A typical leftist is ignorant because they've been raised to be incurious. Most of them never really question anything. They just accept what they are told by their so-called "leaders" as gospel. Even pre-internet, these people lived in a tightly controlled social and informational bubble, and the doctrine was and is harsh and unforgiving of dissent.
As a result, they have no moral or historical compass. They will lie, cheat, steal, even kill if you are a threat to their ingrained beliefs. It's a sad existence with a legacy and threat that all of us non-leftists have to be prepared for and deal with now.
My personal schizo theory is that it's just what their media tells them to do, and the reason that the media is telling them that is so they can be complacent with high crime and a lower quality of life, which I imagine is because not having those things is more expensive and annoying for the state with niggos and mud people everywhere (who are only in the country in the first place for cheap labor).
I highly doubt a lot of these people arrived at their political views on their own, so you can pretty much chalk them up to whatever slop they have shoved down their throats all day since leftist takes are usually the corpo-approved takes. Not gonna act like righties don't have their own corporate grifts (Elon and Vivek shilling H1-Bs, for instance) but it's nothing compared to the stranglehold lefties have on the "right" takes on everything. I assume that all leftist rhetoric that isn't full on insane tankie tranny shit is being pushed for a corporate reason at this point.
The idea of progress plays a role, since if the average person didn't feel it was a duty to uplift the dregs of society, then you could easily justify mass slaughtering these people, so getting other people to help them removes the trouble of having to uplift them yourself or kill them, which is usually a last resort. It's also a mixture of motherly impulse for women, especially since more and more are not having kids, so helping these people fulfills that need since you could say society is just one big family and the state is the father/god, right?.
There's the Christian impulse too, even amongst nonbelievers - it's something that's embedded in most of us, even in this modern secular society. A lot of leftism/communism is just secular Christianity when you get down to it. All of this is a non-issue in tribal societies, but when you have to manage millions of people, then psychological tricks have to get introduced.
People either deliberately ignore psychopathy and brush it off as if it can be fixed, or they're completely ignorant about psychopathy (or sociopathy) and think it can be fixed.
The braindead retards that actually think psychopaths can be fixed are Useful Idiots. The ones who deliberately enable psychopathy/sociopathy are doing it on the basis of enabling the witting or unwitting Footsoldiers of the Revolution by which the Police State may be ushered in eventually after enough chaos and disorder has been sown that the people practically demand it.
People either deliberately ignore psychopathy and brush it off as if it can be fixed, or they're completely ignorant about psychopathy (or sociopathy) and think it can be fixed.
The braindead retards that actually think psychopaths can be fixed are Useful Idiots.
It's not that leftists love criminals, it's that they hate their own people and wish them harm. It's also why they push any and every damaging policy they can come up with - mass migration, reparations, trannies, homosexuals, feminism etc.
Studies have been conducted that show liberals use a simpler vocabulary when talking to niggers, so they are just as racist as the chuds, and you'll never see a White liberal actually inhabit the same borough as the diversity he is so enamored with.
The most interaction a privileged liberal cuck has with minorities is when one of them comes to deliver the overpriced slop food he ordered online, and even then they recoil in horror.
They are punishing us while masturbating themselves into a stupor about how virtuous they are.
It's not that leftists love criminals, it's that they hate their own people and wish them harm. It's also why they push any and every damaging policy they can come up with - mass migration, reparations, trannies, homosexuals, feminism etc.
Studies have been conducted that liberals use a simpler vocabulary when talking to niggers, so they are just as racist as the chuds, and you'll never see a White liberal actually inhabit the same borough as the diversity he is so enamored with.
The most interaction a privileged liberal cuck has with minorities is when of them comes to deliver the overpriced slop food he ordered online, and even then they recoil in horror.
You see, they are punishing us while masturbating themselves into a stupor about how virtuous they are.
Because they are mentally ill freaks, their kind has always been around, only difference between then and now is that Marx, who was just as petty, lazy and disgusting as they are, shat out a religion they could rally behind.
Because they are mentally ill freaks, their kind has always been around, only difference between then and now is that Marx, who was just as petty, lazy and disgusting as they are, shat out a religion they could rally behind.
I wonder if Marx even matters... ask any handful of " true believers " and you will be spoiled if you find one in ten that knows anything beyond " shit should be free".
I have a feeling they would of carved any idol in his place. Its Babylon all over again.
There is one of the ideas put forth by the Frankfurt School, as part of their accelerationist agenda to "make the west so corrupt that it stinks" in the hopes that a communist revolution would overthrow it: the creation of a justice system that is heavily biased against victims of violent crime. I don't know if it tells the whole story, or explains why the left has such a strong, compulsive need to defend or simp for criminals.
There's a very significant overlap between the ideology of the Frankfurt School and the sabbatian occultists, which were multiple different groups of jewish occultists in 17th and 18th century galizia that had a meltie right around the time the hassids appeared. Because they all denounced judaism eventually, im not particularly sure that they have a direct pedigree, but i can't help but think that there's a relationship.
the sabbatian occultists shed all ties to rabbinical judaism and doubled down on the mysticism, they believed that they were in the messianic era and ending the exile, and believed that the messiah would come faster if they transgressed as many religious boundaries as possible, and the frankists took it to an even more extreme with orgies and accusing other groups of jews of blood libel.
It's easy to just say "oh these people were excommunicated and were a historical curiosity" but then they bring up the donmeh that still call themselves sabbatians. there's tons of news articles about "did the donmeh help form the Young Turks??? did the Donmeh help end Islamic rule in Turkey??" and all these other social and political movements worldwide, and it makes you wonder if there's even more crypto-jewry informing a bunch of these historical social and political organizations that had a big influence on society. Imagine how powerful you could be as a jew if you still believed you were a jew but didn't shackle yourself to the mainstream zionist narrative? what if they're just using zionists as ideological cannon fodder?
You are easily triggered hahah!
Yes if you call me a man I will get you fired
Yes I believe microagressions are real, I’ll get you fired for them too
Yes and I police your language
Yes I will think that your words of objection deserve my violence
But you, the conservatives, are easily triggered.
There is some science here though. There’s a thing called the behavioural immune system. It’s triggered when we see things we think are disgusting, like rotten meat, and it serves to keep us safe by making us less likely to engage in behaviour that could expose us to disease or danger. In right wing people on average these responses are stronger. In left wing people they’re on average weaker. The left likes to portray that as the right being squeamish, without wondering why the sight of two men kissing evokes this response in people.
There are very good reasons to have emotional and physical responses to behaviours that are potentially dangerous. Much like our sense of pain - people who can’t feel pain get into a terrible mess as they often injure or burn themselves and often end up losing limbs or with severe injuries.
When someone’s BIS is broken, they become unable to have the disgust response to dangerous stimuli. The state is trying to train these boundaries out of us with strong social conditioning (suck the girldick or we ruin your life/bake the cake/eat the bugs etc.) you then are able to flip it and have people actively seek out things that will harm them.
Some parasites do this too - toxoplasmosis for example. I think a lot of the liberal mental illness is this mechanism having been broken or being weakened from the start and weakened further with social conditioning
Funny part is that once you trim all the superfluous fat, that's what Marx's blathering boils down to. If you read about his life and how he behaved, there's no difference between him and the average dysgenic Antifa subhuman.
Because they are mentally ill freaks, their kind has always been around, only difference between then and now is that Marx, who was just as petty, lazy and disgusting as they are, shat out a religion they could rally behind.
I recently wanted to find that tweet but couldn't, thank you!
The core belief, which explains Slatz's theory, is: Oppression* => Morally good (one could say even ontologically good, aka at its core it's good). *Oppression meaning not having the same outcomes as the most privileged in society. So, to be oppressed means to be good. If you are oppressed you can only be good, anything to the contrary can only be whispered far away from the masses, lest they are exposed to far-right beliefs.
Other beliefs are:
If you have money, you are morally bad.
If you are morally bad, only defending the oppressed can redeem you. (Or donate all your money... lol, lmao even).
The logical link between these beliefs and Slatz's theory is that, in general, there is an association between how "oppressed" and how damaging to society you are. This is due to self preservation of society by pushing away those who are identified to be damaging. For example, think of a drunk homeless man, shouting, smelling of piss, half naked. Most people will not even look in his direction, they won't approach him to help (aka they are "oppressing" him because he is, correctly, interpreted as being a potential danger).
The most outspoken liberals are very privileged (I am thinking of Taylor Lorenz, Hasan, or Francesa Fiorentini (literal who from TYT) , all from very rich families), so for them it is very much a mix of feeding their savior complex to help the noble savages, while they live in their gated communities.
Social justice / Leftism / Liberalism / Woke (whatever you want to call it) is an enforced social score system, where you get the inverse of how damaging the group is. For instance, if Karmelo Anthony is a damaging level of -10, you get +10 social points.
A big problem is that it is a system that self updates, like so:
Group A are oppressed.
Fringe leftists jump to its defense. They develop theory to justify why support Group A is fundamental to societal good.
The liberal/leftist discourse gets updated to "only a nazi would not defend Group A"
Defending Group A becomes mainstream. Its defense does not identify you as pushing for progress.
Fringe leftist find that Group B is oppressed.
Rinse and repeat.
I don't like to bring up postmodernism because it is very cliche, but it does explain the mentality.
Every belief needs to be analyzed and broken up, as the truth is never self-evident.
Then, you need to contort into a pretzel to justify the worst belief, because that is a sign of a smart person. If the obvious truth is A, B, and C; postmodernism thought leads you to believe X, Y, Z. The problem is that there has been so much "analysis" and deconstruction between A and Z, that it is not obvious that if you accept Z, then you have to reject A. Once you have done that, and declared your love for Z, the zealots will correct you if you also affirm A. As you care about being percieved as "good", you won't risk your social standing and friends to reaffirm A, as actually, you are probably wrong anyway and they are right - Z is right, A is wrong.
Has anyone ever discussed "sex work is work" with a random woman, self professed liberal and "good person"? Not a dangerhair, just a normal woman.
Women know that prostitution (sanitized into calling it "sex work") is demeaning, and generally dangerous. Otherwise, why would not every woman would simply sell their used underwear? It just make sense from a financial point of view! It would be a super easy side gig. If it was normalized, we could have collections for resellers so women don't have to bother with managing the sales.
Women would not support that unemployed women should consider prostitution as a job.
Yet, they will say "sex work is work" because it is in the liberal dogma; it is what "good people" say.
If you present to them their intuition that sex work is degrading (A), and
Z = sex work is just another job,
and ask them how the two go together, they will easily fold (generally normal women are not super attached to "sex work is work"). They will admit to believe A, but that they have heard of Z and trust that their fellow liberals are right.
Since you are talking to them without giving judgement for supporting A (ie you are not saying "only bigots believe A"), they are open about their opinions of A.
I think it is clear what is going to happen when they don't have anyone who allow them to express their feelings towards A, and therefore ressures them that believing A is not wrong or does not make them a bigot/bad person.
A group that is often less talked about, but equally interesting, is the activists who come from those communities. Especially the young black women, not yet mothers, who will be front and center to defend black men.
My theory for them is that they are genuinely not smart enough to understand the consequences.
It is easier for them to believe that everything is oppression, and that the oppressor is external, rather than accept that they are living like crabs in a bucket and that to improve, they need to "divest" from the damaging elements in their own communities.
Also, why are criminals excused? Why are criminal acts by the oppressed ignored and how are they allowed to be morally good (to the point that they can end up defending the worst abusers)? This is because the liberals strongly believe in extrinsic causes and motivations. Criminals are not criminals because they decided to commit those acts, instead, it is society's fault that put them in that position where it was inevitable for them to commit those crimes. (Also, oppressed people are so dumb that they don't understand that what they are doing is bad. If only we could explain it to them, they would stop).
I have tried to find a book that talks about how democrats/liberals put the blame on society, rather than emphasize personal responsibility, but failed. However, this article from the NYT commenting on three books about politics and personal responsibility is also interesting and gives examples of what we are talking about.
Why the left mourned the deaths of the two men that Kyle Rittenhouse shot in self defense, and came to the defense of the one survivor, even after it became clear that it was self defense, and all three men had criminal backgrounds that included pedophilia, domestic abuse, and burglary?
Why shitlibs are so desperate to continue importing unvetted immigrants, and even go as far as to say that deporting known MS13 gang members is bad, actually, even acknowledging that they are known MS13 gang members?
So eager to turn any criminal that gets shot by police into martyrs, even after the body cam footage clears the police of wrongdoing?
The obvious answer is that you are not arguing based on the same facts.
The people who hate Rittenhouse still largely believe at least one of the following
He shot black men
He shot innocent (black) men
He went there to look for a fight
They have never watched the video
Out of a small sample of 2, from personal experience of talking irl about this, 100% of liberals believe that the "Maryland man" had some sort of claim of US citizenship, Green card, etc and were oblivious that a judge had ordered that he could be deported (just not to that specific country).
The issue is that we are not arguing about the same facts. We need to go back to first principles.
Expendable people and free voters to use for election, just show “tolerance” towards them and libtards will go for any candidate showing a hint of “supporting homeless population”.
Yes, I do support homeless
Give them alll the fentanyl they want
by which the Police State may be ushered in eventually after enough chaos and disorder has been sown that the people practically demand it.
