

the left is continuing to make huge gains everyday but no, the right somehow bring it back because our democratic system is still intact and fair. the censorship of the left and censorship of the right are two very different things and as long as you conflate them you will never understand anything

Shit will always balance out and the best part is you do not need to do anything about it. Just improve you, your family and your friends prospects. Worrying about gay political shit will only wear you down mentally.

 

[PyrrhicRustle]

the left is continuing to make huge gains everyday but no, the right somehow bring it back because our democratic system is still intact and fair. the censorship of the left and censorship of the right are two very different things and as long as you conflate them you will never understand anything

You’re under the age of 25 aren’t you.

 

[Null]

You’re under the age of 25 aren’t you.

He was the Austrian Constrict of 1915 poster who kept asking me my take on Joe Rogan when I've never listened to a single fucking episode of his podcast. I think he changed his name because people realized he was a sperg. fascist larp.

 

[I (Don't) Have A Gun]

there's nothing wrong with being pro censorship, but only if the censorship favours the side I agree with. I don't understand all this bullshit where it's like "i dont like what u hav 2 say but i'll die 4 ur right 2 say it." if you don't have the moral self confidence to say that you're right and everyone else is evil then you shouldn't be in politics.

the enemy is evil because they oppose me and because of that I have the right to brutalize them and censor them. simple as.

Censorship is a way to control speech, the aim of controlling speech is not simply to control what people can and can't say but also indirectly what you think.
I once heard it described (by someone who lived under less than free conditions) that eventually you start censoring your own thought for fear that a stray thought might slip out, might be spoken allowed (even to the point of using the 'wrong' phrasing) and terrible consequences might follow. The mind gets conditioned to not even dare think the wrong thing in such a situation.

You might be fine with that, but I always found that particularly off putting. Maybe it's a fundamental difference in our value system.

 

[DumbDude42]

Censorship is a way to control speech, the aim of controlling speech is not simply to control what people can and can't say but also indirectly what you think.
I once heard it described (by someone who lived under less than free conditions) that eventually you start censoring your own thought for fear that a stray thought might slip out, might be spoken allowed (even to the point of using the 'wrong' phrasing) and terrible consequences might follow. The mind gets conditioned to not even dare think the wrong thing in such a situation.

You might be fine with that, but I always found that particularly off putting. Maybe it's a fundamental difference in our value system.

i think the point is that it's a weapon, a very effective one at that, and if you refuse to use it then you are putting yourself at a massive disadvantage against an enemy who is willing to use it.

in general terms: if you're in an arms race and unilaterally refuse to escalate, then you might win the moral high ground in your own eyes, but your enemy will win the actual war, and as history is written by the victor, your moral high ground circlejerk will be forgotten and lost to time, and the only memory that remains of you is that of your defeat.

 

[Disheveled Human]

i think the point is that it's a weapon, a very effective one at that, and if you refuse to use it then you are putting yourself at a massive disadvantage against an enemy who is willing to use it.

in general terms: if you're in an arms race and unilaterally refuse to escalate, then you might win the moral high ground in your own eyes, but your enemy will win the actual war, and as history is written by the victor, your moral high ground circlejerk will be forgotten and lost to time, and the only memory that remains of you is that of your defeat.

I doubt it this has existed in the west for centuries under different names and powers, this is surface level shit that does not really apply in the real world. I work with a bunch of racist asians and nobody gives a fuck about this concept of censorship. Obviously if you work for McDonalds there is a basic level of decorum associated with it and you cant just toss around roman salutes (why would you want to anyways). Most people not online are reasonable people who understand the world is not perfect. Stay off social media and don't drink the kool-aid and you will be fine and can talk shit to people, the Internet is really a poor representation of society.

 

[I (Don't) Have A Gun]

i think the point is that it's a weapon, a very effective one at that, and if you refuse to use it then you are putting yourself at a massive disadvantage against an enemy who is willing to use it.

in general terms: if you're in an arms race and unilaterally refuse to escalate, then you might win the moral high ground in your own eyes, but your enemy will win the actual war, and as history is written by the victor, your moral high ground circlejerk will be forgotten and lost to time, and the only memory that remains of you is that of your defeat.

I get the argument, and maybe it's not a bad one. But it will only really work if censorship does not directly act against your core principles.

So if you hold freedom of speech to be core, and you fight for freedom of speech then obviously adopting censorship as a tactic doesn't reasonable make sense. There's probably a spectrum (don't think that's the right word...) here, after all most people hold multiple values and they're probably willing to give or take on some of them if it meant some kind of victory, but that's where the 'core principles' come into play.

 

[mr spongecake]

there's nothing wrong with being pro censorship, but only if the censorship favours the side I agree with. I don't understand all this bullshit where it's like "i dont like what u hav 2 say but i'll die 4 ur right 2 say it." if you don't have the moral self confidence to say that you're right and everyone else is evil then you shouldn't be in politics.

the enemy is evil because they oppose me and because of that I have the right to brutalize them and censor them. simple as.

You do realize that utilizing censorship only emboldens it as a viable tool to everyone else, correct?
It's literally adopting the liberal moral framework to "own the libs"
Sorry, but calling people racist and getting them fired isn't going to get right-wing ideas in power, hate to break it to you. Not only is your idea not useful but it is also gay.

 

[DumbDude42]

I get the argument, and maybe it's not a bad one. But it will only really work if censorship does not directly act against your core principles.

So if you hold freedom of speech to be core, and you fight for freedom of speech then obviously adopting censorship as a tactic doesn't reasonable make sense. There's probably a spectrum (don't think that's the right word...) here, after all most people hold multiple values and they're probably willing to give or take on some of them if it meant some kind of victory, but that's where the 'core principles' come into play.

and that's why freedom of speech is not a viable core principle to hold when facing an enemy who is committed to total war, figuratively speaking

it's a bit like radical pacifists who refuse to ever do violence against their fellow men. it's a nice and noble position, but only viable inside a stable and peaceful society, without such protection it will just get you killed or enslaved by the first guy who figures out that you're easy prey. and when you lie dead in a ditch, or spend the rest of your (short) life pulling oars inside a galley, then your noble moral principles will ring very hollow.

It's literally adopting the liberal moral framework to "own the libs"

censorship is as old as civilisation itself, it predates liberalism by thousands of years
in ancient times already, insulting the king or criticizing the high priests would get you whipped or killed