3 ms·
Wow, this is the craziest thing I've read in a while. I've seen people on the right accuse the left of shutting down debate by calling things 'offensive', but
by floor2 6y ago
Wow, this is the craziest thing I've read in a while.
I've seen people on the right accuse the left of shutting down debate by calling things 'offensive', but I didn't think it'd reached such an extreme as to just lump half the political spectrum into "not willing to admit in public".
I'm curious what you imagine the "pretty well established meaning" is. When I read it, I assumed they meant things like - prefer more individual freedom and less central control, see the risks of government corruption and abuse of power as equally concerning to the problems that government is supposed to be solving, etc. The things that then manifest as policies which are pro-freedom of speech, pro-small business, pro-free association, pro-private property rights etc.
- mariusor 6y agoI thought I made my point in a reasonably civilized manner. Even if it's wrong, I don't think your attitude is constructive to me getting a better understanding. Maybe I'm muddling my semantics but right "wing" tells me that one's leaning to the right pretty far away from the center, so in my mind it does not comprise "half of the political spectrum". US politics are not my politics and I apologize if I offended you and some of the other commenters that seem aggravated by my interpretation of the term.
- floor2 6y agoIt seems like you have just a genuine misunderstanding due to language and culture. American discourse uses "right wing" and "left wing" frequently and broadly, someone saying they're "right wing" does not mean they are "far right" or extreme or anything like that. Particularly in the context of the original poster, it's a common idiom to state something like "I'm generally left-wing, but I think <insert opposing view on some issue>" as a very clearly centrist person.