>>2511622Very little of this is a bad thing. So far as it's true, it lacks an analysis of the right: You may imagine that if the left are all social conformists, the right must all be individualist truth tellers… But of course, that's nonsense. You've got your occasional Richard Hanania type, sure, who you can argue is focused on overcoming social desirability bias and being "strictly correct", but the average rightoid says inappropriate things like "paracetamol causes autism", baffling smooth-brained idiocies rather than hard truths.
Israel is also a fly in the ointment of this theory. Real power-elites of all types are pro-Israel, but the general public cannot stand it, with the higher status parts of the left-wing being the most strongly against.
(You can measure this directly against EU referendum vote, which is fun: Leave voters are more 'neither/don't know' than any category, but also substantially more pro-Israel / less pro-Palestinian than Remainers - who've been mostly pro-Palestine since 2020.)
>>2511673I have to wonder what would happen if the left (or liberals) were willing to be vulgar and just straight up accept that their opponents are mentally retarded. (Relative to the baseline of their supporters.)
On the one hand, as I say, it's vulgar and would probably alienate people who want to believe (or be seen to believe) that there's no intelligence difference between the two groups. On the other, however, it's manifestly obvious and because it's in touch with reality, it makes coalition building easier because instead of wondering how you get Dale Gribble to vote Communist, you can accept that he's never going to and you'd be better trying to win over Peggy and Bobby hill.
>>25127871. Does anyone really still care about not clapping? It's not 2017 anymore lol.
2. You miss that these things
are gatekeeping. If you're the sort of person who can't suppress their innate cringe at that sort of thing, you're a liability. (and also far too sensitive to cringe. it's mid tier at best.)
Left-wing ideas are popular and high-status among younger people precisely because this sort of thing filtered out people with a basically reactionary disposition who will cause more problems in the future.
Think through this: What is the necessity of clapping? Why clap?
Because it's the done thing to clap - well, that's true, but that's very unimaginative isn't it? How do you
select for people who're willing to imagine new ways of doing things for the benefit of others if you keep inviting in people who want things to be done the way they've always been done?
It doesn't matter if there's literally nobody present who objects to clapping, there's still value in the social signalling that comes from eschewing it. For argument's sake, say there is some highly sensitive person: Then they have a very important revolutionary role, which is filtering out liabilities before they can poison the vanguard with their conservatism.