/sci/ - Science & Math

Why do I never see these threads when it's /pol/ making the blatant off topic threads?

>>10717409
Because science is meant to be able to explain anything. In theory, the way people normally talk differs so much from scientific language that we can always ask about the scientific interpretation/way of explaining it.

Psychology is [arguably] /sci/, stop trying to censor things you disagree with.

>>10717409
seething /pol/ incel

>>10717430
He's asking about the psychology behind these posts, stop trying to censor things you disagree with.

>>10717429
>Because science is meant to be able to explain anything.
>>10717430
>Psychology is [arguably] /sci/,

So it's just dunning kruger effect then?
They're simply too dumb to know these things aren't related to science in anyway, and take any attempt to educate them as a personal insult to their intelligence because that's how people argue their side on /pol/?

>>10717441
That's actually a fair point, I concede

>>10717443
No, that's how the radicalizing left argues. It's a complex problem with no easy solution or I'd have meme'd it out of existence by now.

The main thing to remember is that most of the left "are" (see themselves as) moderates. They have no concept of what the radicalizing really does to the system. Only a very, very, VERY small part of the population (or even any online debate) is actually part of a radicalizing sentiment, and the radicalizing left tends to be more radicalizing than their contemporary corollaries on the radicalizing right. Both sides feel that they are being censored, so neither can give up and let the world meme in an organic capacity.

It's a bit of a modern tragedy.

Yes, even though it's originally a behavior of the radicalizing left, it affects the (small minority that is the) radicalizing right, and that behavior ends up rubbing off on them. The mechanism is right, but you have to better understand the origin of the problem to properly accentuate blame.

>>10717418
Post example pls, I want to believe

>>10717409
I wonder how that guy parks for more than an hour without his car being vandalized

>>10717466
The moderate American right already acts like borderline extremists complicating this a bit

>>10717633
It necessarily is a complex system from the outset or there'd be nothing to comment on. My personal hypothesis is that civilization is always built on some set of false promises, and as such can never produce a fully unified population. Unity comes in spurts and shakes, but can never congeal because there is always something to unify "against." Once victorious, all civilizations (re)suffer the passivity problem from time beginning.

>>10717409
Those are spam bots you absolute mong.

>>10717466
the american 'left' is virtually indistinguishable from the center parties of most developed European countries. american conservatives have no sense for what constitutes 'radical leftism' because it is virtually nonexistent in the US

>Yes, even though it's originally a behavior of the radicalizing left, it affects the (small minority that is the) radicalizing right, and that behavior ends up rubbing off on them. The mechanism is right, but you have to better understand the origin of the problem to properly accentuate blame.

this is just a really fancy way of saying 'they started it'

>>10717429
No it isnt

>>10717646
Nice meme reply, but you didn't explain what motivates the behavior of the people that run the spam bots.

>>10717652
We didn't create science to construct no hypotheses.

>>10717653
As long as you don't mind getting a little /pol/. There's a revenge plot of sorts in the works, and that board's 3-year-old adventure is the blame. This plot involves a massive amount of subversion and disinformation just to derail this hive-mind long enough to finish the plan. You should expect it to slow down from here, no one was supposed to notice the boil after all

>>10717685
>You should expect it to slow down from here
I already trivially predicting that possibility the moment I gave you attention. Describing the characteristics of their psychology is not the same as explaining their motivation. Yes, they exhibit behaviors. Which behaviors and why?

>>10717409
>>10717418
>>10717432
>>10717443
>>10717466
>>10717564
>>10717646
>>10717685
>>10717693
>dude vaccines cause autism
>dude global warming (not even AGW just global warming in general) is a hoax
>dude 5G causes cancer
Mods need to step it up and ban anyone trying to agenda-spam on sight. Pic related is what happens when you delete a schizo thread without banning the offending schizo.

>>10717409
Most questions can be answered scientifically. Go ahead, ask me any question and I will give you the scientific answer.

>>10717731
Why are you doing this?

>>10717429
>science is meant to be able to explain anything.
Lrn2science fgt pls

>>10717388

>>10717409
An other technic how to open a thread on /sci/ is:
"What's the science behind ...?"

Successful threads reproduce in a manner similar to evolution. When a shit poster sees a successful shitpost thread, he will mutate it. If the new shitpost is too obvious, it gets banned and dies off. Otherwise, it becomes sucessful and has more opportunities to reporduce.

Scientifically speaking, that's why there are so many "scientifically speaking" threads.