How 4chan Turned The Internet Right Wing (And Why That Might Change) - Videos for the 97.4%

to be fair, this stuff wasn't coming from 4chan but 'meme magic' is exactly how older people were targeted- easily shareable articles and pictures that throw out propaganda were really effective on FP.

Trolling and conservatives has become so synonymous that I usually assume they'll try to do it unless proven otherwise.

If you go by the statistics(at least the ones from wikipedia), then the older voting demographic would have favored a republican, regardless of who it is almost every time. And the younger demographic seem to have the same votes 2016 as in 2012 in according to republican votes, but the democratic vote has shrunk since 2008 and independents have grown. The younger demographic although still democratic in general seem to have lost interest in the democratic party in those 8 years and favored independents, but the republican side was as said largely unaffected and did in fact grow during 2008-2012, so likely Trump appealed more to young voters than Hillary did. 4chan is mostly popular by young adults yea, but I think it's not correct to say that this is where "meme magic" or what the fuck you want to call it comes from. It likely originated there, but it's spread more by people such as Ben Shapiro and the like and I'm guessing the demographic for that particular media is much older than 4chan at the very least. I can only go by anecdotal evidence on this, but it's certainly not rare to see older people around 40-60 complain about "Outrage culture" and similar things, so I don't think it's something that flew over their heads.

Wasn't there also that thing where the DNC, Hillary, or someone on the other side got news outlets to report on him more as a way to bring him down? I think I vaguely remember something like that.

Yes. This is why the right gladly adopted the term "deplorables" because that's what Hillary would call Trump and his supporters.

If your definition of meme magic expands to include things like punditry by Been Shapiro then ofc you'll see "meme magic" as a leading contributor of why Trump won, but only if the term becomes vague and expansive enough to refer to all the right wing talking points. When people say meme magic didn't influence the election in a noticeable way they are talking about the more precise and limited definition, not the expansive one

Had real life business keeping me from debating (in the biggest airquotes possible) my second favorite poster. When I got back, Joffy seemed to be making my point for me. I do like how HA just decided to casually glance over my remark of where-the-fuck younger right wingers came from because NO YER STUPID AND NOT WORTH MY TIME. Apparently, we're still just going to continue to assume that the new-right/alt-right/young trump supporters or whatever just materialized from nothing because... I dunno, they hate life and existence? God, I really hope these people don't end up voting for someone who more closely represents their views and anger oh shit. And yes, if anyone should be talking about where young right wing people came from then it should be someone who talks to them. It's a shame we don't have any of those.

And I do like how every chance you get, you basically force words into my mouth to create a strawman so you actually have SOMETHING to argue about. I didn't say what you're now accusing me of saying. Young Right wingers exist, just not in the same demographic numbers as older groups of republicans. That's not a "inflammatory" opinion for you to get butthurt about, snowflake.

From your second post to me on the last page. Man you wrote like, 300 words, and said very little, very little. And then you ignored it in favor of hotly debating how memes (and more importantly, being mematic in and of himself) DID NOT HELP Trump secure victory as POTUS. Yeah thanks for that. Unpopular view but fuck it, just look at me, we'd probably be dealing with a lot less conservabros, alt-righters and even race-realists if we asked the hard questions on where the fuck they came from

There's surely people who weren't right wing, and because of memes ended up becoming right wing. Jokes are a popular way a lot of people become members of political communities (see also shows like the Daily Show). But how many of those people do you think exist? And how many of them voted? They make up a fraction of Trump's base and an even smaller fraction of the youth vote writ large

Because you did. You said 253 words. Of those 253 words, very few of them were actually about the topic, and most of them were you waxing philosophical and taking your usual pot shots at me and everyone else lol. I'm not going to validate you for that just because you need it. You specifically stated meme magic won him the election. Can you keep the goal posts in one place or is this a consistent behaviour of yours? And again, your first response to me barely contained any actual debate or argument about this. Trump saying things that were "memetic" is different than saying Trump won due to "meme magic". Yes Trump said short, and repeatable bits of information. He also straight up lied a lot. You're saying "memes won it", where as I strongly believe that him lying had a strong impact on his victory. Him bald faced lying to people like you, and having you do mental gymnastics around it to make it okay, is definitely part of why he won. I don't think that's how that works but sure. Lets ask you "Where do you come from"? Where do your views come from? Where does your attitude and mindset come from? I don't think asking these questions changes anything, partly because I don't expect you to answer, and partly because I expect that if you do answer, it'll be with half honest half truths. So why have this discussion?

man just having internet memes is only a narrow cusp of this thing me and Joffy are calling Meme Magic. If you're just limiting it to say the time Trump posted Pepe then yes of course that didn't secure his victory (although it certainly didn't hurt it, either!). Fuck, you could call it marketing if you really want to but in truth it's that and also being the person most talked about leading up to the actual election. Now as for turning people right wing well. Once one has a distate for the left, either by being rejected from left-leaning circles or by just viewing "The SJW" as insane snowflakes, one's likely going to turn their politics a bit more rightwards. Ironic because … doy.

Yet most people on this site actively deride "SJWs" whilst being firmly on the left. It's almost like saying "meme magic turned people conservative" isn't even a fraction of the whole story lol

You got a source for that? Because I don't believe that for a second.

Yes. The majority of the forum is left leaning. Left leaning =/= SJW.

I've not actually heard the term SJW outside the context of the internet

No, I'm talking about "most people on this site actively deride "SJWs" whilst being firmly on the left". I don't believe that to be true and want you to give evidence of that. I rarely see people give shit about "SJWs".

I don't really know what evidence would suffice to you. I don't believe such evidence exists as it would have to both change your mind, and provide caveats for times people didn't care about them. People here on Facepunch, myself a 11 year long user of the site, have derided SJW's for fucking years. We also have people who would be more akin to SJW type views(whatever the fuck this means) who have long since been banned or removed or run out by the community here over their bullshit. Facepunch is a left leaning place, overall, with little fucks to give about "SJW's" and the nebulous "alt right". Members of both groups are incapable of conversing outside of their own bubbles, and have been removed from this site by their own failings. That's my evidence. The fact that shitters like AsteroidRules/ASparkle and other users who were considered "SJW"(Again, whatever the fuck this means) have been perma'd multiple times kind of shows this place isn't a "SJW" "SAFESPACE".

"meme magic" is just 2016 for "propaganda campaign"

And the answer to "did a propaganda campaign work?" is "yes". the IRC(Internet Research Council) was heavily involved in creating said meme's, and spreading said meme's. They had thousands of twitter accounts, fake accounts, botnets, and other tools at their disposal. I suppose the idea of "meme magic" has some merit in that light, but it's not about "memes", or 4chan, or altright trolls. It has to do with how people fundamentally function. they repeat small tidbits of information, they believe themselves experts on things they have no familiarity with, and they deploy heavy confirmation bias. this is how most people operate. And that makes them very susceptible to a propaganda campaign.

If im getting you right, then I recommend that instead of calling it "meme magic" you call it "campaigning and media coverage." If you did that, then you will probably find people agree with you. just my 2 cents

eh I suppose. Campaigning and media coverage does make it sound like Trump was incredibly competent though... I kinda like sticking to the idea of memes more as "Ideas that are infectious" rather then "Reaction/cat images". Trump as Pepe was a meme. So are the red hats and "Make America Great Again" slogan. Even if you really hate trump, you still have to admit: MAGA is a better slogan then "I'm with her" If you're going for a more literal rather than open interpretation of memes though, then I just wanna say that they certainly didn't hurt him. Other candidates (okay, Yang) are trying to have this on their side and in his case it is getting his name out there … but he's still going to be overshadowed

would you say Obama won in 08 because of meme magic (e.g. "Yes We Can") ?

Yes I would! Hell, I even said that presidency has been a popularity contest since Reagan - and I like that guy, too!

Of course it's a popularity contest no one has denied that?

i think i understand what you are saying. i think if you continue to use meme magic you are likely to be misinterpreted because you are using it a non-conventional sense, but i think the way you are using it you would probably find people generally agree with (ideas spread rapidly like an infection, those ideas are what get people elected not necessarily the person associated with them, etc.)

well then you lose the alliteration… I still think despite this that Bernie (a candidate who actually had a platform) would have curbstomped Trump if the deck wasn't stacked against him but that's another discussion entirely. I just hope it doesn't happen again ….

A joke that gets in the way of basic communication proooobbabbly isn't worth doubling down on if you're trying to be taken seriously Like if you're just shitposting sure, do whatever, but don't get mad when people call your posts dumb because of it

"Lets ask you "Where do you come from"? Where do your views come from? Where does your attitude and mindset come from? I don't think asking these questions changes anything, partly because I don't expect you to answer, and partly because I expect that if you do answer, it'll be with half honest half truths. So why have this discussion? " Entire disciplines and sub-disciplines of social science like that of and featuring in History, Political Science, Sociology and Criminology etc are predicated on the fact that they're important questions. In this context its because politics is more than just a clash of ideas, its a reflection of society and the complex socio-economic and historical factors at work that influence all of the people in it. People are, on the most basic level, organic computers. They respond to information and data and develop from there, and sometimes they ignore contradictory information (backfire effect) or fail to realize they have contradictory beliefs (cognitive dissonance) but noone wakes up one morning with the random impulse to believe in a complex political ideology. In fact, history repeatedly demonstrates that a great many people who follow the leaders of radical ideologies or enable them don't understand or don't believe some of the tenets of the ideology they would be associated with. Didn't take long for people to start talking about "Nazis" in this thread so lets talk about the Nazis. In the study of History we don't explain the rise of Hitler in 1933 by saying that "Germans are evil" or that "Germans are stupid" or even just that "Hitler cheated the system" because we know that the first two are silly with the third criminally under-emphasizing the importance of Hitler's success at appealing to the electorate. Instead, the event is explained by looking at the development of mass politics, resentment at the impact of the Great War and its aftermath, the Wall Street Crash and circumstantial immediate factors like the Reichstag Fire, amongst a litany of other things too long to list. Not everyone who voted for or supported the Nazis was absorbed in its whole ideology down to its esoteric core. The Holocaust was conducted in secret. Aktion T4 was conducted in secret, but became public and then partially suspended because of popular outcry. Most people vote for radical leaders because they promise them things like renewed glory and prosperity. Hitler's key campaign promise wasn't to attempt a systematic extermination of the Jews. It was to tear up the Treaty of Versailles, to rejuvenate the German economy and make Germany a great power again. "Meme magic" was probably a miniscule influence at most on the 2016 US elections. I don't agree with the premise of the video. But that doesn't mean there aren't real socio-economic factors that influence voting tendencies and reflect the fact that not everyone votes for people with abhorrent beliefs just because they're innately evil or inherently stupid. Things like the residual impact of the financial crash, poverty, poor education, unemployment, etc likely all played into those elections. Many people are happy to speak about the roots of their convictions in my experience. It is worth hearing them out because you can learn about the way they think. If you understand the roots of people's convictions, you understand the axioms that underline their beliefs and hence how to reason with them. You know why Bernie Sanders managed to go onto Fox News and preach to a live audience of its viewers without it being a trainwreck not that long ago? Because he knows how to reason with them. Because his greatest talent is being able and willing to work out what those axioms without belittling those people or considering them as beneath him. Sanders will only win in 2020 if he manages to keep that up. ____ Tl;dr So my point is ultimately that understanding the roots of people's convictions and beliefs is important and is absolutely a rational course of action.

Even though I do agree with you in principle and I feel like as a general idea this is correct, I would like to caution people reading this not to apply this reasoning to everything because when trying to understand why people get sucked down rabbit holes, it's very easy to get sucked down a rabbit hole yourself. I say this not because the idea of trying to always understand the people you disagree with is a bad idea, but because we also need to understand that you and I (and everyone) also suffer from the same implicit cognitive biases that we're talking about here, and so for the purpose of maintaining ones mental health, I believe it is unwise to spend large amounts of time ruminating on people's political beliefs or political issues. I hope I'm not coming across as hypocritical here, because I myself have found political conversations I've had with people who had different political and cultural beliefs than my own to be really insightful and I feel like doing so has made me a better person. In general I think it is a good thing to always want to find ideas that challenge you and make you rethink your assumptions about the world, and understanding why other people think the way they do can be helpful even if they are ultimately wrong about stuff because it enables us to see other people as people who are flawed and not simply evil or racist or sociopaths, and always us to think about how we are all flawed individuals who see the world through the lens of our own experiences rather than perfectly objective beings of logic and reason. However, deliberately getting into arguments with people on, for example, facebook and twitter or youtube or reddit comments who you know are just trolls or shills and who aren't going to listen to reason, or going into every far-right or far-left social media chatroom and antagonizing people- these things are not going to result in you getting a more informed view about how people on 'the other side' think, or give you any constructive insight. If the people who you speak to even listen to what you say (which they won't), the only people who respond back are going to be the ones who call you a libcuck or a trumpet or whatever the insult of the week is. The problem isn't people or humanity as a whole, it's that those platforms are not designed to be constructive platforms for public debate or conversation. They essentially give megaphones to the worst, most obnoxious people who would never say the same sort of things in real life because there would be social consequences for doing so. The combination of anonymity, lack of consequences for bad behaviour and not actually seeing the face of the person they're talking to seems to amplify the worst of human social behaviour. The companies that run these sites are never going to crack down on them because at best it doesn't affect their bottom line and at worst they actually make money from these people. The most toxic, inflammatory and simplistic/memetic slogan rhetoric always gets voted up because of the way these sites are structured, it could be possible to fix this but again, the websites have no reason too and they might actually be making more money this way. And aside from it just being bad, toxic rhetoric, it also isn't even a good representation of the 'other side' arguments in the first place. The only people this kind of thing is designed to affect are people who already agree with it, it's not going to challenge you or give you insight into what people actually think, not anymore so than a video titled 'SJW GETS OWNED WITH FACTS AND LOGIC' is going to give you an indepth understanding of the academic study of social gender norms. All it's going to do is make you hate the 'other side' more because the only view of them you get is the most simplistic and narrowminded version from it's most dickish members, the average conservative/liberal/feminist/libertarian/ whatever probably doesn't even read or write those posts, they just glance over them and absent mindedly liked it because it generally aligned with their views (we all do this, I think). You have to find the BEST arguments made by people on the other side, not necessarily the right ones, but the ones that have some effort put into them. To do this you either need to actually read the academic literature (which is boring) or at a stretch you could find well made arguments in a YouTube video (but only if they're well sourced), or you need to engage with people on platforms that are well moderated, where blatant trolling/flaming someone gets you banned or anti-social behaviour is punished in some other way. I know that if I hadn't found facepunch I would still probably be one of those people who believes that SJWs are trying to take over video games, or that the way to solve gun violence is to just ban all guns (to clarify, I no longer believe either of these things).