Rite wring talk points

My insight personally on right wing talking point things can be found here and with me as an example I touch on political purity tests here

If you think supporting the police or not voting Democrat makes you a conservative who just wants to bait a reaction maybe it's time for you to touch grass, too.

Some sects of Liberal 2.0ers and Democrats will believe everything is wonderful , since they never hear anything bad, and will dismiss factual reports of bad things because it's coming from "the other side". 

Opinions that deviate from the corporatized leftist norm of Liberalism 2.0 are shunned, and the people who express them often find themselves alone amongst other leftists, or even thrust into the arms of the centre or right. Woke and woke-adjacent people have become gatekeepers that essentially do everything they can to make you believe you are actually a right-winger or centrist, and it took me a degree of self-confidence to realise this was blatant gaslighting

If a leftist or liberal 2.0er having a few 'right wing talking points' or more make them right wing, what if a right wingers has a few 'left wing talking points' and or 'liberal 2.0 talking points' or more? Does that make them 'left wing' or 'liberal 2.0'?

So if people like Glenn Greenwald,  Tulsi Gabbard,  are 'right wing' then by that same metric these people are 'liberal 2.0' or 'left wing':

Bulwark, Jennifer Rubin, Max Boot, Niki Kristoff, Ann Coulter, David A French, Bill Kristol, Nicolle Wallace, Doug Elmets, Lincoln Project, SE Cupp, Alyssa Farrah Griffth, Glenn Beck, Meghan McCain, Kevin Williamson, David Frum, David Brooks, Jonah Goldberg, Ronald Lauder, Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney, Mike Pence, Chris Christie, Larry Hogan, Chris Sanununu, George Santos, Ron Desantis, GWB, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Jeff Flake, Lisa Murkowski, Jon Kasich, Nikki Haley, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Michael Cohen  (and more here)

Great insight on such matters can be found from themajorityreport subreddit

I wonder how the whole 'right wing talking points' narrative by liberal 2.0ers and leftists jives with the Fishhook Theory, Double Fishook Theory, Triangulation, Radical Centrism/Militant Moderatism 

This provides good insight into 'right wing talking points' and this is an expected counter to that

This also is a great read on this right wing talking point thing

The reason so many serious arguments are dismissed as "right-wing talking points" is that the people who literally write the Liberal 2.0 LEFT talking points run the media.  (Wilfred Reilly twitter)

Some liberal 1.0ers/old school leftists I've seen online have been wrongly branded a conservative because they hold a few conservative positions (mainly to do with wokeism) and yet such people have only ever voted green or lib left, and hold a majority of more left views (e.g. taxation, social welfare, minimum wage, workers' rights, family, guns, etc, views which I myself also hold).

If you agree with a wokey on 99/100 issues, the one issue you disagree with makes you alt right in their small minds. JP

That is 100% the biggest problem with the liberal 2.0 and I guess the left also. The second someone steps out of line they wrongly and falsely smear them as a far right fascist. It's braindead behavior. I am very left wing if not far left on most things. It doesn't help anyone to call me a nazi or bigot, it doesn't bring unity, it doesn't help your cause, it pushes me away from it. And most reasonable people by far are like me.

Only people like The Five (Fox News) and the non right wing guests of Tucker Carlson (Glenn Greenwald, Jimmy Dore etc) are only allowed to tell the truth because they want to demonize the truth. The truth is just "fox news talking points" now. See here for more

The term 'right-wing talking points' is overused by Liberal 2.0ers and some leftists

It's only ever used to shutdown leftists and to a lesser extent progressives making critiques of liberal 2.0ers from the left.. The right wing does not own talking points , especially when they're legitimate

It’s not that right wing talking points don’t exist; right wing think tanks put out lists of issues and current events that they think the right wing should be talking about, and right wing pundits pick those up (you think rightist Tomi Lahren is capable of coming up with any original ideas of her own?).

However, those talking points are never “Criticize Democrats for not being left enough.” Liberal 2.0ers just got so accustomed to criticism of proto liberalism 2.0/liberalism 2.0 always coming from the right wing and further right that they assume left-wing (and progressive) criticism of liberalism 2.0 must come from the same place. It’s also this irritatingly smug attitude that people of other political persuasions get duped by misinformation campaigns (the left are spinning talking points that were fed to them by the right, the right is fooled by Russian fake news), but they think they never get duped themselves.

This reddit thread also touches on (and expands upon) this issue and I generally agree with a lot to the vast majority of points in that thread

It is stupid dumb and crazy to label life long liberals as 'fascist right wingers' because they believe in biology, free speech, and equal opportunity. Crazy times. See here for some similar points jbp  (in the online trans communities trans people and their allies tend to label anti trans people as 'fascist'. It's sort of cute in a tumblr sort of way and understandable that they use such language for anti trans people)

I support free speech and equal opportunity and I am a leftist. Those are very good things.

I didn’t perceive a difference a decade ago not because i was against anything but it just wasn’t something mainstream that people talked or thought about. (Broad strokes here clearly)

Sex and gender always were synonymous…up until not too long ago

But after the woke revolution I can see and respect the difference between biological sex and self identified gender as I mentioned throughout the sex, gender and LGBTQ sections of my blog

I wish the trans movement would have made up a new word instead of commandeering the word “gender” for their own use. I don’t think an argument would have even been made if they made up a new word because it’s pretty obvious that certain people feel differently than their biological sex on the inside.

"If that free speech issue is that you like to call marginalized people slurs. Sure you are a conservative. Yet Jordan Peterson is a pretty big transphobic ignoramus, so that is another belief that officially makes a person conservative."   a Liberal 2.0er replying to above 'life long liberals now called fascist right wingers' point above

My reply to said Liberal 2.0ers is A person who posts this quoted bolded rhetoric above proves my point.

"Peterson is a pretty big transphobic ignoramus so that is another belief that officially makes you conservative.

So someone with such views is 'conservative' because of one issue. A single issue. You couldn't make it up.

We've learned in the past couple years why terms left /liberal and right are not just useless labels, they are harmful ones, especially in the way people generalize their opinions (like in Canada) yet the political landscape and meaning of left liberal and right has drastically changed as noted above

We got to stop talking in left liberal and right. It doesn't mean dung and anyone that uses these terms broadly looks like a decendent today.

Why is it the media can define peoples political views as 'right wing' or 'full of right wing talking points' etc but a person can define their own gender?

Some online omniliberal seeking the truth "If someone is temperamentally a centrist but spends all their time doing right wing media, engaging in and aligning to the right wing discourse and publishing pieces about why the liberals and leftists are bad and are leading the world to hell… then like why would his assessment of his temperament make any difference as to him being a conservative public figure? Do we consider the temperaments of other partisan media figures and content creators before categorizing them?"

My ideology is out there like JP. At least for me, I can speak against fake left (liberal 2.0ers) because most people on the right currently agrees that ethno nationalism is bad and they don't support white supremacists. The liberal 2.0ers supports EVERY liberal 2.0 position for the sake of protecting the tribe. That's why in current environment, speaking against woke liberalism 2.0 is more important. If we see the right shift towards ethno nationalism or religious state, I will fight them more (if possible) as well.

You can read more good points on this here

I really want to be wrong on this because its very disheartening. But anytime I see a socialist in person or online it seems like most of them hold some unique but out there view on how everyone is a corporate shill (which they might be but I digress) or a hoax or their party is just perfect or some conspiracy about the other side or any number of things that appear absolutely weird to me. The right wing are as far from perfect as someone falling through a black hole from the perspective of an observer, the right wing for example are cringy, annoying, etc. but I at least don't find most of the mainstream ones to be that batshit crazy (to an extent)

Every time I see a socialist if they have an opinion that isn't supported by facts, its not that they are wrong but the facts are "PR from big corporations" or "right wing talking points" or whatever.

The "rightoid talking points" that are more common now are largely the result of idpol becoming so ubiquitous that people are unwilling to accept "its just a distraction bro, its all a culture war, stop fighting it, ignore it and they'll go away" as an excuse anymore. The normies know what idpol is these days, its no longer a niche arguement between different flavours of young leftists its the overwhelming way that politics is conducted.

But this thread provides some good thought on that

More good points on this type of matter here (like here, archived here)