The rest of us have a right to set ourselves apart from people who spread hate and ignorance, and if "the right" wants to identify itself with such views then that's a problem it created for itself. Equating racist, misogynist, paranoid insanity delivered 280 characters at a time with any sort of intellectually substantive "right-conservatism" is really a slur against all people who label themselves as the latter, but I guess when you're all tangled up in ideological confusion that kind of introspection gets very difficult.
While your argument may or may not have some merit generically, what the previous poster likely referred to is Notch's apparent belief in the PizzaGate and QAnon-conspieracies.
I'm of the opinion that Notch has kind of gone off the deep end, which makes me a bit sad. I'm not sure that money brought him the happiness he rightly should have gotten.
you're kindof proving his point though. Notch is "bad" because he believes in the "wrong" conspiracies, that all the trusted authority figures have ensured us are untrue. A few years ago the Epstein stuff would have been considered within the realm of wacky conspiracy theories, but it is receiving legitimate attention now.
Pizzagate and qanon stuff is all bs. They're not specific enough to ever be disproved, and when they are, they are summarily dis-proven. e.g. the guy who broke into Comet Ping Pong to save the kids, only to realize there are no kids.
Epstein was convicted in 2008 of procuring an underage girl for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute. So, I don't think that anybody was surprised when it turned out he was still a pedophile a decade later.
All billionaires are right-wing. They uphold and embody social inequality. Whether they endorse rigid social divisions along cultural lines is just extra gravy.
Democrats are right wing by the standard that they uphold social inequality. They certainly market themselves as left-leaning, but if I had space and sufficient interest, I could easily discourse about the ways in which they are anything but.
Most politically visible Americans yes. People in other countries hold different perspectives, especially in former colonies. People that don't benefit from social inequality (i.e. the majority) are relatively easy to convince the system doesn't work for them.
Not sure about their beliefs. I suspect they just endorse the party most likely to give them a tax break. This may also explain why many are going against Trump - he's been telling the public they've been given a bad deal and he's spoken against some big pork behavior. Who knows what he might do. Biden OTOH seems business friendly enough.
Only if you consider everyone that does not support full on Authoritarian Communism "right wing", and allow for zero classic liberals, libertarians, and 100's other world views.
This is the problem with the narrative on the internet today, anyone that is not collectivist, is not full on Socialist must be "Right wing"
During the monarchy, liberals were left wing (the "radical republicans"). After they won, liberals became the defenders of the status quo and are thus the right wing. There are people further right that wish to roll the clock backwards.
The Radical Republicans refers to a group of anti-slavery congressmen in the 1800s up to, during, and after the American Civil War. There was no monarchy at the time.
That was one later instantiation. Republican radicalism was feared by the aristocracy in the 1700s-1800s. Perhaps they weren't uniformly called "radical" but republicanism was hated.
The group you're referring to was part of the "Republican Party" which was created after republicanism was victorious in the united states after the revolution. I'm not intimately familiar with the iconography around that period, but I would speculate that they were drawing on the old symbols of radicalism when creating that name.
Yet I couldn't clearly claim that he does on the basis of this, as it's just confusing to me, no sure whether that's his flavor of irony. Do you have some more evidence to prove that he believes these things? I had previously seen him as weird and provocative, but not definitely right-wing.
It isn't problematic, just silly. There is no need to police other people's thoughts as long as they keep within the bounds of the law. He is even free to express those thoughts, within the bounds of the law, just like people are free to hollder 'death to America' during demonstrations in Oakland. One of the pillars of a well-functioning state is that things which are not forbidden by law are allowed. It might not be wise, it might not be smart, it might sound stupid (Qanon) or reprehensible (death to America) but it is allowed.
I'm confused, you started the argument off by claiming that spreading PizzaGate isn't problematic and then went into a series of arguments for why it should be legal? Can legal things not be problematic?
I'm confused by your confusion given the fact that I clearly stated that whatever someone says has to be within the bounds of the law. As far as I can see there is no room for confusion here, freedom of expression is bounded by certain laws which forbid a number of things. As long as you don't violate those laws you can say whatever you want.
Some people still think Trump is a Russian agent, on account of 3 years of conspiracy theories being promoted by the left wing media and their loyalists in the CIA and FBI. That's extremely problematic. QAnon and PizzaGate are fringe at best (and its not entirely clear how consequential they are), but probably half the country still does not realize that the Obama administration (and its loyalists) illegally spied on the Trump campaign, entrapped members of Trump admin (General Flynn), and did worse than Nixon could have ever dreamed of.
People like to magnify fringe conspiracies while completely ignoring mainstream ones, when the mainstream ones are actually dangerous for democracy. The police power of government was leveraged against a political rival for explicit political reasons and no one has been punished for it. Extremely dangerous precedent.
> A Microsoft spokesperson told Variety that the reason for his exclusion is the "comments and opinions" Persson has expressed on Twitter, saying that they "do not reflect those of Microsoft or Mojang, and are not representative of Minecraft."
Apparently you're only allowed to have freedom of speech if it fits in the tech left narrative. Show me an example of a extremist left person being denied access to a company event, let alone the founder of the company? Seems downright hypocritical to me.
I've met several people involved in union organizing at household name tech companies who have been disciplined by the companies they work for for exercising their "free speech" rights. You don't mean "tech left" here, you mean "liberal".
https://money.cnn.com/2015/08/31/technology/minecraft-creato...
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/04/online-conduct-leaves...