2391
I tried. It was exhausting. I'm better now.
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
2391 points (100.0% liked)
tumblr
3480 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to /c/tumblr, a place for all your tumblr screenshots and news.
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Must be tumblr related. This one is kind of a given.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
-
No unnecessary negativity. Just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean that you need to spend the entire comment section complaining about said thing. Just downvote and move on.
Sister Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm a leftist precisely because I started paying more attention and listening to both sides.
I was a centrist before I started doing that.
If you are paying attention and you have a drop of empathy then you're almost guaranteed to be one.
I thought I was a centrist, because it was clear to me that both sides are terrible, and going to kill us all.
Turns out I was just a leftist all along
Good luck to you then. The more I learn about the world, and the more different people I meet, the more repulsive conservatism becomes.
That's a vague response that I can't really make any reply to.
If you aren't voting for right-wing parties, that's a good thing. You might be a pretty middle-of-the-road liberal, at least statistically speaking that's not unlikely. Which in the grand scheme of things, is still fairly conservative, supportive of the maintenance of the status quo.
So if that describes you, I can see why people would say that's conservative.
I literally explained it in the comment. You should try reading it again.
Maintaining the status quo, opposing change, is still quite conservative. Hell the right-wing party in some countries are the "Liberals". And note that I said lower-case-c "conservative". Just because the self-described capital-c "Conservatives" are running further rightward and flirting with fascism, doesn't make the middle position not conservative.
You can think whatever you like, but that isn't what I wrote.
Lived experience.
And like... Talking to liberals? Having conversations with people. Where whenever we discuss politics, any systemic change is always framed as too radical.
Think about climate change. Think about how many liberals view this as an issue where the solution is... More people buying electric cars. Rather than rethinking cities and infrastructure to allow for more pedestrians, bicycles, and public transport. Or where instead of regulating industries causing the most damage, the solutions is... To rely on consumers, who are already overwhelmed by information in advertising and often low on disposable income, to "make better purchasing decisions" to make the companies change by voting with their wallets. Where the fault for climate change isn't the fact that our economies incentivise the destruction of the environment, but that people just aren't recycling enough.
The system is always found faultless, it's always the individual to blame. Any actual systemic solution is dismissed, precisely because changing the systems we live under is considered radical.
Some liberals might, ostensibly, say they want things to change for the better. But in practice, they tend to oppose any measure to actually achieve that change.
Please actually read what I'm writing. Because this is fully consistent with what I'm describing.
Liberals often support change in abstract, they like the goals. But then oppose any measures to accomplish it because those measures are not "sensible" to them.
Stop assuming everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. We don't think you're correct, that doesn't mean that we don't understand.
Y'all are always so condescending.
He doesn't assume that, and said the exact opposite.
ntg but the general kind of surface level spectrum might look more like conservatives, not definitionally, or, in the sense of the origin of the word, conservatives want to regress society back to some previous state. centrists yadda yadda status quo. and then liberals want to progress society, and that's kind of equivalent to progressivism or leftism. Which is partially because americans are not politically literate, or actually literate, and don't understand the differences between different words, but also because america as a whole is so far to the right (so is much of the world), and so stuck in the past, that actual leftism is incredibly fucking radical, and advocating for liberalism, or at least, the identitarian implications of liberalism, rather than fucked up plutocracy and bigotry, is still thought of as a leftist position.
no it doesn't.
jesus you freaks have such a victim fetish
you aren't left leaning, and I'm not a communist. what happened to the nuance you were just prattling on about? abandon it already because you really like calling people communists that much?
College communists will absolutely label the entire democratic party right wing, and will call liberalism a fundamentally conservative philosophy. If you're surrounded by literal communists, accepting that maybe a literal revolution isn't the best idea will absolutely get you called a conservative.
That's not really a new phenomenon, though. The German communist party literally labeled the social democrat party fascists, and thought they were just as bad as the nazis. Turns out they were kinda wrong about that.
I mean. I'm no college communist. But neither of those assertions are particularly out there?
When compared with parties in other democracies, the Democrats are pretty right-wing on many issues. And it's not strange to refer to liberalism as a conservative philosophy, it tends to place emphasis on private property, free-market economics, and capitalism. There are places where the conservative party are "The Liberals".
"Leftist" means very different things to different people. It's not a very well-defined term, and really never has been.
Some people will insist that leftist means socialist, and that Nordic-style Social Democrats are actually right wing because Social Democracy is capitalist and anything that involves private ownership of the means of production is right wing.
Others will insist that somehow CNN is the "Communist News Network", and that anyone left of Trump is a leftist.
So the better question is really what they mean. Did they go from being a college communist to a Social Democrat, or from a Joe Manchin supporter to wanting Charlie Baker to run?
Ah yeah, the non nuanced view of leftists
go ask some conservatives their opinion on trans people and see the incredible variance in their answers.
I think I agree with you. Since the left is more "popular" it now brings in more people with dumber takes. I do think though that some of the problem is were going to need some extreme solutions in the near future for increasingly pressing issues, and determining which of those are reactionary and lazy, and which are needed is difficult
This whole comment is a straw man that feels like it was written by a walking Fox News segment.
Completely nonsense. Just because there are some slogans like ACAB or BLM doesn't mean that there aren't policy proposals, it just means that "modern policing is a corrupt institution with bad systems that lead to bad outcomes and we should end qualified immunity and force police unions to pay when cops drastically abuse their power" doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.
More complete nonsense. This is lemmy.ml, so they over represent here, but the vast majority of American leftists are mostly along the lines of "we should improve society somewhat."
This one I won't disagree with. Quite a lot of things could be solved simply by taxing the rich, who are currently experiencing some of the lowest taxes in the history of the US, and during the US's real heyday from 40-70 or so, were taxed at a significantly higher rate. They were also paid significantly less, with CEO to worker pay usually being around a 10-20x multiplier, instead of a 100s of times. This is simply empirically true, like the fact that other countries exist that do tax the wealthy more, have more social programs, and generally have better outcomes (lower crime, lower rates of poverty, lower rates of maternal mortality, lower overall average mortality, etc.) Even still, the calls for taxing the rich aren't really even pushing for tax rates of the 50's, they're pushing for tax rates of like 2003, or even 2015 before they were given yet another tax break with no plan for paying for it. So yeah, pretty realistic given that we've done it in this country, and many countries are still doing it even more than we did.
Please don't. This would be another argument against a straw man, unless you're arguing for a gold standard or something which would just highlight a lack of knowledge about modern economic theory.
well, you definitely didn't move right then.