6 ms·

I don’t think this is true at all, I think it’s the middle that’s moved. I was quite left leaning when I was a teenager, but some of my views would be called ‘a

I don’t think this is true at all, I think it’s the middle that’s moved. I was quite left leaning when I was a teenager, but some of my views would be called ‘alt-right’ or extreme today. My values haven’t really changed that much, but they’re much more aligned with the right today. (Downvoted within seconds, very nice).

Analemma_ 8y ago
Name me a couple of these views which haven't changed, and qualified you as left-leaning as a teenager but alt-right today.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  A person who believed in socialized healthcare but did not support gay marriage could well have been considered left-leaning in the US a decade ago.
  - ianai 8y ago
    That’s more of a cultural change than political on gay rights.
    - AmericanChopper 8y ago
      It certianly is a political change. We’ve only had one president in our history who entered office supporting gay marriage.
- philwelch 8y ago
  Not @AmericanChopper, but I can easily do that: 1. Believing in the near-absolute protection of free speech, even that which I find repugnant. 2. Acknowledging that sex differences are less than 100% culturally determined.
  - nepeckman 8y ago
    Believing in near-absolute protection of free speech is a lot easier when you're not the direct target of that "free speech." Not trying to assume your specific social location, but I know a lot of centrists who feel as you do, and they are white men. They might be repulsed by Nazi's who advocate ethnic cleansing, but I have to actually worry about what those people might do if they take power. I have a vested interest in making sure they cannot radicalize more people, and as such I am firmly for censoring them.
    - ianai 8y ago
      There’s also a difference between propaganda- especially foreign propaganda and free speech.
      - AmericanChopper 8y ago
        No there isn’t. People who oppose free speech have claimed to be protecting people from just about anything you can imagine. “I’m protecting you from...” is how every censorship effort in history has been framed. It’s not the government’s job to protect you from ideas you don’t like, and people who live in a free society have the responsibility to think for themselves.
    - philwelch 8y ago
      > Believing in near-absolute protection of free speech is a lot easier when you're not the direct target of that "free speech." Which is why I have a hell of a lot of respect for David Goldberger, the Jewish lawyer for the ACLU who defended the free speech of Neo-Nazis in 1977: https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-0941-3.html https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-0941-3.html The problem with your line of reasoning is that it forces you into what most on the left consider a very difficult fork. PREMISE: Imposing both government sanctions and private sector no-platforming is a justifiable response to murderous ideologies. (This is a decent, good-faith attempt to interpret the basic principle that seems to motivate people who say the things you say. In isolation, before you read the rest of my argument, I'm willing to bet that you would accept this premise as written. If you didn't, let me know.) 1. Communism is a murderous ideology. (See: all historical records of the 20th century.) Therefore, McCarthy did nothing wrong, and the members of the Hollywood Blacklist were merely the Alex Jones of their time. 2. Communism is not actually a murderous ideology. Therefore, Stalin did nothing wrong. The fork is basically that, once you accept the premise that allows you to censor and no-platform Nazis, you either have to be a McCarthyist or a Stalinist, or at least an apologist for one of them.
- ianai 8y ago
  I can maybe think of a few. In the 90s, the Democratic line was against giving most favored trading status to China, and the republicans wanted free trade with China. Paradoxically, Clinton let that through, IIRC. The reasoning was basically the US will be dwarfed by China’s size sooner or later - the best position for the US to maneuver to was as the strongest partner of them. I’d argue that’s changed more for reasons exogenous to the US political system and not representative of the total.
taurath 8y ago
You're right, in terms of some social policies. We've gone from it being a left leaning thing to not support assaulting out LGBT people to tacit mainstream support of the idea of having equal rights. In terms of economics and power, the rich have gotten richer, the republicans have gotten ruthlessly more fundamentalist. Reagan raised taxes. Nixon proposed universal healthcare. Obamacare/Romneycare was originally a Heritage foundation "we wish" policy document. Trump has added a trillion dollars to the deficit for a tax cut, without a peep from the "deficit hawk"s.
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  We’ve actually moved from a society that was openly intolerant of liberal values, to one that is openly intolerant of conservative ones. Neither of those scenarios are better, it’s just putting the shoe on the other foot. When I was a kid I had to worry about some coalition of Christians or moms petitioning congress to prevent me from listening to rage against the machine. Now I have to worry about a mob of liberals branding me a Nazi and trying to get me fired for supporting free speech. I’ve always supported freedom of expression and tolerance to other world views. When I was younger, that made me a liberal. Today, that makes me a conservative (or an extremist depending on who you ask).
  - ianai 8y ago
    Please, there’s a government literally ordering people to prop up alt-right viewpoints. Anecdotally, anytime I voice any criticism IRL and online of anything alt-right I’m immediately refuted forcefully and/or downvoted. My OP probably has more negatives than yours.
    - AmericanChopper 8y ago
      I’ve never experienced a scenario where the government has forced a view point upon me, and I’ve never heard of that happening to anybody else. What I do experience on an ongoing basis is pressure to keep my views secret, under thread of an often played out form of mob justice. The only thing that’s changed is the group of people who believe they have the moral authority to dictate my views to me.

Analemma_ 8y ago

Name me a couple of these views which haven't changed, and qualified you as left-leaning as a teenager but alt-right today.

whatshisface 8y ago
A person who believed in socialized healthcare but did not support gay marriage could well have been considered left-leaning in the US a decade ago.
- ianai 8y ago
  That’s more of a cultural change than political on gay rights.
  - AmericanChopper 8y ago
    It certianly is a political change. We’ve only had one president in our history who entered office supporting gay marriage.
philwelch 8y ago
Not @AmericanChopper, but I can easily do that: 1. Believing in the near-absolute protection of free speech, even that which I find repugnant. 2. Acknowledging that sex differences are less than 100% culturally determined.
- nepeckman 8y ago
  Believing in near-absolute protection of free speech is a lot easier when you're not the direct target of that "free speech." Not trying to assume your specific social location, but I know a lot of centrists who feel as you do, and they are white men. They might be repulsed by Nazi's who advocate ethnic cleansing, but I have to actually worry about what those people might do if they take power. I have a vested interest in making sure they cannot radicalize more people, and as such I am firmly for censoring them.
  - ianai 8y ago
    There’s also a difference between propaganda- especially foreign propaganda and free speech.
    - AmericanChopper 8y ago
      No there isn’t. People who oppose free speech have claimed to be protecting people from just about anything you can imagine. “I’m protecting you from...” is how every censorship effort in history has been framed. It’s not the government’s job to protect you from ideas you don’t like, and people who live in a free society have the responsibility to think for themselves.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    > Believing in near-absolute protection of free speech is a lot easier when you're not the direct target of that "free speech." Which is why I have a hell of a lot of respect for David Goldberger, the Jewish lawyer for the ACLU who defended the free speech of Neo-Nazis in 1977: https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-0941-3.html https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-0941-3.html The problem with your line of reasoning is that it forces you into what most on the left consider a very difficult fork. PREMISE: Imposing both government sanctions and private sector no-platforming is a justifiable response to murderous ideologies. (This is a decent, good-faith attempt to interpret the basic principle that seems to motivate people who say the things you say. In isolation, before you read the rest of my argument, I'm willing to bet that you would accept this premise as written. If you didn't, let me know.) 1. Communism is a murderous ideology. (See: all historical records of the 20th century.) Therefore, McCarthy did nothing wrong, and the members of the Hollywood Blacklist were merely the Alex Jones of their time. 2. Communism is not actually a murderous ideology. Therefore, Stalin did nothing wrong. The fork is basically that, once you accept the premise that allows you to censor and no-platform Nazis, you either have to be a McCarthyist or a Stalinist, or at least an apologist for one of them.
ianai 8y ago
I can maybe think of a few. In the 90s, the Democratic line was against giving most favored trading status to China, and the republicans wanted free trade with China. Paradoxically, Clinton let that through, IIRC. The reasoning was basically the US will be dwarfed by China’s size sooner or later - the best position for the US to maneuver to was as the strongest partner of them. I’d argue that’s changed more for reasons exogenous to the US political system and not representative of the total.

taurath 8y ago

You're right, in terms of some social policies. We've gone from it being a left leaning thing to not support assaulting out LGBT people to tacit mainstream support of the idea of having equal rights. In terms of economics and power, the rich have gotten richer, the republicans have gotten ruthlessly more fundamentalist. Reagan raised taxes. Nixon proposed universal healthcare. Obamacare/Romneycare was originally a Heritage foundation "we wish" policy document. Trump has added a trillion dollars to the deficit for a tax cut, without a peep from the "deficit hawk"s.

AmericanChopper 8y ago
We’ve actually moved from a society that was openly intolerant of liberal values, to one that is openly intolerant of conservative ones. Neither of those scenarios are better, it’s just putting the shoe on the other foot. When I was a kid I had to worry about some coalition of Christians or moms petitioning congress to prevent me from listening to rage against the machine. Now I have to worry about a mob of liberals branding me a Nazi and trying to get me fired for supporting free speech. I’ve always supported freedom of expression and tolerance to other world views. When I was younger, that made me a liberal. Today, that makes me a conservative (or an extremist depending on who you ask).
- ianai 8y ago
  Please, there’s a government literally ordering people to prop up alt-right viewpoints. Anecdotally, anytime I voice any criticism IRL and online of anything alt-right I’m immediately refuted forcefully and/or downvoted. My OP probably has more negatives than yours.
  - AmericanChopper 8y ago
    I’ve never experienced a scenario where the government has forced a view point upon me, and I’ve never heard of that happening to anybody else. What I do experience on an ongoing basis is pressure to keep my views secret, under thread of an often played out form of mob justice. The only thing that’s changed is the group of people who believe they have the moral authority to dictate my views to me.