gurugeorge wrote:rayshul wrote:I don't think your view there is so fair, pig...
The alt-right and far right wing groups I'm part of are preeeetty argumentative over the finer points of shit. <snip> I think it's a place where you can legitimately take on some views and disregard others and still feel like you're still part of that group.
These people are allies when I agree with them and people to argue with when I don't. They don't need to be an ally 100% of the time.
Yes, I think this is part of the gradual re-alignment of things. A certain portion of the Left was always solid about truth and argument (even far Left sometimes), but a larger portion of the Left was always about lockstep thinking, putting party above truth, presenting a united front (obviously, as an aspect of the focus on getting power - time to worry about truth later, sort of thing). The best representative of the former historically was of course Orwell. <snip>
How much of that is inherent to threatened fronts versus established fronts rather than the simple left versus right model of politics? During the atheism schism, and during Gamergate, my go to argument against purity tests was the fact that
we need every warm body we can get. As it happens, I despise purity tests as part of a more abstract principle, but at the time I knew it was better to argue on purely tactical grounds where I could convert people who didn't necessarily share my general values. Once you're an established front, as the left is in American universities and media, the argument stops working.
The obvious counterpoint to this is that these arguments proved very persuasive in the alt-right and Gamergate, but were likely to get you banned during the schism.
