5 ms·

I'm going to reply with a comment I made an hour ago. "The far-left managed to create an "amazing" (and terrifying) perspective. If you're a leftist but not a

I'm going to reply with a comment I made an hour ago. "The far-left managed to create an "amazing" (and terrifying) perspective. If you're a leftist but not as leftist as them, you're a centrist, maybe even center-right which makes everybody on the right to be automatically far-right."

uoaei 6y ago
So then you are obligated, in the context of this conversation, to define "far-left." I suspect you haven't elaborated on it because you recognize that your application of the term is easily disputed.
- Darmody 6y ago
  Anti-capitalists, socialists, police defunders, censors (they can be also far right wingers), haters of every western thing, etc. You can easily identify them inside the democratic party, they have a lot of power now.
  - uoaei 6y ago
    Those aren't far-left. Especially the "haters of every western thing" lol. Far-left is the complete abolition of private property, abolition of police and prisons, in some cases the abolition of monies period. There are literally zero far-left people in elected or appointed positions within the US government today. Your worldview is much smaller than reality and the dog-whistles you lean on are obvious. Educate yourself before choosing to expound your limited views.
    - Darmody 6y ago
      "Educate yourself before choosing to expound your limited views." Oh, come on. You can't really be that condescending and expect people to take you seriously. Anyway, according to your broad worldview, communists are not far-left. Ok.
      - uoaei 6y ago
        Communists advocate the abolition of private property. It's right there in the name -- it's the "commune" part. So you're wrong again. Folks seem to be taking me seriously. I don't know if you can say the same. Attacks on rhetoric and not substance only serve to expose your lack of a basis on which to make your claims.
        Darmody 6y ago
        No, communists want to abolish the private means of production. To reciprocate your condescending comments I could say you should read a little bit before making a fool of yourself. I'm not wasting my time anymore with you.
        monocasa 6y ago
        Private property _is_ the private ownership of the means of production. Your house and toothbrush and such is personal property.
        notnap 6y ago
        What if I airbnb a room in my personal property house? Do I get "eaten as a landlord" in case I need to evict a freeloading squatter
        uoaei 6y ago
        Plugging your ears because the facts don't agree with your pre-conceptions? Some call that... being a snowflake :) Socialists want to end the private ownership of means of production. Communists go further.
        BitwiseFool 6y ago
        You're being toxic.
        6y ago
  - chillwaves 6y ago
    > haters of every western thing such a low level of discourse. I thought these kind of comments weren't allowed on HN?
nickik 6y ago
That is literally how the world neoliberalism got created. It has some very limited academic use before then but basically exploded in usage. When center leftists started to embrace free trade and things like that. So basically anybody not on the left fringe was label a neoliberalist, all the way from Clinton to Milton Friedman. You can make it really easy if you just throw everybody in the same bucket and label it evil. Its a classic move in politics.
- chillwaves 6y ago
  Neoliberalism is based on economic policy position. Your lack of understanding of the term doesn't mean people are using it incorrectly. It does have a meaning. > Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism So disheartening to see this low quality of discourse on HN.
h_spacer 6y ago
If you're further left then democrats you're a troll, if you're further right you're a nazi. It's a magical place where only those who agree with the person speaking are allowed to have an opinion and shouldn't be censored by big tech co.
monocasa 6y ago
I mean, the Third Way Democrats whole shtick is embracing right wing policies and injecting them into the democratic party. They gained power as a faction in the democratic party around 1992 with the argument that after Reagan changed politics in the US and after losing the presidency for three elections, they argued that the democratic party needed to shift heavily to the right to chase what Americans were looking for. Clinton got for instance got elected on a platform to "end the welfare system a we know it", and gun control (which at the time was a right wing policy because scary minorities were open carrying. Reagan actually passed the law against open carrying, the Mulford Act, stating at the time that there was "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons"). The explicit goal here was courting center right moderates. Since then the Democratic Party has continued tracking to the right, with Newt Gingrich and the Heritage Foundation's 1994/94 HEART Act being slightly edited and passed as Obamacare. This isn't a "terrifying perspective", but literally public statements and accepted political science.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > I mean, the Third Way Democrats whole shtick is embracing right wing policies and injecting them into the democratic party. They gained power as a faction in the democratic party around 1992 They gained power before that (their main original organization, the DLC, was a powerful force in Democratic politics well before its former head became the Democratic nominee in 1992), but they were definitely the unquestionably dominant faction from that point forward, though that has gotten weaker over the past decade or so.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    Sure, by "gained power", I mean that they went from fairly important group to _the_ leadership of the party, actively purging other groups, and their decisions were the de facto decisions of the party as a whole.
seppin 6y ago
Except for the fact that a mainstream democrat is a center-right politician anywhere else in the world. The "far-left" you reference doesn't exist outside Twitter and a small group of congresspeople, giving that small group an outsized image of power isn't very congruent with reality.

uoaei 6y ago

So then you are obligated, in the context of this conversation, to define "far-left." I suspect you haven't elaborated on it because you recognize that your application of the term is easily disputed.

Darmody 6y ago
Anti-capitalists, socialists, police defunders, censors (they can be also far right wingers), haters of every western thing, etc. You can easily identify them inside the democratic party, they have a lot of power now.
- uoaei 6y ago
  Those aren't far-left. Especially the "haters of every western thing" lol. Far-left is the complete abolition of private property, abolition of police and prisons, in some cases the abolition of monies period. There are literally zero far-left people in elected or appointed positions within the US government today. Your worldview is much smaller than reality and the dog-whistles you lean on are obvious. Educate yourself before choosing to expound your limited views.
  - Darmody 6y ago
    "Educate yourself before choosing to expound your limited views." Oh, come on. You can't really be that condescending and expect people to take you seriously. Anyway, according to your broad worldview, communists are not far-left. Ok.
    - uoaei 6y ago
      Communists advocate the abolition of private property. It's right there in the name -- it's the "commune" part. So you're wrong again. Folks seem to be taking me seriously. I don't know if you can say the same. Attacks on rhetoric and not substance only serve to expose your lack of a basis on which to make your claims.
      - Darmody 6y ago
        No, communists want to abolish the private means of production. To reciprocate your condescending comments I could say you should read a little bit before making a fool of yourself. I'm not wasting my time anymore with you.
        monocasa 6y ago
        Private property _is_ the private ownership of the means of production. Your house and toothbrush and such is personal property.
        notnap 6y ago
        What if I airbnb a room in my personal property house? Do I get "eaten as a landlord" in case I need to evict a freeloading squatter
        uoaei 6y ago
        Plugging your ears because the facts don't agree with your pre-conceptions? Some call that... being a snowflake :) Socialists want to end the private ownership of means of production. Communists go further.
        BitwiseFool 6y ago
        You're being toxic.
        6y ago
- chillwaves 6y ago
  > haters of every western thing such a low level of discourse. I thought these kind of comments weren't allowed on HN?

nickik 6y ago

That is literally how the world neoliberalism got created. It has some very limited academic use before then but basically exploded in usage. When center leftists started to embrace free trade and things like that. So basically anybody not on the left fringe was label a neoliberalist, all the way from Clinton to Milton Friedman. You can make it really easy if you just throw everybody in the same bucket and label it evil. Its a classic move in politics.

chillwaves 6y ago
Neoliberalism is based on economic policy position. Your lack of understanding of the term doesn't mean people are using it incorrectly. It does have a meaning. > Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism So disheartening to see this low quality of discourse on HN.

h_spacer 6y ago

If you're further left then democrats you're a troll, if you're further right you're a nazi. It's a magical place where only those who agree with the person speaking are allowed to have an opinion and shouldn't be censored by big tech co.

monocasa 6y ago

I mean, the Third Way Democrats whole shtick is embracing right wing policies and injecting them into the democratic party. They gained power as a faction in the democratic party around 1992 with the argument that after Reagan changed politics in the US and after losing the presidency for three elections, they argued that the democratic party needed to shift heavily to the right to chase what Americans were looking for. Clinton got for instance got elected on a platform to "end the welfare system a we know it", and gun control (which at the time was a right wing policy because scary minorities were open carrying. Reagan actually passed the law against open carrying, the Mulford Act, stating at the time that there was "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons"). The explicit goal here was courting center right moderates. Since then the Democratic Party has continued tracking to the right, with Newt Gingrich and the Heritage Foundation's 1994/94 HEART Act being slightly edited and passed as Obamacare. This isn't a "terrifying perspective", but literally public statements and accepted political science.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> I mean, the Third Way Democrats whole shtick is embracing right wing policies and injecting them into the democratic party. They gained power as a faction in the democratic party around 1992 They gained power before that (their main original organization, the DLC, was a powerful force in Democratic politics well before its former head became the Democratic nominee in 1992), but they were definitely the unquestionably dominant faction from that point forward, though that has gotten weaker over the past decade or so.
- monocasa 6y ago
  Sure, by "gained power", I mean that they went from fairly important group to _the_ leadership of the party, actively purging other groups, and their decisions were the de facto decisions of the party as a whole.

seppin 6y ago

Except for the fact that a mainstream democrat is a center-right politician anywhere else in the world. The "far-left" you reference doesn't exist outside Twitter and a small group of congresspeople, giving that small group an outsized image of power isn't very congruent with reality.