politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
No. Too difficult to follow conversations. My exposure has been 2nd hand by reddit or reformed text
i used to post on 4chan all the time. the hard to follow part was a feature. It let's you see only the good stuff in a way that's hard to explain, but I'll try.
The fun of 4chan is that everyone is full of shit. In fact, there posts about how much shit everyone else is full of. It's fun.
So how do you have fun on 4chan? It's easy. You lie. You're anonymous. It's consequence free.
It's been said that people like "bad jokes" because jokes split the room into two groups: those that get it and those that don't. A "bad joke" has a very forced punchline so that everyone gets the joke. There is no split in the room. Everyone hates the joke together.
A lie on 4chan splits the readership. Those that are ready to debunk anything. And those that "yes, and..."
The "bad lies" were no fun. Easy debunk, no one elaborating. The other lies were the fun ones.
The debunking group is the loudest, most numerous, and had tons of fun. There were infographics on how to tell if the user was pretending to be two different people ("samef--"). There were infographics on how to see photoshop artifacts. All kinds of good skeptical reasoning and debunking tools. The debunkers proved the liars lied.
The debunkers would share huge greentext png files of reformated text laying out how full of shit that all the liars are.
The other group had a different kind of fun. They found that if they see an obvious lie, they "yes, and...". That's an improv cliche that means you fully accept the OP's premise and develop it fuller yourself.
Wrestling fans would call it "kayfabe". Horror fiction on reddit has "nosleep" rules. It's in general, a willful supension of disbelief. These are "metarules" in a sense. They are rules saying it's against the rules to mention the rules.
Of course the yes-anders got debunked to hell and back. There are all kinds of greentext proving it.
But, the yes-anders shared greentext too. They had huge pngs full of undebunked truth. It was easy to do. It's all lies, and they are editing this huge png files. They just leave off an debunking.
Is it really that easy to just cut out the debunking? Wouldn't it just be easy to check?
HELL NO. That's the fucking point of 4chan.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to follow conversations. Everyone is only responding to what they came to see. There's no "I'll get back to that". You got to spew your shit while the shit is flying. Or you miss the fun.
This is where the debunkers always lose. There is just too much shit to debunk.
People reform the text into the png files I was mentioning. Put out a mountain of stuff. IGNORE ALL CONTRAPOINTS. And there are some people that believe them. When I said
I mean, they are the yes-anders. The people pretending to believe it because its fun to watch people try to debunk things when they never admit other, plausible explanations. I would have to say that the "99%" figure is an uneducated statement, so your guess is as good as mine.
But there are those that see this spread without any debunking because the debunking is lost. And anyone that tried was driven crazy by people pretending not to understand. So it's now an echo chamber of those that fell for it.
4chan was fun. I'm glad I quit.
The only time 4chan /pol caught my attention was when FBIanon posted about the Clinton foundation. I thought it was a fun LARP, then Bill Clinton has a clandestine airplane meeting with Loretta Lynch.
But given that nothing has happened to the Clinton foundation I would accept that FBIanon has been debunked.