/lit/ - Literature

>>17963955
I don't think it's bait, he makes an OK point. A lot of the funny shit /pol/ was doing in 2015-16 (the beginning of Crowder and Shapiro types) is based off the assumption that men (sometimes specifically white men) are the truly oppressed/ losing power.

It starts on /v/ with Gamergate, where Zoe Quinn and her "feminist kin" are ruining game journalism. This is where our anti-SJW memes start, but also a sort of political movement, or at least a narrative. This is 2013, where we still use Impact text on animal memes. This narrative grows the entire time, and we know all memes come from 4chan, so it spreads wide.

By 2016, /pol/ is blaming niggers, trannies, jews, fags, whatever, and calling for a "return to tradition." This is the alt-right, an emotional movement with many parts, some of them racist, but the majority hateful. Remember shadilay on Election night? That was amazing.

But how many people actually read the studies on infographics? How many people would defend their ideas past "it made sense when I read it"? The talking heads began to fall, or be replaced. Remember Richard Spencer?

So how much truth is in that hate? I think it's mainly a reaction to a changing world, maybe some learned prejudice, whatever. I think the sweeping arguments like "This all started when we gave women the right to vote" are pretty retarded. But I do enjoy engaging in arguments over actual issues like immigration crises, economic systems, de-platforming, gun rights, etc.. Those feel like things worth discussing.

At the same time, smartphones and the social media boom meant the internet usership went from 413 million in 2000 to 3.4 billion by 2016. That is a lot of newfags.