Talk:No Girls on the Internet

A Clarification?

"As there seem to be feminazis, white knights and other confused beings stumbling upon this saying, a clarification is in its place..."

What feminazis? what white knights? are you sure you're not pre-emptively getting defensive about this? And why do we need a clarification of a clarification? --NotBrandX (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

On gender and anonymity

It seems to me that the tyrade from /b/ has been interpreted here in only one of it's possible meanings, that is, the more hateful one. I think the point our angry friend is trying to make here is that on an anonymous imageboard the sex of the poster shouldn't really matter. If one goes out of their way to proclaim their gender in order to win an internet argument or simply garner attention for being a supposed oddity, is it really that unwarranted to ask for some proof? As far as content making goes, gender doesn't really play a part so it shouldn't even be mentioned in the first place, regardless of what the response would be. A female homebrewer posting on /tg/ would likely never reveal their girl status, just as males don't explicity state their guy status. This is the nature of anonymity. What the lecture fails to mention is cases where gender is actually a relevant factor, in which case it would be totally acceptable to identify the state of your nether regions. On boards aside from /b/, I've rarely seen this be an issue.

Neither does it mention the true origins of the phrase "tits or GTFO," which stems from females starting threads for the purposes of posting pictures of themselves and being doted upon by the lonely and naive, known as "camwhoring". These threads were at one point prevalent enough that they became bothersome to the denizens of /b/ and thus the term was coined as a means to drive off these individuals by flooding them with crass requests. Newfags will spew the EPIC MAY-MAY whenever one reveals themselves as female, but it's really supposed to be reserved for camwhores.

I'm not saying girls don't belong here. I'm saying that if all you've got to say is "I'm a girl btw," then either do the only thing special that qualifies you for and whip 'em out, or leave because you're contributing nothing.

It is a pretty fucking hateful rant, brosef. If they wanted to be cute and fluffy they wouldn't have said a girl is only valuable for her tits.

Deletion

Put simply, this whole section does nothing to add to the page and comes off as being a bitter rant with no connection to reality, all while reducing the question of why so few girls are interested in RPGs to a gross oversimplification (that quite ironically is sexist itself in assuming all male RPG players are misogynistic). Consequently, I have removed that section of the article and placed the deletion tag. I fail to see how a meme that is all but extinct could possibly be relevant to /tg/. --Newerfag (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• but i like this meme and i think it is still relevant today. on the internet people cannot rely on their identity to convince others of something. they have produce a valid argument. the tumblr rant section was stupid and completely missed the point of the meme and deserved to be deleted but i dont think that the whole page should be deleted. --Kapow (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Not really, no. At this point anybody who wants to rely on their identity to convince anyone of anything just becomes a tripfag. I haven't seen anybody actually use the "no girls on the internet" meme for years. It's safe to say that the meme is dead now. --Newerfag (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    • i see the meme all the time. in fact i saw it repeated on reddit today and frankly, 'pontificate for your edification' is one of the best posts ever made on 4chan. im removing the delete and restoring the page because this meme has become one of the fundamental fibers of 4chan.--Kapow (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Reddit? Really? That shithole is essentially everything 4chan is not. If anything that undermines your argument even further.--Newerfag (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
      • You undid Newerfag's edit simply because you disagree with it? Honestly, can't this be merged with the Hot Chicks or Bitches pages? It alone isn't relevant to this wiki except as an extension to either of the previous.

Don't delete it because reddit said it. It doesn't prove your purity to shun the impure, you just look like you're insecure. Don't delete it because it's not novel. This is a wiki, it's not here to be fresh or hip, it's to explain stuff that we're tired of explaining in the forums, and it's for collaborating on projects. If you truly believe nobody will go looking for this, then you could've safely ignored it since people won't find it if they aren't looking for it. Don't delete it because you're embarrassed it exists. You're anonymous so your personal reputation isn't even in jeopardy, and covering it up won't make people forget it just makes it clear you worry about it. Don't delete it because it's incorrect. Fix it, make it correct. As for wiping the page with 'take it to the discuss page if you want to make changes,' it's disingenuous when you make sweeping changes but tell everyone else they have to follow a procedure that you've avoided. -- NotBrandX (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• So far you've not provided any reason to keep the page or how it is relevant to /tg/ at all. Why is this even here still? Is there an honest to god reason for it? For fuck's sake, this page has probably gotten more traffic from people seeing it on the "Recent Changes" page over the past few days than it has had in the past year. -- 184.79.170.1
• It may be a wiki, but that doesn't mean that you can throw any random crap on without explaining how it's related to /tg/. From my own experience, this meme hasn't been seen on /tg/ in years, so while it may still be in force on other boards the reasoning for allowing it to retain its place here is dubious at best. And really, what is there to be correct about with it? It's not something that requires verification- it was a meme that came and went like any other. --Newerfag (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Please let go of the idea that the only article here must be "fresh and new". I've already told you wikis aren't journals of current events, they're reference texts. What's-his-nuts just before you has a more valid point: the "No Gurls On The Internet" has broad interest, but I wonder when or if it was used on /tg/. (inb4 "you expressed doubt therefore I'm right forever and always fuck you") I'm gonna go look; because, y'know, checking facts is better than just thinking you're right because you're you. --NotBrandX (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you still certain this meme hasn't been seen on /tg/ in years ? --NotBrandX (talk)

• I did say it was to the best of my knowledge, did I not? I am not afraid to admit that I was mistaken. While I still question how relevant the meme is now, I shall drop the subject for the moment. The important thing is that the big tumblr rant will stay gone.--Newerfag (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The article does seem to attract defensive rants and euphoric lectures, doesn't it? Maybe we should ditch it not because it's "stale" or "not relevant", but because it's flamebait. Some people don't know the difference between "sex of the author should be irrelevant" and "dunt u dare say ur a gurl." And who keeps thinking a picture of text is better than actual text? Jeez. --NotBrandX (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    • If you want to state "Sex of the Author is irrelevant", say "Sex of the Author is irrelevant" rather than saying something which excludes half of the population. Leaving aside the implications of stating that women always using sex appeal to gain an unfair advantage.--A Walrus (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I'll say it again because I really think it'll be the best option: I think we should merge this with the Hot Chicks or Bitches pages. It alone isn't relevant to /tg/ any more than any other meme - why not make a page for "Not Bad" Obama or Darude - Sandstorm, then? Where do we draw the line? My own feelings on this page aside (read: indifference), the fact that NotBrandX and Kapow have put so much effort into keeping it alive speaks pretty well for the page. What does everyone else think?
    • quote from the main page of 1d4chan.org, "Welcome to 1d4chan, a site devoted to the description and archival of all sorts of things interesting and relevant to /tg/ (the "traditional games" board of 4chan), including articles on fa/tg/uy culture, memes particular to (or at least commonly used on) /tg/"--Kapow (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
      • They and A Walrus seem to be the only users on the wiki that have even added anything to the page in the last few months. I'll keep my mouth shut as to whether that's good or bad, but it does appear that most other users don't seem to even acknowledge its existence and wouldn't care either way about its possible deletion. While I would advise its deletion if only to reduce the possibility of it acting as flamebait again, I am open to alternatives. In an unrelated note, it's rather self-contradicting to say a "living, breathing document" can reach a final form, given that such a final form suggests that the meme has nowhere left to evolve and is doomed to die out. Even on the posts listed on foolz, it seemed to be used ironically or as a joke more often than its supposed connotations. Plus, the fact that it originated on /b/ and not /tg/ means that there's a few degrees of separation between it and the kinds of memes like Angry Marines that are better suited for the wiki. I say we leave the site-wide memes for places like Encyclopedia Dramatica and KnowYourMeme and focus more on the stuff created on /tg/ itself.--Newerfag (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)