Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
As many of you are probably aware, there’s this popular theory among normie and normie-adjacent white liberals in the US and the West in general that Charlie Kirk’s assassin is a so-called groyper i.e. dissident rightist, racist etc. follower of Nick Fuentes. I was wondering if the main reason for this belief is that said liberals are fully aware of the level of infighting and factionalism that characterizes the Left and then go on to thoughtlessly assume that the situation must be the same on the Right because they actually have only scarce knowledge about it.
Doubt it. From my experiences with and as a leftist, the left does not have a mechanical model of the right wing at all, not even one that simply projects their own dynamics on them. The Right is rather seen as a primordial ooze of evil from which bad things emerge without specific processes. In that light, "A right-winger shot Charlie Kirk" sounds believable because shooting people is a bad thing that bad people do, and so it's perfectible credible for someone who drank from the source of all evil to have done it.
As a leftist, you can own the act as a left-wing one when you're feeling combative, assign it to the right when you find it distasteful, or even switch tracks multiple times in a day depending on whom you're talking to.
Not, mind you, that others are any better than the generic leftists I mean. People in general don't have a very faithful relationship with their epistemics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link