It's like real world shitposting

This calls for a song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0VGJYAMMGg

liberal snark: when you're too stupid to make a point, just be sarcastic!

>>6838
Underrated post

>>6845
Conservative idiocy: When you're too stupid to catch the point, just act lit it isn't there!

>>6839
damn that song put me in a good mood, thanks anon

>>6905
You mean like you guys do with Islam?

>>7238
The 12th century called, they want their crusade back.

>>7241
>That third grade insult

>>7241
>If you are afraid of Islam you're backwards.

>>7249
Stop being such a meanie bigot you racist!
>This kind of insult enough to get most people to completely ignore thousands of years of history.
I fucking hate my people. They won't stand for anything except self-serving virtue signaling.

The worst thing is that now that we came here and so easily BTFO multiculturalists and other assorted tolerants, they've left and told all their friends it's /pol/-2.0. As a result, none of them will come here, because they don't want to be exposed to views they disagree with. How did we reach this sorry state.

I read the Quran. I read leftist screeds that are supposed to be shining beacons of their philosophy. They cannot do the same.

>>7282
>they've left
I haven't left. But I will when the threads I have currently open go 404.

>they don't want to be exposed to views they disagree with.
I like being exposed to views I disagree with. I don't care to discuss matters with people who are idiots. Maybe you are more than that. But most of the time my arguments get closed down because people suspect me of either being a Muslim or an SJW or because I'm a "blue-pilled" liberal whatever other boogeyman you have. That's the point where I stop discussing things. If you aren't willing to take me or my opinions seriously, then neither of us are going to gain anything from me continuing in my attempts to talk to you.

>>7284
Find a hugbox somewhere else, then.

>>7330
so you can build yours here.

>>7282
So long as this place doesn't ape /pol/ and become nothing but American middle-class tween hiveminders posting "nigger nigger nigger"/"poo in the loo"/etc I welcome all the intellectual, or at least well-informed, BTFO'ing possible.

>>6839
They should sue.

>>7433
But I'm not telling you that you should leave as an imperative, only that your need for communication and feelings of unity are best spent elsewhere. You clearly don't want to hear from the users here. Either you're full of hot air and a want for validation, or you're too good for the users here. I won't decide which applies to you.

Not the same thing as saying something like "Tumblr pls go"

>>7238
You mean like you guys do with capitalism?

>>7497
Ogh such a low blow! Oh I'm so BTFO! (not the guy you were talking to but I'll respond anyway)

Criticism of capitalism usually takes the form of subjective values dissonance.

>>7501
>that poorly executed r/sarcasm
also
>subjective values dissonance

Like how the value of money is subjective?

>>7504
That you're still talking to me shows you think your attack on capitalism was in any way valid, so I'll break it down for you as simply as I know how.

That lazy stupid people who don't benefit anyone else don't reap the benefits of society is usually a good thing in the value system of someone who agrees with capitalism.

That the well being of a few people is an acceptable sacrifice in order to have an economy that works is also a value judgement that a lot of capitalists make.

Another values judgement is that the risks of utter corruption and near total collapse, as happened in Russia and China, make attempting to implement utopian schemes not worth it.

I'm not going to get into economics with you because I don't think you're going to have anything interesting to say about it from what I've seen so far.

>>7330
I don't want a hugbox.
That's not what my post was about.
You need to understand that there is a difference between disregarding what I have to say for my opinion and doing the same for the stupid arguments I have.
You can laugh at me in every thread for the faulty logic I use to justify my ideas, and I won't leave. That kind of treatment of each other is precisely why I am here.
But if you do the same for what you perceive as dumb opinions then all you're doing is silencing me. It's not that I can't bear being called names. It's that I know from experience that once your argument revolves around why you don't need to listen to me, I effectively no longer can reach you with anything I say, so there really is no point in trying anymore.

>>7533
But we're anonymous here. You can't be silenced, you can't be singled out. If someone disregards your argument for a legitimately stupid reason, you can be damn well assured you're not the only one who sees what's going on. That's when you have to keep making your point, in ever more concise and thoughtful ways, otherwise the other idiot gets a monopoly on all discourse from then on.

You can't have an echo chamber on an anonymous BBS. Reputation means nothing. There's no one there to "silence" you, and you cannot be effectively filtered by anything other than your expressed ideas.

Are you sure you're not a shill trying to get this place shut down?

>>6835
>cowardly pols
what?

>>6905
There is no point, its a Gish Gallup of Strawmen in poor grammatical (rather than list) form.

everything is awesome, when you're part of a team
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StTqXEQ2l-Y

>>7535
>If someone disregards your argument
This isn't about the argument, you moron. It's about what the argument argues for.
And at that point the only recourse is spamming to pretend to have numerical superiority. I don't like samefagging though.

>Are you sure you're not a shill trying to get this place shut down?
Not really. The one thing I would change about /news/ if I had the power was increase the number of users by 1000%. At the moment it's too small. Intellectual inbreeding is inevitable at this rate.

>>7540
Now I wouldn't take what I'm about to say as an axiom or anything, since political factors do come into play and the other side might be samefagging, but if you aren't picking up many voices that agree with or even support your argument, maybe your arguments just aren't all that convincing to begin with?

Like for example I don't know what you mean by
>This isn't about the argument, you moron. It's about what the argument argues for.
Please elaborate.

>>7543
>Please elaborate.
I thought I had done that in >>7533. I could try to rephrase it if you have difficulty understanding it. But basically the idea is:

>shoot down my arguments
That means my arguments suck and I need to think of better ones or rethink my general position.

>shoot down my opinion without regard for arguments
That means I can't discuss this with you.

California is rated NUMBER 1 by the Brady campaign to end gun violence and these obvious terrorists were still able to get guns.

Gun control obviously doesn't work.

>>6905
That still applies to liberals, actually.

>>7624
The ongoing discussions on this subject on /news/ have made me curious about the historic reason for the ban of weapons in Europe.

I think it's because in a feudal society there were noblemen who were allowed to bear arms, and commoners who were not. If there was to be war, the commoners would get a temporary permission to bear arms under the leadership of their lords.
So it wasn't to reduce weapons-related crime. It was a matter of power.

I've gotten a bit shaky in my anti-guns stance over the last few days. I still think that private ones are an unnecessary expression of a fascination with aggression, but I can't confidently claim anymore that people shouldn't be allowed to own them.

>>7330
Do you really not see his side of this?

>>7635
This logic made sense around the time that the US constitution was signed, but nowadays we have drones, tanks, etc.

So if it wanted to enforce dictatorial 1984 style rule, it could with ease. But it has no interest in doing so. Just like the idea of 'traditional' warfare where one country annexes territory and keeps it forever, has become taboo.