The Conservative Counter-culture

[Narland]

I was reading around and I saw this article about the rising conservative counter-culture.

http://canadafreepress.com/article/hip- ... ablishment

How do you feel about this article? I feel like it has some good points, such as how there is indeed a conservative counter-culture occurring, and how this new blend of conservatism will be much more different than the type we are familiar with, such as adopting various liberal ideas.

I think the article needs some work and better documentation.

In areas of the country where Progressive Liberalism has been the dominant culture, Conservatism has been one of the counter-cultures and vice versa.

The article is seems to be implying that the next generation of people who are practicing what used to be termed American Liberalism because (inferred) Progressivist Socialists are now our Liberals; and (explicitly) somehow the Neo-Conservatives abdicated the title; such that we must call these of the next generation the new Conservatives. This, even though we marginalized (anti-Establishment/anti-Neoconservative) Paleo-Conservative Classical Liberals who still identify and utilize the term Conservative on a daily basis are a substantial (1/3 of the GOP) constituency. I don't buy it.

Regardless, each succeeding generation must determine for themselves how to best live their lives under the remarkable Liberty and Equality afforded them and what evils of their time must be vanquished to make the world a better place for themselves and their posterity.

Labels come and go but (I hope) there will always be those with the willingness to be free and the courage to live free.

[Cylonarus]

>Article opens with Milo Yiannopoulos
>Article is now not worth reading

"[blah blah insert bullshit here] aaand I stopped reading there."

Yes, because that makes you SO qualified to judge the article.

Actually read it before you debate, no matter if its right or left wing, or it has some bullshit at the beginning that you find repulsive. Until then, your opinion doesn't matter.

[Nocturnalis]

[citation needed]

Also, even if your accusation is true, that does not mean you are right to generalize. Me allegedly being a hypocrite doesn't exempt you from being fallacious.

Are you really sure you want me to sift through every post you've made about the right-wing? Because I can.

Accusations of hypocriticism (is that a word?) ring hollow when coming from a hypocrite.

And you seriously think neoliberalism counts as a "moderate left" ideology?

No, it leans closer to the center, or even the right. But it is the main ideology of the group of people that run the Democratic Party. And the Democrats are only "left" by American standards, by all other accounts they're pretty centrist, but still to the left of the Republican party (and hence they are "the left" in America)...just like neoliberalism! An ideology that is basically espoused by both Democrats and Republicans in some form.

This is exactly the issue I have with two-party systems; you get two huge parties that overlap so much in so many areas outside of a few 'wedge' issues that they may as well be the same. Take out the more extreme segments of either party, and you'll find they agree on many issues; they just don't agree on the methods. A parliamentary system would be better; more parties = more choices!

Smash the two-party system already, yo. It'll do you good.

I'm from a country that has a multiple-party parliamentary system, so here I can agree with you. Would go a long way towards un-fucking American politics.

Given the fact that you only now started to seriously make a distinction as to which exact group of people you were directing your demands... yes, "blind".

My negligence to lay that out in full enough detail would lead to that assumption, but I assure you it is not "blind". Mea maxima culpa.

They've been underperforming (and dropping in polls) since the American election. If there was a far right wave, it reached its peak last year.

And now it's the turn of the populist left.

Hence why I refrain from calling it a resurgence. More like an ebb and flow. Nothing particularly new, except perhaps the sheer vitriol.

That's a bit extreme. I meant well.

The ad hominems don't give that impression.

[Minzerland II]

Ah yes, the tried and ridiculous tactic of "My political opponents are all idiots!"

What a filthy, filthy strawman. Paul Joseph Watson is a pretentious nitwit. I said nothing about all my political opponents. Just him.

With that settled, I'll take the liberty of ignoring the rest of your wailing pontifications about "the Left". I will answer for my own sayings, not for the actions and sayings of millions of others.

>complains about Milo Yiannopoulos and Paul Joseph Watson
>links a YouTube video from Shaun and Jen

[New haven america]

>Article opens with Milo Yiannopoulos
>Article is now not worth reading

"[blah blah insert bullshit here] aaand I stopped reading there."

Yes, because that makes you SO qualified to judge the article.

Actually read it before you debate, no matter if its right or left wing, or it has some bullshit at the beginning that you find repulsive. Until then, your opinion doesn't matter.

I'm sorry I don't support people who condone pedophilia (Mainly hebephilia in this case).

[Cylonarus]

I'm sorry I don't support people who condone pedophilia.

Read it anyways. Refusing to read something because it had something at the beginning that hurt your little feelings is utterly childish.

[Nocturnalis]

I'm sorry I don't support people who condone pedophilia (Mainly hebephilia in this case).

Reading something =/= Agreeing with it

[New haven america]

I'm sorry I don't support people who condone pedophilia.

Read it anyways. Refusing to read something because it had something at the beginning that hurt your little feelings

And I stopped reading there.

Only 2 more months to go...

[Minzerland II]

Read it anyways. Refusing to read something because it had something at the beginning that hurt your little feelings

And I stopped reading there.

Only 2 more months to go...

Thanks for confirming your immaturity. Please come again.

[Carlendale]

I like cheese.

[Lowell Leber]

The Left wanted to play Identity Politics. Now we on the Right are playing the same game only better.

[New haven america]

And I stopped reading there.

Only 2 more months to go...

Thanks for confirming your immaturity. Please come again.

The only immature people here are the one's who are claiming others to be.

After looking at the article, I confirmed my thoughts from before, it was a waste of time and I won't be getting those 5 minutes of my life back. It truly amazes me how people with so much power (Ex: The UK government and US government) can claim that they're being oppressed and that they're freedom fighters (by taking the most extreme examples, like college campuses most people already understand to be terrible, and stating that those are how all campuses act)... while trying to repress and mock opinions they don't agree with... huh, that sounds familiar, where have I heard those claims before... Hmm...

Same shit, different source, Though, seeing your last post, I'm wouldn't surprised if you didn't understand that.

[Minzerland II]

Thanks for confirming your immaturity. Please come again.

The only immature people here are the one's who are claiming others to be.

After looking at the article, I confirmed my thought process before, it was a waste of time and I won't be getting those 5 minutes of my life back. It truly amazes me how people with so much power (Ex: The UK government and US government) can claim that they're being oppressed and that they're freedom fighters (by taking the most extreme examples, college campuses most people already understand to be terrible, and stating that those are how all campuses act)... while trying to repress and mock opinions they don't agree with... huh, that sounds familiar, where have I heard those claims before... Hmm...

Same shit, different source, Though, seeing your last post, I'm wouldn't surprised if you didn't understand that.

Or are the immature people those who dismiss sources because it begins with a quotation from [insert whoever I dislike here]? I don't think responding with 'nah uh' helps your point either. My last post addressing Liriena? I find it particularly funny to find someone complain about Milo Yiannopoulos and Paul Joseph Watson, and then go on to cite Shaun and Jen, who could be argued to be worse.

Also, it is supposed to invoke reflection with Liriena. I dismissed the video by Shaun and Jen because it was made by Shaun and Jen, not all that different to dismissing a source because it begins with a quotation by Milo Yiannopoulos and Paul Joseph Watson.

[New haven america]

The only immature people here are the one's who are claiming others to be.

After looking at the article, I confirmed my thought process before, it was a waste of time and I won't be getting those 5 minutes of my life back. It truly amazes me how people with so much power (Ex: The UK government and US government) can claim that they're being oppressed and that they're freedom fighters (by taking the most extreme examples, college campuses most people already understand to be terrible, and stating that those are how all campuses act)... while trying to repress and mock opinions they don't agree with... huh, that sounds familiar, where have I heard those claims before... Hmm...

Same shit, different source, Though, seeing your last post, I'm wouldn't surprised if you didn't understand that.

1.Or are the immature people those who dismiss sources because it begins with a quotation from [insert whoever I dislike here]? 2.I don't think responding with 'nah uh' helps your point either. My last post addressing Liriena? I find it particularly funny to find someone complain about 3.Milo Yiannopoulos and Paul Joseph Watson,4. and then go on to cite Shaun and Jen, who could be argued to be worse.

Also, it is supposed to invoke reflection with Liriena.5. I dismissed the video by Shaun and Jen because it was made by Shaun and Jen, not all that different to dismissing a source because it begins with a quotation by 6.Milo Yiannopoulos and Paul Joseph Watson.

1. But my hypothesis proved to be correct, didn't it?
2. I didn't address it with "Nah uh" though, I actually talked about what was written and the blatant hypocrisy within it.
3. Maybe because Milo has a history of stirring up shit and supporting Hebephilia, or is that stuff just socially acceptable now?
4. I never brought them up though, and probably never would, honestly...
5. And you have the complete right to do that. Besides, their channel seems like one of the average Political/Social channels that are gaining more and more popularity. (Y'know, Left is cancer, Right is evil, etc...)
6. And as stated before, my hypothesis proved to be true.

Serious Question: Did you even read my post?

[Minzerland II]

1.Or are the immature people those who dismiss sources because it begins with a quotation from [insert whoever I dislike here]? 2.I don't think responding with 'nah uh' helps your point either. My last post addressing Liriena? I find it particularly funny to find someone complain about 3.Milo Yiannopoulos and Paul Joseph Watson,4. and then go on to cite Shaun and Jen, who could be argued to be worse.

Also, it is supposed to invoke reflection with Liriena.5. I dismissed the video by Shaun and Jen because it was made by Shaun and Jen, not all that different to dismissing a source because it begins with a quotation by 6.Milo Yiannopoulos and Paul Joseph Watson.

1. But my hypothesis proved to be correct, didn't it?

By your own admission, you didn't read past Milo Yiannopoulos initially, which is what was being addressed, not whatever you did after the fact. Whether your hypothesis is correct, after you were prompted to read the article, is irrelevant. Moot point.

2. I didn't address it with "Nah uh" though, I actually talked about what was written and the blatant hypocrisy within it.

Denial.

3. Maybe because Milo has a history of stirring up shit and supporting Hebephilia, or is that stuff just socially acceptable now?

No. Not at all acceptable, but sometimes, believe it or not, the worst people have something valuable to say. Your unwillingness to listen to anyone you decide is abhorrent can be likened to not listening to communists because they're communist.

4. I never brought them up though, and probably never would, honestly...

You're right, Liriena did, just like I said, and you brought up that post, my 'last post'.

5. And you have the complete right to do that. Besides, their channel seems like one of the average Political/Social channels that are gaining more and more popularity. (Y'know, Left is cancer, Right is evil, etc...)

Yeah. It is completely childish, though. Funny, because they seem to feud with those channels often.

6. And as stated before, my hypothesis proved to be true.

Liriena didn't read past Milo's quotation because it was by my Milo, so that is a moot point.

Serious Question: Did you even read my post?

Yeah, I did. Now, I'm questioning if you read mine.

[New haven america]

1. But my hypothesis proved to be correct, didn't it?

1.By your own admission, you didn't read past Milo Yiannopoulos initially, which is what was being addressed, not whatever you did after the fact. Whether your hypothesis is correct, after you were prompted to read the article, is irrelevant. Moot point.

2. I didn't address it with "Nah uh" though, I actually talked about what was written and the blatant hypocrisy within it.

2.

Denial.

3. Maybe because Milo has a history of stirring up shit and supporting Hebephilia, or is that stuff just socially acceptable now?

3.No. Not at all acceptable, but sometimes, believe it or not, the worst people have something valuable to say. Your unwillingness to listen to anyone you decide is abhorrent can be likened to not listening to communists because they're communist.

4. I never brought them up though, and probably never would, honestly...

4.You're right, Liriena did, just like I said, and you brought up that post, my 'last post'.

5. And you have the complete right to do that. Besides, their channel seems like one of the average Political/Social channels that are gaining more and more popularity. (Y'know, Left is cancer, Right is evil, etc...)

5.Yeah. It is completely childish, though. Funny, because they seem to feud with those channels often.

6. And as stated before, my hypothesis proved to be true.

6.Liriena didn't read past Milo's quotation because it was by my Milo, so that is a moot point.

Serious Question: Did you even read my post?

7.Yeah, I did. Now, I'm questioning if you read mine.

1. Yes, and then by stating so, certain posters... got into an offended uproar, causing me to waste 5 minutes of my life reading trite that I've already heard before to see if they had any valid points. They didn't, and I'm apparently becoming psychic.

2.

Thanks for confirming your immaturity. Please come again.

The only immature people here are the one's who are claiming others to be.

After looking at the article, I confirmed my thoughts from before, it was a waste of time and I won't be getting those 5 minutes of my life back. It truly amazes me how people with so much power (Ex: The UK government and US government) can claim that they're being oppressed and that they're freedom fighters (by taking the most extreme examples, like college campuses most people already understand to be terrible, and stating that those are how all campuses act)... while trying to repress and mock opinions they don't agree with... huh, that sounds familiar, where have I heard those claims before... Hmm...

Same shit, different source, Though, seeing your last post, I'm wouldn't surprised if you didn't understand that.

3A. Then why keep defending him? 3B. Oh, I'm so sorry I didn't listen to the person who made his career out of stirring up shit and being as abhorrent as possible, causing me to distrust him and things related to him. Milo isn't deserving to be listened to. Sure, some might, but he has said and done some awful things, and needs to fix what he's done, voluntarily. 3C. Your communist argument doesn't work, communists and so called communist are a diverse set of people with a diverse set of ideas, while Milo on the other hand, is one man with a very concrete set of ideas.

4. I wasn't referencing that post, I was referencing this one, right here.

5. Especially since they just keep making the same points and arguments, it may be funny, but it's getting old (Especially the ones who used to be good variety channels, The Amazing Atheist comes to mind).

6. And Liri has nothing to do with this, unless you want them to get involved in this...?

7. Why though? I've replied to pretty much every one of your points. (And even agreed on some points, disagreed on most though, but still...)

[Risottia]

I was reading around and I saw this article about the rising conservative counter-culture.

http://canadafreepress.com/article/hip- ... ablishment

How do you feel about this article? I feel like it has some good points.

How about you summarize the article? What good points were made?

A good lot of whining and ranting about the repressive liberal media and academia, and about how Trump is the Fatherland's Glorious Leader leading America towards a future of something.

Dunno if that counts as "good point" though. Also, by definition, "conservative" cannot be "counter-culture". The rant's author is so ignorant that he mistakes "reactionary" for "conservative".

[Costa Fierro]

Conservatism is the new counter-culture

I would disagree. Conservatism has always been around and will continue to be around as long as there are people who disagree with whatever ideas and attitudes that younger generations have regarding social issues. Conservatism, in the American political sense, is not an act of rebellion, because it is social orthodoxy in a huge part of the union and is largely reflective of the urban-rural divide, where rural, socially conservative Americans clash with urban, socially progressive Americans. Bringing progressive ideas into socially conservative areas is no different than what is being attempted here, which is bringing conservative ideas into socially progressive areas.

James Delingpole recently observed that Ted Mallach believes that “the Brexit and Trump shocks of 2016…are the counter-reaction to the global takeover by the liberal-left in 1968.”

I don't think there is a global counter-reaction to the "liberal left", seeing as we have not yet seen any other populist gains of political control in other countries. Brexit was and is an example of what happens when you let a population that is uneducated on a specific issue decide government policy on that issue. Donald Trump is an example of what happens when you also let a largely politically uneducated electorate decide who should run the country. Both are failings in terms of both the mainstream left and right being able to provide sufficient education on certain issues and suitable candidates who are capable of responding to the needs of the electorate as a whole. There's no global conspiracy to bring about a new world order, nor is there a global counter reaction to such a conspiracy.

In the three elections we have seen in Europe since Brexit and Trump, we have seen the far right denied the presidency in Austria and France and the far right party trounced in the Dutch general election. Austria seemed to be the closest that the far right got to acquiring power in Europe outside of Hungary, but for the most part, they have largely been failures, as they have failed to resonate with enough voters in order to be able to effectively acquire political control through democratic means.

The core word in the new conservative counter-culture is freedom. As in free-spirited, free-thinking, free enterprise, free market, free speech—free, freer, freest.

Then it would likely be considered a more diluted form of libertarianism, with more acceptance of state relevancy in people's lives and interference in the economy as long as it benefits those who consider themselves to be "counter-culturalists".

By and large our college campuses are currently anti-freedom, and promote and preach fear, intolerance, divisiveness, and scorn—muzzling free speech and indoctrinating students to be passionately and self-righteously fearful and contemptuous of anyone perceived as being outside the officially sanctioned leftist thought box.

This is about the only valid thing I have seen so far. There is a lot of issues with universities in the Anglosphere, and to some extent, the Western world, about being less than open minded when it comes to political beliefs and ideas. Now, universities have been a bastion of liberalism and largely left-wing thought for decades, primarily because they have been the few places where people traditionally questioned society and the political system prevailing at the time, and student protest movements have often fought for ideas and goals that could fit within any left-wing political ideology. However, unlike today, there was a considerable amount of political freedom in the sense that one could happily engage in a discussion or dialogue with others about why they believed what they did, although I can imagine there was some clashes, because not everyone is going to be tolerant of other's beliefs. But that is what universities should be about: promoting the questioning of your own beliefs as well as those of others, and gaining valuable perspectives and becoming a better rounded person.

What changed was the way in which successive generations dealt with others. Millennials are at the start of this change because we are among the first people to start demanding that we do not tolerate others for their political beliefs, even though we are taught from an early age to not judge others and to be open minded about other people. I cannot tell you why this idea that people with political beliefs that go against the broad liberal consensus among university students (not necessarily the staff or the administration) are seen to be an affront to people's existences, but it's certainly something that has arisen with the younger millennials entering university.

I believe that with a cutting edge conservative counter-culture leading the way, we won’t get fooled again.

I don't think a solution to liberalism and prevailing liberal orthodoxy within the student body at universities with conservative orthodoxy is going to make any improvements at all, because it just replaces one set of intolerant political beliefs with another. Conservatives have not shown that they are tolerant of other political beliefs and to claim that such an ideology is inherently better because of the people's claim that it promotes freedom is to ignore the ways in which conservatives in the past, and in which conservatives currently, try to suppress freedom of speech, identity and other aspects of individualism that they do not consider to be part of their orthodoxy.

The days when the Left held a lock on “cool” counter-culture are long gone. Anymore the words that spring to mind when I think of the Left are: arrogant, dogmatic, intolerant, bullying, and nasty.

The left and the right are guilty of this. Conservatives and progressives (because using the term liberals does not really apply) both share arrogant, dogmatic, intolerant beliefs, bully those that they disagree with and have nasty attitudes towards those that they disagree with. Conservatives going around claiming that they are, above all others, moral and altruistic is hypocritical, because everyone who adheres to some form of political orthodoxy believes that their cause is the most moral, the most just. A lack of introspection and a lack of ability to handle criticism, plus an unwillingness to understand the perspectives of opposing views, is what drives this orthodoxy. Simply put, people aren't willing to listen to others, because they are too deep set in their convictions and suffer from the same dogma that they accuse others of having.

[Damverland]

Conservatism is the new counter-culture

I would disagree. Conservatism has always been around and will continue to be around as long as there are people who disagree with whatever ideas and attitudes that younger generations have regarding social issues. Conservatism, in the American political sense, is not an act of rebellion, because it is social orthodoxy in a huge part of the union and is largely reflective of the urban-rural divide, where rural, socially conservative Americans clash with urban, socially progressive Americans. Bringing progressive ideas into socially conservative areas is no different than what is being attempted here, which is bringing conservative ideas into socially progressive areas.

James Delingpole recently observed that Ted Mallach believes that “the Brexit and Trump shocks of 2016…are the counter-reaction to the global takeover by the liberal-left in 1968.”

I don't think there is a global counter-reaction to the "liberal left", seeing as we have not yet seen any other populist gains of political control in other countries. Brexit was and is an example of what happens when you let a population that is uneducated on a specific issue decide government policy on that issue. Donald Trump is an example of what happens when you also let a largely politically uneducated electorate decide who should run the country. Both are failings in terms of both the mainstream left and right being able to provide sufficient education on certain issues and suitable candidates who are capable of responding to the needs of the electorate as a whole. There's no global conspiracy to bring about a new world order, nor is there a global counter reaction to such a conspiracy.

In the three elections we have seen in Europe since Brexit and Trump, we have seen the far right denied the presidency in Austria and France and the far right party trounced in the Dutch general election. Austria seemed to be the closest that the far right got to acquiring power in Europe outside of Hungary, but for the most part, they have largely been failures, as they have failed to resonate with enough voters in order to be able to effectively acquire political control through democratic means.

The core word in the new conservative counter-culture is freedom. As in free-spirited, free-thinking, free enterprise, free market, free speech—free, freer, freest.

Then it would likely be considered a more diluted form of libertarianism, with more acceptance of state relevancy in people's lives and interference in the economy as long as it benefits those who consider themselves to be "counter-culturalists".

By and large our college campuses are currently anti-freedom, and promote and preach fear, intolerance, divisiveness, and scorn—muzzling free speech and indoctrinating students to be passionately and self-righteously fearful and contemptuous of anyone perceived as being outside the officially sanctioned leftist thought box.

This is about the only valid thing I have seen so far. There is a lot of issues with universities in the Anglosphere, and to some extent, the Western world, about being less than open minded when it comes to political beliefs and ideas. Now, universities have been a bastion of liberalism and largely left-wing thought for decades, primarily because they have been the few places where people traditionally questioned society and the political system prevailing at the time, and student protest movements have often fought for ideas and goals that could fit within any left-wing political ideology. However, unlike today, there was a considerable amount of political freedom in the sense that one could happily engage in a discussion or dialogue with others about why they believed what they did, although I can imagine there was some clashes, because not everyone is going to be tolerant of other's beliefs. But that is what universities should be about: promoting the questioning of your own beliefs as well as those of others, and gaining valuable perspectives and becoming a better rounded person.

What changed was the way in which successive generations dealt with others. Millennials are at the start of this change because we are among the first people to start demanding that we do not tolerate others for their political beliefs, even though we are taught from an early age to not judge others and to be open minded about other people. I cannot tell you why this idea that people with political beliefs that go against the broad liberal consensus among university students (not necessarily the staff or the administration) are seen to be an affront to people's existences, but it's certainly something that has arisen with the younger millennials entering university.

I believe that with a cutting edge conservative counter-culture leading the way, we won’t get fooled again.

I don't think a solution to liberalism and prevailing liberal orthodoxy within the student body at universities with conservative orthodoxy is going to make any improvements at all, because it just replaces one set of intolerant political beliefs with another. Conservatives have not shown that they are tolerant of other political beliefs and to claim that such an ideology is inherently better because of the people's claim that it promotes freedom is to ignore the ways in which conservatives in the past, and in which conservatives currently, try to suppress freedom of speech, identity and other aspects of individualism that they do not consider to be part of their orthodoxy.

The days when the Left held a lock on “cool” counter-culture are long gone. Anymore the words that spring to mind when I think of the Left are: arrogant, dogmatic, intolerant, bullying, and nasty.

The left and the right are guilty of this. Conservatives and progressives (because using the term liberals does not really apply) both share arrogant, dogmatic, intolerant beliefs, bully those that they disagree with and have nasty attitudes towards those that they disagree with. Conservatives going around claiming that they are, above all others, moral and altruistic is hypocritical, because everyone who adheres to some form of political orthodoxy believes that their cause is the most moral, the most just. A lack of introspection and a lack of ability to handle criticism, plus an unwillingness to understand the perspectives of opposing views, is what drives this orthodoxy. Simply put, people aren't willing to listen to others, because they are too deep set in their convictions and suffer from the same dogma that they accuse others of having.

Damn dude, you're about one of the only people in this thread to make an actual good point.

[Crockerland]

I was almost forced to address what the article said but I see here it had a quote from somebody I don't like, tough luck pal; Looks like I win another debate.

[Nulla Bellum]

All I know is that US Democrats have lost over 1000 elected positions in government since 2010. Doubling down on their "strategy" of demonizing every disagreement is bound to pay off sometime. Who doesn't, deep down, really want to be called nasty things by idiots every election?

[Cedoria]

Calling it conservative counter-culture is simultaneously moronic and oxymoronic.
Counter-culture is a phrase generally designating a movement dedicated to opposition to and resistance against traditional socio-cultural practices and conceptions. As always, the right-wing is advocating for the restoration of traditional forms of power and authority in most respects (ergo, not counter-cultural).

And frankly anybody who can claim to be oppressed while controlling all three branches of the US government because people sometimes say mean things too them is either an idiot or is disgustingly cynical and self-pitying, and is not worthy of respect or serious consideration in any public forum (looking at Milo and his like here...)

[The East Marches II]

Whatever is in power is uncool, whatever is out of power is cool. Since diversity and tolerance are in power at the moment (and pretty stagnant tbh), the opposite will be cool. Its like guns, drugs or alcohol in the States. You try to ban it, people will just want it more. Its the nature of the beast.

[Randsbeik]

All I know is that US Democrats have lost over 1000 elected positions in government since 2010. Doubling down on their "strategy" of demonizing every disagreement is bound to pay off sometime. Who doesn't, deep down, really want to be called nasty things by idiots every election?

As it turns out, blue-collar day laborers.

[Cedoria]

PJW seems to be a man of few fixed principles.

As for the 'conservative' counter-culture, many people are getting fed up with PC culture permeating every university and shutting down opinions contrary to what is seen as respectable. Naturally this has created quite a bit of backlash, I do sympathize with why people are angry but I am less sympathetic about returning or advocating violence as many alt-rightists want.

Of course anybody who pretends the Conservatives haven't engaged in PC has ideological blinkers very firmly on...

Good example from my home country are Conservatives attacking race hate laws (because muh freeze peach!), whilst at the same time throwing the toys out of the pram and managing to sack a female Muslim presenter from the public broadcaster because she made a comment on her Facebook page on our day of national commemoration about the importance of remembering current atrocities and persecutions too...


Forgive me if I'm therefore unsympathetic to those who say that they are sick of the 'Left' imposing PC. All sides are guilty of it, but you didn't hear me backing white supremacists and quoting pseudo-journalistic hacks despite being peeved off at the hypocrisy and double-standards.

Usually those who screech about Political Correctness the loudest tend to be the most obnoxiously authoritarian when confronted with a mildly disagreeable thought, in my experience.