User talk:Cat A. Lonia

Topic
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Onward, Christian Soldiers!
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Sysop
Christopher (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The talk page
Could you use it? Don't communicate through reverts. Christopher (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Signature
Hi, I think your signature with the triple parentheses may trip off a filter when you edit, as it's something that mostly trolls use. You might want to change it, although you don't have to. a ƽøȼɪаլ յμʃтɪȼε шаѓѓɪøӷ @ 00:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand, I personally enjoy reclaiming it due to being Jewish myself but I don't want to cause the modding staff annoyance by having alerts sent to them or having them need to moderate anything I post using it. (((Cat A. Lonia))) (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Human Garbage/ Sargon.
Dear Cat. Much as it may give you personal pleasure at describing this fellow as "human garbage", he is a living person. I think it is better to use actual descriptions of his garbage activities. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, it was Anita Sarkeesian who gave him the epithet "Garbage Human" (not "human garbage"); it wasn't personal pleasure so much as snark. Many have come to prefer calling him this to confusing him with an ancient Mesopotamian King, as neither he nor the real Sargon deserve such conflation. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, they also call him an asshole. That isn't suitable either, even as snark.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If it looks like an asshole and sounds like an asshole, it's probably an asshole. Some epithets are earned. 10:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. Of course he is an asshole. It's just really bad journalism to resort to such diction as asshole, garbage human, dickhead, shit-for-brains, mook, ass-hat, etc. "Hitler was an asshole" is probably a true statement, but if you included such a sentence in a paper on modern European history, your professors would roll their eyes.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Sealioning Cat A. Lonia (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Peterson article
Dear Cat. I don't want to stop you from making your case that Peterson is misogynistic, but, "misogynist" does not belong in the introductory sentence of any living person. e.g., Hitler (Donald Trump) was (is) a misogynist German (American) politician, etc. Why not propose a section about Peterson's alleged misogyny in the talk section?Ariel31459 (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you even mean "alleged"? Did you even read the article? His misogyny is extremely relevant to his opposition to gender studies. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To claim he's not a misogynist despite saying he's powerless against "female insanity" means you are working entirely outside the boundaries of the English language. It's not like we're arguing about whether his views on a certain issue like abortion are misogynist; he quite literally, openly, brazenly expressed contempt for women. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not here to apologize for conservative academic opinion. Misogyny is not a school of thought, it is a catch-all term for opinions considered offensive by some modern academics. Valid arguments can be made that almost every classical psychologist right into the twenty-first century has expressed misogynist views. My favorite classical psychoanalyst, Carl Jung, made some claims in print that would make him a misogynist by current standards. That doesn't make arguments about anything academic specious. Consider the fact that if I dislike X and argue Y against the merits of X, the fact that I dislike X is not a valid counter-argument to my original argument Y.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If your academic opinion is that women are crazy, you're a misogynist, period. That's just what you are. You can debate the merits of misogyny all you want, but that's what you are. Just admit that you're a misogynist and then argue why you think being a misogynist is OK. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the absolute worst part about neofascist newspeak-- they want to redefine words like "fascist" and "misogynist" so that they don't apply to them. These words have meaning. Just say you're a misogynist and then argue why you think it's OK to be one. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also! "I am not here to apologize for 'conservative' academic opinion" (single quotes mine) -- bullshit, btw. If you were really unapologetic about your beliefs and not just fronting like you were because you're too much of a coward to be direct about them, you would just say "Yes I'm a misogynist and I think it's totally OK to be a misogynist." That would be not apologizing for your beliefs. Instead you have to pretend they're normal and that they're not anti-woman, which is the opposite of being unapologetic; it's knowing your beliefs are indefensible, being ashamed of them and trying to frame them in weaker terms. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Finally, here is a very good discussion of why misogynist is not a slur, why it's a term that has meaning, and the history of attempts to describe terms for various forms of bigotry as slurs: Are Misogynist, Homophobe, & TERF slurs? Cat A. Lonia (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Blaire
I'm not sure what you meant by this. Can you clarify? CowHouse (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a joke that I believe originated in Reddit, where token minorities who show up on Internet threads to confirm the viewpoints of bigots are actually single individuals: Asa Blackman, Asa Transwoman, Asa Jew, etc. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The implication is that the one trans woman who is always showing up on the Internet to confirm the views of transphobes is also Blaire. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So essentially it's mocking her for exploiting the need for conservatives to have a token trans woman to say all the things that they want to say, so they feel comfortable saying it - a problem that has long plagued every marginalized community. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've never heard that joke before. CowHouse (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Respect other editors
Comments like these are unproductive not to mention fallacious. Assume good faith and don't personally attack other editors. If you are only going to insult Ariel, stay out of the discussion. CowHouse (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not going to assume good faith with someone who has made their bad faith obvious. It's not ad hominem to point out that someone is here with the agenda of defending someone they clearly have a close personal connection to. That's called protecting the integrity of the wiki. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if you are completely correct about Ariel's motivations, it is still unhelpful to make these comments. How were your comments in any way constructive? For instance, we often get fans who write criticisms on the talk page of our articles on living people. By your reasoning, I should simply reply that they have an "agenda of defending someone they clearly have a close personal connection to". Even if that's true, it doesn't invalidate their criticisms or address their comment. CowHouse (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Alt-right
Hey Cat! Sorry for the long post. I suck at brevity. Always have. "I hate brevity" is such an accurate sentence to describe my existence to a point where, if I ever write my memoirs, it will most certainly be the opening line. Anyway, here it is! :)

I just wanted to say that I think you may misunderstand what I was saying in my edit. I understand why you may mistake it as such, given the fact that the right annoyingly tends to blame Nazis on the left for some arbitrary and unfounded reason. Doing that would be intellectually dishonest. However, that does not mean that labeling the Nazis as being explicitly "right-wing" is factually accurate either, despite it being more understandable of a viewpoint due to the hyper-traditionalism of its ethos. While traditional Italian fascism is right-wing, we need to remember that Nazism, despite being closely related to fascism, is not expressly the same as fascism for a number of clear, albeit somewhat subtle, reasons that do make sense. I say this from an objectively academic perspective. This is done to its subverted notion of tradition and frequent hybrids of left and right policies.

I agree with most of your message, although I think you are simplifying the ideology a bit too much. The Nazis and their alt-right descendants cannot be objectively labeled as right wing; actually, both the alt-right and the Nazis, on multiple reasons, condemned the right in terms of economics, social views, and foreign policy. They are traditionalists. That certainly makes them socially "right wing" to an extreme degree (by definition, even though the spectrum doesn't actually exist and is highly arbitrary, as evident by our disagreement). I feel like the reason both left and right-wing folk always blame the Nazis on the other side (especially when the right does it) is that they neither understand nor accept the truth. Like, you are absolutely right that both sides have different constituencies, by modern definition (even though I think it is overcomplicated since it was originally created as a simple system used in French politics to distinguish the two unofficial parties). By classical definition, individualism and pure capitalism should be left-wing and all authoritarianism should be right wing, but then things got sideways and it got overcomplicated.

Left and right are different based on the country. Communism in Russia is seen as right-wing. So is Putin, who is a strange hybrid between a communist and a "neo"-Czarist republican oligarch. My Russian friends have told me that they consider "far-left" to be liberal democracy with an economic system that sounds rather "laissez-faire" to me. I mean laissez-faire is stupid - as it leads to corporate feudalism, trusts becoming an equally statist stand-in for the government, and the eventual end of the free market - but Russia has never had a capitalist market economy, so that's an understandable opinion. In China, far right is Maoism, centrism is their mixed socialist-command capitalist pseudo-republic (current model), and left-wing is pretty much the same as it is in Russia. Japan's left is a mixed economy and the right is imperialism. North Korea is really without a spectrum, as it has a hyper-leftist economy, but is a de-facto monarchy. In most Middle Eastern and countries in Islamo-Asia - or "Islamic Civilization", as I refer to it in the taxonomic sense - the right wing would be Islamofascism/Islamism (not in the whole paranoid "Muslims want to enforce Jihad" sense, but the politically scientific concept) seen in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Morroco-ish, Yemen, Pakistan, and the UAE. Centrism would probably be, ironically, the arbitrarily established dictatorships that we've seen in Egypt led by quasi-religious Shi'ite generals (Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.), and left wing would be any kind of Democracy. Theocracy would be the most right-wing thing in Israel, with a sort of multicultural democracy would be the left. Eastern bloc countries would be the same as Russia, but with the right being more traditionally command-communist. As for European countries, Western countries with a traditionally Islamic ethos like Turkey and Armenia would have a sort of hard, but not extreme, big government Neo-Ottomanism with an emphasis on tradition as their "mainstream" right with capitalist elements. The center would be social democracy, and the left & far left would be nationalist democracy & socialism, respectively. In the EU, countries like Germany, Italy, France, and Britain would have hard Eurosceptic national-populists like Le Pen & Wilders on the far-right, the "American centre-right" on their moderate to hard right (Reagan, Kasich, Thatcher, Churchill), liberals and social democrats on their right & in their centre (think Cameron, May, Blaire, Macron, Merkel), and the democratic socialists and even some mainstream socialists on the normal to hard left. Scandanavia is pretty consistent, with a far right nationalist minority, the social democrats on the right, and a libertarian/free market democratic socialist hybrid majority on their "centre" left. Probably some commie nationalists on the far-left Sub-Saharan Africa is usually just dictatorship (probably their "right") and run of the mill democracy (probably their "left") In Canada, it is not polarized. The "far" right would be socially liberal conservatives with a sort of "constitutional-monarchy" tradition in terms of its adherence to Commonwealth involvement. The right would be libertarians (generally radical centrists to centre-left in the U.S. and centre-right to moderately right in Europe). The centre would span our (I say "our" because I am from the U.S. and this is an American-based wiki) centre-right to our semi-social democrats on the centre-left. Their centre-left would be neoliberals (Trudeau & Obama), and then the left would be like our moderate progressives like Pelosi. South & central America have wings within their various parties (like how it was with the U.S. until very recently). In countries like Venezuela, it leans pretty left. The right aren't really a thing. The "centrists" are command-capitalist/democratic socialists". The left/mainstream ideology is communist with a few market elements, and the far, far left are downright totalitarian communists, like the Che Guevara type assholes. The latter represent most hard to far leftists in South America. In most countries there, the centre is pretty much general democracy or social democracy. The standard right would be akin to hard capitalist and (as of now) non-militant Pinochet-types. Standard left would be pro-welfare state coallitions, such as Peronists.

Finally, we come to Antarcica. It is pretty straight forward. The far-right would be the Emperor Penguins. The hard right would be King Penguins who are a little less imperialistic. Centre right to centre would certainly be the chill Crested Penguins. I would argue that the centre-left would be those chill, laid back "cool" Penguins depicted in the documentary Surfs Up. It's hard to place where the dancing penguins would be, but they probably span the radical centre to hard left, due to their revolutionary ideas. Far left is obviously the collectivistic marching penguins. Their precision and indistinguishable nature is obviously indicitive of a socialist society hellbent on taking over the continent, hence all of their marching and eugenic policies that require consistant yearly breeding and mating, all done through a policy where they are forced to sing hyper-nationalistic songs in order to attract their mates, with the strongest and most genetically healthy breeding with those who are the same in that regard. Unfortunately, climate change is affecting penguin culure, meaning that society may collapse in a couple hundred years. General Glubb was right in his essay "Fate of Empires". All empires come to an end - even those led by emperor penguins.

Of course, third position politics are present their as well, embodied by Nazis who live at the centre of the Earth, just beaneath the Antarctican surface. They are led by Robot Hitler, who evaded death after supposedly dying during Operation: Wolfenstein.

But, in all seriousness, the spectrum is dumb and arbitrary because it changes. Unfortunately, despite it originally being the case (now obviously complex), both the right and the left, when the other side blames dictators and Nazis on each other, they don't take into account that both sides do not represent a single group. Same goes for parties, plus some partisans in the U.S. are on the side of the spectrum upon which their party generally affiliates with. Both parties, in fact, used to have both left and right wings (Like the New Deal democrats) and the Dixiecrats on the left and right, respectively) and the more moderate Republicans having their two sides as well (the neoliberal "Rockefeller" type & quasi-Keynesians on the left and the anticommunist expansionists on the right, with libertarian-folk in the middle). The libertarians being centrists who were socially ahead of the curb in terms of civil liberties, along with the nonpartisan and "New Left" hippies. Bipartisanship was super common, even with some wings agreeing with the other wing of their respective counterpart. A large portion of socially conservative Republicans, pretty much all neoliberal Republicans, and most New Deal Democrats (which were becoming the mainstream and would become consistently right of centre to left of centre by the 1980's) were for civil rights. Libertarian centrists like Goldwater were generally for civil rights as a concept but opposed anti-discrimination laws from a market perspective. Consistency-wise, that makes sense from an economic perspective (given the libertarian laissez-faire mindset that dominated that constituency until Friedman and even the more conservative Ron Paul got popular), but, unlike today (due to racism no longer normalized/tolerated from an institutional perspective on a civically cultural level), given the market's integrity to boycott problematic firms (refusal to serve a gay person, for instance, is fiscally irresponsible and not good for long-term business, exemplifying a shitty sense of self-interest in reference to the neoclassical theory of economics of the Chicago School, which seems to be the general economic perspective of this wik).

Anyway, I digress...

Another example of bipartisanship would be the centre to centre-left democrats and the right-Republicans who represented the "Old Right", with their mutual dream of empire (resulting in Vietnam, which liberal Democrats, libertarians of both parties, and the diplomatic Republicans of Nixon's constituency were against (all of which would be noninterventionist for the next forty or so years). Bipartisanship and cooperation (as well America's "high noon" as an empire) was at its greatest under Reagan, who unified both sides. Neoliberals were on both side, the Southern Democrats had evolved into a centre-right faction with the segregationists being an extreme-right minority, the liberal Democrats were centre to centre-left, Nixon Republicans - over the next ten years - left the Republican Party. Old Right Conservatives of both parties caucused together, often with the pro-market libertarians who shared many After the right-wing Carter's foreign policy screw-ups, Reagan appealed to the the generally disenfranchised conservative democrats who once supported the right-wing Carter, as well as the democratic religious-right, Old right Republicans and Old Right Republicans, and neoliberals of both parties. Some centre-right Southern Democrats remained with the party, as well as the former Republican centrist wings, and the strong liberal faction. The proto-neocons - who started as staunch, imperialists and anti-communists - began to emerge in both parties. Reagan was pretty unifying, and his eight years marked the greatest period of bipartisanship in American history. By today's standards, Reagan would be just right of centre, which conservatives (who were also pretty moderate back then) seem too stupid to even see. He'd probably be a Clinton democrat or a "McCromney RINO" today. After his two terms, neocons, conservatives, and evangelicals voted for Bush. Desert Storm disenfranchised both Reagan conservatives & moderates, who voted for centre-right Clinton. Many, however, were still strong neocons or had some neocon views. The progressive movement slowly started to emerge on the moderate to hard left wing of the Democratic party, as influenced by an absence of civil liberties and as a reaction to the interventionism of Bush. Due to the ideological split in the Democratic and Republican parties - particularly with the New Democrats - the 2000 election was super close. Although it was indirectly related to Reagan's pragmatic decision to bring the evangelicals into the Republican Party and influencing the early conservative movement, the first seeds of polarization and animosity between the two parties were planted during the Monica Lewinski scandal, and the conservative outcry were a display of what was to come, but few saw would. More conservative Democrats voted for Bush, and that split the New Democrat vote, leading to a steady start in the dissolution of America's only truly moderate constituency. That made it easier for Bush to get elected.

The last true act of bipartisanship was, poetically and ironically, the decision to invade Iraq. Countless conservatives and even most, if not all, centre-right Republicans strongly supported the invasion of Iraq, as spearheaded by neocons in both the Republican (Cheney & McCain types) and Democratic (Hillary Clinton types) parties. Even a great deal of the liberal Democrats supported it due to the belief that they had nukes. The only opposition - also bipartisan - came from the small, but growing, progressive faction, most libertarians, and what remained of the crazy Pat Buchanan paleocons. After that whole mess, and Bush's second term saw the the true start of polarization. The disenfranchised Republicans voted for Obama due to McCain's hawkishness. The progressive movement grew more popular due to reactionism on the left, and Obama's platform of change appealed to many moderates and most liberal democrats. Ron Paul split the vote, and it is likely that many conservatives on the hard to far right did not vote at ALL. Those who did only did so because of Palin, specifically the religious right and paleocons. Obama's harder leftist stances turned countless conservative swing voters away from the Democratic party...for good. When it was finally confirmed that Iraq was a sham, small government constitutionalist Republicans, extreme conservatives, paleoconservative populists, and some on the religious right got pissed. They became super reactionary.

That's where the Tea Party comes in...

Under folks like Rand Paul, it wasn't even all that extremist. After the Cruz-types got popular, it did. More and more Republicans become anti-intervention. More Democrats did under Obama (although not aggressively so). Progressives got popular, becoming a major Democratic coallition. The New Democrats all but disappeared. Libertarianism became more popular. Populism began to emerge on both ends of the spectrum. Centrists became a minority...a very, very marginalized minority. Under Obama, the Democratic Party became more homogenous. The Republican Party, due to the sporadic chaos of ideological differences, became vague and arbitrary as a unit. It became what it now is today by the time of the 2016 election: a collection of various de-facto sub-parties that all claimed to be conservative to some vague and varying degrees. Some people, like Trump, Sanders, and Rand Paul "fell off of the spectrum" (Paul and Sanders caucus together at times, and Paul has more in common with Sanders than he does with statists like Trump...who in turn, in terms of his populism, more in common with Trump than he does with Hillary). It's now crazy. It's like the whole "horseshoe theory".

Now, we come back to the Nazis and the Alt-right. The alt-right is certainly a right-leaning constituency, yes. But they are not extreme right. They are not monarchists. As a matter of fact, they are vaguely pro-oligarchy. Spencer wants to revive the "Roman Empire"...but that makes no sense because the Roman Empire was not actually a monarchy OR an autocracy like one would think, as it was multi-racial and egalitarian under Augustus through its division into East and West. He is certainly not a monarchist, yet he is NOT a conservative. The Italian fascists WERE moral conservatives and pro-monarchy. Hitler was not. Culturally, he wanted to establish a Germany based on idealized mythology and legends. He disagreed with Judeo-Christian morality (despite claiming to be a Christian during his campaigns to appeal to the Catholics especially). Yes, he did talk about Jesus, but he talked about Jesus being an anti-semitic Aryan who was the son of an Odin-esque interpretation of "Biblical God". The Nazis were pro-Eugenics (a platform of the progressive movement during that time...not saying he was a progressive AT ALL though). He also based his ethos off of bad Nietzsche readings (though Nietzsche rarely talked about politics, despite his disdain for tradition and pro-individualism, which is ironic given the Nazi ethos). Anyway, none of this is truly right wing in the traditional sense, although it sort of is, due to the hierarchical aspect of it, and totalitarianism, while now days on both extremes, is traditionally right wing. The Nazis were nationalistic, which Benito M. twisted into a chauvanistic ideology. Chauvanism was traditionally right wing. Culturally, the Nazis were traditionalists on a base level, but their breed of collectivism, despite existing on both sides of the spectrum, was something that they had in common with the Soviets. Economically, they were a hybrid of far leftist economics and far right economics. While not mercantilist like traditional monarchists and neomonarchists like Trump & Putin, Hitler was certainly a corporatist, which is another traditional right-wing economic policy where the state discourages small businesses & competition in favor of big business control of the economy (like the mainstream right wants now). On the left-wing side of things, Nazi Germany disdained social mobility like Stalinism did, and, aside from a party elite, was technically a welfare state due to high taxes and wealth distribution, although this was done in such a way where it kept the lower class - even Aryans - from achieving the economic prosperity that capitalism supported. Hitler himself hated capitalism. He also hated pure socialism. He took the aspects he liked about socialism and combined them with an ethos based on right-wing thought. Uncle Adolf was socially right wing in terms of his staunch disdain towards individual liberty, which he and his party were extremely against. Again, this is right wing. They took this to such an extreme that they imposed a hierarchy based upon race (like European monarchies in the days of imperialism). This was so extreme that they performed state organized genocide. They used this racism to justify scientific research through the use of eugenics (a leftist policy at the time). Hitler was simultaneously a reactionary and a revolutionary. Nazism, less so than the more classically traditionalistic tenants of Italian fascism, supported aristocratic-esque policies and fundamental tradition, harkening back to the ethos of the true polities that once existed in Europe (hell, Italy still had a king as its head of state). Instead, Hitler took the fascist system and structure, including the obsession with traditionalism. Like fascist social ethos, tradition was the core foundation of society other than race (which was also exclusively Nazitic, although also right-wing). Yet he warped this true sense of traditionalism through revisionism into something that never existed. Socially, he wasn't anything BUT right wing, but many of his policies were subverted implementation of left-wing policies (left-wing, as in a purely organizational sense, including their brand of collectivism). He was seen at the time as a revolutionary, and people referred to the Night of the Long Knives as just that. They were revolutionary in the sense that they, along with the Communists, established a new ideology that became an alternative to liberalism and constitutional monarchism. Yet, in terms of party rhetoric, this revolution was built upon an ethos of reactionism. This is another strange hybrid that is exclusively Nazi AND alt-right. Fascism, organizations like the KKK, and Trumps nationalistic & mercantilist neomonarchism (he's NOT a Nazi or like some people accuse him of being, as those are very specific ideologies) are the result of hard reactionism. While they are collectivistic, they don't resemble socialistic collectivism, support eugenics, industrial nationalization, welfare, and are not necessarily pure revisionists (though they are intellectually dishonest about a LOT of things, don't get me wrong). Basically, the Nazis, while certainly bearing more in common with the right (personally, I see left and right as mostly based on policy and social views rather than economics, since I know many leftists who are hard capitalists), it is to be said that Nazis had more than just a handful of radically leftist views that they incorporated (hence why they are called Third Position) into their ideology. Despite their reactionary rhetoric, they had the same revolutionary spirit as the left did at the time, albeit with a subversion of those commonalities. Therefore, it is intellectually dishonest to call them "far right", because they aren't monarchists. Yet they are CLOSE ENOUGH to monarchism due to being based on similar right wing principles. Yet they share more than enough similarities with the most extreme views of what was then (and still is, like in North Korea and other communist countries) the mainstream far left where they cannot accurately fit onto the right end of the spectrum. Naturally, they cannot accurately fit onto the left side either...which would be even more intellectually dishonest. Therefore, they can only be "third position" (basically the complete opposite of libertarianism/classical liberalism).

Basically, the Nazis and the alt-right are reactionary, are obsessed with a subverted & revisionistic interpretation of Western tradition, disdain individualism, are racial nationalists, support oligarchical hierarchy, chauvanism, and supremacy. Although traditional right-wingers are more honest in their traditionalist leanings, the ethos is still the same, so we'll count that as right wing. Yet, they share traditionally (far) leftist views (I don't mean progressive left or anything like the mainstream left), such as socialist-style collectivism, uniformity, rejection of mainstream conservatism, abortion (which is not a traditionalist/conservative platform...although they mostly support this probably for eugenic reasons), hyper-party loyalty, subsidization of all industry (like in China), the support of Eugenics (though that's not really as political these days, nor representative of a side in American politics), embody the socialist, the spirit of revolution, welfare programs, and anticapitalism. These traditionally leftist policies are built and implemented upon right-wing extremism. The only differences the alt-right and Nazis have are that the alt-right are isolationists [claim that they] don't support genocide (though many probably - certainly - do), don't have a clear economic stance and are more memey. Still, the point of this ramble is basically just that you can't explicitly taxonomize Nazis or the alt-right (as in the specific organization of Richard Spencer & Steve Bannon) as being exclusive to either side of the political spectrum, regardless of it having more in common with the right. There are too many similarities to simplify the categorization of Nazism.

Hence "Third Position" Darth Ravigious (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Use the preview button.
—ClickerClock (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Good edit
You were totally right to remove the "well to be fair" type content on the kiwifarms article. Internet stalking aggregators do not have an underlying purpose with value. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I do agree. I don't know how victim blaming snuck into there. Reminds me of how I called it a "cesspool" and it was changed to "controversial Internet forum" or something like that. 21:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It's almost second nature for most people to try to find some sort of balance where none exists. No one wants to look like they're one-sided or un-nuanced, so it can sometimes be easier to say "oh they used to have a point" even if they really didn't and nothing ever really justified what they were doing by any coherent moral standard. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)