Lately it seems like the term "redpilled" is only used to describe people on the political right. Are leftists capable of being redpilled and remaining leftists?
Yes leftists are the most capable at holding various contradicting opinions about a subject simultaneously while only agreeing with the one that most benefits them at the time
>>69083071
Red-pilled to me means enlightenment, and realizing that much of our culture is lies I.E. racial and gender equality.
Liberals generally reject these things outright. So I'd lean towards no, though there are very intelligent liberals.
>>69083071
There are some leftists that hold some anti-egalitarian viewpoints, so I'd say yes. Though you'd be hard-pressed to find them these days.
Of course:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_democratic_parties
>>69083071
Uh no. The color coding is very specific.
probably...think if u were minority....i mean to say it comes down to that in life lol u kno its not....i would hope not but for some was it? mYbe for me even.
>>69083071
yes
>>69083071
Leftism in its most essential form is the rejection of natural relationships and hierarchies (read: material reality) in favor of enforcing egalitarian fantasies via political violence.
Being rightist doesn't mean you're redpilled, but being leftist disqualifies you outright.
>>69083071
Seeing that many "red pilled" views are actually quite liberal, the answer is yes. Once the right gets over its evangelical love in, and the left abandon the regressive identity politics, we will all be the healthier.
>>69083071
Yes but they would be shunned by the rest of the bluepilled leftists
>>69083071
Problem with leftist is that there are only two kinds - naive, idealistic idiots with covers over their eyes, or cynical bastards who knows how the world works and are willing to exploit the naive idiots, using noble ideas.
Only ones who can be redpilled are the naive ones, who aren't usually in higher levels of society, and you have to be calm, measured and have extensive knowledge about subjects. Unfortunately, that is like a population hit with a pandemic and only way to cure them is to perform a brain surgery on every single one of them.
Take the 'wage gap'. Someone says women are paid 75% of what a men are paid. Instantly, millions of people believe it. To debunk it, you have to have extensive knoledge about it, and a lot of time.
It is why left ideologues love Twitter - there is no effective way to debunk their shit there, all they need is one liners.
>>69083071
The only pill a leftist can take is a lead pill, administered to the back of the head via luger.
>>69083071
Nope, it contradicts with muh feels
>>69083071
I think only when it's beating down their door and going to effect them personally. (because of the society they wanted and voted for.)
And if they are one of the lucky ones behind a barricade with bodyguards, they probably knew all along. They just didn't care because they wanted this world destroyed, so it could be remade into a utopia.
>>69083071
Uh... I'm gonna say no, but with exceptions. And no, Obama is not an exception.
>>69083071
Yup.
>>69083071
They exist, but they're often shouted down by the more rabid, modern social justice types. Finding one in the wild is like spotting a unicorn though.
>>69084489
This. Only way for America to become redpilled is to give them, exactly what they want - to vote in Sanders, to give them free education, to fully open their borders, to install socialism, safe spaces, to take away their guns, to raise the minimum to 15 bucks, to pull back cops from black neighbourhoods. Maybe then they will wake up, and spend next half a century fixing the damages, just like we did.
I've heard all the redpill arguments and remain unswayed.
>>69084648
The perversity of the regressive left/ SJW movement is that it's driving a lot of traditional liberals to the right. And not just the white men they have written off. The next stage will be losing the feminists who simply want the same pay/rights/whatever as men, and see the irony of importing muslims wholesale into Europe, or thinking that everything non-white male is not necessarily superior.
>>69083071
i used to be left not even a few years ago
i doubt im a rare case
leftists save GM,ford, us Bank...
>>69084333
Hello mini Satan
While the low level, and moderate lefties can be changed, the hardcore extreme ones can't. They're lost cases and the only way to free them from their miserable cancerous existence is to gas them all.
Burn the heretics when??
>>69085275
This. Jim Webb is a leftist liberal but he's awesome. Look how he was ignored, though.
>>69083071
I'm a prime example here
![redpill[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/Z6XcCXG.png "redpill[1].png")
In the movie The Matrix, taking the "red pill" meant you wanted the truth. You were ready to know how the world really works, behind the illusion created by the Matrix.
In places like /pol/, being "redpilled" means you don't accept what you're being told from the current purveyors of opinion. Specifically, you're breaking through the illusion crafted by the leftists that run academia, washington, hollywood, and the mainstream news media. Once you question an story on CNN, or dispute an academic article, stop taking advice from TV shows or movies, or simply disagree that the government knows more/better than you, you've essentially taken the "red pill." Large corporations like Google and Apple are also controlled by lefties that donate heavily to left wing causes and politicians and contribute wherever they can to the continuing leftist 'illusion.'
>Are leftists capable of being redpilled and remaining leftists?
That makes no sense. If someone is a leftist, they're either drinking the koolaid (taking the blue pill) or they're manufacturing it. Taking the red pill is the average person waking up to what a leftist is and how they operate. A leftist can't "wake up" to the conspiracy that they participate in everyday.
>>69083071
yes. but only when great tragedy strikes their life and they seek truth and recovery.
also, they change only when they feel like they've always felt that way but were secretly oppressed/brainwashed before.
(source: myself)
>>69085889
lmao did ur gramma also sell weapons to african nations in the 60s and 70s?
>>69083071
Yes, plenty of people here used to be left wing.
But an idea, like any other, and regardless of truthfulness, must grow from the inside, where the ego isn't on the line. It must be planted as gently as possible so its kept deep down their conscience as an itch, a ticking bomb that will bug them until they can't resist flirting with it, toying, exploring, and finally researching.
It is a slow process, and you can't rush it, you can't just lay the facts down and expect someone to go, oh okay, i see, everything i knew was wrong.
A paradigm changes step by step, until you finally come through holding a yet stronger conviction in your beliefs, since you know exactly what's on the opposite side.
Also, stop redefining redpill to uplift your particular political brand. Redpill is mostly about realizing how the powers above us operate, and how the version we're sold regarding history, politics and even entertainment, is a packaged lie holding ulterior political motives to gain power or keep who is in power, remaining in power.
>>69083071
Many leftists actually are redpilled. They understand that there is a problem that needs to be fixed and are willing to go to the extreme to fix it.
The problem is that they can't give up on some issues that are manipulated by the current power structure.
Many times, they share the same goals as us. Bernie bros and Trump supporters can actually agree on many issues. It's the way that we go about achieving the objective that is different.
We believe that ending shitty trade deals, imposing tariffs and removing the illegal work force will improve the situation for us in the West. They agree, though they wish to give amnesty to illegals.
Where we differ in our approach is quite simply described as a conflict between pragmatism and idealism.
And want to destroy our enemies, they stubbornly cling to peace. We want to punish, they want to rehabilitate. We want to earn, they want to entitle, and so on.
On the core, fundamental issues, the dismantlement of the globalist agenda and the improvement of the labor situation, we agree with one another 100%
The rest of it is nuts and bolts function of government stuff, or nonsense issues like gender pronouns.
So, can we red pill leftists? Yes. Can anyone change their personality? No, they're soft and they'll stay that way for the rest of their lives. But people like this have always existed and it's of duty to protect them... Because in an ideal democracy, we're supposed to balance each other out. The balance is out of whack and we need to restore it.
What we should be hoping for is reconciliation and a return to the center. Nothing Trump has said is inherently evil. We need to get the other half to understand this and accept that he is the best of for the right as Bernie is the best for the left.
Tl;dr They're already redpilled, they just have a different way of getting to the same place as us.
>>69085760
But it's not as though what we are told by the institution is incorrect by default. What's an example of this 'leftist illusion' you speak of? I mean, if the criteria for being 'redpilled' is the ability to spot propaganda, I'd say i'm pretty good at that despite being what you'd call a democratic socialist.
Yes, people who are libertarian left typically are. Ghandi is a example
>>69086714
>What's an example of this 'leftist illusion' you speak of?
Take any popular lefty dogma off the shelf and you have a piece of the leftist illusion in your hands.
Let's take the "truth" about gun crime in the United States for example. According to the narrative, the US is a viciously dangerous place where people shoot each other constantly. And why?
>Leftist Illusions:
>1. Gun violence is rampant
>2. Gun ownership causes crime
>3. Poverty causes crime
>4. Only gun control will prevent gun violence
These are illusions. These are pieces of propaganda, foisted upon a public that is supposed to swallow them without thought. This narrative is the "blue pill." Thousands of these pills are handed out daily by those in control of the media. The second you reject the popular narrative, you've taken the red pill.
I'm finding that successfully red-pilling these wacky lefties is a gradual process. It doesn't just happen in a day.
Females are the tough ones, almost as if some sort of Teflon exterior surrounds the bubble gum in their heads.
Just keep at them. Quickest way to red-pill a lefty is to convince them Facebook, FOX, CNN are horseshit. Gotta introduce them to alternative medias.
Black Pigeon Speaks is now my go-to for making someone see the light.
>>69086571
>Tl;dr They're already redpilled, they just have a different way of getting to the same place as us.
Some of them, SOME of them. The Soros enabling -trump is a raycis- crowd isn't redpilled by any means, they're just useful idiots.
I suppose you could counter-balance by saying trump supported aren't all that bright, and you would probably be right, that goes for any popular mass behind a candidate, i guess.
If progressives were redpilled they'd understand they're being used and stop being progressives, they'd go back to the center as classic liberals.
Is that still a leftist in America nowadays?
>>69087344
>Is that still a leftist in America nowadays?
Nope. Classical liberals jumped ship about 100 years ago. Now the US left is:
>Social Liberals
>Progressives
>Green Party
>Radical Leftists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States#American_versus_European_use_of_the_term_.22liberalism.22
Classical liberals don't exist in the US and instead are today's Libertarians.
>>69087073
Alright, fair enough. I think I understand your point- the establishment fools its people into willingly handing them control on the basis of some kind of 'greater good.' You only have to look closer at modern war doctrine for evidence of that. But why does most of /pol/ seem to gravitate towards a candidate like Trump? Couldn't he theoretically be trying to use the same left-wing propaganda tactics to amass his support?
>>69084255
>czeched
>>69087233
>first video made 2 weeks ago
Hello Pigeon Speaks
>>69087931
>But why does most of /pol/ seem to gravitate towards a candidate like Trump? Couldn't he theoretically be trying to use the same left-wing propaganda tactics to amass his support?
Well, /pol/ isn't one person, but as Trump supporters I'd put most of them in three different sections.
1. Memesters
These anons either had fun with the Ron Paul memes, or missed out. Either way, they're in it for the dankness.
2. Believers
These anons truly resonate with what Trump says. Be it about a wall, or about making America great, these anons want to see Trump in charge and see his policies in place.
3. Antiestablishmentarians
Trump isn't the lapdog of either party. This could be seen as the "red pill" version of a Trump supporter. They feel they're not drinking the koolaid, and they want a candidate that isn't either. It of course remains to be seen if Trump will fight the illusion, or expand it.
Trump is an unknown. Theoretically, he could be any kind of president, because there's no track record for him. As such, all the "red pill" anons could be using meme magic to get the next super statist elected. We simply don't know yet. But I think they'd all reply "we know that all the other candidates are lefty/statist/globalists, at least with Trump there's a chance."
>>69083071
They can if they're shown the matters they're overlooking. Lot of more reasonable leftists I've encountered haven't bothered thinking about the issues right wingers promote. Takes an open mind and a reasonable argument, why doesn't /pol/ try it for once instead of posting shitty memes?
>>69088431
Excuse me. /pol/ has the best memes. We have no need for your attitude here mister.
>>69088427
I can understand wanting to elect an anti-establishment figure, because desu, you guys really fucking need someone to shake clean up the bullshit woven through your political system. What makes Trump a more viable anti-establishment candidate than Bernie?
>>69088388
Moron. Dude's been making vids for over 3 months. Cut yourself.
>>69088773
>What makes Trump a more viable anti-establishment candidate than Bernie?
When leftists run Hollywood/Academia/Washington/News Media/Most of the Internet, an "anti-establishment" lefty like Bernie doesn't quite fit the bill.
Every single one of his policy points lines up nicely with the current democrat/liberal/leftist agenda. So while he might not be the lapdog of the Democrats, he's not really anti-establishment in the broad sense.
>>69088773
The difference is the ideology that they present. Bernie may be different than the establishment but what he really represents is just taking a bigger step down the path we're already taking. Trump is the "anti-establishment" candidate that more /pol/ users ideologically agree with. They want him to reverse the changes leftists are trying to make, end the immigration problem, etc.
>>69089264
Leftism itself isn't necessarily bad. It's just that the basic concept of liberalism has been used so easily by the establishment because no one can argue that freedom is a bad idea without looking like an idiot. Isn't compounding all leftist beliefs into a unified title ultimately detrimental to seeing the world as it really is? Wouldn't a truly redpilled society combine the best parts of both left and right-wing ideologies?
>>69090231
>Isn't compounding all leftist beliefs into a unified title ultimately detrimental to seeing the world as it really is?
Yes
There are aspects of leftism however that are too cancerous to society to let them lead the way. Conservatism is about fixing your internal problems and leftism is about progressing society. The way I see it we have problems in our country that we need to solve now before we create more problems trying to implement radical progressive policies
>>69090231
>Leftism itself isn't necessarily bad.
Depends on your definition of course. And the US is it's own little world, so our definition might be different.
The modern Leftist in the United States is based in progressivism and social liberalism. They're the race baiters, the 3rd wave feminist, the politically correct, the multiculturalists, the SJW. They believe in identity politics and intersectionality.
These people would steal each and every right the average citizen has in return for a promise of "safety," "fairness," and "equality" that will never come. They want power, naked and unfettered, to pick the winners and losers in society and to settle scores with their political enemies. Their main enemy is the straight white male and the values that have propped up western civilization. And they'll stop at nothing to destroy it.
I don't want ANY part of this ideology to persist.
>what about just regular democrat/union jackoffs?
These guys really aren't leftists. They don't make the koolaid, they drink it. As such, useful idiots don't contribute much to the discussion.
>>69090231
Is there a single concept of liberalism that benefits a civilization or society as a whole? I feel like there might have been something good deep in there that has been taken way, way too far to still be recognizable.
>>69083071
this idea of 'redpill' = right wing politics only came about during the obama 12 election cycle
also due to a lot of 'redpill' views being conservative in nature
>>69090933
What would these leftist problems be, other than immigration? Can't there be a unilateral implementation of both ideologies? Btw, I'm fairly pro-immigration, as long as the quantities we're discussing are economically stable,
>>69091260
>Is there a single concept of liberalism that benefits a civilization or society as a whole?
Depends.
There's liberalism:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
liberalism:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism
and liberalism.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_liberalism
Plus about 52 other variants.
But more specifically, modern US liberalism is "social liberalism" and as I pointed out above, differs quite a bit from what non-US anons think liberalism is.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States#American_versus_European_use_of_the_term_.22liberalism.22
Classical liberalism (modern Libertarianism) is full of great ideas. But those ideas moved into the "right wing" camp decades ago.
>>69083071
Ethnonationalism is all that matters.
Left, right, protestand, catholic, atheist, faggot, degeneracy ... all of it is only relevant to shills and trolls. Those things come and go without destroying the continuity of a culture, only foreigners destroy that.
>>69083071
In what sense? As someone whose family and friends are nearly all Democrats, I can say most of them are privately racist as fuck, not /pol/-tier but they look down on blacks and Hispanics and don't think of them as equal to whites, as well as not really liking Muslims.
>>69091808
And what if the "right wing" of politics is pushing for nationalism and ethnocentrism, and the "left wing" is pushing for globalism and multiculturalism?
Doesn't that make those terms immediately relevant again, you retarded fartlover?
i wish some of these lazy dichotomy/classifications would just fucking die. all it does is encourage passivity and makes sorting the sheep easier, shits just fucking embarrassing to watch especially if you have a strong balance of understanding/accepting reality and creativity/imagination. that's the hidden one that people easily get trapped too far on one side or the other with.
if your positions aren't consistent or acceptable within either of the two narratives, you just get rejection from parroting retards who only know accept/deny, unity/conflict, good/bad, etc. it's pathetic.
i know on here some things get thrown around more as generalizations and more people know the truth behind these lies, but it's just so fucking insufferable and basic most of the time in the "real" (irony) world.
america does seem worse with this because of muh 2 party state but it's too true all over. shameful..
>>69091458
The idea that these are problems is subjective but things like censorship, political correctness, affirmative action policies and the fact that we let anybody vote. Should have to earn the right to vote I think.
>>69092059
>retarded fartlover
Literally what.
>>69091093
>>69091260
For me, an ideal society, not a liberal one per se, would be driven by utilitarianism. Suffering is minimized, and happiness would shared equally among all. To be honest, I can't visualise what this would look like, but i'm certain it incorporates elements of leftist policy- Universal healthcare, reasonable welfare for those who are not sufficiently rewarded for their contribution to society (basically, I despise the idea of basic income), support for refugees in reasonable quantities, among else. I guess this is basically social democracy.
>>69091093
The funny thing is that I actually agree that the groups you mentioned don't have their priorities set. Modern feminism is focused on boosting equality in a society that already respects people's rights fairly well. Equality for women would be an essential part of what you'd call a 'redpilled' society, but modern feminism seems to have warped into this directionless movement that has nonetheless been unquestionably written into the modern liberal manifesto. It doesn't have a realistic end goal like the suffragettes did. I see more social activists arguing about the inclusion of the Q in LGBTQ than about equal pay. And it wants to fix unfixable problems, like rape. Modern feminism is convinced that the acts of one deranged individual reflect on the entire male population, which is obviously BS, since Western society in no way advocates or attempts to normalise such actions- unlike other parts of the world, which is where most of the movement's attention should be geared at.
But ultimately, economic issues should take priority over social issues. Poverty, unemployment, and more relevantly, equal pay, are bigger problems than being groped on the subway by some perv.
>>69085057
That's because you are a nigger.
