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?

I imagine he's saying that people on the right see him as one of theirs and so they aren't critical enough of exactly what he's saying and how he's backing it up, and the left dismiss him out of hand because he's not one of theirs, and so aren't critical enough of exactly what he's saying and how he's backing it up. When you're the kind of populist that Milo is you're either loved or hated, but seldom considered.

well speaking on steven crowder in particular for example, he told joe rogan he doesn't like how the left praise marijuana and act like it's going to cure cancer. he went on to say car accidents caused by the usage of marijuana have sky rocketed since the legalization of the drug in Colorado. joe rogan brought up the stats and it proved to not be true.

there are a lot of instances like this where they're doing exactly what they accuse the other side of doing, following statements without researching the facts themselves. i think with milo it's more a matter of exaggeration for the point of entertainment some of his dummy supporters take literally.

And because in our neck of the woods (the internet that isn't just Facebook or Twitter) 4Chan is a microcosm of a rather large segment of white, 20-something, male culture.

I've heard Joe Rogan support the theory that marijuana hands down cures cancer but more on that later...

I get what you mean and agree now. Another fine example of how the extremes are more like twins than they realize.

I was asking about MRA's being included in this. I fully understand the rest of it.

Also top job on "ant-left" :laughing:

Oh I see. The Venn Diagram of MRA's and alt-right is pretty close to a circle as I see it, but only because of the lack of cohesion there is to the alt-right movement.

I actually read an article that discusses that point pretty well.

6 Surprising Things You Learn In The Alt-Right Media Bubble

lol didn't mean to make them feel small.

mhm. whenever i'm around my trumper friend and he's complaining about how all lefties are commies i defend it to try and drive it in his head that he's just as wrong as they are.

Yeah, the alt-left are pretty small in all fairness, even if their actions are kinda overlooked/condoned by many you would expect to combat them. It's hard to decide which is worse between the alt-left and alt-right. Both racist in different ways, identity politics through the roof, louder than their actual representation and pushing bad ideas as a form of identity.

And the rest of the MRA stuff is just a bit silly. Maybe some identify with the alt-right, or other MAGA type movements, but the issues MRA's discuss are completely unrelated. So I don't think it's right to even bring them up in this discussion.

The whole phenomenon of 4chan's rise in notoriety as well as the alt-right's is a really fascinating one. 4chan is a vehemently misunderstood place in my opinion and there are so many goddamn misconceptions about the place, even the dreaded /pol/ that it's hard to even talk about without being written off completely. To really discuss 4chan and Trump asa topic you have to come across the different techniques that have been put to use on /pol/ as well as having at least basic knowledge about "meme magic". A lot of the time the place genuinely does feel like a cartoon world or some alternate dimension put inside of a specific board.

The alt right is completely different phenomenon and has so many definitions I don't even know where to start. All I know is that /pol/ is only home to a couple types of the "alt-right".

I agree with that. It's like how people don't even realize that we talk about music on MB sometimes.

They have an origami section, so I imagine it's probably not all alt-right dudes talking about cucks.

I would equate it even more to you come here expecting to talk about music, but there's more talking about random **** than anything else.

You go to /pol/ expecting a ton of skinhead neo nazi's, but it's really a bunch of jaded teenagers who enjoy memes way too much.

I use the music board /mu/ every day and it's basically an edgy tumblr. Most of the people there are liberals and leftists.

*Werner Herzog voice* The internet is a dark and chaotic vortex of memes and treachery...

I don't think I've ever lasted more than 5 mins on /mu/. It was literal cancer. Maybe I should give it another go.

You're right though

It gets better with time, or maybe I'm just numb to the stupid now.

Sorry, busy weekend. These questions aren't strictly dispassionate, but I think they're generally fair. Will read through and respond to more of these when I have time.



in reference to MRA, as Frownland astutely stated, it's a Venn Diagram that's more flush circle than small intersection. After all, the wage gap is "fake news", right? I brought MRA into this because, as I see it, it stems from the same white, male disaffection with the cultural and social changes over the last 30 years. Men, especially white men, have gone from masters of their demesne, to partners, subordinates, or excluded parties. Whether through choice, circumstance, cultural shift, etc., the hows don't matter as much as the reaction, which as far as I can tell, has been extremely negative. As a man working in the Oil and Gas industry, the amount of sexism I see is absolutely shocking. 95% occurs when the woman has left the room. And this in a place where women occupy 4 of 6 senior VP positions. Do MRA types have fair points? Sure. Custody is one of the very few areas where the sexism is reversed. It's not fair, it's not in the best interest of the child, and it's one of the artifacts of a patriarchal society... ironic, imo.

I'll address that outdated custody myth momentarily, but for now, a response to the original thread topic:

I can't comment on 4chan, but in regards to young male alt-right/neo-nazi types who consistently act obnoxiously online and off: Yes, I feel many can grow out of it. Just like most grow out of their Ayn Rand phase. (It has always been de rigueur for teenagers/early-20-somethings to adopt a facade of ironic detachment in addition to your standard contrarian-edgelord behavior. Because being a decent human being is uncool.) I'm not as familiar with the modern-day version of these children, but when I was a teenager, I was actually physically stalked and harassed by two of these types-- one older, one my age. For years. So, while it may not be the majority, some of them do indeed have some serious psychological issues/complexes which they overcompensate for in obnoxious ways.

Psychologically, they're very interesting, as they seem to believe they're some sort of modern-day antiheroes and the one true subversive voice, even though they're about as subversive as your typical drunk racist Fox news-watching uncle. (But yeah, you sure are an envelope-pushing comedic genius, Kevin!) It's also hilarious to me that these Schrodinger's douchebags are always railing on about free speech and "PC culture" yet absolutely cannot handle any criticism from others whatsoever. (Some do not understand that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism/public ridicule) And, as already noted they're not too dissimilar (in terms of pitiful debate tactics) from those that they're vehemently against. But, a lot of these kids--the trolls-turned-neo-nazis, anyway-- grew up believing South Park was the pinnacle of nuanced social commentary/humor, so... They'd be far less irritating if not for their insistence that they're somehow oppressed. I'm curious as to what they'll be like 20 years from now.

..And regarding the other kind that mainly stick to trolling and harassment (while indiscriminately latching on to whatever they perceive as opposite to "sjws", be it Trump or whatever)-- namely the younger MRA guys that enjoy harassing women non-stop-- I notice they all have an enormous entitlement problem (and barrels of weird sexual issues and complexes which they like to blame on random women/female friends), stemming from some perceived but actually extremely minor "betrayal". And then they restrict their social interactions to internet echo chambers without any real, varied real-life experiences to balance it out. But again, I'm assuming that most grow out of this once they gain more life experience/learn that people are not puppets for them to project their internal psychodramas upon.

I really wish they (MRA) spent a bit more time practicing some sort of productive, real activism that doesn't revolve around demonizing others and yelling on reddit behind anime avatars. (What about male rape victims, or men--young adolescent men, especially-- in prison facing abuse and injustice, victims of police brutality, mentally ill homeless men with PTSD, disabled men or men with autism or severe chronic illnesses who are deprived of any real platform or voice, etc.. Or even elderly men experiencing neglect or abuse in nursing homes.. People who all could use help!)

That's a bit of a myth, actually. It may have been true many decades ago (and depending on which list of cherry-picked half-true factoids one reads, it may even appear to be partly true on the surface), but it hasn't been for a good while-- that is, when men actively seek out custody in court and don't drop the case. It's fairly likely that they'll be awarded custody, in fact. And a great deal of custody settlements happen outside of the courtroom, and are reached based on mutual agreement.
Source: Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts

..In summary:
Study 1: MASS
2100 cases where fathers sought custody (100%)
5 year duration

29% of fathers got primary custody
65% of fathers got joint custody
7% of mothers got primary custody

Study 2: MASS
700 cases. In 57, (8.14%) father sought custody
6 years

67% of fathers got primary custody
23% of mothers got primary custody

Study 3: MASS
500 cases. In 8% of these cases, father sought custody
6 years

41% of fathers got sole custody
38% of fathers got joint custody
15% of mothers got sole custody

Study 4: Los Angeles
63% of fathers who sought sole custody were successful

Study 5: US appellate custody cases
51% of fathers who sought custody were successful (not clear from wording whether this includes just sole or sole/joint custody)

"...The high success rate of fathers does not by itself establish gender bias against women. Additional evidence, however, indicates that women may be less able to afford the lawyers and experts needed in contested custody cases (see “Family Law Overview”) and that, in contested cases, different and stricter standards are applied to mothers."

There are still plenty of problems in custody cases regardless, (and biases galore, among both judges and jurors) but it is not at all as black-and-white as many assume. I've bolded the most worrying bits:



That last bit is especially distressing, yet not even remotely surprising seeing as how inept our legal system is when there's any kind of abuse (child or spousal) involved. I've witnessed both abusive men and abusive women being unfairly granted certain things while the complaints and concerns of the other are dismissed entirely.

I found this thesis floating around that addresses the financial issues which follow divorce; it may be interesting: https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstre...BA1?sequence=2

Edit: In conclusion, children are the real victims in these situations, as always.

No, you haven't. Using "myopia" the way you used it is a slight to people who struggle with the medical condition of "myopia."

"Myopia" is the medical term for near-sightedness. The problem of not seeing things clearly objects at a distance due to the refractive error caused by the shape of the eye. "Myopia" is something you can't outgrow, it's something you have for the rest of your life, and for some people it's something that develops later in life. It's a handicap to have it, definitely not one of the worst handicap to physically deal with. However it's one of those handicaps that people feel free to bully, insult, mock or tease a person who has "myopia." Thinking that way at the age of sixteen didn't cause you to wear glasses and as a result be mocked because of wearing them.

I appreciate your misplaced pedantry.

How so? When myopia is taken directly from a medical condition and no one ever uses "hyperopia" to mean too much discernment or too broad a view of something. Face it you said you were grown but then slide right back into your old ways and slighted people with a medical condition by using a word to mean something it never was meant to mean.

edit: I appreciate your irony.

How so? People who have myopia are teased and bullied. I don't agree with adding to their laundry list of how they are mistreated the redefining of the medical term for their condition to mean a "lack of discernment." There are people who wear glasses that have plenty of discernment. FYI

@ Nea - You're boring us now. Find better schtick.

This post only fuels my ambition to be the most boring person ever. : |

I'm quite surprised you didn't say just ****ing kill yourself. Showing great restraint, Batty!

I'll up my game when he ups his.

Here read what you wrote to Ki.

You insult people by hiding behind the Batlord as if he said it. I had a friend who did commit suicide recently and I find that phrase "just ****ing kill yourself" just plain fucking revolting. It's not a joke, it's not even an off-colour joke. Now you sunk lower than Ki, I think you owe him an apology.

ITT: i learned you cant talk about 4chan without turning into 4chan.

I don't know if you're trolling or if this is your thing (hoping it's the former). Legally, people with glasses aren't a protected class; morally, it's obvious I was referring to the common use in argument of philosophical narrow sightedness; and forum-ly, this whole digression is off-topic. Not to mention, pedantic.

edit: 'just ****ing kill yourself' was like every 7th post I made 8 years ago. My oh my how my contributions have changed... Yet another reason I'm sad/scared that 30 year olds behave like this still.