Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • 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
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wrote this in August in jest
Can we make a rule against thread titles that are excessively and needlessly long? It's a dumb thing to care about, but almost every newer lolcow thread has this problem. It reminds me of Upworthy. "This Tumblrina's Animal Abuse Will Make You Feel Feelings." "15 Reasons Why This Transgender Attention Whore Should Be Ashamed of Herself." "This Lolcow Conclusively Proves That Retarded Manchildren Are Funny." It's condescending and I would rather not be told what to think about things before I even read them.
It seems to have been become increasingly less exaggerated as time goes on.

Everybody would stand to benefit from an enforced short-titles policy at this point. There's a sense of competition with other threads for attention, so everyone is attempting to make the titles more elaborate to hook the reader, but the fact that every thread is set up this way dilutes the effect to the point that there is no benefit to any thread compared to if they all had simple titles. The average KF veteran's brain will not light up when it sees the words "pedophile" or "dogfucker" in a title because the terms are bandied around liberally enough that they've become mundane and boring.

I could liken it kind of sort of to the end of tobacco advertising on TV in the 1970s. After the end of cigarette advertising, the cigarette companies really saw no losses since they were all more or less pouring thousands of dollars into ads to get even with one another and actually stood to gain because they no longer had to spend so many shekels just to be on level ground.

To exemplify this I can bring up the Tumblr subforum right now because the Tumblr subforum is both a part of the site I don't go to that much and a section where thread title cancer has progressed to stage 4.

upload_2016-2-2_20-9-22.png

That's a lot of new stuff for me to look at, right? When I'm presented with all this information at once I am not going to read all the titles individually so I can really absorb what all the blue letters are trying to tell me; I'm going to read multiple ones at once laterally in a grasping attempt to figure out what to click on, so what I can read the most quickly has the advantage. CatParty's threads stand out to me most of all because 1) they are short and simple and 2) they appear in a block, so they're the ones that catch my eye first.

"StraySheep II : The Return of the Tranny Spudking Sperglord Who Tried to Delete Her Thread" isn't something I'm going to read completely if I'm glancing at this huge wall with my glassy-eyed autistic stare and giving each individual thread less than a second of attention. I'll probably just read some of the words at the beginning and the middle and move on. "_____ Return of _____ Spudking ____________." In this case I would rather scroll down the list and look for something else than to try to puzzle out what it means or potentially invest 30 minutes in a thread that may be boring.
 
Limiting the pedophile thing to actual confirmed pedos is definitely a good idea, but it raises a question: should the pedophile thing be limited to people who have molested/wanted to molest actual children like the above mentioned James Terry Mitchell jr, Nick Bate, and the other Sick Nick (Nyberg) or also people who for example are interested in sexual fan works of underaged characters?

People like to argue if people who just like underage fictional characters are pedos or not, so I'm wondering where the line is here.
I'd limit it to actual children, so we don't have such a debate.
 
Short titles would be better pretty much everywhere. The ADF sub would be a reasonable exception, as we know he reads it religiously and the tabloid-style headlines don't hurt since everyone there is already interested in reading about Phil in the first place.
 
I agree, and I'd also like to add: the first post in a thread should give actual examples of how this person is a lolcow, and not just a list of links to their social media, etc. with the promise of "they're really lulzy, trust me!" It makes it look like you didn't care enough to go do research on the 'cow, and if you didn't care enough, why should the reader?

Yeah, this is something that bugs me. When I go to a thread and the OP is just a bunch of links- and not even links to an article/post that explains the lolcow- I usually just turn back because I don't see why I should care if the OP doesn't. A good OP should have a summary of who the person is and why they're a lolcow, with bonus points given to screencaps/pictures.

As for the thread titles themselves, I advocate keeping at least some kind of description; there are so many threads that sometimes it's hard to pick one to read, and having a short description helps me decide if a certain lolcow is interesting or not. However, I agree that "short" is the keyword here. Like, "conspiracy theorist" is better than "conspiracy theorist who thinks the moon landings and JFK assassination were faked."
 
Yeah, this is something that bugs me. When I go to a thread and the OP is just a bunch of links- and not even links to an article/post that explains the lolcow- I usually just turn back because I don't see why I should care if the OP doesn't. A good OP should have a summary of who the person is and why they're a lolcow, with bonus points given to screencaps/pictures.

As for the thread titles themselves, I advocate keeping at least some kind of description; there are so many threads that sometimes it's hard to pick one to read, and having a short description helps me decide if a certain lolcow is interesting or not. However, I agree that "short" is the keyword here. Like, "conspiracy theorist" is better than "conspiracy theorist who thinks the moon landings and JFK assassination were faked."

There's been a marked decrease in thread quality in the past few months I feel, and I'm not sure if it's spillover from the tumblr board and entersphere, a slow rot that's just been allowed to fester, or if we've finally hit the Eternal September point and it's all downhill from here.
 
There's been a marked decrease in thread quality in the past few months I feel, and I'm not sure if it's spillover from the tumblr board and entersphere, a slow rot that's just been allowed to fester, or if we've finally hit the Eternal September point and it's all downhill from here.

We can fix this:
1. Ban all women
2. Ban everyone with a cartoon avatar

I realize 2 applies to me and I am willing to sacrifice myself for the sake of the forum.
 
However, I agree that "short" is the keyword here. Like, "conspiracy theorist" is better than "conspiracy theorist who thinks the moon landings and JFK assassination were faked."
Depends, honestly. Run of the mill "conspiracy theorist" tag doesn't tell you much anything, if the catch of the lolcow is that they believe for example that Obeme is a space lizard, it's a vastly different kind of conspiracy than for example believing in Sandy Hook being staged, i.e "Sandy Hook conspiracy theorist" wouldn't be out of place. Personally I think that these things should be decided on a case by case basis rather than trying to artificially impose hard limits on the words you can use in thread titles, as far as for people to use their judgments when making threads in the first place.

There's been a marked decrease in thread quality in the past few months I feel
Can you be a bit more specific?
 
Last edited:
We should just have the word pedophile in every thread title. We'd be right about half of the time anyway.
 
Why not just institute a blanket pan on pedophile cows. The point where anyone decides having sex with children is ok is the point where they stop being entertaining. We're not a crowd shaming site, we're not internet vigilantes. The only result you get from a pedophile thread is alogging and head hunting.
 
How about a tag, similar to halal, for pedocows that requires mod approval? Because I agree: pedophilia should be central to their shtick or at least provide an explanation for their notoriety: Nyberg, Mitchel, Bate, and ShadowJoe are good examples.

Shadowjoe is one of the ones where I am unsure that he meets the classification of pedophillia, I mean, I will admit that he seems to have a thing for jailbait and Teenage girls but one could argue that it's not overtly abnormal for men to have an attraction to teenagers.

Most of the claims of pedophillia are due to his sperging out on statetory rape laws. Him stalking lolacat, a teenage girl for years is generally pointed as evidence of pedophillia, but he followed her because he was butthurt and not because he wanted to have sex with her.

That one I would argue, although there's a possibility he's a pedophile, and I'm not arguing that he's not, we don't have enough evidence or proof to make that claim for him.
 
Why not just institute a blanket pan on pedophile cows. The point where anyone decides having sex with children is ok is the point where they stop being entertaining. We're not a crowd shaming site, we're not internet vigilantes. The only result you get from a pedophile thread is alogging and head hunting.

Unfortunately several major funny lolcows also exhibit signs of pedophilia. We're not big enough of a site to warrant having to have absolute rules regarding to thread creation, but if a pedophile cow is being severely unfunny, like I'd have to say that James Terry Mitchell and Avery Chicoine hardly had anything funny to them, and especially JTM's thread was basically just outrage porn. Deserved outrage, maybe, but the status of him as a LOLcow could be disputed. In those cases we could pass them on to another site(although we just lost a friend) or utilize forum groups if people wanted to take them down.

We're not a crowd shaming site, we're not internet vigilantes.
Agree, but imo we also shouldn't shut down discussion for someone who's funny just because they're also a pedo(ADF crept on kids, there's ShadowJoe, etc.)

Make a "Confirmed Pedophile" user banner and let me assign it to anyone I want so I can piss off the A-Logs.
We should have pedophile themed forum ranks for our members based on the post count.

Starting from
"Fun and Flirty Man Zone"(low-level pedophile)
to
"Belongs to a Garbage can in Hell" (high-tier pedophile)
 
Last edited:
Like, "conspiracy theorist" is better than "conspiracy theorist who thinks the moon landings and JFK assassination were faked."

Why not just "JFK kook?" Shorter than both of them and gets the idea across since pretty much any JFK conspiracy theorist is a kook.
 
The point where anyone decides having sex with children is ok is the point where they stop being entertaining. We're not a crowd shaming site, we're not internet vigilantes.

That's right, we're not a crowd shaming site or e-vigilantes. We're cyberbullies. We pick on people who don't fit in and find it entertaining. Childish, yes, but it's what we do on here and anyone who denies it is an idiot. Personally, I don't see why picking on pedophiles is any less entertaining than picking on, say, a harmless autist with a train fetish. We are not nice or well-adapted people, and we don't deal with nice or normal things: we deal with people who eat their own shit, beat their parents, and pretend to be six years old all the time. There is no human decency on the internet, nor is there sanity, and pretending otherwise by setting a limit to the madness into which we dive won't change that.
 
Agree, but imo we also shouldn't shut down discussion for someone who's funny just because they're also a pedo(ADF crept on kids, there's ShadowJoe, etc.)

That's a really good point. Leslie/Richard/Fire would have acted if he wasn't so incompetent that he was played for alcohol by a couple kids. That's really funny even if it's repugnant.

Personally, I don't see why picking on pedophiles is any less entertaining than picking on, say, a harmless autist with a train fetish.

The difference to me is Nick Bates is simply a Pedocow. He didn't produce funny content and nothing we did had any effect on him. He's just gross, his entire history is gross, and he simply exists for people to be better than. You can argue that the information gathered by field agents during the trial was interesting but that was a tiny drop in a sea of "I hope he gets raped and murdered in prison".
 
The difference to me is Nick Bates is simply a Pedocow. He didn't produce funny content and nothing we did had any effect on him. He's just gross, his entire history is gross, and he simply exists for people to be better than. You can argue that the information gathered by field agents during the trial was interesting but that was a tiny drop in a sea of "I hope he gets raped and murdered in prison".
This will sound crude of me and like I'm downplaying the crime of child molestation, and this is something that most of the people posting in Nick's thread don't quite understand themselves, but Sick Nick does not have a thread simply because he had sex with a child. If that were the case we would have thousands of threads just on humdrum kiddy fiddlers. He has a thread because he is an insane spastic loser who had a Twitter for years showboating the fact that he had sex with his little sister as well as his deviant scat fetish and his all-consuming obsession with a girl who lives on the other side of the country who absolutely hates him and whom he has never met, and when accused of the crimes he advertised doing he attempted to create a video pleasuring himself with his feces to prove himself innocent. He would be a lolcow even if he never really raped his sister (which is in fact what a lot of us were thinking for a long time).

He was always more morbidly fascinating than yuk-yuk funny*, but he deserved attention because he was stupid and insane and disgusting to the point it was difficult to conceive of.

*i actually got some laughs out of his twitter and his youtube songs about the butts of children but it's definitely something you've got to be in the right mindset for. i think a lot of people weren't
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom