>all these le_donald faggots shilling in overdrive against

File: smash_reaction_by_party9999999-d5fc497.png (152KB, 900x593px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 900x593px

I hate rightists so fucking much.

File: accidentally_4Gb_rars.jpg (33KB, 600x292px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 600x292px

>>61342895
But we need to make America great again.

>>61342895
These /pol/fags ousting NN because MUH JOHN OLIVER are absolute cancer.

>>61342993
>>61342895
Well I hate Politics all together and both of you

>>61342895
>>61343062
This

>>61342895
>>61342993
both of u need to kys and if mods actually cared, would ban y'all

>>61342895
>>61342993
>>61343043
>>61343062
SJW cucks, neck youreselves

File: Really gets my noggin joggin.jpg (37KB, 653x366px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 653x366px

>>61342895
>>61342993
>>61343043
>>61343062

>Everyone I don't like is a traitor/racist/redditor/Nazi//pol/tard/communist/leftard/[insert partisan bullshit buzzwrod here]

You're as cancerous as your average /pol/fag really, and about as unself aware too.
>>>/pol/

>>61343079
>>61343092
>>61343095
>>61343101
Fuck off samefag cancer

File: Screenshot_2017-07-12_17-48-13.png (54KB, 891x397px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 891x397px

>>61343106
(You) tried

>>61342895
I feel like at this point alt-right kiddies are just going with whatever's not popular.

>everybody wants net neutrality?
>I don't.

>nobody wants Trump in office?
>I do.

>Most people are feminist?
>KEK, not me!

etc.
it's contrarian hipsterdom: the political party

>>61343095
I watch Sargon of Akkad, I'm sick of the left but you guys are becoming equally insufferable on your own terms.

>>61343149
Congratulations you can use Paint

>>61343095
>liking the internet makes you an SJW
/pol/tards are really getting out of hand these days

File: 1498656994363.png (505KB, 938x969px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 938x969px

Glad to see that /g/ is the most left wing board on 4chan.

We need to end this /pol/tard invasion for once and all.

>>61343174
>using paint to edit webpages
why are you here again?

>>61343164

yup

they dont have opinions, they are just sad little men with nothing in their lives

they cant make anything so they just destroy what's already there

>>61343200
>He wants to literally live in an echo chamber
How does that make you better than a /pol/fag in any sense?

>>61342993
>using the sovietic pictural style for defending faggots
This picture is retarded

>>61342993
Get a job loser

>>61343221
I'm trying to stop the echo chamber actually

File: smiley with the carat nose.gif (206KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 256x256px

>>61343095
>>61343092

enjoy it while you can, sweeties

you've had just about enough free speech as your overlords are willing to tolerate. better for them to turn off the tap and make sure you only have access to 24/7 dem propaganda

>>61343218
>>61343164
>Building up strawmen and attacking them
>>61343271
>Trying to stop people from expressing their views on a site dedicated to free speech
>Not building an echo chamber
That's actually contrarian

>>61343308
>dedicated to free speech
>yet all non right wing opinions are instantly criticized and dismissed

>>61343221
>He wants to literally live in a right winged echo chamber

>>61343325
You're criticizing /pol/ fags which is fine. But there's a difference between criticizing speech and shutting it down, which is basically what you want to do.

>>61343349
>He thinks letting people with extreme opinions on bot sides of the isle speak their mind is an echo chamber
If so /g/ already is an echo chamber, albeit useless for anything tech related

>>61343325
>right wing
Opposing net neutrality is a progressive position

Net neutrality might be best, but personally, I really, really, really, really want to keep supporting the congressmen who are selling me down the river.
For me, politics is like rooting for your favorite sports team. Even if they suck, and all the players are just in it for the money.

File: 1497304489653.jpg (671KB, 1432x1209px) Image search: [Google]

671KB, 1432x1209px

>>61343388

idiot right wing /pol/fags are the only people who are seriously unironically shilling against net neutrality. they are no longer on any "side", they are just trying to sink the entire ship with everyone on it because they would actually rather do that than admit they have common ground with the left for once

>>61343519
>hey are just trying to sink the entire ship with everyone on it
This, but not because they wouldn't admit they have common ground with the left, but because they want everybody to be as miserable as they are. Literally crabs in a bucket.

>>61343511
Honestly, it would be smarter to push for net neutrality through the courts instead of through Congress. I mean, they actually do get things done and they have they actually do make good legal precedents, like that one case with the band The Slants and how they went 9-0 in favor of saying "hate speech" is still free speech

>>61343519
That doesn't mean you can just silence them because you don't agree wit them and they have a stupid position on the issue

File: the smiley with the carrot nose.png (40KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x500px

>>61343565

ok bub look if the american right wants to torpedo their entire concept of freedom of speech they can go right ahead and do it but as a non-american i am going to continue to mock their idiotic decision with my (still intact) freedom of speech

>PAY FOR MY HEATHCARE

File: tbhfam.jpg (49KB, 907x661px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 907x661px

>>61343661

>HEATHCARE

american education everyone

>>61343631
We have the 1st Amendment you stupid nigger, and the Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech isn't going away anytime unless partisan politics continues this way and extremists on both side of the isle don't keep their politicians in check.

File: hmm.jpg (5KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x200px

>>61343661
>Net neutrality is healthcare

>>61343678

typical american idolizing symbols of freedom while freedom itself rots away in front of them

>>>/pol/
Not technology.

>>61343325
>criticizing speach is a violation of free speech
You don't understand free speech.

>>61343750
It's tech related you insecure faggot

File: mYypPRA.jpg?1.jpg (8KB, 255x229px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 255x229px

>>61343631
Deny that Holocaust, if your speech is so free.

>>61343200
/lit/ has lots of commies. It way more leftwing than /g/ which is mostly libertarian.

>>61343748
No. Nowadays people care more about party politics than actual freedom in the USA. It's been this way for 15 years now. It's sad but someone has to keep all our politicians accountable, even if that means I'll be called a lunatic. I really wish the world hasn't been so fucked up for so long.

>>61343167
>hates the left
>still watches Sargon

It's like you don't know anything about politics.

>>61343308
>on a site dedicated to free speech
4chan was literally never that. There's global rules against racism and general low-quality posts.

File: 1456029328894.gif (174KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 500x375px

>mfw when the internet burns

>>61343661
America spends more on healthcare than basically anybody else and still doesn't have single payer.

>>61343859
I'd say that from personal experience /lit/ /g/ and /ck/ are the most left

>>61343885
>sargon
>even slightly leftist
he's slightly socialy liberal but economically right at best.

I heard reddit loves net neutrality. Why don't you go there.

File: 1470869693946.jpg (38KB, 500x307px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x307px

don't t_d retards realize that their echo chambers will be the first to go?

comcast owns nbc
time warner owns cnn

goodbye fox, goodbye brietbart and infowars

>>61343949
>Implying that isn't the best mix
Although admittedly, Sargon is a huge faggot

I can tolerate polfags but le_dolan redditors must go back to R3ddit.

File: lmaoing at your life.jpg (29KB, 348x321px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 348x321px

>be non-american
>hate america
>complain when you can't watch american content and go on american sites

Gas the kikes, race war now.

>>61343079
Thank you for speaking for everyone on 4hcan above the age of fifteen.

>>61343079
thank you.

>>61343388
Time, place, manner, nigger. You are not entitled to trespass where people don't want you.
BUILD THE /g/ WALL

>>61343880
>It's sad but someone has to keep all our politicians accountable, even if that means I'll be called a lunatic
>being so cucked as to need politicians who don't fear being fired, at all, because that just frees them to lobby for five times the salary that much earlier

>>61343913
>mfw when
>my face when when

File: 1463086224855.gif (1MB, 217x217px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 217x217px

>>61344300

>>61344300
>mfw when my face my face whens this nigger doesn't know the meme of mfw when

>>61342895
DRUMPF AMIRITE

>>61343164
It's not I disagree with ending net neutrality, but I think there's more to it than meets the eye ,just putting arguments against net neutrality as counter culture isnt making the situation any better

>>61343918
You've never been to /co/?

>>61342895
No net neutrality means no social media and less normalfags.

>>61343661
You'd have a leg to stand on if american healthcare was not the most expensive per patient in the world

>>61344463
Nah, /co/ too is pretty fed up with comics being used for politics and how bad western animation has gotten.

>>61344476
No, big social media sites like Facebook have enough money and presence to cut deals with Comcast, small websites will suffer. The last pockets of the internet without normies will die

https://youtu.be/ceFQsX8N0g4

>>61344270
>being so cucked as to need politicians who don't fear being fired, at all, because that just frees them to lobby for five times the salary that much earlier
That's literally the same situation that most of Europe is in, you incompetent nigger.

>Time, place, manner, nigger. You are not entitled to trespass where people don't want you.
>BUILD THE /g/ WALL
>Calls /pol/ an echo chamber in a derogatory manner
>Wants to make /g/ an echo chamber

>>61344617
>implies that declaring one tired, hackneyed, overused, underinformed narrative non grata is creating an echo chamber
Fuck off, neoliberal.

File: theresamayinternet.jpg (127KB, 877x827px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 877x827px

>dude freedom, free speech bro, second amendment, ronald reagan!
>fuck net neutrality bro, long live censorship
imagine being an unironic cuckservative nowadays

I have no idea what to write for the letter part.

>>61344697
You clearly want people from /pol/ not to post here you nincompoop. Of course you're anti-freedom and
>neoliberal
Far from it. I really don't care about morality, just the Bill of Rights and protecting my rights and the rights of others as given by the Constitution. I'm more of a classical liberal if anything.

>>61344854
>just the Bill of Rights and protecting my rights and the rights of others as given by the Constitution.
The public doesn't have to grant you the right to speak or to be heard. They have a right to exclude you, which is the whole point of the ideology you fetishize.
>classical liberal
All liberals need to kill themselves and/or fuck off. They have only their reified aspirations which they call arguments.

>>61344902
>The public doesn't have to grant you the right to speak or to be heard.
Yes they do. They don't have to listen to you, but they can't suppress your speech.

>He can't tell the difference between a neoliberal and a classical liberal
Read a book, nigger

>>61344939
>can't suppress your speech.
Says who? People have a right to exclude you from speaking. Congress does not exhaustively enumerate what I am allowed to do.
>He can't tell the difference between a neoliberal and a classical liberal
One is simply the reduction to absurdity of the other. They all need to be put into death camps. The distinction has no operational effect.

That link at the top is asking for my address

>>61344971
>People have a right to exclude you from speaking.
No they don't, at least not in a public setting.

>Congress does not exhaustively enumerate what I am allowed to do.
Yeah. Of course.

>One is simply the reduction to absurdity of the other. They all need to be put into death camps. The distinction has no operational effect.
I feel like you're trying to hard

>>61344971
Cite court cases. Every single case I've found, such as Morse v Fredrick, disagrees with you.

>hurr kill everyone who disagrees with me
No wonder you want to silence free speech through mob violence, you're a fascist. You can sputter and spurt about muh communism, but you're a fascist.

File: 1354639842648.jpg (102KB, 367x451px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 367x451px

>>b..b..but... you're a KEK!
>>it's just... just a MEME

File: 1499540274651.jpg (94KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 960x720px

Seeing threads like this genuinely depresses me. The internet is going to be fucking ruined because some assholes can't see that net neutrality is a good thing for everyone, no matter matter if you're a bleeding heart liberal or a die hard conservative republican.

Like, this shouldn't even be a fucking discussion, but somehow it is.

>>61345152
"Net neutrality" never held legal force. Why has none of the doomsaying come true before?

>>61343200
No
I literally don't care, both sides are fucking terrible.

I just want to watch anime and master my sec skills

>>61345184
>I just want to watch anime and master my sec skills
Cheers

File: yTHUB2p.jpg (34KB, 550x467px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 550x467px

>>61343062
>literally 20 page clickbait: the tv show

>>61345136
Morse v. Frederick allowed a school to silence speech. I claimed that people have a right to exclude you from speaking. What exactly are you trying to prove, again?
>>hurr kill everyone who disagrees with me
Isn't that a right protected by capitalism? That you do it indirectly through blacklists doesn't affect the outcome nor the fact that you sought the outcome and took action to promote it.
>you're a fascist
It's anti-conservative, anti-communist, and anti-liberal. I'm a commie, therefore I can't be fascist. Paradoxically, fascism is what liberals resort to when they can't get their way.

File: 54154248941b69b494ca168ab5ae3002932605f7d7b8826a6443bf25b23587f0_1.jpg (99KB, 1080x897px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1080x897px

>>61345431
>I'm a commie and therefore can't be fascist

My cunt Australia never had a "Net Neutrality" law. What's the big deal over in the US?

All our webpages run the same speed and an ISP hasn't charged extra to unlock certain sites since the BBS days. There are enough Telcos that competition just forces the price down. Literally who ISPs like Dodo and TPG will always win out by offering the cheapest internet without caps, tiers and bullshit. Those two ISPs have the largest market share over the established Telstra and Optus doing bullshit this decade. Free market just works.

>if you don't support government acquisition of the internet you're a fascist
wew laddy

>>61345542
>le stop citing things outside of /pol/ canon
Take your starvation memes back to /pol/ or acknowledge that you are the ones starving them.

>>61345554
>t.literally what outback

>>61345431
>Isn't that a right protected by capitalism?
1) That's literally what Stalin and the other dictators of the USSR did along with Pol-pot and Mao, which the Constitution prohibits
2)
>Confusing democracy and capitalism with each other

>>61345631
I just don't get why you guys have a "Net Neutrality" law in the first place. I keep hearing this scenario of ISPs all charging extra to deliver you to Facebook without the law, but that just seems like a terrible business decision in 2017. All these minor ISPs with cheap uncapped untrottled internet are kings in our broadband market. ISPs that charged extra for anything are all long dead since consumers sought the cheapest prices.

>>61345915
I'm not even sure that's what the law even does. no bully if I misinterpreted it.

>>61345915
>I keep hearing this scenario of ISPs all charging extra to deliver you to Facebook without the law, but that just seems like a terrible business decision in 2017
We have the small problem of facilities. Until about 2005 or so, small operators could get access to the ATM networks and the laid cable pairs through which DSL was served. Now that AT&T doesn't have to allow other people to use the pairs, laid at great public subsidy I might add, only AT&T offers DSL service and everyone else has to lay their own cable, thus guaranteeing that only big operators can operate and can more or less do what they like.

>>61343673
OBSSESSED

File: 1499027359330.jpg (48KB, 642x469px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 642x469px

>>61342895
The government doesnt have the right to turn private companies into public utilities after they themselves created these monopolies. Fuck the government fuck obongo deal with it nigger fuck off back to plebbit

>voted trump
>pro nn
shrug

>>61342895
>>61342993
both of you are utter faggots for sharing your political views in a tech board.
Consider suicide, and if you do not do it then at least don't return

>>61346534
>Trying to reason with a literal communist
Communists can't be reasonable people, by definition.

>>61345554
>>61345915
because since you obviously don't know anything about American internet, there is no free market of ISPs. Just a handful of massive corporations running local monopolies.

>>61345152
Either way, we're still gonna get royally assraped. Why the hell do you think TWC, Netflix and co are supporting something that would fuck them over?

As for the proposal. They're looking at removing Osama's hamfisted Title II to restructure it as needed. At least that's what I was able to pick out of the legal fuckery

>>61345184
This desu. C# + [anime of the week] is the patrician lifestyle

>>61346615
It's the same way in Australia. We have national monopolies instead. Hell, you cunts didn't even have "net neutrality" until 2013.

>>61346676
> you cunts didn't even have "net neutrality"
I get a kick out of this. Gen Z retards legitimately think that the fight for net neutrality is some new fad. It's been happening for over a decade.
Classifying ISPs as common carriers was the logical conclusion in guaranteeing the status quo be maintained.

>>61346779
>system works fine without net neutrality rules
>net neutrality rules put in place to "preserve the status quo"
>removing the net neutrality rules will cause ISPs to sell internet access like cable companies sell TV channels

Your argument is laughable. If you want something to be outraged over, focus your energy on something meaningful like surveillance or slow network speeds.

>>61345152
Couldn't agree more, there's been such a change in the demographics frequenting places like this, the 180 that people on the internet seem too have done on net neutrality is jarring to say the least. I guess it's more proof that underaged newfags are cancerous, as if more was required.
>inb4 I'm 30 and think net neutrality stinks

>>61343164
>nobody wants Trump in office?
>Most people are feminist?
maybe this is true in sweden or whatever leftist shithole you dwell in.

>>61344476
Not really. The social network sites have enough money to pay for faster speeds. The normies will be here.

>>61346877
Rednecks aren't people

>this thread

>>61346414
The automotive and student loan industries would like a word with you.

>>61346414
>The government doesnt have the right to turn private companies into public utilities after they themselves created these monopolies
The government has all the rights, and if you disagree, eat lead.
Do you understand how power works now, child?
Fuck off back to /pol/

>>61346638
>Why the hell do you think TWC, Netflix and co are supporting something that would fuck them over?
Public relations. It's very easy to "differentiate" yourself in the market by being seen "supporting" a lost cause with cheap talk.
Also, it's not that major ISPs lose with NN, so much as that they don't have some easy money with which they can juice Wall Street and pay themselves bonuses.

>>61347130
>The government has all the rights, and if you disagree, eat lead.
>Doesn't understand what the Constitution is and how it was supposed to set up a framework of gov't to limit the right s of the gov't so individuals can have all of their legal rights protected

>>61347347
>Doesn't understand what the Constitution is and how it was supposed to set up a framework of gov't to limit the right s of the gov't so individuals can have all of their legal rights protected
>muh religion
>muh bible
>muh bulletproof piece of paper
>muh god said that couldn't happen
Are you a complete fucking idiot? Ruling classes always hang together so that they don't hang separately. If you think there's any real tension between the branches of government, you're too young to be here.

File: image_1163406_860_galleryfree_buvv_1163406.jpg (58KB, 860x568px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 860x568px

>>61347383
>he still doesnt understand that america voted for trump because he was on infowars and we all hate the government and want to destroy it and live in an ethnostate ancap eutopia

>but what about free data for spotify why democrats hate poor people so much

>>61347383
>muh religon
The Founders were mostly Deists
>Mush Bible
See above
>Muh bulletproof piece of paper
What?
>Muh god said that couldn't happen
Again see 1

I'm not even denying what you're saying and it's been true for the past 15+ (Really like 40 now) years, but how about not building strawmen and attacking them huh faggot.

File: ancap 423423.png (525KB, 950x1031px) Image search: [Google]

525KB, 950x1031px

>>61347443
>America becoming ancap

How ironic.

>>61346414
>the government cant steal other people property because just because slavery is wrong

>>61346414
>The government doesnt have the right to turn private companies into public utilities after they themselves created these monopolies

Those companies could have chosen to not become monopolies. Capitalism is all about voluntary choices anon.

File: 65763t6356.jpg (102KB, 482x767px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 482x767px

>>61347536
>Capitalism is about voluntary choices
>until other companies lobby the state to make them for you

>>61347497
The Founders were Deists, but you are a Constitutional fundamentalist. The whole point of constitutional republicanism is to prevent any recourse against property owners or the ruling class, not to enable the people to have a good life. The US Constitution is a complete piece of shit, anyway. Almost every other Constitution written in the past 100 years is twenty fucktons better and guarantees more rights to the people, including that of meaningful recourse against those who practice ill in its name.

>>61347671
Lol the marxism is strong in this one, replying is a waste of time

>>61347601
They shouldn't have taken state money if they didn't want to become monopolies. Of course this is stupid. They knew what they were doing.

>>61347699
>how dare you destroy the hierarchy i've shilled for and completely overestimate my odds of being at the top of someday

File: stallman gnulag454.jpg (466KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 1920x1080px

>>61347699
Where do you think you are?

>>61345184
This but I stopped caring about politics after years of being super fucking political

Also what >>61345152 said, if this was 2008-2011 4chan these edgelords would be chased out of 4chan with a torrent of Costanzas

>>61343221
We have a right wing echo chamber right now with the flood of /pol/tards who will come out of the woodwork whenever you say anything bad about conservative ideology or even suggest something slightly liberal. /pol/ likes to pretend that they are balanced but they are just mentally ill.

>>61347856
Really it's not even conservatism. It's just /pol/ and their weird obsession with daddy Trump.

>>61347867
That's true.

>>61346676
>2013

Maybe you should use a wiki instead for net neutrality.

>>61347856
they are just alarmist over everything, you will eventually see them trying to crawl to other boards like /v/ /fit/ /adv/ and on here of all places saying "OHMYGODZ 4chanz is under ATTACK DO SOMETHING" to which every single person will respond with "yeah, so?".

>>61342895
>>all these le_donald faggots shilling in overdrive against net neurtrality
STOP TALKING ABOUT PANCAKES

File: 1468989021686.jpg (51KB, 500x374px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x374px

>Internet becomes problematic for keeping a narrative with all that free speech
>Suddenly all your scandals and lies are popping up left and right
>Suddenly out of nowhere a debate pops out of making internet more government regulated for those poor children
>It'll be fine, excessive government "regulation" is good, just look at healthcare
>Amerilards are so busy playing useful idiot partisan electric boogaloo that they'll defend to death their divine right of getting fucked in the ass in every conceivable aspect of life by their masters for eternity
Where did you guys went oh so wrong?

>>61342895
I get that NN is inheriently a politically motivated tech related topic but ffs do we seriously need the bullshit politics on this board? Fuck off back to /pol/ if you want that.

>>61343221
We come here for tech not "HAHAHA LE FUCKING DRUMPHFAGS BTFO!! XD" OR "HAHAHAH LE HILLSHILLS WILL LE NEVER LE RECOVER LE LE LE LE LE XD". T

File: pol irl45634.png (645KB, 627x644px) Image search: [Google]

645KB, 627x644px

>>61348139
It never used to be political until a certain board started importing redditors in order to inflate their significance.

>>61348158
I blame /pol and T_D for fucking everything up really. At some point we allowed the normies onto our boards and its causing everything to go to shit. Especially board culture. Notice how they spammed anti CNN shit on /pol for two days straight, they went on every other site expecting other boards to fight their war for them, and then they now try to make stupid topics thinking "lel thats so funneh XD XD were trolling them!!!" when the reality is they are autism incarnate. I think the battle against /pol and T_D should be first than Net Neutrality.

non net neutrality means sites like 4chan are the first to go, as comcast hates us all.

Why the fuck is /pol/ trying to self destruct for the sake of being contrarian?

>>61348248
>Why the fuck is /pol/ trying to self destruct for the sake of being contrarian?

Honestly I think it's because a lot of supporters are lefties. They otherwise wouldn't care or would be against it because "gubbermint takin away muh rights" (even though the alternative would be just as, if not more harmful)

>>61348248
Because people on /pol/lution can't read, most are retarded. It's a cult.

>>61342895
I don't even know what is Net Neutrality anyway

>>61342895
I agree. I've been going to /pol/ since 2012 and the reddit fags ruined it. I want them out. Also fuck Trump, he's a stupid Jew lover.

>>61342993
>hue hue I am worker
>hurr durr I have no job and protest in da street
Fuck off commie shithead, you're no better. Also, real Russians hate you all.

>>61343325
Free speech does not mean it's free from criticism, idiot.

>>61343519
>treats the biggest board as a monolith
Fuck right off. /pol/ is the most diverse board.

>>61348285
>Honestly I think it's because a lot of supporters are lefties. They otherwise wouldn't care or would be against it because "gubbermint takin away muh rights" (even though the alternative would be just as, if not more harmful)
So, in other words, Young Republifats?

>>61348363
>Fuck right off. /pol/ is the most diverse board.
Not ideologically.

>>61348311
You're so right. They are essentially a cult at this point, especially with the nation of kekistan bullshit.

>>61348409
>nation of kekistan bullshit.

Didn't that start as a joke? If so, it's pretty autistic that /pol/acks are taking that semi-serious.

>>61348460
Yeah. From what I've seen, /pol/ found out there was some ancient egyptian god called kek and they though it was funny but some of them took it as some sort of stupid prophecy that trump would win. Then he won and they were like woah praise kek and made this whole kekistan nation thing. Then autistic people on /pol/ and /r/t_d and twitter and other sites started taking it way to seriously. At least thats what I think happened.

>>61348491
You are correct. Internally I bet /Pol regrets it now because the Normies have invaded there.

>>61348491
Basically. It got to a point where I realized that people were taking this Kek shit for real when they started buying Frog statuettes. I pretty much left /pol/ and only come for the /lrg/ threads.

>>61343095
Abolishing Network neutrality benefits the left more than the right. With no network neutrality the internet becomes much easier to censor.

>>61348736
The images of the Trump supporters wearing the Kekistani flags in public make me cringe so fucking much.

File: labour vs communists453.png (161KB, 1428x760px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1428x760px

>>61348779
>implying that the liberal "left" is leftist

>>61348664
I don't know what /Pol is but /pol/ likes being invaded especially by liberals. More brains to be converted.

>>61348779
Most of the sane people on the left don't want to censor. That's mostly the neo-feminists who think insults are rape.

File: 1494548584092.png (547KB, 704x591px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 704x591px

>NN boogeyman

Yes Goys, because if the government doesn't get to control and regulate the internet the free market will destroy it!

Sign it over!

Fucking idiots don't even know what this shit is actually about.

>>61348788
they should wear pink vagina hats instead

>>61348819
Yeah but how many sane people do they have left

>>61348843
The """free market""" doesn't exist for telecoms you moron. Ask your mom about the ISPs that are active in your area. If you are lucky it might be two.

>>61342993
I'm right wing and support net neutrality.

So now what?

>>61348843
If the (((free market))) gets control of it, you're gonna get fucked in the ass (see: cable television packages)

>>61348910
The free market would love to accept donations from Hollywood to make torrenting go extinct. The free market would love to accept lucrative government contracts to make tor go away. Go away. Some things you just don't go to the free market for and its freedom and information.

>>61343918
>/lit/, /g/, /sci/ and /ck/ are the most liberal
>also probably the boards with the most college graduates (except maybe /ck/)

>>61348779
Sorry, boyo. Those are the right wing of the """"""left"""""". They have a different idea of what they want to conserve, but they are socially conservative by any reasonable definition and just as shitty. iow they like their patriarchy just fine, but they want it professional and chaste. You keep 'em.

>>61349133
The farther left you go the more heavy the censorship becomes. It's not conservatives that post political correctness.

>>61349205
The right also censors, a lot. Have you never opened a history book or do you only browse /pol/?

Hell, just go make a plebbit account right now and shit on Trump on /r/le_donald if you want to see it in person.

>>61349205
>The farther left you go the more heavy the censorship becomes. It's not conservatives that post political correctness.
What about """decency"""?
Left-right is really meaningless team identification anyway, based on the interests of Northern industrialists vs. Southern landowners, and not any coherent ideology, as if I had a dog in that fight and didn't prefer them all dead.

>>61349402
Yep. /r/the_daycare likes to complain loudly about "muh censorship" while their mods ban anyone who goes against the narrative. They are as much of an echochamber as the anti-Trump subs (/r/MarchAgainstTrump, /r/AgainstHateSubreddits etc.)

>>61349402
I think there's a big difference between not wanting to hear fucks and shits on the radio and wanting to imprison people because they spoke out against the importation of muslin terrorists.

>>61349497
So your answer is yes, you've never read a history book.

>>61342895
Net neutrality is communism.

It must be fought against by all sides of the political spectrum.

If you care about freedom fight netneutrality.

>>61349709
Then buy your own Opinion the Bill of Rights is communist.

File: pol irl54354jpg.jpg (246KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 768x1024px

>>61349709
You have to go back.

>>61349709
implying freedom != communism

>>61349709
are phone lines and mail communism

>>61349709
Net neutrality is a little piece of paper that people sign to say that rights shall not be infringed.
We the people.

>>61344089
>4chan is american

How to spot a summerfag 101

>>61349748
The USSR committed multiple genocides on its road to communism.

Communism does not work and any attempt at making it work will result in catastrophic failure.

>>61349785
>4chan isn't american
How to spot a newfag just off the train from /pol/ 101.

File: 1474902933118.jpg (18KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 600x600px

>>61349786

>>61349778
>>61349775
>>61349741
>>61349724
Giving the government supreme control over the internet has resulted in censorship here in Germany.

I am just warning you americlaps, this will be you fate too.

The state is not a benevolent being here to protect you from harm...

>>61348664
OG kekistanian here, I do regret this bullshit, but I'm more mad at the other fuckwads for spreading it around

File: 1492643510742.jpg (56KB, 500x775px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 500x775px

>>61349801
>owned by a jap
>EU servers
>doesn't know that original moot is mexican

>>61349810
Germany is a fuckup state though. They were into censorship before the internet and they'll be into censorship after the internet.

>>61349785
American founded American hosted American supermajority and stolen from the Japanese. Doesn't get more American than that. american superman jordan and stolen from the japanese. Then sold back to the Japanese . Doesn't get more american than that.

>>61349808
This is infact not a bait, but common sense.

>>61349824
>common sense
>common = shared
>sense = opinion
You have to go back.

>>61349814
I thought moot was a sweede or something. He has one hell of a jawline

>>61349810
The government does not have control over the internet. All Network neutrality does is make all data equal

File: 1481857134074.gif (2MB, 265x303px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 265x303px

>>61346877
Hes typing this from Methsburg, Arkansas

>>61345163
Hi Time Warner

>>61348843
>U.S. Internet
>"((free)) market"
Hi comcast
o boi am i laughin

>>61349846
It is stopping the free market.

That is dangerous if you care about freedom.

>making this political

That was your first mistake. NN isnt about republicans. It's actually more about democrats, but I'm not going to say that because it's a deeper issue from that.

File: 1472604443256.png (151KB, 501x445px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 501x445px

>>61349877
>consumerism is freedom

>>61349897
>It's actually more about democrats,

elaborate please. never heard of this theory in all these pseudo-debates on the internet.

>>61349877
It's stopping a monopoly from exploiting they're customer more than they already are.

>>61349928
Go read up who brought NN into the light.

>>61342895
>giving the gov even more power over the internet

commies get out.

>>61345152
those assholes do nothing
cyberpunk is coming whether you like it or not
public discourse is over

>>61349897
It is about freedom vs. non freedom.
Right vs. left.

The left wants to control the internet via netneutrality the rights wants to protect freedom.

>>61350005
freedom it is

>>61345152
If you care about freedom netneutrality is bad.

No one should support it.

File: IMG_1151.jpg (260KB, 736x1108px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 736x1108px

>>61342895
If there was a law simply about passing packets we'd be all for it.

Instead you want it to be some gay social cause for Amazon and Netflix.

Sorry bitch, not your personal army.

>>61350005
Net neutrality benefits the right more than the left

>>61350027
It's not even a bill or a law, how can you say that kind of shit.

>>61348234
t. Time Warner Cable

>this thread
You don't know what you're talking about.

>>61348788
why are you so racist?

File: 1307784687917.gif (2MB, 256x192px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 256x192px

>>61348234
This
I also blame summer.

>>61350034
That is irrelevant. Network neutrality is the data equivalent of the passage from the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. By that Morons logic the free market should be able to deal in slaves.

>>61350011
Net neutrality is literally about freely using the internet, apply yourself and understand this.

It's not about your ideologies people, this is about the internet.

>>61350096
>the free market should be able to deal in slaves.
It should, else it's not a free market.

>>61343200
/g/ is a bunch of kid gaymers

File: 1490897466308.png (535KB, 580x745px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 580x745px

>>61350017
mfw the internet is a
>gay social cause

>>61350134
What is /v/

Net neutrality isn't bad but breaking up the biggest ISPs would be better. Also did you notice how easy is to tell that people who create/bump threads on /g/ against scary conservatives and racist aren't from here? Sweet irony.

>>61350126
I can't even muster enough sarcasm to respond to that properly, holy shit. Would you happen to be an ancap fag?

>>61342895
Pretty sure it's just paid shills parroting the "much small government" line. Surely even redditfags aren't stupid enough to be unironically against net neutrality.

>>61345554
Doesn't Australia have fuckall bandwidth due to delayed fiber projects?

>>61348234
/b/ used to invade boards over stupid shit, bit I feel like /pol/ is the retarded version of what /b/ used to be. They are too hung up on Trump, where others might have gone for the next quest for lolz right after helping elect him.

>>61350180
No it's sarcasm.
>Could this man be joking?

The answer is yes.

All of you need some Varg in your life. Stop dividing amongst yourselves over politics we're all White and need to help eachother out. Nonwhites can piss off

>>61350126
We're hitting levels of ideology that shouldn't be possible.

>>61350238
Comcast had 20 billion dollars sitting around to buy Time Warner with I think they can fun a few paid shills

File: 1471570268560.gif (699KB, 250x286px) Image search: [Google]

699KB, 250x286px

I can't tell who's jewing who in this thread

>he's on the same side as John Oliver
wtf man

>>61348779
this is assuming the american government is leftist, which is absolutely not the truth.

File: 8708ad03e15d77fa7a6d110e1e94d8e6d64797d92e9ba05414887d17b7a051f2.jpg (15KB, 390x310px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 390x310px

>>61346414

>>61350414
Instead of looking at the people supporting each "side", why don't you actually look at how the issue affects you? The only people who benefit from anti-net neutrality are the ISPs.

File: Sargon.png (47KB, 894x650px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 894x650px

>>61343167

>>61350414
>John Oliver is white
>lol you're white like John Oliver?

>>61343200
I'm not left wing I just think /pol/ is full of extremist retards who need to stop leaking out of their board.

>>61350552
Globalist benefits, Hollywood benefits, corrupt government officials and probably a few others but your average freedom-loving American does not

>>61350630
>commodity fetishism = freedom

>>61350569
i liked it when he had a debate with a humanities teacher on feminism and somehow managed to get obliterated

although that wasn't nearly as funny as thunderfoot's debate on creationism with some random christfag

>>61350552
>>61350572
>John Oliver fandorks get mad when you point this out

((( >>61350572 )))

((( >>61350736 )))

>>61350707
This post makes no sense.

>>61349205
Wrong. The most anti government and anti censorship movements throughout history have been leftist. American propaganda together with Tumblrinas have confused the entire world. America should be banned from the internet.

File: 1485229357012.png (758KB, 498x724px) Image search: [Google]

758KB, 498x724px

>>61348779
>giving private corporations more power benefits the left more than the right

>>61350872
Well that's why that post made no sense. The most corrupt politicians in America are left. Hollywood is Extreme left and they oppress anyone in their ranks who isn't.

As for the rest of your dumb post, all you have left are China Russia and European websites which are even more controlled and suppressed.

>>61350872
>ignores the church

>>61350926
Hollywood is center-right or they wouldn't be selling marriage and war.

>>61350955
and why does the heros relationship with his woman always fall apart between the first movie and the sequel. And the left loves War just as much as the right. Did you forget Libya already

>>61350996
>and why does the heros relationship with his woman always fall apart between the first movie and the sequel. And the left loves War just as much as the right. Did you forget Libya already
Liberals are not the left. Literally kill yourself.

>>61350996
>and why does the heros relationship with his woman always fall apart between the first movie and the sequel.
so you have seen all the hollywood movies?

>And the left loves War just as much as the right. Did you forget Libya already
War preventing genocide is certainly acceptable to the left.

removing burgers would be a great improvement to 4chan's community. it can't happen soon enough.

>>61351001
>and why does the heros relationship with his woman always fall apart between the first movie and the sequel.

maybe they want to reflect upon contemporary society?

>>61342895

Why is the OP a communist and what is he upset about now?

>>61343174
congratulations you make bullshit claims that people samefag

>>61351016
So if they make one movie where it doesn't happen that makes them right. Preventing genocide with genocide genocide genocide, nice double think you have there you're clearly a liberal and the reason we need net neutrality

>>61343164
alt-right are cool contrarian rebel kids

>>61351055
>So if they make one movie where it doesn't happen that makes them right.
that is different topic
claim was all movies do it, which is blatantly false, showing how out of touch that retard is

>Preventing genocide with genocide ...
why with genocide? prove the double think first

Kikes have one goal : unify the world around Israel by destroying nations.
Therefore, any kind of anti-government mesure is a Jewish trick for giving globalist companies more and more power
Therefore, /pol/tards stands with kikes and deserve gas chamber

>>61347671
you gorn durn upset the americanos with these thoughts anon

>>61350926
>The most corrupt politicians in America are left.
There is no "left" in America. Americans will never know what the left is unless they travel to a country with an actual left. There is no such as a worker movement in the US.

>Hollywood is Extreme left
How the fuck is Hollywood anywhere near left? They're huge corporations, how the fuck is that left in any sense? You have no idea what you're talking about. Multiculturalism, gay marriage and other shit you sperg out about have nothing to do with leftism, and even less with radical leftism.

>all you have left are China Russia and European websites which are even more controlled and suppressed
I didn't talking about oppression, I'm talking about people having basic political education.

>>61351082
You just did I wish I had reaction images right now

>>61351129
Just to clarify, leftism is inherently anti-capitalist, thus anti-corporation. By definition a corporation can't be leftist. This idea is idiotic. You're confusing neoliberal capitalist postmodern policies with leftism.

File: onslow.jpg (12KB, 224x224px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 224x224px

>>61348127

>useful idiot partisan electric boogaloo
so true

>>61351151
Until they get into office and find out they can make a lot of money passing regulations Bev benefit only big business and squash competition.

>There are fucking tons of completely retarded anti-constitution communists on /g/ right now.

Where the fuck do you shitheads come from? lefty/pol/? Explains the retarded leftwing politics spreading around throughout every board then.

>>61351621
Comcast shills pretending to be conservative.

>>61351621
>how do you do fellow /g/ users, ... blah blah /pol/ lingo blah blah

>>61343200
Fuck off I'm libertarian. Bordering on anarchist. Leftism is a disease. /pol/ is mostly retarded but they are miles ahead of the leftists who are even more retarded.

>>61343164

The hip phrase you use "alt-right" is a reaction to that as well.
They consider themselves "right", "conservative" or whatever political buzzword they use because it's currently contrarian.

Being a contrarian, adopting edgy opinions or identifying with something easy (usually nations or groups) is an easy way to gain a sense of worth. Pathetic.

>>61346414
If the government made them what they are, they can turn them into utilities. Fuck off with your retard logic.

>>61351751
>lolbertarian

How does this not lead to open borders and (((corporate))) fascism?

>>61351751
My man! This is a true political genius /g/. Take notes.

>>61351751
>invisible hand
>free murket
>muh pie fallacy

Truly libertarians are the biggest retards.

>>61351816
Agreed. Its better to strip away all group associations. We are all one people serving one government. Everyone is equal, race is a social construct. Right, comrade?

>>61351921
Shut the fuck up commie. You lost the cold war long ago.

>>61351925
Ow that slippery slope.

>>61351946
>implying i'm a commie
>implying a libertarian government has been successful
You are dumb as a fucking rock.

>>61351946
The West lost the cold war. Atheism is rampant. Social trust is at an all time low. Marriage is practically frowned upon. Niggers are fetishized. And we're told that flooding our borders with shitskins is actually a good thing for our future.

Soviet propaganda and cultural Marxism won.

>>61351959
If you don't believe in the free market, what is your plan, if not communism or socialism, to combat its drawbacks?

>>61348779
No, it benefits the authoritarian. It has nothing to do with benefiting left or right.

>>61351974
I can agree with that. However Russia and the communist nations they tried to conquer all failed. It's true traditional Western culture is dying, and a very sad reality that is.

>>61351986
At a bare minimum natural monopolies should be regulated.

Beyond that it depends on the kind of society you want.

>>61351991
freedom for corporations to fuck over individuals isn't freedom friend.

>>61352008
traditional things die in order to achieve progress.

>>61352025
>progress

That's an empty buzzword. Marriage rates declining is progress? Open borders is progress? Declining measures of happiness and social cohesion is progress? What exactly are we progressing towards?

>>61351974
>kikes politic is communist
Fucking ignorant nuggers, kikes stands with any internationalist ideology like communism, liberalism and islamism

>>61352021
I will agree with that.

>>61352025
Progess is a subjective ideology

>>61352025
You must sustain the original ideology you were fighting for in order for any worthwhile progress to be made.

>>61352025
>traditional things die in order to achieve progress.

This is exactly the type of empty propaganda found in every oppressive regime.

>>61352070
Marriage rates have over the ages been shitty. For a while, people could not for reasons of family, religion or whatever get out of these marriages because of bullshit. They fail because people can get out of them.

And happiness? I would be pretty certain that if you pulled a person from the era of ww1/ww2 to modern age, he would probably consider many things as improved rather than gone shittier.
>>61352140
The moment you try to cling to the past is the moment you shit on any progress human race can make.

>>61352333
>marriage rates have over the ages been shitty

What does this even mean? Marriage rates are at an all time low. Out of wedlock births are at an all time high, from 5% in 1950 to 48% last year. Our culture is falling apart, but at least we have diversity and teenagers twerking on TV.

>happiness

You would be wrong. All objective measures of happiness are at an all time low. Material wealth has little to do with happiness. We have Wi-Fi and cheap food, but things like social trust are significantly more important for happiness.

>progress

What does this mean? It's just an empty buzzword used to justify anything the left does. Transvestite acceptance? Progress. Skyrocketing government dependence? Progress. Open borders? Progress. White guilt? Progress. Etc, etc.

>>61352487
Back in the old ages, people could never get out of mariages because your family decided who you got married with. It was about family unions, not love. You ran around with other people when you felt horny.

>>61352555
Divorce has always been an option. What I'm talking about is familial and society cohesion. Our structures are falling apart and its having a measurable impact on our children. Children born out of wedlock suffer from a wide range of problems from higher rates of mental illness to lower life expectancy.

>>61351974
>Atheism is rampant.

might be going better if christianity, a middle eastern religion, wasn't forced upon the west through execution of non-believers by the regional super power(s) at the time, but hey, it's /western/ culture now, right? on that note, I'm sure the decades of scandals involving child rapists in the catholic church, which conveniently get swept under the rug by those in power, has nothing to do with the disillusion of the church and organised religion as a whole; other middle eastern religions seem to get shit on for their child raping traditions and practices but our own /western/ religion that originated in the middle east gets a free pass it seems, got to protect those /western values/ right?

>Marriage is practically frowned upon.
>>61352070
>Marriage rates declining is progress?

you'd think libertarians would be against a tradition that is being propped up by the legal system through laws and regulations but what do I know? hopefully it's progress to a less shitty system of marriage where people aren't coerced into getting marriage through a carrot and stick based system, where the carrot is legal incentives such as tax breaks and the stick is(/was) severe social repercussions for unwed child birth

>>61352624
Out of wedlock children are objectively worse off than children from married parents. You can spew your fedora-tier bullshit all you want, but religion and nuclear families are integral to society.

File: yeah-thatd-be-great-if-i-could-get-some-reliable-sources-about-that-thatd-be-great[1].jpg (28KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 400x400px

>>61352622
If by divorce you mean getting your partner dead or MIA.
>out of wedlock effects on children
picture related.

The government should just regulate the internet and block leftie news. Sounds good to me

>>61352661
I hope this is a leftist enough analysis for you.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/868193

The theory that declining marriage rates is a result of less marriageable men has recently been undermined by a study that analyzed marriage rates among shale boom towns. If you give me a second, I'll get you the source on that. The only real explanation we have left for declining marriage rates is (((cultural change))) and government incentivization through welfare.

Seeing as the undermining of both religion and the nuclear family was an integral part of Marxist theory, it's safe to assume where this cultural push is coming from. The sad part is that it's hurting your own negros more than anymore else.

>>61352661
Freakonomics just did an episode about this a while back. Here's the link if you're interested.

https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/audio.wnyc.org/freakonomics_podcast/freakonomics_podcast070517.mp3

>>61345554
Australian ISPs are The worst in The world.

>>61343661
Hey so if you don't want to pay for someone's healthcare can I stop paying for tanks
I'm not opposed to the retardedly bloated spending on the military budget, just to all the tanks that are getting made and sent to a warehouse to gather dust because more are made than there are staff to crew them

>>61352714
I'm sorry for you, but being married or not does not certainly define a family as fragile or unstable that could cause negative effects on a children. You can be married and be the most fucked up family ever. Being divorced or single has hardly anything to do with that.

Children are mostly shaped by how the parents treat them, which has almost nothing to do with being married, divorced or out of wedlock because you should always treat your children well. Even the paper sounds more about unstable families and not just married vs non-married.

>>61352858
The study he cites deals directly with children born out of wedlock. I'm sure there are some good unwed parents out there, but from a statistical standpoint unwed parents are worse parents. The study even shows a negative effect on children born out of wedlock in Europe, where long term cohabitation is much more stable.

Sorry, anon, but you're wrong.

>>61352858
I do however say that married couples do have higher percentage of authotariasm, which in growing children does have long term psychological effects, like Low self esteem, low self worth, a lack of basic trust in people, no skills in listening to their intuition, passive attitudes in their role in life and rigid traditionalism. And that is without the mental and emotional effects listed.

>>61352023
Yeah, but you're using freedom as in freedom instead of freedom as in "freedom"
For example, a two party system where both candidates agree on most things.

>>61349497
Oh, you mean like wanting to imprison people because they spoke out against the unlawful imprisonment and torture in Guantanamo bay?
Oh, wait, that was Bush.

>>61352936
You can say that all you want, but every study on the issue directly contradicts you. Children of married couples are objectively better off in every measurement.

File: 726600.jpg (143KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 600x600px

>298 posts and 43 image replies omitted.

>>61352910
Also, well, considering that out of wedlock children are considered many times as accidents, the damage comes from their parents not practicing safe sex or not bothering with them because, children out of marriage are better because god is infalible. We should focus on safe sex and getting people to give a fuck about their children and not get kids before they are prepared to raise them, not about whenever they raise them in divorced, married, single or out of wedlock families.

In short, proper education.

i feel like everyone's just memeing each other and not discussing shit

>who's jewing who

>>61353017
You keep trying to justify your position, but the studies are unanimous, anon. Teen pregnancy is down, people are waiting longer to have children, yet we still see a strong correlation between the children of unwed parents and unfit children. A secure nuclear family is a requirement for a proper upbringing.

>>61343167
Sargon got completely and utterly btfo by hbomberguy though. absolutely embarrassing. and I say this as an arbitrary bystander.

>>61353043
The sole source you mentioned is a blog post that makes no reference to anything. You're a textbook kool-aid drinker mate.

Not the guy you're arguing with BTW

>>61349128
>(((college)))
>(((education)))

>>61353104
this. probably 90% of people are capable of getting a bachelor's degree at least. it's really just a matter of discipline nowadays.

I've worked with too many "CS graduates" to respect the establishment at this point.

>>61353097
The Huffington Post article wasn't a source, it aggregates sources and analyzes them. Here is another.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/are-children-raised-with-absent-fathers-worse-off/

I've never seen a study that suggests unwed or single parents perform equally as well as married parents. Perhaps you could find such a study.

>>61352714
>>61353043
Besides, that study that is cited on the huffington post you cited is about unmarried couples, who could as well be married because they are couples.

Also, when you survey parents regarding their kids, you do not think about the family format, you think about, "why is the x parent alcoholic?", "why does y parent beat his child?" etc.

>>61353175
>>61353097
I'm purposefully using leftist sites because they're the least likely to be biased towards the conclusion that married parents perform better.

>>61353175
I'm going to straight up say that a media is not qualified to aggregate and analyze social studies.

>>61352936
What are you a single rosstie mom who thinks she did a good job with her retard kids? It's well researched that single parents produce socially tucked up, often violent problem kids that have significantly worse chances at success in life. If you were raised by a single parent there's a very good chance you're a massive fuck up

>>61353202
>who could as well be married because they are couples

That is the point. Unwed couples aren't comparable to married couples, and that is controlling for factors like domestic violence.

>>61353215
Then perhaps you could compile a few sources that counter my argument.

>>61353231
No, single parents produce shitty kids because they cannot be with their kids because they have to go to a job and then play with them.

This is a result of a divorce, not single parenting. Yes, the problems surface from single parent not being able to raise kids, but the issues are rooted in divorces.

>>61353277
What? A single parent is a single parent, how are the problems rooted in divorces?

>>61353319
Because you have to ask, why did they get divorced in the first place and what effects does that have on them as people.
>>61353261
No, it is not the point, Only difference between unmarried/married couples is that the other one has gone a religious ceremony that means dick.
>compile sources
Why should I bother? You just straight out stated that it would be stupid because magically I'm wrong on every study I would quote.

>>61353456
>only difference between married and unmarried couples is that one has gone through a religious ceremony

That is directly contradicted by every study on the subject. Even when they looked at European long term cohabitation relationships versus traditional marriages.

>magically I'm wrong on every study

What? You haven't posted a single study. I'm simply saying that everyone who has looked at this issue has come to the same conclusion....

>>61352660
>Out of wedlock children are objectively worse off than children from married parents.

there's a lot of issues that go into behavioural and cognitive development of children and boiling it down to 'out of wedlock children are worse off' is a gross oversimplification, you can't take ideal 'nuclear families' and compare them to children born from teen pregnancies or children born to single parents and claim marriage is strictly better than unwed parents. we *know* children born to teen parents, single parents, or even children that have their parents break up, are going to have worse behavioural and cognitive scores than those born into IDEAL families and these groups are also coincidentally the most that are shunned from their support network which leads to even worse scores, but at the same time we also know that children born into relationships where the parents hate each other but cannot break up are equally as bad, sometimes even worse, as those children born to single parents.

if you want to compare the effects of marriage on children you need to compare wed versus nonwed but happy couples, and doing so finds that the children born to happy unwed couples are on par in behavioural scores to those children born to wed parents. earlier studies find that children born to the unwed couples score lower on cognitive scores, but more recent studies find that this effect is much, much lower than the earlier studies were effecting. there are considerations with cognitive scores since the education and involvement of the parents has a large contributing factor, and there is a *correlation* effect, at least in the united states, of parents/fathers being more educated. if you repeat this study in a country that is far less religious, like say the czech republic, you might find that the benefit of being married isn't as high as it is in the states

continuing from: >>61353620

>>61352660
>You can spew your fedora-tier bullshit all you want, but religion and nuclear families are integral to society.

if you want to know my position on marriage before you started moving the goalposts in posts made after what I was replying to, I made it explicitly clear,
>hopefully it's progress to a less shitty system of marriage where people aren't coerced into getting marriage
I'm not against people getting married, I'm against institutionally 'forced' marriage through tax breaks and other legal benefits that also require couples be penalised when they break up through expensive divorce proceedings, the question shouldn't be why are marriage rates declining but why is the divorce rate on the rise, if couples could get married because they chose to and not because there's a giant carrot hanging over getting married then perhaps we might see the benefits of marriage without any of the drawbacks: happy couples raising well developed children

and on a note completely unrelated to marriage, nice of you to complain about social cohesion and then proceed to cry that someone disagreeing with you is merely spewing 'fedora-tier bullshit', way to go promoting cohesion between differing social groups, try practising what you preach you fucking hypocrite

>>61353620
You going to post any studies, or are you just going to argue your feelings?

>>61353634
>happy couples raise well developed children

Again, there's nothing in the studies to suggest that married and unmarried couples are comparable. It's even more of stretch to say that the couple's "happiness" is the determining factor in child rearing.

You're arguing your feelings again.

>why are divorces so high

That's important, but not the real issue. 71% of negro children and 40% of white children are born out of wedlock. If you attack extramarital births, you'll make alot more headway.

>>61353634
>why is the divorce rate on the rise,
Everyone knows why

>>61353806
Indeed, because you can and not have to get a such a shitty reaction from your parents as you would have got a century ago.

>>61353710
It is not a real issue because human divorces are not exactly preventable. Human beings average 5-10 partners over their lifespans.

>>61353910
If it weren't preventable, then why were divorce rates so low only a few decades ago?

>>61353895
>society normalizing disfunctional families is a good thing

>>61353945
http://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/anderson-divorce-rate-us-geo-2016-fp-16-21.pdf

They werent THAT low.

>>61353644
>You going to post any studies

sure thing bud

here's a study finding that children born to wedlock couples score 'significantly higher' cognitive scores at an /early/ age however show no increased signs of 'asthma risk' (yeah, beats me too) or behavioural outcomes https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22329047

here's another study (full text) that also argues that children born to wedlock couples show slightly higher (note: not significantly) cognitive function at an /early/ age, and it even argues in favour of promoting marriage in favour of helping child development, however also argues the opposing case that parental involvement and education is another significant factor in child development, while also proposing that the correlation between educated fathers being more likely to marry influencing the results https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3342452/

a small quote from that paper discussing the contrary opinions and not the results of the findings, as it's hard to talk or quote that paper when you only have 2000 characters,
>This reasoning, along with the present findings, suggests that although programs to encourage marriage may not succeed in their immediate or child developmental goals, programs to enhance unwed fathers’ (or fathers’-to-be) human capital or parenting skills may serve both purposes.

here's another paper finding that there's no negative social or emotional effects of children raised by a single parent (mother) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15482501

and a quote,
>The children's social and emotional development was not negatively affected by the absence of a father, although boys in father-absent families showed more feminine but no less masculine characteristics of gender role behaviour.

continuing from >>61354069

>>61353644
>You going to post any studies

we *do* know however that father's involvement plays a significant role in development and should be encouraged where possible, here's a paper supporting that, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18052995

quote
>CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to support the positive influence of father engagement on offspring social, behavioural and psychological outcomes.

here's another looking at risk factors for children born to single mothers, what it finds is that when external factors are controlled the risks are much the same https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11800212

and quotes,
>RESULTS: Single-mother family status on its own is a significant predictor of all child difficulties, but the explained variance is limited and the effect size decreases when other variables known to influence child functioning are included. Household income, a sociodemographic variable, is inversely associated with social impairment and positively associated with math score.
>Hostile parenting and maternal depression are the personal variables most strongly associated with social impairment and psychiatric problems. Children in single-mother families where there is hostile parenting are at significantly increased risk of psychiatric problems.
and importantly,
>CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that children from single-mother families develop difficulties for the same reasons as children from two-parent families. Specific interventions for single-mother families may be warranted in the areas of parenting and other areas of concentrated risk.

since you're so keen on pushing the idea that children born out of wedlock do far worse I'd be interested in those studies, I assume you'll link to >>61353175 but I'd appreciate anything else to add to the reading list

>>61353644
>feelings
>>61353710
>feelings

can't disagree unless it's based on feelings huh

>>61354069
Your first study contradicts your point, I'm not sure why you included it. As does your second study.

Your third study is just laughable. It surveyed 50 families, and used self reported data to measure "social and emotional development." Whatever the hell that means.

>>61354241
>Hostile parenting and maternal depression are the personal variables most strongly associated with social impairment and psychiatric problems. Children in single-mother families where there is hostile parenting are at significantly increased risk of psychiatric problems.

I don't understand. These factors are objectively higher in unwed families, how does this prove your point? These issues are a symptom of the underlying problem of a single parent family.

I'm glad that you're trying to find out why these families perform worse, but you aren't making your point. Even the studies that control for external factors show that these children are worse off.

>>61354264
>>61354336

I definitely agree that my point is coming across as convoluted, the 2k character limit is severely limiting a proper response and the point about unwed children wasn't why I hopped into the thread to begin with, but in the interest of wrapping this up as the bump limit is approaching

>Your first study contradicts your point, I'm not sure why you included it. As does your second study.

to be clear my points were that,
>children born to happy unwed couples are on par in behavioural scores
>earlier studies find that children born to the unwed couples score lower on cognitive scores, but more recent studies find that this effect is much, much lower than the earlier studies were effecting.
typo in the last line, last word should be 'suggesting'

yes, these two articles seem to support your point more, that wed couples produce 'better' children, however your point in other posts seem to be that unwed children are also inherently worse off whereas at least these studies show they aren't worse off behaviourally and may only be slightly worse off cognitively at a young age (no idea how that translates to later development, a far more complicated issue it seems) rather than the doom and gloom I got from your posts

I really do recommend reading the discussion part from the second article, it is a great read, and while I want to quote from it I can't do it unless I end up quoting the whole thing because anything I want to quote from is going to come off as taking something out of context to support my views, so I'll quote from the end
>Specifically, the present study’s findings suggest that if government efforts to promote marriage fail to recognize that parents’ characteristics partly determine their marital status, such efforts risk encouraging parents, and parents-to-be, that being married itself will enhance their children’s development rather than their combined ability to create positive developmental environments.

continuing from >>61354645

>>61354264
the second study also makes the case for the point that I was making in that married well educated couples have a higher propensity for marriage, which shouldn't come as a surprise in the states or most western countries as there's a huge economic incentive to get married: less tax, if there weren't such an incentive to get married good parents would still raise good children but non-religious ones might do so without being coerced into getting a marriage, not suggesting that parents shouldn't get tax incentives (and well, if it's basically marriage by any other name then it's still marriage right) but the alternative legal benefits for married couples is a whole different topic

>Your third study is just laughable.

indeed I should have noticed that before posting, will have to find other papers on that topic but that's for another day

>>61354336
>I don't understand. These factors are objectively higher in unwed families, how does this prove your point?

the links in >>61354241 are purely there to be impartial, children raised by single parents are statistically far worse off but I can't argue that the effect of wedlock isn't that great if I don't also include the negatives of children outside of wedlock, we should reduce single parent pregnancies and help those families as much as we can but I don't think happy unmarried couples need to be dis-incentivised

>These issues are a symptom of the underlying problem of a single parent family.

yes, however the study also finds that these issues in single parent families are the same as in dual-parent families, namely that income affects social impairment and cognitive ability in maths, and that hostility also significantly affects social impairment and mental health, children born to single parents without these factors shouldn't be (that) much worse off than those born to dual parent families, but pending the dodgy third study in my previous post this speculation on my part

continuing from >>61354774

anyway I'll leave the thread at that, sorry my points ended up a little convoluted at the end there - seems I will have to do a lot more reading on the issue before I can rationalise my view, was a good discussion anon