What are some indirect "tells" that you've picked up that tell you that someone (offline especially) is politically sus amogus?
What are some indirect "tells" that you've picked up that tell you that someone (offline especially) is politically sus amogus?
For me the easiest tell is the up front, unprompted, and unsolicited declaration of nonpoliticalness. When someone takes the time and expends the breath to announce how nonpolitical they are, what follows is almost always a rant about how everything/everyone else is too political these days, and that of course leads into something between status quo advocacy and outright reactionary/regressive sentiments for some fabled time before those wicked politics were visible to the nonpolitical ranter. 
People that are hostile to service workers. Some just want to take some ideological stand against tipping when the service worker doesn't really have a choice and needs those tips to survive in the current unjust system in a way where ideological purity gestures toward that service worker just look like being a greedy and sanctimonious asshole. The worst of such people will actually declare, shamelessly, that they believe that service workers don't deserve a living wage. The implications of that are 
worthy.
I may get shit for this, but I'll say it anyway: this hair and beard combo, seen on living people. 
I have yet to meet anyone in person with that look that wasn't a chud.
(If one of you is a comrade with that look, I am sorry in advance for the prejudice and if I ever meet you in person I will atone by buying you a drink or something.)
You're viewing a single thread.
"nondenominational church"
Talks about "working families" instead of workers when complaining about government policy.
Dislikes both parties, but when pressed cites a dislike of people rather than policy or ideology.
Recently in Aus. Plans to vote no on the voice referendum at all, but especially if they say because "it will create apartheid". For who motherfucker!? (There are, admittedly, some leftists who don't want a voice because they want a treaty first but also this is dumb we need both and also to drive the coalition into the sea, specifically the part of it with the most box jellyfish)
grew up in and around nondenominational churches and wow. some of those people are just a simmering pot of wild takes and beliefs. luckily we made it out but man. it's a black hole.
Yeah, I grew up Catholic, but family were Non-dom and if someone says their Trad its just "I'm a gigantic Fascist who thinks Franco is the coolest"
But "Non-denominational" had just enough non chuds in the description that it could be a group of Christian Anarchists or some Jesuit who got defrocked for taking ecumenicalism too far or some weird descendent of the Diggers. But it wont be, it'll be Hillsong or people more fash than Hillsong.
"nondenominational church"
IME this is code for "you're about to hear that Catholics are all cryptopagans, also I don't know what an Orthodox Christian is but if I did they'd be a cryptopagan too."
Oh man some of these guys think Lutherans and Presbyterians are cryptopagans.
"Why can't they just call themselves Christians?"
More "Arminianism isn't nearly depressing enough a theology for us we need full Hypercalvinism to justify our prosperity gospel."
(I think maybe my recent posts are a bit hard on moderate Reformed (ie, Cavinist) Churches who despite my disagreements have often lead left wing movements. But much like Tradcaths these fuckers aren't helping.)
what the fuck is a cryptopagan
When I was a kid, my non-denominational (and/or evangelical, depending on the week) mother used to tell me that really Catholics were pagans because they prayed to saints, which is polytheism.
Permanently Deleted
NZ has huge problems, I've lived there and I am under no illusion that there has been a proper reckoning there. But they're an order of magnitude better than Australia, and that's party due to the shitty treaty they (largely didn't, since it was a dodgy translation) signed. Even if it was mostly ignored and the Maori had to fight for every inch of their rights on the streets, it did make things a little easier for that fight, and for the fights they still have.
AU on the other hand did not recognise that Aboriginal nations held land here at all until the 1990s. We have the highest First Nations incarceration Rate in the World, higher than SA under Apartheid (unless you count the Bantustans as essentially giant prisons, of course, but then we had the forced reservations, the stolen generation, the institutes...). It's really hard to imagine how bad things are. There are entire families that think having aboriginal heritage is something to be ashamed of, and their kids haven't found out until they did a DNA test or found some letters (Fanon's work on Colonial shame is relevant here). It's fucking bleak and racism is open, constant, and blatant in a way that would shock most people here. Major news anchors spew eugenics. Seemingly ordinary humanist libs will suddenly spew the most violent racist bile in a way I've only ever seen with the Romani in Europe.
Some of that exists in NZ as well, but like I said, it's not as mask off or as universal.
I hold little hope, like you, that a voice or a treaty will accomplish practical change on their own. But because most people are libs, it will provide not just a basis for agitprop that will be harder to ignore, but "Legitimate institutions" that can support the substantive campaigns of direct action in a way liberals will be unable to ignore or critique as outside the "proper channels."
If it fails of course, we can bully the Yes voters into radical action, which is also fun. We have a path either way. But I'd prefer a win.