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.
100% they just use being annoyed by leftists to hide their ideological view points. Just wanted to share this cause I thought it was funny.
Yeah, I probably shouldn’t have posted that. I didn’t get enough sleep and I’m grouchy. Sorry.
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.
I don’t blame you for not calling them. That can lead to very bad things these days. Hope your solution at least pissed them off if it didn’t work.
It definitely pissed em off, and my nap was EPIC.
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.
To be fair, I’m sure there are dozens of legit good Christians out there…somewhere
There’s plenty, you just don’t hear about them because they don’t go around shoving their religion down everyone else’s throats
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.
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.
It’s a joke, and it references a commonly heard fake argument from the right that they were left leaning once but couldn’t stand the people.
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.
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
deleted by creator
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.
You’ve literally never hung out with conservatives in your life, just admit it. You have no idea who we are.
Apart from my wife’s entire family, sure.
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.
The fact that you see people on the right as cartoon villains means YOU are the hateful person.
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.
Things it’s okay to hate people for:
- Their race
- Their gender
- Who they are attracted to
- Their ethnicity
- Their religion
Things it’s not okay to hate people for:
- Their shitty opinions
Thank you for saving us from the cancel mob
You sound like a happy person. I hope you get the help that you need.
I am
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.
And Europeans are anti-trans bigots who have begun limiting gender affirming care to minors. What’s your point?
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?
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 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.
It’s because the liberals already support any effective conservative policy, and it’s more important to oppose liberals at all cost
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.
While I am not right, I do spend some time how it can be. So, pick a topic, I might be able to explain it.
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.
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 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.
You are just proving what I said.
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.
Compromise and finding a middle ground is absolutely worthless unless the middle ground is the superior stance, which it rarely is.
Quite often middle ground solution is better stance than current situation.
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 it’s a good idea, STAND YOUR FUCKING GROUND!!
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.
CHOOSE:
freedom of thought, but you have to learn to work with people you disagree with slightly or find annoying: left
uniformity of thought, but you are surrounded by bleating sheep and must bleat along: right
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”.
deleted by creator
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!”
CHOOSE:
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
We on the right don’t view uniformity of thought as a positive.
lol
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
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.
Why are people getting cancelled for opposing leftist views?
They aren’t
Why are you automatically considered a nazi if you don’t agree with every facet of the left?
You aren’t
I may be wrong here, but none of that sounds like freedom of thought.
You are wrong here
The right is full of dumb ideas, but at least they let them all be heard.
Why is this even a positive lol
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?”
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.
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.
Yet you haven’t said anything. Which part is incorrect?
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.
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.
otherwise they would be way, WAY, WAY more worried about wealth inequality
Income inequality doesn’t really do anything at all, so no I pretty strongly disagree with this.
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.
Income inequality is the difference between highest and lowest earners. This is meaningless statistic
What matters is where the floor is, and how surmountable that difference is. Actual policy positions matter a lot more than “but this one has more”
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.
https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/Inequality/introduction-to-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.
Disagreeing with a gay person’s lifestyle doesn’t make you a nazi. Wanting to punish a gay person in any way because of their lifestyle does.
Fucking leftists, they ruined leftism!
The Leftists certainly are a contentious people.
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.
Save it for the final episode.
Is there ever gonna be a final episode? They’re working on 4 decades at this point, and it seems to be entering a Renaissance in this season.
huh, who could have thought that political opinions are not strictly binary.
Not conservatives.
I am politically nb.
Lol, made me spit my coffee out.
“I was mad the people I tend to agree with how to fix my country were not doing enough, so I just became part of the problem.”
Yo we should stop it though. Its part of the reason they can get stuff done and we can’t.
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.
the tiktok “any intercourse information made public should be an assault charge”
You and I have very different FYPs lol
No! We can’t work together with people who want something else just because they call themselves leftists, too
We can’t work together with people who want something different …
This is why free markets are important, incidentally
deleted by creator
Most of us have common goals and common methods. We should act in that overlap whenever we can. We do have strength in numbers
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
Thats what I mean! Work together when you can, but fellow workers are rarely actual enemies all the time.
Hasn’t the Republican Party been in total disarray since Trump left office?
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.
For me it’s the comma splices.
Similar like that.
Oh yeah, I’ve used this meme format so many times to describe various leftist dynamics
That’s not fair I’m annoyed by everyone all the time
Speaking of…
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.
May I introduce you to the Baldur’s Gate 3 Sex% Speedrun?
deleted by creator
“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.”
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?
deleted by creator
It’ll be a cold day in hell before I work with someone that wants people like me removed from all forms of society and/or killed
The Diogens, from outside just vibin: lmao, idiots
nanners
That’s not at all how it happens.
It’s about how they claim that this transformation happened to them. Whether they’re lying or not is a different story.
Splitters!
