>>84571726I don't think this is right at all.
This may sound odd, but I've always felt like 4chan has had an underlying ideal of equality that's completely insane and doesn't make any sense, but anon keeps trying to achieve it anyway. A lot of people mistake it for hating just for the sake of hating, but I think it's something else entirely. Like, if the site sees something is popular, it feels that this is somehow getting in the way of objectivity, so it turns around and starts trying to counter-balance it with hate. If something is hated to the point of harming objectivity, they'll flip to the opposite site and start trying add popularity. I think what anon ultimately wants is zero.
It's the same with /pol/. They think affirmative action has gotten to the point where minorities have gained an unfair advantage, so they think promoting racism will somehow cause the two to cancel each other out. If things went too far and minorities were actually being treated unfairly in their eyes, they'd swap sides. They'll just keep going back and forth forever, until things have become even and "fair". But what they consider fair is too out-there to be realistically achievable, so they're just in an endless cycle.
I think this mentality is somehow derived from the site's format itself. Since there are no names, things like reputation aren't factored into a post's content, making any post judged primarily by its content. It's "fair" because it's equal.
But that's just my take on it. Hating popular things is some kind of warped idealism rather than something being done just for the sake of it.
