Is the "Omnicause" real?

Because I can see what the various large-follower accounts on X post about, and what their followers say.
You seem weirdly cross about this btw. That's twice now you've been randomly rude to me.

Guesswork.

It's a lazy old game. Pop the people you disagree with in a convent little group so you can dismiss them.

Maybe some stereotype themselves.

Oh is this another trans obsession thread?

Apart from climate change they can all be described as being about leaving people alone to live in peace. You might disagree that's what they are doing but it's an understandable red thread. I guess the link to climate change is that in order for people to be free to live the lives they want, they need to be able to actually live and climate change endangers that.

Fair enough to disagree with individual points but the idea that there isn't a natural connection between these causes doesn't make sense.

It's lazy stereotyping. There's a chunk of people on right see those on the left as all having neon-coloured hair and facial piercings as well as being lazy social studies graduating antisemetic callow youths who are over-educated but know nothing of the "real world". Anyone subscribing to any vaguely left-ish ideas then get labelled with all those and so dismissed as the loony left.

It's easier to dismiss false stereotypes than to defend your views.

I too am an old school leftie. As are many of us. What people associate with being left wing are those most visible and loudest. Young, demonstrative, passionate about any cause where they percieve people to be oppressed. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I think they've got it wrong (GI being one example) but overall I think what they're displaying is as much rooted in the enthusiasm of youth, and extreme liberalism as in a commitment to a left wing social and economic model for society.

@TooBigForMyBoots you're only concentrating on that one case. You've asked the question. I'm quite pleasantly surprised at the answers. I thought there would be pushback on this, being on MN.

I think there's an equivalent on the right in the UK, but Donald Trump / MAGA are very "omnicausal".

Neither are people just left-wing or right-wing, there's also the libertarian vs authoritarian aspect. I'd consider myself a liberal centrist, I get fed up of authoritarian right-wingers calling me a lefty because I'm liberal, and leftists calling me a right-winger because I'm moderate.

“These are pretty mainstream views and typically just about being a decent fair minded person who doesn't want to see other people suffer.”

I think this quote from a pp illustrates one of the reasons that some people accept all aspects of the approved causes without doing any deep thinking or considering nuance. The rule appears to be: if you support the approved causes (all of them) you’re a good person. If you don’t, you’re bad.

The hardcore believers of the approved causes have a strong dose of moral superiority.

I would suggest everyone I know supports no more than one of the things mentioned. Some "right wing" people I know - eg don't like Netanyahu, don't like trans or don't like America, don't like paying tax.

More right wingers have overlap due to authoritarian belief structures. Far more likely to be climate change deniers, anti vaxxers, anti LGBT (not just trans), anti immigration and anti paying tax. You can tell what people believe very easily when they start on any of these topics which was why they were so easy for cambridge analytica to manipulate with psyops.

Left wingers are more diverse and usually focus on people-centric approaches that lean towards empathy.

I don't really understand your scepticism on this.
The omnicause is "real" in the same way any other social construct is real. It's an idea about how some people align politically on multiple issues. You could say it's an idea that doesn't accurately describe the majority of people on the left, but then I don't think it was ever supposed to.

OP, you seem to be reading more into the phrase 'omnicause' than is really meant.

People have observed that there is a certain kind of left wing activist who tries to lump together all the various causes they support as part of one common struggle. 'Omnicause' just describes this lumping everything together into one cause. It's not any deeper than that.

That superiority thing cuts both ways though, doesn't it? The conceit that if people support causes you don't, then it's because they are not as capable of thinking it through as you. That they are performative or brainwashed unlike your sensible astute self.

Genderwoo itself exists, it's just the contents of those beliefs that are (imo) false.

I don't think most of the ideas typically bundled up in the omnicsuse are necessarily true or false, they are mostly matters of opinion.

And I still don't understand your disbelief.

Because if you say the omnicause isn't real, what do you mean? If you mean no one believes in this mixture of progressive ideas, then that's nonsense. If you say its not common, then that's irrelevant IMO veganism would still be real even if there was only one vegan. If you mean there's no strategy of activists bolstering their cause by linking it to another, then again it's nonsense. If you mean it's not unique and there are equivalent blocs of causes on the political right, that's irrelevant again. If you mean supporters of the omnicause wouldn't describe their views as such, then you misunderstand how the word is used. Was one of those your meaning or is there a sense of the omnicause 'not being real' that I am missing?

No.

You really are misunderstanding what the term means. Its a description of the way certain people treat a set of beliefs.

It's a description of a set of observed patterns.

Whether the beliefs make sense, are coherent, or whether those people really believe them, isn't the point.

Its just Internet nonsense OP.