2k17 /pol/

ShadowDimentio · Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:49 pm

Bottom post of the previous page:

Luke Cox wrote:
oranges wrote:
Luke Cox wrote:If you think Trump really just won because people who disagree with you are stupid, you've learned nothing
his rural voter base is uneducated, stupid and will vote for candidates who actively harm them
George Orwell, the best god damn leftist who ever lived, wrote an entire book on what you're describing: http://www.george-orwell.org/The_Road_to_Wigan_Pier/

tl;dr They vote for conservatives even though their policies hurt them because upper-middle class liberals act condescending as fuck towards them. So you basically.

Trump was ironically better at connecting to the working class than Shillary ever was, even though he's rich as fuck and totally unapologetic about it.

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:58 pm #283881

Orwell was decades ahead of his time. He even talks about hipsters and proto-SJWs in the fucking 30s. The left will never make any progress so long as its dominated by limousine liberals. They need to get their heads out of their asses and start giving a fuck about the working class. I don't like Trump, May, Le Pen, etc. but I don't see any other choice at this point.

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:10 am #283885

It's just the sentiment in general that pisses me off. The whole attitude of "they're to stupid to know what's good for them!" and the condescension that comes with it

Post by **oranges** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:16 am #283889

they are too stupid to know what's good for them, it's not a condecension, it's an honest real truth you just don't like.

This is borne out in their voting patterns and behaviour, rural voters will vote for candidates who do not benefit them and are less educated than their urban counterparts.

This is the downside of any democracy, and why it's the best worst system for running a country.

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:23 am #283890

By all means, keep that attitude if you want the left to keep losing elections

XSI · Post by **XSI** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:28 am #283894

And yet, urban centers also vote against their own interests, despite being educated.

This is because there does not appear to be anyone in western politics that actually represents you if you aren't:
A. Rich as fuck
B. Straight up communist (Small parties though)
C. SJW

If you are something other than these three, you're pretty much just not going to get represented

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:31 am #283897

I think I'll just go ahead and post the Wikipedia summary of Orwell's points:

Orwell sets out his initial premises very simply:

Are the appalling conditions described in part one tolerable? (No)
Is socialism "wholeheartedly applied as a world system" capable of improving those conditions? (Yes)
Why then are we not all socialists?

The rest of the book consists of Orwell's attempt to answer this difficult question. He points out that most people who argue against socialism do not do so because of straightforward selfish motives, or because they do not believe that the system would work, but for more complex emotional reasons, which (according to Orwell) most socialists misunderstand. He identifies five main problems:

Class prejudice. This is real and it is visceral. Middle-class socialists do themselves no favours by pretending it does not exist and—by glorifying the manual worker—they tend to alienate the large section of the population that is economically working-class but culturally middle-class.
Machine worship. Orwell finds most socialists guilty of this. Orwell himself is suspicious of technological progress for its own sake and thinks it inevitably leads to softness and decadence. He points out that most fictional technically advanced socialist utopias are deadly dull. H. G. Wells in particular is criticised on these grounds.
Crankiness. Among many other types of people Orwell specifies people who have beards or wear sandals, vegetarians, and nudists as contributing to socialism's negative reputation among many more conventional people.
Turgid language. Those who pepper their sentences with "notwithstandings" and "heretofores" and become over excited when discussing dialectical materialism are unlikely to gain much popular support.
Failure to concentrate on the basics. Socialism should be about common decency and fair shares for all rather than political orthodoxy or philosophical consistency.

Super Aggro Crag · Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:32 am

>dumb fucking honkys dont vote right!
>they ignant and uneducated!
>we in office, fam!
>*dismantles education system in rural areas to funnel money into failed inner city schools*
>damn! Why they don't think the way we want em too?
>*destroys blue collar jobs*
>dumbass fukken crackas! Y'all never gettin them jobs back cuz of robots and sheeeit! I ain't gonna pay mo money for my iPhone to pay you a livin wage! Yall want a job, get *educated*!
>*continues to destroy education system, makes college unaffordable, gives scholarships exclusively to brown girls because STEM IS NOT FOR BOYS ANYMORE*
>*loses office*
>SHEEEIIIT WHY YOU DUMB IGNANT RACISTS VOTING AGAINST US WE JUST TRYIN TO HELP YALL HOPE YALL MOTHAFUCKAS DIE IN POVERTY!

Post by **oranges** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:33 am #283899

You can't keep assuming I'm left, you have zero data on my voting patterns.

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:34 am #283900

You're insinuating that people who vote for conservatives are too stupid to know what's best for them, so I don't think that it's an unfair assumption

Super Aggro Crag · Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:35 am

I actually can keep assuming you're left because you're a petulant contrarian fuckbaby who does nothing but try to pick fights on this forum because no one gives a shit about your imageboard.

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:40 am #283904

CosmicScientist wrote:Yeah I'm confused too. There's not just left, right and centre.

He's clearly Le Enlightened Centrist(tm)

Post by **oranges** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:56 am #283908

Luke Cox wrote:You're insinuating that people who vote for conservatives are too stupid to know what's best for them, so I don't think that it's an unfair assumption

I'm insinuating that people who voted for trump are the same people who will vote for candidates who actively harm them and that will go for any political party (see turkey) where the deliniation is not conservative/liberal or your traditional left/right

But sure, continue to mould my statements to conform to your own worldview so you can dismiss them along ideological grounds.

Post by **oranges** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:56 am #283910

Super Aggro Crag wrote:I actually can keep assuming you're left because you're a petulant contrarian fuckbaby who does nothing but try to pick fights on this forum because no one gives a shit about your imageboard.

you must be very left then

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 1:09 am #283912

Then how would you identify yourself politically, Oranges?

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 1:15 am #283914

Of course, Le Enlightened Centrist(tm) transcends all labels

Drynwyn · Post by **Drynwyn** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 2:12 am #283931

Can I get a definition of "SJW" from some of those who have been shouting about them? There's some people who decry way too broad a group of people ("anyone who supports gay/trans rights") and some people who use it reasonable ("YOGA IS PATRIARCHAL")

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 2:37 am #283941

It's a blanket term for sure, but I don't think the definition is too hotly disputed. I would define it as an umbrella term used to describe various identitarian movements that seek to achieve their ends though authoritarian means.

lntigracy · Post by **lntigracy** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 2:50 am #283943

Luke Cox wrote:identitarian movements that seek to achieve their ends though authoritarian means.

this

Incomptinence · Sat Apr 22, 2017 3:10 am

In countries outside 2 party unga bunga land there are parties to more directly represent the rural right.

In Australia the national party used to be and still acts as this but decades of coalition has caused it to be mostly suborned and cannibalised by the right wing liberal party.
There is no mechanism in Australia ensuring this abusive relationship trumps all and new smaller right wing parties spring up.

I would honestly prefer people in rural areas vote for more far right parties like one nation and Katter's Australian party or family first.

Not sure how mixed member proportional works but it seems to help keep nz clean of the 2 party cancer so no matter which way he votes oranges enjoys better representation than Americans.

Better to get what you deserve than slop because a farmer fucked a pig a century ago. Same goes for small left wing movements too there is no reason the puritanical sjws should be welded onto the democrats.

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 3:32 am #283954

I've always held that the ideology of the SJWs is inherently anti-liberal, yet they seem to keep their stranglehold on the left. America desperately needs a working class left party.

Drynwyn · Post by **Drynwyn** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:17 am #283964

Luke Cox wrote:It's a blanket term for sure, but I don't think the definition is too hotly disputed. I would define it as an umbrella term used to describe various identitarian movements that seek to achieve their ends though authoritarian means.

I think that would be a good definition, but I also think it's not used that way- mainly because it's applied to non-authoritarian identity groups, such as people who simply say "it's bad to say <alleged slur> and you should stop" or "you should ask people about their pronouns".

It's not authoritarian- they aren't saying there ought to be legal requirements for these things, they're saying that society's standards should not view it as acceptable, which does not by itself constitute an authoritarian approach- but it is the most common use of "SJW" that I see.

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:23 am #283965

There are varying degrees of authoritarianism, but the overwhelming majority of them want the state to enforce their ideology in some way. They tend to start off as you described, but they quickly see that their ideas are not palatable to society. When their ideas are introduced to any kind of free marketplace of ideas, they fail spectacularly. Once they reach that point, they have a choice: recognize that their ideas are not popular and shift their views (usually ending up much more moderate), or double down and use authoritarian means to push their ideologies. Usually through things like hate speech laws, diversity quotas, censorship of what they deem "offensive", etc.

XSI · Post by **XSI** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:58 am #283976

Pretty much that
Its fine if they're non-authoritarian and still doing the "Attack helicopter gender" and "Roads are patriarchy" crap because then we can just shrug and ignore them
It's not fine if they try to force it onto everyone by laws. No amount of law is going to make me respect "Xi" or "Xir" pronouns, or 50+ genders, or the idea that the western world is ruled by patriarchy trying to keep women down because...Why again?

Yet, the only viable (Able to actually get anything done) political parties as far as I can see are extremist right wing(Economical that is, neoliberals), and extremist left wing(Open immigration for everyone and accept my pronouns shitlord!), with a few small communist parties from the cold war era still surviving but crumbling as they're slowly being infiltrated by the SJW and voters never voted for them anyway because communism is not a pleasant system for most people.
I suppose the one other alternative I did not mention was the 'legislate religious morality' crowd, but they're essentially the same as I consider to be the problem with the SJWs with the one exception that their views are more accepted because an ancient book told them thats how the world should be
As opposed to how a 'turtlekin' guy on tumblr with 5 'headmates' said the world should be

Same kind of authoritarian asshole trying to force their views on people, different view to force.

ShadowDimentio · Sat Apr 22, 2017 5:45 am

>Canada fighting the US

I would pay to see Cuckold in Chief "If we kill our enemies they win" Trudeau declare war on anyone. Canada would be a smoking crater three times over before he declared war on anyone.

XSI · Post by **XSI** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 5:48 am #283989

CosmicScientist wrote:Oh and we can return Manhattan New Amsterdam to the Dutch since they might make it pretty and full of flowers.

I suppose New Amsterdam is alright to have
Just for the love of everything holy, don't try to dump southern Belgium onto us. We can't do miracles big enough to fix Belgium.

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 5:53 am #283991

ShadowDimentio wrote:>Canada fighting the US

I would pay to see Cuckold in Chief "If we kill our enemies they win" Trudeau declare war on anyone. Canada would be a smoking crater three times over before he declared war on anyone.

Trudeau played too much Undertale

Screemonster · Sat Apr 22, 2017 10:32 am

Saw a couple of interesting threads on twitter from a guy about WN stuff and how (in a twist of irony) SJWs were the ones that made it difficult for him to break away from going full-1488. Good bits copypasta'd:

See, it's useful for white nationalists that their ideology is somewhat difficult to discuss their ideas with anyone other than them.
White nationalists are actually exploiting the stigma attached to racism for their own benefit. Recruitment targets are scared of it.
They feel like they can't discuss the things that they've been told without being shunned for being racist. And white nationalists love that
They are the EXACT opposite of "it's not my job to educate you." They are OVERJOYED to show you all their painstakingly-curated information.

I think this is why people like JonTron doubled down on their shitty behaviour rather than apologising. This concept of "I can't go back."
The sunk cost fallacy. "I've invested way too much in this now. I can't turn back. I have to push through to the other side."
What's important to getting people out of shitty ideologies like that is the knowledge that they CAN go back. They CAN rejoin society.
You may have to apologise. You may have to give back somehow. It may not be easy. But it's possible. They HAVE to know that. It's vital.
I have seen people espouse ideologies like "once a white nationalist, always a white nationalist." This helps no-one and is fucking stupid.
Remaining vigilant and refusing to tolerate bullshit doesn't mean you can't show compassion and sympathy.

tl;dr shit like tumblr receipts blogs and name-and-shame blocklists on twitter and the like that say THIS PERSON IS A BAD PERSON FOR SAYING SOMETHING PROBLEMATIC IN 2014, CUT THEM OUT OF YOUR LIVES and other SJW bullshit that's more concerned with attacking the "bad" (and being seen to be doing so) than actually doing good are actively harmful and do more to drive people to the right than anything the right could possibly hope to achieve.

A page or so back people asked for a definition of SJW, and personally I tend to reserve the term specifically for the type of virtue-signalling asshole who uses progressive causes as an excuse to go on the offensive against "acceptable" targets.
"It's okay and in fact REQUIRED to rally together a mob to continuously dox and harass this 14 year old girl until she attempts suicide and pursue her wherever she goes even if she changes her username, she drew fanart with the wrong skin-tone and that's racist."
That sort of thing. The kind of thing that leaves people wondering that if they set one foot out of line, they'll wind up with a fucking lynch mob after them. No wonder so many people just say "fuck it" and go to /pol/.

ShadowDimentio · Sat Apr 22, 2017 5:31 pm

Say what you will about /pol/, they've done more good than the SJW's ever will.

imblyings · Post by **imblyings** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 5:39 pm #284088

People don't like shame/guilt/humiliation/social ostracization tactics.

Nothing wrong about being courteous to the turtlekin who's convinced they've got headmates and not full-blown schizophrenia they need legitimate medical help for. What's wrong is groups who like to abuse the underdog card, the victimized or on-behalf-of-someone-victimized card to gain moral superiority for power and attention. I like to think humans are intrinsically fair and just, so accusing people of x y z moral crimes with them as the victim often work to disorientate people pretty badly. It worked in communist china and vietnam, where the widely used method of self-criticism was a central part of maintaining power over people. So there are people who are using the victim card to force people in line and hide behind it when called out.

It's a very dangerous way of thinking for civilization. Everyone is scared, constantly on edge, looking to escape being humiliated or being made to feel guilty or avoiding being shamed by others, and logic inevitably goes out the window in favour of maintaining their precarious position. It would almost be ok if it was done for honest and selfless gains to the human race but there always is a party that runs all this because it benefits them rather than the rest of the human race. This is partly due to human nature since as long as humans exist there will be assholes who exploit others. Still, it's not an excuse to ever use or keep the system. The system is based on mental and social abuse to keep people in line with what the people in power want to play the victim card to get.

That's what I don't like about sjws. Put simply they use a pandoras box of tactics to control others that the human race should never ever have discovered and opened, one that is arguably more dangerous than nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Everyone can agree not to use NBC weapons and they're tightly controlled for what they are. Anyone can pick up manuals and books on how to use shame/humiliation tactics and there's no international convention or treaty to stop them.

edit- it's probably unfair to pin these tactics all on the tenuous label that is 'sjw'. It's just any group from any belief or political side that uses these things and it just so happens that certain groups on a certain side use these tactics right now. It's very possible that these were tactics known to antiquity, used by say religious authorities to maintain their power and only recently rediscovered in the past century or so. Either way, it's an unpleasant thing to use on another human being.

imblyings · Post by **imblyings** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:03 pm #284093

I don't want to know I really don't but if it's causing them distress or impairment in their lives then probably. What constitutes a disorder is another topic all by itself.

XSI · Post by **XSI** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:08 pm #284097

"Headmates" means hearing voices and giving names to these voices and taking them seriously/trusting them when considering what to do

It's listening to schizophrenia and defining it as not being insanity- You just have multiple people living in your head

Drynwyn · Post by **Drynwyn** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 7:59 pm #284123

SCHIZOPHRENIA ISN'T MULTIPLE PERSONALITY DISORDER REEEEEE

XSI · Post by **XSI** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 8:17 pm #284129

Hearing voices and listening to them in all seriousness though?
Thats movie tier schizophrenia

bandit · Post by **bandit** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 8:29 pm #284135

Screemonster wrote:A page or so back people asked for a definition of SJW, and personally I tend to reserve the term specifically for the type of virtue-signalling asshole who uses progressive causes as an excuse to go on the offensive against "acceptable" targets.
"It's okay and in fact REQUIRED to rally together a mob to continuously dox and harass this 14 year old girl until she attempts suicide and pursue her wherever she goes even if she changes her username, she drew fanart with the wrong skin-tone and that's racist."
That sort of thing. The kind of thing that leaves people wondering that if they set one foot out of line, they'll wind up with a fucking lynch mob after them. No wonder so many people just say "fuck it" and go to /pol/.

>implying /pol/ doesn't dox people

thanks for the laugh m8

Screemonster · Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:14 pm

bandit wrote:
Screemonster wrote:A page or so back people asked for a definition of SJW, and personally I tend to reserve the term specifically for the type of virtue-signalling asshole who uses progressive causes as an excuse to go on the offensive against "acceptable" targets.
"It's okay and in fact REQUIRED to rally together a mob to continuously dox and harass this 14 year old girl until she attempts suicide and pursue her wherever she goes even if she changes her username, she drew fanart with the wrong skin-tone and that's racist."
That sort of thing. The kind of thing that leaves people wondering that if they set one foot out of line, they'll wind up with a fucking lynch mob after them. No wonder so many people just say "fuck it" and go to /pol/.
>implying /pol/ doesn't dox people

thanks for the laugh m8

dude I'm well aware that /pol/ is full of shitheads too but they don't use "this person is racist because of (flimsy-ass reason here) and that makes me a good and moral person for doxing them" as an excuse
they may have equally shitty reasons for doing it but they're not social-justice reasons

Screemonster · Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:32 pm

where the fuck did I say it was fine

I said that makes an SJW an SJW is the tendency to sink to the same shit /pol/ pulls and act like they have the moral high ground and it's okay when they do it because of reasons
/pol/ on the other hand are just assholes

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 10:18 pm #284179

The difference between them and /pol/ is that /pol/ doesn't claim to be moral or ethical

lntigracy · Post by **lntigracy** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 10:32 pm #284187

Doxing a professor that's at a rally attacking people with locks is different than doxing someone because they said something mean.

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Sat Apr 22, 2017 10:39 pm #284192

lntigracy wrote:Doxing a professor that's at a rally attacking people with locks is different than doxing someone because they said something mean.

This, absolutely. They didn't dox him because he was an SJW, they did it because he's guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. Fuck, I don't think /pol/ has doxxed anyone who didn't try to actually hurt someone in all of this.

XSI · Post by **XSI** » Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:10 am #284211

They did track down Shia's flag, and by extension Shia
But I don't think that counts as a dox

That said, they also did some doxxing of illegal immigrants who posted "i'm illegal and proud" and shit on social media
So they pretty much just consistently dox criminals and report them to law enforcement, not random people who they disagree with

ShadowDimentio · Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:25 am

They also once found a ISIS base and reported them to get bombed.

lntigracy · Post by **lntigracy** » Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:26 am #284217

Twice*

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:38 am #284224

XSI wrote:They did track down Shia's flag, and by extension Shia
But I don't think that counts as a dox

That said, they also did some doxxing of illegal immigrants who posted "i'm illegal and proud" and shit on social media
So they pretty much just consistently dox criminals and report them to law enforcement, not random people who they disagree with

Public figure with publicly available information. Doesn't count imo.

And yeah, they should just go ahead and replace the CIA.

XSI · Post by **XSI** » Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:03 am #284288

Technically the flag's location wasnt public for the first time they found it, and the cabin in Finland too

Yet they still found it

Drynwyn · Post by **Drynwyn** » Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:48 am #284356

/pol/ has doxed lots of people who haven't committed any crimes. Rani Baker comes to mind.

Their most high-profile doxes tend to be on criminals, but they and others who purport to follow the same ideology harass plenty of people who haven't committed any crimes.

DemonFiren · Post by **DemonFiren** » Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:22 am #284375

Drynwyn wrote:/pol/ has doxed lots of people who haven't committed any crimes. Rani Baker comes to mind.

Their most high-profile doxes tend to be on criminals, but they and others who purport to follow the same ideology harass plenty of people who haven't committed any crimes.

You're talking to people who visit /pol/, to them /pol/ can do no wrong.

Luke Cox · Post by **Luke Cox** » Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:37 am #284384

/pol/ does plenty wrong, they just don't deny it or act smug about it

DemonFiren · Post by **DemonFiren** » Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:25 am #284417

Luke Cox wrote:/pol/ does plenty wrong, they just don't deny it or act smug about it

Drynwyn · Post by **Drynwyn** » Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:45 pm #284542

Luke Cox wrote:/pol/ does plenty wrong, they just don't deny it or act smug about it

That doesn't actually make them any better.

ShadowDimentio · Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:53 pm

In the context of whose worse, /pol/ or SJWs it does. Also nobody has ever said /pol/ does nothing wrong, that'd be a stupid thing to claim, but they do do a lot of good from their basements.