e80839 No.154
Soooooo, /fem/ lookin' pretty kill now. 😌
259749 No.155
Lol.
To be honest, I haven't really been too worried about it. Even though I'm not a fan of the owner or the board, I haven't been hoping for their demise or anything.
So what prompted all of that?
c9991b No.156
>>155I guess it's just a coordinated effort by a bunch of people who dislike /fem/.
259749 No.159
>>156
Yeah, like >>158 said, it's mostly dislike for Swami. I remember when I used to go on /fem/ before Swami's shitposting and attention whoring got really bad; most people were cool with the board after realizing that it wasn't full of SJWs as they had initially thought.
c9991b No.160
>>158
>>159
What shits did she post?
4722fe No.170
>>160She goes around other boards shitposting with her tripcode with /fem/ in her name.
096411 No.172
Feels pretty sad that this is what it came to. Really enjoyed /fem/ when it first started and Swami didn't seem so bad.
Her crossboard shitposting was gonna lead to this eventually that's just the reality of it.
Hoya by the way! First post on this board after seeing the crater that was /fem/.
91c586 No.231
>>158
From what I can understand, swami was a bit annoying and controlling, but nothing severe. HE (see image) stepped it up, and said some shit about baphomet. They dropped dox, and he tried to harvest ip's from baphomet to know who to attack. He didn't consider trying to hack hackers wouldn't work well, and to no surprise, it didn't. He went ban nuts and started fucking the board up. Then there's a supposed incedent where a dude blew up his crotch (details are very lax here), and somehow that screwed up the board (instead of giving it more members). I'll include the image here, so mod/admin, please delete it if to risky for a sfw board (no nudity or gore, so it should be good).
91c586 No.232
>>231He messed up his own board, not /baphomet/, much to his disappointment.
91c586 No.234
>>232>>231I'm the same anon.
f153b9 No.235
>>231>Then there's a supposed incedent where a dude blew up his crotch (details are very lax here)lol wut? weird people
91c586 No.237
>>236
I was clarifying I'm correcting the spelling errors in >>231 as >>232 and that I'm the same anon, not two anon's posting.
9e880b No.239
>>231There was a superior gif version of that second pic on /fem/, but Swami deleted it as "shitposting," because it criticized /fem/. I see very clearly now why people dislike Swami. However, I want to make it clear that if Swami is a transsexual male and/or paedo, that doesn't matter. Let's not discriminate. What matters is that (s)he shitposts and can't take criticism.
e1a1c5 No.240
>>239>if Swami is a transsexual male and/or paedo, that doesn't matter. Let's not discriminateummm yes it does matter……
sometimes discriminating is good anon
those things are perverted and wrong
e03096 No.241
>>240Hey, transsexuality is stupid, but it's not hurting anyone but the people who inflict it upon themselves. As for fantasizing about touching girls… well, he or she did not at all imply doing it against their will. One of the biggest boards on this site is for people who are interested in young girls. Lots of guys like younger girls, and lots of girls like older guys, too. I mean, I don't support exclusive paedophiles, because girls grow up, and that isn't therefore healthy, but so long as they aren't banging kids or anything, no big deal, right? We should hate Swami because he or she sucks, not because of any kinks he or she might have.
29ca23 No.243
>>241>did not at all imply doing it against their willWhat the hell? Children are not able to consent to being "touched". And just because there is a board for something doesn't make it ok. Your logic is bizarre.
e03096 No.244
>>243"The innocence of them, their milky skin, their rough hair, their smooth [sic] subble skin, I just want to caress them and hold them tightly."
Not sexual.
"I would never touch them unless they want to be touched
She would know that by me touching her, it is love in the most pure form
Love has no age."
Sexual, but (s)he's saying, "Only if she wants it." That's fair. How do you know that he or she is talking about prepubescent girls? But, hell, even a prepubescent girl can want it, really. I've talked to other girls who were all about it. Girls who wanted it from a very young age, and in some cases, got a little bit of second base sort of action at a young age, from older men or women, because they wanted it.
If that's indeed Swami, and if that citation isn't made up, it's not at all "a pedophile who fantasizes about raping little girls." (S)he said IN THE QUOTE something totally contrary to that. This is not intellectual honesty. There are plenty of reasons to hate Swami. This shit isn't it. Besides, it could even all be trolling.
29ca23 No.245
>>244Wow get a grip. I wasn't talking about swami I was talking in general terms but you really seem to want to defend that person. I'm not convinced on any of your points. Also you are wrong, children cannot understand things well enough to "want it" and consent.
>But, hell, even a prepubescent girl can want it, really. I've talked to other girls who were all about it. Girls who wanted it from a very young age, and in some cases, got a little bit of second base sort of action at a young age, from older men or women, because they wanted it.I'm getting the impression here that you're not a female.
Regardless of your strange need to defend child-adult relationships and swami's statements I dislike swami because he's a ruseman who tries to screw with and undermine the 8chan community.
a681bf No.246
>>245You're an imbecile and your opinions are based on willful ignorance and zero thought. You are the one that needs to get a grip on reality.
>only men can be pedophiles or defend pedophilia 6f2647 No.247
>>246>ever thinking that a child understands sexuality to the extent that they can properly consent to sexual contact with an adultYou are displaying a disgusting lack of morality. I'd rather be considered imbecilic than tolerate and defend predatory behaviour.
a681bf No.248
>>247>I'd rather be considered imbecilicClearly.
You have no real argument.
Children can consent, people like you just demean them and insist they can't.
dece35 No.249
>>248You're saying that children are mentally and emotionally equivalent to adults. That is incorrect and it is not demeaning to acknowledge this fact. Pedo apologist stop bending over backwards to make it okay because it's not.
e03096 No.261
>>249I don't think he's saying that at all. But I will myself say that children aren't stupid. People always act like they're retards incapable of making their own decisions, and that's not really true after a point. I do think that
really young kids are like that, but in the run-up to puberty, kids are pretty smart and responsible.
6f2647 No.266
>>261>in the run-up to puberty, kids are pretty smart and responsible.this is a blanket statement that I think you should reconsider. That's like saying everyone is pretty smart and responsible. We know this to be false.
Are you agreeing with them that children are able to give valid consent to sexual activity with an adult? Because they are saying that disagreeing with that is demeaning to children.
e03096 No.269
>>266It's a generalization that's true in most cases.
By that same token, tons of 18-year-olds are on a level below many 12-year-olds.
Personal responsibility just needs to be a thing with people is what is essentially boils down to.
555aa7 No.288
>>231He blew up his wiener?! D_: why??
de7b2b No.316
Oh Boo hoo the guy is a pedo yah, now how's that supposed to affects his ability to administrate his own board? i can't really understand how that is outrageous considering that we are on an anonimous imageboard
Fucking newfags
56fad7 No.447
File: 1425884370624.png (516.35 KB, 1080x1841, 1080:1841, Screenshot_2015-03-09-02-5….png)
Sheeeeeeee-oot.
561748 No.457
>>447They got spammed by a new board, /cena/, after HW apparently revealed that swami is a man in the recent stream (haven't seen it myself but that's what people are saying)
56fad7 No.460
>>457Why would he do that? How would he even know?
56fad7 No.476
File: 1425935775839.png (473.45 KB, 1080x1661, 1080:1661, Screenshot_2015-03-09-17-1….png)
Wowwwwwwwww. Apparently we are owned by /baphomet/. News to me. 😪
4950f6 No.477
>>476every female on the internet who isn't swami is baphomet, according to swami, who is a man irl
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
8c62cd No.826
*sigh*
/fem/ seems to have gotten a bit of an activity bump. Looks like Swami is around drawing attention, or something. It goes back and forth who's got more activity, but I'd like it to be a little more consistent here.
cfea68 No.828
>>476well ofc we are all from baphomet
which wouldnt even be an insult, really. the moderation is pretty good if the anons there are to be believed fb053e No.834
Will my IP help to make the place more active?
I can't believe this place existed and I didn't even knew that.
7db1db No.836
>>834Did you fly in from /fem/?
fb053e No.838
>>836Yup I did lol
Just discovered the magic of this place and I like the premise way more than /fem/'s already.
955ce8 No.841
>>838Yay, +1 enlightened individual!
f67d1f No.1289
No bully…just think it's pretty funny….I want to try….
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!
hahaha
polite sage