LEFTISTS BTFO

?? Veeky Forums politics are predominantly conservative

lurk moar, newfag

or >>>/ribbit/

now you're being disingenuous. who has been putting forth the argument that natural processes are involved? liberals? kek, nope

>losses

There ARE NO LOSSES, DUMBASS

THE POLAR ICE CAPS ARE FUCKING GROWING

nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

and yet, no substantive counter-argument from you

irony/10

sure, and there are denialists and strawmanning on both sides.

point remains, the argument that there are natural processes involved has been denied or minimized by the left until now

I know it's useless to argue with the like of you.

because you'd lose. it's why leftists hide on ribbit and demand "safe spaces". because your bullshit does not actually hold up under scrutiny

same reason Veeky Forums (free speech) favors conservatism

The question is not whether or not natural processes are involved. It is whether or not humans are the main drivers of climate change, which we are.

uh, guys?

the study says up to 50% is natural

it also speaks to the fundamentally flawed logic of the left - that you can stop or reverse the processes involved

if they're natural, you can't. and the extent to which humans are contributing cannot be stopped either, since there is 0 political will and no enforcement mechanism

finally, ww3 soon, and will bring "climate change" on a scale that makes the scientific concerns look like a walk in the park

you're barking up the wrong tree

the study says up to 50% is natural

it also speaks to the fundamentally flawed logic of the left - that you can stop or reverse the processes involved

if they're natural, you can't. and the extent to which humans are contributing cannot be stopped either, since there is 0 political will and no enforcement mechanism

finally, ww3 soon, and will bring "climate change" on a scale that makes the scientific concerns look like a walk in the park

you're barking up the wrong tree

The only thing I'd lose is my time.
Mankind plays an important role in the current global warming. Whether you like it or not doesn't matter.
Now go be retarded somewhere else. Go back to /pol/ or whatever shithole you came from.

Only if you cherrypick the Antartic.
>"A high resolution record of Greenland mass balance" -- McMillan et al. (Geophysical Research Letetrs, 2016)
>"The hidden meltdown of Greenland" -- NASA, 2015

>Mankind plays an important role in the current global warming.

and?

see

>LEFTISTS BTFO

Why did this 100% science thing become a left vs right argument?

>Only if you cherrypick the Antartic.

>cherrypicks the arctic instead

kek, no u

>Veeky Forums politics are predominantly conservative
are you retarded? Do you realise how ridiculous this is? You're a "conservative" and you browse the most degenerate site on Earth. I guess it's all right if you add an "alt" in front of it though.

Also, apart from /pol/ and /k/, no other board has a "conservative" majority, Veeky Forums is not the anonymous version of The_Donald newfag.

Wow there bud. (not the guy you are arguing with)

Pollution may be bad for everyone, that is accepted.

But when it comes to climate change there have been pro climate change documents that have been proven to be fabricated.

And why is this? So that the NWO can create carbon credits and get rich off their own invented currency that everyone suddenly has to pay for. And by everyone i mean companies which will pass on the cost to the customer, which equates to a flat tax*. At the same time poleticians like Obama were building solar panel farms which will pay for themselves in 50 years but the solar panels will burn out in 25. The same goes for wind farms which still require massive amounts of fossil fuels to forge the steel and turbines necessary, and sure they say that it can pay for its cost in about 8 months, but the frank conclusion is that fossil fuels are required for its production. Then you have Obama trying to close down industries because they cant pay the new environmental taxes, and exporting the industries to china.

Isnt the conclusion obvious? We should have BOTH industries AND renewable energies. Not just ONE. That would be a restricting the options fallacy.

*and just between you and me, theres no way that tax money would suddenly be spent on measures to shut down gun ownership.

>the most degenerate site on Earth

the site is not "degenerate". there's a well known saying on /pol/ - /pol/ is not one person

Veeky Forums is not one person

Veeky Forums is a free for all. Veeky Forums is free speech. and Veeky Forums, especially the politically board, is overwhelmingly conservative. boards like Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums, that attract mostly undergraduates, are more liberal, but you will grow up one day too. I was a liberal in college also :D

also, Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums and most other boards on Veeky Forums are tiny compared with /pol/ or even /k/

you got nada

I agree with him.
Also since when did liberal froget about liberty? Ive been wondering. Because the more you talk about governmental regulation the less liberty there is for all...

>with the rest driven by man-made global warming
right-wingers can't even read, much less do science

>we've been saying natural cycles are also responsible.
how is this at odds with the evil liberal viewpoint?

just because you know you're going to die in the end doesn't mean smoking's not bad for your health.

No. You've been saying it's not man made at all. Shifting goalposts.

>right-wingers can't even read, much less do science
I bet it makes you even more angry when they turn out right.

Wrong. I don't expect a retard from /pol/ to actually fact check himself before spewing falsehoods however.

You're trying too hard, with the undergraduate and le grow up memes.

The site has a culture and is extremely degenerate and has always been, and noone even tries to hide it. Or do you think some trap-loving anime-hating stormfront immigrants define Veeky Forums culture? lol

What you want is a Reddit without the liberals, aka The_Donald with less moderation.

But, bottom line, you mistake anti-establishment sentiment with conservative support. Just because /v/, one of the largest boards, was full of gamergaters, does not mean it was "conservative" is any way, shape or form. /pol/ is a big board, but it's only one board.

different politicians have been saying different things

>There ARE NO LOSSES, DUMBASS
Will you admit you're wrong when presented with actual, scientific evidence?
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=85246
psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g00799_arctic_southern_sea_ice/

>THE POLAR ICE CAPS ARE FUCKING GROWING
I don't expect a retarded /pol/tard to understand the difference between the Antarctic and Arctic sea ice, or the difference between sea ice and ice sheets, but again, you're wrong.

once you acknowledge that there are processes at work beyond our control, it changes the conclusions

the current scientific/lefty conclusion is that we can and must stop climate change, or at least mitigate it.

you can't

>the current scientific/lefty
Everything is politics to you people, everything is "liberals" or "leftists." You've clearly spend too much time in your echo chamber that you've lost all semblance of rational thought.

Climate change is not a "liberal" or "leftist" issue, it's a scientific issue that has scientific evidence supporting it.

I don't expect someone from the most reactionary / irrational place on all of Veeky Forums to understand this, you've effectively been brainwashed into a delusional conspiracy mindset. It's amazing to see how people such as yourself have such a high level of cognitive dissonance that you believe "liberals" or "leftists" have politicized climate change, while doing the exactly just that yourself with your identity-political driven agenda. You clearly don't care for the scientific process or a rational evidence-based method for understanding climate, you want an emotion-driven argument in which climate change is "disproved" when it snows outside in winter.

By the way, stage 5 is (you).

>extremely degenerate
>question begging

no, it's simple. the 1st Amendment tolerates all kinds of speech. it tolerates conservative speech. we have christian general threads on /pol/ all the time. it tolerates liberal nonsense. and it tolerates outright degeneracy. that's the nature of the 1st Amendment. Veeky Forums is the 1st Amendment in action, it's not any more complicated than that

>trap-loving anime-hating stormfront immigrants define Veeky Forums culture? lol

more question begging. there are some media articles about Veeky Forums that miss the point too, but what something is in reality is not necessarily equivalent with what somebody else misperceives it to be

>What you want is a Reddit without the liberals, aka The_Donald with less moderation.

No, unlike reddit, I'm fine with free speech. because my ideas hold up under scrutiny, and when they don't I'm secure enough in my intelligence and my worldview to accept it

>you mistake anti-establishment sentiment with conservative support.

wrong, lurk moar. /pol/ and /k/ are strongly conservative. it's not just anti-establishment. we argue the issues too. try it out for a change, you might just learn something

/v/ is mostly apolitical, but as gamergate demonstrated, even they are tired of liberal bullshit too

>with the undergraduate and le grow up memes.

it's true. I've been on this site for ~a decade. I used to spend a lot of time on Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums, so I speak from experience. you can check to see if there are any strawpoll.me threads on age. I imagine there are and I imagine they tend towards undergraduates. we've had the same kind of threads on /pol/. /pol/ and /k/ are much older boards. /b/ is where kids come to discover the site. /pol/ is where they go to grow up

>Everything is politics to you people

it's just the truth. the fact that you pretend that the issue hasn't been politicized undermines your credibility on the issue.

that doesn't mean all scientists are leftists, and it's not what I'm saying

>I don't expect someone from the most reactionary / irrational place on all of Veeky Forums

protip; slander is not an argument.

>You've clearly spend too much time in your echo chamber

kek, more irony

your entire post is devoid of any substance. it's just an "emotion-driven" tirade.

>it's just the truth. the fact that you pretend that the issue hasn't been politicized
Oh, you are so ignorant about the history of climate change science in this country, it's laughable. Please, remind me how this issue became politicized in the first place? It goes back to the mid-late 1970s when petroleum corporations first began taking an interest in climate change research, hiring their own scientists and using their own vessels to collect atmospheric and ocean data and analyze the data. They started to understand what the issue with greenhouse gasses were, particularly CO2 and realized that the fossil fuel industry, and their profits, would be at risk. So they did what any vested interest with trillions of dollars of investments would do, they protected their interests. They began forming special interest groups and "think tanks" to spread misinformation and propaganda about climate change, these included many libertarian-oriented free market, anti-regulation think tanks that these corporations already made donations to, such as the Heartland Institute. Other groups such as the Global Climate Coalition were formed to lobby for fossil fuel interests and downplay the effects of climate change. Conservative / libertarians backed by their special interest overlords STARTED this "debate" and started disseminating misinformation in order to drive a narrative of debate in the public mindset. Fast forward to today, these think tanks still exist, and there's dozens of them, and the fossil fuel industry still pays out millions in campaign contributions to their political allies in the US government.

>protip; slander is not an argument.
protip; learn to actually put together a proper response to an argument, instead of avoiding the issue.

>You've clearly spend too much time in your echo chamber
Yes, because /pol/ is totally not a reactionary echo chamber. Ironic how /pol/ has become the exact thing it was created as a bulwark against.

>I've been on this site for ~a decade
>/pol/ and /k/ are much older boards
you say that like that's a good thing, if that's the case it only proves that /pol/ is full of people to inmature for their age

>It goes back to the mid-late 1970s when petroleum corporations first began taking an interest in climate change research, hiring their own scientists and using their own vessels to collect atmospheric and ocean data and analyze the data.

so you're proving my point. I didn't say one side or the other was solely responsible for the politicization, I just said the issue has become highly politicized

and protip; plenty of conservatives are also conservationists. they both share the same root word; the idea is conserving what is good

related;

>What has happened politically, economically, culturally and socially since the sea change of the late ’60s isn’t contradictory or incongruous. It’s all of a piece. For hippies and bohemians as for businesspeople and investors, extreme individualism has been triumphant. Selfishness won.

>People on the political right have blamed the late ’60s for what they loathe about contemporary life — anything-goes sexuality, cultural coarseness, multiculturalism. And people on the left buy into that, seeing only the ’60s legacies of freedom that they define as progress. But what the left and right respectively love and hate are mostly flip sides of the same libertarian coin minted around 1967.

nytimes.com/2012/07/04/opinion/the-downside-of-liberty.html

>learn to actually put together a proper response to an argument

you didn't make an argument. you were just whining, making hysterical, unfounded claims. I'll repeat, /pol/ is not one person.

and where free speech is, conservatism reigns. leftism requires censorship/coddling/groupthink (le upboat) etc. to maintain its delusions

>because /pol/ is totally not a reactionary echo chamber

/pol/ is not one person. we get leftists there too; the thing is, the more time they spend there, the more leftists get converted. again, your complaint is with free speech and reality, not some mystical characteristic of /pol/

Here's a little rundown on many of the organizations set up to promote climate change denialism. Notice a trend in their political leanings?
ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html

Here's another article on the history of climate change denial, worth reading to understand how this entire scientific body of study became politicized in the first place.
gci.uq.edu.au/brief-history-of-fossil-fuelled-climate-denial
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy
Exxonmobil is one of the largest offenders of them all, they ran a concerted effort and donated the largest amounts of funds to denialist organizations until they "stopped" around 2007-2008 due to shareholder pressure.
theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers
theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/25/fossil-fuel-firms-are-still-bankrolling-climate-denial-lobby-groups
scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
desmogblog.com/exxonmobil-funding-climate-science-denial
desmogblog.com/2016/07/08/exxonmobil-new-disclosures-show-oil-giant-still-funding-climate-science-denial-groups
exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php

Let me ask you this, would an industry that has trillions upon trillions of investments worldwide not have a vested interest in promoting misinformation against a scientific field supported by evidence that threatens to place regulations on itself? Do you really believe they are innocent and dindu nuffin?

>to inmature

>to
>inmature

topkek

and it doesn't follow logically either. how is it that people who value free speech are "inmature"?

fucking retard

There's one thing I never understood about climate change deniers.

How does it benefit them to deny the facts here? It's not going to make any noticable impact on their own life if mega-corporations are limited in spewing toxic gas. The only "sure thing" is that the air they breath will be cleaner.

It just seems like they're setting themselves up as shills for the oil industry, but they're not getting anything out of it themselves. Completely self defeating.

already addressed >so you're proving my point. I didn't say one side or the other was solely responsible for the politicization, I just said the issue has become highly politicized

I've never denied climate change, but I have denied that it's 100% man-made.

when you acknowledge there are greater natural forces at work, it should make you reconsider whether humans can actually micromanage the planet in this regard

to that end, again, the political/economic will does not exist to stop or even slow down climate change. we've heard these alarms for years now, and warming and sea ice loss continue to expand, accelerate even.

meanwhile, ww3 is on the horizon and will bring "climate change" on levels that make the current alarm bells seem dim

eg.

>two secret Soviet programs, "Mercury" and "Volcano", aimed at developing a "tectonic weapon" that could set off earthquakes from great distance

>US Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, said..."Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonic_weapon#Reports

>so you're proving my point. I didn't say one side or the other was solely responsible for the politicization, I just said the issue has become highly politicized
MOVING GOALPOSTS. Your intention was that "liberals" and "leftists" politicized the issue, I'm guessing you would have brought up Al Gore or some other bullshit like that before you decided to shift your argument.

You know damn well that your intent was to blame liberals / leftists on climate change being politicized, and are not backpeddling because the truth is conservatives led the effort.

>plenty of conservatives are also conservationists
An incredibly small minority, you're delusional. I'm conservative in many ways, but not when it comes to scientific progress and evidence. The vast majority of conservatives believe climate change is natural, or is a conspiracy, or any other variation of denial of the scientific evidence that exists.

Also, your entire "muh /pol/ is not one person" doesn't mean anything. There is a way of thinking on that board that drives it, you know this, you understand this, yet you dodge the issue. It's a reactionary circle jerk where any dissenting opinion is considered a "shill" or "CTR." You cannot post anything there that goes against the narrative / anti-Trump without either; being ignored, or being accused of being a shill, or any other variation, go ahead and see for yourself.

people how value free speach are not inmature, people how spend thier time on /pol/ and actually take it seriously (like you) are.

...

>Your intention was that "liberals" and "leftists" politicized the issue

wrong. show us where I said that. you can't. you're just making shit up again

>I'm guessing

cool story, keep strawmanning, it's not working

>An incredibly small minority

no, plenty of them. conservatives run a lot of organic stores; it's not just conserving the environment, it's also caring for the treatment of other living beings

>"muh /pol/ is not one person" doesn't mean anything

sure it does. it means you're strawmanning. it means you misunderstand the nature of free speech and the power of truth

there's a reason leftists seek "safe spaces". there's a reason leftists congregate on sites that censor heavily and groupthink dissent into oblivion. modern leftism is bullshit and it could not maintain itself insulation from scrutiny

> There is a way of thinking on that board

sound supernatural. how does this mystical "way of thinking" work. can you measure it for us? this is a science board, after all. describe it rationally, logically. we'll wait

that's just your opinion, snowflake

keep meme posting on /pol/ and making bait threads on Veeky Forums, I'm sure that's what America needs to be great again and lucky for you, your abilities don't go any further

*and it could not maintain itself without insulation from scrutiny

that's just your opinion, snowflake

also I don't support Trump

again, /pol/ is not one person

pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/
>Political divides are dominant in public views about climate matters. Consistent with past Pew Research Center surveys, most liberal Democrats espouse human-caused climate change, while most conservative Republicans reject it. But this new Center survey finds that political differences over climate issues extend across a host of beliefs about the expected effects of climate change, actions that can address changes to the Earth’s climate, and trust and credibility in the work of climate scientists. People on the ideological ends of either party, that is liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, see the world through vastly different lenses across all of these judgments.

Give a break pal, you know your intention was to describe climate change as being politicized by "the left," don't fucking dodge the issue.

Your clearly a conservative, so explain to be how you can reconcile being a climate change denier, when you OPENLY ADMIT that conservatives politicized the issue, yet still blame the issue on liberals / "lefty science." How ironic.
>the current scientific/lefty conclusion is that we can and must stop climate change, or at least mitigate it.
By the way
>once you acknowledge that there are processes at work beyond our control
Can you measure this "processes" for us, this is a science board after all. Describe it rationally, logically. I'll wait, hypocrite.

>there's a reason leftists seek "safe spaces"
leftist this, leftist that. You sure do love your buzzwords, right? As if conservatives don't seek their own "safe spaces" as well, as I already mentioned, /pol/ is the perfect example of one.
>there's a reason leftists congregate on sites that censor heavily and groupthink dissent into oblivion
You also just described /pol/ perfectly here. Any dissent is claimed to be a shill and no rational responses are expected.
>modern leftism is bullshit and it could not maintain itself insulation from scrutiny
You are so dense that you can't even see that the exact same thing applies to BOTH SIDES of the political spectrum.

>no, plenty of them. conservatives run a lot of organic stores; it's not just conserving the environment, it's also caring for the treatment of other living beings
Show us some evidence, no anecdotes don't count, prove that the majority of conservatives are true "conversationalists," and don't be vague, this is a science board after all. Conservatism leads to an anti-regulatory viewpoint, and anti-"big-government" intervention mindset which is completely antithetical to environmental conservatism which practically requires governmental intervention to work. Otherwise you get companies just dumping their wastewater into streams, or using methods like mountain top removal mining, or covering up oil spills and pipeline leaks.

the first places that will be fucked over when global warming will hit the point of no return are around the equator, so brown people, it's really even in /pol/tards best interests to trust actually qualified people

The is the greatest irony of it all. What we see in Europe now will be magnified as people migrate towards the poles in the future. Say goodbye white countries.

>your intention was to describe climate change as being politicized by "the left,"

you can keep repeating the same bullshit but that doesn't make it true. typical leftist

argue with reality, not your own delusions

>Your clearly a conservative
>Your

kek

>explain to be how you can reconcile being a climate change denier

more made up bullshit. I never said I deny it. the OP says man-made climate change is only a part of the equation

here's another post by me where I said I agree with climate change; however, it's not all man-made and what we do about it is at odds too

puts it pretty clearly 4u

>Can you measure this "processes" for us

you can measure plenty of the processes; some you can't (etc. there is stellar and other activity in the universe that constantly surprises scientists, that has an impact on earth too). even to the extent you can measure, you still have to put it all together in a coherent, predictive way. there are also unknown human variables (eg. weapons of war) whose impact on climate change is potentially far greater than anything currently being discussed in the mainstream climate change debate

that's all reasonable. we can reason about things we can't necessarily equate (eg. known unknowns). what you said is not reasonable. you said "There is a way of thinking on that board" as if it's some supernatural thing. it's not. free speech attracts all kinds of opinions; truth is selected for. leftism is a small minority on /pol/ because their ideas don't hold up, simple as that. you try to pretend it's something mystical because you are in denial

no, we don't seek "safe spaces". /pol/ is not a safe space, fucking idiot. /pol/ is a free for all. leftists can post there too without being censored or down-voted

if leftists don't choose to be there or can't hack it, that's their problem. it's not because there are any barriers to entry (besides the truth/reality)

in fact, the term "safe space" was FUCKING INVENTED BY LEFTISTS on universities because other peoples' opinions hurt their feewings

>You also just described /pol/ perfectly here. Any dissent is claimed to be a shill and no rational responses are expected.

wrong. censorship is having your post deleted. it's being banned. that's what happens elsewhere. none of that happens on /pol/. leftists post there too; those intellectually honest and courageous enough to stay get converted. again, it's the nature of free speech and truth.

> the exact same thing applies to BOTH SIDES of the political spectrum.

and yet, /pol/ is a free for all and lib sites are not. the thing speaks for itself. you're just wrong

>prove that the majority of conservatives are true "conversationalists,"

I didn't say "the majority". I said plenty. the majority of people in general are sleepwalking, the majority can fuck itself, and so can you, you can't even argue honestly; quit making shit up, fucking pussy

>somebody called me a shill

that defeats your argument? fucking weak

>Conservatism leads to an anti-regulatory viewpoint...

not necessarily. see >What has happened politically, economically, culturally and socially since the sea change of the late ’60s isn’t contradictory or incongruous. It’s all of a piece. For hippies and bohemians as for businesspeople and investors, extreme individualism has been triumphant. Selfishness won.

>People on the political right have blamed the late ’60s for what they loathe about contemporary life — anything-goes sexuality, cultural coarseness, multiculturalism. And people on the left buy into that, seeing only the ’60s legacies of freedom that they define as progress. But what the left and right respectively love and hate are mostly flip sides of the same libertarian coin minted around 1967.

nytimes.com/2012/07/04/opinion/the-downside-of-liberty.html

it's not the greatest irony because it's not the greatest threat by a long shot. ww3 soon and you're concerning yourself with long-term demographics?

>ww3 soon

...

...

i remember an old alex jones vid where he was claiming some reactors had malfunctioned and the government was hiding it
russians were behind it back then apparently

this was in the 90s i think

>rattling sabers

Countries do it all the time. Times of world wide wars are over. All you'll get is a car bomb packed with explosives or proxy wars.

Why has Veeky Forums become so infested with millennial judeo-communist homo cucks since 2016?
Are there any actual redpilled places to talk about science and math?
Half of these gay anal guinea homo millennial SJW /utg/ cucks don't even know how to integrate.

keep making raiding and making ebin redpill threads about things you don't understand and see kike commies multiply

to answer your question, reddit, pol and 8gag
make haste

neat, but not relevant to my links

the sources I linked you to are not Alex Jones. they're The Telegraph, Wall Street Journal, Times of Israel, CBS, Haaretz, etc.

mainstream sources. ids habbening

saber rattling has been escalating, and it can get out of hand

eg.

>The new policy brief blames the increasing number of military exercises being carried out by both sides.

europe.newsweek.com/nato-russia-preparing-conflict-warns-report-331499?rx=us

>Times of world wide wars are over.

wishful thinking, also denial. ironic

see

My point is that you're using this place as a conservative safe space, you don't give a damn about free speech. This is the reason that if you go to /pol/ and voice a non-fascist opinion you get "downvoted" by a hundred insecure kids calling you a cuckold. This place and its culture is not compatible with conservatism.

Do you think le based Mike "gas the gays" Pence would be proud of you being his supporter and browsing this site? No serious conservative would ever browse Veeky Forums or interact with its posters and content. The fact that people, when given free speech like this, act like absolute degenerates prove it. This is true for even the most pretentious /pol/acks that larp as devout christians.

>I'm secure enough in my intelligence and my worldview to accept it
>You will grow up one day too

>pol/ and /k/ are strongly conservative. it's not just anti-establishment
Reading comprehension. The next sentence referred to /v/ directly, I never said /pol/ wasn't pseudo-conservative or "alt-right". The point was that IS anti-establishment, but they're not conservatives at all. You don't have to be conservative to be tired of liberal bullshit. I believe we call this leftism. Liberals aren't left-wingers.

>I've been on this site for ~a decade
No you haven't, proof being that you think this is a politically "conservative" site. If you think /pol/ is not made up of edgy teenage hypocrites that unironically think it's cool to praise dictators that would've hanged them for browsing this site, then you're in for quite the awakening.

>reddit
>redpilled
fuck off disinfo troll

>/pol/
>redpilled
>/pol/
>science and math
fuck off millennial homo

>9gag
>science and math
fuck off jewish cuck

you go fuck off back to your /utg/ irc, you gay furry moloch cultist

kike CTR marxist cuck jew JIDF commie socialist millenial SJW beta nu-male faggot tumblr fake news

Am I forgetting any buzzwords?

>Half of these gay anal guinea homo millennial SJW /utg/ cucks don't even know how to integrate.
still a lower percentage compared to /pol/

>you're using this place as a conservative safe space

but it's not. you can't just make shit up. /pol/ is free speech, period.

>if you go to /pol/ and voice a non-fascist opinion you get "downvoted" by a hundred insecure kids calling you a cuckold.

toughen up, buttercup. I've argued threads from start to finish where it's 10 against 1, against Donald Trump. quality over quantity. if you are right, what are you so afraid of? people are going to call you names? grow the fuck up

>This place and its culture is not compatible with conservatism.

free speech allows all kinds of different arguments, including conservative ones. from there, it's simply a matter of what carries the day. what arguments hold up in a free for all?

>Do you think le based Mike "gas the gays" Pence would be proud of you being his supporter and browsing this site?

first, again, see above. I'm not a Trump supporter. that said, I do support most of Pence's politics, and he would agree with most of what I write on /pol/. the insults/obscenity is not the point. stick to the issues. grown men can handle insults. if your feelings get so hurt you lose the courage to defend your beliefs, then you belong on reddit.

>The course proves a tough challenge, since all enrolled officers are subjected to severe physical and psychological treatment and trained under extreme pressure. Nascimento explains that this is "in order to eliminate the weak and, mainly, punish the corrupt", leaving only the honest and tough officers.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_Squad

buzzwords don't exist, cuck. the spook of "buzzwords" is a jewish contrivance.

I'm pretty sure it was /pol/acks that kept blaming feminists and SJWs of using buzzwords. Funny how things work.

>Reading comprehension.

reading comprehension yourself. we had been talking about both /pol/ and /k/ as the predominantly conservative boards on Veeky Forums.

I haven't spent much time on /v/ to say either way, but it is clear that /v/ is much more apolitical than either /pol/ obviously or /k/. gamergate proved that even political moderates or apolitical on /v/ did not want their entertainment fucked with for lefty political purposes, simple as that

>The point was that IS anti-establishment

that just proves how little time you've actually spent on /pol/ or /k/. /k/ is full of cops and military. they are not anti-establishment. there is plenty of establishment support on /pol/ too, especially now that Republicans have a rough monopoly on the government, especially Trump

protip; there's more to the establishment than the media and hollywood, or university professors

>but they're not conservatives at all.

that's a somewhat different consideration. I'm a conservative who supports authority, in principle, but who opposes Trump. you can't just paint with a wide brush. there are plenty of conservatives who oppose Trump; see McMullin and his supporters, and defense/intelligence establishment Republicans like McCain, etc.

>No you haven't, proof being that you think this is a politically "conservative" site.

well, you're wrong. there is one politics board on this website, and it is overwhelming right-wing. you can quibble about the semantics of "conservative" vs. alt-right. leftism vs liberal, etc., but it is clear that /pol/ is a socially and politically right-wing board

>If you think /pol/ is not made up of edgy teenage hypocrites

blah blah blah, again, /pol/ is not one person, and most of /pol/ do not support dictators. your strawman delusions are just that.

it's also not teenagers, by and large. that also just shows how little time you've actually spent there

/pol/ faggots are hopelessly bluepilled and subverted. I'm not responsible for whatever dumb gay millennial shit they do.
They took the fag pill.
They took the mutant pill.
They took the degeneracy pill.
They took the self-extinction pill.
They took the death pill.
Rabbi ((((((Toby Fox)))))) told them lies, and they believed him.
/pol/ is nothing now but controlled opposition, another arm of the jewish control system

You misunderstand, I'm not saying that there is no freedom of speech on Veeky Forums or /pol/. I'm saying that Veeky Forums already has an identity that isn't compatible with conservatism, not that conservatism isn't allowed.

Veeky Forums is not a blank slate. You being here and "tolerating" degenerate content that would be frowned upon by people you support is hypocritical. That's not a problem for progressives/degenerates, but it is for conservatives that support Pence's politics.

Also I'd do away with all the "toughen up" and "feelings" talk, you're not talking to normies, this is cringey.

>cringey
R E D D I T
D E T E C T E D

>I've argued threads from start to finish where it's 10 against 1, against Donald Trump.
you really are a tough guy

>if your feelings get so hurt you lose the courage to defend your beliefs, then you belong on reddit.
Where is the courage in hiding behind anonymity?

>it's also not teenagers, by and large.
do you honestly believe this?

>I'm saying that Veeky Forums already has an identity that isn't compatible with conservatism, not that conservatism isn't allowed.

"identity" doesn't mean much on a board with no post history, no names, etc.

a reputation? depends who you ask. 8ch thinks like this guythe liberal media thinks /pol/ is some super hacker right-wing troll

reputation means jack shit. it's second-order or third-order function; why not address the primary function? the primary function is free speech, full stop.

>Veeky Forums is not a blank slate.

that's exactly what it is. we create the content, and the content changes with teh times. Veeky Forums used to be much more libertarian than it is now, etc. Ron Paul, /b/?

>You being here and "tolerating" degenerate content

I'm here for the same reason the Founding Fathers wrote the 1st Amendment. I believe free speech is worth it. I believe the signal is worth putting up with the noise, because the signal is stronger. and I don't give a fuck who frowns upon Veeky Forums, most of them don't have any idea how the site actually works, they just read bullshit misinfo in the press

>That's not a problem for progressives/degenerates

the problem for the left is their bullshit doesn't hold up under scrutiny. that's not a problem for me. protip; traditions exist, as such, because they are continuously selected for, because they work. see FDR's "old and precious moral values". whereas degeneracy attends destruction throughout history. and today is no exception. ww3 soon

>Also I'd do away with all the "toughen up" and "feelings" talk, you're not talking to normies

nigger, you're the one whining about being called a shill or a cuck. that's cringy. quit whining about being insulted then I'll quit telling you to toughen up

but
muh 97% of scientists meme

9
97% guys

guys
take me seriously

>what is thickness?

it's not about you. it's about the courage of your convictions. do you have the courage and the confidence to defend your beliefs? that's the question

>do you honestly believe this?

yes, we've done threads on it. you can check the archive for strawpoll.me and /pol/'s age. for that matter, we've done a ton of polls on political belief too. stormtards are usually around 1/5th. that's the reputation /pol/ has disproportionately, because normies are shocked to see any speech that is banned everywhere else.

>reading comprehension
I don't know where things went wrong in our understanding. /pol/ and /k/ are conservative boards, period. Is that clear enough?

Pic related was my point about /v/'s supposed anti-establishment rage against "lefties".

>>The point was that IS anti-establishment
typo, I forgot to put /v/ before the is part, my bad. See above.

>>but they're not conservatives at all.
see pic

>well, you're wrong
Calculating a site's political orientation by focusing on a one-sided board is not accurate. Whether you like it or not, the discussion on /pol/ is so low-tier that it discourages most people from ever talking about politics. The most reliable way of doing it is to give political tests to each board individually. And I've yet to see a non-/pol/ or /k/ right wing majority. That was the point.

>/pol/ is not one person
That's a good excuse for when you don't want to deal with the less bright among you.

>most of /pol/ do not support dictators
Indicated by the love for pinochet, hitler and authoritarian leaders, I'm sure.

This thread all but confirms that /pol/ is raiding Veeky Forums.

Just report these bait threads and move on with your day, I already saw the mods delete another one earlier.

>Where is the courage in hiding behind anonymity?

for that matter, I still do argue politics under my real name on the Newshour. I tried doing this on other sites but I kept getting censored or banned, so fuck that. I had the courage, the leftists who ran the sites did not

8ch is just as bluepilled and degenerate, you dumb faggot cuck. You sound like a jew.

>everyone who disagrees with me is /pol/
Not an argument, cuck.

>everyone who disagrees with me is raid
Not an argument, cuck.

>everyone who disagrees with me is bait
Not an argument, cuck.

>announcing your reports
Enjoy your ban, cuck.