3 ms·

It's good except all the fat phobia and hate for people on welfare. So no, it's not about class struggle. It's about rich politicians who help out fat welfare s

by mempko 3y ago

It's good except all the fat phobia and hate for people on welfare. So no, it's not about class struggle. It's about rich politicians who help out fat welfare slobs instead of hard working people like himself. It's a conservative fiction. Anthony claims he is center, but center in US means right-wing everywhere else. Until Anthony makes a song about the Rich Men south of Richmond, lets wait and see about the class thing. He did make a recent video called "Moving Forward" where he talked about how there used to be a sense of community and that people now are very disconnected from each other. He talks about how you need to help your neighbor even if they are different than you. And that we need positivity and not hate. It's a great message. His message about diversity is excellent and I'm glad he is pushing that. I think he probably realized he attracted the wrong crowd.

h2odragon 3y ago
> center in US means right-wing everywhere else. So? This can also be said: "The US leads the world in individual freedoms" or whatever. This unspoken implication that "everywhere else" is better is interesting; quite common assumption but not actually a point that gets discussed... we're just to assume it for the purpose of engaging in the discussion, right?
- mempko 3y ago
  When US life expectancy stops going down, we can start talking seriously about comparing quality of life here vs everywhere else.
- orwin 3y ago
  No, it really means that the US political compass is very right-wing. Also that there is a semantic difference between being left wing in the US and left wing in most of the world. Historically, those supporting the king were on his right, and those opposing him on his left. Really basically, during the restoration, the far-right was composed of anti-Republicans (old nobles mostly), the right wanted to increase the cens, the left wanted to expand the right to vote by lowering the cens (tax to be allowed a vote in the congress), and the far-left, 'radicaux' as they called themselves, wanted a 'radical' republic, without a king. With time this shifted, and the 'radicaux' are now center, center-right, but the idea of left-wing/right-wing is the same. Right-wing is in large part the party of old money (and to be fair small business owners who value stability, which is really fair from tel, even if it means power calcification). I met really left-wing people in the Appalachians, fighting against a pipeline and for owners/managers of a company that caused a huge spill to be prosecuted (from what I understand, the company polluted 3 towns that had to rely on bottled water for weeks, then the company was dissolved and a new one with the same mission and same executive was created after a few months. Gotta love LLCs man.) but those weren't democrats. Some voted Democrat by default, most didn't care and were realist and knew no place exist for left-wing discourse in the US outside of internet forums. One of them told my brother how he tried to unionize when working for a coal mine company. In France, owners and managers trying to pull the same shite would have been put in jail. But well, it's cultural, what can you do. I respect that.
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    > Historically, those supporting the king were on his right, and those opposing him on his left. Kings typically didn't allow their opposition a seat at the table. Where the right wing/left wing thing actually came from was a seating arrangement in the French Parliament during the French Revolution (in this case it was the King who didn't have a seat at the table). It only made sense for a short time even then. It was soon superseded by another seating arrangement called the "The Mountain", named because the representatives clustered together in higher tiers of seats. The terms "right wing" and "left wing" in modern times are essentially just intellectual laziness. Any purported mapping that puts libertarians and Nazis in the same position on the spectrum is ridiculous on its face.
    - mempko 3y ago
      Which libertarians, American or other? Very different.
      - Turing_Machine 3y ago
        Doesn't matter. Any reasonable definition of "libertarian" is going to exclude Nazis.
    - orwin 3y ago
      No, the king very much was at the table. With his opposition. For almost two years, the 'constituante' was there, composed by nobles on the left, clergy on the right and bourgeois in the center. It's only purpose was to redact a constitution, using the US as a model. It added a few laws, but those were more general principle rather than laws (the king cannot 'grâce' a prisonner, Jews are now real French citizen and not second-class...) Then France had a 'real' assembly to draft new laws, and the monarch very much had a seat at the table, and vetoing right. He also declared war on his brother in law. Then he betrayed the army and that's when the clubs really organized from right-wing to left-wing, with the 'feulliants' on the right wanting to keep the king, and the girondin and jacobin on the left wanting to remove him. Sadly (for the king), letters were found that proved without the shadow of a doubt that the king betrayed the nation, and the 'feuillants' supported to keep the 1791 constitution (so a monarchy) and take Louis 16's son as the new king while placing the original under house arrest. They lost the arguments (a string of loosing battles and Austrian army closing in on Paris didn't help tbh). The left (girondin and Jacobin at the time), supported by the population won, and decided to behead the king and abolish monarchy. Then the new political power was a mess and like you said, no left or right, those on top were called 'La montagne', but most politic was still done in clubs. My main reading on this in Jean-clement Martin, I don't have the reference on me right now but I can go look in 2-3days if you're interested. Left-wing and right-wing started having a significance during the restoration, exactly as I said, with right-wing trying to limit the cens, left trying to expand it, left radicals trying to go toward a full republic and far-right trying to go toward a full monarchy. Aren't libertarians left-wing? I mean, Joseph Déjacque was pretty left-wing, even by current standards. Unless you mean anarcho-capitalist or minarchists, and to be fair, those are much, much more closer to liberals than to nazis (although according to Chapoutot, liberals are pretty close to Nazi when you look at how modern management work).
nonethewiser 3y ago
Obesity is bad.

by mempko 3y ago

h2odragon 3y ago

> center in US means right-wing everywhere else. So? This can also be said: "The US leads the world in individual freedoms" or whatever. This unspoken implication that "everywhere else" is better is interesting; quite common assumption but not actually a point that gets discussed... we're just to assume it for the purpose of engaging in the discussion, right?

mempko 3y ago
When US life expectancy stops going down, we can start talking seriously about comparing quality of life here vs everywhere else.
orwin 3y ago
No, it really means that the US political compass is very right-wing. Also that there is a semantic difference between being left wing in the US and left wing in most of the world. Historically, those supporting the king were on his right, and those opposing him on his left. Really basically, during the restoration, the far-right was composed of anti-Republicans (old nobles mostly), the right wanted to increase the cens, the left wanted to expand the right to vote by lowering the cens (tax to be allowed a vote in the congress), and the far-left, 'radicaux' as they called themselves, wanted a 'radical' republic, without a king. With time this shifted, and the 'radicaux' are now center, center-right, but the idea of left-wing/right-wing is the same. Right-wing is in large part the party of old money (and to be fair small business owners who value stability, which is really fair from tel, even if it means power calcification). I met really left-wing people in the Appalachians, fighting against a pipeline and for owners/managers of a company that caused a huge spill to be prosecuted (from what I understand, the company polluted 3 towns that had to rely on bottled water for weeks, then the company was dissolved and a new one with the same mission and same executive was created after a few months. Gotta love LLCs man.) but those weren't democrats. Some voted Democrat by default, most didn't care and were realist and knew no place exist for left-wing discourse in the US outside of internet forums. One of them told my brother how he tried to unionize when working for a coal mine company. In France, owners and managers trying to pull the same shite would have been put in jail. But well, it's cultural, what can you do. I respect that.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  > Historically, those supporting the king were on his right, and those opposing him on his left. Kings typically didn't allow their opposition a seat at the table. Where the right wing/left wing thing actually came from was a seating arrangement in the French Parliament during the French Revolution (in this case it was the King who didn't have a seat at the table). It only made sense for a short time even then. It was soon superseded by another seating arrangement called the "The Mountain", named because the representatives clustered together in higher tiers of seats. The terms "right wing" and "left wing" in modern times are essentially just intellectual laziness. Any purported mapping that puts libertarians and Nazis in the same position on the spectrum is ridiculous on its face.
  - mempko 3y ago
    Which libertarians, American or other? Very different.
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      Doesn't matter. Any reasonable definition of "libertarian" is going to exclude Nazis.
  - orwin 3y ago
    No, the king very much was at the table. With his opposition. For almost two years, the 'constituante' was there, composed by nobles on the left, clergy on the right and bourgeois in the center. It's only purpose was to redact a constitution, using the US as a model. It added a few laws, but those were more general principle rather than laws (the king cannot 'grâce' a prisonner, Jews are now real French citizen and not second-class...) Then France had a 'real' assembly to draft new laws, and the monarch very much had a seat at the table, and vetoing right. He also declared war on his brother in law. Then he betrayed the army and that's when the clubs really organized from right-wing to left-wing, with the 'feulliants' on the right wanting to keep the king, and the girondin and jacobin on the left wanting to remove him. Sadly (for the king), letters were found that proved without the shadow of a doubt that the king betrayed the nation, and the 'feuillants' supported to keep the 1791 constitution (so a monarchy) and take Louis 16's son as the new king while placing the original under house arrest. They lost the arguments (a string of loosing battles and Austrian army closing in on Paris didn't help tbh). The left (girondin and Jacobin at the time), supported by the population won, and decided to behead the king and abolish monarchy. Then the new political power was a mess and like you said, no left or right, those on top were called 'La montagne', but most politic was still done in clubs. My main reading on this in Jean-clement Martin, I don't have the reference on me right now but I can go look in 2-3days if you're interested. Left-wing and right-wing started having a significance during the restoration, exactly as I said, with right-wing trying to limit the cens, left trying to expand it, left radicals trying to go toward a full republic and far-right trying to go toward a full monarchy. Aren't libertarians left-wing? I mean, Joseph Déjacque was pretty left-wing, even by current standards. Unless you mean anarcho-capitalist or minarchists, and to be fair, those are much, much more closer to liberals than to nazis (although according to Chapoutot, liberals are pretty close to Nazi when you look at how modern management work).

nonethewiser 3y ago

Obesity is bad.