WelcomeWEFreedomWindsorEssexCounty-ActionCommunicationsRalliesResourcesSocialEventsWednesdayNightMeetings-ActivismAgoraAgorismCanadaCommonLawCommunityDataCentersDataCentresDoocracyFarmersMarketIntroductionsNaturalLawNewslettersOntarioOrganizingOutreachProjexProjexWikiRalliesResistanceAnalysisSoireesSoiréesWikiSpooksWindsorElectionsTop Subs
3
Politics - - (+2|-0)
The far right is powered by left-wing illiberalism and hypocrisy(reason.com)
10 commentsbyZapped
Add topics

Comment preview

[-]dog2(+4|-2)

Stephanie Slade is a far right influencer who promotes the New Right, or rather the attempt to get younger people to agree with far right boomers who are leaveing the yournger generation with a much more polarized, polluted, unsafe, violent, lower class, almost post-apocalyptic type of future. Yes, the 'left' is partially responsible for the current authoritarian shitshow fucking up the US. The left didn't vote enough, they've not protested enough, they've been brainwashed by right wing propaganda, they're weak, they won't contact their Congress people, they almost never agree on a specific political policy, they whine constantly, etc. The list goes on. But what Slade wants us to think is that the 'left' have had 'right wing' tendencies that have been responsible for their own fuckups:

  1. Collectivism is left wing racism. (No, it's a response to right wing racism.)

  2. That zero-sum thinking is anti-redistributionist. (No, it's a response to right wing anti-redistributionism.)

  3. That government support of health, environment, consumers, education, etc. is somehow authoritarian. (No, it's a response to right wing attempts to deregulate everything so that corporations can dictate those laws, which started with Reagan, or a bit earlier.)

  4. That concerns about the spread of misinformation are attempts to limit free speech. (No, it's a response to very successful right wing attempts to brainwash people into believing lies. The Fairness Doctrine (killed by Reagan's handlers) allowed for this, but companies were required by the FCC to include a response by someone else against the misinformation political speech.)

Finally, "Liberalism offers an alternative, but it requires a lot more self-awareness from people on the left of center than we've seen so far." Yep

Upvoted for visibility, though I think she's got all of her arguments backwards, on purpose.

parentlinkreply
[-]x0x71(+1|0)

Want to disagree with someone? Just label them far right.

Part of what benefited the actually nasty side of the far right is labeling of reasonable people as far right, when convenient. It makes unreasonable people seem reasonable because they are now in the same category as reasonable people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrHMNSXFSBQ

parentlinkreply
[-]JasonCarswell0(+2|-2)

Yes, the 'left' is partially responsible for the current authoritarian shitshow fucking up the US.

Understatement of the year.

And yes, the Left would be nothing without the Right. They are both fucked up.

Your retarded game of Left vs Right doesn't wash here. Go back to your sportsball.

You won't convert anyone to go Left - or even Right.

The only rational way to go is towards autonomy, anarchism, and self-reliance. "AUTHORITY" IS THE PROBLEM.

Why do you love authority so much, socks?

they've been brainwashed by right wing propaganda

You couldn't sound more like socks if you tried. All the corporate media is Left, even when it's Right.

"Liberalism offers an alternative, but it requires a lot more self-awareness from people on the left of center than we've seen so far."

The old "left of center" folks haven't changed, but the Left sure has and that might lead to confusion, as intended.

So how do we wake folks up?

parentlinkreply
[-]dog1(+1|0)

I just now replied to your earlier question, telling you who I am (not socks) and you're already in attack mode against that guy. I don't know what a sportsball is, but you're right that anyone who doesn't agree with you should leave. You'll destroy this place. Later @x0x7 I'm out.

parentlinkreply
[-]x0x72(+3|-1)

If I'm allowed 2 cents on this I would prefer you stayed. It's ironic because I talk about intentionally shedding users. But you are who I want here if I can keep you. I think this site is better with your contributions. Let me talk to people.

This sudden witch hunt has been really silly.

parentlinkreply
[-]JasonCarswell1(+1|0)

Well, if you really are Hong Kong Phooey, I can't apologize profusely enough. (Though I stand by my political analysis - BOTH "sides" of the same war-hawk are the problem.) Only now did I see your other comment.

I did not mean to give a fence. You took a fence. You are no gatekeeper. Give it back.

Shame you got so sensitive. This might not be the shit-disturbing Hong Kong Phooey I remember.

If you are in fact socks, pretending not to be socks, then ducking out would be the perfect way to dispose of this burnt alias. Time to make a new one. And when this new one verbosely says the same kind of noise then we'll accuse them of being socks too.

I'd rather you be Hong Kong Phooey and tell us about the forum you were also hand-coding when last I saw you a few years back.

parentlinkreply
[-]x0x72(+2|0)

Hey Jason. I really need to agree with Dog pretty strongly with a lot of these interactions lately. He hasn't done anything and people have been dog piling him. A few threads ago there was a baseless accusation made that he was socks and it didn't really have any reasonable evidence. I had thought that it was settled in that thread that it was baseless.

You didn't have any confirmed knowledge that he was socks and you attacked him like he was anyway. It's a new site. People have new usernames. Let's just look at what contributions people actually make. Dog has been mostly positive contributions. Sure he's gone on a bit of a leftist streak as of late and some people may not like that. But he has articulated his position in as reasonable way as someone can while being wrong. He's relatively well mannered and has his views. His views are in fact welcome here.

If anything he is a model user.

There is a reason why I say user drama is gay. Because it is. And sadly you joined the homo-erotic orgy. And dog didn't even engage back in the user drama like many would be tempted to.

And I made a mistake. In the original thread I saw that user drama was happening, and so I ever so slightly suggested that the situation was a little gay. But these were toned down words from what I initially wrote. That was a mistake. The right move on my part would have been to immediately refer to the person who started it as a homosexual.

I'm sorry, but @xoenix, you did have a bit of a homosexual moment. That is policy here. If you start user drama you are called a homosexual. Because engaging in arguments, and other heated passions with strange men on the internet is a homosexual activity. And this is what user drama is. So the kinds of people who engage in user drama for entertainment are recognized as homo-erotic individuals. And this isn't just "haha we called you gay." There is decent reason to think in an objective sense that you may in fact be a homosexual and you are likely to be seen in that light.

And a lot of the other people who followed up with no real evidence that dog is socks, only did so because they thought it would be fun. Meaning that engaging in a homosexual activity appealed to them. That's worth thinking about.

This is a part of site culture. User drama is seen as a homosexual activity. Because it is.

parentlinkreply
[-]newJiminy-1(+1|-2)

Bye

parentlinkreply
[-]newJiminy0(0|0)

Wrong on all counts except for left wing being responsible for the shit show

parentlinkreply
[-]xoenix1(+1|0)

Everyone's fighting against neoliberal imperialism (globalism) these days.

parentlinkreply