Historically speaking, why are far-right and far-left politics looked down upon and scorned by the general public?

So as usual, /pol/ is full of shit in thinking that the general public will go along with their insane ideas?

this

Because the people who control society can't fucking stand people question the merit of their being allowed to be incredibly wealthy through collection of rent and profit (i.e, extorting commoners) despite doing basically nothing, and the far left and the far right are the only people willing to point out how fucking stupid that is?

>this thread

How so? The positions on the political spectrum aren't based on how popular they are.

It's not like perfectly normal people HAVEN'T been convinced to follow evil lunatics before due to their charisma

t. retard who doesn't know what centrist means

if you post a strawman comic you should be immediately banned, whether it's mocking left, right or "centrist"

It hasn't, from your side of the river, I'm sure you see it that way, but you can bet your ass the far left would say the same about the far right.

Both are cancer.

I meant he is an avid /pol/ poster

I was with you until that last bit, you fucking nigger

Far left is more tolerated in society. You can wear a hammer and sickle and probably nothing will happen to you. If you wear a swatika and you'll probably get your ass kicked by some non whote

Are you serious? Hollywood is far left, and they're very open about it. The Universities are far left. I go to Texas A&M, which is considered to be a conservative university, and I'm still constantly told about the wonders of communism and intersectionality. A lot of the mainstream news sources lean pretty far to the left.

It's not even comparable.

It is true though, radical centrism is for well-adjusted and successful individuals.

>You're either a fanatic or you believe in nothing

Doesn't mean they aren't both scum, but you are right.

Get off /pol/
Liberalism isn't far left

Liberals are in power, and have been the the last 70+ years. Far-right/far-left are meaningless meme terms but for the sake of the argument, it's because typically these idealogies are in direct conflict with the neoliberal, global, capitalist system. Thus, they are discouraged. Pair this with the fact that many people attracted to these ideologies are unfortunately social outcasts, or pure ideologues. Both of which are not taken seriously by academia, the current elites, or even the general populace.

If more people within the current power structure were to begin to adopt these idealogies (and some have, or at least bastardized into a more "palatable" and liberal format) things might begin to shift. But the system has ways of weeding such influence out.

The truth is that until the global capitalist system collapses or begins to collapse, no great systematic changes will take place, barring any crazy technological advancements in the next 50 years or so.

We will just have to see if these current system is sustainable in developing and maintaining a growing human population.

My guess it most likely not, but only time will tell.

>my thoughts are too complex for journalists to understand
why is macron so based?

Since when? I've seen Nazis out and about before. People cross the street to avoid them, but they exist.

Nobody cares about marxists because even the far left wing is inherently weak and effeminate unless they can gather enough drones.

Admins should make the hashes of certain bait images bannable
Like every single image that turkish shitposter has saved

Because far-left and far-right advocate violence. Seriously, real Commie own and are prepared to use guns, don't confuse liberals for them. Same with real Fascists. Your just confusing a bunch of shitty centrists with the real deal.

He is playing 5D chess

Extremists have a much easier time dehumanizing people who aren't within their group's ideology. This lends itself to murder and violence. Like those two psychopaths who massacred policemen because of BLM or those terrorists who blew up a concert or that kid who shot up a church.

It's easier to kill when your victims are just nameless, faceless, emotionless "enemies". Fanatics tend to believe that anyone who doesn't believe what they do simply believe the polar opposite. I'm reminded of the one terrorist attacking a mall in kenya who was disturbed when a British toddler called him a "bad man".

OP what's wrong with National Socialism?

people hate extremes

Again, coming from someone from here, I can see how you'd say them as "far left".

The "far left" would answer to you that the government is openly run by fascists and savage capitalists, and that therefore the far-right as also acceptable to the mainstream.

Both sides are acting like hyperbolic faggots.

I don't know what's worse neo-nazis and fascists or tankies.

Historically speaking they aren't, only after WW2 and 1989 when everything in the world became some shade of bland, spiritually empty liberal democracy.

>totenkopf is facing the wrong direction

REEEEE

Cry to your poets you faggot romanticist cuck

And what makes you think that the system that you propose is going to be any better? Obviously you have an issue with the global capitalist system, so what makes you think though if we put people like you in charge that everything is going to be better in the long run. I take it you don't believe in Utopias or that the system that you advicate for will be perfect, but why should the public fall for a different alternative or think that the different alternative will be any better than what we have right now? I'm genuinely curious, because I don't think most people even those that want to see a radical change in society would be in favor with what /pol/ has to offer for solutions.

far-left politics isn't really scorned, people openly lobby to discriminate against men and white people for not being "diverse" enough

>attacking the poster for no reason at all

That's not far left, that's just cuckoldry.

Who gets to define what the "moderate centrist" position is? Those generally in power. Fact of the matter is the current system prevailing in most of the world of constitutional elected governments coupled with a capitalist economy was once considered to be "radical" and dangerous.

fpbp

I'm an angry person

Because most of the populous isn't ideologically inclined beyond the most rudimentary of things, usually things that personally affect their life/livelihoods. Therefore anything "far" outside of the basic status quo is seen as either too radical or too ideologically intricate for most people to agree in either direction of the political spectrum, let alone tolerate a vocal minority that's stirring the pot.

The fact that the "status quo" in America and Europe as portrayed by the mainstream media is pretty radically inclined to be slanderous identity politics is just a sad irony of the current joke of a political/financial status quo in western globalized governments

Not him, but as the global capitalist system we have right now starts to break apart (through climate change, resource exhaustion, automation, an aging society, government failures, etc.) society must find an alternative if it wants to continue existing. Ideally, it's not so much about changing what we have now to try and achieve a perfect system, but instead about considering the future while we still have time to research and test in a peaceful, stable era.

The problem with the alternative ideologies we're dealing with now (particularly from the loudest portions of the Internet) is they don't address actual problems. How will white nationalism ensure people are employed and cared for? How will libertarianism stop sea levels from rising? How can socialism function with such a large world population? These alternate systems are ways to structure society, but the current structure of society isn't a problem, despite loud people on the internet saying it is. What's really the problem is the structure of the capitalist economy and how it continues to degrade our current dignity and our future well-being. Only by restructuring the economy can you address the issues that will matter most in the 21st century.

You mean butthurt person.

>Because most of the populous isn't ideologically inclined beyond the most rudimentary of things, usually things that personally affect their life
Wrong, most of the populous believe in extremely radical notions like constitutional government, voting, elected officials, separation of church and state, freedom of religion, a high degreem of freedom in commerce, and the legality of interest-lending. Average joe today is a total extremist.

It helps that both far-left and far-right movements in the public's eye are associated with Stalin and Hitler respectively. People are suspicious of extremist politics, and rightfully so.

Do I really need to point out the blatantly obvious fact that American families have taken every single thing you just listed as extremist for granted now and for about a hundred years? Yeah, we've had civil rights movements and discourse over those ideas over the course of our existence as a nation, but by large, Americans have not seen any of those things as being an extreme ideological perspective, hence the dilemma OP proposed initially. Americans, especially today, see their constitutional rights as a given and hardly go around comparing the finer points of American idealism or exceptionalism to other nations' systems of government. In fact, the ideals and rights you listed are so much a part of the status quo that any nation that doesn't accept such personal liberties and human rights as being extremists and radical outliers; ie: North Korea, Iran, ISIL, Venezuela, etc. (1/2)

(2/2)

American people take these things SO for granted as a status quo that when things like the Bush-era patriot act, homeland security, fast and furious programs, Obama'she TARP wallstreet bailouts, usage of the antiquated and unconstitutional espionage act on whistle blowers of the highly unconstitutional NSA data dragnets, abuses of the drone program & JSOC as the executive branch's & intelligence community's personal global strike force/death squads with little to zero congressional oversights or declaration of war, or the extrajudicial executions of U.S. citizens and their families, Reagan-Bush 41-Clinton drug & arms smuggling scandals, the war on drugs, the fact that the 1913 federal reserve bill totally fucked our country's control over our money and the potential that the 16th Amendment wasnt even ratified by the requisite number of states necessary to impose an income tax, and countless other fucking stupid things that have happened, the average American or westerner has taken your list of extreme ideals so for granted that most are totally oblivious to the slow, steady, and unrelenting degradation and erosion of our rights.

When the USA was first created and for the following 80 or so years post-1776 of our existence, we were a radical country of idealistic extremists. But to say that of us now is a joke.

This. Communism practically runs this world.

No it definitely does not.

I wish it was but hell no

While on the topic of centrism, maybe one of you can explain this to me: what actually is centrism?

If right wing/conservatism means staying still or conserving the status quo, and left wing politics correlates to changing or 'progressing' from the status quo, then where does centrism fall into the picture?

If not staying still, nor going back nor forth - then what, where, how? Is it more like taking a step back and forwards at the same time?

>civil rights destroyed authoritarianism
>What did he mean by this?
You clearly got the gist of what I said so I don't understand the confusion.
Naked authoritarianism is untenable in a society with a strong conception of civil rights. If the people of a society believe the citizens of that society hold inherent rights they will not tolerate those rights being violated. Therefore the civil rights movement delegitimized the authoritarian far right as a political movement in the eyes of the public as it invalidated the idea that there exist a class of people who do not deserve the rights granted in a civil society.

There's no need to get butthurt and start thrashing about shrieking about /pol/.

Whatever is within the Overton window. Sometimes they are political Ignavi, radical centrists or golden means compromisers (pic related)

If that is true, then I suppose that they are better characterised as 'moderate progressives'.

I don't think i can agree with that label. Centrists generally want to preserve status quo, or would only changes if it ensures the longevity of the status quo. Genuine progressives (or reformers) want to push the Overton window to them, to make their views and policies the status quo.

Maybe faux-progressive/conservative?

Because of tv cunts like her

So you believe that instead of characterising them as moderately progressive, you instead think of them as being conservatives who will concede some change for a net gain in keeping policies as they are?

That is to say that their goal is conservatism, but the means can be progressive?

>the far left has gone mainstream though
I didn't see any leninist marches on the street from where i'm.
And shit like redistributing land, or nationalisation of some industry or massive confiscation of wealth(and i mean true confiscation, not "the taxes are high") or whatever, which were popular in moderate socialism a century ago, would brand you a radical today.
Even in the EU parliament, which is more leftist than the average, the far-left is some minority sitting in the corner, agglutinated with rad-greens.

>who will concede some change for a net gain in keeping policies as they are?
Sure. One good example is Bismark creating the welfare state to starve off momentum of the rise of the social democrats in Germany

What kind of world do you live in? Shit's as capitalistic as it comes.

Except it has. Look no further than voting rights for women and Civil Rights.

This
Can you believe that peasants are allowed to leave their village without permission?

Progressivism and Conservatism (yesterdays progressivism) are just two different rates of change. Centrism is in the middle.

Conservative is a misnomer. Modern conservatives don't want to "conserve" the status-quo. They want to utterly destroy it and roll back society 70 years in the past.

Because the extremes tend to see issues in black and white, not unlike a child. The world is one big blanket of grey on most issues with both conservatives and liberals having valid arguments. There are some universal truths, but the reality is most things liberals and conservatives disagree on have a nugget of truth on either side. If you can't see validity in at least some of the other side's claims, you're a brainlet pseud. Extremists are fucking cancer and are more prone to violence because of their childish view of the world. Fuck em.

t.Too autistic to get a joke.

The problem is that there are a shit ton of people who legitimately believe that.

Because modern society and the general public is weak and effeminate for radical change. They have become coddled children that are too "triggered" and scared of so called "extremism" Better than being a cuck and a whiny libtard that needs a safe space. I bet this OP is a whiny faggot cuck that's scared of anything "extreme".

Such black and white thinking.

Says the le ebin redpilled redditor from the comfort and safety of his computer chair and air conditioned home.

I've learned more spending time on Reddit than going to university run by triggered tumblerinas.

Die in a fire, Reddit

I really hope you're fishing for (you)'s. Either way you need to leave because you bring nothing of value to this board or site as a whole. Unironically kill yourself.

I don't care if this violates the First Amendment, but there needs to be law that bans the unironic use of the word "redpill" because you stormfags are not "redpilled".

Please go back to the_Cuckald.

>global capitalism
>far-left
Veeky Forums political discourse standards sure dropped low

Strongly consider suicide

>Hollywood is far left

The endless glut of gung-ho action movies featuring a white guy with a gun saving the day sure does smack of far-left propaganda I tell you what.

The left worships cuckoldry, you people literally want to import a billion "refugees"

Why do anti white leftypol shills want a safespace?

A billion refugees created by a senseless string of conflicts in the middle east by right wingers.

The average American's beliefs today would be considered extreme just a few decades ago, and the conservatives who are now considered problematic Nazis would be considered moderate.

Ah yes, The Arab Spring was created by those evil Right-wingers

>a string of conflicts instigated by Western and Eastern leftists are now conviently right wing now

Kill yourself, leftypol shill

>created by right wingers

Oversimplifying things like this lends no credence to your intellectual capability, stop Infantilising things this way, just because you do not understand politics does not mean no one else does.

Aren't you getting tired of being banned and having your /pol/tier thread deleted?

Don't worry. I was merely responding to an oversimplification with an oversimplification.

Why do you leftist pussies want a safespace?

We don't. I can't stand leftists.

>Hitler
>far right

>If a movie depicts a white man doing something proactive it can't be leftist

Leftism totally isn't anti-white though right leftypol?

Because both go against the status quo.