Are we bad people? - Morality and the farms.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
No, we're not.

I honestly hold that folk who are drawn to places like here are infinitely more decent people than those who are typically on the recieving end from KF. That may seem like a counter-intuitive view, but most of these SJW types are truly absolutely awful people. They deserve to be watched and called out on their endless fucking bullshit.

Places like KF are essential to let off steam regarding these utter fucktards.
 
Most of us can spell, which is a start....

I don't think any of us are really awful people, its just that Generation Internet got sold the idea that they can flop everything out and its incumbent on the rest of the world to clap. Nobody forces anyone else to publicise their lives, these people put it out there for scrutiny and money - then reeee if that scrutiny doesn't kiss their arses. That, in itself, is funny and cynicism is funny - most people are here for the laugh. Fortunately it's my home country's national sport (tho the powers that be are doing their best to change that) but a lot of you have to be a lot more careful. Here is just where we can stop being careful; it's neutral.

Tl;dr We don't clap. Or do the clicky-finger thing in case anyone gets triggered (jeeeeeesus.)

Ps. Fergots. In relation to the OP, organised religion is the same as any other official organisation. It's about obedience, and crushing dissent is vital to that. I don't know how theists square "being nasty" but it's part of human nature. Evolution and resultant tribalism were around long before the monotheistic god appeared. Ingroup/outgroup has a purpose...I guess we're the outgroup but don't much care? Still a group though, and we follow the same patterns within KF itself.
 
Last edited:
I view us as morally ambivalent, but leaning towards good. We're not outright malicious like the chans have capacity to be. We don't particularly care or get emotionally invested in our lolcows' lives, though a lot of us would be pleased to see them get their shit together. In some extreme situations Kiwis have gone out of their way to help (I read the Nick Bate thread a while back; that was pretty nightmarish) but we mostly just view this board as a weird little corner of the internet where we come to point and laugh at people too dumb, stubborn or deluded to realize that posting personal nudes centered around your furry diaper fetish all over the internet under your real name is not a smart decision.
 
The site seems to have a bad reputation among people, mostly in what would be considered the "SJW"/leftist crowd. You see people like Sargon who have threads who don't actively try to shut down everything this website says about him (not that I've seen, at least) and even have used the website for information at times, and then you have the typical leftist (generally speaking) cow who goes out of their way to claim everything on this website, even things backed up by evidence, is a lie. Granted, it could be the other way around in some cases. Basically, it really depends on who you ask. Some might say "You have a KF thread? I'm so sorry you're being slandered!" and others may say "You have a KF thread? What the fuck did you do?" or "What part of your past was dug up?"

Personally, I think the username-censoring/alias-using is a little extreme, but I guess it's just to prevent troll-shielding and used for the benefit of the forum users, in case any of their secret anime yuri bondage porn is found under their frequently-used usernames.

Another note, our anonymity, to me, signifies that who we are doesn't really matter. Because none of the threads are about ourselves, we're merely observers talking about a person or topic. If you wanna share that you're a black lesbian or a white male, go ahead. The person shouldn't matter, it's the idea.
 
>is what we do wrong?
No.

>if you're a theist what do you think god makes of you shitting on the weak?
Agnostic. But if there is a God who cared about the human social order, then I'm fairly confident that he'd endorse this.

>do you have a personal philosophy which allows for this?
Outside of man, there is no such thing as right or wrong. Only man is capable of comprehending and formulating moral propositions, and virtually all of them are sourced from a kaleidoscope of nebulous intuitions.

It's only through postulating the existence of a God - which would have us claim that such intuitions are insights into His moral order. If you, like me, cannot accept the theistic claim, then you must acquiesce that the limits of moral and political theory necessitate morality as being constructed.

Does this mean morality is meaningless and it should be an anarchic and hedonistic free for all? Not if you want to win. Nature has endowed most of us with a desire for pleasure, an aversion to pain, and a desire for dominance/mastery over nature and others. More formally, there is a shared conceptual 'arrangement' of meaningful desires and interests of what are the proper ends of human behaviour. Thus, to most of us, there is a qualitative truth that there is a 'better' life than another; since we are 'sane' (ie, share the conceptual arrangement) we would choose the life of Socrates over CWC, and in most cases Socrates dissatisfied over CWC satisfied.

Morality is thus not an arbitrary and meaningless thing without God. Instead, morality is best understood in the way the anthropologists have tried to place it; as a system of low time preference behaviour that generally serves to maximise the long-term fulfillment of the afformentioned ends of well-arranged humans. Once we trade out the categorical imperative of God or of Kant's fantasies and instead see moral thought as being a hypothetical imperative born of the best empirically tested way to satisfy human interests, then we see plainly why it is in truth exceptionally moral to break degenerates, troons, and trogs.

For lolcows and weaklings are conceptually disarranged. They do not share the same interests as the human community; their pleasures and pains are aberrant and/or their mediums of power or dominance is misplaced. But you can't have a rational dialogue with that - the proper ordering of the human conceptual arrangement is ultimately born by psychology, not by the powers of ratiocination.

Thus, our work is best considered more equivocal to that of police or soldiers of the conceptual realm, rather than academics or writers. We patrol the boundaries of sanity and decency, locate aberrant agents, and proceed to break and humiliate them for the collective good. This is necessary, for if aberrant thought becomes the norm, moral precepts are questioned, and the conceptual arrangement is challenged and the traditional path of human psychological development is undermined, then the system collapses.

In an age where it is (falsely) believed that all problems may be dealt with through dialogue, and where tolerance is threatening to undermine the psychocultural order itself, our work is all the more necessary.
 
I think I'm a good person. I barely lurk threads on cows unless they're fucked up and deserve it, but the ones about people that are disabled or have depressing lives just make me upset. I'm really only here to lurk and post about normal shit like music or whatever. I don't think laughing at a dude that likes jerking off to MLP characters in diapers on the side makes me a bad person. I'm not out here catfishing Chris, just lurking threads about normal people that make absolute fools of themselves. I think a lot of you are nice people that like to laugh at stupid people online too.
 
Cosmically, it doesn't matter. Other people will still point and laugh if we don't do it, and if we do it, others get to feel better about not doing it themselves. Win-win. Might as well laugh while we rot away.
There are theists browsing the site, and they feel conflicted over this dilemma. I was raised to be Catholic, but I have no qualms about documenting absurdities while I choke on Cheeto dust.
 
I am a terrible person.

And I accept that, why can't you?

Look, some people are trannies, some are faggots, some are colored people or people of color or whatever the PC term is. And some of us make fun of those people, because let's be real, they're almost always doing something hilarious or re-tarded.
 
I never considered myself, or the members here, to be evil, just by posting here. It's human nature to want to make fun of people for doing dumb things, especially when they post it on the internet.
 
I'd be skeptical on any "we" in such a designation.

Let's say you have the numbers 75, 87, 91, 102, 117, 135, and 143. If the mean of that is 107, does 87 = 107? No, because while 87 is an individual number, 107 is the mean of all those listed with 87. Likewise, morality is relative to the individual, so long as the individual acts and thinks like so. One can only have their moral dispositions influenced if they themselves allow such to occur.

But, that said, an educated guess of the average based on my perception would be that most here are generally vulgar people, but not 'bad' by necessity.
 
The bad people are those directly interacting with or harassing the lolcows, which often makes once great cows like The Preacher from Ohio go almost radio silent.
 
I rather admit to have some guilty pleasures like kf than act like a saint. The latter is hypocritical, hipocrasy is a greater evil in my mind.
 
You know what? Maybe we are bad!
 
no, for the most part, people on here seem to have pretty valid criticisms on fandoms, people, etc. And the people who are the topics of these threads have no right to complain because they put out a lot of information about themselves on the internet in the first place.
 
I am bad at being a person, but that has nothing to do with Kiwifarms.

I fundamentally consider the people here to be a step above almost everyone we mock, though. They lack the cleverness...
 
I don't consider myself much of a good person.

but I'd like to think I'm not that bad of a person, either.

Or at the very least. I'd like do be more nice to people, than be a constant asshole

But are members on the farms bad ?
Some of them, sure.
But most of us are just a bunch of cunts who mock people for their actions.

( if we're talking about typical lolcows at least.

murderers/pedophiles/rapists.etc, deserve much more then mere mockery )

Are we too harsh ? sometimes yeah.
But we don't force them to look at this site and sometimes, even try to help them, with advice. but the effect of that really depends on how much they're willing to to improve themselves.
 
We have the capacity to be awful people all the time. Thing is, it's difficult as we will be harshly judged by society or the law for what we do. Sadly, we have pseudonyms and inhabit an obscure forum, making it easy to do harm without the fear of consequences. However, using "we" is a terrible way to put it as the people who inhabit this forum aren't part of a hive mind. They all have their own way of thinking. That being said, mercy and empathy does exist here. Not everyone here is a psychopath who wishes the worst of others. This forum is a boiling pot full of different gradients of morality. In summary, the forum isn't full of bad people as this forum isn't a hive mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom