4 ms·

I like /pol/ and although I'm not really interested in defending it (I 100% understand why people don't like it) I will give my opinion of it because I think mo

by kypro 2y ago

I like /pol/ and although I'm not really interested in defending it (I 100% understand why people don't like it) I will give my opinion of it because I think most people don't get it and take the board wayy too seriously. /pol/ isn't trying to be like the millions of other politic discussion forums online. It's literally intended to be politically outrageous so when people like yourself complain that it's full of outrageous alt-right content you're typically missing the point. It's full of things that appear to be alt-right because stuff like racism, sexism and transphobia is extremely politically incorrect. While far-left views might be equally reprehensible, these views are not seen as equally politically incorrect. It's actually quite hard to hold politically incorrect far-left views unless you incorporate some far-right views – being so pro-trans that you hate biological women or something stupid. This is why you tend to see less left-wing content there. It's hard to be offensive and left-wing.** But even then I think it's wrong to say /pol/ is full of alt-right content to be honest. There are alt-right people there for sure, but huge amount of the political memes posted on /pol/ are mocking the alt-right and the right more broadly. The board is constantly roasting the MAGA movement, for example. As a brit my favourite threads on /pol/ are the brit/pol/ threads which basically just post politically incorrect memes mocking Brits and joking about how shit the UK is. These threads largely just Brits shitposting with each other and it would be wrong to assume the existence of hateful anti-British content on /pol/ is somehow evidence that /pol/ is xenophobic against Brits. People should take a similar views of the racist/alt-right threads – the vast majority of people there are just trolling and being offensive for a laugh. You don't have to like the humour, but most of it is just people shit posting. > they actively delete and ban posts that go against alt-right. Loads of stuff gets removed... If you're posting content that "goes against the alt-right" you're probably taking the board way way to seriously and you probably should be banned. ** Interestingly another commenter in the thread asked about why there's so much interracial porn on /pol/ if it's so racist, which kinda highlights my point here. Just hating white people isn't politically incorrect – there's people doing that all over Reddit. To make hating white people offensive you basically have to incorporate racist stereotypes about about how whites are genetically inferrer to blacks in various way, but then in doing this you'll get viewed as racist and alt-right because you're using racial stereotypes about how blacks are more athletic, etc. If you're up for it I challenge you to be politically incorrect from a left-wing perspective without it being possible to argue that it's actually far-right.

WickyNilliams 2y ago
The intent of the posters may be ironic subversion. But for those reading? There's no doubt some portion that mistake it for sincerity and are quietly being radicalised by it all. Poe's Law and all that
- kypro 2y ago
  I think I'd argue the issue here is a lack of diversity of views because exposure to radical views is the only thing that protects me from them. Although I might not be normal in that regard. I would accept this is a problem though. I just question whether the solution is censoring views. I guess I'll give an example... In the UK there's a lot of people questioning why young boys today seem to often hold such radical views about women. Of course, there's the surface level explanation we're given that boys are watching people like Andrew Tate online and are becoming radicalised, but then you have to ask why boys are watching people like Andrew Tate in the first place when they could also be listening to male feminists and have gone in the opposite direction. It seems to me the most likely explanation for this content selection bias is that boys are told lies about gender from a very early age and then on hearing become easily radicalised partial truths from people like Tate. The uncomfortable reality is that Tate is telling half-truths about the biological differences and that many of these half-truths are just denied outright by others in positions of authority. It's really no wonder they find his content interesting. It's probably the same reason someone like Jordan Peterson seemed to fill a large cultural hole a few years back. Somehow just being positive about the unique contributions and strengths of men was a radical and shocking position that people found interesting.
  - Der_Einzige 2y ago
    100% facts. The fact that mainstream folks simply cannot understand how or why boys are in such a bad spot is exactly why 4chan was popular in the first place.
  - codexon 2y ago
    I'm not here to argue that alt-right good or bad or more truthful than mainstream views. I'm just here to say that 4chan seems to be censoring stuff that goes against it. They've basically made it a safe space echo chamber for the alt-right.

by kypro 2y ago

WickyNilliams 2y ago

The intent of the posters may be ironic subversion. But for those reading? There's no doubt some portion that mistake it for sincerity and are quietly being radicalised by it all. Poe's Law and all that

kypro 2y ago
I think I'd argue the issue here is a lack of diversity of views because exposure to radical views is the only thing that protects me from them. Although I might not be normal in that regard. I would accept this is a problem though. I just question whether the solution is censoring views. I guess I'll give an example... In the UK there's a lot of people questioning why young boys today seem to often hold such radical views about women. Of course, there's the surface level explanation we're given that boys are watching people like Andrew Tate online and are becoming radicalised, but then you have to ask why boys are watching people like Andrew Tate in the first place when they could also be listening to male feminists and have gone in the opposite direction. It seems to me the most likely explanation for this content selection bias is that boys are told lies about gender from a very early age and then on hearing become easily radicalised partial truths from people like Tate. The uncomfortable reality is that Tate is telling half-truths about the biological differences and that many of these half-truths are just denied outright by others in positions of authority. It's really no wonder they find his content interesting. It's probably the same reason someone like Jordan Peterson seemed to fill a large cultural hole a few years back. Somehow just being positive about the unique contributions and strengths of men was a radical and shocking position that people found interesting.
- Der_Einzige 2y ago
  100% facts. The fact that mainstream folks simply cannot understand how or why boys are in such a bad spot is exactly why 4chan was popular in the first place.
- codexon 2y ago
  I'm not here to argue that alt-right good or bad or more truthful than mainstream views. I'm just here to say that 4chan seems to be censoring stuff that goes against it. They've basically made it a safe space echo chamber for the alt-right.