/mlpol/ - My Little Politics


If you want to see the latest posts from all boards in a convenient way please check out /overboard/
For Pony, Pony, Pony and Pony check out >>>/poner also Mares

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
6000
Select File / Oekaki
File(s)
No files selected
Password (For file and/or post deletion.)

445179cb7e0162b822f72d5519a2063f.jpg
Conspiratard Purity Spiralling
Anonymous
f643d15
?
No.390847
390850 390858 390868 390869 390933 390952 391005 391213 391257 391272 392012 392358
            [Read more]            
786 replies and 170 files omitted.
Anonymous
5fcb5f6
?
No.392573
392574 392577 392615
>>392571
Post something more convincing then social media screencaps if you want people to believe you.
Anonymous
8f89ef7
?
No.392574
392577
>>392573
This.
It's not a lot to ask.
Anonymous
b38edc7
?
No.392577
392579 392580
>>392572
>You should not assume that /mlpol/ is immune to /pol/'s problems
Who'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 phenotypes
have 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 me
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?
Anonymous
8f89ef7
?
No.392579
            [Read more]            
Anonymous
5fcb5f6
?
No.392580
392581 392585
>>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!
Anonymous
8f89ef7
?
No.392581
392582 392585
>>392580
It 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.
Anonymous
2c8a60a
?
No.392582
392583 392585
>>392581
Oh was making fun of him. Shitlibs speak like that when they can't defend their positions.
Anonymous
8f89ef7
?
No.392583
392585
>>392582
Yes, I know. It's a classic midwit deflection. It's not exclusive to liberals though, as we can see here.
Anonymous
b38edc7
?
No.392585
392586 392597
>>392581
You think I expect agreement? LOL
>>392580
Yes, petulance has clearly worked, keep at it
>>392582
You presumed to be making fun, but you were actually illustrating how debased your mentality is. Good luck with that.
>>392583
You 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.
Anonymous
2c8a60a
?
No.392586
392587
>>392585
You can't defend your positions. You're a brainlet and you aren't fooling anyone.
Anonymous
b38edc7
?
No.392587
392588 392597
>>392586
If you want to be worth the effort, you'll need to do better than posture like a flat-earther
Anonymous
5fcb5f6
?
No.392588
>>392587
You'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?
Anonymous
916b73c
?
No.392595
>>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.
Anonymous
8f89ef7
?
No.392597
392611
>>392585
If you're not trying to have a discussion/argument, why even post at all?
>throwing a tantrum
Nobody is throwing a tantrum. Projecting much?
>>392587
It was you who posted the Facebook memes without backing up your points. Same behavior as the flat earther.
Anonymous
b38edc7
?
No.392611
392612 392618
>>392597
You 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
Anonymous
8f89ef7
?
No.392612
>>392611
Then why were you replying to us when we were talking to the other guy?
You're wasting our time.
Anonymous
afca022
?
No.392613
392614
d26041.jpg
>>392569
Your below provincial mindset is astonishing. Would you like to post in New York Times' comments section instead?
Anonymous
8f89ef7
?
No.392614
392616
>>392613
Do you have an actual counterargument?
Anonymous
afca022
?
No.392615
392616 392617 392618
>>392573
>if you want people to believe you
Your entitled to disbelief and it is up to you what to do about it.
Anonymous
afca022
?
No.392616
>>392614
See >>392615
Also applies to you.
Anonymous
8f89ef7
?
No.392617
392619
>>392615
Why would you post at all, if not to make arguments?
Anonymous
5fcb5f6
?
No.392618
392622 392627
>>392611
Yeah I had a feeling this was ninjaz.
>>392615
Notice 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 .
Anonymous
5fcb5f6
?
No.392619
>>392617
It's simple; to try to make the opposing viewpoint stop talking. They don't want to be challenged.
Anonymous
8f89ef7
?
No.392621
>>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.
Anonymous
afca022
?
No.392622
392623 392624 392632
>>392618
>academic sources
Those have to be taken with a extra grain of salt. Fake science is widespread.
Anonymous
5fcb5f6
?
No.392623
maxresdefault (1).jpg
>>392622
And facebook posts and random blogs don't need to be taken with a grain of salt?
Anonymous
5fcb5f6
?
No.392624
MV5BYWUyMGQxZjUtMzM3Yy00MDg5LWE2YWEtZWUwNGFlY2I2NzgzXkEyXkFqcGc@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.jpg
>>392622
And 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.
Anonymous
7f4eb90
?
No.392627
392629
>>392618
>I had a feeling it was
Uh huh, that explains why you lied
>It was you who posted the Facebook memes without backing up your points
Anonymous
8f89ef7
?
No.392629
392630
>>392627
That's a separate poster, you retard.
Anonymous
7f4eb90
?
No.392630
392631
>>392629
I hope some of you catch my subtlety
Anonymous
d99e60c
?
No.392631
392639
>>392630
Tell us more about your mother.
Anonymous
916b73c
?
No.392632
392633
>>392622
All 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.
Anonymous
afca022
?
No.392633
392634 392651
>>392632
>Academic sources *want* you to be critical of them
Not quite. The establishment already refused scrutiny with slogans like "the science is settled" and outright fleeing debate.
Anonymous
8f89ef7
?
No.392634
392635 392731
>>392633
Only faggots in the media say that. Peer review is essential to the process.
Anonymous
afca022
?
No.392635
392637 392640
source.jpg
1750039595_2.mp4 (2.3 MB, Resolution:1280x720 Length:00:00:10, pusy.mp4) [play once] [loop]
pusy.mp4
>>392634
>Peer review
Anonymous
5fcb5f6
?
No.392637
392638
>>392635
It seems you have no arguments.
Anonymous
afca022
?
No.392638
392641 392646
Scre143.jpg
>>392637
The argument might be you are incredible naive.
Anonymous
b38edc7
?
No.392639
BalthazarBG3-634302586.jpg
>>392631
She's right over there, on the table, but that hardly seems relevant
Anonymous
5fcb5f6
?
No.392640
392646
>>392635
But 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.
Anonymous
5fcb5f6
?
No.392641
392642
>>392638
You are literally getting upset because people are asking for better sources than social media posts and blogs.
Anonymous
afca022
?
No.392642
392643 392644 392646
>>392641
>people are asking for better sources
Peer 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.
Anonymous
5fcb5f6
?
No.392643
392645
>>392642
I 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.
Anonymous
2c8a60a
?
No.392644
392649
>>392642
And 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"
Anonymous
afca022
?
No.392645
392646 392653
>>392643
>At least the academic sources have some prosses to filter out bullshit
Sure, 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.
Anonymous
8f89ef7
?
No.392646
392648
>>392638
It's incredibly convincing when you screencap your own posts from 5 minutes ago. Quality content.
>>392640
This.
>>392642
Anything is better than a handful of random social media screencaps.
>>392645
Being "independent" does not make them correct. Judge the source by its evidence and substance.
Anonymous
afca022
?
No.392648
392650
>>392646
>Being "independent" does not make them correct.
Far less when you are "dependent" so.
Anonymous
afca022
?
No.392649
392654 392655
>>392644
>to ask for evidence of huge claims like "a shot from almost 5 years ago is depopulating the planet
The fact is the one of the main manufacturers and promoters was Bill Gates, who has generously talked about depopulation together with his billionaires pals.
Anonymous
8f89ef7
?
No.392650
392652
>>392648
Again, 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.
Anonymous
916b73c
?
No.392651
392660
1896492.png
            [Read more]            
Anonymous
afca022
?
No.392652
392660
>>392650
>They rely on sensationalism and engagement farming to stay relevant
As well with academics, as they rely on "outcomes" to get funded.

Thread Watcher
TW