Why is leftist ideology less prominent than reactionary ideology online?

[James Monroe]

Most websites tend to attract tons of right-wingers, even if the site is apolitical or beyond their acknowledge, liberal. Libertarianism, a fringe ideology not represented outside of Paul and few other congressional representatives, has dozens of followers online who spread their message through impressionable minds. Socialism, even in the post Cold-War era, is still misunderstood as being anything the government implicates, including spying on civilians who might be terrorist suspects. Even during the developing years of the internet there were websites dedicated to right-wing thought while leftist messages where to be found absent. Any reason why for this political confusion?


(In before Tumblr and SJW controlling the internet!!!!!!)

[Cory]

I find that the far-right is more willing to work together against common enemies whilst the far-left is internally divided between endless tendencies.

A Neo-Nazi and a fringey "militia-type" will have an easier time getting along then a Marxist-Leninist and a Maoist or Trotskyist.

[TNF]

Well, the fact that the left is pretty much dead has a good deal to do with it.

[Maxwell]

lol anecdotal evidence ("most websites")

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Everyone overestimates how many conservatives there are. Even liberal politicians.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/study-lawmakers-liberal-conservative-assume

[Mr. Smith]

Simple: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE

Just replace this with whatever leftist issue debated online that you want. And replace the Romans with Republicans or Tories or whatever big-wig conservative/reactionary opposition there is.

[Crumpets]

I find that the far-right is more willing to work together against common enemies whilst the far-left is internally divided between endless tendencies.

A Neo-Nazi and a fringey "militia-type" will have an easier time getting along then a Marxist-Leninist and a Maoist or Trotskyist.

Which is very ironic, given that most far-right movements are based on the premise "My people are the best most smartest most greatest and strongest people in the whole wide world," while far-left movements are very "Solidarity with all the oppressed working people of the world and unity in the face of bourgeois attacks against people of any creed, ethnicity, color, religion or background." Yet it does seem true that fringe leftists are much less likely to put aside their differences than fringe rightists.

[freefair]

The Python thing was actually art imitating life, they based that skit off the British Far-Left and endless revolutionary socialist groups of the 70s.

[Rockefeller GOP]

It's not.

[Boston Bread]

It makes sense that the left would be more divided if you use the pro-status quo definition of conservatism. It's much harder to create a consensus on how to replace the current system than to decide how to not replace the current system.

[The Last Northerner]

If we make sweeping generalizations on social-cultural issues, the left has no need to retreat to the cover of online anonymity because it is dominant in the 'West'. When social-cultural issues arise, the left gets to frame the discourse and langauge of the debate. Their views are considered standard and opposing viewpoints are considered backward or taboo.

I hate to use the agressor/defender analogy but the social liberals/progressives are the one spearheading social-cultural changes while their opponents are largely on the defensive. Consider how Sarkozy is considered more radical than Chirac because he advocates more culturally conservative positions. They are not too different in economics.

Well, the fact that the left is pretty much dead has a good deal to do with it.

This is certainly true in economics because it is the exact opposite of above. The right forces the left to adapt to the former's terms as neoliberal economics are the dominant though. They are only left in that they are left relative to neoliberalism. Consider how SYRIZA (at the time) was more radical than PASOK for opposing austerity but not too different in social-cultural issues.

In other words, Western Liberalism is the dominant ideology. Opposing it drives you to fringes of both politics and the internet. Consensual 'moderate heroes' and centrist parties are large liberal - neo and social.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If we make sweeping generalizations on social-cultural issues, the left has no need to retreat to the cover of online anonymity because it is dominant in the 'West'. When social-cultural issues arise, the left gets to frame the discourse and langauge of the debate. Their views are considered standard and opposing viewpoints are considered backward or taboo.

I hate to use the agressor/defender analogy but the social liberals/progressives are the one spearheading social-cultural changes while their opponents are largely on the defensive. Consider how Sarkozy is considered more radical than Chirac because he advocates more culturally conservative positions. They are not too different in economics.

Well, the fact that the left is pretty much dead has a good deal to do with it.

This is certainly true in economics because it is the exact opposite of above. The right forces the left to adapt to the former's terms as neoliberal economics are the dominant though. They are only left in that they are left relative to neoliberalism. Consider how SYRIZA (at the time) was more radical than PASOK for opposing austerity but not too different in social-cultural issues.

In other words, Western Liberalism is the dominant ideology. Opposing it drives you to fringes of both politics and the internet. Consensual 'moderate heroes' and centrist parties are large liberal - neo and social.

LOL, what dude? I suppose you don't remember the year after 9/11, when Bush had a 91% approval rating and everyone thought he could do no wrong. There was no liberal media, except salon.com. The next day salon.com was running articles interviewing Gary Hart about how all the terrorist warnings he gave the Bush administration were ignored. The rest of the media was all rah rah rah Bush for at least the next year.

[The Last Northerner]

If we make sweeping generalizations on social-cultural issues, the left has no need to retreat to the cover of online anonymity because it is dominant in the 'West'. When social-cultural issues arise, the left gets to frame the discourse and langauge of the debate. Their views are considered standard and opposing viewpoints are considered backward or taboo.

I hate to use the agressor/defender analogy but the social liberals/progressives are the one spearheading social-cultural changes while their opponents are largely on the defensive. Consider how Sarkozy is considered more radical than Chirac because he advocates more culturally conservative positions. They are not too different in economics.

Well, the fact that the left is pretty much dead has a good deal to do with it.

This is certainly true in economics because it is the exact opposite of above. The right forces the left to adapt to the former's terms as neoliberal economics are the dominant though. They are only left in that they are left relative to neoliberalism. Consider how SYRIZA (at the time) was more radical than PASOK for opposing austerity but not too different in social-cultural issues.

In other words, Western Liberalism is the dominant ideology. Opposing it drives you to fringes of both politics and the internet. Consensual 'moderate heroes' and centrist parties are large liberal - neo and social.

LOL, what dude? I suppose you don't remember the year after 9/11, when Bush had a 91% approval rating and everyone thought he could do no wrong. There was no liberal media, except salon.com. The next day salon.com was running articles interviewing Gary Hart about how all the terrorist warnings he gave the Bush administration were ignored. The rest of the media was all rah rah rah Bush for at least the next year.

I hope you do not consider foreign policy a left-right issue as the media and 'establishment' as a whole lined up sharping their bayonets.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This is what the liberal media ran the next day. The actual liberal media, which is just salon.com.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.salon.com/2001/09/13/bush_111/

[buritobr]

The comments sections of news websites are full of right-wing comments. All of them look like the same. If you have read one right-wing comment, you have already read all of them.
It looks loke that a robot is writing these comments.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Reactionary sentiment is common in things like comments and blog posts. The clue to why? It's in the name.

That said, a lot of traditionally right-wing views have no place on the internet. Although the antitheism ubiquitous on the web has been hit recently by a counter-backlash, theistic sentiment is routinely mocked outside of religious quarantines. I'm pretty sure pro-marijuana activists scour the web for articles on their drugs (I highly doubt, for example, traditional MailOnline readers would respond so negatively to a Mailite "augh drugs" article).

[SWE]

lol anecdotal evidence ("most websites")

Well how do you objectively quantify this? Take a survey of the comments section of every website?