Is

is
>back to /pol/
the most influential strawman for current arguments in literary circles?

what philosophy best explains this phenomae?

It's something Reddit likes to say, despite the fact that /pol/ is the most Reddit-infested board, as well as something /leftypol/ likes to say, for obvious reasons.

Kant. intellectual reactionary principals are equivalent to noumena shrouded by the phenomena of retarded /pol right wingers. People saying back to /pol confuse the two

>what philosophy best explains this phenomae?
Your post explains pretty well this phenomenon OP.

OP I'm not sure what kind of posts you're even referring to. I only see
>back to pol
In cases where the person is obviously from pol. If you're making a well thought out point, or even just saying anything at all that at least isn't racist or women r dumb nobody is going to tell you to go
>back to pol
It can't be denied that the decline of this board is largely due to the influx of people from pol. All of the effortless petersonposting, rupi kaur threads, evola, CoC shilling, is just a waste of time to scroll through and makes a board that once discussed literature into useless shit.

t. obsessed

t. Effortless waste of carbon

Being absorbed in politics is the layman's false dichotomy. The big issues lie with understanding large economic principles, and the big existential questions.

That's why you're here, right?

>strawman
It can be a strawman, but sometimes it's just a sincere request. When it's done as a reflex to any expressed opinion that is politically or culturally perceived as right-wing, it's probably a case of character assassination/strawman. But, though I have never used it, when I see someone post the following I feel it is justified:
>shlomo, nice try sholmo etc
>shill
>hill-bot
>kike
>libshit
>pointing out that a person quoted by another user is '""secretly"" *gasp* a JOOO (when it was either obvious already and/or no one cares)
>muh degeneracy

Shit like that.

...

Right, but there's an important distinction to be made.

I agree with you, but someone simply having conservative values is important, especially in this day and age.

I respect a little bit of homophobia, even. But I agree that kind of shit you greentexted gets you nowhere.

I will recommend both Marxists and Austrian economists to /pol/ because that is where they belong.

>but someone simply having conservative values is important
I consider myself a conservative, reactionary, and traditionalist, so I'm basically an edgelord for most of Veeky Forums but I think /pol/ is dumb and gay. I can't even stand browsing that board, let alone post there. It's a cesspit. I prefer the company of educated leftists (not identity politics variety) any day.

Amen. I'm with you man.

The problem is when the ideologies clash in a debate thread and communism and anti-communism are thrown together. The phrase pops up essentially whenever someone tries to bring up totally legitimate arguments (race and IQ, women, religion, etc)

>Totally legitimate arguments
>Correlation between race and IQ, the "women" question
Please provide an example of a legitimate argument about those topics.

>there is a correlation between race and IQ
>women considered as a group are (significantly, in a mathematical sense) different from men considered as a group
next question

W.E.B DuBois was an educated Negro who wrote a book talking about how only 10% of youknowwhats would be capable of learning anything in college or being succesful.

>>there is a correlation between race and IQ
I don't believe this for a second. There is more genetic variance within races than between them. And the end to this way of thinking is discrimination, which is wrong. I think until we've lived at least a century or two with fair educational opportunities this argument has no utility anyways.
>>women considered as a group are (significantly, in a mathematical sense) different from men considered as a group
Obviously we're different. But neither is superior, which is usually the argument made. We're different in beautiful ways.

This is b8.

>intellectual reactionary principals are equivalent to noumena shrouded by the phenomena of retarded /pol right wingers
in what sense?

I can smell your room from here.

Essentially people like Spengler, Schmitt, Rousseau, Kant, Schopenhauer, Hegel were intelligent humans whose arguments against democracy, sexual egalitarianism, economic equality were well reasoned, measured and motivated by deduction, a sense of duty and more importantly were always delivered eloquently, with acerbic brilliance that most /pol/ users could never measure up to. When a /pol/ user comes to Veeky Forums and says something like: the Jews invented feminism or Kikes are bad at math and writing or socialism and liberalism are the same thing or we need to return to Christian civilization and wage war on Islam, they're flouting every single basic standard of social discourse, reasoning, argumentation and rhetoric (especially good rhetoric) that any human of higher intelligence would expect on a board oriented towards pneumatic, intellectual discussion. One can argue with some success that Jews have been a disruptive and possible detrimental force in western civilization or that their values must be sublated, possibly even annihilated or that they are lower fitness than whites and thus there is no reason that any sympathy should be shown towards them and their interests with great effect. Now this doesn't mean these are necessarily true conclusions, but they are worthy of debate and discussion. Its just when a user comes here and refuses to be reasonable, refuses to be intelligible or thorough in their thinking and quickly resorts to basically lying or worse attacking people with tactics you'd expect from a lynch mob, and they do this with some kind of confidence stemming from a consensus on a different far less intellectually rigorous board like /pol/, you're going to get lots of posters, many of whom are right wing or apolitical, I would be one of those, who want you to leave. Not because we don't want fascism or reactionary thought discussed here, I wish we had more threads about Schmitt, Plato, Schopenhauer, Heidegger and Nietzsche on this board, but because its an eye-sore, its tiresome, they invite much stupider /pol/ users to swarm here and every single thread they make which is aggravating attracts an enormous number of redditors who are visiting and should not be posting, indeed would not be posting at all were it not for the stupidity of the /pol/ niggers who feel the need to abandon all reason or eloquence, and even just eloquence would be enough for their company to be appreciated rather than resented, i don't pretend that humans can be rational actors, we're usually not anything approaching that. Basically if you want to be taken seriously, beyond just memes, and if you're just meme'ing then why are you so upset about being given a rote response like "go back to /pol/"? you absolutely must make an effort to order your thoughts or render them palatable (and this is again not to suggest they need to be politically correct or pleasant, just not belligerent or stupefying to process). Is that clear for you all?

you can believe whatever you want and the info is a little hard to get a hold of, but there are definitely different averages of IQ when sorted into race. You can't generalize everybody in one race, certainly but theres definitely some bad, bad genes in every race pool.

kill yourself

You're worse than young earth creationists.

There are no race pools

Fascist scum aren’t even worth talking to. They should just be executed like their beloved Mussolini.

tl;dr
fuck off kike

>first point
>I don't believe you because cognitive dissonance to protect my fragile worldview
>second point
>I totally believe you but what if you have secret motivations!?!?!??!
some high-level intellectual rigor coming out of mr. "legitimate argument"

>cognitive dissonance to protect my fragile worldview
You're not even responding to my argument and telling me I've succumbed to cognitive dissonance. Okay.
>I totally believe you but what if you have secret motivations!?!?!??!
Is "men are superior" not an argument often attempted on this board? Or are we looking at different things?
>some high-level intellectual rigor coming out of mr. "legitimate argument"
Lose the sarcasm man you sound like you're 14.

very funny, top kek user

pretty stupid thread OP
consider going back to lurking

shut the fuck up Kike

lol

>strawman
I think you mean strawman/woman

...

:^)

False. I am a racist and sexist by modern standards (no joke) and I say go back to /pol/ all the time. And I sincerely mean it.

If people were capable of bringing up the situation of IQ differences between races without being stereotypical dumbass /pol/ memers I wouldn't have a problem. But I pretty much never see that happen. They can't float the idea with any more maturity than "niggers are smelly and dumb!" in an unrelated /tv/ thread about Star Wars. Any attempt to interject nuance or engage vaguely off /pol/ party line is met with memes that function as thought terminating cliches (smirkingjew.jpg).

/pol/ posters are just straight up dumb and 95% of them are incapable of adult debate. They ruin threads. /pol/ posters that disagree with that assessment are free to enjoy their own company in their containment zone.