Since the left is solidifying is overwhelming cultural dominance...

Neo-traditionalism

SHALAY MY BROTHER IN FAITH

Yes, and it will be polytheistic

>I subscribe to the ancient beliefs of paganism

What does Power want? No Skepticism, no Irony, no speculations on what might be, or might have been. Everything is a potential threat, everyone a potential opponent, whether or not they are a citizen/client a particular Power controls first hand. Fantasy, Science Fiction, Alternate Histories, Allegories, Satires, Fables, and all their ilk will be forbidden. Unauthorized Biography, Expose, Sarcasm, and even extended Puns will land you in Jail. If you want to see "The Future of Literature in The West", think "A Tourist Guide to Torquay" produced ad infinitum. Cook Books, however, may flourish...

only leftists think the left doesn't have cultural dominance
that being said, it is not solidifying it

Do they seriously think the left is the underdog in cultural matters? That it's just a coincidence that there's no right-wing equivalent of John Oliver, Stephen Colbert and Trevor Noah?

Saying "those guys just aren't leftist enough' is a luxury that only those with cultural dominance can have

Politically conservative aren't even in the conversation, to be completely honest. Alt right is just the dying spasm of conservatism as it disintegrates into the nationalism, ignorance, and toxic pathology that always was its source. In 20 years it won't exist. The spectrum will shift towards centrism on on side and small scale agrarian socialism on the other. We are at the beginning of the post industrial revolution; and the financial fortresses of conservativism that are holding back the free flow of information are already rotting and about to collapse.

Even if Trump wins, it will only accelerate this process.

I wish I could be as delusional as you

the right (in its correct form) is the philosophy that is in line with entropy and has prescriptions that flow with it. The left is a dreamy, poetic flight of fancy that is using all the energy it can to stop the flow of reality. Right now we are in a swirling eddy that appears to flow int he opposite direction.

bro the future is gonna hold you down and fuck you

I like both of your posts. Let's get a conversation going boys.

>the right (in its correct form) is the philosophy that is in line with entropy and has prescriptions that flow with it. The left is a dreamy, poetic flight of fancy that is using all the energy it can to stop the flow of reality

>leftists think they're anything other than the establishment
jesus christ

Yep, the politburo controlling the economy is full of them.

No, because the right isn't creative. Dos Passos was the last truly creative right-wing writer. Everything since has been "sad puppy" sci-fi shit.

It's impossible to be this delusional. Bill O'reilly, Alex Jones, Breitbart, there are plenty of right wing media outlets. Why is the Right always triggered, always trying to be victimized?

A Hillary Clinton win will end American conservatism or at least relegate it to a tiny fringe. Mainstream American conservatism will become European style, where the "right wing nutjobs" are just people who don't want teachers to get 8 months paid vacation every two years.
Conservatism will not flourish because it is principally founded on anger and people would much rather be happy than angry, even if the anger is correct and the dream is false. Besides, even anger on the left is much more self righteous and gratifying.
It's much easier to get mad over simple things like a cop shooting a black guy that is already shooting at them than it is to get mad over something as complex as foreign or fiscal policy.

>ainstream American conservatism will become European style, where the "right wing nutjobs" are just people who don't want teachers to get 8 months paid vacation every two years.
Have you paid any attention to Europe the last 5 years?

>We don't call it the left unless we dissect it. We just call it "those cool things we're expected to believe."
It's not the left at all though. The dominant cultural ideology would be called centrism on the political axis and is so prevalent that it's not even considered an ideology. It's mostly a mish-mash of free-trade capitalism and enlightenment values of liberalism and egalitarianism. Both the left and the right will refer to this dominant ideology for legitimacy.

>Why is everyone losing their minds over the non-controversial assertion that the left has cultural power?
Both the left and the right have power but neither are dominant.

Ideology, in its most common use, refers to things related to someone's preferred structuring of society. Eating chocolate pudding is not ideologica

Leftists have a stake in redefining the word to mean "everything lol" because they want to de-legitimize neutral, non-political behaviors that for some reason or another stand in the way of their preferred political order.

Ironically enough, the left's definition of ideology as "everything lol" is itself completely ideological!

I think people are starting to see how the left sets the narrative. If you're against gay marriage that means you hate gays, if you're against immigration at all then that means your a racist that hates brown people, if you don't support BLM then obviously you want to see innocent people get shot by police, if you're against abortion then that means you hate freedom and choice, if you're against welfare or the government redistribution of wealth that your obviously a greedy fatcat who hates the poor. To them there couldn't possible be other valid viewpoints or solutions to these problems and you're an evil person for thinking there is. We're already seeing the backlash of this with Trump having so much support, and if the left continues to bully conservatives things are only going to get worse for them.

>neutral, non-political behaviors

>every single behavior relates to the actor's preferred ordering of society
this is factually incorrect

Convince a leftist, with a simple but well reasoned argument, of the alternative to one of the points you brought up.

For example, I have never heard a convincing argument against gay marriage.

>People use memes
>Therefore the left is dominant
sighing pretty hard lad. The right has it's own gaggle of memes, "Unamerican", "Socialist" "Unchristian" and more recently "cuck"

The fact that the left and the right shit all over each other is irrelevant to the dominant ideology, which is unchallenged and unphased by either left or right.

>any actions are unrelated to the present material conditions that the actor lives under
this is factually incorrect

Browse a thread or two here, guy. The frogposters DO hate women, gays and immigrants. They're not expressing reasonable points of dissent, it's pure kkk meme magic. The right destroy and suppress culture, they don't contribute to it.

>I have never heard a convincing argument against gay marriage.

If you allow gay marriage you legally have to allow gay adoption. Gay couples are less likely to be monogamous, they're more likely to do drugs, commit domestic violence, and gays are more likely to molest children. We just don't know the psychological and developmental ramifications of raising children in same sex households even if the couple is perfectly well adjusted. Children that have the sort of fire and ice that is the typical male and female parents usually turn out better in life when compared to broken homes. It is dangerous to open this demographic up to adoption, at the very least there needs to be more research done on this because once you let it happen you can't take it back.

Also there's the simple question of sexual morality that deserves a response. If your sexual morality ends with two adults consenting then why shouldn't incest and bestiality be legal? The common argument for not allowing incest is that it might cause genetics freaks for children. This reasoning isn't valid because it says nothing to women that use contraceptives, have their tubes tied, nor does it say anything to father and son relationships. As for bestiality I think a convincing argument can be made that animals can consent and enjoy the practice. If incest and bestiality are not okay to you then how do you justify the morality of gay sex?

Marriage doesn't need to exist as an institution if it's just two people who enjoy each other's company. If you want to be lovers, fine, but that's not what marriage is for. Even straight marriage has lost sight of the very socially useful roots of the institution, and now we have 50% divorce. The whole gay marriage push is part of a large shift into consumerism, where marriage is just another consumer choice

theamericanconservative.com/2014/01/29/corporatism-and-gay-marriage-natural-bedfellows/

Also children from gay families are massvely over-represented in terms of havign social problem (abusive relationships, drug abuse, suicide, mental health)

I sincerely hope humanity is destroyed soon. Preferably shortly after I die of old age

have u ever left ur room

"context" or "assumptions" is different from "ideology".

There's a reason why we have different words for these concepts

>Browse a thread or two here, guy.
LOL

These memes aren't as present or forceful in culturally powerful institution. Check out the NYT opinion section, or any late night show.

>If you allow gay marriage you legally have to allow gay adoption. Gay couples are less likely to be monogamous, they're more likely to do drugs, commit domestic violence, and gays are more likely to molest children.
With proper vetting I don't see the harm. It's better than growing up a ward of the state.

>If your sexual morality ends with two adults consenting then why shouldn't incest and bestiality be legal?
There's nothing wrong with incest as long as there are no children birthed, and Animals most certainly can't give consent.

>how do you justify the morality of gay sex?
I don't even see what there is to be justified.

>There's nothing wrong with incest as long as there are no children birthed, and Animals most certainly can't give consent.

Thanks for being honest. I'll sometimes get accused of committing a slippery slope fallacy when I say that allowing gay marriage will lead to the legalization and normalization of incest and bestiality.

we weren't talking about "ideology"

We were talking about "political" which means the same thing for our purposes

no it doesn't

in this conversation, that's the public definition of the word. Substituting your private definition is retarded because that's not how definitions work you retard

>These memes aren't as present or forceful in culturally powerful institution.
Christianity, various military association, the myriad of right wing media establishments, the list goes on.

Neither left nor right have hegemony, almost by definition. What is dominant is centrism, again almost by definition. Cultural values that are so ubiquitous that they are not controversial and are often taken as axiomatic.

You faggots, both left and right, are so caught up in your bullshit culture war that you can't take a step back for even a second.

Leftists bitch about muh racist patriarchy controlling the world and rightists bitch about muh politically correct "cathedral" controlling the world. Neither are correct.

>the dominant is centrism
there's no such thing as an objective centrism, you retard

I love you Anand

What makes you think postmodernism is counter culture? I mean not even in the way you describe it or think of it. It's only counter culture in the sense those within a culture aren't perhaps used to the idea.

And what makes postmodernism inherently left? Is the right inherently opposed to postmodernism?

Or maybe, right and left is a really stupid fucking dichotomy only brought up for the sake of shit flinging on Veeky Forums

This

>there's no such thing as an objective centrism,
There's no such thing as objective leftism or rightism either, you fucking retard. It varies.

>that's
what?
>Substituting your private definition is retarded because that's not how definitions work you retard
I'm doing no such thing.

>I think people are starting to see how the left sets the narrative. If you're against gay marriage that means you hate gays, if you're against immigration at all then that means your a racist that hates brown people, if you don't support BLM then obviously you want to see innocent people get shot by police, if you're against abortion then that means you hate freedom and choice, if you're against welfare or the government redistribution of wealth that your obviously a greedy fatcat who hates the poor.

Okay, let's unpack this a little bit.
If you're against gay marriage, you're NOT an ally of LGBTQ.

If you're anti-immigration you're not an ally of immigrants.

If you don't support BLM in no reasonable universe can you be called an ally of black people.

If you don't at least tolerate choice you're not an ally of female agency.

If you're against welfare, you SPITE the poor.

Your ideas don't exist in a vacuum. Your actions and attitudes contribute to a climate of hostility toward those who are being oppressed.

If you aren't part of the solution. You are part of the problem.

You are part of THEIR problem.
They have to protect themselves from you.

Your splooge your ideas about them all over Veeky Forums like it is all some free flow narrative that exists in the private and insulated reality of your mind, but every wrong perception, every naive assumption manifests itself into a material reality that actively oppresses, hurts, and kills those who are outside the small circle of the privileged, whitewashed illusion you call a worldview.

They finally realized that it's a very effective way to get followers and sympathy.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

I wish people complaining about an abstract evil "leftism" would define what that is, and analyse it in a historical, economic and genealogical manner. Otherwise it's just on the level of ranting at boogeymen.

>I want to hold prejudiced beliefs, but I don't want to be called prejudiced. What do.

Dude, Colbert. The lamestream media. And like academies.

Politics is almost never about things that aren't boogeymen. It really only matters how well you can convince people of your boogeymen

This is like when in "unpopular opinions" threads on /b/ people claim things like "feminism is bad", "immigrants should be deported" or "low iq people should be sterilized".

Like if this were not what every fucking moron thinks and supports.

Like if left had the cultural dominance.

I think that's the key point of right-wing, muh special snowflakes when in fact they are just defending the dominant cultural ideology (and somehow they will try to defend that it's imposed by cultural minorities, not by ruling class).

It's like magic, or as our best friend would say ideology as its purest.

concern about prejudice, in your narrow sense, is a left-wing thing. So yeah, you demonstrated his point

You are essentially crying about being called prejudiced or, at best, indifferent to marginalized groups, despite holding beliefs that, even if you don't consider yourself racist and sexist (and let's be real, you're right-wing and on Veeky Forums), still indict you on the grounds of supporting societal systems of oppression. I know your persecution complex will kick in once you read this but YES you are the enemy. :^)

"an a priori belief in human equality" is an easy and rigorous way to define it

[Citation needed] for the 'facts' you stated regarding gay couples.

I also don't see the relevance of the comparison to incest. As far as I know incest occurs very seldom, if at all, in the animal kingdom, whereas animals are often founding gaying it up in the wild. Mankind's aversion to incest is clearly a strong cultural legacy, (the roots of which I'm sure I don't have to go into) the fact that the taboo can be found existing independently in cultures all over the world is a testament to the strength of said legacy.

Bestiality is a whole other kettle of sexy fuckable fish though.

even if he's wrong, you're still clearly coming at this from a dominant left-wing standpoint

You just don't see it because it's so fashionable. Fish don't perceive the water they swim in

>dominant left wing view point

Is this the birth of an epic new meme?

So Hobbes is a leftist? St. Paul too? What a retarded definition.

>you have to allow adoption
Or you could just not and then your point is moot

If being prejudiced or holding beliefs that support prejudice isn't s concern, then what use is his "point" to begin with? If you don't care then it shouldn't matter to you if you are labeled as a racist since those categories only matter if you're left-wing. In what sense is that conception of prejudice narrow, anyways? If the status quo is oppressive and you do nothing to change it (and likely benefit from it), how is that any different?

>""""left wing"""""
>"""""right wing"""""

For the love of all things holy just shut the fuck up and post on /pol/ not Veeky Forums

Veeky Forums is the place where people 'ironically' joke about supporting the dominant cultural ideology over and over until the memes take hold of their minds and the 'joke' bigotry becomes reality, turns inward upon itself and metastasizes into victim mentality that lashes out against everything 'unironic'.

All of Christendom is leftist?

Terms like "left" and "right" are ultimately only definable as aesthetics not as consistent movements

There's other measures of social well-being that don't boil down to levels of prejudice

You just aren't aware of them because left-wing ideology is so dominant

>dominant left wing ideology

Is this the birth of an epic new meme?

I'm not talking about "equality in the eyes of God"

I am talking about an a priori belief that all humans and groups have equal capacities, barring some sinister conspiracy (patriarchy, white supremacy etc)

They're useful terms because of their baggage

>Left-wing ideology is dominant and you don't recognise this because left-wing ideology is dominant

This is a circular line of argumentation.

I'm against most immigration because I think there are better solutions to helping these people. In the case of refugees I think it would be more efficient to create a safe zone in Syria where these people can live with their own. By bringing them into the western world we're setting them up for failure because many of them don't speak the language and they bring with them radically different cultures that will make them social pariahs which will build resentment from both sides. It's very hard for them to find a job and create a living so they're forced to rely on the government. That's not a recipe for happiness and prosperity. As for me being against other immigration from the third world I subscribe to this theory of "brain drain". The people that make it to America are typically the best and most motivated of them all, they are precisely the type of people that would normally become agents of change and improvement in their own country. I want their own country to become so nice that they don't need to come to America to be happy. Taking in their best people works against that goal.

After reading this can you really say that I'm against immigration because I hate brown people?

>im not talking about in the eyes of God
Why not? That's literally a priori equality

Except that's not something that describes leftism at all.

That isn't what I told you to do was it? I told you to leave Veeky Forums. So, why haven't you left?

>I'm not talking about "equality in the eyes of God"

But this is where equality as a concept originated from.

>I am talking about an a priori belief that all humans and groups have equal capacities

By that strawman definition no-one is a leftist.

>bringing them
we're not bringing them

The argument for marriage is that government instituted marriage affords some people rights that gay people don't have access to (thus inequality) so how would you justify not giving two married people the right to adopt?

Not him but most people tend not to put so much thought into a situation and everyone tends to generalize.
Of course, there are also plenty of leftists against current immigration paradigms

No it isn't, I never say left-wing ideology is dominant *because* you don't recognize it.

I say right-wing ideology is dominant. You don't realise this because fish don't perceive the water they swim in.

I was never trying to prove anything in that post itself. I was just making an observation

>no it isn't

Yes it actually is. You are not defining what dominance is or arguing as to what dominance is. When you have to get into specifics you clam up and just repeat its "dominant".

Stop making these threads and leave Veeky Forums now

Alt-right guys are the hippies of today. Contrarian idiots looked down upon by nearly everyone, whose ideas will become mainstream sooner or later

So you weren't trying to make an argument, just saying something unprovable to make yourself feel good. OK.

Holy..... I want more

Yeah, like hippies, they're college dropouts...except they didn't become artists, poets, entrepreneurs, and visionaries. They sat in basements, they watched TV, they played video games and they browsed anime message boards.

Hippy ideas never became mainstream. They all joined investment banks.

>memes aren't art