Neutral cltr wa

 

i don't really care if leftists and lean leftists who disagree with Liberal 2.0ers and or Democrats move to be right or left wing idpol. Both negative extremes can be easily identified by me, but also to be made pointless

When true stakes start to return, when clear lines are drawn in the sand and class consciousness is felt once again, all of this fake nonsense will fade away

My suggestion is to quit caring about as much of day-to-day politics as much as we are able to (like I was in the 1980s, 1990s, and most of the 2000s decade and early 2010s). its all a freaking show created to make you and me pick a side. to hell with that, keep our eyes on the prize

Socialism/left-wing economics does not necessarily require hyper-liberal sociocultural progressivism/liberalism. The latter ideology sours people from class unity or anything like it, that’s the reason that it’s vital for me to take a sort of a middle ground stance, that’s the method to “win” the culture war. 

I mean even the renowned socialist states would be considered “socially conservative” by Leftists and most Liberal 2.0ers today

As leftists, we should promote some kind of sociocultural normalcy which is tolerant/liberal 2.0 yet opposed to hardcore things (I.e. gender ideology that is more radlib/leftist than my gender ideology in these blogs/kids becoming Transgender except how I write in these blogs, racializing and sexualizing young people and some other things)

This 'latter ideology sours people from class unity' could be solved by our society returning to adhering to the NAP and by making our society become more pro privacy (like keeping ones private life private /irony) .Whatever you think of this sentiment, this is a sentiment the majority of normal people agree with nearly intuitively.

Of course it’s not that simple due to the fact that there are material reasons for the atrophy of privacy desire which includes the decay of geographically-centered community and the longing to seek interest-centered community in virtual spaces, the financial necessity to commodify the self, the necessity to differentiate a person's self from peers in the hypercompetitive overcrowded bottom echelons of the elite, etc. But it yeah would be neat.)

I'd go as far to say that culture war isn't really separable from class war, and the issue is just what is or isn't meaningful, not that a cultural relation that is not being directly about economic exploitation renders it irrelevant

I do view furry culture as a bit um, decadent but when push comes to shove it doesn't matter if some weirdies choose to put up fursuits and 'do what they do on the Discovery Channel' with each other on the weekends just as long as they don't sabotage the left wing economic movements along the way.

Though I might have gone too far with the "I do view furry culture as a bit um, decadent but when push comes to shove it doesn't matter if some weirdies choose to put up fursuits and 'do what they do on the Discovery Channel' with each other on the weekends just as long as they don't sabotage the left wing economic movements along the way." point I just made

If these things don't matter, we have to realize that there is a big distinction between what people do in private and what they do in public. That they are doing such furry stuff in public is, inherently, sabotage.

Anyway, the pushing of "tolerance" at its best means a never-ending churn of new things that are to be tolerated, and this consistently comes at the expense of relevant action. 

This would be bad enough when times are at their best, but under the conditions in which specific significant groups of society - like whites, Christians etc- are singled out as bad, and are in need of repentance and being subject to radical discipline, pushing a hyper libertarian narrative for those who decline to act normal since "its oppressive" will alienate the very people you absolutely need on your side so that you can appease the ones who you don't, which, aside from any debate of right or wrong, is only strategic suicide in politics, and legit suicide in revolution.

The xs and os of toleration are never questioned either.  Simply people being told to tolerate something is seemingly fait accompli, as though by diktat. It gives off antisocial vibes

Though I may be too polite for my own good here; this blindly tolerate thing above comes across as antisocial since it very well might be antisocial

Liberal 2.0ers know they can get away with such things, and so they do it.  At times they cross the lines and get heat for it, because at the end of the day they aren't the ones in charge, they are only being used by those who are in charge - at numerous different levels for so many different reasons - but the purpose of this is explicitly due to it being disruptive

Even though I never been to Canada, I do have a Canada type tolerance, hence me being 'too polite' above.

In Canada particularly it’s impolite to be intolerant, and Canadians will tolerate anything under the banner of politeness.

There is a need to foster a particular culture which eschews "decadence" yet isn't overly an a-hole about it.

While I'd admit a naievety to this thinking directly above me, as I think there is a desire for more strict discipline to steer clear of inevitably falling into decadence, people can pretty much achieve what I say above only by cutting out PMC progressivists.

The background for why this is is that there is no  "socially neutral" position that exists, because this assumes an abstract idealized situation where we cease to be human, though instead some kind of being of pure logic without longing for things or wants, which are, by nature, shaped by our environment - of which our past and culture is a portion. 

Saying this, most workers are relatively ready and able to work with those whom they don't agree with on numerous things but only as a real truce can be had with conditions that are agreed upon by both sides, since there are bigger fish to fry. But this does not work with the wrong "universalism" imposed by progressives, that is actually only an exact expression of their own social desires, dishonestly passed off as for the good of all people and thus without the need for compromise or dialogue with any of the parties they are demanding align with them

However, your average worker will not say as much like so, but in a super instinctual way will just follow this logic, even without thinking on it, since this isn't really an ideological position, its simply the essentially "intellectualised" expression of the views more than half of workers already adhere to. So the good out of all of this is,  even though its a bit limited in how far we can get with this, we can achieve what we desire without being an a**h*le to most workers, the bad news?  We got to be expressly confrontational and mean to most PMCs