/z/ - zaibatsu — finance and economics

>>114
I concur, even though I have a degree of pessimism about the matter. I think that judicious community-based moderation and the self-regulation of online circles can work wonders as long as the pressure to degenerate is not too high.

Of course it's hard to say that the gubmin's behind it all, or whoever. I wouldn't judge too quickly – even then, the ideal strategy would be more or less the same whether CIA spooks are involved or not.

degradation_of_a_hobby.png

I think there are two reasons, firstly actual infiltrators (CorrectTheRecord being one recent example for political ones, and various "viral" marketing schemes for commercial ones).
Secondly, as communities grow they always attract posers, people who are more interested in the AESTHETICS than the substance of something (for example 4kanker's /g/ that is now filled with "nerds" who are oh so cool for being on a tech board on that super edgy site).

It happens with every movement, hobby or other thing that humans engage in.
Look at what happened with Trance music - at one point it got so cheesy and mainstream (read: trite), that new groups formed within it who wanted to return back to the roots).

The reason mainstream chans are so bad is that cancer (as in dumb memes and trolling that doesn't add anything to the discussion) can manifest unopposed. There are some good posts here and there, but it's largely drowned in an avalanche of soykaf.

Like >>115 said, I believe that as long as both mods do a good job and the community holds itself to high standards as well, it will be fine.

>>116
mainstream chans are now so firmly integrated in right-wing culture that they work as perfect disinformation outlets: all discussion is one-sided, and i don't see any balance returning in the near future. i could see the government getting involved more so now than ever before, due to the rabble still harping on about CTR. The real minds behind the hardcore right-wing renaissance can easily spread inflammatory ideas with little resistance.

Isn't that the situation where the nation collapses into chaos and blood and flames?
What's your program's purpose, again?
What's your job, again?
Who… who do you work for… …again?

>>114

> Trollish, close-minded, often racist/misogynist/anti-semitic, infatuated with soykaf-posting
> reactionary, conspiracy-theoretic politics

Blue-pill harder.
Removing these things requires censorship, once the censorship is in place it will resemble reddit or MSM.
It will be cleansed of independent thought and dissenting opinions, and will pump out MSM-style disinformation.
This is what happened with reddit. It was usurped and sterilized.

brewing soykaf are actually a sign of a healthy community, up to a point.
You are right in that low signal:noise can also destroy.

>>119
I think, as far as this community is concerned, the above mentioned trollish/-ist behavior serves no purpose here and could be ignored without censorship.

As disillusioned /sec/posters on a back alley cyberpunk forum, we all probably know well enough that conspiracy and hate rhetoric are the tools of propagandists. It is no secret that mainstream chans are infiltrated as heavily with shill provided ideology. Beyond political bending there are also corporate advertisers who infiltrate online communities. These infiltrations need only to plant a seed, which then spreads like a virus throughout the community and eventually swallows the ecosystem and replaces it with a feeding ground for more corporate/political soykaf.

I think its up to us as community members to fight this spread simply by being aware of its existence and educating newcomers. We obviously cant just put u a firewall, it serves as censorship and we all know firewalls can be beat anyway. We have the benefit of being a smaller community and being very /sec/ oriented so we are certainly capable of active opposition to phony ideologies and shilling. Plus LainZine as a publication helps to assert our community values.

>> 681
> i could see the government getting involved more so now than ever before, due to the rabble still harping on about CTR.

How? Is it the government's job to control public opinion? Unopposed opinions in discussions somewhere warrants govt intervention?

You mean the CTR now known as ShareBlue?
The one from whom a strategy document was leaked, that included using armies of paid shills to subvert and destroy online communities?
https://www.scribd.com/document/337535680/Full-David-Brock-Confidential-Memo-On-Fighting-Trump

Yes, I'm sure harping on about them is the real problem.

> The real minds behind the hardcore right-wing renaissance can easily spread inflammatory ideas with little resistance.

Yes, the spread of ideas is the real problem.

>>120
> I think its up to us as community members to fight this spread simply by being aware of its existence and educating newcomers.

That and encouraging skepticism generally, and allowing reasoned dissent.

> conspiracy and hate rhetoric
An idea being a conspiracy theory doesn't automatically make it wrong, or right….
The content of the Snowden leaks were considered conspiracy theory before he leaked them. Same with Vault 7.

You can identify rhetoric by its lack of objective verifiability. A controversial idea's popularity has very low correlation to its truth.

>>119
community managers have no obligation to uphold free speech on their own platform and they aren't obligated to host other people's hate speech. it isn't "censorship" to disallow something, unless you are able to do it on such a wide scale that certain perspectives legitimately disappear from public discourse (such as if the government started threatening people with violence).

What you might call an "echo chamber" because your opinion / content isn't catered to is actually a normal discourse community. You cannot have a discourse community without rules, there will always be some form of sanctions in place. You can take a look and learn more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_community
Another notion is the speech community, which is more broad:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_community

Additionally, many discourse communities have informal sanctions on the kind of speech that is acceptable. Certain speech can prevent other people from contributing by ruining conversations, or outright threatening members of the group. Sanctioned speech might be ridiculed or ignored, so it is not productive to any conversations. In the communities you might be used to, a lot of viewpoints are probably ridiculed or ignored because of cultural norms rather than any merit.

If the community managers want to foster a certain type of discussion, it would make sense to remove speech antithetical to that discussion. It is not censorship unless someone is using the threat of violence (typically state violence) to control discourse.

>>122
True, the trick is maintaining the communities general ability to apply skepticism to the point where individual members can identify the differences between Vault 7 and Pizzagate.

This is something 90% of /pol/ cannot/will not do.

>>121
I think anyone that has been on the internet long enough knows that the problem is not about the spread of ideas (or lack thereof) but instead it's about disruption of established communities.

I have been on a lot of chans and all sorts of political subreddits, and, after a while, it kind of gets really stale. I don't come on lainchan to hear for the umpfth time that "race X commits Y% of crimes" or that "we need to acknowledge that we have a <religion X> problem. I've heard it all before, and I'm not really interested to have a discussion about it, because I also know how "debates" go on this kind of platform.

Not to say that we shouldn't ever have debates, but my point is that for communities to prevail, there need to be some rules which say "we're not interested in the following opinions, please go away".

That's not censorship, that's defining what kind of discourse we're interested in having. I'm sure you can find plenty of other places to spill your soykaf on.

>>114
Agreed, though I may not be able to understand everyone is saying in this thread I feel with a little research I could figure it out. Though I will say I feel sad as someone who watches groups rise and fall and it usually from as you say. Though I will admit the "normal person" (For lack of a better term) issue is pretty big in my mind. I have a story that may be of some use to watching and correctly countering issues like this.

>Have friends from school but also friends online. (Around 20 people)
>Buy a Teamspeak server so all of us can talk after school and meet each other.
>Sometimes just game, sometimes just sit down and talk, Sometimes have discussions on things we research and like.
>Not Everyone has similar ideas though.
>We have Communist, Fascist, Religious Fundamentalist, Atheist, Militarist, Pacifist.
>Some talk a lot about History, other about Dinosaurs, Some about fixing cars and guns, other about growing crops and mushrooms.
>Even with all these varying differences everyone got along and could if need be have organized debates, or discussions about the Teamspeak and its future as a whole.
>This is so because of a simple belief of how people view one another, treat one another and such.
>But their was one who was not such but in the group do to being an old friend.
>We will call him Carl for anonymity sake
>He would constantly try to undermine the Team-speak.
>He would undermine best friends, and cause rifts where their were no issues by playing on peoples human emotions and differences
>He caused 2 great rifts that were only stopped by me and someone we will call Jeff.
>He would keep doing this for Several years being stopped by me or Jeff.
>Eventually a meeting was called about the issue.
>The solution was simple, any time someone was doing actions that were Blatantly and extremely divisive but not in a special meeting and place would be treated as subhuman by the rest for the duration of their attempt and then some.
>People did not have to like one another but they had to Respect them, even if as an enemy but any major issues would be settled in a group debate at special times, with a jury of peers.
>This crippled any and all attempts until it ceased and he left.
>It is a much nicer place now.

I hope this story may help give some insight on dealing with agitators in a group, or those trying to splinter people. I may not have explained it very well but their was a lot to it and long ago. I simply wish to contribute to the thread as this is something I had issues with and it genuinely hurts me when I see it happen. I hope for all this divisiveness to end so we can focus on greater things, than the petty issues these people drag in. And yeah the normal person issue is just lower in quality as people who have no understanding of what their getting into turn something into a greatly watered down version of itself easily absorbed and assimilated by the masses losing all previous meaning and effect. Becoming nothing more than an husk of its former idealism.

>>125
Very well said.

>Not to say that we shouldn't ever have debates, but my point is that for communities to prevail, there need to be some rules which say "we're not interested in the following opinions, please go away".

People seem to conflate safe spaces with areas where people just simply arent there to talk about that specific thing or whatever.

You see it on the left, right, center, etc.

No one says book clubs are safe spaces because they don't want to talk about the movie adaptations.

While I don't have any doubt that organized groups (which may be government funded) have an interest in disrupting communities, I think it's also important to consider how those groups are successful at doing it and if there is not also rot coming from within and not just without. One of the ways that chan communities try to regulate outside influence is board/chan culture and the whole idea of lurk moar. Poe's law or the idea that it's impossible to distinguish a caricature of something from a genuine but extreme form of something is how that sort of backfires. As the death of other hobbies shows it's possible to to walk the walk and talk the talk enough while bringing nothing of value to the table other than stereotypes. So as the "normal people" flood in they both imitate the current norm which tends to exaggerate the caricature while also shifting the norm to more " normal person" levels.

There's a great essay about this kind of spiral happening with TV/media by David Foster Wallace
https://jsomers.net/DFW_TV.pdf
TL;DR television/media will just keep ironically making fun of itself to silence any criticism leading to endless irony and no genuine media

But what does normal person really mean other than someone that lacks a deep understanding of the culture and a desire to see quality stay high. In other words a shallow person. The easiest way to stop their influence is to do what many of us have been doing, always moving on to a new frontier. Once a place gets known about enough you're going to get both normal people and counterintelligence. The solution is not to somehow stay secret, or get amazing mods/rules, or keep quality high, it's to keep moving.

>>114

Nothing has destroyed more communities across the net than social justice warriors. Talk all you want about muh evul white male bullcrap OP but the reality is that those idiots tend to keep within their containment boards or subforums and if derezzed they usually fuck off for good. SJ types on the other hand infect every-fucking-thing, no matter what your community is about they will bring their baggage of mental diseases to it demanding you not only let them in but give them power within the community even if they haven't done anything for the group, but you better do or else they will get the media on your ass by fabricating whatever the fuck they want, just like they did to reddit.

Seriously, after OWS I started to seriously consider if "social justice" isn't some nextgen COINTELPRO weapon since it has managed to destroy more online communities than ANYTHING else I even seen.

>>117

>The real minds behind the hardcore right-wing renaissance can easily spread inflammatory ideas with little resistance.
>with little resistance.

You joking shazbot? they get derezzed on sight if they go into any major clearnet sites, compare that with actual big sites like the guardian openly posting misandry and "correct" racism with literally zero fucking consequences

There was a whole hoopla on mass media about facebook not banning that people fast enough, so stop talking BS

>>130
> misandry

This isn't reddit, also don't act like misandry is a real thing if you don't want people to laugh at you.

>>131

>a term in every dictionary, encyclopedia and even psychology journal
>not a real thing

Nice try bitch, and I don't care if you and your fuckhead neon haired asshole buddies laugh at me because half the world laughs at you asshole

The other half just want to kill your asses, see china, russia, india and all of islam

>>132

Well if it's in the dictionary it must be true, just like unicorns.

Also why are you just so mad, someone disagrees with you and your first reaction is to get hyper offended and go full victim complex.

Just take a chill pill bro.

Essentially, the way I am reading a lot of this thread is,
>this group comes in
>they mess things up
>we can't easily stop them
>is it a conspiracy to destroy us
>????

Now, I am not sure that there is a right way to look at this problem, but it seems like pointing to some scapegoat group and blaming them for our failures is a poor way to go about things. If an engineer build a building, and in an earthquake it collapses, the engineer shouldnt just blame the earthquake, but look to see where they could have done better. Earthquakes happen, and its the job of an engineer to make a building that can maintain integrity nevertheless.

Like wise it is our challenge to not simply blame the people who come in and challenge our communities, but to try to find how to weather such times, and to become better from them.

>>133
>Well if it's in the dictionary it must be true, just like unicorns.
Did you ignore the part where he says it can be found on psychology journals?

>>135
I did but only because he acted sorely when i questioned him, time is money and i rather not waste it on the easily offended.

Anyway i didn't think I needed to argue against it because it seemed like a very obviously weak proof I will show you.

Think about it, he never says what psychology journals he's talking about ,nor does he even show in any way that they exist.

Even if we took his word on it, we have no idea about what the context is, what kind of psychology journals are they they might not be peer reviewed, what is the standards of the psychology journals he is talking about do they make a effort or do they just let any crackpot in, we don't know he doesn't bother to tell.

We don't what the psychology journals mean when there talking about misandry, is it as part of a person's persecution complex , is it a individual prejudice or a systematic oppression , is it talking about something in the past or the present, we don't know because as I said before he doesn't expand on it in anyway.

All this seems to suggest he's just using a authority without caring for its content or context to make he's opinions seem more objective.

And we also have to ask the question what does he mean when he uses the word misandry, he gives no concrete definition so I don't even really know what he's even arguing for.

If it's some individuals have a bias or prejudice against men, I have no problem but if it's that there some sort of large conspiracy or systematic discrimination against men, i need powerful arguments , concrete definitions and good proofs for such a huge, complex and unintuitive claims.

>>134

Except the imaginary natzis OP is ranting about either don't exists or are so irrelevant its pointless to even waste time talking about them

On the other hand think about all the counter culture movements that have gone to soykaf in the last years because of SJW. They use racism to D&C just like old timey robber barons did to D&C poor whites from poor blacks and keep them from demanding reforms

We wasted an entire thread talking about fake ass skinheads while oxygen thieves like OP are the ones behind every fucking law demanding the internet becomes this closed source soykafhole controlled by governments and corporations

>Think about it, he never says what psychology journals he's talking about ,nor does he even show in any way that they exist.

I just did a search for misandry and psychology journals where the 4th result right below the dictionary entries

Do I have to GTFY too dumbass?

>>137
>I just did a search for misandry and psychology journals where the 4th result right below the dictionary entries

Do I have to GTFY too dumbass?

And it's a pop psychology rag not a peer reviewed journal, the person talking about misandry isn't even a psychologist.

Did you just ignored most of what i said and just took what you thought was the weakest part, am i going to have to repeat all the things i said all over again.

Also why do have so much faith in the authority of Psychology journals while having so much suspicion towards governments and corporations, this seems a bit inconsistent.

>>137
well.

We probably live in different corners of the net, because of the communities I have been part of, I don't recall any that were destroyed by 'sjw', while at the same time I can think of a few that were small and comfy till they were filled with facists after the link was posted on pol. Then the old regulars leave, and the place is never the same.

SJW could do the same thing, and personally I have little doubt that they do, but I am still not sure that the presence of SJW is in any important functional way any different than facists, or furries or people who are obsessed with tea-kettles.

What matters in this case is that you have a community, like ours here. And as time goes on, either slowly or as a result of some specific event or events, the community is fillied to a large extent not with the people of that community, but with people alien to it.

These aliens, if present in large numbers, can redirect conversation, irk the regulars, either prompting them to respond (and derailing the usual converstions) or to leave, both acts are not promoting the community as it was.

It does not matter what those conversations are, what those aliens talk about, because the problem is not fundamentally that 'facists are comming' or 'sjw are comming' or that the premed students are comming or the geologists are comming; the problem is that some entity that is not of the group is comming in such force to overwhelm, redirect, and redefine the community in a way that the old regulars find disturbing.

>>131
>>132
>>133
>>135
>>136
>>138
Look at yourselves! You're derailing the original topic over political bullsoykaf, contributing nothing to the conversation started by OP. This is one perfect example of deterioration of a community via derailing of a thread. Let's focus on the original topic of how to stop disinformation campaigns instead of disrespectfully arguing over semantic and identity-politics bullsoykaf.

>>140
I understand where your coming from, but this sort of stuff is inevitable when talking about disinformation campaigns, it's impossible to be apolitical about this,
it is a inherently very political and contentious subject, you can try to be apolitical but you just won't get any where .

>>141
The lainons I referenced have diverted the topic entirely from disinformation campaigns to their own political conversation. That belongs in its own political thread, not one on methods of counteracting disinformation.

>>142
Ok, am sorry for derailing.

The psychological principle behind disinformation is simple, but staying vigilant and resisting it is difficult. The principle is this: humans cherish their beliefs and will go to great lengths to reinforce them in themselves and others. Therefore the principle behind resisting disinformation is also simple: reject all forms of belief or opinion.

Politics, ideologies, and morality are distractions. This is hard to accept because we all love our own pet theories about right and wrong, but ultimately they are just reflections of the ego. This is why the Nazi/SJW dichotomy being used in this thread is irrelevant. If an argument is based primarily on putting one's own person and beliefs over others (i.e. ego) then it is fallacious and irrelevant.

Also recognize that disinformation extends further than politics. We have been focusing on this aspect but it extends into all areas of knowledge. Consider what forms of authority exist in your information diet. By authority here I mean certain presentations of information that you would accept or reject without questioning your own assessment of it.

It would also behoove us to step back and recognize that a lot of disinformation may not be perpetrated knowingly as a part of some big conspiracy. There are complex social and societal effects at work, and often people will parrot absurdities simply because their psychology demands it of them (and because certain ways of saying things will instantly cause people to believe them). Be skeptical of conspiracy theories, but also consider when you or someone else is dismissing a conspiracy theory off-hand in order to conform their beliefs along the lines society has set out. We have hard evidence that American law enforcement has infiltrated and disrupted groups that it deemed "subversive" in the past (COINTELPRO). I wouldn't be surprised if the same happened in the Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter movements.

I'll say it again because it needs to be repeated: reject all forms of belief or opinion. It sounds crazy in our current ego-driven society, but there is actually a long tradition of emptying the mind of all attachment in order to enable oneself to perceive the truth. It might be worth looking to Buddhism or Taoism for inspiration along these lines. Lao Tzu: "Learning consists in adding to one's stock day by day. The practice of Tao consists in subtracting day by day: subtracting and yet again subtracting until one has reached inactivity."

>>114
>>117
>>120
I like how you are concern-trolling for purity and objectivity of discourse, effectively trying to achieve not neutrality, but simply branding any right wing thoughts as a part of "disinformation campaign".
I mean, I have nothing against discussing a conspiracy theory that Barack Obama's cabinet has been secretly pushing hitlerism and white supremacy on 4chan for the entire eight years of his administration, but please don't try to disguise such a proposition as a call for neutrality.
>Let's stop bickering about ideology and start organizing.
Amen to that. Your post, however, posing as a call for neutrality and hitting only right wing ideologies is, effectively, a measure of pushing politics itself (I hope I don't have to explain dialectics).

I don't mean to offend anyone that has a serious concern regarding neutrality and apolitical discussions, but I believe that meta-posting like these above is part of the problem. As long as there are general purpose boards or topics that border on politics, there is no way to keep them out of there. They should be discouraged when they are not relevant to the topic, and when they are, they should be tackled head on. It's the same as with journalism - there is no such thing as objective journalism, only journalism posing as objective. People have biases, they can show when they show and they can be hidden when they are irrelevant. To say that you have no biases where a bias may apply is simply a lie. Let's be honest instead of faux-neutral.
How big is the sphere of what can be biased and what can be neutral, however, depends on the society in question.
The problem with non-monolithic culture is, it's neutrality is a sort of prisoner's dilemma. People of strong, especially radical political convictions tend to smear their soykaf anywhere they go. Especially in small communities, when it boils down to individuals, it might be good at the start to remain apolitical. However, even one person violating the status quo provides everyone opposing with two choices - either not be heard, and accept your community being hijacked by views that you do not adhere to, or oppose. Opposing will, obviously, bring you one step closer to political soykafstorm.
People of a very particular inclination that I have on mind know about this very well, and they consciously exploit it, thinking that casually bringing their stuff every goddamn time gives them an advantage, because the other side might have qualms to mention and derail the discourse in settings where it is inappropriate, thus having a lower presence. One thing leads to another, and they create an illusion of being the status quo. They know that I am talking about them, because they are conscious of their habits.
It is due to them, fervently exploiting the communities' peace for pushing their own agenda, trying to turn the world and nature upside down, that we cannot have nice things, and every society eventually becomes engulfed with an eternal struggle for it's own survival. I mean both the Internet, and the society at large. Sad.
Esentially, it is the same as with forms of governance (or lack thereof) - there is no one universal solution that will bring peace upon mankind forever, some goldilocks zone that will make society keep cleaning itself in a sort of perpetuum mobile. We are sentenced to eternal struggle, and to things eternally being destroyed and crumbling apart in chaos, and then having to rebuild them. Societies, including internet societies, will be pushed either way and become soykaf, and departure and reestablishing something nice is inevitable. There are no rules preventing that which are not unattainable ideals. It is not an Evil White Supremist Fascist Anti-Semitic Nazi Conspiracy perpetraded by the Deep State, COINTELPRO, CIA & the Master Hacker Vladimir Vladimirowich Putin Himself, the Super Laser Mind Controlling Pagan Pedophilic Masonic Reptillians Putting Chemicals in the Water, or some other kooky soykaf. It is a fact of life.
Societies can be high-functioning and high-trust, wherein the majority of people is able to forfeit a part of their personal interest, i.e. choose "cooperate" by default. This allows some sort of neutral grounds to exist. A society that has become atomized, demoralized and run-down will lead people to engage in more of a dog-eat-dog mentality and seek their own personal benefit at society's cost, choose "defect" every time. Accept subjectivity, reject universality.
The more high functioning a society is, the wider is the sphere that can remain neutral; a sphere free of struggle.
Such a high trust society is simultaneously a perfect place for a person that wishes to exploit it's status quo, because not only do they have a wider field to play on, but also, everyone will assume good will by default, be forgiving and cooperative. That is why societies that achieve and wish to keep a high culture of functioning become closed off, hermetic, exclusive, picky about new members, and that is why opened internet societies are inherently unstable, because they are unable to control the influx of new members that would exploit the common ground for their own benefit (I am not a part of group x, why would I care if it devolves into political soykafstorm?). Also, you could expect the most mutual trust and sacrifice in relationships and groups which are pretty much impossible to get into, such as families or groups of close friends.
There is no surefire way for a group of people to form a high trust society. There is no simple procedure to follow and have this, and every rational mode of functioning will lead you to act in a self-beneficial way that further perpetuates the disintegration.

>>144
Finding your post amidst this cesspool of a discussion was a really surprising and hopeful experience. Thank you for that. It is a really nice post.

>>114
>4chan and Anonymous
>Anonymous
please, let this meme die.

>>114
Please be careful of not being divisive yourself, by focusing on the racists/misogynists etc. you have turned this discussion into a political one. What you dismiss as close-mindedness is the truth to others and have therefore given this thread a divisive slant, which makes this similar to other disinformation topics. It is pretty normal for the culture of an established group to suffer from too many newcomers before they can become naturalised, especially in an anonymous setting like this. This is not always bad as newcomers may bring knowledge from different topics into the group while also lowering the least common denominator.

>>144
>Politics, ideologies, and morality are distractions.
>If an argument is based primarily on putting one's own person and beliefs over others (i.e. ego) then it is fallacious and irrelevant.

I cannot agree more. Communities deteriorate when confronted with subjective arguments and reciprocate. We put far too much emphasis on our own personal beliefs, which often leads to the derailing of a thread (such as what happened earlier in this thread). As long as we recognize a conversation straying from discussion to aggressive assertions of one's own beliefs, we can remain clear of deterioration.

“Humanity takes itself too seriously. It is the world's original sin. If the cave-man had known how to laugh, History would have been different.”
-Oscar Wilde

>>144

All I can think of when I see that photo is "What sort of cute, lacy, red satin number has he got on under that shirt?"

The spread of deliberate propaganda/marketing campaigns online is a cancer that will surely change the internet as we know it. When your opposition has an effective astroturfing campaign, the only effective response is to start your own opposing astroturfing.
Eventually, this will surely lead to small communities of known, trusted individuals and a wider internet filled with bots and shills. It will be a challenge to keep these small communities from becoming drama-heavy echo chambers.

The situation is already pretty bad, but as astroturfing is shown to work, more and more resources are going to be directed towards it, on top of advances in automation and AI.

We can see in CorrectTheRecord, and probably all the divisive & distracting "Identity Politics" that''s around today. We hear less about right-wing astroturfing (the media even extensively reported that Trump's "meme army" was organic), which suggests they're even better at it. Just read some interviews from former employees at Cambridge Analytica (the people behind Trump, Brexit and even Nelson Mandela).


This thread is an interesting case study itself. It seems like considered, quality posting can get a thread back on track, but quality is harder than pooposting and this strategy only seems to work in small niche communities like lainchan (.jp - nicher than niche). As/if the community grows, I wonder whether harder & faster moderation might be in order.

>>145
Damn, I think you hit the nail on the head on why apolitical niche communities inevitably fall into the political soykafstorm trap. It seems there is no real answer, because you're right, the more we try the more elitist or stormy we become. Coming from a programming background it can be tempting to try and come up with that one rule or behavior that will solve this issue in all situations but there really isn't one.

The Taoist (>>848) is right. But if we continue subtracting, what Lao Tzu apparently considers is the opposite of learning, why participate in community at all?

Found this phile on parazite a while back. It has plenty of quality information on the topic of psyops, many of which can be found in online communities that are being derailed. For more info like this, try searching key terms related to it in !evil

>>139
>We probably live in different corners of the net, because of the communities I have been part of, I don't recall any that were destroyed by 'sjw'
The entirety of Western gaming was destroyed by SJWs in a couple of years.

>>151
Looks interesting, will have to give this a thorough read.

What do Lains think of starting our own psyops campaign? Some amount of mystery and cyberpunk aesthetic seems able to pique the interest of a wider audience (see Tsukichan). I know that's still just a sub-population of people visiting certain image boards. But you have to start somewhere.

Would it be at all effective to spread messages directly countering the beliefs that tend to derail discussions and communities? Or is this kind of activity inherently participating in what we're railing against in this thread? I think engaging in counter-psyops could be a fun project, but it might amount to nothing or even worse, a negative impact by becoming the thing you're working against.

Maybe I talked myself out of it, but I want to hear what others think about it.

>>152
Most entertainment media produced in the last few years has pandered to SJW interests. Turns out they're broke af and don't buy anything so expect this trend to reverse.

>>153
>it might amount to nothing or even worse, a negative impact by becoming the thing you're working against.

Basically we would have to be better liars than our adversaries. I would prefer to bring the truth but the amount of effort required to do this vs. bullsoykafting already puts us at a significant disadvantage.

>>139
> I can think of a few that were small and comfy till they were filled with facists after the link was posted on pol

Name one, and voat doesn't counts since it was made by/for neofash from the beginning


>I am still not sure that the presence of SJW is in any important functional way any different than facists, or furries or people who are obsessed with tea-kettles.

I agree that those groups can be as bad as SJW but the big difference if that none of them have the reach SJW does

Show me ONE internet company catering to the neofash movement that isn't some obscure irrelevant place like 8chan thats not even listed on google anymore. Think for a minute google wont censor torture porn, animal abuse, jihadi sites or any other numbers of horrible sites that are far worse than a 4chan ripoff made by a cripple that wishes he was never born.

All the major companies like google, facebook, twitter, yahoo, reddit, etc…. suck the dick of SJW lobbies which actually works in their favor since they get to censor whatever they or government wants by simply saying its offending somebody

On the other hand 8chan has a left politics board and a cyber board, and they didn't get derezzed. Think about it: the neofash have so little power they can't even ban SJW in their own sites. On the other hand neofash groups and subs get derezzed all the time on the major networks.

Even non-fascist communities get branded as fash if they dare to voice even the slightest opinion again SJW doctrine.

If the neofash had this kind of power you would see me fighting them but the reality is they are a bunch of nobodies with no actual power so why bother? its better to just let them die alone. Meanwhile the ones using censorship as a tool to gain power over communities and pushing for the internet to become a walled-garden with actual IDs that tie you to your IRL name are the SJW and nobody else

>>154

>Most entertainment media produced in the last few years has pandered to SJW interests. Turns out they're broke af and don't buy anything so expect this trend to reverse.

And yet they keep making this crap

My guess is some lobby or group is financing this, just like with any form of propaganda

>>140

All except one is the same guy, OP trying to push his soykafty agenda and take over another community

Is like with neogaf or reddit where they wormed their way into moderators and then started banning anyone who disagrees with their soykaf or posts stuff they find even mildly annoying

I don't think there was a deliberate campaign to make 8chan, Ur lainchan, and 4chan bad. It is a leadership problem. 4chan went downhill when Moot stopped caring. 8chan was bad from the start because htowheels is of the same type. Ur Lainchan went down because I left the site. thestraightdope is still a cool forum because the leadership there is on point. Then it trickles down to the users staying on top of things too.

I have plenty of decent conversations about subjective topics like religion and politics, online and offline.

You'd be surprised to find out my political and religious views are usually the complete opposite of what most people here discuss and you don't see me censoring or creating disinformation campaigns behind the scenes. I think Anarchism is lame but my best friend Nildicit is an Admin here, I think homosexuality and abortion are wrong but I still vote pro-choice and pro-gay. I think it's less about disinformation campaigns and more likely just hundreds(or thousands) of kids aged 15-25 being kids.

edit: tryina say it's a maturity problem.

>>158
I have gained massive respect for you, since you came out and said that.

I disagree with some of your points, but hey, thats the magic of the intertubes.

>>158
While it may be a maturity problem I don't think it's age related. It's easy to surround yourself with people who are intelligent and mature and forget that most of the world is in a state of arrested development.

Having respectful disagreement/arguments is what keeps communities strong and allows them to grow. Without internal disagreements things become stale or just reactionary.

Having set topics is the right way to limit discussion. If you want to limit what's talked about limit the topics not the viewpoints on those topics.(requiring elaboration on arguments is also important)

>>160
age isn't necessarily the root of the maturity problem but rather you are more likely to have a maturity problem being young.

>>158
>Ur Lainchan went down because I left the site.
No, you made /civ/ and scammed your users. So you brought in all the polkids and lost respect from a fraction of your userbase.

I wonder do we have any evidence of strong productive communities in PRC, DPRK, or Cuba?

nofunism is bad too

>>152
How exactly was Western gaming destroyed ? Aren't we still able to play and talk in online games ?

>>162
nice salt

>>165
AAA panders to SJW (Battlefield 1)
games getting censored for things that nobody would've cared about a few years ago (TMS vagina bones)
games being rated highly for being "brave/important" instead of good
the "gamers are dead" meme
the entirety of gamergate

yes you can play modern/"progressive" garbage, just like you can technically fuck a dead body, but the feeling is empty and shallow

>>167
So basically you're complaining that video game developers have realized that their audience isn't entirely made up of male weeaboos? I've pretty nuch ignored everything about the whole gamergate "scandal" and I am not under the impression that my identity as a gamer is under attack.

I mean, don't worry, you can still find a soykaf ton of games that objectify women to the point of nausea, if that's what floats your boat.

>>167
less QQ more pew pew.

>>168
but it is, though.

Pic is relevant

>>167
>AAA panders to SJW (Battlefield 1)
EA has been directly pandering to liberals for a long time, and it's well known that uses the drama for publicity.
Same with Ubisoft.
>games getting censored for things that nobody would've cared about a few years ago (TMS vagina bones)
Nintendo has been one of the most censorship-happy companies since forever.
>games being rated highly for being "brave/important" instead of good
>the "gamers are dead" meme
>the entirety of gamergate
All of that is the gaming press's fault, not the industry itself.

Out of the many, many issues the games industry has, SJWs are insignificantly small.

>>114
Oh. I've wandered into that part of the internet.

>>123
Underrated, but I'm going to disagree with your bit on state violence.

>If the community managers want to foster a certain type of discussion, it would make sense to remove speech antithetical to that discussion. It is not censorship unless someone is using the threat of violence (typically state violence) to control discourse.

If you actually are interested in open discourse, who do you choose as community managers? What tools do they have? What rules do they enforce? Do those tools include violence?

>>128
Also underrated, but not complete.

Aight. Let me tell you a story, about a couple of brothers and the end of the world.

>2 brothers, born at around the same time.
>Let's call them /pol/ and /a/
>/pol/ is a total asshole
>everything he touches falls apart
>he won't shut up about black people, jewish people, whatever
>goes out of his way to shove his graphs in other people's faces
>/a/ is nice, if a little strange
>odd hobbies, odd boy, but keeps mostly to himself.
>only thing he doesn't stand for is people soykaftalking his animu
>otherwise, he just stays inside all day, watching his anime.
>Now, in this world, there's a monster. Big, ugly, hairy- could be Da j00s, could be Leftists, could be FEMINAZIS!!!
>Doesn't matter what it's name is. It's big. It's hungry. And it is very, very slow- creeping, like a frost, or like fungus.
>/a/-chan is passive. He doesn't really care. He just wants to be left alone. He sits in his room, in the dark, while the monster is eating into everything, like a fungus.
>/pol/ is, well, /pol/. He's kicking up a fuss nonstop. "It wants to rape our children!" "It wants to steal our jobs!" "It wants to take our gunz!!!"
>The monster, of course, isn't raping nearly as many children, nor stealing nearly as many jobs, nor taking nearly as many guns as /pol/ claims. At least, not all at once. It's doing these things gently, slowly- no one notices.
>Everyone looks at /pol/, instead. Says everyone: "Stop that! Stop crying wolf, little boy! Annoying little boy! You know nothing, little boy!"
>Even /pol/'s brother, /a/. Especially /a/.
>/a/ just wants to be left alone. And, for a while, he is. Until the monster smells him.
>See, the monster never eats anything fast. It's always slow, it crawls- so when it gets it's teeth into /a/'s animu, he doesn't notice, not for a while.
>But then, he notices all at once.
>"Hey, Rick and Morty isn't as funny as it was…"
>"Hey, Google's doing some really shady stuff…"
>"Hey, there's a lot of people out, talking, moving…. Rioting."
>And there were. A lot of people were listening to /pol/, /a/'s brother. A lot of people were thinking like /pol/, /a/'s brother. They were asking questions. About religion. About gender. About society. About race. And they would, not, shut, up!
>These followers were everywhere. A lot of them were crude, and ugly, and downright mean.
>So, /a/ ran. Both from /pol/, and from the monster. And /pol/ grew more powerful. And the monster grew more powerful still- and stuck it's fingers into more and more places. /a/ ran, and ran. He ran from race, and society, and gender, and religion. He tried to drop them all, and he ran, far from his house, far from everything.
>But /pol/ was still right there. No matter how far /a/ ran, /pol/ was right there. And /pol/ said:
>"Brother, stop. You can't outrun it. You can't outrun yourself. You are made by race, by gender, by religion. You can't outrun it, and you can't outrun the monster trying to kill us. Please, turn and help me fight!"

That's it, really. It's a story still being written. Idk how many leftists there are on this board, but you can't outrun your greater components, no matter how much you might want to. And, the sjw monster (and all the bullsoykaf behind it) exists, as an undisputed fact. So! Keep running from the monster, and yourselves- or turn and fight.

Your choice.

>>168
jej "objectify women"
you aren't gonna find any pussy here m8, so quit virtue signalling.(Quite a few women on this chan, enjoy the ban.)

>>158
dunno if I can respect you after that one.

>I think homosexuality and abortion are wrong, but I still vote pro-choice and pro-gay

Either a) you have no basis for your political opinions (which is fine, most people are like that) which makes you easily influenced, or b) you do believe these things as core tenets of your being, but you're choosing to vote against them to try to minimize social friction.

people like you give me the heebie-jeebies. I can never be certain who or what I'm dealing with. stand up for yourself.

>>175
I can believe what I believe without trying to control someone else's morality.

How is that hard to understand?

>>175
>I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it

Personal beliefs should never infringe upon others' rights. It isn't about standing up for yourself, that's easy, it's about standing up for everyone else too.

>>176
>>177
I would have liked to get into detail as to why the way you think (or at least, what you commented) is objectively wrong and serves no purpose to enforce a community, but I really feel it is a waste of time to try to reason with people with a very different point of view to my own.

I would recommend you read the whole thread, if you haven't yet. Have a good one.

>>178
Your posts are cancer.

>>178
Why can't I be personally against something but still have the decency to leave people do their own thing if it does not infringe upon my rights?

>>178
>I would have liked to get into detail as to why the way you think (or at least, what you commented) is objectively wrong and serves no purpose to enforce a community
Actually, I would love for you to go into detail as to how he is thinking incorrectly. It's understandable for people to demonize those who think differently and enforce their own morality on others, but someone who thinks differently from others and has a different set of morals yet operating a space for anyone coming from anywhere and any line of thinking to voice their own ideas and thoughts should be commended. This is a great community filled with great people who do great things and Kalyx is largely responsible for that.

>I really feel it is a waste of time to try to reason with people with a very different point of view to my own.
That's called debate and it's healthy. This isn't an echo chamber, please go away if that's what you were expecting.

>>175
could it be that he thinks the state shouldn't enforce his morals?

>>179
Not an argument.

>>176
Doesn't really make sense if you believe abortion is akin to murder, which you may not but is the major reason most people oppose it.

>>174
>derezzed for potentially misgendering someone
Wew lad/lass/xad

I'm running this little experiment on mine on Twitter. Let's call it "turning down the volume".
Basically I block everyone that incites arguments (apart from select few I need right now but their turn will come). Right now I'm at 11k blocked accounts, did all manually. It's good therapy.
Manual selection process takes time, but I managed to identify all the critical people who generate the most noise, kinda like a hub.
Next up: set up a graph and find all hubs, disconnect them. Will post results.

>>176
Why did you ban this guy >>174?
That's very authoritarian of you.
If I wanted to get derezzed for my opinions, I'd be on reddit.
People should be able to call out each other on their bullshi᠎t and insult each other freely on an anonymous imageboard.
Or are you just larping and don't actually believe in freedom?
Of course there should be rules against spamming, advertising and illegal stuff, but that should be about enough.
You had no good reason to ban that guy.
If you cannot see the hypocrisy of banning people for wrongthink on this site, you're beyond retarded.
>inb4 b&

>>187

Some people just got a hair #trigger

>>187
This>>1356

>>185
They were derezzed for obvious drama bait. Refrain from serious brewing soykaf.
>>187
People don't get derezzed for wrongthink here.

>>176
Good stuff.

>>190
>People don't get derezzed for wrongthink here.

>>174
>(Quite a few women on this chan, enjoy the ban.)
really makes you think, huh

>>192
>really makes you doublethink, huh
fix'd

Makes a lot of sense. When a party forms they are all on the same band wagon. Have similar mindsets and goals. But as they draw the populous attention people try to emulate their values onto what they expect that group to be and people will join in and follow without having the heart for it. Then as mixed messages and ideals get melted together the community can strain or break. Throw in a dash of organized espionage for personal intent and you get a big tangled mess. Sort of solidifies the secret society when you think of it. Only invite like minded individuals that aspire to contribute rather than open the flood gates and let everyone ride your coat tails.

>>188
i thought that's what he had lainchan for though

The only thing that really interests me is risk projection of certain group, so money could be spent appropriately on hiring dirsruption teams (aka trolls). How do they estimate the risks of online community gathering to disrupt crucial networks? Is it mentioning certain keywords or some team of organic experts? Do they use real people to initiate flames at all or its all outsourced to bots at this point?

>>187

If you aren't smart enough to evade a ban you aren't smart enough to post here sorry.

stormfags are a plague. They destroy all constructive discussion and peddle their soykafty agenda everywhere. Gas them all before they take root. Christchurch is only the first to come from those retards.

>>417
stormfags are easy puppets for discordians though, because their neoreactionary movement is reliant on outrage and culture shock their views can easily be shifted around. Feel bad for NZ but it's just typical crazy people who are the problem. The racism is a justification for the violence not inherent in the ideology,

>>187
I've been derezzed from everywhere,
and derezzed from nowhere.

Get out normal person.

>>419
Stormglitterboys oppose marrying cute young girls. They are enemies.

I've wasted way too much time lurking stormfront out of curiosity a while back. The rationality of people who go there has actually gone down over the years. In old threads, a lot of the more reasonable people are either marked as derezzed, or had their accounts closed by request. Absolutely crazy cunts who pay their way to a privileged account are the most vocal subsection. None of them actually do anything productive and instead larp as 1950s Americans. It's just an old, internet money making scam.

>>417
>>419
They remind me of a group of people standing in a crowded city centre or cafeteria, shouting into megaphones to the point that no one else can even have a conversation or conduct normal human activity, and when you ask one of them to turn it down a notch they start screaming about their freedom of speech.

>>419
>stormfags are easy puppets for discordians though
???

>>117
Bonjour.
I'm NS.

You're making "the far right" out to be something it most definitely is not, notably with regard to the "real minds behind the right-wing rennaissance". Most of it is a retread of old CNS programming that got taken up by anons, subsumed, and then spat back out through the imageboards… but most of that is phantom-work. It isn't a dead ideology, but an image of an old one, a living meme.

>>124
Strange. Why do you think the ladder of crazy soykaf stops at Vault 7?

>>127
I smell ego-shielding. Book-groups not wanting to discuss a movie isn't the same as a book-group not wanting to discuss the benefits of Marxist-Leninist thought- MLT doesn't care if you want to discuss it- it wants to be discussed, and will force it's way in.

There is nothing beneficial in Marxist thought, except if you are the ruling elite. Its core assumption of humans being blank slates and everything being a social construct that can be willfully reconstructed is absolutely wrong, and therefore, every conclusion you reach from this core assumption has no significance in the real world.
Remember that Google employee that got fired for writing a paper on how men and women are different? He was not mosogynistic or anti-diversity. He wanted to improve how diversity is handled so that it would work better for everyone. But those findings were not to taste for the cultural marxist Google elites who insist on men and women being essentially identical, different only in their socialisation (blank slate assumption).
Political correctness is the inevitable consequence of clinging to Marxist thought. Because Marxists base their whole worldview on the blank slate assumption, anything (true or false) that conflicts with that assumption is suddenly perceived as hateful and offensive. That's why that Google employee had to be fired. He was a threat to their castle in the clouds that is built on lies / false assumptions. Because fanatic people are in general ideologically rigid, they rather try to shut down people who find faults in their basic assumptions or arguments. And since political correctness is enforced in every part of public discourse, you can easily infer that this is because those with power to control public discourse (media, universities, …) are fanatical Marxists that willfully suppress any criticism of their ideology.

Political correctness always rubbed me the wrong way, but I never thought too much about it, so I didn't understand why. I was always left-leaning and very liberal, until I found /pol/ where I learned all the reasons why Marxism cannot work and how the public discourse is being tilted more and more to the left, and any far right (or even moderate/centrist (i.e., Jordan B. Peterson)) opinion is completely deplatformed (or at least attempted) in a desperate attempt to keep those who don't think for themselves from hearing or considering the arguments of those who know that Marxism can't work. And after your faith in Marxism has been destroyed, once you look around for other ideologies, you quickly end up in a huge ideological area that is not socially acceptable.
I still share the socialist sentiment, so I ended up with another ideology which seems to work in reality.
>t. recently became national socialist
>inb4 national socialism is wrong socialism or something

>>177
>Personal beliefs should never infringe upon others' rights
It's literally impossible for personal beliefs to infringe upon others' rights. The only way to infringe on rights is by behaving in a way not in accordance with the law. And last time I checked, you can't break the law just by holding a belief (at least not yet, even though you are not allowed to speak some beliefs out loud).

>>596
Clearly you have no idea what marxism means (hint, it's about economics).
>Its core assumption of humans being blank slates and everything being a social construct
That's postmodernism.

I know you've been infected by the /pol/ mind virus but try reading Wage Labour and Capital at least if you want to know what marxism is about.

>>597
He is talking about critical theory's re-application of marxism upon all social conflicts. Also strait marxism is retarded in itself, as it forgets the intricacies of actual financial doctrine. The idea that a company can exist solely off worker exploitation is ridiculous, even for the era of strife the idea came out of. That isn't to say that there exists large corporate conspiracies to keep themselves in power via cartelism, but Marx never addresses this in any of his works.

>t. someone who actually read both

This topic is way off but I also would like to address the op, for he is wrong and obviously not an oldfag. Since the era of /new/ this soykaf has always been the norm on /pol/ and many other places. You can find meme images of the /new/sman dropping nukes on Israel from that era if you browse the archive. Even before /new/, and even 4chan itself, groups like the GNAA were caught up in right wing nihilistic ideologies like ANUS (this is 2000-2001 mind you). The idea that this is artificially formed is pure garbage, and rooted in willful ignorance.