So, maybe it's time to introduce myself.
My real name's Hansi. I'm a part of the tumblr exodus. I'm a commie-anarcho-individualist-feminist-democratic confederalist-animal liberationist. I'm an Ásatrú practitioner. I'm bisexual and polyamorous. I'm a philosophy undergrad, currently writing my bachelor's thesis on the right to health. I have a dog. Her name is Stella. I love Doctor Who, beer and folk punk, and I hate Nazis.
The regular right
Another example of this is when right wingers talk about individualism or individual liberty. This is a narrative that the right has been pretty successful in promoting; the idea that there's an inherent tension between the individual and the collective and that the right is on the side of the individual.
When you look closely, you see that this is false. Right wingers don't care about individuals. If they cared about individuals, they'd support public education, college for all and funds for scientific study and the arts; as to give each individual the opportunity reach their fullest potential. If they cared about individuals, they'd support a robust welfare system, housing for the homeless and universal healthcare; as to ensure that individuals are not held back by poverty or sickness.
But that doesn't matter. The point was never to protect the individual. The point has always been to destroy the collective.
"Facts don't care about your feelings" is a catchy slogan and it's intuitively correct. When our feelings are disproportionate to the facts, we really should adjust our feelings.
The catch is that the facts are generally not on side of the garbage people. From gender to climate change to the effects of soy on the human body, the scientific facts simply aren't on the side of the people saying that "facts don't care about your feelings". If you examine their arguments, the stalwart champions of logic tend to have the least logical arguments.
But that doesn't matter to these people, because the point was never to defend reason or logic or the facts. The point was always to justify their lack of empathy and care for their fellow human beings.
Here's a less abstract scenario:
You believe in a garbage ideology that firmly rejects empathy, compassion, vulnerability and caring about making the world a better place. When you argue against these things, people tell you you're a garbage person. So what do you do?
You find counterpart concepts to these things you're against. These facets of basic human decency that I listed earlier can be (very) broadly summed up as "feelings", because they're all rooted in a healthy emotional response to the world around you, so intuitive counterparts that are facts, logic and reason.
So you, the proponent of this garbage ideology, create a narrative where you're the champion of logic and reason, and the sjw soyboys only care about feelings.
Here's a very abstract scenario:
You are a proponent of an ideology we're going to designate as X. A part of ideology X is that it rejects a concept that we'll designate as A. Your problem is that concept A is generally accepted as being a positive thing by most people, so when you go about saying that you hate A, people tend to think you're a prick. How do you solve this problem?
A pretty effective, and rather dishonest, solution is to find a counterpart concept, concept B, and construct a narrative where A and B are in opposition to one another. You can then present ideology X as being not so much anti-concept A, but rather just pro-concept B. You can say that it's only because of your staunch and principled support of B that you oppose A.
You of course don't actually give a rodent's rectum about concept B. You might even be in direct contradiction with concept B, when your ideology is examined closely. But that doesn't matter. The point was never B. The point was being anti A.
"He talks revolution for an hour without using any verbs"
Sunbeam City is a Libertarian Socialist solarpunk instance. It is ran democratically by a cooperative of like-minded individuals.