So next succdem to go Nazbol?

[lfromnj]

Also, Kander2020 was a left winger and I'm not sure if he's actually believes in Qanon.

I think he is just trolling?
He had a libertarian avatar a few weeks back so he must just be trolling

Worth remembering that this isn't the first time Shadow's gone full fascist. He shouldn't count either.

His partisanship has changed, but has his views actually changed or just what he considers important changed?

Yes I think his views change when he comes across as alt-right. He's always drifted between being far-left and far-right.

I mean can you show him being woke or supporting woke positions before this year?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I've veered very far left in a way that most haven't really noticed because on the 'culture war' issues which even this forum has hyper focused on for two decades, I've always taken the 'open' side regardless of my politics elsewhere.

The more socially connected we are and the more distanced we are from being able to affect mass capitalism, the chances are this sorting will continue.

I'm almost literally the only person I know whose On The Issues stances have actually moderated a bit over the past three or four years. And of course this includes the handful of Issues that I'm not inclined to the left on.

Join us.

I refuse to abandon the maroon avatar to ~The Conflict~-obsessed Third Worldists and Bernie-or-bust zoomers.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Twitter socialism that downplays any intersectionalism because intersectionism bad, placing 'white kid' in the same class struggle as say a black mother with two jobs whose son gets busted by the polis, without any nuance can lead people down towards nihilistic nazbol. There's a tendency for 'sjw lol' types a few years ago to pass through socialism and horseshoe back towards fascism.

Yeah, as someone who's long advocated for the left to deemphasize culture-war issues in favor of good old tried-and-true redistribution, it seriously gives me pause to see how many people take this attitude so far that they become reactionaries. I think there are valid substantive criticisms behind the "lol sjw" attitude you see among online socialists, but when that attitude is buried deep under a dozen layers of irony, it can all too easily becomes toxic. It ends up completely betraying working-class solidarity (which is the whole point of socialism!) by throwing "inconvenient" members of the working-class under the bus, and, in its ultimate stage, is actually all about the culture war. There are way too many people who pick their politics to look cool and strong, and that's been true on the right for a long time, but I can't deny it's happening on the left too nowadays. I've seen it even outside of this forum.

I guess the lesson I take from this is that politics is neither a game nor something worth laughing at, and if you get into it to "win" or for the laughs, you're in it for the wrong reasons.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have never understood the appeal of all these wild ideologies, fringe movements and the like, especially among young people.

Granted I am wired differently from most people, but aside from a few issue shifts generally my views have been the same.

The reason being is I think my philosophy allows enough flexibility to respond to situations as they arise without having to abandon whole cloth.

People don't want uncertainty, nuance or flexibility. We live in an age of narcissism where people expect to be able to have all the answers and if the mainstream cannot provide it, there is always some quack on the internet ready to tell you what you want to hear.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I have never understood the appeal of all these wild ideologies, fringe movements and the like, especially among young people.

Granted I am wired differently from most people, but aside from a few issue shifts generally my views have been the same.

The reason being is I think my philosophy allows enough flexibility to respond to situations as they arise without having to abandon whole cloth.

People don't want uncertainty, nuance or flexibility. We live in an age of narcissism where people expect to be able to have all the answers and if the mainstream cannot provide it, there is always some quack on the internet ready to tell you what you want to hear.

My assumption would be that the young college students who study politics and history, and are therefore more likely to be opinionated compared to the average American, are a bit more drawn to fringe movements because they are most exposed to ideologies like communism and Nazism and fascism. But these ideologies are called "fringe" for a reason. The vast majority of Americans and even the vast majority of active voters are non-ideological, vote on one or two issues, or just vote based on the national mood and/or which candidate they like personally.

And most voters do not think about politics every day of their lives. People who belong to fringe movements do.

Another reason is that our education system does a very poor job of teaching students how to verify the information they read or listen to. Even though young people as a whole are far more tech savvy than their parents' generation, they are just as susceptible to online sources that promote fringe ideologies as older people are.

And without knowing any studies, I would surmise that these websites are tailored as much to age as they are to ideology. Breitbart is very popular among older far-rightists. For younger ones, its equivalents would be /pol/, r/the_Donald (before it got shut down), and Nick Fuentes' group.

YouTube also, prior to cracking down on its content rules and sponsored content, would regularly feature pro-alt-right videos or at least videos popular among the alt-right crowd. (A few years ago a video titled "Jordan Peterson on Jewish intelligence" or something was on my recommended videos for months. Obviously I'm not someone who's prone to watching those types of videos, but the likes of Milo, Paul Joseph Watson, pre-woke Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux, and countless others on Santander's subscribe list dominated the waves there for a long time.)

Social media has to be the biggest culprit, really. But the damage has already been done and there's really no way to control it without stifling free speech - and even if we could, for obvious reasons the internet is extremely, extremely difficult to regulate.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I have never understood the appeal of all these wild ideologies, fringe movements and the like, especially among young people.

Granted I am wired differently from most people, but aside from a few issue shifts generally my views have been the same.

The reason being is I think my philosophy allows enough flexibility to respond to situations as they arise without having to abandon whole cloth.

People don't want uncertainty, nuance or flexibility. We live in an age of narcissism where people expect to be able to have all the answers and if the mainstream cannot provide it, there is always some quack on the internet ready to tell you what you want to hear.

My assumption would be that the young college students who study politics and history, and are therefore more likely to be opinionated compared to the average American, are a bit more drawn to fringe movements because they are most exposed to ideologies like communism and Nazism and fascism. But these ideologies are called "fringe" for a reason. The vast majority of Americans and even the vast majority of active voters are non-ideological, vote on one or two issues, or just vote based on the national mood and/or which candidate they like personally.

And most voters do not think about politics every day of their lives. People who belong to fringe movements do.

Another reason is that our education system does a very poor job of teaching students how to verify the information they read or listen to. Even though young people as a whole are far more tech savvy than their parents' generation, they are just as susceptible to online sources that promote fringe ideologies as older people are.

And without knowing any studies, I would surmise that these websites are tailored as much to age as they are to ideology. Breitbart is very popular among older far-rightists. For younger ones, its equivalents would be /pol/, r/the_Donald (before it got shut down), and Nick Fuentes' group.

YouTube also, prior to cracking down on its content rules and sponsored content, would regularly feature pro-alt-right videos or at least videos popular among the alt-right crowd. (A few years ago a video titled "Jordan Peterson on Jewish intelligence" or something was on my recommended videos for months. Obviously I'm not someone who's prone to watching those types of videos, but the likes of Milo, Paul Joseph Watson, pre-woke Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux, and countless others on Santander's subscribe list dominated the waves there for a long time.)

Social media has to be the biggest culprit, really. But the damage has already been done and there's really no way to control it without stifling free speech - and even if we could, for obvious reasons the internet is extremely, extremely difficult to regulate.

     I find it fascinating that you pointed to the fact that you don't normally watch that kind of content. Internet content platforms have algorithms that try to show you more stuff like what you just watched. The benefits of such are self-evident, but they have the nasty side effect of promoting political sorting. It's extremely easy to fall down a random rabbit hole while on Youtube and end up watching heavily slanted videos advancing fringe ideologies.

     To their credit, Youtube and other platforms are trying to combat this. Even so, the problem still remains. The internet structures itself in ways that promote radicalization and the rise of extremist ideologies. It's not an accident that extremists seem so much more common online than they do in real life.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I've veered very far left in a way that most haven't really noticed because on the 'culture war' issues which even this forum has hyper focused on for two decades, I've always taken the 'open' side regardless of my politics elsewhere.

The more socially connected we are and the more distanced we are from being able to affect mass capitalism, the chances are this sorting will continue.

I'm almost literally the only person I know whose On The Issues stances have actually moderated a bit over the past three or four years. And of course this includes the handful of Issues that I'm not inclined to the left on.

Join us.

I refuse to abandon the maroon avatar to ~The Conflict~-obsessed Third Worldists and Bernie-or-bust zoomers.

Lol don't you trust afleitch and Antonio to take care of it?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

     I find it fascinating that you pointed to the fact that you don't normally watch that kind of content. Internet content platforms have algorithms that try to show you more stuff like what you just watched. The benefits of such are self-evident, but they have the nasty side effect of promoting political sorting. It's extremely easy to fall down a random rabbit hole while on Youtube and end up watching heavily slanted videos advancing fringe ideologies.

     To their credit, Youtube and other platforms are trying to combat this. Even so, the problem still remains. The internet structures itself in ways that promote radicalization and the rise of extremist ideologies. It's not an accident that extremists seem so much more common online than they do in real life.

To be fair with regard to Peterson, I actually did like him quite a bit when he was a bit new to the internet scene. Obviously I was drawn more to his psychology takes than his politics, but I soured on him after he would start speaking on topics in a way that's so convoluted it would take a team of academics to try to decipher what he means or he would say or write things (usually in tweet form) that were obviously intended just to provoke people.

I just think it's funny because all my other Leftbook friends were getting that same exact video on their feeds. But I don't think me watching a Peterson video about self-discipline should necessarily lead to "Gavin McInnes presents: 'Ten Things I Hate About Jews'" and the other crap that weaned me off YouTube surfing.

And yes, YouTube has to their credit cleaned up their site quite a bit, namely by banning people like Milo and Molyneux and most of their worst offenders.

[Averroës Nix]

One of the best ways to protect your thoughts is to root out all sources of information that rely on algorithmic sorting and recommendations. Three rules:

1. Don't use any site with a newsfeed that doesn't permit chronological sorting or that forces you to view content from users that you didn't choose to follow.

2. If you can't avoid sites with these features, use an ad-blocker to remove those elements. (This has been effective for me on YouTube and LinkedIn.)

3. Finally, seek out alternatives to any platform with a revenue model that is contingent on capturing your attention.

You can use RSS feeds to keep up with most things. You can use nitter.net to read tweets. You can minimize your dependence on Google by learning better search techniques and familiarizing yourself with other resources.

There's nothing inherently wrong with recommendation engines, but there's a misalignment with your interests when they are designed to monopolize your attention. There's also value in pushing yourself back toward following recommendations from other humans, whether it's someone you know, a chain of Wikipedia articles, a source from a bibliography, or a link on a blog.

Strong forces are directing us toward a future in which we lose our ability to wander, literally and figuratively. Everything has become so ordered around capturing our attention that it becomes a matter of deliberate practice to spend time with things that hold no predictable interest, and perhaps even bore us.

[Continential]

me

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I've veered very far left in a way that most haven't really noticed because on the 'culture war' issues which even this forum has hyper focused on for two decades, I've always taken the 'open' side regardless of my politics elsewhere.

The more socially connected we are and the more distanced we are from being able to affect mass capitalism, the chances are this sorting will continue.

I'm almost literally the only person I know whose On The Issues stances have actually moderated a bit over the past three or four years. And of course this includes the handful of Issues that I'm not inclined to the left on.

Join us.

I refuse to abandon the maroon avatar to ~The Conflict~-obsessed Third Worldists and Bernie-or-bust zoomers.

Lol don't you trust afleitch and Antonio to take care of it?

Of course I trust afleitch and Antonio. But my mother taught me that if you want something done the surest way is to do it yourself.

[Santander]

I wanna be Nazbol.

[The Mikado]

Speaking of Youtube, it's funny and more than a little depressing how if I watch a few Star Wars videos in a given period of time I'm invariably recommended Nazi content for a while. The two should not be linked!

[PSOL]

I wanna be Nazbol.

Join the party at bunkerchan with your fellow Nazbols.

[parochial boy]

Huh, I've just been looking at what youtube is recommending me - it's mostly music videos ot milquetoast pop science stuff like "are there too many beehives in cities?"

I do think that these sorts of swinging ideological changes tend to pop up mostly with the sorts of people who tie up a little bit too much or their personal identity in their political views

[Former President tack50]

Re: fake news; isn't it just much easier to only trust news from "reputable sources"?

And yes, this means that only the mainstream media would count, though the quality of American mainstream media is apalling; it's still a million times better than the fringe "fake news" sites; both on the left and on the right.

Granted I am basing this mostly off my experiences with Spanish media. Newspapers like La Razón or ElDiario most definitely have a very clear ideological bent; but they do not make stuff up. The more centrist or non-ideological the newspaper, the better Idk what site would qualify in the US like that. Maybe something like USA Today? Though a read through their Wikipedia article does reveal they are getting more politically active? (for Spain I do tend to simply just go with a place like 20Minutos)

For the people who want to be super purist, I actually recommend to limit their sources even more; and only trust reputable news agencies. For the US this would mean using only Reuters or AP to inform yourself. (For Spain, I recommend EFE or Europa Press)

News agencies offer close to 0 analysis and their news reporting is extremely dry and boring; but by their design they also limit themselves to the hard dry facts and only the facts.

Anyways, imo there is a clear ranking in terms of credibility:

Fringe sites < Social Networks<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Mainstream media < News agencies

There is also this graph, which I think makes a good point as well, though I am not 100% sure of how accurate it will be; and I expect conservatives to call the media in the center leftist and leftists to call the media in the center conservative. I am not sure if you can ever have a 100% unbiased publication but I guess you can come close

[PSOL]

You know, when Jacobin Magazine is apparently less “liberal“ than Motherjones, I think there’s a problem with the chart in general

[LAKISYLVANIA]

First of all, what is succdem

Laki seems to straddle the line between marxism and, like, blackpilled alt-rightism.

I don't know what blackpilled means. I have made mistakes by not condemning the alt-right enough or defending Trump too much. Although i still think it's wrong to categorize Trump as the devil, and devilize all his supporters. There's no way 45% of the American population that is eligible to vote is racist, fascist or whatever. The reason i got attracted to his campaign was his economically populist message. Unfortunately, results do matter, and his presidency was a huge disappointment. The far-left in Belgium campaigns on right-wing parties being liars somehow, and they have a point, because they say a lot, but when they have to take action they do exactly the opposite.

I try to go in discussion with right-wingers, and believe the right has from time to time a point. I engage in discussions with right-wingers, in the hope of convincing them of my own beliefs, and searching for a common point. We're all humans with different opinions, but we all have the same blood in our veins, and for every point we differ on, we also have a common point. I think everyone wants the best for their country and the world. I do so, for sure. I did grow up and live among a lot of right-wingers. I barely know any left-wingers. I have had a lot of success with this tactic, even though some don't like my style and i might sometimes disappoint left-wingers with my posts, but when it is essential, i will back the left. And people like West_Midlander and Lechasseur just happen to be people that remind me a lot of the right-wingers i know and i do agree with them a lot! I wouldn't say i'm far-left, but i'm a left-winger for sure. Maybe centrist on immigration & culture / traditions and right-wing on crime though (which would be left-wing in America because Americans are much harsher on crime), but on all other issues as far i do know i'm left-wing

F.Y.I. Vlaams Belang would be my last choice, see my RCV below.

1. PVDA
2. Vooruit / s.pa
3. Groen
4. Open VLD
5. CD&V
6. N-VA
7. Vlaams Belang

Laki seems to straddle the line between marxism and, like, blackpilled alt-rightism.

Nah, Laki is just a blackpilled Marxist. We can talk again if and when he starts endorsing Vlaams Belang.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I'm just very disappointed in the current direction of Democrats and by no means, i'm sparing my critic for them. Another reason why i sometimes seem to defend the right more than the center-left or center is because this forum is full of center-left people, who are willing to die for their own party, while Democrats aren't better than Republicans, maybe a bit, but that's it. If that's the reason why i'm being called a borderline nazbol, and if that's all what you can come up with it, so be it.

And if you advocate for more diversity, you also have to embrace diversity of opinion. That's a core belief, and something we need in a democracy.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Less than a week ago, you said that Trump saying he sexually assaults women is good and manly and "open about sex."

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Less than a week ago, you said that Trump saying he sexually assaults women is good and manly and "open about sex."

Well, obviously. I was wrong about that and I apologize. And my message got twisted. I've heard talk like that so often that the shock value was gone.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I've veered very far left in a way that most haven't really noticed because on the 'culture war' issues which even this forum has hyper focused on for two decades, I've always taken the 'open' side regardless of my politics elsewhere.

The more socially connected we are and the more distanced we are from being able to affect mass capitalism, the chances are this sorting will continue.

I'm almost literally the only person I know whose On The Issues stances have actually moderated a bit over the past three or four years. And of course this includes the handful of Issues that I'm not inclined to the left on.

Join us.

I refuse to abandon the maroon avatar to ~The Conflict~-obsessed Third Worldists and Bernie-or-bust zoomers.

What changed?

[KaiserDave]

I've veered very far left in a way that most haven't really noticed because on the 'culture war' issues which even this forum has hyper focused on for two decades, I've always taken the 'open' side regardless of my politics elsewhere.

The more socially connected we are and the more distanced we are from being able to affect mass capitalism, the chances are this sorting will continue.

I'm almost literally the only person I know whose On The Issues stances have actually moderated a bit over the past three or four years. And of course this includes the handful of Issues that I'm not inclined to the left on.

Join us.

I refuse to abandon the maroon avatar to ~The Conflict~-obsessed Third Worldists and Bernie-or-bust zoomers.

What changed?

New York happened

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I've veered very far left in a way that most haven't really noticed because on the 'culture war' issues which even this forum has hyper focused on for two decades, I've always taken the 'open' side regardless of my politics elsewhere.

The more socially connected we are and the more distanced we are from being able to affect mass capitalism, the chances are this sorting will continue.

I'm almost literally the only person I know whose On The Issues stances have actually moderated a bit over the past three or four years. And of course this includes the handful of Issues that I'm not inclined to the left on.

Join us.

I refuse to abandon the maroon avatar to ~The Conflict~-obsessed Third Worldists and Bernie-or-bust zoomers.

What changed?

I think the color orange suits the shape New York is better than the color maroon does. Thank you for bumping this and reminding me that I held this position, though; principle is more important than aesthetics.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I've veered very far left in a way that most haven't really noticed because on the 'culture war' issues which even this forum has hyper focused on for two decades, I've always taken the 'open' side regardless of my politics elsewhere.

The more socially connected we are and the more distanced we are from being able to affect mass capitalism, the chances are this sorting will continue.

I'm almost literally the only person I know whose On The Issues stances have actually moderated a bit over the past three or four years. And of course this includes the handful of Issues that I'm not inclined to the left on.

Join us.

I refuse to abandon the maroon avatar to ~The Conflict~-obsessed Third Worldists and Bernie-or-bust zoomers.

What changed?

I think the color orange suits the shape New York is better than the color maroon does. Thank you for bumping this and reminding me that I held this position, though; principle is more important than aesthetics.

Shaming works, folx.