Not asking if you like him, agree with him, or think ill/good of him. Not asking if you align with his positions. I have thoughts, but like Trump I wonder if he's more of a change agent, or result/reaction. And I wonder if his rise is going to be good/bad/indifferent for the movement long term.
It could be that his rise sparks thought and debate that has been outside of the 3x5 index card. It could be that he is simply another figure that is used to discredit people. He could be sincere. He could be an OP. Not the point of this poll.
Is he Good / BAD or Neutral for the larger tent of right of center politics and the ideas.
I would include conservatives, libertarians, agorists, and anarcho-capitalists in the right of center category.
Clearly some in the movement are trying to co-op his audience and his audience seems larger than many realize. Especially among younger men.
What do you think?
Whether he’s good, bad, or neutral depends on how the broader movement channels or mismanages the attention he brings.
Bad. Just like the radical leftists are bad for the liberal movement.
there is no liberal movement, it's all radical today
...
n. team1 fights outrage of team2 with reactive outrage
n+1. reactive outrage becomes team1's ideology
n+2. team2 fights outrage of team1 with reactive outrage
n+3. reactive outrage becomes team2's ideology
...
This is why I half-think he is good.
I think the only way out of "identity politics" is if we make everyone a racist. The word needs to lose all meaning.
I think the 90s were the most "race blind" we were....it really seemed at the time that we had finally entered a place where race was secondary characteristic of a person. Then somehow we whipsawed in late 00's and it become the only defining characteristic of a person.
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl\/MillerNYT_WordFrequencyGraphs.jpeg
"Blue America's media institutions, facing economic decline, reacted with a 'techlash' against the internet and by embracing 'wokeness.' Balaji argues this was a strategic decision. He points to data showing the New York Times began heavily using terms like 'white privilege' and 'toxic masculinity' around 2013, which coincided with a rise in their stock price after a long slump. Woke language generated traffic."
https://www.podchemy.com/notes/100-balaji-srinivasan-the-collapse-of-the-west-40563333634
Personally I think identity politics were used to distract away from the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Yeah... I kinda agree on that point. It sure seemed that way to me.
I don't think race blindness is even a goal anymore in our culture. It seems that this is actual considered terrible by many.
Racism is just dumb in my book. Taking the moral part out... just dumb.
I fully agree that actively hating any group is not only stupid, but morally wrong (and a sin). Each person should be judged as an individual (as best as we can).
But here is where things get complex. What about preference? Should we be morally outraged regarding preference?
Part of my sneaking suspicion is the word "racism" is a lie. If I said "I don't like pickles", does that mean I hate them? Like do I have an active hatred that wants to uproot and kill all cucumber plants, do I want to actively break open pickle jars? Obviously not, I'm expressing a preference.
Therefore when someone says something racist, is that "active hatred" or is it a preference? I don't have a good answer for that because I think its a continuum.
I think if a black man says "I don't want my daughter to marry a chinese man", I don't think that expresses an active hatred of chinese. I think its a preference.
However if someone says "all black people should be killed", then I do think that expresses an active hatred and is morally wrong.
But in our modern use of word 'racism' both would be considered racist (assume a white said both to make it clearer).
As long as we have a morally loaded word that can be used to batter opponents, then it will continue to be used as a strategy.
An interesting thing I saw a while back is someone did a search on Google books for the word racism. The word itself only came into use in early 1900s....I often wonder, does the existence of the word help create the concept or not...? (to be clear, I'm not saying race-tribalism is a new thing), but have we mind-tricked ourselves into this situation?
Steven Pinker would disagree because language/speaking and thinking are two different things.
I experienced Schadenfreude before learning there was a German word for it
2008 was a turning point, I blame Obama for weaponizing 'racism' to advance his political career and financial net worth
His second term was worse because his true colors came out
Seems like an accurate description of American culture/politics to me.
Everyone with an audience who points out how full of shit and compromised the ruling class is is a positive contributor in my book.
His hate isn't something I want to vote on, but I will post my thoughts here:
#1368243
#1399772
#1350826
#1403374