Why are liberals so fucking cliquish?

Has anyone noticed this?
There's like a dozen reddit subs like /r/shitredditsays, /r/badphilosophy, /r/circlebroke, etc. where they just hole up and gaze down upon the peons.
I would more expect this kind of behavior from conservatives, but I have not seen them do it on anywhere near the same scale.

Attached: dggownload.jpg (225x225, 6.11K)

Other urls found in this thread:

hooktube.com/watch?v=LquIQisaZFU

Liberals derive euphoria from being self righteous and 'woke'. Nothing makes them feel better than a tightly knit hugbox reinforcing them with compliments and upvotes.

Like rain on your wedding day

Conservative subreddits do the same, it's just a fundamental problem with Reddit in general.

fixed

...

If they're on reddit then they are liberals, not socialists

despite the idpol it would be ridiculous to claim on a non-meme level that the people in r/communism are "liberals"

Yes but this fucking list of mean words is the most idpol shit ever.

The ban you for saying nigger. There liberals.

They are actually fascists

red liberals

They're obviously retarded, but they don't really do anything that makes them not socialists anymore.

I don't go to reddit so I honestly don't have any idea what they're like. Would they put idpol above class politics? I'd say that puts them out of the socialist category. This 'intersectionality' shit pays some lip service to class politics, but puts it as only one axis with equal importance alongside race, gender, etc. Which implies supporting a poor worker is less important then supporting a rich black trans woman.

That's the general paradigm.

SRS or "The Fempire" and some others adds the following

Attached: :r:socialism.png (1920x1080, 311.72K)

gee never seen that pic before

...

Decent subs also get ignored. Like Jason's brother, that Jim accelerationst guy made a sub like /r/collapse but it likes knowing society is collapsing so it's called /r/doompill

Probably to capitalize on the black pill which would make sense. So an entire sub about celebrating bad shit happening to people and incels given preference? Sounds awesome to me

Decent subs getting ignored is backwards. The ones that get ignored stay decent while the ones that get attention draw a wider audience that dilutes the content.


u avin a giggle m8?

it really doesn't

You're not disproving it tho.

>>>/reddit/

...

what's there to disprove


don't go on reddit (apart from occasionally lurking in r/boxing) but it's fucking tiresome to constantly hear people whinge about how they got banned from r/socialism or whatever, start your own sub if it really means that much to you, just stop clogging up this board with your bullshit

If something is popular on reddit, hitting the front page and bringing in the average reddit user instead of a small dedicated community then yes it is shit.

It isn't the same subreddit as he was referring to.

Honestly the only subs I see showing any promises at all are the ones they're constantly brigading (but remember Sassenach… Brigading is against policy. TEEHEEHEE)

Braincel
Make forever alone
willful cuckold
Meme pages
Elon Musk

You can actually carry a conversation with these people and they are open to analyzing problems systematically rather than muh individual bad person or band aid solution

And before some one from the reddite lite leftypol says I just sound like some rightist I also think some of the worst and most criminal subs are the Donald and the red pill. Like literally pedo connections and shit.

Attached: 3b824b589fd500239496f470a6197f90e7d669bf699a08ecb94066d54bd5ae8d.png (583x862, 476.48K)

...

Morso than leftiods who go full liberal with "self improvement" Jordan Peterson tier shit when confronted with alienated proles

BUBBLES / SAFE SPACES

Also, this board is as much a bubble as any other. It's a characteristic of the whole system of which liberalism is only one aspect.

There was a poll a few months ago that said that conservatives were more likely to have a friend that is a liberal than vice versa.

There's definitely a cliquishness problem with liberals, but reddit is also structured in a way that encourages cliquishness by design (upvotes, karma, mutes for downvotes, moderators). Nonpolitical communities and right-wing ones there have a lot of the same problems, and leftist subs would too if any existed.

Somewhat

Not trolling, new & genuinely curious since I feel a bit too ignorant and I don't want to support someone against our ideology - What opinions does Jordan Peterson hold/advocate that oppose the left?

1. Spouting an (almost certainly dishonest, given his obviously thorough familiarity with our literature and the philosophers that influenced it) embarrassingly meme-tier "socialism is when government does things, the more things it does the socialister it is" understanding of leftism.
2. On the one hand, decrying the anti-intellectual cancer that is PoMo, but on the other hand bending over backward to avoid alienating rightards from his audience through the same tongue-twisting sophistry that makes PoMo such cancer, vid related.

Attached: Am I Christian_Timothy Lott and Jordan B Peterson-RIB05YeMiW8.mp4 (960x270, 2.62M)

I don't watch him (obviously) but from what I hear he's basically akin to Prager U opinions, he argues that the West is built on ''Judeo-Christian values' and therefore atheism doesn't exist, that SJWs are destroying culture, postmodernism is evil (it's dumb sure but not for the reasons he says), and the universities need to be purged of cultural Marxists.

Attached: 059.png (680x575, 241.55K)

me on the left

Ted predicted this

Attached: powerprocess.png (609x717 131.67 KB, 187.63K)

because its the de-facto ideology of normalfags.

Peterson believes that there is an insidious effort to undermine "Western values" and weaken "Western civilization" as a means to prepare for a revolution to… get more women around the table? For all his complaining about the supposed "post-modern neo-marxist" conspiracy, he never goes into detail on what this conspiracy is supposed to achieve. The most recent claims I have heard of him refer to vague allusions of "diversity, equity, and inclusion", which he reads to be caught within "Hobbsian nightmare of identity groups warring for power" (I'll remind you he is a self-identifying Nietzschean).
Of course the issue with this is that Marxism, especially orthodox Marxism, is deeply intertwined with enlightenment values and is a direct continuation of the Western rational tradition. The revolutionary's insight that the wheel must be made to turn is one deeply intertwined, not only with enlightenment thinking, but with European folk culture ("Turning of the Wheel" IS a Germanic expression). It is pure, high grade, Western ideology.
Likewise, his entire criticism of "post-modern neo-marxism" is predicated on the position that Western civilization is beyond reproach (following equally tenuous, logic of "because it is the best we got" or "because it is the refined conclusion of history"), that those that struggle deserve their suffering, and that the issues that exist are personal manifestations. Hence the hammering on his laughably superficial understanding of sex differences, tepid appeals to nature, and the sophistry he passes as psychoanalytical insight.
Of course these fundaments are only partly true. Even if we assume Western civilization is da best, it still has innate problems that can be improved. To denounce that is to denounce the possibility of improvement at all (where do "blemishes" originate from, if not from gaps in the system itself?). As a consequence of these problems, people do suffer needlessly, and, in turn, people are both unjustly subject to and do create issues. This is a lot more complicated, obviously, but this is not the post to go into depth on radical progressivism.

There's more to it, like how he blatantly hasn't read the people he wants to criticize (always operating on the caricatures of thinkers, rather than the content of their theories - Foucault is especially prudent here), or even figures he aligns himself with (despite what he preaches, Peterson himself is a sparkling example of the Nietzsche's "Letzter Mensch"). The problem here is that Peterson is such a tremendous narcissist that he doesn't wager his own ignorance when reasoning - meaning he blurts out whatever he thinks is relevant with little regard if he can substantiate his claim or if it is coherent to the conversation. This leads us to the myriad of confused statements, many of which don't even go together (like, for example, waffling about the supposed hormonal effects on womens sexuality and, in a beat, switching to making some particularly Freudian statements on masturbation).
It really begs the question how he retained tenure, though the answer to that question might be conjoined with his toothless distaste for his fellow academia.

If you want a surprisingly candid set of claims from J. Peterson, I will point you to a video in which he shows his hand more than usual: hooktube.com/watch?v=LquIQisaZFU I also recommend you read his papers and essays if you want a better understanding of the core of his thinking.
On the other hand I would not recommend watching his live stream videos, as they are disjointed rambles on things Peterson doesn't like and in them he does little to formulate a theory. You might have more luck than me, though, and in case you do want to check them out: go way back on his youtube channel and start with the first few videos. There's a shift very early on from "mere" transphobia to the tacit endorsement of oppression we know him for now that I think is insightful.

As a final note: my frustration with Peterson is not so much with the nonsense that drips form his lips (there's plenty of that to go around), but with the docile dogs of the alt rights eager defense of his stupidity. There are far, far better critics of post-structuralist philosophy, late conceptual art, the thinning of meaning, and anomie, on both the Left and the Right. Zizek, Habermas, Sloterdijk, Dreyfus are all much better read, more perceptive, and far more insightful thinkers. The refusal from his fans to investigate these thinkers is no more than smug, self-contented and ignorant anti-intellectualism by another name.

Kek

Attached: Andromeda_TV_Series_Tyr.jpg (600x468, 37.08K)

>isn't ChomskyZIZEK
Oooops

I actually omitted Chomsky because I felt the list was getting too long (and leaning too far to the left). You're right, though, Chomsky would be another valid suggestion, senile confusion not withstanding.

As for Zizek: it depends on what you understand post-modernism to be. If you count Lacan to the pomo gang, then Zizek should be included as well. Of course, this very classification obfuscates that most of them didn't get along - some on a personal level - and their criticism of one another. (On that note: Derrida and Habermas' friendship, despite their major philosophical opposition, is heartwarming and inspiring.)

Watched the video, and I see more what you mean. He's very black & white in his thinking too.

Thanks for the thoughtful response - I appreciate it :)

What an out-of-left-field, but not unwelcome, comment, thank you.

because they, like homosexuals, enjoy rough buttsex and mixing up bad ideas like gays with STDs and AIDS

Who doesn't enjoy rough buttsex?

kys