Estás usando un navegador desactualizado. Es posible que no muestre este u otros sitios web correctamente. Deberías actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
Null and MikeyNohMore are wrong about RW cohesion and "gatekeeping" - Mein Kope: A Settlement of (online) accounts & The Internet's Chud Movement
🔧 Site instability resolved. You can report double-posts and broken attachments. For bigger issues, use the Technical Grievances thread.
🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading. Create account
There is no unified "right-wing tent" comparable to the """"unified"""" ideology found in current lefty-lib coded circles. What exists instead is a decentralized ecosystem of largely independent communities.
The closest thing to a "right-wing coalition" is not an organization, party, or governing body — it's the overlap of audiences who move between platforms, communities, and personalities while maintaining diverse and often conflicting beliefs.
JERSH is mistaken in assuming that internal criticism, factional disputes, or attempts at division can fundamentally destroy the broader ecosystem (i.e. the divide-and-conquer of the red Russian Revolution inflicted on the White Russians) — because its cohesion derives from shared users, overlapping interests, and decentralized networks rather than centralized unity.
Okay, now I can read your three points. It would help for the reader to understand what consists of "right-wing politics." For the sake of brevity, I'll do it for you to explain tenets of right-wing ideology.
Right-wing tenets value personal responsibility, limited government, social traditionalism, law and order and free speech to name a few. However, with all political ideologies, there exists a spectrum where certain values may be aligned to more extreme measures. Example: traditionalism for one may mean no mingling of races or having a family in each household.
Now, as you stated later, right-wing figures exist in a tent, but their personal goals may conflict between each other or standard right-wing standards. Two of them are content creators, therefore they both fail on one crucial tenet: personal responsibility.
Moreover, most "right-wing" pundits nowadays are either traditionalist to a fault, i.e. the late Charlie Kirk and Mike Pence, which both preach family values as a core for American conservatism but align against conserving American values in favor of diplomatic intervention for another nation. Or, antisocial "free speech" dissents where their personal freedom outweighs traditionalism or common decency. Again, The Quartering is known to be a "swinger" would completely goes against social norms such as family or community. And Synthetic Man, well, he's into Asian women with penises and fails to contribute to the betterment of America's economy.
I don't know what any of that has to do with anything, so I will elect to ignore that unless you can clarify your point. There, some effort into your ramblings and for anything to continue this well-thought discussion.
Wokes are not socially liberal, they want to control everything that people say and do in public.
That is as anti-liberal as it gets, that's left-wing authoritarianism.
A lot of the most vocal opponents of wokism are proper liberals.
I get it that in the 2010's, the label has bee hijacked by progressives but a progressive and a liberal couldn't be more opposed in terms of worldview.
The existence of one pretty much relies on the other one not existing.
Maybe in internet spaces but not in real life.
But even online, you have people like Sargon, Tim Pool and even Joe Rogan who are old school lefties who are definitely not woke. and they make a lot of money from making content that crioticizes woke.
Lol newfag lurk more.
1. Null might not even see this thread. If you have to engage with him talk to him in the thread he said something that you wanted to talk through, or on his profile page if the first would derail the thread. But in general don't seek to engage Null, because he's often in bad mood and he's gonna insult you or even ban you for no good reason. (or they might be a reason to ban but he doesn't always say explicitly)
2. Don't make this long if it's just casual talking. Think how to say what you want in a few sentences. Maybe your entire point can be shortened to 3-6 sentences?
3. If you just want to discuss something political in a very serious manner with whoever then post in the deep thoughts because mass debates is for chill discussion and mostly just arguing. However the deep thoughts people might have higher expectations when it comes to evidence.
ya, this is dumb. I gotta find a way to destroy the other factions. That's the only way we can get unity. We can't just keep adding more and more issues without resolving old issues.
There is no unified "right-wing tent" comparable to the """"unified"""" ideology found in current lefty-lib coded circles. What exists instead is a decentralized ecosystem of largely independent communities.
The closest thing to a "right-wing coalition" is not an organization, party, or governing body — it's the overlap of audiences who move between platforms, communities, and personalities while maintaining diverse and often conflicting beliefs.
JERSH is mistaken in assuming that internal criticism, factional disputes, or attempts at division can fundamentally destroy the broader ecosystem (i.e. the divide-and-conquer of the red Russian Revolution inflicted on the White Russians) — because its cohesion derives from shared users, overlapping interests, and decentralized networks rather than centralized unity.
All you're surfacing here is the difference between principled and ideological beliefs.
If you hold to a principle such as 'Free speech is absolute and paramount', you might find yourself aligned to a political ideology that happens to currently incorporate that principle. But your alignment to the ideology is always downstream of your adherence to the principal. If the ideology or your principal shifts, re-alignment must follow. And the outcome can appear to be a shifting ideology yet the underpinning principals may remain unchanged.
This is in contrast with an unprincipled person that, finding themselves bereft of such belief, instead seizes on pure ideology by way of a substitute for the gaping void left by their lack of adherence to any particular principles.
- Libertarians should not come under umbrella of the right. Those degen freaks are happy for the world to burn so long as they are free to follow their degeneracy.
Thats the problem. They don't, at least in the traditional sense.
A great example are JK rowling, king critical and gender critical people. Arguably even the women who use this website in the TMD thread and COW and so on and so on. Who only disagree with 1 thing with most Leftists but agree with everything else. TERFs are the biggest most notorious example of this. They are considered "Right-wing coded" in spite of them being Feminists and buying into most of the ideology.
Yes there are people who would neatly fit into the conservative stereotype but they are just a current "faction" of what would be considered the modern """"""Right-wing""""" ecosystem, coexisting with TERFs, gender criticals, more Pro-Free speech lefties like the people at Leftypol and so and so.
I don't know what any of that has to do with anything, so I will elect to ignore that unless you can clarify your point. There, some effort into your ramblings and for anything to continue this well-thought discussion.
During MATI, Josh Moon talked about how the Right-wing could be easily fall into the "Divide and conquer" strategy. Which is just silly considering our current panorama.
Wokes are not socially liberal, they want to control everything that people say and do in public.
That is as anti-liberal as it gets, that's left-wing authoritarianism.
Maybe in internet spaces but not in real life.
But even online, you have people like Sargon, Tim Pool and even Joe Rogan who are old school lefties who are definitely not woke. and they make a lot of money from making content that crioticizes woke.
I agree. And even agree that people like Sargon are actual Liberals since he likes social security adjacent policy which has a lot of check and balances. That being said, he isn't "Woke" and thus he deluded and tagged himself as Right-wing. I am sorry but the glue of WOKE is so prominent that he has denominated himself as Right-wing. WOKE is a cancer that has to be extracted from Liberals and the bigger Left-wing in general. These people are so prominent that has convinced a Liberal that he is Right-wing in a shape or form just by identifying a common enemy.
Null, because he's often in bad mood and he's gonna insult you or even ban you for no good reason. (or they might be a reason to ban but he doesn't always say explicitly
ya, this is dumb. I gotta find a way to destroy the other factions. That's the only way we can get unity. We can't just keep adding more and more issues without resolving old issues.
There is no unity. There is no "team" in the """""Right-wing"""". There is no problem either. This was my point against MIkeyNohMore. That performative anything does not matter.
All you're surfacing here is the difference between principled and ideological beliefs.
If you hold to a principle such as 'Free speech is absolute and paramount', you might find yourself aligned to a political ideology that happens to currently incorporate that principle. But your alignment to the ideology is always downstream of your adherence to the principal. If the ideology or your principal shifts, re-alignment must follow. And the outcome can appear to be a shifting ideology yet the underpinning principals may remain unchanged.
This is in contrast with an unprincipled person that, finding themselves bereft of such belief, instead seizes on pure ideology by way of a substitute for the gaping void left by their lack of adherence to any particular principles.
That matters little to none if they make lets say, FOSS tools which more principled people can use. Like I added to the article, sharpen tools in selfishness which other demographics can use. I am not saying that principle does not matter but that others can use the output which principles led to that, where other people who are akin to use can use.
Who only disagree with 1 thing with most Leftists but agree with everything else. TERFs are the biggest most notorious example of this. They are considered "Right-wing coded" in spite of them being Feminists and buying into most of the ideology.
Yes there are people who would neatly fit into the conservative stereotype but they are just a current "faction" of what would be considered the modern """"""Right-wing""""" ecosystem, coexisting with TERFs, gender criticals, more Pro-Free speech lefties like the people at Leftypol and so and so.
That does not mean much since anything remotely "right-wing" would make them right wing in their eyes.
Here's some good examples from ANTIFA in Portland, Oregon:
Liberals and communists exist within the same "left-wing" tent, but communists would have liberals in gulags or dead since they comply within Western democracy.
Niggerfaggot all you had to say is a loose coalition instead of a formalized hierarchy will have a better chance of succeeding in your opinion given the ‘right-wing’ is a cornucopia of people on the spectrum ready to let the left win if they feel too pressured and boxed in by your ‘rules’.
See how that is nice and brief and not ChatGPT sounding?
Whatever newfag this mentality only gives you a pink triangle at best and a red strikethrough at worst. Also if you believe somebody is a nigger why bother discussing politics with them?
