Zardnaar
Deity
You and whose army lol. Keep raving.
Best Way To Defeat the Right?
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
You and whose army lol. Keep raving.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Your ignorance of California’s homelessness is proportional to your inability to pick a correct target.
Zardnaar
Deity
Thy do a few silly things there.
Large cash payouts to the homeless, nice weather, corruption and footing the bill for services the state should probably provide.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Though of course. Though I'm merely focusing on a regular person who would routinely binges on, for example, Ben Shapiro's videos and spouting his talking points. You may snap him/her out at that point by gently inquiring as to "Why you feel Ben is right about X?", A different creator or activity to distract him/her and away from Ben Shapiro's videos or plant seeds of doubt in their mind. Anything that can help inspire the person to jump ship and away from that environment. I don't expect anyone to make an effort to try to sway someone who is far-gone off the deep end.
"Change Gabe's surroundings and you change Gabe" - Ian "Innuendo Studios" Danskin
Ideally, in a perfect world, there would be processes in place to disrupt the process of recruitment and/or radicalization as done on groups like ISIS. Though frustratingly, the reality is that the Alt-Right does it's damnedest to not get classified as terrorists and, as Innuendo Studios puts it, any functioning anti-radicalization policies would require banning a lot of conservative politicians.
Stop referring to it in such broad terms, for starters. The answer depends on what you're talking about. Do you mean at a political level? At a cultural level? On an Internet forum? In real life? Strangers, friends, or acquaintances?
The problem we see is your example who is consuming what I'll refer to as gateway content (a gateway to more hardline far-right content) is that a) people don't often watch this content to critically-consume it, they watch it to consume it, period. And for b) I was under the impression that when it comes to rehabilitation and deprogramming we should be targeting people who are further underwater, so to speak (deep end analogy, I'm a swimmer, etc).
This can be done at the personal level, but at a community level it becomes much harder. As much as people like to bang on about how CFC OT is an echo chamber, that's a natural property of any self-selecting community (i.e. a handpicked community for something like QA testing purposes would be wildly different). People gravitate to similar people, and this effect increases over time. And the problem is at the personal level there just isn't enough bandwidth. Sure, I can talk to two or three people and maybe, maybe change their minds over time. But statistically that's irrelevant. The people who are already in the deep end simply won't accept any mild inquiries or questioning of their consumption.
The sad reality is that the people who tend to "get out" tend to get out because of something tragic happening to them. But likewise, that's also a recruitment vector (see "love bombing" manipulation). Leftists do actively attempt to reach out in any individual circumstance they feel safe to do so. I myself have tried it over the years, though mainly online of course. But in general, the volume of accounts involved, the people involved, especially on platforms like social media? That shouldn't be on me or any leftist to try and handle. I could spend my entire working day not doing my job, and attempting to talk to people like you're suggesting, and it wouldn't shift the needle at all. It's not a solution to the problem as a whole.
Like you said, we need similar to what is done with other types of extremist groups, but the current political paradigm works against that. A big part of that is the US cultural product of the Cold War (I'm being seriously with this bit). There's a direct line to "better dead than red" and the like to modern day interpretations of even the mildest left-of-centre beliefs. We're seeing an uptick in this kind of sentiment here in the UK, too.
Narz
keeping it real
What nonsense is this? Obviously on a cultural and political level not arguing online which is an overdeveloped & largely useless 'skill'.
You asked the question. Maybe try not to make it so vague? I don't know if you're bothering to read anything else I've typed here, but I'm literally having a discussion in parallel r.e. the benefits of "arguing online" in terms of reaching out to people to deradicalise them.
But let's take "cultural and political level" at face value. Which is, in fact two levels. The former is reaching the voters; the people. The latter is changing the political scene, or even the law. Doesn't that strike you as two very different things that require their own essays? You're asking how I'd do it: the answer is different for each one. Though both are very, very difficult for any one individual to actually act upon. And what might apply here in the UK might not apply or even make sense to someone in the US (like yourself). Heck, given the size and variance of political governance in the US, solutions would literally vary by-state.
Like, you're asking me for a dissertation here. Are you going to bother reading it, if I wrote it?
You need the Centrists to either vote in your favor or not vote against you. That requires memetic success at the individual level, which means that 'one-size-fits-all' crafting might be impossible.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Where did I talk anything about voting?
Resisting/assisting is the same calculation. If you can't get someone's help with regards to voting, then you're in trouble, cuz it's about the easiest thing for 'organizers' to organize.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
Most of the Civil Rights Era concessions were the result of non-centrists organizing non-centrists and making so much hell and disruption that the centrist was, time after time, forced to concede, until finally the centrists began throwing the secret police at organizers. Appealing to the moderate's underdeveloped morality works for the right (because the US is a right-wing country) but will always comes across as inauthentic when from the left.
The goal of any organizer is to shift the gestalt, not surrender to it. Surrender to the moderates is what killed Reconstruction in this country, killed any chance of a functioning, modern healthcare system, and is the number one thing holding back the abolition of chattel slavery in the American prison system.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Historically speaking, voting is generally an indicator of the state of the working classes; in general, it tends to be the minimum effort, barring, of course, the constituencies in which the state puts the extra effort in disenfranchising voters. When you see most mature democracies have turnouts in the <50%, this doesn't indicate to me that people aren't so much unwilling to support the left-wing and moreso the rather clear and obvious realisation that voting is not getting anyone anything or anywhere. Why, in that case, would the left, misbegotten as it is, try to corral voters so that the same thing is repeated over and over? Perhaps a further example from my country would be more illuminating: after three elections, the turnout cratered down to below 40% in the last one, meaning that the current coalition government is wanted by a mere third of the actual voting population. So, why would anyone with a head on their shoulders support a system which has been resolutely refuted as unrepresentative?
When turnout is low, then every success in getting someone to vote with you (or not against you) is proportionately more valuable.
All I'm saying is that it's the easiest hurdle. Organizing people to do more than that is harder. It's what needs to happen, but it's harder.
And then you also need the politically inactive to more gradually prefer you over them, or else you never have the democratic mandate
The problem is that the most enthusiastic activists aren't always the ones who know what they're doing. You need to be concomitantly stronger and more correct than the opponent activists, but that's just vague mumbling. It's still correct though.
All I'm saying is that it's the easiest hurdle. Organizing people to do more than that is harder. It's what needs to happen, but it's harder.
And then you also need the politically inactive to more gradually prefer you over them, or else you never have the democratic mandate
The problem is that the most enthusiastic activists aren't always the ones who know what they're doing. You need to be concomitantly stronger and more correct than the opponent activists, but that's just vague mumbling. It's still correct though.
Last edited:
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Throw ideology out the window and give people what they want: stronger workers rights, federal vacation minimums, get rid of "at will employment", cheaper or free post-secondary education, universal healthcare, a stronger socio-economic support net, the elimination of private prisons, set up a federal body that investigates and regulates cops, invest in infrastructure, education, healthcare, and the community, raise taxes for the rich, legalize marijuana, and go after and prosecute white collar & political criminals who are currently breaking the law (and nobody cares)
Instead of focusing on these issues that actually matter, the American extreme left and the extreme right sit there and argue about nonsense "issues" like abortion and immigration, pronouns, and how to properly set up gendered or non-gendered bathrooms.
The American left, a big joke, drum up support during election time, but when it comes time to doing the right thing, they don't. It's a party that panders to corporate interests first and foremost, and only turns to the electorate when it comes to rally them to vote the other guys out..
The American right, an even bigger joke, should be super easy to defeat, but the Democrats are a bunch of idiots (it seems) who have no idea how to even got started, even though the last leader the American right went with was a bumbling idiot who can't even put on his own pants. Man, these Democrats would have no idea how to defeat a Republican potato president who is nothing more than a root that can be boiled and eaten.
The Democrats couldn't coordinate an evacuation out of a wet paper bag. The Republicans on the other hand refuse to accept that water makes bags wet. Congratulations America, you are ruled by idiots who don't care about you, and those with the $$$ keep laughing at you from above, while all you do is revert to ideological children who end up arguing about things that don't matter.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
This is, in itself, an ideology (to be specific: social-democratic). I agree with all these things (although, how exactly will they be paid for is another question - you can raise the taxes only so much!). These are all quite inoffensive things - for us, anyways - but even to get these concessions, you will have to defeat the current ruling class, cuz you can't vote them out, as you may or may not have understood by now.
Issues like women's rights not to be shackled to a family because of a child? Because, that is what is at stake in this "non-issue", and the rabid way that the right-wing enforces social control upon women's lives. If you don't get it, that's not the left's problem, that is a you problem. Immigration: are you kidding me? Thousands of people murdered on the border, not to mention the fact that the U.S border (and, really, all borders - look to the EU, look at Poland nowadays) is instrumental in establishing state terror. Pronouns and bathrooms - honestly...how do you not get that these issues are a mere metonymy, to hide the cruel violence that the right-wing enacts on trans people daily? This betrays an astounding ignorance that you are so proud of showing. Do not trans people deserve dignity? Must we suffer in the dark so that you can have your social-democratic utopia? Every time someone rails against "pronouns" and "bathrooms", they really want to tell us, "we don't want you. we don't want to hear or see you.".
That's because the Democrats aren't opposition, they are willingly collaborating in this. They are not incompetent in maintaining the status quo. Every move of theirs for the past ten years (at the very least!) has been aiming at making sure that nothing changes. This is why there is no goddamn way to solve this by voting! The system is against you, and all of your electeds are puppets of the people with the money. Open your eyes and use your heads for once.
Zardnaar
Deity
Unfortunately you have to go down that road.
Theres not enough popular support to over throw the American government.
It's also the right wing nutjobs with more guns and the left has alienated the police and military.
I suspect they would actually like an uprising. They would get to crush the libs or whatever and put California or wherever under martial law for a decade or two.
Berzerker
Deity
I dont know opinion polls of the average centrist southerner, their views were probably based more on whether or not they owned slaves, but abolitionists were divided on the matter of war. The moderate position would better describe Lincoln's desire to preserve the Union with no war even if it meant leaving slavery legal, not that he could have banned it. I suppose the pro war abolitionists were calling anti-war abolitionists moderates.
People self segregate based on similarities? That doesn't bode well for melting pots.
My point was about the prevalence of "echo chambers" (which is a phrase typically, but not exclusively, thrown at progressives by conservatives). It doesn't mean people from different backgrounds can't find common ground. These could be the very similarities that I'm talking about.
Akka
Moody old mage.
You're right, let's instead take inspiration from the Montagnards, who certainly didn't let these yellow-livered moderate get in the way.
Or better, those several communist revolutionaries who knew how to not get slowed down and which provided their population with resounding successes with all these "Democratic Republic of Something".
Ideological zeal has such a great record for human happiness, we totally should try to rely on it rather than consensus.
(BTW, isn't it precisely the ideological zeal of the Southerners which revolted against a democratic decision to limit slavery that started the war ?)
Last edited:
Similar threads
