From 1d4chan
Revision as of 10:48, 31 May 2017 by (talk) (→‎Inquiries: the (((author))) 's kike nose is showing.)

Pretend Nazi

I'm not sure it's correct to think that most /pol/acks aren't genuine neo-nazis. I can buy that most /pol/acks that are outside of /pol/ are pretending to be in order to get attention but inside /pol/, acting like a neo-nazi won't garner attention because they are among neo-nazis. Even if the majority of people inside /pol/ are pretending to be neo-nazis to fit in with the crowd they will always be at risk of internalizing the things they say due to the difficulty of saying one thing and believing another.--Cryptek Szerasp (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • You do have a point, I guess some part of me just doesn't want to believe that many people legitimately believe the garbage /pol/acks spout. Trolls? Trolls I can handle. True believers just make me a bitter old man. Crazy Cryptek (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


I'd like to know the reasoning why the list of common /pol/ buzzwords was deleted because I think it is relevant to this page. I'd also like to create a copypasta listing bad things /pol/ has done in order for people to BTFO /pol/ whenever they post that picture of a poorly disguised SJW criticizing anti-SJW. Edit: I'll admit that I had already made the copypasta for my use but if I leave it here, more might get added.--Cryptek Szerasp (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Seconded. --Thannak (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with the sentiment, but we did just fumigate the SJW page of This Sort of Thing, even if there's not a complete equivalence. I'm not sure I'm comfortable opening the door to more of it. --SpectralTime (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, we should just define the nonsense and move on without going onto too much sub-nonsense. Also, why do people keep bring up that SJWs and /pol/ are in a war with each other? Both are in a war on all. There exist many people that disagree with both, though both would never accept that.-- 05:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • That's good, it should be on both pages somewhere. With a joke in it somewhere. Also, I feel the bulk of the issues on the pages could be resolved simply with more sarcasm and humor, as its far more likely to cause an argument when its in a dry fact piece tone. Which is why mentioning the buzzwords is a good thing, it is far better ground for humor than the warning to not engage them. --Thannak (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
    • The issue there is that topics like those tend to polarize people too easily; what you consider humorous can and all too frequently does end up being interpreted as insults or proof of some kind of political bias. At least when it's dry it can be better presented in a neutral, nonthreatening manner. Besides, doing something like Ilinaj wanted is stooping to their level and inviting them to redouble their activity. The only way to "BTFO" them is to ignore them completely. What's on this page now is already enough for that, and any more would be nothing more than a burden. --Newerfag (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Fine. Though I will still leave this link here in case anyone else wants to use it or improve it.--Cryptek Szerasp (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Perhaps to be even-handed there could be a list of SJW buzzwords added to the SJW page such as mansplaining, triggering and the miscellanieous snarl words (racist, sexist, homophobic etc...).--Cryptek Szerasp (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


  • Is this whole page the work of one guy? a butblasted sjw socially conscious individual whiny faggot perhaps?

Also i dont think think this article is long enough to merit a contents section, just as a general comment on page structure

    • You can pretty clearly see that it's not from the history section. Also sign your comments FFS. Just press the ~ key four times. As for /pol/acks, they go above and beyond and drag down the quality of discussion on 4chan of all places with their mass edgelord shockjock shitposting and thread derrailing. They're literally no better than people who spam extreme fetish porn or gory shock images. Crazy Cryptek (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Alright it just seems like this is ilinajs sacred cow, it reads like a personal grudge. and thanks for the info on signing 11:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Dealing with /pol/acks regularly can make an Avitus out of even the most idealistic of us. Crazy Cryptek (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll admit that I did make this page due to a personal grudge because /pol/ had derailed threads that I had made into bullshit which made me butthurt enough to make this page, and it showed in the earliest versions. And though only going on 4chan and never facebook, tumblr or twitter has meant that I only have personal experience with /pol/tergeists I've seen enough media examples to know that Social Justice Warriors are the same cancer on the other side of the body, especially with what they are doing to colleges. All in all, I'm glad that the page has been fixed to be a lot more neutral.--Cryptek Szerasp (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I've often joked that /pol/acks are proof that we missed more than a few spots at Nuremberg (I know that's a huge oversimplification for why edgy kids love fascism but hey, it rustles jimmies). As for SJWs, they're very annoying and can't articulate their points for shit, but with a transgender niece I don't really have it in me to use my usual snark against their LGBT stances, and you know, I don't really feel it's proper to put people down for something innate to them, mock 'em for making dumb mistakes but not for something they can't change or tell them they've all got to conform to a cookie cutter model. On racial issues; yes it sucks to be a minority that isn't rich in any country; no they don't get the point across well at all. And when they poke their nose out of America or at best, the English speaking countries they don't seem to get that different countries have different contexts. There is no one size fits all solution for the world and anyone who ever thought that you can slap on a single system all at once to fix the entire planet is dumb. Even the most die-hard anarchists and liberal-democracy advocates generally recognize you got to stagger that shit out in differing stages for differing places. And nobody ever fixed anything grumbling in a blog with a few hundred followers or shouting at people on the internet. Crazy Cryptek (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I do not disagree with this. To be fair, horseshoe theory is the only reason the comparison even works at all, and even then there's a bit of a berth between being unable to articulate what might (and usually is) actually a good point and being a literal Neo-Nazi; I figure it's no accident that /pol/acks are infinitely less likely to exhibit any "right for the wrong reason" tendencies. --LGX-000 (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Horseshoe theory tends to start breaking down when you look at politics at a more than one dimensional angle. It's not very good at accounting for the libertarian left or right or radical centrist movements, among other movements (also what counts as left or right depends on the country). But then one dimensional scales in general tend to suck in sociology and polsci because people are very complicated. As for /pol/acks and SJWs, both (usually) see something they think is wrong in the world and try to protest it (well for those who aren't trolls anyway), the difference is generally in what is complained about. But generally anyone who says "the holocaust didn't happen but I wish it did" probably could do with dunking their heads in a bucket of icewater and rethinking their life choices. As do silly gits who try to say dark matter is proof of black superiority (pseudo-science is a strange, hilarious place). Crazy Cryptek (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Gods above, do NOT start me on that dark matter shit. Pseudo-science, for-the-sake-of-status historical revision, Illuminati theories, conclusions based on two words sounding remotely similar... Shit is the bane of my existence (and being black doesn't help this at all). --LGX-000 (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It was in fact one guy Ilniaj, who made and edited it in June. It read as somebody upset that it exists. I don't think /pol/ needs an article, /v/ has only one paragraph for comparison. It's also not particularly funny, replace the pics with a Nazi and a Commie slap fighting and merge the containment and first parts of the article down to a very simple paragraph and it'll be fine.

Relevance to /tg/

I don't see how either this or the SJW article is relevant to /tg/ or board games. Iie (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Inertia and people who will complain incessantly about their absence should they be removed. I'd ask Wikifag or AssistantWikifag about the rationale behind letting them stay if I were you. --Newerfag (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
In addition to the above, I think it's fair to include articles on other relevant boards. I'm not aware of /pol/ making dedicated efforts to make games themselves, but Racial Holy War probably has some roots there, and certainly they intrude in /tg/ threads now and then (or at least some perceive them to do so, hence the posts of "/pol/ please go" and the like). As for SJW, yeah, I'm not feeling that one. If I get prodded enough odds are good I'd delete it -- I'm not very quick to delete pages as a matter of philosophy (aside from spam) and, yeah, inertia. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Edit on some further reflection (like 30 seconds): there is maybe a case to be made that SJW is a /tg/-relevant term -- certainly it gets thrown around enough in threads discussing game art and the history/changes/perception thereof (especially MtG). --AssistantWikifag (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

/pol/ had some good points in the past

When your rivals are a mix of literally proven paedophiles supporting bloody and grotesque artworks, utterly hypocritical fucktards that want all government nanny-services but can't afford 1% of it or don't want to work, Islamofascist scum that literally want to take over Europe, (contact me some time, I will willingly translate from non-English sources, and even from average folk) and have dissonant arguments about the immigration crisis with a clear goal of reducing the secular and healthy ethnic group present in the area, you cannot disregard groups like /pol/ have justifications.

P.S - I'm not white. --SaltyMan (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Illniaj and his assorted sockpuppets have been squatting on this article nursing some epic anal annihilation for over a year now and he will revert anything you care to add that isn't his kvetching as he is the only one who cares about this article which makes it his property in his mind. 20 bucks says he has a wikipedia account with this textbook behavior. Whatever the big bad neetsocs did to inspire such autism is unknown but undoubtedly hilarious.
It's ok, I won't add in defence of natsoc or neetsoc /pol/tard literature. But if the dude wants a war, I wont back down from one, I believe I'll add a tiny bit of justification why the natsoc crazies are on the rise, completely because of governmental failures or utter fuckwitted internationalist agitation worldwide. --SaltyMan (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Bro, maybe just keep to your own little bitch-fest rubbish heap and go easy on the right-wing bullshit, eh? No one is ever, ever the slightest bit temperate about politics, and the less of it we discuss the better. This is a page about /pol/ and the things it does, not a page about how much you hate whichever flavor of whatever has got your goat this week. --SpectralTime (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
let the Butthurt flow through you. check out whether I praised /pol/ or not, then have your childish reaction, would you? --SaltyMan (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Which sockpuppet of Ilniaj are you? The one he jerks off at Wednesdays? --SaltyMan (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
You're here to rant about how much anti-life justifies their hate, which is much, much worse. Talking about how shitty a board is is easy. It is something we can all agree on. Talking about how politics made them feel the way they do is cruisin' for a bruisin'. Just ask the guy who kept vandalizing the communism article to put his Milton Friedman-esque rants about the moral superiority of capitalism, or the guy who tried to put a (since deleted) "evil post-modernist" faction on the wiki to argue how post-modernism is destroying modern culture. You're not helping anything, you're making the article a whole lot worse, and also your writing is far below the quality of what it's replacing. Stick to whatever the hell this page is and don't actively try to spray political opinions onto the wiki as if they were facts. Especially don't put them at the top of the page, where they'll be the first thing anyone reads, long before they get to the actual definition of the board in question. --SpectralTime (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Re-e-e-eally? Do you even think, EVEN THINK that the current state of /pol/ page is even remotely logical or objective? Again, no, you will not have your way, and bitch as you like. Entire /pol/ page is a completely senseless mess of your Butthurt and your sockpuppets. I won't let that stand. --SaltyMan (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The mess at the top of the page is too much. Please try again, with one paragraph lower down the page (use your judgement as to where it fits, but I'd suggest the 'Containment Board' section since I understand you're trying to write about why anyone would want to go there). Use the intro paragraph as a guide for the size that is acceptable. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The entire page itself is a completely subjective (I do understand and respect reasoning), autistic scream of Butthurt. And you have no problem with that? --SaltyMan (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I've felt privately that Ilinaj may have gone overboard with the gallery, but nobody else was interested in the page at the time. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Then let me rewrite parts of it into a more objective interpretation than this monstrous bitchfit while keeping most issues like "harbor" intact. And its not just the gallery, the content of the text is also hilariously one sided and atrocious; enough to guess the political view of a frenzied Clintonite to squat and claim this page. --SaltyMan (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Right now the page explodes in the criticism without giving one damn history of the genesis of the page. I bet my savings Ilinaj, Spec or whatever samefag that is, screeched his lungs off at the moment Trump was elected. Have you read my comments? I see him as another conman. --SaltyMan (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Jesus, this shit escalated way too quickly, and not in a funny way. Everyone come yo tits and settle down for a moment. I have read SaltyMan's edits and I can see where he is trying to go here. Correct me if I am wrong, whilst the editing is a bit of a mess, what SaltyMan is trying to do is take a more objective approach on the circumstances over the past few years that lead /pol/ to take to such a infamous status. On the other hand, I can see what SpectralTime is trying to do; that politics should not really be that welcomed on /tg/ due to past historical edit wars and bitch fest on the communism and God-Emperor page. Whatever grievances that happened lately. I think the best way to avoid a potential edit war (or even worse, a flame war) is to try our best to take a more neutral stance on /pol/. We can put in some snark remarks and /tg/'s opinions on that board for sure. But it should stay overall neutral in tone. That is my opinion on this issue. Derpysaurus
    • Just my $0.02, its not meant to be a page explaining the points and arguments of /pol/ with objectivity any more than /a/ is of the merits of anime as a medium and its impact on world culture. You write about 4chan, which in the /a/ example is a quick summary of what it is followed by calling it a culture of mildly autistic DA artists and NEETs jacking/jilling to little girls, implying that Attack On Titan is just fapbait for vore fetishists, and a gallery of their cringe highlight reel with a small section listing notable memes and accomplishments in somewhere. I mean, its not like we're that complimentary of ourselves either. Why suck /pol/ off when we describe ourselves as obsessive Elfven NEET furry (bug) fetishists with too much money and no common sense? If you want to give credit to something, make it an actual Traditional Game with conservative merits (more Robotech than Racial Holy War) --Thannak (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I mean, why's it got to be neutral? It's not a goddamn historical document. It's a page on a humor wiki about a board that we all hate and mock. Bringing a sober, neutral analysis of the real historical causes of /pol/io isn't necessary, actively fucks with the quality of the page, and, if I'm being 100% honest with myself, means capitulating to a really unpleasant person I've disliked ever since trying to fight his vandalism on the WoW page. And he keeps calling me a sockpuppet too, which just goes to show how much stock he puts in other people's opinions, that he literally can't conceive of two different people both having different POVs than him. Good job there. Really makes me want to settle down and look at his POV. --SpectralTime (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

>I mean, why's it got to be neutral?"

Because it's a goddamn wiki and you and I have the right to post, so a touch of neutrality is necessary to stop this into a devolutionary circle.

>Bringing a sober, neutral analysis of the real historical causes of /pol/io isn't necessary,

I say otherwise.

>that he literally can't conceive of two different people both having different POVs than him.

You could open a drive-in theater with that projection boi. your days of squatting over the /pol/ page is over, because I say so. Enjoy Trump presidency, by the way. --SaltyMan (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

So no matter how much you protest, I am going to infuse my counter arguments or words inside, and there is nothing you can do about it. --SaltyMan (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

...welp, looks like the legitimacy of that argument just went out the window. But internet slapfight aside, this is not a legitimate wiki. Much like Urban Dictionary, its a joke site with relevant information that may or may not be true. Hence no page having proper formatted citations. Much like what someone actually says on /tg/, you have to sort out the bullshit from the truth and every fact presented is framed from objective positions. For example, "Games Workshop (negative meme) because (objective fact peppered with jokes and memes) which is why (meme about stupidity)." --Thannak (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Even so, when someone grinds the butthurt's sharp edge, what happens then? S.o.B deleted thousands of characters worth of my additions, which did NOT EVEN overwrite his butthurt! Well? --SaltyMan (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
How come my long and detailed addition of /pol/ 's genesis gets deleted with a reply as if he owns the page? Not going to let this one slip, Thannak. --SaltyMan (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

""(cur | prev) 10:55, 5 April 2017‎ SpectralTime (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,697 bytes) (-4,596)‎ . . (Fuck off and also fuck you. Everyone thinks their hate is justified, you're not special, and this is very-nearly vandalism.) ""

Definitely my fault, right? That faggot acted like a 10 year old kid who got the wrong present in his birthday, and had to be slapped down. --SaltyMan (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for or against any specific edits so long as the page exists and is properly informative, but good humor and self-deprication within the article must be maintained and talk pages remain somewhat civil discourse. While I wouldn't expect anyone to fully keep their temper if offensiveness mounts, a certain composure is required in these discussions to keep things actually progressing towards a goal. Otherwise we just have nasty edit wars and shitpost world wars behind the scenes until interest is lost and someone comes along to tidy things up by keeping the valid points and wiping repeated or irrelevant information, rinse/repeat; something which I ought to remind everyone continues to happen on the WoW page making it more controversial hilariously enough than either the /pol/ or SJW pages. Pardon me saying so, but the closer your tone matches your account name, the less people will rally behind you or want to consider compromise. When we reach eventual impasse, we then rely on the 1d4 authority to make the final judgement. --Thannak (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Told you to just let it be Salty. There is no reasoning with fags who write long asshurt screeds on a board that has not a single fucking thing to do with /tg/ and then obsessively squat on the page as if their asshurt gives them ownership of the community wiki page. The other fags who popped up are the same guys who appear at any edit drama and act as if their opinions are the unassailable majority opinion of thousands of fa/tg/uys and 1d4chan editors.

The other 3%? 30%?

FYI, Google's turning up multiple results saying it was 66% to 34% for Macron in the final round of voting. The first round of voting had it 24% to 21% for Macron versus Le Pen, but that's only the initial vote to figure out who get to face who in the final round of voting. So while Salty's technically correct at 3%, it's incorrect to imply that Macron won by only 3%, as the final round was clearly a larger difference.

As a note, Le Pen won a majority in just two north eastern departments out of the whole of France, these being Calais and Aisne. Macron's best performance was in Paris, where nine out of 10 voters voted for him. (And for details for me, 1d4's grabbing my IP6 addy instead of my IP4 one) -2001:56A:F107:D500:950D:6D35:588A:C5BA 07:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I agree, I would like to add that le Pen was for all intents and purposes, utterly demolished by Macron's party. Unlike Brexit or Trump where the difference was evenly divided to the point that it could go either way. In the French election however, the sheer gap between Macron and le Pen was so obvious that everyone with a brain saw this coming a long time ago, even chaps like Nigel Farage believed that le Pen had no hopes in winning the election. Derpysaurus
  • >30% of votes in France
You ought to worry before crowing like the cuck, or kike you are. Until then conservatives were the pariah of Europe.-- 10:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Triggered much? le Pen lost big time even with the gradual rise of the National Front to the point she has now backtracked her statements for Frexit. Then again, her loss could be contributed to her father being a spiteful cunt, stating she was 'unfit to lead' anyway, just to get back at her for kicking him out of his own party. So yes, for all the hype surrounding her, she was demolished by Macron. As a conservative-leaning centrist, consider me more disappointed since 30% means jackshit if she lost to someone as lackluster as Macron and even more so after her Frexit backtracking. Then again, I never considered her to be Victor Orban who at least have done quite a commendable job at safe guarding Hungary's borders from the clusterfuck that is the migration crisis. And cuck really? Are you an 8 year old or are you one of those politically idiotic right-wing SJWs that dickrides on their master's fence without having the spine to critique their own side if they get out of the line. I am starting to despise that word as it is no different from those socialist campus idiots screaming racist at everything. Derpysaurus