4 ms·

I would consider myself left leaning and still wish to see a lot of progress and change but I disagree with quite a few talking points of what might be consider

I would consider myself left leaning and still wish to see a lot of progress and change but I disagree with quite a few talking points of what might be considered the current “zeitgeist” of the far left. Would I consider misgendendering a _violent_ hate crime? No. Am I for more inclusion and free choice of gender identity? Yes. Do I think that pure socialism will save humanity? No. Do I think it’s bad we have people on the planet with more money than multiple countries combined? Yes. I would even argue most progressives are seeing flaws and don’t accept them and push for change but you don’t need to be “radical”(as in further from the status quo) in your views to do that and it doesn’t make you less of a progressive - you are just trying to push to a different spot on the manifold.

wolverine876 4y ago
Who is calling for pure socialism? The only people I hear mention it are reactionary anti-progressives.
roenxi 4y ago
If you want to set yourself an interesting challenge, try to figure out why it is you think being on the right wing of politics is incompatible with those opinions. The right wing is large and has lots of factions, with the only thing uniting them being resistance to the left's attempts to reform the system. The big divide isn't over specific beliefs and policies as much as whether you believe the current system tends to favour you or not.
- luckylion 4y ago
  > The big divide isn't over specific beliefs and policies as much as whether you believe the current system tends to favour you or not. I'm not sure about that. I know some conservatives (which I'd consider myself as well, though leaning libertarian) who are very well off but didn't start that way, and their political ideas remained constant. I know others who aren't particularly wealthy, but hold the same ideas. Fundamentally, I believe it's more about "what will work?", in essence "if we organized our society along these lines, would it still function, or would it fall apart", and progressives and conservatives have vastly different opinions on that. For a single issue: conservatives generally believe that "if you pay people to do nothing, that's exactly what they'll do" and thus are opposed to high welfare (because people will stop working, and without people working, nothing gets produced), while progressives believe that people will be freed by not worrying about their income and will voluntarily work and become very productive, which is why they're very much in favor of high welfare (e.g. UBI). It's one side saying "don't change this, you'll break everything" and the other side saying "no, we need to change this, it'll get better". But it's not about your current status in the system. My political convictions haven't changed much since when I was pretty much poor vs now that I'm doing very well (though they've become calmer, but I'd attribute that mostly to age).
  - LudwigNagasena 4y ago
    UBI or basic welfare is supported by many right-winger opinion leaders, eg Friedman and Hayek.
    - luckylion 4y ago
      I don't think Neoliberalism maps onto left/right that well, but is generally favored by people who believe in markets. It's not particularly conservative or right-wing though.
- dale_glass 4y ago
  > If you want to set yourself an interesting challenge, try to figure out why it is you think being on the right wing of politics is incompatible with those opinions. The right wing is large and has lots of factions, with the only thing uniting them being resistance to the left's attempts to reform the system. Which is by and large the entire problem. The right is rarely interested in solving problems. So I could find minor points of agreement -- there's certainly people out there who are a tad too radical for my taste. The problem is that in general though I'm very much in favor of change, and the right isn't.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    > Which is by and large the entire problem. The right is rarely interested in solving problems. The right are very interested in solving problems; but they are defined by identifying the plans of the left as the biggest problem. That is basically why they pick up the label "conservative", the right only exists as a political unit to resist threats from the left. Otherwise the right generally favours non-government approaches to problem solving (partially in an attempt to stop empowering leftists who tend to infest bureaucracies). And every faction generally keeps busy dealing with their own perceived problems.
    - dale_glass 4y ago
      > The right are very interested in solving problems; but they are defined by identifying the plans of the left as the biggest problem. That's not so much problem solving as just obstructionism. Surely there are things to be done that don't depend at all on what the competition is doing. > Otherwise the right generally favours non-government approaches to problem solving (partially in an attempt to stop empowering leftists who tend to infest bureaucracies). No, the right favors non-government approaches because they want to pick and choose. They for instance heavily endorse personal charity because you get to pick who you help. I on the other hand think there should be a floor in society below which nobody is allowed to fall, and that it ideally should be implemented in a fully blind and dispassionate manner, eg, UBI. Everyone gets it automatically no questions asked, without needing to be liked by the local community.
- _fizz_buzz_ 4y ago
  Global warming will be by far the biggest challenge going forward. As long as parties on "the right" don't believe in it, or take it seriously or don't address it appropriately there is no way in hell for me to ever consider voting for anything on that spectrum. I can deal with a little over the top wokeness. I cannot deal with the destruction of the planet.
  - bluescrn 4y ago
    But the catastrophising of climate change is also harmful, and results in people proposing 'solutions' that seem likely to bring about an even faster collapse of civilisation. One 2019 UK report (https://www.icax.co.uk/pdf/Absolute_Zero_Report.pdf https://www.icax.co.uk/pdf/Absolute_Zero_Report.pdf) proposes a timeline that's been circulating on Twitter, involving the closure of all airports and shutting down all international shipping by 2050, while pricing 40% of traffic off the roads and banning beef+lamb. That (along with many more less-drastic but still significant restrictions) is what it would take to reach 'net zero' with current technology. And that was written in 2019, when people were generally a lot more reasonable than they are in the post-Covid world. (Do they even realise what they're proposing by 'no international shipping'... Amongst many other things, that means zero microchips for the UK, let alone complete technology products such as phones, TVs, or EVs) Meanwhile in the real world (here in the UK), we've got a massive cost-of-living crisis, a collapsing healthcare system, a disaster of a property market, and a rising population that we're failing to build infrastructure to cope with. We have a a terribly incompetent government, and an opposition that seems no better. And we're living with the threat of WW3, the tail end of the pandemic, and now a banking crisis too.
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      > catastrophising of climate change is also harmful What if it is a catastrophe? Should we pretend otherwise? The word 'catastrophize' implies that the speaker is creating the catastrophe. Climate change sure seems like one to me, whether anyone says it or not.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      Even a glance at your own link shows you are misinterpreting it. > We currently have no non-emitting freight ships, so there is an urgent need for exploration of means to electrify ship power It seems like you are the one "catastrophising".

wolverine876 4y ago

Who is calling for pure socialism? The only people I hear mention it are reactionary anti-progressives.

roenxi 4y ago

If you want to set yourself an interesting challenge, try to figure out why it is you think being on the right wing of politics is incompatible with those opinions. The right wing is large and has lots of factions, with the only thing uniting them being resistance to the left's attempts to reform the system. The big divide isn't over specific beliefs and policies as much as whether you believe the current system tends to favour you or not.

luckylion 4y ago
> The big divide isn't over specific beliefs and policies as much as whether you believe the current system tends to favour you or not. I'm not sure about that. I know some conservatives (which I'd consider myself as well, though leaning libertarian) who are very well off but didn't start that way, and their political ideas remained constant. I know others who aren't particularly wealthy, but hold the same ideas. Fundamentally, I believe it's more about "what will work?", in essence "if we organized our society along these lines, would it still function, or would it fall apart", and progressives and conservatives have vastly different opinions on that. For a single issue: conservatives generally believe that "if you pay people to do nothing, that's exactly what they'll do" and thus are opposed to high welfare (because people will stop working, and without people working, nothing gets produced), while progressives believe that people will be freed by not worrying about their income and will voluntarily work and become very productive, which is why they're very much in favor of high welfare (e.g. UBI). It's one side saying "don't change this, you'll break everything" and the other side saying "no, we need to change this, it'll get better". But it's not about your current status in the system. My political convictions haven't changed much since when I was pretty much poor vs now that I'm doing very well (though they've become calmer, but I'd attribute that mostly to age).
- LudwigNagasena 4y ago
  UBI or basic welfare is supported by many right-winger opinion leaders, eg Friedman and Hayek.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    I don't think Neoliberalism maps onto left/right that well, but is generally favored by people who believe in markets. It's not particularly conservative or right-wing though.
dale_glass 4y ago
> If you want to set yourself an interesting challenge, try to figure out why it is you think being on the right wing of politics is incompatible with those opinions. The right wing is large and has lots of factions, with the only thing uniting them being resistance to the left's attempts to reform the system. Which is by and large the entire problem. The right is rarely interested in solving problems. So I could find minor points of agreement -- there's certainly people out there who are a tad too radical for my taste. The problem is that in general though I'm very much in favor of change, and the right isn't.
- roenxi 4y ago
  > Which is by and large the entire problem. The right is rarely interested in solving problems. The right are very interested in solving problems; but they are defined by identifying the plans of the left as the biggest problem. That is basically why they pick up the label "conservative", the right only exists as a political unit to resist threats from the left. Otherwise the right generally favours non-government approaches to problem solving (partially in an attempt to stop empowering leftists who tend to infest bureaucracies). And every faction generally keeps busy dealing with their own perceived problems.
  - dale_glass 4y ago
    > The right are very interested in solving problems; but they are defined by identifying the plans of the left as the biggest problem. That's not so much problem solving as just obstructionism. Surely there are things to be done that don't depend at all on what the competition is doing. > Otherwise the right generally favours non-government approaches to problem solving (partially in an attempt to stop empowering leftists who tend to infest bureaucracies). No, the right favors non-government approaches because they want to pick and choose. They for instance heavily endorse personal charity because you get to pick who you help. I on the other hand think there should be a floor in society below which nobody is allowed to fall, and that it ideally should be implemented in a fully blind and dispassionate manner, eg, UBI. Everyone gets it automatically no questions asked, without needing to be liked by the local community.
_fizz_buzz_ 4y ago
Global warming will be by far the biggest challenge going forward. As long as parties on "the right" don't believe in it, or take it seriously or don't address it appropriately there is no way in hell for me to ever consider voting for anything on that spectrum. I can deal with a little over the top wokeness. I cannot deal with the destruction of the planet.
- bluescrn 4y ago
  But the catastrophising of climate change is also harmful, and results in people proposing 'solutions' that seem likely to bring about an even faster collapse of civilisation. One 2019 UK report (https://www.icax.co.uk/pdf/Absolute_Zero_Report.pdf https://www.icax.co.uk/pdf/Absolute_Zero_Report.pdf) proposes a timeline that's been circulating on Twitter, involving the closure of all airports and shutting down all international shipping by 2050, while pricing 40% of traffic off the roads and banning beef+lamb. That (along with many more less-drastic but still significant restrictions) is what it would take to reach 'net zero' with current technology. And that was written in 2019, when people were generally a lot more reasonable than they are in the post-Covid world. (Do they even realise what they're proposing by 'no international shipping'... Amongst many other things, that means zero microchips for the UK, let alone complete technology products such as phones, TVs, or EVs) Meanwhile in the real world (here in the UK), we've got a massive cost-of-living crisis, a collapsing healthcare system, a disaster of a property market, and a rising population that we're failing to build infrastructure to cope with. We have a a terribly incompetent government, and an opposition that seems no better. And we're living with the threat of WW3, the tail end of the pandemic, and now a banking crisis too.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    > catastrophising of climate change is also harmful What if it is a catastrophe? Should we pretend otherwise? The word 'catastrophize' implies that the speaker is creating the catastrophe. Climate change sure seems like one to me, whether anyone says it or not.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Even a glance at your own link shows you are misinterpreting it. > We currently have no non-emitting freight ships, so there is an urgent need for exploration of means to electrify ship power It seems like you are the one "catastrophising".