danger/u/
This thread is permanently archived
Online Far-Right Movements Fracture, as 'Gullible' QAnon Supporters Criticized

| Users on forums that openly helped coordinate the Jan. 6 riot and called for insurrection...have become increasingly agitated with QAnon supporters, who are largely still in denial that President Donald Trump will no longer be in the Oval Office after Jan. 20... [QAnon adherents] have identified Inauguration Day as a last stand, and falsely think he will force a 10-day, countrywide blackout that ends in the mass execution of his political enemies and a second Trump term...


| According to researchers who study the real-life effects of the QAnon movement, the false belief in a secret plan for Jan. 20 is irking militant pro-Trump and anti-government groups, who believe the magical thinking is counterproductive to future insurrections...


| The fracture is "apparent on viral TikToks and Facebook posts," reports NBC News, with one TikTok post mocking "the number of the gullible people who are still out there saying Q is going to run to the rescue."

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/online-far-right-movements-fracture-wake-capitol-riot-n1254459


| TikTok gave up its human right to mock the second it came to this world.


| >>731135 china gave up its human rights so why wouldnt tiktok


| >>731143
China, like many other countries, was treated like shit by "enlightened" western colonialists, who thought human rights only apply to white people. Unlike many other countries china managed to gain back it's autonomy and being economical successful by offering cheap production to western industry through low labor and environmental standards. We fed the monster which is going to swallow us. Stop crying.


| >>731150 cheap production by getting a bunch of overworked and underpaid chinese people who have no other option but to do what the CCP tells them to,since that party has control over the whole country.
So I wont stop crying because the chinese are crying too under their tyranical government.


| >>731167
You will cry louder if your PC/Notebook/Tablet/Smartphone suddenly cost 10 times more and you have to use them for at least 10 years.


| >>731217 jokes you I already pay a lot for overpriced products and try to make them last at least 15 yrs before replacing or upgrading and tbh, its not that bad.

If china had human rights at least there would be less suffering in thw world and if you wanna say that Im gonna cry for living the way Ive been living then it seems like you are the type to accept foreingn slave labour if it gets a little more confort


| Saying that we should not solve their situation because without chinese slave labour things get more expensive just shows the type of people YOU are not me.


| >>731150 >>731217
WUMAO FAGGOT

also hi bait thread, care to explain what about those guys is "far-right"?


| >>731224 "what about qanon is far right"

The fact you have to ask means any explanation would go over your head.

>>731135 >>731143 Jesus, apparently we can't have a thread without it becoming about China faster than you can blink


| >>731271 The fastest gurl in the wild west. But, to be fair, my aim wasn't China.

The least accurate gurl in the wild west.


| >>731277 Haha, I don't think it was you. I blame>>3c4229 but it's been kind of an irritating trend across a couple threads now.


| >>da7434
It's just the same 2 people starting it in every thread. It's best to start ignoring them. They never contribute to anything anyway.


| >>731314

This anon gets it.


| You are all complaining about how threads go a certain way but you should at least try to make change the subject instead of complaining and talking about how the thread changed. Be smart about how you do things


| >>731314
No, this time it wasn't me. You may be suprised, but I have a real live with a real job and can't comment on every absurd right-wing cult here. So obviously there are some comrades of mine.
--
commie g/u/rl


| >>731375 We're definitely here, but we should be able to have a discussion that isn't about China.

Anyway, I hope the intense division cropping up in Qanon-ey circles combined with Trump being out of office causes the whole thing to fizzle out.


| >>731314 Actually, I will argue against that. Sure, I joke around from time to time, and sure, derailing does not contribute to the topic of the thread, but shows the problems with the rule about derailing the threads.

It either is just a rule in theory, or the maids are not doing a proper job, which, mind you, >>731316 , it's your job. So next time I do derail, tell me to eat a lemon or get banned instead of doing nothing to improve /new/.

Have a nice day.


| >>731394 things wont fizzle out because the division is still here, the best way to disperse things is to promote inclusivity, healthy debates and less violence, if people just keep taking sides and excluding eachother as nazis and commies while refusing to see eachothers side, things will just stay the same at best, and at worst will evolve into a more conflicts.


| >>731423 Im against the rule because it limits speech, makes conversations less fluid and organic out of fear, the best way to put a thread back in its tracks is to well talk its way back on tracks =D


| Also banning seems too harsh and will only make so people stop using /new/ or break the rules on purpose to protest


| >>731437 Well, for me it's necesary to a extent. Derails, done without good intentions, lead to fights, which is the reason most threads are closed here, kind of proving that both sides are the stupid side in those arguments.

Besides /a/, /new/ is the board which needs more improvement.


| >>731444 /new/ is fine because most derails and threads still fall under politics and current events, /a/ derails and threads need better work because its moslty advertisement


| >>731271
ah i see. you have no idea what makes them far-right, that's just what you chose to blindly believe.


| i agree that at this point we should just ban these 2 peeps and clean up /new/ if not removing it outright


| >>731450 How about we ban you instead? You wont be able see /new/, you wont get annoyed by it and people will still have place to talk about politics, current events, news and countries.

It seems like an absolute win dont yall think?


| >>731394
>We're definitely here, but we should be able to have a discussion that isn't about China.
But our prime leader and peoples savior does it too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDrfE9I8_hs


| >>731423

Repeatedly banning and mass deleting people who are too easily baited into arguments outside the scope of a thread is a pain in the ass- it would be better if said people just stayed on the discussion, since even thread locking is irritating/unfair to the original OP, who often have nothing to do with the parties responsible. This has been especially worse in recent months since, for whatever reason, there are two individuals here who have an uncanny knack for seeking each out, pseudo anonymity be damned.

That said, if you are offering an invitation to be banned yourself, I am more than happy to oblige.


| True, it would be a pain and unfair to ban and close every person and every thread that deviates


| >>731437

Incidentally, I agree with this post- regarding the best way to return a thread to its proper conversation is to... do so.

You're also under no obligation to respond to someone intentionally derailing a thread or going on an unrelated tangent, and if you *think* you need to, you only become part of the problem.


| >>731459 Will take the lemon instead of the ban for the time being.

I will say one thing. I believe that people taking things too seriously is a bit more dangerous that people not taking things too seriously. De-escalating fights is harder than ignoring derails, and some here just can't avoid it.

Until we change that, /new/ will stay the mess it is.

Sorry for extending this further than what I should, but I think it was necesary.

And cut it down you two. No one has to be banned


| >>731472 I wasnt serious on the ban thing at>>731453

Well if you want to deescalate arguements then you should try to put the conversation back on rails by asking questions, hinting at things etc, if people engaged more on the derailed threads then they would have higher chances to be put back where it started


| >>731472

It's fine, I agree that this conversation was a long time coming anyway. Peace, y'all.


| remove /new/


| >>731493 just remove the people who want to remove /new/, then they cant get angry at it and people still have the board


| To quote one of the /new/ banners, >"be happy that they have fucking /new/ as a containment board, or do you want them to spread to other boards aswell?".

If you delete /new/, it will go to /u/, and no one on their right mind would let this mess go to the main board.

Anyways, enough of this, we know the place sucks. We kind of just talked about how to re-rail a thread.


| >>731501
then it must be banned on /u/.


| >>731511 people will start doing it on other boards, the mods will ban it, then more and more people wil repeat the same behaviour out of spite, there will be a mass flood of anti mod threads, the site will become cancer and either danger/u/ dies or unbans all the boards.

Silencing people has historicaly been proven to just make them go somewhere else or make them fight back


| >>731472 In the end, is there really a problem with /new/ remaining a mess? There is obviously demand for a place on the board for threads like this. I can't really see a benefit from preventing that, only a downside for the people who have been arguing.


| Also, I think >>731516 is right: even if there was a good reason to stop these arguments, it would either be impossible or difficult to the point of it not being worth the effort

Total number of posts: 42, last modified on: Sat Jan 1 00:00:00 1611002580

This thread is permanently archived