Link between the political right and developing mental retardation?

Does becoming right wing basically make you retarded or what? I've been watching acquaintances get onto the Jordan Peterson train, then fall down the "Anti-SJW" rabbit hole and I've noticed that the more and more right wing and reactionary they become, the more absolutely fucking retarded they become in their ability to rationally think or process any sort of information or often even spell or string together coherent sentence structures or points. For example, I see them on social media like facebook talk about Climate Change and they're like "hur dur lefties are so dum if climite change is real why is it cold outside?", "how r fires linked to global warming lol? Its because lefties hate backburning", I've even literally had friends that went reactionary say to me "if evolution is real why do monkeys still exist?" and I just don't get it? like, these people were absolutely not retarded before, actually a few of these people, before I know were 100% pro-climate change action and would even argue with right wingers over it debunking the same stupid arguments they themselves are making now, but over a period of often just a few months, they become absolute drooling braindead dipshits.

I honestly cannot understand it. Is there some sort of brainwashing that goes on or what?

Attached: 1530058267863.jpg (866x900, 123.69K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Qh3TeTxgNVo
youtube.com/watch?v=ExQDAdS-BY0)
youtube.com/watch?v=9iFRv8hm71k
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)
newrepublic.com/article/142372/elitism-liberalisms-biggest-problem

It's not the political right it's social media, I've seen liberals fall down the same path and socialists who spend their time in a corporate-cultivated echo chamber turn into… well, leftbook and r/socialism.

Also being anti-SJW is a good thing and the term SJW was coined by leftists to criticize idpolers, if it's leading people to the right then show them left critiques of it.

Short answer: No.
Long answer:

If a bunch of annoying college dipshits make you embrace outright fascism and neoreactionary talking points, ala Sargon of a Cuck, you were never part of the left at all.

As a matter of fact, all these alt-right shits merely enjoyed the anti-SJW momentum from the 2013 onwards (remember Sarkeesian and gamergate?) to push for a white nationalist agenda. They took a legitimate concern of how terrible gaming journalism became and turned GG into the alt-right's pravda. All followed suit.

So no. Retards embrace the right but they are already fucked up in their brains (think incels). Dickheads like Gavin McInnes have been saying dumb shit well over a decade before the alt-right was even a thing. They just embraced the neoreactionary's mainstream popularity to become basically pop stars.

Also, identity politics, contrary to popular belief, is not even a millennial thing. Back in the day, I remember the same shit coming from the new left, back in the late 60s and well into the 70s. They were merely kept in check because the porkies didn't embrace diversity back then like they do now.

identity politics, contrary to even more popular belief, is not exclusively leftist as even your post seems to suggest, it is in fact so ingrained into right-wing thought it isn't even recognised as such. It is also much older, starting at the latest in the Romantic late 19th century.
identity politics, with its particularist, exclusionary and class-collaborationist qualities belongs in the Right, and it's time we draw the line.

Attached: niyari.png (931x486, 296.29K)

I was mostly refering to the PC-type of identity politics. What you refer is mostly identitarianism, which is entirely different from political correctness and feminism.

It's almost as if there was some economic system that prioritizes something other than the human development and therefore decays it.

youtube.com/watch?v=Qh3TeTxgNVo
Documentary on this topic.

is it though? what you describe as PC is just the 'progressive' variant of identitarianism, it rests on many of the same principles as the 'regressive' variety.
also
let's not use ambiguous terms and throw the baby out with the bathwater. there are also gendered perspectives on society that advance universalism.

Alienation with hard observation of scientific data. We live in a age of Capitalism where only a few scientists could go through the scientific method while the rest of the world has to trust what the editor says from the scientific paper. From there it easily jumps into the realm of public relations, the people only believe in the guy who could string words more romantically than the other. The cult of scientism relies solely on this PR aspect and relish it as science itself. Then they wonder why they loose the battle to fascists and reactionaries. The fact is that they were the kings in esoteric language for a long time. Before people were less alienated from thier surroundings and could point out simple observations, now they will deny the observations right in front of them. The people are getting indoctrinated because metaphorically sitting in a cell with a TV blasting at you 24 7 causes one to become desensitized to reality.

It's the result of the natural effects of echo chambers, the human need to conform to your wider social group, and an impressionability of youth that doesn't begin to disappear until your late 20s to early 30s. There also the fact that American conservatism is an inherently stupid worldview, so when people end up sucked into a conservative environment the aforementioned social and psychological phenomena take effect and produce what you're experiencing. Psychological compartmentalization also plays a big role is otherwise seemingly intelligent people holding astoundingly stupid views.

lmfao, but communism will totally work this time, amirite?

Attached: infinite failure.gif (777x777, 3.28M)

umm no. nobody is saying a communist society on a large scale can be established so easily, it isn't, thats why there are different methods. The soviet one is terrible for example, it's good at being a strong ass empire tho.

on a small scale shit is fairly easy to practice tho. but communes already exist & are nothing out of this world, out of society yes since they're autonomous. Now making the whole world autonomous well yeah… thats why global communism is hard, not yet.

Attached: communism.png (1366x395, 33.01K)

Attached: not real socialism vs not real capitalism.png (1783x423 27.49 KB, 157.53K)

well to be fair the state part isn't true. everything else yes. It's a minarchy with direct democracy everywhere politics, workplace, schools, etc for and by the workers themselves but whatevr.

anyway don't bother Zig Forumstards are retarded. we were there ourselves in the past, when we didn't read books, we used to be these retards thankfully we ascended.

Attached: 16708186_382271128804855_8003556312797344241_n.jpg (550x550, 35.78K)

reread the first picture. you can't just decide that your anarchist take on socialism is the correct one since that's the very point of contention in the red/black divide of the Left - unless you are referring strictly to 'higher-stage communist' society. anyway describing communist society as "a minarchy with direct democracy everywhere" is a pretty bad take, or at best an abuse of political science terminology.
please refrain from masturbating in public

yes i was refering to the developed stage.It's good it's called higher-stage instead of end stage as if implying a permanence of system for whatever reason which is stupid this is how capitalists think, they unironically believe this is end stage of the development of human politics lmao ignoring the trends in history of revolution & reform lol.

now this is a good take. the sort of 'end-of-history' logic you talk about is unfortunately quite common among communists as well: "communism is the paradise end state of humanity without conflict or contradictions" or "after the World Revolution everything will be sorted". millenarian idealist utopians out.

lmfao, guess that means communism can't exist in real life then

Attached: (You).png (675x534, 281.67K)

I used to think about the "end of history" too but there is just none, it's stupid. concepts change, things adapt to current needs & rn the class division is becoming larger so the socialist movement was correct all along just too avant garde for it's time.

lol ok dude hahaha funny meme!

Attached: 67cb675e25dd90280b6410e5b55c1079650d71ab69fcdd8876606cf2e576b5c5.jpg (1280x720 38.02 KB, 3.61M)

Thats not what he said, retard.

Attached: unnamed.jpg (900x900, 99.06K)

he will never get it who cares. he is still in retard mode, a lot here used to be there too but well he will either grow the fuck up someday or be the next school shooter due to severe loneliness then khs.

anyway gn Leon

Attached: All according to plan.gif (800x800, 53.63K)

commies btfo

Attached: taiwan 2018.png (1024x777 613.15 KB, 297.69K)

Attached: ce52be1bffbe0684255c590df03bd22485f4c5b66f586c4fcd88ddb02fb9e048.jpg (1329x1122, 96.37K)

Leningradians were starving because of the nazi blockade, brainlet.

I'm pretty sure he was ironic

Please tell me that those are real Zig Forums image macros.

Fair enough. My point is, the regressive left is far from new. Back in the day (mid-late 60s, well into the 70s) it was called the new left. If anything, millennial liberals merely dragged on the new left to it's absurd and logical conclusion. They learned that from their already idiotic parents.


Problem is, both 2nd and 3rd wave feminism has become absurdly spooked, to the point that legitimate concerns, like women being stoned in middle east for "sins" or the fact that women in the third world are seen as 2nd class citizens have been drown out by the monunentally stupid bourgeois "struggles" like "mansplaining", "manspreading" and "muh sexist media". That's what represents feminism nowadays and feminists allowed that to happen.

If feminists actually embraced Goldman's or Luxemburg's brand of feminism (class-focused feminism/marxist feminism) I'd have no problems with them. Hell, I'd actually identify as feminist. Unfortunately for them, they allowed people like Steinem and Sarkeesian to fuck up their movement. If they truly wanted people to take feminism seriously, they would drop the "muh feelz" shit and de-spook their liberal as fuck movement.

The hard truth is we don't need feminists; they need us.

treating feminism as a singular political movement is hardly reasonable; the word itself has become a nigh-unusable monstrosity encompassing just about everything from women's struggles for 'feminine labour' (domestic work etc.) to be taken seriously in the labour movement, to women drone operators murdering brown people for imperialism. it's akin to holding all socialists to account for the nutters who critically support ISIS in their struggle against American imperialism.
that's why I object to both an outright rejection or embrace of feminism. fortunately I don't live in an Anglo country and the madder parts of modern libfem haven't really consolidated. feminist struggles, at least the ones that actually catch wind, tend to be universalist and generally to the betterment of society, like equal parenting leaves or defining rape by lack of consent rather than violence used.

Modern feminism is nothing but a practice in coming up with new and hilariously retarded ways to be objectively wrong about everything.
You may think that because there are "sex positive" and "sex negative" feminists, that it's some kind of broad, diverse movement, but it's really just all the same kind of retardation, when their arguments are "acting like a worthless cum dumpster is empowering", or "Not having sex is fighting *the patriarchy*."
There is absolutely nothing of value left there.

what about the examples in the post you replied to?

Doesn't fit my worldview so it doesn't exist

The problem with feminist struggles, is that every one of any practical meaning has already been accomplished in most of the world. It has since stopped being a cause and become merely an identity. Feminism blew its load in 1930. Now it has nothing left to offer.

That is a labor issue and can be addressed entirely as such.

"Consent" is so poorly defined as to amount to little more than an arbitrary third-party opinion. Making a crime subject to interpretation rather than a clearly-defined act is prone to injustice. Besides, it is absurd to equate the respective experiences of someone who got drunk and fucked somebody that she didn't mean to to someone who was forcibly restrained, beaten, and sexually violated by a sadist who wanted to enjoy her pain.

maybe so, but it is still a gendered issue and thus feminist in nature
there's always levels of interpretation
anyway my reservations about the consent issue are about what I think Zizek wrote about: the alienation of sexual contact becoming some kind of legal contract, and the reduction of the complexity of implied, nonverbal human contact/communication into some mechanical legalistic, robotic performance
but presumably in the first case the person gave their consent, only on poor grounds they'd later regret.

Those aren't real, but this one is.

Attached: tpusa indonesia socialism.jpg (800x815, 558.95K)

Isn't Singapore controlled mostly by a single party? Also, they have a rather strong welfare state and several companies are state owned.

Far from the libertarian utopia Murray Cuckbard and Ludwig Von Misses envisioned. As a matter of fact, I've yet to see a functional laissez faire society, even a Hoppean one.

It is. unfortunately, for feminism, they rather focus on "muh sexist media" and "muh misogynist internet" than actually benefitting working class women (ending the wars, which kills women across the globe; adressing wealth inequality, which opresses women as well; abolishing capitalism, which also subjugates women as second class citizens; etc).

Class-focused feminism (socialist feminism) is ok. How many of mainstream feminists are actually socialists? Fucking Zero.

Long-story-short: If the biggest threat to mainstream feminism is some random dickhead making a videogame/movie/book/song about fucking women, then they are the textbook definition of privileged and not a part of the working class; therefore they are our enemies, not because they happen to have a pussy, but because their objective is to alienate the working class with meaningless shit.

Under an actual insurrection, there will be no
sex/gender discrimination of any kind. Bourgeois women get the bullet too.

I agree, but you do understand my reasoning, right?
how about less bloodlust? let's try and 'eliminate the bourgeoisie as a class' instead of as people for real this time.
now, it's a matter of fact that many if not most of the bourgeoisie will oppose the revolution and thus have to be dealt with, but then it's a very different situation.

It is an issue that does not require a feminist perspective to address. In fact, it would be far simpler to forego the feminist take entirely and treat it as the labor issue that it is.

Yes, so it is best not to invite more.

Yes, but there is more to be worried about than awkward social interactions. Rape accusations ruin lives. They need to be as clear as possible, and there is nothing clear at all about consent.

One would think so, but who is to say that she did give consent or that she was capable of giving consent in her inebriated frame of mind? That issue is a frequent one.


How is Indonesia socialist? Besides, Singapore gets its labor from Malaysia and Indonesia.


The problem with supposedly class-focused feminism is that it has nowhere to go and nothing to do that has not already been done.

That's my favourite type of macro

Attached: USA VS RWANDA.png (1336x1000, 1.21M)

What is this thread?

Either way in regards to OP's question:
salon.com/2013/10/11/fox_news_and_talk_radio_brainwashed_my_dad_partner/"

The political right literally have researched and mass engage in extremely advanced propaganda and levels of psyops through their media that basically brainwash their listeners and viewers, they have dumped literally billions of dollars into these techniques. Just watch how Fox News anchors speak for example (youtube.com/watch?v=ExQDAdS-BY0) notice how unnatural the speaking pattern is?, it's specifically designed to hit points in your brain that control fear and hate and it literally affects I believe Dopamine levels from what I remember reading, so people become chemically addicted to it.

Sure when you just listen to it once or twice, it's easy to ignore and laugh at, but lots of people have fox news or AM radio on at their work, while they're driving, in the receptionist office etc and they let down their guard and it's not long before they're screaming about the Jews, the Socialists and how Trump is a golden god.

youtube.com/watch?v=Qh3TeTxgNVo

Read the comments on this video for people talking about how their family members, friends etc all became raving, hate filled, violent, lunatics because of their exposure to right wing media. I've seen it happen to people I know, pretty much everyone has I think. It is actual brainwashing.

One comment

Again, just straightup classic cult brainwashing done on a massive scale.

The absolute lack of selfawareness. Did you watch your own video?


What was it you said? "it's specifically designed to hit points in your brain that control fear and hate"
fox is a propaganda machine funded by capitalism yes, but this is just cringe. Facebook, Google, and the NSA are way bigger threats than fox right now.

Attached: flickering fire.PNG (1153x588 367.67 KB, 784.68K)

How is this on any level the same level as the mass brainwashing techniques of Fox and right wing media?


No it isn't, stop downplaying how right wing media has turned Americans into fucking drooling retards.


They're literally not. Fox news is far more influential than fucking facebook. News Corp literally overthrows Governments, they're called the "King makers" by UK Politics, Australia dumped it's fiber optic telecommunications network to build a copper one because of them. They're by far the most influential political organisation in the western world.

...

have you been in a coma for the past 5 years or something?

Hammer and sickle right-wing, Hillary… leftist??

There is a link with conservatism and inbreedness.
& there is a link between inbreedness & retardness. So yes my man it's true.

Attached: ee11cb08892c44ceb80e3807c215f227efca6a378f02a15d4798427bbd6773e9.png (525x343, 81.8K)

Aversion IN GENERAL is a stress disorder. Get triggered, brain collapses. It's also a downward spiral. Get triggered, become more of a special right-wing snowflake; become more of a special right-wing snowflake, get triggered harder and easier. Spiral.
Stress, specifically the glucocorticoid reaction, also happens to be incredibly fucking neurotoxic, literally etching fluid-filled lesions into the brain. So…
Cat scan like Schaivo. Literally…

...

you're retarded too givin them too much credit or making a conspiracy theory a super retarded one in that. To justify the stupidty of the hosts of these shit shows: youtube.com/watch?v=9iFRv8hm71k

"you're out of your cotton picking mind" this is how these inbreed retarded rurals think unironically… I been there I met plenty of people from those areas they are like the stupid american stereotype. It exist. You're defending it like a triggered moron, it might hit too close to home thats why. Are your parents that inbred?

Cheap, democrat(tm) contentless churnalist copywriting bores me, but I've never actually HEARD them use the phrases "vermin" or "enemy within." Unlike right-wing radio, which does it a god-damn lot.
Also, a lot less flat-out murder plots. Or bombings, for that matter. Aside from the lack of copkillings (sorry, but you are armed and in uniform), that's a good thing.

What are the stats on consanguineous marriages in the US?

Writing people off as "retarded" and "already fucked up in their brains" is pouring gasoline on the fire of nationalist and authoritarian impulses. Not only that, it is willfully confirming your own views without trying to understand where other people develop theirs.

Attached: 1512329223487.jpg (640x628, 146.58K)

If someone is objectively wrong I don't care that much about the sincere origins of their views (unless it can help me change them which in the case of Trumpists is doubtful to say the least).

This is correct, just look at even communist subreddits like /r/shitliberalssay. If you spend too long in an echo chamber you just start repeating the same shit over and over without thinking about it anymore.

Yeah, dude, media outlets never collude with one another in order to put out a united front in order to push a singular narrative.

Attached: gamergate.jpg (2160x2250, 618.84K)

This is the same logic as "gays are pedos" and "all non-Christians are serving satan". It's called splitting. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)

Actually pretty relevant to the thread topic.

That's one of the strongest overlaps between liberalism and leftism; completely undeserved elitism. This is coming from a middle class slightly liberal leaning person in a scientific field.
newrepublic.com/article/142372/elitism-liberalisms-biggest-problem

Retarded liberals will use the fact that they "believe" in "climate change" as evidence for their intelligence, without even knowing that there are 4 main climate change models to "believe in".
Retarded leftists here will use the fact that one time they read a book as evidence for their intelligence, unironically believing that other people somehow don't read books.

Now that is how you do "retarded" and "fucked in the head."

anyone who refers to gamers with a capital G is going to get executed

I can't tell if you're being ironic, or have zero self awareness. Since this is Zig Forums, it's more likely to be the latter, though.

A condition that you are intimately familiar with, I'm sure.

Yes, as a matter of fact, when you're dealing with a bunch of "people" who unironically believe that Karl Marx is some sort of infallible prophet, it's impossible to establish any sort of bare minimum of intelligence where if anyone falls below it, you can just assume they're joking.

It is no wonder that you have a recurring issue with people calling you retarded.

This describes almost exactly zero people.

Not any of the posters in that conversation, but I disagree with marxists that people can only be motivated by financial gain. There are spiritual motivations that people can possibly have too, which enables people to shun material gain in favor of spiritual health.


many reasons communist and socialist states fail (ie not "real" communism) is because the leadership is corrupted by money. Once they have cash in their pockets and power, why the fuck would they give that up just to help you? This is a point I've never seen truly addressed by other leftists, that the impulse to defect is simply true strong for someone not spiritually motivated by a higher purpose. One example would be the DSA, would stole $200k of its members' money. The money was raised for the charlottesville victims, but oops turns out we can't distribute the money, looks like we're keeping the $200,000! No refunds of course.

Spiritual motivation, however, gives humanity the strength to overcome greedy and selfserving actions. As soon as communist leaders have wealth and power, what solidarity do they have left with the working class? Zero. I'll give you an example of what happened to me. Tail light was out, cop pulled me over. Instead of giving me a ticket, he just let me know that I had to get it replaced. He could have fucked me over for financial gain, but he believed in the higher purpose of the safety of the public, not nickel and diming citizens.

Obviously not all cops are like this, but if a policeman only has financial motives, then what's stopping him from fining me up the ass? If I ever mention morality, ethics, or solidarity beyond class, all I get is a bunch of Stirner reaction images, but I never see any real revolutions coming from the left. Every revolution you see is inherently nationalist, which most leftists are opposed to. The working class is often concerned with family values, religiosity/spirituality, and making a better society for their nation. Call all of those things spooks if you want, it doesn't change that any workers' revolution will inevitably be 'fascist'. The Frankfurt school realized this, and decided that any revolution that would be leftwing requires elites and capitalists to fund it.

I would cite recent protests and riots in France, where the workers were paying an absurdly high gas tax while getting nothing in return from their police state government. Instead, the welfare was going to migrants who weren't working. I'll get some shit for this but, a true revolution requires fascists and communists to transcend their minor differences and work as one. Hitler himself was a communist, but converted to fascism after spying on the nazi's and converting to nazism himself. He also pulled the communists over to his side as well.

Then why reply to him?

This misconception of what materialists (not even necessarily marxists) consider to be the nature of human motivation betrays a massive blind spot built into "individualism." Individuals have a multitude of various and often conflicting motivations that cause them to behave in an unpredictable manner, however, large, well-defined groups of individuals behave like clockwork in regard to their definitive quality. Individuals within those groups may act differently, but the group is a machine.

kill all gamers

...

Gaymurrs is exactly what we need. END THE FURRY vs GAMERS WAR NOW!

Attached: furries anime niggas.jpg (600x605, 84.58K)

Finally there is a war where casualties are a good thing!

"muh mental retardation"

actual mentally ill people aren't even given a platform, noticing how this board supports eugenics for them but if you mention any other special interest group, you get railroaded to hell.

THE SHEER IRONY OF IT ALL.

I was responding to him saying Marx isn't infallible. I'm distinguishing that I'm not the person he was replying too.


I would agree to an extent. If the motivation is worker liberation, it is inherently rooted in material gain, e.g. poor workers have not enough to get by, rich people have too much. It's tempting for rising leaders and organizers to defect, so much so that true communist societies never get off the ground. When the entire motivation is based on pleasure/material wealth, and those individual needs are satisfied, there is barely any incentive for a leader to use his position of power to help the workers out.

If that leader is ideologically driven by spirituality or simple in-group preference, he has a reason to resist lining his own pockets.

Mostly low information memes of social media. Guys who have no idea what they're talking about. 56% nazis are the most hilarious if you nail them from the right. Christian La Creatura are the most hilarious.

Attached: Whiter than you whiter than you no _6e67a93f8ee020ddf2a7e40dc7bddb16.jpg (324x326, 22.27K)

Believing in the left/right scam makes you an idiot, as OP showed nicely ;)

Wrong. YouTube is more influential than Fox OR FaceBook.
See Prager U, Louder With Crouder, InfoWars, Blaze, QAnon.

Fox is for Boomers.

The actual cognitive difference is that right wingers have stronger fight or flight instincts, and lower capacity for empathy.

I would add the caveat that individual leaders do not personally steer the courses of their respective societies. States are instruments of class rule, and the ruling class in aggregate steers the actual course of it.

Wat?

Use it or lose it. When you get all your opinions prepackaged, you gradually lose the ability to think for yourself. With people like these debating is useless, the only thing you can do is to show them that they can think for themselves.

Attached: page02.png (341x1056, 228.65K)

Proofs?

Zig Forumsyps like to group Democrats with leftists for some reason.

I dunno about you but you come off a concern troll

this kind of shit coming from the left and right is stupid. pic not related

Attached: 1f156312f74037ebfc47dae997299c25.jpg (2000x1330, 402.77K)

I'll refer to you as Fag with a capital F. because faggots are failures.

its either inbred or mutt. you can't be both.

people who use both when describing Americans are stupid af and need put in gulag.

violence is a part of life.

Attached: shopenhauerweb.jpg (580x576, 94.61K)

the media in America isn't right wing or left wing, just different flavors of liberal capitalism.

Capitalism is right-wing.

wrong. it is left-wing and horrible.

t. feudalism supporter

...

are you implying?

Will Shetterly (a demsoc) has a blog with the title "Social Justice Warriors: Do Not Engage" dating from 2009, but IIRC claims not to have coined the term, in which case it's not really clear where the pejorative originated.

"Social justice" is a jesuit concept dating back to the late 19th century. The "warrior" epithet goes back to the nineties.

Very reminiscent of "political correctness" being coined by leftists to criticize conformist authoritarians within communist parties

Attached: tldrnigger.jpg (392x500, 56.15K)

Attached: ethnogroupscognitivetiers.jpg (9740x5994, 4.03M)

Yes, right-wingers are often religious idiots.
After all, the whole right-wing perspective is based on religious morality. That's why you can't expect anything from these uneducated fools.

Attached: Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System.png (763x967, 1.46M)