From 1d4chan

what /pol/ has evolved into these days[edit]

/pol/ is like babys first step into extremism rabbit hole where they mostly TALK about doing things but are too cowardly and/or actually unable to act out...

those who eventually get the will to do so leave to a more extreme place that has people more likely to do something (likely stupid) that or they see that no most people on /pol/ lack actual balls and just leave...hopefully to become a better person..

All of you whine like goddamn normalfags[edit]

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 -- 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/[edit]

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

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[edit]

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/[edit]

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. 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). -- 09:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

/pol/ had some good points in the past[edit]

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%?[edit]

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
  • Migration crisis isn't a clusterfuck. It's an invasion by Gulf States. Prepare your white women for Allah. -- 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.[edit]

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. 22:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Which fucktard ruined the whole origins story?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

/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[edit]

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

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)

really? i did an edit and your just going to remove it? i actually attempted to put time into that edit and you just reverted it and discarded my attempt and changing it to be less biast and just undid it like it never happened

Yes, Bolas. Because it was a shit edit for reasons that I gave here and during the undo. Like the last ones you bitched about before omg leabing foreber!!1!
That's how wikis work. On that note, sign your goddamn posts. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:C9AD:8F0D:FAC0:A0C 16:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

NZ Attacks 3/2019[edit]

This article isnt neutral at all as it is now, and why put the Tarrrant shooting in the article? Look, if there will be a /pol/ article, which doesnt have much to do with what 1d4chan deals about, might as well try to put /pol/ not in a one-sided way (Maybe not totally positive about them, but no need to go totally negative). So the article should be edited, and the Tarrant stuff go out, because even if a big thing, its a temporal thing, and no point in putting a recent events section there. -- 29 march 2019
>why is the board known for extremist right wing opinions and people who obnoxiously spread their propaganda where it's the least appropriate portrayed so negative!!!!

This is just the same hamfisted """"neutralism"""" argument with extra words, probably from the same exact fucking person too. Stop it, five.

The events themselves relate directly to the article as well, the real question being one of depth of coverage if anything (but odds are you're being dishonest about that too, and it's pretty fucking hard to put past you). --2600:1700:19C0:2760:7839:9F37:6E45:FAA8 12:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

(**mother fuck do I hate this way of "talk"ing**) I didn't add the Tarrant material initially, but after adding some stuff and editing it the words are probably 70-80% mine at this time.
I saw stuff on Tarrant start to go up, so I expanded upon it a little, trying to point out in as neutral a way as possible (neutrality can't really include sympathy with Tarrant's actions but it can include a discussion of what happened without going off on a tangent criticizing some of the beliefs that he held which in his mind justified his actions, but for the vast majority of people who hold the same opinions, what he did was despicable.
I didn't have an interest in adding Tarrant stuff to the article, a couple of other people did, but I expanded upon it a little, how it relates to the themes discussed in the article (some of which could use a rewrite as well), the Internet, and *chan culture as a whole, which is rather a more productive discussion than a decontextualized cry "omg white nationalist inspired hate from the horrid depths of the asshole of the Internet."
For the record my personal political inclinations are far closer to /pol/'s than probably the average person here. This doesn't mean that I don't agree that a lot of the people who post on /pol/ and similar are deranged autistic faggots, some of whom I've met IRL. Which actually I think makes me better qualified to write about it given I know more about the political milieu and ideological thought process involved.
The NZ attacks are/were a horrible thing for which I have no sympathy and no reasonable person should, even if I'm pretty fashy and more or less agree with the 14W in principle and share concerns about demography...I'm not going to argue about this here (I say this preemptively should anyone try to debate me on the actual politics rather than the text here...I'm not going to bite...this isn't the place.)
Why it belongs on /tg/'s wiki I can't speak to but if it's going to be there I want to try to point it in a sensible direction. If it doesn't belong there it should go but clearly this has been a looooong discussion predating my being active on this Wiki so I won't get into rehashing what has already been said.
Based Tzeentch (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
To reiterate and increase the chances that this plinks off one of your three remaining brain cells:
  1. 1d4chan is not Wikipedia.
  2. 1d4chan IS NOT Wikipedia.
  3. We are obligated to be accurate and honest ONLY insofar as it relates to /tg/, in the sense that we don't outright make shit up or mince words - for example, pandering to neutrality for the sake of neutrality and especially in lieu of accuracy.
  4. The article is negative because the subject is negative, and unavoidably so - an overwhelming portion of the user base outside of the board fucking hates them, and it's not like there's a shortage of reasons.
  5. To cartwheel past all that and rely on this dead horse of an """argument""" casts more aspersions on you than I could ever be bothered to.

--2600:1700:19C0:2760:7839:9F37:6E45:FAA8 13:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm the user that initially refused to not discuss the Christ Church attacks. This recent terroristic action belongs here because it directly affects 4chan and imageboards in general. Since Based started editing (great job btw, good dedication), basically all I've done is edit for cleanliness and grammar. As Based said, his actions are despicable, but must be presented in as neutral a way as possible (coming from someone who is significantly more socially left-wing than most users here and even a good bit of the board, and who has butted heads with Based more than once in the past). The issue isn't that it shouldn't be neutral because "We're not Wikipedia so therefor shouldn't be informative," it's that you can talk about how horrible his actions were and even criticize his beliefs without regurgitating "Keep /pol/ in /pol/" memes. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
And that's an actually sensible and substantial criticism of the article, far more so than yet another "y u no boff sides" episode. I acknowledged that wrt depth of coverage, albeit somewhat indirectly (which I'll take the blame for not clarifying). --2600:1700:19C0:2760:1864:8241:64C0:C1D9 21:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

A notable events section?[edit]

Hi. Was wondering if I could add a notable events section. I was thinking about Vivian James today, and wanted to read the story of how she was made for a chuckle. I checked the article to find that the section of notable events had been removed for the most part. Some things like /mlpol/ were mentioned, but things like the winterball with /x/ and /o/ were left out, as well as the origin of Vivian and /pol/'s contribution to her. I want to make it clear that I don't want to change any existing content. I've seen the other discussions and I don't care about them. I am only interested in adding some notable events. Maybe a couple images in the gallery. I don't want anything I add to just be undone, so I wanted to ask about it before I went ahead and did it. I made an account for this reason only. I will make no changes to other sections. Only adding the Notable Events. I also intend to keep it, as much as I can, neutral. Only adding the event and giving some backstory as well what happened. Maybe some reaction if significant. Thank you. Skorpio (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

All right, I'll bite the bait.
Vivian was a /v/ thing. /pol/'s waifu OCs came later. As I remember it, /pol/acks did most of the actual investigative journalism that happened during GamerGate, being conspiracy theorists presented with a genuine conspiracy to tear down for once. Meanwhile something like 99% of the /v/tards did nothing but draw Vivian porn, send spam emails to /dev/null and brag about how awesome and ethical they were for doing the aforementioned useless bullshit. Otherwise you should JUST DO IT and see what happens. (Speaking of, a section on the Capture The Flag incident wouldn't go amiss, since that's the only time since GamerGate that /pol/ has done anything even mildly lulzy.) OriginalPrankster (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
It's hardly a conspiracy when everyone and their dog knew that video game "journalism" was thinly veiled advertising almost since its inception; if anything I'm more amazed it took them that long to notice it, and even then only after some idiotic relationship drama that boils down to a pointless "he said, she said" exchange. In any case, if you think documenting their inanity is that important then you should feel free to make a /pol/ wiki. We don't need to involve ourselves in their shit any more than they need to involve themselves in ours. --Newerfag (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

"...the syndrome formerly known as Asperger's..."[edit]

I never knew that Asperger's Syndrome was given a new classification a la PDD. What's that about? 06:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Old news. It's now part of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). --Newerfag (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Wait, hasn't it always been? 16:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Before DSM 5 it was considered it was diagnosed separately as Asperger's Syndrome. The PDD recognizes it currently as a part of ASD, but was previously classified as a separate disorder with overlap with ASD, which ISD 11 still recognizes to some extent (it is, at the very least, a separate diagnosis). That said, I am not a medical professional, this is just read from publicly available sources. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I am a medical professional, and that's about the size of it. Nothing really changed except for the names. It sort of makes sense but is sorta problematic for people with Asperger's syndrome because (at least as far as I can see it) the public kinda knew the term, and had separate pictures in their head for "Aspergers" and "autistic" (there is of course the perennial Chris-chan, Internet posterboy for the diagnosis, who styles himself "high-functioning autistic," originally doing so in the belief that the term meant "high-functioning, AND autistic," which is something that only a high-functioning autistic (and/or AS) mind could do so. Chris himself was a coin flip; he was born slightly before Asperger's became a trendy diagnosis; had he been born a year or two later or in an area with a more prestigious healthcare system he would probably have been labeled Asperger's. For obscure, presumably autistic reasons, he hates the latter term/name. built Of course for the purposes of the cruel vernacular of the Internet, "sperg" (a term that I think arose sometime after /b/ culture was gaining steam) and "autistic faggot" (which, without the "faggot", arising around the same time, was thrown about in a vernacular sense a while earlier) have always had overlapping and essentially indentical meanings :)
But anyway, in psychiatry, names are both totally irrelevant and very relevant. For communications between professionals, they're not reified "things" or "boxes" in which to put cases but simply shorthand for clusters of symptoms (the "boxes" are ticked by pen, not filled by patients, at least by clinicians; sources of research funding and/or healthcare payers, public or private are different story altogether; no edition of the DSM has ever had a single diagnosis which is in any real sense objective, and some things, e.g. severe bipolar(II) w/psychotic features and schizoaffective disorder, or the autistic "spectrum" can be a bit in the eye of the beholder--this being part of the reasoning for eliminating Asperger's. But having a "spectrum" necessarily blends the lines and having "watches too much anime and is weird" and "mutilates self, is violent, and can't speak" as opposing ends defining the same thing is kinda troublesome, BUT the fundamental pathologies are very similar, or at least deal with deficits in similar arenas.)
Either way, crazy is crazy, and "crazy" is a thing that we say behind your back if we treat you but something we try to avoid saying publicly because of stigma. But in the public mind, however, the change might have some unfortunate consequences.
TL;DR: FWIW I don't care what we (as medical professionals) call something, as long as it gets the bills paid (and calling things the right things is very important to getting the maximum amount of money--this is true even in places with socialized/single-payer health systems like the NHS), but when talking to laypeople, these things tend to confuse and that can be bad. A rose is a rose and all that, but a rose is NOT a Rosoideae spp. when you're giving it to your lover. People with Asperger's syndrome, while seem they cover around 90% of school shooters (which is troubling), are not, as autistics, prone to head-banging and needing in-home care. (And this is not to say that your child with Asperger's is at higher risk to become a school shooter, that's so statistically insignificant as to be absurd, he's far more likely to be the victim of violence/bullying because he acts odd or "off"; however, among school shooters, Asperger's/AS is way overrepresented. Conflating the two, by a couple of orders of magnitude, is the same fallacy that /pol/ makes with Blacks and welfare recipients.)
Based Tzeentch (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not gon' lie, I found that surprisingly interesting. I didn't realize that there was a correlation (emphasis on correlation) between Asperger's and violent behaviors. I spent a week in a mental hospital a while back and there was a lady there who was treated brutally (tranquilized for merely saying something, locked in rooms, in one case literally dragged out of the main area), and I wondered to what extent the negative impact on her might be. My stepbrother has Asperger's, and he's very functioning (to the point that many don't even realize), and he's never displayed any violent behaviors at all, so I'm not concerned about the numbers, just the impact that society might have with those diagnosed. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I've had a lot of experience with ASD (both personally and professionally), and as far as I can tell no such correlation exists. In most cases it just seems like when society sees someone with a profound lack of empathy in someone they think "ASD" without considering other possibilities (e.g. antisocial personality disorder AKA sociopathy, or just plain being a terrible person because you don't need a mental illness to be a school shooter). Would you be so kind as to show me your sources so I can look at the data myself?
There's nothing scholarly about my opinion, it's entirely personal experience (and about worthless, I'd imagine). However, I misinterpreted your original response as suggesting that there was a correlation (with no implication of causation) between AS and violent behaviors (like Muslims and terrorism - most terrorists are Muslim, but by far, most Muslims aren't terrorists). --Kracked Mynd (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
My apologies for the lack of clarity-I was addressing Based Tzeentch's claim about ASD being more common in school shooters. As he says he is a medical professional, I would assume he has some kind of sources he could cite in favor of the claim. (Although the wisdom of diagnosing someone with any kind of mental disorder without any direct contact is a big no-no in psychology per the Goldwater rule, and since you can't diagnose the dead a correlation between ASD and being a school shooter would be very difficult to prove at best). And you are right about the correlation about them being victims, there is data supporting that.--Newerfag (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I think you got me wrong in a very significant way: there's no correlation between having Asperger's and being more likely to be a school shooter; school shooters tend to display Asperger's-like pathology with (Adam Lanza) or without (Randy Stair, as far as I can recall) a publicly disclosed official diagnosis (just as two examples.) This is a really different thing. Kracked Mynd is more or less on the money there. Violent behavior is a symptom of severe autism; Asperger's type individuals are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators (so too schizophrenics, contrary to all public belief.) Based Tzeentch (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, I've seen some literature suggesting that ASD may not even be a single spectrum so much as an amalgamation of different conditions with similar presentation but entirely different etiologies- similar to how the common cold can be caused by who knows how many unrelated viruses. But that is a discussion for another wiki, I believe. --Newerfag (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Probably true but probably impossible (currently, anyhow) to prove; and this isn't just for Autism spectrum either, but for most psychiatric disorders. Schizophrenia is now often referred to as a spectrum (which makes sense--and my expertise is in schizophrenia and serious personality disorders, not autism/AS, BTW.) Etiology of psych disorders, period, remains elusive and controversial, despite the efforts of a lot of people in psychiatry to label them as "a disease like any other" and make analogies like "psych meds are like insulin." They aren't. Psychiatry as it is today is almost 100% about treating symptoms, not illnesses, and as I alluded to earlier diagnoses aren't illnesses as much as they are labels. Useful labels, but not illnesses in the same sense as diabetes or even COPD (another diagnosis that covers a lot of different pathologies.) Based Tzeentch (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Autistic person here. I’m probably gonna get destroyed by everyone here, but personally I think Chris is just crazy. I guess it’s a possibility but really reading on him he seems more insane. Gonna leave this comment anon.

If you want to leave a comment anonymous, you have to do it when you're signed out. When you're signed in we can still see the username of whoever left it. -- Triacom (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is important to have around[edit]

I've seen people elsewhere on the internet conflating 4chan and 8chan, and basically assuming that /pol/ is representative of the entire board, with the implication that these websites should be shutdown for encouraging terrorism. I'll admit, as (((someone))) that the residents of /pol/ would happily murder, at times I've found these arguments somewhat compelling.

This article, a product of 4chan, is a well-written description of the history and nature of /pol/ that does not seek to defend it. Frankly, it condemns /pol/ as a bunch of fucking Nazis, and that's important. If I ever see someone damning the whole of 4chan because of /pol/, I will link them this article. Also, the images at the bottom are hilarious. Meshakhad (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It really isn't, this crap is merely symptomatic of whining newfags like yourself coming here or anywhere and demanding your little feefees be respected and the "bad elements" be condemed. Cram it. I've seen this happen a dozen times now, I was one of the earlier contributors here and it is unfortunate that I and others have to clean up articles because of some crybaby who is either too addicted to social signaling or too lacking in self-awareness to refrain from some sort of passing political commentary as if it was in any way pertinent or insightful. This happened to TVtropes which used to be EDlite before Fast Eddie kicked out everybody who wanted to have fun because he couldn't get his precious ad revenue with them being politically incorrect or just irreverent. This has happened to vidya and to ttg corporations, people with actual interest build something and then a bunch of pansies with too much time and a dopomine addiction to feed come in and start complaining. Nobody should care what normalfags think because normalfags shit up your hobby, they come in a demand that things change and that you be excluded from what you built, this is not a "conspiracy theory" but merely a predictive model which is verifiable, it has happened before and it will happen again if you allow it.

I challenge of of you lefty "rebels" to watch the video of that Stralian spagetthi dropper shooting up those muslims and tell me that it isn't hilarious, the man did a damn Halo melee and wouldn't stop verbally shitposting the entire time. His politics are irrelevent in the face of such comedy gold. You pansies have no stomachs so either nutup or get out. Or if you do manage to ruin this place then as always we'll just leave to your roll in the sanitized wallow of every place you take over whether it be a forum or a corporation. Then again if you are in fact a jew as your use of the ((())) implies then you may have an axiomatic need to shit up everybody else's sandbox and no amount of self reflection will cure that. 12345combination (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

How cute, they think we're all obligate leftists. Don't you love herdshit textwalls? --2600:387:B:982:0:0:0:15 00:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
The video isn't funny, it's disgusting and sad. Laughing at the antics of an edgelord turned murderer does not make his acts funny, and all you're doing here is throwing a tantrum and crying because nobody's laughing with you. Guess what? You're the triggered little bitch whining about how upset they are, making a big deal over their feelings being hurt, even though people like you complain about these types constantly. You're a selfish moron with no self awareness, so you never realize you're just as bad if not worse than anyone you're arguing against because you think you're entitled to make judgements about what is and isn't funny, and what is/isn't allowed, then you cry foul when other people do the same. If you're really disgusted by the state of things here, then when you leave remember to take your hypocritical bullshit with you. -- Triacom (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that they that is "the left" aren't the ones who are fucking with you rather than random faggots from /pol/? Have you seen the libshit talking points creeping into Black Library? 'Rites of Passage' as a homo getting "persecuted" and the inclusion of "non-binary pronouns". This is how it starts, this is not a hypothetical it has happened before it will happen again. Your obsession with being "reasonable" and "tolerant" is how this shit gets in. You seem to actually care about updating this site with pertinent information on units thus unlike the faggot I first responded too I actually intend to appeal to your interests rather than just shit on you. The way to prevent this infiltration, and let us not mince words because that is what is happening, is the be cruel and abrassive to drive them out without any appeal or consideration for their particular circumstances. How many times must this pattern be witnessed before you absorb the lesson? You cannot win by playing nice: TV Tropes, SCP, Eclipse Phase, Wizards of the Coast, Pozzfinder, nearly everything they can get their claws into is shit up by their politics. There are no ebil nazis infiltrating DnD with the intent to push fascism. And merely saying things like "oh but you can run your table however you want" is the most pathetic copout imaginable because those faggots who control the publishing decide what face is put forward to those who would approach the hobby in the future. If you want any place that is not full of their trash you must be heartless and must be so offensive and inconsiderate that you drive them out. Otherwise you will be driven into a smaller and smaller corral until one day you have to either give up the ghost or swallow their bullshit. This happened with films, this happened with comics, this happened with mainstream vidya, it has happened on other forums, it will happen again if you allow it. The most important action to take for a site like this is to 1) ruthlessly expunge any politicing faggotry and 2) be crass as shit. That is the only thing that has ever saved a forum from this cancer. (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The way to deal with it is to not accept it, simple as that. Going on the attack does nothing but lower you to their level, if not make you worse. You want an example? I guarantee that anyone who talked about safe spaces when they were coming out only did so in an echo chamber where they didn't have to worry about their views being challenged. Even if somebody did challenge them on it they could just play the victim and say the horrible [insert group buzzword here] is targeting them. Claiming you want freedom of speech/expression then crying when people want something like non-gender pronouns is also hypocritical because you're effectively saying "I want freedom of speech and expression, but only when it's something I like." I've got no tolerance for either group, but that also means I'm not going to go out of my way to attack either unless they do something stupid like tell me a mass shooting was hilarious. In the case of the people you're talking about, that bullshit can be called out as it's put out, and we can leave it there, nothing comes from going further against it unless you want to look crazy and lose any credibility you might have had. Keep in mind that just because I refuse to accept them that doesn't mean I need to court their opposition, as I've pointed out they're just as much of a shitshow. Your first suggestion highlights this perfectly, because you're using your political bias to determine what political bias should be removed, effectively working under the "what I like is good" principle that you're trying to decry. -- Triacom (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I have long since given up on being "reasonable" or "impartial" when it comes to dealing with these faggots, and lets be clear that those who shit up forums are so exclusively "left" that I can't think of an example to the contrary so I'll be unbiased when the data stops being baised, ie never. I also like how you decontectualize my bitching about this pronoun faggotry from the fact that it occurs in a 40k novel. Now I'm cetain that there are thousands of planets where homos are thrown into bogs, Tacitus would approve, and many others where nobody gives a shit about homos but this isn't about some inidivual planet's cultural excentricity this is some faggot whinning about being persecuted for his weird beahavior, in the Imperium. The political body that regularly turns people into meat-robots for filing their taxes incorrectly is not likely to be amible toward anybody being a nuisance. The fact that this faggot is even given the time of day let alone accomidated is so out of context that it is ridiculous. The logial in-setting response could vary between confusion(why do I care?), anger at wasting the precious time of a servant of the Emprah(I should blam you for even bringing to my attention), or indifference(yes everybody is and asshole and so am I). Do you see that by being tolerant of dumb shit all you are doing is tacitly approving of the imposition of dumb shit into your hobby? They aren't going to stop if you don't stop them. I keep reiterating this point, it has happened before it will happen again. They have all the time and inclination in the world to fuck your shit up. And you know if to keep the hobby not shit I all I needed to do to was press a magic button to exclude all girls, homos, jews, whatever from this or any other thing I like I would do it in a heartbeat. As I said I have long ceased to care about being fair or wanting people to like the thing I like. Now I just want what I like to not get shit up. Discrimination is the basis of civilization, the seperation fo the wheat from the chaff, the desirable from the undesirable. If yo do not impose standards and discriminate upon that basis you will be innundated with shit. 12345combination (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I can tell you gave up being reasonable because I fail to see the slightest shred of reason in your arguments. Besides, who appointed you as the defender of "the hobby" and the sole arbiter of what is good and bad for it? If you feel this upset about people not agreeing with you about things, perhaps it's time to consider getting a new hobby instead. --Newerfag (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
First, please learn how to form a comprehensible sentence. Don't get me wrong, I'm no grammar nazi (I'm sure I sound pretty uneducated compared to many users here) and if English isn't your first language, that's fine, but you've definitely crossed into multiple-reads-to-abstract-meaning territory. Second, maybe if it makes you so fucking assmad just go get a different hobby or play with your other basement-dwelling troll friends so you won't ruin anybody else's fun. I say this with complete conviction - some people criticize the use of newer enby pronouns in Wrath of the Omnissiah, largely because Gav Thorpe's not very good at character development, and as someone who isn't enby and doesn't personally know anyone enby who uses any pronoun but he, she, or they, I can tell you that shoehorning a pronoun in without an explanation of personal struggle with identity or world culture regarding gender roles looks a lot like tokenism (again, I'm no expert, and Thorpe is definitely that neighborhood dad who tries to be sensitive but ends up sounding really condescending in the process).
tl;dr cry moar, this is a non-issue, handle it like a fucking adult. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
You don't need to be reasonable or impartial when dealing with either party, you just need to put your foot down and say that shit won't fly. I also don't give a shit which novel or movie or game this pronoun shit is used in, it's all the same and my point would stand regardless of whether it's a 40k novel or a terrible re-write of War and Peace. If you want to call the event out in the universe it occurs in and explain why it's a fucking stupid thing to put into the book, then good, that's exactly what you should do. Explain why it was a terrible idea, you don't need to go on a tirade about how you need to laugh at a mass shooting to get that point across. I really don't get how you think I'm tolerant of what people post in regards to this sort of thing, given how I've just explained to you I've got zero tolerance for either side. Stopping either side is not the same as attacking them, all you need to stop them is to not let them get a foothold in the first place, trying to drive them away pre-emptively is just a stupid idea since you're fighting an invisible enemy who might not even exist. Until they show up and actually try to do something, acting against them will be pointless and, as I've already pointed out, it makes you look crazy. You look like one of those people who sees a women as the lead in a film and immediately comes to the conclusion that "the left" is out to destroy mainstream media. -- Triacom (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Nobody cries at pronouns, they mock. What you're claiming is false equivalence at best and windmill at worst. --Agiletek (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I cry about pronouns. Almost literally sometimes. It is worthy of mockery, but it is also a very definitive and very malignant ideology at work that is undermining the very foundations of society (and not even just Western civilization, society period): marriage, family, man, woman, child. "My pronouns are ..." is an ontological claim. Going about politics based on false and ideologically motivated ontological convictions: viz. a man is a woman, two men are married; these are not just ridiculous or politically unacceptable but ontological contradictions. It's become cliche to quote Orwell, but in his terms from 1984, it's "blackwhite" thinking, "the ability to believe that black is white, to know that black is white, and to forget that one ever believed the contrary." To try to impose it externally is inherently totalitarian and dangerous to the fabric of society. At best, it is ridiculous and makes people stupid; at worst, the government will literally try to impose that black is white (e.g. he is she) as we're seeing in some places in the E.U. and Canada, for instance. Based Tzeentch (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
You seem to think society is incredibly fragile if a couple of odd pronouns being used more often will somehow manage to bring it crashing down after roughly 5000 years (as opposed to things like nuclear war or a random meteorite hitting the Earth and making us join the dinosaurs). Incidentally, right up until the Protestant Reformation marriage was considered a purely religious matter whose civic aspects were negligible at best. --Newerfag (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
like imagine deliberately cartwheeling past all the obvious and increasingly worsening symptoms of government oversight to the point of surveillance states and fabricating potential pretenses for invading other countries to pin the death of society on some people's personal expression of identity that you have no realistic control over. --LGX-000 (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
And what does going out of our way to bring them up and and attack them get us? Nothing, nothing at all. Don't let that shit have a foothold here, because it doesn't belong here. That being said, not allowing it doesn't mean we need to swing over to the other side and imagine we're pissing off the first group though. -- Triacom (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
and if ya look to the right over here, we got Textbook Butthurt /pol/ack Responses #678 (displaying no stomach for criticism while insisting everyone else has their feelings hurt), #943 ("waaaaaah why doesn't anyone appreciate my dime-store ultrajaded nihilism disguised as humor"), #4095 ("people should be allowed to make fun of sacred cows except for me") and #7985 ("everyone who doesn't share my ideology is a Triggered Leftist™").
like shit, if I knew someone was gonna type paragraphs in defense of this shit and NOT expect to be seen as a fucking brain-caved-in goober, I'dve brought my bingo card. --LGX-000 (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

What criticism? I don't give a damn what you think about /pol/, there should not be a /pol/ page or an SJW page on this site; there should not be little political asides in articles here. And this place should call people faggots constantly and revel in not being a safe place for anything except the culture that has alwasy been at its heart. You cannot offend me because I laugh at the missery of all, you can however piss me off when you come in and try to fuck with something that I helped to create long before you came and decided to shit the bed. Stop being a faggot, this is a place for the culture of table top and the mocking thereof. I will be conveining with other oldfags who know me and will be attempting to purge all the stupid political shit from this site, all of it without regard for anybody's sensabilities. I honestly hadn't bothered to go over this place with a fine toothed comb for years as I found most new articles about the units to be decent if lacking in the cruel childish humor of the older pages but that could get monotonous if every article was written in that style. Apparently I misplaced my trust and became lax, which I will now rectify. However even if this place goes to shit you must realize you don't "win" you just get to wallow in shit while those who built something worthwile bemoan the loss for an instant then fuck off elsewhere and try to make something that is not shit again. Honestly you faggots wonder why the /tg/ boards themselves have started to take a dump on the place, I've seen you complaining about that on other talk pages. (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

"You cannot offend me... you can however piss me off-" Same difference. If you're yelling at people to stop being a faggot then you're definitely offended and in denial about it. Take a step back and think about your edits, either here on on the wiki as a whole, because you're not going to fix something by throwing shit at it. If you're going to be adding in offensive language just to piss off some invisible leftist you think might read the wiki one day, then you might as well change your name to Don Quixote and start charging windmills, because you're going to look just as crazy. -- Triacom (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
You can always tell a newfag :that just heard 4chan is the place to be a political whiner on the news, because they don’t know Rule 44. --Thannak (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
While I agree that there is absolutely a vocal minority of /tg/ goers who genuinely dislike 1d, a solid majority of /tg/ chapters and other creations are posted here by anonymous users straight from the threads. I'd say the wiki is serving it's purpose. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Mr. Combination, we are the majority. We are telling you you are fucking wrong, and that your shit for brains edits will not be tolerated. I don't have patience for idiots like you who run around trying to be these Grandiose figures when they are nothing. You wanna adjust the entire god damn wiki? Good fucking luck punk: You're outnumbered and on our watch list, as this talk page very clearly demonstrates. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
"I don't give a damn what you think about /pol/" before making a liar of themselves in the very next line and the ensuing wall of text. Ya sure seem to give a damn about this site reflecting your specific idea of *chan humor, that's for sure. --LGX-000 (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Everyone observe these faggots for a moment proving every point I brought up. "we are the majority" says the faggot who joined this year clearly doing the very thing I have accused many of the newfags of doing; namely coming into a place with an established culture and style and then demanding oldfags "get with the times" or "stop being a meanie bigot". "We are telling you you are fucking wrong, and that your shit for brains edits will not be tolerated," what edits? Did you even bother to look at my contribution log like I did your own? Find a single political comment made by me other than in other Talk sections regarding this very same issue. That is a rhetorical request of course because the edits in question do not exist. /pol/ or the "the right" are not shitting up this place they are not creating worhtless articles about SJWs, some other faggot did that and then yet more faggots seem to be jumping to their defense. That is why we should not have a page about /pol/ or SJWs, I'm arguing and will be pursuing the elimination of political speech on this site with the assistance of other oldfags with special privelages. This place was founded with unspoken but originally rigidly enforced rules, which you are obviously ignorant of being newfags. Or perhaps given your own statements(speaking in the plural regarding many of you in this talk section) about how the meanie oldfags just need to change to suit your whims you are engaging in very behavior I have ranted about already that is the deliberate infiltration of existing sites with the intent to fuck them up. Whether it takes months or even a year because I have other responsibilities and cannot play around with this every day I will endevour to unfuck it. This place is not a democracy it is run by those who started the site and maintain it, some of whom do know me in a passing fashion as I was one of the first contributors. And I know other early contributors whom I will solicit for assistance. If you faggots think that the tacit admission of an old boys club in a community is "grandiose" then you have some low standards.12345combination (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The established culture you boast about has changed, and given that you do not in fact maintain the site (that's the job of Root and AssistantWikifag) you're not in a position to do anything about it. If any of those old farts you plan to beg for help cared about your temper tantrum, they would have intervened by now. Not like they could do anything like what you want because again, only AssistantWikifag and Root have "special privileges. The latter has been informed of your plans, and I expect his judgment will not be to your liking.--Newerfag (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Times change, people change. In most cases, people mature. I don't go around calling everyone retarded for instance, because I know it demeans the effect when you use it so often, and I don't force swears into every single article because I'm well passed the point where the word 'fuck' is funny. If you don't save that for the people/moments that really deserve it, then the entire wiki feels cheapened as a whole. Likewise the reason the wiki changed is because other people's opinions have also changed over the years and the wiki has changed with them, as they've offered their own edits and insights the wiki has come to reflect that since it's a community effort, not a place where one user is king. Nobody cares how long anybody else has been here, all that matters is what they contribute to it, and in that regard you're definitely lacking compared to any other user who's been here half as long. Nobody is saying you cannot post anything, we're telling you that if you do post something you should be mature enough to deal with the opposition you might get in response to it. Yelling out that you know what's best is no argument at all, and your head's stuck so far up your own ass you're unable to see that. If you ever do move beyond the mindset that everyone is wrong but you and everyone needs to think as you do, then please come back. Until that point, fuck off. -- Triacom (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I wonder if he also noticed that for all his supposed oldfag cred, he hasn't explained that three-year gap between his last meaningful edit and his first shitpost here. Really pulling your weight here, buddy. --Newerfag (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, not knowing one of the most important rules of 4chan. Rule 44: Not Your Personal Army. --Thannak (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
right??? lmfao, what a fucking failure. --LGX-000 (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't believe that I, an aspiring poli-sci minor, am gonna say this; tone the fucking politics down. This wiki isn't here for politics, its here for tabletop. Wanna fight for western civilization? Cool. Join Turning Point USA. We don't want any part of it. Last thing we need are anon editors from either side trying to write in their headcanon that either makes our hobby look like degeneracy or Steven Universe shit. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly why I'm not tolerating either side on this wiki. This isn't the place to talk about gender pronouns or to just add offensive language for no purpose besides pissing off an imaginary reader. Anything added should be relevant to the discussion at hand, and to use 40k an example, calling the Tau greater good god a retarded concept is fine because you'd be able to back that up with in-universe reasons for why Phil Kelly needs a kick to the balls. With that in mind I think I'm justified in saying that adding offensive language onto the wiki just so you can imagine you're triggering a snowflake is retarded. It's on the same level as talking yourself up to a mirror and thinking you're the only one who needs to find your own jokes funny. -- Triacom (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Or, IMO, keep it to your talk page. That's your personal safe space. Get triggered by pronouns? Talk page. Get triggered by not-your-ideology? Talk page. Want to crow about your latest recipe for corn bread? Talk page. - 09:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Funny how you say or, since that's my thoughts on it too. If somebody wants to bitch and moan on their talk page about any of this then that's fine by me, however it doesn't belong on the main page of anything besides a user bio. -- Triacom (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
This page exists, along with the SJW page, because 1d4 exists as a wiki based on tabletop gaming AND the board culture of 4chan /tg/. As /pol/tards and SJW both have had an impact on the board culture due to being raided off and on by them both in the form of bitchy trolls and shitposters, a page explaining who they are exists. It is not designed to be intentionally offensive nor complimentary, merely giving a thorough explanation of them regardless of what the reader's political affiliation is while lacing it with humor ranging from references to other media and puns with expletives mixed in. A secondary purpose is served since it allows for humor on other pages, such as linking characters to one or the other (for example linking Magnus The Red to SJW to make a joke about psykers being an oppressed group in 40k, or linking Harlequin Eldar to /pol/ for their xenophobia which provides an ironic contrast to their flamboyant nature). If you don't like it because you hate being reminded that they exist or want a page making your political view and leaving out any other frame point because you don't know Rule 44 or think that it doesn't apply here, cry some more. --Thannak (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
This. Exactly this. This wiki, no matter how seemingly disconnected from /tg/, is based off it. All content comes from it, and most views here are expressed somewhere on /tg/. /tg/ is also a very diverse space - I am not the only queer person who browses it, there are plenty of threads with people that pop up - there are also /pol/acks who regularly post on /tg/, enough that there was a shitty "Sororitas are trannies" thread at least once a week for the last couple of months.
I have disgreed with plenty of users as to how politics should be presented, more than one on this page alone. That said, not having (relatively neutral but still appropriately mocking) articles for cesspools like /pol/ would be mistaken for what this wiki is and what it's influenced by. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Fuck all this[edit]

The political shit is pissing me off. I say we just nuke the SJW and /pol/ pages and be done with it. Unless there is a better course of action we can take? --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

As I said on Newerfag's page. Lock them and redirect to Skub, in my opinion. -- 03:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
And as I said there, that's a perfectly good approach. It was not entirely terrible while it lasted, but unless someone wants to patrol this and the SJW pages nonstop the nuclear option is the best approach. --Newerfag (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Whenever I have free moments I usually erase any of the bullshit that gets put on them (unless somebody else has already undone it sooner), and if they were permanently protected I wouldn't mind continuing to do so. It would cut down on the amount I'd need to roll back by around 99%. -- Triacom (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
It is adorable when Macron's outlandish claims of being Jupiter, claiming Africans have a civilizational problem and centralizing powers being even crazier than Le Pen gets deleted quietly. Of course, it's only the Orange Man and his ilk who is bad. Anyone who opposes them (nevermind Sanders being worse in many aspects and Macron being as crazy, if not crazier than Orange Man) must be good. I once had added details about explaining the flaws of SJW's whose antics triggered the reactionary alt-right movement; not surprised they got deleted. Remember kids, it's only inherent evil when it's the dominant ethnic group of the country, everyone else does bad things because of MUH OPRESHUNZ! --SaltyMan (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
The page is about a 4chan board, not politics. Any edits that try to include actual politics into it are missing the point, but since you do want to discuss actual politics, can you point out to me where the other people you mention locked children in cages and left them in terrible conditions for so long that they began dying? If not, then they are not worse than Trump. -- Triacom (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Also at what point are they endorsing Macron, implicitly or otherwise? From what I read, Le Pen was the horse they bet on, and that's most of why she's mentioned. No Macron apologism is required to note that Marine was basically /ourguy/ for /pol/acks and got BTFO. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:FD6D:AD24:F9C7:A2F 21:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

HWNDU and Other Things[edit]

I watched the Internet Historian videos. Should we mention that /pol/ did these things, or would that paint them in too positively a light? --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

TBH, I'd just elect to leave the page alone, put up a quarantine tag, and leave it as is, along with the SJW page. Trying to discuss radical political sides on this website is impossible, even as a joke. Especially when the majority favors one side. Basically, let's just treat them like how we treat /pol/ and tumblr: containment sites. Tactical Mehren (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Seconded, just lock these pages, they were mostly fine before the recent editwars. This potato is too hot to handle for anybody, so let's just drop it. --Taufag (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Not just lock but delete it. Initially it was going OK but sentence by sentence, the whole story is being rewritten, bit by bit as if the SJW side of the politics are innocent misguided people but /pol/acks are Nazis who started everything. Best completely annihilate both pol and SJW pages and move on; a lot of lefties here who think Muslims had a Golden Age and went purely evil by Crusades. Anyone who thinks that way is free to talk to me at Discord. How about you all hear from a guy who is a Turk and lived in his country most of his life and sees Islam as a threat to all civilization? Go ahead, call my brown ass a Nazi. --SaltyMan (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Basically everyone in those days was a warmongering jackass by modern standards, the only difference was in their extent and ability to actually wage those wars, but that is beside the point. And while I agree with you (for once) that we're better off without those two pages, Root and AssistantWikifag never delete pages on this wiki unless they're literal spam. I can't remember the last time they used a page lock either, so for the foreseeable future we're stuck with the repeated reverts and edit wars until someone can convince them to bring the hammer down. --Newerfag (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Agree to potential quarantine and maybe a rewrite pending, hard disagree to deletion. Inclined to disagree re: mentions of HWNDU on basis of relevance rather than origin - doesn't matter if it WAS /pol/ that started it, if it's not /tg/ relevant then it's probably best as a footnote, absolute most. Also bewildered disagreement re: this Salty guy and his constant insistence on making things like this about him and the fact that he's not white: while I don't necessarily think you are one, there's plenty of non-white Nazi sympathizers around, so that doesn't hold as much water as you'd think - especially not if you're constantly making comments like this AND citing Turkish ancestry. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:C588:9B78:EF00:1669 03:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Quarantine yes, lock absolutely, hard no on the deletion. /pol matters to 1d4 _because_ it was part of the same cesspool that gave rise to /tg. The SJW page does not, because there never was such a forum (except for /b rarely and /d if you'd gone the full-Joker kaleidoscope view). We never had to have rules like "Keep SJW in /sjw", nor did we have to deal with their ridiculous raid attempts. - 22:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't stereotype conservatives[edit]

It is wrong to say that conservatives as a whole are racist. While it is true that conservatives are a lot more racist than democrats, the vast majority of conservatives are both anti-racist and anti-fascists. The real problem with conservatives is that they don't want to support anti-racist and anti-fascist causes because they are mostly being lead by liberals.

Oh? You mean to tell me conservatives don't lead anti-racist/anti-fascist causes? I wonder why. I also wonder if there's a word for those who do not support anti-racist causes... -- Triacom (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
People who lead fascist causes are not conservatives. They are fascists. Conservatism and fascism are mutually exclusive. I will however I agree that people who conservative are leading some racist causes. What I am against is phrasing it as though all conservatives agree with them.
If they're not opposing fascist causes then they're pretty clearly making a statement, especially when they come out against anti-fascist causes. The same goes for anti-racist causes, except in this case a lot of them go full mask-off and announce that they're racists. If your morals are so frail that you'll oppose an entire idea based on some of the people in it, then you can never honestly say you wanted to be a part of it, regardless of who lead it. -- Triacom (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I personally do not oppose anti-fascist and anti-racist ideas. I am saying that SOME other conservatives do.
Is that where you leave it or do you also oppose fascist and racist causes? Because not opposing anti-racist/anti-fascist causes is not the same as opposing fascist/racist causes. -- 20:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I oppose them wholeheartedly. I will not support causes that push racism or fascism. Fascism is completely incompatible with my conservatism and racism is hateful nonsense.
Again, opposing racism/fascism is not synonymous with supporting anti-racist and anti-fascist causes. In my opinion, anyone who doesn't support those because of some of the people in them never cared much for those causes in the first place. -- Triacom (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
There is a bit of confusion here. I think I was unclear about what I was talking about when I used the word "cause." I support anti-fascist and anti-racist ideas but I cannot support every GROUP that pushes them because many of them are also pushing things I also believe are wrong. If a group is pushing for anti-racism but also for any kind of authoritarianism, I cannot support them. It's the same reason why I identify as a conservative but not a Trump supporter. Even though I agree with a lot of his economic policies, I cannot support him because of his handling of immigration issues and failure to be anti-racist enough.-- 23:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. There's a fair bit there I'd disagree with you on but I'm just happy you explained it in detail. -- Triacom (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome. --2601:203:480:4C60:E1A9:A662:2241:2D64 05:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Fascism is the end result of conservativism. -- HussarZwei (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
You're the one that's behaving like a fascist, actively dehumanizing everyone you're politically against. Horseshoe theory is in effect here. The only one rocking the boat and swinging the pendulum is you.

People like you either don't know or refuse to know what words like conservative and fascist actually mean. A conservative is somebody who thinks the government cannot solve every problem because government causes more problems than they solve when they try. A fascist is somebody who thinks that turning the whole country into one big military without any freedom will somehow magically solve all problems
I'm against Stalinists but you don't see me dehumanizing them. -- HussarZwei (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Then why are you dehumanizing other people?
He's gone wild with the dehumanizing because Stalinists no longer exist/live en-masse while the current topic of his hate does. He actively wishes harm and death on a very wide group of people who think politically different than him, and it's easier to do so and think himself the big hero of the day when said victims are no longer thought of as human. Now, going after conservatives and trump voters is one thing. But Christians, too? Someone's trying to be trendy! Here, look at these two lines of his (source): "Where most moral panics in America and the world as a whole are rightfully attributed and traced back conservative Christians", "(the latter often alongside being anti-religious - with Christianity rightfully singled out)" - someone's got a "rightfully" hateboner for Christianity! Psst, don't tell him that black Christian conservatives exist, his head will "rightfully" explode! P.S. Why against Stalinism in particular? How about Marxism and Leninism and Maoism, do those count as well?
I don't think he actually is against Stalinism and if he is then it is not relevant. He just brought up the topic of Stalinism to confuse and distract us.-- 21:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I am aware black Christian conservatives exist and I condemn those monstrosities as well. —- HussarZwei (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Follow my example and love the people but hate the ideas.--2601:203:480:4C60:8A1:B1F6:D53A:1F6E 21:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

All right, we need to draw the line.[edit]

HussarZwei, while I also don't like conservatives and find them deplorable you're taking this way too far. Calling Nazi's beating people with baseballs bats "conservatism in a nutshell" is ridiculous, and you need to dial it back. We're moving past "it's just a joke", and it's a stupid defense used by the people you're trying to demonize, so there's no excuse unless you want to drop yourself down to their level. You should also know that as soon as you start claiming something is the literal Nazi's you've lost the plot and need to get back on track, so how about we do that and end this edit war? -- Triacom (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. You want politics, go to Rational Wiki. We're not here to spread political crap, we're here for a funny and helpful take on /tg/ related material. Politics is a distant third (if that), and if you can't keep them out of what you edit, I suggest you don't edit at all. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Great idea, Rational Wiki is a great resource on fighting /pol/acks and a great website in general. It really offends the /pol/acks.HussarZwei (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Holy shit, never mind that Rational Wiki's "greatness" is debatable, this article and others are not a screed against conservatism and would benefit greatly from you not trying to make it one, you absolute drone of an ideologue.
I'm pissed primarily because I'd been thinking to edit this page to reflect that /pol/ is not the origin of all things conservative or anti-SJW, but takes common elements of those various schools of thought to their logical conclusion/extreme - not so much in the interest of "fairness" as it is the interest of accuracy. I was thinking "If the overall sentiment is still gonna be "fuck /pol/" end of the day, why not be clear(er) on where they often stand without resorting to soapboxing or devil's advocacy?" but fat chance of that working out with this stupid shit going on. -- 19:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Go ahead and do it if you are confident you can write it fairly, clearly, and accurately.--2601:203:480:4C60:A5BC:EC11:4770:51BE 21:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Yet again we're starting to see an edit war[edit]

Is there a way to lock this and the SJW pages? I'm getting rather tired seeing the incessant bickering and edit wars breaking out on them. The pages are, generally, fine as is and should only be edited to fix legitimate grammar mistakes rather than to be yet another battleground for the far left and far right to get caught up in. --Konrad13 (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Nobody here is far right as far as I can tell.--2601:203:480:4C60:70D7:413F:5717:6DAC 07:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
That's because this recent spat was a war of semantics. I hardly think it matters whether or not the page says "mostly inaccurate" vs "often inaccurate" for example. -- Triacom (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

New edit war over the What do? section[edit]

So there is currently a new edit war going on over the What Do? section. I was the guy who originally wrote the stuff about love and respect. The section was originally added by Zwei. While I do believe in treating everyone with love and respect, the main reason why I wrote that stuff was to overwrite Zwei's calls for violence, and I did it without really trying to make it well written or give actually good advice on how to respond to /pol/ people. The further edits to it haven't been by me, that was a different anon. I don't really care if the section stays as long as Zwei doesn't fill it with calls for violence again.--2600:1010:B12D:199A:4DE3:BD2B:A978:AA97 21:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Although it would be nice if the section did stay, but gave some actually good advice. I have no experience with dealing with real racists so I have no idea if anything actually works on them. But still, love and respect everyone no matter how evil they are. Take their behavior as an example of what not to do. Half of the reason why SJWs are obnoxious is that they don't take that advice.--2600:1010:B12D:199A:4DE3:BD2B:A978:AA97 21:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
You don't "correct" a lack of perspective by exhibiting it in the "other" direction - specifically in the case of Zwei, there was no need to "counter" where removal was already justifiable. Also if you admit to having no experience with actual racists, then mayhaps consider that your attempts to offer advice on them anyway aren't gonna be all that sound in basis, especially not this kumbaya-type shit. -- 22:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I know that. I mostly believe in treating people with love and respect as a way to make yourself better, not make other people better. Convincing other people to follow the same philosophy, especially when they believe in the opposite, is much harder than it is in cartoons.--2600:1010:B12D:199A:4DE3:BD2B:A978:AA97 22:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I personally know when people aren't worth my time and energy and prefer to act accordingly. My problem is, the person undoing these edits currently isn't even giving a reason like I am, and that's nettling. -- 03:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Do they have a point?[edit]

I'm going to go into this section in detail, because it's just so wrong on so many levels, and to make it easy to follow I'll break it down into bullet points.

  • Almost everything about racism is utterly indefensible, but

Not sure why this is here at all, when you write "but" at the end you invalidate everything you just said before it. This is like seeing somebody go "I'm not a racist, but" and then go into a racist tirade that they honestly believe.

  • While /pol/acks are usually fucking retarded, they do raise valuable points about SJWs and marxist infiltration of the hobby.

Do you know why nobody besides people on the far right bring up "marxist infiltration" and especially the "cultural marxism" that it's being used in place of? It's because this "marxist infiltration" is literal Nazi propaganda. I'm not joking, that's actually what it is and anyone using it has either bought into the propaganda, or they don't know its origin. Either way it is also a buzzword that has been turned into "anything for other people" and has become meaningless. If you want to talk about issues then do so without buzzwords and explain what you mean so that you're not written off as another person spouting out Nazi propaganda, which gets you dismissed by the wider public.

  • For example, redditards have created a hub to attack our hobby known as "Sigmarxism", which is intent on destroying the hobby as we know it and transforming it into a leftist pipe dream where anyone with a dissenting opinion is kicked out of your local game store.

This has nothing to do with /pol/. They do not care about the hobby, they're too busy talking about Jews who they think are secretly running the government or why they think black people should be gunned down by police. The paragraph itself pretends as if this page is related to Warhammer in some way, and it is not. The SJW page exists for this because it covers a type of person rather than an image board, and whining about them on the page for that image board just shows you've gotten off-topic.

  • And they are gaining influence, with GW releasing a press statement saying anyone who disagreed with the controversial "BLM" and "Antifa" movements isn't welcome in the hobby regardless of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech does not apply to private corporations, let alone non-American private corporations. So long as it's a private business they are well within their rights to restrict what you can say on their premises, and if you have a problem with that then you should take it up with your government. To go a bit further, any private corporation is well within their right to choose who to associate itself with and who it shouldn't. You do not own the hobby or the company that makes it, they are free to do as they choose and if you don't like what they're doing, then it is up to you to change their minds. You are not going to be doing that by whining on a wiki about how it's unfair they're listening to people you don't like.

  • But because of the racism and fascism /pol/ is tainted with, do not let yourself be drawn into them just because you are against far leftism because you will be proving the far left is right. There are tons of much more reasonable progressives fighting to oppose the far left and you will not find them on /pol/. They make the same good points against far leftism without the racism.

Bringing this up because it's the only paragraph that actually makes a point and is on-topic. That being said it's also wildly out of place because the rest of the section has very little to do with the image board. -- Triacom (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thinking it over, I should also add a special bit for Bigboiphrogface:

  • In addition, the points /pol/ tends to make about race are objectively correct.

/pol/ believes in phrenology, their points about race are not objectively correct.

  • It isn't racist to say this, facts don't care about your feelings.

Indeed, and anyone who has looked at the facts wouldn't be saying what you're saying. Facts can be manipulated, a highly patrolled area will have more reported crime in it than an area that is hardly patrolled at all, but that doesn't mean they don't have the same crime rate, as a quick example. You seem like a person who 100% believes the Bell Curve despite that being clear garbage once you bother to look at its sources. -- Triacom (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Something else I should probably mention is that I was going to delete the section I'm referencing, but it turns out an anon did it for me while I was typing this. Good on you anon. -- Triacom (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I tried to go through and refute these points, but the way I did it doesn’t sit well, if only because it makes the section fucking annoying to read. I still think the points need to be made, though, and if anyone else sees a better way to do it while still keeping the message that /pol/ is generally retarded and uninformed, by all means do correct my shit-spewing. 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:1B 14:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The thing to remember is /pol/ doesn't have a unified message and is a bunch of reactionary idiots spouting out the first thing that comes into their heads. They can't make a point if they never had a point, and that's why the "Do they have a point?" Section is ultimately garbage. They're not trying to change something or make social commentary, they're on the same level as an old man yelling at a cloud, and people are acting as if that old man has a point. -- Triacom (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Ah, that’s why it didn’t sit well with me. Deleting it was probably for the best, then. 18:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Fast-forward to current month and now there's a giant paragraph full of "love not hate" shitlib rhetoric.

I honestly wish HussarZwei had been permabanned, because this article's been set back twice as hard by people trying to overcorrect and compensate for him and his dogshit crusading, and any attempt to fix that's been reverted. I'm planning to take a crack at rewriting it myself, and I'm only announcing it so I can put the people who inevitably try to undo this on notice as well - it's gone well beyond the scope of how /pol/ interacts with /tg/ into full-on soapboxing, and to top it all off the soapbox is old, worn out, and has no structural integrity. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:EC2C:888D:3EC7:8C07 06:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? His edits were reverted and literally the only thing that happened after that was some anon tried to blank the page twice. -- Triacom (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh I think I get it, you're upset because the section doesn't say you should get pissed off at them? That's what I'm guessing, in any case that's what you shouldn't do. They're trolls, getting mad at them is just going to feed them. If you want to change it to say you should ignore and/or avoid them then go ahead, I doubt anyone will complain. -- Triacom (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I mean you would think so, but... also that's actually not my complaint, so much as it is "do these midwits think trying to teach 80s Saturday Morning Cartoon tier lessons about Daryl Davis will actually have any kind of real effect?" Like another anon pointed out in a section above, it's just feel-good nonsense that's utterly pointless. I do appreciate your last point, though. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:9875:DCC3:EF20:4BE1 21:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Not really, nothing pisses off /pol/ more than staying polite to them, so long as you're polite to the point of patronizing, it makes those kinds of people throw a fit for some reason. -- Triacom (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't whitewash /pol/ or SJWs[edit]

This is about an edit war involving the SJW description. User 2600:6c58:637f:e506:39f3:cb49:1292:a8cc keeps denying that SJWs can be dangerous. When presented with links providing examples of SJWs hounding people to the point of attempting suicide - as seen here and - they dismissed it on grounds of "Facebook isn't proof" despite neither link being to Facebook. I ask that the fact that SJWs can also be dangerous be added to that description (along with the links) and kept that way, and that User 2600:6c58:637f:e506:39f3:cb49:1292:a8cc, you accept this and stop making those edits. -- Flufflion (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2020 (EST)

That's ironic. You're asking not to whitewash /pol/ or SJWs because people got mad that a fan artist was whitewashing black people. As for your second example, people were mad at how anti-gay she was because she was... anti-gay. Maybe racists and transphobics shouldn't throw literally-suicidal hissy fits just because people correctly pointed out that they're racist and transphobic. TiamatRoar (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Citation needed. How was the stuff with the My Little Pony characters race-lifting when they're talking magical ponies who can transform into a human form and they aren't even corresponding to real-life ethnicities? The site said those where ACCUSATIONS - not that she fit the bill. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything regardless of whether it's true or not. It's not as if SJWs would never falsely accuse someone (by the way, that's sarcasm). That doesn't make her a racist or a transphobe. Even if she made bigoted art, to say she deserves to die for it would make you worse than her. And what about the example with the porn star who committed suicide? Nothing to say about that? Are you an SJW? because with your one-sided raving here it sounds like you're swallowing the accusations without a hint of research, just like they do. By the way, are you User 2600:6c58:637f:e506:39f3:cb49:1292:a8cc? Flufflion (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2020 (EST)
Who's user 2600:6c58:637f:e506:39f3:cb49:1292:a8cc? Also, the citation is your article. If you think the article is flawed (which you clearly do, judging by your response to me about its inability to actually detail what the artist did), then you shouldn't post it as YOUR source in the first place. If people undid your edit because it uses bullshit articles which you agree are bullshit because as you've stated, they don't properly go into detail about what's going on to the point where I am apparently mistaken because the article misled me and now we need to actually talk about what what the artist in the article ACTUALLY did compared to what they were accused of because it couldn't even be bothered to detail that clearly (it doesn't even state whether or not the accusers were wrong about what the artist did so suddenly apparently it's MY job to go find OTHER sources to cite about it?), then they were clearly right to undo your edit for using terrible articles. TiamatRoar (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
That's your big problem? One of the links? Sounds like an excuse considering that both links were removed despite you only complaining about one and you didn't acknowledge the link about the porn star who committed suicide. I suspect you're lying about not being the person who deleted my edits, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now. At any rate, I've replaced that link with a better one, so the point - and my most recent edits - stand and should be left as I made them. Flufflion (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2020 (EST)
I've already addressed your second link in my initial reply. At this point you're just trying to win any argument at all rather than prove your initial point. TiamatRoar (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I wonder what the SJW stance on cyberbullying is... if you say they advocate for it then I'm going to call you out for being full of shit. -- Triacom (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Like any other group, SJWs can be hypocrites and bullies, so your claim is invalid, especially since you provide no evidence for your claims. They could say they're against it, then do it themselves. At least TiamatRoar addressed one of the links I posted. By the way, are you User 2600:6c58:637f:e506:39f3:cb49:1292:a8cc? Flufflion (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2020 (EST)
No it is not, if somebody within a certain group does something condemned by that group, then they are not a good representation of that group. Also I do not edit the wiki without signing in and I only have this account. -- Triacom (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
"No tolerance for intolerance" is the position of raging "left" Twitter crowd. Have fun pretending it's not. -- 18:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
And cyberbullying is intolerance, which is why they don't like it. -- Triacom (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
They claim not to like it, but there are SJWs quick to weaponize it if someone challenges their cause (eg; look at how the Reylo shippers attacked Daisy Ridley's boyfriend and Adam Driver + Adam's family... they even went beyond that to STALKING). Flufflion (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2020 (EST)
I fail to see how toxic fans = SJWs beyond some misguided belief that "everyone I don't like are SJWs", Flufflion. --Konrad13 (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Are you seriously claiming that shippers are SJW's? Now I'm wondering if you know what SJW's are. -- Triacom (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
> cyberbullying is intolerance, which is why they don't like it You are not very clever, are you? -- 18:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Find me proof that SJW's as a whole advocate for cyberbullying. -- Triacom (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Cancel culture as a whole? The request is on par with "find me proof that all /pol/ are racist", btw. -- 14:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, cancel culture isn't cyberbullying, and has been used so often as a synonym for boycotting that it no longer means anything. People will claim on national tv their voice is being taken away because their products aren't selling as well, which is nothing more than corporate whining that they aren't getting rich as quickly as they'd like. It isn't cyberbullying when you choose not to buy Goya beans. Secondly, if somebody makes a claim, they need proof. If you're going to say SJW's advocate for cyberbullying, I'm calling bullshit until you can back that claim. -- Triacom (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Why would I care for someone with access to national TV or, Heavens forbid, corporations? I'm talking regular people out there who are getting attacked for often perceived slights. Once again, feel free to just brush it off and pretend it's not happening. If the initial idea is good it just can't turn into something bad, right? -- 16:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
That's not cancel culture, cancel culture is when people attack something with the intent of getting it cancelled. Arguing with somebody is not cancelling them, neither is saying offensive things to them. Like I said before though, if you're going to claim this behaviour is typical of SJW's, you're going to have to prove they condone it. -- Triacom (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Let's not forget that the Right also partakes in cancel culture as well. You only need to look at how they reacted with Kaepernick and Nike to see that it's not a Left nor Right thing but a protest thing. --Konrad13 (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Except that was only after a few years of college cancellers being prominently reported on, and after Kaepernick injected his protests into what was ostensibly an apolitical space. And yes, SJWs condone it. It's what they're most famous for doing, organizing boycotts and reporting people they disagree with on social media to get them banned. Sicarius (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
>Americans still think sports and politics have never interacted in their entire history
My favorite self-writing joke, oh boy! --2600:1700:19C0:2760:5402:F849:4B7B:1D19 01:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Man, I'm glad I missed this retarded crap. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

For fucks sake, stop blanking the page[edit]

Look, even a cursory glance through the Talk page does come to any consensus about deleting the page, let alone this retarded blanking war. Leave it up and demand a vote on it, or fucking well just stop paying attention to it, you retarded man-babies. - 13:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a vandal, there's no point in trying to reason with them, they do not care. -- Triacom (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Do not delete the /pol/ and SJW pages just because either side has it's feelings hurt that someone is talking shit[edit]

This /pol/ page is one of the most accurate versions of how /pol/ came to be that I've seen with my own eyes within my nearly 14 years of using 4chan. Just lock the fucking pages and laugh at them while they get mad like we used to do to anyone who reacted like this. Those fuckers ruined a good amount of boards, let them whine like the cunts they are.

Awful late to the show, buddy. --LGX-000 (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
You're echoing statements that were already given to the admin and mod of the wiki. The only reason the page was ever put up for deletion was because they weren't protecting them and people were sick of putting up with vandal bullshit. -- Triacom (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this article is a whiny nigger[edit]

And the jannies are cocksucking faggots for not deleting it. If you're tired of seeing this autofellatio session just know that most genuine users are. Also every time you post one of the images from this article to /pol/ a migrant child drowns in the Mediterranian. /pol/ users do not exist in a vacuum. /pol/ users like things. So when someone that frequents /pol/ visits another board, they don't leave their political opinions at the door. So when you politicize a hobby or subject, and a /pol/ack gives their 2 cents, and you get ass blasted, and you demand that /pol/ be deleted, or that user be banned. You're not really asking for a politics-free hobby, or for civil discourse. You're asking for censorship. Which is exactly why /pol/ belongs on 4chan, and you don't.

You whine about censorship while complaining an article you don't like wasn't censored? That's a bitch move, cry me a river. -- Triacom (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Why do /pol/tards all say this same obnoxious shit? You're written badly about because you're annoying fags and a good half of 4chan hates you fuckers. Cry somewhere else

lmfao @ "jannie", tried a bit too hard to sound like an Authentic User there --2600:1700:19C0:2760:C187:1B51:3DCA:55D0 08:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

No mentions of transgenders[edit]

CTRL+F "tran" - 0 results. Get on with the times, gramps. Kikes are no longer the primary boogieman. The future is female (male) and nowadays /pol/tards rage more about the boogiewoman than niggers. -- 08:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The article is fine. Leave it alone. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Besides, I'm not convinced the Nazi LARPers let go of their Jewish-hating just because they decided to be louder about trans people at the moment. --LGX-000 (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Could be better.[edit]

reads like it's written by some moralist pearl clutcher(s). much funnier (and more informative) articles elsewhere. first part was okay. Not sure why this has an article on here to begin with, this isn't tg material, v is much closer to tg than pol and v has one(1) and a fourth of a paragraph.

I rewrote this and the SJW pages anon. I hope that these edits fit within acceptable criteria.--Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Gotta say it's far more succinct than even I could've dreamed of had I eventually gotten around to this, well done. --LGX-000 (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

A few suggestions for how to better trigger the nazis[edit]

动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣 Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa 新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo 民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子 強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品 賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Winnie the Pooh 劉曉波动态网自由门