Talk:Trashbin

From 1d4chan

All of you whine like goddamn normalfags

Losing your goddamn minds over some off topic shitposting and mean words. Yeah the /pol/acks are fucking annoying. Just like the /jp/sies, the /a/utists, the /v/edditors, the actress enthusiasts over at /tv/, the install /g/entoo fags, and every other spergy board that shitposts on other boards at the drop of a hat. Katawa Shoujo general on /vg/ is steadily working it's way to 5 digit thread count. /mlp/ still exists. You signed up for the circus when you started posting there. Don't be too soft to handle it now.

>whining about other people's whining is still whining --67.80.54.34 02:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Truer words were never spoken. OriginalPrankster (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

There are more important things that need to be done in /tg/

There is no reason for "article" this to exist, it's not /tg/ relevant, it's mostly written by 1 dude and some salty butthurt fag who rages like a kid. Keep /pol TO /pol! -- The Awkward Man 14-8-2017 . 23:38 UTC+1

>/pol
I don't think you're one to talk on the subject here, bucko. You're right that the article is primarily driven by butthurt and it does get some stuff wrong, but there is a long history of shitposters spraying /pol/'s unpopular opinions on /tg/ to get a reaction, along with misguided zealots who are actually from /pol/ preaching and regressive-left shitheads crying /pol/io whenever someone disrupts their safe space. That's worth talking about. OriginalPrankster (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I understand and feel you, and in that case, the article should be about THAT and about cause and effect on /tg/ and role playing in general, and not about /pol/ and cancer in general. Those who wrote the article were extremely misguided about what should and should not be on our wiki. -- The Awkward Man 14-8-2017 . 23:51 UTC+1
This is also why I wanted it locked in the first place; it's too tempting for people to try and slip in their little soapbox rants in such a way that divorces the page from the purpose The Awkward Man describes. Personally, I wonder if it would be more prudent to just put them both in sections under a single Shitposting article, or even as types of trolling. Because regardless as to whether their posters genuinely believe it or not, that's all it really is in practice- shitposting. --Newerfag (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, scratch that, the article has been protected. I didn't actually think AssistantWikifag would do that. --Newerfag (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Well hot damn, just saw that. Seems like it's for the best and that the matter is now settled.. -- The Awkward Man 15-8-2017 02:10 UTC+1
But not for good, I'm sure of it. Now if only there was a way to permanently keep the idiots and ideologues away. --Newerfag (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Drunk and have no good ideas... but: [1] Just sayin' ;) -- The Awkward Man 15-8-2017 04:10 UTC+1

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)

Buzzwords

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.--97.104.199.133 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)

Inquiries

  • 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 124.170.152.79 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.207.161.41.104

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)
I'm not a regular user by any means, but I am a little concerned by how much stuff like this there is on the wiki nowadays. I know it's often part of the discussion on the forums that this site goes with, especially in the context of vocal companies like Wizards of the Coast and Paizo . . . but maybe we don't need to encourage it. 1.152.96.60 23:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Things like WW1, WW2, or Vietnam are often topics that get brought up but don't need pages. The amount of butthurt surrounding this entry singles it out as one of the worst anyway, hiding behind a weak facade of 'neutrality' doesn't do any favors for the dedicated idiots that want to keep this article up. This isn't the place for politics, /pol/ should stay in /pol/ and /pol/'s detractors should stay in their lane as well. I understand why deleting pages can be a tough decision but any article like this should be tossed out. I'm totally with the guy above me but would add that it's totally fine for people to want more diversity in games or are pissed that their games are being changed on the whims of people with no investment in the hobby, that's /tg/ because it's specifically about /tg/ topics. Neither of those mindsets are unique to SJWs or /pol/. Giving them the time of day turns it into an arena though. I just want to play games, not make a political statement, while both those two competing factions want to make the primary issue surround their ideological bent with the games becoming a secondary aspect. Primary issue is traditional games with a secondary mention to their points at best, making articles like this is capitulating to other interests. This is just one of the worst examples because of the obvious motive/bias. -- Bill Gameman

>/pol/ should stay in /pol/

The fact that they almost never do, even with zero provocation from any other party, is kinda the crux of the article, I'd think. As for SJWs, the persistent influence of social justice in media (for whatever passes as such at the time, see DnD in the 80's) and their influence on the hobby for better or worse (said hobby being /tg/'s reason for existing) is thus worth noting to some degree.

Plus, there's plenty of history-based pages so it makes sense that relative political history be included as well (not to say political content can't be cut back on to some degree). --72.89.211.145 09:09, 13 January 2018 (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

>demolished.

You ought to worry before crowing like the cuck, or kike you are. Until then conservatives were the pariah of Europe.--78.189.27.218 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
  • Migration crisis isn't a clusterfuck. It's an invasion by Gulf States. Prepare your white women for Allah. --78.189.235.179 10:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The handling of the migration crisis by the EU IS a clusterfuck. However, the one thing that pisses me of the most is that Saudi Arabia, a country that is geographically close to the source of the migration/refugees (Libya and Syria) is doing fuck all despite constructing enough camps to house up to a few million of these people. And the worst thing is how spineless the leaders in the West (Including Trump) are by kowtowing to the Saudis because of that sweet, sweet oil money. The sooner the Saudis and other gulf states lose their oil influence (Their main source of export), the better it is for the rest of the world to get free from that Wahhabist shit hole. This should be enough political ranting for me now since I have a bad feeling that this page and the SJW page is just bound to spark some stupid edit war all over again. Derpysaurus
  • Holy Skub, when I first posted this bit, it was purely to address a factual fuck-up, and to provide a bit of context for the values given. This isn't the /pol channel, guys. Shouldn't you be discussing this there instead? -2001:56A:F107:D500:8172:FC58:FF2C:B3FC 16:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm gonna second that motion. Nothing against you guys or your opinions but this has kind of shot well past the "debate about the page" stage. Redmaw (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I am going to triple this notion as well. I realize that we have derailed straight of the train station and hit a brick wall. There are time for politics but I think this time we need to show restraint now, and that includes me as well.Derpysaurus

Anon, your case for deleting the link goes here.

Why do you want to remove it? Mystery (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah we should just kill all white people lol xD I have a single black friend that's somehow enduring college therefore give your daughters to black people so that your race can be destroyed even more lol xD I can't believe you poor race-preserving NEET shmucks have FAMILIES and KIDS. I for one am a cottaging LGBT homosexual transvestite who has public sex out in public parks, all protected by my awesome communist leader in New York xD Kill all the white people lol xD P.S just for all you dumb white chicks out there with blonde hair you don't deserve to have kids and if you do you deserve to die lol xD black master race forever and ever, sorry brb I need to prep my bull xD

This isn't "kill all white people". It's a joke about wishing we could kill some of the alt-right, the most obnoxious Internet development of the last decade. Your comment makes no sense, and is only tangentially related to the deletion of the link. This is /tg/'s wiki, not /pol/'s. Deal with it. Mystery (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
ITT: How to prove literally every single point this article has made. 24.46.192.147 22:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Which fucktard ruined the whole origins story?

You completely changed the reason why /pol/ spawned and tried to make it a case of parody becoming real.

Bitch, listen.

Alt-Right is real. People who sympathize many points of it are real and they are making their move. I had written that the left's unending smear-theory actually spawned /pol/ which is a pretty solid, but if you want to make /pol/ and alt right a case of complete wrongness, that's where you are wrong. No one gives 2 fucking shits about the "progressive" values which have proven to be counterproductive. I will return to purge a great deal of the webpage once I'm ready.--SaltyMan (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

/pol/ existed with the ideology you know and hate way before the alt-right even had that name, and definitely before people began taking it seriously. Maybe you should actually learn a little bit of history yourself first and stop trying to make everything about the big bad SJWs. Or have you forgotten how /pol/ and its kindred first became known as neo-Nazis years before the SJW obsession was ever a blip on 4chan's radar?--Newerfag (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
SaltyMan, really? "Proven to be counterproductive"? Sure, ignore the New Deal, the Voting Rights Act, the ACA. Your poor understanding of progressivism aside, this is not your wiki. It reflects the reality we all deal with, not your fantasies. You do realize that the behavior of /pol/tergheists like yourself is why we wrote the page this way, right? You personally (and others) use "hurr durr I'm not white so I must be right" all the time, we add a complaint about it to the page. Not rocket surgery. We're not here to indulge your edgy attention-seeking. So go ahead and "purge". We'll be waiting, and we won't let you make this wiki into your personal platform to pretend ignorance and bigotry are actual solutions to problems. Mystery (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
You have zero idea of what I think, or believe in, so I'm going to nodd and pretend something worthwhile comes out of your mouth. Check out the fucking page, it is now completely written in the most sickening pro-SJW way; presenting arguments while completely deleting and purging counter arguments, typical of fascism. Speaking of reality, how goes "reality" in the Left's endless policies of restrictive regulations, European Immigration and saber-rattling of tyrants? Also New Deal didn't create any meaningful jobs. As for others, I'm all for civil rights for ethnic groups, provided they are going to integrate in a system. We'll see how you retards' "progressive" Sweden will collapse into a mess at worst, spend a fortune to find and deport troublemakers at best. "Progressivism" IS the new fascism, from "microaggression" bullshit to hating all straight white males to "cultural appropriation" whatever FUCKTARDED bullshit it is. Joke's on you, by the way, I am neither white nor straight. --SaltyMan (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
>smear campaign methodology and negative impact is covered on the SJW page
>this page literally mentions that people acting like Nazi-esque racists attracted the real thing
>both articles emphasize how each side's reactionary nature fuels the other
>complaining about bias while ignoring all of the above
>implying we're that invested in Sweden or somehow have no criticism of progressive doctrine
>most of us have actually been adding to the SJW page ourselves
>strawmanning this hard

Yet again, you're literally making their case for them. Holy shit, m8, this is a level of assblasting I can barely comprehend. --LGX-000 (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

And people still ask me why I want this page and the SJW page deleted. The moment we even condescended to acknowledge the existence of either one, we were practically begging for flamewars. The only way it'll stop is to get rid of them from this wiki entirely and focus on /tg/ itself rather than these interlopers. Along with anyone thick enough to bring real world politics here in the first place. --Newerfag (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

When the World of Darkness tries to feature villains motivated by ethics in video games journalism, when Gen Con accepts events talking about how you can't have white people in your games or you're literally worse than double Hitler, that is when these "interlopers" become relevant to /tg/. When game developers from the biggest gamelines in the industry openly hitch their careers to political candidates and then say nothing when someone claiming to speak with their authority attempts to blacklist (oh, sorry, "orangelist") the significant majority of the industry that either disagreed or didn't give a shit, that's when it becomes essential to talk about what has quite frankly become an invasion of the hobby. I'd accept paring down the /pol/ article to just how the board fucks with /tg/ specifically, but don't try to throw away the SJW page just because you don't like it. OriginalPrankster (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't try to "throw it away" if people could be trusted to be more reasonable about it than the subjects of the articles can be expected to behave on any given occasion. But every other edit now seems to be little more than pointing out things that have already been commented upon, attempting to emulate a less crude version of ED only to have it clash with most of the wiki in the process, and generally coming off as the movement's creepy stalker that can't stop talking how much he hates the movement. With that kind of attitude, hell will freeze over before this article or the SJW article become anything other than hopeless cesspools of idiots butting heads with each other- if it was possible for either one to have been cleaned up to an acceptable level, it would've long since happened by now.
And what do video game "journalists" (which for the record have been little more than glorified advertisers since the very beginning; you can't have ethics in a field where none existed to start with) and a bunch of blowhards whose power is contained primarily to their imaginations have to do with /tg/? If anything, sperging and raving about them only gives them more power over you because it feeds their delusions of relevance. Furthermore, when it comes to articles like this one, this wiki has a big problem with focusing on the people behind the games, and not the games themselves as they ought to- if must talk about such things, the Beast: The Primordial page is a far better example of what to do since it limits itself specifically to the stupidity as it applies to that particular game. If this is your way of fighting the "invasion" (which so far has been taken seriously only by the extremists, as expected), I suggest you do something other than giving them more ammo. Or better yet, stop caring so much about what they think of you and your hobby. --Newerfag (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
So basically, every line regarding the unquestioningly left-leaning social justice warriors and their followers giving Alt-Right fuel is deleted, and it's basically entirely the fault of 4chan users taking things seriously. Clever. Very clever. --SaltyMan (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Or more precisely the fault of people who forget that the articles on the wiki about /tg/ should focus on how those things affect /tg/. Matters of who gives ammo to who or which side one group of nobodies is leaning towards are all but irrelevant- if it doesn't give the sole focus (or at least the main focus) to how it affects /tg/, it is of no concern. Not like it matters because the page is locked now.--Newerfag (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • How the fuck is this relevant to /tg/ ?! -- The Awkward Man 14-8-2017. 23:28 UTC+1
  • Not everyone who voted trump is pol thank you also the god emperor thing is just a shit meme taking this stuff to personally is just bat shit crazy.Crimsonfalke (talk)

Redirecting to Skub

As I can't trust anyone to even try to remain neutral about this or the SJW page, I'm redirecting them both to Skub. It'll be better for everyone this way, take my word for it. --Newerfag (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, the disagreement is poetically fitting for the subject. --Thannak (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
For the subject, yes. For the wiki as a whole, no. Preserving it has brought nothing but trouble from the moment it was made. --06:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the fight spilling over onto other pages. If anything, its brought the quality of the wiki up since we now have a fitting place for ire to be thrown. Putting an image at the top of both noting that both are battlegrounds and that being self-explanatory as to their nature should be all that's needed. --Thannak (talk) 07:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Great idea! OriginalPrankster (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Fitting that the /pol/ wiki page should be used for containment as much as its subject is. I still favor redirecting to Skub, as I've said on the SJW page. Redmaw (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm still requesting a lock on both pages, just to be absolutely safe. I refuse to let anything regarding this clusterfuck be left solely to chance, let alone trust other users not to use it to start preaching. --Newerfag (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The article should be okay for the time being. Let's all just remember that we should keep it directly related to /tg/- no more, no less. --Newerfag (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Will do, m8. --LGX-000 (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent raids

Recent /pol/ raids on /tg/ regarding GW including more female representation in the future and the harassment "controversy" in the MTG community should probably be reflected in the article. Telcath (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Let's just get rid of these types of articles

I've read the discussion page so I know this is retreading old ground, but this is absolutely stupid. Why not just have a page called "interlopers" that just lists both sides trying to derail the hobby we presumably all love by forcing a real world political viewpoint? We could have that game made by Varg alongside the M:tG shenanigans and WoD blatant politicization within the same category. A dispassionate list of why such things are controversial, rather than right or wrong, would appease every side without dragging my beloved hobby through the filth of RL.

  • I'd second this, except in my opinion the recent skub-war on this and the SJW pages demonstrates to me that I doubt even a universal containment article would not fall to the same factional edit-warring. I mean, just look at the contributors on THIS and the SJW Discussion page. These aren't casual editors for the most part, and yet they (IMO) still fall prone to making basic fallacious arguments that I would expect on Reddit or Slashdot than hashing out a set of boundary rules to edit contentious topics within. So with that in mind, I'd suggest keeping it locked and any proposed changes being discussed here first. Also, please sign your posts. Let's at least try to have some sense of society. -2001:56A:F107:D500:FDA8:6477:8DFD:BDFF 11:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

What Happened to /pol/ Harbor?

/pol/ harbor was a barrel of fun and one of 4chan's greatest acts of internal raiding. Why is it gone?--Cryptek Szerasp (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Probably because what you call "internal policing" (until you "corrected" yourself to try and look less biased) was actually moot fucking over the people who called him out on being that Gawker chick's luggage lad. OriginalPrankster (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Or much more likely, because it had nothing to do with /tg/.Newerfag (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
>Be userbase of /pol/
>Find out that owner of site you frequent might be getting cheated on.
>Two options, quietly inform him, or spread that information over the internet to humiliate him.
>Choose the latter.
>Get /pol/ harbor.
>Bitch and moan as if you didn't strike first and as if by your own social darwinist standards it's not your fault for being weaker in the context of who owns the site and who doesn't.

--Cryptek Szerasp (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

needs more neutralism

this whole article appears from a glance to be written by someone who is butthurt about the existence of pol, shouldnt it be non biast as this is a wikia and not be a general "FUCK POL THEIR RACIST WHITE SUPREMACIST TRUMP SUPPORTING TRASH RACIST RACIST RACISTS as that sounds like something a SJW would say on a heated tumblr rant. we should keep it non biast and keep rage sperging to a minimum --preceding comment left by 203.122.213.20

Oh cool, this episode again.

You might be incidentally right about the rage, but being a wiki =/= being a Wikipedia clone. Most shit is fair game insofar as it accurately represents /tg/ and its views on a given subject without necessarily proselytizing.

I'd understand concerns about the vitriol a bit more if we were contesting accuracy, but as it the article at least bothers to explain why /pol/ is the way it is and why the mass majority of /tg/ (and arguably 4chan as a whole) doesn't care for their existence, rather than the supposed mindless bashing you're focusing on. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:35A5:508A:D6F6:6E6D 06:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

There, decided to compact the article some and hopefully reduced the rage ratio into the process - I'dve neutralized it more but aside from severely doubting your grasp on the idea of "neutralism" (protip: "dere's nice ppl on /pol/ 2 stop being so mean!!1!" does fuck all in terms of that, and means even less if said 'nice' people make up less than 1% of what is otherwise considered a cesspool by most people with very well established reason), just refer to a comment from the last time this was brought up - we're not a historical document and thus have no obligation towards neutrality, or indeed anything else other than detailing shit relevant to /tg/ and being accurate WRT representing their views.

Having to force it in an instance where one side is clearly more obnoxious/in the wrong/etc., or else positing that both sides are equally wrong (not just both of them being wrong in some manner) with no regards to context defeats the purpose, as it constitutes being dishonest for the sake of appeasement. It'd be a moronic an approach on the SJW article, and it definitely is here.

Hopefully this is actually read and taken into consideration instead of your usual pattern of edit warring and rage quitting resuming (and I say that only because your edit history gives off the scent of smelly socks). --2600:1700:19C0:2760:5DC8:A65B:374:F8CD 20:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Where the fuck do you get the notion that majority of 4chan is indifferent to /pol/, its a fetid cessbit of bile that constantly spews forth unwanted shit where it's not needed. Someone makes a thread about swords, someone brings up an African Sword and some sieg heiling dumbasses come in and goes off on how all black people are too dumb, stupid and smelly to ever make a sword, rapefugees and all that other nazi BS.--A Walrus (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The article itself has said as much, too, so I'm about as puzzled as you are as to where they got the idea that this was unwarranted.
On that note, is there a reason my other changes were reverted? I'm not angry, I just genuinely wanted to know, given I'd thought I'd kept the core reasons as to why the board is detested and how it came to be so. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:5DC8:A65B:374:F8CD 20:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)