A purity spiral trend on the right has been emerging for a while now but it has only gotten worse in recent years. Disbelief in the whackiest conspiracy is taken as a sign of disloyalty and anything other then the most retarded take makes you a shill. Examples include:
>you think jews are nepotistic and spiteful to their hosts?
>well I think jews are actually a cult of satanic baby eaters you deradicalization, shill!
>you think the pharmaceutical companies are greedy assholes who pray on the despairation of sick people?
>Well I think everything the pharmaceutical companies sell is poison and I'm taking wormwood extract to cure my cancer, you cuck!
>you think mega companies moved jobs overseas because the CEOs are amoral pieces of shit who care more about money than the future of their country?
>Well I think its all part of a plan to weaken the West and install communism, FED!
>you are worried about 5G because you think it will greatly enhance digital surveillance?
>well I think 5G will cause cancer and mass death, fag!
>you think the covid vaccine was bad because lockdowns were used as an excuse to attack political enemies and side effects were ultimately worse than the disease?
>well I think its all a part of the NWO depopulation agenda, pharmakike!
>you are worried about AI because of job loss, propaganda bots, and surveillance concerns?
>well I think AI is actually a demonic force in computer form, fag!
>you hate Hollywood movies because they are controlled by a few studios who push stale liberal trash?
>well I think Hollywood is putting secret symbols and predictive programming in their films to control the population, tranny!
Ect
It isn't enough to distrust the failing institutions, you need to believe they are part of a satanic plot as well. This has only gotten worse over time and I suspect it will only continue get worse over time. Is there any way this can be stopped before it collapses under the weight of its own bullshit into a flat earth singularity?
And I know many of you will claim that some of the crazier claims are pushed by bad actors, and you are probably right to some extent, but silly shit like germ theory denial and flat earth are becoming more common especially on the right. Is there a way to stop this?
[Read more] 786 replies and 170 files omitted.
>>392571Post something more convincing then social media screencaps if you want people to believe you.
>>392572>You should not assume that /mlpol/ is immune to /pol/'s problemsWho's assuming? Maybe you haven't had the pleasure, but this site is operated and maintained by some of the most stalwart, right, and proper niggers I've ever had the chance to piss off and fuck with. If you think
>a handful of reddit/Facebook phenotypeshave any chance of degrading the site (other than shitting it up occasionally with gay-ass flat earth memes) then you are very silly.
>>392573>>392574>convince meThis mentality will avail you nothing. If you need 'convincing' at THIS stage in the game, maybe you're not ready for the 501 class? Maybe you should have studied?
>>392577>If you need 'convincing' at THIS stage in the gameIf you post a claim, you should be ready to defend and support that claim under scrutiny. That's what arguments are all about. You want us to all bob our heads and clap like seals when you post "Nanobots, amirite, my fellow Q-pedes?", despite putting in zero effort to support your claim?
Don't just post random Facebook memes, and then act offended when people don't immediately believe you, or if they come to a separate conclusion after doing their own research.
>maybe you're not ready for the 501 class? Maybe you should have studied?>YOU'RE NOT QUALIFIED TO DEBATE ME! EDUCATE YOURSELF!This is the exact same arguments that midwit communists make when you ask them to defend their positions, and then they deflect and say that you can't argue with them because you haven't read some obscure socialist book from 70 years ago.
>have any chance of degrading the siteYeah, they absolutely can. It happened to Ponychan, and it can happen to us too if we let it.
[Read more] >>392577>This mentality will avail you nothing. If you need 'convincing' at THIS stage in the game, maybe you're not ready for the 501 class? Maybe you should have studied?IT'S NOT MY JOB TO EDUCATE YOU, CHUD!
>>392580It is in fact not his job, but he shouldn't expect us to all agree with him if he's not willing to support his position.
Idk why he'd even post his position if he's not interested in persuading people.
>>392581Oh was making fun of him. Shitlibs speak like that when they can't defend their positions.
>>392582Yes, I know. It's a classic midwit deflection. It's not exclusive to liberals though, as we can see here.
>>392581You think I expect agreement? LOL
>>392580Yes, petulance has clearly worked, keep at it
>>392582You presumed to be making fun, but you were actually illustrating how debased your mentality is. Good luck with that.
>>392583You lot seem to think that throwing a tantrum will get you what you desire. Throwing a tantrum CAN work, but it's a very specific set of circumstances, and should not be considered the 'go-to' method.
>>392585You can't defend your positions. You're a brainlet and you aren't fooling anyone.
>>392586If you want to be worth the effort, you'll need to do better than posture like a flat-earther
>>392587You're the one posturing. You have yet to back up your positions with anything better than social media screencaps. If you want to post twitter screencaps might I suggest 4chan?
>>392571>Stop questioning the anti-vaxx doctrine.see the article
>>391370 linked to. You have the uphill battle of people being skeptical of you as you push rhetoric that feds have used as a bioweapon in other counties and likely here. You are in agreement with many neoliberal conservative politicians with Heritage Foundation and Epstein file member ties. You are not the skeptic in this scenario.
>>392585If you're not trying to have a discussion/argument, why even post at all?
>throwing a tantrumNobody is throwing a tantrum. Projecting much?
>>392587It was you who posted the Facebook memes without backing up your points. Same behavior as the flat earther.
>>392597You wanna try that again? I'll link which posts ITT are mine, but its none of the ones you're talking about.
Hint: Pinkie clown and the boop >>392611Then why were you replying to us when we were talking to the other guy?
You're wasting our time.
>>392569Your below provincial mindset is astonishing. Would you like to post in New York Times' comments section instead?
>>392613Do you have an actual counterargument?
>>392573>if you want people to believe youYour entitled to disbelief and it is up to you what to do about it.
>>392615Why would you post at all, if not to make arguments?
>>392611Yeah I had a feeling this was ninjaz.
>>392615Notice how one side of the debate provides academic sources and tells the other side "you are wrong" when others disagree and the side of the debate the post social media screencaps and shout "YOU'RE A SHILL!" when others disagree. This is a political discussion forum only one of those sides is trying to have good faith discussion .
>>392617It's simple; to try to make the opposing viewpoint stop talking. They don't want to be challenged.
>>392620
Wrong post.
Also, those sources are still more substantial than random social media screencaps, and instead of dismissing the sources outright you should read them and point out their mistakes and flaws.
>>392618>academic sources Those have to be taken with a extra grain of salt. Fake science is widespread.
>>392622And facebook posts and random blogs don't need to be taken with a grain of salt?
>>392622And you don't seem to get the point. The point is only one side of the debate is trying to have a discussion the other side is trying to make those having the discussion shut up.
>>392618>I had a feeling it wasUh huh, that explains why you lied
>It was you who posted the Facebook memes without backing up your points >>392627That's a separate poster, you retard.
>>392629I hope some of you catch my subtlety
>>392630Tell us more about your mother.
>>392622All sources require "salt," you have to read all things critically, and it's an insult to both yourself and the subject not to. Academic sources *want* you to be critical of them so they can be further refined.
>>392632>Academic sources *want* you to be critical of themNot quite. The establishment already refused scrutiny with slogans like "the science is settled" and outright fleeing debate.
>>392633Only faggots in the media say that. Peer review is essential to the process.
>>392635It seems you have no arguments.
>>392637The argument might be you are incredible naive.
>>392631She's right over there, on the table, but that hardly seems relevant
>>392635But it is strange to me how much you seem to hate academic sources, but you have absolutely zero problem with social media screenshots or blogs. It is certainly possible to put your thumb on the scale in academia, but it takes even less effort to make shit up on a blog or social media.
>>392638You are literally getting upset because people are asking for better sources than social media posts and blogs.
>>392641>people are asking for better sourcesPeer reviewed, settled science, consensus, are all buzzterms meaning TRUST US, we know and are better than you and you should have faith on us. Like a religion.
>>392642I can trust science if things based off of the science work. You act as if something posted in an academic journal must 100% be a lie. That's just silly. I act as if random blogs and social media are unreliable because they are. At least the academic sources have some prosses to filter out bullshit even if that process is not perfect. There is no bullshit filter on blogs or social media.
>>392642And on top of that people are right to ask for evidence of huge claims like "a shot from almost 5 years ago is depopulating the planet" I have a big family and several coworkers who took it. Most of them are shitlibs so they got several boosters too. No one I know had problems and I still have to deal with traffic every day. I don't see bodies on the streets. So yeah the claim that a shot from years ago is causing the world to end is going to require better evidence then "some dickhead on social media/random blog said so"
>>392643>At least the academic sources have some prosses to filter out bullshitSure, I don't argue that. However, academics are reliant on funding, that means that any meaningful deviation from mainstream science will be quickly squashed. Blogs are independent, take mainstream science and rip it apart. If that is deconstruction just for the sake of it, the blog will go into oblivion, otherwise, the new thesis will be reblogged and refined to reach the experimental phase.
>>392638It's incredibly convincing when you screencap your own posts from 5 minutes ago. Quality content.
>>392640This.
>>392642Anything is better than a handful of random social media screencaps.
>>392645Being "independent" does not make them correct. Judge the source by its evidence and substance.
>>392646>Being "independent" does not make them correct.Far less when you are "dependent" so.
>>392644>to ask for evidence of huge claims like "a shot from almost 5 years ago is depopulating the planetThe fact is the one of the main manufacturers and promoters was Bill Gates, who has generously talked about depopulation together with his billionaires pals.
>>392648Again, judge a source by the evidence they present.
And also, blogs are not necessarily"independent" either. They rely on sensationalism and engagement farming to stay relevant, which means they'll say anything to keep your attention.
You only get to see whatever Zuckerberg and Musk's algorithms permit you to see. Notice how on Facebook you get to talk about 5G nanobots all you want, but if you deny the Holocaust you get banned immediately? It's because they permit you to talk about the former.
>>392633>THE^tm establishment>"the science is settled"Spectaclebabble. You are forfiting your ability to participate in academics as a process over to twitter debate addicts and Heritage Foundation owned thinktanks that can't nor are interested in doing it right.
1. Make a website
2. write your paper on the subject you have interest
3. find peers to review it
4. revise it
5. repeat 3 and 4 until it doesn't suck
6. publish it to said website
There are several free means of getting a website such as neocities, and self hosting isn't that hard expensive but the availability of the former option makes that a non-barrier, so don't hide behind that.
Pandoc lets you convert markdown to html so you don't even need to know how to code HTML, nor is HTML hard, and knowing every semantic HTML tag will make you a better writer so learn it anyway.
[Read more] >>392650>They rely on sensationalism and engagement farming to stay relevantAs well with academics, as they rely on "outcomes" to get funded.