I'm especially talking about Internet memes and discourses that are blatant fanboyism with such black-and-white worldviews (for example, those Nordicuck vs Medchad wojak comparisons). I admire Ancient Rome, but Romeaboos in particular are some of the worst fanatics I've encountered, always brushing off Celtic and Germanic tribes as dirty savages when the Romans were also inspired by them, such as soap.

It's also a problem in leftist online academia as well, which is constantly trying to bring narratives that all big empires are inherently evil and oppressive, and the subjugated are victims. Basically, the opposite of the Romeaboo discourse, where the Romans are treated as the barbarians and the Celts and Germanics are romanticized as peaceful, feminist, nature-loving hippies.

https://pharos.vassarspaces.net/2024/04/03/classics-memes-white-supremacy-virgin-yes-chad-onions/

Atheist history is the problem. They say everybody was gay and shit.

If you're talking about 4chan, when you extract the memes and shitposting, the quality of discussion obviously improves but then it's not really 4chan anymore. Internet culture is the necessary identifying feature of the site as a whole. In the particular case of intellectual blue boards, you're making impossible demands by pointing this out.

>>17858721 (OP)
Letting low-IQ poorfags have internet access post-2014 is when things started to rapidly go to shit. Tictac and other social media services made it even worse by letting literally any retard spout off like they knew anything about anything.
/his/ unironically used to have some good discussion but after a wave of schizophrenic spammers ran all the oldfags off during Covid-chan this board has become insufferably bad

>>17858721 (OP)
why is the introduction bragging about conquering a random native tribe?

>>17858721 (OP)
>nooooooooo what did I get into academia for if I cant brainwash and misinform the next generation???
This garbage article in a nutshell

>>17858984
>brainwash and misinform
Why do facts scare you so much, chud?

>>17858721 (OP)
are jak memes the new form of propaganda these days?

>>17859399
Yes, obviously. The vast majority of soijacks for the last few years have been produced by propaganda teams.

This is ultimately the problem: >>17858952.
Needing the money to afford a personal computer and the basic intelligence to not destroy it in a few months were operating as silent quality control mechanisms pre-2010, and no one realized these barriers were the only thing keeping the internet a relatively nice and worthwhile place until it was too late.

>>17858721 (OP)
What do you mean?

>>17859412
>he says as a redditor, specifically on this website antithetical to his views to evangelize his center left positions...

>>17859683
That sure is a lot of words you just put in his mouth, I think you might be projecting

>>17858721 (OP)
What you're describing is mostly the result of generalization fallacies. The problem is a lot of these topics require nuance to properly discuss, and nuance requires lengthy discussion, which requires more mental energy, and people are lazy, so they resort to memes. It's a problem with politics as well. The internet really isn't an appropriate format for discussing these topics, but if you don't make the effort then it's just going to fall into academia and isolate the general public even further and accuse any viewpoints with nuance as just academic elitism

>>17859399
Most propaganda has been “people like me are handsome and successful, people like you are ugly losers” for all of recorded history.

>>17859015
A lot of it has to do with reader-response theory and people like Hayden White but I doubt you even know about that

>>17858721 (OP)
celts aren't even a real thing, it's literally pop history from armchair internet historians

>>17859727
do be like this

Humans should communicate through memes exclusively.

>>17858721 (OP)
This article is interesting because it offers no alternative type of humor outside of the "superior vs inferior" format/worldview. It documents a bunch of leftist/liberal memes which use right wing framing to spread their message, thereby ironically reinforcing right-wingery. This raises the question of what would "pure" leftist humor even look like? The Left doesn't really have "left-wing" meme formats. They invented the chudjak, which, again, derives humor from the inferiority of the political opponent (chud).

>>17859727

>>17858721 (OP)
Exept pop history is the only reason people care about it.
Is by far more passionate than boring accurate history.
Hell some historians even understand that which is why they do pop history books.

>>17859982
Hot Take here: History should be gatekept more
Sure pop history might be the only reason some people care about history in the first place, but do we really want those people involved in discourse about history in the first place?

>>17859796
>Hayden White
Dumbed down, repackaged version of McLuhan but I doubt you even know anything about that.

>>17859985
>pop history might be the only reason some people care about history
Those people still don't *really* care about history though. They just want a comfy narrative spun around a """historical""" event/person.

Rome was made for BIG GOTH COCK

>>17859727
what is the anti-propaganda? where you are the handsome successful and i am the ugly loser?

>>17860553
Incel memes

>>17858721 (OP)
link autocorrected and doesn't work: https://pharos.vassarspaces.net/2024/04/03/classics-memes-white-supremacy-virgin-yes-chad-onions/

>>17861306
oh come on
how do i get it to say "onions" instead of "onions?"

>>17861312
First day on 4chan?
It's fine, no one even gives a shit about being socialized to the site anymore. Feel free to stick around as long as you like.

>>17859675
You think affording a PC and not destroying it within months was some kind of impressive litmus test that made your input valid pre 2010?

>>17861626
I'm just going to assume you were too young in those to really track what was going on in the world. The short answer, unfortunately, is yes. The way you're framing what we're saying is misguided, though. To clarify, it's not a matter of any of that actually being impressive, it's a matter of the average human being turning out to be unimaginably more retarded than most people online ever would have guessed in the "old days", despite the fact that "everyone on the internet is stupid" was a commonplace and basically correct take back then as well. The overwhelming majority of people online nowadays act almost indistinguishably from how the small number of "village idiots" behaved on old Invision Board-era forums. I'm referring to the kinds of people who either signed up for a week and quit in an embarrassing storm of public butthurt and spelling-and-grammar errors after misunderstanding an innocent post, or who may have been nice and agreeable enough and stuck around for a while, but who never seemed to have anything intelligent to say and who everyone else on the board privately hoped would just move on some point. Anyone who was socially active online before "Web 2.0" probably remembers the types.

Also, in the '90s/'00s, it was widely known and joked about that most people who owned computers didn't understand how to use them even at the level of a proficient amateur, even if they had years of near-daily use under their belt. There was a long-lived genre of satire in mainstream and online entertainment that revolved around this fact. So yes, it is just objectively true that most people then lacked the intelligence to properly use and maintain a basic store-bought Windows PC. No one conscious in those days would have disputed this. PCs then also tended to have less guardrails built into the OS than they do now, and there was a general sink-or-swim ethos surrounding their use of, "You chose to buy it, it's your problem now."

>>17861753
I suspect you are to some extent making the mistake of using yourself and people you voluntarily interact with as your compass for assessing human capability as a whole, and this is leading you to greatly overestimate what most others can actually do. Which is more or less what I'm saying we all did pre-2010. As some faggot who isn't me once said, "You don't really understand how hard something you know how to do is until you see someone who simply can't do it." Barriers to entry which you can't in your wildest dreams imagine a "normal" person incapable of overcoming actually prove sufficient to filter out a majority of the human race surprisingly often.

An illustrative anecdote: in my twenties, I worked for a while in a call center which served two clients. To work for the first, all you had to do was get hired on and demonstrate some basic familiarity with how to use a smartphone, which was a relatively novel product at the time. The second client offered better pay, better working conditions, and readily available opportunities for rapid promotion, but there was an extra condition to work for them. The condition? Beat 35 WPM on a typing test with a less-than-2% error rate. That was it. As long as you could manage that, you could freely choose to work for either client, and there was no reason not to choose the second one.

>>17861756
Every applicant attempted this test, as it was a mandatory part of the application process, because the company of course wanted people working for both of their clients. The ratio of employees between the first and second clients was roughly 7:1. Most applicants were under thirty, and had therefore grown up with computers to some extent. QWERTY-based texting had already been around for a bit. You needed to be at least what your boomer parents would think of as "tech savvy" just to pass the interview. And yet, about 7 of 8 couldn't manage it. I could go on for a long time about the differences in workplace culture between the two employee-pools, but suffice to say, they would have tended to confirm any prejudice that the 1-in-8 were overall smarter and more functional adults than the 7-in-8.

The bottom line is that most people were just born with soggy clumps of dogshit where their brain was supposed to be. The point myself and that other guy were making is that, consequently, inclusivity/accessibility = lower quality discussion. Leaving aside the issue of affordability, which, despite what one might justifiably have read into my previous post, I don't really think I agree counts as a quality control mechanism, any rudimentary skills-based obstacle to participation will tend to produce welcome improvements wherever they exist. It doesn't have to be "impressive" by any means. As it turns out, something you could have done in your sleep as a child will filter out most people.

>>17859974
First guy wouldn't be that bad if he shaved

>>17858721 (OP)
Is there anything more faggy than "land acknowledgements"

>>17858721 (OP)
Internet memes may be new, but neither low-effort pop history nor people into history for transparently political reasons are remotely new phenomena
it sucks but what can you do, people who care will dig deeper