Political Ideologies, Philosophies, Ways of Thinking

[Tolvo]

So I thought it might be interesting to talk about different politics, what they mean, where they come from, and how they are seen by and defined by the general populace as well as along specific sets of thinking and ideologies.

I notice that in a lot of political discussions things can actually be hard because there aren't always 100% agreed on ideas of what terms may mean. While some think Marx with regards to Communism others think Stalin. This happens across different political axis, and I think it's important to actually talk about distinctions between things like Marxism, Marxist Leninism, Stalinism, Bolshevism, Maoism, and the various other forms of Communism and ideas. What those actually mean.

What sorts of politics can actually mesh together and in what ways. Like people talking about being Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative, which aligns more with the original Democratic Party of the USA before they became known as the Democratic Party, and the modern Democratic Party which is broadly more aligned with liberalism.

And not to mention things like Authoritarianism which can be integrated into both Left and Right wing ideologies.

What are Progressives, Democrats, Liberals, Leftists, Centrists, do any of these things overlap, are they the same thing or not?

How do we define things in different countries? For instance what might be the Right or Left Wing Party in one country might not be seen that way in a different country with different context for them.

Where do these things come from is always of interest to me as well. Like that the Left and Right paradigm is actually very old and came from where political parties were seated in chambers.

Now I don't want to just do a massive wall of text with links, it might not be that interesting and I wanted to stoke discussions and questions really. On top of that I could end up setting those up and using definitions based on my own biases, it'd also have to be absolutely massive to actually cover everything. Like I listed above with a few of the main Communist ideologies there's quite a lot of different groups and ideas.

Now I don't really want there to be animosity necessarily towards anyone else. I can understand giving views on political figures, ideologies, events, etc. But I don't want this to be about arguing over who is Evil or Good. Discussing ethics and morals is fine as long as we don't do that about others and make judgement about each other.

Would anyone be interested in talking about these things, asking questions, discussing, etc?

[Twisted Crow]

I feel that part of how these stances get distorted are mainly by how words and phrases are used and misused. Language evolves (for better or worse).

Among some peers that know me, those here for instance, might see me as a "Classical Liberal" or maybe a "Classical Democrat" perhaps. Depending on the connotation and what morals/ethics that imply with such a label, they might be accurate. I would like to call myself a "liberal" but the problem is that that word seems to be appropriated a lot to have different meanings.

I feel that the left might generally call themselves liberal, maybe out of tradition... even if their views might lean more toward what Progressives seem to want. Progressive ideals sometimes seem at odds to what I feel is Liberal. Then the right (unfortunately the ignorant among them) generally maintains that "Liberal = Progressive and Progressive = Liberal" perspective... perhaps out of expedience or circumstance. I am not entirely sure. But it isn't helpful that some of them perpetuate this with insults like "libtard" and what not. So, here in Texas, for example... it is difficult to claim ones own "Liberal" label considering that it's current effective meaning is ambigious and somewhat contingent on perception (or a somewhat "elective perception", maybe).

As for different countries, I wouldn't know enough about their politics to speak about them as much. :/

It is frustrating that all we seem to have are colloquialisms to rely on as labels, in spite of understanding how language changes when such labels are misused. Even I am sure that I do it out of simply not knowing better.

[Tolvo]

It can get very strange especially when people do intentionally use a term to make them appear more friendly or less extreme than what they really are or believe. You mention Classical Liberal, there are quite a lot of White Nationalists who do call themselves that. So in certain circles if someone calls themselves that, people might assume you are a White Nationalist. But that's actually why they did that, so one can be confused for the other more easily. Classical Liberalism does not equal White Nationalism but now it raises animosity and worries when people use that term. Libertarian is another one where often if you hear someone is Libertarian you might associate them with Tea Party ideals, even though its not really the same thing and that is also very American where a lot of Libertarians in the world are actually Left Wing.

Usually it's why I focus on trying to actually figure out what a person's perception of those groups are rather than just going "Well they said Libertarian they must mean x" because you need the context for which version they mean. And everyone on every side is definitely guilty of this, some of it is more mainstreamed in certain groups. But it is definitely a problem across basically every line. A problem too though is that I can't entirely blame people for it, is it fair to be like "Oh you don't know what Communism means? You need to read Das Kapital to even talk about this" because that a pretty elitist mindset, and when we also argue strictly from authority that comes with a lot of problems. So its important to take into account how people commonly use certain words.

[Twisted Crow]

*grins*

It is why I am not so quick to put a label on myself anymore. I used to think to use "Libertarian" but, now... not so much that, either.

Usually it's why I focus on trying to actually figure out what a person's perception of those groups are rather than just going "Well they said Libertarian they must mean x" because you need the context for which version they mean.

I share this with you, in thought... It is easier for me to dissect the issues individually and give my stance on them as opposed to just picking out a team jersey for the Partisan Championship Finals. Oversimplifing maybe but... the gist of my beliefs revolves around "small government; build our roads, protect our rights and leave us alone," not wanting too much legislation on dictating people's behavior and rights beyond preserving them (easier said than done, however).

I feel that women should be able to keep abortion, for example.

I also feel that religion should be seperate from State legislation, and it should go both ways. Relgion should not be able to "dictate" what marriage is (by law). At the same time, they should also not be pushed or pressured into marrying people when they feel it against their religious beliefs.

I also feel LGBT should reserve the same basic human rights as anyone does. Though, it is hard for me to argue that there are certain complications at times.

Anyway, the point is that I prefer to isolate the issues from being partisan game pieces. So I think I might relate to you on this. My politically purple thread was an attempt to voice that among other things... though its success is questionable, as my ability to articulate my points can be "hit or miss", depending on the topic.

[Twisted Crow]

To add another: "Anti-Establishment" is perhaps one I have been branded as a lot. And some of that might even be true for all I know. Though it can also come with negative implications as well. :D

Labels are... frustrating. :/

[Tolvo]

I did read that thread. It is a bit tricky because of the left and right idea working in general.

But it doesn't always work when you hold specific views that belong to one end and then others that belong to the other end. Like if you are pro LGBTQIA+ rights but also very pro nationalism, where do you end up exactly? Usually people broadly agree with a side but there are still quite a few who have elements from both, or from the center. And it becomes hard to then define them as any one thing in particular, or to then call them center because they have both extremes and it averages out because center is actually its own part of the spectrum with its own ideologies. Like weirdly enough, gun control is more supported by those in the center than on the left or the right.

Extreme example but one that people know of, the question of whether the Nazi Party was left or right. So we do consider them right wing generally, but it is not exactly totally that. Because they weren't really interested in being as right as possible but were actually more focused on just doing whatever it took to win the war, and to kill Jewish people(And others). People like to argue about how "Nazis supported gun control and abortion" but the thing is actually they were pro and anti those things, depending on who it was for. They supported the populace having guns, but not Jews. They supported Jewish abortions but not German citizens having abortions. So to them it wasn't about left or right, it was about the genocide they wanted to do. The Nazis were big on privatization, until it became apparent they had to control everything to try and win the war. They basically just did whatever served the genocidal mindset in that moment whether it was a traditionally left or right wing ideology. Modern Neo Nazis are actually more entrenched as right wing than the original Nazis were, but you probably wouldn't call Neo Nazis as extreme as the people who already committed the most well known genocide in history. The main attributes to call them right wing falls upon their nationalism. Otherwise they did pick and choose how they applied a lot of things. Even the idea of them being Socialists was just to get the votes of workers, they hated Socialists and Communists, it was the Nazi view that "Bolshevism was the greatest weapon of the Jewery." And the real socialists in Germany hated what Hitler did to their name and country and actually tried to take over(That didn't go well for them). But those Socialists by today's standards we'd actually still consider nationalists and had some horrible views as well. They hated Capitalism but did agree with the Nazis on a lot of other things. And even Hitler did speak about his hatred of Capitalism in ways, but he felt there was a Greedy Capitalism and a Just Capitalism, and promoted Just Capitalism. But he still hated Capitalism in the broader sense and in the American sense. Again, a lot of his ideas were very much about gaining power and genocide and war, not about whether he was left or right wing.

[Twisted Crow]

I should perhaps admit that I am unsure of what it means to be a "Nationalist" anymore.

[Tolvo]

The common definition and how I'd use it personally is the idea that your nation/identity should always come first even at the cost of others. So technically, saying "I love America" is not really Nationalistic, but saying "America First" is. In premise it is the idea that you or your people should always come first and matter more than anyone else. Then when you get into Nationalism formed around a certain idea, like White Nationalism, the idea is you also want your Nation to then be only of that identity. People who want Ethnostates fall into that category(Which by the way is a really hard thing to actually do since tons of different groups mingle throughout history. So even ignoring the ethics and morals its kind of physically impossible in most places unless you preform a genocide).

Usually it is seen as in opposition to Globalists(Which that is a can of worms because it is an actual ideology but a lot of people also use it to basically mean "Jews"). Which that is more about the international community and everyone working together and not focusing as much on divides and belonging to a collective, an example being the EU.

[Twisted Crow]

Hmmm. It would be hard to fit me in either, though my pragmatism leans to "Fix own problems first, then help others. But do not meddle." However, I don't really like phrases such as "God Bless America." Not for its religious aspect but for how narrow (and perhaps selfish) it sounds to me when it is used. It just sounds strange to me, even if the intent isn't to be selfish. I am unsure if I would adopt either one in entirety (Nationalist/Globalist).

*shrugs*

[Tolvo]

It can be tricky. Globalism(Or Internationalism and other terms) can run the risk of then putting your influence over other countries. While I agree with the idea of the international community working together to solve problems, it does have complications when one country has way more influence over how that is done. Usually this involves criticism of Imperialism. Like the USA under Obama was more Internationalist but, also used that power to influence the international community how they specifically wanted. It's a part of the problem of the UN. The UN has laws you have to follow, unless you are strong enough you don't. Because what is the option for the rest of the UN, to go to war with a much more powerful country? So while their laws may have good ideas, and can be used for instance to prosecute war crimes, you can't do it to a country you can't prosecute. Like the US Military does a lot of war crimes in the modern day, but that doesn't really matter because the UN can't enforce that on the USA. Russia is another country it doesn't really work against, and the only why to even enforce these laws in such countries is to start a World War that runs the risk of human extinction if things get bad enough. So while the smaller countries are beholden to the law, the bigger ones aren't.

It also can come in with interventionism. Of whether it is always right to enforce your views on another country, like if they have laws you consider immoral but they don't and you judge that you then have to go there and enforce them. Like if a country has slavery is it then alright to conquer that country and outlaw slavery? And you don't always even know if what you think about them is true. the Iraq War is a great example of this since people were lied to but the lie made them believe they needed to go in and stop a threat. There is also the question of whether or not to empower groups to take over another government that you think is bad, whether that be because it is a threat, counter to your ideals, has resources you want, etc. Which leads to things like Castro leading Cuba, and the US supporting a Muslim Militant Jihad against Marxist which led to the formation of Al Qaeda. But then it also would mean not fighting in wars to free people who are clearly oppressed by their governments. It is a very tricky subject with a lot of ideas about how both can work and not and horrors that have come out of both views.

[Remiel]

Extreme example but one that people know of, the question of whether the Nazi Party was left or right.

I think history has proven that any philosophy--liberalism or conservatism, socialism or free-market capitalism--when taken to its extreme, ends up becoming essentially the same thing: all the power in the hands of a select few.  Because, to quote the venerable Dr. Perry Cox of Scrubs fame, people are "bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling."

Consider free-market capitalism.  Left completely unregulated, it eventually becomes its own antithesis.  Small businesses are inevitably bought up or driven out of the market by larger ones, until eventually you have a monopoly that can pretty much set prices on its own whim, and then you no longer have a "free" market.  That's one reason, among others, why Ayn Rand-style pure libertarianism will never work in a civilized society.   That's why our 26th president, Theodore Roosevelt, who is venerated by the Right for his pro-military, aggressively expansionist / imperialist views, was also aggressively known as a trust-buster.   

My personal opinion is that the best economic philosophy is as close to the center as possible, in which both the government and the free market have power, and serve as checks on each other.  I start to get nervous whenever the political pendulum swings too far to either side, because that way tyranny lies.

[Tolvo]

I don't really see tyranny as something belonging to any one side in particular, or as something that cannot be accomplished with centrist ideas. The center is in itself its own position along the model with centrists having their own views and systems typically. Which can still have corruption and greed and power struggles.

[Remiel]

I don't really see tyranny as something belonging to any one side in particular, or as something that cannot be accomplished with centrist ideas. The center is in itself its own position along the model with centrists having their own views and systems typically. Which can still have corruption and greed and power struggles.

Right, but the best kind of political system acknowledges this and puts in place checks and balances so that no arm of government can overreach its power.

To quote Winston Churchhill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all of the other ones that have been tried."

[Tolvo]

Checks and balances are not something inherent to centrism. Other ends of the political spectrum can still have those depending on how they are implemented.

[Lustful Bride]

Checks and balances are not something inherent to centrism. Other ends of the political spectrum can still have those depending on how they are implemented.

But being without them makes it much easier to lead to tyranny.

Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Tolvo]

But again that's not something really inherent to left, right, or center. They are all capable of doing that or breaking away from it. You can also still have a government that is focused on the ideologies of one but with a multi party system. Democracy can also be done with a number of different forms of representation with different implications and effects. You can also have a government with checks and balances that aren't set up well enough or can be abused such as is the case with the US government.

[Remiel]

Granted, and agreed.  I personally think that the two-party system we have in the U.S. is broken.    Third parties, right now, are not taken seriously and never will be, and in fact serve to undermine their own interests, as we saw in 1992 with Ross Perot and 2000 with Ralph Nader. 

Although what the solution is, I have no idea...

[Tolvo]

It is kind of tricky because the two party or even one party system has certain advantages, but also is going to favor very specific groups and keep them in power. Many party systems allow for people to feel more represented in who they are voting for, but if say your votes are splits between 5 similar groups along one political axis, and then another political axis just all decided to vote for a specific party, then all these splintering votes favor whichever one can pool the votes. Meaning you won't actually end up with majority rule, and can end up with 15% of the votes for example but be the winning party because that was the highest percentage any party got. It can also mean that for a republic nothing ever gets passed because people can't all agree on one thing to vote for.

[Remiel]

Granted, and agreed.  I personally think that the two-party system we have in the U.S. is broken.    Third parties, right now, are not taken seriously and never will be, and in fact serve to undermine their own interests, as we saw in 1992 with Ross Perot and 2000 with Ralph Nader. 

Although what the solution is, I have no idea...

It has also occurred to me that the argument could be made that Bernie Sanders' treatment at the hands of the DNC leached a significant amount of support away from Clinton--a large proportion of the Sanders supporters ended up staying home and not voting at all--thus enabling Trump to win.

[Tolvo]

It's kind of complicated and involves a lot of different issues. The public image of Clinton was not great, people were still reacting to their anger with Obama and what he represented to them, as well as the DNC's actions, and Bernie Sander's movement not feeling represented, a lot more things really. Basically many people saw it as a choice between two greedy power hungry politicians. And in general the right in America is much better at unifying than the left, or center. So even when their choice didn't represent everything they wanted they still voted for their party, while that's not the same for people who were Dems that did not feel represented. It should also be mentioned how the electoral system also complicated things with Trump losing the popular vote but winning the electoral college. If you look at past elections not as many people voted period, Obama's numbers would have absolutely destroyed Trump for instance.

I don't know that Bernie Sanders would have won, but while Hilary was trying to compromise with the right and reach common grounds she should have been doing that with the left more since they're the people who actually want a lot of what she claimed she would implement. But it isn't really any one thing that enabled Trump to win. Media also played a big role which portraying Trump as mostly harmful and goofy and that you shouldn't take him serious didn't help people understand how dangerous letting him win was.

[sdparquinn]

I think history has proven that any philosophy--liberalism or conservatism, socialism or free-market capitalism--when taken to its extreme, ends up becoming essentially the same thing: all the power in the hands of a select few.  Because, to quote the venerable Dr. Perry Cox of Scrubs fame, people are "bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling."

Consider free-market capitalism.  Left completely unregulated, it eventually becomes its own antithesis.  Small businesses are inevitably bought up or driven out of the market by larger ones, until eventually you have a monopoly that can pretty much set prices on its own whim, and then you no longer have a "free" market.  That's one reason, among others, why Ayn Rand-style pure libertarianism will never work in a civilized society.   That's why our 26th president, Theodore Roosevelt, who is venerated by the Right for his pro-military, aggressively expansionist / imperialist views, was also aggressively known as a trust-buster.   

My personal opinion is that the best economic philosophy is as close to the center as possible, in which both the government and the free market have power, and serve as checks on each other.  I start to get nervous whenever the political pendulum swings too far to either side, because that way tyranny lies.

What is considered the center, in any given society, changes with time. If you proposed an NHS style healthcare system in Britian during the early colonial period then you would have been considered far outside the center. But, up until recently, the NHS was considered a staple institution in British society. Even Thatcher was afraid to touch it for fear of being seen as too far outside the political mainstream (and thus face backlash). And the "center" is also relative geographically. In place like the United States an NHS style healthcare system is considered too extreme by almost all republicans and most establishment democrats.

There were, in the past, people who believed that the slaves should be freed but not allowed to vote. They would probably be considered the "center" during their times (the mid point between giving the full franchise and maintaining slavery). But I think we all agree here that anything but the full franchise (both emancipation and giving equal rights) is tyranny.

The above example (as well as many others) suggest to me that, for lack of a better term, there is a "platonic ideal" of political arrangements and that the center does not, even most of the time, align with that platonic ideal of governance and economy.

In other words I see no reason to privilege the center, or that the center has any special ability to avoid tyranny. There maybe tyranny that takes a leftist form, and a rightward form, and even a centrist form. Picking a point on the political spectrum and declaring the solution seems unwise.

And this is not even getting into the whole issue that politics seems (yet again form lack of a better term) more "rhyzomatic" than a one-dimensional line with "left" on one end and "right" on the other. More so than even a political compass with two axis. 

[Lux12]

Then you get to us anarchists. Oooooh boy there are a lot of divisions there and some of them, as an anarchist myself seem rather arbitrary. For the record I see anarchism as a mostly leftist collection of ideologies who all share a common belief that the state lacks moral legitimacy and may even impede proper moral behavior. Another thing we have a general objection to is the attempted state monopoly on violence to the point where, contrary to popular belief, many of us oppose violence as it is a tool of what we deem an oppressive system. Now granted, there are many anarchists who believe it is proper to use violence in defense of ones self, but not as a means of forcing ones will on another person. The vast majority of us may not believe in government or even rule of law, but that doesn't mean we don't have morals. Now, once you get past common or universal aspects (there are far fewer universals than one might  believe) of anarchism, a lot of things get really complicated and messy. For example, get a Anarcho Syndicalist and an Anarcho Capitalist into a discussion on economics or whether or not capitalism ultimately creates a toxic, predatory hierarchy/system just like the ones they both ostensibly oppose (for the record, I tend to believe that statement quite vehemently). Then you have the divide between religious and atheistic anarchists. Believe it or not, for a number of anarchists, spirituality is actually closely tied to that anarchist political philosophy. I'm one of them. My religious point of view plays into my objection to statism. I'm honestly barely scratching the surface with all this. There's so much to be discussed as there is with pretty much any political umbrella.  There are divisions within divisions within divisions.

[Tolvo]

Sounds quite similar to what I know and have experienced. Usually I see the most division around anarchocapitalists and anti-civ people in my anarchist circles(I can be considered an anarchocommunist but it's exactly perfect in describing my views). A lot of people view anarchists as people who just want chaos and no morality(Those do exist but I've met very few) due to people's ignorance and a lot of media portrayals. Leftists can be quite similar with division(Get an anarchocommunist and a Marxist-Leninist in the same room and there will be blood). A lot of it coming from them having incredibly different views that cannot be reconciled(One is anti-Authoritarian, the other is very Authoritarian).

[Tolvo]

Something I thought I'd talk about a bit since it comes up often on E, is there is a lot of misinformation about Feminists, what they are, what they do, and what their movements and views are. Not insulting anyone or any ideas, just talking about the facts of Feminism and its history.

Feminism is a movement that seeks equality for all sexes/genders. Originally focused on suffrage and land owning(Both only for white women, for other women that came later), Feminism has evolved greatly over the years. There is the 1st Wave, the 2nd Wave, and the 3rd Wave. Each typically with their own focuses. 1st Wave was mainly Suffrage and Property. 2nd Wave was main labor, reproductive rights, and certain legal inequalities. 3rd Wave was focused on individuality and allowing people to make their own choices(Support for sex workers, pornography), not have to be bound to gender roles, including women of color and diversity. Intersectional Feminism(Called the 4th Wave as well, but there are also Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists who claim to be the true 4th Wave) is focused on taking into account how different forms of inequality intersect, such as class, race, etc, and focuses on Feminism in the modern age, gender based sexual assault, rape, harassment.

There are more forms but they're more specific, and can at times be what people think of as the "Radical Feminist" trope. Such as Lesbian Separatists(Women who believe men and women need different societies and to be purely homosexual), Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists(Feminists who are exclusive of Trans people, mainly they are 2nd Wave but not all 2nd Wave feminists are Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists).

Feminists of various waves have made great strides for gender equality for all, Feminists are why a lot of laws include men(Laws about Rape did not include men raped by women, until Feminists campaigned to include male victims raped by women). Feminism will continue to evolve as an egalitarian movement focused on equality for the genders/sexes of people in society. That is the ultimate goal and main purpose and history of feminism. Many who are of an earlier wave evolve and join a new wave as it develops and improves upon old views, and includes the positives of the old(New waves aren't going to suddenly reverse position on suffrage for example).

When people worry about Feminism being anti-man, that is the opposite of its purpose as Feminism focuses on protecting the rights of men as well. Simply in our societies women are more disadvantaged broadly(With some exceptions in specific circumstances), thus why it was termed Feminism and focuses on women because they face the most violence/abuse/mistreatment, but that doesn't mean men, or people of other genders do not(Nonbinary people face extreme levels of injustice). The Patriarchy as a concept doesn't mean that all men are evil or responsible for all sexism in the world, it is specifically about those in power who are mainly men(Though as more women have come into power who then still support gender inequality there are other terms people use like Kyriarchy). The Patriarchy does not harm only women but everyone, a lot of laws that disadvantage men are written by men in power for instance.

[Chantarelle]

Hi, I’m Chantarelle and I may get beat up in here but I just thought that this felt like the “safest” space to come out of the closet...I voted for Trump...I’m a conservative, republican with libertarian leanings. There! I feel better now. I’ve just felt a total lack of representation among the E community. I love everybody but it sounds an awful lot like an echo chamber in most threads, not to mention media outlets. But anyways I wanted to comment on Feminism a little...

I have no problem with feminists, I happen to not identify as one myself, but people can think how they want. However, it isn’t feminists but radical/socialist/Marxist feminists that suffocate the mainstream nowadays to the point being a liberal is synonymous with the democrat party and the LGBTQ+ community and with it the problem of giving hormones to children because gender is a spectrum now and it is fine for little kids to do drag. I’m not trying to offend but you have to give society a chance to talk about these things openly, objectively, and honestly. Society has changed so rapidly for people. There has been a radical push from a left leaning media to promote a PC culture, in other words censorship and a feminization of men at large, a reason why so many of us are on E looking for dominant role play partners because irl masculinity has become “toxic”. There are real world consequences to all of this, Trump was just one of them.

[Tolvo]

I think there are a few pro Trump members I have seen, and I know there are conservative members of E. I don't know that I'd call E and echo chamber since people are constantly disagreeing about many things it is simply that rule breaking material is not allowed. So as long as people aren't hateful and are respectful of others and their lives and rights it should be fine.

It should be mentioned the Democratic party is largely anti-socialist, anti-Marxist, and pro-capitalism. Though the voting base is a bit different from the party. In mainstream media there is very little leftist representation it is more left-leaning center. Mainstream feminism is the same. There are leftist feminists, intersectional feminism is itself inherently leftist unlike other forms of feminism as it focuses on economic inequalities for all. But many use the name without actually believing in all the core parts of it. Liberals and leftists typically do not like each other much because there is a huge divide ideologically between them regarding economics. There is a representation of feminism in mainstream British media but it is very heavily right wing feminists who find more in common with the Catholic Church than mainstream feminist thought.

Also hormones are not given to children that is false, puberty blockers are. They hold off puberty for children who are transgender or questioning. If the person figures out they aren't transgender they stop taking them and will go through puberty still. Puberty blockers are only a risk if someone has specific medical conditions that doctors check them for first. Otherwise they are completely harmless and reversible.

Society is openly, objectively, and honestly addressing a lot of these things. Learning new things can be scary for many, especially when they've been told wrong information much of their life such as there being only two genders when we've known there are more for much of history until culture shifted to believe in only two genders in specific parts of the world for a time. Though knowledge of genetics and karyotypes, of intersex people, of hormones, of many more skeletal differences than male or female, have advanced quite a bit in the last hundred years especially the last thirty years. And doing drag is not harmful to children really it is dress up which many children do in other ways such as dressing up as superheroes or Star Wars characters.

I'm not sure if Political Correctness has much of a meaning anymore. Or if it ever did. For instance being against hateful material is seen as being PC, but also will get a lot of hatred and harassment so politically it is damaging meaning it isn't Politically Correct. I'm a a transgender woman against transphobia for instance, which is politically not favored at all so it doesn't make sense that it would make me politically correct when it is politically very damaging to me. Censorship is also traditionally a right wing tool not a left wing one.

Though finding dominant play partners is a different matter, and fine. There is nothing wrong with having kinks and fantasies and desires like that.

[Blythe]

Hi, I’m Chantarelle and I may get beat up in here but I just thought that this felt like the “safest” space to come out of the closet...I voted for Trump...I’m a conservative, republican with libertarian leanings. There! I feel better now. I’ve just felt a total lack of representation among the E community. I love everybody but it sounds an awful lot like an echo chamber in most threads, not to mention media outlets. But anyways I wanted to comment on Feminism a little...

I have no problem with feminists, I happen to not identify as one myself, but people can think how they want. However, it isn’t feminists but radical/socialist/Marxist feminists that suffocate the mainstream nowadays to the point being a liberal is synonymous with the democrat party and the LGBTQ+ community and with it the problem of giving hormones to children because gender is a spectrum now and it is fine for little kids to do drag. I’m not trying to offend but you have to give society a chance to talk about these things openly, objectively, and honestly. Society has changed so rapidly for people. There has been a radical push from a left leaning media to promote a PC culture, in other words censorship and a feminization of men at large, a reason why so many of us are on E looking for dominant role play partners because irl masculinity has become “toxic”. There are real world consequences to all of this, Trump was just one of them.

So I'm not going to jump on you for voting for Trump, though I will say that I think he's not the candidate you think he is when it comes to certain values. You're not the only member of the forum that's expressed that you've voted for him--though E by it's nature tends to attract more liberal mindsets certainly.

I can see what you mean about the feminism comment--I'm not sure you worded that as well as you could have, but the impression I got is that you are okay with feminism, you just struggle with certain types of it. Okay, fair. No stance is immune from criticism. Though I do identify as a feminist myself. I don't see this 'feminization' culture you are talking about.

Your point about trans children, however, is inaccurate. Generally speaking, as Tolvo's mentioned, what happens for most is that they get puberty blockers, which don't cause any permanent changes, and they stay on those until they are legally able to make a more permanent decision for themselves, or sometimes just a bit earlier when they are in their late teens if parents consent as well. And puberty blockers are quite reversible & have very little in the way of risks (again, as Tolvo said, provided you don't have some manner of condition that doesn't play well with those)--just stop taking them and b-bam, puberty for one's biological sex will occur. As for 'kids doing drag'--what children wear is really the business of the child themselves and their parents. I'm of the opinion that people shouldn't backseat parent other people's kids.

As for the 'on E looking for dominant RPers because in RL men are feminized'--I'll be honest, that sounds a bit silly. There's always been a general demand for those who can write quality dominant roles; most people who've been roleplaying awhile know that the ratios of dominant/sub are skewed, and it's got nothing to do with 'feminizing men' in everyday life, not really.

[Skynet]

Hi, I’m Chantarelle and I may get beat up in here but I just thought that this felt like the “safest” space to come out of the closet...I voted for Trump...I’m a conservative, republican with libertarian leanings. There! I feel better now. I’ve just felt a total lack of representation among the E community. I love everybody but it sounds an awful lot like an echo chamber in most threads, not to mention media outlets. But anyways I wanted to comment on Feminism a little...

I have no problem with feminists, I happen to not identify as one myself, but people can think how they want. However, it isn’t feminists but radical/socialist/Marxist feminists that suffocate the mainstream nowadays to the point being a liberal is synonymous with the democrat party and the LGBTQ+ community and with it the problem of giving hormones to children because gender is a spectrum now and it is fine for little kids to do drag. I’m not trying to offend but you have to give society a chance to talk about these things openly, objectively, and honestly. Society has changed so rapidly for people. There has been a radical push from a left leaning media to promote a PC culture, in other words censorship and a feminization of men at large, a reason why so many of us are on E looking for dominant role play partners because irl masculinity has become “toxic”. There are real world consequences to all of this, Trump was just one of them.

There's a difference between drag performance and transgender people.

Drag artists are performers. They are mainly cisgender people who wear clothing culturally associated with the opposite sex, usually out of a means of self-expression or a means of connecting with hobbies and activity mainstream society would look down upon.

Transgender people are not performing. They really are the genders they identify as, and various medical journals and psychological associations are in agreement.

As for children and hormone blockers, this is often done for transgender children as a means of reducing suffering. In many cases it requires parental consent, but as hormone blockers can be reversed it's usually used to prevent puberty which can increase gender dysphoria.

There's a very good video on what transgender people go through regarding the complications of their body and self-identity from said dysphoria. Obvious content warning: it talks about the aforementioned issues as well as suicide.


Edit: Looks like some other people responded. I'll still provide my own thoughts. Hopefully it will be of help to you. :)

[Chantarelle]

I misspoke, I meant puberty blockers. But to say these things aren’t harmful? That’s putting the cart before the horse. This is all just an experiment encouraged by progressivism. The ramifications of putting a child in a highly sexualized culture of drag queens and gay bars must hold some weight. And puberty blockers are still experimental, and some practitioners question the ethics and safety of this treatment strategy. Parents, children and doctors are making decisions based on “scientific ignorance’, it still remains unknown if regular puberty will resume following suppression.

[Tolvo]

Drag is not inherently sexual, and gay bars are entirely separate from that. It is not sexualizing children or putting them in sexual situations in any way.

Puberty blockers aren't really an experiment they're a well researched and established form of medicine to aid children with dysphoria. It isn't ignorance, if there is some unknown problem it has yet to be discovered and puberty blockers have been in use for years. Most doctors and other medical professionals agree puberty blockers are good to use and the preferred method of treatment for those with gender dysphoria. And there are people who have gone off puberty blockers and then gone through puberty, so we do know that will happen.

Puberty blockers are well considered the most ethical and safest treatment across the board.

[Blythe]

I misspoke, I meant puberty blockers. But to say these things aren’t harmful? That’s putting the cart before the horse. This is all just an experiment encouraged by progressivism. The ramifications of putting a child in a highly sexualized culture of drag queens and gay bars must hold some weight. And puberty blockers are still experimental, and some practitioners question the ethics and safety of this treatment strategy. Parents, children and doctors are making decisions based on “scientific ignorance’, it still remains unknown if regular puberty will resume following suppression.

Children don't go to gay bars. That is not a thing. Children of any age do not go to any bars. You have to be 18 or older to even go into bars for the most part in the USA.

Drag culture is more than just drag queens in bars. Not all drag is sexual; you are making a very strange assumption with that. I think perhaps you don't know very much about trans people, gay culture, or drag culture, to be honest. You are saying a lot of stereotypes or false assumptions that don't really hold weight with reality.

And yes, we do know puberty blockers are reversible. We scientifically know that.

From the American Academy of Pediatrics:

https://assets2.hrc.org/files/documents/SupportingCaringforTransChildren.pdf

For children, pre-adolescents and early adolescents, gender transition is mainly a social process. Children
beginning puberty may also use puberty-suppressing medication as they explore their gender identity.
Both of these steps are completely reversible.

[Tolvo]

Though if we do get too highly detailed and advanced on the topic of transgender people, gender broadly, hormones, medicine, etc, it probably would fit in its own thread on the subject(Something I've considered doing but am unsure if it would stay civil) rather than here as this is more on philosophies and ideologies rather than specifically gender and sexuality.

[Chantarelle]

Desmond the Amazing, a drag kid who performed at a gay club...https://www.google.com/amp/s/townhall.com/tipsheet/briannaheldt/2018/12/19/controversy-arises-over-11yearold-child-in-drag-dancing-in-bar-n2537807%3famp=true

And I’m not sure if you’ve been to a gay pride parade or hung around drag queens but it’s highly and graphically sexualized and I would say yes inherently. I don’t think it’s a strange assumption at all. Just something we must disagree on fundamentally.

[Tolvo]

So far I am seeing the story coming from the Daily Wire cited by the news groups talking about this event, which is a very anti-LGBTQIA+ site and right wing extremist news source.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-daily-wire/

They also have a poor rating for factual accuracy, and their original article reporting it is full of talk about a gay agenda, and how drag is bad and weird. So it's a very homophobic source.

It's not impossible that a child could be put in such an environment by people not intending it in an adult way though I'd be against any children in an adult venue even if for non-adult purposes. The child drag performer Desmond is Amazing I am not seeing other instances like this reported for either. But even if it were true, it happening once is not the same as it being a trend, and the source for it is incredibly suspect.

[Blythe]

On a completely different note, after rereading the OP:

talk about distinctions between things like Marxism, Marxist Leninism, Stalinism, Bolshevism, Maoism, and the various other forms of Communism and ideas.

I'd love something like this, really. I'm not the best at making these sorts of distinctions (sometimes I mix up terms), and I'd enjoy reading an informative post that helps sort and distinguish these out in an easily-accessible way.

[Tolvo]

Some of them have very little distinction. Salinism and Marxist Leninism for instance, which may be confusing because they have completely different names. But Marxist Leninism was the ideology of Stalin that he put forth, he named it as such to show ideological heritage and to use the authority of Marx and Lenin to support his ideology, but Marxist Leninism can exist in forms that branch away from Stalin's personal views but will still be authoritarian in ways no matter what. And neither Marx nor Lenin supported Marxist Leninism and Marxists, Leninists, and Marxist Leninists, tend to all hate each other.

Usually distinctions are made between, Authoritarian Communism, Anti-Authoritarian/Anarchist Communism, and Strict Anarchist(No government period) Communism.

Maoism is a form of Marxist Leninism with a focus on the peasants leading the revolution.

Marxist Leninism is focused on revolution and establishment of an authoritarian communist government that rules through a single dictator and control of the people.

Stalinism is a form of Marxist Leninism, it is very specifically focused on the beliefs of Stalin and sort of worshiping him as a demigod. Many Marxist Leninists are Stalinists but not all are. So people use the terms interchangeably often.

Leninism is about establishing a vanguard party that will lead through a sort of group dictatorship that represents the people. This is also commonly associated with Bolshevism.

Boshevism though is mostly a term associated with Nazis, they usually mean Leninism. And National Bolsheviks just means National Socialists or basically, the Nazis. This is also where the term Cultural Marxist comes from, Cultural Bolshevik, and the use of the term was pioneered by Nazis, then Neo Nazis. Which Socialism and Nazism are actually separate and contradictory ideologies(Though Socialists did exist within the Nazi Party early on, but Hitler killed them or had them imprisoned).

Marxism is strictly more about class warfare itself and and about the working class rising up and establishing a form of society where power does balanced among all. It does not need to be authoritarian but can be, many though of this branch are anti-authoritarian. Though it does not itself take into account factors outside of economics. Though forms of Marxism do.

Trotskyism is anti-authoritarian and views the revolution as never ending, that people need to be ready to fight against any power that will try to rise to oppress the people.

Anarcho Communists are a strictly anti-authoritarian form of Communism that wants Communism through either community agreements and working together or a government that doesn't have total power and is heavily covered by checks and balances and the people.

Then there are strict Anarchist variants, though they are more for creating small communes since its impossible for them to have enough power to change a country since many are so anti-civilization, anti-society, anti-power, that they can't exert any power at all and are more like small communes living in nature.

Most Communist idealogies come from Marx though it actually predates him and comes from the late 1700's, and is based on French Enlightenment teachings. And Communism is based in Egalitarianism and equality but takes those concepts and applies them to Economic analysis and forms of economics that bring about equality for all as the focus.

It is though a common criticism of those who believe only economic solutions are needed and will solve all problems that we don't live in such a simple world. As racism, sexism, all sorts of other forms inequality would still exist. Which I agree with solving economic inequalities would help but it won't solve all of the problems in the world, and I view economic equality as one part of a greater goal for a better world for all of humanity.

This is simplifying things and going with the important and basic differences. It is not including all of the millions of little differences which are super complicated and would basically require a lot of research and conversations to understand. But, these are the basics and can help with understanding the differences.

[Chantarelle]

Myself and others see this as something not to bat an eye at or this...https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.buzz.ie/amp/latest/outrage-10-year-old-drag-queen-naked-adult-313565

The video and pictures speak for themselves. As for daily wire, it’s only low because he is right leaning. I’ve listened to Ben Shapiro for a long time I don’t doubt the articles are true. He speaks for a lot of people who are actually very excited to see him run for president one day. Students picket him, call him a white supremicist natzi which is so untrue that it’s laughable. But getting back to blockers...

““One of the challenges that’s been faced in the past is that treatment of the transgender population really didn’t start until they were either at least older adolescents or adults,” said Dr. Courtney Finlayson, a pediatric endocrinologist at Lurie Children’s Hospital. “And by that time they’ve had all of the pubertal and physical changes that go along with their … natal sex.”

With the use of puberty blockers, “we’re really starting to some extent from a little bit more of a blank slate,” Finlayson  explained. “We don’t have to be erasing or trying to get rid of all these other changes that occurred that they don’t want.”

However, the use of puberty blockers to treat transgender children is what’s considered an “off label” use of the medication — something that hasn’t been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. And doctors say their biggest concern is about how long children stay on the medication, because there isn’t enough research into the effects of stalling puberty at the age when children normally go through it.”

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/when-transgender-kids-transition-medical-risks-are-both-known-and-unknown/

It seems they’ve been using the blockers for years but not on children. It’s an experiment wrapped as a solution to a problem that 80-95% of children outgrow naturally. It doesn’t sound entirely on the up and up to me.

But I’ll stop now I’m sorry if I hijacked your thread.

[Tolvo]

Well Ben Shapiro definitely is a Neo Nazi, he espouses their ideologies and associates with them.

I'd still recommend though finding accurate respectable sources, with one of the most respectable ones talking about this news story again being Daily Wire so I still cannot confirm if that is a real photo or not.

There is no video but the picture again still isn't sexual, it is based on something Violet did previously and Violet's genitals aren't exposed, but I will say I think that the picture shouldn't be taken still and that Violet shouldn't have done that if it did happen. Nudity does exist in spaces where there are children, mostly in other countries like nude beaches and bathing areas with parents present. I'm assuming parents were present though if they weren't that's a serious problem. But in America doing so will be seen strictly as pedophilia especially for someone who is trans and does drag where they are wrongly associated with pedophilia by bigots.

Also the FDA have approved certain puberty blockers for different purposes.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/136/6/1029.full.pdf

Certain ones are still approved but are used in cancer treatment as the focus while others are completely approved for transgender children. And this is from years ago, meaning puberty blockers have been in use for children with gender dysphoria for years. Though public knowledge of this didn't become common until the 2010's as well as the research.

And yeah probably any more and it should go in its own thread.

[sdparquinn]

Well Ben Shapiro definitely is a Neo Nazi, he espouses their ideologies and associates with them.

I'd still recommend though finding accurate respectable sources, with one of the most respectable ones talking about this news story again being Daily Wire so I still cannot confirm if that is a real photo or not.

There is no video but the picture again still isn't sexual, it is based on something Violet did previously and Violet's genitals aren't exposed, but I will say I think that the picture shouldn't be taken still and that Violet shouldn't have done that if it did happen. Nudity does exist in spaces where there are children, mostly in other countries like nude beaches and bathing areas with parents present. I'm assuming parents were present though if they weren't that's a serious problem. But in America doing so will be seen strictly as pedophilia especially for someone who is trans and does drag where they are wrongly associated with pedophilia by bigots.

Also the FDA have approved certain puberty blockers for different purposes.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/136/6/1029.full.pdf

Certain ones are still approved but are used in cancer treatment as the focus while others are completely approved for transgender children. And this is from years ago, meaning puberty blockers have been in use for children with gender dysphoria for years. Though public knowledge of this didn't become common until the 2010's as well as the research.

And yeah probably any more and it should go in its own thread.

Eh... I dislike Shapiro as much as the next guy but is he really a Neo-Nazi? He's gross in other ways but I would never peg him as a Neo-Nazi.

[Tolvo]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ben-shapiro-podcast-loses-ads-after-baby-hitler-speech-at-march-for-life

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/19/17593174/mark-duplass-ben-shapiro-apology

https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/california-forum/article199889049.html

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/16/18183799/gop-steve-king-conservatism-racism-language-politics

Yeah he's pretty Neo Nazi, and associates with and is supported by many of them. He believes in race science, he supported the murder of Trayvon Martin, he thinks Transgender people are just mentally ill, he has called for ethnic cleansings, he's said and supported a lot of really reprehensible positions and views that cement him quite in the camp of being a Neo Nazi. His recent statement about how he would defend baby Hitler(Based on a ridiculous hypothetical) is honestly very tip of the iceburg for him. Many times he has supported murders of black people, has called for killings of people, has shown he hates LGBTQIA+ people, and supports white supremacy. On top of that many people he associates with are Neo Nazis, as a reminder he did work for Breitbart for a short time. He has before defended the White Genocide myth. Very firmly, he's a Neo Nazi. Just a popular one that people like to pretend isn't one because agreeing with someone recognized as a Neo Nazi is typically not good for one's image.

[Chantarelle]

I thought we were done with this and Vox? Biased much? Where has he called for ethnic cleansings, I’m curious? This man is Jewish and this is where the liberal left go way too far with labeling everyone who thinks differently as natzi’s and racist. Support the murders of black people? He does not do that. No one does that! His last mention of Steve King was that republicans are always forced to deal with “cleaning house” and democrats still haven’t denounced such people like Louis Farrakhan and his anti-Semitic references. I just get tired of everything being mysoginistic and racist nowadays! It’s silly and takes out of context so many things. I’m sorry but if nowadays a black person cant be racist then a Jew can’t be a natzi. Perhaps it is his view of transgenderism that gets him in trouble but again, these are his opinions and he is allowed to have them, plus he isn’t the only one who thinks that way, we are still having societal discussions trying to wrap our heads around all of this and it takes more than a generation to change a society. People want others to speak freely and honestly, well that comes with hearing opinions you don’t like because that’s the way the world works, you can’t go around not being offended all the time and pretending everyone things the way you do and if they don’t we have to give them a monstrous label. It’s not ok.

[Tolvo]

I thought we were done with this and Vox? Biased much? Where has he called for ethnic cleansings, I’m curious? This man is Jewish and this is where the liberal left go way too far with labeling everyone who thinks differently as natzi’s and racist. Support the murders of black people? He does not do that. No one does that! His last mention of Steve King was that republicans are always forced to deal with “cleaning house” and democrats still haven’t denounced such people like Louis Farrakhan and his anti-Semitic references. I just get tired of everything being mysoginistic and racist nowadays! It’s silly and takes out of context so many things. I’m sorry but if nowadays a black person cant be racist then a Jew can’t be a natzi. Perhaps it is his view of transgenderism that gets him in trouble but again, these are his opinions and he is allowed to have them, plus he isn’t the only one who thinks that way, we are still having societal discussions trying to wrap our heads around all of this and it takes more than a generation to change a society. People want others to speak freely and honestly, well that comes with hearing opinions you don’t like because that’s the way the world works, you can’t go around not being offended all the time and pretending everyone things the way you do and if they don’t we have to give them a monstrous label. It’s not ok.

https://www.creators.com/read/ben-shapiro/06/07/the-radical-evil-of-the-palestinian-arab-population

Right here he calls for Ethnic cleansing.

"The Palestinian people, who support, fund and execute suicide bombings. The Palestinian people, who dress their toddlers in bomb belts and then take family snapshots. The Palestinian people, who cheered on September 11 as the World Trade Center towers fell. The Palestinian people, who followed terrorist extraordinaire Yasser Arafat, supported Saddam Hussein, shredded the blooming rose that was once Christian Lebanon, and almost toppled the Western-friendly Jordanian monarchy. The Palestinian people, who destroy relics on the Temple Mount, openly call for the destruction of the state of Israel, ally with Syria and Iran, and elect Hamas. The Palestinian people, who teach their children that the Holocaust is a fairy tale, and that Jews routinely poison Palestinian candy. The Palestinian people, who stage injuries in order to solicit Western media sympathy, and then roar madly as they hold up their hands, red with the blood of murdered Israeli soldiers." - Ben Shapiro

"The idea of an entire population corrupted by bloodthirsty anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism violates modern ideas of politics. According to the Bush administration, the problem with the Palestinian Arabs isn't the Palestinian Arabs — it's their leadership. During Yasser Arafat's tenure, the problem was Yasser Arafat, not the hundreds of thousands who followed him. Now the problem is Hamas, not the hundreds of thousands who supported and elected them." - Ben Shapiro

The problem runs deeper than a few figureheads. The Palestinian Arab population is rotten to the core. There are many to be blamed: Yasser Arafat, who lined his pockets with cash and subsidized murder while playing the victim of oppression. An Arab world that refused to absorb the Palestinian population, preferring to use it as a political pawn against Israel. The United Nations, which suckled the Palestinian Arab population into dependency at the international teat. Israel, for emboldening the Palestinian Arabs by conceding to them." - Ben Shapiro

"But in the end, the blame must lie with the Palestinian Arabs themselves. They have accepted their role with relish. They are as responsible for their government's longstanding evil as the Germans were for the Nazis'." - Ben Shapiro

"It is far more convenient, however, for the Bush administration and the international community to treat the Palestinian Arabs' thoroughgoing radicalism as a top-down problem. Throw a bit of money at the Holocaust denier, pressure Israel into concessions and hope that the Palestinian Arabs will abandon their attachment to Islamofascism, the logic runs." - Ben Shapiro

"Such policy demonstrates an adolescent understanding of Palestinian Arab motivation. Palestinian Arabs will not be bribed: The West has bribed them for decades, and the Palestinian Arabs have demonstrated their preference for suicide bombing over working toilets. Palestinian Arabs will not be moderated: Israel has ceded land continuously since 1993, and the Palestinian Arabs have demonstrated their preference for murder over peace. Palestinian Arabs must be fought on their own terms: as a people dedicated to an evil cause." - Ben Shapiro

"So far, Israel and America have willfully blinded themselves to the harsh reality of popular evil. They have refused to come to terms with the harsh fact that collective choices require collective treatment." - Ben Shapiro

"Treating collective problems as problems of individuals is a vacuous panacea. Waiting for Arafat to die of old age did not moderate the Palestinian Arabs; supporting one radical over another will not moderate them, either. The Palestinian Arab population breeds terrorism, anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. If Israel and America refuse to recognize that simple truth, they will continue to pay the price in blood and treasure." - Ben Shapiro

Again I suggest actually clicking and reading the links, the quotes from Shapiro celebrating the murders of black teenagers, the links to his own writing and videos and statements and speeches. He has called for killing Palestinians and that he believes they are inherently evil. He believes certain races are genetically inferior and have inherent differences in intelligence. Ironically, your statement would be what people call using Identity Politics, using Shapiro's heritage and religion to claim he can't be a Neo Nazi when he is very blatantly one. Keep in mind many Neo Nazis exist that belong to groups that Neo Nazis want to exterminate. Black Neo Nazis do exist, such people are often used as smokescreens to try and defend ideologies. And Ben Shapiro is fine with comparing entire ethnic groups to the Nazis, so he's not a very good person to defend in that regard.

As well, freedom of speech and freedom of expression applies to me as well. Unless you believe it only applies to hateful people. When someone makes obvious white supremacist statements I will point out that they are an accurately label said person. If they are offended by being called a Neo Nazi, they shouldn't be a Neo Nazi.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/426025-womens-march-official-says-group-has-been-unequivocal-about-denouncing-anti

Also many Dems have denounced him, cut ties with him, and the DNC are cutting funds to groups that do not condemn him. Though there are those who have not done so publicly or still stand by him. But to state the Dems broadly stand by him is false. Most are simply not making a big show of it but are cutting ties with him and those associating with him. Though Democrats do still struggle with cleaning house, they are much better at it than the GOP but that's not a high bar.

[TheGlyphstone]

While it's tangential to the main thrust of the discussion, the idea that a black person cannot be racist or a Jewish person cannot be a neo-Nazi is, I feel, very much not true. As a pointed counter-example to the general claim (you cannot be what you hate, if I get the gist right), Milo Yiannopoulos - another prominent alt-right figure - is both openly gay and describes being gay as 'abberant' and 'a sin'.

[Tolvo]

My guess is that the statement was in regards to the idea that black people can't be racist against white people. Which is something people do believe, but it's because of how they specifically define racism. They define it as relying on systemic racism. And that also depends on where you live in the world. So the idea is that since systemic racism doesn't exist against white people in the USA based on their skin color, that someone can't have the privilege and power to use race to enforce racist acts against a white person. Prejudice+power essentially. But, many would still agree someone who is black can be ignorant and hateful towards white people and prejudiced. It is simply that they define racism in a way focused on systemic oppression and power over individual oppression and power. And the power of words, and why for example cracker is very milquetoast, and the n word I won't even actually say. One has way more power to it as a word of hate with a long history of hate, the other does not. Telling a very advantaged group that they suck is different from telling a very disadvantaged group with a long history of being disadvantaged that they suck is different. Venting about actually harmful acts is understandable, venting about how a group someone hates is weird or different or spoke back is less understandable.

And depending on where you live it can be very different. For white people it stays the same in a lot of countries since white people have a lot of power in much of the world, and a part of it is that if someone harms a white person in another country that will be an international incident. But for instance in Japan white people will be treated very differently, and as exotic and often as stupid. They'll tend to be offered specific jobs and are not wanted for certain jobs. Though black people in Japan will have it much worse. Though it's usually not as severe as police shooting tons of white people based on them being white in other countries, though again there are exceptions.