Hey fellow schemers. You guys are nice and there's a texboard list over there, let's share the imageboards we use!
I use lainchan and arisuchan for programming related threads, sushigirl for the comfy feeling.
Another comfy website is lewd, though not a chan.
and of course http://goatfinger.ga/j
(thanks for lewd.sx, it's new to me)
that, and also:
NanoChan Bunker: http://nanobunkv5kedrtq.onion/nano/g
I read posts here all the time. it's much more relaxed than lolcow and I like reading different perspectives on things.
>>7 Thanks, it's not an imageboard though and has already been cited in >>>1
In >>>/sol/1 *
Hey, do you have a b32 or helper link for that? I can't go to it without a b32 in my address book.
which one is the one without the pedos again?
lainchan.org had a big kerfuffle about a paedo channel on their irc server which the admin defended with the reason being free speech and a lot of users were not happy. It's difficult to say which of the two has the least proportion of nonces since both cater to anime fans and libertarian ideas which inevitably leads to paedophilia apologia.
Heh, I guess I'm not the only one.
I remember that. Appleman's an autist who has kind of run lainchan into the ground and let /pol/ have gains. There was only one big pedo though. As far as the numbers are concerned, .jp is a lot less active. You don't really see that type of thing outside IRC anyway. I will say .jp was/is more of an old guard thing so libertarian for them is in the sense of having sympathy for anarchism. Honestly if someone can stomach the cult of lainiggers, it shouldn't be an issue.
may as well shill mine on here, doubt it'll get much traction but yeh;
I'm really digging this IB tho, is similar to the original idea of mine, but has actually been done rather than using one of the more common IB engines out there.
Appleman's an autist who has kind of run lainchan into the ground and let /pol/ have gains.
i disagree i think he's doing a fine job keeping them out. of course i see it now and then but in this day and age it's pretty much a given if you're running an imageboard. i havent been on arisuchan in a while but id expect to see the same or similar amounts of /pol/ posters (very little, that is).
but please why you think he let /pol/ posters run amock, i'm curious.
as for the arisuchan vs. lainchan thing i have no clue about it other than the fact that steph or whatever is dumb and essentially gave-in to russian fags who purely reside in their DDT board. i heard steph has terrible opsec in general. also the merger with that dumbass cult board (i forget their name - it had something to do with the universe being a simulation and said simulation would be reset so upload a bunch of shit about yourself and we can save you after the reset, also you have to die after May 20th or someshit), was it called SystemSpace or something?
as for the kalyx guy i kind of liked him, even if he is an asshole for wiping lainchan.org (as a prank - turns out appleman had backups on the same server - bad move both parties obviously). i find the whole situation hilarious as an outside observer.
gopher-based 4chan archive:
And many more chans:
smugboard, an IPFS-based imageboard
>>15 That's a really neat idea.
Now that is fucking cool.
If you think that's cool, the cripple has written a draft on the subject: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vNye_et1JZQquT9Oiz1wVnikEGU8zUZ7/view
I forgot about that.
that didn't work. hmm. is linking to other threads enabled?
It's a new one >>> https://heyuri.cf/
...cater to anime fans and libertarian ideas which inevitably leads to paedophilia apologia.
I'm not sure I understand how anime + libertarianism -> paedophilia. Also, what's wrong with paedophilia? And don't just say "child rape" because that's a problem with nonconsent. And don't just say that children can't consent, they can. And don't just say that children's consent can't be informed, it can. Informed consent requires only that the consenter has a complete understanding of that to which he is consenting. There is nothing about the length of time for which one has been alive which determines the ability to be informed. Besides being informed, it is also necessary that he have the maturity to properly evaluate his options and choose the one which is in his best interest. This, also, is not determined by age. Further, a less popular aspect of anti- age-of-consent, is that there are many persons who are above the "age of consent", who are not sufficiently mature, in that they do not become informed about that to which they consent, or do not evaluate the options, or do not choose an option which is in their best interest. They are over the "age of consent", yet their consent is not informed.
The argument that paedophiles just want to manipulate malleable minds does not hold, because there are plenty people who are at least the "age of consent", whose minds are at least as malleable as children's minds.
Americans think anything sexual relating to under-21s or with a big age gap regardless of age = pedophilia, which is wrong both medically and legally.
They also think drawings can be child porn, so it's not too hard to understand why he would make that sort of association.
And of course, libertarianism can be very dogmatic and inflexible, especially the deontological variety supported by the likes of Rothbard and Hoppe, which obviously means supporting the legalization of various "victimless crimes", regardless of whether they are socially acceptable. Many libertarians take that to its logical conclusion and assume stuff like child porn to be victimless, usually they argue that possessing footage containing murder, adult rape or any other crime really is not currently forbidden. Mary Ruwart comes to mind but I'm sure there are others.
Here I'll say much about "libertarianism". This is because, according to my knowledge, it is about libertarianism. Of course, I could be wrong it, or whatever. Never trust anything. Not what you read, not what you hear, not what someone tells you, not even yourself (I don't trust yourself, either).
Nor myself. Think for yourself. If you see something wrong, point it out. Or don't point it out, but if you don't point it out, don't complain. Don't be a ninny. If anything, this can be interpreted as what is in accord with my knowledge about it, but I'm not going to specify that each time, because that's takes up too much of anyone's time. It is something that is important to keep in mind, though. Whatever is said, is said by someone using his knowledge, his abilities, his ideas, or, perhaps, his lies, misconceptions, et cetera.
libertarianism can be very dogmatic
No, it can't. Dogmatism is against libertarianism.
libertarianism can be very inflexible
In the sense of involutive logical rigour? Sure, but that's not what people usually mean by "inflexible". They usually mean that it's inflexible in practise, which libertarianism is not. If anything, libertarianism is the most practically flexible of all it's compettitors.
supporting the legalization of various "victimless crimes"
In a certain sense, yes, but no. This sentence demonstrates that you don't know the first thing about libertarianism: that there are no laws, therefore no crimes, therefore no idea about "legalizing" anything. There are, instead, actions. Some actions have bad consequences. Some consequences are bad for someone else. Actions whose consequences are bad for someone else (i.e. other than the actor), are analogous to crimes, in that they are proscribed. The difference is that, unlike crimes, if all affected parties agree to it (and that means informed consent), it's not proscribed.
What do you mean by "socially acceptable"? If you mean to include the opinions of a person who is not affected by it, then yes, libertarianism doesn't care about whether something is "socially acceptable". On the other hand, if you mean to include the opinions of only those who are affected by it, they libertarianism cares a great deal about whether it's "socially acceptable". The principle is that, if all affected parties agree to it, let it happen. If there is an affected party that did not agree to it, it must have some sort of recourse to collect on any damages that were caused to it.
I'm not sure what you mean by "deontological" libertarianism, becuse libertarianism is inherently not deontological. The closest thing to deontologicality in a libertarian society is the adherence to one's promises, agreements. But this is founded in matters of the goodness of the consequences, which is the opposite of deontological ethics, which is about following whatever set rules, which is exactly what most contemporary legal-systems have as their basis: a set of rules decided one way or another, which people must follow, lest the government punish them.
Burn your straw man elsewhere.
[libertarians] assume stuff like
What does it matter what a some libertarians assume? In most of my life, I assume that the world is flat. In reality, it's a globe. Locally, it's flat, but I only rarely need to make that distinction. And that I assume the earth is flat doesn't imply that that's something that libertarianism is about. Partly, libertarianism is about letting me believe whatever I want, such as that the world is flat. What really matters, to libertariansim, is the libertarian principle (non-aggression), adherence to the libertarian principle. That it's logically rigourous implies that if one doesn't like a conclusion, one can argue about whether the proof is valid, or about whether the principle is true. Humans make mistakes, they might use false logic to come to a conclusion. They conclusion they might come to may even be true. Of course, one important activity is finding flaws in people's arguments, and a constant re-evaluation of the principle(s).
Now, I'll assume that you meant that libertarianism assumes these things. It doesn't. It only assumes the non-aggression principle. If there is a problem with this principle, I encourage you to let whatever problem there may be about this principle be known.
Perhaps you meant that libertarianims comes to the conclusion that ...
stuff like child porn [is] victimless
Which is a really strong statement. Let's consider whether libertarianism would conclude that child port is victimless. What is a victim? By libertarianism, a victim is one who has been harmed by aggression, or who has been harmed by violence that is in excess of necessity for restitution.
What does it mean for child porn to be victimless? If we mean that the whole industry is victimless, then presently, no. There are victims.
There are, for example, children who did not give their informed consent to be filmed, who, for example, may be psychologically harmed, perhaps only later in life, by the knowledge that someone (probably) has seen them participating in those activities. Or, perhaps, a viewer might stalk them.
There may be children who did not give their informed consent to take part in the sexual activities. In some cases, it seems as though the child is being physically forced or coerced to participate. It may be, as with BDSM porn using adult BDSM porn actors, that the BDSM pornt actors knew what they were getting into, have a safe word, et cetera. Unlike BDSM porn using adult actors, there is no way to verify this. Often, with BDSM porn, there is information about the consent of the actors. (For example, contact details about the custodian.) With child porn, because it's illegal, posting any identifying details about any participants can lead to bad consequences. So we have a situation where there's no way to verify whether all participants geve their informed consent.
There are even videos in which it seems that the child physically harmed.
This is bad, but it is no worse than if the same were to occur with an adult porn actor.
usually [libertarians] argue that possessing footage containing murder, adult rape or any other crime really is not currently forbidden
which I assume means
libertarianism concludes that possessing footage containing murder, adult rape or any other crime is not currently forbidden.
I'm not aware of libertarianism concluding this. Could you explain how it concludes this? How does it go from the non-aggression principle to the nonforbiddance of possesion of records of violence? It may be that libertarianism does not forbid possessing records of violence, but there may be some other systems in the world which do currently forbid it. For example, it is forbidden to possess real (as opposed to drawn) depictions, a sort of record, of a real child being raped. This is a special case of possesing real depictions of a child participating in a sexual activity, which is forbidden in many jurisdictions.
The only thing forbidden by libertarianism is aggression. If it's aggression, it's forbidden, if it's not, it is allowed. (Violence for the sake of restitution is allowed, but if the violence is excessive, it's considered aggression.)
Other things may be forbidden, for example, by a powerful aggressor such as a legal system (an instance of illegitimate forbiddance), or by one's promises or agreements (an instance of legitimate forbiddance).
Perhaps you meant that libertarianism does not forbid the posession of depictions of aggression. It doesn't. If anything, it encourages it, for the sake of freedom of information, which is important in upholding a free society. Banning the possession of some record of aggression would make it more difficult to help the victims extract restitution from the aggressor.
There is nothing inherently harmful about posessing a real depiction of violence, murder, rape, child sex, aggression, or whatever. There may be cases in which a person, having such a depiction, gets the desire to commit such an act. If the act is not aggressive, then there's nothing wrong with his doing it. If the act is aggressive, it's not the fault of the depiction, it's the fault of his psychical disorder which makes him want to do something aggressive because of a depiction of aggression. He should seek psychological help, or risk being aggressive. If he does do something aggressive, he'll be the one to blame. Probably, his insurance company will be able to recognize individuals who are at-risk for such psychical conditions, and may offer them a discount on their insurance premium if they get psychological therapy.
My guess is that you're not going to read all this. The fact that you have such misconceptions indicates that you did not learn about libertarianism before responding. That's too bad. I hate to see more another idiot increasing his idiocy.
>>36 >>37 >>38 (and this post) are all writen by me, originally as a signle post, but there's a 4096 byte limit per post. So I had to break them up. Sorry for whatever inconvenience this may have caused.
Imageboards for girls:
I went looking for this thread, as I just saw a post about this site on cc. In some sense I was hoping that posters in that thread had sought out this thread too, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
I've never posted on Crystal Cafe, but recently I've spent a considerable amount of time lurking the threads on there. Their discussions about imageboards are very interesting to me, because there are often wildly varying perspectives, some of which I never see elsewhere.
I find it interesting to look at different imageboards, and see how differing site cultures which interact with potentially overlapping sets of users can result in very different discussions. Unique sites like cc make this very readily apparent.
Another example of this is one of my other favourite boards, 4taba. Admittedly, I haven't spent much time on 4taba ever since the switch of ownership (not for any particular reason, other than that I did not know the new domain name for a time, and it slipped my mind after that). Shitaba has many similarities to this site, and definitely has an overlapping userbase in its tech threads, but also gives off a much bigger /jp/ vibe.
Most of the other boards that I browse have been mentioned here, and there's not too much that I have to say about them that hasn't already been said here or elsewhere (Lainchan, Sushi, bus-stop).
There's a lot of smaller ones and especially TOR sites that I've more or less forgotten about, save for a big list of bookmarks (e.g. >>5). Sometimes I try to read posts on Japanese textboards. Here's one on TOR that I occasionally check: http://xiwayy2kn32bo3ko.onion/tor/
I liked the idea behind https://chiru.no but the actual imageboard is completely inactive last I checked. I think it's associated with https://shamik.ooo but I haven't really been on there much. I do love the captcha system that they have though.
An honourable mention goes to einchan, which is dead as far as I can tell. There is still one ssh-textboard in the form of whisper.onthewifi.com (the username is bit, and the password is byte).
I'm in the midst of making my own textboard, and I'll likely post it here at some point in the future. I really like the idea of anonymous communication, and I'm always looking for more boards, but oftentimes the boards I like the most are slow enough that I fall out of checking up on them. I haven't checked this very site in a number of months, despite it easily being my favourite textboard.
I want to see an active image/textboard that bans cartoon stuff (anime, furries, comics, and such), "politically incorrect" posts, AND normie stuff. Wizardchan comes closest, but still misses the mark. Maybe I should just go to the old B.B.S./M.U.D. list.
Anon, you missed April fool's by 10 minutes.
What would you want to discuss on such an imageboard though? Sounds very niche, solely through the exclusion of common niches.
One of the oldest western imageboard is for discussing trains: https://www.1chan.net/
If Anon love trains, that's the place to go. Woodworking textboards are becoming very popular too.
I can't find the thread about this site on crystal.cafe. There's a thread on /b/ about textboards and imageboards, is that the one?
The thread wasn't about this site, but one of the posters mentioned it. It was a thread about dating people from 4chan, on the /feels/ board.
Found it, thanks. It's weird. As if the altboards scene was a small overlapping population.
Isn't it though?
It is and it makes me feel good to be a part of it. I love you guys ヽ(♡‿♡)ノ
It is and it is not. The prevalence of these kinds of threads shows both that there is significant overlap in board populations, but also that each individual anon has a different set of boards that they use. I doubt that each anon in each thread checks out and continues to browse every altboard that is mentioned.