420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Anger masturbation by Ebenezer Hendlekig - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 00:56:11 EST ID:9xHHmrI5 No.207907 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1489899371727.jpg -(473997B / 462.89KB, 1170x620) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 473997
It seems like most people these days aren't looking to engage in what is classically considered a "discussion" or even a "debate". People have become so entrenched ideologically that it makes discussion and exchange of ideas all but impossible.

I don't think it's nostalgic to say that the rhetoric of this period is more polarized than it was a 5 years or even a decade ago at least in the context of American politics. When people have a difference of opinion there is no discussion there is only the reinforcement of preconceived notions and the stroking of the anger boner. People have come to enjoy the righteous anger they feel when their lighting up someone who has the "wrong" political opinion.

This sort of thing happened in the past but it was mint everyone doing it to each other all the time. Everything has devolved to the point where it's a nonstop rage masturbation fest on both sides. No one wants to learn, no one wants to admit that they might be wrong, no one wants to actually solve any problems. They just want to be right and someone else be wrong, we've all become addicted to the feeling of being righteously angry at the people we believe are "wrong".
Angus Fuckingford - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 11:27:56 EST ID:yejEFop0 No.207909 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1489937276373.jpg -(25530B / 24.93KB, 640x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
So how do we reverse this? With the advent of social media, a lot of people have become addicted to the thrill of being angry all the time. This has it uses in the proper channels, but when you have people getting angry all the time, it's going to result in people getting burnt out. I've seen very few acknowledge this. If anything it seems to be implied that if you get burnt out then you're worthless. Just taking time to take a break from the rush of it all is discouraged.

Some are way too obsessed with dying in a blaze of glory without realizing that they can use that energy to benefit themselves and others instead of crashing and burning. This lifestyle that is being encouraged by all sides isn't going to be sustainable and we'll be seeing a lot of people crashing and burning.
Angus Fuckingford - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 11:34:59 EST ID:yejEFop0 No.207910 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Also, I've seen some disturbing trends with people bragging about liberal tears when Trump won with how popular it was to brag about male tears I know that also meant sperm but I don't think the people saying it cared a few years ago. We've become extremely petty to the point where we're willing to destroy ourselves if it means getting a chance to drink some terms.

How did it get to this point?
Thomas Blythehood - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 13:52:38 EST ID:BzBJrJab No.207911 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1489945958348.jpg -(29577B / 28.88KB, 278x181) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I think it's the natural progression of the double down politics that are rewarded in this system. Admitting a mistake is a sign of weakness, it usually works out much better for you to stick your fingers in your ears and double down on whatever path you're going. People will support you as long as you sound confident. "It didn't work this time, or the last twenty times, but that's only because the other side was undercutting us. This time it's going to work, I promise, pls gief donations thx."

How do we reverse this? I've no idea tbh. There has to be some kind of massive cultural shift away from this kind of discourse. I can't see that happening without either some kind of horrible global catastrophe or some kind of religious/spiritual reawakening on a global scale.
Beatrice Hoffingset - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 18:05:48 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207912 Ignore Report Quick Reply
How to reverse this? Look to what Europe is doing? It appears that if you want to reverse it, you need to look how discussions are done outside the USA.
Hedda Famblefuck - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 18:13:42 EST ID:i/DMGlHX No.207913 Ignore Report Quick Reply
What exactly is Europe doing?
Graham Chibblehutch - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 21:40:18 EST ID:BzBJrJab No.207914 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I don't think letting in an unreasonable amount of migrants is going to solve anything.
Edward Hublingchen - Mon, 20 Mar 2017 02:19:18 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207915 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Honestly I think this is mostly a historical illusion or epiphenomena than something that's actually taking place on its own. People are more willing to expose themselves to new ideas than at any other time in history, because information is available to a greater degree than at any other time in history, but we're still just apes. So by and large when you equip the mass with that kind of knowledge they don't use it to actually grow, they use it as a new kind of stick to beat the other monkey's brain out.

So for most of human history, you just had people being too ignorant and insulated to actually have interesting ideas or discussion (remember until the advent of public education learned debates and discourse were solely the purview of the wealthy) and naturally we don't have records of the kind of awful shit people might shout at you in the street in ancient Athens, only records of political debates and philosophical discourses. So a period of time where the creation of records is limited to a highly cultured set will always appear to be more civilized than one where all elements of society can contribute to the record. This was still true as recently as the '90s in the first world, when centralized media still had it's vice grip on the public consciousness, and is more or less still in effect in certain parts of the third world.

Moreover, in our history, we have people who were utilized as physical pawns in debates that were carried out as actual wars between the 'debate participants.' I would take the shit-flinging in the comments section of [insert site] over being conscripted to travel to a distant land to try to kill all the turban-wearing dudes who disagree with me so they can't disagree with me anymore, because some guy told me the creator of the universe wants me to and I don't know shit about shit enough to question it. So by and large it has always been the case that the average person doesn't care about the nuanced discovery of the truth, but about being the last monkey left alive.

It really comes down to that we're smart enough to realize we are stupid but not smart enough to actually fathom or overcome our stupidity as a species. So if you decide to let everyone in the world believe whatever they want, give them a venue to every kind of belief that exists, but don't change the fact that humans are barely one peg above chimpanzees in terms of primitive, tribalistic groupthink, then belief itself will become a tool in tribal war, for as long as it takes for the mass of humanity to evolve to the point that, up until recently, only a small percentage of the population was able to reach.

TL;DR: we're in this shit for the long haul guys, there is no easy or direct solution other than 'people, as a whole, need to grow up.'
Edward Gunkinfudge - Mon, 20 Mar 2017 04:42:13 EST ID:Am93n9Du No.207916 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1489999333929.jpg -(56671B / 55.34KB, 700x1097) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Well I guess what can be done is to change one's own outlook and behaviors, to listen and communicate honestly with respect.

Also with humor people are more likely to actually listen rather than knee-jerk reacting. Satire perhaps. Relating with them about something in common.

Individual acts aren't going to have a significant effect on society, a drop in the ocean obviously, but what if there's a trend... A positive attitude personally will at least improve the discourse and understanding of those involved.
William Clottinglock - Mon, 20 Mar 2017 09:03:13 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207917 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>unreasonable amount of immigrants

American retard detected. Immigration stream has been shrinking for a year now. Of course, the retarded media in the USA won't tell their retarded countrymen that.
Priscilla Snoddock - Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:54:31 EST ID:0Tn8plNY No.207918 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>immigrant stream has been shrinking
Yeah, that's because most of them are already there.

Way to take the bait though, you're really proving the point in the OP.
Edward Hublingchen - Mon, 20 Mar 2017 15:24:48 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207920 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Holy fuck fuck fuck can we just have one thread about the actual meta-problem and not devolve into the very shit we are trying to reason about? I'm going to suggest that any and all political talking points be banned ITT.
Shit Bonkinham - Mon, 20 Mar 2017 20:55:54 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207921 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Point of what? Ebenezer is talking about the polarization in society. I am not polarizing. I am calling a fucking retard out on objectively false information. That is a completely different discussion. Because polarization is about opinions and a lack of commkn ground. Facts are devoid of opinions and require no common ground because facts just are, exist.
Matilda Billingstone - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 01:57:50 EST ID:/6LhatEE No.207923 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Dude, do you not see the irony of calling someone a retard in a thread that is about the tendency of these sort of discussions to devolve into rage wankfests? Graham's comment was stupid but yours weren't any better. I mean, c'mon.
Shit Bonkinham - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:46:06 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207925 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'm sorry, I don't see the irony between calling a fucktard that lies about objective facts in reality and the polarization in discussions.

Lying about facts and calling someone out on lying isn't a discussion. It's a reaffirmation of reality.
Ernest Sapperridge - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:52:33 EST ID:Nwy2IF3I No.207926 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>I'm going to suggest that any and all political talking points be banned ITT

but banning anything is encouraging censorship and that only served to provoke/embold these wankfests. Instead of banning everything, just learn to ignore bait and move on.
Matilda Billingstone - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:45:02 EST ID:/6LhatEE No.207928 Ignore Report Quick Reply
What facts have you stated here? You've let someone's comment (which is, at best, ignorant and at worst bait) cause you to lash out at them and generalize them. You haven't even answered what Europe is doing to stop this sort of polarization the OP is talking about. What does immigration have to do with it? Or what doesn't it have to do with it? I'm not even defending their comment either. What you've posted is exactly the sort of rhetoric that the OP is describing that is making things worse.

I don't think censorship is the solution, but I do think that the issue is that people just react and post instead of actually thinking about what they say and read, so they end up just posting the first thing that comes into their mind. Or just read whatever that see and react to it without actually thinking about what they just read. This problem has really only gotten worse over the years with stuff like twitter.
Shit Bonkinham - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:33:47 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207929 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>You haven't even answered what Europe is doing to stop this sort of polarization the OP is talking about.

Because I don't know. All I know is that any political discussion in Europe is far less polarized than in the USA. I was hoping to see people discuss why Europe has so much better discussions than in the USA, but then that retarded the future immigrant fucknut had to post his retarded meme reply and everything went to shit.
Matilda Billingstone - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 14:12:38 EST ID:/6LhatEE No.207930 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>I was hoping to see people discuss why Europe has so much better discussions than in the USA

I've been reading some books about introversion that may clear that up somewhat. Culture in the US heavily encourages extroversion. It's not obviously the only aspect, but with how things like social media practically encourages people to be attention whores (see: Trump's twitter) you have systems in place where it's encouraged to outyell each other, regardless of the consequences. So you end up with a lot of people who tend to be introverted trying to be as extroverted as possible at the cost of getting any sort of intelligent discourse done. And with technology being designed so that extroverted qualities being rewarded, a feedback loop is created and we're in this mess that we're in now.

I didn't really think much about the smartphones ruining everything meme, but after some reflection there's truth to it. Pre-smartphone internet was seen more as a introverted space, but with them making the internet a lot more accessible so that people who didn't usually spend their time on computers could do so, the internet became more of a place where extroverted qualities were encouraged a lot more and it basically escalated. It is a huge generalization and I'm not an expert in any sense, just making a completely uneducated observation that may be completely off track. I don't think this is something that the internet specifically created, just made it a lot more visible, and it's much more easy to exploit until people learn better.

tl;dr - Americans tend to yell and react before thinking and social media encourages that to our detriment.
David Pickdock - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:15:23 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207934 Ignore Report Quick Reply
So it's censorship if you come into my house and start shouting in my face and I say that I don't want to talk to you about that here? No, it would be censorship if I went into your house and put tape over your mouth and tied you up. Being able to control the content of a discussion is the only way a discussion can take place.

So I'm saying that, since every other place in the goddamn world is overrun with this kind of shit, that to have one thread on one crappy imageboard about why that is the case, and NOT letting it get over run with the very shit in question, is sensible. If not, would you say it's censorship that the contents of books are only placed within the books that they belong to, and not randomly placed within other books you might want to add them to?

But that's irrelevant anyway, because every single post after the first few in this thread is just a big fat QED on why this shit is presently unable to be resolved in any rational way.

I don't think it's just a US/Euro thing with the evolution of who uses the internet. The people who first adopt advanced technology are always more intellectual, bookish, and likely to be introverted types, whereas in the general population extroverts are more common. So, the only way to keep the internet introverted would to have been to keep it away from the common people, which we all know could only ever last so long. I mean, relatively speaking, people were feeling the same way about the change in userbase of the internet when AOL and the like came out vs the previous pure enthusiast userbase, so it's not just social media that has been causing this process, it's the dissemination of tech in general.
Reuben Cocklewater - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 17:48:16 EST ID:BzBJrJab No.207935 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490132896051.jpg -(278366B / 271.84KB, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I feel like you're getting to the heart of the issue here. I agree that there is more information available to a larger amount of people than ever before; however, I don't think that, that has translated to a larger percentage of the population utilizing the information to become more "enlightened". It seems like people are merely using the greater availability of information to search for data that will fit the narrative they already believe.

Your analogy is flawed for a few reasons. While you may feel like 420chan is your house it is, in fact, a public forum. It's a place where anyone is free to voice their opinion, regardless of how ignorant or "wrong" you perceive it to be. Let's also not forget the fact that you were the one who responded to a 1 line, throw-away comment with a stream of profanity and vitriol. If anyone here is shouting here, it's you.

I don't think the way to encourage a more open and thoughtful discussion is by calling people "fucking retards" and completely discounting their opinion. Or is that how they do it in Europe?
Reuben Momblestone - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 00:56:40 EST ID:5T+lpeRC No.207936 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>While you may feel like 420chan is your house it is, in fact, a public forum
no it's MY house specifically get the fuck off my lawn the both of yous
Lydia Pemblefuck - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 03:49:45 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207937 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>Someone uses an analogy involving a house
>>So you assume they are actually claiming the thing they are making an analogy for IS a house.
No, that's just silly, I was explaining why controlling the content of a thread is totally unlike censorship. Do you have a response to my question about whether the contents of books should be 'censored' into only being within the books their belong to?

Despite the fact that 420chan is a public forum, chan culture has long established that the OP of a thread is able to establish the boundaries of the discussion in that thread. While I'm not OP, I'm merely suggesting that the boundaries for the discussion OP laid out are good and we should follow them. Moreover, I never called anyone a retard, or called anyone wrong. I wasn't even talking about how people do things in Europe except with reference to the internet, that was d4DXKOh3, so I don't think you know who you are talking to.

Especially since I am the person you quoted in both your replies, yet you said on the one hand I am getting to the heart of the issue and on the other that I am just shouting vitriol. Which is it?
Charles Blellermare - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 07:42:00 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207939 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Let's also not forget the fact that you were the one who responded to a 1 line, throw-away comment with a stream of profanity and vitriol. If anyone here is shouting here, it's you.

That was me. If you don't know how the fuck the ID system works here, perhaps you don't have quite so much to say about how 420chan operates, and should relocate back to the future/stormfront.

And you seem to misunderstand that one would want a more open and thoughtful discussion with motherfucking retards that shout blatant false information and bullshit. For a discussion to be able to take place, you need opinions, not facts. You cannot have a discussion about facts. That's useless.
Phineas Foblingstone - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 09:10:32 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207940 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>we've all become addicted to the feeling of being righteously angry at the people we believe are "wrong".

Mmmmm that is some poetic philosophy right there.

Yeah, I debate people all the time. I present facts, I present logic, I keep a totally open mind, like if they present facts I was unaware of I will be prepared to change my mind. But, that pretty much never happens. I get into an argument with someone about something I know at least a bit about, they come at me with extremely simplistic opinions they've probably just taken from someone else and put zero thought into, I ask them to produce facts, they either can't or they produce false facts (debunked facts) or they produce facts I'm already aware of. And at this point it's obvious that I know more than they do and that they're not willing to learn from me, because as I gently try to change their opinions, they enter fight or flight mode, and they either fight until they feel, on the inside, that they've won, even though they've just been throttled by facts and logic, or they just walk away from the situation entirely and write me off as a cunt.

I once had to reference several laws and several historic events in the USA to a UK libertarian who insisted that discrimination based on race/religion/anything should be legal in businesses. At the end of the argument, he said to me that he learned nothing from me, but that he hopes I learned from him. He shut out his mind to the facts and history and laws I presented to him, yet expected me to accept into my heart his extremely-naive libertarian views that are backed up by nothing, and he insisted that America isn't free because we can't legally discriminate in business. He also kept insisting that business laws and private property/home ownership laws be identical. As a student of business, I think that sort of idea is absolutely crazy, yet he used his libertarian idealism to insist that I'm wrong, the USA is wrong and that he's right.

At the end of the day, I guess some of us are just logical, while most of us are just emotional. Feel me?
Lydia Pemblefuck - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:49:59 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207941 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yet, haven't we all (at least those of us in the US) gone through a ringer recently about how stating that you know more than the other person, even proving you know more than the other person, accomplishes nothing, and leaves one defeated while still feeling smug and with no recourse or strategy for moving forward other than reiterating that they're actually the ones who are right?

That may not be anger masturbation, since indeed more logical heads usually have less emotional temperaments, but it's logical masturbation still, because no discourse actually took place.

I have a thought experiment which may help clarify people's positions on this idea. Ignoring extreme cases who will not respond to anything, do you think it's the case that of most people, there is some sequence of words, actions, or evidence/'evidence' you could show to them that would eventually convince them of any idea whatsoever?

If so, then my suggestion to move away from philosophical masturbation and into genuine philosophical intercourse would be to do it scientifically. If we genuinely believe in whatever the X good thing we think to be the case that we try to convince others of is so, but there is Z amount of difference in the reaction we get from the reaction we want when we apply Y argument, then we need to stop worrying about whether we think Y contains the elements we think it should, since by the postulate of our thought experiment there is SOME value of Y that would get us the Z we want.

In plainer english: we need to stop worrying about convincing people the way WE think it is convincing to say, and try to learn to speak their cultural and ideational languages, see from their perspective, and keep continually learning and course correcting (and seriously applying the scientific method in analyzing the success of our corrections probably wouldn't be a bad idea too) so we can have genuine *dialogue* rather than increasing the volume of our *statements.*
Emma Debberfoot - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 23:29:23 EST ID:Am93n9Du No.207942 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490239763598.jpg -(108392B / 105.85KB, 400x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207940 How 'bout logos and pathos instead of one or the other.

Dig it very much so. Dialogues over diatribes. Maybe it'll plant seeds, meaning they wont admit the validity of some of what you were saying, but reconsider it later, and recognize some truth, then maybe gradually change their perspective. Pretty hopeful hypothetical.

Giving someone your full attention (or as close to it) and listening is important to understand where they're coming from. In time one could probably formulate better arguments that refute common tropes. It sounds selfish written that way. The intention really should be to have an enjoyable conversation that's fruitful in some way, not to win. Of course you want to prove what you believe is worthy of believing. If the belief isn't well grounded why do they/you choose to believe it?

I think we should always recognize our own ignorance, the limitations of truth from one perspective, forever seeking yet unable to ever get there. Everything said and written should have a caveat to it: this is a partial truth as I know it. So even from someone with a seemingly shitty analysis and perspective, they may have some gems to share. If you're willing to listen to them, truly. I think people are often more aware then given credit, picking up on the nuances of a situation, consciously or not, and can tell if you're really listening. If you are, maybe they'll do the same.

Active listening is a cool pratice, meaning after their statement you reiterate what they'd said, like an interviewer prompting an elaboration or focusing-in on a specific detail. The point is you verbally acknowledge what they communicated. After their reaction to your acknowledgement, such as: "yeah, that's right" (resolution), or "nah, not quite. Its blah blah blah" then they clarify and you understand better then if you'd thought you'd understood and didn't say anything. After resolution you ascert whatever it is you gotta say, they'll react to that, and if it didn't get through, listen, aknowledge, and repeat until resolution is reached, then reassert. Being so mechanical about it will probably interfere with a fluid and fruitful conversation so idk, maybe on a more difficult conversation that wasn't going to be fun to begin with.

On a side note, I think being well articulate can have drawbacks too, just because someone your talking to isn't as expressive doesn't mean they don't have knowledge and experiences to back it up. But changing one's attitude and vocabulary to fit in isn't honest nor thy true self either.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.