Having an opinion is not, and cannot be outlawed. _Expressing_ these opinions out loud in a public forum, however, is a different matter. Hate speech (with its various definitions) is actually outlawed in many places around the world.
Multiculturalism: can make people fear for their lives.
People are only allowed to express their fears about one of those issues, and the government decides which of those fears is valid. This is despite the fact that both racism and multiculturalism can make people fear for their lives. That's utterly dystopian.
In general with social media moderating, I'm very much against harassment but I believe people should be able to freely express their beliefs. If you're not following a person who you disagree with, what does it hurt?
I am curious how multiculturalism makes people fear for their life. Do you mean that a certain group of people may lose their lifestyle? Or do you actually mean life-death scenarios? I am trying quite hard, but I cannot think of any situation of multiculturalism that makes somebody fear their own death. Unless, if in fact you are talking about violence and crime from immigrants, you are free to express it.
Furthermore, the principles of racism and multiculturalism are so different, that it’s interesting that you compare them. Almost always racism can be shown to be linked to violence and murder, but multicultralism is a policy that my country, Canada, has successfully modeled. I have never feared for my life. I think it is safe to say that although the implementation of multiculturalism policies may be flawed in some countries, multiculturalism itself doesn’t cause life-death scenarios.
>Almost always racism can be shown to be linked to violence and murder
If a nation says "we only want our people in our country" that would lead to violence and murder? How?
>but multicultralism is a policy that my country, Canada, has successfully modeled
Compared to what? Japan isn't multicultural and it has lower violent crime than Canada. I can't find an arrest breakdown by race for Canada, but here's NYC: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-5s21EXsAUjLzP.jpg
>multiculturalism itself doesn’t cause life-death scenarios
"Not surprisingly, the length of a conflict and its casualty rate is 25 percent higher in areas where an ethnicity is divided by a national border as opposed to areas where ethnicities have a united homeland."
Racism is not a political opinion. Political opinions are along the lines of "are my taxes too high" or "do we spend more on parks or on police".
A belief in the inferiority of another race isn't political, it's something else. I don't know what, but discriminatory and bigoted beliefs don't belong in political discussions or any discussions about how we govern ourselves or organize society.
Are you saying that it's beyond the pale to even have a conversation about diversity and immigration policy? Are you assuming that an inflow of people from anywhere in the world is always good or neutral?
First of all muslims aren't really a "race". Debates about race are completely irrelevant, they are criticizing islamic culture and religion. No one would care about someone mocking christian beliefs of culture.
Second you are right. Beliefs about differences between races aren't political. They are scientific. These are scientific question that are completely beyond politics. Your morality or political opinions have no impact on the truth value of scientific claims. Censoring things does not make them untrue.
The whole "islamic culture" thing is just a populist move. In the end they dont care if the refugees are islamic or christian (there are actually a lot of christian people in the arabic speaking region)
Also they are constantly talking about saving the german/north european culture/people. This is more about race and racism than anything else.
Regarding the second part: Its obviously true that there is a scientific base to racial questions but discussions about it are rarely based on scientific research. Most of the time its a political / cultural conflict.
>In the end they dont care if the refugees are islamic or christian (there are actually a lot of christian people in the arabic speaking region)
Yes they do. Even Trump has supported increasing Christian refugees. Although religion is far from the only important factor to Western culture.
>Also they are constantly talking about saving the german/north european culture/people. This is more about race and racism than anything else.
I fail to see how wanting to preserve your race is racism. I like my own people and want to see them continue. It doesn't mean I literally hate and oppose other peoples.
And I really do think you underestimate the cultural aspect of it. If they were brown skinned but otherwise culturally indistinguishable from Europeans, I think far fewer people would care. Labeling your opponents "racists" is just a convenient way of dismissing their concerns.
>Its obviously true that there is a scientific base to racial questions but discussions about it are rarely based on scientific research.
That's more of an issue that average people don't know how to do scientific research or think scientifically. I think they intuitively see things like "hey this group of people seems to do way worse" and "the mainstream oppression narrative doesn't really make sense." Without having the knowledge to dig up the actual statistics and figures to prove that.
>I fail to see how wanting to preserve your race is racism. I like my own people and want to see them continue. It doesn't mean I literally hate and oppose other peoples.
As soon as you value people based on their race ("your people" are worth more than others) you are in racist territory.
>And I really do think you underestimate the cultural aspect of it. If they were brown skinned but otherwise culturally indistinguishable from Europeans, I think far fewer people would care.
In Germany the most racism takes place in regions where nearly no immigrants/refugees live. The people are just afraid and do not try to find out if "they" are that different after all (spoiler alert: they are not)
>Labeling your opponents "racists" is just a convenient way of dismissing their concerns.
This is true and i dont want to dismiss anybodies opinion but if you talk about banning a whole race/religion from entering your country (trump) or refuse to help refugees from certain reasons (german afd in the article) and discredit them at every opportunity you are by definition a racist.
>As soon as you value people based on their race ("your people" are worth more than others) you are in racist territory.
Then 99.99% of humans who have ever lived are "racist". It's an meaningless mindkilling word, stop using it.
The weirdest thing about this is most liberals qualify as "racist" by your definition, when they take the outside view. For instance China taking over Tibet. And flooding it with Chinese immigrants, to outnumber and replace the Tibetan people. Or similar things done by Russians to areas they conquered. Or some aspects of what happened to the native americans. Liberals seem pretty upset by these things and even consider them genocide.
>In Germany the most racism takes place in regions where nearly no immigrants/refugees live.
Because immigrants congregate in cities, and cities tend to be more liberal. Besides don't take what people vote for too seriously. When put to it, even liberal whites show a strong preference for living in white neighborhoods.
Racism does not have to be about "the inferiority of another race". Racism can be "I don't think it's good for the economy that so many people from outside are coming" or "this culture is completely incompatible with ours and I don't want these people here". It's a pretty lax word. By outlawing "racism" you're outlawing discourse.
This is not true; as in, racism has a clear dictionary definition as "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
Volksverhetzung is juristically exhaustively defined and none of your "racism can be" statements fulfill that definition.
Volksverhetzung is not about "inciting hatred", which does not convey the concept. This article also isn't about Volksverhetzung, it's about the NetzDG, a new law.
If you try to define all Christians as X, you're probably mistaken.
If it's a negative definition designed to insult then it's probably discrimination.
The whole point of being anti racism, anti religious discrimination etc., is that race and religion are not good qualifiers for making assumptions or decisions.
The parent asked you if disliking Christianity was racist, not if it was religious discrimination. Please answer them.
If, say PEW Research asks a statistically significant portion of people who identify themselves one way, and a large amount of them self declare they have awful views, is reporting this bad because it's 'negative'?
No, it's perfectly fine to have an opinion about an ideology, like: "I don't believe in the Bible/Christianity, etc.". A statement like that only makes a judgement about yourself which is of course your right.
If you dislike something, there's usually a fear underneath that. People who dislike Christianity on a deeper level are probably afraid that if everyone was Christian X would happen. Sometimes that's realistic, sometimes it's not, but expressing your fear is OK and usually helps people understand you better than if you simply say "I don't like X type of people".
When you switch your focus to a group of human beings and say "I don't believe Christians are...", you're judging others. When we judge others we're probably bias in some way because none of us have enough accurate information to uniformly judge the millions of unique people that identify with a race or religion.
Just saying "I" first doesn't mean you can then say whatever you want. If the target of your judgements is a person or group of people, you're probably not being honest with yourself about what you're uncomfortable with and projecting your fears onto a group of people. That's typically what racism is about.
Instead, it's usually more accurate to express your fears about a particular non-human target (like a law, behavior, etc.) and leave people out of it.
- Not believing in the bible is different from saying Christianity is harmful.
- I agree it sounds harsh to say one dislikes Scientologists or Muslims or Stuffed crust pizza lovers. However that doesn't address the fact that you implied doing one of these was racist, when none of these are races and all are beliefs.
And responding to the point you made:
> When we judge others we're probably bias in some way because none of us have enough accurate information to uniformly judge the millions of unique people that identify with a race or religion.
Many seperate, independent groups have surveyed significant portions of Muslims across the world and found consistent and disturbing results.
Do we mean every individual person? No, to measure things we need to paint broad brush strokes.
- No sensible adult would think that a group has a hive mind.
- Nearly all would (and should) be concerned if most members of a group wanted to make being gay illegal (amongst other issues).
You're right, discrimination against a religious group is not racism. I don't know the exact word, maybe bigoted?
To follow my own advice:
I feel scared when a judgement is made about a group of people because I'm scared of examples in history where races, religions, genders, nationalities or sexual orientations were judged as a group with disturbing consequences. I feel scared when people project their fears onto other groups because I'm scared of how they might act on those fears against innocent people. I'm scared that I can't really know or trust someone who isn't honest with themselves about what they're afraid of. I feel sad when people have to deal with judgements against them based on how they were born or raised because it doesn't seem fair or kind to me. I feel angry when people focus on the behavior of one group when other groups also have that behavior because it feels hypocritical to me to not also stand up to the other groups. I feel sad when people make judgements about a group of people based on what other people have said or reported because I've gained friendships with people who I used to judge but who I've now learned to approach with curiosity. I feel scared when people make judgements about individuals based on polls because I've seen examples of inaccurate polling and how the phrasing of a question can significantly change the results of a poll and I feel scared because I've never been asked to participate in a poll and I wouldn't want to be judged based on assumptions people might have about attributes that I was born or raised with but don't fully define me like my nationality, gender, religion, etc. I feel scared when people assume that people who identify with a group agree with everything that group says or does because I know that's not true for me and I can't recall meeting anyone who always agrees with any other person or leader and I'm scared that they'll judge me not based on my beliefs but on what they assume my beliefs to be. I feel ignored when people paint me with broad brush strokes because I view myself as an individual and I'm scared that if you're ignoring my individuality by putting me in a box that you don't care about me as a person.
I agree that it's faster to make assumptions about people and statistically you might be right about some of those assumptions. But, my fear is that history is not kind when people start judging other races, religions, political affiliations, genders, etc.
So, in the sense that it sounds like you feel scared about safety for gays because of laws or cultural beliefs that being gay is a crime, I would agree with you and I share that same fear for their safety and freedom. And if you choose to promote gay tolerance in the Philippines because you think it's most needed there, great -- that's your personal way of acting on your fear. But that sounds a lot different to me than "An independent survey says that most Muslims have disturbing beliefs." or "Muslims believe in anti-gay policies." I feel more comfortable saying: "Gay equality is important to me and I'm willing to try to protect them against people who make threats against their safety, so I'm going to the Philippines to try to make the biggest impact I can there.".
So, I guess my question to you is if safety for gays is so important to you, why not promote standing up to anyone who discriminates gays and leave the door open to standing up to a non-Muslim anti-gay person as well?
As a US citizen it was unfortunately not that long ago when a group of men brutally murdered a young boy for being gay. And growing up in high school, "gay" or "faggot" was the most vicious insult against another male. For me, I see disturbing bias against gays right here at home, even today. So, unfortunately I see anti-gay behavior as a human problem that spans cultures and religions.
Hey there. I can see that we're going to disagree about this, but thanks for your reply and acknowledging my point re: disliking Islam not being racist. I see your point about history, but to me religion is separate because it's not an intrinsic value, whereas the others are. Re: the Philipines I think the people should give up conservative Catholicism much like people should give up Islam.
But it's cool, I think we have a pretty clear idea of where the other person stands.
Thanks for the polite response and have a lovely evening.
But now I've met some people who believe their religion is bigger than them as an individual. Renouncing it is simply not something they believe they have the power or right to do. Other times, they're born into a religious community and renouncing a religion means losing their community, which can feel like dying or worse. In Muslim majority countries, I can imagine there is a powerful force of not wanting to feel ostracized.
Sure, and the threat of losing a community applies to many extreme groups. I don't see how it changes anything or means they're something we don't have to worry about.
The false idea that religion is intrinsic is used to silence and justify violently attacking people that criticise religion, particularly Islam.
But let's agree to stop messaging each other. This is a waste of time - it's a shit ideology and I honestly feel no need to justify disliking it. You feel that Islam being a religion makes it exempt. I get that, I just disagree.
Additionally, someone keeps angrily downvoting anything I write here - even basic stuff like 'Islam isn't a race' - and I fear for the health of my HN account!
Wouldn't that be racist against stuffed crust pizza?
Why one idea and not the other? Are we allowed to dislike Christianity? Scientology? Libertarianism? Socialism? Capitalism? Cutting off dogs tails? If so, what makes Islam non dislikeable?
Are you aware of the many ex Muslims and the harassment they receive? The people who've criticised Islam and been killed for it? Do you think declaring Islam non dislikeable helps this?
Do you know anyone who is an ex black person or ex white person or ex asian? Why not?
When you focus on certain groups you're probably missing the point.
There are Christian parents who have banned their child from returning home when they renounced religion.
And there are many Muslims who accept people after they renounce Islam.
Instead, probably better to say: When people harass someone who doesn't agree with them, I feel afraid for that person's safety. That's not racist and still honors your fear.
To just focus on Muslims doing this shows a bias and lumps many innocent people into a stereotype.
Focusing on ideas is necessary to deal with the problem. By ignoring it, you're missing the point.
You seem to think I'm focusing on people, but: a person who believes in the idea of Islam is a Muslim, is the same way a person who believes in communism is a communist and a person who believes in fascism is a fascist. There is little difference between saying a bad idea is bad versus saying supporters of a bad idea are bad for supporting it.
Surveying Muslims worldwide and asking them if, for example, they think being gay should be illegal, and reporting what they say, is not bias, it is fact.
You're promoting bias by suggesting we ignore those results.
And again, because you haven't responded: Islam isn't a race. If we can be racist aginst Islam, can we be racist against people who like stuffed crust pizza?
It's much better to say "I'm afraid for the safety and lack of equality and freedom for gay people if being gay is illegal." By focusing on Muslims, you're making it personal and ignoring many non-Muslim countries and religions which have anti-gay beliefs.
If the gay equality issue is important to you, why are you focused so narrowly on Muslims? Why not simply focus on your core issue which is equality for gays?
Making it about your fear allows people to hear you and is not arguable. Saying "Muslims are anti-gay" is arguable because you can't accurately survey billions of Muslims worldwide and statistically you'll probably find millions of Muslims who don't agree with every aspect of the religion and some that are gay themselves.
Religion and races are not consistent or homogenous. Lumping people together on those criteria is rarely accurate or productive.
For semantics, the term racism applies to race as you mentioned. If you hate Muslims that I suppose the best way to describe you is bigoted or a religious discriminator.
And as you seem intent on the pizza aspect, pizza isn't a person. While hating a pizza sounds like anger issues, it's certainly not the same connotation or implications of hating a person. If you want to be kinder to your pizza friends, you could say "I prefer the taste of thin crust pizza". If you want to be kinder to your human friends, I would focus on what you want rather than what you think a group of unique people is all acting out in unison.
Or, simply confronting violence against gays includes Islam-related violence against gays. I'm simply not excluding other violence against gays from my outrage.
Rather than saying "Islam is bad", it might be better to say "I don't like X about Islam because Y." If you are more specific and give a reason, it's easier for people to hear you. But yes, taking the person out of it does make it easier for people to hear you as well.
I'm more calling into question the feasibility of accurately surveying billions of Muslims worldwide, especially in authoritarian countries where people might not feel free to be honest, or in war torn countries where access is dangerous or impossible. In any event, do you have a citation for this global survey?
I think you make the world better by calling out the problem exactly as you mentioned.
But I would advocate focusing on the problem. I can't think of any human behavior that is universally contained and ubiquitous within a single race or religion. Even if you take the most sensational elements of Islam like stoning someone to death, very few Muslim countries practice that, so it's not ubiquitous. Or, if you call out something so common world-wide as anti-gay laws or behavior, it seems like you're consciously ignoring the billions of non-Muslims who live in governments or follow religions with active discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Religions are so broad and open to interpretation that it's probably statistically impossible not to find anything you agree with (or disagree with) in a major religion. Instead, it sounds like there are specific human behaviors that don't sit well with you and that's totally understandable.
I wouldn't hesitate to 'Nazism is bad' or 'Communism is bad' or 'Fascism is bad' - and saying 'I don't like X about fascism' doesn't really make the same point.
You can say those things, but if I feel judged I know it's hard for me to really hear the person who's judging me. I guess it depends on your goal. If you want to make people who agree with you feel comfortable, maybe judgements would serve that purpose. But if you want people to change their behavior, I'm not sure I've seen blanket judgements like that have success.
People who need to get absolutely the most bang for the buck have no ties to any given supplier. Cray deployed one of the first Opteron-based supercomputers.
Intel got lots of datacenter business simply by having a better (as in "better suited to our demands") product than anyone else in the segment. AMD has a short time window to make some large sales. They have until Intel ships a microcode fix or a new line of processors.
I haven't seen any articles about AMD PSP security vulnerabilities yet, but there's a new one about IME every other month. If Intel truly is the most secure in the world, why are their CPUs riddled with security bugs big enough to drive trains through (IME has de facto become a integral part of Intel CPUs) and where are the news about non-Intel CPUs with similar bugs?
No, but it does mean more secure than anything else, which is pretty doubtful. Competitors to x86 have always had an advantage as far as security goes; then there is the ME mess; and now we have this latest bug. Nobody expects perfection, but Intel is not "most secure in the world" by any stretch.
Saying "women are worse at negotiating" is really not the whole story. Women are less likely to negotiate, and less likely to negotiate in ways that are most effective for men, but it's not because women are bad at negotiating, but rather that women are punished for attempting to negotiate. A woman who attempts to use the same negotiation strategies that are effective for men is likely to be considered abrasive, hostile, "not a team player", etc. and is more likely to be passed over for promotion, to be given an even smaller salary / raise, or to be dismissed altogether.
Women's approach to negotiating is effective and rational given the constraints, even though from the outside it may seem like women are bad at negotiating.
Evidence is that as more women enter a field, or start gaining visibility, salaries typically go down. This is why people assume "women choose lower paying roles" - the reality is that people see any jobs that women do as less valuable and compensation over time adjusts to meet that belief.
>Or could it be because the traits one needs to cultivate in order to achieve high status have an overlap with the traits that are desirable in romantic partners (e.g. empathy, integrity, being an active listener, knowing when and how to compromise)?
IMHO those traits may well be a handicap to becoming high status. Especially in an organisation like an investment bank that selects for promotion by perceived characteristics like driven, goal oriented, focused...
Using Debian Stable on a desktop is probably the closer to hell that you could ever get. Imagine to never be able to get that one feature you need because it's only in a more recent version.
The best option for a stable desktop is Gentoo, where you can run old software but then unmask recent stuff if you need it. As a recent example I'll say that MTP support in stable (libmtp) was flaky for my mobile phone. With Debian I would've had to suck dicks in the bug tracker forever to get the fix backported. With Gentoo I just unmask a more recent version et voilà. And that applies to any software you could ever need: you are always going to need more recent versions of certain packages at some point. Stuff that gets fixed, a certain new feature you want, a more recent kernel...
I know someone is going to mention apt pinning but that only works in theory since pinning a more recent version of a certain package usually means you have to update half your packages to unstable because of dependencies. And in that case why even use stable?
Get with the times, gramps. Arch is where the racing stripes are at now. Not held back by all these weird dinosaur architectures Arch can really optimise for superior speed, and features, and modern things, leaving Slackware steamboats, Debian diesels, and Gentoo petrols in the dust, because Arch is the EV of Linux operating systems.
The world of anecdata and pointless optimalisations has transcended Gentoo. You're now the Debian stable of the next generation of Linux users, and boy do they know better!
----
with apologies to any Arch and Gentoo users out there. Your OS is fine. I just thought it was amusing if you look, out of context, at these developments.
I've used Arch years ago. It was a trainwreck. They had a very very bad QA and I had to reinstall every few months. The community is also full of people I wouldn't want to have around, as your own message shows.
Also I don't use Gentoo to get "pointless optimisations". Ricers are the low hanging fruit that's there to be mocked. I use Gentoo because it's the best rolling out there.
> full of people I wouldn't want to have around, as your own message shows.
That's way stronger than anything I intended to say, even if I made a bit of fun of the overly enthusiastic ones.
My joke was based on that way back when, when Gentoo was younger and the hip distro, whenever a thread discussed Debian on the desktop or server, a newly minted Gentoo user would drop by to extol the virtues of Gentoo for every use case possible: "But I use it on servers," "My desktop is so much faster," etc.
Now in this, and similar threads, I notice it's the Arch users who have taken over this function. So when you brought out Gentoo, it felt like a blast from the past, prompting me to accuse you of being "out of touch" for humourous effect. No offence (well, very minor offence) was intended, and I bear no ill will towards either Arch or Gentoo users.
>I've used Arch years ago. It was a trainwreck. They had a very very bad QA and I had to reinstall every few months.
Wow, just about the only OS I've never needed to reinstall is Arch (and I am a 99% Linux user and work and at home). My longest running install is something like 7 years on a desktop, and my laptops tend to die or get replaced on about a 3-4 year cycle.
IMHO the best option currently for a stable OS with up-to-date desktop apps is NixOS. NixOS allows one to have a stable base OS then install packages in the user account from a different channel. Since it uses deterministic builds, the binary caches typically mean no building needs to happen locally. NixOS permits multiple versions of any application/library/dependency to be installed side-by-side, even libc. I run such a configuration and all my desktop packages are completely up-to-date, while my base OS and system components are tracking a stable release.
There is a fundamental difference between system and applications. All common Linux distro unify them into one package management mechanism. Your comment suggests that NixOS is flexible enough to make a split.
Android and iOS clearly separate system and applications and it mostly works fine.
Ubuntu tries to split off applications via snap [0], but so far adoption seems marginal.
If I understand NixOS correctly, there is no explicit distinction between system and applications, and everything is handled by the same package management mechanism. The value proposition is in having clean separation between all packages, such that each application can be presented with its own mix of system packages without any conflicts between them.
> You can ask the ISP. They are supposed to store metadata.
What you say is true, but prosecutors/investigators have little incentive to jump through another hoop. If they are willing to prosecute someone with just circumstantial evidence of an IP address, they aren't really looking to find the perpetrator, only a fall guy.
It's not ridiculous. Some countries (and States, iirc) require that speeding and red light tickets have to be issued to the driver of the car, so traffic cameras capture both the licence plate and the driver's face.
Similarly, if I torrent pirated media in a Starbucks, should the store be charged?
Yes, but that's only partially the reason, or rather, in some cases.
In my state, that was specifically to cover "well, if you deny driving the vehicle..." situations, where people would say "Oh, it wasn't me, I lent my car to someone/my kids drove/whatever", and law enforcement replying "Who?" "Oh, I don't know. Sorry."
Now it's to increase the burden of proof. It's reasonable to assume that if you own a vehicle, you were driving it. It's furthermore reasonable to assume that you should be able to identify who was driving the vehicle, from the face, even if you do have multiple people driving.
If you then refuse to identify the person, or "I don't know", then it's tantamount (in the law's eyes) to saying you weren't taking due regard to the care of operation of your vehicle (after all, if you don't even know their name, how do you know they're licensed?).
The assumption that the owner of a piece of equipment (be it cars or computers)know is always responsible for how it is used is not valid. Cars are stolen with significant frequency, for example. People also drive them without permission (e.g. a spouse gives the keys to a visiting in-law). There are plenty of situations where somebody may not be able to identify who was using the car.
Computer crimes are the same way. It may be possible to prove what equipment it's implicated in a crime, but that's rarely sufficient to make any individual responsible without other evidence. People give WiFi passwords to their guests, equipment is hacked, etc. Establishing that an owner of a router or computer is responsible for anything it is used for unless proven otherwise opens a massive attack surface for blackmail, extortion, etc.
> Cars are stolen with significant frequency, for example.
Presumably you'd report your car stolen, no?
> People also drive them without permission (e.g. a spouse gives the keys to a visiting in-law).
Then you'll be able to identify the person via a picture of their face, most likely, no?
> Establishing that an owner of a router or computer is responsible for anything it is used for unless proven otherwise
I'm not trying to say any different, in fact I'm saying that it is a "reasonable" assumption, and as with any reasonable assumption there are notable exceptions, by which showing the driver's face is a reasonable method by which saying "No, Your Honor, the person driving my vehicle is not me". In some states you may not even be obliged to identify the driver, only show that it "is not you".
To tie a request made over CGNAT to the ISP's customer you need both the IP address and the port number of the connection. In my experience, most software that logs IP addresses doesn't bother to log the port number. (Probably because it wasn't relevant before CGNAT came along.)
How many arrests have happened because of CP posted on, say, Facebook? Or on Reddit? Is there any proof that CP is more likely to be posted on the 4chan imageboard than anywhere else on the Internet? Do you think the owners of 4chan somehow encourage the posting of CP?
Literally the first discussion I had with a friend who used 4chan, a decade or so ago, was about how people posted lots of child porn on /b/, but it typically got removed.
It doesn’t matter who encourages what. The mods obviously don’t like it, but somehow 4chan spent years attracting tons of people who love to post child porn.
