@suspendedreason, might pull you back in, because I am trying (seemingly like you are) to develop some kind of voice, or discourse, that avoids alienating as many people as possible, left and right, and it all needs to be (almost brutally) genuine.
If you haven't already, I would recommend feeling out the dirtbag left, the reactionary left, the anti-woke left, and those associated with those circles. Not sure how self-ascribed these labels are, but they make sense: Dirtbag left applies to those who hold progressive beliefs but do not constrain themselves in terms of tone and language - they pretty much pass, in casual conversation, as right wing; the reactionary left applies to those who think we need a return to class-based politics, rather than broader identity/intersectional politics (or "cultural revisionism" as I call it, which is a more neutral term than cancel culture)
We can see how the dirtbag left (Red Scare, to name a couple, although again, not sure if they would apply it themselves) kinda bridges certain gaps between right and left, seeing as much of the right-based opposition to the left is almost purely because of the censorship the left applies to itself.
The reactionary left is more interesting, I think, especially when it doesn't reject the conversation/discourse on privilege - which I think is an important conversation, yes, for political reasons, but also for philosophical reasons. Acknowledging privilege prevents people from assuming their lives are universally experienced, that everyone else has the wherewithal to do what they do, and that if they don't its because of poor character. I can easily make the case that this is a good thing to bear in mind across the board, but everything can be harped on too much.
I guess what I'd be interested in would be elaborating a post-woke ideological position or set of positions, one that preserves an awareness of privilege
and can connect with right-wingers. Connect how? Maybe trying to avoid the aesthetics of the left, while preserving much of the left's content. Much too right-wing in tone, but a central statement would be "you can be progressive without being a libtard, and conservative without being a MAGAtard". Perhaps something of a pill cleanse, but in such a way that doesn't require an ultimate pill?
One of the reasons I was, and still marginally am, interested in Curtis Yarvin, is because he seemed to command an appeal to some kind of dissident right that somehow neighbored the peripheral left circles I mentioned.
"Anti-woke" I think is a step in the wrong direction. Post-woke doesn't reject, but matures from.
