Regarding the hate label

Hi guys. Still new here, but I had a question. I noticed a lot of 'Stop the hate' posts and replies out there and I just realised that my anger about a lot of stuff is often labelled as hate. The red pill effect is interesting to observe in myself. It sort of comes in gradual waves.

What I noticed is that despite this being /pol, you are often slapped with a hate label by a leftist visitor, then quite often simply embrace the label or roll with it.

So, my question is, why is this a popular way of dealing with such accusations on /pol? Is arguing about an accusation in the first place genrally seen as a waste of energy or something?

Thank you

Yours sincerely
user

people who label Sup Forums a hate anything obviously do not understand satire and dark humor.

Much of left wing politics is based around bullying to get what they want. Throwing words at you like "hate" and "racist" is supposed to make you feel bad and shut you. It's very effective on much of the right because they don't consider themselves to be hateful and it genuinely hurts them. I think one of the reasons they hate Trump so much is that their bullying tactics had almost no effect on him. It's also why I find him inspirational.

I've never seen anyone take abuse like our President--GOAT?
-Kellyanne is great at it too
-Kellyanne was lined up opposite Mook--she ate his lunch all day long and is partly why MAGA won

Kellyanne has the patience of a saint. I'd have completely lost it in her position

So, it kind of scares them in a way? When they see what they perceive as 'hate' from somebody who starts throwing out evidence or simply intensifies their behaviour, what is it doing to them?

Others have mentioned a type of study of language I can't remember the name for to do with the powerbehind words. They then mentioned that the Jewish generally learn said science by default. Does anyone have any insight on that?

"Hate" is shitlib code for "disagrees with a communist faggot".

Essentially, if it's pissing off leftists then they will classify it as "hate". If they do that, then it is proof that what Sup Forums is doing is working. Leftists engage in more hate speech than we have ever done. We keep our shit bottled up online away from the normies, while they march in the streets and bully people on Twitter.

Interesting. See, because I WAS central left/ weak left, but it felt increasingly unnatural (bottled up) as I became less and less interested in listening to leftist stuff in the first place.

But I don't think I was ever true left because if I ever heard right-wing opinion, part of me, which I labelled the hateful of racist part of me, felt satisfaction.

Then I started seeing hypocrisy in the way the media treated Trump vs Hillary. Then other leftist stuff in Aus that just sort of, went down the wrong way.

I came here under the logic that if the leftist parts of me were so 'noble and true', they would survive, but if not, at least I would get to maybe vent.

I've found I'm feeling a lot better in myself since. Like after vomiting when you feel nausea. Every now and then, I 'throw up' something new. Wondering what's in a redpill... Probably bleach.

Yeah, they I think they're trying to silence messages which they think will resonate with people. I think a lot of the younger leftists hold their beliefs simply because they've been bullied into it and now they enact that bullying when they hear people say things which they used to think were reasonable. It's like "look at me bullies, you can't hurt me, I'm one of you!"

You seem like a thoughtful person, what subjects or events made you abandon the left?

pretty sure the only thing unanimously hated on Sup Forums is Chinese bug people

For most libtards it is Stockholm Syndrome. For the elites it is power over useful idiots. In reality the ones who think they are elite will be shot.
Watch Yuri Bezmenov.

Thank you. I probably have to come back to when I mentioned hypocrisy. So, the first thing was when I wanted to see what all the fuss was about with Trump vs Hillary.

I checked into their second debate live I think on ABC. A couple of times, I saw Hillary go over time, then during Trumps turn, they were warning him prior to his time being up.

I thought 'Oh, the media will pick up on that and show that the adjudicator wasn't giving him a fair go', but instead, they painted his complaint about the bias as a child-like tantrum.

Since then, a lot of other leftist stuff has looked cruel to me. Things just sort of unravelled for me.

Enjoy the ride :)

So the coating on the first red pill is beginning to dissolve...buckle up.

sounds pretty similar to myself, user. there are way more Sup Forumsacks who would objectively be considered left-leaning moderates than most people think when they imagine the user base here, but they often perpetuate the "hate" label for a number of reasons - plus the overton window meme.

>So, it kind of scares them in a way? When they see what they perceive as 'hate' from somebody who starts throwing out evidence or simply intensifies their behaviour, what is it doing to them?

It's scaring them in the sense that they aren't equipped to deal with it. The left for far too long has increasingly abandoned debate and having better political ideas for assuming the moral high ground and attacking their opponents with all-too-familiar labels like racist, bigot, fascist, etc.

They've overplayed this tactic so much that a lot of people are becoming totally immune to it, and when it doesn't work on their opponents - especially if said opponents have evidence and strong logical arguments for their positions - they aren't used to it because they've never put in the intellectual leg work to back up their own positions, only constant appeals to morality and emotion. Considering that the left currently has absolutely horrible ideas which wouldn't survive the "intellectual free market" on their own merits, this means their entire ideology is very vulnerable.

tl;dr - Leftists have much to lose and little to gain by engaging in open debate, but little to lose and much to gain by shutting their opponents up through harassment, character assassination, false charges, hate speech codes on college campuses, "peaceful protests," etc.

i don't know if this is what you're talking about but something to chew on anyway

>So, my question is, why is this a popular way of dealing with such accusations on /pol?
You say "yes, thank you."

>Racist!
Yes, thank you.
>Bigot!
Yes, thank you.
>Anti-Semite!
Yes, thank you.

These people are so used to attacking strawmen that when confronted directly by the very thing they claim they're campaigning against, they'll panic.

agree+amplify

failing that, ignore

Most of the people who use the hte label are paid by David Brock's online shill crew Shareblue. Defending your actions is something reddit shitfaces do, and defending yourself against someone who's paid to demonize you is the definition of being a cuck.

Instead, we embrace the label, and whenever Sup Forums has a raid, we blame reddit and then all the retardo journalists go there instead of here.

I think it's important to keep in mind that since its inception, Sup Forums has had a culture based strongly around satire, dark humor, and rejection of the mainstream. Because of the anarchic qualities of the site like the "Anonymous" username and penchant for chaos, outsiders - particularly in the establishment - tend to have an extremely difficult time pinning down it or its userbase as anything definitive. This makes it easy to LARP as any kind of dangerous, underground subculture, and the media never fucking learns from it. Shit, 10 years ago Fox News aired that infamous segment about how we're all domestic terrorists and an "Internet Hate Machine" while Bill O'Reilly was calling us a far-left extremist site which posed a threat to democracy.

Sup Forums has also always been extremely hostile to newfags and normies, and embracing stuff like "hate labels" and posting offensive and shocking content is a tried and true method for making sure no one who stumbles in here and doesn't belong sticks around for long.

Now that I think about it, it's not surprising at all that people here would jump on the "Build the Wall" idea...

Ah, I think I get it. They imagine a big scary monster that is the right. The stronger their belief in the 'right-wing monster', the more shaken they are by it, ESPECIALLY when said monster throws in slivers of evidence. Not only does it scare them, which would lower their defences, it also taints them.

Yeah, that pilpul term was the one. I think the prior post I read talked about it being a part of their 'becoming a man' studies.

...

Thanks for the replies all. It's always interesting. I've got more to chew on now.