Ad Hom is destroying Sup Forums

We need to have a serious talk about the insane amount of ad hom that's destroying Sup Forums recently. Shills are using it very effectively and there is no significant pushback against it. Any time someone wants to dismiss a white wing public figure it's just some ad hom about their appearance or unsupported claims that they're a jew or cia or once had a relationship with a jew and therefore they should be gassed.
This completely bypasses everything these people actually say, which is most of the time in alignment with Sup Forums's generalized goals and values. Spencer mentions Israel as an example of an ethnostate, therefore a white ethnostate is not a crazy idea. Enoch doesn't like this argument, but shills have used this statement by Spencer to assert that he in some way supports Israel, which is fucking dumb. I urge you all to read the sticky and be aware of logical fallacies going on.

>Person X names the Jew
HE'S CONTROLLED OPPOSITION! CIA HONEPOT!!!
>Person X does not name the Jew
HE'S A C U C K!!! NOT /OURGUY/!!!

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.4plebs.org/pol/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Daily reminder complaining on Sup Forums to people who agree with you does nothing and """ecelebs""" are our best way of exposing others to our ideas. Daily reminder ad hom is not a fucking argument to discredit a person. Daily reminder that sex sells, and women are attention whores, but we want our ideas to get attention so thots parroting Sup Forums concepts should neither be encouraged, nor discouraged.

Are you really this fucking stupid? It's the internet this is how things are, people talk shit. If you want some pseudo-scholarly debate go to Reddit

Daily reminder Sup Forums moderators are literally shills.

Pics related

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

>the shills use proxies

Fuck you and celebrity roastie worship, you bootlicking cucksoul.

Considering a chart of logical fallacies is literally in the stick of this fucking board it would be safe to assume the intention of this place is to have quality political discourse. That was true in 2015 and before, but not so much anymore.

hey look, the hebrew mudshark is throwing a masonry hand gesture, but she's got a ducks unlimited hat, so she's obviously one of us!

Ummm, thanks I guess? I don't really understand why you've dumped all that shit in this thread that's not really what we're talking about. But if this is some new tactic to SHUT IT DOWN by filling the thread with bullshit before discussion can be started I find that very interesting.

the problem isn't shill posters

the problem is moderation allowing nonstop slides and shill posters.

LAZARUS feed confirms they allow shill slides to shit the board up by bots 24/7

your OP is a very small fraction of the actual problem

If any of you were here before the US elections will remember that the word "shill" was nowhere near it's ubiquitousness as it is now. Do think back to the Shareblue raids starting late february - you might recall that they played both sides to polarize any discussion here.

And same for "ecelebs" - you could discuss them relateviely freely without ~80% of the threads being 1 post by this IDs calling anyone having a discussion a shill.

Back to the term "shill": (I suspect) it was purposefully implemented to divide (and conquer) the board post-HWNDU. They used the fact that during the elections Sup Forums underwent a massive demographic shift, and relentlessly spammed the board with "shill! shill!" and "e-celebs!" also "controlled opposition!" to shift the board culture itself. And evidently they succeeded.

Mods are compromised. I myself have recieved warnings for exposing (duplicate) smear threads 2 times in the last year now.

You're gay

God damn those are a nice pair of tits

it's fucking ridiculous dude.

they could literally apply a filter on the blacked bots, muh president hillary bots etc but they dont. the botting goes even deeper than that.

the bots will create very similar shitposts basically trying to instigate argument between shillposters and legit content posters. i've been watching it for a week straight. the live feed we made is a real fucking wakeup call. we're currently in the process of fine tuning our bot for countershilling. we're also going to develop the ultimate anti shill thread with irrefutable evidence these fucking shills are fucking this board up 24/7, we will fucking FORCE the hand of administration to resolve this fucking shit. the fact they're letting shareblue/jidf bots fuck this board up shows they are willfully negligent in proper content moderation and should be revoked their moderation privileges.

I hope that's true and I look forward to that thread. Maybe you could do something about these fuckwits constantly shilling for "alt-right personalities" here? They're all controlled opposition.

Checked.

I know. Same as in the logs you posted - they are purposefully neglecting this board even now, when Sup Forums is largely representative of Sup Forums as an entity in itself. Knowing the post massive count here daily you'd think they would increase the 300 bump limit, but even that has not been done. Combine that with mods that actively sabotage any attempts at policing the board (by the boards own sticky rules no less) get you warnings, and what you have is a permanently deteriorating board culture.

And for the anti-shill thread: good luck, you're gonna need it. The climate has changed here so much that most here will just dogpile on you or the mods will just set it to auto-decay if not outright delete it. I do recall the instance where they moved /nsg/ to /bant/ while leaving up multiple "Lauren Southern is X" threads even then both got reported to them.

Those fuckwits are the personalities themselves.

E-celebs are the only ones who actually care about e-celebs.

Those kind of threads are a lot harder to prove they are slides, namely because a lot of them aren't - they're actually thots who can't think critically reverberating their own stupid eceleb shit at eachother day after day. The catalog at any given time is literally 70% shillbots/shillslides at any given time on average - with the remaining 30% being legitimate content.

The shills repeat the same talking points over and over and over with slightly different wording and constantly trigger the newfags and then they go and debate pointless shit effectively disabling the bulk of the board from making any good content.

>pissing in an ocean of piss

>They're all controlled opposition.
I would like to hear exactly what makes them controlled opposition. How can people say things we agree with publicly seven days a week and somehow be our enemy? Sup Forums is just too fucking paranoid.

I want to hear your strategy for spreading Sup Forums ideology completely ignoring any use of public figures whatsoever. How are we going to bring about the ethnostate? Anonymous twitter trolling?

Shutup mutt

LAZARUS is a bunch of cyber security/programmers/graphics artists.

we cannot be banned. and we have the forces to literally brute force pummel the facts into the fucking reality of this board regardless of whatever they attempt to censor our messages.

doesn't work. they've tried multiple times and failed multiple times.

Sup Forums is vulnerable to psyops because it's very easy to make a thread about a controlled op to give them a false sense of credibility.

For this reason, we need to shun all such attempts to promote (or demote) "alt right leaders". IF we indulge these threads, it creates a bad incentive for such aspiring personalities to promote themselves the same way.

Sup Forums is a place where we discuss, and hammer down ideas. Sup Forums is a place where we talk about ideology.

IF we convert enough people to our ideology, we will automatically see political progress, and public figures will arise naturally outside of Sup Forums.

Nothing is going to happen, Sup Forumsacks just want to see the world burn. They want to make this 4th Reich shit but guaranteed they would be the first to get purged. Pol is a bunch of children playing pretend.

t.user since 2010

Well, this is a Lauren Southern thread, so I'll use her as an example. You've got an unmarried roastie that dresses like a whore and repeats alt-right talking points instead of doing what she advocates by marrying and raising white children. How is she a good example? At absolute best she's a vapid, hypocritical cunt that's got a bunch of virgins salivating over the thought of marrying her. At worst, she's controlled and is shitting things up intentionally.

Or take Jordan Peterson and Alex Jones. They both talk a good game about certain things, but when it comes to the most important question of all - the Jewish question - they're hostile or silent. The point of this is to collect a significant number of people who are on the path to full 14/88 and to subvert them with red herrings to forestall rising anti-semitism.

No, I can't prove that any of these people are controlled opposition, but if anyone could they'd be useless already. FBI is well-known for infiltrating far-right groups and I'm confident that I've been around long enough to spot them.

This is an example of the kind of shilling we should discourage.

That this point, you can't trust anyone. Only trust yourself and you principles (Stick to your Guns and the people will come.)

Are you calling me a shill, or referring to what I said about Lauren, Alex, and Jordan?

hes probably one of those guys who fell for the Camel and cleavage

speaking positively or negatively about any e-celebs should be discouraged on here.... If we all agree to that rule, we will drastically reduce the number of shills on here; just by removing the incentive to shill.

>For this reason, we need to shun all such attempts to promote (or demote) "alt right leaders".
I agree. I'm not for worshipping or giving these people money. I just don't see the reason for actively attacking people who are basically saying things we agree with.
>Sup Forums is a place where we discuss, and hammer down ideas. Sup Forums is a place where we talk about ideology.
Exactly. My only interest in e-celebs is in keeping tabs on the ideology they are submitting to the wider public. Sup Forums doesn't watch e-celebs to learn anything. We watch them like a coach watches a boxer they trained.

>IF we convert enough people to our ideology, we will automatically see political progress
Exactly. And I just have a hard time thinking about ways to convert people without the help of youtube. That's where the people are. People who want to shut down any discussion of youtube on Sup Forums don't seem to want to win the culture war. We don't want the masses on Sup Forums, so it's great if e-celebs take our information and deliver it to normies in a more approachable way.

ok

I tend to agree with you, but what I said wasn't counter-shilling at all. It's more a meta-comment about the frequency of 'e-celeb' shilling here. How is what I said any different than you criticizing people for criticizing e-celebs? They're equally meta and off topic.
>speaking positively or negatively about any e-celebs should be discouraged on here

>How is what I said any different than you criticizing people for criticizing e-celebs?
Because if we say it's "good" or "acceptable" to attack Southern or peterson, then we incentivize shills who wish to attack those people (as a means to promote their opposition of the day).

But, if we all attack people who comment on the character of southern or peterson, we will be discouraging shilling.

One is removing the category of e-celebs from discussion

the other is attacking the character of particular e-celebs

Op is a fag, but yes ive seen the lefties start every argument with retard.

Its clearly them using free speech and The more they get to used to it the longer they'll be here.

I was a lib at one point as well, but kept coming back here over they years...

Just the same way we say "tits or gtfo" (or used to) as a way to discourage femanon posting...

We should always sage and otherwise ruin any threads that mention e-celebs at all in the OP.

>One is removing the category of e-celebs from discussion
That's not the effect at all. Your comments are as related to e-celebs as mine. Your comments, in themselves and by definition, then increase discussion of e-celebs rather than decrease such discussion. So follow your own advice and shut up if that's what you believe.

But that's not what I believe at all. If people can shill for vapid roasties here and no one challenges them, they gain the appearance of legitimacy and that's bad because they're bad role models at best and subverters at worst.

We need to have a talk about faggots like you posting e-celebs and how the answer is for you to rope yourself or drink lots of bleach, cringy virgin faggot.

Meatspace is the only thing that matters.

Get off forums that are meant to stall and be proactive in fighting back.

Mostly newfags and Americans

Been true since 2014 at the very least, this is old news
>there are people who don't know about Sup Forums harbour

>tits or gtfo
Is a Sup Forums thing, it was never really a Sup Forums "rule" to begin with. It is the migrants from other boards who brought it here with them, particularily /r9k/ and Sup Forums

>So follow your own advice and shut up if that's what you believe.
No. My phrasing doesn't encourage discussion of any e-celeb. Any e-celeb looking to shill himself will have no reason to participate in the discussion i'm having. That's because i'm talking about e-celebs as a category, not e-celebs as people.

Your insistance and focus on talking about particular e-celebs shows me you are either a shill or a braindead moron who is part of the problem.

>discussion of any e-celeb
>Any e-celeb looking to shill himself
>i'm talking about e-celebs
>talking about particular e-celebs
Look how many times you just mentioned the exact thing you claim you aren't talking about. Fuck you, you subversive, roastie-worshipping moronlord. I was asked a specific question by someone about e-celebs and I answered it using example.

The origin of the practice doesn't affect the fact that it was used here.
Sup Forums used to be much more resistant to that kind of bullshit than it is today.

>whoever says bad things about what I like is a shill
>fuck off my echo chamber REEEEEEE!

the post

>thinks the word e-celeb is an e-celeb
Thanks for confirming that you're a moron.

More about the "ecelebs" shilling "themelves" here: this is another thing that was accelerated in growth by the Shareblue raids. So far the only one to be known to shill themselves here buggered off once they got informed of the possible consequences. Any right leaning youtuber or whatever will eventually get mentioned here, but that does not mean shilling. There have been insatnces of this anti"eceleb" thing spilling over to other platforms and turning into pseudo-witchhunts. Some people (who wanted nothing to do with this board whatsover) have been driven off of the internet by none other but Sup Forums.

Nice strawman, dipshit. I claimed no such thing. I claimed that mentioning e-celebs constitutes discussion of e-celebs. A tautology, actually, but you're too fucking dumb to know what that means, I'm sure. Keep on hoping you're going to get a piece of Lauren's used up snatch, incel.

>I claimed that mentioning e-celebs constitutes discussion of e-celebs.

Here Look: I addressed this point already, in the very post where you're saying i contradicted it.
>That's because i'm talking about e-celebs as a category, not e-celebs as people.

Wow, you're seriously stupid.

cuck

>That's because i'm talking about e-celebs as a category, not e-celebs as people.
Why do you think this means anything? Discussion "e-celebs as a category" increases discussion of "e-celebs". This is true by definition you fucking mong.

>Thinks e-celeb the category is an e-celeb
>Literally incapable of understanding what category means

I agree. Thinking every e-celeb thread is the actual person trying to get more views is paranoid. Every right wing public figure is going to be posted about here eventually.

>Keep on hoping you're going to get a piece of Lauren's used up snatch, incel.
Ignoring the fact that shes a woman. Ignoring anything about her past. Isn't the topics she covers and the message she delivers to the public a positive for the right wing?
Why is discussion of e-celebs so terrible? I think it would be worthwhile discussion if people would stop focusing on attacking or inflating the e-celebs character and kept things centered on what they are actually saying. Do you have a logical argument for why people promoting Sup Forums ideas on youtube is a bad?

Fucking delusional Sup Forums

>everyone is shareblue
>every post is a slide thread
>shills.... shills everywhere
>NSA
>FBI
>everyone is an eceleb shilling themselves
>we’re being raided by reddit
>more shills
>even more shills

I swear I don’t know how we gerbil anything done around here with you paranoid faggots.

It's you that is literally misunderstanding what is being stated. Discussion of e-celebs as a category increases discussion of e-celebs. It is discussion of e-celebs in itself. That doesn't mean the category "e-celebs" is itself an "e-celeb". For example, the category "foxes" is not an animal fox in itself, it's an idea. But discussion of foxes is discussing foxes you idiot.

I have no idea if what she discusses is of value because I've never listened to her because I think for myself, as you should. If you can't spot an attention whore yet you have a lot more lurking to do, on the internet in general. If people want to go worship her used-up pussy let them do it on YouTube and discuss it on YouTube. This is a marketplace of ideas and if she wants to participate she can come here anonymously like everyone else.

>reddit spacing

Fuck you shareblue. Go shill your e-celeb worship somewhere else and stop sliding threads, faggot.

Mou might see your view on this as the cure to "eceleb" threads bout you are mistaken. You are actually one of the most active propagators of the "discussion" about them here. And using non-arguments like sex does nothing but degrade the agument into a shitflingfest.

Face it: Sup Forums is as popular as ever now, and "ecelebs" are part of the package. There will be people who will bring them up either way, just learn to live with it instead of ruining it for everyone involved by polarizing an already sensitive topic.
"Reddit" spacing has been a part of Sup Forums culture long before Reddit itself. This too is a means of just shutting down the conversation, same as attacking trollflags. Don't do that.

>I have no idea if what she discusses is of value because I've never listened to her because I think for myself, as you should.
I hear this argument a lot, and I always state that Sup Forums has nothing to learn from e-celebs, but merely watches them to keep track of them like a coach watches a boxer they trained, or a shepherd watches their flock. e-celebs discussed here get most of their ideas from Sup Forums and simply deliver it to a wider audience. We watch to make sure they stay in line and so they get more views so youtube ranks their videos higher so normies get exposed to our messages.

>If you can't spot an attention whore yet you have a lot more lurking to do, on the internet in general.
We want our ideas to get attention. If a whore is getting attention for talking about right wing politics, that's called successful propaganda.

>It's you that is literally misunderstanding what is being stated.
I'm the one making the proposition, dipshit.
I'll walk you through the logic one more time.

I'm against is incentivizing particular-celebs from shilling for themselves, and against other e-celebs on this board.

Do dis-incentivize this behavior, we should discourage any discussion of particular e-celebs.

There's nothing about stating this strategy that incentivizes any e-celeb to talk about himself or herself. In fact, it has the opposite effect. The fact that I used the word e-celeb to communicate this strategy is completely irrelevant.

Get it? No? Well that's my last attempt at beating it into your stupid head.

>expecting a bunch of welfare whores typing away from the basement to be reasonable and productive
Fuck off, I bet you're a college student observing us for a project for your humanities class

You do realize 9 times out of 10 when a poster cries about reddit spacing while frog posting its a fucking 15 year old underaged poster, right?

ad hom is destroying america
also tribalism and ideology

So what you're saying is that positive discussion of these people is acceptable, but that criticism is not? Sex absolutely is an argument, so I don't know what you mean by that.

I understand your point of view. The danger is when the e-celebs themselves are subverters, controlled opposition, hypocrites, etc. Then it's bad to amplify their message because it serves the enemy.

You're going in circles because you don't want to admit that you're discussing e-celebs just as much as anyone else here. You lack the self-reflection to see your own hypocrisy so this conversation cannot go anywhere productive.

>literally thinks the word eceleb is an eceleb
I knew it

I don't care. I am not going to disregard and shut down anyone if I have the choice (even if they should not be here) through any non-arguments like "ur underage/jew/shill" etc.
If you haven't noticed most like you are not criticizing, but outright attacking their characters. And how is "lol she won't fuck you" an argument? It is more likely a projection than not.

Fuck of gay faggot homo bitch. You're right though, shills try to do character assassinations all the time

Hahaha. This is the 3rd time you've repeated this straw man. Feel free to go back and read my previous destructions of this fallacy as I'm not going to spoonfeed you again.

Are you denying that Lauren intentionally appeals to an audience hungry for traditional females, by appearing available, dressing slutty, and parroting traditionalism?

You are a shill faggot.

>You are a shill faggot.
Says the faggot as he shills for e-celebs.

Yes. As you yourself stated: you don't even listen to her, so how can you even know what is she really doing and who is she pandering to? All assumptions, no facts. I am getting hypocrisy reeadings here.

>when Sup Forums is largely representative of Sup Forums as an entity in itself
did you ever stop and think the mods don't want you r*ddit faggots

...

>Are you denying that Lauren intentionally appeals to an audience hungry for traditional females, by appearing available, dressing slutty, and parroting traditionalism?
I'm not Latvia, and I don't deny that at all. My argument is that that is a positive thing for Sup Forums propaganda efforts. We should be weaponizing sex just like everyone else to get our message out there. The beta orbiters keep her popular and keep her views high, subsequently she appears more frequently to new people who have never heard of her before (men and women), it's the new people that matter, the orbiters are the foundation. The betas don't matter because they already agree with everything she says but they provide the foundation for her popularity so she exposes the ideas to normies.

Here are the premises I used to reach my conclusion:
1. She dresses in a slutty manner. OPs pic is proof enough.
2. She's unmarried and has no children
3. She advocates traditionalism, while not living in a traditional manner herself.
Since you're a listener, please correct me if any of those 3 statements are false. But if they're true, they're completely sufficient to support the statements I've made.

I understand where you're coming from. It's solid logic from a certain point of view with certain values. But I don't accept 'necessary evils', if you know what I mean. Anything that is bad at the foundation produces bad things, regardless of any incidental good effects. Fruit of the poison tree, and all. And attention whoring and hypocrisy are bad.

...

Anyone who has any social life these days is trying their best to up their sex appeal, especially women. Such is the world we live in. And if someone can utilize it to gain an even bigger audience: then I'm all for it.
This will be all, as you are clearly not interested in a debate here, just to overpower and push your views without even listening to the opposition.

fuckoff CIA nigger

Not true. Most attacks on e-celebs come from Sup Forumsacks who are genuine far-right ethnonationalists. I see the Spencers, Taylors, Southerns, et al., as all together faggot friendly moderates who have little business speaking on behalf of Whites being stomped by the Jewish jackboot.

What the hell are you talking about? I was very polite to you. You called me a hypocrite so I made all my premises explicit. Instead of refuting my logic or debating the premises you tell ME I'm not willing to debate and am trying to overpower you? It is YOU who is speaking in bad faith here.

That picture is fucking retarded. There's no "winning" this war. You're a fucking idiot if you think that's possible. Do you think Kek gave 2 shits about the winner and loser of this fight? Do you think meme magic is a pure thing? We lost a long time ago senpai. This place is a last act of defiance, whereas the "alt-right movement" is something created by (((them))) to curtail their own headaches. Fuck Spencer, fuck Lauren, fuck all these reddit tier faggots who think they can actually make a significant difference through (((their))) world. All you can do is not bend to their bullshit.

Your 3 points have been discussed to all hell here in the last year already. I don't have the energy to emulate the Finn here. Look though the archives yourself, there are dozens if not hundreds of "Lauren *expletive* Southern" threads there, and in most of them your questions have been ansered to death already.

Sup Forums has always had ad hom, and it's actually at a very low point in Sup Forums history right now, even though this board isn't as intellectual anymore

You've had multiple opportunities to answer them yourself now, and have instead offered responses that don't answer them at all, when it would presumably have been just as easy to respond. I therefore assume that you CAN'T refute what I've said until you demonstrate otherwise.

You call me a hypocrite, then refuse to even acknowledge the premises I was using. You accuse me of being unwilling to debate in the VERY SENTENCE that you yourself refuse to debate. Fuck you, you lying bad-faith pussy beggar. Lauren's never going to fuck you. She doesn't even know you exist.

>I see the Spencers, Taylors, Southerns, et al., as all together faggot friendly moderates
How are they moderate? (besides Southern, who isn't ethno-nationalist) What traits does someone have to have to be acceptable in your eyes?


>It's all over goy. People who want to make a difference are reddit, goy.
Nice demoralization post.

>>It's all over goy. People who want to make a difference are reddit, goy.
>Nice demoralization post.
It's not about demoralization faggot. you know what's demoralizing? When your "soldiers" start to figure out there's no breaking down the society (((they))) have built. Speak the truth. Society as we know it is too far gone. This place is spit in the eye of someone who's already got the gun to our heads. At least go out with your head up, making as much hell for them as you can. The way I see it is if you're not able to fix shit then why not break it? You're the delusional one for ever thinking this world (((they))) built could be saved.

I have no illusions that the white ethnostate will be founded through a democratic vote. We will break the wheel. But first we need to wake people up, and that's why I think e-celeb propagandists matter. We need better ones that arn't hypocrites, but for now our current handfull of faggots are the best we've got.

Here is the archive: have at it:
>archive.4plebs.org/pol/
As I said, you are here just to prove a point (which you won't, you'll just keep the "eceleb" cycle going - intentionally or not) not exhange ideas. You "form your own opinions" after all.
>Lauren's never going to fuck you
A non-argument. And an implication with no basis. Also a projection.
>She doesn't even know you exist
And I have zero problems with that.

Goodnight.