Fascism/Antifascism and related topics

Post Reply New Topic

Politically correct leftist material hardly calls for discrimination domination of people.

Do you honestly have a problem with YouTube not allowing hate speech that can cause radicalisation, while you can find plenty of videos that discuss why racism is bad and how it exists systematically, or many channels that discuss how best you should refer to a trans person?

The whole concept of calling something politically correct is just kind of weird. Like it is politically correct to say that there is a problem of police brutality against black people, but not politically correct to follow the opinions of politicians and the rest of the political system like police that there is no problem. What people often call politically correct is usually just a left stance of what is correct that they don't agree with, while whatever they believe is just correct regardless of how their opinion might be one pushed by right wing political groups.

The things at any one time considered politically correct are generally things that will actually become considered just correct in the future, following progression, and some people are just too slow to adapt and thus wave it away as some element of a political movement that being tyrannical to them. An imagined sense of victimisation an oppressive state, which may also share one's opinions that something is politically correct. No one in Australia called the lack of legality of same sex marriage political correctness, despite it being the opinion of political law that it was wrong and should not have the same rights, in fact the call for it to be allowed would be called political correctness.

As much as such people may want to believe it, the fighting against terrible right wing opinions of racism, oppression of the poor, the lack of interest in ending police violence or gun deaths, and calling LGBT people degenerates and insane, is not the same thing as being for those things. Call me when a Left wing person means literally eat people when they say eat the rich. It is why you get false dichotomies like there being fine people on both sides of white supremacists and those protesting them, or attempts to view a group like Antifa a violent terrorist group when their opposing side includes people with guns that have promised to shoot anyone who tries to take them. In regards to the Left in Right, it is one side in particular that has a bunch of people stockpiling weapons just itching for a violent revolution against their soyboy feminist enemies.

...Probably owing to the fact that he's wehemently against WS, is of mixed descent himself and opposes feminism, islamism and and WS all on liberal grounds. Saying there's "overlap in the diffusion of those ideas with WS proper" is like saying because there's a strong overlap between Communism and vegetarianism therefore being a vegetarian will lead you down a dark path and turn you into a Communist.

They come out and said they do themselves. They support democrats. There a lot of leaked documents of google trying to sway the election by controlling social media.
They also don’t hire conservatives only liberals.

Pro gun people don’t call for it either but banned. People speaking about sjw in movies banned. People who aren’t liberal and so deemed racist for just thst banned.
YouTube banned people for talking about covid 19 deeming any such tall racist against China since it started there.
They’ve high stretched the term racist or alt right to include anyone not left and so censore them.

Are you against rioting and looting? Well then yiur a racist white supremacist

There are social platforms that simply censor the news,
Because it doesn't meet with their political views.
Hey, That rhymes.

And "Twitter", a left-wing dominated platform, which is largely an echo-chamber of "liberal/progressive" groupthink, is also referred to as the "sewer" of social networking, partly due it's propensity for savagely and unjustifiably tearing down anyone who has a differing viewpoint.

Twitter. Brrrr.

I would actually need proper examples rather than vague feelings that certain aligned people are banned just for talking about a subject. My assumption until otherwise is that they actually did break guidelines.

Pro gun people love to hide vague threats about how they are going to use their guns to shoot people who attack them, my guess is that a pro gun person that is banned is that maybe they said a joke about shooting a feminist.

I don't know about the people banned for speaking about SJW in movies, but I know of the type of Right wingers that love to go against Captain Marvel for being feminist, that they make dozens of videos sh*****g on Brie Larson, or go after Star Wars for being too woke. They don't get banned, so I can only imagine that ones that do get banned are the types that get extra spicy with their opinion that it is a clear attack on gender or race.

Those on the Left that I watch are aware that there is a red flag on saying covid 19, that they get their videos demonetized, my guess being that YouTube does not want people trying to use the virus and panic as a tool to get money, which I think is misguided as a lot of content creators are good with keeping people informed. Those who get banned for "being racist against China", yeah, I am going to assume that they were being racist against China, that the fact that the virus came from there does not give an excuse to s**t on them, say they are personally responsible, that it is a conspiracy to infect the rest of the world, and other racist stuff like bringing up the whole eating bats thing. There is truth that at lest in my country has seen an uptick in racism against Asian people in general because this, and does not need help.

If someone appears to act as extreme as alt-right and exclaim something racist, people are allowed to point that out, you cannot police the speech of people just because social backlash of being accused of that is restricting. If you are not alt-right or racist, then prove it, which I understand can be difficult to prove a negative, but I am going to say something I already said, that far more people are racist than we currently agree on. Not every racist is equally bad, but we don't just have to listen to a few people who want only the worst of people called racist, it is why there are things like pointing out that someone says they have one black friend, that having a black friend does not mean you are not racist, especially if there is an element of tokenism. If a person goes up to a white guy and says "you are one of the good ones", that person is most likely a racist.

With Alt Right, I think that it is pretty fair to say when someone pushes an alt right conspiracy to accuse them of such, like the majority of things that Alex Jones pushes, or perhaps the likes of QAnon conspiracies, of which Trump has even pushed some. Don't want to be accused of being alt right, don't push bogus theories.

The last one about rioting and looting. Saying that things like damage against to property and theft is bad does not make you a white supremacist, but expanding that out to the whole movement of black people protesting for fair treatment, then you are starting to get a bit questionable. And becomes a clear sign of racism when racially loaded language is used, such as calling them thugs or animals, specific language that they might use when it involves the likes of angry black men. Those words by themselves are not always racist, but it is not too hard to see how they are often coded language can be used to ilicit racist or sexist feelings. The sneaky language today's politicians use to get away with racism and sexism

Really, because Donald Trump a very not left-wing person has been using Twitter for a long time to spread his language, and lost his mind after simply the platform fact checking something he said that explicitly false. He wasn't censored, he was allowed to post his garbage, but the moment that there is some accountability by Twitter to not spread lies unopposed it is suddenly a left-wing sewer. You think that there are not conservative echo-chambers dominated by group think on things like Twitter?

The ironic thing is that these places that are accused of being Left leaning usually just have rules like guidelines that stop someone from being openly racist or sexist, and don't like dangerous disinformation to be spread, because that would make them culpable for it. It is really ironic to call them sewers because generally they filter out people that are literally Nazis, and that the places those people end up at, now that is a lot of s**t. I would hope that the Right would disavow actual racists to the point that they break guidelines that other racists manage to make it past, but apparently without them it is a Left wing echo-chamber.

Not to say that there are not the likes of wokescolds on Twitter than band together to cancel people on the Left from their own audiences because they talked to a controversial trans figure or don't use the language they think is correct within leftist discourse. But they are not given any special powers unique to leftwing people, rather that differing views can mean things like saying trans women are not women, just to pick out how JK Rowling has been digging herself a deeper hole by revealing her hateful views.

There just is not an equal badness of opinions of Left saying that all races are equal and current unequal circumstances are from systematic racism that has not been addressed, against a Right wing view that maybe some races are more equal than other in that biologically they have traits that influence things and there is nothing wrong with the current system. People on the right generally think that their actual opinions are just common sense and thus centre because they are not as bad as people twenty years ago, and either don't realise that with progress the centre will always move Left or actually try to move it Right by claiming something on the Right is the centre. This is how the American healthcare put in by Obama was actually an old conservative opinion, where when it was decided the Left pushed for something a bit more Left like in other countries, but the Right took a hard stand to say no change be done, thus they convinced people that what used to be an old Right wing opinion was not only not the centre but radically Left since it was put in by Democratic president that gave into a lot of their demands.

Western Chauvinism is a euphemism for white supremacy in some circles and arguing for it makes those who claim to not be white supremacists useful idiots for white supremacists. They're not any better.

Antifascism is a euphemism for radical Communism in some circles, so arguing for it makes people into just as much of a bunch of useful idiots, in that case.

Point: Pepe.

Well this is embarrassing...
Just realised I totally forgot to mention Varg Vikernes (or whichever one of his many aliases he’s using this month).
Not sure if he’s still uploading to YouTube, but forgetting him in any list of racially focused far-right bods is....
Yeah, embarrassing.

Varg Vikernes Wiki page should be a good starting point to find out about all sorts of extremely race-minded blogs, vlogs and assorted online content to study.

Fixed that for you.
It's nice to see you're making yourself useful.

The question was about left-bias.
I'm European. From over here, the democrats are hardly left. They're liberal on social issues, and the Republicans are very conservative. Economically, both are very much on the neoliberal right. The democrats a little less far.

But there's a third factor on which those parties differ: religious delusions.
The religious right became an important constituency for the republican party.

So, Google can be socially liberal and not into the religious right - without being left, or having a left-bias.

What's wrong with reading the thing some leftie is picking apart? I'm not telling you to listen to the leftie, I'm saying the thing he's picking apart is what you're looking for.

You can also wade through thousands of posts on reddit r/thenewright and see if you can find anything but outrage over non-whites and their ghastly demands.

Oh, actually, I went there some time ago, and I remember they posted Jordan Peterson and Stephen Hicks stuff. Hicks is a Randian "philosopher" who wrote a very poorly researched book on postmodernism from a Randian perspective. Sadly, Ayn Rand is, philosophically speaking, not a philosopher, and a Randian perspective will give you a funhouse mirror view of things.
(I read Hicks's book on postmodernism. It seems he didn't even care to read the Wikipedia entries of the people he is criticising, let alone their work. I also read Hicks's essay on postmodern art. Let's say, he didn't care much about art history or the historical context of the works he was criticising. He was basically complaining about what he thought things were meant to say).

Just went there. Still the same. Peterson, Hicks's opinion on what he thinks is postmodernism, and an amazing amount of posts about the big replacement conspiracy..
Plus some links to youtube vodeos.
Just watched one, in which a guy in suit in what looks like a tv studio talks about how race must be genetic reality, because those non-whites have different cultures and dialects.

Btw.: Right wingers don't do manifestos.
They don't have to make clear who they are. They say 'make America great ahain' and allow you to imagine what that means. Some time in the past.
Manifestos are radical progressive movements who want something specific, like the communists, or the futurists, or the Dadaists.
It's also why prpgressives like that always quarrel: because they disagree on the specifics of what world would be worth fighting to the death for.
Rightwingers only agree that thibgs used to better - their ideal world is in danger or has been destroyed.
It's easier to agree that the status quo (or a previous one) is worth defending against destruction than it is to agree in what radically new system is the right radically new system.

Figured this thread could use a theme song we can all appreciate.

Haha! Thanks, I haven't listened to that one in ages.