Suppose I'm the single most influential person to ever think to take /pol/ seriously for more than ten minutes. (You're also entirely free to assume I'm not, but that won't make for a very interesting dialogue.) I have but one question.
Do you feel underrepresented in the media, or do you feel that nobody can possibly represent you well enough?
Let's say Ron Paul represents some of your values well. That might look like progress and it might have been a better world if he'd been elected, but would be really have been able to do much as president? If he didn't have a cooperative congress, for example, would he have been able to really affect much at all? In the end he can only represent some of your values and that probably won't be enough. Then say Trump represents a willingness to challenge the status quo. Will he represent any of your values or will he just be another politician the turns face once elected? Can the change you want come from just the president alone and it's just so hard to find that politician or do you need the media to represent your real values before things can truly begin to change for the better? (If neither of these people represents your values very well, please tell me which values they fail to represent and why it matters to you.)
So which is it? Which would you rather have? A redpilled politician or a redpilled media? If you say both then you can be dismissed along with all the other social justice warriors.
>>80297732
I think I would prefer having a redpilled media, cause it would make a lot more people become redpilled. With a lot more redpilled people it would increase the hope of having redpilled politicians.
I mean, sure politicians have a lot of influence but the media rules the ideas of the masses.
>>80298698
I really hate to do this, but if you pick the side that says /pol/'s views are underrepresented in the media then you're no different from a social justice faggot. The fact is the republican party's values are always underrepresented in the media but they still manage to do just as much politics as the democratic party. If you want to get political, you'll have to actually get involved somehow. Democrats get involvement by pandering to the mass while republicans get it by pretty much not being the democratic party.
Until you can figure out how to complain about the current system in a way that isn't the same as what social justice activists do, you're still a force for keeping American politics polarized and decaying. You need to find a way to set yourself apart from mass.
>>80298698
Not trying to say your opinion isn't valid. Opinions are what I'm looking for here. I'm just saying that you need something more than an opinion if you want your values to get represented somehow. I want to know how /pol/ feels about this when given the full argument and counter-arguments. I'd be disrespectful in my view to not give you the courtesy of an honest reply. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're also entitled to have it questioned.
>>80300956
What I meant was that I would like /pol/ to have a plataform where our opinions would be shared with the majority of people instead of having a lone politic figure, I didn't meant to say we are a repressed board, just that we don't have access to television and the masses. I won't go say we are underrepresented, but our views are instantly labeled as racist or fascist without a proper discussion.
>>80301725
>instantly labeled as racist or fascist without a proper discussion
This is the kind of statement that gets me to take things seriously.
The thing is, /pol/ itself is your platform. You don't need another platform in any direct sense. If you have a PR problem, that needs to be fixed. Where the PR problem comes from might have to do with too few highly principled politicians to redpill or the media being a judgmental sensationalist shit or it could legitimately be /pol/'s problem that it creates for itself. Thinking about how I've seen /pol/ talked about on other boards, I got the impression that it was all racism and borderline fascism like all the other anons did, but I always meant to try to take it seriously at some point. I guess I don't really have an opinion yet. I've never doubted that toxic parts of civilization are trying to tear down and control the rest of it so I've always been sympathetic to the types of arguments that I'd come to associate with /pol/.
Honestly I think of /pol/ as the board that's closest to affecting the media in a meaningful way. /b/ or /x/ might get some exposure from starting a rumor or meme or something, but it's only just one small story that gets forgetting in about a week. Talking here on /pol/ feels more like talking to the general public. Is it just shills ruining your image or do you personally do things that ruin this board's reputation?
Redpill media. The more that people remain involved the less corrupt politicians have the chance to be. The idea that a disassociative media can allow a political practice to "run rampant" is a very real and practiced idea.
The CIA excercises this potential regularly, because no media outlet is allowed to cover it.
Its simple enough, you as a nation want the most powerful and most secretive of special forces because they will always benefit you no matter the pragmatic costs.
The Soviet Union used kgb in the same way, and you see clearly that the kgb took over the country when it transitioned to a "democratic" government.
It was the best card they had in the hand.
If the government of the USA ever fell, in any means, (outside influence or within) I can 100 percent guaren-fuckin-tee the CIA will not only play an active roll, but many of the new political positions will be held by "ex" via members.
Redpill the media.
The government knows exactly what it is doing.
>>80303116
I completely agree with you in the sense that we create these problems for ourselves, but most people here don't take everything said as absolute truth, thing is that we have a lot of shitpost, that's exactly why I think having a media that understand that almost half of what's posted here is satirical would be more than enough for us to be taken seriously on things we really believe.
Redpilled media that propagates certain principles that are independent of right/left but still hold true.
For example, promoting direct democracy, getting the people to know the failures of the current political system, history of their country, to promote nationalist values (not in the destructive way, but rather as a sense of caring for your kind).
"Redpilling" the people doesn't mean making them all /pol/acks, the idea is to break down this current system that breeds a bunch of brainless bots and get them to think for themselves, they should eventually reach a decent answer.
>>80297732
The media is even more culpable for it's part in dumbing people down. They have turned it into a science a long time ago and are using mass brainwashing and mind control on people.
Just like a good movie (Jaws) hyped up sharks so badly that people didn't want to swim even if that fear was irrational and not rooted in reality.
>>80304011
That's a good start, but there's a fine line between paranoia and vigilance that a lot of reporters don't know how to handle. They try to write unbiased stuff in an ever-polarizing world and in doing so they inevitably end up allowing corruption to flourish. I think a lot of the media industry needs a hard fix.
You could even say it's the media's job to be redpilled and they're failing miserable at it. Why?
Not why as in, "Is the CIA involved in any given organization's failure to cover blatant corruption," but why as in, "Why is it even possible for the CIA to use tactics like these?"
Just by exposure, journalists are likable to end up with liberal views. How do we get them to investigate things from a more repilled angle?
In my view the only thing that makes any of this work is out ability to communicate. So long as the internet isn't being shut down, we're free to work to repair the damage.
>>80304163
Awhile ago I had an idea for trying to repill Taylor Swift for example. It wouldn't be all that hard if we could all play nice for a day. We'd just need to make a thread for politely discussing repill topics, lay it all out all cordial like and then get some anon to Tweet the thread to her with a message like, "If you were wondering, this is why people worship you as a Neonazi:" or something. Do you think that'd be viable or is /pol/ too chaotic for that?
>>80304734
>doesn't mean making them all /pol/acks
This definitely breeds sympathy with me. When it starts to look like a personality cult, I tend to shy away from any movement. If it's not just you and /pol/ by and large feels this way, but acts as if all anons are supposed to be redpilled as a way to maintain board culture, that'd be what I came here to learn.
>>80306236
Those are the exact kind of pics I hate. I never understand the context of why it's supposed to matter to me as an individual so I just feel kinda lost when they get posted on other boards. I can take it seriously here on /pol/, but it doesn't really work for me outside of this board.
Also I meant news media, not media in general. Nobody is pleased with Hollywood, we're just all pretty much helpless in changing it. Even the locals probably don't know what the city needs to fix itself.
>>80306269
>Just by exposure, journalists are likable to end up with liberal views. How do we get them to investigate things from a more repilled angle?
I think these things can't be dealt with based only on the media issue. There are also factors like culture and quality of education. If you don't get the people to develop critical thinking through education, if you have a cultural climate that moves everyone towards one direction or another (right now it would be the case with leftism branding anything from the right as racism, fascims and whatever) and if you don't expose them to multiple, conflicting points of view so that they learn to draw their own conclusions, you won't get "redpilled" people in the media, or anywhere else for that matter.
A "positive demoralization" would be needed to raise a new generation of redpilled people, because the ones that already set their minds will be impossible to change.
>>80307406
>quality of education
That always needs to be constantly improving regardless of anyone's beliefs or political alignment. If you take over an entire nation, you'll still have to educate the young. There's no excuse for having a shitty education system. None at all. I don't care who you are or what race you come from or want to be a part of, you don't fuck that up.
>>80309025
Yeah, it should. But right now it isn't.
Have you watched Yuri?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOEweZtlonQ
>>80306269
It would probably be viable if a group of anons made their mind.
>>80310325
>if a group of anons made their mind
That's what I'm asking about. Is that viable or are /pol/ anons not really unified enough for it?
>>80311180
It would, /pol/ have done things that are a lot harder than this.
>>80311981
Perfect. Then I'll stick around and brood for ideas.
>>80311180
I'm not sure if we're all on the same page at the moment with the influx of summerfags and shills due to the presidential election, but if we could ignore them or filter them out it should be easy to cook something up.
I'd have to go with media, look at how brainwashed normies are these days it seems almost too easy. Look at how quickly the mainstream media can shape people's opinions on pretty much anything. You control the media you can control the people, however that is not what red pill is about. The media would convert normies to their proper form and the world would be a better place. Look how quickly the SJW movement picked up steam with the mainstream media. Look how quickly normies got on the trump is racist train. Somehow there are still people out there that think Hillary Clinton is a solid politician, which shows u just how powerful a weapon the media can be in 2016. For even one person to still think Hitlery is anything other than a corrupt, power hungry cunt bag is nothing short of a miracle. If she can use the media to pull that off, imagine what Pol would be able to do. The Jews would be removed from power within a week, the niggers would be sent to Africa or just straight up eliminated, feminists would lose any and all influence, forced back into their role as mothers and house keepers, while being shamed into losing weight as our beauty standards would go back to where they should be. Illegals would be hunted down as our new most popular sport Spicball, gotta catch em all!
>a single red, white, and blue tear rolls down this Anons face
>this is the America I want
>>80297732
The media should be more worried than I am about the representation of their content. Their public trust is reaching historic lows, and the gap in that trust is plainly drawn along political lines.
I'd rather get my preferred representative.
