LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[Dumb Ideologies]

There seems to be more of a focus on ideological purity nowadays and people having to be perfect in order for working with them to not be distasteful. This would suggest that adaptability and willingness to compromise might be on the decline. But it might just be that every man and his dog has an active social media profile that can be mined for ungood statements rather than presuming broad goodwill from potential allies.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

There seems to be more of a focus on ideological purity nowadays and people having to be perfect in order for working with them to not be distasteful. This would suggest that adaptability and willingness to compromise might be on the decline. But it might just be that every man and his dog has an active social media profile that can be mined for ungood statements rather than presuming broad goodwill from potential allies.

Politics is like attempting to balance an object that can never be perfectly balanced, thus you always have to compensate and correct.

Ideological puritans and people who refuse to compromise are really not being smart.

[Mardla]

What is authoritarian democracy? British fascism is the only thing that comes to mind.

Neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism isn't authoritarian. Not inherently democratic either.

[Mardla]

There seems to be more of a focus on ideological purity nowadays and people having to be perfect in order for working with them to not be distasteful. This would suggest that adaptability and willingness to compromise might be on the decline. But it might just be that every man and his dog has an active social media profile that can be mined for ungood statements rather than presuming broad goodwill from potential allies.

That's not true on the right, just on the left.

[Dumb Ideologies]

There seems to be more of a focus on ideological purity nowadays and people having to be perfect in order for working with them to not be distasteful. This would suggest that adaptability and willingness to compromise might be on the decline. But it might just be that every man and his dog has an active social media profile that can be mined for ungood statements rather than presuming broad goodwill from potential allies.

That's not true on the right, just on the left.

That's broadly what I've found. But then my observation has more generally been that the left tends to be quicker than the right in excluding people based on perceived ideological impurity, while the right tends to be quicker to exclude people based on perceived impurities in their lifestyle. Political forums and activist social media can downplay the personal detail and elevate the presence of micro-details over policy that you probably wouldn't even get into discussing in real life. That might exaggerate the differences that leftists tend to split over while playing down some of the stuff that could cause online right-wing buddies to hate each other in person.

I get on a lot better with rightists online than I do with leftists but I can't help but feel as though this is partly circumstantial, and that I'd probably fare better socially as an active member of a left-wing party than a right-wing one. If, you know, I actually went outside and talked to real people, anyway

[Ostroeuropa]

That's not true on the right, just on the left.

That's broadly what I've found. But then my observation has more generally been that the left tends to be quicker than the right in excluding people based on perceived ideological impurity, while the right tends to be quicker to exclude people based on perceived impurities in their lifestyle. Political forums and activist social media can downplay the personal detail and elevate the presence of micro-details over policy that you probably wouldn't even get into discussing in real life. That might exaggerate the differences that leftists tend to split over while playing down some of the stuff that could cause online right-wing buddies to hate each other in person.

I get on a lot better with rightists online than I do with leftists but I can't help but feel as though this is partly circumstantial, and that I'd probably fare better socially as an active member of a left-wing party than a right-wing one. If, you know, I actually went outside and talked to real people, anyway

Join a left wing party faction full of people pissed at the status quo who stand at the sides silently sneering at the main group, hoping to one day pull that mitchell and webb scene.

"They're gone sir, they've all gone, and we're back."

Can confirm it's where you belong, as well as me.

This one;
https://youtu.be/yRujuE-GIY4

[Dumb Ideologies]

That's broadly what I've found. But then my observation has more generally been that the left tends to be quicker than the right in excluding people based on perceived ideological impurity, while the right tends to be quicker to exclude people based on perceived impurities in their lifestyle. Political forums and activist social media can downplay the personal detail and elevate the presence of micro-details over policy that you probably wouldn't even get into discussing in real life. That might exaggerate the differences that leftists tend to split over while playing down some of the stuff that could cause online right-wing buddies to hate each other in person.

I get on a lot better with rightists online than I do with leftists but I can't help but feel as though this is partly circumstantial, and that I'd probably fare better socially as an active member of a left-wing party than a right-wing one. If, you know, I actually went outside and talked to real people, anyway

Join a left wing party faction full of people pissed at the status quo who stand at the sides silently sneering at the main group, hoping to one day pull that mitchell and webb scene.

"They're gone sir, they've all gone, and we're back."

Can confirm it's where you belong, as well as me.

This one;
https://youtu.be/yRujuE-GIY4

YES. I always loved that sketch, so this is probably excellent praxis.

[Mardla]

That's not true on the right, just on the left.

That's broadly what I've found. But then my observation has more generally been that the left tends to be quicker than the right in excluding people based on perceived ideological impurity, while the right tends to be quicker to exclude people based on perceived impurities in their lifestyle. Political forums and activist social media can downplay the personal detail and elevate the presence of micro-details over policy that you probably wouldn't even get into discussing in real life. That might exaggerate the differences that leftists tend to split over while playing down some of the stuff that could cause online right-wing buddies to hate each other in person.

I get on a lot better with rightists online than I do with leftists but I can't help but feel as though this is partly circumstantial, and that I'd probably fare better socially as an active member of a left-wing party than a right-wing one. If, you know, I actually went outside and talked to real people, anyway

Probably. Until your beliefs were brought up. Actually a bit funny how Milo became such a hit with the right, not someone I ever particularly endorsed, but some people I like (such as Ann Coulter) did

[Democratic Communist Federation]

I like Lenin's thoughts on compromise. You compromise to stay true to your principles. It sounds counter-intuitive, but I think he means that you sometimes compromise when it allows you to stay relevant and active to secure a communist revolution and proletarian takeover.

Although I am not a Marxist-Leninist, I agree with him on this issue. However, his view of compromise focused on relations between comrades.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

That's broadly what I've found. But then my observation has more generally been that the left tends to be quicker than the right in excluding people based on perceived ideological impurity, while the right tends to be quicker to exclude people based on perceived impurities in their lifestyle. Political forums and activist social media can downplay the personal detail and elevate the presence of micro-details over policy that you probably wouldn't even get into discussing in real life. That might exaggerate the differences that leftists tend to split over while playing down some of the stuff that could cause online right-wing buddies to hate each other in person.

I get on a lot better with rightists online than I do with leftists but I can't help but feel as though this is partly circumstantial, and that I'd probably fare better socially as an active member of a left-wing party than a right-wing one. If, you know, I actually went outside and talked to real people, anyway

Probably. Until your beliefs were brought up. Actually a bit funny how Milo became such a hit with the right, not someone I ever particularly endorsed, but some people I like (such as Ann Coulter) did

You like Ann Coulter? I would've thought you'd be more into someone like... well... Machiavelli.

[Ostroeuropa]

There seems to be more of a focus on ideological purity nowadays and people having to be perfect in order for working with them to not be distasteful. This would suggest that adaptability and willingness to compromise might be on the decline. But it might just be that every man and his dog has an active social media profile that can be mined for ungood statements rather than presuming broad goodwill from potential allies.

Actively preventing compromise between groups not in power and polarizing them is a means to prevent a popular movement to reform society.

Join a left wing party faction full of people pissed at the status quo who stand at the sides silently sneering at the main group, hoping to one day pull that mitchell and webb scene.

"They're gone sir, they've all gone, and we're back."

Can confirm it's where you belong, as well as me.

This one;
https://youtu.be/yRujuE-GIY4

YES. I always loved that sketch, so this is probably excellent praxis.

Blue Labourrrrrrr

[Liriena]

Ewww, no. Fuck "blue" labor and any other left movement that thinks pandering to social conservatism is good.
Seriously, "family, faith and flag"? As if all three of those hadn't been used over the course of the twentieth century as excuses to imprison, torture and slaughter everyone to the left of Pinochet (and, y'know, queer people, religious minorities, secularists, youth activists and pacifists).

Also, totally unrelated, but the amount of "classical liberal" salt in the comments under the Patreon explanation for deplatforming Carl Benjamin is incredible.

[Liriena]

That's not true on the right, just on the left.

That's broadly what I've found. But then my observation has more generally been that the left tends to be quicker than the right in excluding people based on perceived ideological impurity, while the right tends to be quicker to exclude people based on perceived impurities in their lifestyle. Political forums and activist social media can downplay the personal detail and elevate the presence of micro-details over policy that you probably wouldn't even get into discussing in real life. That might exaggerate the differences that leftists tend to split over while playing down some of the stuff that could cause online right-wing buddies to hate each other in person.

I get on a lot better with rightists online than I do with leftists but I can't help but feel as though this is partly circumstantial, and that I'd probably fare better socially as an active member of a left-wing party than a right-wing one. If, you know, I actually went outside and talked to real people, anyway

You could always go on the dirtbag leftist side of the Internet, where antifa supersoldiers shitpost side by side with unironic tankies, me_ira comrades and nazbol weirdos.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

That's broadly what I've found. But then my observation has more generally been that the left tends to be quicker than the right in excluding people based on perceived ideological impurity, while the right tends to be quicker to exclude people based on perceived impurities in their lifestyle. Political forums and activist social media can downplay the personal detail and elevate the presence of micro-details over policy that you probably wouldn't even get into discussing in real life. That might exaggerate the differences that leftists tend to split over while playing down some of the stuff that could cause online right-wing buddies to hate each other in person.

I get on a lot better with rightists online than I do with leftists but I can't help but feel as though this is partly circumstantial, and that I'd probably fare better socially as an active member of a left-wing party than a right-wing one. If, you know, I actually went outside and talked to real people, anyway

You could always go on the dirtbag leftist side of the Internet, where antifa supersoldiers shitpost side by side with unironic tankies, me_ira comrades and nazbol weirdos.

NazBols and tankies are quite the fascinating creatures...

[Genivaria]

Probably. Until your beliefs were brought up. Actually a bit funny how Milo became such a hit with the right, not someone I ever particularly endorsed, but some people I like (such as Ann Coulter) did

You like Ann Coulter? I would've thought you'd be more into someone like... well... Machiavelli.

Don't insult Machiavelli, Machiavelli is good boi.

[The National Salvation Front for Russia]

NazBols and tankies are quite the fascinating creatures...

National Bolshevism is really tame imo. They sometimes rally with social democrats against Putin.

[Torrocca]

There seems to be more of a focus on ideological purity nowadays and people having to be perfect in order for working with them to not be distasteful. This would suggest that adaptability and willingness to compromise might be on the decline. But it might just be that every man and his dog has an active social media profile that can be mined for ungood statements rather than presuming broad goodwill from potential allies.

Actively preventing compromise between groups not in power and polarizing them is a means to prevent a popular movement to reform society.

Compromising with people who, at best, only care about maintaining the status quo rather than extending justice and liberty to those who've been crushed under some kind of oppression and who, at worst, actively wish to ruin life for all but a bullshit idea of an in-group based on race, sex, gender, creed, etc. is fucking stupid.

Thanks for coming to my weekly LWDTedX Talk.

MLK Jr. had it right when he said moderates were a fucking bane to justice for the oppressed.

[Pasong Tirad]

Relevant

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Actively preventing compromise between groups not in power and polarizing them is a means to prevent a popular movement to reform society.

Compromising with people who, at best, only care about maintaining the status quo rather than extending justice and liberty to those who've been crushed under some kind of oppression and who, at worst, actively wish to ruin life for all but a bullshit idea of an in-group based on race, sex, gender, creed, etc. is fucking stupid.

Thanks for coming to my weekly LWDTedX Talk.

MLK Jr. had it right when he said moderates were a fucking bane to justice for the oppressed.

Compromise is a way to avoid vengeful violence, however.

[Torrocca]

Compromising with people who, at best, only care about maintaining the status quo rather than extending justice and liberty to those who've been crushed under some kind of oppression and who, at worst, actively wish to ruin life for all but a bullshit idea of an in-group based on race, sex, gender, creed, etc. is fucking stupid.

Thanks for coming to my weekly LWDTedX Talk.

MLK Jr. had it right when he said moderates were a fucking bane to justice for the oppressed.

Compromise is a way to avoid vengeful violence, however.

Compromising with those types mentioned above is specifically how you get the whole, "your equality to us can wait another 10/20/30/40/50... years," or, "yeah nah fuck that lol you'll never be equal to us."

I'm perfectly fine dealing with some miscontent, violent asshats who think me and others being equal is deserving of death.

[Pasong Tirad]

Compromising with people who, at best, only care about maintaining the status quo rather than extending justice and liberty to those who've been crushed under some kind of oppression and who, at worst, actively wish to ruin life for all but a bullshit idea of an in-group based on race, sex, gender, creed, etc. is fucking stupid.

Thanks for coming to my weekly LWDTedX Talk.

MLK Jr. had it right when he said moderates were a fucking bane to justice for the oppressed.

Compromise is a way to avoid vengeful violence, however.

We can't really compromise with people who think certain kinds of people are less-than-human.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Compromise is a way to avoid vengeful violence, however.

Compromising with those types mentioned above is specifically how you get the whole, "your equality to us can wait another 10/20/30/40/50... years," or, "yeah nah fuck that lol you'll never be equal to us."

I'm perfectly fine dealing with some miscontent, violent asshats who think me and others being equal is deserving of death.

If they not not directly advocate for the death or harm of certain groups, I believe there is no point purging them violently. Compromise often involves offering them token concessions and effectively shutting them up.

Do not disprove those who are wrong by doing something wrong, my friend.

[Torrocca]

Compromising with those types mentioned above is specifically how you get the whole, "your equality to us can wait another 10/20/30/40/50... years," or, "yeah nah fuck that lol you'll never be equal to us."

I'm perfectly fine dealing with some miscontent, violent asshats who think me and others being equal is deserving of death.

If they not not directly advocate for the death or harm of certain groups, I believe there is no point purging them violently.

No need to violently purge them at all. Just circumvent their will on account of them being cunts in regards to them actively/passively circumventing the basic rights of people for being born a certain way. It is good, however, to only be willing to purge them if they react violently afterward, of course.

Compromise often involves offering them token concessions and effectively shutting them up.

Or just don't concede because then you're just rewarding them for cuntiness in regards to civil rights for certain groups of people.

Do not disprove those who are wrong by doing something wrong, my friend.

Don't need to do wrong to take away their dessert for being shitheads.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

If they not not directly advocate for the death or harm of certain groups, I believe there is no point purging them violently.

No need to violently purge them at all. Just circumvent their will on account of them being cunts in regards to them actively/passively circumventing the basic rights of people for being born a certain way. It is good, however, to only be willing to purge them if they react violently afterward, of course.

Compromise often involves offering them token concessions and effectively shutting them up.

Or just don't concede because then you're just rewarding them for cuntiness in regards to civil rights for certain groups of people.

Do not disprove those who are wrong by doing something wrong, my friend.

Don't need to do wrong to take away their dessert for being shitheads.

Understandable enough, but them whining isn't really what I'd call harmful.

If they are violent towards or actively discriminate, then in that case, it's a different can of worms.

[Torrocca]

No need to violently purge them at all. Just circumvent their will on account of them being cunts in regards to them actively/passively circumventing the basic rights of people for being born a certain way. It is good, however, to only be willing to purge them if they react violently afterward, of course.



Or just don't concede because then you're just rewarding them for cuntiness in regards to civil rights for certain groups of people.



Don't need to do wrong to take away their dessert for being shitheads.

Understandable enough, but them whining isn't really what I'd call harmful.

It's harmful in large enough numbers, where it can be an active hurdle to the rights of people.

If they are violent towards or actively discriminate, then in that case, it's a different can of worms.

Ye.