4chan, memes, language, Trump, alt-right, etc.
 

Yes, yes, we have a thread that has touched on these topics, but the 'What did Trump do now' thread has become unwieldy.

https://medium.com/@DaleBeran/4chan-...8cb#.9ah3d27fp

The article above, while not exactingly correct in it's timeline of 4chan, raises some very interesting points about the sociological motivations behind a lot of the trolling "culture" that has grown exponentially. As a former 16 year angsty troll, I absolutely thought that women would never want anything to do with me, that metal music and video games were solely the domain of men, and that casually saying 'f@g' or 'whore' as insults were funny and shouldn't be construed as sexist or homophobic. Some strong cognitive dissonance there, huh?

But I was also 16, and have grown far past such myopia. The question is, why haven't others? I know we have some MAGA/MRA types on the board, and I would appreciate some honest discussion about the points raised in the article. I legitimately have a list, but let's see if things come up organically.

i think you hit the nail on the head when you said "when i was 16." i think for a lot of people it's just something they'll grow out of. there's also this element where people can rise to fame just from feeding that select group of people. ones like milo, gavin mcinnes, malik obama, etc etc.

speaking of milo, any thoughts on the whole pedophile + book deal controversy?

To start, I think he's been misquoted to a degree because he clarifies that he isn't for paedophelia because paedophelia is an attraction towards prepubescent boys and his whole spiel was about pubescent people being prepared for sex below the age of consent, rendering age of consent laws meaningless laws made by dumb liberals. I find his opinions about it from that point on disgusting and ignorant of the power dynamic of these situations but I think this point is important to clarify.

My other two thoughts are (1) really? It took the air of being pro-paedo to cut his book deal? and (2) I really hope this is the nail in the coffin of his career and that he doesn't manufactroversify himself back into the news so that free speech advocates can have a better face to represent them.

i haven't seen anyone turning on him tbh, just based on social media there seems to be a lot of people jumping to his defense. for that reason i don't think his fame is going anywhere. i agree with you on the book deal though, it's strange that out of everything possible this somehow pushed things over the line.

I've seen pretty much unanimous dissent save for the people that seem to think that not getting the book deal is breaking the first amendment.

He's been saying this kind of thing for a long time though, so anyone who's well versed in his material shouldn't be too surprised.

i'm talking about from people who are fans of his though. i don't think any of his supporters see this as a reason to condem him.

I think those are his die-hard fans. I know there are a lot of people who disagree with a lot of what he says and still like him as a way to unify against the bogeyman left. That more casual segment of his fanbase is definitely going to dwindle and I think it's large enough for him to fall behind on relevancy.

Social media's a bitch though and you're probably right though because his die-hard fans can spam the **** out of social media to make their side seem more significant/important/popular/whatever like they do with any other manufactroversy.

i like watching his videos. not so much because of the leftist boogeyman as for the reactionary speaker i think he is. the biggest problem with him (as well as gavin mcinnes, ann coulter, steven crowder, etc) is that people aren't questioning what they're saying and it leads to people blindly picking a side just like they claim the people on the left are. joe rogan recently did a podcast with steven crowder and called him out for being wrong with his stats and sources multiple times and each time crowder was proven wrong. when you get a situation like milo's lecture for example, there's no one to fact check or call him out.

How is this group relevant to a discussion about Donald Trump or any of the other things mentioned?

I skimmed through the article. It seemed a little silly and jumped to quite a lot of conclusions but maybe it went deeper than I understood from a brief viewing. I'd like the list you mentioned, either in PM (I'd respond directly) or as a spoiler (my return would also come as a spoiler).

^Because meme propaganda and the alt-right (or in the instance of this election, ant-left) are quite plainly some of the biggest factors in getting a meme for president.

Can you elaborate?