/b/ - Random

"Female identifying" Red flag!!

>>225319
no I wont discuss liberal shit I couldnt care less about people that think they are getting real female opinions from 4chan or 8chan its just fucking stupid. The fact that this is what Academia now throws out as "knowledge" really makes you think why science in the west is all fucked up retarded now.

this is the kind of silly shenanigans that makes me feel slightly less bad about not going to college

>>225332
It says it's from London School of Economics. I wonder if UK tax dollars are funding this research.

>>225332
Part of the fun is seeing how serious they take stupid shit, how serious they take themselves, and their twisted bias.
There are a ton of imageboard related studies, some do OK. Some get things hilariously wrong and are basically the author's extreme political opinions masquerading as an academic paper.
>>225369
Funding section says they did it FOR FREE.

>>225319
>4chan
>8chan
Did they interview actual females or "females"

>>225319
So then why isn't this about a female image board ? Why is about 4chan/8chan? What's the point ?

>>225319
I though this was actually about cc, fujochan or something. Thank god they didn't link us.

>part of that piece

I'm honestly curious what the average sexual partner count is for women on imageboards versus "normie" women. I imagine it's much higher?

>>225409
That's such a moid thing to be curious about… Why do you need this information if you're a fellow woman?

>>225411
I'm interested in the sort of audiences imageboards attract. Messed up people, but not necessarily messed up in a "normie" way. That and a lot people on LC seem to have done sex work at some point or another.

>>225412
Well this ic cc though. I've been in many cc group chats and most of the girls were virgins or had only one partner experience.

>>225416
That's genuinely interesting don't you think? Why does LC attract a sort of person who is more likely to engage or have engaged in sexually risky behaviors? Not even trolling. This sort of sociological stuff fascinates me.

>>225409
are you calling us whores or something… i don't think that's the case on here ((if anything it's the opposite, there is a high % of radfems and radfem-adjacent anons, anons with social anxiety etc.). maybe you're right about lolcow but these (cc and lc) are two different demographics. cc exists because we didn't like most of the stuff on lc.

>>225415
>Literal feds, attention whores and writers infiltrating our spaces to get attention from us and information

What the fuck

>>225424
CC I think is more radfem proportionally despite the smaller userbase so you're right. I also get the impression lc's radfemmery is performative. Their dislike of men is just a reflexive response to a breakup and then a week later they're back to stanning some kpop rapist or pretending their rape fantasies are "valid" and don't come from porn on /g/.

>>225440
I think someone here already called out the irony of lolcow users when they claim to be "radical feminists" and "putting women first". They say they're very tolerant of women because "fuck scrotes", yet when they find a lolcow that's a woman, they tear her apart for very scrotey reasons.