10 ms·

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

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”.
- safety1st 3y ago
  How do you explain Tulsi Gabbard and Naomi Wolf condemning intolerance in the Democratic Party in an interview with Jordan Peterson? Neither one is exactly a "lingering ideological conservative." When I said the Left is becoming increasingly ideological perhaps I should have used the word intolerant instead. It is becoming more rigid in terms of what beliefs its members are allowed to hold, and the punishment for holding transgressive beliefs is becoming more severe. Another example of this is the "canceling" of JK Rowling - a liberal feminist who is virulently anti-conservative - for stepping out of line on a single issue. This list of liberals being ejected from the Left for their thought-trangressions is growing rapidly. I don't see how any clear-headed observer can deny its existence.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > How do you explain Tulsi Gabbard and Naomi Wolf condemning intolerance in the Democratic Party in an interview with Jordan Peterson? Tulsi Gabbard has had bizarre (usually extreme but also radically inconsistent over time) set of political positions, her moving around relative to a group generally isn’t a matter of the other group moving at all, its usually (including her formal move away from the Democratic Party) directly associated with substantive changes of her positions, whether its her move from being an extreme anti-LGBT activist where she built he early political career to a move to a moderate mainstream Democratic position, her move from an extreme Islamophobe and anti-Arab racist activist to rhetorically coddling Assad, or her more recent moves. Wolf seems to have been an opportunistic, dishonest hack her entire career, and pushing culturally conservative angles at least as far back as her work under Dick Morris doing image work for Clinton.

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”.

safety1st 3y ago
How do you explain Tulsi Gabbard and Naomi Wolf condemning intolerance in the Democratic Party in an interview with Jordan Peterson? Neither one is exactly a "lingering ideological conservative." When I said the Left is becoming increasingly ideological perhaps I should have used the word intolerant instead. It is becoming more rigid in terms of what beliefs its members are allowed to hold, and the punishment for holding transgressive beliefs is becoming more severe. Another example of this is the "canceling" of JK Rowling - a liberal feminist who is virulently anti-conservative - for stepping out of line on a single issue. This list of liberals being ejected from the Left for their thought-trangressions is growing rapidly. I don't see how any clear-headed observer can deny its existence.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > How do you explain Tulsi Gabbard and Naomi Wolf condemning intolerance in the Democratic Party in an interview with Jordan Peterson? Tulsi Gabbard has had bizarre (usually extreme but also radically inconsistent over time) set of political positions, her moving around relative to a group generally isn’t a matter of the other group moving at all, its usually (including her formal move away from the Democratic Party) directly associated with substantive changes of her positions, whether its her move from being an extreme anti-LGBT activist where she built he early political career to a move to a moderate mainstream Democratic position, her move from an extreme Islamophobe and anti-Arab racist activist to rhetorically coddling Assad, or her more recent moves. Wolf seems to have been an opportunistic, dishonest hack her entire career, and pushing culturally conservative angles at least as far back as her work under Dick Morris doing image work for Clinton.