User talk:Einlanzer

Censorship
So, I've just deleted your comments, hidden the records, and blocked you from editing the site. That's what censorship and a power trip look like. I'm going to undo all that now and you're going to read on the difference between having the right to say something and whether or not others give you a unconditional platform. Also look up the legal and ethical limits of Free Speech, you bloody fucking amateur. 01:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't think you have to go through all this for a point. Now I have to unhide the revisions. 01:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This really off the rails behavior when I joined to work on pages in good faith and he was carrying on an inflammatory, irrelevant flame war with another user under my topic on the talk page. Einlanzer (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You said I was "Censoring" you. You didn't listen when I explained how the template worked. You don't listen at all. As for "off the rails"... Nah. I could do worse if I actually wanted to. I don't want to. 01:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Moving my comment to a "trashbin" section for nothing other an ideological vendetta that I wasn't even participating in while you were fighting up a storm with another user then rationalizing it and condescending to me with "but it's not literal censorship!" is something else. I'm done here. Einlanzer (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Moving my comment to a "trashbin" section for nothing other an ideological vendetta" Kid, I don't give that much of a shit about your sorry little politically illiterate ass to have a feud with you, much less a full fledged vendetta. Grow some thicker skin and learn when you've had a bad take. Also stop projecting emotions on to me that I very clearly haven't exhibited. 01:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well just get a conversation first before you collapse topics. Thanks. I got my response. 01:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you clearly do care enough, because here you are posting on my talk page after fighting at length with another person that stopped responding to you. Emotional zeal and rationality are typically at odds with one another, so it's ironic and disappointing to see such a strong display of it here. Although I am a little vexed that I joined to enjoy reviewing and updating articles and immediately got embroiled in a situation like this. My hope would be for this to be a resource for nuanced, scientific analyses, not populist/flavor-of-the-month ideopolitical baggage. Many articles already do operate in that way.Einlanzer (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're posturing again. 02:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your accusation makes no sense. We are on my talk page and I've been forced to defend myself from a condescending tirade. I'm not the one posturing. Einlanzer (talk) 02:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You talking like "factually inaccurate ideology", "scientific", "rationality/emotion" binary; again those words are used as a crutch for bad argumentation. They have no meaning to me, they lost it all because people abuse them. 22:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Say hello to the gang
Your definition of cultural authoritarianism is just organized enough to be interesting, disciplined enough to look like an answer, and vague enough to not really be helpful. I thought I'd bother you a bit. What is at issue, in my humble opinion, is the fact that these IDW guys are not going along with some forms of modern organizational discipline. "Since when is the left organized Ariel you master of higher arcana?" I hear you say. You know that the far-right is overly concerned about free speech because they know they are losing arguments on almost all points. They feel that attacking collegiate SJ trendy concepts like intersectionality and safe-spaces are good talking points for winning public sentiment, real crowd pleasers. The truth is, as Grace Slick used to say, that stuff doesn't mean shit to a tree. It's like two churches arguing over theology, when the real meat and potatoes feminist issues have already been decided, the blockheads and evangelicals on the right just don't know it yet. Both left and right have a tendency to organize like communities. And they have their churches (tread softly when in church).

The right was always organized. Small, but organized. They had all the money. The left always was crippled by open-minded diversity. We used to be a bunch of communists, college professors, trade-unionists, immigrants, civil-rights activists, hippies, outsiders, anthropologists, Unitarians and Congregationalists, among others. The Congregationalists, for example, did things their own way, each congregation decided how it wanted to be religious independently. The advance of technology since 1938 (the advent of commercial TV) has integrated the left and fractured the right. The mobilization of woman during the second world war and subsequent technologies over the next several decades popularized acceptance of basic feminism. Certainly feminism played a large part in publishing many of the ideas that constellate around leftist forums. Ironically most of these IDW guys will claim to agree with basic feminism, except for Shapiro who belongs to the "thank God I was born a man, etc." branch of Judaism, and Jordan Peterson, who may be too embittered to admit it. Most importantly, starting with television, emurgent media technology made it possible for us to look like the way we really are. Over fifty years ago we heard that "the medium is the message." Meaning it's why things look the way they do. And for the first time, I'm starting to think, it just might be true. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * All of you keep forgetting Peterson exists... 04:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "All of you?" Did I come in a set? I resolved last year not to address issues concerning Peterson because life is too short. Also, in this case, he is only one data point and, though popular, popularity alone is not any more important than his nearest relative on the right (Shapiro) as a difference factor. By the way I am intending to watch the videos you suggested. I'll let you know.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * When discussing the IDW it kind of matters, since he was a memember up until his misadventures in drug rehab. 11:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree that's why. What the IDW represents, at least to me, is a gradually growing recognition among liberals that certain conventions that have come to define the progressive movement are not liberal. Being told to shut up and check your privilege just because you are a heterosexual white male, for example, is neither liberal nor progressive at least by the standards of 20th century American progressivism; they are actually toxic and regressive.Einlanzer (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Um... So two points, one, thank you for that interesting insight into your worldview, which is pretty similar to the views espoused by neo-reactionaries (Yes it is, I've consumed more of their content than I ever wanted to.) Secondly, and I repeat this because you seem to have trouble understanding it, Liberals are not left wing, they are centrist. They have moderately progressive social views and pretty right-wing/centrist economic views. (Except in Australia, where the Liberal party is pretty far right.) This is pretty established in political science and every country except the US. I'm sorry if you grew up in the garbage of US political discourse, but so did I and I've grown out of this rather simplistic worldview. So, you are wrong. 19:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Einlanzer: You really don't get it. The point is, I think, that these IDW people are all over the map, they are not in agreement about very many ideas, excepting those governing civil dialogue. For example, none of them are like Shapiro or Peterson. Sam Harris is very much opposed to the religious context of what Peterson has to say ( and that is most of it). So, to say that they are a response to the left has got to look like a projection to the people here. They are criticized by many here and in media because they are unorthodox, many are eccentric, and yes, they don't tow strictly left lines of thinking. There are penalties for that. The left is clearly afraid that the mere existence of such a group of intellectual posers is an existential threat to the left as it stands today. That may be, although I doubt it is a perilous one that enables the far right. I have not been able to discount the possibility that these people attract as many or more people away from right-wing ideas as from left-wing ideas. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I promise you I do get it. The problem is this conversation keeps getting pushed in the direction of semantics and political boxes with a ton of abstraction instead of staying focused directly on the IDW. There's no doubt they don't all fit neatly into the same bucket except for the fact that they are all liberal-leaning with the possible exception of Shapiro. Even Peterson, although some of his views I find to be pretty sketchy appeals to tradition. What unites most of them is that they are liberals that do not fit into the current, arguably illiberal orthodoxy of the Democratic party. That's the main reason I originally wanted to update the wiki article, because it was treating it as more of an organized political movement than it actually is. 2605:A601:AB0B:5700:11C2:D110:F1A8:275B (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * One cannot build a house if one has neither tools nor an understanding of how to use them... Anyway, no they aren't. None of them are left wing. They all center to far-right (Shapiro, not Peterson, Peterson is mid-right). All of them embrace capitalism or claim it doesn't produces excesses, none of them argue for workers rights, several of them argue against environmentalism, Most of them have pushed content for far-right outlets such as PragerU, most if not all of them oppose social justice/empowerment of marginalized groups, none of them speak against imperialism from major global powers, etc, etc, etc. Like, Name a left-wing position that any of them hold. Seriously. Second wave Feminism? Obama supports that, hell, GOP politicians at least pay it lip service, as do right-wingers around the world. Your premise is not grounded in reality. And you can deny that all day long, and say that "the left has lost its mind!" but, well, no they haven't. The most of the right-wing has on a global scale. Sorry if that upsets your worldview. 21:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it's time to cut the shit here. The right-wing is about being pro-hierarchy and authoritarian; the IDW is largely egalitarian-focused and overtly opposed to both. You can't keep imposing your extremely rigid views of right and left as a way of muddling the conversation so you can "win". That's called moving the goalposts. Additionally, the chart I shared shows they are all sympathetic to the idea that wealth inequality is a problem that needs better solutions, they just mostly don't believe balkanizing the population around race and gender is an effective means to that end. They are mostly liberal, and they are also mostly left-leaning, though none of them are Marxists as Marxism is barely even a thing in the US (and also isn't the only expression of left-wing politics). We've discussed this enough that it should be clear - stop playing semantics with me. If your claim is the IDW is more right-leaning than left-leaning as a group, you.are.just.fucking.wrong., and you only think that because it's what you've been told to think by far-left ideologues. That's not rational. 2605:A601:AB0B:5700:8D2A:29A2:2A0F:2A6E (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're assuming I support Marxism, which is um... Dumb? Dumb seems like the right word. Yes, the left wing is diverse, from strict Marxists, to Marxist/Leninists (better known as tankies) to Social Democrats (that would be the likes of Corbyn and Sanders) To Anarchists, to Anarcho-communists, to transhumanists, to socialists, to democratic socialists, to non-aligned types such as myself. The closest any member of the IDW comes to this is Rogan, and that's due to him being a more centrist Libertarian. Again, you're talking about a bunch of right-wingers and centrists who oppose the status quo by... spouting far-right talking points? Wait, let me check my... Nope, that's what they do. I fucking watch this shit in my spare time, so much so that it's all started to blur together, and you're telling me that "Oh, you just need to buy their books and listen to their lectures and then you'll understand that they're actually really reasonable hur hur!" What a fucking joke. As for "wining the argument..." You have to actually put forward something other than reactionary talking points for there to be an argument. I haven't won anything, because there's nothing to win or lose. Also countering misinformation and pseudoscience is kind of the goal of this site, not "wining".  22:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that is all you do in your spare time, which is why you're brainwashed as fuck and not rational at all. What's an example of a far right talking point spouted by the IDW? and explain exactly how it is far right please. 2605:A601:AB0B:5700:B0A3:DADF:ADAC:CC73 (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Islamophobia, hereditarianism, etc.... 14:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you define these terms for me and how they are leveraged by the IDW?Einlanzer (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Hereditarianism is a racist pseudoscience that argues mean differences in IQ between human populations (socially constructed races and ethnic groups) are significantly the result of genetics." I don't recall much or any of that in the Weinstein IDW group. Harris interviewed Murray, of course, so I guess he has cooties. But it is Alt-right nonsense. Maybe Altlite too? Fear of Islamophobia has its own problematic history, given that Islamic States tend to be very, very fascist.. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ariel. I was hoping to get a more thoughtful response from Summa atheologica based on his/her accusation instead of just a couple of politically-loaded buzzwords.
 * If I called a gecko an Iguana, would I be incorrect in my classifications? If so, would it not be similarly incorrect to conflate Authoritarianism with Fascism? Further, is not fascism itself divisive and flexible to conflict with other fascists? I seem to remember something of a power struggle within the early Nazi party culminating in assassination of Hitler's rivals when he seized power. Also how exactly is Fascism inherently militaritic authoritarian in initial structure? Was not Hitler elected? Did not Germany become more overtly militaristic? Further, if we take off our Amerio-centric goggles, is it not clear that many of the excesses of the Islamic world are to a certain extent imitations of the Western nations who currently sit at the top of the heap? I find it hard to see any use of your definition of "fascism" that does not include the British Empire or the modern United States. 17:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. You would be correct. I have told you that The american right looks like an incarnation of a primitive fascist party ( maybe not as eloquently so). A gecko and an iguana are morphologically distinct, to choose a conceptual system. The former is well adapted to human environments and rocky terrain, while the latter is an arboreal adaptation. I don't see any merit in distinguishing kinds of authoritarian neofeudalism. The death toll in the Chinese Cultural Revolution is unknown, but feared to be as great in number as 20 million. It isn't because Mao was a communist that he was a brutal fascist. The precepts of fascism can be overlaid almost any form of government including America's. Yes, there are differences. But there are differences between Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany. For one thing, Mussolini resisted turning over Italien Jews, and Goebbels complained that the Italian fascists treated their Jewish populations well. This doesn't make the Italian fascists good guys. But they were fascists by all accounts.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Then we agree on a few basic premises. Authoritarians are not, de facto, fascists. The GOP in the US is currently Proto-Fascistic. I would like to further posit, (primarily based the works of Eco and Altemeyer, as well as essays based on their work and the history of the Nazi party in Germany) that Fascism takes place in stages, and that it does not need to be overtly authoritarian in its early stages, but is almost guaranteed to be so in its later stages. As for the PRC... I don't think they are Fascist, per se. I would agree that they've embraced elements of Fascism, but also Stalinism/Marx-Leninism and Capitalism. (Juche is similar, but minus the capitalist elements and has more theocratic elements in its place.) I do not think that Iran is Fascist at all, merely theocratic. I posit these things because while I do understand the temptation of ignoring the distinctions as mere hairsplitting, I would argue that studying the differences between various forms of authoritarianism makes them easier to combat. The rhetoric of Tankies is distinct from the rhetoric of Nazis, and both love to play off the other. Thusly, combating one is different for combating the other. (At this point it seems appropriate to compare authoritarianism to various forms of microorganism that cause illnesses in humans, and to point out that the treatment for one is not necessarily the same as the treatment for another.) 21:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You're wasting your time
Debating with those who have abandoned reason is like administering medicine to the dead. Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)