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.
