Bushgame was the moment at which I knew the left had gone mad.

There was a sea change and the left decided it couldn't stand the right.

It was only in the last 2 years that the hate got retaliated.

Voltron assraping the statue of liberty.

Tbh Clinton was shady AF

For effs sake pratel the right during both Clinton and Obama years were completely unhinged beyond belief

Maybe everyone felt this way during their era but the presidential pickings during my lifetime have been a bit shit. I'm surprised y'all haven't done any table flips

Obama years had a lot of zealots as well

Remember when people were only criticizing him because they were racist? Remember when people just glossed over all the drone strikes and country destabilizations despite those being primo critiques against Bush?

Political discourse in the US has not been honest

A) The left (not center-left) were really pissed off with Obama about the Drone strikes and not going hard enough against Wall St. They blasted him hard.

Plus, under that logic, the right should have been supportive of Obama for continuing Bush's foreign policy, and also implementing a healthcare policy that was originally their idea.

Agreed. I may not be from the US but I'm on the left and bashed Obama for that shit weekly.

Interestingly, not everyone on the right is a neocon

The neocons are getting thrown out, in fact.

See Max Boot.

Little slip there.

Not really. Trump is bringing them back in

John Bolton anyone?

Trump is an interesting figure when nominating people.

Neocons were btfo'd by Trump in 2016.

Remember all those times masked right-wingers smashed windows and burned cars? Oh yeah...

If that's because he's digging the bottom of the barrel or because he likes conflict is unclear.

But the Republican base has become surprisingly isloationist as of late, which is alienating the neocons.

It's pretty obvious that there's only one criteria when he nominates someone in a government position: Loyalty.

I wouldn't be that sure. But we'll leave this there.

Nationalist, not isolationist.

That partially explain why his administration has been chaotic. Different competing strands of conservatism competing against eachother

Tbh if anything Trump managed to gather together a bunch of disparate groups

the GOP as a whole was desperate when he appeared

He didn't win because there was a secret giant cabal of cons were just playing the long game and letting Obama win

He won because he managed to pull from a number of different groups, and still has an exceptional approval rate among them iirc

The thing you have to realize about politics is that the left is diverse in it's skin tones and genders. But there is a strong conformist streak and the marching orders tend to come from a few key places that filter down.

The right is diverse in its ideas and just does a good job of hiding the divisions from view. There's a general lack of overall organization and the different sectors fight each other frequently.

Not, really.

Mostly Trump won because he was able to break the Democrats strongholds in the rust belt while not losing too much of the suburbs.

The left is pretty diverse in ideas.

The Dems very intentionally abandoned the white working class, so Trump picked them up.

It's diverse in it's *interests*

But the policy directives tend to come from only a few places, like academia.

And within those circles, the fundamental assumptions tend to be very homogeneous.

Under that logic, then the right is only diverse in interests and the policy directives tend to come from think tanks

Not really, there's business groups.

There's grassroots organizations.

There's the religious right.

The young right.

The think tanks (who generally hated Trump until very recently)

the left is so diverse in its ideas that it shuts down speakers and deplatforms people who disagree with them 🤔

The few republican faculty.

There's gun groups.

And most of these groups have very different aims and assumptions.

You mean just like Democrats? Like how they have business groups, grassroots organizations, religious left, the young left, and the few think tanks along with academia?

Only an idiot or a liar would claim the left permits diversity of opinion. The left plainly has far too much moral certainty for that.

religious left?

Yeah, but the business groups, think tanks and academia are very closely aligned. The big differences tend to be in the unions, and upper class.

That splinter is what let Trump win.

The religious left tends to be kinda academic too in my experience. As in, it's centered in academic towns and tends to adopt very academic attitudes.

Also, Atkins, funny thing about that. Leftists in general are found to be censored more on university campuses than the right. http://freespeechproject.georgetown.domains/

There's also more of them.

@Ace K Yeah, Who by?

Saying they get censored more is only half the story.

The university themselves

thank you.

More to the point, I've seen 3-4 surveys and all agree it's primarily the far left doing the censoring. And almost all agree (across political lines) that the right bears the brunt of the censorship.

And sometimes the state government

Were those surveys surverying ordinary people?

And the Left wing public.

Students and faculty generally.

There's actually a very nice paper showing that the left will openly discriminate against conservatives.

Just like how conservatives will openly discriminate against liberals and the left

It is true that the left tends to get more censorship and fired more frequently, but when you outnumber the right by factors of 40-1 or more in most departments, that's to be expected.

That's not true.

The same paper showed almost no bias against the left by the right.

@Ace K I can't believe you are even trying to call the Left the victim when it comes of freedom of speech and expression. Even when it's Left getting shut down the vast mijorty of the time it's by other Leftist coz they aren't Left enough.

On a per capita basis, the right is censored, harassed and fired many times over.

@Poppy Rider Ace is the local Antifa, SJW shill. Don't be surprised. He's generally straight Buzzfeed talking points.

Or maybe she. No one knows anyone elses gender around here.

Wow Pratel, talk about NPC talking points.

Yeah. I'm getting that pitchure.

Beep boop.

But They are here to talk, I'll talk.

I can go find that paper if you don't believe me.

I'm just honestly surprised by the blatant hypocrisy, especially since the dangers presented 'from the left' are vastly overstated

Now you're just deflecting.

@Ace K as an non american. My perspective of the american two part system is that the parties does function more like electoral groups. They both span a multitude of what would be considered independent parties in europe. For example i saw a yt vid claiming there are 14 distinct groupings in the US republican party, and I think the same goes for the Democratic party. I find it interesting that “socialist” group in the dems is gaining power and pushing out the classical liberals, embodied by JFK. Of those that leave the majority is going independent/abstaining and a minority of the are going republican.

Dangers from the right is vastly overstated

@4AM_critter 🐉 that's very much how it tends to work actually.

Because there's only 2 parties, people with semi-similar interests tend to group up.

That's also why you hear about "single issue voters"

@Poppy Rider I believe @Ace K

That's mostly because the parties are becoming ideologically homogenous, @4AM_critter 🐉

@Rjfenix With respect to?

@Rjfenix In what

Sorry. Phone is fucked up let me get my laptop

https://niskanencenter.org/blog/there-is-no-campus-free-speech-crisis-a-close-look-at-the-evidence/

article 1: https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-skeptics-are-wrong-part-2/

Also for those not in the know, Niskanen is a left-of-center think tank.

Campus are charging hundreds of thousands of dollars for ppl to speak in case the Left starts burning shit.

heterodox is a non-partisan organization dedicated to free speech and ideological diversity.

Left-leaning libertarian, Pratel

Whatever.

Here's the other parts. https://heterodoxacademy.org/skeptics-are-wrong-about-campus-speech/

https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-skeptics-are-wrong-part-3-intolerance-levels-are-high/

That Niskansen article was one of a number that showed up in places like Vox almost all at once to try and argue that the mobs going around on campus smashing up right-of-center displays, harrassing right-leaning students and even terrifying left-leaning faculty were "just normal"

It wasn't at all convincing if you'd followed all the dis-invitation attempts and shout-downs.

And the surveys of students have been pretty clear that most feel intimidated, primarily by other students.

so as i was trying to say. @Poppy Rider i believe @Ace K was saying was not defending the far left. but the center left. they *are* victims to far left attacks. the Far Left have attacked everyone.

That is correct.

The far left took control and is terrifying and harrassing everyone.

But increasingly, unfortunately, the far left *is* the left because it has organization and institutional control.

And no one feels really empowered to push back against it.

The center left are the biggest victims.

The far-left is dangerous, but the fact that people here are ignoring that the far-right is increasingly becoming the norm for the right is just downright troubling.

I just don't see that though.

What is "the far right"?

The right disavows the Nazis whenever it gets the chance (unless you just read /r/politics).

90% of the "far right" is false flags and misidentification

^

@Rjfenix I would tend to agree but when you look at the students at Evergreen these kids aren't 'far-left' they are left wing authoritarians.

Which makes it worse, because when people are calling you a nazi...you begin to get curious.

I do'nt think it is just the 'far-left' shutting ppl down.

Looking over the niskanen center article I find its study weak and its sources of wapo and vox questionable. I found counter arguments from a competing ngo
https://www.thefire.org/newsdesk/

@Poppy Rider define "far left" I define far left as the social justice obsessed authoritarian wanna-be communist left.

Nah @pratel I'm not curious at all.

I still wanna know what makes the far "right" "right" in the first place

Disavowing nazi's is one thing, but actions speak louder than words. Not to mention that nazi's aren't the only far-right groups in America

I mean look at how some GOP officials are supporting the Proud Boys

Night all, thanks for the convo

@Rjfenix I don't mean you start looking into nazi ideology. I mean, you get increasingly skeptical when people throw around "nazi" and become more willing to consider the possibility they're more similar than to you than you realize.

Which is what the actual nazis want.

Far-left as in full blown socialist. These are not the majority of SJWs that are burning shit and crying like babies when they hear something they don't like. This is becoming the main left growing up right now. @Rjfenix

@Ace K and democrat lawyers are threatening judges and juries to defend ANTIFA.

disavowing nazis looks pretty hollow when you have them sieg heiling you, marching in your name, and even running as republicans in elections

@Poppy Rider I think we're talking about the same thing.

>you're responsible for everyone who likes you

you might want to examine why they like you so much lmao

>Hitler liked sugar, so you can't

Are we on the same wavelength @pratel ?

if a bunch of stalinists tried to get me elected, i'd be seriously concerned

Far-left is communism though @Poppy Rider , socialism is just left.

@shinsoo Unfortunately, there's not too much more you can really do though.

With respect to the case in Illinois everyone talks about, the local party has endorsed his opponent.

Don't you try to pull that one on me. Trying to make Nazis on the Right coz you know they were socialists. piss off with that.

@Poppy Rider not necessarily full socialist but majority socialist and social justice police.

If you're loved by Stalinists because they like your stance on healthcare or unions you're probably okay. If stalinists like you because they think you're /theirguy/ and you aren't, you're fine too

sure, but like... why do nazis love the republican party so much? best case scenario: republicans are forced to be broad tent by the two party system. worst case: they share core values and rhetoric

I don't know. But they've gone socialist.

I think the nazis are reactions to the social justice rhetoric.

So does that mean that any former KKK member who joins the dems = dems could share values with the KKK?

They have decided they're discriminated against and are repelled from the Democrats.

That's my guess.

so it's less that they love the republican party and more that they hate the social justice stuff?

We really gonna go down the guilt by tenuous association rabbit hole?

Except the Nazi's were third rail politics, and many scholars agree that the party embraced the far-right. The Nazi's purged their socialists elements in the night of the long knives.

Tesla beats earning expectations by over 3 dollars per share

nice icon

@pratel no the Nazis have been around since the 80's.

>third rail
They were a socialist offshoot and they couched their positions in workers rights and the good of the people

They nationalized industries and the goal of fascism in the first place was to be a "better" method of achieving a socialist state

@Rjfenix That's true. But no one really cared about them.

Actually they've existed for far longer.

Anyways, here's the thing about them going socialist.

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-racist-right-looks-left/

@Rjfenix I don't think the majority of SJWs are not 'far-left', it is becoming mainstream. As Ace said, a more accurate description of 'far' would be commies or the DSA.

they were supported by wealthy businessmen and nationalists, and privatised a shit tonne of industry

I'm not sure the historical Nazis really matter too much anymore, and certainly aren't what everyone actually cares about.

@Ace K The Nazis were practising socialism into the war. It was a workers party.

valid point lol @pratel

@pratel true the original Nazis are nearly extinct. but if the Far right and the far left realize they could come together for socialism we would have a big problem.

something to keep in mind Spooky is that 'workers' is a misnomer. This tweet thread pretty much sums it up https://twitter.com/MikeStuchbery_/status/898255481428361216

I'm not reading that sack of shit.

Lol stuchbery
He also doesn't explain what makes them right wing

He is a complete cunt and not worth my time. Find something better..

If thats the crap you go to for insight no wonder you're so confused.

i like that thread, but it doesn't do a good job at explaining itself to right-wingers

I'm on the Left mate.

And thats in the UK.

<:yeahok:490945654043050004>

I'm not seeing, for instance, how Richard Spencer, the anticapitalist, anti american values cringe lord, is right wing

>anyone who disagrees with me is a rightie

In the US they'd call me a commie.

im an american center concervative so what?

Fence sitter.

😃

that punchbag is right-wing by virtue of his white supremacism and ethno-nationalism @Beemann

lol i believe in both left and right values. but lean more right on immigration

RS is anti free speech, pro EU. Thats pretty left wing these days.

So hold on, the Jewish purges in the USSR are right wing?

<:MercyWut:303986595395010564>

wait what?

>ethnocentric, supremacist ideology is right wing
>Jews got purged in the USSR
>China purged minorities

USSR leftwing, China purge leftwing.

This just feels like a well poisoning thing
>if you're racist you're right wing

and Chinese are todays Nazis.

Outside of racial policies and wanting to make a land of only 'German People', it's also worth noting that the industrialists in Germany supported Hitler in 30's out of fear that the local communist party would win elections and would bring forth a 'bolshevik revolution'. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/background-and-overview-of-the-nazi-party-nsdap https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

Nazi-Jews/ Chinese-Muslims

The communist Party in China is not even communist anymore, since they are practicing capitalism (State-run capitalism)

>state run capitalism
That's not a thing

Ace, but is was trying very hard to be at the time.

A command economy is not capitalism, nationalized industries are not capitalism

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2012/01/21/the-rise-of-state-capitalism

at their core, the left and right are defined by their stance on social hierarchies
originally, the left was secular and republican whilst the right was religious and monarchist
racial superiority, and any policy based on it, is inherently right-wing

China largely sits on a publicly owned market. Private business is a nonfactor in China

so Question: when is communism/socialism a good thing?

>using the wrong term makes a command economy capitalist

Blog harder

<:wat:392703002810777601>

Yes the Nazis got to power through fear but that doesn't stop what Hitler doen to businesses that didn't hit their imposable targetrs. Nazisim was born out of Marxist socialism.

nazism had nothing to do with marxism lmao

I basically consider communism and absolutely free markets to be two sides of the same coin: Nice ideas in theory, but impossible to implement in practice without it going wrong.

it rose from italian fascism

Alright Shinsoo, alright.

Italian fascism was the result of a split from socialism

it really wasn't, that's just the rhetoric they used to appeal to workers at the time

>t-they were just lying

>taking fascists by their word

BREAKING NEWS: most of us are humans the left denys claims and is starting a new term anti nonhumans

>ignore the nationalization, that's capitalism now

>ignore the mass privatisation, that's socialist now

if you want us to throw memes at each other, that's fine

i'd prefer an actual discussion

A government run economy is inherently not capitalist
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Year_Plan

Technically, it is. Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industries, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.

State capitalism is usually described as an economic system in which commercial (i.e. for-profit) economic activity is undertaken by the state, with management and organization of the means of production in a capitalist manner, including the system of capital accumulation, wage labor, and centralized management.

Simply the capitalist class was represented by the state. That is, state capitalism is a merely a flavor of capitalism, a monopolistic one, without market.

>privately owned
>the state owns it
These are contradictory statements

http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany

the nazis privatised as much as they could

they encouraged cartels and monopolies and were uninterested in economic competition, but nationalisation wasn't their focus

taking care of the civilian sector was seen as a waste of government manpower and resources, they wanted to focus everything on warfare

>1930
>four year plan was in 36
Oh boy

this might surprise you, but 1936 is in the 30s

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

there's a neat section that explains their privatisation policies

and how they cooperated with businesses

fun fact, my university's main building is named after a private company which used slave labour from nazi camps

the company was split up after the war, one of its remnants today is Bayer

You're not addressing the Nazi control of the economy, which was part of the '36 4 Year Plan

You appear to be avoiding it, in fact

because it's irrelevant
the government had *huge* influence over the economy, as governments often do, by giving contracts and funding
in the nazi's case, they had even more influence than usual because they **privatised** a lot, and provided businesses with slave labour

but all this influence doesn't negate the fact that they relied on privatisation and capitalism

>it's irrelevant that they controlled the economy
No, that makes it not capitalist, m8

<:wewlad:303868350134747143>

they didn't control the economy, that's the thing

If someone can walk in and tell you exactly how to run your business, take it from you, determine imports and exports, you don't actually own it

they tried to privatise as much as possible and leave businesses to their own devices unless it helped the military

governments and businesses cooperating is a constant reality under capitalism

>they tried to privatize as much as possible
Not under the 4 year plan

The German governments goal was rearmament at any cost

And the government appropriating your shit and controlling imports and exports directly, controlling the largest industries etc is not private ownership

https://lulz.com/cyberpunk-2077-doxed-harassed-hashtag-wontbeerased-1513/

so much for the tolerant left

do you have an any article or source that goes into detail for the 4-year plan? the wiki page doesn't explain how much influence the government had over the economy, it just vaguely mentions "increasing nationalisation"
my understanding remains that the nazis only steered the economy as much as necessary for their war efforts, preferring to privatise
if it turns out that they completely seized the economy for the plan, then i'd be surprised but concede the point that they weren't capitalist for those 4 years (out of the 11 years they were in power)

you also keep bringing up imports and exports, as if those are *ever* unregulated in capitalist countries