all 34 comments

[–]beermeem 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

No.

[–]useless_aether 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (17 children)

radicals vs conservatives is more to the point imo.

[–]jamesK_3rd 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

Radicals vs progressives is more appropriate.

The "conservatives" are not conservative in any way. Donald Trump and his base represent and have the values of the 1980's Democrat party. Pro taxes and tariffs, Pro spending, Pro surveillance state, Pro eugenics through abortion, Pro big unions and big corporations...

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–]go1dfish 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

    That's a better axis, but both parties fall on the Authoritarian side these days.

    [–]magnora7 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    But both parties have anti-authoritarian aspects to them, which is how they ensnare people to then support the authoritarianism both parties ultimately stand for. The anti-authoritarian aspects of each of the 2 parties are shown very publicly, but those aspects are never given much real power, by design. Meanwhile the authoritarian aspects from both parties collude to increase their power. This is why the two party system is not only broken on a political level, but also an ideological level. It just doesn't work!

    [–]go1dfish 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Yeah that's a really interesting dynamic, it reminds me of the dynamic that happens with the welfare state and warfare state sharing the same general fund.

    The bleeding hearts end up advocating for more money that can be directed to our military and vice versa.

    [–]magnora7 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Hm yes very good point. And then the anti-tax people can be simultaneously portrayed as anti-welfare, to morally leverage them in to paying for war! So the war-profiteers can eat their cake and have it too, by taking advantage of people's moral desire to improve the world.

    [–]happysmash27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    It's a shame, because it makes it hard to discuss my anti-authoritarian political views without people getting them confused with more authoritarian ones.

    [–]useless_aether 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

    i see the left as radicals and the right as conservatives.

    i don't see anything progressive in 'progressives' as all they do is destroy what's already there to make room for their 'modern' and 'progressive' ideas. therefore they are really radicals too.

    progressive is used by the left because of its positive vibe.

    but would like to know your interpretation of political progressives

    [–]beermeem 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I guess I tend to think of myself as a progressive because growing up in the US in the 80’s, “Liberal” was “a dirty word.” And I would like to see less bigotry, less exploitation of workers, and overall more financial equality across society.

    At the same time, I don’t agree with the underpinnings of the liberal concept of governance. I also think society runs itself the best when not interfered with by government and we can make the change I’d like to see in the world on a social level while making government smaller.

    So for the most part, while I’m sympathetic to “progressive” ideals, I don’t want to see them enforced by government. To this end, I certainly see OP’s point. My perspective is often far too nuanced people because they prefer to just have government reflect their perspective.

    I have sort of saying I’ve adopted — just because it’s your opinion and you’re sure you’re correct, doesn’t mean we should be enshrining that opinion into law. This is where I constantly run afoul of “Liberals” who these days basically think that all of society should be run by government laws which adhere to their opinions.

    [–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    The democrats are neoconservative, corporatist neoliberals, yes, you can be both a neoliberal and neocon, and the right, GOP, and executive branch are neoconservatives (neotrotskyite) Zionists, Likudniks and not true conservatives in any way shape or form. I would say that there are a dozen or so in congress, republicans and indepedents who are true conservatives.

    [–]FormosaOolong 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

    so anyone who is not conservatie is radical?! cmon man!

    [–]magnora7 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

    This is something that is frustrating about forums that have a political bias. Right-leaning forums are like "Us normal people vs those insane radical communist libtards" and then left-leaning forums are like "Us normal people vs those murderous racist fascist alt-right". And then they each cherry pick articles about the worst of the other side, to support that narrative.

    And then there's all these people in the middle who are just getting completely ignored because everyone is so obsessed with hating the extremists from the other "side", while ignoring the extremists from their own side. Tribalism at its finest. I hope someday humanity as a whole can stop being so easily mentally swept away by this type of thinking. Some people are learning, and that culture is growing, but man it's like 10 steps forward 9 steps back. I guess that's the story of human history, in a lot of ways. Maybe someday we'll figure it out.

    [–]Tiwaking 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Its not that he middle get completely ignored. Its just that the middle cant contribute to the debate.

    They'll get yelled at by both sides for 'missing the point'.

    [–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Which then makes me wonder why the media lets the extremists have the center of the discussion? I guess it's more entertaining and they want more views because that's how they make money. Just turning everything in to the Jerry Springer Show, basically.

    [–]Tiwaking 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

    I think Jon Stewart did the best at pointing out the hypocrisy of extremism and how the media only focuses on the loudest and stupidest after he destroyed those partisan hacks at Crossfire

    [–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Yes, that is an awesome moment. Thanks for the link

    [–]sproketboy 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

    Better to use Right and Wrong.

    [–]Tiwaking 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

    Right

    [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    nah it's useful for discussing reality

    [–]Vigte 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Well, since it IS a fact of reality, I have to agree, lol. How can one accurately describe reality, without using some kind of "labels".

    [–]AnarchySpeach 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    Let's get the stereotype out of the way, shall we? Nobody's a "pure" [INPUT POLITICAL TRIBE HERE].

    atheist

    You gotta be a Democrat.

    Approve of the 2nd Amendment

    You gotta be a Republican.

    Fix the American School System by making it affordable

    You gotta be a Democrat.

    Fix the American School System by explaining how communism and socialism aren't currently viable large-scale governmental models because of our lack of Star-Trek technology.

    You gotta be a Republican to say that.

    The immigration system is trash, needs to be updated from the 1970 punch card style of computer system, needs more translators, and needs more government funding to do it's job, because right now there's a 10 year waiting list and that's ridiculousness. No, we can't let them in without putting them through the system.

    You gotta be Republican to say that.

    Politics shouldn't be influencing Physiological research

    Gotta be Republican to say that.

    Freedom of religion applies to all religions. Satanism included.

    Gotta be a Democrat to say that.

    Public Schools should teach the scientific process in Elementary, Middle, and High school. You should get a grade on it. It should be required to pass. The current "Critical Thinking" bullshit in public schools aren't working because there's no class dedicated to teaching it.

    You gotta be a Democrat to say that.

    I could go on and on. Both sides are idiots. The democrats dangerously more so with their anti-free speech laws they love to promote.

    I identify as an atheist pro-choice Republican. Why? Because there isn't a 3rd party option for people like me to vote. The system is broken and needs to be fixed. It needs a 3 option.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Preach. brother!

    ...oh, wait! ;)

    I feel the same (not from the US), there's not a size fit all. Even in places supposedly more representative it's usually 1 dimensional rather then 2 dimensional. Worst are the people who support everything their party says, often a case of tribalism, making choices for the wrong reasons.

    [–]AnarchySpeach 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    The biggest reason I'm a "Republican" is because I believe in the 2nd Amendment. That's it. All the freedom of speech comes from that single ability to enforce it. If that is removed, so is everything else. The only reason people can march in the streets to protest without the government opening fire is because they don't know if the old lady on the bench has a Glock 19 in her purse. The government should fear the people. Not the other way around.

    [–]HeyImSancho 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    huh, so weird, I commented in this thread, but I don't see it; yet it's in my archives, censored??? LOL! My comment went somewhat like, 'grow a thicker skin'.... You can never stop what people think, or how they think; it's truly up to them individually to make that jump.

    Having that said though, what I wish I didn't have to read on this forum, or the next, is people demanding how others must conduct themselves, and then the 'or I won't participate in such a 'insert derogatory wording here' forum' always seemingly comes up, or is left open like a silent innuendo.

    HAHA, I guess since this can be deleted as well, I'll finish my thought. Has it not occurred to anyone that since many things are out of our control, with the exception to complain, that perhaps the focus on growth should be internal; as trying to change humanity at this point, and time is akin to stopping tsunami?

    [–]realister 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    what about "commies" and "freedom lovers"

    [–]HeyImSancho 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    To the OP, let me ask you, how do we identify anyone without description? Case in point is how often times people's color isn't used to describe the BOLO in regards to crime; you've got to be psychic. So like in this case, not using left, or right, when describing people who openly identify as left, or right would be difficult.

    Do you get where I'm coming from? You couldn't match antifa up with democrats, or the left, but instead would call them, 'antifa, a politically orientated group'? How does not using left, or right work? Please explain :)

    [–]Robin[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    I think I do understand where you're coming from. As if you're trying to find your way around, and I'm suggesting not to use signposts! :-)

    I agree that describing is important to identification, but I don't see "left"/"right" as descriptions so much as labels. Description is a more thoughtful, less reflexive process than labelling. It does takes longer, but it is more informative.

    In the directional sense, extreme left and right are 100% opposite, but this isn't true in the metaphorical sense, so the metaphor is a polarising perspective. Similarly, the political "left" and "right" disagree among themselves on plenty of issues, which the label helps one to overlook.

    The name "Antifa" is a contraction of "Anti-fascist", isn't it? What is an "anti-"fascist? Some who opposes all fascists? Or all aspects of fascism? Does the group have positive policy of itself? Is it, for example "pro-immigrant"? OK, this is a label, too, but a more descriptive one. Does it favour higher taxes or less income inequality? If I had to refer to their orientation in general, I would describe them as a (self-styled) "left" group (in quotes), meaning that the label is suspect. I would generally try and avoid discourse in which a single word (or just a few words) was all that anyone wanted to know about the group.

    Avoiding the terms "left" and "right" makes political discourse more long winded, but also multi-dimensional, which I've found to be extra effort well spent. It's important to notice, for example, that far from being opposites, the long established political parties are more or less identical on a whole range of key issues, such as the need to keep fighting the War Of Terror.

    The extended answer to this question is at https://www.unwelcomeguests.net/, a recommended radio show/podcast that makes minimal reference to the political spectrum, especially the episodes since 2010. I know that material fairly well, so if I knew more of you're angle, I could maybe recommend a specific episode.

    [–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    I know that material fairly well, so if I knew more of you're angle, I could maybe recommend a specific episode.

    I think my angle left the building long ago, lol. Often, I'll use, 'you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink'; as there are real world limitations to what people can comprehend, wrap their mind around, or more to the point, hide their ignorance. There are a lot of folks that hide ignorance, perhaps stupidity behind various created 'veils'.

    So in the end, my angle is more so of self-development. I actually don't like the lingo left, or right, but at the same time, people are willing to fight to maintain their labels. Sadly, the respectful thing is to call them as they choose; which they do, left, or right, or in between.

    I'm fine with being 'in between', and outnumbered; the scariest thing I can imagine is going to my death knowing my life was a lie to my soul. To myself, insta-hell.

    [–]Robin[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    If you must talk to people who insist you use these terms, you could try "so-called left"... or use intonation/air quotes to signify that these are their labels, not yours.

    [–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Of course anyone's got to talk to them, they're everywhere. I've used air quotes before, and even 'so-called-x', and sure, sometimes someone will get it, but often enough, you get those looks, 'bro, you a bit crazy, no?', lol.

    What's the result? I don't talk much, I don't actually participate in forums like I once did. People are on different intellectual paths, and whether they realize it, or not, their own journey.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    Left Right, left right, left right. Sounds a lot like the... March of Tyranny! https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/956/597/f57.jpg

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Naz Bol rise up

    [–]m68k 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    if you can't handle those two words, let's me introduce you to "up" and "down". :3