3 ms·

Since I've been asked a thousand times by leftists, I'll try to answer. I feel like at least the right recognizes they're going further right. > Democrats hav

Since I've been asked a thousand times by leftists, I'll try to answer. I feel like at least the right recognizes they're going further right. > Democrats have moved to the right on topics like border control and immigration Yes, because it's become such an apparent clusterfk they had no choice but to. It's not much different than a child covered in Nutella, with Nutella all over the table and floor telling their parents maybe no more Nutella. It wasn't a policy shift, it's attempting to save face. To this day some areas are claiming to be sanctuary and will fight it all. Trans issues. Men in women's sports, tampons in men's bathrooms. Sex ed in elementary school? Kid's books about gay or trans parents and sex. Kids on puberty blockers? All would seem insane to Carter democrats. DEI. BLM. Affirmative action The whole equity explanation and movement. To my knowledge, they still want reparations, which are hugely unpopular. Economy. UBI? The whole antiwork movement? The open rise of communists/socialists in citizens. Biden and Kamala are pretty far right of the left, as many pointed out. It doesn't mean the left as a whole isn't moving further left. Maybe to leftists things feel like they are moving right, but they absolutely aren't. The candidates representing them, poorly, are trying to salvage any votes they can and shy away from the movement of the members at large because they know they're not popular. Trump is in many ways the same. Well, I have no idea what he is, he's a smooth talker and probably far to the left of whatever the MAGA movement is. Which is itself moving continually to the extreme right, to some fanfare. People will probably link to some enlightened centrist meme. I don't care. I don't think I'm smarter or know policy better than anyone. I mostly want to be left alone, and draw ideas from both sides. I think the base for each is moving further apart. I don't care if it's downvoted, don't tell me my own eyes deceive me. Edit: Please don't waste energy telling me why I'm wrong. I'm used to it. I likely won't read it. Read the end of the last paragraph again.

InsideOutSanta 2y ago
The trans topic is a wedge issue that has absolutely no impact on 99% of people. Many of the things people like to bring up when complaining about "a shift to the left" are fringe ideas even on the left, and are amplified by right-wingers who are trying to paint the left as out of touch with reality. Having said that, age-appropriate sex ed in elementary school (e.g. talking about bodily autonomy and consent) is actually a good idea, since children at that age are often victims of sexual abuse and don't understand exactly what is happening to them. And if you genuinely get bent out of shape about tampons in mens bathrooms, I'm really happy for you. Your life must be genuinely amazing that something so meaningless even warrants being mentioned as a point of contention. Personally, as somebody who sometimes purchases tampons for his wife, it seems at best marginally useful, and at worst completely irrelevant to me. The economy topic is hardly a left-wing issue. People on the right cheered for Luigi just as much as people on the left, because they're suffering just as much, or more. What is happening here is not the left moving to the left, it's poor people being disenfranchised and reacting to it. This is also a major reason why Trump got elected: people have so little trust in the current system that they'd rather vote for somebody who promises to break it, than for somebody who promises to improve it. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "communists/socialists", since those two words have been stripped of all meaning in the US. "It wasn't a policy shift, it's attempting to save face" You're just using different words, but you're saying the same thing I did: it's a shift to the right. It's also dumb and counterproductive, because immigration is not the source of people's problems, and curtailing immigration in the way it is currently being done will only make things worse, but that is besides the point.
- unitol 2y ago
  > The trans topic is a wedge issue that has absolutely no impact on 99% of people. The idea of "gender identity" as based on a subjective inner sense of self, and that "gender identity" must supersede sex, fundamentally reframes a core characteristic of the entire human population. When implemented in law and policy, this affects everyone. The impact is mostly on women and girls, for whom female-only spaces are essential for their safety and dignity. Allowing any man who says he's a women into such spaces undermines the very reason they exist in the first place, and effectively destroys them. This isn't progress; it harms women and girls. It shouldn't be a surprise why so many people are against such changes being imposed.
  - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
    "The impact is mostly on women and girls, for whom female-only spaces are essential for their safety and dignity." This is an inherently self-contradictory position, because it implies that trans men must be forced into women's spaces.
    - unitol 2y ago
      I don't see how this is a self-contradictory position. Women who've decided to call themselves men are in fact still women.
      - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
        Your position is that this is about protecting women's spaces and making them feel safe and dignified. Your position is also that somebody like Buck Angel must use the women's bathroom, because he is "in fact still a woman." My assertion is that this is contradictory, because forcing somebody like Buck Angel to use the womens' bathroom will make women and girls feel less safe, not more.
        unitol 2y ago
        This is about every female-only space, not just bathrooms. Consider prisons, for example. There have been many cases recently of male criminals being transferred to the female prison estate, on the basis of their self-declared so-called "female gender identity", who have then raped and in some cases impregnated women incarcerated with them. It should be obvious that the same risk is not present from other female prisoners. Even if they happen to look very butch and/or hirsute. So keeping prisons single-sex is clearly a much better policy for incarcerated women. Even for bathroom spaces, the prospect of laws that penalize males who decide to use female bathrooms is good news. This is because the threat of negative consequences for such behavior makes it much less likely that any such males will even bother trying, which means that women in general will not only be safer, but also can feel safer, because they know that any individuals encountered in these spaces are almost certainly female. Even if, like Buck Angel, they don't conform to feminine stereotypes.
foota 2y ago
I strongly disagree with most of what you've said, but I think more meta, this comment is not constructive (in so much as politics/ideology is supposed to be avoided anyway), in particular I don't think posting a rant and telling people you don't care what they have to say is good. In particular, "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
- silisili 2y ago
  I agree. Thanks for calling me out. I'd meant to indicate I was answering a question without interest in further political debate, but it came across very dismissive. Apologies.
- swat535 2y ago
  Ironically you didn’t write a thoughtful and substantive comment whereas parent clearly expressed his opinion in detail. If you disagree with any of his points, which you clearly do, I suggest that you share them so we can have a conversation instead. I’m not even American but just making a note as an outside observer.
  - foota 2y ago
    I didn't comment on them because one, there's a lot there, and two, they said they didn't want to have a debate. I guess in hindsight they weren't even necessarily stating their positions on these things (although I think the way some of it is talked about is revealing). Honestly I don't even know that I disagree that the left has moved left, but I don't think I'd express it without some major caveats, because politics feels very convoluted right now. Generally, I think id agree that the democratic parties positions haven't shifted much and that there's a greater visibility of things I'd consider far left, but I don't know to what degree these are just shifts in visibility and how closely tied the party is to the base, vs which are actually tied to underlying changes in views.

InsideOutSanta 2y ago

The trans topic is a wedge issue that has absolutely no impact on 99% of people. Many of the things people like to bring up when complaining about "a shift to the left" are fringe ideas even on the left, and are amplified by right-wingers who are trying to paint the left as out of touch with reality. Having said that, age-appropriate sex ed in elementary school (e.g. talking about bodily autonomy and consent) is actually a good idea, since children at that age are often victims of sexual abuse and don't understand exactly what is happening to them. And if you genuinely get bent out of shape about tampons in mens bathrooms, I'm really happy for you. Your life must be genuinely amazing that something so meaningless even warrants being mentioned as a point of contention. Personally, as somebody who sometimes purchases tampons for his wife, it seems at best marginally useful, and at worst completely irrelevant to me. The economy topic is hardly a left-wing issue. People on the right cheered for Luigi just as much as people on the left, because they're suffering just as much, or more. What is happening here is not the left moving to the left, it's poor people being disenfranchised and reacting to it. This is also a major reason why Trump got elected: people have so little trust in the current system that they'd rather vote for somebody who promises to break it, than for somebody who promises to improve it. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "communists/socialists", since those two words have been stripped of all meaning in the US. "It wasn't a policy shift, it's attempting to save face" You're just using different words, but you're saying the same thing I did: it's a shift to the right. It's also dumb and counterproductive, because immigration is not the source of people's problems, and curtailing immigration in the way it is currently being done will only make things worse, but that is besides the point.

unitol 2y ago
> The trans topic is a wedge issue that has absolutely no impact on 99% of people. The idea of "gender identity" as based on a subjective inner sense of self, and that "gender identity" must supersede sex, fundamentally reframes a core characteristic of the entire human population. When implemented in law and policy, this affects everyone. The impact is mostly on women and girls, for whom female-only spaces are essential for their safety and dignity. Allowing any man who says he's a women into such spaces undermines the very reason they exist in the first place, and effectively destroys them. This isn't progress; it harms women and girls. It shouldn't be a surprise why so many people are against such changes being imposed.
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  "The impact is mostly on women and girls, for whom female-only spaces are essential for their safety and dignity." This is an inherently self-contradictory position, because it implies that trans men must be forced into women's spaces.
  - unitol 2y ago
    I don't see how this is a self-contradictory position. Women who've decided to call themselves men are in fact still women.
    - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
      Your position is that this is about protecting women's spaces and making them feel safe and dignified. Your position is also that somebody like Buck Angel must use the women's bathroom, because he is "in fact still a woman." My assertion is that this is contradictory, because forcing somebody like Buck Angel to use the womens' bathroom will make women and girls feel less safe, not more.
      - unitol 2y ago
        This is about every female-only space, not just bathrooms. Consider prisons, for example. There have been many cases recently of male criminals being transferred to the female prison estate, on the basis of their self-declared so-called "female gender identity", who have then raped and in some cases impregnated women incarcerated with them. It should be obvious that the same risk is not present from other female prisoners. Even if they happen to look very butch and/or hirsute. So keeping prisons single-sex is clearly a much better policy for incarcerated women. Even for bathroom spaces, the prospect of laws that penalize males who decide to use female bathrooms is good news. This is because the threat of negative consequences for such behavior makes it much less likely that any such males will even bother trying, which means that women in general will not only be safer, but also can feel safer, because they know that any individuals encountered in these spaces are almost certainly female. Even if, like Buck Angel, they don't conform to feminine stereotypes.

foota 2y ago

I strongly disagree with most of what you've said, but I think more meta, this comment is not constructive (in so much as politics/ideology is supposed to be avoided anyway), in particular I don't think posting a rant and telling people you don't care what they have to say is good. In particular, "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

silisili 2y ago
I agree. Thanks for calling me out. I'd meant to indicate I was answering a question without interest in further political debate, but it came across very dismissive. Apologies.
swat535 2y ago
Ironically you didn’t write a thoughtful and substantive comment whereas parent clearly expressed his opinion in detail. If you disagree with any of his points, which you clearly do, I suggest that you share them so we can have a conversation instead. I’m not even American but just making a note as an outside observer.
- foota 2y ago
  I didn't comment on them because one, there's a lot there, and two, they said they didn't want to have a debate. I guess in hindsight they weren't even necessarily stating their positions on these things (although I think the way some of it is talked about is revealing). Honestly I don't even know that I disagree that the left has moved left, but I don't think I'd express it without some major caveats, because politics feels very convoluted right now. Generally, I think id agree that the democratic parties positions haven't shifted much and that there's a greater visibility of things I'd consider far left, but I don't know to what degree these are just shifts in visibility and how closely tied the party is to the base, vs which are actually tied to underlying changes in views.