/meta/ - Meta

No, we are not going to open the door to NEET-shaming on this board. Nor are we going to change the culture of this place for a concern troll who probably arrived here from /cow/. Now get lost.

There's already an entire internet out there for those feeling adventurous enough to go and hear the same mindless bashing from oblivious, simple-minded troglodytes. There is no place here for those who try to attack us for being virgins, nor there will ever be. If you honestly believe that we should do away with the rules that give substance and originality to wizardchan and which protect us from the hordes of attackers who are uninterested in anything that we have to say but who are eager to announce how much they despise us, then you should fuck off, as this place isn't for you.

Rule 3 is there to protect NEETs from the shaming that permeates most of the internet/the world. The only problem that I have with the rule is that there is no addendum to say that it isn't a license for NEETs to act like judgmental faggots towards non-NEETs. I don't see it often, but I have seen it and it bothers me when I do. I recall posts here on /meta/ saying that all wageslaves were inherently normalfags and I might be looking into it too much but I think there is a thread up at the moment which subtly hints at the same thing.

I don't advocate changing the rule though, it's nice to have even for a non-NEET as the typical 'parasite' circlejerk that normals like to have about them bothers me also. On an ideal site, the rule wouldn't be necessary, but this site is far from ideal so the rule needs to stay.

Are you advocating for people to shit-talk the celibate lifestyle?
You gonna start calling us angry virgins next?

>>20591
>NEET shaming

I know what you're saying but that term still sounds weird.

I agree with OP, mods listen, if you want people to not insult other people, instead of sensoring just ban people who directly attack a wizard, make bullying and bragging bannable, instead of banning opinions.

>>20589

We can have constant shitstorms between NEETs on one side and wageslaves and wandering internet adventurers on the other, or we can create a rule against NEET disparaging and skip all that.

I don't care if you think that's censorship. You can make the same (stupid) argument about any rule that restricts conversation. If you cannot explain what benefit would eliminating rule 3 have without hiding behind the freedom of speech banner, there's probably no good reason to.

>>20594
No, I am advocating for >>20620.
Please don't strawman again.
>>20621
The benefit to allowing people to express opinion X is that opinion X may be correct and you'd never know if it's censored.
>>20592
Prove to me that the criticism is always 'mindless bashing from oblivious, simple-minded troglodytes'.

There are thousands of websites where neetdom is looked down upon
This isnt one
Fuck off

Oh look, this /meta/ thread again.

>>20589
>If an opinion is wrong you should refute it not censor it!
>cowardly
>ashamed
please refute rule 3 without relying on ad hominem shame tactics

>>20620
>I agree with OP, mods listen, if you want people to not insult other people, instead of sensoring just ban people who directly attack a wizard, make bullying and bragging bannable, instead of banning opinions.
your opinions aren't banned, you simply aren't allowed to express your anti-wizard opinions. why should anti-wizard posting be allowed on wizchan? bullying is already bannable under rules 4 and 6, while bragging, depending on the context, is bannable under rules 1, 2, and 4

>>20589
Have you been on 4chan this past year? If you don't have rules that enforce and maintain a certain board culture, the entire place will be overtaken by normalfags and their normalfag opinions.

>>20627
Strawman?
Do you even fucking know what that means?

You literally said, and I am directly quoting here:
>That's really, really cowardly; everyone who suggested or implemented that rule and everyone who posted about celibate, NEET, or reclusive lifestyles while knowing about this rule should be ashamed of themselves.
>If an opinion is wrong you should refute it not censor it!

You literally advocated for people to have the right to shittalk the celibate lifestyle. I am not embellishing, exaggerating, or twisting your words in any way. And I am certainly not making a strawman. The fact that you say you should refute these arguments instead of banning them is irrelevant.

>>20627

>The benefit to allowing people to express opinion X is that opinion X may be correct and you'd never know if it's censored.

In this case opinion X is disparaging against NEET/celibate/reclusive lifestyles, and we've collectively decided that it's not welcome here, hence the rule. If you disagree, you're free to engage in as much "criticism" as you want on other websites.

This is wizardchan. Speech is restricted by definition.

>>20636
I didn't mean to imply that shit talking should be allowed, just all opinions.
Sorry if I didn't express myself well enough.

>>20634
>your opinions aren't banned, you simply aren't allowed to express your anti-wizard opinions
That is the very definition of a ban.
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ban

>>20635
Prove those 'normalfag opinions' are incorrect instead of advocating for their censorship.
It shouldn't be too hard if they really are wrong.
>>20634
>why should anti-wizard posting be allowed on wizchan?
>>20637
>This is wizardchan. Speech is restricted by definition.
I think this site should become a board for calm, rational discussion of virginity and celibate lifestyles etc from all perspectives rather than place for people who already share the same opinion to state how much they agree with each other (of course there are other things that can be discussed, I'm just talking about this aspect).
wizardrychan rather than wizardchan
How about it?
>>20634
>please refute rule 3 without relying on ad hominem shame tactics
I already said why I don't like it:
>The benefit to allowing people to express opinion X is that opinion X may be correct and you'd never know if it's censored.

>>20589
>If an opinion is wrong you should refute it not censor it!
>!

The premise this site is based on is the protection of NEET, recluses and celibates. Those are the terms of service and if you don't like them you get the fuck out.

I don't know if you haven't figured it yet, but this place is not a democracy, it's more akin to a kingdom. The ideas of some group of shitheads don't matter in here, this place was created for the people the rule was made for and no one else.

Now get the fuck out. Lock this thread mods.

>>20640
>>The benefit to allowing people to express opinion X is that opinion X may be correct and you'd never know if it's censored.
if you think the wizard lifestyle is wrong, get the fuck out

>>20640
>Prove those 'normalfag opinions' are incorrect etc
It's unnecessary. No one is bothered by banning them, plus ideologies are impossible of refuting, they are different cultures, the way of life of each individual applies only to that individual. You still have to learn human minds are not rational and will never be, nor is that desirable in all the cases. In this case, the desirable thing for the target population is to ban normalfags and that you get the fuck out for trying to stir shit in such an inane issue.

>How about it?
How about no. Why do i need to listen to normalshits? If i wanted to do that i would go to /r9k/, but i don't want to do that, therefore i come here.

>The benefit to allowing people to express opinion X is that opinion X may be correct and you'd never know if it's censored.
It doesn't interest us correctness, it interests us the wizard canon. We're a cult, not a philosophy club. Get out if you don't like it.

>>20627
>Prove to me that the criticism is always 'mindless bashing from oblivious, simple-minded troglodytes'.
You are asking me to list all opinions that were ever uttered by a human being on this subject. No, it's up to you to prove me wrong.

>>20640
>I think this site should become a board for calm, rational discussion of virginity and celibate lifestyles etc from all perspectives rather than place for people who already share the same opinion to state how much they agree with each other (of course there are other things that can be discussed, I'm just talking about this aspect).
>wizardrychan rather than wizardchan
What you asked amounts to not only doing away with rule 3, but also rules 1 and 2. You want us to transform this place into something else entirely just because you feel like it. This is Wizardchan, which is an imageboard for us, not merely about us. Those rules will remain because they are the defining features of this place and there is no room for change without changing the nature of this site. You are invited to fuck off if you believe we should destroy Wizardchan just to allow you to say such intellectual things as "virgins are scum, I know because I'm not a virgin :DD Prove me wrong (you can't because your a virgin who never got any pussy :^D)".

>>20643
>It's unnecessary. No one is bothered by banning them,
OP and >>20620 are.
>plus ideologies are impossible of refuting, they are different cultures,
What if I made an ideology or culture that says 2+2=5?
Would that be impossible to refute?
>You still have to learn human minds are not rational
Maybe.
>will never be
How come?
>nor is that desirable in all the cases.
Why?
>How about no. Why do i need to listen to normalshits? If i wanted to do that i would go to /r9k/, but i don't want to do that, therefore i come here.
The benefit to allowing people to express opinion X is that opinion X may be correct and you'd never know if it's censored.
>It doesn't interest us correctness, it interests us the wizard canon. We're a cult, not a philosophy club. Get out if you don't like it.
I'm speechless. It really saddens me that you think that way.
Also, who is this 'we' you are talking about?
Posters on wizardchan?
How can you pretend to speak for everyone?
Can you read their minds?
I am interested in correctness for one and I am a poster on wizardchan.
>>20646
>you believe we should destroy Wizardchan just to allow you to say such intellectual things as "virgins are scum, I know because I'm not a virgin :DD Prove me wrong (you can't because your a virgin who never got any pussy :^D)".
You have very poor reading comprehension:
>calm, rational discussion
>You are asking me to list all opinions that were ever uttered by a human being on this subject. No, it's up to you to prove me wrong.
If a belief is somewhat objective (i.e. not simply a matter of taste), not axiomatic and you can't prove it, stop believing it.
If it is a matter of taste then one should still listen to criticism of it: i.e. someone who likes ice cream so much they eat 10lbs a day should listen to someone telling them it will make them unhealthy.

>>20646
>prove me wrong
Here you are:
>I don't understand the point in voluntary celibacy. Why wouldn't you want to pass on your genes?

>>20646
>prove me wrong
How about:
>Look, this scientific paper purports to show that celibacy has some downsides such as …

>>20658
>>20659
The point is this sort of criticism is possible not that someone has said it.
Just ban the people who engage in non-rational criticism.

Why the fuck is this thread still up?

>>20643
>It doesn't interest us correctness, it interests us the wizard canon. We're a cult, not a philosophy club.
>>20661
How can you claim you're better than the normies with this kind of attitude?

>>20646
>You want us to transform this place into something else entirely just because you feel like it.
Not because I feel like it but because I think it's best for you.
It's not healthy to avoid criticism in my opinion.

>>20656
No, it is you who have a poor grasp of logic. That, or you're being dishonest. You seemingly cannot comprehend that not all statements are banned by rule 3. Saying such thing as "if you don't work and you don't have any other way to support yourself you may eventually starve" isn't a violation of rule 3. Saying "NEETs are parasites" or "virgins are scum, you should go out and have sex" is, and that's what is banned. Don't try to pretend that those are equally legitimate. Furthermore, you did not address the fact that you asked us to do away with rules 1, 2 and 3. I suppose it's because you agree that that's what you're asking us to do?

>>20658
>>20659
>>20660
Asking the first would reveal your stupidity and lack of forethought, the second would be discussed. None are violations of rule 3. It takes a specific condemnation of the celibate, NEET, or reclusive lifestyles to get oneself banned.

>>20669
What a condescending pile of horse shit. We are not in need of your help, nor in the need of the "help" of the unending numbers of nonvirgins that would gladly recount their sexual experiences, social activities and how they despite the virgin and NEET scum on here as soon as there were no rules stopping them, just like they do in other imageboards. As it was made clear, this is Wizardchan, a place for wizards, not merely about wizards, so if you had misunderstood that much, this is the time for you to get out.

>>20671
>not all statements are banned by rule 3. Saying such thing as "if you don't work and you don't have any other way to support yourself you may eventually starve" isn't a violation of rule 3. Saying "NEETs are parasites" or "virgins are scum, you should go out and have sex" is
>It takes a specific condemnation of the celibate, NEET, or reclusive lifestyles to get oneself banned.
>Global rule 3: Do not disparage, advise against, or show contempt for the celibate, NEET, or reclusive lifestyles.
You got the 'don't disparage' and 'don't show contempt' bits right but not the 'don't advise against' bit.
Maybe the wording should be changed if that's what it really means (we need the owner's word on this).
>>20671
>Don't try to pretend that those are equally legitimate
I'm not.
>unending numbers of nonvirgins … would gladly recount their sexual experiences, social activities and how they [despise] the virgin and NEET scum on here as soon as there were no rules stopping them
I'm not advocating for there to be no rules stopping them do that, I'm advocating for >>20620.
>Furthermore, you did not address the fact that you asked us to do away with rules 1, 2 and 3. I suppose it's because you agree that that's what you're asking us to do?
Yes. Also 9 should go.

>>20676
Let's remove all rules and make this place like 4chan :DDDD

Fuck off.

>>20681
>Let's remove all rules
Terrible idea, see https://freech.net/fam/
>and make this place like 4chan
4chan has rules: https://www.4chan.org/rules

I sense however that you were merely trying to strawman >>20676, in which case please follow your own advice and fuck off.

This site is supposed to be a safe space? What's so hard to understand about that? Sometimes people just want to relax and not argue all the time. We already got too much arguments here about what is normie or not.

>>20684
Stop being such an insecure normie

>>20684
>Sometimes people just want to relax and not argue all the time.
That's only OK in my view so long as you spend a good amount of time (i.e. more than you spend in the safe spaces) discussing or looking at discussions of the same topics on non-safe space forums.

>>20688
What is there to discuss about NEET anyways? I dare to say that most here are not NEET purely out of free will but because they can't function in the normie dominated work place.

>>20666
I am not interested to compete with normalfags, i'm interested in making them stay out.

You people have seriously misinterpreted what this site is about over the times. To be a wizard is not about being better than normalfags, it's about being different and survive this way. At the same time, all of us hate normalfaggotry, so we define it as inferior by our consensus, this is a dogma and thus it's impossible to argue about it.

>>20656
>What if I made an ideology or culture that says 2+2=5? Would that be impossible to refute?
Yes. The symbol that represents the concept of two pair of units can be replaced, even the axioms themselves can be replaced although that would leave the newmath unpracical.

>How come? Why?
By origin minds are not rational, they stitch together pairs of ideas, but they may not be necessarily objectively related, we develop the habit of making more objective connections as we grow up and experience the world and its difficulties, but there's no underlying obligation to hold this forever. People are simply displeased by it. You will never extinguish the idea of gods on people because all of them want to believe and all of them want a satisfying answer to their problem while not being bothered to find out how things exactly work like. Also, on a single lifetime one is not able to cover all the truth and mechanism that everything is based on, people have to take immediate decision whether to trust in something or not, they end up making the decision on tangentially or completely unrelated factors, such as believing a guy in a white coat is a doctor and obeying whatever he tells them to do.

Having said this, all of us can agree the things we believe in are convenient to our purpose or the situations surrounding us. Here on wizardchan we believe normalfags should not be allowed to post because we don't like having that around.

>It really saddens me that you think that way. Also, who is this 'we' you are talking about?
We are the people who think alike, i speak for them, i speak for those who agree on my ideas, which by sheer observation are most of the people in this thread. As i said before, if you don't like it here you're not forced in any way to remain, on the contrary, you're encouraged to leave, you should not waste more of your time with us, as you've already seen we're not interested in such discussion.

>stop believing it.
>If it is a matter of taste then one should still listen to criticism
You still have a lot to learn kid. There are no rules in this shit world but the ones we make. We've made a community so you listen to our rules, you believe what we tell you is true and if you reject this you're forced out. What you say may be useful advice in the outer society, but we're in another sphere in here, we have made our right to kick you out.

>>20676
>You got the 'don't disparage' and 'don't show contempt' bits right but not the 'don't advise against' bit.
That's irrelevant as far as the two examples you had provided go, both are permitted provided that they are not personal attacks on the character of wizards. Now, why should someone be permitted to advise against the very foundation of this place? It's preposterous, it's the same as arguing that a neonazi should be allowed (or, in fact, stimulated for the sake of diversity of opinions) to join some other jewish organization and co-opt it.

>Maybe the wording should be changed if that's what it really means (we need the owner's word on this).
Not only is the owner's opinion already expressed in the current rules, but the majority's opinion is also expressed on them, the proof being that they've chosen Wizardchan over every other shithole out there precisely because of those rules that you so despise.

>Yes. Also 9 should go.
I can't take you seriously anymore. This amounts to abolishing Wizardchan and turning it into just another imageboard indistinguishable from the rest. I'm utterly disgusted by the thought that you are browsing this place. I can't take you to be this much of a honest imbecile, so I'll start treating you like the dishonest piece of garbage that you certainly are.

If you want a place that is about virginity only in name, fuck off to https://www.virginchan.org and leave us alone. I'm sure you won't though, because you just want to stir some shit up among this bunch of unapologetic virgins that we are. I'm almost willing to ask what would be the reason that someone like you would come here and demand to have our little imageboard abolish itself, but I'm really convinced that you are trash that is merely using the pretense of preposterous stupidity to have some laughs at our expense, so just fuck off you disgusting piece of miserably dishonest shit.

Being Wizard isn't just about being sexless but asocial. Ideally a Wizard should be NEET so he doesn't have to interact with Normies. OF course NEETing is hard to come by, and we have nothing against Wizards who have no choice but to wageSLAVE. But being anti-NEET is anti-Wizard.

I figure it's the same as attempting to "fix" men committing suicide. I don't do such things as I respect men who see how the world hates them and so they opt to kill themselves.

Unless they want to discuss things I leave them be and respect their position.

Same with NEETs. I'm not one myself but I wish I could be as I'd be able to do a lot more of what I want to do (which isn't even being the stereotypical lazy hikkimori).

>>20725
Being called lazy is a boomer meme and my trigger word. Please refrain from using it on this website.

>>20710
>disgusting piece of miserably dishonest shit
I'm dishonest am I?
What about all the people attacking the strawman that I want all rules to go (when in fact I merely want people to use a forum without rules 1, 2, 9 and especially 3 to discuss these things more than they use a safe space)? (>>20681, >>20671, >>20646 and possibly you for suggesting virginchan)
What about >>20634 for saying the obvious oxymoron "your opinions aren't banned, you simply aren't allowed to express your anti-wizard opinions"?
>>20710
>Now, why should someone be permitted to advise against the very foundation of this place? It's preposterous
So, if someone made a place that's all about people who believe 2+2=5 nobody should be permitted to advise against it on that site?
Even if a forum is about a certain belief in general it should still allow criticism (and many do, even a Nazi forum like 8ch.net/natsoc/ ).
The only case in which it is OK to use a safe space forum like this one is if you go to a non-safe space one like 8ch.net/celibacy/ and logically argue your point against any dissenters who may be there. The only problem is there is no way to enforce that without violations of privacy.
Anyway is the foundation of this place just people who choose wizardry or people who have it thrust on them as well?
>>20710
>Not only is the owner's opinion already expressed in the current rules
What are you trying to say here?
Is >>20676's interpretation correct or >>20671's?
>but the majority's opinion is also expressed on them, the proof being that they've chosen Wizardchan over every other shithole out there precisely because of those rules that you so despise.
And some of us are advising them not to do that (part of the purpose of this thread).

>>20689
NEETs or vigins who don't want to be NEETs or virgins don't have to then. However I do think it would be advantageous for them to listen to advice on getting out of their situation.
People who want it should listen.
I am not sure what those who are indifferent should do.

Are these normie opinions impossible to refute then?
Is that why there's so much hostility to OP's suggestion?

>>20736

>what are you guys, chickens?

It's not that they're impossible to refute. I'd just prefer not having to do it over and over again for thousands of threads. And thanks to rule 3, I don't have to!

>>20733

>So, if someone made a place that's all about people who believe 2+2=5 nobody should be permitted to advise against it on that site?
Yes.

>Even if a forum is about a certain belief in general it should still allow criticism (and many do, even a Nazi forum like 8ch.net/natsoc/ ).
Should? You're implying there's some moral imperative for doing so.

>Anyway is the foundation of this place just people who choose wizardry or people who have it thrust on them as well?
Both, but only if they embrace wizardry. If they decide they want to change, they should stop visiting this forum and join another one.

It seems that you're incapable of explaining why rule 3 shouldn't exist without resorting to subjective moralisms about muh freedom of speech, which hardly applies to a website that already excludes 99% of humans by definition.

>>20737
Then make a canned response that you can paste or link to whenever someone expresses those opinions (but stop if someone manages to refute it).
>>20738
>Should? You're implying there's some moral imperative for doing so.
Yes there is in my opinion. You owe it to yourself to be as critical of your objective beliefs as possible.

Look, let's try a compromise:
A link to 8ch.net/celibacy/ should go in the navigation bar and this recommendation on the homepage.
Everyone here should go there and debate with dissenters if there are any. The debates should last until either one side has been shown to be wrong or it has been shown to be a matter of taste.

>>20733
Yes, you are dishonest trash. Saying such thing as "I don't want all rules to go away, I just want rules 1, 2, 3 and 9" is saying that you want all rules to be done away with. Those are the rules that make Wizardchan what it is. Abolishing them is the same as turning this site into just another imageboard. Why do you think all the people who are on wizardchan chose to be here rather than in another one of the innumerable imageboards out there? Ultimately, because of those rules. You are dishonest when you claim otherwise, and a piece of trash for thinking that you have actually any right to demand such a thing.

>>20739
>Everyone here should go there and debate with dissenters if there are any. The debates should last until either one side has been shown to be wrong or it has been shown to be a matter of taste.
You should at least try to think of something smarter to pretend to believe in. You can't be seriously suggesting that internet shit flinging is a conclusive way to decide what is true. Even if it was (and I have decades of arguing on the internet as experience to say it is not), you seem to be assuming that no one here has ever discussed these matters at all. I have spent a good amount of time in such debates, which is why I am authoritative when saying that the opposition is generally composed of oblivious, simple-minded troglodytes. I would add "underhanded, deceptive" on describing you too, for pretending to be interested in rational debate and then suggesting that that's what we will get when we destroy the very pillars that hold this place together and invite the rest of the internet to wizardchan.

>>20739

>Everyone here should go there and debate with dissenters if there are any. The debates should last until either one side has been shown to be wrong or it has been shown to be a matter of taste.

That sounds like a lot of work. How about we do nothing instead.

>>20683
How is that a strawman when that's basically what he(?) wants. He actually says the rule that states only male virgins over 18 can post here should be removed.

>>20683
Also you are terribly stupid and probably samefagging. What tipped you off, the "fuck off" at the end or the :DDDD?

>>20737
If you remove those rules there would be no reason for this site to even exist, and you can have that discussion on literally every other website on the Internet. This site would just gradually become 4chan's r9k because there's a lot more of them than there are of us, but numbers doesn't in and of itself equate to a more correct opinion.

It's already inclusive enough by lowering the age to post from 30 to 18.

>>20748
Age limits have never been properly enforceable.

>>20743
>You can't be seriously suggesting that internet shit flinging is a conclusive way to decide what is true
No, I'm suggesting that rational internet debates with evidence given where appropriate are a good way to decide what's true.
At any rate it's better than staying in your little echo chamber surrounded only by people who agree with you.
>>20743
>Saying such thing as "I don't want all rules to go away, I just want rules 1, 2, 3 and 9" is saying that you want all rules to be done away with
(I'm assuming you meant "I just want rules 1, 2, 3 and 9 to go")
You have made a huge error in logic which shows that you are either a self-deciever, an imbecile or a dishonest person (irony).
Here's me trying to drum it into your thick skull(s):
I only wanted rules 1, 2, 3 and 9 to go. The other rules can and should stay because they promote polite and logical discussion. I even think an extra rule should be added forbidding logical fallacies.
However, I am also OK with the following:
* A special board for dissenting opinions is created on this site. The rest of the site has the current ruleset but /dissent/ has rules 1, 2, 3 and 9 remove and an extra rule should be added forbidding logical fallacies.
* Make it so that only IPs with a certain <no. of posts of their's on that board>/<total posts on that board> can post (maybe even read) the rest of the site to ensure that people don't ignore criticism (If there are no posts on the board they are allowed).
Now I kinda see the point in a safe space but I do think >>20688.

>>20763
If using fallacies and arguing in bad faith was against the rules, as you pretend to desire, you would be banned right now, for you don't actually respond to the entirety of the post, but merely selects a small part and proceeds to bend it out of context. For one, you didn't even touch the argument that rules 1, 2, 3 and 9 are the substance of Wizardchan, which makes saying such thing as "only rules 1, 2, 3 and 9" a ridiculous statement at the very least, since they are the foundation of this place. Furthermore, you ignored what I said about such "rational" discussions simply not happening if your spurious demands were accepted. Were we to abolish rules 1, 2, 3 and 9, and therefore the substance of Wizardchan, what would happen would be as follows: This place would be drowned by people who either come here to spite us virgins or argue against us, and this place would go from somewhere where we can spend time among our own to a place where we have to deal with normals and nonvirgins talking among each other about how they have sex and other such things as if it was a natural thing to do so on Wizardchan, and the few of us who would remain here would be met with scorn and a barrage of attacks at any moment we would try to defend our very lives and the right to be left alone. The notion that such a thing can be avoided would require such a ludicrous amount of gullible innocence and inexperience that one must conclude that you are either are mentally impaired or dishonest.

Now, you are already very aware of everything that I said, so the reason I'm saying is to make it explicit. I'm certain that you aren't a Wizardchan user at all, because no one who so strongly opposes a small site's rules would settle as one of its users, especially considering that the rules were always there. You are merely an outsider who came here to use underhanded argumentation in order to try to co-opt this place by falsely claiming to be interested in rational debate, an interest that you certainly do not possess. You clearly have some strong opposition to virginity and/or the opinions held in here in general, and you are willing to act like the dishonest piece of shit that you are in order to hopefully gain a chance to throw shit at us in a more explicit manner. Be assured that your demands won't be met because the absolutely majority of people here are able to see you for what you are.

By the way, I searched for "wizchan.org/meta/res/20589.html" on google just to see what I would get. Seems like normals are already citing this thread, the kind of people who would eagerly tell us how much they despise us on here if they ever had the opportunity.

>>20766

Good catch. Luckily even the normies don't seem to care about OP brigading them.

>>20766
>>20767
I don't understand some people.

>>20767
these are failed normies that are majority virgin, and the nonvirgins fornicate with undesirable succubi or hookers (but they'll pretend otherwise on the Internet). They prop themselves up by belittling others, ironically they're actually in the same boat as the rest of us, they just think that things will change for them, someway, somehow.

I think the NEET rule is applied to liberally.

I was banned several times for calling NEET lifestyles parasitic and inherently unstable and unsustainable, which is completely true. Those statements were made in the context of a discussion of economics.

I was also banned for implying that I post on other websites besides wizardchan.

Perhaps I'm just getting bullied.

>>20772

>I was banned several times for calling NEET lifestyles parasitic and inherently unstable and unsustainable, which is completely true.

I disagree, and you should've received a warning if not a ban for calling all NEETs parasites, depending on the substance of your post. NEETs don't harm their "host" enough for their life to be classified as parasitism, and if your argument was "well if everyone was a NEET, the economy would collapse", or something, there are many things that would lead to total collapse if everyone did them.

>>20773
By definition a NEET consumes without producing anything, so I don't see how parasitism is not an apt word to describe it. They're comparable to tapeworms.

The discussion was about some hippy shit a la "nobody actually needs to work, the world is rich enough".

I should say that I spent 5 years as a NEET and would prefer to return to those happy times, but I can differentiate between my preference and the facts of the situation.

>>20774
the elite are also parasites. CEOs bounce from one CEO position to the next no matter how bad they are at their job. An example that has been prominent recently is Carly Fiorina. The scale of society is so large there are many unnecessary people.

>>20772
Well, you should have measured your words or made yourself explicit on what you meant. "Parasite" when used to describe people is always taken to be derogatory.

Agree 100% wizchan mods are cowards.

>>20780
You probably got banned for le meme arrow, you 8gag refugee

>>20780
>>20784

What a bullshit ban. Even if he got banned for the meme arrow or mentioning jew, it was a completely benign comment, it has no potential to derail and i suppose it's about the war thread, that's pretty much the position most people are taking on it.

I say 3 hours was enough for resubmitting deleted posts, more than that is excessive.

>>20775
No one ever disagreed with that.

>>20763
>No, I'm suggesting that rational internet debates
What a fucking kid. What are you going to tell us next? Be kind to other people but beat out the competition? Believe in yourself and you will succeed?

You're fucking delusional, you've probably not a single time stepped on the real world and seen the amount of bullshit it's build on, and if we take most of the bullshit out there the world crumbles. The world economy is based on the false premise that someone will pay a debt, the whole set of morals you vehemently defend is completely arbitrary as well, there's no more truth to this world than what the natural sciences teach us, and humanity and its studies are as irrational as it gets. Go open some fucking anthropology book and learn why you're supposed to leave us alone, then get the fuck out.

>>20786
Whether it was 3 or 10 hours is negligible and inconsequential.

>it has no potential to derail
You should know better than this. Regardless of the potential for derailing, that kind of post is prone to be deleted for being low quality.

>>20774

>By definition a NEET consumes without producing anything, so I don't see how parasitism is not an apt word to describe it. They're comparable to tapeworms.

Parasitism implies actual harm to the host. It's up to you to show how NEETs cause enough harm for the relationship to be classified as parasitism, rather than commensalism.

And like >>20775 said, if you want to get the most efficient tapeworm-free society ever, NEETs are the least of your concerns.

>>20791
I say that the reason why NEETs cannot be considered parasites to society is because society produces more than it needs. You might be a parasite to your family as a NEET, but if you just do chores around the house, no matter how minor, then you can't be called a parasite, as you are returning your family something, even if it's barely anything.

>>20789
Leave it at deletion. It really is uncomfortable when someone gets banned for such a minor thing, this actually promotes ban evading because it's perceived by the user as unjust. Giving bans for things that obviously get out of hands make the people who do belong here actually think on what they've done and pass their time outside.

>>20802
The point is that he was banned for reposting something that was already previously deleted, not merely for shitposting.

Why hasn't this thread been locked yet?

So why are none of the usual crusaders on /meta/ arguing in this thread?

>>20913
Because no one objected to the last points made in the finishing posts. Did you really need to bump this thread just to make such a question?

>>20913
Because if someone points out the fallacies in the finishing posts someone will likely come back with more fallacies so there's no point.
This is why there need to be rules against fallacies.