Forums / Discussion / General

Intersectionality was built in to the civil rights movement since the beginning. We have traceable legacies of civil rights cooperation and mixture of tactics and people whose thread runs through the entire process. It's why TERFs were pretty much immediately ostracized. And "the movement ending" is such an idiotic take about the civil rights movement I weep for how deep you are in the propaganda.

And in just gay rights, the first brick in stonewall was thrown by a trans person, I mean history does not pan out anything like you think it does.

But the alt-right itself is pretty constant. You have the same "alternative media", militia movements, and out fascists doing the same thing it has since the start. Fuck, the money trail of these exact same people goes back to gamergate. Do you not keep track of this shit or are you deliberately ignoring the history of all these movements?

As the old saying goes Mandates to do what

By all rights I really shouln't be suprised that one who believes that a flu is a vaccine away from extinction would compare this to slavery.

And yet here I am.

Didnt say they werent there in the beginning I said they stayed there after everyone else had gone, attempting to inheirit the gravitas of a movement of which they were a mere fraction to buoy up thier own different cause.

Rather like a production company taking a big name actor or an established franchise name to boost an otherwise mediocre film in it's leadup marketing. And like such a film the trick wears off when people actually go see the film and find mediocrity where they were expecting magic.

The gravitas of the original may remain but its ability to gain an audience for something new is left eroded with each shameful episode.

@Greyblades @Pinkiespy
I think there is a bit of confusion here. So the "alt-Right" term was co-created by Paul Gottfried, a paleoconservative, who was severely against US intervention and nation building, and Richard Spencer when Spencer was editor of Taki's Magazine. It should be noted that Gottfried, who is Jewish, really dislikes Richard Spencer and feels his ideas are "coming back in a garbled form". Gottfried tried to use the term to define a new generation of conservative ideas that were against the neoconservative views. However, Richard Spencer in 2010 did create a far-right magazine called "Alternative Right" which was effectively his white-nationalist and explicitly national-socialist views.

But the alt-Right wasn't the only growing conservative movement developing in the 2010s. And yes, there was a new movement being born, sometimes referred to as "The New Right", the dissident Right, and the alt-Lite (which was to differentiate themselves from the alt-Right). Unfortunately because our state of journalism is so obnoxiously toxic and incapable or unwilling to be in depth in covering political movements pretty much anything that wasn't the mainstream conservative views at the time (neoconservatism) was deemed as alt-Right.

But the thing is, the alt-Right is it's own faction, one that loved nothing more than to wedge themselves into emerging New Right ideas. This can be most visibly seen by it's Groypers being obsessed with targeting the mainstream conservatives for not being conservative enough.

Anyway, the New Right is a loose coalition of a wide variety of political ideologues, from Libertarians, Traditionalists, Constitutionalist Conservatives, Anarchists, Dark Enlightenment types, Populists of all types, internet trolls, and even some centrists and disaffected liberals. They hold a common shared viewed that the modern progressive movement is an evangelical religious movement that has deepened roots in the major pillars of society: higher (and now lower) education, mass media, politics, big-tech and entertainment, what is considered "the Cathedral" and should be fought at all costs.

You're right to point out that the alt-Right's movement was no ability to vetting members, but not because these members didn't share the view of Richard Spencer. It's because the unvetted members were largely pissed off terminally online social outcasts who latch unto extreme ideologies as an outlet to their economic and social frustrations. These aren't people that can in anyway be appealing to the broader public, and thus the movement largely started dying out in 2017 after Charlottesville. I saw this first hand in various discord servers I was part of.

Incidentally many of the former alt-Right actually did 180s and became radical socialists, leftists, and many also came out as trans. This strengthened something I witnessed a lot talking to the alt-Right on political discord: An overwhelming number of them have neurological issues; depression being one of the largest ones, neuroticism, autism. It is also not that uncommon for them to kind of have a thing for ladyboys.

The "alt-Right" was and is, largely a white-nationalist, far-right movement. But the greater New Right movement, despite being labeled as the alt-Right by shit journalists, isn't.

I stand corrected.

I hadnt looked into it for half a decade; I saw parallels, didint appreciate the distinctions and let the experiences I had of other movements reaching similar states of decline fill in the gaps.

I am afraid about what is happening in Hungary at the moment.

I have to ask, what are some Third Wave "New Right" candidates or policies? In the years since they've emerged on the scene? Wikipedia and other sources would refer to Reaganism and Evangelical Right as the Second "New Right".

In my experience it's a distinction without difference, due to either being the same as the "old", quickly becoming as unhinged as the "alt" right or just having no real influence (the curse of being the middle point). After all, they're virtually unknown. Of all the variants, how much of those will actually disagree with the alt-right, instead of just falling in line?

I disagree that the "alt" started dying out after Charlottsville, it became hyper-normalized and dispersed into various groups, which have inherited the moniker of alt. It became a blueprint for future political rhetoric.

Maybe it's on purpose by "institutions" but only the "old Right" have managed to stay reasonable (i.e: Not praising Putin, for example), those who break away as the 'New Right' have often just fallen to the Far-Right or irrelevance, hence having these groups of Zemmour and Le Pen.

It's nothing new, they're going the way of other strongmen democracies turned dictatorships, most of the efforts to control the judiciary, media and other keys to power has been done years ago. It's always the same playbook of dismantling institutions. Same thing happened to Belarus decades ago, if anything the fact that they're in the EU is why they can't be too overt.

Now they're the hybrid regime in the EU, misusing funds, disliked and occasionally riling up neigbors about Trianon. Some people have said some candidate countries are less corrupt than Hungary, so why can't they join? The problem is Hungary is a precise example of why it's a mistake to let people enter too quickly.

The fact that the American Right/Populists praised, met with, supported and pretty much allied with Hungary's Orban and other European Far-Right should have been enough to discredit them. Shows you what the end goal is, behind all the bullshit.

The only consolation is that Russia's actions have made a crack in Orban's relations with Poland. They were happy to cover each other while acting like petty oligarchs, but Poland can't afford to ignore Russia.

@Chewey
There is also a really bad fruit of the poison tree problem that the new right's news sources are incestuous at best and pushing the same bullshit as the alt-right bullshit. It's again because of the money trace. The same people providing support to smooth over Fox's recent mask slips (and, wow I actually challenge anyone here to convincingly say Tucker is not an died-in-wool fascist) are the ones that were providing support to early Breitbart. It's a really bad issue in continuity that desperately needs to be purged. Whatever populist movement is just going to be absorbed and warped to the worst examples of humanity, just like the TEA party.

It's like how democrats never actually purged the conservatives so you get situations where progress is demanded but you get an old guy popular in the south doing half-measures while supporting really heinous shit. LBJ to JB, the people who are right now hiding under the neoliberal label.

Tucker carlson isnt a dyed-in-wool fascist.

What do I win?

My disappointment? I thought you wrote "is a dyed-in-wool fascist". I got my hopes up and everything, was going to write something about having standards decoupled from ideology.

What brought this on? The only new piece of news I found is even a Republican Representative has started to criticize him

One silver lining of the Russian invasion, is that war has a way to uniting people at the same it sets people against each other. It finally forced Poland to (slightly) separate from Hungary, while at the same time Marine Le Pen has said she's still for relations with Russia, even after news of the massacre they committed, so the mask has completely fallen off.

Now's the moment of truth.

This may not seem like much with the amount of horrific things going on in the world, but the photos of the areas Ukraine has liberated turned my stomach.

It's to the levels of savagery of ISIS and the Nazis. War is ugly, but this eclipses even the outrage of Russian invading. I think it's no exaggeration to call this a genocidal act.

Your dissapointment…

Bah, you wager snow to an eskimo.

Kinzinger? Ah, one of the few neo-cons RINOs too young to be stained by Iraq, chronic never trumper, January 6th comitte's pet republican… notably one that isnt going for reelection this november.

It's a shit pedigree to be introducing to the democrat breed but hey, at least it isnt Dick Cheyne being paraded as the "good" Republican, this time.

Progress.

Seems like the far right nutcase le pen is going up in the polls, This may be an outsiders view but i’d say it’s primarily because as a liberal Macron doesn’t really care about the working class

Hey, you asked, I answered. The only other thing up for grabs is internet points.

As I said, it was the most recent piece of news. If he's one of those who isn't under the spell of Trump, good for him. Let's not get started on the pedigree on the recent Q-anons and I think even a pedophile that the Republicans have been cultivating recently.

Well, I can't complain about the quality of the US's politicians, seeing as Le Pen is a canddiate for the elections. Only one week until the first round.

As I pointed out the "New Right" is an extremely loose movement composed of a myriad of sometimes conflicting ideological factions, who are united under a few over-arching general ideas and concerns. That being: hatred of evangelical left, which they view as more or less a religious movement hell bent on totalitarian hegemony placing equity above all else. In the most realistic way I feel that this manifests is vehement anti-establishment, sometimes to an extreme fault.

No one candidate can capture the New Right entirely. Although this doesn't mean that some are more preferable to others. If you were to say that Trump was a product of the New Right, you'd not be entirely wrong. He was. But there are many within the movement itself that were very critical of him. Many on the more extreme thought he wasn't conservative enough, many on the other extreme (libertarian side) thought he was part and parcel of the establishment.

The other element I'd point out is that the New Right isn't concerned with "candidates" as much as they are more concerned with culture. For them politics is downstream from culture, and culture is where they've been focused on a lot. Incidentally, we can see this manifesting a lot in cultural issues, backlashes to "woke" ideologies in entertainment, backlashes towards "woke" praxis in school curriculums for younger and younger students, and, in a way, you can see it manifested in the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill. As far as this bill is concerned I'll chime this: since the lockdowns and more and more parents being either exposed to what their kids are being taught, or extremely hostile to the school system for it's often hypocritical reactions. The political right has been fueled deeply by these grievances, and many progressive teachers do not realize what a precarious situation they are creating. The cultural battle in the US today is increasingly being done over who should have the power and control over children. The State and it's agents (teachers, politicians, police) or parents. And I know the knee-jerk reaction for many Democrats and progressives is to join with the teachers – but in my opinion siding against parents is political suicide.

The altRight has a far more white-nationalist and racist ideology than other elements of the movement. They are not the main drivers of the movement. And the idea that they are stems from the fact that journalists have been so utterly shit by lumping pretty much anyone not aligned with either establishment politics as altRight. For God sakes, they called Ben Shapiro alt Right despite being Jewish and a fequent target of harassment from the actual alt-Right. Articles showing that the "Intellectual Dark Web" is alt-Right and far-Right despite having extreme leftists and liberals among them.

Unfortunately the socialists are divided and half barely even care about workers either.

Personally, much as I am loathe to say this, I think it's because she's far-right. Le Pen's "blood" obsession freaks me out, but it seems she's at a point where xenophobic sentiments are pretty high. No excuse about this being for economic reasons, recent terrorist attacks (Samuel Paty) and the behavior of other nations in face of it really shocked the public. It shocked me, and even Macron went on a rant against "American Media" & "the woke".

Not to mention that there's a non-negligible crowd of conspiracists, a percentage that refused to ever get vaccinated, although the only consolation is that lot prefer Zemmour, Le Pen being a dynastic mainstay at this point.

She's also behind in the polls, and the second round of voting is always about the one who terrifies the least amount of people.

@Chewybunny

Thanks for answering me. Yeah, I was skeptical of the New Right being a real thing, but I agree there's a well of people who aren't fond of the modern "leftist"/"progressive" consensus, but who aren't really in any political parties. We joke about "gamers", but that describes the "game friends" I have/had, a younger group.

One of the few-times that I saw a brief break to Trump mania on this site at it's peak was when he suggested video games was responsable for a shooting.

I can't say I'm a fan of the current wave of censorship and education meddling. I hope it doesn't spread. Tell me, doesn't it hurt the libertarian ethos to restrict books? Framing it as state vs parents doesn't make it any less authoritarian.

The same way that the "Handmaid's tale" was partially written as criticism of Feminists who allied with the Church, I can't say allying with the Evangelicals and Karens will help. It's just as much of a political suicide to give them power, and I guarantee much of those who support them for political expediency will come to regret it. Especially if they ever become a teacher, where you now have multiple horror stories of parents who refuse to accept any discipline (which includes those for bullies).

The alt-right are often the loudest, and I think another issue is how reluctant many seem to be to kick them to the curb. That's going to become a fatal flaw for the 'New Right' at some point, if it isn't already.

I don't know much about the new right but I DO know I sure don't want to fucking deal with most of them with all the other problems the world has god fucking damn it.

If alt right is part of it and it is then it must be a fucking cesspool

Thinking about it, aren't libraries in the US government funded, they haven't privatized that too. Wouldn't getting books banned cross one of the amendment?

In retrospect, I wasn't critical enough about this. To fan the flames of anger (sometimes literally with the book burning) and cause a modern version of the Satanic panic, is a best cynical and self-serving and at worst outright anti-democratic. The same way that excusing the pardon of Blackwater sapped credibility, I don't want to hear any pretense about free speech or censorship.

The silence of many counter-culture war types shows that those values were just an excuse in the end, same as sovereignity, or fiscal responsibility or duty, or propriety. It's all a tribal point scoring game.

The only consolation is that American graduates and experts that I know are increasingly of foreign-origin, the US is going down a back of obscurantism and brain drain, which does have consequences, unless they reverse themselves.

Bit late on the reply here, I know, but good point. Though I feel that these are, if nothing else, highly atypical in their origins in comparison to similar beliefs held by other groups. Whether or not these make them less "fundamental" than otherwise is a matter of taste.

The American progressive wing's (and associates') obsession with race, separation of culture, and general air of paternalism is most likely the result of a severe corruption of an opposition to racism into, effectively, a new and exciting form of racism. This is how you get to concepts such as people "betraying" their race by "voting wrong", Asians fluctuating between "white" and "not white" whenever it's convenient, and "whiteness" being morphed into a nebulous, ill-defined bogeyman responsible for whatever wrongs people want it to be. How this got so corrupted is beyond me; I doubt there's any one singular cause.

The alt-right's (and associates') usage of the "accuse them of being a Nazi/fascist" tactic, I think, has a simpler origin: they saw their enemies use it to great effect against people who clearly aren't Nazis or fascists, and decided to copy it. Why reinvent the wheel, after all?

Now, there is the third thing I mentioned: censorship. Both groups, like any sort of radicalism with an authoritarian bent, desire to silence their enemies. Their lack of real institutional power, as the capacity for censorship is almost exclusively in the hands of neolibs and neocons, minimizes their ability to actually do so, prompting them to either openly exploit the establishment to do it for them, or stoop to less civil methods, like bomb threats.

In regards to the libraries of middle and high schools, districts are subject to limitations on what books they can remove, though the exact details are unclear. Removing books from curriculum, however, is subject to fewer, and even less clearly defined, restrictions, and regardless isn't exactly "book banning" as some outlets have tried to claim.

Now, this does lead to an interesting question: what about adding books to the library? Are they faced with similar restrictions there, or are they free to curate what gets introduced? For example, if a school library didn't have some hot-button book (regardless of topic, be it the Holocaust or racist toddlers), would they be compelled to add it to their library if someone demanded it?

And you should know by now that everything is nothing but a matter of tribalism. Economics, education, entertainment, the environment…

And its exactly that mindset that resulted in Trump, Farage, Le Pen and every other populist boogyman you care to name.

Finding flimsy excuses like association to declare entire swathes of the population as evil and thus write them and thier concerns off. It doesnt solve problems; it builds time bombs.

Well I mean many of them, many of those on the blue square at least ,want me dead so you can understand why.

Well I mean many of them, many of those on the blue square at least ,want me dead so I think you can understand why.

(I'll respond to both posts with this response, if that's alright)

>late on the reply – atypical in their origins
Eh, it's alright. It means you're probably spending time more productively. You have a point that a lot of what listed is a corruption of what a group should be about, but there comes a point when corruption becomes so endemic that it becomes a standard.

>censorship

I can't say that I find censorship being grassroots instead of top-down to be even better. It can be even uglier, because a High Priest ordering the censure of a dissident as a heretic can be seen as a typical authoritarian, but when a hysterical crowd burns books (and sometimes people), what does that say about humanity?

I think it's telling that they've attacked 'Maus' and 'Persepolis', both books on the slow tread down to a dictatorship. There's even worse catastrophes going on which is distracting everyone, but you know how ugly and suspicious it looks like to attack the books which warn about Nazism and Theocracies?

I already said it before, but a lot of the American right (who haven't lost their mind) will regret allying with a bunch of Karens. The same way people were wary of SJWs of attacking different types of media, everyone will see in time that they won't limit themselves to books, and unfortunately, the US has a way of exporting their current cultural sensibilities.

>library

I don't know how it works with your local library, but I once asked for some Agatha Christie books and the librarian ordered it. My library also had borderline pornographic comics, so it may depend on the region.

Librarians are great, I'm personally disgusted that a lot of these "concerned parents & moral guardians" are harassing them.

>And you should know by now that everything is nothing but a matter of tribalism.

Ain't that the truth.

Problem is, for those who betray their values then the only thing left is self-interest, hatred of the opposition and worship of leaders. It's a danger to everyone, it's why there's so many cautionary tales about how sacrifices in the name of "the greater good" can lead to hell.

That's the real "moral rot" that 'moral guardians' should be worried about, not some tits.

"The American progressive wing's (and associates') obsession with race, separation of culture, and general air of paternalism is most likely the result of a severe corruption of an opposition to racism into, effectively, a new and exciting form of racism. "

I'd argue the progressive wing's obsession's with race is due to the fact that the left has absolutely lost the economic class-war that they championed for a century. The "working class" (or the working-poor) may have voted for Democrats but are hardly socially progressive. The de-unionization of the private workforce in the 80s, to the beginnings of NAFTA and globalization, to outsourcing and emergence of the tech-sector's dominance in our economy has made the have nots in the globalization scheme the total losers. Why is it that so many former Democratic strongholds in the rust belts voted for Trump? Why has someone like Trump with the "America First" policy had such a success that Biden's policies are modeled on it? The bipartisan antagonism towards China which has benefited the most out of our outsourcing schemes? We've been chasing the post war economic boom for decades, we've had two generations (3?) addicted to permanent growth, that the idea that any slowdown is so abhorrent we have borrowed ourselves into oblivion. The progressives lost the economic war, so they had no choice to embrace identitarian politick as a means of survival.

Edit – addendum:
I strongly view that the modern political "left" is utterly devoid of any new ideas, critiques, or thoughts and are wholly stuck in the ideology of 19th and 20th century thinkers, utilizing language and lenses of the mid-2oth century post colonial order as a tool to describe the modernity. In geopolitical and national discourse they are still using language like "colonialism", "imperialism", "appropriation" within the context of the post colonial reality. How often is even the modern conceptualization of "gender identity" is framed as a product of "white colonialism"?
They are still pushing for a Maxist Socialist economic and political model despite it being built around the emergence of industrialization in the UK. Complacent are they who think they are on the "right side of history".

I apologize for being such a massive doomer but like I feel that is more because everything is kind of fucked right now (especially now after COVID) and it looks really hard to fix at this point, have you seen the state of the economy? It looks bad and the left doesn't know what to do about it and like you said is running out of ideas, while the right just ignores the decay and doesn't seem to care that much.

We are getting way too close to running out of gasoline and we are still far from a replacement if anything technology is starting to stagnate.

Both sides will be blaming each other, but if you ask me we may just be arriving to the end of the road and I don't like it. Things just don't look good and we are running out of resources and what not. Not that I believe it will lead to an apocalypse but….

I ain't even angsting that much about it though cause if everything is fucked why even stress about it and recently I am starting to think that falling in despair over the future is kind of pointless I am just saying the left isn't the only one that has been stagnating and showing signs of decay it's…everything really. The right also has seen better days, really almost everything has, working conditions sure seem to be declining….

Mind you I am not saying this is permanent just that we are very much in the start of the second great depression, even if COVID ends the economy was still super damaged by it we will probably manage to overcome that and probably replace gasoline eventually but it won't be sunshines and rainbows regardless of which side has the lead.

And a lot of rightwingers groups are not helping as well, Russia is mostly far right and it SURE isn't helping for example. Not that I disagree that to a great extent left-wingers are becoming more and more disconected with reality.

I am just saying, this are times of endurance and…adaptation, COVID isn't even entirely over yet

Oh I do understand, hence why instead of a rebuttal I will give you a piece of advice;

The people here who slap you on the back for saying that about blue? They will verbally tear you to pieces if you ever say the same about Islam; despite the fact that both statements hold the same amount of truth.

For you see the reds and the greens fully understands the principle I espouse; hell, they basically wrote my script! They just dont believe the right of thier own countries deserve any benefit of the doubt, despite the fact that they give an often insane amount of it to every other group that has a violent segment.

Even as thier own violent segments far eclipses the right's in scale, ferocity and tendancy to cause collateral damage; the western left rarely even acknowlege the double standard..

#Notall, unless they're they have the wrong politics.

Question: How effective are those sanctions imposed on Russians?

Government could just use it to its advantage by letting the common people feel the negative effects while blaming the West.

It's frozen accounts of the very rich, with some oligarchs complaining to the media about it. Having a billion dollars frozen has to hurt.

There's already some schadenfreude in that it's not just hitting the little guy.

It's also staggered Russia's manufacturing capabilities, they're having trouble making new cars and tanks among other pieces of machinery. Complex machinery is central to modern war after all, so paralyzing their war machine makes it far more difficult to replenish and continue the prosecution of the war. That's not counting the continued deficit in medicine, chemicals, and basic trade goods (and how that may affect separatism, as Chewybunny mentioned in an excellent post on the Russian invasion thread).

Russia's trade links with Europe weren't enough to prevent a war, but that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt. A fast pivot to China doesn't seem to be happening, or may not be something that can be done quickly. Of course, the Russian administration will likely blame the West, but at this point they'll do it anyway no matter what happened.

It depends on what the desired outcome is.
In the short term, the sanctions aren't going to effect Putin. He is above it, he is sacred.
The sanctions are affecting people on the ground but their ire is turned towards the local government rather than Putin. The oligarchs are not as powerful as they once were, in fact, many of the early architects of modern Russia have jumped ship. The circle of power around Putin today isn't the oligarchs, it's the military intelligence apparatus.

For example Sugar is now in such short supply people are hoarding it and selling it at exorbenant prices. In some places you can't even find sugar. Some regions, aren't even letting their sugar leave the Republic. As more and more local leadership starts to hoard goods for their own peoples' consumption, the more and more the supply chains across Russia as a whole will break down. In fact they've already started the process of major industrial supply chain breakdown because of how much machinery Russia imports.

It was actually another victim of the kind of system that was set up in Russia. The same mechanisms that created the severe problem with the Russian military, i.e. no means to self criticize or reform due to high levels of corruption and cronyism. And Russia prefers it that way, Russian political elite always were afraid of the might of the Red Army, so they kept it purposefully low. Instead it always relied on military intelligence apparatus, and small but loyal battalions for the purposes of pacification. It's why the Russian Paratroopers, for so long so celebrated, and feared, the pride of Russia – able to get away with literal crimes, was utterly shattered by the Ukrainians. They are a pacification force, not an army.

Similarly, on an industrial level, Putin wanted Russia to be more self-reliant. Great, and wonderful, but the industrialists cannot manufacture all the parts necessary, and there is a severe shortage of engineers to go around anyway. But it's dependence on Western imports for technology and parts is what is going to kill it. For example, the Russian mining monopolist of potassium and coal, Kopeiski Mashzavod, builds these massive mining rigs. But to make this machine? They need the MORI SEIKI VL-553 II which is made by a German branch of a Japanese company.

Another case is that of Diana Kaledina, CEO of Baltic Industrial Company which makes machines for military plants. She says Russia doesn't produce bearings, ball screws, drives, or spindles. She needs to import it all, despite the fact as a military supplier she isn't allowed to.

Or Svetlana Orlova, governor of Vladimir. She presented a new tractor designed and prouced by a local factory under her leadership in 2017. When Putin ordered to launch import substitution Governor Orlova obeyed and commanded a local factory to create a Russian tractor. CEO obeeyed and the engineers designed the new and amazing AHT 4135F. But it's not really Russian, it's actually a Czech tractor Zetor Forterra 135. They bought the kits and assembled them in Russia and pretended they are home produced. Of course this was found out, but she wasn't the one that got booted, the CEO was. But she was promoted because of her hard work and patriotism.

This is how it works in Russia's economy and military; bullshitters bullshitting other bullshitters and the best bullshitter get's promoted.

So we come back to the people, the industrialists, the machinists. A systemic breakdown of supply chains, basic goods, even military equipment. Would Putin take the blame? Of course not, it's the local governors who will – and it's what drives the local governors to order hoarding goods. This exacerbates the cycle, a continual breakdown.

This is the map of Russia division. Notice the purple areas? Those are Republics, they have their own presidents and their own constitutions. They are fairly autonomous. The areas in green are Krai, which is fairly autonomous usually ethnic region of Russia. What these supply chain problems due to sanctions may lead is to economic separatism. Which, inevitably, leads to political separatism.

Russia literally cannot afford to lose this war, and have the sanctions remain. It'll be the end of Russia as we know it.

@Chewybunny

Yeah, that was the good post you made about the risk of separatism due to a shortage of goods.

Onto another subject, I think it's a bit weird that there's been different arguments about how the left/right have no values or are outmoded on this page. I've already stated my own contempt for the same old puritan moral outrage, for one thing (or the ties and emulation of authoritarian regimes).

What policies are actually forward-thinking, in your opinion?

The one I can think of is some push towards environmental/sustainable development. That tied to resource shortages is going to be the big problem of the 21rst century.

In my opinion I've come to detest the "right" "left" spectrum, ideological positions we assign to either right or left can be, and often are, shared by the other. There are authoritarian rightists, and authoritarian leftists, and vice versa. There are morally outraged rightoids and morally outraged leftoids. The lines between them blur significantly. So this is going to be long winded, because I want to outline some ideas before answering your question.

As far as "forward-thinking" I don't know exactly what you mean by "forward".
I do not think western "progressivism" can offer any realistic forward thinking solutions anymore. In my opinion the "progressives" have reached a peak with deconstructing everything. Political and Cultural Progressivism is the Orthodoxy in academia, culture, and politics. I think it's final horizon to conquer is what it is that makes us, us. With everything deconstructed to the nth level I feel there is less and less things that are sacred to the left. There is a hatred of self that is rampant among the progressive circles. And it deeply effects the environmental movement with it's blatant anti-natalist positions.

The problem I see it is two fold:
1) that you cannot take on the global without understanding the cost to the local. This is what has been an abject failure of globalism, and what fueled the rise of right-wing populism across the Liberal world. Globalism has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in a span of 20 years, at the cost of putting millions of people into relative poverty, i.e. we decimated the industrial heartland of the US which provide jobs for the lower and lower middle classes, a stable life, all so we can buy cheaper sneakers. So we can buy cheaper clothing. Buy a cheaper piece of plastic, a fun little technological device that provides entertainment over any realistic value.
2) Local Democracy makes global action a near impossible thing to accomplish. In democratic institutions policy is indirectly driven by the will of the people. The politician enacts or votes on policy that best suits the constituency that keep that politician in power. The long-term benefit of solving global issues comes at the expense of near-term loss of the locals. The desire to build 100 solar plants for the long term benefit of the environment is great, but you're going to sacrifice thousands of jobs of oil drillers, coal miners, people who work at petroleum plants, and power stations. Unless you find a way to replace those jobs you will only create a backlash. We saw this most explicitly in 2016 when the Rust Belt flipped from being traditionally Democrats and voted for Donald Trump. This is why I push extremely hard for people to understand the deep-deep seething anger of people living 50 miles outside of major cities.

So unless the above is somehow resolved, there are only a few solutions to the environmental movement, depending on how big of a problem you think it is:

Eco-Fascism – specifically the necessity of an all encompassing totalitarians state that can drive all social and economic activity towards a environmentalist solution.

Techno-Capitalism – that technological sectors of capitalist societies will drive the technological power to fix the environment.

Elon Musk is an example of a techno-capitalist that is focused on the environment. Whether altruistic or not, you cannot deny the impact that he had on EVs, Solar, etc.

What I think is emerging is radical centrism, which is at least somewhat "forward-thinking", but it is also highly part of techno-capitalism, that is, the emergence of technology shaking up the capitalist world. I think this is best encapsulated by someone like Andrew Yang who correctly identified the problems emerging in modernity such automation, hollowed out industrial heartlands, inability for people to even gain the skills needed to participate in the economy.

Imho the best policies should be as follows:
-Radical focus on techno-infrastructure cooperatives. Government can grant extra privileges, leases, change tax codes, etc, for private venture to build inter-state infrastructure; better transportation, better internet, etc. I prefer this to be largely done on a private level because the US as a government simply cannot drop another 4 trillion dollars.
-Government policy that encourages migration away from large cities and into smaller ones mixed with a policy of better smarter city planning, i.e. smart-cities. Los Angeles grew rapidly in the first 20th century, and it's city design is built for the technology and reality of the 20th century. It is massive, inefficient, bloated, and any new construction, or transformation is costly beyond comprehension. You cannot turn Los Angeles, as it is, today, into a smart-city. You can go to Barstow (50 miles north east of Los Angeles) and start building building a smart city. These kind of cities would encourage high-tech, high paying economic sectors to spread out and not be so concentrated in single cities. This will have the dual nature of making politics less radicalized. Smart cities can also be built with far more modern more efficient infrastructure.

The above policy would do wonders for the Rust Belt.
This is detroit in 2009:
The financial crisis destroyed that city, a massive metropolis of a city, becoming an urban hell scape. Imagine if there was a policy to reclaim the broken empty lots, the broken buildings, and revivify them into a smart city.

You can go big too. The Saudis for example have been in the works of building NEOM, an ultra modern smart city with the aim of being a 0 emission city. Yeah it's a bunch of techy buzzwords, but the fundamental technology is there. You can build a better more efficient city, and you should.

Woman In Starr County arrested for illegal abortion

This country is going to hell in a handbasket.

going?
my friend we've always been

Something that just absolutely confounds me at the moment is all the focus on banning transgender kids (not adults, people still in high school) from sports. I forget which governor had a letter explaining why he veto'd a transgender sports ban bill (that got overidden by the gop legislature) that had the statistic that of all the athletes in high school sports, only 4 are actually transgender, and only one is actually in the women's category.

Like, you're banning easily less than a percent of people in sports with these bills, and so far, I haven't seen them absolutely blast past records set by cis athletes.

The difference in body structure can let number 400 in men's beat number 1 in women's even after the weakening effects of a regimen of hormone treatments.

The same "they're a tiny percentage" argument could be levied against adult transgendered sports participation. Yet here we are; watching women be relegated to second place in thier own spaces.

Just one can easily be all that it takes to make a mockery of a women's sport.

this type of Republicans have the worst fucking priorities, like we have WAY bigger problems than that right now woman. For one we are quickly running out of oil especially with Russia getting all bloodthirsty.

Ah the "children are starving in africa" rebuttal.

As if people arent capable of being concerned about more than one issue at a time.

They dont worry about other things though, its transgender people and panicking about ¨woke¨ stuff almost 24/7, its getting obsessive.

Like if they talked about other things like poverty, or covid or the fact we are running out of resources or the climate or whatever, I could see your point but no its this shit 24/7, either for or against

And you know they dont worry about other things… how exactly?

Or are you complaining about thier use of air time?

Those things you think are more important already occupy the majority of the news cycle and the attention of hundreds of other spokesmen and talking heads.

Why should an activist on one issue be obligated to drop it because other issues have arisen?

You're right, their ilk are also concerned with the "great replacement" nonsense and how transgender people using bathrooms is pedophillia

And now the Hitler ate sugar… I think.

"Arguer was wrong and/or evil there, thus everything arguer argues is wrong and/or evil."

Not confident on what it's called; been a while since I last read those common fallacy infographics.

Either way, we keep returning the association well.

The resurgence of fascism and the willingness to defend Russia's genocide in Ukraine?

Might just be a repeat of the 2017 presidential election in france
we'll see after round 2

Alright Grey, show me how women are being put in second place in their own spaces? Are transgender women not women? Or are they men pretending to be women in your eyes?
And secondly, why the hell are bills coming out to ban trans kids from school sports? If they're supposedly that big of an issue, why aren't sports committees and researchers looking into the statistics of this? Why is it that all of a sudden, all trans kids are to now be forbidden from participating in sports?
Also, for the four transgender student athletes in Utah, only one of them being in the women's section, was it truly worth it for the state's legislature to override their governor's veto of the trans sports ban bill? That number comes straight from the governor, who is a Republican.