#walkaway

[anticlimatic]

I mean, assuming that I gave her the benefit of the doubt and believed she was sincere, there would still be no way in hell I'd be able to share this on my social media feed and be taken seriously by 80% of my friends and family. So either way, it's kind of a pointless discussion. If you can't beat them, join them, ya know?

Is the point of ones political theory to share it on social media? Maybe I'm an outlier, but I don't take anyone who posts anything political seriously. I'll share stuff once in a while, but never anything political.

My girlfriend is currently forcing me to read A People's History Of The United States, but I'm having a hard time getting into it. Maybe it's my inner buddhist, but power struggles are nothing I'll ever be able to care about on a personal level. Life is just too short and sweet for all that drum marching anger at unseen adversaries.

 

[anticlimatic]

Isn't there a whole subgenre on Youtube about people escaping the alt right pipeline?

I have been looking for this. If you happen to find some, this would be a good place to share it.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Ok, fine.
I will post it.


Republican voters against Trump - Youtube



Plus there is probably more somewhere else (like the Lincoln project).

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Ok, fine.
I will post it.


Republican voters against Trump - Youtube



Plus there is probably more somewhere else (like the Lincoln project).

damn democrat propaganda.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Is the point of ones political theory to share it on social media? Maybe I'm an outlier, but I don't take anyone who posts anything political seriously. I'll share stuff once in a while, but never anything political.

No, it isn't the point. My point, which was poorly expressed, is that even if I agreed with some of the things she said, I couldn't be caught sharing it with the majority of people I know (most of whom are on social media at this point). I actually recently deactivated my Facebook and once I've gotten any pictures off there, I intend to fully delete the thing.

My girlfriend is currently forcing me to read A People's History Of The United States, but I'm having a hard time getting into it. Maybe it's my inner buddhist, but power struggles are nothing I'll ever be able to care about on a personal level. Life is just too short and sweet for all that drum marching anger at unseen adversaries.

It's a good book, give it a chance. It's looking at history from a different perspective, and different perspectives is the theme of this thread. I think Zinn's approach to reviewing history can be difficult to swallow because those of us in the USA are very used to learning history through the perspective of nations. We only get half the picture that way. Both approaches are valuable, IMO. My favorite part was on the Iroquois Nations.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I do occasionally get recommendations in my feed for videos about ex-white nationalists. I do find it interesting, that all have something in common. Their transformations didn't take place after being punched by antifascists/antiracists, but typically after prolonged conversations with non-white people, often in which they recall being asked "why" a lot and being unable to really answer for their beliefs.

"WHY?" is one of the most powerful things one can say to another person. I hope that the people walking away from the democratic party are at least taking a similar approach, asking themselves WHY/or that their transformation involved someone asking them WHY.

 

[Maou]

I find it amusing that Democratic voters believe they are the "resistance", and the "counter culture", but espose all the same beliefs as mega corperations, the establishment, and the MSM.

Also, I am still technically a Liberal, but I am also extremly pro-constitutional. My political stances have not changed much, and the reason I started voting Republican was because of threats to our constitutional rights, and awareness of how certain laws and or beliefs will play out poorly despite good intentions.(The road to hell...) Also, because many (not all) Leftists are just outright terrible fucking people outside of their words. I pay attention more to people's actions, and how you treats others fairly, even in disagreement. It says a lot about someone's character. I would say character, and actions are a far better indicator on how trustworthy or reliable someone actually is, than sweet words. You can be all about green energy, and charity work. But if you treat...lets say a McDonald's employee like shit because they forgot your drink. You are probably a terrible person. And sure, Republicans have their fair share of assholes, but I find Republicans to be far more honest and reliable overall. (Not talking about politicians here, but voters.)

 

[Vendrah]

You can be all about green energy, and charity work. But if you treat...lets say a McDonald's employee like shit because they forgot your drink. You are probably a terrible person.

Agreed. But the neoliberalism ideology on the right pretty much gives you rights and encourage you to mistreat the McDonald's employee.

because many (not all) Leftists are just outright terrible fucking people outside of their words.

My experience on south is actually the opposite, 'Rightitsts' are just outright terrible fucking people outside of their words. Many just use religion just to commit more sins and are horribly hypocritical.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

can we just agree that no ideology has a monopoly on terrible people?

 

[Maou]

Agreed. But the neoliberalism ideology on the right pretty much gives you rights and encourage you to mistreat the McDonald's employee.

What is Neoliberalism ideology, in your own words?

I've never seen any sort of entitlement empowerment on the Right, unless you mean social security. They do have the right to that, because they've been paying for it. I have seen this entitlement behavior from Baby boomers (Karens). And they usually vote Democrat, because of unions.

My belief is socially, people should act and behave respectfully regardless of anyone's belief, status, or wealth. I also believe people have the right to say whatever simultaniously. As people like to say, you have freedom of speech. Not freedom of consequence. What is socially acceptable changes and evolves naturally, but progress can happen far faster if people were a bit more empathetic and not thinking of themselves as better or more intelligent than the people they disagree with. That applies to both sides.

My experience on south is actually the opposite, 'Rightitsts' are just outright terrible fucking people outside of their words. Many just use religion just to commit more sins and are horribly hypocritical.

It's probably more fair to say that there are a lot of assholes out there, than one side having more or not. My opinion on this is strictly based on my exposure to them, and what I see of them online in my interactions.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Is the point of ones political theory to share it on social media? Maybe I'm an outlier, but I don't take anyone who posts anything political seriously. I'll share stuff once in a while, but never anything political.

My girlfriend is currently forcing me to read A People's History Of The United States, but I'm having a hard time getting into it. Maybe it's my inner buddhist, but power struggles are nothing I'll ever be able to care about on a personal level. Life is just too short and sweet for all that drum marching anger at unseen adversaries.

I mean, to go back to that video by whatshername, that one stood out from most of the others I've bothered to click on in this thread. I might get some flak for stating the following points, and this is in no way meant to endorse any sort of political exodus.

-Where I agree with her is yes, sometimes the MSM plays a big role in overplaying, overstating, exaggerating, or falsifying (typically by way of omission) elements of certain stories. And yes, as much as I hate to have to be put in this position, I admit that they have taken things said by trump out of context on more than one occasion (this doesn't necessarily make him right or some sort of martyr or hero)--I had made this point a while back among mostly liberal friends and family, and that proved to be a big mistake on my part. So I usually just don't bother anymore, because you're automatically a fascist Trump supporter if you even try to look at it fairly. Do I think trump is responsible for stoking some of the fires of white nationalism and extremism in general? Yes, I do. Do I think he's solely responsible? Nope. I think the media (all of it, left and right) are also partially to blame here. And I think some of his democratic opponents. But I'm not saying his supporters or he gets off the hook either.

-I have been a bit confused as to how to approach the proud boys thing, because despite the common messages I see that they're a white nationalist group, I've also seen evidence of non-white members, white members married to non-white people, some chapters trying to work with BLM chapters to find common ground, etc. So I do suspect that just like some blanket portrayals of groups like BLM and Antifa, that we might not be getting the full picture on this group. I also think you're going to see varying extremes with any activists group that is so decentralized, whether we're referring to Antifa or to Proud Boys, and I'm not surprised that some people drawn to the proud boys will in fact be white nationalists, but I'm also not willing to label the entire group as such without more solid evidence (rather than hearsay and secondhand accounts), just as I wouldn't be willing to label all Antifa people as violent extremists. I suspect but cannot prove that the media as a whole plays up the most extreme elements or activities by both left and right wing activist groups, in an effort to reinforce a particular narrative which ensures higher TV ratings.

-But I've probably already said more than I should and will probably get jumped by at least 1 or 2 people, and I'm sure a certain someone will find an opportunity to indirectly reply to me in an attempt to bait and antagonize, despite my repeated adherence to what I understood was to be a mutual no-contact agreement. I am using the ignore feature, but that doesn't stop me from having to see others quote their posts here.

I appreciated her video also because unlike many of these walkaway testimonials, it wasn't one posted on some #walkaway sort of channel, but on her own, and it doesn't appear her channel just conveniently appeared around the time this movement really started to get publicity, as some of the channels posting this sort of video did. Maybe she's getting paid by some interest group, but until I see hard evidence of that, I'm willing to provide her the benefit of the doubt and at least hear what she has to say

 

[Maou]

 

[Merced]

I have been looking for this. If you happen to find some, this would be a good place to share it.

A lot of these give evidence to the "Libertarian to Alt Right Pipeline" theory, in that American Libertarianism is quick way to fall into Alt Right sentiments. I'd also recommend the following videos that outline the ways people become radicalized. The Alt Right Playbook is a series that I recommend in its entirety, as it covers the recruitment process and rhetorical tactics used by the Alt Right.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Let’s clarify that most of those people aren’t true libertarians though. Being ancap, in a militia, and/or minarchist does not a libertarian one make.

Libertarianism is a left wing ideology with close ties to socialism which originated in Europe. These guys ain’t libertarian by any proper definition

Clarification and any agreed upon set of definitions seems to be sorely lacking whenever the L word gets casually tossed about like this.

Though you did clarify the American variety, to be fair, which is a different animal than European (or Chomsky’s) libertarianism

 

[anticlimatic]

A lot of these give evidence to the "Libertarian to Alt Right Pipeline" theory, in that American Libertarianism is quick way to fall into Alt Right sentiments. I'd also recommend the following videos that outline the ways people become radicalized. The Alt Right Playbook is a series that I recommend in its entirety, as it covers the recruitment process and rhetorical tactics used by the Alt Right.

These videos are very good. Thank you for sharing. Really love the backstory/journey/current status, and calm easy to digest way of explaining themselves. That first guy, the gamer from Florida, had a really comparable form to the first video I posted here.

I can see how progressives could get sucked into the alt right- the same way a lot of Christians get sucked into millitant atheism- with the tremendous overlap of form between the two ideologies (regardless of divergent content). Both are very preoccupied with class power struggles, both view society through the lens of race, both seem to be powered by engines of anger and resentment. I'm not personally convinced that one is better than the other just because it's been normalized by the mainstream, but I support anyone making their own judgements and decisions and living their life however they choose.

I used to think that people should be pushed or manipulated into things that were for their own good, even and especially if they didn't realize it, but I've changed my mind after seeing the same sentiment reciprocated by people whose philosophy differs from mine. I think civil liberty is more important.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

One of the things I enjoy about being in Facebook libertarian groups is the vast range of ideas there. It runs just about the full spectrum in a way that I rarely see in any other political groups on social media. It’s a good way for both righties and lefties to step outside of their comfortable echo chambers. Being confronted with opposing viewpoints makes people more rounded and better at arguing their own. It forces people to reevaluate their own beliefs and notice biases and blind spots in their thinking.

Left wingers willing to step out of their echo chambers can become powerful debaters. I assume the same is true for some right wingers

It helps us learn to hold arguments or dialogues in our head; it helps us to construct opposing arguments in our head so that we can better argue our own sides.

It’s about getting away from the dogmatic approach of echo chamber politics.

 

[Vendrah]

What is Neoliberalism ideology, in your own words?

I've never seen any sort of entitlement empowerment on the Right, unless you mean social security. They do have the right to that, because they've been paying for it. I have seen this entitlement behavior from Baby boomers (Karens). And they usually vote Democrat, because of unions.

My belief is socially, people should act and behave respectfully regardless of anyone's belief, status, or wealth. I also believe people have the right to say whatever simultaniously. As people like to say, you have freedom of speech. Not freedom of consequence. What is socially acceptable changes and evolves naturally, but progress can happen far faster if people were a bit more empathetic and not thinking of themselves as better or more intelligent than the people they disagree with. That applies to both sides.

In a quick definition, I would say that neoliberalism ideology is about the perfection and appreciation of the market in the absence of interference from the state. In other words, "more market, less state" & "market is perfect when the states does not intervene". Although this is a short and quick definition, the complete thing isn't really much more than that.

Since the neoliberalism preaches for the market perfection, it is a decision from the market how much somebody's work values, and indirectly how much that person value. That is the meritocracy on the neoliberalism way (which is a fake meritocracy): Your value is how much the market valued you plus (actually, *) how much you work (income = hours worked*$ per hour). It always understands that there is an equal value exchange: You are worthy of what you are paid for. Of course, all of this "unless the state or the unions intervenes". They dislike the Unions because they get on the way of that, since the Unions do build a fight to try to make the worker less "disvaluable" than the market, or the Unions build a fight to value the worker more than the market value them. Since the Mcdonald's employee have a work that is clearly bad paid, that clearly lacks value in the standard of capitalism, that automatically takes the employee as a person who lacks worth, and, by consequence, they 'deserve' to be mistreated. That is how the neoliberalism ideology on the right pretty much gives you rights and encourage you to mistreat the McDonald's employee - you are on your free-will to mistreat someone which 'naturally' deserves to be mistreated because it is an unworthy person (and the market decided the person unworthyness, because the market is always fair because of its "laws").

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Worker owned business is the cure; I think they lead to more involvement and rewards for the workers without some of the limitations unions might place on markets and companies. Markets in themselves aren't good or bad, rather, how we limit access and rewards is what should be evaluated.

It's the most practical and realistic application of mutualism we can hope for, at least currently.

 

[Maou]

In a quick definition, I would say that neoliberalism ideology is about the perfection and appreciation of the market in the absence of interference from the state. In other words, "more market, less state" & "market is perfect when the states does not intervene". Although this is a short and quick definition, the complete thing isn't really much more than that.

Since the neoliberalism preaches for the market perfection, it is a decision from the market how much somebody's work values, and indirectly how much that person value. That is the meritocracy on the neoliberalism way (which is a fake meritocracy): Your value is how much the market valued you plus (actually, *) how much you work (income = hours worked*$ per hour). It always understands that there is an equal value exchange: You are worthy of what you are paid for. Of course, all of this "unless the state or the unions intervenes". They dislike the Unions because they get on the way of that, since the Unions do build a fight to try to make the worker less "disvaluable" than the market, or the Unions build a fight to value the worker more than the market value them. Since the Mcdonald's employee have a work that is clearly bad paid, that clearly lacks value in the standard of capitalism, that automatically takes the employee as a person who lacks worth, and, by consequence, they 'deserve' to be mistreated. That is how the neoliberalism ideology on the right pretty much gives you rights and encourage you to mistreat the McDonald's employee - you are on your free-will to mistreat someone which 'naturally' deserves to be mistreated because it is an unworthy person (and the market decided the person unworthyness, because the market is always fair because of its "laws").

Im at work, but I'll reply what I've gleaned from this.

If I reduce this down to its simplest form. Neo-Liberalism is essentially perfect market vs worker rights, and worker rights preventing a perfect market.

I think you are overexaggerating its affects, like we all suddenly become chinese sweatshops if Neo-Liberalism wins. That isn't the case at all. Not much would change, and there are many positives too, like deinflation, and more emphasis on individual responsibility. (Putting away your own retirement/health care) You've been convinced you can't have vacations, and days off without workers rights under neo-liberalism. That isn't the case at all, because you still get to choose where you work. Companies will still offer the same benefits to compete, even in a perfect free market, because it can't go backwards. People won't work in sweatshop enviroments unless there is literally zero jobs, they'd just go on welfare instead.

I think free markets are good, and deregulation good. But I also support workers rights too, but I think entitlement and hand holding is an issue. I don't think its black and white, and both are important. Unions are obsolete in my opinion, the moment federal workers rights were a thing. All they've turned into, is a parasite that benefits the union administration more than the workers in it. I also think insurance is a scam/money laundering scheme that once again just funnels all the money into administration and not actual workers like doctors and teachers.

I think the government should not regulate the market, but how buisnesses obtain assets, and use money in certain ways. For example, the USA has a massive issue with monopolies, posing as two entities who do not actually compete which ramps up prices (Like ISPs) and never change in quality. The government should step in and say "If you don't improve your business quality in 5 years, you pay x fine." Then do a cost/benefit analysis of how it is run, where their money is going etc. So the ISPs will scramble to improve their service, and stop paying the CEO and administration insane amounts, and having to higher more people to improve their infastructure. ISPs haven't updated their infrastructure since the 60s, just FYI.

 

[Dreamer]