Hey, you’re wrong about the NPC meme being right wing, and 4chan had very little to do with it. The 4chan mods HATED it, and almost every NPC-related thread was pruned shortly after its creation.
(They also began censoring the term ‘soy boy’ at this point. But antisemitic and racial slurs are still a go. 👌)
There’ve been people of all different political persuasions involved in the central aspects of it — the memes, the memeing, the LARPS, the RL appearances, the articles, the videos, etc.
The beauty of the NPC meme is that it’s only offensive to the people to whom it applies. It isn’t solely applicable to the Regressive Left, but they’re at the center of the current culture war (pushing the rest of us off into the ‘alt-right’ category), so that’s how it’s being used.
Also, don’t believe a damn thing you hear about the NPC meme from the mainstream media. They‘ve been among our primary targets, which is why they’ve been our greatest detractors.
There were never 10,000 Twitter bots. The retweet-bot idea was discarded 48 hours in because: capchas. There were real people behind these accounts, and the idea was to provide a steady stream of freebased identity politics while promoting awareness of social media censorship.
We never set out to influence an election, and the NoMenMidterm meme (from July) only made a comeback after the mainstream media decided to integrate it into its “voter suppression” narrative.
When they reported that we were giving out a false voting date, we put out word to push THEIR November 7th voting date.
This is what they do. The media brought the racism and antisemitism over to 4chan back in the mid-2000s when they began reporting on non-existent racism and antisemitism. The racists and antisemites swarmed in.
The rise of Anonymous shortly thereafter was the direct result of Greta van Susteren’s sensationalized accounts of a series of mean-spirited adolescent pranks. Actual hackers moved into /b/ and brought with them a political agenda.
The media’s practice of creating its own news is what brought the NPC meme to life in the first place. It had been dead for over two years when some idiot journalist decided to dig it out of the meme graveyard and claim it was being used to “dehumanize” SJWs. The “alt-right trolls” were only too happy to comply.
This is about as “fake news” as you can get.
For the most part, these “bots” were people, and what these brave souls were doing was parodying (or otherwise copypasta-ing) the “opinions” of the Regressive Left — which still doesn’t violate Twitter’s TOS.
(This is why Twitter has to label them all ‘bots’.)
And the analytics involved weren’t nearly as sophisticated as they make them out to be. Couldn’t be, not after the backlash following the second purge, when legitimate BlueWave accounts were inadvertently deleted. 🤣
Also, the “late September to early October” timeline is patently false — unless their math is more woke than mine. But I suppose Jack wishes to distance himself from his more recent acts of censorship, because: BLEXIT.
That’s right, folks: #BlackLivesMatter only until they decide to #WalkAlway.
Twitter updated their rule book this morning, making “misuse of hashtags” a violation of their Terms of Service.
As a result, my account and countless others were indefinitely suspended for having previously “misused” such tags as #resist, #BelieveWomen, and #metoo.
This is only Twitter’s latest crack at censoring users who do not conform to their Regressive-Leftist ideology — or in the case of the #GreyLivesMatter movement, accounts that conform all too well.
This unethical hashtag sham is primarily intended to “erase” black voters who are associated with the #WalkAway movement.
It seems Candace Owens wasn’t the first person to use the #BLEXIT hashtag, and this has provided Jack Dorsey and his cronies pretext for censoring the accounts that are using it now.
But it’s not just Twitter that is going after Blexit. Google has been actively suppressing the Blexit site to the point that people have donated money to the wrong organization.
Why is the Internet Oligarchy so afraid of Blexit?
Because President Trump’s approval rating among black voters is at a record high.
I’ve fucking had it with socialist media censorship. Twitter keeps shadow banning me, and Facebook is back to auto-deleting every comment I make on a public page. I’m about ready to get on Gab — but who the fuck actually uses Gab? Maybe getting back online was a mistake. Life was simpler before iotaPhone.
All right, everyone — listen up, because an astonishing number of you don’t seem to understand the overwhelming support behind Brett Kavanaugh, or how the SCOTUS confirmation process even works.
The President can nominate whomever he damn well pleases, and it’s up to the Senate whether or not to confirm. There isn’t an ideological litmus test, and it doesn’t matter how “mainstream” a nominee is, because the Supreme Court does not exist to represent YOUR interests OR mine. The only “interests” it represents are those of the United States Constitution. (Worth noting: Brett Kavanaugh is an utter caricature of Middle America.)
The only relevant concern is whether the nominee is capable of doing the job.
Think he lacks the experience to fill a seat? Fine. Think he doesn’t understand the Constitution, or how to properly apply it? That’s fine too. Have concerns about the candidate’s ethics, or do you otherwise question whether he can and will remain objective in his rulings? Then certainly, Senator, you should vote ‘no’.
But please, all of you screaming your heads off about Roe v. Wade — shut the fuck up already. You don’t actually believe Trump can be pressured into nominating someone who supports abortion; you’re just looking for an excuse to bitch about Trump.
If you had any serious concerns about Kavanaugh’s confirmation, you belonged taking them to your senator — not taking to the streets like savages or whining about it on social media.
(To anyone who contacted their senator’s office and THEN whined: 👍 But I hope they had the good sense to ignore you unless you actually had something constructive to say.)
I’m tired of all the mischaracterizations of Kavanaugh supporters, and of people reframing the issues around irrelevant topics instead of challenging our arguments directly.
This was NEVER about abortion — not for us. It was never about politics — not for us — and if you think this was a right-wing movement, you’re living in an echo chamber.
Standing With Brett was never about wanting him confirmed. It was never about the Patriot Act, or about Donald Trump, or the myth of male privilege, and we aren’t the ones seeking to politicize sexual assault.
Standing With Brett boiled down to three things:
(1) Upholding the integrity of the judicial nomination process.
(2) A reaffirmation of due process.
(3) A rejection of the #metoo movement and its underlying feminist ideology.
No matter where any one of us happens to stand politically, THESE were the three things we held in common.
Response to friend:
You obviously haven’t been spending much time on social media — good for you. The nut jobs are indeed demanding he be criminally investigated, and they’re being fueled by all sorts of re-shares claiming that it’s possible.
I’m a little stunned by your remark about due process — of course there is a need! The “due process” being referred to is the presumption of innocence and the recognition that guilt must be based on evidence alone.
It means he has a right to confront these accusations, and to do so publicly without being told: “Shut up, you’re not allowed to speak!”
It means not forcing the man to “bear witness” against himself, the way the Left is trying to present his anger and tears as evidence that he is mentally unhinged.
It means not convicting a man on the basis of an accusation, when not a single shred of evidence has been presented.
This is absolutely about due process. It a sense, that is the ONLY thing this is about. The Constitution isn’t simply a piece of paper — it represents a set of values one would hope the vast majority of us still believe in, even if we can’t always agree on how they should be applied.
This is essentially the same battle going on right now over free speech, only framed in a different light.
Some people think the free exchange of ideas is a good thing, regardless of the merit of the particular ideas being exchanged. Others believe there should be limits placed upon what is considered acceptable speech, but that such limitations should not come from the government. And others do not believe in free speech at all.