[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]

/b/ - Random

Name
Email
Message

*Text* => Text

**Text** => Text

***Text*** => Text

[spoiler]Text[/spoiler] => Text

Image
Direct Link
Options NSFW image
Sage (thread won't be bumped)

Janitor applications are open


Check the Catalog before making a new thread.
Do not respond to maleposters. See Rule 7.
Please read the rules! Last update: 04/27/2021

01E8848A-2D55-4AED…

Anonymous 98826

Anonymous 98846

>>98826
Society

Anonymous 98861

eternal moid.png


Anonymous 98925

1627296063448.jpg

>>98826
Henlo

Anonymous 98927

Now THIS is bi representation.

Anonymous 98990

>>98925
inb4 there's an edit with this coomer edit

Anonymous 99687

>>98826
What about it? easypeasymethod.org is a godsend

Anonymous 99691

>>99689
Yeah, everytime I've tried to talk about how bad pornography is, people start to see me as a conservative which isn't even close to what I am.
People don't realize how bad it is that we have a ton of teenage girls and guys who are obsessed with porn and/or hentai. You lurk Twitter for a while and you quickly find teenagers with more kinks than any normal person, all caused by porn.

Anonymous 101690

>>99691
kinky people are pornbrainded confirmed

Anonymous 101716

>>99691
lel why do you care so much? I watch porn with my bf all the time and I'm probably a hundred times more coombrained. So what if people have kinks, what does it even matter

Anonymous 101717

>>99689
Caring about "the fabric of society" is inherently a conservative position so they would be correct in placing you with those people.

Anonymous 101724

>>101717
>Caring about "the fabric of society" is inherently a conservative position
how? unless the "fabric of society" is a euphemism, that's not necessarily a conservative position.

Anonymous 101725

>>101724
What do you think the fabric of society is?

Anonymous 101746

>>101717
The fabric is society is "can a man and woman grow up healthy and have healthy kids?". Don't think that's conservative, that's just logistics.

Anonymous 101747

>>101746
>supporting a normal nuclear family structure
Sorry, but that's become an incredibly conservative position. I am very sorry to inform you of this, but this how your grandparents who were taking LSD and embracing free love became conservatives too.

Anonymous 101749

>>98826
Coomer is posted to be a joke at the expense of moids who can't get laid. Yet he is the happiest dude ever.
It really activates those almonds.

Anonymous 101760

coomer2.png

>>101749
It is inevitable

Anonymous 101761

>>101746
And people having kinks and watching porn will prevent them from having kids?

Anonymous 101764

o3s455ay3fx31.png

What ever happened to Der Coomer?

Anonymous 101765

D590AC4A-98DD-4EA0…

>>101749
>>101764
Coomer is happier and more successful than 4chan incels.

Anonymous 101792

>>101761
If scrotes can get on demand sex then they're not going to care about having a family, that was like the whole "deal" for having a nuclear family. I used nuclear family because that's what normal nowadays, can't exactly have an extended family bc capitalism forces ppl to move for better jobs.
Even if a man has a family, have you seen porn? Teen girls/barely legal/step sis/daughter shit is rife, sexual abuse waiting to happen if he has a daughter. And women who are exposed to porn and sexual culture do develop mentoillness (I know bc me and many of my friends did). Having a predatory father and a mentally ill mother isn't going to result in a healthy next generation, if the scrotes even decide to stay and provide for the kids.

Anonymous 101794

>>101792
I'm the poster above, I watch porn with my bf together. I don't give a fuck if he watches porn alone either, I think you're being overly dramatic for absolutely nothing.
>sexual abuse waiting to happen if he has a daughter.
You're living in a fantasy world inside your head where people actually turn into child abusers and loonies by watching porn. It's just not true, you can't prove it. People turn into abusers because they have sociopathic tendencies not because they watch people fuck on screen.
>I know bc me and many of my friends did
How do you even know if your mental illness developed because you watched porn?

Anonymous 101797

>>101794
nta but men abuse children because of their biology, they would fuck anything they can put their penises in if there were no laws. porn just entices them enough to actually break the law

Anonymous 101799

>>101792
You sound exactly like a Christian Soccer Mom. Your stance has become conservative, I am very sorry to inform you.

Anonymous 101800

>>101797
I'm done talking to you because you're completely unreasonable and generalize everything based on your cherry picked examples. Men do have a tendency for pedophilia but very few actually act on it, which was the case back then as well when they had no laws for it. Porn does absolutely nothing in this regard, if anything, it pacifies them.

Anonymous 101859

>>101825
I'm not the anon you were arguing with, but your support for pornography is cringe and so is your use of the term "christian soccer mom."
You have to be a fool not to see how pornography feeds gross fetishes.
The media we consume is everything. Just as children immitate brittish actions in Peppa Pig, just as the commercials we view cause us to buy certain products, just as the news bias people watch determines their politics, just as people immitate and idolize serial killers, school shooters, etc., just as we immitate personality traits of characters in fiction we see and adore. The media you consume is everything, and thay applies to pornography.
It objectifies women, most of it is produced to attract the male gaze. On top of that, it promotes certain standards of "beauty" and fetishizes young girls with "jailbait" and "barely legal". It promotes unhealthy sex practices like anal.
Do you think troons ended up the way they did alone? They endes up there as a combination of mental illness and porn.
Objectification of women is wrong for a few different reasons, we all know this.
But all the sudden its ok because you can't use your imagination and need to look at 2 strangers fucking onscreen?
Its not ok, hasn't ever been ok, and you screeching about "christian soccer moms" doesn't do anything but make you look like an idiot.
>cuz
Opinion disregarded.
Retard detected.

Anonymous 101860

>>101859
My point is that even for the thinking minority, media you look at has a profound effect on you, even in ways you don't realize. It can subtly (or not so subtly) romanticize and fetishize certain things as well as demonize others. Pornography is not exclusive to this.
It promotes many unhealthy behaviors just as seeing a McDonalds advertisement promotes unhealthy eating.

Anonymous 101861

>>101860
*excluded not exclusive

Anonymous 101862

>>101859
>>101860
Just wondering, do you think video games encourage people to be violent too?

Anonymous 101865

>>101862
Yes they do, especially in children.
I dated a past videogame addict (when he was a teen and kid) and he was batshit crazy, he'd talk about murder and terrorism unironically.
My parents let my brother play violent games and he's been having violent outbursts since he was 6 and started playing. He's 12 now.
It really does effect you. Videogames less so in adults and more in children who are more susceptible to this kind of thing. With adults its less of an issue.
Pornography can have a more profound effect because endorphins, oxycotin, and maybe a little adrenaline are released while masturbating. The chemical effect in your brain is heavier when you masturbate than the satisfaction when you achieve a goal in a video game.

Anonymous 101875

>>101866
>How do you distinguish those cases from people who are already violent/unstable being drawn to violence in media?
Like I said, its really a problem with kids. I can't see kids who aren't psychopaths developing violent behavior that early on, it must be due to environmental factors such as abuse and the media they consume.
If course games draw in crazy adults who use them as outlets for their violent behavior.
>Personally I played many games as a child and teenaer, but I gravitated towards less violent ones (cartoony platformers and adventure games).
I was talking about violent games, not all games are bad for kids. I don't think kids younger than 13 should be playing GTA5 or Red Dead Redemption.

Anonymous 101876

>>101865
Assuming this is true, do you believe the world is getting more violent as video games become more popular, or less?

Anonymous 101878

>>101876
No, not "the world", I'm pointing this out in children.
Violent crime in the US has gone down a lot in the last 10 years.
However what has gone up are incidents such as school shootings.
So yes, in children.

Anonymous 101879

>>101878
Oh, and this is not exclusively caused by videogames. Violent media in general, but thay includes violent games.

Anonymous 101884

20210819_125703.jp…


Anonymous 101889

>>101878
I thought the rise in school shootings had more to do with the copycat effect

Copycat effect
Distinguishing these theories, 'mass shooting contagion' theory indicates that all forms of media coverage of mass homicidal events, such as televised coverage, radio broadcasting, editorial and more recently, social media circulation, have a culminated effect in influencing the rise of these crimes.

Anonymous 101893

>>101887
>>101888
I used the school shooting thing as an example of how violent media in general (not just games) influences youths.
Just because kids aren't committing crime doesn't mean they aren't exhibiting more violent behavior.
https://www.verywellfamily.com/kids-violent-video-games-621153
The lower crime rates can probably be linked to more oppressive measures taken to prevent crime.
CCTV footage, survaillance, and other ways for police to catch criminals, true crime becoming popular so people are more aware of consequences, etc. People are more afraid to commit crime.
>>101889
Yes, violent media. Just because the primary cause of these incidents is news reporting doesn't mean violent games and movies don't play a role.
What makes you think children wouldn't mimic these behaviors? They mimic literally every other behavior they observe, I am around children all the time.
"No violent video games don't cause violence" is literally just sweeping the issues associated with games under the rug because people enjoy an activity.
Let me ask you this:
Say I showed a kid a video of somebody blowing their head off with a shotgun. The reaction from people would be extreme,
"how dare you show a child that!"
but suddenly, when its videogames, its no big deal.
Its because people sugar-ciat and defend activities they enjoy. People like videogames and porn so they'll defend them even if they know it can cause unhealthy behavior. They flat out deny the adverse effects.

Anonymous 101895

>>101893
>Just because kids aren't committing crime doesn't mean they aren't exhibiting more violent behavior.
What other standard for violent behavior is there? At the end of the day we want less murders/rapes/thefts whatever right, that's the actual goal?
>The lower crime rates can probably be linked to more oppressive measures taken to prevent crime.
CCTV footage, survaillance, and other ways for police to catch criminals, true crime becoming popular so people are more aware of consequences, etc. People are more afraid to commit crime.
We're talking about children remember, not adults. If you're worried about violence in children, the consequences aren't going to stop them the same way it effects adults, they don't have the foresight.

You can't have it both ways, with children being more violent but less likely to engage in violent activities because of consequences.

Anonymous 101896

>>101893
>Say I showed a kid a video of somebody blowing their head off with a shotgun. The reaction from people would be extreme,
>"how dare you show a child that!"
Only Christian Soccer Moms as far as I'm aware.
>but suddenly, when its videogames, its no big deal.
I don't know what strawman you're constructing here, have you ever actually met someone who treated, say, M-rated games as acceptable but R-rated movies as not? I've never met this person, have you?

Anonymous 101898

>>101895
>What other standard for violent behavior is there? At the end of the day we want less murders/rapes/thefts whatever right, that's the actual goal?
No, there is still aggression towards peers at school and siblings, which is also a problem, a very big problem if you've ever spent time with one of those kids.
>We're talking about children remember, not adults. If you're worried about violence in children, the consequences aren't going to stop them the same way it effects adults, they don't have the foresight.
And? Teenagers and children are kept on a short leash today. Their foresight has little to do with your point. The crime rate is down, and that is largely due to more oppressive measures taken. If they're committing less crime, what does poor foresight have to do eith it as long as they understand the consequences? That does little to help your point.
Crime rate is also down because people are staying indoors more and more. The crime rate has been down the last 10 or 20 years, with the internet's popularity rising. People are inside instead of committing crimes.
However the crime rate IS higher than in the 60s and 70s. In the 80s was when violent media became more popular, and there was a huge spike in crimes.
The decrease in crimes, like I said, is related to the amount of time being spent indoors. The population would rather sit on youtube than go outside and commit crimes.
>You can't have it both ways, with children being more violent but less likely to engage in violent activities because of consequences.
Actually I can. Violence towards their peers, not committing crime because of the oppressive measures being put in place.
>Only Christian Soccer Moms as far as I'm aware.
I'm assuming you have little experience with children. No sane parent would let their kids view videos like that, because like I said, children mimic literally every behavior they see.
And you still haven't answered my question:
Do you think children, who mimic literally every behavior they see, wouldn't pick up at least some degree of aggressive behavior from videogames? To deny that they would be incredibly illogical.
>I don't know what strawman you're constructing here, have you ever actually met someone who treated, say, M-rated games as acceptable but R-rated movies as not? I've never met this person, have you?
What are you talking about? None of that is even remotely related to my point.
My point is when people enjoy an activity they turn a blind eye to the adverse effects of these activities. They defend things they like even though they know theyre wrong.

Anonymous 101901

>>101898
>No, there is still aggression towards peers at school and siblings, which is also a problem, a very big problem if you've ever spent time with one of those kids.
Don't switch around the terms "violence" and "aggression", aggression is an incredibly positive trait in a lot of areas, for instance a lot of the basket cases on this imageboard could use some. Are they more violent or are they more aggressive, and yes I'm going to differentiate those two things because I only care about violence.
>However the crime rate IS higher than in the 60s and 70s.
Before we had as good record keeping? This also seems to be restricted to the US again.
>The decrease in crimes, like I said, is related to the amount of time being spent indoors. The population would rather sit on youtube than go outside and commit crimes.
That's fantastic then, all that I care about is, again, violence and crimes.
>And? Teenagers and children are kept on a short leash today.
Then it doesn't matter, if they're kept on a short leash they can have has as many violent tendencies as they want. I only care about actual criminal outcomes, anything else doesn't matter to me, does it matter to you?
>Actually I can. Violence towards their peers, not committing crime because of the oppressive measures being put in place.
Are you suggesting that teenagers are committing assault on their peers more often without getting arrested? What exactly do you mean by "violence"? Bullying? What type of violence is bad enough to warrant concern but not bad enough to penalize legally.
>Do you think children, who mimic literally every behavior they see, wouldn't pick up at least some degree of aggressive behavior from videogames? To deny that they would be incredibly illogical.
Oh it would certainly be illogical, but I'm an empiricist, not a rationalist, and the hard data says minor violence is down, not up, so I have to revolve my logic around physical truths as opposed to inferences.
>What are you talking about? None of that is even remotely related to my point.
Was that not the point you were making?
>Say I showed a kid a video of somebody blowing their head off with a shotgun.
Compared to
>but suddenly, when its videogames, its no big deal.
Unless you meant an actual video of someone blowing their head off, in which case sorry for the confusion, you're not coming off as coherent.

Anonymous 101903

>>101895
>What other standard for violent behavior is there?
Not op, but violence to their family and classmates. My little brother finds it funny to slap my ass after he watched a yt video of a prank about it. It took me physically retalitaling for him to stop. also has a habit of slapping classmates on the head. Kids are very influenced by media.

Anonymous 101904

cece burning.gif

>>101903
>there's an epidemic of alpha gens slapping people's butts
At last, I truly see. The violence has become too much.

Anonymous 101907

>>101904
go clean your room

Anonymous 101908

>>101903
Imagine thinking a boy slapping his sibling on the ass is "violence" lol

Anonymous 101909

>>101901
>Don't switch around the terms "violence" and "aggression", aggression is an incredibly positive trait in a lot of areas, for instance a lot of the basket cases on this imageboard could use some. Are they more violent or are they more aggressive, and yes I'm going to differentiate those two things because I only care about violence.
Aggression while it can be good isn't good when it manifests in unnecessarily violent behavior. But you'd rather pretend to interpret the meaning as something else to distract from the greater point being made.
>Before we had as good record keeping? This also seems to be restricted to the US again.
Really? Because it looks like crime in the UK is very similar.
How much do you REALLY think record keeping plays into this. Pic not from 60s but by the 60s and 70s there was consistent records.
>That's fantastic then, all that I care about is, again, violence and crimes.
Believe it or not, but that kind of behavior and oppression is bad for people.
I have had issues with attention span due to too much internet, and its healthy for people to get outside.
Violent crime isn't the only measure of violence. Siblings beating the crap out of eachother is a problem too. These are domestic problems that effect tons of people.
Really what this is is just technological slavery, using tech as a way to keep people inside instead of living their lives, growing dependant on it.
But you only care about reported crime rates for some retarded reason, not violence within the home or the multitude of other problems this brings up.
>Are you suggesting that teenagers are committing assault on their peers more often without getting arrested? What exactly do you mean by "violence"? Bullying? What type of violence is bad enough to warrant concern but not bad enough to penalize legally.
Like I already explained, but you want to turn a blind eye to this because your thinking is restricted statistics.
>Oh it would certainly be illogical, but I'm an empiricist, not a rationalist, and the hard data says minor violence is down, not up, so I have to revolve my logic around physical truths as opposed to inferences.
More restriction on your thinking abilities. You see in black and white and can't read between lines or make your own conclusions, its all based off of stats and not logical reasoning. Stats are a tool for coming to a conclusion, not the entire conclusion.
>Unless you meant an actual video of someone blowing their head off, in which case sorry for the confusion, you're not coming off as coherent.
Just like your reasoning skills, your reading comprehension seems impaired too.
>>101908
>Imagine thinking a boy slapping his sibling on the ass is "violence" lol
Her point was that kids are influenced by the media they watch and will mimic the behaviors.

Anonymous 101910

>>101909
>Her point was that kids are influenced by the media they watch and will mimic the behaviors.
Mimicking a YouTube prank video that you think is funny ≠ shooting up a school because of a video game

Anonymous 101911

>>101910
I never claimed video games were the SOLE reason, I never even claimed they were the biggest reason. I blamed all violent media, including news reportings, as a whole.
The point was that kids repeat behaviors they view in media all the time, why would videogames be an exception to this?

Anonymous 101912

>>101909
>Aggression while it can be good isn't good when it manifests in unnecessarily violent behavior. But you'd rather pretend to interpret the meaning as something else to distract from the greater point being made.
Great we agree, now are kids being more violent, if they are, what type of violence are you bitching about?
>Believe it or not, but that kind of behavior and oppression is bad for people.
So? Violence is also bad for people. If I to choose one way of things being bad for people and another way that is also bad for people I choose whatever results in less violence.
>I have had issues with attention span due to too much internet, and its healthy for people to get outside.
What does this have to do with anything mentioned whatsoever so far? That activities have consequences? I'm so proud of you for coming to this conclusion.
>eally what this is is just technological slavery, using tech as a way to keep people inside instead of living their lives, growing dependant on it.
Oh because was so much better back before the internet wasn't it huh? Miss going to the mall to consume with friends? Maybe you crave the period in time where you could only see movies in theaters? Life has always been shit, and will continue to be.
>But you only care about reported crime rates for some retarded reason, not violence within the home or the multitude of other problems this brings up.
I care about violence in the home, is there more domestic abuse going on? Because if the violence hasn't been extreme enough to warrant outside intervention, it's not worth giving a shit about. If it was it would be a crime.
>Like I already explained, but you want to turn a blind eye to this because your thinking is restricted statistics.
<just expand your mind sis, see the violence everywhere around you, you're definitely not projecting it

>Violent crime isn't the only measure of violence. Siblings beating the crap out of eachother is a problem too. These are domestic problems that effect tons of people.

Okay so domestic abuse is up? Because that's what familial violence is, domestic abuse.
>More restriction on your thinking abilities. You see in black and white and can't read between lines or make your own conclusions, its all based off of stats and not logical reasoning. Stats are a tool for coming to a conclusion, not the entire conclusion.
Well duh you idiot. My conclusion isn't "there is less violence", that's what the stats say, and I take as fact. It isn't "violent videogames are more popular than ever" which is also what the stats say. My empirical reasoning arrives when I see "violent videogame distribution has increased and real life violence has decreased". Sorry I don't project onto the world what I want to be rationally true as opposed to rationally react to what is actually true.

>>101910
This.

>>101911
Fine. Let's readjust, all violent media (not news coverage, which is reality) does not increase violence. Reading does not increase violence, movies do not increase violence, video games do not cause violence. Sensational news reporting about real people doing real things that actually happen do.

Anonymous 101914

jho wtf reading.pn…

>>101909
>you're stuck in a black and white mindset, it's why you don't see the increased violence everywhere, like siblings slapping butts

Anonymous 101915

>>101909
>cites the 60s and 70s as if they were a good time to be alive
>bemoans post-internet life
You read like a moid.

Anonymous 101916

>>101912
>Great we agree, now are kids being more violent, if they are, what type of violence are you bitching about?
The type of violence I've explained numerous times, children being violent towards one another but not committing crimes.
>So? Violence is also bad for people. If I to choose one way of things being bad for people and another way that is also bad for people I choose whatever results in less violence.
This type of behavior is far worse for people because its related to more mental health issues.
>What does this have to do with anything mentioned whatsoever so far? That activities have consequences? I'm so proud of you for coming to this conclusion.
It is one of the effects of staying indoors all day, and is far worse than a high crime rate. An entire generation with mental health issues, leading a sedentary lifestyle, and attention apan issues is fat worse than a higher crime rate.
>Oh because was so much better back before the internet wasn't it huh? Miss going to the mall to consume with friends? Maybe you crave the period in time where you could only see movies in theaters? Life has always been shit, and will continue to be.
Leads to basically handing tech giants total control over your life, and life is getting more shit every day. The good things technology brings is not worth the negative things it brings.
>I care about violence in the home, is there more domestic abuse going on? Because if the violence hasn't been extreme enough to warrant outside intervention, it's not worth giving a shit about. If it was it would be a crime.
Its difficult to report this kind of violence because its usually among children themselves. You aren't going to get law enforcement involved because your children are belligerant towards eachother, are you? But it IS problem and I see it with kids all the time, especially the ones who spend time with violent media.
Did you read the study I posted?
>Well duh you idiot. My conclusion isn't "there is less violence", that's what the stats say, and I take as fact. It isn't "violent videogames are more popular than ever" which is also what the stats say. My empirical reasoning arrives when I see "violent videogame distribution has increased and real life violence has decreased". Sorry I don't project onto the world what I want to be rationally true as opposed to rationally react to what is actually true.
I already explained to you the error with that type of thinking.
>Fine. Let's readjust, all violent media (not news coverage, which is reality) does not increase violence. Reading does not increase violence, movies do not increase violence, video games do not cause violence. Sensational news reporting about real people doing real things that actually happen do.
False claim, and you know that. You admitted it would be illogical to claim that children wouldn't repeat violent behavior, considering they repeat every other behavior they see. Now your changing your mind. This is the 3rd time you've changed your mind on this. Pick a position.
>>101915
"No! You can't disagree with the majority! You must be a moid!"
In many ways we've progressed, but in more ways we've regressed.

Anonymous 101917

>>101916
Anyways, this is exhausting. I will return later, but for now I'm leaving. I doubt I'll have anything worthwhile replying to anyways, because its mostly just a flaw in your thought process.

Anonymous 101918

Concern.jpg

>>101916
>It is one of the effects of staying indoors all day, and is far worse than a high crime rate. An entire generation with mental health issues, leading a sedentary lifestyle, and attention apan issues is fat worse than a higher crime rate.
>short attention spans are literally worse than murder

I guess I'm done here I literally (quite literally) can not dream of constructing a strawman more absurd than your actual position.

Anonymous 101919

>>101918
>short attention spans are literally worse than murder
You convienantly left out my other 2 points.
Murder harms a few select individuals, these issues will cause harm and interfere with the wellbeing of an entire population for their entire lives.
Not all violent crimes are murders.
You act as if death is the worst evil that can befall someone, when you are facing the lifelong suffering of an entire generation and generations to come.

Anonymous 101920

>>101919
>Murder harms a few select individuals
Not true. Just like mental health has a psychological effect on society as a hole, so does violence. You're underestimating the feeling of fear and constant alertness that violence puts people through. Yeah, of course, just a few are actually murdered, but you don't have any guarantee that you or your family aren't among those. The feeling of safety is invaluable, and I say that as a person who lives in a dangerous area. People who aren't used to it can get so stressed to the point of getting PTSD.

Anonymous 102300

>>101912
>>101916
It feels like both of you are trying to hold an untenable position, one that all video games should be banned for children, the other that children should be exposed to video game as much as they want.
I'm sure none of you is that extremist in your views, and I believe you would both agree that, while video games are not intrinsically evil, parents should be careful what kind of media their children is exposed to, especially at a young age.

I sure would like to see a study or stats about children being more rowdy with their family. I'm not american and I've seen nothing to make me believe kids are particularily more violent than in an unspecified past. I don't deny you personally witnessed such a phenomenon, but there could be a mountain of other factors that made you more likely to be close to aggressive children: the location you live in, the status of people you're working with/for, comparison with unreliable memories of how aggressive children were in the past…

It IS hard to believe, seeing how vertiginously youth crime dropped here, >>101887, that children could simultaneously be more violent yet also commit less offenses. You'd think that, with all crimes generally on the decline, law enforcement would have more time dealing with domestic violence.



[Return] [Catalog]
[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]