These ''Aha!'' Threads

[Tommy4ever]

Why do rightwingers come here every so often and make really self indulgent threads about how stupid we all are?

[Blackscare]

dude I have like a huge eyelash stuck in my eye this shit sucks

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

because they're stupid and ignorant.

[Tommy4ever]

dude I have like a huge eyelash stuck in my eye this shit sucks

I feel for you. :(

[hatzel]

These "Aha!" ThreadsdjV11Xbc914

[Viet Minh]

Why do rightwingers come here every so often and make really self indulgent threads about how stupid we all are?

The bourgeousie have a deep-rooted fear of a proletariat revolution, they know they stand no chance, and it will only be a matter of time until the workers revolt. So the Bourgeousie desperately try to make light of the workers struggle, thinking it will set their minds at ease, but realise to their cost that all they have done is incite the people further. So they sleep the restless sleep of the guilty, fearing every creak and whisper in the dark of night is the tread of the grim reaper with his black hood and golden sickle, come to take back what is rightfully his and has been stolen.

[danyboy27]

Why do rightwingers come here every so often and make really self indulgent threads about how stupid we all are?


beccause they do think they are better than us.

they think that they understand everyuthing that has to be understood and think they are bulletproof, that why they do it.

and also beccause being a smug seem to be something that come with being a right winger most of the time.

[RedAnarchist]

Often it's just trolls or people who've heard nothing but the "Western" view of communism (ie, the one we all get taught in school, the one we all hear about in the media etc).

[Thug Lessons]

Why do rightwingers come here every so often and make really self indulgent threads about how stupid we all are?

It's mostly about being less attractive, intelligent or otherwise notable compared to leftists, having small penises, &ct.

[Revolution starts with U]

We havea beeg commewnis apeenes!

[Skooma Addict]

whats a right winger?

[Revolution starts with U]

A descendant of an evil reptilian race, bent on enslaving humanity.

... or to be precise, the people who sat on the right side of the general assembly; typically pro-aristocracy, pro-monarchy.

[Rafiq]

Usually because they discovered a good argument against communism, so they'd come here to try and rub it in our faces, only realizing it was bullshit from the start, and then the person gets made fun off, thrown into a jerk circle, ect.

[Pretty Flaco]

this kid in my english class last semester was talking to his friend really loudly once about how he and a few other kids had a circle jerk at jew camp.

[psgchisolm]

this kid in my english class last semester was talking to his friend really loudly once about how he and a few other kids had a circle jerk at jew camp.Sounds like something someone from SC would say...hmmm

[sokpupet]

From the peace tree
~snip

But what the researchers were looking at were the group that I’ve been referring to for years as "secular fundamentalists." The political variant of these critters tends to be reactionary, paranoid, authoritarian, intolerant, contemptuous of rules that don’t suit them and overbearing in their observance on behalf of others of rules that do suit them. While there are left wing examples (David Horowitz was a good example in his time) they generally gravitate toward fascism and call it conservatism, even though it’s usually better described as radical reactionaryism.

The authors define the two core principles of conservatism as resistance to change, and acceptance of social inequality. Conservatives, they argue, cling tightly to a status quo, real or imagined, and regard society as hierarchical. Unsurprisingly, they tend to believe they have inherited and/or merited preferential positions in this hierarchy.

The authors address what they call the "conservative paradox" of radical reactionaryism (e.g, Hitler, Mussolini or Pinochet) by pointing out that their calls for extreme inequality in the social order were juxtaposed with promises to lead the country back to an ideal past, one in which "traditional values and morality" prevailed. It occurs to me a good catchphrase for the mawkish and hollow babble that usually accompanies this fraud is "morning in America." Our present-day radical reactionaries continuously harken back to a traditional America that never existed, one where everyone was a god fearing generic protestant, people with accents lived in the poor part of town and never bothered folks, and women and blacks knew their place.

This matches what I consider a hallmark of the fundamentalist mindset: the ability to completely invert a philosophy to suit personal needs. In religion, for example, you have Christianity and Islam, religions that both place high premiums on respect for one’s fellow humans, peace, and personal integrity. Yet fundamentalists are frequently the most violent, dishonest and intolerant people around, and use their religion to completely rationalize this abhorrent behavior. In conservatism you see people who champion the Bill of Rights, unobtrusive government, and a laissez faire approach to industry cheering loudly for the Patriot Act and the tariffs Putsch has placed on steel and timber. This emotional and intellectual dichotomy is how conservatives can condemn dishonest and immoral behavior on Clinton’s part while phlegmatically accepting that Putsch lied his way into a war that does not benefit America while declaring that he is opposed to "nation building." It’s how Republicans can damn Democrats as being fiscally irresponsible even while they ignore Putsch’s disastrous fiscal policies that are driving the nation to new and insane levels of debt. One need only watch conservatives in California vilify Grey Davis for a $38 billion deficit that he didn’t cause while ignoring Putsch’s $600 billion deficit, much of which was fueled by his reckless tax cuts.

One of the more interesting references in the paper is "The Theory of RWA," in which the authors consider the Authoritarian Personality. They state, "harsh parenting styles brought on by economic hardship led entire generations to repress hostility toward authority figures and to replace it with an exaggerated deference and idealization of authority and tendencies to blame society scapegoats and punish deviants."

Angry, repressed, passive-aggressive with a desire to punish those who don’t conform.

Yup, that’s our boys. It could be the platform of the GOP.

Right wingers hate them, of course. But it’s hard to see why. The paper won’t stop people from growing up to be right wingers. Many people can no more choose to be conservative than they can choose to be gay.