5 ms·

In 2023 counterculture is right wing but that's a hard to swallow pill for a lot

by unpopularopp 3y ago

ceejayoz 3y ago
That's only a hard pill to swallow if your premise is "counterculture = good". It isn't necessarily.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
basisword 3y ago
In what sense? The last 24 years in the US have/will be split equally between Democrat and Republican presidents. In the UK the majority of this century has been run by the Conservative party. The US Supreme Court is 'right leaning' and that's unlikely to change anytime soon. How can the right wing be the counter culture when it holds most of the power? [Obviously just looking at two countries I'm familiar with but right wing ideology has surged all over in the last decade].
- jahewson 3y ago
  > The last 24 years in the US have/will be split equally between Democrat and Republican presidents. By this logic the counterculture can’t be left-wing either.
  - basisword 3y ago
    Why does the counter culture have to be left wing or right wing? It could be centrist. Apolitical. Based around other shared beliefs outside of political differences.
    - krapp 3y ago
      Counter culture by definition counters some established cultural paradigm. It is at least critical, and at most actively hostile - but cannot by its very nature be apolitical, much less maximally accepting. Counterculture among the right would be the alt-right/white supremacist movements and QAnon, which counter mainstream conservatism. Among the left it would be actual (not the American definition of "anyone to the left of Reagan") communists, tankies, black and indigenous activism, etc. It's true that not every counterculture has to be defined, or define themselves, along the left/right axis, but given the greedy nature of that axis, it seems inevitable that any counterculture could be.
- tomjen3 3y ago
  The US right lost ground for as long as I can remember. Remember, when Clinton was president he couldn't even talk about gay marriage, now it has been legal for a decade. Sure the republicans have won elections, but would you really call Trumph conservative? This ended when they won Row vs Wade, but short of that, they lost almost every battle they engaged in. The US is less religious than ever, porn and violent video games (not to mention DnD) is available everywhere and trans people are accepted at least in some places.
  - add-sub-mul-div 3y ago
    The left has won socially and the right won economically. The rich have won a greater share of the money, while social progress for homosexuality etc. has also been won. The difference is that the poor and middle class of the right don't get to enjoy the benefits of their side's "win".
    - mindslight 3y ago
      I found some insight in your last sentence, but on examination it feels myopically specious like so much political discourse. The invocation of "left" and "right" are always put forth as some overriding distinction, but the actual dividing line for the issues in your comment is whether policies were palatable to big business, regardless of whether out of immediate financial self interest or to divide the plebs over social issues. That dynamic is kind of inevitable when you buy into someone else's battle for your own win condition. Falling for the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" dynamic was never going to result in a good outcome. But the same lack of benefits of "winning" apply to the "left" as well - the majority is still heteronormative, and so doesn't directly benefit from societal acceptance of homosexuality. So in reality the grassroots of both tribes are mostly looking at symbolic victories that don't convey direct benefits, and directing focusing on a single one is just further stirring the pot. (And yes there are definitely arguments to be made that appeal to loftier goals such as freedom etc, but those are orthogonal to discussing who actually benefited from each winning trend).
      - add-sub-mul-div 3y ago
wturner 3y ago
The billionaire right has funneled gobs of money into mirroring racist, fundamentalist, nationalistic loons as a troop rally for tax breaks downstream at the ballot box. It's only counter-cultural if you fail to see through it.
- local_crmdgeon 3y ago
  The billionaire right like Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg? The people who are the largest DNC donors? The people who are huge backers of hiring quotas, vax mandates, lockdowns? Them? Doubt.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    They said "the billionaire right", not "the billionaires". That'll be the Koch brothers, Peter Thiel, Harlan Crow, Paul Singer, etc. You'd probably count Musk in there now, too.
    - local_crmdgeon 3y ago
      That set is much smaller than the people that own the Washington Post, NY Times, etc. The DNC receives more money from Wall Street than the GOP now. Same with Tech. Believe what you want, but the Right is mostly driven by small donors now.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        The NYT isn't owned by a billionaire. Bezos largely avoids donations (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/technology/jeff-bezos-amazon-political-donation-veterans.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/technology/jeff-bezos-ama...) and "from Wall Street" isn't the same as "from billionaires". Hand-waving away right-wing billionaires as if they don't have an impact is disingenuous. As for small donors, Trump bucked the mold here a bit; it's not typically true for Republicans: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/21/gops-2022-small-dollar-fundraising-sputters-democrats-lead-grows/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/21/gops-2022... > Democrats have long relied more on small-dollar donations, and that trend continues today. Some key Republican candidates are also relying heavily on wealthy benefactors like Peter Thiel funding super PACs to support them. > One of the stories of the GOP in the Trump era was its ability to close the gap on small-dollar fundraising — a gap that has yawned again with Trump out of office, at least through these two platforms. (Not all small-dollar donations are routed through them, but they are the parties’ respective choices for facilitating such donations.) > And now comes more data, which shows that Democratic small-dollar donors — one key measure of how engaged a party’s base is — appear significantly more motivated than their GOP counterparts.
safety1st 3y ago
I don't think it's really right wing, there is an exodus of people from the Left as it becomes increasingly ideological, they may dally with the Right a bit - I think the first mention of this phenomenon was way back in 2014 by Scott Alexander as the "grey tribe" that was beginning to form: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin... But these people aren't necessarily conservatives, at least as their defining attribute, they frequently maintain liberal values after their exile from the increasingly illiberal world of the left. They very rarely turn into gun-toting and God-fearing, card-carrying Republicans. Two great examples - Tulsi Gabbard and Naomi Wolf recently doing strangely cordial interviews with Jordan Peterson, you could hardly call either of those women conservative Republicans, but they get along with him splendidly on the topic of why the Left is f*'ed up. I think the article hits the nail on the head with the line "To be truly countercultural today, in a time of tech hegemony, one has to, above all, betray the platform" - this really is the essence of it, it so happens that the mainstream platforms are pretty Left, so betraying them feels like an anti-Left thing to do, but to do so isn't necessarily Right.... it's a counter-culture going off in its own direction. The mainstream may call them Right wing as a slur to discredit them, whether they are or not.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > I don't think it's really right wing, there is an exodus of people from the Left as it becomes increasingly ideological, they may dally with the Right a bit - I think the first mention of this phenomenon was way back in 2014 by Scott Alexander as the "grey tribe" that was beginning to form: No, there isn't and a sector defined by a particular ideological position doesn’t get “more ideological”. (There might be a belated exit of lingering ideological conservatives from the Democratic Party, a historically right-wing institution, as it has stabilized as the left-most major party with its main factions center-right neoliberal and center-left progressive, but most of that happened in the 1970s-1990s.) It may also be the case that previously politically detached members of privileged groups that were well-served by the past status quo are becoming reactionarily defensive of their privileged status as it seems threatened but still identify with the privilege of being “apolitical” and with ideology being a thing other people do and they remain “above”, forming a group that is very much part of the reactionary right (with a very clear and self-focussed ideology) but identifies as “apolitical” and “non-ideological”. Which is a much better understanding of the “grey tribe”.
local_crmdgeon 3y ago
Yes. When Disney, Ratheon, the DoJ, the police, City Hall, Ford, GM, Delta, Google, Facebook and Apple support your movement, you are no longer the counterculture. It doesn't matter how hard you want to be.
wankerrific 3y ago
Yes. The movement funded by billionaires and mass marketed by social media influencing is “counterculture”.
praisewhitey 3y ago
The article addresses this
inkcapmushroom 3y ago
There's not really just one counterculture. There's still far left old school hippy counterculture out there, just minding their business and forming collectives and communes and putting good vibes out and making the expensive local tofu that's sold at the "all natural" grocery stores. The right counterculture is also there, they both just stand in contrast to different aspects of mainstream culture. Edit: another modern counterculture that's easy to identify: the Amish.
stubybubs 3y ago
The right wing has absolutely dominated culture for the last 30 years. They have however presented very successfully as counterculture by naysaying literally every attempt at progress in any direction. Every conversation we're having about social, political, or economic issues is framed by right wing grievances. Did the gay marriage battle have to be such a big deal? It was fixed by the stroke of a pen in several states before being challenged in courts federally, then we all had to hear about it on the news for years and years. Climate change. Healthcare. It goes on forever. When they finally overturned Roe v Wade they went too far. Their results from the 2022 midterms, which should have been an absolute bloodbath with GOP dominance, was one of their worst showings ever. President's party usually gets punished, rampant inflation, another war, rising interest rates, housing crisis, etc. The GOP barely managed to take the house and did slightly worse in the senate. It's because of abortion. They exposed themselves as The Man, for all time. I think maybe what true counterculture needs is risk. Something has to be at risk, either by the participants being excluded naturally from a greater system, or choosing to exclude themselves and risking their privilege. Being queer is still countercultural, because there is still significant risk to them every day. Rainbow flags at Starbucks does not mean they are "safe." They can get married, but they still find themselves excluded from a lot of traditions later in life. Young women now literally risk death from accidental pregnancy in many states. Being a vocal proponent of unionization can lose you your job. There's really nothing at stake for the right wing. Their mouthpieces fall out of fashion and go on to lucrative gigs at consulting firms, or writing books filled with grievances, or really just sitting at home because they were already obscenely wealthy. Tucker Carlson doesn't need to work ever again. Haven't heard from Ann Coulter in a while, but she's still worth tens of millions.

In 2023 counterculture is right wing but that's a hard to swallow pill for a lot

ceejayoz 3y ago

That's only a hard pill to swallow if your premise is "counterculture = good". It isn't necessarily.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

basisword 3y ago

In what sense? The last 24 years in the US have/will be split equally between Democrat and Republican presidents. In the UK the majority of this century has been run by the Conservative party. The US Supreme Court is 'right leaning' and that's unlikely to change anytime soon. How can the right wing be the counter culture when it holds most of the power? [Obviously just looking at two countries I'm familiar with but right wing ideology has surged all over in the last decade].

jahewson 3y ago
> The last 24 years in the US have/will be split equally between Democrat and Republican presidents. By this logic the counterculture can’t be left-wing either.
- basisword 3y ago
  Why does the counter culture have to be left wing or right wing? It could be centrist. Apolitical. Based around other shared beliefs outside of political differences.
  - krapp 3y ago
    Counter culture by definition counters some established cultural paradigm. It is at least critical, and at most actively hostile - but cannot by its very nature be apolitical, much less maximally accepting. Counterculture among the right would be the alt-right/white supremacist movements and QAnon, which counter mainstream conservatism. Among the left it would be actual (not the American definition of "anyone to the left of Reagan") communists, tankies, black and indigenous activism, etc. It's true that not every counterculture has to be defined, or define themselves, along the left/right axis, but given the greedy nature of that axis, it seems inevitable that any counterculture could be.
tomjen3 3y ago
The US right lost ground for as long as I can remember. Remember, when Clinton was president he couldn't even talk about gay marriage, now it has been legal for a decade. Sure the republicans have won elections, but would you really call Trumph conservative? This ended when they won Row vs Wade, but short of that, they lost almost every battle they engaged in. The US is less religious than ever, porn and violent video games (not to mention DnD) is available everywhere and trans people are accepted at least in some places.
- add-sub-mul-div 3y ago
  The left has won socially and the right won economically. The rich have won a greater share of the money, while social progress for homosexuality etc. has also been won. The difference is that the poor and middle class of the right don't get to enjoy the benefits of their side's "win".
  - mindslight 3y ago
    I found some insight in your last sentence, but on examination it feels myopically specious like so much political discourse. The invocation of "left" and "right" are always put forth as some overriding distinction, but the actual dividing line for the issues in your comment is whether policies were palatable to big business, regardless of whether out of immediate financial self interest or to divide the plebs over social issues. That dynamic is kind of inevitable when you buy into someone else's battle for your own win condition. Falling for the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" dynamic was never going to result in a good outcome. But the same lack of benefits of "winning" apply to the "left" as well - the majority is still heteronormative, and so doesn't directly benefit from societal acceptance of homosexuality. So in reality the grassroots of both tribes are mostly looking at symbolic victories that don't convey direct benefits, and directing focusing on a single one is just further stirring the pot. (And yes there are definitely arguments to be made that appeal to loftier goals such as freedom etc, but those are orthogonal to discussing who actually benefited from each winning trend).
    - add-sub-mul-div 3y ago

wturner 3y ago

The billionaire right has funneled gobs of money into mirroring racist, fundamentalist, nationalistic loons as a troop rally for tax breaks downstream at the ballot box. It's only counter-cultural if you fail to see through it.

local_crmdgeon 3y ago
The billionaire right like Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg? The people who are the largest DNC donors? The people who are huge backers of hiring quotas, vax mandates, lockdowns? Them? Doubt.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  They said "the billionaire right", not "the billionaires". That'll be the Koch brothers, Peter Thiel, Harlan Crow, Paul Singer, etc. You'd probably count Musk in there now, too.
  - local_crmdgeon 3y ago
    That set is much smaller than the people that own the Washington Post, NY Times, etc. The DNC receives more money from Wall Street than the GOP now. Same with Tech. Believe what you want, but the Right is mostly driven by small donors now.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      The NYT isn't owned by a billionaire. Bezos largely avoids donations (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/technology/jeff-bezos-amazon-political-donation-veterans.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/technology/jeff-bezos-ama...) and "from Wall Street" isn't the same as "from billionaires". Hand-waving away right-wing billionaires as if they don't have an impact is disingenuous. As for small donors, Trump bucked the mold here a bit; it's not typically true for Republicans: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/21/gops-2022-small-dollar-fundraising-sputters-democrats-lead-grows/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/21/gops-2022... > Democrats have long relied more on small-dollar donations, and that trend continues today. Some key Republican candidates are also relying heavily on wealthy benefactors like Peter Thiel funding super PACs to support them. > One of the stories of the GOP in the Trump era was its ability to close the gap on small-dollar fundraising — a gap that has yawned again with Trump out of office, at least through these two platforms. (Not all small-dollar donations are routed through them, but they are the parties’ respective choices for facilitating such donations.) > And now comes more data, which shows that Democratic small-dollar donors — one key measure of how engaged a party’s base is — appear significantly more motivated than their GOP counterparts.

safety1st 3y ago

I don't think it's really right wing, there is an exodus of people from the Left as it becomes increasingly ideological, they may dally with the Right a bit - I think the first mention of this phenomenon was way back in 2014 by Scott Alexander as the "grey tribe" that was beginning to form: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin... But these people aren't necessarily conservatives, at least as their defining attribute, they frequently maintain liberal values after their exile from the increasingly illiberal world of the left. They very rarely turn into gun-toting and God-fearing, card-carrying Republicans. Two great examples - Tulsi Gabbard and Naomi Wolf recently doing strangely cordial interviews with Jordan Peterson, you could hardly call either of those women conservative Republicans, but they get along with him splendidly on the topic of why the Left is f*'ed up. I think the article hits the nail on the head with the line "To be truly countercultural today, in a time of tech hegemony, one has to, above all, betray the platform" - this really is the essence of it, it so happens that the mainstream platforms are pretty Left, so betraying them feels like an anti-Left thing to do, but to do so isn't necessarily Right.... it's a counter-culture going off in its own direction. The mainstream may call them Right wing as a slur to discredit them, whether they are or not.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> I don't think it's really right wing, there is an exodus of people from the Left as it becomes increasingly ideological, they may dally with the Right a bit - I think the first mention of this phenomenon was way back in 2014 by Scott Alexander as the "grey tribe" that was beginning to form: No, there isn't and a sector defined by a particular ideological position doesn’t get “more ideological”. (There might be a belated exit of lingering ideological conservatives from the Democratic Party, a historically right-wing institution, as it has stabilized as the left-most major party with its main factions center-right neoliberal and center-left progressive, but most of that happened in the 1970s-1990s.) It may also be the case that previously politically detached members of privileged groups that were well-served by the past status quo are becoming reactionarily defensive of their privileged status as it seems threatened but still identify with the privilege of being “apolitical” and with ideology being a thing other people do and they remain “above”, forming a group that is very much part of the reactionary right (with a very clear and self-focussed ideology) but identifies as “apolitical” and “non-ideological”. Which is a much better understanding of the “grey tribe”.

local_crmdgeon 3y ago

Yes. When Disney, Ratheon, the DoJ, the police, City Hall, Ford, GM, Delta, Google, Facebook and Apple support your movement, you are no longer the counterculture. It doesn't matter how hard you want to be.

wankerrific 3y ago

Yes. The movement funded by billionaires and mass marketed by social media influencing is “counterculture”.

praisewhitey 3y ago

The article addresses this

inkcapmushroom 3y ago

There's not really just one counterculture. There's still far left old school hippy counterculture out there, just minding their business and forming collectives and communes and putting good vibes out and making the expensive local tofu that's sold at the "all natural" grocery stores. The right counterculture is also there, they both just stand in contrast to different aspects of mainstream culture. Edit: another modern counterculture that's easy to identify: the Amish.

stubybubs 3y ago

The right wing has absolutely dominated culture for the last 30 years. They have however presented very successfully as counterculture by naysaying literally every attempt at progress in any direction. Every conversation we're having about social, political, or economic issues is framed by right wing grievances. Did the gay marriage battle have to be such a big deal? It was fixed by the stroke of a pen in several states before being challenged in courts federally, then we all had to hear about it on the news for years and years. Climate change. Healthcare. It goes on forever. When they finally overturned Roe v Wade they went too far. Their results from the 2022 midterms, which should have been an absolute bloodbath with GOP dominance, was one of their worst showings ever. President's party usually gets punished, rampant inflation, another war, rising interest rates, housing crisis, etc. The GOP barely managed to take the house and did slightly worse in the senate. It's because of abortion. They exposed themselves as The Man, for all time. I think maybe what true counterculture needs is risk. Something has to be at risk, either by the participants being excluded naturally from a greater system, or choosing to exclude themselves and risking their privilege. Being queer is still countercultural, because there is still significant risk to them every day. Rainbow flags at Starbucks does not mean they are "safe." They can get married, but they still find themselves excluded from a lot of traditions later in life. Young women now literally risk death from accidental pregnancy in many states. Being a vocal proponent of unionization can lose you your job. There's really nothing at stake for the right wing. Their mouthpieces fall out of fashion and go on to lucrative gigs at consulting firms, or writing books filled with grievances, or really just sitting at home because they were already obscenely wealthy. Tucker Carlson doesn't need to work ever again. Haven't heard from Ann Coulter in a while, but she's still worth tens of millions.