At what point does /pol/ stop being shitposting and start being a legitimate perspective?
>>342716
As soon as IDs and flags are removed from the board.
>>342716
/pol is mostly counterculture libertarian and conservative contrarians and reactionaries.
These people have existed in politics for centuries. They just call themselves the 'alt-right' now.
There is also a whole blogroll of click bait sites that cater to these people for news outrage and circlejerking.
There is a faint glimmer of truth among all the idiocy in much the same way that you are bound to hit the bulls-eye of a dartboard if you throw a hundred darts at it. Famous media outlets like the BBC that most people think are without bias do in fact have a noticeable bias. /pol/ is correct about that. It just isn't as extreme as /pol/ would have you believe.
For everything else, the signal to noise ratio is virtually 0. /pol/, underage as it is, doesn't have to intellectual capaciry for nuance. That's why conspiracy theories and caricatures are so popular there, because they provide simple explanations for complex phenomena. When their theory crumbles in the face of new evidence, they just add another layer of unsubstantiated horeshit on top to make it work.
>>342731
>underage as it is,
Confirmed for having never browsed /pol/ before. It seems like half of /pol/ is angry grandpas who found 4chan in a chain email.
>conspiracy theories
Now you're just trolling. We generally send tinfoilfags to >>>/x/.
>>342731
>/pol/, underage as it is, doesn't have to intellectual capaciry for nuance. That's why conspiracy theories and caricatures are so popular there, because they provide simple explanations for complex phenomena.
That's a problem with the entire site, it's just more noticeable with /pol/ because they're typically younger than the majority of the site and they try to act more serious than everyone else.
>>342740
>they're typically younger than the majority of the site
I'd really like to know what you people basing this claim on. Some strawpoll? Your gut feeling? Because this is completely contradictory to my experience on /pol/ over the past 3 years.
Hell, before this french happening we just had a thread about a banned Guns and Roses album that came out in 1989 and there were plenty of people who bought it at the time.
>>342744
>I'd really like to know what you people basing this claim on
Content. There is an absurd number of threads about le SJWs at any given time. The easiest way to farm (You)s is to screencap some literally who's tweet and make a thread about it, then just sit back and watch as 200 tweens express their outrage. This is literally Parkinson's Law of Triviality in action.
The rest of the threads aren't much better. Take, for example, threads about Middle Eastern politics and the tangled ball of relations between all the actors. Trying to discuss the ideological differences and geopolitical aims of the FSA, the Levant's Sunni majority, Qatar, and Hezbollah is an exercise in futility. You will never get any reply more substantiave than "lel, fuck all those sandniggers - glass parking lot when?". Obama is either totally a cvck in every situation or a grandmaster of 11-dimensional chess whose plan is going as expected. Putin is either totally based or totally an overcompensating manlet. It can't be that both of them have kucked and been kucked by the Saudis.
If these """"people"""" are in fact older than 25 then that's even more pathetic.
>>342716
When you realize that trolls use legit arguments to bait.
>>342716
It's only a legitimate view if you believe what they're saying on /pol/. Similarly it's a silly "troll" view of seeing thing if you don't believe what they say.
Bump.
>>342716
At about when you get down around 80 IQ points.
>>342731
Did you honestly think this post was saying anything substantial when you wrote it? Because it isn't, it's just assumptions and speculation. Armchair psychology at it's finest
