Why can't we have good faith discussions?

>>2066104
We can, just not here.

Generally this is because "trolling" gets sublimated into actual ideology, leading to good faith discussors being labeled as trolls.

Besides, it's not as good for rapid succession dopamine kicks of having your post get a bunch of replies. As such this becomes a dance of one-upsmanship in which even good-faith actors attempt to annoy the shit out of certain classes of strident trolls.

File: 1480788018676.jpg (30KB, 456x402px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 456x402px

>he wants to argue in good faith and not purposely construct strawman and commit logical fallacies and watch somebody get butthurt and squirm in their long winded attempts to refute it

>>2066104
That's an eggcelent observation

>>2066139

You, sir, are the reason /his/ should have an entry fee.

>>2066104
Same reason we can't have good history ones.

>>2066188
>sir

Red what

>>2066104
We need a /rel/ board for that.

>>2066104
faith itself disallows good discussion

you even have it
or you don't

not much to discuss about

>>2066226

good faith
noun
good faith

honesty or sincerity of intention.

>>2066104
Good faith as in religion or faith as in actually having a conversation about things with each other?

>>2066257

As in bona fide

>>2066188
Something awful has an entry fee. The quality of their boards is usually pretty high too.

[spoiler] I bought an account a long time ago for the veterans/military forums [/spoiler]

>>2066269
I don't want a boner ride.

>>2066280

STOP RUINING THIS BOARD. I JUST WANT TWO SECONDS OF QUALITY DISCUSSION!!

>>2066104
Because faith is personal and subjective. It can't be argued and compared in quality with other people's faiths.
>I think this
>well that's shit
>well I believe it
>ok fuck you
>I slightly believe the same as the first anon
>implying my faith isn't the best

Religions on the other hand are a great topic of discussion, since they are codified, have historical precedent and practices as well as literature.

File: his YES.png (78KB, 1306x354px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1306x354px

>>2066283
In all seriousness, there is a /pol/ presence on this board. /pol/ will go the way of /mlp/ sometime in the future, and balance will be restored. We'll be fine.

>>2066296

What even is /pol/?

File: the new stormfront.png (356KB, 1360x1888px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1360x1888px

>>2066299
The definition I think suits best is a loose coalition of alt-right people (alt-right being best defined as people who still align themselves to the further political "right" but don't follow the Conservative movement) that are united only through efforts of railing against the "establishment" and constant shitposting. Eventually, they will have a massive ideological clash on the board, culminating in many of the people within leaving /pol/ to form new chans or to begrudgingly co-exist together, which will lead to /pol/ gradually losing members as they splinter off or lose interest.

>>2066271
The more niche a board is the better the posting quality in MOST cases (exceptions like /jp, /mlp) but the.

Looking at the sticky

>For the purpose of determining what is history, please do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago. Historical discussions should be focused on past events, and not their contemporary consequences. Discussion of modern politics, current events, popular culture, or other non-historical topics should be posted elsewhere. General discussions about international culture should go on /int/.

> When discussing history, please reference credible source material, and provide as much supporting information as possible in your posts.

the former is constantly broken and the later no one really does. One anon did an experiment where he constantly started fights on another board about one topic and one thing he noted is that when HE called the person a faggot and insulted him heavily the thread posters favoured him, when the other guy did it more it favoured him more. Also board culture and populace being a factor and Dunning-Krueger.

>>2066296
I knew I had read that before. thanks for posting it again so I could save it, friend-o

>>2066104

Because the anonymity of the internet brings out the depravity inherent to all mankind.

>>2066318
>leftard wet dreams in a nutshell
/pol/ isn't going anywhere, get used to it

>>2066872
I remember the Bronies saying this as well. 4chan outlasts all of these uprisings.

File: if-i-ignore-it-maybe-it-will-go-away-1457690.png (129KB, 500x418px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 500x418px

>>2066875
>(((You)))

>>2066104
Because atheist shitposters and theist newfags

>>2066221

but could you imagine the amount of angry shitposting would go on there? it would have to be heavily modded

File: 1462165120538.jpg (78KB, 338x305px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 338x305px

>>2066898

>Do not try to treat this board as /pol/ with dates.

>>2067045

I've heard /pol/lacks don't get dates.

>>2067291
They don't from what I know of one irl.

Nice guy aside from, well, the /pol/ stuff.

>>2066104
because mods delete threads like
>>2056992

>>2066299
A fun edgy meme board that became shit after it attracted stormfags that unironically believe the memes.

>>2067335

And I've never see their opponents address the veracity of what they have to say about race. Well, apart from that it's you know, racist.

>>2067349
Every time one of them shitposts here, it is explained what is wrong with the methodologies of the studies they post and so on.

>>2067349
I've seen numerous threads where /pol/ has been combated and btfo'd, they just label statistics and data that goes against their cause as invalid because of some reason or another, usually involving Jews or race-haters.

>>2067358

What is wrong with let's say the book the Bell Curve. Or the following article ...

http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/12/04/blacks-and-whites-with-equal-educational-attainment-differ-in-cognitive-ability/

>>2066139
You. I like you.

>>2067459
Self advertisement? Pretty shitty my man.

>>2067465

>post link to something that isn't Wikipedia
>self-advertisement

What "btfo'dness" has there been towards the hereditarianism positions other than unfalsifiable "muh environment" arguments?

>>2067490
>posts his blog
>wtf is every source self advertisement