Okay, but just grounding it in historical context doesn’t make it the definition. If Mamdani established Mamdanistan and abused courts to execute people polluting ground water with data centers, that would be hierarchical, but very clearly not “right wing” in the common understanding.
Opposing hierarchies is generally fitting, but the minutia of politics make such simple definitions harder to agree on by everyone, which touches on their point.
And no, it is not only historical. I stated that in my original comment and I invite you to look at left wing politics but some “left wing” politician’s position on some random issue, but a widely supported position by the left wing community. You will see that they are all in opposition of hierarchy.
But let’s take your weirdly racist example, where is the hierarchy?
Sorry my bad, I thought jokes about Mamdanistan were more common internet parlance, the point is a radical leftwing state in the minds of fox news viewers. I was doing the limiting case to prove the point, but the base point is prosecution of criminal environmental acts through courts requires hierarchy.
I guess I have to ask what you mean by hierarchy if you don’t believe that courts executing people counts.
Anarchists are a genre of libertarians though. It’s just that who dominates the landscape of “libertarian” is ancaps, who are just fascists with a weirder set of steps to implement a fascist nightmare.
Anarchists and Libertarian used to be synonymous, since Libertarian was a way to talk about Anarchism without being persecuted. Later in the US Proprietarians coopted the term Libertarian, and later even Anarchism by claiming to be ‘Anarcho-Capitalists’.
Yeah, exactly. This graphic is really bad. I guess it’s supposed to be incorrect, but it sends a bad message.
Also, the only people calling anyone “shitlibs” are literal tankies. Sane leftists don’t call anyone “shitlib.”
Any leftist to the right of my on the spectrum is probably considered center-left. I prefer democratic socialism and/or social democracy, using incremental progress to achieve leftist reform.
People are allowed to have different opinions than me. That’s what democracy is. But no one can be allowed to be authoritarian in a democracy, because authoritarianism is incompatible with democracy and a danger to it.
Authoritarians don’t respect diversity of opinion, they don’t tolerate differences. So I’m so tired of authoritarian-minded people whining and calling me intolerant just because I shut them down when they’re trying to dominate others.
Imagining yourselves as everyone’s parents… Literal unironic paternalism.
Having a .ml as one’s actual parent sounds like a nightmare though. Absolutely a sure fire way to create an anarcho-capitalist or some shit in the natural backlash.
I think that you specifically are too stupid for your own health and safety and that someone competent and trustworthy absolutely should have power over you until that changes, ideally multiple someones with a robust system of public oversight. I said I do not accept responsibility for you, just because I recognize the need for competent leadership doesn’t mean I’m willing or able to lead.
tankies aren’t “further left than me” they’re “more authoritarian than me”
“further left than me” are idealist utopian communists and “more libertarian than me” are idealist utopian anarchists
Yep. Authoritarianism does not lie leftward, it is not a leftist principle.
nobody can agree what “left” means
That is nonsense.
The left was coined by its opposition to the monarchy while the right supported it.
So left has been currently and historically speaking in opposition of hierarchies and in favor of equality.
The right consequently has been in favor of hierarchies.
Okay, but just grounding it in historical context doesn’t make it the definition. If Mamdani established Mamdanistan and abused courts to execute people polluting ground water with data centers, that would be hierarchical, but very clearly not “right wing” in the common understanding.
Opposing hierarchies is generally fitting, but the minutia of politics make such simple definitions harder to agree on by everyone, which touches on their point.
Weird example but ok.
And no, it is not only historical. I stated that in my original comment and I invite you to look at left wing politics but some “left wing” politician’s position on some random issue, but a widely supported position by the left wing community. You will see that they are all in opposition of hierarchy.
But let’s take your weirdly racist example, where is the hierarchy?
Sorry my bad, I thought jokes about Mamdanistan were more common internet parlance, the point is a radical leftwing state in the minds of fox news viewers. I was doing the limiting case to prove the point, but the base point is prosecution of criminal environmental acts through courts requires hierarchy.
I guess I have to ask what you mean by hierarchy if you don’t believe that courts executing people counts.
I think it’s weird that you think it’s “weirdly racist”. Weirdo
it means a very scary mountain
the point of the meme is to be wrong…
libertarians are not anarchists
Anarchists are a genre of libertarians though. It’s just that who dominates the landscape of “libertarian” is ancaps, who are just fascists with a weirder set of steps to implement a fascist nightmare.
Anarchists and Libertarian used to be synonymous, since Libertarian was a way to talk about Anarchism without being persecuted. Later in the US Proprietarians coopted the term Libertarian, and later even Anarchism by claiming to be ‘Anarcho-Capitalists’.
@ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net always out here saying what i’m trying to say, but better
Yeah, exactly. This graphic is really bad. I guess it’s supposed to be incorrect, but it sends a bad message.
Also, the only people calling anyone “shitlibs” are literal tankies. Sane leftists don’t call anyone “shitlib.”
Any leftist to the right of my on the spectrum is probably considered center-left. I prefer democratic socialism and/or social democracy, using incremental progress to achieve leftist reform.
People are allowed to have different opinions than me. That’s what democracy is. But no one can be allowed to be authoritarian in a democracy, because authoritarianism is incompatible with democracy and a danger to it.
Authoritarians don’t respect diversity of opinion, they don’t tolerate differences. So I’m so tired of authoritarian-minded people whining and calling me intolerant just because I shut them down when they’re trying to dominate others.
Imagining yourselves as everyone’s parents… Literal unironic paternalism.
Having a .ml as one’s actual parent sounds like a nightmare though. Absolutely a sure fire way to create an anarcho-capitalist or some shit in the natural backlash.
Just because I recognize that you are the intellectual equivalent of a toddler doesn’t mean I accept the responsibility of raising you
So you think you and those that agree with you should have power over people but have no responsibility to them?
I legitimately don’t care if you think I’m stupid I know what you think is smart.
I think that you specifically are too stupid for your own health and safety and that someone competent and trustworthy absolutely should have power over you until that changes, ideally multiple someones with a robust system of public oversight. I said I do not accept responsibility for you, just because I recognize the need for competent leadership doesn’t mean I’m willing or able to lead.
>democracy
look inside
>attachment to particular institutions, policies and practices