Why do extreme ideas attract social outcasts and weirdos?

>social outcasts and weirdos
Those look like the stereotypical normalfags that Veeky Forums supposedly hates.

Isolation always leads to extremist thoughts

The question you ought to be asking: why are there so many thousands of outcasts at this point that they can form communities?

because when you are a social outcast, or a "loser", you are at the bottom of society.
Naturally, a revolution is in your best interest, since every revolution is a destribution of resources within a society

>Why do ideologies meant to radically change society attract people who are at the bottom of present society?
You take a guess, user. It's really not that hard to get.

In a hopelessly atomized society, what even distinguishes outcast from non-outcast?

this
They're ugly as fuck dude. Except for 4chad

Because the Jewish ideology that has infested our society urges people to cut off people with different views from your life. Just look at what happens to people who point out the truth behind the Holohoax

Political extremism lets outcasts feel like they "belong" to a community for once, and all they have to do is agree with their political beliefs. As it happens, said political beliefs tell them exactly what they want to hear:
>Complete fucking loser
You're just an oppressed victim being held back from their limitless potential by [ideology's boogeyman]!
>Bitter, unlikeable sociopath
You're the nicest person in the world, you're only a dick to people who support [boogeyman] and therefore deserve the worst treatment possible!
>Lazy piece of shit who spends all day arguing about pointless shit on the internet
You're a heroic warrior for a noble cause, tirelessly fighting the good fight with unsourced statistics/bullshit infographs from echo-chamber circlejerks!

General peer rejection is my guess.

It's funny and all, but the real Nazis werent't exactly great looking. I can imagine this manlet with glasses working for the SS, he even looks a bit like Himmler.

This is a pretty weak explanation which assumes that everything people do is to increase their "power and status".

Plenty of weirdoes who supported extreme ideologies were actually well off. A Bourbon prince supported the French Revolution. Engels was a rich industrialist. And so on.

Weirdoes are weirdoes because they have different ideas. Of course their political (and other) ideals will be different from those of others.

And all of them are weirdos losers. What's your point? That a rich successful man can be the exception?

>Plenty of weirdoes who supported extreme ideologies were actually well off. A Bourbon prince supported the French Revolution. Engels was a rich industrialist. And so on.
They are not weirdoes. They just understand that there is a market for such ideas. And if a revolution happens, those guys will be at the very top.

>Weirdoes are weirdoes because they have different ideas.
wow, what a great explanation

The point is that it is not that being a weirdo makes one a loser which makes one have alternative political ideas in order to improve his power.
It is that weird people will have alternative political ideas because they are weird, regardless of success in life.
John Lennon was a weirdo, a very succesful musician and he had weird alternative ideas.

It is better than your crap explanation where everything is about power.

John Lennon was a fucked up "artist" who didn't live by the same standards as bussinesmen or just people who managed to overcome constant struggle as nowadays successful people. He drugged.

Your "explanation" literally explains nothing
>lol people have random ideas
You are unable to make any sort of predictions with your explanation

They look pretty normal to me. Take a look at feminazi and lgbt "community" if you want more clear example.

I could take a shit on them but honestly i think the biggest reason is that people who are doing well under the current system don't tend to desire extreme change while outcasts have every reason to want things different.
More normal people are also more likely to form more healthy connections with people so there isn't that unfulfilled desire to be part of a group and have a purpose.
Being a nazi is better than joining a fandom at least.

The first one you linked seems more about justifying being a complete waste of oxygen to themselves and actually having friends for once than about power and status.

>/pol/ is more diverse and tolerant than your political ideology
Impressive, to say the least.

Also that's a picture from new york, probably not an accurate cross section of the people who browse pol.

My mind was blown when I realized that the anti-semitism in /pol/ was 100% caused by colored people trying to shift attention away from them with some distant hope of one day all colored people being considered white if they're not jewish

>the representants of the people who hated all of you were actually lovable and good for you, i swear!
It seems normal to be honest.

It was actually no surprise for me. Mestizos are usually that pathetic if they have no strong willed paternal models, and most of them lack that.

im so confused

John Lennon was extremely famous, rich and had a huge social status.

Weird people will have heterodox political views regardless of how much wealth and status they have is about as testable as your idea that "everything is about power".

Most are just average. If they were dressed better and ditched the laid-back teenage attitude they would look better.

but thats wrong.
Antisemitism has always existed in Europe

It's kind of sad desu. Like watching South Americans bicker about who's the whitest country on /int/. At the end of the day you're still a loser seeking approval from other losers.

well /pol/ isnt against diversity persay, there against forced diversity and race mixing, not that i neccisarily agree with them on the last part, but most people agree with the first one. If you make a black friend because you have similar interests that's great, but if your forced to spend time around black people, or people of any culture different from yours, against your own will, you will grow to hate them.

>Why do extreme ideas attract social outcasts and weirdos?
Why does Veeky Forums attract social outcasts and weirdos?

>john lenon was x
Which are a list of circumstances irrelevant to his personal characteristics. A weirdo that didn't accomplish his goals with that much of struggle (Beatles). And even drugged himself to compose. Normally, pop cuture pushed artists aren't a well depiction of succesful people, as their characteristics actually aren't that different or coincide with bussinessmen and other artist people.

Romans doing Hitler salute.

m00t being a nice person.

So they support europeans going back to europe?

VE

Pretty sure the South Americans do that ironically now.
If anything after the streetshitting banter all the pajeets and pakis in int are top tier chill guys.

Once again, your theory is worthless, since it is unable to make any prediction.
You are basically saying"people are weird, what they belief in is an enigma"

This.

Why does OP attract social outcasts and weirdos?

Nope. SouthAmericans still do it unironically. At least in Peru.

SS had a height requirement.

Argentina and Uruguay are white-majority though, they just get trolled very easily by the others.

Fuck off with your brainlet memes. There was no such thing as "roman salute" it was made up shit based on this painting.

There is nothing worth to be confused about.

I used to be part of some neonazi discords and there were fucking 0 nonwhite people in them.
This meetup was probably just the result
1. Living new york
2. Nonwhites being less intimidated by the prospect of going out and yelling about jews

Yes, I know. But still that statue looks like he's doing "salute".

every argie and hue are comfortable with who they are.
The actual autists are all in /brit/

John Lennon was very popular and considered himself successful. He called his group "more popular than Jesus". Also, a large percentage of rockstars wrote songs under the influence of drugs.

yes, i suppose, but from where? the America's? there are not enough natives to sustain any kind of serious infrastructure. South Africa? /pol/ wouldn't support it, because muh white genocide, but then again, anyone with half a brain would be able to see African genocide two electric boogaloo, coming months ahead of time.

Haha, no.

>extreme ideas
They look exactly how you would expect a bunch of 4channers to look.

...

A lot of them have insecurities about wanting to be white so they think that by insulting people who are less "white" then them they can become "whiter."

Of course it can make predictions. And it will work better than your theory

Not gonna bite

Not based on genetics but self-identification.

>White & Arab
Yeah, that depends on your definition of "white". If Arabs are in the same category as Whites then that makes you wonder what do they count as "Whites".

...

No, it's based on genetics and estimates. There are no census on race in those countries.

>I can't read footnotes
White and Arab was unified in the chart because of the US census, in Argentina 2.9% have "Asian or Middle Eastern" origin.

...

Fixed

No, it is not based on genetics.
There is no genetic definition of how much Amerindian and Black blood you can have while still being white anyway, it all boils down to opinion.

(You)
The sources are listed in the pic.

The sources have nothing to do with genetics though

Lol

This painting looks like the twelfth hour of a cocaine bender where most people have crashed but everybody left is at the peak of their high and have decided to capture the centre of government with three mall katanas and a sweeping brush.

Even if you went by the strictest genetic definition (a standard that is never asked for White Americans) these countries would be white-majority.

Take Uruguay:
>In 2005 Sinthia Pagano, M.D conducted a genetic study, detecting the possibility that 38% of Uruguayans may have expressed partial genetic influence from the Amerindian population.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayans

Excluding everyone with a single drop of native blood (people like Chuck Norris who is part cherokee would be excluded under this criteria) still leaves you with 62% being totally unmixed

>Argentineans carried a large fraction of European genetic heritage in their Y-chromosomal (94.1%) and autosomal (78.5%) DNA, but their mitochondrial gene pool is mostly of Native American ancestry (53.7%); instead, African heritage was small in all three genetic systems (

honestly don't look that weird. maybe that fat guy with glasses in the back, otherwise pretty normie.

I have read conflicting genetic studies for Argentina, there are more than a dozen, ranging from the highest estimate which you posted (53% with at least a drop of native blood) to the lowest estimate being 15% with native blood in a 2001 genetic study.

es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composición_étnica_de_Argentina
>Una investigación del Centro de Genética de Filosofía y Letras de la Universidad de Buenos Aires publicada en 2001 estableció ―luego de analizar 500 muestras de sangre en el Hospital Italiano, el Hospital de Clínicas y el Centro Regional de La Plata―, que un 4,3 % de las muestras analizadas correspondientes a habitantes del Gran Buenos Aires contenía marcadores genéticos africanos y un 15 % marcadores genéticos amerindios.

The fact that you posted the highest estimate of them all indicates you have an agenda, and are not interested in scholarly research or debate on the matter. (Probably one of said /int/ trolls)

Regardless, I don't give a fuck because I am Uruguayan and not a racist, but only a troll would deny the identity of these countries by claiming they are not of overwhelmingly European immigrant stock.

What kind of prediction can you make?

>500 muestras de sangre en el Hospital Italiano, el Hospital de Clínicas y el Centro Regional de La Plata
>500 muestras
>Hospital Italiano
>Centro Regional La Plata

It's like doing a test of 500 people in the Bronx and then claim that the United States is 40% Italian, 30% Latino and 30% African

You need to understand that Y-chromosome and mitochondrial haplogroup studies tell different stories and the autosomal DNA is usually somewhere inbetween.

The fact that 53% of Argies have Amerindian maternal heritage means almost all Argentinians except those with 4 European grandparents also do because the 53% applies to all your great great great great etc grandparents, about half of which will have Amerindian maternal haplogroups no matter what yours is because of the law of large numbers.

There are definitely people in Argentina with fully European immigrant heritage and no Argentinian ancestry but these are a minority who will blend into the mixed mainstream over time.

The blood samples were gathered nationwide, please read the study or fuck off

1. You are assuming the highest estimate is true, there are several studies on the matter.

2. What does "mixed" mean in this context? Nobody doubts Chuck Norris is white even though he has distant Cherokee ancestry. For all intent and purposes a majority of Argentines and Uruguayans are "white" in the same way "white Americans" are.

Even when you narrow it down to the strictest definitions which are not demanded for Americans, both countries end up being 62% "racially pure" white-majority in the case of Uruguay or 47%-85% depending on the study for Argentina.

You are the one that must read it, the blood samples are disproportionate from place with high Bolivia and Paraguay immigration, isn't an accurate representation of the country. Argentina and Uruguay have even fewer Amerindians and Africans than what is shown on the map

It is not a highest estimate or an estimate at all, it's a verified fact.
Spaniards interbred with natives in Latin America to create "Latinos".
Of course subsequent immigration introduced also some European maternal lines which would be absent in places like Peru but the core population which assimilated them was Mestizo.

Chuck Norris has no relevance and White Americans have much less Amerindian influence.

>/pol/ is just normalfags
Yes actually, you're right.

>I will dismiss every study I don't like
Yeah you are not interested in scholarly debate on the matter just as I suspected. Literally every encyclopedia lists Uruguay and Argentina as white-majority and your /pol/-autism and you cherrypicking the studies that suit you won't change that fact I'm afraid. You have an uphill battle.

What are you even on about? You're the one dismissing studies or misunderstanding them.

Argentinians are Latinos more than anything.

If we define a 20% Amerindian as a white then sure, maybe the majority of Argentinians is white.

They're probably more diverse than some activist groups featuring mostly white, upper- and upper-middle class women fighting for minority rights.

>Argentinians are Latinos more than anything.
The fuck i have to read in this board, there wasn't even fucking native population to mix with.

>board full of "how do we save the white race" guys is a bunch of darkies

>If we define a 20% Amerindian as a white then sure, maybe the majority of Argentinians is white.
The study you quoted says 47% of Argentines have no native ancestry at all. This is the lowest estimate, the highest being the study I posted where 85% of Argentines have no native ancestry at all. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

And in the study you quoted, the 20% native ancestry is an *average* of the population that has some native ancestry, the study itself says it found large variance of Amerindian contribution, from 1% in some individuals to upwards of 90% in others.

You are deliberately cherrypicking the study that gives you the highest number of people with native ancestry, and then misinterpreting its results on top of that.

what a diverse and inclusive bunch

The 47% is strictly for direct maternal heritage which has nothing to do with "no native ancestry at all".

One individual can have only one maternal line but the ancestors of this individuals will have many different ones.
You can't argue against facts you don't even understand.

You are still ignoring a dozen other studies. The study which found 85% if tje population with no native ancestry was conducted on 500 individuals while the one you are quoting was conducted on 350 individuals, for instance.

I love how you stopped arguing about Uruguay btw.

You clearly have an agenda visible in your bias.

>persay

The study you quoted is from 2001 when the population genetics field wasn't as developed as it is now and they appear to imply that the average Argentine in the study is 15% Amerindian and 4% African which seems pretty reasonable.

The agenda is about dispelling fiction.
Argentinians are obsessed with being something they're not.