Upload
Login or register

lilnuggetbob

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:3/22/2012
Last Login:9/27/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#3433
Highest Content Rank:#1236
Highest Comment Rank:#1076
Content Thumbs: 11532 total,  13113 ,  1581
Comment Thumbs: 12849 total,  15201 ,  2352
Content Level Progress: 5.4% (27/500)
Level 210 Content: Comedic Genius → Level 211 Content: Comedic Genius
Comment Level Progress: 90% (90/100)
Level 307 Comments: Lord Of Laughs → Level 308 Comments: Lord Of Laughs
Subscribers:2
Content Views:454906
Times Content Favorited:881 times
Total Comments Made:3832
FJ Points:12795
Favorite Tags: 4Chan (4) | k (4) | 4 (3) | chan (3) | comp (3) | Tank (3) | to (3) | a (2) | bad (2) | Cute (2) | funny (2) | gmod (2) | How (2) | humor (2) | is (2) | Russian (2) | tags (2) | the (2) | Time (2) | WTF (2)

Text Posts

  • Views: 60534
    Thumbs Up 2894 Thumbs Down 271 Total: +2623
    Comments: 224
    Favorites: 314
    Uploaded: 05/07/12
    Creepy, and normal Creepy, and normal
  • Views: 47164
    Thumbs Up 2703 Thumbs Down 220 Total: +2483
    Comments: 609
    Favorites: 116
    Uploaded: 06/25/12
    Ultimate roll Ultimate roll
  • Views: 40796
    Thumbs Up 1436 Thumbs Down 173 Total: +1263
    Comments: 27
    Favorites: 66
    Uploaded: 08/11/12
    Dead Rising 2 in a nutshell Dead Rising 2 in a nutshell
  • Views: 32435
    Thumbs Up 1339 Thumbs Down 101 Total: +1238
    Comments: 53
    Favorites: 22
    Uploaded: 08/06/12
    Russians on omegle Russians on omegle
  • Views: 28736
    Thumbs Up 741 Thumbs Down 29 Total: +712
    Comments: 36
    Favorites: 88
    Uploaded: 09/08/15
    /k/ finds a goat /k/ finds a goat
  • Views: 13712
    Thumbs Up 544 Thumbs Down 43 Total: +501
    Comments: 29
    Favorites: 42
    Uploaded: 05/02/12
    Sweet offices Sweet offices
  • Views: 40447
    Thumbs Up 974 Thumbs Down 30 Total: +944
    Comments: 148
    Favorites: 42
    Uploaded: 11/22/14
    Yfw 76mm of Freedom Yfw 76mm of Freedom

latest user's comments

#21 - Lets hope your right than.  [+] (1 reply) 09/24/2016 on Spread the word +2
#76 - superblade (09/24/2016) [-]
>Let's hope your right than.

Let's hope you're right then.
#10 - You're assuming google is trying to do the best for everyone, …  [+] (3 replies) 09/24/2016 on Spread the word +4
User avatar
#16 - totallytito (09/24/2016) [-]
Mostlikely places like Stormfront would end up getting the axe, while sites like 8chan and 4chan would stay mostly intact due to /pol/ being sub-sites rather than being entire domains.

It would be more practical if Google blocked entire domains rather than sub-sites, because then Google would have to waste resources on windows that say
"This page contains hostile activity, would like to continue?".

Not only would that get a lot of fire for being similar to a "trigger warning", but it would overall be a waste of time and resources. It would also be impractical for Google to modify or remove comments made by users on other sites unless the site explicitly allows this to happen(mostlikely sites like Tumblr, Facebook, or even Reddit) and providing it as a "service to enhance site traffic and user friendliness".

Since this would strictly operate on keywords rather than complete sentences, people will still be able to make opposing rightwing arguments without having to resort to ignorant slang/terminology.

Besides, a large group of Google developers and investors are indeed rightwingers, so it would be disadvantageous if Google were to choose sides.,
User avatar
#21 - lilnuggetbob (09/24/2016) [-]
Lets hope your right than.
#76 - superblade (09/24/2016) [-]
>Let's hope your right than.

Let's hope you're right then.
#8 - The cenorship google is adding only targets those like /pol/, …  [+] (5 replies) 09/24/2016 on Spread the word +4
User avatar
#9 - totallytito (09/24/2016) [-]
"The cenorship google is adding only targets those like /pol/, which is bad."
As far as we know

I believe google is only targeting racial slurs. It's impossible to tell anyone's race, and censoring entire sentences of various structures would be too much work for Google as a whole.

It is much easier to simply keep out racial slurs to encourage a user friendly atmosphere where people can criticize an opposing party without resorting to ignorant standards.

For example, "

"BLM is full of fucking useless niggers that just want to fuck up everything because 'muh white people'.

can be rewritten to-

"I don't like the BlackLivesMatter community because seriously, this organization is catering to people who have a strong racially charged bias against white people, and therefore can be a hazard to this country".

Obviously nobody's going to write in a robotic tone, but I'm just providing an example of how an angry ignorant statement can be written in a less douchey manner.

Considering how /pol/ is retroactively rigging polls with mass-votes(easily outnumbering the total number of readers on a given site) is actually a form of censorship against an opposing party. By flocking to polls and public opinion evaluations, they are sabotaging the freedom of speech for their own favor. Surveys are usually conducted in an uncontrolled environment where anybody who coincidentally runs into it, can speak freely. When you suddenly have control over a large flock of like-minded people to ambush an online poll, it basically deprives everyone else of their freedom of speech.

I find it ironic that /pol/ is attempting everything it can to restrict the freedom of speech, but then retaliating when they are being censored.

There is a right way to do things, and then there is the wrong way.



Blaming all whites for one's problems is wrong,
so why would it make that okay to do with everyone slse? You know?


Before assuming that Google is only targetting /pol/ take into consideration that they could be applying this to everyone equally, but /pol/ users are simply more likely to commit the same crime repeatedly because their community is strictly designed to be anti-friendly in an attempt to be "smarter/stronger" than the rest of society.

One thing is having self-control, another thing is a "hugbox".
A hubbox doesn't allow opposing opinions or discussions.
Self control allows for opposing opinions without having to resort to mindless hostility
and resorting to memes or trends.

User avatar
#10 - lilnuggetbob (09/24/2016) [-]
You're assuming google is trying to do the best for everyone, i'm assuming they're going to keep going down the rout they've been going for a while. Censoring those who disagree with their beliefs.
Im not worried that they're censoring /pol/, im worried it might spread to me, as i am generally right leaning.

While i do agree that stopping excessive swears is probably a good thing, again, my main concern is that they might not stop there.

If im wrong, and i hope i am, than all will be fine, but, in the mean time, i might as well show google what could happen if censorship goes unchecked.
User avatar
#16 - totallytito (09/24/2016) [-]
Mostlikely places like Stormfront would end up getting the axe, while sites like 8chan and 4chan would stay mostly intact due to /pol/ being sub-sites rather than being entire domains.

It would be more practical if Google blocked entire domains rather than sub-sites, because then Google would have to waste resources on windows that say
"This page contains hostile activity, would like to continue?".

Not only would that get a lot of fire for being similar to a "trigger warning", but it would overall be a waste of time and resources. It would also be impractical for Google to modify or remove comments made by users on other sites unless the site explicitly allows this to happen(mostlikely sites like Tumblr, Facebook, or even Reddit) and providing it as a "service to enhance site traffic and user friendliness".

Since this would strictly operate on keywords rather than complete sentences, people will still be able to make opposing rightwing arguments without having to resort to ignorant slang/terminology.

Besides, a large group of Google developers and investors are indeed rightwingers, so it would be disadvantageous if Google were to choose sides.,
User avatar
#21 - lilnuggetbob (09/24/2016) [-]
Lets hope your right than.
#76 - superblade (09/24/2016) [-]
>Let's hope your right than.

Let's hope you're right then.
#6 - The idea is to show how censorship can backfire, by getting go…  [+] (7 replies) 09/24/2016 on Spread the word +4
#7 - totallytito (09/24/2016) [-]
Why not just avoid using the term "nigger" to discuss an important matter?
Kinda like mature people would?

It is possible to discuss the problems that one might have with a black community without using racial slurs.

I am normally against censorship, but often times the usage of racial slurs is accompanied by ignorant remarks and biased viewpoints. If a person can express a biased viewpoint without a hateful outlook, then it is possible to isolate a more objective standpoint in the longrun.

A similar case would apply to the terms "whiteys", "Crackers", "kikes", "Shitskins", and "mudslimes".

People who resort to using fewer derogatory, generalist words in their discussions tend to be prone to using less emotionally charged vocabulary and and topic objectives, and focus more on an academically neutral standpoint that addresses unbiased problems with a less frequent usages of Snowball Arguments.

Again, this is not 100% of the case, but it is what is statistically recorded to occur more frequently. With reddit and 4chan dominating the online community of our age group(which also happens to be the most internet-active age demographic), it is a necessary evil to isolate more neutral-standing conversations with objective outlooks on our problems and solutions.

Academically blacks are being racist against whites over inherited sins,
paranoid whites are being xenophobic of foreigners over the potential loss of jobs,
academically challenged females are being sexist towards men in an act of 'vengeance' for inherited sins,
gays and transgenders are being heterophobic for similar reasons as the academically challenged women.

The internet was designed as an educational tool for the betterment of society, not a megaphone for ignorance.

If it means censoring certain features that are dominant in most ignorant discussions,
then it would increase the likelihood that more academically enriched discussions can be held. This way, if people still choose to make the same ignorant arguments as before, they would be socially encouraged to do so in a socially acceptable manner complete with reasons and justifications for their viewpoints(regardless of whether they are right or wrong).

This reduces the possibility of people calling each other "hitlers" for disagreeing with their opinions, or blaming religious or racial groups for crimes that were not formed by an organization that operates independently of such concepts.



Ironically, the one group that is putting the greatest fight against this is /pol/, which is by far one of the most notorious anonymous organizations that encourage ignorance on a grand scale(not unlike the extremists on Tumblr).
Every time the media over-hypes something that their general consensus agrees with, they will side with it. If the media hypes something that they DO disagree with, they will claim it to be a farce. This kind of biased extremist mentality has to be stopped for the betterment of society.

If a race, religion, or gender is to be accused of a general crime,
then it should be done without derogatory slang, and instead to be done in a journalistic, neutral and educated mannger that points both the cons as well as the pros.

Not only would this shut down /pol/ extremists,
but it would equally heavily impact the social-justice extremist communities that resort to similar methods. Ignorance must be censored, not opinions and facts.


At least, that's the way i see it.


User avatar
#8 - lilnuggetbob (09/24/2016) [-]
The cenorship google is adding only targets those like /pol/, which is bad.
If it targeted extremist in general, i wouldn't mind as much, but instead is being used to censor a specific group, and most likely won't be used to censor anyone else, which is an issue, and a slippery slope.

After /pol/, why not censor anyone who's white? Or doesn't say someones pronouns?
Or disagrees with a woman?

Thats how i see it.
User avatar
#9 - totallytito (09/24/2016) [-]
"The cenorship google is adding only targets those like /pol/, which is bad."
As far as we know

I believe google is only targeting racial slurs. It's impossible to tell anyone's race, and censoring entire sentences of various structures would be too much work for Google as a whole.

It is much easier to simply keep out racial slurs to encourage a user friendly atmosphere where people can criticize an opposing party without resorting to ignorant standards.

For example, "

"BLM is full of fucking useless niggers that just want to fuck up everything because 'muh white people'.

can be rewritten to-

"I don't like the BlackLivesMatter community because seriously, this organization is catering to people who have a strong racially charged bias against white people, and therefore can be a hazard to this country".

Obviously nobody's going to write in a robotic tone, but I'm just providing an example of how an angry ignorant statement can be written in a less douchey manner.

Considering how /pol/ is retroactively rigging polls with mass-votes(easily outnumbering the total number of readers on a given site) is actually a form of censorship against an opposing party. By flocking to polls and public opinion evaluations, they are sabotaging the freedom of speech for their own favor. Surveys are usually conducted in an uncontrolled environment where anybody who coincidentally runs into it, can speak freely. When you suddenly have control over a large flock of like-minded people to ambush an online poll, it basically deprives everyone else of their freedom of speech.

I find it ironic that /pol/ is attempting everything it can to restrict the freedom of speech, but then retaliating when they are being censored.

There is a right way to do things, and then there is the wrong way.



Blaming all whites for one's problems is wrong,
so why would it make that okay to do with everyone slse? You know?


Before assuming that Google is only targetting /pol/ take into consideration that they could be applying this to everyone equally, but /pol/ users are simply more likely to commit the same crime repeatedly because their community is strictly designed to be anti-friendly in an attempt to be "smarter/stronger" than the rest of society.

One thing is having self-control, another thing is a "hugbox".
A hubbox doesn't allow opposing opinions or discussions.
Self control allows for opposing opinions without having to resort to mindless hostility
and resorting to memes or trends.

User avatar
#10 - lilnuggetbob (09/24/2016) [-]
You're assuming google is trying to do the best for everyone, i'm assuming they're going to keep going down the rout they've been going for a while. Censoring those who disagree with their beliefs.
Im not worried that they're censoring /pol/, im worried it might spread to me, as i am generally right leaning.

While i do agree that stopping excessive swears is probably a good thing, again, my main concern is that they might not stop there.

If im wrong, and i hope i am, than all will be fine, but, in the mean time, i might as well show google what could happen if censorship goes unchecked.
User avatar
#16 - totallytito (09/24/2016) [-]
Mostlikely places like Stormfront would end up getting the axe, while sites like 8chan and 4chan would stay mostly intact due to /pol/ being sub-sites rather than being entire domains.

It would be more practical if Google blocked entire domains rather than sub-sites, because then Google would have to waste resources on windows that say
"This page contains hostile activity, would like to continue?".

Not only would that get a lot of fire for being similar to a "trigger warning", but it would overall be a waste of time and resources. It would also be impractical for Google to modify or remove comments made by users on other sites unless the site explicitly allows this to happen(mostlikely sites like Tumblr, Facebook, or even Reddit) and providing it as a "service to enhance site traffic and user friendliness".

Since this would strictly operate on keywords rather than complete sentences, people will still be able to make opposing rightwing arguments without having to resort to ignorant slang/terminology.

Besides, a large group of Google developers and investors are indeed rightwingers, so it would be disadvantageous if Google were to choose sides.,
User avatar
#21 - lilnuggetbob (09/24/2016) [-]
Lets hope your right than.
#76 - superblade (09/24/2016) [-]
>Let's hope your right than.

Let's hope you're right then.
#4 - Its not a meme, its to **** with googles auto-censor thing, by…  [+] (9 replies) 09/24/2016 on Spread the word +23
User avatar
#5 - totallytito (09/24/2016) [-]
But censoring the word "Google" wouldn't make much sense because Google doesn't need to advertise itself. None of its functions would really be interfered with,
User avatar
#6 - lilnuggetbob (09/24/2016) [-]
The idea is to show how censorship can backfire, by getting google to censor its own name.

Ill admit, its not a great idea, but im too lazy to come up with something better.
#7 - totallytito (09/24/2016) [-]
Why not just avoid using the term "nigger" to discuss an important matter?
Kinda like mature people would?

It is possible to discuss the problems that one might have with a black community without using racial slurs.

I am normally against censorship, but often times the usage of racial slurs is accompanied by ignorant remarks and biased viewpoints. If a person can express a biased viewpoint without a hateful outlook, then it is possible to isolate a more objective standpoint in the longrun.

A similar case would apply to the terms "whiteys", "Crackers", "kikes", "Shitskins", and "mudslimes".

People who resort to using fewer derogatory, generalist words in their discussions tend to be prone to using less emotionally charged vocabulary and and topic objectives, and focus more on an academically neutral standpoint that addresses unbiased problems with a less frequent usages of Snowball Arguments.

Again, this is not 100% of the case, but it is what is statistically recorded to occur more frequently. With reddit and 4chan dominating the online community of our age group(which also happens to be the most internet-active age demographic), it is a necessary evil to isolate more neutral-standing conversations with objective outlooks on our problems and solutions.

Academically blacks are being racist against whites over inherited sins,
paranoid whites are being xenophobic of foreigners over the potential loss of jobs,
academically challenged females are being sexist towards men in an act of 'vengeance' for inherited sins,
gays and transgenders are being heterophobic for similar reasons as the academically challenged women.

The internet was designed as an educational tool for the betterment of society, not a megaphone for ignorance.

If it means censoring certain features that are dominant in most ignorant discussions,
then it would increase the likelihood that more academically enriched discussions can be held. This way, if people still choose to make the same ignorant arguments as before, they would be socially encouraged to do so in a socially acceptable manner complete with reasons and justifications for their viewpoints(regardless of whether they are right or wrong).

This reduces the possibility of people calling each other "hitlers" for disagreeing with their opinions, or blaming religious or racial groups for crimes that were not formed by an organization that operates independently of such concepts.



Ironically, the one group that is putting the greatest fight against this is /pol/, which is by far one of the most notorious anonymous organizations that encourage ignorance on a grand scale(not unlike the extremists on Tumblr).
Every time the media over-hypes something that their general consensus agrees with, they will side with it. If the media hypes something that they DO disagree with, they will claim it to be a farce. This kind of biased extremist mentality has to be stopped for the betterment of society.

If a race, religion, or gender is to be accused of a general crime,
then it should be done without derogatory slang, and instead to be done in a journalistic, neutral and educated mannger that points both the cons as well as the pros.

Not only would this shut down /pol/ extremists,
but it would equally heavily impact the social-justice extremist communities that resort to similar methods. Ignorance must be censored, not opinions and facts.


At least, that's the way i see it.


User avatar
#8 - lilnuggetbob (09/24/2016) [-]
The cenorship google is adding only targets those like /pol/, which is bad.
If it targeted extremist in general, i wouldn't mind as much, but instead is being used to censor a specific group, and most likely won't be used to censor anyone else, which is an issue, and a slippery slope.

After /pol/, why not censor anyone who's white? Or doesn't say someones pronouns?
Or disagrees with a woman?

Thats how i see it.
User avatar
#9 - totallytito (09/24/2016) [-]
"The cenorship google is adding only targets those like /pol/, which is bad."
As far as we know

I believe google is only targeting racial slurs. It's impossible to tell anyone's race, and censoring entire sentences of various structures would be too much work for Google as a whole.

It is much easier to simply keep out racial slurs to encourage a user friendly atmosphere where people can criticize an opposing party without resorting to ignorant standards.

For example, "

"BLM is full of fucking useless niggers that just want to fuck up everything because 'muh white people'.

can be rewritten to-

"I don't like the BlackLivesMatter community because seriously, this organization is catering to people who have a strong racially charged bias against white people, and therefore can be a hazard to this country".

Obviously nobody's going to write in a robotic tone, but I'm just providing an example of how an angry ignorant statement can be written in a less douchey manner.

Considering how /pol/ is retroactively rigging polls with mass-votes(easily outnumbering the total number of readers on a given site) is actually a form of censorship against an opposing party. By flocking to polls and public opinion evaluations, they are sabotaging the freedom of speech for their own favor. Surveys are usually conducted in an uncontrolled environment where anybody who coincidentally runs into it, can speak freely. When you suddenly have control over a large flock of like-minded people to ambush an online poll, it basically deprives everyone else of their freedom of speech.

I find it ironic that /pol/ is attempting everything it can to restrict the freedom of speech, but then retaliating when they are being censored.

There is a right way to do things, and then there is the wrong way.



Blaming all whites for one's problems is wrong,
so why would it make that okay to do with everyone slse? You know?


Before assuming that Google is only targetting /pol/ take into consideration that they could be applying this to everyone equally, but /pol/ users are simply more likely to commit the same crime repeatedly because their community is strictly designed to be anti-friendly in an attempt to be "smarter/stronger" than the rest of society.

One thing is having self-control, another thing is a "hugbox".
A hubbox doesn't allow opposing opinions or discussions.
Self control allows for opposing opinions without having to resort to mindless hostility
and resorting to memes or trends.

User avatar
#10 - lilnuggetbob (09/24/2016) [-]
You're assuming google is trying to do the best for everyone, i'm assuming they're going to keep going down the rout they've been going for a while. Censoring those who disagree with their beliefs.
Im not worried that they're censoring /pol/, im worried it might spread to me, as i am generally right leaning.

While i do agree that stopping excessive swears is probably a good thing, again, my main concern is that they might not stop there.

If im wrong, and i hope i am, than all will be fine, but, in the mean time, i might as well show google what could happen if censorship goes unchecked.
User avatar
#16 - totallytito (09/24/2016) [-]
Mostlikely places like Stormfront would end up getting the axe, while sites like 8chan and 4chan would stay mostly intact due to /pol/ being sub-sites rather than being entire domains.

It would be more practical if Google blocked entire domains rather than sub-sites, because then Google would have to waste resources on windows that say
"This page contains hostile activity, would like to continue?".

Not only would that get a lot of fire for being similar to a "trigger warning", but it would overall be a waste of time and resources. It would also be impractical for Google to modify or remove comments made by users on other sites unless the site explicitly allows this to happen(mostlikely sites like Tumblr, Facebook, or even Reddit) and providing it as a "service to enhance site traffic and user friendliness".

Since this would strictly operate on keywords rather than complete sentences, people will still be able to make opposing rightwing arguments without having to resort to ignorant slang/terminology.

Besides, a large group of Google developers and investors are indeed rightwingers, so it would be disadvantageous if Google were to choose sides.,
User avatar
#21 - lilnuggetbob (09/24/2016) [-]
Lets hope your right than.
#76 - superblade (09/24/2016) [-]
>Let's hope your right than.

Let's hope you're right then.
#3 - Disease* 09/16/2016 on Ndt +1
#2 - Forgot my sources: >Most of them are suicides …  [+] (2 replies) 09/16/2016 on Ndt +10
User avatar
#4 - lilnuggetbob (09/16/2016) [-]
And i did my math wrong, thats approx 9 million since 2001.
User avatar
#3 - lilnuggetbob (09/16/2016) [-]
Disease*

channels owned

Subscribe garrymod
Subscribe lego