Just check their comment history for like 30 seconds. Everyone makes a joke that misses the mark every now and then, but the shittiest people usually constantly spew their nonsense.
The "extremist" part of Right wing "extremist" is meaningless. All reactionary politics are extreme, whether they take the active form of stochastic terror or they take the passive form of
social murder(as defined by Engels in 1845, see below). The plausible deniability employed by reactionaries as camouflage among jokes is extremely transparent to anyone familiar enough with it.Show
He looked pretty extremist to me when he helped the Bush regime lie their way into Iraq. And the guy literally chose a pig to be his running mate.
Doesn't get more extreme than that - him pretending to be "nicer" than the more overt right-wingers doesn't change that.
I'm not absolving him of anything, I'm expressing a disdain for Democrats masquerading as a left leaning party.
The probability of encountering a "non-extremist" right-winger is exactly the same as of encountering a "non-extremist" left-winger and is quite small. The vast majority of people are moderates, either left or right leaning.
Also, from the European perspective, the American left aka Democrats are quite right leaning :)
Oh look... an "enlightened centrist" has shown up to run interference for the right-wingers.
Oh look, a person that cannot distinguish center from right. I wonder how you drive if you can't into directions.
"Centrist" is such nonsense without further context.
If youre a centrist between the democrats and Republicans, you're basically a fascist.
If you're a centrist between an anarchist and a marxist leninist then you're left wing.
Hey look, a fascist word! Actually that's quite offensive to hear, for an European, who's family suffered from literal fascism. And the Americans now just throwing the word left and right and label people they disagree with. Sad.
Also I view both US Democrats and US Republicans as right wingers.
To give you more context: I support individual liberty, equal rights, welfare state in form of social healthcare and education; I oppose authoritarian ideologies; I believe in free market with some regulation to prevent exploiting and guarantee positive liberties, such as health; I support direct democracy, decentralization and non-interventionist policy.
I would characterize my political alignment as in between social democrat and social libertarian.
My family also suffered from fascism, I do not use the word lightly.
I oppose authoritarian ideologies
Cool, so you oppose any ideology which has private (as opposed to personal) property rights that are enforced through state violence?
Oh look, a person that cannot distinguish politics from vehicular activity. I wonder how you manage to drive anywhere without ever turning left.
Left extremism: everyone should be treated with dignity and we should live in an actual democracy or concensus based society(as opposed to bourgeois democracy which is empirically an oligarchy), and we shouldn't be unwilling to use violence toward those goals(except some are radical pacifists)
Right Extremists: women should be forced to sleep with me and minorities should be gassed or used for slave labor. Also I should be exploited by my boss harder.
Enlightened centrist: I cannot tell the difference between these two things
Honestly tells us more about "centrists" than anything else.
Both words, "extremist" and "right-wing", have no real hard definitions.
Is being socially conservative right wing? Is supporting capitalism right wing? Is inertia right wing? Is being progressive and, for example, anti-racist and pro-trans left wing? Is socialism left wing? Is only communism left wing?
What about extremism? Is someone an extremist if they condone violence? Is someone an extremist if they seek to change the system fundamentally? Is someone an extremist if their political beliefs are very strongly held, no matter what they might be?
Since these terms have no real definitions, it's just shit-slinging.
Both words, “extremist” and “right-wing”, have no real hard definitions.
No, right-wing ideology has a very hard and clear-cut definition - all politics that protects power and privilege. It really doesn't get any simpler than that.
Is being socially conservative right wing?
It's not supposed to be... but the only people self-applying the term in the US are fascists.
Is supporting capitalism right wing?
Yes. Period.
anti-racist and pro-trans left wing?
That's not progressive - that's radicalism.
Is socialism left wing? Is only communism left wing?
Yes.
Is someone an extremist if they condone violence?
No.
Is someone an extremist if they seek to change the system fundamentally?
No, that's radicalism.
Is someone an extremist if their political beliefs are very strongly held, no matter what they might be?
No.
Okay, cool, those are your opinion. There is no common ground on these definitions. I may agree with many of those, I may not agree with others, but after all these are just our opinions.
We both know that different people use these terms differently. The German political education ministry for example defines extremism as any anticonstitutional movement, and goes on to mention "caring too much about anti-fascism" as a form of left-wing extremism: Source Meanwhile, they define radicalism as an ideology unwilling to compromise their positions... or someone who seeks to combat the root of a societal ill. Source
On the other hand, the ADL defines extremism as any belief outside of the mainstream, and even "conflate" it with radicalism: Source Meanwhile, the British government considers extremism to be anything opposed to "British values", whatever those are, along with specifically mentioning people who condone the loss of British soldiers: Source
I am sure that many, many people would disagree with these definitions both inside and outside of these countries, let alone across political ideologies. No matter how strongly you feel about defining these words to your liking, fact is that they do not have clear definitions and are useless in any kind of serious debate. As long as a pro-capitalist queer activist is considered left-wing by about half the population and right-wing by the other, there cannot be common ground.
There is no common ground on these definitions.
Yes, they've spent trillions on propaganda machines to make sure no clear meaning can be ascribed to rather simple political concepts. That doesn't stop us from discovering their actual meanings at all.
We both know that different people use these terms differently.
Yes. See above.
The German political education ministry for example defines extremism
Sooo... power will attempt to "define" political concepts in a way that protects itself?
On the other hand, the ADL defines extremism as any belief outside of the mainstream
So, again... power will attempt to "define" political concepts in a way that protects itself?
Meanwhile, the British government considers extremism to be anything opposed to “British values”,
And... more of the same?
fact is that they do not have clear definitions
That's because "definitions" are utterly useless. What isn't useless is the meaning without which these political concepts cease to serve any purpose - and no amount of "muddying the water" will be able to rob them of that.
But you don't have the authority over words. Words don't have innate meaning given to them by some God; their meaning is defined by usage. And it's very obvious that people use these terms very differently.
They do not have a meaning, since almost each native speaker uses them differently. You are not the authority over their meaning, no matter how righteous you think yourself, and neither do I. Meaning is defined by popular usage.
But you don’t have the authority over words.
I have said nothing about authority. You, on the other hand...
their meaning is defined by usage
...ascribe those with the deepest pockets and vilest agendas the power to "define" the meaning of terms for you. Fox News gets to "define" the usage of the term socialism as "gubment doing stuff" (or whatever white supremacist nazi crack-pipe logic they are peddling these days) - but that doesn't rob the term socialism of it's actual meaning in any way or shape whatsoever. Fox News doesn't get to wipe away hundreds of years of socialist theory - that's why their ilk are resorting to burning books. They have failed to strip meaning from ideas despite all the trillions they have spent on their propaganda - so now they are resorting to the age-old tactic of simply attampting to prevent people from coming into contact with said meaning in the first place.
The exact same goes for what is "left" or "right," or that which is "radical" or "reactionary" - usage does not dictate meaning. The distance between the usage and the actual meaning of a term merely demonstrates the intelectual integrity (or lack thereof) and/or understanding (or lack therof) of the user.
There is no "actual meaning". There is no "using words wrong". You do not understand how human language works. Language is defined by its users, not by you, or a dictionary, or a historian.
So you have nothing left to argue with... except to bang on the table as hard as you can?
Shitposters are definitely not innocent.
I would also replace it with trolls because comments in that territory are consistently on or over the line.
Tbh this is what I love with (uncensored) internet. It’s hard to draw the line between sarcasm and mental illness.
Right wingers aren't mentally ill theyre just wrong and have reprehensible morals.
Please stop using mentally ill as an insult. Fascists love that, see R word, calling people autistic or schizophrenic as an insult, etc.
What is marvellous about stupidity and shady morals is that they’re not exclusive to one political colour.
I guess you might be from the US : talking as there is just "the" left and "the" right without nuances and censoring words. I believe it’s something cultural.
Your post just kind of read as a bit hysterical tbh.
Reading myself again, I agree, it sounds way more sarcastic than intended.
I edited it to focus in the content
Well, Nazi existed before the internet and would exist without it. They didn’t wait for the internet to enable themselves. There can’t be zero downside for having a 100% free platform, I do agree.
Yeah but Nazism spread via propaganda, which is what dogwhistling is a form of.
The Internet is the largest spreader of propaganda that humanity has ever seen, so it's not surprising that it helped revitalize neo-nazism and fascism is general. It also served to make satire and actual radicalized behavior harder to detect. A lot of the time, 4chan boards use this "edgy satire" format to normalize the behavior (to an extent). See: the "MAP" misinformation campaign they did and how it reinforced actual pedophilia and demonized LGBT groups
"Okay time to look at their post history" "hmm nothing bad... pretty alrigh- oh they're a communist"
Respectfully mention that it's kinda insensitive, kinda like, "hey man, don't you think that's kinda insensitive?" and you'll probably figure out fairly quickly which one is the answer. Additionally, if they legit don't know why it's insensitive, then you can educate them!
Just remember that tone can be difficult to convey on the internet, and sometimes you have to exaggerate the intended tone for it to be understood. Additionally, in my experience, asking the question from the other person's perspective ("don't you think that's kinda insensitive" vs "I think that's kinda insensitive") seems to help a lot.
No, I'm saying this cause people were not freaking out to censor you everywhere in Reddit.
