Stars Are Flirting With the Far Right

[Milchshake]

Ah! It used to be... leftism was defined as egalitarianism, versus the pure capitalism of the right side. I dare say that doesn’t hold up anymore though, as many non socio-economic issues are now divided into left and right wing, such as equal treatment for sexualities, political correctness, genders, etc.

That’s exactly what I mean. Politics used to revolve around money only. That’s not true anymore. Maybe we need to adapt.

Thank you!

Nope. Blaming "political correctness" has always been a bad faith argument. Ever since Segregationists used it to rebrand their fight against Civil Rights.


Right Wingers trying to grift the Left, currently blame IdPol (Identity Politics) in the same manner. Which again, reveals their turn intention to undermine the coalition of Civil Rights and anti-poverty activists.

So it's always necessary to call out the intent of bad faith behind these rebranding attempts. We kept the receipts.

[JohnBrown1917]

Perhaps it’s time to abandon meaningless platitudes like “left wing” and “right wing”, “liberal” or “conservative”.

I get that they help identify a group of ideology, but the terms in and of themselves have no meaning. This results in people conforming to an ideology without knowing exactly what it entails. On top of that, people all have their own view of what it entails, and all think they have the one proper view.

What I’m saying is; the words we use to describe political ideology fail in todays world.

Not really, the left and right have always referred to a ton of different ideologies,and whether those idealogies are left, centre or right-wing is still pretty clear.

i.e Liberalism = pro-free market capitalism = right-wing.
Socialism = workers own the means of production = leftwing.


The label alone is not enough to define any idealogy, and it never has been. Nothing modern about that.

[Felya]

Not really, the left and right have always referred to a ton of different ideologies,and whether those idealogies are left, centre or right-wing is still pretty clear.

i.e Liberalism = pro-free market capitalism = right-wing.
Socialism = workers own the means of production = leftwing.


The label alone is not enough to define any idealogy, and it never has been. Nothing modern about that.

Liberal scale goes up and down... socialism is in a scale that goes left to right...

[jonnysensible]

people with no theory will always be daft.

[Endus]

Ah! It used to be... leftism was defined as egalitarianism, versus the pure capitalism of the right side. I dare say that doesn’t hold up anymore though, as many non socio-economic issues are now divided into left and right wing, such as equal treatment for sexualities, political correctness, genders, etc.

It's about hierarchical systems and your approach to them.

Left-wing positions seek to reduce or even eliminate the divides between hierarchical divisions. This is most easily seen in trying to reduce class differences in socioeconomics, and in eliminating social divides around race, gender, ethnicity, etc.

Right-wing views either see such hierarchies as necessary and good in and of themselves, or at least that they must be accepted and allowed as a natural outcome. They seek to expand or protect those divides and the inequities they represent.

That's how both "wings" have been objectively defined for centuries.

That’s exactly what I mean. Politics used to revolve around money only. That’s not true anymore. Maybe we need to adapt.

It was literally never true. I have no idea where you got this idea. Pick an era and I'll point out how it's wrong, whether you want to talk about the slaveholding era of the USA, feudal Europe, the Roman Republic, or Ancient Egypt. Literally not ever true.

[Muzjhath]

It was literally never true. I have no idea where you got this idea. Pick an era and I'll point out how it's wrong, whether you want to talk about the slaveholding era of the USA, feudal Europe, the Roman Republic, or Ancient Egypt. Literally not ever true.

It's almost like the Revolutions of 1848 fell to conservative reactions because of questions not about money, but rather because of the social questions that caused the more well of established types to back out.
But what would that poster know of that.

[Glorious Leader]

It's about hierarchical systems and your approach to them.

Left-wing positions seek to reduce or even eliminate the divides between hierarchical divisions. This is most easily seen in trying to reduce class differences in socioeconomics, and in eliminating social divides around race, gender, ethnicity, etc.

Right-wing views either see such hierarchies as necessary and good in and of themselves, or at least that they must be accepted and allowed as a natural outcome. They seek to expand or protect those divides and the inequities they represent.

That's how both "wings" have been objectively defined for centuries.



It was literally never true. I have no idea where you got this idea. Pick an era and I'll point out how it's wrong, whether you want to talk about the slaveholding era of the USA, feudal Europe, the Roman Republic, or Ancient Egypt. Literally not ever true.

This is precisely correct and incidentaly why so called anarcho capitalists are a joke and should not be counted as part of the anarchist tradition. Anarchism is the elimination of hierarchical forms of domination and oppression. Capitalism is by definition hierarchical.

[eschatological]

In other "Dirtbag Left" news....(I beg you not to click this Daily Wire link and give money to Ben Shapiro. I cut through the bullshit myself and offer my own summation, but I provide it here as the source):

https://www.dailywire.com/news/tulsi...aign=dwtwitter

tl;dr: Tulsi Gabbard is equating "cancel culture" to its (il)"logical" end state: ISIS.

Bonus points for dispelling the myth of how anti-war she was, because she's more than willing to go to war with both brown people of the cancel culture, and brown people in the Middle East.

[jonnysensible]

That's not true. Right wing is usually liberal in economical policies but conservative in social ones, and then left vice-versa.

the left are conservative in economic policies? What the fuck.

[Felya]

the left are conservative in economic policies? What the fuck.

Right wing populism disillusion...

[Elegiac]

Sorry I mixed it up, of course that's not true.

What I meant is that the left is more open to illiberal economic policies, as in restrictive for individuals and companies, for the sake of the society as a whole.

Which does absolutely nothing to support your assertion that the definitions of left and right are anachronistic, since how "liberal" an economic policy is has fuck all to do with whether or not that policy mitigates or eliminates inequality in intent or practice - i.e. the thing that distinguishes left from right.

"Individualism versus collectivism" is not a useful qualifier for political ideologies, to be entirely frank, because... *sigh*... We live in a society.

[Endus]

Sorry I mixed it up, of course that's not true.

What I meant is that the left is more open to illiberal economic policies, as in restrictive for individuals and companies, for the sake of the society as a whole.

All you're talking about, here, is that the left wing generally dismisses right-wing classical-liberal economic policies.

And yeah. Because they're not based on left-wing views. It has fuck-all to do with equity and individual freedoms overall. Just the "freedom" of capitalists to exploit everyone else for their personal gain.

Which is like arguing the Confederacy was the pro-freedom option because they supported not regulating slavery or slave owners, rather than acknowledging that the entire system is, itself, fundamentally and deeply opposed to equity and fairness and individual freedoms.

Much like unchecked capitalism.

[Shadowferal]

You guys are hitting that "wall;" a barrier to communication."Left vs Right," Liberal vs Conservative," how it's all defined tends to be different respective of country.

Foundation for communication goes back to where and when we are born. We were hitting this wall repeatedly with Rochana who seems to reside in a country where basic needs tend to be met without the same dread uncertainty that many Americans feel every day who at times can't afford to pay for the same needs.

[Elegiac]

I'm not arguing anything like that, I'm just saying that left and right are outdated labels because they're not optimized for today's political climate.

But not actually providing any sort of justification why they're "not optimized" besides people using them incorrectly, while sidestepping the point that they've become muddied precisely because of a lot of bad faith actors trying to mask self interested or pernicious goals with the language of resisting oppression. Which is pretty much the entire story of the United States from even before the United States was a thing, funnily enough.

[Milchshake]

This is the height of absurdity. Some crybabies abused the mod system and got the title changed.

"Dirtbag Left" Is the actual title of the source article. It's a term that Chapo Trap House and other podcasters coined themselves. That's why quotation marks are used. Check your APA guidelines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirtbag_left

The term was coined by Amber A'Lee Frost and is associated with her essay "The Necessity of Political Vulgarity", published in Current Affairs in 2016.[2][3] While the essay does not directly use the term dirtbag left, it mounts a defense of politics that utilize "vulgarity as a tool for fighting the powerful", citing libelles used to slander Marie Antoinette, Cohen v. California, and N.W.A's protest song "Fuck tha Police", among others.[1] While Frost notes that vulgarity in itself is not "inherently subversive", she argues that the left must reclaim vulgarity "from the Trumps of the world", lest it be "handicapped by [its] own civility."[1]

The dirtbag left is most closely associated with the American politics podcasts Cum Town, as well as, Chapo Trap House, of which Frost is a co-host. Chapo emerged in 2016 in the context of the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries and subsequent presidential election.[2] The podcast combines political analysis and punditry from a socialist perspective with elements of comedy and irony.[4] Chapo gained notoriety for its criticism of both the Republican and Democratic Party, particularly what the podcast claimed was the Democratic Party's complicity with a conservative agenda.[3]

Beyond Chapo, media outlets that have been alternately linked to or described as dirtbag left include the podcasts Street Fight Radio,[5] TrueAnon,[6] Red Scare,[7][8] and Cum Town,[9] and the publications The Baffler and Current Affairs.[5] These outlets are noted as presenting comedy as "applied to an ideological reading of the news of the day, with a particular focus on political feeling or style."[7]

[Endus]

I'm not arguing anything like that, I'm just saying that left and right are outdated labels because they're not optimized for today's political climate.

They're perfectly fine. You just keep misrepresenting what they actually mean, and keep pointing out that other terms (like "liberal") don't clearly align with the left-right axis, particularly when there's two distinct forms of liberalism in play.

Much like the word liberalism. Most people don't even use it correctly and confuse it with progressivism. Liberalism doesn't even have a widely used antonym which is not considered derogatory.

They aren't separate concepts. There is significant overlap.

Modern liberalism is a framework that sees individual rights and freedoms as being of core important.

Left-wing progressivism is a movement that seeks to reform society to bring about social reforms, such as increased social liberalism (though not limited to that).

This is kind of like arguing that Burger King doesn't offer a quarter-pounder burger like McDonalds does. Ignoring that it offers the Whopper, which is a quarter-pound burger. But isn't named the Quarter Pounder like McDonalds' equivalent. You're misrepresenting what words fundamentally mean.

I agree with the idea that these labels cause more harm than good in most political discussions.

Without these labels, it becomes impossible to have political discussions, because these labels form some of the most basic technical jargon needed to describe politics and political movements.

It would be like trying to force doctors to not use the technical terms for any body parts or procedures or medications, but to come up with some slangy term of their own for it. Terms which others doctors notably don't share, because then you'd be establishing a new jargon.]

Maybe the problem isn't that the jargon exists, but that you don't understand it very well and should make more of an effort to do so.

[JohnBrown1917]

This is the height of absurdity. Some crybabies abused the mod system and got the title changed.

"Dirtbag Left" Is the actual title of the source article. It's a term that Chapo Trap House and other podcasters coined themselves. That's why quotation marks are used. Check your APA guidelines.

Its funny because CTH have nothing to do with the likes of Jimmy Dore or whatever other conservative that is grifting chuds by pretending to be one of the 'good lefties'.

[Glorious Leader]

Its funny because CTH have nothing to do with the likes of Jimmy Dore or whatever other conservative that is grifting chuds by pretending to be one of the 'good lefties'.

Yea the chapo boys have like NOTHING to do with Dore. Actualoy Virgil Texas frequently guests on Sam Seders show and Seder bashes the shit out of Dore.

- - - Updated - - -

All you're talking about, here, is that the left wing generally dismisses right-wing classical-liberal economic policies.

And yeah. Because they're not based on left-wing views. It has fuck-all to do with equity and individual freedoms overall. Just the "freedom" of capitalists to exploit everyone else for their personal gain.

Which is like arguing the Confederacy was the pro-freedom option because they supported not regulating slavery or slave owners, rather than acknowledging that the entire system is, itself, fundamentally and deeply opposed to equity and fairness and individual freedoms.

Much like unchecked capitalism.

Its a very NARROW definition of liberty. They only consider freedom to not freedom from and even that's very narrow. You aren't free to have an abortion or be gay married. Its literally just free to own property and be your own feudal landlord. Its yeoman small land holder.

[Endus]

Its a very NARROW definition of liberty. They only consider freedom to not freedom from and even that's very narrow. You aren't free to have an abortion or be gay married. Its literally just free to own property and be your own feudal landlord. Its yeoman small land holder.

It's so narrow, I'd argue that it's deliberately dishonest. The "freedoms" championed by anarcho-capitalist "liberals" aren't functionally different from the "freedoms" championed by the Confederacy, with all the inherent oppression and exploitation of other human beings that those "freedoms" entail.

In any sensible framework, individual freedoms end where some other individual's rights and freedoms begin. I can swing a knife around if I want to, for example, but not when swinging that knife would stab it into you, because you've got a right to be free of such assaults. A proper ideology predicated on personal freedoms and liberty must establish a system that protects everyone, or it's actually a system of oppression and subjugation, you've just slapped a smiley-face sticker on the front and hoped nobody noticed the inhumanity underneath.

I'll also note that this anarcho-capitalist "liberalism" doesn't really mean you're "free to own property". You're only as "free" to do so as your finances allow you to pressure others into letting you do so. If the bank can find grounds to seize that property from you, they will. If another party can sue you and force you to sell to pay them off, they will. And so forth. In the end, it's a "freedom" that only the powerful can ever actually enjoy.

And that's why megacorporations keep growing. They're not a bug. They're the exact feature this economic system was created to produce.

[Logwyn]

Can we just have two Internets already, so no one has the audacity of hearing opinions from the opposite side, which are all obviously wrong?

I feel this is the main problem with the way the US currently. There's not discussing issues and finding common ground, compromise, or a good solution. Starting to sound more like the bleating of sheep from all sides. "MY SIDE GOOOOOOODDD YOUR SIDE BAAAAAAAAAAAAAD" like we're in Animal Farm or something. Doesn't matter the issue if I'm a Republican anything the Democrats do is wrong or bad and if a Democrat anything the Republicans do is wrong or bad.