I don’t think people join the right because they are annoyed by leftists, I think they join the right because they see a bunch of people full of hatred and want to join in because of their self-centered misanthropy.
Yeah, but voting left or supporting lefty positions doesn’t get us anywhere close to Stalin currently, whereas on the right we have at least a Mussolini with a solid trajectory through Franco to Hitler waiting to get elected.
The problem of modern politics is that both sides are thinking that the other side is morally evil, while their side is morally right. The problem with this is because there is no middle ground possible, no compromise. And politics is all about compromise. So that means that the government stops serving to the people because it is in permanent lock.
Problem is that I genuinely do struggle to think of an issue that I think the right-wing are correct on. It's not mere tribalism, it's not "other team bad". It is a fundamental difference in values, and worldview.
I don't need explanations. I've spoken to a lot of conservatives, about a lot of topics. It's not that I don't understand. It's that we value different things. That we see the world differently.
Very abstractly, conservatives tend (and individuals are different so may tend more or less) to believe that hierarchy is natural, and unavoidable. That hierarchy simply is the way the world is. Progressives on the other hand tend to be more egalitarian, all are created equal and hierarchies are usually unjust and should be dismantled.
It's why there is such a consistent division of beliefs. Why people, if they hold some conservative or progressive values, tend to also hold other beliefs of the same categorisation. Where when new issues come up, we can predict with good accuracy who is going to take what stance, by answering the question: Does this move power up, or down, the hierarchy? Does this reinforce the hierarchy, or does it weaken the hierarchy?
It also explains seemingly contradictory conservative beliefs. It explains why the right-wing, who at their fringes host white-supremacists and who are represented in government by people who talk about "Jewish space lasers", are now supporting Israel and accusing people of antisemitism. Because Israel is higher in the hierarchy than Palestine. Their claims to care about antisemitism are laughably flimsy in context, they are lies propped up in front of the real belief.
I believe fundamentally, psychologically the main reason that makes conservative a conservative is a believe that we, as society, can not make things better, and quite likely will make things worse. This is why they are “conserving”. It works - don’t change, don’t breaks. Hierarchy works, so we keep it - type of things.
Or could it be that we see policy enacted which tangibly DOES in fact make our lives worse, our community run down, and our family less safe? Why is it that in the 50s you could leave your front door unlocked without fear of someone stealing your stuff or harming your family? The country has gotten significantly more progressive since then. Would you feel safe doing that now? In big cities (overwhelming progressive) people are advised to leave their car windows down so that anyone trying to break in won’t shatter the window. In those same cities homeless encampments, open drug use, and relieving oneself in the streets has become the accepted norm. Call me crazy, but I liked it better the way it was before.
Not all change is good, and not all conservation is bad. That seems to be a sentiment we’ve lost sight of.
Not gonna engage about these topics because this is psychological position of whether society becomes better or not and whether we can improve society. I often see that conservatives focus on one or two points and ignore the forest behind the trees. Are there examples of bad laws? Sure. Does it prove anything except for the need of better governance? No. But since it is psychological position, there is no way to convince conservative to become liberal (and the other way around) in a couple of posts. It is like discussing validity of religion - pointless.
Interestingly you can believe that hierarchy is natural and still be a leftist, because coercive hierarchies (such as capitalist or the state) that the left is against prevent these natural hierarchies from emerging. The problem with the right is that they have a model of society in their mind and think that any divergence isn’t natural and must be fixed (by either capitalism or the state). While the left understands that there is no reason some people can’t be in power and so want’s to equalize the playing field.
Human beings aren’t made equally and there will always be some hierarchy in human society. Leftists just want to give everyone the opportunity to rise up the ranks instead of just the “right” people. That is why everyone must be treated equally you don’t know where they exist in the hierarchy.
Technically there isn’t a single social hierarchy. But multiple overlapping ones. Some people are better in some things and other are better in other things. Saying that everyone is equal is too simplified. Society is more complex than that.
But as a generalization (especially when compared to the right) it is correct.
I’d like to make a nuanced correction to your statement. You state that conservatives believe that hierarchy is natural and unavoidable, and progressives believe in equality. As someone who considers themselves a right leaning centrist, I think you’re missing an important distinction. I believe that good people and evil people exist. I believe that hard working people and lazy people exist. I believe that kind people and selfish people exist. You can never have true equality in a progressive sense so long as those two sides exist. The evil, selfish, and lazy people will ALWAYS prey on the good, kind, hard working. It isn’t that we fundamentally disagree with what progressives want, it’s that we think they have an unrealistic utopian view. Sort of like how a child will say they wish for world peace. It’s sweet and well intentioned, but misses the reality of the world. As a native Californian, I can tell you that many of these progressive policies you want have led to increased violence, property crimes, and a general reduction in quality of life across the board, not just for the people at the top, but for literally everyone.
You haven't actually corrected anything I've said. In fact you have reinforced it.
You're a conservative. You believe that there are different types of people, an us and a them, and that those differences are innate to people are. And so you don't believe equality is possible, so the hierarchy must exist, and thus you want to make sure that your group of people is higher up than the groups of people you disparage as lazy, selfish, and evil.
That is a fundamental difference in values.
As a native Californian, I can tell you that many of these progressive policies you want have led to increased violence, property crimes, and a general reduction in quality of life across the board, not just for the people at the top, but for literally everyone.
And I think your political literacy is poor, and barely surface level. The conditions you speak of are not due to nebulous "progressive" policies, but to the vast wealth inequality your country as a whole, but California particularly, suffers from. California has progressive policies, but still does not address many of the worst of the issues.
You are suffering from the hierarchy. Because the people lower on that hierarchy are aggrieved with their living conditions, and thus cause unrest. The system is not working for them, so they do not respect the system in turn.
The difference between progressives and conservatives is that we disagree on what to do about that. Progressives want to flatten the hierarchy so that the disparity is smaller and the grievance is addressed, so that the system works for those people too, so those people can live full lives, and thus they have little motivation to destroy a system that takes care of them. Progressives believe that true peace comes from justice.
Conservatives instead want to maintain and increase the oppression on those lower down the hierarchy, so that they know their place. Conservative peace is enforced by beating the aggrieved down until they stop complaining.
Spoken like an elitist liberal. You’d fit right in in California.
You remind me of someone I once read about. They too believed in progressive ideals. They decided to hitchhike from Italy to the middle east in an attempt to share their message of love and peace. Three weeks into the trip they were raped, murdered, and left in a ditch. But I guess you’re right, evil people don’t exist, it’s just those damn aggrieved saps at the bottom who don’t respect the system.
You’re right, there are certainly people who have been downtrodden by the world and become cold and callous, but there are also people simply born cruel. I’ve seen downtrodden people act with tremendous kindness/morality, and I’ve seen successful people act with tremendous evil/immorality. For you to pretend that bad behavior is simply a result of “the system” is idiotic and out of touch with reality.
And I think your political literacy is poor, and barely surface level. The conditions you speak of are not due to nebulous “progressive” policies, but to the vast wealth inequality your country as a whole, but California particularly, suffers from. California has progressive policies, but still does not address many of the worst of the issues.
What do you suppose led to the vast inequality? I’ll give you a hint, it was elitist thinking and liberal policies. California is one of the most progressive states in the country. It’s been that way basically my entire life. We charge more for everything (taxes, healthcare, energy, housing, etc) so that we can fund our progressive agenda. As a result our middle class has evaporated. Now we have only the poor and the insanely wealthy. Our progressive leaders know this, so they pander to the poor, giving them benefits to keep voting them in, and cut deals with the rich. They don’t want to stigmatize anyone so they’ve stopped enforcing many basic laws. The rich aren’t terribly impacted, they live in gated communities and have armed security. Instead it’s everyone else who suffers. You acknowledge California has progressive policies that don’t address the problems, yet you simultaneously dismiss them being the cause of the problems. What is your answer then? Let me guess… communism? That seems to be the answer everyone on Lemmy espouses.
Secondly, what do you mean elitist? I'm literally suggesting the the dismantling of the hierarchy. My entire point of view is that concepts of elitism are inherently wrong. That criticism does not even make sense, it's a meaningless insult.
You remind me of someone I once read about. They too believed in progressive ideals. They decided to hitchhike from Italy to the middle east in an attempt to share their message of love and peace. Three weeks into the trip they were raped, murdered, and left in a ditch. But I guess you’re right, evil people don’t exist, it’s just those damn aggrieved saps at the bottom who don’t respect the system. You’re right, there are certainly people who have been downtrodden by the world and become cold and callous, but there are also people simply born cruel. I’ve seen downtrodden people act with tremendous kindness/morality, and I’ve seen successful people act with tremendous evil/immorality. For you to pretend that bad behavior is simply a result of “the system” is idiotic and out of touch with reality.
Please try read what I wrote, instead of just imagining my position.
I never said that people don't do bad things, and I never said that all unrest or violence would end, I never said that every person would become an upstanding member of society. But people are a product of their environment. People who have decent lives, who live in more equitable societies, have less motivation to attack those societies.
Don't fold me into your ridiculous black-and-white pattern of thinking.
What do you suppose led to the vast inequality?
Capitalism.
California is one of the most progressive states in the country. It’s been that way basically my entire life.
And is still capitalist, and still rather conservative on key issues, because your whole country is quite conservative at the federal level.
California is more progressive than much of the US, that doesn't make them actually progressive in a broader sense.
Now we have only the poor and the insanely wealthy.
Gee whiz, it's almost as if they aren't at all as progressive as you think they are :)
I had an honest to God reasonable discussion with a very conservative Christian man. We talked and I told him about the major problems I see today (this was before the current demonization of LGBT). Each one, like gun violence, I asked what proposed solutions the right-wing had and he conceded that every position they had was reactionary to a proposed solution by the left. I basically told the guy that I'll vote for the group that has some kind of solution, even a less than ideal solution.
I have a lot of respect for that guy. I don't think his position has changed but his willingness to hear me out was refreshing.
Here’s how I see it and forgive me if it’s totally off:
In the US, the part of the Right which was all about “making a better country through making life better for businesses” (the ones you could say wanted a better country just like the lefties, but disagreed on the importance of broadly sharing the benefits of it) has won, decades ago even: both the Republicans and the Democract absolutelly and unequestinably came to believe that “doing what’s best for business” - not for society, not for people, for business - is the right way to manage the country.
What you have now is the breaking down of that political thinking monopoly, because it didn’t actually deliver on its promises, especially the “when the tide rises all boats rise with it” promise (the “for the greater good” promise of that ideology, something the Traditional Left might understand even if it disagrees with the methods).
This breakdown is shaping both the Right in the US and what is seen there as Left: the Right is falling back to good old Fascist tropes - religiosity, racism, ultra-nationalism to quite a rabid level, whilst what passes for “Left” there is actually a newly built ideology, based on the moral side of neoliberalism - i.e. moral liberalism - with almost no links to the traditional Left of worker movements and the fight against wealth inequality, and which does not follow of the “the greatest good for the greatest number” ideology but rather the “people should be free to do what they want” ideology, so an ideology which is totally compatible with things like there being people accumulating obscene amounts of wealth, which the ideology of the Traditional Left is most definitelly not compatible with.
So the public face of the Right in the US are basically Fascists (with all the traditional illiberal values of that) whilst the public face of the “Left” in the US is not a Left in the Traditional sense but rather a whole new ideology created around the moral part of neoliberalism (which is by nature liberal in all things) hence said “Left”, whilst completelly compatible with things like The Low Regulation Free Market, and Wealth Inequality, is antithetical to the moral illiberal values taken from Fascism which are held by the current Right in the US.
So yeah, the only fighting going on between what people think is Left and Right in the US is between absolutellyt totally and complete opposite sides on the moral domain (liberalism vs religious and racist illiberalism), with a negligible or even non existent dispute of how to best manage the country for the greater good, so there is no “same general goals different methods” area were Left and Right might find common ground.
Things are more subtle elsewhere, at least in Europe, though neoliberalism has also conquerer the entire mainstream “center” (whether they called themselves “Left” or “Right”) in most countries, but most countries have voting systems which are not or at least not as much rigged for maintaing a Power Duopoly as the one in the US, so there usually still are more traditional left voices in the ideological field, plus the rebirth of Fascism is happenning from the fringes rather than right in the middle of one of the two Power Duopoly parties (though if you look at countries with very similar voting systems to the US one, like Britain, they’re showing almost exactly the political transformation: Fascism taking over one of the Power Duopoly parties and the “Left” being taken over by a brand new ideology created from the moral side of neoliberalism, still siding with the Economic thinking of neoliberalsim and which ignores wealth inequality.
Quite often it isn’t, or those fighting for the middle ground rather than taking the correct side out of a principle for compromise end up making the situation worse, rather than just fixing it.
You’re not supposed to compromise before negotiations have even began… I will never understand why Democrats and “centrists” can stay alive with literally no spine.
If you look at History, human progress happens in cycles made up of long periods of consolidation with shorter periods of disruption in between.
You actually see something similar inside companies.
If all you had was those who favour the incremental building on top of the way things are, i.e. consolidators, i.e. conservatives, you would end up in a dead-end of stagnation followed by collapse since we never found a perfect “way things are” that will work forever - all static systems accumulate problems over time due to their own imperfections and/or are unable to adapt to changing conditions, so naturally fail, not a question of “if” only a question of “when” and “how”.
If all you had was those who favour change, i.e. disruptors, i.e. revolutionaries (not necessarilly of the Left), massive amounts of effort, energy and even pain would be constantly wasted in permanent change with little being actually build even on top of the best of ideas - this is also a path for collapse because there is no such thing as building for the Future under ethernal change.
You could say the “middle ground”, “steady as she goes” solution is better during most of the progress cycle but at the end of the cycle it’s just maintaing the system as is, the accumulated problems being painful and becoming ever worse with not chance at improving because the system in place has never managed to overcome those long-running accumulating problems because it has no solution for them and never will. At such a stage “steady as she goes” politics is pretty much “full steam ahead and don’t mind the fog or the icebergs” and we all know how that ends.
(Funnily the captain of the Titanic chose to risk it is because that ship was said to be unsinkable, which has massive parallels with what we are told - and most believe - about the resilience of the political and economic system that has been dominant in the last 50 years).
I would say we’ve reached a point were the accumulation of problems from the dominant ideology of the last 4-5 decades is becoming too much and now is not the time for “more of the same” but rather it’s the time for change, which will happen whether we want to or not. The question is: will it be controlled change done before the problems become too much or will it be the natural chaotic kind as societal tensions are violently released (societal collapse, revolution, war, iron fist dictatorships and so on)?
Mind you, afterwards, the time for “consolidation” will come again, its just that how much will we be able to save of the positive things built during the last period of consolidation will depend on how much change and changers are embraced now and in the near future vs how much it will just be imposed on us by the unsustainable tensions of the last systems resulting in uncontrolled change.
And the problem of modern US politics is that the middle ground is already what is called “left”. Biden would be seen as right-wing in Europe. If they keep finding a “middle ground” they’ll just shift the Overton Window more and more.
It’s the same people that say Atheists are as annoying as Christians. Bro, there a lot of atheists you just don’t hear about, you’re making a lame excuse to be Christian.
I live in Czech Republic. Atheism is the default here. Almost nobody talks about faith, since most people don’t care, so you can’t really tell if someone is Christian.
To me, internet atheists are annoying as shit. I get it that the USA close to being an open theocracy and a lot of pushback is still needed before things are even close to normal, but still. Forceful atheism you usually see online is obnoxious, goes to extremes, the smugness is off the charts - simpmy annoying.
IMHO, the modern US is how Divide et Impera (divide and rule) looks when it has entirelly taken over the public discussion domain: identitarian wars over moralistic stuff that has no connection with real power, all the while those who have the one and only greatest power of the land - money - most of whom themselves couldn’t care less about those things, keep on milking the rest for what they still have.
In Europe, you don’t yet see quite the same warring in the moral plane whilst excluding what maters the most to most people (you know, live well in a nice place with a full belly) , though I’ve noticed that both on the Left and the Right here already quite a number of people have been “inspired” by the heavy, heavy propaganda that leaks from the US system and staked and taken identitarian sides in an environment that lacks most of the social and historical anchoring-points that exist in the environment where those chewing-gum for moralism “ideologies” were crafted.
Usually memes make up what one side says to make a great comeback, but in this case it’s definitely correct. People absolutely go right because of stupidity on the left, and vice versa
I thibk what thwy’re saying is, is that it is proof you have horrible moral axioms or no axioms at all if you’re willing to shift entire poolitical directions over annoyance. Constructing society MUST be done by people who are less petty and judgemental.
you are correct, however consider that most voters are stupid and they care more about who’s louder and is painted in a better light by the news and their coworkers, not actual policies or beliefs
I will say, anger and hatred are very contagious. I mean, not so contagious that I could start being racist and homophobic…wait, yeah, right wingers are assholes.
The fact that Trump has made it his life’s mission to be a fucking cartoon villain, and that people actually follow him, is not a moral failing of the guy you replied to.
People on the right wanting to take away medical treatment from trans people that we all know will result in more of them being miserable and committing suicide. That’s hateful.
Laws passed to censor any discussion of homosexuality, ensuring gay people stay isolated, closeted, and unaccepted by larger society. That’s hateful.
Silence any talk of racism lest we work to overcome it? Hateful.
We hear Trump telling us he will lock up the lefties. Believe it or not, hateful.
Trump making fun of disabled people and Republicans laughing along with? Again, Hateful.
Putting brown kids in cages, or yanking them away from their families and then losing them? Hateful.
And on and on.
Rabid right wing extremists have taken over the GOP over the last few decades. They’re the hateful ones.
It does not mean they are hateful, you silly billy. It means they cannot observe the reasons for the hate.
That COULD be because they agree with it and do not want to admit, but you MUST understand how wishful thinking and ignorance to evil ABSOLUTELY produces the same result.
MLK Jr. was not calling everyone who sat on their butt evil. He called their inaction the banality of evil. It does NOT take an evil person to do a horrible thing. The fact you do not realize that means it is you who has a lot of growing to do.
Yes, inaction because of ignorance is bad. Though calling people evil because they’re ignorant is utterly counterproductive and frankly, pathetically judgemental, too.
Except they literally are, looking at the US. I’m European and I see most right-wing European politicians as just “assholes I disagree with”, but the US Republicans are literally cartoon villains at this point. Like, Trump would get labeled as unrealistic if he was an antagonist in a remotely adult-oriented movie.
That’s not all Europeans, and it also applies to most American Republicans. Whataboutism is already weak as an argument, at least mention an issue the US don’t have as well (not that I can come up with any, honestly)
Obviously it’s not ALL Europeans. No country in the world is a monolith. The governments, however, ARE representative of the general will of the people. The fact that the governments of Europe (again who are representative of the people) are backpedaling on gender affirming care and pausing things like hormone replacement therapy, gender reassignment surgery, and shutting down gender clinics indicates to me that the general will of the people in Europe is one of transphobia.
“Most American Republicans” are in the minority and NOT representative of the will of the people as indicated by the fact that our current administration is Democrat. We also affirm trans individuals by allowing widespread access to gender affirming care, flying the trans flag on public buildings, and highlighting trans individuals in mainstream media.
For the record, my argument was not a “whataboutism”, but yours in fact was.
When were we talking about “all Americans”? I always talked about “right-wing politicians”, and the large majority of US right-wing politicians are anti-trans. That’s not generalizing. Saying Europeans, or even European governments are “anti-trans bigots” is generalizing and implying the left-wing governments are anti-trans as well, when it’s pretty much only the right wing, just like in the US. You’re also exaggerating a lot of what’s actually happening in Europe, unless I’m coincidentally looking in all the wrong places. For example, it seems to me “shutting down gender clinics” is referring to exactly one clinic being announced to shut down in the UK, while others are being built in the exact same area.
”You’re a hateful person if you see people on the right as cartoon villains”
”US Republicans literally act like cartoon villains though”
”Well Europeans are all anti-trans bigots”
You replied to my point with a different one, with the intent to diminish mine by pivoting the attention to yours. How is it not the exact definition of whataboutism?
I think to a degree the left pushes people out though, as your lefty card needs to be spotless or it’s revoked.
Sometimes a person can say one thing wrong and they’ll be labelled an alt-right fascist, and not part of “the group” on the left, especially online.
Obviously that doesn’t make people right wing, but it is a problem that pushes people away from more left leaning views/groups. Rather than try to discuss and correct, people will berate and ostracise.
You think that doesn’t happen on the right? There’s a huge fight in congress now about which idiot is the Republicanest. They’re all calling each other RINOs.
I consider myself a communist, I have been called a nazi or a fascist (I don’t remember) by some people here because I don’t share 100% some of their ideas, I’m still on the left, I still have empathy, I fully support individual freedom. But they are annoying nonetheless.
it depends, a lot of european politicians for example were recently voted out of office and replaced by far right dickheads in large part because of their anti-ukraine views… it’s alarming how common this is and how much ground the left has lost in a lot of european countries because of not supporting ukraine, meanwhile the right used this to their advantage and went all out pro-ukraine (for example in italy with fascist girlboss PM and her coalition). i think this was also a contributing factor in recent finnish elections.
the right is uniting in eurpope for once, instead of hating each other, as well as taking advantage of anti-immigrant anti-LGBT sentiments in the population, meanwhile infighting in the left is causing it to crumble. it’s a terrible sign
Not supporting Palestinians (you know, the civilians, including children) tends to bring out those accusations.
The way you formulated it, however, indicates that you think that Hamas = Palestinians or at least that it’s fine if Palestinians suffer for the actions of Hamas, something only a racist would think, so in your case the “accusations” are associated to you being percieved as a racist.
Maybe the one thing the entirety of the Left agrees on is that Racists are scum, not least because racism is one the main defining features of the oldest most murderous kind of rightwing extremism there is: Fascism.
I’ve known (and know) many conservatives. While they all had very diverse reasons, the through-line is always hate. Either hate of LGBT people, women’s bodily autonomy, immigrants, POC, workers, or the poor (or all the above).
I don’t consider most of these people bad people, per se. People are complex, and many are good people in other aspects. Most don’t have any kind of power, and aren’t overt about their hatred in strange company, so it doesn’t matter much who they hate. If anything, their hatred is damaging to themselves (emotionally and socially). Though, I guess on the grand scale, they end up voting for politicians that worsen the conditions of the people they hate; and, in most cases, worsen their own conditions.
People don’t align with the Right because of shared political ideals, they align with the Right because the Right hates the same people they do and promises to punish those they hate.
They can scream and wail about “family values” all they want, but when they’re lined up with neo-nazis, white supremacists, and pedophiles all praising their glorious leader (who, BTW, believes that there are “very fine people” among a group who chants "Jews will not replace us! "), everyone on the outside has to wonder what “values” they are really fighting for.
Youre all good, my upstairs neighbor were thumping bass till 5am so I feel your pain, about to take a nap before getting started on a Thanksgiving meal. My apartment complex’s solution is for me to call the Police non emergency line to tell em to turn it down, cause in their words, “the police usually scares them.” Not gonna use institutionalized violence to solve my probelms so I did an annoyingly loud loop over my guitar amp to tell them to turn it down.
It cracks me up how antivaxxers on the right try using the slogan “Lions not sheep”. It reminds me of how Fox News used to call themselves “Fair and Balanced”.
Interesting. Why are people getting cancelled for opposing leftist views? Why are you automatically considered a nazi if you don’t agree with every facet of the left? I may be wrong here, but none of that sounds like freedom of thought. The right is full of dumb ideas, but at least they let them all be heard.
Everything you said is bullshit and d r I p p I n g in so much propaganda filth I don’t think you are an actual real person! Literally Nobody talks like this.
The part where the left cancels everything but the poor pitiful free speech respecting conservatives are totally innocent. Lol. Right wingers are the all time world champions of cancel culture.
You really gonna gaslight about the left not canceling anything? Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, Land o Lakes… You all couldn’t wait to get rid of minorities in advertising. How about people’s careers ended and lives ruined because of allegations of them saying something that goes against whatever is currently trendy, even if the comment was twenty years ago. JK Rowling was beloved by everybody and then said something someone didn’t like and now she’s hated by those very same people. Roseanne had a hit show with 18 million viewers to be kicked off for a comment. Even Dr. Suess couldn’t escape it. But according to you, none of that happened. Maybe I just have a wild imagination.
In my opinion it sounds a lot like what would be concluded by somebody too distant from the subject to notice details if being fed entirelly by the “opinion forming” newsmedia that has does propaganda for a specific side.
I’ve seen the exact same thing when I lived in the UK and certain newspapers kept publishing stories about very specific poor people who had morally repreensible behaviours and painting it as “all poor people are like this” (for example, they showed entire families who had lived of social security for 3 generations as portray it as a “something the poor do” even though in a country of 50 million there was a grand total of 4 families which had had 3 generations living of social security) - plenty of people who were capable of reasoning (but lacked skepticism or any analytical thinking) would, as they were meant to, conclude that “the poor are lazy and lack morals”.
People will most definitely and very genuinelly have their opinion formed against a group or ideologic domain they don’t really know well, by being fed stories of extreme cases labelled as “from that side” and their simpleminded reasoning pushed to conclude those extreme cases are actually representative.
(The same thing is done to a lot of people who genuinelly believe themselves “leftwing” - the dominant “left” thinking in places like the US and UK is shaped by “opinion makers” that claimed the “left” label, rather than being something people build by themselves “from basic principles” - it’s not by chance that the thinking of Chomsky is a lot more all-around consistent and generic than what comes out the self-proclaimed lefties in the Democrat party).
Genuine Free-thinkers are incredibly rare nowadays.
I wasn’t aware of that, nor was it my intention, but I can see how it can be interpreted that way as a “lifestyle” is a way people choose to live. Gay people aren’t choosing a gay lifestyle any more than white people are choosing a white lifestyle.
It’s also about implying promiscuity, but yeah the terminology was definitely an effective bit of rhetorical warfare, most people use it out of habit without considering the implications.
fair, I never used that word not because of any knowledge of negative connotation, but because it just seemed off, like it was never really the right word. Seeing you describe the potential negative connotations certainly will make me more careful.
I understand the opinion, but I don’t know if I agree. If you say someone has a “poor” lifestyle, that’s not a choice necessarily. I always assumed the word includes intrinsic and extrinsic factors.
Still, it might be the wrong word if some people do think in a way that causes harm.
Dude, people on the left don’t agree with everything on the left. That’s the entire point of this post. Grow up and have some nuence in thought. Learn to analyze what you’re told and think critically, not just repeat things you hear other people say.
This is true. People can be quick af to jump to conclusions and even won’t believe you when you say you’re not disagreeing with them as a whole, just on some nuance.
Why are people getting cancelled for opposing leftist views?
From the people who tried to cancel D&D, Rock music, The Dixie Chicks, Drag shows, LGBTQ…
Why are you automatically considered a nazi if you don’t agree with every facet of the left?
From the people who started asking if the ultra-religious speaker of the house was “secretly a Democrat” because he simply acknowledged the difficulties his adopted black son has that his white son doesn’t.
I may be wrong here, but none of that sounds like freedom of thought. The right is full of dumb ideas, but at least they let them all be heard.
From the people who shouted down a reporter for simply asking the question “do you believe the 2020 election was stolen?”
You’re both profoundly ignorant of the subject matter and very confident you know a lot about it, a.k.a. an excellent example of the Dunning-Krugger effect.
Consider the possibility that what you hear about “The Left” (just the idea that it’s an unified thing is ridiculous) from the media you consume (American, right?!) are the shocking things that will make you form the opinion others want you to have - in other words, you’re being treated as an useful idiot.
Even in the US, were whatever passes for “Left” is very much captured by the local Duopoly Of Power politics and doesn’t really tries to effectivelly achieve the “Greatest good for the greatest number” (otherwise they would be way, WAY, WAY more worried about wealth inequality and not obcessed with fragmented identitarian infighting), leftwing thinking is a range - though narrower than elsewhere - not a unified anything.
The difference of life expectation between rich and poor is more than a decade: income inequality quite literally dictates how long somebody lives.
You must live an unbelievably sheltered life in an extremelly isolated and limited ideas bubble and having lived a life with an extraordinarilly narrow range of life experiences if you think wealth inequality doesn’t make a difference.
You’ve changed the definition of “income inequality” to match a very specific non-standard metric, which of course is a “meaningless statistic” since that’s exactly what you redefined it to be - that’s what’s commonly known as a “straw man”.
The problem is not how many “wealth tokens” people have, it’s that in the system we live under at the moment there is a gatekeeping by amount of “wealth token” of access to important things such as food, the place somebody can live in, the opportunities their children have, their access to healthcare, how much free time they have, and even their freedom (having to work doing something you don’t want to do to barelly survive isn’t Freedom).
Nobody would give a shit about “wealth” if how many “wealth tokens” somebody has only affected luxuries, and in such an environment there wouldn’t even be a life expectation difference between people with lots of “wealth tokens” and people with few “wealth tokens”.
The problem is the combination of wealth inequality and a system were wealth dictates access to life essentials rather than merelly to luxuries. If all “wealth tokens” bought were bragging rights and a few luxuries, few would care.
If that’s what you mean with “were the floor is” then we’re probably more in agreement than it seemed at first sight.
You’ve changed the definition of “income inequality” to match a very specific non-standard metric, which of course is a “meaningless statistic” since that’s exactly what you redefined it to be - that’s what’s commonly known as a “straw man”.
I’m using the standard definition of income inequality.
I not sure what your overall point is here, but the total distribution of wealth is a meaningless statistic. If you had all your needs taken care of, UBI, didn’t work etc and one person had a quadrillion dollars under that same system, you would not give a shit.
You definition: “Income inequality is the difference between highest and lowest earners.” The IMF definition as per your source: “Income Inequality, which refers to the extent to which income is evenly distributed within a population”
They’re not the same thing: you picked a very specific metric, not the general definition which is what I was using.
But yeah, if there was UBI that took care of life’s essentials, “one person with a quadrillion dollars” would not matter.
Then again that wouldn’t be possible in the Mercantilistic Economic System we have because in this system monetary tokens (such as dollars) are claims on a fraction of the goods, services and assets of a country, and I really can’t see how it would be possible to both provide for the life’s essentials for everybody AND have somebody with enough monetary tokens to lay claim to most of the wealth produced in the country (unless we’re talking about worthless dollars, such as the ones in Zimbabwe at some point, in which case most people would be quadrillionaires anyway).
Now, if “dollars” were only claims to very specific kinds of things that excluded essentials and things necessary to provide them (which would also mean Land, since that’s necessary for building places for people to live in), then how many such tokens somebody had would be irrelevant, but the closest to such a “money is not needed for essentials” environment we ever had was basically the USSR and we all know just how well that specific experiment worked.
In a centralized state control system “Income inequality” is is indeed not the problem: there the problems are in the production and distribution of goods and services, not affordability (i.e. the scenario where everybody can afford bread but there is no bread), plus centralized state control is by necessity authoritarian, so forget about Democracy in that one, which brings yet another big-box-of-problems.
It’s only in trying to find an ideology to deal with the social side of policy whilst Capitalism deals with trading and resource provision, that you end up with the wealth concentration problem: if dollars are claims to goods, services and assets, then the fewer the hands holding those claims the more the State has to tax them to provide the essentials to everybody and as you might have noticed, those with lots of money use it to buy legislators and agents of the State to make sure they’re taxed as little as possible.
You definition: “Income inequality is the difference between highest and lowest earners.” The IMF definition as per your source: “Income Inequality, which refers to the extent to which income is evenly distributed within a population”
This is the same thing written conversationally and professionally.
More to the point, it’s clear we’re discussing the same thing through context, so why choose this hill to repeatedly die on?
Then again that wouldn’t be possible in the Mercantilistic Economic System we have
You’re not serious here right? I don’t need to address this? You’re not being literal?
I really can’t see how it would be possible to both provide for the life’s essentials for everybody AND have somebody with enough monetary tokens to lay claim to most of the wealth produced in the country (unless we’re talking about worthless dollars, such as the ones in Zimbabwe at some point, in which case most people would be quadrillionaires anyway).
It’s important to understand that “lots of paper dollars” does not mean wealth. For instance, here, you conflate having lots of paper dollars with being wealthy while also suggesting that the money is worthless (which is correct), but you’re missing that people can still own a significant portion of wealth in a country even if that country is destitute.
Having lots of money doesn’t mean you pay claim to lots of wealth. That’s backwards. Having lots of wealth is represented by you having easy access to money. Billionaires aren’t sitting on vaults full of cash. That would be insanely stupid. Their money is invested.
I’d highly recommend doing some reading on the various aspects you’re not understanding here.
Clearly you so desperatelly need to feel you won an argument that you’re critizing the very thing you brought to the discussion (I used “token” up to then because - No Shit Sherlock! - “wealth is not just money”, and then you started talking about “dollars” so I went along with it only to be criticised for going along with it) and are figurativelly lying dead on the very hill you hinted I should not die on (way to display a huge lack self-awareness there!) after being disproven by the very link you provided which was meant to prove your statement.
You and your never-ending line of strawmen should probably get a room.
Anyways: I’ll leave you with the statisfaction of knowing you won.
I really can’t beat you in that shit, that’s for sure.
They never have infighting about how to make things better though… Like they don’t fight weather we should help single mothers with X or just Y… No they argue if billionaires should get pay no taxes or negative taxes…
Leftism is intersectional. So having communities that agree with one another but disagree with others is often the state of things. One community can get more accomplished if they agree internally. Liberals are not leftists.
Majority of people who vote left wing are liberals and most leftwing policy in the west is based in liberal values. It seems to be only a small set of people on the left that are not liberal.
“Leftism” is a philosophy, namely that collectivist solutions are the correct answer to all societal problems. It is the purview of a “leftist” or someone who adheres to communist (or otherwise generally some type of Marxist or post-Marxist) thought.
I definitely understand the confusion if you didn’t know that.
This is confusing. Liberalism isn’t leftwing, it’s right-of-center at best. Most often it’s right-wing economic policies with socially left-wing ineffectual lip service. Especially with how far right the Democrats have trended since the 80s and their adoption of a corporate focused form of third-wayism. There are only a handful of representatives who could even be considered slightly left-of-center progressives.
Especially with how far right the Democrats have trended since the 80s and their adoption of a corporate focused form of third-wayism
You might wanna give "third way’ a Google, because you do not know what it means.
There are very few actual leftists at any point in US politics because leftists don’t exist as a substantive bloc of US voters. Bemoaning that people who aren’t leftists don’t do leftist things doesn’t really make a lot of sense
Tangent, but there’s a lesson with the third way that’s often forgotten.
It worked.
Conservatism was way too popular. The country was just not at a point to go further left, as unfortunate as it was. Reagan ushered in an era of conservative dominance that we’re only just now emerging from.
Really? The right around here is burning books, claiming their religious beliefs should be enshrined in laws forced on others, and openly supporting a wannabe dictator while calling anyone in their party who doesn’t agree a ‘Rino’ (Republica in name only). To say nothing of the connection to churches and their ‘flocks’
That is a lot of trying to force viewpoints on others and create a uniform viewpoint
grouping everyone on a binary political scale with no nuances
not thinking that you’re either left OR right, but realise that you can have different opinions and preferences in different areas and those can’t always be forced into a left/right box, and that you can agredisagree with anyone, regardless if you vote for the same party or not
I mean if someone doesn’t want to put in the energy to performatively come to their own opinion, I still think it’s alright if that opinion isn’t “you know, we SHOULD support the boot that wants to stamp on our faces forever!”
Yeah, I’m a leftist, I just think landlords have their place, billionaires are job creators, and if we disrupt the status quo too much the global south might stop giving us resources for nothing- A Great Mind
I think exactly that way and am as left as you can be in the Finnish mainstream party system, with the exception of small sub-1% parties like the Communist Party.
Landlords & Billionaires = living, breathing taxation waiting to happen
Even if we were to tax a billionaire by 80%, they would probably still be a billionaire. However, they would also indeed be creating jobs, wealth and sustainable growth. School systems, medicine, hospitals, city infrastructure, job placement programmes, you name it, they fund it.
Corporate tax is also grossly under-utilized.
Capitalism isn’t bad if you tax it hard and use the money for the welfare of citizens.
However, they would also indeed be creating jobs, wealth and sustainable growth.
Not really. They don’t create jobs, at best they are the organizers. And since they are usually heirs, there might be much better people to manage such a large organization. We don’t need them at all.
The best course of action is to remove the possibility for people concentrating such vast amounts of power in the first place. Billionaires can always buy legislation back, which is why that tight regulation or taxation will never really happen under capitalism.
I mean just look at how inactive democrats are at office compared to current conservatives at passing the things people actually want. We have been trying this forever already, but they are most probably in the pockets of bigger fish at this point.
None of that stops you from, say, joining an union though.
I’m answering from the perspective of living in a country with functional democracy, so it’s hard to see the power the wealthy have over it.
Lobbying and representative campaign funding are more transparent here. No party has majority seats alone, coalition governments are a necessity. Legislation is consensus driven.
Finland is very much operating in a capitalism driven economy while still supplying its citizens socialism driven security.
Capitalism is like fire. It’s a good tool, but a bad master. With appropriate legislative checks in place, it won’t get out of control.
In the States it already has, but that doesn’t mean that capitalism is bad. Just that nobody was tending the fire.
Don’t be mistaken, the billionaires still rule in there too, they just somehow allow you a better life. Usually this comes because they have neocolonies abroad to exploit intead of you. This is usually the case in europe. The only real masters of capitalism are the burgeois and how they are choosing to use it.
Finland seems to be the one exception in the world where I dont think you’ve been that historically aggressive with fucking others over (at least compared to the rest of europe), but theres probably some neocolonialism over africa to mantain it, I’m not that familiar with Finland to say much for sure.
In any case we can’t base our assumptions around an exception when the overwhelming majority of capitalist “democracies” never really worked for the common people.
edit: China seems to be implementing a bit of both, as an example.
If we’re discussing the scope of a nation, strong enough tax laws and safeguards for unions prevent ludicrous growth within its own contained system. This can allow people to experience a reasonably fair society.
Finland definitely is still benefiting off of cheap labour from poorer nations though. How to solve that especially if our country wants to retain its status, I would not know where to start. World domination?
The opposite, we end capitalism. We really can’t expect to carry the scorpion across the lake without repeatedly being stung. There are many political branches that tells us how it could be, and even some that have been applied in the real world with varying degrees of success but generally, we need to start working amongst ourselves like we used to do in the past and remove those actually in power, not only their squabbling representatives every election. It’s about time. Safeguards only delay the problem, those are being systematically dismantled all around the world because capital is running out of space to expand.
What’s your worry about status? I see a nation with good infrastructure that isn’t heavily depending on exploitative dynamics on other countries as a nation without much to lose, honestly. Things tend to not go as well as planned on places where it was already bad in the first place.
If one country begins sharing resources and wealth, it will get stomped by the others that don’t.
Capitalism can’t be stopped without a violent revolt of colossal proportions. We’re talking billions of people dead, displaced or left vengeful. It’s a recipe for disaster.
Peaceful options won’t work at global scale. Even if people begin to vote with their hearts en masse, it won’t change nations where voting is moot.
I’m against violence, so the best I can see happening in my lifetime is me understanding and living with the system we inhabit and trying to alter what little I can in my small country for future generations.
Nobody is advocating for sharing with bad actors. Billions of people dead? No, revolution is violent but history shows it is usually very far away from this number. Capitalism killed more in the third world.
I’m not thrilled for getting state violence on my ass because I want a better life either, but I don’t think capitalism will ever be able to deal with climate change, which will be the biggest killer in humanity. In fact it is only getting worse and we are running out of time fast. We have been trying gradual change for decades with barely any actual results…
True. What is the nation if not the workers of that nation. So what’s good for the nation is good for the workers. How do we measure what’s good for the nation? By looking at what’s good for the top 1%
There are people I agree with from different leftist traditions, but then again there are people I disagree with on all these traditions, too. I even have overlap with some (lower case) conservative people when it comes to ecological questions
Considering the Right has a unified goal (complete removal of “them” and codifying perceived hierarchy into law), they don’t care about the process
The Left does NOT have a unified goal OR process. Off the top of my head, the Contrapoints/Hasanabi “millionaires are ok, thinking otherwise is immature and envious”, the Maupin/Coffin Red Browns, the Vaush/Xanderhal “it should be codified that I should be able to say the N word”, the “all theft should be legal” webcomic artists, the Sinfest “feminism went too far when it allowed trans/queer people”, the tiktok “any intercourse information made public should be an assault charge”
I agree. What we call the “Left” in the US is a largely heterogenous group of people separated by decades of infighting and a mountain of conflicting interests. There’s the types you mentioned, then there’s the trans activists, the eco activists, black/BIPOC activists, socialists, anarchists, liberals, feminists, and on and on.
Suppose you are a Democratic House or Senate candidate. To actually win the election, you need two things, votes and funding. You know there are things your voter base cares passionately about, that they have no hope of ever getting from Republicans, but unfortunately they are also things the big ticket donors despise. So, what do you do? You’ll have to steer away from policies that will break the coalition and split the vote. You’ll have to steer away from topics that will frighten the donor class. When faced with that challenge of keeping the Left (mostly) united AND getting that sweet donor cash, most mainstream Democrats tend to pivot away from wedge issues and policies, and focus more on process. Y’know, uncontroversial things like bipartisanship, decorum, and compromise. And while we’re all sick of the lack of these things in DC, they’re not things Democrats can make happen all by themselves, and more importantly, none of them are results, they’re means.
Lol no way. They are eroding workers rights, putting kids to work on many states, deepening inequality, allowing more oil than ever before to be extracted and burned, financing a genocide… Take your pick. They probably already have a plan drawn up for their next term chairing the executive branch.
And most of the so called " democratic" party in your country (including the president) seem to be helping them out, or letting them do it because they are covertly siding with corporations too. The difference is they are not as outwardly fascistic.
From the perspective of someone from outside the US, their policy towards us is exactly as shitty too.
Like anyone on the right actually cares about fixing problems. It’s all about how they can benefit from a situation, how they can spin things to their advantage.
They know deep down they are supporting the trainwreck, they just want a media ecosystem that blames others so they don’t feel personally responsible for it.
Yes, the Right is a monoculture. When you get the tshirt you trade in your brain too. So unlike the Left in this way. Your outrage is entirely justified and you have no choice but to persecute them all. Good job.
Ah the right wing are persecuted by the left wing are they. You know you are allowed to criticize them right? No matter how much they complain about it.
Haven’t you heard about the WAR on baby jesus itself?? Poor little guy’s self-esteem is gonna be DESTROYED when he finds out people use the wrong word to describe the placing of his half-birthday’s celebration to coincide with other religions!
I honestly would probably vote Republican if they put up a candidate that had solutions to economic problems they swear is caused by the left.
But they don’t have any, because all their candidates bluster about the economy while they run on platforms centered around identity politics, religious law, and reducing women’s bodily autonomy.
Every day I have to hear conservatives complain about how “Biden ruined the economy” but they don’t seem to care all that much about fixing it. They just want to ban abortion, suppress the gays , and put Christ back in Christmas.
It honestly feels like the left doesn’t know how to fix the economy and the right just doesn’t want to.
I will never understand why leftists constantly say you shouldn’t vote. Like, if you can’t even motivate people to do step one do you really think you’re going to motivate them to revolution?
Right? I’m tired of being called a bro dude because I don’t see sexy women in video games anymore, I’m not even a man.
I’m left as fuck, but why can’t I just see some titties during my free time without the people who provide me the titties being called misogynists? There are girls who like girls. Show me the titties.
That premise is incorrect, though. Conservatives don’t have political opinions. Seriously. Even the GOP platform doesn’t exist anyone. It’s all just culture war nonsense and dog whistles. And their voters know the “traditional values” white person is being erased and discriminated against and they need to stand vigilantly opposed to wokeness… How do they know? Their feelings.
Edit: I’m actually kinda surprised they never did anything with that. Willie should have harbored the grudge for years only to attack Skinner out of nowhere.
I’ve never really ever seen this. I think there is a perception of it happening but where is the evidence?
I think however I have seen plenty of lefties choose not to vote, or abandon the parties that should have backed them and didnt (eg UK Labour Party and Green Party). Or turn their backs on groups because of infighting.
“Every family has that one family member everyone else shits on behind their back. And if you’re sitting there thinking ‘hang on, my family doesn’t do that…’, I’ve got bad news for you.”
Add comment