We will make 4chan without /pol/ and /b/
>>135906They serve as containments. Although they don't always work so maybe we should trial a period of removing them and banning anyone who tries to shit up the other boards.
>>135906>>136232No, without them then it wouldn't really be 4chan, imo
>>135906Honestly I really wouldn't mind that, they give the site a really bad rep and the users (especially ones from /pol/, /b/tards don't seem to use other boards) shit up other boards with their retarded bullshit. >>136232They'd just go to their own site, like what happened with that one board that I don't think we're allowed to mention anymore due to recent events.
ree
>>136243This is important.Normiefags dont bring anything, ever. /Pol/ and /b/ filter them hard.
pol has it's place it just needs to be managed carefully.
>>135906removing /pol/ and /b/ would only breach containment and the posters from those boards would migrate to other boards.
>>136522just remove porn from /b/ and it would be fine. there is already enough porn boards there is no need for it
>>135906We need /b/ because that's the board for anything that doesn't have it's own board.If you nuked /pol/ and /r9k/ and then tanked the backlash, you'd greatly improve the quality of boards.>>136522>mum containmentThey already do that anyway. Containment that fails to contain is a failure.
>>136552
>>136232the containment theory was proven false in 2016 - 2020, it doesn't work