They generally don’t have infighting
[...] dissenters over even trivial things are treated poorly
I found that contradictory at first, but ... does this mean the only reason they don't have infighting is that they all avoid subjects that are controversial within the group? Because that would be in line with what i've seen so far - that right unity is just a flimsy facade and that such groups could easily be split if you give them a wedge subject they can't avoid / ignore.
They don't have infighting because the moment someone disagrees on even a minor thing they don't have a "struggle session" over it, they just kick/drive them out.
The chud worldview conflates weakness, poorness, being low in the kyriarchy, and moral failing/degeneracy. They basically all agree on this. The biggest structural difference is a split between "we should act morally, and let the degenerates get what's coming to them" and "we must act to protect ourselves from the degenerates." You might be able to manufacture some sort of argument there.
There's also the exact structure of the kyriarchy, but I don't really think you're going to get a community-splitting argument out of who's more inferior, a black person or a trans person. (They do argue about that stuff though.)
Italian and Irish rightists don't consider each other white. Anglo rightists don't consider Spaniards white. German rightists don't consider Slavs white, and Slavic rightists don't consider Greeks white.
You can create a big circle of hatred where they're all calling each other the n word.
It's also extremely easy to get random chuds accused of being Muslims.
Huh! I take it you're European? In the US the chuds view Europe as much more united than they are.
But I've also usually tried with Slavs, since they're the most recently white, or Arabs, since they're the most recent to lose whiteness. So maybe that's just the wrong groups to try.
American, but in an area with a lot of militant rightists.
You can overhear them at the bars arguing over whether Italians are white. It's their favorite thing to talk about and there are almost no Italians around here.
Humans have been prejudiced against eachother for as long as there've been humans, but it's always been along much smaller ethnic groups than what we're used to today. The modern idea of grouping loads of ethnicities into races (seven races for seven continents) traces back to the 1600s, a mix of the Spanish being very concerned about who did and did not have Moorish heritage, and everyone involved in the Atlantic slave trade needing a justification for their atrocities. The justification for the groupings themselves changed over time too, for example climate-based race (people from hot climates are strong but idle and stupid and need people from cool climates to guide them) being a popular one, until with the discovery of genetics it settled on a bogus version of that, which it remains until today.
These groupings are created to justify systems of exploitation, so they're pretty flexible. When the conditions that say who can be exploited change, so do the races. So, in the US, Irish and Italians were considered non-white (though the Irish are pale-skinned enough that they'd be called out separately; "No N*****s or Irish" signs), Slavs were considered Asian until the 1920s, and (light-skinned) Arabs were considered white until the 2000s, then lost their white status. I thought northern Asians were going to be next to gain whiteness, but lately the chuds I keep tabs on are trying to push for Mexicans getting it (not that they phrase it in these terms).
So what HKBFG is doing is trying to reopen old splits in who was considered white.
The first thing we notice when we describe a person is their race. It might be tempting to justify that with skin color being so visible (skin does cover the whole body), but "Black" and "Indian" are still separate words. These socially constructed groupings of ethnicities run very deep.
As the saying goes, "I'm not racist, but I am the product of a racist society."
In my experience, yes. They don't discuss things that isn't unanimous among their peer group... basically: less immigration, lower taxes, more patriotism.
Way easier to come to a consensus around those things than actually changing concrete things that may have 5/10/20 different ways to fix things, like is the case among our peer group.
that right unity is just a flimsy facade and that such groups could easily be split if you give them a wedge subject they can’t avoid / ignore.
Such as? You could wrap class grievances (against your boss, for example) in right-wing drivel pretty seamlessly, and that could (a) drive a wedge between the free market capitalism nerds and the people who are just there because they're poor and racist, and (b) at least create some potential for those who leave to be receptive to leftist ideas. It might also sow the seeds for deprogramming the Trump cult of personality. There are already people who say they don't like Trump personally but they like what he does, and throwing an "eat the rich" spin can probably sneak by without raising too much suspicion.
I found that contradictory at first, but ... does this mean the only reason they don't have infighting is that they all avoid subjects that are controversial within the group? Because that would be in line with what i've seen so far - that right unity is just a flimsy facade and that such groups could easily be split if you give them a wedge subject they can't avoid / ignore.
They don't have infighting because the moment someone disagrees on even a minor thing they don't have a "struggle session" over it, they just kick/drive them out.
muh safe space
The chud worldview conflates weakness, poorness, being low in the kyriarchy, and moral failing/degeneracy. They basically all agree on this. The biggest structural difference is a split between "we should act morally, and let the degenerates get what's coming to them" and "we must act to protect ourselves from the degenerates." You might be able to manufacture some sort of argument there.
There's also the exact structure of the kyriarchy, but I don't really think you're going to get a community-splitting argument out of who's more inferior, a black person or a trans person. (They do argue about that stuff though.)
No, but you can (and I have) caused rifts in these communities over whether certain European nationalities count as white.
I've tried that before and never got it to work. Any tips?
Italian and Irish rightists don't consider each other white. Anglo rightists don't consider Spaniards white. German rightists don't consider Slavs white, and Slavic rightists don't consider Greeks white.
You can create a big circle of hatred where they're all calling each other the n word.
It's also extremely easy to get random chuds accused of being Muslims.
Huh! I take it you're European? In the US the chuds view Europe as much more united than they are.
But I've also usually tried with Slavs, since they're the most recently white, or Arabs, since they're the most recent to lose whiteness. So maybe that's just the wrong groups to try.
American, but in an area with a lot of militant rightists.
You can overhear them at the bars arguing over whether Italians are white. It's their favorite thing to talk about and there are almost no Italians around here.
This is why all the meme italyposting in the chapo community was really unsettling to me when I first saw it
Could you expand a bit maybe? I genuinely dont understand the thought process behind this.
Pretty much every European nationality has its own self centered definition of "white".
Really, you're just creating arguments over which of these absurd definitions is the real one.
How, I can't even comprehend how someone could be this hateful/stupid.
Humans have been prejudiced against eachother for as long as there've been humans, but it's always been along much smaller ethnic groups than what we're used to today. The modern idea of grouping loads of ethnicities into races (seven races for seven continents) traces back to the 1600s, a mix of the Spanish being very concerned about who did and did not have Moorish heritage, and everyone involved in the Atlantic slave trade needing a justification for their atrocities. The justification for the groupings themselves changed over time too, for example climate-based race (people from hot climates are strong but idle and stupid and need people from cool climates to guide them) being a popular one, until with the discovery of genetics it settled on a bogus version of that, which it remains until today.
These groupings are created to justify systems of exploitation, so they're pretty flexible. When the conditions that say who can be exploited change, so do the races. So, in the US, Irish and Italians were considered non-white (though the Irish are pale-skinned enough that they'd be called out separately; "No N*****s or Irish" signs), Slavs were considered Asian until the 1920s, and (light-skinned) Arabs were considered white until the 2000s, then lost their white status. I thought northern Asians were going to be next to gain whiteness, but lately the chuds I keep tabs on are trying to push for Mexicans getting it (not that they phrase it in these terms).
So what HKBFG is doing is trying to reopen old splits in who was considered white.
I can't even imagine the amount of brain worms you'd need to belive this sort of thing.
You probably believe it to some extent!
The first thing we notice when we describe a person is their race. It might be tempting to justify that with skin color being so visible (skin does cover the whole body), but "Black" and "Indian" are still separate words. These socially constructed groupings of ethnicities run very deep.
As the saying goes, "I'm not racist, but I am the product of a racist society."
In my experience, yes. They don't discuss things that isn't unanimous among their peer group... basically: less immigration, lower taxes, more patriotism.
Way easier to come to a consensus around those things than actually changing concrete things that may have 5/10/20 different ways to fix things, like is the case among our peer group.
Such as? You could wrap class grievances (against your boss, for example) in right-wing drivel pretty seamlessly, and that could (a) drive a wedge between the free market capitalism nerds and the people who are just there because they're poor and racist, and (b) at least create some potential for those who leave to be receptive to leftist ideas. It might also sow the seeds for deprogramming the Trump cult of personality. There are already people who say they don't like Trump personally but they like what he does, and throwing an "eat the rich" spin can probably sneak by without raising too much suspicion.
Whether or not Italians are white usually works
Oh fuck that's a great one. Probably could throw in some Catholic/Protestant catfighting into the mix as well.
deleted by creator