............................
no.....
WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY. WHY DO THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT MAKE THIS WEBSITE INTERESTING LEAVE ALL THE TIME.............................
Fucking hell, for the longest time ever I was the lurker that liked the funsubstance community, but could never join because I didn't see a place for myself. And when I found it, talking about the things I'm interested in, THIS HAPPENS. First it was firmlee_grasspit, now shik.
Fuck my life, what is funsubstance turning into. 70% of the community left, bots and ads are ruining the fun, and the only people who are here for more than the memes are leaving.
As much as I don't want to say this, if famousone and xvarnah ever leave, I will disappear as well. If not deleting the account, at least never commenting on anything again. No point really.
I was wondering if I should tag you here or not tbh. I agree, the website is definitely struggling a bit these days. I can't speak for famousone, and I haven't had the time/energy to post as much lately, but I'm not planning on going anywhere anytime soon if that's any consolation, and I think there's still a place carved out for you (or maybe blown open with dynamite in your case :P) as long as you feel like staying
I do feel like staying, it's just whether there is something to stay for. I don't want to spend the rest of my commenting days arguing to death with guest_ or telling an occasional troll to piss off. It's just not worth it at that point.
All I really want is for people to be more interested in talking about things that have value outside of the funsub bubble, and not just memeing for the sake of it. Because one day when another dumbass or a bot posts a political meme, the comments will be full of people spouting their one-line opinion, and anything I post will be downvoted into oblivion in seconds. And only guest_ will even care enough to talk back.
I've been a lurker on this website for years now, I've still made comments had my arguments etc. But even though I'm not part of the community, seeing it degrade like this is kinda sad.
I hope you guys stick around, and if not find somewhere else to have fun
the bots do take dead accounts. All of the bots have some level of comments meaning either 1. whoever made the bots either set them up to dynamically make comments topical to the post a long time before the account actually makes posts
or
2. they take over unused accounts to post bot posts.
examples
https://funsubstance.com/icontrol/comments/ https://funsubstance.com/vectorgaze/comments/ https://funsubstance.com/ulias/comments/
-
most evidence points to the later and if it is true then after a few months to a year shik's account would be posting bot posts
-
also side note, with how the bots work it is likely that there is just 1 "bot" that has access to all accounts for posting purposes and it switches between accounts likely at random to make the next "bot post"
Given the number of comments that disagree and knowing the guy myself, imma go on a limb and say you deserved it. And if words hurt you, grow a thicker fkn skin.
Free speech means freedom to offend. And if you get offended, your problem. I'm not stopping anyone from talking, so where's the hypocrisy? You're allowed to be an asshole on the internet, because if you don't understand, words aren't violence and hurt feelings count for nothing.
.
Edit: Words online do not count as harrassment. And you have to define whether the term has legal weight or not. Because if it does, anyone who says mean things online can go to jail, which is a fucking horrific idea. And if it doesn't, then why bring it up? If what you mean by harrassment is mean words online, then why not call it that? Unless.... you want to subvert and expand the definition in the legal sense and attack people who you don't like because of what they said to you.
Free speech means freedom to offend, yes. However, I think it's a bit of a 12 IQ play to be an ass a few days after complaining about people downvoting you to oblivion. Here's a pro tip for you: saying 'Given the number of comments that disagree and knowing the guy myself, imma go on a limb and say you deserved it. And if words hurt you, grow a thicker fkn skin.' Makes you sound like a bit of a pompous asshat, especially that us small-minded sheeple disagree with you almost constantly. In my opinion, shik being gone just means one less person you can tag and bring rushing to your defence
Congrats, you correctly identified the intent of my statement. And sure, disagree all you want, but here's a pro-tip from my side: If you are glad to see someone you disagree with removed from a platform, and you only see it as scoring points in a confrontation instead of trying to actually understand and maybe change my mind (a la Crowder), think what that makes you look like?
I wouldn't like to see anyone disappear from the site, not you, not guest_, not anyone else who is willing to peacefully disagree. But I guess this is what being a proponent of free speech makes you, and you don't look like you consider yourself to be one. Certainly you don't seem to care about it, regardless of what your closeted opinion is.
It's almost as if I repeated your opening statement for emphasis or something. And I'm not glad to see him go. I'm glad to see the Downvote Brigade losing a screw. I had a few good convos with him, but I can dislike something somebody does without disliking his whole persona.
You have a right to free speech, you do not have any right to not see or hear what you don't like. Whether it's insults, disrespect, dissenting opinions, or someone's face.
Not true. America has freedom of expression, not absolute freedom of expression. Like most countries, using your freedom of expression to divulge trade secrets, create child pornography, violate an NDA or commit perjury is a crime.
Your rights end where other's begin.
You agree to not divulge trade secrets, or you obtain them through illicit means.
Child pornography violates the rights and protections of children.
You willingly subject yourself to an NDA.
Perjury is a malicious act committed after one swears to a higher authority (God, Allah, Odin, the Constitution, etc.) to tell the truth.
This ain't complicated.
So, hate speech is fine then? Because most places have laws against libel, slander, and offensive/derogatory words, including NZ. Over here, we not only have freedom of expression guaranteed under UN law, but also by the 1990 Bill of Rights Act. However, we also have laws against hate speech, as outlined in the 1981 Summary Offences Act
And by the way, to follow up on that, free speech is a political concept. If the idea has political meaning, it cannot be outlawed. This is why hate speech goes directly against the principle of free speech, because ideas that fall under hate speech are explicitly political.
.
And this is also why incitement to violence, as well as defamation, libel, slander, etc are not considered such. "Go and attack this person" is not a political idea, but the reasoning behind it could be, which is why incitement as a call to action is illegal, but discussing the reason behind such a statement is not. Same goes for defamation. If you lie about someone, you are not expressing a political opinion that is rooted in reality, so it is not protected by free speech.
.
I don't know if @xvarnah is still following, but I think he'd be interested, so I'll tag him.
-Xvarnah enters the fray-
'
First: a Few things I'll add:
-Shikharizard was well aware (and almost completely unconcerned) with the fact that he was an asshole.
'
Also: shik was never actually a person you could summon to use as a defender. If he didn't agree with whatever you'd summoned him to, or found it boring, you had equal likelihoods that he would turn around, tell you you're a schmuck (but in more colourful language), declare the entire situation stupid or boring, and then leave. Or else fight you himself (depending on whether he liked you at all)
'
Second, i'm gonna:
-Apologize for the length of this
-Disclaim to everyone that I'm not a lawyer so everything I say here is just my understanding of the laws as they apply to the American legal system so far
For the harassment thing, vitklim and famousone are more correct than not as far as America goes. Something to understand about harassment is that there are two kinds of definition: dictionary, and legal. Their definitions share a lot of the same words, such as "conduct that annoys/threatens/etc an individual."
'
However, how these are applied are extremely different things.
'
Annoy in a legal sense does not, as far as I understand it, apply to people being inflammatory on the internet. It applies more to situations like "someone was phoning my house, repeatedly, in the middle of the night, every night." Or "someone was phoning the place I work/showing up there specifically to cause problems."
'
To paraphrase a YouTuber, if the legal sense of harassment applied to anything that annoyed you, you could go outside with a horrible hangover, and then demand the birds be arrested because their chirping gave you a headache, left you annoyed, and therefore they were harassing you.
Second thing to touch on is: hate-speech, libel/slander, and child porn (my phone autocorrects porn to pork just as a headsup in case I miss it) are not mutually exclusive things. In the case of child porn they don't always even involve "speech," and from what I understand it CAN largely depend on how and where they're presented.
'
Child Porn is the easiest one to start with because it is rarely held back to just speech. Images, books (maybe, not sure), and video depicting real children does not in any way fall under free speech. All videos and images of children are essentially considered active crime scenes (as near as I can tell), and viewing them is essentially engaging in the revictimization of the child(ren). However, video, images, and books portraying fictional characters that are underage (sometimes with the stipulation that they cannot look realistic) is not, in a lot of places, illegal. If it were the anime industry would have a sudden crippling problem.
Game of thrones also would likely never have gotten to print in America* as there are several instances of child abuse (Daenerys, for example, is only 13 or 14 IIRC in the first book when she is married to, and engages in sexual acts with Khal Drogo) within it's pages.
'
However, the books do not actively encourage/promote abuse, and do not portray a real victim, therefore they are not in violation of anyone's rights. The people they OFFEND with this content can actively choose not to read them.
'
'
'
*I say "gotten to print in America" because the books are from the UK as far as I know, and I have no knowledge at all of their legalities when it comes to free speech
Even talking about desiring children (in a general sense) in a sexual manner isn't illegal from what I've seen. It's not ENCOURAGED, and many establishments will reject any attempts to do so, but it doesn't seem to be illegal.
'
In this way it and hate speech seem to mesh. Standing on your lawn and saying "I hate women, they're all bitches who should know their place and be on their backs" is hateful. But it's not illegal. Saying "times were better when all the blacks were slaves, should never have given them rights" is hateful. But (as far as I know) in America it's not illegal.
'
When it becomes a problem (as far as I know) is when you make proclamations in a way that violates the rights of others (disturbing the peace for example), or when it demonstrates a potential actionable intent to HARM others. Outside of that, when it comes to the internet it generally falls upon any given website's ToS
Now, Libel/Slander are forms of defamation, and are not inherently connected things to hate speech or child porn. Slander and libel are the acts of spreading harmful statements that damage a person's reputation through either word-of-mouth or in print, respectively.
'
Most commonly these words have to be provably false for there to be an actionable case of defamation. However, as I've learned recently, in some places in America, truth is NOT an absolute defence in a defamation case.
'
What this means is, it doesn't necessarily MATTER if the statements you make against someone are, in fact, true. This can be argued to be irrelevant if the statements you make are damaging enough, and it can be proven they were made with malicious intent.
The end result of all of this is that the statements made will have an either provable (defamation per quod) or presumed (defamation per se) negative (often financially) impact upon the defamed party's reputation.
'
In other words: the words you said did damage to the person you said them about, above and beyond simply hurting their feelings. You're allowed to hurt peoples' feelings. You're not allowed to ruin their ability to earn a living or try and burn their lives to the ground. And this is why defaming someone doesn't fall under free speech: it HAS a victim. It violates someone's rights.
So, all this said, I will clarify that words on line CAN qualify as legal harassment (particularly in defamation cases, or cases where you actively encourage someone to harm themselves. And, really, how stupid do you have to be to do that out in the open, leaving your big ass electronic footprint behind? Good grief. Get ambitious and grow a brain).
'
However, this very rarely will ever apply to a situation where two people are engaged in a back and forth that, when broken down, often equates to "I hate your opinion!" "I hate your opinion more!"
'
That's not the kind of thing the constitution gives a crap about policing 99% of the time.
'
'
There was something I meant to address and forgot, but I can't remember what it was and I've rambled long enough so I'll turn the comment section back over to someone else now
i really dont give a shit. i am not gonna hesitate to bring light to something somebody did. they arent an angel. did i deserve being called a psycho? yes because i am. but this fucking bitch wasnt a good person, they are gone now and i cant care less still. and even if they were the nicest being i just dont give a fuck
So just to be clear: he harassed you by calling you a psycho, which is fine because you ARE a psycho... but you're still mad about being called a psycho?
'
If you don't care that he's gone why on earth are you here on the post saying he's leaving? Commenting multiple times about how little you care about something indicates the exact opposite of an incapability to "care less."
'
Also I love the fact that you have declared him a bad person for calling you out on your own behaviour, but show up here like you have the moral high ground when you do the same. Except you're doing it when he's not even around to defend himself.
'
All that said, let's sum this up:
-you both agreed you're a psycho
-you're fine with this and also insanely riled up about it
-neither of you care the other is no longer around. At least one of you cares a whole lot less than the other, I guarantee, but nevertheless.
'
Glad we could get that sorted and put on the shelf
no.....
WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY. WHY DO THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT MAKE THIS WEBSITE INTERESTING LEAVE ALL THE TIME.............................
Fucking hell, for the longest time ever I was the lurker that liked the funsubstance community, but could never join because I didn't see a place for myself. And when I found it, talking about the things I'm interested in, THIS HAPPENS. First it was firmlee_grasspit, now shik.
Fuck my life, what is funsubstance turning into. 70% of the community left, bots and ads are ruining the fun, and the only people who are here for more than the memes are leaving.
As much as I don't want to say this, if famousone and xvarnah ever leave, I will disappear as well. If not deleting the account, at least never commenting on anything again. No point really.
All I really want is for people to be more interested in talking about things that have value outside of the funsub bubble, and not just memeing for the sake of it. Because one day when another dumbass or a bot posts a political meme, the comments will be full of people spouting their one-line opinion, and anything I post will be downvoted into oblivion in seconds. And only guest_ will even care enough to talk back.
I hope you guys stick around, and if not find somewhere else to have fun
or
2. they take over unused accounts to post bot posts.
examples
https://funsubstance.com/icontrol/comments/
https://funsubstance.com/vectorgaze/comments/
https://funsubstance.com/ulias/comments/
-
most evidence points to the later and if it is true then after a few months to a year shik's account would be posting bot posts
-
also side note, with how the bots work it is likely that there is just 1 "bot" that has access to all accounts for posting purposes and it switches between accounts likely at random to make the next "bot post"
.
Edit: Words online do not count as harrassment. And you have to define whether the term has legal weight or not. Because if it does, anyone who says mean things online can go to jail, which is a fucking horrific idea. And if it doesn't, then why bring it up? If what you mean by harrassment is mean words online, then why not call it that? Unless.... you want to subvert and expand the definition in the legal sense and attack people who you don't like because of what they said to you.
I wouldn't like to see anyone disappear from the site, not you, not guest_, not anyone else who is willing to peacefully disagree. But I guess this is what being a proponent of free speech makes you, and you don't look like you consider yourself to be one. Certainly you don't seem to care about it, regardless of what your closeted opinion is.
You agree to not divulge trade secrets, or you obtain them through illicit means.
Child pornography violates the rights and protections of children.
You willingly subject yourself to an NDA.
Perjury is a malicious act committed after one swears to a higher authority (God, Allah, Odin, the Constitution, etc.) to tell the truth.
This ain't complicated.
.
And this is also why incitement to violence, as well as defamation, libel, slander, etc are not considered such. "Go and attack this person" is not a political idea, but the reasoning behind it could be, which is why incitement as a call to action is illegal, but discussing the reason behind such a statement is not. Same goes for defamation. If you lie about someone, you are not expressing a political opinion that is rooted in reality, so it is not protected by free speech.
.
I don't know if @xvarnah is still following, but I think he'd be interested, so I'll tag him.
'
First: a Few things I'll add:
-Shikharizard was well aware (and almost completely unconcerned) with the fact that he was an asshole.
'
Also: shik was never actually a person you could summon to use as a defender. If he didn't agree with whatever you'd summoned him to, or found it boring, you had equal likelihoods that he would turn around, tell you you're a schmuck (but in more colourful language), declare the entire situation stupid or boring, and then leave. Or else fight you himself (depending on whether he liked you at all)
'
Second, i'm gonna:
-Apologize for the length of this
-Disclaim to everyone that I'm not a lawyer so everything I say here is just my understanding of the laws as they apply to the American legal system so far
'
However, how these are applied are extremely different things.
'
Annoy in a legal sense does not, as far as I understand it, apply to people being inflammatory on the internet. It applies more to situations like "someone was phoning my house, repeatedly, in the middle of the night, every night." Or "someone was phoning the place I work/showing up there specifically to cause problems."
'
To paraphrase a YouTuber, if the legal sense of harassment applied to anything that annoyed you, you could go outside with a horrible hangover, and then demand the birds be arrested because their chirping gave you a headache, left you annoyed, and therefore they were harassing you.
'
Child Porn is the easiest one to start with because it is rarely held back to just speech. Images, books (maybe, not sure), and video depicting real children does not in any way fall under free speech. All videos and images of children are essentially considered active crime scenes (as near as I can tell), and viewing them is essentially engaging in the revictimization of the child(ren). However, video, images, and books portraying fictional characters that are underage (sometimes with the stipulation that they cannot look realistic) is not, in a lot of places, illegal. If it were the anime industry would have a sudden crippling problem.
'
However, the books do not actively encourage/promote abuse, and do not portray a real victim, therefore they are not in violation of anyone's rights. The people they OFFEND with this content can actively choose not to read them.
'
'
'
*I say "gotten to print in America" because the books are from the UK as far as I know, and I have no knowledge at all of their legalities when it comes to free speech
'
In this way it and hate speech seem to mesh. Standing on your lawn and saying "I hate women, they're all bitches who should know their place and be on their backs" is hateful. But it's not illegal. Saying "times were better when all the blacks were slaves, should never have given them rights" is hateful. But (as far as I know) in America it's not illegal.
'
When it becomes a problem (as far as I know) is when you make proclamations in a way that violates the rights of others (disturbing the peace for example), or when it demonstrates a potential actionable intent to HARM others. Outside of that, when it comes to the internet it generally falls upon any given website's ToS
'
Most commonly these words have to be provably false for there to be an actionable case of defamation. However, as I've learned recently, in some places in America, truth is NOT an absolute defence in a defamation case.
'
What this means is, it doesn't necessarily MATTER if the statements you make against someone are, in fact, true. This can be argued to be irrelevant if the statements you make are damaging enough, and it can be proven they were made with malicious intent.
'
In other words: the words you said did damage to the person you said them about, above and beyond simply hurting their feelings. You're allowed to hurt peoples' feelings. You're not allowed to ruin their ability to earn a living or try and burn their lives to the ground. And this is why defaming someone doesn't fall under free speech: it HAS a victim. It violates someone's rights.
'
However, this very rarely will ever apply to a situation where two people are engaged in a back and forth that, when broken down, often equates to "I hate your opinion!" "I hate your opinion more!"
'
That's not the kind of thing the constitution gives a crap about policing 99% of the time.
'
'
There was something I meant to address and forgot, but I can't remember what it was and I've rambled long enough so I'll turn the comment section back over to someone else now
'
If you don't care that he's gone why on earth are you here on the post saying he's leaving? Commenting multiple times about how little you care about something indicates the exact opposite of an incapability to "care less."
'
Also I love the fact that you have declared him a bad person for calling you out on your own behaviour, but show up here like you have the moral high ground when you do the same. Except you're doing it when he's not even around to defend himself.
'
All that said, let's sum this up:
-you both agreed you're a psycho
-you're fine with this and also insanely riled up about it
-neither of you care the other is no longer around. At least one of you cares a whole lot less than the other, I guarantee, but nevertheless.
'
Glad we could get that sorted and put on the shelf