Being "right wing" is fine, it's a view, an ideology, is this LEFT WING SF? If it is I am at the wrong dinner party.
Fallacy: False equivalence, changing the subject.
Consider that being "theist" is fine; it's a view, an ideology.
By comparison, why would anybody object to that? See, that's the thing, these blank declarations and basic fallacies skip out on the detail. To wit, if, for instance, you point to some perceived problem about theists and theism, I might actually agree; indeed, that's an essential component of the juxtaposition.
But you just reset that to a blank slate. That is, you skipped out on the proposition of any problem in order to cover, what,
merely "being" right-wing? If it was a matter of merely being, then that would be all there is to it, and there wouldn't be a whole lot to discuss. In that way, it's kind of like an
atheist once explained↗ of religious people: "I do take issue with them at the point where their unsupported beliefs start having detrimental impacts on other people."
And if that atheist happens to take less issue with the unsupported beliefs of right wingers, it would not, these days, be surprising; internet audiences have had a while, now, to adjust to the fact that, among atheists, rational argument often stops when it encounters something a given atheist sympathizes with.
If, for instance, the difference between keeping a woman in her place being wrong or right is the difference between believing in God or having a political view that doesn't explicitly say anything about God, it's still wrong. I don't understand why that is so confusing to some people, but, for instance, it's part of why a certain modern Rationalism that rippled through tech circles over the last fifteen or so years has pretty much collapsed into pseudoreligious crackpottery. (It is, quite literally, derived from Harry Potter fan fiction.)
†
What does it look like, then, to merely
be right-wing? We actually already have an answer in history: Are you able to remember when Donald Trump rode down his escalator to start his presidential run? Can you recall how people tried to make excuses about his racism, and that they just liked how he said what he thought, and all that sort of stuff? Right, so, they got tired of merely being right-wing, is what happened; they wanted a more substantial and effective right-wing experience.
It's kind of like the old complaint about political correctness; it's one thing for them to have their beliefs, but they really wanted to be able to say that stuff and make it stick.
• This is one of those things where I'm, like,
¿How many times do I have to go through this with people, around here?. If you can find the connection between a
2017↗ news article about sexual harassment in the workplace, and a
2018↗ commentary on the "intellectual dark web", that would be a good start.
Hint: They both reach back to the 1980s complaint against "political correctness":
Thought police, hardly; the problem is not in the thinking or believing, but in the speaking and doing and inflicting.
Do you know the phrase, "Southern Strategy"? It's an American political term, and think of it this way: Any number of "nevertrump" Republicans are just fine with certain outcomes as long as they never have to say it so explicitly. In law, we refer to disparate impact, and the infamous "Southern Strategy" is as direct an expresssion of how to deliberately pursue disparate impact as you will ever hear an American politician express. As I put it
during the first Trump administration↗, contemporary iterations across the conservative spectrum seem imbued with a post-Southern Strategy faux-naïveté whereby not saying it explicitly somehow absolves responsibility for consciously pursuing an effect.
And that's what it looks like to merely
be right-wing.
They want the racism, but they're not racists. They want the misogyny, but they're not misogynists. They want the Christian supremacism, but they're not supremacists. They want the authoritarianism, but they're not authoritarians.
One of the things that stands out, living the experience daily, but might not be so apparent from afar, is how easily they get their way.
And look what you did, presuming around the implicit juxtaposition of problematic circumstance. That's how easy it is.
Also, you need to recognize there just isn't that much of a left wing at Sciforums. Disparate standards intend discouraging effects, so it is not surprising that liberal, progressive, and leftist representation would appear to have declined over time.
