I thought that r/SneerClub could tell the difference between actual centrism and transparently rightwing faux "centrism" even if r/ssc is a lost cause, but apparently not.
I'm not /r/sneerclub, I just moderate it, and I don't see what's "transparently rightwing" about this comment, or have a conception of what "faux "centrism"" is in your usage.
It's the highest rated comment on the thread (at time of posting my response and at time of writing this), so I don't really feel like I'm reaching when I suggest it's endorsed by r/SneerClub as a whole.
I don't even understand how that comment can be read except as right wing, its pretense and even-handedness seems so thoroughly disingenuous to me. It opens by name-checking Scott Adams.
> I don't really feel like I'm reaching when I suggest it's endorsed by r/SneerClub as a whole.
I disagree, a single set of upvotes and downvotes are a terrible way to judge a subreddit "as a whole". In fact judging a subreddit "as a whole" is a misguided project in the first place.
I notice you didn't help me out in my poor understanding except by mentioning Scott Adams, and I've encountered plenty of dumb centrists dumb enough to take him seriously "even if I disagree with him about Trump" etc..
Fair enough, I was mostly just venting, I'd probably write my comment more carefully if I wrote it again.
Similarly, I genuinely don't know what would convince you if reading the comment in question didn't and don't really feel like carefully laying out an argument I expect would just be dismissed out of hand anyway.
I've made my impression fairly clear: it simply doesn't come off as especially right wing, I'm not saying you're *wrong* to interpret it as being especially right wing, but I also don't think it's *obviously* right wing in sentiment. If you read all the way through, it's basically just a (shallow) exposition of the "both sides see things differently" argument, and it explicitly refuses to express a preference either way.
Yeah, I think I'm probably just a lot more suspicious of that pose having seen it so often deployed insincerely that the few hints (like the Scott Adams name drop) feel much more dispositive to me than they do for you. Also if you check his responses in the thread he eventually cops to being "more red than blue".
I doubt I'd have made a comment that reading it back is clearly spoiling for a fight if it hadn't been such a nightmarish week in general.
by the standards of SSC, where about half the users are convinced
that Kavanaugh must be confirmed even if he is guilty (although he
definitely isn’t), lest we set a precedent where the SJWs can derail any
and every republican politician with false rape claims, and also
everyone who thinks otherwise is a lying Pizza-gate-tier conspiracy
theorist, that’s pretty reasonable and measured
I like how to believe this whole narrative, you have to be the kind
of person who doesn’t believe in anything.
You ready for my edgy yearbook/youtube comment?
The odds are that one of those last two paragraphs made you very
mad….
…If you’re a man who has been falsely accused of a crime by a
vindictive ex, and been unable to prove your innocence, you’re furious
at everyone involved in this process.
That comment doesn’t say what you put in the title. It’s just a pretty dull exposition on dopey Haidt centrism.
by the standards of SSC, where about half the users are convinced that Kavanaugh must be confirmed even if he is guilty (although he definitely isn’t), lest we set a precedent where the SJWs can derail any and every republican politician with false rape claims, and also everyone who thinks otherwise is a lying Pizza-gate-tier conspiracy theorist, that’s pretty reasonable and measured
I like how to believe this whole narrative, you have to be the kind of person who doesn’t believe in anything.
You ready for my edgy yearbook/youtube comment?
My money is that this guy is a date rapist.
“I’m certainly not telling you what to believe, I just made a really long effort-post on r/IntellectualDarkWeb”