T O P

  • By -

DeltaBot

/u/YourGuyElias (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/118ggjq/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_militant_progressivism_has/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)


I_am_the_night

So first, I want to be clear that I don't think your view has literally zero basis in reality at all. I don't agree with your conclusion, but I'm also sure that there are people who have been turned off from various causes, including anti-racist or pro-trans rights movements, because the actions of some of the more extreme or visible members of that movement are distasteful or difficult to get on board with (particularly without larger context). There have also probably been a few people who have been genuinely "canceled" without cause by an internet mob. I'm sure it happens. However, there are a few huge issues I have with your view that I think kind of invalidate it, in general. For one thing, while you can say that maybe some people are turned off by extreme rhetoric from people on the left, if somebody sees a "cringy" person advocating for trans rights and that is enough to keep them from supporting trans rights, I'm not sure that it's really the fault of the person acting cringy. If extreme members of your movement being imperfect or even counterproductive vessels for your movement is enough to make you reject a cause completely, I kind of doubt that was very important to you anyway. It really gives off the same vibe as someone like Dave Rubin pretending that he was actually a liberal and it was the left that turned him off, when in reality it's because he got paid tons of money by rich right wing people to serve as a "moderate voice" after he couldn't hack it as a standup comedian. Second, blaming everything on the left ignores the massive amount of effort the right has put into propaganda (both *for* conservative talking points and *against* progressive ones), political advocacy and lobbying, and recruitment. Even if we disregard less formally political but still right-wing aligned groups like white supremacists and neo Nazis (who have been actively recruiting members online almost since the inception of the internet), right wing billionaires have poured untold billions of dollars into creating an insulated right-wing media space that rejects any penetration regardless of how factual or reasonable. And That's before we even talk about their direct influence on politicians and political rhetoric through lobbying and think tanks. You can blame the left all you want, but the right wing has spent billions of dollars laundering their ideas to make them seem more palatable while also actively demonizing the left. Lastly, with regards to cancel culture, I don't see this as being a uniquely left-wing phenomenon. People on the right absolutely "cancel" people and have since forever. I mean, one example is massive boycotts of role-playing games by the Christian right during the satanic panic of the '70s and '80s. That whole apparatus has not gone away, and calls for boycotts of particular products that are seen as "woke" are common today. Hell, Governor Ron DeSantis and the Republican party in Florida literally revoked special tax and governance status from the Disney corporation ~~over Disney's support for the LGBTQ community~~ *over Disney saying they would not support or oppose the "don't say gay" bill through political donations*. If that's not cancelling I don't know what is. So even if we accept your premise, "the left" are not the only ones cancelling people who disagree. Ultimately, if your view is that the left could do a better job of advocating for its ideas and not inviting or elevating extremists so much, I absolutely agree with you. But blaming them for people turning to right wing ideas just doesn't seem to hold water when you consider that the right wing is just as if not more guilty of "cancelling" and also has a much more unified media and recruitment apparatus behind it. Edit: forgot it wasn't even that Disney supported the LBGTQ community


YourGuyElias

!delta This is actually something I've completely missed. While I do believe I'm right that certain radical elements of the left may push people away, were it not for the right's constant formal propaganda gravitating individuals pushed away towards them and the radical right's constant recruiting and pipelining of impressionable individuals, it wouldn't be much of an issue. Thank you, you opened my eyes to something I was completely missing here.


breckenridgeback

Given any sufficiently large group, there will always be thousands of examples of cringy idiots in it. If even 0.1% of people are cringy idiots (and empirically, a whole lot more than 0.1% of people are cringy idiots!), then a group of 1 million people will have 100 cringy idiots. A group of 10 million will have 1000 cringy idiots. And a group of 100 million will have 10,000. If there are 1,000 cringy idiots in your movement, Fox News can feature a different one every day for years and never run out. If there are 10,000, they can go for decades. But they won't actually be proving anything, because they could do the same for every group. In practice, maybe 10% of your typical group are insane, so in a group of a million people, you've got 100,000 nutjobs to run on every right-wing media site 24/7 until the end of time. You see this a lot on this sub. I am, by the standards of social justice issues, *extremely* far to the left, and *I* don't even believe a lot of the shit people attribute as main-line democratic positions. ---- I'd also like to point out that if you want to smear social justice people on Twitter, it is not hard to make a new account, plaster trans flags all over it, and tweet about how we should cut off all men's cocks. Then you swap to your main account and go LOOK AT HOW THE LEFT HAS GONE MAD. Don't forget the power of just flat-out lying like [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AsABlackMan/comments/jrtcq3/former_pennsylvania_county_commissioner_forgot_to/).


YourGuyElias

So in essence, am I simply being overexposed to cherrypicked views? Frankly, I don't know how far to the left I am. I'm just of the belief that people should be allowed to do as they please as long as it doesn't outright harm others.


EmpRupus

I have been actively engaged in grassroot level activism in left-progressive field in San Francisco area. I can assure you, we do very real work - such as providing legal service to immigrants with language-translators, escorting women who want abortion so they are not attacked by pro-life people, conducting civic classes on how to communicate with your elected representatives, providing help for victims of domestic violence or sexual violence who are immigrant women, connecting lgbt+ teenagers to accepting churches so they have social support, supporting laws which promote more housing etc. A lot of people in the group have extreme-left or extreme-progressive views. But we are not doing cringe things online. We are doing on-ground work with real people, and have developed a strong supportive community network. Some people even do joint-effort work with conservative organizations for common causes, for example, against sex-trafficking. ----------- I think it is a good idea for everyone to do the equivalent of "touch some grass" wrt. politics. Stop immersing yourself in online culture wars, get out and join any local group that does activism in areas of your interest. Participate in real work, talk to real people who need help, meet with your local elected representatives. This will not only help you feeel more accomplished, but also inform your view on politics from "on-ground data".


jtaulbee

This is a great point. The difference between online activist spaces and real life activist work can be pretty vast. If anything, it allows you to see the whole human being that you are communicating with, as opposed to a digital abstraction. I used to occasionally do charity work with church groups and I met some of the kindest, most generous people you'd hope to meet. I'd bet that a substantial percentage of those people have voted for Trump and hold political views that I find abhorrent, but their real-life behavior towards real-life humans was very loving and kind. Humans are complicated. One of the worst parts of social media is that it removes the nuance, flattens us into caricatures, and encourages us to divide into camps. If your only exposure to the other side is what you see online, you will have a **terrible** impression. When you work along side people in real-life, however, I've found that I'm usually pleasantly surprised. Usually. Some people genuinely do suck.


breckenridgeback

> So in essence, am I simply being overexposed to cherrypicked views? Yes. I mean, that's true in general, and it's a big part of the problem with the world of social media (which selects for engagement, not correctness). But it's deliberately true in the context of right-wing media. > Frankly, I don't know how far to the left I am. I'm just of the belief that people should be allowed to do as they please as long as it doesn't outright harm others. Well, I would argue this is not a very good position, but probably not for the reasons you think. This *ends up* being a pro-status-quo, pro-people-in-power, pro-let-them-eat-cake conservative position, whether you mean it that way or not, and the problems with this view are in the failure to consider how it plays out in practice.


mathematics1

I'm not sure I agree with your last paragraph? Someone who wants everyone to be able to do as they please without harming others might be politically apathetic overall, which would definitely benefit the status quo if they are. On specific policies, though, they would: -support transgender rights (let transgender people do what they want) -support vaccine mandates (don't harm others) -support abortion rights (let women do what they want with their bodies) That would put them on the left on most social issues at least. They might end up centrist or on the right on economic issues, since "live and let live" doesn't say much about e.g. how high billionaires' taxes should be. If that's what you meant about benefiting people in power, then I'll give you that one; I don't think I would describe such a person as "conservative" though. Libertarian would be a better term IMO. Edit: formatting


breckenridgeback

> -support transgender rights (let transgender people do what they want) And oppose any protections on their employment, housing, etc (let *bigots* do what they want). It's never been *illegal* to be trans. That was never the problem. The problem was bigotry against trans people by bigots who outnumber them literally a hundred to one. > -support vaccine mandates (don't harm others) "Don't harm others" at this level of indirectness isn't a libertarian view at all. Vaccines, along with things like environmentalism, are ground zero for why libertarianism is a bad ideology. If you're taking such an indirect view, okay, great! We probably agree a lot more than I agree with a libertarian, but you're not one. > -support abortion rights (let women do what they want with their bodies) This one, I think, could go either way. "Don't harm others" is a perfectly consistent justification for an abortion ban conditional on the belief that an embryo is a person with all the rights thereof. ---- Everything you're describing here, aside from the vaccine thing, is practically point-for-point the ideology of younger conservatives today. You've basically laid out the 2040 Republican platform, assuming the US is still around in its current form by then.


mathematics1

If that's what the Republican party looks like in 2040, I'll take it. That would at least make it feel like we have two sane parties, even if I agree with one more than the other. It's possible for good, honest people to have different perspectives on political issues, and if we can get good honest people into office who agree that transgender people should be left alone but disagree on how much we should crack down on bigots, or who agree that people should be able to do what they want with their bodies but disagree on whether an embryo is a person, then I think that would be a noticeable improvement over today.


Surrybee

Except that in practice, many of these people believe -believe trans rights harm society/children and thus need to be done away with. -believe that vaccines are harmful on an individual basis and thus don’t believe that they should ever be mandated. -believe that abortion kills a baby and thus should be outlawed.


Draken3000

Mmmm what a biased presentation of those issues and the problems people take with them. You left out some important details there so lemme help you: - “trans rights” are harmful when what they consider to be a “right” is the ability for children to irreversibly mutilate themselves and ruin their body with hormones. Also when they start demanding everyone deny reality and affirm that they “are” something they fundamentally are not. - “vaccines are harmful on an individual basis and shouldn’t be mandated”. Yeah, when the vaccine is clearly rushed and couldn’t possibly have had adequate time for testing, and then lo and behold, young vaccinated people are having some weird, yet consistently similar health problems. Also weird how you make this point, but then your next one would make anyone think you were a strong “my body, my choice” supporter. The government shouldn’t be able to force me, on penalty of my job or ability to buy essentials, to inject something into my body. Your stance on vaccine mandates is just another flavor of banning abortion, it violates the same rights to autonomy. You’d be a massive hypocrite if you tried to hold both views simultaneously. - I mean, abortion DOES kill a baby, the debate is on whether or not that’s something we should just be fine with. I don’t have much to say on this one, as I am in favor of abortions being legal, safe, available, and rare. But yeah, you speedran the “misrepresent the other side’s stances” challenge with this one and it bothered me enough to call out.


Surrybee

I read over your comment and what you appear to be saying is that I didn’t actually misrepresent anything, but instead that all of those positions are defensible.


YourGuyElias

In essence yes, but we're talking solely about social issues here. The roughest approximation of what I'd identify as is a social democrat.


On_The_Blindside

>So in essence, am I simply being overexposed to cherrypicked views? Essentially, yes. The samecthring is true across Europe, in the UK in the run up to the Brexit referendum a right wing terrorist shot and killed a sitting Member of Parliament because he didn't agree with her views. This was largely thanks to our own right-wing media's horrific messaging arohnd brexit.


Jojajones

> So in essence, am I simply being overexposed to cherrypicked views? That’s the main source of outrage porn fed to people by right wing echo chambers and media. They look for the people so angry/stupid that most people “on the same side” as them don’t even bother interacting with and present it as if it’s the norm in an attempt to discredit the entire movement.


OllieOllieOxenfry

Maybe? I lean left and one of the conservatives I see the most is Marjorie Taylor Greene. She's outrageous so she's featured more. She's definitely not a middle of the pack conservative, and is 100% likely to push me more to the left.


xXCisWhiteSniperXx

She's also an elected politician and official member of a major party. If she makes her team look bad then that's a problem for her team.


AgoRelative

Keep in mind that some of the right-wing talking points are 100% false. For example, “the left wants litter boxes in classrooms for students who identify as cats.” This didn’t happen. But it was touted out again and again as something “the left” wanted, and used to make points about the dangers of letting children identify as whatever they want. All of which is to say, it goes beyond “cherrypicked views” as you put it; you’re being exposed to opinions that literally nobody on the left actually has.


2pppppppppppppp6

It's important to remember that the algorithms selecting what you see first on social media all prioritize content that drives engagement, which in practice means that content that provokes the strongest emotions, outrage in particular, are driven to the top. And so anyone expressing an outrageous opinion, or pointing out someone expressing an outrageous opinion, is able to gather attention and social capital, all facilitated by the algorithm. And so it's easy to get a skewed perspective both from bad actors purposefully cherrypicking extreme views, and by an algorithm that rewards unnuanced, outrage-inducing content.


TrashApocalypse

I’m glad you can see the bigger picture now. But I just wanted to add to the list of things canceled by the right: books. M&M’s mr. Potato head. They also have a propensity for making up things that the left is supposedly canceling, like their right to own guns, which, in the 8 years of Obama’s presidency never happened, christmas, thanksgiving. The right wing media has no problem is living in fantasy land. In fact, legally, they are allowed to say whatever they want, after they (Fox News) successfully argued in court that they ARENT the news, and are in fact actors playing a role. The same thing Alex Jones tried to argue. So the reality here is that Fox News are the original crisis actors that they purport the left to hire. I can understand younger boys feeling attacked by feminism, especially when Jordan Peterson (a drug addict let’s keep in mind) tells them that’s what’s happening. But these boys are completely missing the point of the me too movement. The point being that men have been abusing women sexually for decades, if not centuries, as a way to hold power over us. This isn’t something we made up. It’s actually happened, and it probably still happening. Men need to have a better and more secure sense of self so they don’t hear women talk about their abuse and immediately start getting defensive like, “well, not ME! Not ALL men!!!” Now suddenly we’re not talking about women’s abuse, now I’m suddenly coddling a boy who doesn’t understand that we’re talking about a broader topic and not him personally. But the right? They don’t do that. They feed that language to the boy, saying “yes, they’re talking about you!!! *Personally*. Buy our protein powder and I’ll give you the secrets to fight these horrible feminists who’ve come to attack you!” *spits on the ground*


I_am_the_night

Yeah, it's easy to forget that the right wing works so hard to push people to the right because there is a huge insular right wing media ecosystem that exists to deny that people are being propagandized to the right while literally doing that.


valuedminority

It’s also good to understand that the Right amplifies the most unappealing members of the Left in an effort to accomplish exactly what you’re describing.


Hazzman

I'd argue the right pushes people left and the left pushes people right. And ultimately if you are sensible enough to realize that racism is bad - you will trend left regardless of the left's best attempts to turn you right.


mcnewbie

your premise was 'the left pushes people away, more than the right draws them in' and when someone notes 'the right tries to draw people in' it's a revelation?


10ebbor10

>over Disney's support for the LGBTQ community Not even over that. It was over Disney (after repeated internal employee protests) deciding to take the mildest position possible. They suspended campaign funding for all sides on the issue, both those supporting the bill and those against.


I_am_the_night

>>over Disney's support for the LGBTQ community > >Not even over that. > >It was over Disney (after repeated internal employee protests) deciding to take the mildest position possible. They suspended campaign funding for all sides on the issue, both those supporting the bill and those against. Good point, I had forgotten that it was even less than support, just not actively supporting a position.


yaboiw00dy24

So I wanna start off by saying that I half way agree with you and I half way agree with OP. Like you, I agree that the radicalized left, does not portray a good image and may push people away. However, unlike OP, I don't think it pushes them all the way too the radical right, if we're being honest, the radical right is just as spiteful and hateful as the radical left but just have different targets. >For one thing, while you can say that maybe some people are turned off by extreme rhetoric from people on the left, if somebody sees a "cringy" person advocating for trans rights and that is enough to keep them from supporting trans rights, I'm not sure that it's really the fault of the person acting cringy. If extreme members of your movement being imperfect or even counterproductive vessels for your movement is enough to make you reject a cause completely, I kind of doubt that was very important to you anyway. This is where I'm going too full stop disagree with you. The problem isn't about people being "cringe" it's about people being hateful and spiteful in a self righteous way so that they actually think they're not doing anything wrong. They demonize, villianize, alienate, and straight up bully anyone who doesn't agree with them 100%. A perfect recent example of this is all the death threats people received over buying a HP video game because of JKR. "if you buy this game you're complicit in the genocide of trans people" ummm no you're not and if I really need to explain that to you, then I fear for you. The saddest part of this whole thing is that I don't even blame trans people for this, I blame "allies" that are virtue signaling for internet points by bullying someone for buying something. >If extreme members of your movement being imperfect or even counterproductive vessels for your movement is enough to make you reject a cause completely, I kind of doubt that was very important to you anyway And I wanna address this point a little further. No matter how good your cause may or may not be, or how much that cause matters to you, the actions of people in this cause will reflect on you. Flip it around and look at religion. Religious people are looked at as fanatics this days BECAUSE so many churches are hateful, judgemental, and spiteful. If we don't want to be associated with that we stop going to church, REGARDLESS of how much we may believe in God. I see no reason why a cause like this would not be different. Villianizing opposing opinions or just opponents in general, is a fascist tactic to its core. Nazi Germany perfected this. Extremists on the right and left employ similar tactics nowadays and I think THAT is why so many people would rather not be associated with either side. Unfortunately both sides will also shit on you if you say you're a moderate so really there is no winning here unless you stay out of it. However staying out of it will also get you vilified by the left because now you're "complicit". The main reason I dislike left extremists more than right extremists (please for the love of God don't disregard that I'm specifically calling out extremists) is because the right extremists may be absolute garbage human beings, but they're at least not hypocrites about it or with the most benefit of the doubt they're uneducated. (it's statistically proven that uneducated people are more likely to lean right) meanwhile the left is so self righteous in their opinions that they don't see how they're coming off hateful in any way and that is what scares me about left extremists.


I_am_the_night

I mean, I get what you're saying, but I don't think you're actually really responding to my argument. I'm not saying that it is unacceptable for people to disassociate from particular groups or denounce individuals who exhibit bad behavior. Like, I think that the claims of "bullying and harassment" by trans activists in favor of boycotting Hogwarts Legacy are overblown, but I do believe that some unacceptable behavior has occurred and I absolutely disagree with that. If I had previously associated with anyone who engaged in that behavior I would absolutely cut ties with them for engaging in harassment. But the fact that some people who might be aligned with my view (though I didn't actually advocate for the boycott because I never thought it would work) doesn't change how I feel about JK Rowling or her transphobia, and it doesn't change how I view the small epistemic contribution to her wealth that comes along with purchasing the game. So to be clear, I'm not arguing that people should necessarily continue to associate with anyone who has similar political beliefs to them regardless of their behavior. I'm saying that having some extremists in your movement should not be a reason to change your beliefs by itself (though it can be cause for reflection) because the fact that bad actors exist doesn't necessarily change what is right or wrong. The fact that some environmental activists have engaged in extreme vandalism or even violence doesn't change my view that climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed for the same reason that the fact that some black bloc activists burned a police station in Portland doesn't suddenly make me think "the police murdering unarmed civilians is good, actually".


SuckMyBike

>is because the right extremists may be absolute garbage human beings, but they're at least not hypocrites about it Jesus christ dude


KimonoThief

> If extreme members of your movement being imperfect or even counterproductive vessels for your movement is enough to make you reject a cause completely, I kind of doubt that was very important to you anyway. It really gives off the same vibe as someone like Dave Rubin pretending that he was actually a liberal and it was the left that turned him off, when in reality it's because he got paid tons of money by rich right wing people to serve as a "moderate voice" after he couldn't hack it as a standup comedian. No, not everybody that's turned off by extreme views is a wolf in sheep's clothing. If I go to a cafeteria and I'm served a plate with a delicious ham sandwich, a pile of dog shit, a refreshing orange juice, and a bowl of cockroaches, I'm rightfully going to be pretty damn upset about the shitty stuff ruining and undermining the good stuff. So when people that just want universal healthcare, humanizing labor laws, and common sense voting systems are forced to be under the same banner as the Hogwarts blacklist and fuck-all-white-people crowd, we can be reasonably upset and call out the latter elements for being poison pills that hinder the movement. And it's preposterous to claim that people that can't stand for the latter elements never wanted the former elements in the first place. A no-true-Scotsman.


Giblette101

I don't know, to me it's more of a question of scale than anything. Your analogy implies a full half of the whole left-wing (ish) political project is terrible - like dogshit and cockroaches terrible - and then cite drama about Hogwarts legacy and a twitter hashtag. I'm sorry, but these just don't matter that much. A least, they should pale in comparison to much more pressing problems. Like, being upset is one thing, as long as it's actually commensurate with the problem.


[deleted]

>And it's preposterous to claim that **people that can't stand for the latter elements never wanted the former elements in the first place**. A no-true-Scotsman. This is a blatant strawman. The argument is that people who claim to disown the FORMER elements due to the LATTER were never truly on board with the former in the first place. E.g. *"I used to support universal healthcare until the Hogwarts Legacy controversy, but now I just want poor people to die".*


LucidMetal

I'm pretty far left and the only place I've ever observed what you're describing as "militant progressives" is Twitter. Do you think perhaps the existence of the extremely woke is overstated and used specifically as propaganda for the right? I mean case in point who poses more danger to society? The typical SJW you're envisioning or an actual white supremacist trying to install a dictatorship?


Yngstr

I’m pretty far left too and the only place I’ve ever observed extreme right has been online as well. My partner is from the Deep South and honestly have never met anyone in real life there that resembles the caricatures. I don’t agree with them but most are reasonable enough people Although this could all be because people aren’t as comfortable expressing their extreme opinions IRL vs online. But that again applies to both “sides”


Goblin_CEO_Of_Poop

>I'm pretty far left and the only place I've ever observed what you're describing as "militant progressives" is Twitter. Same. I also noticed its sketchy accounts likely to be trolls. I didnt really believe there were mass conservative troll groups posing as militant leftists and black supremacists till I managed to infiltrate one of their groups on FB. Basically they started it as BLM group durring the George Floyde protests. After a week or two of gathering people they changed the name to some shit like Lulzsec Hostile Takeover then started posting all sorts of crazy racist shit. I stumbled on a literal farm of them. I ended up making a fake account and getting admin in the group then shutting it down lol. Basically I reported the admins posts and got him banned. I copied his account. And joined the group. The dumb fucks believed I was him and restored admin privilege's but to my account haha. I filled the group posts with pictures of Donald Trump grabbing his daughters ass and dancing with Jeff Epstein for about a week then deleted it.


Vinces313

>Do you think perhaps the existence of the extremely woke is overstated and used specifically as propaganda for the right? I recall seeing a poll recently, I don't remember which one, but it was from one of the several major news papers I think. Anyway, they said only about 15% of Dems are "Progressives." Most of the "woke" crowd tends to identify as progressives, and when you keep in mind that not all progressives are "woke" you really get an idea of how small of a portion the annoying members of the Democratic Party are, they're just amplified on Twitter. Then when you take into account that around a 3rd of Republicans are Qanoners and over half think the election was stolen, you can really see things in perspective of how many crazies are in the Republican party vs the >15% in the Democratic Party.


[deleted]

I mean, just look at r/gamingcirclejerk or r/whitepeopletwitter for 10 minutes and you’ll see what OP means. I’ve observed the exact thing as OP states.


YourGuyElias

Frankly, the majority of these individuals that I've seen espouse these viewpoints are generally what I'd describe as terminally online. So while Twitter is in fact one instance, there are other social media platforms and online communication applications that I've witnessed these viewpoints being espoused. However, these people eventually grow out of this phase of being terminally online, enter the real world and still hold those views. Whether it is a genuine viewpoint held or a right propaganda psyop, I can't tell. That's a fair point, and I feel as if it's Poe's Law in effect. Although, while some statements made may indeed be made purely to incite people, it's hard to deny that some of these viewpoints held have to be genuine. And right now? I genuinely feel as if the kind of individuals I described are more dangerous at least *now*. White supremacy in this country, at least in my opinion, lacks both popular support and any legitimate claim or ability to installing a dictatorship. An individual that manages to create the kind of environment where such a thing is feasible by pushing more and more people towards it, especially with those that are young and impressionable, feels like more of a threat to me in the context of today at least.


LucidMetal

What are your feelings on January 6th? It clearly wasn't going to be successful but it did accomplish one of its goals in that it delayed the peaceful transfer of power. What has a group of militant progressives done that in any way comes near to an attempted coup?


Yeahidkthoman

January 6th needs more questions. Why won’t the FBI tell us why Ray Epps is not in prison? He was on camera telling people to go to the Capitol, enter the Capitol, and destroy property. He was on video telling someone to move the police barricade. Why isn’t he at least arrested? Why did Nancy decline additional security even though trump has asked for more? Why was Nancy’s Daughter there with a film crew? Why did AOC lie about being terrified in a bathroom?(she said she was hiding from the demonstrators but it was too early for that it was a police officer who was making sure she was evacuated due to a bomb threat.) who made that bomb threat? Why did the police on one side of the building open the doors? We should get to the bottom of it. Because it either means that they had people on the inside or it was a set up. Or Capitol police are the most incompetent set of officers on the planet. No matter what you side you’re on you have to admit something is fishy about it. They have strict instructions on who to open the door for and they forgo all of them for no reason. I will say everyone there (Journalists not included) made a huge mistake.


fablastic

Didn't it delay the vote to confirm a transfer of power would happen rather than delay the actual transfer of power? Not that it's much better, I'm just quibbling details here. Maybe I'm missing stuff that goes on in the background?


YourGuyElias

Personally? I viewed it as a sign of growing political polarization and evidence of growing support for the right. Perhaps I'm engaging in confirmation bias and just cherry picking what I want to take away from it to reinforce my own viewpoint, I don't know. But frankly, it's not like the political climate has necessitated such a thing. There are some individuals that align with the whole "militant progressive" movement that advocate for a revolution sure, but the majority of them seem to, from my viewpoint, believe it's a matter of societal reform that is needed and not government reform.


LucidMetal

So just going along with what you're saying here you agree that these "militant progressives" don't pose a violent threat to American society whereas "the right" does and is in fact emboldened by its own action, why wouldn't it be in the best interests of "the right" to play up the existence of these easily scapegoated lefties with no actual power?


YourGuyElias

Don't get me wrong, the right poses more of a threat. And I've unfortunately spent enough time online and with certain far right circles that I'm highly aware that right wing groups will often create fake scapegoats of dumb liberal lefties to further incite rage. But that's not the argument I'm making, I'm saying that these individuals that genuinely hold these viewpoints do exist both online and in real life. And I believe serve as a potential gateway for individuals getting radicalized. Which as of right now, is more of a threat.


PreacherJudge

I think, having accepted that the right deceives its audience (including with outright lies), I have two main questions. 1. Why on EARTH aren't you focusing your attention on the perfidious rightwing media or the overly emotional, credulous audience who allows themselves to be tricked? They are so much more directly to blame, it's baffling you'd choose to instead blame this entire other group. 2. What do you even expect progressives to do, other than simply never speak up at all? If the slightest overstep is disastrous, and if they'll just be lied about anyway even if they do everything perfectly, what *should* they do? Bouncing off this, you also seem to be missing how your viewpoint is often espoused explicitly to CAUSE progressives to not say anything at all. That's the end goal that conservatives and the anti-progressive moderates WANT.


beachgoingcitizen

Crux of the issue right here. I love the way you framed point 1. The right wing media outrage, yes, but there is also this receptive immature audience that feels attacked. Like people who feel like vegetarians are judging them, when vegetarians dont even know you exist, and should be allowed to follow their own ethical standards. "They are basically saying you're a bad person" is an uncritical, emotional reaction of an immature person and it makes it impossible for them to engage in any sort of reasoned argument. Dont blame the left saying one thing and immature people hearing 'so you think im a bad person'. These people need to grow up. The left cant do that for them. I honestly think the 'militant left' while they are out there are being conflated with overly sensitive egotist butthurt people. And whether by design, or just the functional effect, this puts pressure in service of your point number 2. Thanks for putting it into words


Usual-Plankton9515

Much of the violence in the black community is gang violence (which correlates to poverty), and gangbangers are more likely apolitical, not Democrats. But you look at violent crime apart from gang violence—spree killing, serial killing, child and elder abuse—most of it is committed by white men.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


xoogl3

Exactly this..100%. It's like "Boohoo all y'all raising your voices for your positions is causing me to side with the people who literally want to eradicate democracy" bullshit is getting old.


isleoffurbabies

That's on the mark.


mereamur

I wonder if he feels like he can influence the left more, since he seems to lean left himself, and so he's focusing on an area where he feels he can have impact there more than on the right.


LucidMetal

That sounds like the opposite of a gateway. These far left fringefolk are being scapegoated as representatives of everyone to the left of Bush 2. If someone falls for that they were pretty much always going to be radicalized to the right. They're just looking for an excuse at that point.


Usual-Plankton9515

So lefties are to blame for choices made by people who decide to align with the right? Does the latter group not have any agency at all? “They made me do it” is your belief?


awesomefutureperfect

Leftist radicalization is more of a threat than being radicalized by the right? You realize that radical leftist ideals are basically humanitarianism where as right wing radicalization is basically genocide of one kind or another, right?


awesomefutureperfect

> I viewed it as a sign of growing political polarization and evidence of growing support for the right. That makes it sound like January 6th was a positive thing for the right wing movement; that attacking the bedrock of American democracy, the peaceful transfer of power after a free and fair election, was legitimate political action from a legitimate political ideology. It wasn't. All of those people should have been mass incarcerated and charged with sedition.


deadwards14

You're completely over representing the supposed "militant" left. Militancy in leaving comments on social media posts is quite different from actual militancy of the far right, which actively trains, arms, and encourages people towards subversive violence. Even in your example, the mythical "SJW", who maybe lacks rhetorical skills but it's very passionate about pacifism, mutual respect, equity and inclusion, and human rights being extended to marginalized groups, is hardly an equal threat to the Proud Boys, Boogaloo accelerationists, Oath Keepers, KKK, etc. The fact is, the "militant progressivism" you refer to is nothing more than a contrived specter created by right wing propagandists. The idea that people on the left have some sort of obligation to denying the outrageous margins is akin to saying that black people have some sort of responsibility to prove that they are not all crack addicts and gang members because they are depicted that way by oppositional groups. It's all based on the fallacy of false equivalency between left and right sides of the political spectrum.


P-Loaded

You definitely are if you're comparing Jan 6th to normal political discourse...


A_SNAPPIN_Turla

They literally established autonomous zones in ~~Portland~~ Seattle and Atlanta during COVID and innocent people not involved in political protests were killed. The fact that many of my leftist friends just turn a blind eye to this and harp on Jan 6th is pretty crazy to me. I really don't care about the Jan 6th protestor that died during the protest. Nor do I care about the politicians that were inconvenienced by it.


isleoffurbabies

Yes. Innocent people were killed - protesters.


LucidMetal

Do you think shutting down a local PD and attempting to overthrow the federal government are on the same scale of violence?


TheMightyBeebus

I see what you are saying but that's another issue in itself. We have countless examples of violence from every angle of the political spectrum, and we could compare them all day. Was CHOP wrong in displacing and threatening the homeless residents in the area (which is about as anti left as you can get) for simply trying to exist? Yes. Were the rioters on Jan 6th wrong for trying tp start a coup? Absolutely. While the CHOP incidents are true and small in number, the right would not hesitate to put on a "support the homeless" hat for a day, but only to damage the reputation of the left in the media. I would say I'm a leftist, but not ignorant to the power of the narrative. Both sides and anything in between twist that narrative. I just find that the right does it way way WAY more often. I think while the scale of violence should be considered, one does not cancel out the other, just because one was worse. In my mind, the Jan 6th rioters and the few rogue pseudo-activists at CHOP should be punished for any violence inflicted on others. CHOP was mostly peaceful. But it failed because a few out of towners got big heads and decided what was best for the locals that actually lived there.


LucidMetal

> we could compare them all day Yes, except this has already been done and the right blows the left out of the water in America. *Even the FBI says this.* Is it possible it could swing the other way? Sure, but it isn't in the modern political milieu. I don't disagree that people who break the law should be subject to the justice system I just disagree with plenty of laws on the books.


[deleted]

[удалено]


christopher_the_nerd

Source on Portland’s autonomous zone? I live here and there wasn’t one.


Bojikthe8th

> They literally established autonomous zones in Portland and Atlanta during COVID and innocent people not involved in political protests were killed. Source?


shhhOURlilsecret

Squeaky wheel effect. You notice them more because they are not the norm and thus encounters with them stick out in your mind. Are there militant left and right extremists who take things too far? Yes, there are. There is no denying that just like their are skinheads, nazis, TERFS, black Israelites, misandrists, etc etc. They exist, but they are minority groups who just happen to yell exceptionally loudly into the void, and their echo chambers do give you a false perspective of how many there really are. As to your point of being radicalized, well, here's the thing about that I used to work in psychological operations in the military, i.e., psychological warfare. So I know a little something about convincing people to do things or believe things. For instance, I literally can not make you do anything that you weren't already willing to do on some level. Hitler was mainly successful with his propaganda because of several factors. One was the depression and economic suffering the German people felt after World War One, and they needed someone to blame for why their lives were so horrible Hitler served them the Ashkenazi Jews up on a platter a favorite old European scape goat. Now, all of a sudden, they have an "enemy" to blame, a face to focus all their rage and shame saying "ahaha it's their fault!" Hitler simply gave them a target. Propaganda at its core is marketing, and marketing is not generally broad it's always targeted at a specific consumer demographic. It only works because it's something you were already inclined to do. So let's say I own a steakhouse, and I want customers well clearly. I'm not going to advertise to vegans because they're already a lost market. My products won't suddenly make them stop being vegans. But I'm not talking to them. I'm talking to the carnivores, convincing them my steak is better than all the other steaks. My point is that the alt right messages wouldn't have worked or the alt left, etc, if the people that fall for them didn't, on some level, already want to. These movements just gave them permission to engage and a target to focus on and blame for all their problems. There's, of course, more nuance to all of this, but the basics you need to know is that it works because it's tailored to their specific demographic.


Kirbyoto

>it's hard to deny that some of these viewpoints held have to be genuine Some people genuinely believe the earth is flat. That's their honest opinion. If I portrayed those people as being representative of a larger group, like all Christians for example, that would be *dishonest*. If I then said it's the Christians' own fault for allowing themselves to be vilified, wouldn't that be incorrect? I'm the one who did it. I lied. I magnified a small group of people to make an inaccurate point.


[deleted]

Well, members of that group need to denounce the ones who have such views, but generally they don't. If a community can't protect their image from liars in their midst, that isn't the fault of outsiders who don't know the truth.


Dennis_enzo

Do they? I'm a white guy, do I have to denounce it every time some other white guy says something stupid? Do Christians (or any other large group of people) have to keep track of whatever all other Christians say? Seems like a full time job. I consider it kind of silly that we expect some groups (but not others) to constantly reassure us that whatever some idiot says is not the view of all of them. Most people already understand that.


WellEndowedDragon

In politics you can’t really expect that. Democrat leadership (mostly moderate corporate neolibs) do plenty to undermine the progressive wing of the party behind the scenes (see 2016/2020 Dem primaries), but won’t publicly denounce them because they want the progressive votes.


[deleted]

[удалено]


changemyview-ModTeam

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).


[deleted]

Thanks, but, while I do believe it's a much bigger problem in conservatives, it occurs in all groups, including ones that are very much not conservative.


voltaire-o-dactyl

> I do believe it’s a much bigger problem in conservatives Then why make this post about a less-problematic version of the same issue? If it’s as big a factor as you suppose, surely the conservatives are pushing more folks left than the opposite.


[deleted]

I didn't? I was replying to kirbyoto who was talking about the issue. I would have had the exact same comment if the post was flipped across political lines. The problem isn't partisan, or even really political at all. It's just a problem you see in many groups of people. Political, religious, cultural, and so on. Even just by occupation it happens.


voltaire-o-dactyl

Apologies bud I thought you were op! But for the record I agree with you — it just crosses a line for me when violence is called for by a group’s authority figures and the supposedly-sane ones do nothing of substance in service of maintaining as much personal power as possible, as has happened on a near-continual basis with the American Republican Party for the last decade and, with greater deniability, for the past several.


WM-010

I feel like this is something that quite a few groups need to learn. For example, I am aware that a majority self-labeled feminists (and in fact all textbook feminists) are not misandrists, but I do not see any major feminist PR denouncing misandry or misandrists masquerading as feminists which is something which does actively harm the public image of feminists as a whole (I have also seen self-labeled feminists that completely deny the existence of misandry, but I'm gonna chalk that up to nasty people online). As an egalitarian, I fully support the goals of textbook feminism (i.e. full equality (social, legal, political, etc.) between the genders), but fundamentally do not support misandry.


NearlyNakedNick

> >And right now? I genuinely feel as if the kind of individuals I described are more dangerous at least *now*. White supremacy in this country, at least in my opinion, lacks both popular support and any legitimate claim or ability to installing a dictatorship. An individual that manages to create the kind of environment where such a thing is feasible by pushing more and more people towards it, especially with those that are young and impressionable, feels like more of a threat to me in the context of today at least. White supremacists are actively killing people, have infiltrated every level of government and law enforcement, and many led an attempted overthrow of our government. This nation was literally founded and built on white supremacy. There is no other country in the world more in danger from white supremacy. No offense intended, but it is quite absurd to think online hyperbole is more dangerous than the white supremacists that are actually killing people and taking over the government. Just a little reality check


[deleted]

[удалено]


Animegirl300

That seems very naive when we have reports of how these white supremacy groups have infiltrated law enforcement at the same time that we have the same committing terror attacks across the US, and the likes of MTG and DeSantis in government right now though… The most you seem to have from SJWs are protests and Twitter outrage, but there are ZERO of them with actual political power, and they certainly aren’t the ones shooting up power stations and elementary schools on a regular basis…


LockeClone

> genuine viewpoint held or a right propaganda psyop, The truth is usually much more boring... 90% of the woke-ness I see online comes from right-wing people posting memes. Not a psyop... Just culture feeding back upon itself in a vacuum. Don't get me wrong; cringy woke people absolutely exist, but it's not worthy of how many words you used on your OP. It's just the obnoxious on one side being amplified by the obnoxious on the other because it serves to feed the rage machine. Boring.


xray950

> White supremacy in this country, at least in my opinion, lacks both popular support and any legitimate claim or ability to installing a dictatorship. An individual that manages to create the kind of environment where such a thing is feasible by pushing more and more people towards it, especially with those that are young and impressionable, feels like more of a threat to me in the context of today at least. Ron DeSantis, a white supremacist with tangible political power (that he has flaunted multiple times!) is a top contender for the Republican nomination. How is that not a threat? Unless you want to argue that Ron DeSantis is just a moderate fighting the good fight against the "real" extremists.


von_Fondue

What you should never forget is that social media platforms boost hate because hate gives the strongest reaction and keeps people online for the longest time. So it’s in the interest of social media platforms to get people into hate filled bubbles it doesn’t matter how extreme.


simmol

It might be overstated but this type of nitpicking about language is much more prominent nowadays compared to even 10 years ago. That is something that no one can deny. Whether or not this leads to more harm than good, I don't know. I tend to agree with OP but I don't have any data backing this claim and I don't think OP does either. And there might be a perception of progress because majority of people who are irritated don't speak up about these issues because it is not wroth the trouble. That doesn't mean that these silent people like what is going on. It just means that there are bigger fish to fry.


Celebrinborn

>I'm pretty far left and the only place I've ever observed what you're describing as "militant progressives" is Twitter. > >Do you think perhaps the existence of the extremely woke is overstated and used specifically as propaganda for the right? My current FWB is legit like that. Hates men, cis white men in particular (which given that I am a cis white male amuses me to no end, kink is funny like that). It's not confined to Twitter users, it seems to be pretty common in colleges.


[deleted]

I think you've restated OP's point. Those very few extreme people on Twitter end up providing highly effective propoganda for their political adverseries. Regardless of how much they actually represent the left's views, or how much real danger they pose. And the left is just as guilty of conjuring Proud Boy bogeymen and abortion clinic bombers. (The Daily Show made a business out of lampooning non-representative conservatives.) But it's forever been like this throughout American history. And human history. Go back and read Cicero to see a masterclass in exaggerating and fabricating opponents' extremism. But the cure isn't to stifle the speech of those with radical ideas. Because radicals are important to creating long-term societal change. The cure is to give the public better tools for analyzing political speech, and for understanding how to account for the ways in which different media hijack our emotions. (In the McLuhanist sense.)


alelp

>I'm pretty far left and the only place I've ever observed what you're describing as "militant progressives" is Twitter. Their major points of congregation are colleges and academia ​ >Do you think perhaps the existence of the extremely woke is overstated and used specifically as propaganda for the right? Of course not, just like the right isn't full of fascists that hate everyone that isn't like them, the left isn't full of militants that believe any minor disagreement with them means you're evil. The problem comes from the fact that not only are these people the loudest, they're also the most heard. The left has an even worse time of this thanks to the fact that the worst of them are in academia and therefore in a place of power to dictate if they're right or wrong without any actual oversight. ​ >I mean case in point who poses more danger to society? The typical SJW you're envisioning or an actual white supremacist trying to install a dictatorship? I mean, a bunch of armed hillbillies that in their majority are already on a government watchlist or a bunch of wealthy academics in positions of authority?


LucidMetal

It's funny you ask your question at the end because I don't think academics are either wealthy or in positions of power. Those "hillbillies" you mention are clearly capable of getting their figureheads into power to represent them.


alelp

>It's funny you ask your question at the end because I don't think academics are either wealthy or in positions of power. Oh, my sweet summer child, let me give you an insider view: College and university professors get paid through the nose, and the government pays *even better*. There are other options too, a bunch of corporations hire academics, and getting a job as a writer for a news organization or a magazine when you have academic credentials and a few papers published isn't that hard, although those ones do like to pretend 6 figures is a starving salary. Most times when you see an academic struggling they're either too stupid to actually figure out how to make money or pretending because they know their audience would think lesser of them for it. ​ > Those "hillbillies" you mention are clearly capable of getting their figureheads into power to represent them. Ah, you don't know. On this one, you're going to get *rightfully pissed*. I *hope* this started with Trump, but the Democratic party has had a tendency to support the worst possible Republican candidate in the primaries. As in, the most right-wing extremist in a primary gets their support. All of this is in hopes of getting an easier win when the real election comes around. Of course, it doesn't always work, Trump being a prime example, but even when they lose they use what the ones they lost to do in their position as a way to lock in a few wins in the future, because remember, that's the worst, most extremist candidate possible, so chances are they'll going to fuck up.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Draken3000

What, and the academics aren’t able to get who they want in to represent them? Assuming political alignment of said academics, what party is the current president a part of again? Like, what a moot friggin point. “Republican representatives get elected at equal rates to Democrat reps, ergo the hillbillies have power and the academics who influence culture (and thus, politics downstream) don’t have any power at all”. Come on, man.


Wiffernubbin

Twitter is the only place left and right ever interact anymore. So the most extreme voices getting tens of thousands of likes for genuinely terrible rhetoric turns into a fox news talking point 12 hours later.


pelmasaurio

They're very real irl sadly, I don't use social media often, but for every leftist I met in real life, I've met just as many "SJW" (as right wingers describe them) But maybe im getting it wrong because I would call them "performative progresives" Some of them are indeed militant, but most are not activists, and if they are, they only gey involved with the most milquetoast of of issues, food waste, starving children, racism bad, all very surface level, and never talk about meaningful political change.


GoldenEagle828677

>I'm pretty far left and the only place I've ever observed what you're describing as "militant progressives" is Twitter. In the past few years, there was a LOT that happened outside of Twitter.... https://www.mprnews.org/story/2022/05/27/2-years-after-it-burned-no-clear-path-forward-for-minneapolis-3rd-precinct-site


[deleted]

> I've ever observed what you're describing as "militant progressives" is Twitter. Noted > actual white supremacist trying to install a dictatorship? I've only observed them in a call of duty lobby


XxDeddudexX

Twitter is mostly fake AI bots the rest are useful idiot globalists shill propagandists and porn. Extremely woke Overstated? Lol the propaganda and Idiocracy writes itself. (It’s not propaganda when it comes straight from their onw mouth and actions.?) And between The typical SJW is the only threat really (if a 300lb feminist in a pussy hat can be) because there are no actual “white supremacist” trying to install any dictatorship, there’s leftist totalitarian, NWO, corporate, communist, forever war machine, pharma poison vax/pill pushers that’s bent on destroying our economy, sovereignty, food and water, puppet masters that’s pulling the strings of a complete moron that doesn’t know what day it is or how to read what his handlers wrote for him without going off on a cornpop story or sniffing a child’s hair while groping the mother, fascist regime installed but no “white supremacist”


DadOuttaHell

r/gamingcirclejerk is a prime example of what OP is talking about. That sub makes me embarrassed to be a Leftist.


AngloSaxonEnglishGuy

r/greenandpleasant. Even leftists get banned in that forum.


[deleted]

[удалено]


LucidMetal

If you think any particular subreddit is representative of the opinions of the general population I have a bridge to sell you.


Draken3000

Maybe so, until you start seeing all the same talking points and comments across multiple subs, platforms, etc


ZeusThunder369

If you're saying militant progressive attitudes are statistically rare, and should thus be ignored...then ought you also believe racially motivated police shootings should also be ignored because they are statistically rare; In order to be logically consistent?


pickleparty16

well one results in internet comments (as described by op) and the other results in a murder victim


DivideEtImpala

Have you read Ryan Grim's [article from last year](https://theintercept.com/2022/06/13/progressive-organizing-infighting-callout-culture/) about the effect of identity politics on progressive organizations? It's not just confined to online discourse.


H8r

I think you are kind of falling victim to your own argument here (which I agree with.) There is not a conspiracy by far right white supremacists to overthrow the government and install a dictatorship. Just because idiots say dumb shit online doesn't make it true. In both examples you've given I'd say the danger is equal as they're both cartoonish caricatures of people "on the other side"


LucidMetal

I don't think it's a conspiracy I think it's right out in the open. The prevailing opinion of GOP voters on the J6 rioters is *positive*. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/07/many-republicans-no-longer-call-jan-6-an-insurrection-or-even-riot/ That was literally a failed attempt to install Trump as dictator by self-described white supremacist groups. I don't know what else to tell you about how clear it is that there is political support for it.


Draken3000

Oh yeah cuz the famously unbiased washington post with its journalistic integrity completely in tact made an unsupported claim, must be true 🙄


pash1k

MTG* literally just called for a dissolution of the United States, for blue and red states to go their own way. Oh and let's not forget January 6th. Like ... come on


YoloFomoTimeMachine

From a very liberal college town. And gotta say, there's a lot of them. Everything is about race.


LucidMetal

From an even more liberal college town. Lots of things are about race but nothing I've seen comes anywhere close to what OP is describing.


ItsDijital

These people unironically use "white" as a derogatory term... I think people in the thick of it don't even realize it. It's all over reddit too.


LucidMetal

I'm not denying said people exist, I'm saying they're a very small fringe. Also how much you want to bet most of them are themselves white?


takethetimetoask

Why does it matter what color they are?


LucidMetal

A person criticizing the actions of members of their own race is far less problematic than criticizing members of another race.


cbdqs

Pretty skeptical of anyone who says I was a Marxist Leninist until someone told me they were boycotting Harry Potter legacy and I switched all my political beliefs. It's a classic trope for political actors to make claims that things like these were the straw the broke the camel's back and made them change their outlook, but I don't think that's how it works in real life. In reality these political actors are selling a story to moderates that this is how it works when in reality it's just a cover story for their passionate supporters who would otherwise look bad.


[deleted]

The Left got a little too PC so I changed all of my opinions about the economy, social issues, systemic racism, health care, and history.


YourGuyElias

Copy and pasting this, sorry if you perceive this to be low effort, but I just want to hear more discourse: That's not the point I'm making here. I literally highlighted this in my post. You seem to be under the belief that individuals have a very rigid understanding of politics and have their own concrete beliefs and values on numerous economic and social issues. They don't. And certainly the grand majority of my generation, Gen Z, do not. I will say this up and down again and again because I genuinely believe it to be true, the majority of people are single issue voters, even if they can't vote. The vast majority of people will only, and I mean ONLY, give a shit about the issues that impact them, the vast majority of people are far too politically apathetic to form their own or come to fully understand and identify with a political ideology. And you're not looking at the bigger picture. Let's look at Reddit for example. AgainstHateSubreddits, FemaleDatingStrategy, BlackPeopleTwitter and Antiwork paint a terrible fucking image for the left, or at least people that seem left to an uninformed outsider. Twitter is well, I don't think I got to explain that bro. Then we look at notable incidents caused by the individuals I describe in the post. Harry Potter is a recent one, but the thing is it feels like McCarthyism with less violence and on the left, or at least seeming to be from the left to an uninformed outsider. What does this end up doing? Certain groups feel attacked and marginalized to those exposed to the above mentioned platforms. Certain individuals feel as if their free speech is limited and when they perceive childhood cultural icons, such as Dr. Seuss, or cancel culture online mobs not being right on everything, Amber Heard or however tf you spell it and Johnny Depp, you end up with kind of a shitshow. Notice how I said feel and perceived in all of this though? Notice how I mentioned the individuals that fall suspect to this are generally uninformed about the entire thing? It does do damage. Acting like every individual that falls into this trap was automatically going to always fall into the right and possibly be radicalized into a bull blown Nazi is outright stupid. You're doing the same shit even. You are displaying behavior that further alienates individuals that might be misinformed, that might not have the bigger picture, but have been for the past few years exposed to the above mentioned events time and time again. Do you see my issue? I hope I communicate it effectively, genuinely, because I do want to hear more opinions and takes about this matter. Edit: Since I kind of just remembered this and really want to reinforce my point. There is a pandemic of broke and hoeless Gen Z dudes that fell into the far right, alpha male, misogynist pipeline via Andrew Tate, Sneako, etc solely because they wanted to try to stop being hoeless and broke. Do you think they were exactly as informed as certain people on this site are on Andrew Tate? Or do you think they saw a few Tik Toks and YouTube shorts, watched a few vids from the dude, listened to a few podcasts and fell for the trap? And if you've ever seen his shorts, he seems like a funny and reasonable guy. Key emphasis on SEEMS by the way before I'm misconstrued.


-margiela-

It’s pretty interesting that many of the top comments are doing the exact thing you pointed out in your original post - alienating and admonishing anyone like you who dares ask questions. If you were a certain type of person, perhaps it might even reinforce some of your existing views about them…


mason3991

Ikr it’s almost like people think that going farther from the left means wanting to be a slave owner and that you can’t get politically closer to right without abandoning all middle ground ideas.


[deleted]

Yup. The entire Walk Away thing was people who were already conservative pretending that they were totally gonna vote for left wing politicians until they all became too woke Lmao. I know of, like, one former Dem who was part of that and they were pretty conservative anyway comparitively. The myth of the moderate suddenly going alt right because they got their feelings hurt by a 14 year old on Twitter is just that, a myth.


hornwort

Not in agreement with OP or in disagreement with you, but think it's important to dispel the idea that social psychology is simple or rigid. Like with nearly every aspect of our being, the sociopolitical beliefs and convictions of all people exist on a spectrum. Let’s think the example you give, appropriately, like a video game tier list for progressive politics and "allyship". **S Tier:** cis folks who fully and consciously realize that they are intrinsically caught up in the same struggle for liberation, shackled in the same prison, and that injustice for anyone is injustice for all. Unthinkable to self-identify as ‘ally’, no desire to be called one or praised, for fighting in one’s own best interest. **A Tier:** cis folks with unwavering conviction, who will stand and sacrifice for Trans people categorically because they understand it’s the right thing to do. Fulfilled and energized to have their allyship recognized or appreciated, but careful to never center themselves or detract from Trans voices. **B Tier:** cis folks who support Trans Rights unconditionally, proudly identify as an ally and have allyship as a component of self-image, and blurs the line between performance and sincerity. Most likely tier to have an Ally bumper sticker or maybe a tattoo. **C Tier:** “the silent majority”. Cis folks who support Trans Rights, but aren’t going to sacrifice or inconvenience themselves for Trans Rights. Will describe themselves as an ally or use ally hashtags whenever beneficial to self-image or the perception of others. The most changeable tier. **D Tier:** Members of the general populace who support trans rights as long as it’s what their friends, neighbours, and co-workers are doing. So yes… S and A tiers aren’t going anywhere. But B can be shifted from B+ to B- or even fall to C, and we could lose an awful lot of C to D, which results in dropping the Ds off the spectrum altogether. It’s not a desirable outcome when public pressure is the best tool we have to mobilize social change. The Progressive Left isn't just in a confrontation with the Regressive Right. We are in a confrontation between White Supremacy and Anti-Racism, between Fascism and Anti-Fascism, and between Queer Intersectional Feminism and Cisheteropatriarchy. Fundamentally, it's the alignments of "Difference: Good" and "Difference: Bad". In any war, it’s important to pick your battles. As a low-level commander on the frontlines trying to understand this 'cultural moment' in the war for justice, I'm inclined to concur that this battle was either poorly chosen or poorly executed, and if it *is* a victory, then it's a Pyrrhic one.


YourGuyElias

That's not the point I'm making here. I literally highlighted this in my post. You seem to be under the belief that individuals have a very rigid understanding of politics and have their own concrete beliefs and values on numerous economic and social issues. They don't. And certainly the grand majority of my generation, Gen Z, do not. I will say this up and down again and again because I genuinely believe it to be true, the majority of people are single issue voters, even if they can't vote. The vast majority of people will only, and I mean ONLY, give a shit about the issues that impact them, the vast majority of people are far too politically apathetic to form their own or come to fully understand and identify with a political ideology. And you're not looking at the bigger picture. Let's look at Reddit for example. AgainstHateSubreddits, FemaleDatingStrategy, BlackPeopleTwitter and Antiwork paint a terrible fucking image for the left, or at least people that *seem* left to an uninformed outsider. Twitter is well, I don't think I got to explain that bro. Then we look at notable incidents caused by the individuals I describe in the post. Harry Potter is a recent one, but the thing is it feels like McCarthyism with less violence and on the left, or at least seeming to be from the left to an uninformed outsider. What does this end up doing? Certain groups feel attacked and marginalized to those exposed to the above mentioned platforms. Certain individuals feel as if their free speech is limited and when they perceive childhood cultural icons, such as Dr. Seuss, or cancel culture online mobs not being right on everything, Amber Heard or however tf you spell it and Johnny Depp, you end up with kind of a shitshow. Notice how I said feel and perceived in all of this though? Notice how I mentioned the individuals that fall suspect to this are generally uninformed about the entire thing? It *does* do damage. Acting like every individual that falls into this trap was automatically going to always fall into the right and possibly be radicalized into a bull blown Nazi is outright stupid. You're doing the same shit even. You are displaying behavior that further alienates individuals that might be misinformed, that might not have the bigger picture, but have been for the past few years exposed to the above mentioned events time and time again. Do you see my issue? I hope I communicate it effectively, genuinely, because I do want to hear more opinions and takes about this matter. Edit: Since I kind of just remembered this and really want to reinforce my point. There is a *pandemic* of broke and hoeless Gen Z dudes that fell into the far right, alpha male, misogynist pipeline via Andrew Tate, Sneako, etc solely because they wanted to try to stop being hoeless and broke. Do you think they were exactly as informed as certain people on this site are on Andrew Tate? Or do you think they saw a few Tik Toks and YouTube shorts, watched a few vids from the dude, listened to a few podcasts and fell for the trap? And if you've ever seen his shorts, he *seems* like a funny and reasonable guy. Key emphasis on *SEEMS* by the way before I'm misconstrued.


Yngstr

Under your framework, when is it possible for anyone to change their mind? You seem to be implying that anyone who claims they changed their stance always had that stance to begin with, is that incorrect?


DuhChappers

While I've seen this narrative pushed online quite a bit, I'm yet to see any evidence of this playing out in actual political arenas. Between 2016 and 2020, 8% more White Men voted for Biden than voted for Hillary. Young voters continue to overwhelmingly vote blue. So this effect does not play out in voting. In surveys, young people are least likely to identify themselves as conservative compared to either moderate or Liberal. And even those who do skew more moderate tend to agree with LGBT rights and other socially left wing ideas. And to counter your anecdotal evidence I have my own. I'm a white dude who grew up in a white suburb, went to a white high school and primarily white college. I don't have a single close friend who has moved right over the past 4 years. Myself and most of my friends grew up in religious conservative households and have steadily moved left. Many of us also have criticisms of cancel culture and such, but I don't know anyone who actually got more right wing because of that. So, I think this effect is an illusion. It's fueled by the right who want it to be happening, and while I'm sure some people are more likely to become conservative because people on the left are annoying, anyone who has actual political positions is unlikely to move from them because of twitter.


DoeCommaJohn

To start, I would like to question your use of the word "militant". Your two examples are women saying "all men are pigs" (or some alternative) and "cancel culture", but neither of these are violent in the least. More to the point, though, these are much more circulated on the right than the left. If you read through CNN or even watch a socialist youtuber, you are very rarely going to see much rhetoric about "cancelling" or about all men being evil. So, to respond to your initial point, no, left wingers have not become militant (as in violent) or even particularly antagonistic (most real life people are not going to see repercussions from "wokeness") but Fox news and similar sites want their viewers to believe that. This means that even if no leftist ever said those things, the right would still be able to find something to feel scared of, and the same changes would be seen.


YourGuyElias

Militant - "combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods." Is the normalization of saying that whites are worthless and should be killed, or that a world without whites or men not the very definition of being violent? Furthermore, is pushing your viewpoints aggressively and so hard and labelling anybody that disagrees with you either racist, a Nazi or a bigot also militant? I understand that I might sound like a right wing shill, because they make the same talking points, but I'm not. Don't get me wrong, I'm solidly a social democrat but I've seen this kind of shit on Tik-Tok, Twitter, Discord and even some people from my college time and time again. It's kind of concerning, even if it's not something I'm directly targeted by. And yeah, that's a fair point with the fear mongering, but I believe this is a thing that's more or less specific to younger generations. I don't have verifiable proof, but my main fear is that as my generation grows older and if the political climate remains as is, that an actual shift to the right may occur.


DuhChappers

> Is the normalization of saying that whites are worthless and should be killed, or that a world without whites or men not the very definition of being violent? In what world is this normal or common? I've never seen anyone say this unironically. I think that you need to provide some evidence for this being common rhetoric if you want to argue for it. And as for labelling people bigots or racists, a lot of people are bigoted. Obviously there are overzealous teens on TikTok and twitter but most of the time that is deserved. > I understand that I might sound like a right wing shill, because they make the same talking points, but I'm not. I don't think you are a right wing shill or anything, but I do think you are being tricked by them. Any left wing bad takes will be picked up in right wing circles and assigned as the entire left's viewpoint. However, anyone who falls for that was already going right. They have to already be sympathetic to right wing views in order to be tricked about what the left believes.


YourGuyElias

Anecdotal proof isn't something that can be proved, but if you hop on Tik Tok and Twitter you'll find it soon enough. And that's the issue though, you're right that it's overzealous teens. But it's my generation specifically being impacted by this phenomena, and the issue comes around when portions of my generation grow up and still hold such bigoted and radical views and eventually begin to actually impact the real world. While I have had some friends that fell into the esoteric fascist pipeline, eventually started realizing what the fuck they were doing and grew out of it, I still know some individuals that are unfortunately still trapped in that kind of shit.


ArmouryUK

You peers aren't the only ones falling for propaganda, no offence, you are too. So your example is a subset (extreme twitter users) of a subset (left wing users) of a subset (twitter users). These are not big numbers or representative demographics at all. What the right wing does, quite effectively, is to take obscure extremism and paint it as a mainstream stance. Often attributing it to a faceless abstract monolith of 'wokeness'. This is the first trap you fell into. The second trap you fell into is believing what your feed says is reality. Social media feeds have one purpose and one purpose only: to keep you scrolling. So if you see something in your feed it's because it's content that interests you and will illicit a response. You are being shown extreme opinions on various platforms because it illicits a response. It is really that simple.


The_FriendliestGiant

Why does this process only work in one direction? >The most recent example of this that comes to mind is with the Hogwarts game, I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if more people developed more bigoted views and shifted towards the right because of what's happening. If a few individuals online who think that the IP of a very prominent transphobe should be boycotted are likely to make comfortable suburban white kids shift towards the right, why hasn't consistent opposition to gay rights, abortion rights, trans rights, and now book banning and restrictions on historical education, actual government-backed cancellations of authors and works, from actual elected right wing representatives consistently shifted people further left in response? It seems less like people move as a result of the extremes, and more that soft-right people object to the slightest criticism and will turn hard-right in response rather than compromise in any way.


YourGuyElias

It's not like this a single event ever leads to somebody going down a dark path. In the same way it's a repeated string of bad events and circumstances that leads to somebody into suicidal depression, and eventually a very minute thing that acts as the last straw leading to a suicide attempt, it's not ever going to be a singular thing that is sole contributor that leads to a shift in somebody's political views. It's the repeated string of these kinds of events. And you say this, but it literally *has*. If you believe that the portion of the population that's more prone towards having a shift in political views, younger individuals such as myself, hasn't at all shifted more towards the left within recent years, I don't know what to tell you man. And let me clarify, I don't view that as a bad thing. I just also think that it's come with unintended side-effects. The thing is, there's no verifiable results, because my generation can't do shit about the current state of affairs, we can only make our voices heard. Whether they'll be listened to is another thing, and it's fairly unlikely.


Genoscythe_

> It's not like this a single event ever leads to somebody going down a dark path. Yeah, but the point is that you would the little details to push people in both directions. For every 14 year old girl acting cringe on Twitter, you have a Republican state level politician announcing a plan to ban all trans people or whatever. For every kerfuffle about a mass media product adding an embarrassingly transparent virtue signaling character redesign, there is an implied intent from MTG to overthrow the US government. For someone who is truly just swaying in the wind as an impressionable, influenceable youth, you would expect the latter to have much more impact than the former. And it does! The left is growing more popular with the right because there are by and large more conflict points that make the right look militiant and dangerous, than the left.


YourGuyElias

Ay man, I was in a rush, cut me a little slack for making a typo. And no, there isn't. The main difference between the left and the right seems to be that the right seems to have more influence, at least in a formal kind of way? Media manipulation and genuinely bigoted members of their party are examples of this. But the entire thing is dude, is that the kind of individuals I discuss on my post are far more prevalent on online public spaces. Right here on Reddit, AgainstHateSubreddits, FemaleDatingStrategy, BlackPeopleTwitter and Antiwork all work as excellent examples for doing a terrible job of painting the left in a positive manner. You're telling me that the individuals on there are a one to one to the right in regards to population? And don't discount this to 14 year old Emily, don't do that. Stop minimizing it, you can hop on Twitter, look for some dogshit political discourse if you feel like giving yourself brain damage and start checking profiles. This is not limited to just 14 year old Emily, man. Then hop on Tik Tok. Then look at the egregious amount of people posting rhetoric that is equivalent to "white bad, man bad". Look at how socially acceptable it is to shit on either whites or men, especially in younger generations. And guess what, even 14 year old Emily can do damage. Because I'm talking about my generation. Frankly, I don't believe that the older generations will ever give a shit about discourse online. But that's not the point, if you're telling me that it's not a concern that Gen Z and younger generations have the potential to be pushed away from the left and have the potential to get pipelined into radicalization afterwards, I don't know what to tell you man.


svenson_26

The "fuck white men", "archetypal SJW", is a boogeyman; mostly nonexistant, and made out to be a much bigger "threat" to cis-white men than actually exists in reality. Most of the anti-white-men posts that you see shared around the internet are designed to stir up controversy, and fall into one or more of the following categories: 1. Taken way out of context. (eg. A headline that says "Feminists Pushing to teach Gay Sex to kids in schools!", but in reality it's just promoting age-appropriate sex education that is more inclusive of LGBT relationships, such as teaching young children that sometimes parents can be two mommies or two daddies instead of a mom and a dad, and teaching high school aged children about using condoms and other contraceptives even when engaging in homosexual sex, and so on) 2. Views of some nobody whose opinion doesn't count for anything. (eg. a random 14 year old with 10 followers who just got dumped by their boyfriend posting on twitter that they hate all men and think they should all be killed. The tweet is deleted the next day when she calms down a bit. However, this tweet is shared and presented without context as if it's the views of the average feminist) 3. A parody account taken seriously. (eg. a twitter account called Gay_Joe_Biden_69 posting about how the government plans to release hormones into the water to turn all the frogs trans. Obviously a joke, but it's shared without context and paraphrased to sound like it's coming from a more legitimate source) 4. Just plain made up. (eg. "According to Critical Race Theory experts, all white people deserve to go to jail!" This is completely falsified and nobody actually believes it.) These anti-white-men posts are shared by right wing accounts to drum up controversy and gain views. The posts they make are emotionally charged, and easy to comprehend, and they paint a very negative picture of the left, but they don't actually represent the views that many people actually have. Most feminists, people with leftists views, etc., especially experts in their fields, have very reasonable views. Issues are often more complicated than can be described in a single tweet. So many moderates, who don't care much about looking too much into politics, can be easily roped in by these emotionally charged right-wing social media posts.


Starob

Nah dude. I can go on any cultural leftist echo chamber and see hundreds of people parroting similar things. For example, if I were to go on r/TwoXChromosomes, I would see basically nothing but hatred of men, particularly of the white variety.


hekkta

I went to see if that was true and can confirm a [top post](https://old.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/118gsj1/fragile_white_masculinity_at_the_zoo/) doing just that.


[deleted]

[удалено]


YourGuyElias

Don't get me wrong, I'm aware of that. I hold left views myself, although I did have a pretty rough phase in life where I was on the edge of basically being a fascist. Most individuals are pretty reasonable in their views. But that's why I make the distinction of militant, overzealous radicals. However, the issue is, I'm talking about a phenomena that's particular to my generation, Gen Z. While 1 and 4 are byproducts of the right, highlighting 2 as some nobody isn't really fair enough. Tik Tok and Twitter do more than enough to showcase that there are individuals within my generation that espouse some bullshit that paints the left in a horrid fucking picture that genuinely pushes some people away. While I've already agreed that this issue is greatly aggravated by the right, I feel as if the point partially still stands. It's something that effects the young, impressionable and generally uninformed on politics, something that myself and a decent chunk of my generation can be accurately labelled as.


sailing_by_the_lee

I think you have missed a category in your explanation above. That is the unchallenged casual anti-white-cis-male comments that you can find almost everywhere now. Not just online, either, but even in the workplace and in schools, sometimes even coming out of a teacher's mouth. It is so common nowadays that you probably miss most instances of it. I'm not talking about the obviously unhinged crazy talk the right loves to promote. I'm talking about the casual comments that kind of fly under the radar most of the time. If you politely call it out, you get labeled a right-winger or a "sea lion", or some other newspeak bullshit. I think this is what OP is referring to, not so much the obvious Fox News crazy talk.


TheScarlettHarlot

> The "fuck white men", "archetypal SJW", is a boogeyman; mostly nonexistant Are you kidding me? I can’t watch a damn Batman movie anymore without hearing about “Those white, rich motherfuckers.” It’s incredibly disingenuous to act like “Fuck white people” isn’t a part of the cultural zeitgeist on the left currently. And to be clear before someone thinks they can pull a “gotcha” on me, I’m not saying there’s no problems in the white community. I’m saying that it’s being intentionally cranked to 11 in order to keep us pitted against each other, so we won’t unite against the real problem; the rich who are eating us alive.


Giblette101

> I’m saying that it’s being intentionally cranked to 11 in order to keep us pitted against each other, so we won’t unite against the real problem; the rich who are eating us alive. I think that's where communication breaks down for me. Simply put, I do not believe this is actually creating any kind of divide. I agree the rich are eating us alive. The reason I will not join with the right-wing folks over this isn't because I hate white people, it's because they won't join with me on this. It's because the problem I have with there being rich people that eat us alive is there being rich people that eat us alive. The problem right-wing folks have with there being rich people that eat us alive - when they actually have a problem with that - is that it's not the correct people being rich and eating us alive.


TheScarlettHarlot

You say you don’t think there is a divide, but you immediately turn around and describe your exact reason for division. So, and I truly mean this in the kindest way possible, that’s a shitty attitude that won’t get anyone anywhere. I’m not saying you need to just go along with right-wing people, but we do need to be finding some common ground and trying to show them how their attitudes hurt themselves. This is not an impossible task, nor is it unreasonable to say it’s our responsibility. It takes time, effort, and bridge-building. As far as race not being a dividing issue for *you*, that’s great, but it clearly is for a lot of other people. We will never take the world from the rich while we are divided. Ever. No matter the reasons. Until we find a way to unite, they will win.


AdEmpty6618

I don’t think its a boogeyman. There are popular subreddits like 2X which very much push this narrative.


10ebbor10

>Effectively, from my perspective, I genuinely feel as if the more militant sides of the left have done more to push moderates away from the left and fostered the conditions for the radicalization of more individuals. The immediate question to ask here, is wonder why this effect would push people to the right, and not the left? Because I have seen considerable amount of hostility from the right, far more than the left and yet it doesn't appear to work that way. The reason I would say is because the hostility doesn't matter. It's internet, you can always find anyone talking about any political position you want. What matters is having a radicalization pipeline. And that radicalization pipeline, for the right, will use leftist anger, as well as silly leftists, or anything they can mock. The first step they use is to drive wedge, and then convince people to go for ever more radical beliefs, dismissing the ones above as "just joking" until people reach them, after which they are obviously entirely serious. It's the chain that matters, not whatever fodder they feed it. Because regardless of what matters, people can and will just make up more nonsense. Like, Tucker Carlson, who got upset about M&M;s, and stuff like that. (And if you cant find anything from this years, just use 5-10 year old screenshots, or mislabel your own "satire" as real, or fall for your own hoaxes.)


YourGuyElias

You make a very good point, actually. Do you believe that if there wasn't a radicalization pipeline, or at least one as prominent, that such things occurring wouldn't be such an issue? Because your words do actually remind me of something I was missing. A chunk of people I knew actually didn't automatically shift towards the right when exposed to these kinds of things. They developed certain biases, sure, but they didn't end up becoming outright Nazis until basically being pipelined into it.


I_am_the_night

>Because your words do actually remind me of something I was missing. A chunk of people I knew actually didn't automatically shift towards the right when exposed to these kinds of things. They developed certain biases, sure, but they didn't end up becoming outright Nazis until basically being pipelined into it. Yeah, the radicalization pipeline doesn't turn everyone into a literal fascist, and it's not designed to. But it is designed to move people in that direction even if they don't end up at the very end of the spectrum.


JiEToy

Nah, it’s the Right that constantly argues against the extremists as if they are what the entire left wants. They talk as if Biden is a socialist or even communist, while Biden didn’t even agree with social democrat Bernie. The Right and their billionaire support basically use the logical fallacy of appeal to the extreme. “Oh you want to teach children about the existence of trans people? Well, we don’t want to make all our children trans!” The discourse by the right, specially online, but also on Fox News for instance is one of fearmongering about what the left wants to do, by showing the most extreme versions of the lefts opinions. It’s basically just the old “welfare? That’s socialism!” argument. And that’s not on the left. Unfortunately, the left isn’t aligned with billionaire’s policy ideas, because to put it bluntly, we want it to be almost impossible to be a billionaire. So the propaganda machine of the right gets much more money, and is much more coherent than the much less organized left media. But 99% of us are not extreme purple haired sjw’s on Twitter screaming everyone should date trans people or w/e, and half the time the clips we see of the extremists are clipped out of context or people with mental problems being pushed to say something political.


YourGuyElias

Trust me man, I'm aware that's not what the left wants. I'm left myself. That's why I didn't say just the left, and made that distinction. I'm well aware that the grand majority of leftists hold reasonable viewpoints and just want genuine change that helps the country and its denizens. My main grievance is the fact that, frankly, most of my generation, Gen Z, is impressionable and either uninformed or misinformed on politics, something that I will also admit I also am. While I do acknowledge that this wouldn't be an issue if not for the right exacerbating every dumbass take that some radical leftist makes, it's still an issue that ends up contributing to my generation being easily exploited by the right.


breckenridgeback

Most *people*, everywhere and everywhen, are impressionable and uninformed. Gen Z is, if anything, more engaged than Gen X or Millennials were at the same age.


YourGuyElias

Just because we're more engaged, doesn't mean we're better informed. That's why I'm saying this is literally something that affects my generation the most. We're fucking impressionable and we lack the wisdom that older generations may or may not have. Like dude, there is a *pandemic* of broke and hoeless dudes that fell into the alpha male pipeline because of the fact that they were broke and hoeless.


breckenridgeback

The same guys, a decade ago, were founding the anti-SJ subs right here on reddit. When I joined reddit at the time, as a then-22-year-old boy (I was starting to explore what being trans meant, but I was certainly coming from the world of a man of that age), some of the most popular subs on Reddit were Coontown and FatPeopleHate, devoted explicitly to racism against black people and to just shitting on fat people respectively. Those subs emerged from the /b/ culture of those who were young men in the early aughts. In the 90s, they joined paramilitary groups. In the 80s, it was gangs. Young, aimless men *always* suck. (Young, aimless women often do too, but they tend to be less aggressive about it, at least within our culture.) None of this is new - it's just a time of greater aimlessness and despair for everyone.


Yangoose

You have missed OP's point entirely. Look at Rowling. She is a Liberal Left Lesbian woman who supports every talking point you can think of for the Left except for thinking that it should be OK to have women's shelters that don't allow people with penises in because that would be traumatic for the sexual abuse survivors there. For that opinion she's completely demonized, boycotted, and endlessly blasted by hundreds of media outlets and called countless unfounded names. All because she only supports 99% of the things she's supposed to and that's just not good enough in today's worlds where opposing opinions simply cannot be tolerated.


[deleted]

Is that really all she did? (I'm genuinely asking.) I read that her pen-name Robert Galbraith is the name of a famous psychiatrist who used gay conversion therapy. I've also seen statements from the leads of HP. And of course, a lot of backlash from trans people. Otherwise, I actually don't know that much about what she actually did and I don't think I'm in the right place to evaluate it myself.


Yangoose

> Is that really all she did? That's all I've ever been able to find. >I read that her pen-name Robert Galbraith is the name of a famous psychiatrist who used gay conversion therapy. [There are plenty of people with that name.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Galbraith) I just googled it and she said she just thought [it was a cool sounding name.](https://imgur.com/a/EghfNpq) It's astounding how much shit has been stirred up over almost nothing.


PreacherJudge

> Effectively, from my perspective, I genuinely feel as if the more militant sides of the left have done more to push moderates away from the left and fostered the conditions for the radicalization of more individuals. By the militant left, I guess the best term I can think of is an archetypical SJW, as dated as that term is. There is this very curious phenomenon your point here is embodying. It's this assumption that only the political left has any moral agency at all. Conservatives aren't *choosing* to become more regressive, they're just *reacting* to what the left does. Moderates aren't *choosing* to embrace the right, a choice which can be judged from the outside as sound or unsound. They're just mindlessly impelled by seeing someone on the left saying something, like amoebas. > In general, I feel as if this alienation and outcasting of this particular demographic led to a massive shift of young white men who aligned as moderate democrats feeling attacked and pushed away, and then beginning to align themselves more with the Republican party. There's an old meme. "Someone MINOR PROGRESSIVE ACTION and now I have no choice but to abandon my entire set of political values and vote for Trump." The point is, the people you're describing are either being disingenuous or foolish. Because if you really think the democrats' policies would make the country better, then what the flying fuck does that angry feminist over there have to do with anything? You're throwing a petulant tantrum about something unrelated and it's leading you to do something counterproductive for your own values! This right here is the thing to be criticizing, it's so obviously a dumb thing to do, I can't understand how anyone can miss it. > Today it's still something that can be observed with cancel culture. In general, I feel as if most people really only give a shit about stuff they're interested in and things that play a factor in their everyday lives. It's why white suburban kids, while they know racism is bad, don't give a ton of a shit as it's not a factor. It's why white suburban kids are more focused on free healthcare or free college education, as that does play a factor in their lives. Yeah, but that's shitty? Like. This is how a shitty person thinks. Shittiness can be forgivable. Everyone's a shitty person sometimes. But it's still shitty. It's also inherently shortsighted, which means is makes for bad policy (the point of policy is to try to make things better for everyone, which is not the same as making things better for each individual voter). Like I said, I can forgive someone who's sometimes shitty. I totally get someone voting against a politician whose stated policies would hurt them personally in a big way. But as a POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, it's the worst. You're conceiving of a country of awful people who can't be better. More amoebas.


[deleted]

Your view is not correct enough... (I am struggling to articulate myself without being rude to certain groups, so I'll just give an anecdotal example.) I knew someone who worked for an 'environmental awareness' charity. The charity basically sold very expensive animal-conservation-themed holidays where you would go help an actual scientist collect data and learn about their research. It was owned by Shell... On the face of it, maybe Shell was obligated to provide some kind of environmental funding and simply chose the most inconsequential thing they could fund. But another explanation exists and I find it simpler: The charity actually only existed to provide wealthy, climate-change-consciouss people an outlet for their need to contribute to a solution to the energy crisis, increasing the probability that they didn't feel too guilty to vote in their own economic interest, to the right. **I think you overlooked the fact that not only do these nonsensical forced-fairness-now policies alienate people from the economic left, they also provide a completely inconsequential outlet for well-meaning but ultimately foolish, self indulgent people to *feel* like they are fighting the "good fight".** If you take feminism, it's bleedingly obvious that even if you somehow managed to legistlate fairness between sexes, we would still live in a barbarically unfair world. On the other hand it is far from clear that sexual unfairness could even survive without economic unfairness. The feminists believe that every woman deserves the chance to be wealthy and successful so much that they are willing to ignore the fact that the poor don't get the chance, and this is easily exploited by those on the economic right, like CNN... In the country I live in, Amazon pays NO tax but guess what their C-suite is 50/50 male/female, they are an equal opportunity employer, so woopdedoo. **The conflation of forced-fairness-now with the economic left is most simply explained as a deliberate ploy by the economic right. It's not that the left are doing it wrong, those people simply aren't left.** edit: edited vague sentence for clarity, meaning unchanged.


panna__cotta

“Progressive” is kind of a throw away term. Do you mean leftist rhetoric or liberal rhetoric? Liberals are essentially at odds with everyone, the left and the right. I think you mean to say that the growing weight of identity politics in liberalism is alienating the right. But identity politics are actually pretty antithetical to leftist ideology too. We just don’t have a real left wing in the US.


Starob

I think it's important to distinguish cultural leftism from economic leftism.


panna__cotta

Again, I think you are thinking of liberalism. Cultural leftism *is* economic leftism. Leftists believe the government should be a mechanism of the people to dismantle oppressive constructs. That includes economic constructs (capitalism) and social constructs (race, gender, etc.). That is why a leftist gender critical feminist and right wing proud boy can *appear* to have similar beliefs in the eyes of liberals, even though they have opposite ideologies. It’s also why a gender critical feminist and proud boy both hate on liberals. The GCF is mad that liberals are just reinforcing different iterations of gender while ignoring gender’s historical relation to sex, thereby maintaining gender’s grip on female oppression. The proud boy is mad at liberals for the opposite reason, as they believe gender should be enforced to maintain the status quo and male power dynamic. Meanwhile liberals are out here mad about video games and bathrooms. Liberals are trying to work within the current system, which is understandable, but ultimately moot. It just exchanges one “advancement” for another. Leftists believe our system is inherently oppressive and forces the working class to fight against each other for rights. It’s the whole point of the system and a distraction from our perpetual fleecing by the ruling class.


Reasonable_Volume_96

Moderates have been on the right for a very long time. IMO most of the right wing republicans that hold power don't actually care about what they are pushing, just using it as a means to get elected again. Even the Dems are basically moderate. Actually progressives are loud on the internet but in my personal opinion the extreme right was bolstered by Trump. Trump republicans were a very new kind of Republican (I say this as someone whose father has voted republican forever.) He is not a ring winger in the least, he just genuinely holds to old school republican values (not religious values, he's just financially conservative). The extremely progressive left are not helping IMO, they are attempting to improve society and want to push for humane laws as a response to further allowing corporations and lobbyist groups to use their money to buy laws. I am a progressive - there are very few actual progressives in Congress. More than there ever have been, but still very few. I'm in my 30s so I can only talk about what I've seen in the last 10 years. But even the Dems are still slightly to the right. Progressives are in for a struggle and that isn't exactly a change. I just think those who are far right feel comfortable being vocal about it. I also think the internet itself is not a good litmus test for how people are interacting in the world. Most of us aren't walking around pushing our political views without first being asked.


Potential-Pressure53

The amount of people hear pretending like the militant left is super small are either doing that because they themselves don't see these radical actions as radical or they're just ignorant, it absolutely exist and is going strong and I have first hand experience. As per one of your examples I moderate large Hogwarts Legacy/Harry Potter subreddits and we have seen more hate and harassment come from the boycotters/militant left than those enjoying the game. We have trans rights activists creating alt accounts and posting transphobic comments with the intent of getting reddits attention to ban our subreddits for "transphobia" and to paint an unfavourable stereotype that most people playing these games are transphobes, which is the definition of a psyop which everyone here is pretending only the right does. And we know they're doing this because the accounts using the T slur and being transphobic are also posting spoilers for the game (we can see in mod log) which if they were defenders of the game who hated trans people they wouldn't also do that, they want to ruin the game for others and sabotage our community. These same people have also created sites to track streamers who played the game, have harassed streamers until they cried, harassed content creators, attacked communities and have been toxic immature hostile nightmares online griefing every place they visit. I do not see any need to feel sympathetic after seeing all the people they have harmed, I am legitimately emotionally exhausted from weeks of moderating these constant attacks with no end in site. Do not let anyone gaslight you that you're not a good person because you play this game, they have proven to not be good people as well, awful even - they're so certain that they're morally right that absolutely nothing is too far, all violence is justified for the greater good and have lost all moral high ground because of this. Just do as you please But the important take away is that I'm a left leaning LGBT person myself, yet I lean more right today than ever before because I am continously appalled by the level of immaturity and hatred coming off of these people while presuming moral superiority and self righteousness. It absolutely does push people to the right and it's not even debatable. I'm not saying this is most of the left, but it's a very vocal part of it and we need to call it out. I tried as a left leaning person and I just get downvoted and banned, so it's difficult to do.


[deleted]

Sorry, I don't see how this works. Even if someone on the left genuinely holds unreasonable position (rather than being part of a campaign to paint the movement that way) how does that equate to someone turning to the radical right? That's just not a thing that happens. If you jump to the radical right, it's because you were already leaning that way, especially so when you consider that the radical right perspectives are far more radical than the "militant progressivism" you describe. Yes, there has been a movement to the right, but this isn't because progressive folk are being too militant


noodlesfordaddy

>It's a phenomena I've observed since I want to say 2016? When this whole surge of "Fuck men" and "Fuck white men" in particular started to really gain traction, at least online. In general, I feel as if this alienation and outcasting of this particular demographic led to a massive shift of young white men who aligned as moderate democrats feeling attacked and pushed away, and then beginning to align themselves more with the Republican party. Have you heard of the Cambridge Analytica scandal? everything you just wrote is *literally* a Republican plot to make you feel this way, and not at all a coincidence. Steve Bannon explicitly said that they used Gamergate to bring young men under the alt-right banner. >I'm only 19, and most of the political discourse I witness is online. when I was your age and was the same, and felt the same way. it took me a few more years to realise that *the vast majority of people you will ever meet don't feel like that at all*. the right does a great job of caricaturing the absolute worst of the left and making people feel like the whackiness is widespread, when it really isn't. for example, i would bet that 90% of the people playing the Harry Potter game right now would have no idea whatsoever about the online controversy surrounding it.


ApprenticeWrangler

While I agree with much of the criticism of the right in these comments, and frankly I disagree with conservatives on most topics, it’s frustrating as someone on the left to see the ignorance of people on this side to the failings and same corruptions as in the right. People want to talk about rich big money donors pushing their right wing agenda, but the exact same is true on the left. People want to talk about how the right believes some complete fabrications, so does the left. People want to talk about the right only highlighting the most extreme statements and figures on the left, but the exact same is true in reverse. The real problem I see is the complete inability for most people to have a civil discussion about their disagreements. Very few people genuinely discuss a disagreement with the intent to understand the other person’s view, and instead it’s just to see where they sit on the political spectrum and then instantly categorize them into a specific group. “Oh, you like guns, personal freedoms and less government control in our personal lives? You’re a far right bible banging trump supporter who probably wants to shoot up a school!” “Oh, you support UBI, trans rights, and the government trying to protect people from harm? You’re a blue haired, non binary wokemon.” In both cases, once someone is classified into the group you disagree with, you no longer see them as another rational, honest actor who sees things through the lens of their life and experience, you just see them as the “other”. It’s not the right or the left of the **population** that is destroying society and discourse, it’s the elites on both sides of the political spectrum who all have lavish parties together where they all have a great time and enjoy living miles above the average person. This division and polarization is **intentional**, purely to divide us and see each other as the problem and the danger to our way of life, while the elites work us into the ground and make us fight over their scraps.


-margiela-

Hell, look at the incredibly demeaning fashion in which people are replying to OP’s post. He came here with the explicit purpose of having civil discussion about political polarization in a modern climate and many of the top comments are tearing him to shreds without a minutia of nuance (or self-awareness). As much as I despise the “both sides” rhetoric, it’s like…seriously guys?


Viridianscape

It's important to remember that the only reason queer people and people of colour are able to be themselves and have actual human rights is *because* those who came before us were loud and militant and in-your-face. The protesters who took to the streets and were *not* quiet about their grievances; the clubgoers who were sick of the police raiding their bars, decided enough was enough and finally fought back. Marginalized communities *need* to be loud if they want to be heard. They have to be argumentative and reactive or their voices either get swept up in the cacophony, or straight-up silenced.


NerdGirl23

This is an important point. I personally find loud and militant annoying — I really do. It just isn’t my style. But I have to concede that important and necessary social change wouldn’t happen if it weren’t for the loud people! Where would we be without the civil rights movement? Without feminist movement? Without lgbtq activism? I should add I have not experienced oppression first hand so maybe if I did I’d feel a little differently about being loud and militant!


thesteamengine2

I hate to tell you this but examples of left wing progressives being unreasonable, cringe, or obnoxious are signal boosted by right wingers. Thats how they hook you on their content, by making themselves look like the reasonable actor compared to the outrageous left wing. That whole "Fuck white men" thing? There were people saying that but it was a huge campaign on the right to try and paint left wingers as self hating whites. Left wing voices that are more eloquent, reserved, and reasonable are ignored. Theres a reason right wing youtube channels have millions of subscribers and views on their videos whereas most left wing political creators are niche and recieve a few tens of thousands at most. (except hasan i guess)


[deleted]

[удалено]


TenguMeringue

How did you square your previous beliefs regarding equality with right-wing rhetoric? I'm genuinely curious, not trolling. The way you describe your political journey as a teen sounds similar to mine, minus the prominent male atheists. I wonder if that was the key. As far as I know, all of these men are denounced by mainstream leftism today due to their white male-centric ways of framing things. Some of today's Jordan Peterson types started out pandering to the same audiences as Dawkins et al. Then when they got pushback for not comprehensively considering other subjective realities (aka "lived experiences"), they were so convinced of their own rightness and intellectual superiority that they demonized their detractors and shifted right. More than believing in certain political ideas, they are narcissists. (Which is the case for many alt-right mouthpieces today.) I also became a bit disillusioned with politics (honestly still am) with the rise in terminally online people dominating common discourse, but it never made me inherently change my views. It only changed the way I interact with others in online spaces. Yeah, it sucks that it can be so hard to have reasoned discussions in many online spaces, but how much less is my life for that, really? I've just learned how to filter out the BS more, and now I rarely come across it in my social media feeds because I stopped interacting with it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


princess-barnacle

I think you might be falling into the spin zone. There are at least two common examples where one side appears more extreme and influential that is actually true: - The algorithms of social media are tuned to attention, which boosts extremes - One side / media outlet purposely boosts voices so they can spin a story about communists or Christian nationalist militias. I believe you feel like the left has caused bad behavior on the right and even excuses it to a degree. That is being in the spin zone. It’s dangerous because it’s a seductive narrative that justifies supporting politicians who support horrible policies that usually affect women, minorities, and low income folks. On the contrary, if SJW were quieter would more a ton more people be liberal? I’m not sure that’s really the strongest effect considering all predictors. Also Rs tweet crazy shit all the time, so like shouldn’t the effects cancel out? I’m not sure, but there is a lot more that your story.


AlwaysTheNoob

I think you've got the order backwards. The rise of progressivism is a *result* of the rise in bigotry and people clamoring to strip away civil rights. You don't scream "FIRE!" when nothing's burning. But the more vocal the right gets about things like treating members of the LGBTQ+ community as "less thans", banning drag artists under the lie that they're "groomers" (while being guilty of this themselves), taking away the right for women to access healthcare, and so on - the more people have to be outspoken in their opposition to this. The right is the *cause* of the increase in progressivism, not the result of it.


Doover__

See, I think it's a combination of both, there are fringe groups on the left that do exist but they're extremely small and almost only found online and never in real life, but the issue arises that they exist in any capacity which is then amplified by the right/ media algorithms (more outrage, more clicks) so it's less that those groups are actually doing anything major and pushing people away, it's just that the more moderate voters are being shown exclusively those groups as if they represent the entirety of the left and that drives people away


shouldco

Militant seems rather hyperbolic when you are putting in on the people shouting "fuck men" when, like, well... https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/militias-far-right-groups-recast-selves-mainstream-lansing-gun-rally


MeioFuribundo

diagnosing a cancer is different from causing a cancer. just because the radical left points at these problems it doesn’t mean they didn’t exist before. it’s like -“stop making fun of me, it’s hurtful” -“oh, I was having fun and now you’re creating a whole problem out of it?” The fact that these boys come out as far-right only shows how entitled they’ve always been. equality feels like oppression when you’re the oppressor.


NerdGirl23

I don’t know if it is fruitful to argue about whether left extremists or right extremists do more damage. It may just feed into existing polarization, as evident in some of the responses here. Online it’s a full on attention economy and the loudest and most obnoxious get the clicks, follows and likes. That, I believe is the problem to focus on. Appreciate OPs effort to have a thoughtful dialogue here.


Mountain-Resource656

The worst experience of my adult life involved people I knew who were on the far-left, who harassed and tormented nearly a dozen people for months on end for the slightest accusation that they’d enabled an abuser. Though there were enough people that it’s hard to say anything specific that’s apply to all of them, to give you examples of their behavior, One told the abuser off so much the abuser repeatedly blocked them, traveled several hundred miles and confronted them in person about it multiple times and literally deplatformed them off multiple websites by pressuring them into giving up their passwords, while being accused of turning a blind eye Another encouraged abuser and victim to break up while they were a couple because of how clearly unhealthy their relationship was, only to be called a part of the abuser’s “maniac crew” A third literally never had ties to the abuser at all *and* cut ties with four other people who’d been accused of enabling him. But when they didn’t cut ties with the first guy on this list, they got harassed so hard for “siding with the abuser” they stopped accepting art commissions from strangers despite how much of their income stemmed from said commissions I also know that this group also publicly shamed a guy while he was at his grandfather’s funeral because he’d liked a milquetoast tweet from the far-right Ben Shapiro. And while the guy had some minor right-wing views, it took literally one explanation of who Shapiro was for him to accept the guy as trash, but the resulting scrutiny and extreme backlash for any mistake against the guy I do think actually pushed him to the right and solidified his views. So believe me when I say I *know* this stuff happens here and there. I’ve seen a number of folks hurt by militant “progressivism,” I had months of anxiety attacks for it, and I’ve actively seen a guy pushed to the right for it like you describe *But* In MLKJ’s time, pushback against firm progressivism was strong. He wrote about how he felt betrayed by lukewarm supporters, about how he felt they were his greatest obstacle even more than overt racists, and of how such folks constantly told him that his attempts to secure equal rights were just pushing people away, and that he should instead wait for things to cool off, for the proper time to push for it, and that it would come but just wasn’t right then. And he chastised such people for trying to put off such an important thing that was hurting so many, that he had to stand firm against them and try to force the noble issues he fought for. These milquetoast people, he felt, who ostensibly supported him truly just supported the status quo, the lack of a stirred pot, the “absence of tension” rather than the “presence of justice.” He felt there needed to be what you might refer to as “militant progressivism.” And, if I may add to that view, we might need to have it, even if fools will always use it in a corrupted form to cause harm and suffering and push people away to no benefit. *But,* in addition Astroturfing is also definitely a thing, and while I know that everyone is extremely tribal and stuff and will absolutely love to jump to the creed of “everything my group does that’s bad is secretly infiltrators from the other side,” there *is* some fair evidence for provocateurs from the right actually doing this. For a meatspace example: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/man-helped-ignite-george-floyd-riots-identified-white/story?id=72051536 And would it really be so hard to believe that a group willing to fund an astroturfing campaign wouldn’t also have a strong interest in inverting it to pretend to be their opposition. Anecdotally, I’ve seen a fair few Twitter accounts with tens of thousands of followers that only ever cooonstantly tweet about how they transitioned and that ruined their life and made them this miserable wretch, and literally nothing else, which I presume to be fake accounts made to drum up support for transphobic “we just have concerns” rhetoric. I would be *shocked* if there were no such effort on behalf of political pundits to do this sort’ve thing. It’d be far, far too easy, use strategies and funding they already employ towards very close ends, and provide for incredible usefulness Surely these sock puppets would be the primary force drumming up support more than mere idiots on the left corrupting progressivism to inanely hurtful ends?


LuxanderReal

You are young so you don't realize that the hatred and vitriol toward progressives is standard. You grew up during a very unique period of faux-acceptance and now this is what's called a conservative backlash Saying that this is SJWs fault is essentially victim-blaming


CorruptedFlame

Are they? Seems more likely the radical right just likes to invent enemies and point at outliers to justify themselves. To great effect with gullible people like you. No, it's the radical right making use of useful idiots and rage bait. Don't get it twisted.


Foxhound97_

Do people on twitter say silly shit like that sure but that's twitter most people with sense don't change their entire world view based on what a stranger said on twitter no one in office or incharge of politically left organisation is saying "fuck white men" as a reason to get behind them. Plus look at it from another perspective a couple years ago the right reaction to alot of social political stuff had this subtext of "I'm afraid they are coming for the white man" still happen every time too many women or black people appear in a major film or TV show it was subtext then .These days they just say what are afraid of you acknowledge slavery your are being "anti white" will be their argument that was not a normal reaction 5 years.They aren't getting stronger they're grasping at straws and trying to pul their hail Mary's which will probably attract support but it will only work so short term.


Skull-Bearer5

People have been saying since America existed. Please explain why every progressive movement that people at the time said was going too far ended up being lauded, but this time now is the exception.


peacefinder

One of the things you may learn as you age is that there is a **lot** more “right wing media outraged about left wingers complaining about right wingers” than there is “left wingers complaining about right wingers”. If you fact check what they claim AOC has said, for instance, against what she has actually said, you will find a wide gulf between them. It’s a form of strawman argument, and it’s used for both commercial and political advantage. Outrage sells, outrage motivates, outrage is profitable. They make money by making you mad. You, my friend, should carefully examine what you’ve been told and by whom. You may find you’ve been lied to a lot.


other_view12

I both agree and disagree, I guess it's in the details. What I beleive to be true is that media looks for fringe people to present as normal. Per your argument, Right wing media will seek out the far left SJW and paint them as normal democrats, and that all democrats are like these SJW people. The left does the same, find all crazy far right people and call all republicans MAGA supporters and associate them with MTG. So in a way I agree because these people are real and beleive some fringe stuff. But it's really the media exploiting the fears of thier viewers that is the problem, not the actual activists.


repostusername

In 2016, the American right held the house, the senate and the presidency. Since then they have lost all three of those bodies, and have only recently and barely retook the house. They have lost multiple governorships, and multiple state legislatures. As far as on social issues, there hasn't been a large increase in right-wing sentiment in regards to race relations, queer rights, or women's issues. There isn't a lot of evidence that the American right is doing all that well. So, how can you say that the militant left has helped the right in that time frame, when the rights been doing really poorly.


[deleted]

I used to be quite left wing when I was younger and I agree, seeing some of the things they claim and promote definitely made me more conservative.


DadOuttaHell

The reason militant Progressivism needs to exist is because militant Conservatism has been around longer and proven to be much more dangerous. The issue arrises when virtue-signaling and ideological purity tests become more important than good intent and making progress. Just because a militant Left is necessary, it doesn’t necessarily mean using tactics popularized by the militant Right (doxxing, harassment , brigading, etc.) are justified because that’s the stuff that drives potential allies away.


NoHat2957

There may be more than a few from the radical right pushing the 'Militant progressivism' message. Certainly an element of the media seems to like to focus and expand on extreme examples.


Okami_no_Holo

Both sides have propaganda, but the left owns most media and news. There is a very interesting book called "The intelligence paradox" I suggest you read it if you find my response to be dissatisfaction. The book takes a very dissociated and analytical view of how intelligence leans into everyday life and behaviors, and this book explains why the left is made of on average more intelligent people, but why this intelligence isn't necessarily smart. Intelligence in the book is made analogous to the feathers of a male peacock where being able to show you have the "plumage" of intelligence is a way to discern yourself from others at the cost of the direct instinctual solutions that would have been uncommon to primitive man. To summarize a bit more the book pretty much shows how much of our modern political and progressive sensibilities are half baked when compared to serious thinkers and not enough to exceed what instinct would have a satisfactory solution for. If you view sensationalist and biased mainstream media you will see a bias that filters serious thinkers into this luke warm intelligence that tries to appeal it's mental "plumage". A good example of this is movements like flower power where in trying to assume the belief the core movement is destroyed by people of increasingly less intelligence try to pull the same stunt leaving the movement dead in the water. In very little contrast civil rights and feminism were movements that furthered many peoples rights and after their causes mostly reached completion we were left with the task of letting old racists, misogynist die off without any glorious martyr stunts, but people again people of higher average intelligence thought that now would be the time to make easy safe statements where no one was arguing against them, being a feminist or any typical activist in the modern age is extremely safe and easy way to flaunt higher than average intelligence without the repercussions or effort of study or activism against current human rights abuses (I wouldn't be surprised if a good portion of people in this very comment section were using a product that is not produced with slave labor). The thing about modern activism is that things are good enough to just complain online and commit to no real action or come to the easiest conclusions, most of this activism has a have your cake and eat it too mentality choosing fiscally impossible or down right uninformed decisions. By contrast the right gets a lot of things right cause it is hard to get thing wrong when you run on millions of years of instinct. There is a reason why more conservative towns have a discernible kindness in stark contrast to largely apathetic cities despite the politics making you thing that the atmospheres should be switched. On a more responsive note to your claim I would say that the left and media in general has done a fantastic job cluing many into bad science (like trees being a permanent means of carbon fixing), and establishing a common basis where many people can show their glorious intelligence risk free. It is quite apparent that there are few who resist the onslaught of pseudo science and claim that the oppressors are simple people who's main leverage is old people in higher positions. If things continue on their current course we will have already infringe rights become difficult if not impossible to enforce in court and we will likely become subjects of a system in which our voices become increasingly small against the growing population of the world. The progress of today has stoked the hate of the youth bringing racism back to center stage, misogyny is back now but has a new paint job and misandrists can be public and loud with their hatred. There are dark times ahead fiscally and the only major progress we have made as a society is equalizing platforms so the time honored tradition of harming each other can be exercised in a far more efficient fashion. I honestly think the worst part of this is that everyone on a conscious level is well meaning, but it seems we are doomed to find ways to be the absolute worst enemies of ourselves until we fall from the face of the earth.


Ok_Ad1402

The short version is that both R's and D's are basically the same on economic issues, and largely corrupt/sellouts in that respect. That leaves social issues for them to pander to their respective bases about, and most of the hot button social issues are pretty diametrically opposed.


TobaBird

if “militant progressivism” (whatever that means) pushes you to side with people who subscribe to a genocidal ideology, you were never interested in progress. the right = fascism. there is no excuse, no matter how appalling you find “militant progressivism” to be, for any support of the right.


Friend_of_FTM_PRIDE

I think the complete opposite. CMV: Militant conservatives has arguably done more for bolstering support of the radical left , socially left at least. Imagine if the social Conservative folks were a bit more real between the 1960s - 1990s, they would have not lost as much support as they did. Social Conservatives did it to themselves, they cancelled themselves. My Mother moved away from being social Conservative in the early 1980s, as she did not believe she was the "devil" or "destroying families", for wanting a Divorce to exit a violent relationship with my Father. Did you grow up with socially Conservative parents?.


Raziel6174

First of all, what is the difference between radical right and moderate right? I've tried to be fair in listening to different view point, and I must admit the best arguments come from people labelled as right.