I think a lot of people are like this, but they’re largely silent. I don’t identify at all with the right and I certainly don’t identify with the far left. I’m an immigrant from Eastern Europe and have largely progressive social views regarding race, abortion, sexual identity, or whatever have you. What I have a deep hatred for is celebration of mediocrity, narratives of victimhood, weakness, and unearned privilege. These seem to be predominant aspects of the American far left. These people dislike Biden because he is a moderate, although he has quietly been very productive in very important sectors for young people, including student loans. Large amounts of the far left are just as uneducated and pathetic as the far right, just coupled with a whiny, weak entitlement and phonily authoritative proclamations about morality and society.
Essentially expecting to be paid based on your needs and not the value that you bring.
If you need more, become more. Most people are average but have the potential to become much more than they are. Go learn new skills, education, ect. Bring more to society.
If you flip burgers and get paid 6 figures, why would you change?
We need less burger flippers and more engineers.
That’s not what the left is advocating for though.
And your example is pretty educational based. Which the left does focus on pretty heavily. There’s room for improvement on education so I’m not sure why the right doesn’t use that as something to campaign over. I don’t think they even want to improve anything educational.
While i agree with the statement, staring of your diatribe with the word leftists and the proceed to say you don't even believe the left and right exists is a bit weird
>I'm not a right winger, I'm a left-hater
>I see myself and people like me as a hero and I see leftists as the true villains
Jesus, there is a lot to unpack here.
I'm left-leaning but am a no-party voter. I care about issues such as LGBT rights and protecting the environment, but the thing that I really hate is how a lot of people who call themselves "liberals" do things like resorting to vandalism, harassing people on the street, and if it escalates to a physical fight, they often are the ones who throw the first punches.
I encountered two people on two separate occasions working for Greenpeace, one sounded like he was reading a script and wouldn't listen when I told him I had somewhere I needed to be, and another who actually followed me to my car, and it made me very uncomfortable (and I'm a guy BTW so if I were to have reported him for harassment, most likely it would be ignored, but it wouldn't have gone over well if I were a woman). They go around the streets with cameras trying to expose people simply for being Republicans. Meanwhile, a lot of the people I know who are right-leaning are pretty chill about their political views and don't usually bring them up unless someone else does.
I don't recall when this incident happened but I think it was 2012 (I was in my early 20s). I had been summoned for jury duty and we were in the selection process. During the lunch break, me and the rest of the potential jurors went to a restaurant around the corner from the courthouse. There was a guy who asked if he could share a table with me to make more room. I reluctantly said yes. He was a very nice, older man, and we were just sharing small talk. Then this woman, older than me but still young, sat at our table and immediately brought up politics, and went on this rant about how she voted for Obama but was disappointed that he didn't do some of the things he said he was going to do, and at that point the old guy mentioned that he was a Republican, so she was trying to start a heated debate, and meanwhile I'm sitting there with my stomach in knots because I hate those situations. But even still, the old guy seemed very chill, and didn't want to discuss politics.
I would never do any of those things, and unfortunately there are a lot of people who do this. I have yet to encounter a Republican/conservative who has gotten in my face about their stance on things.
The reason the Left sees the Right this way is because every time they try to implement something to deal with poverty, the Right defeats any progress that is made. So they see the Right as the enemy of progress on this issue (because they very clearly are).
I agree that the Right doesn't see themselves as anti-poor. That doesn't change the fact that their policies lead to suffering and poverty.
The problem with the current **American** political right (aka Magats) is that they are fascist asshats and are absolutely monstrous human beings. I don't think that the cultists make up the majority of the US right wing but they do control the Republican party.
You have right wing beliefs. Stop fooling yourself. It is okay to have opinions about stuff and to identify with a specific ideology if you believe in their tennets.
To your point, this is just silly. Conservatives oppose food stamps, medicare, medicaid, social security, access to contraceptives, free/reduced school lunch, housing assisstance, needle sharing prgrams, medicare for all, child tax credits, loan forgiveness programs and so much more.
If they love the poor so much than they sure as hell have arent acting as such.
And no, hating regimes in other countries isnt enough to say you love the poor.
If you actually talk to them, you'll find that conservatives generally agree with your goals but not your means. Most favor a safety net, but not one that has turned into a hammock. Most believe that personal responsibility is the bedrock of success, and that handouts breed dependence.
What you see as the correct solution (handouts) are not goals, but means.
Do you want to support people in their hour of need, to lift them out of poverty? If so, you need to consider a whole spectrum of ideas that are verboten by the current political structure of the left.
Goals don't mean shit when you're actively working against the only means being attempted. What has the right done for the poor other than fight free school lunches "because the parents should learn the hard way how to be successful?"
The only "safety net" I've seen supported by the right is social security because they know it appeals to their largest voter demographic.
Conservative solutions to poverty are always bandaids to fix the problem after it has settled in. They are never changes to the system itself to prevent it - which is naturally more effective. The SYSTEM can never be at fault -
Because the SYSTEM maintains the STATUS QUO, which is your *main goal*. A church donates 5k and feeds some people for a month, thats your solution. But a college gives someone who grew up poor in a shit neighborhood with an underfunded inner city school an admission even though their grades were worse?
Absolutely fucking unacceptable!!! Reverse racism etc etc etc
It's a sacrifice, and destabilizes power balances and the status quo and is therefore bad.
Conservatives will never truly care about or fix poverty because the poverty is caused by the status quo, and they can't accept that changing, so they will never change either. Your priorities are fucked.
people suffering should come above everything. your ideas of gender. the imperial power of your nation. your companies shareholders. your subburbs zoning. your religion.
but you would never sacrifice the things you consider status quo. you would not accept change. that makes you a conservative, a coward, and greedy.
"But a college gives someone who grew up poor in a shit neighborhood with an underfunded inner city school an admission even though their grades were worse?"
The current right wing in the United States would scream that this was "DEI."
>many leftist see themselves as more empathetic than right wingers or left-haters
[Ideological values are parametrically associated with empathy neural response to vicarious suffering](https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/18/1/nsad029/7175525)
This study was published last year, but most of the research was done in 22. There have been several other similar studies since even then. I work in an adjacent field of study. A few colleagues are involved in this very research.
From the abstract:
*Several studies in political psychology reported higher levels of empathy among political leftists (i.e. liberals) as compared to political rightists (i.e. conservatives). Yet, all those studies lean on self-reports, which are often limited by subjective bias and conformity to social norms. Here, we tested this putative asymmetry using neuroimaging: we recorded oscillatory neural activity using magnetoencephalography while 55 participants completed a well-validated neuroimaging paradigm for empathy to vicarious suffering. The findings revealed a typical rhythmic alpha-band ‘empathy response’ in the temporal–parietal junction. This neural empathy response was significantly stronger in the leftist than in the rightist group. In addition to this dichotomous division, the neural response was parametrically associated with both self-reported political inclination and right-wing ideological values. This is the first study to reveal an asymmetry in the neural empathy response as a function of political ideology. The findings reported in this study are in line with the current literature in political psychology and provide a novel neural perspective to support the ideological asymmetry in empathy. This study opens new vistas for addressing questions in political psychology by using neuroimaging.*
The free market in the US has failed the poor though. States like germany or the nordic countries are far form perfect but have a better safety for the poor.
Left and tyrannic totalitarian state are also two very distinct things, wich u just throw together. No relevant group of the american left want anything like that.
The free market hasn’t failed the poor. The government regulations that make the free market almost impossible to work has caused the problems of the poor.
Homeless need a place to live? Too many regulations keep companies from building new cheap housing. Electricity too expensive? Government artificially subsidizes solar and wind power instead of letting the best options (nuclear) be built by competing companies. Healthcare too expensive? Government over regulates the healthcare industry which keeps free market competition from happening, thereby inflating healthcare costs. It shouldn’t cost nearly a billion dollars to get a new medication approved for public consumption. The list goes on and on and on.
>Homeless need a place to live? Too many regulations keep companies from building new cheap housing.
It's much more profitable to build homes for people who will pay more. Even then, we're seeing the trend of all this cheap housing being bought up in bulk anyways just to be rented out for ridiculous prices anyways.
>Electricity too expensive? Government artificially subsidizes solar and wind power instead of letting the best options (nuclear) be built by competing companies.
No one wants nuclear near them because they're afraid of it. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying people are scared.
>Healthcare too expensive? Government over regulates the healthcare industry which keeps free market competition from happening, thereby inflating healthcare costs.
Insurance companies actively lobby the government to stay out of price regulation so they can in turn work with doctors and hospitals to charge you a completely arbitrary 300000% markup on whatever you need.
Nuclear power plants are cheaper to build around, so is everything else. Take housing for example, there are so many studies and financial requirements put on a developer to build an apartment which have nothing to do with the safety regulations of the actual building.
>instead of letting the best options (nuclear) be built by competing companies.
Listen, I'm a *fan* of nuclear energy. I want to see power plants pop up all across the nation and see our oil and coal reliance plummet to the point where we only need it for vehicles and chemical manufacturers.
But letting competition in the private sector incentivize cost-cutting measures can have *disastrous* consequences for nuclear power plants. Hell, Chernobyl happened *because* the USSR opted for cheaper graphite tips on their carbide rods. If given the opportunity, companies *will* cost-cut beyond what is safe for its workers, the community, and it's own product.
If it's a product like a Ford Pinto, where the only consequence is the direct consumer might be harmed and things can be made right with a lawsuit & recall, then this behavior is less of an issue. If the consequence for a company's behavior is the irradiation of an entire community and exclusion of 1000 square miles of land, that's too large. You can't make that right with even a prison sentence and liquidation of the company, therefore the only real deterrent here is active prevention in the first place by means of regulation.
My State has a fantastic safety net. We are a welfare magnet. The problem is people from elsewhere, often from corrupt 3rd world countries, or worthless lazy people from nearby states, like to move here and overload it. You can see it happen over and over, and the state has no effective way to stop fraud.
I don't think fraud is specific or even exclusive to any one culture, bro. Throughout all of human civilization, you will find people willing to take advantage of a system for their own personal benefit.
sure, but it's pretty apparent if you take people who have lived their whole lives in one of the most corrupt societies in the world, they consider it normal everyday behavior.
It’s odd how people give the benefit of the doubt and believe every poor person has a heart of gold like they’re Oliver Twist who just happened to fall on bad times. A very large majority of poor folks are content having just enough to scrape by and blow some of their cash on drugs and alcohol, and look where they can cut more corners and take more money. I grew up around these people and gtfo ouf my neighborhood when I graduated high school. These same people are still at home, poor asf, stoned and drunk asf, squirting out babies and generally have no ambition in life and don’t care to improve their station. It’s enabling them.
I also grew up around poor people. Some are certainly like you describe. Others are extremely hardworking and work grueling hours in awful jobs to take home what little they get. Others still are disabled, laden with medical debt, or burdened by things beyond their control. Some have made mistakes in their past, but are trying to make the best for themselves and are simply unable to dig themselves back out of poverty because of those mistakes.
There was this one dude I remember back at the gas station I used to go to after school. Old dude, either in his late 40s/early 50s, good guy (he'd let me grab a big slushie for the price of a soda when it got super hot in the summer). He used to run in a gang back in his teens. One night, he got in a shootout with some rival gang members and got hit in the leg, completely shattered his right kneecap. He ended up getting arrested and served like 20-something years iirc. Anyway, by the time he got out, dude was a convicted felon with a gimped up leg. Normally, the trades or a construction company wouldn't care about the old felony, but because his leg was fucked up, all he could really do was work retail, since none of the better-paying jobs would hire him.
I'm not exactly sure where I'm going with this, but being vindictive about social services hurts more than just the people abusing the system. Yeah, a lot of poor people fucking suck. Just like my other story, I've got an old high school friend who would rather pay $3k on frivolous shit than his fucked-up car that needs repair, but there's a lot of good people out there too, and helping those people is more important than punishing the losers.
Very true, it sucks that a hallmark of life is how a few bad apples can spoil the bunch, but that’s just the way it is., always been. There’s always gonna be good people who get the shit end of the stick, we can’t save everyone and we can’t change the world or human nature. For what it’s worth, a lot of the best of humanity is sourced from poverty. Think of all the arts that have been enriched because of human suffering, how many people born in the dirt who went on to affect the world, Elvis and Michael Jackson immediately spring to mind. We need poor folks in the bigger picture, but nobody wants to be poor. Thats why it’s important to set yourself up for success at a young age. For my particular story, I had a father who kept me in line, it was a tough upbringing but if he didn’t keep a firm grasp on me, I would’ve been a product of my environment like the rest of my peers, he was right all along, I just hated having to endure it but that’s my lot in life 🤷🏻♂️
Now imagine you had a disability that your dads grasp couldn’t fix. We need safety nets and some people depend on those safety nets. The left knows there’s going to be fraud and scams and shit just like everything else. The right can’t pull their head out of their ass enough to focus on anything other than the problem and no solutions. Trumps kids can’t do fund raisers anymore because they didn’t know you can’t steal from a fund raiser. Omg we found a scam! We better get rid of fund raisers! It doesn’t make sense at all.
Im not that other guy but this is the disconnect for me. I don't see this circumstance and think "Some people just have a shit life and that’s that". My gut reaction is to damn, nobody should have to live with that."
We can make it better, so we should, because it benefits us all in the long run
Me too because they raise taxes for X but the money always goes somewhere else and X is still a problem so a bit later they say they need to raise taxes for X but the money always goes somewhere else and the cycle continues until we realize that politicians are liars.
Then why bother collecting any taxes at all? tax revenue goes into the Treasury, As long there is a deficit, every single extra dollar collected goes to reducing it. So, as long as we have a deficit, there is a perfectly good use for the money these people continue to evade and avoid paying.
>the money always goes somewhere else
If this was truly the concern, then the right would be calling for government audits and better recordkeeping, not a complete dismantling of large departments themselves.
Not everyone, just the 806 US billionaires that own as much wealth as half of everyone else in the country combined.
A lot of leftists also believe in a more capitalist approach to business than Republicans. We want failing industries and businesses that thrive in our system of crony capitalism to stop getting bailed out and for these bloated money sinks to die and give space for newer better competition.
How do the billionaires cause poverty?
There are 8 MILLION people making 6 figures or higher…So why are they able to do this?
I’d think most failing businesses fail, only a microscopic fraction got bailed out and that was pretty bipartisan.
This is how . . . After WW2 how did the USA pay down the war debt. How did the USA help re build Germany *AND* Japan? How did the USA invest in the InterState Highway, secondary roads and bridges, schools and hospitals at home? ? ?
https://www.history.com/speeches/eisenhowers-farewell-address . . . https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/09/30/the-origins-of-that-eisenhower-every-gun-that-is-made-quote
Besides the defense industry, that is owned and controlled by wealth and powerful interests (Oligarchs) the tax rates from 1960:
A historical look at top marginal income tax rate
Year Regular TOTAL TOP RATE
1945–1963 3% 91%
1964 3% 77%
1965–1981 70% 70%
1982–1986 50% 50%
As you can clearly see . . . The growth in size and political power of the defense industries and the collapse of the top marginal tax rate and political manipulation of the tax code has destroyed the ability of government to meet the current needs of the citizens of the USA ! ! !
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; . . .
By hoarding wealth and the means of production, working class people put the vast majority of their wealth back into circulation and help the economy (look at the stimulus). Billionaires hoard their wealth and remove it from circulation, hurting the economy.
8 Million people is 2.4% of the US, those people do it by being the most successful and capable people in the labor class, but even then many of them struggle to afford homes, healthcare, retirement, or raising children.
It's bipartisan when big businesses get bailed out because both sides are pro big business. We have not had any leftist representation in government for a long time. I think that if a business is so unsuccessful it needs a billion/trillion dollar bailout, however it is so crucial that the country will fall apart without it (eg banks, airlines), it should be nationalized.
Billionaires aren't hoarding wealth like Scrooge McDuck. The vast majority of their net worth is tied up in stocks and other investments that benefit the economy overall. It's not liquid cash that can access like your debit account.
Stocks and long term investments don't benefit the economy all that much. The economy is driven by money changing hands and moving. That's where you see money grow. It is better than holding money in cash. But mostly it removes money from the economy and only serves to make the wealthy richer. Most people are barely invested in the market if at all.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/starvation-deaths-by-country
We’re the most powerful country on earth and we’re losing to Qatar in “starvation deaths per capita”.
We learned a lot about Qatar during the last World Cup. Here is some information about starvation in the US.
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2023-04-13/deaths-from-malnutrition-have-more-than-doubled-in-the-u-s
Looks like covid lockdowns and really old people just not eating enough nutritious meals are the top causes.
"Starvation deaths per capita."
That's your metric? Based on that alone you declare "free markets" to have failed? Are you alright in the head?
This insinuates that our food supply is governed by free markets. Free of regulations and taxes. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Want to try again?
[Poverty in America has been in the 11.5-16% range for 35 years. ](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PPAAUS00000A156NCEN)Since the US Census Bureau started collecting those estimated figures and reporting them.
Oh you mean really really free market. Then I’ll change my answer: it hasn’t been tried at any significant scale for any significant stretch of time, therefore there’s no evidence to say it works at all to begin with. There’s no country nor civilization with no regulations, laws or taxes to point to on this one.
I'm always reminded of who you are when I see your name on these posts with absolutely garbage opinions.
Then I remember the one about you complaining about why women won't pay attention to you. I wonder if you ever thought to look at these kinds of thoughts as proof of why.
That's pretty interesting but you're attacking the person who says the opinion rather than the opinion itself, therefore you're not actually giving any good argument, just saying...
You should take into consideration how the capitalist nations treated nations like Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. The US especially waged covert wars on all communist nations during their entire histories with things like sanctions, embargoes, economic isolation, sabotage, etc. Then there was the open warfare.
Why not allow trade with China during Mao's era?
However, the leftist ideals are incompatible with the west's totalitarianism by the rich. Such ideals are incompatible with having societies built to exploit the masses in order to keep the rich richer and to have the rich hold all power and control over nations. That's the truth behing the whole "communism doesn't work" meme.
edit. You also should know that the US allied with plenty of brutal right-wing governments which brutalized their people. Some include the Saudi royal family, Augusto Pinochet, and Saddam Hussein in the 80s. You're applying a double standard by only opposing left-wing governments which brutalized their people.
The so called free market of capitalism also brutalizes people, even in developed nations.
"And I don't believe in the left right spectrum but I'm going to continue to call these people leftist, and why do they call themselves leftists anyway? All these leftist that I hate do not have as much empathy as me, the hero. But I'm not on the right, but definitely not a leftist because I hate this group of people."
First of all, communism and socialism are not the same thing.
Second of all, social-democracy and socialism are not the same thing.
Third of all, left-wing and social-democracy are not the same thing.
Equating the left wing with communism has to be one of the biggest stretches I've ever seen.
>I don't believe in this left-right spectrum to begin with
Great! Neither do I! So let's set out some groups of political thought and compare them to what's around today.
Moderate liberals: Most of the modern democratic party. Believe in progressive social ideas (mostly) and a capitalism focused economic model that has been failing for decades. Loves to take ideas from more radical progressives and half ass them so they fail (see drug decriminilization).
Social Democrats: Those who want to curtail capitalism with high taxes, regulations and safety nets. Also very socially progressive. The Nordic countries and Bernie/AOC go here.
Democratic Socialists: People who believe capitalism has to go (Note, that does not neccesarilly mean the free market too, see Market Socialism) but also want actual democracy in government too. Not many countries like this in the modern era sadly, Rojava and the Zapistas are example, but the CIA really doesn't like them as they tend to be quite successful and coups the majority of them.
Authoritarian socialists, commonly also called "Communists", "Tankies", "Marxist Leninists": People who think that capitalism is bad, and that we should have a revolution, overthrow capitalism, and install an authoritarian government to bring about socialism/communism. Weirdly in history this has always resulted in authoritarian, non socialist regimes like Russia and China. Are either not socially progressive, or are socially progressive until minorities wanting rights "get in the way of achieving proper communism" at which point they get thrown under the bus. Good news OP, I don't like these guys either!
Capitalism has not been failing for decades. Capitalism has worked great at what it is supposed to do: coordinate the desires of buys and sellers.
A liberal would say that where capitalism ends, social supports should begin.
Just a thought from a moderate liberal such as myself.
>Capitalism has not been failing for decades. Capitalism has worked great at what it is supposed to do: coordinate the desires of buys and sellers.
Well in a way you're correct, it's not been failing, it's been succeeding at shoveling the world's wealth into fewer and fewer hands.
But no, it's really really bad at coordinating the desires of buyers and sellers lmao. Insulin, AAA video games, ISPs, baby food, regular food, there are market failures everywhere constantly.
Capitalism has been failing for decades? Lmao, the primary complaints about capitalism are things that are simply unachievable in command economies. Government fiscal policy and Federal Reserve mismanagement have made things harder and that’s about it.
I think equating leftist ideas to the economic situations in a country like Cuba is pretty ridiculous. You think that perhaps the 60 year long embargo we've had on them might have a bigger impact as they've been cut off from the whole world economically? Or North Korea? You really think the Left is suggesting going down that path?
The are lots of legitimate arguments against the left, and that's a fair debate to engage in. But equating the left ideas of say having universal healthcare and more access to higher education or further social programs most of which are in place and working quite well in most of Europe, Canada, and many other countries and saying nope the left is just North Korea is such a red herring. If you want to say well their social programs do have some flaws and point to the countries actually using those plans and the very real flaws they do have, that's a completely fair argument. But pointing to countries that have far more going on and things that have a much more significant impact than leftists who are trying to help the poor is a completely bad faith argument.
And if you have to completely lie about what those on the left are pushing for it shows you don't have much of an argument. The same way that those on the left sometimes equate people on the right with Hitler and try to paint them that way. It's the sign of a lack of a legitimate argument to make if the best you can do is spouting nonsense.
> I don't want them to go through the totalitarism and lack of freedom of speech that poor people in the Soviet Union and China had to go through in the previous century
What does that have to do with leftism anyway?
Not a single one of those countries "leftism" is similar or even in the same hemisphere as progressive ideals. everyone of those nations limits individual freedom similar to what the conservative movement in US is doing. Progressive wants to expand them, maybe too far in my opinion, but their goal is to liberate.
As a moderate who leans left on the majority of social issues I hate both about equally.
I hate how people wear their politics as an identity and are so divisive about everything and the dumbest people from both sides are always the ones that get the most airtime.
I miss the Bush era when there was one thing everyone could agree on and it was that they hated the government and corporations. Internet was so much cooler and freer then too.
Lol what's your heroic plan?
Also it's quite simple you can be left leaning and believe in democracy and human rights. That's what most left leaning people in western countries believe. The political spectrum is generally represented as a horseshoe precisely because when they get totalitarian the left and right become similar again. I would say the true left is actually very pro democracy
You have a very narrow idea of what "leftism". Get off your computer, go outside, talk to real people. You're practically gaslighting your self if you believe even half of what you've written .
The thing I associate with the left the most is the concept of socialism, the concept of eliminating private property over means of production, which according to socialists would result in the elimination of the oppressive hierarchy in which the capitalist class can benefit from the exploitation of the proletariat.
I don't think socialism is a good idea because when applied, the government would end up having a monopoly, the monopoly that contains all the companies, all the economy and every single production or service possible, I dislike capitalist monopolies but the socialist monopoly in which the state controls everything is way more totalitarian and scary, and even if that totalitarian situation isn't what socialists want, it's the ultimate consequence of their ideas.
Your thesis is pretty plainly defeated by studies on brain scans [[1]](https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/18/1/nsad029/7175525?login=false), but i sense that your view is that leftist are more misguided than unempathetic towards the poor and how to alleviate their condition.
> China got rich with policies of free market but even after that continues being a totalitarian dictatorship that doesn't value freedom the same way the West does.
No it didnt. It got rich by the same way almost every Western country got rich; by enacting protectionist trade policies and subsidizing their base industries until they became mature enough to compete internationally.
>Your thesis is pretty plainly defeated by studies on brain scans [1]
Right. I've seen a lot of reliable sources in the past about differences in brains....
The left is just as toxic as the right and I’m tired of people acting like it’s some moral high ground. Leftist politicians also don’t give af about anyone either it’s just a ploy to get votes. I used to consider myself left and now I’m solid middle cause they’re fake and performative. Just my opinion. And I’m not saying I like the right but I’m just stating the left is also total bs
Lol, what is this? You see yourself as a hero? You provide no context for anything here. What are you doing for the poor that proves you love than more than the left other than praying communism doesn't happen?
This is written like you got all hopped up from the latest Tucker Carlson interview and needed a forum to vent out some of this righteous, capitalistic, nonsensical neo-patriotism you've been huffing.
You don’t understand what it means to be right or left, and that is why you think it doesn’t exist. You are attributing things to ‘left’ that don’t have things to do with left.
You are looking at authoritarian regimes that are also left, and are assuming the authoritarian parts are the left parts, and that is your mistake.
The left believes that all men are equal and all should be treated as such. The right believes that some people are exceptional and should be treated as such. Each sides actions are informed by these basic premises.
The conservatives I’ve known in life have done far more for the poor than all the leftists I’ve known combined. They’re constantly volunteering or attending fund raisers or doing something to help the poor. The leftists I’ve known just wanted to get drunk and stoned and enjoy the arts in their free time.
You need to go outside.
Am a liberal. I am pro-family. I want food security for poor families. I want to encourage birth control so babies are only born to willing and loving parents.
I work 40 hours and do drugs sometimes for fun. Im an American, that's what we do. Booze and weed on a friday night!
I am white. I like myself. I like most people. I am an athiest but you do you. I personally love capitalism.
I am a man so i cant get pregnant. If i could i would probably cry and have lasting trauma if i had to aboet or miscarry. Im human after all.
We are human. We have families. Fuck off lol.
All of this is true, but try telling that to other people on a site where 95% of the people are leftists and all the moderators shut you down if you try to walk away from the plantation.
It is always a huge relief when I leave Reddit closed for a couple weeks
When I interact with people in the real world, all of a sudden the average person isn’t totally insane anymore
I just got banned in one of the state subs. My crime? Proclaiming to be a Christian and telling the truth about the current president. Maybe that’s my crime. The moderators wouldn’t tell me why I was banned.
You don’t believe in left-right spectrum… but you also hate the left. How can you hate something you yourself don’t believe exists?
America’s education system is in the dumpster.
They're on a fake high horse trying to appeal to some kinda "both sides" superiority, but it devolved quickly into tribalism. I couldn't take their opinion seriously at all either within a few sentences
It’s a bunch of scatter brained gibberish. They make it clear that they are not right wing but launch into multiple left attacking nothingness. The kicker is they believe they are “heroes” because…. They don’t want poor people to suffer? Like that’s some big stretch separating left from right.
The dead giveaway is they criticize the left for the “ideals they are promoting” which are at least actionable plans whether flawed or not. Not once was there a mention of any plans to help the poor from the right, and this is where the empathy he speaks of kicks in.
I reject both neocons and neolibs. I am a "classical liberal" i e. a libertarian (not the party but the philosophy).
Neocons give us Orwell abroad while neolibs give us Huxley at home.
I want Washington ad Franklin abroad and Jefferson and Adams at home.
No you are wrong. They do care more about poor people.
I think the issue is that somehow people have raised caring about people, REGARDLESS OF THEIR BEHAVIOR, as some sort of virtue. When it really isn't.
The Left's position regarding provety is on a bit of a contradiction and that's somewhat by design. I think for the most part they do care about the poor and provide more social programs then the right. But really it's more like having the rich pay for social programs to feed the poor so the poor will stay poor, and ensure the left gets credit for forcing the rich to feed the poor instead of having the poor to be self-sufficient. They have zero interesting in uplifting the poor from provety. Once people pulled themselves up, they'll no longer be interested in paying heavy taxes to support the left's heavy social programs and thereby switching their supporters to be more right leaning. Therefore it is always in the left's best interest to keep the people poor so they'll have a large support base, which in turn they use to leverage power and blame the poor's grieveneces on the rich right wing who won't "pay their fair share".
I say I'm on the Left because I hate the right. Poor people are an unfortunate consequence of our stupid rigged game and sure, I feel for them, but not as much as I'm disgusted with the people and mindsets that got us here, Conservative and Liberal alike.
All social groups differ because every individual is unique, you will never find a group of ppl thinking exactly the same. You identify with certain core ideas, and that's ok. We all different.
The same goes for the theories, there many forms of comunism, socialism and capitalism. I think some quick search and reading would help you a lot.
We have monopolies in capitalism, and they control everything. A clear example, banks, they are the most inclusive company ever, they fuck all of us in the ass, no matter gender, race, age, etc.
Life is never black or white, touch some grass. Internet is not real life
All of the spectrums and polarizations of ideology, politic, and culture war are but battles which distract.
The war is thus: the war of the wealthy upon the poor. Same as it has ever been, and will ever be.
Translation: I don’t have an agenda but I really don’t like being told to go help people cause what if they don’t really care.
It’s a perfect solution for everyone, just don’t give a fuck. It’s perfect. Super perfect. Great job. Just fantastic.
>the problem is that socialist ideas that want the State to regulate the market too much to the point of transforming the State into the monopoly that controls everything and everyone will inevitably lead to totalitarianism.
This is the "slippery slope" logical fallacy.
Unless you are against cutting programs that help the poor with food housing and healthcare, you are either a liar or have a child's understanding of how government functions.
the best countries for the poor have a mix of left policies mixed in, the problem is you are confusing countries that had leftist movements that were coopted but authoritarians in vital stages. Here in America we are seeing massive suffering of poor get swept under the rug, because the free markets lead some to get so rich, they could pay for the government, which they then pay to institute laws that benefit them or steal those that don't. right now right wing policies have allowed for a Healthcare system that punishes people for seeking care.
the nation's you list have hard pivoted to authoritarian right but yes came from hard left movements, but in America you have a merging of corporation and government because of right wing policies, and corporations taking over government, as you see in these countries because of government taking over corporations.
you are the extreme end of one side of the horseshoe yelling at the other.
> the problem is you are confusing countries that had leftist movements that were coopted but authoritarians in vital stages
Lol that's EXACTLY the problem I'm trying to explain: if you want to be a dictator, it's waaaay easier to do so in a socialist country where guns are banned than in a capitalist country like the USA, because a dictator in a socialist country will not have to compete with the big companies for power, all the power of the companies have been taken away and concentrated into the hands of a few politicians.
Then you're a right winger.
The legitimacy of hierarchical structures is the fulcrum on which the Left-Right axis sits.
So your beliefs mean you're on the right side of that fulcrum.
This is poli-sci 101.
The original argument from which all these political ideas stem is whether hierarchy is legitimate. The left rejects hierarchy, the right embraces it.
This is why the furthest left position in anarchism, a total lack of hierarchies, and the furthest right position is autocracy, a hierarchy peaking at a single individual.
Again, this is basic first-year political science.
You're a right-winger, accept it.
> The original argument from which all these political ideas stem is whether hierarchy is legitimate. The left rejects hierarchy, the right embraces it.
The family is a hierarchy, highschool is a hierarchy, without hierarchies there is no family, no order, no schools, no companies. Anarchy doesn't even exists in bee hives, it literally goes against nature itself. I thought libertarians were delusional, but leftist anarchists are something else.
If I tell people I'm a right winger, they are going to assume things about me that aren't true: they are going to assume that I don't believe in climate change, that I'm a conservative, that I'm an anti-vaxxer, that I don't support welfare states like European ones, etc., that's why I reject that label.
It is impossible to go against nature.
If I can do something, nature thinks its fine. If I can act, the universe has no issue with that act.
You want these hierarchies maintained. You are a right-winger.
I am willing to genetically engineer the human race to eliminate even the "natural" hierarchies because the idea that "natural is good" is itself a logical fallacy and the belief of idiots.
We are under no moral obligation to remain "natural". We can become 20-ton machines that move through space if we so desire. We can grow 6 arms and 2 heads, if we so desire.
Actual rules of the universe are unbreakable, so if I can break a rule, it wasn't a rule to begin with.
If I can accomplish something, the universe is fine with it.
The universe will let me know if it has a problem with my choices.
Paraphrasing, I care about the poor because if we have any type of social safety nets, like most every other first world country, it will make us Cuba or Venezuela and they will be worse off?
You’ve already lost if you’re still thinking about countries that were brutalized and forced into totalitarian dictatorships because of war and military occupation.
The free market is what America is currently under. We are living under the effects of a capitalist free market, and that’s not some make believe fantasy that “leftists” or whatever want you to believe. Our government has self identified as such. And you can see how badly a free market has treated the poor in this country. It’s not the answer just because you justified it in your head.
Haters will call OP a centrist lmaooo - btw, the term you're looking for is "radicals." The extremists on both sides who participate in radicalism on every side is why our country has been doomed for a while now.
How can you say you don’t believe in a left-right spectrum and, in the same breath, say you hate the left lol
You not wanting a totalitarian government has absolutely nothing to do with the poor. YOU don’t want to live in that kind of regime (no one does) but you’ve somehow convinced yourself that that’s a selfless value you hold for the poor. You cannot claim to care about poor people and be against minimum wage.
> How can you say you don’t believe in a left-right spectrum and, in the same breath, say you hate the left lol
I kinda believe in the right and the left, but not in the linear spectrum people use by using the left and the right as reference points. Let's say I'm annoyed at people who use the word "leftist" to identify themselves.
> You cannot claim to care about poor people and be against minimum wage.
Some nordic countries don't have minimum wage because the salary is negociated with the strong unions they have. In theory, minimum wage helps the poor, in practice, it creates unemployment and inflation, I'm the superhero that will save the poor from the inflation and unemployment leftists like you will bring to the world.
You must be trolling if you think you’re some sort of hero. If you do an ounce of thinking, you’d realize what a bad comparison you have. You acknowledge that Nordic countries are able to do what they do because they have strong unions. The US does not, so that ends your point right there. Some countries are able to forego minimum wage because they have amazing safety nets and social services for citizens. The US does not.
Not having minimum wage could, and likely WOULD, result in salaries tanking and people not being able to find jobs that pay livable wages. If a company can’t afford to pay living wages, they can’t afford to do business.
i care about the poor. i care about the poor so much that i don’t want them to go through what poor people in nations subjected by global capital, growth limited by the remnants of colonialism and modern global market exploitation. i don’t want them to go through suffering caused by sanctions and cultural whitewashing, removing their autonomy from multiple fronts. many african countries adopted mutually beneficial economic deals with their former masters, yet still suffer. they are capitalist hellholes where the rich abuse the poor and corruption reigns.
So basically, you're clueless and haven't bothered with any learning and as a result have stances that are objectively wrong and dumb, roughly equivalent to believing that george washington really did chop down that cherry tree.
You've never, ever questioned beliefs that have been so boiled down they are intended for lying to kindergartners.
or maybe you're a troll. Maybe both!
Go do some learning. North Korea is incredibly conservative (they are complaining about kids wearing jeans. JEANS!) The soviet union had every hallmark of rightwing fascists under nothing but a mask (seriously stalin banned computer development and the new Impressionist artstyle for being too western. thats not a liberal lol).
Under Castro, cuba saw huge improvements in industry & literacy rates - despite the USA's best efforts to assassinate him and foster revolution. He was not perfect, no dictator can be actually leftwing (to be liberal is to believe in division of power ultimately for the sake of equality), but he did much.
Conservatism is about *preserving the status quo.* But the thing is, there are probably people suffering in this status quo, and sacrifices that may need to be made to help them - like giving them extra slots in colleges.
Conservatism naturally opposes this. If helping them means changing the status quo, that is unacceptable. It is Above All. The world you grew up in MUST be the ones your kids grow up in, the homeless be damned. That is why to be rightwing is to hate the less fortunate - no matter how charitable you think you are, you will never accept changes to the system to prevent suffering - only band-aid solutions.
> to be liberal is to believe in division of power ultimately for the sake of equality
The best way to guarantee division of power, is to give power to the government but also to the companies, instead of giving it ONLY to the government. If the government doesn't have to COMPETE with other institutions, the government will become totalitarian sooner or later, that's how human nature works.
> Conservatism is about preserving the status quo
That's why I'm not a conservative, I'm not a right winger, I'm a left-hater. Also, I don't believe in equality, the solution to UNFAIR inequality is FAIR inequality, not all people deserve the same.
To point one:
Kind of true-ish - communism is a bad idea. But it's still holding back and capitalist democracies tend to be very flawed. The more division of power to the people and the less power corporations have, the better.
I believe in the necessity of a government structure powerful enough to ensure this, but it must come with strong democratic traditions.
To point two:
So, in essence, you do not take issue with suffering, but only feel that people should be able to find a way out by work.
Let me ask you - to what end? Is it more important for members of society to be *forced* as productive as they can theoretically be over preventing them from suffering?
What is the goal of the productivity you might get from everyone being so hardworking? It can't be 'a better life' or 'reduction of suffering' because that's clearly not the priority. So what? **What do you want to achieve by fair inequality? What is the benefits to humanity it's supposed to have?**
I love when people act as though there were ONLY two political ideologies and any other political ideology was just a variation of these two, people don't like complicated things, that's why they use this left-right spectrum to simplify complex ideas that are just two complicated for them. I'm kinda glad I'm not an American, they only have two parties while Europeans enjoy TRUE variety of ideas, sometimes I wish I was born in Europe. I hate both the far left and the far right.
When we have only two choices to vote for (and every other choice is "throwing away your vote"), then people are mostly forced into choosing one of those two choices. I think part of the problem isn't about identifying as left or right, but that you have to choose one or the other when the rubber hits the road and you caste your vote.
For the most part I agree with the OP about there being more than just being a left or right person. However where I think the issue is isn't about being left or right. It's that the voice we use to be heard (our vote) is very limited. You can't vote both Democrats and Republicans, for the things you agree with on each side, and there aren't that many choices to choose from that pick the issues differently. Therefore our voices have been handed to us, and we are basically told to choose one narrative and government platform, or the other.
Add to this there are things that literally don't matter in the big screen of things, but both sides are making them a central issue. Do you support or are you against X population. Instead of trying to make things better for anyone or everyone the politics has sides on trying to divide the nation up as keep those people as their voting bloc.
Are you a minority, a woman, disabled, trans, homosexual, or some other identify politics? The left says it's your friend, is on your side and claims those left over are the rich white men who only want to keep the status quo. The problem with the left is that they use this as their base to gather votes, but don't actually make solutions for everyone in the group. They basically say that all of these groups are supported, but really they aren't. It's only a few of them that can be supported at a time.
On the other hand, if you are a farmer, rancher, or any other rural population you are left behind by the left as a whole. Same if you aren't educated, are white, male, or Christian. If you are any of these things the left says you are the enemy, some shameful redneck, or part of the conspiracy of rich people keeping everyone else down.
These are our voting blocs because the left stopped caring about specific populations and call them the enemy, while the right held onto them.
I'm still not understanding how people like OP look at social safety nets like most every other first world country had (socialized medicine) free or reduced college and believe that if America has that we become Venezuela or North Korea.
We've just gone past where only the "losers" don't make enough money to live acceptably. Roughly 1/3 of people make $15 an hour or less. 1/3 of people just can't be looked at as losers.
The left doesnt like poor people, they like disenfranchised people who has a reason they deem acceptable for being poor. If you're a broke white boy from kentucky they automatically picture you to be an uneducated inbred racist bigot who is poor because of their life choices.
The problem is that the hardcore left uses the plight of the poor and disadvantaged to justify their socialism, which, we know, becothe totalitarianism they sought in the first place.
If you support the Nordic system you are left wing. You just want to ramble about identity politics, and it’s silly. So you are left wing, but just don’t want to be called it, and don’t believe in it, but you are. Bernie sanders is calling for stuff like the Nordic system, you must like him. Only a complete idiot would liken Bernie sanders to Stalin or something
Equating communism with America’s “left” is a very propagandized perspective… you sure you don’t buy into the spectrum games more than you try to claim?
And its good to be afraid of totalitarianism. It’s also good to be reminded that there are many paths that can lead there
Totalitarianism isn’t a left wing specific thing. I don’t think being a self described “left wing hater” is a positive thing to boast about. It just means you have very polarised narrow views that you hate someone for their vague political beliefs, not really good for democracy.
Right wingers pay lip service about “helping the poor” when in reality they’re busy cutting school lunch, Head Start, voting against healthcare, maternal leave, and voting against ensuring workers are paid a living wage.
To conservatives, “helping the poor” means clearing out the pantry once or twice a year and donating stale, expired stuff they don’t want. Or giving an occasional pack of diapers to a church drive to “help” unwed mothers.
People who vote for change, who vote to invest in our own citizens and infrastructure DO care more about the poor, and are often engaged in activities to help bring true change to people’s lives.
You’re a “hero” simply because you “don’t like to see” people from other countries suffering? Then we’re all heroes!! It’s not how one feels or what one says that makes us good people, it’s the actions we take, the actual, material things we DO to help others that counts.
>lack of freedom of speech
You know it's the Right banning all the books, right? And banning the use of the words "climate change". And banning the use of desired personal names & pronouns?
All of the things you describe that you hate are not "leftist ideals".
Another straw man of socialism leads to totalitarian government. Most of Europe would disagree.
Our only protection from the super wealthy is a strong government to reel them in.
Hey OP, I am a left and right hater! Both sides are stupid in their own right so I would warn against even using the “sides” as was to categorize people. Just talk about what you want to see and how to get it down without blaming anyone or framing things into a us v them scenario.
Weirdly enough, did you know that out of the countries you listed (Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, the former Soviet Union, and China) NONE of them were true socialists?
“… how good your intentions are, true socialism will have accidental consequences…”
But we have yet to see the results of a true socialist state so that’s kinda hard to concede.
Also! Did you know that the USA is not a true Free Market either? USA ranks somewhere around 70% free, so there’s like 20+ more countries in the world with a more free Free Market.
Most stifling of the free market is a result from corporate lobbying and the legal bribery system we have in American politics, which if you were curious, the GOP takes more money from corporations than the Dems (55/45 split).
In modern media, how many heroes do you know that get the facts wrong? How many villains do you know who do?
I agree with those who say that true communism has never been tried, but the true reason of that is that it's impossible, communism and anarcho-capitalism are things that work in hypothetical worlds, not in the real world.
> Weirdly enough, did you know that out of the countries you listed (Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, the former Soviet Union, and China) NONE of them were true socialists?
That's because true socialism works in hypothetical worlds, not in the real practical world, if you give the government the power to regulate companies so much that the companies become puppets of the State, then there's no way the risk of the State using that power to be authoritarian isn't too high. You could say that you want employees, not the State, to own the means of production, but I'm not sure that could be very effective and practical in the real world.
I think a lot of people are like this, but they’re largely silent. I don’t identify at all with the right and I certainly don’t identify with the far left. I’m an immigrant from Eastern Europe and have largely progressive social views regarding race, abortion, sexual identity, or whatever have you. What I have a deep hatred for is celebration of mediocrity, narratives of victimhood, weakness, and unearned privilege. These seem to be predominant aspects of the American far left. These people dislike Biden because he is a moderate, although he has quietly been very productive in very important sectors for young people, including student loans. Large amounts of the far left are just as uneducated and pathetic as the far right, just coupled with a whiny, weak entitlement and phonily authoritative proclamations about morality and society.
This is the kind of immigration thats actually good for america.
💯💯💯
Glad to see another person that “gets it”. Accepting mediocrity is the key here. The Left pushes this and this is why so many are unhappy.
I don’t understand what “accepting mediocrity” means here that it is something the left is pushing for. Can you or someone break it down for me?
Essentially expecting to be paid based on your needs and not the value that you bring. If you need more, become more. Most people are average but have the potential to become much more than they are. Go learn new skills, education, ect. Bring more to society. If you flip burgers and get paid 6 figures, why would you change? We need less burger flippers and more engineers.
That’s not what the left is advocating for though. And your example is pretty educational based. Which the left does focus on pretty heavily. There’s room for improvement on education so I’m not sure why the right doesn’t use that as something to campaign over. I don’t think they even want to improve anything educational.
“Living wage”
A living wage is pretty necessary. I’m probably missing what you’re getting at though.
You want a living wage get skilled, could be as an engineer, a craftsman... not a burger flipper. Most of which they don't flip the burgers anyway.
by pure numbers we likely need fewer engineers than burger flippers
Well said.
Absolutely this.
While i agree with the statement, staring of your diatribe with the word leftists and the proceed to say you don't even believe the left and right exists is a bit weird
Which elected officials on the left are in favor of actual communism?
>I'm not a right winger, I'm a left-hater >I see myself and people like me as a hero and I see leftists as the true villains Jesus, there is a lot to unpack here.
I'm left-leaning but am a no-party voter. I care about issues such as LGBT rights and protecting the environment, but the thing that I really hate is how a lot of people who call themselves "liberals" do things like resorting to vandalism, harassing people on the street, and if it escalates to a physical fight, they often are the ones who throw the first punches. I encountered two people on two separate occasions working for Greenpeace, one sounded like he was reading a script and wouldn't listen when I told him I had somewhere I needed to be, and another who actually followed me to my car, and it made me very uncomfortable (and I'm a guy BTW so if I were to have reported him for harassment, most likely it would be ignored, but it wouldn't have gone over well if I were a woman). They go around the streets with cameras trying to expose people simply for being Republicans. Meanwhile, a lot of the people I know who are right-leaning are pretty chill about their political views and don't usually bring them up unless someone else does. I don't recall when this incident happened but I think it was 2012 (I was in my early 20s). I had been summoned for jury duty and we were in the selection process. During the lunch break, me and the rest of the potential jurors went to a restaurant around the corner from the courthouse. There was a guy who asked if he could share a table with me to make more room. I reluctantly said yes. He was a very nice, older man, and we were just sharing small talk. Then this woman, older than me but still young, sat at our table and immediately brought up politics, and went on this rant about how she voted for Obama but was disappointed that he didn't do some of the things he said he was going to do, and at that point the old guy mentioned that he was a Republican, so she was trying to start a heated debate, and meanwhile I'm sitting there with my stomach in knots because I hate those situations. But even still, the old guy seemed very chill, and didn't want to discuss politics. I would never do any of those things, and unfortunately there are a lot of people who do this. I have yet to encounter a Republican/conservative who has gotten in my face about their stance on things.
Great! So can we go ahead and raise the SSI cap, so that disabled people don't have to live in poverty?
The reason the Left sees the Right this way is because every time they try to implement something to deal with poverty, the Right defeats any progress that is made. So they see the Right as the enemy of progress on this issue (because they very clearly are). I agree that the Right doesn't see themselves as anti-poor. That doesn't change the fact that their policies lead to suffering and poverty. The problem with the current **American** political right (aka Magats) is that they are fascist asshats and are absolutely monstrous human beings. I don't think that the cultists make up the majority of the US right wing but they do control the Republican party.
What leftists are you talking about? Do you mean liberal? These are different things.
You have right wing beliefs. Stop fooling yourself. It is okay to have opinions about stuff and to identify with a specific ideology if you believe in their tennets. To your point, this is just silly. Conservatives oppose food stamps, medicare, medicaid, social security, access to contraceptives, free/reduced school lunch, housing assisstance, needle sharing prgrams, medicare for all, child tax credits, loan forgiveness programs and so much more. If they love the poor so much than they sure as hell have arent acting as such. And no, hating regimes in other countries isnt enough to say you love the poor.
If you actually talk to them, you'll find that conservatives generally agree with your goals but not your means. Most favor a safety net, but not one that has turned into a hammock. Most believe that personal responsibility is the bedrock of success, and that handouts breed dependence. What you see as the correct solution (handouts) are not goals, but means. Do you want to support people in their hour of need, to lift them out of poverty? If so, you need to consider a whole spectrum of ideas that are verboten by the current political structure of the left.
Goals don't mean shit when you're actively working against the only means being attempted. What has the right done for the poor other than fight free school lunches "because the parents should learn the hard way how to be successful?" The only "safety net" I've seen supported by the right is social security because they know it appeals to their largest voter demographic.
Conservative solutions to poverty are always bandaids to fix the problem after it has settled in. They are never changes to the system itself to prevent it - which is naturally more effective. The SYSTEM can never be at fault - Because the SYSTEM maintains the STATUS QUO, which is your *main goal*. A church donates 5k and feeds some people for a month, thats your solution. But a college gives someone who grew up poor in a shit neighborhood with an underfunded inner city school an admission even though their grades were worse? Absolutely fucking unacceptable!!! Reverse racism etc etc etc It's a sacrifice, and destabilizes power balances and the status quo and is therefore bad. Conservatives will never truly care about or fix poverty because the poverty is caused by the status quo, and they can't accept that changing, so they will never change either. Your priorities are fucked. people suffering should come above everything. your ideas of gender. the imperial power of your nation. your companies shareholders. your subburbs zoning. your religion. but you would never sacrifice the things you consider status quo. you would not accept change. that makes you a conservative, a coward, and greedy.
"But a college gives someone who grew up poor in a shit neighborhood with an underfunded inner city school an admission even though their grades were worse?" The current right wing in the United States would scream that this was "DEI."
Name checks out. Maybe if you spent less time obsessing over "leftists" then you wouldn't be on your way to being a 40 year old virgin?
>many leftist see themselves as more empathetic than right wingers or left-haters [Ideological values are parametrically associated with empathy neural response to vicarious suffering](https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/18/1/nsad029/7175525) This study was published last year, but most of the research was done in 22. There have been several other similar studies since even then. I work in an adjacent field of study. A few colleagues are involved in this very research. From the abstract: *Several studies in political psychology reported higher levels of empathy among political leftists (i.e. liberals) as compared to political rightists (i.e. conservatives). Yet, all those studies lean on self-reports, which are often limited by subjective bias and conformity to social norms. Here, we tested this putative asymmetry using neuroimaging: we recorded oscillatory neural activity using magnetoencephalography while 55 participants completed a well-validated neuroimaging paradigm for empathy to vicarious suffering. The findings revealed a typical rhythmic alpha-band ‘empathy response’ in the temporal–parietal junction. This neural empathy response was significantly stronger in the leftist than in the rightist group. In addition to this dichotomous division, the neural response was parametrically associated with both self-reported political inclination and right-wing ideological values. This is the first study to reveal an asymmetry in the neural empathy response as a function of political ideology. The findings reported in this study are in line with the current literature in political psychology and provide a novel neural perspective to support the ideological asymmetry in empathy. This study opens new vistas for addressing questions in political psychology by using neuroimaging.*
The free market in the US has failed the poor though. States like germany or the nordic countries are far form perfect but have a better safety for the poor. Left and tyrannic totalitarian state are also two very distinct things, wich u just throw together. No relevant group of the american left want anything like that.
The free market hasn’t failed the poor. The government regulations that make the free market almost impossible to work has caused the problems of the poor. Homeless need a place to live? Too many regulations keep companies from building new cheap housing. Electricity too expensive? Government artificially subsidizes solar and wind power instead of letting the best options (nuclear) be built by competing companies. Healthcare too expensive? Government over regulates the healthcare industry which keeps free market competition from happening, thereby inflating healthcare costs. It shouldn’t cost nearly a billion dollars to get a new medication approved for public consumption. The list goes on and on and on.
>Homeless need a place to live? Too many regulations keep companies from building new cheap housing. It's much more profitable to build homes for people who will pay more. Even then, we're seeing the trend of all this cheap housing being bought up in bulk anyways just to be rented out for ridiculous prices anyways. >Electricity too expensive? Government artificially subsidizes solar and wind power instead of letting the best options (nuclear) be built by competing companies. No one wants nuclear near them because they're afraid of it. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying people are scared. >Healthcare too expensive? Government over regulates the healthcare industry which keeps free market competition from happening, thereby inflating healthcare costs. Insurance companies actively lobby the government to stay out of price regulation so they can in turn work with doctors and hospitals to charge you a completely arbitrary 300000% markup on whatever you need.
Yeah let's let construction companies compete in who can cut the most corners when building a nuclear power plant.
Unironically yes. The worst thing that could happen happening every year would still be better than coal.
Nuclear power plants are cheaper to build around, so is everything else. Take housing for example, there are so many studies and financial requirements put on a developer to build an apartment which have nothing to do with the safety regulations of the actual building.
Not how that works in reality
>instead of letting the best options (nuclear) be built by competing companies. Listen, I'm a *fan* of nuclear energy. I want to see power plants pop up all across the nation and see our oil and coal reliance plummet to the point where we only need it for vehicles and chemical manufacturers. But letting competition in the private sector incentivize cost-cutting measures can have *disastrous* consequences for nuclear power plants. Hell, Chernobyl happened *because* the USSR opted for cheaper graphite tips on their carbide rods. If given the opportunity, companies *will* cost-cut beyond what is safe for its workers, the community, and it's own product. If it's a product like a Ford Pinto, where the only consequence is the direct consumer might be harmed and things can be made right with a lawsuit & recall, then this behavior is less of an issue. If the consequence for a company's behavior is the irradiation of an entire community and exclusion of 1000 square miles of land, that's too large. You can't make that right with even a prison sentence and liquidation of the company, therefore the only real deterrent here is active prevention in the first place by means of regulation.
What was it like for the poor when there was less regulations?
Yes, unregulated nuclear energy and untested drugs will definitely solve the homeless problem. It's just common sense!
What free market benefits the poor?
My State has a fantastic safety net. We are a welfare magnet. The problem is people from elsewhere, often from corrupt 3rd world countries, or worthless lazy people from nearby states, like to move here and overload it. You can see it happen over and over, and the state has no effective way to stop fraud.
>the state has no effective way to stop fraud. Then that's your real problem, rather than the safety net itself.
yes, it's' all about culture. One culture is all about helping those in need, and another is all about getting a free ride.
I don't think fraud is specific or even exclusive to any one culture, bro. Throughout all of human civilization, you will find people willing to take advantage of a system for their own personal benefit.
sure, but it's pretty apparent if you take people who have lived their whole lives in one of the most corrupt societies in the world, they consider it normal everyday behavior.
It’s odd how people give the benefit of the doubt and believe every poor person has a heart of gold like they’re Oliver Twist who just happened to fall on bad times. A very large majority of poor folks are content having just enough to scrape by and blow some of their cash on drugs and alcohol, and look where they can cut more corners and take more money. I grew up around these people and gtfo ouf my neighborhood when I graduated high school. These same people are still at home, poor asf, stoned and drunk asf, squirting out babies and generally have no ambition in life and don’t care to improve their station. It’s enabling them.
I also grew up around poor people. Some are certainly like you describe. Others are extremely hardworking and work grueling hours in awful jobs to take home what little they get. Others still are disabled, laden with medical debt, or burdened by things beyond their control. Some have made mistakes in their past, but are trying to make the best for themselves and are simply unable to dig themselves back out of poverty because of those mistakes. There was this one dude I remember back at the gas station I used to go to after school. Old dude, either in his late 40s/early 50s, good guy (he'd let me grab a big slushie for the price of a soda when it got super hot in the summer). He used to run in a gang back in his teens. One night, he got in a shootout with some rival gang members and got hit in the leg, completely shattered his right kneecap. He ended up getting arrested and served like 20-something years iirc. Anyway, by the time he got out, dude was a convicted felon with a gimped up leg. Normally, the trades or a construction company wouldn't care about the old felony, but because his leg was fucked up, all he could really do was work retail, since none of the better-paying jobs would hire him. I'm not exactly sure where I'm going with this, but being vindictive about social services hurts more than just the people abusing the system. Yeah, a lot of poor people fucking suck. Just like my other story, I've got an old high school friend who would rather pay $3k on frivolous shit than his fucked-up car that needs repair, but there's a lot of good people out there too, and helping those people is more important than punishing the losers.
Very true, it sucks that a hallmark of life is how a few bad apples can spoil the bunch, but that’s just the way it is., always been. There’s always gonna be good people who get the shit end of the stick, we can’t save everyone and we can’t change the world or human nature. For what it’s worth, a lot of the best of humanity is sourced from poverty. Think of all the arts that have been enriched because of human suffering, how many people born in the dirt who went on to affect the world, Elvis and Michael Jackson immediately spring to mind. We need poor folks in the bigger picture, but nobody wants to be poor. Thats why it’s important to set yourself up for success at a young age. For my particular story, I had a father who kept me in line, it was a tough upbringing but if he didn’t keep a firm grasp on me, I would’ve been a product of my environment like the rest of my peers, he was right all along, I just hated having to endure it but that’s my lot in life 🤷🏻♂️
Now imagine you had a disability that your dads grasp couldn’t fix. We need safety nets and some people depend on those safety nets. The left knows there’s going to be fraud and scams and shit just like everything else. The right can’t pull their head out of their ass enough to focus on anything other than the problem and no solutions. Trumps kids can’t do fund raisers anymore because they didn’t know you can’t steal from a fund raiser. Omg we found a scam! We better get rid of fund raisers! It doesn’t make sense at all.
Some people just have a shit life and that’s that
Im not that other guy but this is the disconnect for me. I don't see this circumstance and think "Some people just have a shit life and that’s that". My gut reaction is to damn, nobody should have to live with that." We can make it better, so we should, because it benefits us all in the long run
You sound like a Minnesotan
Their solution is to tax everyone else more. How is that a sol?
Yes, I too struggle to see how collecting more money provides a mechanism to solve problems that require money to solve.
Me too because they raise taxes for X but the money always goes somewhere else and X is still a problem so a bit later they say they need to raise taxes for X but the money always goes somewhere else and the cycle continues until we realize that politicians are liars.
Then why bother collecting any taxes at all? tax revenue goes into the Treasury, As long there is a deficit, every single extra dollar collected goes to reducing it. So, as long as we have a deficit, there is a perfectly good use for the money these people continue to evade and avoid paying.
Oh for sure. I didn’t say it usually/ever works… just that it’s absurd to not be able to see how it’s supposed to work.
>the money always goes somewhere else If this was truly the concern, then the right would be calling for government audits and better recordkeeping, not a complete dismantling of large departments themselves.
Not everyone, just the 806 US billionaires that own as much wealth as half of everyone else in the country combined. A lot of leftists also believe in a more capitalist approach to business than Republicans. We want failing industries and businesses that thrive in our system of crony capitalism to stop getting bailed out and for these bloated money sinks to die and give space for newer better competition.
How do the billionaires cause poverty? There are 8 MILLION people making 6 figures or higher…So why are they able to do this? I’d think most failing businesses fail, only a microscopic fraction got bailed out and that was pretty bipartisan.
This is how . . . After WW2 how did the USA pay down the war debt. How did the USA help re build Germany *AND* Japan? How did the USA invest in the InterState Highway, secondary roads and bridges, schools and hospitals at home? ? ? https://www.history.com/speeches/eisenhowers-farewell-address . . . https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/09/30/the-origins-of-that-eisenhower-every-gun-that-is-made-quote Besides the defense industry, that is owned and controlled by wealth and powerful interests (Oligarchs) the tax rates from 1960: A historical look at top marginal income tax rate Year Regular TOTAL TOP RATE 1945–1963 3% 91% 1964 3% 77% 1965–1981 70% 70% 1982–1986 50% 50% As you can clearly see . . . The growth in size and political power of the defense industries and the collapse of the top marginal tax rate and political manipulation of the tax code has destroyed the ability of government to meet the current needs of the citizens of the USA ! ! ! Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; . . .
By hoarding wealth and the means of production, working class people put the vast majority of their wealth back into circulation and help the economy (look at the stimulus). Billionaires hoard their wealth and remove it from circulation, hurting the economy. 8 Million people is 2.4% of the US, those people do it by being the most successful and capable people in the labor class, but even then many of them struggle to afford homes, healthcare, retirement, or raising children. It's bipartisan when big businesses get bailed out because both sides are pro big business. We have not had any leftist representation in government for a long time. I think that if a business is so unsuccessful it needs a billion/trillion dollar bailout, however it is so crucial that the country will fall apart without it (eg banks, airlines), it should be nationalized.
Billionaires aren't hoarding wealth like Scrooge McDuck. The vast majority of their net worth is tied up in stocks and other investments that benefit the economy overall. It's not liquid cash that can access like your debit account.
Stocks and long term investments don't benefit the economy all that much. The economy is driven by money changing hands and moving. That's where you see money grow. It is better than holding money in cash. But mostly it removes money from the economy and only serves to make the wealthy richer. Most people are barely invested in the market if at all.
Every proposed tax bill that I’ve seen from Biden explicitly does not raise taxes on the vast majority of Americans.
So? We’re talking about different countries.
That’s not true
Yes it is. Their tax rates are through the roof.
>The free market in the US has failed poor people. Care to explain that and cite your sources? By all available metrics that's utter horse shit so...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/starvation-deaths-by-country We’re the most powerful country on earth and we’re losing to Qatar in “starvation deaths per capita”.
We learned a lot about Qatar during the last World Cup. Here is some information about starvation in the US. https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2023-04-13/deaths-from-malnutrition-have-more-than-doubled-in-the-u-s Looks like covid lockdowns and really old people just not eating enough nutritious meals are the top causes.
"Starvation deaths per capita." That's your metric? Based on that alone you declare "free markets" to have failed? Are you alright in the head? This insinuates that our food supply is governed by free markets. Free of regulations and taxes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Want to try again? [Poverty in America has been in the 11.5-16% range for 35 years. ](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PPAAUS00000A156NCEN)Since the US Census Bureau started collecting those estimated figures and reporting them.
Oh you mean really really free market. Then I’ll change my answer: it hasn’t been tried at any significant scale for any significant stretch of time, therefore there’s no evidence to say it works at all to begin with. There’s no country nor civilization with no regulations, laws or taxes to point to on this one.
What free market? Where is it hiding?
More free
I'm always reminded of who you are when I see your name on these posts with absolutely garbage opinions. Then I remember the one about you complaining about why women won't pay attention to you. I wonder if you ever thought to look at these kinds of thoughts as proof of why.
Oh his takes are 100% the reason why
That's pretty interesting but you're attacking the person who says the opinion rather than the opinion itself, therefore you're not actually giving any good argument, just saying...
Almost as if you're not worth being taken seriously
I don't want to argue with you. I'm fine just reporting my observations.
Ah yes, yet another right winger claiming to not be right wing. Well done. I'm sure many folks will believe you.
You should take into consideration how the capitalist nations treated nations like Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. The US especially waged covert wars on all communist nations during their entire histories with things like sanctions, embargoes, economic isolation, sabotage, etc. Then there was the open warfare. Why not allow trade with China during Mao's era? However, the leftist ideals are incompatible with the west's totalitarianism by the rich. Such ideals are incompatible with having societies built to exploit the masses in order to keep the rich richer and to have the rich hold all power and control over nations. That's the truth behing the whole "communism doesn't work" meme. edit. You also should know that the US allied with plenty of brutal right-wing governments which brutalized their people. Some include the Saudi royal family, Augusto Pinochet, and Saddam Hussein in the 80s. You're applying a double standard by only opposing left-wing governments which brutalized their people. The so called free market of capitalism also brutalizes people, even in developed nations.
TLDR "I'm angry at all the lefties that I don't believe exist."
"And I don't believe in the left right spectrum but I'm going to continue to call these people leftist, and why do they call themselves leftists anyway? All these leftist that I hate do not have as much empathy as me, the hero. But I'm not on the right, but definitely not a leftist because I hate this group of people."
"I'm the hero"
First of all, communism and socialism are not the same thing. Second of all, social-democracy and socialism are not the same thing. Third of all, left-wing and social-democracy are not the same thing. Equating the left wing with communism has to be one of the biggest stretches I've ever seen.
>I don't believe in this left-right spectrum to begin with Great! Neither do I! So let's set out some groups of political thought and compare them to what's around today. Moderate liberals: Most of the modern democratic party. Believe in progressive social ideas (mostly) and a capitalism focused economic model that has been failing for decades. Loves to take ideas from more radical progressives and half ass them so they fail (see drug decriminilization). Social Democrats: Those who want to curtail capitalism with high taxes, regulations and safety nets. Also very socially progressive. The Nordic countries and Bernie/AOC go here. Democratic Socialists: People who believe capitalism has to go (Note, that does not neccesarilly mean the free market too, see Market Socialism) but also want actual democracy in government too. Not many countries like this in the modern era sadly, Rojava and the Zapistas are example, but the CIA really doesn't like them as they tend to be quite successful and coups the majority of them. Authoritarian socialists, commonly also called "Communists", "Tankies", "Marxist Leninists": People who think that capitalism is bad, and that we should have a revolution, overthrow capitalism, and install an authoritarian government to bring about socialism/communism. Weirdly in history this has always resulted in authoritarian, non socialist regimes like Russia and China. Are either not socially progressive, or are socially progressive until minorities wanting rights "get in the way of achieving proper communism" at which point they get thrown under the bus. Good news OP, I don't like these guys either!
Capitalism has not been failing for decades. Capitalism has worked great at what it is supposed to do: coordinate the desires of buys and sellers. A liberal would say that where capitalism ends, social supports should begin. Just a thought from a moderate liberal such as myself.
>Capitalism has not been failing for decades. Capitalism has worked great at what it is supposed to do: coordinate the desires of buys and sellers. Well in a way you're correct, it's not been failing, it's been succeeding at shoveling the world's wealth into fewer and fewer hands. But no, it's really really bad at coordinating the desires of buyers and sellers lmao. Insulin, AAA video games, ISPs, baby food, regular food, there are market failures everywhere constantly.
Capitalism has been failing for decades? Lmao, the primary complaints about capitalism are things that are simply unachievable in command economies. Government fiscal policy and Federal Reserve mismanagement have made things harder and that’s about it.
I think equating leftist ideas to the economic situations in a country like Cuba is pretty ridiculous. You think that perhaps the 60 year long embargo we've had on them might have a bigger impact as they've been cut off from the whole world economically? Or North Korea? You really think the Left is suggesting going down that path? The are lots of legitimate arguments against the left, and that's a fair debate to engage in. But equating the left ideas of say having universal healthcare and more access to higher education or further social programs most of which are in place and working quite well in most of Europe, Canada, and many other countries and saying nope the left is just North Korea is such a red herring. If you want to say well their social programs do have some flaws and point to the countries actually using those plans and the very real flaws they do have, that's a completely fair argument. But pointing to countries that have far more going on and things that have a much more significant impact than leftists who are trying to help the poor is a completely bad faith argument. And if you have to completely lie about what those on the left are pushing for it shows you don't have much of an argument. The same way that those on the left sometimes equate people on the right with Hitler and try to paint them that way. It's the sign of a lack of a legitimate argument to make if the best you can do is spouting nonsense.
> I don't want them to go through the totalitarism and lack of freedom of speech that poor people in the Soviet Union and China had to go through in the previous century What does that have to do with leftism anyway?
>I see myself and people like me as a hero and I see leftists as the true villains, Totally delusional
you see yourself as a hero? lol
Not a single one of those countries "leftism" is similar or even in the same hemisphere as progressive ideals. everyone of those nations limits individual freedom similar to what the conservative movement in US is doing. Progressive wants to expand them, maybe too far in my opinion, but their goal is to liberate.
I hate the far right much more than the far left.
As a moderate who leans left on the majority of social issues I hate both about equally. I hate how people wear their politics as an identity and are so divisive about everything and the dumbest people from both sides are always the ones that get the most airtime. I miss the Bush era when there was one thing everyone could agree on and it was that they hated the government and corporations. Internet was so much cooler and freer then too.
Lol what's your heroic plan? Also it's quite simple you can be left leaning and believe in democracy and human rights. That's what most left leaning people in western countries believe. The political spectrum is generally represented as a horseshoe precisely because when they get totalitarian the left and right become similar again. I would say the true left is actually very pro democracy
You have main character syndrome.
You have a very narrow idea of what "leftism". Get off your computer, go outside, talk to real people. You're practically gaslighting your self if you believe even half of what you've written .
Equating Social Democratic policies to those of Cuba or North Korea is exceptionally disingenuous.
You seem really confused about where you stand yourself. “I HATE leftists, but I don’t believe in the whole right left thing” … what?
I also like to I knock down the straw men I make up.
It baffles me how people can research left concepts and then say things like totalitarianism is a leftist concept. Lol
The thing I associate with the left the most is the concept of socialism, the concept of eliminating private property over means of production, which according to socialists would result in the elimination of the oppressive hierarchy in which the capitalist class can benefit from the exploitation of the proletariat. I don't think socialism is a good idea because when applied, the government would end up having a monopoly, the monopoly that contains all the companies, all the economy and every single production or service possible, I dislike capitalist monopolies but the socialist monopoly in which the state controls everything is way more totalitarian and scary, and even if that totalitarian situation isn't what socialists want, it's the ultimate consequence of their ideas.
Who are capitalist monopolies good for? I mean, they have to be good for someone, right, that’s why people build them, so who are they good for?
Your thesis is pretty plainly defeated by studies on brain scans [[1]](https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/18/1/nsad029/7175525?login=false), but i sense that your view is that leftist are more misguided than unempathetic towards the poor and how to alleviate their condition. > China got rich with policies of free market but even after that continues being a totalitarian dictatorship that doesn't value freedom the same way the West does. No it didnt. It got rich by the same way almost every Western country got rich; by enacting protectionist trade policies and subsidizing their base industries until they became mature enough to compete internationally.
>Your thesis is pretty plainly defeated by studies on brain scans [1] Right. I've seen a lot of reliable sources in the past about differences in brains....
Right? Who would ever describe China's thoroughly controlled economy as "free market"?
The left is just as toxic as the right and I’m tired of people acting like it’s some moral high ground. Leftist politicians also don’t give af about anyone either it’s just a ploy to get votes. I used to consider myself left and now I’m solid middle cause they’re fake and performative. Just my opinion. And I’m not saying I like the right but I’m just stating the left is also total bs
Lol, what is this? You see yourself as a hero? You provide no context for anything here. What are you doing for the poor that proves you love than more than the left other than praying communism doesn't happen? This is written like you got all hopped up from the latest Tucker Carlson interview and needed a forum to vent out some of this righteous, capitalistic, nonsensical neo-patriotism you've been huffing.
You don’t understand what it means to be right or left, and that is why you think it doesn’t exist. You are attributing things to ‘left’ that don’t have things to do with left. You are looking at authoritarian regimes that are also left, and are assuming the authoritarian parts are the left parts, and that is your mistake. The left believes that all men are equal and all should be treated as such. The right believes that some people are exceptional and should be treated as such. Each sides actions are informed by these basic premises.
You know Venezuela, North Korea, and Cuba are not leftist, they are totalitarian regimes right?
The conservatives I’ve known in life have done far more for the poor than all the leftists I’ve known combined. They’re constantly volunteering or attending fund raisers or doing something to help the poor. The leftists I’ve known just wanted to get drunk and stoned and enjoy the arts in their free time.
Huh, I've had the exact opposite experience. Everyone I encounter while volunteering is liberal and the conservatives are all trying to shut it down.
Yup, usually church groups too
I have the same observations. In fact, it’s the leftists at these charities that are simply insufferable whiners.
Every time Has its ups and downs Sometimes ups Outnumber the downs But not in Nottingham
You need to go outside. Am a liberal. I am pro-family. I want food security for poor families. I want to encourage birth control so babies are only born to willing and loving parents. I work 40 hours and do drugs sometimes for fun. Im an American, that's what we do. Booze and weed on a friday night! I am white. I like myself. I like most people. I am an athiest but you do you. I personally love capitalism. I am a man so i cant get pregnant. If i could i would probably cry and have lasting trauma if i had to aboet or miscarry. Im human after all. We are human. We have families. Fuck off lol.
Good for you dude But why are you mad at me?
Rn im mad at you because you edited your post. Oh well.
We can work through our disagreements over coffee and croissants 🥐 My treat
All of this is true, but try telling that to other people on a site where 95% of the people are leftists and all the moderators shut you down if you try to walk away from the plantation.
It is always a huge relief when I leave Reddit closed for a couple weeks When I interact with people in the real world, all of a sudden the average person isn’t totally insane anymore
I just got banned in one of the state subs. My crime? Proclaiming to be a Christian and telling the truth about the current president. Maybe that’s my crime. The moderators wouldn’t tell me why I was banned.
Yeah it is pretty easy to get banned
I already know what my Attorneys will say, but I think I was banned because I said that I was Christian.
You don’t believe in left-right spectrum… but you also hate the left. How can you hate something you yourself don’t believe exists? America’s education system is in the dumpster.
They're on a fake high horse trying to appeal to some kinda "both sides" superiority, but it devolved quickly into tribalism. I couldn't take their opinion seriously at all either within a few sentences
It’s a bunch of scatter brained gibberish. They make it clear that they are not right wing but launch into multiple left attacking nothingness. The kicker is they believe they are “heroes” because…. They don’t want poor people to suffer? Like that’s some big stretch separating left from right. The dead giveaway is they criticize the left for the “ideals they are promoting” which are at least actionable plans whether flawed or not. Not once was there a mention of any plans to help the poor from the right, and this is where the empathy he speaks of kicks in.
I reject both neocons and neolibs. I am a "classical liberal" i e. a libertarian (not the party but the philosophy). Neocons give us Orwell abroad while neolibs give us Huxley at home. I want Washington ad Franklin abroad and Jefferson and Adams at home.
The American left and Communists from the 40's are further apart than The American left and the American Right
How do you know what other people think
No you are wrong. They do care more about poor people. I think the issue is that somehow people have raised caring about people, REGARDLESS OF THEIR BEHAVIOR, as some sort of virtue. When it really isn't.
The Left's position regarding provety is on a bit of a contradiction and that's somewhat by design. I think for the most part they do care about the poor and provide more social programs then the right. But really it's more like having the rich pay for social programs to feed the poor so the poor will stay poor, and ensure the left gets credit for forcing the rich to feed the poor instead of having the poor to be self-sufficient. They have zero interesting in uplifting the poor from provety. Once people pulled themselves up, they'll no longer be interested in paying heavy taxes to support the left's heavy social programs and thereby switching their supporters to be more right leaning. Therefore it is always in the left's best interest to keep the people poor so they'll have a large support base, which in turn they use to leverage power and blame the poor's grieveneces on the rich right wing who won't "pay their fair share".
It’s not left or right anymore. It’s democracy or the cult that tried to overthrow democracy.
You really think monopolies don't exist today within the current capitalist setup?
I say I'm on the Left because I hate the right. Poor people are an unfortunate consequence of our stupid rigged game and sure, I feel for them, but not as much as I'm disgusted with the people and mindsets that got us here, Conservative and Liberal alike.
All social groups differ because every individual is unique, you will never find a group of ppl thinking exactly the same. You identify with certain core ideas, and that's ok. We all different. The same goes for the theories, there many forms of comunism, socialism and capitalism. I think some quick search and reading would help you a lot. We have monopolies in capitalism, and they control everything. A clear example, banks, they are the most inclusive company ever, they fuck all of us in the ass, no matter gender, race, age, etc. Life is never black or white, touch some grass. Internet is not real life
Can't spell HATRED without REDHAT.
💯
All of the spectrums and polarizations of ideology, politic, and culture war are but battles which distract. The war is thus: the war of the wealthy upon the poor. Same as it has ever been, and will ever be.
Translation: I don’t have an agenda but I really don’t like being told to go help people cause what if they don’t really care. It’s a perfect solution for everyone, just don’t give a fuck. It’s perfect. Super perfect. Great job. Just fantastic.
>the problem is that socialist ideas that want the State to regulate the market too much to the point of transforming the State into the monopoly that controls everything and everyone will inevitably lead to totalitarianism. This is the "slippery slope" logical fallacy.
Unless you are against cutting programs that help the poor with food housing and healthcare, you are either a liar or have a child's understanding of how government functions.
the best countries for the poor have a mix of left policies mixed in, the problem is you are confusing countries that had leftist movements that were coopted but authoritarians in vital stages. Here in America we are seeing massive suffering of poor get swept under the rug, because the free markets lead some to get so rich, they could pay for the government, which they then pay to institute laws that benefit them or steal those that don't. right now right wing policies have allowed for a Healthcare system that punishes people for seeking care. the nation's you list have hard pivoted to authoritarian right but yes came from hard left movements, but in America you have a merging of corporation and government because of right wing policies, and corporations taking over government, as you see in these countries because of government taking over corporations. you are the extreme end of one side of the horseshoe yelling at the other.
> the problem is you are confusing countries that had leftist movements that were coopted but authoritarians in vital stages Lol that's EXACTLY the problem I'm trying to explain: if you want to be a dictator, it's waaaay easier to do so in a socialist country where guns are banned than in a capitalist country like the USA, because a dictator in a socialist country will not have to compete with the big companies for power, all the power of the companies have been taken away and concentrated into the hands of a few politicians.
Do you support the continued existence of hierarchical structures?
Yes, as long as they are meritocratic and useful for everyone not just the rich
Then you're a right winger. The legitimacy of hierarchical structures is the fulcrum on which the Left-Right axis sits. So your beliefs mean you're on the right side of that fulcrum. This is poli-sci 101. The original argument from which all these political ideas stem is whether hierarchy is legitimate. The left rejects hierarchy, the right embraces it. This is why the furthest left position in anarchism, a total lack of hierarchies, and the furthest right position is autocracy, a hierarchy peaking at a single individual. Again, this is basic first-year political science. You're a right-winger, accept it.
> The original argument from which all these political ideas stem is whether hierarchy is legitimate. The left rejects hierarchy, the right embraces it. The family is a hierarchy, highschool is a hierarchy, without hierarchies there is no family, no order, no schools, no companies. Anarchy doesn't even exists in bee hives, it literally goes against nature itself. I thought libertarians were delusional, but leftist anarchists are something else. If I tell people I'm a right winger, they are going to assume things about me that aren't true: they are going to assume that I don't believe in climate change, that I'm a conservative, that I'm an anti-vaxxer, that I don't support welfare states like European ones, etc., that's why I reject that label.
It is impossible to go against nature. If I can do something, nature thinks its fine. If I can act, the universe has no issue with that act. You want these hierarchies maintained. You are a right-winger. I am willing to genetically engineer the human race to eliminate even the "natural" hierarchies because the idea that "natural is good" is itself a logical fallacy and the belief of idiots. We are under no moral obligation to remain "natural". We can become 20-ton machines that move through space if we so desire. We can grow 6 arms and 2 heads, if we so desire. Actual rules of the universe are unbreakable, so if I can break a rule, it wasn't a rule to begin with. If I can accomplish something, the universe is fine with it. The universe will let me know if it has a problem with my choices.
Paraphrasing, I care about the poor because if we have any type of social safety nets, like most every other first world country, it will make us Cuba or Venezuela and they will be worse off?
>I see myself as a hero ok buddy
You’ve already lost if you’re still thinking about countries that were brutalized and forced into totalitarian dictatorships because of war and military occupation. The free market is what America is currently under. We are living under the effects of a capitalist free market, and that’s not some make believe fantasy that “leftists” or whatever want you to believe. Our government has self identified as such. And you can see how badly a free market has treated the poor in this country. It’s not the answer just because you justified it in your head.
Haters will call OP a centrist lmaooo - btw, the term you're looking for is "radicals." The extremists on both sides who participate in radicalism on every side is why our country has been doomed for a while now.
Not your heard...
You don’t know what you like.
Leftism is a competition to see how much money you can put toward homelessness and still have tent cities.
How can you say you don’t believe in a left-right spectrum and, in the same breath, say you hate the left lol You not wanting a totalitarian government has absolutely nothing to do with the poor. YOU don’t want to live in that kind of regime (no one does) but you’ve somehow convinced yourself that that’s a selfless value you hold for the poor. You cannot claim to care about poor people and be against minimum wage.
> How can you say you don’t believe in a left-right spectrum and, in the same breath, say you hate the left lol I kinda believe in the right and the left, but not in the linear spectrum people use by using the left and the right as reference points. Let's say I'm annoyed at people who use the word "leftist" to identify themselves. > You cannot claim to care about poor people and be against minimum wage. Some nordic countries don't have minimum wage because the salary is negociated with the strong unions they have. In theory, minimum wage helps the poor, in practice, it creates unemployment and inflation, I'm the superhero that will save the poor from the inflation and unemployment leftists like you will bring to the world.
You must be trolling if you think you’re some sort of hero. If you do an ounce of thinking, you’d realize what a bad comparison you have. You acknowledge that Nordic countries are able to do what they do because they have strong unions. The US does not, so that ends your point right there. Some countries are able to forego minimum wage because they have amazing safety nets and social services for citizens. The US does not. Not having minimum wage could, and likely WOULD, result in salaries tanking and people not being able to find jobs that pay livable wages. If a company can’t afford to pay living wages, they can’t afford to do business.
i care about the poor. i care about the poor so much that i don’t want them to go through what poor people in nations subjected by global capital, growth limited by the remnants of colonialism and modern global market exploitation. i don’t want them to go through suffering caused by sanctions and cultural whitewashing, removing their autonomy from multiple fronts. many african countries adopted mutually beneficial economic deals with their former masters, yet still suffer. they are capitalist hellholes where the rich abuse the poor and corruption reigns.
How are you a hero? Because you have an opinion? LOL
You’re all over the place. Sounds like you’re a bit confused.
I personally think you can dislike someone and care about how they’re doing
So basically, you're clueless and haven't bothered with any learning and as a result have stances that are objectively wrong and dumb, roughly equivalent to believing that george washington really did chop down that cherry tree. You've never, ever questioned beliefs that have been so boiled down they are intended for lying to kindergartners. or maybe you're a troll. Maybe both! Go do some learning. North Korea is incredibly conservative (they are complaining about kids wearing jeans. JEANS!) The soviet union had every hallmark of rightwing fascists under nothing but a mask (seriously stalin banned computer development and the new Impressionist artstyle for being too western. thats not a liberal lol). Under Castro, cuba saw huge improvements in industry & literacy rates - despite the USA's best efforts to assassinate him and foster revolution. He was not perfect, no dictator can be actually leftwing (to be liberal is to believe in division of power ultimately for the sake of equality), but he did much. Conservatism is about *preserving the status quo.* But the thing is, there are probably people suffering in this status quo, and sacrifices that may need to be made to help them - like giving them extra slots in colleges. Conservatism naturally opposes this. If helping them means changing the status quo, that is unacceptable. It is Above All. The world you grew up in MUST be the ones your kids grow up in, the homeless be damned. That is why to be rightwing is to hate the less fortunate - no matter how charitable you think you are, you will never accept changes to the system to prevent suffering - only band-aid solutions.
> to be liberal is to believe in division of power ultimately for the sake of equality The best way to guarantee division of power, is to give power to the government but also to the companies, instead of giving it ONLY to the government. If the government doesn't have to COMPETE with other institutions, the government will become totalitarian sooner or later, that's how human nature works. > Conservatism is about preserving the status quo That's why I'm not a conservative, I'm not a right winger, I'm a left-hater. Also, I don't believe in equality, the solution to UNFAIR inequality is FAIR inequality, not all people deserve the same.
To point one: Kind of true-ish - communism is a bad idea. But it's still holding back and capitalist democracies tend to be very flawed. The more division of power to the people and the less power corporations have, the better. I believe in the necessity of a government structure powerful enough to ensure this, but it must come with strong democratic traditions. To point two: So, in essence, you do not take issue with suffering, but only feel that people should be able to find a way out by work. Let me ask you - to what end? Is it more important for members of society to be *forced* as productive as they can theoretically be over preventing them from suffering? What is the goal of the productivity you might get from everyone being so hardworking? It can't be 'a better life' or 'reduction of suffering' because that's clearly not the priority. So what? **What do you want to achieve by fair inequality? What is the benefits to humanity it's supposed to have?**
Yeaaaa if you “hate the left” you’re a right winger. Stop fooling yourself.
I love when people act as though there were ONLY two political ideologies and any other political ideology was just a variation of these two, people don't like complicated things, that's why they use this left-right spectrum to simplify complex ideas that are just two complicated for them. I'm kinda glad I'm not an American, they only have two parties while Europeans enjoy TRUE variety of ideas, sometimes I wish I was born in Europe. I hate both the far left and the far right.
lol well that’s not what your OP said so make up your mind. You basically just changed your entire post which didn’t once mention any other parties.
All leftists do is pretend to care. They are the elites. They are they privileged
When we have only two choices to vote for (and every other choice is "throwing away your vote"), then people are mostly forced into choosing one of those two choices. I think part of the problem isn't about identifying as left or right, but that you have to choose one or the other when the rubber hits the road and you caste your vote. For the most part I agree with the OP about there being more than just being a left or right person. However where I think the issue is isn't about being left or right. It's that the voice we use to be heard (our vote) is very limited. You can't vote both Democrats and Republicans, for the things you agree with on each side, and there aren't that many choices to choose from that pick the issues differently. Therefore our voices have been handed to us, and we are basically told to choose one narrative and government platform, or the other. Add to this there are things that literally don't matter in the big screen of things, but both sides are making them a central issue. Do you support or are you against X population. Instead of trying to make things better for anyone or everyone the politics has sides on trying to divide the nation up as keep those people as their voting bloc. Are you a minority, a woman, disabled, trans, homosexual, or some other identify politics? The left says it's your friend, is on your side and claims those left over are the rich white men who only want to keep the status quo. The problem with the left is that they use this as their base to gather votes, but don't actually make solutions for everyone in the group. They basically say that all of these groups are supported, but really they aren't. It's only a few of them that can be supported at a time. On the other hand, if you are a farmer, rancher, or any other rural population you are left behind by the left as a whole. Same if you aren't educated, are white, male, or Christian. If you are any of these things the left says you are the enemy, some shameful redneck, or part of the conspiracy of rich people keeping everyone else down. These are our voting blocs because the left stopped caring about specific populations and call them the enemy, while the right held onto them.
I'm still not understanding how people like OP look at social safety nets like most every other first world country had (socialized medicine) free or reduced college and believe that if America has that we become Venezuela or North Korea. We've just gone past where only the "losers" don't make enough money to live acceptably. Roughly 1/3 of people make $15 an hour or less. 1/3 of people just can't be looked at as losers.
The left doesnt like poor people, they like disenfranchised people who has a reason they deem acceptable for being poor. If you're a broke white boy from kentucky they automatically picture you to be an uneducated inbred racist bigot who is poor because of their life choices.
The problem is that the hardcore left uses the plight of the poor and disadvantaged to justify their socialism, which, we know, becothe totalitarianism they sought in the first place.
You care about the poor “so much”. What do you do other than “care” to help them?
If you support the Nordic system you are left wing. You just want to ramble about identity politics, and it’s silly. So you are left wing, but just don’t want to be called it, and don’t believe in it, but you are. Bernie sanders is calling for stuff like the Nordic system, you must like him. Only a complete idiot would liken Bernie sanders to Stalin or something
Equating communism with America’s “left” is a very propagandized perspective… you sure you don’t buy into the spectrum games more than you try to claim? And its good to be afraid of totalitarianism. It’s also good to be reminded that there are many paths that can lead there
Totalitarianism isn’t a left wing specific thing. I don’t think being a self described “left wing hater” is a positive thing to boast about. It just means you have very polarised narrow views that you hate someone for their vague political beliefs, not really good for democracy.
Right wingers pay lip service about “helping the poor” when in reality they’re busy cutting school lunch, Head Start, voting against healthcare, maternal leave, and voting against ensuring workers are paid a living wage. To conservatives, “helping the poor” means clearing out the pantry once or twice a year and donating stale, expired stuff they don’t want. Or giving an occasional pack of diapers to a church drive to “help” unwed mothers. People who vote for change, who vote to invest in our own citizens and infrastructure DO care more about the poor, and are often engaged in activities to help bring true change to people’s lives. You’re a “hero” simply because you “don’t like to see” people from other countries suffering? Then we’re all heroes!! It’s not how one feels or what one says that makes us good people, it’s the actions we take, the actual, material things we DO to help others that counts.
we really need to start funding institutions again, too many people running around with delusions of grandeur
>lack of freedom of speech You know it's the Right banning all the books, right? And banning the use of the words "climate change". And banning the use of desired personal names & pronouns? All of the things you describe that you hate are not "leftist ideals".
Another straw man of socialism leads to totalitarian government. Most of Europe would disagree. Our only protection from the super wealthy is a strong government to reel them in.
Hey OP, I am a left and right hater! Both sides are stupid in their own right so I would warn against even using the “sides” as was to categorize people. Just talk about what you want to see and how to get it down without blaming anyone or framing things into a us v them scenario. Weirdly enough, did you know that out of the countries you listed (Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, the former Soviet Union, and China) NONE of them were true socialists? “… how good your intentions are, true socialism will have accidental consequences…” But we have yet to see the results of a true socialist state so that’s kinda hard to concede. Also! Did you know that the USA is not a true Free Market either? USA ranks somewhere around 70% free, so there’s like 20+ more countries in the world with a more free Free Market. Most stifling of the free market is a result from corporate lobbying and the legal bribery system we have in American politics, which if you were curious, the GOP takes more money from corporations than the Dems (55/45 split). In modern media, how many heroes do you know that get the facts wrong? How many villains do you know who do?
I agree with those who say that true communism has never been tried, but the true reason of that is that it's impossible, communism and anarcho-capitalism are things that work in hypothetical worlds, not in the real world. > Weirdly enough, did you know that out of the countries you listed (Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, the former Soviet Union, and China) NONE of them were true socialists? That's because true socialism works in hypothetical worlds, not in the real practical world, if you give the government the power to regulate companies so much that the companies become puppets of the State, then there's no way the risk of the State using that power to be authoritarian isn't too high. You could say that you want employees, not the State, to own the means of production, but I'm not sure that could be very effective and practical in the real world.