Journal of Other Forum Analysis (Volume II, Issue 2)

[benji]

Now Lenin does have a ton of bangers and almost everything he wrote was about abusing you into submission for being such an idiot, but all the bangers are about crushing dissenters or working the lazy/criminal/undesirables to death.

[Jansen]

Guys I found this random post about how boredfrom fucks goats on Reddit it's true right

What did I do this time?

[Boredfrom]

 

Outside entertaining the idea of being true… what was my sin, Jansen?

[benji]

Guys I found this random post about how boredfrom fucks goats on Reddit it's true right

But when it comes to Furry hate, people can't seem to help themselves about decrying us as disgusting, and yeah when you realize the fandom is majority queer, it is fair to question the root of that disgust.

It's not all that removed from how certain people just have this seething, white-hot rage for rap music that they have to crow on about every fucking time it appears in a trailer, like they were literally assaulted by having to hear a nigga go a few bars (not like rap elements aren't finding their way in other genres anyways; fuckin' Taylor and whatever country bumpkin of the day is in will use a trap beat at this point). I'm not saying you have to like rap. I'm saying that given its unambiguously Black roots, the over-the-top disgust and hatred of it by some people is inevitably rooted in some level of unaddressed anti-Blackness.

Same with Furry. If you're acting like a 4Chan loser about Furries in 2025, calling them disgusting, sex pests, and what have you, don't be surprised if that group wonders if you've got some latent queerphobia that you've found a way to express in a more acceptable manner.

In other words, people- who I assume are somehow working, educated adults with jobs and families and shit- just need to get over themselves. If you're offended by the idea that Furry hate might be rooted in queerphobia, understand why that is and work on yourself.

I never made a character judgement towards you specifically. I'm saying the idea that Furry hate can be entirely divorced from queerphobia is bullshit, in the same way that hating rap can be entirely divorced from anti-Blackness is bullshit.

There's not only an inextricable connection between these subcultures and their demographics, but the subcultures and demographics also exist in a wider, bigoted society at large. You can't approach this in a vacuum.

[Jansen]

 

Outside entertaining the idea of being true… what was my sin, Jansen?

Anime

It's always been anime and the anime adjacent

[simiansmarts]

The replies to this

Why you lumping him in with those crackaz? He fuck wit tha Popeyes like a straight G, homie.

None of that sounds appealing to me but I still fuck with Popeyes every now and then so maybe I'll swing by a sandwich later.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/people-are-going-to-die-one-piece-has-a-collab-meal-with-popeyes.1490026/page-2#post-153735961

[simiansmarts]

didn't doops go to the school for writing/journalism or am i misremembering? 

University of Suffolk
Screenwriting , Playwriting and Screenwriting
2016 – 2019

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

egg phrenology

[benji]

Yes, and? What does this do materially for Black people?

[benji]

👇

 Just have a system where nothing bad is allowed.

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

[NekoFever]

This is not a new thing, people just seem to think that if things get bad enough then the rules stop applying for some reason or if they can use ideology to justify it then it's fine.

I mean, you've repeatedly relaxed rules because enough people have shit up the place while arguing extenuating circumstances.

It used to be against the rules to grave dance, but then you added a caveat (I note one of the few rules that has actually resulted in an update to the TOS) that it may be acceptable in the case of particularly egregious individuals, which has now stretched to mean literally anyone the users disagree with. The rule says it doesn't "preclude sober criticism of a person's legacy or mistakes in life" – that includes "rest in piss", does it?

It's against the rules to lobby for certain properties to be banned but that happens constantly because, gee, maybe you caved repeatedly and will again next time certain groups kick up a fuss.

How is it surprising that your inmates keep pushing these boundaries when you've given in numerous times?

[benji]

(I note one of the few rules that has actually resulted in an update to the TOS) 

This got me to check, you may be shocked to learn that the staff can in fact edit the General Guide to ResetEra:


They deleted the Nazi rule so it now reads:

Israel and Palestine

Threads about the Israel/Palestine conflict are some of the most contentious and difficult to moderate. While we have tried being more hands off in the past, these threads have tended to escalate out of control when they are not tightly moderated. As a result, we now enforce four primary rules to keep these threads as civil as possible.

• Do not conflate civilians with their leadership: This means you should not conflate all Palestinians with Hamas or attempt to paint all Palestinians as terrorists. You should also not hold all Israelis responsible for the actions of their government.
  
• Do not condone violence or killing: This goes for both Hamas and the IDF, especially with regard to civilians.
  
• Do not deny the right of either Israel or Palestine to exist as independent states.

Good luck enforcing any of these rules without an uprising.

[BIONIC]

Guys I found this random post about how boredfrom fucks goats on Reddit it's true right

It’s baby goats, but close.

[NekoFever]

Oh yes, how could I forget that they removed the prohibition on comparing Israelis to Nazis only a couple of weeks ago because so many users "just seem to think that if things get bad enough then the rules stop applying for some reason".

[Hap Shaughnessy]

In case you're wondering where Era is at in the spiral into AI-related toxicity thanks to garbage enforcement of site policy on the subject, here's a days-old, multi-page thread of people openly celebrating arson, calling for more, and attacking those hoping it stops. The inevitable result of mods repeatedly signaling they'll be lenient on blatant violations of site rules if they agree with the sentiment. That's on top of that thread full of people praising an Indiana politician's house getting shot up over data centers, where the thread was quietly hidden rather than any public comment or action being taken against users condoning political violence. Not surprising that nuance and knowledgeability of AI discussion has fallen off a cliff when mods tolerate users calling for firebombing and shooting up the homes of people involved (including their families), with the only pushback ITT being against those saying violence is wrong. I thought "no advocating violence" was one of the most ironclad rules here, but apparently not. (Also, plenty of people have caught bans for "Luigiposting" -- why protect offenders in this case?) And why no big public warning here?)

Will the guidelines be updated to say that "Advocating murder will always result in a permanent ban, unless the mods agree the target deserves it"? Will flagrant violations on other topics get the "quietly delete thread to CYA after a few days but otherwise no action" treatment? Or will this be yet another example of a site rule being openly violated, reports ignored for days on end, and callouts of the moderation failure totally unaddressed in the one thread designed for doing so?

I've no love for Altman (or some random state level politico), and don't expect anyone to be rending garments for them. But talking like it would be good for them to be killed in a violent attack on their homes is fucked up -- and so is not properly enforcing rules against it even after being reported.

 User Banned (Permanent): Mod Whining, Long history of Infractions

[benji]

This is exactly why welcoming places like Era where you can speak your mind are so important:

"Hate comments, bullying, and harassment" are some of the fears being shared by young people as they consider whether to enter the world of politics for a future career.

A youth parliamentary group has warned that attitudes and abuse online, particularly on social media, were having an impact on how younger people were viewing political life.

Some members of the Tynwald Youth Committee, aged between 15 and 24, spoke about their own experiences of hostility online and how it would prevent them from pursing a career in politics.

Member Riona Zaman, 19, said the "only thing" stopping her from entering politics was "the possibility of hate comments", although she was also worried about surrendering her private life.

She said the anonymity of social media had made criticism easier and often more personal.

"In person you actually have to muster up the courage to say something to someone, but online it's a lot easier without actually fearing the consequences," she said.

"There are so many things that are allowed to be posted on social media that should be censored," Alex said, arguing that exploitation of minorities and children online remained a broader problem.

Younger committee member, Jasper, 16, agreed politicians needed an online presence to reach voters, but said he personally used social media only sparingly.

He said if he were a politician he would "rather have that presence and have more people see who I actually am".

However, he agreed that online abuse was a real problem and suggested government should consider stronger regulation or clearer guidelines.

"I feel like governments are acknowledging it's bad, but they aren't acknowledging the initial causes and how we can actually prevent hate comments, bullying, harassment online," he said.

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

This is the post that will prevent from office

[Uncle]

The thing is, I can imagine some pedo gets his rocks off in some way or another when seeing a child character but he's not doing that because Capcom is bad but because he's a fucked up pedo. I bet you some other pedo gets his rocks off when he sees Judy Garland putting on the ruby slippers in Wizard of Oz. Should we now talk about how kids shouldn't appear in movies or something?

Basically I don't really see the point of letting fucked up pedos with fucked up fetishes dictate media that appears normal and harmless to literally anyone else.

also why is discourse surrounding this game ruined but donkey kong's underground digging adventure was just fine even though it also featured Big Guy and Little Girl

[Uncle]

The replies to this

How many of those guys will be women by the time the website shuts down in a few years?

   

[HaughtyFrank]

In case you're wondering where Era is at in the spiral into AI-related toxicity thanks to garbage enforcement of site policy on the subject, here's a days-old, multi-page thread of people openly celebrating arson, calling for more, and attacking those hoping it stops. The inevitable result of mods repeatedly signaling they'll be lenient on blatant violations of site rules if they agree with the sentiment. That's on top of that thread full of people praising an Indiana politician's house getting shot up over data centers, where the thread was quietly hidden rather than any public comment or action being taken against users condoning political violence. Not surprising that nuance and knowledgeability of AI discussion has fallen off a cliff when mods tolerate users calling for firebombing and shooting up the homes of people involved (including their families), with the only pushback ITT being against those saying violence is wrong. I thought "no advocating violence" was one of the most ironclad rules here, but apparently not. (Also, plenty of people have caught bans for "Luigiposting" -- why protect offenders in this case?) And why no big public warning here?)

Will the guidelines be updated to say that "Advocating murder will always result in a permanent ban, unless the mods agree the target deserves it"? Will flagrant violations on other topics get the "quietly delete thread to CYA after a few days but otherwise no action" treatment? Or will this be yet another example of a site rule being openly violated, reports ignored for days on end, and callouts of the moderation failure totally unaddressed in the one thread designed for doing so?

I've no love for Altman (or some random state level politico), and don't expect anyone to be rending garments for them. But talking like it would be good for them to be killed in a violent attack on their homes is fucked up -- and so is not properly enforcing rules against it even after being reported.

 User Banned (Permanent): Mod Whining, Long history of Infractions

This is insane, right? B-Dubs didn't touch those threads until this very post, meaning he can thank this guy for making him aware of people breaking forum rules, and as B-Dubs himself would have you believe, posts that endanger the entire forum! And what is the reward for it? A ban for mod whining despite the mods objectively not doing their job in those threads until he brought it up...

[davepoobond]

"this guy makes a lot of good points... i shall ignore it cause of the utterance of AI"


he never had a chance

[benji]

It's like you guys are completely ignoring the long history of infractions.

[benji]

All I've found so far, 2021 and 2024:

User Banned (2 Weeks): Dismissing Concerns of Racism

The optics are kind of gross, but it's also kind of gross for The Verge to try making racially-charged clickbait out of it. There have been times where black models have been photoshopped out for no reason (well, shitty reasons), but here the original model looks mildly amused, their dumb ad campaign is clearly going for a goofy XXX-TREME look, and editing together parts of different stock photos for effect is incredibly commonplace. Are they trying to get the artist fired or the ad agency ostracized for that? What's the point of this story?

User Banned (1 Week): Backseat Moderation

Speaking of things that appear real but don't actually exist:

"OFFICIAL STAFF COMMUNICATION: AI content news that is merely about individual showcases of AI application, algorithm updates, offsite community bans, and otherwise non-pressing news are not to be made as their own threads, but instead to be discussed in the OT. Current threads about the subject will be locked."

"a moratorium has been put on AI content threads that are not determined to be significant news. Any such threads will be locked and redirected to an AI OT."

"a thread will be closed and redirected if it is derailed to discuss the concerns and ethics of AI content generation."

So is this "moratorium" still a thing, or should it be removed from the Official Policy Log at this point?

edit: Weirdly, none of the other people dismissing concerns about the photoshop in that first thread are banned.

[Taco Bell Tower]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/pragmata-review-thread.1489576/page-17#post-153736645

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

That's rich coming from B-Dumbs.  He had pedophile posts back at GAF.  It was shown when something screenshot Dubs' problematic posts from GAF.

[Taco Bell Tower]

A Slayven thread
https://www.resetera.com/threads/a-common-problem-is-friends-and-family-thinking-too-highly-of-you-buy-this-and-put-it-in-your-living-room-fixes-that-right-up.1489177/

What if someone moves and jsut leaves it behind...better yet. Leaves it in the attic or basement

[HaughtyFrank]

edit: Weirdly, none of the other people dismissing concerns about the photoshop in that first thread are banned.

Sounds like someone wants to get banned for modwhining 

[Uncle]

that face looks like shit for being life size

I suppose you want her to look just like the anime version but it comes across as like a small figurine directly scaled up, it's so low on detail



I like this post

If it's a 1/1 scale model with a removable leather jacket... doesn't that just mean it comes with a leather jacket?

[Alpacx]

In case you're wondering where Era is at in the spiral into AI-related toxicity thanks to garbage enforcement of site policy on the subject, here's a days-old, multi-page thread of people openly celebrating arson, calling for more, and attacking those hoping it stops. The inevitable result of mods repeatedly signaling they'll be lenient on blatant violations of site rules if they agree with the sentiment. That's on top of that thread full of people praising an Indiana politician's house getting shot up over data centers, where the thread was quietly hidden rather than any public comment or action being taken against users condoning political violence. Not surprising that nuance and knowledgeability of AI discussion has fallen off a cliff when mods tolerate users calling for firebombing and shooting up the homes of people involved (including their families), with the only pushback ITT being against those saying violence is wrong. I thought "no advocating violence" was one of the most ironclad rules here, but apparently not. (Also, plenty of people have caught bans for "Luigiposting" -- why protect offenders in this case?) And why no big public warning here?)

Will the guidelines be updated to say that "Advocating murder will always result in a permanent ban, unless the mods agree the target deserves it"? Will flagrant violations on other topics get the "quietly delete thread to CYA after a few days but otherwise no action" treatment? Or will this be yet another example of a site rule being openly violated, reports ignored for days on end, and callouts of the moderation failure totally unaddressed in the one thread designed for doing so?

I've no love for Altman (or some random state level politico), and don't expect anyone to be rending garments for them. But talking like it would be good for them to be killed in a violent attack on their homes is fucked up -- and so is not properly enforcing rules against it even after being reported.

 User Banned (Permanent): Mod Whining, Long history of Infractions

Entirely reasonable post about extremist posting on Era, gets permabanned.

Edit:
Do you think B-Dubs banned Jordan117 because he pointed out B-dubs is bad at his job — a thread about firebombing an AI Executive's home? Nobody could expect that would need to be closely monitored on Era. — or was it Nepenthe because Jordan117 wasn't anti-AI?

[benji]

Do you think B-Dubs banned Jordan117 because he pointed out B-dubs is bad at his job — a thread about firebombing an AI Executive's home? Nobody could expect that would need to be closely monitored on Era. — or was it Nepenthe because Jordan117 wasn't anti-AI?

In a discussion about attacking executives it's inflammatory commentary and dangerous to criticize staff which puts staff in danger. Especially those who volunteer for a corporation that uses AI and help that corporation not only generate profits (aka exploitation) but save costs by not paying a living wage to any staff members.

[Besticus Maximus]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/%E2%80%98everyone-is-replaceable%E2%80%99-death-rattles-oregon-amazon-facility.1490158/#post-153739939

This didn't sound like Marx, he didn't write his polemics like this*, so I looked it up. Nobody famous appears to have said this: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/02/22/rope/

It's funny because I've previously criticized oty for falsely saying that Marx had a "transition stage of socialism" in his theory, which he didn't, that was introduced by, essentially, Stalin. (It literally doesn't make sense outside of any context except the one that spawned it, to explain why the revolution hadn't led to communism in the Soviet Union and later China.) So I'm starting to suspect that oty, the most proud Marxist left on the forum after Booshka was banned and SocialistERA was purged years back, has not actually ever read Marx outside of the Manifesto.

*really it goes against Marx's entire deal, he wouldn't write of himself as the proletariat or even anyone who would be part of the revolution to do this. His whole conceit was that he was a scientific observer of History who was telling you what was going to go down.

Just because I know how much this has probably bothered you, the quote is actually diderot, and it's mankind will never be free until the last king has been hung with the entrails of the last priest.

[HeavenIsAPlaceOnEarth]

Seeing a kids feet in a video game and their first thought is Epstein or Kojima. Yeah that’s perfectly in line with where we are in 2026. Ash Parrish also genuinely thought Animal Crossing was colonialist propaganda.

When a child exists as a main character in a game:

"Boy, pedophiles are gonna love this game. They're gonna think this child character is very sexually attractive. Not me, though, I would never think that way. Only pedophiles would think that way. Pedophiles would definitely have the the thoughts that exist in my mind right now, thoughts that I myself would never have. This is definitely a game made by pedophiles to be played by pedophiles. Absolutely disgusting. Does anyone know what the pre-order bonuses are?"

[HeavenIsAPlaceOnEarth]

there are no real concerns to even be dismissed. simply put, everyone imagining Diana as some sort of pedobait character is truly sick in the head, including that poster who said her vocalizations (basic grunts when Hugh dodges with her on his back) sounded suggestive.

I remember prior to the release of Tomb Raider (new trilogy version) there were people claiming Lara's grunts and groans were clearly meant to sound orgasmic.

What's more likely - you've already decided something is problematic and so you see and hear things that aren't actually there*, or a voice actor was directed to sound more sexual and suggestive when playing the role of a child?

*see: deciding "beast" is a common slur used against trans people


People who are definitely not porn-brained:

*male characters grunting and groaning*
"..."

*female characters grunting and groaning*
"Woah, this is obviously meant to be sexual!"