Can you give me an example of Rowling being based without her opinions on men in dresses? What makes an insult enough to whip out the Neo-Confederate tag anyway? Where did I start yammering about secession or repealing the 13th Amendment or what have you? Explain this.
Rowling doesn't need to be 'based' to be able to call out trans shit and see/call out the progressives for the madness they've pushed.
Classical liberals, who you deride as 'shitlibs', are the only ones who can reign in the madness on the Left, and classical liberals also make up a large part of the moderates/centrists in this nation.
And I brought up the 'neo-Confederate' insult to show why calling Rowling a 'shitlib' is a bad idea, unless you just want to preach to the choir.
You purposely conflate classical liberals and progressives into one heterogeneous mass with 'shitlib' comments, and do not seem to see how that your insult has the same basis in rationality as calling the GOP/Right 'neo-Confederates' does, i.e. none, outside of fringe echochambers.
It's an online magazine, dude. At least operate in good faith if you're going to push back.
Oh, I am, because your commentary, plus the title "No Enemies to the Right?', gave me all the data I needed here.
The whole idea there are 'No Enemies to the Right?' is complete and utter horseshit, as is not fighting back against foolish reactionaries who are mostly just 'Against the current thing.' And the Right does have people in it that should be considered enemies of the movement as a whole.
Fuentes, Milo, Spencer, Pence, Bush, Cheney, just to name a few.
To some degree, yes. But there are limits to this, as the right cannot afford to go for 1% independents at the price of 5% core.
And since when is GOP catering to the fringe?
The GOP as a party does not cater much to the fringe, in reality.
However, in PR world, which is what most of the public basis voting decisions on, the GOP keeps getting tied to fools like Fuentes and his ilk because of the whole 'Don't Punch Right' shit keeps effective gatekeeping from being done against the fringes of the party most of the time.
CPAC not letting him in is an exception to the previous norm with his ilk, and shows at least some parts of the GOP understand the problem, which is encouraging.
Again, you are asking for large organizations to do some kind of introspective navel gazing that no one needs nor cares about because it's not the job of such organizations.
And said lack of self-reflection is why the GOP keeps shooting itself in the foot in the PR battles that should be easy wins.
So where are these highly politically engaged centrists, how many are there, and what are they doing?
Most of them are just trying to live their daily lives, maybe donating to a particular candidate or two, and then watching the news or listening to the radio's new segments.
As for numbers...that's more difficult, because then we get into 'what definition do you want to use' territory.
We've seen here, people on the right consider classical liberals 'shitlibs' for not being 'based', and the Right wing fringe loves to play semantics games to push their bullshit as much as the Lefties fringe does.
Horseshoe Theory for politics keeps rearing it's ugly head.
And i'm saying that the group praising them and the group calling them out are worthy of each other and both are eager to combine into a walking distraction show making the whole news about the shit stirrers in question. Both of you stop...
If people stopped trying to get the Right to abandon effort towards the center, it wouldn't be necessary; yet the 'Don't Punch Right' crowd keep coming back with the same stupid bullshit.
Shitlibs aren't centrists, shitlibs are liberals who fall for leftist culture war positions.
And going on about fringe shitstirrers all the time makes both for great material for media vultures (if everyone is talking about them they must be a big deal on the right) and also make you look like someone who simply talks about shit stirrers all the time, raising questions about what's your deal with them.
No, shitlibs are a catchall term I've seen use in multiple ways and by multiple folks to describe basically anyone to the Left of Rand Paul. It flies well in echochambers, and is counterproductive pretty much everywhere else.
And the reason I bring them up is because those shit-stirrers are the source of a lot of other idiots beginning to think they are insightful, instead of morons.
Without jackass like those types, no one would bother debating whether 'Punch Right' is needed or necessary, it would just be done when needed, no cucking to the fringe Right about 'how dare you not be based'.
We need right wingers on the right, otherwise it's the center, not the right...
If you are commiserating with centrists about how bad the fringe right shit stirrers are, you are just doing that and feeling good about yourself, rather than recruiting them to the right.
In either case, do you have any idea how much the leftist shit stirrers talk about the fringe right shit stirrers? Yeah, that's part of the reason for the flak you get for it here.
We need to win, more than we need to be 'conservative', and populism has cross aisle appeal 'basedness' does not.
The GOP cannot, and will not, win anything on it's own, so it need to look outside itself, more than inside, for platform and political ques.
Otherwise the GOP will just fossilize and eventually be supplanted wholesale by something new, or become so powerless as to effectively make the US a one-party nation.
And I am well aware of what the Left's talk about the Right. I'm also well aware that the Right has no future without the center, but the center might have a future without the Right.
The illusion the Right has leverage over the center, instead of the other way around, is part of why the Right wing fringe keeps making things worse with stupid ideas like this.
The only way this changes is if the Right stops huffing it's own farts about it's social leverage and capital in he modern day, something the Right's fringe would never want to do, because it would accepting their own failings.
Well, yeah, sure, but that's also a moderate left position...
How does arguing for moderation on the left help the right get votes?
Rowling is a terrible case of red pilled ex-leftist because... she's not. She's a left wing feminist in conflict with the T wing of the left. Which makes them hate her as a heretic.
You are giving too much attention to an optical illusion. Yeah, lots of feminists, more or less radical, get in fights with the queer/T faction due to how what they demand affects the feminists and their cause.
Right wingers are just as hostile to that wing, but for politically different, more traditionalist reasons, that in other areas conflict equally with what feminists want.
Because people like Rowling turning against progressives over T stuff is the sort of slow burn social reversal that will help the Right in the long run.
Like it or not, the Right isn't really producing many of it's own successes in turning people, more than the Left just succeeds in going so far that they drive reasonable classical liberals away, and I do count Rowling as a classical liberal.
There are more independent voters in the US now than registered GOP or Dem, and elections are a numbers game.
Above, you lowballed it at 1% from center sacrificing 5% of the fringe. I'll even let you go with that, for fun, because the electoral college says hi.
Doesn't matter to the GOP if they lose a few hardcore voters in Mississippi or Utah, if they make up for those votes in swing states/races like in Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Iowa.
Swing voters matter more than the fringe of the base, that's just how US politics works.
Some of them, if they dig deep enough. But we should be helping them dig deep enough to take power away from the whole rainbow flag lobby, and even more so, in strategic terms, the whole leftist framework of minoritarian interests and subcultures.
We can help warn against trans shit, and let the Dems idiocy red pill more people.
However actively trying to go after other 'subcultures', as you call them, runs right into the 'you don't win elections by subtraction' and 'swing voters matter more than the fringe base' issues.
Don't get greedy on social issues, it could undue a lot of the potential red pill moments if the people also know the Right is just waiting for the power to turn us back to the 1950's, and the problem is a lot of the US populace legitimate fears that will happen if they give the GOP the same power the Dems have now.
Do they? Consider who's there around to tell the centrists about these people, and how impartial are these sources in general.
Exactly... That's why we need to dissociate ourselves from them, not talk about them, even in form of getting suckered into MSM style "you gotta denounce white supremacy at least once a week" bullshit they threw at Trump.
I would love for them to be a non-issue; however, that's not the world we live in, and guess what, denouncing them does help the Right's image with the center.
Like, for example, if the Right and people on the right had not disavowed the Westboro Baptist Churches antics years ago, and loudly, I'm not sure I would have been in a position to become sympathetic to the Right.
Reminder that feminism is still a part of intersectional leftism, just one thrown to the back of the shed and covered in dust due to newer, more oppressed groups coming along.
...I'm not going to get into an argument about 'feminism is bad and leftist' with you, because I do not think we have the same definitions for feminism. As I have said, I see Rowling as a classical liberal, not a Leftist, and treating her as such is a mistake.
I myself probably score to about 70% to 90% of conservative beliefs...
But if someone is a plain modern feminist except for disagreeing with the T line, that's 10% conservative beliefs at most.
I for one don't want to moderate the progressives to not run ahead of the power of own propaganda, i want the whole moral-political framework of progressivism to go away into the dustbin of history.
Again, do not conflate classical liberals with progressives, if you actually want to be effective at fighting progressivism.
You can likely bring many classical liberals over to the right, or at least way from the Dems, by understanding their positions as more than just caricatures from Right wing fringe echochambers, and knowing how to get through to them.
Calling them shitlibs and writing off every classical liberal as a progressive just makes that harder.
They are still feminists. Likewise, hardcore islamists agree with the right on even more colorful flag related questions... But they are still the enemies of western civilization.
What this is useful for is a crack in the whole leftist ideology to try to use into talking them out of feminism in its totality.
Legal equality between the sexes is not a bad thing, women being able to vote is not a bad thing, and when you rail against 'feminism', moderates and centerists will assume the end goal is rolling back women's suffrage and rights completely.
So you need to realize you will never get what you want with regards to 'feminism', and focus on shit that will actually work at rolling back the left and pulling the center Right.
