/x/ - Paranormal / Occult

>>866

Yes, I used to. Until I realized I could be the one being killed, or someone I care for. That was kinda offputting, and made me enjoy not too much 3d gore anymore.
I still really like 2D, though, and sometimes I find entertaining 3D ones, but most of the time I just don't find them interesting.

Now, let me ask, why is this paranormal?

>>867
Every other Snuff thread I've seen was put on the paranormal boards since most 2spooky4me stories are based around Snuff Films.

>>869

>since most 2spooky4me stories are based around Snuff Films.

Most of them are based in creepy monsters with sharpen teeth, goatmen or crap which leaks off from SA. The only two I recall being based around some kind of strange "snuff" video are that one that was supposed to drive you mad and that you can find in youtube (first 20 seconds), and the other infamous one, "The Grifter", and it was not even snuff per se.

This thread has been dead for a long time, and I realize you probably don't even post here anymore. But if you enjoy snuff films, then I hope one day you end up a victim in the making of one. And I hope you survive permanently disfigured, so you can see at what cost they really come.

Those people in those films you found "entertaining" had lives, and more than likely families as well. They were no less important than you, and you are no less mortal than them. You are a human. You aren't above death, and no one on this Earth ever existed to die for your enjoyment. I've had two people make honest attempts on my life. Real death, real killing, should not be entertaining.

And before anyone defends enjoying these films on the grounds that refusing to watch them won't bring back their victims, I'd like to point out that that's completely irrelevant to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, you're dishonoring those people's memories. And the kind of people who enjoy doing that are the same kind of people who enjoy making the films: the sadistic, god-complexed scum of the Earth. Get your life in order and stop feeding on the suffering of others.

>>866

Not one legitimate snuff film was ever recovered. They're staged, faked and an urban myth.

>>937
I know for a fact that this is false.
I've seen entire sites shut down that had snuff films or films that had people being killed in them (Snuff Film is an encompassing term for any video that has someone actually being killed in it.)

>>938
I remember there was a site run by a Canadian guy who got arrested recently. The site in question had a good amount of that sort of thing on it, pretty sure that's how I watched that Luka Magnotta tape. Anabody remember the name of the site? It's slipped my mind..
Speaking of the Magnotta tape, you learn some interesting things about human anatomy from watching that kind of shit. Apparently the meat of someone's ass looks kind of like pork and is way harder to cut through than you'd imagine. Isn't it nice, what we use the greatest technology ever devised by man for?

>>933
In spite of finding that sort of stuff a little interesting I agree with everything you just said.

>>939
wasn't it bestgore? I remember coming upon it around the time that everyone was talking about the Magnotta case.

Someone upload some snuff to mega

>>941
If I remeber correctly his trial starts in two days

I watched a supposed snuff film (victim that reportedly died may not have actually died) titled "three guys one hammer" once. Well, actually twice. I mean, I feel bad for the victim, but it made me terribly hungry to watch it.

I never seek out snuff videos but when they pop up somewhere I click on it even thought the description is something like "oh man this is disturbing you are better off not clicking this link, a dude dies"

and then I have recurring nightmares watching the same person get electrocuted while climbing high voltage pylons or falling hundreds of feet during parkour etc.

The worst one was a newly married couple riding their horses. Their dog is following along behind and gets to close and a horse kicks its head and it falls over. Tries to stand back up, wobbles, puts its tail between its legs, then lies down all sad and crumpled up. Fucking dog just wanted to be with its people, all happy and shit. Then a horse crushed its skull and it probably died. I saw it years ago and the image replays in my mind on repeat no matter how many times I try to forget it. :((((((((

>>933
I whole-heartedly agree with everything you have said. If anyone even mentions enjoying snuff films to me, i instantly have to question their sanity because those are real, honest, and innocent people dying in the vids. It baffles me how people can find masochistic enjoyment out of horrible tragedies or even sound of people crying after seeing their loved ones killed right in front of them. The descriptions of these videos are vomit-inducing and heart-wrenching as is.

Anyone watched any of the Islamic State's recent 60fps snuff?

>>1297
They are just repetitive at this point, and leaving the fact they kill people they're pretty boring and… "staged". I mean, I saw one where some kids entered a building pretending to be a well-trained squad and killed people inside… like really? I thought those videos were supposed to make you feel scared, not find them amusing for the B-rate tier "plot".

>>933
>>1011
I know that both of you guys probably aren't on here anymore, but I don't really care. Different people find different things entertaining and there's nothing wrong with that. Do you ever think why those things are so horrible or why they're so heart wrenching? There isn't really a good answer to those questions. They don't exist. They're completely imaginary. So what if everybody's lives are worth the same? If somebody hypothetically made a snuff film of me I wouldn't mind if some random guy on the internet saw it. You're self-righteous. Telling someone that they don't have the right to enjoy a video that they didn't even take is bigoted. Wishing death upon those people is also unbelievably hypocritical. You don't even know the people who died in the films. They could have been rapists or something. Snuff films are a novelty. People dying is interesting and not something that you see everyday. If you could see people dying right out your window any time, snuff films wouldn't be a thing. Most of the people who, "star", in those films are probably homeless and mentally ill so you could also argue that they're less important than any Joe Shmoe. Get off your high horse.

>>1299
Wait a second, I will give you credit where it's due and say that those two posters, especially the first one at >>933 were a little dramatic but are you really going to defend those who actually love snuff with a weak, "It's all relative brah, some people like watching people fuck, I like to watch people die"?

In reality, most people are going to have similar reactions to those two to those who enjoy snuff films because you are basically saying, "I look for videos of people actually dying for fun". It naturally weirds people out and fetishized murder isn't really good for civilization.

>>1302
Look, I agree that fetishizing murder is a little gross, but again that's my own perspective. Morality is something that's ingrained into people by genetics and society. What i'm trying to say is that opinions based on those things shouldn't be treated as fact because those things have no basis in fact. Different people have different moral codes. In some places it's okay to eat your dead relatives. The definition of rape also has a lot of variation. Thinking that you're moral code is infallible and should be the judge of everything that's right or wrong is arrogant. Arrogant people are everywhere and i'm a little sick of them. They're why i'd never be allowed to voice this opinion in real life. Being able to go around and murder anyone you want would obviously be bad for society, but if someone just likes to enjoy something within the privacy of their own home than there's nothing wrong with that. You could do all kinds of mental gymnastics like saying that snuff films might, MIGHT, encourage more murder, but when you start trying to protect people from themselves and prevent anyone from getting, "toxic", ideas you become something far worse than a murderer. Violence in games might encourage more violence, rape jokes might encourage more rape, rock music might encourage more sin, etc., etc., etc.

>>1304
I'm fine with people doing things that harm no one in the privacy of their home, I'm talking more on the level of society. For our society to continue like it has been, I feel like a set group of morals are required and things like fetishizing murder and to some degree death go agaisnt it.

I'd love to see this place where people can munch on their relatives, because while this might sound arrogant, I doubt they are advanced like the first world is or even some third world states are.

Your point seems valid if you remove the society goal. I just think different moral systems seem to yield different results, frankly. But I would agree that inane censorship causes more issues than it solves.

>>1305
I agree that for society to exist you need rules. No killing, no stealing, that kind of thing, but what people enjoy is different from that. There's a very thick line between enjoying watching something and doing it yourself. The things I mentioned were just examples, but when you look at things from a pure enjoyment perspective my point still stands. In some places violence of any kind in media is prohibited and in America a lot of sexual stuff, that is seen as fine in countries just as developed as us, is heavily frowned upon. Are Islamic countries that censor cleavage in movies more developed than us? No. The society goal is less about morals and more about keeping the standard of living up. Telling people that the rules that make life decent are some kind of virtues given by god is disingenuous. Christianity wasn't good because it gave people, "morals", it was good because it controlled people. Kept them from raping little castrated boys. Now, as a little boy you didn't have to worry about being castrated and raped. A society where people masturbate at funerals and eat corpses could hypothetically be as advanced as us(so long as they had a good structure and rules), but Europe just happened to come first and set the standard for how people in an advanced society, "should", think. Causation is not the same as correlation. Ice cream sales and crime are both higher in the summer, but that doesn't mean that more ice cream causes more crime. What's really scary is the thought that humans can't make a functional society without everyone being self-righteous and following a moral code. Since we're already here though, I don't think the acceptance of people enjoying snuff films can cause any harm.

I never fucking thought we would be justifying how watching people die for enjoyment is a good thing.
You all belong in a more controlled and locked down /hikki/ without free hugs.

>>1306
Let's put it like this. If you are someone who faps to taboo images like drawn lolicon or gorn in their own house and no one else has to deal with it, then cool. Fictional depictions of violence or sexuality is fine because no one is getting hurt but the overly sensitive.

Snuff films, real child porn, animal abuse videos, etc on the other hand is media made through the victimizations of people and animals. And if a society where to accept this horrid treatment of people and animals as entertainment, then that society is doomed to be primitive, in my honest opinion.

Basically, producing snuff films and consuming them hurts our societies. I mean, it's the murder of your fellow man and it's not for play-play either. If you want to play the moral relativist card and claim there is nothing wrong with enjoying snuff, then fine, but it doesn't change that most people often think about things in terms the perceived victim and their own safety.

One really good example that relates to film, is the movie Otis and Milo. This is a movie that has some issues due to possible animal abuse, since a cat was possibly thrown down a waterfall and the original Japanese cut had a scene getting really close to animal fighting. If true, then that means some people in a movie studio decided to mistreat animals for the sake of entertaining people. And I agree that's morally wrong, I fail to see how this is arrogant.

>>1308
Snuff films are something that will always exist. It's inevitable. Someone, somewhere, will always be making them. It is impossible to weed them out like how it is impossible to weed out alcohol. That's why the prohibition failed. The making and selling of snuff films should be illegal, but I don't see what's wrong with consuming snuff films that already exist and could be found for free. It's the stigma that bothers me. There's no concern for quality of life in the self-righteous shaming of, "immoral", people. I also don't see how the production of Milo and Otis is worse than the meat industry. Animals go through much worse conditions and while that's for food we technically don't need to eat meat. If all of animals that died in production were eaten would that have made it okay? We don't value the lives of bacteria. What about starfish? They don't think so is it okay to kill a few of those for entertainment? What about fish? They don't even feel pain. Who are we to judge the value of lives of different animals. Why is it okay to eat cows, but not dogs? Animals aren't needed to run society. If they wereabused them for entertainment society would run just as normal. Animal experimentation has contributed to big leaps in science. The obsession with the ethical treatment of animals is pretty new. It's a new moral code, just like every other one that came before it. It's been shoved down our throats, turning fiction into fact.

>>1309
Like a lot of people, I draw the line between entertainment and things like food. If you kill an animal so some people can enjoy the video of said animal getting killed, then within the confines of our society, many would agree that you deserve to be shamed both for making the video and for consuming it.

Also, and yes, of course someone is going to make snuff films but it's a very, very small thing and for good reason. I just don't get why the fact that average joe being grossed out by the idea of snuff films bothers you. In my opinion, the stigma of enjoying snuff films is a good thing.

>>1310
Why do you draw the line there? Why do you think stigma is a good thing? Neither of those things help any people or society. Where do you draw the line of stigma anyway? You're fine with the fictional stuff, but a lot people aren't. Everyone has a different line, but the line doesn't need to exist. It only causes harm. It's where censorship comes from. If stigma didn't exist people would be more free. Freedom of expression and enjoyment are what makes life worth living and the line gets in those thing's way. I don't find death arousing, but maybe i'll just feel like watching someone die. Maybe i'll just be in the mood for that because it's interesting and I don't get to see it everyday. I like to see things, but if I can't admit this in real life. Just because most people are grossed out by snuff films, that doesn't mean that things have to be that way or that it's natural. Things could have turned out an infinite number of ways. A world where you could just talk to some guy you know about a really interesting snuff film you came across yesterday in public and nobody would bat an eye would be beautiful. Morality and law doesn't have to be tied together.

>>1311
Well, besides the fact that censorship will always exist in some form whether in the form of a government trying to mask it's actions or a person trying to be polite to another person in a conversation, in the case of this someone is definitely being harmed and I feel that the victim of a crime and the filming of it like is done in snuff films and child porn is more important than the feelings of the consumer. I mean, with all of the fictional lolicon and extreme violence, why would you ever want the real thing? That's why I'm okay with fiction being violent or overly sexual because it truly hurts no one, and the people who have issues with fictional violence and sex must just be a very vocal minority; violent video games and movies are insanely popular and the USA makes the most porn in the world and has a pretty decent sex toy industry as well not to mention the insane hookup culture with Tinder.

With so many outlets that result in no victims, I quite frankly don't care about the feelings of that small minority of people who desire to watch real footage of death outside of crime investigation needs.

And we clearly have a different idea of what a beautiful world is, mine is one where everyone has a sex toy in cute colors. Oh, and tech also has cute colors again. I really want a purple smartphone without a bumper case.

>>1312
The victims in snuff films and child porn are important. I never said they weren't. How about instead of shaming random observers, people focused more on actually stopping the real criminals? Telling someone they're a bad person and should feel bad because they like to watch snuff films is utterly useless in actually stopping those things from being made and catching the people who do make them. As for lolicon, the majority of people in America do find it objectionable and immoral. If you went up to any person on the street and asked them about it they would tell you the same thing. That it's for sickos. America's acceptance of violence also stops at children. People here being fine with violence between adults(and by that I mean the not even detailed kind of violence) is just a quirk of the moral code that they have here. In some countries lolicon is fine but violence isn't which is also just part of their meaningless moral code. Everybody has a different set of morals. Everybody. You think that everybody must be totally fine with anything as long as it's fictional, but they aren't. It's just you and people like you. Nobodies set of morals is correct or logical. One person's is not more right than another. Personally, I think sex toys are for depraved people who can't just make do with their hand and have to go as far as to buy things for masturbation. But does that mean I think people shouldn't be allowed to enjoy them, no. I recognize my biases for what they are. If the criminals are punished than nothing else matters

>>1311
People could be taking a shit in the streets too, or wherever they want. What is wrong with that. It is only natural to want to empty your bowels. There are people defecating in public all around the world in other countries. All cultures somewhere in the past did it. Why should we worry about where we make our business, be stigmatized for it.

Wouldn’t it be magical, a world where someone felt their bowels moving, didn’t have to wait and just toke their pants and pantsu off and crouched on the public street, a friend could join them in this joyful activity, and both pleasantly released the natural solids and liquids that our body functions produce, without anyone bating an eye about it. Maybe some people would stop and appreciate watching it. Maybe we could talk publicly about scat movies and share them with each other, instead of the banal baby or animal videos and not be shamed for it. Maybe, since some people actually enjoy touching and eating poop, we could nonchalantly literally shit on people who consented and not have people questioning our values and morals just for it. We could even sometimes catch unaware people and shit on them, maybe even making a video with that. We would share it with others who would find entertainment in them. Could be called pluff films or something.

>>1315
Shitting on the streets would be extremely unsanitary and having someone clean up after it all the time would be massively impractical. That's how diseases like yellow fever start being spread. Not to mention how it would violate public decency. Eating shit is also quit unhealthy and can cause a lot of diseases. Shitting on people would also be extremely impolite and a violation of personal space. I don't feel like getting shit on anymore than I feel like getting murdered. People are actually programmed to be disgusted by shit and for good reason. Perversion and depravity are addictions and are actually harmful to people's minds and standard of living. People's ability to express thoughts and ideas and observe what's already been created are what i'm talking about, not their ability to physically do whatever they want. I already said rules and structure are needed to run society. Sitting down at a table with a friend and talking about a mutual interest in public or writing a book about that interest without fear of judgment is different from taking off all your clothes and shitting all over the place. Freedom of thought and speech, not action.

>>1313
>>1316

You know, I'll admit right now that I honestly thought you were going to be some edgelord faggot, since before this discussion I really disliked the use of moral relativism in discussions because it leads into retarded statements.

But after giving what you said some thought, and thinking of what to say back, there isn't a lot of weight to what I'm saying. There isn't anything wrong with being grossed out by snuff films, it's perfectly fine.

I suppose if I lived a different life and had different experiences, then my morals would be different. My morals are based valuing life and respecting life. I'm against abortion, senseless killing, I'm iffy on the death penalty, non-consensual body modifications like circumcision or body piercings, etc. But I've gotten these morals and many more through my life experiences which is always different from person to person. My morals aren't good or bad or correct or wrong, they are just my unique set of morals. And by forcing my ideas, even agreeable ones, I would be hurting people.

I think I understand, maybe? But I do disagree with you on one thing, if moral codes people have are different from each other and are based on life experiences, your perception of them, and your environment/society, then I don't think moral codes are meaningless. You are right, my morals could be picked apart with logic like anyone else's morals but they do matter to me. Or maybe you didn't mean "meaningless" like that. I don't know, I'm still thinking about all of this.

>>1317
I see what you mean. Morals do come from somewhere and people do tend to make a set of them in their head based on their surroundings and experiences to help them make judgments. There's nothing wrong with morality in of itself. Personal guidelines for what you should and shouldn't do are fine. It's when people start trying to enforce their morals on other's like they're facts that they become a problem. The worst part about them is that they prevent open discussions like this from happening in real life. Someone says something that's seen as immoral might be okay and they immediately get ostracized for it. This becomes an even bigger problem every time a new wave of ideologues rear their ugly heads.

>>1316
Why are you kink shaming me anon…. I thought snuffers had a free mind…..

“Violence on the streets would be extremely unsanitary and having someone clean up after it all the time would be massively impractical. That's how diseases like PTSD can start developing. Not to mention how it would violate public decency. Watching violent depictions is also quite unhealthy and can cause a lot of diseases. Abusing on people would also be extremely impolite and a violation of personal space. I don't feel like murdering anymore than I feel like getting shitted on. People are actually programmed to be disgusted by violence/abuse and for good reason. Perversion and depravity are addictions and are actually harmful to people's minds and standard of living.”

>>1319
Spoken like a true ideologue. Guess what? Things aren't black and white and and everything should be judged on a case by case basis. You're using the false equivalency fallacy.
>Violence on the streets would be extremely unsanitary and having someone clean up after it all the time would be massively impractical.
Did I say it wouldn't be?
>Watching violent depictions is also quite unhealthy and can cause a lot of diseases.
No it doesn't it. Watching people die doesn't spread disease. Having shit all over the place does.
>People are actually programmed to be disgusted by violence/abuse and for good reason.
No, they're not. If people eat shit they get sick and die. That's we're programmed to be disgusted by it. That's what evolution is. Not only that, but what people find gross about snuff films is less about their content and more about the fact that anybody would dare, "disrespect the dead", in such a way. Most people in America don't have a problem with people dying in movies, but they wouldn't want to see people eating shit even if it is fake. That applies to most places in the world too.
>Perversion and depravity are addictions and are actually harmful to people's minds and standard of living.
Watching people die isn't perverse or depraved. Perversion is the sexual attraction to abnormal things. Depravity comes when perversion starts to directly affect your and the people around you's quality of life. Being able to shit all over the streets would do that. Watching someone die on your computer doesn't. It starts with shitting on the streets and it escalates further and further until society crumbles. Public decency is purely reliant on people's actions, not their conversations or interests.

>>1320
Also, forgot to say this, but if you like watching scat films and want to talk about them, then I don't see a problem with that. Even if it arouses you, as long as other people aren't inconvenienced by it there's no problem.

>>1318
I don't know the word for this concept, but I've had this weird surreal feeling interacting with people whenever I come into it with the attitude that my morals and ideas aren't better or more just. There's almost this feeling of respect towards them. It's weird because it's not like I actively disrespected people or anything.

But, the thing I got out of this thread is to not shame people into a set of morals or shame them out of their morals (or opinions for that matter) but to merely share your ideas and express why you think that way.

The best example is the sex toy comments, I think.

>Personally, I think sex toys are for depraved people who can't just make do with their hand and have to go as far as to buy things for masturbation.

If I responded in a way that shames you like calling you a prude (much like how some people here were shaming snuff film watchers) then I'm just trying to enforce my beliefs by shaming.

However, giving reasons why someone might buy sex toys goes further. Like, I disagree with your statement, some people might have hand injuries that might make masturbating harder or even painful. Others might have difficulties with getting an orgasm. Or many other medical issues that might make masturbating or even regular sex hard to impossible. I do not think that these people are depraved. I'm just a guy who avoids the hookup culture and thought sex toys would prevent me from getting with the wrong woman. Plus, it's fun.

But I see what you mean, the amount of ideologues is staggering. People are becoming more and more divisive over their morals. And I was noticing this before this discussion, I just couldn't put my finger on it.

>>1319
>>1315
And posts like these were the reason why I disliked moral relativist views.

>>1320
>Watching people die isn't perverse or depraved. Perversion is the sexual attraction to abnormal things.
By that logic, dead/dying people are indeed a sexual thing since necrophiliacs and gurofags exist though.

>>1323
Getting aroused by death is perverse, but it isn't harmful if in moderation. As long as you don't go crazy and start killing people yourself or start spending hours jacking off to it, it's fine.

Ever play manhunt?

>>1638
Postal 2 with the Fudge Pack mod is also a fun oldie.

>>866
Of course i don't enjoy them, but i am really curious and i search for them at random times.

>>933
okay reddit spacing

>>933
This user has been snuffed by yours truly.

I don't know what snuff films or whatever but you might like Faces of Death.

I enjoy fake snuff, as in, fictional movies made to look like actual snuff, I've watched a lot of them.
The real stuff I don't care that much for, most of the time.
>>1687
I like mondo films too especially when you can't tell what's real and what's fake. Watching them in modern times when you most likely get them through a torrent or youtube and not in some shady VHS shop hurts the enjoyment of the genre a lot though.

>>938
>Snuff Film is an encompassing term for any video that has someone actually being killed in it.
In accurate. "Snuff" refers to the reality of the directed commission of a murder on film, generally, though not necessarily, under the influence of money or other external motivation.

Gore, on the other hand, is a much broader and more accurate term that encompasses the entirety of 2D and 3D death/mutilation content, real and imagined. "Faux snuff" such as the August Underground series would also fall under this latter moniker.

Tor is just another shitty honeypot these days. I've seen all the movies, all the depraved shock vids, obscure digitized horror film/porn vhs tapes. It's sad to see how censored the onion wikis are these days; personally I blame the influx of normalfags using tor imageboards to discuss politics making a stink about it but it's probably more complicated than that. I wish there was a torrent site or a p2p that specialized specifically on gory/fetishistic video games and video game mods, movies, anime, and so on; but with an original content focus on it as well. Communities like that have definitely existed before but the owners always either have breakdowns and quit, or their sites get cracked down on too many times to the point where they just stop giving a fuck.

Is anyone here old enough to remember snuffx.com