I’m a right winger, because the right wing now has all the cool people. At the end of the day that’s really all it comes down to. When I meet someone who is left wing and seems cool initially, at the end I always find out that they’re not. You’ll find out that they want to lock children up in their homes and get angry at you because you go outside jogging DURING A PANDEMIC.
I believe in climate change, I think abortion should be legal (girls who get raped shouldn’t be forced to have a child against their will. If you think abortion is morally reprehensible, then don’t have one, don’t force your views on other people). I don’t hate people of other ethnic groups or sexual orientations. I think psychedelics should be legal. I’m still a right winger though, because the right wing contains the fifty percent or so of humanity who have any redeeming value whatsoever.
On the left we find twenty year old girls with boyish haircuts who identify with the experimental vaccine they had injected into their arm. “Oh I’m #teampfizer hihihihih time to drink some cat urine bye” There’s literally nothing left to salvage there. After four years in college, most of them are so traumatized and desensitized to normal impulses that you’re not able to build up any sort of normal functional relationship with them either.
If they love you they’ll cheat on you, because they want to see you jealous. On the other hand, if they’re in their late twenties they’ll settle down with you without genuinely loving you and most of you are too stupid to figure it out, you’ll go into your grave without realizing it. I recognize them from a mile off, they desensitized themselves to normal impulses and right wing girls go to church and pray to Jesus because they’re terrified to death of turning into them.
“I’m right wing” is now just a way of saying “I hold a number of low status opinions that generally mean the end of your career when people find out about them but I would nonetheless like to have a normal life”.
If you want to see black people who receive the same kind of hatred from mainstream culture that right wing working class rural Christian white men get, just look at the Hotep. The Hotep are mostly just working class black men who really like Ancient Egypt and strongly identify with their own ethnic group and want to raise stable families. Good for them, but they still have to be bashed in shows like “dear white people”, because wokies are triggered by anyone who is actually confident and doesn’t need other people’s approval.
I mean, left wing people are just people low in self-confidence and openness to experience. If they find out that you’re genuinely confident enough to not adjust yourself to social norms, then they hate you, because they can’t do that. That’s ultimately why the Hoteps get the same kind of hatred as working class rural white men.
Remember, left wing men are so lacking in self-confidence that they need an entire parade with a bunch of naked men dancing around in thongs and a giant crowd of heterosexual women cheering them on, to convince themselves that it’s ok for them to screw other guys. And remember: They’re so self-hating that they need AN ENTIRE FRICKING MONTH OF THIS and they need every Fortune 500 company to say “ignore the bible, it’s ok to sodomize each other” by changing their picture on Twitter.
Right wing people hate pride month because they know:
- Straight acting guys are sexier.
- Children shouldn’t be seeing this crap.
- It’s a lot more dignified when you’re discreet.
- Sodomy was taboo in every pre-industrial culture because it spreads disease.
But for whatever reason, left wingers just can’t accept the idea that they’re deviating from a social norm that is almost universal throughout history and cultures. They can’t accept the idea that we need the cultural ideal to be stable heterosexual nuclear families, because that’s what society needs to survive. They need the Fortune 500 companies, the churches, the media, they need everyone to say that this is normal and acceptable, FOR A WHOLE MONTH, before they can accept themselves.
You know what the difference is between me and lefties? When I know that everyone around me disapproves of something, I’m still going to be doing it. I don’t need a giant parade with dancing evil clowns and people turning into toasters and every Fortune 500 company changing their Twitter pic into a Salvia Divinorum flower for a whole month every year, before I decide to smoke salvia in the forest at dusk.
I know that I’m a deviant, that a full time employed father of three children can’t slip off into the night to leave his responsibilities and talk to a bunch of evil clowns in the forest, that society can’t function when everyone does what I do. That’s why the only thing I ask for is to just be allowed to mind my own business, I’m not asking Amazon to change it’s Twitter profile pic into a Salvia Divinorum flower.
I honestly believe that we need to abolish pride month and implement heterosexual nuclear family appreciation month. What do I mean with that? Your mother spent nine months carrying you in her womb and chances are your parents spent two decades taking care of you. Those are two decades during which they could also have been traveling around the world, engaging in orgies while high on MDMA. They chose not to do that, they chose to take care of you. It’s 2021, sexual liberation and birth control are no longer a novelty. Your parents had a choice, they chose you.
I wish that more gay and lesbian people would recognize the special task that they were given in life. They were placed between the genders and they are supposed to help heterosexual people thrive. You’re supposed to help them find out who would fit them well. You’re supposed to help them understand how the other gender experiences the world. And you’re supposed to sometimes offend society, by violating a taboo and saying the unspeakable, like for example, when heterosexual parents feel pressured into giving their daughters puberty blockers because their daughters spent too much time browsing Tumblr. You shouldn’t demand people’s respect without earning it.
You know what’s brave? It’s not when you’re dancing in a thong on a boat. It’s when you make that commitment, that you’re going to ignore a wide range of temptations and opportunities for pleasure in life. It’s when you decide that you’re going to devote two decades of your life, taking care of someone else. That’s impressive to me. And that’s what you’re justified in taking pride of.
so you hold every mainstream leftist opinion possible except something vaguely about batflu and gay men on a boat but you self-identify as a right-winger?
these are some mental fucking gymnastics i didn’t even think you capable of
might as well call you trans-winger from now on lmao
Nah it’s more complex than just opinions. Geert Wilders and a Salafist muslim are both right-wing.
Right wing now means: High openness to experience, high value placed on honesty.
Left wing now means: Low openness to experience, high value placed on being inoffensive.
It’s ultimately a matter of personality rather than beliefs.
> It’s ultimately a matter of personality rather than beliefs.
Bingo, and this is why I’ve determined political debates to generally be an exercise in futility (plus why I’ve reconciled the apparent inconsistencies on either side). It’s really more about representing who you are than what you believe.
> It’s more complex than just opinions
proceeds to grossly oversimplify
i’m gonna humour you for a moment and even ignore the strawmen you are burning down (salafists being open to experience, that’s fresh), and just consider what if you are right.
what if you’re right (and while we’re at it in a world where people with low-status opinions are suddenly the cool ones) and differences in political orientation are (nowadays!) simply a few personality traits made manifest. explain to me why a mormon is generally considered right-wing (afraid of experience, seeks approval of peers) and anarchists are generally considered left-wing (open to radical new forms of government, does not care for current social structure). i’m going to take a wild guess and say you’d explain them by saying the mormon might be leftist had he been born into normal society, and that anarchist can be considered right-wing as well. but isn’t that fundamentally contradicting your point already? isn’t it then exactly their opinions in the first place which determine their position?
might it not be *actually* more complex than that
I think rintrah has a valid point because I am a raging anarchist and constantly get kicked out of leftist groups and called a right winger for things like questioning their oppressive social norms or even discussing things like genetics.
The left is insane and the whole thing flipped where the right is mentally free and wild while the left became Tipper Gore. Jello Biafra would probably get kicked out of leftist spaces now .
Wow its crazy how much we think alike on some topics and on others we don’t.
On this topic we are not so much divided as I’m just confused by how a generally intelligent man can come up with such ridiculous ideas. Reading through your blog, I see this discrepancy pop up many times. Perhaps the purpose of having an idea is not to have it coincide with sense making and confer real world benefits. Perhaps we take our ideas too seriously and try too hard to mold them into consistency with what we recognize as the ‘good side’. Perhaps the fun in ideas is had by just having them and sharing them with others without the need for positive outcomes to emerge from them.
If that’s the case, nothing really matters. But if the purpose of having ideas is after all to contribute to the betterment of society then I must point out some of the thinking processes I’m having a hard time with.
Why care at all about what gay people are doing? Like seriously, if you are not gay, what difference does it make to your life? Why waste calories debating something that does not relate to you? Is there perhaps an underlying resentment towards sexuality in general lying in your motives? Your other posts about women and dating seem to suggest that that is at least a possibility. But hey, I also have a lingering resentment towards sexuality because of my upbringing and yet gay people somehow don’t trigger me in the least. So why direct energy towards that area of life that doesn’t concern you and has none of the potential to alleviate your suffering and bring about positive change in your life? If gay people did not exist, your life would have probably been the same. Do you get my point? Some of your other ideas are attractive to me because I can see how they can provide benefit. Talking about gay people doesn’t achieve anything.
Second thing I wanted to touch on is the open/closed personality trait sort of thing. You give an example about how left wing circles push people into conformity and discourages controversial topics from being discussed. That is true, group thinking is many times regressive and leads to stupid outcomes. But how has this been associated by you with leftwing ideology? Again, I think you are responding to your immediate experience and not to the actual facts. Leftwing people are susceptible to group thinking and thought policing, and in our current political climate it is quite pronounced, but it is totally illogical to come to the conclusion that the other half of this artificial social divide is more open to experiences. In fact most people, right-wingers included, would argue the opposite – that rightwing ideology is based on conservative values, i.e. changing things presents more danger than keeping things the way they are despite of their shortcomings. It’s literally in the title of a conservative, to be closed off to change. Perhaps you define your rightwingism as tolerant liberalism that advocates freedoms. In that sense you are just a liberal, which is a combination of the good parts of each ideology, ie social equality + personal freedoms.
And the third thing I was bothered by was the claim that historically societies frowned upon gay people due to disease spreading, suggesting there is an evolutionary incentive to discourage gayness.
That is wrong I believe, because if gayness conferred an evolutionary disadvantage, it would have been bred out long before the dawn of cultures and societies. Unless of course the disadvantages of having gay individuals are outstripped by evolutionary benefits that we cannot ascertain at this time.
I believe a better explanation for gay people existing is that it is somehow a byproduct of the gender assigning process in the womb. It’s probably a great process, but it seems like a little inaccuracy is tolerated. I do have proof – gay men have been shown to have certain feminine bone structures in their bodies and vice versa for lesbians, suggesting that the main gender assigning mechanism can become somewhat decoupled from more minor mechanisms that control among other things sexual attraction and bone development.
If being gay meant more deadly exposure to deadly diseases, nature would have probably put more effort to make sure it doesn’t happen. Yet we see a lot of gay people existing, by some estimates 10% of males.
The real disadvantage to being gay in nature as I see it is a reduced likelihood to reproduce. If a gay chimpanzee is busy licking balls they are not getting any chimpette pregnant. This is proof that being gay is not determined solely by genes, as those could have been easily replaced with straight genes. The explanation for why gay people exist has to do with something fundamental in nature, something that we don’t understand for now.
The reason societies have evolved to frown upon gayness represents a quite elegant solution actually. Society is a way for nature to root out undesired traits that cannot be dealt with on a biological level. It’s kind of like a L2 scale up solution for biology, where biological changes require a very long time and a good deal of chance, social change can be exacted in a few decades.
I believe the reason society doesn’t accept gay behavior is to encourage gay people to hide their identity and engage in heterosexual child bearing practices. While that is probably not a huge problem for nature (where we don’t need 100% male fatherhood participation, 90% is plenty), it is a problem with human societies attempting to compete with each other. If my tribe where to embrace a gay lifestyle instead of forced heterosexual marriages my birthrate will suffer. It doesn’t have to suffer a lot, just a small percent is enough to make a big dent in population numbers over hundreds of years. Now if the tribe next door were to ban gay for some reason, they would benefit from all those secretly gay people having babies. Over time anti gay societies will grow larger and dominate the pro gay societies. And that’s why we are left today with anti gay sentiment.
The same effect can be observed with any kind of social behavior that leads to decreased population numbers. Abortion would be the first example on my mind. Nature is basically saying to us: high reproduction = moral good, low reproduction = moral bad. That is what we organically based our morality around. And since reproduction strategies can adapt to changed environments, so can the morals change. If for example gay people could suddenly reproduce, the social construct of gay = bad will wash away from society within a few generations.
I present to you my argument – through the advancement of fertility tech, gay people can now reproduce. Therefore marrying gay people off to straight people is no longer the best reproduction strategy. We can now just let them do it with IVF. That is why social attitudes are now changing, not because of a leftist conspiracy. In fact humans have no control over this process at all. It is nature now deciding for us that it is ok. We can only adapt quickly or slowly, that is pretty much the extent of our control here.
bonus – awhile ago I told my friend this theory and he found a fatal flaw in it that totally discredited the whole premise. I don’t remember it now or whether it was fatal or workable. So point it out if you find it thank you