all 55 comments

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Nice post although I think you're working with incomplete information. For instance, I don't know if you've ever talked to people in the alt-right, but they're not quite the caricatures of evil you see presented in the media. It's like like that old sci fi show, Outer Limits, "we control everything you see and hear." Those guys aren't allowed to have a voice, and they're painted as neo-nazis and white supremacists. Although there are neo Nazis and white supremacists and some really hateful people, that's not representative of the entire group. And a lot of what they want isn't really that radical.

As an example, the mainstream media refers to the Proud Boys as a white supremacist group. Their leader is Cuban, their bible written by a black dude, and gays are welcome. Their goals I'm not super familiar with but it seems like your typical conservative values stuff. There is a disconnect between what you are allowed to see and hear, and reality.

And white nationalists are portrayed as nazis but nobody questions Japan should be Japanese, or that any culture should be able to be proud of their culture and heritage and seek to preserve it. Except whitey. That particular brand of systemic racism is celebrated. The cause for that many here would blame on the Jews, but you'e have to talk to someone else about that.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

A lot of the issues tend to come with the particularities of race relations in the US. Technically speaking the statement that "there is no such thing as white culture" is kinda true. White isn't a real racial category, it's basically a big umbrella category for just about anyone of European heritage from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. It's why the Scotts and the Brits can have racial heritage of each other despite being white, they aren't the same "race" since it's entirely a socially derived concept based on appearance and culture.

What is white culture in the US is kind of an amalgam created artificially during the World Wars to get various diverse people to identify as American first and foremost.

Black culture similarly doesn't really exist and is an amalgam of various African Caribbean and American traditions. But it differs from the so called white culture in that it's derived in the US due to slavery and people were forced together and much of their actual heritage was lost. Over years it's evolved naturally but the differences we see in white and black culture derive from class differences more than anything.

Basically every culture is well within their own rights to be proud of their own cultural heritage imho, but once that turns into racial pride it starts to be a problem. The difference between Japanese race and Japanese culture is less pronounced as it is in many cultures with a homogeneous population, but you'd see the Japanese also oppress the fringes of their cultures in the past before quasi-celabrating their differences now as like what happened to the Ryukyu and Ainu people. Still those racial differences are far less obvious in appearance alone.

The US currently the ruling class fans the flames of racism between the poor blacks and the poor whites to keep them politically separate and realizing their collective political power to improve their material conditions. That allows them both to be controlled and profited off. This situation isn't unique in history but the racial element of it isn't near as visibly obvious as it is in the case of European against African descendents. Most forms of slavery involved taking people nerbyor even enslaving your own people throughout history.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

it's basically a big umbrella category for just about anyone of European heritage

I see it differently, white culture is an ideal anyone can aspire to. In my area the majority is Hispanic, but they're white identifying Hispanics like my niece. I'm of Slavic descent personally, not technically a white person. People may see it differently, white nationalists particularly, they definitely don't mean me when they say white people. Different people are more or less strict on their definitions, I personally favor a very wide umbrella

Black culture similarly doesn't really exist and is an amalgam of various African Caribbean and American traditions. But it differs from the so called white culture in that it's derived in the US due to slavery and people were forced together and much of their actual heritage was lost. Over years it's evolved naturally but the differences we see in white and black culture derive from class differences more than anything.

Their actual heritage sucked, but it doesn't mean they don't have a culture, it's just the genesis of a new culture forged from slavery -- which while horrible, worked out to their advantage in the end. I lived with black roomies in college, and they're great guys, but they're not white guys with dark skin. They have their own customs, foods, values, way of talking -- which can be as incomprehensible to me as a cajun patois.

poor blacks and the poor whites

Poor is a euphemism for stupid, and they're definitely correlated, but low socioeconomic status does not mean stupid unwashed peasants and high socioeconomic status does not make a person an "elite" fit to rule over anyone. That kind of thinking is a problem.

We create these shakey foundations when we can't talk plainly and openly about issues, like the idea blacks are only prone to violence because they're poor, so everything becomes about finding socioeconomic solutions because anything else would be "racist." And when you build on a shakey foundation you get absolute garbage results, as we see with the current state of things. Garbage in, garbage out.

And while there are definitely poor dumb white racists, the media casts everyone who doesn't agree with their ideology as hateful, stupid, and racist. Teachers teach that in schools. But it's political rhetoric. Most people start out liberal and grow more conservative. Ideology gets tempered by wisdom.

even enslaving your own people throughout history.

Yeah, the blacks enslaved themselves. That needs to be brought up more too, it fans racist hate to think whitey enslaved their ancestors. Whitey just traded for their ancestors.

[–]Dragonerne 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

White isn't a real racial category

Yes it is. White is a biological race which differ genetically from blacks, amerindians or east asians.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Asians are white.

[–]BioEssentialism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Aren’t American Indians and Asians technically classified as under the same race - Mongoloid?

[–]Dragonerne 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The number of races is arbitrary. You can classify them as the same race but you can also divide them up, because they do cluster separately but they are closer together than other races. That the number of races is arbitrary doesn't mean you can group people together arbitrarily, because the genetic difference is still the foundation for the classification, it has more to do with where you draw the line.

You are correct, depending on the method you use.

[–]Newzok 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah I've doubted the narrative on that for a while. Seems like any grassroots group that gets big enough gets the tarred brush.

[–]jacques1102 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Can i ask you what exactly is the difference?Because if the alt right acknowledges that we got here thanks to post modernism and the rise of liberalism that spawned after the second world war then they'd have a big point that's the reason we got here.However,the last part that you claim is what drives me away from those types.Do not get me wrong,it's fine to criticize people in certain positions even if they are jewish.However,the right loses me whenever they go into crazy conspiracy territory when they legit tell people that everything about history is a lie and every bad thing that happened in the past and today is the jews fault.For example,holocaust denial does nothing to help our cause and you should know that most of those types aren't denying it cause they're generally skeptical of it,they just want to desperately paint hitler as some sort of hero and him starting the war was for the greater good, and paint jews as these evil demonic group.I know a lot of jews and they all have different opinions and can disagree a whole lot.To act like they all are working together is crazy.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

holocaust denial

When they say you can't question something that's pretty suspicious in of itself.

Like I said, I really not the person to ask about Jews. Although I would say, these things don't happen for no reason. Israel is the only apartheid state left in the world after all, they're not exactly angels.

[–]Chipit 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You need to spend some time reading the articles on There is a lot on this topic specifically. The roots go back to the 1910s and eariler. If you look at what was happening back then it's the same as today. They've just learned a lot since then and are still trying the same old ideas, but with modern psychological manipulation and thanks to Big Tech censorship is far more effective than it ever used to be.

Their arguments can't win in an open marketplace of ideas. They have to have complete control over every conversation to stay afloat. They always have to push for a situation that makes it harder for any voice but theirs be heard.

[–]LyingSpirit472 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

While most of your logic makes sense, I'd posit it goes earlier than the 2008 recession:

The answer to "why does each of these theories require demonizing the majority to prop up the minority?" was helped by the recession, but the real answer is: All politics are glorified sports teams. Your political group, your identity, that's YOUR TEAM, and your team are the heroes right or wrong. The "other" is the enemy. They are literally, inherently evil and they are not to be trusted. Even if they pretend to be on your side, it's a lie, they hate you and everything that you stand for. They want you and everyone you care about dead. Hell, the ones who flat out say they hate you are BETTER than that- at least they respect you enough to admit there's no place for you in their perfect world. You cannot truly live while they draw breath."

So, the answer to the root cause of this radicalization becomes "what chokepoint caused that to happen?", and the answer to me would be: THE 2000 ELECTION. The aftermath of the 2000 election and how it was truly too close to call was the real start of it. The Republicans and Democrats both had a case to say "our guy won, your guy lost!", and it went on for months as Florida was just too close to call, and both sides of the coin truly believed their guy won Florida, and thus was President...and it got to a choke point where both sides truly believed their guy won and the other guy was trying to steal the election...and then suddenly you have that irreconcilable difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Before 2000, people disagreed with the other party, but after that, the two sides truly HATED each other and believed the other side was out to get them. It was bad enough the only thing to bring people together was 9/11 and the most vicious attack on US soil in history...and even THAT only bought people about 18 months before the Iraq War started and Democrats had the "Saddam Hussein is a fuckhead, but he had nothing to do with 9/11 and we all know it! It's just done for oil prices and your chance to look like a big man to Daddy!", vs. "the war is about getting revenge for 9/11. You don't support 9/11, do you? DO, DON'T YOU? I KNEW you're anti-American! You want us all dead!" and it all derailed quickly. This is important because since then, literally EVERY election, no matter how obvious the result was, has been contested and fought for, and the two sides became more and more convinced there was no reasoning with the other side...and now, it's been 22 years since that election and we're seeing a full generation that has been taught their opposing sides are literally, inherently evil and have no other thoughts in their head except how much they want that person, personally, dead just for existing.

[–]BioEssentialism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Maybe it’s because I was really young at the time (2000 I was literally only 8) but I don’t remember the country being nearly as divisive as it currently is now, or even started ramping up in the late 00’s-early 2010s. The early to mid 00’s rings as a relatively peaceful time to me, with only 9/11 really being the only thing truly of note. Certainly I don’t remember the fandoms at the time that I grew up with concerning itself with any politics or “problematicness” over what was okay to write let alone this whole special snowflake SJW pronoun brigade.

Was it truly just due to the rise in social media that allowed the public to be exposed to the political underbelly that was the hostility steaming between Dems and Republicans since the 2000 election and allowed it to take surface and enter the mainstream? Cause from what I remember growing up, the early to mid 2000s was no different than the 90’s politics wise.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits."

George W. Bush, 1991.

I think the rise of social media just made it so much more easy for the lowest effort emotional takes to gain traction. In the past if you wanted to be politically engaged you actually had to leave the house and meet people or go through newsletters and the like. Everything moved slower, you were less likely to be totally anonymous to whatever group you joined but also less likely to have your neighbors and family know what your opinions were unless you outright told them.

[–]Chipit 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Yeesh, 2001-2004 was horrible. People unironically calling Bush Bu$hitler and saying he was going to implement a fascist dictatorship. You know Trump Derangement Syndrome? Back then it was called Bush Derangement Syndrome.

And then when Bush was re-elected in 2004, journalists were completely baffled. They did not know anyone who didn't vote for the Democrat and were utterly in the dark about anything outside of their own circles. They sent reporters into darkest middle America to find out what the fuck had happened and how people could be so stupid as to vote for anything but what others thought was best for them. A book, "What's the Matter with Kansas?" spent years on the best-seller lists. Its conclusion was that Americans are too stupid to be allowed to vote and decide what kind of government they want.

[–]Haylstorm 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

People are always like this. Some uni students are despised where I am cause they're like that. Go into a local's pub and let them know they voted liberal democrat or labour for them, aren't you happy i'm helping you? Only to find that people in there voted conservative. Then they get pissy about people voting against their own self interest and basically call them idiots and wonder why no one there is receptive to listening to them. Then they don't listen to WHY people have voted conservative, just continue to call them idiots. Not really helping their case there if you've ever met the stubborn old man at the pub who doesn't like being told what to do.

[–]jet199 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

One of the main things you learn as you get older is that no one votes against their interests.

Rather you just don't understand what their interests are.

People get the politicians the deserve.

[–]Haylstorm 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Honestly a lot of it just seemed to be that they didn't get people had other priorities. The business owner you're talking to doesn't care about family tax breaks but is pretty interested in the business grants a party might want to offer. It's like they don't want to even think about the reasons people might have, they just think the person is stupid and dumb for it. Def pushes people more away.

[–]LyingSpirit472 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

You know Trump Derangement Syndrome? Back then it was called Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Honestly, this ties to the smoking gun for my claim the 2000 election was the tipping point. It's also important to remember that in 2008-2016, it would have been Obama Derangement Syndrome too...and what is the reaction we get now if not Biden Derangement Syndrome?

It's no one derangement syndrome for one party as much as it is an overarching "My guy LOST!" issue both parties have.

[–]Chipit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Nah there was no such thing as ODS. People were not losing their shit in public. Not even like it was for Bu$hitler. You'd be reading some thread on about a tornado in Kansas or something and people would just start foaming at the mouth and screaming for no reason. It was disturbing, and just as bad as TDS. Now, Bu$hitler is fondly remembered as a good guy who just had some bad advice. A painter, an artist, a sensitive soul. Instead of the second coming of fascism and Adolf Hitler, like BDS sufferers constantly shouted.

[–]LyingSpirit472 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

...the Tea Party, and with it the seeds of Trump getting power, formed based on ODS. It's not like every single Republican took Obama's win with kindness and decency and said 'he's not my choice but I hope he does a good job' either. People were losing their shit for him just as much as Bush.

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Nah. It wasn't even in the same league.

The Tea Party formed because it was obvious that the GOP didn't represent its voters. Something DC is raging about today as they get their nice comfortable party taken over by the people. They're furious.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Please. If you don't believe the Tea Party had a undercurrent of Obama Derangement Syndrome as well and you truly believe every Republican was a good, honest person who truly put all their support behind Obama and had no problem with him being in charge, then you're either blind, stupid, or were one of them and don't want to admit that Republicans can be as bad as Democrats. I'd say you'd probably think Biden Derangement Syndrome has nothing to do with "Biden won" and everything to do with whatever good reason you point to, but Democrats would have said "no, no, we had good reasons to hate Bush/Trump" too.

[–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Bush Derangement Syndrome was nothing like the reaction to Obama. Literally not the same thing. Not in the same ballpark, not even the same sport.

And Trump Derangement Syndrome was over the top. People literally checked themselves into mental hospitals because they couldn't handle it.

There's literally nothing such as Biden derangement syndrome. It doesn't exist.

you truly believe every Republican was a good, honest person who truly put all their support behind Obama and had no problem with him being in charge, then you're either blind, stupid, or were one of them and don't want to admit that Republicans can be as bad as Democrats.

"An absurd absolute is a restatement of the other person's reasonable position as an absurd absolute. For example, if your point is there is high crime in Detroit, the absurd absolute would be your debate opponent saying something such as "So, you're saying every person in Detroit is a criminal." When your debate opponent recasts your opinion to include an "absolute" word, such as every, always, never, all, completely, universally, and the like, you are seeing cognitive dissonance.

Some people call what I just described a strawman argument. But a strawman argument refers to any sort of inaccurate recasting of your opponent's argument. That is the generic case. I'm referring to a specific strawman argument that uses an absurd absolute. When your debate opponent recasts your point as an absurd absolute, you won the debate. That's as far as you can go."

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

On the second claim, then my reasoning to use an absolute there is:

Bush Derangement Syndrome was nothing like the reaction to Obama. Literally not the same thing. Not in the same ballpark, not even the same sport.

It was. It absolutely was. MAYBE, if I want to give you SOME point, it was because people were so deranged about Bush that Republicans gave it back to them over Obama, then it might have a case, but Republicans were as deranged over Obama as Democrats were over Bush. And even giving that POSSIBLE reason, it goes to...

There's literally nothing such as Biden derangement syndrome. It doesn't exist.

...yeah, if you claim absolutes, you are absolutely a moron if you believe Biden Derangement Syndrome doesn't exist, you are absolutely so pro-Trump you believe every single Trump supporter firmly was in the side of Biden even though people literally tried to rush the Capitol to try and overthrow the election results because they believed the election was stolen, not only are you absolutely blind if you truly believe Biden Derangement Syndrome doesn't exist, but you probably don't even know Braille to feel out the fact that Biden Derangement Syndrome absolutely exists, just like Obama Derangement Syndrome absolutely existed- and to deny it just proves you are absolutely doing the same accusation of cognitive dissonance you accuse me of. Never before in the history of humanity have the words "no u" been more accurate.

[–]LordoftheFliesAmeri-kin 2.0. Pronouns: MegaWhite/SuperStraight/UltraPatriarchy 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Interesting analysis, but I think you're missing one key factor. And that's there are people in positions of power and influence--from both sides, not just the one or the other--who are spurring the divisions onward for their own benefit. Between vote-mongering politicians, outrage merchants and grifters, the news media, and wanna-be social engineers in academia, there's a vast roster of unscrupulous assholes all stirring the pot, with only themselves set to benefit from the chaos. And, naturally, things calming down and people actually talking to each other instead of screaming at each other is counter to their interests. For things to get to any sort of calm state, those fuckers need to be removed from the situation entirely.

[–]zyxzevn 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The main problem today is that the news media and social media are increasing the division for internet-points. More division means more clicks.
The division breaks communities and families.

The US political system is already setup to divide people between two opposition parties, that both try to win "votes" with emotional tensions. That problem was recognized right at the start.
Today, the democrats wants people beaten up that do not agree with the weird and body-harming regulations. The conservatives do not want to restrict companies, including market destructing monopolies, because "profit is good". The only common thing is that both sides feed the corruption and the military complex most of the money. And they give the money back to the media to promote more division.
The independents and different conspiracy people already discovered this at the beginning. They just point out different reasons and bad-guys. From the bankers, to the jews, to the satanist, to the war-mongers, to child-rapists, to whatever group a certain collection of psychopaths belong .And probably such psychopaths belong to many.

The qanon stuff (hoax) become popular by over-generalizing this all. The russia-gate (hoax) became popular due to the propaganda in the media. Yes there are psychopaths and there is a lot of corruption. But we have to pick apart each item, and not generalize them. As the pile of hey with rats, will become a pile of bullshit with (f)lies.

There are also sinister agendas that push hate against white people (reddit does). Or push wars. Or hide severe problems with medical solutions. From history we already know that these are evil agendas. We know the Nuremberg code, we know that pushing hate or war is bad. Yet this is now visible in most of the news media and social media.
This is a thing that we can commonly agree on, independent of any political ideology.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're 100% on the ball.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Is it a new phenomenon or simply an existing one that has been exasperated by social media? Personally I think the root causes have been endemic to American society for a very long time since WWII at least probably even earlier than that back to the days of the civil war. In fact we may be looking at what is essentially a basic kind of trait that is prevalent in every society, tribalism.

I think social media just changes the rules of socialization and is rife for abuse, but social media alone isn't the issue so much as it's the current algorithm controlled content feeds play off the base human emotions and have found that fanning negative emotion and conflict leads to far more engagement and money. Essentially it's encouraging a mob mentality and polite society hasn't yet evolved enough to come up with good ways to deal with it since it's a pretty new phenomenon and the traditional social mores aren't working to contain it.

In the past if someone wronged you, you would have to either confront them to their face or convince their friends and family to intervene. So if it was simply a petty complain or annoyance you'd be viewed upon unfavorably for airing your dirty laundry for the world to see. Now these days you are still viewed unfavorably for doing such but can find enough random people online to back you up that even if you have a super minority opinion you'll fell justified in holding it and think everybody is behind you. And the algorithms now have learned that spreading this to the most people maximizes their profits.

Essentially it's like if you invited a rumor monger into your home or group and paid them to tell you all the juicy gossip. In the past and even today rumor mongers are viewed upon unfavorably and have destroyed people's lives before with careless rumors, but now the scuttlebutt is worldwide and the reach of such rumors is far beyond a bunch of women chatting at the well.

Ultimately the best thing we as society can do is discourage people from using social media as much as possible and bring back in person socialization at the community level as much as possible.

Society works best when people are organized, first along their family lines, then with their immidiate neighbors and community members. Social media tends to focus on larger issues that effect the whole country but often don't matter so much on the local scale. Even if your politics differ you'll likely have a lot in common with many of your neighbors and find common ground on many things that are relevant to your local community. What needs to be done then is people need to abandon this corporate form of socialization we are given and instead work to build real interpersonal relationships with those whom they share their closest ties with, blood and earth.

[–]BioEssentialism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

In fact we may be looking at what is essentially a basic kind of trait that is prevalent in every society, tribalism.

If this is in fact true why haven’t we seen other countries such as Asian ones get radicalized in either direction?

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

A few reasons I think. One is that the vast majority of internet content is in English so there's simply less to be bombarded with.

Other reasons are cultural, Asian countries tending to be more homogeneous and still holding onto stronger family and local ties than the west, their societies are older than the west and have less transplants , though with modern Urbanization this is slowly becoming more like the west. There also tends to be a lot of social stigma towards acting out in public still which is far different than the west.

I think other reasons come down to technological barriers towards the use of Asian languages in computers slowed down public adoption of a lot of technology or at least forced it down different paths. The data requirements needed to encode Chinese characters for example are far more robust than alphanumeric and early computers were very unwieldy for the average person.

Finally I think that the political situations themselves are vastly different. If you can read Asian languages well you can go online and see many of the same kind of toxic twitter threads you'll see anywhere, oftentimes they are far more inflammatory than what you'll see in English. But this is because most people don't take them very seriously.

China has very tight controls on all internet use and will shut down anything it thinks is going to cause an uproar. Other countries tend to have more freedom of speech but conditions are generally as such that most young people don't get involved in politics.

I think the kind of extreme twitter polarization that you get in the US is largely a factor of the US bi-partisan political machine which is a fairly unique configuration amongst the world's countries. This spreads into other countries I think via the ubiquitous nature of English and the US population totally dominating the Anglosphere. Even if you combine all the populations of Canada Australia and the UK you don't even reach half the US population.

Asia is a different environment politically and socially. Chinese social media certainly has the population for the same factors to really take hold but the Chinese government is easily one of the more censorious in the world so it's more or less impossible for social media trends to take shape without coming under direct scrutiny and facing shutdowns should they proceed in a direction the ruling class wishes to squelch.

The other languages simply lack the population and geographic distribution to really be as relevant as major languages like English or Spanish. Chinese and Hindi are the only Asian languages that come anywhere close. I suppose Arabic should be considered as well but it tends to be mutually unintelligible in different regions and is largely used in the same way Latin was used in Medieval Europe, used by the religious bodies but not the common tongue of the people.

[–]BioEssentialism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

or Spanish

Except the whole of Latin America hasn’t been nearly as radicalized as America, at least from what I’m aware of.

[–]wylanderuk 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Is it a new phenomenon or simply an existing one that has been exasperated by social media?

Option number two...

I would not discount the toxic effects of feminism over the decades, especially the impact on families.

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Frankly I think a huge factor is the affluence of many in the West which they often don't realise they have.

You don't see Asian, African or Eastern European kids disappearing down a tumblr type rabbit hole because those kids still have to work hard if they want a life of luxury. In South Korea parents expect their kids to be studying 17 hours a day. Meanwhile in the West most kids expect to cruise through school, never have a job until they are past 20 and feel their parents and society owe them a debt for that lifestyle rather than the other way round. They really do think their luxury is a hardship, as you can see on the incel sub.

It's been pointed out that zoomers and older trenders look a hell of a lot like the Capital people in Hunger Games. It's because that's what they are. They are the ruling, elite class who take from and oppress everyone else. But rather than enjoy that position and luck they have spent the whole time making themselves depressed and scared with fake victimhood narratives. Well now the recession is rolling in so daddy isn't going to be able to afford ten different colours of hair dye or tube socks anymore and he is going to need you to go out and get a decent paying job. Have fun finding out what real problems are and how little your precious feelings or identity matter.

[–]Dragonerne 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Is that why whites are getting genocided? Because we are so privileged and oppressing everyone else?

[–]Objecting_Sphere 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I agree that the erosion of the middle class is a fundamental problem. The basic economic promises that these people were raised on were not delivered. College graduated didn't get jobs. Political power is going to older and older politicians rather than to the newer generations. I think this generated a lot of resentment and a general desire to do something and to overturn the "failing" system that they're locked out of.

Those urges sublimated into social issues because while they can't change the system, they can change each other. They can't overthrow the corporations but they can rub each other into the dirt. They can't get justice for their dead-end careers, but they can get justice for the imaginary racial and sexual minorities they've conjured for themselves. Activists arise for all issues, but it's notable that the economic activists are unable to grasp power - because they're directly against the corporations - but social activists are able to gain power easily because they only have to fight their follow individuals.

[–]BioEssentialism[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I mean it’s plain as day to see that that’s where the issue lies. When you look to countries like Japan, South Korea or even China what’s the one thing they all have in common that has prevented them from snowballing into a culture of polarized radicalization and Tumblr/Twitter Marxism? A stable middle class, and America used to be that way too before the 2008 Recession started our downward slide into political hell.

[–]iamonlyoneman 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You missed it. You need to go back literally hundreds of years. The frog has not been boiled all at once.

[–]ShekelPa 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The MANIPULATION of social media. Not the rise of social media. Before the advent of Web 2.0 and facebook-likes, people had no problem going online to communicate with one another. What I find most mesmerizing about going online during this time (2000-2010) was that conversation and interaction between people was as authentic as it was in-person. There was only ever talks of hobbies... that's it.

Now, everything is political, everything has been infiltrated by Marxists that have made it their mission to demonize every actual fan of every space using the exact same playbook. No longer exists the days of actual genuine interaction.

This is probably a product of accessibility, as back then you needed an expensive computer to go online whereas now anyone can do it with a free Obamaphone. It is also a product of the aging establishment forces that have now realized the impact of the internet and have made it their mission to incentivize operatives to destroy online harmony. It is also a product of the permanent demoralization of a population who has made it their life-long mission to fight on behalf of the establishment elite across every inane topic.

[–]Dragonerne 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Who owns reddit? a Jew
Who owns twitter? a Jew
Who owns facebook? a Jew
Who owns google? a Jew
cnn? new york times?

All of USA politicians are zionists, Bidens grandchildren are jewish, Trumps grandchildren are jewish. 33% of Bidens cabinet is jewish. the richest family in the world is jewish.

So basically all social media, all media, banks, money and the worlds super power is controlled by jews- and who are you taught to hate? Nazis. Who are nazis? Those who oppose jewish power. Isn't it funny and convenient that who we are taught are the worst most evil scum on the earth are those who oppose those in power?

The problem is very simple and the solution is also very simple, but you get put in jail if you say it.

Social media didn't give rise to "wokeism". It is being pushed in schools, in universities, in media, in movies, in series, etc.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

Lol imagine believing Jews exist in the age of the internet. Have you even met a Jew?

Jews were invented at the conference of adults in 1984 when they decided to hide the true past of the void century when the lizard people ruled supreme. They didn't want the younger generations to know they all came from space and that the homeworld is out there.

Ask yourself this, have you met a single person that lived before the so-called 1970's? If so they are lying. Look at Linux time for the clue.

[–]Dragonerne 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Can you prove anything I wrote to be false?
Edit: He couldn't.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What percentage of Jews aren't in the elite few?

[–]Dragonerne 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

An outspoken advocate for sexual minorities, Hirschfeld founded the Scientific-Humanitarian Committee and World League for Sexual Reform. Historian Dustin Goltz characterized the committee as having carried out "the first advocacy for homosexual and transgender rights".[2] "Hirschfeld's radical ideas changed the way Germans thought about sexuality."[3] Hirschfeld was targeted by Nazis for being Jewish and gay

Even the transgender movement is jewish

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

The Jews are hiding under the bed and in the closet they gonna get ya!

[–]Dragonerne 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You attempt to ridicule but "Can you prove anything I wrote to be false?" No, you can't, because what I write is factual and people reading our conversation will have known the truth about the jews owning social media, hollywood, banks, controlling the US government etc.

You did nothing to question these facts because they are facts. Instead you attempt to ridicule, but you only look silly when you do it

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Can you prove anything I wrote to be false? It's more difficult than you might think.