LogFAQs > #933363004

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Do you really think the right is somehow ideologically more diverse and superior but also disagree with them?

absolutely, yes. the right's got more ideological diversity in it, better arguments because of it, though i end up disagreeing with a lot. they are consistently much more open to sticking to arguments, points, and ideas whereas the left often ends up being very quick to attacks on character or framing things in more personal ways. the idea that the right is better at this isn't without data either by the way - it's a steady point that's been made really clear to be an issue with the left. the first major study i know covering this time period was back in 2012.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html

study was on 2000 Americans where they needed to pretend they were other positions. that data showed that while moderates and conservatives managed to mostly get the liberal mindset accurately, liberals could not. worse, the further left the person said they were the more inaccurate results they got. now again: this study's results were published in 2012. we've gotten far more polarized and the left has gone further than the right. he also developed a theory of morality ten years beforehand and ended up seeing conservatives mainly on six axioms, liberals mainly on four. libertarians - or more specifically we're talking Tea Party - was two. that ends up putting the modern right with some serious extremes but also a broad range. no doubt some Trump supporters do fall in there, Ted Cruz and Trump shared a heavy overlap in voterbase after all. but that also means there's a lot of variety to work with.

if you want more empirical data, look at the trouble the left has with understanding Tucker Carlson, conservative.or take the idea of "the left can't meme," which just keeps getting proven right, with the occasional exception (Bernie, Yang). the right is great at condensing ideas into quick, easy to digest info and presenting it in an entertaining way, the left keeps sucking at it. look at the way Dave Chapelle's been treated in recent years, that critic to audience score was one of the most blatant instances of this.

or we can look at people as even when the left has people great at discourse they end up getting pigeonholed with the right, sometimes called alt right, which diminishes what that category got carved out as, a fringe group usually with white supremacist ideas. wasn't always meaning that, that's the closest definition it's got today, though the far left loves pushes everyone in there, to the frustration of everybody else. but i'll also throw down a few names, though if you're at all familiar with "the intellectual dark web" you'd be aware them already. first two are the most obvious for lefties:

Bret Weinstein - progressive. hard progressive. isn't in most left wing spaces because he had the audacity to not accept the twisted version of "a day without black people" that Evergreen had.

Sam Harris - liberal. doesn't like Islam which has resulted in quite a few issues.

know what shows they do end up on? Joe Rogan, Bill Maher. the latter's a liberal who has had more than his share of spats with people further left, so much so that you'll even see them call him a conservative. the former's beliefs are absolutely liberal, sometimes outright progressive. yet Rogan gets called alt right or a gateway to the alt right or any of that nonsense, even in this topic just a few days ago - that's completely wrong. and for a name all the above have talked to you've got Jordan Peterson, famous for being against compelled speech - which is a straight up liberal position, though the left demonized his stance because it was against being forced by the state to say a tran person's pronouns. and yeah, he's got his religious bend and there's some conservative elements to him but he ends up pulling quite left on many issues of personal freedom and individuality. this also gets to another wrong idea the left has on the right today - the idea that Rogan or Peterson would radicalize someone. data suggests the opposite. but it makes sense that the further left you go the more issue you've got seeing that since the study mentioned earlier would suggest exactly that. now who else do they talk to regularly? Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, a conservative jew who's been called alt right, a nazi, etc and a gay guy in LA who mostly is scattered across the center; Rubin's got a lot of social issues where he goes left but economically he definitely prefers right and plenty on the left hate him. where else may they show up? Steven Crowder, another conservative. but with these names alone you've got a progressive, multiple people on the left, some centered, and a couple right wingers. not one person there is "alt right" or "alt lite" or any kind of extremist. the opposite ends up being true as they're far more likely to pull people away from the extremes of the right. right now the left doesn't have enough of that and any support of a group who uses hammer and sickle flags should be treated the same way as your Richard Spencers.

and it ain't like the left isn't making some ground there, though it tends to be weirder. stuff like Jimmy Dore, a guy not really in the above grouping but very progressive, one of Rogan's favorites, and will discuss many things (some of which he's just plain wrong on - Venezuela comes to mind). i'm not too familiar with Kyle Kulinski's work but that's a name that's come up a few times. David Pakman i am familiar with and though he's a pretty standard progressive though he'll also have discussions with those on the right, stays on point, and though he's way more left than i am, definitely can offer good perspective often. but they don't really know how to stop themselves since you've got things like the young turks which is just plain awful.

all that said, you see that above paragraph of names? the right can typically understand their points and disagree better, often saying they'd love to talk. the left often doesn't, dismisses them, insults them, puts them into completely wrong categories, and lets the right hold a stronger grip on discourse. or to phrase differently, the left has issue with the concept of talking to a Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, or Steven Crowder, let alone the substance of what they say. they meanwhile will gladly talk to the left and have made a name for themselves off of that.

could get into the way bases react too but eh. i've already got enough that i assume will be falling on deaf ear