🐱 How to stop someone becoming radicalised online

CatParty

Fears are growing about the seemingly unstoppable descent into alt-right radicalisation many young men are falling into. A visiting expert says it doesn’t have to be like that, reports Sophie Bateman.

Since the Christchurch mosque attacks, a number of urgent changes have been made in New Zealand: semi-automatic weapons have been banned, media guidelines for reporting terrorism have been updated – and people are finally taking the threat of online far-right radicalisation seriously.

Before March 15, most of us were blissfully unaware of the darkest corners of the internet. But now a whole host of phrases and imagery – and the violent ideology behind them – are grimly familiar to us all. The 8chan logo. The finger and thumb curled into an ‘OK’ symbol, a blur in courtroom footage. The phrase “Subscribe to PewDiePie”.

Everyone is desperate to understand the surreal and many-layered world that can poison a mind. Media outlets have run countless articles dedicated to decoding memes and explaining how anonymous message boards work, alongside profiles of prominent neo-fascists.

For four months now, the country and wider world have been trying to work out what it all means to prevent it from happening again. In an Auckland University lecture theatre on Monday evening, a crowd gathered to hear the insights of someone who’s made it their business to figure it out.

Hailing from the Arizonan borderland of immigrant detainment camps and roaming paramilitary militias, Emmi Bevensee has witnessed firsthand the alarming re-emergence of American fascism – and their doctoral research is dedicated to how it happened.

To help make sense of the chaotic dynamic we’re navigating, Bevensee says we should think of the current global resurgence of fascism as the latest wave of many throughout history.

“Fascism tends to gather power, then people realise it doesn’t make the trains run on time and it falls into disfavour,” they say. “How bad does it get during that period is what we have to figure out.”

The room Bevensee addresses is charged with the kind of electricity that only comes from fervent engagement with the topic at hand. There are nods and sighs, chuckles and groans from around the room at each mention of Pepe and Kekistan and Richard Spencer. This is an internet-literate (mostly) young audience well-versed in the minutiae of the far-right technosphere. What they need to know is how these memes can form the stepping stones to mass violence.

Bevensee theorises online extremists are trying to “shift the Overton window” – the realm of acceptable public discourse – to the right. Edgy jokes are a strategy to push the boundaries of acceptability under the guise of facetiousness.

It’s a “malicious form of cheekiness”, they say, a world apart from the “naughtiness” Arundhati Roy discussed at the Auckland Writers Festival the previous week. Whereas the Indian polemicist’s playful political activism challenges the status quo, the online right’s sense of mischief seeks to preserve it while maintaining its paradoxical self-image as a disruptive punk movement.

In his 2004 book The Anatomy of Fascism, historian Robert Paxton defines fascism as “Dictatorship against the Left amidst popular enthusiasm…” The rapid growth of progressive social movements advancing the rights of the marginalised (in turn helped along by the internet) has generated a counter-movement made up almost entirely of straight white men.

Why is this particular demographic, which has enjoyed the lion’s share of cultural and political power in the western world for centuries, so vulnerable to extremism?

“You have a lot of people for the first time experiencing a much less extreme mirror of the alienation that marginalised people feel,” Bevensee explains. “If you have someone who’s never been a minority in their life, for the first time feeling like ‘Oh my God, I’m unwelcome in this space’, or ‘I am not able to dominate this space in the way I’m used to’, that can feel like being affronted.”

So how can the left fight fascism and entice away its potential recruits? By embracing radical niceness and empathy, an inherently anti-fascist notion. The trouble is, Bevensee explains, that’s just not as appealing as the transgressive delight of being in on an edgy joke.

“Unfortunately empathy is very cheesy. It’s so true that it’s obvious, and in its obviousness it’s very uncool to say out loud because everyone knows it. It’s not a viral meme in the way edgy irony is. Bitter, detached irony has this quality of ‘I’ve seen some great mystery I can show you, that’s why I’m so dark and can play this game’. It’s almost like a cult, I have access to this hidden wisdom but I don’t even care.”

Unlike ISIS propaganda which sells recruits a utopian vision of happiness under a radical Islamic caliphate, the far-right sucks people in by feeding into their melancholy and discouraging hope. Someone locked in a hardened shell of loneliness will likely find this brand of cynicism relatable – but the far-right hardly has a monopoly on misery.

“It’s not like leftist communities are all kittens and rainbows,” Bevensee says. “We’re all struggling, we’re all experiencing existential dread. We’re all horrified at the state of the world, climate change. That’s why people get into movements, whether far right or left. So it’s not as if we don’t have access to that darkness, we’re just seeing that nihilism and saying ‘Okay that’s a part of reality, but I want to hope for something better’ or ‘I want to try to make something better’. And even if it’s hard, in that experience we’ll learn a lot and build social fabric and experience new better forms of being in interaction with each other.

“And that’s quite powerful. It’s quite beautiful. But it’s hard to condense. It’s not a meme in the same way. It’s not simple. Fascism is good in that it has hot takes, one liners you can just throw out. It appeals to a lot of human things like condescension, which is very emotionally satisfying.”

They say someone who embraces the far-right isn’t just a danger to the marginalised members of their community, but to themselves.

“Appealing to those dark drives, while it has that viral quality, it destroys the host. You just go further and further into feeding that part of you that wants to dominate other people. It’s a corrosive force. So we have to learn how to healthfully engage with it.”

1564495470757.png


It’s crucial for people to recognise when a friend or relative crosses over from healthy intellectual curiosity into embracing a violent ideology. But that’s easier said than done. It’s impossible to say for certain that a teenage boy who watches a few Jordan Peterson videos is going to make the leap to Steven Crowder to Stefan Molyneux to Stormfront, but there is a clear pathway laid out for him thanks to the YouTube algorithm.

Bevensee says it’s common to watch someone creep “further and further through the curiosity lens” into full-blown white nationalism, but only those close to that person have the ability to stop them.

“It’s quite contextual. If it’s in your immediate community, you have to pay attention to people and we can’t expect minorities to explain their experience and deradicalise everyone and do all this super hard work. We have to look after our own communities and we have to learn together and rebuild social fabrics and integrate what we preach into how we actually live, so that countering white nationalist extremism seems like the beneficial choice that it is.”

Leftist activists have known the extent of the threat of online fascism for a long time, yet those who identify with right-wing ideology tend to know little about the left beyond stereotypes. Bevensee has spoken with a number of Peterson fans who were astonished to learn that discussions about male rape emerged from feminist communities, or that leftist activists are constantly debating flaws within their own movement. This discrepancy in each side’s knowledge of the other seems to prove which one communicates its ideology to a mass audience more effectively.

“The alt right was an internet movement, born from the internet, an internet fluid movement,” Bevensee says. “So they’re quite good at the internet, utilising the sardonic irony, the detached ‘I’m just joking but not actually’ way that memes work. Whereas a lot of leftist movements are born of dusty books or practices, and you only gain them through having been embedded in social movements.”

However they reject the notion that the right is better at the internet, citing a burgeoning online leftist movement led by creators – such as YouTuber Contrapoints – who deftly engage with far-right rhetoric and disarm it with wit, charm and humour.

The internet is a limited sphere and fascism does spill from the screen to the street. The same university at which Bevensee spoke has come under scrutiny for a perceived unwillingness to act on reports of increased neo-Nazi activity on campus since March.

A student in the audience says that as a dark-skinned Sri Lankan, he’s felt victimised by white faculty members and students who don’t respond well to being challenged about racism. There’s a ripple of agreement around the room – and a bristle of annoyance at a man in the back row who calls the student’s comment racist itself, before trying to argue with Bevensee about anti-fascist violence.

Extremist rhetoric grows online, but the real world is where its impact is felt. It would seem getting wise to the far-right’s recruitment tactics is of limited use if institutions won’t take action. But Bevensee, who has experience in grassroots anti-fascist organising, isn’t surprised by the allegations of apathy.

“If you rely on authorities to protect you from fascism, you will be disappointed.”

It’s up to the students themselves to stamp it out, they say, by outnumbering far-right extremists when they do reveal themselves and try to gather and dominate public space. Fascists attract fans by signalling strength, so humiliation is an effective tactic to reduce their power – a photo of a sodden Richard Spencer elicits gleeful audience speculation that he may have just been milkshaked.

“I don’t know that we’ll ever be completely free of fascism, but if we can make it a weird fringe group no one takes seriously like Flat Earth, that might be the best we can hope for.”
 
This is a cynical take. What is wrong with "words of wisdom"? That's how we learn and become more wise. You said you had a lot of exceptional beliefs when you were a teen. How did you grow out of them? Surely it couldn't be because it's shit functioning human beings already know in detail, because if it was, you wouldn't have the exceptional beliefs in the first place.

I don't know about Contrapoints, but Peterson is an actual academic. If what he says is what functioning human beings already know, society might not be in it's fucked up place it seems to be.

By "words of Wisdom" I meant those oft-quoted, easy to remember phrases that people tend to think are highly profound when in reality it takes about ten seconds of actual thought to at least circumvent them. Peterson may be an actual academic but as far as I'm concerned that really doesn't improve him at all in my opinion. He has exactly the kind of sagely advice I'd expect out of a grade school teacher. Infact, I heard the overwhelming majority of his useful advice and opinions from my grade school teachers or my parents when I was a little kid. Bear in mind i'm from nowhere special or moneyed either. His ideas are nothing profound. He's a pretentious hack, making a killing off stuttering his way through basic, cheap self-help advice I could have summed up to you in a one-hour conversation.

I'll concede precisely one way he's better than me though: He's shrewd enough to make a profit off it. Kills me to know I could have just started a Youtube channel before him and raked in the cash by stating the obvious while stuttering along. Now he's poisoned the well and anyone trying to get in on his game will be seen as an imitator.

Well, this is a very cynical take. I don't know what the actual illiteracy rate is world wide, but if you have access to Twitter, you are probably functionally literate even if what you have to say is completely insane.

I've found most people either can't read, or chose not to read a full sentence. Most people I know will actually read the first two or three words of a sentence and then the last one or two words of it and assume they read the whole thing. Including their own sentences that they type out. I honestly feel like I'm speaking another language sometimes. Perhaps I'm just a literary type by heart, but its pretty clear to me that people do not actually read the shit that gets posted in front of them most of the time.
 
A (not so) brief summation of how both sides are feeding off each other:

1. Kids go to college. Libshit professors pump Liberal Arts kiddos full of worry about their student loans, the patriarchy preventing them from ever finding a job that will pay them fairly, and dreams of creating their own civil rights movement. Public event/protest on campus ensues.

2. Conservative students may not rally like leftists do, but you can bet they keep up with current events and take notice. They may not choose to respond at all, or they might set up their own event.

3. Declarations of Nazis ring out, as only someone who supports Hitler's Third Reich could possibly disagree with liberal ideals. A topless protest will get their message out.

4. Conversely, the incels on the right are now threatened by the sight of boobs. Them white boys grabbed their guns and decided to respond with a healthy dose of FREEDOM.

It's all reactionary. I see two immediate solutions: Purge the professors of extremists (highly unlikely) or stop telling kids that everyone NEEDS to go to college. Because a useless degree in a lot of ways is just a pretty piece of paper that reminds you about your mountain of debt owed.

Don't get me wrong, there are many people who are successful with non STEM degrees. I am talking about the people who finish college and have no idea what they took all their classes for. These are the sort of people who work entry level positons, the ones kids should have as their first jobs, in order to give them experience in the working world. Instead, they work at McDonald's and expect a liveable wage in what is ultimately a job designed to be done by a 16 year old. Then they bitch about their student loan debt and pray to Bernie Sanders for it all to go away.

So what are the alternatives for these people, if not college? Trades. Apprenticeships. Both can lead to extremely high wages, usually with FAR less debt than any college. There's a huge demand to find specific trade specialists, pay for their relocation to a high demand area (often rural), pay for the education and (sometimes) housing, also ensuring job security. And because you moved to the middle of nowhere you get paid handsomely.

I don't think Arts degrees are 100% awful, but I do think we need to purge a stupid amount of the curriculum.
I don't know how you got to step 4 with incels being linked to the right. I think it's more like Leftist have been a part of liberal arts for decades, and Leftists go on to teach other Leftists, all while Republicans are shitty ultra religious and/or racist, but now nobody is particularly ultra religious and we were all taught racism is bad, but Leftists were always about Maxism/communism so now that their strawman has been completely burned away, they have to keep gaslighting in order keep people from realizing they were also just as shitty all along. I hope that makes sense.

By "words of Wisdom" I meant those oft-quoted, easy to remember phrases that people tend to think are highly profound when in reality it takes about ten seconds of actual thought to at least circumvent them. Peterson may be an actual academic but as far as I'm concerned that really doesn't improve him at all in my opinion. He has exactly the kind of sagely advice I'd expect out of a grade school teacher. Infact, I heard the overwhelming majority of his useful advice and opinions from my grade school teachers or my parents when I was a little kid. Bear in mind i'm from nowhere special or moneyed either. His ideas are nothing profound. He's a pretentious hack, making a killing off stuttering his way through basic, cheap self-help advice I could have summed up to you in a one-hour conversation.

I'll concede precisely one way he's better than me though: He's shrewd enough to make a profit off it. Kills me to know I could have just started a Youtube channel before him and raked in the cash by stating the obvious while stuttering along. Now he's poisoned the well and anyone trying to get in on his game will be seen as an imitator.



I've found most people either can't read, or chose not to read a full sentence. Most people I know will actually read the first two or three words of a sentence and then the last one or two words of it and assume they read the whole thing. Including their own sentences that they type out. I honestly feel like I'm speaking another language sometimes. Perhaps I'm just a literary type by heart, but its pretty clear to me that people do not actually read the shit that gets posted in front of them most of the time.
Like what? I agree, some things do sound like common sense, but for some reason common sense isn't as common as it used to be. And that's probably why he's so popular. In a world where people are being told to ignore reality, he's explaining why that's bullshit. You could say he's speaking truth to power.
 
Like what? I agree, some things do sound like common sense, but for some reason common sense isn't as common as it used to be. And that's probably why he's so popular. In a world where people are being told to ignore reality, he's explaining why that's bullshit. You could say he's speaking truth to power.

Perhaps I just can't concieve of the other side since I've never doubted "reality"(?) as you may describe it, but the guy just states the obvious. People are filtering reality through perspective, people are attempting to ignore science in order to redefine nature, emotional thinking is irrational and driven by wants not by consideration, maintain an orderly environment around you, don't be afraid to ask questions when someone sounds like they're full of shit, etc. Come on man. He takes an hour to explain just one of those things. He meanders around horrendously, stutters, forgets his place, gets sidetracked easily, and for me its all for nothing because I'll make it through that slog and go "So what? I already fucking knew all of that." Pretty much never fails. Its a lot of Psychology 101 shit. I guess you could say that's "speaking the truth" if you really want to but I'm less than impressed with someone who takes an hour to tell me a basic fact because he can't screw his head on straight.

The people he argues against are often quite self-deluded and sometimes outright insane, but Peterson is not the man to get behind here. Sure, he looks compelling because his enemies are so crazy. But consider this; the man is well-versed in psychology. He's obviously picked the craziest enemies to go up against because they make him look all the more sane in comparison. People do this shit all the time when they want to look smart or authoritative. This is how these talking heads all work. They pick the most outrageous opponents to fill out their rosters because they know that, no matter how stupid they sound, the enemy will sound dumber.

I don't have an uplifting "rise above it" message for you here, by the way. I'll be the first to admit that I only arrived at this position but just giving up on both sides once they suitably disappointed me. You kind of have to operate on your own judgement, but for the love of god, please pick someone other than an attention whore like Peterson to venerate. Unless I went to an elementary school for geniuses (HAH! You should have seen that place) then the guy is just a shill giving people basic life advice and reaming money from it.

Don't tip the other way and go for people like Contrapoints either. As I alluded to above, they have the same methods, just a different angle of attack. At the end of the day, unless someone is lecturing you on a topic that really, really is above your head like nuclear physics or something, you shouldn't tolerate being talked down to regardless of the politics involved.
 
Última edición por un moderador:
Perhaps I just can't concieve of the other side since I've never doubted "reality"(?) as you may describe it, but the guy just states the obvious. People are filtering reality through perspective, people are attempting to ignore science in order to redefine nature, emotional thinking is irrational and driven by wants not by consideration, maintain an orderly environment around you, don't be afraid to ask questions when someone sounds like they're full of shit, etc. Come on man. He takes an hour to explain just one of those things. He meanders around horrendously, stutters, forgets his place, gets sidetracked easily, and for me its all for nothing because I'll make it through that slog and go "So what? I already fucking knew all of that." Pretty much never fails. Its a lot of Psychology 101 shit. I guess you could say that's "speaking the truth" if you really want to but I'm less than impressed with someone who takes an hour to tell me a basic fact because he can't screw his head on straight.

The people he argues against are often quite self-deluded and sometimes outright insane, but Peterson is not the man to get behind here. Sure, he looks compelling because his enemies are so crazy. But consider this; the man is well-versed in psychology. He's obviously picked the craziest enemies to go up against because they make him look all the more sane in comparison. People do this shit all the time when they want to look smart or authoritative. This is how these talking heads all work. They pick the most outrageous opponents to fill out their rosters because they know that, no matter how stupid they sound, the enemy will sound dumber.

I don't have an uplifting "rise above it" message for you here, by the way. I'll be the first to admit that I only arrived at this position but just giving up on both sides once they sutiably disappointed me. You kind of have to operate on your own judgement, but for the love of god, please pick someone other than an attention whore like Peterson to venerate. Unless I went to an elementary school for geniuses (HAH! You should have seen that place) then the guy is just a shill giving people basic life advice and reaming money from it.

Don't tip the other way and go for people like Contrapoints either. As I alluded to above, they have the same methods, just a different angle of attack. At the end of the day, unless someone is lecturing you on a topic that really, really is above your head like nuclear physics or something, you shouldn't tolerate being talked down to regardless of the politics involved.
But you said you had exceptional beliefs. Why do you not have them any more? He states the obvious, well why is it obvious? Talking through the why is point. He meanders and stutters and goes off on tangents because he's talking it through in real time rather than just speaking from a script.

I don't think he picks crazy people to debate. People ask him for an interview or debate, and he takes it, and the more exceptional debates get highlighted.

This is kind of interesting because my post that I quoted multiple people I was going to quote your's about how not to trust anybody because people will disappoint you. I deleted it because I quoted too many other people, but I was going to mention how cynical it was. I don't want you to think I'm attacking you, but I think a lot of people out there might be being genuine and not just looking for fame and money. Peterson, I think, is one of them.
 
But you said you had exceptional beliefs. Why do you not have them any more? He states the obvious, well why is it obvious? Talking through the why is point. He meanders and stutters and goes off on tangents because he's talking it through in real time rather than just speaking from a script.

I don't have my exceptional beliefs because I engaged with a wide range of influences across a lot of different perspectives and ended up more or less where I started: That people are trying to fist my ass thinking they'll find cash up there.

While he does talk through a point, the man has problems. Every time I hear him yarn on for more than twenty minute I want to kick his walker out from under him. I'd have never attempted that with any grandparent in my family since they would have kicked my ass, but I'm surprised Peterson can cross the street without a mobility scooter. Frankly his brain needs a mobility scooter to get from one point to the next these days.

There's a point to which being "authentic" must give way to actually making a decent point. Peterson is just incapable of anything other than demagougery by now. He's too scattered and disorganized and, fucking again, he states shit I learned in grade school. If I paid for college only to be professored by this simpleton motherfucker, I'd demand my money back, sue the place, win the lawsuit, then burn the building to the ground using the money as kindling.

I don't think he picks crazy people to debate. People ask him for an interview or debate, and he takes it, and the more exceptional debates get highlighted.

Guess those troons are perfectly reasonable people then.

This is kind of interesting because my post that I quoted multiple people I was going to quote your's about how not to trust anybody because people will disappoint you. I deleted it because I quoted too many other people, but I was going to mention how cynical it was. I don't want you to think I'm attacking you, but I think a lot of people out there might be being genuine and not just looking for fame and money. Peterson, I think, is one of them.

Peterson is genuine in my eyes as far as I think he really believes the shit he is saying. He's cracked. He's old, he talks like everyone's gin-soaked grandmother, he jargons at a moment's notice. The trouble is he also thinks he's being profound, which he isn't. He's Psych 101 with an added dementia bonus unit you can earn extra credit on. If he was more put together I might have a better opinion on him, but as it stands now I keep checking my watch and waiting for his family to commit him to an elderly home.
 
I don't have my exceptional beliefs because I engaged with a wide range of influences across a lot of different perspectives and ended up more or less where I started: That people are trying to fist my ass thinking they'll find cash up there.

While he does talk through a point, the man has problems. Every time I hear him yarn on for more than twenty minute I want to kick his walker out from under him. I'd have never attempted that with any grandparent in my family since they would have kicked my ass, but I'm surprised Peterson can cross the street without a mobility scooter. Frankly his brain needs a mobility scooter to get from one point to the next these days.

There's a point to which being "authentic" must give way to actually making a decent point. Peterson is just incapable of anything other than demagougery by now. He's too scattered and disorganized and, fucking again, he states shit I learned in grade school. If I paid for college only to be professored by this simpleton motherfucker, I'd demand my money back, sue the place, win the lawsuit, then burn the building to the ground using the money as kindling.



Guess those troons are perfectly reasonable people then.



Peterson is genuine in my eyes as far as I think he really believes the shit he is saying. He's cracked. He's old, he talks like everyone's gin-soaked grandmother, he jargons at a moment's notice. The trouble is he also thinks he's being profound, which he isn't. He's Psych 101 with an added dementia bonus unit you can earn extra credit on. If he was more put together I might have a better opinion on him, but as it stands now I keep checking my watch and waiting for his family to commit him to an elderly home.
I think you might not like old people. Ok, the four grandparents you have would kick your ass. And he's not even that old. He's still in his 50s. I think we have to chalk this up to agree to disagree.
 
I think you might not like old people. Ok, the four grandparents you have would kick your ass. And he's not even that old. He's still in his 50s. I think we have to chalk this up to agree to disagree.

He's only in his 50s? What a bitch. My geriatric grandparents would lay waste to his ass and even the youngest of them is 70+.
 
The reason the left hates the internet and tries to neuter it as a "radicalizing" force breeding hate is not because it creates hateful people, but that it makes it almost impossible to totally silence those that exist.

200 years ago you could end an inconvenient political opponent by smashing his printing press (assuming the laws didn't allow you to just straight-up gulag/murder him)

100 years ago, you could get him blacklisted from all the big newspapers

50 years ago, you could make the TV networks refuse to give him air time for fear of sponsors dropping out.


But today, there's nothing you can do to keep him from running a website.

Or at least their wasn't until they started pressuring everyone with these Orwellian measures where if you say the wrong thing online just once, everyone from your bank to your own dog abandons you.

The left fundamentally cannot stand opposition because they are too emotionally invested to discern between personal criticism and personal attack. Thus the panic over people who don't agree with you being able to voice that opinion, since to them, that's the same as someone sharpening a knife with their name on it. To the left, there is no fundamental difference between disagreement and hatred nor hatred and violence. Saying "I don't think so" to them is merely the first step on a slippery slope that they are CONVINCED ends with that knife between thier shoulder blades. That's why they panic at all forms of open expression, and naively believe that if it isn't SAID out loud it also can't be THOUGHT.

And the only reason they didn't try to burn down the internet earlier was they misguidedly believed they already controlled it until Trump wrecked that delusion.
 
I don't know how you got to step 4 with incels being linked to the right. I think it's more like Leftist have been a part of liberal arts for decades, and Leftists go on to teach other Leftists, all while Republicans are shitty ultra religious and/or racist, but now nobody is particularly ultra religious and we were all taught racism is bad, but Leftists were always about Maxism/communism so now that their strawman has been completely burned away, they have to keep gaslighting in order keep people from realizing they were also just as shitty all along. I hope that makes sense.
Aren't incels typically associated with the left? Pretty sure there are studies showing that right-leaning people tend to be more physically fit and attractive in general. For sure it is safe to say that the typical voters who are considered guaranteed for the left in the US - blacks and hispanics - are the most obese folks in the nation, and more likely to be involuntarily celibate. That is if you mean incel as 'involuntarily celibate' as opposed to guys who don't kneel and worship before feminism, who aren't drinking the powdered fruit-flavored drink, then maybe you could then argue its more right-leaning.
 
I don't know how you got to step 4 with incels being linked to the right. I think it's more like Leftist have been a part of liberal arts for decades, and Leftists go on to teach other Leftists, all while Republicans are shitty ultra religious and/or racist, but now nobody is particularly ultra religious and we were all taught racism is bad, but Leftists were always about Maxism/communism so now that their strawman has been completely burned away, they have to keep gaslighting in order keep people from realizing they were also just as shitty all along. I hope that makes sense.
Totally get you. I think there is a fair portion of incels on both sides of the aisle.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the decrease in popularity of religious activities among younger populations. There was and still remains a serious disconnect between conservative voters and right leaning parties in the United States.

Meanwhile the radical left has connected with their younger voters via college classrooms, but they have put the cart before the horse a bit and don't realize how insane their policies may sound to your average centrist. While the ideology may have expanded to the cities surrounding these campuses, they've wrongly assumed the rest of America has also adopted the doctrine and are ready to move onto the next step of social justice.

Just think of how slow society was to accept gays and award them gay marriage. Decades. Now activists are carrying a torch for trans rights, and it seems like they are moving way too fast for a lot of the general population to be comfortable with the concept. Instead Canada immediately makes it illegal to misgender someone and Desmond Is Amazing is being forced into an ad in Times Square NY.
 
By reference from a friend a few months back I picked up a book called "The New White Supremecy in America" by Carol M Swain" - normally I wouldn't have cared for such a book, but I found it interesting for several reasons.

First, it was written in the early 2000s. It predicted a new radicalized movement of polished, ivy league educated individuals who would come off charming and approachable. Unlike their predecessors in white identity movements, they'd dress well and be able to debate with rational sounding arguments, appealing much of the time to humor. Sounds like Richard Spencer, right? Or a handful of others. Regardless of what you or I may personally think of him, their followers certainly perceive them to be most of these things.

Next, she predicts a vague, increased use of the internet among people who would otherwise not have social interactions or encounter politics in their daily lives. Focusing on Stormfront in it's heyday, she notes that the internet is the easiest place for like-minded individuals to congregate. I doubt she could have predicted just how much the internet would change and be popularized, but surprisingly enough she is not a proponent of censorship, even in the more recent interviews I have seen from her. Carol M Swain instead focuses on the greater issue that was brought up already in this thread: creating echo chambers. It is with some amazing accuracy that she predicts the policing and moderation of popular sites turning into echo chambers - and we can see that with Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. It's very interesting how, when given free reign to speak one's mind online (for example in a place like KF) people enjoy pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable in a workplace environment (we do like to say nigger, do we not?), but actually discussion has taken place in a way that you'll never see on Twitter or /pol/, (two polar opposites of the spectrum with the same echo chamber tendencies).

Touching upon her last point of internet usage, it's uncanny how the author has been able to predict - however vaguely - memes. Using humor, news, and wit appeals to a younger audience. Unlike the previous generations of active supremecists, she believes the new generation will consist of young adults, fresh faces that appeal to an audience that has a growing feeling of marginalization due to political correctness.

Lastly, the author is black. You wouldn't know it unless it was mentioned. She takes an extremely unbiased approach to her research, humanizing the white supremecists that are interviewed (she has a white fellow do it for her) in her book. Make no mistake, she does not humanize the concept of supremecy, but instead shows that the individuals who get caught up in radical movements are parents, grandparents, sons, and daughters.

That's where all her points come together. Because these are people, and people want to discuss and learn and have their ideas evolve. Putting them in an echo chamber is only going to validate the opinions they already have and not ask them to question anything. It's the task of getting people to seek change, because change only comes from within. Change isn't going to come from a priest preaching to an atheist or an atheist lecturing a priest. People need to be able to wander into these conversations and reflections on their own. They need to feel as if the words or idea is specifically reaching out to them, tailored perhaps in a way that addresses a problem or solution in their lives. Which is likely how they got radicalized in either direction in the first place.

Edit : note I am not saying she was the first to point out or make these predictions, only that I found it interesting the author was able to relate it to the current events of the time, which provided reason for why white supremacists would perhaps change how they did. It's not that she did predict these things, it's the evidence and stories behind why she agreed with these conclusions.

Sounds reasonable enough and well-researched. I wonder what her unbiased pussy smells like.
 
Like what? I agree, some things do sound like common sense, but for some reason common sense isn't as common as it used to be. And that's probably why he's so popular. In a world where people are being told to ignore reality, he's explaining why that's bullshit. You could say he's speaking truth to power.

"Common sense" means nothing more than "what I think is correct". It is a term used to browbeat people into shutting up about a given subject or policy e.g. "common sense gun reform".

So there never really was a time in which people had more "common sense" than today.
 
dont play dumb lol
it takes like 5 minutes of looking at the incels thread on this page to figure out that these guys are overwhelmingly anti left. their exact positions vary (some nazis, some lolbertarians, some islamists, plenty of incoherent rambling nonsense) but the one common thing that unites them all is extreme hate for feminism, and thus by extension, for all things on the left

Don't they call left-leaning incels soyboys anyway?

"Common sense" means nothing more than "what I think is correct". It is a term used to browbeat people into shutting up about a given subject or policy e.g. "common sense gun reform".

So there never really was a time in which people had more "common sense" than today.

Just to clarify what I mentioned earlier about Peterson, my issue with him is that his stuff is what I learned pretty early on in my life just from basic influences like relatives, teachers, etc, not "common sense".
 
im sure plenty of those (betas, orbiters, soyboys, cucks, whatever you want to call them) technically fit the 'involuntary celibate' description, but they're usually in denial about it and will go to great lengths to argue against it

That was kind of the joke I was making. Though it does establish a pretty amusing dichotomy between two sides of what is essentially the same issue.
 
no. wisdom is the result of experience and self-reflection, accumulated over a long time. you don't get it from lectures, books, or youtube clips (lol)
All of those things work together to gain wisdom.

"Common sense" means nothing more than "what I think is correct". It is a term used to browbeat people into shutting up about a given subject or policy e.g. "common sense gun reform".

So there never really was a time in which people had more "common sense" than today.
I would say that knowing there is a difference between men and women was a very common thing to know for thousands of years.
 
Última edición por un moderador:
Don't they call left-leaning incels soyboys anyway?



Just to clarify what I mentioned earlier about Peterson, my issue with him is that his stuff is what I learned pretty early on in my life just from basic influences like relatives, teachers, etc, not "common sense".
That is really what people mean when they say "common sense" the framework through which they view the world. It is a human tendency to assume incompetence or ignorance in disagreement.

You can see it all the time in layman analysis of policy maker actions especially on foreign policy. The underlying assumption for the majority of people is that others doing something different or differently than they would means that the other is stupid, because obviously the observer is a big brain chess master MENSA memeber with ten PhDs before they were out of high school.

I would say that it is worse with people who would describe their alma mater as "the school of hard knocks" aka barely made it out of high school, but I actually experience this more with left leaning people with some college or a Bachelor's. They assume that one class on e.g. intro to American Government, intro to International Relations, or intro to Economics makes them an authority on policy and policy making.

I would say that knowing there is a difference between men and women was a very common thing to know for thousands of years.
And those who disagree with you will say it is "common sense" to understand the difference between gender and sex.

"Common sense" is entirely meaningless.
 
And those who disagree with you will say it is "common sense" to understand the difference between gender and sex.

"Common sense" is entirely meaningless.
People who disagree with that (not me) are purposefully muddying the difference to make themselves right. Even if it was true, it wouldn't be common sense because "difference between gender and sex" is something that has to be taught.
 
Obviously Paxton wrote a whole book about this and quoting a single line from said book - specifically the line meant to present fascism as a reaction to communism - is disingenuous on the author's part and only serves as a neat soundbite. A military dictatorship can be "against the Left" too, but as Paxton himself says later in the book, "Most military dictators have acted simply as tyrants, without daring to unleash the popular excitement of fascism. Military dictatorships are far commoner than fascisms, for they have no necessary connection to a failed democracy and have existed since there have been warriors". Though Paxton says that every country in the world, including the US, is vulnerable to fascism, he also admits that "the United States would have to suffer catastrophic set-backs and polarization for these fringe groups to find powerful allies and enter the mainstream".

Later in the book, an actual definition is given:
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

Discussing warning signs of developing fascist movements potentially rising to power, he says:
It is by understanding how past fascisms worked, and not by checking the color of shirts, or seeking echoes of the rhetoric of the national-syndicalist dissidents of the opening of the twentieth century, that we may be able to recognize it. The well-known warning signals—extreme nationalist propaganda and hate crimes—are important but insufficient. Knowing what we do about the fascist cycle, we can find more ominous warning signals in situations of political deadlock in the face of crisis, threatened conservatives looking for tougher allies, ready to give up due process and the rule of law, seeking mass support by nationalist and racialist demagoguery. Fascists are close to power when conservatives begin to borrow their techniques, appeal to their “mobilizing passions," and try to co-opt the fascist following.
I'm not really seeing much of this. Opposing mass migration isn't extreme nationalist propaganda, there's no political deadlock, conservatives (in the US at least) probably aren't threatened by the left's clown show, I don't believe due process and the rule of law are being abandoned (unless you count Democrats trying to one-up Trump by any means necessary, I guess), tweets about Baltimore don't count as seeking mass support by nationalist and racialist demagoguery, and so on.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo