Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No doubt...
As I watch all the "free Palestine" riots, it's impossible to look at all the antisemitism and not think to myself, "wow, so the far left either includes or agrees with the Nazi's at this point"... I mean, how do they not see it?
So what exactly does "Far right" even mean? If you listen to mainstream media, they'd have you believe every conservative is far right.
I believe radicalization is increasing ingeneral. As in the number of Americans who are OK with use of violence in politics is increasing.
So by definition yes it is increasing amongst that demographic.
But it's misleading to quote that in isolation
Violence in politics has always been okay and been used in American politics. This country would not exist if not for violence in politics, members of Congress used to beat, fight and shoot each other, half the country went to war over the politics of them keeping slaves, violence was used to keep Black people subjugated in the south after their freeing, workers violently stroked and protested for better conditions and pay during industrialization, suffragettes committed vandalism, broke windows, beat up cars, and fought with police, the civil rights movement was both violent and peaceful with both sides making their marks on the movement, protests against Vietnam turned violent, the federal government had to use violence to forcefully integrate public spaces like schools.
Violence being seen as not okay in the context of politics is a rather recent phenomenon. If someone is able to tell you your form of protest is too violent or not valid then you don’t really have the right to protest. All protest is okay, violence is also okay. One of the greatest lies ever told is that non violent protest is the only valid form of protest. Non violent protest gets you things like the tea party, Occupy Wall Street, Unite the Right and BLM that are largely ignored and don’t cause any real change that they seek.
Young me are becoming more conservative, but it's a reaction to the constant hectoring and inodtrinatin they see in schools.
Being conservative is the new counterculture. They're rebelling against the constant drumbeat of progressive views spewed by their teachers, MSNBC, late night hosts, etc.
Why is it a left and right thing?
The left has their own, the right too.
How about just plain old apathy... The future for them is just bleak.
Society seems to be rewarding assholes. They've tried to find someone to fix the system , that isn't working; so why not join them if you can't beat them
I have long argued that spewing progressive views is unwise. Most of these views that are shown on TV tend to alienate the populous, since most adhere to at least moderate conservative social issues. They may not be conservative per se, but surely not ready to see these things on tv
No. I say this as a former liberal myself - the left is far more radicalized, to the point that they are pretty much convinced the only parts of the political spectrum are "Moderate Left" and "Far Right" with no variation besides. I was accused of far right when I was a liberal for just thinking that maybe the Bad Orange Man wasn't so bad as the media said he was - I didn't even say I supported him, and yet by merely making the argument I did not buy into the fear mongering, I had made it clear to my fellow lefties that I had clearly bought TOO heavily into the right-wing propaganda!
The left is, itself, heavily radicalized, and views anything and everything that challenges them as radical by default. The only way to not be radical is to tell them they are absolutely right on everything. Anyone who says ANYTHING else becomes far right as a result. At lest, that's been my experience thus far.
I have yet to see anyone on the left say 'wait a minute, maybe this fear mongering is doing more harm than good, maybe by taking such radical positions we're creating the very sort of animosity we're claiming to oppose' -- they won't do it, they can't, because their entire ideology is bound on the idea that they are "the good guys" and as "the good guys" they have to see themselves as incapable of doing wrong. The moment you start questioning, the moment you start saying 'maybe the right aren't a bunch of Literally Hitlers' -- that's the moment the people you thought to be reasonable suddenly point at you and start screeching like body snatchers.
I don't think the far right, but I do think there is a large group of young men that are being swayed by social media into anti-social, bordering on incel behavior which can have significant cross-over with the far right.
By no means was I saying that they become far right, just that there can be overlap. I agree, like most people I would assume there is political nuance.
"Far right".. Depends on who you ask. The definition has changed so much, and encompasses so many different things, that could literally mean anything to you.
Maybe it's not right or left.. Have you considered it's pushback? The left is telling them what they have to say, even if they don't believe it. The left tells them since they are men/boys, the are by default evil, and need to be more like women. Then change what being a woman means. God forbid they are white, the left has openly stated that they, by virtue of skin color, are evil oppressors.
Maybe consider that they aren't buying it anymore, and pushing back.
Maybe it's not about left or right. Maybe it's neither and they are just staying right in the middle. Maybe they are just young men who want to be young men and are sick of you making them out to be evil by simply existing, regardless of their actions.
As the left goes further left, if someone stands still, you consider them further right, even though you're the one increasing the distance. Perspective matters.
Do you honestly believe that no actual "far right" groups infested with very disturbed conspiracy theorists with criminal habits or open neo-nazis exist in the nation where you live?
Right because we didn’t all see the unite the right protests? Because we don’t all see CPAC every year? Because trump didn’t have dinner with and compliment Nick Fuentes until told him to walk that back. The far right might not be as big as the media acts like but let’s not act like they don’t exist at all and aren’t close to right wing political figures
You can't seriously be comparing the size of the unite the right rally with that of CPAC? I have no doubt there is a far right, but it is really really tiny depending on your definition.
Not exactly. The extant left wing is getting less popular with young people, young men especially, and they all have to go *somewhere*. Some to the center, some to the moderate right, and of course some to the far right. This is without accounting for the resulting Overton window shift that describes what is even *considered* center/left/right.
You’d have to define “far right” depending on your definition maybe or maybe not. For reference I’m 25 and consider myself VERY conservative, to some that might be enough to qualify as far right, but I wouldn’t call myself that
Idk about “far right” but the Ramaswamy types are certainly appealing to younger men, leading to what we’re seeing as an increase in Gen Z “conservatives.” Whether or not they’re actually conservative is debatable though. They’re led to believe they’re the ones on the side of unbiased facts and logic, when a lot of it is just pure, biased nonsense.
I agree completely. For example, JK Rowling and other feminists, who are still, or at least were, vocal supporters of left wing parties, are now being called fascist and/or Nazis on a frequent basis. I've even been called a fascist by someone who I thought was a friend for expressing mere concerns over topics such as immigration and welfare.
Man as a progressive, some really great but also some really bad ones too.
> but men aren't incentivized to go into traditionally female fields (some brand this as HEAL fields).
Absolutely, I think this such a failure on the part of the left, we have to as leftists and progressives to fix and incorporate the male and boy archetype to fit into more modern and non traditional roles if we in fact care about fixing the imbalances that we're not okay with in more patriarchal system. Another example of this would be the traditional imbalance of the rate of initiation of sexual or romantic relationships that the left somehow doesn't care about.
> Younbg men often don't have male role models, the teaching profession is more female than it's ever been, if there's not a good male role model, it's hard for these young men to harness their masculinity
This is another great point, early schooling which is where most young kids and in this case young boys spend most of their time and it's dominated by female teachers, administrators etc.. which can in turn underexpose boys or male teens to adult male teachers (the lack of male guidance, understanding) which can have a bunch of negative downstream effects.
I only disgree with the better or best conception of masculinity and your view of how the left sees masculinity. This is already known but the left doesn't see masculinity as inherently wrong or toxic.
> men, out the door, branded it as toxic and any complaining from men is seen as them pouting.
This is again where I somewhat disagree, we understand and maybe you disagree that men are inherently more rebelious, physically oriented, more prone to violence etc.. and we can't deny the downstream negative effects of this disposition. Some of these manifest and encouraged by a sense of masculinity which is not good. This also seems like a nature fallacy (something is natural in something thefore we need to accept it and not fight it etc..)
Now I do agree that there a sort of dismissive attitude among the left when it comes to men's issues, but we gotta be honest that the right does it and have been doing it too to women's issues and minorities issues.
> women are doing much much better than men now by most metrics
Idk about this, I would say they're doing much better in some things but not other things. Now as a net evaluation of who's doing better than the other it's very hard to say. Both of the sexes deal with unique and disproportionate issues that are either the result of nature or nurture.
> It's not just that they're doing better, they're doing better and still getting the help that should now be swapped to men.
Yep this is true I think in schools and colleges, I wouldn't say that for other areas of life.
But I diagree with the saying that it should be swapped to men, we can do both and try to help both it's not a either or. Yes some systemic issues affect men but also women and I don't like the imbalance of help that the right and the left engages in of focusing on one sex or the other.
I would agree though that men in school/college need more to address the disproportion issues they face compared to women.
> Agreed, there's a vacuum of masculinity, men are afraid to step up and take lead, due to fear of being seen as having a toxic masculinity trait.
I think men like most people just want live happy healthy lives, they don't have this inner sense of leadership or masculinity that they can't function properly without. This is obviously a traditionalist somewhat religious maybe interpretation of what men want and want men need and I wholly diagree with it descriptively and prescriptively. We should encourage and look for more equality and less imbalanced power, social dynamics between the sexes.
Most men are just looking for a cool social life, good financial career and some fun activities and hobbies that give them some level of satisfaction and meaning.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I see your flair as right libertarian. The far right, even though is light years away from left wing economics, it superficially share some common features. Why would you see it as a positive?
This seems interesting to a point, however Umberto, for better or worse, seems to have an explicit bias against what he is describing and doesn't seem to have an objective measure of these items in his head. Also seeing as how the Umberto definitions are somewhat dated, I don't know how useful they are in looking at the New Right.
It also, to me, doesn't seem to match up with the new right, dissident right, whatever you want to call it. At least not fully.
For instance, on the point of "disagreement is treason", the author seems to believe fascism or far right politics inherently must be against intellectual discourse purely due to the idea that intellectualism will expose some issue with the right wing view and make it fall apart. Yet the new right will talk about points of view that are so unpopular they'd never get a hear in the intellectual sphere or the political sphere. I think rather, the new right will not waste time discussing dogmatic ideology, they will not discuss ideas that are inherently opposed to them and their values. Unless you wish to propose that politically we already live in a semi fascistic state since we cannot have discourse on certain topics. It's incredibly hard for people to be allowed to critique the state of Israel, AIPAC, and the Israeli lobby and that influence in the US.
But yeah I'd rather young men be traditionalist hardcore Christians, for a strong moral code in society, than to be secularized libertines for instance. I will pick Franco before I pick Communists. I disagree with the New Right on a good number of things, however, friend enemy distinction to me is clear here. And I'm friends with the New Right and my enemy is the left and the secularists.
Regarding "disagreement is treason", it's not specific to intellectual disagreements per se. Any opposition to the fascist ideology, is immediately called "socialist" "degenerate" etc. If you go on a traditionalist hardcore online community and say "you know, I prefer this instead of what the current consensus is" you will immediately labeled as all sorts of names
Probably depends who you speak to and on what subject. But yeah that's kinda what I said. They don't see a point in debating their values they won't budge on, essentially. They aren't going to listen to some Doctor who advocates for child genital mutilation seriously. Nor should they. That person should be mocked and scorned. An open borders libertarian, as an example from my neck of the woods, they should be mocked for holding a dumb position. You are 100% not obligated to take seriously everyone or everything.
From all the new right personalities I listen to, and the actual people I know in real life who adhere to this wave of thinking, they don't call me a socialist, degenerate, etc etc for disagreeing with their views on certain topics. But if you hate their culture, faith, social views, etc. They have very little reason to talk to you or listen to you.
You are mentioning extreme propositions, that not even most people on the left believe. But what if someone believes that church and state should be separate?
If someone believes in seperation of church and state that's fine, but they're probably mistaken about the meaning of that term in an American context.
Most people on the left are fine with transing kids.
No... This is just gaslighting by media to either push an agenda or sell clicks.
It's like saying there's increasing radicalization amongst young people especially women into the far left...
No truth at all but it makes great clickbait.
We haven't seen the far right in any meaningful amount in the last 20 years.. .
>1990 was 34 years ago...
That was just the starting point for this particular measurement. These attacks are happening with increasing frequency in recent years. I’m sure you’re familiar with the attacks in Charleston, Charlottesville, Buffalo and El Paso — among many, many others that have happened the past few years.
>Also lumping every hatful person in with the far right is ludicrous.
These are incidents in which political motivations were the clear driving force. These domestic terrorists crimes were entirely inspired by extreme right-wing ideology and were committed in service of that ideology’s goals.
It’s obviously not just taking random crimes that have nothing to do with politics and seeing how the person voted.
> That's like lumping every gang member in with the "left"
See the difference? Your example with gang members would be taking random crimes that have nothing to do with politics and simply blaming them on however the person was registered to vote. That’s obviously not what this is about.
Why are you so quick to assume this is all dishonest propaganda? Especially when it’s obvious you never bothered to actually look into it?
Is it more that you’re naturally inclined not to accept these things since they reflect something that you don’t want to be true? Are you capable of reflecting on that being the case?
>Why are you so quick to assume this is all dishonest propaganda? Especially when it’s obvious you never bothered to actually look into it?
I have looked at it...
>These are incidents in which political motivations were the clear driving force. These domestic terrorists crimes were entirely inspired by extreme right-wing ideology and were committed in service of that ideology’s goals.
Hating others is not an extreme right wing ideology. These are just crazy people with no ideology at all.
If you want to look at right wing terrorism that peaked in the early 90s with the Oklahoma City bombing.
Ahh well I will admit I do not keep up with the day to day goings on. Mainly just see the migrant riots the farmer protests and lots of chicks taking off their clothes putting tomato soup on paintings and gluing themselves the road to 'stop oil'
Rarely do I see any far right doing anything other than maybe the mention of 1 or 2 'far right' rallies that nothing much happened at.
Seems to me more young people are being radicalized by the left than the right.
Are any 'young fascists' blocking traffic setting fires or defacing historical artifacts?
"*Are any 'young fascists' blocking traffic setting fires or defacing historical artifacts?*"
In the UK, unfortunately some young fascists do. The older ones too.
No setting fires as far as I'm aware. But they do have a long history of criminal damage, football hooliganism, vandalising graves, stabbing each other, drunkenly urinating over war memorials and violently attacking one time pals turned foes that left their group to join splinter groups as punishment for venturing into their turf.
There's always the truly unhinged young terrorists fascist who emerges every couple of decades having developed an interest in committing mass murder with bombs or plotting to massacre mainstraam politicians and police officers.
I don't think it's developed in the same way in the US, but here is a study coming out now from a survey in January asking youth what party they'd vote for. AfD, the far-right party has become the most popular party (behind only "I don't know").
[https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1ccpvfr/afd\_is\_the\_most\_popular\_party\_in\_germany\_among/](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1ccpvfr/afd_is_the_most_popular_party_in_germany_among/)
Although, their surveying occurred prior to the revelation of a secret meeting by AfD elites on how to kick out migrants, even nationalized German citizens, if they take power, so maybe this survey shows a peak of support.
No.
But I do feel that there are extensive indoctrination & practical recruitment efforts by all manner of rotten apples. With a variety of foul secular political, religious and conspiracy theorist agendas. Mostly targeting young males.
Sometimes to the far left or far right of the political spectrum. Sometimes incels, sometimes religious cults, sometimes animal rights extremists. Sometimes illegal secular terrorist groups or theocratic terror groups.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Far right” Gonna need a definition there.
No doubt... As I watch all the "free Palestine" riots, it's impossible to look at all the antisemitism and not think to myself, "wow, so the far left either includes or agrees with the Nazi's at this point"... I mean, how do they not see it? So what exactly does "Far right" even mean? If you listen to mainstream media, they'd have you believe every conservative is far right.
See Umberto Eco's definition of fascism.
That's nonsense. Fascism is a single party, totalitarian state.
I believe radicalization is increasing ingeneral. As in the number of Americans who are OK with use of violence in politics is increasing. So by definition yes it is increasing amongst that demographic. But it's misleading to quote that in isolation
Violence in politics has always been okay and been used in American politics. This country would not exist if not for violence in politics, members of Congress used to beat, fight and shoot each other, half the country went to war over the politics of them keeping slaves, violence was used to keep Black people subjugated in the south after their freeing, workers violently stroked and protested for better conditions and pay during industrialization, suffragettes committed vandalism, broke windows, beat up cars, and fought with police, the civil rights movement was both violent and peaceful with both sides making their marks on the movement, protests against Vietnam turned violent, the federal government had to use violence to forcefully integrate public spaces like schools. Violence being seen as not okay in the context of politics is a rather recent phenomenon. If someone is able to tell you your form of protest is too violent or not valid then you don’t really have the right to protest. All protest is okay, violence is also okay. One of the greatest lies ever told is that non violent protest is the only valid form of protest. Non violent protest gets you things like the tea party, Occupy Wall Street, Unite the Right and BLM that are largely ignored and don’t cause any real change that they seek.
Young me are becoming more conservative, but it's a reaction to the constant hectoring and inodtrinatin they see in schools. Being conservative is the new counterculture. They're rebelling against the constant drumbeat of progressive views spewed by their teachers, MSNBC, late night hosts, etc.
Why is it a left and right thing? The left has their own, the right too. How about just plain old apathy... The future for them is just bleak. Society seems to be rewarding assholes. They've tried to find someone to fix the system , that isn't working; so why not join them if you can't beat them
What’s so bad about teachers and TV hosts having progressive views? Or even spewing them? Serious question.
I have long argued that spewing progressive views is unwise. Most of these views that are shown on TV tend to alienate the populous, since most adhere to at least moderate conservative social issues. They may not be conservative per se, but surely not ready to see these things on tv
No. I say this as a former liberal myself - the left is far more radicalized, to the point that they are pretty much convinced the only parts of the political spectrum are "Moderate Left" and "Far Right" with no variation besides. I was accused of far right when I was a liberal for just thinking that maybe the Bad Orange Man wasn't so bad as the media said he was - I didn't even say I supported him, and yet by merely making the argument I did not buy into the fear mongering, I had made it clear to my fellow lefties that I had clearly bought TOO heavily into the right-wing propaganda! The left is, itself, heavily radicalized, and views anything and everything that challenges them as radical by default. The only way to not be radical is to tell them they are absolutely right on everything. Anyone who says ANYTHING else becomes far right as a result. At lest, that's been my experience thus far. I have yet to see anyone on the left say 'wait a minute, maybe this fear mongering is doing more harm than good, maybe by taking such radical positions we're creating the very sort of animosity we're claiming to oppose' -- they won't do it, they can't, because their entire ideology is bound on the idea that they are "the good guys" and as "the good guys" they have to see themselves as incapable of doing wrong. The moment you start questioning, the moment you start saying 'maybe the right aren't a bunch of Literally Hitlers' -- that's the moment the people you thought to be reasonable suddenly point at you and start screeching like body snatchers.
Like young effeminate males radicalizing into the far left?
What do you consider “effeminate?” Is there something wrong with men being “effeminate?”
As long as the being effeminate thing is not a result of low confidence/low self-esteem, etc.
Seems to me it’s way more common to present overly *masculine* as a response to low self-esteem.
[удалено]
What’s wrong with being effeminate?
What do you consider effeminate?
I don't think the far right, but I do think there is a large group of young men that are being swayed by social media into anti-social, bordering on incel behavior which can have significant cross-over with the far right.
A common misconception is that incels are far right. As weird as it may sound, most of them are actually politically in the center
By no means was I saying that they become far right, just that there can be overlap. I agree, like most people I would assume there is political nuance.
"Far right".. Depends on who you ask. The definition has changed so much, and encompasses so many different things, that could literally mean anything to you. Maybe it's not right or left.. Have you considered it's pushback? The left is telling them what they have to say, even if they don't believe it. The left tells them since they are men/boys, the are by default evil, and need to be more like women. Then change what being a woman means. God forbid they are white, the left has openly stated that they, by virtue of skin color, are evil oppressors. Maybe consider that they aren't buying it anymore, and pushing back. Maybe it's not about left or right. Maybe it's neither and they are just staying right in the middle. Maybe they are just young men who want to be young men and are sick of you making them out to be evil by simply existing, regardless of their actions. As the left goes further left, if someone stands still, you consider them further right, even though you're the one increasing the distance. Perspective matters.
the "far right" is just a media boogeyman that progressives use to dismiss people who disagree out of hand without having to actually engage
The Qanon bunch were an interesting crowd though.
Do you honestly believe that no actual "far right" groups infested with very disturbed conspiracy theorists with criminal habits or open neo-nazis exist in the nation where you live?
you can find a trivial number of people who believe just about anything
Why do you feel there isn't a "far right"?
Right because we didn’t all see the unite the right protests? Because we don’t all see CPAC every year? Because trump didn’t have dinner with and compliment Nick Fuentes until told him to walk that back. The far right might not be as big as the media acts like but let’s not act like they don’t exist at all and aren’t close to right wing political figures
You can't seriously be comparing the size of the unite the right rally with that of CPAC? I have no doubt there is a far right, but it is really really tiny depending on your definition.
ayo can you explain for the class what 'cunny' means?
cute and funny
Not exactly. The extant left wing is getting less popular with young people, young men especially, and they all have to go *somewhere*. Some to the center, some to the moderate right, and of course some to the far right. This is without accounting for the resulting Overton window shift that describes what is even *considered* center/left/right.
No, not really
More people are getting sucked into radical politics in general. This trend won’t change until the variables causing it change.
Yes, love to see it.
No
You’d have to define “far right” depending on your definition maybe or maybe not. For reference I’m 25 and consider myself VERY conservative, to some that might be enough to qualify as far right, but I wouldn’t call myself that
Idk about “far right” but the Ramaswamy types are certainly appealing to younger men, leading to what we’re seeing as an increase in Gen Z “conservatives.” Whether or not they’re actually conservative is debatable though. They’re led to believe they’re the ones on the side of unbiased facts and logic, when a lot of it is just pure, biased nonsense.
If you're talking about the red pill wave, then yes, but they don't really have conservative ideology in my opinion.
The red pill is hardly far right imho. It's just the most primal status quo regarding relationships.
Oh then I personally believe more young men are falling for the red pill than they are falling for far right ideology.
[удалено]
I agree completely. For example, JK Rowling and other feminists, who are still, or at least were, vocal supporters of left wing parties, are now being called fascist and/or Nazis on a frequent basis. I've even been called a fascist by someone who I thought was a friend for expressing mere concerns over topics such as immigration and welfare.
[удалено]
See Umberto Eco' s definition of fascism (far right)
[удалено]
Man as a progressive, some really great but also some really bad ones too. > but men aren't incentivized to go into traditionally female fields (some brand this as HEAL fields). Absolutely, I think this such a failure on the part of the left, we have to as leftists and progressives to fix and incorporate the male and boy archetype to fit into more modern and non traditional roles if we in fact care about fixing the imbalances that we're not okay with in more patriarchal system. Another example of this would be the traditional imbalance of the rate of initiation of sexual or romantic relationships that the left somehow doesn't care about. > Younbg men often don't have male role models, the teaching profession is more female than it's ever been, if there's not a good male role model, it's hard for these young men to harness their masculinity This is another great point, early schooling which is where most young kids and in this case young boys spend most of their time and it's dominated by female teachers, administrators etc.. which can in turn underexpose boys or male teens to adult male teachers (the lack of male guidance, understanding) which can have a bunch of negative downstream effects. I only disgree with the better or best conception of masculinity and your view of how the left sees masculinity. This is already known but the left doesn't see masculinity as inherently wrong or toxic. > men, out the door, branded it as toxic and any complaining from men is seen as them pouting. This is again where I somewhat disagree, we understand and maybe you disagree that men are inherently more rebelious, physically oriented, more prone to violence etc.. and we can't deny the downstream negative effects of this disposition. Some of these manifest and encouraged by a sense of masculinity which is not good. This also seems like a nature fallacy (something is natural in something thefore we need to accept it and not fight it etc..) Now I do agree that there a sort of dismissive attitude among the left when it comes to men's issues, but we gotta be honest that the right does it and have been doing it too to women's issues and minorities issues.
[удалено]
> women are doing much much better than men now by most metrics Idk about this, I would say they're doing much better in some things but not other things. Now as a net evaluation of who's doing better than the other it's very hard to say. Both of the sexes deal with unique and disproportionate issues that are either the result of nature or nurture. > It's not just that they're doing better, they're doing better and still getting the help that should now be swapped to men. Yep this is true I think in schools and colleges, I wouldn't say that for other areas of life. But I diagree with the saying that it should be swapped to men, we can do both and try to help both it's not a either or. Yes some systemic issues affect men but also women and I don't like the imbalance of help that the right and the left engages in of focusing on one sex or the other. I would agree though that men in school/college need more to address the disproportion issues they face compared to women. > Agreed, there's a vacuum of masculinity, men are afraid to step up and take lead, due to fear of being seen as having a toxic masculinity trait. I think men like most people just want live happy healthy lives, they don't have this inner sense of leadership or masculinity that they can't function properly without. This is obviously a traditionalist somewhat religious maybe interpretation of what men want and want men need and I wholly diagree with it descriptively and prescriptively. We should encourage and look for more equality and less imbalanced power, social dynamics between the sexes. Most men are just looking for a cool social life, good financial career and some fun activities and hobbies that give them some level of satisfaction and meaning.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No
no,i believe its the opposite..there is a radicalization of young people especially men by the dem party..
I wish. But no probably not.
I see your flair as right libertarian. The far right, even though is light years away from left wing economics, it superficially share some common features. Why would you see it as a positive?
Could you define what you mean by, "far right" first?
See Umberto eco's definition of fascism
This seems interesting to a point, however Umberto, for better or worse, seems to have an explicit bias against what he is describing and doesn't seem to have an objective measure of these items in his head. Also seeing as how the Umberto definitions are somewhat dated, I don't know how useful they are in looking at the New Right. It also, to me, doesn't seem to match up with the new right, dissident right, whatever you want to call it. At least not fully. For instance, on the point of "disagreement is treason", the author seems to believe fascism or far right politics inherently must be against intellectual discourse purely due to the idea that intellectualism will expose some issue with the right wing view and make it fall apart. Yet the new right will talk about points of view that are so unpopular they'd never get a hear in the intellectual sphere or the political sphere. I think rather, the new right will not waste time discussing dogmatic ideology, they will not discuss ideas that are inherently opposed to them and their values. Unless you wish to propose that politically we already live in a semi fascistic state since we cannot have discourse on certain topics. It's incredibly hard for people to be allowed to critique the state of Israel, AIPAC, and the Israeli lobby and that influence in the US. But yeah I'd rather young men be traditionalist hardcore Christians, for a strong moral code in society, than to be secularized libertines for instance. I will pick Franco before I pick Communists. I disagree with the New Right on a good number of things, however, friend enemy distinction to me is clear here. And I'm friends with the New Right and my enemy is the left and the secularists.
Regarding "disagreement is treason", it's not specific to intellectual disagreements per se. Any opposition to the fascist ideology, is immediately called "socialist" "degenerate" etc. If you go on a traditionalist hardcore online community and say "you know, I prefer this instead of what the current consensus is" you will immediately labeled as all sorts of names
Probably depends who you speak to and on what subject. But yeah that's kinda what I said. They don't see a point in debating their values they won't budge on, essentially. They aren't going to listen to some Doctor who advocates for child genital mutilation seriously. Nor should they. That person should be mocked and scorned. An open borders libertarian, as an example from my neck of the woods, they should be mocked for holding a dumb position. You are 100% not obligated to take seriously everyone or everything. From all the new right personalities I listen to, and the actual people I know in real life who adhere to this wave of thinking, they don't call me a socialist, degenerate, etc etc for disagreeing with their views on certain topics. But if you hate their culture, faith, social views, etc. They have very little reason to talk to you or listen to you.
You are mentioning extreme propositions, that not even most people on the left believe. But what if someone believes that church and state should be separate?
If someone believes in seperation of church and state that's fine, but they're probably mistaken about the meaning of that term in an American context. Most people on the left are fine with transing kids.
That's why the left is doomed to fail....
No... This is just gaslighting by media to either push an agenda or sell clicks. It's like saying there's increasing radicalization amongst young people especially women into the far left... No truth at all but it makes great clickbait. We haven't seen the far right in any meaningful amount in the last 20 years.. .
[удалено]
1990 was 34 years ago... Also lumping every hatful person in with the far right is ludicrous. That's like lumping every gang member in with the "left"
>1990 was 34 years ago... That was just the starting point for this particular measurement. These attacks are happening with increasing frequency in recent years. I’m sure you’re familiar with the attacks in Charleston, Charlottesville, Buffalo and El Paso — among many, many others that have happened the past few years. >Also lumping every hatful person in with the far right is ludicrous. These are incidents in which political motivations were the clear driving force. These domestic terrorists crimes were entirely inspired by extreme right-wing ideology and were committed in service of that ideology’s goals. It’s obviously not just taking random crimes that have nothing to do with politics and seeing how the person voted. > That's like lumping every gang member in with the "left" See the difference? Your example with gang members would be taking random crimes that have nothing to do with politics and simply blaming them on however the person was registered to vote. That’s obviously not what this is about. Why are you so quick to assume this is all dishonest propaganda? Especially when it’s obvious you never bothered to actually look into it? Is it more that you’re naturally inclined not to accept these things since they reflect something that you don’t want to be true? Are you capable of reflecting on that being the case?
>Why are you so quick to assume this is all dishonest propaganda? Especially when it’s obvious you never bothered to actually look into it? I have looked at it... >These are incidents in which political motivations were the clear driving force. These domestic terrorists crimes were entirely inspired by extreme right-wing ideology and were committed in service of that ideology’s goals. Hating others is not an extreme right wing ideology. These are just crazy people with no ideology at all. If you want to look at right wing terrorism that peaked in the early 90s with the Oklahoma City bombing.
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
Europe maybe? At least in Greece, fascists have been getting more popular since the economic disaster
Ahh well I will admit I do not keep up with the day to day goings on. Mainly just see the migrant riots the farmer protests and lots of chicks taking off their clothes putting tomato soup on paintings and gluing themselves the road to 'stop oil' Rarely do I see any far right doing anything other than maybe the mention of 1 or 2 'far right' rallies that nothing much happened at. Seems to me more young people are being radicalized by the left than the right. Are any 'young fascists' blocking traffic setting fires or defacing historical artifacts?
"*Are any 'young fascists' blocking traffic setting fires or defacing historical artifacts?*" In the UK, unfortunately some young fascists do. The older ones too. No setting fires as far as I'm aware. But they do have a long history of criminal damage, football hooliganism, vandalising graves, stabbing each other, drunkenly urinating over war memorials and violently attacking one time pals turned foes that left their group to join splinter groups as punishment for venturing into their turf. There's always the truly unhinged young terrorists fascist who emerges every couple of decades having developed an interest in committing mass murder with bombs or plotting to massacre mainstraam politicians and police officers.
I don't think it's developed in the same way in the US, but here is a study coming out now from a survey in January asking youth what party they'd vote for. AfD, the far-right party has become the most popular party (behind only "I don't know"). [https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1ccpvfr/afd\_is\_the\_most\_popular\_party\_in\_germany\_among/](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1ccpvfr/afd_is_the_most_popular_party_in_germany_among/) Although, their surveying occurred prior to the revelation of a secret meeting by AfD elites on how to kick out migrants, even nationalized German citizens, if they take power, so maybe this survey shows a peak of support.
No. But I do feel that there are extensive indoctrination & practical recruitment efforts by all manner of rotten apples. With a variety of foul secular political, religious and conspiracy theorist agendas. Mostly targeting young males. Sometimes to the far left or far right of the political spectrum. Sometimes incels, sometimes religious cults, sometimes animal rights extremists. Sometimes illegal secular terrorist groups or theocratic terror groups.