3 ms·

> you don't really have principles if you're able to align your opinion with the party's new line on a whim That's really most people though. Look at the clear

> you don't really have principles if you're able to align your opinion with the party's new line on a whim That's really most people though. Look at the clear but arbitrary alignment of leftists and rightists on whatever popular issue appears. They somehow never manage to agree and it's not always clear which side they're take in advance. Leftists used to oppose illegal immigration and implemented tough drug sentences, now they're the opposite. They hated globalization until Trump also worked against it and then they loved it. Did I mention Trump worked against globalization and suddenly rightists turned against it too, even though it seems like a pretty fundamental part of right wing's preference for the free market? Free speech went from left to right. Anti-semitism went from right to left. Don't mask then do mask and demonize anyone who does the wrong thing at the wrong time. Gloat about unvaccinated people dying of covid and wanting them to be denied medical care is barely a step removed from supporting the use of gas chambers on them. There's a Nazi in most people. Not everyone, but enough to commit a genocide in the right conditions. Nicely demonstrated by comedian Ryan Long showing confusion about which side to take on a new issue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0Pw_TxBe7w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0Pw_TxBe7w

petsfed 2y ago
I think its a bit reductive to describe them as "arbitrary". But I think more importantly, a lot of this jockeying is exactly what's described in the article. Leftists oppose globalism for good reasons based in their ideology, rightist oppose globalism for good reasons based in their ideology, but each side assumes that the other is holding similar views disingenuously. There's actual nuance if you care to look for it. Really interrogate your perspective that free speech went from left to right, for instance (its the least likely of the bunch to drive a flame war from either side, so that's why I'm picking on it). Is it the case that leftist don't want people to say what they believe in the public square? Or are they instead concerned about how social media enables highly targeted disinformation campaigns, because its much much easier to flood a person's feed with dozens of seemingly-unique-and-distinct voices pushing the intended narrative? Similarly, are rightist voices actually concerned about the deafening impact of widespread disinformation campaigns on social media? Or just at being muzzled?
thrance 2y ago
Antisemitism went to the left? Do you really think a neonazi would vote for the democrats? Don't you remember Charlottesville? And free speech went to the right? Have you not seen the recent wave of censorship since Trump won the presidency? Just today, a cartoonist from the Washington Post resigned after her cartoon mocking Bezos grovelling at Trump's feet was barred from publication. You are right that the democratic party often switches sides, like they did on immigration. That's because the democratic party is primarily an economically liberal party that holds some progressive values only when it may help win the white house, and doesn't clash with the liberalist line. Socialists on the other hand have consistently been: - Internationalists - For welfare and social programs - For high taxes and large public services - For nationalization of critical infrastructure - For unions, workers rights and corporate regulations The one thing they gained since the 40s is all the social justice stuff, which is old too by now.
- foxglacier 2y ago
  You don't have to be a neo-nazi to be antisemitic. You can also get carried away with the free Palestine stuff and blame all Jews instead of just Zionists. That's what leftists sometimes do. > Just today, a cartoonist from the Washington Post resigned after her cartoon mocking Bezos grovelling at Trump's feet was barred from publication. Yea maybe that's the start of free speech going back to the left, but for the past few years, it's been clearly a right wing thing. You might be right about idealists who have actual principles maintaining them (as you listed) but that's not normal people. Normal people's opinions blow with the wind of their tribe.
  - petsfed 2y ago
    > Yea maybe that's the start of free speech going back to the left, but for the past few years, it's been clearly a right wing thing. I just don't buy this. The main way that the left has "suppressed" free speech has been to enforce the social more that if you say shitty things, you can expect shitty responses. "I can't call black people the n-word without people getting angry with me" has been a criticism since we collectively decided that the n-word was a slur, and it was never a freedom-of-speech issue, just a polite society thing. I do have clear memories of people ranting about free-speech vis a vis "political correctness" during the Clinton years, and it was just as specious. Literally the only difference is that, unlike the 1940s, the subject of slurs actually have some power to socially punish those who use them.

petsfed 2y ago

I think its a bit reductive to describe them as "arbitrary". But I think more importantly, a lot of this jockeying is exactly what's described in the article. Leftists oppose globalism for good reasons based in their ideology, rightist oppose globalism for good reasons based in their ideology, but each side assumes that the other is holding similar views disingenuously. There's actual nuance if you care to look for it. Really interrogate your perspective that free speech went from left to right, for instance (its the least likely of the bunch to drive a flame war from either side, so that's why I'm picking on it). Is it the case that leftist don't want people to say what they believe in the public square? Or are they instead concerned about how social media enables highly targeted disinformation campaigns, because its much much easier to flood a person's feed with dozens of seemingly-unique-and-distinct voices pushing the intended narrative? Similarly, are rightist voices actually concerned about the deafening impact of widespread disinformation campaigns on social media? Or just at being muzzled?

thrance 2y ago

Antisemitism went to the left? Do you really think a neonazi would vote for the democrats? Don't you remember Charlottesville? And free speech went to the right? Have you not seen the recent wave of censorship since Trump won the presidency? Just today, a cartoonist from the Washington Post resigned after her cartoon mocking Bezos grovelling at Trump's feet was barred from publication. You are right that the democratic party often switches sides, like they did on immigration. That's because the democratic party is primarily an economically liberal party that holds some progressive values only when it may help win the white house, and doesn't clash with the liberalist line. Socialists on the other hand have consistently been: - Internationalists - For welfare and social programs - For high taxes and large public services - For nationalization of critical infrastructure - For unions, workers rights and corporate regulations The one thing they gained since the 40s is all the social justice stuff, which is old too by now.

foxglacier 2y ago
You don't have to be a neo-nazi to be antisemitic. You can also get carried away with the free Palestine stuff and blame all Jews instead of just Zionists. That's what leftists sometimes do. > Just today, a cartoonist from the Washington Post resigned after her cartoon mocking Bezos grovelling at Trump's feet was barred from publication. Yea maybe that's the start of free speech going back to the left, but for the past few years, it's been clearly a right wing thing. You might be right about idealists who have actual principles maintaining them (as you listed) but that's not normal people. Normal people's opinions blow with the wind of their tribe.
- petsfed 2y ago
  > Yea maybe that's the start of free speech going back to the left, but for the past few years, it's been clearly a right wing thing. I just don't buy this. The main way that the left has "suppressed" free speech has been to enforce the social more that if you say shitty things, you can expect shitty responses. "I can't call black people the n-word without people getting angry with me" has been a criticism since we collectively decided that the n-word was a slur, and it was never a freedom-of-speech issue, just a polite society thing. I do have clear memories of people ranting about free-speech vis a vis "political correctness" during the Clinton years, and it was just as specious. Literally the only difference is that, unlike the 1940s, the subject of slurs actually have some power to socially punish those who use them.