/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2555895
I'm not in college but I suspect it's probably still much the same, if you take a political science class at a major state university there's always the one right-wing guy in the class who is kind of nerdy and weird and nobody likes him. He looks like the president of Serbia or le /pol/face. You know the type.

>>2555895
On the video game thing, Jack Thompson sort of fell off after he got disbarred and he was leading the charge on trying to get games banned for violence. Stuff like “Tropes vs Women” came a little while after and let liberals and feminists take the heat. That they were arguably more successful in propelling change in the video game industry than Thompson by working inside it only made them seem “more sinister”.

But moving away from that, well shit, ever hear a bunch of dudes talk among themselves? They’ll casually drop slurs, they’ll call each other gay, they’ll watch shit like Dirty Harry and think “that’s badass” and not “Umm this is very upsetting and fascist propaganda.”

Seriously you’ve got the trope of guys watching Fight Club or Starship Troopers and not “getting it” and thinking it’s badass and, well, it is badass. The space dudes fighting bugs is fucking cool. Tyler Durden is badass. We aren’t hemming and hawing and thinking “oh that’s awful”, we think it’s cool.

There was a video I saw ages ago, I think it was titled “The Eminem sized hole in White America” or something like that. Lots of comments about how so many white dudes that commenters knew growing up, that’d get called fags and threatened by some hicks, well they’d later go on to embrace that MAGA shit and a lot of them were like “how did this happen?” Well, I mean, look at Eminem today. He sort of “cancelled” himself with the “Death of Slim Shady” album I believe. He recanted how he acted and some of the stuff he used to say. But the thing is these guys who went Right Wing later on didn’t move on from that stuff. They saw annoying liberals hemming and hawing about “you can’t say this, you can’t say that” and the Republicans progressively gave less of a fuck about long hair and slurs. So these dudebros basically went “I want to listen to morally outrageous music, watch shit that everyone tells me is awful, and say slurs. Fuck the libs telling me I can’t.”

They were basically cast out and the right scooped them up.

>>2555907
If you're talking about the president of Serbia he's actually quite tall. So at least you wouldn't be a manlet.

>>2555929
I was more referring to myself as the guy in the political science class who is kind of nerdy and weird and nobody likes him.

>>2555954
Hey anon, embrace the nerdiness rather than run from it. It'll do you good.

>>2555956
I guess I can try.

>>2555895
Funny in another way it was the opposite. The jocks were considered problematic dudebros who slept around and got naive girls drunk, nerds were considered thoughtful, open minded, more feminist, but then at some point it flipped and jocks are chill with women and nerds are redpilled incels until proven otherwise.

They're sexist and homophobic therefore they're rightoids.

>>2556107
And said who?

>The problem with the man is, they don't understand a fucken thing about shit and stuff
Is an attitude in every decade and it's not based on anything other than just, the government is responsible for shit and shits all fucked up, so whatever their policies may be, they're wrong and because few are actually political the presented solution inevitably ends up just being whatever the polar opposite is.

>>2555986
I don't think stereotypes for jocks and nerds ever changed, I think what changed was the perspective on marriage. Jocks have always been considered chill with women, they were jerks because they'd not necessarily marry a girl they're "chilling out" with and that was considered disrespectful, dishonourable, unintelligent, etc. Meanwhile nerds were "sensitive" meaning more of a handful emotionally but will put a ring on it. Marriage isn't considered important anymore, arguably it's detrimental for women especially the way nerds/incels present it, thus there's really no reason to consider jocks to be jerks anymore.

>>2556129
Patriarchy probably benefits the nerd\incel type more than the jock type. Patriarchy can probably distribute women more evenly among men. I remember an anon wrote a thread a bit ago about masculinity and patriarchy and how they don't actually fit with in each other. Masculinity was more about impregnating as much women as possible which meant a lot of guys having to be more active in finding women while patriarchy sort of just guaranteed women for men and sort of killed masculinity because it made men less active in pursuing women or something along those lines.

>>2556216
I suspect the erosion of marriage's perceived importance and benefit has less to do with patriarchy being eroded (as it doesn't really seem to be in any real sense), but just women's labour is genuinely depended on after years of it being a kind of
>oh be nice, let them have a go at working at male jobs as well
thing because shocker, they're good at those jobs, so them getting married and having kids is considered now detrimental as they'll no doubt put raising their family ahead of their job even if they stay employed.

That being said, women led by liberals have discovered that being "liberated" into just more types of work and shared financial responsibility during an age where salaries are down and rents are up fucking blows, thus they might have been open to marriage, but alas incels shoot themselves in the foot because they've not got a personality outside of thinking going to school and liking it ought to entitle them to whatever they desire, virginities mostly.

>>2555904
faggiest thing I've ever read

>>2555895
Well, we can see that the right wing sort of captured a lot of smaller subcultures. Fitness is a big one, hippy-crunchy bullshit, MAHA moms, etc. Gaming is just one.

But I don't agree this is really a retcon. "Bro" culture really has been right wing for a long time. And I don't mean like, culturally right wing. I mean universities used to use them as enforcers to destroy student protestors and break unions. Greek life came under direct attack by Obama's DoE (they basically banned hazing nationwide and really cracked down on sexual assault and racism) and this may have made them more overtly political.

As far as "nerd" "jock" bullshit. Incelism is just two sides of the same coin. This mostly affects young men, because, unfortunately, young women are just not really very good judges of male character.

>>2556216
Eh. I see a lot of adult jock-wife marraiges on tiktok now and I think they are all living out the patriarchal dream. Bottle blond wife who doesn't know what a screwdriver looks like and only knows how to eat hot chip and lie, and podcaster husband who loves truck and doesn't know what tampons are.

>>2556876
It's crazy how "performative" they seem to me. It really feels like they are so aggressively acting out Gender Roles that they don't appear to have an individual identity. It reminds me in some ways of how in the olden days women would pretend to not know how to read in order to appear more aristocratic.

>>2556877
>women would pretend to not know how to read in order to appear more aristocratic
many such cases
i feel like this kind of thing still happens, for example at work we have at least 2 women that are capable of carrying heavy stuff around (and regularly doing so) deliberately call for male assistance. one of the other female coworkers asked why do they have to do this and she doesn't really get it either

>>2555895
The 2008 economic crash happened, and a bunch online reactionary types like moldbug started astroturfing their ideas onto libertarian communities as a way to exploit their anxieties. Add chanology the previous year and you had bad actors trying to influence 4chan politically, if a bunch of anonymous posters can be rallied for a real life cause then they can be molded for footsoldiers for any ideology. Also the "you shouldn't have touched our bideo games!!" thing is a red herring, gamergay happened because /v/ermin kept chasing the dragon of a large western dev company losing millions like EA did with Star Wars: The Old Republic(look up TORtanic). So the same ones looking for a new fix to bring everyone together through community happenings was kept on by raggin on video game journos and indie dev personalities that were on twitter which eventually snowball into gamergay.

>>2555895
because tastes bifurcated. look at videogames as the most obvious case: there are plenty of "leftist" or at least "lib" games, games as entertainment run across political lines, but leftists/libs invest their identity in their politics, demographic traits, etc. as a result, they leave the "gamer" identity group (but not games!) and the people who remain behind are by-definition the rightists.

if this seems confusing: imagine all conservatives emigrated from america, leaving america a 100% left/lib country. you would ask: "why are all americans libs now? aren't they the people who elected trump recently?", and you could come up with all sorts of grand theories for why "americans" all suddenly became libs (maybe it was the tariffs?), but they're all noise compared to the gigantic selection effect of "all the conservatives left". "americans" post-emigration doesn't mean the same thing as pre-emigration.

>>2555895
> How did "dudebro" culture end up being sort of retconned as right wing? I was in a purple state college during Bush's second term and everyone loathed conservatives. We didn't even have the obligatory Ron Paul guy in 07-08.
The reification of patriarchy and masculinity can’t go anywhere but right up capital’s ass for fairly obvious reasons

>>2557005
Wtf is reification? Wtf is masculinity?

>>2557008
Reification is the act of turning an abstraction into a god over your life, it is the act of turning a product of human life activity into one of nature and then into a structure undergirding existence itself. Reification is, for instance, convincing yourself nonsense like male and female “essences” actually exist, even though masculinity and femininity are socially constructed which becomes immediately evident when one looks at the diverse ways in which men and women interact and behave and are culturally conditioned across societies. Believing money is “necessary” for life in the abstract, rather than made necessary by the material conditions of historical development is another form of reification. Another form of reification is the way modern society sees itself as existing in all prior societies and also views all prior societies as having existed to end in itself but also existing purely in themselves unburdened by material conditions just as the bourgeois order imagines itself to be.

TL;DR: the act of turning something humans made up into a sort of god

>>2557013
>masculinity and femininity are socially constructed which becomes immediately evident when one looks at the diverse ways in which men and women interact and behave and are culturally conditioned across societies

Rather seems to be the opposite, people study history and notice how uniform male/female roles are over thousands of years across diverse regions and ethnic groups and conclude they're human nature. You can also see a lot of this stuff in mammal social dynamics (males fight, secure territory, pursue, peacock). Marxists might say something about how past societies had similar economies which caused it (agrarian, petty production, wealth based on warriors seizing land and slaves).

>>2557087
Ngl mate, but I think you might actually be retarded
People looking at entirely different societies and immediately reading their own society and way of life into it, and therefore naturalize their own different circumstances as actually universal and inevitable is the very definition of reification

>How is it reification when I assume patriarchy is “natural” by specifically only considering patriarchal societies, ignoring egalitarian ones, and intentionally ignoring all individual men and women in my own society and across history that do not conform to how “I” (my society) has defined “natural” (itself)

What I want to understand is if this level of fascist stupidity and lack of even basic logical inquiry is a consequence of being raised in the West or something that needs to be molded out of most people?

>>2557115
One group that knew the stark challenge were the xenofeminists, hence the motto: "If nature is unjust, change nature!" It seems many would prefer to say nature was just and good, once upon a time, we just fell from grace and need to retvrn. Very Christian.

Feminists tried to discover matriarchal societies in the 60s and 70s but it was a dead end. The way Marx talked it doesn't sound like he's say capitalist societies even in the 19th century were patriarchal, he always seemed to say that capitalism swept away the feudal patriarchal family (where the patriarch had life and death authority), but it seems you and most feminists would disagree and say we still live in patriarchy, men still rule and build the world. Even in AES, women might "hold up half the sky" but they can't be half the Politburo.

As for egalitarian tribes, that's probably more complicated and was overstated by past research, see here for example:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349971177_Human_social_organization_during_the_Late_Pleistocene_Beyond_the_nomadic-egalitarian_model

The tl;dr being that in the past there was a mosaic of nomadic egalitarian/sedentary hierarchal tribes depending on local food sources, that tribes tend to be more egalitarian in harsher environments (e.g. what most tribes live in now, pushed to marginal lands by civilization), and that's why humans exhibit a mixed social strategy.

And as for some of these so-called egalitarian tribes, still pretty patriarchal:

https://traditionsofconflict.com/blog/2018/1/31/on-secret-cults-and-male-dominance

But even if there were non-patriarchal tribes, how do we make an industrial society like that? We're basically the opposite in every way. For example, it's very easy for a group to control access to necessary resources, but that was very difficult in the ancient past, aside from the mentioned sedentary tribes centered on dense resources. Elsewhere people could just leave.

I can't remember who it was, but some years ago I read about a Marxist feminist, I want to say Mary Beard (not the Rome lady), who argued there never was patriarchy, it was just the sexes negotiating their responsibilities in a way that made sense for their conditions, usually agrarian, high child mortality, high violence, hard manual labor, etc., there was a push and pull. I'd guess that wouldn't be too popular nowadays.

>"dudebro" culture
>2007-08
have you seen the infamous 2007 VH1 special about Wall Street guys like Jeffrey Epstein? Historical materialism explains this neoliberal grindset culture that has now been universalized to every opportunist wannabee-kulak Andrew Tate fanboy. Karl Marx's controversial essay on how everyone will be a "huckster Jew finance bro" after capitalism has proletarianized every ethnic group was proven correct:

twitter link https://xcancel.com/EoinHiggins_/status/1965400559634317790#m

also I found this 2007 post in a college forum thread in the Business Major subforum, where liberals explicitly talk about their envy of finance imperialists
https://talk.collegeconfidential.com/t/fabulous-life-of-billion-dollar-wall-street-ballers/369442
>Think stars are having all of the fun? Think again. These days nobody's making more and spending more than the buttoned-down badasses of Wall Street. From their sprawling estates and tricked-out private yachts to exotic vacation homes and multi-million dollar art collections– these guys are living larger than anyone else on the planet. Welcome to The Fabulous Life of Billion Dollar Wall Street Ballers Let's talk salaries people. Hedge Fund King Steven Cohen pulled in $1 billion in 2006. Financier Edward Lampert? He raked in $1.5 billion. That's right…in just one year. And you'd better believe these guys know how to spend their hard earned money too…especially when it comes to real estate.
<Billionaire investor Jeffrey Epstein? He lives in the absolute largest dwelling in all of Manhattan, a 51,000-sq-ft palace on E. 71st street.
>Eddie Lampert paid over $20 million for a magnificent waterfront property in Greenwich, CT…only to tear it down and rebuild. But of all the Wall Street spenders around, absolutely nobody can outdo Steven Cohen. He's got a 32,000-sq-ft Greenwich home complete with massage, exercise and media rooms, plus a full-size basketball court, tennis court, ice-skating rink and even a 700-square-foot house just for his Zamboni. Cohen has also spent over $700 million in just the past five years building one of the country's greatest private art collections, including works by Vincent van Gogh, Jackson Pollock and Andy Warhol. But not every Wall Street heavyweight digs fine art. Florida financier John Devaney? He spends his multi-millionaire dollar fortune on some very expensive toys including a private Gulfstream jet and TEN yachts. And these tycoons even turn charity into a massive spending spree too. In 2007, Wall Streeters raised $71 million for the poverty-fighting Robin Hood Foundation in just one night. From their unbelievable mega homes to their mindboggling bonuses and the insane splurges that go with them…this is The Fabulous Life of Billion Dollar Wall Street Ballers.

funny forum reply:
<I’m sure their family lives are really strong, and their kids get lots of attention, and spend a lot of free time with family and friends…
noooo!!! 😭

it's what happens when you try to make a culture that surrounds or even overlaps with Call of Duty, American Exceptionalism and post 9/11 economics.

it's been brewing since the first gen-z'ers were born
capitalism will take everything you enjoy and turn it to shit

>>2557115
Can you show even one egalitarian society from the past? One society where men and women acted in a wholly different way from men and women of 2020s?
>inb4 some tribe of 50 people from Central Congo basin

>>2556255
but its true and
>>2555904
is right
gamer dude bros going from being anti conservative to reactionaries is entirely due to Jack Thompson falling off and the feminists taking his place, the external force trying to dictate what video games should be, the contents of them and who should play them went from being dictated by conservatives to being dictated by feminists
The Gamers got done fighting off conservative pressure on the video game industry for a decade only to have to fight the feminists right after for another decade
The threat changed, so as a result the resistance changed.

>>2563831
This takes too many people at their word (and assumes the makeup of dudebros remains constant over time, but that's another story.).
Feminists aren't the ones who added microtransactions, lootboxes, pay-to-win shit, games as a service, horse armor DLC, etc, etc, etc. All the stuff that actually ruins games. Yet feminists (and, if you want to make that case, Thompson) were taken as a serious outsider threat while the real outsider threat - capital - was ignored or naturalized. Anti-EA sentiment dropped off much faster than anti-SJW sentiment.

In a sense it begs the question because this very mode of thinking is disproportionately found in right-wing people. The threat is a personalized set of individuals or a group of such individuals (Damn you Anita! Burn in hell, Zoe!) rather than structural forces (As the left prefers: Donald Trump isn't an anomalous bastard, he's just he latest phase of US imperialism…) and all the bad things that happen because of structural forces are either perfectly natural (it's the capitalist firm's game, they can do with it as they please) or the result of a conspiracy.

>>2564410
>Feminists aren't the ones who added microtransactions, lootboxes, pay-to-win shit, games as a service, horse armor DLC, etc, etc, etc. All the stuff that actually ruins games. Yet feminists (and, if you want to make that case, Thompson) were taken as a serious outsider threat while the real outsider threat - capital - was ignored or naturalized.

That wasn’t ignored people whinged about this for a decade, the gamers just lost that battle because they couldn’t stop a kid with a credit card from buying lootboxes in Fortnite no matter how many posts they made about how evil it is or how many regulators they tried to get involved

Gamers didn’t stop caring about lootboxes and horse armour, they just got demolished, anti loot box sentiments never went away

>Anti-EA sentiment dropped off
Because for a while people just stopped buying EA games
Bf5 flopped bf2042 flopped anthem flopped, skinner boxes in battlefront 2 caused the biggest shitstorm ever and caused it to flop

Skinner boxes and horse armour were considered threats just like the feminists were

>>2564410
Y'know I've heard this point echoed a bunch of times before, sometimes accompanied by that "I can't believe we lost gamers to the right!" tweet but here's the thing: There's a less than zero requirement to "like" lootboxes or "games as a service" on "the right". You've got shit like Asmongold mocking the sheer greed of Activision-Blizzard's Bobby Kotick into a meme. Like at no point was there some understanding "Humm, yes, because of the class composition and the material forces at play I shall support lootboxes to own the feminists" or whatever. It was a battle that, as >>2564736 said, people lost.

I remember when it was controversial to release a game unfinished then patch it later, now we've got early access. Horse Armor DLC was mocked but now every AAA game with multiplayer makes a killing selling skins. Like, no offense, it seems like you're implying "you're only allowed to dislike one thing."

Like let me use another example: the music industry. You had shit like Tipper Gore going after bands who hit the mainstream but had "inappropriate" lyrics. Now the record industry as a whole is shit, it often completely fleeces artists, its extremely litigious and obsessed with copyright. Are people suddenly not supposed to be upset that a couple of dumbass politicians were trying to act as moral arbiters over the whole genre? What do you personally think gets talked about more and gets more people outraged: corporations being money-grubbing assholes, which is a constant, or the local moral police howling "Won't somebody please THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!"

Ditto for comicbooks: everyone talks about the bad old days of the Comic Code Authority, you've got Garth Ennis whose made it his whole fucking career to express the resentment he feels for the CCA turning Superheroes into the primary genre of western comics. How many people talk about comic book publishers choosing to move away from the old model of selling comic books in super markets and towards specialty retailers? Even people who aren't into comics broadly know about the CCA, they don't often know how, for example, Bill Finger was fucked over by Bob Kane who took sole credit for Batman for years.

The appearance of "outside forces dictating the terms of our media" exist as a threat in basically any medium or hobby. And it draws way more outrage by way more folks than just the internal nickle and diming that happens within the medium. Sure, people are annoyed by that, but they've come to accept it at this point. The folks that play Warhammer as a tabletop game know they're being taken for a ride by Games Workshop, they talk openly about how greedy GW is and how its this awful company, but they still buy the minis and the paint kits and the rule books.

As for your other point:

>and all the bad things that happen because of structural forces are either perfectly natural (it's the capitalist firm's game, they can do with it as they please) or the result of a conspiracy.

The topic of this thread is how "dudebro culture" became synonymous with right wingers, especially in regards to claims around video games. I offered an explanation and it just seems like you're saying "Yes, but Capitalism exists though!" Which is pretty much besides the point as it seems to essentially say "well it was always socially right wing" or "it just became synonymous with right wing for no reason". You can point to microtransactions and DLC, I'm pointing out how people were ultimately negatively polarized.

>>2555895
>why did college students drop the communist facade once they became working professionals
Truly a mystery.

>>2564761
dudebros were never communist, they were basically always right wing or lolbert

>>2564762
>were never communist
i mean neither are left-liberals yet here we are pretending ideology is a spectrum of ideas that can be pushed to either "side"

Dudebro culture now is working a trade and coming home to have a couple beers. Same as it's always been, difference is now there's now wife and kids to come home to. The reason it's "right wing" now is a result of feminism being a part of popular culture. The guys married or at the very least getting laid aren't the guys complaining. It's just another excuse to blame the liberals or at the other end the jews. So take it with a grain of salt, it isn't that serious. It's easier for normies to see the cultural reasons for them not getting a GF than the the material ones. Same as always