TO TALK TO ME MORE ABOUT THE VPN THING GO HERE:
8chan should not be getting censored simply because criminals are using it
Posts
Total:
61
-->
@Wylted
That isn't true for a number of reasons. A christian can think a fact that disagrees with their view of what the bi le says, means they may be misinterpreting the bible.
You are clearly missing out key information. The Bible is based on nothing verifiable. From Jesus's "resurrection" to God's existence. The most important parts of the Religion. If Christians can't even verify if Jesus resurrected or if God exists you know the fundamentals are whack.
Me personally I have not seen facts by left wing or right wing people that I thought contradicted christianity in any way. Maybe some moral beliefs but the morality you choose to live by has nothing to do with proving anything wrong with Christianity.
Christianity is morally bankrupt. A few good quotes doesn't mean the bad quotes are not there.
Not true at all and in fact silly. The bible is not a science book so there really are no scientific facts that disproves it. Not that disproving the bible disproves Jesus anyway. The Bible wasn't even around while he walked the Earth.
Clearly false. It makes claims about the observable world. I hear 2 different arguments from theists. Jesus did resurrect. Look there is an empty tomb!
Another is: Bible is not a science book therefore we don't actually need to prove anything.
Both are poor answers. The first one there is no proof that Jesus resurrected. The second one the Bible makes claims about the observable world and how it functions and you are telling me I am going to treat is as fiction? If so you are admitting it is just a book of fairy-tales for people irrational enough to believe in it. If not then where is the evidence? I ask for evidence for my claims yet you stop for the Bible. I would call it a special pleading fallacy but it can be you have a lapse of judgement on the entire subject of faith.
-->
@RationalMadman
The main problem with large companies and countries censoring whatever they want (legal or not) is that it makes it easier for them to brainwash people and control what they think, by limiting the kinds of information they have access to. Not only that, but it also makes it much harder to hear different sides of the same story, like with those people who share their manifestos and their sides of the story.
Back when slavery was still legal, most slaves weren't allowed to even read, out of the fear that they would get smart and then get organized to the point where they would be much harder to control.
Countries like New Zealand China and North Korea heavily control what kinds of online information people can have access to, and because of this, it is easier for them to brainwash those people, by keeping them from the harsh truth about things.
Many terrorist organizations such as ISIS and the Taliban, as well as those countries that willingly harbor those various terrorist organizations, teach their people that Americans are the bad guys, and it is easier for those people to be controlled, since they are restricted from hearing different sides of the story.
Adolf Hitler and the Nazis limited the information that their people had access to, making it easier to fool people into thinking that the jews were the inferior race, without allowing different sides of the story to be heard.
History has shown us, more than enough times already, what can happen when you allow politically correct countries, as well as corrupt third-parties such as Google Facebook and Fake News CNN to freely cherry-pick what kinds of information is available and prevent people from hearing different sides of the story.
Thanks to the first amendment, the United States censors as little as possible compared to other countries, unlike all those other corrupt groups. This allows different sides of a story to be shared and allows people to be educated better, based on what both sides said, and form their own judgement.
If you post your entire manifesto before engaging in a terrorist act on a website that refuses to censor or report you to the authorities, that website is scum and deserves to be wiped off of any decent search engine. that is one of many examples of the neglectful nature of 8Chan's administration.
There is nothing scummy about having a website that lets different people, even criminals, share their different sides of the story so that people can be educated better. In fact, you should be GLAD 8chan's administration is this neglectful, because censoring criminals from sharing their side of the story only makes sensitive butthurt people and politically correct people feel better, as well as promote abuse and corruption, since they can abuse their powers to censor things, and start censoring whatever else they don't like, just like history has shown us.
Here's a youtube video about a man who almost became a mass shooter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azRl1dI-Cts
Now imagine if he HAD ended up becoming a mass shooter? In that case, we wouldn't get to hear his side of the story about how his family was having a hard time coping with drugs and addiction, how he lacked clean clothes, how he was constantly transferring schools, how he was tormented by bullies, how he was made to believe that he was worthless, how he cut himself, how he was homeless at age 15, or how he tried to seek help but was betrayed by social services and resorted to seeking help from gangsters, thus making things worse as he was now hanging out with the wrong crowd.
We wouldn't get to hear any of this, nor would that youtube video likely even exist, because it would all be censored, and the only thing we would pretty much know about him is that he was just.... another stinking pile of "pure evil"!! That's all the politically correct media would say about him. We likely wouldn't know any of the horrifying details that we knew now, and we wouldn't be better educated if his side of the story was heavily censored and blocked from most people, like with the manifestos of the ACTUAL mass shooters.
You can say whatever you want, you are defending something very dark and demented. DuckDuckGo when used via TOR Browser, is only used for one purpose; to search disgusting things that no one should legally be allowed to see the results of.
If you find 8chan dark and demented that's fine. If you find the manifestos, and other valuable information that other criminals and/or potential criminals share, dark and demented, that's fine too.
What's NOT fine is people like you, forcing your delusional standards of "dark and demented" on others and claiming "that no one should legally be allowed to see" these different sides of the story and educate themselves about what goes on in the minds of criminals.
Why else are people going to such lengths to hide who they are and to see results Google has taken off?
Because people do not, and should not, fully trust that these companies and countries know what is best censored and what should be left alone, due to their corruption and insecurities.
We've reached a point where it isn't even just these sites like 8chan getting censored, but rather, other random harmless phrases and words getting censored too, in certain places. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt_Oe3IvWvE
You don't know that because you haven't seen how much crime has been reduced thanks to Google and Bing actively refusing to show some things on their searches.
So you've proven my point then, which is that Google and Bing can't be fully trusted to censor what the best things to censor are. It makes no sense at all to censor data that would show reduction of crime thanks to 8chan being censored.
The fact that you even HAVE to use heavy-duty VPNs to get around such asinine restrictions to see potentially valuable and vital information also proves this point.
Like I've said before, what "does deter crime" is good guys who can stop the bad guys.
-->
@Christen
What you say is not fine is the very principle of law and order in the entire world.
If you don't like Google, don't use it.
-->
@Snoopy
I like Google. I just don't like what they're doing. It's the actions that I'm against, not the company itself.
-->
@Christen
This policy is not going to negatively effect 8Chan in the slightest. I don't think I've ever had a search come up with 4Chan. People are referred to it through social media.
lol
Several countries, even New Zealand itself, is blocking 8chan, and also it is being made more vulnerable to Denial of Service Attacks.
-->
@Christen
Damn right. They are doing the right thing. If 8Chan has an issue with DDOS attacks, it should consider that when being friendly to criminals, it is exposed to ones against it. If it wishes to have Cloudflare and to engage with the general Internet's populace, it should readily report dangerous individuals to authorities ASAP to prevent real life horrific events, instead of letting manifestos stay up for 3 days, saying nothing to anyone about it and not taking it down either which I believe was the 'straw that broke the camel's back' with the tolerance Google and such authorities had for the website.
The 8chan site is being crucified, New Zealand is literally punishing it's citizens with fines, as well as months worth of jail time simply for sharing, and, also, these manifestos are also being censored. Without them, we won't have an idea of how bad guys think and act, and thus it will be harder to people to figure out how to deal with them. Even LiveLeak, a site that normally allows violent graphic and gory content to be shared, is trying to be politically correct and censor this. https://i.imgur.com/XweFwpX.png
Let's say someone is bullied and tortured, and then they take it out on some school and shoot that place up. If we hear their side of the story and learn that bullying and torturing played a role in this, we can then use that information to educate each other about how bad bullying is, and how we should respect each other more, which could prevent future mass shootings due to bullying. If we don't hear their side of the story, we won't know that bullying played a role in this, we wouldn't be educated about this, and we would just keep bullying each other until more and more people commit mass shootings due to bullying, because we didn't learn from our previous mistakes.
Let's say someone commits a mass shooting because of drugs. If we can hear their side of things, we can understand how drugs played a role in this and educate each other more about drugs to encourage each other to avoid such drugs, which could also prevent further mass shootings.
See where I'm getting with this? These are just some examples of how this information can help us and how hearing different sides of things can help us greatly. Censoring everything on every website would ultimately make it harder to deter and prevent future crimes like this, because, then, we wouldn't be learning from our mistakes, IF we were making any to begin with, and we would likely keep repeating said mistakes, resulting in more disasters such as this.
To this day, I hardly understand why the September 11 2001 World Trade Center attacks happened because I didn't get to hear the criminal's side of things; everyone was too busy focusing on ONLY the victims' side and/or censoring other sides.
Here is an article stating that "Manifestos play a vital role in clarifying motive Prohibiting access to terrorist tracts also confuses the public debate over what these acts of violence mean and what to do about them." https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/08/07/after-el-paso-vital-keep-shooter-manifestos-available-public-column/1931628001/
Brenton Tarrant's one can be downloaded and viewed here. http://archive.fo/2dpB4
This is the archive of the 8chan thread where he declares that he is going to "make a real life effort and" "carry out the attack against the invaders". https://web.archive.org/web/20190315030049/https://8ch.net/pol/res/12916717.html
You can see people cheering him on, and you can even find a few people saying "HEIL TARRANT" in all capital letters, which shows that there are people out there, who do have a lot of hatred within them.
This is Patrick Crusius's manifesto. http://archive.is/btujl
I checked the "Rules and Code of Conduct" of this site before linking these manifestos. I know other popular forums like Reddit will ban for doing so, but I didn't see any rules on this site prohibiting me from sharing a criminal's side of things. I'm not linking to any porn, viruses or malware, just archived documents and stuff.
There IS a rule that prohibits "Adult Content" which says "Posting adult content or links to adult content, including pornography, is strictly prohibited."
but I don't believe that a couple of harmless documents of some random criminal falls into this category, and I don't believe that an archived message board full of random immature losers, worshiping and glorifying a random dude, falls into this category either. If it does, though, then I guess a moderator will have to take whatever appropriate action needed....
but yeah, like I said, these countries are trashing The First Amendment right now in 2019 and censoring even small things as well as the big things. We've reached a point where "LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP" people get OFFENDED because you didn't refer to them as "their preferred gender pronouns" even though they wanted to sexually identify as an attack helicopter or whatever.
-->
@Christen
I like them for the fact that you can read what real criminals and bad people have to say, understand their point of view, understand their side of things, understand the hatred that they have and how they feel, understand where their coming from, understand the kinds of things they say in their manifestos and how they make the choices that they make, understand why they do what they do and/or think what they think, and/or have some decent information from the criminal's perspective in order to form a solid and more accurate conclusion/opinion. It's good to have a basic understanding of how criminals think and act, and these sites allow people to have just that. Not only that, but websites like these are great for helping people understand the harsh nerve-racking truth about this world - that it is not a nice, happy, fantasy land - that it has a lot of scary things to it, and that many people have such dark and scary thoughts. These sites, however evil they may seem, allow people to write down their hatred and share it with those who are interesting in hearing their side of things.
Hypothetically, even if the Christchurch shooter was completely right about everything he said, it still doesn't justify his actions. Also, forming an opinion based off a mass shooter's dubious manifesto seems misplaced. I'll put it this way, I am not allowed to cite Wikipedia for college papers. I am most definitely not allowed to cite the "expert opinion" of someone who decided it was a jolly-good idea to shoot a bunch of people and film it. I do agree that it lends insight into why particular criminals act, but what can it do to prevent future crimes? We know the perpetrator was worried about a white genocide. People who adopt these ideas aren't likely to drop them without significant intervention which borders on outright violations of personal freedom. I guess the assumption is that the manifestos published online somehow reflect the real-life ideas and motivations of the perpetrators. If this is the case, then I doubt that even the government can't eliminate ideas and conspiracy theories though purely legal interventions. Sure, they can start a new PR campaign, but I can raise doubt of the program's success with a 4-letter acronym:
D.A.R.E.
Also, if people want to learn what a horrible place the world is, they should get a job and try to run a productive life. Hell, news coverage, (or god forbid the Emoji Movie,) might cause PTSD. If you want to slowly lose faith in people, read up on the Rohingya genocide and the imbeciles claiming that complete eradication was a justified response. My point is that losing faith in humans is common enough that people don't need a bunch of condescending holier-than-thou types trying to vilify others because they need to compensate for their lack of interaction with the opposite sex. (I am not saying you are one, but be honest, that is a bulk of people on these political forums.)
Here is the thing though: I agree that 8chan shouldn't be banned, (Neither should Reddit, 4chan, or Twitter.) Clearer user guidelines and a decision from the SCOTUS determining to what extent a site should protect free speech would be 2 steps forward in the right direction. Censoring certain users, such as terrorist recruiters, should probably be classified as constitutional, while entire bans of websites aren't. Although, I don't think what occurred was a ban. Google simply dropped the website from its search engine. It's still accessible. In fact, this isn't the first time Google has blacklisted the service. They did so a few years ago after links to illegal material (aka child pornography,) ended up surfacing and circulating (1). It's hard to imagine a legal argument that compels Google to display such content. In fact, the original creator of the site wanted it shut down (2). I disagree that it should be banned completely, but a private company such as Google doesn't necessarily need to allow access to child porn. This is right from Google's Terms of Service:
I will reiterate, no matter Google's decision on the matter, no website should be censored by the US government. I will not, however, decry companies that try to restrict access to websites that displays child porn and death threats on shaky-at-best legal ground, particularly if the response from the moderation team is dismissive. The sharing of ideas, even those of criminals, should be encouraged. The sharing of illegal materials, doxxing, and death threats, all of which are crimes in some capacity, should not. Sure, all sites have illegal content to a degree, but active moderation has prevented it from getting out of control. Just as a company can lose a sponsor, so can a supposed bastion of free speech lose a host.
In any case, the result of this would probably be that the website goes on the dark web and thus is impervious to regulation, so none of this will matter in time. In any case, I respect the time you put into the post. It is an interesting discussion to have in the information age.
Sources
-->
@blamonkey
Google is so big it is basically an arm of the government at this point. Just an arm we have no control over, and on top of that they have hired Ray Kurzweil and are discreetly funneling money to small companies who are furiously working on creating a super AI that once created we will lose control of. It is essential that we do not allow google to enjoy the freedoms your average private company should have. They are a special exception. They just swatted a guy who had dirt on them as well and he could have easily died in that situation. This company is evil and needs to be reigned in by the government by saying "No you must respect our culture of free speech" or they must be destroyed
-->
@Wylted
@blamonkey
but I can raise doubt of the program's success with a 4-letter acronym:D.A.R.E.
What does this stand for?
They just swatted a guy who had dirt on them as well and he could have easily died in that situation.
When and where did this happen?
Other than that, I agree with both of your statements. One thing I want to add is that a youtube channel called Prager University made a video talking about how "A publisher chooses the content that resides on its site. The New York Times is a perfect example. You can’t write a story and just expect the New York Times to publish it. The Times chooses what appears on its pages or website. And if they publish a story that contains a malicious lie, or violates copyright law, they can be sued. PragerU is also a publisher. It decides what material gets placed on its website.
Most sites are publishers.
In contrast, a public forum—which can be a physical location, like the classic town square or a shopping mall, or a virtual location, like a website—is a place that must allow individuals and organizations to exercise their free speech rights. YouTube is an example of a public forum. In fact, YouTube describes itself as a public forum. You make a video. YouTube hosts it. And anyone with an internet connection can watch it. Facebook is also a public forum, and so is Twitter.
Here’s why this is so important:
A public forum under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—a law co-sponsored by Democrats and Republicans and passed by Congress in 1996—is not subject to liability for content placed on its site. If someone posts a video about how to build a bomb or writes a threatening comment, the public forum website cannot be held legally responsible for that content.
That’s a good thing. It gives YouTube and other public forums the chance to host a wide variety of material, from nature videos to political diatribes, without fear of being sued. And it worked. And then, it didn’t.
A few years ago, the social media giants—Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter—started to behave not like public forums, but like publishers.
They stopped following Section 230, which specifically requires that these websites promote “a true diversity of political discourse,” and began to judge content by their own political and social criteria.
In other words, the social media giants want it both ways: They want the protections of a public forum and the editorial control of a publisher. We’re fine if they’re a publisher, and we’re fine if they’re a public forum. They just can’t be both."
A few years ago, the social media giants—Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter—started to behave not like public forums, but like publishers.
They stopped following Section 230, which specifically requires that these websites promote “a true diversity of political discourse,” and began to judge content by their own political and social criteria.
In other words, the social media giants want it both ways: They want the protections of a public forum and the editorial control of a publisher. We’re fine if they’re a publisher, and we’re fine if they’re a public forum. They just can’t be both."
Their video about this can be found here. https://youtu.be/d6C6_NVj964?t=181
This information can also be found on their website. https://www.prageru.com/video/prageru-v-youtube/
In other words, if what they're saying is true (and by "they" I mean PragerU), then that means that both Google and Youtube are trying to be something they're not - a "publisher" (by "they" I refer to Google and Youtube, whereas the other "they" refers to PragerU).
If this is the case then this would technically mean that they (google and youtube) could also be sued for trying to be politically correct towards 8chan, but I'm not entirely sure.
I do agree that it lends insight into why particular criminals act, but what can it do to prevent future crimes? We know the perpetrator was worried about a white genocide.
It isn't JUST white genocide that the perpetrator(s) thought about. Another youtube named Drift0r (with a zero instead of an O) made an interesting video talking about this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04lwtktWa9U
Here are some of the interesting stuff that he said in his video:
At 6 minutes and 28 seconds in his video, he talks about how "He blames both political parties for facilitating the great peplacement for different reasons; for the democratic party it's primarily a moral one about helping minorities and also building up a huge and loyal spanish voting pool, and he blames the republican party for supporting immigration for actually supporting immigration because of their pro-business and pro-cheap-labor kind of setup"
At 8 minutes and 36 seconds in his video he says "There is 1 line in here that is super important that I don't think anybody on TV or news has picked up on yet, and one that really sticks out to me; it really kinda hits home and helps me understand this guy as a person; he says 'my whole life I have been preparing for a future that currently doesn't exist. This is a man who's lost hope. He has no reason for living."
At 11 minutes and 15 seconds he says "He clearly has mental health issues and is not getting help for it in any way; his friends and family could not or would not be there to help stabilize him"
Finally, at 15 minutes and 8 seconds he decides that the gun violence in the United States, especially most of these mass shootings, is mainly due to our country's poor health care, and poor access to health care. At 16 minutes and 6 seconds he mentions having low job stability and security, and a lot of stress, and cannot have easy access to good health care without ridiculous fees, and at 17 minutes and 48 seconds he reiterates that "we have a disaffected and stressed-out population; they can't realistically seek any form of mental health care" and "a political system that is kinda of designed against change".
So to answer your question, blamonkey, about "what can it do to prevent future crimes?" the answer to that is that manifestos give us an idea of how criminals think and act, so that youtubers like Drift0r can talk about it, and then help lead us towards some of these solutions to prevent future crimes, such as improving our health care!
At 19 minutes and 55 seconds he even says that "with better cheaper or free mental health depending on how you want to cut it, we could catch a lot more of these people falling through the cracks of society; this wouldn't end mass shootings, it wouldn't fix the entire nation and all of our problems, but it's just another filter that'll catch more people that are struggling"
So yeah, he admits that his solutions aren't perfect, but he still comes up with a pretty good one... all thanks to him being able to see the shooter's manifesto. Lastly, he says, after 32 minutes, that "one good friend to either of these shooters; somebody that stepped up to make them happy, to give them a reason to live, to show them a new way, to do anything, could have stopped these mass shootings. These mass shootings are because you have hopeless despondent people getting sucked into violent ideologies, and the best way to prevent that is to give them something to live for!"
Since the shooter also talked about immigration, we can also find more and/or better ways to cut down on illegal immigration so that you don't have as many people thinking that they are being "invaded" or whatever, which could also catch more of these potential shooters from becoming actual shooters.
THAT is "what can it do to prevent future crimes".
-->
@Christen
For the record, D.A.R.E is an educational program that tried to raise awareness of the dangers of drugs to students. If you ever went to school and recount someone telling you to say no to drugs, it was most likely this group. It failed horribly.
As far as your PragerU citation, it doesn't prove that Google had no legal ground to block 8chan. Perhaps Google would have had no legal challenges had they continued to host the content, but that doesn't mean that their action to remove 8chan from their search history is illegal. In fact, the passage of the FOSTA-SESTA bill signed by the president in April of 2018 would hold internet companies liable to aiding sex trafficking (1). Additionally, Section 230 prohibits copyrighted content from being published as well. You and I can disagree with the new law, but it does suggest increased scrutiny against internet publishers when allowing for illegal content. My primary objection to the argument though is that Section 230 doesn't outlaw moderation. Websites are allowed to take down content Senator Ron Wyden, the co-creator of Section 230 told the Reason Foundation that the law had nothing to do with moderating content, and that, the basis for the law was to inoculate content providers from spurious litigation. When discussing whether Section 230 was a guarantee that content was neutrally moderated, he retorted;
"Section 230 has nothing to do with neutrality. Nothing. Zip. There is absolutely no weight to that argument " (2).
Jeff Kosseff, author of the book "The 26 Words that Created the Internet," lays out the legal foundation for the creation of the law.
"To really understand Section 230, you have to go all the way back to the 1950s. There was a Los Angeles ordinance that said if you have obscene material in your store, you can be held criminally responsible. So a vice officer sees this erotic book that he believes is obscene. Eleazar Smith, who owns the store, is prosecuted, and he’s sentenced to 30 days in jail.
So in other words, there is no rationale for restricting publisher's option to moderate under Section 230.
Your last post doesn't make sense to me.
Why should we determine our immigration policy based on perpetrators of mass killings? If people want to lobby Congress to advocate for immigration reform, that's fine. I would even be fine with it if I disagree with their goals. We aren't the battered spouses of these shooters who blame ourselves for their abuse. I seriously doubt that immigration reform would have prevented the shooting anyway. His primary concern was one of race. Racial conflict at home, regardless of nationality, would inspire just as much paranoia and visceral hatred than any open immigration system. Additionally, the US has strict immigration policies. Since 9/11, the DHS, TSA, and an alphabet soup of agencies have adopted strict, sometimes draconian policies that prevent many prospective immigrants from coming into the US. It's not perfect, but the US is hardly a safe haven for terrorists.
People have discussed the mental health of shooters before their manifestos became public. In fact, because perpetrators know that their actions are likely to be publicized, their manifestos could just be used to troll the public. bin Laden took this approach when he addressed the immorality of the American public. He discusses the subjugation of women in the US, the refusal of American institutions to address climate change, and the immorality of the president. Had the US addressed these issues, 9/11 would still have occurred (4). The reason the manifesto addressed real world issues was that it gave bin Laden a sympathetic image that could be utilized for propaganda.
Even if you are adamant in suggesting that manifestos be used as evidence to uncover the motives behind shooters, then I don't know why you want the public to know about it. Surely, it would be better in the hands of law enforcement agencies and supposedly policy makers, correct? They are the ones who would be able to change the law to fit the narratives of these deranged killers.
Here is why manifestos should be published: there isn't any real damage caused by the speech and it is a 1st amendment right to create objectionable material as long as it doesn't incite immediate violence or present a clear and present danger. Also, people can save information such as manifestos and republish it, turning into an elaborate game of whack-a-mole in which taking down one post is followed by three more people posting it elsewhere. These are good points that would defend your premise better in my opinion.
Sources
People have discussed the mental health of shooters before their manifestos became public. In fact, because perpetrators know that their actions are likely to be publicized, their manifestos could just be used to troll the public. bin Laden took this approach when he addressed the immorality of the American public. He discusses the subjugation of women in the US, the refusal of American institutions to address climate change, and the immorality of the president. Had the US addressed these issues, 9/11 would still have occurred (4). The reason the manifesto addressed real world issues was that it gave bin Laden a sympathetic image that could be utilized for propaganda.
Even if you are adamant in suggesting that manifestos be used as evidence to uncover the motives behind shooters, then I don't know why you want the public to know about it. Surely, it would be better in the hands of law enforcement agencies and supposedly policy makers, correct? They are the ones who would be able to change the law to fit the narratives of these deranged killers.
Here is why manifestos should be published: there isn't any real damage caused by the speech and it is a 1st amendment right to create objectionable material as long as it doesn't incite immediate violence or present a clear and present danger. Also, people can save information such as manifestos and republish it, turning into an elaborate game of whack-a-mole in which taking down one post is followed by three more people posting it elsewhere. These are good points that would defend your premise better in my opinion.
Sources
For anyone who cares, I changed my mind and rank NordVPN the best, alongside SurfShark.
-->
@RationalMadman
Did you decide to come back to DebateArt??
-->
@TheAtheist
Did you decide to ask a rhetorical question?
-->
@RationalMadman
I did not, but you just did.
-->
@TheAtheist
Neither did I, but you just didn't.
11 days later
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Agreed
-->
@Vader
Agreed with what?Agreed
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Reddit is better
-->
@Vader
oke doke.
-->
@Wylted
I just like using reddit for music, osu, and random entertainment
7 days later
ahhh yes very educational
35 days later
reddit
I mean it's cool but i just use it for memes.
and music