deriving pleasure from taboo viewpoints

how much of /pol/ culture is this the cause of? what's the cure?

>>1

what's the cure?

Don't you mean "what's the cause?"? There's no evidence that expressing taboo viewpoints is, in itself, pleasurable. Therefore we must consider whether the pleasure from expressing these taboo viewpoints is wholly derived from the cathartic sensation of speaking truth for once.

>>1
The board is named "Politically Incorrect". If you want politically correct opinions /r/politics is that way -> https://www.reddit.com/r/politics

>>3
..also, /r/politics will be eventually quarantined because their mods are burning out from deleting and banning people all day, they thought banning subreddits makes them migrate to other sites, but apparently it doesn't work that way.

>>2

Therefore we must consider whether the pleasure from expressing these taboo viewpoints is wholly derived from the cathartic sensation of speaking truth for once.

Maybe. But a physics textbook has a lot of truth in it too, yet it's not cathartic to express its truth value. Ideas being forbidden makes them interesting.

When years ago I first read about race and IQ, I felt adrenaline. It was a sort of high.

The curiosity and interest comes from the possibility that something taboo (Jewish Conspiracy) might be true. After you are convinced it's true, it no longer generates curiosity or excitement.

If the Nazis won, the same users of /pol/ would today consider eugenics an unnatural plot to convert people into slaves and would post on Orthodox Judaism imageboards, trying to resurrect it as a suppressed ideology.

My thesis is that /pol/ is the outcome of bored or depressed people finding stimulation by entertaining extreme taboo. Whereas some others might fall into a similar hole by doing heroin or becoming a prostitute who does scat play, /pol/ users chose a non-physical, abstract vehicle for their thrill-seeking. One's ``power level'' is analogous to one's stage in the progression from watching anal sex porn to bondage porn to snuff films and so on.

Eventually you exhaust the taboo political ideas, and you're past the point of repeating the ride by swinging backward to become a tankie. The only exciting thing left to do is to go Breivik like Tarrant did. This means we will see many more mass shootings coming from /pol/ with the aging of the current generation of users.

>>5

Ideas being forbidden makes them interesting

Only if those forbidden ideas are truth.

>>6
Not necessary. Conspiracies, legends and myths all gain legitimacy from being supressed by authority:
http://void.wikidot.com/philosophy:reaction-to-censorship

>>7
Why would a non-true idea require suppressing by authority?

>>8
Same reason religion threatens state power:
It provides an alternative narrative that runs counter to established state doctrine.
The "truth" of an idea is secondary to collective belief power(egregore) it provides to its members - think of it a cultural expansion that enters politics and competes with established forces.

>>8
You're assuming that crowds are rational and their behavior, let alone beliefs, are dictated by what is epistemologically true. From the state's perspective, it would seem justified to suppress ideas that lead to bad ends, because their objective is to control the people, not seek ultimate truth like some academic. (This doesn't make it right to censor. I'm just saying that's the logic and that even false speech can be "dangerous".)

>>10
Rationality has nothing to do with truth, it is purely a human illusion. That is the truth that was so suppressed we caught blowback and now live in an irrational world.

>>1
Found the goon.