No.31740
we are being raided by a nazi, stuff like that will inevitably happen
No.31741
>>31740>raided by a naziban the 4chans
No.31742
>>31740Even without raids, many of the most active threads are dedicated porn dumps, by intention. I don't really care, but it's pretty reasonable to be disgusted by that.
No.31743
>>31739>It's le grossWhile I'm in favor of a /nsfw/ simply because there's enough threads to justify it's own board, this however is a stupid excuse for it, and probably a reason to keep things as is.
Sex positivity, and especially kink positivity is like citronella candles, keeping the chvds and corps away. You might not like the smell of citronella, but at least you aren't being mosquito bitten as much.
No.31744
>>31742fr, disgust is the most normalest of reactions a human with at least 1 functioning braincell connected to at least one of their eyes would ever make to those threads
No.31745
>>317441. Why are you sex repulsed, consider if your reasons are reactionary in nature. The way you worded it suggest they are
2. Why do you feel like framing your suggestion through such language is going to help get your suggestion get approved, knowing this is a leftist website?
No.31746
>>31744I think I overexagerated there
>>31743>While I'm in favor of a /nsfw/ simply because there's enough threads to justify it's own boardtrue true
>Sex positivity, and especially kink positivity is like citronella candles, keeping the chvds and corps away.I'm not against none of that and all of this is good for the people that enjoy this stuff, hence why I'm not against it BUT I think they should have their own space for it, to separate it from people who do not want to engage in those threads and from people who get genuinely disgusted, it would be better for both sides that like porn and dislike porn
>>31745>it's reactionary to be disgustedbro stfu
No.31747
Put the royal colony in there too, it is a far more disgusting and destructive indulgence than porn threads
No.31748
>>31745also
>>31744 was an overreaction, sorry… I guess?
also ever heard of (
https://lgbtqia.fandom.com/wiki/Asexual?so=search ) ?
>>31747no the royal colony is okay lets be serious
No.31750
>>31748>asexualAh okie. While not all asexual people are sex repulsed, I do agree it would help with accessibility to have it in a dedicated board for those that are.
I suppose my response was also an overreaction, so likewise I apologize.
No.31751
Use the catalog (where OP pics are spoilered) and the thread hiding function, dummy.
No.31752
>>31750thanks my dude, I apologize as well
>>31751>thread hiding functionbut I would have to see the thread first beforehand
>catalogbut the pictures there aren't spoilered(only if OP/mods spoils it) + it's only overboard with recent posts
No.31753
>>31752+ I would have to see the thread first to hide it so it misses the point of not seeing it entirely
No.31754
>>31748>no the royal colony is okay lets be seriousMight as well be a nazi fetish thread. Get fucked.
No.31757
>>31754it is not
>>31756except it's a satire thread and not a serious political one? can your brain process that difference? do I need to state that I'm marxist-leninist?
>maybe you should simp for her too!how bout you do it? those who even think about simping is BETA as fuck lol, like c'mon get outta here.
also I only used the royal colony as an example, I could have used literally any other thread as an example if it came to mind first.
No.31758
>>31756>why reactionary monarchism should be treated more favourably than Nazism.obviously both are dogshit, do I really have to explain it? so obvious…
No.31759
>>31752>>31753>but I would have to see the thread first beforehandYes but then it would never appear to you after that. You also don't have to see the entire thread, only the spoilered OP.
>but the pictures there aren't spoileredSee above. You only need to look and click near the spoilered OP post.
>it's only overboard with recent postsYou can use the catalog on overboard.
No.31760
>>31759>>31759>Yes but then it would never appear to you after that. You also don't have to see the entire thread, only the spoilered OP.but it's too late. my eyes, already scorched by the images that only bleach would be able to remove its burning image from my retinas.
>See above. You only need to look and click near the spoilered OP post.I mean, it isn't 100% reliable since luck also comes into play since there could be one OP post not yet spoilered in time by a mod when accessing the catalog, because sometimes some OPs won't spoil their posts
>You can use the catalog on overboard.I know
No.31762
>>31745Hey you, can you do "customer support" here on /meta/?
I'll double your wage.
No.31765
>>31756The "graceposter" acts like a normal fucking person besides being a monarchist. That's it, that's literally the solution to the question.
No.31767
>>31766It's fine, just wing it
No.31768
>>31765So a nazi general thread is allowed if the nazi acts "like a normal person"? How about a Ku Klux Klan general next with normal posters next? Or a Banderista normal thread?
No.31769
>>31768So that means you are saying blablabla. Cease your instinctual whining.
Just off the cuff.
Monarchy is devoid of moral implications. It's neither good nor bad. There have been good tyrants and bad tyrants.
It is pretty easy to see that nazism and racism are a moral bad.
No.31770
>>31768At least monarchies have historically been able to build functioning sewage systems. What have anarchists accomplished?
No.31771
Mods should actually deactivate the function to post images and videos completely. Turn this site into a pure text board. It will improve the quality of posts and save you alot of moderating work.
No.31772
>>31768>So a nazi general thread is allowed if the nazi acts "like a normal person"?NO
>How about a Ku Klux Klan general next with normal posters next?NO
>Or a Banderista normal thread?uh what even is that?
bruh you literally can't comprehend when something is
satire like the grace threads on siberia, grow up
>>31771why not just use a terminal web browser like elinks? it's a text based browser but i dunno if it will be able to make a post on this site, but it's also lame since you have to use mpv –vo=tct –loop <link-to-image> in another tty to make images barely visible with ascii characters simulating the pixels of the images
No.31773
>>31772During summer & fall when the CP / soyjak spam gets more frequent, or when some filetype related news made me resent the existence of .webp, I would toggle off .webp in my about:config, which also hid thumbnails on here.
Firefox likes to remove security stuff though, so after the webp vulnerability caused a lot of people to disable webp, they removed the option to force people to use webp again.
No.31775
>>31742>many of the most active threads are dedicated porn dumpsthis is more than enough reason for a /nsfw/ board to exist. alright I'm making a poll.
VOTE if leftypol should have a /NSFW/ board:
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
https://strawpoll.com/1MnwOVG35n7 No.31776
>>31775Ok liberal, as if voting changes anything.
No.31777
>>31775also vpn/tor/etc voting is disabled as it would probably be exploited I think
>>31776I mean it's just for showing what leftypol wants
and it kind of does change stuff depending on where you live, in the US it doesn't change anything at all but other places it does change things, although not radically of course
No.31778
>>31777I think disabling vpn voting also disables tor voting but idk for sure
No.31779
>BAN THIS SICK FILTH
Lol.
No.31780
>>31778yeah no I tested and tor voting is possible even with the disable vpn option
>>31779more like "GIVE THEM A BOARD"
it would be a W for everyone
No.31782
I tried testing other poll sites but they all can't stop Tor voting either so… I mean it could get rigged if someone wants to, it probably won't though
No.31783
>>31739The solution is to ban porn
No.31785
don't forget to vote! :
https://strawpoll.com/1MnwOVG35n7now I am busy studying for tests and this would be considered procrastination so bye lol
No.31786
>>31784>>31783no but jokes aside, banning porn would be bad for the people that like it and it is not the point, the point is making a /nsfw/ board so that they can have their own space for porn, it's not a form of banning it nope, it is a form of separating it from people that like porn and from people that dislike porn.
No.31787
>>31786Just ban it. Why do you need porn on leftist political forum? You have a billion websites for porn already.
No.31788
>>31787the internet would be way less disgusting if porn didn't exist, banning it would be better but some people like these uh… "images" that make one bleach their eyes at the retina layer
these "images" are like virtual ipecacs, and we all know what ipecac does to someone's stomach lol
No.31789
>>31787see
>>31743Sharing nsfw art is a sign of a community that is capable of being normal about sex without devolving into puritainism (aka the root of anti-intellectualism, which itself is the root of reactionism)
I would agree we could ban or limit photographic / videographic porn without losing much tho.
No.31791
>>31788>scare quotes "images"image is a pretty concrete concept
No.31792
>>31789>being normal about sexSaying that about porn LOL
Anyway, why not have an alternative CSS for viewing (no matter which board) so that all pictures are empty rectangles that only become pictures on hover?
No.31793
>>31787This. Ban porn on the entire site. There is no reason to have porn on a political discussion board.
No.31795
>>31792>LOLNot an arguement.
>>31793Porn isn't allowed on /leftypol/, this is about /siberia/ and the /alt/ boards.
No.31796
The pornography pollution has become quite degradatory to the site's quality, and the boards' rules are not enforced evenly. Coomer shit should not be out in the open on boards that are part of the SFW overborad. Don't the mods have thepower to spoiler those posted?
No.31798
HOT-TAKE LEFTYPOL NEEDS TO HEAR BUT IT'S ACTUALLY A FACT:
It actually excludes/distances ace(asexual) people (
https://lgbtqia.fandom.com/wiki/Asexual ) from your site if you don't have porn separated in a safe manner like in a /nsfw/ board, so that people will only see porn if they want to, and not on accident.
shouldn't a
leftist forum be inclusive? because having porn everywhere is actually a way of excluding ace(asexual) people from this site(ace people that does not want to only talk about politics in /leftypol/ but also visit the rest of the site like /siberia/ and etc)
it should be inclusive for both people that does like porn and for people that dislike porn as well.
this is real constructive criticism, no jokes.
No.31799
>>31795>Porn isn't allowed on /leftypol/, this is about /siberia/ and the /alt/ boards.I think the staff of this site is stupid, for putting energy into moderating porn boards. This is why I said, just ban it completely. Coomers on this site probably don't even contribute to leftypol, so why maintain this filth? It's like dedicating a board just for spam.
No.31800
>>31798Quit pushing this asexuality = hyper-disgust meme. The two are unrelated and you have asexuals who are repulsed by genitalia and sex in the same proportions as other people, with the rest having no effect when observing it.
No.31801
>>31800>quit pushing this asexuality = hyper-disgust memeexcept I'm not? where did you even assume that from? my reaction is one thing, don't generalize my reaction like wtf
>[rest of the reply]…and yes, both asexuals and sexuals can be disgusted just as much, the difference is that one feels sexual attraction and the other does not, your point?(P.S: you don't need to state the obvious).
and it is not even my point at all, it is not about being grossed out or not, it is about the exclusion. which… you are kind of doing right now…
and saying that someone would literally not get affected after seeing hardcore porn is just blasphemy, if it was softcore then it would make sense for someone to not be affected. like stfu
No.31802
>>31739No, not a nsfw board.
All explicit images should be spoilered though.
No.31803
>>31792I think it would be better if porn was only visible inside the /nsfw/ board, but outside of it like in overboard/catalog, the images of /nsfw/ would be all spoiled or posts would be hidden+spoiled so that people would have to actively have the /nfsw/ board tab open to be able to see porn on this site instead of relying on the overboard in which posts of /nsfw/ would either be hidden or completely spoiled outside of /nsfw/.
No.31804
>>31802i don't think that's humanly possible or even AI possible
No.31805
>>31804It really isn't an issue. Just institute it and see what happens. I expect most people to follow suit after a week or two of adapting.
No.31806
>>31789sex and porn are two different things, sex isn't pornographic, it's the act. being normal about sex would make sense if it were IRL in a nightclub, which is a completely different thing from doing it on an internet forum, which is like sitting in a chair and typing/posting content, completely different. sorry to break the fourth wall/immersion of this site for a moment there.
>puritanismpuritanism is a religious thing and this site isn't religious in the slightest, neither am I.
>>31794pls lets keep it respectful, the anon actually gave a honest opinion here
>>31805the raiders would disobey that though, actually I think the raiders would do it regardless of anything put into practice anyways… but I think this
>>31803 approach would be better since people inside /nsfw/ wouldn't have to worry/learn about spoiling their posts, it would be easier to moderate too(but the raiders would simply post gore or whatever anywhere anyways…)
also vote for the /nsfw/ board everyone!! :
https://strawpoll.com/1MnwOVG35n7 No.31807
>>31801>it is about the exclusionSince you agreed that not every assxual would be repulsed by porn, then your complaint here doesn't make sense. The presence of something cannot be exclusionary unless it's offending, unlike the absence of something. It would be exclusionary if /siberia/ was a pure porn board, and likewise if it was a SFW board. But it isn't either of these.
This is the basic assumptive rationale for why every /b/ on imageboards allow both categories of porn and non-porn posts btw. I can't believe I have to spell this out loud since it's assumed everyone knows it.
No.31808
>>31807If a site is distancing people away because they're getting absolutely disgusted isn't exclusionary then idk what is.
like ok sure not all ace people are repulsed by porn, but I am, and literally anyone that isn't somehow desensitized (probably by watching porn frequently + also someone must feel sexual attraction to do that in the first place) would be grossed out by hardcore porn, so it is still exclusionary. it does make sense to also include ace people on my complaint because you literally have to be somehow desensitized from watching hardcore porn in the first place(like why would you do that?).
No.31809
like why would you intentionally desensitize yourself to literal hardcore porn like goatsee equivalent just to not get grossed out? it literally doesn't make sense
No.31811
>>31810it's still a tie, hopefully the YES vote wins
No.31814
>>31742If its with spoilers I dont see what is the problem other than you.
No.31818
>>31814except they aren't spoiled
No.31820
>>31813It's like someone's actively trying to sabotage user democracy and make this faction, such as it is, look bad. Hey, isn't that my job?
No.31825
>>31824OMG SO MUCH WINNING OMG OH SHIT
SO MUCH WINNINGGN!!!!1!
No.31826
porn posters are fucking scum. you should all kill yourselves now. you are a stain on the left. you make us look bad. here we are doing hard work in the community to spread conscioisness and raise awareness while you shits spend all day gooning. imagine all those people we've brought into the fold coming here and seeing porn dump threads. then they see all the right wing propaganda about how leftists are perverts and degenerates. what do you think will happen?
you selfish fucks ruin all our hard work just to jerk off. if you want porn use a porn site.there are plenty of sites dedicated to your stupidity. dont post that shit here.
No.31827
>>31826>you make us look badAcceptability politics always seems to re-emerge in spring.
I wonder why I noticed that? Is seasonal discourse a thing people've written about?
No.31828
>>31826holy shit calm the fuck down lol
No.31829
I agree, a sfw off-topic board for random discussion is a good idea.
No.31830
>>31829Wrong way. It would be siberia and siberia+
No.31831
>>31827its just realism uygha. nobody will respect you if your a porn addict. nobody takes that shit seriously. you wanna fap? fine just do it on a dedicated porn site. this is a site dedicated to leftist politics not chinese red girl transbian tentacle gay anthony blinken gets fucked porn okay.
No.31833
>>31739The reason why siberia has both porn and non porn, is, basically, for activity, if you split them up then both boards might just wither from lack of use.
No.31834
>>31831This is a general purpose imageboard prominently featuring a leftist political discussion forum, and rules that are conductive to that which apply to all boards, creating a novel environment to discuss a wide range of topics. Particularly art,
which one must allow nsfw content to get a full picture of.Your argument holds for live action stuff, since there's not really anything to discuss there–exceptions would need to be made for artistic nudity, as well as a clearly defined way to differ it from porn–but you're being disingenuous trying to pretend there is such thing a hard political / apolitical dichotomy–that there cannot be useful discussions that emerge from the later into the former, and you are being immature by calling it gross or calling any who engage in such gross in doing so.
>>31833I think the hypthetical /nsfw/ board would be about as active as /tech/, given current nsfw activity on /siberia/, while the remaining activity would put it on par with /leftypol/. It'd be fine. Don't most people here use the overboard anyway?
No.31835
>>31834>I think the hypthetical /nsfw/ board would be about as active as /tech/There should be LESS boards, in fact. This type of multiple divisions is useless and makes this place feel abandoned
No.31836
>>31835I mean sure it's novel to see the bump order popcorn around for a while, but on the other end you get stuff like 4chan where a thread can fall into the void in like 5 minutes and no one bothers to effortpost.
Maybe you could have like, a tag based imageboard-booru hybrid, but that would be a whole different experience from using an imageboard proper.
No.31837
>porn is fine in moderation
>I choose when to see porn
>I choose what kind of porn I see
>I enjoy seeing porn
>I do not enjoy porn when I do not choose to see it, like when I'm trying to think about politics
>I do not enjoy certain types of porn
>Porn of all kinds is always on /overboard/
>Put all porn in /porn/ that does not appear on /overboard/
>solved forever, coomers can't complain
>site becomes a lot more attractive to other demographics
No.31838
>>31837/nsfw/ would be more flexible than /porn/ tho. Porn mostly implies live action, and not all nsfw content could even be considered pornographic in a strict sense, take the /paws/ and tf sequence threads for example.
No.31840
>>31838>>31838>Porn mostly implies live actiondefinitely not. I don't really care tbh as long as it's not on the overboard. I care about attracting people interested in left politics to the board that are put off by porn.
No.31841
>>31840Does vichan support excluding boards from the overboard? Even /dead/ shows up on it. Don't remember if /gulag/ used to back when it was still up. Or is overboard just a naming convention and it'd be like /sfw/ (which I assume this addition would debrecate) and /alt/. A comprehensive feed would still have use tho, what would that be called? /all/ looks too much like /alt/.
No.31844
>>31757>>31772>satireit's not satire>>31739/siberia/ is the leftypol version of /b/.
NSFW content has typically been allowed on /b/.
>>31756Grace is an adopted leftypol OC.
+ I contribute to the siteSo I earned my stay.
No.32201
>>31844avatar posting personalities are more distasteful than porn and make sites feel like a communal circlejerk.
No.32202
>>32201It's a sign of a healthy imageboard, keeps the channers away since they combust into flames on seeing an avatarposter.
No.32203
>>32202i'm inclined to disagree on both fronts, there's no correlation for the former and it's not common enough for the latter to be true. if we really wanted to drive off channers it would be far down the list of things to try.
even then: you don't
want to drive off channers, you want to bring them in (with the wider appeal of the site as a better discussion board than *chans) while stripping the site itself of fealty to "chan culture", leaving behind a growing site independent of western imageboard culture at large.
remember: a website shapes its userbase far more than vice versa.
No.32208
So what you're asking for is a Safe For Work Off-topic board?
No.32210
>>31837>we need to attract everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!why are you faggots so fucking election-brained
Unique IPs: 23