When is punching to your right acceptable?

[Curved_Sw0rd]

Gonna start with what I mean by punching right. Punching Right as I see it is a right-winger attacking another right-wing, typically for being more, well, right-wing than them. The chief example I'd cite is Pedro L. Gonzalez being attacked by Douglass Murray as an antisemite for calling one of the Rothschilds ugly (which he very much is), effectively trying to get the man fired from his job in a very SJW-esqe way. Pedro still has his job, thankfully, but it raises the question.

Personally my own answer to this question is that it's rarely something that inspires confidence, instead making one look more like David French than some moral paragon.

 

[Rocinante]

Okay so each party fights each other, and then internally each party (factions of that party) fight themselves.

This is actually healthy. This is how certain ideas/coalitions/deals form, and how the party takes it's shape.

It's hard where to draw the lines, but Racist assholes like FriedCFour and Whitestrake should always be challenged.

That doesn't mean I agree with the left's cancel culture tactics, though. Meeting their free speech with more, better speech, is the way.

 

[ProfessorCurio]

Okay so each party fights each other, and then internally each party (factions of that party) fight themselves.

This is actually healthy. This is how certain ideas/coalitions/deals form, and how the party takes it's shape.

Like most things conflicting factions within factions is healthiest in moderation, I trust we here at least will never allow it to get so bad as to paralyze us or cause us to often treat eachother as unreasonably as many of the left tend to.

 

[Megadeath]

The tribalistic, us vs them false dichotomy implicit in the question is one the very worst problems in modern first world politics, especially in the USA. Politics, like all arguments, should be issues based. The person presenting the argument and the party they're from should be largely irrelevant to that.

Now, a political figure might choose not to make an issue of their disagreement with someone they share some other views with, whilst they work towards common goals because they believe the agreed on issues are more important than the disagreement, but they also shouldn't pretend or lie about it where and when it does come up. Similarly, you might not need to make a huge fight about minor issues of the exact nature of tax structure with friends and family or whoever that you have other things in common with, but should be open to discuss those differences when it's relevant.

The idea that you shouldn't punch left or right because you "are" left or right is ridiculous. When you break societal and political values on so many disparate issues into just 2 groups, those groups will never perfectly reflect basically anyone's beliefs and values. If you're all in favour of abortion and immigration, but also gun ownership, should you just pretend that you think otherwise? I don't see why anyone ought to. Or, you can say that you think hilary was emblematic of the worst kind of fake politicians, of the establishment with its various issues and pandering to the crowd, but hate trump with a burning passion and wish him dead. Wh

 

[Rhyse]

I started out as a pretty 'far left' sort of guy. As in, labour party in the 1970's. I've since become fairly right wing if you go by what people today use to measure 'left vs right' - Which, by and large has dick all to do with economic policy oddly enough - and I've been to a few of the PA meetings, and attended a conference. What I've noticed, is that there are people that turn up to these sorts of meetings that trend towards being low impulse retards. I know that's a very uncharitable way of referring to them, but it's probably the best way of putting it.

In the current 'left vs right'. The left has low impulse retards as its middle and upper management. This is a bad thing; it's not only good to 'punch right', but a form of political housekeeping when it comes to low impulse retards. When I say 'punching right' I mean literally calling people out as bad actors, not just criticizing them. Bad actors destroy movements, and they do it by acting like low impulse retards. This can take the form of rampant fedposting, randomly saying gamer words to people; promoting violence, or doing other things that retards with poor impulse control do.

 

[ProfessorCurio]

While violence is undesirable we should consider it as an absolute last resort as opposed to something that is never a reasonable solution and which is primarily within the domain of the impulsive and dim.

Promoting violence sadly is not always a bad thing if a situation is dire enough and all better options one can reasonably in the pertinent timeframe seek are lost or even in most dire of circumstances obscured.

When a robber brandishing a lethal weapon and acting brash breaks in and threatens you or even just someone else then reasonably you aught to be justified in using violent means of defense.
Of course if it is your property that is being threatened, but not reasonably in that moment any lives then seeing as property has not the worth of a living and hale soul let violence be held at bay as it should be.

If conditions call for an American revolution (which they currently do not, as this is merely an example) then let there be an American Revolution.
Thankfully in most parts of the world where we can discuss such things, including here in the US there is no need for such violence and conditions are not that of such dangerously strong tyranny.
Authoritarian aspects while concerning in their growth are well within the scope of peaceful and reasonable curtailment.

 

[Battlegrinder]

I think this depends heavily on how you define "punching right", as there's a difference between arguing over policy and suggesting some other faction is taking the wrong course and should stop, vs something like the Lincoln Project, which is at best a bunch of bush era neocons that got pissed off after they got kicked out of power and are trying to take the rest of the party down with them, and that most Republicans rightly regard as traitors.

The tricky part is drawing the line between the two, and that's not easy to do because the line between good faith debate and treasonous sabotage is very subjective. The mainline GOP's attempt to stamp our Fuentes and his ilk probably feels very being on the receiving end of a less kid-touchy version of the Lincoln Project as far as Fuentes is concerned.

 

[prinCZess]

As any political party's membership should come to the conclusion: There are lines and relevant divisions. Some issues and priorities should be placed above others and some put lower in importance--the only alternative is one faction of partisan politics getting their way, and that somewhat naturally gravitates power to the more extreme factions. The flipside is that those divisions can become too loudly condemned by those dug-in to power as a convenient way of creating a scapegoat or holding onto power.

For example, folks in either partisan camp in the US will point to their own party with criticism. Those on the further ends of the spectrum usually condemn the compromise (also labeled 'hypocrisy') or even betrayal that is settled on by the central areas, and those on the less extreme ends of the spectrum usually criticize the unelectability/extremism of the extremists. Running in the other direction, people more milquetoast criticze the extremism and unelectability of those more central.

Chief example of both in the US is the parties national states--Democrats, on broad level, currently have the issue of moderates criticizing the extremes with the likes of Manchin and Sinema either by pragmatism or principle objecting to more extreme stuff. Republicans, largely, have the more extreme or, at least, hardline and insistent end criticizing the middle for being sellouts and spineless.
(Course, there's also elements in the D party who criticize the center--'The Squad', Ocasio-Cortez, etc.--and parts of the R who criticize the further-right--Mitt Romney and that ilk.).

It's basically just a consequence of subjective political opinions themselves that punching nominal 'allies' happens, and where the line between those folks sit is a pretty individual judgement that would conform a bit to faction ideas (Communists are less liable to work with, like, neoliberals, than they are democratic socialists in a party. Ultra or racial nationalists less liable to work with neoconservatives than they are nationalist conservatives). Endless argument could be had.

Personally, I'd wish both sides were more prone to punching towards their respective extremes than they are--and that principally seems to align with the parties more long-term coalitions/power-centers. It'd be nice to see Democrats criticizing Sanders and The Squad and that general wing, but this seems to happen less because those elements still abide by the dominant party narrative often enough not to get the treatment that Manchin or Sinema do*. They don't threaten the 'central' powerplayers of the party as much.

Similarly, Republican criticizing is somewhat famously a mess of a fight with old powerplayers that 'made sausage' (Bush, Romney, neocons, even the LIincoln Project likes, etc.) criticizning the harder-right and on the other side a bit of a mess of different right-wing ideologies that also dislike one another criticizing the central power-players that, on a national level, is basically a holding-pattern fight until 2024 primaries settle things.

*Course, contributing to that is Manchin and Sinema having more influence/power as Senators than The Squad and most of the rest of the more hard left-wing folks. 'House' moderate Dems seem less common than the House extremist ones and that naturally drives some of the national focus.

 

[Curved_Sw0rd]

Okay so each party fights each other, and then internally each party (factions of that party) fight themselves.

This is actually healthy. This is how certain ideas/coalitions/deals form, and how the party takes it's shape.

It's hard where to draw the lines, but Racist assholes like FriedCFour and Whitestrake should always be challenged.

That doesn't mean I agree with the left's cancel culture tactics, though. Meeting their free speech with more, better speech, is the way.

The left's cancel culture tactics are kinda the rub of my worries. Seeing people fall into the left's frame as Murray did with Pedro doesn't inspire confidence. Is it not the left that get to determine in a significant way what is a racist/bigot/nazi/fascist and so on? Doesn't it benefit them when the right scrambles to disavow people lest they get cancelled? Maybe this is some form of loyalty on my part but as someone who swims in dissident circles it's discouraging. not to mention, there are jokers like Romney out there calling people traitors for wanting to avoid foreign entanglements.

I started out as a pretty 'far left' sort of guy. As in, labour party in the 1970's. I've since become fairly right wing if you go by what people today use to measure 'left vs right' - Which, by and large has dick all to do with economic policy oddly enough - and I've been to a few of the PA meetings, and attended a conference. What I've noticed, is that there are people that turn up to these sorts of meetings that trend towards being low impulse retards. I know that's a very uncharitable way of referring to them, but it's probably the best way of putting it.

In the current 'left vs right'. The left has low impulse retards as its middle and upper management. This is a bad thing; it's not only good to 'punch right', but a form of political housekeeping when it comes to low impulse retards. When I say 'punching right' I mean literally calling people out as bad actors, not just criticizing them. Bad actors destroy movements, and they do it by acting like low impulse retards. This can take the form of rampant fedposting, randomly saying gamer words to people; promoting violence, or doing other things that retards with poor impulse control do.

I can agree with this to a degree. Sometimes people decide "Fine, I'll be the bad guy" in response to the left's framing of things and decide to go full DESPITE posting, either because what the left hate must be good to them, or as a way of shit testing people to see who's willing to transgress.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Frankly I wish these bad actors would be forced to cash the checks their mouths write. You want to call people cowards for not initiating a civil war? Congratulations buddy, you're now the general of your militia. Have fun storming the castle! it's easy to talk crap while behind the screen as opposed to actually working and trying to make a difference in your community. Sadly with the way the internet works, that kind of behavior is encouraged and soon it's a giant echo chamber.

We need actual solutions not buzzwords.

 

[Rhyse]

I can agree with this to a degree. Sometimes people decide "Fine, I'll be the bad guy" in response to the left's framing of things and decide to go full DESPITE posting, either because what the left hate must be good to them, or as a way of shit testing people to see who's willing to transgress.

I don't even think it's that honestly. I think there are just certain personality types that enjoy and crave chaos, violence and being seen as the opposition. I've met people like that, and they're literal poison for any sort of movement. They start fights, they post online where meetings will be hosted to draw in things like antifa, so they can have fights. They'll act controlling, and gossip about other members. Some people just have toxic waste where their personality should be.

 

[ParadiseLost]

* Actual, legit Nazis, white supremacists, and neo-Confederates. (Which are all pretty rare IRL).
* Westboro Baptist Church type religious people.
* Dictator apologists.

 

[King Krávoka]

The right wing is a fiction referring to any idea that can't be allowed into the socialist cause. This is the real reason why history shifts left, they need to appropriate all fashionable atrocities for themselves and jettison the unfashionable ones. Anyone who defines themselves by being the opposite of their enemy is the very definition of controlled opposition, You do not pray to Apophis when challenging Pharaoh. For this reason We must identify the true right, the people with no identity beyond the nature of their enemies, and then reject them as just another appendage of the Great And Abominable Bird. It doesn't suffice to describe them as having no future beyond the defeat of their opponents, when they have no opponents, they casted themselves into a play where they are the opponent, and by this they chose no future beyond the defeat prescribed by their role. You need a You of Your own or else you're just a prop in someone else's victory.

 

[ProfessorCurio]

I don't even think it's that honestly. I think there are just certain personality types that enjoy and crave chaos, violence and being seen as the opposition. I've met people like that, and they're literal poison for any sort of movement.

While I don't believe this is entirely correct for the overall situation I do believe this accurately applies in more cases than not.
Many are simply as described earlier impulsive idiots.
A few have just had enough and in some way or another reach a point where they start to change and perhaps learn new lessons and a perspective tinted and warped by the aforementioned circumstances.
More often than not they are as you described and carry with them harmful personalities.
And of course it can always be a combination of the above.

 

[Aldarion]

There are a few problems with that. Yes, normally, "punching to your right" should be acceptable. But:
1) it is often done without understanding of the other side
2) it is often done for wrong reasons

What I mean by this is that most cases of "punching right" I have seen were "right-wingers" who had essentially bought into left-wing propaganda. They are the left-wingers of yesterday, who got left behind by the leftward shift of the mainstream, and are keeping up the old fight, except under a new label. And in doing that, they are essentially helping the left: they had accepted the basic tenets of leftism, and are making it palatable to people who would oppose the left because the tenets are being shrouded in the right-wing rhetoric. At the same time, they are helping to discredit the only serious opposition to the Left.

Ronald Reagan for example was a leftist, but he posed as a right-winger and thus won their votes. In fact, the entire Neoconservative movement is comprised of leftists - specifically Trotskytes - LARP-ing as a moderate right. So while they are punching right, it must be realized that they do this because they themselves are leftists, and not because of any real concern for human decency and stuff.

 

[LordsFire]

Ronald Reagan for example was a leftist, but he posed as a right-winger and thus won their votes.

I'm curious what you base this perception on.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

There are a few problems with that. Yes, normally, "punching to your right" should be acceptable. But:
1) it is often done without understanding of the other side
2) it is often done for wrong reasons

What I mean by this is that most cases of "punching right" I have seen were "right-wingers" who had essentially bought into left-wing propaganda. They are the left-wingers of yesterday, who got left behind by the leftward shift of the mainstream, and are keeping up the old fight, except under a new label. And in doing that, they are essentially helping the left: they had accepted the basic tenets of leftism, and are making it palatable to people who would oppose the left because the tenets are being shrouded in the right-wing rhetoric. At the same time, they are helping to discredit the only serious opposition to the Left.

Ronald Reagan for example was a leftist, but he posed as a right-winger and thus won their votes. In fact, the entire Neoconservative movement is comprised of leftists - specifically Trotskytes - LARP-ing as a moderate right. So while they are punching right, it must be realized that they do this because they themselves are leftists, and not because of any real concern for human decency and stuff.

By that logic does that mean today's left is yesterday's right? Looking at this board it really does seem like the only thing that separates left and right wing zoomers is since of scale. Right-wingers still want a supreme authority, they still want a panel of elites to keep the people in line and they want to eat the rich people they don't like. Not to mention that the amount of nationalists Communist and socialist policies is nuts.

The difference is one side wants this for Thier nation the other side wants this for the entire globe. Heck I just got done arguing against a thread that 5 years ago was Bernie Sanders talking points.

https://www.the-sietch.com/index.php?threads/wealth-cap.7725/page-2#post-266298

If this makes me a left winger...fine guess I'm a left winger.

 

[Aldarion]

By that logic does that mean today's left is yesterday's right?

No. Today's moderate left is yesterday's extreme left.

Looking at this board it really does seem like the only thing that separates left and right wing zoomers is since of scale. Right-wingers still want a supreme authority, they still want a panel of elites to keep the people in line and they want to eat the rich people they don't like. Not to mention that the amount of nationalists Communist and socialist policies is nuts.

The difference is one side wants this for Thier nation the other side wants this for the entire globe.

That is a very fundamental difference. However, it is not the only one. The basic difference, one from which all others stem, is that the right-winger prefers the ingroup, while the left-winger prefers the outgroup. The left is fundamentally defined by self-hate. So while both might well want supreme authority, the right-wing desire for supreme authority stems from perception of the need for authority to defend their community, while the left-wing desire for authority stems from their need to remodel the world according to their ideals.

I will drop a link here to an article I had written, as it should explain my position in a more coherent manner than a forum post:

Defining the Political Spectrum

Everyone is talking about the Left, Right and Center, but these things mean different things to different people. What is a moderate right or a center to a right-winger will be a far right or extre…

politicalreactionary.wordpress.com

I'm curious what you base this perception on.

He's a neoconservative. These guys are basically leftists (Democrats) who had turned the coats when increasing insanity of the Democrat Party started being too much to bear.

Also, his politics - foreign interventionism, big state etc. - are fundamentally opposed to values of traditional American right. Paleoconservatives always opposed interventionism, and wanted minimal state - including the army.

 

[ATP]

First - many so-called right-wind are in fact socialist.There is nothing wrong with punching them.
Second - when your brother do bad thing,you must told him so.

 

[LordsFire]

He's a neoconservative. These guys are basically leftists (Democrats) who had turned the coats when increasing insanity of the Democrat Party started being too much to bear.

Also, his politics - foreign interventionism, big state etc. - are fundamentally opposed to values of traditional American right. Paleoconservatives always opposed interventionism, and wanted minimal state - including the army.

Foreign interventionism during the Cold War was a very different story than foreign interventionism before or since. The Soviet Union would absolutely have worked to systematically conquer the world and force communism on everyone if they were not opposed. Hell, they tried to do so even while being opposed.


As to big state, what particulars are you referring to?