site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 7643 results for

domain:aerosociety.com

That’s a good defining aspect of the woke right.

The discrimination against whites and males, that is on the books, enshrined in government contracts, jurisprudence, harvard. Explicit. Not woke right.

To justify the octopus conspiracies otoh, they have pamphlets from the 19th century, hinting at early life bios of successful people, coded parentheses, jewish media interpretation, and aryan studies. It's all implicit mystery knowledge, like the tenets of scientology. You then become clear, awaken, put on the 'they live' glasses, get a superpower where you don't have to check early life section anymore.

they're saying they use the same illiberal tactics as the woke

Do the illiberal tactics include trying to scare away Joe Rogan and other people with big platforms from having conversations with certain people? Do they include lumping in people you don't like with nazis? Do they include complaints about online abuse when people start commenting on how you're being ridiculous?

Can you name people who actually have this as their ideology except random anon accounts on Twitter?

I sense that people like Lomez are probably the closest to what you mean, but he's published enough books that contradict this reading profusely that it seems specious.

Not at all, what they are referring to is people on the right wing who do not buy into liberalism.

Otherwise you're going to have to explain to me when Auron McIntyre has ever done any of these things for Lindsey to coin the term to go after him and his ilk.

If someone makes more money than someone else, or one group is healthier than another, or people from one neighborhood go to jail more often than people from the next neighborhood over, the only explanation is systemic injustice. Someone must have done something evil to exploit someone else -- there's no other way people could end up in such different positions.

To be fair, there is a relatively small but quite loud subset of right-wingers who believe exactly this about Jews. And there are quite many right-wingers who really overestimate the degree to which leftists make their decisions out of deliberate maliciousness and really underestimate the degree to which leftists make those decisions out of a combination of ignorance and pathological empathy. Some right-wingers have even adopted a Rousseauian "man is innocent in the state of nature" attitude, except their idealized pre-modern utopia from which humanity has fallen is some kind of amalgam of ancient martial cultures, 19th century farmsteads, and the 1950s.

Except if that definition were operative it would make no sense for guys like Lindsey, Murray, Kisin or Peterson to talk about the woke right. All four take up the mantle of 'concern for where the discourse is headed' if people they don't like are allowed to speak freely on topics they disagree with.

'Anti-liberals use illiberal tactics' is a silly kind of thing to complain about.

But also, I don't think it's apples to apples. IME when people on the right are doing this it's often simply trying to get leftists held to any kind of sane standard at all -- saying 'kill all white people' should not be tolerated in polite society, but generally is. Whereas the left, again IME, is generally happy to ruin lives over much less, e.g. refusing to create art celebrating gay 'marriage'.

World War II is basically the world’s secular creation myth now. Implying that this vastly destructive war that killed 60 million people could or should have been handled differently or, God forbid, avoided is basically heresy. It’s like saying “maybe Pontius Pilot shouldn’t have signed that one guy’s death warrant, because letting an angry mob override the fair application of law and due process is wrong”. In any other context a reasonable and good thing to say; but given the specific chain of events that came after and what they mean, unthinkable.

I look forward to an eventual SCOTUS case that crushes them.

I know, it being real estate - and residential real estate at that - there's whole multibillion dollar lobby and industry behind it. Still, I think once home ownership becomes an actual impossibility for 85%+ of Americans, the worm will turn.

When people refer to the "woke right" they're referring to right-wing people who behave like woke people in the sense that they try to censor, cancel, and thought-police those who disagree with them. They aren't saying the woke right is politically woke, they're saying they use the same illiberal tactics as the woke.

My understanding of the claim was that the proportion of undateable people wasn't changing:

I hate to break it to you, but if you can't get a date now, you weren't getting a date then.

If the proportion of undateable people is increasing, then it's entirely possible that if you can't get a date now, you could have gotten a date before. That's what it means for the proportion of undateable people to increase.

The number of specific cancellation incidents was fairly low compared to Hollywood and politics. But I do think that was the moment when the vibe turned against the industry. For the twenty years before that, the left basically gave pornography an indulgence to be a morality-free zone due to the industry’s valuable service to the left as a battering ram against Christian morality. Even stuff like extreme racist themes and violence against women was given a pass in the name of kink. The right mostly left the industry alone too because the right was trying to shed the Moral Majority fuddy-duddy image that was beginning to become a liability for them in the 80s. After 2016, suddenly both the left and the right decided they weren’t willing to tolerate all this skeezyness anymore. You never saw much direct action about this because the porn industry is very attuned to cultural vibes and it quickly moved to internally clean up its own image a bit, comics-code authority style.

This is the meaning of "woke" that is then applied to "the woke right" when it begins engaging in similar anti-free-speech behavior for partisan gains.

There's a slight problem here, because from my point of view the Jedi are evil "anti-woke" are the ones doing this. Trivially: who's the one whinging to Joe Rogan that he shouldn't have so many people with [insert opinion] on?

I think most women consider the idea of various forms of sex work as a fantasy in much the same way that most men vaguely fantasize about violent crime, or of running off to work on an oil rig.

Whoa

'Woke' is having become awakened to the 'reality' that all differences in hierarchy are unjust (…) the only explanation is systemic injustice. Someone must have done something evil to exploit someone else -- there's no other way people could end up in such different positions.

These strike me as different claims. Wokeness as originally defined was really more about the second one. The moral truth that inequality is unjust was taken for granted from the start; it needn't be "awakened" to. Woke in the original sense was very much about "awakening" to the pervasive-systemic-oppression theory of why inequality of outcomes arises. The two different claims can be believed independently. And more importantly, believing both still doesn't inherently require you to be in favor of censorship/cancel culture.

I think at this point "woke" in colloquial Internetese long ago ceased to have anything to do with the original meaning, and means something more like "leftist Political Correctness thought-policing" whether it's about racial equality or anything else. This is the meaning of "woke" that is then applied to "the woke right" when it begins engaging in similar anti-free-speech behavior for partisan gains.

Technically, the pantex plant in Texas builds nuclear weapons.

My view of the Dissident Right is that it's an evolutionary memetic algorithm generating a post-postmodern Right Wing. But it will be regarded as Fascist by conservatives and Woke alike, whether or not that is the proper academic use of the term.

"Matt Walsh posts Swastika on Timeline" is not a controversy that someone generally wants to be involved in.

On the other hand, if the sharks smell blood, they'll rip you to shreds. "Never apologize" has been the standard advice by people who observed these controversies with any amount of care, right-wing or otherwise.

Oh thanks, I missed that.

The problem here is that the definition of Fascism is functionally non-liberal, Right Wing.

In the broad popular imagination, it might be, but fascism is a distinctly modernist/progressive ideology, and vast swathes of the Dissident Right have no love for modernity.

But the point is that poking the eye of the Boomer Consensus with edgy stuff like does not mean Walsh is arguing for Nazism.

A distinctly shortsighted tactic, that ruins the discourse for anyone trying to take things seriously, including those on the DR.

It's just flaunting a disrespect for norms enforced by Conservatives and Woke alike.

Why not just make jokes about cheddar cheese like other normies?

In fact that would be my criticism of Walsh, he's trying to have a foot in both camps.

I'd imagine that someone as high up on the influencer ladder as he is, would know it's not a game that you can play sustainably.

Recently Douglas Murray went on Joe Rogan and had a conversation with Dave Smith about, among other things, the responsibility of influencers with huge platforms to the public. Smith and Rogan took the familiar position of "muh marketplace of ideas", while Murray believes that people with so much influence should be a bit more selective, because exposing the public to bad ideas will lead to some part of the audience uncritically adopting them.

Douglas Murray spent the first, like...hour of the podcast talking about how Darryl Cooper, the noted Winston Churchill historian, had spent his career tearing down Churchill and "just asking questions" about why Darryl is devoting so much of his time to focusing on Churchill.

Except in reality: Approximately a year ago, Cooper spent about 2 minutes making a throwaway comment about how he takes a devil's advocate position about Churchill with his friend, a big Churchill fan, as a way of riling him up and playing around with him. Douglass couldn't do 10 minutes of actual research into this topic before then spending an hour talking about how only experts, people who really understand the topic, should be allowed to talk about things publicly. Darryl Cooper in reality is a podcaster who puts out 30+ hour long series about things like: The Formation of Israel, The Civil Rights Movement/The People's Temple/Jim Jones, World War 2 from the perspective of the Germans[1], The History of Slavery, and The horror of war (a standalone episode called "The anti-humans".

[1]: His whole point with this, stated explicitly, is that Germany didn't just wake up one day and decide to be the Nazis, one of the most evil institutions to ever exist, and then at the end of the war just decide to stop being the Nazis. It was a long process of humans making (bad) human decisions. The implicit point here, and with almost all of his work, is that good people can be talked into doing really bad things, and to be cautious around "movements" (like The Peoples' Temple, or a lot of the civil rights groups) because they can slowly-then-suddenly turn into a nightmare.

Douglass showed his cards, and it turns out that he's an idiot with a nice voice. The Strange Death of Europe was a good book, but it turns out the person behind it is probably a fool.

"Matt Walsh posts Swastika on Timeline" is not a controversy that someone generally wants to be involved in. Like the Sewer Ben Shapiro telling him he can't post that, along with pats on the back from others in the reply. This stuff just isn't on the timeline of people who aren't being intentionally provocative.

I do because it propagates a dangerous misconception about what 'woke' means.

Well, I'd be worried about this more if I thought the tame came about as a result of a genuine misconception. When I'm worried this is used to shut out my ideas, I prefer to play the reverse of the "Please Just Fucking Tell Me What Term I Am Allowed to Use for the Sweeping Social and Political Changes You Demand" card, and say "ok, I'm woke right, now address my arguments". It cuts to the chase, puts the ball in their court, and arguably actually lowers the chances of any misconceptions being spread.

Yes, but the Dissident Right is a broader category than the Alt Right. I have the feeling you're implying that the Boomer Consensus is anti-fascist, therefore the Dissident Right is fascist or fashy, whereas I would say it's merely anti- or non- liberal.

The problem here is that the definition of Fascism is functionally non-liberal, Right Wing. You can argue that shouldn't be the operative definition of fascism, but the DR is fashy by nature of being Right-Wing and post-liberal.

Well, I certainly hope you're wrong. If you want to argue for nazism, argue for nazism, don't hide behind this "hee hee, I'm just a silly edgelord" bullshit. This sort of behavior is about the only thing that would justify the anti-"woke right" freak out, in my mind.

But the point is that poking the eye of the Boomer Consensus with edgy stuff like does not mean Walsh is arguing for Nazism. It's just flaunting a disrespect for norms enforced by Conservatives and Woke alike. In fact that would be my criticism of Walsh, he's trying to have a foot in both camps. He's trying to synthesize the Daily Wire Conservatism with some of the Race stuff from the DR + some edgy flaunting of political norms. Where does his actual thinking lie? I don't know.

If it was unintentional he would at minimum delete the tweet, and probably send another tweet apologizing and insisting it was a mistake.

That makes no sense. Why would he do that if it was unintentional?