they're just anon doing what anon always does
Extremely unlikely, for the following reason: The past Walk threads had nothing like this in terms of shilling and concern trolling. This is oddly specific, focused, obsessive, and repetitive for the insults of typical anons. When normal discussion occurs it is evident, and when it isn't occurring it is even more apparent. I don't think your post is necessarily part of that, but I do disagree with your sentiments and approach to this.
That would actually make sense since meeting random dudes off the internet for no specific reason
There is an extremely specific reason for it: networking. Meet and greets, cocktail parties, golfing trips, all that shit is for the exact same reason. The venue and method of meeting is different, that is all. To claim that networking is therefore faggy or a trap because you can't comprehend the value of networking with likeminded people is not based in real knowledge of what this effort is.
Which are you?
False dichotomy. Your setup is flawed.
"Social mixing" meetups are effeminate and strange.
This isn't a tea party for little girlies, anon. I don't see it that way at all. I see it like any meet and greet in business, leading to those very activities of shared goals and entertainment you and I both value and far more important associations.
But tell me how you're going to get shitfaced drunk or into training groups or gun clubs with anons who are already on your level if you haven't met them already? There's three options: Either you join your clubs and hope you can find some other anons doing the same, you speak publicly in such a fashion as to attract the redpilled types towards yourself, or you can try to create a place for meeting anons that doesn't depend on specific interests or passtimes or occupations. I don't dismiss any of those methods, but I do point out the strengths and weaknesses of each and promote this particular idea because it has a particular value to it in terms of network spread.
You may be very young or troubled or literally autistic or deeply lacking in strong male role models (or all of the above).
That's your problem, really. You have created a caricature in your mind of the person who proposed an idea that you cannot appreciate or maybe even understand. Because you "feel" negatively about the idea, you have to rationalize that the speaker must be flawed in order for you to more easily dismiss it and dissuade others from thinking about it because that would earn your social disapproval. For someone complaining about effeminate behaviors and touts how manly-men do socializing, your entire approach to this matter is rather girlish and passive-aggressive aside from being over-assuming. Don't do that.
after 22-23, it gets increasingly harder to meet people in general until you're old as fuck.
Ever stopped to wonder why that is occurring? I meet more people now than I ever met in the past. Why is that? Because I now engage in more venues that allow me to meet new people. I network, particularly in methods and forums that bring in a wide cast of characters. You don't, presumably, because you don't value activities that would allow you to connect with people outside of your narrow band of personal interests. That's why you'd say a person grows old meeting fewer people because you exhaust your own meeting grounds. A Walk is just one method of finding potential inroads to totally different social circles that nonetheless have something very deeply in common with you that most anyone could do. None of that requires you to stop doing whatever it is you do right now, but it does require you to open your mind a bit and stop denigrating ideas you aren't familiar with.
But if you're lucky and not a total dick, you may collect enough decent associates/allies/friends to serve as pallbearers for when the dragon kills you.
Sounds unnecessarily fatalist. I've a much more positive notion of glory and comradeship that inspires me to keep up the dragon-fighting. I've made great friends and great enemies for it too, and I would only want to continue it. Cheer up a bit.
[–] 17840388? ago
Sorry if your post is heartfelt, but frankly, with all of the recent flooding on this board, I find it far more likely that most of the dissuasive posters including yourself are just intentionally deploying yourselves here to prevent people from networking. I understand every thread is going to have its namecalling and vitriol. But to /pol/-frequents there is very clearly an abnormally high concentration of attacks in threads like this, oriented specifically against attempts at networking. I'm enough of a loser to have been lurking on /pol/ long enough to know that passer-by trolling usually does not look like this.
Obviously nothing I can prove; it's an anonymous board. But this brand of total assuredness, in implying that this behaviour is run of the mill organic posting, no chance of D&C whatsoever, really is quite disingenuous and frankly underestimating your average reader's sense for shilling, hijacking, etc.
So say whatever you want about everyone quarantining themselves here due to their own social ineptitude. If it truly is so ridiculous that a bunch of socially-inept rejects organized some big gay meetup, I have a very hard time believing there would be such a contrived effort put forth to bully and rip them down. If it really is all so stupid and childish, then you playing the concerned father preaching bitter wisdom, would know to teach your kids to not be afraid of scraping their skin up. What are you really teaching, to be dissuaded against doing what you want to do by some soccer mom wisdom about making friends and slaying dragons? THAT's fucking gay. Let them try and fail if you're so sure.
[–] 17840398? ago
If you want to network then do so WITHOUT posting your networking places/times/plans on this website. Same goes for basing your plans off the idea ITT posted publicly for all to see.
[–] 17840399? ago
Plans for what exactly? Walking around in a t-shirt and talking about politics?
We literally have public syringe disposals and designated street-shit cleaners in my city, because there are more bums shooting up heroin and public shitters than there are cops to arrest them. For fuck's sake, when I went last weekend, every other homeless nog undressing in the public library restroom was wearing the "walk" attire, a white t-shirt and a do-rag.
Even if we're going to get targeted, frankly, it's a hell of a demoralization opportunity. Imagine actually having to spy on cleanly dressed, upstanding citizens, next to literal hordes of goblins taking dumps behind centuries old greco-roman monuments. What a clown world.
[–] 17840401? ago
Here is the problem with you: Not realizing that OP is trying to make it vague such that it gets harder to target. He posted 6 dates every month to chose from, and said "any white-looking clothing will so" so clearly he knows that targeting will be an issue.
>>13078397
Never underestimate antifa's willingness to infiltrate though. Which is why OP need to be really specific about keeping OpSec (which he didn't).
>>13078718
The problem with you, OP, is that your ego does blind you somewhat, but the shills in this thread are much, much worse.
The problem is that #1 most people in /pol/ have autism lack social skills, in varying degrees (which is why social-related ideads are hard to implement), #2 many people in /pol/ lack OpSec such that they can't follow plans by the letter, leading to them being attacked (don't even bring up Chanology or GamerGate, that is just sad) and #3 those who have social skills, OpSec and other useful knowledge will talk in other platform than /pol/ to do their operations, this is just a >>>/meadhall/ really. The idea of the /walk/ is good in intention, but neglect such issues.
[–] 17840408? ago
THERE ARE PLENTY OF NETWORKING THREADS ON THIS SITE. WHO ARE YOU TO TELL WHITES THEY CANNOT NOT NETWORK
[–] 17840412? ago
That's my thoughts on it too. If it was bad for anons I would be arguing against the idea all the time trying to convince them that it was too dangerous, not helpful, or just bad form that would be damaging to them or to those around them. It would be out of actual concern for the well-being of anons, and a few posts are clearly like that. But if I thought it was going to be good for anons and therefore hated it, I'd just start saying anything I thought would work towards the end of ruining participation. There is a difference between anons debating about Yang or Tarrant while throwing insults and a false consensus trying to sink an idea. There's just a different flavor to it all, and anons who have some experience with it can note the difference.
>>13078306
Do your imagined police departments hire toddlers to do their spying too?
>>13078314
You're actually right, that is good opsec that I go over in the Common Concerns. A Walk doesn't require online posting to do anything save for mentioning an optional general location and time to concentrate in. You don't seem to be able to distangle the difference between, "Meet in a park near yourself wearing non-obtrusive clothing," and, "Meet me at 487 Dumbfuck Lane at 3pm wearing a fedora with a swastika on it." They are completely different methods of meeting.
>>13078397
Exactly this. It seems to be an answer to most statements about, "But what about the police!? The CIA!? The GUBMENT!!" is to note that not only are the anons expressly told not to do anything illegal or obnoxious, but to do that in a subtle and almost indistinct way without even going to a hardline specified location. And even if whatever law enforcement was interested in this idea, they amount of money and coordination and effort they would have to make to maybe see a guy in a white shirt in a park on a spring day talking and walking around somewhere in the Western world is ridiculous for what non-crimes he is committing. They simply have better things to concern themselves with than crushing guys in white shirts. If the Walk idea was like a Charlettesville-type event that would serve to concentrate and unmask anons in a reliably small place, the criticism of police resources and investigators would be entirely valid. But it's nothing like that. Not in the slightest.
[–] 17869880? ago
>>13080154
Are you kidding me JIDF? No one reads your bot text.