Your Journey to the Alt-Right.

[constant escape]

Joe Rogan claims to be on the left etc but if you actually listen to him, he gets much more angry with the left than he does the right. Beyond a certain point, if you're only ever really going mad at one side then you're probably on the other.

But I think its reasonable to believe that it is pointless to get angry at those who you feel cannot be persuaded.

I'm usually more critical of the left than the right, because I would ultimately plant my feet on the left, and the closer someone is to me, the harder I push/critique them, generally. I'm sure there are examples otherwise.

 

[linebaugh]

All categories are liable to be stereotyped by positions from any other category, as far as I can tell, as stereotypes function as a higher order, and lower resolution, means of communicating information about categories. Clearly, relying on stereotypes to get points across is lazy, and it can effectively leave some people in the dark and out of the conversation - but then again who among us has the Cosmic Eye sufficient to see every detail through, and not need the crutch of information-compression that stereotypes provide?

I don't think this forum is all that hard to gauge, that's why Im skeptical of @suspendedreason . Ive seen nothing on here that suggests anything but the most miserable crock of cynics, so accusations of overly optimistic progressives that are afraid to take a cold hard look at human nature seem to be pulled entirely out of the ass.

 

[WashYourHands]

I'm not convinced by this argument. I think where you end up is probably what you are deep down.

Well said.

Age is a bell-curve of experience. Once you cross a certain threshold of embittered cuntishness, compassion becomes easier to integrate into world-views (edit but not always).

 

[constant escape]

Maybe those people just aren't quite as progressive as they thought they were. They've reached their limit.

Totally possible - a sort of overton window sedimentation-unto-death.

I think part of the crux of the matter, regarding the criticism of the left/progressives (not to necessarily conflate those two), is this trend of liberal politics colliding neoliberal ideology - that you need to orient your entire identity around anti-bigotry. I think anti-bigotry is a factor of progress, not the essence. And it seems like the dominant discourse of the left, both popular and mainstream, asserts that anti-bigotry should be driving the car of progress.

To those who do not identify ad victims of bigotry, this whole think seems like an abstract, identitarian conflict, ungrounded in economic reality. I'm not going to condone any such position wholesale, but from a certain angle we can see how it appears that way, no?

 

[version]

But I think its reasonable to believe that it is pointless to get angry at those who you feel cannot be persuaded.

I'm usually more critical of the left than the right, because I would ultimately plant my feet on the left, and the closer someone is to me, the harder I push/critique them, generally. I'm sure there are examples otherwise.

It's not about criticism, it's about emotion. It's about which side makes your blood boil. Someone like Rogan clearly gets much more heated over the left than the right and that suggests that it's really the left he has a problem with.

 

[constant escape]

I don't think this forum is all that hard to gauge, that's why Im skeptical of @suspendedreason . Ive seen nothing on here that suggests anything but the most miserable crock of cynics, so accusations of overly optimistic progressives that are afraid to take a cold hard look at human nature seem to be pulled entirely out of the ass.

Yeah I agree, I don't see a lot of it here, but I do get the sense that it is an otherwise prevalent thing. I would just have my own way of articulating it though, so as to preserve the integrity and dignity of as many parties as possible.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I think where you end up is probably what you are deep down

probably, with the caveat that what you are deep down can itself change

 

[constant escape]

It's not about criticism, it's about emotion. It's about which side makes your blood boil. Someone like Rogan clearly gets much more heated over the left than the right and that suggests that it's really the left he has a problem with.

Ah, I see. More of a gut thing, then? Well when it involves the gut, I think it is dangerous to conflate gut with essence, even those they symbolically align. I think ones reason can actually enter a coevolutionary dynamic with ones gut, but that depends on what significance you ascribe to your gut in the first place.

That is, it is much harder to reason with something/someone that you are convinced doesn't listen to reason.

 

[constant escape]

probably, with the caveat that what you are deep down can itself change

Precisely.

 

[constant escape]

Say someone identifies as being on the left, but thinks that the left is way out of whack, but thinks the right is totally and irreversibly sclerotic and rigid. They would have reason to be more critical of their own side then, perhaps even reason to get more heated with their own side - because doing so against their opposing side registers to them as fruitless. Perhaps heat against their own side may spark some movement, perhaps not.

Personally, I'd like to be in touch with heatedness toward the left and heatedness toward the right, just in the interest of gauging where the currents are moving. Doesn't mean I need to pick one or succumb to either - but when push comes to shove, I think things need to change for the new, rather than stay as they are or go back to how they once were.

 

[version]

If you listen to Rogan discuss Biden in comparison to Trump, the contrast becomes quite stark. Biden's always framed as this doddering old man whereas he just laughs with Trump and says how hilarious he is. If you had a friend who said they liked one person more than another, but got visibly angry and insulted that person whenever they came up yet became all lighthearted and said how hilarious the other one was then you'd quickly believe it was actually the other way round.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Ive seen nothing on here that suggests anything but the most miserable crock of cynics, so accusations of overly optimistic progressives that are afraid to take a cold hard look at human nature seem to be pulled entirely out of the ass

yes. it's possible we collectively overestimate our own cynicism, but basically yes.

I have zero problems with critiques of progressivism in general, or with most of the ones that were made

I do have a problem with someone suggesting the only reason I could find fault with is ideological self-interest for an ideology I don't all hold

 

[constant escape]

Perhaps I'm not that informed, but Rogan strikes me as someone who would prefer Sanders over Trump, and Trump over Biden.

And I would also consider his base, which I suspect consists partially/largely of Trump supporters - probably lukewarm, or even reluctant supporters who would prefer to enthusiastically support someone other than Trump or Clinton/Biden. This is why I ascribe significance to Rogan and his base. He seems to mark a key node in a libertarian, moderate right base, a node that could very well be some transformative epicenter.

 

[version]

Say someone identifies as being on the left, but thinks that the left is way out of whack, but thinks the right is totally and irreversibly sclerotic and rigid. They would have reason to be more critical of their own side then, perhaps even reason to get more heated with their own side - because doing so against their opposing side registers to them as fruitless. Perhaps heat against their own side may spark some movement, perhaps not.

I don't think people think that rationally when they're genuinely angry. I think you have to look at what really provokes them, what produces the most violent reaction, to see where they're coming from.

 

[constant escape]

Yeah I see your point now - I think I might be overestimating people in general, assuming that they are in disciplined dialogue with their feelings and are able to surmount them soberly, which is probably far from the cases of many.

That isn't to say that they cannot get there, though.

 

[linebaugh]

@constant escape I read this last night and I bet youd appreciate it:

"It is not a question of ideology. There is an unconscious libidinal investment of the social field that coexists, but does not necessarily coincide, with the preconscious investments, or with what the preconscious investments "ought to be." That is why, when subjects, individuals, or groups act manifestly counter to their class interests-when they rally to the interests and ideals of a class that their own objective situation should lead them to combat-it is not enough to say: they were fooled, the masses have been fooled. It is not an ideological problem, a problem of failing to recognize, or of being subject to, an illusion. It is a problem of desire, and desire is part of the infrastructure. Preconscious investments are made, or should be made, according to the interests of the opposing classes. But unconscious investments are made according to positions of desire and uses of synthesis, very different from the interests of the subject, individual or collective, who desires."

doing is sexier than knowing

 

[WashYourHands]

Rogan 2028/32. Just saying.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Rogan strikes me as someone who would prefer Sanders over Trump, and Trump over Biden

that's accurate, I think - in that overlap between potential Sanders and potential Trump voters

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Rogan 2028/32. Just saying.

even as a a joke, his engagement with politics - with anything besides MMA and probably drugs - is far too shallow

 

[WashYourHands]

Exactly - put on a show, Joe.