/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13418883]

Is there revolutionary potential in 4chan?

[Anonymous No.13418892]

>>13418883
pol has singlehandedly converted probably millions of young men to far right positions. I have no idea why pol is even allowed to exist legally, given the incredible dangers it poses to the progressive establishment. It must be shut down soon, there's just no way it can continue

If you mean left wing revolutionary potential then no. Other sites definitely have that but the Left doesn't congregate here because there are too many nazis

[Anonymous No.13418905]

>>13418892
dilate

[Anonymous No.13418910]

As the other poster said, /pol/ and meme magic literally directed an elaborate campaign to get a meme in office.


Lulzsac and the scientology protests fizzled out. No one on this website that has the pwoer to hack really cares about 4chan anymore. Maybe back in 2005.

[Anonymous No.13418917]

>chan culture created the greentext
>the pinnacle of writing

[Anonymous No.13418936]

>>13418892
What other sites?

[Anonymous No.13418955]

>>13418883
As long as I can post images like such, yes.

[Anonymous No.13418958]

>>13418936
I'm not leftwing so im not up the current useful sites, but they're all over the place, the Left is more or less allowed to make revolutionary discourse.

You might have problems if you try to make a strictly Marxist program that ignores things like race and sex, but otherwise you're ok.

[Anonymous No.13418993]

>>13418883
I mean, the hacker group "Anonymous" was kinda revolutionary. In the same sense that Julian Assange is kinda revolutionary.

>>13418910
The problem is, that hacking is illegal. And so if hackers meet up on 4chan, or recruit on 4chan, the government is going to go after 4chan, and start collecting IPs, and stuff. It's much easier for hackers to meet on some onion somewhere, and exchange emails on TOR.

>>13418892
They started systematically censoring /pol/ in, like, 2015 or something. Gamergate, or something, I think. Lots of people started migrating to >7chan.

It really is the uncensored nature of the internet, rather than anything peculiar to /pol/ or 4chan. When people are given the freedom the express any opinion they want, they tend to end up dissenting from the orthodox moral framework they're raised in. That doesn't mean their dissent is particularly coherent, or particularly valuable. And in the case of /pol/, it's mostly stupid and obnoxious.

If our system taught Catholic orthodoxy, instead of political correctness, the internet would be full of fedoras and satanism, and /pol/ would be a big part of that.

[Anonymous No.13419043]

Once.
Once.

[Anonymous No.13419046]

>>13418883
The only hope would be to accelerate the demise of society and the world through the sheer stupidity of the userbase.

[Anonymous No.13419179]

Not so much 4chan but a forum with total free speech yes. As the internet gets more and more censored eventually something will spring up to fill in that niche. Another aspect is once trumps out of office, I expect this censorship to vastly slow down. The laughable Russian conspiracy theories have caused every major tech company to fully abandon free speech principles.

[Anonymous No.13419186]

>>13419179
>The laughable Russian conspiracy theories have caused every major tech company to fully abandon free speech principles.
Right, because 2015 Google, and 2015 Facebook were staunch supporters of free speech. That's why Google totally refused to censor their search results, to comply with China's rules.

/s

[Anonymous No.13419195]

is there revolutionary potential anywhere?

[Anonymous No.13419200]

>>13418883
Yes, but only on the individual level

[Anonymous No.13419209]

>>13419186
They had no other choice or they would have faced an immediate total ban. They do have a choice in America and after 2016 they began censoring more and more on YouTube. Hell, employees at google had discussed using search manipulation to change people’s views on the wall.

The worst of course is reddit. Their system of censorship can only be described as gross. Shadowbans, “quarantined” subreddits, secretly altering algorithms to push certain subreddits up and others down all while A/B testing everything to ensure the right views are seen. It’s not the banning which infuriates me, it’s the abuse of technology in such a dystopian way all in the name of censorship. And this is a website that was created on the basis of free speech and they still have the audacity to claim that!

[Anonymous No.13419211]

>>13418883
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAH

[Anonymous No.13419231]

>>13419209
>They had no other choice or they would have faced an immediate total ban.
Ok. Then take the total ban. They had a choice - make money, or uphold free speech. They chose money. So what would we expect from them, in America, if they faced the same choice, but with smaller stakes?

But also, China's censorship system has a ton of holes in it. People are often able to get around it. If Google refused to censor their search, and was unavailable in China, the Chinese (which still sees parts of our internet), would frequently hear the term "google", and feel compelled to find the search tools of the uncensored internet. But now, they just see Google, and assume that everybody sees the same Google.

>employees at google had discussed using search manipulation to change people’s views on the wall
I mean, that's standard progressive stuff. Ever read the New York Times? They're always trying to change people's views on issues.

This is Google trying to take up the mantle of "manager of democracy" from the newspapers and other mass media, whose power has been declining. Nobody reads newspapers anymore - and our elites are concerned that everybody is getting their media from unapproved sources.

>And this is a website that was created on the basis of free speech and they still have the audacity to claim that!
I have literally never heard reddit described as anything related to "free speech".

[Anonymous No.13419354]

>>13418892
>pol has singlehandedly converted probably millions of young men to far right positions.
And that's a good thing

[Anonymous No.13419370]

>>13419354
>>13418892
>/pol/
>far right
There's a difference between "pissing off the left" and "far right". Remember when the term "right" was invented? It referred to the counterrevolutionaries of the French revolution, who wanted to restore the Monarchy/Aristocracy, and the Catholic Church as rulers over France.

I don't see anybody on /pol/ advocating anything that could genuinely be described as aristocratic, or traditional religion. And to the extent that they do, they're just LARPing, and don't actually have any genuine religious or aristocratic values.

[Anonymous No.13419438]

>>13419370
It is a bit more complicated, because both fascism and nazism had the goal of creating a new form of aristocracy.

[Anonymous No.13419454]

>>13419370
>they're just LARPing
Everything starts with a larp

[Anonymous No.13419457]

>>13418892
and the best part is the future intelligentsia of the far right revolution hang out here :)))

[Anonymous No.13419460]

>>13419370
/pol/ is pretty fucking extreme desu, i say this as a traditionalist/neoreactionary

[Anonymous No.13419468]

>>13419460
pffff pol isn't even that extreme compare to actual fascists most of them literally believe the holocaust didn't happen and that Hitler had some free lolberg society

[Anonymous No.13419482]

>>13419457
>intelligentsia
kekerino

[Anonymous No.13419502]

>>13419438
>It is a bit more complicated
Fair enough, because stuff usually is complicated.

>both fascism and nazism had the goal of creating a new form of aristocracy
Firstly, the Nazis had all sorts of bizarre plans, which were all mutually contradictory. They had like 8 different plans about where to send the Jews.

Secondly, the Nazis were deeply opposed to the actually-existing aristocracy of Germany. And that aristocracy was recent enough, that many of them actually held power, and could have been restored to their former positions. Any (murky) plans about creating another aristocracy in the future, probably takes second place to their present-day hostility to the actual aristocracy.

Plus, the Nazis specifically identified themselves as anti-Reactionary. From the first verse of one of their marching songs:

The S.A. marches with silent solid steps.
Comrades shot by the Red Front and reaction
march in spirit with us in our ranks

https://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/the-horst-wessel-song-lyrics/

>>13419454
Not really. Some things do, I suppose. But, did the American revolution start with a LARP? Did Nelson Mandela's movement?

I'm pretty sure they started with actual revolutionary actions, like the Boston Tea Party, and Necklacing.

>>13419460
Extreme =/= Far-Right.

If I'm a Conservative, who wants to behead every Republican who doesn't love Ronald Reagan, does that make me far-right? Or just a crazy extremist, with relatively normal political views.

/pol/ is just a bunch of people with extreme, and largely incoherent views. They think Feminism is cancer, but they wouldn't be able to actually agree what feminism is, and what laws to pass to stop it. Should women be unable to work outside the home? Should abortion be illegal? They wouldn't be able to agree on either.

They hate it, but they don't know what it is, or how to stop it. And you'd find the same problem with any "far-right" political issue. And they'd never coalesce around any genuinely Reactionary program (e.g. restore institutional religion, and the aristocracy).

[Anonymous No.13419526]

>>13419186
>/s

[Anonymous No.13419527]

>>13419502
>conservative
>ronald reagan

lmao

[Anonymous No.13419536]

>>13419527
Y'know. American "conservative".

I'm sure it doesn't pass whatever ideological purity test you've got up your sleeve.

[Anonymous No.13419541]

>>13419536
You're right it doesn't, you fucking liberal.

[Anonymous No.13419558]

>>13419502
>Plus, the Nazis specifically identified themselves as anti-Reactionary.
No, I think that is a VERY severe misrepresentation.
A Reaktionary, is by definition, someone who seeks to restore the previous social order.
In the face of the NSDAP the reactionaries were the liberals of the Weimar era.

In fact the German original says " ... und Reaktion ...", very clearly identifying that the Nazis were opposed to the reaction *against them* from the liberals who opposed them.


"Reactionary" has no inherent political meaning, a reactionary during the reign of Hitler was a liberal and a reactionary during the Weimar era was a monarchist, but conflating them is non-sensical.

[Anonymous No.13419564]

>Is there revolutionary potential in 4chan?
I dunno LOL

[Anonymous No.13419570]

>>13419502
No, /pol/ is stupid, that doesn't mean they aren't neo nazis.

[Anonymous No.13419574]

>>13419502
>but they wouldn't be able to actually agree what feminism is
Neither do "Feminists", so it's hardly /pol/s fault.

[Anonymous No.13419578]

>>13419558
>a reactionary during the reign of Hitler was a liberal and a reactionary during the Weimar era was a monarchist
The song was written in 1929, during the Weirmar era.

>Published: 1929
>was used as the anthem of the Nazi Party (NSDAP) from 1930 to 1945
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst-Wessel-Lied

[Anonymous No.13419588]

>>13419570
I didn't say they weren't neo-nazis. Only that they weren't right-wing. The Nazis weren't right-wing, either.

>>13419574
I'm pretty sure that 100% of feminists think that women should get equal pay for equal work. And 97% of them think that abortion should be legal.

Feminists can coalesce around certain basic political issues, that are essential to feminism. They may disagree on some major points, but they can unite around the important stuff.

However, /pol/ couldn't coalesce around anything. They're not even 100% on Trump, which is fucking hilarious, because they basically tried to meme him into office.

[Anonymous No.13419599]

>>13419578
>The song was written in 1929, during the Weirmar era.
Yes, by "Reaktion" they meant the mainstteam political forces opposing them, namely the liberals of the Weimar era. You are severely misinterpreting the text.
"Reaktion", very clearly, does NOT refer to other anti-liberal groups of the Weimar era,who didn't directly oppose the Nazis.

Your interpretation of the text is entirely non-sensical, as the opposition to the Nazis were the communists and the Weimar liberals, one of the revolutionary, and the other clinging to the social order that was crumbling during that time.
It's your misinterpretation of the text, it simply means something different, "Reaktion" ist meant as "reaction AGAINST the Nazi grab for power".

[Anonymous No.13419615]

>>13419588
>However, /pol/ couldn't coalesce around anything.
/pol/ is a forum to discuss politics, why are you thinking that it should have a common political platform?
This is absolutely non-sensical.

>Feminists can coalesce around certain basic political issues, that are essential to feminism.
But feminism is a social movement, it's not a forum where any single person can say whatever he wants, thus attracting an audience of more radical people, who can't find discourse anywhere else.
What are you thinking /pol/ is?

>They may disagree on some major points, but they can unite around the important stuff.
And if you had been on /pol/ on election night you would know that EVEN FUCKING /POL/ can achieve that too.

>They're not even 100% on Trump, which is fucking hilarious, because they basically tried to meme him into office.
Why would they? He implemented basically nothing of what any group that voted for him wanted...

[Anonymous No.13419618]

>>13418892
Dilate

[Anonymous No.13419631]

>>13419599
>"Reaktion", very clearly, does NOT refer to other anti-liberal groups of the Weimar era,who didn't directly oppose the Nazis.
Except many of them did oppose the Nazis.

Are you implying that the institutional Catholic church and aristocracy (and their advocates) were 100% supportive of the Nazi takeover? Because that's transparently false.

>Your interpretation of the text is entirely non-sensical
No, your interpretation is non-sensical.

Firstly, suppose the Nazis considered themselves Reactionaries. Would they ever describe their opponents as Reactionaries? That seems doubtful. So I assume that the Nazis did not consider themselves Reactionaries.

Secondly, given how often they referred to themselves as some type of "revolutionary", I think it's a reasonable conclusion that they considered themselves opponents of, not just the existing liberal order, but of the traditional order as well. An advocate of the traditional order is not likely to use the language of "revolution", if he is so deeply opposed to it.

[Anonymous No.13419638]

>>13418892
>>13418910
>not recognizing the powers that b recognized this potential and allowed its occurence for whatever reason
it’s all just prolenin fighting. thats not revolutionary at all.

[Anonymous No.13419643]

>>13419615
>/pol/ is a forum to discuss politics, why are you thinking that it should have a common political platform?
We're referring to the average /pol/ user. There is certainly a "type". If somebody comes on /lit/ and starts talking about "cultural marxism", we know where he came from. And we'd know whether he likes feminism, and black people.

>And if you had been on /pol/ on election night you would know that EVEN FUCKING /POL/ can achieve that too.
Right, /pol/, got Trump elected. I'm sure that /pol/ thinks that, and FOX viewers think that, and so on.

>He implemented basically nothing of what any group that voted for him wanted...
I voted for him, and got pretty much what I expected. (Not what I wanted, but he never promised that stuff)

[Anonymous No.13419664]

>>13419631
>Except many of them did oppose the Nazis.
Not through street violence, which is the fucking point of the part of that song...

>Are you implying that the institutional Catholic church and aristocracy (and their advocates) were 100% supportive of the Nazi takeover? Because that's transparently false.
No, that is retarded mischaracterization of what I said.

>Firstly, suppose the Nazis considered themselves Reactionaries.
They saw themselves as revolutionaries, like pretty much any fascist movement.
Who, like pretty much any fascist movement, sought a union between the traditional and the modern. They didn't "hate", the anti-liberal Reactionaries of the Weimar era, they just didn't believe that their ideas were workable, and wanted to combine their "traditionalism" with the modern world, thus creating something reactionary.

But you are still conflating Reactionaries with the original German "Reaktion", which VERY CLEARLY describes the liberal opposition to them.

>So I assume that the Nazis did not consider themselves Reactionaries.
Yes, obviously.

>but of the traditional order as well. An advocate of the traditional order is not likely to use the language of "revolution", if he is so deeply opposed to it.
Google Konservative Revolution.

Your portrayal of Nazis as "anti Weimar Reactionaries" is plainly retarded and false, yes the Nazis themselves didn't conceive of them as Reactionaries, but that never meant that they saw themselves as their direct opponents.

[Anonymous No.13419669]

>>13419643
>We're referring to the average /pol/ user. There is certainly a "type". If somebody comes on /lit/ and starts talking about "cultural marxism", we know where he came from. And we'd know whether he likes feminism, and black people.
And?
If someone talks about "reading Marx" we also know that someone from /leftypol/ has made a visit.

>Right, /pol/, got Trump elected. I'm sure that /pol/ thinks that, and FOX viewers think that, and so on.
Can you read? I just said that /pol/ was United behind an idea in 2016...

>Not what I wanted
My exact point.

[Anonymous No.13419671]

>>13419664
>thus creating something reactionary
*something revolutionary.

Sorry.

[Anonymous No.13419695]

>>13418883
4chan is one of the few places on the mainstream internet where you can say whatever you want. We do have more revolutionary potential than shit like reddit and twitter, but it doesn't go much farther than that

[Anonymous No.13419734]

>>13419664
>>Are you implying that the institutional Catholic church and aristocracy (and their advocates) were 100% supportive of the Nazi takeover? Because that's transparently false.
>No, that is retarded mischaracterization of what I said.
No it's not. You literally said:

>"Reaktion", very clearly, does NOT refer to other anti-liberal groups of the Weimar era,who didn't directly oppose the Nazis.
It's an accurate characterization of what you said.

During the Weimar Republic, there was a dispossessed aristocracy, and (to a lesser extent) dispossessed hierarchical religious establishment. It was the political norm to oppose them, and oppose their re-establishment. Only a minority of Monarchists (or whatever) wanted to restore the Kaiser (or whatever specific program they had in mind).

And once the Nazis were in power, they generally picked on those established authorities. The Catholic church faced all sorts of restrictive laws, and the hierarchy of the Nazi party kept promoting weird conspiracy theories about Catholicism. Several members of the aristocracy were imprisoned, or executed, and advocates of the traditional order were kept out of the Party (which at that time, basically controlled the government).

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz,_Duke_of_Bavaria

Aristocrats, who opposed the Nazi regime, and supported the traditional, aristocratic order, who fled the country when the Nazis took over, and were later sent to concentration camps.

It was the norm to be opposed to Reaction, and the Nazis were opposed to Reaction.

>Who, like pretty much any fascist movement, sought a union between the traditional and the modern.
Fair enough.

>Google Konservative Revolution.
I hate to quote wikipedia, but

>After 1933, some of the proponents of the conservative revolutionary movement were persecuted by the Nazis, most notably by the SS of Heinrich Himmler, who wanted to prevent reactionaries from opposing or deviating from Hitler's regime in this early time.

>Your portrayal of Nazis as "anti Weimar Reactionaries" is plainly retarded and false
You can repeat that a lot, but it doesn't make it true.

[Anonymous No.13419767]

>>13419669
>If someone talks about "reading Marx" we also know that someone from /leftypol/ has made a visit.
Sure. It indicates that there is a type of person who frequently /leftypol/. And we were talking about the type of person who frequently /pol/.

>Can you read? I just said that /pol/ was United behind an idea in 2016...
Oh, fair enough, perhaps I am stupid.

Of course, to what extent was electing Trump "uniting around the important stuff"? I mean, elections are dramatic, and fun, and all. But even you acknowledge that uniting around Trump didn't get /pol/ the policies they wanted. (And if we're honest, did any of us actually expect Trump to implement his promises?)

A more concrete, significant test of /pol/'s organizational power, would be something like destroying the SPLC. I'm sure there's a way to drag them down through a mixture of hacking, trolling, and money-wasting lawsuits.

[Anonymous No.13419770]

>>13419734
>You literally said:
Yes, I did.
But NOTHING in there implies that there were no anti-liberals opposing the NSDAP.
Can you even read?

>The entire garbage about the aristocracy
Who cares? Irrelevant to the topic and I already told you that the Nazis were revolutionaries.

>It was the norm to be opposed to Reaction, and the Nazis were opposed to Reaction.
Reaktion DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS.
I explained it multiple times already.

>You can repeat that a lot, but it doesn't make it true.
They opposed and later prosecuted, unsurprisingly, the elements from the Reactionaries that threatened them.
But that didn't mean that the Nazis didn't seek, like the Weimar era Reactionaries, a return to more traditional social values.
Yes, the Nazis weren't part of the Weimar era Reactionaries, but that doesn't mean they didn't draw upon their ideas to create their revolutionary social order.

[Anonymous No.13419771]

>>13418883
Any revolution coming from 4chan will be a far-right fascist revolution.

[Anonymous No.13419776]

Nazis were so traditional that they wanted to recreate the roman empire.
But to achieve this they needed to destroy the previous aristocracy.
They were not progressive or left with, at best they pretended to support some left wing policies that they never implemented, it was just an election campaign propaganda.
The new aristocracy was supposed to be made out of the leaders of the nazi party and military.
They viewed Christianity as a jewish plot against the aryan people and tried to re embrace paganism.

[Anonymous No.13419791]

People who think this tend to have a particular delusion attributable to the disorientating side-effects of steeping too much in a filter bubble/echo chamber.

The key ingredients to chans, is their anonymity, which naturally invites discussion of the forbidden. For this reason far right ideologies started surfacing here and those who wish to discuss them in a consequence-free environment had opportunity to do so.

The very measure of the degree to which far right beliefs are discussed in online cesspits like this shows the extent to which they are broadly rejected in the public. If they were accepted and prevalent, there wouldn't be a need for it to be discussed under the cover of anonymized darkness.

4chan has always been a memetic hub, able to produce the sort of giddy, brain-infecting bytes of nonsense and goofiness that have defined so much of the internet culture. It current association with the far right is more of a phase than anything intrinsic to it.

[Anonymous No.13419803]

>>13418883
Yes we need to reconcile our thoughts into one philosophy

I vote we promote hierarchy through everything, including speech with heavy class movement and heavy intrinsicism

[Anonymous No.13419814]

>>13419502
The American revolution started with larping by smugglers and megalomaniac preachers, what's your point here

[Anonymous No.13419823]

>>13418892
So you, leftist all can do is banning stuff, typical

[Anonymous No.13419826]

>>13419791
You fool.
Most people are racists deep down, the are just pretending to not be due to pc modern culture.
It is only a matter of time.

[Anonymous No.13419840]

>>13419770
>But NOTHING in there implies that there were no anti-liberals opposing the NSDAP.
Yes it does.

You said
>"Reaktion", very clearly, does NOT refer to other anti-liberal groups of the Weimar era,who didn't directly oppose the Nazis.
Notice the second half of your sentence? "who didn't directly oppose the Nazis".

>But that didn't mean that the Nazis didn't seek, like the Weimar era Reactionaries, a return to more traditional social values.
What? Of course they supported a return to more traditional social values. That's the whole thing about fascism. It's a weird synthesis of old and modern.

That doesn't imply that they didn't oppose Reaction.

>Yes, the Nazis weren't part of the Weimar era Reactionaries, but that doesn't mean they didn't draw upon their ideas to create their revolutionary social order.
They drew upon Bolshevik ideas, too. It didn't prevent them from opposing the Bolsheviks.

>Reaktion DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS.
Or, get this. It does mean that. Of course, I don't speak German, so I'm probably not great at determining context and such. But you haven't exactly impressed me with your sensibility and accuracy, so I'm going to pretty much ignore what you say.

>>13419776
>Nazis were so traditional that they wanted to recreate the roman empire.
German empire. They placed a lot of emphasis on the German part.

>They were not progressive or left with, at best they pretended to support some left wing policies that they never implemented, it was just an election campaign propaganda.
I mean, there was a definite economic left-wing in the Nazi party, that mostly got purged in the Night of the Long Knives.

>>13419814
I mean, smuggling is not LARPing, whatever you say. LARPing, almost by definition, can't end in imprisonment.

[Anonymous No.13419895]

>>13419840
>>13419770
Addendum.

You know how the term "reaction" and "reactionary" is usually used by revolutionaries, right? It often has no precise definition. Some revolutionaries only use "Reactionary" to refer to the explicit opponents of the movement. And some revolutionaries act like everyone who isn't part of the revolution is a "Reactionary".

So, if the Nazis describe their opponents as the "reaction", they're probably using it as a vague word, which may be defined differently by different people. Regardless, they were not Reactionaries, and opposed Reactionaries, regardless of whether their marching song specifically referred to Monarchist-Reaction, or not.

(This is, if the German use of the word, is at all similar to the English use of the word, which is not necessarily true)

[Anonymous No.13419902]

New thread >>13419856

[Anonymous No.13419990]

>>13419840
Smugglers larping as caring about fictitious "injustice" is definitely a form of larping, just like a drug dealer pretending to be a wignat can be larping.

[Anonymous No.13419997]

>>13419695
Not true. The freedom of speech on 4chan isn't absolute. No children porn for instance. But yes, it is more permissive than the mainstream spaces, which makes the contradictions within mainstream thoughts stark and identifiable.

[Anonymous No.13420094]

>>13419502
>Boston Tea Party
>Literally LARPing as Indians

[Anonymous No.13420155]

>>13419231
The issue with google is when you have that pajeet ceo and Jew YouTube ceo telling the public that google doesn’t do this stuff. Everyone knows the NYT is a liberal newspaper, so no ones surprised when they print 100 anti trump stories a day. If google just admitted this shit we could get somewhere.

Regarding the reddit thing, it’s a sad fall from grace as someone who’s been there since 2011.

https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/15/8964995/reddit-free-speech-history

[Anonymous No.13420187]

>>13419826
None of that makes what he said wrong. It's not about what's true or not, it's about 4chan as a representation of non-conformity to society. I remember distinctly a decade or so ago that a significant portion of threads on /b/ were about atheism and christianity. The whole "checkmate atheists" is a heritage of that time and lives to this day everywhere in the internet.
Whether or not god exists or not doesn't invalidate this observation and the generalization that follows.

[Anonymous No.13420198]

>>13418936
probably on /leftypol/ on infinitychan

[Anonymous No.13420219]

>>13418892

You're gonna hang lad

[Anonymous No.13420233]

Like, how instmental was the internet, specifically /pol/ in electing trump?

[Anonymous No.13420297]

>>13420233
Nowhere near as much as it likes to think.

Most of these newfags here probably believe that 4chan blew up a van in the 00s.

[Anonymous No.13420305]

>>13420233
Not that much, unlike both pol and leftypol think.
It was mostly due to anti immigration and anti establishment sentiments already present in the population, amplified by the negative reactions of the liberal media.

[Anonymous No.13420307]

>>13419771
Bad thing?

[Anonymous No.13420380]

>>13418892
>WAH WHY DO PEOPLE THINK STUFF I DON'T LIKE!!!
You have no moral or intellectual authority.
>>13420198
/leftypol/ is a joke. lmao. Go back to plebbit.

[Anonymous No.13420381]

>>13420233
We'll never know. It's probably overstated but not insignificant.

[Anonymous No.13420385]

>>13419997
>Not true. The freedom of speech on 4chan isn't absolute. No children porn for instance
You don't even understand what freedom of speech is. You are not articulating ideas through obscenity such as child pornography, you pseud.

[Anonymous No.13420391]

>>13420385
contradiction. obscenity is an idea. it's just an idea that you dislike.

[Anonymous No.13420393]

>>13420385
You certainly can though. If you're a pedophile and you want to show pictures as an argument for what you believe, then not being allowed to post the picture denies you that possibility. Hell the FBI will be knocking on your door soon after you do that.

[Anonymous No.13420403]

>>13418892
No, an uncompromising "if you're not with us you're against us" attitude has driven many people from the dominant political view to a dissenting one. With a far-right establishment, the roles reverse and what was once entrenched and oppressive becomes liberating again. History is cyclical.

[Anonymous No.13420404]

>>13419578
There's also this song by the British BUF likewise opposing "reaction"
https://youtu.be/O-J0_AMnPhY

[Anonymous No.13420410]

>>13418892
Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.13420423]

What other places on the internet let you be an experimental and completely honest edgelord, WITHOUT being in an echo chamber for whatever edginess you're currently dabbling in?

I'm sure some whiny reddit faggot will protest that this place is a /pol/ echo chamber but I get called out regularly any time I post something edgy, whether I'm posting ultra left pro communism shit or how much I hate stinky fucking immigrants ruining Europe. Where else can I do that without being in the respective echo chamber of one or the other ideology?

I am thankful for this website. Some day historians will appreciate how many "lines of flight" emerged from this anime porn website.

[Anonymous No.13420431]

>>13420385
You don't remember the old days of /b/ do you